The Growth of the Zombie Myth

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Growth of the Zombie Myth

Zombie conventions have been changed by recent videogames and movies.

Read Full Article

The best use of zombies was at the end of Shaun of the Dead.

Hmm, well I think a lot of it comes simply from the attempt to always put a scientific explanation on Zombies, at least nowadays. The idea of a mystical or supernatural cause is almost entirely gone from the mythology.

I've suspected that the whole thing with the special zombies was a combination of other zombie-like movies, like say "Prince Of Darkness" where the possesed folks had projectile attacks which were probably inspired by "The Exorcist", that people borrowed for their properties, and of course the simple idea tha being science things like diseases and mutations tend to have random effects on the person being afflicted, including the
occasional extreme mutation. Of course like in comic books the mutations you see in the writing are going to be beneficial to the zombies (like mutant super heroes in response) because simply having 5-10% of your zombie horde collapse due to non-viable mutation tends to kind of ruin the whole thing. :)

I've been of the opinion for a while that what the genere actually needs is a back to the basics approach, and to get zombies back to their supernatural roots. Sure we've seen this to an extent with the possesed in "Evil Dead" or "Demons" but those movies are now pretty bloody old, and the few attempts to re-visit the idea have been lacking to say the least. Likewise I've kind of felt that if someone wants to make a scary game involving zombies, they should drop the whole "headshot" thing which while a classic in the cinema makes fairly little sense, especially with a supernatural explanation. Require zombies to be almost totally destroyed before they stop, and don't make dismemberment the "limbs fall off in a stiff breeze" prospect you see in Dead Space.

Processing power and gameplay direction is what holds a true zombie game back. Dead Rising was close. Call of duty zombies was even closer to what I wanted. They're focused on killing zombies though and make them too easy to kill.

I wish they'd at least spice things up a bit thematically. Yakuza: Dead Souls? Seems uninteresting. Yakuza: Triffids Rise? I'd pay that.

so far there are two main types of zombies we see. fast and slow. the fast ones have become the point of the story while the slow ones tend to be used best when they arent the actual focus of the story. where they are used to illustrate some other issue.. dawn of the dead was a comment on 1970's consumerism for instance. the last excellent attempt of this was the british tv show dead set which made some major digs about reality tv.

its an interesting article and it is curious how yuo can just add one zombie it immediately means a devestated wasteland within 5 minutes.

im still waiting for a good zombie game a survival game to be released

I do make the Infected/Zombies distinction.
I do.

This article for me points out a lot of issues I have with current Zombie-dom.
Though I, like Simon Pegg, am a Romero purist of sorts.
There are rules.

Running zombies suck. For me, zombies just trap people in a building. It was about the people not the zombies, just that the zombies stopped the people leaving. Exchange zombies for bears or lions and the movie is the same. Its about people dealing with people and that humans are shitty and horrible to each other even in a crises.

I want a movie with fast and slow together, the newly changed are faster but as they rot they get slower.

Hmm... Yahtzee, you have a point. In order for there to be a zombie apocalypse, there has to be dead people... And if we're all survivors, then it's really not an apocalypse... In other words... Anyone want to go get ice cream later today? Make sure not to bring your cures for zombie-ism or bulletproof vests! Because... I'm... allergic to bulletproof vests? (Is that a good excuse? ...Yeah, it is)

Also, this just occurred to me: if zombies actually could happen, what are the odds that they would be able to kill everyone? I mean, really. We all know how to kill them. Fill them with bullets, aim for the head, and if that doesn't work, get out a chainsaw and cut off their limbs. (Yeah, a Dead Space reference, get over it) I mean, if I remember right, the only reason the zombies overran everything in the Walking Dead was because zombie fiction never existed in their world, and the survivors didn't have a cross-reference guide as to how to kill zombies. That makes sense. If they do Call of Duty: Zombies in a modern setting next, I'm going to call bullshit on that because (as of 2005) EVERYONE KNOWS HOW TO KILL ZOMBIES! Hell, even a crazy scientist guy (Mr. Freeman) with a crowbar and a weird... gun... thing... And.. that weird suit of SPACE ARMOR!!!

Anyways, the zombie apocalypse never really made sense to me for those reasons listed above. And if I'm wrong about all that I said, I'm sorry, I don't play Call of Duty or Half-Life, and I don't watch the Walking Dead (that often), so I probably made mistakes with my logic. My bad, but I think you get my point.

I think these are less zombie things and more a vidya gaem zombie thing. Romero zombies would be tricky to design a game around, so games tend to change up the formula. Dead State and Project Zomboid might actually be our first "real" zombie games. Although a game designed around Pontypool zombies might be interesting. I'm envisioning a game where picking the wrong dialogue option might infect you.

The Crazy Legs:
Hmm... Yahtzee, you have a point. In order for there to be a zombie apocalypse, there has to be dead people... And if we're all survivors, then it's really not an apocalypse... In other words... Anyone want to go get ice cream later today? Make sure not to bring your cures for zombie-ism or bulletproof vests! Because... I'm... allergic to bulletproof vests? (Is that a good excuse? ...Yeah, it is)

Also, this just occurred to me: if zombies actually could happen, what are the odds that they would be able to kill everyone? I mean, really. We all know how to kill them. Fill them with bullets, aim for the head, and if that doesn't work, get out a chainsaw and cut off their limbs. (Yeah, a Dead Space reference, get over it) I mean, if I remember right, the only reason the zombies overran everything in the Walking Dead was because zombie fiction never existed in their world, and the survivors didn't have a cross-reference guide as to how to kill zombies. That makes sense. If they do Call of Duty: Zombies in a modern setting next, I'm going to call bullshit on that because (as of 2005) EVERYONE KNOWS HOW TO KILL ZOMBIES! Hell, even a crazy scientist guy (Mr. Freeman) with a crowbar and a weird... gun... thing... And.. that weird suit of SPACE ARMOR!!!

Anyways, the zombie apocalypse never really made sense to me for those reasons listed above. And if I'm wrong about all that I said, I'm sorry, I don't play Call of Duty or Half-Life, and I don't watch the Walking Dead (that often), so I probably made mistakes with my logic. My bad, but I think you get my point.

The standard "infection comes from bites, slow & mindless" zombies would never get off the ground. They might kill a few people, but, in the (paraphrased) words of Cracked, "their main source of food is also their biggest predator and only source of reproduction. It would be like fighting a lion every time you wanted to make a sandwich or have sex."

People try and make it more logical by having zombies just fast enough to grab a bite, but not so fast you can't escape to reanimate at a dramatically convenient moment, or by having a massive initial infection (contaminated water poisons an entire city).

The problem with these approaches is that people get hung up on the zombie vs. infected debate, rather than allowing it just be there so they can appreciate the plot and characters.

OT: These zombies are video game zombies, meaning they are designed to provide a combat challenge. Slapping prevents instant game-overs, urban decay gives you a nice atmosphere of apocalypse vs. civilization (although a game set in a undestroyed city would be fun), and special/fast zombies provide difficulty without having to make your system explode trying to process a couple thousand foes. They're ways of making the game more engaging, and other mediums have picked up on them because they see the same story-enhancing abilities.

Yahtzee Croshaw:

Zombie conventions have been changed by recent videogames and movies.

This may be partly because zombies, especially video game ones, kinda need more than one kind of attack if you want the protagonist to be injured without necessarily being infected.

there is a promissing game with slow zombies in the making.

and its hard to survive for long since zombies can be the least of your worries.

plus with the 'walking dead' series we finally have the dumb, slow but powerful zombies back. and it avoids being completely boring.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Somehow I doubt it'd work like it did at the start of the Dawn of the Dead remake when the one lady comes out of her house after one night indoors and finds that her pleasant suburban neighborhood has turned into downtown Baghdad.

Incubation period is key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_period
(example: Polio 7-14 days incubation time)
people might be infected en masse but experience the symptoms i.e. having a sudden interest in dancing with the stars/ being braindead several days after infection.
and if you imagine that you ate some of the infamous bar peatnuts while being influenced on several levels of shit drunk....well....you get the idea.

but your right. we won't see zombie guerrillas and Sam fishers like in the 28 'x' later series.

i wish we would get special infected as in especially useless.
imagine a special kind of zombies that is catatonic.
you could make some nice baricades with them or at least play jenga/Jackstraws with them
image

Yahtzee:
I always thought the idea of zombies, one of their scary aspects, is that they're not the people they used to be, they're just the reanimated flesh with no personality or emotion. I'm pretty sure anger is an emotion, guys. Or is this going to turn into one of those 'they're not zombies, they're infected' arguments?

Don't forget the Only-When-In-Sight-Zombie (aka "Plot Convenience Zombie")!

Best illustrated in 28 Days Later, where we see this sort of social bedlam and catastrophe but there's no explanation for how it happens other than "Holy shit, Zombies!". The zombies in question create a few contradictions.

How does such a zombie population grow via "infection" if they're acting with no agenda or reason?
Why do they not violently brutalize each other to death? Do they have an agenda? Last I understood, "blind rage" lead to "indiscriminate violence", so they can't have a directed agenda.
This would explain the odd 10 car pileup...but only if most of the people there turned into zombies simultaneously, rather than being infected first and turning later. Who knew there were so many zombie drivers at that ONE intersection?

See, infections that spread too quickly ultimately flare out and die because they run out of hosts. Even in the opening shot to explain the source of the plot, they show that it acts entirely too quickly to be sustainable.

Which is why some zombis lore fixes that by just making the zombies kill people, and having the corpse return later *as* a zombie. Indiscriminate violence can work via Reanimation.

In Grindhouse, the "zombies" were still intelligent to a degree, so they too could have an agenda. There is even a moment where a zombie just stops trying to murder a doctor, then pops one of his infected boils just to smear the nasty all over the doctor's face. Sure enough, he becomes one of them in short order. Consistency on and off camera.

But plain old "infected" zombies just don't work otherwise. They need an agenda of sorts. Shawn of the Dead had the zombies that turned poor Expendable Insecure Nerd into Manwich. Left4Dead zombies seem perfectly capable of murder, and the special infected are obviously more intelligent.

The only explanation in these cases are the "zombies" are actually acting in character only when you're looking at them, and otherwise running around systematically biting and infecting everyone else when you're NOT looking at them...unless the plot demands a character get bit in an escape attempt that would have otherwise ended in intestine ripping horror.

Let's be honest though, Call of Duty is much better with zombies, and Red Dead Redemption had a fantastic zombie addition too. Still, I really enjoyed reading this article. Keep it up Yahtzee, I always look forward to these.

Atmos Duality:

See, infections that spread too quickly ultimately flare out and die because they run out of hosts. Even in the opening shot to explain the source of the plot, they show that it acts entirely too quickly to be sustainable.

in a traditional virus infection the virus will die along with the host with zombies it just becomes another vector.

if we allow for an incubation period of the initial infection (a few days maybe) and an initial different infection method say for example its in the water.

but yeah even with those I still dont think a zombie apocalypse is viable if they reached large enough numbers they would just rip their victims to shred rendering them totally dead immobile or inefectual.

the only way it works in large numbers is if they actually choose to stop injuring/eating a victim befor theyre overly hurt.

maybe they could retain more of our animal like traits we are pack animals like wolves arent we?.

Zombie spread by infection is easily understood if you're dealing with the weaker kind.

It kind of goes like this:
1. Lone zombie manages to catch a person off-guard somewhere.
2. Zombie bites person.
3. Person shoves zombie off, doesn't hang around to kill it, and runs off.
4. Initial zombie returns to step one.
5. Infected person starts feeling crappy, goes for a lie down.
6. Someone comes in to tend infected person, gets bit.
Repeat.

It relies on a couple of basic things:
Most of us aren't the he-men who would immediately pop our own heads off once we got bitten. We'd try to justify it to ourselves as maybe it wasn't infected, etc.

Most of us aren't the he-men who could casually take out the friends and acquaintances who've bitten you. Killing your best mate isn't an easy task when things were just fine the night before.

Your various theories on the popularity of zombies certainly are insightful and clever (and handsome), but they just aren't why I enjoy zombies.

I enjoy zombies because they are an unstoppable threat that is laughably easy to kill in small skirmishes, but becomes exponentially more powerful by the minute, and is an unending, unknowable horde. It's why the Zerg are such interesting enemies. It's why, although they are fun, games like Left 4 Dead or RDR: Undead Nightmare just aren't really zombie games for me (featuring fast zombies that are mostly interchangeable with any other enemy type). Dead Rising was a bit closer to my vision, but was kind of shit.

The best zombie game in my mind is Blockhead: The Rooms, because it nails that feeling.

In a similar (non-zombie) vein is the indie RTS game Creeper World, as you can't ever actually win against the horde, only survive long enough to escape: http://www.kongregate.com/games/whiteboardwar/creeper-world-training-sim

"Or is this going to turn into one of those 'they're not zombies, they're infected' arguments?"

Probably so. Anyway, bizarrely enough, Resident Evil 2 had one of the most plausible zombie-outbreak scenarios: Rats. When Birkin dropped his samples after becoming a bullet repository, said samples were... well, sampled by rats scurrying about the underground complex. Very likely the rodents were infected and transformed (friggin' T-Virus can infect damn near anything, can't it) and attacked no small number of humans and other animals, spreading the infection. Then you have the classic outbreak situation- an unknown disease spreading faster than expected, with an exceptionally-short incubation time. Public services would be overwhelmed and spread thin trying to track and contain the problem, and when the first unfortunates to die from the disease started getting off their slabs and hospital beds....

One lone zombie as an infection vector just makes no sense in even relatively rural areas. Small vermin or other animals? There, you've got yourself a pandemic in the making.

Yahtzee got the origins of the zombie wrong, which to me puts a bit of a damper on an article that talks about the evolution of the zombie myth. It's also kind of ironic, when you consider he starts talking about the distortion of myths.

"Chinese whispers"? Is that the British version of Telephone (a game kids play where you whisper a phrase to someone, they whisper to the next person, etc. and change it slightly each time)?

Zachary Amaranth:
Yahtzee got the origins of the zombie wrong, which to me puts a bit of a damper on an article that talks about the evolution of the zombie myth. It's also kind of ironic, when you consider he starts talking about the distortion of myths.

Exactly my thoughts as well - nothing about the origins of zombies in Voodoo lore.

I remember thinking about a small zombieish section in a game concept of mine. It was actually something like this. Or not like this. However you'd put it. This just reinforces it for me. Excellent points here. If people are going to keep zombies... alive... in the media, we need to come full circle and return to the basics.

Otherwise, just have plain old monsters, instead of zombies. How often do we just get good old monsters to kill? Aliens, zombies, thingamabobs... Let's start using monsters, instead. That ought to fix things up a bit.

It is worth noting that the old mystical Zombies don't spread any sort of taint that makes people who were bit into zombies. They were somehow reanimated. The reanimation could come from several sources: necromancy, disturbance in the natural order, normal happening for a setting, wrath of god, so on and so forth. The standard zombie apocalypse with a mystical source often uses the prophesied end times to justify the walking dead. Another way would be that the path to the underworld is blocked somehow (god of the dead is... well dead, the connection has been severed, the underworld is full, the total collapse of the pantheon) and dead souls are forced back into the world, in this case as the power that reanimates dead bodies. What makes this apocalypse work is that in these scenarios, anyone that dies come back as a zombie and presto you have your apocalypse.

As for the infection zombies it gets a little harder to suspend disbelief as infections and viruses is something we know about. If the infection is capable of some fairly sophisticated neurological restructuring it could work. As parasites of divergent kinds have shown this kind of ability through chemistry it would not be that hard to imagine a virus able to do something similar. So the virus would after the incubation period be able to make the infected seek out others as fast as possible (turbo zombies), ignore other infected (so they don't eat eachother) and only bite a person once or twice (allowing the infection to take hold and spread). These zombies would not technically be dead. Large parts of the body might be necrotic but the virus would still rely on the body to function for it to spread. Essentially the infection version of zombies would not come rising out of graveyards. All the modern weaknesses would work for these zombies. A bullet to the head would stop it as reliably as other human. Methods that relied mostly on pain would be of little help, but methods that directly targets specific systems (tazers for example) would be to some use. Stopping the heart might not kill the zombie instantly but its lifespan would be cut from weeks to minutes. Ultimately this type of outbreak would be easily contained for any industrialized society and even most developing nations. Certain factors like a very long incubation period could make it harder to contain initially but that long incubation period would make it easier to contain any secondary outbreaks. This however leaves ample room for drama inside the quarantine zones. This might actually work to the advantage of the story, because unlike apocalypse stories where the world has ended, here the world lives on with Paradise Hotel and Dancing with the Stars, while the protagonists fight for their lives. Relatives will be clamouring for news about loved ones from an overburdened bureaucracy. The protagonist will be a distraught father who sneaks into the quarantine zone after his daughter. It will be a thrilling tale where he has to come to terms with his teenage daughter coming of age, while fighting the symptoms of the infection from a bite he received early on. In the end he leaves he safety in the hands of her boyfriend (the existence he has come to term with over the course of the story) and the door of the bunker slams shut with the father left outside (he was infected remember) driving it home for the young girl that she does not have her father to lean on as a poignant metaphor about growing up.

... well that went a bit of the rails.

When I was playing re: revelations recently, you do find a lot (like, a LOT) of half mutated corpses or just outright dead people that aren't going to get back up again, so I think there is plenty of room in the scenery to demonstrate that there are losers in the reanimation race too.

Thunderous Cacophony:

The standard "infection comes from bites, slow & mindless" zombies would never get off the ground. They might kill a few people, but, in the (paraphrased) words of Cracked, "their main source of food is also their biggest predator and only source of reproduction. It would be like fighting a lion every time you wanted to make a sandwich or have sex."

People try and make it more logical by having zombies just fast enough to grab a bite, but not so fast you can't escape to reanimate at a dramatically convenient moment, or by having a massive initial infection (contaminated water poisons an entire city).

This. I reckon during the initial confusion and chaos the zombies could do some damage to a few cities, but really as a species we are very good at killing.

Kwil:
Zombie spread by infection is easily understood if you're dealing with the weaker kind.

It kind of goes like this:
1. Lone zombie manages to catch a person off-guard somewhere.
2. Zombie bites person.
3. Person shoves zombie off, doesn't hang around to kill it, and runs off.
4. Initial zombie returns to step one.
5. Infected person starts feeling crappy, goes for a lie down.
6. Someone comes in to tend infected person, gets bit.
Repeat.

It relies on a couple of basic things:
Most of us aren't the he-men who would immediately pop our own heads off once we got bitten. We'd try to justify it to ourselves as maybe it wasn't infected, etc.

Most of us aren't the he-men who could casually take out the friends and acquaintances who've bitten you. Killing your best mate isn't an easy task when things were just fine the night before.

The collective armed forces of humanity could easily contain the situation within a week.

I don't think zombies are angry these days. I think it's just the standard, aggressive predatory instinct that I see in hunting animals, that whole, "HOLY SHIT, YOU'RE FOOD!!! IMMAEATYOUNAOOOOOO!" I mean, I don't think lions are pissed at the gazelles they're taking down.

Zombies are definitely more aggressive though. Guess the whole decaying thing that used to slow them down doesn't come into play anymore.

And someone mentioned this, but I thought the reason zombies didn't turn and eat/kill each other is that zombies want living people flesh, not stinky zombified flesh.

You have to be a zombie to watch a zombie film especially resident evil the how not to guide of running a sinister mega corporation. Zombie films tend to ignore things like blood loss causes the inability to move your muscles and not just death, no oxygen again means no movement and the human body tends to rot completely away in a week. The best explanation for rotting zombies isn't science it's magic.

Other zombies probably more closely represent lepers than dead people. They hurt themselves without thinking and get infected but it would still kill them eventually. S.T.A.L.K.E.R zombies were brain dead but left with a few instructions and enough motor skills to fire a gun and probably eat cans of bake beans.

Slow zombies were supposed to compensate by having retard strength right? Fast zombies are supposed to be a big problem because they swarm in places there really shouldn't be that many people anyway. Left for dead zombies were one of the outbreaks that could spread easily because it was airborne, having to rely on biting people seems ineffective. Special zombies were just supposed to be mutants except for left for dead where they are both i think.

It amuses me that modern warfare games are supposed to be realistic but every other time trey arch does it it's always the first person equivalent of defend the house against zombies that are also Nazis. Are zombies so fascinating because we fear indoctrination and do we just hate everything zombies are supposed to represent so it always involve things that make murderers cringe.

See http://www.cracked.com/video_18311_4-terrifying-psychology-lessons-behind-famous-movie-monsters.html

ThaBenMan:
"Chinese whispers"? Is that the British version of Telephone (a game kids play where you whisper a phrase to someone, they whisper to the next person, etc. and change it slightly each time)?

Zachary Amaranth:
Yahtzee got the origins of the zombie wrong, which to me puts a bit of a damper on an article that talks about the evolution of the zombie myth. It's also kind of ironic, when you consider he starts talking about the distortion of myths.

Exactly my thoughts as well - nothing about the origins of zombies in Voodoo lore.

Except that the modern zombie has more to do with a revenant than a voodoo Zombie. So he is mostly right. A Voodoo zombie is completely different than the hordes of undead that we now associate with the word and really wouldn't work very well in a zombie movie.

I've always said that the first sign of post-apocalyptic troubles is that every barrel in the streets spontaneously catches fire.

This part of the year seem to be all about zombies.

I'm sorry to say that I am one of these people that make a distinction between zombies and infected. Sorry, Yahtzee! But promise, this post won't turn in a rant on that point. I do, however, agree wholeheartedly with point number two. It doesn't make sense that zombies would start raging fires. It does make sense, however, that zombies would cause the living to panic and do stupid stuff (like crash cars in tank trucks).

Last, but not least... You write that nerds find zombies "cool", but I disagree. At least, it isn't true for me, and yet I think I've a good, healthy dose of nerdiness. Zombies absolutely freak me out; every time I have a nightmare, you can bet it's the zombie apocalypse and that I'm running for my life. And I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that if a zombie apocalypse were to occur, my chances of survival would be slim to none. Granted, I'd be a good asset to any group of survivors (having a medkit is great, but next to useless if you don't know how to use it), but my unwillingness to ditch my infant son would probably paint a big fat target in my back.
So no, I'm not sure people think mutating into a special kind of zombie would be "cool".

"...in the same way we tend to picture dragons and wizards actually existing in medieval times."
--------------------------

Do we? I don't think fantasy tropes have quite penetrated to the level of coconuts for horses just yet mate.

I seem to remember reading an article about apocalyptic notions through the ages and why they're so common. As I recall, the nub of it was that it is an extension of one's own paranoia regarding one's demise, but applied to one's wider social structure. People are naturally mawkish due to the quite healthy natural inclination to be terrified of everything.

For instance when polled (in "a poll". I know, I know. Sorry) about when people thought the apocalypse would occur the most common answer was, apparently, "in 100 years" or "in the lifetime of my childrens' children" if they were a bit yokel.

The zombie apocalypse could therefore be described as personification of disease and civil strife; ironically a means of humanising these sweeping and invisible forces. This produces the curious phenomenon you've observed in gaming; in that zombies are both humanised in their descriptions as sick people or even previously encountered characters but at the same time dehumanised as a shuffling, unliving, enemy.

So really, when we get down to it, we're talking about characterisation, which is subtly different from personification, and people's fascination with zombies and 'survivorism' (if I may coin a phrase to differentiate from survivalism) is nothing more than most people's healthy desire to triumph over death.

Zombies have penetrated the American Gun market. These are real products:

http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax
http://www.eotech-inc.com/products/sights/xps2Zombie
http://www.amazon.com/Leupold-1-25-4x20mm-Zombie-ZombieDot-Reticle/dp/B007778I9Y

Eotech makes the holographic sights that actual US Navy seals use.

Personally, I'm more fond of the slow shambling zombies than the speedy mutant infecteds we have now. The slow ones kinda lure you into that false sense of "this is no big deal" until you're horribly overwhelmed with them. And once they did get their death grip on you, chances are you weren't going to be able to pull away. Video games do make it seem like zombies need more of a challenge, but with the variety of injuries a zombie can maneuver with, there's many different ways even the slow ones can lurch towards you unexpectedly. People also seem to forget that it's usually the slow, shambling ones that you don't see or hear until it's too late. The fast ones are pavement-slapping, lung-screeching at you from a distance and while their rapid movements may be a little jarring, they're still telegraphing their moves a lot.

As for the urban decay: I have to agree with someone else who said that's more due to human reaction of the situation than the zombies themselves. Although I don't think that an entire building should be crumbling down around its foundation just because there's been a zombie outbreak. Fire and trash strewn about is pretty reasonable, though. It honestly doesn't take much to spark an accidental fire, and in turn it doesn't take much for that fire to spread. And I'm sure we all know more people than we can count on our fingers and toes who'd be all too eager to throw something in a storefront window for easy access to their goods in an End of the World scenario.

I've always liked the reason why zombies eat brains in Return of the Living Dead; being dead hurts and feasting on brains relieves it somewhat.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here