Romero And This Movie.

Should I point out that much of your arguement is purely opinion? I guess I just did.

1. I know goths that wear black all year round, even in the summer when the temperature is in the low 40s, so it is at least possible if you so choose.
2. This is a good point. I expect the fuel would probably have run out and not be easily replaceable.
3. There is less chance of stoppage with a revolver. I don't know why he chose a single action revolver though; maybe it in some kind of heirloom. You will also notice that he did have a semi auto handgun though and used that in preference to the older weapon.
4. Ex-military ammunition is made in such a large quantities that I am still firing stuff that was made in the 50s. I would expect that in this situation you would also be collecting your spent cases and reloading them at a later time we get five reloads out of many spent rounds. Also I would not like to get into melee range with a zombie unless I had no other option.

Not to argue, but I disagree with some of your points. First off, as a viewer I didn't feel like the film makers were disrespecting me at all - I thought there was a more reverent nod to the old spaghetti Westerns (the prolonged, extreme closeups) and when there were a few other nods to various movies (the hand-through-grass ala Gladiator) I got a kick out of them; I didn't feel insulted. These guys took the heart of making this film seriously, while still having a little fun with the production.

Also, for a low-budget film, I was very impressed with the lighting and the framing of many of the shots - the dp actually did some exciting things with his camera instead of merely filming action. A shot that comes to mind is when the main character is deciding whether or not to shoot Hunter after laying her on the altar, and he looks through a hallway to see the top of several zombies heads just barely start to become visible through a lighted stairwell - I thought that was particularly creepy.

As for the leather... well, if I was a zombie bounty hunter [if only... :)] I would be head-to-toe in the thickest leathers I could find - anything offering a little more protection from scratches and zombie bites, the better. Ever try to bite through a leather jacket? And if I got a little sweaty and smelly, well... there are a few folks walking around that smell worse than me.

The bikes - I agree with your assessment that at that point we'd be using horses. But on a low budget, it would probably be a lot more expensive to wrangle up some horses on set than it would be to borrow a few dirt bikes, and at least the director made a point of showing the bounty hunters pushing them most of the time, presumably to save the fuel for when it was most needed.

The revolvers - I think that could go either way. A revolver is easier to clean and maintain than an automatic, and for certain calibers the ammo is just as widespread as any 'military' round; I can walk into almost any store that sells ammo and find what I need for my .38. Also, where is a person going to do his scavenging? Not at a military base, presumably where the remaining survivors/government/military is holed up, but at the local Walmart, Lowe's, Bubba's Feed and Supply... and those are the types of weapons you're going to find there. And plus, I've always been of the opinion that a gunslinger looks better with a revolver than an automatic.

And finally, I have to agree with the other poster - as long there's still ammo in the world, you're going to use it. In that world, there would be no room for error at melee range with a zombie if you happened to slip, drop your crowbar, miss your mark, etc. Killing a zombie at range is MUCH more preferable to using a hand tool. Hand to hand combat would be a last resort.

While I agree with some of your ideas, I can't go along with the statement that these film makers were careless and talking down to their audience. I've seen many a zombie flick, and this one at least took a different angle, did it with a little style, and left me satisfied. I'll watch it again.

Well, one thing...I believe this movie is revisionist history, as in the 80 years into the zombie era isn't our future, but our present, as in the Zombie incident occurred in the early 20th Century much closer to the end of the 19th Century. Thus the culture portrayed is one that's been fighting zombies since the 1920s. Horses are all fine and good, but what happens when a horde of zombies eat your horse?

Sincerely,
Exchronos

Mr. a244, each premiss you listed on which you judge this movie is outright stupid. Even the one decent idea you presented about horses, which would make this movie even more awesome, instead of motorcycles is completely ignorant based on the fact that you did not keep this dude's possibility in mind: what about zombies eating horses? And then, of course, what about zombie horses eating other horses, thus infecting those horses who were previously live, turning them into zombie horses and inevitably repeating this cycle of zombie horses creating more zombie horses, etc.

What about that, smart guy? Would you be riding a zombie horse in the post zombie apocalyptic world? Hell no, you wouldn't. Don't give me this George Romero, high-brow, zombie movie lover, lecture BS. Even Romero himself would damn well agree, Zombies + Cowboys = the tits.

"These people were careless and didn't bother to imagine what a trans-zombie culture would be like."

This movie is not an exercise in sociology or anthropology. So who gives a sh!t.

The truth is no one knows what they would do because zombies don't exist. So stop trying to put an intellectual spin on a movie called "The Quick and the Undead".

"The bounty hunter simply doesn't wear black on a hot Summer's day. It's simply uncomfortable."

Somebody should simply tell Duane 'Dog' Chapman that.

I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.