in a realistic situation blood in your saliva etc. the infection would spread to you right?
sharein a realistic situation blood in your saliva etc. the infection would spread to you right?
It's a movie with ZOMBIES...and that's where it lost credibility for you...?
This.
sharePeople try to use this argument all the time when it doesn't make any sense. We're talking about a movie with a continuity and a sense of rules. Just because it's a fake movie with zombies doesn't mean anything goes.
By your logic the characters should be able to shoot lasers out of their eyes because it's a movie with zombies right? Surely if there's zombies and "anything can happen" then they should just kill all the zombies with their laser vision!
Not necessarily. Not all viruses are blood borne.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
It's not clear what turns you into a zombie. The one kid got bitten on the ass by the old lady, blood gushing into his mouth and he never turned.
shareThe old woman's teeth fell out of her mouth. She was just sucking on his butt lol.
shareHe didn't get infected cuz the old lady didn't have any teeth, so her bite couldn't break the skin. ("She's gumming my ass! She's gumming my ass!")
Hey, HEY, kids! Check out my movie/music blog! http://hubpages.com/@fatfreddyscat
The "It's a ZOMBIE movie" excuse is not valid as already explained. Introducing one fantasy element doesn't mean anything goes. The world must work according to its normal rules.
But it gets more complicated with the zombies themselves. Here there is more leeway because of their fictional and never truly defined status (in some films they're dead, others they're alive but infected). I've noticed that the blood splatter question comes up in many instances including The Walking Dead. (NOTE: The question is not about being bitten by a toothless zombie). In every case I can remember no one gets infected by being splattered with blood when killing a zombie. Thus we have to assume that you don't get infected that way. It's a valid concept.
Blood splatter usually dosent count otherwise the directors wouldnt be able to let the characters get covered in blood , which seems to be what zombie fans like.
Nick (from Fear the Walking Dead) covers himself in zombie blood every other scene, so I don't think he's concerned. However in "28 days Later" someone got an eyeful and transformed almost immediately. So....different rules for different films? Yes, you can argue the infected in "28 Days" aren't considered proper zombies.
share28 Days Later was a 'naturalistic' zombie movie, and hence tried to be more 'realistic'. As much as any zombie movie can be realistic.
Most zombie movies make no attempt to be realistic, but are more supernatural. So, there's no need for the rules of infection to follow physical/natural laws.
The 'laws' of zombie infection are well established in film/fiction culture. And usually just being covered in zombie blood doesn't do it. If anyone has a problem with that, then they might prefer not to watch zombie movies.
gee, I don't know my copy of zombie biology for dummies is missing.
share