Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PropJoe421 t1_j5k15op wrote

28 Days Later, Brendon Gleeson gets infected via a bird pecking at a dead zombie and spreading zombies juices.

6

LazyCrocheter t1_j5kaf32 wrote

It falls into his eye, though right? So mixes in with bodily fluids, much as it would in an open wound? That's how I always read that.

1

Defiant-Document4027 t1_j5k0fvp wrote

I see it like this: it's a movie. If I can buy 95% of the zombie shit actually happening, I can buy the viscera and so forth. Maybe try to become more immersed in the story. Suspend disbelief belief. That's one of the biggest reasons we go to movies in the first place

2

FinaglingFox OP t1_j5k0xg7 wrote

I hear your point and I don't think it's a lack of suspension of disbelief. When you set up your rules for your in movie/show universe. In this case zombies and their juices are infectious. It completely breaks the magic if people in said production don't actually have to abide by those rules.

1

Defiant-Document4027 t1_j5k1pai wrote

Off topic but...

>suspension of disbelief

I almost typed that instead of "suspension of belief," but that phrase always has bothered me. It doesn't make sense. If you are going to immerse yourself in the movie and make a commitment and buy in to all the illogical stuff, aren't you suspending BELIEF? Seems like suspending DISBELIEF would be the opposite and would make you more critical of the facts

1

poo-rag t1_j5k73az wrote

Belief would be blindly following something without critical thought.

So suspending the ability to believe would entail you being critical of plot points, etc. As you would be unwilling or unable to see the film as it is being presented

Suspending disbelief means you would be in a state of willingness to believe. So you would accept what you are being shown. You are suspending doubt

Disbelief = critical thought of the presented narrative Belief = acceptance of the presented narrative

Does that help?

1

Defiant-Document4027 t1_j5k85hc wrote

Mmm... aybe. Seems to make sense. But I'm running on just a few hours' sleep in the last two days, so I'm going to let it sink in a little bit. I'll get back to you :)

1

lucia-pacciola t1_j5k7i6r wrote

> It completely breaks the magic

Given the popularity of zombie movies, I'd say that it clearly does not break the magic for the vast majority of zombie movie enjoyers. A problem you personally have with movies is not necessarily a problem with the movies themselves. If it were, those movies would not be very successful. Moviemakers would be taking note and trying to find other ways to tell those stories, with other tropes and conventions that the viewing public was more likely to enjoy.

It used to be commonplace to have a musical number in a movie. Drama, action, didn't matter. At some point, the story would stop, and someone would sing a song. This happens even in war movies like The Guns of Navarone. Nowadays, that kind of thing doesn't entertain moviegoers, and moviemakers have largely dropped the trope.

Maybe someday the same thing will happen to your zombie juices dilemma, but at the moment it seems more like a you problem than a zombie movie problem.

1

mediarch t1_j5k0phc wrote

Unless they drink the zombie blood or something it won't infect them. Your skin acts as a barrier and unless the blood gets into a big cut or something you aren't going to get the virus. Getting a little zombie blood splattered on you isn't going to instantly turn you into a zombie.

2

FinaglingFox OP t1_j5k1asz wrote

you mean like your mouth, nose eyes or whatever? There are too many examples where characters just start hacking away and get completely covered.

0

mediarch t1_j5k2cf2 wrote

The chance of getting infected when splashed in the face with blood infected with AIDS is roughly 1 in a thousand. Getting pricked by a needle or something similar with AIDS is roughly 1 in 300. I get that AIDS and Zombies are different but it's a similar comparison. They have a lot of data because doctors get splashed from time to time. Getting infected blood on you or even in you doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get the infection

2

-SneakySnake- t1_j5k0rot wrote

'cause a bite or scratch is supposed to get in direct contact with your bloodstream. That's why. In the stuff that gets into it, their viscera or liquids are toxic, but the "direct contact to the bloodstream" thing is pretty consistent as the vector of infection.

2

Gozillasbday t1_j5k0zpb wrote

Either accept it or move on. It can be annoying I agree, but if the story is good enough it can be overlooked.

1

wraith-mayhem t1_j5k54uf wrote

Isn't it the case for The Walking Dead, that the virus is actually airborne and everybody is already infected and turn when dead, but when they are bitten, they die faster? Its like it's two different things then and then it would make sense for that universe.

Apart from that, another user already mentioned 28 days later which is the most accurate in that sense, but it can be argued if those are really zombies.

In every movie, the dead bodies do also not decompose fully... So one can think of just wait for about 9 months or so until all zombies are decomposed so much that they are no harm anymore... This has also be never shown...

1

foomy45 t1_j5k8s0c wrote

If this post was triggered by a certain episode from a show that released last night (I know this is r/movies but the timing is a bit coincidental) then the deal there is that they only spread through those fungal tendrils on their tongues.

Also I'm guessing you didn't watch 28 Days Later.

1

mickeyflinn t1_j5ka5jz wrote

You really can't think about/aplly too much logic to zombie/infected movies and shows too much because the whole thing breaks down real fast.

1