|
Discussing the show and past episodes is fine. Do not put things that have happened in the TV series in spoilers. However, don't spoil things from the books that may happen in future episodes. Put book spoilers in spoiler tags with a CLEAR WARNING that it is from the book. |
On October 25 2013 02:40 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 02:35 Uncultured wrote:
The virus is exactly as it is in the comics, so clearly they knew it was going to be like this from episode 1. I really don't understand RD's gripe. The virus makes sense as it is. This is also hinted at during the end of the first season. The scientist guy at the CDC whispers something to Rick right before they escape, and at the end of season 2 Rick revealed that he was told that everyone is already infected. It seems pretty clear, especially since this is the way the virus works in the comics, that this mechanic was planned from the beginning of the tv series, not just added later to create extra drama.
I extended the same question towards the comics as well. + Show Spoiler [comic stuff] +I read up to the prison arc, and my memory could be wrong, but I don't remember anyone dying and turning without having been bitten. At some point the comics introduced the same idea, though I don't know where.
On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2013 07:23 rd wrote:On October 23 2013 16:06 NarutO wrote:On October 23 2013 09:46 rd wrote:On October 23 2013 09:22 Smokincoyote wrote:On October 23 2013 08:48 rd wrote:
[quote]
I don't think a human bite kills someone in a matter of hours. Not even a Komodo Dragon bite kills remotely that fast. I'm pretty sure at this point in TWD mechanics a walker bite is arbitrarily fatal with no appropriate explanation why. It's the same for almost all zombie movies. It's not the infection from the bite that kills the people - its the 'magic' disease that kills the people. Like a toxin in a zombie saliva or a poison. So while everyone is a carrier and if they die of natural reason (like Patrick) they'll still come back as a zombie, but also if your bitten the process is rapidly sped up. Think of getting bitten as getting a double dose of the disease, which is why it turns people so quickly - they're not simply dying of a bacterial infection within a few hours. Well firstly, it's really important to read my post in context to what I was quoting. Secondly, TWD isn't like all zombie movies. In most zombie movies, the zombies carry the disease and transfer it upon biting/scratching etc. TWD decided to use that idea, but also throw in the additional mechanic that everyone is infected to begin with, which directly conflicts with the first idea. So now zombie bites in TWD have no purpose other than to fulfill that cliche, but with no explanation as to why. It's not a magic disease that speeds up the infection, because the infection only takes hold after the person is dead. There is no process to begin with -- they aren't dying from the infection. At least, absolutely nothing in the show has revealed any evidence that the infection has any effect upon the health of a living person. They're just dying from the bite for a reason that has not been revealed to us. Bacteria from rotted flesh was the best, realistic explanation one could come up with, but that explanation has been thrown out the window for like the third time now. It's either a gaping oversight in the lore, or an unexplained phenomenon that will be crow-barred into the story at some later point. There really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility. Before bashing, you should probably watch the series again. In the (I believe) second episode where Rick encounters the black guy and his son, it was explained that his wife got bit and the infection caused high fever resulting in death. I would even argue that they don't really die and turn fast. Have we had evidence of a bite killing and turning a person quickly? From what I can tell, the person that gets bitten usually dies, because the zombie is still there and kills him/her. As we could see in the previous episode and the bite to the throat. The only person that got bit and survived was the dad of those 2 girls. He died, but we didn't see him turn, because Carol killed him before. As a matter of fact, it has been explained that people turn differently fast and from what I can tell, no bitten person died 5 minutes after the bite or anything like that. They simply got very sick from the infection. While you say its about rotten flesh, it could also be that the virus mutates after 'activation' upon death. There is no medical logic you could apply here, those are dead walking bodies. I don't understand why anyone would try to argue with logic in a post apocalyptic zombie world. TWD actually sticks very well to its own logic and rules and I don't see people turning randomly into zombies after being bitten, but always being sick first / withering away due to high fever etc or severe bleeding. Anyways, I enjoy it~ Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency. Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak. And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained... There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting  ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked.
Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post.
|
On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2013 07:23 rd wrote:On October 23 2013 16:06 NarutO wrote:On October 23 2013 09:46 rd wrote:On October 23 2013 09:22 Smokincoyote wrote:
[quote]
It's the same for almost all zombie movies. It's not the infection from the bite that kills the people - its the 'magic' disease that kills the people. Like a toxin in a zombie saliva or a poison. So while everyone is a carrier and if they die of natural reason (like Patrick) they'll still come back as a zombie, but also if your bitten the process is rapidly sped up. Think of getting bitten as getting a double dose of the disease, which is why it turns people so quickly - they're not simply dying of a bacterial infection within a few hours. Well firstly, it's really important to read my post in context to what I was quoting. Secondly, TWD isn't like all zombie movies. In most zombie movies, the zombies carry the disease and transfer it upon biting/scratching etc. TWD decided to use that idea, but also throw in the additional mechanic that everyone is infected to begin with, which directly conflicts with the first idea. So now zombie bites in TWD have no purpose other than to fulfill that cliche, but with no explanation as to why. It's not a magic disease that speeds up the infection, because the infection only takes hold after the person is dead. There is no process to begin with -- they aren't dying from the infection. At least, absolutely nothing in the show has revealed any evidence that the infection has any effect upon the health of a living person. They're just dying from the bite for a reason that has not been revealed to us. Bacteria from rotted flesh was the best, realistic explanation one could come up with, but that explanation has been thrown out the window for like the third time now. It's either a gaping oversight in the lore, or an unexplained phenomenon that will be crow-barred into the story at some later point. There really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility. Before bashing, you should probably watch the series again. In the (I believe) second episode where Rick encounters the black guy and his son, it was explained that his wife got bit and the infection caused high fever resulting in death. I would even argue that they don't really die and turn fast. Have we had evidence of a bite killing and turning a person quickly? From what I can tell, the person that gets bitten usually dies, because the zombie is still there and kills him/her. As we could see in the previous episode and the bite to the throat. The only person that got bit and survived was the dad of those 2 girls. He died, but we didn't see him turn, because Carol killed him before. As a matter of fact, it has been explained that people turn differently fast and from what I can tell, no bitten person died 5 minutes after the bite or anything like that. They simply got very sick from the infection. While you say its about rotten flesh, it could also be that the virus mutates after 'activation' upon death. There is no medical logic you could apply here, those are dead walking bodies. I don't understand why anyone would try to argue with logic in a post apocalyptic zombie world. TWD actually sticks very well to its own logic and rules and I don't see people turning randomly into zombies after being bitten, but always being sick first / withering away due to high fever etc or severe bleeding. Anyways, I enjoy it~ Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency. Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak. And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained... There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite [...]
You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are no contradictions in the show itself - the characters simply changed their assessment of how turning works based on new evidence and on what Rick said (he had himself been told by the scientist). Do you agree on that, yes or no?
|
On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2013 07:23 rd wrote:On October 23 2013 16:06 NarutO wrote:On October 23 2013 09:46 rd wrote:
[quote]
Well firstly, it's really important to read my post in context to what I was quoting. Secondly, TWD isn't like all zombie movies. In most zombie movies, the zombies carry the disease and transfer it upon biting/scratching etc. TWD decided to use that idea, but also throw in the additional mechanic that everyone is infected to begin with, which directly conflicts with the first idea. So now zombie bites in TWD have no purpose other than to fulfill that cliche, but with no explanation as to why.
It's not a magic disease that speeds up the infection, because the infection only takes hold after the person is dead. There is no process to begin with -- they aren't dying from the infection. At least, absolutely nothing in the show has revealed any evidence that the infection has any effect upon the health of a living person. They're just dying from the bite for a reason that has not been revealed to us. Bacteria from rotted flesh was the best, realistic explanation one could come up with, but that explanation has been thrown out the window for like the third time now. It's either a gaping oversight in the lore, or an unexplained phenomenon that will be crow-barred into the story at some later point. There really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility. Before bashing, you should probably watch the series again. In the (I believe) second episode where Rick encounters the black guy and his son, it was explained that his wife got bit and the infection caused high fever resulting in death. I would even argue that they don't really die and turn fast. Have we had evidence of a bite killing and turning a person quickly? From what I can tell, the person that gets bitten usually dies, because the zombie is still there and kills him/her. As we could see in the previous episode and the bite to the throat. The only person that got bit and survived was the dad of those 2 girls. He died, but we didn't see him turn, because Carol killed him before. As a matter of fact, it has been explained that people turn differently fast and from what I can tell, no bitten person died 5 minutes after the bite or anything like that. They simply got very sick from the infection. While you say its about rotten flesh, it could also be that the virus mutates after 'activation' upon death. There is no medical logic you could apply here, those are dead walking bodies. I don't understand why anyone would try to argue with logic in a post apocalyptic zombie world. TWD actually sticks very well to its own logic and rules and I don't see people turning randomly into zombies after being bitten, but always being sick first / withering away due to high fever etc or severe bleeding. Anyways, I enjoy it~ Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency. Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak. And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained... There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no?
Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1.
edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. The last sentence doesn't make much sense because it implies a contradiction, lol.
|
You want a complete analysis of how a disease/zombie bite works from people who are living in near stone age times due to the reset from the zombie apoc.
Edit Doesn't the bite seem obvious now? Causes something that makes you die and the infection then becomes active. How it makes you die would involve doctors or scientists and a lab. Maybe they'll move to a lab next and you will have your answer.
|
I noticed one huge inconsistency in the last episode. There was a scene where Rick was in the prison during the zombie outbreak. Then a few scenes later they showed him in his vegetable garden picking crops. But they never explained how he got there. Did he teleport? Did he use a jet pack? Did he ride a bicycle? Does anyone have an explanation for this? And don't tell me he just walked over there because that's just speculation, the show never actually showed him walking.
|
On October 25 2013 03:06 BlackJack wrote:
I noticed one huge inconsistency in the last episode. There was a scene where Rick was in the prison during the zombie outbreak. Then a few scenes later they showed him in his vegetable garden picking crops. But they never explained how he got there. Did he teleport? Did he use a jet pack? Did he ride a bicycle? Does anyone have an explanation for this? And don't tell me he just walked over there because that's just speculation, the show never actually showed him walking.
This isn't 24. You don't get every second of the day in the show. What do you think about when a show covers 2 days? WTF they didn't show them sleeping!!!
|
On October 25 2013 03:04 NoobSkills wrote:
You want a complete analysis of how a disease/zombie bite works from people who are living in near stone age times due to the reset from the zombie apoc.
Edit Doesn't the bite seem obvious now? Causes something that makes you die and the infection then becomes active. How it makes you die would involve doctors or scientists and a lab. Maybe they'll move to a lab next and you will have your answer.
Doesn't have to be a complete analysis, there just has to exist a reason. 99.9% of the time you wouldn't need a reason. but the show initially gave a reason, changed that reason, and then dropped it and never picked it up again. We don't know if the bite causes the infection to be active, we just know it kills them which activates the infection. I mean, it could activate the infection, but we don't know. We just know it kills them.
They have two doctors, maybe one of them figures it out or something.
|
On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2013 07:23 rd wrote:On October 23 2013 16:06 NarutO wrote:
[quote]
Before bashing, you should probably watch the series again. In the (I believe) second episode where Rick encounters the black guy and his son, it was explained that his wife got bit and the infection caused high fever resulting in death. I would even argue that they don't really die and turn fast. Have we had evidence of a bite killing and turning a person quickly?
From what I can tell, the person that gets bitten usually dies, because the zombie is still there and kills him/her. As we could see in the previous episode and the bite to the throat. The only person that got bit and survived was the dad of those 2 girls. He died, but we didn't see him turn, because Carol killed him before. As a matter of fact, it has been explained that people turn differently fast and from what I can tell, no bitten person died 5 minutes after the bite or anything like that. They simply got very sick from the infection. While you say its about rotten flesh, it could also be that the virus mutates after 'activation' upon death. There is no medical logic you could apply here, those are dead walking bodies.
I don't understand why anyone would try to argue with logic in a post apocalyptic zombie world. TWD actually sticks very well to its own logic and rules and I don't see people turning randomly into zombies after being bitten, but always being sick first / withering away due to high fever etc or severe bleeding.
Anyways, I enjoy it~
Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency. Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak. And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained... There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no? Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1. edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it.
Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened.
How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest
The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies... Kinda like a gangrene.. unless the limb is cut off.
Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D
|
On October 25 2013 03:11 iokke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2013 07:23 rd wrote:
[quote]
Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency.
Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak.
And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained... There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no? Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1. edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off.. Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D
He didn't really actually change. He isn't a kid still. Rick was the only one that changed in the last episodes imo.
|
On October 25 2013 03:11 iokke wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:On October 24 2013 07:23 rd wrote:
[quote]
Damn, twice in a row I'm quoted out of context. It's not bashing. Did I say I didn't enjoy it? The concepts of an infection spreading through a bite and an infection existing regardless of the bite are mutually exclusive ideas. Why else would anyone have to speculate how people are dying from the bite? It's speculation over an unexplained inconsistency.
Just because it's a post apocalyptic zombie world, it doesn't mean it can't be logical. To say it can't is just a cop out. If it couldn't, then they'd have license to break every real world mechanic as we logically understand them in our own world. They could just remove gravity and make everyone jump and float off into space because "it's a zombie movie it doesn't have to be logical." If you really believe it can't be logical then you're missing the entire point of TWD which is trying to portray a realistic world with the fictional twist of a zombie outbreak.
And yes, the first season explained the fever and eventual death. But that doesn't explain why the bite causes the fever, it just gave the observation that the consequence of a bite was a fever and eventual death. Except the dad of the two girls and several others have died within (what appeared to be) less than an hour. He didn't have to turn, he just died. I never said it was the bacteria of the walkers' rotted flesh either (infact I didnt even try to explain it), I simply referenced the popular opinion (which you are quoting me out of context on) where it was generally believed that the bites were so dangerous because of bacteria, but that bacteria can't exist in someone who just died <1 hour ago. The problem isn't that bite killing people isn't realistic, it's that theres no "fictional" explanation in the TWD world, and the last "rational" explanation based on our real world doesn't work anymore (and it was sketchy to begin with). So now theres no explanation. It's just magic, thus the inconsistency. It doesn't even have to be logical, just explained... There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no? Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1. edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off.. Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D
Infection through biting is the assumption that everyone makes. It's the single most cliche mechanic of traditional zombie lore that a zombie transmits the infection through biting, and TWD copied that cliche down to the punctuation. I'd have to go through season 1 again to find if they specifically say "bites transfer infection," but it's obvious they were trying to play that up to make the twist more dramatic when they later reveal everyone was already infected.
What's funny is that this ENTIRE conversation across several pages started because a walker that freshly turned just hours ago had bitten and killed someone, which would pretty much kill the concept of the cause of death being from bacteria in a walker's mouth. So the only assumption we're now left with is that it somehow interacts with the virus, but at that point the show can say it works any way they want. They just haven't said it yet.
|
Good point about freshly turned walker, he wouldnt be that disease-ridden. But then again he straight up killed his victims so they didnt have to die from bacterial infection, since he chewed through the guys neck... So actually nm regular infection still could be it.. Forgot that Dad's bites didn't look all bad enough to die so quickly unless he just bled out
Maybe it's the interaction of the bite with the already existing virus then. Good enough for me as well;)
Both Rick and Carl changed imo, Carl is crazy responsible right now.. Hard to see do some of the things Carl from previous seasons did. Maybe his father's break down showed him that he needs to help him out as much as he can, or maybe it's just been awhile and i don't remember things correctly
|
On October 25 2013 03:20 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 03:11 iokke wrote:On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:[quote] There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no? Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1. edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off.. Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D He didn't really actually change. He isn't a kid still. Rick was the only one that changed in the last episodes imo.
I've never had a problem with Carl. It's actually pretty obvious they've been grooming him to become a badass zombie slayer for, since about half way through season 2. People like to say he's turned into a homicidal sociopath, but I never once saw that. Even when he shot that kid with Hershal, I felt it was entirely justified.
|
On October 25 2013 03:37 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 03:20 NoobSkills wrote:On October 25 2013 03:11 iokke wrote:On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:
[quote]
That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no? Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1. edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off.. Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D He didn't really actually change. He isn't a kid still. Rick was the only one that changed in the last episodes imo. I've never had a problem with Carl. It's actually pretty obvious they've been grooming him to become a badass zombie slayer for, since about half way through season 2. People like to say he's turned into a homicidal sociopath, but I never once saw that. Even when he shot that kid with Hershal, I felt it was entirely justified.
Me neither, but it wasn't because shooting this kid was justified. He simply follows his father's example at the time. At the time killing outsiders was acceptable, so he killed the kid. Then dad turned farmer and we got farmer junior. Now they're both going back hopefully, but I hope this time it isn't as hardcore, even though at the minute it can't be that hardcore. Nobody is looking for the governor. And the only issue is the disease.
On October 25 2013 03:30 iokke wrote:
Good point about freshly turned walker, he wouldnt be that disease-ridden. But then again he straight up killed his victims so they didnt have to die from bacterial infection, since he chewed through the guys neck... So actually nm regular infection still could be it.. Forgot that Dad's bites didn't look all bad enough to die so quickly unless he just bled out
Maybe it's the interaction of the bite with the already existing virus then. Good enough for me as well;)
Both Rick and Carl changed imo, Carl is crazy responsible right now.. Hard to see do some of the things Carl from previous seasons did.
Carl still wants to do what he did before, but mainly he will go with what his father says. His responsibility is through obligation to his father not because he wants to be a farmer. That is why he asked for his gun back he wants a more important role. I don't hold it against him, but he didn't actually change into a kid who works hard because he wanted to, he did it because his father made him.
|
Ya didn't have a problem with Carl for the most part, but this change maybe not only cause Rick made him but because he put more stock into keeping his Dad sane and not adding to his problems
|
On October 25 2013 03:49 iokke wrote:
Ya didn't have a problem with Carl for the most part, but this change maybe not only cause Rick made him but because he put more stock into keeping his Dad sane and not adding to his problems
He went from insane, to leader, to dull farmer, now back to leader probably. My guess is that carl just goes along with what dad says it wasn't about Rick's sanity I think. I can't really fully remember S3 though. maybe i'll go back in watch em
Edit: Oh fuck I forgot. What do you guys think about the end of the last episode? The fuck happened? I want to say Rick or Hersh, but I have no clue.
|
speaking of, so my DVR cut the last minute of the show off, right when it was obvious something is about to happen.. So what did happen in the very end lol?
|
On October 25 2013 04:05 iokke wrote:
Ye so my DVR cut the last minute of the show off, right when it was obvious something is about to happen.. So what did happen in the very end?
Here
+ Show Spoiler +The black guy from King of Queens' girlfriend and the other sick person were burned outside the prison.
Not sure if I needed to spoiler. There weren't clues or hints that I saw.
|
you don't need spoilers... burned alive?
|
On October 25 2013 04:12 iokke wrote:
you don't need spoilers... burned alive?
The drag marks were all bloody, so likely they were killed in the cell and then burned outside.
|
On October 25 2013 03:27 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2013 03:11 iokke wrote:On October 25 2013 03:03 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:55 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On October 25 2013 02:20 kwizach wrote:On October 25 2013 01:42 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 21:45 kwizach wrote:On October 24 2013 13:34 rd wrote:On October 24 2013 12:24 BlackJack wrote:[quote] There is a very easy and logical explanation and it's this: There are 2 stages of the virus - a latent stage and an active stage. Everyone has the virus in its latent stage and there are no symptoms with the latent virus. When you die you have no immune system so the virus takes over and becomes activated. When you are a walker and you have the activated version of the virus you can spread the activated version of the virus with your bite. This causes the infection and "fever" that will kill you and turn you into another walker with the activated virus. Btw, just to enforce how plausible this explanation is, you should know that there are already diseases that work this way. For example, Tuberculosis. People with latent TB have no symptoms and are not contagious. When they get activated TB they become contagious and spread the disease through coughing and sneezing (or biting ) That's not an explanation, that's speculation. Theres no evidence in the show that suggests that zombie bites carry the disease this way. It's not something that can really be proven on the show anyways unless a scientist figure simply declares it the case, or someone does tests on walker saliva or something. The Walking Dead has explicitly shown us that if you get bit by a walker, you will die even if the injury sustained is not lethal (unless you can cut the injured limb before the infection spreads). This is a fact of the show. Now, like two posters have explained to you on this page, and contrary to your earlier statement that "there really isn't a feasible way to explain it at this point that falls within the realm plausibility", there very much are possible explanations available for walker bites leading to death. The show has not provided us with the exact explanation, but that certainly doesn't mean that the "logic" of the show is being broken in any way, or that it's inconsistent. There isn't an ounce of inconsistency here - it's simply a fact of the show for which we do not have a definitive scientific explanation yet, but for which plenty of possible explanations that do not contradict the rest of the show can be suggested. There IS inconsistency though. The beginning of the show set up the framework that to be bitten was to kill you and turn you into a walker, presumably because it transferred the infection (like all traditional zombie movies). Then season 2 threw that out the window and clarified people were already infected. But bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection. You can obviously assume and speculate why it happens and fill in the gap for yourself, but the story has yet to do it. Like you said in your last sentence, you have to come up with possible explanations that do not contradict the rest (season 1) of the show, because as it stands unexplained it creates a contradiction. No, you are again confusing something being unexplained with there being a contradiction. There is absolutely no contradiction or inconsistency here. Your assertion that "bites still carry the initial, now unclarified assumption from the start that they transfer the infection" is groundless. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, everyone is infected by something which leads one to turn into a walker after dieing. The show has established that, until shown otherwise, getting bit by a zombie will result in one's death (unless you cut the limb fast enough). Period. There is no contradiction between the two, and there are plenty of possible explanations for walker bites leading to one's death. Also, you seem to be confusing the characters' perception of their environment with how the producers are setting up the walking dead world. We, as viewers, are learning about the infection through the characters' eyes and experience. They initially thought that the reason people turned was entirely that they had gotten bit, because of the empirical evidence available to them (people getting bit and, as a result, dieing then turning). They later uncovered that this wasn't the case - everyone is already infected and people simply turn after dieing. Again, no inconsistency: the characters simply uncovered new evidence (people turning without getting bitten) that led them to replace their previous assessment of how people turning into walkers worked. Bites being fatal and the infection being present regardless when you die are both established facts, but the point I'm making is that these facts were introduced at different times. Because we're limited to what the characters know, the difference in time is what is most important to note. Before they knew that you could turn without being bitten, the characters assumed the infection was transferred through the bite, and it became the established fact before they learned they were already infected to begin with. But the fatality of the bites were never explored past that -- for 2 seasons even. And then that just leads back to my original post. You just repeated what I wrote to you. The point is that there are currently no contradictions in the show. Do you agree on that, yes or no? Not necessarily, I emphasized the difference time makes. I agree with mostly everything, but I still insist that having a season where characters believe the infection is transferred through a bite (which becomes the established fact), and then changing that established fact when the characters learn they were already infected, but not clarifying what the bite does, creates a contradiction, because you're stuck assuming the bite functions the same way the characters assumed it did in season 1. edit: Which is my main point, the characters both changed their assessment of how turning works yet it still remains the same as it did before they changed it. Exactly, they believe and they believed wrong. There is no contradiction, it was just a wrong assumption. Contradiction would have existed if people were dying from natural causes but not turning. None of that happened. How do you want them to realistically clarify what they bite does in that setting? I'd cal BS if Rick came out and said that, given his studies on zombies, he can conclude that the bite introduces enzymes to the body that react with the virus to produce death through cardiac arrest The show never established the fact that bites infect and killed you. It may have lead to believe that and u made an assumption, but that's it. No-one changed facts half way through the show lol. Now I just assume that the bite itself from a rotting zombie is introducing so many infections/bacteria that your boddy can't fight it and dies, unless the limb is cut off.. Anyway I originally came here to see what ppl think about Carl, dat 360 personality change is almost as if writers were reading TL forums:D Infection through biting is the assumption that everyone makes. It's the single most cliche mechanic of traditional zombie lore that a zombie transmits the infection through biting, and TWD copied that cliche down to the punctuation. I'd have to go through season 1 again to find if they specifically say "bites transfer infection," but it's obvious they were trying to play that up to make the twist more dramatic when they later reveal everyone was already infected. What's funny is that this ENTIRE conversation across several pages started because a walker that freshly turned just hours ago had bitten and killed someone, which would pretty much kill the concept of the cause of death being from bacteria in a walker's mouth. So the only assumption we're now left with is that it somehow interacts with the virus, but at that point the show can say it works any way they want. They just haven't said it yet.
What is your point? Not explaining doesn't mean its unreasonable not does it mean there is a contradiction. Hydrogen cyanide (depending on the amount) can kill a person within minutes to an hour. Depending on the incubation period of the virus, it might very well that a person is able to be infectious to other people shortly after turning.
You carry the virus in a state that doesn't seem to harm and/or modify you or your behaviour as long as you are alive. That is what we know. In addition we know, that the bite of a walker and/or turned person is deadly. I believe we also know that the period it can take until you die does vary and I believe they are decreasing this period for the action element of the show. It was explained that there were people dying and it took them hours to turn or minutes, completely different from one to another. Seemingly it can also be that the bite of a turned person does kill. As you said, its not explained why or how, but that doesn't mean its not logical.
I have no master in medicine unfortunately, but with the power of google there are virus infections that have an incubation period of 6 hours to ++++ , so while those exist, why cannot incubation period be a lot faster with the virus that turns you and the results of the infection be a lot heavier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
