28 Days Later Discussion *SPOILERS*

[eruditus]

I started a new thread to discuss 28 Days Later a little and give folks an opportunity to see the film them come back and comment on it.

SO IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FILM LEAVE NOW

So my first three thoughts were thus...

It ended much better for the characters than I had thought it would. in fact, if I had written it, the teenager would be dead. Selina had a great idea drugging her, but I thought it a little short sighted - so she doesn't care now, but what will she do now? Live their lives as sex slaves? Not to spark a euthanasia conversation but she would have so been thrown out that window. I mean, the last thing I would have ever expected was that Jim would come back to save them!!

Secondly, the transmissions Selina last heard about Paris and NYC being infected ... propaganda? Trying to keep the brits from wanting to leave the island?

Lastly, although this really made me wanna run "All Flesh" I have to say, Gamers ruin films like this. First place they would have gone is the hardware store and at the supermarket, instead of apples and scotch they would have gathered bleach and amonia. :)

[Yagathai]

I don't know about Paris, but the New York infection (if there was indeed one, which is doubtful but not impossible) would have been halted in one of two simple, practical ways:

1) Americans have guns, and the Infected die just as easily as normal people when you shoot them. Throughout the whole first 2/3 of the movie, I kept thinking that Jim, Selena & Co would have had things a lot better off had they had, say, a shotgun, or even a revolver instead of a Louisville Slugger and a gardening tool. Suddenly you don't have to close with an Infected to kill them and risk being bitten. I can just see the New York infection being halted on the city limits by a bunch of farmers with shotguns.

2) Once the US saw what the virus was doing to Britain, I'm sure that they might have made the decision to execute the nuclear option. It would be a tough thing to do, but to save the entire nation from a plague of zombies, I think that they just might do it.

[luke]

I was so relieved tha the film wasn't American.

An american version of the film would have involved cowboy tactics in pickups, yeehaws and shotguns.

::snore::

But in Britain, there are no guns! At least not like Americans think of them.

And, as for the effectiveness of firearms vs unstoppable mobs, I think the debate is still in the air. The modern state is very powerful, and generally capable of destroying large pockets of its citizens wholesale. However, this tactic largely relies on the basics of the human condition--fear and pain. Human life is notoriously hard to exterminate, far more so if it is immune to the aforementioned condition. There are 8 million of us tightly packed in the New York City, we wouldn't have a chance against a bloodborne virus that has a 20 second vector. Nor would farmers, riot police or any other state apparatus be able to mobilize in time to stop the infection from spreading.

I thought the film did a great job of containing and vetting expectations of what normal folks would do in the situation. You got a taste of wild combat, homesteading, suicide, flight and militarism. None of which really did anyone much good. Interestingly, according to the text of the film, only pure, unadulterated atavism can save oneself in such situations. Such primal savagery was evinced by both protagonists at various points in the film. Guns don't save. Instinct does.

-abzu

[eruditus]

Well said,

Keep in mind also that manhattan is an island. It would be relatively easy to shut down the bridges.

i'm sorta embarrassed to realize that the reason they didn't find guns was simply because they were in Britain. I should have figured that out. Its not like you can go to your like K-Mart for a shotgun :) As I said, gamers would have mede this a less interesting film.

Ultimately though, firearms are not the end-all-and-be-all in self-defense and that has always been a staple of modern zombie films. Even in 28 Days later the soldiers filled that purpose - that all the training and hardwar in the world does not prepare you for such savagry.

[luke]

I don't know about Paris, but the New York infection (if there was indeed one, which is doubtful but not impossible) would have been halted in one of two simple, practical ways:

2) Once the US saw what the virus was doing to Britain, I'm sure that they might have made the decision to execute the nuclear option. It would be a tough thing to do, but to save the entire nation from a plague of zombies, I think that they just might do it.

I've been thinking about this comment for the past week. The more I roll it around, the more it bugs me. We all just nod and sigh, "Yes, the 'nuclear option' will clean the diseased land."

No, it would not. First off, of course, is there is no precedent for nuclear radiation destroying viral disease. Of course at Ground Zero nothing is going to remain intact, viral, mineral or mammal. And for a good number of miles outside of the blast radius it is likely that the biological material therein would be so corrupted that even the hardy "Rage Virus" would no longer be functioning as originally intended.

But what about beyond that very small area? You are going to have a shockwave effect of titanic proportions. Such a shockwave would do little to stop the spread of anything. On the contrary, a megaton blast is going to pick up whatever is in its way and hurl it into the stratosphere. Great, a couple of million infected bodies raining from the sky. Way to go Department of Defense! Woohoo!

Not to mention that a megaton explosion cannot be neatly contained on a 12 mile island the shape of a bad kidney. And such an explosion would annihilate infrastructure vital to helping infected (if that ever became possible) or evacutating uninfected or just restoring order at some point.

My point being, one should not have such reverence for the "nuclear option." It is a forceful option indeed. But quite likely administering overwhelming force to a problem that requires thought, foresight and diligence would only spread the problem. In fact, in my opinion, there is no "nuclear option." Not ever. Such a thing is unthinkable as an option and would only exacerbate any problem it was used to solve.

The Japanese did not submit after Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to the losses suffered there. They surrendered under the weight of the horrible fear and emotional torment that the bomb produced. To this day nuclear weapons remain such tools of fear.

ranting,
-abzu

[eruditus]

Well said.

Its especially easy for many of us (myself included) to throw around the "N" word, especially as our hobby is rife with its use...

WWWIII, radiated zombies, board games, video games, its ever present. yet, its implications fall somewhere short of popular perception yet exheed our worst nightmares. I very much doubt its use in our life-time but I do support the efforts to limit its use, or possibility of use, by the powers that be. 'nuff said.

[Trayer]

Neutron Bombs :) Dang French... Share the love I say!


Heheheh what a first post.

Off to read some more stuff,

Matt