Alliedassault

Alliedassault (alliedassault.us/index.php)
-   Offtopic (alliedassault.us/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   ZOMBIES (alliedassault.us/showthread.php?t=54297)

Whatada 04-09-2007 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper
[nerd]

EXCUSE ME but the 28 Days later monsters ARENT Zombies. They're not the undead. They just have a nasty virus.

EDIT: Robert fucking Carlyle! Excellent, looks cool.

[/nerd]



Zombies don't frighten me as much as someone like Leatherface or Mick Taylor....but they definitely are the most fascinating horror theme. Only after a zombie movie do you imagine what it would be like having to kill your blood thirsty friends and family. Beautiful.

regular zombies blow.

now zombies that can fuckin sprint.

now you're getting somewhere.

TGB! 04-09-2007 03:51 PM

[quote:06e44]And I can't wait for a real zombie outbreak, that would be fucking badass.[/quote:06e44]

wallbash:

When you stuck on the roof of your apt. complex, unable to leave for fear of getting your nuts eaten off - be sure to email me about how "fun" it is. . . annoy:

anti 04-09-2007 04:18 PM

i don't get it. what is with this sudden obsession with zombies? fuck that, give me some vampires.

Whatada 04-09-2007 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anti
i don't get it. what is with this sudden obsession with zombies? fuck that, give me some vampires.

dracula was a closet homo.
dudesucker.

zombies have no sexual drive, so you don't have to worry about being eaten AND raped. rock:

Tripper 04-09-2007 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anti
i don't get it. what is with this sudden obsession with zombies? fuck that, give me some vampires.

sudden obsession is attributed to the recent influx of big-budget zombie movies in the last 4 years....dawn of the dead and 28 day later pretty much reinvigorated the tired genre for our generation.

i never really dug vampire movies to be honest, lost boys was quite cool - but its kinda childish - just brings back memories.



....but i guess cos its trendy to like zombie movies that must mean they suck, right?

Everyone - zombie and vampire movie fans alike should see RAVENOUS. Sexcellent movie with similar themes.

Douchetallica 04-09-2007 05:37 PM

28 Days Later was on a really small budget, dude:
£5,000,000 ~= $9,806,814

Dawn of the Dead budget:
$28,000,000

28 Weeks Later is on a bigger budget (given the popularity of its predecessor).

anti 04-09-2007 05:39 PM

i mean yeah zombie herds are kinda scary, but there's other shit that freaks me out a lot more than a brainless gimped human being. the question is, what started the influx? it just seems out of nowhere there is this revival of zombie movies.

lostboys wasn't bad, but interview with a vampire was pretty awesome in my opinion.

Tripper 04-09-2007 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
28 Days Later was on a really small budget, dude:
£5,000,000 ~= $9,806,814

Dawn of the Dead budget:
$28,000,000

28 Weeks Later is on a bigger budget (given the popularity of its predecessor).


Did I say it was big budget? I said there was a recent influx of big budget zombie movies....and then I said that 28 days later and dawn of the dead reinvigorated the genre (because of their sprinting zombies)....

But I never said 28 days later was big budget....You're new here? It pays to double check what someone is saying before you pull out the stats in an effort to prove someone wrong over something trivial and irrelevant. Srsle.

[DAS REICH] Blitz 04-09-2007 06:50 PM

i need a good horror movie... theres been a dearth as of late

Sirus 04-09-2007 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper
Everyone - zombie and vampire movie fans alike should see RAVENOUS. Sexcellent movie with similar themes.

that movie fuckin rocked rock:

Douchetallica 04-09-2007 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
28 Days Later was on a really small budget, dude:
£5,000,000 ~= $9,806,814

Dawn of the Dead budget:
$28,000,000

28 Weeks Later is on a bigger budget (given the popularity of its predecessor).


Did I say it was big budget? I said there was a recent influx of big budget zombie movies....and then I said that 28 days later and dawn of the dead reinvigorated the genre (because of their sprinting zombies)....

But I never said 28 days later was big budget....You're new here? It pays to double check what someone is saying before you pull out the stats in an effort to prove someone wrong over something trivial and irrelevant. Srsle.

Your grammatical structure and diction implied otherwise even with your ellipses splice. You first said the influx statement then proceeded in the same sentence with the 28 Days Later statement, one would grammatically piece those two statements together. Not to mention 28 Days Later can be classified as "recent".

Check your grammar before you post next time otherwise you leave yourself open to how people interpret you.

Yes it is irrelevant to prove something so little wrong, but isn't that what you just did? What better advice, huh.

[DAS REICH] Blitz 04-09-2007 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
28 Days Later was on a really small budget, dude:
£5,000,000 ~= $9,806,814

Dawn of the Dead budget:
$28,000,000

28 Weeks Later is on a bigger budget (given the popularity of its predecessor).


Did I say it was big budget? I said there was a recent influx of big budget zombie movies....and then I said that 28 days later and dawn of the dead reinvigorated the genre (because of their sprinting zombies)....

But I never said 28 days later was big budget....You're new here? It pays to double check what someone is saying before you pull out the stats in an effort to prove someone wrong over something trivial and irrelevant. Srsle.

Your grammatical structure and diction implied otherwise even with your ellipses splice. You first said the influx statement then proceeded in the same sentence with the 28 Days Later statement, one would grammatically piece those two statements together. Not to mention 28 Days Later can be classified as "recent".

Check your grammar before you post next time otherwise you leave yourself open to how people interpret you.

Yes it is irrelevant to prove something so little wrong, but isn't that what you just did? What better advice, huh.

grammowned

Arkan 04-09-2007 08:32 PM

Well, in order to combat your zombie fears, you have to prepare for them coming to get you. You need to be prepared to take them out before they take you out. 1st thing, like any other emergency, is food and water. You need to stockpile on food and water. Step 2, reinforced safe area. Whether it be a house, apartment, or office building, you need a fortified structure. Step 3, means of transportation for an escape route. You need to have a few escape plans in order to combat an extreme case of "SHTF". You'll need some sort of transportation to accomplish that.

....and last but not least, WEAPONS. You need as much shit as you can get your hands on. That includes knives (think of Maple), swords, guns, rifles, ammo, and even baseball bats for when things get real ugly. Of course, you have to be in some sort of decent shape. You can't fight off a shit load of zombies if you're a lard ass who can't get out of your own way.

I have everything all planned out already. I have a decent amount of canned food, bottled water/soda, a few cars, a truck, boat. The house is pretty well fortified with a "safe room" thats nearly impossible to penetrate once i'm holed up. And yeah, i have a nice stockpile of weapons....from long guns to handguns. AR15 is now in, i just have to pick it up, along with a new Stag lower for another custom 20" scoped rifle for the long shots.

Here's some of my armament

[img]http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/2641/attachelv0.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4901/attache1ud9.jpg[/img]

Missing from the pic is my Shotgun, Sig 228, Sig 239, and Glock 19.

I'm just waiting for the day the zombies come a knockin'. Anyone wanna partner up?

Pyro 04-09-2007 09:24 PM

id go shootin some zombies.

Tripper 04-09-2007 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks
28 Days Later was on a really small budget, dude:
£5,000,000 ~= $9,806,814

Dawn of the Dead budget:
$28,000,000

28 Weeks Later is on a bigger budget (given the popularity of its predecessor).


Did I say it was big budget? I said there was a recent influx of big budget zombie movies....and then I said that 28 days later and dawn of the dead reinvigorated the genre (because of their sprinting zombies)....

But I never said 28 days later was big budget....You're new here? It pays to double check what someone is saying before you pull out the stats in an effort to prove someone wrong over something trivial and irrelevant. Srsle.

Your grammatical structure and diction implied otherwise even with your ellipses splice. You first said the influx statement then proceeded in the same sentence with the 28 Days Later statement, one would grammatically piece those two statements together. Not to mention 28 Days Later can be classified as "recent".

Check your grammar before you post next time otherwise you leave yourself open to how people interpret you.
Jesus Christ - I didn't know my "exam" was being marked by mr box office statistics himself - I would have made sure I was extra-clear so you wouldn't have to waste time trying to correct me. You anal retentive, dork.

Yes it is irrelevant to prove something so little wrong, but isn't that what you just did? What better advice, huh.
No - You tried to call me out on something I didn't even say. That's not compareable at all to me merely responding to it.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.