|
|
|
|
General of the Army
Posts: 18,895
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
 |