Corey_Lazarus

MilleniumMan, you're not the only one that'd buy a PPV to see Hogan/New Jack.

Bullshit. "American Made" is balls compared to the original "Real American."

Eh...Evil Dead is Candarian Demons, though. Haha. It WOULD be interesting to see Bruce Campbell vs. Jamie Lee Curtis, and tons of oatmeal, latex, and karo syrup vs. a Shatner mask spraypainted white with a butcher knife. UTSHu, you need to go ALL-OUT for the Finals thread. Pictures, descriptions of the plot, and maybe some "influence" factor to key in. Make us feel dirty for picking the movie we prefer over the one that most would feel is of better quality and greater influence.

Yeah. Though I wonder who else they'd have in mind...probably Owen Wilson, since he's in everything, but he'd be TOO charming as The Joker. You'd need somebody that can make you laugh, but make you feel dirty all over for laughing at all. Soooo...who? I'd say maybe give the role to Mark Hamill, since he did a great job at the voice acting, but I'm not sure he'd able to pull it off physically (the gestures, mannerisms, etc.). Maybe he could... And Bale back means that his star is back on the rise after Reign of Fire hurt it. He's just so damn good in everything he's in that it's about time he gets the recognition he deserves. Though I wasn't too fond of him portraying Bruce Wayne in a somewhat similar vein as Patrick Bateman (or maybe it's just his American accent and the suits that got me thinking Bateman).

Indeed it has. Though I still say one fast zombie is nothing that me and a hammer couldn't handle, just as one slow zombie is nothing some fancy footwork in the opposite direction couldn't get me away from. Yuna, thank you for being the voice of reason, since I was blinded by my love for the classic zombie films that I grew up on (well, that phrase is a little incorrect, since I'm not even 21, but I've been watching zombie flicks since the ripe young age of 9) that Fishy's constant becking of "one slow zombie isn't as scary as one fast zombie" got me in a position to go elitist. Fishy, I must say that I was scrambling for some points to attack you on, and you did do indeed a fine job of backing SOME of your argument up (though the lack of knowledge in this general area did hurt your game a bit). So...let's sum it up as this: One slow zombie? Jog away. One fast zombie? Get ready to fight or run your ass to your car. Horde of slow zombies? Slowly closing death. Horde of fast zombies? Fucked before you even know what hit you. That's why I find slow zombies scarier, because they're SLOWLY killing you, making the immense pain stretch out, whereas fast zombies just get you before your brain can even analyze what's going on. So...how about we get to that TSM zombie script?

For the record, George Romero DID invent what is commonly referred to as a zombie, since almost every zombie movie until Night of the Living Dead involved voodoo rituals and mindless drones instead of the living dead craving living flesh between their jaws. When I say "tear limb from limb," I mean "tear you apart." I guarantee you that three men, not even that strong, could rip open your stomach and pull out your entrails. So why couldn't 3 or 4 zombies? And if you really want to get into it, NO zombies are actually that scary. Slow zombies? Pfft, in Fishy's world, emotional attachment to his now walking dead loved ones is irrelevant, and he's an ass-kicking machine. So, of course, he'd kick their heads off and run right by them. Fast zombies? Oh, fuck that. I'd dodge the few of them that came close, much like a receiver dodges linebackers, and then get into my car and drive off at top speeds. Okay, I'm done with this. It's not even worth arguing anymore. So...vivi, Satanico, Kido...one of y'all mind getting a link to a site that explains zombies in a scientic manner? I know there's a couple out there, but I haven't visited them since I was in high school.

No, because it wasn't played for scares. It was played to show the sheer ruthlesness of the Nazi party and how Schindler saved a good portion of Jews from execution. This is gonna be a very tight round.

Actually, the head coming off would depend purely on the level of decomposition. The further decomposed zombies are nothing, but the fresh ones and the ones right after rigormortis breaks out? Just another human body moving slower due to not having the coordination skills to run. So you take instant gratification as opposed to build-up. Interesting. I suppose you also preferred XXX over Die Hard? They're still as strong as a living human because they can still throw their weight into lifting/pushing something. They lack the ability to move fast due to lowered motor skills, and also having the whole rigormortis thing setting into their legs. Even when it breaks out, the movements are still going to be stiff, but the strength isn't going to disappear just because the muslces have hardened. Where do they get the strength to tear humans apart? Groups of them do it. If three men, all of average height, weight, and strength, were to try to tear you apart, they could. So why couldn't a group of 5 or even 6 zombies? And no, zombies don't go after brains. That's something said in the parody zombie classic known as Return of the Living Dead. They simply go after warm flesh due to their minds resorting back to the primitive survival stage. See above. Strength in numbers, dig? So you're telling me that it's physically impossible for a group of LIVING men to rip somebody apart limb from limb? Since I explained why zombies are just as strong as the living but lack the speed (rigormortis causing muscles to stiffen), why would it not be possible for them? Also, since the living dead DON'T REALLY EXIST, I don't think that "it'd be scary if it was possible, but it's not" is a fair argument when we're talking FICTION. The same thing that makes the one guy coming at you at 10 mph scary: that they're dead, they can move, and they want to eat you. Are you saying it'd be impossible to handle ONE fast zombie? It's been proven already that it's not much harder than handling a living human being. But given how fast the infection spreads, humanity's overall emotional attachment to our loved ones, and our inability to deal with the MAJOR problems until it's too late...why are fast zombies any scarier than slow zombies? Because he's DEAD, duh. I can guarantee you that if you walked into a cemetery at night and saw somebody slowly rising from a shallow grave, you'd piss yourself and probably stand there in shock. When did you throw them out? Hrmmm, let's see... By saying you have no interest in seeing what almost every zomibe fan calls the epitome of zombie celluloid, you're throwing them out as if they don't matter, when the rules of the "living dead" zombies come DIRECTLY from his films. It's not a real argument because you're saying something happening quickly so that you can barely realize it's happened is scarier than something you know is going to happen and can do very little about...without elaborating. I've elaborated on the whole point "slow and painful is scarier than fast" in every post, and you've just said "I could outrun a slow zombie, or kick it in the head, but a fast one could catch up to me." Come up with a REASON why a fast zombie is scarier other than the fact that they can run with the fastest living humans. Because, after all...you get into a car and a fast zombie ain't shit since they can't catch up to you then. To the whole zombie universe. A real reason why one fast zombie is scarier than one slow zombie. ...the fact that any thread involving any talk of zombies has the people you're arguing with in THIS thread pretty much controlling all aspects of the conversation should be a dead giveaway that we're zombie connoiseurs. That and, you know, most of us having something zombie related as either our avatar or in our signature. And I'm not saying it should stop you from replying, I'm saying it should warn you that making an ass out of yourself in a discussion with any of us is a bad idea, because you're just going to be out-argued, out-debated, and overall OWNED by each and every one of us since we know what the hell we're talking about. Right. Because I've been watching zombie films for the past 14 years, have seen the best of the best and the worst of the worst, and studied what makes certain zombies work in films and what makes others not work because I actually want to make a zombie film one day, you obviously know more about the topic than me after watching Dawn '04 one night with your friends as you pass a bowl and laugh as they play Hollywood Squares. No, you're a troll because it's becoming more and more obvious that you're just trying to instigate a flamewar since you're arguing the same points over and over without any real insight into anything, and whenever somebody brings up some VALID reasoning, you dismiss it by saying "well, zombies aren't real anyway." We know zombies aren't real, but in the zombie realm of fiction, certain guidelines apply, and fast zombies not being as scary (because of the fact that they'll kill you quickly) as slow zombies (since they'll SLOWLY, PAINFULLY eat you as you scream in utter horror, and chances are you'll know half of them from some point in your life) is basically one of them. The people that make zombie movies sit down and think about whether or not their zombies should be slow or fast, and the only logical explanation for a fast one comes from Zach Snyder when he said "they can't feel pain, so they'd keep running until their feet fell off, and then they'd run on the stumps."

I'm left wondering "why" after seeing the ending to the first one.

I GOT FIRST VOTES~!!~~! Semi-Final #1 The Exorcist (1973), having defeated Shaun of the Dead 12-10 Vs. The Evil Dead (1981), having tied The Shining 11-11 Vs. The Shining (1980), having tied Evil Dead 11-11 _____________________________ Semi Final #2 Dawn of the Dead (1978), having defeated Night of the Living Dead 18-4 Vs. Halloween (1978), having defeated Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn 13-9

Post a picture of yourself and your friends.

John Carpenter f/ Anthrax - "Kick Ass" from Ghosts of Mars Rob Zombie - "Pussy Liquor" from House of 1,000 Corpses Birdbrain - "Youth of America" from Scream White Zombie - "Feed the Gods" from Airheads The Ramones - "Pet Sematary" from Pet Sematary

Shit! Shining and Evil Dead tied?!?!?!?! Fuck. Let's see how well they do in the next round.

Pick any remotely funny quote from Ghostbusters.

No, the zombie itself IS scary, because it's the WALKING FUCKING DEAD THAT'S GOING TO EAT YOU ALIVE. "Eventually" is when they get to you. The fear wouldn't be greater from a fast zombie, though, because the atmosphere build to it getting you wouldn't be fully achieved. Let's equate this to a wrestling match: -Ric Flair is reaching for the ropes while caught in Kurt Angle's AnkleLock. He's reaching for the ropes, within reach, but he's not getting it because of the pain of the AnkeLock. Finally, after what may seem like minutes but is actually only 10-15 seconds, he grabs the rope, and the hold is broken. -Ric Flair is locked into Kurt Angle's AnkleLock, sees the bottom rope, and grabs it within 2 seconds. Which is more dramatic? The one where you have the characters toying with you about whether or not the inevitable is going to happen (Ric taking 15 seconds to get to the rope within reach = slow-moving zombies coming towards our heroes), or the one where the character just does what you think might happen (Ric taking 2 seconds to get to the rope within reach = fast moving zombies bombarding our heroes)? It's not that they can't exert the physical energy to run, it's that they don't HAVE the physical energy to run. They're still just as strong as living human beings, but not as fast, and they can't feel pain. And they'll tear into you because you'll be running from one group and another group will sneak up behind you, or they'll all circle around you and close in, and then you're fucked. They'd slowly, meticulously, rip you limb from limb so that you could see every tendon snapping as they rip off your arm, every inch of your intestines slowly being pulled out of your naval and passed around like stuffing at the Thanksgiving table. And THAT'S NOT SCARY?! The knowledge that you are suffering from so much pain but it's not going to end soon? It was more or less me taking an organ and throwing it in there for descriptive purposes. A slow zombie tears you apart slowly. A fast one does so quickly. Here's another example: -Take a steak knife that's sharp enough to cut through your flesh without TOO much hassle, but dull enough to leave a wide open gash. Now, cut a 5-inch line across your thigh, taking 2 seconds per inch. -Take that same steak knife, and cut another 5-inch line across your OTHER thigh, with the whole cut taking 2 seconds. Which will hurt more: the one that happens quickly, or the slower one? Again, that's what makes a slower zombie more effective: they rip you apart, eat you, SLOWLY. Fast zombies do it quickly so you die with less pain than when a slow zombie gets you. Never said you had to be an expert to share your opinion. Just said that if you're completely throwing out THE zombie movies (Romero's films, which you said you didn't care to see) and claiming that fast zombies are scarier with no real argument besides "I can outrun a slow zombie, but a fast zombie would catch up to me no problem," then you're being ignorant, bringing little to nothing to this conversation, and have no real point in being here other than stirring up an argument amongst those that you know that are connoiseurs of zombie films. And, as connoiseurs of this style of horror, which you admittedly said you aren't, I do believe that would entail that we have much more knowledge on the subject than you? So stop trying to win an argument that you have no real possibility of winning, troll.

A squash here and there wouldn't be too bad at all...but I dislike squash matches for the basic fact that it only gets ONE man over, and sometimes the jobber in the match could be somebody with a SHITLOAD of talent, but since he's a jobber he's never going to be given the ball. I'd like to go back to the day when every match on Raw, SmackDown, whatever mattered and had a reason behind it. Even something like "well, if Shelton Benjamin pins Gene Snitsky tonight, he moves that much closer to another shot at the Intercontinental title." Make the show seem more REAL, more FOCUSED. You can have name vs. name matches all over the card as long as the matches are GOOD. I hate to bring up NECW everywhere, but hey, here it is: On your average NECW show, a wrestler by the name of Johnny Idol, who isn't too good in the ring but does the heel schtick wonderfully, will lose his match after trying all of his nefarious tricks to win. He'll lose against either a rising face or an established face. At the last NECW show I went to, back in June, he lost a pair of matches back-to-back with Joe Chece, but he didn't come out looking bad either time. Why? Because he lost the first match due to a fluke schoolboy, demanded a rematch, and lost the second match after Chece BARELY kicked out of a move. Idol is still over in NECW as a well-known heel, Chece is still a rising face, and both men are still popular amongst the NECW crowd. ...so why can't this be the same way in WWE? Why can't Shelton Benjamin and Gene Snitsky wrestle a match that puts them both over? Why can't Animal and Heidenreich actually have an assload of trouble putting away MNM or a pair of cruisers? Why can't Paul London go toe-to-toe with Rey Mysterio and be put over while also losing? This all comes back to poor writing and poor booking, because when both were at least very good, it didn't matter who won and who lost, because everybody was over.

I miss the LWO.

Listeners of a style of music popularized in the mid-80's when punk bands began writing lyrics mostly about lost and/or unrequited love. The music is usually decent from a technical standpoint, much better than most punk is, but it lacks the actual EMOTION that punk does, making it an ironic sub-genre ("emo" came from "emotional punk," yet it lacks the emotion of actual punk). Fans of emo, called "emokids," tend to be between the ages of 13 and 21, usually borderline anorexic, and wear clothing often too small for their bodies. Male emokids will buy women's pants due to the tightness and low-rise waist, and female emokids will often wear men's shirts (in sizes of Youth Medium and Youth Large, most often), take little to no actual care of their hair, and throw on heavy eyeshadow, eyeliner, and little to no other makeup. Emokids are a passing phase that will go in and out just as nu-metal did. It doesn't have the lasting power of punk, nor the classicness of actual metal, or even the reinventiveness of indie rock to truly last. Most emokids, upon reaching adulthood, will realize how dumb they acted growing up, and will either become indie rockers or kill themselves.

Uhhh...no. Because it's still just ONE fast zombie. It'd be like 10 men wanting to kill you, but each of them only have one leg, against ONE man wanting to kill you, and he's a Kenyan sprinter. The numbers game ALWAYS makes it scary. And, again, it's the knowledge of impending doom that makes the slower zombies scary. You know they're going to get to you...eventually. You know you don't have a chance...in a few seconds. You know your stomach is going to get ripped open...since they're slowly tearing your flesh apart. Notice how AGONIZING the deaths are in movies with slow zombies. Then notice how QUICK they are in movies with fast zombies. THAT makes a slow zombie scarier. They tear you apart and eat you SLOWLY, PAINFULLY. A fast zombie just rips your heart out and eats you guts within a few seconds. Also, if you have no want or desire to see the DEFINITIVE zombie films...THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU FUCKING EVEN TRYING TO FUCKING TALK ZOMBIES WITH THE ZOMBIE EXPERTS OF TSM?! EDIT: Ripper, Dawn '04 didn't rely TOTALLY on cheap scares, but almost all of the scares in the move were cheap pop-up scares. Little girl? Check. Guy that checks on her when she's behind the bus? Check. First zombie encountered at the mall? Check. Janitor? Check. Glass door zombie? Check. Parking garage attack? Check. STEVE? Check. The only "good" scares in the movie were cheap ones, since everything else was action/comedy.

You, me, Satanico and lovecraft as editors...it'd be TEH RULE.

Heh. That's all it gets: "heh."

Vivi, you and I should get together sometime and write a zombie script.

Yes, they're scarier...if you have ADD and fall for the same jump scares in every single horror movie ever made. Slower moving zombies TRICK you. They make you go "oh, I can just jog away from them, I'll be fine," but by the time you get a safe distance away from one group, another pops up. "Oh, I can keep jogging." Another group. And another. Soon enough, a mass armada has surrounded you, and you know that you are FUCKED to a slow and painful death because they're clawing at you, ripping you apart, biting chunks off of your arm and neck... Make sense yet? Slower moving zombies also aid to the true horror of the zombie films that you're obviously not seeing: we COULD take care of the big problem, but we're so focused on our individual problems with one another to do it. Racism, classism, sexism...that's what the GREAT zombie films are really about. Not about "hey, here's a slow-moving dead guy coming my way, so I'll shoot it in the head." If you want cheap scares, go watch Dawn '04 (which I feel bad about saying, because I do LOVE that movie), but if you want a zombie flick that actually has something to say while ALSO being scary at parts? Check out a Romero flick and be educated. EDIT: Ripper, I agree. FRESH zombies should be able to pop and run, just like . I'd like a zombie movie to do that, at some point: the recently turned are fast-moving, brutal...but a couple hours later, rigormortis sets in, so they're practically immobile. When it breaks out a few hours after that, they're your average slow-moving psychological scare zombies due to muscle atrophy.

Lack of motor skills beyond hunger and basic fear of fire, mostly. They die, and when they become reanimated and begin craving living flesh, they're "confused," to put it best. They've lost almost all of their expansive motor skills, do not know their general surroundings, and are unsure of anything. Also, it depends upon the level of decomposition. A fresh zombie will move, at their fastest, at a brisk jog. Rigormortis sets in, and they're practically immobile, and when rigormortis breaks out, they're still stiff and begin rotting, so they hobble slowly. The only reason I've ever heard for running zombies that had any real rationale behind it was from the Dawn '04 commentary, when Zach Snyder said "we chose to have them running because, since they're already dead, they can't feel pain, so they don't feel their muscles cramping up, they don't feel their tendons tearing from running too fast and too far, and if they run so much that their feet fall off, they won't feel that either and they'll run on their stumps." But, basically, zombies shouldn't run because the image of a mass army of slow-moving zombies closing in is better than a handful of crazy, marathon-winning flesheaters. The very fact that you know you could outrun ONE slow zombie, but get a bunch of them and you're fucked, is what makes the slow-moving zombies in movies much more impactful than the quick ones. And, in a nutshell, zombies shouldn't run because the only movies with running zombies that didn't completely suck were Return of the Living Dead and Dawn '04.

Is that name Sabu? Or Terry Funk?