Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tal

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
31
Movies / Re: The Grindhouse; 2 Movies for the Price of One
« on: April 12, 2007, 02:50:37 pm »
I saw Grindhouse, and I gotta admit, it was a pretty good movie. I was laughing the whole way through, and I enjoyed almost every moment, of both movies.

However, I will say that Planet Terror was a much better movie than Death Proof, and not just because it was actually a homage. Death Proof was just another Tarantino movie thinly disguised as a true grindhouse flick. Though I will say that the ending was superb, the first hour of his film was almost boring. Though it did bring back fond memories of Vanishing Point, and makes me want a 1970 Dodge Challenger.

32
Everything Else / Re: Zombie fighting tactics
« on: April 12, 2007, 02:40:37 pm »

 If there ever was Zombies in real life lets just hope teh god they aren't O'Bannons

O'Bannon zombies were used mostly for comedic effect in the Return of the Living Dead movies, but I am inclined to agree. The outlook for a situation like that would not be good at all. In fact, I'd say that humanity would have pretty much no chance at survival.

33
Everything Else / Re: Zombie fighting tactics
« on: April 11, 2007, 05:17:38 pm »
True, but that wouldn't produce the undead kind of zombies that most people think of. In fact, let me list the types of zombies I know of.

Voodoo- Not really dead, just heavily brain damaged. Can still be reasoned with. Can be killed normally like any other human being.

Romero zombies- Slow, shambling undead that are animated by who-knows-what. Can only be killed with a shot to the head.

O'Bannon zombies- Slow and shambling, but can speak and reason like humans. Eat brains only. Completely indestructible, with each part possessing a bit of the animating agent. Can only be killed by complete incineration (Note: BAD IDEA)

"Rage" zombies- Not really dead, just severely pissed off to inhuman levels. Fast and deadly, but can be killed like other humans. Can starve to death.

Snyder zombies- Fast, agile undead. Consume human flesh. Animating agent exists in the form of a virus. Can only be dispatched by a shot to the head.

Now, the reason that the disease you described wouldn't create the classical image of a zombie (The Romero zombie, ironically), is because they could still be taken down by normal methods. I suppose they might not could feel the pain, but that doesn't mean that a shot to the heart wouldn't kill them just as easily as a human. No matter what, this is the one most terrifying aspect of the undead and the most improbable. Though I'm sure there is a scientific explanation out there to prove me wrong, I've never personally witnessed an animal's severed head continue to function for more than a few seconds.

34
Everything Else / Re: Zombie fighting tactics
« on: April 11, 2007, 04:41:38 pm »
You know what would suck? If everyone was already infected, live peoples immune systems was just fighting it off. But shortly after you died, regardless if you had been bitten or not, you came back.

Technically wouldn't that strongly cripple human reproduction? I mean unborn kids in the womb havent got much of an immune system since they're just developing, relying on the mother for protection - wouldnt the virus just hit them in the womb and they'd be far too weak to fight it off?

If there was some way for the dead to get back up and start killing people, which is seemingly impossible as far as I can tell, and have a scientific explanation involving a disease that emulates the classic rules of the zombie genre, (Romero zombies) it would probably be similar to what Interitus said, but with a single change. Instead of constantly attacking the immune system, it would lie dormant in the human body, only activating upon death, then using whatever weird science methods to bring about zombification. That way, you have a sudden global appearance of the undead, but children and those afflicted with immune system-damaging diseases would still be safe. At least until they died.

However, I'm still all for supernatural zombies.

35
Everything Else / Re: Zombie fighting tactics
« on: April 09, 2007, 09:15:40 pm »
One thing I'd like to stress is the inherent risk of using guns in a zombie situation. First off, firing a weapon is going to draw every zombie that hears it straight to your position, especially if you fire it more than once. Silenced weapons are better, but silencers do eventually wear out. Secondly, we need to think about the effect of the mental stress of your situation on your aim. You're in the middle of infested territory, surrounded by creatures that look like the people you once knew in life, and faced with one very horrifying and painful death. Unless you either have nerves of steel and ice water for blood or you have experience as a soldier, I'd say most of us would be shaking pretty badly. So, your aim is probably gonna be off, at least enough to ensure that you miss or hit the zombie in a nonessential area roughly half the time. As time goes on, of course, you should adapt to the situation and your aim will naturally improve.

So, my advice. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you should use it. Stealth and deceit are your best weapons. If you must fire, make as few shots as possible and get as far away as possible as soon afterwards as you can. And, save the last bullet for yourself.

36
Movies / Re: 28 Weeks Later
« on: April 09, 2007, 12:18:33 pm »
Tal, you do realise that the 'zombies' so called, in 28 days aren't undead. Theyre just psycho infected humans.
If you shot them in the leg they'd still bleed to death, so automatic weapons would still be effective. I mean, starving them is the most effective way to get rid of them.

Oh, yeah, I know that. It's one of the reasons why I don't consider 28 Days Later to be a real zombie movie. In the case of the Rage infected, survival would be pathetically easy. Just stay out of the way and wait for the military, which would actually triumph in this case, to show up.

37
Everything Else / Re: Zombie fighting tactics
« on: April 09, 2007, 12:13:59 pm »
For me, I'd keep on the move. Never hole up, never settle down except to sleep. I'd carry my trusty .22 Marlin and a suitable melee weapon, perhaps a wooden baseball bat. Even though I'd have weapons, I'd use them only in a desperate situation. Make as little noise as possible and stay out of sight. When finding a place to sleep, I'd pick the driest and most innocuous place to do so. I'd enter quietly, make a good sweep, and stay silent the whole time. No light, no sound, and not too much moving around if there are lots of windows.

On a side note, I would make no attempt to contact other people unless they were in danger of being killed. I don't have a lot of faith in people treating each other nicely after the rise of the undead, and I certainly don't want to be enslaved, robbed, or eaten by starving humans. I would take no people with me, because they'd either slow me down or do something stupid and bring the zombies right to me. Or, I'd do the same to them, it's all subjective.

I keep moving, always sticking to the wilderness an never near population centers where I can avoid it. Head straight for the nearest mountains and get as far up and deep inside of them as possible. Hopefully, the undead will be poor climbers and the height advantage will allow me to move around the mountains hunting for food with the least amount of trouble as possible. Still avoid other survivors and adopt a "shoot first ask questions later" doctrine. Eventually, I might find a place surrounded on all sides by steep drops or cliffs which I can use as a permanent shelter. But I'd need to always stay wary, and never get too comfortable.

And, if all else fails and I'm faced with the threat of being eaten alive, I do the responsible thing. Eat a bullet and take the dirt nap. Hopefully I can at least terminate by brain so that I wouldn't turn into one of those things.

38
Movies / Re: 28 Weeks Later
« on: April 07, 2007, 10:56:05 pm »


Still though. You gotta imagine that hundreds if not thousands of cases of sudden and unexplained cannibalism would get every armed forced in the world to mobilize their forces. The police and hospitals would be the first to notice and the police in most cities would be able to take down a lot of the undead since they wouldn't have to worry about civilians getting in the way, as most people stuck inside the horde would already be infected. The military would just have to close of the cities and stop everyt thing from getting out. All the same in countries like the US where there are enough guns to armed the entire populars twice over couldn't it be possible that a lot of people would take down some zombies too?

Well, first we've got to determine what's causing corpses to reanimate. A) Disease, which is pretty much absurd B) Parasites/Chemicals, see A C) Supernatural causes. Now, if for some reason it's A or B, we have a fighting chance, since the disease could, in theory, be readily stopped by simply gunning down those already infected. If it's C though, the problem suddenly becomes much, much worse. Think of how many dead bodies there are in the world at this very moment that still have a mostly intact brain. Now, if the corpses from every hospital, morgue, funeral home, disaster area, battlefield, and various other locations suddenly all got up at the same time and began to attack, I think there'd be crazy amounts of chaos and confusion. I mean, the living would probably cause more deaths than the undead, and then those killed would get back up and join the zombies. Police forces, our first line of defense, would be totally useless in scoring a single, precise shot to the head needed to destroy the undead with inferior weapons and no real armor to speak of. Here in America, with our forces spread across the map, it would take weeks to bring our troops home, not even to mention their equipment. The majority of our tanks are overseas, and a Galaxy helicopter can carry them, one at a time to a waiting ship, which then still has to cross the Atlantic to get them here. Not that they'd be much help anyways...

Yes but throwing more stuff against them would actually be a rather good tactic. Zombies group and in most cases they aren't fast or smart enough to evade an air strike or a missile. All the same a armed force could easily outrun an attack from a zombie horde as they have the extra mobility from APC's and choppers. Zombies aren't very fast and wouldn't be a match for a force that would constantly changing positions, killing more and more zombies every time they more. All the same zombies follow patterns, they will go where there is fresh meat but as a good tactician would undoubtedly notice they would spread when faced with several different targets. As long as the fire teams would be able to have a secure route out of the city/town, they could kill hundreds if not thousands of zombies everyday.

On the contrary, throwing the undead into a meat grinder is only working against us. Conventional weaponry, which usually explodes or throw out shrapnel or otherwise is designed to shred the human body in various horrifying ways, is only mildly threatening at best to the undead. After all, when you're aiming for a single hit to the brain, and you shred the arms and legs to swiss cheese, the zombie may fall, but it (un)lives on, and could infect a careless soldier or civilian who steps too close. Not only that, the tight clustering of zombies actually dampens the effect outside of the initial blast radius, with the undead acting a unwitting meatshields for their fellows, thus preserving the deadly nature of the horde. Tanks, APCs, and helicopters are also useless, as their weapons all follow the same principle of blowing things up or spitting out mass quantities of barely-aimed lead. Sure, a tank could plow into a horde of the undead and not be scratched, but eventually it will bog down in a literal goo of zombies, run out of gasoline (Of which no more will be made during the war), or discover that it's weapons are ineffective. Basically, the only really good weapon against the undead is a well-trained soldier with an accurate weapon and an order to shoot for the head. Nothing fancier is needed.


Indeed politics might interfere with that. Though one can imagine that material law has been put into effect once so much of the populars has been killed.

Perhaps, but by the time martial law was declared, it would probably be too late. Too many deaths means too many undead.

My scearino does rely hvealy on the fact that some troops would have some survived and have secured proper transportation. If not, then my plan is really worthless.

In reality, there would probably be lots of soldiers but nobody to lead them, at least here in America. The places that would survive best would be those that are ruled by less than savory people, usually by brute force and terror. After all, there are worse fates than being devoured alive I suppose...

39
Movies / Re: 28 Weeks Later
« on: April 06, 2007, 05:22:04 pm »
One thing that has always bothered me with zombie movies is the fact that the military seems utterly useless. This despite the fact that countries like the US have troops ready at all times. Tanks and planes/helicopters would absolutely decimate a zombie attack and yet the most of the population is always overtaken anyway. However I can see past this if they provided a reason, or it was never mentioned so it wouldn't stand out. 28 Days Later had this though again I could live with it even though the soldiers that were in that movie showed just how good they were at killing zombies. I didn't like 28 Days Later that much but I thought it was ok.

But now... that trailer showed just how easy it would be to kill of a zombie invasion. Evacuate the populars as good as you can and set the cities aflame like shown in the trailer or just send in tanks to slow the zombies advance while kill teams consisting of gunships or heavily armored ground troops with APC's would take out zombies and rescue the survivors before bombing the city.

I used to think this too before I read World War Z and started actually thinking about it. The author has a point when he says that most modern weaponry is designed to terrorize our enemies rather than outright kill them. Look no further than the "Shock and Awe" campaign against Iraq for evidence of how effective such tactics can be. But zombies can't be scared, and they have no concept of fear or self-preservation in most movies and books. Not only that, but the fact that most armed forces are totally unprepared for an attack from within that adopts such a strange form.

Weapons in our day and age are shifting from a doctrine of accuracy and precision to a doctrine of throwing enough deadly stuff at the enemy to make sure at least some of it hits them. Now, in normal warfare, that works. We have well-trained troops and well-armored vehicles to boot. They can all work in tandem to create a well-oiled fighting machine that is devastatingly effective when commanded by a good tactician. But all of this hinges on the assumption that the enemy will be working with the same or similar rules. The undead are a totally different type of foe. They have no leaders, no ranks or chain of command, no need to stop, to eat, to drink, to sleep, or the retreat. They know no mercy, take no prisoners, and feel no fear. They simply shamble onwards, eating or overruning anything in their path. The best analogy would be army ants, and even the largest jungle predators, humans included, fear a march of army ants.

And you can't just burn down the cities. A military commander might see the logic in doing it, but the military is run by self-serving politicians. And no politician would ever allow a city to be razed to the ground, even if it made perfect sense. After all, nobody would ever vote for them again if they were in favor of such extreme, though efficient methods. Plus, in a war of attrition, the zombies do have a certain advantage. Every dead soldier is one more for their side, and one less for ours. Not only that, but every dead human period is one more for their side. In a simple battle of numbers, we'd be overrun within a few years.

Note, I'm not disagreeing with you. Your tactics should work in the given situation, it's just that the chance of them actually being used would be very small. By the time anyone saw the sensible route of action you described, we'd be up to our eyeballs in zombies.

Wow...I really need to do something more productive with my time...

P.S. - I saw 28 Days Later and I liked it. Not exactly a zombie movie, but it was good nonetheless! And given the trailers for this one, I'll be seeing 28 Weeks Later as well!

40
Books / Re: WORLD WAR Z!!!!
« on: October 23, 2006, 07:57:10 pm »
Plus, Brooks includes quite a few little facts that I'd never even pondered before, such as why Europe has so many castles and America has none.
Because there was never a Feudal America. It seems pretty obvious....



While you have a point, I never really thought of that. I usually miss the obvious things and see the more subtle things. Dunno why. It was just something I'd never really pondered, but it was pretty interesting once I read it.

41
Books / Re: WORLD WAR Z!!!!
« on: October 21, 2006, 09:23:50 pm »
This book is amazing, plain and simple. Max Brooks has done his homework, and done even more thinking on the subject of the living dead than anyone else ever has. He took a totally unrealistic possibility and moved it into the realm of possibility, and that makes it all the more frightening and enjoyable. The perspectives in the book are interesting and you find yourself sympathizing with most of them. Plus, Brooks includes quite a few little facts that I'd never even pondered before, such as why Europe has so many castles and America has none. Overall, an excellent book worthy of being the follow-up to the ZSG.

And I eagerly anticipate the movie. I hope it retains the documentary-style feel of the book. How cool would it be if it was told through interviews and shaky home-movie clips as well as professional film and news coverage? Complete with the gritty feel and realistic tone, the movie could rock. I would see it for sure.

42
Art / Re: Gaming Steve DeviantArt users
« on: October 21, 2006, 09:15:13 pm »
I'm on there. It's mostly horror and sci-fi, but hey, that's what I write.

http://xen-tiras.deviantart.com/

43
Movies / Re: Snakes on a Plane
« on: August 23, 2006, 02:03:24 pm »
Hey, let's calm down a bit. Enough with the grammar-talk and the insults. None of that matters. All that matters is simply:

Snakes. On a plane.

44
Movies / Re: Snakes on a Plane
« on: August 20, 2006, 05:30:32 pm »
I have seen it. I have seen Snakes on a Plane.

There were snakes.

On a plane.

With Samuel L. Jackson.

I found my happy place. We actually saw it with a good audience, people were clapping and cheering. We all chanted Jackon's line. It was the most fun I have had at a movie to date. Sure, there were gaping plot holes, terrible actors, and some incredibly cheesy lines, but none of that matters. All that matters is this: Snakes. On a plane. It's that good. Let the critics decry it, and let the humorless ridicule it. It was still the best damn bad movie I have ever seen. Expect me to be first in line for the DVD.

45
Everything Else / Re: Nexus War
« on: July 15, 2006, 05:51:19 pm »
How about "Dont stop me now"

Queen would go perfectly in this situation.

However, I would also like to suggest "Back in Black". We've been destroyed so many times now, I think the song applies. I've got an idea for a slogan! "We're like that turd that won't go down the toilet. We just keep popping back up."

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28