The Walking Dead

[Reply #200 on:]

What, you trust Star Wars fans to have a decent opinion on Star Trek too?

Or worse, Episode 1-3 fans' opinion on Star Wars.

[Reply #201 on:]

So we had Eric Rogers, a bona-fide Futurama writer since Season 2 reading PEEL, and he's never going to do so again? Way to go, Danny. Thanks a lot. Now he's going to tell all his writer buddies that we're assholes, and they're going to write bad episodes on purpose "because screw the fans, they're dicks."

Or something. Anyhow, if any of the next season of Futurama sucks, I'm holding you personally responsible. Dickhead.

[Reply #202 on:]

You are aware that the series of events that led up to that are not all DannyJC13's fault, correct?  You know, because for the record they're not.

[Reply #203 on:]

I assume he didn't find jeff's story convincing, and thinks he was just taking the bullet for Danny.

[Reply #204 on:]

I assume he didn't find jeff's story convincing, and thinks he was just taking the bullet for Danny.

No, Jeff was being honest about being the one that pointed it out to Eric Rogers.

Honestly I don't think anyone is "to blame" for what happened. No one did anything particularly wrong.

Eric Rogers basically live-tweeted the season premiere of TWD, most of which were negative comments (not because he hates the show, or he wouldn't be watching -- he was being critical *because* he's a fan, and also a fan of the original graphic novels)

One person thought "Hey, a Futurama guy is talking about TWD, and there's a TWD thread on PEEL! I bet those guys would like to see what he has to say!"

Then people were like "He doesn't agree with my opinions, therefore I hate him and will say mean things about him!"

Then someone else said "lol, hey Eric Rogers, you shoulda seen the nerd rage that ensued after your TWD opinions" (and "nerd rage" is a direct quote).

Eric Rogers said "Really? Why would they care what I say? Where is this supposedly going down?"

Link was provided.

Eric Rogers got his feelers hurt by mean words. Decided a) never to visit a fan forum again, and b) to hide his tweets from casual lookers.

I saw all these things unfold in real time, and at no point did I think to myself "Okay, that person shouldn't have done that!"
In that list, I don't think any one act was a "bad thing to do" -- I think it was just an unfortunate series of events.

[Reply #205 on:]

I dunno why you replied all that at me, I was just taking a flippant pot-shot at tnuk.

[Reply #206 on:]

I dunno why you replied all that at me, I was just taking a flippant pot-shot at tnuk.

Ah, no. The whole thing wasn't at you, I just used your comment as a jumping-off point. Sorry to mis-convey (which is totally a word and I didn't make it up just now off the top of my head, I swear (okay I might have))

[Reply #207 on:]

I miss Convey too. He was the best PEELer of them all.

[Reply #208 on:]

So we had Eric Rogers, a bona-fide Futurama writer since Season 2 reading PEEL, and he's never going to do so again? Way to go, Danny. Thanks a lot. Now he's going to tell all his writer buddies that we're assholes, and they're going to write bad episodes on purpose "because screw the fans, they're dicks."

Or something. Anyhow, if any of the next season of Futurama sucks, I'm holding you personally responsible. Dickhead.

It was FishyJoe who led him here. Dickhead.

And I never wanted any of this to happen. I was just sharing a member of the Futurama staff's thoughts on another show. Josh and Bend-err were the ones being mean and offensive. We had no idea he'd come here. That was FishyJoe's fault. I have done fuck all wrong. Now you are just picking on me for no reason.

Please just leave me alone, tnuk. Just fuck off. You've got other n00bs to bully. Go have fun. Ignore me, or if you're going to pay attention to me, at least get your stories straight.

Also, Eric Rogers later called me a "true fan".

Anyhow, if any of the next season of Futurama sucks, I'm holding you personally responsible. Dickhead.

That's just an excuse for you not liking it anyway. Nobody on PEEL seems to like Season 6. Well they do, but it's "not as good as the original run". I doubt the writers are gonna change the entire series just cause of what some asshole fans have said.

[Reply #209 on:]

He didn't call me a ghost, did he?

[Reply #210 on:]

He didn't call me a ghost, did he?

He has never mentioned you winna.

[Reply #211 on:]

And the Emmy for best grasshopper noise goes to...
#WalkingDead

Pretty sure those were cicadas, dude

Show spoiler

I hope Danny and Eric see the irony in my post No hard feelings. Someone who does something I love is alright by me, but that doesn't mean I have to be a mindless zombie about it

[Reply #212 on:]

Peace at last.

@DannyJC13 tell those guys it's all good, we love our fans, and that we will keep checking out what they think on the message board.

[Reply #213 on:]

But does he really mean that, or is he just saying it? Keep asking until you're absolutely positive.

[Reply #214 on:]

Finally we can talk about the show again.

That thing about the zombies in church, reasonable explanations about thme being bitten in the church. I asked my friends (who have read the comics religiously, no pun intended) why they were there BEFORE I saw this thread, he said that they could still retain little facets of their life as zombies. As in, they would just be fulfilling their routine as they would, I guess, if there wasn't something like a live person around to distract them.

How long can zombies go without food, would be my next question though.

Also, re: the last episode, lol, school scene reminded me of a zombie cakewalk, the kind they would have at the primary school carnivals, minus the zombies of course.

[Reply #215 on:]

Finally we can talk about the show again.

Don't count your chickens until they've hatched into shambling monstrosities, missy!

It was FishyJoe who led him here. Dickhead.

And I never wanted any of this to happen. I was just sharing a member of the Futurama staff's thoughts on another show. Josh and Bend-err were the ones being mean and offensive. We had no idea he'd come here. That was FishyJoe's fault. I have done fuck all wrong. Now you are just picking on me for no reason.

Hey, sorry dude. It's hard to properly assimilate information when I'm skimming the thread looking for just the salient points in amongst all of your spam. Next time I'll make sure I read the whole thing all the way through.

Please just leave me alone, tnuk. Just fuck off. You've got other n00bs to bully. Go have fun. Ignore me, or if you're going to pay attention to me, at least get your stories straight.

I wasn't paying much attention, otherwise I'd have gotten the story straight, y'sillybilly.

Anyhow, if any of the next season of Futurama sucks, I'm holding you personally responsible. Dickhead.

That's just an excuse for you not liking it anyway. Nobody on PEEL seems to like Season 6. Well they do, but it's "not as good as the original run". I doubt the writers are gonna change the entire series just cause of what some asshole fans have said.

Actually, I've defended a lot of Season six. Check on-topic. Y'know, where we actually post about Futurama. There's beena  lot to criticise, but there've also been reasons to keep watching. I'd point out that what you've quoted was so obviously ridiculous that it should have been immediately clear I wasn't entirely serious, but I have the feeling that you'd see that as a personal attack as well.

[Reply #216 on:]

I just came in here to say hi Eric ...

[Reply #217 on:]

How long can zombies go without food, would be my next question though.

Depends what theories you follow. Many say that zombies don't need food at all, but are more like a virus in attacking non-zombies just for the sake of being programmed that way.
They don't need to feast on flesh or brain at all, but it's just a way to spread whatever is responsible for the zombification.
On the contrary in many zombie universes cut open zombies are found to have the eaten flesh whole in their stomach (depending on how much acid is left in their to desolve it). That means that we can be sure that a zombie doesn't get any kind of nutricion from the consumed meat.

On the other hand what would stop zombies is just the natural decay of the human body.
Since cells in the zombified host won't regenerate anymore they are decacyin more or less on the same rate as a normal dead human body, obviously always depending on the surroundings they are in (wet, heat, dry, cold).

So a zombie outbreak in a controlled area, like an island would just die out on its own by just having no more new zombies after a while, the old ones will just wander around, or stand/sit/lie still until their bodies completely decay and nothing is left.
Or of course if enough of the muscles are gone so they can't be mobile anymore. If they can't move at all they also can't bite and are no threat anymore either.

So yeah, I am not quite sure how fast muscle mass in a human body takes to decay on average, but I am sure it will take a few weeks or month until a zombie becomes completely immobilised and causes no threat anymore.


In the end it always best to destroy them before they destroy you of course

[Reply #218 on:]

Is that why we see those corpses in the cars on the highway? Are those decaying zombies or decaying humans?

[Reply #219 on:]

Could be both.
Humans hiding in the cars while zombies are around everywhere and then starving to death, slowly decaying now.
But also decaying zombies surely. If they are bitten but don't know what that means and then were just hiding in a car from the weird attackers they might be locked in once they turn, or just had no reason to stand up anymore (no other zombies or humans coming along). Then they were slowly rotting away until they were actually fully dead.

[Reply #220 on:]

If you subscribe to the Max Brooks (World War Z) type of zombies, the Zombie Survival Guide says that zombies can live without food until they naturally decay. But eating flesh can heal/regenerate them. It says that a well-fed zombie will look almost human (except the shambling and moaning part).

[Reply #221 on:]

In 28 Days Later they just leave them to starve, eventually they get weak and die off.

[Reply #222 on:]

In 28 Days Later there were no zombies.

[Reply #223 on:]

Infected. Whatever. They were a form of zombie.

[Reply #224 on:]

The very first segment of the whole series was a flash forward (where Rick shoots the little girl zombie at the gas station). I wonder if we'll ever find out where that fits in. Was it implied that it was supposed to have happened after he first left his hometown to head to Atlanta (sometime around where he found the house with the whole family who'd killed themselves)? Or was it just an extra scene they shot that they didn't actually know how to fit into the story, so they just stuck it there because it seemed like a good intro scene?

Hey, was that Sophia? Wasn't she holding a doll? If not, perhaps it was a foreshadowing of what similar fate was to befall her.

[Reply #225 on:]

Danny: WRONG!

Randi: Nope. The girl in the beginning of Episode 1 had a teddy, not a doll. Also she had brace and Sophia doesn't, not to mention the completely different clothes:

[Reply #226 on:]

Were they ambulatory corpses? Yes. Zombies. The end.

[Reply #227 on:]

pretty sure he's not wrong, bend-err. Are you sure you're not confusing 28 days later with it's sequel, 28 WEEKS later? 'cause there were definitely rage-infected zombie-like people in 28 DAYS later.

[Reply #228 on:]

Is it an infection movie? Yes.
Is it a zombie movie? No.

[Reply #229 on:]

Danny: WRONG!

If you're talking with Danny for any length of time, you may want to use one of these:





There were others... these are the only two I could find, but they'll hopefully suffice.

Re: 28 Days Later...

In 28 Days Later, the victims of the "Rage Virus" were still alive, still human. Just incapable of rational thought, and overcome with a desire to kill and maim and devour. This is 100% official canon, btw. It's not a zombie movie, because it doesn't have any zombies in it.

[Reply #230 on:]

On the DVD commentary, Boyle and Garland frequently call it a post apocalyptic, horror and zombie film, commenting on scenes that were specific references to George A. Romero’s original Dead trilogy.

If the creator calls it a zombie film, it is a zombie film. Call it a crappy zombie film that wasn't "pure traditionalist" enough or whatever you like, but it was a zombie film.

[Reply #231 on:]

But it's not a zombie film. It has no zombies in it. The commentaries are also very specific about the infected still being alive.

[Reply #232 on:]

North Korea calls itself democratic, but you surely agree that it is not democratic at all.

[Reply #233 on:]

There are also no zombies in North Korea.

[Reply #234 on:]

And since when does the victim have to be dead to be classed as a zombie?

[Reply #235 on:]

Since at least as long as zombies don't run or spread infection by biting.

[Reply #236 on:]

And since when does the victim have to be dead to be classed as a zombie?

It's somewhat traditional. Even going back to the "voodoo zombies" that bear little relation to modern undead monsters, the idea was that you basically had a magically animated corpse under your control, to work as a slave on your plantation.

The original zombie idea stems from this...

Show spoiler

The voodoo practitioner would poison the victim with a poison similar to tetradoxin, paralysing them. They'd die but leave a corpse perfectly suitable for revival with black magic. No damaged bits.

The victim is buried by the grieving family, dug up later by the voodoo practitioner, and imbued with a captive demon that will accept orders... then put to work.

Of course, the idea has evolved, but the whole "being dead" part is kinda still seen as a prerequisite.

[Reply #237 on:]

I hate to be the one siding with Danny, but he's absolutely correct.

Zombies do not have to be undead by definition - that's a modern bastardisation of the word that's been brought around by films such as 'Night of the Living Dead'.

Yes, the word stems from voodoo, but it originally just meant an active being with a lack of consciousness. A sleep-walker would, by definition, be a zombie.
If you look it up in the dictionary, the first definition will usually be a "reanimated corpse" but as I said, that's a modern bastardisation of the word. Words change with time, fair enough, but the original definition is still utterly valid in my opinion. If someone wanted to make a film about fruity, rum-based cocktails, I'd also happily consider that to be a zombie film.

'28 Days Later' portrays humans who have been infected with a virus that over-rides their common sense to the point that they'll simply wander around looking for people to get angry at and ultimately starve to death rather than grab a bag of crisps to eat - hence, they're clearly not acting within what most people would consider to be a full consciousness. Add on to that the fact that the film ticks every single box of the list of zombie movie cliches and you've got yourself a zombie movie.

In fact, there's not a scene in the film that can't be found in an earlier zombie movie. Whilst I like the film, I feel that it crosses the line between rip-off and homage. The entire third act is essentially lifted from 'Day of the Dead'.
And it's not original enough to justify how much it lifts from elsewhere. Running zombies have been around since at least the '80s. The earliest high-profile example I can think of is 'The Return of the Living Dead' but there are films many years prior to that with runners.

I don't care if Danny Boyle disputes its status as a zombie movie or not [edit - I missed the post above where he calls it a zombie film - I've just heard people claim that he's disputed it in the past]. Just because he says the film isn't a zombie film, that doesn't mean it isn't a zombie film. If I made a film about people that need to drink blood to sustain themselves and infected those of whom's blood they drank with a similar condition, and the people couldn't go out in sunlight, but I claimed it wasn't a vampire film because they don't mind garlic - I think most people would just ignore me and slap a vampire movie label on it.


Oh yeah, and if '28 Days Later' isn't a zombie film, then so are a whole heap of other zombie films. For example 'White Zombie', often cited as the first zombie film (although I'd make an argument for that being 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' or the 1910 adaptation of 'Frankenstein') also doesn't feature dead people re-animated. They're living people under a voodoo spell.
There are countless other examples like this.

[Reply #238 on:]

I hate to be the one siding with Danny, but he's absolutely correct.

Even assuming your post itself is absolutely correct, Danny would still only be technically correct.

[Reply #239 on:]

The best kind of correct!