Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KingCracker wrote:Cmon guys, itll be like Inglorious Bastards.

Possibly, but it might actually be good instead. Yeah. YEAH.

What? IB was a good movie!

I respectfully disagree, your Highness. I found it to be a self-indulgent, incoherent, utter mess of a film. At times it showed promised, but overall it just came across as Tarantino just throwing crap at the screen and seeing what stuck. Very disapponting. Two stars.

KingCracker wrote:What? IB was a good movie!

Yeah it was alright, I wouldn't say "good" though.

I mean, gak, It was no Weekend at Bernies thats for sure!

Ok THAT I will agree with

And I should clarify, when I say a movie is good, that to me means middle of the road. Its worth watching and youll probably enjoy parts.Make better sense?

A horde of zombies can NOT stand up to a wall of gunfire... just saying that military wins against zombies. Unless the zombies are the bloody super fast near indestructible zombies there are in some stories.

And THAT my friends is how you screw up on Z day. Yes a gunline will blow away zombies. Problem is, in a fethed up situation like a zombie apoc, hospitals and make shift field hospitals held by Military personnel, will take in, initially, wounded people to safety. In doing that, will be bringing infected behind their lines. Bad idea. Not to mention, there isnt enough bullets for 50k-100k zombies. You can hit those numbers easily

ChocolateGork wrote:A horde of zombies can NOT stand up to a wall of gunfire... just saying that military wins against zombies. Unless the zombies are the bloody super fast near indestructible zombies there are in some stories.

I think the point is that these zombies are the slow moving ones, that can stand up to a lot of damage. Unless you destroy the brain they keep coming.
The army shoots lots of bullets, lots of mortar rounds, artillery shells, but unless the brain is destroyed the bodies/parts of bodies continue.
And there are hundreds of thousands of them. Many more than the army expected.

ChocolateGork wrote:A horde of zombies can NOT stand up to a wall of gunfire... just saying that military wins against zombies. Unless the zombies are the bloody super fast near indestructible zombies there are in some stories.

Read World War Z....

Nope.
Heh, tanks and grunts and stuff need missiles and bullets, plus even aiming for the head with a SMG or HMG isn't going to be effective, much less when the US army trains to shoot centre of mass, not for the head. Oh, plus the fact these guys don't feel pain, don't go down in an explosion, and feel **** all from shock and awe, which is what the US army and air force is designed for. You are pitting emotionless empty with uberhuman endurance verse normal humans. I know who'd win.

KingCracker wrote:Ok THAT I will agree with

And I should clarify, when I say a movie is good, that to me means middle of the road. Its worth watching and youll probably enjoy parts.Make better sense?

That's understandable. Personally, I wouldn't call anything good unless it demanded repeat viewings from me. I'm unkind like that.

htj wrote:I respectfully disagree, your Highness. I found it to be a self-indulgent, incoherent, utter mess of a film. At times it showed promised, but overall it just came across as Tarantino just throwing crap at the screen and seeing what stuck. Very disapponting. Two stars.

It was most certainly self-indulgent, being a war movie about war movies that's kind of inevitable.

It wasn't incoherent though, not at all. Nor was Tarantino simply throwing stuff together, each scene interacts with every other scene, and the contrasts between them mean a hell of a lot.

YOu're welcome to not like it, of course, not everyone has to like movies about movies, but it most certainly was not a production lacking in skill or meaning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChaosGalvatron wrote:I think the point is that these zombies are the slow moving ones, that can stand up to a lot of damage. Unless you destroy the brain they keep coming.
The army shoots lots of bullets, lots of mortar rounds, artillery shells, but unless the brain is destroyed the bodies/parts of bodies continue.
And there are hundreds of thousands of them. Many more than the army expected.

If you've seen what a modern attack chopper can unleash, you wouldn't worry so much about hitting the head. The head along with everything else goes splat.

Artillery is the same. The only reason people survive artillery bombardment is because they dig a hole in the ground and stay there until the barrage stops. A mindless zombie horde wandering forward is not going to be turned into paste.

It was a contrivance in WWZ, which you can forgive because the point wasn't actually about what might happen if we did fight zombies, the point is the military being deployed to fight the last war, not the current one.

That's the thing about zombies, despite being scary they're utterly ridiculous, which frees authors up direct the real meaning of their work onto other issues.

sebster wrote:

htj wrote:I respectfully disagree, your Highness. I found it to be a self-indulgent, incoherent, utter mess of a film. At times it showed promised, but overall it just came across as Tarantino just throwing crap at the screen and seeing what stuck. Very disapponting. Two stars.

It was most certainly self-indulgent, being a war movie about war movies that's kind of inevitable.

It wasn't incoherent though, not at all. Nor was Tarantino simply throwing stuff together, each scene interacts with every other scene, and the contrasts between them mean a hell of a lot.

YOu're welcome to not like it, of course, not everyone has to like movies about movies, but it most certainly was not a production lacking in skill or meaning.

I contend that it was. The narrative was rushed and forced, there was little to no character development, every scene felt like it shot for the scene's sake, not the films. Of course, these are all subjective value impressions, but for me it had none of the competency or craftsmanship of his earlier work.