|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 11:08 pm
Personally, I feel there is no overdoing zombies. That is the one thing about zombies that works for them. The zombies themselves overdo it. When one zombie sees someone in a pack, they moan and shuffle that way, then the others do so, causing others to do so, and so you end up having 20 or more zombies in an open area heading after one noise they heard.
However, I will say there is such a thing as overdoing over zealous zombie movies that take themselves too serious and don't call the zombies zombies while focusing on the humans trying to survive together in a barricaded strong hold. Of course some of the humans are going to ******** snap and either try to get out and let the zeds in or kill everyone else.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:47 am
I dont think you really can go wrong with zombies but after a while it starts getting old and overrated. I mean look what happened to vampires...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:56 pm
XxLovely_MiseriesxX I dont think you really can go wrong with zombies but after a while it starts getting old and overrated. I mean look what happened to vampires... After zombies, what? Werewolves are gonna make a big comeback?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:16 pm
Biohazard EXTREME XxLovely_MiseriesxX I dont think you really can go wrong with zombies but after a while it starts getting old and overrated. I mean look what happened to vampires... After zombies, what? Werewolves are gonna make a big comeback? Maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:00 pm
And then back to vampires, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:17 pm
Biohazard EXTREME And then back to vampires, I guess. You know... looking back on it, werewolves and Frankensteinian monsters never get their over-done in media phases... it's only zombies and vampires... and the only ones that get the T&A are the Vamps...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:59 pm
Oh, I don't know. I'd say Frankenstein did get overdone. Not in a single decade, mind you, but after Boris Karloff's frankenstein, there were a couple of other ones, and especially in the 70's, or around that time, when they had the semi-comedy spinoffs. It definitely lost its charm until they remade the movie with DeNiro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:10 pm
Werewolves were over-done too. Well they still kinda are. Ive seen a ton of B-rated movies with werewolves all over the place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:31 pm
That's true. Blood and Chocolate, Skin Walkers... Ginger Snaps. Although I liked Ginger Snaps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:02 am
You know, from what I've been researching. in this decade, zombie movies have been more frequent than werewolf and vampire films. I'm not sure about Frankenstein films, but honestly, how can we list Frankenstein when so many films take after that idea... I bet in any of the zombie/vampire/werewolf movies, we can take at least a handful out of each category that are Frankenstein based movies just with zombies/vampires/werewolves instead of a patchwork monster.
You know what? I've noticed some dynamics between the three creatures:
Zombies: Complete Undead
Vampires: Undead with animalistic habits
Werewolves: Complete animal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:45 pm
I heard....whatchamacallit....Dog Soldiers? I think? I heard that was a nifty Werewolf flick from that weird little wave of British horror stuff we were getting along with Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later...I'm guessing it never got much U.S. publicity due to "lol, werewolves arn't 'in' right now" mentality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:36 pm
Werewolves got played out, and zombies are getting played out and fast...
But... Does Twilight mean that vampires are making a comeback? Although, you know... sparkly...
We DO have the ever awesome (and I mean that) Paul W.S. Anderson with Castlevania, which he said he's actually finally gonna get to writing after he finishes writing Fourth RE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:08 pm
Dear lord... Castlevania!? I hope he does it justice and doesn't cater to making the first Belmont he decides to use a douche/wimp. I also hope that if he uses a storyline based on anything besides Legends/Lament of Innocence/Aria of Sorrow/Symphony of the Night, that he doesn't feel the need to shoe-horn an awkward love side-story into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:04 pm
It'll probably be an original story, not based DIRECTLY on the games. Not that the original Castlevania had a deeply woven storyline. But the movie probably won't have every single location, enemy and boss of the game. I mean, there will obviously be dialogue, it's a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:30 pm
Man, you're a strange paradox. You constantly lament the action-nizing of the main game series while eagerly anticipating Anderson's RE movies staring the genetically enhanced ultra-commando chick that karate chops zombies.
Can't wait to see Anderson deciding to adapt the no-longer-canon Castlevania Legends as an excuse to have Milla headline it. Or completely rewriting someone's script so that Milla can randomly show up and show how the Belmonts should REALLY be doing it: with spin kicks and dual crossbows crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
