Cliffhanger part 1 What you

Cliffhanger part 1

What you see as mistakes, I see as tid bits that didnt need to be explained, because to do so would bog the story down with grituitous information and detatch from the story. I already talked a lot about how I dont view the lack of corpses and such a mistake because it was done intentionally to help set up the mood, and the effect of that kept me on the edge of my seat. I didnt need Jim to wake up to the end of Resident Evil. I needed him to be bewildered, confused, and in a state of What the Fuck?, not Oh my god, Ive slept threw a war. And I didnt need shots of the infected sitting around having coffee with one another or enjoying their afternoon cup of tea so I could be shown that they actually ate and drank in order to survive. Just because I dont see characters in other movies or shows cliffhanger part 1 a piss doesnt make me think that they never use the bathroom. And I cliffhanger part 1 thought of something the other day, which could be a spark of inspiration to help explain something, or just one huge stinky brain fart, but Ill share it anyway. The thing about rage is it essentially breaks down the infected persons mental blocks of control over intense emotions more specifically, anger. Now, say theres a guy whos a typical guy and one day he finds out hes carrying the HIV bug. This sets him into a state of depression and anger, and he kinda snaps. Which reaction is cliffhanger part 1 realistic? He goes out and finds other people infected with HIV and takes out his revenge on them; or, in his anger, he goes out and tries to infect other people, either by drastic means, such as poking them with a dirty syringe, or by more subtle means, such as punching holes in his condoms and not informing his partners that hes a carrier? I dont know about you, but Ive heard a lot more of the latter stories in the news over the past couple of years. Now, imagine if everyone infected with the HIV virus had this same mentality? Okay, so let me just stress something real I am in NO WAY saying anything more than an incredibly minute percentage of the HIV population do this Ive only heard of about two stories in the past four years or so, but what if all the infected have this same kind of mentality going on in their head? They know theyre infected with something, but they see each other as fellow victims and see uninfected as snooty little fuckers who deserve to get theirs. Its a mode of thinking that some people do go threw and has been documented, so its not that much of a stetch and may help answer the question for some of you. Of course, you could just accept the zombies dont kill other zombies unless theyre hoarding all the food concept, but for some reason, that seems to baffle a lot of you. Sending all the wrong mental images to all the right minds. This movie was set in a time I know and it wasnt advertised as a zombie flick. It is a what if flick. What? Are you kidding? It was advertised as Danny Boyle re-invents zombie horror. Saying 28 Days Later wasnt advertised as a zombie movie is like saying Star Wars wasnt marketed as science fiction. Location: Plattsburgh, NY I thought it was a pretty good movie. I was wondering, though, how they did the shots of downtown London without anyone in them. I could understand a shot of the skyscrapers without lights. that could be done by computer graphics or models correct me if thats not how they did it, but how did they do the scenes where he is walking around downtown without anyone around and also with the added props like the trashed bus and other assorted post-riot trash. I posted in the other thread but dropped it since people were getting a wee bit defensive over the movie. I enjoyed the movie and thought it was well done to a point but do agree that it had serious problems. In the end, these problems can be overlooked and dont really detract too much from the movie. What I dont get are the people who feel the need to invent out of movie explanations for everything. The movie had plot holes, deal.