Fashion Board 3-5-04 to 4-6-04

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
My guess would be that the infection was built to spread. And once it took control of the body, other infected bodies could sense the infection on them. No need to attack an already infected body.

TM

That's a good theory.

Unfortunately, the directors left the question unanswered. That was a failing of the movie, in my opinion.

A simple explanation like yours would've taken about 10 seconds of screen time to shoot and would have increased my enjoyment of the movie quite a bit:

Scene: In the convenience store after Selena and the other guy rescue Jim and explain what's happened.

Jim: So, why don't they attack each other?

Selena: We're not exactly sure, but as far as we can tell, the rage is really a desire to spread the virus, so the infected have no need or desire to kill their own kind.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Basically you stand in a room and a technician sprays you with an airbrush with a solution that turns a nice golden color when it touches your skin. Apparently the solution is sugar-based.

So you're essentially getting caramelized?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
At least one of you did. I think it was the pompous one.

You were so far gone, you were hallucinating that Bilmore was there?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
So you're essentially getting caramelized?

I'm guessing you don't want to do this if you own a dog.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Air-brush tanning (for Gatti): Basically you stand in a room and a technician sprays you with an airbrush with a solution that turns a nice golden color when it touches your skin. Apparently the solution is sugar-based.

Now that's just not right. You know gatti's got a sweet tooth.



TM

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck

[spoiler]

A simple explanation like yours would've taken about 10 seconds of screen time to shoot and would have increased my enjoyment of the movie quite a bit:

Scene: In the convenience store after Selena and the other guy rescue Jim and explain what's happened.

Jim: So, why don't they attack each other?

Selena: We're not exactly sure, but as far as we can tell, the rage is really a desire to spread the virus, so the infected have no need or desire to kill their own kind.

Or, better yet, have the scared little lab tech, who presumably might have known this information, do it in the beginning:

Lab tech: Kill her!

Animal Liberationist dolt: What?

Lab tech: Kill her now! Or she'll kill us all! The desire of the infected to attack the uninfected is overwhelming!

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
That's a good theory.

Unfortunately, the directors left the question unanswered. That was a failing of the movie, in my opinion.

A simple explanation like yours would've taken about 10 seconds of screen time to shoot and would have increased my enjoyment of the movie quite a bit:

Scene: In the convenience store after Selena and the other guy rescue Jim and explain what's happened.

Jim: So, why don't they attack each other?

Selena: We're not exactly sure, but as far as we can tell, the rage is really a desire to spread the virus, so the infected have no need or desire to kill their own kind.

That seems like a silly thing to focus on. Why would she be in any better position to know why they don't turn on each other than you?

Part of what makes that movie so good is how little they actually know about what the fuck is going on. It makes you think about how you would react if you were in the same position. And you might think about why they don't attack each other, but you would have no scientific clue.

TM

ETA: DS' fix works, though.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I think the real answer is they were just sort of going with the "virus caused zombism" conventions and left it at that, though you are right that the fact that the 28DL victims were still living so the non-zombie "why don't they kill each other" problem arose. But I could see a similar underlying rationalization coming into play here - animals sense disease and avoid eating diseased tissue. That they didn't offer it is, perhaps, a problem, or perhaps not - most zombie outbreaks are left essentially unexplained, too, and zombie-movie plotters can get away with it because, when all society collapses and you are down to individual survival mode, sometimes you just have to accept the way things are rather than understand why they are the way they are. Besides, the most boring and souless horror flicks are those where you follow around a bunch of scientists (or priests, or criminal profilers, or other "experts") explaining every little fucking thing. In the end, it's a monster, and monsters act the way they do simply because they are monsters.

Or: sometimes the best rationalle for horror movie set ups is "sometimes shit happens just because it happens." I just saw something else recently that made me think that - the starting premise was ludicrous, but once it was a given the entire plot followed brilliantly and logically - but I can't recall what it was.

The Bush Presidency?

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Or, better yet, have the scared little lab tech, who presumably might have known this information, do it in the beginning:

Lab tech: Kill her!

Animal Liberationist dolt: What?

Lab tech: Kill her now! Or she'll kill us all! The desire of the infected to attack the uninfected is overwhelming!

Ewwww, that's good.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that the directors didn't view this as a problem? I watched all the DVD bonus features and they clearly were aware of certain problems with their story and addressed them in various ways. I would be surprised if they didn't think of this. The question is why did they let it go unexplained?

Anyway, DS you should obviously go into writing horror films.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
That's a good theory.

Unfortunately, the directors left the question unanswered. That was a failing of the movie, in my opinion.

A simple explanation like yours would've taken about 10 seconds of screen time to shoot and would have increased my enjoyment of the movie quite a bit.

Interesting... my problem with the movie was that it seemed to me if someone was puking up blood and not drinking, it would be dehydration rather than starvation that would kill them first, so I couldn't figure out why they were trying to figure out how long it took them to starve.

If you watched the alternate endings part of the DVD, you would see the story board for the ending that completely omitted the military compound: After the father gets raged from the blood drop in his eye, they keep him with them and try to find a cure. They end up in some hospital with a guy locked in an isolation chamber and when they're sleeping he leaves them the stuff they need to transfuse Jim's blood into the father as a cure. Which of course is totally stupid because of the idea that a total blood transfusion that ends up killing the donor isn't going to cure a virus that is so potent that someone gets it from a drop in the eye. They thought people would realize that a transfusion wouldn't get all of the raged blood out of his capillaries, so they went with the military compound idea instead.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
I sort of agree with you -- the movie's not really about much, but I did find myself still thinking about it several days later, so it must have made some kind of impression on me.

Yeh, LIT is not a mind blowing flick. I liked it enough, but its not worthy of the hype.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Now that's just not right. You know gatti's got a sweet tooth.



TM

That damn Glamour Shots chick said that the tropical shirt would distract from the recent dental work and make me look more, well, Don-Juan-ish.

Well, there's another $50 down the drain.

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yeh, LIT is not a mind blowing flick. I liked it enough, but its not worthy of the hype.

My friend, who lives here but is from Tokyo, said that part of what she enjoyed about it was that it was a very different way of looking at Tokyo. In Japanese films, Tokyo is usually filmed in a particular way - like an insider's view of the city, and in American or European films, the perspective is pretty masculine (her words) - focuses on crime, drugs, cops, corruption etc. She said this was a very feminine outsider perspective that was unusual and that is what struck her most about it.

I haven't seen it, so she could be full of shit. Don't know why I haven't seen it, because I have a huge crush on Bill Murray. He really should make my laminated list, if I ever redo it.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Basically you stand in a room and a technician sprays you with an airbrush with a solution that turns a nice golden color when it touches your skin. Apparently the solution is sugar-based.

Trying to live up to your title I see. [how could I possibly be first on this softball?]

[greatwhitenorthchick]

double post - sorry