The Great Journey Coast to Coast

Originally posted by Placidity
Yes, and she is likely immune since:

A: she is dead, the Rage virus only works on the living
B: she has a healing factor

Hmm.
Bourne and John would die easily, because they have no knowledge about these Zombies, etc.
John and Bourne:
*spraying bullets into zombies*
"Duhh fuhhh these Bitches aint dyin."
"Mayne lets get the **** out this counrty muthafukkuh."
You die.

Selene would most definitely be a great asset. But seeing as how you do need to keep the blood cold, and not knowing what season it is in Washington D.C. it would be difficult for her to survive.
Plus just for knowledge what is the average time span for her and Blade to go without their "Juice".

Originally posted by mikeydude
Plus just for knowledge what is the average time span for her and Blade to go without their "Juice".

Good point.

I don't remember her drinking blood except when she was injured. She never appeared to need any blood except during injury.

Originally posted by mikeydude
Hmm.
Bourne and John would die easily, because they have no knowledge about these Zombies, etc.
John and Bourne:
*spraying bullets into zombies*
"Duhh fuhhh these Bitches aint dyin."
"Mayne lets get the **** out this counrty muthafukkuh."
You die.

Selene would most definitely be a great asset. But seeing as how you do need to keep the blood cold, and not knowing what season it is in Washington D.C. it would be difficult for her to survive.
Plus just for knowledge what is the average time span for her and Blade to go without their "Juice".

But dont they reanimate?

Originally posted by mikeydude
But dont they reanimate?

They die when they are injured in a way that a normal human would die because they are humans except they are infected with a virus that makes them rage out. lol

So... no?
hmm.
Well poop.
but.. I.

I thought in 28 weeks they could get back up after reinfected with the virus....
Nevermind. Im dumb.

I still chose rouge and Selene. And do they have to do what we say in this match?

Originally posted by mikeydude
So... no?
hmm.
Well poop.
but.. I.

I thought in 28 weeks they could get back up after reinfected with the virus....
Nevermind. Im dumb.

Yup: the infected die the same way you and I would.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They die when they are injured in a way that a normal human would die because they are humans except they are infected with a virus that makes them rage out. lol

Originally posted by General_Iroh
Yeah they're not in the classic sense zombies at all really.

The "classic" zombies die with head trauma or a shot to the head, though. That's pretty close, right?

I'd say that the original modern zombies "Night of the living dead", are one of the weakest versions because it did not take much effort to kill one of those zombies.

Yeah, I really wouldnt call them zombies at all more like infected.

Originally posted by mikeydude
Yeah, I really wouldnt call them zombies at all more like infected.

Originally posted by General_Iroh
Yeah they don't even eat people, they just kill them. And because they act a lot like modern day dawn of the dead type zombies they tend to get categorized as zombies.

Indeed.

There's a large debate/argument about making "infected" their own type or lumping them in with zombies.

From a scientific perspective (dumbed down to used a layman's term), they would be zombies. From a fictional "I want to be different and I want to make may mark", they would be called "infected."

To people like you and I, we call them "infected zombies" or things similar.

I think the debate is moot: you get bitten and/or die from the zombie attack, you turn into a zombie. It doesn't matter if they are infected or not: it's still a zombie.

In fact, we could say that the original zombies from Night of the Living Dead were infected. It was thought to be radiation, but it propagates out just like an infected zombie outbreak would. I really think that debate is silly, though, as it is a complete "circle" argument.

We should just stick with zombie, infected, or infected zombie and group them together. There's no reason not too. Adding a bit of microbiology to the zombie movie doesn't change it from being a zombie movie, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed.

There's a large debate/argument about making "infected" their own type or lumping them in with zombies.

From a scientific perspective (dumbed down to used a layman's term), they would be zombies. From a fictional "I want to be different and I want to make may mark", they would be called "infected."

To people like you and I, we call them "infected zombies" or things similar.

I think the debate is moot: you get bitten and/or die from the zombie attack, you turn into a zombie. It doesn't matter if they are infected or not: it's still a zombie.

In fact, we could say that the original zombies from Night of the Living Dead were infected. It was thought to be radiation, but it propagates out just like an infected zombie outbreak would. I really think that debate is silly, though, as it is a complete "circle" argument.

We should just stick with zombie, infected, or infected zombie and group them together. There's no reason not too. Adding a bit of microbiology to the zombie movie doesn't change it from being a zombie movie, imo.

Originally posted by mikeydude
But night of the living dead was raising the dead.
So "Iffy"
if you ask me.

In 28 days later, people died and came back to life, as well: that's how the rage virus worked.

Same with other infected movies like the new Dawn of the Dead.

.... wait.

So.
If people came back to life with the rage virus, why cant they be reanimated as well after you shoot them, in lets say the stomach.

I mean if someone was shot in the stomach prior.
Then the rage virus breaks loose, and they reanimate.
Why cant those who got shot recently reanimate?
Thats why i call it "Iffy"

I havent even seen the new Dawn of the Dead.
Im so outdated with my zombie films.

Originally posted by mikeydude
.... wait.

So.
If people came back to life with the rage virus, why cant they be reanimated as well after you shoot them, in lets say the stomach.

Cause the virus makes them "clinically" dead while it takes over, I guess.

They always fall 'silent' for a bit and then turn.

It's not really killing them, really.

Originally posted by mikeydude
I mean if someone was shot in the stomach prior.
Then the rage virus breaks loose, and they reanimate.
Why cant those who got shot recently reanimate?
Thats why i call it "Iffy"

I havent even seen the new Dawn of the Dead.
Im so outdated with my zombie films.

Because the virus is not a virus that instills a healing factor like the T-Virus from the Resident Evil films.

Ok, That makes better sense.

I think the T-Virus would be a better choice.
but then almost impossible if not instilling headshots...

I just watched the First Resident Evil a few days ago.
The other two are in the mail now....
I have high hopes.

Originally posted by mikeydude
Ok, That makes better sense.

I think the T-Virus would be a better choice.
but then almost impossible if not instilling headshots...

I just watched the First Resident Evil a few days ago.
The other two are in the mail now....
I have high hopes.

Yeah, Alice, from the Resident Evil films, said that they did not expect the zombies to stay alive for 7 years, like they did.

So, apparently, the T-Virus creates the most uber "infected" zombie genre out there.