I'm all consensed.
Olaf the Troll ,'Showtime'
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I'm all for zombies, but I'd definitely like the "days later" addendum.
Even if they technically weren't really zombies in that movie
I'm all for zombies, but I'd definitely like the "days later" addendum.
Me too. It's much funnier that way.
In conclusion:
Natter 28 Days Later: Can We Have Zombies?
So count me, still, for "Can we have zombies?"
Too bad the consensus is finalized. 'Cuz "Could it be zombies?" has a more Olaf, more Buffista ring to it.
Not a fan of the "days later." Though that was a seriously creepy movie.
If we're going zombies, how about a Buffy tie in?
- Natter 28 days later: Dead Man's Natter.
- Natter 28 days later: This natter wobbles but natter won't fall down
Or something like that.
There are no zombies in your titles, ita.
I want zombies.
Lee, meta-referential is the new cool, okay?
I read that as "there are no zombies in your titties".
Which can only be a good thing, if you ask me.