if this is a film that deffinatly should be xDjacobschndr said:only thing that can top that is "Hobbit vs. Leprechaun: Brutality at the end of the Rainbow"
if this is a film that deffinatly should be xDjacobschndr said:only thing that can top that is "Hobbit vs. Leprechaun: Brutality at the end of the Rainbow"
Same.Signa said:I laughed so hard when that tentacle hit the jet fighter.
This is actually EXACTLY what I was thinking.chrisdibs said:wow, what a terrible film
There was already a snakes on a plane knockoff called snakes on a TRAIN.CaptainREBell said:The secret to movies like this: Crack. And lots of it, fed to a bunch of nerds who don't get out enough and feel the need to justify their fear of water.
Whatever it was, I think Asylum borrowed it from Samuel Jackson and Snakes on a Plane.
Wow, I'm sensing some issues with science here. :-O Anyway, if you further click on the hyperlink that says "fish," it takes you to said article which says that fish are vertebrates. To be honest, I normally don't trust Wikipedia, which is why I'd never use them for a research paper or something; but just for joo, I did some poking around and found this: http://www.indianchild.com/sharks.htm This says explicitly that sharks are fish, and as we've already established, fish = vertebrates. (Fish also = delicious, but tha's another thread entirely.)crypt-creature said:True, but it never flat out says 'it's a vertebrate!' just that it's a 'cartilaginous fish' that is 'very different from that of bony fish and terrestrial vertebrates'. Such is the controversy (this has actually been a popular question amongst people, just not people here) with the whole thing.
Aside from wikipedia (which I don't really trust all that much), there aren't many places on the web that say anything about it. Don't have my books with me, so I can't look it up that way either.
But they probably are vertebrates, since science needs to label everything in the interest of comfort. Uncertainties are not welcome there, nor are mysteries.
Issues with science, me? Noooo, never...*completely false innocent face*dantheman931 said:Wow, I'm sensing some issues with science here. :-O Anyway, if you further click on the hyperlink that says "fish," it takes you to said article which says that fish are vertebrates. To be honest, I normally don't trust Wikipedia, which is why I'd never use them for a research paper or something; but just for joo, I did some poking around and found this: http://www.indianchild.com/sharks.htm This says explicitly that sharks are fish, and as we've already established, fish = vertebrates. (Fish also = delicious, but tha's another thread entirely.)crypt-creature said:True, but it never flat out says 'it's a vertebrate!' just that it's a 'cartilaginous fish' that is 'very different from that of bony fish and terrestrial vertebrates'. Such is the controversy (this has actually been a popular question amongst people, just not people here) with the whole thing.
Aside from wikipedia (which I don't really trust all that much), there aren't many places on the web that say anything about it. Don't have my books with me, so I can't look it up that way either.
But they probably are vertebrates, since science needs to label everything in the interest of comfort. Uncertainties are not welcome there, nor are mysteries.
Yeah, this looks like another epically bad Sci-fi Saturday night original movie. I have no idea why they keep making such horrid movies.flare09 said:Looks like another Sci-Fi Original.