RedFive

Tear-Fan and Ferris hit the nails on their heads... ick.

Hahahaha, I think it was in the preface or intro to Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, which he wrote.  Not sure exactly though..

TV's Frink said:

Uncle Fucker said:

a bunch of dark people with turbans growing out of their heads

Wow.

Yeah....

You're stupid. 

That is all.

The only person I really didn't like as Batman was Clooney, only because he was so recognizable at the time.

And to be honest, I'm not really a fan of Bale's Batvoice.  But I do like him.

No one continue this here, take it here please.

twooffour:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-otcom-If-I-do-this-again-on-the-forum-please-someone-stab-me-in-the-eye-with-an-icepick-Thread/post/522170/#TopicPost522170

ORIGINAL THREAD

twooffour said:

RedFive said:

twooffour said:

I haven't read the original paper, but from the way it's described, it's a poor one.

A study that doesn't take any of that into account and attempts to make a sweeping statement based on a few students reading a few books? Do not want.

A long-winded reply that starts out by admitting the poster didn't even read the (relatively short) original article?  Do not want.

The ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER, not the article, you CLOWN.

Here's the thing.  I'm gonna bite, but just this one time.

Twooffour, you are correct, i misunderstood your post.  OK?

In my defense, the link in the OP said NOTHING about a research paper, nor did it link to any additional research.  There was no reason for you to say you "didn't read the paper", because no one read the paper.  There is no paper, unless you did further research on the story and found one.  Do you see how this could be confusing?  (I'm sure you don't)

But let's ignore all that, even.  Let's say I called you out on something you didn't do and made a total ass of myself, for arguments sake.  The problem I, and everyone else, has with you is this:

The ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER, not the article, you CLOWN.

There is no need for that at all.  It's childish.  It's idiotic. 

This is why no one has respect for your opinions, most everyone is ignoring you, and Frink replies to your posts with funny gif's.

I hope you understand, but really, I don't give a shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_l4ZP8dyQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=3s

I know it's really, really frustrating, and I myself am having a helluva time not pointing out his awfulness and arguing my points against him, but just ignore him, Frink!  Otherwise it'll never end!

And I don't want to have to stab you with an ice pick!!!!

doubleofive said:

Then you coudn't go off topic in the movie threads?

I don't think it'd be too heavily moderated (not that anywhere here is anyway) if it was under General Chat.  And even if it was, I don't know that it'd be too terrible of a thing. 

Nothing's stopping anyone from making a movie thread in off-topic still!

I started a prequel thread in off-topic a while back so people could go off-topic in it.

I like this thread, let's not let him derail it, please! 

Just ignore him, all he wants it attention anyway...

Argument moved here:
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-otcom-If-I-do-this-again-on-the-forum-please-someone-stab-me-in-the-eye-with-an-icepick-Thread/post/522170/#TopicPost522170

When you get stuck in the rain it fucking pours.

CP3S said:

Wow, she must have been really happy when DVD came out. Imagine taking the time to FF to the end of a VHS, then having to wait for it to rewind.

For real, Frink.  And yes, pre-DVD she would fast-forward and then rewind tapes.  When she watched Fellowship of the Ring she called me and tried to get me to tell her how the trilogy ended!

twooffour said:

A study that doesn't take any of that into account and attempts to make a sweeping statement based on a few students reading a few books? Do not want.

A long-winded reply that starts out by admitting the poster didn't even read the (relatively short) original article?  Do not want.

But anyway, I think it depends on two things:  the film/show, and the viewer. 

I think if the movie/tv show is good of it's own merits, than no, a spoiler wouldn't ruin the viewing.  However, that doesn't mean I want it spoiled. 

Shutter Island is a good example.  I loved that movie the first time I saw it in the theaters, but I have to admit that the whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "what's really going on here?".  However, once it came out on DVD and I got to watch it already knowing the end, I enjoyed it even more because I was paying attention to the actual merits of the film.  It was like watching it for the first time again - a mark of a good movie in my book is rewatchability.

Someone spoiled Fight Club for me when I was younger, but I really enjoyed the movie regardless - maybe even more so than I would have had I not been spoiled.  But that's the thing isn't it?  I think the reason people (myself, at least) are so spoiler obsessed is because of the finality of it all.  Maybe a spoiler will ruin a whole movie for you, and maybe it won't, but you'll never know until you're actually spoiled -- and then it's too late.

As for the viewer, here's a part of the article that I don't really agree with:

"We like it best when the suspense is contained by the formulaic, when we never have to really worry about the death of the protagonist or the lovers in a romantic comedy."

I think this speaks to the majority of moviegoers or television viewers who just want to sit down and enjoy some explosions or a love story or a few jokes without using their brain too much, but I don't necessarily include myself in that group.  I like my entertainment to challenge my brain, not make it numb, but I realize I'm in the minority. 

Also, I don't think a twist in a movie has ever made me feel "embarrassed by [my] gullibility", nor do I ever think it will.

So maybe this is true for a lot of people, like my Aunt Mary, who always watches the end of a movie and then watches the whole thing because she hates being surprised.  But I don't think I'd ever ask her opinion on what to watch.

My thread is the best, of course.  If you're gonna explain your usertitle, why not explain the rest as well?

And neither my avatar, title, or signature has changed since I started that thread over three months ago!

You're constantly happy and making jokes even though you work in a hospital where people die all the time.

You're constantly horny and do other doctors even though you work in a hospital where people die all the time.

The hospital is evil and the boss' only want money and you have to skirt the system in order to save someone's life, otherwise the hospital would totally let them die.

TV's Frink said:

Someone missed an ot.com meme,lol.

I'm not familiar with that one.  Isn't there a thread for that?

TV's Frink said:

How about a sub-forum of off-topic then?

+1 on this.

I'm jelly.

Have fun!

Then start your own silly off-topic film threads, whipper-snapper!

Hahaha, I see now, I thought you were referring to Frink's space bar fail.  My bad.

TV's Frink said:

I know this won't be a popular opinion, but...

Is it possible that Ledger's performance is overrated due to the timing of this death?  I say yes.

No way, that's absurd.  He was brilliant.

Maybe even a Film/Television forum, instead of just movies.

That would definitely help separate the insanity from the rational discussion.  A large portion (I'd say at least half) of the topics in off-topic are about either films or movies.

ferris209 said:

I want to lobby for a whole new "Which Batman film is your favorite?" forum.

LOL

But this is seriously a great idea, xhonzi.