twooffour

Hm, seems like he doesn't care anyway. So then I'll do it, what the heck. (That means you have nothing more to look forward to, by the way.)

TV's Frink said:

I take it that's another vote for twooffour?

QUESTION

Is the problem twooffour or everyone else?

CURRENT SCORE

twooffour: 10 (Frink, Gaffer, Ziggy, C3PX's cat, Mrebo, Davnes007, Ric Olie, doubleKO's cat, twister, greenie)
Everyone else: 1 (twooffour)

You might wanna withdraw twister, I just heard him thinking that he was kinda wrong about it.

CP3S said:

The Internet said:

Dear twooffour,

"butthurt" is not a meme.

I knew it! It was too dumb of a term to have endeared itself to the collective conscious of the internet... Wait? Did I just call something too dumb for the internet? Hmm, I probably shouldn't do that... Nothing is too dumb for the internet, even Twooffour is on it.

Seems like a page ago someone said something about not responding to any of us parrots anymore. Who was it that said that? Obviously it wasn't Twooffour because he is still going at it with gusto.

 

So, um, so it is a meme, after all. (Or a spread internet term, at any rate) Wow, that was pointless.

(I was talking to Ziggy, so no self-contradictions thus far! Thanks for reminding me, though, especially after calling me dumb :D)

Part 4 of the cartoon strip was pretty cool!

LOL

Johnny Ringo said:

THE PEANUT BUTTER SOLUTION

This movie either scared the hell out of you or you've never heard of it. Trailers on youtube paint it as some sort of comedy / kids film but trust me, this thing was nightmare fuel.

 

 

I dunno man, I just read the synopsis on Wikipedia, and it reads like something from a Scary Movie spoof or something... like, in the original, horrible creepy ghosts give you cancer and disfigure your face into a half-skeleton, and then there's another movie about some evil teacher experimenting on sickly children - and then comes "The Peanut Butter Movie" which combines the two plots, and makes the ghosts give the boy instructions on how to... correctly apply peanut butter to his head so some hair may grow. And then the bad guy from the other movie steals the kid for having too much hair.
Then the ghosts make him slip on soap in the kitchen.

It's wacky, and just weird.

But yea, just my funny impression from the synopsis, haven't seen the actual movie... :)

Aw aw, an 'oop!

Well, then, how about the abridged version.


______________________________

_______________________________



... next.

SilverWook said:

Did ILM work on the film?

We all know the infamous ringed Death Star explosions in the SE's were inspired by the Praxis explosion ILM did for Star Trek 6.

Yea, the two movies are listed among their filmography, although I don't know how significant their role was, considering they're not mentioned on the main pages of the films (I'm talking about Wikipedia, so yea...).

But that'll certainly be explanation! :D

Hm, not that much of a "popcultural influence then", eh...

Neither do I.

Heh, nah just kidding.

Just something amusing I saw today - watched the final Harry Potter movie a few hours ago, and one particular sequence there quite clearly rips off TPM!

The way the magic shield thingy engulfs Hogwarts, shortly before the battle ensues, looks EXACTLY like the corresponding scene from the Gungan battle.
The wizards even shoot it up into the sky from the middle.
The spells the Death Eaters attempt to use to breach it, create bursts of fire on the shield's surface, which also strongly remind of the laser shots in TPM.

They TRY to run through it en masse, but it doesn't go over as well this time... the Order of the Phoenix ain't a bunch of dunces, like those Gungans!

Sorry I couldn't find any images or videos to show it, but the movie's legally available on the internet and in cinemas, so there's at least that.



Just wondering, with all the talk about how non-existent the prequels' impact on pop-culture has been, and how little memorable, iconic imagery it contains, that (slightly and inexplicably surreal) shield activation scene was pretty captivating (although it still does look fake).

So just to make up for that, the movie rips off ANH half an our later (the one where Han runs after a few stormtroopers, and then OH SNAP!) :D



Anyway, can anyone think of other examples where movies have taken something from the prequels? A line, a setting, a shot, some striking imagery?

I'm not really talking about internet memes like the SW Kid or various "amateur" lightsaber battles / spoof raps etc., although that's certainly welcome, as well!

l certainly was hoping for a chuckle or two, but it just wasn't really good. Kinda pointless.

That was meant to be funny??? It looks like we'll need a humour archaeologist to find the funny in that statement.

Humor = it wasn't meant seriously. If you need an archaeologist to figure out that [[i.e., that it was INTENDED as a joke, not seriously]], you might as well try to use an X-Ray to find your brain.

TK-949 said:

BTW (I haven't read all 7 pages, so don't crucify me, if someone else stated this):
Star Trek (2009) isn't a remake. It's a sequel. It concludes all the TV-Shows with a timetravel leading into an alternate reality.
Hmm, sounds really poor. But it's a really good movie and the best Paramount could have done with the almost dead franchise.

Sorta, but it doesn't really conclude anything from the old continuity, as they only show Spock after he's already gone through the black hole.

So more like a prequel set in an alternate reality :D

Or, it's a reboot. Or a reimagining of a reboot. I love the Plinkett reivew :D

Please spend 7 pages doing it. I won't post a thing. We'll just read in awe.

And that after explaining this in perfect detail in a previous comment?
But hey, you know, reply to some other part of that comment, and then pretend to not have read the rest.

I won't post a thing.

All of us who have criticized your rudeness

and lacking coherence are certainly wrong about you.

We're obviously the ones with problems.

You should see no reason to take a step back and reevaluate your words.

You undoubtedly face similar frustrations off the internet where few are as smart as you.

Where you tell it how it is but people can't handle the truth.

The flying head from Time Bandits got me really scared as a kid - I often wouldn't sleep at night, in fear such a giant, detached ghostly head may be floating about in the corridor!
Kinda funny, seeing how cute and corny it looks now :)

Also after seeing Back to the Future, I was afraid of something happening in my past that would make me disappear - nowadays I worry more about some sudden heart failure (if at all), but back then, that scene really made an impression on me!


Recently, the stabbing scene from "A Cry for Help", based on a real life incident.
Very realistically shot, and got me shocked and depressed for days.

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:
Oh and yea, you're the guy who just posts random empty insults. "Shut up" is a valid example! Keep telling about "learning disabilities", you clown.

"Shut Up" isn't that random. It's a reaction to something you said. Let it go.

 

Yea, a random reaction to something I said that didn't warrant for such a reaction.
It's also a nothingsaying reaction.

It's also a flame.
So if you enjoy trolling and acting like a huge dick (and if I'm saying that, it means something) to... I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say or achieve here, but basically, enjoy yourself.

I doubt I'm replying to any more of your parrot droppings.

Ziggy Stardust said:

Because he's smarter than us, duh!

Tehehehehe!

Yea, like I don't miss something that's right in the next par- ahh, fuck that.

Gaffer Tape said:

Sorry, that just looked like dancing around and avoiding to me.  See, if you can use that as an excuse to dismiss everything that we say, why can't I?

Well, and why has it looked this way to you?
Because you couldn't connect two subsequent paragraphs together, that's why.

Now when you've shown me an EXAMPLE where I'm accusing you of avoiding / not backing shit up, with the rebuttal shining into my face RIGHT NEXT TO IT, or heck, ANYWHERE in any post you've directed at me in the last weekend - we can talk about something you "can do" that I "also can".

Hell... just any instance where I was wrong about any accusations directed at you. PLEASE.

Ziggy Stardust said:

twooffour said:

Sigh, another sarcasm fail post.

If you suck so much at sarcasm, quit doing it!

Troll.

Gaffer Tape said:

Oh, I'm so sorry.  It's just that when you said I'd hit the nail on the head when I said that you would invalidate every contribution if Frink hadn't read a post of yours, I assumed that must be what you meant.  It's hard to keep up when you keep changing the rules, though.  I guess you just didn't read my post closely enough, or you would have caught that.  And if you can't keep up with an ongoing conversation, you really shouldn't be participating in it.  Or is that still the rule?  Have you changed that one yet? 

"Oh yea, and congrats on thinking I took your "Saturday Evening Post" "gag" at face value."

Sorry, I didn't just mean the Saturday Evening Post part, I meant the entire "hyperbolic sarcasm part", including whatever about the rest of Frink's life, or whatever.

Guess I should've clarified, seeing as how everything has to be spoonfed to you.
I thought you'd understand that I'm, like, referring to the "serious core" of your inept attempt at hyperbolic parody.

You might've caught up on that when I said:

"I laughed when reading this, but on a serious note (only because you're seemingly not getting it):

Yea, that's it in a nutshell, basically."

Well, apparently you didn't.
I have a new rule, though - from this moment on, I'm going to treat you like a toddler with Asperger's. I must say, I've never met a women in real life that behaved on par with a toddler with Asperger's. But I'm gonna take this into account now.

Gaffer Tape said:

RE:  Ziggy

Oh, please.  He's only admitted about two dozen times that he's doing this for kicks.  He knows it.  You know it.  We all know it.  I know we're not supposed to feed the troll, but this one is just so entertaining!

EDIT:  Crap.  I forgot to "back that up".  Oh, well, I suppose one direct quote will have to do for now.

I just like being blunter and snarkier than I have to, SOMETIMES, and I like offending people over NOTHING (go struggle with the wonderful irony of THAT).

So who's doin' it for kicks now?

The thing is, I wasn't the one to attack myself in in the first page of this thread, and I wasn't the one to bring up this whole "opinion vs. fact" thing.

CP originally derailed this thread, RedFive the other. I'm basically just defending myself (not that it wasn't fun like a trainwreck).
So who's REALLY doing it for... da kicks?

I also don't just pop in and attack random people I haven't spoken with priorly. Every little "conflict" that's been going on here, wasn't started by myself. Go figure that one out.

"and I like offending people over NOTHING"
Which means, I post something non-offensive, that still offends people due to sensitivity crybaby butthurt syndrome.
If they don't get offended, so much the better.

So that has to do with me doing "it" for the kicks, what exactly?
Defending myself against your laughable accusations about "opinions"?
Having originally posted a few harmless remarks that got you and a few others so "riled up"?

Lol. That's all I can say.

Ziggy Stardust said:

He doesn't get it. We should just give up.

Not even joking here, but maybe he has some type of learning disability...

Heh, you don't even know what I "don't get". What exactly is this that I "don't get"?

Oh and yea, you're the guy who just posts random empty insults. "Shut up" is a valid example! Keep telling about "learning disabilities", you clown.

Gaffer Tape said:

twooffour said:

You just kinda fail at sarcasm.

 Really?  Can you back that up?  Because I don't see you backing that up.  I just see you sorta dancing around it and avoiding it.

You're easily forgetting that in that same post where you "approved" of my banal comment about homosexuality in Politics (about as banal as this one), you then went on to act like a disingenuous dick.

Um, nope, you must not have read my post right, nor not read all of it, or thought about not reading it.  I guess I should dismiss the rest of your post because what I was saying should be obvious to anyone who read it.  Because the only other contribution I made in that post was voting in TV Frink's poll.  Maybe the fact that I voted for you was enough to get you riled up, but I would hardly call that being a "disingenuous dick."  But what do I know?  My opinions are just opinions after all.  Your opinions are facts... somehow.  I still haven't figured out how that is, though.  Perhaps you could spend about three yards' worth of text on a rambling post that goes nowhere, mentions "irony" about five times, "holding water" about three, and making claims of "backing stuff up" about nine times, with about half a dozen quote boxes in it to explain it to me again? ^_^

Why you fail at sarcasm? Because you act as if simply repeating back lines at me were somehow good biting sarcasm, while actually coming off as more stupid as you want to portray me.

Where I'm backing it up? Maybe right in the next paragraph, which you're... quoting and replying to in your next paragraph?
Gee, you're a funny one!

Yea, you "voted against me", let's look at that. (And we already have.)
So you ask me why I should think that if everyone thinks I'm an ass (and they're okay), could I consider that maybe I'm the problem?

Well, I'm posting a lengthy response to that.
Your reaction? Dismissing it entirely, still insisting that I WAS the problem, and "deserving" of the criticism.
Almost as if you already had made up your mind before asking, and whatever I'd have babbled together, it wouldn't have ever mattered.

Now, I might've justified conclusively and beyond all doubt (hey, I said might) why I thought otherwise.
And whether I was right about it or not, you hadn't even begun to address any of that, and from the looks, you might as well have been cluelessly insisting on your (now rebuked) version, which you wouldn't know as you hadn't read it, eh?
Which pretty much made me right at the time being (and still continues to this moment, as you haven't caught up yet).

But forget all that - I just got "riled up" because "you voted against me".
It wasn't a dick move on your part in any way, and you also didn't come off as stupid in any form or shape.
I should've just swallowed your vote, and been nice as you'd helped me out so much with that important Politics contribution!



Here's the thing, dear - if you weren't being such a disingenuous dick RIGHT NOW, I wouldn't have been forced to retell this boring story for the x-th time.

You had that reaction, coming, and it's pretty pathetic of you to try and pretend otherwise.
And with that said, you failed at the sarcasm :D

Your opinions are facts... somehow.  I still haven't figured out how that is, though.

Perhaps you could spend about three yards' worth of text on a rambling post that goes nowhere

Gaffer Tape said:

twooffour said:

 

HYPOCRISY MUCH? UNINTENDED IRONY?  BUTTHURT?!

Comeback fail, heh.

 

Oooh, really?  Can you back that up?  Because I don't see you backing that up.  I just see you dancing around it.

I've backed it up right in the previous paragraph, you very smart person.

Gaffer Tape said:

twooffour said:

Gaffer Tape said:

No, Frink!  You can't say things like that!  If you say you didn't read a post, or almost didn't read a post, or read a post on the wrong day of the week, or read a post in a way he didn't like you to read the post, or read the Saturday Evening Post, he's going to have ammunition to invalidate everything you say for the rest of your life.

Oh... like he wasn't going to do that anyway.

I admit I don't hear any hillbilly or ten year old voices, but I do register a monotonous buzzing whenever I read any of his quote pyramid rants, and it does tend to give one a headache.

I laughed when reading this, but on a serious note (only because you're seemingly not getting it):

Yea, that's it in a nutshell, basically.

Ooooh, so that means you've read all 7,000+ posts I've made?  You've read all my contributions on other forums?  You've read my personal diary?  You've read the novel I've written?  You obviously haven't read my contribution that C3PX encouraged you to seek out a minute ago.  And you say you don't very well remember the conversation we had when you first joined.  How can you possibly be expected to contribute to this conversation if you aren't completely up to date on every single thing I've ever said?  You would just look stupid to those who are.

So I guess that means I have grounds now to invalidate everything you've said and everything you're going to say because you obviously haven't come to this debate prepared enough to really know what you're talking about. ^_^

EDIT:  Oh, crap!  I just realized that, in an effort to not have my quote box all cluttered up, that I didn't quote twooffour's entire post and respond to it line by line.  That means he's going to assume I only read the portion I quoted!  And since his opinions are always factual, I guess I'm screwed!  It must be true, even though I know differently!

Sigh, another sarcasm fail post.

First of all, I just shared my rough memories of what had happened - if you want, you can dig it out and post a link. Or tell me to do so, if I've got anything wrong.
That's what I'd have done ;)

No idea what you're buzzing on about there, or why you're talking about reading all 7000 posts of yours.
If you can't be bothered to KEEP UP WITH A RUNNING CONVERSATION, you should probably bow out. That's all I said.

No one ever said anything about having to search for all my contributions to the world in order to study my personality. What kind of crap is that.

Have I already linked you to that other board about that other topic, where I'm totally nice to everyone?
Yea, didn't think you'd care, either.

Oh yea, and congrats on thinking I took your "Saturday Evening Post" "gag" at face value.
Or maybe I'm not getting something here.

But yea, keep up with the current discussion, or you know, you won't keep up. How difficult is that understand?
When you tell a kid "don't step on a mine, otherwise you might explode", do the kids usually go on yelling lame attempts at sarcastic parodies at you? Like "oh, oh, and what if I step on pavement, will I explode too??"?

If they did, you know what you'd think of them. Now just project.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

Well, first of all, I'm not trying to get Gaffer Tape...

Better not be! She's mine!

 

twooffour said:

I generally don't treat people in real life as I do on the internets.

Obviously! If you did you'd have died long ago from tiny bits of skull fragments breaking off and tearing into your brain.

Probably not in the area where I'm livin' - but it's interesting to note that, if this scenario were true, the people responsible for that would've been way, way worse dicks than I'd have been. The scum of humanity, in fact.
Just as here :)
(Not the scum of humanity part, I mean)

Fortunately, pragmatism on the internet is for losers :D