kajeto posted:

Take a look at the big guy's belly.

Bad Sneakers posted:

http://www.polygon.com/2015/10/7/9471477/disney-princess-moana-to-be-voiced-by-hawaiian-teen

DandyLion posted:

You don't have to, just give him a slice. Detroit style is what, light cheese/ sauce with some bits of crumbling brick and concrete dust?

DontMockMySmock posted:

What are you expecting the "actual story" to be? Vampires are actually real? Someone expertly photoshopped her in/her reflection out for no goddamn reason?

Solice Kirsk posted:

[video type="youtu"]-e5gTx1fVU4[/video]
https://youtu.be/-e5gTx1fVU4

RareAcumen posted:

https://twitter.com/r3trosp3ctro/status/601419792076165121

The MSJ posted:

https://twitter.com/philwillon/status/783874781665865729

mrpwase posted:

SomeJazzyRat posted:

Oh my god dude. I'm starting to think your issue with RLM is that Mr. Plinkett sounds weird. And I could understand that, as it's an intentionally annoying voice that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. And intentionally intending to be annoying is still annoying, and the Plinkett voice is the 'aha, I was only pretending to be retarded' of annoying voices. And if that's true that you don't like the videos because of the performance, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong. It doesn't invalidate the argument if you don't like the way it's presented. And if there is something wrong with the arguments presented, I would actually love to hear them from you in ways that aren't blanket statements that have no meaning. Cause that makes this a conversation rather than trying to shut it down with obviously superior arguments.

And I want you to know, the Prequels were 'My Star Wars', released when I was a kid and the perfect age for Star Wars. And I thought for a long while that I just didn't like 'My Star Wars'. It was a story that I didn't understand, with characters I couldn't connect with. I felt like I should've connected with it, as that's what the marketing machine expected of me, but I felt like an outsider to a phenomenon that the rest of the world went crazy for. And when I rediscovered the original trilogy in my teens, I understood why Star Wars was that phenomenon. And when the RLM critiques blew up, I felt vindicated for my feelings of the prequels. They aren't good movies, just really shiny ones that are shiny enough to be considered 'entertainment'. And if you want to see why, here's a basic primer, try to ignore the annoying voice and the misogyny that colors the jokes

And as for The Thing. Again, young dude here. Didn't watch it for the longest time until last year. And I thought it was really good even though it was 30+ years out from it's release. If you want to criticize it, you could take issue with it's occasionally goofy effects, namely the very retro and out of place saucer that opens the film. You could also take issue with the pacing that gets tiring at the end. Personally I could look past it, as that tiring pacing acts as a reflection of the character's increasing fatigue and growing nihilistic outlook. But not being clear about it's character's motivations is kinda the point of the film, where people are thrown far deep into a situation that no one has experience in. And that situation certainly invites characters to act in ways that doing something without motivation also invites the audience to throw suspicion onto the characters, and suggests they might be a thing. Hell, your confusion over why Kurt Russel would convince everyone to blow up the place is because he's a thing, and that helps the thing accomplish it's goal.

However, it made sense to me why they wanted to burn up the fucker. It was frozen for the longest time, caught the Norwegian Camp unaware, massacred them and escaped to Kurt Russel's outpost. And not wanting that cycle to begin again, escaping or freezing so it could catch another team unaware, they decide they'll do the opposite of freezing it. They'll burn it up, and hopefully kill it or at least flush it out. And I don't know if you've experienced fire, but it radiates heat from a far distance. And it radiates it farther when it gets bigger. So a huge explosion that causes a huge fire will be really hot. And at the end of the film, that huge fire is radiating a lot of heat that they hope will kill the fucker. Though, without a corpse it's uncertain if it's dead or if it got Kurt Russel or Keith David. That uncertainty is a thematic through line that pervades the entire film, and acts as a fitting close to a film that's all about paranoia and uncertainty.

And that may of been a long post, however, it for a good reason. I didn't repeat or reiterate my points. I laid out a logical progression that explained my point of view with evidence to support it. Essay writing 101 stuff. And I do it so that people understand my point of view, and can either understand my thesis or to give them something to refute it. The Red Letter Media guys don't make their videos several hours long due to unchecked egotism, but because they find a lot of evidence in the film that supports their viewpoints. And they give clear reasoning on why their evidence supports their viewpoints, which takes some time to do, which leads to long runtimes out of necessity. And the reason I need to so clear, is so that you MisterBibs understand that the viewpoints that me and a lot of other posters who share beliefs that contradict yours isn't because things like The Thing or Star Wars or RLM are sacred gooses, but because we found a lot of factual evidence that support our claims that there were creative choices that led to our conclusions. There are major technical flaws with Star Wars, the Plinkett reviews have merit to the things you take issue with, and there is some concise reasoning as to why the events in The Thing lead to people blowing up a Antarctic Research Station.

Vietnamwees posted:

Oh, BOY! 63 new posts in the funny pictures thread! I hope there's some real good content!

*Finds most of the new posts are mostly about an argument over an old horror movie*

Goddamnit

Guy Goodbody posted:

flosofl posted: