Noctivagus
Intern
Twinkle twinkle little bat, you'll never get away with that.
Posts: 26
|
Post by Noctivagus on Oct 29, 2008 13:32:17 GMT -8
2) Those are the Romulans in the new Star Trek film. Noooooooooooooooooooooo.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Oct 29, 2008 15:17:01 GMT -8
I learned this some time ago and here goes again. All you need to know Sorry Hook that's so two months ago. Now they are really into dead bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Oct 29, 2008 16:47:38 GMT -8
I'm so glad that I have no earthly idea what the hell you guys are talking about. I learned this some time ago and here goes again. All you need to know: Woof. Woof. Hook has started a Wolf Thread. Last night, I was bored so I finally ventured onto the off-topic section, of the FSM board, to see what these what you guys were talking about. Wow, who let the dogs out? There's a thread about the wolf thread and a thread about the male anatomy. I could only get through three pages...
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Oct 29, 2008 18:55:31 GMT -8
So... somebody stuck the FSM logo on a picture of two gay black dudes?
I still don't really get how this is of any interest. Maybe it's just my refusal to read the FSM boards...
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Oct 29, 2008 19:03:30 GMT -8
So... somebody stuck the FSM logo on a picture of two gay black dudes? No, no, no... from what I read on this board, FSM users haven't discovered porn on the internet because, apparently, they only visit soundtrack websites. They have "Hey, check this out!" threads dedicated to the arousal of males. Lately, they had one dedicated to the arousal of the wrong kind of males. The gay kind. Havoc ensued. The picture comes from the profile of a Universal Studios janitor/film score enthusiast. I put the logo there to inform the users of this board that don't frequent FSM all they need to know about their message board. The end.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Oct 29, 2008 19:21:28 GMT -8
An INTERNET FORUM that still responds to PORN with childlike surprise and delight!?! I don't buy it for a second.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Oct 29, 2008 19:59:20 GMT -8
Last night, I was bored so I finally ventured onto the off-topic section, Second mistake. First mistake. I think we are up to third mistake.
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on Oct 29, 2008 20:05:34 GMT -8
No, no, no... from what I read on this board, FSM users haven't discovered porn on the internet because, apparently, they only visit soundtrack websites. They have "Hey, check this out!" threads dedicated to the arousal of males. Lately, they had one dedicated to the arousal of the wrong kind of males. The gay kind. Havoc ensued. That's the best summary of the situation I've ever seen. ;D They also have a women's breasts thread in the "on-topic" section now. Those aren't the worst threads though.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Nov 14, 2008 22:55:38 GMT -8
www.vimeo.com/2246656I don't understand people who comment "I don't like movies that rely too much on special effects". Isn't that a good thing? For the most part, effects artists are far more talented than those running the show. Anyway, does Kirk live on City 17? What's up with the Combine officer, then?
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Nov 15, 2008 3:35:08 GMT -8
I don't know why they had to bloody turn Kirk into the handsome rebel who PLAYS BY NO RULES BUT HIS OWN. Did Abrams even WATCH the Original Series? Young Kirk was distinctly described as a "walking stack of books" back then, not the James Dean OF THE FUTURE!
Also, the Combine soldier cracks me up.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Nov 17, 2008 16:38:27 GMT -8
The trailer completely shattered any and all hopes I had of this movie being at least competent. What have you done, J.J?! I honestly don't think anyone involved with this upcoming film ever watched the original series, much less understands that you don't blow this film up to Michael Bay proportions and still call it Star Trek. May as well rename it Steroid Trek. The injection of modern sensuality into the film looks jarringly contemporary, as opposed to the wonderfully absurd romances of Roddenberry's original Kirk. The action looks right for a modern Star Trek film, but completely wrong for the sensibilities of the original series. The characters have been morphed into teen angst/soap opera versions of their former selves; practically unrecognizable. Gene is rolling in his grave over this trailer.
Warning: Incoming trainwreck.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Nov 17, 2008 17:56:24 GMT -8
The trailer completely shattered any and all hopes I had of this movie being at least competent. What have you done, J.J?! I honestly don't think anyone involved with this upcoming film ever watched the original series, much less understands that you don't blow this film up to Michael Bay proportions and still call it Star Trek. May as well rename it Steroid Trek. The injection of modern sensuality into the film looks jarringly contemporary, as opposed to the wonderfully absurd romances of Roddenberry's original Kirk. The action looks right for a modern Star Trek film, but completely wrong for the sensibilities of the original series. The characters have been morphed into teen angst/soap opera versions of their former selves; practically unrecognizable. Gene is rolling in his grave over this trailer. Warning: Incoming trainwreck. Told you so. Gene must be screaming from above. Joe
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Nov 19, 2008 8:00:55 GMT -8
The characters have been morphed into teen angst/soap opera versions of their former selves; practically unrecognizable. 'nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Nov 19, 2008 9:13:57 GMT -8
Sad, but true.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by TJ on Nov 19, 2008 16:27:30 GMT -8
I can't believe their having Chow (from whatever show that was) as Sulu.
|
|