Why Uwe Boll deserves to die, or at least suffer great pain.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:20 pm

j-man wrote:Why is batshit supposedly so insane, anyway?

Haven't you ever watched Ace Ventura 2?

j-man · Post by **j-man** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:12 pm

Yeah, but I had a real life experience which makes me doubt that insanity. Read the last post on page 2.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:09 pm

j-man wrote:Didn't the Joker break his own neck in one book? He's a fuckin' nutcase.

The interesting thing about that scene is that the Joker's speech bubbles are colored gray, just as Batman's thought bubbles are. I've always thought that was meant to indicate that Batman actually did strangle the Joker to death in Dark Knight Returns, but he deluded himself into thinking that the Joker did it to himself with "a devil's strength". As if Batman couldn't comprehend that he really killed someone, so he made up a fantasy that he didn't.

j-man · Post by **j-man** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:33 pm

Intriguing.

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:08 pm

Yeah, and not only are they gray, but their borders are jagged and squigly in exactly the same way. The only difference between Bats' thought bubbles and the Joker's dialogue bubbles is that the Joker's have pointers while Batman's are free-floating. It is creepy!

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:56 pm

Amazing Grant wrote:
j-man wrote:Didn't the Joker break his own neck in one book? He's a fuckin' nutcase.
The interesting thing about that scene is that the Joker's speech bubbles are colored gray, just as Batman's thought bubbles are. I've always thought that was meant to indicate that Batman actually did strangle the Joker to death in Dark Knight Returns, but he deluded himself into thinking that the Joker did it to himself with "a devil's strength". As if Batman couldn't comprehend that he really killed someone, so he made up a fantasy that he didn't.

Memento redux?

Post by **Esrever** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:16 pm

Yes, only in the mid 1980s.

Baba O'Reily · Post by **Baba O'Reily** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:07 pm

Esrever wrote:Yes, only in the mid 1980s.

Niiice.

muke · Post by **muke** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:35 pm

Light Speed wrote:
Green Gibbon! wrote:Whatever happened to that Crazy Taxi movie?
I think they realized it was the dumbest fucking thing they could ever come up with.

Well, just fill up the cast with no-name college students (like myself) or 3rd rate actors, underfund it by about a half million, and pay off somebody to give it a great and pretentious review and you got yerself an indy film that will go far on IFC or Bravo!

plasticwingsband · Post by **plasticwingsband** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:57 pm

muke wrote:
Light Speed wrote:
Green Gibbon! wrote:Whatever happened to that Crazy Taxi movie?
I think they realized it was the dumbest fucking thing they could ever come up with.
Well, just fill up the cast with no-name college students (like myself) or 3rd rate actors, underfund it by about a half million, and pay off somebody to give it a great and pretentious review and you got yerself an indy film that will go far on IFC or Bravo!

The sad part about that is it would probably happen.

Djbrayster · Post by **Djbrayster** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:24 am

say give Uew Boll the rights to a Sonic live action movie.. he might actually make something as crazy as that idea work... or at least seeing a zombie tails doll would make my nightmares come true!

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:07 am

Why would a Sonic movie be live-action?

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:35 am

Because it's Uwe Boll.

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 am

say give Uew Boll the rights to a Sonic live action movie.. he might actually make something as crazy as that idea work... or at least seeing a zombie tails doll would make my nightmares come true!

So, they'll (the Sonic cast) will all be 3D models or something while they get some real life guy to wear a fat suit and mustache? That's kinda scary.
~Neo

Post by **Esrever** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:28 am

No, it'll be like Garfield. Sonic will be CG, but for Tails and Knuckles, they'll just use an actual fox and echidna.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:44 pm

Yeah, what the hell was up with that? Odie does not look like a regular dog, he's like a yellow elongated thing. He just doesn't work as a beagle or whatever the fuck they used for him. I never saw the movie, but I saw the trailers.

Oh and let's not joke about a live action Sonic movie, Uwe could be watching!

Neo Yi · Post by **Neo Yi** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:14 pm

I think I remember REALLY long time ago when the Garfield movie was still new news with the only picture given is of Garfield looking more like a 2D character set in our world ala Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Odie also getting the same treatment, playing in a autumn leaf pile. It makes me wonder if they originally intended that.

I'm not too thrilled about Odie being a regular dog, or from what I've heard, all the other animals to begin with.
~Neo

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:17 pm

Seriously, having Odie and the other animals as "real" animals was the worst possible idea for the Garfield movie.

...After the idea of actually making a Garfield movie.

Djbrayster · Post by **Djbrayster** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:32 am

yeah me and mum thought the film wasn't as bad as we expected, but the whole real animals idea sucked. I think they only had the budget to try the new methods on Garfield and not garfield and odie.

muke · Post by **muke** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:55 pm

I have no idea why they didn't do anything for Odie, or the other animals for that matter? If they were able to do it for the Bullwinkle movie, which made about half as much, then why not here? The only reason that I can think of is because they wanted the audience's focus to be only, or as much as possible, on Garfield, but even that's not a good excuse!

Post by **Esrever** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:08 pm

The whole premise of the Garfield film was bankrupt. The most basic concept behind Garfield is that he is an incredibly lazy. That just doesn't work with the whole "wacky cartoon character in the real world" premise. Garfield isn't supposed to run around or dance or set up wacky sight gags. He's supposed to sit on his ass, eat and bitch. Yes, somehow they found a way to violate the intergrity of a comic strip that didn't have any to begin with.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:12 pm

Well you all read the article talking about how he made money through mediocrity or something right. The whole point to the film was to make a bit more cash, that's all.

muke · Post by **muke** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:15 pm

In one of the many Calvin and Hobbes books, Bill Watterson expressed his hatred for/of becoming a sellout. Forever I have been looking for proof that these people actually exist in the comic world, and the answer has finally come to me, with the name of Jim Davis.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:18 pm

It's more common to find a sellout than to find someone that isn't, especially in the newspaper strips.

Light Speed · Post by **Light Speed** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:18 pm

He isn't a sellout. You have to actually sell out to become a sellout, he was in it for the money from the beginning.