yendi: (Default)
[personal profile] yendi
One could argue that I deserve that title, as I went to a lecture with a non-that-charged laptop, and by the time it was done, had seen the battery say, "fuck that noise, I'm out of here," and shut off. I did lose about five half-completed LJ posts, but everything else was saved. So I'll call that a wash.

Instead, here's the dumbest person on the Internet today, courtesy of [livejournal.com profile] nihilistic_kid. Warning: Contains spoilers for Watchmen, and a lot of stupidity. If I didn't know better, I'd say it was satire.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 08:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alladinsane.livejournal.com
actually she was there day before yesterday

Is it wrong of me ...

Date: 2009-03-06 08:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fmi-agent.livejournal.com
... to find that right-wing rant very, very funny?

I just Twittered that I find that review to be more entertaining than I could possibly imagine the actual movie to be.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 08:43 pm (UTC)
amokk: (Hate Everyone Equally)
From: [personal profile] amokk
My only comment is re: the timeline. Uh, this is a graphic novel that was written in 86-87, so yeah, wtf. Anything past that point was speculation, and anything prior is "hey, what if there were superheroes, how would that alter history."

Idiot.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 08:47 pm (UTC)
thornsilver: (angelina jolie)
From: [personal profile] thornsilver
Oh, gods, I still cannot stop giggling on that review. I think once the "critic" doesn't know that the movie is based on a book, they get a default fail, but boy, this is priceless! *ROFLMAO!!!*

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 08:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ex-gnomicut.livejournal.com
...I am still flabbergasted when people like that turn out to be Jewish. She capitalizes "white".

I think I need to go wash my soul a little.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] feste-sylvain.livejournal.com
To defend her just a little, she does report that "plenty of clueless parents brought their young kids and kept them there for the entire [showing]". So if she's brain-dead enough to believe that anything vaguely super-hero oriented is per force for children, she's not alone in that delusion.

This reminds me of the movie critic who savaged Heavy Metal because she expected something like Bambi from every cartoon EVAR.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aiela.livejournal.com
"parents WONT KNOW!"

Parents who don't bother to do ten minutes of research before they take their kids to an R rated movie, maybe, but I don't think the R rated movie is the problem in that case ...

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thelastrobot.livejournal.com
Man. I like how presenting the concept of a fictionalized, alternate timeline is the same as 'getting it wrong on purpose'.


Next she'll tell me that Chuck Berry doesn't have a cousin named Marvin...Marvin Berry!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com
It is getting it wrong on purpose! The whole movie was made on purpose!

As funny as her idiot reaction though are the people in the comments saying, "No no, it wasn't on purpose."

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] trochee.livejournal.com
I so want her to be writing for the New Frontiersman.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thelastrobot.livejournal.com
I suppose I wasn't clear in my Back To The Future reference, but I read what she said to mean 'getting it wrong on purpose' as in 'for the sake of getting something wrong'. Not in the way that we're all aware that it was done on purpose.

I'll go with a Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey reference next time.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com
And I was doing a Simpsons, "They made this movie on purpose!" reference.


Hoist by our own nerdtards!


*BURSTS into tears*

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 09:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] thelastrobot.livejournal.com
Man! We were!!!!!

*BURSTS into more references*

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 10:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robyn-ma.livejournal.com
I don't remember anyone getting their arms and hands sawn off in the graphic novel...?

Unless it's the fat guy who gets his fingers broken and tied up inside Rorschach's cell door?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 10:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com
Well, there is the guy who gets handcuffed and left with a saw. The saw won't cut through the cuffs before the fire kills him so his choice is...

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 10:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] robyn-ma.livejournal.com
From what I hear, Rorschach doesn't present the kid-killer with that choice in the movie; he just brains him with the meat cleaver. Probably because Saw already did the 'mooohahaha, will you cut off your foot or die to death' thing...

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-06 11:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kellirose1313.livejournal.com
The problem I have with it is every commenter that points out it's really not marketed towards kids just gets a response from her about how kids were there and it's superheroes so obviously for kids totally.

Her stupid would hurt less if she wasn't so completely jump down the throat of any dissenting opinion without even hearign what they say.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-07 12:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] skitty.livejournal.com
To defend her just a little, she does report that "plenty of clueless parents brought their young kids and kept them there for the entire [showing]". So if she's brain-dead enough to believe that anything vaguely super-hero oriented is per force for children, she's not alone in that delusion.

Indeed, and I forgave her a little for that observation as well, until I read her bullet list at the bottom of the post detailing why this movie is HARMFUL and WRONG because it teaches kids about lesbians and violence.

Seriously, it's R-rated for a reason. The MPAA doesn't think it's suitable for kids, and labeled it handily for our unresearched consumption.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-07 02:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] muse0fire.livejournal.com
The writer is a woman who apparently thinks that Ann Coulter is a "wit" and an "intellect." *gag*

Oh - and in case my husband is reading the comments (he reads your blog) - she went to University of Michigan :-D

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-07 06:05 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] katelaity.livejournal.com
[i]And that's where real parenting comes in . . . like actually investigating the movie before you take or send your kids to see this garbage.[/i]

Only then? I am so sick of lazy 'parents' who don't really give a fuck about anything including their kids and then whine and complain about how mean everybody is or how unfair the world is. Die already and take your hideous spawn with you.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-08 09:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] penmage.livejournal.com
My favorite part is the first line:

"If you take your kids to see "Watchmen," you're a moron."

Yes, you are. Because, hello, it IS rated R. That's not a secret. This is a graphic, gory, violent movie. I wouldn't take a kid to it.

But honestly, if she thinks Watchmen is being marketed to kids, she is just stupid.

Profile

yendi: (Default)
yendi

February 2024

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819 2021222324
2526272829  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags