Guest Mirezzi Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Courtland Mead really does need to become a WATMMeme. From the hideous, you can't make this shit up name to the pop-culture fringe / quasi-significance, he meets virtually every requirement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos scorcho Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 100% agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 goddess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Courtland Mead really does need to become a WATMMeme. From the hideous, you can't make this shit up name to the pop-culture fringe / quasi-significance, he meets virtually every requirement.. i forgot he existed until someone on here posted a string of pics where he has that same expression. i thought he was a kid i knew as a child, then realized that through cultural osmosis i had absorbed his face into my memory. he's like the archetypal 90's childhood personified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirezzi Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 he's like the archetypal 90's childhood personified. Exactly. Like if you took the Culkin boys, Haley Joel Osment, and Mark Paul Gosselar, stuck them in a microwave for thirty minutes on medium heat, you'd end up with: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 well lotr is mindless shite, so you won't get an argument out of me. anyway my point isn't that you can call these things mindless, or what their inherent value is as art, because they don't have any. my point is shitting on one and loving another is just a personal bias and it's kind of stupid to get on a high horse about one cash cow versus another. See in my opinion you can't compare the two at all. Other than the fact that they appeal to a younger audience. If you set the Harry Potter films in a universe where they characters were older then a lot of people would enjoy them a lot more than they do now. Harry Potter is easy to shit on because its all about a bunch of children. It's not some oversexed teen drama. It has a little more substance than just being entertaining. I'm not calling it high art or anything though. The fact that they are both cash cows is irrelevant to me. I can objectively call Harry Potter a better movie than Twilight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLA FUR BIS FLE Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 He looks like he is melting. He is wearing an Edgar suit. This topic is now about fart faces. If you find Kristen Stewart attractive, you are fucking gross and i bet you like to smell your own farts and bite your own toe nails and shit. So gross, get out of here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 What kind of shitty casting director looks at harelipped, malformed Courtland Mead and thinks this could have sprung forth from Rebecca De Mornay's pleasant loins? Even throwing Guy from Wings into the genetic mix, it's absurd. Fuck that miniseries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vamos scorcho Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 she's a goddess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 She certainly is special Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirezzi Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 What kind of shitty casting director looks at harelipped, malformed Courtland Mead and thinks this could have sprung forth from Rebecca De Mornay's pleasant loins? Even throwing Guy from Wings into the genetic mix, it's absurd. Mega-flol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirezzi Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 ... /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 well lotr is mindless shite, so you won't get an argument out of me. The movies yes. The books have some merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEK Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 i liked harry potter movies more than LOTR. more entertaining. i mean lotr books are classics but i didn't like jasckons spin on them. just like, my opinion, dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoodie Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 the movies are fantastic, wtf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I couldn't stand Jackson's LOTR. Jackson should have stuck to splatterpunk, it's the only emotional level he works on. Maybe it's Elijah Wood's fault, though, for expressing all internal conflict via crinkled eyebrows. I don't know. He seems to be more heavily burdened in Wilfred, for fuck's sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'm sure we can all agree that editing down all the Twilight movies to mountain and forest shots of the Pacific Northwest with Wolves In The Throne Room tracks playing in the background would be tolerable, amirite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'm sure we can all agree that editing down all the Twilight movies to mountain and forest shots of the Pacific Northwest with Wolves In The Throne Room tracks playing in the background would be tolerable, amirite? That sounds awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 the movies are fantastic, wtf. The movies are great visually, and tell a good story but they're hardly the most cerebral thing to hit cinemas. On the other hand the books have a bit more subtlety to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 The only good thing about the LOTR movies is they gave Orlando Bloom the confidence to disappear for a bit and return as Andrej Pejic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 for someone who has never read more than a few pages of LOTR (its not my bag guys, seriously, just let it go), I was pleasantly surprised with the movies. I think the flaw was that they "shot their load" so to speak with the battles in The Two Towers...by the time the third movie rolled around, you had pretty much already seen all the tricks and the epicness of the orc masses vs. humans/elves/etc. The addition of those giant war elephant type creatures would have been awesome...except having seen the exact same battle with minor changes in the last movies, my reaction was pretty "meh". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Her being overpayed is another tick on the "Why western civilization as it is must vanquish" list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.