Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@George:

If you ever go to SF, CA, spend a weekend in the Castro district, telling the locals that you're "searching for the penis that turns you gay".

I think you'll find it!

Up his arse no less.

G

Oh please. If Dr. Manhattan was actually a blue naked Megan Fox with her assets bobbing around, there would be NO complaints.

And a lot more ticket sales.

Vladsimpaler wrote:Oh please. If Dr. Manhattan was actually a blue naked Megan Fox with her assets bobbing around, there would be NO complaints.

And a lot more ticket sales.

And what's your point?

Vladsimpaler wrote:Oh please. If Dr. Manhattan was actually a blue naked Megan Fox with her assets bobbing around, there would be NO complaints.

And a lot more ticket sales.

My first thought was 'duh, geeks are mostly hetero dudes and so they prefer nude chicks to nude blokes', but then I figured we should test this theory.

Beowulf, with a CGI Angelina Jolie in the nuddy grossed $82,161,969. Watchmen, with a CGI blue wang, grossed $107,509,799.

Turns out us geeks are 30.8% bigger fans of bloke bits.

sebster wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:Oh please. If Dr. Manhattan was actually a blue naked Megan Fox with her assets bobbing around, there would be NO complaints.

And a lot more ticket sales.

My first thought was 'duh, geeks are mostly hetero dudes and so they prefer nude chicks to nude blokes', but then I figured we should test this theory.

Beowulf, with a CGI Angelina Jolie in the nuddy grossed $82,161,969. Watchmen, with a CGI blue wang, grossed $107,509,799.

Turns out us geeks are 30.8% bigger fans of bloke bits.

I think that had more to do with Angelina's disgusting, slutty, whore bits being old news than anything else.

Megan Fox, on the other hand, is fresh meat, younger, and much less of a gigantic whore.

Beowulf actually grossed $82M? Really? It looked crappy.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Beowulf actually grossed $82M? Really? It looked crappy.

It was.

I enjoyed a few scenes, and I thought Grendel was pretty well done. The dragon scene towards the end just raised questions for me though...

All in all it was watchable, and not necessarily bad.

I think it did as well as it did because of the allure of the 3D and semi nude Jolie. The 3D was fairly well done but the movie seemed to swing wildly from wanting to be the 'real' story of Beowulf to fantasy.

Platuan4th wrote:I think that had more to do with Angelina's disgusting, slutty, whore bits being old news than anything else.

Megan Fox, on the other hand, is fresh meat, younger, and much less of a gigantic whore.

You can try to reason your way out of it, but I proved it with science. I had numbers and everything.



Meanwhile, did Jolie shoot your dog or something?

In other news: That's the first time I've ever seen the words 'disgusting' and 'Angelina Jolie' in the same sentence.

I'm game:

It's disgusting that Angelina Jolie doesn't have a publicly-available sex tape like Pam or Paris.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Up his arse no less.

My arse? I don't kiss, I don't give reach arounds and I don't take it (only gays take it). PM me if you're interested.

This thread is deteriorating a bit...

Apologies. Please continue to discuss Watchmen.

I found the fast-slow-fast fight scenes a bit irritating. Did anyone else think so?

George Spiggott wrote:Apologies. Please continue to discuss Watchmen.

You better apologize buddy... you better apologize... .

dogma wrote:In other news: That's the first time I've ever seen the words 'disgusting' and 'Angelina Jolie' in the same sentence.

How about, "I find Angelina Jolie to be, in general, disgusting. In particular during and since the 'Billy Bob Thorton years'."

I really liked her in the Bone Collector, thought she did an excellent acting job. And since then, I can't think of one thing she's done that I've liked. And I don't find her that attractive either, I mean, when Mick Jagger can look at someone and say, "those are some big lips you got", it says somthing.

And the comments about a CGI Jolie and her dangly bits. As that wonderful entertainer and human-being Rosie O'Donnell said to Madonna in League of their Own, "Do you think there's a man in America who hasn't seen your bosoms?"

edit:
Back to OT. I haven't seen the film. It's not real high on my list. I bought Indiana Jones: the Last Hurrah (or whatever it was called, Crystal Skulls maybe?) about 3 months and still haven't watched it. I'd rather watch the Steelers beat up on the Brownies this weekend than watch the Watchmen. I think Zak Snyder is like a lot of artists. He might be talented, and he might not be, but it doesn't matter, because (in general) I don't care for his work.

I really like the Watchmen comic. Still read it occasionally. I don't see how it would translate onto film very well. But, it doesn't have to. Print media and movies are two different animals - a story can work well in one format and flop in another. And I don't have a problem with the movie not staying 'true' to the comic, it just can't. But, I think the Black Freighter and Under the Hood are essential parts of the comic story, and omitting those from the film gives me a lower opinion of it.

ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND!

This weekend for me baby. Rum, pizza, and real buttered popcorn comingatme!

sebster wrote:[Meanwhile, did Jolie shoot your dog or something?

No, she's just disgusting. Aside from making out with her brother and marrying Billy Bob, her favorite past time when bored is to phone a friend(regardless of age or sex) and tell them to come over a feth her.

Seriously, all the weirdness she's done I can't find her the slightest bit attractive.

Frazzled wrote:ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND!

This weekend for me baby. Rum, pizza, and real buttered popcorn comingatme!

Saw it on Friday. Was planning on going to see couples retreat(I know it got bad reviews), but time didin't allow. So we went to see zombieland. It wasn't really my cup o' tea. Bill Murray stole the movie. IMO.

GG

For a movie called Zombie-etc... etc... it really was lacking in that respect. A whole lot of drama, but sincerely though... not. enough. zombie. action.

Platuan4th wrote:

sebster wrote:[Meanwhile, did Jolie shoot your dog or something?

No, she's just disgusting.

I feel that way about Megan Fox. She looks like leather and I worry about STD's. Some of the stuff she has said in interviews is also facepalm worthy. Sorry ladies, give me Rosario Dawson or Aisha Tyler over either of them any day.

I don't find Megan Fox disgusting. I don't think she's all that and a bag of chips either. But, I don't think that I've ever heard her talk either.

Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jessica Alba are on my list right now. I'm not sure that there's another 3 women to put on my list, but if I think about it, I could probably come up with some names.

Frazzled wrote:ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND!

I'm seriously thinking of seeing Wild Things when it comes out.
____

Ahtman wrote:

No, she's just disgusting.

I feel that way about Megan Fox.

Oh, please. Like you wouldn't do her in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, please. Like you wouldn't do her in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.

I wouldn't, I would like to keep living in my house with my family and to keep my two best friends (and I don't mean the ones in the Winnebago).

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Frazzled wrote:ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND! ZOMBIELAND!

I'm seriously thinking of seeing Wild Things when it comes out.
____

Ahtman wrote:

No, she's just disgusting.

I feel that way about Megan Fox.

Oh, please. Like you wouldn't do her in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.

She isn't really all that special when she isn't 60 feet wide on the big screen, have artificial lighting, and several thousand dollars worth of makeup prep. Not to mention the freaky collagen injected lips. I went to school with girls that were just as beautiful. I'va also been around long enough to see I don't really let my penis lead me around so no, I wouldn't "do her" in a heartbeat.

There’s been a shift in this dynamic in Bay’s last two movies. In the Transformers films, Megan Fox remains surprisingly involved for a Bay heroine; she fights robots, dates the hero, and has an investment in usual relationship models. (Instead of marriage, she wants Shia LaBeouf, lead character and commitment-phobe, to say, “I love you.”) But she’s also far more objectified than Bay’s other female leads. One of the most recognizable shots from the first film has Fox bent over the hood of a car, stomach gleaming, talking about engines while the sunlight coats her in a lazy, sweaty haze. In the second film, she’s introduced bent over, ass in the air, straddling a motorcycle like an extra from David Cronenberg’s Crash.

Both scenes are Maxim-style sexy; pin-up poses simultaneously pornographic and laughably adolescent. For all his endless fetishization (and everything in an MBM is fetishized, even down to the L.A. smog), Bay rarely seems comfortable with actual sex. His movies exist in a world of perpetual teenage frenzy, where the thought of naked girls is primary, but the actual mechanics of what to do should a willing one arrive on the scene are far too complicated to contemplate. Fox doesn’t represent a huge leap forward for the director, but at the very least, she shows us what he’s been striving for all this time—a pretty girl who’s a little slutty (but not a lot), with a tough, kick-ass exterior, and who deep down just wants to be loved. And by “loved,” we mean some hugging, tongue-kissing, and maybe a little light petting.

I think laughably adolescent summarizes here appeal. I'm not laughing and I'm not an adolescent so she doesn't really do it for me.

I think I can count all of the women I've turned down sexually, barring a committed relationship, on... no hands, so I guess I'm going to have to say that I'm fine with any of them.

I'd agree with that. I saw a lot of comparison between Fox and Jolie when the first Transformers came out, but honestly I don't see it. Fox is attractive because she's young, and well-proportioned. Not that Jolie isn't, she most certainly is, but she also benefits from a great deal of eccentricity which many men find highly appealing. The same can be said of Scarlet Johanson, Rosario Dawson, Marilyn Monroe, etc.

Does it make me not a man that I don't like either Fox or Jolie?

There's something...off about them.

Now Stana Katic? Yummy.