Originally posted by Lews
I love how Baseball fans always say that. "Pfft you just don't understand it." They kind of remind me of Twilight fans like that.
I understand it perfectly. It's still boring.
quote:
Twilight's sulky vampires are less frightening than a knitted cushion
The campaign for real monsters starts now - By Charlie Brooker
Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.
The central theme, apparently, is abstinence; the heroine, Bella, is contemplating whether she wants to lose her virginity to a vampire or a werewolf. She's not allowed to try them both out, or get to second base with one and third with the other. And she's certainly not allowed to take them both on at once, although that would clearly make for a far better film. Whichever one she picks is the one she's stuck with for ever. In some quarters the films and books are lauded for their wholesome message, which is weird considering Bella is essentially deciding whether she'd rather shag a bat or a wolf. She's got zero interest in honest-to-goodness human-on-human action. No. It's magic farmyard creatures or nothing for her. Oh, and apparently she chooses the bat in the end, which is the worst possible choice, because being a vampire, he's not just any old bat, but one that's hundreds of years old and isn't even properly alive. If the final film doesn't culminate in a 28-minute shot of her lying spread-eagled on the marital bed tearfully rubbing the leathery, disintegrating corpse of a 200-year-old bat against her marital sector, the entire saga has been a cop-out and a lie.
But even if you weren't boycotting the film on the basis of its disgraceful necro-bestiality theme, boycotting it on the basis of its vampires is reason enough. Vampires are the worst monsters ever created, as the following list of the worst monsters ever created, in ascending order of badness and culminating in vampires, will prove:
Mummies. Zombies – mindless human-hating reanimated corpses – are brilliant monsters because their motivation is brutally simple: they're very hungry thick people. Yet mummies – who are effectively zombies in medicinal giftwrap – are laughably non-threatening. Since their teeth are covered up, they're reduced to stumbling around with outstretched arms trying to hug you to death. If they had erections, they'd be scary. But so would Goofy.
Ghosts. At its most ambitious a ghost might appear in your bedroom in the guise of a glowing holographic figure, loudly complaining about the circumstances of its death, particularly if you killed it. But that's the worst a ghost will do: whine about its own misfortune, like someone writing to Watchdog to moan about their broadband provider. And they usually don't even manage that. Instead, they make intermittent knocking sounds or slam the odd door in a huff. I've had neighbours worse than that. In fact there's a guy a few doors down who's been loudly practising the drums every weekend for the past five years with no sign of improvement. I'd gladly swap him for a ghost. Even if it walked through the walls and tried to stop my heart with its gaze every couple of nights it'd still be an improvement.
Serial killers. Real serial killers are genuinely frightening. You wouldn't catch me on a log flume ride with John Reginald Christie. No siree. But fictional serial killers are usually more pretentious than frightening, perpetually quoting Milton or arranging their victims in poses designed to evoke the martyrdom of St Sebastian. What are you, a cold-blooded murderer or the controller of Radio 3? Proper maniacs are too disturbed to complete a Sudoku, let alone conduct an intellectual game of cat-and-mouse with an existentially minded detective. Put your cryptic crossword down and just strangle people. Or don't bother.
Vampires. See? Worst. Vampires are the only monster that's actually grown less brutal and frightening as time has passed. Early vampires were stiff and aloof, with a cold sexual intent which was, at the very least, slightly creepy. Now they've got bloody feelings. They're lonely and tortured and all messed up inside. They spend more time staring at their shoes than killing people. Proper monsters only stare at their shoes when they're stamping on a villager's windpipe.
There is one good film about a meditative, troubled post-modern vampire: Martin, directed by zombie supremo George Romero in 1977. The main character is a disturbed young man who roams Pittsburgh by night, chemically sedating his victims with a syringe before razorblading their wrists and drinking their blood. But that's far too nasty and unsettling to pass muster as a vampire movie in today's wussy world.
No. Contemporary vampires come in two flavours, if you'll forgive the expression. Sexless wimps (Twilight) or smouldering hedonists (True Blood). Morrissey or Michael Hutchence. Both troubled. Both dreamy-eyed frontmen with nice hair. Forgive my pants for remaining unten.
It's a humiliating climbdown for a monster originally inspired by Vlad the Impaler, a man who'd happily eat his lunch while watching a skewered peasant slide down an immense wooden spike, being slowly and agonisingly dragged toward the ground by their own kicking, flailing body mass. Vlad would sit among entire forests of screaming human kebabs, chuckling and munching his oxburger or whatever the hell they ate back then.
Confronted with that kind of visceral horror, Robert Pattinson wouldn't make it through his asparagus and shaved parmesan starter. Even if he was only watching it on a 4-inch LCD screen. The .
Originally posted by The17sss
HAHA! Nice find, Lira.
Charlie Brooker is amazing. Here's his take on US TV:
:p
EgosXII
quote:
Originally posted by leph555
for the lols
IMG
switzerland subtely left out :stongue:
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Perhaps they should have put that money into the job market?
Then again, if Germany had to bail out Spain's economy because Spain had spent all their money on beating Germany, the irony would just be too delicious.
:stongue: :stongue:
so true
Moongoose
quote:
Originally posted by chimera66
serbian flag has no yellow
An inconvenient truth carefully avoided :D
quote:
Originally posted by The17sss
the abomination that is soccer ended, yet this thread still lives on. :disbelief
Well theres usually discussion after that yawnfest you yanks call the superball as well isnt there? Though i get it how you got confused as were actually talking about our beautiful game here and not about the commercials that were on :p Seriously, what does it say about handegg when the most exciting thing about it is the halftime and the commercials that are playing during it :p
quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
If I was inclined to elaborate but I'm not. I could careless whether you find baseball is boring or not or whether you want to watch it. And that's the difference between me and you soccer fans. You can't take it when people criticize your sport.
Ah, youre so proud that the baseball fans can take criticism of their sport (unlike us football fans), yet at the slightest mention that it might be boring you jump up in its defence and start making up its imaginary qualities:p
6 billion people arent wrong, thats how many people watch football and do not watch baseball or handegg.
GoSpeedGo!
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Anyone else notice Torres pull up with a hamstring injury near the end? Poor bastard wasn't celebrating at the end.
He was.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
So, basically, you're saying England couldn't win the world cup because they didn't have a winning mentality. They couldn't handle the pressure of history.
Which is not a problem in other sports. Which is "basically" my point. Or if you're not being idiotically reductive for the sake of argument, it's not that the English just have a losing mentality in general. We've actually had loads of sporting/athletics success recently.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Which is not a problem in other sports. Which is "basically" my point. Or if you're not being idiotically reductive for the sake of argument, it's not that the English just have a losing mentality in general. We've actually had loads of sporting/athletics success recently.
I wasn't suggesting you admitted it's a problem in other sports, and nor was I trying to reduce the case to World Cup only. I was pointing out your own admission that this mentality does exist in English sport - even if only in one tiny part of it. We'll just have to disagree that it doesn't apply to English team sports as a whole.
You guys are ing rubbish at sport anyway, I don't care what your recent results show. Look at the Olympic games all-time medal counts, surely the most reliable indicator of a country's sporting prowess. We've won 441, while (PNSG)GBR has won 737. Our population is a third of yours and yet we've won far more than half of your total. Of course, I have no way of proving that this is due to poor mentality. There are too many other factors at play. For now I'll just be content to call you a bunch of losers.
SYSTEM-J
I think it's more a case that Australia are exceptionally good at sports.
Look at the USA, who have the most Olympic medals: 2549 with 309 million people. If the UK had 309 million people, we'd have won 3673 medals, so our medal haul relative to population is actually considerably superior to the US. If Australia had 309 million people, you'd have won an incredible 6056 medals at the Olympics.
This is hardly a scientific method, but I don't think the Olympics back up your point in the slightest.
igottaknow
quote:
Originally posted by Moongoose
6 billion people arent wrong, thats how many people watch football and do not watch baseball or handegg.
cool statistics bro. So by your logic Islam is better than Christianity because there are more Muslims in the world. By the same token the more people who listen to Lady Gaga the better she is after all numbers can't be wrong? :stongue:
Moongoose
quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
cool statistics bro. So by your logic Islam is better than Christianity because there are more Muslims in the world. By the same token the more people who listen to Lady Gaga the better she is after all numbers can't be wrong? :stongue:
Are you saying islam is not better than christianity? Thats quite a loaded statement to make.
As for lady gaga the better she is the more people listen to her, not the other (stupid) way around like you said it.+
woscar
quote:
Originally posted by malek
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: wow you are amazing.:stongue: :stongue:
quote:
Originally posted by malek
wow go figure lol... only moron woscar with his biased goggles can't see the obvious.
Until this week the one thing I knew about the Twilight saga was that it had vampires in it, which was enough to put me off. I didn't realise it was a romantic fantasy aimed at teenage girls. Turns out it's possible to be put off something twice before you've actually seen it.
