sryans
Don Corleone
BROOKLYN, BROOKLYN
Posts: 2,001
|
Post by sryans on Dec 23, 2010 7:03:29 GMT -5
My point was that he called it "Suck" Pilgrim, it was obvious he didn't like the movie anyway. I don't get the need of doing that instead of just saying you didn't like something like an adult. That's pretty much it. I hate it when people put swear words or negative things in front of stuff they don't like because it just sounds stupid. Just say you don't like it and move on, you can make your point without sounding immature about it. Is that how you really feel Mr. eJm: Dumb in the UK? Do we see why altering names in such an unclever way is bad now?
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on Dec 23, 2010 11:04:02 GMT -5
What's immature about giving something a disparaging nickname? Because, simply put, it's not funny. It just sounds like something something came up with in 5 seconds instead of putting some damn effort into it. I didn't say that at all. Again, all I'm saying is put some effort into it if you're making a joke. 'Suck' Pilgrim just isn't funny and sounds moronic Techically, forums are made so then websites to keep users. I.e. what we used to have with WrestleCrap. It's building communities and all that jazz. Whatever else comes from it comes from it. But again, a lot of posters are popular, funny guys because they put effort into their jokes... ...which was, ironically, what you said was. That was actually funny. Putting cheap, rude words into titles is about as low humour you can get without using bodily functions or offending the world. I know your my mate and I'll sound like I'm just backing you up, but I agree 1000000000000%
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2010 13:31:18 GMT -5
Oh yeah, Armond White, by now, has more or less proven he's just a professional troll. I honestly think he thinks the opposite about a film, he just reviews them the way he does because he knows it'll = page views, and page views = money from the advertisers on his review pages. He knew damn well that if he, for example, gave Toy Story 3 a bad review, and thus screwed it out of a perfect Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes that people, in massive droves, would come to his site, read his review, or hell not even read the review just comment on the review, and he'd make major cash. Exactly. Just look at this off topic forum, nobody made a thread of Ebert's top ten films of the year or any other movie critic. But sometimes Armond's reviews are very interesting with valid points and are very well written.
|
|