Well, you're definitely wrong on that, cause I did.Zachary Amaranth said:I doubt you looked that up, as if you did, you'd probably know you had it backwards.
Strawberry Shortcake ON MOTORCYCLESGabanuka said:Fuck. I did not think of that repercussion from FIM. Ah well I'll just avoid Rainbow Brite GX
You're being trolled.Zachary Amaranth said:I doubt you looked that up, as if you did, you'd probably know you had it backwards.Draconalis said:I didn't know what all this "Han shot first" BS was about, so when I looked it up... I learned that he did not shoot first. In the original film, Greedo shot first, missed, and Han retaliated almost immediately.
Apparently in one of the remakes Lucas made him shoot first in the same way that Darth Vader now screams No as his son is about to be killed, and that's where all this stemmed from.
In the original film, Han shoots first. In the shoot version, they do a clumsy bit where Greedo shoots first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first
So anyway, not sure if you're trolling or got it seriously backward, but I wasn't out to complain about who shot first; in the original version, Han shot a dude flat-footed. Whether or not you think the "true" version of the movie is the original or the 12 re-takes, the point of the morality of the original shot vs homosexuality being the "loss of innocence" remains.Greedo tells Han "I've been looking forward to this for a long time." and Han replies "Yes, I'll bet you have." In the original theatrical version of the film, Han then shoots Greedo and Greedo dies without firing a shot. The scene was modified for the 1997 re-release to feature Han using his weapon in retaliation after Greedo fires at him; the latter missing Han at point-blank range (<2 meters away).[1][2]
Because honestly, I can't be bothered to argue what the "true" version of Lucas' work is or anything to that effect. The point was: Shooting people at point blank with no warning=morally good, gay marriage=morally wrong, evidently.
It's harly wrong to doubt you based on evidence given.Draconalis said:Well, you're definitely wrong on that, cause I did.
The evidence given? What evidence, the assumption you made that I used google? Or the that I used wiki? Great evidence.Zachary Amaranth said:It's harly wrong to doubt you based on evidence given.
Also, it was literally the first hit on my google search. You can't be serious.
Well, your accessment of the future of girls animation would be correct, if the hub didn't already reboot 90% of Hasbro's old properties including Stawrberry Shortcake has already been rebooted on the hub right next to Friendship is Magic.MovieBob said:Junk Drawer: Reloaded
Werewolves, boobs, politicians and Marcus Fenix.
Watch Video
As long as Ivy is wearing S&M gear people will complain sadly.... Majority of girls look really good is it wrong to say that they'll look better if they wear something like what Ivy wears every now and then.Falcon123 said:Your comparison between Soul Calibur and Twilight is interesting, but I think I've got far bigger problems with Twilight than the fact that Taylor Lautner's contract requires him to have his shirt off for the vast majority of the movie (as, I think, you do too). Until THOSE problems are fixed, I'm gonna continue complaining about it.
Oh, and is anyone really that excited for Soul Calibur V? I loved the second one, but the fourth one felt like a weak retread and the fifth one looks even worse to me.
Simple!wraith428 said:Feminism is not an insult but Masculism is... explain that one to me Bob.
You're a wise manSer Imp said:That bit about the potential for same sex relations is actually the most interesting thing I've heard about the Old Republic so far.
With the exception of Edward's pale-ass undead abs, I can safely say that bare male torsos are one of things in Twilight I DON'T have a problem with.
I also don't have a problem with revamped pop-culture heavy, current gen pandering versions of old girl's TV shows cause I'm just NOT gunna watch em!