Wolfire Games Forums

Why are you talking to a spam bot?
You must be really lonely. I pity you.

tokage wrote:Why are you talking to a spam bot?
You must be really lonely. I pity you.

Not lonely, bored. But I accept your pity, I'm taking all I can get.

Just count yourself lucky he didn't think you were stupid ...

cameleopard42 wrote:I've never seen or heard of it, but I looked it up and it apparently exists.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218791/



W...T...F???

LOL! ... I forgot about that little abomination ...

I figure that the guy who made that show was smoking weed while watching reruns of "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and thought "I can replace 'Buck Rodger' with anyone, make it a different century and it will be a god damn block buster!"

Which is kinda true to an extent ... I admit I'd probably watch a movie named "Samuel L. Jackson in the 24th Century"

I'd watch it just to see if it was really as awful as everybody would claim it was.

Glabbit wrote:Stop that xD
That film had nothing to do with the character Sherlock Holmes we know from the books. Way too americanised.

Also why does my spellingchecker allow 'Sherlock', but not 'Holmes'?

I'm sorry to direct a post at an old point, but Sherlock Holmes the film kicked ass, despite Dr. Watson being far too young and handsome, and despite the suggestion of homosexual tendancies between Holmes and Watson...

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Glabbit wrote:Stop that xD
That film had nothing to do with the character Sherlock Holmes we know from the books. Way too americanised.

Also why does my spellingchecker allow 'Sherlock', but not 'Holmes'?

I'm sorry to direct a post at an old point, but Sherlock Holmes the film kicked ass, despite Dr. Watson being far too young and handsome, and despite the suggestion of homosexual tendancies between Holmes and Watson...

When was that?

did my topic just get hijacked? anyway here the finish product, I didnt feel like adding too much.



http://www.megaupload.com/?d=N4LN97DM

Armored Wolf wrote:When was that?

Are you dense? Two grown men sharing an apartment? One man getting jealous when the other attains a female companion? The fellatio scene? The fact that Guy Ritchie himself is trying to make them gay in the sequel?

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Glabbit wrote:Stop that xD
That film had nothing to do with the character Sherlock Holmes we know from the books. Way too americanised.

Also why does my spellingchecker allow 'Sherlock', but not 'Holmes'?

I'm sorry to direct a post at an old point, but Sherlock Holmes the film kicked ass, despite Dr. Watson being far too young and handsome, and despite the suggestion of homosexual tendancies between Holmes and Watson...

I'm preeeeetty sure I already had said that I agree about the film being great. I'm just saying it's nothing like the "proper" Sherlock.
Quotes are there for a reason. Don't bite me.

Renegade_Turner wrote:The fact that Guy Ritchie himself is trying to make them gay in the sequel?

That article was about the film already out.

Perhaps you thought it was this article?

Even so, I think they're just taking the piss.

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Armored Wolf wrote:When was that?

Are you dense? Two grown men sharing an apartment? One man getting jealous when the other attains a female companion? The fellatio scene? The fact that Guy Ritchie himself is trying to make them gay in the sequel?

Two men sharing an apartment. That alone is not a basis to jump to a conclusion that they are gay. The others are possibly more of a basis, but excluding the last one, none of those alone are enough.

Armored Wolf wrote:

Renegade_Turner wrote:

Armored Wolf wrote:When was that?

Are you dense? Two grown men sharing an apartment? One man getting jealous when the other attains a female companion? The fellatio scene? The fact that Guy Ritchie himself is trying to make them gay in the sequel?

Two men sharing an apartment. That alone is not a basis to jump to a conclusion that they are gay. The others are possibly more of a basis, but excluding the last one, none of those alone are enough.

Your point is both very valid, and irrelevant, considering all these circumstances are present.

Renegade_Turner wrote: Your point is both very valid, and irrelevant, considering all these circumstances are present.

Oops wrong quote.

Glabbit wrote:Your point is both very valid, and irrelevant, considering all these circumstances are present.

There we go. Boy, you sounded like him. Anyway, yes, it was irrelevant. I didn't really pay much attention to that while watching the movie because I was wondering if it was possible to deduce stuff ahead of Holmes or not. (It's not.)

Armored Wolf wrote:Two men sharing an apartment. That alone is not a basis to jump to a conclusion that they are gay.

That's what the janitor from your school wants you to think.

If someone doesn't take some homosexual implications from that film, I seriously worry about their intelligence.

Have a little faith, Ren. Some people still manage to be naive slash optimistic enough to miss that.

Also lol'd at the quotes, Armoured Wolf. I guess I'll take that as a compliment


EDIT:

Ajene wrote:did my topic just get hijacked?

Yes.