Dead or Alive movie trailer.....

[Cyberxion]

Y'know, I typed up some long explaination about just what I meant. Y'know, since you just went ahead and assumed I was wrong, instead of making even a cursory attempt to read the deeper meaning behind what I said. Then I realized two things.

1. Explaining shit is a waste of time (yes, I get the irony here. ), and 2. I told you just last night that sometimes you need not look beyond the surface in order to fathom the depths of just what someone is trying to say. I cannot fault you for being so literal-minded, since I did indeed say that to you. Most importantly, I've come to accept that I obviously lack wit and intelligence, as all my previous attempts at posting something multi-faceted have fallen by the wayside. I apologise.

No, I'm not being entirely sarcastic.

Anyway, I'll go see the movie, be bothered by how terrible it is, and likely love it all the same. I'm sort of wierd like that, in that I'm a glutton for punishment with a videogame liscense attatched. Most of these game-related films are utter filth, but I still like 'em, if for no other reason than they present an interesting case-study on how Hollywood can't seem to handle videogames without shitting all over themselves and the liscense. Take Uwe Boll for example. I sorta find these cinematic train-wrecks fascinating for some strange reason, even though sitting through most of these films is akin to torture.

[Evans]

Y'know, I typed up some long explaination about just what I meant. Y'know, since you just went ahead and assumed I was wrong, instead of making even a cursory attempt to read the deeper meaning behind what I said. Then I realized two things.

What? I just pointed out that I thought you meant masochist. That edit meant that I think the movie will suck too.

1. Explaining shit is a waste of time (yes, I get the irony here. ), and

Not to spark another pointless argument, but are you implying that I can't get a point? That I'm dense or something? (this could also be applied to what you mentionned regarding me assuming shit as if I was to always be in disagreement with you, i.e. thinking you were wrong)

2. I told you just last night that sometimes you need not look beyond the surface in order to fathom the depths of just what someone is trying to say. I cannot fault you for being so literal-minded, since I did indeed say that to you. Most importantly, I've come to accept that I obviously lack wit and intelligence, as all my previous attempts at posting something multi-faceted have fallen by the wayside. I apologise.

First of all, since we are conveying our ideas through words, and I'm saying this in general given I don't believe that we are arguing words or anything (I truly am oblivious as to what you want with this...), maybe we should really watch what we say. Never forget that no emotion is floating next to a word or sentence. Makes sense? Yes. Does this apply to this? Beats me.
Second, you are certainly NOT a witless or dumb person. NO. Sometimes opinionated? Confrontational? Yes, just like me. But a moron? No fucking way. If you are refering to last night's convo, you were entirely right, maybe I should have stated it clearly. (I did. )

Anyway, I'll go see the movie, be bothered by how terrible it is, and likely love it all the same. I'm sort of wierd like that, in that I'm a glutton for punishment with a videogame liscense attatched. Most of these game-related films are utter filth, but I still like 'em, if for no other reason than they present an interesting case-study on how Hollywood can't seem to handle videogames without shitting all over themselves and the liscense. Take Uwe Boll for example. I sorta find these cinematic train-wrecks fascinating for some strange reason, even though sitting through most of these films is akin to torture.

Seconded. (no moron writes like that... unless educated)


Peace out.

[Cyberxion]

What? I just pointed out that I thought you meant masochist. That edit meant that I think the movie will suck too.

I didn't. Mean masochist that is. That's the point of what I said above. That in your zeal to correct me, you failed to entertain the notion that there might have been something deeper to what I said than met the eye.

Not to spark another pointless argument, but are you implying that I can't get a point? That I'm dense or something? (this could also be applied to what you mentionned regarding me assuming shit as if I was to always be in disagreement with you, i.e. thinking you were wrong)

Not at all. However, I do know you, and know that if you smell an argument, you'll jump on it. I just wanted to let you know that this particular case wasn't one that needed to be argued. That wasn't an attempt to remove your right to do so should you choose to, but I just wanted to clarify my stance because frankly, I know you. That's all man.

Can you tell me I'm wrong and do so with a straight face?

First of all, since we are conveying our ideas through words, and I'm saying this in general given I don't believe that we are arguing words or anything (I truly am oblivious as to what you want with this...), maybe we should really watch what we say. Never forget that no emotion is floating next to a word or sentence. Makes sense? Yes. Does this apply to this? Beats me.

No, you were not arguing words. What you did was take what you saw as a chance to point out what you believed to be an error on my part and ran with it, never considering that I actually meant what I said, which would, I dunno, lend my post a whole new way of being interpreted.

Second, you are certainly NOT a witless or dumb person. NO. Sometimes opinionated? Confrontational? Yes, just like me. But a moron? No fucking way. If you are refering to last night's convo, you were entirely right, maybe I should have stated it clearly. (I did. )

Not at all. I referred to it only as it applied to this case. What we discussed yesterday was so...pointless that I cant help but feel we both wasted our time there.

Anyway man, I'm just saying that instead of jumping on what you assume to be error, make absolutely sure it is first.

[Seraphis Cain]

.....wow. Talk about getting off topic. *lol*

[Evans]

I didn't. Mean masochist that is. That's the point of what I said above. That in your zeal to correct me, you failed to entertain the notion that there might have been something deeper to what I said than met the eye.

So I was right, you did misunderstand me. I thought you just made a simple mistake, a typo, and tried to let you in on it. That's it. Despite the looks, I am certainly not one to correct a real anglophone's grammar or spelling. "Zeal to correct" you? No, just trying to help, that's all. I'll read it again and again, but I assure you it's gonna take a whole lot o' reading for me to see something else.

Seemingly, I didn't get your post. After reading it over and over, I still see it the same way as before. I'm somewhat dense, or maybe you're just too much of a thinker for me.

Not at all. However, I do know you, and know that if you smell an argument, you'll jump on it. I just wanted to let you know that this particular case wasn't one that needed to be argued. That wasn't an attempt to remove your right to do so should you choose to, but I just wanted to clarify my stance because frankly, I know you. That's all man.

If you didn't assume shit like that about me, you would have seen that as what it was: me trying to point a mistake out. Not some public undressing or whatever that could have been seen like. And if that was true at all, I would still be debating shit regarding religion, perception, the UN or whatever else is debated around here. I don't do it. I'm not an argument whore. Get that out of your mind. Thanks.

Can you tell me I'm wrong and do so with a straight face?

Oh, but I just did.

No, you were not arguing words. What you did was take what you saw as a chance to point out what you believed to be an error on my part and ran with it, never considering that I actually meant what I said, which would, I dunno, lend my post a whole new way of being interpreted.

I'm not arguing words. I pointed out what I thought was a simple mistake, and you thought more of it than there really was.

What I read was this:
"I think the movie will suck.
Seriously though, I'll check it out. I'm a sadist."

How can I see that otherwise than you meaning that you like to "inflict pain on yourself"?

Here's what followed: "I'm a glutton for punishment ..." and "I sorta find these cinematic train-wrecks fascinating for some strange reason, even though sitting through most of these films is akin to torture."
That just makes me feel even more right.

Maybe you meant that you like to see those just so you can bash them after, but I can't say. Well, I should say that if that's what you meant, I think you would've put it differently, but I can be wrong.

Anyway man, I'm just saying that instead of jumping on what you assume to be error, make absolutely sure it is first.

I didn't jump on it, that's how it presented itself to me. Add what you posted after, I can't help but feel even more justified.
Assuming that I did "jump" would only mean that you still think I've got something against you, which is false. Entirely.

If a mod or admin feels like deleting this, please do PM me so I can copy and paste it somewhere else. Thanks.

Is it just me or does this movie ressemble a mish mash of Kill Bill and Mortal Crap? Just wondering...

[Cyberxion]

So I was right, you did misunderstand me. I thought you just made a simple mistake, a typo, and tried to let you in on it. That's it. Despite the looks, I am certainly not one to correct a real anglophone's grammar or spelling. "Zeal to correct" you? No, just trying to help, that's all. I'll read it again and again, but I assure you it's gonna take a whole lot o' reading for me to see something else.

Seemingly, I didn't get your post. After reading it over and over, I still see it the same way as before. I'm somewhat dense, or maybe you're just too much of a thinker for me.

If you didn't assume shit like that about me, you would have seen that as what it was: me trying to point a mistake out. Not some public undressing or whatever that could have been seen like. And if that was true at all, I would still be debating shit regarding religion, perception, the UN or whatever else is debated around here. I don't do it. I'm not an argument whore. Get that out of your mind. Thanks.

Oh, but I just did.

I'm not arguing words. I pointed out what I thought was a simple mistake, and you thought more of it than there really was.

What I read was this:
"I think the movie will suck.
Seriously though, I'll check it out. I'm a sadist."

How can I see that otherwise than you meaning that you like to "inflict pain on yourself"?

Here's what followed: "I'm a glutton for punishment ..." and "I sorta find these cinematic train-wrecks fascinating for some strange reason, even though sitting through most of these films is akin to torture."
That just makes me feel even more right.

Maybe you meant that you like to see those just so you can bash them after, but I can't say. Well, I should say that if that's what you meant, I think you would've put it differently, but I can be wrong.

I didn't jump on it, that's how it presented itself to me. Add what you posted after, I can't help but feel even more justified.
Assuming that I did "jump" would only mean that you still think I've got something against you, which is false. Entirely.

If a mod or admin feels like deleting this, please do PM me so I can copy and paste it somewhere else. Thanks.

Is it just me or does this movie ressemble a mish mash of Kill Bill and Mortal Crap? Just wondering...

Y'know, for someone who takes the piss like...every chance he can get and then some, you're awfully terrible at knowing when you're on the recieving end. That's both a blessing and something of a curse. It's a blessing because I get a chuckle from watching you write page-long retorts when it's not particularly called for, and a curse because I often feel compelled to read that page-long retort and respond to it. Damned lack of self-control.

Seriously man, stop reading too far into shit. I hate getting into a confrontational sort of situation with you over stupid crap like this. Save it for if/when we get into something worth getting confrontational about.

Trust me, you'll know if I have a problem with you, as the level of intelligence evident in my posts will drop severely, and I'll hardly make sense. That's what happens when I'm really mad.

[Ton]

You wouldn't like him when he's angry :O

[Dante89]

*sees trailer*

What the holy &(^$!!!!? I've seen bad cosplaying before but that takes the cake!!

[Evans]

Cyber, that wasn't me getting confrontational, just asking for clarifications, that's all. "Seriously man, stop reading too far into shit."

Ton, I've seen him pissed, and I'm far from impressed.

Dante: Damn right. It will suck, big time.

[Seraphis Cain]

Yep. Bad cosplay. That's all this movie's gonna be.

[rentahero]

How can one make a movie from a videogame that has no such thing as a story?

[Raype]

How can one make a movie from a videogame that has no such thing as a story?

easy, make up a story and use look alikes (mario bros, street fighter, mortal kombat, house of the dead) many games that became movies had little to no story, they just made made up a bunch of junk and use actor that look like the characters.

besides, who plays it for the story, I'm just looking for some cat fights when I play it.

[Hijuda]

Jebus, man... Nothing could prepare me for a trailer that horrendous. I will admit never being a victim of Uwe Boll, but... that was just terrible. I originally thought I could handle House of the Dead just to laugh at it, but now... if it's worse than that, then there's only one thing to do:

*Runs off to buy a nuclear warhead*

[Anonymous]

Uwe Boll? sorry, i'm a bit slow.

**sing under breath**
Watch them run,
Watch them drool,
Watch them fall into the pool.
(That's diving.)

[Snake Solid]

I had no idea they where making a third Charlie's Angels movie?!

I thought there was only one? (full throttle)