- Apr 30, 2010
- 69,664
- 106,293
I'm not a fan of when people try to bully comedy out of condolences. People cope differently. Seems like the way she was, she would get it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's like when a nter was going through some **** here and I made a joke to hopefully make him laugh like nters do and ended up banned from the thread because some new nter didn't understand how we rock.
I don't even the tweet is bad at all?
He's describing her in his way, I've seen women called beautiful creatures before ?
If he called her a hot piece of ***, I sorta understand.
This society
Yeah but that's just making it about them and not about Carrie.I don't even the tweet is bad at all?
He's describing her in his way, I've seen women called beautiful creatures before ?
If he called her a hot piece of ***, I sorta understand.
This society
Just because you've heard people describe women like this doesn't make that acceptable. If enough people saw it as demeaning for him to take it down, it would give credence to the fact it was probably demeaning
Bullying? That's a weird thing to say about something that could be seen as derogatory. They wanted him to take it down because it was troubling. That's not any different from anyone retracting racist or homophobic remarks.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creature
i guess people should start boycotting Merriam Webster.
View media item 2281331
I don't think calling someone a creature is a compliment
I think it might have been more than that. The and of it said "And she the ed out to be smart too" or something like that. I think that's why people might've been upset because he only saw her as beautiful at first. That's why I figured they were upset
Question: Did joining the darkside make anakin stronger than when he was a jedi? I would've liked to have seen a rematch of Obi Wan and vader when he first started wearing his suit.
In reviews I keep hearing people say they got to see vader in his prime in Rogue One. It had me wondering if they differentiate when he was anakin and didn't have most of his limbs cut off or he was in his prime because he embraced the dark side and his use of the force was even more developed.
No, because the Dark Side doesn't make a Jedi/Sith more powerful. It just gives them a different type of way to use their Force Powers/Abilities. In terms of wearing the suit, he was actually weaker in The Force than he'd ever been previously and would never regain his full potential with it. However, because Vader by the time of Rogue One has around 20 years more experience than Anakin Skywalker did in ROTS, he's generally assumed to be more skilled with The Force, due to all the extra training and experience he had access to. So, technically, you could say that Vader was at his peak by the time of Rogue One, in terms of experience and skill, even though the limit to his abilities was actually lower than what it was at the time of ROTS. This is because Anakin Skywalker on Mustafar, while being both very strong in The Force and very skilled with the Lightsaber, had not yet fully developed his potential.
I hope, someday, we get a complete spin off (trilogy maybe) of a Jedi/Sith war, and what I would love for them to delve into, is someone who teeters on both the light and the dark side, which, to me would be the most powerful.
Only using the light, or only using the dark limits your full potential. To truly open yourself up and get all there is of the Force, you'd have to be able to dance between both sides and that would let you truly unleash your ****.
Hell, I think it would be interesting to have someone very strong in the force, that is neither Jedi nor Sith, and let him do things both good and evil, depending on his mood. An enemy of both Jedi and Sith. I think that would be cool to see portrayed on screen.
I'm curious to see how many side stories they're gonna try to eventually juggle
I wouldn't be mad if they made one a year minimum
Yea... I'm thinking that's where they're headed
nah, I really don't want them to oversaturate the market with too many movies. One a year is just about right. Once they get through this trilogy and planned group of anthology films, maybe take a break for a few years, then start 10-12 with more spin-offs sprinkled in again.I'd prefer three. One in the second quarter, anthology films in the third, and main story in the fourth.I wouldn't be mad if they made one a year minimum