Joygirl's forum posts

#1 Posted by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

TTBA! :D

#2 Edited by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7 said:

@darling_luna: THE LAAAAWWWWWW!

@joygirl said:

@jaken7 said:

93% of all professional critics are wrong?

Obviously.

Apparently Obviously? ;p

It's not what wrong means though...

I googled "wrong" but all I kept getting was pictures of you frantically masturbating with a Looper DVD.

#3 Edited by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7 said:

93% of all professional critics are wrong?

Obviously.

#4 Posted by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7 said:
@joygirl said:

"Dur hur hur, it's okay because the director said it's okay if it sucks. :D"

"Hurr hurr burrrrrr, it's good because it tries to distract you from how stupid it is."

"Theeheehee derp, just because it's a blockbuster time travel movie doesn't mean it has to actually make any sense."

None of these are excuses for how bad that movie was. I'm not convinced, I'm not "spanked," I'm embarrassed by the fact that any of you would try to defend garbage.

Also, I don't care what the director thinks because it's the writer's fault that the movie sucked. The direction and acting was fine. The story was just balls.

The director was the writer... *makes malicious face*

If you don't want to accept the evidence I presented, then the movie's obviously just not for you. That's fine. But we aren't dumb for liking it. People can like things you don't.

Then that makes sense as to why he'd defend his own crap.

That wasn't evidence, it was opinions, by other critics. Wrong critics.

And yes, people can like things I don't. They're just wrong.

#5 Posted by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

"Dur hur hur, it's okay because the director said it's okay if it sucks. :D"

"Hurr hurr burrrrrr, it's good because it tries to distract you from how stupid it is."

"Theeheehee derp, just because it's a blockbuster time travel movie doesn't mean it has to actually make any sense."

None of these are excuses for how bad that movie was. I'm not convinced, I'm not "spanked," I'm embarrassed by the fact that any of you would try to defend garbage.

Also, I don't care what the director thinks because it's the writer's fault that the movie sucked. The direction and acting was fine. The story was just balls.

#6 Posted by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't like any of you.

#7 Edited by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio
#8 Edited by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7: *puts on her "not caring" face*

#9 Posted by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7: Inception was a mindscrew film, the point of it was to make you wonder what the hell was going on. And it was a little silly -- I wasn't a fan of the film. Looper on the other hand was a time travel film that absolutely balled all over time travel. It's not a matter of how the films performed, it's a matter of how the films performed for what they were supposed to be. Looper was touted as an intelligent time loop movie and it did a laughably pathetic job.

#10 Posted by Joygirl (15404 posts) - - Show Bio

@jaken7: I'm not afraid to hit a boy.