Variety Says Iron Man Won't Fly; Favreau Says Otherwise
Summary
Remember those awesome scenes of Iron Man flying through the air alongside a couple of fighter jets in the crowd-pleasing trailer first unveiled at Comic-Con? Don't count on seeing them in the finished film, Variety says. Back to Article
Remember those awesome scenes of Iron Man flying through the air alongside a couple of fighter jets in the crowd-pleasing trailer first unveiled at Comic-Con? Don't count on seeing them in the finished film, Variety says. Back to Article
(1-146 of 146 posts) | Reply
on Sep 15 2007 12:04 PM OK so the flying shots were rushed. Thank god, that wasn't the final cut of it, it still looked funny. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 12:21 PM yeah, i wasnt too impressed with those flying shots because there just wasnt much to it. he flew through the clouds and away from the jets but that was it. it was like "i've already seen this in Superman! whoop-di-doo!" Still, that was only the trailer and I have no doubts that the scene will be awesome in the full movie. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 12:32 PM Good; those shots didn't *look* finished, and apparently...they aren't. I don't think Iron Man will be spectacular, but will certainly be all kinds of awesome in its final cut. :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 12:45 PM Iron man sounds great on paper. However, the concept just does not work in real life. Basically, it is a guy who is trapped in a metallic suit doing a lot of action stuff. Can u imagine how hot that thing would be and can a normal person even survive in that suit for long? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 12:57 PM iron man is like batman a guy that uses his intelligence to kick the $%#@ out of the bad guys where Bruce Wayne is just a cover and Batman is really him it's the other way around Tony is an arrogant, cocky, badass. This movie will rock just watch the comic con stuff on you tube I don't think it's going to be possible for this movie to be crap it's gonna rock and they are already talking sequel and Terrence Howard wants to be War Machine in a spin off he was the first person cast and he wanted the role....hell Robert Downey fought for this role beefed up for it this movie is going to be right up there with Spider Man and the Blade movies.....it might only do Fantastic Four numbers cause he's not as well known but thats enough for a sequel and thats all I care about (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 01:47 PM I wasnt really all that impressed with the trailer...but I have faith in the people making the film..so hopefully its not a cornball fest (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 02:49 PM This will be a good movie, but not like the Dark Knight (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 02:55 PM a dogfight scene? sweeeeet! any movie with a dogfight between F-22's is awesome in my book (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 03:38 PM I may be about to invite a LOT of smack for this, but I actually did NOT like the use of Black Sabbath's 'Iron Man' in the commercial; that song already has an entire identity and history to it-- it's a rock classic. I think it actually takes away from this completely new imagining of Iron Man to be attached to something so established. ...IMO. I still have some high hopes for this, though. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 03:43 PM In reply to this comment (#1125079) Sure is a good thing it's a movie then! (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 03:46 PM If Iron Man is not flying in this movie... Oh god, I think I found a reason to finally slash my wrists tonight. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 03:49 PM what are you guys talking about? it looked great! some of you just complain to sound smart, or complain because you just can't be satisfied with anything. > blah blah blah... yeah whatever, dude. cheers, Favreau keep on kicking ***. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 03:59 PM You know, I'm no Iron Man fan or anyrhing, but the trailer looked good to me. Specially the shots of R. Downey Jr. talking to the military. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 04:01 PM I so hope that they will show flying shots in the movie. But I think they will, the trailer was really impressive. I have to agree with Ender7406, having no flying would finally give me a reason slash my wrists. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 04:01 PM how about robert downey jr looking like he is wearing lip stick. He is no Tony Stark why do they always recycle why not get a no name who actually looks the part they have more problems than CGI on this one but it will make its money becuase when people are starving for a good movie or idea they will take what they can get Hollywood caught on that they can turn a comic book into a film and the title alone will bring them in now in time the quality will show up it is slowly but this looks like standard fare Stark always came off as smooth but driven to me and way more sharp. This looks like Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man ......duh....sure if you want to dress him up like that for halloween sure i will give him some candy when he comes to my door and pat him on the head for having a cute costume but as far as "being" Iron Man no dice (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 04:22 PM Man, Robert Downey Jr will be the reason I'm seeing this. I dont even like Iron Man that much but he was a great choice, imo. Of course the creation of the suit and all looks cool too. Jon Favreau has me psyched for a flick that before the teaser, I had NO interest in. THATS hard to do. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 06:42 PM In reply to this comment (#1125805) First off D. Aaron, they're called commas. Use them. Otherwise your complaint sounds (and looks) like an incoherent rant. Second, Downey Jr. brings name recognition. Fantastic Four didn't really have a big star besides Alba to promote it and, if reviews are to be believed, suffered from it. Downey Jr. also has a history as a sort of playboy, so yea, I guess his acting ability doesn't have to stretch too far. With it Hollywood-ized? Well, this movie is being released through Marvel's new movie division, so it would actually kind of be Marvel's fault. My main concern is Favreau. Judging by the trailer, he's sticking pretty closely to Iron Man's true origin, just updated. However, it remains to be seen whether or not he can direct a true action movie. I did enjoy Elf though. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 07:57 PM The idea of no-flying in Iron Man was getting me a bit scared. The guy flies. It's part of his motif. Having a fight with fighter jets is nothing original, but if they do it right I don't mind. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 08:47 PM I love how people complain about the scene not being finished or the cgi not looking good yet the insane number of computer graphics people i know say that it is great. So never talk again. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 09:01 PM The Rocketeer looked better than this. Iron Man will make less money than FF2. The general public doesn't know or care about Iron Man. Bring on Speed Racer. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 09:49 PM 1: Those flying shots looked awesome. Seriously. Fact. If you think they looked "funny", then you have a problem with the what a guy in armor flying with planes would actually look like. 'Cause that was it. 2: Downey is a very, very good actor, and he looks like he's taking to this part very well. He's the best guy I can think of for this role. 3: To whoever complained about the use of the Sabbath song--This movie is new, yes, but the character of Iron Man is older than the song Iron Man, by about 7 years. 4: Will this movie make a ton of money? No idea. But it damn sure looks like it's gonna be good. As long as Favreau can pull off an action movie, I see no reason this shouldn't be in the upper echelons of comic movies. Oh, and from what I hear, Speed Racer might be cool and all, but God damn that was a ****ty cartoon, and Iron Man as a property is infinitely superior to Speed Racer. You may as well compare Battle of the Planets to Wolverine. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 15 2007 11:42 PM I had no problem with the trailer and or the music. I know the music was just for fun and not to be taken seriously with the film. It's not like they're going to use Black Sabbath's song for the beginning of the real movie. The only problem now is having to *wait* 8 months. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 15 2007 11:52 PM I didn't buy into that Variety article anyways. Apparently the author of that lil headliner was an idiot anyways. I read that quote from ILM, and not once did I think OH NOES, no flying sequences for Iron Man? Just a typical case of jackassery on Variety's part. Of course Iron Man is gonna fly in the film. That's what he does in the comic books. Did they ground Superman? Yeah, try to think just a little harder next time Variety. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 12:29 AM Wow cgcbooks, you are a quite a slow troll. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 01:07 AM You know what - it's Robert Downey Jr as a superhero. That's enough for me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 01:48 AM The movie looks great so far. Downey Jr. is Stark, an alcoholic playboy, yeah he's built for this role. Whats the big deal with the CG anyways, how did that not look rad, and what movie are you all talking about where a guy fights fighter jets? cause that seemed pretty different to me. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 07:58 AM You people should never judge a movie by its trailer. Traliers can make any junk look very good because it is a basic commercial with quick cuts and music. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 08:17 AM I have been playing around with 3d animation for some time and well I have to say that the flying scene looked bad, the CGI was very poor(as they say it seems they rushed in making it, ), if they include that on the movie they must improve the rendering with all the money they waste they can get a good photorealistic shot, only problem is that since you have an object in the middle of nothing and nowhere to cast shadows it makes it harder to create realism. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 16 2007 09:54 AM Wait.... Isn't Iron Man good? Why would he be fighting F-22's... which are American. Or is he going to help the F-22's fight someone else? (Must be something super since F-22's would shoot down whatever it is before their target could even see them on radar) It looked like the F-22's were just following him... not fighting. Since they would have no reason to. Oh well... I hope it turns out well. The trailer was pretty cool. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 09:56 AM In reply to this comment (#1125079) Are you seriously critiquing the logic of a comic-book movie? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 02:03 PM In reply to this comment (#1128208) Yes, I am because a lot of these heroes require audiences to ssupend their logical thinking. For example, why would super hero wear capes when villains can easily use it against them (Incredibles reference). What about super heroes wearing skin tight leather suits. I know that looks good for the screen, but how long can they survive in an environement that is 100 degrees or above. What about everyone's favorite spiderman. How does he do his laundry wtihout getting notice? Does he have his personal tailor who repairs his suits or does he do it by himself? These are just few of the many things about the inconsistency about superhero movies. I truly wish that some one can come up with a movie that exploits all of the inconssitencies of the super hero genre. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 04:07 PM While I prefer more realistic movies as well, these superhero movies you are talking about have these illogical elements because they are comic book translations. They needed to be flashy in the comic books to make them look "cool" and instantly recognizable. If they arent done the same way in a movie, then they just arent true translations. And its not just to please the fanboys, its because everyone associates the character and name with the costume. And to make a completely logical comic book movie, everything that makes a comic book movie into an actual comic book movie would have to be taken out. I mean superheros are super because of their powers, which in a completely realistic world would be impossible. So quit complaining about inconsistencies. And about your last sentence, I think Batman Begins is the best example of your wish because there are pretty logical explanations for everything (even the cape), and it is incidentally my favorite superhero movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 04:09 PM my post above was supposed to be a reply to eastern2western. it didnt work for some reason when i clicked to reply. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 07:10 PM Ericssin you must of never dealt with 3D animation because you are dead wrong, sorry but i trust the word of people working for pixar, ILM, Epic Games, Midway, EA, etc. over a troll like you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 09:08 PM In reply to this comment (#1128741) Replying to eastern2western: Have you ever watched a movie? I mean, like one? Or read a comic book? Your Incredibles reference was totally off. In each of the little snippits shown in that movie of how capes are lethal handicaps, it was always due to a freak accident like a plane jet or a tornado, not a villain. Second, some super heros have always been drawn with capes, so to portray them in a movie without them would be like to portray Captain Hook without the hook. I agree that super hero movies require audiences to suspend there belief, but that is their very nature, to be fantastical, to be "super." That is what makes them so amazing and entertaining to people, the stuff that's going on cannot, in real life, actually happen. So you, my friend, are watching the wrong genre if you want realistic or believable. But the way you argue your point is what really gets me. You argue about their clothing....ok, a leather suit, even skin tight, is not that hot. On a noraml, 70 degree day, you can wear that stuff for hours and be fine. As for Spider-Man doing his laundry, ha, that's laughable. Either a) he has his own washing machine, but he is kind of a poor college student, so therefore b) people think he has a costume that he washes, you remember that one scene in SP2 when he gets in the elevator with that guy with his dog. So as I said before, the so called inconsistencies you're complaining about are either void (99%) or built into the genre (1%). Don't hate. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 16 2007 10:53 PM Anyone who wears a metal suit and smashes sh** and rocks out to Black Sabbath is God. Robert Downey Jr. is a great pick for this. It's about time someone does a bad a** movie on a comic book hero unlike the gay superman and hulk movies. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 16 2007 11:15 PM I gotta agree, the flying scene looked pretty damned good to me. I loved the simple realism of it. With all the quality flying I've seen over the years in movies, this was still able to give me that startling, tingly-down-there feeling. I don't want to rip on the people complaining about it just for having an opinion that's different than mine but... what the truck is wrong with you! It looks awesome! I love the tingle. And zturner, doesn't Robert Downey Jr. generally seem a little gay to you? I'm straight, but I like a little gay in my superheroes. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 12:18 AM Darius I am just having a little fun with the super hero genre movies: 1) Yes it is true that leather can be okay during a 70 degrees day. However, does this mean heroes can not work in days that are too hot or too cold? If you have ever watched an interview the production crew did for the filming of Dark Knight in Chicago, even Christian Bale complained about having to get into the Bat suit in the middle of the summer. If you think leather suit is okay, then how about the Iron Man's suit? Unless that suit contains some kind of super temperature adjustment mechanism, there is no way that a normal human being can survive in an iron suit for long. The Iron Man trailer even has scene of the main hero flying with the fighter jets. What does he use for fuel? Where is the fuel tank or the source of the power? What about the heat flying can generate? Those are just some of the many logic thinkings that audience members have to abandon when they are watching these types of movies. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 01:26 AM In reply to this comment (#1130046) Eastern2western are you slow? Lets use some common sense. Can a person survive a radioactive spider bite? Are there aliens that look like human and absorb yellow sunlight? Are there mutant humans? Is there a guy who survived in ice for 60 years? Are there magical green rings that run off of willpower? MORON. p.s. if you are going to blast iron mans realism then use some common sense, you do not need a giant fuel pack if you run off of electrictity and nanotech. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 03:34 AM In reply to this comment (#1130046) Wait, so the leather suits are what makes super hero movies unrealistic to you? How about the fact that they are super hero movies, you know, powers that can't exist and so on. Yeah, 'cause you know what? A guy with a metal skeleton and claws that come out of his hands is not believable when in a leather suit, but if he wears jeans and a t-shirt, i can totally see him being believable. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 03:36 AM akddon3... While I get your argument... your examples are a tad on the dumb side. First off, there ARE mutant humans. Mutation is a natural occurence that forms part of evolution. Secondly. Sure you can survive the bite of a radioactive spider. The amount of radiation in a little spider won't have much effect on you, so it's basically down to the venom. And if the venom doesn't kill you, you live. And you cannot generate jet propultion with electicity. The only way to achieve flight through electricity is through rotors/propellors. Maybe Iron Man has one up his ***. And nanotech is microscopic machines. Kind of like the tech for the T1000 in the second Terminator movie. Again, it has nothing to do with flying. So please think carefully before you call someone a "MORON", all caps. You not really be commenting on any type of sci-fi pseudo-science since your knowledge of anything seems severely limited. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 09:46 AM Loved the preview and loved the black sabbath song as the soundtrack but that's probably because I have little preconcieved notions about the song. I also doubt black sabbath gave two s@!ts either since they got paid for the first time in a dozen years. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 17 2007 10:49 AM I just love it when people critique a movie based on a trailer seen a year before it's released in theaters. I also love it when folks cry that they "don't get to see much" in the preview. It's a F%$#@NG PREVIEW!!!! You're not meant to see the whole movie yet!!! Christ people, wise up and shut up! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 11:40 AM You know, I've been totally convinced. We should just scrap superhero movies, they're totally unrealistic. Actually, now that we're on the subject, we really need to trash fantasy, science fiction, action movies, and most comedies. Have you seen some of the **** that goes on in those movies? Totally unbelievable. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 02:40 PM Come on folks, with the right people on a project, any Superhero can shine on the screen. Iron Man is particularly applicable because he has plenty of human flaws despite being a genius and there is a lot to be said about the military industrial complex; privately contracted weapons development, and the moral dilemma attached to such things. If everything works out, the same team should really consider bringing the Avengers to the big screen. Its about that time! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 02:41 PM Come on folks, with the right people on a project, any Superhero can shine on the screen. Iron Man is particularly applicable because he has plenty of human flaws despite being a genius and there is a lot to be said about the military industrial complex; privately contracted weapons development, and the moral dilemma attached to such things. If everything works out, the same team should really consider bringing the Avengers to the big screen. Its about that time! (Reply to this) |
on Sep 17 2007 02:42 PM poor jon, he has enough **** to do without putting out every flame the reporters start about his GREAT MOVIE. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 06:05 PM zbbrox, I'll just come right out with it. Your a moron. You trash all those "unrealistic films" and your bound to go bankrupt. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 17 2007 06:28 PM In reply to this comment (#1131013) Did someone sting you as a child? It is the thought of someone being more than human that mystifies and captivates the audience. Everyday we see people who do what they can for themelves and their happiness. This might be enough to get by. Some people say that this is the smartest way to live your life, and to rid yourself of foolish dreams and aspirations. But if we can't dream, then we are stripping ourselves of the barest necessity for happiness, which is the pursuit. What child never dreamed of having a power that would enable them to help people and defeat the villian or nemesis? What HUMAN never thought of what it would be like to fly, not in a plane, but truly fly, when there is nothing but you, the earth below and the stars above? Instead of the use of persuausion to disuade others from watching these films, maybe you should see some yourself. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 06:30 PM In reply to this comment (#1131013) Did someone sting you as a child? It is the thought of someone being more than human that mystifies and captivates the audience. Everyday we see people who do what they can for themelves and their happiness. This might be enough to get by. Some people say that this is the smartest way to live your life, and to rid yourself of foolish dreams and aspirations. But if we can't dream, then we are stripping ourselves of the barest necessity for happiness, which is the pursuit. What child never dreamed of having a power that would enable them to help people and defeat the villian or nemesis? What HUMAN never thought of what it would be like to fly, not in a plane, but truly fly, when there is nothing but you, the earth below and the stars above? Instead of the use of persuausion to disuade others from watching these films, maybe you should see some yourself. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 06:54 PM Wow. Apparently the bar has been lowered so far in this discussion that no less than two people mistook my *obvious sarcasm* for sincere idiocy. How sad. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 06:57 PM Although, come to think of it, I would have thought my glowing expectations for the film in an earlier post would have provided concrete evidence that I was mocking that nitwit complaining about the realism in comic book movies... Ah well. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 08:51 PM In reply to this comment (#1130075) Lets see you are dead wrong. Read the comics, electricity and nanotech is what iron man uses so i am right and you are wrong. Plus if you get bitten by a radioactive spider you will die, common sense. P.S. No mutants do no exist, and mutation will never cause humans to shoot lasers or grow angelic wings. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 08:54 PM Jacog you knowledge is extremely limited by the fact that you are wrong. SO if you are going to attack me at least be correct. P.S. Go get bitten by a radioactive spider to see if you live, hell drink a glass of water with the same amount of radioactivity and see how many different types of cancer you get. MORON. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 17 2007 09:21 PM I can not believe that people are getting so excited over a trailer because there are plenty of bad movies outthere that have great trailers. The most recent one is D-Wars. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 12:14 AM Yes Iron Man's Armor is climate controlled. And he uses Repulsor technology to fly. GOSH! Don't you people know anything? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 01:50 AM In reply to this comment (#1127106) Speed Racer is gonna suck too. I hate the Wyblorski bros. for ****ing up V For Vendetta and for those dopey Matrix movies. The trailer did remind me of the Rocketeer or worse Steel! I thought Favreau was some kinda hip indie guy. Elf? Zabarfa? WTF? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 02:26 AM aknddon3: Are you serious? You must be joking... really you must. Most spiders are not venomous enough to kill a human, and if a spider gets exposed to radiation, it won't be enough to kill you. People get blasted with radiation all the time for cancer treatment. More radiation than a single little spider could possibly hope to carry. So shut up. Also - Nanotechnology... go look it up online. Learn something. You are terribly immature, man. And I am not going to cut you any slack for that even if you are 12 years old. It's never too damn early to start acting like an adult. And yes, mutants exist. They dont fly or shoot lasers from their eyes, but genetic mutation does occur. From the Wikipedia page "In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of genetic material (either DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. Mutations create variations in the gene pool, and the less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change." In your case though, aknddon3, I think nature has failed us. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 05:59 AM Just to clarify, not taking sides... As Doomrot has pointed out, Iron Man uses repulsor technology to fly. This is the same technology he uses to blast people. Essentially, it generates concussive force. And it's powered by electricity. Does such a thing actually exist? No. But it's science fiction. As for nanotech, yes the armor uses nanotech, but as far as I know it has nothing to do with flying, it's more about nanocomputing. Yes, mutants exist. Millions of them. We wouldn't exist as a species without them. However, the Marvel comic-book sense of the word (i.e. a human born with a specific "x-gene" that gives them superhuman powers) is, once again, science fiction. The radioactive spider question is interesting--the fact that he was bitten indicates that he had radioactive material flowing through him for some time. Sustained exposure to even small amounts of radioactive material can be dangerous. However, as the spider was still alive (albeit dying) after being irradiated, it probably wasn't that intense. I don't think there's any way of knowing how this fictional spider of an unknown size and venom capacity exposed to radiation of an unknown type would affect a victim it bit. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 07:11 AM Repulsor tech eh? Well... sometimes pseudoscience that you can not and don't have to explain is best. Star Trek has loads of it. So repulsor tech it is. I prefer the new Spiderman version of the spider story though where the spider was in fact genetically altered, not radioactive. The radioactive spider thing smacks of the 1950s where radiation was used to explain a whole plethora of things and became an easy way of creating super powers. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 08:17 AM In reply to this comment (#1133053) I agree on the new origin. The radioactive thing I appreciate on a slightly ironic 50's-send-up kinda way, but the genetic modification angle makes more sense. Well, depending on how you explain it--if the spiders were genetically engineered via direct manipulation of their genome in the embryonic stage, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that they'd be able to pass on their powers, but if they were modified via gene therapy, then presumably they could have little nanocapsules still running through them which could presumably find their way into their venom and affect Petey somehow (hence giving him the same "super" powers they were given, but on a much larger scale). Still, y'know, science fiction, but a little closer to believability (obviously this'd be rpetty f'in advanced gene therapy, and the chances of it affecting a human beneficially are slim to nil, but, y'know). (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 11:18 AM Jacog you are a moron, first off MOST SPIDERS are venomous then you have to add in the radioactivity which would kill him too, common sense, something you lack. You are wrong, dead wrong, go drink a glass of water with that much radioactive materials in it and see how many types of cancer you get. So shut up you are wrong. Nanotechnology, learn it, read the comics you are wrong again, moron. Oh the 12 year old tries to call me a 12 year old that is funny, i understand you lack common sense and a brain but it is okay, you must be from hollywood. OH MY GOD, DID I EVER SAY MUTATIONS DID NOT EXIST? NO I SAID US MUTATING INTO ANGELS AND **** DOES NOT AND WILL NEVER EXIST. Learn how to read little child, you are the reason why idiots should not be allowed to breed. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 18 2007 11:20 AM So once again Jacog is OWNED. Go back to grammar school little preteen loser. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 18 2007 06:54 PM Actually, akn, here's your own comment: AKNDDON3 SAID: "No, mutants do not exist and mutation will never cause humans to shoot lasers or grow angelic wings." I agree with you that mutation won't give you supernatural abilities, but YES, you did say mutants do not exist. Mutants and mutations DO exist. If you want a prime example of mutants and mutations in real life, you should look at the recent news story about nuclear testing in Russia and the mutations caused in the nearby villages. It's kinduva sad story. To also correct your point about spiders, almost every spider carries some form of venom, so you are right in that sense...HOWEVER...most spiders in the world are harmless as the venom they carry causes nothing more than an irritated bump on a victim's skin. I've been bitten by several kinds of spider in my life from the common Wolf to a Black Widow and none have been fatal because a) the spider that bit had a weak venom or b) I was able to deal with the more dangerous bites with anti-venoms and immediate medical treatment. But, no, Jacog is right: while most spiders are venomous, most are not FATALLY venomous, which I believe was his point. If you were to add a slight trace of radioactivity to the bite, it's most likely that spider would be dead before it bit unless it was part of the spider's genetic make-up. If a radioactive spider were to bite a human being (for the sake of argument, let's be real about this), I doubt the microscopic trace of rads in the venom would do a whole lot of damage. It would also depend on the amount of rads injected into a human AND the type of radiation since there are several types of radiation existing in or on the planet. There's also a difference between a miniscule amount of radiation delivered in a bite vs. a glass of water containing it. And, as well, it would take a LONG time for you to die of cancer caused by radiation poisoning in water. Especially when alpha and beta/photon radiation is common in tiny traces. You could get cancer by drinking tons of it over the years but you'd be well into your old age by then and even then, you might not even get it. That's all. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 12:39 AM Natural mutants do not exist, a person born with six fingers are not mutants but genetic mistakes, so i am right and you are wrong. P.S. You proved my point that you survived by seeking medical treatment something which peter did not do. Plus the same amount of radiation in a bite is worse then in a glass of water because the bite is automatically in your blood stream while there is a chance that the water radiation can take a while to be absorbed. So i am right again. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 01:23 AM Sickle Cell Anemia is a natural genetic mutation. It has some debilitating features, but in the end, it effectively renders someone who has it totally immune to malaria. Convenient I think. Mutation is totally natural. aknddon3... I live in South Africa... we have hundreds of species of spider down here, and only three of them are actually venomous enough to kill a human (Black Widow, Sack Spider, Violin Spider). I too have been bitten by a number of them, and I have never suffered worse than an itchy rash. And no... since I know which ones are lethal, I did not seek medical attention. Your argument is invalid. If the raditation did not kill the spider, why would it kill a human? And I know what nanotechnology is... YOU should be the one looking it up. As for the comics... go read zbbrox's comment on page 3, he explains the pseudoscience in Iron Man nicely there. Haha... it's silly arguing with you because I can tell you've reached a point where you realise you are wrong, but are just trying to salvage your ego. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 03:16 AM Wait, wait, wait...what do you mean, "natural mutants do not exist"??? Natural mutation DOES exist. A person born with six fingers might be a genetic mistake or a birth defect...but that's not what I'm talking about. We're talking about mutation and how it occurs. Mutation occurs naturally over time due to a change in genetic patterns due to copying errors or a natural adaptation or evolution to one's enviornment. An example of this would be the Belgian Blue cattle and how their muscular structure is different than other cattle due to a natural mutation in their genes. Natural mutation in human beings is also existent in an enviornment where a secondary agent has been introduced into the enviornment...but the human body adapts and mutates to meet the demand of a brand-new enviornment. None the less, natural mutation exists. Yes, a bite IS absorbed into the bloodstream...but the amount and type of radiation (something you're overlooking) plays heavilly into your calculations. There are several types of radiation in this world and many of them are harmless types. There's radiation in dirt, water, microwaves, T.V.'s etc. You aren't right because there's no such thing as a "radioactive spider". Even if there were, the amount of radiation injected into the bloodstream would most likely not be enough to wipe out a human being seeing as the traces of it are microscopic and dilluted. And again, you also don't know what type of radiation said insect was carrying. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 05:28 AM In reply to this comment (#1134152) aknddon3, seriously, chill out. You've been right about some stuff and wrong about some stuff, so there's no need to get an attitude. First of all, as has been pointed out, natural mutants do exist. What exactly do you think the difference between a "mutant" and a "genetic mistake" is? Yes, birth defects can be caused by any number of things, but "genetic mistakes" *are* mutations. Whenever the genetic material of an organism's offspring contains traits not shared by the parent or parents, that is mutation. And it happens, naturally, all the time. Also, I think it's been made clear that there is *no way* to know if this particular spider was poisonous enough to kill. As this was New York City, it seems unlikely. I've lived in the Northeastern US my whole life and I've never personally known someone to be bitten by a highly poisonous spider. I actually woke up this morning and my fiance was complaining of three spider bites, all of which itched but were in no way dangerous. And without knowing the size of the spider, it's venom capacity, and the real strength and type of the radiation that it was carrying, it's impossible to know just how dangerous that was. Recall the weeks that famously poisoned Russian spy, Litvinenko, lingered, and he was given very, very dangerous radioactive materials in fairly large doses. The spider-bite seems like less of a problem. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 05:48 AM Zaphod for president! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 12:35 PM MORON, SICKLE CELL IS A DISEASE NOT A MUTATION YOU IDIOT. No genetic mistakes are not mutations. And it makes sense why jacog is retarded, he is from South Africa. So Zbbrox using your logic gays are mutants. Point and match i win and am right again, show a perosn with wings so me a MUTANT not a genetic mistake. I love it, you losers are trying to rationalize a COMIC BOOK, anyone with common sense and a high school diploma would know that if you got bit by a radioactive spider you would die. P.S. Many times in Spiderman they saw the radioactive material in his bloodstream so once again tobasscoman you are wrong (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 01:54 PM Ok, Akn...it's obvious that you know little of what you speak. Proof that sickle-cell disease was associated with a slight natural mutation of hemoglobin was published in 1949 by chemist, Linus Pauling and a few of his associates. So, yes, sickle cell is a disease but it's caused by a natural mutation of a specific protein within the human body. That's a natural mutation. That's PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT. And if you say, "no, that's wrong", then not only are you being contrary just to be contrary, you're also calling known scientific fact a lie and telling everybody that grass is really pink instead of green. Excuse me? Genetic mistakes ARE mutations! They're mutations of genetics and human DNA! WE are trying to rationalize a comic book??? You started all this by trying to tell us that radioactive spider bites could kill a person! And, NO, if such a thing really WERE to exist, you may NOT die. I have a high school diploma AND a college degree and I know biology. What you DO NOT REALIZE is: 1) that there are several types of radiation and not all types are dangerous but most of all, 2) A tiny spider injecting a microscopic trace of dilluted radioactive venom into a gigantic body mass (hundreds of times bigger than itself) will do next to NOTHING. Your defense that "they saw the radioactive material in his bloodstream" means nothing. Why? Because those scientist or doctors or whoever examined Peter...THEY DON'T EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. The fact that a radioactive spider "left traces" in Peter's blood is SCIENCE-FICTION. If you want to speculate on what would happen if there WERE a real radioactive spider, then you need to study the effect of spider bites on a common human and do more studies on radioactivity as well as the types of it and the amount it would take to fatally poison a human being. Sorry, a spider couldn't do it alone. Many, yes, but not one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 02:01 PM ummmmmm....WHO CARES? GET A LIFE PEOPLE...MOVE ON, (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 02:32 PM In reply to this comment (#1134536) aknddon3, seriously, would you please just look up some of the things we're talking about in the dictionary? I'll help: "Mutation", according to the American Heritage Dictionary: "3. Genetics a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type." Yes, sickle-cell anemia is a disease. However, it is a disease *caused by* a mutation. It is not a communicable disease, it's a genetic disorder. However, said "disorder" also has the benefit of rendering the sufferer immune from malaria--hey, almost like a super-power. Many disorders are caused by genetic mutation, including Down syndrome. They can also occasionally confer benefits--one mutation actually helps to protect the subject from AIDS, for example. While these are not as spectacular as the mutations in the comics, they are very real, and this is what "mutation" and "mutant" *actually mean*, not just what occurs in the comics. Also, Jacog has shown a much better grasp of the subject matter we're discussing than you have thus far, calling him a retard really doesn't make you sound smarter. Quite the opposite, in fact. (This is a common logical fallacy called an ad hominem attack, y the way.) As for gays being mutants, while recent research has definitely indicated that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, I've never seen any study on whether it has ever been the result of genetic mutation. It is far more likely that the genetic component is complex and expresses itself only in certain specific combinations. Straight people can have gay children and vice-versa for the same reason tall people can have short children and vice-versa--few observable, macroscopic traits are the result of a single gene. And no one here is trying to rationalize Spider-Man by pointing out that a "radioactive spider" very well may not kill you. None of us thinks that such a spider would confer superpowers onto the victim, after all. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that you have been rude, thick-headed, and arrogant in support of your factually refutable statements. We have told you exactly why being bitten by an irradiated spider probably wouldn't kill you, yet your only argument is "anyone with a high school diploma and common sense agrees with me!" (This is a kind of twisted combination of the logical fallacies known as the "appeal to authority" and the "appeal to the majority", not to mentions the argument "ad ignorantium") Let me put this clearly, because this is the kind of thing that's important to know: In an argument, including this argument, making fun of someone doesn't prove you right. Saying "everyone agrees with me" doesn't make you right. Saying "anyone with a brain agrees with me" doesn't make you right. Even just insisting that you're right over and over again doesn't make you right. To prove you're right, you need to take premises we can all agree on, or you can provide evidence for, and extrapolate logically from them to prove your point. If you can't do that--and in this case it's clear that you can't--you should seriously consider the possibility that you're wrong. In this case, you're wrong. There are "natural mutants" and a radioactive spider bite probably wouldn't kill you. These are simple, well-supported statements, and in the great scheme of things they're largely immaterial. Just chill out, accept you made a couple of mistakes, and move on, no one really cares. You shouldn't be ashamed of being wrong. Accusing someone of being a retard and then mocking their nationality, on the other hand... (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 03:12 PM In reply to this comment (#1134969) Nicely said. :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 04:00 PM Wow the hypocrites show their colors, you say i have no evidence to say that a radioactive spider would kill you but you can automatically say that it would not? MAN YOU GUYS HAVE NO GRASP OF REALITY. So there are no natural mutants, a defect is not a mutation, that is science for you. You guys have yet to make any claims that are supported with facts, you need to learn what a fact is. So the ten year old south african, the 12 year old tobASScoman and you are in fact wrong AGAIN. God i love proving kids wrong. So is someone actually going to try to prove me wrong? P.S. Mutations are not the same things as diseases and genetic mistakes. Using your moronic logic and child that is born with a trait that the parents do not have would be considered a mutant. You are wrong, learn about genetics and basic science before you ever talk again. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 04:19 PM In reply to this comment (#1135191) Clearly, this has become pointless. We have cited to you the definition of the word mutant. We have cited studies on mutation causing disease. We have cited logic, reason, and evidence in many forms. If you don't agree with the standard English definition of "mutant", I suggest you formalize your own language so that those of us who *are* speaking English won't be confused by you. And if you are so certain that a radioactive spider would kill someone, please tell me why household spiders that are regularly bombarded with radiation from microwaves, televisions, and cell phones don't kill with every bite. What a shame. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 05:03 PM Akn, realistically, if you have studied science, tiny traces of radioactivity in a spider's venom would probably not kill you because a spider does not and would not have enough of it (theoretically) to kill a human which is hundreds of times larger than itself. It's just not scientifically feasible. "So there are no natural mutants, a defect is not a mutation, that is science for you." Wait, WHAT??? Have you been reading ANYTHING we've been saying? zbbrox has explained it to you! I explained it to you! Why do you insist on being contrary when you have nothing to back up your arguments? Natural mutation has ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. It was proven over 50 YEARS AGO. Seriously. Have you not studied molecular biology or basic chemistry? Have you not heard of Linus Pauling? Have you not studied his discoveries in school? He PROVED that natural mutation existed in 1949. What other "fact" do you need? That IS a fact. You know what? Here's ANOTHER fact, another article where natural mutation in human genes has been linked to obesity in humans. It's from the Harvard Th It's amazing to me that you choose to simply ignore what is said and just seek to reenforce that you're correct when you're not. And, as I predicted, you resort to insults when you can't debate facts. Gee, I'm TobASScoman and I'm 12. Can't you say anything NEW? It's the crap every single time. And everybody's always "12" to you. Do you have some strange obsession with 12-year-olds that we're not aware of? "Mutations are not the same things as diseases and genetic mistakes." What do you think a genetic mistake IS? It's a mutation of a human genome. Akn, I would LOVE for you to take your scientific knowledge to a group of scientists and tell them everything that you've told us. I don't know whether they would look at you funny or laugh at you but you might actually be educated by them. "Using your moronic logic and child that is born with a trait that the parents do not have would be considered a mutant. You are wrong, learn about genetics and basic science before you ever talk again." And zbbrox is correct. A child that is born with a trait that the parents do not have would be considered a mutant offspring. It happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. I hope you don't disagree with that asessment. I really don't. If you do, I really fear what your school is teaching you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 05:35 PM Have to correct myself for accuracy: Hugo de Vries, a Dutch botanist, first discovered mutation of the genome in 1901. Pauling discovered the natural mutation of the human gene that lead to Sickle Cell Anemia. Since then, MILLIONS of natural biological mutations have been discovered in plants, animals, and human beings. (Reply to this) |
on Sep 19 2007 07:27 PM You are all seriously arguing over what can and cannot happen or be real or not real in COMIC BOOK MOVIES , everyone take a step back now and get an Efffffffffffffin grip ... Movies dont have to be real or realistic unless they are a documentary or based on a true story so all of your b*tching and arguning and commenting back and forth on who is right about what and who is not is so pointless and such a waste of time and energy ... Movies in general dont have to be realistic , especially movies based on comic books , so everyone relax ... (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 08:30 PM In reply to this comment (#1135340) Actually, I think we all agree that pseudoscience is fine in comic book movies. We're arguing over what does and doesn't happen in real life. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 09:43 PM But the problem is, from where I'm sitting, that you're all trying to use rational thought, logic, and facts in a conversation with someone who is clearly immature, and sadly irrational and imbalanced. It's like trying to make sense out of the scribblings by a crazy person, someone who hears voices and sees things that don't exist. The best response is either no response or pat them on the head and say, "Wow, you were right all along." This nutbag is not worth your time or energy. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 10:09 PM Totally true, Loserman. I've dealt with the poor schmuck before...several times. But, if Akn reads your post, he might let you have it just for insinuating that he's immature and irrational. In fact, I think you HAVE dealt with him before. Fair warning. :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 11:19 PM You cited nothing. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 19 2007 11:23 PM Wow you know nothing about traits or anything. If i was born with blond hair when all my family has brown hair that does not mean i am a mutant it means that i have a RECESSIVE TRAIT, SICKLE CELL IS NOT A MUTATION IT IS A RECESSIVE TRAIT. Biology 101 here. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 12:31 AM So tell us about yourself then aknddon3... where did you study science and biology? Must be one hell of a good school since you deem yourself qualified to disagree with all of the scientific world. And we HAVE cited things to you that have been published and is known fact. And why does being from South Africa automatically make me a moron? Where are you from? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 12:40 AM Wow. aknddon3, you've actually inspired me to stop lurking and comment. Sickle Cell is a genetic MUTATION in one's DNA, where the instructions on how to make hemoglobin get slightly messed up. I happen to have ONE recessive sickle cell trait, which means I do NOT have sickle cell anemia, but I AM immune to malaria, so it is a beneficial mutation for me to have. The fact that a trait is recessive or dominant has nothing to do with its being a mutation. The sickle cell trait is a genetic mutation which makes the carrier more fit and likely to survive in a hot, swampy environment such as Africa, India, Southeast Asia, etc. End of story. ps. I really hope you ARE 12, because even someone with high school biology should know this. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 03:49 AM In reply to this comment (#1135825) Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic mutation. It was discovered to be so by chemist Linus Pauling in 1949. In fact, Akn, HERE IS THE CITATION SO YOU CAN FINALLY STOP SAYING THAT IT'S "NOT A MUTATION": "While collaborating on a report about postwar American science, Pauling became interested in the study of sickle-cell anemia. He perceived that the sickling of cells noted in this disease might be caused by a genetic mutation in the globin portion of the blood cell's hemoglobin. In 1949 he and his coworkers published a paper identifying the particular defect in hemoglobin's structure that was responsible for sickle-cell anemia, which thereby made this disorder the first %u201Cmolecular disease%u201D to be discovered. At that time, Pauling's article on the periodic law appeared in the 14th edition of Encyclopædia Britannica." -- Encyclopedia Britannica Online And here's another one: %u201CIn 1949, application of methods of physical chemistry directly to the study of a protein produced by a mutated gene led Pauling, Itano, Singer and Wells to identify the specific change in the protein brought about by the gene. The discovery of the first of the abnormal human hemoglobins which they described as causing a %u201Cmolecular disease%u201D-sickle cell anemia-was followed the identification of a large number of other proteins, each of which owed its difference from normal structure to a mutated gene. Ingram then showed that the change due to the mutation, in the case of each of two abnormal hemoglobins, was confined to a single amino acid residue at one point in one of the polypeptide chains composing the globin. There could be no doubt that genes controlled protein structure by specifying the sequence of amino acid residues in the polypeptide chains. The assumed basic functional correspondence was then altered from %u201Cone gene-one enzyme%u201D to %u201Cone gene-one polypeptide.%u201D -- Geneticist L. C. Dunn. From "Old and New in Genetics," Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 40(5): 325-333, 329. May 1964. And here's a link from YALE with a dissertation on Pauling's work on mutation and sickle cell ht Bi It's so funny...you're kinda like Jimmy Fallon in Fever Pitch where Jimmy Fallon thinks he's playing tackle football instead of touch-football and they keep tagging him to down him and he just keeps runnin' anyway and his friend has to finally stop him and tells him, "This is TOUCH football! You were down back there and back there AND back there!" I would like to think that we finally were able to stop you and tell you that you're down. Do you finally get it? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 03:59 AM I showed my wife this discussion and she made an inteersting observation that got me thinking... aknddon3 is actually Ali G, and he's just messing with us. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 04:27 AM It wouldn't be so bad if this dude didn't keep insulting everyone. I mean, it's fine to be ignorant- we all started out that way- but to call everyone else "moron" and "retarded" and say meaningless stuff like "Use common sense...I am right and you are wrong" like it's some psychotic mantra is just plain baffling. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 05:36 AM We cited nothing? I quoted to you straight form the dictionary! Again, why do you feel you're qualified to disagree with the definition of mutation found in the dictionary? And you are mistaken in what you believe a "trait" is. If you have blond hair because your brown-haired parents have recessive blond-hair genes, you do not have a "trait" they do not in the genetic sense. Your genetic traits simply express themselves differently than your parents'. But a *mutation* is when there is a flaw in your genetic code, causing it to be different than either of your parents'--when you lose a nucleotide pair, or when two chromosomes fuse, or you get a duplicate copy of a chromosome, for instance. Again, please, just read a little bit about genetic mutation. You will very quickly discover we are right. Also, have you finally given up on the radioactive spider thing? Or did you have an answer to my question from before? (Reply to this) |
on Sep 20 2007 10:42 AM To all that are arguing on this thread. Thank you. Sincerly. You all helped me enjoy my lunch hour here at work. I haven't laughed this hard over such a meaningless subject in a long time. Keep it going, it'll give me something to read tomorrow! :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 12:50 PM I love it, you guys are walking jokes. Science 101 PEOPLE WITH GENETIC MISTAKES OR DISEASES ARE NOT MUTANTS. Common sense. God Mendel is rolling in his grave with you idiots grave misconceptions about genetics and TRAITS. Sickle Cell is not a mutation it is a disease or a TRAIT. Mutations are when traits are expressed when they have no know connection the gene line or species line. No Zbbrox you guys are not right, science and common sense prove you wrong. Given up? WHat i am right and waiting for you guys to try to prove me wrong. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 12:50 PM Glad we could entertain, but really it's all thanks to the star of the show, aknddon3. His name is Andrew, and I'm sure he's just miffed because Arizona State can't play football. He drinks there. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 01:37 PM Aknddon3....Are you for real? Tell me. I have to know. Seriously, my anthropology training is kicking in here. I have to know where you come from, who raised you, and how you turned out this way. You're a fascinating social anomaly. I've never encountered such brash, proud ignorance; you wear it like a badge, wave it like a flag. For the last time, sickle cell is the result of a genetic mutation. The body's instructions on how to make hemoglobin get slightly skewed due to this mutation in the genetic code, hence some of these cells are formed "sickle" shaped. People with this mutation have the sickle cell trait. Some people have sickle cell anemia, because they have MORE than one recessive sickle trait. Get it? People with ONE TRAIT do not have a DISEASE. They just have one sickle trait that does nothing to them except render them immune to malaria. Please tell me you can understand this. Mutation isn't a big, scary, weird sci-fi term. It's just what happens to DNA over time, and a natural part of adaptation and evolutionary change. No big deal. And Mendel has has nothing to do with this discussion. You are still stuck on the "recessive" vs "dominant" thing, which was Mendel's big contribution to plant knowledge. This is not what we're talking about. Besides, Gregor Mendel lived centuries ago and hadn't the faintest clue what DNA was. Obviously, mutants such as those in X-Men don't exist. I'm not even talking comic books anymore. I'm just desperately hoping your grasp of basic biology is better than this. You seem to have no grasp of the terms "disease" "trait" "gene" "recessive" or "mutation." I suppose I should just be glad you've left off talking about that stupid radioactive spider example. And don't worry, I don't actually believe the previous poster at all; you can't POSSIBLY be studying at any university- not even ASU would have you. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 01:46 PM aknddon3-- You said it yourself: mutation is when genes are express when they have no known connection to the parent organisms. That is a genetic defect: when there is a mistake in the replication of parent DNA and that mistake creates a new trait, such as a DISORDER such as sickle cell ht http You are disagreeing with every source and genetic scientist on the planet. Cite science, or *any* credible source, saying that mutation doesn't occur naturally. Tell me how friggin' evolution happens without mutation. And citing "common sense" doesn't prove anything. "Common sense" is what people ite when facts fail them. And if you haven't given up on the radioactive spider thing, then answer my question: If the bite of a radioactive spider is *necessarily* fatal, then why don't household spiders, which are regularly bombarded with radiation from televisions, microwaves, cell phones and, actually, anything with an electrical field, cause havoc wherever they go? They bite people all the time, and it doesn't do more than itch. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 02:23 PM He goes to Arizona State? Wow...prestigious school like that...my cousin went there and he told me what a good school it is. Ignorance doesn't even began to cover it. He's an ignorant contrarian. He will purposely say the complete opposite of EVERYTHING just to spite you and people like him don't care about facts even when they're in front of his face. Akn, use "common sense" and start READING the citations we post. If you don't, you just look dumber than you already look. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 05:06 PM He can't. He's too busy licking his balls. Now THAT'S a mutation! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 08:32 PM I wonder if they teach ball licking at ASU. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 08:59 PM I've heard that they do in their P.E. department, including an intramural sport league, singles or doubles. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 10:17 PM Spiders in the home are not radioactive, again you wrong. Plus science does back me up, evolution is a mutation, you are right there but since we have not evolved in such a long time to say that mutation still exists is wrong, natural mutation does not exist, sickle cell is a result of nonnatural orgins and it is a disease, not a mutation, see look up the words, THEY MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. MORONS. It is okay you have a guy from South Africa who thinks that blacks are inferior humans and then you have a couple of little kids who think they are smart yet are proven wrong over and over again. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 10:20 PM It makes perfect sense, Loserman, TobASScoman, Jacog are all the same person, a retarded 12 year old that thinks that radioactive materials do not harm humans yet they ignore the MILLIONS of cases that prove them wrong. Oh the inbred hicks are having a circle jerk in South Africa. P.S. What colleges did you guys go to? And is you degree in the top 3 in the country like mine is from my school? Typical internet trolls/nerds. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 10:24 PM Snorklecat has no clue about genetics and has no understanding of science, according to his logic AIDS is not a disease, Cancer is not a disease, Gay is a mutation, every known disease is not a disease. He has no understanding of traits, he thinks that if a blond son is born to brunette parents that means he is a mutant. God you are almost as idiotic as the retard from South Africa that has no understanding that Iron Mans suit runs off of nanotech and electricity. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 20 2007 10:27 PM Once again i have owned TobASScoman, Loserman, Jacog, and zbbrox. It is so easy it is not even funny. You have one guy who thinks that 300 and Spiderman 3 are the worst movies ever, another guy who thinks that the original Halloween is not revolutionary, a dude whos only gripe about Spiderman not being realistic is how he does his laundry, and moron who has no understanding of diseases and genetics and thinks that all gays, all people with AIDS, with cancer, with hemophilia, etc. are not sick but mutants. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 12:28 AM Dude, Akn, you're through. You got your *** handed to you a long time ago. You were down back there and back there and back there AND back THERE. Your insults are perfectly predictable and personal attacks, too. In fact, everything you said took you four posts to say. Look, it's not our faults that you can't read facts and go to ASU where you lick your own balls and try to type at the same time. It's not our faults that you don't know what mutation is and repeat high-school insults like, "you're owned" or resort to accusing all of us being the same person because your ego can't admit that more than 2 or 3 people disagree with you and actually know what scientific fact is. Look, man, just quit when you've lost an argument. You don't get it. You'll never get it. It's okay. We've accepted that you're a complete and total idiot. No problem. Don't worry. Move on. I have. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 12:33 AM I haven't... fists still balled. aknddon3:: What makes you automatically assume I must be white? In South Africa, blacks outnumber the whiteys 9 to 1... that's a 90% chance that I am black, yet you assume I must be white... why? Are you saying you find it unlikely that a black person would be using the internet? You racist bastard. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 12:43 AM HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, and this: "And is you degree in the top 3 in the country like mine is from my H An Oh my H Wh Too funny. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 01:35 AM Ha ha. I think this thread is the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen. I am going to copy and paste it so I never forget it. When I feel down, I'm going to look at it and think "Well heck. At least I'm not aknddon3" and feel better no matter what has just occurred. Any moment now, someone is going to appear and say "You've been punked." I truly cannot believe that anyone with such a meager grasp of science or logic- or even rudimentary debate- graduated from middle school, much less high school...God forbid, college. I don't know whether to laugh or cry or start writing to Congress about the pathetic specimens that the public school system is pooping out these days. Well aknddon3, I've got my forensic anthropology degree and I didn't get it by being an idiot. I would be very interested to know what you're studying and if you have a hope in hell of passing. I know ASU has the rep of being a party school full of aspiring drinkers, and if your Myspace page is anything to go by, you're no exception- but even party schools have exams. How do you manage it? Do you perhaps use invisible ink on your exam papers? Or do your professors have some sort of magic decoder ring with which they decipher your drivel, bad grammar, poor spelling, and just plain baffling leaps of logic? Is it perhaps like one of those universal language translators they have on Star Trek? If I buy a box of Froot Loops, will there be one inside? I could really use one right now, because I have no idea what your point is. Ever. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 01:56 AM Not sure why i bother, but anyway... her goes... akn: "radioactive materials do not harm humans yet they ignore the MILLIONS of cases that prove them wrong." - Nobody said radioactivity is harmless. We're just not entirely sure if a tiny little spider could carry enough of it (while still being alive) to have much effect on a human. *sigh* akn: "And is you degree in the top 3 in the country like mine is from my school?" - That's really bad grammar, man. akn: "Snorklecat has no clue about genetics and has no understanding of science" - Well, I think her abovementioned degree shows otherwise. And why do you think the existence of mutation means people are mutants? It takes thousands of years for mutations to develop. It's not like someone will just get born all "mutated" one day. And we are evolving... everything is evolving... it hasn't been any different for the past several million years, and won't be any different in the few million to come. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 04:19 AM Oh my god...THAT is Aknddon's MySpace? I feel SO sorry to be him right now. That's the funniest **** I've ever seen. Oh, by the way, he lied about his education. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 04:41 AM This thread IS entertaining. It cracks me up because, when Idiotddon3 gets involved, you can count on the thread going past 100, easy. His stubborn contrarian and bafflingly ignorant nature (it kills me because he doesn't HAVE to be this stupid if he could just READ) can turn the simplest absolute fact into a oversized, needless debate. Example: US: Man, that water we drank sure hit the spot. AKN: That's not water. That's H20. US: Yeah, H20 IS water. AKN: No, it's H20. I own you. US: Wait...water IS H20. AKN: HAHAHAHAHA, you must be 12. Don't talk again. US: What are you talking about? AKN: You're an idiot if you think water is H20. There's no such thing as water. US: Then what did we just drink? AKN: H20. US: Ok...H20 is water. It's been known as "water" for YEARS. AKN: No, it hasn't. That's not a fact. I know facts. You're wrong. US: Here are like, 1,000 pages, that PROVE, scientifically and otherwise, that H20 and WATER are one in the same! AKN: You didn't cite anything. I'm still right and you're all wrong! I own you. US: Wait, what? We just DID cite all the info you asked for... AKN: No, you're still saying that water is H20. It's not. You can't prove it. US: Akn, we just DID prove it. Did you even READ what we cited for you? AKN: That's not facts. H20 is not water. So, once again, I own you all. US: Akn, did you READ anything? AKN: I don't listen to people from (foreign country here). They're idiots. Never talk again. US: Wow, so now you're a racist. AKN: And you're a ***. Never talk again. US: And you're homophobic. Great. What does this have to do with water? AKN: No wonder you think water is H20, you're either gay or you're from (foreign country here). US: Nevermind. AKN: Yeah, that's right! I've owned EVERYBODY. And it goes on and on and on...forever. All because Aknddon3 was born. *Sigh*...poor guy. He's kinda like a kid who wants his blankie so he'll finally shut up. Maybe we should let him have his blankie so he finally goes quiet. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 04:59 AM Heh heh...that was funny. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 05:42 AM 1: Actually, *everything* is radioactive to one degree or another. All that matters is degree. The human body emits infrared radiation, light itself is a form of radiation, and the frickin' cosmic background radiation permeates the universe. Every household spider has a certain low level of normal background radiation. The question is, *how radioactive was this spider*? You don't know. I don't know. And we don't even know what it had been irradiated with! Was it electro-magnetic radiation or particle radiation? Microwaves? Radio waves? Alpha particles? Gamma particles? All these questions have a huge impact on how dangerous the spider was. 2: Can we at least agree that this spider was probably not poisonous enough to kill a human? 3: The idea that we "haven't evolved in such a long time" is incorrect and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution happens because mutation is happening *constantly* among all species. When a mutation greatly affects the ability of the mutated offspring to survive, it can produce a new variation on the species, and in time these new variations compound until a recognizable new species develops. This is a *constant* process, and it affects humans all the time. One of the ways it does so is through disease: humans with mutations that make them more resistant to disease sometimes survive plagues that others don't and so thrive where others fail. Read this, from a Harvard http 4: What don't you understand about the fact that some mutations cause diseases? "Disease" is a very general term: diseases can be caused by bacteria, viruses, toxins, or any number of other things, including genetic mutation. Look, sometimes there are mistakes in the replication of DNA, leading to the offspring having different genetic traits than their parents. Most times this goes completely unnoticed and has no impact on survival. Occasionally, this random error is harmful. And rarely, this random error is actually a benefit. That is mutation. It happens every bloody day. 5: Once again, calling us morons and insulting South Africans doesn't make you look smarter, it just highlights your inability to argue your points. 6: I'm 25, but even when I *was* a little kid I knew more about this subject than you do. Nothing you have said has proven anyone wrong, you just keep insisting on "facts" and "common sense" that are flatly false. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 05:53 AM tabascoman77-- That was eerily accurate. Very good. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 06:46 AM zbbrox: One side of me is frustrated and wants to go on trying to reason with this guy, but on the other hand... is such a feat even possible? In a way he HAS owned us all because there's no way I imagine ANY of us can keep this up forever. In the end, nothing changes. We can talk all we want, he will stay stupid. He has no future in the world and will most likely never amount to anything. He's one of those people with a really low self esteem that will sit in his basement one day building a bomb because he hates everyone who he thinks pick on him. Lucky for those people he'll probably blow himself up in the process. "HAHAHAHA, I am right, they are all wrong... I win, they lose... faaaag nerds... I OWN all those mor.."-FTOOOOOM! (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 07:00 AM jacog-- Yeah, I was about ready to give up before, because he is obviously incapable of actually understanding the ideas he's throwing around, but I do find it kind of entertaining to watch him try and argue with us. It's kinda like watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead or something. You just have to laugh at how stupid what you're seeing is. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 07:21 AM If aknddon3 speaks in a forest with nobody around to hear him... is he still wrong? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 08:01 AM Believe it or not, this is not the most insane discussion I've had on this board. I and several others one got into an argument with a guy who argued that because Michael Bay's movies made money, they must be good. I questioned the validity of box office receipts as a judge of quality, and said that by that logic Titanic was roughly 30 times better than Citizen Kane (inflation adjusted, no less). An equally good judge would be the film's IMDB ratings, where Bay fairs poor-to-middling. He decried IMDB's validity, as it was just the opinion of "nerds". I said fair enough, but it's at least as valid as boxoffice. So I linked him to the IMDB top 250, then the list of top money-making films of all time, and asked him to decide which list he thought was really better. He complained about the IMDB top 250. One thing in particular he didn't like was the inclusion of some "no-name" film called "Shichinin no Samurai". At this point, I and others busted up laughing. When we pointed out that "Shichinin no Samurai" is, of course, "The Seven Samurai", a movie classic, he claimed he knew, but that Seven Samurai really *is* a "no name" movie. He said: "I've only heard of it because my roommate rented it, and I'm a movie fan!" When we pointed out that this is the msot famous film by Akira Kurosawa, one of the most famous, influential, and respected directors of all time, he claimed Kurosawa was a no-name director who made awful films, and that he and his roommate couldn't even finish Seven Samurai 'cause it was so bad. And, he said, it was ridiculous that IMDB users would rank that film above films from "true artists" like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. We were aghast, of course, and quickly pointed out that Lucas has flatly admitted that Star Wars was greatly influenced by Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, and that modern action movies would hardly exist without Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, and other films by Kurosawa. If a "true artist" like Lucas loved and was influenced by Kurosawa's work, how could he possibly be bad and lack influence? His solution? Well, Lucas and other artists *have* to claim they were influenced by other people so as not to appear arrogant. "Like presidents today claim to be influenced by Lincoln, even though he was a bad president." I kid you not. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 08:06 AM Holy crap! I just went back and checked and that dude was aknddon3! I'm not even kidding, I had no idea when I told that story that it was the same http (Reply to this) |
on Sep 21 2007 10:46 AM The formula is too transparent to warrant this much attention. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 11:03 AM ...I went and looked at that Michael Bay/Kurosawa thread. The very best moment was the Ang Lee/ Jackie Chan/ "I don't like Japanese films" moment. Bwahahaa! And the punch line was that he didn't even get it. Now that's true comedy. Seriously, if someone had described these conversations to me, I would never have believed it. Never. It's so over the top. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 11:04 AM I remember owning Zbbrox before and you brought it up, god i knew you were retarded but man i forgot how stupid you are. This is the funny part, i am talking about this thread with my biology teacher and he is laughing his *** off at you guys, he thinks its funny how a retard from South Africa, the most racist country in the world, thinks that it is reasonable to think that a radioactive spider would transfer its powers to a human but washing his costume is illogical. You have another loser that thinks that gays are mutants, and that AIDS is not a disease. You have a queer like TobASScofag that thinks he is special even though he is a 30 year old virgin that lives with his parents and has yet to be right about anything. THen you have Zbbrox who thinks that Seven Samurai's is better than The Godfather and that the opinions of 20000 people out of the WORLDS POPULATION is a valid sample set. He thinks that the millions that like Michael Bay are wrong and their opinions mean nothing but the opinions of 20000 people are correct and fact. INSANE ISNT? Money means nothing i guess, because i guess to that loser movies are not about entertainment and money is not a sign that people entertained it, even though reality proves him wrong. P.S. TobASScofag if i were you i would never make fun of anyone ever especially since you have yet to ever be right about anything. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 11:07 AM So snorklemoron you have a degree? So did they teach you in college that gays are mutants? That there are no diseases? That Cancer is natural? That cancer patients are mutants? That genetics mean nothing? That traits are not valid and yet if you have a recessive trait, LIKE SICKLE CELL ANEMIA, that means you are a mutant not just a person with a recessive trait? What hick college did you go to? Southern Baptist college? (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 11:12 AM So tobASScofag did you tell you mom you are a mutant because you are gay? That is what you are saying, you morons think that all gays are mutants because their parents are not gay, which is the stupidest thing ever said. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 11:47 AM aknddon3, I'm just going to ask you a series of simple questions. 1: Let's say a father has a gene with nucleotide pair aa. The mother has the same gene with nucleotide pair cc. The child ends up with nucleotide pair ag. Is this child a mutant? 2: If said child is not a mutant, please tell me exactly what genetic circumstances constitute "mutation" as opposed to a "genetic mistake." 3: If sickle cell anemia is not the result of genetic mutation, how did it come about? Where did the genes come from initially? 4: Show me where anyone here said that *all* diseases are the result of mutation of the human genome. AIDS is the result of mutation in the genome of a virus, cancer is generally the result of mutation of specific cells within a body as opposed to the genetic material of the person as a whole, etc. We all realize this. 5: Is genetic mutation incapable of causing disease, in your opinion? 6: Show me where anyone said that a radioactive spider transferring powers to a human was reasonable. You made that claim, back it up or back off. 7: Show me where any of us said that all gays are mutants. Show me where any of us said that anyone born with any trait their parents don't share is a mutant. The fact is, if you are born with a GENETIC TRAIT that your parents don't share (that is, a gene or order of genes that cannot be traced to either parents), you are a mutant. But for your line of reasoning to be correct, we must have said that being born with any observable trait not shared by your parents makes you a mutant. I know that I, at least, have said no such thing. 8: How much radiation would a common household spider need to be exposed to to become deadly when it bit a human? And what type of radiation? 9: How do you know that the fictional radiation that irradiated the fictional spider than bit fictional Peter Parker met these limits? 10: If you told your biology teacher the truth about what was being said here instead of the unsubstantiated lies you repeated above, do you think they'd be laughing with you or at you? 11: Do you do weddings? I'm getting married in March, and this is gold material you have her, man. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 12:16 PM Can you please send me one of those fancy aknddon3 decoder rings in the mail? Once again, you're making absolutely no sense. Of course cancer is natural!!! Why? Did you think it was created by alien scientists somewhere in the Gamma Quadrant? Of course diseases exist! Has anyone EVER said otherwise? What you're not getting is that some "diseases" are the product of genetic mutations. You seem to think that *I* think that if a trait which is not visible in a set of parents, shows up in an offspring, that it makes the child a "mutant." For one thing, I don't even like the term 'mutant.' You keep using it and it means nothing. If you're expecting genetic mutations to create something like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or someone who can fly, then you're in for a very long wait. Mutations, day to day, aren't that sexy. Your gay child from straight parents example is also meaningless. The first thing you should know is that NO ONE knows for certain what causes homosexuality versus heterosexuality, just like no one knows for certain what the genetic indicators for obesity are. Genetics is a lot more complicated than you seem to know. For instance, you imply in your gayness example that gayness must be a "recessive trait" because it shows up in a child born to straight parents, therefore each parent must have passed on a recessive "gay gene." You don't know that! No one knows that! Geneticists are searching for all kinds of genetic explanations for all kinds of things including disorders, personalities, body type etc. So far, to my knowledge, no clarity has been found on the issue so you're making a BIG leap by implying that gayness must be the result of a recessive gene. Sheesh. Quit making generalizations and find some facts to back up what you say. And please stop putting words in peoples' mouths. I think if you just put down the beer, take a deep breath and READ what people write, you'll see that you've gone off the deep end. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 12:36 PM aknddon7:: Say what you want about how stupid we are, but YOU seem to think that Ang Lee and Jackie Chan (and Kung Fu FFS) are Japanese. They are Chinese... CHI-NESE. You know, like from China and stuff. Sushi - Japanese Chicken Foo Yong - Chinese Kung Fu - Chinese Karate - Japanese Roman Polanski - NOT Chinese OR Japanese Michael Bay - See Above Aknddon3 - From Michael Bay's A$$ (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 01:27 PM Don't humor this nincompoop any longer. It only feeds him to talk about his favorite subjects: himself, his "intelligence", his ball licking... (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 01:56 PM Awwww, look at him go! He's so cute when he's angry. Jacog, I think you're right...he's starting to spark now. Look at that paragraph. He's so angry that he's been beaten, he's just starting to spew names and hate speech now. He thinks he's funny. It's almost on the level of beat and soul poetry now. Look at this: TabASScofag! WHINE! I can't WHINE stop you because you're a WHINE 30 year old virgin! Wait, no! You're 12! NO, YOU'RE 30!!! Can't...make...up...my mind! He's a ***! A VIRGIN! Lives with his parents! Let me say his name again because I think it's CLEVER: TAB"***"COFAG! Get it??? See what I DID there??? I put "A$$" in the middle of Tabasco! Then I put *** in there! Oh my god! He's a mutant, too! Let me drop THAT in there! TobASScoFag is a mutant gay! And he's Thirty-Twelve years old! I OWN HIM LIKE I OWN ALL TWELVE YEAR OLDS!!! 12 YEAR OLDS WORSHIP ME!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Dam Dude, zbbrox! I was gonna say, when you were describing that dude who thought box office was better, I thought, "I swear that was aknddon3". I've had that debate with him, too. He has yet to prove that quantity of cash equals quality. Now that I've seen his MySpace, I know what I'm dealing with. Maybe if he got his tongue out of Stan Lee's butt long enough to debate, he might actually win one. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 02:24 PM Famous aknddon3 quote: "Stan Lee's butt...mmmmmmmm." (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 21 2007 10:04 PM It is very funny to watch people argue over the science of comic books. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 01:26 AM It stopped being about comic books on page 3. We're arguing real science. aknddon3 is just being a stubborn git. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 06:50 AM He won't come back, either. He knows when he's outnumbered and losing. If you look at prior threads with him, he always leaves after he's been disproven enough and outnumbered by the majority of the boards. I agree. It's not arguing over comics anymore as much as it's about teaching Aknddon3 about the basics of human life. Makes me wonder just how sheltered he is. I mean, does he sit at home, in the dark just mumbling to himself? When his Mom opens up the blinds in his room, does he crawl into a fetal position and say, "AAAA! LIGHT!!!" I mean, not knowing about how comics and movies and movie budgets work is one thing...but to not know the basic fundamentals of science, something as basic as natural mutation and evolution...and to go off and make racist, homophobic remarks for no reason other than to make up for what ever knowledge he lacks in life...well, that's simply pathetic. It makes me question the very existence of a higher power when I read the comments he makes simply because I believe that, if there is a God, he or she doesn't make mistakes. Apparently, either God DOES make mistakes or Aknddon3 is an imp from hell that hops around your ears and pulls on your hair and covers your eyes and annoys you until you get him to accidentally say his name backwards so he can disappear into thin air and not bother you anymore. :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 09:10 AM Heh! That was pretty good. But yeah, Aknddon3, when it comes down to it, would apparently rather run away from an argument than admit he was wrong. Ah well, it was fun while it lasted. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 10:15 AM Somehow I knew when I saw this thread bloom from 53 to 120 posts that Aknddon3 was somehow involved. Take a lesson guys it's useless to argue with him. Has he brought up his science teacher to back up his idea's yet? That's always a classic. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 10:50 AM In reply to this comment (#1140494) No, not yet. But, you're right and I've said it, too: when aknddon3 gets involved, you double or triple your thread posts easilly. You know...I should mention that, while Aknddon3 goes to ASU, he lied in another thread and said that he goes to Notre Dame. I should know. He rubbed that in my face, telling me that my degree from SJSU was "worthless" and that SJSU is nothing and while SJSU is one of top ten schools in California, ND is one of the best in the nation and blah, blah, blah. Little **** LIED and goes to ASU, a nice college to be sure (my cousin got a degree in hotel management there), but it's one of the biggest party schools on the planet next to Chico and Cal Poly and not even NEAR the caliber of Notre Dame and he's telling me that MY school was crap? Oh, the Wizard's all bluster and special effects. Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, indeed. It's a wonder he's even going to college. (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 11:39 AM aknddon3 is currently at ASU, but he went to Notre Dame High School For Boys in Niles IL. Students at that school (Catholic) are called "dons", and from there you can see what his name means: a - Andrew k - his surname nd - Notre Dame don - It means h (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 22 2007 11:41 AM aknddon3 is currently at ASU, but he went to Notre Dame High School For Boys in Niles IL. Students at that school (Catholic) are called "dons", and from there you can see what his name means: a - Andrew k - his surname nd - Notre Dame don - It means "man" And I might be able to shed some light on his very poor debating skills. I found this piece on several news sites... "GRAYSLAKE - A Grayslake man who taught religion and coached debate at Notre Dame High School in Niles has been charged with exposing himself to teenage girls on two occasions, Grayslake police said (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 23 2007 01:23 AM I love it. That makes my day. Any way we can post that on his MySpace? :) (Reply to this) |
|
on Sep 25 2007 12:29 AM It's a pity this thread has died. It was rather fun while it lasted. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 29 2007 06:57 AM In reply to this comment (#1146595) This is my first time posting on this site and I have to say, I've laughed, I've cried(with laughter) and hell, I even learned something. I think this thread alone will keep me coming back to this site. Man that guy aknddon3 is an idiot. (Reply to this) |
|
on Nov 29 2007 07:01 AM Oh ya, I'm looking forward to Iron Man. looks like it could be entertaining. there better be flying in it though. wouldn't be right otherwise. (Reply to this) |
on Dec 07 2007 03:37 AM It's obvious by some of the responses here that, if presented with the prospects of ironman not wearing an ironman suit, they would be here saying: "That ironman suit looked bad anyway. Oh, Im happy ironman doesnt wear an ironman suit." Reminds me of the starwars nerds who though 2 seconds of Vadert was cool because they knew that thats all there would be and they had to liek HWATEVER was coming. Super geeks are *******s. (Reply to this) |
|
on Dec 07 2007 08:53 AM (First post) This movie looks very promising to me on a character level and on a superficial (visual) level should be sufficiently sparkly to satisfy the CGI 'connoisseuers'. The casting of Downey as Tony Stark is inspired. Iron Man has one of the most human backstories in comics and tackles adult themes such as addiction and the dangers of corporate-government symbiosis. Downey's personal story (struggles with substance abuse and its consequences) gives him a particular credibility in portaying Stark and his obvious comedic gifts clearly will not go to waste under Favreau's direction. I have high expectations. As for the Variety's 'story', the idea of a non-flying Iron-Man is so nonsensical that the article never should have made it off the editor's desk. Whoever wrote the piece should be reassigned. (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 02 2008 01:57 AM hey guys, aknddon3 is a real smart *** punk i know. his real name is andrew kruzel, hes a senior at ASU. its about time someone outed this schmuck. have a good day! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 02 2008 01:58 AM hey guys, aknddon3 is a real smart *** punk i know. his real name is andrew kruzel, hes a senior at ASU. its about time someone outed this schmuck. have a good day! (Reply to this) |
|
on Jan 02 2008 02:03 AM oh btw, everyone, heres his aknddon03 myspace page as ww (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Articles
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (0)
-
Copyright Battle Erupts Over Marvel Characters
(23)
- Total Recall: Robert Downey, Jr.'s Best Movies (35)
-
Is Faran Tahir Iron Man's Mandarin?
(10)
-
Marvel Seeks Writers
(4)
-
Iron Man Leads VES Noms
(1)
-
Sam Jackson in Salary Standoff with Marvel?
(52)
- Weekly Ketchup: Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell in Iron Man 2 (23)
- Broadcast Film Critics Name Critics' Choice Winners (1)
-
Scripter Award Nominations Announced
(3)
Most Discussed
- Total Recall: Keith David's Best Movies (59)
- Five Favorite Films with Jason Reitman (57)
- Critics Consensus: Everybody's Fine Is Just OK (50)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (46)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (41)
- Weekly Ketchup: Tron Team to Remake The Black Hole (37)
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: The Blind Side Takes the Lead (29)
- Awards Tour: National Board of Review Winners List! (28)
- Friday Harvest: Iron Man 2, Harry Potter, and more! (24)
- Help Us Choose the Community Golden Tomato Award (21)
Latest News
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (0)
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (20)
- Total Recall: Keith David's Best Movies (59)
- Awards Tour: D.C. Film Critics Name Up in the Air as Year's Best (17)
- Help Us Choose the Community Golden Tomato Award (21)
- RT's Blu-ray Picks from Sony Pictures (0)
- RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Harry Potter and Public Enemies (13)
- The Great Directors: Clint Eastwood Will Make Your Day! (0)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (46)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (9)
Latest Interviews
- Robert Downey Jr. talks Sherlock Holmes & Iron Man 2 - RT Interview (0)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (46)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
- Eric Bana talks Love the Beast - RT Interview (12)
- Fight Club Sound Designer Reflects on Film's 10th Anniversary (23)
- James Schamus talks Taking Woodstock - RT Interview (8)
- John Hurt Talks Harry Potter, Quentin Crisp and Alien - The RT Interview (15)
- Terry Gilliam Talks Doctor Parnassus (23)
- Wes Anderson Talks Fantastic Mr. Fox - RT Interview (9)
Latest Features
- The Gimmicks That Changed Cinema: Part 1 (20)
- Five Favorite Films With Avatar's Sam Worthington (46)
- Exclusive: The World of Where the Wild Things Are (9)
- Sundance 2010: RT's 10 Most Anticipated Movies (41)
- 10 Horrifically Profitable Films (46)
- Director Ruben Fleischer Talks Zombieland (2)
- Ban Them All! 10 Infamously Controversial Movies (104)
- 5 Facts About The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (106)
- Five Favorite Films With Zombieland Director Ruben Fleischer (25)
- "I Don't Hate Women": Lars von Trier on Antichrist (17)
IGN RSS Feeds