![Challenge Entry: Merchandise for films that normally wouldn't have merchandise [challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif)

From the Merchandise for films that normally wouldn't have merchandise challenge. See all 239 entries (closed)
( , Sun 2 Oct 2011, 21:55, archived)

or the 'eggs files'
Its a veritable never ending series of japes.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:00,
archived)
Its a veritable never ending series of japes.

out of context, that just sounds brilliant as a name.
"Hi - my name is Jason Eggs" *hands business card*
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:04,
archived)
"Hi - my name is Jason Eggs" *hands business card*

i LOLed on the simulator bit with the sleeping bags
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:12,
archived)

the liquid nitrogen face-smash was the most inventive death i've seen in a film for a long time.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:14,
archived)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ5YPlcCzYA
and yeah, the face smash was brilliant
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:15,
archived)
and yeah, the face smash was brilliant

im not much of a fan of american comic book movies, but it was really, really bad.
That liev shreiber is a good looking fella. Nice beard.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:12,
archived)
That liev shreiber is a good looking fella. Nice beard.

on the plus side, finally watched star trek tonight.
it did not suck.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:13,
archived)
it did not suck.

Too much baffling cinematography (CONSTANTLY sweeping / moving cameras, too much lens flares etc) and some sci-fi movie cliches that keep bugging me, like why did the baddies have to LOOK evil, and have a big pointy EVIL spaceship, that was all darkly lit and EVIL inside?
I hate it when sci-fi film baddies look evil just because they are evil. I mean, really - what benefit does a baddies ship have being poorly lit, full of chasms and deadly drops, sparks flying and loose tubing?
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:20,
archived)
I hate it when sci-fi film baddies look evil just because they are evil. I mean, really - what benefit does a baddies ship have being poorly lit, full of chasms and deadly drops, sparks flying and loose tubing?

but as to why the bad guys have to look evil, well, the american film board view the american public as drooling spastic shitcunts, so they try to make things as easy on them as possible.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:23,
archived)

It looked like a 20th century chemical plant. Not even the Enterprise on Star Trek:Enterprise looked that bad.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:34,
archived)

futuristic, yet believable
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:42,
archived)

Managed to appear like what it was supposed to be, namely a lower-tech version of the original series, and without a big-arsed wide diameter metal pipe in sight! Shame it got cancelled; most of the stories in the final two years were rather good (and a hell of a lot better than Voyager).
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:57,
archived)

It sickened me when i heard that bit in the new film where simon pegg killed porthos (archer's dog) in a transporter experiment. Cunts.
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 23:13,
archived)

both awful. the franchise is dead
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:13,
archived)

he interests me in sexy ways
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:25,
archived)

but I prefer the thin, Errol Flynn style ones
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2011, 22:32,
archived)