|
>...was because this time the vulgarity wasn't executed well.
it was executed well imo, it was just a retread. if this was the first movie, people would love it. it's the fact that it's more of the EXACT same that people really have an issue with.
>It just seemed mean and sad.
it's mean, sad, and hilarious. come on.
> Here, they zoomed in on the small dick until you
>knew it was a small dick, and then proceeded to talk about it
>and look at it for a long time.
this was a weak ass laugh, i agree.
>Last time, Stu married a hooker. This time, he got sodomized
>by a transvestite.
i dunno about you, but if that's me and my buddies, the 'holy shit' factor would be off the charts if that happened to one of us. it's sad, mean, i would feel awful for my friend, and i would laugh at him for it. because it's fucked up, and that was the point.
>Last time, the photos at the end showed Zach getting a beej in
>an elevator. This time, it shows Stu getting buttfucked and
>Phil and Chow re-enacting the Vietnam Execution photo.
yeah, but what's the problem? look at it like this: if all this happened to you and your friends, what then? like, i mean, if this is what happened, this is what happened, and you were all drugged and drunk and didn't even know what you were doing. i looked at it like that: if that were my friends? LOL.
i mean.. YO....YOU GOT FUCKED IN THE ASS BY A TRANNY! WTF? HOW'D THAT EVEN HAPPEN????????????
i mean, 40 year old virgin ran with the same exact joke without the visual vulgarity, but we're talking an entirely different movie and BOTH tranny gags were done in a way that fit perfectly in the world they live in.
>Do I imagine a world in which someone getting fucked in the
>butt by a tranny or a parody of a famous murder is funny?
>Sure. I believe anything can be funny if executed properly.
how was this 'executed improperly'? i submit that it wasn't. there is really no way to execute getting butt fucked by a lady boy in a drugged out drunken stupor, it just sort of happened. it wasn't the 'execution' itself, it was the redundant nature of it all.
>But this film had zero execution.
define 'execution'. like, how would you execute those jokes in a way that made you enjoy them?
>It believes just sloppily
>throwing vulgarity on the screen will be just as funny as the
>first time, as if what they accomplished the first time was
>"easy."
peep eddie murphies take on bill cosbys take on eddie's act: it wasn't just a bunch of curses, it had some other words in it. you can't just do a curse show. disck, snot, pussy, and shit! goodnight!
it was lazy and they really didn't try to tell a new story in a new way. but it wasn't just a bunch of vulgarity on the screen and YEAH, all the 'i don't really find a guy getting ass fucked by a thai tranny all that funny' types are kinda taking the snobbish route, because the content is outrageous but it wasn't, in my view, poorly executed or sloppily done. i think the issue people REALLY have is that it's an exact retread.
personally, my challenge to you is to view this movie from the lens of having never seen the first, and then look at it from the lens of having seen it. the difference in quality between the two is the rehashed nature. -Sig-
“Why didn’t you do this in your own god damn country?"
-All Stah's view on undocumented immigrants wanting to be treated like human beings.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn 
