Troels Pleimert Posted April 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2012 Man, I'm digging this thread. It's like being 14 again, except I actually know English this time around. Again, I know exactly what you mean. Except I was 16. Nyah, nyah, nyah. ;) And, hey, Troels, that part in your video when you get pissed and grab the beer and start opening it. (Y) Great stuff! :D Thanks. :) It was wine, actually ... and I'll confess it already had an open twin brother next to it at the time of filming. And I had a flu when I recorded the second video. Maybe I should get stoned or hang myself upside down for the third one. Back to Mad_C33 (and ya'll in general), can you guys tell me why so many seem to see the Gippazoid Novelty event(s) as a plot inconsistency...? --snip snip-- Okay, I see what you're saying. With a little remark or two in SQ3, or even just as a fancy, subtle retcon in SQ5, I agree the whole scenario could've been saved. But it wasn't intentional. Mark Crowe confessed it was a quick way to tie SQ3 into the rest of the series and that the "free" bit had simply slipped their memory. So we know it wasn't intentional, but seeing as we're apparently the only people left who care about this, we could all just agree it was intentional all along and no one would be the wiser. ;) Also, in my opinion, misinterpreted, was the idea that the sequel police men sequence on the super computer tower was buggy because they shoot Roger after telling him to halt, even though he does halt. I always took it as mocking trigger happy police members. I agree completely. That one was entirely intentional. Mark Seibert's brilliant "some people just won't follow instructions" delivery just nails it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.