This movie fucking sucked

This movie fucking sucked

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=EikoWItesz8
youtu.be/RDDcmKDcX8k
theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/california-statute-of-limitations/502307/
youtube.com/watch?v=QOu_MsjKp6s
huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawsuit-alleging-bill-cosby-sexually-abused-teen-moves-forward_us_55b0263ce4b08f57d5d3a617
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

N

>We need to make a Keyblade out of Trash can

>Hey hey hey, don't rape... may!

man walk into co and do funny scream

The 00's were a mistake

>Hey Hey Hey, we're gonna have ourselves a Drive By

Jesus fucking Christ, really?

PERSON

you shut your fucking mouth this movie is fantastic and full of good vibes and happy feelings

That's just the date rape drugs kicking in.

Why not make a thread about something you like instead of about something you hate? This isn't Sup Forums, you know.

wasnt it revealed that fat albert was based on a dead father or something

So was their ever any proof about the Cosby rape thing or was it just groupies shooting up drugs with a celeb?

yeah it was the girl's dead grandfather who she used to look up to and when she cried about something while albert was on he came out the tv to help her

Patience, the trial will actually go on in a couple of months so we'll eventually find out

How new are you?

>christmas day
this was doomed from the start

would it have killed them to make the head as fat as the body? shit just looks fucking un natural

The animated parts were decent. But other than that, it was a shit movie.

Are Christmas releases worse than January releases?

Any movie that takes an animated show and sets it in reality is a mistake. The sad thing is, it would have been far far cheaper for studios to just make animated films.

>Any movie that takes an animated show and sets it in reality is a mistake.

It's not impossible, but it must be harder than it looks to pull off, because I've only ever seen it successfully done once.

>Fat Albert wouldn't rape any- (gasp)...WOULD HE?

youtube.com/watch?v=EikoWItesz8

1. That doesn't count.

2. You're obviously forgetting the greatness that was Space Jam.

but will we?
are we ever going to have those donald trump rape trials that everyone conveniently forgets about?

What was under the kids hat that covers his whole face?

i liked it. it was a good adaptation of a dumb old cartoon, that made fun of it but still paid it respect. even the rap parts weren't too bad.

except there never should have been a trial, it was well outside of the statute of limitations
until they decided to just change the law, to go back and get people, because enough men haven't been put in jail yet for touching women's skin with their skin

even one false accusation should have been enough to discredit the rest. that's how it works. we know he's significantly more innocent than all other 70s celebrities, which is to say.. hands not totally clean, but it was all culturally accepted at the time.
the only difference with cosby is he changed, started trying to make a difference, spoke out against 'accepted' bad behavior, and the hollywood liberal community have hated him for it ever since

Really?

I remember it fondly.

Not a face, or at least anything recognizable as one

I need her name fampai.

Anyone else remember the novelization having a subplot where the effete one was the love interest of Kayla Pratt's character?

And it was hot as fuck

I'm surprised no one posted this yet.

youtu.be/RDDcmKDcX8k

Yeah it was sweet. the ending especially
at first, nothing. Then, as the plotline of "We're losing our distinctive cartoon-ness because we're in the real world" continued, a normal face.
similarly dumb donald stopped being dumb, mushmouth started talking normally, etc. fat albert never stopped being fat but he seemed to lose some of his energy and pizazz

I was going to cite WFRR as the exception to the rule, only Roger Rabbit was never a separate series from the movie to begin with. Plus it's not so much "cartoon characters are not in the real world and have to deal" as it is "this is a world where cartoon characters exist."

brown bricks

No, it was based on a Freudian era law that said you could take someone to court if you subconsciously forgot the crime happened for a while. Or in other words there is no statute of limitations in California because anyone can "lol suppress" memory of something. It's not like they can scan your brain and see the memory is or isn't there.

is that seriously what they're basing it off of? jesus christ Freud has been discredited for over a century.
But this is a new law they've changed, repealing the statute of limitations, so.. it's going to be interesting seeing any new convictions being immediately appealed and rejected by the supreme court

honestly the fact that he was immediately condemned by everyone based on accusation should bother anyone with any kind of sense of justice. even OJ, a fucking murderer, got more defense.

No. Re-read what I said. They're not changing the law about the statute of limitations. This is an old law from the Freudian era. Back in the day, Freud used to accuse people's families of raping or molesting each other, and he made up a lot of bullshit about people not remembering because of memory suppression.

In California, where trial lawyers reign supreme and lobby lawmakers shamelessly, they passed a law saying you could try someone in court for something somebody suppressed subconsciously. This was so they could capitalize on all the people who "forgot" they'd been molested or raped.

It's an old law, and it was written and intended to be used like this. To make lawyers money. There's a statute of limitations in California UNLESS you can get a judge to agree that you forgot about the crime until just recently, and a sympathetic judge agreed that, yes, these girls totally didn't remember any sex crimes until JUST NOW.

>because enough men haven't been put in jail yet for touching women's skin with their skin
>even one false accusation should have been enough to discredit the rest. that's how it works.
>the only difference with cosby is he changed, started trying to make a difference, spoke out against 'accepted' bad behavior, and the hollywood liberal community have hated him for it ever since


congrats, you won the daily Sup Forums nutjob contest

>They're not changing the law about the statute of limitations.
they are though.
>This is an old law
then they're bringing it back, but that's still a change. Up til now California still had a statch of limits.
I mean unless I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
in any case it definitely sounds like we're on the same side

>Re-read what I said. They're not changing the law about the statute of limitations.

theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/california-statute-of-limitations/502307/
>California has eliminated its statute of limitations for rape and other sexual-assault charges

The article explicitly points out that California ditching its statute of limitations on sex crimes won't impact Cosby because you can't retroactively change laws like that just to get to people you dislike in the present.

The law they're getting Cosby on is the whole memory suppression thing.

What side? I don't have a stake in Cosby's trial. I'm just telling you that trial lawyers have a lot of power in California and the law does some shady shit to help them force people into court.

yeah see
i think that's even more of a shitty thing to do than having what described in the first place.

>you can't retroactively change laws like that just to get to people you dislike in the present.
that's how the law is supposed to work, yeah. unfortunately lawyers literally decide the law based on who will pay them
>What side?
that side, the side that lawyers are fucked up. I should have said 'on the same page'

>The law they're getting Cosby on is the whole memory suppression thing.
Give me a source on that. The only actual case I see is the one in Philadelphia where he got charged before the statute of limitation ran out.
Everything you've written here about memory suppression doesn't have a single credible link behind it. If you're right, OK, fair play, but for fuck's sake, gimme something.

Removing limits on prosecuting rape is...shitty?

I personally think abolishing the statute of limitations is more honest than using Freudian psychology to start a trial. Everybody knows a trial based on Freud is predicated on a dishonest premise, because really by now we've established that traumatizing experiences are pretty much seared into your brain forever.

It's frankly better to change the law to "We can always come after sex crimes at any time and for the flimsiest pretext" than keeping it as, "We can use thoroughly debunked psychology to pretend everything is legitimate for this trial". The latter sets a nasty precedent, really.

fucking with the law for emotional reasons is shitty. right now we're giving rapists more power to hurt people than ever in history by treating it like the single most important thing in the world instead of just a basic assault/theft involving different parts of the body / posessions than usual. we're making women into automatic victims for being looked at, saran-wrapping kids for their own protection, and generally sensationalizing in order to feed the media and lawyers more money, instead of actually trying to improve the state of things

youtube.com/watch?v=QOu_MsjKp6s

>just a basic assault/theft involving different parts of the body / posessions than usual

are you retarded

huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawsuit-alleging-bill-cosby-sexually-abused-teen-moves-forward_us_55b0263ce4b08f57d5d3a617

>Allred said the statute is more forgiving of civil complaints of childhood sexual abuse, allowing for a claim of repressed psychological injury that is discovered by the accuser in the last three years.

So basically, if you only "just remembered" in the past three years, for this sort of thing you can still take people to civil court in California. Note specifically it's about civil court, not criminal court. It's a lawyer thing. Lawyers get paid for this and they lobby for laws like this.

I love that everyone has a distinctive thing to their look except the dude on the right. His visual characteristic is just Standard.

it was culturally accepted to roofie women so they'd straight up pass out and then fuck them?

I mean I know David Bowie fucked a 15-year-old but at least she was awake

rape is either assault using sex as a weapon, or theft of sex.
iirc that guy is named bill and he's supposed to be bill cosby (and that kid is his little brother I think? the one that died). so naturally he wrote stories about his childhood friend-group he ended up the normal-ish one

>the statute is more forgiving of civil complaints of childhood sexual abuse, allowing for a claim of repressed psychological injury that is discovered by the accuser in the last three years
So basically, you lied like a bitch. The "suppression" thing is about fucking children and you made it out like you can use it whatever your age is.

in the 70s, for celebrities, yes. people had all kinds of wild drug-fueled sex parties. everyone who attended knew what they were in for. it was really fucked up, but you can tell when you compare the cosby of "the bill cosby show" to the cosby of "the cosby show" that he was much more of a hip swinger back then. it was expected of men.

also I didnt know that. I just got way more respect for bowie. not sure if I'm happier about the 15 or the she

>rape is either assault using sex as a weapon, or theft of sex.
Cool logic, murder is theft of life so getting the death penalty or life in prison or even 20 years for a "simple theft" is disgusting and should be abolished.

>because enough men haven't been put in jail yet for touching women's skin with their skin
just say rape. no need to be reductive.

Rape is rape, you retard. You don't have to define sex as a sort of property to make rape not okay. Not all of us are insane.

I've heard people talk/analyze Labyrinth as him trying to make amends.

You CAN use it. No matter your age, if you were molested as a child and suddenly remember any time within the past three years, then you're eligible to take somebody to civil court. There are no lies here. You just don't understand what's happened. The woman taking Cosby to trial for damages is not currently a child.

No, that's not what you said. Here:
>In California, where trial lawyers reign supreme and lobby lawmakers shamelessly, they passed a law saying you could try someone in court for something somebody suppressed subconsciously.

Turns out it isn't "something somebody", it's a child getting raped.
I have no problems with prosecuting child rapists.

It is a grown adult. She's saying she was molested as a child. Did you not follow anything I posted at all? I explicitly told you how and why this law is on the books. It's Freud used to tell people they'd been molested as kids and they just "whoops forgot" until he reminded them. Trial lawyers in California lobbied for the ability to sue people over "whoops forgot" molestation cases in CIVIL court.

Please note carefully:
CIVIL court.
C. I. V. I. L.

Not CRIMINAL court. Not where CRIMINALS are tried for CRIMES.

CIVIL. CIVIL. THE COURT WHERE YOU SAY YOU AND YOUR LAWYER ARE ENTITLED MONEY FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

Jesus, user. I'm just telling you how the world works. You don't have to listen if you want to pretend it has a different structure than it does.

Hey hey hey, I'm the Keyblade Master.

>"whoops forgot" molestation cases
Yeah, I think this really says it all. Go fuck yourself, you and your good buddy Cosby.

>Yeah, I think this really says it all. Go fuck yourself, you and your good buddy Cosby.

Fine. But if you ever find yourself in civil court being asked to cough up money to somebody who clearly doesn't like you, I hope the judge permits a Freudian psychologist to determine whether or not you're competent to testify on your own behalf, and I hope they diagnose you as having way too much penis envy to be reliable.

uh, dude, when you steal, you have to pay it back. that's why we kill people who murder.
if you stole someone's virginity, you have to pay to support them since now someone else probably won't

I remember enjoying the movie desu, it had the same charm as the 90s Brady Bunch movies when I was a kid.

what baffles me is that it's public knowledge that lawyers and others fabricated the pedo scare of the late 80s, basically badgering kids until they invented stories of molestation (among other things, basically just made shit up. like saying their daycare attendants flushed them down the toilet, etc), but nobody takes that into account

You say that like it's not inevitable
unless this user is female. which she almost certainly is
that's a good comparison. it made fun of the source material but still respected it

>unless this user is female. which she almost certainly is
Nope. Better watch those paranoid delusions, keep taking your meds.

Nobody takes what into account? What the fuck are you on about? The criminal case against Cosby is from an incident in 2004, which is within the statute of limitations. The civil case, which sort of breaks the statute of limitations and is the thing I think you were mad about, is a different subject and is relying on antiquated trial laws they never fixed because trial lawyers enjoy money.

Actually, you're both retards because "penis envy" was a thing they only diagnosed in women. Freud's belief was that women sometimes went insane because they didn't have a penis. This was established psychology in that era. I just used that particular diagnosis because it's one of the funniest I could think of off-hand.

Seriously, though. Freud was fucking dangerous. The fact that he influenced tort law in California and can still be used to sue somebody should be goddamned terrifying.

Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud

Well I guess that's the end of this discussion.

YOU'RE A NOBODY, DUMB DONALD

>ITT: Niggering up the place: The movie

This is majestic.

>We would never rape a girl! We ain't Bill Cosby, we're just his creations!

I give them props for getting together a weird enough looking cast to pass as the original cartoon characters.

TRUDAY!

Dude, he clearly raped people. This is as fucking cut and dry as it gets. You think a dozen women just all plotted to get in on a fucking scam? There have been rumors floating around for YEARS that Cosby was doing this shit. Drawn Together made a reference to it in like 2003. The guy is a clear cut rapist, don't defend a rapist.

Bea Arthur stumbling around gets me every time.

Fuck off, Boco

YOU HAVE TO USE THE CHALK TRUDAY!