This movie could have been awesome …
-
MaximRecoil — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:16 PM)
Makeup is a man-made object, does that cancel women who wear it out?
Makeup isn't a fake body part. It's like clothing, i.e., applied on top of the body, and readily removable.
A doll doesn't possess a reproductive system, nor does it have the ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind. Dumb comparison.
This is a
non sequitur
; consider it dismissed. You said she had a "pleasant rack", which has nothing to do with a reproductive system or the "ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind".
They look perkier, more compact, and way more pronounced.
Those are the very things which make them look ridiculous, along with the fact that they don't move properly, because they are self-contained in plastic bags rather than being naturally integrated human breast tissue.
You just wanted to be a bitch and whine about it like it's the moderate 1950s.
This is another non sequitur from you, one which is from particularly deep in left field, no less. Consider it dismissed as well.
Tits are tits
No. Tits are female breast tissue, made of human cells. Plastic bags of silicone or salt water are not tits in any way, shape, or form.
I'm just not a choosy dick like yourself, I can have fun with artificial breast just as much as I can genuine ones.
Which is why you should get a doll. You're basically like a dog, which is so easily duped that it will hump a fire hydrant.
I'm sure your life will continue on.
Another
non sequitur
; dismissed.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs. -
MaximRecoil — 9 years ago(January 01, 2017 11:56 AM)
It's nothing like clothing.
I already established otherwise, i.e., it goes on top of the body and it is readily removable. Consider your mere gainsaying dismissed.
It's manufactured concealer to hide imperfections
Clothing is too. Would you rather see Rosie O'Donnell with clothes on or without?
just as false breast are.
Is that a joke? Fake boobs hide nothing. If anything, they make imperfections such as poor breast shape more noticeable, by pushing the breast tissue outward, thus making it more prominent.
You compared the likes of a doll to fake breast, that analogy is shallow and a half-baked attitude. My statement still holds, the doll has none of the above and your connection was impractical.
Your non sequitur remains dismissed, for the same reason as before:
You said she had a "pleasant rack", which has nothing to do with a reproductive system or the "ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind".
A typical response to rationalize one's inexperience.
This is comically ironic, considering it is you who are not noticing the difference, when in reality, there is a huge difference. Even if you're too oblivious to see it, physics demands that there is a big difference in the movement of self-contained bags of liquid and human breast tissue. Enclose human breast tissue in plastic bags and it wouldn't move right either.
Having been with females who've had fake breast, not a jarring difference or notable variation unless drastic scarring is present. Go back to the drawing board with this shoddy and commonly used reasoning.
LOL @ you. See above.
You know your argument was absurd, degrading, and immature. Just sore I called your ass out on how stupid it was. I mean really, you gave fake breast as one of the reasons to not approve of the film.
Your
non sequitur
remains dismissed, simpleton.
Again, they don't react noticeably different
Your demonstrably false assertion is dismissed.
taste different, and can be handled in the same way as genuine ones do. They are also covered with the human flesh just as natural ones are. So the problem is, this prevents you from enjoying them how?
They look bad, like tumors, and they move like tumors too. In other words, they are disgusting. You've already established that you're indiscriminate / easily duped, like a dog.
Seems you have very little contact with women in general and have been conditioned to believe artificial breast are somehow incapable of being enjoyed like natural ones (common).
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo.
A doll doesn't possess any human traits or emotions
Once again, idiot, that's a
non sequitur
. We're talking about boobs, or in your case, manmade objects which fool you into thinking they're boobs. Neither real boobs nor fake boobs have anything to do with "human traits or emotions", and that's especially the case with females in a movie (which is what this thread is about) whom you'll never meet.
Third time using that exhausted idiom in the same post.
"Idiom"? LOL. You clearly don't know what the word "idiom" means, as it has no application here whatsoever. Every time you construct a
non sequitur
you're going to see me point out that it is a
non sequitur
; same input = same output. I point out
non sequiturs
because
non sequiturs
are invalid, which means they can legitimately be dismissed out of hand.
Sign of a feeble mind with nothing worthy to say.
Comical Irony Alert: Part II
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs. -
MaximRecoil — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 09:18 PM)
You didn't establish anything. Grasping for straws on a similarity that has little in common other than wearing it. Try harder.
Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.
Clothing isn't made to hide imperfections you idiot.
Comical irony, from someone who established himself as an idiot in his first post; one with a fetish for plastic bags no less. Your mere gainsaying is dismissed again.
It's made to hide the bare body as it would be illegal and indecent to go in public without them. You must be a troll. I can't imagine anyone being this stupid deliberately.
Educate yourself, ninny -
https://www.google.com/search?q=slimming+clothes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
. Just like makeup, clothes can be made with more than one function in mind.
It corrects drooping and unbalanced breast with synthetic filling, supporting the faulty breast. Your insertion is inaccurate,
it in no way makes 'poor breast shape more noticeable"
.
Yes, it does, numbnuts, and you've already established that you're in no way qualified to comment on breast shape, given that you think the chick at the beginning of FvJ had a "pleasant rack" (LOL!). The bad shape and unsightly gap between her breasts wouldn't have been anywhere near as noticeable before she got her tumors implanted.
I suppose you fancy hanging tits? More power to you. Not all women need fake breast, but some do in fact look much better with them.
No one looks better with synthetic tumors wedged beneath their flesh.
Not only are you using non sequitur incorrectly
LOL @ the simpleton who thought "non sequitur" was an "idiom", thinking he's now an authority on the term. Ironically, by disputing the correct usage of the term "non sequitur", you've established, for the second time, that you don't know what it means (you established it for the first time when you called it an idiom).
as I'm staying within the confines of the argument and making valid points you can't dispute,
No, road apple, you have been posting things which don't logically follow from previous statements, which is a
non sequitur
. For example, human traits which originate from the mind have nothing to do with the characteristics of boobs (or objects falsely so called).
your diction is very limited
Comical Irony Alert: Part VII.
What I stated was "Girl had a pleasant rack and it wouldn't make one bit of difference in the sack" to your original shallow post, which is a fair assessment. The "ability to show desire, love, or romance of any kind" was a whole different post regarding your comparison of fake breast to a doll. Please learn proper comprehension skills.
See above, dumbass.
Again, a myth. You keep asserting the "move right" argument as if all natural breast move similarly.
They do all move similarly, moron, because they are all made of the same material (human cells), which are always integrated to the rest of the body in the same way. There are variances due to overall mass and level of firmness, but they all fall into the category of natural movement, because they are natural. None of them move like self-contained plastic bags of liquid, because that is a fundamentally different thing.
The only form of fake boobs which look and move similarly to the real thing are the silicone injection type, because the silicone is injected directly into the breast tissue, thus it isn't contained in a plastic bag. However, that's a dangerous procedure which is illegal in most countries. A lot of the women who starred in, e.g., Russ Meyer movies in the '60s and '70s had this done, with Russ Meyer paying for it in some cases (such as with
Kitten Natividad
). They had it done in Tijuana, Mexico, where it isn't, or wasn't, illegal. Natividad had to have a double mastectomy in the late 1990s, which Meyer also payed for. They had injected her with industrial-grade silicone, rather than pharmaceutical-grade. Neither one is considered safe for such a procedure, but industrial-grade is especially unsafe.
The point is, fake breast do not hinder movement enough to make one like yourself worry about such a petty thing. As I said, you just wanted to bitch when it doesn't make a bit of difference in the bedroom as they can be handled just like real ones. Your reasoning is mute and superficial.
Again, you're an idiot; an oblivious idiot at that. Real boobs totally change shape when in different positions, such as when a woman is laying on her back, on her side, or leaning forward. The bigger the boobs are, the more drastic this shape change is. Self-contained bags of silicone can't change shape by any significant amount, because plastic bags don't stretch by any significant amount without breaking/tearing.
Here's some fake boobs in various positions:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com:443/data.filmboards/images/upload/xBJJkkj.jpg
LOL! They look like bowling balls under a sheet, albeit,
misshapen
bowling balls.
On the other hand, this is what real boobs look like in various positions:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com:443/data.filmboards/images/upload/UXr -
MaximRecoil — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 10:41 PM)
Your
non sequitur
is dismissed, airhead, and given that you have no further arguments, your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.
I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs. -
lukejbarnett — 3 years ago(December 09, 2022 01:02 AM)
exactly there are literally 1000s upon 1000s of aspiring actresses in hollywood knocking down the door of every agent and casting agent, producer in hollywood to get a role any role in a hollywood movie nowadays.
and there is no way that they all have fake tits or small tits. and if a porn video company can get all these big natural titted girls then hollywood should have more options than them in this regard.
and exactly the level of acting required for her role is on the same level as porn acting bc this is a slasher movie.
lukejbarnett -
JimmyPooSwag — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 09:07 PM)
Other guy kept deleting his posts but I'll respond to you:
- What ruined the nude scene for me wasn't the fake tits but the fact the chick had a WAY bigger cup size than Katharine Isabelle. Body doubles only work well if viewers aren't able to distinguish them from the real actor but they failed in that.
P.S. I also prefer natural tits myself but fake ones can be nice as well as long as they don't go overboard with them like in the pics you posted. - I also agree with this. Can you imagine all those people that were pumped to see Kane Hodder vs. Robert Englund and got sorely disappointed? It feels so unbalanced to have Robert Englund turn in a stellar performance but Kirzinger was just okay.
- I feel like the writers just decide to make Jason hydrophobic when it's needed. You had the main girl Rennie in Jason Takes Manhattan that was afraid of water and then Jason turns into a little kid at the end of the film from toxic waste (even though Jason swam to Manhattan in the same film.) I guess in this one, they wanted to ignore everything again and bring back the hydrophobia to give Freddy a way to torture him. It's the same thing with Freddy's fear of fire. As far as I'm aware, New Nightmare is the only film that shows he has a fear of fire but that wasn't Freddy, it was a demon taking his form.
- If you were to knock him out with drugs, I would imagine it'd take more than two big syringes to get the job done.
- What ruined the nude scene for me wasn't the fake tits but the fact the chick had a WAY bigger cup size than Katharine Isabelle. Body doubles only work well if viewers aren't able to distinguish them from the real actor but they failed in that.
-
lukejbarnett — 3 years ago(December 09, 2022 01:07 AM)
lol that is what a girl i saw this movie with said afterwards that the actress katharine isabelle has different size tis than the body double in the shower scene. but that is not true that this is the only reason why you know it's a body double.
how you know and always know this is the fact that they never show the girls face with the girl's tits or any other private body part.
lukejbarnett
