User talk:Zythe: Difference between revisions
Greenday21 (talk | contribs) →Billie Joe: new section |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
Thanks again.[[User:Sillycucumber|Sillycucumber]] ([[User talk:Sillycucumber|talk]]) 07:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks again.[[User:Sillycucumber|Sillycucumber]] ([[User talk:Sillycucumber|talk]]) 07:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Billie Joe == |
|||
exactl what i said to sillycucumber, when was the last time i did anything like that? a while ago.your warning was unnecessary. --[[User:Greenday21|Greenday21]] ([[User talk:Greenday21|talk]]) 15:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21 |
Revision as of 15:16, 24 May 2008
Jack
That sounds pretty reasonable to me, since too much backstory in the appearances section can read like a biography, and the exposition-heavy second series is making that section look bloated. How would you put it, something like Jack's backstory is developed through exposition and flashback... "Adam" reveals that Jack... in "Fragments", Jack does such and such. The thing is, didn't we try something similar a while back and Bignole said it was unnecessary? This seems better, but it would be nice if we could get some OOU info on Jack's past, why they decided to tell the story the way they did. Maybe TW Declassified? Paul 730 22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it sounds like a good plan. What did you make of Saturday's Doctor Who, by the way? Paul 730 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was a bit confused by the order the info appears in, wasn't sure whether it was supposed to be in-universe or out-of-universe because it seems to flip about a bit, it goes from the Time Agency to his childhood to his post-Torchwood history. Maybe we could tighten that up unless there's a specific reason you ordered it like that. Otherwise it looks good, I'd put it in the article. Paul 730 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit Summary in Big Brother 9 (U.S.)
Hi, this just kinda confused me a bit "if you're going to write it in a way that presumes it's not genuine, you could at least spell it correctly", exactly what did you mean by that? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Whedon
OMG, those covers are pretty damn cool. I'm loving Gunther centre stage! (Aw, look at his little whiskers!) And Drusilla?? Oh the possibilies, I've already heard theories that she was the vampire who escapes the Twilight spell to erase magic, leading to her repopulating the vampires? I wanted Harmony to be that vampire - since she has a habit of escaping and it would be hilarious to have her as a villain in Fray having not matured at all in 200 years. I've always wanted closure for Drusilla though, her disappearance from both shows wasn't good enough. I'm glad Harth is in it again. Not too excited about Angel as usual, the Fredllyria stuff seems interesting but... meh? Someone was commenting that Fred has filled out a little in her absence... I hate when they do that to characters. Blindfold and Pixie are currently being transformed in double-D hookers over in X-Men, it's disgusting. I'm not opposed to T&A in general, but Pixie??? She's like fourteen??!!! >:( It doesn't surpise me that Acker is in Dollhouse, Whedon does love to re-use actors, the entire cast of Firefly were villains in the Buffyverse at some point. Paul 730 01:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- So what do you make of the latest developments in Buffy and Angel? The last panel of Buffy was brilliantly brutal. Paul 730 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, more details than just "really good". :P What did you make of Renee's apparent death, I know you were fond of her? I really expected her to be Twilight's mole so that was surprising. I desperately hope they don't de-activate the Slayers, I think that would just shit all over the girl power theme of the series and I doubt Whedon would do that. I was very surprised, because I loathed the character in the TV series, to think that Kate's brief return has been the best moment of AfF so far. They managed to give her the sendoff she never really got in the show, develop the character by showing how far she's come since the time she couldn't accept the reality of demons, furthering Connor's character arc via her advice, and reinforcing the entire theme of the series (keep fighting even though it's ultimately futile). It was brilliant, please take note Gwen. Paul 730 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm sure Kate died, I think that was the point. It felt like a nod to "Not Fade Away" in that sense. I've seen some people speculating that she'll be back as part of the Connor and the Random Recurring Characters gang but I doubt it. There's nowhere else for the character to go and it would ruin the poignancy of her one-shot story. Yeah, the Scoobs' attack on that vamp was cool, I loved the power walk at the end. I love the panel with Drac's dramatic entrance, and Xander carrying all his bags in the background. I love their relationship, but that said, I hope it doesn't get any heavier than just comic relief. God knows we need a token hetero in the cast. ;)
- I actually knew it was your birthday today (you have a userbox somewhere) but it slipped my mind. Happy birthday. A friend and I went out to a gay bar for my 18th but it was pretty crap. Lots of dirty old men looking to pull. :| Hope your night is better. How have you been enjoying DW, now that you mention it? I'm offically sick of Martha, she's done nothing but get kidnapped lately, she needs a new schikt (sp?). Paul 730 13:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Donna's thoroughly impressing me every week, although I loved her to begin with. I find her much more sympathetic and engaging than any other companion, I thought her scenes where she failed to save the little boy from the volcano, and with the Ood circle, really moving. I've read reviews claiming she's the most well-rounded companion of the entire series, which is great. Jenny was okay, I liked her in the episode but have no strong opinion of her. More appearances and a comic book spin-off would be perfectly acceptable in my eyes. Martha has just done nothing impressive since her initial return in Torchwood. Davis has a tendancy to bing back characters and then make them stand in the background of an episode with has nothing to do with them. (Jack!!!)
- Forgot to reply to part of your previous comment: the Slayer thing in Angel... it was a lot like the Fredllyria thing in that it was an intended dramatic relevation which felt flat because I didn't fully understand it. My friend thought that Slayers were bursting in to save George, while I thought George was reading the vamp's memories of fighting Slayers. It wasn't clear enough IMO. With the Fred thing, because we already know Illyria can take her form, it wouldn't even have occurred to me that that was actually Fred if the issue hadn't been hyped so much.
- Where'd you see the Dollhouse trailer? Paul 730 13:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's been removed, I'll just have to catch it later. Never mind, I can be patient (still haven't seen Sarah Connor yet!!) Aren't you a member of SlayAlive as well? I do a lot of lurking over there and I'm sure I've seen you commenting once or twice. I'm reluctant to join a Buffy forum because I'd feel obligated to argue against all the criticism and it would just put me in a bad mood. Whedonesque is good, I've seen quite a few intelligent debates over there. Paul 730 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, more details than just "really good". :P What did you make of Renee's apparent death, I know you were fond of her? I really expected her to be Twilight's mole so that was surprising. I desperately hope they don't de-activate the Slayers, I think that would just shit all over the girl power theme of the series and I doubt Whedon would do that. I was very surprised, because I loathed the character in the TV series, to think that Kate's brief return has been the best moment of AfF so far. They managed to give her the sendoff she never really got in the show, develop the character by showing how far she's come since the time she couldn't accept the reality of demons, furthering Connor's character arc via her advice, and reinforcing the entire theme of the series (keep fighting even though it's ultimately futile). It was brilliant, please take note Gwen. Paul 730 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That Dollhouse link was dead for a little while but it's working now. The show looks interesting, I'll definitely give it a chance. By the way, looking through your contributions, Electra features a lesbian kiss in it IIRC, so that might be why someone classed it as LGBT, not because "it's gay". Paul 730 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not redirect an article without first bringing up in Discussion page. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not allow editors to dissuade you to from being a confident editor. The worst thing that can possibly happen is that someone will have to hit "undo". This is a better fate than being bogged down in endless discussion.
- Oh, and the answer to your totally unrelated question is "yes", although such a confirmation on-wiki isn't good reference material. I'm pretty sure IMDb is already cited as a source.
- Could I trouble you to add a valid e-mail address to your account?
- Bonus points if you remember your actual, original question.
- —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-05-21 20:21Z
Billie Joe Armstrong
Hey. I've been un-vandalizing that article for months now. Is it possible to get it locked? And also, since you're on my side (the true one), could you add the bisexual reference? Thanks.
I'm glad some of his fans are open-minded. But maybe they're 14-year-old girls whose parents didn't raise them right. Or maybe they're 14-year-old girls who think there's less chance he'll marry them if he's bi. I'm joking, but they are pretty nasty people.
Thanks again.Sillycucumber (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Billie Joe
exactl what i said to sillycucumber, when was the last time i did anything like that? a while ago.your warning was unnecessary. --Greenday21 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Greenday21