MefuneAkira Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 lol What a bunch of couch potatoes! Lucas rocks. Without him, you wouldnt have these forums to whine on. They're his movies and he should be able to do whatever he wants. Want the old school stuff? Hate all the special edition crap? Then simply do what I did and buy the non-special edition stuff. Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
priest Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm sorta surprised this thread is still going, but not really. These things need caps for a reason. Anyway, I just wanted to add this into the mix. I found it off reddit about a week ago. They've been in a big huff over copyright law over there, but it's very relevant to the discussion here because the article deals with it from the George Lucas/Star Wars point of view. http://blog.cgpgrey.com/copyright-forever-less-one-day/ The short version for anyone who doesn't want to follow the link is that copyright in its original form was meant to help encourage artists to make their creations and give them the time they needed to make a profit off of their work. The copyright for Star Wars would have expired in 2005 under the original laws. Instead, however, copyright law in the US has been extended to protect work for the lifetime of the creator +70 years. It's largely been pushed by Disney, which ironically built its empire off recycling old stories themselves. true. SteamBoat Willy is the test case on that. I would be curious to see what a discussion on the copywright law would bring about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cancrizans Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) When an artist's work is admired by many, particularly when those many paid to view it, does it really belong to him/her at that point? This is a debate that could rage forever, but I'd like you to at least look at *both* sides. On the one hand, the work could obviously be said to belong to the artist that created it. I'm going to apply this to Lucas, though the OT films were not entirely *his* work. He owns the legal rights to the films, so he can do what he wants with them. Indeed, Lucas can make any changes he likes, and the public can choose whether or not they will continue to pay for the new versions. On the other hand, when so many people have enjoyed the work of that artist, it could also be said to belong to them. This should hold particularly true when those people paid to view that work. The people who loved the OT films *in their original format* want Lucas to keep that version available even if he makes changes to those films as he re-releases them. There is also the fact that the OT films have been registered into the Library of Congress, which is like being officially recognized as being a highly influential work in culture. Does Lucas really have the right in that case to change those films from their original format? This is not meant as a personal insult so please don't take it that way. But the general attitude you seem to favor is really one of the most insane ideas I've heard in a while. There was another post in here somewhere making an analogy with Hemingway, but for some reason I can't find it...but it showed a basic confusion of the idea that "art is for the people" with the idea "the people have a right to possess(or direct) art". Most of this post is about the relationship between Artwork, Artist, and the public. A popular film series like Star Wars probably doesn't fall into the same category of artistic expression as the works I am thinking about, but since analogies have been made that include works of "high art", I am sticking with that line of thought for matters of convenience. The first idea is simply a realization of the fact that Artists create art as a way to communicate meaningful truths to the rest of humanity, who may not have the time or inclination to recognize those truths in the course of their daily lives. It is an attempt to raise the level of culture of a society towards a humanistic future. That is all that is meant by such sentiments. It nowhere even remotely implies that, because the people have become fond of a particular work of art, that it is in some way "theirs". What is good in all art can't be possessed, and to imagine a work of art is "yours" in some way is just silly. Hemingway certainly hoped that people would gain pleasure and enlightenment from his work...but I can GUARANTEE you that he would not condone "the people" rewriting a single word of it. I am also sure he would absolutely claim the right to make any change he wanted(as artists have done to their works since time immemorial) without concern for whether "the people" liked it or not. I guess most people don't really understand what goes into creating a work of art...but many Artists have described their relationship to their works as being similar to the relationship a parent has to a child. It is a very profound thing, and not something that should be trifled with. An Artist shares this gift with other people, not so that people can claim any kind of personal relationship to it, but because not to share such insight and imagination would be a waste to begin with. None of this has anything to do with laws, ownership as determined by copyright law, the Library of Congress, or any other such societal concerns. Artistic creativity is a natural process which in the end, though it is convenient to us to trademark it and process it in other legal ways, is completely beyond all of that. The other issue is that to imagine that any of us truly "understands" or "realizes" a work of art even remotely in its full being and reality is ignorant. Most people don't even get the surface, others have deep feelings about art and realize more of what is in the work. But no matter the degree of understanding, it does not give one the Artist's vision, or any real idea of what that work means in the context of the Artist's being as a whole, which only they will ever really know. So yes, Da Vinci has every right to paint a damned mustache on the Mona Lisa, and if he did it would probably have a significant meaning that people ought to adapt to and try to understand, instead of clinging to the older version for sentimental reasons(of course it is not unknown in the modern art world for some artists to pull stuff like this simply because they realize it will tick people off, which isn't really an artistic thing to do, and which and artist like Da Vinci would not consider). I guess this boils down to the question, in modern terms, of whether an Artist "owes something to their fans". I know there is probably a difference whether the Artist is what we would call a "popular" Artist, or whether they are more of the "I will make Art whether I have to live in poverty to do it and no one ever sees my work" variety. But I think in either case the answer should be an emphatic NO. Anytime an individual creative process is interrupted by something unrelated to it, like public opinion, it waters it down and makes less of it. I think as people who appreciate human creativity, we ought to love our favorite Art to death if we want, but always respect it...and its author's sole right to determine its eventual character and direction. EDIT: I personally do not think that Lucas' changes to the movies were all good or necessary, this post was just about the idea that people or fans could have any right to control a work of someone elses creativity in any way. Edited February 3, 2012 by Cancrizans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 <Snipped> It's actually not as insane as you think. It comes down to the artist's intentions: did he/she create the work to satisfy his/her own needs, or did he/she create it for the enjoyment of other people? If a work was created for the public to enjoy, then it is bad form to go back to that work and make changes that the public doesn't approve of. Lucas' constant tinkering with the OT films borders on the obsessive-compulsive side (I'm going to treat this as if he is NOT just doing it to give the fans and critics a big figurative middle finger). Most artists tend to move on to create new works once they finish with the old one. Lucas apparently does or can not do this. Let's also put it another way: customers paid to enjoy a product that Lucas put up on the screen (the OT films). They paid to enjoy the films in their original format. Lucas decides to make changes to those films to fit his vision, whatever that is. I think most people would be fine with that as long as he made the original version still available to the public. By trying to force people to buy his versions, Lucas is just showing a level of selfishness that is deserving of criticism, whether he can stand it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmannseelo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Lucas' constant tinkering with the OT films borders on the obsessive-compulsive side (I'm going to treat this as if he is NOT just doing it to give the fans and critics a big figurative middle finger). Most artists tend to move on to create new works once they finish with the old one. Lucas apparently does or can not do this. The impression I get is that it came from his realizing that Star Wars is the crown jewel of his legacy, and his desire for future generations to view both trilogies as one big saga. Almost every change has served to support this, from updating the special effects to giving Boba the same voice as Jango to making "nooooo" the audio motif for Anakin/Vader changing sides to using Haydn Christenson as the force ghost. Very few changes (such as the lame Han/Greedo shooting first fiasco) are gratuitous. Let's also put it another way: customers paid to enjoy a product that Lucas put up on the screen (the OT films). They paid to enjoy the films in their original format. Lucas decides to make changes to those films to fit his vision, whatever that is. I think most people would be fine with that as long as he made the original version still available to the public. By trying to force people to buy his versions, Lucas is just showing a level of selfishness that is deserving of criticism, whether he can stand it or not. That's the thing though, he's not forcing anybody to buy anything. He is putting the versions he wants up for sale and it is up to the individual if they want to buy them or not. Coercion is nowhere on the table. Nor is it his responsibility to spend millions of dollars to restore a version of the OT he isn't interested in. He threw a rush job of the original versions out there on DVD for posterity. They're still very easy to find and buy. All he didn't do was sink his money into restoration, and that is his right. As consumers we can choose to buy or pass up anything on the market. What we cannot do is extort somebody into spending money they don't want to spend just to please us. That is what I consider selfish behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angrYdog Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 all i see in this thread is " i hate him cause he made sh**loads of money" happy retire george! thanks for what you gave us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelfred Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I've loved star wars ever since it first came out in theaters, but I dont think I've ever seen a larger group of opinionated, self-entitled people in my entire life. I have the misfortune to work in a public service industry and see self entitled people all day long, taking things for granted, but the one individual who states that he respects George Lucas and what he did and then goes on to bash him for a page and a half and then holds up second rate hacks like Zahn as good authors takes the cake. I'm sure Zahn is a great guy, but lets be honest he's a sci-fi writer. The world does not stand in awe waiting for his next masterpiece. Faulkner and Steinbeck he's not. I'm sure he spins a good story, but he wouldnt be spinning a story at all, if someone hadnt given him a background and done the merchandising and made star wars popular before he ever came along. This is George Lucas' playground, everyone else is welcome to play in it, including you and me and Zahn. I'm guessing he doesnt appreciate it when you drop trou and take a massive dump in the sandbox and then complain that the playground isnt like the playground you used to have as a kid. I hesitate to even put this out there, but I once wrote a story in college and shared it with a class and friends and family. It was a silly story, designed for nothing other than a laugh. But it was funny and I knew it was funny while I was writing it. Anybody who has ever written anything that hit its target, knows it is an eye opening experience. As Stephen King (not to compare myself) says, 'you get off on it'. You want to share what you created and hope others enjoy it too and get a chuckle, or whatever you're going for. You cant help but be emotionally vested in it. Frankly, if I had to deal with some of these 'fans' I'd retire from star wars too. Everybody laughed and enjoyed my story, except for one budding critic in the making, who took it seriously and butchered every page and filled every margin with notes about character and plot development, etc, etc. It was a 12 page story designed for a laugh, nothing else. Nontheless, you tell somebody they suck, when they've shared something they enjoyed creating, it hurts. George created something that we all delight in, an end result is the books by Zahn, this game we're playing, my 1970's star wars lunch box, the halloween R2-D2 outfit my parents made for me one year back in the early 80's. Why cant we just enjoy the story, let George enjoy his story and do what he wants with it. I expect he gets grief almost everywhere he goes from self entitled, self important, nerdraging fans. I feel sorry for the guy, however much money he has earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nexusissei Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 True, however RoTS rocked in my opinion. I love how they called it Revenge of the Sith since the original title for Return of the Jedi was originally Revenge of the Jedi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucasomega Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Your welcome for giving you so much money George. Thank you for not listening to your audience and giving us the versions of movies we wanted /sarcasm Passive aggressive nerd rage indeed! Edited February 4, 2012 by lucasomega Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooterguy Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 George killed the goose that laid the golden egg by giving up on his vision and simply making Episodes 1, 2, and 3 so his children could have bit parts in them. They all do. That's why TPM is all about an eight year old randomly pressing buttons in a starfighter, because his oldest daughter was about that age at the time it was made. George killed Star Wars. George killed Indiana Jones. Red Tails is currently playing to vacant theaters, and George blames us because no one likes the ***** he puts out for movies. F U George, do what you said you were going to do DECADES ago. Stop making Star Wars movies and just produce them. You know the movie business and are good at it. You suck at the movie crafting business! So George, repeat your smashing success of The Empire Strikes Back. JJ Abrams is the new Ira Kirshner. Let JJ make the Star Wars movies WITHOUT your interference and they won't suck and you'll still make money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmannseelo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) George killed the goose that laid the golden egg by giving up on his vision and simply making Episodes 1, 2, and 3 so his children could have bit parts in them. They all do. That's why TPM is all about an eight year old randomly pressing buttons in a starfighter, because his oldest daughter was about that age at the time it was made. George killed Star Wars. George killed Indiana Jones. Red Tails is currently playing to vacant theaters, and George blames us because no one likes the ***** he puts out for movies. F U George, do what you said you were going to do DECADES ago. Stop making Star Wars movies and just produce them. You know the movie business and are good at it. You suck at the movie crafting business! So George, repeat your smashing success of The Empire Strikes Back. JJ Abrams is the new Ira Kirshner. Let JJ make the Star Wars movies WITHOUT your interference and they won't suck and you'll still make money! People like you are the reason I love Jar Jar Binks. How can I not love such a huge middle finger to the worst "fans" in the history of fiction. He is awesome because you deserve the frustration he brings you. Enjoy. Edited February 4, 2012 by Jmannseelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooterguy Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Quoted from the NYT article: "while Padmé Amidala, the heroine of the “Star Wars” prequels, peeked down from two paintings arranged on either side of his head. " This is his meeting room where he does the interview for the news piece, and there are TWO paintings of Amidala and NO paintings of Luke, Leia, Han, Obi-wan or any other of the "good" Star Wars movies characters. THAT's the problem. George has always been stung by the criticism of the first three episodes to the point that he's developed a resentment against them. In George's mind, Padme' is just as important as Leia. In mine, Padme' is the constant reminder of the decline in George Lucas' movie making skill. Natalie Portman is hotter than Carrie Fisher ever was, and Carrie looked damn good in that metal bikini. Natalie Portman is a far better actress than Carrie Fisher, but Carrie is far from a hack. But from the two series of movies I have never, ever, not even once, met a fan of the movies that thinks that Princess Amidala is a more memorable character than Princess Leia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiaku Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 You, sir, have missed the point. Good writing is "owned" by those who read it. That's why there are classes on Hemingway, and Faulkner. Those guys understood that once a story leaves your desk and is released unto the masses, it is no longer "yours" any more than it is "theirs." Those two would never come out and say, "But, I meant for it to be _______ " or "This is what I wanted for _______ ." They understood that a good story will mean any number of things dependent upon the person who reads it. Lucas does not. It's his thing, and nobody is playing with it the way he wants them to. I never claimed ownership of anything, and you obviously only read what you wanted to of my post. It's not about fan ownership. It's about a man who let other people play in "his sandbox" and then got upset when they made a better sandcastle than he did. It's about a man who, like a spoiled child, threw a tantrum about it. Flaming the creator of star wars then proceeds to play the games based off his story? Oh please, such hipocracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 The impression I get is that it came from his realizing that Star Wars is the crown jewel of his legacy, and his desire for future generations to view both trilogies as one big saga. Almost every change has served to support this, from updating the special effects to giving Boba the same voice as Jango to making "nooooo" the audio motif for Anakin/Vader changing sides to using Haydn Christenson as the force ghost. Very few changes (such as the lame Han/Greedo shooting first fiasco) are gratuitous. Assuming again that Lucas is serious with the changes he's making rather than just doing it to piss people off, it still becomes clear that he doesn't seem to understand what made the OT films so appealing to begin with. The example of the Greedo shooting first change is a good one of this. The idea of the original version of that scene was to show just how self-centered Han Solo was when we first meet him. Perhaps Lucas felt that Greedo had to shoot first to emphasize that Han is a good guy, but that wasn't necessary. The fact that he ended up changing that scene again to have both of them shooting simultaneously shows that he at least seemed to get a better understanding after making the initial change. Lucas once famously said that films aren't finished, but abandoned. I just don't think that's the right mindset for a true *artist* to have. Again, I've never seen a director go back to a film like Lucas has, not even Ridley Scott with Blade Runner or Francis Ford Coppola with Apocalypse Now. It doesn't help that Lucas has repeatedly talked about moving on to the smaller films that he really wanted to make after Star Wars, because he makes himself more and more a liar with each continued fiddling with the SW films. That's the thing though, he's not forcing anybody to buy anything. He is putting the versions he wants up for sale and it is up to the individual if they want to buy them or not. Coercion is nowhere on the table. Nor is it his responsibility to spend millions of dollars to restore a version of the OT he isn't interested in. He threw a rush job of the original versions out there on DVD for posterity. They're still very easy to find and buy. All he didn't do was sink his money into restoration, and that is his right. As consumers we can choose to buy or pass up anything on the market. What we cannot do is extort somebody into spending money they don't want to spend just to please us. That is what I consider selfish behavior. Uh, no. While customers aren't always right, they should generally have the right to get what they want if they're going to be paying for it. As a businessman, Lucas would be serving himself better by making the original version of the OT films available alongside his vision. At the least, it would show the public that he's not in fact trying to corrupt future generations by showing them a distorted version of the films that made him famous to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Flaming the creator of star wars then proceeds to play the games based off his story? Oh please, such hipocracy. It seems like many of the last few posters, including you, lack critical thinking skills. Please feel free to start using them before you post. Equating criticism of Lucas to hatred of everything with the Star Wars label on it is a ridiculously fallacious argument to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 all i see in this thread is " i hate him cause he made sh**loads of money" When you start to use those critical thinking skills along with better reading comprehension, you will see much more than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 People like you are the reason I love Jar Jar Binks. How can I not love such a huge middle finger to the worst "fans" in the history of fiction. He is awesome because you deserve the frustration he brings you. Enjoy. Any pretensions you have to being a mature debater aren't being helped by childish posts like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muanthuun Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/george-lucas-red-tails.html?_r=3 Did anyone see this coming? I mean I can understand him not feeling 'appreciated' for the work he's done, but come on. . .talk about passive aggressive nerd rage I thought this quote stuck out. . . Your welcome for giving you so much money George. Thank you for not listening to your audience and giving us the versions of movies we wanted /sarcasm You would not have these movies to rage about if it was not for him. I do not blame him. I do not like when fanboys think the creater of the IP they drool over is worthless. Go make your own great movie series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMKSED Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 George Lucas is a child. Worse, he's a child throwing a temper tantrum. Fact is, he made up an awesome universe, and, when there were people to reel back his more stupid ideas, he made a decent movie (The Empire Strikes Back, ftw!). But then a bunch of far-more-talented writers started playing in his universe and doing MUCH better jobs at it (Timothy Zahn, Mike Stackpole, Aaron Allston...). Those guys, the authors of the EU made Star Wars the mega-awesome, incredibly alive, and amazing universe that it is today. Those guys are why people are still hard-core fanatics about Star Wars. Most Star Wars fans will tell you they hate George Lucas. Why? Because he has a lot of really stupid ideas, and he's completely disconnected with his audience (i.e. - Gungans, Ewoks, and Midichlorians). He was throwing a tantrum with the prequels. He was basically saying, "No! These are my toys! And, I don't care that you've all done amazing things with them, they're mine. And, I'm going to do what I want with them! And, there's nothing you can do about it! Neener, neener, neener!" And, nobody could reign him in this time. He's the worst kind of "artist." He's the kind of artist who doesn't trust his audience, who doesn't think his audience is smart enough to get his story. He doesn't realize that once you publish or produce a work it's not "yours" anymore. Not in the strictest sense, anyway. Good writing will mean something slightly different to each person experiencing it. With the prequels, we got to see just what kind of writer Lucas was with such wonderfully cardboard lines as: "...I have trained you since you were a small boy." Obi-Wan says this to Anakin in ROTS, like he's talking to a stranger. Like he has to explain to Anakin that they've been hanging out for the past 20 years, practically living together, forming an almost father/son relationship. Like Anakin doesn't know who Obi-Wan is or why he should listen to him. or "My powers have doubled since the last time we met, Count." Are we watching DragonBall Z? Does Anakin have some kind of Force-o-Meter to tell him how good he is? Nobody would say that! Mr. Lucas is breaking a fundamental rule of good writing. He's using dialogue for exposition. His characters are literally describing things in their world for the audience. Instead of letting the action tell us how ****** Anakin is, he has his character come out and quantify it for us. Instead of trusting the audience to know who Obi-Wan and Anakin are by the time ROTS comes out, he has one of his characters come out and say it. This is stuff you learn in Creative Writing 101. One doesn't use dialogue for exposition. It's bad writing, and it's insulting to your audience. It's not enough that he makes boatloads of money off of every book/toy/videogame/comic/idea that has anything to do with Star Wars, he has to pull his wang out and remind everyone that it was his idea to start with. It's not enough that he's raking in cash off of people far more talented than he. It's not enough that people still love Star Wars because of these more talented people and the stories they've told within that universe. He can't just sit back and watch this beautiful universe unfold and grow and expand. He's got to remind everyone that it's not how he would have done it, and therefore, it's not "official." Well, Mr. Lucas, if you had kept it all to yourself; if you had told the story the way you wanted to, nobody would ever have read/watched it. You wouldn't have an infinite revenue stream. You wouldn't have Skywalker Ranch. You wouldn't have everything you have now. You'd be that nerd in a basement writing stories and making movies for his Mom as she reads and watches patiently, knowing they're terrible but massaging your ego anyway because you don't have any friends. Good, you're "retiring." Maybe now the universe will be just a little less stupid. Maybe now we won't have to endure things like beloved characters being killed off because you don't trust your audience to know the difference between Anakin Skywalker and Anakin Solo (because no two people in any universe have ever shared a name, George /sarcasm). Maybe now we won't have to endure gungans or the idea that teddy bears with sticks and rocks could defeat an army of trained and battle-hardened STORMTROOPERS wearing armor designed to deflect small-grade blaster fire. You know why you get hate-mail George? It's because you're that spoiled kid everyone knew growing up. You're the kid nobody wanted to play with after about half an hour because nobody would play the way you wanted them to. You get hate-mail because even though you're that jerk, you make unlimited amounts of money. You reap the rewards of those better suited to tell this story than you, and you're upset about it! You sit on a pile of money that you don't have to work for and then have the audacity to complain about and degrade the way that money gets there. Sure, you created the universe, bully for you. We'd like you better if you weren't such a dick about it. Sincerely, Myk Angry Star Wars nerd. Here's a Jar-Jar Binks doll to cheer you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Angry Star Wars nerd. Here's a Jar-Jar Binks doll to cheer you up. Wow, is this Fanboy Saturday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRouven Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 I am not giving George Lucas money - I do pay for services though, same as buying a newspaper. He created something out of nothing and quite frankly I don't care how he did it, if he meditated, if it came to him in a dream or if he sat in a conference room for months with 20 other creative guys. If I want to see a movie - I pay for it. I either like something or I don't, but I don't dare tell someone to shape his "universe" after my fashion - because I am not able to come up with something like that in the first place. This is the difference between people who do what they want to do - and opportunists who follow the flavour of the month. The difference between "rockstars" that have been known for centuries, and replaceable "pop-icons" that last a couple of months or have one-hit wonders. But I guess all the EU writers etc all did it out of charity and never saw a penny. Which is why their version all over sudden has more merit. To any artist out there - don't lose faith. If you do it because you like to entertain people know that there are many people out there that appreciate your work on different levels and no one owns you. Stay true to yourself. To George Lucas, whom I do not know personally, thanks for a Universe! Enjoy life and may the force be with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Wow, is this Fanboy Saturday? Looks like a typical Emo day with comments like this. So many Emo's on these forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanharn Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Any pretensions you have to being a mature debater aren't being helped by childish posts like this. That's funny, coming from the Emo kid calling people fanbois lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Looks like a typical Emo day with comments like this. So many Emo's on these forums. You have no idea what "Emo" means. None. Edited February 4, 2012 by RagnarokJC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RagnarokJC Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 That's funny, coming from the Emo kid calling people fanbois lol. Read my first reply, then feel free to keep digging your own hole if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts