WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Update: "Robocop" Actor Peter Weller Joins "Star Trek 2"

Posted: December 5th, 2011 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Update: "Robocop" Actor Peter Weller Joins "Star Trek 2"Submit Comment
JJ Abrams is planning to begin shooting the "Star Trek" sequel in early 2012 and is now in the middle of putting the cast together. The latest to join the production is Peter Weller, the actor best known for playing the title character in "Robocop."

Alice Eve (Men in Black 3, She's Out of My League) was recently brought on to play a new character and Benicio del Toro is Abram's choice to play the main villain. Although, he denied the rumor that del Toro will be Khan.

Update: Negotiation with Del Toro to play the villain have fallen apart. The actor will not appear in the movie.

"Star Trek 2" is written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof. It is set to hit theaters on May 17th, 2013.

Source: Variety


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 42 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
minkowski writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 8:15:40 PM

Can't stand this new wannabe Trek trash (Star Trek for Star Wars morons), but Weller is top form acting. Always has been, always will be.
bandolero999 writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 8:45:48 PM

Good for Robocop I don't even remember what other movies he's done besides Robocop
minkowski writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 8:47:07 PM

These star Trek films won't get any better till they jettison Orgy and c*ntzmann.

Ironic that Star Trek once stood for the maturity of the human race, and yet Paramount hires two of the most juvenile scribes to pen the screenplays. lol.
minkowski writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 8:47:46 PM

He was in 24. He 'killed' Tony Almeda. some good scenes there, I think.
Avirex writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 9:16:51 PM

He was entertaining as the evil Black Pope in that Heath Ledger movie some years back.
BadChadB33 writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 9:18:34 PM

Good for Weller, too bad it wasn't in the original movies.
boogiel writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 9:21:47 PM

If my memory serves me well, he has already been on star trek enterprise. So it won't be a much surprised to me if he's joining cast for startrek. I do wish that they'll cast him as a borg.
BadChadB33 writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 10:03:33 PM

Boogiel- it was 2005 he was on Enterprise.
Powdered Toast Man writes:
on December 5th, 2011 at 10:36:25 PM

already got a Star Trek 2.
Johnnyb writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 12:32:12 AM

Cool!!!!! Alex Murphy back from the dead!!!!!!
Rambo writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 1:19:47 AM

He was one of the best villains in '24' together with president logan and habib marwan
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 2:40:07 AM

Cast is looking good, just hope story matches up to it.
Adamtheflash writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 2:44:30 AM

He was also in a few episodes of Dexter. He's good, I'm surprised he hasn't done more in his career besides getting blown to pieces by Kurtwood Smith.
trailertrash writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 5:44:55 AM

Blue Jean Cop (Shakedown in the US) was a top action thriller
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 1:13:16 PM

The new Star Trek movies are great. They're different from their predecessors because they're following the trend of what movie goers want to see. And Abrams does a fantastic job of not going way over the top, as most action movies seem to do.

mink: Lighten up. Not all movies have to be masterpieces that change your life. Sometimes people want to have fun and see an exciting movie. The times are changing, you can't expect them to make a Star Trek movie like back in the day and expect it to be well received.

I also find it "ironic" how you say "These star Trek films won't get any better till they jettison Orgy and c*ntzmann." and then follow that up with "Ironic that Star Trek once stood for the maturity of the human race".

Stay classy.
minkowski writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 3:53:37 PM

I general, I refuse to take advice from gay guys with naked Sulu avatars, but in this particular case I'll at least entertain your post for the fun it shall bring me through the employment of my vitriolic acid.

"The new Star Trek movies are great."

There's just one moron, and it sucked as anything more than an action-oriented version of Battlestar Galactica, which is apparently good enough for you sad folks.

"They're different from their predecessors"

Translation: the original films were good, the new one is just flash and bang and lots of idiocy starring teenagers and silly love triangles, a film aimed at airheaded and scientifically illiterate man-children who no longer can not only sit through a mere book, they can’t sit through a film that doesn’t titillate them with flashing, strobing imagery.

"because they're following the trend of what movie goers want to see."

They're great because people want to see them, which is to say that if moviegoers demanded bestiality with Labrador retrievers, by HomoSulu's definition, that would be 'great', too.

"And Abrams does a fantastic job of not going way over the top"

By blowing up entire planets, endless unnecessary lens flares and preposterous sequences meant as exploitative and expensive set pieces rather than advancing a concept befitting Rodenberry's dream and ideals.

"as most action movies seem to do."

Yep. Fortunately, Roddenberry’s original ‘Star Trek’, and most of the follow up sequel series and movies, wasn't meant to be 'The Rock' in space, or another Michael Bay production for the mass appeal morons, but instead thoughtful sci-fi.

Do you know what the word ‘thoughtful’ means? Own a dictionary?

Oops. Guess not.

"mink: Lighten up."

Homo: f*ck off, not that you won’t anyway.

"Not all movies have to be masterpieces"

Nope. Most of them are bland, recycled, flashy vacuous sh*t like Star Trek.

"that change your life."

But being good and true to the ideals of the man that originated the concept is too much to ask, right, because intelligent audiences get lots of thoughtful sci-fi every year, right?

"Sometimes people want to have fun"

People ALWAYS want to have fun, especially Americans. That's all you want to do. Hedonism and narcissism. Shopping, eating and having fun. Everything has to be fun or it’s a waste of time, right? Fun, fun, fun. Life’s a big amusement park now that god is dead.

Grow a f*cking brain.

"and see an exciting movie."

Well, there you go.

It has to be ‘exciting’, which means it must induce a visual orgasm in the mind through the eye, and rocking motions in the ass.

If it isn’t making you go gaga like a baby for his baba, why watch it right?

A film has to be pornography or Sulu and Company just won’t watch it, correct?

Just like you can’t stand a Stephen King book wherein the characters aren’t ripped apart repeatedly.

'From a Buick 8' primarily sucked (read the Amazon reviews) because hardly anyone gets their head ripped off, and Movie Number X stunk because it didn’t include sufficient bangs and booms and naked chicks to appeal to the mindless ten year old pervert hiding inside every American male from the age of 5 to 85.

“The times are changing,”

Yes, and if you had not noticed, for the worst.

Get your head on straight. Pay attention.

The world can’t be happily divided up into Youtube sound bytes and Xbox-sized portions for you and your vacuously hedonistic generation.

“you can't expect them to make a Star Trek movie like back in the day and expect it to be well received.”

Because ‘back in the day’ people actually had minds.

Films like Rear Window could never make it to theaters unless Jimmy Stewart raped Grace Kelly and then proceeded to gun down the murderer across the yard in slo-mo while the buildings behind him exploded at Mach 9.

Oh noes, this film haz dialogue and plot! It haz sense!

“I also find it "ironic" how you say "These star Trek films won't get any better till they jettison Orgy and c*ntzmann." and then follow that up with "Ironic that Star Trek once stood for the maturity of the human race".”

Because I’m humanity, because this one little guy on a movie site is a massively popular Baby-boomer generational phenomenon that once thoughtfully expressed the hopes and dreams of an aspiring American body during enormous change, during the Space Race, in a day when people actually believed, dared to dream, that space was the future of mankind.

You’re a f*cking idiot, and Gene Rodenberry’s original vision is just too damned good for you. Stick with your crass and dullard Star Trek reboot, sh*t that’s aimed and specifically targeted towards empty hedonistic thoughtless people such as yourself, or as we like to call you and your friends, ‘the future’.

"Stay classy."

Stay gay.

And lets not forget that nothing, nothing in all Star Trek (2009) made any f*cking sense.

The red matter nonsense was silly, the entire motivation of a Romulan laughably named 'Nemo', who could've saved his homeworld instead of murdering billion of Vulcans, the inconsistency of the red matters manifestation, the contrived use of the drop suit sequence, the gag-inducing casting, the garbage Pearl Harbor love triangle (oh, look, it shows up unnecessarily in TDK too!), the physics of an imploding planet with a black hole at its core (lol!), and on and on and on.

The canyon that's really a 'quarry' in Iowa, the idiotic destruction of a 'vintage' car, the Apple Imac looking sets (how do they keep all that white minty fresh clean?) and just the entire idiotic silliness of the entire script, but then look, the same guys did the juvenile Transformers script, did't they? Shocker!
minkowski writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 3:54:27 PM

In...
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 4:42:40 PM

Cool story, bro.
pornfly writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 5:50:20 PM

My father and i liked to watch Of Unknown Origin and he made Buckaroo Bonzai watchable along with John Lithgow
I liked him on Fringe too
stay gay
HA
minkowski writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 6:03:22 PM

SuluNakamura loves 'swordfighting'. lol.
minkowski writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 6:08:20 PM

I must be the only heterosexual on WP.

Damn.
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 7:17:37 PM

mink: Nope, just the unfunniest.
minicooperz writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 7:38:38 PM

put your phasers down and come quietly or there will be...trouble
minkowski writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 8:13:09 PM

I'll pay Ranger to tickle your balls, Sulu.

Bet you'd laugh then.
rgon writes:
on December 6th, 2011 at 8:50:01 PM

@mink well put sir
Donyae 420 writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 2:30:31 AM

Damn I wish I had the kind of life to put a story of true love on "any" web site......wow
Adamtheflash writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 4:25:23 AM

Uh oh! Here we go again....
Minkowski claims another helpless victim with a 1,000 word essay filled with witty quips and his little entertaining rebuttals breaking down every sentence of the other posters. Oh how inferior we all are to Minkowski!

Mink, could you at least shorten up your posts a little? My mouse wheel is broken just from scrolling past all the sh*t you post.

I know, I know, "if you don't like the things I post, then don't read them. I have the right to post whatever I want. Blah....Blah.....Blah..." Spare us the lecture sir.

Adamtheflash writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 4:32:33 AM

Past Star Trek works haven't always been perfect either. The Voyage Home was a terrible movie. Don't get me wrong, the original Star Trek and Wrath of Kahn are great. The films really fall off after that in my opinion.

The new one has its flaws, but also works as an influence for younger fans to enjoy Star Trek all over again. Maybe they'll even turn back to the original material and be impressed with it. I don't see any problem with liking the new AND the old.
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 1:05:22 PM

mink: no need, I'll let you tickle them yourself.

Adam: haha it's cool, I get a kick out of it.
minkowski writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 6:36:50 PM

He also gets a kick out of dreaming about me tickling his balls. Apparently.

"The Voyage Home was a terrible movie."

And yet it still managed to deal with something as weighty and thought-provoking as man's interconnected nature with other earth life, life that may possess an intelligence and awareness close to ours, unbeknownst to us.

The new film on the other hand addressed no questions or thoughts at all, save for the matter of how many lens falres can that idiot hack Abrams jam into one scene.

Question answered! 42!
minkowski writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 6:48:06 PM

"The new one has its flaws, but also works as an influence for younger fans to enjoy Star Trek all over again."

'They' never enjoyed the old films. Fact is Nemesis tanked at the BO from Star Trek saturation and a declininig pool of interested audience members.

Rather than let the 'franchise' go, Paramount 'rebooted' Star Trek for the up and coming brainless videogame playing, rap-listening, Youtube watching imbeciles, because they knew that these imbeciles couldn't care less about the search for life, the meaning of existence, science, math, exploration and so on and so on.

They knew that this new generation of brain slaves couldn't care less about anything other than eating, sh*tting, f*cking and having fun.

They knew right. And they invented a version of Star Trek, one that makes zero sense BTW, that caters perfectly to those aspects and characteristics.

Mission accomplished!

"Spare us the lecture sir."

Spare the rod, spoil the child.
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 7th, 2011 at 7:41:05 PM

For you mink, anytime.
Adamtheflash writes:
on December 8th, 2011 at 3:00:18 AM

The only thing that the Voyage Home “managed” to do was prove that Shatner could return to the Kirk character anytime he needed a paycheck after TJ Hooker went off the air. It’s funny, because now as an old man he is beloved by that “youtube crowd” you hate so much. I cite his comedy central roast, which couples him in with the likes of David Hasselhoff and Charlie Sheen, two other celebs that specialize in eating, sh*tting, f*cking and having fun. The only things “weighty” in the Voyage Home were the stupid humpback whales that could understand alien language (that makes a ton of sense!) and Shatner’s increasing beer gut. The guy's a f*cking joke now, so much that he tarnishes the franchise that he helped make famous.

What the new film at least attempted to do was revitalize a franchise that hasn’t been successful since the Last Generation went off the air, leading to the declining pool of interest you talked about. And even TNG had more of a cult following than anything. Now if you feel Abrams failed in that attempt, that’s your opinion. But Star Trek had been ruined long before Abrams ever got hold of it.

I’m sure there are some younger people that have never watched Star Trek before that were influenced to see some of the original material for the first time. That’s what I meant in my previous statement that you quoted on influencing younger fans. There are a lot of references of the old trek in the new one, which made me want to refresh on some back story (the relationship between Kirk and Spock, for example). I believe that Abrams will explore this dynamic further in the sequel, along with others that you enjoy so much about Star Trek.

"Mission Accomlished" you pompous ass
Adamtheflash writes:
on December 8th, 2011 at 3:47:57 AM

Do I think that Star Trek should've been left to die? Sure. I can see the argument that it has run its course. However, I think Abrams pays more homage to the original material than you're willing to give him credit for. Take casting for example. Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin were excellent as their respective characters. They nailed it. It was almost a tribute to DeForest Kelley, James Doohan and Walter Koenig, respectively.

"Spare the rod," and beat yourself to death with it....please, oh please, beat yourself to death with some kind of blunt object
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2011 at 8:29:05 PM

"The only thing that the Voyage Home “managed” to do was prove that Shatner could return to the Kirk character anytime he needed a paycheck after TJ Hooker went off the air."

He's an actor. He has to work. Star TRek was popular. You act as if he should taken a job at McDonald's instead.

Idiot.

"It’s funny, because now as an old man he is beloved by that “youtube crowd” you hate so much. I cite his comedy central roast, which couples him in with the likes of David Hasselhoff and Charlie Sheen, two other celebs that specialize in eating, sh*tting, f*cking and having fun."

Sure he's popular. He makes money making a total ass of himself for people that love to watch people make asses of themselves for money.

But more importantly, you somehow manage to confuse an actor playing a character with the ideals of a universe in which the character inhabits. I never attacked the new Star Strek to redeem Shatner, yet somehow you think I did.

Idiot.

"The only things “weighty” in the Voyage Home were the stupid humpback whales that could understand alien language (that makes a ton of sense!)"

You clearly didn't understand The Voyage Home, which is why you're better off witht he dumber Star Trek.

The whales didn't speak an alien language, the aliens understood the whales, and if you knew anything about whales, you'd know research has shown that they have a highly evolved system of communication, one perhaps roughly approximated by our own. Aliens could somehow be aware of that language, and wonder why it had stopped.

Idiot.


"and Shatner’s increasing beer gut."

And you'll be fat and old one day too.

Idiot.

"The guy's a f*cking joke now, so much that he tarnishes the franchise that he helped make famous."

Which is why you and the Youtube idiots pay so much attention to him, right?

Idiot.


"What the new film at least attempted to do was revitalize a franchise that hasn’t been successful since the Last Generation went off the air, leading to the declining pool of interest you talked about."

Because young folks such as yourself can't handle dialogue, thought, ideas or anything that doesn't go bang like a party toy.

Idiot.

"And even TNG had more of a cult following than anything."

TNG is often rated one of the most popular and well-done TV shows of all time, not just a 'cult' show. It's ratings were excellent. And it's been mentioned as surpassing the original show.

Idiot.

"Now if you feel Abrams failed in that attempt, that’s your opinion."

"But Star Trek had been ruined long before Abrams ever got hold of it."

Yeah, it was called Enterprise, which was an early attempt to do an Abrams to the franchise while still also attempting to assume the target audience could still womehow think and care about science and exploration.

I do think though that your attempt to somehow claim TNG was the 'ruining' of Star Trek is entireable laughable.

TNG was clearly the APEX of the entire franchise in both thought and development and did things with sci-fi that had never really been done before while exploring issues meaningful to intelligent people, something Abrams film can certainly never claim to have done.

Idiot.

*snipped poster's pointless monologue filled with drivel and baseless assumptions wherein he plays Nostradamus and Abrams apologist*
minkowski writes:
on December 8th, 2011 at 8:32:37 PM

"Take casting for example. Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin were excellent as their respective characters. They nailed it. It was almost a tribute to DeForest Kelley, James Doohan and Walter Koenig, respectively."

lol. If you think Yelchin, that young kid that looks nothing like Koenig, slurring his W's in a VERY bad Russian accent is nailing the role, and Karl Urban with a bad wig and a sh*tty hick accent, and Simon Pegg who again looks NOTHING like Kelley while throwing out his bad rendition of a Scottish brogue is somehow one of Star Trek's 'accomplishments' you have incredibly low standards...
Adamtheflash writes:
on December 9th, 2011 at 3:06:18 AM

I'll take a page from your book.

"But more importantly, you somehow manage to confuse an actor playing a character with the ideals of a universe in which the character inhabits. I never attacked the new Star Strek to redeem Shatner, yet somehow you think I did."

"*snipped poster's pointless monologue filled with drivel and baseless assumptions wherein he plays Nostradamus and Abrams apologist*"

And in this entire argument, YOU manage to confuse that I'm arguing that the new is BETTER than the old. Not what I'm saying at all. I thoroughly enjoy most of the old material, as I also enjoy the new take on it. Just because you're supposedly of this "older generation" that we younger people don't appreciate the original material. You treat it like you're the only one allowed to enjoy Star Trek at all. I know a ton of people my age who love Roddenberry's Star Trek, so don't give up completely on youth.

Both new and old have pros and cons. My original point was that there is nothing wrong with liking both.

"I do think though that your attempt to somehow claim TNG was the 'ruining' of Star Trek is entireable laughable."

Much like everything you post. I said that Star Trek hasn't been successful SINCE The Next Generation went off the air. The decline in popularity happened AFTER that.

You constantly claim that you're so much more mature and intelligent than the rest of us. Yet you are so blinded by arrogance, that you can't manage to entertain any other opinion. I really hope you are as old as you claim to be. It only means that you are that much closer to death, a plus for the rest of us.

Pompous ass
minkowski writes:
on December 9th, 2011 at 1:05:39 PM

I never confused whether you said the new was better than the old.

I only noticed you took the ridiculous amount of time to defend an indefensible film by employing the poorest of arguments, e.g., specifically using Shatner to somehow deride the original films, as if who and what Shatner is as a person or actor has anything to do with the original intellectual purpose of Gene Rodenberry's vision.

"Both new and old have pros and cons. My original point was that there is nothing wrong with liking both."

The original had plenty of 'pros' and few 'cons'. The has plenty of 'cons' and very few 'pros'. Star Trek 2009 is poor performance art wearing the clothes of Star Trek in order to sell a franchise to veritable idiots.

I think I've made that quite clear and in abundance through the evidence I've presented.

"Much like everything you post. I said that Star Trek hasn't been successful SINCE The Next Generation went off the air. The decline in popularity happened AFTER that."

I'd like to see the numbers. You kow, those thingies that aren't letters.

Deep Space Nine and Voyager both ran for how many seasons? TNG had barely seven. Do you have the Nielson ratings for the years involved? No? Ok then.

Star Trek simply got old by the time Voyager started recycling TNG.

My point was that you belittled even TNG, arguably the best of all the series, by claiming it was a merely 'cult' show, and that's a highly erroneous statement.

"You constantly claim that you're so much more mature and intelligent than the rest of us."

No, what I've said is that I'm roughly mature for my age, which isn't nearly as old as you think, but I don't sit on the internet telling Lindsay Lohan 'jokes' for five f*cking years (to an infinite audience of moronic guffaws) and talking endlessly about titties and playing videogames and all the other nonsense you so-called 'men' engage in.

I try to pretend that somewhere within me is an adult. You and all your ilk deny such a thing even exists, while you run off to make as much money as possible to buy all your toys.

As for the intelligence, I've never, ever claimed to be a genius. Not once. I just claimed to be smarter than arabble of idiots that can't formulate even the simplest of intelligible statements with regards to films. The 'arrogance' is really just a modic*m of superiority over people who don't give a sh*t about the films they see, or anything else because they're far too busy being children.

So when you and yours decide to talk amturely and intelligently about SOMETHING here at WP, you'll see a very different me. Maybe.

Idiot.

"Yet you are so blinded by arrogance, that you can't manage to entertain any other opinion."

Actually I'm blinded by the idiocy that passes for thought here at WP. Frutehrmore, I don't have to agree with you, nor do I have to r4espect your opinion. That's politically-correct garbage masquerading as New Age 'politeness'.

"I really hope you are as old as you claim to be."

I'm not, and I hope you're older than you and your silly and childish name and avatar indicate.

Oh, and only a f*cking idiot would think I'm 99. lol. Why would you even ask, idiot?

(how's my arrogance now?)

"It only means that you are that much closer to death, a plus for the rest of us."

Oh, you won't cry for me like the loser *sshole that got drunk, ran into a tree and killed his passenger?

Such compassion you guys have when your selfishness, your pride, is at stake, right? Just make sure to cry when Charlie Sheen dies.

f*cking hypocrite loser sc*m.
minkowski writes:
on December 9th, 2011 at 2:32:37 PM

f*ck wit da bull, brudda, ya get da horn!
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 9th, 2011 at 4:43:31 PM

"f*ck wit da bull, brudda, ya get da horn!"

Oh, did Adam just "get served?" That's adorable.

Nice innuendo.
minkowski writes:
on December 9th, 2011 at 6:23:28 PM

Actually, it's an 'adage' or a 'truism', and not an innuendo; also, it's quote from both The Breakfast Club and Dexter (spoken the way I wanted to speak it).

Definition of innuendo: An innuendo is a baseless invention of thoughts or ideas. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense, the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.

Durrrrr.
SuluNakamura writes:
on December 9th, 2011 at 7:31:27 PM

hahaha alright mink, you didn't catch on, but that's okay. I still love you.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved