Subject: Of course they aren't!
Author:
Posted on: 2015-02-02 15:58:00 UTC
Rugby doesn't use body armour. ;)
hS
-
Super Bowl Time! by
on 2015-02-02 02:23:00 UTC
Reply
As I type, we have started the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl. Despite living in Alaska, I hate Seattle with a passion, so the Patriots are disappointing me so far. Anybody else watching? Want to spend a few moments geeking out over sports for a while?
Speaking about geeking out: PONIES WERE IN A SUPERBOWL COMMERCIAL! NATIONAL BROADCAST PONIES!!! AHHHH!!!! It was for the post-Superbowl rally, whatever that is. Still! Ponies were considered popular enough to include along Britney Spears, Lego Movie, and many others! This is going to make EQD EXPLODE.
Anyway, enough pony, more sports! Tom had better pick up his game, and fast. -
Meh, not exactly interested in either. by
on 2015-02-02 14:22:00 UTC
Reply
Since I live on the other side of the pond I even had to Google the Super Bowl to see of which sport it's an event.
... Are you telling me rugby and american football AREN'T the same thing? -
Of course they aren't! by
on 2015-02-02 15:58:00 UTC
Reply
Rugby doesn't use body armour. ;)
hS -
That just makes it more hardcore. :P (nm) by
on 2015-02-02 16:34:00 UTC
Reply
-
Ah, the American Way (TM): by
on 2015-02-02 16:41:00 UTC
Reply
Truth, justice, and Ma's assault rifle.
I was about to ask if there's a version of cricket which attempts to make it look manlier by slapping ridiculous armour plating on the players, and then I remembered what baseball catchers wear. Um... has America come up with a full-plate-armour version of tennis yet? Or is that next year's project?
hS -
Well... Sorta. by
on 2015-02-02 17:01:00 UTC
Reply
I mean, we don't exactly give tennis players much armor, but we are making developments in more armored players.
What I'm saying is, we have made tremendous advancements in tennis playing tanks:
((OK, so it's animated, and not real. So what? We could do it. 'MURICA!)) -
Well... by
on 2015-02-02 17:53:00 UTC
Reply
In Team Fortress we have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7thcpI1W4 -
*laughter* (nm) by
on 2015-02-03 20:03:00 UTC
Reply
-
DAT INTERCEPTION! by
on 2015-02-02 03:24:00 UTC
Reply
Oh man, that has to hurt for Seattle. Serves them right, the jerks. Man, that was an ending for the ages!
Easily, my second favorite Superbowl. Ponies, the Hawks being embarrassed, and the most beautiful interception of all time. This is one for the history books.
(If you are curious, #1 is when New Orleans won. WHO DAT!) -
...Seriously? by
on 2015-02-02 17:26:00 UTC
Reply
The most watched event in television, and NONE of you care? Yall just a bunch of nerds. :p
In all seriousness though, I knew you guys probably did not care. I just wanted to share a little of what I was doing, and see if anyone else was interested in the game.
And now, my new favorite reaction gif:
I could watch that all day. How does it feel, Sherman!? -
I swear I was paying attention! by
on 2015-02-02 18:14:00 UTC
Reply
I really liked the part where the Green Bay Packers scored a home run and tied the game 15-love. >D
I had no idea yesterday was the Super Bowl until my mom dragged me down to watch. And then we got bored and switched to watching The Blacklist. -
Re: I swear I was paying attention! by
on 2015-02-02 18:22:00 UTC
Reply
My favorite part was when the Giants threw a grand slam into the basket for a bogey.
-
Who cares about sports when you have PONIES? by
on 2015-02-02 02:56:00 UTC
Reply
That was literally the highlight of the evening for me and my brother. The best part was that they were wearing Indianapolis Colts gear. Guess who lives in Indiana?!
Yeah, yeah, I know it was because colts/ponies yadda yadda. I don't care. :D
I'm not a big sports fan; I only watch for the commercials and I must say they've been pretty disappointing so far. That Sprint one with the shrieking goats was funny, at least.
Uh, I want to live in Seattle when I'm older, so go Seahawks? -
Wait, Indiana? by
on 2015-02-02 15:00:00 UTC
Reply
I was born in Evansville!
Granted, by this point I've Been (mostly) Everywhere™, and I'm currently in Ohio with prospects of moving to Arizona.
Still, nice to know a fellow Hoosier! Lazy Muncie, the corn and the grain! -
Yay for ponies! by
on 2015-02-02 02:59:00 UTC
Reply
Also, have you guys heard about Chris Pratt and Chris Evans' charity bet? Gods, I love those guys.
-
And speaking of Chris Pratt... by
on 2015-02-02 05:25:00 UTC
Reply
...let the uprising of scientifically inaccurate prehistoric life BEGIN!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mvWuky1g0g
I don't watch football, but I do watch dinosaur media, and dat Jurassic World Super Bowl trailer tho!i know a certain agent-to-be who would get a kick outta this i am certain of it asdfdsafdf -
Seen it now! by
on 2015-02-03 09:23:00 UTC
Reply
And other than 'eee so cool (if scientifically inaccurate)', I have two thoughts:
1/ Raptor trainers. Yesssss.
2/ So... what makes the New Dinosaur so much scarier than the old ones? That it keeps trying to kill you, just like T. rex and the now-inaccurate Spinosaurus? That it's apparently intelligent, just like theraptorsdeinonychosaursManiraptorans - heck, didn't the spinosaur track Grant and company across half an island, and the tyrannosaurs in II the same? That it's big, again like T. rex and Spinosaurus? That it's all three?
I'unno, maybe it, like, breathes fire, or is immune to electric fences, or something. But I honestly don't know why they (the filmmakers or the park) wanted a new dinosaur when there's no real... advantage.
(Of course, the scariest JP dinosaur has to be Carnotaurus from the Lost World novel. Ambush predator with the ability to camouflage itself against anything, up to and including a chain link fence? Yeah, I'd run from that.)
hS -
You know, my brother has a theory about that. by
on 2015-02-02 08:10:00 UTC
Reply
Why the dinosaurs are scientifically inaccurate. It is because the dino DNA was mixed with frog DNA. One side-effect was the ability for dinosaurs to change genders, but another was the loss of feathers. It was not obvious to the scientists at first, because at the time of the first Jurassic Park, they looked exactly as the scientists thought they should look. Only later, after the study of more fossils, did they realize that the dinosaurs were more then a little off. By that time, however, the frog process had been refined and perfected, so it was not worth the energy to try and mix something else, such as birds, to give them feathers.
But hey, that's just a theory. AGameFilm Theory! Thanks for reading! -
Now that's actually a decent theory. by
on 2015-02-02 09:01:00 UTC
Reply
It draws on pre-existing aspects of the canon - in contrast to the 'oh, they just made them like that because they wanted to', which comes out of nowhere. And mixing warm-blooded proto-bird with cold-blooded amphibian would create some pretty strange interactions - assuming you could get it to work in the first place.
Which is where I recall the discussion in the book of The Lost World about how the scene with the Hatchery in the first film was total showmanship - most eggs failed to hatch, or produced horrible mutants which had to be put down. Which, uh, yeah, they would.
hS
