-
Archives
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- September 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- January 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2016
- March 2015
- October 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- March 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
-
Meta
Showing That I Am Not Ashamed to Go for the Obvious Joke
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Can a joke that requires the audience to be familiar with a book or movie really be called obvious?
I haven’t watched any of the Star Trek movies, although I do know one of them is called “The Wrath of Khan”, nor have I read anything by Robert Jordan. The joke to me remains quite opaque.
I’m sorry you didn’t enjoy it. Regarding your general point, people who’ve never seen the second Star Trek movie might still have seen the often-sampled scene below.
They might have, but the paltry 2,000 – 70,000 views these sample clips are getting would suggest otherwise.
Obscure reference ≠ obvious joke.
You = pwned. This post = fail. Me = winrar.
Lol, jk about the above line. 🙂
There’s no actual obligation to read this journal if it annoys you.
Well, I thought it was funny…
But in some weird way, that cover also brings to mind “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers,” or at least some 1950s movie musical with Howard Keel. No idea why.
Addenda: is is just me, or does “The Gathering Storm” seem an oddly inappropriate title for Number 12 in a 14-volume (and counting) series?
“But in some weird way, that cover also brings to mind “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers,” or at least some 1950s movie musical with Howard Keel. No idea why.”
I see what you mean–maybe it’s the colors; they looks very old-school Technicolor to me.
“Addenda: is is just me, or does “The Gathering Storm” seem an oddly inappropriate title for Number 12 in a 14-volume (and counting) series?”
Right. Great for a first volume (say about WWII); not so great for the antepenultimate installment of a story that’s already outlived one author.