Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why god Why Roadhouse 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why god Why Roadhouse 2

    I found this while screwing around in IMDB.com a while back and never posted it. Aparently they are making a sequal to Roadhouse but while Dalton is in the movie Patrick Swayze (thankfully) is not. Dalton is played by some guy namedJ ohnathon Schaech. My only questionns are who greenlighted this filml to Roadhouse and why did they think it would make money.
    here is the link to the movie
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469965/

    #2
    It won't make it to the silver screen. It'll be a DVD.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

    Comment


      #3
      Roadhouse 2 needs to be remade with Patrick Swayze.
      !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

      !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

      Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



      I <3 Sirc.

      Comment


        #4
        We can only hope that Dalton has assumed the role of the bouncer Obi Wan that Wade Garret was in the first one.
        :5arg:

        http://www.revolutionbjj.com/

        Comment


          #5
          Because I used to fuck guys like you in prison?
          Tough is not how you act, tough is how you train.

          Comment


            #6
            You know, as a bouncer with a degree in philosophy, I get Roadhouse jokes all the fucking time. I don't need more.

            Comment


              #7
              Wow, so when you bounce people, do you lecture them on Russell's theory of types? "Don't come in here and start trouble again, or you'll be like the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members, ok?"
              --
              L.

              Comment


                #8
                I think Nietzsche used to bounce

                Comment


                  #9
                  Arahoushi, i hate you because I understand what you said. :P

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Arahoushi
                    Wow, so when you bounce people, do you lecture them on Russell's theory of types? "Don't come in here and start trouble again, or you'll be like the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members, ok?"
                    Ha. No, but I did hit someone over the head with Kant's Critique of Pure Reason once. Don't fuck with a Philo major when he's trying to finish a Kant paper.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Then there was the time this dude got in my face cuz I wouldn't let him grab the waitress's ass. He wanted to know what my problem was.

                      I told him, "Monads don't have windows."

                      That screwed with his drunken little head enough to let my partner get in behind him.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Wow, you managed to work both Kant and Leibniz into one narrative. Nicely done.

                        Though, to be honest, I have sympathy for anyone being forced to read Kant. He was obviously a bright man, but... well, damn. He couldn't write at all.

                        Oh, and whoever said it -- Nietzsche was always pale and sickly. He would have done aikido.
                        --
                        L.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Yeah, the year I was forced to read the Critique of Pure Reason was one of the worst in my life. My teacher was this fat old broad who loved Kant so much I think she went home every night and used the CPR on her clit. No doubt the man was a genius, but he gets more nutriders than Descartes or Neitzche.

                          As for Leibnitz, that boy must have been smoking some nice stuff to come up with monads. It's too bad they don't have windows. It really is.

                          After reading all of that, I did actually enjoy reading Neitzche. Not saying I gave his ideas the time of day, but he makes for a much more enjoyable read than Kant.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I remember an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 where they wrote a song called "Patrick Swayze Christmas"...Swayze needs to be in Roadhouse 2, just to be made fun of.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by DerAuslander108
                              Yeah, the year I was forced to read the Critique of Pure Reason was one of the worst in my life. My teacher was this fat old broad who loved Kant so much I think she went home every night and used the CPR on her clit. No doubt the man was a genius, but he gets more nutriders than Descartes or Neitzche.

                              As for Leibnitz, that boy must have been smoking some nice stuff to come up with monads. It's too bad they don't have windows. It really is.

                              After reading all of that, I did actually enjoy reading Neitzche. Not saying I gave his ideas the time of day, but he makes for a much more enjoyable read than Kant.
                              That's because he's batshit insane toward the end. That's just entertaining writing.

                              I do have to agree about Kant nutriders though. I just don't get it, really. A Leibniz nutrider is understandable... the man and Newton share the honors of inventing calculus. But yeah, monads. Even the name sounds vaguely naughty.
                              --
                              L.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X