Difference between revisions of "Talk:ScientLOLojyuuichi!!"
From FanimutationWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search (Removing earlier comment) |
(My opinion.) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*I oppose as well. While a good parody, it's a hybridmutation, so it's not a necessity for it to be a must see, as must sees are generally ones that are considered to give a good taste of what animutation is like. --[[User:Spoonorca|Spoonorca]] 12:50, 8 February 2008 (PST) | *I oppose as well. While a good parody, it's a hybridmutation, so it's not a necessity for it to be a must see, as must sees are generally ones that are considered to give a good taste of what animutation is like. --[[User:Spoonorca|Spoonorca]] 12:50, 8 February 2008 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *It's not really a "Must-See" because it might offend, I'm not a scientologist, and in fact I found this rather funny, but it ''does'' make fun of a "religion", so I vote no as well. [[User:Abracadabra123|Abracadabra123]] 12:41, 23 August 2008 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 11:41, 23 August 2008
Nomination
- I nominate this movie as a must-see. Any questions? --Wartys Neryon
I don't think so. I feel uncomfortable about about nominating a parody of another animutation as a must-see. By the way, while it's probably Kepple?, it's definitely not Zekey. Mr. Basso 12:32, 8 February 2008 (PST)
- No. This is not Hyakugojyuuichi 4. Hyakugojyuuichi 1,2, 2003, have all been origional animutations that were made to be Hyakugojyuuichi ___. This is another animutation that was made to be a different animutation. Rebranding an animutation to be something else is just lazy. If you want there to be a Hyakugojyuuichi 4 so bad, why don't you make it? --Alex Cameron 12:39, 8 February 2008 (PST)
- I oppose as well. While a good parody, it's a hybridmutation, so it's not a necessity for it to be a must see, as must sees are generally ones that are considered to give a good taste of what animutation is like. --Spoonorca 12:50, 8 February 2008 (PST)
- It's not really a "Must-See" because it might offend, I'm not a scientologist, and in fact I found this rather funny, but it does make fun of a "religion", so I vote no as well. Abracadabra123 12:41, 23 August 2008 (PDT)
