makes sense, kind of.the t-Mobile girls face is plastered (giggity) all over the place, Retro girls face is also plastered (giggity giggty) all over in the Powers comics. makes sense.
 |
More links from around the web!
80 comments
I would actually have to tune into the new Wonder Woman series if they used her. There's your casting. Relative unknown who is extremely photogenic and well liked. Done? Get on it peoples.
Pretty sure they cast this girl in the tmobile ads because of her uncanny resemblance to Anne Hathaway. Even the costumes she was wearing resemble pieces Anne wore in various movies and appearances.
I am very concerned about Retro Girl's waist...Even in this cartoony style it's a bit disturbing.
Amazingly, I am capable of enjoying looking at the hot chick's legs WITHOUT either buying whatever the fuck it is she's selling, OR hating her because she's got a job selling it. (Also, if there are two versions of Retrogirl, and the pic is of "the wrong one", how do we know she's not actually voicing the later version instead of the dead one?)
Well, Powers is live action, not animated. So it's a live action role.
And I don't want to spoil anything, but there's simply no way to introduce the second Retro Girl in anything but a much later season. So she's definitely the first Retro Girl.
Hmm. I've seen probably dozens of these commercials and I never knew it was for a cell phone. Even if I actually watch a commercial instead of channel surfing the instant one comes on, apparently my mind shuts down within half a second and I can stare and stare and nothing makes it through to my brain. I'm invincible that way. It's like a superpower or something.
I've been wondering when she's get a decent role outside of those dumb ads.
Then again I already thought she looked like a brunette Saturn Girl in that ad where she's wearing a biker outfit.http://thesocialnewspaper.com/...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iX3v...http://adactors.com/actresses/...
Good for her. She's at least 90% of the reason why I got a T-Mobile phone earlier this year.
Don't judge me.
Just to spite the makers of the T-Mobile ads they should also put Justin Long and John Hodgeman on the show. I'm onto you, T-Moblie!
John Hodgeman is Triphammer. Justin Long is Warren Ellis.
Shit.. Actually.. Now I want John Hodegeman in a beard and fake British accent playing Warren Ellis.
I have to say--this is casting straight out of the Department of Random.
But whatevs. When I finally ditched Verizon and needed to get a new carrier, I chose T Mobile largely because that chick's cute dresses came to mind. Suck on that, AT&T.
I went with T-Mobile years ago JUST because I had fiery lust for Catherine Zeta Jones. Finally switched to AT&T to get my iPhone and now regret the HELL out of losing T-Mobile. They're easily the best carrier I've ever had.
Yup! Not sure if there's some legal issues and anti-trust validation to get through first, but just recently it was announced that AT&T is buying them out. So pretty much these commercials are dead in the water and pointless now. I remember some friends saying exactly why AT&T bought them out, it was for some facet of their network had that AT&T was going to assimilate to make theirs stronger.
If the US government has any mental function at all and isn't being bribed, they'll shoot this merger down.
You wouldn't say that if you were waiting on AT&T to bring broadband to your house.I live out in the stick and those asshats are just completely drag-assing on U-Verse and DSLAT&T can kiss my AS&S
The T-Mobile commercials reminds us that WE SHOULD LIKE STUFF THAT THE CUTE PERKY GIRL IS TALKING ABOUT, but not like the stuff that's associated with the older, bald guy.
Carly deserves a few moments in hell for polluting the airwaves.
Not to be the ass kisser here, but if you choose to take the thread down, eff em. You are the sheriff in town and that should be that.
Rob is the alpha and the omega of this site, but i'm just a little sad that a small amount of offended people can get an article obliterated.
Sorry but from my point of view people called out Rob and with valid arguments. There was no malice intended with my comments at least and I don't there was with others. We were upset and while a comedy site may not be the best place to have a discusion as heavy as what was going on but we should be alowed to have them.
If Rob asked we would have stopped but taking the whole thing down seems to me that he wanted to hide what he had said. And that seems cowardly to me.
Devil's Advocate here, since I saw none of the comments on that article.
"There was no malice intended with my comments."That may well be the case, but is it possible that your posts could have sounded completely differently than they did in your head when you typed? There are no inflections on the internet, nor is there body language or facial expression. It's so very easy to read something with the completely wrong emotion attached to it. This can also apply to anyone else's posts, including mine.
"If Rob asked we would have stopped". I saw Rob say that he did ask everyone to cool it, in another thread. If he says he did, I believe him. Is it possible you missed it in the storm of posts?
As for the actual removal of the thread, I have seen that happen maybe one other time on this site. I can't recall at the moment, to be perfectly honest. And I've been around here for quite a long time, and seen some nastiness. If Rob deemed it necessary to take down, then I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was necessary.
I respect your opinion dude but please don't comment on my comments if you haven't read them.
Let's just live and let lie.
If people had valid complaints about the article — and again, I'm not saying they didn't — then doesn't that mean I SHOULD have taken down the article? Why on Earth would I want to upset more people by leaving it up?
Y'know, for someone who was pretty active in that thread, you never really read Rob's posts in it, did you?
It's cool, man. Like I said, I can easily see how the article made folks upset. That was not my intention, and rather than upset more people, I just took it down. Again, it wasn't worth it to me. I never want to upset anyone on TR, unless they like Tekken, in which case it's fine.
I did read his posts and I believed he was arguing his side, I see now that he wasn't and so I'll shut up now.
I don't think I was being unreasonable I was just slightly upset, I'm sorry if I came across insulting to anyone or if I came off as a dick.
Rob I still love ya man it's just the whole subject hit close to home having worked at a Rape Crisis Centre and with women who had been similar situations but had not been as lucky as Karen Gillen.
I am sorry if I over reacted.
I just wanted to say I'm really disappointed in TR that the comments suggestion for the Amy Pond post got taken down. Adults with free speech can discuss topics and disagree without a need for closing down the conversation.
"Adults with free speech can discuss topics and disagree without a need for closing down the conversation."Yes, they can. And on your website, you are free to do so. However, this is not your site, and it is a discussion that Rob said he would close if it got out of hand, which the comments were.
And while he could let it continue, people who would be offended at some post or another could then go make a fuss about it to the VVM Editors who could then proceed to eliminate Rob's paycheck and replace him with someone for less pay and more willing to toe the corporate line. And I don't like that concept. So take your complaints to your site, and let Rob keep his job.
True but when a site encourages audience participation in both competitions and comments in general deleating a whole article including a large discusion in comments seems to go against the point of having the comments.
It wasn't a flame war, it was not an argument where both sides were defending something stupid. The conversation was valid and while it was heated there was no real insults being thrown contary to what is being said. Basically I'm disapointed and I should hope a lot of my fellow readers are too.
I was in the process of posting when it got taken down. Wanna know why it was deleted?
Because there was too much fighting. it's as simple as that. There is no "smoking gun." There is no Rob-Rape confession. He wasn't infringing on your free speech any more than a homeowner can say "Hey guys, cut that out." He posted the topic, it ignited a firestorm, and he regretted that, so he deleted it.
There is no ancient conspiracy behind this.
That said, I haven't seen this much insanity since the last time I played Chrono Trigger. (There! Deleting the Amy Pond thread will not erase my followup joke from existence!)
I agree, have the balls to keep it up Rob. You've lost so much face in taking that down.
We were having an actual valid conversation no insults and no trolling.
You've lost so much of my respect in taking it down, I was upset by the tone of the post but it should stay up no matter what or at least mention why it was taken down.
You'll have more than enough drama working up courage enough to see Bayformers 3: Kiss The Dark Side of My Moon,so maybe you need to save your strength.
Rob posted a news article in which he portrayed a naked drunk and whimpering Karen Gillen being found in a hotel room and he called the article 'Amy Pond best companion' ever or something like that. Not only was the tone of the article sexual in nature the newstory had no sexual content at all and it was slightly disturbing that Rob portrayed a humiliated drunk woman as sexy.
A disscusion started by people agreeing it was sexy then a lot of people including me started registering their disgust and a debate started over people arguing wheter there Rob and the commenters were implying drunk naked women being sexy despite the tone of the news suggesting that she was 'whimpering' and in distress. A lot of smaller debates started with some people confusing what people where saying when they registered their disgust and some understandably defending Rob among other points.And now Rob has taken it down.
I asked people to be cool. I disagree that people were having "actual valid conversation no insults", although some certainly were. I said I would shut it down if it continued, and I did.
As for removing the post entirely, enough people misconstrued it — although probably deservedly so — enough to make me think that removing it entirely was the best solution. I don't want to deal with this all day. Certainly I don't feel an article about Karen Gillen getting drunk and naked was worth all that drama, especially not to me.
Agreed, though I'd still like to hear why. I'm sure there was a good reason, whether the higher-ups instructed him to, or it turned out that the story was made up or inaccurately reported.
In Rob's defense, it didn't seem like you were affording him a lot of respect in that thread. He wasn't getting a lot of benefit of the doubt.
I must admit to not knowing what went down on the Amy posting, but Rob does not take a thread down lightly. Hell, I have seen all out war in the comments and he left them up.
So unless someopne wants to explain what happened, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Gotta say I agree. Kind of sucks, but it is Rob's page...and we are just visitors. Ain't a democracy and all that.
