Uncyclopedia:VFH/David Lynch

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

David Lynch (history, logs)

Article: David Lynch

Score: 11.5 episodes of ambient noise set against a disturbing and out-of-prior-context situation.

Nominated by: Guildensternenstein 04:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
For: 16.5
  1. Nom & For. A collaboration with TPLN. The Pee review is here.
  2. For A-ha. Another benefit of collaboration. When you self-nom, you get 2 votes.... --TPLN 06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. That's fucking creepy, man! -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 07:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. For. This vote is symbolic for twisted, deep seated, psychological and sexual desire.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  08:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Weak For, if only because of the last section. I really liked that one. Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:31, Feb 26
  6. For. I was about to advise you all that Spider is his best film - but then I remembered it's actually by David Cronenbourg. Rabbi Techno Icons-flag-gb kvetch Icon rabbi Contribs Foxicon FOXES 10:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  7. HAHA FOR MAN Partially cause its a funny article, part because of the "suck my hairy balls" comment. --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 01:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    For the record, I'm not a White Supremacist, I just thought that was funny in a juxtaposed way after "I respect your opinion." --Guildensternenstein 20:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  8. For. I get tired of attack articles as well, but I don't think this is one of those. IronLung 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Symbol for vote For. - Could be expanded to some extent, in line with what UU's on about. But as Lynch fan I have to vote for this.--Sycamore (Talk) 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. W♥v despite the interesting little display below. Sir SysRq (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    Haha, yes, thank you. --Guildensternenstein 00:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  11. For 20:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  12. Symbol for vote For.Love this! ZhelielCow.jpg » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 09:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  13. Weak For Only weak because I think the "gimmick" in the article should be carried out through the end, and I'm also not too fond of "HowTo: Do something like this" sections taking up so much space in articles (though this one had some fantastic lines in it). I'm also motivated to watch his films now, as it sounds like they'd be something I'd be into. -RAHB 14:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  14. For. Nytrospawn 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  15. Okay, the deciding factor was probably the "this is bullshit" running joke. If I hadn't seen his movies I doubt I'd vote either way, though. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 02:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  16. For. Heh. User:Uncyclopedian/sig 06:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  17. For. Spang talk 02:19, 25 Mar 2009
Against: 5
  1. Against. Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Symbol against vote Why does every single article you write have to involve just insulting the subject? – 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    Well, Mr. Whiny Pants, first of all, I didn't write this alone, second of all, I love David Lynch, third of all The first and second thing apply to all of my articles (in that I typically enjoy the subject matter enought to be comfortable with poking fun at it a bit), fourth of all, If you don't make fun of/"instult" something in a satirical wiki article about them, why the fuck bother writing something about them AT ALL? I mean, hell, the only thing that I find even remotely "insulting" is the final section, which is actually a tweaked hold-over from the previous Lynch article: I didn't actually write that. So yeah.
    Now, if I can ask you a stupid fucking question, why don't you make a Username if all you ever actually do is vote against mine and other people's "insulting" articles? Your vote gets more weight that way.
    Although I do respect your opinion.
    Suck my hairy, white supremacist balls. Whore.
    Not really.
    I'll stop now. --Guildensternenstein 06:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    Do you ask Carrot Top why every joke he tells he uses a prop? Do you ask Mitch Hedberg why every joke he tells is a one-liner? Do you ask Dane Cook why every joke he tells - well, ok he doesn't tell any jokes. Do you ask Chris Rock why every joke he tells is a personal story? Insult comedy, among the choices of prop comedy, one-liner comedy, low-brow comedy, storytelling comedy and insult comedy, is one of them. Though I would concur with Guildendude that this is hardly insulting or attacky. It's a thing I like to call "satire". Enjoy :) --TPLN 07:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. --Guildensternenstein 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    Never mind. I'm being a twat. I'll delete my vote. – 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    I actually didn't want that. If you honestly feel it's not VFH material, then by all means vote against it. I only took issue to your "why must all your..." comment, and even then only slightly. I don't want to internet-bully votes out of people (cool as that would kinda be), but yeah. Un-delete your vote, in the name of Democracy if nothing else. --Guildensternenstein 20:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Against I didn't really get this, and it is a bit attacky. Mnb'z 06:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Against In the category "mocking of a person"; TPLN's latest Al Gore UnNews was in my opinion more satirical, more subtle and funnier --Kit talk 17:32 27 February 22px-Flag of Sweden
  5. Symbol against vote Against. I just don't get it. Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUN) 03:53, Mar. 17, 2009
  6. Against per Starnes. --MegaPleb Dexter111344 Complain here 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How come people find this too attack oriented? I "get" the article but I don't understand this strange perception. I like his films (having recently re-watched Eraserhead again) and what else are you going to do but mention the man's eccentric artistic tendencies and make fun of them? Did someone expect these guys to write a new movie that mirrored Lynch's style with comedy added? Methinks it's a reverence issue because I don't see anything excessive or out-of-the-ordinary here.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  12:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Strange, you forgot to account for the fact that some people (i.e., people who vote on things but then don't have the brains to make an account so their vote actually means something, *cough cough*) are what I like to call "fucking stupid." --Guildensternenstein 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wishy-washy abstain. Some of it's really good, some of it's not. Kind of like Lynch's oeuvre, yes, but as an article, it doesn't hold together for me. Don't like the structure, it looks kind of teh ugherlee, and I didn't think much of it until I got to the recurring motifs section, when it started to pick up nicely. I see why it's done, and I 'get' it, but I don't really like it - again like some of his work, really. I can't vote for or against, so here on the fence I sit. --UU - natter UU Manhole 12:49, Feb 27
  • Abstain...those lectures make me afraid to vote against ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 16:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it has more to do with being called a one-trick-pony than the against vote, them's literary fighting words. Constructive pee (Like UU's) is always acceptable.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I know, I am really voting abstain because it is good, but not feature worthy I think. They are just defending their stuff which is good for them! ~SirTagstitVFHNotMPEEINGCPTRotMBFF 01:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • abstain based on the grounds of lack of knowledge about the subject. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Click to feature this article
Always check the feature queue first.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.
Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.
Personal tools