articvibe

Rank #3247 on Comments
articvibe Avatar Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to articvibe Block articvibe Invite articvibe to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 23
Date Signed Up:1/31/2010
Location:NZ
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3247
Highest Content Rank:#4963
Highest Comment Rank:#3153
Content Thumbs: 866 total,  1128 ,  262
Comment Thumbs: 2205 total,  3083 ,  878
Content Level Progress: 50% (5/10)
Level 86 Content: Srs Business → Level 87 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 68% (68/100)
Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:33567
Times Content Favorited:43 times
Total Comments Made:1683
FJ Points:3309
< (O) >

latest user's comments

#266 - Your arguing that a company made a financial decision to only …  [+] (1 new reply) 07/24/2014 on I love Marvel movies -1
User avatar #267 - Crusader (07/24/2014) [-]
Who says that they don't have to invest their own money into the production?

I doubt that Disney would make a movie and then let Sony take part of the profits without making Sony invest, in fact, I know they haven't, because that's what happened before.

Spiderman was supposed to be in the Avengers, but the people who made the movie wanted Sony to invest as well, so Sony couldn't receive free money. Sony refused to work with them to split the profits.
#265 - that's not an investment, its selling usage rights to a tradem… 07/24/2014 on I love Marvel movies -1
#247 - share profits? Someone paying you to use your property is pure…  [+] (4 new replies) 07/23/2014 on I love Marvel movies -1
User avatar #264 - Crusader (07/24/2014) [-]
No, it's still sharing profits.

Their line of thinking is "Why should we split profits by allowing our property to be used which would be an investment when we could just make a movie ourselves and keep all the profits?'
User avatar #266 - articvibe (07/24/2014) [-]
Your arguing that a company made a financial decision to only produce revenue from one movie that requires them to heavily invest capital in to produce at quite a risk in the current movie market. Over doing that as well as leasing one of their trademarked characters (that would require no financial investment on their behalf) to another production set where they can earn further profits at the same time. That's isn't not wanting to split the profits, that's not wanting to receive free money.
User avatar #267 - Crusader (07/24/2014) [-]
Who says that they don't have to invest their own money into the production?

I doubt that Disney would make a movie and then let Sony take part of the profits without making Sony invest, in fact, I know they haven't, because that's what happened before.

Spiderman was supposed to be in the Avengers, but the people who made the movie wanted Sony to invest as well, so Sony couldn't receive free money. Sony refused to work with them to split the profits.
User avatar #265 - articvibe (07/24/2014) [-]
that's not an investment, its selling usage rights to a trademarked character. It in no way compromises their own ability to make a movie or becomes a cost to them. You sir are a scary kind of stupid
#144 - spider man wasn't one of the avengers founders, and your going…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/22/2014 on I love Marvel movies -1
User avatar #213 - pkmnexplain (07/22/2014) [-]
Right sorry I was thinking of something else, Spiderman joined in Avengers 300ish's chapter

Iron-Man was one of the founders
#116 - are you trying to tell me that sony will turn down a massive a…  [+] (9 new replies) 07/22/2014 on I love Marvel movies -1
User avatar #244 - Crusader (07/23/2014) [-]
Yes.

They will refuse to make any deal because they don't want to share profits.

They made an entirely new Spiderman series just so they wouldn't lose control over it.
User avatar #247 - articvibe (07/23/2014) [-]
share profits? Someone paying you to use your property is pure profit. It in no way limits them and doesn't necessitate any kind of investment your still not making sense
User avatar #264 - Crusader (07/24/2014) [-]
No, it's still sharing profits.

Their line of thinking is "Why should we split profits by allowing our property to be used which would be an investment when we could just make a movie ourselves and keep all the profits?'
User avatar #266 - articvibe (07/24/2014) [-]
Your arguing that a company made a financial decision to only produce revenue from one movie that requires them to heavily invest capital in to produce at quite a risk in the current movie market. Over doing that as well as leasing one of their trademarked characters (that would require no financial investment on their behalf) to another production set where they can earn further profits at the same time. That's isn't not wanting to split the profits, that's not wanting to receive free money.
User avatar #267 - Crusader (07/24/2014) [-]
Who says that they don't have to invest their own money into the production?

I doubt that Disney would make a movie and then let Sony take part of the profits without making Sony invest, in fact, I know they haven't, because that's what happened before.

Spiderman was supposed to be in the Avengers, but the people who made the movie wanted Sony to invest as well, so Sony couldn't receive free money. Sony refused to work with them to split the profits.
User avatar #265 - articvibe (07/24/2014) [-]
that's not an investment, its selling usage rights to a trademarked character. It in no way compromises their own ability to make a movie or becomes a cost to them. You sir are a scary kind of stupid
User avatar #126 - pkmnexplain (07/22/2014) [-]
They turned out the Avengers, in which Spiderman was one of the FOUNDERS
User avatar #144 - articvibe (07/22/2014) [-]
spider man wasn't one of the avengers founders, and your going to have to prove that they pulled him because that still sounds like nonsense/
User avatar #213 - pkmnexplain (07/22/2014) [-]
Right sorry I was thinking of something else, Spiderman joined in Avengers 300ish's chapter

Iron-Man was one of the founders
#78 - bookstore? or boookstores? because one gigantic bookstore soun…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/18/2014 on meymeys and their present look +3
User avatar #149 - icameisawilostit (07/18/2014) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell%27s_Books

There are 6 locations in all. One of which takes up an entire city block in downtown Portland.
#8 - Had a similar problem at a luge track recently, couldn't pull … 07/16/2014 on Oppressed 0
#64 - they hate each other though.... well leo maybe not but diana d…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/03/2014 on I love their expressions. +1
User avatar #66 - dharkmoswen (07/04/2014) [-]
They didn't used to. The devs/writers are not clear as to exactly how close they were, but they were VERY close before the whole "heresy" thing
#44 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 07/03/2014 on Interesting 0
#85 - tiagodisouza Comment deleted by articvibe
#126 - well thats to be expected and something you should hold your r… 06/08/2014 on master yi jungle in a nutshell 0
#40 - someone beat you to it  [+] (2 new replies) 06/05/2014 on The Truth +1
User avatar #42 - thechosentroll (06/05/2014) [-]
I clicked the link,
not knowing what I think.
I expected people, wasting their time,
pretending they're deap in an irregular rhyme
and I have to admin, I feel like a twit,
cause even I have to admitt
that's some funnyass shit.
User avatar #43 - thechosentroll (06/05/2014) [-]
This is the type of shit I was expecting to see - half-assed poetry.
#4 - Picture 06/04/2014 on Deadpool 0
#87 - well its funnyjunk so... most likely 05/12/2014 on It's 5AM. This is hilarious. 0
#12 - i think you'll find that they are just depends on what museums…  [+] (7 new replies) 03/17/2014 on Realistic Painting -1
#13 - lordraine (03/17/2014) [-]
They're a museum. They should display things based on the merit of those things, not because of supply and demand. There's a huge demand for pornography, but I didn't see walls covered in tits last time I went to the Natural History Museum.

Any place that claims to be a legitimate artistic institution should display legitimate, museum-quality works of art. Unless you're a showroom or facility that only exists to help artists sell their works and collect commission from that as your source of revenue, supply and demand should never factor into what is and is not on display.
User avatar #35 - thelastamerican (03/17/2014) [-]
That sounds wonderful, but art museums make money by having people visit the museum. They can't do that unless they have what the people want to see. And if you look hard enough, you should be able to find a museum with art you want to see, or a gallery in the museum with art that you want to see. Museums usually cater to the wants of many types of people after all.
#14 - crickity (03/17/2014) [-]
Yeah, kinda, but 'merit' and 'quality' are subjective phenomena. That empty chair could speak worlds to some people (not me, just looks like an Ikea brochure).

Art of this nature is often only sold privately, or on a commissioned basis. If you want some, find the guy and buy it =] Or call your museum and point him out to them. They usually have people to scope out new works.
#16 - lordraine (03/17/2014) [-]
No, not really. You don't get to shit in a tin can and sell it as art. You don't get to submit a blank canvas that has absolutely no paint on it and sell it as art.

That's not art, and people like you who keep arguing that things like merit and quality are subjective are the reason it can get away with being called art. The type of quality preferred is subjective. Quality is not subjective. What merits are more important and what merits are less important is subjective. Merit itself is not subject.
#57 - crickity (03/17/2014) [-]
When you're talking about opinion, type of quality preferred is quality and importance of merit is merit.

Selling it as art is another matter entirely. That's a monetary expression of what art is, and entirely irrelevant to your appreciation of it.

#39 - ainise (03/17/2014) [-]
You misunderstand what art is. Art isn't limited, by anything. Art is everywhere. Art is everything. 4 minutes and 33 seconds of no sound was played at Carnegie Hall. That was art. Liberty, Leading the People is also art. Nicki Minaj is also art. Every movie, every book, every story you've seen or thought of is also art.

Art is a way of looking at things, to me. Sure, there's plenty of art I don't like. There's plenty I do. And there's even more I'm indifferent on. Saying something like "It's not art" is like saying Rap isn't music or Video games aren't art. Art is, since the 1900s, limited only by the artist's range.

Also, most of making a piece famous is the artists interpretation or some famous person's interpretation. The simple piece alone isn't what makes the art famous; it's the meaning that has been applied to it as well. IE: 4'33"(the silent piece I spoke on earlier) wasn't actually silent. It was about the noises everyone heard in that short time. The sounds from outside, the rustling of the audience, everything that was heard was a part, as he explained. Is that art? Of course.

Cheers~
User avatar #23 - minnten (03/17/2014) [-]
Open your mind. ANYTHING can be art. I don't agree that a blue canvas with a white line qualifies, but that doesn't fucking matter does it? SOMEONE obviously did or they wouldn't have spent 44 million dollars on it.

Look at music for example. Widely considered to be a form of art. However your taste in music very much so dictates the value of a certain piece to you personally. Would you not call that subjective? I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks Brittney Spears was the greatest musician of all time. Others would beg to differ.

Hell, there was a guy who had a song on his album that consisted of nothing but absolute silence for a few minutes. He got paid to make this "song". Not my style? sure. Not art? No one person is qualified to say. Including you.

What i don't get is why people make such a big deal about a guy wasting 44 million dollars of his own money on the most simple painting in history, when they have no problem accepting that the creator of fuckin flappy bird was making 50 grand a day at the height of it's popularity. If anything, be happy for the guy who was smart enough to realize that 5 minutes of his time could make him a multi-millionaire.
#58 - or use sites like funnyjunk 03/15/2014 on Wink 0
#10 - He automaticaly assumed he dissaproved of how much juice he wa…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/14/2014 on Apple Juice 0
User avatar #12 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
I used the word racist because the comedian used the word racist. And clearly the comedian did not automatically assume that man was frowning because if he had and said something to the man he would have made the old man's response part of the joke. So either he just assumes all old white people are racist (which is negative stereotyping, which is bigotry, which is racism)...I don't think you grasp the whole concept of racism. Either he's a terrible comedian or just the definition or irony.
#13 - anonymous (03/14/2014) [-]
Or maybe its just a joke
User avatar #14 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
Like I said he's probably just a terrible comedian.
#7 - Yes he assumed one old man was racist that in itself is not ra…  [+] (5 new replies) 03/14/2014 on Apple Juice -1
User avatar #9 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
He was not critiquing his character and you know it. If he was critiquing his character he wouldn't have automatically assumed that the old man made a face because he was racist. He said that he thought the old man was making a face because they were a biracial couple. So essentially he's doing exactly what he thought the old man was doing and by that I mean being racist.
User avatar #10 - articvibe (03/14/2014) [-]
He automaticaly assumed he dissaproved of how much juice he was buying "thats the joke".
You keep using the word racist.... it dosent mean what you think it does.
User avatar #12 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
I used the word racist because the comedian used the word racist. And clearly the comedian did not automatically assume that man was frowning because if he had and said something to the man he would have made the old man's response part of the joke. So either he just assumes all old white people are racist (which is negative stereotyping, which is bigotry, which is racism)...I don't think you grasp the whole concept of racism. Either he's a terrible comedian or just the definition or irony.
#13 - anonymous (03/14/2014) [-]
Or maybe its just a joke
User avatar #14 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
Like I said he's probably just a terrible comedian.
#5 - correct thats not racist at all dont see why you had to make a…  [+] (10 new replies) 03/14/2014 on Apple Juice -1
User avatar #6 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
Wait, are you being sarcastic? He never mentioned that the old man said anything at all, only that he made a face. So he's assuming that old man made a face because they're a biracial couple which means he assumes that he's a racist old white man. He's basically assuming that the old guy is racist because he's white and made a face.
User avatar #43 - TheMather (03/14/2014) [-]
Dude, the old man was presumably black since he was shaking his head at the fact that the girlfriend was white, and not that she was dating a black man.
Thus the comedian didn't just assume racism because of what race the old man was, but rather had an actual reason to do so.
User avatar #44 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
You cant be serious.
User avatar #45 - TheMather (03/14/2014) [-]
If you look back at the content, you'll see the old man is only ever called just that. His color is never referenced. Thus it's appropriate to assume that since he didn't agree with the girlfriend being white, the old man wasn't white himself.
If it was the fact that she was dating a black man that he was disagreeing with, the comedian would've said just that, because comedians are paid to be good with words, not butcher them.
User avatar #7 - articvibe (03/14/2014) [-]
Yes he assumed one old man was racist that in itself is not racism thats a crituqe of an individuals character. If he had gone on to assume that all old white men are racist it'd be a different story.
User avatar #9 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
He was not critiquing his character and you know it. If he was critiquing his character he wouldn't have automatically assumed that the old man made a face because he was racist. He said that he thought the old man was making a face because they were a biracial couple. So essentially he's doing exactly what he thought the old man was doing and by that I mean being racist.
User avatar #10 - articvibe (03/14/2014) [-]
He automaticaly assumed he dissaproved of how much juice he was buying "thats the joke".
You keep using the word racist.... it dosent mean what you think it does.
User avatar #12 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
I used the word racist because the comedian used the word racist. And clearly the comedian did not automatically assume that man was frowning because if he had and said something to the man he would have made the old man's response part of the joke. So either he just assumes all old white people are racist (which is negative stereotyping, which is bigotry, which is racism)...I don't think you grasp the whole concept of racism. Either he's a terrible comedian or just the definition or irony.
#13 - anonymous (03/14/2014) [-]
Or maybe its just a joke
User avatar #14 - MrDeadiron (03/14/2014) [-]
Like I said he's probably just a terrible comedian.
#26 - Picture 03/14/2014 on let's think about it ! +1
#42 - by the geneva convention sure thats why america opted out 03/13/2014 on Ruining childhood the... -1
#400 - how long have you been waiting to use that gif  [+] (1 new reply) 03/13/2014 on Title 0
#401 - ffinfinity (03/13/2014) [-]
Its my favorite gif and I've been waiting for the chance to use it for months.
#6 - he releases a new comic every week day... how can you miss it?  [+] (1 new reply) 03/13/2014 on That Too Big Part Of Tumblr +1
User avatar #8 - InsomniacDreamer (03/15/2014) [-]
Went through a rough period in my life where I forced myself to move out, dropped my girlfriend and tried living on my own. It did what I expected it to. woke me up and showed me that my current 'drive' was shit. But I haven't watched a webcomic since I moved out that day. You know you hit an all time low when you end up living out of your car for 2 months. That was before I could get an apartment though... It's been about a year now since I've been on my own. I can definitely say I've changed for the better.
#5 - Comment deleted 03/12/2014 on (untitled) 0
#7 - Picture 03/11/2014 on Fetch +1
#6 - Picture 03/11/2014 on Fetch -2
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 600

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #49 - FroggieMalapropos (01/29/2011) [-]
According to Battly we are both Gaylover Pricks.

Wooop.

Come join the flame war. ;p
User avatar #50 to #56 - articvibe (01/30/2011) [-]
aww hes been dreaming about me again :P
im touched
User avatar #51 to #57 - FroggieMalapropos (01/30/2011) [-]
Haha, I know, right? It's all getting very heated. See, he apparently only PRETENDS to be a homophobe in the internet because he's scared of his gay room mate hitting on him.

Fosho. >.>
User avatar #52 to #58 - articvibe (01/30/2011) [-]
Haha yeah i saw that your ripping shreds out of the ignorant bastard lol i would jump in but i really dont think theres any point lol hes already backed into 3 different corners battered nd bleeding lol.

Still got to find it hilarious that he is supposedly only a homophobe on the internet lol. Not even man enough to confront his issues in the real world.
User avatar #53 to #59 - FroggieMalapropos (01/30/2011) [-]
It's pretty depressing.
User avatar #54 to #60 - articvibe (01/30/2011) [-]
Like trying to instill some kind of higher moral thinking into a rock....
funny how fear and stubborness and ignorance seem to run hand in hand these days
User avatar #55 to #61 - articvibe (01/30/2011) [-]
well always.... one of those fearfull parts of the human condition probably
User avatar #56 to #62 - FroggieMalapropos (01/30/2011) [-]
lolol. He told me that gay people will burn in hell and he's deleting his profile. I check and it says "viewing of profile has been disabled"
User avatar #57 to #63 - articvibe (01/30/2011) [-]
haha right next to everyone else on the planet if that books got anything to say about it.
Yeah i got the same message ^^
skills btw that was some linguistic genius that you beat the **** out of him with. lol
User avatar #58 to #64 - FroggieMalapropos (01/30/2011) [-]
Thank you. I'm a master debater. ;o
User avatar #45 - Vaki (12/31/2010) [-]
You bastard!! I didnt even feel it!
User avatar #46 to #51 - Vaki (01/02/2011) [-]
Stop Raping ME!!!!

XD
User avatar #32 - puttheminsweaters (12/16/2010) [-]
"something special", you were just using me!
User avatar #4 - eddi (12/14/2010) [-]
dude, your like..hawt..
y u on hurr and not being laid?
User avatar #5 to #4 - articvibe (12/14/2010) [-]
haha thnx i geuss
Its not liek its hard... but ehh cant say i experience the desire lol ^^'
User avatar #6 to #5 - eddi (12/14/2010) [-]
well good for you, sex is overrated and stoopid :D
User avatar #7 to #7 - articvibe (12/14/2010) [-]
haha wouldnt say overated its like short lived LSD
just pretty borring lol.

User avatar #8 to #8 - eddi (12/14/2010) [-]
are you sure your doing it right? lol
User avatar #9 to #9 - articvibe (12/14/2010) [-]
LOL yes im sure. Or at lest... the people on the other end seem to enjoy them selves well enough
User avatar #10 to #10 - eddi (12/14/2010) [-]
is your penis connected correctly? it may not be as fun if it isnt
User avatar #11 to #11 - articvibe (12/14/2010) [-]
Hahahahahaha
....
O.O
are u serious??!?
#12 to #12 - eddi (12/14/2010) [-]
but seriously.. you need to get that 						****					 checked out.




but seriously.. you need to get that **** checked out.
User avatar #1 - rockethorses (12/12/2010) [-]
Comment virginity=mine
whyd you delete your comment on my profile???
User avatar #3 to #1 - articvibe (12/12/2010) [-]
I feel like i should of brought you dinner first.

someone beat me to taking your cherry XD didnt want to be the fagwho put it up 2 seconds after the fact
User avatar #2 to #1 - rockethorses (12/12/2010) [-]
by the way this is baknbits. im getting rid of that profile
 Friends (0)