HOME | DD
A-mike — Fresh Prince of Nyoro-n
Published: 2008-10-08 03:46:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 3838; Favourites: 41; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Obviously it's a "The Fresh Prince of Bel-air" version of a Nyoro~n comic.I wanted to do a tribute to Nyoro~n and went through several ideas, ranging from 24 to Naruto.
Alternate punchline: "Well... How would you explain Wild Wild West?"
What's Nyoro~n, you say? Well check the wiki-like page for it. Seen here: [link]
Related content
Comments: 22
I dunno why but Will sorta looks more like Carlton to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Punchline should be "Well... How would you explain I Am Ledgend?"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I loved ALL of Will's movies :I But that was one heck of a nostalgia feeling I had right now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I really enjoyed Hancock. Definitely woulda gone with Wild Wild West for the joke
Love this though!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
... I didn't know you loved Nyoro~n jokes 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ha XD makes sense. Who can resist their cuteness?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks!
You know, in retrospect, Wild Wild West would have made the most sense, but I was worried it wouldn't have been as accessible or as current to everyone as much as Hancock was at that time I posted it up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hancock!
Yeah...I remember that one...
Nyoro-n...
And I thought i was the only one that remembered Wild WIld West.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yeah, most people I know loved Hancock, or at least saw it as mediocre-at-worst. There are plenty of other Will Smith movies that weren't quite up to par, such as Wild Wild West, MIB 2 (aka MIIB), or Hitch. Dear Lord, does anyone even remember Hitch without someone bringing it up? The answer is no, because people don't want to remember it.
Then there was The Pursuit of Happyness, but that was actually a big hit for him. But that's only because it was Will Smith in a completely serious, dramatic role (and because it was a true story). It has nothing to do with whether the movie was actually good or bad.
All in all, if it has Will Smith in it, it typically means it'll be decent at the very least, because Will Smith makes everything better. Still, there are worse movies than Hancock you could've picked.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As much as I respect your opinion for having one, you need to remember that everyone has an opinion that isn't like your own just as much as there are people that share your opinion. With that said, I'll explain real quick why I think Hancock was a pretty bad movie compared to other movies he's been in. One, Charlize Theron. I love Charlize Theron and she looked pretty in that movie, don't get me wrong, but she couldn't give that role justice. It could even be argued that her character role wasn't very good to begin with. The storyline of Hitch going to jail and Jason Bateman being a PR guy tasked with fixing his image is a great storyline that was done well...But half-way through the movie, when Charlize Theron was more prominent in the movie, it took a giant shit on itself. Now while you can say that Wild Wild West was a worse movie(and I did acknowledge that in my artist's comments by giving it the optional tagline of "What about Wild Wild West?"), you need to think about it like how I think about it...And that's that Wild Wild West was a bad movie from the beginning and it was a bad movie till the end, it didn't drop a load on itself half way through like Hancock did. Not even the ending of Hancock can justify the poor writing that came before it after the movie reached the halfway point. Another big point about these two movies: Wild Wild West was made when Will Smith was just getting into movies and getting away from his Fresh Prince of Bel-air sitcom roots; While Hancock was made at the PINNACLE of Will Smith's career. He should get a little bit of leeway for his bad movie role in Wild Wild West because of that fact. And as for Hitch, that movie was great. It was overly lovey dovey, but it was real and it was done well because of his supporting cast in Kevin James. It's not a fantastic movie, but it is true to itself and made for a watchable movie. I don't know why you have issues with that movie, but I can understand why you overrate Hancock because it's a "super hero" movie. Thanks, your friend, A-mike.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm... I don't personally feel that Charlize Theron's character ruined the movie (although I didn't like her, and I'm strongly against characters who appear halfway through a storyline and are better/stronger/more powerful than the already established god-like protagonist... sadly, that seems to be a common trend in modern fiction.)
As for Hitch, it wasn't a BAD movie, it just wasn't very memorable. I've been in plenty of conversations where Hitch would come up, and everyone present would say "Oh yeah, I forgot about that movie." It basically did nothing to really impress the viewer. Hancock had both a well-written and serious storyline, as well as plenty of laughs. Hitch had that as well, but it DIDN'T have a drunken homeless person with anger management issues and superpowers. In the long run, Hitch is just another adorable romantic comedy, which these days are a dime a dozen. Movies like Hancock and I Am Legend, on the other hand, are a departure from the same old tired storylines.
What it all boils down to though, is that our tastes are clearly different. And while everyone I know pretty much agrees that Hitch was forgettable, and Hancock was a good movie, even that says nothing. After all, we tend to seek out like-minded peers. Perhaps everyone you know is in agreement that Hancock was just another superhero movie, and Hitch was a unique twist on the romantic comedy genre. All in all though, I wouldn't call Hitch a humiliating blemish on Willard's career anyway, so the whole point is moot. There are indeed far worse movies for him to be ashamed of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I'll agree with you there. But it's not necessarily true that people seek like-minded peers, many people I know would agree with you about Hitch and would disagree with you about Hancock and then there's others I know who would agree to the opposite or somewhere in between. My point is that people have opinions and you should think of opinions as a per person thing, which I think you do understand. Although, to further suggest that Wild Wild West is in fact his worst movie... On Rotten Tomatoes, his worst rated movie is Wild Wild West with a 21% rating. Hancock was a middle of the road at 41% which is -2 less than his RT career rating of 43%. My big point as to why that movie was a disappointment was it's 150 million dollar budget and so-so box office results. For such a big budget movie, the fact that it didn't double it's profit by only making 225 million, doesn't exactly suggest that the movie was any better than a so-so movie. A blockbuster(which is what Hancock was supposed to be) should at least quadruple the money they put into the movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suppose I can't argue the fact that the movie didn't really do very well, and opinions are often split on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
._.
Hancock was a great movie. I don't see a reason to bash it. So was Wild Wild West.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I liked Hancock too, but I guess I just expected it be a super hit. Although the same can't be said about Wild Wild West, not only was it historically incorrect in some areas but it was also very poorly done compared to the movies that came out during that year.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0