would chuckie have*
those stupid flicks would have been fun if it were just Brad Dourif going around killing suburbanites
he always played a good psycho in anything I've seen
the first movie was the only good one tbh
I hate children and I hate dolls.
Don't reply to Fat Link's posts.
He is as far from a wizard and wizardly values as you can get and it would come off as totally inorganic to force him as a meme here.
technically he is a wizard in the first 3 movies
No he is not. He was not a virgin before being transferred into the doll.
Also dolls can't be wizards according to the faq. Only human males.
This might be the dumbest thread I've seen in a while.
Don't you see?
Thats exactly what makes Chuckie the perfect mascot for Wizchan!
He hates those things too!!
He's always going on about how he hates being trapped in the doll body and everyone whose ever watched the original Child's Play trilogy has seen him repeatedly try and kill Andy (who is a child at least in the first two films anyway).
Chuckie is a perfect mascot for us for these reasons and more!
He embodies all the various emotions and erratic behaviors I've seen throughout the Wizard community during my time here.
If you pay attention to the movies Chuckie literally becomes human the longer he is trapped in the doll body without transferring his soul to the first person he told his secret to about being trapped in the doll body.
Also you have zero proof/evidence that he was not a virgin in the first three movies.
The Bride/Seed/Cult movies can be considered a retcon of the original stories and do not count.
Just as the new Mark Hamill voiced Chuckie movie doesn't count.
How is he against "Wizardly values"?
I've seen so called Wizards on this site advocate for…
-Criminal activity against normies
-Alcohol and drug abuse
-Taking steroids to get big and beat up normies ie more of that criminal behavior
-Fantasies about killing normies which is basically what Chuckie literally goes about doing in all of his movies
-Supernatural/paranormal talk about creating tulpas which goes well with Chuckie and his voodoo dambala rituals
So you lack of vision having Bugmen here can deny it all you like but Chuckie is once again the "perfect" mascot for the site since he embodies the views of a majority of the userbase.
He would not be a "forced" meme at all.
You Bugmen would only claim as much and reject him as our mascot because "I" came up with him as the idea, which of course is pathetic of you but I wouldn't expect anything less from Bugmen.
Even dumber then the flying whale thread?
Had sex before he was a doll, was so desperate for more sex that he made one of his fan succubi a doll and had sex with her, is pro-procreation and had a son of his own, who he then abused for not being enough of a chad like his father.
Interesting what you project on those you don't agree with, as well as what you project on this character.
>>224427>The Bride/Seed/Cult movies can be considered a retcon of the original stories
I don't think you know what retcon means and there is no reason for them not to count other then them not fitting your silly narrative. >Also you have zero proof/evidence that he was not a virgin in the first three movies.
If you want to play that game, you have zero evidence that he was, and it is extremely unlikely given the odds, his MO as the Lakeshore Strangler and in Curse of Chucky he was made pretty damn clear that Charles Lee Ray was very much into succubi to obsessive degrees.
>>224446>Curiously this movie also has Brad Dourif
Never noticed that until you pointed it out.
lol, he had such a psycho face back in the day
I guess if this is a dourif fan thread now I'll add he did some good episodes on star trek voyager.
>The Bride/Seed/Cult movies can be considered a retcon of the original stories
I don't think you know what retcon means and there is no reason for them not to count other then them not fitting your silly narrative.
If you think they count then you're the one that doesn't understand the concept of "reboot".
For example you probably think those abortions of a Conan and Robocop movie that came out a while back in any way effect or continue on from the original masterpieces?
Well they don't and the fans rejected them because they don't.
Same with that SJW piece of shit Ghostbusters remake.
Don't tell me you defend that swill as legitimately carrying on the legacy/story of the original franchise?
Bride/Seed/Cult were reboots and retcons that completely changed up Chuckie's looks, saddled him with a girlfriend and child and took away the dark clouds gathering that we'd been trained were supposed to form everytime he began a voodoo dambala ritual.
All of that is the very definition of retroactive continuity which is to say a "rewrite" of pre-established facts about a series so as to suit the whims of whatever Jew or a thinks he's so clever a cuck writer/director whose going to "do things differently" and "really blow our socks off" since the "prior vision sucked" according to said Jew or self proscribed clever cuck.
Bride/Cult/Seed are basically akin to Terminator 3, Terminator Salvation, Termination Genisys and everything else that came after Cameron's superior T1 and T2 which is to say retcons that the fans simply do not respect or hold in their hearts as canon which means they can be either ignored or watched in a Mystery Science Theater "so bad its good" kind of sense, but never "good" to the point once again of being respected as an actual authentic part of an established and wildly believed perfected and finished franchise which T1 and T2 accomplished for the Terminator series all on their own.
Child's Play 1-3 could easily be argued to of finished and perfected the series, making everything after those three movies a cash grabbing retcon.
>If you want to play that game, you have zero evidence that he was
I have the first three movies that never in any way suggested he was a ladies man or interested in anything other than voodoo and murder.
You have your retcons that suggest otherwise for cash grabbing purposes.
So you are confirming you don't know what a retcon means.
I've proved to you I know perfectly well what it is, so stop your lying.
To reiterate with a new take on it, a retcon is what JK Rowling did by having all those Harry Potter movies star a white Hermione only to later tell her fanbase Hermione was actually a nigger all along.
THAT is a retcon.
Direct sequels that contunue the story and don't actually change events that came before are not retcons and do indeed count even if you personally don't like the movies or think there was a drop in quality.
Which is why suddenly giving him a girlfriend, a child and removing the dark gathering clouds when someone performs the dambala ritual in the "new trilogy" is entirely a retcon.
>>224519>If I don't like it it doesn't count>My head cannon is the only thing that counts
None of those things are redcons dumbass. Just because the ongoing story progresses in a way you personally dislike doesn't mean it doesn't count and didn't happen.
You just want to say it doesn't count because it interferes with your silly head cannon.
You are starting to remind me of that idiot that wants to insist Michael Jackson was a wizard despite all the evidence to the contrary.
>None of those things are redcons dumbass.
Again. No shit. They are "retcons" you abusive and ignorant turd.
See? It helps to properly spell your intended word correctly ("retcon" NOT "redcon") before you go start calling someone ELSE a "dumbass".
>Just because the ongoing story progresses in a way you personally dislike doesn't mean it doesn't count and didn't happen.
I'm sure you also accept Rian Johnson's Last Jedi, The Terminator movies that came after 1&2 and that shitty SJW Ghostbusters remake.
Sorry but again those like the Bride/Cult/Seed trilogy are ALL retcons that have nothing to do with the superior prior works other than having the same name and acting as a cash grab and or vehicle for some Jew or deluded Jew loving white faggot in a director's chair to go about trying to prove how much more clever they are than the original creators of a series by fucking up said series with their "ultra cool" and "clever" ideas.
>You are starting to remind me of that idiot that wants to insist Michael Jackson was a wizard despite all the evidence to the contrary.
He was a Wizard and YOU must be the retard that continued to fight with me in those threads suggesting that he wasn't.
You are the one they call fatlink I see
As irrational as ever.
>>224530>He was a Wizard and YOU must be the retard that continued to fight with me in those threads suggesting that he wasn't.
which threads? i need to read this lmfao
>>224530>it doesn't fit my headcanon and I don't like it>therefor it doesn't count
This is how all your silly arguments go when it comes to pop culture subjects.
You do it for MJ, who obviously had sex, and you are doing it now for Chucky, who has sex directly in the film so you bend over backwards to say it doesn't count because JEWS!!!!!!! and you don't like it.
I also find it funny that you are intintionlly avoiding the movies that actually focuses on his backstory before he was turned into a doll because it totally fucks your argument. Curse of Chucky was a thing and is canon.
Chucky wasn't, and isn't, a wizard in any way shape or form.
Deal with it.
And you're the one they call Bugman.
As shizophrenic and delusional as ever.
>This is how all your silly arguments go when it comes to pop culture subjects.
You do it for MJ, who obviously had sex
So you were there?
You actually saw Michael Jackson slide his penis into a female's vagina??
You're telling me also that you literally believe Paris, Prince and Blanket are Michael's biological children and that he fucked Debbie Rowe???
This is where your line of logic leads after all.
>and you are doing it now for Chucky, who has sex directly in the film so you bend over backwards to say it doesn't count because JEWS!!!!!!! and you don't like it.
Huh? Name the scene in Child's Play 1-3 where he is shown having sex or said to have a girlfriend?
Face the facts your "new trilogy" is simply a retcon and nothing more.
>Curse of Chucky was a thing and is canon.
Yeah sure like Rian Johnson's "The Last Jedi" is considered "canon".
It doesn't mean the fans will ever accept it as so.
Same with your preferred new Chuckie trilogy.
>Chucky wasn't, and isn't, a wizard in any way shape or form.
Deal with it.
In the original trilogy he was.
In the retcons that you prefer the redesigned bastardized version of Chuckie was not.
We've reached a Mexican standoff here.
You are aware that the same person who wrote the first 3 movies also wrote and directed bride, seed, and curse right?
Your only argument is that you don't like it so you don't think it counts. Which is retarded.
If thats the case then he obviously went full retard ie George Lucas and fucked up his own series.
Keep talking to yourself Bug.
Who cares if no one is listening?
So you admit you have no real argument then?
I think this is pretty much checkmate.
Even in your analogy the films you don't like are still primary canon.
Not at all.
He retconned and ruined his own series just as George Lucas retconned and ruined his.
There's that word again
I don't think you know what it means
See>>224490>Direct sequels (or prequels) that contunue the story and don't actually change events that came before (or after) are not retcons and do indeed count even if you personally don't like the movies or think there was a drop in quality.
You got anything else or will you accept that Chucky isn't a wizard and shouldn't be associated with wizards?
Your trilogy is a retcon specifically because it did change events in the story.
The Chuckie story was never about his having a girlfriend and a child, it started out with him simply being a voodoo obsessed killer who murdered people in some kind of ritualistic voodoo fashion ie the series was simply supposed to be about an evil serial killer obsessed with voodoo.
All that retconned relationship shit was added in to your preferred cash grab later trilogy.
There was no "seeds" (pun intended) of Chuckie ever being a ladies man/having a girlfriend prior to his becoming a killer doll in any of the 1-3 original Child's Play movies.
Continue to lie and sperg all you want but those are the facts.
>>224591>personal opinions are facts now>still using the word retcon wrong>still using the "I don't like it so it doesn't count" argument
Your feels are not facts, and your options are baseless.
I think the word you were looking for there was "opinion" not "option", dummy and the only thing I've provided are facts and the proper use of the word retcon.
Going with fatlink on this one tbh, his logic is pretty sound, the most braindead options on the table were chosen to keep the franchise alive and milk movie-goers wallets a bit more with some cash-grab garbage. Every entry after child's play is just a big "BUT!" that shits on the original premise further and further until it becomes just completely retarded, ala seed of chucky, if you don't consider that a retcon then you are just retarded, possibly a seasoned movie-goer that just ignorantly eats every turd hollywood shits out without a second thought.
>has no argument>better resort to blatant trolling and samefagging
You not liking something does not make it a retcon nor does it mean it somehow doesn't count.
All of it was written by the same dude as one continuous and evolving narative.
You are a the point where where you are trying to claim you know the real "Chuckie" (which you cant even spell right)better then the creator, writer, directer of the films.
You have fallen into the trap of the deluded fanboy who thinks their headcanon overrules the official story.
Don Mancini overrules you on this. What he has written is what is official and is canon. How you feel about it doesn't matter.https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0238841/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
Chucky isn't a wizard. Deal with it.
All you're doing is ignoring every ounce of evidence against you and making an appeal to authority, idiocy at the utmost.
All your doing at this point is trolling.
You have presented no evidence, only your personal feelings while making irrational declarations that are not supported by anything external to your mind.
Pure sophistry at its worst.
I'm not even fat link, you're just being a moron that doesn't understand what a retcon is and then you go and try to make some ridiculous appeal to authority, like an author simply can not
retcon their own work, just lol, you are either stupid or now too prideful and deep in your own opinion to admit you are wrong at this point
There was no meaningful break in continuity within the actual films. Meaning no retcon.
Not that it matters since it was never even implied that Chucky was celibate before his transformation, and the later films which do count towards the story leave no question in that regard.
Good thread. Bumped.
It was still ont the front page wizkid.
This site isn't nearly fast enough to justify bumps on the first page.
Wow you're old, so cool. Bumped again.
Is this one of the best threads in wizchan history?
Fatlink is truly the best wizchan poster. Aryan superwizard.
You only highlight that its you that does not understand what retcon means you fucking idiot.
If I have a three part story and I start off for example having the character be a thief obsessed with stealing Jew gold from the local kosher deli and the three part series concludes with my character becoming rich via his thievery and some years later I say to myself "Ya know what I want to reboot my own series as a cash grab that will really bring the normies in by the truckload" and I then decide in my new trilogy to say that my prior Jew gold obsessed thief character "always had a girlfriend" THAT is an example of a retcon ie a retro (past) continuation (continuity) since its a literal changing of the established story in the past/prior trilogy franchise in order to serve the new story narrative and have it make sense to the audience who would otherwise be scratching their heads going "wait what…he never had a girlfriend before and was only ever obsessed with Jew golds".
Retcons are introduced so as to attempt to legitimize and explain a new narrative/bullshit story arc.
An example of a series not having to retcon a certain thing is say the John Connor story of the Terminator franchise ie in the originals that character has been deemed the savior of humanity so his role does not need to be retconned in any of the future films moving forward after T1 not even the bastardized cash grab garbage movies after T2.
Not unless they wanted to change the story and retconned John out as the savior of humanity and instead made a character named "Bob the plumber" the savior character instead.
That would be a retcon.
Just as suddenly giving Charles Lee Ray a girlfriend and making him a father and an all around poon hound is a clear example of a cash grabbing retcon since none of the original three movies ever established him as anything other than a sadistic voodoo obsessed serial killer and nothing more deep or profound than that.
But they never said Chucky did not have a wife and kids, they just never showed that, so they aren't retconning anything other than your individual mental ideation of who the character is.
If I watch Kill Bill Volume 1 and see Beatrix Kiddo drinking a glass of water, then watch Kill Bill Volume 2 and see her drinking a Coca-Cola, I wouldn't say they've retconned
the character's drinking habits; at most they've taken a different direction - perhaps slight, perhaps radical, but Bea drinking a Cola doesn't so strongly disagree with her having drunk water earlier so that the two events cannot logically or fathomably exist in the same time-line or continuity, to which I would take the term "retcon" to describe.
You are confusing character development with retcons.
Adding stuff that doesn't conflict with the continuity is not a retcon. Even if you dislike it.
this is the most pointless and autistic debate i've ever seen on this board lol
They never said he did have a wife and kids either.
If such were THAT important you'd think they would have introduced those as FACTS in the first 1-3 movies but they DIDN'T because once again the new trilogy you are clinging to is a CASH GRABBING RETCON.
Its not simply "my opinion" this is a FACT.
Otherwise once again such IMPORTANT DETAILS surely would've made themselves known in the original trilogy movies 1-3.
Original Chuckie= Wizard™
Retconned Chuckie= tradcuck normal fag.
I guess I went with Chuckie under the assumption that Chan site meme mascots have to be kind of cartoony and or cutesy ala Pepe and Wojack and Chuckie does fit that bill, but just to be clear Pepe and Wojack weren't the only reason I developed this assumption.
8chan for example also came up with the cutesy cartoony Vivian James (videogames haha get it?) female cartoon mascot for Gamergate and also a female cartoon meme mascot named "Ebola Chan" was also generated by someone over there, I think over some, at the time, recent, nasty, Ebola outbreak over in nigger Africa, that was decimating the coon coonmunity over there for a while.
I suppose you've woken me up to a new and what should be obvious possibility and that is that not all chan meme mascots necessarily have to be cutesy and or cartoonish.
In which case I doubt any Wizard would argue against say having the Michael Myers character from the Halloween movies as our mascot (if such was ever proposed) as to the best of my knowledge in the original movies, as well the later retcons, he's always simply been just a damn near immortal serial killer, obsessed with trying to kill his sister and anyone else who tries to get in the way of that goal.
>>224700>The new trilogy>There are 4 films after child's play 3 before the reboot
Not sure if you are just dumb or you don't know what you are talking about.
The series has had two reboots dumbass.
The Bride/Seed/Cult new trilogy.
The latest piece of shit with Mark Hamill doing the voice instead of Brad Dourif.
Why are you pretending that curse doesn't exist?
Also all those movies aren't reboots as they are continuations of the movies that came before.
So you don't know what a retcon is, you don't know the series well, you don't know what a reboot is, and you don't know what a trilogy is.
God damn are your arguments bad.