Page 1 of 2
					
				Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:02 pm
				by Baby Bear
				Do you think the punks could have wasted rembrandt?
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 11:38 am
				by Swan Owns All
				what do you mean by that? in a fight? they could have attacked the rem and wasted him pretty easily...
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:33 pm
				by Ajax_41
				this was probably one of the worst topics i've seen. :?i mean what kind of qestion is that?could'nt you come up with a better one?out of all things in the warriors movie you chose this...besides, the topic qestion and the one in your post ain't even the same ones...
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:15 pm
				by Warlord Bandit
				The other warriors wouldnt let that happen. And no i dont think it should happen its just perfect how it is.
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:04 am
				by Vermin/Cowboy
				YES!!!!
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:19 am
				by Cowboy Is Cool
				Well, maybe it would have been cool if Rembrandt was wasted, and the other Warriors only found out after the fight. Swan goes into a rage and beats the Rembrand'ts murderer to a pulp. Of course, that would make the movie 10 times darker, but it might have been cool...
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:01 am
				by Cochise/Ajax
				Ajax_41 wrote:
this was probably one of the worst topics i've seen. :?i mean what kind of qestion is that?could'nt you come up with a better one?out of all things in the warriors movie you chose this...besides, the topic qestion and the one in your post ain't even the same ones...
How do people come up with these things.There just crazy.
 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:20 pm
				by Vermin/Cowboy
				It would've been better if Rembrant got wasted and Ajax made it back to Coney.
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:20 pm
				by Ajax_41
				what?!!!no... so you think that ajax who tried to rape someone is more worh to come back to coney than rembrandt who is the youngest? though ajax is my favourite warrior he did have it coming...
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:30 pm
				by theSleepiLizzie_of_2006
				How can you possibly ask that question?!?!? rembrandt getting wasted thats a joke!  Even if Rembrandt was getting his ass kicked he would've either blinded them badly with his spray can or Swan would've helped him out...it really looked as if Swan was worried about Rembrandt during the fight...he went back to Rembrandt but there was a Punk coming after him so I'm glad he wasn't wasted...he's too much of a sweetheart and Ajax_41 is right it would not have been right if Ajax (the horny toad that he is) went back to Coney while Rembrandt was left to be wasted by the Punks...he hasn't done anything badly...just a cool cat who doesn't want to get wrecked  8)...plus Rembrandt surviving kinda says that even the weakest can survive something big like that...but he was strong at heart 

 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:44 am
				by Cowboy606
				by the time the punks fight happened, the warriors had lost to much already. i think that the point of the punks fight was to show that, after losing 3 fellow members, the warriors werent about to lose anymore. it showed that after everything that had happened that night, they had grown stronger and wouldnt go down, so to lose another member at that point in the movie would have killed the rest of the movie.
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:04 pm
				by Vermin/Cowboy
				Ajax_41 wrote:
what?!!!no... so you think that ajax who tried to rape someone is more worh to come back to coney than rembrandt who is the youngest? though ajax is my favourite warrior he did have it coming...
Yes.
 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:19 pm
				by Ajax_41
				so if someone tried to rape you still would want them to get home safe....
doesnt make sence to me but ok...
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:59 pm
				by Oxygen
				Noone gets 'wasted' in any of the fights. If you look closely I think Swan stabs a Punk with a knife but thats it,people just get hurt and fall to the ground noone actually dies.Even so, when one Punk tried to grab Rembrant who was on the ground,Swan steped in and grabbed him,he was the youngest so the other Warriors looked out for him.
			 
			
					
				Re: Do you think rembrandt should have been wasted by the punks?
				Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:08 pm
				by Vermin/Cowboy
				Ajax_41 wrote:
so if someone tried to rape you still would want them to get home safe....
doesnt make sence to me but ok... 
Hey, give me a break, I just wanted Ajax to make it back to Coney.