January 16, 2007

I just kept watching this over and over

I don't know why; I just thought it was hysterical.

Posted by Peter David at January 16, 2007 09:09 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: REVSNOW at January 16, 2007 09:33 AM

That's because it IS hysterical, Peter! I'm laughing myself silly!

Posted by: Estelle Chauvelin at January 16, 2007 10:06 AM

My brain hurts.

Posted by: michael t at January 16, 2007 11:22 AM

Not only could I not stop laughing, but my mother and sister made me replay it over and over again, because they couldnt get enough :)

Posted by: Kath at January 16, 2007 11:34 AM

We found it last night and I think we played it about 20 times before we stopped.

I think for me it is the Mama Panda's reaction that puts it over the top for me.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at January 16, 2007 11:55 AM

What's weird is that in the first viewing, I thought it was the mother sneezing and the baby reacting. I thought I was certain that I saw the baby moving before the sneeze, so played it again, and saw that it was the baby who sneezed.

I'm always amazed at how such tiny lifeforms can produce such loud noises.

Posted by: Sasha at January 16, 2007 12:00 PM

In the words of Mark Evanier, there's nothing cuter than a baby panda.

Posted by: mike "shaggy" g at January 16, 2007 01:19 PM

gezundheight!

Posted by: Peter David at January 16, 2007 01:37 PM

Wouldn't it make a great "Moment of Zen" for the Daily Show?

PAD

Posted by: Sasha at January 16, 2007 01:57 PM

Wouldn't it make a great "Moment of Zen" for the Daily Show?

My thought exactly.

Posted by: Bobb Alfred at January 16, 2007 03:56 PM

All I see is a blank box :(

Posted by: Jay Tea at January 16, 2007 04:19 PM

Even funnier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUA35XQxxw8&eurl=

J.

Posted by: Kev at January 16, 2007 06:46 PM

Yep. My wife found that awhile back - it is quite enjoyable. Dang cute creatures there.

Posted by: Lara at January 16, 2007 11:50 PM

I think the nonchalant munching at the start really sets it up.

Posted by: R. Maheras at January 17, 2007 12:46 AM

It IS funny as heck!

Posted by: Rob Brown at January 17, 2007 03:59 AM

I wonder if that's the same baby panda of which Lewis Black said "What the hell is that thing?!?", or something similar, several months ago. That would've been shortly after it was born and before it had grown fur; it really looked like some kind of pink, slimy, blind worm with legs at the time.

But if it's the same baby, he's cute now. And loud, can't forget loud.

I was laughing for 15-20 seconds myself. I wonder what set him off like that.

On a completely unrelated note, I liked the art in Wonder Man #2 more than the first issue since Currie didn't make anybody really ugly except for that one murder victim, who was supposed to be ugly. Carol Danvers and Huan both looked good, Simon's proportions were better (as opposed to his head being too large as I recall it being in the issue before this). I don't particularly care for the way Hank McCoy is being drawn here though; he looks a little too cutesy, like the Beast in Beauty and the Beast. The Mandarin didn't look very much like previous depictions of him either, but he didn't look ridiculous or anything and that's good enough for me.

I also like how the story is progressing, getting Huan's background and reading her conversations with Simon. I have a bad feeling that Huan is going to figure out a way around that device she's wearing; it prevents her from hurting people, but not from smashing inanimate objects. It also evidently doesn't stop her from throwing a pool ball at somebody, and while the ball didn't hurt Simon I can't help but wonder what would happen if she made a bomb about the same size and shape and hit him with that. Or if she purposely lost her balance and fell into Hank, causing him to stumble off a balcony (the collar might shock her, but she'd already be falling by the time it did). Or if she set a trap for somebody. I'll have to wait and see.

Just one question before I wrap this up. In this first issue, Simon was in an urban area and wondered if the weather was the result of global warming; after all, people had been talking about global warming for a long time and things hadn't wound up as bad as had been predicted. But then in the second issue he mentions that there are NO glaciers left. So when we see the future Simon at the beginning of each issue, are we jumping ahead 10-20 years each time? Or are Simon's musings in each issue all from the same year? Just wondering.

Posted by: Kelly at January 17, 2007 02:46 PM

Haha - awesome, thank you for sharing. Mom watched it over and over yesterday, cracking up every time.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at January 17, 2007 06:18 PM

Way funnier, in my opinion, was this: \newurl{http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1736163/. Whoever edited it is a genius.

Posted by: Joker the Lurcher at January 18, 2007 01:56 AM

hilarious!

Posted by: Piers Kittel at January 18, 2007 02:25 AM

Here's a photoshopped picture that used this video as a source...

http://b3ta.hnldesign.nl/beta236.gif

Enjoy!

Posted by: Mary at January 18, 2007 11:24 PM

I watched this during a class lecture and almost fell out of my chair! and that was without sound at first!

Posted by: Mike Lee at January 22, 2007 07:07 PM

l m a o . . . a baby sneeze that belies the name XD

Posted by: Aaron Thall at January 22, 2007 08:14 PM

This is funnier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gVYI2QB1io

Posted by: Kerrianne at January 28, 2007 07:25 PM

Sounded like a bird squawking to me, but still funny