If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Little factoid, Tom Cruise is now as old as Wilford Brimley was when he made "Cocoon." Diabeetusnetics   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 158
    More: Silly, Wilford Brimley, Tom Cruise  
•       •       •

7259 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 31 May 2012 at 5:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-31 04:36:58 PM  
It doesn't help Wilford's case that he was born looking 70 years old.

www.flix66.com

This movie was released in 1984.
 
2012-05-31 04:39:24 PM  
That is astounding that Wilford was 49 when he made Cocoon. He must have been born with gray hair and the walrus 'stache.
 
2012-05-31 04:47:57 PM  
Woody Harrelson was amazing in Rampart. That is all.
 
2012-05-31 05:03:42 PM  
He's gonna have your ass in his briefcase.
 
2012-05-31 05:07:36 PM  
The major difference between them is that Brimley only has a walrus mustache, while Cruise has a great beard.
 
2012-05-31 05:09:37 PM  
Ha... Wilford found the fountain of age.
 
2012-05-31 05:09:41 PM  
"Factoid" means "insignificant or novel fact", so the adjective "little" is rather redundant in this case.

But still, holy crap....
 
2012-05-31 05:25:41 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: The major difference between them is that Brimley only has a walrus mustache, while Cruise has a great beard.


We're done here, folks!
 
2012-05-31 05:28:37 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: The major difference between them is that Brimley only has a walrus mustache, while Cruise has a great beard.


where'd the "funny" button go?
 
2012-05-31 05:30:53 PM  

FlashHarry: FirstNationalBastard: The major difference between them is that Brimley only has a walrus mustache, while Cruise has a great beard.

where'd the "funny" button go?


It's only enabled once its on the main page and not just available for totalfark
 
2012-05-31 05:34:35 PM  

Blues_X: Ha... Wilford found the fountain of age.


[FUNNY]
 
2012-05-31 05:39:35 PM  
If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.
 
2012-05-31 05:51:41 PM  

downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.


I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.
 
2012-05-31 05:54:08 PM  
Well, that's fine and tandy.
 
2012-05-31 05:54:24 PM  
downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

Stop making me feel old

But anyways Wilford is only like in his mid 70s
 
2012-05-31 05:56:12 PM  

vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.


1985 - 30 = 1955
2012 - 30 = 1982

/sigh, I'm old.
 
2012-05-31 05:56:48 PM  
How old is Steve Guttenberg then?
 
2012-05-31 05:57:37 PM  

BKITU: It doesn't help Wilford's case that he was born looking 70 years old.

[www.flix66.com image 500x269]

This movie was released in 1984.


downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-31 05:59:03 PM  

Triumph: He's gonna have your ass in his briefcase.


Great scene. Decent-ish movie, if only for Paul Newman, and I guess Sally Field is good too.
 
2012-05-31 06:00:18 PM  

vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.


And Marty's goofy orange jacket would still be in style.
 
2012-05-31 06:01:01 PM  
He died his hair in Cocoon to look older.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088933/trivia
 
2012-05-31 06:02:49 PM  

downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

And Marty's goofy orange jacket would still be in style.


The Coast Guard has never abandoned the use of life preservers.
 
2012-05-31 06:09:34 PM  

downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

And Marty's goofy orange jacket would still be in style.


Get a load of this guy's life preserver. Dork thinks he's gonna drown.
 
2012-05-31 06:13:58 PM  

maximum_jack: He died his hair in Cocoon to look older.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088933/trivia


He still looked old then. This is him in Our House, from the same time period. He looks at least ten years older than he was at the time. He was certainly not old enough to have a 15 year old granddaughter.

jaydeanhcr.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-05-31 06:15:35 PM  

maximum_jack: He died his hair in Cocoon to look older.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088933/trivia


How did he kill all his hair without it all falling out?

/to serve and correct
 
2012-05-31 06:16:21 PM  

downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

1985 - 30 = 1955
2012 - 30 = 1982

/sigh, I'm old.


Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.

I'm going to have to erase this from my mind, I can't handle this information.

*not including the Elders of Fark who were around back then also.
 
2012-05-31 06:20:17 PM  
Mike Chewbacca: maximum_jack: He died his hair in Cocoon to look older.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088933/trivia

He still looked old then. This is him in Our House, from the same time period. He looks at least ten years older than he was at the time. He was certainly not old enough to have a 15 year old granddaughter.

[jaydeanhcr.files.wordpress.com image 450x567]


Using people who look older than they really are is fairly common for old people in TV series. Estelle Getty(ma) was one of the YOUNGEST of the Golden Girls
 
2012-05-31 06:21:33 PM  

Karmacidal: Woody Harrelson was amazing in Rampart. That is all.


Too bad the movie itself was crap. C'mon, you really gonna tell me both of his ex-wives would live in the same house as him? That's one thing that stood out as stretching believability, but there were other things that ruined the movie and I thought the ending was bad. But Woody Harrelson is always watchable although I'd argue that "Rampart" may not even be worth renting.
 
2012-05-31 06:23:48 PM  

Slaxl: Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.


This always blows my mind. The differences between 1952 and 1982... compared to the differences in 1982 and 2012.

Just take any part of life. Music. Rock and Roll hadn't been invented!

Yet our music in 2012- across the sheer majority of genres- isn't *that* much different. Take 2012 standard metal and play it for a Judas Priest fan in 1982... it wouldn't be mind blowing.
 
2012-05-31 06:26:49 PM  
I loved Grady's Oats commercials. Especially when Brimely shot those kids for messing up his flowers...
 
2012-05-31 06:28:05 PM  

downstairs: Slaxl: Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.

This always blows my mind. The differences between 1952 and 1982... compared to the differences in 1982 and 2012.

Just take any part of life. Music. Rock and Roll hadn't been invented!

Yet our music in 2012- across the sheer majority of genres- isn't *that* much different. Take 2012 standard metal and play it for a Judas Priest fan in 1982... it wouldn't be mind blowing.


TV.

In 1952, there were 4 networks, true. But, you got maybe one or two channels if you were in the country, assuming you owned a TV at all. You got 15 minutes of news a night. Channels signed off the air. Black and white only.

Now, show someone from 1952 the vast wasteland of cable and reality shows that never goes off the air.
 
2012-05-31 06:28:40 PM  

Slaxl: downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

1985 - 30 = 1955
2012 - 30 = 1982

/sigh, I'm old.

Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.

I'm going to have to erase this from my mind, I can't handle this information.

*not including the Elders of Fark who were around back then also.


Oh please. These days we all have Star Trek communicators and tricorders. We download movies and music and games off the Information Superhighway in just minutes. We can get instant news from across the globe at any moment. Our televisions are 1 inch deep. We have access to thousands of television channels. You just don't see the differences because you lived through the changes.
 
2012-05-31 06:29:24 PM  
Also, back then MTV actually aired music videos.
 
2012-05-31 06:32:29 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Slaxl: downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

1985 - 30 = 1955
2012 - 30 = 1982

/sigh, I'm old.

Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.

I'm going to have to erase this from my mind, I can't handle this information.

*not including the Elders of Fark who were around back then also.

Oh please. These days we all have Star Trek communicators and tricorders. We download movies and music and games off the Information Superhighway in just minutes. We can get instant news from across the globe at any moment. Our televisions are 1 inch deep. We have access to thousands of television channels. You just don't see the differences because you lived through the changes.


However, the foundation of all that stuff was there in 1982.

Video games, the big brick cellular phones, cable TV... I'd bet someone from 1982 would see the stuff we have today as the logical evolution of what they had.

But 1952 to 1982? That's a much bigger jump.
 
2012-05-31 06:33:34 PM  
Great... Someone in Hollywood is going to see this thread and we'll be getting a Back to the Future gritty reboot any minute.

Instead of a Delorean, I vote for a Tesla roadster.
 
2012-05-31 06:33:41 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Oh please. These days we all have Star Trek communicators and tricorders. We download movies and music and games off the Information Superhighway in just minutes. We can get instant news from across the globe at any moment. Our televisions are 1 inch deep. We have access to thousands of television channels. You just don't see the differences because you lived through the changes.


Maybe I'll give you "high technology". But not much else.

Not even things like appliances. Of course we have high-tech ones, but the majority of us use washers, dryers, stoves, microwaves that would not surprise someone in 1982.
 
2012-05-31 06:36:13 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: However, the foundation of all that stuff was there in 1982.

Video games, the big brick cellular phones, cable TV... I'd bet someone from 1982 would see the stuff we have today as the logical evolution of what they had.

But 1952 to 1982? That's a much bigger jump.


Also the commentor said 1985. I had cable in 1985. It would not *shock* me that there are now like 400 more channels.

Cel phones existed in 1985. Computers too. And Compuserve existed.

They weren't common in everyone's house... but as a 10 year old in 1985... none of this stuff would shock me.
 
2012-05-31 06:36:58 PM  
oblig
i625.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-31 06:39:53 PM  
downstairs: FirstNationalBastard: However, the foundation of all that stuff was there in 1982.

Video games, the big brick cellular phones, cable TV... I'd bet someone from 1982 would see the stuff we have today as the logical evolution of what they had.

But 1952 to 1982? That's a much bigger jump.

Also the commentor said 1985. I had cable in 1985. It would not *shock* me that there are now like 400 more channels.

Cel phones existed in 1985. Computers too. And Compuserve existed.

They weren't common in everyone's house... but as a 10 year old in 1985... none of this stuff would shock me.


this
 
2012-05-31 06:40:03 PM  

downstairs: Slaxl: Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.

This always blows my mind. The differences between 1952 and 1982... compared to the differences in 1982 and 2012.

Just take any part of life. Music. Rock and Roll hadn't been invented!

Yet our music in 2012- across the sheer majority of genres- isn't *that* much different. Take 2012 standard metal and play it for a Judas Priest fan in 1982... it wouldn't be mind blowing.


But what if you told the average Judas Priest fan in 1982 that Rob Halford would be a completely bald, out and proud gay man...MIND BLOWN!
 
2012-05-31 06:43:29 PM  
Damn it.... Now I'm thinking too much about the BTTF imaginary reboot...

Marty takes a little girl off her bike and quickly rips the gears and brakes off it, slaps some neon green bar tape up there... awesome chase scene on a fixie!!!

Instead of Doc getting confused when Marty keeps saying "heavy" he gets confused when Marty says WTF, or LOL. (I know a kid that says these things out loud.)

Biff beats up Marty for his Bieber haircut. Imokwiththis.jpeg

Heavy Metal on a walkman? No! Lady Gaga on an ipod!

This movie is going to suck ass.
 
2012-05-31 06:44:04 PM  

downstairs: Not even things like appliances. Of course we have high-tech ones, but the majority of us use washers, dryers, stoves, microwaves that would not surprise someone in 1982.


You're looking at this wrong.

It's too easy to not be impressed by how much has changed in the last 30 years when you've watched it happen day by day. Things are vastly different. And what you're claiming is so similar could also be said for 1952-82.
 
2012-05-31 06:46:38 PM  

downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

And Marty's goofy orange jacket would still be in style.


It's a down vest. Mine was red, but that was in high school, in the late '70s for me.

fark. I don't just feel old ... I *am* old! But the Brimley-Cruise thing is scaring me.
 
2012-05-31 06:49:10 PM  

downstairs: FirstNationalBastard: However, the foundation of all that stuff was there in 1982.

Video games, the big brick cellular phones, cable TV... I'd bet someone from 1982 would see the stuff we have today as the logical evolution of what they had.

But 1952 to 1982? That's a much bigger jump.

Also the commentor said 1985. I had cable in 1985. It would not *shock* me that there are now like 400 more channels.

Cel phones existed in 1985. Computers too. And Compuserve existed.

They weren't common in everyone's house... but as a 10 year old in 1985... none of this stuff would shock me.


When I was 14 (in the late 80s) I did a project for my social studies class about what life would be like in the year 2000. We all studied various sources, and in retrospect, all of the sources were wrong about everything. None of them predicted our current cell phone technology (smart phones). None predicted the web. None predicted downloading movies and movies and TV shows. None anticipated how much we rely on the internet for everyday things like news, entertainment, shopping, social interaction. So while the change between 1955 and 1985 might be extraordinary, don't sell short the change between 1985 and 2015.

/still want my flying car, dammit!
 
2012-05-31 06:54:22 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Slaxl: downstairs: vernonFL: downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.

I think I just shat my depends. That can't be right.

1985 - 30 = 1955
2012 - 30 = 1982

/sigh, I'm old.

Fark, so in 3 years if we re-visit this thought then they'd be going back to the year the film was made. How can that be? 1955 and 1985 are two completely different eras, everything was different, but you can put an 80s guy in a financial institution today and he'd still be able to sleaze his way to the top... 80s style, and stay there, like Cyndi Lauper. We all, even those youngsters who were born this century, could go back to 1985 and be just fine, but send us back to 1955 and we'd all die of polio, aliens or microwaves*.

I'm going to have to erase this from my mind, I can't handle this information.

*not including the Elders of Fark who were around back then also.

Oh please. These days we all have Star Trek communicators and tricorders. We download movies and music and games off the Information Superhighway in just minutes. We can get instant news from across the globe at any moment. Our televisions are 1 inch deep. We have access to thousands of television channels. You just don't see the differences because you lived through the changes.


I agree. All these guy making comments like "2012 isn't much different from 1982"'are commenting on the Internet which only a couple dozen scientists knew about in 1982. Likely on devices that would blow away anything from 1982.

Oh well, off to stream one of thousands of high quality porn movies available instantly instead of trying to steal a playboy from my perverted uncle.
 
2012-05-31 06:54:27 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: downstairs: FirstNationalBastard: However, the foundation of all that stuff was there in 1982.

Video games, the big brick cellular phones, cable TV... I'd bet someone from 1982 would see the stuff we have today as the logical evolution of what they had.

But 1952 to 1982? That's a much bigger jump.

Also the commentor said 1985. I had cable in 1985. It would not *shock* me that there are now like 400 more channels.

Cel phones existed in 1985. Computers too. And Compuserve existed.

They weren't common in everyone's house... but as a 10 year old in 1985... none of this stuff would shock me.

When I was 14 (in the late 80s) I did a project for my social studies class about what life would be like in the year 2000. We all studied various sources, and in retrospect, all of the sources were wrong about everything. None of them predicted our current cell phone technology (smart phones). None predicted the web. None predicted downloading movies and movies and TV shows. None anticipated how much we rely on the internet for everyday things like news, entertainment, shopping, social interaction. So while the change between 1955 and 1985 might be extraordinary, don't sell short the change between 1985 and 2015.

/still want my flying car, dammit!


Part of the problem is that you were 14. Just sayin'

Hell I was pirating games back then. It wasn't much of reach to figure out that eventually everything could be transferred over the wire once there was enough bandwidth.

But I can see what you mean. I once got into a debate with a CIO back in 2000 about internet connectivity. I said that eventually there would be cheap access everywhere, even on phones. He thought I was insane.
 
2012-05-31 06:59:20 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: downstairs: FirstNationalBastard: However, the foundation of all that stuff was there in 1982.

Video games, the big brick cellular phones, cable TV... I'd bet someone from 1982 would see the stuff we have today as the logical evolution of what they had.

But 1952 to 1982? That's a much bigger jump.

Also the commentor said 1985. I had cable in 1985. It would not *shock* me that there are now like 400 more channels.

Cel phones existed in 1985. Computers too. And Compuserve existed.

They weren't common in everyone's house... but as a 10 year old in 1985... none of this stuff would shock me.

When I was 14 (in the late 80s) I did a project for my social studies class about what life would be like in the year 2000. We all studied various sources, and in retrospect, all of the sources were wrong about everything. None of them predicted our current cell phone technology (smart phones). None predicted the web. None predicted downloading movies and movies and TV shows. None anticipated how much we rely on the internet for everyday things like news, entertainment, shopping, social interaction. So while the change between 1955 and 1985 might be extraordinary, don't sell short the change between 1985 and 2015.

/still want my flying car, dammit!


Predicting and being shocked or amazed by are different things.
 
2012-05-31 07:06:27 PM  

downstairs: If they set "Back to the future" in this year, Marty and Doc would be going back to 1982.


Doc: Well, future boy, who's the President in 2012?
Marty: Barack Obama
Doc: Who?
Marty: A black man from Hawaii
Doc: A black man, President? How would the Soviets respect that?
Marty: The Soviets? The USSR collapsed two decades ago! We won the Cold War!
Doc: Really? What keeps the Red Chinese in check then?
Marty: They are our biggest trading partner, why would need to keep them in check?
Doc: . . . .but what about the Japanese? I thought we traded with them for everything.
Marty: Not after the market crash, and that nuclear meltdown didn't help much either.
Doc: Great Scott. . .
 
2012-05-31 07:09:01 PM  

swahnhennessy: downstairs: Not even things like appliances. Of course we have high-tech ones, but the majority of us use washers, dryers, stoves, microwaves that would not surprise someone in 1982.

You're looking at this wrong.

It's too easy to not be impressed by how much has changed in the last 30 years when you've watched it happen day by day. Things are vastly different. And what you're claiming is so similar could also be said for 1952-82.


Ok. I can see that. Any farkers who were alive in the 50s want to chime in?
 
2012-05-31 07:22:32 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: The major difference between them is that Brimley only has a walrus mustache, while Cruise has a great beard.


Brimley had a beard that made Cruise's look like a paste-on. It's not quite as good as my ZZ Top beard was in the Huntsville days, but it's definitely creditable.

Check out some stills from his character in High Road to China, made two years before Cocoon.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report