Even on our best day of being totally hilarious and witty (we're still waiting for one day where we can at least be witty), we couldn't make up something like this. A combination of two things that just don't need to be combined like this hasn't been seen since someone decided to combine eggs and oil (we're not a fan of the mayonnaise, to be honest). We're not saying its a bad tattoo (well, maybe we are), but we like our Star Wars without plumbers (unless it's a funny skit about Mario cleaning the stalls in the Death Star bathrooms or something) and we like our Goomba-stomping Mario without the epic conflict of good and evil (man against beast goes down so much smoother for us).
Actually, to tell the truth, we're surprised our minds haven't been blown so much that we forgot how to even post this to the blog.
See also: Irresponsible kids express their love for each other, live to regret it







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-04-2008 @ 11:47AM
Damian said...
nice drawing but that is sad and very very geeky ,i try to keep my geekness ie playing games a secret to the opposite sex , if i was to get this done i reckon i could forget about ever finding a wife !
Reply
2-05-2008 @ 10:34AM
Matdredalia said...
You notice that it was not a guy who got it done, but actually, his *wife*.
So, I highly doubt enjoying games or being this geeky would prevent you from finding a spouse.
Quite the opposite. Geeks attract. So by keeping your gaming a secret from the opposite sex, you're really hurting your chances for a potential wifey.
2-04-2008 @ 12:48PM
Roto13 said...
Fanart? Crossover fanart? As a tattoo? Really? I can't imagine that being a good idea.
On a side note, that Mario is standing a lot like his Smash Bros character art.
Reply
2-06-2008 @ 11:48PM
manaman said...
Personally I don't like tattoos, but I have to admit that this design is a wonderful idea and if someone is truly passionate about Nintendo and Lucas then this is a great piece of art to have. On an arm? Well, let's just say I'll wait until there's a postcard. . . .
Reply