Geekologie I Watch Stuff The Superficial

Chuck Norris Parodies Van Damme's Leg Split Commercial

chuck-norris-leg-split-parody.jpg

This is a video created by Hungarian animation firm Delov Digital featuring Chuck Norris one-upping Jean Claude Van Damme's Volvo leg-split commercial. It's not real though, it's all CG -- including Chuck. Still, I bet you show it to your mom and convince her it's real. "If he's not careful, he's gonna kill himself!" I imagine her saying while taking a break from prepping Christmas dinner to watch the video on your phone.

Keep going for the video.

Thanks to Conrad and BlueandWhite, who have actually performed the same stunt in real life before but there's no proof because it was part of a classified mission and no amount of Freedom of Information Act requests are going to get the documents unshredded.

There are Comments.
  • I need no username

    Sweet mother of political debate!

  • Max

    would have been cooler if the planes were flying backwards

  • DEṂ

    Juuuust real enough...

  • KaiserNeko

    Just a reminder that Chuck's a religious nutjob homophobe.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... Do not support him. Even CGI versions of him.

    ... although yeah, that is sort of funny.

  • Frédéric Purenne

    I always thought all the jokes about him and his internet glory was ironic... who would support that freak?

    And DAMN that video made me laugh! XD

  • thetruth

    At least he is smart when it comes to politics. The religious aspect is a shame. Politically, I wish others paid as much attention as Chuck.

  • Frédéric Purenne

    I FUCKING HOPE YOU WERE SARCASTIC! His political ideas are the worst and I cringe for the american people to anyone who listens to him!

  • $35185003

    Ah there it is. Online liberal shaming is the new catholic guilt.

    Welcome to the fascist religion of the future: Liberalism.

  • KaiserNeko

    Chuck literally said that Obama's re-election would bring 1,000 years of darkness.

    Literally. That's... incredibly melodramatic and overblown.

  • $35185003

    Just pathos. He is an actor. Who cares? You think he meant that literally?

    Here are some things that were said and meant to be taken literally. Lets review,

    "If you want your plan, you can keep your plan."

    Literally... That's incredibly deceptive and knowingly misleading. They passed ACA at midnight on Christmas Eve without reading it.

    Also don't forget such gems as "Nobody is listening to your phone calls."

    People who still support Barack Obama are my favorite kind of fan fiction.

  • KaiserNeko

    That's not my point.

    "A thousand years of darkness."

    That just sounds like the worst kind of religious fanaticism.

    I'm not talking about supporting the ACA, or supporting Obama. I don't necessarily do EITHER of those things, anymore.

    I'm talking about a nutjob. A homophobic, right-wing nutjob. That would be Chuck Norris.

  • $35185003

    Syrian Rebels murder gay people and get money and weapons from our country. To me that is religious fanaticism. A religious belief that leads to murder and violence.

    Chuck is just spouting hyperbole based on religious conviction. He hasn't judo chopped a guy for being gay, far as I know.

    Too bad all you libs march to a party line and we can't come together to truly define homophobia (you know, murder and violence and stuff).

    Instead you all just sit in a state of perpetual indignation. Like a mob.

    Liberal shaming is the new catholic guilt. Thou shalt have no other opinion before me, eh?

    Chuck Norris is an old fart who has an opinion and you hate him for it.

    Obama supports Syrian fanatics who murder gays based on religious conviction, and you vote him into office

    I just don't get it.

  • KaiserNeko

    How many times do I have to tell you I never said I support Obama?

    Also, you keep making assumptions about me. Accusations of my character. We're talking about Norris here; a man who's supported a vehemently anti-gay candidate, has spoken out about he stance against gay marriage.

    Being against gay marriage is homophobia to us. Supporting a vehemently anti-gay candidate is supporting homophobia to us. Hyperbole in a POLITICAL MESSAGE is asinine and does nothing to make intelligent, respectful dialogue. It just promotes fear mongering.

    He has an opinion. I think his opinion makes him look like a jackass. I'm allowed to believe that and give my opinion on that as well.

  • $35185003

    Hmmm. My Sherlock senses are tingling.

    It seems odd, then, that you would be so angry about a hyperbolic statement by Chuck Norris about voting for Obama.

    Peculiar.

    You don't support him but you'll be damned if Chuck Norris has an outrageous statement to make about him?

    Doesn't add up.

  • KaiserNeko

    Listen.

    I don't mind someone criticizing liberalism (which has plenty of it's own failings), a liberal president (who's proven to be a wreck), a liberal program (the ACA is a flawed system that needs a serious overhaul). I'm bothered when people use smear tactics and ridiculous language to try and make their point.

    Chuck Norris wants to use hyperbole and pander to the religious and close minded in a hollow and gross commercial? I'm going to think less of his character. Especially considering how much he's endorsed anti-gay laws and candidates. Social conservatism is not my bag; I don't particularly support those who believe in it. But I moreover find a particular condemnation for that whole "1,000 years of darkness" brand of dialogue.

    Edit: Also, I don't particularly believe it would matter either way whether or not Obama were a decent president. Both sides of the aisle sling mud no matter what. Anyone who endorses EITHER side doing so loses points in my book.

  • inconspicuous

    Why do you think anyone cares what you mind or don't mind?Take this futile discussion elsewhere, geekologie is not the place to debate gay marriage you loser.

  • $35185003

    I agree with your first paragraph and your edit wholeheartedly. I'm a registered independent and struggle with placing my vote nearly every local, state or national election.

    The second part is a little hypocritical. The term "anti-gay" is loaded. You speak of "brands of dialogue" and that is a very insightful term. Trend makers and media outlets are very good at branding dialogue. "Anti-gay" is one of those terms that is a brand. It makes people who simply think Men and Women belong together into hateful monsters when they would never lift a finger in violence against a gay neighbor or relative.

    "Anti-gay" is a term that should exist and we should apply the term towards anyone who would be violent toward a person for their sexuality. A religious or scientific notion that men and women belong together and the family unit should be cherished and honored should not slam somebody in "anti-gay" jail. That is "melodramatic and overblown" to use your own words.

    The notion that men and women should lead family units to perpetuate culture and population isn't exactly a nuclear weapon or a bloody ax. It's not even hate.

    Hate is an ugly thing, Just like liberal shaming on the internet. "Thou shalt have no other opinion before me." Just like Reddit is banning climate change deniers. How dare they want to discuss a new scientific frontier critically?!

    It's getting ridiculous. Like catholic guilt. It's a religion people don't even sign up for. One day, they just find themselves with a pitchfork and torch in hand, flinging hate filled dialogue at everyone who disagrees with them.

    I see no difference between modern liberal shamers and fire and brimstone preachers. It's all the same noise to me.

    I guess you got to ask yourself, "Do people have the right to their opinions and beliefs, or should they be forced to believe what I think is right?"

    If you think the latter, congratulations on your newfound fascism.

  • Keegano

    Your logic is flawed. I have never heard a gay rights activist ever say anything against men and women together. I have most definitely heard right-wingers speak out against gay people being together. I am about to blow your mind, are you ready? If gay people are allowed to marry, straight people can to, straight people will still have children. Such horrible people those gay married couples must be who are willing to take on other people's unwanted offspring as their own. If you think it's ok to tell gay people that they can't be married, you should also agree that straight people should be told that they can't marry either. Why is it such a strange concept to allow people to live their own lives and not have to follow some crazy rules of a religion that they aren't a part of?

  • $35185003

    When did I ever apply the logic that straight people can't get married if gay people can? I did not.

    What I am saying is there are people who cherish marriage as a religious ceremony and have religious opinions and beliefs that have nothing to do with hate or violence. They might believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman without wanting to ever hurt another human being.

    Nor did I say anything about gay couples being horrible.

    In fact, if your reading comprehension is good enough, you'll see I've taken no stand whatsoever on gay marriage.

    I've simply said the "anti-gay" term is a brand of language meant to wag the dog against a large segment of people, and essentially label them as monsters. This is ironic, since labeling somebody with an opinion or belief as a monster seems to contradict the idea that nobody should discriminate others for their preferences.

    What you are failing to realize is that your scorn is intended by those who create and publish terms like "anti-gay". The people who want to create political movements need fervor and anger. This is why political ads are all negative. You say you are against smearing, then why do you give somebody a term like "anti-gay" or "homophobe"? Have they enacted violence against gays? Do they fear gays? No.

    I am fine with allowing others to live their own lives according to their own beliefs.

    What I'm not fine with is liberal shaming, as I've said over and over again.

    I have only made mention of peoples beliefs in the form of words as an example of something that is not hate and contrasted that to the actions of actual religious fanatics who murder and commit violence against gays.

    My brother is gay and I love him dearly. My father is a bishop in our local church and I love him dearly. In fact, we all love each other, despite different lifestyles and beliefs.

    Yet on the internet, there is this boiling hatred of anyone who has a different belief. I call it liberal shaming. It is the new catholic guilt.

    In days of old, religious people held the political majority and they abused this majority to label others with hateful terms. Now, progressives have the political majority and they do the same thing.

    Nowhere have I said gays should not marry. I have only said liberals should not hate so easily and so readily, especially when hiding behind anonymous names and blank avatars.

    You hate Chuck Norris (and probably a lot of people) for his words. Others hate for their sexuality.

    It's all hate, isn't it?

  • Tyler AitchKay

    Cool click-bait headline, GW

blog comments powered by Disqus