"Dont blow it all at once ": Die Another Day Appreciation Thread

1141517192070

Comments

  • edited July 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    This list could only have been compiled by someone who is clinically insane or an Olympic-level troll! Or both...

    Says the person with the Brosnan Avatar... :-?

    So what if I love the Most hated James Bond films?

    A troll or a hypocrite, you are spot on about him, @Murdock.

    Calm down boys and girls. It's only a Bond thread!
    .
    Of course everyone has the right to put up whatever list they want

    Ironic, considering you commented that someone was insane when they post a new, daring list, over and over and over. Deal with it, their choice is their choice. There isn't anything you can do, so give it up.

    If someone is going to put up a crackpot list like that, they should expect to take a bit of flack. It doesn't take away their right to say whatever they want. But if you're gonna say something provocative like DAD is your top 6 movie then you should expect to be called up on it. It's not meant maliciously - just part of the banter on here.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    This list could only have been compiled by someone who is clinically insane or an Olympic-level troll! Or both...

    Says the person with the Brosnan Avatar... :-?

    So what if I love the Most hated James Bond films?

    A troll or a hypocrite, you are spot on about him, @Murdock.

    Calm down boys and girls. It's only a Bond thread!
    .
    Of course everyone has the right to put up whatever list they want

    Ironic, considering you commented that someone was insane when they post a new, daring list, over and over and over. Deal with it, their choice is their choice. There isn't anything you can do, so give it up.

    If someone is going to put up a crackpot list like that, they should expect to take a bit of flack. It doesn't take away their right to say whatever they want. But if you're gonna say something stupid you should expect to be called up on it. It's not meant maliciously - just part of the banter on here.

    It isn't stupid or insane to them though, and that's the point. You may stop someone sharing their opinions if they think they'll will be called mentally unbalanced or any other the other uncreative names the trolls can think of. You are contradicting the point you are trying to make by doing such things.
  • Well said O'Brady. Like I said, there are points you can make within a reasonable format. The true troll has very few posts and almost all of them are exactly the same negative opinion. Calling someone who posts regularly a "troll" is sort of contradictory to what they are. Just a poor choice of wording I'm sure.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 40,976
    Well said O'Brady. Like I said, there are points you can make within a reasonable format. The true troll has very few posts and almost all of them are exactly the same negative opinion. Calling someone who posts regularly a "troll" is sort of contradictory to what they are. Just a poor choice of wording I'm sure.

    And in that case, the only way they could be a 'troll' is if they spent months and years working up making friends and getting posts, just to unleash something like that, which isn't all that crazy. It's fair to argue certain things, but opinions, not too much. Just don't trash someone heavily enough on their beliefs, or they might stop sharing.

    (I wasn't directing this at you, I was using 'you' in general.)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Well said O'Brady. Like I said, there are points you can make within a reasonable format. The true troll has very few posts and almost all of them are exactly the same negative opinion. Calling someone who posts regularly a "troll" is sort of contradictory to what they are. Just a poor choice of wording I'm sure.

    And in that case, the only way they could be a 'troll' is if they spent months and years working up making friends and getting posts, just to unleash something like that, which isn't all that crazy. It's fair to argue certain things, but opinions, not too much. Just don't trash someone heavily enough on their beliefs, or they might stop sharing.

    (I wasn't directing this at you, I was using 'you' in general.)

    Apologies if what I said caused grave offence. My view is that that list is so provocative that the person who posted should expect some robust (but not maliscious) responses.

    You can say whatever you want, but you can't expect not to be called up for saying something that flies in the face of the views of most people posting here.

    Equally, it's good to hear views like this. I'm giving him a hard time but that doesn't mean I don't want him to say what he thinks.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Well said O'Brady. Like I said, there are points you can make within a reasonable format. The true troll has very few posts and almost all of them are exactly the same negative opinion. Calling someone who posts regularly a "troll" is sort of contradictory to what they are. Just a poor choice of wording I'm sure.

    And in that case, the only way they could be a 'troll' is if they spent months and years working up making friends and getting posts, just to unleash something like that, which isn't all that crazy. It's fair to argue certain things, but opinions, not too much. Just don't trash someone heavily enough on their beliefs, or they might stop sharing.

    (I wasn't directing this at you, I was using 'you' in general.)

    Apologies if what I said caused grave offence. My view is that that list is so provocative that the person who posted should expect some robust (but not maliscious) responses.

    You can say whatever you want, but you can't expect not to be called up for saying something that flies in the face of the views of most people posting here.

    Equally, it's good to hear views like this. I'm giving him a hard time but that doesn't mean I don't want him to say what he thinks.

    If you want to see things like that, then why say the things you do then? It makes no sense, and you are again contradicting yourself. That is what I don't get. Just because someone's beliefs may be irrational doesn't make them a crackpot. That is likely why Tom and Scientology is getting the rack it does, though nobody truly knows anything about it to judge it properly. That is his beliefs, just like @Murdock likes those films he listed. Does that make them lesser humans? No. Tom is still a fantastic actor and @Murdock is a great poster on here. Sometimes I really don't know why I even argue.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Well said O'Brady. Like I said, there are points you can make within a reasonable format. The true troll has very few posts and almost all of them are exactly the same negative opinion. Calling someone who posts regularly a "troll" is sort of contradictory to what they are. Just a poor choice of wording I'm sure.

    And in that case, the only way they could be a 'troll' is if they spent months and years working up making friends and getting posts, just to unleash something like that, which isn't all that crazy. It's fair to argue certain things, but opinions, not too much. Just don't trash someone heavily enough on their beliefs, or they might stop sharing.

    (I wasn't directing this at you, I was using 'you' in general.)

    Apologies if what I said caused grave offence. My view is that that list is so provocative that the person who posted should expect some robust (but not maliscious) responses.

    You can say whatever you want, but you can't expect not to be called up for saying something that flies in the face of the views of most people posting here.

    Equally, it's good to hear views like this. I'm giving him a hard time but that doesn't mean I don't want him to say what he thinks.

    If you want to see things like that, then why say the things you do then? It makes no sense, and you are again contradicting yourself. That is what I don't get. Just because someone's beliefs may be irrational doesn't make them a crackpot. That is likely why Tom and Scientology is getting the rack it does, though nobody truly knows anything about it to judge it properly. That is his beliefs, just like @Murdock likes those films he listed. Does that make them lesser humans? No. Tom is still a fantastic actor and @Murdock is a great poster on here. Sometimes I really don't know why I even argue.

    Never could stand Tom Cruise. So you're saying no one can take a pot shot at Scientology because that's too mean?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Alright fella's it's okay, I didn't take any offence to anything said. I'm just having a good time sharing my thoughts and expressions. It's quite alright. :)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote:
    Alright fella's it's okay, I didn't take any offence to anything said. I'm just having a good time sharing my thoughts and expressions. It's quite alright. :)

    And don't stop having a good time. The trolls can stay under their bridges.
  • Getafix wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Well said O'Brady. Like I said, there are points you can make within a reasonable format. The true troll has very few posts and almost all of them are exactly the same negative opinion. Calling someone who posts regularly a "troll" is sort of contradictory to what they are. Just a poor choice of wording I'm sure.

    And in that case, the only way they could be a 'troll' is if they spent months and years working up making friends and getting posts, just to unleash something like that, which isn't all that crazy. It's fair to argue certain things, but opinions, not too much. Just don't trash someone heavily enough on their beliefs, or they might stop sharing.

    (I wasn't directing this at you, I was using 'you' in general.)

    Apologies if what I said caused grave offence. My view is that that list is so provocative that the person who posted should expect some robust (but not maliscious) responses.

    You can say whatever you want, but you can't expect not to be called up for saying something that flies in the face of the views of most people posting here.

    Equally, it's good to hear views like this. I'm giving him a hard time but that doesn't mean I don't want him to say what he thinks.


    Also well said. You're right that Murdock's list is provocative for fans of our tastes (like those who dislike GF in which I agree is equally provocative) and that responses to that are natural. We also agree that we don't want them to stop posting either, unless of course they are rude or a troll, which Murdock definitely is neither.

    What we are seeing here I believe is the natural response of the minority view, which is definitely defensive. They may know they are in the minority, but they feel their view is as valid as ours and deserves to be said. Just like in that religious debate over LALD and the merits of Vodoun. And I'm not saying this to rehash this or change the subject, but they have the right to their choice of faith as much as those who don't agree and the majority is often quite smug in feeling they are in the right because of popularity.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote:
    Alright fella's it's okay, I didn't take any offence to anything said. I'm just having a good time sharing my thoughts and expressions. It's quite alright. :)

    Well said! Sometimes it's better if we speak for ourselves rather than others butting in and 'defending' us.

    I think your list is - cough- a little left-field, but this all adds to the merriment. Obviously when I said you must be clinically insane or a troll I didn't mean it. Just having a go in perhaps a slightly over enthusiastic manner.

    As I can now see, you took it in the manner it was intended - i.e. some gentle ribbing.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited July 2012 Posts: 16,351
    Indeed, My top 10 doesn't dictate how I feel about the others. My top 10 is more or less my Re-watch chart. I love every Bond film equally. Goldfinger isn't my favorite, but I still enjoy it. The PTS, DB5, The Golf Match and the Fort Knox finale! It's pure fun. But I understand that People love it highly. It's Iconic for the people who watched it first. GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw, and I honestly thought it was the first in the Series. After discovering all the films before I've grown to love all of them. Were just fans discussing Bond. :)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote:
    Indeed, My top 10 doesn't dictate how I feel about the others. My top 10 is more or less my Re-watch chart. I love every Bond film equally. Goldfinger isn't my favorite, but I still enjoy it. The PTS, DB5, The Golf Match and the Fort Knox finale! It's pure fun. But I understand that People love it highly. It's Iconic for the people who watched it first. GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw, and I honestly thought it was the first in the Series. After discovering all the films before I've grown to love all of them. Were just fans discussing Bond. :)

    Interesting. May be someone should do a watchability poll. I think if people are honest, their most watchable list is probably slightly different from their objective, quality-controlled all time top-ten list.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Indeed, My top 10 doesn't dictate how I feel about the others. My top 10 is more or less my Re-watch chart. I love every Bond film equally. Goldfinger isn't my favorite, but I still enjoy it. The PTS, DB5, The Golf Match and the Fort Knox finale! It's pure fun. But I understand that People love it highly. It's Iconic for the people who watched it first. GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw, and I honestly thought it was the first in the Series. After discovering all the films before I've grown to love all of them. Were just fans discussing Bond. :)

    Interesting. May be someone should do a watchability poll. I think if people are honest, their most watchable list is probably slightly different from their objective, quality-controlled all time top-ten list.

    I rank them by watchability, not by quality or objectivity. I find the latter two to be a pretty boring and dull way to rank the Bond movies, simply by "quality." For me, I say if it makes me get into the Bond mood and is a real thrill ride to watch without being forced, it's top ten all right!
  • Posts: 11,425
    00Beast wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Indeed, My top 10 doesn't dictate how I feel about the others. My top 10 is more or less my Re-watch chart. I love every Bond film equally. Goldfinger isn't my favorite, but I still enjoy it. The PTS, DB5, The Golf Match and the Fort Knox finale! It's pure fun. But I understand that People love it highly. It's Iconic for the people who watched it first. GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw, and I honestly thought it was the first in the Series. After discovering all the films before I've grown to love all of them. Were just fans discussing Bond. :)

    Interesting. May be someone should do a watchability poll. I think if people are honest, their most watchable list is probably slightly different from their objective, quality-controlled all time top-ten list.

    I rank them by watchability, not by quality or objectivity. I find the latter two to be a pretty boring and dull way to rank the Bond movies, simply by "quality." For me, I say if it makes me get into the Bond mood and is a real thrill ride to watch without being forced, it's top ten all right!

    All my judgements are based primarily on watchability and enjoyment. If I enjoyed the film I give it a high ranking, if I didn't then I rate it less highly. I enjoyed QoS more in the cinema and therefore I rate it more highly than CR.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Getafix wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Indeed, My top 10 doesn't dictate how I feel about the others. My top 10 is more or less my Re-watch chart. I love every Bond film equally. Goldfinger isn't my favorite, but I still enjoy it. The PTS, DB5, The Golf Match and the Fort Knox finale! It's pure fun. But I understand that People love it highly. It's Iconic for the people who watched it first. GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw, and I honestly thought it was the first in the Series. After discovering all the films before I've grown to love all of them. Were just fans discussing Bond. :)

    Interesting. May be someone should do a watchability poll. I think if people are honest, their most watchable list is probably slightly different from their objective, quality-controlled all time top-ten list.

    I rank them by watchability, not by quality or objectivity. I find the latter two to be a pretty boring and dull way to rank the Bond movies, simply by "quality." For me, I say if it makes me get into the Bond mood and is a real thrill ride to watch without being forced, it's top ten all right!

    All my judgements are based primarily on watchability and enjoyment. If I enjoyed the film I give it a high ranking, if I didn't then I rate it less highly. I enjoyed QoS more in the cinema and therefore I rate it more highly than CR.

    Oh okay, I wasn't trying to shoot you down or anything, sorry if it seemed like it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    00Beast wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Indeed, My top 10 doesn't dictate how I feel about the others. My top 10 is more or less my Re-watch chart. I love every Bond film equally. Goldfinger isn't my favorite, but I still enjoy it. The PTS, DB5, The Golf Match and the Fort Knox finale! It's pure fun. But I understand that People love it highly. It's Iconic for the people who watched it first. GoldenEye was the first Bond film I saw, and I honestly thought it was the first in the Series. After discovering all the films before I've grown to love all of them. Were just fans discussing Bond. :)

    Interesting. May be someone should do a watchability poll. I think if people are honest, their most watchable list is probably slightly different from their objective, quality-controlled all time top-ten list.

    I rank them by watchability, not by quality or objectivity. I find the latter two to be a pretty boring and dull way to rank the Bond movies, simply by "quality." For me, I say if it makes me get into the Bond mood and is a real thrill ride to watch without being forced, it's top ten all right!

    All my judgements are based primarily on watchability and enjoyment. If I enjoyed the film I give it a high ranking, if I didn't then I rate it less highly. I enjoyed QoS more in the cinema and therefore I rate it more highly than CR.

    Oh okay, I wasn't trying to shoot you down or anything, sorry if it seemed like it.

    Not at all. I was agreeing with you really. If you're rankings aren't based on watchability and enjoyment then what's the point?
  • Posts: 4,762
    @Getafix: Precisely! That's why it bothers me so much when people rant about how, say, OHMSS is a more quality made film than AVTAK, yet I vastly prefer the latter over the former, out of pure enjoyment and entertainment.
  • Posts: 12,837
    I rank mine on watchability too. You could go on for hours about how good a film is because of this, that and the other, but if you don't enjoy it then what's the point?
  • Posts: 4,762
    I rank mine on watchability too. You could go on for hours about how good a film is because of this, that and the other, but if you don't enjoy it then what's the point?

    Spot on, which is exactly my feelings about Bond movies such as GF and OHMSS. They may be well-loved classics of the series, but I don't enjoy them as much as the other 20.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2012 Posts: 9,117
    00Beast wrote:
    I rank mine on watchability too. You could go on for hours about how good a film is because of this, that and the other, but if you don't enjoy it then what's the point?

    Spot on, which is exactly my feelings about Bond movies such as GF and OHMSS. They may be well-loved classics of the series, but I don't enjoy them as much as the other 20.

    Theres nothing wrong with this. I would say in terms of watchability the likes of MR and OP cant really be beaten and I love them both. Doesnt stop me recognising that FRWL and OHMSS are better films. It depends what mood you are in.
    I can even watch DAD on occasion (its a Bond film after all) and enjoy it up to a point - usually the point where iceberg Berry hoves into view.

    People need to loosen up around here and stop trying to take offence on behalf of other people. Murdock offered his opinion which we are all entitled to do and as it was rather out there I am naturally going to rip it out of him. Its called BANTER and if you just want to come on here and offer anodyne platitudes such as 'I like GE but I dont like AVTAK. I like Sean but I dont like Rog' then youre frankly just clogging up the boards. Murdock said what he thought and was prepared to back it up with his reasons and take the piss ripping in the spirit it was intended. He really doesnt need people leaping to his defence in faux outrage.

    Obviously I am not seriously considering executing him with a luger for liking DAD (a dum dum through the kneecap might suffice), I was exaggerating for comic effect, but it seems, and feel free to slap me down here, that a lot of these people taking things far too seriously and not able to delineate the difference betwixt banter and actual physical violence are probably either teenagers or Americans - or both.

    Teenagers I can understand getting overexcited but yanks - if youre going to come on a board with a lot of British people everyone is going to rip it out of everyone else. Constantly. Dont get irate and threaten to shoot people; just dish some back of your own. As I say if youre one of those Americans on here who just join in- my apologies, but I do detect a certain cultural difference in attitude in some people here when it comes to piss taking.

    'The trouble with you Americans is you dont have a sophisticated sense of humour. Have you even heard of 'Robins Nest'? - Classic Partridge.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 40,976
    @TheWizardOfIce, we pretty much got past the whole 'opinion' discussion, and have come to terms with it. Bringing in (and ripping on) Americans is totally unnecessary.

    I'm American and can take tons of jokes and flak - I dish out incredibly crude humor all the time. It's just times like these when past arguments are brought up out of nowhere - along with irrelevant thoughts that bring the conversation to a completely different level - that I don't get.

    Plus, all of this ranting and arguing would be a lot easier in person, over a different chat, but on a respected board, we can't derail every topic with why this person's opinion sucks or why that person is an idiot for thinking this, or else the forum becomes pointless.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The problem with forums is that we can mean something as a joke and it's not always easy for others to understand the spirit in which the comment was made. I think by and large most people around here have a good sense of humour and assume that the piss-taking etc is not meant personally. It seems to me that no one on here really means to cause offence, even when they're really having a go at someone.

    I enjoyed Murdock's (IMO) crackpot list but also felt I had to have a go at him because of it. He took it well, which is nice to see. I hope that I also, usually, take the occasional verbal assault in my stride.

    And let's lay off our American cousins. There is sometimes a difference in British and American humour, but we Brits can hardly claim to have more 'sophisticated' tastes. We are after all the country that gave the world Benny Hill and Mr Bean!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote:
    The problem with forums is that we can mean something as a joke and it's not always easy for others to understand the spirit in which the comment was made. I think by and large most people around here have a good sense of humour and assume that the piss-taking etc is not meant personally. It seems to me that no one on here really means to cause offence, even when they're really having a go at someone.

    I enjoyed Murdock's (IMO) crackpot list but also felt I had to have a go at him because of it. He took it well, which is nice to see. I hope that I also, usually, take the occasional verbal assault in my stride.

    And let's lay off our American cousins. There is sometimes a difference in British and American humour, but we Brits can hardly claim to have more 'sophisticated' tastes. We are after all the country that gave the world Benny Hill and Mr Bean!

    Don't Forget Monty Python! I'm American and I love that show. :D
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    00Beast wrote:
    I rank mine on watchability too. You could go on for hours about how good a film is because of this, that and the other, but if you don't enjoy it then what's the point?

    Spot on, which is exactly my feelings about Bond movies such as GF and OHMSS. They may be well-loved classics of the series, but I don't enjoy them as much as the other 20.

    Theres nothing wrong with this. I would say in terms of watchability the likes of MR and OP cant really be beaten and I love them both. Doesnt stop me recognising that FRWL and OHMSS are better films. It depends what mood you are in.
    I can even watch DAD on occasion (its a Bond film after all) and enjoy it up to a point - usually the point where iceberg Berry hoves into view.

    People need to loosen up around here and stop trying to take offence on behalf of other people. Murdock offered his opinion which we are all entitled to do and as it was rather out there I am naturally going to rip it out of him. Its called BANTER and if you just want to come on here and offer anodyne platitudes such as 'I like GE but I dont like AVTAK. I like Sean but I dont like Rog' then youre frankly just clogging up the boards. Murdock said what he thought and was prepared to back it up with his reasons and take the piss ripping in the spirit it was intended. He really doesnt need people leaping to his defence in faux outrage.

    Obviously I am not seriously considering executing him with a luger for liking DAD (a dum dum through the kneecap might suffice), I was exaggerating for comic effect, but it seems, and feel free to slap me down here, that a lot of these people taking things far too seriously and not able to delineate the difference betwixt banter and actual physical violence are probably either teenagers or Americans - or both.

    Teenagers I can understand getting overexcited but yanks - if youre going to come on a board with a lot of British people everyone is going to rip it out of everyone else. Constantly. Dont get irate and threaten to shoot people; just dish some back of your own. As I say if youre one of those Americans on here who just join in- my apologies, but I do detect a certain cultural difference in attitude in some people here when it comes to piss taking.

    'The trouble with you Americans is you dont have a sophisticated sense of humour. Have you even heard of 'Robins Nest'? - Classic Partridge.

    Gotta say that this was a excellent post @TheWizardOflce !
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Getafix wrote:
    The problem with forums is that we can mean something as a joke and it's not always easy for others to understand the spirit in which the comment was made. I think by and large most people around here have a good sense of humour and assume that the piss-taking etc is not meant personally. It seems to me that no one on here really means to cause offence, even when they're really having a go at someone.

    I enjoyed Murdock's (IMO) crackpot list but also felt I had to have a go at him because of it. He took it well, which is nice to see. I hope that I also, usually, take the occasional verbal assault in my stride.

    And let's lay off our American cousins. There is sometimes a difference in British and American humour, but we Brits can hardly claim to have more 'sophisticated' tastes. We are after all the country that gave the world Benny Hill and Mr Bean!

    Indeed. But still, when one another's heritage, country, etc. is brought into it for no apparent reason, then it turns to offense. He had no reason to do so, and I don't see why some are applauding him for it.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Creasy47 wrote:

    Indeed. But still, when one another's heritage, country, etc. is brought into it for no apparent reason, then it turns to offense. He had no reason to do so, and I don't see why some are applauding him for it.

    Point proven I think.

    Please just call me a Limey or say that we can't win a war without your help or that our prime minister is the presidents poodle or that we have bad teeth. Something.
    Anything but this po faced offence.
    Getafix wrote:

    And let's lay off our American cousins. There is sometimes a difference in British and American humour, but we Brits can hardly claim to have more 'sophisticated' tastes. We are after all the country that gave the world Benny Hill and Mr Bean!

    I think you are missing the irony there old chap. When I said Americans don't have a sophisticated sense of humour I was quoting Partridge. The line is funny because Robins Nest comes precisely in the category of Benny Hill and Mr Bean that you mention.

    The Yanks make some fine comedy - a lot of it better than ours these days. That said it was the dismal Mr Bean that was big over there for Atkinson not Blackadder and whenever I visit the states I always seem to be able to find a channel that is showing Are You Being Served so I think the point is not entirely without validity!

    Mind you can any country that let Last of the Summer Wine run for 40 odd years have any claim on the comedy moral high ground?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @TheWizardOfIce, but I won't, because I like British people. I won't stoop to the level of trashing them just to make myself feel better or boost my ego or something. I've no need to do that.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    er, did someone say DUD, sorry, DAD was pretty good? - or is that another thread?
    Hey each to their own. I must admit that when I came out of the cinema I was crestfallen, I had hoped for some much from this film but it failed to deliver. Have watched it again (quite a few times…like the man said, it is a Bond film after all), I like it…up to a point, and that point is basically when Jinx comes into it, and from then on it gets sillier and sillier. Didn't like Cleese as Q, and hated the virtual training scene - which is only bested (or is it worsted) by the Moneypenny kiss! And all the nods to previous Bonds feel forced. Don't get me started on Madonna's awful cameo and song - aghh!
    What I find great about these discussions are the wide variety of likes and dislikes, and opinions. I just know what I like…and I know I'm right! lol
  • Posts: 11,189
    Creasy47 wrote:

    Indeed. But still, when one another's heritage, country, etc. is brought into it for no apparent reason, then it turns to offense. He had no reason to do so, and I don't see why some are applauding him for it.

    Point proven I think.

    Please just call me a Limey or say that we can't win a war without your help or that our prime minister is the presidents poodle or that we have bad teeth. Something.
    Anything but this po faced offence.
    Getafix wrote:

    And let's lay off our American cousins. There is sometimes a difference in British and American humour, but we Brits can hardly claim to have more 'sophisticated' tastes. We are after all the country that gave the world Benny Hill and Mr Bean!

    I think you are missing the irony there old chap. When I said Americans don't have a sophisticated sense of humour I was quoting Partridge. The line is funny because Robins Nest comes precisely in the category of Benny Hill and Mr Bean that you mention.

    The Yanks make some fine comedy - a lot of it better than ours these days. That said it was the dismal Mr Bean that was big over there for Atkinson not Blackadder and whenever I visit the states I always seem to be able to find a channel that is showing Are You Being Served so I think the point is not entirely without validity!

    Mind you can any country that let Last of the Summer Wine run for 40 odd years have any claim on the comedy moral high ground?


    Nothing wrong with Mr Bean :p
Sign In or Register to comment.