It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I was sure that Cleese said more than that.
Cleese does have a tendency to carry his grievances through life, although he never ever learns from his mistakes. H is ex wives take all his money, yet he can't stop himself keep getting married. If he was the grounded, decent person his colleague Michael Palin is and was (married for nearly 50 years) he wouldn't get in this mess. ;-)
Mind you all the Pythons have spent 40 odd years bitching about each other and have seen it as quite normal practice (they don't hold grudges - it's like a game to them), so maybe Cleese simply carries it over into other aspects of his life.
I think he's got some sort of personality disorder and I could imagine him being a horrible person to live with. I could be wrong but didn't Connie Booth become a psychiatrist?
Never know he had this reputation. What's up with comedians being so disagreeable as persons?
Like anybody on this site does regularly he as the right of giving his opinion, the difference being that this man has actually worked on a 007 movie, a dream for most of us. And he is funny.
I do agree that more and more it shows that Wilson & Barbera seem to lack the people skills that their father Cubby had, I doubt if had he been around you would have dissatisfied remarks like Brosnan and now Cleese has done would have happened. Indeed if you are going for something important make sure that you sit down with the more important players and explain why their services are no longer required. B&W have seriously thrown their fathers family orientated franchise to the wolves. That is one reboot to far IMHO.
I think that Cubby would have pointed out the human side of the business and its importance and gains due to that.
Sean Connery wanted more money and even to become a partner in the franchise, he felt entitled due to his importance to the franchise. After Roger Moore proved he could easily match Connery his value the never was a discussion about the position of the leading actor namely employee.
As for improving SF does not show that besides the BO.
You are an example of the reactions in this thread, OTT.
The man offers an opinion you either take it as agree, disagree FYI.
Really?? I've met him a couple of times after gigs and he seemed nice to me and my sis (and that was after I gave him a heckling and he tore me to shreds).
Maybe he was in a pissy mood.
That's possible...yep.
And opinion can be criticized and called on. I don't care if you think I'm OTT. I find Cleese's opinion ridiculous in this particular matter.
And opinion can be criticized and called on. I don't care if you think I'm OTT. I find Cleese's opinion ridiculous in this particular matter.
Anyway, there needs to be a slight bit of tolerance in this thread. All this talk of Cleese being a bitter, narky old curmudgeon is made up of hear say. Unless anyone here knows the man personally, I say we pass on making judgements about him. He's entitled to his opinion, and people are entitled to disagree with him, but don't start making personal attacks saying that he isn't a decent human being or criticising his personal life.
Yes, it is my opinion, and I agree with it.;-)
It quite simple really, if you were bothered to find out for yourself.
JC has made a valid yet stupid point.
As Rod Martin, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, notes in his textbook "The Psychology of Humor", which was published last year, humour is found in all human cultures and is ubiquitous in everyday life. His own studies suggest that on average people laugh 17.5 times per day. And a good sense of humour tends to be one of the most highly rated traits when people choose their friends, lovers or spouses. So psychologists have every reason to take humour seriously.
Perhaps "seriously" is not quite the word, though. Of the dozens of experiments discussed in Martin's textbook, few manage to avoid a hint of the absurd. Blindfolded subjects are tickled by experimenters who they are told are machines. The sexual banter in an all-night diner in upstate New York is surreptitiously observed. People study cartoons with pens stuck in their mouths (to contract the facial muscles associated with smiling). An experimenter "accidentally" spills hot tea on herself when a jack-in-the-box erupts nearby. One Boston psychologist, the co-author of a paper entitled "A Threshold Theory of the Humor Response", published in The Behavior Analyst last spring, understandably felt obliged to state in a footnote that her surname really is "Joker".
One conclusion from the new empirical approach to humour is that previous theories did not pay enough attention to play. In 1923 a theoretical tome listed 88 different theories of humour, few of which seemed to acknowledge that it is supposed to be enjoyable. The theories can be divided into three main types.
The oldest sort are "superiority" theories, whose advocates included Thomas Hobbes, Plato and Aristotle. According to this view, we laugh from sudden feelings of superiority over other people. "Relief" theories are best known from the work of Freud, though the first such account was proposed by Herbert Spencer (who was an editor at The Economist). On this type of theory, laughter releases pent-up psychic energy. The third sort of theory focuses on the incongruity which is allegedly found in all humour. This idea has been traced back to the 1750s and was endorsed by the philosophers Kant and Kierkegaard and the novelist Arthur Koestler. Nowadays, researchers tend to see humour as part of our mammalian inheritance, and as closely related to rough-and-tumble social play.
Like children, apes laugh during chasing, wrestling and tickling games. Chimps and gorillas who have learned sign-language have used it for punning, incongruous word use and playful insults. Intriguingly, it seems that rats may laugh too. A team of researchers at Bowling Green State University reported in 2000 that rats produce an ultrasonic chirping during play and when tickled by humans. These chirps appear to be contagious, and young rats prefer older rats who produce more of them.
Rats and humans had a common ancestor about 75m years ago, and humour has clearly come a long way since then. Nobody has caught rats, or even chimps, trying to tell a joke. But another finding from recent research is that pre-packaged jokes are a less important part of humour than people may think. Jokes have a long and fascinating history--which is engagingly told in a short book, "Stop Me If You've Heard This: A History and Philosophy of Jokes", by Jim Holt, to be published in America in July and in Britain in October. But it seems that only about 11% of daily laughter is actually occasioned by jokes. Another 17% is prompted by media and the remaining 72% arises spontaneously in social interaction.
One popular field of research is the effect of humour on health, which is widely assumed to be positive. The results so far are inconclusive, and slightly disturbing for anyone who likes to laugh. Rod Martin points out that if humour is good for health, then it should be associated with longevity. Yet it appears that cheerful people live less long than their gloomier peers, perhaps because they are too jolly to worry about their aches and pains. It may be true, as the proverb says, that he who laughs last laughs longest. But it seems that he who laughs longest does not last.
Now if we use Skyfall as a case study we can discern a few things.
Firstly, Daniel Craig's comedic delivery is fantastic. His timing is almost as laconic and laid back as Connery's.
Secondly, Skyfall's humour is based on whether you're genetically predisposed to find the lines or actions your personally view funny.
Thirdly, humour is not therefore, a universal touch-point. So JC is quite right in his own mind that he found Skyfall humourless. However, he was not right to suggest that it was a universal opinion.
In conclusion, one can say that Skyfall is funny film but only to some people.
I've put this as simplistically as possible as there are some less fortunates on these boards. May your god have pity on your sad life and soul.
Exactly. It seems that Cleese fails to.understand that.
Well done you for using Google.
I copied and pasted it. Just like you did.
Give him time. He has to look up some more quotes first. ;-)
Excellent reply. Was it available via Google?
No I asked Muhammad. That's why it was bullshit. :D