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
P? Does that stand for panda or pancake?
;)
Then you're the only one. I don't see any, nor did I feel any when I wrote it. My point was simply this: Einstein was a genius and will always be, you're a martyr for a cause no one but yourself believes in.
I didn´t sense any jealousy on your part, I was just teasing you.
Perhaps you should stick to the Leslie Nielsen type of Bond parodies, friend, since I can tell that's what you like. Meanwhile, I'll proudly stick to my 'Flemingian' perspective of good Bond stuff and surely there's no JW Pepper anywhere near the grand master's vision.
Bringing in JW was a poor move on behalf of Hamilton. It practically demonstrates that the man needed to go back to film school. Hamilton wasted two potentially marvellous action sequences, one in LALD, the other one in TMWTGG, on a z-level character that instantly pulls you out of the moment, the action and Bond's perspective the minute he ends up on screen. Through Pepper, Hamilton keeps telling me to not enjoy the tremendous action but instead focus on an anti-Fleming character with no input in the story whatsoever and who's merely here for the sake of eliciting laughs from what so very few people - above the age of 14 - actually find such a stereotypical idiotic sheriff funny.
They made Schumacher apologise for Batman and Robin. I suggest Hamilton apologises for Pepper while he still can.
Perhaps I do, but I love Bond so I´m not going away. Don´t even try, nothing will make me leave the Bond films. Just because I like Moore´s films the most doesn´t mean that I should stick to something else, right? I´m still a Bond fan, even if I´m no Fleming purist.
He does have a point here.
I don't think anyone should leave the Bond films and I don't think one has to be a Fleming purist to enjoy them. Also, I don't think all Roger Moore films are alike. Clearly, a film like FYEO wouldn't accept Pepper either. I have no problem with comedy by the way, but only when used well. For example, I don't mind Tourjansky, Kiel or even the Clown suit in OP (which I will in fact defend as part of the tension, not the opponent of it). I will however fight the idea of Pepper being the most brilliant move in the history of the Bond films. This abysmal character only hurt the two films that featured him. Besides, I will even defend Clifton James, whom I will acknowledge for playing the part very well. I mean, if you're going to have a character like Pepper, which I still think you shouldn't, you might as well bring in someone who can play him well.
Whether meant or not (and in the first case I will suggest you walk away from the Bonds) this is what inspired me to the Nielsen comment. Please think twice when you post hyperboles and then get serious over my direct reply to said hyperboles.
About the "hyperbole", I would like to see it in a Bond film as a reference to TMWTGG, just like Fields in oil was a clear reference to GF. :D
And I see your point about walking away from Bond, but I am too far from redemption to leave the series. After all, I like 23 Bond films, think 1 is ok (CR54) and 1 pretty bad (CR67). I could watch The Naked Gun, but it could never be a substitute for a real Bond film. I´m gonna stick to this place like an unwanted bug, like it or not. :D :))
And yes, I am a Sith Lord. ;-)
Also, the Fields reference to GF was terrible and unwanted, much like the Jinx reference to DN. In both cases, I call blasphemy.
Cause TMWTGG is a masterpiece. Referencing TMWTGG would please (or tease) many fans. But it´s the the 50th anniversary, so referencing wouldn´t be bad.
We wouldn´t want that, would we?
;)
No, TMWTGG is a masterpiece in your opinion! Please stop posting your opinion as general fact. And please stop posting it in every thread we have going. You sound like a broken record.
Ok, is it allright if I add IMO? And of course repeat it at a lesser pace.
I have a hard time believing that Adult Swim aired that with the uncensored song.
It would certainly help to make our discussions more enjoyable, good sir. ;-) Thank you.
I'll repeat that both Sir Rog and Clifton James are both far too old to even be considered for an appearance, so I would guess it's being said in jest by RM007 and others. Those of us who remember Scashy know he would pretend to be totally serious and fight with everyone about premises as insane as two geriatics such as Moore or Pepper viably returning to their roles. I take these posts as a joke because I believe they are just that. They are looking for reactions such as these.
On the matter of EON revisiting slapstick, gags, and comedic characters, the MW crowd isn't going to get that most fans don't want that. The public knows they can get their fix of Moonraker-like tomfoolery by going to see Austin Powers, and they don't want to see that for Bond. The one line quips made famous by Connery however will always be welcomed. You need to have some lighter moments in serious movies like these.
The funny thing is that I don´t assume that my opinion is general fact. What I do assume is that it was understood here that if I say "TMWTGG is the best" it is an opinion, not a fact. But I guess I can try to clear up that all my posts are opinions, not facts, by adding IMO or something similar.
Except you don't treat it like a simple opinion, and you constantly try to override our opinions by posting yours right away, do you literally have nothing better to do than post your opinion right after we do?
Sometimes not. When I don´t I just sit here and wait for your answers.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
You post your opinion as fact, and then continue to do so after someone argues. Then when they get frustrated, you go on to say you were 'just playing'. It is indeed frustrating, because you push your opinions so deep your impossible to hold a mature argument with!
In the end, we should all say "That is your opinion; here is mine. I, like many others disagree with you, but I'm sure many disagree with me. Good day sir." END. Focus on that last bit, and move on to further discussion. Yes, defend your opinions, but do it few times and make them count. Avoid insults and pressuring.
I've managed to skim through 6 pages of this topic and only post a few responses, hinging off the detail of said specific posts. Its not hard reading and accepting someone's opinion; I just hate doing it 20 times on the same page.
____________________________________
OFF TOPIC:
My 2000th post. @-) What a good one, too
:|
Perhaps all those with a strong hatred for Louisiana State Police's finest should seek counselling, apologies for the hurt this thread may have caused you.
Precisely. He won´t come back, but we dream and joke about it.
And JWESTBROOK, I was just playing. ;-)
I, nor anyone else, am not amused. 8-|