137 replies to this topic

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by Jim


It's nothing to do with the individual, whose existence is of no importance, it's whether he deserves the award.

Those stating that he deserves this honour haven't made out much of a case on the specific criteria for this bauble being granted; the argument appears to run "he's done a lot for charity" - not of itself a qualifying crtierion.

The criteria, in a nutshell, for these Foreign and Commonwealth Awards, are that Johnny Foreigner has improved Britain and British interests. The charitable work criterion for the Foreign and Commonwealth Awards only - note that word - only works to award people raising charitable funds specifically - and that word is important, sorry to burst bubbles - within Britain and its dominions. Has he done this? (it works the other way for British people raising money worldwide - hence Roger Moore's knighthood). The Foreign and Commonwealth crtierion are for contribution to British interests. So - face it - mentioning his worldwide charitable works as part of the justification for the gong won't wash because they couldn't be part of the grounds for giving him the Foreign and Commnwealth  award in the first place. it's just to sweeten the bitter pill of an honour being given to him because some scratchy old spinster of a civil servant in the Foreign Office thinks he's good looking. Might as well give it to his orthodontist, his personal trainer, his hairderesser and his plastic surgeon.

Frankly, giving him an award on the justification - partly - that he has given Britain "style" - a subjective concept- trivialises the award, renders him even more superficial (and is thereby very dangerous if he's craving gravitas) and appears to be on the basis that he looks nice, or he once wore a lovely suit. The other danger is that he is being used as a populist tool of a government more obsessed with appearance than substance (which sums up the BrosnanBond pretty well) and has mistaken Pierce Brosnan for James Bond. Nobody appears to want to address the question whether he would have got this had he not been James Bond.

And if you think Britain has a successful film industry - it has successful craftsmen, but there's no industrial output. Britain had a notable film industry in the 1950s, when Mr Brosnan was six years old. I'm sure he was influential. The James Bond series is British in the sense that Bill Clinton is British - has connections to the nation, but not actually anything very much to do with it, on the whole.

So if you think he "deserves" it, try to stop licking his face and consider whether one should only deserve something if one makes the grade. He hasn't made the grade, hasn't met the rubric - ergo, he doesn't "deserve" it.  

But he does have a lovely face, doesn't he? Ooh, give him an award and defecate over all those who are working damned hard and yet go unrecognised.

And please stop stating he deserves it because you think he does, because emotionally you think it right. He deserves it if he has come up to scratch on the reasosn to deserve it - and looking pretty really isn't one of them.

AGAIN JIM, THATS YOUR OPINION...you do seem to have a huge amount of hostility towards pierce, i have noticed this for some time, and would really like to know why? at least he does, some just sit on there duff and b**** and moan and try and find fault with those who do....i have never been able to understand that:confused:

[freemo]

Speaking of not being able to understand something... Ah, nevermind.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

i would love for pierce to get knighthood, he most certainly deserves it

[Jim]

The crieteria for the award aren't opinions, they are facts.

I'll help you.

Fact: If one meets the criteria, have an award. If one doesn't meet the criteria, then one doesn't deserve it.

Opinion: And how are those who go unrecognised satisfied that someone can jump the queue because they look nice? Isn't the award devalued?

Fact: My wheelchair and pancreatic cancer are physical diasblements

Opinion: How people manifest "doing" is not limited to your perception of same. Or indeed mine.

Fact: I have met Pierce Brosnan three times

Opinion: He has behaved wretchedly on each occasion

Fact: A lot of people here haven't met Pierce Brosnan

Opinion: They base their perception of his nature from the characters he has portrayed in order to get food to feed himself and his offspring.

Fact: This award has been given for bringing "style to Britain"

Opinion: That's a horribly superficial reason, and appears to be an award to "James Bond" rather than to Pierce Brosnan

It's true - I don't like Pierce Brosnan. But then I've had the (dis)advantage of seeing him beyond the people he portrays and the PR guff emanating from his agent and production company. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Don't weep for me being burdened with the knowledge.

You might think these are superficial reasons - but then superficial reasons appear to be the vogue, do they not?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

and i have heard people say what a great and warm person he is, so i cant really except your word that he was wretchedly behaving, that does not sound like the brosnan most people know

[BONDFINESSE 007]

and what did he do that was wretched? if you dont mind me asking

[Feral]

Well, hell. At least he does something with his obscene amounts of cash. You do realize that 99.9% of celebrities don't give a damn about charities or anyone other than themselves, their cars, and their condos...right? If he is so evil, why not do as everyone else and do nothing at all?

As someone mentioned earlier, it

[Jim]

Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
and i have heard people say what a great and warm person he is, so i cant really except your word that he was wretchedly behaving, that does not sound like the brosnan most people know

I'm not expecting you to accept my word - y'see, that's why I labelled that one "opinion" - I don't expect you to reject or accept it, it has no currency for anyone other than the person who holds that opinion.

Likewise those who think him a warm and nice person - how can I argue with that? I wouldn't expect to - they base that on their own experience of him, as I do mine. I can neither reject nor accept these views, nor would I be conceited enough to impose on people that they must come to any sort of decision, positive or negative, on the basis of what I say/write.

There remains a danger in basing one's opinion on the opinion of others, and not basing it on fact. That's where criticism without doing, or "sitting on there duff and b****" (sic), lies.

But perhaps that comment is itself opinion. Oh, see how we spiral into doom? Is there any escape from this cell of our own devising? Are we not wretched creatures, doomed to live out our petty existences by leeching from the experiences of others to form our perceptions.

Have YOU met him?

Without wishing to impose my opinion on you - feel free to devise an opinion from this. Is a man who says to another, the other in a wheelchair, "don't get up" a) a naturally warm and tender person or a ****?

[BONDFINESSE 007]

brosnan would never have said that, thats totaly out of character for pierce brosnan...i can no more believe that then i can believe kobe bryant assaulted the young woman

[Jim]

Then you have devised your opinion.

And, truly - believe what you feel comfortable with.

[Dunph]

Wow. What a ****.

So Mark, aren't you then, by agreeing with Jim, basing your own opinion on secondary sources? The stories you've heard, just as I suppose we all do.

How's about none of us have an opinion of the man until we meet him? Me? Oh, I'm indifferent.

[marktmurphy]

a) Where the hell is my post?

I know Jim better than Pierce's PR people, so I trust him more. He seems a very sensible chap.

Plus if Pierce's PR allow him to be shown as a bit of a ****, and are presumably toning it down as much as they can, then how big a **** is he really? I put it to you that he is a big one.

[marktmurphy]

For people who are curious why my post was deleted (as I am) I called Brosnan a **** and said the behaviour Jim reported will short circuit the brain of a certain person here who believes vehermently in both political correctness and Brosnan's God-like status.
It seems the two are now mutually exclusive.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by mccartney007

Why doesn't Brosnan deserve an OBE?  He's done a lot of work for charities (cancer research, UNICEF) AND he's a big part of the reason Britain has a successful film industry (whether you want to believe it or not).  The Pierce Brosnan James Bond films have generated a lot of money and interest in the UK.  Just because you don't like him as an actor doesn't mean he doesn't deserve an OBE.  It's not like he asked for the honor anyway...  

When the likes of Arsene Wenger and Gerard Houllier are awarded OBEs, you know this is an award that's seriously devalued.

Britain has a successful film industry? No, it doesn't. And when is the last time Brosnan appeared in a British film?

If Jim is to be believed - and none of us has any reason to disbelieve him - then Brosnan is indeed a loser of the first water. Which doesn't necessarily mean his deeds don't deserve recognition (one can be an unpleasant person, after all, and raise cash for charidee - look at Lord Archer), but the trouble is that no one has made a convincing case that he does deserve this prize, beyond vague mutterings like: "He does a lot of work for charity.... He wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth...."

But it seems that accomplishments in charity are not the chief reason he's been given an OBE. The main factor appears to be that he has succeeded in his chosen profession, thereby somehow making Britain "cool" (although what concrete benefit that has, even if true, for the good people of this country is not clear to me). Fine, why not give JK Rowling an OBE?

Oh wait, she's already got one.

[Dunph]

The Bond series are classed as British films, they are financed by an American company, but they're filmed in Britain and use a British crew.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by marktmurphy
a) Where the hell is my post?

I did. It was too offensive to trim.

At least you restrained yourself a tad when you repeated what you posted.

[Jim]

On that basis, Harrison Ford OBE for being in the Indiana Jones films, that series of British films.

Jabba the Hutt OBE?

This has got a bit distracted into my own experience of Mr Brosnan - other people may have considerably more pleasant things to report, so woop de do for everyone who's met him

I think what I was trying to do was set apart opinion from fact. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that my low opinion of him should disqualify him from any sort of award - equally those with a high opinion of him I would not expect to be cretinously conceited and suggest that that would be enough justification. Just trying to consider the thing objectively. Trying not to get distracted by the personal element.

Still can't see how this award is remotely justified on the rules (regardless of the opinion I may have). Can anyone see the justification for the award as the rules dictate? (without reporting what a tremendous chap/actor/father/son he is - which is opinion)

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007

The Bond series are classed as British films, they are financed by an American company, but they're filmed in Britain and use a British crew.

I don't think it's true that they're classed as British films, at least not any more. Look up LICENCE TO KILL in Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide, and it reads: "1989-British". From GOLDENEYE onwards, though, they're all classed as American films. That said, the IMDb classes the recent Bond outings as UK/USA efforts.

Still, try getting a Bond film made without Hollywood money.

[Simon]

Try getting any film made that is the product of entirely one nation.

As to Jim's reasoning for whether the award is rightly awarded or not, based on the rules (which I have not had time to confirm for myself) it would appear as though he has a point. In fact, blatantly so.

Other than that, I have no opinion!

But now on to things of a more positive nature Jim, there is a nice little Thunderball thread just crying out for your input. Favourite film an'all.

[Loomis]

My girlfriend thinks Brosnan is quite the handsome devil, as well as a great Bond, but she decided he was a jerk while we were watching one of the documentaries on the DIE ANOTHER DAY DVD, and Brosnan was seen walking a few feet from an interview to somewhere else on a beach in Cadiz, with a teenage crewmember walking alongside him holding an umbrella over his head to protect him from, well, one knows not what.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Simon

Try getting any film made that is the product of entirely one nation.

Easily done in a number of countries, not just the United States. China, India, Russia, even Japan....

Trouble is, for all its much-trumpeted "great film industry", when the UK does things singlehandedly (i.e. without American money, but possibly with European investment), the best pictures it can make are the cheapskate, parochial likes of BRASSED OFF and ALI G IN DA HOUSE.

Originally posted by Simon

Other than that, I have no opinion!

Come on, Simon, neither do I half the time I post. Don't let lack of opinion stop you!

[Simon]

Originally posted by Loomis


Easily done in a number of countries, not just the United States. China, India, Russia, even Japan....

Sorry, should have qualified that by saying English language films that one is likely to see on the average cinema circuit.

Come on, Simon, neither do I half the time I post. Don't let lack of opinion stop you!

Splendid fella. But I prefer to offer opinion when I really have it and when I have the chance of reactionaries saying that my input is getting ugly. Then and only then do you feel you're being heard, ha ha. Also, this is Jim's thread (input not creation) and I'm not desparate to get my voice heard with an empty rifle.

[Dunph]

You're right, the best info I can find on them is that they're an Anglo-American union. Well....Feeling somewhat deflated, i can say they USED to be British films!

[Jim]

I'm not sure you can find the criteria widely available - the drive towards open government is not all it could be.

They may be widely available - although I rather doubt it. Some version may be widely available, although whether that's the official version again I doubt. I write this with the benefit of having worked for HMSO at one point and have seen the criteria for domestic and Foreign and Commonwealth honours (which - the provisions for donations for contributions to the government of the day aside - aren't explosive and basically are what I stated some posts back)

Admittedly they may have changed, but if someone is being rewarded for having "brought style" or having nice teeth, is that a change for the better?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007

You're right, the best info I can find on them is that they're an Anglo-American union. Well....Feeling somewhat deflated, i can say they USED to be British films!  

When people say the Bond films are British films, I jump on that statement not to be mean or kick British Bond fans in the teeth (I'm one myself, natch), but because there is no chance of the British film industry ever getting its act together and succeeding if people are under the impression that it's already going great guns. It's the same with the Harry Potter films. They're financed by Warners, and they're Hollywood blockbusters through and through, yet many seem to believe they are of the British film industry and therefore reflect great credit on it.

I'm not sure why sources like the IMDb cite the Bonds as even half-British. I tend to believe that the source of finance defines a film's nationality. Is Eon a British company? If so, then the Bonds may be legitimately said to be Anglo-American efforts. If not, then I find it difficult to see how claims of even partial Britishness can be made for them. British directors? Shooting at Pinewood? Irrelevant, in my book.

[Dunph]

Yeah, on further research, Loomis, you're right. Like Jim said, the Indiana Jones series was shot in England and had an English crew, but it doesn't mean anything. The same could be said of the first Batman film.

Eon is an English company, and I think I'm right in saying it only has an office in London, though it may have one in LA too (John or Charlie may know this). Bond films are still British, just not thoroughbred.
I also think I might be right in saying that a film can at least be given part-nationality according to which country they were shot in, and in what studios the crew set up shop.

Most British films are low-key affairs. It's a shame that there isn't a British house that could plump up the money to produce/distribute the films. (I'm not being Xenophobic, just slightly patriotic).

[Simon]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007
You're right, the best info I can find on them is that they're an Anglo-American union. Well....Feeling somewhat deflated, i can say they USED to be British films!

Why?

They are no more American now than they used to be. The history is as the present.

American Producers
American Money
American distributors
British (Colonial - not wishing to start another angle to this thread) leading man)
British studios - for most of the time
British production team - for the most part.

What has changed since the '60s?

And Eon started out as being Swiss since that was the nationality of their holding company, Danjaq.

[Dunph]

Don't Danjaq just hold the rights? Eon is the production company, therefore it's a British company.

Though I see what you mean about the past being as the present, they were regarded more as British films back in the day, and now, in the age of the Hollywood blockbuster, a rank to which Bond is associated, they are thought of as more US or US/UK films. Am I wrong?

[marktmurphy]

I think the debate as to which nationality the Bond films are is fertile enough for another thread- I count them as a little more British than Indiana Jones et al due to the fact the production office is based here- planning scripting and producing are all centred in Blightly- indeed: weren't Cubby and Harry ex-pats? Still, they're undoubtably also heavily American, so how does one draw the line? I dunno, and many others have never been able to work it out either.
Still, Brosnan ain't a Brit.

And offensive to who, Blofeld's Cat?

[marktmurphy]

Hot today, isn't it?