63 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Was that really necessary? Honestly.
___________________________________________________________

Posted by 'Mr. Blofeld' on 9 June 2009 - 11:46...
Methinks someone is overcompensating for Dalton... wink.gif

Sorry, then...

That's my post Mr. B. I was responding to his swipe against QoS.

Well, then, why was my post altered as well?

[Zorin Industries]

I rather enjoyed the subtle insult towards QoS. Appears our friend GG can't not slam that movie every chance he gets.

And any other films he just happens to not like (or get).

A good film reviewer knows what he knows...but more importantly he or she knows what they don't know. I've read more enlightening film reviews in Smash Hits.

[JimmyBond]

Was that really necessary? Honestly.
___________________________________________________________

Posted by 'Mr. Blofeld' on 9 June 2009 - 11:46...
Methinks someone is overcompensating for Dalton... wink.gif

Sorry, then...

That's my post Mr. B. I was responding to his swipe against QoS.

Well, then, why was my post altered as well?

Our two posts were transplanted from one of GG's many other LD review threads and placed here. I admit it is a rather odd edit, but just remember I said the firest part and you said the second.

I rather enjoyed the subtle insult towards QoS. Appears our friend GG can't not slam that movie every chance he gets.

Why it should be considered an insult??!!! It just the expresson of a preference for a perfect balanced Bond, instead of an extreme one, like the one of DAD- or in the other pole- like the one of LTK and (to a lesser extent) QOS's.

Perhaps.....they are the holy defenders of QOS and not of a particular good Bond film in general hehe .

See and here I was thinking we had put our differences aside, your PM to me was a good gesture on your part. But it's blanket statements like this that do not endear me towards you.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Was that really necessary? Honestly.
___________________________________________________________

Posted by 'Mr. Blofeld' on 9 June 2009 - 11:46...
Methinks someone is overcompensating for Dalton... wink.gif

Sorry, then...

That's my post Mr. B. I was responding to his swipe against QoS.

Well, then, why was my post altered as well?

Our two posts were transplanted from one of GG's many other LD review threads and placed here. I admit it is a rather odd edit, but just remember I said the first part and you said the second.

It seems they were a bit mangled by Blofeld's Cat in transplanting...

[Safari Suit]

I've read more enlightening film reviews in Smash Hits.

Wasn't Smash Hits rather brilliant in the 80s?

[Zorin Industries]

I've read more enlightening film reviews in Smash Hits.

Wasn't Smash Hits rather brilliant in the 80s?

I wouldn't know - what with me being far too young (!). Though you are probably right.

[Safari Suit]

I am far too young too, I wasn't even born until 1986, but I have been told by others that it was and what I have read from that era is funny stuff. By the time I might have been able to buy it I was probably the wrong gender and definitely not dumb enough. I blame Kate Thornton.

[Gustav Graves]

Was that really necessary? Honestly.
___________________________________________________________

Posted by 'Mr. Blofeld' on 9 June 2009 - 11:46...
Methinks someone is overcompensating for Dalton... wink.gif

Sorry, then...

That's my post Mr. B. I was responding to his swipe against QoS.

Well, then, why was my post altered as well?

Our two posts were transplanted from one of GG's many other LD review threads and placed here. I admit it is a rather odd edit, but just remember I said the firest part and you said the second.

I rather enjoyed the subtle insult towards QoS. Appears our friend GG can't not slam that movie every chance he gets.

Why it should be considered an insult??!!! It just the expresson of a preference for a perfect balanced Bond, instead of an extreme one, like the one of DAD- or in the other pole- like the one of LTK and (to a lesser extent) QOS's.

Perhaps.....they are the holy defenders of QOS and not of a particular good Bond film in general hehe .

See and here I was thinking we had put our differences aside, your PM to me was a good gesture on your part. But it's blanket statements like this that do not endear me towards you.

I think it was wrong of me to post so many duplicates in other parts of the forum. I wasn't really thinking it out that much. Sorry for that. But after my QOS-review, I felt obliged to focus on a Bond film I truly like.

I'm partially to blaim for the rather negative reactions in this topic as well, though I think the negative reactions have not much to do with the contents of my review. Sorry if the quality of this review isn't good either. I am from The Netherlands. Perhaps my English is...not so good?

Concerning you Jimmy: I am not here to insult you. The PM I was sending you was before I read your other comment in the Bond Contest-topic I have created: "Ooowh, nice colours". It was again a way of belittling my joy as a Bond fan. For what reason? Irritation? Tell me please.

Again, my PM to you was meant sincerely. I am not here to insult you. I am here to give my opinion. If someone can't stand that opinion or if someone feels irritated by it, than I can't help it.

I hope we can be sportive, happy posters in here. I hope we can react on the content in here, instead of quoting minor sentences that basically derail topics. Because......in the end we are all Bond fans.

I rather enjoyed the subtle insult towards QoS. Appears our friend GG can't not slam that movie every chance he gets.

And any other films he just happens to not like (or get).

A good film reviewer knows what he knows...but more importantly he or she knows what they don't know. I've read more enlightening film reviews in Smash Hits.

I'm not pretending to be a good film reviewer in here. Where did you get that idea . I'm here to give my opinion. I'm just a forum member, not a journalist....

[dee-bee-five]

Again, my PM to you was meant sincerely. I am not here to insult you. I am here to give my opinion. If someone can't stand that opinion or if someone feels irritated by it, than I can't help it.

Indeed. But I sense the issue here is that, judging from your previous posts here and elsewhere, you appear (though it may not be deliberate) not to accept that just as you are of course entitled to your opinion, it's a two-way street.

[Gustav Graves]

Again, my PM to you was meant sincerely. I am not here to insult you. I am here to give my opinion. If someone can't stand that opinion or if someone feels irritated by it, than I can't help it.

Indeed. But I sense the issue here is that, judging from your previous posts here and elsewhere, you appear (though it may not be deliberate) not to accept that just as you are of course entitled to your opinion, it's a two-way street.

I think it's wise if I shut up for a while. Then everyone is happy.

[dee-bee-five]

Again, my PM to you was meant sincerely. I am not here to insult you. I am here to give my opinion. If someone can't stand that opinion or if someone feels irritated by it, than I can't help it.

Indeed. But I sense the issue here is that, judging from your previous posts here and elsewhere, you appear (though it may not be deliberate) not to accept that just as you are of course entitled to your opinion, it's a two-way street.

I think it's wise if I shut up for a while. Then everyone is happy.

No-one is trying to silence or censor you. But just because you don't like QoS doesn't mean I have to dislike it. And vice versa.

And, as it happens, I like TLD, too. I loved it in '87 (and went to the premiere) and it felt like a breath of fresh air at the time. It's slipped down my own personal appreciation ratings subsequently and I actually think LTK is the better film. But that doesn't mean that I don't broadly share your appreciation.

[Gustav Graves]

Again, my PM to you was meant sincerely. I am not here to insult you. I am here to give my opinion. If someone can't stand that opinion or if someone feels irritated by it, than I can't help it.

Indeed. But I sense the issue here is that, judging from your previous posts here and elsewhere, you appear (though it may not be deliberate) not to accept that just as you are of course entitled to your opinion, it's a two-way street.

I think it's wise if I shut up for a while. Then everyone is happy.

No-one is trying to silence or censor you. But just because you don't like QoS doesn't mean I have to dislike it. And vice versa.

And, as it happens, I like TLD, too. I loved it in '87 (and went to the premiere) and it felt like a breath of fresh air at the time. It's slipped down my own personal appreciation ratings subsequently and I actually think LTK is the better film. But that doesn't mean that I don't broadly share your appreciation.

Again, I started this topic to discuss TLD. I wanted to show how good TLD was compared to some other Bond films. That's why I made the comparisons. I LOVE to compare Bond films. That's why I created the Bond Film Contest-topic as well. But apparently it is so not...done to compare Bond films.

Right now I'm a tad bit fed up of reacting on the same stuff over and over again. I know people do not want to silence or censor me....but for some reason I don't feel like posting for a while in this topic .

Edited by Gustav Graves, 09 June 2009 - 07:57 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Right now I'm a tad bit fed up of reacting on the same stuff over and over again. I know people do not want to silence or censor me....but for some reason I don't feel like posting for a while .

Your loss.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Was that really necessary? Honestly.
___________________________________________________________

Posted by 'Mr. Blofeld' on 9 June 2009 - 11:46...
Methinks someone is overcompensating for Dalton... wink.gif

Sorry, then...

That's my post Mr. B. I was responding to his swipe against QoS.

Well, then, why was my post altered as well?

Our two posts were transplanted from one of GG's many other LD review threads and placed here. I admit it is a rather odd edit, but just remember I said the first part and you said the second.

It seems they were a bit mangled by Blofeld's Cat in transplanting...

Yeah, sorry about the confusion guys.

When I decided to delete the other two copies of the same review and transferred their responses into this one I noticed that your two posts were done before this repeated review. All to do with time stamping of the three offending reviews, really.

Do continue on.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Was that really necessary? Honestly.
___________________________________________________________

Posted by 'Mr. Blofeld' on 9 June 2009 - 11:46...
Methinks someone is overcompensating for Dalton... wink.gif

Sorry, then...

That's my post Mr. B. I was responding to his swipe against QoS.

Well, then, why was my post altered as well?

Our two posts were transplanted from one of GG's many other LD review threads and placed here. I admit it is a rather odd edit, but just remember I said the first part and you said the second.

It seems they were a bit mangled by Blofeld's Cat in transplanting...

Yeah, sorry about the confusion guys.

When I decided to delete the other two copies of the same review and transferred their responses into this one I noticed that your two posts were done before this repeated review. All to do with time stamping of the three offending reviews, really.

Do continue on.

Thanks for clearing things up, Cat.

[DR76]

However, I feel that the movie's real villain was Soviet General Georgi Pushkin, portrayed by Jeroen Krabbe. On the surface, he seemed as weak as Whittaker. But I believe that he was one of Bond's more dangerous foes in that he knew how to use an easy-going and shallow facade to hide a manipulative, ruthless and intelligent personality. Georgi knew how to act like a friend, when he was being your enemy. And that made him dangerous in my eyes.

I presume you mean Koskov? I agree. People have often said Whittaker was not large enough in screen time terms, but I think its was supposed to be that way, with Koskov being the main bad guy, and Joe Don Baker as more of a cameo role. Jeroen Krabbe played that part perfectly IMO.

Whoops! Thank you for correcting me. I tend to get the names of the Soviet generals mixed up, with the exception of Gogol.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I rather enjoyed the subtle insult towards QoS. Appears our friend GG can't not slam that movie every chance he gets.

And any other films he just happens to not like (or get).

You seem to have the tendency of state that if someone doesn't share your love for a film (i.e. QOS), it should be because that person doesn't really get the movie. A somewhat scornful preconception of other's capacities, I would say.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 14 June 2009 - 07:40 AM.

[JimmyBond]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

[Safari Suit]

It was unnecessary, but then what that gets posted here is stictly "necessary"? It was just a few words, it was harmless enough and could have easily been ignored, frankly I don't think it merits two pages of forum "controversy", and yes, I am hypocritical as I am now contributing to it.

[byline]

I think the main reason these observations were made was because the OP has been highly critical of "Quantum" in other threads. I know that we all compare films, but to me, this felt opportunistic, like a chance to take yet another a dig at "Quantum" (and with the theme song, of all things). Perhaps without the recent flurry of anti-"Quantum" postings the OP had made, it would have gone unnoticed. But trends are trends, and that's why we pick up on them.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

I just think that some people are way too touchy about defending QOS. I mean, if someone says that doesn't like CR (my favourite Bond movie), that's fine with me I can handle it.

[JimmyBond]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

I just think that some people are way too touchy about defending QOS. I mean, if someone says that doesn't like CR (my favourite Bond movie), that's fine with me I can handle it.

Once again you are missing the point.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

I just think that some people are way too touchy about defending QOS. I mean, if someone says that doesn't like CR (my favourite Bond movie), that's fine with me I can handle it.

Once again you are missing the point.

Well, if you think so...


The thing is that I don't believe that a person could have taken the trouble of make an entire review of a movie- TLD- just to 'slam' other in a few lines.

Besides this comparison seems pretty natural to me. I mean, TLD is similar in tone to CR, just like LTK is similar to QOS; whereas the first Dalton and Craig movies are very differents from their second entries.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 14 June 2009 - 11:47 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

I just think that some people are way too touchy about defending QOS. I mean, if someone says that doesn't like CR (my favourite Bond movie), that's fine with me I can handle it.

Once again you are missing the point.

Well, if you think so...


The thing is that I don't believe that a person could have taken the trouble of make an entire review of a movie- TLD- just to 'slam' other in a few lines.

And I didnt say that either.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

I just think that some people are way too touchy about defending QOS. I mean, if someone says that doesn't like CR (my favourite Bond movie), that's fine with me I can handle it.

Once again you are missing the point.

Well, if you think so...


The thing is that I don't believe that a person could have taken the trouble of make an entire review of a movie- TLD- just to 'slam' other in a few lines.

And I didnt say that either.

I wasn't particularly pointing at you with that paragraph. My only comment to your post was my first line- hence the two lines of separation between that line and the rest of my post-.

[JimmyBond]

My apologies then.

[byline]

Wouldnt you agree though, that it's not necessary to bring up QoS just to slam it though in comparison to this film (in this case the theme song)? He could have praised Aha's song without having to put down the song from QoS.

I just think that some people are way too touchy about defending QOS. I mean, if someone says that doesn't like CR (my favourite Bond movie), that's fine with me I can handle it.

Once again you are missing the point.

Well, if you think so...


The thing is that I don't believe that a person could have taken the trouble of make an entire review of a movie- TLD- just to 'slam' other in a few lines.

And I didnt say that either.

I wasn't particularly pointing at you with that paragraph. My only comment to your post was my first line- hence the two lines of separation between that line and the rest of my post-.

Lord knows, I hate to further this circular debate, but here goes. As another poster to whom you might be responding, I didn't say that either. When I called the OP's criticism "opportunistic," what I meant was that it seemed to me the OP used the option of writing a review of another Bond film (I never said that was the only reason he wrote the review) as an opportunity to lob yet another criticism at "Quantum of Solace." That's all.

[Zorin Industries]

The DAYLIGHTS review is blotted by lazy angst against SOLACE - whichever way you look at it. Had the same thoughts though been expressed in a different, perhaps more effective way, then it would have been less noticeable.

I do commend Graves' efforts though to try and flag up a film he obviously likes but isn't on the top of every fan's mindset right now.

[Jim]

What was this thread about again?

We must be bored if we've sunk to reviewing each other's reviews. Perhaps we've climbed. Perhaps this is as good as it gets.

[byline]

What was this thread about again?

We must be bored if we've sunk to reviewing each other's reviews. Perhaps we've climbed. Perhaps this is as good as it gets.

True enough. That's the last comment I'll make on the off-topic topic. As Zorin noted, it is commendable that the OP wrote a review which brings an oft-forgotten film to the forefront of our discussion.