Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

What could have been...


135 replies to this topic

#61 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 November 2009 - 04:43 PM



The perception of LTK as a 'failure' and Dalton as another 'George Lazenby' didn't come about until GoldenEye's publicity machine got into operation. Indeed most reviews of the LTK at the time of its release applauded its tougher approach and Dalton's performance. Certainly in all the years between LTK and GE there was no obvious nastiness about it. Only when GE showed up did people start bitching up Dalton.


Perhaps in the UK. However here in the US the public were unfortunately less willing to even give Dalton a chance, which is why the film basically bombed here in the US.



The thing I don't understand in this context is, LTK wasn't Dalton's first film; that honour goes to TLD, which apparently did well enough also in the USA to justify LTK being shot. If the US public hadn't been willing to give Dalton a chance, wouldn't they have kept away from TLD in the first place?

#62 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 10 November 2009 - 05:42 PM



The perception of LTK as a 'failure' and Dalton as another 'George Lazenby' didn't come about until GoldenEye's publicity machine got into operation. Indeed most reviews of the LTK at the time of its release applauded its tougher approach and Dalton's performance. Certainly in all the years between LTK and GE there was no obvious nastiness about it. Only when GE showed up did people start bitching up Dalton.


Perhaps in the UK. However here in the US the public were unfortunately less willing to even give Dalton a chance, which is why the film basically bombed here in the US.



The thing I don't understand in this context is, LTK wasn't Dalton's first film; that honour goes to TLD, which apparently did well enough also in the USA to justify LTK being shot. If the US public hadn't been willing to give Dalton a chance, wouldn't they have kept away from TLD in the first place?


Not to forget that LTK did well enough for Bond 23 to ne announced.

Dalton's unpopularity seems to be mostly a myth to me, though I know I'll get flack for saying it.

#63 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 November 2009 - 06:15 PM

I actually think this has become a question of 'US market vs rest of the world' for some, kind of like an inverted 'revenge' for the (unjustified) labeling of Brosnan as the 'American Bond'. But to me the actual facts don't support the idea Dalton didn't have a chance with the American audience or that LTK didn't qualify as a profitable venture.

Had the legal issues of that period not been, I have little doubt the next Bond film would have hit theaters two years after LTK, with Dalton in the lead, tonally and plotwise probably close to Goldeneye.

#64 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:12 PM

Perhaps in the UK. However here in the US the public were unfortunately less willing to even give Dalton a chance, which is why the film basically bombed here in the US.


I'm sure there were people here who didn't start bitching until GE. They were just the few.

#65 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 10 November 2009 - 09:46 PM

I was 21 way back in 89, within the prime age demographic that the movie industry caters to. The only people I knew (friends, relatives, work associates etc)who saw LTK were the people I dragged to see it with me (I did see in 9 times in the theater). I am a big fan of Dalton and really wish it had done better because I would have loved more Dalton films. By 1990 and what I had observed and read at the time, I knew Dalton (and LTK) was much more warmly accepted in the UK than he was in the US. Dalton would rarely ever bee mentioned without the added "they should have got Pierce Brosnan to do it". I got in quite a few arguments with people trying to sing the praises how much better Dalton was than Brosnan would have been.

#66 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:06 PM

So LTK was an intentional failure, or just an 'incomplete success'? I don't think I can recall the 'Dalton-as-cinematic-martyr' angle before.


Neither can I, so I guess you took what I said the wrong way. Actually, Pierce Brosnan was the guy who said that he couldn't have played Bond the way he did (in GE and TND, IIRC) had Dalton not not changed the perception of the films.

Had Brosnan played Bond in TLD, you can pretty much guarantee we'd have had a Roger Moore film without Roger, including stuff like the Tangiers 'Magic Carpet Ride' and more groan-inducing puns. Certainly, it wouldn't have been the rather good film we ultimately got.

Dalton toughened up the Bond franchise and made people realise that Bond wasn't just a globetrotting punster who shagged around.

I think you totally overestimate the actor's influence over each Bondmovie. The characterization of Bond and the tone of the film are not there because it is what the actor prefers. Every single detail is controlled and approved by the producers.

#67 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 10 November 2009 - 10:26 PM

In the case of Dalton though, the characterization is what Dalton wanted. He ran it by Cubby and Cubby agreed it was the right way to go after Roger Moore.

#68 sthgilyadgnivileht

sthgilyadgnivileht

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 10 November 2009 - 11:18 PM

I thought the tonal change in the series was something Broccoli
himself wanted, and then Dalton was pursuaded to sign owing to this fact. Interesting clip about it here:

#69 Trident

Trident

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2658 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 November 2009 - 05:51 AM

I was 21 way back in 89, within the prime age demographic that the movie industry caters to. The only people I knew (friends, relatives, work associates etc)who saw LTK were the people I dragged to see it with me (I did see in 9 times in the theater). I am a big fan of Dalton and really wish it had done better because I would have loved more Dalton films. By 1990 and what I had observed and read at the time, I knew Dalton (and LTK) was much more warmly accepted in the UK than he was in the US. Dalton would rarely ever bee mentioned without the added "they should have got Pierce Brosnan to do it". I got in quite a few arguments with people trying to sing the praises how much better Dalton was than Brosnan would have been.



I've had some similar experiences back then, although not in the exact same amount. My feeling then was that with people our age Bond was a little bit passé, just not that big a thing he was ten years previously. While TLD met with a fairly positive audience, LTK seemingly didn't manage to be the rage amongst most younger viewers. But I also feel sure it would have met with the same reaction, had Brosnan been Bond. The 'they should have got Brosnan' claims didn't come up here at all and to most people I daresay Brosnan wasn't more than a tabloid rumour at that time. I doubt most audiences even realised how close he really had been to becoming Bond by the time of TLD. By '89 I think he was mostly just considered star of an old, already terminated tv series. Hardly anybody around here seriously had him marked as next Bond, let alone as a substitute for Dalton.

#70 Turn

Turn

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6837 posts
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:34 AM

I was 21 way back in 89, within the prime age demographic that the movie industry caters to. The only people I knew (friends, relatives, work associates etc)who saw LTK were the people I dragged to see it with me (I did see in 9 times in the theater). I am a big fan of Dalton and really wish it had done better because I would have loved more Dalton films. By 1990 and what I had observed and read at the time, I knew Dalton (and LTK) was much more warmly accepted in the UK than he was in the US. Dalton would rarely ever bee mentioned without the added "they should have got Pierce Brosnan to do it". I got in quite a few arguments with people trying to sing the praises how much better Dalton was than Brosnan would have been.



I've had some similar experiences back then, although not in the exact same amount. My feeling then was that with people our age Bond was a little bit passé, just not that big a thing he was ten years previously. While TLD met with a fairly positive audience, LTK seemingly didn't manage to be the rage amongst most younger viewers. But I also feel sure it would have met with the same reaction, had Brosnan been Bond. The 'they should have got Brosnan' claims didn't come up here at all and to most people I daresay Brosnan wasn't more than a tabloid rumour at that time. I doubt most audiences even realised how close he really had been to becoming Bond by the time of TLD. By '89 I think he was mostly just considered star of an old, already terminated tv series. Hardly anybody around here seriously had him marked as next Bond, let alone as a substitute for Dalton.

I'm in the same age bracket and agree that while a lot of us grew up on Bond, the new wave of action hero was putting the series behind the curve at the time. I recall being in high school when Rambo, First Blood 2 came out and several people talking about looking forward to seeing it. Coincidentally, it came out the same weekend as AVTAK, which nobody talked about.

The thing with Brosnan was even though he was lesser known in other countries he was a star in the US, the key market to succeed in. Some people were talking him up as a potential Bond during the first season of Remington Steele and he won an Us Magazine readers' poll for the next Bond in 1983.

Brosnan's being touted as the next Bond was a hot topic in entertainment news in the summer of '86 and People Magazine even did a cover story on him when he didn't get the role with the line 'Take this job and shove it'. I don't know if there's a clear answer as to how he would have succeeded at the time. None of his other films at the time did anything at the box office and by the '90s he was starring in made-for-tv and straight-to-video action films and was co-starring in bigger pictures like Mrs. Doubtfire and The Mirror Has Two Faces.

#71 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 12 November 2009 - 01:50 AM

Spot on Turn. The ratings for Remington Steele in the US increased when the word came about that Moore would probably be replaced by Brosnan, then they died when Dalton got the role. The US audience wanted Brosnan in a suit wearing, suave character role and would not accept him in his other roles.

I have stated before, but I have noticed that the whole "Dalton being accepted as Bond" depends on where you are from. He seems to be accepted more outside the US. He just never clicked with the American audience.

#72 Rufus Ffolkes

Rufus Ffolkes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 297 posts

Posted 12 November 2009 - 03:48 PM

The thing I don't understand in this context is, LTK wasn't Dalton's first film; that honour goes to TLD, which apparently did well enough also in the USA to justify LTK being shot. If the US public hadn't been willing to give Dalton a chance, wouldn't they have kept away from TLD in the first place?


The logical argument here is that audiences did give Dalton a chance with TLD, didn't much like what they saw, and subsequently stayed away from LTK.

Truthfully, I don't think audiences were all that excited about Bond in the 80s, regardless of who was in the role. I'm not convinced the box office numbers would have been significantly higher had Moore stuck around or Brosnan been cast instead. But I don't think Dalton's moodier, dour take on the part helped things any, either.

#73 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 12 November 2009 - 05:45 PM

Dalton's unpopularity seems to be mostly a myth to me, though I know I'll get flack for saying it.

Yes, you will. Denying Dalton's unpopularity is almost the same as denying The Holocaust, or being part of The Birther Movement in the United States; it's simply not realistic to believe that LTK in any way approximated a success. It was a failure on multiple levels, and Dalton's popularity, whatever he once had, sunk with LTK's fortunes.

Equating the justification of the facts behind LTK's success to a movement your man Glenn Beck actively supports is not a fair argument, Gravity's.

#74 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 12 November 2009 - 10:58 PM

Dalton's unpopularity seems to be mostly a myth to me, though I know I'll get flack for saying it.

Yes, you will. Denying Dalton's unpopularity is almost the same as denying The Holocaust, or being part of The Birther Movement in the United States; it's simply not realistic to believe that LTK in any way approximated a success. It was a failure on multiple levels, and Dalton's popularity, whatever he once had, sunk with LTK's fortunes.

Equating the justification of the facts behind LTK's success to a movement your man Glenn Beck actively supports is not a fair argument, Gravity's.


For a liberal, you're insanely intolerant, Matt.

#75 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 12 November 2009 - 11:14 PM

Dalton's unpopularity seems to be mostly a myth to me, though I know I'll get flack for saying it.

Yes, you will. Denying Dalton's unpopularity is almost the same as denying The Holocaust, or being part of The Birther Movement in the United States; it's simply not realistic to believe that LTK in any way approximated a success. It was a failure on multiple levels, and Dalton's popularity, whatever he once had, sunk with LTK's fortunes.

Equating the justification of the facts behind LTK's success to a movement your man Glenn Beck actively supports is not a fair argument, Gravity's.

For a liberal, you're insanely intolerant, Matt.

Dave, I'm just a man who asks questions. B)

#76 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 13 November 2009 - 01:50 AM

Dalton's unpopularity seems to be mostly a myth to me, though I know I'll get flack for saying it.

Yes, you will. Denying Dalton's unpopularity is almost the same as denying The Holocaust, or being part of The Birther Movement in the United States; it's simply not realistic to believe that LTK in any way approximated a success. It was a failure on multiple levels, and Dalton's popularity, whatever he once had, sunk with LTK's fortunes.

Equating the justification of the facts behind LTK's success to a movement your man Glenn Beck actively supports is not a fair argument, Gravity's.


For a liberal, you're insanely intolerant, Matt.


Seriously, what the B) is it with people on this board always dragging liberal vs conservative into things? Who gives two :tdown:s if Matt's :tdown:ing Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler's butt baby? The man is who is. If he's a raging homo or a skinhead it shouldn't make any difference. It's one thing to argue about tastes regarding Bond film et cetera civilly, that's why we're here, but for :)'s sake...No, stopping myself here. Already too pissed off tonight to be going down these roads.

#77 Dalton_Craig

Dalton_Craig

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 35 posts
  • Location:Victoria, Australia. You narrow it down...

Posted 13 November 2009 - 04:18 AM

Anyway, moving the conversation back to safer ground...

Not to forget that LTK did well enough for Bond 23 to ne announced.


LTK did so well that it enabled a film that wouldn't be released for another 22 years to be announced back in 1989? Why did they announce BOND23 back in 1989 and not BOND16? Were they really planning that far ahead? 22 years seems like an awful long time to plan a movie that is seven entries away.


I think the sentiment behind The Ghost's statement was that LTK's performance did not kill and bury the series, and therefore did not prevent the seven films that followed it from being announced and made. Did not enable but did not prevent, if you will...

Edited by Dalton_Craig, 13 November 2009 - 04:26 AM.


#78 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 13 November 2009 - 07:23 AM

Dalton's unpopularity seems to be mostly a myth to me, though I know I'll get flack for saying it.

Yes, you will. Denying Dalton's unpopularity is almost the same as denying The Holocaust, or being part of The Birther Movement in the United States; it's simply not realistic to believe that LTK in any way approximated a success. It was a failure on multiple levels, and Dalton's popularity, whatever he once had, sunk with LTK's fortunes.

Equating the justification of the facts behind LTK's success to a movement your man Glenn Beck actively supports is not a fair argument, Gravity's.


For a liberal, you're insanely intolerant, Matt.


Seriously, what the B) is it with people on this board always dragging liberal vs conservative into things? Who gives two :tdown:s if Matt's :tdown:ing Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler's butt baby? The man is who is. If he's a raging homo or a skinhead it shouldn't make any difference. It's one thing to argue about tastes regarding Bond film et cetera civilly, that's why we're here, but for :)'s sake...No, stopping myself here. Already too pissed off tonight to be going down these roads.


To put the answer in brief, because Matt first brought up Glenn Beck being Gravity's "man", when there was no grounds to do so. Completely unprovoked, unnecessary. Condescending and stupid.

I'll carry on, now...

#79 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 13 November 2009 - 07:26 AM

Indeed; I think it's a very well-founded fact that legal troubles with Pathe, not Timothy Dalton, stopped the series in its tracks for six years... despite what Grav might think. B)

#80 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 13 November 2009 - 07:59 AM

Not to forget that LTK did well enough for Bond 23 to ne announced.


LTK did so well that it enabled a film that wouldn't be released for another 22 years to be announced back in 1989? Why did they announce BOND23 back in 1989 and not BOND16? Were they really planning that far ahead? 22 years seems like an awful long time to plan a movie that is seven entries away.


*cough* I must be getting way too used to typing "Bond 23". B)

Indeed; I think it's a very well-founded fact that legal troubles with Pathe, not Timothy Dalton, stopped the series in its tracks for six years... despite what Grav might think.



Indeed. They were ready to do Bond 17 right after LTK came out (as far as more knowledgeable forum members here have made me aware of), which speaks volumes. LTK might have flopped in the US, but a worldwide gross of over 150 million on a budget consisting of 32 million is still an extremely profitable film. But other members have been down this road trying to solve this neverending debate, and I don't suppose we will manage to either.

#81 jaguar007

jaguar007

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5608 posts
  • Location:Portland OR

Posted 13 November 2009 - 05:48 PM

Indeed. They were ready to do Bond 17 right after LTK came out (as far as more knowledgeable forum members here have made me aware of), which speaks volumes. LTK might have flopped in the US, but a worldwide gross of over 150 million on a budget consisting of 32 million is still an extremely profitable film. But other members have been down this road trying to solve this neverending debate, and I don't suppose we will manage to either.


True, and Cubby was firmly behind Dalton returning as Bond until Dalton resigned from the role. To play devil's advocate, it is also well known by the forums more knowledgeable members that Cubby put Bond on the market in the early 90s and that MGM (or specifically Calley) would not greenlight Bond 17 with Dalton in the role. Had Dalton been an international success in the role, neither of those would have happened.

#82 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 13 November 2009 - 08:32 PM

Alright, well, not bothering to read coco's post just in case...

Moving along, suffice it to say I duly apologize for the outburst last night. Rubbish week and I oughtn't have let it affect me here, but it did, and the deed is done.

re:Grav
Bastard child? Seems a bit harsh. Certainly she is not a crown jewel, but there have been worse.

#83 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 13 November 2009 - 08:34 PM

Alright, well, not bothering to read coco's post just in case...

Moving along, suffice it to say I duly apologize for the outburst last night. Rubbish week and I oughtn't have let it affect me here, but it did, and the deed is done.

re:Grav
Bastard child? Seems a bit harsh. Certainly she is not a crown jewel, but there have been worse.


I think you'll find there was nothing provoking or offensive about my last post.

#84 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 15 November 2009 - 01:19 PM

I love it when people say: 'Oh, it was a worldwide success...except in The United States.' Well, guess what!?! The United States pretty much is "THE WORLD". If a film or series does poorly in the US, it's very difficult for a studio to justify making more films. The U.S. accounts for 33% to 50% of a film's box office revenue. For people to just downgrade the importance of the American market is naive.


Following this logic, Quantum of Solace could be said to be something of a flop too, since it made, according to the ever reliable Boxofficemojo.com 168 million dollars out of a budget of 200 million. It still made close to 600 million worldwide.

I'm not denying this is a lot more than LTK made, even adjusted for inflation, but US box office clearly isn't everything for the Bond movies. Not to mention the countless (admittedly less expensive) non-Bond movies that are successfull in Europe and other parts of the world but have little appeal in the US.

This is a debate I'm not even attempting to win, by the way, so I'm (likely) putting my contribution to it to rest now. Other fans with more knowledge (like Zorin Industries) have done better than I ever could in such a discussion.

#85 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 03:46 PM

Ah Mr Silhouette is still himself calling an orange an apple...

The US market is NOT the biggest market for Bond. It may be politically, but to call a country as big as America a "single market" is a tad misguided and overlooks the vital territories that are the Far East, Australia, India and most of Europe.

Also, unless you yourself are fully aware of the implications of what the "Writers Strike" did or did not to do the script progress on LICENCE TO KILL (note no-one apart from you seems misguided and blinkered enough to use its working title as its calling card) it is not wise to assume you know exactly how the Strike DID affect the finished film. When someone has been in every script meeting for BOND ' 89 on both sides of the Atlantic we can then slam labels like "the Writers Strike" on things. But until then it doesn't help the debate to shoe-horn everything into your negative stance on the film, just because that suits yout stance on the film.

And I am presuming your boxofficemojo.com is the irrefutable fact and last word on the matter because you found it on Wikipedia....? And the producers of NATIONAL LAMPOONS VACATION may want to question such sentiments as Chevy Chase had no successes in the 1980's.

#86 Zorin Industries

Zorin Industries

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5634 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 04:04 PM

Denying Dalton's unpopularity is almost the same as denying The Holocaust

Erm, er no. It's not quite.

Anyway, why are we calling The Holocaust after its final title? Didn't it have a working title we can doggedly reference it by instead?

#87 Safari Suit

Safari Suit

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5099 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 November 2009 - 04:48 PM

It got beaten by FLETCH LIVES, starring an actor who hadn't had a hit movie since the late 70's.


Vacation?
European Vacation?
Spies Like Us?
Three Amigos?
The original Fletch?

Granted, LTK still should have beat it by all rights so I'm not saying you were being unfair on LTK...just Chevy B)

#88 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 17 November 2009 - 03:07 AM

B) The United States is the single biggest movie market in the world. I mean, seriously, are you REALLY going to contest that fact? Are you really going to put your "credibility" on the line trying to back up that statement?


Doesn't mean every film has to do well in the US to make its money. LTK did more than break even, it just didn't do as well as expected. And LTK aside, let's look at a film like The Damned United. "Soccer" isn't exactly a major sport here, thus it saw a very limited release. Now sure, it didn't have the budget of a Bond flick, because the content doesn't call for that sort of thing. I don't know the box office records for the film offhand, but can you honestly say you'd expect that film to make back most of its £5 million budget in the US? Utterly preposterous. Now, the United States may be where more QoS/Transformers/2012 type films need to make the bulk of their monies, but not every film needs to be a smash hit in the US to be a success. Now, I know, your argument is about Bond, but you do have a habit of sometimes generalizing in your argument for that, and really that generalization just hurts you there.

#89 Mr. Blofeld

Mr. Blofeld

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9173 posts
  • Location:North Smithfield, RI, USA

Posted 17 November 2009 - 07:57 AM

When someone has been in every script meeting for BOND ' 89 on both sides of the Atlantic we can then slam labels like "the Writers Strike" on things. But until then it doesn't help the debate to shoe-horn everything into your negative stance on the film, just because that suits yout stance on the film.

Do you go around telling 6 year old kids that there's no such thing as Santa Claus? Just curious.

Way to keep on topic, you miser; your arguments are being beaten into the ground, and rather than responding to the accusations with facts, you compare a fellow user to a killer of childhood dreams?! Bloody pathetic...

#90 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14266 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:18 AM

What a pointless argument.

The sterile posturing about a twenty-year-old bit of fluff entertainment does tend to grate. Could everyone play at being nice for a while? I appreciate that this might not be as much fun as anonymously slating each other over "analysis" of how much money some film made for some other people some years ago, a position none of us can do anything about, but it's probably considerably more constructive.

Think of all the lovely fresh air and exercise one could have instead.