Pre-Turkey NewsBits

[CmdrFlesh]

damn turkeys ...and John Cleese, who I really appreciate in other movies (e.g. Wanda), makes a rather sad Q. He should have stuck to his kind of movie (e.g. Wanda) instead of becoming the hi-tech clown grandpa of oo7.

[.::Phoenix::.]

rizzuh wrote..

I didn't say anyone lived on a different planet; I simply wish that they did!

thank the lord and everything holy that we all have a right to our opinions...and rizzuh comes through again with another wonderful idea



rizzuh you have my vote for president keep up the good work

[David Johnston]

Just to keep off the topic, is it possible we can all agree that John Cleese makes an excellent Q?



In addition, can we also agree that John Cleese is just... great?



Some people may think I'm stupid to think John Cleese is such as genius, but I don't remember any time where he has failed to make me laugh (I think it's all in the way he delivers whatever it is he says... it's an amazing skill he has).

[xep]

[Spoonman]

[Mayco]

[Keisuke Takahashi]

[-:Nighthawk:-]

Ghengis [$t0n3d] wrote..

Arent Jewsih festivials based upon a lunar claendar? Therefore such festivals preceed each other by eleven days each year, as with the muslim calender? I am sure (maybe mistakenly) That Rosh Hashannah was at the same time as Ramadan a couple of years ago, thus being in December/January time....

I'll trust you on Ramadan, because you observe it. That would give you very good reason to trust me when I say that the Jewish Holy Days don't leave the seasons they fall in (basically fall and spring), though they vary from early to late within those seasons. Yes, it's a lunar calendar, but some years have 13 months, and similar adjustments, so while years can be very different lengths, months fall basically within the same seasons every year. If you've got any more desire to discuss this, click my name on the left. :)

PanterA-[iMp]- wrote..

If we are so seperate why is europe constantly attempting to mimic our culture and "americanize" your lifestyles?

Yes, and why are American fashion designers always attempting to mimic European fashion trends and import them to the USA? Cultural exchange has gone on for a very long time, and apparently some people fail to grasp such concepts.

Newfr wrote..

But I think rizzuh can feel sorry for poor non-english speaking "Euro" and his time, keyboard, electronic dictionaries and put smile or single word "joke" at the and of the message, right? :) :)

While that would be helpful for some of you, I'll be honest and say it's not likely to happen. The general rule of thumb with rizzuh is, if you haven't provoked him and he's being rude to you, it's meant as a joke. If you've gone ahead and made an assclown of yourself first, though, then he's just making fun of you, and it's not quite so nice of a joke. Seeing as you didn't really do much to deserve a flaming, I wouldn't take anything directed your way seriously. So... stick with that, and you'll come out fine.

Mad Dog McKill wrote..

now thats the problem - you are too much involved in other people's problems. Your country also seems to be involved not only in Global issues but other problems like other countries' relations... and that happened all the time.

Yeah, it gets us into trouble all the time. But the alternative is to just let everyone else blow the hell out of each other, and yawn on the sidelines. Each country has a sort of personality of its own, and the American one happens to be a very involved one. Sure, nobody is happy with the guy who breaks up the fight, but in the end it was probably for the best.

taffer wrote..

If I remember rightly, European governments were in favour of arms inspectors going back into Iraq - a much better proposition than the loss of innocent lives (yes, funnily enough, Iraqi civilians are people too).



As for the Iraqi regime, yes it's brutal, but it wouldn't exactly do the US any good to kill someone who has started co-operating with them. Also, before the Gulf War I do remember the US selling Iraq quite a few bits of military hardware - wouldn't be the first time you've propped up oppressive regimes, eh boys?

rizzuh already pretty much destroyed the rest of what you wrote, but I'll touch this briefly.



Unless you've been listening to propaganda radio, you're not going to believe that the USA is going after Iraqi civilians. Modern war is quite different from the carpet bombing of cities that it was a mere 60 years ago, and we tend to use precision bombs to take out military targets with minimal collateral damage.



Yes, the Iraqi rulership is brutal, and yes they don't deserve to be ruling, in the view of an average American who values freedom and justice. However, if we'd go to war with another country simply because its rulers were oppressive and evil in our viewpoint, then we'd have to blow away the leadership of a lot of countries, including China.



Which basically leaves the possibility of a war with Iraq down to the issue of weapons of mass destruction. They're letting the inspectors in so far, so a large conflict is at this point not happening. If they make it apparent that they do have such weapons, then you can bet we'll do everything in our power to remove that capability, as in our opinion they will use it for wrong purposes.



As far as us giving Iraq weapons, that was when we were supporting their war against Iran, seeing as Iran also has a history of repressing their people (though more along religious lines instead of political), as well as support for terrorist organizations. When it comes down to it, America really doesn't like or trust either country very much, but the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Iraq in the 1980's was the embodiment of that statment for the USA.

MikeJ wrote..

I'll be flying up to Oregon in about 4 hours. Just thought I should share that info with you guys. I'm bringing my laptop so I can still whore out the comment page, don't you worry.

Phew, major sigh of relief on this end of things. I can sleep easy at night knowing that now.

Spoonman wrote..

Please for the love of god don't go down again.

Down? What are you talking about? CSN never has "temporary database downtime" or anything like that. Somebody already used that statement, right? Did I say too much?

<CREW> Phoenix wrote..

you should be either too stuffed to bitch or too busy packing for your flight to another planet to give a damn

That, good sir, was the funniest thing I've read on CSN for a good while. Well done. :)

rizzuh wrote..

taffer:

- Made up statistic; you couldn't place it either nor could you name its surrounding countries. Also, totally irrelevant.

Did you know that 90% of statistics quoted on the web were just made up on the spot to support the writer's conclusion? Don't ask me where I got that number.

- Kyoto was rejected 95-0 in senate. Perhaps there is something wrong with the treaty itself, and not the greedy American government. Keep in mind that about half of those who voted against the treaty ARE liberal hippies who hug trees often.

I'm sure, similarly, that if luxembourg proposed a resolution to the EU that European countries should have their land equally distributed, so that all were the same size, that Germany's leadership would also unanimously veto it. Smaller European countries could then talk about how evil Germany was for vetoing the treaty. It's easy to talk about how great a treaty is when you're not the one getting shafted.

Keisuke Takahashi wrote..

y'know, without arguments, comment posting would be a bore.

Indeed. I certainly would have less people to quote in my manifestos, anyway.



Well, I think enough of the food has finally worn away, and I can get some sleep now. So... who else wants to start staking out some claims in recently vacated European property? Hehehe...

[pinchet]

jesus, how about you quote a couiple more people nighthawk

[Dangki]

How can you have weapons of mass destruciton that aren't going to be used for the wrong purposes?

[David Johnston]

CmdrFlesh wrote..

damn turkeys ...and John Cleese, who I really appreciate in other movies (e.g. Wanda), makes a rather sad Q. He should have stuck to his kind of movie (e.g. Wanda) instead of becoming the hi-tech clown grandpa of oo7.

But he fits as Q so well. Yes, Cleese was great in Wanda, and he was fantastic in Python and all it's little children, but he also works great as Q. Who else could pull it off with so much... British style? Q is a great humourous centre point of the film - Cleese just integrates it more into the character than into the inventions and what's going on behind him (as some poor soul is thrown across the room at incredible speed by an ejector fountain or something...). Of course, we have to remember that Q is Q's successor... and hence shouldn't really represent the pre-R Q.



Ok then, at least agree that Q gave us the most amusing moments of the film...

[Dangki]

Is John Cleese in the new one or have they gone back to that old guy. As I'm sure I saw the old Q in a clip of the new 'un but he must be about 90 by now.



I don't like the new Bonds as it all just seems too rediculous to watch.

Robert Llwelwyn or something, thats him isnt it, the old Q?

[David Johnston]

John Cleese is the new Q, since the old Q left in TWINE. The actor (who's name escapes me, but Robert Llewlyn sounds about right) subsequently died in a road accident I believe.

[CmdrFlesh]

The actor's name was Desmond Llewelin (I'm not sure about the spelling of his last name) and he died in a car accident at the age of 85. David Johnston, I agree, I couldn't think of anyone better to deliver the "britishness" required by the Q character. But still, I feel like Cleese's interpretation of that role lacks dignity. He acts too much like a clown compared to Llewelin's style. Maybe that is caused by the role's definition itself, maybe it was changed a bit. But maybe it's just the german synchronization spoiling it. Many movies and TV-stuff coming from foreign countries (mostly US of course) are spoiled by synch'ing and the chances of viewing something with it's original sound are rare.

[David Johnston]

Desmond Llewlyn... ah, of course! Great man, I always sort of wished he was my grandad.



Cleese isn't meant to act like Llewlyn... if the whole James Bond thing was real, Q and R are completely different people with only similar skill and (since R became Q), position in MI6. Of course, some traits have to remain to keep with the Bond theme.



Ok, so he does act like a bit of a clown, but it's not totally ridiculous. He acts like the person I'd expect Q to be... really downright clever without explicitly acknowledging it (hence that GREAT line in the film from Q himself), but still susceptible to minor knocks from Bond. It's quite a strange relationship that I won't try to explain because I simply can't.



But my opinion is clear. John Cleese makes an excellent Q.