again your assumptions are completely wrong:
1) no, what I said is that a character is supposed to look suitable in comparision to his "lifestyle"
2) That's not what I said. Onatopp's attitude about sex is fairly more open in comparision to other girls. I meant that's what makes hercsimilar to Bond.
3) simply no, I like OTT elements in Bond movies, what I don't like is when people say "Onatopp is more fitting for AP than Bond" or "Pleasance's Blofeld is bad because he looks line Dr.Evil"
You're welcome {[]
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
again your assumptions are completely wrong:
1) no, what I said is that a character is supposed to look suitable in comparision to his "lifestyle"
2) That's not what I said. Onatopp's attitude about sex is fairly more open in comparision to other girls. I meant that's what makes hercsimilar to Bond.
3) simply no, I like OTT elements in Bond movies, what I don't like is when people say "Onatopp is more fitting for AP than Bond" or "Pleasance's Blofeld is bad because he looks line Dr.Evil"
You're welcome {[]
^ This is hilarious )
1) So you agree that she is bland .... And trying to justify (that too with points everyone knows) why she is bland would not make her interesting .... Also saying " she's way above average looking (especially if you compare her to her colleagues), because she's the main Bond girl" is acknowledging that there are certain expectations wrt BGs
2) You mentioned that Xenia is OTT ("therfore is supposed to be OTT") and tried to justify it by comparing with Bond who is actually not OTT despite having an open attitude. And as mentioned earlier, Fiona was similar to Bond too but played appropriately
3) Statements such as yours ignore the fact that for many folks Bond and its persiflage efforts are different segments .... Now you may not like those comparisons because of factors such as the inability to read b/w the lines, unnecessarily trying to be hyper-technical (like those films were released afterwards), or not understanding the difference b/w those segments, etc. .... The point about contradictions stands
From the OTT portrayal of Onatopp to the yawning sleep inducing blandness of Natalya, the film also takes the title of one with the worst set of Bond girls )
Natalya:
she's supposed to be "bland": she's a computer programer in the middle of nowhere so she might not work as a playmate in her free time; that explains her pitfit and behaviour.
still she's way above average looking (especially if you compare her to her colleagues), because she's the main Bond girl
Xenia:
she's displaying the idependance of women, she's the first real henchwoman who can stand alone (not counting Klebb) and therfore is supposed to be OTT (and that's alricht, hey we're watching Bond). I have no problem or whatsoever with her sexing around.
In the end she's supposed to be somewhat like Bond and the opposite of Natalya.
Oh and please, no one bring up Austin Powers, whenever I read an argument that includes him, I'm shaking my head, because it sickens me that some people try to compare a Bond persiflage to Bond himself.
Cheers
People know all that .... What is being discussed is beyond all that^
Bond films are neither supposed to be a documentary nor a cartoon. What you are saying suggests that GE characters were either supposed to be from documentary or cartoon .... And then when discussing characters, you bring up the looks .... Being a programmer, Natalya can be bland, but being a BG, she has to look good which acknowledges that there are certain expectations )
In the past, we have had characters that have been played OTT such as Zorin. However, how Onatopp is played is more suited to Austin Power films (when one compares a character from Bond films to a persiflage's, it shows how badly the characters are played)
All I get from your post is a set of conflicting points which only strengthen the case against GE:
* A character is supposed to be bland because of her occupation. But then she has to look good to be acceptable as BG
* A woman character that can stand up to Bond has to be OTT, when Bond is not really OTT (Appears as if you forgot how Fiona's character was played in TB)
* You shake your head when Bond's characters are compared to ones in movies such as Austin Powers but appreciate it when such characters show up on Bond films
Thank you! {[]
Well argued.
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Natalya:
she's supposed to be "bland": she's a computer programer in the middle of nowhere so she might not work as a playmate in her free time; that explains her pitfit and behaviour.
still she's way above average looking (especially if you compare her to her colleagues), because she's the main Bond girl
Xenia:
she's displaying the idependance of women, she's the first real henchwoman who can stand alone (not counting Klebb) and therfore is supposed to be OTT (and that's alricht, hey we're watching Bond). I have no problem or whatsoever with her sexing around.
In the end she's supposed to be somewhat like Bond and the opposite of Natalya.
Oh and please, no one bring up Austin Powers, whenever I read an argument that includes him, I'm shaking my head, because it sickens me that some people try to compare a Bond persiflage to Bond himself.
Cheers
People know all that .... What is being discussed is beyond all that^
Bond films are neither supposed to be a documentary nor a cartoon. What you are saying suggests that GE characters were either supposed to be from documentary or cartoon .... And then when discussing characters, you bring up the looks .... Being a programmer, Natalya can be bland, but being a BG, she has to look good which acknowledges that there are certain expectations )
In the past, we have had characters that have been played OTT such as Zorin. However, how Onatopp is played is more suited to Austin Power films (when one compares a character from Bond films to a persiflage's, it shows how badly the characters are played)
All I get from your post is a set of conflicting points which only strengthen the case against GE:
* A character is supposed to be bland because of her occupation. But then she has to look good to be acceptable as BG
* A woman character that can stand up to Bond has to be OTT, when Bond is not really OTT (Appears as if you forgot how Fiona's character was played in TB)
* You shake your head when Bond's characters are compared to ones in movies such as Austin Powers but appreciate it when such characters show up on Bond films
Thank you! {[]
Well argued.
thank you {[]
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,923Chief of Staff
yes, that's exactly my intention.Again, you're 100% right.
*irony off*
Yes of course! .... And I can see that in your delusional world - you never blamed or made personal comments on other posters. You were speaking the truth but were misunderstood .... and statements such as "Today is Sunday, a holiday!" (that everyone knows, though it would not be a holiday in ME) makes up for great arguments -{ .... Unfortunately, hiding being irony will not help you much either in the long run
yes, that's exactly my intention.Again, you're 100% right.
*irony off*
Yes of course! .... And I can see that in your delusional world - you never blamed or made personal comments on other posters. You were speaking the truth but were misunderstood .... and statements such as "Today is Sunday, a holiday!" (that everyone knows, though it would not be a holiday in ME) makes up for great arguments -{ .... Unfortunately, hiding being irony will not help you much either in the long run
so what do you propose?
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,923Chief of Staff
So please enlighten me in words as to why you think that scene is crude -{
But if you don't get it through pics, how are you going to get it through words 8-)
Trying once more:
^ CRUDE
and this is what makes a movie bad for you?
It is one of the reasons. Unless you find Wade in his underwear showing a tatto titled Muffy interesting, along with other crude scenes, it should not be surprising ... Others reasons being - BGs, the film is laborous to watch apart from a couple of sequences, general crudeness / unrefined elements, etc. .... Looking at various factors, I rank GE as the worst
Comments
1) no, what I said is that a character is supposed to look suitable in comparision to his "lifestyle"
2) That's not what I said. Onatopp's attitude about sex is fairly more open in comparision to other girls. I meant that's what makes hercsimilar to Bond.
3) simply no, I like OTT elements in Bond movies, what I don't like is when people say "Onatopp is more fitting for AP than Bond" or "Pleasance's Blofeld is bad because he looks line Dr.Evil"
You're welcome {[]
^ This is hilarious
1) So you agree that she is bland .... And trying to justify (that too with points everyone knows) why she is bland would not make her interesting .... Also saying " she's way above average looking (especially if you compare her to her colleagues), because she's the main Bond girl" is acknowledging that there are certain expectations wrt BGs
2) You mentioned that Xenia is OTT ("therfore is supposed to be OTT") and tried to justify it by comparing with Bond who is actually not OTT despite having an open attitude. And as mentioned earlier, Fiona was similar to Bond too but played appropriately
3) Statements such as yours ignore the fact that for many folks Bond and its persiflage efforts are different segments .... Now you may not like those comparisons because of factors such as the inability to read b/w the lines, unnecessarily trying to be hyper-technical (like those films were released afterwards), or not understanding the difference b/w those segments, etc. .... The point about contradictions stands
{[]
Well argued.
Ahh...so you can't ....didn't think so
watch out or he floods you with arguments that interpret the things you say totally different
Refer to post #328 -{
I guess for you blaming posters on forums for your shortcoming is the best way to feel good about yourself
*irony off*
Yes of course! .... And I can see that in your delusional world - you never blamed or made personal comments on other posters. You were speaking the truth but were misunderstood .... and statements such as "Today is Sunday, a holiday!" (that everyone knows, though it would not be a holiday in ME) makes up for great arguments -{ .... Unfortunately, hiding being irony will not help you much either in the long run
If anything, those two characters are dated and just seem stupid now. But at the time...
"Better make that two."
so what do you propose?
I did....totally redundant post 8-)
So please enlighten me in words as to why you think that scene is crude -{
But if you don't get it through pics, how are you going to get it through words 8-)
Trying once more:
^ CRUDE
and this is what makes a movie bad for you?
Might simply be a difference in comedy tastes.
{[]
"Better make that two."
Yep, I didn't want to say Jack Wades fat arse anywhere....
aaarrghh thats awful..
It is one of the reasons. Unless you find Wade in his underwear showing a tatto titled Muffy interesting, along with other crude scenes, it should not be surprising ... Others reasons being - BGs, the film is laborous to watch apart from a couple of sequences, general crudeness / unrefined elements, etc. .... Looking at various factors, I rank GE as the worst
Actually Pierce would probably be even more hairy
and you'll see far worse !
Pierce's would be petfectly coiffured
yes, with hair laquer..
he would look perfectly from every angle
That would explain to those who like it explained in words