Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script
Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256743] So, 23 April 2006 19:58
Bryan Harris  
AICN's "Merrick" has posted a new review of the CR script*.

Even though reviews of the script are starting to trickle out on a
regular basis, this one is worth reading because of the detail in which
it examines the tone and themes of the script. Merrick has deep
misgivings about the wisdom of the reboot concept, but what he conveys
of the flavor of the script makes it sound very intriguing.

"The script is surprising in many ways, but it was also disappointing.
The James Bond character has been dramatically refined, yet some of the
same issues plaguing the franchise (blah, uninteresting villains)
persist. The action has been dialed down - brutal, hand-to-hand
combat now preferred to gargantuan set pieces. The smartness of this
decision hinges solely on how the picture is directed in terms of tone
and subtext.

CASINO ROYALE is very immediate. It does not "feel" like a BOURNE
movie, as some have feared. However, its intimate scope and emotionally
driven plot certainly do evoke BOURNE sensibilities. This is a more
twisty & turny kind of Bond...it's sometimes hard to know who to
trust and who to doubt, who to turn to and who to kill."

*http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23103
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256744 ] So, 23 April 2006 20:39
WQ  
Bryan Harris wrote:
> AICN's "Merrick" has posted a new review of the CR script*.
>
> Even though reviews of the script are starting to trickle out on a
> regular basis, this one is worth reading because of the detail in which
> it examines the tone and themes of the script. Merrick has deep
> misgivings about the wisdom of the reboot concept, but what he conveys
> of the flavor of the script makes it sound very intriguing.
>
> "The script is surprising in many ways, but it was also disappointing.
> The James Bond character has been dramatically refined, yet some of the
> same issues plaguing the franchise (blah, uninteresting villains)
> persist. The action has been dialed down - brutal, hand-to-hand
> combat now preferred to gargantuan set pieces. The smartness of this
> decision hinges solely on how the picture is directed in terms of tone
> and subtext.
>
> CASINO ROYALE is very immediate. It does not "feel" like a BOURNE
> movie, as some have feared. However, its intimate scope and emotionally
> driven plot certainly do evoke BOURNE sensibilities. This is a more
> twisty & turny kind of Bond...it's sometimes hard to know who to
> trust and who to doubt, who to turn to and who to kill."

--- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on reviews
of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a chord
with me. He says all the things I've sensed and expressed about the
film all along, including the potential pros as well as the likely cons
of it. Where I am a bit surprised about it is perhaps in what appears
to be the more dramatic end of it with respect to the interplay between
Bond and Vesper. Maybe this might be due to Paul Haggis' intervention
since I doubt that Purvis and Wade have the depth to pull that off. It
seems that the successful weight of the film will be in that part of
it, whereas the unsuccessful weight of the film will be in everything
else. And a major shortcoming is in Merrick's view of the portrayal of
Le Chiffre, which is what I feared would happen with the miscast choice
of Mads Mikkelson in tandem with the unimaginative scripting of Purvis
and Wade in that department. Seems like CR will add up to being yet
another uneven Bond again, just like it's been since TND - as in
wanting to be something it wants to be but never fully committing
itself to being that. And as Merrick pointed out, Campbell may not be
the inspired director that the CR script demands if it's going to fully
succeed on all levels. So my doubts only have been confirmed again by
this review, but it still won't prevent me from seeing CR once it comes
out. The only review that will really count is mine, of course.

>
> *http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23103
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256748 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 01:26
JHause  
WQ wrote:
>
> --- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on reviews
> of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a chord
> with me.

Ah. The perfect critic.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256750 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 03:45
Rich Handley  
WQ wrote:
> --- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on reviews
> of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a chord
> with me.

If you haven't read it, then you do not know what's in it. You can't judge
what you haven't read.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256751 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 04:03
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > --- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on reviews
> > of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a chord
> > with me.
>
> If you haven't read it, then you do not know what's in it. You can't judge
> what you haven't read.

--- Oh, let's not get picky here. Nobody other than these reviewers and
relevant people related with EON have read the script, but plenty of it
has been leaked already and cobbling all the pieces together, along
with fragments of teaser film clips released so far, one can get a
pretty good sense of where this is heading. Merrick's review sheds
even more light and according to his take on it, it seems to gel more
or less with my own views as I've sensed about the script/film and
already expressed them, and that's without my having read the script
and he has. In fact, it even surprised me that I was in as much
agreement with what he said, or at least understood exactly what he
meant about whatever positive and negative views he had of it. Maybe
Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength that you can't
relate to.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256752 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 05:47
JHause  
WQ wrote:
>plenty of it
> has been leaked already and cobbling all the pieces together, along
> with fragments of teaser film clips released so far, one can get a
> pretty good sense of where this is heading.

Yeah. After all, we've seen part of the teaser. Game over.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256754 ] Mo, 24 April 2006 17:45
Will Traynor  
"Bryan Harris" <bravogolfhotel [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145815083.462495.304300 [at] j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> AICN's "Merrick" has posted a new review of the CR script*.
>
> Even though reviews of the script are starting to trickle out on a
> regular basis, this one is worth reading because of the detail in which
> it examines the tone and themes of the script. Merrick has deep
> misgivings about the wisdom of the reboot concept, but what he conveys
> of the flavor of the script makes it sound very intriguing.
>
> "The script is surprising in many ways, but it was also disappointing.
> The James Bond character has been dramatically refined, yet some of the
> same issues plaguing the franchise (blah, uninteresting villains)
> persist. The action has been dialed down - brutal, hand-to-hand
> combat now preferred to gargantuan set pieces.

That's a good thing, IMHO. More fight scenes, less para-sailing and
invisible cars.

>The smartness of this
> decision hinges solely on how the picture is directed in terms of tone
> and subtext.
>
> CASINO ROYALE is very immediate. It does not "feel" like a BOURNE
> movie, as some have feared. However, its intimate scope and emotionally
> driven plot certainly do evoke BOURNE sensibilities. This is a more
> twisty & turny kind of Bond...it's sometimes hard to know who to
> trust and who to doubt, who to turn to and who to kill."
>
> *http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23103
>
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256755 ] Di, 25 April 2006 02:14
Tom Zielinski  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1145844231.892438.240070 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich Handley wrote:
>> WQ wrote:
>> > --- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on reviews
>> > of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a chord
>> > with me.
>>
>> If you haven't read it, then you do not know what's in it. You can't
>> judge
>> what you haven't read.
>
> --- Oh, let's not get picky here. Nobody other than these reviewers and
> relevant people related with EON have read the script, but plenty of it
> has been leaked already and cobbling all the pieces together, along
> with fragments of teaser film clips released so far, one can get a
> pretty good sense of where this is heading. Merrick's review sheds
> even more light and according to his take on it, it seems to gel more
> or less with my own views as I've sensed about the script/film and
> already expressed them, and that's without my having read the script
> and he has. In fact, it even surprised me that I was in as much
> agreement with what he said, or at least understood exactly what he
> meant about whatever positive and negative views he had of it. Maybe
> Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength that you can't
> relate to.


"Not get picky"? "Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength that
you can't relate to"?

Geezus WQ, you come across really poorly. I think you enjoy being a
naysayer. I trust you are your self-inflicted misery is somehow a comfort.

Me, I think "Casino Royale" is gonna kick ass. I certainly could be wrong,
but at least my optimism doesn't cloud my judgment.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256758 ] Di, 25 April 2006 05:55
WQ  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1145844231.892438.240070 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rich Handley wrote:
> >> WQ wrote:
> >> > --- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on reviews
> >> > of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a chord
> >> > with me.
> >>
> >> If you haven't read it, then you do not know what's in it. You can't
> >> judge
> >> what you haven't read.
> >
> > --- Oh, let's not get picky here. Nobody other than these reviewers and
> > relevant people related with EON have read the script, but plenty of it
> > has been leaked already and cobbling all the pieces together, along
> > with fragments of teaser film clips released so far, one can get a
> > pretty good sense of where this is heading. Merrick's review sheds
> > even more light and according to his take on it, it seems to gel more
> > or less with my own views as I've sensed about the script/film and
> > already expressed them, and that's without my having read the script
> > and he has. In fact, it even surprised me that I was in as much
> > agreement with what he said, or at least understood exactly what he
> > meant about whatever positive and negative views he had of it. Maybe
> > Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength that you can't
> > relate to.
>
>
> "Not get picky"? "Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength that
> you can't relate to"?
>
> Geezus WQ, you come across really poorly. I think you enjoy being a
> naysayer. I trust you are your self-inflicted misery is somehow a comfort.
>
> Me, I think "Casino Royale" is gonna kick ass. I certainly could be wrong,
> but at least my optimism doesn't cloud my judgment.

--- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
actually read what I write. Earlier in this thread I did give a
positive spin on the script in exactly the same place where Merrick
gives it, which was about the only place he gave it, being with the
dramatic end of it insofar as Bond's relationship with Vesper goes. I
could understand through the examples he gave exactly how he could
arrive at that view of his and how it seems like the film might be at
its strongest in that area. So it's not all about being negative or
miserable. It's about calling it as I see it or sense it and that's
how it is. You see it or sense it differently, but unlike me, I don't
recall you, or that many others around here for that matter, giving
that much introspection as to why you think it will succeed beyond the
superficialities of: a] Craig's a great actor, b] Paul Haggis is on
board to fix up the script, c] if Campbell is helming it, it can't be
that bad, and d] that if Barb and Mike say that this retooling will be
a faithful version of the book, then it must mean so. Get into a
little more depth as to why you think Craig is the right choice, why
you believe Purvis and Wade, who have screwed up every Bond script
they've had a hand in are the right choice, what makes Campbell worthy
of even doing Casino Royale when there are far better and more
imaginative directors out there, and why do you even so easily buy into
Barb and Mike's fantasy that CR will be a faithful version of the book
when at least the last 3 Bonds were clunkers to one extent or another.
Already some crucial elements of the CR script - the suicide factor in
particular - point to a real watering down [pardon the pun if you know
what I mean] of all the very things that should bear an impact on Bond
and the audience. Whatever faithfulness there will be to the book, and
I don't expect 100% or 75% or even 50%, but about 43.8% would be nice,
it seems like it's just going to add up to, by all that I've read and
seen so far, nothing more than a paper-thin passing resemblance to
three or four chapters of the book, and even then reduced to
Hollywood-style political correct cinematic nonsense as to render the
film version virtually unrecognizable compared to the source material.
Although, it would be interesting to see how far they go with the
carpet-beating scene, but I'm not holding my breath. If other creative
pedigree were involved in the making of CR, the film would stand a far
better chance of succeeding, but it's essentially the same old faces
that have fouled up the last three out of four Bonds that are behind
this one - or hadn't you noticed? You know, there's kind of like a
track record there to refer to.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256760 ] Di, 25 April 2006 06:11
JHause  
WQ wrote:
> --- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
> actually read what I write. Earlier in this thread I did give a
> positive spin on the script in exactly the same place where Merrick
> gives it, which was about the only place he gave it, being with the
> dramatic end of it insofar as Bond's relationship with Vesper goes.

Strangely enough he's the only one who read it.

WQ--negative woman-hating horse's ass or toady? You decide...
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256762 ] Di, 25 April 2006 18:10
WQ  
JHause wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > --- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
> > actually read what I write. Earlier in this thread I did give a
> > positive spin on the script in exactly the same place where Merrick
> > gives it, which was about the only place he gave it, being with the
> > dramatic end of it insofar as Bond's relationship with Vesper goes.
>
> Strangely enough he's the only one who read it.
>
> WQ--negative woman-hating horse's ass or toady? You decide...

--- The script has been reviewed by a few others, Latino Review [they
gushed but only reviewed the first act], and Moriarty and Stax, both of
whom were more balanced in their pros and cons of the whole script, but
Stax found the Bond-Vesper relationship didn't work well. So far, it
reads like the film will come out uneven at best, some strong spots but
also glaring weakness too. CR might be aiming at being more like FRWL,
but I don't sense it'll end up being anywhere near in the same league -
more like allusions to FRWL with heavy TND/TWINE/DAD influences of the
feeble-minded kind.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256763 ] Di, 25 April 2006 18:51
jeffwahlman  
Latino Review did read the whole script, just only talked about the
first act

Moriatry never saw the script and just was basing his opinion off the
Latino Review script review. He's in the "they should have let QT
shake it up, but otherwise they should stick to the formula since only
A-List fanboy directors can change a franchise" camp.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256764 ] Di, 25 April 2006 19:37
WQ  
jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Latino Review did read the whole script, just only talked about the
> first act
>
> Moriatry never saw the script and just was basing his opinion off the
> Latino Review script review. He's in the "they should have let QT
> shake it up, but otherwise they should stick to the formula since only
> A-List fanboy directors can change a franchise" camp.

--- Makes you wonder why they only talked about the first half, which
they seemed to cream in their pants over, but dismissed going into
detail about the other two-thirds. You'd think that maybe by now, with
the others having given full reviews, they'd lay it on the line
themselves as to what they really think of the rest of it. Sounds kind
of biased to me.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256771 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 00:38
Will Traynor  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WZqdnZ05gKpf99DZRVn-rA [at] comcast.com...
>
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1145844231.892438.240070 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Rich Handley wrote:
>>> WQ wrote:
>>> > --- I haven't read the script but know of what's in it based on
>>> > reviews
>>> > of it so far, and Merrick's more detailed review really strikes a
>>> > chord
>>> > with me.
>>>
>>> If you haven't read it, then you do not know what's in it. You can't
>>> judge
>>> what you haven't read.
>>
>> --- Oh, let's not get picky here. Nobody other than these reviewers and
>> relevant people related with EON have read the script, but plenty of it
>> has been leaked already and cobbling all the pieces together, along
>> with fragments of teaser film clips released so far, one can get a
>> pretty good sense of where this is heading. Merrick's review sheds
>> even more light and according to his take on it, it seems to gel more
>> or less with my own views as I've sensed about the script/film and
>> already expressed them, and that's without my having read the script
>> and he has. In fact, it even surprised me that I was in as much
>> agreement with what he said, or at least understood exactly what he
>> meant about whatever positive and negative views he had of it. Maybe
>> Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength that you can't
>> relate to.
>
>
> "Not get picky"? "Merrick and I are just both on a similar wavelength
> that you can't relate to"?
>
> Geezus WQ, you come across really poorly. I think you enjoy being a
> naysayer. I trust you are your self-inflicted misery is somehow a
> comfort.
>

That's the only thing I can think of, too......

> Me, I think "Casino Royale" is gonna kick ass. I certainly could be
> wrong, but at least my optimism doesn't cloud my judgment.
>
>

I'm cautiously optimistic - I think that's a good way of putting it.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256773 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 01:16
Rich Handley  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>--- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
>actually read what I write.

It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256775 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 02:07
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >--- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
> >actually read what I write.
>
> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.

--- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
"talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
substance to the discussion. He doesn't have to write a thesis in
response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get a
pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm wrestling.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256777 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 03:21
Tom Zielinski  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1146010030.351854.209350 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich Handley wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>> >--- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
>> >actually read what I write.
>>
>> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> --- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
> "talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
> don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
> disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
> mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
> enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
> that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
> contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
> pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
> pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
> anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
> the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
> that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
> interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
> substance to the discussion.


If you're referring to me (I'm not sure), I'll submit that I have posted my
thoughts with some modicum of substance on the film.

But I feel you are the one that is the snob. And the (largely unjustified)
negative perspective that you consistently throw about gets boring.

I think the next Bond film will be very good. I don't need to justify my
thoughts to you. Further, my perspective is equally valid.

Let's talk again when the film is released. Exchanging thoughts with you
now is simply not worth the energy.



> He doesn't have to write a thesis in
> response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
> whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
> too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
> being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
> come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
> then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get a
> pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm wrestling.


Whatever.






Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that apathy may be the deepest insult..."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256778 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 03:38
Rich Handley  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.
>--- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
>"talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
>don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
>disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
>mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
>enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
>that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
>contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
>pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
>pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
>anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
>the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
>that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
>interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
>substance to the discussion. He doesn't have to write a thesis in
>response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
>whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
>too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
>being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
>come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
>then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get a
>pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm wrestling.


I rest my case.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256779 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 05:11
WQ  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1146010030.351854.209350 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rich Handley wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >> >--- Geez, I wish everyone could get past my so-called "naysaying" and
> >> >actually read what I write.
> >>
> >> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.
> >
> > --- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
> > "talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
> > don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
> > disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
> > mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
> > enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
> > that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
> > contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
> > pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
> > pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
> > anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
> > the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
> > that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
> > interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
> > substance to the discussion.
>
> If you're referring to me (I'm not sure), I'll submit that I have posted my
> thoughts with some modicum of substance on the film.
>
> But I feel you are the one that is the snob. And the (largely unjustified)
> negative perspective that you consistently throw about gets boring.

--- It may be "largely unjustified," but it's no more boring than the
same people always giving a positive perspective - largely unjustified
as well.

> I think the next Bond film will be very good. I don't need to justify my
> thoughts to you. Further, my perspective is equally valid.

Of course it is, I'm not arguing it. And you don't have to justify
your thoughts either if you don't want. But if you're going to keep it
all to yourself bu tthen berate someone who does widely express his
thoughts on the subject, i.e. referring to that someone as a snob, then
that's just contributing your 2 cents worth that fundamentally adds
nothing to the discussion.

> Let's talk again when the film is released. Exchanging thoughts with you
> now is simply not worth the energy.

The discussion about CR the script and film is all hypothetical at this
point, which is all it can be, and that's how I talk about it. I have
very defined hypothetical views borne out of being able to read how
things will end up based on what I learn. A lot of people have trouble
coming up with well-defined hypothetical views and mistakenly argue
with those who do have them on a literal, sometimes almost personal,
level instead of a figurative and detached one. Apparently it seems
you're more comfortable with literal language and that's fine. That
just means you have to see the movie before you can articulate any
views about it. In figurative terms, I'm able to articulate views about
it without seeing it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a
pronouncement of indisputable fact or truth. I might fall into a copy
of a CR script tomorrow and who knows, maybe after reading it I might
have a completely different view of the film, either in a stronger
positive way or more negative one. Besides, if one doesn't get into
hypothetical discussion at this stage, what can one really talk about
when it comes to the film other than banal gibberish that neither
provokes nor enlightens, or worse: reading endless postings by Moo Moo
Sandwich? I don't know, I guess I just have a tough time being
superficial. But yeah, the final, and truer, words on the subject will
come after the film's release and we'll see how good you are with
verbal diahhrea then.

> > He doesn't have to write a thesis in
> > response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
> > whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
> > too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
> > being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
> > come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
> > then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get a
> > pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm wrestling.
>
> Whatever.

Easy for you to say.


>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that apathy may be the deepest insult..."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256780 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 05:20
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.
> >--- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
> >"talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
> >don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
> >disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
> >mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
> >enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
> >that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
> >contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
> >pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
> >pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
> >anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
> >the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
> >that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
> >interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
> >substance to the discussion. He doesn't have to write a thesis in
> >response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
> >whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
> >too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
> >being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
> >come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
> >then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get a
> >pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm wrestling.
>
> I rest my case.

There you go, your 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of substance
to the discussion. Saying 'I rest my case' without explaining how the
case is rested is basically a hollow response, no different than if you
had instead said, 'I had a peanut today.' Essentially it's a
pointless point to make, so what's the point of making it?
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256781 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 09:41
JHause  
WQ wrote:
> There you go, your 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of substance
> to the discussion. Saying 'I rest my case' without explaining how the
> case is rested is basically a hollow response, no different than if you
> had instead said, 'I had a peanut today.' Essentially it's a
> pointless point to make, so what's the point of making it?

Because it's fun to expose a jackass.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256784 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 12:36
Tom Zielinski  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1146021605.861630.97270 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich Handley wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>> >> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.
>> >--- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
>> >"talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
>> >don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
>> >disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
>> >mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
>> >enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
>> >that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
>> >contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
>> >pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
>> >pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
>> >anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
>> >the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
>> >that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
>> >interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
>> >substance to the discussion. He doesn't have to write a thesis in
>> >response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
>> >whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
>> >too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
>> >being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
>> >come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
>> >then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get a
>> >pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm wrestling.
>>
>> I rest my case.
>
> There you go, your 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of substance
> to the discussion. Saying 'I rest my case' without explaining how the
> case is rested is basically a hollow response, no different than if you
> had instead said, 'I had a peanut today.' Essentially it's a
> pointless point to make, so what's the point of making it?


I had a peanut today.




Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that tomorrow he might try a marshmallow..."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256788 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 17:03
Kent  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CumdnTw8vvRtUNPZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...

Mate, don't waste your time. He's not someone who is open to anyone else's
opinions. What you're attempting to do is akin to talking with a brick
wall, except a brick wall won't contradict itself, patronise you or behave
hypocritically. The guy you're trying to have a discussion with wrote off
Casino Royale before we even knew anything of the script. He told us, "EON
has dug it's grave" when Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond. The
reason? He couldn't remember him from Tomb Raider. He's also stated on a
number of occassions that he hasn't really liked a Bond film since OHMSS.
So of course he's not going to enjoy CR, no matter how hard you try to
convince him. Why would he? He hasn't been a fan of the franchise since
1969!!!

His gibberish drove me nuts months ago, so I killfiled him. And you know
what? The newsgroup reads just fine without his "contributions".

cheers

Kent
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256789 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 18:03
WQ  
Kent wrote:
> "Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:CumdnTw8vvRtUNPZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> Mate, don't waste your time. He's not someone who is open to anyone else's
> opinions. What you're attempting to do is akin to talking with a brick
> wall, except a brick wall won't contradict itself, patronise you or behave
> hypocritically. The guy you're trying to have a discussion with wrote off
> Casino Royale before we even knew anything of the script. He told us, "EON
> has dug it's grave" when Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond. The
> reason? He couldn't remember him from Tomb Raider. He's also stated on a
> number of occassions that he hasn't really liked a Bond film since OHMSS.
> So of course he's not going to enjoy CR, no matter how hard you try to
> convince him. Why would he? He hasn't been a fan of the franchise since
> 1969!!!
>
> His gibberish drove me nuts months ago, so I killfiled him. And you know
> what? The newsgroup reads just fine without his "contributions".

--- Thanks for killfiling me, but you're more or less right about all
that, except let me correct you where you've either distorted things or
omitted them.

a. I'm open to listening to anyone who's got anything worth listening
to, i.e. reasoned arguments contrary to mine.

b. I never wrote off CR because I've always said I'll still end up
seeing it and that "anything's possible" with the film, that it could
very well end up surprising the hell out of me. I'm just very skeptical
that it will succeed, as I have right to be just as those who are
highly optimistic. It's not a one-way street, you know.

c. True, I couldn't remember Craig from Tomb Raider, but that only
still goes to show that he has no distinct screen presence of any
memorable impact - at least in that film he didn't. Nor in Road to
Perdition or Layer Cake, in which he was the lead, and a lead with no
real memorable impact as his character suffered from being stuck in an
incomprehensible script.

d. OHMSS was the last great Bond film, but there have been others after
it that I've liked to some degree or other, though not as much as OHMSS
or any of the Connenrys, i.e FYEO, TLD, GE.

e. How can you convince me, or anyone for that matter, to enjoy CR if
after I've seen it, or anyone else has seen it, I don't like it for the
reasons I come up with, or anyone else doesn't like it for the reasons
they come up with. It's as if you yourself are determined to like it
come hell or high water, whether it'll be truly putrid and universally
panned or not. I wonder who's the real extremist here.

e. If I haven't been a fan of the franchise since 1969, then why am I
even bothering expressing any views on the subject in something so
mundane as Google postings 37 years later?

I stand corrected. Of course, I wouldn't have had to have bothered
with this had someone actually read what I write in the first place,
rather read what they want to erroneously believe.


>
> cheers
>
> Kent
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256790 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 18:50
James Hunter  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iJWdnc8wYPVU0NLZRVn-jw [at] comcast.com...
>
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1146021605.861630.97270 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Rich Handley wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >> >> It's not worth it when you talk down to anyone who disagrees with
you.
> >> >--- The "talking down," if that's how you read it, is to those who
> >> >"talk down" themselves with their own "irrefutable" point of view. I
> >> >don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, so long as they back up their
> >> >disagreements that, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, go beyond
> >> >mere superficialities of why they think CR will work. It's not good
> >> >enough to me if someone merely says, "Yeah, CR is gonna kick ass," and
> >> >that's all he says and then he goes to dismiss my more reasoned-out
> >> >contrary views, which can be quite lengthy at times, as nothing but
> >> >pooh-poohing or naysaying or talking down to. That just amounts to
> >> >pseudo-intellectual snobbery. He doesn't have to like or agree with
> >> >anything I say, but at least put up an intellectual fight. I respect
> >> >the few around here who have the fortitude to get into the mud like
> >> >that. But if a guy's too lazy to that, then he shouldn't even bother
> >> >interjecting his meaningless 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of
> >> >substance to the discussion. He doesn't have to write a thesis in
> >> >response to anything I say, a simple insightful sentence would do,
> >> >whether pro or con. But then, I guess even that's sometimes a little
> >> >too much to expect of a lot of people within a groups forum like this,
> >> >being the wild wild west of the communication world where wordslingers
> >> >come on the scene, fire their volley of verbal bullets at random and
> >> >then leave town for a few days rather than head over to a tavern, get
a
> >> >pint of beer and engage in some good old-fashioned verbal arm
wrestling.
> >>
> >> I rest my case.
> >
> > There you go, your 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of substance
> > to the discussion. Saying 'I rest my case' without explaining how the
> > case is rested is basically a hollow response, no different than if you
> > had instead said, 'I had a peanut today.' Essentially it's a
> > pointless point to make, so what's the point of making it?
>
>
> I had a peanut today.
>
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay
this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands'
three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that tomorrow he might try a marshmallow..."
>
>

And I rest my peanut.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256791 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 19:59
Tom Zielinski  
"Kent" <K [at] stackmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ZL3g.16639$vy1.10253 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:CumdnTw8vvRtUNPZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> Mate, don't waste your time. He's not someone who is open to anyone
> else's opinions. What you're attempting to do is akin to talking with a
> brick wall, except a brick wall won't contradict itself, patronise you or
> behave hypocritically. The guy you're trying to have a discussion with
> wrote off Casino Royale before we even knew anything of the script. He
> told us, "EON has dug it's grave" when Daniel Craig was announced as the
> new Bond. The reason? He couldn't remember him from Tomb Raider. He's
> also stated on a number of occassions that he hasn't really liked a Bond
> film since OHMSS. So of course he's not going to enjoy CR, no matter how
> hard you try to convince him. Why would he? He hasn't been a fan of the
> franchise since 1969!!!
>
> His gibberish drove me nuts months ago, so I killfiled him. And you know
> what? The newsgroup reads just fine without his "contributions".


Heh. I may just do that. I don't like to kill-file anyone except whom I
perceive to be out-and-out trolls, and I had not perceived WQ that way. He
knows his stuff, and he and I have in fact agreed on many things Bond over
the years. Which makes his postings and responses and rebuttals to the
venerable Phil Gerrard and Mac and his overall negative take on CR all the
more frustrating.

But the condescension is palpable. Perhaps it's the CR screenplay he's
apparently written that he perceives as so much better than the smidgen of
stuff we know about the film today.

Ah well, thanks for the thoughts mate. I appreciate it.

Oh yeah...

I had a peanut today.



Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that tomorrow he might have a Cadbury..."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256792 ] Do, 27 April 2006 01:41
Rich Handley  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>There you go, your 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of substance
>to the discussion. Saying 'I rest my case' without explaining how the
>case is rested is basically a hollow response, no different than if you
>had instead said, 'I had a peanut today.' Essentially it's a
>pointless point to make, so what's the point of making it?

It was self-evident. Your post epitomized my original point. There was,
thus, no need for me to say more.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256793 ] Do, 27 April 2006 01:44
Rich Handley  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> said:
>But the condescension is palpable. Perhaps it's the CR screenplay he's
>apparently written that he perceives as so much better than the smidgen of
>stuff we know about the film today.

Exactly, Tom -- that's what he doesn't seem to see, that he comes off as so
condescending to everyone who disagrees with him. It makes him sound like
a petulant child. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing his supposed
screenplay to see if it's any better than what EON is doing.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256795 ] Do, 27 April 2006 03:14
WQ  
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> "Kent" <K [at] stackmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ZL3g.16639$vy1.10253 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:CumdnTw8vvRtUNPZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
> >
> > Mate, don't waste your time. He's not someone who is open to anyone
> > else's opinions. What you're attempting to do is akin to talking with a
> > brick wall, except a brick wall won't contradict itself, patronise you or
> > behave hypocritically. The guy you're trying to have a discussion with
> > wrote off Casino Royale before we even knew anything of the script. He
> > told us, "EON has dug it's grave" when Daniel Craig was announced as the
> > new Bond. The reason? He couldn't remember him from Tomb Raider. He's
> > also stated on a number of occassions that he hasn't really liked a Bond
> > film since OHMSS. So of course he's not going to enjoy CR, no matter how
> > hard you try to convince him. Why would he? He hasn't been a fan of the
> > franchise since 1969!!!
> >
> > His gibberish drove me nuts months ago, so I killfiled him. And you know
> > what? The newsgroup reads just fine without his "contributions".
>
>
> Heh. I may just do that. I don't like to kill-file anyone except whom I
> perceive to be out-and-out trolls, and I had not perceived WQ that way. He
> knows his stuff, and he and I have in fact agreed on many things Bond over
> the years. Which makes his postings and responses and rebuttals to the
> venerable Phil Gerrard and Mac and his overall negative take on CR all the
> more frustrating.

--- Those sparrings with Phil and Mac were classics and should be
viewed as such in the annals of Google postings. It sure livened
things up around here. It's almost as if I had to beat them up a
little into a pulp, Phil especially, to extract why they were so
thumbs-up on CR and just about everything associated with it. And you
know, once they did come out of their one-note "yes, CR will be great"
shell, that's when their points of view started making some sense to
me. I still may disagree with how they view CR, but at least I now
have a handle on what makes them view it in the way they do and that's
what really counts, and what really can be respected.

> But the condescension is palpable. Perhaps it's the CR screenplay he's
> apparently written that he perceives as so much better than the smidgen of
> stuff we know about the film today.

--- You know, when people read a lot of posts it's virtually impossible
to keep track of what was said in what way to whom and why, and even
then some people don't read all the posts to understand the context in
which it may have been said, so everything gets mixed up with
everything else and before you know it, someone's accusing me of
all-around condescension. If there's condescension, it's either a
direct follow-up to what had previously been discussed with the person
and overlooked by the bystanding reader, or it's well-founded
condescension towards someone who's just being a wise-ass with nothing
of value to contribute to any discussion - I think JHause rings a bell
in this case. As for the screenplay bit being the cause of my
condescension, it's an interesting theory really, but I think it has
more to do with people not laying their beliefs on the line, or even
having any, that bugs me more and propels me into calling their bluff,
if they even have one.

>
> Ah well, thanks for the thoughts mate. I appreciate it.
>
> Oh yeah...
>
> I had a peanut today.

--- I used to read the Peanuts comic strip. Does that count?

>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that tomorrow he might have a Cadbury..."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256796 ] Do, 27 April 2006 03:31
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >There you go, your 2 cents worth that contributes nothing of substance
> >to the discussion. Saying 'I rest my case' without explaining how the
> >case is rested is basically a hollow response, no different than if you
> >had instead said, 'I had a peanut today.' Essentially it's a
> >pointless point to make, so what's the point of making it?
>
> It was self-evident. Your post epitomized my original point. There was,
> thus, no need for me to say more.

--- That's like saying because there's a bloody knife on the table, a
dead body on the floor and someone standing at the door, it's
self-evident that who's standing at the door killed the victim. You're
not explaining how, or even if it can be disproved. You're not taking
a stand with any reasoned rationales. You just use throwaway lines
like 'it was self-evident.' It's the lazy way out that expects me to
know what exactly was self-evident, everything or just a part or parts
of it? And which part[s] of it was self-evident, in which way was
it/were they self-evident as you see them [since self-evident is a
subjective conclusion], and couldn't there also possibly be any
positives and negatives to it/them and not just positives or negatives?
You give empty black-and-white answers when they should be in
enriching color.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256797 ] Do, 27 April 2006 03:57
Mac  
WQ wrote:


> --- Those sparrings with Phil and Mac were classics and should be
> viewed as such in the annals of Google postings. It sure livened
> things up around here. It's almost as if I had to beat them up a
> little into a pulp, Phil especially, to extract why they were so
> thumbs-up on CR and just about everything associated with it. And you
> know, once they did come out of their one-note "yes, CR will be great"
> shell, that's when their points of view started making some sense to
> me.

You know, this only goes to show that you are as poor at reading
the posts here as you claim others are when reading yours.

At no time, either one-note or using a full orchestral score, did I
say "CASINO ROYALE will be great". In fact, few of our "sparrings"
have had much to do with CASINO ROYALE specifically.

Beaten to a pulp? All I've done is objected to a couple of your
harebrained theories and pointed out a couple of times where
you knowledge of Bond is lacking.
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
a barefoot and pregnant Brittany Spears."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256798 ] Do, 27 April 2006 04:05
JHause  
WQ wrote:
>
> --- That's like saying because there's a bloody knife on the table, a
> dead body on the floor and someone standing at the door, it's
> self-evident that who's standing at the door killed the victim.

Keep your dating life out of it.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256799 ] Do, 27 April 2006 05:00
WQ  
Mac wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
>
> > --- Those sparrings with Phil and Mac were classics and should be
> > viewed as such in the annals of Google postings. It sure livened
> > things up around here. It's almost as if I had to beat them up a
> > little into a pulp, Phil especially, to extract why they were so
> > thumbs-up on CR and just about everything associated with it. And you
> > know, once they did come out of their one-note "yes, CR will be great"
> > shell, that's when their points of view started making some sense to
> > me.
>
> You know, this only goes to show that you are as poor at reading
> the posts here as you claim others are when reading yours.
>
> At no time, either one-note or using a full orchestral score, did I
> say "CASINO ROYALE will be great". In fact, few of our "sparrings"
> have had much to do with CASINO ROYALE specifically.
>
> Beaten to a pulp? All I've done is objected to a couple of your
> harebrained theories and pointed out a couple of times where
> you knowledge of Bond is lacking.

--- Well, now you're forcing me back into checking up on all my old
posts with you to refresh my memory as to what it was all about. But
there, you see, I guess I'm right about how everything just gets mixed
up with everything else then. Or maybe you're not quite clear on what
really was discussed as much as you believe you are. Either way, too
much trouble to track down those posts to see what was what.

> --
> --Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
> a barefoot and pregnant Brittany Spears."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256800 ] Do, 27 April 2006 06:32
JHause  
Even WQ doesn't read WQ.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256801 ] Do, 27 April 2006 13:38
Rich Handley  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
>Even WQ doesn't read WQ.

He probably got tired of feeling condescended to.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256802 ] Do, 27 April 2006 13:38
Rich Handley  
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>> It was self-evident. Your post epitomized my original point. There was,
>> thus, no need for me to say more.
>--- That's like saying because there's a bloody knife on the table, a
>dead body on the floor and someone standing at the door, it's
>self-evident that who's standing at the door killed the victim.

No, it's not.

> You give empty black-and-white answers when they should be in
>enriching color.

No, I don't.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256803 ] Do, 27 April 2006 14:49
Mac  
Rich Handley wrote:

> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>>> It was self-evident. Your post epitomized my original point.
>>> There was, thus, no need for me to say more.
>> --- That's like saying because there's a bloody knife on the table, a
>> dead body on the floor and someone standing at the door, it's
>> self-evident that who's standing at the door killed the victim.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> You give empty black-and-white answers when they should be in
>> enriching color.
>
> No, I don't.

I understood you perfectly, Rich. Sure I wasn't alone.
--
--Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitibility of
a sozzled Paula Abdul."
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256805 ] Do, 27 April 2006 18:21
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
> >Even WQ doesn't read WQ.
>
> He probably got tired of feeling condescended to.

--- That one I like.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256806 ] Do, 27 April 2006 18:22
WQ  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
> >> It was self-evident. Your post epitomized my original point. There was,
> >> thus, no need for me to say more.
> >--- That's like saying because there's a bloody knife on the table, a
> >dead body on the floor and someone standing at the door, it's
> >self-evident that who's standing at the door killed the victim.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> > You give empty black-and-white answers when they should be in
> >enriching color.
>
> No, I don't.

--- Oh, I get the joke now.
Re: Ain't It Cool News reviews the CR script [message #256807 ] Do, 27 April 2006 21:54
Tom Zielinski  
"Rich Handley" <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
news:j9b1529enrudoo1gn8c7lpd5oie5702b2r [at] 4ax.com...
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> said:
>>> It was self-evident. Your post epitomized my original point. There
>>> was,
>>> thus, no need for me to say more.
>>--- That's like saying because there's a bloody knife on the table, a
>>dead body on the floor and someone standing at the door, it's
>>self-evident that who's standing at the door killed the victim.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> You give empty black-and-white answers when they should be in
>>enriching color.
>
> No, I don't.


I had a peanut today.
Vorheriges Thema:James Bond site you dont wanna miss?
Nächstes Thema:MI6 places ads for new 007s
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 04:58:07 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,08975 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered