tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post9014454398648171912..comments2024-03-05T21:05:36.848-05:00Comments on CommentaramaFilms: Bond-arama: No. 009 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)AndrewPricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-55531929524737315452014-02-26T15:46:27.721-05:002014-02-26T15:46:27.721-05:00I really like this film. Have to be in the right m...I really like this film. Have to be in the right mood to sit through it all in one go, it can work just fine in several sittings as it has a broad time frame and is somewhat episodic. I do think From Russia With Love is the very best Bond film, and then this one and Skyfall are next. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-79597573443079400472013-12-13T17:34:48.094-05:002013-12-13T17:34:48.094-05:00Rustbelt, Too late. You said bad things about Con...Rustbelt, Too late. You said bad things about Connery... we can't be friends anymore. ;-P<br /><br />And to be fair, <i>Breakin' 2</i> would have been better with Connery, but not <i>Breakin</i>.<br /><br />In all seriousness, we'll never know about Lazenby. I think the biggest problem he would have faced is that the franchise was about to go stupid for a decade.<br /><br />Yes, <i>Operation Double 007</i>! What a TURD!!<br /><br />In truth, I'm not a fan of the gadgets either. They are too plot-specific and too fantasy-prone. That's one thing I really liked about <i>Skyfall</i>, when Q tells him they don't do gadgets anymore.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-67126148104498769482013-12-13T16:01:32.574-05:002013-12-13T16:01:32.574-05:00Andrew, the invoice is on its way. :)
In all hone...Andrew, the invoice is on its way. :)<br /><br />In all honesty, I don't dislike Connery as an actor. Granted, I still think he only has one character, but he plays that character well. I just get tired of all the Connery snobs who say that everything under the sun- OHMSS, TWINE, Predator, Rocky III, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, peanut butter- would just be better with Sean in it. The man had his strengths, but also limitations. And I think Lazenby could've grown well in the role and as an actor if he'd stayed with the series. (He's stated his reason for leaving was absolutely terrible advice from his then-agent. He's added that he's always regretted the move.) Maybe the calamities of the 70's could've been avoided...<br /><br />Oh, and the MST3K film you're thinking of is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Mfmn7vN4g" rel="nofollow">"Operation Double 007."</a> (Also known as "OK, Connery" and "Operation Kid Brother.") Not only does it star several Bond series regulars (M, Moneypenny, the hot chick from FRWL, Number 2), it stars NEIL Connery- brother of Sean- as the lead character. (Hence the 'kid brother' alternate title.) It seems being a plastic surgeon with the ability to hypnotize and read lips are the perfect abilities for a secret agent. (His voice, however, was overdubbed with an American accent.) <br />For a more thorough review of Sean and Neil's careers, here's the SOL crew's take: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BvqqlcC1o0" rel="nofollow">LINK.</a><br /><br />And you what? Bond villains all stink. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjfFAHPRhhU" rel="nofollow">Joel puts 'em all to shame.</a><br /><br />And one final thought on OHMSS: I'm glad there was less emphasis on gadgets. In the 60's, it was almost like Q was saying, "here's the gadgets. You, the audience, now need only guess the plot by figuring out where these fit in!" Seems kind of cheap that British filmmakers would steal one of Toho Studio's top kaiju movie cliches and try to pass it off as their own. Rustbelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12190297078043033514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-6009509477858431492013-12-13T13:59:20.586-05:002013-12-13T13:59:20.586-05:00Glenn, All very fair points. And that is a great ...Glenn, All very fair points. And that is a great question: if they had started the franchise with this film, would this film have been enough to develop the franchise or would it have killed it? Obviously, it's impossible to say for sure, but I tend to think that very few of the Bond films could have started the franchise. Personally, I don't think this film is one of those.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-15135069133955488412013-12-13T13:52:29.191-05:002013-12-13T13:52:29.191-05:00Quite a discussion on what has always been conside...Quite a discussion on what has always been considered a "lesser" of the Bond films. Interesting. My 2 cents worth.<br /><br />I started reading the Bond books in high school, in order, as they came out, way back when ...<br /><br />We haven't got to Goldfinger yet, but it is one of those rare occurrences when the movie was actually better than the book ... but that can wait for now.<br /><br />I've always meant to re-read all the books, but have never got around to it, so my memory is a little vague. However, as I recall, OHMSS was my favorite of all the books. Not sure why, but it probably had to do with the shock of the ending with Bond's bride being killed so quickly.<br /><br />Thus I was really looking forward to the movie. Disappointed with Connery missing in action, but you know, I still really liked the movie. I watched all the Bond films again, in order, a couple of years ago just after the first Craig film came out, and again, I still enjoyed OHMSS despite all the flaws. Not perfect, but a decent action film that had more depth then most films of this type.<br /><br />You know, I really didn't mind Lazenby in the role and kinda liked the "this never happened to the other guy" opening. After all, these are just movies, not real life (umm, right?). Sure, he was a bit stiff, but as mentioned by others, he played the vulnerable parts, when required, well enough to the point where I can't imagine Connery in the role in this specific film.<br /><br />As mentioned by others, the action sequences are top notch and who really cares about the plot holes except the nerds. Rigg is certainly great as Bond's bride to be as it would take a very strong presence to get Bond to fall in love. The villain is one of the best of all the films and the supporting players are also top notch.<br /><br />And we can't forget the great John Barry soundtrack, but more than that, it includes one of the great film love songs, "We Have All The Time In The World" sung beautifully by Louis Armstrong.<br /><br />For me, it all works and just edging into the top ten is about right.<br /><br />So I wonder, where would OHMSS be ranked if it was the FIRST Bond film. No DN, GF, FRWL ... no Sean Connery. No preconceived notion as to what a Bond film should be. Would it have led to more Bond films? Or would it have killed the franchise right off the bat? Was George Lazenby's performance good enough to carry forward?<br /><br />Since we know Cary Grant turned down the role of James Bond because he only wanted to do the one movie, then we know they were planning a franchise from the beginning. However, in this fantasy world, let's say they went with the unknown Lazenby, but he bailed out after OHMSS.<br /><br />Something to think about (or not).Glennhttps://www.smashwords.com/books/view/313287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-4191620879305710022013-12-13T13:19:49.350-05:002013-12-13T13:19:49.350-05:00Backthrow, Agreed. Even the worst films in the fr...Backthrow, Agreed. Even the worst films in the franchise have their moments.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-19221361148915596412013-12-13T13:15:02.139-05:002013-12-13T13:15:02.139-05:00Yup, and even the very worst of the films still ha...Yup, and even the very worst of the films still have some good bits in them, here and there. A stunt, a line, a location, a gadget, a side character.Backthrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289433396695381105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-42065042835865394772013-12-13T13:01:51.743-05:002013-12-13T13:01:51.743-05:00Anon, I think the Bond films sit in waves. There ...Anon, I think the Bond films sit in waves. There are truly classic/excellent films. Then you have good films. Then you have a series of decent films. Then it gets shady. I would say that most of the franchise falls into the decent and above range with 12/13 falling into the good and above category, and probably around 5/6 falling into the excellent category.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-89387072758466045382013-12-13T12:56:25.882-05:002013-12-13T12:56:25.882-05:00It's settled then. Thunderball, From Russia Wi...It's settled then. Thunderball, From Russia With Love, OHMSS, Casino Royale and Goldfinger are the only really good Bond Films. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-15117870594995580332013-12-13T12:55:42.588-05:002013-12-13T12:55:42.588-05:00tryanmax, For being an action franchise, there are...tryanmax, For being an action franchise, there are very few chases or fights that really feel all that special or exciting. It's kind of interesting really. I suspect the fact you know Bond can't die is the problem.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-64272185983679398142013-12-13T12:47:47.598-05:002013-12-13T12:47:47.598-05:00Andrew, I'll elaborate on my claim with this: ...Andrew, I'll elaborate on my claim with this: it is extremely rare that the chase scene in an older film will get my pulse up. This one did. tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-87244572416815336202013-12-13T12:46:12.259-05:002013-12-13T12:46:12.259-05:00tryanmax, This one does have good action, and that...tryanmax, This one does have good action, and that is surprisingly rare in Bond films.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-68283741964734368902013-12-13T12:45:44.396-05:002013-12-13T12:45:44.396-05:00Backthrow, the Bond filmmakers, especially in the ...Backthrow, <i>the Bond filmmakers, especially in the 1960s, weren't all that concerned with continuity</i><br /><br />This is a serious pet peeve of mine throughout Hollywood. How fricken hard is it to change a line of dialog here or there and maintain continuity. Drives me crazy.<br /><br />You're welcome on the list. And yep, there will be a personal list to compare it to later.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-59091449816018772212013-12-13T12:38:40.867-05:002013-12-13T12:38:40.867-05:00Rustbelt, LOL! MST3k did another film too, an Ita...Rustbelt, LOL! MST3k did another film too, an Italian film that uses almost the entire cast of <i>From Russia With Love</i> and <i>Thunderball</i>, only without Connery. Awful!<br /><br />On Connery, I have to disagree. Connery has provided a lot of great characters outside of the Bond franchise: <i>Outland, Hunt for Red October, The Untouchables, Indiana Jones, Highlander, The Presidio</i> just to name a few. And the impulse to ask how Connery would have handled a film is because it's the best way to compare film to film to see how another actor would do - you take the guy who is recognized as the best and you ask how the others stack up.<br /><br />Also, I don't disagree that the chase scene with Lazenby is a good one, but Connery's Bond was never invincible. He fell for any trap involving a woman. He was often simply out muscled and he needed to be saved at times by others around him. He gets captured in every film pretty much.<br /><br />LOL! Send the invoice to our accounting department. :)AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-53170037391336979162013-12-13T09:26:35.943-05:002013-12-13T09:26:35.943-05:00One thing I meant to state earlier about OHMSS is ...One thing I meant to state earlier about <i>OHMSS</i> is that it has some excellent action sequences. I feel bad that so many people automatically dismiss this one on reputation b/c they are missing out on those. If we were judging Bond films on action sequences alone, I think this could easily be in the top 5, maybe even 3. tryanmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881154741574720094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-85532082516918699942013-12-13T02:47:16.397-05:002013-12-13T02:47:16.397-05:00Oh, and Andrew, thanks much for the clarification ...Oh, and Andrew, thanks much for the clarification on your aims with presenting the list in the way that you are doing it. I really was misunderstanding it before now. I was reading it all this time as a personal list that was somehow reconciling (or combining) your opinions of each film with what the average audiences think of them, case-by-case, not realizing you had a (potentially) different, personal ranking waiting in the wings. I think what threw me off were things like (in the case of LTK), "this didn't feel like a Bond film to me", though that one might've been in the comments section, I forget.Backthrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289433396695381105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-78621859693899446782013-12-13T02:33:57.252-05:002013-12-13T02:33:57.252-05:00I'm not as down on Connery as you, on this stu...I'm not as down on Connery as you, on this stuff (Connery=Agar? Harsh!); apart from his charisma, he does have some range, though on the narrow side (similar to the Duke, and Clint Eastwood, who are both great, but are hardly chameleons). He's been good in films such as WOMAN OF STRAW, MARNIE, THE HILL, THE ANDERSON TAPES and THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, but they're not much of a stretch from his better turns as 007 (maybe he's radically different in A FINE MADNESS and THE OFFENSE, but I haven't caught up with those yet). He was less vulnerable than Lazenby's Bond, but I liked how he'd get mussed-up by Red Grant and Oddjob, for instance, so he'd earn some of his heroic triumph through sweat and pain, unlike a lot of Moore's blow-dried efforts, though it's true that the outcome is never really in doubt when Connery is Bond (and Lee in ENTER THE DRAGON).<br /><br />That said, I agree that simply switching out Lazenby for Connery in the film we got wouldn't necessarily have made Everything All Better, as some claim. They may have fed Lazenby some Connery-like lines, but the vulnerability wouldn't be there with Connery, and the intimate scenes with Rigg, I think, might just come across as Sean shagging his latest bird, only one with a larger vocabulary than usual. But if Connery <i>had</i> stayed on for OHMSS (or if they had made it after TB --or after GF-- as originally planned), it would have been tailored completely to his particular strengths, and thus a different film, losing some of the things I really like about the OHMSS we <i>did</i> get.<br /><br />Lazenby hiding in the crowd (after clobbering a couple of SPECTRE goons and stealing a coat), while the enemy is closing in (the scenes shot and edited to match his growing disorientation and paranoia)... and then Tracy appears, is just magic. One of my favorite bits in the film.<br /><br />I actually like YOLT a lot; it's in my Top Ten, it's fun junk, but it's also a mess (partly because OHMSS was pushed back, due to logistical problems at the time). But I'm saving specifics for when its time comes in the rankings, and if Andrew doesn't already cover them all in the article. But no way would I place it above OHMSS in any normal ranking of the films based on overall quality, despite some of the strengths it <i>does</i> have.<br />Backthrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289433396695381105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-77696411998170924702013-12-13T02:29:18.764-05:002013-12-13T02:29:18.764-05:00Rustbelt,
Interesting points (and not just becaus...Rustbelt,<br /><br />Interesting points (and not just because you gave me props at the beginning, LOL). <br /><br />True about Blofeld not recognizing Bond being from the order of the books, but I do recognize that as a flaw in the film, though not as big as some point out. <br /><br />One, it's only an issue if you're watching the films in release order, which many people (indeed, many of the Bond-a-thons on TV) don't do. <br /><br />Two, the Bond filmmakers, especially in the 1960s, weren't all that concerned with continuity, apart from a few bits shared between DR. NO and FRWL, and Bond doing variations of tossing his hat onto the hat rack in Moneypenny's office. Witness, for instance, the Incredible Metamorphic Felix Leiter, never the same guy twice, in those days; ditto Blofeld. Though Blofeld was the threat (or puppet-master) in most of them, it was almost as though each new 007 adventure was starting from scratch (albeit with 007 a seasoned agent in each), with little or no connection to the last adventure, apart from the usual appearances of M, Moneypenny and Q.<br /><br />Three, what Tennessee Jed mentioned earlier... the 'Why-Clark-without-your-glasses-you-look-just-like-Superman' conceit. You just go with it. One could geekishly argue that, besides growing a foot or more in height, losing his scar and German accent and getting a completely new face since his solo escape at the end of YOLT, Blofeld might've assumed that Bond had perished in the volcanic climax of the last adventure. After all, Bond swam out to safety through that sea cave entrance where the poison gas was said to be, plus all the lava and explosions. Did Blofeld see that successful escape happen? In OHMSS, M tells Bond he's failed to get Blofeld through two years of 'Operation Bedlam', which is useless when you can't set up the target, so he's taking him off the case. Did Blofeld even know Bond was after him? I'm over-thinking this, I know, but still... LOL.<br /><br />[continued]Backthrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289433396695381105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-25634085315672648762013-12-12T23:52:29.584-05:002013-12-12T23:52:29.584-05:00"I used to be Bond, James Bond. Now I'm i...<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkgWJWTuu3Y" rel="nofollow">"I used to be Bond, James Bond. Now I'm in movies, bad movies."</a> (Fast forward to 1:00:58)<br /><br />Well, I'm here late and Backthrow pretty much hit the nail on everything I was going to say. A few things, though:<br /><br />-First, on Bond not recognizing Blofeld...as Backthrow noted, they're really following the book here. In the print series, SPECTRE is a minor group. In OHMSS, it's only the group's second appearance. In the first one, Thunderball, Bond and Blofeld never saw each other. That's why they don't recognize each other in this story. In the movie series, SPECTRE is often used as a substitute (DN, FRWL) for SMERSH ("Smiet Spionam," or "Death to Spies"), the USSR's execution branch. Basically, the filmmakers ignored the movies and carefully followed the text.<br /><br />-Second, Connery in this one? Geez...One thing I'm really getting tired of is hearing the devout Conneryists claim that any Bond movie would be better with Connery in it. Please, the guy has the acting range of an ant hill. If it weren't for "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," I never would've guessed he- like Jack Nicholson and Anthony Hopkins- had any other character to play besides himself. (FTR, Connery wanted to play Henry Jones, Sr. as a James Bond type, until Grand Emperor Spielberg told him, 'my way or the highway, bud.") Which leads me to...<br /><br />-Third, this movie can actually make audiences wonder if Bond will win. I recently read a good article on this film. When Bond escapes and ends up in the crowd (and Tracy rescues him), the filmmakers do a good job as showing Bond as vulnerable and Lazenby does a terrific job of displaying that vulnerability. Connery, based on everything I've seen him in, was incapable of this. And this, IMO, actually undermines his Bond films. If the hero is flawless and invulnerable, what tension can there possibly be? it makes the villains look weak and the plot move by the numbers. ("Enter the Dragon" is guilty of this, too.) <br />As an example, in 'Star Wars,' Luke Skywalker starts off as cocky and inexperienced in the first two films. These flaws make it possible that he could lose the fight. In 'Jedi,' he falls victim to temptation, or at least comes close. He's not invulnerable, and the outcome could still be in doubt, thus creating tension, suspense, and making the villains credible. <br />Connery either had the range of MST3K repeat offender John Agar and couldn't do this, or his ego is just so massive that refused to play anything other than a flawless hero character- and other elements of his movies suffer for it.<br />I have to give credit for the filmmakers adding this element. Story-wise, it helps a lot. <br /><br />Further note, Savalas' Blofeld has been very influential. Not only is he the best in the role, (he actually runs his organization and doesn't spend all day stroking his cat), but he's been referenced by other actors. I believe Clancy Brown cited this performance as the inspiration for his version of Lex Luthor in the "Superman Animated Series' back in the '90's.<br /><br />BTW, Andrew, my partner Science and I - along with our shadowy third man, Logic- will be sending you a bill for the ice we had to use on our chins today. Our jaws hit the floor after realizing how high YOLT could possibly rank.Rustbelthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12190297078043033514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-15125606072367463552013-12-12T22:48:25.320-05:002013-12-12T22:48:25.320-05:00Backthrow, No problem. For the record, I am tryin...Backthrow, No problem. For the record, I am trying very hard to avoid injecting my own tastes into the list. As you will see when we are finished, my list of favorites is rather different than this list. What I'm trying to do here is assess the overall impact/value, for lack of a better word, of these films within the franchise. Hence, I look at the film quality itself to see how the villain ranks, how Bond does, how the Bond girl does, and how well the plot holds together. I'm also looking at things like box office, continuing interest, how iconic each film was, and whether there is historical importance to the film. And my goal is to present a list that most fans would agree with as the way these should be ranked.<br /><br />The question above actually captures it perfectly -- if you were going to introduce someone to this franchise, what order would you pick.<br /><br />As an interesting aside, while picking exact spots is very difficult, there are definitely bands into which these films fall pretty easily -- A, B, C, D and F films.<br /><br />In terms of polls and critics and the such, I'm certainly not saying we need to agree with them -- I rarely do. But those things are solid evidence of what the public thinks, and this list is meant to try to capture a generalized view of the series, so the public is important. And let me add that while the public isn't always right, fans are no different. There is no right and wrong when it comes to taste.<br /><br />That's why the whole focus of this site has been on things I've found within films rather than just my review of films I like. To me, it's much more interesting to talk about how a film could be improved or a critical mistake or a moment of brilliance than it is to just say, "I really liked/hated it." That's why I avoid discussing my taste as much as possible (though I have been asked to do some film rankings, which I'll do next year).AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-75133158287081219372013-12-12T19:24:10.434-05:002013-12-12T19:24:10.434-05:00Kelly,
My comment wasn't intended as a slur o...Kelly,<br /><br />My comment wasn't intended as a slur or "gotcha" against Andrew, just something thought I observed and that I wondered about. If it came across as the former, or I'm dead wrong, my apologies to him and to you.<br /><br /> As for polls on such things (FoxNews or otherwise), I simply don't care about them enough to argue their merits. It's like if they asked the question, "What's your favorite color?", and Blue came in at 76%, while whatever I liked came in last, at a measly 5%... what am I supposed to do, yell, "Damn you, survey sampling! Orange was supposed to come out on top! Blue?!? Wrong, wrong, wrong!! I hate you all!!!", or "Jeez, almost everyone seems to love Blue, and some of the other hues to a lesser extent, and has a much lesser regard for Orange... Gads, I must some kind of bubble-bound freak; maybe I should seriously re-assess my likes and dislikes, and yield to the majority. They're right, I'm wrong. I know that now...". Yup, silly, in either case.<br /><br />I like Lazenby. I like Connery (at his best) and Craig, more. I like OHMSS (warts and all), as a film, and as a Bond film, more than most of the others in the series, including some with both Connery and Craig. I actually don't know what I'd put at #1 myself, since I pretty much consider FRWL, GF and OHMSS the "triple crown" of the series, with TB and Craig's CR very close behind.<br /><br />Whether "most fans", or the general public, share that view of OHMSS, or the opposite, is irrelevant to me, unless they simply write it off, without giving it a try sometime, in which case, I feel sorry for them... but, again, that's their loss; it doesn't diminish my personal enjoyment of it. Like anyone else, sometimes my likes dovetail with the masses, sometimes not. The same with professional film critics (Ebert, Reed, Roeper, A.O. Scott, etc), except I think a lot less of them, LOL.<br /><br />I'm glad Andrew thinks enough of OHMSS to place it as high as he has on his list. I also think a few films which he'll be placing higher is pretty wacky, by my lights, but I'll be interested to see where he puts them all. I'm just reacting to it, which is why I'm here, after all. :)Backthrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289433396695381105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-54814478754557278642013-12-12T18:19:23.519-05:002013-12-12T18:19:23.519-05:00I'm going to be gone for a while guys because ...I'm going to be gone for a while guys because I need to take care of a few things. I'll be back later. :)AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-36693617191100828882013-12-12T18:18:45.471-05:002013-12-12T18:18:45.471-05:00LOL, thanks for the enthusiastic vote of confidenc...LOL, thanks for the enthusiastic vote of confidence, Andrew, most appreciated! :) Backthrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02289433396695381105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-3905865659813876912013-12-12T18:13:13.030-05:002013-12-12T18:13:13.030-05:00I've followed the entire series and I have nev...I've followed the entire series and I have never seen Andrew mix his own personal likes or dislikes with his discussions. He's very much stuck with pointing out good and bad things with the characters and the plots, flaws and holes. When he has talked about iconic images or public response, he's pointed out how they've been spun off in the culture or he's pointed to box office returns, critic reception, and IMDB ratings. To say he is mixing his likes and dislikes in as a proxy for "what the general public thinks" is dishonest.<br /><br />I also have yet to see a response to the poll Andrew linked to.Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7059293386881623259.post-20901462155637886422013-12-12T17:42:41.821-05:002013-12-12T17:42:41.821-05:00Whatever.Whatever.AndrewPricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11312364467936820986noreply@blogger.com