The Man With The Golden Gun

Anything Alice Cooper or AC band related goes here

Moderators: Devon, Gorehound, Si, SickThings, Shoesalesman

User avatar
Si
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 4363
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:47 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by Si » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:14 pm

Whenever I've heard Alice retell the story he makes it sound like the band were just being "Cheeky" and trying to get their song used in a favourite movie series, rather then any ego thing.

nephtis
Trash
Trash
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:40 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by nephtis » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:18 am

> he has an enormous ego (not that I'd blame him).

Really? You must know him better than anyone on this board.
I don't claim to know him, but you do need an ego and a certain disposition to make it as an celebrity and as far as I know he hasn't exactly complained about the popularity...
I think you’ve missed the point.
I don't think so, the point was weather the use of the song in the movie would have increased popularity of the album and I speculated about that.

Then I added an personal oppinion about why I think it wasn't used - and why I would have reacted the same way if I had been in the producer's shoes.

You can certainly disagree, and I don't mind a little dispute as long as it's about opinions rather than personalities of the ones involved.

No matter the intention(s), in my eyes - with the hype and the group's and especially Alice's image it couldn't have looked anything but arrogant - somehow I doubt naïvety would have been the thing foremost on people's mind when thinking about the group, certainly not if they had never met.

It isn't called show *business* for nothing, I would have suspected that it was done as a publicity stunt, to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series - and I wouldn't have wanted to set an example for other artists to follow.

I'm talking appearances here, NOT intentions...

Btw, Si, 'cheeky' might sound a lot 'nicer' depending on the way it's used or the person using it, but from my understanding (not a native speaker here) it's actual meaning is not that far from an arrogant attitude...

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:46 am

>I don't claim to know him, but you do need an ego and a certain disposition to make it as an celebrity and as far as I know he hasn't exactly complained about the popularity...

>That’s all true. How does that make him “arrogant” though?

>I don't think so, the point was weather the use of the song in the movie would have increased popularity of the album and I speculated about that.

No, that is not the point. You said:
it *sounds* like it's Alice's brainchild. Though I wouldn't put it past Shep to mention the idea and see if the group picked it up...

I replied:
Just because Alice seemed to think that the producers of the film would have to use the song just because they were provided with it doesn't mean he was being “arrogant”. He was probably being naïve more than anything else.

The point being discussed is not about the “popularity of the album”. It’s your point about why Alice thought the song should be used that is being discussed.

>Then I added an personal oppinion about why I think it wasn't used - and why I would have reacted the same way if I had been in the producer's shoes.

No, that’s not true. My response about you missing the point is directly aimed at your comment about why Alice thought the song would be used. That’s why I carefully edited your post so that it was clear which part of it I was replying to. It would be great if you could try and read the posts as carefully as I try to reply to them.

>You can certainly disagree, and I don't mind a little dispute as long as it's about opinions rather than personalities of the ones involved.

I didn’t say anything about your ‘personality’ - no need to confuse things.

>No matter the intention(s), in my eyes - with the hype and the group's and especially Alice's image it couldn't have looked anything but arrogant –

I already provided you (as did Si) with an alternative scenario. I even provided you with a link with a quote from Alice’s assistant that would appear to support my claim rather than yours. Did you read it?

>somehow I doubt naïvety would have been the thing foremost on people's mind when thinking about the group, certainly not if they had never met.

>How do you know? Besides, you’re clouding the issue. You began by talking about Alice’s arrogance, now you refer to the ‘group’. Get your story straight.

> I would have suspected that it was done as a publicity stunt, to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series

Again, you’re confusing the issue. No – one said there would not have been an element of publicity – seeking. Also, you appear not to know a great deal about Alice (not that it stopped you from calling him “arrogant”), because contrary to what you have just written, he was a “genuine” admirer James Bond, even going back to the original novels, as well John Barry's music. How do you explain something like “Unfinished Sweet”?

> 'cheeky' might sound a lot 'nicer' depending on the way it's used or the person using it, but from my understanding (not a native speaker here) it's actual meaning is not that far from an arrogant attitude...

At last you shed some light (“not a native speaker”) on this. Actually, “arrogant” and “cheeky” mean totally different things.

nephtis
Trash
Trash
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:40 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by nephtis » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:06 am

:evil: I just knew you'd have to say something when I noticed you were online, so let's see what I can do about this and if I can manage to out-quote you.
---------------------------------------------------
>That’s all true. How does that make him “arrogant” though?


Read carefully, I claim that it makes the stunt and the person involved *look* arrogant. It's all about appearances and if you don't know the people personally, their actions are what you judge them by.
No, that is not the point. [...]The point being discussed is not about the “popularity of the album”. It’s your point about why Alice thought the song should be used that is being discussed.
That's not the point that started the topic, that was the point you chose to see in my reply and decided to discuss, but we can stick to that.

And just for the record, I never stated anything about 'why Alice *thought* it [TMWTGG] should be used' since I don't claim to know his mind.
I talked about why *I* think it wasn't and no careful editing of your reply / quotes can change that.
Btw, yes, I read the link and know the story, but oral history is one thing (and I think I read a slightly different version of this somewhere else, it might even have been Golf monster) and the post didn't judge the action or idea in any way or form.
You choose to see it one way, I pointed out how it might be recieved another way.
>How do you know? Besides, you’re clouding the issue. You began by talking about Alice’s arrogance, now you refer to the ‘group’.
I don't *know*, but this time, my speculation is supported by the very same link you gave - his controversial image. Put that in context with my statement above about 'the group's and especially Alice's image' you'll see why I'm not just talking about Alice, though he might have been the character people had foremost on their mind when the group was mentioned.
Also, you appear not to know a great deal about Alice (not that it stopped you from calling him “arrogant”)
What is it about 'arrogant' that rubs you the wrong way? I called the action of naming a song "The man with the golden gun" with the intention of forcing the issue of it being used for the up-coming film of the same name arrogant. I even said, that if I had been in the producer's shoes, I'd have considered the guy to be just that.

It's as if I'd design an avatar, name it "A_MichaelUK" and assume: "Ha, now he'll have to use it!"
I bet you wouldn't like that one bit (nor would you give me the satisfaction of actually using it) and your personal opinion about me wouldn't be all that flattering. The word 'arrogant' might even be one of the nicer adjectives you'd use for describing me.
because contrary to what you have just written, he was a “genuine” admirer James Bond
even going back to the original novels, as well John Barry's music.
Where exactly did I write that Alice wasn't or isn't an genuine fan of the series?
But the way he was going about this, it wasn't his admiration for the series that took the spot light, it was the desire to have one of his songs featured.
How do you explain something like “Unfinished Sweet”?
That was a nice tribute, more subtle, a lot less agressive than this would have been. It's admiration without trying to gain something in return and that I can respect.
At last you shed some light (“not a native speaker”) on this. Actually, “arrogant” and “cheeky” mean totally different things.
Probably, depending on emphasis and familiarity of the speaker to the one referred to, but I was under the impression that it meant something along the lines of impudent or insolent, both things that go often hand in hand with an arrogant attitude.
And I take it as an compliment that I needed to 'shed some light on it' for you to tell it's not my mother tongue. :p

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:07 pm

>I just knew you'd have to say something when I noticed you were online, so let's see what I can do about this and if I can manage to out-quote you.

I note your emoticon, but I also think you’re attempting to use humour to hide your defensiveness.

>Read carefully, I claim that it makes the stunt and the person involved *look* arrogant.

I did “read carefully”. That's why I noticed that you started to change your position. In your very first post in this thread, you wrote:
I'd have hated an arrogant brat trying to blackmail me into doing it his way.

At that point, pitkin88 asked you for an explanation. You then had to qualify your statement by saying:
“with the hype and the group's and especially Alice's image it couldn't have looked anything but arrogant”.

So you admit that you’re going by your perception rather than a generally agreed fact.

>It's all about appearances and if you don't know the people personally, their actions are what you judge them by.

Exactly. I do know Alice personally (although I didn't know him then) and I have read hundreds, maybe thousands of articles about Alice since 1972 and in none of them does he appear “arrogant” or described in that way. In fact, very often, Alice is often described as being the opposite of being “arrogant”. That’s why your statement was a little odd and my guess is that that’s why pitkin88 picked up on it. That’s why Si and I gave you alternative scenarios (and why I supported it by providing that link).

>That's not the point that started the topic, that was the point you chose to see in my reply and decided to discuss, but we can stick to that.

That’s right! I was replying DIRECTLY to something that YOU said, not the purpose of the question that began the thread! That’s why I quoted YOUR post. What’s your point?!

>And just for the record, I never stated anything about 'why Alice *thought* it [TMWTGG] should be used' since I don't claim to know his mind.

Actually you kind of did (at least indirectly). You said he was “arrogant”, the implication being that he was so “arrogant”, that he thought the song would have to be used.

>I talked about why *I* think it wasn't and no careful editing of your reply / quotes can change that.

I’m not trying to “change” anything. You seem very defensive. I’m trying to get you to explain why you think he was “arrogant”. You’ve already slightly changed your mind by saying he now only appeared "arrogant".

>Btw, yes, I read the link and know the story,

I’m not sure that you do.

>but oral history is one thing (and I think I read a slightly different version of this somewhere else, it might even have been Golf monster)

I don’t think him being “arrogant” appears in any "version" of the story. I'm open to correction on that (and it's not like there are several versions of the story in any case).

>You choose to see it one way, I pointed out how it might be recieved another way.

That’s kind of my point.

>I don't *know*, but this time, my speculation is supported by the very same link you gave - his controversial image.

That’s a fair point, but again you seem to be saying that Alice was so “arrogant” that he thought the song would be used despite the fact that he was SO controversial, whereas I think he was naïve in that he didn’t realise he would be TOO controversial a choice. Do you see the difference?

>you'll see why I'm not just talking about Alice, though he might have been the character people had foremost on their mind when the group was mentioned.

That’s not what you did in your original post, though.

>What is it about 'arrogant' that rubs you the wrong way?

Because it is generally intended as a derogatory term and you should be kind of careful when publicly describing someone in that way (even if it's someone who probably doesn't care what you think), especially when their reputation generally indicates the opposite.

> I called the action of naming a song "The man with the golden gun" with the intention of forcing the issue of it being used for the up-coming film of the same name arrogant.

I think it was a naïve “intention”, not one based on ‘arrogance’.

>I even said, that if I had been in the producer's shoes, I'd have considered the guy to be just that.

No need to point that out as it doesn’t change or add to your original post.

>It's as if I'd design an avatar, name it "A_MichaelUK" and assume: "Ha, now he'll have to use it!"

That still wouldn’t necessarily mean you were being “arrogant”. Also, I’m not sure I understand the comparison because “A_MichaelUK” already exsists.

>The word 'arrogant' might even be one of the nicer adjectives you'd use for describing me.

In this case, I might describe you as an imposter, rather than “arrogant”. You could be so naïve, that you don’t think you’re going to get caught. That doesn’t make you “arrogant”. Look at the number of fake entries on Twitter supposedly from
celebrities, for example. Are these imposters being "arrogant"?

>Where exactly did I write that Alice wasn't or isn't an genuine fan of the series?

You have a very short memory. You wrote:
I would have suspected that it was done as a publicity stunt, to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series

Therefore, you imply that he had no “genuine admiration” for the subject.

>But the way he was going about this, it wasn't his admiration for the series that took the spot light, it was the desire to have one of his songs featured.

Ridiculous. Alice had said he was a fan of "James Bond" long before "Man With The Golden Gun" was written. You seem to have a very cynical and suspicious nature to think that the only intention was to have his song used for a commercial reason only. Again, you don’t seem to know much about Alice and his influences (which incidentally, in this case, he shared with most, if not all the rest of the band as well).

>That was a nice tribute, more subtle, a lot less agressive than this would have been. It's admiration without trying to gain something in return and that I can respect.

So writing a song influenced by John Barry is fine, but writing a song influenced by John Barry that you would like to be used in a “James Bond” film is a bad thing because it makes one appear “arrogant” and it means your motives are no longer pure. What strange thinking.

>Probably, depending on emphasis and familiarity of the speaker to the one referred to,

Actually, no. Look up the two words.

>but I was under the impression that it meant something along the lines of impudent or insolent, both things that go often hand in hand with an arrogant attitude.

Instead of being “under the impression” and using words incorrectly, why not just get yourself an English dictionary?

>And I take it as an compliment that I needed to 'shed some light on it' for you to tell it's not my mother tongue.

Actually, it turns out to be less of a “compliment” than I intended, because even though your use of English is very good, it didn’t stop you misunderstanding these two words.

glamprincess
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:24 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by glamprincess » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:26 pm

nephtis wrote: What is it about 'arrogant' that rubs you the wrong way? I called the action of naming a song "The man with the golden gun" with the intention of forcing the issue of it being used for the up-coming film of the same name arrogant. I even said, that if I had been in the producer's shoes, I'd have considered the guy to be just that.
You may not realize it, but to many people, the word "arrogant" is a fairly negative word to describe somebody. 'Arrogant' tends to mean that the person(s) thinks that they are better than others. Alice wanting his song to be featured in a James Bond movie does not mean that Alice thought he was better than others and I don't believe the producer would have interpreted it that way either. I would think it appeared more that Alice was a big James Bond fan who was excited at the prospect of having one of his songs featured in a Bond movie. There's nothing arrogant about that. One could have also thought that Alice was trying to gain attention and publicity for his latest album, but once again, that's not arrogant. And I don't think it's fair to say that Alice was "forcing" anything as the producers were free to use whichever song they wanted, which they did. So, I don't think there was any 'arrogance' or 'forcing' involved at all. There was just a rock star (who was hugely popular and one of the most successful at the time) who seemed to be enthusiastic about the possibility of one of his songs being featured in a Bond movie and not realizing that his controversial image would still cause concern.

nephtis
Trash
Trash
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:40 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by nephtis » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:19 pm

Nothing wrong about a little bit of humor and since an online discussion makes the use of irony or sarcasm difficult without the modulation of speach or seeing the mimic of the other, I try to make up for that with emoticons.
But I'll refrain from using them if you think I'm treating the topic too lightly.
----------------------------------------------------

Yes, I used the term 'arrogant', but please remember the context.
I said that if I had been the person of making the desicion, I would have thought his assumption that he could force me to use his song was arrogant.

We're still talking about one single incident, not a personality profile here. And the assumption that 'they' can be forced to use a certain song, no matter what they might have liked or planned themselves to use isn't exactly humble.

[Again, check out the link you gave yourself...]

I was trying to take the position of the producer here, explaining why - from my point of view - it's no big mystery why they didn't use the song.
So you admit that you’re going by your perception rather than a generally agreed fact.
Sure, I thought the point of a discussion board was to exchange different personal points of view, not basically all agree on the same thing. It's not allowed to question an idea, even if it's 'generally agreed upon'?
Not so long ago it was 'generally agreed upon' that the world was flat...
Who is in that commitee that sanctions those 'historically correct facts' anyway?
I don’t think him being “arrogant” appears in any "version" of the story [...](and it's not like there are several versions of the story in any case)
There's at least one other.
Check out "Golf monster". I'm afraid I don't have the Original but an translation, so I can't give you the page, but it's the chapter past the 7th step of golf addiction, probably titled something close to "Among the Hollywood legends".
In here Alice claims that he was offered to do the theme song, but wasn't fast enough and didn't make the dead line.
(He also says that he thinks Lulu's version is the 'most pathetic Bond song in the history of the movies' - not a direct quote but a re-translation, so that might not be 100% true to the original words used. Still, anyone feeling better than another here?)

Interesting departure from this story or even Renfield's statement...
And no, this alternate version why his song wasn't used doesn't make him look arrogant, you're right, in fact it makes him look just un-lucky, but you wonder why the change from the first version, don't you?
And that jab at Lulu is a personal opinion, but certainly not a very nice one...
Actually you kind of did (at least indirectly).
You're the one insiting on taking everything exactly as written, not speculating about the possible meaning behind it, yet here you do just that.
Oh, and since you mention my 'defensiveness' several times, I think trying to stay calm and on topic isn't exactly defensive.
You can choose to see it that way, but I might point out that not everybody argues their point as aggressively as you do (and I suspect you enjoy pushing buttons).
You might have some success getting people to back down or give up because they don't like controversity, so I give you that most of the time it is probably a very successful approach.
I do know Alice personally (although I didn't know him then) and I have read hundreds, maybe thousands of articles about Alice since 1972 and in none of them does he appear “arrogant” or described in that way.
I can't argue that point, but unless you're family, collegue or a very close pal you might want to consider that this is a public face you know.

And speaking of public images:
That’s a fair point, but again you seem to be saying that Alice was so “arrogant” that he thought the song would be used despite the fact that he was SO controversial, whereas I think he was naïve in that he didn’t realise he would be TOO controversial a choice. Do you see the difference?
I see the difference, but have to make another small correction since I put a slightly different emphasis on my point there:
I said that it would be arrogant (or percieved arrogant) to assume that he could *force* the song being used despite his image - of which I assume he was aware.
Also, I’m not sure I understand the comparison because “A_MichaelUK” already exsists.
Let me explain: I wouldn't create an account under that name, as you seemed to have assumed. That already exist and is in use like you pointed out, and in that it's comparative to the James Bond series.
But by creating an avatar, I'd try to create a picture that would be linked to that 'trademark' hoping to put my personal spin on it - if I could 'force you' to use it as an visual identification an a board.
Which you probably wouldn't since you want this account/trademark being about you and your ideas, not my spin on the existing theme.
Better, did this clarify my point?

And you'd be right to call me an imposter if I tried to create and use an account under your user name, but that wasn't what my example was about.
>Where exactly did I write that Alice wasn't or isn't an genuine fan of the series?

You have a very short memory.
You wrote:
>>I would have suspected that it was done as a >>publicity stunt, to increase interest and >>popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a >>series
Therefore, you imply that he had no “genuine admiration” for the subject.
Exactly, I wrote: "I would have suspected [...]"
Suspicion might not be 'nice' or socially accepted, but doesn't imply holding any proof in either direction. The implication was what you saw it.
My nature might be somewhat "cynical and suspicious" as you put it, but I've found that most people aren't the epitome of selflessness.
So writing a song influenced by John Barry is fine, but writing a song influenced by John Barry that you would like to be used in a “James Bond” film is a bad thing because it makes one appear “arrogant” and it means your motives are no longer pure. What strange thinking.
We're argueing in circles here...
I see nothing wrong about *writing* a song/tribute inspired by whoever or whatever, I don't even see a problem with *liking* or *wanting* to see it used, the problem I see is with trying to *force* the issue.
I'm questioning the method not the motivation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Instead of being “under the impression” and using words incorrectly, why not just get yourself an English dictionary?
I took your advise to heart, my dictonary lists several alternatives for cheeky:

brash, exorbitant, ignorant, impertinent, impudent, insolent, obscene, outrageous, presuming, rude, sassy, saucy, tacky, unashamed, unreasonable, brazen-fazed.

Now, I know sometimes words are used in one context or another differently and even obvious insulting terms come in several nuances (plus English is the European language with the most words, therefor able to describe very fine shades of meaning where other languages have just one single word), but I never got the impression that any of those alternatives describe the endearing kind of brazenness that you see in 'cheeky'.
In fact, in my language I'd see most of those as a worse affront than 'arrogant'.

I wonder how many international incidents can be attributed to a slightly wrong chosen word...

------------------------------------------------

Thanks glamprinces for trying to calm the storm here.

I appriciate you pointing out why you (and other people) don't like the term arrogant being used rather than telling me I was wrong to use it and I see your point.
You think that it's too harsh and that's ok.
It's just as valid a point of view as mine or anybody's else.

As for the issue of forcing it, you're right that the producers were free to choose what they wanted to (and they did), my whole point that started this argument was to explain why I think they couldn't and wouldn't have chosen this song.

User avatar
Si
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 4363
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:47 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by Si » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:43 pm

Not so long ago it was 'generally agreed upon' that the world was flat...
Amusing note: Apparently no one has ever thought the world was flat. It's a huge urban myth. Peoples of times long often got things very wrong (the earth being the center of the universe, and the sun obiting the earth being a classic) but the "flat earth" idea was, so I understand, never one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology

Cheeky. in general British use of the word, is indeed not really an insult. When I used it I wondered if it would cause confusion but honestly couldn`t thnk of a better word. In your list "Sassy" and "Saucy" could be closest, but they really don`t get it right. "tongue in cheek"? Basically Alice saw the name of the next movie, and figured "wouldn`t it be amusing to write the song of that title before the film is made, and see if they would use it. How cool would that be! Worth a try. At worst we'd get some publicity from it, at best they'd use it" Nothing to lose.

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:04 pm

>Nothing wrong about a little bit of humor and since an online discussion makes the use of irony or sarcasm difficult without the modulation of speach or seeing the mimic of the other, I try to make up for that with emoticons.

Again, you're being defensive. I didn't ask you to justify your use of the emoticon - nor did I say there was anything wrong with using humour.

>But I'll refrain from using them if you think I'm treating the topic too lightly.

I don't have any problem with them at all, in case you really think I do.

>Yes, I used the term 'arrogant', but please remember the context.
I said that if I had been the person of making the desicion, I would have thought his assumption that he could force me to use his song was arrogant.

I don't need a reminder of "the context", but thanks anyway. I also know what you wrote; just repeating yourself doesn't add anything.

>We're still talking about one single incident, not a personality profile here.

That's kind of my point. I don't see how you can make that claim based on this "one single incident".

>And the assumption that 'they' can be forced to use a certain song, no matter what they might have liked or planned themselves to use isn't exactly humble.

Who says? You? Why can't it be an example of being naive, or as Si said, of being "cheeky" instead? Why choose the harsher option?

>[Again, check out the link you gave yourself...]

I don't need to and I certainly don't read anywhere between those lines that Alice was being "arrogant".

>I was trying to take the position of the producer here, explaining why - from my point of view - it's no big mystery why they didn't use the song.

Read the post from glamprincess again.

>Sure, I thought the point of a discussion board was to exchange different personal points of view, not basically all agree on the same thing.

That's true, but like I said before, "arrogant" is not a word that I ever remember being used to describe Alice before you posted. That's why it's strange that you would use it. If we were discussing Gene Simmons for example, it wouldn't be a big issue because he already has that reputation - Alice does not.

>Not so long ago it was 'generally agreed upon' that the world was flat... Who is in that commitee that sanctions those 'historically correct facts' anyway?

Not a great example, as you're comparing two different things. In that example, science would have provided the evidence over ignorance. In Alice's case, the weight of a vast amount of testimony for almost forty years suggests that "arrogant" is not an accurate description.

>There's at least one other.
Check out "Golf monster".

I was already referring to "Golf Monster" (in reply to your earlier post)!

>In here Alice claims that he was offered to do the theme song, but wasn't fast enough and didn't make the dead line.

I'm aware of that. How does that prove he was "arrogant"? You just provided evidence which does not support your claim. You begin by saying Alice was "arrogant" for thinking the song would be used, now you cite "Golf Monster" which gives a different explanation entirely.

>(He also claims that Lulu's version is the 'most pathetic Bond song in the history of the movies' - not a direct quote but a re-translation, so that might not be 100% true to the original words used. Anyone feeling better than another here?)

The English version says that the song Lulu recorded was "the wimpiest song in Bond history".

>Interesting departure from this story or even Renfield's statement...

Yes. Who says Alice's recollection is correct, though? Either way, I still don't see any 'arrogance'.

>And no, this alternate version why his song wasn't used doesn't make him look arrogant, you're right,

Exactly.

> but you wonder why the change from the first version, don't you?

No, it's not a huge issue for me why that song wasn't used. Having said that, I seem to vaguely remember Neal ageeing (in an online interview) with Renfield's statement.

>And that jab at Lulu is a personal opinion, but certainly not a very nice one...

He didn't say anything bad about Lulu. He said something bad about her song. There's a difference.

>You're the one insiting on taking everything exactly as written,

Yes, I am. Why would you write it, if you didn't want me to read it "exactly as written?

> not speculating about the possible meaning behind it, yet here you do just that.

Why should I have to 'speculate'?! What makes you so special that I have to ignore your words and instead, 'speculate' as to what you mean? Now who's being "arrogant"?

>Oh, and since you mention my 'defensiveness' several times, I think trying to stay calm and on topic isn't exactly defensive. "

Your slight changes of emphasis when challenged, indicate that you are being defensive.

>You can choose to see it that way, but I might point out that not everybody argues their point as aggressively as you do (and I suspect you enjoy pushing buttons).

I need very little 'aggression' to challenge your point, because it is weak to start with. A little investigation and it collapses.

>You might have some success getting people to back down or give up because they don't like controversity, so I give you that most of the time it is probably a very successful approach.

Try not to change the subject. The subject is your claim that Alice was "arrogant". It's a sign of weakness (and yes, defensiveness) if you try to deflect attention away from that.

>I can't argue that point, but unless you're family, collegue or a very close pal you might want to consider that this is a public face you know.

I'm not close friend of his but again, you don't need my testimony only. Read any article since 1972 or so - 'arrogance is never mentioned. In fact, as I said before, the opposite is often stressed.

>I said that it would be arrogant (or percieved arrogant) to assume that he could *force* the song being used despite his image - of which I assume he was aware.

Actually, you didn't say any of that until you were challenged. I think that's the second or third time that has had to be pointed out to you.

>Better, did this clarify my point?

No, not really.

>Exactly, I wrote: "I would have suspected [...]"
Suspicion might not be 'nice' or socially accepted, but doesn't imply holding any proof in either direction. The implication was what you saw it.

But why is it not enough for you to 'suspect' he was not a "James Bond" admirer, when the purpose and result of your "Suspicion" is the same? What difference does it make? Either you think he was not a genuine admirer or you do. Which is it? If it's the former, I can safely say you're wrong. If it's the latter, you just ruined your claim that the song was written as a publicity stunt. You need to make your mind up.

>My nature might be somewhat "cynical and suspicious" as you put it, but I've found that most people aren't the epitome of selflessness.

That's true. Does that also make them "arrogant"?

> the problem I see is with trying to *force* the issue.
I'm questioning the method not the motivation.

You're getting a bit confused because you are not keeping track of what you said before when you wrote:
I would have suspected that it was done as a publicity stunt, to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series

So you WERE questioning (or at least you were 'suspicious') of "the motivation". You're saying "the motivation" was "to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series".

>I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Or we can agree on the meaning of the word "arrogant".

>brash, exorbitant, ignorant, impertinent, impudent, insolent, obscene, outrageous, presuming, rude, sassy, saucy, tacky, unashamed, unreasonable, brazen-fazed.

Yet "arrogant" does not appear on that list. You kind of proved my point.

> but I never got the impression that any of those alternatives describe the endearing kind of brazenness that you see in 'cheeky'.

That's true but without getting away from the subject, it might depend on the expertise of those who put the dictionary together and also, the context in which the word is being used.

>In fact, in my language I'd see most of those as a worse affront than 'arrogant'.

That's a fair comment, in which case, you could have pointed out earlier than you did, that English is not your first language and maybe you could have used another word. Is there another word you'd like to replace "arrogant" with?

>I wonder how many international incidents can be attributed to a slightly wrong chosen word...

Not enough.

>Thanks glamprinces for trying to calm the storm here.

There's no "storm" (there's that defensiveness again).

>I appriciate you pointing out why you (and other people) don't like the term arrogant being used rather than telling me I was wrong to use it and I see your point.

Actually, I was the one who pointed out why you shouldn't use it (because you asked me why) before glamprincess did.

>You think that it's too harsh and that's ok.

Be fair. She did more than that - she pointed out that Alice would not be perceived as being "arrogant" in this situation.

>It's just as valid a point of view as mine or anybody's else.

I think that your claim would be taken more seriously if Alice had a reputation for being "arrogant", which he does not.

> explain why I think they couldn't and wouldn't have chosen this song.

I think they were wary of any potential controversy -nothing to do with 'arrogance'.

nephtis
Trash
Trash
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:40 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by nephtis » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:17 pm

I also know what you wrote; just repeating yourself doesn't add anything.
dito for about 2/3 of your reply...
I'm aware of that. How does that prove he was "arrogant"?
Golf monster doesn't and I said so. I used this to point out that there's more than one version of the same story.
The English version says that the song Lulu recorded was "the wimpiest song in Bond history".
Thanks for the clarification.
Yes. Who says Alice's recollection is correct, though?
I wouldn't know, but it seems I'm not the only one with a suspicious nature. *grin* Who says whether the first, the second or neither version is correct, then? In that case we're argueing in a vacuum anyway.
Why should I have to 'speculate'?! What makes you so special that I have to ignore your words and instead, 'speculate' as to what you mean? Now who's being "arrogant"?
What indeed? Yet you refer several times to what I *imply*.
Your slight changes of emphasis when challenged, indicate that you are being defensive.
Trying to clarify a point by showing what part of it is most important to my argument is a change in emphasis for you? Then this will probably come over as defensive again.
Try not to change the subject. The subject is your claim that Alice was "arrogant". It's a sign of weakness (and yes, defensiveness) if you try to deflect attention away from that.
Hit you were it hurt? And argueing about my defensiveness and weakness, you're using the same deflecting-attention-from-the-main-topic tactic, you know?
You're getting a bit confused because you are not keeping track of what you said before when you wrote:
I would have suspected that it was done as a publicity stunt, to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series
I am keeping track, that is again one of those 'if I had been in the producer's shoes' cases and should have been clear in the context.
So you WERE questioning (or at least you were 'suspicious') of "the motivation". You're saying "the motivation" was "to increase interest and popularity, not out of genuine admiration for a series".
*...'if I had been in the producer's shoes'...*
and again
*...I would have suspected the motivation to be [...]if I had been...*
And you were the one who agreed that there might also have been an element of publicity involved.
And there are two motivations here that you aren't completely seperating
- 1) for writing the song
and
- 2) for having it used in the film.
Let's stick to the second one, or open a new topic 'Why do you think Alice wrote TMWTGG'.
I'm not close friend of his but again, you don't need my testimony only. Read any article since 1972 or so [...]
Just thought that I should mention it, but the people in charge of that descicion might have been a lot like me - not having read all articles since '72 and probably not personally aquainted to Alice.
And the controversity and rumours that spoke against the use of an Alice Cooper song may not have stressed his nicety. ;-)
Yet "arrogant" does not appear on that list. You kind of proved my point.
Not exactly.
Your point was that I was wrong to assume cheeky meant impudent or insolent and suggested that I'd look it up instead of using it falsly.
Which I did. And my dictonary supported my claim rather than yours.
I did put those meanings *close* to arrogant which Si explained is not the way cheeky is used in modern every day English - and I accept that. But don't claim this as proving your point.
That's true but without getting away from the subject, it might depend on the expertise of those who put the dictionary together and also, the context in which the word is being used.
I agree, yet when I suggested that the context might be important you insited that I was just understanding it wrong.
That's a fair comment, in which case, you could have pointed out earlier than you did, that English is not your first language and maybe you could have used another word. Is there another word you'd like to replace "arrogant" with?
Since this whole argument seems to revolve around my use of the word 'arrogant' I'll try and see if that clarifies things.
Presumptuous is listed on top an alternative for arrogant, followed by cocky, conceited, haughty, lofty, snotty, supercilious, vain - and surprisingly proud.
I never have heard anyone being described as haughty, lofty or snotty and I would have assumed a presumptuous person being far worse with even more condescending manners without anything behind it to support that attitude.
Anything on that list that you would like better?

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:32 pm

>dito for about 2/3 of your reply...

Who’s fault is that? I can only reply to what you write.

>I used this to point out that there's more than one version of the same story.

I don’t think I said there wasn’t.

> In that case we're argueing in a vacuum anyway.

True, except that in an interview on his site, Neal makes a statement which I interpret as being closer to Renfield’s statement, rather than “Golf Monster”. He said:
“We always thought that the idea of the "Alice Cooper Band" doing the theme song for a "James Bond" movie was fantastic, but in reality it probably scared the hell out of the producers.”

Why would Neal think they were "scared"? Because Alice was "arrogant", or because he was too controversial?!

>What indeed? Yet you refer several times to what I *imply*.

Yes, because very early on in this thread, when challenged, you had to qualify one or two statements. You can’t have it both ways; you either want me to ignore the specifics of what you write and instead I have to ‘speculate’ (as you said I should do in a previous post) and try and work out what you are implying, or you criticise me as you do above for doing exactly that. You're getting confused.

>Trying to clarify a point by showing what part of it is most important to my argument is a change in emphasis for you? Then this will probably come over as defensive again.

Not on this occasion, no.

>Hit you were it hurt?

Again, an attempt to deflect. It doesn’t matter if it ‘hurts’ or not. Stick to the subject.

>And argueing about my defensiveness and weakness, you're using the same deflecting-attention-from-the-main-topic tactic, you know?

If you weren’t so obviously defensive, I wouldn’t have to point it out. Do we have a deal?

>I am keeping track, that is again one of those 'if I had been in the producer's shoes' cases and should have been clear in the context.

Not at all. All that was clear was the contradiction. It has nothing to do with “the producer’s shoes’”.

>*...I would have suspected the motivation to be [...]if I had been...*
And you were the one who agreed that there might also have been an element of publicity involved.

Right. But what this is really about is how you don’t seem interested in what Neal, glamprincess and I have said, which is that because the band was so very controversial back then, it’s more likely that the producers of the film were wary of using the band’s song, than it being a case of them being dictated to by (in your words) “an arrogant brat trying to blackmail” them into doing something they didn’t want to do. Instead of at least acknowledging that it’s kind of more likely that what neal, glamprincess and I have said supports Renfield’s statement, you decide to keep supporting your use of the word “arrogant” as if the controversy surrounding Alice Cooper in 1973 could have had NOTHING to do with it! Do you REALLY think I like spending all this time here just so that I can try and make sure that people interested in this stuff get a more accurate impression than the one you give?!

>And there are two motivations here that you aren't completely seperating
- 1) for writing the song
and
- 2) for having it used in the film.

Why should I have ‘separate’ anything? I don’t know what this means. A song has to be written before the song is “used”.

>Let's stick to the second one, or open a new topic 'Why do you think Alice wrote TMWTGG'.

You already know what I (and Si, Neal and glamprincess) think. You're becoming very boring.

>Just thought that I should mention it, but the people in charge of that descicion might have been a lot like me –

Yes, they might. I can at least concede that possibility. You, on the other hand, state it as a probability and you do NOT concede that the band’s controversial image may have had something to do with it. That’s the difference between our two positions.

>Not exactly.

No, it is “exactly” that. “Arrogant” is not one of the explanations given in your dictionary.

>Your point was that I was wrong to assume cheeky meant impudent or insolent and suggested that I'd look it up instead of using it falsly.

No, I didn’t say that. I said “cheeky” had nothing to with being “arrogant”. Your dictionary proved that. You are now also LYING. You wrote:
“I took your advise to heart, my dictonary lists several alternatives for cheeky:”

So we WERE discussing the word “cheeky” – I didn’t say anything about “impudent”! What an enormous lie.

>Which I did. And my dictonary supported my claim rather than yours.

WRONG! Below are the “alternatives” from your dictionary:
brash, exorbitant, ignorant, impertinent, impudent, insolent, obscene, outrageous, presuming, rude, sassy, saucy, tacky, unashamed, unreasonable, brazen-fazed.

Is the word “arrogant” there?! No, it is not. THANKS FOR WASTING TIME – AGAIN!

>I did put those meanings *close* to arrogant which Si explained is not the way cheeky is used in modern every day English - and I accept that.

WRONG! I told you that several hours before Si did, yet you insisted on still using the word and you kept doing so until you qualified it! Also, that you would confuse “arrogant” and “cheeky” in the first place, shows how wrong you are about this whole thing. It’s all very well saying English is not your “mother tongue” and of course allowances should be made for that, but given the circumstances, if I were you, I’d be a lot more careful about which words are used and I wouldn’t be so “arrogant” (there's irony for you) that I would think I can debate semantics with someone who is more fluent in this particular language.

>agree, yet when I suggested that the context might be important you insited that I was just understanding it wrong.

Yes, because you ignored forty years of testimony on whether or not Alice has, or had, a reputation for being “arrogant”.

>Since this whole argument seems to revolve around my use of the word 'arrogant' I'll try and see if that clarifies things.

I’ve lost patience with you - you’ve had several days to ‘clarify’ things.

>Anything on that list that you would like better?

No. I don’t think Alice was any of those things in relation to this subject. It’s possible, but I don’t think he was. I think he made a presumption because he was naïve, that’s all. You just don’t want to concede that.

glamprincess
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 757
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:24 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by glamprincess » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:04 pm

A_MichaelUK wrote: Why would Neal think they were "scared"? Because Alice was "arrogant", or because he was too controversial?!

Right. But what this is really about is how you don’t seem interested in what Neal, glamprincess and I have said, which is that because the band was so very controversial back then, it’s more likely that the producers of the film were wary of using the band’s song, than it being a case of them being dictated to by (in your words) “an arrogant brat trying to blackmail” them into doing something they didn’t want to do. Instead of at least acknowledging that it’s kind of more likely that what neal, glamprincess and I have said supports Renfield’s statement, you decide to keep supporting your use of the word “arrogant” as if the controversy surrounding Alice Cooper in 1973 could have had NOTHING to do with it!
Just to elaborate further on this part, I would like to remind people just how controversial Alice was back in 1973 (especially since there are some younger members of the board who were too young then or not even born yet).

Back in 1973, rock music was still considered part of the "counter-culture" and movie producers were much more hesitant to use any rock song as the theme for a mainstream movie. So, if producers of movies were concerned about rock music, you can just imagine how wary they would be about using a song from the most outrageous rock group in the world! Back in 1973, Alice Cooper was still so controversial to the general public that when Bob Dylan decided to tour that year, his people were quoted as saying they were nervous about putting on a rock show because "we don't chop off heads every night". That's how the world viewed Alice Cooper back then.

So while the producers of the Bond movies may have considered the possibility of using an Alice Cooper song because of his enormous popularity back in 1973, they were still too scared that his image was too controversial for a mainstream movie. And so they played it "safe" and went with a pop star like Lulu.

I think it's possible that if it had been just a couple of years later, that an Alice Cooper song may have been more acceptable to them. By 1975, Alice had a tv special on prime time television, a hit ballad song and his image had softened somewhat making him more acceptable for mainstream projects. Furthermore by the mid-70s, rock music was quickly being adopted more and more by the mainstream media. But in 1973, Alice Cooper was still too much of a rock "bad boy" and too heavily identified as the guy who sang "Dead Babies". In those days, movie producers of such a mainstream movie would still be too wary of such controversy and would rather play it safe.

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:08 pm

>Just to elaborate further on this part, I would like to remind people just how controversial Alice was back in 1973 (especially since there are some younger members of the board who were too young then or not even born yet).

I was going to make the same points, but didn't want my post to be even longer than it already was. Also, if Si is going to make the effort to put a site like this together and also provide links to other sites where you can look at and read stuff, then I like to think people are going to make use of these resources and learn about stuff they may not have been aware of. If that's not the case, I'm not really sure why Si bothers to maintain this site and this board.

nephtis
Trash
Trash
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:40 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by nephtis » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:09 pm

We have a deal:
You’re blowing this way out of proportion and if you really consider me boring and pointless, why bother to reply at all? Need to me to say, yes, Michael was right all along? Need to have the last word?

I think I’ve said all I can about the original topic and my view on it and this it where it should stop, since we’re just arguing in circles, quoting each other without having to say anything new and having moved from the orignal topic to name calling.
Don't bother the correct me, placing fault, calling me boring, a lier and arrogant when you run out of new arguments is just that.
My attempt to find a compromise by offereing alternatives, conceding my less than perfect langue skills was countered with you having 'lost patience' (plus the advise not to compete with somebody in a language that isn't my own. I'm willing to learn that is why I'm using it. Can anybody else smell the irony of calling me arrogant for trying to practise and argue with somebody who *implies* that I'll never be able to match his superior understanding anyway? I might not, but trying makes me ambitious rather than arrogant.)

A productive dispute or making of a valid point looks differently.

Contrary to your claim I do concede that the band’s controversial image might have had something to do with the descicion, I even brought that up in my second post, I just think it was only part of the reason.

Just one last thing to consider:

I’ve been talking about a single action about a single song on a single album, yet somehow you moved from that to a career spanning 40 years and came to the conclusion that by that one action I judge the man’s whole personality 24/7 and am out here to sully his name without anything to back up that claim.

Does that hold true vice versa? (Not the sullying his name part of course since you’re rather enthusiastic about defending his honour.)

So, walk with me here:
Your judgment of that same scenario was ‘naïve’ you even want me to concede that it was - does that truly mean your idea of Alice's personality is that he’s naïve?

Yes? Check all those sources that don’t back up ‘arrogant’, do they back up ‘naïve’?
No? If you don’t judge a personality based upon a single action, then don’t assume other’s do.

And that’s all I have to say about this.

So now it’s your turn to have the last word, fire ahead.

Mr. Skull
Billion Dollar Baby
Billion Dollar Baby
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:47 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by Mr. Skull » Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:28 pm

One picture sometimes tells more then a thousend words
http://i699.photobucket.com/albums/vv36 ... liceLu.jpg
pick your choice : who would you choose to promote a main stream movie ?

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:34 pm

>You’re blowing this way out of proportion

So are you saying it's alright to go through life calling people "arrogant" without really knowing if they are and not caring about the consequences? If not, how is am I "blowing this way out of proportion"?

>if you really consider me boring and pointless, why bother to reply at all?

It took a few posts, but you eventually became boring. I didn't say you were boring from the beginning. Don't twist my words.

>Need to me to say, yes, Michael was right all along? Need to have the last word?

STOP BEING DEFENSIVE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME. STICK TO THE SUBJECT OR DON'T REPLY AT ALL!

> and having moved from the orignal topic to name calling.

What "name calling"? You think being called boring is "name calling"?

>Don't bother the correct me, placing fault, calling me boring, a lier and arrogant when you run out of new arguments is just that.

Why do I need "new arguments"?! How ridiculous. My point has been the same from the beginning!

>My attempt to find a compromise by offereing alternatives,

Another stupid and ridiculous statement. How about the "compromise" I offered to YOU?! Why will you not at least concede that maybe the situation as described to you by glamprincess and I is a possibility?! What a nerve you have to suggest that only you have tried to "find a compromise"! I'll tell you what - I'll even let you ignore the comments from glamprincess and I, but you don't even acknowledge the comments that Neal made! Yet, I am the one who is not accepting your "compromise"!

>conceding my less than perfect langue skills was countered with you having 'lost patience'

BUT EVEN AFTER AFTER THAT, YOU KEPT INSISTING THE USE OF THE WORD "ARROGANT" WAS CORRECT. NO - ONE IS GOING TO FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, SO STOP BEING A MARTYR!

> (plus the advise not to compete with somebody in a language that isn't my own. I'm willing to learn that is why I'm using it.

SO WHY DID YOU NOT SAY THAT WHEN YOU WERE FIRST CHALLENGED? WHY DID YOU KEEP TRYING TO DEFEND YOUR USE OF THAT WORD?!

>Can anybody else smell the irony of calling me arrogant for trying to practise and argue with somebody

You have had nearly two days to stop using that word and now that you have run out of options, you're throwing yourself at the mercy of the others on this board. That's pretty pathetic.

<who *implies* that I'll never be able to match his superior understanding anyway? I might not, but trying makes me ambitious rather than arrogant.)

Another contradiction. In an earlier post, you said I had paid you a “compliment” on your language skills (which I did – twice, I think).

>Contrary to your claim I do concede that the band’s controversial image might have had something to do with the descicion, I even brought that up in my second post, I just think it was only part of the reason.

I think you’re referring to your third post and actually, you only said that to repeat your statement about ‘arrogance’. You wrote:
No matter the intention(s), in my eyes - with the hype and the group's and especially Alice's image it couldn't have looked anything but arrogant - somehow I doubt naïvety would have been the thing foremost on people's mind when thinking about the group, certainly not if they had never met.

So, you totally rejected any possible “naivety”, which means you only conceded part, not all of my point, while still maintaining there was ‘arrogance’. My point (rightly or wrongly) was that Alice may not have realised how freaked out the film’s producers would have been by his image. Your point seems to be that Alice was too “arrogant” to even think that his image might be an issue. Do you see the difference?

>Just one last thing to consider:
I’ve been talking about a single action about a single song on a single album, yet somehow you moved from that to a career spanning 40 years and came to the conclusion that by that one action I judge the man’s whole personality 24/7 and am out here to sully his name without anything to back up that claim.

Well, you still haven’t backed “up that claim”. All you did (or claimed to do) was to put yourself in the “producer’s shoes’” and assume you know what they were thinking. You still haven’t backed that up. The only reason the last forty years was mentioned was because if Alice really WAS “arrogant” (then or now), you kind of think it would have come up at some point – but it hasn’t. Try comparing that with articles about Lou Reed or Gene Simmons, for example.

>Your judgment of that same scenario was ‘naïve’ you even want me to concede that it was - does that truly mean your idea of Alice's personality is that he’s naïve?

In the context of this discussion, one can really only talk about 1973 but his reputation back then would more than suggest (to me) that he had (and still has, to some degree) a very positive, ‘youthful’ side to his nature, with a great sense of humour, almost constantly joking about almost everything, seeing solutions rather than obstacles, not taking things too seriously and kind of thinking that 'things will always turn out for the best'. Some might describe that last part as naïve – just as I did. It might not be the perfect choice of word (feel free to suggest one), but it’s a lot closer to describing him in this particular situation than “arrogant” is.

>Check all those sources that don’t back up ‘arrogant’, do they back up ‘naïve’? No?

Actually, yes! A great deal of “those sources”, reflect almost exactly what I wrote above. If you always see things in a positive way, is that not being naive to some degree?

>If you don’t judge a personality based upon a single action, then don’t assume other’s do.

But that’s exactly what you did, or rather assumed that the producers of the film had done! Your argument has totally collapsed. You also seem to be saying that just because “those sources” don’t say he’s NOT “arrogant”, then he might still be exactly that. How far do you want to extend that logic?

A_MichaelUK
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 5383
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by A_MichaelUK » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:35 pm

>pick your choice : who would you choose to promote a main stream movie ?

Exactly. Also, I bet that you could have chosen a far more controversial picture of Alice, if you had wanted to.

User avatar
Si
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 4363
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:47 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by Si » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:35 pm

Unless something new comes to this thread I don`t see any point continuing it.

User avatar
kevinuk81
Cheese roll anyone?
Cheese roll anyone?
Posts: 51589
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:53 pm
Location: Kingshurst
Contact:

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by kevinuk81 » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:29 pm

Hope this helps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCg70sj ... re=related

First 4 and a half minutes.
Anything I say or write is my own personal opinion, no matter who agrees or disagrees with me.

pitkin88
Dada God
Dada God
Posts: 4478
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 3:25 am
Location: calif

Re: The Man With The Golden Gun

Post by pitkin88 » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:57 am

Sorry I started WW3!! I think that TMWTGG was wrote on spec just like a tv script is sent on spec that's all. I don't think there was any arrogance or anyone being a brat.

Post Reply