Classical Music & Opera Forums

ACD: I agree that the Brosnan Bond films have been particulary wretched. I gave up on the series until Casino Royale, which was a huge improvement over its immediate predecessors.

Yes ... Casino Royale was merely utterly stultifying.

pczipott wrote:Yes ... Casino Royale was merely utterly stultifying.

Am I the only one here who has never seen a James Bond movie?

ScottMorrison wrote:

pczipott wrote:Yes ... Casino Royale was merely utterly stultifying.

Am I the only one here who has never seen a James Bond movie?

You are probably the only one in the civilized world who has never seen a James Bond movie.

ACD

ACD wrote:

ScottMorrison wrote:

pczipott wrote:Yes ... Casino Royale was merely utterly stultifying.

Am I the only one here who has never seen a James Bond movie?

You are probably the only one in the civilized world who has never seen a James Bond movie.

ACD

No.

I suppose the Bond movies have changed as times have changed, inevitably. But IMO they are a lot less fun than they used to be. Or maybe that's just Old Fartism.

jessica wrote:

ACD wrote:

ScottMorrison wrote:

pczipott wrote:Yes ... Casino Royale was merely utterly stultifying.

Am I the only one here who has never seen a James Bond movie?

You are probably the only one in the civilized world who has never seen a James Bond movie.

ACD

No.

Oh. Yes. Quite right. My error. What I should have written is that Scott is probably the only male in the civilized world who has never seen a James Bond movie.

ACD

From ACD's website:

We all know James Bond is Sean Connery, and these others, merely inadequate, playacting imposters.

Absolutely. I lost interest in the series when Roger Moore took over. None of the others have managed to revive it.

Clarification: When I said that the Bond movies are less fun than they used to be, I was thinking of Connery, NOT Roger Moore, who turned Bond into a clown (in Octopussy, quite literally). "Fun" doesn't mean farce. Connery managed to combine edge with sophisicated humor. No other Bond since has managed to do that as effectively. Although of all the post-Connery Bonds, I like Brosnan the best.

Likely Republican reaction to tonight's election results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhxpohzZHbc

May I add, as a devout conservative who is not exactly thrilled (to put it mildly) at the thought of an Obama presidency, the Republicans will richly deserve their shellacking. Like the Israelites, it will take a long sojourn in the wilderness to teach them the errors of their ways. (Although hopefully it will not be 40 years.)

I'll settle for 20 years.

Brilliant video clip, BTW.

Cal said:

... as a devout conservative who is not exactly thrilled (to put it mildly) at the thought of an Obama presidency, the Republicans will richly deserve their shellacking.

Well honeycakes, look at it this way. If you simply substitute your word "conservative" with "liberal" and "Republican" with "Democrat" you will have my self-same statement 8 years ago. And it didn't take us 40 years.
So you see, cookie, there is still hope for you (stab me in the heart!)

Question

Why are hours-long lineups so prevelant in the U.S. Up here, I get annoyed if I have to wait more than 15 minutes to vote (so accustomed have I become to no line-ups at the polling booth) and Canada has generally higher voter turn-outs than the U.S. So what gives? Is this the case throughout he U.S. or in certain areas, states...? I have heard of stories from the last election where people in poor neighbourhoods lined up all day before finally having the opportunity vote. But from what I hear, it seems like long lineups are the norm everywhere.

kashania wrote:I have heard of stories from the last election where people in poor neighbourhoods lined up all day before finally having the opportunity vote. But from what I hear, it seems like long lineups are the norm everywhere.

Not the case. Depends on the polling district. For instance, I walked into my polling place at exactly 12:00 PM, signed in, voted, and was out the door at 12:05 PM. Not even a minute's wait.

ACD

Thanks, ACD. I'd be interested to see how long other forum members had to wait in line. Hours of waiting seems very Third World to me (And I should know, having been born there!).

Shockingly, so was ours. In fact, we had volunteered to man the polls and when we got there at 10 am there was no one around. We both went right in and voted with zero wait and then they told us to come back around 6-8 pm if we could, when there would be a lot of action. So we went back at 7 pm only to be told, "go home -- it's dead here!"

On another note:
Kaypee luv, looks like you shall go down in history as the final poster on the seemingly now defunct New York Times Opera Forum.

mogliettina wrote:So you see, cookie, there is still hope for you (stab me in the heart!)

Most things are cyclical, including politics. This is a "down" cycle for Republicans. I always shook my head when I heard conservatives talking Republican dominance for the next 20 years after the 2002 and 2004 elections, although I did not expect things to go down the toilet as fast as they have. I take some comfort in the fact that Obama is obviously an intelligent man and he surely knows that the country as a whole is not as far to the left as he is - in fact, it is not on the left at all - so he will (hopefully) rein in some of his natural tendencies simply in the interest of political self-preservation. Whether he will be able to buck the Democrat Congress, assuming he is even inclined to, is another question. I also take comfort in the fact that the two most likely Supreme Court members to retire in the next four years - Stevens and Ginsburg - are already so far to the left that anyone Obama appoints to replace them will not have any effect on the balance of the Court. So, we will essentially have the status quo in the judicial branch, barring any unforseen deaths/retirements. National policy on vital issues will continue to be determined by what Justice Kennedy has for breakfast on any given morning.