Talk:James Bond (character)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 21:25, August 8, 2009 by 15Mickey20 (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

What happened to the picture of "the real james bond"? That was hilarious. Mr. Briggs Inc. 11:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Eh?

edit Is half of this actually funny?

I understand JB is in the focus for many, but -- IF IT IS NOT FUNNY. WHY WRITE IT AT ALL? --Canis pecus 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

edit Great Scott!

All this while i thought that James Bond is:

  • License to have sex
  • A karmic force who reincarnates himself into a younger sex machine after every 2 or 3 Bond movies
  • That person who shoots at whoever follows him around with that large pupil shaped eye.
  • Someone who is trying to find out who created that theme song in every of its movie by travelling all over and killing as many villians as possible.
  • A game show that was too violent.
- Red1 10:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

edit Whoops, no satire or parody included, just a Sean Connary fan page.

1 - This article is not funny. (but that is subjective so maybe I am wrong)

2 - A lot of it is true. (ok truth can be funnier than fiction, of course, the truth about George Bush is funnier than anything made up.)


But this is the main problem:

3 - The article just insults actors other than Sean Connery. It was obviously written by a die hard Bond/Connery fan. The whole Bond concept is absurd but this article fails to satire or parody Bond at all.

and; 3 - the article is about the actors not the character (the character more absurd than the actors!)

Maybe this article should be retiteled; bond actors. Then a new and, I hope, funny one could appear for the charming (but arrogant), deadly (but deathless), middle-aged (but ageless), party-going (but friendless), cool (but bow-tie wearing), hero (but reactionary), sexy (but not very good-looking), alcoholic (but not drunken), assasin (but not a murderer), suave (but not very much fun)... man (or android (that would account for a lot)) that is the real James Bond.

I can't be bothered to defend my article myself; not when Under user has already done it for me on RabbiTechno's talk page.
"OK, all you really need to know to understand the Bond article is that for most Bond bores, Connery is the one and only Bond, and no others will ever measure up. And they apply nicely contradicting logic when they need to. Compare the various Bond descriptions again -
  • Connery: "The strategy of hiring an unknown, inexperienced actor who was able to take part in the film's daring stunts was a masterstroke / Connery's Bond was a man you could believe in: tall, strong, handsome and with a powerful sex appeal." vs Lazenby: "they committed the biggest, most sacrilegious error in Bond history. The man they hired in his place was a novice actor whose selection was based entirely on his looks and ability to perform stunts. It was madness."
  • Or Moore: "Under Moore's stewardship the Bond franchise became one big joke. Ridiculously smutty names, ridiculously over the top henchmen and Grace Jones all blighted the era. With quips and double entendres, Moore brought a tongue-in-cheek approach to a firmly tongue-out-of-cheek role." vs Dalton: "When Timothy Dalton became the fourth man to play Bond, he brought in a much grittier, darker interpretation of the secret agent. He was dull. Where had the humour gone?"
Etc. g
Also, hoping Dmitry Medvedev continues his efforts to renew hostilities with the West just to get a decent Russian bad guy in a Bond film again...
I'm not trying to change your vote here, I just think it's a shame if you miss out on what I think is a fine article. Ah well, such is life. This probably won't make a difference to you anyway, but I'm in an odd mood today. Cheery pip!"

--Christmas present 15Mickey20 Christmas-tree (Ho ho ho to Mickey)  15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Whose article is this anyway? Is no one else allowed to edit or add to the article? Are any additions always going to be promptly deleted and the article left in it's current dull state? --MDUN 22:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article as it is now, is just dull dull dull! Really Ok, I understand that maybe I should leave this alone as I do not like James Bond. Maybe to 'understand' this article all you need is to be a James Bond bore yourself.--MDUN 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

edit Aids

Who keeps removing the paragraph on aids? The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConnorORLY (talk • contribs)

Most recently, that person would be me. The idea of Bond getting an STD is not, in itself, a bad one. However, the completely lack of subtlety in its execution warranted an undoing. Furthermore, it doesn't fit in with the concept of parodying Bond fans' contradictory views. Finally, sign your posts with four ~s. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  21:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects