Comments for The Noughties Were Shit

Comment on Exhibit #13 Still Having A Monarchy by simonindelicate

simonindelicate — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:44:14 +0000

I entirely bow to your superior knowledge – clearly I have given 2000 AD too much credit.

Consider my republican assumptions about 70s comics retracted

Comment on Exhibit #13 Still Having A Monarchy by Alex S

Alex S — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:31:56 +0000

Of the early 2000AD strips, Strontium Dog, Ro-Busters and Invasion! (set in the grim future of…1999) all made explicit that their future Britains were still monarchies. But then, 2000AD was never very optimistic about the future. See also: Judge Dredd predicting the smoking ban.

Comment on Exhibit #13 Still Having A Monarchy by PC

PC — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:36:19 +0000

The “she does a good job” argument mirrors the one that many, even republicans, use about the Norwegian monarchy: “They’re decent, likable folks, so let’s not rock the boat.” Thus sort of implying that a country should base its form of government on the at any given time current head of state’s personality and/or charm.

The only arguable ‘value’ our lot has is as part of the entertainment industry. Unlike the UK, Norway has no massively and globally famous movie, pop or sports stars to speak of, only a bunch of c-list TV personalities and comedians (indeed), who aren’t even very good. (And on the rare occasions we do produce big stars, they’re homely, down to earth types, shying away from the public eye). Our monarchy’s primary function then, whether they know it or not (I’m thinking the latter), is to satisfy the public’s basic (?) need for gossip about the inaccessibly rich and famous. The royal family (and for all their likability, they too are dull as doornails), is all the glamour we’ve got.

Most Norwegians will of course disagree with me.

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by Ian

Ian — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:44:55 +0000

I guessed they had. This blog actually inspired my latest blog entry, so thank you!

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by simonindelicate

simonindelicate — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:22:56 +0000

They made it bad. It’s quite hard to talk about.

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by Ian

Ian — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:10 +0000

Oh what did they do to Dark Water?

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by PC

PC — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:14:29 +0000

If you do make them a blog of their own, chances are I’ll comment there as well.

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by simonindelicate

simonindelicate — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:51:04 +0000

All these things are true – to be honest I only did this post because I was worried about getting called names by Michael Moore fans for the previous one and wanted to disguise it…

But B23’s right, the horrible bastard ring and dark water remakes deserve a blog of their own…

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by PC

PC — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:41:30 +0000

… which in turn was originally a Broadway play from 1920.

Comment on Exhibit #10 Passable New Films Based On Pre-Noughties Intellectual Property by PC

PC — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:40:09 +0000

Batman though (the original comic, as ‘created’ by Bob Kane in 1939), was a rip-off from Roland West’s rather good 1930 film ‘The Bat Whispers’, itself a remake of the latter’s own 1926 silent ‘The Bat’.