|
Post by Arthur Pringle on May 5, 2017 20:36:46 GMT
The way I look at the Royals is that if we got rid of them we'd be looking at politicians having the final say. I'd compare their role to that of the Church, you may not like them or agree with what they stand for but the alternative, a nation guided by politicians alone, seems like a worse option. As terrible as WW1 & WW2 were, you can imagine how different it would've been for the British soldiers if they'd been fighting for 'Prime Minister & Country'.
As people they could be a lot worse, there was a programme the other night about people with mental health issues training to run the London Marathon & Prince William, Harry & Kate were on it. Easy to be cynical but I was impressed by their attitude, no airs or graces & they seemed genuinely interested. Not sure about the rest of her family but I think Kate Middleton, in a role where she's under constant scrutiny, conducts herself perfectly. She chose the role, but nothing would've prepared her for it.
The BBC & the rest bow & scrape to them not out of respect but because this is the way they think they should treat them. Do the Royals put themselves on a pedestal or do we put them on it?
|
|
|
Post by Sam Tyler on May 5, 2017 21:25:27 GMT
Do the Royals put themselves on a pedestal or do we put them on it? I certainly think that the Royals used to put themselves on a pedestal but so much of that changed due to Diana, Fergie, and even Koo Stark! Go back to when Chas was a nipper: Liz and Phil the Bubble had been away on a tour for some weeks. Upon their return they were disembarking from the Royal Train and Chas had to greet them with a formal shake of the hand. What sort of way was that to bring kids up by? No wonder he has always been so staid. By comparison, look at how Di greeted Will and Harry on return from a tour? She ran up to them, not the other way round, and gave them a huge hug. You'd see her in the log flume or whatever at a theme park getting soaked to the skin with them at her side. By comparison you never saw Liz or Phil let their hair down. Now I'm not saying Diana was perfect but her, and to a lesser degree Fergie, influenced the newer generation of royals positively. Will and Kate are good but whatever his DNA, I do respect Harry with the work he puts in for others. Sam.
|
|
Cartman
Producer
Posts: 4,024
Online Status:
|
Post by Cartman on May 6, 2017 9:36:54 GMT
It's not so much the members of the family themselves, but more the dreadful fawning over them by the media which really bugs me. The younger ones, Like William, Harry and Kate, I don't mind too much.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Pringle on May 6, 2017 14:05:22 GMT
It's not so much the members of the family themselves, but more the dreadful fawning over them by the media which really bugs me. The younger ones, Like William, Harry and Kate, I don't mind too much. Particularly the BBC. Makes me laugh when the BBC are accused of being too 'Left Wing', they couldn't be more reverential if they tried.
|
|
Del Boy
Moderator
Posts: 9,902
Online Status:
|
Post by Del Boy on May 6, 2017 14:50:28 GMT
Great thread guys Simon Cowell- Self serving turd who is responsiblor a whole swathe of shite music acts. Idris Elba - What's all the hype with this guy ? I dont get it. As for the James Bond gig next.... err no. Tom Hardy ... Ditto Tottenham Fans - A certain type of **** mostly Lewis Hamilton - Spoilt little twat Coldplay - Most overrated band ever Katie Price and her Ex Peter (I had a pop hit in the 90s) Andre. Later with Jools Holland - A poor copy of Whistle test and mostly crammed with shite That'll do for now BIB: What is it with today's pc brigade? James Bond was a white male and Dr Who is also male so why the clamour to change these facts for the sake of "equality". Can you imagine the appropriation accusations if they made Shaft starring Kenneth Brannagh or Buffy The Vampire Slayer with Vinnie Jones? Its plain ridiculous, I like continuity. Sometimes personnel changes in a role don't work either let alone changing the other details for the sake of ingratiating themselves with today's politically correct leaders. Those details need to be sorted from the (get go ) off and then not changed surely ?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Austin on May 6, 2017 15:16:12 GMT
Its plain ridiculous, I like continuity. Sometimes personnel changes in a role don't work either let alone changing the other details for the sake of ingratiating themselves with today's politically correct leaders. Those details need to be sorted from the (get go ) off and then not changed surely ? You're on thin ice there Del
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Pringle on May 6, 2017 19:03:07 GMT
I think a female Doctor Who isn't as tokenistic as it sounds as the show is very different to how it was. They've altered it so much that having a female Time Lord isn't that much of a stretch. Also as it's a sci fi fantasy it doesn't need to stick to the 'rules', though Doctor Who purists would disagree. The Doctor Who audience is very different today, appealing to a younger female audience. I stopped watching it when Colin Baker took over & I can't stand the show as it is today. A Black James Bond however is just tokenism & apart from being insulting to Black people, it makes no sense at all given the character as Ian Fleming wrote it. By having a Black British actor play Bond you're basically admitting that there aren't enough roles for Black British actors. The answer is to encourage more non Whites into the tv & film industry, I've no idea how you do that but you don't do it by saying 'make Bond Black or Asian', it's not a sustainable option & is wrong for so many reasons. As for Idris Elba & Tom Hardy, I think they're typical of the type of male actor we get today- good looking, good physique, youngish, metropolitan, etc. I don't see their appeal but then I don't watch modern films or tv. They're more for people who just watch tv & films to pass the time, people like my brother in law.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Austin on May 6, 2017 19:07:47 GMT
Well reasoned Arthur although I don't agree about Dr Who, my point being that if were acceptable then why not do it before now.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Pringle on May 6, 2017 21:21:37 GMT
Well reasoned Arthur although I don't agree about Dr Who, my point being that if were acceptable then why not do it before now. I see what you mean Steve. Social media plays a large part as well as PC, the large female fan base of Doctor Who on fan sites debating the idea of a female Doctor Who. It only takes a few people to put the idea forward until it becomes a hot potato with people demanding to know 'why shouldn't the character be female?' Then the tabloids weigh in & turn it into a 'PC gone mad' story. The thing is the male lead with the female subordinate is just a reflection of how things generally are in the real World, the answer is to either accept that or for women to take the initiative & write female centred shows with female lead characters.
|
|
Del Boy
Moderator
Posts: 9,902
Online Status:
|
Post by Del Boy on May 6, 2017 22:03:51 GMT
I agree with Arthur, write them as a specific character from the off then leave as is.
|
|