revolution saint

That was just an illustration of the absurdity of the hereditary principle. Andy being a wrong un hasn't affected my opinion of the monarchy in the slightest

I struggle to see why people get worked up over the suggestion that the monarchy should be abolished. Here's your first post in the subject as an example.

No, it's not really clear at all especially since you were saying it wasn't speculation. As Badger mentioned you might find tourism actually increases in the event that Buck house etc is opened up and provides greater access. It's whataboutery anyway, the point is that the hereditary principle and the monarchy are undemocratic anachronisms in a modern society.

I actually did take a quick look at those articles and it's pure speculation (obviously) and they even acknowledge that themselves with lines such as, "we have observed difficulties in fully grasping the extent of the UK monarchy’s economic influence due to the multifarious nature of their influence on society. Additionally, we have highlighted how problematic it is to rigorously measure the economic impact of tourism."

It's an undemocratic and unaccountable institution and for me that's enough. Quite telling that you would choose to shift the argument from democratic principle because it's a pretty indefensible position to be arguing from.

How about they're undemocratic? The idea that you can be born into the role of head of state regardless of ability or talent is laughable. The Andrew that you describe as a complete idiot and an embarrassment was once second in line to the throne and could easily have ended up as King.

Andy has got nothing to worry about, he's already a guest of his majesty. Suspect they'll probably chuck him in a cell for a few hours to try and sweat him out.

The kid from "Annie".

Yeah always felt Forrest Gump was the film equivalent of “We didn’t start the fire”; nostalgia porn for boomers.

I'm not a massive Bond fan either although I didn't mind the first two or three Daniel Craig films (mostly) which seemed a bit more grounded and tended to have a plot rather than a collection of set pieces tacked together. Still prefer the Bourne films though.

Just thought of another one. The deerhunter. Tried to watch it a couple of times but never finished it.

Yeah, they definitely have a different criteria than the rest of the population. You can see it to an extent with all the awards ceremonies, all the films are either different or worthy kinds and anything purely commercial finds it hard to get a look in. Nothing wrong with worthy films per se but I wouldn’t rewatch them much whereas I have a load of superficial popcorn films that I find much more enjoyable.

Good call on 2001, another one I failed to finish.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160822-why-mulholland-drive-is-the-greatest-film-since-2000 Agree but critics seem to love it. All a bit emperor’s new clothes if you ask me.

This is for those films that everyone and particularly critics are unanimous in praise for but you can’t abide. I’ve already mentioned Apocalypse Now in the Robert Duvall thread but I think it’s really turgid and dull. Mulholland Drive - to be honest I could put almost everything by David Lynch but this one will do. God knows what the plot is but I couldn’t figure it out. Cinematography is great and Naomi Watts and Laura Harring both get their tits out which elevates it a bit. Raging Bull - couldn’t even finish it. As always, completely subjective, no right or wrong and no justifications needed.