

and ploughing it through many, many walls, not just the one he did. It would also drive through caravans and do awesome jumps.
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:11,
archived)

"Ararhchhqhq, ich's lliscke ghharrrglinhhg wichchh scharrrqkss..."
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:12,
archived)

As soon as possible, the last fuckers did it wrong ;)
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:16,
archived)

That is all.
EDIT:
[Sigourney Weaver] God dammit that's not all! CLICK! [/SW]
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:21,
archived)
EDIT:
[Sigourney Weaver] God dammit that's not all! CLICK! [/SW]

Any chance they may end up being reposted for a certain compo suggestion?
And regarding your point below about Clarkson being an act: All very well choosing an on screen persona, but why would you choose to be a massive twat? presumably he has no actual charisma to get away with being a nice guy. He takes himself too seriously, and while there are worse people out there, he's still a twat, and doubly so for choosing to be one.
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:22,
archived)
And regarding your point below about Clarkson being an act: All very well choosing an on screen persona, but why would you choose to be a massive twat? presumably he has no actual charisma to get away with being a nice guy. He takes himself too seriously, and while there are worse people out there, he's still a twat, and doubly so for choosing to be one.

why strive to be something different when you're a middle aged
presenter, not that good looking, when you have a 'formula' that works on tv, books and newspapers and
pays handsomely.
Being seen as a 'twat' is subjective only to the person viewing him. He still has enough people reading and watching him for his employers to consider him bankable to pay out a good amount of money based on the way he acts to (and is perceived by) the general public.
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:24,
archived)
presenter, not that good looking, when you have a 'formula' that works on tv, books and newspapers and
pays handsomely.
Being seen as a 'twat' is subjective only to the person viewing him. He still has enough people reading and watching him for his employers to consider him bankable to pay out a good amount of money based on the way he acts to (and is perceived by) the general public.

Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much as I don't read/watch him.
And not that I like arguing with you, but the idea that Airplane! can be improved seems a little silly.
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:27,
archived)
And not that I like arguing with you, but the idea that Airplane! can be improved seems a little silly.

but it would be interesting to see what people made of it.
/it would also be interesting if Zucker and Co. finally managed to find a little of the old writing magic and did a third installment, maybe reuniting some of the old cast, but the writing would have to be pretty spot on to even consider it.
I'd take a half decent airplane sequel over any 'epic/superhero/meet the spartans movie'
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:29,
archived)
/it would also be interesting if Zucker and Co. finally managed to find a little of the old writing magic and did a third installment, maybe reuniting some of the old cast, but the writing would have to be pretty spot on to even consider it.
I'd take a half decent airplane sequel over any 'epic/superhero/meet the spartans movie'

Garry Bushell lived opposite me for many years and was a genuinely nice, intelligent and decent person. However, facts like that wont stop people forming opinions of the real person as opposed to the media image :D
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:29,
archived)

...did you notice when there was all that furore about him, the BBC made some quote about "..Mr. Clarkson's on-screen persona..."
Could that possibly mean that in person or 'real life' he's not quite such an otter frotter as he plays on TV?
( ,
Wed 12 Nov 2008, 18:15,
archived)
Could that possibly mean that in person or 'real life' he's not quite such an otter frotter as he plays on TV?