www.ditl.org

Sonic Glitch wrote:Making suggestions on what the political leaders should do, no matter how accurate they may be, and running the country single-handily as an absolute monarch are still worlds apart.

Who said anything about "single-handed"? Look at my previous post.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Sonic Glitch wrote:Making suggestions on what the political leaders should do, no matter how accurate they may be, and running the country single-handily as an absolute monarch are still worlds apart.

Who said anything about "single-handed"? Look at my previous post.

I did. If you'd like, I can edit out the single-handly if it would make my point easier to understand.

Sonic Glitch wrote:I did. If you'd like, I can edit out the single-handly if it would make my point easier to understand.

That would mean that there was no difference between the Queen and the PM whatsoever, because the only difference between the PMs instructions to his subordinates and the Queen's suggestions to the PM is that the former has the political clout to enforce his suggestions. If you think politicians are in any way necessary to the smooth running of the country you're sorely mistaken. All they do is provide a public face and a vague steer. All the implementation is done by the Civil Service.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:That's my point - no matter how well-informed she is as to the running of the country, there's no precedent for how well she could do it the way an absolute monarch did way back when.

Read the whole of my post - it's not simply a matter of her being well-informed, but that her advice is very important to whomever the incumbent PM is. They've all either realised from the start or learned very quickly that when she makes a suggestion it's a good idea to follow it.

#1 - that speaks to the offices of the PM et. al., not to the office of the Queen.

#2 - so what? Advising the PM, et. al., =/= being the practical head - and only embodiment whatsoever - of the state.

Ah, Transformers Dark of the Moon. Just got back from seeing it. Not bad... hmm. Some problems for me. But I've seen worse.

Worse as in Transformers 2?

Yeah, I suppose. I didn't mind ROTF too much, and I flat-out loved the 2007 movie.

I liked Transformers 3. The didn't bother with the "super smart secret programs that no one can crack but somehow everyone knows about". It was an action flick with enough drama to make you care but not enough that you have to think while watching.

That is good then. I liked it Transformers 2 the first time around except for a few things here and there. Second time around I couldn't stand it.

McAvoy wrote:That is good then. I liked it Transformers 2 the first time around except for a few things here and there. Second time around I couldn't stand it.

Oddly enough, that's how I felt about the Star Wars prequels. It was only afterwards that I was struck by an overwhelming feeling of, "Wait, w]hat the f*ck? What the hell are these things supposed to be?"

Yeah same thing with me. Usually this is the case with most movies I see. First time I just relax and enjoy the movie. Second time around I start noticing stuff whether it's bad acting or plotlines.

Special cases like the first Twlight movie and the first Harry Potter movie where I saw the whole thing without knowing what the books were about. I thought it would be a regular vampire flick. Holy shit I was wrong. Thankfully I was with my gf and she knew that I'd hate it which why she never told me about it. The Harry Potter movies, I could never watch without falling alseep.

If they had followed the 5 parts action, 1 part comedy, 1 part drama that they did in Transformers 3... I think all three films would have been awesome.

Lets be honest, the battles are fun to watch (even though in the first movie the Autobots couldn't stand for five seconds against any of the Dcons). The comedy is more often then not truly funny, but often lacks placement. Lastly, the story line is there to be enjoyed (though Bay seemed to be confused on how he wanted things to work out).

I agree. People are paying money to see giant robots fuck things up. Not see some 'kid' run around like an idiot.

The first movie needed setup, and the Transformers were ridiculously expensive to render from what I've heard. So the amount of screentime they got there didn't bother me.

That is true. The first didn't bother me too much. The second bothered me alot because of huge plotholes. And the twins.