Uncyclopedia:VFH/James Bond (character)

Article: James Bond (character)	Score: 10 piss-poor imitations of Connery
Nominated by:	15Mickey20
For: 15	Self-nom&for. 'Tis the season. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC) For. Well how can I not, after a review like that? --UU - natter 19:53, Dec 7 For. I just watched "From Russia With Love" an hour ago, how can I not vote for this!? - UnIdiot \| \| Talk \| Contribs - 21:09, Dec 7 I'm shaken, not stirred after reading that (I hope this expression works). --Nachlader 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) For. IronLung 07:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Scotland forever--Sycamore (Talk) 13:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC) For. But of course. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:19, Dec 8 For. On closer inspection (and after explanations from Under User) I have seen the light. RabbiTechno 11:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC) For. You only get featured once --Asahatter (annoy) 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) For. 77.78.83.1 16:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) For. *Style* *Guide* 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) For. Very funny. –—Hv (talk) 14/12 16:26 For Starts out a little slow, but I enjoyed most of it very thoroughly, or however you spell it. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 16:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC) For. 24.238.37.240 21:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC) for. clever subtleness works! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I approve of this article. I am the Supreme Ruler of Reality, kneel before my presence!
Against: 5	Against sorry, I just don't "get" this article. It feels like half of what's written was for non-humorous intentions —talk 13:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Against. I'm going to have to go with Fag (the lucky, lucky chap) on this one. Extremely well written, but not especially funny. RabbiTechno 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Against. 216.56.24.130 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Against per above.--Mnbvcxz 17:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Against. 91.105.75.121 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Against Not funny to me. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Against. MDUN 09:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Against. MDUN 09:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Striking out second vote. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 17:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments	UU's gushing pee review. ~~On second thoughts, I'll abstain. I've never seen a Bond film nor read any of the books, so it could be unspeakably hilarious and just lost on me. RabbiTechno 15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Comment. 92.2.123.76 17:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Comment. Yes, Fag, HALF. *Style* *Guide* 10:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Comment. Hmmmmmmmm, If I wrote a witty fanzine about Godzilla, chiding the lame dopey lovable incarnations and lauding the meaner versions, would it be poo-pooed by everyone that loved this?-- 23:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: Point missed, possibly? This isn't so much about that as it is about satirising the tendency of Bond fans to write off all other Bonds in comparison to Connery, often while contradicting themselves in the process. Look at it: Connery was a great choice because he was an unknown, Lazenby was a disastrous replacement because he was inexperienced; Moore turned the franchise into one big joke, but Dalton was dull because he lost the humour... --UU - natter 09:17, Dec 28 It's would actually be quite similar with Godzilla fans. The article just comes across like a real fan page by a real Bond fan and seems to document the Connery bias instead of exploiting it IMO. I won't vote against out of respect for the numerous people who found it entertaining but I just can't bring myself to vote for. Speaking of Connery, I just watched "Zardoz" again.....what a stud, running around in his little red outfit. The word Zardoz just sounds so cool when he says it.-- 13:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)