You can view it with those old school 3D glasses, a VR device (if you don't have Quest with the native Youtube app, what you can do is download the video using a youtube downloader and load it up in something like Bigscreen or Virtual Desktop and watch it with full color in SBS format.
Also most devices will allow you to toggle the 3D off and just watch it in 2D if you want.
It's sourced from 101 movies and I like to think of it as ASMR for non-soyboys.
Your wish is my command
Rayman 2 is their best game in my opinion. Never played Zombie U.
I did enjoy Far Cry 3, Far Cry 5 and Assassins Creed black Flag even though they are in that same Ubisoft mold.
Far Cry 4 world design where everything was blocked by mountains you had to climb made that one suck in my opinion
With game companies in the past, I'd find out they'd gone out of business through listening to gaming podcasts or something and be like "dang, they had good games", such as with Pandemic who made the Battlefront games.
It's a strange place to be seeing a company dying in real time and being happy about it. I've hated Ubisoft before they even went woke.
I felt that they sort of ruined the open world genre. The PS3 generation was an amazing gen for open world games. So many games did it their own way and were good in their own way.
Red Faction Guerilla was vastly different than Saints Row 2, which was vastly different from Red Dead Redemption, which was vastly different than Infamous, which was vastly different from Just Cause 2, which was vastly different than The Sabateur. I could go on.
Yeah they all had main mission, side missions, and collectibles, but the way they played and the focus was all very different. They all had different hooks and importantly they knew how to have you interact with their worlds in a way that was satisfying and would open up to you as you progressed. I wouldn't say open world games were samey at all. Then enter Ubisoft and they boiled open world games down to the most uninteresting and tedious elements and would drop you into these uninteresting worlds that were far too open right at the start with just tons and tons of busy work littered everywhere.
You know how every game I listed above was all third person action games and yet felt different?
Well Ubisoft somehow made open world games in entirely different genres feel tedious and mundane and like the same game. Somehow a first person shooter game like Far Cry 4, feels like watch dogs, which feels like Assassins Creed, which feels like the Crew, which feels like Riders Republic. Yeah, even their open world extreme sports title, which is very different in genre still feels distinctly Ubisoft where it's just this world of never-ending crap scattered everywhere without a good sense of progression or sense of anything (see SSX 3 or Skate series for open world extreme sports done right)
I feel that the 7th generation had these amazing unique open world games, that Ubisoft came and were like a soul-less converyor belt, pumping out the same crap with a different skin and ruined a good thing.
So I've wanted Ubisoft to not be making games for a while even before they went fully woke (they were always fairly woke).
Dexters sister in the show Dexter. I was shocked by how non feminist she was written. Just written as an attractive, pleasant woman at least to my memory.
My other thought is moneypenny from the good bond movies( 80s and earlier).
That would be stunning and brave. I'd feel so empowered.
Same, haven't seen No time to cuck either. Anyone who went to that after even seeing the trailers, much less knowing all the background about the people involved, deserved whatever movie they got.
Dude; I love the theme! Very few people rate it all that highly and it's one of my favorites. It's another thing that I didn't appreciate on the first watch. The reason I didn't appreciate it is because the movie I watched right before it was "A view to a kill" and that theme is so poppy and upbeat. So Living Daylights sounds like a "downer" in comparison, but I now place it as one of the best.
License to Kill is also a great theme. The movie version of LtK is far superior to the studio released version. It's weird because Gladys Knight released the song as a single, but it differs than the movie, and not in a good way. When you knock it out of the park for the movie, why release a different version? Most people looking up "License to Kill Gladys Knight" are going to click on and listen to an inferior version not knowing it's not the movie version that is way better.
No, so my history with Bond is like this. I was born in 92, and never saw a bond movie until Casino Royale, but Pierce Brosnan was sort of ubiquitously the Bond I knew through culture. At King's Island there was a James Bond ride, the video games I played featured Pierce Brosnan's likeness, you'd see him in trailers and TV spots and posters, etc.
I enjoyed Casino Royale, and at the time, didn't realize how much it was subverting the character and is an abomination haha.
I didn't like any of the other Bond films that Daniel Craig did.
About 6 or so years ago I decided to watch all the Bond films starting with Sean Connery. I liked all the Bonds, but I would have placed Roger Moore as my favorite back when I watched them, up until recently when I watched the Dalton movies again with my parents and appreciated them way more than I did the first time. I would say it was this second time watching them that I realized how good he was as Bond.
When I first marathoned the Bond movies, I was so used to Roger Moore as Bond because he has so many movies that I was watching back to back over a month or two that it didn't allow me to truly appreciate how cool Timothy Dalton's Bond was. On second glance, without missing Roger Moore's version, I came away thinking that Timothy Dalton is how Bond should be played and left me wishing he got a true shot with like 5 or 6 movies.
He's my favorite bond actually. He's the coolest in my opinion. Pierce Brosnan plays a pretty good Bond, but I don't think his movies are very good.
For me it goes Dalton as number 1, Roger Moore as number 2, Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery are pretty much tied for me as number 3
That guy who only had one movie, which I've only seen once and don't really remember is by default number 4
and Daniel Craig sucks, so number 5.
I really dislike Daniel Craig as "Bond". Think of a scene with Daniel Craig's Bond. Is he scowling or looking mopey....Gonna guess that when you thought of his Bond that's the image that conjured up.
About the one thing Bond should never be is mopey looking, and that's what they went with Daniel Craig's "Bond" and his default face throughout all his movies. There's nothing suave or cool about Daniel Craig's Bond.
It's from the James Bond movie The Living Daylights.
The villain is playing out a war scene and pretending as if he were the general for the union army against the confederacy.
Because the whole point of his character is not that he would support the confederacy or the union, but that he's fascinated with warfare, particularly historical warfare as a hobby.
If this scene were done today, they'd make SURE that he stated in dialogue that he as the villain is acting out how he could have made the confederacy win and "destroy those sinister Union dogs who want to suppress true Americans".
They'd never have a villain imagining himself as a union general in a million years in a modern movie.
The reason he is in this movie from the 80s is because back before everything was propaganda, people could realize that people's characters didn't need to revolve around liberal talking points. His character is really into historical battles. There's no higher commentary than that, nor is it needed.
But something that simple would never be allowed nowadays.
They don't make comedies any more and his only skill is as a comedian.
Even if Adam Sandler didn't have his own production company for his movies, and he wasn't already mega rich, he'd be completely fine because he can play dramatic roles very well.
Will Ferrell has not given a dramatic performance that I'm aware of, and certainly not to the caliber that Sandler has that would make him even be considered when casting decisions are made.
What's a comedian who's still got to worry about keeping up their cost of living in the extremely pricey city of L.A supposed to do when woke culture has made comedies a genre that simply don't get made anymore?
Enter Will Ferrell on a long list of comedians going full woke.
I agree with you. As someone who finds the idea of telling a therapist about legal but weird fetishes to be an idea that makes me feel nauseous, I can't imagine there's many people in the world brave enough to tell a therapist that they have pedophillic inclinations and they don't want to have that and they want help.
If there was a path and a program set up for these people, a lot of good could come from it. Sin festers and grows in darkness and isolation, and essentially because the options for someone who has those feelings is threats of getting killed or keep it a secret and let it fester, that is a reason many of them have it fester to the point that they do something heinous, whereas if they felt they could get help earlier on, things could have gone a very different way for them.
Again, I've thought this through in the same way you have. I know, just as you do that the left wants a very different outcome and wants normalization and would use any inch given as a wedge to unspeakable atrocities, whereas someone like me or you wants pedophiles who haven't offended to come forward and get treatment so that there's less pedophiles. Both the new conservative and the leftist approach to pedophiles creates more offending pedophiles.
The leftist approach intentionally and by design, and the modern right approach by making pedophiles isolate, and grow in darkness out of fear.
First of all, because it's a sin problem, it should be dealt with through the grace of Jesus with programs in churches. Just like a person who struggles with homosexuality, but wants to not to, and to follow Jesus can tell people at their church and in 99% of cases the churches are happy to help them and get them to come out of the darkness and into the light through programs and through them being sanctified by God's word and help from fellow believers.
I feel that churches should offer this for people who have pedophilic desires so that it can be said of them "as WERE some of you" but no longer because you've been washed, cleaned, sanctified in Jesus. Just like there are former practicing homosexuals, if programs like that were in place in churches for people with those desires, then I believe there would be many people who could testify that Jesus changed their heart and desires and they are grateful that they got help before they did something horrific.
Who are these referring to? I haven't heard anything about this
I'm not really a fan of them. I'd say they're like 1990s liberals more than they are actually based or red-pilled.
But they're good for normies, to help them see more of what's going on and that's actually more effective than someone like Anthony Cumia who a normie would click off of immediately because he's "racist" and all the other "ists" out there.
It's good to see Youtube holding to some sort of standard which is rare.
I do think that it has a lot to do that they are, again, just this side of milquetoast. If Anthony Cumias channel had a targeted flagging campaign, youtube would take it off the platform, and the thing is, Cumias youtube stuff isn't even as spicy as the stuff behind his paywall on his site, but even his "safe for youtube" videos would have a big channel like Geeks and Gamers be the subject of countless articles about how "bigoted" they are.
Regardless, a win is a win.
Yeah, good point
I was only at 97.3% gay before I started seeing the word....Friggin retards turned me into a full blown faggot
Haha, you son of a gun
I agree, I haven't watched red letter media in over a year because I saw them get progressively more liberal and since they were one of my favorite youtube channels, it's too painful. It's like watching your own child become an activist or something.
I saw the writing on the wall when Mike started parroting some feminist talking points a few years ago and I knew it would be just a matter of time.
They used to make rape jokes and racial jokes. They were hilarious. Seeing them now is unfortunate. Same with Jaboody show. Their older commentary tracks of like Harry Potter are hilarious where they do this whole gay Dumbledore schtick where when Harry looks into the memory basin, Dumbledore comes in and goes "what....what'd you see in there Harry.....you just keep what you saw between us ok". Friggin hilarious. Now they won't make jokes like that and I almost never watch their stuff anymore.
With MeatCanyon, I never liked it from the very moment I saw it, so there's no personal loss, just some rare anger watching. I don't expect my once every few months views is going to make or break him when it comes to irrelevancy. So while I agree with your statement, I'm not too hung up on it or invested in his success or failure.
He has 7.6 million subscribers. If not one of his videos have ever popped up on your youtube homepage, I'd be very surprised.
Yeah, I remember Norm Macdonald talking about how people will get these labels attached to them that stick and don't really mean anything.
Like how Hollywood won't work with someone because they're "difficult" and Norm was saying it's usually the "difficult" people who are the most talented, and what, do you want someone who's just a bland person who doesn't fight for how they see something? He was talking to Billy Bob Thornton on his podcast because Billy Bob Thornton has gotten that label and Norm was praising him for Slingblade.
He then mentioned how Dave Chappelle said he got this label that stuck to him in the early 2000s when he left the Chappelle show that he's "crazy" and how it doesn't mean anything, and yet people just take to it like it means something. They didn't like that Dave Chappelle walked away from the system, so they attached the label "crazy" to him and it worked.
Crazy, weird, difficult....these are all vague words that allow the hearer to fill in the blanks. They're the sign that someone using it has totally lost the battle. Because if they had specifics to throw at a person, they would. It's basically the last ditch attempt of psychological warfare; since they failed at the more extreme measure of trying to assassinate Trump.
Sort of like how, and I'm paraphrasing what Sargon of Akkad reported on back in the day, how Putin utterly embarrassed the US with some foreign affair during Obama's tenure, and in response, the FBI or CIA (I forget which) released a report that speculated that Putin has autism or aspergers. I kid you not.
It's seriously resorting to middle school level mentality. Somebody utterly shows you up, so you go "whatever, that guys weird...he's an autist"
Michael Wincott is the coolest and I have no idea why he isn't in more movies. If I could trade my voice with anyone's it would be to have Michael Wincotts voice.
Awesome in the Crow and 90s Robin Hood.
I would say that Steve Rogers was not a bullied nerd. He had an alpha personality, just not the body to go along with it. He had a winner mindset, instead of the typical "chip on the shoulder" thing.
The Superpowers just allowed him to be physically a superhero.
Before he was given super strength he jumped on the grenade that he thought was live while everyone else fled. His mindset was the only thing that didn't change about him.
Yes, I made it. All ripped from blu rays we have. Took a long time.
Then the 3D conversion once all the clips are put together.
Much appreciated!