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.
It wasnt necessarily about the freshness, which is true for certain things, but more about if the seasonings are seperated into individual ones throughout the cooking process, then they percieve it as not seasoning because they werent all combined.
Salt is salt, parika is paprika but the point is this talking point comes from the perception that not shaking a spicy shaker onto your food means you dont season your food.
India is probably the top of the chain in terms of seasoned, spicy food and yet you dont see them shaking tobasco sauce and laurys onto their curry.
Yeah, as this woman who got attacked as being racist on Tiktok or instagram or whatever pointed out, those spice mixtures that have a bunch of spices together...shaking that onto your food isn't the only (and this doesn't even need to be said because it's obvious) or even the best way to season your food.
They'll look at a white person who makes a meal who uses all the fresh ingredients like garlic, onion, salt, parsely, paprika, seperately, but because they're not shaking it out from a plastic shaker, we're not seasoning food.
No, that cooking with all those fresh ingredients is the better form of the shaking the dried ingredients onto dishes.
The girl who's a cook pointing this out that when you cook with fresh herbs and spices, that's the seasoning step, so you don't need to shake seasonings on to the food, and when she made that video pointing it out, she got called racist. She never mentioned any race by the way. She just plainly stated that using fresh ingredients is seasoning.
Yeah, I hate that crap.
Anyone who says unalive, I stop watching their video. If you care about monetization that badly then you might as well just make toy reviews for children like Irate gamer did with Puppet steve.
Clearly talking about current day events is not your calling if you're self-censoring and saying "unalive" or "deletion" or whatever else.
Look, there's one thing with FCC rules that keep things from getting too profane. Most radio jocks abide by that. But the thing is you don't really notice the censorship because it just keeps the most extreme things in check. If you listen to old Opie and Anthony clips, you can't believe that this was on public radio for anyone to hear with advertisers. Totally different type of guidelines. They had censorship they had to abide by, but it was such a politically incorrect time that you didn't even notice the censorship.
If like on Youtube you can actually notice in real time the kindergarten replacement words that they're abiding by that get stricter each and every month, you know you're in Soviet territory.
You shouldn't be able to spot guidelines.
Like Futurama. The seasons before they moved to Adult Swim and could be more TV-MA were the best and funniest seasons. You never got the sense that the creators were ham-strung on Fox.
That's how limits should work. Enough to limit degeneracy, but not so overbearing that it's noticeable and limits creativity, freedom, expression art and creates an environment of fear.
If you type the exact title of the video in Youtube, it will not show up, or at least wasn't yesterday. Many of the comments confirm this. I haven't checked today. You had to type the channel name and then find it that way.
I found it because it was shared on Twitter. That's how most people are finding it. It's being shared widely on Twitter, Reddit, etc.
The views are because it's going viral on other platforms where people are linking it. Those views are in spite of the fact that Youtube hides it from the search, not because of it.
I haven't and will not watch the Fallout show. What did they do to the Brotherhood of Steel? I'm almost afraid to ask
Better Call Saul, as well as the Breaking Bad sequel movie El Camino. Better Call Saul put in some irritating things in the last season, but relatively speaking managed to be what I imagine will go down in history as the last non-woke show unless this country changes drastically in the future.
Bloodshot from 2020 starring Vin Diesel has some stuff I don't like, like some clear diversity casting, but it is not about anything except being fun and entertaining, and there is really no "message" being pushed. It shocked me and my mom when we watched it that it was as entertaining as it was and was just a fun movie that wasn't pushing anything. It really is worth watching. It feels more like a movie you'd see in a theater in like 2008 rather than 2020 in terms of just being pure Blockbuster, popcorn entertainment.
There was a short period in the 2020s where Family Guy might have still been edgy and not politically correct. I haven't watched in like 2 years or so as I saw the direction it was going; but around 2014 or 2015 or so Family Guy got way better and the writers were semi based and they had a good run up until recently that I'd consider their best and funniest episodes they ever made.
Edit: Just confirmed, it is 2014 with the season 13. I think there was a changeup in the writers room after the show started getting negative backlash like replacing Brian with that mafiosa dog, and the new writers went back to edgy jokes and even poking fun of woke culture. I can't say exactly when this golden age ended, but like I said, I started seeing it gradually get woker, and my concept of time is totally screwed up anymore, but it's possible there were a few good seasons in the early 2020s and 2019.
That would be stunning and brave. I'd feel so empowered.