It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As for having a fallible character, this is essential for a lead character. It makes the story interesting and the character gets an arc. If one has watched any of the Drinkers videos you will hear mention of this.
The issue comes with today's films. Look at Rey in the new Star Wars trilogy. She's a master pilot (even though she's never left her home planet), she's a jedi within her first fight with Kylo. (not a single training session and she's holding her own against a character who was trained under Luke and Snoke) she can do it all and with ease. What's her story arc? What flaws does she have as a character? None and we are supposed to believe that she can do it all and do it with ease. Same thing happened in Kenobi Inquisitor Reva was this all mighty force and could do no wrong. No flaws to speak of.
Bond had a flaw. His attraction to the opposite sex would cause him trouble and get him to blow his cover. He would often sleep with a woman for any reason. This was tamed down in the Craig era. Craig's Bond was arrogant and head strong in CR and slowly came into his own. By the last film he's lecturing M on why he shouldn't have funded a program. I don't think Fleming's Bond would ever do that but it was the story arc for this rendition of the character.
Have a look at female lead characters in recent entertainment and you will most likely find strong characters with little flaws.
Her adeptness isn’t something that goes without being mentioned. It’s said numerous times throughout the films that it’s highly unusual for her to be able to pick up so easily, and people wonder who the hell is she. Behind the scenes it’s just a way to bypass training montages since we’ve already seen how those play out and it would be redundant to bother doing that all over again with another character. So you come up with a way to skip all that and give the explanation that the Force chose her to bring back balance because it had swung far too much into the dark side. Not really all that different from Anakin, but since he had a penis nobody was skeptical of nine year old being able to pilot both a pod racer and a starfighter as easy as putting on gloves.
As for her flaw, it’s completely false to say that she has none. Her initial flaw is her inability to forge her own destiny and have an identity of her own, as she’s so preoccupied with her parents that her life was stagnant on a desolate planet. We get that resolution with TLJ where she learns that her parents are insignificant and it forces her to make the choice of where to go from there and she chooses the light side.
And then JJ Abrams completely missed that point and decided to make her a Palpatine.
I’ve heard so many of these complaints and I don’t really buy them. I remember hearing so much of that about the Michael Burnham character in Star Trek, and it made zero sense to call her a Mary Sue given the flaws and obstacles she had to overcome. So many dude bros like the alcoholic YouTuber keep whining about females in modern films but I think he’s being disingenuous and just trying to attract a lot of clicks by aggrieved MRA incel type folks. Whatever, that’s his business.
I mean, sure. That’s how predicable they are. The drinker was prepared to rip PREY a new one for having a female lead, but even his followers called out on his BS that he went back and retitled his videos to sound less harsh about it and then admit “it wasn’t that bad”
I get it though. He has a shtick and subscriptions to maintain. So much for integrity.
The YouTubers that we don't watch, but know a lot about. ;)
👍
Don’t forget how they’d react to him having an Asian sidekick in Temple of Doom…
Not sure how you think someone decides they don’t like something without trying it.
You’re welcome to like this stuff but the constant attempts to undermine anyone who rejects it are a little suspect. Defend them if you feel the need to, but attacking those who don't like them and have given reasonable explanations as to why they don't is a waste of time and energy.
Equally though, didn't she die in the last one and have to be brought back to life by a bloke? Also needed the help of all of the previous Jedi to win. As you say, boy Anakin was way more wunderkind. Let's not get bogged down in Star Wars though, even though that is the reason these YouTubers go after Indy: because they know it's Lucasfilm and are grumbling SW fanboys. I almost wish Kathleen Kennedy would leave just like the mask one apparently claims she's about to every other week, just to never see another oddball blame her for all the ills in the world.
You don’t even need to set out to try it either, because of how the algorythms work. I watch a lot of movie trailers so I get recommended stuff like critical drinker all the time. And I do think that’s worrying when you think about how much time kids spend on youtube and how easy it’d be to fall down that rabbit hole. Videos about the new Star Wars film being crap could get you onto videos about how it’s too woke, which could get you onto videos about the problems with female characters in modern films, which could get you onto anti-feminist videos and before you know it you’re onto full on incel baiting Andrew Tate type stuff.
There’s always been hate and there’s always been people vulnerable to being radicalised by it, but the internet’s made that so much easier. My mate’s a teacher and he talks about this a lot. He’s taught a muslim kid from a decent family who was spouting jihadist stuff he’d got online, and a worrying amount of lads who think Andrew Tate is someone to look up to. Dunno what the solution is but it’s scary.
Good post 👍
Yes it is worrying and certainly doesn't exist in a vacuum but is a sign of a larger concern.
Just on a basic, simple level, their objective is to try and ruin things I like, like this film, so that's reason enough not to like them. I hope folks can respect that.
Hold up, when did I say I like them? I didn't. And I have not undermined anyone. If you feel like you have been personally undermined, then I can't help you with that.
Ok, not only have I not defended any of the YouTubers referenced previously (where does this even come from?), but where have I attacked anyone that has called into question those same Youtubers. I haven't called anyone out.
Ok, if you want to complain about YouTubers and still watch them, it doesn't matter what I say or think. I think that would be a waste of my time, you don't. Can we put that point to bed now?
I didn't say you did like it. As for undermining, I was replying to a post where you said:
"The YouTubers that we don't watch, but know a lot about. ;)" as if there's something wrong with that. That's not defending the content but is a comment aimed to try and poke fun (hence the smilie) at the person making the observation, rather than the observation itself. Undermining the point being made by inferring that the person making it is doing something wrong by making it.
And then there's also:
...which uses the language of masturbation twice in reference to people talking about something they don't like. If you ask me, that's not hugely respectful of peoples' views, but it is very much aimed at the people holding the views rather than the views themselves.
Again:
If I were to compare your comments to masturbation, or tried to ridicule you for knowing about things you objected to and making coherent and intelligent points about them, would you be flattered and feel you were being treated respectfully?
I said very clearly that I don't watch them, so I've no idea where that comes from. But keeping an eye on things which one finds dangerous and concerning isn't a waste of time, no. I even explained to you why I felt like that based on evidence, and there have been many very well-made posts since by others which have outlined the problems they find with them too.
If the logic is that we're not allowed to criticise anything we disagree with for fear of wasting our time, where does that leave most of this forum? All of the people dissatisfied with the more recent Bond films for example? Are they all wasting their time too? What's the point of any of it? I'm not trying to have a go at you, but it's not an attitude that can ever foster conversation.
I'm not CEO of YouTube yet, so have at it (not that you need my permission to have at it, ok?). When I do reach that position of power, I will however be banning criticism of Jean-Claude Van Damme, and British Leyland. So don't say you weren't warned.
@mtm I just don't see the point of making a big thing out of it. Let's say that I stumble across a video ranking the Doctor Who actors, and they rank McCoy 1 place from the bottom (which is not unheard of), I'll make a post, defending "my" Doctor, and leave it there. Then if the same YouTuber does a separate video only now ripping into the quality of the stories between 1987-89, i'm not going to that video as well, and do the same thing, when it becomes obvious they they have such a big issue with Sylvester's era, I just won't watch their videos. That's the nub of it. I can either watch YouTube videos from people who I don't hold in high regard, or I don't know.... take my doggo out for a walk. I'll choose the latter. My time is limited, all of our time is limited, the question is, how do you really want to spend it?
One of the few films I consider to be perfect in every way. I'll never forget the first time I saw it at the cinema in 1981 age 14 😁
I saw the later films in the cinema I was only 7 in 81 I would have loved to see the film on the big screen. Every shot every musical note is perfection, Raiders is a work of art Spielberg's best IMO.
It was made for the big screen. To be seen with a big audience! 😁
How early in the run was it? Ours was half full.
First week, I quite like having the whole cinema to myself the same thing happened when I went to see Alien3.
I used to agree but I've noticed latelythat theaters are rarely packed in my neck of the woods. Maybe it's because I'm attending the very first showing of a film or perhaps it's because I live in the middle of nowhere but it didn't always feel like this. The real issue I have is the awful audio output in theaters, causing my interest to sink in the last couple of years. Even when I saw John Wick: Chapter 4, while I loved how bombastic and loud the action was, you can barely make out what anyone in the film is saying. Same went for Bones and All, NTTD and plenty others I've seen over the past couple of years. It really sours the experience.
I think we’ll have the final poster and trailer by the end of the month.
I used to agree but I've noticed latelythat theaters are rarely packed in my neck of the woods. Maybe it's because I'm attending the very first showing of a film or perhaps it's because I live in the middle of nowhere but it didn't always feel like this. The real issue I have is the awful audio output in theaters, causing my interest to sink in the last couple of years. Even when I saw John Wick: Chapter 4, while I loved how bombastic and loud the action was, you can barely make out what anyone in the film is saying. Same went for Bones and All, NTTD and plenty others I've seen over the past couple of years. It really sours the experience.[/quote]
Oh, I'm not talking about these days. That was the 80s/90s. I rarely go to the cinema now. It takes something special for me to go, and the atmosphere is not like it used to. Cinemas seem to attract a lot more idiots, and giggling teenagers with short attention spans!
I used to agree but I've noticed latelythat theaters are rarely packed in my neck of the woods. Maybe it's because I'm attending the very first showing of a film or perhaps it's because I live in the middle of nowhere but it didn't always feel like this. The real issue I have is the awful audio output in theaters, causing my interest to sink in the last couple of years. Even when I saw John Wick: Chapter 4, while I loved how bombastic and loud the action was, you can barely make out what anyone in the film is saying. Same went for Bones and All, NTTD and plenty others I've seen over the past couple of years. It really sours the experience.[/quote]
Oh, I'm not talking about these days. That was the 80s/90s. I rarely go to the cinema now. It takes something special for me to go, and the atmosphere is not like it used to. Cinemas seem to attract a lot more idiots, and giggling teenagers with short attention spans![/quote]
I get what you're saying. That's how it is for me, but sometimes I do miss the cinemas enough that I'm willing to go see any old thing that looks good, but most of the time, it's a waste of time or money due to my issues with the audio or people on their phones, et cetera. The turnaround time from theatrical to streaming is so fast anymore that I don't feel like I'm missing out.