Message from @ETBrooD
Discord ID: 667370169357697024
@Goddess Tyche zoroastrian I am indeed
@bocchi just wants friends Then why are you on Discord instead of taking Iran back from the mudslimes?
if you're zoroastrian why are you on discord instead of fucking your sister
Trying to find your mom's contact @Death in June
@Goddess Tyche we're doing that I was just at a protest
May you succeed in your undertaking.
No be kill, pls.
#MakePersiaZoroastrianAgain
That will happen islam in iran is in real danger I read a report about iran being the biggest growing church in the world and our masque attendance being lower than UK muslims beside that kurds in iraqi Kurdistan are also returning to the old religion
U.K. muslims are all in the pub!
👌
The only reason 007 was made into several individuals rather than one in the movies is because they had to hire a new actor every so often, so to not confuse people they just went with the multiple Bonds thing. But outside of the limitation of acting material it's a stupid idea to have multiple Bonds.
It'd basically mean that being 007 coincides with being super charismatic, having or adopting the exact same taste, being polyamoric, etc. etc. All the exact same traits for every single individual, it's nonsense.
In my head canon it used to be that all 007's are the same person, simple enough. But then they hired Daniel Craig and shattered the illusion by styling him so differently.
That's why I don't consider him to actually be 007.
He's an imposter, only carrying the name for commercial sake.
That's a fourth-wall interpretation obviously.
But the butchering of source material for commercial gain has been what I think is bad practice within Hollywood for a long time.
Many angry writers have spoken up about it but we rarely hear of that because their reach is small compared to Hollywood.
In other words, if people only get angry if or when 007 becomes a woman, and didn't get angry about Caniel Craig's casting, then I consider them a little hypocritical tbh.
They went with the excuse that they had to adapt him to modern day demands, to which I say: stop lying please?
Anyone who's really into James Bond and has a fundamental understanding of the concept of individual identity should, in my opinion, reject the Daniel Craig films and consider them non-canon.
Because films are like magic tricks, they're illusions, they play tricks on the mind. They're *supposed* to do that.
And when the illusion is broken, then the spell is broken, and the audience is left feeling empty.
That's why - and I'm sidetracking a bit - I can't enjoy the second Deadpool movie. I consider it a parody of itself, instead of a parody of other superhero tropes.
Excuse me what the fuck
@ETBrooD Sorry to hurt your fee fees, but I consider 007 to just be a designation that any agent can receive and hold. The early Bonds were similar in part due to training, in part due to demand. And it's not like MI5 cannot change designations, ever. For all I care, the agent style of the previous 007s is less needed, and the designation changed roles. I agree, they completely changed the character, but I still like the movies. And they're free to change the character. It's their franchise.
Also, yes Deadpool 2 was shit compared to 1, because it self-destructed too often. And I generally don't like superhero stuff. However, meta-jokes can be and are successful, you just have to know when and where to place them.
If they had completely changed Bond and given him a different tag I'd be fine with it
But they didn't do that, because they wanted the artistic changes but conserve the effects of the commercialization.
That's what Hollywood does all the time these days, and it's getting seriously annoying.
So what you get is all the superficial elements for brand recognition and fan service, but otherwise the character is completely unrecognizable, which makes for a confused, incoherent mix.
But since that's a working formula, they'll keep doing it.
It'd be far more interesting to me if Daniel Craig had played a new, wildly different agent.
It's also why I'm a bit conflicted about the Joker movie. I think it fits because there's never been one single true backstory in the canon of the character.
But it is still a commercialized approach to slap the name and concept of the Joker on a product that didn't require it, and to include fan service with the story link to the Waynes.
I can accept it because the Joker's past is a question mark.
And I don't buy the "it's their franchise" reasoning. Despite that being a true statement, it doesn't absolve them from criticism.
Anyway, all of that's just my opinion, so whatever.
what the fuck is that cursed fursona