Double race swap, put a diverse character in it, and make it lame!
This is getting ridiculous.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2024) Discussion > Double race swap, put a diverse characte...
This show looks bland. But it would be equally just as bland if both the main characters were white.
Not sure what the race of them has to do with anything here.
the first rule is of course if you gender/race swap, is the make the story lame.
shareBattlestar Galactica reimagined 2004
shareGod that show sucked ... π
Great special effects though... π
How did it suck?
shareIt didn't know what it wanted to be. They did like two red herrings. They thought they found earth they made us think it was earth and of course it ended up not being earth. They put a Jimmy Hendrix song in there to throw us off even more. They had zero clue what to do with Starbucks fate. So she just disappeared. Everyone ends up dying because instead of earth being in present day they find during prehistoric times .....this rendering any type of sequel nonexistent. Then we got that awful awful prequel ...
I kinda liked it for the first 2 matybe 3 seasons. After that....it stunk. But again the effects were top notch....
It never appealed to me from the start compared to the original space-faring adventures of the original. Loved the first run of the series with Dirk Benedict. Couldn't stand the remake.
shareThe did it just to offend people like einstein. It worked very well. Looks lame, like the original.
shareWhy would this be offensive?
shareIt is not offensive in any way at all, to normal people.
But racists, sexists and other "ists" will find a way to be offended if their wants and needs are not catered to at all times. They think they are entitled to whatever they want, so they cry like little kids when they don't get it.
The re-make with non-white actors just another way to capture the audience that might have been missed the first time around with two vanilla white characters in the lead roles. I thought the original was kind of silly, and this one is really no improvement.
I think we should race swap the Jeffersons. George and Weezy could be an Irish couple. That would have been so much more believable in the first place.
shareNothing about the previous version with white actors "missed" any audience. If you're a "normal" person, that is, someone with normal intelligence, you don't need the actors to be the same race as you to relate to the characters. Those who couldn't enjoy the original because the people in it were white are the ones crying like little kids. The negative reaction to the current race-switched version is not because people don't want to see POC in movies and series. It's because race switching is pandering to woke stupidity. (I acknowledge the redundancy of the phrase "woke stupidity".)
shareDid it ever occur to you that some people are just not interested in Pitt and Jolie? Probably not. The 2005 version was missed by many people who were not old enough to appreciate that kind of show in the cinema. Probably everyone who was born in 1995 and later.
Who couldn't enjoy the original because the actors were white? Were you one of them?
When a film like this is re-made, why do it the same?
I WAS IN MY 20S IN 2005....MR AND MRS SMTH WAS A DUMB SUMMER CHEESE...NOT A GREAT FILM AT ALL...THE EXACT KIND OF THING THAT COLD USE A REMAKE.
shareThe mental hoops you have to jump through, and the general state of denial you must remain in, to make such a statement with a straight face is astounding. Deep down, you must know how comically inaccurate what you wrote is, yet there it is in black and white for all to read.
shareThe mental hoops you have to jump through, and the general state of denial you must remain in, to claim that racist do not exist, is astounding.
Deep down, you must know how comically inaccurate our claim is, yet there it is in black and white for all to read.
Just another DEI woke remake.
shareThe only reason that anything is made anymore is to check boxes.
shareGet better media literacy.
shareThank you, Biden spokesperson. You're still going to fuck up this election like you did in 2016.
shareThis has nothing whatsoever to do with Biden or politics.
shareCertainly not common sense. You trolls are so boring.
shareAnd how am I trolling?
shareIt seems like most of your post are defending liberal ideology.
shareAnd how would that be trolling?
shareBecause you work on defecting from the obvious like some little troll.
I noticed that about him TOO!!!
it is strange that lefties are always surprised when someone sees though their shit. No matter how often it happens.
It is sad the way they insist on denying it, no matter how obviously they are busted.
What am I deflecting (I assume you mean *deflecting* and not "defecting" exactly? What's "obvious" here?
shareThe complaint about "diversity" ruining movies and tv shows, is a real and valid complaint.
YOU are in this thread, not to discuss that, but to deflect and derail the conversation.
That is what is "obvious" here.
NOPE...NOT REAL...NOT VALID...UNLESS YOU ARE AN INTOLERANT DINOSAUR.
shareReal and valid. Your denial is... silly. You are a silly person.
shareπ€£ RAGE ON,DINOSAUR.
shareOr, in the real world, on an entertainment discussion site, I will discuss a factor that is ruining some entertainment.
That this bothers you, that you defend assholes who choose to do a crappy job... is a you problem.
Or, in the real world, on an entertainment discussion site, I will discuss a factor that is ruining some entertainment.
FALSE...THAT IS WHAT RUINS MOVIE DISCUSSION SITES...ENDLESS BITCHING ABOUT EVERYTHING...YOU KNOW THIS THOUGH...YOU ARE GOOD AT IT.
I find that discussion sites are ruined by trolls and moderators that allow themselves to be played by said trolls.
That is what ruins a discussion site.
Good faith discussions about events or matters of common interest, do not ruin a discussion site.
>I find that discussion sites are ruined by trolls and moderators that allow themselves to be played by said trolls.
Sorry, are you suggesting you think people should be getting banned on here for what they do?
Wow. You have zero ability to understand people that are different than you. ZERO.
What are you on about?
You were complaining about the moderators here, were you not?
Nope. Not at all. YOu failed completely to understand me.
shareClearly. I thought you were decrying the lack of moderation on here that leads, so far as you believe, to trolling.
shareIt is a danger. I was more thinking of past examples I have seen where moderators allow themselves to be played by trolls that end up ruining the site.
it is, very sad. Y ou have places where people of like minds gather to discuss shared interests, and soulless monsters ruin it for everyone.
Especially when you think of the percentage of people that online is their primary socializing. People with mobility issues, or other problems.
You never know how fragile the someone on the other end of these threads can be. Or how little some people might have.
Trolls are teh scum of the earth.
I mean, there's literally no moderation here (or very little). It's always been that way. You're not being "played by trolls" if you don't enter the game, so to speak.
Are you aware of the outrageous accusations some of the users are hurling at me on here?
Are they calling you a racist? Cause I get that from leftards all the time.
It is, in the modern culture, one of the most vile slurs that can be leveled.
Other than pedophilia, maybe bestiality, I don't know of a much that is looked down on more strongly.
>Are they calling you a racist? Cause I get that from leftards all the time.
No, I've been accused of being a child molester, and a school shooter. That's quite a bit more serious than just being called a racist.
These also are accusations not coming from the left.
People have their lives ruined all the time, by false accusations of racism.
Child molestation? School shooting? Not so much. There are no wide movements with literal violent street mobs ready to descend on any random target for no reason.
>Child molestation? School shooting? Not so much. There are no wide movements with literal violent street mobs ready to descend on any random target for no reason.
Sorry, are you genuinely arguing that people haven't had their lives ruined by false accusations of child molestation? Is this a joke? Known sex offenders are literally physically assaulted in real life.
It's a much rarer claim, but it's an accusation of a serious crime.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/yorkshire-paedophile-hunters-make-public-apology-for-falsely-shaming-innocent-man-on-live-sting-586557
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/torn-apart-family-innocent-man-17643730
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Off6FWP4FOw
---
In addition, do you think it's acceptable for people to hurl accusations like that?
Sure false accusations of any crime or sin can ruin a life.
But WACISM today, is like....
If this was SALEM, 1692, being accused of wacism today would be being accused of WITCHCRAFT then.
Sure, accusing the baker of... child molestation might be very bad for him,
but the defining issue is the ANTI-WITCH HYSTERIA with mobs burning people at the FUCKING STAKE.
Hell, you might even get a fair trial if accused of child molestation.
Accused of witchcraft? DREAMS are admissible as evidence.
>Sure, accusing the baker of... child molestation might be very bad for him,
There have literally been mobs formed to attack accused child molesters dude.
https://torontosun.com/news/crime/mob-attacks-killer-pedophile-who-confessed-to-rape-murder-of-boy-8
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mob-kills-suspected-child-rapist/
https://www.nydailynews.com/2013/05/21/colo-mob-attacks-man-falsely-thought-to-be-child-molester/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society
In addition, do you think it's acceptable for people to hurl accusations like that?
THe mob today is anti-wacism.
Deal with it.
Do you actually have a single example of a mob forming to beat the shit out of or murder someone because they've been called racist?
shareAnd you're still not answering this. It's quite a simple question:
In addition, do you think it's acceptable for people to accuse others of being pedophiles?
1. I've seen youtube vids of violent mobs using racism as a justification for their violence.
2. I think all false accusations are bad. Thou shall not bear false witness.
BUt today, the most often used false accusation, is wacism. That's the big one, used mostly by brainless leftards. Because they have no brains and are assholes.
1. I meant, specifically, a mob formed to kill someone purely because they said something or were accused of being racists.
2. Going to condemn some of your ideological peers for their conduct to me?
1. Why limit teh discussion to mobs speicifical formed for a specific acccusation of racism? Oh, becuase you know I'm right and you are tryign to dodge. Got it. Thanks.
2. Nah. You have been a complete ass to me many times. I assume that you have been to other people too and they were returning the favor.
1. Because that's the direct comparison here. Specifically false racist accusations vs. false pedophile accusations.
2. So if you don't like someone, it's acceptable to call them a pedophile?
1. You know that supposedly "anti-wacist" mobs are violent and dangerous. But you are using debating tactics avoid admitting it.
2. You leftards have put a lot of hate out into the world. And then you whine like fags when it comes back on you. It makes you look like pussies.
1. That's nice. Not answering my question: Do you actually have a single example of a mob forming to beat the shit out of or murder someone because they've been called racist?
2. Not answering my question: So if you don't like someone, it's acceptable to call them a pedophile?
I like teh way that you misrepresent what I say. If shows that you are afraid.
share1. That's nice. Not answering my question: Do you actually have a single example of a mob forming to beat the shit out of or murder someone because they've been called racist?
2. Not answering my question: So if you don't like someone, it's acceptable to call them a pedophile?
I addressed both of your pretend questions.
share1. That's nice. Not answering my question: Do you actually have a single example of a mob forming to beat the shit out of or murder someone because they've been called racist?
2. Not answering my question: So if you don't like someone, it's acceptable to call them a pedophile?
DUDE...YOU'RE THE TROLL.π€£
shareSaid the man arguing against discussion.
shareNO...NO I AM NOT.
shareNot a possible explanation, I can draw that from the quote. You are acting as if I draw it from thin air. It's in the film. By your logic there is no MLK vs Malcolm X ideology because it doesn't specifically state it.
I don't need things to be specifically stated. Only idiots like yourself need that in order to come to a logical conclusion.
Your lack of retort is a concession and therefore you lost this point. Your non sequitur is dismissed.
1. The quote is vague as fuck. You have a nice FAN THEORY, that makes the film better than it actually was.
2. The movie in many ways thoughout hte film EXPLICITLY pushes a certain premise. Your argument is that it was done to give an opportunity for character growth. To demonstrate that the character(s) in question had actually GROWN, you would have had to shown clearly that they now rejected that premise. That was not done. A maybe at the end does not reverse a whole plot of clear message.
3. Go fuck yourself. That enough of a retort for you, troll boi?
Not a fan theory when I have a quote which enabled me to draw a conclusion. I didn't pull it out of thin air. Which is what a fan theory is.
Nope a movie doesn't need to do that in order for a person to draw what it's implying. The MLK vs Malcolm X is implied but it isn't specifically stated. It's not a maybe it's the conclusion I am able to draw.
Your non sequitur is dismissed. Fuck yourself incel.
1. A POSSIBLE conclusion. After all, I have offered alterntatve possible meanings for that qoute and pointed out that he was NOT rejecting everything from before. So, what you have is a fan theory. Thus the character development that you used to defend the movie, is just not actually there. You can IMAGINE it, but it is not really there.
2. If a movie about WHITE SUPREMACISTS spend 90% of it's runtime, showing white suremacists being clearly and expclitly racist to blacks and presented that as right and proper and then at the last mintue had the main character state that he had been wrong, but not without explicitly stating what he had been wrong about, AND THEN showed him being sad that the even more racist and violent "villian" of hte movie died,
would that be good enough for you?
LOL. This question was rhetorical. Don't even try to pretend that it would. You are a liar.
How was he not rejecting anything from before? If he says all of you were wrong and have to right some wrongs. He must be talking about something. You just defeated your claim. Keep up kicking your ass is getting easy. Step it up I want a challenge.
Lol your hypothetical situation is noted and irrelevant. That's not even close to what black panther did. Therefore all that was was garbage you spouted.
The point stands black panther was a financial hit, got good reception by critics and the majority of people. You lost the battle, we won. Deal with it..
1. And again you play dumb. I didn't say he did not reject "anything" I said he did not reject "everything". Yes, he WAS talking about SOMETHING, but WHAT is the question. You are welcome to guess, but you do not get to assume your guess is correct to the point of claming that it makes CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT that erases all the earlier, far CLEARER, bad. That is just a fine FAN THEORY you have there. The movie would have been BETTER, if they had done what you like to imagine they did.
2. It is exactly what black panther did, expect WHITE and BLACK switched. I know that such words confuse lefties like yourself. So it is hard for you to think about such things. And by "hard" I mean, impossible. But still, I hope.
3. Yet, to defend it, you have to play dumb and make appeals to popularity, instead of arguing HOW it was good.... almost as if on some level, you know that it was objectively a terrible movie. Just one that pandered to your bad ideas and motives.
Wrong I get to draw my own conclusions like you did. You have a fan theory as well. You assume ill intent while I assume good intent. Like I said before it didn't need to specifically state something to draw that conclusion. Only losers like you need that to occur.
Lol nope. Black panther risked his life to protect those people. That alone eliminates your point. Black panther is a noble guy.
Oh no I dismantled you quite easily. The point stands it was a hit financially and got great reception by critics and massive audiences. Deal with it. They hold more credibility than your sorry ass ever will. Now get back to your basement incel. Go fuck yourself.
1. Your position is based on a guess, mine is based on my pointing out how vague they are. Big difference. That you pretend to be too stupid to get that, is your only defense agaisnt admitting you are full of shit.
2. Which people? The whites that would die? Or hte blacks? Or his own countrymen that would die in the war? The "qoute" you like to cite, doesn't make it clear. YOur position is retarded.
3. Your defense of the show is based on you pretending to be too stupid to hold a thought from one post to the next.
Nope not a guess. A guess would mean I have nothing to support my conclusion. Unfortunately for you I do.
Every single one of them! Do you need something to be specific in order to draw a conclusion? Yes or no?
You are just upset you are in the minority. Black panther is considered good and it burns you up. The point stands it's considered a good film. They hold more credibility than you do.
1. A guess can be based on incomplete or vague data. Which yours is. As I have repeatedly pointed out. Thus, you cannot assume it to be true to justify your defense of character development.
THe way that you refuse to be honest about anything, that is your brain dealing with the fact that it knows I am right.
2. It could be all of them. Or is could be just one. Or any combo. WE CAN'T TELL FROM THE INFORMATION THE MOVIE GIVES US.
3. You saying "upset" is just a debating tactic common among lefties when they have lost an argument. You can't defend your point, so you try to change hte subject to some pretend flaw in the person who just kicked your ass.
You're talking to a sock of the other guy. All these woke posters are all our one and only resident troll.π
shareTHanks.
shareNope you needed to refute it, you failed. I can cite many other things in black panther but you are closed off as seen by me quoting this.
Art doesn't need to be specific to imply something. It implies the clashing of ideologies. Tchalla is mlk while Killmonger is Malcolm x. It implies this. Does someone need it to specifically state this in order to draw up this conclusion? No that's not how art works.
Yep considering you only call out race swaps when it happens to whites. That's bad behavior. Which fits my narrative earlier. The only race you care about is the white race. If that's not true why do you only complain about white characters being swapped?
1. What was he referring to, when he said they were "wrong"?
2. Of course. And don't be a fag and gloat because I "conceeded" something. I have clearly NOT had a problem with "implying". But IMPLYING is less clear than EXPLICITLY STATING. And your assumption abotu what he MEANT, is unsupported.
3. You are a race baiting fag. Go fuck yourself.
Um many things. Their views on the world, their approach to the world etc.
So you moved the goal post from implying to specifically stating? It doesn't need to specifically state something to appease you. Drop your entitled attitude.
I'm not the one who complains about diversity in films before I even watch the product that's you. Go fuck yourself.
1. In what way? Was he saying that european imperalism was a GOOD thing for Africa?
2. Fuck your dishonesty. I moved nothing. If you can support your claim of him "implying" that the former anti-white racism was wrong, that would be fine. BUT, you can't. And you know you cant.
3. Becuase sometimes you can judge something from the trailer or reports. Your pretense otherwise, is just you being a troll boi fag. Go fuck yourself.
I already answered you.
I did support he implied it dumbass. You are wanting him to specifically state it. You admitted I can draw that from his words. A movie doesn't need to specifically state something in order to imply it. You can't refute the quote and you know it. Fuck off with your entitled attitude.
Lol sometimes? So you can make an analysis or review without watching a film? And you said sometimes. So you just implied by judging it you can be wrong. You need to watch it before determine if the film is good or bad. Otherwise your opinion means shit. Fuck yourself incel. I think it's funny you get triggered so easily. People like you I laugh at in public. You are a scumbag.
1. No, you didn't. You made a claim, but did nothing to support it.
2. You could draw that. Or you could draw other shit. IT IS VAGUE. THAT IS MY POINT. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY POINT. .
3. Of course an initial judgement could be wrong. Did you really need to make that point? You NEVER thought, that movie looks dumb and then you gave it a chance years later and was pleasantly suprised? Dude. It's like I have to explain to you what being a person is like. You need...seriously, wtf is wrong with you?
Um yeah I provided his quote.
So since I can draw that I can and will. You acted as if you couldn't draw that at all. So you draw what you want and I will do the same. It didn't stop you now did it? You draw the negative because it suits your narrative.
See that's the difference though. I won't comment on a films quality before seeing it you will. I might say yeah that doesn't look key word look good. You complain about a race change and diversity before even watching a film. You will comment on it's quality which shows you are biased not credible and aren't worth listening to.
1. The qoute was vague. As I have repeatedly demonstrated by provideing not only alternate meanings, but also pointing out that he clearly did NOT disagree with everything of the previous policy. Your stonewalling of this is you being a good little lefty troll boi.
2. LOL. i expressly and repeatedly said it was vague and that your assumption was possible. If you seriously think what you just wrote, then you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old. And not one of hte smarter 5 year old.. Indeed, not even the average 5 year old. A retarded 5 year old.
3. It does not take much viewing to note a race change or "diversity". One still photo can give you the information you need to see what they did. You are whining like a fag over nothing, because you don't like to hear what I have to say, but you cannot give a GOOD REASON to support your disagreement.
No you did not point out how he clearly did not disagree with the previous policy. If it is vague like you said then I am free to draw up my own conclusions. You just decided to draw up the conclusion which fits your narrative.
If my assumption is possible then I am entitled to it. Which goes back to my point earlier art does not need to be specific there are many ways to interpret something. I provided reasons as to how I can interpret it. You acted as if there was no evidence or anything I could provide to support this assumption. Which goes against your point initially. I provided reasonable doubt.
Lol idiots like you complain before you see a still photo. The funny thing is you say nothing about when a character that is not white is swapped. Oh I can give plenty of solid reasons for my disagreement. So is every race change of any character by default political? Answer that. Also lets dive deeper, so if a character's race is non essential that means an artist can't interpret it a different way?
1/2 Except, I'm not thee one who made an assumption. I said it was vague. YOU made the assumption about what it was, AND THEN used that assumption as justification for claiming that the racist premise of the movie gist for character growth, and not just anti-white racism.
Thus, your CONCESSSION that it is vague and you just guessed, shows thaty your claim of character growth, is just a guess, TWICE REMOVED.
3. Nice moving of the goal posts there. We were discussing judging without seeing the entire work, now you just want to drop that and move on to your next attack. How completely troll boi of you.
You did make an assumption. You assumed that the movie was racist. Simply because it used oppression as a story tool to tell it's story. You also mentioned colonizer and I can easily dismiss that as a joke and move on.
I did not concede that it was vague. I said if my assumption is possible then I am entitled to it. To me the point could not be more clear. They do not specifically state that they are using the MLK vs Malcolm X ideology, but through interpretation and clues I can draw up that conclusion. So nope you actually conceded to that point. Does art need to specifically state something in order for me to draw up a conclusion? You conceded by saying no. Your concession is noted and thus two times removed.
I moved nothing. I said you will judge it before even seeing a set photo. How is that moving the goal post? The second you find out a swap has occurred you move onto attacking the film. You are a dishonest idiot. You will do this even if a character's race is non essential. You also will not do the same for a race swapping of another race other than white. We all can see the pattern you have, have the balls to be honest about what you are.
1. Your entire position is based on your guess as to his meaning. Your defense of the movie, ie CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT, only works if your guess is the clear and correct answer. Otherwise it is just head cannon.
2. To show character development, they need to SHOW CHARACTER development. At best they hinted at it, as a POSSIBLE answer, one possibel answer among many. That is a fan theory, not a part of the movie.
3. You moved it. And now you are lying about it. You are a troll boi.
Not a guess, it is me drawing that conclusion from an implied quote. Again it does not have to specifically state it for someone to draw up a conclusion. The MLK vs Malcolm X ideology is never stated but it is implied.
Nope they showed it. What you are upset about is they do not do it to your liking. It was implied. If it was not implied at all my conclusion would be baseless.
Nope I did not. I dismantled your point. Consider your non sequitur dismissed. The point stands you judge films quality before seeing them.
1. Your defense of "character development" rests on your POSSIBLE explanation. Which makes your character development a possible fan theory, nothing more.
2. The POSSIBILITY was created, but it was still completely open to multiple possible explanations. You have a fine fan theory. The movie would have been better if they took the tact you want to see there. But, it was left vague.
3. Your shit talk is noted and dismissed.
Nope. You need to lookup the definition of guess. I have evidence to back my claim. You lost be mature and accept it.
You have been nothing but dishonest. You claimed black panther to be objectively bad. That's a lie it's your opinion it's bad. Learn the difference between subjective and objective..then when I gave you the chance to tell me how you determine if it's objectively bad you couldn't do it. You thought that something had to go through you, no people can view things differently and consider movies good that you don't.
Oh no I kicked your ass. The point stands black panther is considered a success in every single category. Take that to the bank soy boy.
Got any evidence for this?
shareDiversity does not ruin films. Poor writing and film making ruins movies.
shareπ―
shareIt makes me cringe so bad when you hear these idiots say that. There are plenty of diverse films which are excellent.
shareWhich is irrelevant to this discussion.
Is it not weird in your head. that to disagree with us, that you have to misrepresent our position so much?
I took your quote verbatim. So no it is totally relevant to the discussion. So then lets go another route. Are there any woke films that are well made? As in shot well, written well and performed well financially? The point stands diversity does not ruin films, poor writing and film making ruins films. Period!
shareYOu did not take my qoute verbatim, so irrelevant.
Woke film well made?...
Woke by definition implies that political mesage is primary focus not entertaining fans or making good movie.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of "woke film" that still managed to be "good".
There should be, or could be some exceptions... but I cannot think of any right now.
The point? You are missing the point. It is an insult to the fans to make a piece of propaganda instead of trying to make entertainment or art.
Nope I did. So wrong completely relevant.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/woke
aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality
So no your definition is not correct. The dictionary overrides you now doesn't it? Also by that logic even a movie made where the primary focus is right wing could still be considered woke by your definition which simply is not true.
Plenty of woke films turned out to be good. Everything Everywhere All at Once, Get Out, Django Unchained, Black Panther, Avengers Endgame etc. All of which were critically successful and got good reception by the majority. So no you are not any sole authority on what determines if a movie is well received or not. I can take you to school on cinema any day of the week. You think you have any effect on if a movie is considered great or not? I got news for you, your voice is not that important nor does it carry any kind of weight. I unlike you am not arrogant enough to think that highly of myself.
You can not think of any because you are a closed minded idiot.
Nope not if the majority of people like the product. Plenty of woke films people love so incorrect again. Deal with it. share
1. No, you didn't.
2. Black Panther is a fine example of a woke film. And it sucked. It had absurdly contradictory messages and it's plot was deeply flawed in many ways.
I did.
The majority of critics and people have spoken. They found it to be a good film. Your approval is not required. Deal with it. Black panther overall got solid reception. That is all I need to say. Your judgement on films is trash because you want it echo your political beliefs. Do you think people need to get by you in order to have an opinion on Black panther? Oh and to make it even sweeter it grossed over a billion so no go woke go broke excuse here.
1. No, you didn't.
2. Black Panther sucked ASS. The levels and examples of the stupid were endless.
I did.
Your opinion. Nothing more. Noted and dismissed.
No, you didn't.
No, objectively, it was a bad movie. Large elements were done poorly.
I did.
Ha no. I can list many elements which make it a good film. You are spouting off opinion. Tell me do you think you are the sole authority on what determines a movie's quality? I got news for you. You aren't! Put your ego back in check clown.
Since you want to claim it to be objective lets measure all elements of film making.
Writing, acting, cinematography, editing, music, costume design, audio, visual effects etc. Break down each category as to how it is all bad. You have the floor go ahead and break it down since you claim to be able to measure a film objectively.
1 No, you didn't.
2. Writing. Many flaws. The one that annoyed me the most was...
the idiocy of a warrior culture whining like fags about weaker tribes being conquered.
It would have made more sense if Tchalla was dealing with an older status quo, which considered the rest of Africa and "Exported" blacks to be deserving of their "oppression" because
too weak to defend themselves". T'challa could have been pushing for a more empathic and pragmatic policy. Killmonger could have been pushing to use the black panther flower on teh whole army to launch a war of conquest.
I did.
Lol again no. This is your opinion. I was perfectly fine with it. It showed he had some growing to do as he was just becoming the Black Panther. Second you realize the movie does not need to meet what you want correct? You are marking it down because of your preference not for what it is. Also you got about 6 more categories to go. Lets hear it. Your writing one was garbage lets see if you do better with the other categories. Since you attempted writing that was a miss. You got other categories to take a swing at. So far you are 0/1.
1. No, you didn;t.
2. It's objective stupid for a warrior culture to whine like fags about people that LOST a war.
3. Acting? Nothing great, but not complete shit. I will give it that.
I did.
No not when characters go through development no. Having flawed characters is what can make a story more dynamic. It leaves room for them to grow as characters. Who wants to watch a movie where character behave totally logically? People are not always logical and have lapses in judgement. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for people in films to behave this way.
You got more to go. So Acting you bailed out on because you know you have nothing of substance to say. I think the acting is good. Which means this is a favor for me. You said the movie was objectively bad. You got some grounds to cover to convince people of that. Cover all the other categories now. Not one at a time cover it all. So far you are 0/2. Keep going you got a ways to go in order to convince me.
1. No, you didn't.
2. The plot build on the whining, as though it was Right. Your claim is false.
4. the fight scenes were terrible. Too dark to see the action. With guys in black suits fighting in the dark. lol.
I did.
Nope my claim is supported. Learn how story structure and characters work.
You need to get your eyes checked I saw it perfectly fine. Okay so now we are 0/3. If you strike out again that will mean you failed to convince me. Tell me why should I trust you over the majority of people and critics? I am going to ask again do you think you are the sole authority on what determines if a movie is good or not?
1. Nope. You failed like a punk.
2. They did NOT "develope", they built ontop of a bad idea. A true warrior would not have a problem with the WINNERS of a war having domination over the losers.
4. No, you didn't. You are lying.
5. Editing? Mmm,... The whole nonsense about using drugs to suppress his powers so that he could have a fight to determine who won the throne? Dumb. Should have been cut.
Nope I succeeded. Think before speaking.
No they developed that is called character writing. You again do not get to determine what a warrior would or would not do. Leave writing up to the professionals while you talk online. You would only produce awful scripts. I am glad idiots like you do not write films.
Oh I saw it perfectly fine. You do not get to tell what I can and can not see.
That is your opinion and is not due to editing lol. You produced a scene in there you did not like and called the editing as a whole bad... This was a test. You can't articulate why the editing is bad other than meh this scene should have been cut. You know nothing about film making. Okay you have struck out. You are now 0/4. I am going cite the reception of Black panther and I will go with that.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/black_panther_2018
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/black-panther/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1825683/
All of that supersedes you. Learn this rule about cinema. You do not determine what is considered a great film by people. You are some braindead weasel on a message board.
1. You failed. Like a dumbass.
2. How did they supposedly "develop"?
4. Sure I do. THe scenes were dark as hell. You are clearly lying.
5. The scene was dumb.
6. Custom design? Meh.
You are the one who failed. Do not say stuff then get upset when people dismantle it. You said diversity is ruining films. I challenged that. You had no retort. No one is forcing you at gunpoint to watch any film. If you see diversity then do not watch it. Problem solved. You are the ype of guy who gets upset when a character who's race is not essential gets portrayed differently than the status quo. Funny thing is I have found weasels like you only care about it when it is one way. How many whitewashed characters have you complained about? I have a sneaking suspicion the answer is none.
In many ways. Tchalla learned about what it was to care about the entire world. It was you know why he eventually fought for the safety of innocent people.
Nope. I have great vision and I could see them perfectly. I think you are lying about being able to not see them.
The scene was fantastic.
The point stands. No one needs to get through you in order to consider a film great.
1. No, I said "diversity" ruins films. Clearly I was NOT talking just about having diverse characters but the woke practice of forced diversity as a political statement. You know that, you just pretended to be retarded so that you could pretend that I was just unhappy about brown and black actors. or some such shit. You were racebaiting.
2. He never said anything about his reason for fighting the plot, having anything to do with whites being innocent. The movie was quite EXPLICIT, in talking about how bad "colonizers" were, but the development" is all about implied shit? Not buying itt.
4. It was retarded.
6.Audio? Visual effect? The one strong aspect of the film was the setting of Wakanda. It looked very nice. Not the mines, they were stupidly concieved and executed. But the city above, looked great. IMO, that, and the racist message is why the fiilm did well.
And anytime you see diversity you whine before even seeing the film. You didn't help your case when you complained about swapping without having even seen the product. This shows that you will assume a race flip is political which means I won't trust you to judge it objectively. So no that was your dumbass who did that not me.
Wrong here is a quote from Tchalla in the film.
You were wrong! All of you were wrong! To turn your backs on the rest of the world! We let the fear of discovery stop us from doing what is right. No more! I cannot stay here with you. I cannot rest while he sits on the throne. He is a monster of our own making. I must take the mantle back. I must! I must right these wrongs.
That is him directly addressing the flaws and mistakes they made. Apparently you missed that. Lol go ahead and dispute that quote! Checkmate!
Your opinion. In my opinion it was great.
Nope you are done with points. You struck out sorry. The point stands the film doesn't need your approval on order to be considered good. Deal with it.
Here is a quote from the film again...
You were wrong! All of you were wrong! To turn your backs on the rest of the world! We let the fear of discovery stop us from doing what is right. No more! I cannot stay here with you. I cannot rest while he sits on the throne. He is a monster of our own making. I must take the mantle back. I must! I must right these wrongs.
Dispute that. Remember he said this to his father.
Dispute what? LIke I said, he was vague about whom he was fighting for.
iN other places the film was clear EXPLICIT that white people were "colonizers" ie BAD or EVIL, but here you try to balance that out with an at best, IMPLIED anti-racist growth.
While it is quite possible that the "innocent people" or "rest of the world" he is referring to, are the innocent P.O.C. that live out there, that would be harmed by the war that killmoner was trying to start.
Thus, my point is demonstrated by your example. We have plenty of explicit anti-white racism, that is NOT balanced by POSSIBLE IMPLIED character development.
Lol no he wasn't. When he refers to the rest of the world that is not vague in the slightest sense of the word. All of you referring to all his people. That's not implied it's him literally developing. You want to ignore this to suit your narrative. I can spit out more lines or scenes from the screenplay bit you didn't get past this one.
Now answer my question. Does a movie need to get through you in order for other people to consider it good? Tell me should I trust you as a credible judge for movies? I don't you are full of shit.
"The rest of the world" is insanely vague. It is almost as vague as you can be.
Was he referring to everyone in the rest of the world? Was he just referring to P.O.C.s in teh rest of the world? Can't tell.
You are putting forth a vague statement and assuming IMPLIED growth, to balance out EXPLICIT anti-white racism in other portions of the movie.
It is not about "Getting though me", it is about objectively bad shit.
Not when in the same conversation he says all of you were wrong. After saying that to his father then says the rest of the world. Not vague at all! It couldn't be more on the nose if it tried.
You are ignoring context or plot points to suit your narrative. He said his father and his people were wrong. You haven't gotten past that.
And who determines what is objectively bad? You are painting it in a light where you yourself get to determine what determines quality. That's bullshit! People are allowed to have different views on films. There are films you consider great and people don't have to agree with that. Same goes for you. Majority of people like the film and consider it good. That pont stands. Deal with it. You dislike Avengers endgame or the boys? Again products I'm sure make your skin crawl. The reception supersedes you. You can't just go I dislike it. That isn't good enough. You need further validation and think you yourself get to speak for others. Tone down your arrogance you dweeb.
He's clear that the previous policy was wrong, and he clearly doesn't want to follow killmongers's policy of war.
BUT, it is NOT clear, what portions of the past policy he disagrees with.
Do you assume that he disagrees with the past policy pillar of considering European Imperialism to be "evil"? FOr one limited example.
Another. Past policy was one of NOT exporting Wakanda tech, including weapons. Based on what we saw in Black Panther, do you think he was going to start exporting Wakandan weapons to colonizer governments?
He disagreed with killmonger.... Ok, does that mean that he does NOT consider blacks in America and other white majority contries to be oppressed by wacism? I mean killmonger clearly did, and T'challan disagreed with him, so, does T'challa believe that racism does not exist in the west any more?
ECT. ECT. ECT.
But, the movie is objectively bad, as I have explained.
He isn't just disagreeing with Killmonger, he is disagreeing with his people. His people were not killing and oppressing people like Killmonger was. Which means if he is calling them wrong it's not just Killmonger he is disagreeing with. Seriously dude I can peel your pont like an onion.
Second ok so i find it funny that you are saying it's not clear. So then you get to assume the worst even though it's unclear to you? Someone can flip that right back and assume the best. Problem for you is it specifically is clear that Tchalla is a good moral being. After all he did risk his life to save those people.
You just answered your own question. What other reason would he disagree with Killmonger for? Its very much the mlk vs Malcolm x clashing of ideologies. From all measurements of film making by data you are wrong. Black panther had cultural impact, it has good reception by critics and the mass majority, it was also financially successful. By every measurement it's not considered a bad film. So um yeah no you failed. Now a film like let's say last Airbender you could make that claim. It didn't do well in the box office, it was a critical fail, a massive majority fail by audiences and financial failure. Black panther does not fit this criteria.
Nope you failed to understand it. Also ok so then give me how you measure something objectively then. Give me the one way you judge a film objectively that is full proof. Give me your knowledge. Show the world you have the slightest clue you know how film making works.
1. Dude. I was expressly stating that he disagreed with the previous policy AND he disagreed with kilmonger. You think you scored a point by pointing that out? I don't know how I could be more clear.
2. I'm not assuming anything here. I pointed out the EXPLICIT statements and contrasted them with the vaguer later statement that could mean many things. My mentioning many things was showing how those all fit the vague statements.
3. WHO was he risking his life for? And was he risking his life for THEM or to prevent blowback onto his personal kingdom?
4. I understood teh movie perfectly. How to measure something objectively? You look at it, and judge it objectively. As I have been doing.
Because you just conceded the point.
It's not vague when he states they were all wrong. Period point blank.
To save people! All the people Killmonger was trying to kill.
Lol you don't get it. You don't know the difference between subjective and objective. Ok let's dumb it down for you. So when you are giving an analysis on a film, a review. Is that a fact or an opinion?
Dude. YOu are clearly just stonewalling. Go fuck youself.
Your lack of response shows i won the argument. Get educated you incel dipshit.
shareBuddy, I made a point about t'challa being against the former policy of isolation and the killmonger policy of war, and you gloated because I conceeded something.
While you ignored all the questions I asked that demonstrated my point that we did NOT know that T'challa wanted to do INSTEAD.
So, you are clearly just a stonewally shit spouting troll boi. So, go fuck yourself.
Yeah because by that concession it destroyed your entire argument. And also you gloat about how much better right wing people are all the time. So no sympathy here for you. Don't dish out gloating if you can't take it. I can peel your analysis on the movie like an onion like I said earlier. Funny you didn't think I could quote the movie disproving you huh? Thought you were speaking to someone who doesn't know about film huh? You are out of your league.
I answered your question. You asked does he view his past policy as bad for them judging whites. When he states all his people were wrong that answers that question shit for brains. I answered you. Fuck off. It wasn't only Killmonger he disagreed with but his people as well. It's called character development.
And you also conceded to not knowing what objective means. Is your opinion on a film a fact?
1. You are talking nonsense. Addressing the nuance of a NATIONAL POLICY, or even a villians WAR, is the way people of good faith talk. YOU expecting a simplistic FOR or AGAINST, is you revealing what a troll boi you are.
2. OR, what he talking about how ISOLATION was wrong, but he still thinks that whites are racist and imperalistic. After all, don't you believe that white are still racist and imperalistic? Don't you believe that the US invaded Iraq because of "oil"? This btw, is ONE possible alternative answer. Don't play the retard game of claiming that that is what I am presenting as my ASSUMPTION, you troll boi.
3. LOL. for example it is easy to see that a warrior culture that identifies with the DEFEATED and whines like faggot western lefties, becuase the WINNERS got to dominate,
is a bad story element. That is objectively bad. People of good faith and reasonable ability to think, can make that judgement.
3.
Which is what I did by showcasing that Tchalla went through character growth. It is quite that simple. If Tchalla is against Killmonger because of killing and oppressing, then why is he also saying his people were wrong?
You have nothing to back him still thinking that. I have more evidence on my side to say he does not feel that way. One he told his people they were wrong, and he also risked his life for those folks. I will not be addressing your projections of the left. I am not responsible for what that party believes. Since you want to do that, you believe Michelle Obama is a man, you believe in the drug war, you also think Obama's birth certificate is fake, and you support January 6th event. See I can project also it is not difficult. Your projections are dismissed.
You have whites who openly are sad white supremacy does not take place. You also have them come unglued when Columbus gets criticized but are totally fine with demonizing MLK.
Lol and who determines who is good faith? You are basically saying no one can disagree with your take on a film dipshit. You do not judge things in good faith clearly. You are not credible.
1. From the movie, it is not made clear why he is saying it. He certainly doesn't make any statement that rejects the racism of the previous policy or hte racism expressed by his sister, for example.
2. My use of the word "or" clearly showed that I was presenting a possible explanation, not claming this as the clear answer. My point has been that the movie was vague and unclear on this point. I have repeatedly stated that. That you missed this point and addressed my post incorrectly, is you pretendign to be retarded, so that you can evade the point that you know defeats your argument.
You are a pathetic troll boi.
3. YOur anti-white whining is noted as evidence of your anti-white racism.
4. We can see who demonstrates good faith. I have, you have not.
No it was made quite clear. It was why he said all his people were wrong. What you want is for him to specifically state they were wrong about white people. You use this as a means to attack the film. The point stands he risked his life for those people and he also claimed his people were wrong. You are dumb and want it spelled out for you specifically. A film does not need to hold your hand every step of the way. Do you know how many films I could attack using this type of logic?
Not possible if you go by his quote. The movie was clear fore anyone with half of a brain cell. You are the one evading not me. Also lets dissect another point you are making. So because Black Panther uses oppression as a storytelling device that means it is racist? You realize Wakanda is a fantasy correct? It does not take place in the real world.
Says the guy that claims any black person who says racism today is doing it falsely. Also the one who claims any change of race of a character is done for racist reasons. You do not see me complaining about race swaps or diversity that is you.
Lol so no retort to who determines objectivity. Your lack of retort could be seen as conceding the point. Either address it or admit I was right.
1. Yes, that is exactly what I want. The film was clear in it's earlier anti-white message so, IF that was to set up character development of it's main character, then YES, be just as clear when it is time to talk about how white people are at least, ok.
2. So, you just pretending that you didn't just troll boi? You expect to do that, get called on it, and just move back to your stonewall? This is you demonstrating a complete lack of good faith.
3. When I talk about false accusations of wacism, I am almost ALWAYS referring to partisan lefties, mostly white, not "blacks". My problem is with lefties, not blacks. Try to be less of a race baiting asshole.
4. See number two, for a good example of you demonstrating bad faith, troll boi.
Nope you don't get to judge a film for what you want it to be. That's an entitled attitude. Also no it wasn't clear in it's ant white racism, that is a you thing. It shows he thought they were ok considering he risked his life for them.
Im.not trolling at all. I challenged your point about the film being racist against whites. You want me to just accept your view on the film. Not going to happen.
Again you are the one who complains about race swaps and diversity in films not me.
Address what objectivity means or concede.
For context, Corbell is a delicate little flower who thinks that Handmaids Tale insults the USA because it depicts the USA as being overthrown.
shareWow are you serious? The more I hear about this guy the more stupid it gets. This honestly feels like he's a parody like on the onion news or something.
He wants films to echo his beliefs back at him otherwise it's a bad film. See how dumb that is?
1. Caling a modern white American a "colonizer" is completely clear. If you want to make a case that the characters grew, then the balancing comments need to be AS CLEAR as that, to make your case.
They are not. Thus your scenario is bascially head cannon. It would have been a better film if they had done that, but they didn't.
2. I was making a case about the film being unclear, and you pretended that I was making a case for a specific explanation. Even though I was very clear, with my use of the word, "OR". That you was being a troll boi.
3. Yeah, so? My being against that aspect of anti-white racism does not mean that I cannot also be against white liberals race baiting... What you just said made no sense. Unless your position is that a white man is not allowed to mention race, except in the narrow... context of some sort of mia culpa. Which would be insanely racist of you.
4. Go fuck yourself bad faith actor.
Lol so now because of a slur that means the film is racist? You really want to go with thatyou get targeted I think it's funny.? No I already made my case. He said his people were wrong that's all I need.
He said his people were wrong. Once again you can't get past this. You got owned here.
Like I said you mentioned race swaps and diversity not me. Yet I'm race baiting? Can I just say I'm glad you get triggered. I think it's funny you won't ever be making films and thank God for that.
Likewise fuck yourself prick.
1. LOL. I already gave you my point, and it wasn't that. THe way you ignored it and made up shit? You are a troll boi.
2. And he didn't say WHAT they were wrong about. I have repeated this to you many times, and still you revert to your original, and stupid argument.
3. Correct. I am against anti-white racism and leftist race baiting. Both. Your pretense that there is a conflict is stupid.
Abd your point didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Doesn't matter. I also have him risking his life to save those people also. Which tops that scale in my favor actually. The jury would give me the edge over you.
Abd are perfectly fine with racism against blacks. Notice you only complain about white characters swapped. So save it. I am not the racist it's you.
1. Sure it did. That is why you addressed a strawman instead. Coward.
2. Yes, it does matter.
3. Go fuck yourself some more.
Nope it did not. It's why you couldn't refute the quote.
Nope it does not.
You should join me in that buttercup.
1. I didn't need to refute it, I just pointed out that it was vague. YOU are the one that needed a strawman.
2. Your position is based on your head cannon, that he was THINKING about their anti-white racism, taht they were wrong about that. BUT, the quote does not specific WHAT his people were wrong about. So, it clearly does matter, and it is stupid and cowardly of you to claim it doesn't.
3. No. Nothing wrong with my behavior. You are the troll boi here.
Yes forced check boxing is ruining films.
Its the same generic formula being used over and over.
Imaging creating a story and are told by hollyweird in order for your story to become a movie they want to change the original characters, so one is gay and one is black.
THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE STORY...JUST CERTAIN CHARACTER ATTRIBUTES.
THE REST OF YOUR POST IS OFTEN REPEATED BULLSHIT.
This is a generic story. But it was always a generic story. The original was generic.
shareπ
share>The complaint about "diversity" ruining movies and tv shows, is a real and valid complaint.
This is speciifcally complaining about it in terms of Mr & Mrs. Smith. How does it "ruin" this show?
Hard to say without watching it. I do know that most of the plot of the original was driven by them not knowing that the other was in an enemy agency, and that seems to be lost.
shareAnd so then you are commenting on something without having seen it? Why should we trust you to judge something fairly? All you see is omg! Woke! Keep watching grifters and your outrage porn. It will keep you from forming your own opinion.
shareSeems its a different premise. That premise being shit or not has nothing to do with their race.
share1. You can tell that I am a serious and honest person.
2. I see a double race swap. That is a huge red flag. That they lost the primary plot driver? Reinforces my skeptism.
3. It seems like the different premise and race swaps are seperate issues. But such issues seem to crop up together very often. It's never JUST a race swap. Because the race swap is an EFFECT not the cause. The root cause is the writer or producer(s) not having respect for the fans or the product. That is not going to be limited to one aspect of the film, it is going to taint EVERYTHING. Or at least that seems to be the case from what I have seen.
1. ...Okay?
2. They changed the premise. They could've done that if the two new "Mr and Mrs. Smith" were both white.
3. I don't see any connection between the race swap or bad premise here. Writers and producers do this all the time, and have always tried to reshape old shows or movies, and often failed.
I mean, this is all stupid really. It's not as if the original Mr & Mrs. Smith was some high art that must not be desecrated. It was always some low-thought popcorn muncher flic.
2. They could have. But they didn't.
3. I explained the connection. Address it or don't. Don't reply and pretend I did not already explain it. That was, at best, stupid of you.
4. Mr and Mrs Smith was not high art. The point, the complaints, any lessons to be learned from this, are all still valid. Ask yourself why you are against constructive discussion.
2. Okay. So?
3. No, you asserted the connection. Sometimes there are race swaps. Sometimes they fuck with the writing and produce a shitty product. Sometimes they do both. Your claim is unevidence. There's nothing to address.
4. You can criticise what you like. It's probably a dull and forgettable show.
2. Correlation.
3. Nope. I explained it. You denied it without addressing my explanation. You want to say I am wrong, explain what was wrong with my explanation. If you can.
4. If they had approached it with an attitude of respect for the fans and the original, it might have been good. But starting off by NOT being serious about doing a good job, makes it highly unlike you will do a good job.
2. To what?
3. No, you asserted it. What am I supposed to address? I already know that you're genuinely ignorant about a lot of modern TV shows. I gave you a list of many modern sci-fi/drama shows, and you hadn't seen most of them. As I said:
I know more about modern TV than you.
4. What's the disrespect here? The race change or the the change of the synopsis?
2. Each other. Of course.
3. I asserted and then explained it. Here I cut and pasted it for you,
It seems like the different premise and race swaps are seperate issues. But such issues seem to crop up together very often. It's never JUST a race swap. Because the race swap is an EFFECT not the cause. The root cause is the writer or producer(s) not having respect for the fans or the product. That is not going to be limited to one aspect of the film, it is going to taint EVERYTHING. Or at least that seems to be the case from what I have seen.
4, The race change and the premise change are both RESULTS of the lack of respect.
3. They don't seem to "crop up together". Nearly all remakes, and adaptations are changed regardless if they change the races. This is not a new or novel thing.
4. Was it "disrespectful" when Battlestar Galactica changed Starbucks sex, and changed Boomer's race and sex?
3. Really? Nearly all remakes change the core premise of the orginial work? i'm not sure that is true.
4. IMO, no. It could have been, there was a lot of race and gender swapping, but, the show itself... seemed to be the result of a creative vison, more than a political one.
3. They change a lot up as they go.
4. So that means that just changing the race in itself, isn't necessarily "disrespectful".
3. Give me the counter example you are thinking of.
4. D'uh.
3. Of a show that changes races and heavily changed the world? Battlestar Galactica. The Walking Dead heavily changed course from the source material, and changed some characters races.
The Expanse had a few examples of gender-flips. House of the Dragons changed the race of the Velaryons and speculated a lot on the source material. Black Sails had its own interpretation of the characters from Treasure Island.
4. So you don't know that it was "disrespectful" here.
3. Heavy reimaging, but stll the core driving of hte plot was humans fleeing genocidal robots. The core premise was not changed.
4. Well, lets use our brains. Instead of a few examples in a large cast, we have BOTH of the main leads. Instead of keeping the primary driver of the plot, we shit can it.
Not looking good.
3. Right. And your comments on The Walking Dead, The Expanse, House of the Dragons and Black Sails?
I can also name Sweet Home, the Korean Show as another example.
Many characters in Battlestar Galactica were fundamentally changed. The Cylons were changed. Everything was completely updated.
4. Why does it matter that they should be white or not? Is it somehow integral to their roles?
3. I addressed your example I was most familar with. And why is that a problem for you? Oh right, becuase you are not about actual discussion, just attacking.
4. A good question for the woke assholes that race swapped them. It mattered enough to THEM, that they did the change.
3. So yet more shows you've not watched. Have you considered broadening your horizons before making claims about modern TV?
Do you think maybe you've simply not watched enough to make an accurate, and fair observation?
4. Donald Glover is a pretty highly regarded actor. Don't know who the woman is. It seems to me, in this case, that race simply is not integral to the characters so it doesn't matter.
3. If a credible source claims that the situation is changing, but that I have just missed the trend because I don't watch enough, I will take that under advisement. That is not the case yet.
4. Yet, it did matter. To the writers. Their action makes sense in MY world view, where I see them as woke assholes making woke crap. Their action does NOT make sense in YOUR world view. YOUR world view can't explain reality.
3. I listed you loads of modern TV shows you should be interested in, based on what you've seen.
You didn't know about most of them.
4. This is literally just "I reject your reality and substitute my own". I see no reason to assume casting Donald Glover (a highly sought after actor) in a remake where the race of the two leads just doesn't matter has anything to do with 'wokism'.
3. I understand. You know my points are true, yet you don't want to admit it. So you look for excuses to marginalize me.
4. In this toxic environment? LOL. A person would have to deaf, dumb AND blind, to not know that by race swapping BOTH lead characters that they would be making a strong political statement. Your world view does not explain their action. My does.
When our world views fail to explain realitty, they need to be checked.
Time to reexamine your beliefs. To do otherwise is madness.
3. "Marginalising you" by pointing out that you don't have enough actual exposure to modern TV and thus can't make any reasonable observations about any trends because you've simply not seen enough.
How is this an unfair observation?
4. Do you even know who Donald Glover is?
Why do their actions even need to be "explained"?
3. If the points I make are wrong, explain how or why they are wrong. Attacking the source while avoiding the argument, is the sign of someone who KNOWS that they CANNOT win the debate. YOUR BEHAVIOR IS THE BEHAVIOR OF SOMEONE THAT KNOWS THAT THEY ARE IN THE WRONG.
2. Because understaning the world, WRONG, has consequenes. As do actions and ideas. Sometimes people even get hurt.
3. I can give you tons of modern TV shows that defy your claims about modern TV, but you can't even comment on them because yo have not seen them. I literally did give you multiple examples: The Walking Dead heavily changed course from the source material, and changed some characters races.
The Expanse had a few examples of gender-flips. House of the Dragons changed the race of the Velaryons and speculated a lot on the source material. Black Sails had its own interpretation of the characters from Treasure Island.
2. "Gets hurt"? By a black person being cast in a role?
3. I used one of your examples to address your points seriously and honestly. Now you are running away from that.
4. Yes. Of course. Are you being seerious or just playing retard some more?
3. One example. And a concession of sorts, Battlestar Galactica reimagined was very different to the original show, and they did a few race and sex changes.
The Walking Dead heavily changed course from the source material, and changed some characters races.
The Expanse had a few examples of gender-flips. House of the Dragons changed the race of the Velaryons and speculated a lot on the source material. Black Sails had its own interpretation of the characters from Treasure Island.
2. Are you that much of a pathetic little baby that you are "hurt" by a black person being cast in this show? How does this casting "hurt" anyone?
3. Heavy reimaging, but stll the core driving of hte plot was humans fleeing genocidal robots. The core premise was not changed.
4. Well, lets use our brains. Instead of a few examples in a large cast, we have BOTH of the main leads. Instead of keeping the primary driver of the plot, we shit can it.
Not looking good.
WOW...BEING AN UNEMPLOYED RACIST DINOSAUR OFFERS ONE ALMOST UN LIMITED POSTING TIME....GOOD TO KNOW.
share1. A concession? LOL. Dude. Becaues I am not just a troll boi like you and am honest about shit instead of mindlessly attacking, that is not a "concession". You are an asshole and an idiot.
2. Fuck you. Ask the question like a person and not a troll boi, of go fuck yourself.
1. You conceded the point about Battlestar Galactica. The Walking Dead heavily changed course from the source material, and changed some characters races.
The Expanse had a few examples of gender-flips. House of the Dragons changed the race of the Velaryons and speculated a lot on the source material. Black Sails had its own interpretation of the characters from Treasure Island.
2. Are you that much of a pathetic little baby that you are "hurt" by a black person being cast in this show? How does this casting "hurt" anyone?
1. What you just did there, was reveal that you not only are NOT a good faith person, but that you do not even understand the concept of good faith.
2. FUck off and die. One more time and you go on ignore. Ask the question like a man, or fuck you.
I'll do whatever the fuck I like shitbrains.
1. You conceded the point about Battlestar Galactica. The Walking Dead heavily changed course from the source material, and changed some characters races.
The Expanse had a few examples of gender-flips. House of the Dragons changed the race of the Velaryons and speculated a lot on the source material. Black Sails had its own interpretation of the characters from Treasure Island.
2. Are you that much of a pathetic little baby that you are "hurt" by a black person being cast in this show? How does this casting "hurt" anyone?
That's modern woke filmmakers for you. If they put as much attention into story and characters as they do into silly things like colors, sexual preferences and genders they might make something worth watching once in a while.
shareWas Battlestar Galactica "lame"?
There's plenty of high quality modern TV
Yes.
shareAre you the guy who criticised BSG in another thread to me?
Sure, it had flaws (especially by S04) but the writing for the characters was amazing, and the changing of Starbuck and Boomer weren't flaws at all.
"Are you the guy who criticised BSG in another thread to me?"
No, absolutely not.
Okay. So how was BSG bad?
shareThat was 20 years ago, you think I remember the details of a show I only saw a few episodes of because I thought it sucked? I do know it was not subtle at all in driving home its political messages, which is probably why you like it so much.π
shareYou're accusing a show made in 2004 of being "woke"?
What "political messages" was it driving home, exactly?
I did not use the word "woke" whatsoever.
shareOkay, so what "political messages" was it driving home, exactly?
share"That was 20 years ago, you think I remember the details of a show I only saw a few episodes of because I thought it sucked?"
No doubt it was "silly things like colors, sexual preferences and genders", which is what you responded to.
But this is not the board for BSG, so I'm not going to discuss the show with you. You randomly brought it up in your reply to the other poster and I just gave you an honest answer.
>No doubt it was "silly things like colors, sexual preferences and genders", which is what you responded to.
You just claimed you weren't calling it woke.
>But this is not the board for BSG, so I'm not going to discuss the show with you. You randomly brought it up in your reply to the other poster and I just gave you an honest answer.
I don't give a fuck. I'll ask again: So what "political messages" was it driving home, exactly?
That you can't remember makes me think you are simply full of shit. BSG was not remotely like you allege.
"You just claimed you weren't calling it woke."
Of course, because not once did I use the word "woke". Are you saying that tv shows were never political before wokeness? If BSG did not cover things like "colors, sexual preferences and genders", then why was that your response to other poster?
It seems you have difficulty accepting that others do not share your views or interests. Life must be hard for you.
>Of course, because not once did I use the word "woke". Are you saying that tv shows were never political before wokeness?
Not at all. But being political doesn't mean you're incapable of being subtle, or balanced or thoughtful with it. And Battlestar Galactica was very much a thoughtful show when it related to real life political issues in its plot lines.
I mean, in many ways BSG is political sci-fi. Are you against political dramas in general?
>If BSG did not cover things like "colors, sexual preferences and genders", then why was that your response to other poster?
I specifically bought up Battlestar Galactica because they race-swapped and sex-changed two characters from the original: Starbuck and Boomer. The user was implying this always fails. The series was a huge success. There was attention put into the plot lines.
I believe BSG was one of those shows at the time that drew parallels with 9/11 and the war in Iraq and was utterly unsubtle about it. No, I do not like my sci-fi show to be political in such a way and I have yet to see a political drama that knows how to portray all sides without bias.
share>I believe BSG was one of those shows at the time that drew parallels with 9/11 and the war in Iraq and was utterly unsubtle about it.
It did. I don't recall it being unsubtle or badly written in at all. Although this could be just boiled down to generic anti-war sentiment expressed in many shows and films.
>No, I do not like my sci-fi show to be political in such a way and I have yet to see a political drama that knows how to portray all sides unbiased.
What side exactly do you think BSG was ignoring? The side of the neo-conservatives in invading Iraq? It didn't literally reference Iraq - BSG exists in a fictional universe.
You asked me about political dramas in general. I was thinking of shows like The West Wing. Being biased does not equal ignoring, though.
How is it BSG "ignored" the "other side" in their political writing here, exactly?
shareWho are you quoting there, exactly?
shareYou said, specifically - and I do quote here: "No, I do not like my sci-fi show to be political in such a way and I have yet to see a political drama that knows how to portray all sides without bias."
So going from "all sides" - how is it BSG ignored the other side in their political writing?
In 2024, do white people never go to the movies? Is that why we have been abandoned as a target audience? I admit, I prefer watching older films in the comfort of my own home over going to a theater in a mall or the inner city.
shareDo you feel like the protagonists of a show you watch need to be your race?
Also, this is a series, not a movie.
Do you feel like the protagonists of a show you watch need to be your race?
We're told that minorities cannot watch movies with white casts for this reason, and this is why they need race swapped films. "Nobody on screen looked like me" is a quote I have often heard. share
I'm asking you: Do you feel like the protagonists of a show you watch need to be your race?
shareExactly like People of Color do. I prefer to see films about people who look like me. Not all the characters have to be my race, but I prefer ones where the protagonists are and I absolutely do not care to watch movies and shows that demonize my race.
This sentiment is considered admirable for black, Asian and Hispanic, Arab etc. people to have, so I do not see why it should be considered any differently when white people express it.
(An exception is Native Americans and Hispanics. I thoroughly enjoy and identify with characters in historical shows with Native American and Hispanic protagonists, even though I am not at all Native or Hispanic as far as I know. I also get a good laugh out of '70s Blaxploitation, and I love Kurosawa movies and some Kung Fu grindhouse stuff.)
What shows demonise your race?
And no, it's stupid for anyone to say it imo.
All the ones about noble, wise people of color being victimized by evil, prejudiced ignorant whites. Most anything recent about slaves or the Jim Crow era does this. Yeah, this occurred, but only a small percentage of regional whites were responsible. The films and shows stir the pot and attempt to equate all modern whites with those people. These movies are just about the worst thing to produce in an era of racial unrest.
shareYou think those movies are literally suggesting that all white people now are like they were then?
shareThat's the message I take away from them. They are made to be guilt-trips for whites and rage-fuel for blacks. They are adding gasoline to the fire of modern-day racial tensions, saying "White people are inherently evil and always have had it in for the poor, long-suffering black people." They want people to feel nothing has changed since the Civil War or the early 1960s.
shareI have no idea how you "take that message" away from them. Are films set in Nazi Germany "guilt trips" for Germans? Is Black Sails a "guilt trip" for Britons?
share Many people share that opinion so maybe you have not considered the issue thoroughly. Why do you suppose so many of these movies have come out since the BLM movement began? Pot-stirring anti-white agit-prop.
As far as films in Nazi Germany, most likely an element of guilting or shaming is present many of them, especially ones dealing with the German people supporting Hitler. Black Sails, no, because many of the pirates are also British. That one's more anti-establishment than anti-British.
>Many people share that opinion so maybe you have not considered the issue thoroughly. Why do you suppose so many of these movies have come out since the BLM movement began? Pot-stirring anti-white agit-prop.
Got any data that these movies specifically came out at a "higher rate" after BLM became a movement?
>As far as films in Nazi Germany, most likely an element of guilting or shaming is present many of them, especially ones dealing with the German people supporting Hitler.
So does that mean they're suggesting modern Germans are Nazis?
>Black Sails, no, because many of the pirates are also British. That one's more anti-establishment than anti-British.
Is Warrior suggesting modern Americans are racist? Is Songs of the Bandits and Gyeongseong Creature suggesting all Japanese are anti-Korean?
-This article shows a list of race movies by year. You can see how the numbers rise in the BLM years. List is not current though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Films_about_race
-The films are suggesting modern Germans, at least the ethnically German modern Germans, have inherited the stigma and guilt of their Nazi forebears.
-Never saw and am unaware of Warrior, Songs of the Bandits or Gyeongsong Creature.
>-This article shows a list of race movies by year. You can see how the numbers rise in the BLM years. List is not current though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Films_about_race
You were specifically talking about movies about **slavery**. Some of these are no such thing. And could it have to do with there simply being more black people in the USA, and more movies being made than in the 00s and 90s and 80s?
>-The films are suggesting modern Germans, at least the ethnically German modern Germans, have inherited the stigma and guilt of their Nazi forebears.
Based on what? On what evidence are you claiming this?
>-Never saw and am unaware of Warrior
Warrior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79rtcCnaeyo&ab_channel=JoBloStreaming%26TVTrailers
>Songs of the Bandits or Gyeongsong Creature.
They depict Japanese occupied Korea, and depict many of the Japanese as racists. Is that saying modern Japanese act like that?
Your second point... You feel free to state this to a white person, but if I was black and said I wanted to see movies about black protags, I seriously doubt you would say anything at all. You would probably back me up.
shareI not only would, but would have done so if you said you only want to see movies with black people.
shareWell, the upside is - at least this time they are trying to destroy a movie property that wasn't that great to begin with.
If the start remaking crappy films with DEI cast, I don't have as much of a problem with that.
It's when they go after great franchises that I get a real bitter taste in my mouth. Star Trek is dead.
Good point, agreed.
share