Anyone Seen Django?

[Rapmastermind]

Even Amistad. Steven got it right in the beginning showing a Slavery Revolt on the ship but the movie then got Whitewashed during the whole Court Drama. The "White Savoir" context is even in Django. There's no way you will get a REAL Slave Revolt film cause it doesn't have a White Savoir. And people love to bring up "It won't make money" as an excuse for Black Stories to never get told is pathetic. So based on that logic, only stories about White People need to get made cause the country is mostly white. SMH. This is exactly what Racist Hollywood wants people to think so they can continue getting away with Whitewashing our history and never green lighting our stories.

 

[phillycavsfan]

from a cinematic perspective it was good, but even without that scene it still would have bombed. Nobody is trying to see a black man make a movie about World War II, a proud and Golden Era for older white folks.

Nobody's trying to see a movie about a group of soldiers chillin' with some Italians, before they ALL get slaughtered by Nazis...

Spoiler

except the Latin dude and the boy. Even the fine Italian chick got thrown in the :bushes:

 

[Marvel]

I wouldn't watch a John Brown movie either. Watching all that buildup only to see them get slaughtered at Harpers Ferry? Nah, I'm good.

Glory was a relatively low-budget war epic that barely made its money back. That's nearly 25 years ago. Film execs have gotten a lot tighter with their wallets since then.

It could work. But we watched Braveheart even though they merked William Wallace. Same with 300. Fighting until death for a cause is honorable even though it makes for a bittersweet ending.

Glory was a great movie but I think that as you said these movies even if good are mostly miss than hit.

 

[Marvel]

Nobody's trying to see a movie about a group of soldiers chillin' with some Italians, before they ALL get slaughtered by Nazis...

Spoiler

except the Latin dude and the boy. Even the fine Italian chick got thrown in the :bushes:

True, any movie starring mostly black or all black military is not a good look. Just ask George Lucas

 

[phillycavsfan]

It could work. But we watched Braveheart even though they merked William Wallace. Same with 300. Fighting until death for a cause is honorable even though it makes for a bittersweet ending.

Glory was a great movie but I think that as you said these movies even if good are mostly miss than hit.

Wallace dies but it's still a relatively happy ending. Scots got their freedom. 300 did numbers because of the style of the movie, not the story.

A slavery movie can be done; it just can't be straight-forward. It's gotta be innovative and fresh.

 

[Gravity]

Someone throwing around slurs while attempting to debate a racial issue...sweet.

You copping out like a bytch because you can't refute what I've said....typical. Again, whites like you aren't capable of even having an open and honest discussion about race. Knowing that, you consigning the movie makes it suspect to me.

The theater I went to, I dont recall any white people laughing when the guy was gettign ate by dogs, or the two black dudes were fighting on the floor.

They more or less laughed more at the parts that were insulting to whites.

The fact that whites were entertained by a movie using slavery as the backdrop is suspect, that's what I'm saying. I never assumed that whites would laugh at the scenes that did a good job of depicting how horrifying slavery was. You can say that the comedy in the movie was mostly at the expense of whites, and I can't really argue with you. Again though, there has to be a reason why Hollywood is backing the movie so tough. There has to be a reason that so many whites are praising the film. We all know that as a whole whites aren't comfortable having an open and honest look at slavery and the mentality that allowed them to be ok with subjecting black people to slavery. The movie had to cheapen or water things down in order for it to make whites comfortable enough to enjoy it.

 

[phillycavsfan]

True, any movie starring mostly black or all black military is not a good look. Just ask George Lucas

Man I remember watching The Tuskeegee Airmen hearing beforehand that they never lost a man in battle. All of a sudden Theo Huxtable getting shot down and I'm like .

They never lost a bomber, I guess.

 

[daze23]

It could work. But we watched Braveheart even though they merked William Wallace. Same with 300. Fighting until death for a cause is honorable even though it makes for a bittersweet ending.

Glory was a great movie but I think that as you said these movies even if good are mostly miss than hit.

but there's more to the success of a movie than the theme/plot

 

[Marvel]

Wallace dies but it's still a relatively happy ending. Scots got their freedom. 300 did numbers because of the style of the movie, not the story.

A slavery movie can be done; it just can't be straight-forward. It's gotta be innovative and fresh.

Which is the reason why a good enough director/producer can use their creativity to flip the script

 

[Marvel]

You copping out like a bytch because you can't refute what I've said....typical. Again, whites like you aren't capable of even having an open and honest discussion about race. Knowing that, you consigning the movie makes it suspect to me.

The fact that whites were entertained by a movie using slavery as the backdrop is suspect, that's what I'm saying. I never assumed that whites would laugh at the scenes that did a good job of depicting how horrifying slavery was. You can say that the comedy in the movie was mostly at the expense of whites, and I can't really argue with you. Again though, there has to be a reason why Hollywood is backing the movie so tough. There has to be a reason that so many whites are praising the film. We all know that as a whole whites aren't comfortable having an open and honest look at slavery and the mentality that allowed them to be ok with subjecting black people to slavery. The movie had to cheapen or water things down in order for it to make whites comfortable enough to enjoy it.

QFT

 

[Methodical]

I said this in my "Spike" Thread in KTL. A Black Person HAS NEVER DIRECTED a Slavery Film for Hollywood up till this point. Next year "12 Years a Slave" is the 1st film directed by a Black Director based on Slavery. Why do you guys think Hollywood has NEVER let a Black Director handle the Slavery Subject? Maybe cause they don't want our perspective.

I really wanna echo this. It might be because it's not him, or it might be because it's a white person, but the way he talks about these films definitely implies some degree of "ownership" over these topics that he feels has been violated.

 

[Donny]

So glad my coli brehs convinced me to see this, judging by the trailer it looked kinda cheesy to me, but the movie was brilliant Tarantino did work with this the movie was packed too there was a long ass line we had to wait in to get tickets, but the movie had the perfect mix of hilarious moments (kkk scene) and then some shockingly serious scenes (Kerry Washington's whipping scene, fight to the death, dogs, Jamie hanging upside down) and for each the crowd reacted appropriately everyone laughed at the funny scenes but were deathly silent at the serious ones it was a mixed crowd a little more black than white but no big difference. Everybody did great in their roles I was especially see glad to Dicaprio step out his comfort zone and play a true rotten to the core villian, and he did exceptional in it as did Waltz, Samuel L Jackson was fukking hilarious, I could not stop laughing nailed his role perfectly, I've been sleeping on Jamie as an actor he did a great job as Django you could feel his emotion, Kerry played the dasmel role great too, this cast was amazing, what I really liked is how Tarantino didn't hold anything back in bringing the harsh realities of slavery into the movie, without a doubt one of the most accurate depictions of slavery I've seen in film the you could feel how uncomfortable every one in the theater became when those scenes popped up. All in all another Tarantino classic imo and without a doubt deserves Movie of the Year.

 

[Marvel]

I really wanna echo this. It might be because it's not him, or it might be because it's a white person, but the way he talks about these films definitely implies some degree of "ownership" over these topics that he feels has been violated.

I feel ya...I think that Spike is jealous of the way the film is being received positively by white critics and that it touches on one of the most sensitive subjects for black people. The fact that a black man can't tell the story of his ancestors should be bothersome not only to Spike but to all black people.

 

[Methodical]

Or maybe because no one would pay to watch it. Black folks included.

Tell me the last time a non-Tyler Perry historical drama did well at the box office. I'll wait.

EDIT: I changed black to historical because I remembered Precious and Dreamgirls. But it's still rare.

That could be also true.

Plus, Usually Tyler Perry films are also very low budget.

George Lucas said himself that the Hollywood won't support all black casts in Red Tails so George Lucas invested $58 million of his own money into the movie. The Hollywood just don't want to losing all money over this Red Tails cause it won't sell well. They have "no" stars actors....they even have untalented actors, washed-up actors.

 

[Marvel]

That could be also true.

Plus, Usually Tyler Perry films are also very low budget.

George Lucas said himself that the Hollywood won't support all black casts in Red Tails so George Lucas invested $58 million of his own money into the movie. The Hollywood just don't want to losing all money over this Red Tails cause it won't sell well. They have "no" stars actors....they even have untalented actors, washed-up actors.

Its a shame, but its reality. Would a Will Smith risk staring in such a movie for less money to help attract an audience?