Are these b!tch azz niccas still crying about the greatest movie of all time?
Are these b!tch azz niccas still crying about the greatest movie of all time?
Don't come at me with that c00n logic because I have no respect for it. You have no idea what you're talking about with that "African kings sold slaves to Europeans" BS, you're exposing yourself as being a captain save-a-whitey. You probably got that from some white racist who was trying to justify slavery or absolve whites from any blame.I can't blame any white person who doesn't want to pay 10 bucks to see a drama about slavery.
Would you pay 10-15 bucks to watch a drama about African kings selling their own people to Europeans (to be enslaved) to save their own skin? You might say yes, but I doubt many black folks would agree with you.
No not at all. You didn't say anything that was intelligent though. You basically said that a Hollywood director doesn't care about box office numbers. If you truly believe that ten you aren't capable of having an intelligent debate.LOL Grav. I guess intellectual debate about this movie is over?
Yes, obviously facts an the truth have never gotten in the way of white racists. They will believe and perpetuate anything that justifies their wickedness.It's been scientifically proven to be untrue by several experts. If they still believe that phrenology BS that speaks more to their morals than it does about Tarantino.
I should have said every scholar, not everyone.
Don't come at me with that c00n logic because I have no respect for it. You have no idea what you're talking about with that "African kings sold slaves to Europeans" BS, you're exposing yourself as being a captain save-a-whitey. You probably got that from some white racist who was trying to justify slavery or absolve whites from any blame.
No not at all. You didn't say anything that was intelligent though. You basically said that a Hollywood director doesn't care about box office numbers. If you truly believe that ten you aren't capable of having an intelligent debate.
All this bullshyt aside, wasn't that KKK raid scene funny as fukk?
That's what I thought c00n. If I had any respect for you I'd school your ignorant ass, but fukk you. Seriously, that "Africans sold their own people to Europeans" BS is wild insulting.
Hey, I didn't say that QT is a complete sell out who's only in it for the money. Obviously he has some kind of passion for what he does and I won't deny that. I'm just keeping it real though, he knows that controversy sells and he's never been scared to stir some up in regards to his movies. He especially has no problem using race to stir up controversy, he's done it throughout his career. Personally, I'm on the fence about him. I don't necessarily "trust" him if you know what I mean. As far as the movie, I haven't seen it. I'm not going to support it because I'm not comfortable supporting a white man making a movie about slavery to entertain white people. Would I have the same reservations about the movie if a black man had directed it? Good question. I wouldn't have as many reservations if Spike had made a movie like this because I'm confident that Spike wouldn't sell out or water shyt down to make whites more comfortable. I doubt that Hollywood and white people would cosign a Spike Lee version of Django. A random black director that I wasn't familiar with or one that I don't really trust not to sell out? I'd have the same reservations. Again, my reservations are based on the fact that Hollywood is behind the movie and a lot of white people are praising it.Oh alright. I repsect that then. Le me revise my statement then. I take back saying QT "gives no fukks" about Box Office numbers.
However, I do not think that is his number 1 priority or 2 priority. Of course a person who works at a craft wants to be paid for his work however, I do believe he is a movie fan who happen to become a succesful director and makes movies that HE likes.
Can't say that about most directors. You got directors making movies that they aren't particularly interested in just for the paycheck, I don't see Tarantino like that.
Grav, let me ask you though, did you enjoy the movie? I don't remember if you answered it.
And would you have the same reservations about the movie if a black direcotr directed it, our do you think a competenet black director would not venture into something so blaspemous?
Hey, I didn't say that QT is a complete sell out who's only in it for the money. Obviously he has some kind of passion for what he does and I won't deny that. I'm just keeping it real though, he knows that controversy sells and he's never been scared to stir some up in regards to his movies. He especially has no problem using race to stir up controversy, he's done it throughout his career. Personally, I'm on the fence about him. I don't necessarily "trust" him if you know what I mean. As far as the movie, I haven't seen it. I'm not going to support it because I'm not comfortable supporting a white man making a movie about slavery to entertain white people. Would I have the same reservations about the movie if a black man had directed it? Good question. I wouldn't have as many reservations if Spike had made a movie like this because I'm confident that Spike wouldn't sell out or water shyt down to make whites more comfortable. I doubt that Hollywood and white people would cosign a Spike Lee version of Django. A random black director that I wasn't familiar with or one that I don't really trust not to sell out? I'd have the same reservations. Again, my reservations are based on the fact that Hollywood is behind the movie and a lot of white people are praising it.
That's what I thought c00n. If I had any respect for you I'd school your ignorant ass, but fukk you.
I understand that(bold) which is why I would have some reservations about anybody making an "action movie" about slavery made to entertain people. A true honest portrayal of slavery would not be entertaining to watch. It's not about me thinking that white people got special treatment. It's about me knowing that this is just a movie made to entertain. It has to be watered down and white-washed(made to not make white people too uncomfortable) to a certain extent. I can say that without having seen the movie because I have common sense. The c00n PhillyCavs said it himself, why would white people pay 10$ to see a movie that takes an uncompromising look at slavery and white supremacy? They wouldn't. White people(and c00ns alike) aren't even comfortable having an honest conversation about race. They aren't comfortable confronting those demons. You seem to be under the impression that QT didn't compromise any and it's obvious that he did, otherwise Hollywood would not back it. You have to know that Hollywood is racist, don't you? I don't doubt that there are scenes in the movie that depict how wicked whites were during slavery and all of that, but I also don't doubt that compromises were made to not make white people too uncomfortable and to maintain the status quo. White supremacy is very important to white people. Hollywood is not going to release movies that threaten that.Grav, I get you. But seriously(people will cosign my statement) There would have been no way any black director could have had a less watered down "action movie" set during slavery times.
Rosewood was more watered down than this.
White people in this movie DID NOT get special treatment. Actually other than Sam Jack's Stephen... white people, in that part of the South, were probably accurately portrayed in the Django Unchained.
Says the stupid ass c00n who recites the rhetoric of pea-brained white racists. Smart white racists know not to make that dumbass argument. Clown.You've lost your mind.
Says the stupid ass c00n who recites the rhetoric of pea-brained white racists. Smart white racists know not to make that dumbass argument. Clown.