It's not the same and I just explained the difference. Django is a movie that exploits slavery, one of the worst institutions in man's history. Exploitation regarding the music industry is of a completely different form. We aren't talking about Hollywood producing yet another cookie-cutter movie that perpetuates negative "black" stereotypes. We are talking about Hollywood producing a modern day blaxploitation slave revenge flick complete with action figures to go along with it. It's two different types of exploitation. Django doesn't really perpetuate negative black stereotypes, but it does exploit slavery by using it as a means to sell a movie, thus trivializing it. The dolls are just in your face racism in my opinion, completely insensitive.
So are all movies that use history as a backdrop/plot point exploitative? Or just those involving slavery?
Are movies about serial killers exploiting the victims? What about war movies, are they exploiting soldiers?
obviously I haven't seen the movie, but if QT had django standing on the cover looking like that y'all would be up in arms about that too.
statement, its just like wow, are you serious? and you are comparing me to rush limbaugh?
how does django fit this discription, and other movies dealing with history not?
I said I don't think this movie is comparable to django. First off django is a totaly fictional story with slaves as characters. The movie didn't attempt to touch on the nuances of slavery.
so your argument has no basis in logical reality so you resort to calling people stupid
the irony