the next guy
Superstar
Last edited by a moderator:
We owe Spike Lee a huge Apology
- Thread starter Street Knowledge
- Start date
Peter Parker
Superstar
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
Spike made Malcolm X who was a great man that was branded a terrorist.
Van Pebbles made Panther about great organization that tried to protect and uplift black people with education, protection and free meals. They were branded terrorist by the gov't, hunted down, killed and/or thrown in jail just cuz they existed.
Both of these movies got the green light and I personally enjoyed both. Now tell me why "they" can't make a Nat Turner movie.
are you serious either your extremely naive...or extremely dumbDo you know what spike had to go threw to get Malcolm X moving??
Spike Lee also encountered difficulty in securing a sufficient budget. Lee told Warner Bros. and the bond company that a budget of over US$30 million was necessary; the studio disagreed and offered a lower amount. Following advice from fellow director Francis Ford Coppola, Lee got "the movie company pregnant": taking the movie far enough along into actual production to attempt to force the studio to increase the budget.[5] The film, initially budgeted at $28 million, climbed to nearly $33 million. Lee contributed $2 million of his own $3 million salary. Completion Bond Company, which assumed financial control in January 1992, refused to approve any more expenditures; in addition, the studio and bond company instructed Lee that the film could be no longer than two hours, fifteen minutes in length.[7] The resulting conflict caused the project to be shut down in post-production.[5]
The film was saved by the financial intervention of prominent black Americans, some of whom appear in the film: Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Janet Jackson, Prince, and Peggy Cooper Cafritz, founder of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Their contributions were made as donations; as Lee noted: "This is not a loan. They are not investing in the film. These are black folks with some money who came to the rescue of the movie. As a result, this film will be my version. Not the bond company's version, not Warner Brothers'. I will do the film the way it ought to be, and it will be over three hours."[7] The actions of such prominent members of the African American community spurred the bond company and Warner Bros. to continue with the project
About the making of PANTHER
July-August 1995
Editorial Note: Last spring, Mario and Melvin Van Peebles's movie, Panther, was released and then quickly removed from mass distribution in American movie theaters. The movie sympathetically portrays the situation of urban blacks that led to the creation and spread of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the leadership of Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in the years 1966-1969.
The release of the movie was accompanied by a series of vitriolic attacks on the film and on the social-change movements of the 1960s. Some of the campaign against the movie was orchestrated by David Horowitz. Horowitz, an editor at Ramparts magazine in the late 1960s, became involved with a group of Oakland Panthers in the 1970s and believes that some of them were involved in a murder that shocked the entire community. He was justifiably angered when others on the Left, too quick to defend any and every activity that came from an oppressed community, refused to publicly confront and condemn these actions. But for reasons that have been viewed by some as opportunistic rather than principled, Horowitz took his quite legitimate anger at some Panthers and at moral double standards among some people on the Left as a justification for attacking any commitment to liberal or progressive vision.
In the 1980s, Horowitz reconstructed himself as a born-again Reaganite, vigorously attacking the Left, and became a central figure in a crusade to expose what he saw as left-wing tyranny exercised through "political correctness."
In a letter he sent to Todd Gitlin (a copy of which he sent to us at Tikkun), Horowitz refers to Gitlin's remarks about Panther in USA Today, and says, "I see you haven't relinquished your role as a shill for the criminal left." He goes on to say, "For twenty years I have had to undertake the personal risk involved in telling this story because cowards like yourself, who know better, refuse to take a clear moral and intellectual stand on this issue. I can't wait to read the review of Panther in Tikkun."
Well, we tried to oblige Horowitz, but our reviewer couldn't see the film before it got yanked from the theaters, in part because of the way the movie had been decried by the media. So instead we decided to talk to the film's director, Mario Van Peebles.
TIKKUN: What led you to make Panther?
Mario Van Peebles: My father, Melvin van Peebles, and my mother were both very active politically when I was a kid. The first time I was allowed to stay up late was to attend a demonstration. My father made a movie called Sweet Sweetback's Baadassssss Song that portrayed a street hustler who began to move beyond the typical individualism of ghetto life and to think politically. Because the film showed the development of a consciousness that could combat the tendency toward drugs and violence in ghetto life, it was embraced by Huey Newton and the Panthers, who hoped that people would see it and be influenced. They helped make the film a success by pushing it in their newspaper. This gave me special access to the Panthers, so that when I made the film I was able to talk to people like David Hilliard and Elaine Brown in depth. My father started writing a book about the period some nine years ago, and when he read it to me I thought "this is really a film."
After we turned the material into a movie script, we went around to Hollywood studios and we kept on getting the same message: "You really need to make this more mainstream." But when pressed to explain what they meant, it turned out that they meant that there had to be a white person as one of the main heroes of the movie. "People knew about the destruction of the Indians for years," we were told, "but no one really cared about it until they got Kevin Kostner to star in Dances With Wolves. The civil-rights movement might have been led by Stokely Carmichael and Martin Luther King, Jr. but Americans didn't care to see a movie on that till Mississippi Burning tells the story from the standpoint of white FBI agents. So you've got to write this story in a way that gives focus to some big white stars, and then you can do your thing." One of the studio heads suggested that we make one of the leading Panthers a white man. Others suggested focusing on a Berkeley white person who would meet five young black guys, teaches them to read and stand up for themselves, and then they become the Panthers!
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22287
cleanface coney
Superstar
i seen She Hate Me and honestly it wasnt offensive
dont get me wrong artist,musicians,singers,etc are allowed to express themselves however they want. they are given that opportunity and i have no problem wit dat
like i said before my niggest gripe wit DTrasho is this movie is being praised as some sort of win for blacks when really its a slap in the face
imo its hipster trash and does nothing but give off the wrong impression and images of a supposed "revenge" blak movie
if QT was so creative like these people are syain
why couldnt he construct a better storyline?
why is it that the most complex and to a certain extent most powerful charater a fukkin c00n(sam jackson)
if this was a "revenge" movie why is it that Django(blackman) STILL needs help/guidance from a Jew or whiteman?
why is Leonardo gettin nominated?
why is Sam Jackson considered the main villian
who said QT has the right to speak on my people?
i went o see dat movie and honestly i watched it with a straight face
when we left i felt offended and felt like it was a joke
and for the people sayin it gives accurate portrayal of what was goin on
get the fukk outta here wit dat bullshyt
you want a ccurate portrayal read the Colonizationof the Congo, Black Holocuast, read a fukkin book if want an accurate portrayal
honesstly i think its a mental mindtrick for people NOT EDUCATED on black slavery to not feel offended by bthis movie
this movie represents nothing to me and is trash
stop hatin on Spike he not perfect but he is damn sure more qualifeied than some whiteboy to have an opinion on blacks and slavery
i feel like im in the twilight zone when i hear peopl praising this mvoei
esp black people...notice all they can bank on is Jamie Foxx killed a couple white dudes
Last edited by a moderator:
courtdog
Drinks Blood from a Boot
So the kill count determines if the premise is acceptable? If not, what is your point???
What you said is so incomplete that its not true. First off, Django is not about slavery. Its not. Nor was it ever about slavery (as in before the remake)
Its an action movie set in the time period of slavery. So basically what is going on here is they was like look. Lets make an action movie, and we'll place it in the slavery time period. That sounds awesome, then the slave can kill some slave owners and really stick it to em!!!
Problem is that is not Black thought. Thats how white people think, sorry.
I mean, Maybe Dave Chappelle could and did touch the subject.
You know why they didn't "air" that episode on comedy central?
Dave said it himself. WHITE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE THE SLAVE OWNER GETTING SHOT AT THE END
This is a true story. But you know... as long as QT did it, its cool
Once again, from a black peoples perspective. How come there isn't a bunch of movies made from black directors that have already touched on this subject if this is how black people think???
We don't, cuz we know that time period isn't something to joke about for the most part.
Finally, QT throws around ****** in all of his movies, not just Pulp Fiction
Pulp Fiction is when it caught the eye of people who was not familiar with his work. That is NOT when he started it. Its important to NOT leave all that out when "breaking it down" bruh
Last edited by a moderator:
courtdog
Drinks Blood from a Boot
I tihnk any black person who was in this thread sayin "yeah Django" should get a Samuel L Mask for Halloween this year
Do you know what spike had to go threw to get Malcolm X moving??
Lee contributed $2 million of his own $3 million salary. Completion Bond Company, which assumed financial control in January 1992, refused to approve any more expenditures; in addition, the studio and bond company instructed Lee that the film could be no longer than two hours, fifteen minutes in length.[7] The resulting conflict caused the project to be shut down in post-production.[5]
The film was saved by the financial intervention of prominent black Americans, some of whom appear in the film: Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Janet Jackson, Prince, and Peggy Cooper Cafritz, founder of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Their contributions were made as donations; as Lee noted: "This is not a loan. They are not investing in the film. These are black folks with some money who came to the rescue of the movie.
About the making of PANTHER
"People knew about the destruction of the Indians for years," we were told, "but no one really cared about it until they got Kevin Kostner to star in Dances With Wolves. The civil-rights movement might have been led by Stokely Carmichael and Martin Luther King, Jr. but Americans didn't care to see a movie on that till Mississippi Burning tells the story from the standpoint of white FBI agents. So you've got to write this story in a way that gives focus to some big white stars, and then you can do your thing." One of the studio heads suggested that we make one of the leading Panthers a white man. Others suggested focusing on a Berkeley white person who would meet five young black guys, teaches them to read and stand up for themselves, and then they become the Panthers!
FrontPage Magazine - Panther: An Interview with Mario Van Peebles
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
me @OGCush @Cockmeat Sandwich @fillerguy @Drew Wonder @Izanami @Mike Otherz
@Marvel
We really out here sonning ya"ll CAC 
@Marvel
We really out here sonning ya"ll CAC
Last edited by a moderator:
courtdog
Drinks Blood from a Boot
me @OGCush @Cockmeat Sandwich @fillerguy @Drew Wonder @Izanami @Mike Otherz
@Marvel
I'm not even lying when I say your last post changed my life
Its just amazing yet not surprising at what I'm reading there
Last edited by a moderator:
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
I tihnk any black person who was in this thread sayin "yeah Django" should get a Samuel L Mask for Halloween this year
good looks on bolding that part.. son is a Idiot...
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
I'm not even lying when I say your last post changed my life
Its just amazing yet not surprising at what I'm reading there
we must never forget bro ...thats what THEY want us to do.......its the least we can do for our ancestors ......each 1 teach 1.......and for you CAC's...WE C U
One of the studio heads suggested that we make one of the leading Panthers a white man. Others suggested focusing on a Berkeley white person who would meet five young black guys, teaches them to read and stand up for themselves, and then they become the Panthers!
the audacity of some CAC's how can ya'll deny the fukkery..this is why no1 trust CAC's....
courtdog
Drinks Blood from a Boot
This is it in a nutshell. Y'all have a problem with a white dude directing a movie about slavery. That's fine it's a reasonable stance to take considering race relations in this country.
Just quit with all this extra shyt you try to pull out of the movie to justify your stance and tell the truth, say "I don't like the fact that a white guy made a movie about slavery"
If the director was black none of you would have a problem with this movie or the premise.
spliz
SplizThaDon
people need to understand that slavery is AMERICAN history..NOT just black history..and this thinking is why the shyt will never get portrayed correctly in the history books...we gotta go thru all kinda hoops n shyt just to find out our real history in this country...
Fury616
www.illdust.com
Do you know what spike had to go threw to get Malcolm X moving??
Spike Lee also encountered difficulty in securing a sufficient budget. Lee told Warner Bros. and the bond company that a budget of over US$30 million was necessary; the studio disagreed and offered a lower amount. Following advice from fellow director Francis Ford Coppola, Lee got "the movie company pregnant": taking the movie far enough along into actual production to attempt to force the studio to increase the budget.[5] The film, initially budgeted at $28 million, climbed to nearly $33 million. Lee contributed $2 million of his own $3 million salary. Completion Bond Company, which assumed financial control in January 1992, refused to approve any more expenditures; in addition, the studio and bond company instructed Lee that the film could be no longer than two hours, fifteen minutes in length.[7] The resulting conflict caused the project to be shut down in post-production.[5]
The film was saved by the financial intervention of prominent black Americans, some of whom appear in the film: Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Janet Jackson, Prince, and Peggy Cooper Cafritz, founder of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Their contributions were made as donations; as Lee noted: "This is not a loan. They are not investing in the film. These are black folks with some money who came to the rescue of the movie. As a result, this film will be my version. Not the bond company's version, not Warner Brothers'. I will do the film the way it ought to be, and it will be over three hours."[7] The actions of such prominent members of the African American community spurred the bond company and Warner Bros. to continue with the project
About the making of PANTHER
July-August 1995
Editorial Note: Last spring, Mario and Melvin Van Peebles's movie, Panther, was released and then quickly removed from mass distribution in American movie theaters. The movie sympathetically portrays the situation of urban blacks that led to the creation and spread of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the leadership of Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in the years 1966-1969.
The release of the movie was accompanied by a series of vitriolic attacks on the film and on the social-change movements of the 1960s. Some of the campaign against the movie was orchestrated by David Horowitz. Horowitz, an editor at Ramparts magazine in the late 1960s, became involved with a group of Oakland Panthers in the 1970s and believes that some of them were involved in a murder that shocked the entire community. He was justifiably angered when others on the Left, too quick to defend any and every activity that came from an oppressed community, refused to publicly confront and condemn these actions. But for reasons that have been viewed by some as opportunistic rather than principled, Horowitz took his quite legitimate anger at some Panthers and at moral double standards among some people on the Left as a justification for attacking any commitment to liberal or progressive vision.
In the 1980s, Horowitz reconstructed himself as a born-again Reaganite, vigorously attacking the Left, and became a central figure in a crusade to expose what he saw as left-wing tyranny exercised through "political correctness."
In a letter he sent to Todd Gitlin (a copy of which he sent to us at Tikkun), Horowitz refers to Gitlin's remarks about Panther in USA Today, and says, "I see you haven't relinquished your role as a shill for the criminal left." He goes on to say, "For twenty years I have had to undertake the personal risk involved in telling this story because cowards like yourself, who know better, refuse to take a clear moral and intellectual stand on this issue. I can't wait to read the review of Panther in Tikkun."
Well, we tried to oblige Horowitz, but our reviewer couldn't see the film before it got yanked from the theaters, in part because of the way the movie had been decried by the media. So instead we decided to talk to the film's director, Mario Van Peebles.
TIKKUN: What led you to make Panther?
Mario Van Peebles: My father, Melvin van Peebles, and my mother were both very active politically when I was a kid. The first time I was allowed to stay up late was to attend a demonstration. My father made a movie called Sweet Sweetback's Baadassssss Song that portrayed a street hustler who began to move beyond the typical individualism of ghetto life and to think politically. Because the film showed the development of a consciousness that could combat the tendency toward drugs and violence in ghetto life, it was embraced by Huey Newton and the Panthers, who hoped that people would see it and be influenced. They helped make the film a success by pushing it in their newspaper. This gave me special access to the Panthers, so that when I made the film I was able to talk to people like David Hilliard and Elaine Brown in depth. My father started writing a book about the period some nine years ago, and when he read it to me I thought "this is really a film."
After we turned the material into a movie script, we went around to Hollywood studios and we kept on getting the same message: "You really need to make this more mainstream." But when pressed to explain what they meant, it turned out that they meant that there had to be a white person as one of the main heroes of the movie. "People knew about the destruction of the Indians for years," we were told, "but no one really cared about it until they got Kevin Kostner to star in Dances With Wolves. The civil-rights movement might have been led by Stokely Carmichael and Martin Luther King, Jr. but Americans didn't care to see a movie on that till Mississippi Burning tells the story from the standpoint of white FBI agents. So you've got to write this story in a way that gives focus to some big white stars, and then you can do your thing." One of the studio heads suggested that we make one of the leading Panthers a white man. Others suggested focusing on a Berkeley white person who would meet five young black guys, teaches them to read and stand up for themselves, and then they become the Panthers!
FrontPage Magazine - Panther: An Interview with Mario Van Peebles
You just posted all that shyt for nothing. Both movies were made, end of story. Mel Gibson used his own money for The Passion and had to jump thru hoops for that and the R rating. What Spike did to make the movie is not supernatural. Again, why is there no Nat Turner movie? Simple question for the simple-minded.
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
ExodusNirvanaBased on historical events
I SHOULD KNOCK YOUR MUSTACHE OFF
ExodusNirvanaCAC thats why I ain't even respond to that fool
(I was this close)
I could tell son is a pasty ol CAC *thats why I ain't even respond to that foolListen if your just getting what our problem with the movie is...you might be alil slow...............OF COURSE we have a problem with a white dude making a spectacle out of slavery......
Don't you think Jews would have a problem with a BLACK PERSON..making a movie about the holocaust that made a spectacle out of it
I don't even know why I'm replying to you..its clear your a ignorant CAC
Meach the monster
I'm sure your pasty