Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/30/09 08:02 PM, greensucksbluerules wrote: I think some people are missing my point. I'm not referring to just Tyler Perry movies. I'm referring to movies that have a black cast in general and they always score low on the IMDb, regardless of critical reception.

Oh, I think you're thinking of how the movie "Pride" had a 46% (or something like that) on Rotten Tomatoes, but it was in the Bottom 100 on the IMBD. To be honest, I don't see a lot of difference in those things but I guess you may have a point.

Lol, this guy is just joking. He doesn't ACTUALLY think that IMDb is racist because they rated some film no one's heard of a 2/10 which stars a black person...

...right?

At 10/1/09 12:44 PM, KronikEnt wrote: Lol, this guy is just joking. He doesn't ACTUALLY think that IMDb is racist because they rated some film no one's heard of a 2/10 which stars a black person...

...right?

No. Maybe he thinks they're racist because of this:

"AHAHA...Tyler is RICH and you broke white people are MAD!"

"AHAHA... your Black and your still on welfare and your typing on a stolen eMachine while drinking cool aid and eating KFC..."

"Yeah, go and rob a car you gold toothed swine."

"A black guy with the word "monkey" in his username is making fun of white people for being broke? What is this, bizarro world?

I'm pretty sure your race is amongst the poorest in the country, buddy. No need to project."

You're a fucking dumb bitch. The movie clearly sucks shit, as most 'black movies' do.

If the movie is good, then people will rate it good. Look up the movie "George Washington", It got just a little better on RT than imdb.

At 10/1/09 01:50 PM, Orange-Jews wrote: You're a fucking dumb bitch. The movie clearly sucks shit, as most 'black movies' do.

Then why does it have a rating of 62 (no, 63)% on RottenTomatoes? I've heard some people say that "Pride" was better recieved by critics because they themselves were biased towards black people in a positive way, but I don't think so. I think it's just because certain movies have a lot of hate associated with them. The Jonas Brothers movie was #1 on the Bottom of the IMDB with a score of 31% (still negative, but not terrible) for no reason other than that the Jonas Brothers are hated so much. There was even someone there who said, "Let's make this #1 on the Bottom 100".

At 9/30/09 06:02 PM, UberCream wrote: ALSO, on rotten tomatoes, the percentage is generated by ratings that users on the site give, so anyone can give a rating. EVEN black people.

You're confusing the critics' percentage on the site with the users'. They're different entities, and RT focuses more on what the critics have to say.

Anyway, critics' and audiences' overall opinions don't always go hand-in-hand. For instance, critics on RT liked The Blair Witch Project more than on IMDb, if you look at the ratings. I dunno how else to deal with the issue of Tyler Perry's film. I'm not gonna automatically throw in the race card, though.

everyone in this thread is racist

the end

At 9/30/09 03:51 PM, greensucksbluerules wrote: Why are you throwing a hissy fit?

Better yet, why did you take so long to respond to something that wasn't even aimed at you?

Why would you say I'm throwing a hissy fit?

I gave a perfectly reasonable response. It didn't take me long to write either, so don't act like I put a huge amount of effort into belittling you (although, from a user whose posts are all shitty one liners I suppose a paragraph feels like a book to you)

But the reason why most 'black films' get ire from the whole 'white community' is because it makes a purpouse to exlcude them in some way. Understandably, the problem is being eased because their whole way of making movies (ie: slang and complaining about white people, for the most part) are becoming more and more ingrained into the entire American culture as a whole, and not just the 'black and white' parties.

Now, Tyler Perry's movies aren't like this as much, but most of the other movies that are reputedly 'black' do, mostly hood movies and sports movies to be honest. Understandably, there are movies with an all black cast (or a majority) such as Glory, which is both a good movie and recieving tolerable to great reviews from both parties. The reason: Characterisation. I'll put it this way, most black movies have shitty characters whose only appeal is "fast talking", "Funny", and Black. That's pretty much the entire reason. That and the fact that most material in hood and sports movies are recycled.

And don't get me started on the whole Chris Rock/ Martin Lawrence / Eddie Murphy / Wayan's Bros. / etc. comedy movie, because the vast majority of them are completely fucking retarded. I'd say it's a ratio of 9/10 which are actually good as movies. (I'm not saying they aren't funny though.)

At 10/2/09 12:08 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 10/1/09 01:50 PM, Orange-Jews wrote: You're a fucking dumb bitch. The movie clearly sucks shit, as most 'black movies' do.

Then why does it have a rating of 62 (no, 63)% on RottenTomatoes?

Since when is 63% considered a good rating?

That's fucking shit. The users of imdb are just more ruthless when it comes to rating shitty movies.

If I remember correctly most main characters in Cidade De Deus (City of God) are black, yet it's ranked #17 on IMDB. Furthermore, I think Morgan Freeman could be named the most successful actor ever purely looking at IMBD's top 250 rankings and the films he's played in.

So I don't really believe that the 2.0 is solely based on racial opinions. I do believe the people who say that it could be based a lot on the guys reputation. It seems like he's been very consistent in creating crap movies over the past few years.

On a side note: It's a very bad sign to me if a director puts his own name in the movie title =/

IMDb has a white background color. Figure that.

At 10/2/09 02:28 PM, Auz wrote: On a side note: It's a very bad sign to me if a director puts his own name in the movie title =/

Kubrick did it. A director is the "principal creative artist on a movie set," so if he or she wants to put their own name in a movie title, that's fine with me. Ultimately, the movie's theirs.

The real problem is...

"Best movie of the year."

"Astounding."

"Captures blackitude fully."

Yet the movie is absolutely horrible.

At 9/30/09 03:23 PM, NapoleanD wrote:

On a related note, Tyler Perry needs to create a movie that's not centered around black people...as well as leave his full name out of his movie titles.

Thats what I hate

I don't know why you're taking all this shit personally. Deep down you know that directors only cast a negro in their movie is so they get more viewers. It's just the right way to do things. The white way if you will.

The best film that encapsulates this is Glory. Such a moving film. All the way through the movie you see Ferris Bueller pretend that his army of chocolate men are growing on him. You start to get attached especially to that feisty motherfucker Denzel, he's a crazy coon in that movie. He tugs at your heart strings, especially when he gets whipped. I almost shed a tear at that point. The movie makes you think. That is until you see Ferris' alterior motive. He's thinking, "Shit man, I got all these crazy spear chuckers here, they can't do jack shit. If it's the end of me, I'll rid the Federal army of these clowns." He marches those bad boys right into the guns and they all died. Brilliant.

Fair play to him. Ferris did that shit and Cameron and little Miss Peterson were glad for it.

PS. In Glory, there's a guy called Sharts. What do you think of when you shart? A brown stain on your boxers you wish you'd never seen, just like a black man.

At 10/2/09 09:29 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Kubrick did it. A director is the "principal creative artist on a movie set," so if he or she wants to put their own name in a movie title, that's fine with me. Ultimately, the movie's theirs.

Well, those movies have names that are just known by the name without it. When people say "A Clockwork Orange" they don't usually say "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but that isn't so with Tyler Perry or something like that.

At 10/3/09 01:26 PM, Ericho wrote: Well, those movies have names that are just known by the name without it. When people say "A Clockwork Orange" they don't usually say "Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange" but that isn't so with Tyler Perry or something like that.

Maybe that's true for Tyler Perry's films; I don't know; I was just defending a director's right to have their name in the title.

At 10/3/09 02:18 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Maybe that's true for Tyler Perry's films; I don't know; I was just defending a director's right to have their name in the title.

Yeah, the sad thing is that certain things can only apply to people who just have a ton of hate associated with them. People wouldn't shut up about how Ash in "Pokemon" was voiced by a woman when there's tons of animated characters voiced by women.