Hollywood = anti-white?

[SadisticMonkey]

So basically, just under two years ago there was a fight on an American Bus between 67-year-old white man Thomas Bruso, who has been dubbed "epic beard man", and a 50-year-old black man, known only as "Michael". Michael gets upset at Bruso for something he allegedly said and verbally attacks him, prompting Bruso to move to the front of the bus to get away from him. Micheal continues yelling at him and using racial slurs, and approaches Bruso (with some passengers yelling anti-white slurs, such as "get pinky!"). Michael then takes a swing at Bruso, his punches Micheal repeatedly and knocks him to the ground.
Wikipedia article and interview with Bruso.

So now, a film called "Bad Ass" is being made which is unofficially based on the epic beard man incident.

There's one minor difference however.

Bruso is now a latino man, and Michael has been replaced by two white skinheads.

Although though the initial aggressor was black and the original man to defending himself was white, the attacks are now conveniently white racists, and the victim is an oppressed minority, and there's not a black man is sight, probably so the discrepancy between it and reality doesn't look COMPLETELY ridiculous

This is simply amazing, and I really don't see why most liberals are so amazingly incredulous about accusations of cultural marxist influences in hollywood.

Can you seriously imagine if it had been a white aggressor in real life, and a black victim? There's the hilarious thing, if it had been a white attacker, the attackers would have been portrayed as white. When the attacker is a racist minority, what happens? The attacker is STILL portrayed as white.

Disgusting.

[Warforger]

I for one am outraged that Hollywood would try to spin anti-White propaganda, especially considering white males are the principal movie goers and let's just brush like EVERYTHING ELSE aside that says that Hollywood is alot more pro-white male than you imply and in fact more racist/sexist towards non-whites && white females.

Looking through Imbd this isn't Hollywood, this is an indie movie, thus they aren't bound by the above and can do whatever they want. Truth is Hollywood is alot more Conservative than you give it credit, since after all the first movie that invented modern filming "Birth of a Nation" was a KKK propaganda film reinforcing stereotypes the KKK held dear.

And all this accusations of Socialism/Marxism/Communism is hilarious, since alot of progressives, you know the people who fought for Sanitation reforms, equality of gender and race, helping the poor etc., were Socialists and many Socialist programs remain that many of the so called "Conservative" presidents even reinforce making them Socialists, and the first President who started all these government changes was a, get ready for this, A REPUBLICAN aka Abraham Lincoln with his Green backs, stacking up of debt etc.

[EKublai]

Actually, Hollywood is more known for white-washing a cast. Especially when it comes to Asian influences like Dragonball Z, The Last Airbender, etc.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/24/11 06:58 PM, EKublai wrote: Actually, Hollywood is more known for white-washing a cast. Especially when it comes to Asian influences like Dragonball Z, The Last Airbender, etc.

When it comes to Anime, I can't say I blame Hollywood or anyone else for that matter. Anime characters tend to look more European to me than Asian. But maybe i'm just crazy.

I don't think Hollywood is collectively and consciously trying to enact some anti-white or cultural Marxist agenda. Much of what it does and does not consider acceptable is mainstream, at least culturally speaking.

The idea of hate crimes being committed against white people is not a comfortable topic for most people IMO. Whereas the reverse is not. Likewise the idea of white identity or white separatism is an extremely uncomfortable topic, whereas the idea of a black identity or a latino identity, or black / latino separatism is not nearly as taboo.

BTW Warforger i have absolutely no clue what your comments have to do with this topic.

[Warforger]

At 12/24/11 08:00 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 12/24/11 06:58 PM, EKublai wrote: Actually, Hollywood is more known for white-washing a cast. Especially when it comes to Asian influences like Dragonball Z, The Last Airbender, etc.

Let's not forget how many movies have been remade with a black in the lead role (when the original lead role went to a white) movies like Wild Wild West, Do Dolittle, the Nutty Professor, and Karate Kid (ugh) are examples.

Will Smith doesn't count since he acts like a pretty good white guy and looks pretty white as well, Nutty Professor is cheap comedy, Karate Kid was also a white guy look-alike who is Will Smith's son. Not to mention, Hollywood is pretty racist in what it thinks will sell, that's why whenever you see a Civil Rights movie it's always a white person helping black people stand up for themselves.

Blacks in lead roles is really rate (if it's not Will Smith), if you look at people who represent black culture better like say Chris Rock, do they star as the lead role? No, they're always a secondary character. In fact a movie was going to be made about the Haitan revolution, however because they could not make it centered about a white person they were not given the go ahead to make it.

and if you wanna use "well republicans did this" routine, let's not forget that it was the democrats who held blacks in slavery. in your thought process, blacks should be solidly republican, not democratic, given that it was the democratic party who enslaved them (and by some standards, still do)

Then again back then the Republicans would be the modern equivalent of "Socialists", after the Civil War they stuck to what was already made a precedent anyway. It was true though that for a while nearly all blacks voted Republican, it was just when the Republicans dropped all the social programs they had first brought up under Reconstruction and the Democrats later adopting more social programs it turned. Democrats during then would be Conservatives, unwilling to change the system, mind you that doesn't make them like modern Conservatives, modern ones were the ones who are the children of the 1900's-1950's era, where American nationalism soured to missing the point of the nation and trying to be as like Europe, where as Liberals they would be already boiling up from the 1890's where the Democrat and the Republican parties started to actually adopt different policies as to fix the corrupt state, things which were really controversial.

To say that the two parties have a fixed idealogy is hilarious, in fact they mostly held the same policies after the Civil War, they only change their policies when a 3rd party rises to challenge them so they take their ideals and/or absorb the actual party. Before the Civil War it was Whigs v. Democrats and it wasn't "slavery v. free" since both parties had people in them who supported slavery, it was all about economics, the Republican party in turn was founded by anti-slavery Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats with the pro-slavery Whigs going to the Democratic party and even then it rested on the ideology that slavery was holding back the economy and should be limited to where it is.

[Ericho]

No, unfortunately, Hollywood is still somewhat racist. I read this article on Cracked that said that nearly all high grossing movies starred white guys and the most popular black guy was Will Smith. If you look at stuff like "The Last Airbender" you know how bad they are with this. Then again, maybe they're trying to learn their lesson from terrible movies like that and having more ethnic groups. If anything, we have a long way to go with racism in Hollywood.

[marchohare]

At 12/24/11 06:27 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So now, a film called "Bad Ass" is being made which is unofficially based on the epic beard man incident.

"Unofficially" being the key word. This doesn't exactly sound like Schindler's List.

If Hollywood is anti-anything, it's anti-losing-money. And if it's pro-anything, it's pro-making-money. Calling Hollywood "Marxist" is laughable. It's as capitalistic as anything gets.

If the ethnicity of the characters was changed (not that it matters in something "unofficially based" on a real-life event), there were three reasons for the change: 1) Box Office, 2) Box Office, and 3) Box Office. In an industry where Mel Gibson gets picked to make Maccabee, you can be pretty sure that anti-white sentiment has nothing to do with anything.

[Warforger]

At 12/24/11 08:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: BTW Warforger i have absolutely no clue what your comments have to do with this topic.

The first two paragraphs are 100% relevant, the 3rd was when I got done reading an article on how Conservatives throw around "Socialism".

[Gustavos]

If they were to make a two hour movie based on that incident, than the internets have won the...world?

The problem with this theory is that it's inspired by the events, not a cinematic reenvisioning, thus they can make it about anything they want. People aren't gonna see the movie and think it's anti-white, they'll just be reminded of that funny video they saw some years past. And that's totally fine.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/24/11 05:13 PM, Warforger wrote: I for one am outraged that Hollywood would try to spin anti-White propaganda, especially considering white males are the principal movie goers and let's just brush like EVERYTHING ELSE aside that says that Hollywood is alot more pro-white male than you imply and in fact more racist/sexist towards non-whites && white females.

5. Interracial relationships are very uncommon in real life compared to same-race relatioships, and so if anything it would be surprising if they were common in films.
2. There are far more white actors than black actors, and black actors are usually suitable for a smaller variety of roles than black actors. It's absurd to call it "racist".
1. There's not exactly a lot of black history to cover. And besides, there has been dozens of films highlighting the struggle of blacks and making whites look racist and stupid. HEck, "A Time to Kill" was part of our schools's curriculum.

Looking through Imbd this isn't Hollywood, this is an indie movie, thus they aren't bound by the above and can do whatever they want. Truth is Hollywood is alot more Conservative than you give it credit, since after all the first movie that invented modern filming "Birth of a Nation" was a KKK propaganda film reinforcing stereotypes the KKK held dear.

Yeah I'm talking about the film industry in, you know...THIS CENTURY.

And all this accusations of Socialism/Marxism/Communism is hilarious

Yeah I don't think you understand what "cultural marxism" means.

and the first President who started all these government changes was a, get ready for this, A REPUBLICAN aka Abraham Lincoln with his Green backs, stacking up of debt etc.

You realise Lincoln was, by the standards of someone like yourself, *extremely racist*, right?

At 12/24/11 10:37 PM, Gustavos wrote: The problem with this theory is that it's inspired by the events, not a cinematic reenvisioning, thus they can make it about anything they want. People aren't gonna see the movie and think it's anti-white, they'll just be reminded of that funny video they saw some years past. And that's totally fine.

You're forgetting the part where they deliberately replaced a black aggressor with two white skinehads.

At 12/24/11 09:29 PM, marchohare wrote: If Hollywood is anti-anything, it's anti-losing-money. And if it's pro-anything, it's pro-making-money. Calling Hollywood "Marxist" is laughable. It's as capitalistic as anything gets.

CULTURAL marxist =/= economically marxist/

If the ethnicity of the characters was changed (not that it matters in something "unofficially based" on a real-life event), there were three reasons for the change: 1) Box Office, 2) Box Office, and 3) Box Office. In an industry where Mel Gibson gets picked to make Maccabee, you can be pretty sure that anti-white sentiment has nothing to do with anything.

They deliberately changed a black aggressor into WHITE SKINHEADS, and made a white victim/"hero" into a minority.

Can you imagine if they changed the skinheds into a dumb black guy? The producers would be receiving deaht-threats.

[StealthSteve]

At 12/25/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Can you imagine if they changed the skinheds into a dumb black guy? The producers would be receiving deaht-threats.

yes, because Hollywood has never portrayed black people as ignorant criminals before.

[StealthSteve]

At 12/25/11 01:38 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 12/25/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Can you imagine if they changed the skinheds into a dumb black guy? The producers would be receiving deaht-threats.

yes, because Hollywood has never portrayed black people as ignorant criminals before.

wait, wait, instead of "changed the skinheds [sic] into a dumb black guy" you mean "kept the dumb black guy a dumb black guy" right?

i agree, they would have certainly received death threats. really. no, really. rrrrreeeeaaalllllllyyyyy

what is this "sarcasm"? i don't know what that is

[BUTANE]

Dude, calm down. It is just a movie. Nobody wants to see a film about a black guy starting a fight with a white guy and then losing (boring and pretty stupid). People are interested in skinheads (American History X) it's a cool topic for a film.

You need to realize that movies are not made to only to tell a story, they need to make money too. In order to do that, even when it "based" off real events, the story needs to be altered in a way that will encourage the audience to watch it.

Hollywood isn't racist against white people, you are just a white person who is racist.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/25/11 01:38 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: yes, because Hollywood has never portrayed black people as ignorant criminals before.

Blacks commit more violent crime per capita than non-blacks so there probably should be more black criminals than non-black criminals. But that's not even the point. I'm talking about changing the race of the person from what it was in real life.

At 12/25/11 01:43 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: wait, wait, instead of "changed the skinheds [sic] into a dumb black guy" you mean "kept the dumb black guy a dumb black guy" right?

Ugh. Imagine that a white dude committed a heinous crime against a black dude that become widely known. If a film was made about it, except the bad guy was purposely made out to be black and the victim white, there would be utter outrage.

At 12/25/11 02:01 AM, BUTANE wrote: Dude, calm down. It is just a movie. Nobody wants to see a film about a black guy starting a fight with a white guy and then losing (boring and pretty stupid). People are interested in skinheads (American History X) it's a cool topic for a film.

There are more Black on white violent hate crimes comitted in america than white on black hate crimes. In the real live event this movie is based on, the attacker is a racist black man attacking an innocent white man. But people are interestedi n skinheads. Well people are fucking morons then.

You need to realize that movies are not made to only to tell a story, they need to make money too. In order to do that, even when it "based" off real events, the story needs to be altered in a way that will encourage the audience to watch it.

hahahahahahaha.

Film that makes black person look bad = RAYCYSST

Film that makes white person llok bad (based on an attack by a black person, no less) = Just about making money.

You're a hypocrtitical piece of shit.

you are just a white person who is racist.

I'm racist for wanting a black thug to be portrayed as a black thug, instead of some non-existent skinheads used as anti-white propoganda?
Wow.

[Solisio]

Im glad most people aren't as simple minded as you. Anti-white propaganda? Die hard had a german villain! Oh no! Hollywood and their anti-german propaganda! Call the press!

Seriously? I can't tell if you're serious or not. You are clearly the racist one in the situation, as you're so fixated on the actors race. You should be ashamed of yourself. You need to learn that cinema is NOT REAL. Just about anything can be replaced without significant change to motif of the story.

[marchohare]

At 12/25/11 05:04 PM, Solisio wrote: Im glad most people aren't as simple minded as you....

I've known SadisticMonkey for awhile. Simple-minded? No. Racist? I don't think so. Intentionally provocative? Unquestionably. A troll? Yeah, one of the best in the business. Funny? Hilarious! At least, once you read enough of his stuff to spot his patterns.

(I don't think I'm giving much away by saying that, SM. You know how it goes. 90% will never even read it.)

[Iron-Hampster]

If Hollywood were anti white, then the majority of their actors would be non whites and the "A List" would be mostly minorities.

[Warforger]

At 12/25/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/24/11 05:13 PM, Warforger wrote: I for one am outraged that Hollywood would try to spin anti-White propaganda, especially considering white males are the principal movie goers and let's just brush like EVERYTHING ELSE aside that says that Hollywood is alot more pro-white male than you imply and in fact more racist/sexist towards non-whites && white females.

5. Interracial relationships are very uncommon in real life compared to same-race relatioships, and so if anything it would be surprising if they were common in films.

Common is one thing NOT SHOWING IT ON SCREEN is another.

At 12/25/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 2. There are far more white actors than black actors, and black actors are usually suitable for a smaller variety of roles than black actors. It's absurd to call it "racist".

Erm not really, there are alot of black actors I think a good comparison would be Chris Rock and Jack Black, they're almost the same thing in each other's ethnic culture and yet I can name multiple movies where Jack Black is the main character while Chris Rock is not.

1. There's not exactly a lot of black history to cover. And besides, there has been dozens of films highlighting the struggle of blacks and making whites look racist and stupid. HEck, "A Time to Kill" was part of our schools's curriculum.

..............You mean other than the hundreds of years of history? The Haitan revolution would be like mother fucking 300, it would be an easy block buster if the audience accepts that it has to do with revolting from slavery but again because they can't find a white protagonist it's a no-go.

Looking through Imbd this isn't Hollywood, this is an indie movie, thus they aren't bound by the above and can do whatever they want. Truth is Hollywood is alot more Conservative than you give it credit, since after all the first movie that invented modern filming "Birth of a Nation" was a KKK propaganda film reinforcing stereotypes the KKK held dear.

Yeah I'm talking about the film industry in, you know...THIS CENTURY.

You were saying however, "Hollywood" implying heavily funded mainstream movies, NOT indie movies who don't have commercial restrictions.

And all this accusations of Socialism/Marxism/Communism is hilarious

Yeah I don't think you understand what "cultural marxism" means.

and the first President who started all these government changes was a, get ready for this, A REPUBLICAN aka Abraham Lincoln with his Green backs, stacking up of debt etc.

You realise Lincoln was, by the standards of someone like yourself, *extremely racist*, right?

Yes? So was almost every Republican in that era and hell the vast majority of people of that era, hell one reason why they didn't grant blacks the right to vote right away was because in many Northern states they didn't have that right either, he was racist in the sense that he was less racist than those against him. Lincoln's stance was controversial and a step forward towards the equality, while he does not meet modern standards he helped start them.

At 12/24/11 09:29 PM, marchohare wrote: If Hollywood is anti-anything, it's anti-losing-money. And if it's pro-anything, it's pro-making-money. Calling Hollywood "Marxist" is laughable. It's as capitalistic as anything gets.

CULTURAL marxist =/= economically marxist/

I don't get it, what part of Marxism says "whites are evil"? If anything it would be "rich people are evil". Or is this just some invention of the 50's Red scare America, like calling Presidents "Socialists" (which if you go by the standards they use to call someone one that makes every president after Hoover a Socialist) that is just used to slander a group?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 12/25/11 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote: Common is one thing NOT SHOWING IT ON SCREEN is another.

Given how overwhelmingly uncommon it is in real life, there's no reason to expect it to occur in movies unless they made a deliberate effort to include it.

Erm not really, there are alot of black actors I think a good comparison would be Chris Rock and Jack Black, they're almost the same thing in each other's ethnic culture and yet I can name multiple movies where Jack Black is the main character while Chris Rock is not.

No way, they're totally different actors. Rock is more sassy, whereas black is more stupid. They are most certainly not interchangable actors.

..............You mean other than the hundreds of years of history? The Haitan revolution would be like mother fucking 300, it would be an easy block buster if the audience accepts that it has to do with revolting from slavery but again because they can't find a white protagonist it's a no-go.

Waitm you think that the average white person doesn't like anti-slavery themes? hahahahaha

You were saying however, "Hollywood" implying heavily funded mainstream movies, NOT indie movies who don't have commercial restrictions.

What does this have to do with bringing up stuff from over a century ago?

Yes? So was almost every Republican in that era and hell the vast majority of people of that era, hell one reason why they didn't grant blacks the right to vote right away was because in many Northern states they didn't have that right either, he was racist in the sense that he was less racist than those against him. Lincoln's stance was controversial and a step forward towards the equality, while he does not meet modern standards he helped start them.

There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ~ Lincoln

I don't get it, what part of Marxism says "whites are evil"?

Marxists hold that race is a social construct, and so any differences in outcome of behaviour are the result of discrimination/injustice. Given that whites are the most wealthy/"successful" racial group, whites are responisble for the conditions "disadvantaged" races face, and so it must be shown that whites are responsible for injustice, even when in the real-life event the aggressor was black and the 'victim' white.

If anything it would be "rich people are evil". Or is this just some invention of the 50's Red scare America, like calling Presidents "Socialists" (which if you go by the standards they use to call someone one that makes every president after Hoover a Socialist) that is just used to slander a group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ma rxism

[Camarohusky]

Slight tangent for funzies:

Hollywood is still one of the last few industries that can openly select its employees based 100% on appearance, race, religioin and so on...

[StealthSteve]

At 12/25/11 07:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Blacks commit more violent crime per capita than non-blacks so there probably should be more black criminals than non-black criminals. But that's not even the point.

A) there's a difference between committing crimes and being prosecuted and/or convicted of crimes. e.g. in NYC more (by... a lot) blacks/latinos are arrested for MJ possession than whites even though white usage of pot is the same if not more prevalent.
B) source? ^_^ [jk, idk]
C) yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah i'm sure that's not the point.

Ugh. Imagine that a white dude committed a heinous crime against a black dude that become widely known. If a film was made about it, except the bad guy was purposely made out to be black and the victim white, there would be utter outrage.

it's like you're ignoring the fact that any film depicting anything resembling a "heinous act" will be met with outrage by someone, somewhere, sometime.

. . .

this just strikes as one of those "i get the inkling that our vast, powerful, overwhelming majority is losing some ground here... quick, PROTECT THE STATUS QUO!" types of threads

[Warforger]

At 12/26/11 12:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/25/11 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote: Common is one thing NOT SHOWING IT ON SCREEN is another.

Given how overwhelmingly uncommon it is in real life, there's no reason to expect it to occur in movies unless they made a deliberate effort to include it.

You know you could actually address what I was talking about instead of regurgitating what you said several posts up. This doesn't explain why there are white male black female in alot of movies, shown on screen while there are less than 5 movies with a white female black male couple where they aren't shown on screen.

Erm not really, there are alot of black actors I think a good comparison would be Chris Rock and Jack Black, they're almost the same thing in each other's ethnic culture and yet I can name multiple movies where Jack Black is the main character while Chris Rock is not.

No way, they're totally different actors. Rock is more sassy, whereas black is more stupid. They are most certainly not interchangable actors.

In context of their cultures they're pretty damn similar.

..............You mean other than the hundreds of years of history? The Haitan revolution would be like mother fucking 300, it would be an easy block buster if the audience accepts that it has to do with revolting from slavery but again because they can't find a white protagonist it's a no-go.

Waitm you think that the average white person doesn't like anti-slavery themes? hahahahaha

You know you could read the article I posted that we were discussing. And no that's not what I said, I was saying that there was going to be a movie about black history, but they couldn't find a way to make it centered around a white person so it didn't get up, hence why in the recent Civil Rights movies it's always a white person helping the black person and fighting their battles for them with the story centering around the white person.

Yes? So was almost every Republican in that era and hell the vast majority of people of that era, hell one reason why they didn't grant blacks the right to vote right away was because in many Northern states they didn't have that right either, he was racist in the sense that he was less racist than those against him. Lincoln's stance was controversial and a step forward towards the equality, while he does not meet modern standards he helped start them.

There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ~ Lincoln

derp. No shit that's what I said, by today's standards he's a racist, but my point was that he didn't think they were so low that they couldn't take care of themselves, which is what many of the pro-slave people's were saying, which was progressive at the least.

I don't get it, what part of Marxism says "whites are evil"?

Marxists hold that race is a social construct, and so any differences in outcome of behaviour are the result of discrimination/injustice. Given that whites are the most wealthy/"successful" racial group, whites are responisble for the conditions "disadvantaged" races face, and so it must be shown that whites are responsible for injustice, even when in the real-life event the aggressor was black and the 'victim' white.

Cultural Marxists, so this has fuck all to do with actual Marxism and Liberalism and is just a term to slander people?

If anything it would be "rich people are evil". Or is this just some invention of the 50's Red scare America, like calling Presidents "Socialists" (which if you go by the standards they use to call someone one that makes every president after Hoover a Socialist) that is just used to slander a group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ma rxism

So it's exactly what I thought.

[Iron-Hampster]

so... is cultural Marxism the belief that all races are equal and should be treated equally, or a sinister plot by the Jews in Hollywood to exterminate the white race?

In the end it all sounds like a bunch of storm front bull crap.

[BUTANE]

At 12/25/11 07:00 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

You need to realize that movies are not made to only to tell a story, they need to make money too. In order to do that, even when it "based" off real events, the story needs to be altered in a way that will encourage the audience to watch it.

hahahahahahaha.

Film that makes black person look bad = RAYCYSST

Film that makes white person llok bad (based on an attack by a black person, no less) = Just about making money.

You're a hypocrtitical piece of shit.

Based on my previous statement, how did you come to conclusion that I was saying films that make black people look bad are racist? I never even hinted at that. All I said was that Hollywood wants to make money. There was no hypocrisy in my statement. But clearly there was a great misinterpretation from your white supremacist mindset.

[MultiCanimefan]

Oh no, guys, different races can't hold different roles in movies without it being "racist" or "Anti-White" or whatever other paranoid shit.

If anything, the movie is anti-skinhead, not anti-white. But, you know, it's whatever.

At 12/26/11 12:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/25/11 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote:

Given how overwhelmingly uncommon it is in real life, there's no reason to expect it to occur in movies unless they made a deliberate effort to include it.

I don't even...what? If something is uncommon in real life that if it's in a movie it must have been deliberate? Uhhhh...EVERYTHING in a movie is made to be that way deliberately. That's why it's a MOVIE and not real life.

Putting a SAME race couple in a movie is just as deliberate as putting an inter-racial couple in a movie.

But according to your logic, putting a same-race couple in a movie is to stop everyone from thinking that inter-racial couples want to secretly take over.

Holy shit, having someone drink Coca-Cola instead of Pepsi in a movie is deliberate. Quick, the makers are obviously trying to mind-control the masses with their anti-Pepsi propaganda!

When did you turn from this reasonable, intelligent person from a few years ago to this...whatever the fuck you are now? Because I missed the fuck out of that bus.

[EKublai]

At 12/26/11 12:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/25/11 07:18 PM, Warforger wrote: Common is one thing NOT SHOWING IT ON SCREEN is another.

Given how overwhelmingly uncommon it is in real life, there's no reason to expect it to occur in movies unless they made a deliberate effort to include it.

Just how uncommon do you think it is? Especially in places in the South, white girls who hate their racist fathers always go for the black guy. And up in the north, it's just... well I wouldn't describe it as anything but "uncommon". People still tend to date within their own race/ethnicity but there's a huge difference in integrated and segregated communities.

No way, they're totally different actors. Rock is more sassy, whereas black is more stupid. They are most certainly not interchangable actors.

Why are they at all a good example? Chris Rock only cares about money, Jack Black cares about creative control. Chris Rock was paid $25 million (in advance) to be in Rush Hour 3. Jack Black has never been paid close to that amount for any single movie, including King Kong or the Kung Fu Panda movies.

..............You mean other than the hundreds of years of history? The Haitan revolution would be like mother fucking 300, it would be an easy block buster if the audience accepts that it has to do with revolting from slavery but again because they can't find a white protagonist it's a no-go.

Waitm you think that the average white person doesn't like anti-slavery themes? hahahahaha

I think you're caught up in a 90s audience mindset. People are more about "What makes us similar" like the themes (painfully) expounded upon in movies like Crash. When was the last "Amistad"?

You were saying however, "Hollywood" implying heavily funded mainstream movies, NOT indie movies who don't have commercial restrictions.

What does this have to do with bringing up stuff from over a century ago?

Yes? So was almost every Republican in that era and hell the vast majority of people of that era, hell one reason why they didn't grant blacks the right to vote right away was because in many Northern states they didn't have that right either, he was racist in the sense that he was less racist than those against him. Lincoln's stance was controversial and a step forward towards the equality, while he does not meet modern standards he helped start them.

There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ~ Lincoln

Lincoln was not a moralist politician. He would say whatever was necessary from speech to speech. That's what bipartisanship compromise used to be.

I don't get it, what part of Marxism says "whites are evil"?

Marxists hold that race is a social construct, and so any differences in outcome of behaviour are the result of discrimination/injustice. Given that whites are the most wealthy/"successful" racial group, whites are responisble for the conditions "disadvantaged" races face, and so it must be shown that whites are responsible for injustice, even when in the real-life event the aggressor was black and the 'victim' white.

That sounds like Racial Formation Theory, which holds Racism was legitimized through superficial sciences like eugenics.

[Warforger]

At 1/2/12 06:34 PM, EKublai wrote: Lincoln was not a moralist politician. He would say whatever was necessary from speech to speech. That's what bipartisanship compromise used to be.

No, Lincoln again was someone from the 1800's, while he became an Abolitionist during the Civil War (yes DURING, before the Republicans just wanted to limit Slavery to where it already was) he wasn't so far as to say not racist, he didn't think they were equal and not many people in the North did either (yah they also didn't grant blacks the right to vote too often oh yah and segregation, race riots they had those too). I think there should be a distinction between racism where you outright hate a race and racism where you simply think they're inferior, because Lincoln certainly thought blacks were inferior, but he thought slavery was wrong too.

[THEFLYINGMONKEY]

This has GOT to be some kind of sick joke. No HONESTLY. If reality really reflected what your hypothesizing, then every time you saw a white guy, most people would think "poor criminal thug"

But that's not the way it is it?

Comparing modern day liberals to conservative democrats is a completely asinine venture. REPUBLICANS DEFEND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.

Yeah I'm sure those were some raging liberals running the south during the 1800s~ /sarcasm

[Warforger]

At 1/5/12 06:18 PM, THEFLYINGMONKEY wrote: Comparing modern day liberals to conservative democrats is a completely asinine venture. REPUBLICANS DEFEND THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.

Yeah I'm sure those were some raging liberals running the south during the 1800s~ /sarcasm

Are you sure? Because the Republican party was created soley for hating and antagonizing slavery as well as the CSA and the Democrats were the ones who were in the South defending slavery. The Republicans were the party of the Union and the Democrats the party of slavery (not necessarily the CSA, because many democrats stayed in the Union like Andrew Johnson). That's usually the first thing modern Republicans bring up against accusations that they're racists.