SJW's have ruined Movies/TVseries

[Correll]

That is a very good question! THank you for actually asking something, instead of just inventing shit in your head, and then attacking me based on your hallucinations!



Well, a good place to start for balance, in the context of the movies we have discussed,


would have been if the Captain America movies had targeted Traditional Americans/White Americans with the same style of pandering and ego stroking that Black Panther did for Black Americans.


It is worth noting that such a potential viewing population would be nearly 5 times the size of the Black American target audience and could potentially make absolutely stupid amounts of money.


For starters, that would be a good start.

It is just weird how only a few white people had an issue with Black Panther and they are all of the same political leaning.

What did you find lacking in the Captain America movies in regards to Traditional Americans/White Americans (and I will not even get into how you equate those two things)?


By the way, the Captain America movies had a world wide gross revenue of $714,264,267

1. It could be that in the modern political climate, that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.


2. The terms are changing as America changes. I used both to signify that point.

3. My point was that Captain America COULD have been used to pander to a certain target audience like Black Panther was used. Black Panther outperformed Captain America, despite being a far worse movie, and targeting a minority population. If similar tactics were used aimed at a viewer pool that was five times larger...

1. Or it could be you are a racist that does not like movies about black people with power.

2. If the term changes with time then there is no such thing as a “traditional American”.

3. The target audience for Black Panther was every non-racist super hero movie fan.

1. I made a real point. Nothing I have said, justifies an accusation of racism. My point stands. It could be that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.



2. Sure there are. They just aren't the super majority they used to be. So, why ignore them as a target audience? Maybe because of partisan political bias in Hollywood?


3. No, the target audience was Black Americans. The rest of the world was welcome to give them money too, but nothing was done for them. Indeed, "colonizers" is insulting the majority of American movie goers.

1. I made a suggestion of the probable cause, just as you did.

2. If the definition is ever changing as you said then there really is nothing traditional.

3. And thus my reason for point 1. You see pandering, most do not. You really seem to have a problem with black people with power.

1. Except that my suggestion is backed up by the massive witch hunt that exists for imagined "Racism" and I also pointed out that nothing I have said justifies your implication. So, you want to address my point?


2. You are telling me that there is no group of Americans, that you would consider Traditional Americans? That when I say that, you have no idea what it could mean? That is not credible. What are you trying to do here? Run and hide from my point?


3. The main character's sister, referred to an American to his face as a "colonizer". That is pure Black Nationalism rhetoric, worthy of IM2. The plot was built around the idea that whites are evil and oppress black people everywhere. This is not about me, having an issue with empowered blacks, it is about the actual movie, not the idealized version that people pretend it was.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit. It sucked. But it pandered to a ethnic group that likes to spend money and spent a lot of money seeing it over and over again.

it was a great movie, one of the better superhero movies ever. That you think it sucks is all on you, and not on the movie.

i guess there were too many black people for you in it.,

Wow. YOu made it about race. What a shocker. I am shocked. Shocked.


It sucked. The story was weak as shit. They failed to explain, pretty much everything about Wakanda. They tried to have a fusion of high tech and ancient african culture, which was brave, but they failed, they pandered shamelessly to racist black nationalism, insulting the intelligence of their target audience by doing it badly.

But they made a shit load of money, because they pandered to what their audience wanted to see.


How much money do you think they could have made, if they had did something similar but to a much larger group? Only not without being shit?

Black Panther is the 12th highest grossing movie of all time, so....probably not much more.

REally? You think that if instead of pandering to a small minority, that they had instead pandered to a target audience five times bigger, that they could not have earned even more?

AND, my point was not that they had to choose between them, but that they could do BOTH.


BALANCE.


Not just serve one side of the socio-political divide, but both.


They are leaving BILLIONS on the table. BILLIONS.

Define how a movie might pander to a white audience the way Black Panther pandered to a black audience. As far as I see it, Black Panther pandered by having a black director, black star, and largely black cast. Those things have been true of many, many movies as far as whites are concerned. What, specifically, do you think should or could have been done to pander to the larger audience?

The Sokavia Accords are an UN treaty. Have Captain America reject it out of Patriotism and Nationalism, because America is better.

Show that the American People, are far more reasonable, than the morons in the UN. Show them support Captain America as the UN and foreign governments and to a lesser extent, US government establishment types fall for the bullshit of trying to control and limit the Avengers, when what is needed to save the world is immediate and strong action, led by AMERICANS.


Fits in just fine with his character, fits in with the cinematic timeline, and tells the majority of American movie goers that they are great because they are part of a great nation, and blah, blah, blah, blah.


I find it hard to believe that American movie goers, generally speaking, would not love the shit out of that, and tell their friends they need to see it, and they would tell their friends, and some of them would go multiple times and ect ect ect.


For one example.

 

[Correll]

Yes, the way you are using it, is a lie. YOur position is a lie.


Why are you defending the lib assholes that abuse their position to put propaganda into entertainment?

How is it abusing their position?

In fact, wait, just who is it you think is abusing their position, and then how are they doing so? What are the rules of video entertainment you think the abusers must follow?

Any producer, or director, or writer, is hired to produce or direct or write entertainment. To the extent that they choose to NOT do that, and instead produce political propaganda, they are abusing their position, to their selfish partisan ends, instead of making money for the investors.

What is or is not entertainment is subjective. To claim that inserting "political propaganda" is abusing their position is, frankly, ludicrous. There has been political commentary put in film from the very beginning. Authors put it in fiction. Musicians put it in their lyrics. Your argument seems to be that entertainers are only allowed to be creative in ways that you approve of.

If the artistic vision, truly has a political message in it, such as in say... the original Rollerball, with it's anti-corporate message, that in one thing.


BUt if some character just equates watching Fox News with wanting to wage a genocidal war of conquest, for no reason, that is bullshit and someone should have told the writer who wrote it, to save his partisan bile for his personal time. And to be less of an asshole.

Why did George Lucas put Jar-Jar in the prequels? Should he be prosecuted for abuse of power for such horrible writing as those movies contained? We could point out various problems with any movie, I'm sure...what's the point? Why is shit writing so terrible when it involves political statements, but not otherwise?

1. I have not called for them to be arrested. Settle down.

2. I never said, non political shit writing was not terrible.

3. That said, political shit writing is a separate issue from general shit writing and can and should be addressed separately.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is just weird how only a few white people had an issue with Black Panther and they are all of the same political leaning.

What did you find lacking in the Captain America movies in regards to Traditional Americans/White Americans (and I will not even get into how you equate those two things)?


By the way, the Captain America movies had a world wide gross revenue of $714,264,267

1. It could be that in the modern political climate, that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.


2. The terms are changing as America changes. I used both to signify that point.

3. My point was that Captain America COULD have been used to pander to a certain target audience like Black Panther was used. Black Panther outperformed Captain America, despite being a far worse movie, and targeting a minority population. If similar tactics were used aimed at a viewer pool that was five times larger...

1. Or it could be you are a racist that does not like movies about black people with power.

2. If the term changes with time then there is no such thing as a “traditional American”.

3. The target audience for Black Panther was every non-racist super hero movie fan.

1. I made a real point. Nothing I have said, justifies an accusation of racism. My point stands. It could be that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.



2. Sure there are. They just aren't the super majority they used to be. So, why ignore them as a target audience? Maybe because of partisan political bias in Hollywood?


3. No, the target audience was Black Americans. The rest of the world was welcome to give them money too, but nothing was done for them. Indeed, "colonizers" is insulting the majority of American movie goers.

1. I made a suggestion of the probable cause, just as you did.

2. If the definition is ever changing as you said then there really is nothing traditional.

3. And thus my reason for point 1. You see pandering, most do not. You really seem to have a problem with black people with power.

1. Except that my suggestion is backed up by the massive witch hunt that exists for imagined "Racism" and I also pointed out that nothing I have said justifies your implication. So, you want to address my point?


2. You are telling me that there is no group of Americans, that you would consider Traditional Americans? That when I say that, you have no idea what it could mean? That is not credible. What are you trying to do here? Run and hide from my point?


3. The main character's sister, referred to an American to his face as a "colonizer". That is pure Black Nationalism rhetoric, worthy of IM2. The plot was built around the idea that whites are evil and oppress black people everywhere. This is not about me, having an issue with empowered blacks, it is about the actual movie, not the idealized version that people pretend it was.

1. There is no massive witch hunt for racism, that is more BS.

2. You said the definition of “traditional American” was always changing...which should not be the case if such a thing actually existed.

3. Triggered again

 

[Correll]

1. It could be that in the modern political climate, that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.


2. The terms are changing as America changes. I used both to signify that point.

3. My point was that Captain America COULD have been used to pander to a certain target audience like Black Panther was used. Black Panther outperformed Captain America, despite being a far worse movie, and targeting a minority population. If similar tactics were used aimed at a viewer pool that was five times larger...

1. Or it could be you are a racist that does not like movies about black people with power.

2. If the term changes with time then there is no such thing as a “traditional American”.

3. The target audience for Black Panther was every non-racist super hero movie fan.

1. I made a real point. Nothing I have said, justifies an accusation of racism. My point stands. It could be that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.



2. Sure there are. They just aren't the super majority they used to be. So, why ignore them as a target audience? Maybe because of partisan political bias in Hollywood?


3. No, the target audience was Black Americans. The rest of the world was welcome to give them money too, but nothing was done for them. Indeed, "colonizers" is insulting the majority of American movie goers.

1. I made a suggestion of the probable cause, just as you did.

2. If the definition is ever changing as you said then there really is nothing traditional.

3. And thus my reason for point 1. You see pandering, most do not. You really seem to have a problem with black people with power.

1. Except that my suggestion is backed up by the massive witch hunt that exists for imagined "Racism" and I also pointed out that nothing I have said justifies your implication. So, you want to address my point?


2. You are telling me that there is no group of Americans, that you would consider Traditional Americans? That when I say that, you have no idea what it could mean? That is not credible. What are you trying to do here? Run and hide from my point?


3. The main character's sister, referred to an American to his face as a "colonizer". That is pure Black Nationalism rhetoric, worthy of IM2. The plot was built around the idea that whites are evil and oppress black people everywhere. This is not about me, having an issue with empowered blacks, it is about the actual movie, not the idealized version that people pretend it was.

1. There is no massive witch hunt for racism, that is more BS.

2. You said the definition of “traditional American” was always changing...which should not be the case if such a thing actually existed.

3. Triggered again

1. Sure there is. People have lost their job for using the word "niggardly".

2. You are quibbling over semantics to dodge my point. Why are you doing this?

3. Discussing how an insult, insults you, is not being triggered. Your confusion on this point, is making you look stupid. My point about the insult "colonizer" stands. Why are you afraid to address it?

 

[Lysistrata]

he wants 100% conservative propaganda and 0% liberal.

I would like some balance in the shit that Hollywood puts out.

I still question why you continue to watch "the shit that Hollywood puts out," whatever that is. But exactly what would you consider to be "balance" even? What has to be added to provide "balance"?

That is a very good question! THank you for actually asking something, instead of just inventing shit in your head, and then attacking me based on your hallucinations!



Well, a good place to start for balance, in the context of the movies we have discussed,


would have been if the Captain America movies had targeted Traditional Americans/White Americans with the same style of pandering and ego stroking that Black Panther did for Black Americans.


It is worth noting that such a potential viewing population would be nearly 5 times the size of the Black American target audience and could potentially make absolutely stupid amounts of money.


For starters, that would be a good start.

First off, I don't understand who "Traditional Americans" are, what defines them, and what connection they have, if any, to "White Americans." As an American who is white, I wonder how I would be "targeted." Do I need to develop some sort of attraction to buff shirtless white guys spraying bullets? (I'll keep the buff shirtless white guys, but leave out the bullets). Do I need a "white-over" with someone teaching me how to be white like Richard Pryor taught Gene Wilder how to be black in Silver Streak?

At the most, what I get from your comment is that you want some sort of quota system in which anyone who makes a movie starring a black "hero" must then make multiple movies starring a white "hero" in which all female and black characters (if any) must conform to rigid racist and sexist stereotypes to somehow compensate. You have some sort of thing about race. What you seem to be complaining about is the appearance of non-white, non-heterosexual characters and female characters who are not submissive.

I haven't seen the movies that you discussed. Superhero movies aren't my thing. Actually, I don't watch many movies, but I do like drama and suspense. Some of my favorites that are not comedies are Shawshank Redemption, Zero Dark Thirty, True Blood, Game of Thrones, Fargo, Hunt for Red October, The Abyss.

1. You asked what could be done to give some balance. I told you one idea. Apply to Captain America the pandering used in Black Panther, but aimed at a far larger audience.


2. Traditional Americans. People that believe in Mom, and Apple Pie and Baseball. You know, Not progressives. It is a general term. YOu know that you could target a movie at them. Don't play pretend.

3. I said nothing of quotas. Save your strawmen for people who might fall for them.

4. You asked a real question. I gave a real answer. Do you have anything to say in response?

Your references to "pandering" are out of place in a discussion of movies and books. The creative process begins in the imagination of the person who writes a story. One cannot require a writer to have a certain point of view or have one's favorite views be included in every movie. The target audience, if any, is determined by the people who decide to make the movie. You are demanding that every movie be politically "balanced" within itself, which is ridiculous.

Captain America and Black Panther are completed projects. They were completed to the satisfaction of their creators, some people liked the finished work, and some didn't.

Your assertion that people who hold progressive views cannot be "traditional Americans" is absurd on its face, as is your definition of it. You gave yourself away there. People all over the political spectrum "believe" in Mom, apple pie, and baseball, and some like other things.

The U.S. does not have, and never should have a political censorship board as some other authoritarian countries have that legislates what the public should be allowed to see.

There is plenty of money floating around among right-wingers, so make a movie that targets these supposedly under-served "traditional Americans."

 

[Correll]

I would like some balance in the shit that Hollywood puts out.

I still question why you continue to watch "the shit that Hollywood puts out," whatever that is. But exactly what would you consider to be "balance" even? What has to be added to provide "balance"?

That is a very good question! THank you for actually asking something, instead of just inventing shit in your head, and then attacking me based on your hallucinations!



Well, a good place to start for balance, in the context of the movies we have discussed,


would have been if the Captain America movies had targeted Traditional Americans/White Americans with the same style of pandering and ego stroking that Black Panther did for Black Americans.


It is worth noting that such a potential viewing population would be nearly 5 times the size of the Black American target audience and could potentially make absolutely stupid amounts of money.


For starters, that would be a good start.

First off, I don't understand who "Traditional Americans" are, what defines them, and what connection they have, if any, to "White Americans." As an American who is white, I wonder how I would be "targeted." Do I need to develop some sort of attraction to buff shirtless white guys spraying bullets? (I'll keep the buff shirtless white guys, but leave out the bullets). Do I need a "white-over" with someone teaching me how to be white like Richard Pryor taught Gene Wilder how to be black in Silver Streak?

At the most, what I get from your comment is that you want some sort of quota system in which anyone who makes a movie starring a black "hero" must then make multiple movies starring a white "hero" in which all female and black characters (if any) must conform to rigid racist and sexist stereotypes to somehow compensate. You have some sort of thing about race. What you seem to be complaining about is the appearance of non-white, non-heterosexual characters and female characters who are not submissive.

I haven't seen the movies that you discussed. Superhero movies aren't my thing. Actually, I don't watch many movies, but I do like drama and suspense. Some of my favorites that are not comedies are Shawshank Redemption, Zero Dark Thirty, True Blood, Game of Thrones, Fargo, Hunt for Red October, The Abyss.

1. You asked what could be done to give some balance. I told you one idea. Apply to Captain America the pandering used in Black Panther, but aimed at a far larger audience.


2. Traditional Americans. People that believe in Mom, and Apple Pie and Baseball. You know, Not progressives. It is a general term. YOu know that you could target a movie at them. Don't play pretend.

3. I said nothing of quotas. Save your strawmen for people who might fall for them.

4. You asked a real question. I gave a real answer. Do you have anything to say in response?

Your references to "pandering" are out of place in a discussion of movies and books. The creative process begins in the imagination of the person who writes a story. One cannot require a writer to have a certain point of view or have one's favorite views be included in every movie. The target audience, if any, is determined by the people who decide to make the movie. You are demanding that every movie be politically "balanced" within itself, which is ridiculous.

Captain America and Black Panther are completed projects. They were completed to the satisfaction of their creators, some people liked the finished work, and some didn't.

Your assertion that people who hold progressive views cannot be "traditional Americans" is absurd on its face, as is your definition of it. You gave yourself away there. People all over the political spectrum "believe" in Mom, apple pie, and baseball, and some like other things.

The U.S. does not have, and never should have a political censorship board as some other authoritarian countries have that legislates what the public should be allowed to see.

There is plenty of money floating around among right-wingers, so make a movie that targets these supposedly under-served "traditional Americans."

1. Progressive Americans are all about embracing the latest change. That is a rejection of Traditional Values and Culture. Thus a real divide. Your denial of this simple and obvious fact, does not make sense.


2. Calling out assholes for slipping political propaganda into entertainment is not a call for a political censor board.

3. Wanting some balance in either the movies individually or movies as a yearly output, is a completely reasonable request.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

They must be catered to. It doesn't work that way. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything, yet they complain that they are being "forced" to watch.

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Or it could be you are a racist that does not like movies about black people with power.

2. If the term changes with time then there is no such thing as a “traditional American”.

3. The target audience for Black Panther was every non-racist super hero movie fan.

1. I made a real point. Nothing I have said, justifies an accusation of racism. My point stands. It could be that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.



2. Sure there are. They just aren't the super majority they used to be. So, why ignore them as a target audience? Maybe because of partisan political bias in Hollywood?


3. No, the target audience was Black Americans. The rest of the world was welcome to give them money too, but nothing was done for them. Indeed, "colonizers" is insulting the majority of American movie goers.

1. I made a suggestion of the probable cause, just as you did.

2. If the definition is ever changing as you said then there really is nothing traditional.

3. And thus my reason for point 1. You see pandering, most do not. You really seem to have a problem with black people with power.

1. Except that my suggestion is backed up by the massive witch hunt that exists for imagined "Racism" and I also pointed out that nothing I have said justifies your implication. So, you want to address my point?


2. You are telling me that there is no group of Americans, that you would consider Traditional Americans? That when I say that, you have no idea what it could mean? That is not credible. What are you trying to do here? Run and hide from my point?


3. The main character's sister, referred to an American to his face as a "colonizer". That is pure Black Nationalism rhetoric, worthy of IM2. The plot was built around the idea that whites are evil and oppress black people everywhere. This is not about me, having an issue with empowered blacks, it is about the actual movie, not the idealized version that people pretend it was.

1. There is no massive witch hunt for racism, that is more BS.

2. You said the definition of “traditional American” was always changing...which should not be the case if such a thing actually existed.

3. Triggered again

1. Sure there is. People have lost their job for using the word "niggardly".

2. You are quibbling over semantics to dodge my point. Why are you doing this?

3. Discussing how an insult, insults you, is not being triggered. Your confusion on this point, is making you look stupid. My point about the insult "colonizer" stands. Why are you afraid to address it?

1. People lose their jobs for lots of dumb shit, it is not a grand conspiracy.

2. Just highlighting the emptiness of the term you used. You should have just stuck with white since that is what you really meant.

3. They were not insulting you, that you took it personally is what makes you a snowflake.

 

[anynameyouwish]

They must be catered to. It doesn't work that way. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything, yet they complain that they are being "forced" to watch.

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

 

[Correll]

1. I made a real point. Nothing I have said, justifies an accusation of racism. My point stands. It could be that only a few white people dare to voice criticism of a movie that sucked, but was an Epic of Identity Politics.



2. Sure there are. They just aren't the super majority they used to be. So, why ignore them as a target audience? Maybe because of partisan political bias in Hollywood?


3. No, the target audience was Black Americans. The rest of the world was welcome to give them money too, but nothing was done for them. Indeed, "colonizers" is insulting the majority of American movie goers.

1. I made a suggestion of the probable cause, just as you did.

2. If the definition is ever changing as you said then there really is nothing traditional.

3. And thus my reason for point 1. You see pandering, most do not. You really seem to have a problem with black people with power.

1. Except that my suggestion is backed up by the massive witch hunt that exists for imagined "Racism" and I also pointed out that nothing I have said justifies your implication. So, you want to address my point?


2. You are telling me that there is no group of Americans, that you would consider Traditional Americans? That when I say that, you have no idea what it could mean? That is not credible. What are you trying to do here? Run and hide from my point?


3. The main character's sister, referred to an American to his face as a "colonizer". That is pure Black Nationalism rhetoric, worthy of IM2. The plot was built around the idea that whites are evil and oppress black people everywhere. This is not about me, having an issue with empowered blacks, it is about the actual movie, not the idealized version that people pretend it was.

1. There is no massive witch hunt for racism, that is more BS.

2. You said the definition of “traditional American” was always changing...which should not be the case if such a thing actually existed.

3. Triggered again

1. Sure there is. People have lost their job for using the word "niggardly".

2. You are quibbling over semantics to dodge my point. Why are you doing this?

3. Discussing how an insult, insults you, is not being triggered. Your confusion on this point, is making you look stupid. My point about the insult "colonizer" stands. Why are you afraid to address it?

1. People lose their jobs for lots of dumb shit, it is not a grand conspiracy.

2. Just highlighting the emptiness of the term you used. You should have just stuck with white since that is what you really meant.

3. They were not insulting you, that you took it personally is what makes you a snowflake.

1. I'm not claiming a conspiracy, but a social movement. A type of mass hysteria. And it exists, you know it, and it would explain why so few are willing to criticize Black Panther.


2. But it was not what I meant. I meant Traditional Americans and/or White Americans, to mirror the movie Black Panther, which was aimed at blacks specifically Black Nationalists. Your pretense of confusing on this, is doing nothing but slowing the discussion.


3. They insulted the highest profile white character with an insult that smears any white who is born outside of Europe and does not wallow in guilt as a result. Your pretense that you were not insulted, is just you making excuses for assholes, for reasons that you won't discuss.

 

[Correll]

They must be catered to. It doesn't work that way. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything, yet they complain that they are being "forced" to watch.

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you saying that only black people are allowed to admire Black Panther?

I am saying that is why conservatives hate it so much

I've heard very few conservatives talk about it. None that have, had stated that.


SO, you are just talking shit. Like normal.

You go to more klan meetings than I do

YOu are really quite the asshole online. YOu must be very different in real life, huh?

Your affiliation with elements of the klan is well known.

The Real Reason the Whiner Singing "Detroit City" Was Hated


The Klan was financed by Northern Republican businessmen to send strikebreakers up North. Shallow opinionists are ignorant of the fact that the KKK was also anti-union, anti-Catholic, and anti-semitic; all they know about is that it was anti-Black.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I am so excited. I was just hired by a big movie exec to act as official editor for the 40 year celebration 2020 re-release of the movie "Airplane!"

Now, it may sound like a daunting task, but it's really much easier than it may seem to bring the movie into alignment with today's standards. All I really have to do is go through the movie, remove all the funny bits and voila'

The Greatest Right of All Would Be Gained by Having a FIST Amendment


Please, please keep Robert Stack punching out those creeps at the airport. Despite the majority-hating opinion of anti-American SCROTUS, Freedom of Speech in no way covers the right to annoy people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They must be catered to. It doesn't work that way. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything, yet they complain that they are being "forced" to watch.

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

 

[Correll]

They must be catered to. It doesn't work that way. Nobody is forcing them to watch anything, yet they complain that they are being "forced" to watch.

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nope.

We're not watching.

That's the point of the thread, why would film producers purposely drive away half the American population, and therefore cut their revenues in half?

Who is making up for this loss of potential profit? Show me the tax returns and I'll tell you.

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a threat to the world?

 

[Lysistrata]

I still question why you continue to watch "the shit that Hollywood puts out," whatever that is. But exactly what would you consider to be "balance" even? What has to be added to provide "balance"?

That is a very good question! THank you for actually asking something, instead of just inventing shit in your head, and then attacking me based on your hallucinations!



Well, a good place to start for balance, in the context of the movies we have discussed,


would have been if the Captain America movies had targeted Traditional Americans/White Americans with the same style of pandering and ego stroking that Black Panther did for Black Americans.


It is worth noting that such a potential viewing population would be nearly 5 times the size of the Black American target audience and could potentially make absolutely stupid amounts of money.

For starters, that would be a good start.​

​

First off, I don't understand who "Traditional Americans" are, what defines them, and what connection they have, if any, to "White Americans." As an American who is white, I wonder how I would be "targeted." Do I need to develop some sort of attraction to buff shirtless white guys spraying bullets? (I'll keep the buff shirtless white guys, but leave out the bullets). Do I need a "white-over" with someone teaching me how to be white like Richard Pryor taught Gene Wilder how to be black in Silver Streak?

At the most, what I get from your comment is that you want some sort of quota system in which anyone who makes a movie starring a black "hero" must then make multiple movies starring a white "hero" in which all female and black characters (if any) must conform to rigid racist and sexist stereotypes to somehow compensate. You have some sort of thing about race. What you seem to be complaining about is the appearance of non-white, non-heterosexual characters and female characters who are not submissive.

I haven't seen the movies that you discussed. Superhero movies aren't my thing. Actually, I don't watch many movies, but I do like drama and suspense. Some of my favorites that are not comedies are Shawshank Redemption, Zero Dark Thirty, True Blood, Game of Thrones, Fargo, Hunt for Red October, The Abyss.

1. You asked what could be done to give some balance. I told you one idea. Apply to Captain America the pandering used in Black Panther, but aimed at a far larger audience.


2. Traditional Americans. People that believe in Mom, and Apple Pie and Baseball. You know, Not progressives. It is a general term. YOu know that you could target a movie at them. Don't play pretend.

3. I said nothing of quotas. Save your strawmen for people who might fall for them.

4. You asked a real question. I gave a real answer. Do you have anything to say in response?

Your references to "pandering" are out of place in a discussion of movies and books. The creative process begins in the imagination of the person who writes a story. One cannot require a writer to have a certain point of view or have one's favorite views be included in every movie. The target audience, if any, is determined by the people who decide to make the movie. You are demanding that every movie be politically "balanced" within itself, which is ridiculous.

Captain America and Black Panther are completed projects. They were completed to the satisfaction of their creators, some people liked the finished work, and some didn't.

Your assertion that people who hold progressive views cannot be "traditional Americans" is absurd on its face, as is your definition of it. You gave yourself away there. People all over the political spectrum "believe" in Mom, apple pie, and baseball, and some like other things.

The U.S. does not have, and never should have a political censorship board as some other authoritarian countries have that legislates what the public should be allowed to see.

There is plenty of money floating around among right-wingers, so make a movie that targets these supposedly under-served "traditional Americans."

2. Calling out assholes for slipping political propaganda into entertainment is not a call for a political censor board.

3. Wanting some balance in either the movies individually or movies as a yearly output, is a completely reasonable request.

1. Progressive Americans are all about embracing the latest change. That is a rejection of Traditional Values and Culture. Thus a real divide. Your denial of this simple and obvious fact, does not make sense.​

You just threw out thousands of years of human history. Every change can be considered "a rejection of Traditional Values and Culture." That's the process and always has been, the world over. What year would you like to return to? As a former history major, I can tell you that there is no time like the present. I hope that the future turns out well for all human kind.

2. Calling out assholes for slipping political propaganda into entertainment is not a call for a political censor board.​

Except that there is no evidence that there is any concerted effort to deliberately slip "political propaganda" into entertainment. This is just a crazy conspiracy theory. The studios operate independently and compete with each other. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent yet another studio from joining the industry.

Movie Studios A-Z - Filmbug

3. Wanting some balance in either the movies individually or movies as a yearly output, is a completely reasonable request.​

This is not so "reasonable." To whom would you address such a request, anyway? This is like saying that all the car companies are in cahoots and you want all of them to get together and all agree to design vehicles every year that have all the features on your wish list.

It is absurd to expect that an entire industry will deliver products specifically tailored to your liking.

​

 

[Correll]

On This Tinsel Thread, Rightist Extremists Cover Up the Fact That Monopolists Don't Need Outside Funding


Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them, so they make profits through that. Second, they make sure their pictures have all the bells and whistles to distract the public from being disgusted by their message.

Look at the hippie-scum loving propaganda in Billy Jack. It drew large audiences simply because of all the dramatic action-hero sensationalism and the fact that Tom Laughlin is a typical handsome Jean-Claude Van Damme he-man type, despite his acted preference for sissyboy lazy crybabies and the typical trash glorified by spoiled-putrid Limousine Liberals.

"Because Liberal degenerates monopolize Hollywood, the public is not given an alternative to compete with them,"


I see....

so.....liberal hollywood should make movies with BALANCE that are fair to BOTH sides!

How do you feel about conservative movie makers creating 100% pro-conservative propaganda films?

Is that "THEIR RIGHT!"

a RIGHT that you seem to deny liberals?

Or, at least create some product that appeals to the other half of America, that is different from them.


Seems like a reasonable request.

Black Panther appealed to far more than black people, your refusal to acknowledge this is why I am convinced racism is involved.
You are literally the first person I have talked to about the movie that did not like it.

Or the first person who was brave enough to admit that they did not like it.

Did you find the villain impressive? Could you really see him as a threat to the world?

Your view of yourself is as skewed as you view of the country.

He was not supposed to be a threat to the world, it was a more personal conflict. Was Ivan Vanko a thirst to the world?

Actually Ivan Vanko, is an excellent point to bring up. And the movie would have been a lot better, if the main villain was a "more personal conflict" as you remember it.


BUT, there was a larger "threat to the world" plot point added in, with the villain ordering high tech weapons shipped to black resistant groups or whatever, all around the world.


That you forgot that is understandable. It was not believable and had all the drama of watching paint dry. Well, maybe not that bad.


But bad enough that you forgot all about it.



Do you want to discuss that failure of the movie some more, or can I bring up another one to discuss?

 

[Correll]

That is a very good question! THank you for actually asking something, instead of just inventing shit in your head, and then attacking me based on your hallucinations!



Well, a good place to start for balance, in the context of the movies we have discussed,


would have been if the Captain America movies had targeted Traditional Americans/White Americans with the same style of pandering and ego stroking that Black Panther did for Black Americans.


It is worth noting that such a potential viewing population would be nearly 5 times the size of the Black American target audience and could potentially make absolutely stupid amounts of money.

For starters, that would be a good start.​

​

First off, I don't understand who "Traditional Americans" are, what defines them, and what connection they have, if any, to "White Americans." As an American who is white, I wonder how I would be "targeted." Do I need to develop some sort of attraction to buff shirtless white guys spraying bullets? (I'll keep the buff shirtless white guys, but leave out the bullets). Do I need a "white-over" with someone teaching me how to be white like Richard Pryor taught Gene Wilder how to be black in Silver Streak?

At the most, what I get from your comment is that you want some sort of quota system in which anyone who makes a movie starring a black "hero" must then make multiple movies starring a white "hero" in which all female and black characters (if any) must conform to rigid racist and sexist stereotypes to somehow compensate. You have some sort of thing about race. What you seem to be complaining about is the appearance of non-white, non-heterosexual characters and female characters who are not submissive.

I haven't seen the movies that you discussed. Superhero movies aren't my thing. Actually, I don't watch many movies, but I do like drama and suspense. Some of my favorites that are not comedies are Shawshank Redemption, Zero Dark Thirty, True Blood, Game of Thrones, Fargo, Hunt for Red October, The Abyss.

1. You asked what could be done to give some balance. I told you one idea. Apply to Captain America the pandering used in Black Panther, but aimed at a far larger audience.


2. Traditional Americans. People that believe in Mom, and Apple Pie and Baseball. You know, Not progressives. It is a general term. YOu know that you could target a movie at them. Don't play pretend.

3. I said nothing of quotas. Save your strawmen for people who might fall for them.

4. You asked a real question. I gave a real answer. Do you have anything to say in response?

Your references to "pandering" are out of place in a discussion of movies and books. The creative process begins in the imagination of the person who writes a story. One cannot require a writer to have a certain point of view or have one's favorite views be included in every movie. The target audience, if any, is determined by the people who decide to make the movie. You are demanding that every movie be politically "balanced" within itself, which is ridiculous.

Captain America and Black Panther are completed projects. They were completed to the satisfaction of their creators, some people liked the finished work, and some didn't.

Your assertion that people who hold progressive views cannot be "traditional Americans" is absurd on its face, as is your definition of it. You gave yourself away there. People all over the political spectrum "believe" in Mom, apple pie, and baseball, and some like other things.

The U.S. does not have, and never should have a political censorship board as some other authoritarian countries have that legislates what the public should be allowed to see.

There is plenty of money floating around among right-wingers, so make a movie that targets these supposedly under-served "traditional Americans."

2. Calling out assholes for slipping political propaganda into entertainment is not a call for a political censor board.

3. Wanting some balance in either the movies individually or movies as a yearly output, is a completely reasonable request.

1. Progressive Americans are all about embracing the latest change. That is a rejection of Traditional Values and Culture. Thus a real divide. Your denial of this simple and obvious fact, does not make sense.​

You just threw out thousands of years of human history. Every change can be considered "a rejection of Traditional Values and Culture." That's the process and always has been, the world over. What year would you like to return to? As a former history major, I can tell you that there is no time like the present. I hope that the future turns out well for all human kind.

2. Calling out assholes for slipping political propaganda into entertainment is not a call for a political censor board.​

Except that there is no evidence that there is any concerted effort to deliberately slip "political propaganda" into entertainment. This is just a crazy conspiracy theory. The studios operate independently and compete with each other. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent yet another studio from joining the industry.

Movie Studios A-Z - Filmbug

3. Wanting some balance in either the movies individually or movies as a yearly output, is a completely reasonable request.​

This is not so "reasonable." To whom would you address such a request, anyway? This is like saying that all the car companies are in cahoots and you want all of them to get together and all agree to design vehicles every year that have all the features on your wish list.

It is absurd to expect that an entire industry will deliver products specifically tailored to your liking.

​

1. You can see in America a divide between progressive Americans and more Traditional Americans. Hollywood produces plenty of entertainment crafted to appeal to one and not the other.


2. I am not claiming a conspiracy so much as a political/social movement that encourages people to action.


3. I direct my criticism at Hollywood. As industry they are doing a shit job of serving their customers.