Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I totally agree. I hadn't bought a movie in over two years, so I sold my high end oppo disc player and the library of movies I had. The movies coming out of hollyweird are just SHIT, and I'm not going to watch their SHIT full of SJW garbage.I want to see the tax returns of all the corporations, companies and individuals involved in the production of modern films. These entities exist to make money, and would not have so severely damaged their revenue and royalties by akwardly inserting all this Trigglypuff level SJW shit inside their products.
Not only that, but they still continue to ruin their own products as of 2020 and are only increasing the amount of unnatural and off-putting propaganda present in their films...having caused a grave decline in profit, which can also be seen by the annual decline of Oscar ratings (with 2020 being dangerously low, as in, not being worth the cost of hosting/producing).
So, the only way film production entities would have adamantly doubled down and continued their SJW march, at the expense of the massive revenues and profit is...SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS REFUNDING THEIR LOSSES (adjusted for inflation and pre-2010 box office models).
Forget Lefty Politics: Here's Why the Oscars' Ratings Hit an All-Time Lo
1. Name one Avenger that is not an American, that could not be written as following Captain America.
2. Black Panther made more than all but on other Marvel movie, by pandering heavily to one minority group. What if they used that same strategy on a group five times bigger?
1. Anyone can be written to do anything.
2. Which group do you think has not been represented in the superhero genre that could be in a similar fashion? Not whites, obviously. Conservatives? That wouldn't work in the same way. Also, you seem to be thinking that Black Panther was only watched by blacks. Marvel fans are going to watch their movies, generally speaking, regardless of who the movie may pander to. Marvel fans watched Black Panther, they watched Captain Marvel, they watched Avengers, etc. I doubt very many decided to stay home because they felt the movies pandered to a particular audience. So unless you want to argue that many marvel fans didn't bother going to see Black Panther because it pandered, who is it you think is not watching Marvel movies now but would be if they followed whatever formula you think is best?
1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.
2. Why not whites?
3. Why not conservatives?
4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.
1. You are the one who suggested a movie about the Avengers being led by Captain America into conflict with the Sakovia Accords because America is better. Natasha Romanov isn't American, or at least not originally (one can only guess that she may have US citizenship in the movies). Wanda Maximoff isn't American. Vision isn't American. Thor isn't American. Also, the US was one of the signatories of the Accords in the films.
2. One of the reasons Black Panther was so popular is that it gave representation to blacks in big budget superhero movies that they hadn't had before. Since whites have had the vast majority of representation is those sorts of movies, the same draw doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the majority of the cast in every Marvel movie other than Black Panther has been white.
3. Again, the representation issue. While one could conceivably get a majority of the cast to be conservatives, that would not be obvious the way having a majority black cast is. One doesn't need to give lines to every extra for the audience to see they are largely black; the same is not true of seeing that they are conservative. So again, the same sort of 'pandering' wouldn't work.
4. How did the movie target Black Nationalists? If anything, I would think it specifically pushed them away, since the villain of the movie seems like the closest thing to a Black Nationalist.
I still don't know who you think it is that does not go to see Marvel movies now, but would if they were more...blatantly patriotic, or however you want to describe your preferred plan for the movies.
I'm also curious if you believe your ideas for what should be in movies have ever been done before?
1. The Black Widow would have no trouble following Captain America. Neither would Wanda, Vision, nor Thor. That America signed could have been done differently, or simply presented as a mistake by an overly accommodating American President.
2.Blade would like to have a word with you. AND, that was only ONE of the reasons. Plenty of other way to target an audience.
3. "Majority of cast" is the weakest of reasons. YOu would want conservative characters presented sympathetically, and conservative ideas as the premise and/or elements for the plot. A movie glamorizing America and traditional American ideals, would be very well received by American movie goers.
4. There were a number of ideas presented, that fit with Black Nationalism view points and conspiracy theories. From a sympathetic character calling the lead white a "colonizer" to blacks just being presented as extremely competent, to the idea of African as high tech. I heard an actual black nationalists telling a co-worker that Africa really was like that, in the past, before something. Not to mention that the villain was presented as having a reasonable point of view and given quite a bit of time to monologue and to be rude to various white people. Cause, racism.
1. Sure, you can have all of them follow Cap...but if his reasoning is "America great!" having them follow him would be way outside of their characters. None of them has ever been portrayed as American patriots.
2. Blade was a comic book movie with a black lead....written by a white guy, directed by a white guy, with a mostly white cast. I've heard or read quite a few people saying that the black representation in all the major aspects of the film were a big reason they were so high on the film. Also, Blade came out well before the current super hero renaissance. It wasn't nearly as popular as the Marvel movies are now, so had a lesser impact.
3. You asked pandering the same way Black Panther did. Black Panther had a black lead, mostly black cast, black director, black writers. Even people who didn't know about the director or writer could see the level of black representation in the film. That same sort of thing wouldn't work for an ideology.
4. Wow. Blacks being presented as extremely competent is Black Nationalism. The idea of a high tech nation in Africa is Black Nationalism. I wonder, is that who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting when they created the character, do you think?
Villains are often presented as having at least some degree of reason to their views. Hell, Thanos killed half the universe but was given a somewhat reasonable motivation.
"Rude to various white people"? Killmonger was rude to pretty much everyone.
You can find anything in most movies. The relationships of the aliens in Avatar are more aligned with Conservatives even with the environmental message supposedly backing the Progressive Socialist Communists. If the aliens lived your way, they would have been diseased and decrepit.1. Anyone can be written to do anything.
2. Which group do you think has not been represented in the superhero genre that could be in a similar fashion? Not whites, obviously. Conservatives? That wouldn't work in the same way. Also, you seem to be thinking that Black Panther was only watched by blacks. Marvel fans are going to watch their movies, generally speaking, regardless of who the movie may pander to. Marvel fans watched Black Panther, they watched Captain Marvel, they watched Avengers, etc. I doubt very many decided to stay home because they felt the movies pandered to a particular audience. So unless you want to argue that many marvel fans didn't bother going to see Black Panther because it pandered, who is it you think is not watching Marvel movies now but would be if they followed whatever formula you think is best?
1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.
2. Why not whites?
3. Why not conservatives?
4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.
1. You are the one who suggested a movie about the Avengers being led by Captain America into conflict with the Sakovia Accords because America is better. Natasha Romanov isn't American, or at least not originally (one can only guess that she may have US citizenship in the movies). Wanda Maximoff isn't American. Vision isn't American. Thor isn't American. Also, the US was one of the signatories of the Accords in the films.
2. One of the reasons Black Panther was so popular is that it gave representation to blacks in big budget superhero movies that they hadn't had before. Since whites have had the vast majority of representation is those sorts of movies, the same draw doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the majority of the cast in every Marvel movie other than Black Panther has been white.
3. Again, the representation issue. While one could conceivably get a majority of the cast to be conservatives, that would not be obvious the way having a majority black cast is. One doesn't need to give lines to every extra for the audience to see they are largely black; the same is not true of seeing that they are conservative. So again, the same sort of 'pandering' wouldn't work.
4. How did the movie target Black Nationalists? If anything, I would think it specifically pushed them away, since the villain of the movie seems like the closest thing to a Black Nationalist.
I still don't know who you think it is that does not go to see Marvel movies now, but would if they were more...blatantly patriotic, or however you want to describe your preferred plan for the movies.
I'm also curious if you believe your ideas for what should be in movies have ever been done before?
1. The Black Widow would have no trouble following Captain America. Neither would Wanda, Vision, nor Thor. That America signed could have been done differently, or simply presented as a mistake by an overly accommodating American President.
2.Blade would like to have a word with you. AND, that was only ONE of the reasons. Plenty of other way to target an audience.
3. "Majority of cast" is the weakest of reasons. YOu would want conservative characters presented sympathetically, and conservative ideas as the premise and/or elements for the plot. A movie glamorizing America and traditional American ideals, would be very well received by American movie goers.
4. There were a number of ideas presented, that fit with Black Nationalism view points and conspiracy theories. From a sympathetic character calling the lead white a "colonizer" to blacks just being presented as extremely competent, to the idea of African as high tech. I heard an actual black nationalists telling a co-worker that Africa really was like that, in the past, before something. Not to mention that the villain was presented as having a reasonable point of view and given quite a bit of time to monologue and to be rude to various white people. Cause, racism.
1. Sure, you can have all of them follow Cap...but if his reasoning is "America great!" having them follow him would be way outside of their characters. None of them has ever been portrayed as American patriots.
2. Blade was a comic book movie with a black lead....written by a white guy, directed by a white guy, with a mostly white cast. I've heard or read quite a few people saying that the black representation in all the major aspects of the film were a big reason they were so high on the film. Also, Blade came out well before the current super hero renaissance. It wasn't nearly as popular as the Marvel movies are now, so had a lesser impact.
3. You asked pandering the same way Black Panther did. Black Panther had a black lead, mostly black cast, black director, black writers. Even people who didn't know about the director or writer could see the level of black representation in the film. That same sort of thing wouldn't work for an ideology.
4. Wow. Blacks being presented as extremely competent is Black Nationalism. The idea of a high tech nation in Africa is Black Nationalism. I wonder, is that who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting when they created the character, do you think?
Villains are often presented as having at least some degree of reason to their views. Hell, Thanos killed half the universe but was given a somewhat reasonable motivation.
"Rude to various white people"? Killmonger was rude to pretty much everyone.
I Googled "conservative films 2019" yesterday, and this was the top article, from National Review:
2018's Conservative Movies: The Top Ten | National Review
Black Panther made the list. This is a hoot.
1. Name one Avenger that is not an American, that could not be written as following Captain America.
2. Black Panther made more than all but on other Marvel movie, by pandering heavily to one minority group. What if they used that same strategy on a group five times bigger?
1. Anyone can be written to do anything.
2. Which group do you think has not been represented in the superhero genre that could be in a similar fashion? Not whites, obviously. Conservatives? That wouldn't work in the same way. Also, you seem to be thinking that Black Panther was only watched by blacks. Marvel fans are going to watch their movies, generally speaking, regardless of who the movie may pander to. Marvel fans watched Black Panther, they watched Captain Marvel, they watched Avengers, etc. I doubt very many decided to stay home because they felt the movies pandered to a particular audience. So unless you want to argue that many marvel fans didn't bother going to see Black Panther because it pandered, who is it you think is not watching Marvel movies now but would be if they followed whatever formula you think is best?
1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.
2. Why not whites?
3. Why not conservatives?
4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.
1. You are the one who suggested a movie about the Avengers being led by Captain America into conflict with the Sakovia Accords because America is better. Natasha Romanov isn't American, or at least not originally (one can only guess that she may have US citizenship in the movies). Wanda Maximoff isn't American. Vision isn't American. Thor isn't American. Also, the US was one of the signatories of the Accords in the films.
2. One of the reasons Black Panther was so popular is that it gave representation to blacks in big budget superhero movies that they hadn't had before. Since whites have had the vast majority of representation is those sorts of movies, the same draw doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the majority of the cast in every Marvel movie other than Black Panther has been white.
3. Again, the representation issue. While one could conceivably get a majority of the cast to be conservatives, that would not be obvious the way having a majority black cast is. One doesn't need to give lines to every extra for the audience to see they are largely black; the same is not true of seeing that they are conservative. So again, the same sort of 'pandering' wouldn't work.
4. How did the movie target Black Nationalists? If anything, I would think it specifically pushed them away, since the villain of the movie seems like the closest thing to a Black Nationalist.
I still don't know who you think it is that does not go to see Marvel movies now, but would if they were more...blatantly patriotic, or however you want to describe your preferred plan for the movies.
I'm also curious if you believe your ideas for what should be in movies have ever been done before?
1. The Black Widow would have no trouble following Captain America. Neither would Wanda, Vision, nor Thor. That America signed could have been done differently, or simply presented as a mistake by an overly accommodating American President.
2.Blade would like to have a word with you. AND, that was only ONE of the reasons. Plenty of other way to target an audience.
3. "Majority of cast" is the weakest of reasons. YOu would want conservative characters presented sympathetically, and conservative ideas as the premise and/or elements for the plot. A movie glamorizing America and traditional American ideals, would be very well received by American movie goers.
4. There were a number of ideas presented, that fit with Black Nationalism view points and conspiracy theories. From a sympathetic character calling the lead white a "colonizer" to blacks just being presented as extremely competent, to the idea of African as high tech. I heard an actual black nationalists telling a co-worker that Africa really was like that, in the past, before something. Not to mention that the villain was presented as having a reasonable point of view and given quite a bit of time to monologue and to be rude to various white people. Cause, racism.
1. Sure, you can have all of them follow Cap...but if his reasoning is "America great!" having them follow him would be way outside of their characters. None of them has ever been portrayed as American patriots.
2. Blade was a comic book movie with a black lead....written by a white guy, directed by a white guy, with a mostly white cast. I've heard or read quite a few people saying that the black representation in all the major aspects of the film were a big reason they were so high on the film. Also, Blade came out well before the current super hero renaissance. It wasn't nearly as popular as the Marvel movies are now, so had a lesser impact.
3. You asked pandering the same way Black Panther did. Black Panther had a black lead, mostly black cast, black director, black writers. Even people who didn't know about the director or writer could see the level of black representation in the film. That same sort of thing wouldn't work for an ideology.
4. Wow. Blacks being presented as extremely competent is Black Nationalism. The idea of a high tech nation in Africa is Black Nationalism. I wonder, is that who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting when they created the character, do you think?
Villains are often presented as having at least some degree of reason to their views. Hell, Thanos killed half the universe but was given a somewhat reasonable motivation.
"Rude to various white people"? Killmonger was rude to pretty much everyone.
I want to see the tax returns of all the corporations, companies and individuals involved in the production of modern films. These entities exist to make money, and would not have so severely damaged their revenue and royalties by akwardly inserting all this Trigglypuff level SJW shit inside their products.
Not only that, but they still continue to ruin their own products as of 2020 and are only increasing the amount of unnatural and off-putting propaganda present in their films...having caused a grave decline in profit, which can also be seen by the annual decline of Oscar ratings (with 2020 being dangerously low, as in, not being worth the cost of hosting/producing).
So, the only way film production entities would have adamantly doubled down and continued their SJW march, at the expense of the massive revenues and profit is...SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS REFUNDING THEIR LOSSES (adjusted for inflation and pre-2010 box office models).
Forget Lefty Politics: Here's Why the Oscars' Ratings Hit an All-Time Low
SJW GARBAGE RUINED MARVEL
1. That you, a man that liked the movie, forgot what the plot was, is failure of story telling.
2. That your defense is, that the plot was not a major part of the story, is a failure of the story telling.
3. And then you race bait. Why do you want to be an asshole? Can't you disagree without being an asshole?
4. Do you think building a community center in LA was a strong dramatic ending?
5. What did you think of an advanced nation, choosing it's leader by individual combat?
1. It was the minor part of the plot to a movie I saw almost 2 years ago.
2. No defense needed.
3. It is the only thing that makes sense.
4. It was a superhero movie ending.
5. That is an integral part of the comic book, to remove it would be to fail the nature of the comic.
It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?
You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.
Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?
You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.
That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.
Hilarious. Great writing that.
Ignoring "realism" is a staple of the Marvel movies, unfortunately.
I'm not really sure what your problem is with the scene you described. It fits into the Killmonger character completely.
1. Fair point about "realism". But, the more violation you have, the less the viewer gets drawn into the film.
2. I don't think that the way it was represented was an asshole thief being an asshole. I think it was presented more of a villain having a point, if not even an ANTI-HERO, having a point.
1. That's not always true. It depends on the viewer and the way reality is ignored.
2. Yes, Killmonger was shown having a point. So? Nothing wrong with that.
1. It was the minor part of the plot to a movie I saw almost 2 years ago.
2. No defense needed.
3. It is the only thing that makes sense.
4. It was a superhero movie ending.
5. That is an integral part of the comic book, to remove it would be to fail the nature of the comic.
It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?
You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.
Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?
You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.
That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.
Hilarious. Great writing that.
Ignoring "realism" is a staple of the Marvel movies, unfortunately.
I'm not really sure what your problem is with the scene you described. It fits into the Killmonger character completely.
1. Fair point about "realism". But, the more violation you have, the less the viewer gets drawn into the film.
2. I don't think that the way it was represented was an asshole thief being an asshole. I think it was presented more of a villain having a point, if not even an ANTI-HERO, having a point.
1. That's not always true. It depends on the viewer and the way reality is ignored.
2. Yes, Killmonger was shown having a point. So? Nothing wrong with that.
1. Sounds like a rare film, that I would not likely like. Can you give me an example of a film that made no effort to make thing feel, "realistic" yet drew the viewer into caring about the characters or plot?
2. Not at all. A good super villain should have more of a reason than "evul:" But in that scene the super villain was presented as having a point, when he did not. He was not even just being an asshole, the point of the scene was that the guards were being racist by profiling the innocent black guy. While the woman was being stupid, for thinking to buy a coffee without realizing that it was poisoned. Because, sure, we should really do that, be afraid to buy coffee from a coffee stand, because it might be poisoned.
It is not the only thing that makes sense. Why are being an asshole? You can't disagree over a freaking MOVIE, without being an asshole about it?
You can be true to canon, without shitcanning realism, or I guess I should say, "realism". The netflix shows have done a masterful job of that, for example.
Did you like the trained war rhinos? What about the excessive use of spears?
You know one part I just loved? When Killmonger, makes a snide comment about being watched by security, in the museum at the beginning of the movie. He made it to a woman he had already poisoned, because he was seconds from robbing the museum and killing all the guards.
That is just so great. A robber, complaining that he is being profiled, when he is actively robbing the place.
Hilarious. Great writing that.
Ignoring "realism" is a staple of the Marvel movies, unfortunately.
I'm not really sure what your problem is with the scene you described. It fits into the Killmonger character completely.
1. Fair point about "realism". But, the more violation you have, the less the viewer gets drawn into the film.
2. I don't think that the way it was represented was an asshole thief being an asshole. I think it was presented more of a villain having a point, if not even an ANTI-HERO, having a point.
1. That's not always true. It depends on the viewer and the way reality is ignored.
2. Yes, Killmonger was shown having a point. So? Nothing wrong with that.
1. Sounds like a rare film, that I would not likely like. Can you give me an example of a film that made no effort to make thing feel, "realistic" yet drew the viewer into caring about the characters or plot?
2. Not at all. A good super villain should have more of a reason than "evul:" But in that scene the super villain was presented as having a point, when he did not. He was not even just being an asshole, the point of the scene was that the guards were being racist by profiling the innocent black guy. While the woman was being stupid, for thinking to buy a coffee without realizing that it was poisoned. Because, sure, we should really do that, be afraid to buy coffee from a coffee stand, because it might be poisoned.
1. all Star War movies.
1a. Guardians of the Galaxy.
Ignoring "realism" is a staple of the Marvel movies, unfortunately.
I'm not really sure what your problem is with the scene you described. It fits into the Killmonger character completely.
1. Fair point about "realism". But, the more violation you have, the less the viewer gets drawn into the film.
2. I don't think that the way it was represented was an asshole thief being an asshole. I think it was presented more of a villain having a point, if not even an ANTI-HERO, having a point.
1. That's not always true. It depends on the viewer and the way reality is ignored.
2. Yes, Killmonger was shown having a point. So? Nothing wrong with that.
1. Sounds like a rare film, that I would not likely like. Can you give me an example of a film that made no effort to make thing feel, "realistic" yet drew the viewer into caring about the characters or plot?
2. Not at all. A good super villain should have more of a reason than "evul:" But in that scene the super villain was presented as having a point, when he did not. He was not even just being an asshole, the point of the scene was that the guards were being racist by profiling the innocent black guy. While the woman was being stupid, for thinking to buy a coffee without realizing that it was poisoned. Because, sure, we should really do that, be afraid to buy coffee from a coffee stand, because it might be poisoned.
1. all Star War movies.
1a. Guardians of the Galaxy.
We were introduced to the main character in The New Hope, luke skywalker, as a grump teen dealing with a strict father figure. He had chores to do, he wanted to go into town to hang out with his friends. He was presented as a realistic person with realistic issues in his life.
This was shown, so that when he family was killed by stormtroopers, it would feel realistic, that he would be driven to join the Rebellion, and the viewer would find him sympathetic and care and it would feel dramatic, and not just like, "ok this is where the main character gets involved in the bigger plot, oh hum, whatever".
THAT was good writing.
1. Fair point about "realism". But, the more violation you have, the less the viewer gets drawn into the film.
2. I don't think that the way it was represented was an asshole thief being an asshole. I think it was presented more of a villain having a point, if not even an ANTI-HERO, having a point.
1. That's not always true. It depends on the viewer and the way reality is ignored.
2. Yes, Killmonger was shown having a point. So? Nothing wrong with that.
1. Sounds like a rare film, that I would not likely like. Can you give me an example of a film that made no effort to make thing feel, "realistic" yet drew the viewer into caring about the characters or plot?
2. Not at all. A good super villain should have more of a reason than "evul:" But in that scene the super villain was presented as having a point, when he did not. He was not even just being an asshole, the point of the scene was that the guards were being racist by profiling the innocent black guy. While the woman was being stupid, for thinking to buy a coffee without realizing that it was poisoned. Because, sure, we should really do that, be afraid to buy coffee from a coffee stand, because it might be poisoned.
1. all Star War movies.
1a. Guardians of the Galaxy.
We were introduced to the main character in The New Hope, luke skywalker, as a grump teen dealing with a strict father figure. He had chores to do, he wanted to go into town to hang out with his friends. He was presented as a realistic person with realistic issues in his life.
This was shown, so that when he family was killed by stormtroopers, it would feel realistic, that he would be driven to join the Rebellion, and the viewer would find him sympathetic and care and it would feel dramatic, and not just like, "ok this is where the main character gets involved in the bigger plot, oh hum, whatever".
THAT was good writing.
1. All Star War movies ignore realism when it comes to science and physics, and yet they are still enjoyable movies as you suggest.
I want to see the tax returns of all the corporations, companies and individuals involved in the production of modern films. These entities exist to make money, and would not have so severely damaged their revenue and royalties by akwardly inserting all this Trigglypuff level SJW shit inside their products.
Not only that, but they still continue to ruin their own products as of 2020 and are only increasing the amount of unnatural and off-putting propaganda present in their films...having caused a grave decline in profit, which can also be seen by the annual decline of Oscar ratings (with 2020 being dangerously low, as in, not being worth the cost of hosting/producing).
So, the only way film production entities would have adamantly doubled down and continued their SJW march, at the expense of the massive revenues and profit is...SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS REFUNDING THEIR LOSSES (adjusted for inflation and pre-2010 box office models).
Forget Lefty Politics: Here's Why the Oscars' Ratings Hit an All-Time Low
SJW GARBAGE RUINED MARVEL
1. That's not always true. It depends on the viewer and the way reality is ignored.
2. Yes, Killmonger was shown having a point. So? Nothing wrong with that.
1. Sounds like a rare film, that I would not likely like. Can you give me an example of a film that made no effort to make thing feel, "realistic" yet drew the viewer into caring about the characters or plot?
2. Not at all. A good super villain should have more of a reason than "evul:" But in that scene the super villain was presented as having a point, when he did not. He was not even just being an asshole, the point of the scene was that the guards were being racist by profiling the innocent black guy. While the woman was being stupid, for thinking to buy a coffee without realizing that it was poisoned. Because, sure, we should really do that, be afraid to buy coffee from a coffee stand, because it might be poisoned.
1. all Star War movies.
1a. Guardians of the Galaxy.
We were introduced to the main character in The New Hope, luke skywalker, as a grump teen dealing with a strict father figure. He had chores to do, he wanted to go into town to hang out with his friends. He was presented as a realistic person with realistic issues in his life.
This was shown, so that when he family was killed by stormtroopers, it would feel realistic, that he would be driven to join the Rebellion, and the viewer would find him sympathetic and care and it would feel dramatic, and not just like, "ok this is where the main character gets involved in the bigger plot, oh hum, whatever".
THAT was good writing.
1. All Star War movies ignore realism when it comes to science and physics, and yet they are still enjoyable movies as you suggest.
Sure they ignore science and physics, yet by having, (at least in the earlier movies) realistic characters with some realistic problems and reacting to events in a realistic situation,
you can draw the viewer into caring about the characters and events, and being emotionally involved, even invested.
1. Anyone can be written to do anything.
2. Which group do you think has not been represented in the superhero genre that could be in a similar fashion? Not whites, obviously. Conservatives? That wouldn't work in the same way. Also, you seem to be thinking that Black Panther was only watched by blacks. Marvel fans are going to watch their movies, generally speaking, regardless of who the movie may pander to. Marvel fans watched Black Panther, they watched Captain Marvel, they watched Avengers, etc. I doubt very many decided to stay home because they felt the movies pandered to a particular audience. So unless you want to argue that many marvel fans didn't bother going to see Black Panther because it pandered, who is it you think is not watching Marvel movies now but would be if they followed whatever formula you think is best?
1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.
2. Why not whites?
3. Why not conservatives?
4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.
1. You are the one who suggested a movie about the Avengers being led by Captain America into conflict with the Sakovia Accords because America is better. Natasha Romanov isn't American, or at least not originally (one can only guess that she may have US citizenship in the movies). Wanda Maximoff isn't American. Vision isn't American. Thor isn't American. Also, the US was one of the signatories of the Accords in the films.
2. One of the reasons Black Panther was so popular is that it gave representation to blacks in big budget superhero movies that they hadn't had before. Since whites have had the vast majority of representation is those sorts of movies, the same draw doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the majority of the cast in every Marvel movie other than Black Panther has been white.
3. Again, the representation issue. While one could conceivably get a majority of the cast to be conservatives, that would not be obvious the way having a majority black cast is. One doesn't need to give lines to every extra for the audience to see they are largely black; the same is not true of seeing that they are conservative. So again, the same sort of 'pandering' wouldn't work.
4. How did the movie target Black Nationalists? If anything, I would think it specifically pushed them away, since the villain of the movie seems like the closest thing to a Black Nationalist.
I still don't know who you think it is that does not go to see Marvel movies now, but would if they were more...blatantly patriotic, or however you want to describe your preferred plan for the movies.
I'm also curious if you believe your ideas for what should be in movies have ever been done before?
1. The Black Widow would have no trouble following Captain America. Neither would Wanda, Vision, nor Thor. That America signed could have been done differently, or simply presented as a mistake by an overly accommodating American President.
2.Blade would like to have a word with you. AND, that was only ONE of the reasons. Plenty of other way to target an audience.
3. "Majority of cast" is the weakest of reasons. YOu would want conservative characters presented sympathetically, and conservative ideas as the premise and/or elements for the plot. A movie glamorizing America and traditional American ideals, would be very well received by American movie goers.
4. There were a number of ideas presented, that fit with Black Nationalism view points and conspiracy theories. From a sympathetic character calling the lead white a "colonizer" to blacks just being presented as extremely competent, to the idea of African as high tech. I heard an actual black nationalists telling a co-worker that Africa really was like that, in the past, before something. Not to mention that the villain was presented as having a reasonable point of view and given quite a bit of time to monologue and to be rude to various white people. Cause, racism.
1. Sure, you can have all of them follow Cap...but if his reasoning is "America great!" having them follow him would be way outside of their characters. None of them has ever been portrayed as American patriots.
2. Blade was a comic book movie with a black lead....written by a white guy, directed by a white guy, with a mostly white cast. I've heard or read quite a few people saying that the black representation in all the major aspects of the film were a big reason they were so high on the film. Also, Blade came out well before the current super hero renaissance. It wasn't nearly as popular as the Marvel movies are now, so had a lesser impact.
3. You asked pandering the same way Black Panther did. Black Panther had a black lead, mostly black cast, black director, black writers. Even people who didn't know about the director or writer could see the level of black representation in the film. That same sort of thing wouldn't work for an ideology.
4. Wow. Blacks being presented as extremely competent is Black Nationalism. The idea of a high tech nation in Africa is Black Nationalism. I wonder, is that who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting when they created the character, do you think?
Villains are often presented as having at least some degree of reason to their views. Hell, Thanos killed half the universe but was given a somewhat reasonable motivation.
"Rude to various white people"? Killmonger was rude to pretty much everyone.
1. It would be mindless simple to write a conflict between following UN direction and a can do American Altitude with Captain America in the lead. THe rest of the Avengers do not have to be American patriots to support or follow Captain America. I mean, I didn't go into detail there, because it seemed obvious.
2. Sure, it did not become the over hyped cultural mile stone that we all are supposed to pretend the Black Panther was. But it was a major motion picture and it was actually GOOD.
3. Do you think Captain America, before he went back in time at the end of Endgame, was a virgin?
4. When it is against whites who are mostly there to be incompetent or helpless, yes.
I want to see the tax returns of all the corporations, companies and individuals involved in the production of modern films. These entities exist to make money, and would not have so severely damaged their revenue and royalties by akwardly inserting all this Trigglypuff level SJW shit inside their products.
Not only that, but they still continue to ruin their own products as of 2020 and are only increasing the amount of unnatural and off-putting propaganda present in their films...having caused a grave decline in profit, which can also be seen by the annual decline of Oscar ratings (with 2020 being dangerously low, as in, not being worth the cost of hosting/producing).
So, the only way film production entities would have adamantly doubled down and continued their SJW march, at the expense of the massive revenues and profit is...SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IS REFUNDING THEIR LOSSES (adjusted for inflation and pre-2010 box office models).
Forget Lefty Politics: Here's Why the Oscars' Ratings Hit an All-Time Low
SJW GARBAGE RUINED MARVEL
Lol you dumb pussy.
I totally agree. I hadn't bought a movie in over two years, so I sold my high end oppo disc player and the library of movies I had. The movies coming out of hollyweird are just SHIT, and I'm not going to watch their SHIT full of SJW garbage.
But it's not only movies, MUSIC has been DUMBED DOWN to nothing more than COOKIE CUTTER CRAP too...
'1. Sounds like a rare film, that I would not likely like. Can you give me an example of a film that made no effort to make thing feel, "realistic" yet drew the viewer into caring about the characters or plot?
2. Not at all. A good super villain should have more of a reason than "evul:" But in that scene the super villain was presented as having a point, when he did not. He was not even just being an asshole, the point of the scene was that the guards were being racist by profiling the innocent black guy. While the woman was being stupid, for thinking to buy a coffee without realizing that it was poisoned. Because, sure, we should really do that, be afraid to buy coffee from a coffee stand, because it might be poisoned.
1. all Star War movies.
1a. Guardians of the Galaxy.
We were introduced to the main character in The New Hope, luke skywalker, as a grump teen dealing with a strict father figure. He had chores to do, he wanted to go into town to hang out with his friends. He was presented as a realistic person with realistic issues in his life.
This was shown, so that when he family was killed by stormtroopers, it would feel realistic, that he would be driven to join the Rebellion, and the viewer would find him sympathetic and care and it would feel dramatic, and not just like, "ok this is where the main character gets involved in the bigger plot, oh hum, whatever".
THAT was good writing.
1. All Star War movies ignore realism when it comes to science and physics, and yet they are still enjoyable movies as you suggest.
Sure they ignore science and physics, yet by having, (at least in the earlier movies) realistic characters with some realistic problems and reacting to events in a realistic situation,
you can draw the viewer into caring about the characters and events, and being emotionally involved, even invested.
Which why it matters in the way reality is ignored.
1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.
2. Why not whites?
3. Why not conservatives?
4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.
1. You are the one who suggested a movie about the Avengers being led by Captain America into conflict with the Sakovia Accords because America is better. Natasha Romanov isn't American, or at least not originally (one can only guess that she may have US citizenship in the movies). Wanda Maximoff isn't American. Vision isn't American. Thor isn't American. Also, the US was one of the signatories of the Accords in the films.
2. One of the reasons Black Panther was so popular is that it gave representation to blacks in big budget superhero movies that they hadn't had before. Since whites have had the vast majority of representation is those sorts of movies, the same draw doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the majority of the cast in every Marvel movie other than Black Panther has been white.
3. Again, the representation issue. While one could conceivably get a majority of the cast to be conservatives, that would not be obvious the way having a majority black cast is. One doesn't need to give lines to every extra for the audience to see they are largely black; the same is not true of seeing that they are conservative. So again, the same sort of 'pandering' wouldn't work.
4. How did the movie target Black Nationalists? If anything, I would think it specifically pushed them away, since the villain of the movie seems like the closest thing to a Black Nationalist.
I still don't know who you think it is that does not go to see Marvel movies now, but would if they were more...blatantly patriotic, or however you want to describe your preferred plan for the movies.
I'm also curious if you believe your ideas for what should be in movies have ever been done before?
1. The Black Widow would have no trouble following Captain America. Neither would Wanda, Vision, nor Thor. That America signed could have been done differently, or simply presented as a mistake by an overly accommodating American President.
2.Blade would like to have a word with you. AND, that was only ONE of the reasons. Plenty of other way to target an audience.
3. "Majority of cast" is the weakest of reasons. YOu would want conservative characters presented sympathetically, and conservative ideas as the premise and/or elements for the plot. A movie glamorizing America and traditional American ideals, would be very well received by American movie goers.
4. There were a number of ideas presented, that fit with Black Nationalism view points and conspiracy theories. From a sympathetic character calling the lead white a "colonizer" to blacks just being presented as extremely competent, to the idea of African as high tech. I heard an actual black nationalists telling a co-worker that Africa really was like that, in the past, before something. Not to mention that the villain was presented as having a reasonable point of view and given quite a bit of time to monologue and to be rude to various white people. Cause, racism.
1. Sure, you can have all of them follow Cap...but if his reasoning is "America great!" having them follow him would be way outside of their characters. None of them has ever been portrayed as American patriots.
2. Blade was a comic book movie with a black lead....written by a white guy, directed by a white guy, with a mostly white cast. I've heard or read quite a few people saying that the black representation in all the major aspects of the film were a big reason they were so high on the film. Also, Blade came out well before the current super hero renaissance. It wasn't nearly as popular as the Marvel movies are now, so had a lesser impact.
3. You asked pandering the same way Black Panther did. Black Panther had a black lead, mostly black cast, black director, black writers. Even people who didn't know about the director or writer could see the level of black representation in the film. That same sort of thing wouldn't work for an ideology.
4. Wow. Blacks being presented as extremely competent is Black Nationalism. The idea of a high tech nation in Africa is Black Nationalism. I wonder, is that who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting when they created the character, do you think?
Villains are often presented as having at least some degree of reason to their views. Hell, Thanos killed half the universe but was given a somewhat reasonable motivation.
"Rude to various white people"? Killmonger was rude to pretty much everyone.
1. It would be mindless simple to write a conflict between following UN direction and a can do American Altitude with Captain America in the lead. THe rest of the Avengers do not have to be American patriots to support or follow Captain America. I mean, I didn't go into detail there, because it seemed obvious.
2. Sure, it did not become the over hyped cultural mile stone that we all are supposed to pretend the Black Panther was. But it was a major motion picture and it was actually GOOD.
3. Do you think Captain America, before he went back in time at the end of Endgame, was a virgin?
4. When it is against whites who are mostly there to be incompetent or helpless, yes.
1. If this is all so mindlessly simple, why aren't you writing a screenplay that will make billions?
You said that Captain America would reject the Accords because of patriotism and nationalism, and because America is better. If those were his reasons, no, having all the Avengers follow him would not make sense.
2. What is or is not good is subjective. However, Black Panther was clearly a much more popular movie, seen by more people than Blade. And clearly Black Panther had far more black representation in the major aspects of filmmaking than Blade did.
3. I don't know nor care, nor do I understand what that question has to do with the conversation.
4. So all of the blacks being competent in Black Panther were doing so "against whites"? What movie did you watch?
Again I will ask, do you think that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting Black Nationalists when they created the Black Panther character?
1. Characters can be written to do anything. If you have no respect for the product or the fans.
2. Why not whites?
3. Why not conservatives?
4. Incorrect. I am well aware that non-blacks went and watched Black Panther in large numbers. That does not mean it was not targeted at blacks, specifically Black Nationalists.
1. You are the one who suggested a movie about the Avengers being led by Captain America into conflict with the Sakovia Accords because America is better. Natasha Romanov isn't American, or at least not originally (one can only guess that she may have US citizenship in the movies). Wanda Maximoff isn't American. Vision isn't American. Thor isn't American. Also, the US was one of the signatories of the Accords in the films.
2. One of the reasons Black Panther was so popular is that it gave representation to blacks in big budget superhero movies that they hadn't had before. Since whites have had the vast majority of representation is those sorts of movies, the same draw doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure the majority of the cast in every Marvel movie other than Black Panther has been white.
3. Again, the representation issue. While one could conceivably get a majority of the cast to be conservatives, that would not be obvious the way having a majority black cast is. One doesn't need to give lines to every extra for the audience to see they are largely black; the same is not true of seeing that they are conservative. So again, the same sort of 'pandering' wouldn't work.
4. How did the movie target Black Nationalists? If anything, I would think it specifically pushed them away, since the villain of the movie seems like the closest thing to a Black Nationalist.
I still don't know who you think it is that does not go to see Marvel movies now, but would if they were more...blatantly patriotic, or however you want to describe your preferred plan for the movies.
I'm also curious if you believe your ideas for what should be in movies have ever been done before?
1. The Black Widow would have no trouble following Captain America. Neither would Wanda, Vision, nor Thor. That America signed could have been done differently, or simply presented as a mistake by an overly accommodating American President.
2.Blade would like to have a word with you. AND, that was only ONE of the reasons. Plenty of other way to target an audience.
3. "Majority of cast" is the weakest of reasons. YOu would want conservative characters presented sympathetically, and conservative ideas as the premise and/or elements for the plot. A movie glamorizing America and traditional American ideals, would be very well received by American movie goers.
4. There were a number of ideas presented, that fit with Black Nationalism view points and conspiracy theories. From a sympathetic character calling the lead white a "colonizer" to blacks just being presented as extremely competent, to the idea of African as high tech. I heard an actual black nationalists telling a co-worker that Africa really was like that, in the past, before something. Not to mention that the villain was presented as having a reasonable point of view and given quite a bit of time to monologue and to be rude to various white people. Cause, racism.
1. Sure, you can have all of them follow Cap...but if his reasoning is "America great!" having them follow him would be way outside of their characters. None of them has ever been portrayed as American patriots.
2. Blade was a comic book movie with a black lead....written by a white guy, directed by a white guy, with a mostly white cast. I've heard or read quite a few people saying that the black representation in all the major aspects of the film were a big reason they were so high on the film. Also, Blade came out well before the current super hero renaissance. It wasn't nearly as popular as the Marvel movies are now, so had a lesser impact.
3. You asked pandering the same way Black Panther did. Black Panther had a black lead, mostly black cast, black director, black writers. Even people who didn't know about the director or writer could see the level of black representation in the film. That same sort of thing wouldn't work for an ideology.
4. Wow. Blacks being presented as extremely competent is Black Nationalism. The idea of a high tech nation in Africa is Black Nationalism. I wonder, is that who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting when they created the character, do you think?
Villains are often presented as having at least some degree of reason to their views. Hell, Thanos killed half the universe but was given a somewhat reasonable motivation.
"Rude to various white people"? Killmonger was rude to pretty much everyone.
1. It would be mindless simple to write a conflict between following UN direction and a can do American Altitude with Captain America in the lead. THe rest of the Avengers do not have to be American patriots to support or follow Captain America. I mean, I didn't go into detail there, because it seemed obvious.
2. Sure, it did not become the over hyped cultural mile stone that we all are supposed to pretend the Black Panther was. But it was a major motion picture and it was actually GOOD.
3. Do you think Captain America, before he went back in time at the end of Endgame, was a virgin?
4. When it is against whites who are mostly there to be incompetent or helpless, yes.
1. If this is all so mindlessly simple, why aren't you writing a screenplay that will make billions?
You said that Captain America would reject the Accords because of patriotism and nationalism, and because America is better. If those were his reasons, no, having all the Avengers follow him would not make sense.
2. What is or is not good is subjective. However, Black Panther was clearly a much more popular movie, seen by more people than Blade. And clearly Black Panther had far more black representation in the major aspects of filmmaking than Blade did.
3. I don't know nor care, nor do I understand what that question has to do with the conversation.
4. So all of the blacks being competent in Black Panther were doing so "against whites"? What movie did you watch?
Again I will ask, do you think that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were targeting Black Nationalists when they created the Black Panther character?
'1. all Star War movies.
1a. Guardians of the Galaxy.
We were introduced to the main character in The New Hope, luke skywalker, as a grump teen dealing with a strict father figure. He had chores to do, he wanted to go into town to hang out with his friends. He was presented as a realistic person with realistic issues in his life.
This was shown, so that when he family was killed by stormtroopers, it would feel realistic, that he would be driven to join the Rebellion, and the viewer would find him sympathetic and care and it would feel dramatic, and not just like, "ok this is where the main character gets involved in the bigger plot, oh hum, whatever".
THAT was good writing.
1. All Star War movies ignore realism when it comes to science and physics, and yet they are still enjoyable movies as you suggest.
Sure they ignore science and physics, yet by having, (at least in the earlier movies) realistic characters with some realistic problems and reacting to events in a realistic situation,
you can draw the viewer into caring about the characters and events, and being emotionally involved, even invested.
Which why it matters in the way reality is ignored.
And I am complaining when they do it wrong.
'We were introduced to the main character in The New Hope, luke skywalker, as a grump teen dealing with a strict father figure. He had chores to do, he wanted to go into town to hang out with his friends. He was presented as a realistic person with realistic issues in his life.
This was shown, so that when he family was killed by stormtroopers, it would feel realistic, that he would be driven to join the Rebellion, and the viewer would find him sympathetic and care and it would feel dramatic, and not just like, "ok this is where the main character gets involved in the bigger plot, oh hum, whatever".
THAT was good writing.
1. All Star War movies ignore realism when it comes to science and physics, and yet they are still enjoyable movies as you suggest.
Sure they ignore science and physics, yet by having, (at least in the earlier movies) realistic characters with some realistic problems and reacting to events in a realistic situation,
you can draw the viewer into caring about the characters and events, and being emotionally involved, even invested.
Which why it matters in the way reality is ignored.
And I am complaining when they do it wrong.
no, you are applying a dastardly motive to when they do it wrong
Well, yes, that is part of it, in many cases. If a film maker(s) has as priority that in their own mind, is more important than making a good film, that is part of the issue, if not the primary cause.
