The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > General Movies > Marvel Films

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2013, 11:39 AM   #351
semper
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 32
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
Now, cos, when have you ever known me to be shy?

Let me say up front I think it is a sad state when a black writer says he 'has an inability to write a black character well'. And for you to state it so matter-of-factly as if that should be perfectly understandable is sadder still.

"Race CAUSES Hollywood to make poor films with black leads"...you and those absolute statements of yours. And of course with not a lick of evidence. Nope, just your own personal feelings of persecution coupled with a need for justification that you can exist with. I'll retract that statement if you actually have some proof to back up your belief. And no, I will not accept a link to a blog by someone else who simply shares your feelings which are also unfounded.

So does race cause Hollywood to make poor films with white leads? Or are ALL films with white leads successful? Because, as you said, when they make good films (with white leads), those films do well.

But to get to my 'overall point' (which you have so kindly provided me fodder with which to address) let me ask you this: why would Marvel want to risk doing a Panther film (which they cannot guarantee the success of) when if it doesn't perform up to expectations, there is an endless supply of fair-minded people like yourself ready to accuse them of deliberately sabatoging it because they are racists?
Good films with white leads fail all the damned time. Dredd 3D being a very recent example. Great reviews, commercial property....no one quite understands how it became the biggest bomb of 2012, but it certainly wasn't because Karl Urban was a white man.

Bad films with black leads make money all the time. You only need to look at the career of Martin Lawrence. The first two Big Mommas House Films got universially terrible reviews, yet both were big hits that each made over 100 million worldwide.

This year, 42 has a black lead. Has made almost 100 million in the US (won't do much outside the US, because baseball movies never do).

Black Panther is an easy sell. He's a cool looking character from a visual standpoint, has cool powers/tech and is an Avenger. So you can use other stars from the Marvel franchise to appear in the film (like Black Widow was in both Iron Man 2 and Captain America 2.

i'm sort of surprised there's even a debate about this. Nothing is a guaranteed hit, especially when it comes to characters that are not hugely known to the public like Batman, Superman or Spiderman. Thor and Captain America succedded because Marvel planned out their connected universe strategy with correct precision. If they did it like DC/Warners did Green Lantern, they could easily have failed.

As long as Black Panther is shown to be clearly linked to the Avengers and will play a key part in those upcoming films, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a hit around the world. People love the Avengers franchise right now, and that's a big selling point for Black Panther.

semper is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 11:57 AM   #352
E-Man
Cooler than your daddy.
 
E-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 13,045
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

I think y'all are missing the biggest reason why After Earth is bombing, and that's M. Night Shyamalan. His name is such poison that they've gone to great lengths to make sure his name wasn't in front and center, and even still people knew he was involved with the project. He's lost so much good will that people will avoid watching a movie of his based on him being involved. At this point if they said that M. Night Shyamalan visited the set of Black Panther that I'd avoid watching that movie because of him.

With Red Tails it's just a case of a bad movie. It seems that people were interested, but the word of mouth didn't carry it well enough because of the reaction to it. I wanted to like that movie since it's right up my alley, but it wasn't good.

__________________
"Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal."- Immortal Technique

Yes. That is a quote from a rapper.
E-Man is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 11:58 AM   #353
roach
I am the night
 
roach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Under your Refrigerator
Posts: 39,613
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123 View Post
What's the difference between After Earth and Django.

One is a great movie, the other sucks eggs.

We're in a recession. Both black and white audiences boycott crappy movies, no matter what color the cast.
Lets be honest...how many people went to see Django because it was a Tarantino movie?

__________________
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding in todayís protest-hungry world of entertainment fans into how far their opinion should really matter. You donít like a story? Thatís fine Ė donít read a story. Former Marvel editor Tom Brennan
roach is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 12:13 PM   #354
Spider - Man
Banned User
 
Spider - Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,472
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by semper View Post
Good films with white leads fail all the damned time. Dredd 3D being a very recent example. Great reviews, commercial property....no one quite understands how it became the biggest bomb of 2012, but it certainly wasn't because Karl Urban was a white man.

Bad films with black leads make money all the time. You only need to look at the career of Martin Lawrence. The first two Big Mommas House Films got universially terrible reviews, yet both were big hits that each made over 100 million worldwide.

This year, 42 has a black lead. Has made almost 100 million in the US (won't do much outside the US, because baseball movies never do).

Black Panther is an easy sell. He's a cool looking character from a visual standpoint, has cool powers/tech and is an Avenger. So you can use other stars from the Marvel franchise to appear in the film (like Black Widow was in both Iron Man 2 and Captain America 2.

i'm sort of surprised there's even a debate about this. Nothing is a guaranteed hit, especially when it comes to characters that are not hugely known to the public like Batman, Superman or Spiderman. Thor and Captain America succedded because Marvel planned out their connected universe strategy with correct precision. If they did it like DC/Warners did Green Lantern, they could easily have failed.

As long as Black Panther is shown to be clearly linked to the Avengers and will play a key part in those upcoming films, I see no reason why it wouldn't be a hit around the world. People love the Avengers franchise right now, and that's a big selling point for Black Panther.
I was being facetious in response to cos's allegation that the reason movies with black leads fail is due to racist undermining by film execs which is a preposterous notion.

I also pointed out that, unlike with films like Capt. America and Thor and Iron Man, there is a whole faction of the public like dr. cosmic lined up to pronounce racist sabatoging on Disney in the event BP underperformed at the BO. If the GL movie had been made with Jon Stewart as the main character, we would have probably heard the same thing about that. This is exactly the response when Red Tails tanked its second weekend. People were berating Lucas, who cared so little he paid for the project out of his own pocket, saying things like he must obviously be racist since he gave us JarJar Binks and the 'African' Ewoks, that he must've wanted the movie to do poorly because he could have easily afforded to throw more money at the project to hire bigger name actors. The studios who wouldn't finance the film in the first place were labeled racist although in retrospect it seems their decision was the right one from a business standpoint.

I loved Dredd and was excited the other day when I heard Urban say that it's possible there could be a sequel since the blu ray/dvd sales were so good for the first.

Spider - Man is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 12:21 PM   #355
Spider - Man
Banned User
 
Spider - Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,472
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
I think y'all are missing the biggest reason why After Earth is bombing, and that's M. Night Shyamalan. His name is such poison that they've gone to great lengths to make sure his name wasn't in front and center, and even still people knew he was involved with the project. He's lost so much good will that people will avoid watching a movie of his based on him being involved. At this point if they said that M. Night Shyamalan visited the set of Black Panther that I'd avoid watching that movie because of him.

With Red Tails it's just a case of a bad movie. It seems that people were interested, but the word of mouth didn't carry it well enough because of the reaction to it. I wanted to like that movie since it's right up my alley, but it wasn't good.
So let's look at what you're implying. Will Smith wrote the story. He and his wife were both producers. They've been around Hollywood for a while. If anyone should know that Shamalan's name is 'poison' SURELY it would be them. I mean they're supposed to be pretty shrewd business people, right? So why in the hell would they hire someone to direct the movie, who they should KNOW is a horrible director, whose involvement they would need to turn around and try their best to hide?!

This just goes along with what I am saying. It just smacks of trying to lay the blame for the failure on ANYONE other than the african american element involved in the production because there is fear that that might add fuel to some non-existant fire.


Last edited by Spider - Man; 06-04-2013 at 12:24 PM.
Spider - Man is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 01:09 PM   #356
E-Man
Cooler than your daddy.
 
E-Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 13,045
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
So let's look at what you're implying. Will Smith wrote the story. He and his wife were both producers. They've been around Hollywood for a while. If anyone should know that Shamalan's name is 'poison' SURELY it would be them. I mean they're supposed to be pretty shrewd business people, right? So why in the hell would they hire someone to direct the movie, who they should KNOW is a horrible director, whose involvement they would need to turn around and try their best to hide?!

This just goes along with what I am saying. It just smacks of trying to lay the blame for the failure on ANYONE other than the african american element involved in the production because there is fear that that might add fuel to some non-existant fire.
Will probably thought that his name was big enough to overcome M. Night while pushing his son who is a relative newcomer. Even then it's just one bombing movie of many hits with Will Smith, so it would be pretty silly to use After Earth as reasoning why black people can't sell because Will Smith is one of the most bankable acting names in Hollywood right now. Hell MIB3 just grossed over $600 million last year, so it's not like that movie bombed because people were saying, "Naw man. I don't want to see a Will Smith movie." There is a lot of things you can blame for that, but you can't rule out how bad M. Night's name is nowadays. There's also the possibility that M. Night secured this deal years ago and the Smiths obliged him. That's not making M. Night a scapegoat, but you have to consider why they didn't name the director of the movie at all. Every movie advertises its director except this one. Even if it's a new director they advertise it, yet this movie went to lengths to avoid talking about the director. Hmmmm. I wonder why that could be.

As for the whole wanting to blame anyone but the black element involved in the production of the movie, where did I say that with Red Tails? I said that it was bad all around. It wasn't like I was saying, "Man George Lucas was the problem here! He messed up a good black director and cast. It's a conspiracy!" You're talking about a non-existent fire, yet you're fueling one of your own there. The complaints that Hollywood aren't trying to put money into diverse casts is what's going on here, and the fact that George Lucas had to pull money out of his pocket to fund Red Tails is one of the reasons why we think that belief. No one, in here at least, are absolving blacks behind the camera of anything when they do things wrong. If anything we've given black directors a ton of **** when they do wrong. How many people in here were all like, "Singleton? Aw hell naw" when his name is brought up? Hell I even make it a point to say, "**** Tyler Perry" about 9 times before I eat lunch. I'll go ahead and make it ten.

**** Tyler Perry!

__________________
"Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal."- Immortal Technique

Yes. That is a quote from a rapper.
E-Man is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 01:54 PM   #357
Spider - Man
Banned User
 
Spider - Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,472
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
Will probably thought that his name was big enough to overcome M. Night while pushing his son who is a relative newcomer. Even then it's just one bombing movie of many hits with Will Smith, so it would be pretty silly to use After Earth as reasoning why black people can't sell because Will Smith is one of the most bankable acting names in Hollywood right now. Hell MIB3 just grossed over $600 million last year, so it's not like that movie bombed because people were saying, "Naw man. I don't want to see a Will Smith movie." There is a lot of things you can blame for that, but you can't rule out how bad M. Night's name is nowadays.
Again something that that the Smiths should have known for certain long before getting involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
There's also the possibility that M. Night secured this deal years ago and the Smiths obliged him. That's not making M. Night a scapegoat, but you have to consider why they didn't name the director of the movie at all.
Yet no one could have forced them into participating much less acting as producers. And remember, Smith is the one who wrote the story so I doubt your scenario about Shammy securing the deal ahead of them is feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
Every movie advertises its director except this one. Even if it's a new director they advertise it, yet this movie went to lengths to avoid talking about the director. Hmmmm. I wonder why that could be.
This premise makes little sense considering Shamalan is the EP and again why would they hire a director that they should have known in advance that they'd have to hide the name of. I mean, it isn't like they hired him, had him make the film and THEN suddenly realized 'oh wait, this guy's a hack! What were we thinking?! Quick, we have to do some marketing damage control! Get his name off all the publicity material!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
As for the whole wanting to blame anyone but the black element involved in the production of the movie, where did I say that with Red Tails? I said that it was bad all around. It wasn't like I was saying, "Man George Lucas was the problem here! He messed up a good black director and cast. It's a conspiracy!" You're talking about a non-existent fire, yet you're fueling one of your own there.
I never said YOU said that. But a lot of people did. The non-existant fire I am referring to is the (conspiracy) theory that Hollywood execs are behind every failed movie with a black lead and their motives are racist. There are a LOT of people who believe that including many who post in this very thread. So let's look at that. This theory would have us believe that the people in position to make such decisions would put millions of dollars into a project with a black lead and then deliberately sabatage it because to them it is more important to push their racist agenda, ensuring no black actors acheive any success, than to make back their money. I mean, can you really read that and say that that theory holds water?
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
The complaints that Hollywood aren't trying to put money into diverse casts is what's going on here, and the fact that George Lucas had to pull money out of his pocket to fund Red Tails is one of the reasons why we think that belief.
So to you it isn't possible that the people who wouldn't fund Red Tails could see that it wouldn't do well and didn't want to lose their money on a losing proposition? In retrospect, they look like they made the right decision based on the lack of success of the movie but their decisions are nonetheless still viewed as racially motivated.

And again, maybe Hollywood doesn't want to put money into movies with black leads/cast because when they do and it fails, everyone but the black talent gets blamed for the failure and frequently there is some accusation of racist sabataging behind it. I am using Red Tails and AE as examples of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
No one, in here at least, are absolving blacks behind the camera of anything when they do things wrong. If anything we've given black directors a ton of **** when they do wrong. How many people in here were all like, "Singleton? Aw hell naw" when his name is brought up?
Cosmic did. He said: race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads. Obviously he meant those with black directors as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Man View Post
Hell I even make it a point to say, "**** Tyler Perry" about 9 times before I eat lunch. I'll go ahead and make it ten.

**** Tyler Perry!
Now that's funny right there!

Spider - Man is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 05:21 PM   #358
DarKush
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,654
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
I don't think this has any bearing right now as AE hasn't had a chance to develop a track record. Right now it isn't about the performance, it is about how good/bad the film is.

All the criticism I have read had only to do with the acting, writing and the story



The difference is with films like CA and Thor, they don't run as much risk of incurring comments like this if the movie doesn't do as well as expected.
Please forgive the font.

1. Part of the willingness of an audience to accept a film-even if it gets bad reviews-is tied to whether it is part of a sequel or franchise that has engendered some goodwill. It is very hard to do something new. Look at the Transformers films for example. They weren’t well reviewed, but they got monster fans. The Tyler Perry films are another example. Rarely do they get good reviews but they have established an audience. So having a reputation or brand can help even inoculate a film against bad reviews. After Earth didn’t have that to fall back on, but a Black Panther film might have the Avengers to fall back on or the good track record of Marvel comic book films to help sell it to audiences.

2. Well all the criticism that you have read (glad you qualified that) has missed all of the comments and critiques, including from the Wall Street Journal, that talk about possible Scientology overtones. Further the drum beat of nepotism is also out there. If you keep reading comments and critiques I think you'll find it. There is criticism about the story, writing, acting, and directing, but there is also a lot of allegations of hidden Scientology teaching and nepotism.

3. There is a history of racism in Hollywood and there is a history of white audiences being averse to films with black leads. Captain America and Thor-both better known than Panther and now form parts of the Avengers juggernaut feature whites, were made by whites, and generally are meant to appeal to a ‘mass’ (i.e. white) audience. So I don’t see how their relative success or failure would be due to skin color in a country that is still majority white and in a Hollywood system that is still majority white. It’s a different ballgame with a black film and you know that. Obviously you make a connection between Red Tails and After Earth based solely on race, and whether their poor performances will impact a Panther film. Now the main thing between all of these films is that a black person would be the lead. But when you look a film like Captain America and Thor, with white leads, their failures are not likely going to be seen as due to skin color where if Black Panther the movie fails, skin color will be a factor that should be considered due to the real history of racism in this country. I don’t think ‘comments like these’ are made cavalierly and they acknowledge that films with white leads don’t have the same burdens as films with black leads. And regarding comic book movies, if you want to protest that, list me how many comic book films with black leads have been released in the last five years? Or the year following?


Last edited by DarKush; 06-04-2013 at 05:28 PM.
DarKush is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 05:53 PM   #359
RockSP
MYTH SMITH ∞!!!
 
RockSP's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,574
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by roach View Post
Lets be honest...how many people went to see Django because it was a Tarantino movie?
Most people who went to see it, probably. Plus it had Leo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
So let's look at what you're implying. Will Smith wrote the story.
Not according to the credits he didn't. I saw this today. The hate it is getting is a headscratcher, and I'm far from being a big Will Smith fan (last movie I saw of his at the theatre was the first Men In Black). Someone on another board said they released this at the wrong time (summer "blockbuster" season) and I agree.

As for any people who complain about nepotism...please. hollyweird always has and always will be about nepotism (and the casting couch, but that's another story...)

__________________
It's not Marvel and DC's place to create our stories. We create our stories. --Dwayne McDuffie

http://myth-smith.com/
RockSP is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 07:16 PM   #360
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

For the conversation as a whole. :

PS MAG, why-whites-avoid-movies-with-black-actors

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
Cosmic did. He said: race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads. Obviously he meant those with black directors as well.
False. The statement does not read: "The cause of poor films with black or female leads is Hollywood's racism." Neither does either concept absolve the black filmmaker. Red Tails' director did a weak job behind the camera. More money from studios probably would have caused them to hire a better director (and producers), resulting in a better film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
Now, cos, when have you ever known me to be shy?

Let me say up front I think it is a sad state when a black writer says he 'has an inability to write a black character well'. And for you to state it so matter-of-factly as if that should be perfectly understandable is sadder still.

"Race CAUSES Hollywood to make poor films with black leads"...you and those absolute statements of yours. And of course with not a lick of evidence. Nope, just your own personal feelings of persecution coupled with a need for justification that you can exist with. I'll retract that statement if you actually have some proof to back up your belief. And no, I will not accept a link to a blog by someone else who simply shares your feelings which are also unfounded.

So does race cause Hollywood to make poor films with white leads? Or are ALL films with white leads successful? Because, as you said, when they make good films (with white leads), those films do well.

But to get to my 'overall point' (which you have so kindly provided me fodder with which to address) let me ask you this: why would Marvel want to risk doing a Panther film (which they cannot guarantee the success of) when if it doesn't perform up to expectations, there is an endless supply of fair-minded people like yourself ready to accuse them of deliberately sabatoging it because they are racists?
You still haven't gotten to the point. But coy is a better word than shy, now that you mention it.

First issue, "Race CAUSES Hollywood to make poor films with black leads" is simply not an absolute statement. This is simply an observation of a causal relationship. Let's compare the last five big budget action blockbusters of white leads and black leads. This will show a strong correlation, and thus confirm a causal, or possibly co-effect relationship.

- Star Trek Into Darkness - 87%
- Iron Man 3 - 78%
- Oblivion - 55%
- Oz: The Great and Powerful - 60%
- The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 66%
- After Earth - 12%
- Django Unchained - 88%
- Red Tails - 39%
- Book of Eli - 45%
- Bad Boys II - 23%

I think it's a sad state too.

Quote:
Nope, just your own personal feelings of persecution coupled with a need for justification that you can exist with. I'll retract that statement if you actually have some proof to back up your belief.
This is trolling. You're using your disagreement with me, and my lack of interest in appeasing you, as though it is justification to insult me, otherwise you would not say that proving my point would cause you to retract your insults that are not related to my correctness. This is not funny. This is not cute. This is definitely not logic. This is personal beef masquerading as counterpoint, and it is not acceptable.

Now, on your supposed point, to answer the question: To make money, as always. These supposed accusations have little to no actual bearing on the money being made, on the actual risk of the film. "Tarantino's in love with the N-word" lit up the blogosphere, did nothing. Cloud Atlas' yellow face and AE's underperformance didn't get anyone calling the Wachowskis or Sony racist. So there's no actual risk for the business. The fear you describe, if it is anything more than fans being Hollywood apologists, is not based on any actual danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
I never said YOU said that. But a lot of people did. The non-existant fire I am referring to is the (conspiracy) theory that Hollywood execs are behind every failed movie with a black lead and their motives are racist. There are a LOT of people who believe that including many who post in this very thread. So let's look at that. This theory would have us believe that the people in position to make such decisions would put millions of dollars into a project with a black lead and then deliberately sabatage it because to them it is more important to push their racist agenda, ensuring no black actors acheive any success, than to make back their money. I mean, can you really read that and say that that theory holds water?
Ah, and here is your actual point. In reality, no one here has presented this theory. You're taking the notation that race is a factor in Hollywood, a fact which is clear from observation, and responding to an absolute statement that has not been made. You seem to do this in every discussion about race we've had. Here, you pull "intentional" and "deliberate" out of nowhere and apply "racist" outside of the context it was used. No one, except trolls somewhere out there, are actually saying what you say people are saying, much less an "endless stream" which you have yet to produce in any context.

The closest example is Red Tails, thanks to Lucas' interview. He never said racist, that was just news people fueling the fire, as you are. He said "Hollywood does not want to make a big budget black action movie." This is true. He even gave an explanation. "They said: 'We don't know how to market this movie.'" This is also true. And answers the question you're dancing around, much better than "execs are afraid of racist accusations" apologist rhetoric. Marketing concerns actually vibe with what execs have said in the past, and have actual monetary implications.

Please remove insults and other trolling and baiting tactics from your future posts, or I will have to ignore you, and get this thread back on track to some topics that have something to do with what people actually say.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 06-04-2013 at 10:17 PM.
DrCosmic is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 07:18 PM   #361
MessiahDecoy123
Psychological Anarchy
 
MessiahDecoy123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,741
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by roach View Post
Lets be honest...how many people went to see Django because it was a Tarantino movie?
That argument goes both ways.

How many people avoided After Earth because of M. Night and blatant nepotism?

__________________
MR - Morlock Rule
MessiahDecoy123 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 07:35 PM   #362
outsider101487
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 82
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Apologies -- I know I'm interrupting a prior discussion, and I've not gone back through each section of these threads to see if my thought is redundant.

Simple casting suggestion to go along with Boseman as Black Panther. I'd love to see Eamonn Walker be cast as his father, T'Chaka. Can't imagine this hasn't been discussed..

outsider101487 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 09:09 PM   #363
Spider - Man
Banned User
 
Spider - Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,472
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockSP View Post
Not according to the credits he didn't. I saw this today. The hate it is getting is a headscratcher, and I'm far from being a big Will Smith fan (last movie I saw of his at the theatre was the first Men In Black). Someone on another board said they released this at the wrong time (summer "blockbuster" season) and I agree.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1815862/..._ov_wr#writers

If you want to split hairs, Smith is credited with 'story'.

Spider - Man is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 11:57 PM   #364
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by outsider101487 View Post
Apologies -- I know I'm interrupting a prior discussion, and I've not gone back through each section of these threads to see if my thought is redundant.

Simple casting suggestion to go along with Boseman as Black Panther. I'd love to see Eamonn Walker be cast as his father, T'Chaka. Can't imagine this hasn't been discussed..
That would be a really highly skilled cast. The only reason I wouldn't get Walker is if it was about getting a 'name' in order to bring people or whatever. But the quality of that interaction sounds truly awesome.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."
DrCosmic is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 04:56 AM   #365
chamber-music
Hail Hydra
 
chamber-music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25,168
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

The Blade movies were pretty successful. Plenty of people of all races liked those movies because they were entertaining. It doesn't matter that the lead was a black actor.

If Marvel make the best black panther film they can they should be fine. Cast good actors right for the role, nail the tone of the world, good characterization and market it right.

__________________
H.E
chamber-music is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 08:57 AM   #366
Spider - Man
Banned User
 
Spider - Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,472
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
For the conversation as a whole. :
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
white audiences prefer to see white characters, while black audiences want to see black characters.

Ok, is this inherently wrong? I don’t think so.

“The higher the percentage of black actors in the movie, the less interested white participants were in seeing the movie,” Weaver reports. “Importantly, this effect occurred regardless of participants’ racial attitudes or actors’ relative celebrity.”

Funny they didn’t run the same test on a group of black subjects. The above statement indicates the results would be similar but I guess that just wouldn’t help support the agenda.

The main thing that I get from the article is that white people avoid black movies because they don’t feel they are the intended audience. Why would that be? We live in a world where it seems black people, while wanting to be accepted into and have access to anything a white person would simultaneously want their own organizations and institutions that proudly proclaim they are for blacks only. We live in a world of FUBU, BET, Black actors guild, Black Caucus, etc. Imagine ANYTHING in this country that was actually labeled ‘No Blacks Allowed’ and perhaps you start to see how one-sided this inclusion/exclusion might appear to be to a white audience. So perhaps the black community, in its desire to establish itself so separate from anyone else, is inadvertently responsible for this reaction by white audiences.

If there was some other point you were hoping to make with this piece, please indicate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
False. The statement does not read: "The cause of poor films with black or female leads is Hollywood's racism." Neither does either concept absolve the black filmmaker. Red Tails' director did a weak job behind the camera. More money from studios probably would have caused them to hire a better director (and producers), resulting in a better film.
You said: “race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads”.

Here is one of the problems someone has with discussing anything with you. Let’s break down what you said. First, race – is this the race of the actor, the person making the decisions about the film, the race of the people the film is being targeted at or a combination of any or all of these? Next, causes – does this mean influences, forces, coerces, fools? And is this cause accidental, incidental or deliberate? Hollywood – is this the director, the producer, the head of the studio itself or a combination of any or all of these? Poor – is this the lack of skill of the filmmaker, the result of under-budgeting, the audience’s perception of the film or a combination of any or all of these? Applying each of these variables in all of their possible combinations leads to literally dozens of different possible meanings for your statement.

So let me try one that seems likely – Race (Will Smith being black) causes Hollywood (Shamalan) to make a poor film (after earth) with a black lead (Will Smith). Does this sentence fall in line with how you meant your statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
You still haven't gotten to the point. But coy is a better word than shy, now that you mention it.
Perhaps if you’d read the entire post before going off half-cocked…

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
First issue, "Race CAUSES Hollywood to make poor films with black leads" is simply not an absolute statement. This is simply an observation of a causal relationship. Let's compare the last five big budget action blockbusters of white leads and black leads. This will show a strong correlation, and thus confirm a causal, or possibly co-effect relationship.

- Star Trek Into Darkness - 87%
- Iron Man 3 - 78%
- Oblivion - 55%
- Oz: The Great and Powerful - 60%
- The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 66%
- After Earth - 12%
- Django Unchained - 88%
- Red Tails - 39%
- Book of Eli - 45%
- Bad Boys II - 23%

I think it's a sad state too.
Your scientific method leaves MUCH to be desired. I could just as easily use your list to say that the causal relationship shows that black actors aren’t as talented as white ones and therefore their films are perceived as more poorly made. Try again.

Here’s another one: from your article above – “nonwhite actors played major roles in only two of the 30 top-grossing films of 2010” – If I were to use your faulty scientific ideology, I could easily apply a causal relationship to this statement and say ‘well, it is clear that if I want the best chance to make my movie a success, I better not have non-white actors play major roles in it.’ Silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
This is trolling. You're using your disagreement with me, and my lack of interest in appeasing you, as though it is justification to insult me, otherwise you would not say that proving my point would cause you to retract your insults that are not related to my correctness. This is not funny. This is not cute. This is definitely not logic. This is personal beef masquerading as counterpoint, and it is not acceptable.
I crave appeasement from you as much as a sunbather seeks a fur coat. To disagree with you I would have to know you, which I don’t. I disagree with your weak insinuations. You insult yourself with faulty logic and convoluted statements. Again you have no proof to back up what you claim, just your own ‘observation’ which is far from exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
Now, on your supposed point, to answer the question: To make money, as always. These supposed accusations have little to no actual bearing on the money being made, on the actual risk of the film. "Tarantino's in love with the N-word" lit up the blogosphere, did nothing. Cloud Atlas' yellow face and AE's underperformance didn't get anyone calling the Wachowskis or Sony racist. So there's no actual risk for the business. The fear you describe, if it is anything more than fans being Hollywood apologists, is not based on any actual danger.
But race causes Hollywood to make poor films starring black actors. I’m sure you don’t think that poorly made movies making money is the rule rather than the exception. So how would you make odds anyone making a Black Panther film would think it would make money since a) they will make it poorly and b) white people (the majority of the movie-going audience) won’t want to see it?

‘Trying to make a movie poorly because the lead is black’ and ‘trying to make money’ don’t sound like complimentary statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
Ah, and here is your actual point. In reality, no one here has presented this theory. You're taking the notation that race is a factor in Hollywood
Actually I thought that was the notion YOU were taking…you know, ‘race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black leads.’
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
a fact which is clear from observation, and responding to an absolute statement that has not been made. You seem to do this in every discussion about race we've had. Here, you pull "intentional" and "sabotage" out of nowhere and apply "racist" outside of the context it was used. No one, except trolls somewhere out there, are actually saying what you say people are saying, much less an "endless stream" which you have yet to produce in any context.
‘Absolute’ might not be the best term. Maybe ‘so vague as to be capable of interpretation in so many different ways as to render it nearly meaningless without further clarification from the author’. Yeah, that’s better.

You yourself say that race causes Hollywood to make these films poorly. Again I ask, what sense does it make to infer that someone who, according to you, wants to make a film to make money, would make that film ‘poorly’ just because there is a black lead.

Let’s go back and look at your statement once more - “race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads”. Again, as you’ve left it so open to interpretation, it could be read with this meaning – Race (actor being black) causes (motivates) Hollywood (racist white exec) to make poor (intentionally sabotage) films with black or female leads. So with you being so ambiguous about the exact position you take behind that statement, something you do in every discussion we have about race, it could easily read as I just interpreted. So I didn’t just pull the terms ‘intentional’ and ‘sabotage’ and 'racist' out of nowhere.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/why-did-red-tails-fail-to-soar-at-the-box-office

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
The closest example is Red Tails, thanks to Lucas' interview. He never said racist, that was just news people fueling the fire, as you are. He said "Hollywood does not want to make a big budget black action movie." This is true. He even gave an explanation. "They said: 'We don't know how to market this movie.'" This is also true. And answers the question you're dancing around, much better than "execs are afraid of racist accusations" apologist rhetoric. Marketing concerns actually vibe with what execs have said in the past, and have actual monetary implications.
After Earth would render this statement false. And are you saying that this statement - 'We don't know how to market this movie’ – applies to any big budget black movie? And lastly, you still never explained (big surprise) how a black writer is ‘incapable’ of writing black characters.

So let’s try interpreting your statement again and see if this is closer to your intended meaning – Race (actor being black) causes (due to filmmaker being incapable of writing for and not knowing how to market) Hollywood (writer, director, producer, studio) to make a poor film with said black actor. If this is the case, and Hollywood knows this is the case, if they KNOW they are incapable of writing black characters and KNOW they don’t know how to market a big-budget film with a black lead, WHY would they even TRY to make a Black Panther film?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
Please remove insults and other trolling and baiting tactics from your future posts, or I will have to ignore you, and get this thread back on track to some topics that have something to do with what people actually say.
Please be more clear about the meanings of your statements and perhaps you won’t leave yourself so open to ridicule and misinterpretation (if that is in fact the case). In the absence of you doing this, perhaps it would save you future embarrassment if you did cease your efforts in this debate.


Last edited by Spider - Man; 06-05-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Spider - Man is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 12:31 PM   #367
metaphysician
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,853
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Honestly, while there is a *lot* of racism in Hollywood, I think part of the "white" audience aversion to all-black cast movies is legitimate. Its the Tyler Perry Effect, as I tend to think of it: "all black cast movies are always cultural comedies and other narrow fair." So the white audience sees an all-black cast, and assumes its something of zero interest.

metaphysician is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 12:33 PM   #368
Paradox1
Side-Kick
 
Paradox1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fl
Posts: 4,495
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
white audiences prefer to see white characters, while black audiences want to see black characters.

Ok, is this inherently wrong? I don’t think so.

“The higher the percentage of black actors in the movie, the less interested white participants were in seeing the movie,” Weaver reports. “Importantly, this effect occurred regardless of participants’ racial attitudes or actors’ relative celebrity.”

Funny they didn’t run the same test on a group of black subjects. The above statement indicates the results would be similar but I guess that just wouldn’t help support the agenda.

The main thing that I get from the article is that white people avoid black movies because they don’t feel they are the intended audience. Why would that be? We live in a world where it seems black people, while wanting to be accepted into and have access to anything a white person would simultaneously want their own organizations and institutions that proudly proclaim they are for blacks only. We live in a world of FUBU, BET, Black actors guild, Black Caucus, etc. Imagine ANYTHING in this country that was actually labeled ‘No Blacks Allowed’ and perhaps you start to see how one-sided this inclusion/exclusion might appear to be to a white audience. So perhaps the black community, in its desire to establish itself so separate from anyone else, is inadvertently responsible for this reaction by white audiences.

If there was some other point you were hoping to make with this piece, please indicate it.

You said: “race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads”.

Here is one of the problems someone has with discussing anything with you. Let’s break down what you said. First, race – is this the race of the actor, the person making the decisions about the film, the race of the people the film is being targeted at or a combination of any or all of these? Next, causes – does this mean influences, forces, coerces, fools? And is this cause accidental, incidental or deliberate? Hollywood – is this the director, the producer, the head of the studio itself or a combination of any or all of these? Poor – is this the lack of skill of the filmmaker, the result of under-budgeting, the audience’s perception of the film or a combination of any or all of these? Applying each of these variables in all of their possible combinations leads to literally dozens of different possible meanings for your statement.

So let me try one that seems likely – Race (Will Smith being black) causes Hollywood (Shamalan) to make a poor film (after earth) with a black lead (Will Smith). Does this sentence fall in line with how you meant your statement?



Perhaps if you’d read the entire post before going off half-cocked…


Your scientific method leaves MUCH to be desired. I could just as easily use your list to say that the causal relationship shows that black actors aren’t as talented as white ones and therefore their films are perceived as more poorly made. Try again.

Here’s another one: from your article above – “nonwhite actors played major roles in only two of the 30 top-grossing films of 2010” – If I were to use your faulty scientific ideology, I could easily apply a causal relationship to this statement and say ‘well, it is clear that if I want the best chance to make my movie a success, I better not have non-white actors play major roles in it.’ Silly.

I crave appeasement from you as much as a sunbather seeks a fur coat. To disagree with you I would have to know you, which I don’t. I disagree with your weak insinuations. You insult yourself with faulty logic and convoluted statements. Again you have no proof to back up what you claim, just your own ‘observation’ which is far from exclusive.


But race causes Hollywood to make poor films starring black actors. I’m sure you don’t think that poorly made movies making money is the rule rather than the exception. So how would you make odds anyone making a Black Panther film would think it would make money since a) they will make it poorly and b) white people (the majority of the movie-going audience) won’t want to see it?

‘Trying to make a movie poorly because the lead is black’ and ‘trying to make money’ don’t sound like complimentary statements.

Actually I thought that was the notion YOU were taking…you know, ‘race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black leads.’

‘Absolute’ might not be the best term. Maybe ‘so vague as to be capable of interpretation in so many different ways as to render it nearly meaningless without further clarification from the author’. Yeah, that’s better.

You yourself say that race causes Hollywood to make these films poorly. Again I ask, what sense does it make to infer that someone who, according to you, wants to make a film to make money, would make that film ‘poorly’ just because there is a black lead.

Let’s go back and look at your statement once more - “race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads”. Again, as you’ve left it so open to interpretation, it could be read with this meaning – Race (actor being black) causes (motivates) Hollywood (racist white exec) to make poor (intentionally sabotage) films with black or female leads. So with you being so ambiguous about the exact position you take behind that statement, something you do in every discussion we have about race, it could easily read as I just interpreted. So I didn’t just pull the terms ‘intentional’ and ‘sabotage’ and 'racist' out of nowhere.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/shadowandact/why-did-red-tails-fail-to-soar-at-the-box-office


After Earth would render this statement false. And are you saying that this statement - 'We don't know how to market this movie’ – applies to any big budget black movie? And lastly, you still never explained (big surprise) how a black writer is ‘incapable’ of writing black characters.

So let’s try interpreting your statement again and see if this is closer to your intended meaning – Race (actor being black) causes (due to filmmaker being incapable of writing for and not knowing how to market) Hollywood (writer, director, producer, studio) to make a poor film with said black actor. If this is the case, and Hollywood knows this is the case, if they KNOW they are incapable of writing black characters and KNOW they don’t know how to market a big-budget film with a black lead, WHY would they even TRY to make a Black Panther film?

Please be more clear about the meanings of your statements and perhaps you won’t leave yourself so open to ridicule and misinterpretation (if that is in fact the case). In the absence of you doing this, perhaps it would save you future embarrassment if you did cease your efforts in this debate.

I've kept myself out of your discussion but the point you've made in the above highlighted portions reeks of insensitivity. Four hundred years of slavery wasn't something made up,being of a different race,sex,culture or sexual orientation actually got many people killed, persecuted,victimized and treated like second class citizens. I had to mention sexual orientation among the others because it just not blacks, who have their own channels, own political groups, and style of clothing. I have heard similar arguments from white men in real life and what I would suspect to be white men over the net. These kinda statements show an absolutely cluelessness and lack of empathy for the feelings and struggles of minority groups, If minorities don't speak for themselves how will speak for them? That doesn't sound like it would be you because a lack of their exclusion from Hollywood productions is not indicative of their prior struggles. Which I find funny because Ramon Estevez wouldn't have had to go by a different name early on in career if being the son of immigrants wasn't a problem. Bruce Lee wouldn't have had to go to China to become a star if those racial stigmas didn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphysician View Post
Honestly, while there is a *lot* of racism in Hollywood, I think part of the "white" audience aversion to all-black cast movies is legitimate. Its the Tyler Perry Effect, as I tend to think of it: "all black cast movies are always cultural comedies and other narrow fair." So the white audience sees an all-black cast, and assumes its something of zero interest.
That is a misconception about Tyler Perry productions it has many times but women of all races enjoy it. I knew white women who would cut your throat if you talked bad about Tyler Perry.

__________________
"Wars are never won, regardless of who might be the victor. The very act of war is itself a horrible defeat." Guardian of the Universe "Battleground: Oa!" Green Lantern, 1st Silver Age series, #127, Denny O'Neil)

Last edited by Paradox1; 06-05-2013 at 12:37 PM.
Paradox1 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 12:39 PM   #369
roach
I am the night
 
roach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Under your Refrigerator
Posts: 39,613
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

And FUBU....?
No one wears Fubu anymore

__________________
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding in todayís protest-hungry world of entertainment fans into how far their opinion should really matter. You donít like a story? Thatís fine Ė donít read a story. Former Marvel editor Tom Brennan
roach is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 12:39 PM   #370
Spider - Man
Banned User
 
Spider - Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,472
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarKush View Post
Please forgive the font.
font's fine!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarKush View Post


1. Part of the willingness of an audience to accept a film-even if it gets bad reviews-is tied to whether it is part of a sequel or franchise that has engendered some goodwill. It is very hard to do something new. Look at the Transformers films for example. They weren’t well reviewed, but they got monster fans. The Tyler Perry films are another example. Rarely do they get good reviews but they have established an audience. So having a reputation or brand can help even inoculate a film against bad reviews. After Earth didn’t have that to fall back on, but a Black Panther film might have the Avengers to fall back on or the good track record of Marvel comic book films to help sell it to audiences.





I'd argue that Will Smith himself is one of the biggest brands in Hollywood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarKush View Post
2. Well all the criticism that you have read (glad you qualified that) has missed all of the comments and critiques, including from the Wall Street Journal, that talk about possible Scientology overtones. Further the drum beat of nepotism is also out there. If you keep reading comments and critiques I think you'll find it. There is criticism about the story, writing, acting, and directing, but there is also a lot of allegations of hidden Scientology teaching and nepotism.



I have seen those but the actual critic reviews seem to focus more on the quality/lack thereof of the acting, writing, et al as opposed to the Scientology. Any remarks on nepotism are made only as regards the result (Jaden not being good enough for the part) and not on the act itself (i.e.: nepitism is ok IF the beneficiary is adequate to the task).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarKush View Post
3. There is a history of racism in Hollywood and there is a history of white audiences being averse to films with black leads. Captain America and Thor-both better known than Panther and now form parts of the Avengers juggernaut feature whites, were made by whites, and generally are meant to appeal to a ‘mass’ (i.e. white) audience. So I don’t see how their relative success or failure would be due to skin color in a country that is still majority white and in a Hollywood system that is still majority white. It’s a different ballgame with a black film and you know that. Obviously you make a connection between Red Tails and After Earth based solely on race, and whether their poor performances will impact a Panther film. Now the main thing between all of these films is that a black person would be the lead. But when you look a film like Captain America and Thor, with white leads, their failures are not likely going to be seen as due to skin color where if Black Panther the movie fails, skin color will be a factor that should be considered due to the real history of racism in this country. I don’t think ‘comments like these’ are made cavalierly and they acknowledge that films with white leads don’t have the same burdens as films with black leads. And regarding comic book movies, if you want to protest that, list me how many comic book films with black leads have been released in the last five years? Or the year following?



You can see my response to cosmic about alleged white audience reluctance to watch movies with black cast.

So again, if Disney knows this as a fact - if Black Panther the movie fails, skin color will be a factor that should be considered due to the real history of racism in this country - don't you think Disney would rather say 'Screw it, let's focus on something less potentially volatile.'?

Spider - Man is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:24 PM   #371
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 6,344
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider - Man View Post
white audiences prefer to see white characters, while black audiences want to see black characters.

Ok, is this inherently wrong? I don’t think so.

“The higher the percentage of black actors in the movie, the less interested white participants were in seeing the movie,” Weaver reports. “Importantly, this effect occurred regardless of participants’ racial attitudes or actors’ relative celebrity.”

Funny they didn’t run the same test on a group of black subjects. The above statement indicates the results would be similar but I guess that just wouldn’t help support the agenda.

The main thing that I get from the article is that white people avoid black movies because they don’t feel they are the intended audience. Why would that be? We live in a world where it seems black people, while wanting to be accepted into and have access to anything a white person would simultaneously want their own organizations and institutions that proudly proclaim they are for blacks only. We live in a world of FUBU, BET, Black actors guild, Black Caucus, etc. Imagine ANYTHING in this country that was actually labeled ‘No Blacks Allowed’ and perhaps you start to see how one-sided this inclusion/exclusion might appear to be to a white audience. So perhaps the black community, in its desire to establish itself so separate from anyone else, is inadvertently responsible for this reaction by white audiences.

If there was some other point you were hoping to make with this piece, please indicate it.
It was simply to add perspective and subtext to the discussion. On the points you contributed, black people as whole have never sought to establish themselves as separate, they simply have made the most of being separated, and if anything, tried to integrate. Saying the black community is responsible for being separate is pretty preposterous in the face of American History. Especially since many things blacks have established have been shared by the rest of America, from Blues to the Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Quote:
You said: “race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads”.

Here is one of the problems someone has with discussing anything with you. Let’s break down what you said. First, race – is this the race of the actor, the person making the decisions about the film, the race of the people the film is being targeted at or a combination of any or all of these? Next, causes – does this mean influences, forces, coerces, fools? And is this cause accidental, incidental or deliberate? Hollywood – is this the director, the producer, the head of the studio itself or a combination of any or all of these? Poor – is this the lack of skill of the filmmaker, the result of under-budgeting, the audience’s perception of the film or a combination of any or all of these? Applying each of these variables in all of their possible combinations leads to literally dozens of different possible meanings for your statement.
Exactly. That suggests that sometimes one thing happens, sometimes another, sometimes none of these things happen. There are dozens of ways for race, and perception thereof, to lead to a poor film.

Quote:
So let me try one that seems likely – Race (Will Smith being black) causes Hollywood (Shamalan) to make a poor film (after earth) with a black lead (Will Smith). Does this sentence fall in line with how you meant your statement?
It falls in line, yes, but it's not what I was saying. It happens not to be true as well. I'm not entirely sure what role race played in AE, if any.

Quote:
Perhaps if you’d read the entire post before going off half-cocked…
I read your entire post to me, I had to read your reply to someone else to get your point.

Quote:
Your scientific method leaves MUCH to be desired. I could just as easily use your list to say that the causal relationship shows that black actors aren’t as talented as white ones and therefore their films are perceived as more poorly made. Try again.

Here’s another one: from your article above – “nonwhite actors played major roles in only two of the 30 top-grossing films of 2010” – If I were to use your faulty scientific ideology, I could easily apply a causal relationship to this statement and say ‘well, it is clear that if I want the best chance to make my movie a success, I better not have non-white actors play major roles in it.’ Silly.
That does seem to be the logic that movie execs use, incidentally. But no, you again have omitted the note about co-effect relationships, which would apply to the example you gave, but not to the one I gave.

Quote:
I crave appeasement from you as much as a sunbather seeks a fur coat. To disagree with you I would have to know you, which I don’t. I disagree with your weak insinuations. You insult yourself with faulty logic and convoluted statements. Again you have no proof to back up what you claim, just your own ‘observation’ which is far from exclusive.
My statements and logic are just fine. Just because you assume a statement is absolute and general does not make it convoluted, you just are not able to read it properly for some reason. Just because you omit part of my statement and then apply that part of my logic to a separate case, doesn't make my logic faulty.

Quote:
But race causes Hollywood to make poor films starring black actors. I’m sure you don’t think that poorly made movies making money is the rule rather than the exception. So how would you make odds anyone making a Black Panther film would think it would make money since a) they will make it poorly and b) white people (the majority of the movie-going audience) won’t want to see it?

‘Trying to make a movie poorly because the lead is black’ and ‘trying to make money’ don’t sound like complimentary statements.
You're still making an absolute statement out of cause. "Radiation causes cancer." Is true. But you can't turn around and say "If you get radiation, you *will* get cancer."

There's no 'odds of anyone' there are specific people making such a decision. They've expressed their concern, which is one of perception, closely related to marketing. Once they overcome that, which they can, and Disney has in the past with Princess and the Frog and stuff, the movie will get made and both of those issues will be just as relevant as they were for Django Unchained.

Quote:
‘Absolute’ might not be the best term. Maybe ‘so vague as to be capable of interpretation in so many different ways as to render it nearly meaningless without further clarification from the author’. Yeah, that’s better.

You yourself say that race causes Hollywood to make these films poorly. Again I ask, what sense does it make to infer that someone who, according to you, wants to make a film to make money, would make that film ‘poorly’ just because there is a black lead.

Let’s go back and look at your statement once more - “race causes Hollywood to make poor films with black or female leads”. Again, as you’ve left it so open to interpretation, it could be read with this meaning – Race (actor being black) causes (motivates) Hollywood (racist white exec) to make poor (intentionally sabotage) films with black or female leads. So with you being so ambiguous about the exact position you take behind that statement, something you do in every discussion we have about race, it could easily read as I just interpreted. So I didn’t just pull the terms ‘intentional’ and ‘sabotage’ and 'racist' out of nowhere.
Yes, you did pull them out of nowhere. You, and you alone, have stated that this statement has to be absolute, that it has to describe a specific chain of cause and effect instead of a large group of similar chains, as intended and elaborated upon by me. That is entirely of your work, and stands in contrast to the statements I've given. A responsible reading might be inclined to ask for examples (I have actually given a couple already), but taking your perception of "race," "cause," and "make" and saying that *I* said them is poor communication. If you believe non-specific statements are meaningless - that's fine, don't bother responding then.

Good article.

Quote:
After Earth would render this statement false. And are you saying that this statement - 'We don't know how to market this movie’ – applies to any big budget black movie? And lastly, you still never explained (big surprise) how a black writer is ‘incapable’ of writing black characters.
You never asked. You said it was sad. I agreed. I'll see if I can find such a statement on record, and edit it in here.

But you're right, perhaps Lucas was wrong, there are parts of Hollywood, obviously, that want to make a big budget black movie... clearly the parts he was talking to did not. Unless he's a bold faced liar, and that's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

Quote:
So let’s try interpreting your statement again and see if this is closer to your intended meaning – Race (actor being black) causes (due to filmmaker being incapable of writing for and not knowing how to market) Hollywood (writer, director, producer, studio) to make a poor film with said black actor. If this is the case, and Hollywood knows this is the case, if they KNOW they are incapable of writing black characters and KNOW they don’t know how to market a big-budget film with a black lead, WHY would they even TRY to make a Black Panther film?

Please be more clear about the meanings of your statements and perhaps you won’t leave yourself so open to ridicule and misinterpretation (if that is in fact the case). In the absence of you doing this, perhaps it would save you future embarrassment if you did cease your efforts in this debate.
It sounds like my efforts are slowly paying off, and you are starting to take my general statement as just that, as well as speak respectfully. I don't fear embarrassment, but I genuinely fear having to deal with people who mentally edit my statements and then make arguments against things that have not been said, especially when they use their edited version of my statements to draw conclusions about me. Facing that fear with you is something I am proud of.

On your variables, the race of the director or maybe even other parts of the cast and crew, or perhaps even just the subject matter, could play a role as well. The causes could include poor script, limited director power, decreased funding, increased executive meddling, stuff I haven't thought of, or indirectly put a filmmaker in a position to be legitimately exposed to any of these things.

The penultimate piece is removing the idea of 1 to 1 correlation. A strong correlation does not suggest "incapability," quite the opposite, in fact. The fact that, from behind the scenes, with a specific case study, the cause and effect can be crystal clear, and overcome, as it was with Django, for instance. And that was an R rated movie with a lot of negative press behind it, and it still topped all of Tarantino's other films. So that prize is something worth striving for. The potential reward matches the risk, especially since the risks can be controlled. See, the question of why they would want to make the film is pretty much moot... they've expressed that want to make the film, the challenge is overcoming those obstacles that usually result in bad films. In Marvel's case, they've said they are waiting for a great filmmaker with a strong vision to come to them with something fresh and exciting and unlike what they've done before.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 06-05-2013 at 02:58 PM.
DrCosmic is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:30 PM   #372
Destructus86
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,906
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

I'll admit...A Black Panther movie may not do as well as the other hero films due to the main character being black...specifically in the south.

__________________
Religion should not be taught in school.
Destructus86 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:38 PM   #373
terry78
Heads up, heathen monkeys
 
terry78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 61,606
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

...of France?

__________________
The only thing funnier than watching stupid people argue is watching smart people argue.
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."
terry78 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:41 PM   #374
Destructus86
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,906
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry78 View Post
...of France?
:P
You know which South.

__________________
Religion should not be taught in school.
Destructus86 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:58 PM   #375
tdeverea
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 365
Default Re: EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Destructus86 View Post
:P
You know which South.
Well i'm in Houston and I'm going 5 times at least...

when it hits screens...

tdeverea is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.