Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?

[RockSP]

You really didn't get anything I said. And having a non-diverse cast is different from a movie about the experience of that race. Anyone knows that.

So why is this movie about race? Because you say it is? And I'm not even defending Perry in particular becasue I don't like his movies but he does have just as much right as any other filmmaker to make movies with whatever race of people he chooses.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

So why is this movie about race? Because you say it is? And I'm not even defending Perry in particular becasue I don't like his movies but he does have just as much right as any other filmmaker to make movies with whatever race of people he chooses.

Again, you didn't understand anything I said. Are you doing this intentionally? I never said THIS movie was about race, I said that he has done movies where race is an issue.

Q. Do you think the black experience in America has changed in your lifetime?

Tyler Perry: Absolutely. I think we have gotten away from who we are as a people and the richness of our heritage and our culture. That is what's so great about "House of Payne" and Madea and the things I do because I have so many people listening and watching. I think it's an opportunity for me to speak to this generation changing and getting away from the power of who we are as a people.

And I never said he didn't have a right. Seriously, quit injecting things into what I said.

 

[gkokujin]

You really didn't get anything I said. And having a non-diverse cast is different from a movie about the experience of that race. Anyone knows that. First, it's spelled "America". Try it, it isn't hard to do.

Secondly, apparently I am talking about because I am on this thread.

Third, my race has NOTHING to do with my status. Don't act like you know me because you don't. I've been living on my own since I was before 20, never took any money from anyone, always paid my bills, and take full responsibility for my own actions. Yes, I was raised pretty well, but I grew up in a middle class household that sometimes dipped into poor status. What I've done with my life is no different than what anyone can do, and anyone that says otherwise is making excuses and/or feeling sorry for themselves. In fact, I could have done more but I tend to be lazy and not think about the future as well as I should.

It's funny because gkokujin applauded a post that encouraged color blindness yet he has "angry black man" in his profile.

Don't be so foolish.

I added that to my status because white people constantly say "Look like the angry black guy" type.

Yes, they SAY That to me...and then wonder why I stare at them.

I don't know your status, but regardless you sound like youre attributing "taking money from someone, paying bills late, and not taking full responsibility for their actions" to another race like mine

You tread upon racist ice my e-associate.
You sound the type that it would take one bad incident for you to hate an entire race.

Yeah I'm VOCALLY an angry black guy. But not once did you ask me WHY i was angry. You apparently just assumed it was "angry at white people" and TRUST ME, currently white folks are the least of my worries.




eta: wait...please don't tell me you were born and reared in the Carolinas....

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I don't know your status, but regardless you sound like youre attributing "taking money from someone, paying bills late, and not taking full responsibility for their actions" to another race like mine

You sound like you want it to sound that way. Nope, Mr Paranoia, I am simply listing what I consider to be responsibilities in life. If you have an issue with it, it probably stems from the fact that you want to take issue with it so you can have your chance to vent and cry racism. Either that or you really do have opportunities in those areas and are angry about it.

You tread upon racist ice my e-associate.
You sound the type that it would take one bad incident for you to hate an entire race.

I am surprised it took you so long to call me that. Too bad you don't even know the meaning of the word. I haven't said one thing to make me racist. I am not PC, I gladly admit, but I am not a racist either. All you're doing is responding emotionally; you aren't providing any kind of argument or point or anything.

All I've done here is list what I perceive to be cultural differences between the races, and I have made it CLEAR that I was not forming an opinion on the differences or which is better or worse. Of course you missed that. People like you are the reasons for the racial strife in this country. There can be no frank and non-PC communication between the races, because someone always brings the house of cards down by crying racism, when these people have no understanding of the word.

Yeah I'm VOCALLY an angry black guy. But not once did you ask me WHY i was angry. You apparently just assumed it was "angry at white people" and TRUST ME, currently white folks are the least of my worries.

Yeah, you've been responding to the white people in this thread harshly for their own opinion of Tyler Perry and attributing it to racism, so why in the world would I think that? And then you nearly call me a racist as well.

eta: wait...please don't tell me you were born and reared in the Carolinas....

Who's the prejudice one now? And all you have to do is like at my location to get that info. Yeah, you're a smart one

 

[Matt]

Just for the SolidSnake, this is why Perry can put his name infront of everything he does

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2401&p=.htm

Like it or not, the guy has carved out an audience and is a brand name to them that sells movies. That is why his name goes in front of everything he does.

 

[DarKush]

I saw the film last week. I didn't think it was bad. Perry's skills as a filmmaker have improved.

I don't get these charges of reverse-racism concerning Perry's films. I think he is trying to service a very underserved market-i.e. African American filmgoers-who are tired of the limited roles set aside for them in white Hollywood.

Are his movies perfect? No. Does he sometimes resort to stereotyping or simplistic characters and solutions? Yes. Can he be heavy-handed or hamfisted with the messages he's trying to convey? Yes.

However, at least he has a message. At least his movies are more than product advertisements, dance movies, or 'urban=gangsta/gangsta rap' films. His films also move beyond the tired, dated 'struggle' sports films.

I don't think his films are anymore 'racist' than the Bollywood films, French films, Asian films, or many others. He's showing America and the world a side of the African American experience not often seen, unless its covered in 'social pathology' or rap music.

And I bet the vast majority of people who are complaining about the lack of white people in his film don't bat an eye at the almost total absence of blacks in the vast majority of films with large white casts, in movies or TV. Nor do they mind when blacks are cast in the same type of roles-the sassy black woman (Wanda Sykes), the kindly mentor (Morgan Freeman), the colorless, sexless black man or woman (too many actors to count), the black best friend, the black comic relief, the black criminal, the black stripper/****e, etc., etc. Maybe black people would like to see themselves as stars for a change, and not merely exist on the periphery of white films, their sole existence to comfort, amuse, or antagonize the main white characters.

So, I suggest that maybe people actually watch Perry's films or his plays, which I think have been better for the most part, and try to understand where the man is coming from before they summarily judge him. I think he has a message, one of affirmation and celebration for African-Americans, and to some extent all people. I believe that movies featuring African-Americans are not by nature exclusionary. Because black people are human beings, and their experience might be different, but the same universal themes are there that exist in white films, Asian, etc.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Just for the SolidSnake, this is why Perry can put his name infront of everything he does

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2401&p=.htm

Like it or not, the guy has carved out an audience and is a brand name to them that sells movies. That is why his name goes in front of everything he does.

Ok, why doesn't Spielberg, Lucas, or plenty of other filmmakers that have done infinitely more than Perry get similiar treatment? Even though I think a good filmmaker should get his credit, whether it belong before a movie's title or not, Perry's name appears too many times. I think its self-obsession and egomania on his part. My argument isn't where his name appears, its the number of times it appears.

 

[DarKush]

Ok, why doesn't Spielberg, Lucas, or plenty of other filmmakers that have done infinitely more than Perry get similiar treatment? Even though I think a good filmmaker should get his credit, whether it belong before a movie's title or not, Perry's name appears too many times. I think its self-obsession and egomania on his part. My argument isn't where his name appears, its the number of times it appears.

Could it be self-obssession or egomania? Maybe, I don't know the guy. However, I don't think that's the case. Tyler Perry's name is like a brand, or is becoming one. It's the same as saying "Bram Stoker's Dracula" or "Stephen King's whatever...", it's a short hand way to some extent of telling you what to expect and of alerting your core audience.

Is having Lucasfilm before each Star Wars movie egomania as well? Or even naming a company Lucasfilm?

 

[Mr. Socko]

White is the default color in this country, it means more $$$. Black movies don't make nearly as much as white ones, if Perry was smart he'd start making movies about white people if he wanted more money. Tim Story sold out and see how much more $$$ it got him, even though he sucks.

 

[RockSP]

White is the default color in this country, it means more $$$. Black movies don't make nearly as much as white ones, if Perry was smart he'd start making movies about white people if he wanted more money. Tim Story sold out and see how much more $$$ it got him, even though he sucks.

I hope you were joking/being sarcastic. Any person of any race can make a film about whatever they like.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I hope you were joking/being sarcastic. Any person of any race can make a film about whatever they like.

Yeah, I was only kidding. I'd rather his crappy Fantastic 4 movies than his crappy Taxi movies

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Could it be self-obssession or egomania? Maybe, I don't know the guy. However, I don't think that's the case. Tyler Perry's name is like a brand, or is becoming one. It's the same as saying "Bram Stoker's Dracula" or "Stephen King's whatever...", it's a short hand way to some extent of telling you what to expect and of alerting your core audience.

Is having Lucasfilm before each Star Wars movie egomania as well? Or even naming a company Lucasfilm?

Well, again, I am not talking about a harmless little pretitle billing thing, because plenty of filmmakers have that, although most have earned it so to speak whereas Perry hasn't really been around long enough IMO to have one so huge over his titles, like some novel cover.

Just this movie for example, Perry gives himself top billing and of course his name appears many many times in the credits. Its overkill. In his interviews, he comes across as being someone who thinks very highly of himself, and that his work is godly or something. From what I've seen, the guy isn't very creative. He's a much much smaller scale of Woody Allen, yet builds, presents, and advertises himself as much more.

As far as George Lucas, we all know how self-centered he is. Being surrounded by 'yes men' his whole life helped contribute that. But whether or not someone thinks he's earned it, its hard to dispute his contribution to culture, movies, marketing, movie tech, etc. Tyler Perry hasn't come nowhere close to being 1/100000 of what Lucas has done, so its not right to really compare the two. I do think naming a company after yourself reeks of self-love, just as musical artists that have bands named after themselves or rappers that advertise themselves solely as the artist, as opposed to the groups that produce their music.

 

[terry78]

Money is valued more than talent in the world. Honestly. If your movies make millions, even if you don't view them as well done, that's what will earn you the rights in Hollywood, not how "good" you are.

 

[DarKush]

Well, again, I am not talking about a harmless little pretitle billing thing, because plenty of filmmakers have that, although most have earned it so to speak whereas Perry hasn't really been around long enough IMO to have one so huge over his titles, like some novel cover.

Just this movie for example, Perry gives himself top billing and of course his name appears many many times in the credits. Its overkill. In his interviews, he comes across as being someone who thinks very highly of himself, and that his work is godly or something. From what I've seen, the guy isn't very creative. He's a much much smaller scale of Woody Allen, yet builds, presents, and advertises himself as much more.

As far as George Lucas, we all know how self-centered he is. Being surrounded by 'yes men' his whole life helped contribute that. But whether or not someone thinks he's earned it, its hard to dispute his contribution to culture, movies, marketing, movie tech, etc. Tyler Perry hasn't come nowhere close to being 1/100000 of what Lucas has done, so its not right to really compare the two. I do think naming a company after yourself reeks of self-love, just as musical artists that have bands named after themselves or rappers that advertise themselves solely as the artist, as opposed to the groups that produce their music.

Your beef with Tyler Perry seems to be mainly based on personal opinion and not anything factual. Who are you to say Perry doesn't deserve to put his name in the title of his works, he wrote/directed them. And his name is in the credits a lot probably because of his level of involvement with his films. Which might make him a control freak or micromanager, but hardly a villian or bad person.

Perry spent years building and cultivating his fanbase with his stage plays, so he has paid some dues. And he's been pretty smart in terms of getting a good return on his films. That's why Hollywood is backing him. Creativity has little to do with it, the same as in most films.

What's not right about comparing Perry and Lucas? Both are writers and directors? Lucas has a vast empire that very few directors can match period, but that doesn't make him above criticism or comparison. Perry has done a remarkable thing and built a surely multi-million dollar empire of his own, so I don't think the two are in completely different worlds, or that Perry is so beneath Lucas as you seem to imply.

 

[terry78]

I think if this was some comic book writer/director who decided to put his name on everything that fanboys loved, you wouldn't hear a peep about it. Perry has been in the business for a LONG time, and has a devoted following. You never heard about him, but millions of others have.

 

[GL1]

I think if this was some comic book writer/director who decided to put his name on everything that fanboys loved, you wouldn't hear a peep about it. Perry has been in the business for a LONG time, and has a devoted following. You never heard about him, but millions of others have.

That's what I'm thinking. For someone to conclude that branding=ego takes either a great deal of ignorance or at least a little bit of previous/independent enmity.

Spielberg and other uber-directors don't brand their names on the titles of the movies, but their name is all over all the advertising for it, so it doesn't really matter.