Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T

Oh boy, commentary from Meth on Zoolander Transphobia and Tropic Thunder blackface….please don’t get him started.
 
IATT said:
Kelly said. "Jesus was a white man, too. It's like we have, he's a historical figure that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that.”
Click to expand...
😂 OKAY WHAT? She said what? Is that a direct quote? Verbatim? Man what the hell…..
 
IATT said:
Kelly said. "Jesus was a white man, too. It's like we have, he's a historical figure that's a verifiable fact, as is Santa, I just want kids to know that.”
Click to expand...
pleaseberealpleaseberealpleasebereal

-foe
 
Methodical Management said:
Those who watched the film are better qualified to critique it. All I said was if you @ me thinking I’m going to help you defend the RDJ blackface movie, you picked the wrong one.
Click to expand...
Wait you havent watched Tropic Thunder? I tagged you in jest because darthska darthska said "unpopular opinion" but I figured youd seen the film. If you havent seen it, I do suggest taking the time. If you have seen it and still dont find it funny, no argument since I'm not going to tell you what you should laugh at. Personally I felt like the writers satirized Hollywood and the ignorance flowing throughout it. Not just with RDJ's character but just about every single one of the characters, down to the producers and directors lack of empathy/cultural awareness of literally anyone that's not themselves.
 
Mark Antony said:
No way is Napoleon Dynamite as funny as it's fans act.
Click to expand...
It is though.
**** will have my sides hurting no matter what mood I’m in when I start watching.
Uncle Rico hitting Napoleon in the face with that steak.
Pedro telling Napoleon that he has to draw that girl a picture to impress her while Napoleon just wants to show her his Nunchuck skills.
I can’t wipe this grin off my face just thinking about it….
 
darthska darthska is a good dude, but he gets a little to invested in declaring the things he doesn’t like to be “trash” or “overrated”. It’s OK to just not like something other people do. You don’t have to convince those others they’re wrong.
 
lawdog1 said:
darthska darthska is a good dude, but he gets a little to invested in declaring the things he doesn’t like to be “trash” or “overrated”. It’s OK to just not like something other people do. You don’t have to convince those others they’re wrong.
Click to expand...
Where exactly did I try to convince anyone of anything?

If you're going to speak on my intentions, make sure you're right about them.

'Not for me' is no different than 'Big trash' is no different than 'Worst movie ever.' No attempt to proselytize, implicit or explicit.

'You're wrong. It's big trash' is the same as 'I wish more people would see how terrible this movie is.' Clearly trying to alter the opinion of others.

It's ok for a sensationalist opinion to just be an opinion. You don't have to interpret the sensationalism as more than that individual's opinion.

-foe
 
Bombshell was good.
How crazy that the Women got paid 50million while Bill Oreilly and Ailes leave with 65million in severance.
FOX got off cheap.
 
darthska said:
Where exactly did I try to convince anyone of anything?

If you're going to speak on my intentions, make sure you're right about them.

'Not for me' is no different than 'Big trash' is no different than 'Worst movie ever.' No attempt to proselytize, implicit or explicit.

'You're wrong. It's big trash' is the same as 'I wish more people would see how terrible this movie is.' Clearly trying to alter the opinion of others.

It's ok for a sensationalist opinion to just be an opinion. You don't have to interpret the sensationalism as more than that individual's opinion.

-foe
Click to expand...

If you say so. Seems curious to me that one would chose the words “big trash” just to say “I personally don’t care for it“ if that person wasn’t trying to say more than that. And do it more than once about the same movie, for example. But I’ll take your word for it.
 
danger style said:
This is why I only @ darthska darthska out of the moderation team in here
Click to expand...
How lucky for him. I just hope you don't expect ska to help you in a few months when you begin to regret throwing away your one-time name change in honor of a since-banned user who didn't even seem to notice.

noskey said:
Wait you havent watched Tropic Thunder? I tagged you in jest because darthska darthska said "unpopular opinion" but I figured youd seen the film. If you havent seen it, I do suggest taking the time. If you have seen it and still dont find it funny, no argument since I'm not going to tell you what you should laugh at. Personally I felt like the writers satirized Hollywood and the ignorance flowing throughout it. Not just with RDJ's character but just about every single one of the characters, down to the producers and directors lack of empathy/cultural awareness of literally anyone that's not themselves.
Click to expand...
Hollywood casting is absolutely ripe for satire, though these writers appear guilty of that themselves with respect to other roles (e.g. Zoolander 2.)

Although I have not seen either film, I will say that I'm not at all impressed by their response to the ensuing controversies. Instead of apologizing to impacted viewers for any offense and making a sincere effort to understand the criticism, they chose instead to say, "sorry you didn't get the joke."

The emphasis on intent over effect is telling.


We can agree that the opportunity exists for righteous mockery of casting choices like those made in Ridley Scott's "Exodus, Gods & Kings." I do, however, question if effectively replicating the harm of seeing blackface on screen is the best way to go about that - and I certainly don't believe that a gaggle of White guys are best poised to determine its appropriateness.

Personally, I think the concept of a Scarlett Johannsson biopic starring Ali Wong would do a better job of making the point, or Billy Porter in “Whiteface” as Tom Brady, but if the goal is to make the White actor the butt of the joke, I don’t understand why they felt it appropriate to write offensive jokes for that character, like “it’s not me saying it, it’s the character I wrote who’s supposed to be a bad person, so even though it’s not okay for him to say it, he’s bad, so it’s natural for his character.” The bottom line is they used a “bad character” to launder an offensive joke.

The RDJ character doesn’t really appear to be the butt of that Forrest Gump bit. Best case scenario: the writers intended for audiences to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it, but, given the unfortunate way it’s since lingered in public consciousness, that’s clearly not how it was generally received. Criticism of Zoolander 2 indicates that they failed to learn anything from the experience.

If the movie is all that you say, it would hardly be the first popular satire hamstrung by offensive choices. Some people are able to appreciate a work beyond such flaws, while others can’t. If it doesn’t bother someone personally, I do think it’s fair to ask if it also affects them personally.


I can’t judge Tropic Thunder as a whole. Based on the portions I’ve seen, though, I’ve no interest in defending it.

I’m fine with leaving it at that so you can get back to your discussion.
 
i5G.gif

aba90dc592856c5cc1f4b270fc790752.jpg
 
Watched Collateral last night. Real solid. Didn't realize Jada and Ruffalo were both in it too. I always assumed it was like a "Phone Booth" type of movie with Jamie Foxx and Cruise and their relationship as he's hitting throughout the city, with the majority of the film taking place in the cab.
 
lawdog1 said:
If you say so. Seems curious to me that one would chose the words “big trash” just to say “I personally don’t care for it“ if that person wasn’t trying to say more than that.
Click to expand...
I am trying to say more than 'I personally don't care for it.'

I'm trying to say 'Big trash.'

As it stands, 'Not for me' and 'Literally the worst movie I've ever seen' are still just 2 opinions of displeasure. That the second has more energy behind it doesn't make it an attempt to convert anyone. The former is displeasure, the second is more energetic displeasure.
lawdog1 said:
And do it more than once about the same movie, for example.
Click to expand...
Flip the script: say I offered a positive opinion a few notches above 'I like this movie', something like 'This movie is a diamond among coals,' and I said it more than once. Would you think I was proselytizing?

-foe
 
darthska said:
I am trying to say more than 'I personally don't care for it.'

I'm trying to say 'Big trash.'

As it stands, 'Not for me' and 'Literally the worst movie I've ever seen' are still just 2 opinions of displeasure. That the second has more energy behind it doesn't make it an attempt to convert anyone. The former is displeasure, the second is more energetic displeasure. Flip the script: say I offered a positive opinion a few notches above 'I like this movie', something like 'This movie is a diamond among coals,' and I said it more than once. Would you think I was proselytizing?

-foe
Click to expand...

I might. It would depend on the words you used. Word choice is important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom