MovieChat Forums > ccr1633 > Replies
ccr1633's Replies
You're right. This is cultural appropriation in its most brazen, shameless form. Almost every one of the stars of this picture (Chadwick Boseman, Michael Jordan, Danai Gurira, etc) have no connection to African culture. Even if they did have some interest in it, it's not from having been saturated in African life from their youth or any other extended period of time living there, but more of the distant, phony, pandering variety (if at all). The bitterly zealous, overly righteous, harsh judgments of SJWs are coming full circle.
They'll name him Rhode Island Jones.
"If you had watched the movie you would know that one of the characters stated they didn't want to take in refugees into Wakanda because refugees ''bring their problems with them'' and that it would become a mess like everywhere else..."
And an astute point of view it is, which is exactly why the USA, Europe, Australia, etc. shouldn't be taking in refugees except for dire and documentable cases for political asylum. The asymptotic limit of the diversity push is a country with roughly equal numbers of every identified race/ethnicity on the planet. That country's culture will no longer resemble the original host country's culture, would descend into civil war, and fracture into numerous nations grouped by race/ethnicity anyway (as with present-day Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina). Why would any country welcome that ultimate fate? Human beings won't evolve sufficiently rapidly to be able to handle that peacefully, not at the rate at which it's taking place in the USA, England, and other countries. It's a stupid, liberal pie-in-the-sky mentality to push for something that so obviously wouldn't work. Praise be the leaders of old Wakanda.
"Blacks are neither monolithic in thought nor are they totally homogenous."
Certainly not as monolithic in thought as the American reviews of this film will be, just as with The Last Jedi. Bank on it.
Londonbridge115 wrote:
"What the hell are you talking about? We didn't just start celebrating ourselves over this movie"
Except earlier you whined...
"Lol. A group of people who have been unfairly discriminated against for centuries can't even have a moment in time where we can celebrate ourselves without other people having something stupid to say about it."
You act as if big bad evil forces are starving black people of the opportunity to celebrate themselves. It's no accident this film is being released in February, a month devoted every year to black people for the very purpose of celebrating themselves, along with (mainly) white people who are essentially forced to participate if they wish to keep their jobs and avoid fierce condemnation. Every single politician in the USA has to explicitly bow to black history month. If they fail to do so they're automatically racist, if they're the wrong skin color. So stop your blubbering about the fictional universe in which black people are prevented or denied any forums for mutual lovefests. The bogus claim that the 11 other months are celebrations of "white history month" are ridiculous if for no other reason than they're not advertised that way.
"I'm not sure where that came from, but..."
Why? Generic female body types isn't the only thing that's changed...
What, you actually disagree that there were scenes of Ellie Sattler lecturing men on why they shouldn't have certain preconceived notions about women, etc? If you think that then you're not remembering the film very well.
One of the more egregious examples of the hamfisted, utterly unnecessary dialog is about 1:37 hrs into the film when Sattler and Hammond are discussing who should go outside the control room to get to the circuit breakers. Hammond in a stumbly, well-intentioned manner suggests he should go because he's a man. Ellie replies "we can discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back." That's a textbook example of the lame dialog I'm talking about. All she really had to say was, "No doc, I can handle it, thanks." Instead we get some cheesy feminist message that is better demonstrated through the character's actions instead of the girlsplainin'.
Note also that even though most of the younger male characters (except the nerds) were persistent in their pursuit of the girls, they weren't hostile, overwhelming, or saturated in a nascent rapist's entitlement mentality about it. Just garden variety boys & girls and birds & the bees stuff, with no indication that the girls were forced into sex or into riding on boats with creepy perverts as if they were absent any choice. In fact, it was pretty clear that the women in this film were in control of the sexual scenarios, even Brody's wife in her handling of the real estate jerk who not so subtly hit on her repeatedly.
This was consistent with my experience and what I've observed in 98% of the men I've been friends with or knew at work my entire life (there are a couple of outliers, but they weren't guys I hung out with or called friends). Women today would have you believe that most men are knuckledragging savages eager for a chance to exploit them sexually, against their will if need be. I see numerous opinion pieces that men need to be tamed and retrained to approach sexual relations exactly as women do. Their view of an average guy from the 1970s is even worse than the contempt with which they hold today of the male sex drive, as if every schmoe back then was Harvey Weinstein or at best Ron Burgandy. Not so. Whatever level of respect men have for women in general these days, I seriously doubt it's any better now than then, and I think it may be even worse given the implicit accusation that every male is a mansplainin' self-entitled swine benefiting from a supposed patriarchy. Some may hold this opinion of you irrespective of how you've actually conducted yourself in reality.
Laura Dern's Jurassic Park character repeatedly lectured the men about their sexist assumptions regarding women. It was done in a hamfisted way that just shouted "I'm making a statement and I'll use this film to do it!" It wasn't enough for the character to be a strong, independent woman through her actions and demonstrated intelligence. Instead, she had to explain it to the audience like a bad comedian might their dumb and unsubtle jokes.
fc31 wrote: "Feminist massages are annoying but if the above three problems are not there then fans might not have hated the movie as much."
That's a good point. I think a useful film with which to contrast the execrable TLJ in this regard is Jurassic Park (despite it being a standalone film). I consider JP to be a very good film, but not great because it was marred by cloying Spielbergian cutesiness (the annoying kids) as well as some hamfisted feminism courtesy of the repeat offender Laura Dern. Despite those scars, JP was very entertaining because the story was interesting, the characters mostly had something interesting to say, and the acting was good. The feminist social justice BS and the precocious shrieking kiddiepoos were just a little white noise in the background of an otherwise strong film, and thus less irritating.
No. They don't fire women merely for their sexism or because they do their jobs badly.
Critics will give it favorable reviews just as with the recent Star Wars films for fear of being labeled as racists who just don't get it.
When you have to cite a list of totally obscure artists to justify a vibrant musical genre, that genre has shot it's wad already. Rap/Hip Hop was a revolution and vibrant for many years. Now nothing new of significance is produced. It happened to Rock and basically every other popular music ever created. Diehards will grope for any scraps to make a case that a musical form remains a relevant artistic force and deny that it has descended mainly into redundant, mass-marketed pap. One could list 20 obscure, currently existing rock bands and try to make the same case, and fail all the same. Hip hop persists mainly because of its stupidly simple bass rhythms and megalomaniacal posturing, which appeals to the undiscriminating herd at dance parties.
It's not just casting. The social agenda affects dialog, character interactions, character development, etc.
A friend of mine asked me to go see TLJ this past weekend, despite knowing I'd seen it already. I said no thanks. Not only was the film bad, it was also way too long. I imagine there are many Star Wars fans (or ex Star Wars fans) who would have gone for a repeat viewing had the film been even halfway decent.
I salute your trolling, but I'll play. Admiral Holdo was Kathleen Kennedy's nod of inclusiveness toward man-hating purple-haired lesbians.
Rogue One was excellent. What were your problems with it? At the very least it was light years superior to TFA and TLJ. Rogue One even had a strong female lead without bashing you over the head with the PC mallet.
"If The Last Jedi had a coherent, and better, plot, it would have been a fine movie."
But it's not unreasonable to think that the slavish adherence to diversity, creating strong female characters, and so on, had something to do with the inattention to a better written story. Just read the NY Times article to see where Kathleen Kennedy's head was really at.
Interesting. Thanks Daisy. I guess my dreams are heavily skewed toward a first-person POV.
Thanks Fred. Always good to know there's the likes of you out there.