MovieChat Forums > Threadkiller > Replies
Threadkiller's Replies
"Sorry, like I said - b-llshit." aka "Nuh uh, because I say so"
I posted a direct source to the Jackson family where he & his family publicly rebuke the slur "Wacko Jacko" as a dehumanizing, racist insult. Your "I say so" routine just isn't going to cut it. If you want to use racially tinged insults to refer to black icons than at least own it instead of being a dishonest & weaselly about it.
"Why are you bringing race into this tabloid slur I insist on using to refer to Michael Jackson that Jackson and his family publicly rebuked as a dehumanizing, racist insult" i.e. "Nuh uh, because I say so"
"LOL 😂 That's pretty poor. He's been known as Wacko Jacko since the 80s due to his obsession with plastic surgery, having a pet monkey and playing with kids at his ranch. Literally everyone knows that and it has nothing to do with race..."
https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1310293569849061376?lang=en
Michael Jackson and his family have publicly rebuked the name as the racist, dehumanizing slur that it always was. Your "Nuh uh, because I say so" logic to try to justify using it anyway simply means you don't care & as I originally suspected, get off on using it as a coded placeholder for the N word.
Again, not that it matters but Blanket is almost certainly not Michael's biological child. Perceiving some vague resemblance is one thing but you would have to be either blind or dishonest to claim that his hair is phenotypically consistent with Michael Jackson's natural hair in his youth.
"(Quite possibly, Wacko's offspring)"
*sigh* Why don't you people stop with the coded tabloid insults and just call him the N word like we all know you want to? Anyway, not that it matters but none of Michael Jackson's children are his biologically, including "Blanket". I honestly don't even see any accidental resemblance and it's very, very unlikely that a kid who has 50 percent black American ancestry is going to end up with hair that's naturally straight. Michael Jackson had naturally kinky hair which is a very strong genetic straight that nearly always gets passed on from parent to child.
I don't believe he was guilty (way too many implausibilities) but indeed even if he did, the f*ckery of the LAPD's gross mishandling of evidence, exacerbated by a corrupt, perjuring cop, with a history of planting evidence & who refused to deny that he planted evidence on Simpson(Are you f*cking kidding me?). It's a no brainer. Not guilty by reasonable doubt.
Yet its only the stormfags in here whining yet again about something else completely innocuous that was already a feature in the original movie. Something that would have been seen as idiotic & pathetic to be crying about in a significantly less "woke" time, no less.
Seriously. The first movie literally featured a multiracial/interracial couple 30 years ago & 'SHOCKER', no one gave a shit. I swear... sometimes I think these gen z stormfag bois get off on making utterly ironic asses of themselves with these kinds of race baiting, shit posts.
Reaching? No. It's called being a lying, race baiting troll trying to stoke some anti-"woke" therapy session. Not a damn thing was said about white privilege in the trailer.
While I pretty much agree, in the case of this film, it's more than just the culty, Nolanite film bros overhyping the hell out of this movie. I was genuinely baffled how this movie pulled blockbuster numbers at the box office but it seems it was getting a big push from the industry all along. My conjecture is that a lot of the artificial hype for this film is a sign that the industry is attempting to pivot away from the saturated market of stale, superhero crap that seems to be churning out more bombs than hits in recent years. Still though, it does feel rather surreal to see a competent yet unremarkable biopic film get treated like it's a unicorn farting rainbows.
I loss interest about 3 quarters of the way through. I was excited to see Eddie Murphy but the entire premise/set seems like something someone pitched as a bad joke. Akeem being drugged and raped by a hippopotamus during the events of the original movie, unwittingly fathering a child who he accepts as his heir? WTF. As awful as the set up was, there just wasn't enough Eddie Murphy. The actual lead film turns out to be the grown-up rape baby character who is just boring, unlikable & uncharismatic in every scene, making the movie a chore to sit watch. Very disappointing. At least the upcoming Beverly Hills Cop movie seems more promising.
I wouldn't say it's neither. I think "edgy try hard garbage" is actually a pretty accurate description of the movie but I still got some "very" cheap laughs out of it. I think accepting it as "so bad it's good" or rejecting it as pure, irredeemable trash are both valid, depending on your tolerance level for pure nonsense.
Hues can vary to some degree even among northern Europeans & Pugh's really aren't even THAT dark to be honest.
For a woman who is ethnically English, perhaps slightly? Pretty standard for darker complected, mediterranean women though.
"I mean kinda obvious what they're doing aint it? Characters who was white in the game just now being black, betting they'd never consider making Henry and Sam white eh? Its just annoying how white characters are willy nilly swapped with another race while every other race is always left as is and not dare touched in adaptations.
Before anyone says it, i'm not racist,"
Literally 9 out of 10 times "race swapping" occurs, it's white actors/characters swapping in for non-whites. They've been regularly "race swapping" entire films with white actors for decades. Yet somehow, you don't complain about this, even going as far as to lie that it never happens but find the time to cherry pick & whine about a couple of minor characters in a video game adaptation for not being white. So, yeah that's some fairly racist, selective blindness you've got there.
Are we talking in universe spy budget or the tv series budget? I'm sure with most television & film almost everything is rented or sponsored. In universe, it's a common trope for secret spy organizations to have seemingly unlimited budgets for their agent's operations with the Bond series probably being the most glaring example.
Nice bait thread. It would have to be a REALLY slow year in the land of petty, white supremacist grievances to sound the "woke"/"race swap" alarm over this. It would still be a dumb & petty thing to cry on the internet about, even if it was a direct adaptation but just a cursory glance at this series makes it pretty obvious that it's a very different thing than the movie. It's a television series with its own original story & characters, very loosely based on the premise of a one-off movie that came out 2 decades ago. Honestly, judging from the first episode alone, I'm certain most people never would have even made the connection to the film if it wasn't called Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Note: The silliness of this topic aside, the first episode was pretty average. A series usually tries to really grab your attention with its first episode but in this case, it was a bit too much a slow burn for me. Awkward, getting to know you chit chat is not entertaining in real life, nor is it in a tv series & there was one too many drawn out scenes like that. It has potential but it really needs to pick things up.
"Heartstopper also got great user ratings. Check it out on IMDB. Bros did not."
Even the most mediocre TV series have always had grossly inflated IMDB ratings compared to films. Also, alphabet websites singing the show's praises (because of course they are) isn't exactly compelling.
Critics always give alphabet themed projects praise. It's pretty much the law of cinematic journalism now. 'Bros' was a major flop but still got very positive critical reception. Since I never heard the shows you mentioned, I'm guessing it wasn't high profile enough for "haters" to negative review bomb so what we get are largely review bombs from a thousand or so people & their sock accounts invested in alphabet media, giving it perfect user scores. Are those debut numbers significantly higher or lower than the average frontpage Netflix release? Were these sustained views or examples of viewers briefly checking it out (since it's on the front page) before largely moving on? Lot of different variables
"It didn't ever say that it "helps" but multiple users here suggest it always hurt it, and there's no evidence for this."
People saying that "any" small amount of alphabet content will hurt a show/movie's box office/sustained viewership then they are not correct. Anyone claiming that alphabet content will significantly help a show/movie's box office/sustained viewership. is also lying.
"Gave links if you scroll up."
My adblocker doesn't like that website so you can give me the cliff notes. Are those Netflix shows? What's the raw data? Like I said, the threshold for determining something to be a relative "success" is much lower & much more vague on streaming platforms and I've never even come close to hearing about those shows(movies?). Even on streaming platforms however, if something is truly popular it's going to be something you hear a lot of people talking about. I've never seen one episode of Stranger Things but I've been keenly aware of its popularity since it first came out.
"Yet its LGBT content doesn't hurt it. Why is this? Why didn't people stop watching The Last of Us after Episode 3?"
Because as I already explained, it had a much broader appeal (and pre established fanbase) beyond the relatively small amount of time dedicated to alphabet themes. Again, something that was successful in spite of the alphabet stuff, not because of it. I never said that any show/movie where a gay character shows up is going to hurt ratings so i don't know why you keep arguing that point. Alphabet content simply doesn't help viewership to any significant degree with something that's meant to have broad appeal. Too much focus on it can and will hurt your bottom line, but too little never will.
Never heard of the two you mentioned, so I can't comment on the measure of how successful or unsuccessful those things are in terms of significant viewership numbers. Also, it's important to note that the bar is much lower for streaming media than it is for traditional television & film in terms of requiring an immediate return on investment in the way of box office/viewership ratings. So streaming networks can oftentimes get away with just doing what they want. There's a reason why alphabet content is very rarely a prominent feature in mainstream films, outside of Hollywood's subsidized, token Oscar bait every year. Euphoria is a drama with broad appeal to young adult audiences, especially young women. Another example of something being successful in spite of whatever bits of alphabet agenda gets peppered in throughout the series, rather than because of it.