Oscars

[Melkor Unchained]

I didn't watch the Oscars or anything (rarely do) but I'm puzzled about this talk that District 9 got shafted or what-not. I mean, I liked the way it was presented, but it really wasn't that great of a movie. Plot-wise it's mediocre at best: segregation is bad, and the guy in charge (who may not deserve it) gets turned into what he/they ostensibly hate the most. It never explains why the aliens were incapacitated in their ship but fine on the surface (although it hints at some sort of disease, IIRC), and it never explains why we don't hear Word One from the UN or any national government. And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure we really need at this point.

I did have a giggle at the big climactic fight scene, where they put a sniper like 25 yards away from a raging mecha.

[Cannot think of a name]

And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure Hollywood really needs at this point.

This was a South African movie.

It's bad enough that people tend to think that Hollywood is a hive and all things come out of their collective, it gets worse when any movie that comes out is automatically 'Hollywood' if it didn't play at the run-down art house down the street.

[North Suran]

And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure Hollywood really needs at this point.

This was a South African movie.

It's bad enough that people tend to think that Hollywood is a hive and all things come out of their collective, it gets worse when any movie that comes out is automatically 'Hollywood' if it didn't play at the run-down art house down the street.

It also indicates that people will actively go out of their way to locate any hint of anvilicious ideas in a film and bitch about them endlessly.

See for reference: Avatar.

[Melkor Unchained]

And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure Hollywood really needs at this point.

This was a South African movie.

It's bad enough that people tend to think that Hollywood is a hive and all things come out of their collective, it gets worse when any movie that comes out is automatically 'Hollywood' if it didn't play at the run-down art house down the street.

Oh. Well, we shipped the reels at work, so I assumed it was distributed by Technicolor. I didn't know it was made in SA, but my point still stands. International films generally don't get much publicity or show on very many screens nationwide unless the industry here is friendly to it. It's certainly the kind of movie that would be up their alley at any rate.

So fine, -Hollywood + we.

[Melkor Unchained]

And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure Hollywood really needs at this point.

This was a South African movie.

It's bad enough that people tend to think that Hollywood is a hive and all things come out of their collective, it gets worse when any movie that comes out is automatically 'Hollywood' if it didn't play at the run-down art house down the street.

It also indicates that people will actively go out of their way to locate any hint of anvilicious ideas in a film and bitch about them endlessly.

See for reference: Avatar.

Endlessly? Really? Did that post show up infinite times on your end? I'm only seeing one here.

[North Suran]

And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure Hollywood really needs at this point.

This was a South African movie.

It's bad enough that people tend to think that Hollywood is a hive and all things come out of their collective, it gets worse when any movie that comes out is automatically 'Hollywood' if it didn't play at the run-down art house down the street.

It also indicates that people will actively go out of their way to locate any hint of anvilicious ideas in a film and bitch about them endlessly.

See for reference: Avatar.

Endlessly? Really? Did that post show up infinite times on your end? I'm only seeing one here.

I was speaking in general, and Christ yes, if you look at any thread about Avatar and District 9, you will find several people complaining about green and racist aesops respectively.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh. Well, we shipped the reels at work, so I assumed it was distributed by Technicolor. I didn't know it was made in SA, but my point still stands. International films generally don't get much publicity or show on very many screens nationwide unless the industry here is friendly to it. It's certainly the kind of movie that would be up their alley at any rate.

So fine, -Hollywood + we.

Technicolor is not a distributor, they do film processing. TriStar was the distributor, but you need a domestic distributor to show a film domestically. "The Industry" is no more a hive than the stand in "Hollywood" to mean the same thing. Companies will distribute whatever they think will fill seats. Studios do not run exhibitors (see the recent controversy over Alice in Wonderland for hints to that animosity).

[Melkor Unchained]

And yeah, they're careful to have some black people say negative things about the aliens, but it struck me as a not-so-subtle commentary about race; another one of which I'm not sure Hollywood really needs at this point.

This was a South African movie.

It's bad enough that people tend to think that Hollywood is a hive and all things come out of their collective, it gets worse when any movie that comes out is automatically 'Hollywood' if it didn't play at the run-down art house down the street.

It also indicates that people will actively go out of their way to locate any hint of anvilicious ideas in a film and bitch about them endlessly.

See for reference: Avatar.

Endlessly? Really? Did that post show up infinite times on your end? I'm only seeing one here.

I was speaking in general, and Christ yes, if you look at any thread about Avatar and District 9, you will find several people complaining about green and racist aesops respectively.

People have the (seemingly limitless) capacity to bitch about @@aspect@@ of art, politics, and culture in general . Only when we strongly agree or disagree with them do we really care about any individual gripe.

[Melkor Unchained]

Oh. Well, we shipped the reels at work, so I assumed it was distributed by Technicolor. I didn't know it was made in SA, but my point still stands. International films generally don't get much publicity or show on very many screens nationwide unless the industry here is friendly to it. It's certainly the kind of movie that would be up their alley at any rate.

So fine, -Hollywood + we.

Technicolor is not a distributor, they do film processing. TriStar was the distributor, but you need a domestic distributor to show a film domestically. "The Industry" is no more a hive than the stand in "Hollywood" to mean the same thing. Companies will distribute whatever they think will fill seats. Studios do not run exhibitors (see the recent controversy over Alice in Wonderland for hints to that animosity).

They seem to do both, as a cursory examination of their website may reveal. They don't physically send the reels to theaters--we do that part, but they do prepare the reels for distribution and manage the actual shipping of the film. On a near-daily basis I handle Technicolor reels at my hub. Last week we took Alice in Wonderland in what probably ended up being 8 or 9 truckloads.

As to the latter, I don't suppose there's any way it would do any good to point out that what is likely to fill seats kind of determines how enthusiastic the industry might be to distribute the film here? And that a 'zOMG segregation iz teh bad' message--while thoroughly overdone--might appeal to industry executives? I'm also wondering where the term "hive mind" came from in the course of this discussion.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh. Well, we shipped the reels at work, so I assumed it was distributed by Technicolor. I didn't know it was made in SA, but my point still stands. International films generally don't get much publicity or show on very many screens nationwide unless the industry here is friendly to it. It's certainly the kind of movie that would be up their alley at any rate.

So fine, -Hollywood + we.

Technicolor is not a distributor, they do film processing. TriStar was the distributor, but you need a domestic distributor to show a film domestically. "The Industry" is no more a hive than the stand in "Hollywood" to mean the same thing. Companies will distribute whatever they think will fill seats. Studios do not run exhibitors (see the recent controversy over Alice in Wonderland for hints to that animosity).

They seem to do both, as a cursory examination of their website may reveal. They don't physically send the reels to theaters--we do that part, but they do prepare the reels for distribution and manage the actual shipping of the film. On a near-daily basis I handle Technicolor reels at my hub. Last week we took Alice in Wonderland in what probably ended up being 8 or 9 truckloads.

Shipping is not distribution. Distribution is the process of booking theaters and screens for exhibition.

As to the latter, I don't suppose there's any way it would do any good to point out that what is likely to fill seats kind of determines how enthusiastic the industry might be to distribute the film here?
And that a 'zOMG segregation iz teh bad' message--while thoroughly overdone--might appeal to industry executives?

So...is it 'the industry' or the audience that is into all of this then? Make up your mind.
I'm also wondering where the term "hive mind" came from in the course of this discussion.[/quote]
It comes in when a group of separate companies, differing divisions, large amount of individuals, and even separate countries are painted with the same dismissive brush regardless of the individual influences that might actually be at play.

How you managed to not notice that this was a South African film is one thing. But to call out a South African film about the segregation and management of a population a 'not-so-subtle' story of race is akin to saying, "did you notice how much Schindler's List was about the holocaust?" Imagine a South African filmmaker mining a nation defining event that ended within a generation and still has repercussions. And sci-fi never uses allegory. But apparently the decision by TriStar to back a movie that beat its budget in terms of production and distribute it in the US is an 'industry wide' decision. Not the economics of a movie that was made cheaply that can tap the summer 'tentpole' appeal, that can have $37mil opening weekend and have that still top the budget of the film. No, it has to be an 'industry' proclivity towards race relation movies.

[The Romulan Republic]

I`m glad Avatar didn`t win Best Picture or Best Director, though I feel The Hurt Locker might be just a bit overrated as well.

[Melkor Unchained]

Oh. Well, we shipped the reels at work, so I assumed it was distributed by Technicolor. I didn't know it was made in SA, but my point still stands. International films generally don't get much publicity or show on very many screens nationwide unless the industry here is friendly to it. It's certainly the kind of movie that would be up their alley at any rate.

So fine, -Hollywood + we.

Technicolor is not a distributor, they do film processing. TriStar was the distributor, but you need a domestic distributor to show a film domestically. "The Industry" is no more a hive than the stand in "Hollywood" to mean the same thing. Companies will distribute whatever they think will fill seats. Studios do not run exhibitors (see the recent controversy over Alice in Wonderland for hints to that animosity).

They seem to do both, as a cursory examination of their website may reveal. They don't physically send the reels to theaters--we do that part, but they do prepare the reels for distribution and manage the actual shipping of the film. On a near-daily basis I handle Technicolor reels at my hub. Last week we took Alice in Wonderland in what probably ended up being 8 or 9 truckloads.

Shipping is not distribution. Distribution is the process of booking theaters and screens for exhibition.

Did I say shipping was distribution? No, I didn't. Kindly re-read the part I emphasized for you above. I work at UPS, and UPS is (as I should hope we all know) a shipping company. We ship the reels, so I would probably be about the last person who would tell you that Technicolor ships movies themselves, but they clearly have something to do with distribution. The reels I handle have large labels on them that read "Technicolor Cinema Distribution," and I assumed based on that that District 9 was an American release. Most big-ticket productions that we handle are.

As to the latter, I don't suppose there's any way it would do any good to point out that what is likely to fill seats kind of determines how enthusiastic the industry might be to distribute the film here?
And that a 'zOMG segregation iz teh bad' message--while thoroughly overdone--might appeal to industry executives?

So...is it 'the industry' or the audience that is into all of this then? Make up your mind.

The industry, I guess. In this particular example, I'd say the industry was probably more fond of it than the audience was, given that its gross wasn't overly astonishing. Refresh my memory...what exactly is it that I've vacillated on?

I'm also wondering where the term "hive mind" came from in the course of this discussion.

It comes in when a group of separate companies, differing divisions, large amount of individuals, and even separate countries are painted with the same dismissive brush regardless of the individual influences that might actually be at play.

So the film industry stopped being left-wing while I wasn't looking? Or are you going to try to tell me that they never were? I don't get it. I'm hardly the first (and likely not the last) to point this out. Was I the only one here who caught George Clooney's acceptance speech a couple years ago when he won an award for Syriana? The film industry in this country is proudly left-wing, except when someone on the other side notices.

How you managed to not notice that this was a South African film is one thing.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the "THIS FILM WAS MADE IN SOUTH AFRICA!" disclaimer at the beginning. Maybe I was in the john. I saw the film, but wasn't thrilled enough with it to learn about its production process.

But to call out a South African film about the segregation and management of a population a 'not-so-subtle' story of race is akin to saying, "did you notice how much Schindler's List was about the holocaust?"

This sentence, read immediately after the above (which is, ironically, how your post was actually written) is slightly humorous. It's no big deal to not know it was made in SA, but then you turn around and describe my remarks as painfully obvious because it was a South American film. If SA wants to make movies about apartheid that's their prerogative, just don't expect me to be stunned by them.

Imagine a South African filmmaker mining a nation defining event that ended within a generation and still has repercussions. And sci-fi never uses allegory. But apparently the decision by TriStar to back a movie that beat its budget in terms of production and distribute it in the US is an 'industry wide' decision.

More inanity, I see. The words "industry decision" do not appear in any of my posts, not unlike "hive mind."

See what you're doing here? You're taking basic (and correct) implied statements like "@@group@@ has @@leaning@@" and twisting them into terms like "industry decision" or "hive mind" to suit your purposes for this "debate." It is not unfair for me to say that film executives in this country are not overly creative, and that "racism is bad" still apparently passes as a deep and evocative cultural message for them. Who made or distributed this film doesn't really matter: the message is trite and outdated (to me) in any event. It's also not unfair for me to say that film executives love a good sob story, and that screenplays with racial or cultural messages seem to earn brownie points with them.

I actually appreciated The Blind Side because it managed to deal with racial issues without beating me over the head with them; an experience I didn't share with District 9. I like a little subtlety with my cultural criticism, and District 9 didn't really have any. If you liked it or whatever, that's fine, but I didn't. The message was too blatant and it had too many plot holes. The directing was fine, the acting was fine, the screenplay was fine. A passable film, I guess, but nothing special. Certainly not "Best Picture" material in anything but the worst of years.

Not the economics of a movie that was made cheaply that can tap the summer 'tentpole' appeal, that can have $37mil opening weekend and have that still top the budget of the film. No, it has to be an 'industry' proclivity towards race relation movies.

Here we go with this shit again. If you read my posts closely you may eventually notice that I never actually said the film had no redeeming qualities; moreover I didn't once say or suggest that the only reason this was pushed had to do with "industry proclivities." I said it was another movie with a racial message and those are a dime a dozen. It's not the reason why it was made, it's the reason I didn't like it.

tl;dr: Get a hobby.

[Barringtonia]

The presenters were so awful, the audience shots so odd and the entire atmosphere so contrived I almost thought there was some inside joke that what we, as a television audience, see is not what those inside the Kodak Theatre get to enjoy.

I almost thought that when they go into the movie clips and nominations, then Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin bring out the risque jokes and actual fun for the duration and then they quickly go back to acting during the 'televised' presentations.

Also, Penelope Cruz, yes please.

Ultimately, this is the biggest Prom King & Queen show in America, it's not really about 'best' movies is it?

[Melkor Unchained]

The presenters were so awful, the audience shots so odd and the entire atmosphere so contrived I almost thought there was some inside joke that what we, as a television audience, see is not what those inside the Kodak Theatre get to enjoy.

I almost thought that when they go into the movie clips and nominations, then Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin bring out the risque jokes and actual fun for the duration and then they quickly go back to acting during the 'televised' presentations.

Also, Penelope Cruz, yes please.

Ultimately, this is the biggest Prom King & Queen show in America, it's not really about 'best' movies is it?

Heh, my current favorite Oscar slam is in Futurama where they try to rig the Academy Awards and Fry goes: "Oh, they're just giving out the minor technical awards. I think they're up to 'writing.'

In general I think people have better taste in movies than they do with most other forms of art (it doesn't take nearly as long to look at a painting or listen to a song, for example), but more and more I feel as if the Academy Awards are turning into a dog-and-pony show about on par with the Grammys. I think the movie industry has been fairly stagnant for some time (when my brother and I saw Star Trek--which was, itself, technically a remake--it occurred to us that 4 of the 5 previews we saw advertised sequels, prequels or remakes) but is only just now noticing it. As a result we typically get more hype and less substance. They blame piracy, of course, but that doesn't explain why original movie ideas--something I will give District 9 credit for--are few and far between.

[ILYLOL]

You know... Star Wars has never gotten one Grammy oops, Oscar

[Melkor Unchained]

You know... Star Wars has never gotten one Grammy oops, Oscar

Yeah, and the Who never won a Grammy; Elvis didn't win one until he released a Gospel album. I think they "style over substance" mentality is spreading from the Grammys to the Oscars, and the top earners are more and more likely to win both. I don't think it's quite as bad (yet) in the latter case, but it's certainly getting there.

[ILYLOL]

Yeah, it's kinda sad, but I didn't know about the whole Elvis thing.

And what is with the whole Academy thing?

[New Olwe]

And what is with the whole Academy thing?

They're a bunch of pretentious snobs who think that Woody Allen actually makes good films.

Woody Allen makes good naps.

[Delator]

...but more and more I feel as if the Academy Awards are turning into a dog-and-pony show about on par with the Grammys.

Possibly...but the Grammys only give awards to commercially successful artists/albums. If the Oscars were to follow suit, Avatar should have won this year, and The Dark Knight or WALL-E should have been nominated and won last year.

We're not even close to that point yet...thankfully.

Now if only the Grammys would invert themselves to be more like the Oscars, occasionally rewarding originality instead of commercial success...we'd actually get some deserving musicians winning some awards, instead of pop-artists who don't even write their own lyrics.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh. Well, we shipped the reels at work, so I assumed it was distributed by Technicolor. I didn't know it was made in SA, but my point still stands. International films generally don't get much publicity or show on very many screens nationwide unless the industry here is friendly to it. It's certainly the kind of movie that would be up their alley at any rate.

So fine, -Hollywood + we.

Technicolor is not a distributor, they do film processing. TriStar was the distributor, but you need a domestic distributor to show a film domestically. "The Industry" is no more a hive than the stand in "Hollywood" to mean the same thing. Companies will distribute whatever they think will fill seats. Studios do not run exhibitors (see the recent controversy over Alice in Wonderland for hints to that animosity).

They seem to do both, as a cursory examination of their website may reveal. They don't physically send the reels to theaters--we do that part, but they do prepare the reels for distribution and manage the actual shipping of the film. On a near-daily basis I handle Technicolor reels at my hub. Last week we took Alice in Wonderland in what probably ended up being 8 or 9 truckloads.

Shipping is not distribution. Distribution is the process of booking theaters and screens for exhibition.

Did I say shipping was distribution? No, I didn't. Kindly re-read the part I emphasized for you above. I work at UPS, and UPS is (as I should hope we all know) a shipping company. We ship the reels, so I would probably be about the last person who would tell you that Technicolor ships movies themselves, but they clearly have something to do with distribution. The reels I handle have large labels on them that read "Technicolor Cinema Distribution," and I assumed based on that that District 9 was an American release. Most big-ticket productions that we handle are.

There are separate terms, they apply to separate things. If you don't know them, fine. But then don't pretend to understand it and then get all tizzy when someone calls you on it.

As to the latter, I don't suppose there's any way it would do any good to point out that what is likely to fill seats kind of determines how enthusiastic the industry might be to distribute the film here?
And that a 'zOMG segregation iz teh bad' message--while thoroughly overdone--might appeal to industry executives?

So...is it 'the industry' or the audience that is into all of this then? Make up your mind.

The industry, I guess. In this particular example, I'd say the industry was probably more fond of it than the audience was, given that its gross wasn't overly astonishing. Refresh my memory...what exactly is it that I've vacillated on?[/quote]
All things considered, a small budget foreign film, it made a remarkable amount of money. Did it make Avatar money? No. Is the comparison all that fair? Not really. It stayed in the top 10 for 6 weeks, made over $115mil, well over the 'blockbuster' threshold for movies usually that cost much more. "Wasn't overly astonishing" only if you create an unrealistic comparison for it so that you can shave your point. Going back to the motivation for this-we are lead to believe it's 'the industry's desire for a race movie and not a movie that exceeds its budgets and has enough interest in it that could beat the overcome and be a small movie that makes it big. Or, just because "the industry" likies race movies.

I'm also wondering where the term "hive mind" came from in the course of this discussion.

It comes in when a group of separate companies, differing divisions, large amount of individuals, and even separate countries are painted with the same dismissive brush regardless of the individual influences that might actually be at play.

So the film industry stopped being left-wing while I wasn't looking? Or are you going to try to tell me that they never were? I don't get it. I'm hardly the first (and likely not the last) to point this out. Was I the only one here who caught George Clooney's acceptance speech a couple years ago when he won an award for Syriana? The film industry in this country is proudly left-wing, except when someone on the other side notices.

I guess I missed it when George Clooney was appointed as "Hollywood" and "The Industry" and we were all supposed to agree. But you're not saying it's a hive mind, it's just that one guy gave a self absorbed speech and then repeated a generic talking point about the 'film industry' that pigeon-holes a $10 billion dollar industry and all that entails.

How you managed to not notice that this was a South African film is one thing.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the "THIS FILM WAS MADE IN SOUTH AFRICA!" disclaimer at the beginning. Maybe I was in the john. I saw the film, but wasn't thrilled enough with it to learn about its production process.

Maybe you were, because there was a title burn that said "Johanesburg, South Africa." Then there was all the South African actors.

But to call out a South African film about the segregation and management of a population a 'not-so-subtle' story of race is akin to saying, "did you notice how much Schindler's List was about the holocaust?"

This sentence, read immediately after the above (which is, ironically, how your post was actually written) is slightly humorous. It's no big deal to not know it was made in SA, but then you turn around and describe my remarks as painfully obvious because it was a South American film. If SA wants to make movies about apartheid that's their prerogative, just don't expect me to be stunned by them.

You did notice it was at the very least set in South Africa? I mean, how long was that line for the john?

Imagine a South African filmmaker mining a nation defining event that ended within a generation and still has repercussions. And sci-fi never uses allegory. But apparently the decision by TriStar to back a movie that beat its budget in terms of production and distribute it in the US is an 'industry wide' decision.

More inanity, I see. The words "industry decision" do not appear in any of my posts, not unlike "hive mind."

What is this post modern literature? I can only respond by rearranging your words?

See what you're doing here? You're taking basic (and correct) implied statements like "@@group@@ has @@leaning@@" and twisting them into terms like "industry decision" or "hive mind" to suit your purposes for this "debate."

I'm not saying you all think alike, I'm just saying when it comes to thinking, you do it alike. It's a fun two step.

It is not unfair for me to say that film executives in this country are not overly creative,

It's a hackneyed criticism that ironically lacks the depth that it critisizes, but sure it's not 'unfair'...

and that "racism is bad" still apparently passes as a deep and evocative cultural message for them. Who made or distributed this film doesn't really matter: the message is trite and outdated (to me) in any event.[/quote]
Right, I forgot, race is no longer an issue...I missed that...

It's also not unfair for me to say that film executives love a good sob story, and that screenplays with racial or cultural messages seem to earn brownie points with them.

And they take their brownie points to the prize counter and get a comb and a plastic mustache! Or, you know, they make business decisions that will make them money.

I actually appreciated The Blind Side because it managed to deal with racial issues without beating me over the head with them;

Well, who wouldn't like a story where a rich white woman saves a poor black boy?

an experience I didn't share with District 9. I like a little subtlety with my cultural criticism, and District 9 didn't really have any. If you liked it or whatever, that's fine, but I didn't. The message was too blatant and it had too many plot holes. The directing was fine, the acting was fine, the screenplay was fine. A passable film, I guess, but nothing special. Certainly not "Best Picture" material in anything but the worst of years.

Not the economics of a movie that was made cheaply that can tap the summer 'tentpole' appeal, that can have $37mil opening weekend and have that still top the budget of the film. No, it has to be an 'industry' proclivity towards race relation movies.

Here we go with this shit again. If you read my posts closely you may eventually notice that I never actually said the film had no redeeming qualities; moreover I didn't once say or suggest that the only reason this was pushed had to do with "industry proclivities." I said it was another movie with a racial message and those are a dime a dozen. It's not the reason why it was made, it's the reason I didn't like it.

They get brownie points, they're left leaning, they likie the race movies, but it's not the proclivities, it's what you like.

tl;dr: Get a hobby.

Sweet, let me get some marshmallows. Raisin' the bar, man. Raisin' the bar.

[Straughn]

So, how many of you watched the Oscars? What did you think of the results?

http://oscar.go.com/oscar-night/winners ... ut_livenow

I think that District 9 was kind of gypped, personally.

PS: Normally, I really wouldn't care, but hey

Any wardrobe malfunctions? Otherwise, piffle.
Also ... District 9 was a good flick. So was Men Who Stare At Goats.

[Barringtonia]

Greatest missed opportunity

Watching Kathryn Bigelow collect not only the best director but also best picture Oscar, shaking ever more by the second, was a powerful experience. If she'd actually shouted "Who's king of the world NOW, bitch!?" it would have been completely brilliant.

Best summation really,

[Melkor Unchained]

one-liner rants

I love how I can make a snap remark about why I personally didn't like a movie, and within two pages it turns into a(nother) yammering, line-by-line summary about why Melkor is Wrong About Everything. You've resorted to reshaping my remarks into wild fantasies about "industry proclivities" and "hive minds," and have decided that my saying I didn't care for the film because of what I saw as an overdone message is tantamount to saying that the message was the only reason the film was made. It's not, and I never said it was. Again, the message isn't the (only) reason the film was made, it was one of the reasons I didn't like it. Get that through your head please.

Its still kind of amusing to watch you reach for any possible point for which to slam me (I remind you, all for not liking a movie); hinting that I should magically know it was a South African film because of where it was set, or because the actors were South African? Did they have stamps on their foreheads saying "BORN IN SOUTH AFRICA?" Despite your hopeful attempts to suggest otherwise, the fact that it took place in SA didn't escape me, but that doesn't mean I should be expected to know right away where it was actually made. Was Armageddon filmed on a Nebraska-sized rock flying through space? Get real.

And yes, to be blunt, race really isn't much of an issue anymore, at least to me. It's a demonstrable fact that the power of racism has been declining apace for some time now, and it doesn't wield the influence over culture or policy that it might have had a few decades ago. A hundred and fifty years ago, you could own black men as slaves. Seventy-five years ago, we had segregation. Thirty years ago, we started electing black mayors across the country. One year ago, we elected a black President. At what point do we say "stick a fork in it, it's done?"

However, that it was made in SA does change my estimation of the film somewhat, being as its a cultural reflection rather than an external editorial. Apartheid is still relatively fresh in the minds of South Africans and I understand that, but for my purposes the message is still a bit dated.

[Cannot think of a name]

one-liner rants

I love how I can make a snap remark about why I personally didn't like a movie, and within two pages it turns into a(nother) yammering, line-by-line summary about why Melkor is Wrong About Everything. You've resorted to reshaping my remarks into wild fantasies about "industry proclivities" and "hive minds," and have decided that my saying I didn't care for the film because of what I saw as an overdone message is tantamount to saying that the message was the only reason the film was made. It's not, and I never said it was. Again, the message isn't the (only) reason the film was made, it was one of the reasons I didn't like it. Get that through your head please.

When it's "What Hollywood doesn't need" it isn't about you anymore. When you start talking about the motivations of the producers and distributors, it isn't about you anymore. Pro Tip: When you want it to be about your opinion of the movie, don't project that onto the entire industry. If you don't want to be challenged on things, don't post in a public forum.

Its still kind of amusing to watch you reach for any possible point for which to slam me (I remind you, all for not liking a movie); hinting that I should magically know it was a South African film because of where it was set, or because the actors were South African? Did they have stamps on their foreheads saying "BORN IN SOUTH AFRICA?" Despite your hopeful attempts to suggest otherwise, the fact that it took place in SA didn't escape me, but that doesn't mean I should be expected to know right away where it was actually made. Was Armageddon filmed on a Nebraska-sized rock flying through space? Get real.

Sorry. Gave you too much credit for awareness of the things you want to comment on. I won't make that mistake again.

And yes, to be blunt, race really isn't much of an issue anymore, at least to me. It's a demonstrable fact that the power of racism has been declining apace for some time now, and it doesn't wield the influence over culture or policy that it might have had a few decades ago. A hundred and fifty years ago, you could own black men as slaves. Seventy-five years ago, we had segregation. Thirty years ago, we started electing black mayors across the country. One year ago, we elected a black President. At what point do we say "stick a fork in it, it's done?"

Laughably naive. One only has to look at the reaction of some people to our black president. Not to mention that race is more than just 'black and white.'

However, that it was made in SA does change my estimation of the film somewhat, being as its a cultural reflection rather than an external editorial. Apartheid is still relatively fresh in the minds of South Africans and I understand that, but for my purposes the message is still a bit dated.

[Melkor Unchained]

one-liner rants

I love how I can make a snap remark about why I personally didn't like a movie, and within two pages it turns into a(nother) yammering, line-by-line summary about why Melkor is Wrong About Everything. You've resorted to reshaping my remarks into wild fantasies about "industry proclivities" and "hive minds," and have decided that my saying I didn't care for the film because of what I saw as an overdone message is tantamount to saying that the message was the only reason the film was made. It's not, and I never said it was. Again, the message isn't the (only) reason the film was made, it was one of the reasons I didn't like it. Get that through your head please.

When it's "What Hollywood doesn't need" it isn't about you anymore. When you start talking about the motivations of the producers and distributors, it isn't about you anymore. Pro Tip: When you want it to be about your opinion of the movie, don't project that onto the entire industry. If you don't want to be challenged on things, don't post in a public forum.

For. The. Fourth. Time.

That comment was not made to cite the fact that D9 was only made for its message. That comment was made as a partial exposition about why I did not care for the film. I've seen a lot of "racism is bad" movies, but all of them pale in comparison to American History X and Little Big Man.

Sorry. Gave you too much credit for awareness of the things you want to comment on. I won't make that mistake again.

Nice bait, but all I said was that I didn't care for the film, that it didn't deserve best picture, and had a theme/message that was boring to me. I shouldn't be expected to be intimately aware of how/where a movie was made to form an opinion of it. That it took place in SA and had actors I hadn't seen before does not conjure some mystical inference about the production team and where they sleep at night.

Laughably naive. One only has to look at the reaction of some people to our black president. Not to mention that race is more than just 'black and white.'

Here we go with this again. I'll not turn this into another Obama thread, but for fuck's sake, people rag on politicians for @@attribute@@ all the time. That it happens (for fewer people than you probably think, but that's for another thread) to be race in some cases is not something I'm prepared to start frothing at the mouth over. For all the talk of progress and change, you sure seem more interested in why people don't like Obama rather than actually getting shit done. You're not going to win the racists over, and their influence has been waning for some time. Just let them die. Paying this much attention to them and their ideas is only empowering them. Move on.