Red Letter Media |OT| of Movies, Murderers, and Pizza Rolls

I really want to watch the new Half In The Bag but still haven't seen GWTDT.

Feels bad man.
No spoilers. They just talk about how they like it. They actually bleep out a spoiler Mike went on. They have a talk about one scene that might be "spoilerish" but it has literally no impact on the story that I could see. Just describes some of the tricks Fincher implements to increase the tension of a scene.

I haven't seen the movie either. This review made me want to see it.
 
An alright Half in the Bag; they're two guys that are more funny/interesting when they're being incendiary, though, so seeing them just sort of converse about movies that they at least kind of enjoyed doesn't hold the attention as much.
 
An alright Half in the Bag; they're two guys that are more funny/interesting when they're being incendiary, though, so seeing them just sort of converse about movies that they at least kind of enjoyed doesn't hold the attention as much.
I just turn on the video and let it hang in the background, I treat it just like a podcast. It works much better that way :)
 
I'm afraid what we did was evil. In fact... it's possible.. that you and I both.. have a devil inside...
Hey, that reminds me! Have you seen Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Chip..wreck..quel...?
 
I love that they're pumping out Half In the Bag much more often nowadays. They must have got a traffic boost following their Indy review.
 
care to explain why?
They were using a lot of incorrect facts and bad examples to support their arguments. And their overall knowledge on some of the topics was embarrassing.

1.Using The Blaxploitation movies as an example of an all black movies from Hollywood is incorrect.

The majority were independent movies, because Hollywood wasn't making movies with black cast. There were a few like Shaft but the majority were independent.

2. The assertion that there have been plenty of major movies made that feature a majority black cast.

They used Glory as an example, which anyone who has seen the movie will tell you the focus of the movie Col. Shaw Matthew Brodericks character. There have not been many major studio financed movies with a majority black cast.

3. Contending Lucas saying that he would like to have the characters be role models to young black teenagers.

They said that there were already role models for young black teenagers, as someone who was a young black teenager I can say that they are wrong on that part. The vast majority of images that young black males are driven to emulate are athletes and rappers, who really shouldn't be anyones role model for the most part. They say "well how do we know they dont like history", well there are reasons I could write a 5 page paper off the top of my head why looking for role models in history books isn't something that is likely to happen, but I dont want to get into that now.

3. They question why the movie was even made.

They said well there is Glory, and The HBO version of the Tuskegee Airmen so why do we need this movie. This really pissed me off the most. It came off as you already got 2 movies about black people in war why do you need more isn't that enough. Aside from the fact that 1 of the movies they brought up was on HBO a channel that not everyone has, the story's are still relevant because many are still unaware of the contributions that African Americans have made during WW2.

4. Disputing the fact that many black story's have gone untold.

They then flash 8 movie posters to dispute this. I know the reviews are meant to be comical but that came across as very ignorant. The vast majority of biographical movies out are about white people, and there is nothing wrong with that. But to say that black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian and others are not under represented is kind of foolish.

I could go into more points but I really dont want to spend the next couple of hours going into it.
 
1.Using The Blaxploitation movies as an example of an all black movies from Hollywood is incorrect.

The majority were independent movies, because Hollywood wasn't making movies with black cast. There were a few like Shaft but the majority were independent.
Jay and Mike didn't say anything about movies "from Hollywood." Lucas said, in the Daily Slow clip included in the review, that Red Tails is one of the first action movies with an all-black cast. He's totally wrong, and Jay points that out by pointing to, just as an example, an entire, prolific genre of films that is all about action and black casts. Neither Mike or Jay said anything about action movies with black casts "from Hollywood." Neither of them said or implied, "Everything is just fine in Hollywood for blacks." Neither of them at any point indicated anything to this effect: "Complaints about blacks being marginalized in Hollywood are wrong." You misrepresented what they said and then criticized something they didn't say.

2. The assertion that there have been plenty of major movies made that feature a majority black cast.

They used Glory as an example, which anyone who has seen the movie will tell you the focus of the movie Col. Shaw Matthew Brodericks character. There have not been many major studio financed movies with a majority black cast.
Movies featuring "a majority black cast" can also be movies like Glory, which have a white central character, because most of the cast is black. That's what "majority" means.

3. Contending Lucas saying that he would like to have the characters be role models to young black teenagers.

They said that there were already role models for young black teenagers, as someone who was a young black teenager I can say that they are wrong on that part. The vast majority of images that young black males are driven to emulate are athletes and rappers, who really shouldn't be anyones role model for the most part. They say "well how do we know they dont like history", well there are reasons I could write a 5 page paper off the top of my head why looking for role models in history books isn't something that is likely to happen, but I dont want to get into that now.
They pointed out that a fat, old, completely out-of-touch white guy feels it's his place to give black teenagers better role models. (And he wants to do it with this shitty movie, too.) Mike and Jay did not at any point state or imply that young black Americans don't need better quality role models.

Look at George fucking Lucas in those clips, one of the whitest guys in existence, sitting with Oprah, talking about how Red Tails was hard to market because of racism. Result: the Oprah media machine spreads the word and makes buying a ticket to see Red Tails some sort of social/political statement, some blacks rally (like the news clip in the review demonstrates), and Lucasfilm makes a shit-ton of money on a film that wouldn't have made nearly as much if it were succeeding or failing on its own merits. It wouldn't take a cynic to call that cynical manipulation of the media, because that's what it is. Either that or Lucas is actually such a huge egomaniac that he really believes nobody could possibly have a problem with the film Red Tails unless they were racist.

3. They question why the movie was even made.

They said well there is Glory, and The HBO version of the Tuskegee Airmen so why do we need this movie. This really pissed me off the most. It came off as you already got 2 movies about black people in war why do you need more isn't that enough. Aside from the fact that 1 of the movies they brought up was on HBO a channel that not everyone has, the story's are still relevant because many are still unaware of the contributions that African Americans have made during WW2.
But you know that's not what they meant. They thoroughly trashed the film and explained why in detail. They want to know why a shitty film that handles the material the way Red Tails handles it--outright trivializes the history--was made. They poke fun at the high-minded nonsense Lucas talks (in the interview clips they showed in the review) about how he's helping to do something lofty with Red Tails because the film contradicts that: Red Tails seems to want to deliver messages about the evils of racism while also obviously paying structural homage to the inherently bigoted propaganda films of the 40s and also using paper-thin, poorly defined and developed characters with literally a single personality trait to distinguish them from one another. They actually said all that explicitly in the video.

4. Disputing the fact that many black story's have gone untold.

They then flash 8 movie posters to dispute this. I know the reviews are meant to be comical but that came across as very ignorant. The vast majority of biographical movies out are about white people, and there is nothing wrong with that. But to say that black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian and others are not under represented is kind of foolish.
Is there a specific, or even general, number of films about black characters and black historical people that need to be made before blacks in film become more than "under-represented?" No. That's a complaint that will always seem valid and socially conscious in a country that is a majority white (or at least isn't a majority black), but the complaint really isn't saying anything except, "Most movies in America are about white people." And saying that implies widespread malicious racism/bigotry without actually making an accusation, which is helpful since it doesn't require any proof. Fire and forget!

Like it or not, people most relate to people who look like them, regardless of their feelings about race. There are scientific studies that back this up, and this goes for all races. It has nothing to do with racism in the popular sense of the term. Don't see many Bollywood productions about Anglo-Saxons, do you? There's a reason for that: they're made for Indian consumption, and Indians wants to watch other Indians. That doesn't make them racists.


What, did you see some white guys criticizing a "black film" and it made you feel uncomfortable? Maybe you'd better watch the review again when you're not feeling so defensive. Or maybe just give up now.
 
Is there a specific, or even general, number of films about black characters and black historical people that need to be made before blacks in film become more than "under-represented?" No. That's a complaint that will always seem valid and socially conscious in a country that is a majority white (or at least isn't a majority black), but the complaint really isn't saying anything except, "Most movies in America are about white people." And saying that implies widespread malicious racism/bigotry without actually making an accusation, which is helpful since it doesn't require any proof. Fire and forget!
Well, it's certainly not as if there isn't massive white-washing going in in major motion pictures. Danny Glover, for example, had trouble getting money for a production about Toussaint Louverture because it lacked a white hero. And of course, NeoGAF raged at Shyamalan for specifically seeking to cast white people in the roles of the Asian and Inuit heroes in Avatar: The Last Airbender, while the white villains (or villain-leaning) characters were portrayed by an Iranian actor and two Indian actors. It'd be one thing if Shyamalan was just following the show, but casting white people as the heroes and dark-skinned people as the opposing force makes no sense unless white-washing is a central element.

/rant
 
Jay and Mike didn't say anything about movies "from Hollywood." Lucas said, in the Daily Slow clip included in the review, that Red Tails is one of the first action movies with an all-black cast. He's totally wrong, and Jay points that out by pointing to, just as an example, an entire, prolific genre of films that is all about action and black casts. Neither Mike or Jay said anything about action movies with black casts "from Hollywood." Neither of them said or implied, "Everything is just fine in Hollywood for blacks." Neither of them at any point indicated anything to this effect: "Complaints about blacks being marginalized in Hollywood are wrong." You misrepresented what they said and then criticized something they didn't say.
I love how you can take what they are implying but not what Lucas is. The whole point of what he was bringing up is the issue of studios giving money to produce a movie that is staring and featuring black actors.




Movies featuring "a majority black cast" can also be movies like Glory, which have a white central character, because most of the cast is black. That's what "majority" means.
Lucas was referring to a movie that has a Black leading actor, and cast not just a movie that has a majority of black people in them. Bringing up Glory was irrelevant because the movie is just as much about Col. Shaw





They pointed out that a fat, old, completely out-of-touch white guy feels it's his place to give black teenagers better role models. (And he wants to do it with this shitty movie, too.) Mike and Jay did not at any point state or imply that young black Americans don't need better quality role models.

Look at George fucking Lucas in those clips, one of the whitest guys in existence, sitting with Oprah, talking about how Red Tails was hard to market because of racism. Result: the Oprah media machine spreads the word and makes buying a ticket to see Red Tails some sort of social/political statement, some blacks rally (like the news clip in the review demonstrates), and Lucasfilm makes a shit-ton of money on a film that wouldn't have made nearly as much if it were succeeding or failing on its own merits. It wouldn't take a cynic to call that cynical manipulation of the media, because that's what it is. Either that or Lucas is actually such a huge egomaniac that he really believes nobody could possibly have a problem with the film Red Tails unless they were racist.
God forbid he chooses to bring light to a group of people who succeeded despite the adversity put in front of them, rather then some glorified thug. And as someone who is capable of making films on his own if He chooses to make a movie with positive black role models why is that a bad thing?


But you know that's not what they meant. They thoroughly trashed the film and explained why in detail. They want to know why a shitty film that handles the material the way Red Tails handles it--outright trivializes the history--was made. They poke fun at the high-minded nonsense Lucas talks (in the interview clips they showed in the review) about how he's helping to do something lofty with Red Tails because the film contradicts that: Red Tails seems to want to deliver messages about the evils of racism while also obviously paying structural homage to the inherently bigoted propaganda films of the 40s and also using paper-thin, poorly defined and developed characters with literally a single personality trait to distinguish them from one another. They actually said all that explicitly in the video.
What they said was with the previous film about the subject and Glory why make another movie about the subject they get the point. Thats like saying With Schindler's List and Sophie's Choice I never need to see another holucaust movie again I get the point.


Is there a specific, or even general, number of films about black characters and black historical people that need to be made before blacks in film become more than "under-represented?" No. That's a complaint that will always seem valid and socially conscious in a country that is a majority white (or at least isn't a majority black), but the complaint really isn't saying anything except, "Most movies in America are about white people." And saying that implies widespread malicious racism/bigotry without actually making an accusation, which is helpful since it doesn't require any proof. Fire and forget!
Which is why when they said they dont need any more movies about segregated American military units it kind of proves the point as to what Lee was saying.

Like it or not, people most relate to people who look like them, regardless of their feelings about race. There are scientific studies that back this up, and this goes for all races. It has nothing to do with racism in the popular sense of the term. Don't see many Bollywood productions about Anglo-Saxons, do you? There's a reason for that: they're made for Indian consumption, and Indians wants to watch other Indians. That doesn't make them racists.
I called them Racist?


What, did you see some white guys criticizing a "black film" and it made you feel uncomfortable? Maybe you'd better watch the review again when you're not feeling so defensive. Or maybe just give up now.
Oh so now I'm a racist?

First of all I said they had every right to criticize the film in fact I agree with almost all of their criticisms.

My issues was when they went and brought all the other crap I pointed out.
 
soundscream said:
God forbid he chooses to bring light to a group of people who succeeded despite the adversity put in front of them, rather then some glorified thug. And as someone who is capable of making films on his own if He chooses to make a movie with positive black role models why is that a bad thing?
This is kind of the whole point of the episode. The movie should not be given a free pass because of sympathy or good intentions that Lucas is trying to instill, especially when the execution is so horribly misguided. Otherwise, who cares? Congratulations, you made a terrible movie, but at least it didn't glorify gun-toting gangstas. Where is the pride in making a movie like that, much less paying to go see?

Like Trekker pointed out:
Night_Trekker said:
Look at George fucking Lucas in those clips, one of the whitest guys in existence, sitting with Oprah, talking about how Red Tails was hard to market because of racism. Result: the Oprah media machine spreads the word and makes buying a ticket to see Red Tails some sort of social/political statement, some blacks rally (like the news clip in the review demonstrates), and Lucasfilm makes a shit-ton of money on a film that wouldn't have made nearly as much if it were succeeding or failing on its own merits.
 
This is kind of the whole point of the episode. The movie should not be given a free pass because of sympathy or good intentions that Lucas is trying to instill, especially when the execution is so horribly misguided. Otherwise, who cares? Congratulations, you made a terrible movie, but at least it didn't glorify gun-toting gangstas. Where is the pride in making a movie like that, much less paying to go see?

Like Trekker pointed out:
There is evidence that proves what Lucas was saying does happen. Whether it happened with this film is in question. My problem is them acting like it doesn't exist. Again my issue isn't with the review its the points they brought up to validate their feelings towards it, is what I took issue with.
 
There is evidence that proves what Lucas was saying does happen. Whether it happened with this film is in question. My problem is them acting like it doesn't exist. Again my issue isn't with the review its the points they brought up to validate their feelings towards it, is what I took issue with.
I think their skepticism stems not so much from whether or not "it" exists, but more from Lucas being quick to use that as an excuse and/or justification for his terrible movie. After seeing the finished product, they are simply calling Lucas out for coming across as disingenuous and misguided.
 
You know what I hate? When some guy starts getting offended about something that's completely incorrect and someone comes in and corrects him on it and he just ignores it completely and comes up with other contrivances to argue back.

Some people just need to learn to say "yeah man, I was wrong".
 
I think their skepticism stems not so much from whether or not "it" exists, but more from Lucas being quick to use that as an excuse and/or justification for his terrible movie. After seeing the finished product, they are simply calling Lucas out for coming across as disingenuous and misguided.
And even then if you look at the history of the production all 20+ years it doesn't rule out the possibility of some truth on his side of the story. Lucas actions over the past 20 years have earned him enough animosity from almost everyone. And on their end spouting inaccuracies as facts, the budget 100million (actually 52), and that it was rejected only after it was made (it was also rejected before it was made) which is why he had to finance it himself. If a movie like Skycaptin and the World of Tomorrow can get funding for production 70million or, Flyboys 60million yet this couldn't would seem to lean towards what he said having some merit.

You know what I hate? When some guy starts getting offended about something that's completely incorrect and someone comes in and corrects him on it and he just ignores it completely and comes up with other contrivances to argue back.

Some people just need to learn to say "yeah man, I was wrong".
I disagree with the conclusions that he and a few others seem to agree with. I have brought my points up addressing my views on the situation. In sorry if I am causing you to have your hate levels rise.
 
I love how you can take what they are implying but not what Lucas is. The whole point of what he was bringing up is the issue of studios giving money to produce a movie that is staring and featuring black actors.
Lucas went to the big Hollywood money lenders and asked for money. They said they didn't know how to market this movie. That means that they don't know how to put an ad campaign together that ensures them a return on investment that is bigger than the next place they could put their money. They say this to a lot of people, regardless of race. If your movie scares them, they'll walk away, no matter how good the script is. If your movie has a "hook", and they think it might pay off, they'll lend you millions of dollars, no matter how shitty the script is. If they say no and you actually care about your movie, you find the money somewhere else (like putting a second mortgage on your multi-billion dollar corporation) or maybe you find a new idea.

Are these people prejudiced against black people? Maybe, but it's nothing that can't be overcome with a solid plan that shows them dollar signs. Are they prejudiced towards Jewish people? Maybe, but they won't willingly throw money away just because you're somebody's second cousin. Are they wrong sometimes? Often, but they play the odds, that's why they win more than they lose.

Lucas figured out his own way to put together an ad campaign that gave him a solid return on investment (after a brief flirtation with putting dubstep in the trailer). He called people racists and asked you to stand up for black people by giving him your money.

Actually, If Lucas told the Hollywood money lenders that was going to be his hook, that he was going to appear on Oprah and paint his backers as racists to stir up (fake) controversy and rally the black viewers and get non-racists to step up and prove their non-racism, they'd probably have given him money. Hollywood money lenders don't particularly care what people think of them, so long as they have money.
 
Well, it's certainly not as if there isn't massive white-washing going in in major motion pictures. Danny Glover, for example, had trouble getting money for a production about Toussaint Louverture because it lacked a white hero. And of course, NeoGAF raged at Shyamalan for specifically seeking to cast white people in the roles of the Asian and Inuit heroes in Avatar: The Last Airbender, while the white villains (or villain-leaning) characters were portrayed by an Iranian actor and two Indian actors. It'd be one thing if Shyamalan was just following the show, but casting white people as the heroes and dark-skinned people as the opposing force makes no sense unless white-washing is a central element.

/rant
Gaf was wrong about Airbender being whitewashed though, unless you believe M Night is a self-hating racist and a bold faced liar.

He said that ideally he wanted to have had Native Americans for the Water Tribe, Japanese for the Fire Nation, Chinese for the Earth Kingdom, and mixed race for the Air Nomads. But he knew that he wouldn't be able to find suitable child actors if he worked under those restrictions. But he still wanted distinct races, so he was open to the idea of mixing up and juggling the different races based on the character leads.

He found a pair of white kids for Katara and Sokka who he liked, but he found a white kid for Zuko who he liked more, so he defaulted to his second choices for Katara and Sokka, who were Chinese. Then the white Zuko bailed, so he thought it was okay to go back to white people for the Water Tribe, and he cast a new Indian Zuko. And he says he never saw his Aang as being purely white, he seemed mixed, which was what he wanted.

It is true that his casting agency is clumsy and inept when it comes to race though, since he asked for multicultural applicants and they called for "whites and non-whites".
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
They were using a lot of incorrect facts and bad examples to support their arguments. And their overall knowledge on some of the topics was embarrassing.

1.Using The Blaxploitation movies as an example of an all black movies from Hollywood is incorrect.

The majority were independent movies, because Hollywood wasn't making movies with black cast. There were a few like Shaft but the majority were independent.

2. The assertion that there have been plenty of major movies made that feature a majority black cast.

They used Glory as an example, which anyone who has seen the movie will tell you the focus of the movie Col. Shaw Matthew Brodericks character. There have not been many major studio financed movies with a majority black cast.

3. Contending Lucas saying that he would like to have the characters be role models to young black teenagers.

They said that there were already role models for young black teenagers, as someone who was a young black teenager I can say that they are wrong on that part. The vast majority of images that young black males are driven to emulate are athletes and rappers, who really shouldn't be anyones role model for the most part. They say "well how do we know they dont like history", well there are reasons I could write a 5 page paper off the top of my head why looking for role models in history books isn't something that is likely to happen, but I dont want to get into that now.

3. They question why the movie was even made.

They said well there is Glory, and The HBO version of the Tuskegee Airmen so why do we need this movie. This really pissed me off the most. It came off as you already got 2 movies about black people in war why do you need more isn't that enough. Aside from the fact that 1 of the movies they brought up was on HBO a channel that not everyone has, the story's are still relevant because many are still unaware of the contributions that African Americans have made during WW2.

4. Disputing the fact that many black story's have gone untold.

They then flash 8 movie posters to dispute this. I know the reviews are meant to be comical but that came across as very ignorant. The vast majority of biographical movies out are about white people, and there is nothing wrong with that. But to say that black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian and others are not under represented is kind of foolish.

I could go into more points but I really dont want to spend the next couple of hours going into it.
If I'm Asian, who is my role model? Bruce Lee?

Lucas basically repeated the Republican mantra of "young black kids have no role models, cause their dads are all in jail". I know it's not his intention, but it sort of came off as rather patronizing, as if black kids are sheep running astray.

Also, they are right about the contradictions of the movie's tone with what the main story is supposed to be. It's basically a throw back to Buck Danny, but wtf, that comic was racist, the Japanese were banana-peel-yellow, with frowny faces.

If it was a bunch of white characters, fine, make a throw back to the WWII-era serials. But you can't make it happen with this story.
 
Mind blowing they still make these childish whizz bang explsion fests based on what was a deeply traumatic part of history.

Germans with scars? by the time of the normandy landings luftwaffe pilots had a pitiful amount of flight training and inferior aircraft. By late 44-1945 they were sending up teenage kids to get torn to pieces.