>The fact remains more black movies are being made now then in
>the 80s. Full Stop. You began by trying to argue otherwise
>("We also had more Black movies by Black producers and all
>Black casts with larger push in the 80s.")


The full stop is the context of the convo.
It's about pop stardom, so everything said
is within the context of mainstream. The
post is about the grammys.


>It's easier to just say I prefer 80s black movies than to try
>and discount all the black films & TV shows that are being
>made today because they don't align with your politics. I
>mean you used Coming To America as your example when that was
>a movie made by white filmmakers but chauvinistically dismiss
>the works of Issa and Ava? SMH.


What mainstream film has Issa made? You pointed
out that I started talking about movies, but you're
talking about cable TV shows. If I meant I
preferred 80s movies, that's what I would've said.
Ava did Selma... Spike did Malcolm X...
No further comment, unless you want to outline exactly
what my politics are w/o baseless accusations of
chauvinism since my view is the same regardless
of their gender. You also have the guy who wrote
that "Dear White People" tripe. Perhaps you'd like
to compare that to School Daze.


> The marketing push, what's
>>featured, etc is still very much controlled tho.
>
>Of course.


Well at least we agree on that.


> Keep
>>in mind the base of this convo is pop stardom, not
>>just stuff being out there... somewhere... in space...
>>or wherever.
>
>
>OK but recognize you are shifting your argument from not as
>much black content is made today to not as much black content
>is pushed into the mainstream.




Again, that's not a shift, it's the context of
the argument in the first place. Curtis Harding
is a Black artist with a shot, but we're talking
about Bruno Mars, because that's who white folks
put on the stage.



>That may be true but how much do we give a shit that black
>content is not being pushed on White Audiences?




Not sure about "we", but it's obvious yall do,
because look what we're talking about. Look
how many comments the GoT season 7 post got.




>That always felt like looking for white approval to me.




That's exactly what I'm always calling it (looking
for white approval) but yall say I'm crazy for it.
Yet, this convo is about pop (mainstream) stardom,
pop stardom IS white approval. The thing is you
and others never seem to realize that. Funny that
you can see it now that tho. I'll hold you to this.
But let's clear something up right here. Mainstream
isn't only dictated by white people... it's also an
avenue for more people to become aware of your
product, period. That's why it's important. Just
look at how you didn't know who Curtis Harding is.
That's because white folks haven't given him a
platform. The ideal is that we don't need white folks
at all. The problem is that it takes white approval
for one to even HAVE a larger platform for the most part.
Again, the guy white folks put on their stage is what
pops on here, so I'm discussing it in the same way
that I always do, and that is to say that this is
all determined by white folks. Are you claiming that
you now don't care about what's given the white folks
stamp? Because everyone you've mentioned has gotten
a major cosign by major white corporations. Hmmm
I'd love for that not to be the case... or for The Chi
to get 1000 comments instead of Game of Thrones on a
site started by a Black band, but alas...
The Chi is even executive produced by one of that
band's affiliates but hey...
I'd love for us to talk about 1804 or something/someone
who doesn't have a major white cosign but this would
be the wrong place to make a post about it at this point.
White approval... man that's so funny coming from you,
b/c I've never seen you champion anything that doesn't
have white approval. Hip me to some stuff tho if you
got it. You know I'm down to check it out.




>>>I did my thesis on Black Film and Spike Lee in 1999.
>>> There are way more opportunities for black filmmakers now
>>>then there were then.
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not understanding how those sentences connect,
>
>The first sentence is to show this is a topic I've been
>following and covering for some time which gives me some
>authority to make the next statement.



None of that supposed authority is apparent in
the statement or elsewhere tho. That's why I
didn't understand why you even mentioned it.



> but
>>again, that's just b/c there are more avenues for
>>everything. "Opportunities" is an interesting word
>>here tho. So is Hidden Colors on Netflix? Is it
>>mentioned at ANY Black award shows despite being the
>>biggest selling Black documentary ever? Why do you
>>think that is?
>
>I don't know. It might be because of the shitty production
>value. It might be because the filmmaker doesn't want it on
>netflix. It might not get awards because they didn't submit
>it for awards.



It's definitely not the production value.
The rest if most likely not the case either.


>I'm sure you got a theory as to why. Happy to hear.



Simple. White folks don't want it there.
You already knew that tho.



>>> You romanticising the 80s.
>>
>>
>>If you say so. Many of the movies we love in the
>>80s and 90s go straight to DVD if they're made now.
>>Not because we wouldn't see them, but b/c gatekeepers
>>ain't allowing intelligent heterosexual Black males
>>to be depicted caring about each other and loving
>>Black women long-term, etc.
>
>
>Straight to DVD? They still making DVDs?



Yes.


>>>Well know you talking colorism. That's a different issue.
>>If
>>>you are arguing you got to be certain types of light skin
>to
>>>be a crossover success I would have less to disagree with
>>you
>>>about.
>>
>>
>>Are you not also arguing this?
>>If I recall correctly, you think there's no
>>difference in Black and black. In that case,
>>Bruno is as black as you are.
>
>I think you are mixing up colorism and ethnicity/nationality.


Nah, I think you are.