>the film only really delved into the lives of two black
>households...one was a pimp's and the other was a guy wanting
>to help a pimp out....i didn't think brewer would actually try
>to say these two household's represented anything involved wit
>"black life"...it surely didn't come across that way on screen
>to..but hey i didn't know that was his intention...but name
>these films, black or white, that don't have stereotypes?? i'm
>not saying it's a good thing, but i AM saying it's a commom
>practice that many movies are about the same old shit...

you REALLY need to read brewer's comments. most of the films that are based on stereotypes involve people of color; even the white flicks. most white films devoid of people color are more about fantasy, not stereotypes. and if anything, name the white films that don't have people of color that are full of stereotypes.
>
>so...you have no respone to THE FACT that movies FROM
>hollywood of course end up playin to hollywood game..you'd
>rather throw insults...ok..

dude, you're beating a dead horse. i've already said that most films involving people of color are nothing but stereotypes most of the times. it's always been that way, and until we make changes ourselves, will probably always be that way.
>
>"more fully developed hood flicks"...is that an oxymoron??
>still throwin insults...no real anwers...are you sayin gthat
>many of the characters in those other hood movies made by
>black folks AREN'T caricatures?? your ruining your own points
>homie...

dude please...you're playing yourself. "menace..." was loosely based on a scorcese flick. "good fellas" is a (white) hood flick, as is "casino" and even "raging bull". the fact is, just because a film is a hood movie doesn't mean it can't have characters that are developed. that wasn't the case with "hustle..." now was it?
>
>i musta missed something, cause all i know is at the end of
>the day hollywood wants to make money...if they think they can
>make loot from stuff like "eve's" (i NEVER heard it making
>alotta money at the box office, but..whatever) they would make
>it...it's not THAT serious...if they didn't wanna make serious
>black movies at all they wouldn't let the biopics thru the
>gate, cause they are the most serious black realted thing
>hollywood works wit...biopics bring in alotta money, and the
>ones about black folks will course involve "the black
>experience", so i'm not understanding why you think hollywood
>even cares about "black life"..they simply don't think more
>serious, non biopic movies will make money..and they are
>wrong...

i never said "eve's..." made a lot of money at the box office. what i said was that "eve's..." is in the tradition of black films of the past (jd's revenge, the educatio of sonny carson, cotton comes to harlem, five on the black hand side, uptown saturday night/let's do it again, and even car wash) that did well at the box office despite not being known as ghetto/hood flicks. the difference is that hollywood was more accepting in promoting those movies and the mindset of the black audience was open to checking for such films.