You post like 'Syriana' meets 'Clueless' or some
thing related. Your posts definitely have a teenage
girl protagonist, but go on about nothing sort of
like 'Syriana'.

>I don't think I'm wrong. You're wrong, I just don't see the
>point in us continuing to insult one another.

No, here's the sequence of events, sparky:

1) I made several points about the ACTUAL FILM, of which no
one has even addressed, let alone put a dent in

2) You respond with wild guesses about a movie
that you haven't seen, say "Tyler Perry is trying to
get an exclusive handle on black america" and then
cry, telling me "don't question my blackness because I don't
like Tyler Perry" and all sorts of other incoherent,
illogical bullshit.

3)I call you out on it and say you smell.

4)You make several more bad points, even
trying to play the victim role("Don't say
I'm not black enough!!!!").

5) I call you out and say you smell, again

6) Then you say "Oh, well, let's stop, because
I haven't seen the movie, am getting hammered
on every point I bring up, so why don't I just
go see the movie, to divert attention from the fact
that I should not have posted to begin with."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPEE.

That, my friend, is backtracking.

You made a series of dumbass points. You can
retract/apologize for them, but you can't just
"agree to disagree" there. Two people can only
"agree to disagree" when the disagreement is
atomized, and can't be further broken down, as
in, both sides are perfectly logical and the
point of departure boils down to something very,
very fundamental. That is not the case here.

The point of departure is your bad points.

>If you weren't insecure you wouldn't bitch about a shitty
>movie getting more props than a film you like. But you do, you
>bitch and moan because Tyler Perry shot his credibility to
>hell with his crappy movies and TV shows. And now that he made
>a film which you think is good people aren't as willing to
>give him a chance.


LOL.


>No i should have, because you made a bitch ass post crying
>because Clint Eastwood has more credibility than your hack of
>a favorite director, and then when critics weren't biting you
>get pissed.

LOL. Tyler Perry is my favorite director?

You don't say?

When did I say that?


























*reflects*

















































LOL....now I got you lying. I'm enjoying myself.

Keep going.

>I'm sorry that Tyler Perry never gave anyone a reason to trust
>that he could make a good film, but that's his fault. Not
>anyone else's.

Actually, 'Why Did I Get Married' was very well received,
so now you're just talking out of your ass, and showing
us how you really feel.

LOL

>Once again, I take issue with how you're going after TP's
>detractors and views about his work vs. the work of other
>directors. Not the movie its self, I've said that over and
>over again.

I actually spent waaaaaaaay more time talking about the
actual movie than I did talking about his detractors.
I did that on purpose, actually, to defend against the
very claim you just made. Ain't I good?

>Not what I said, but I guess we're back to the reading
>comprehension thing. You made the claim that somehow TP
>outdoes the other films when it comes to showcasing race
>relations. You said that he "actually" portrays how blacks and
>whites interact. He doesn't show how they actually interact.
>He shows particular types of race issues and certain types of
>race relations. Just like Spike does. Just like Crash did.
>Just like countless other films good, bad, problematic, or
>otherwise do. None of them get it all, and Tyler Perry is no
>closer to a grand unified theory on race than any other
>director.


BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So basically, Tyler Perry is unsuccessful at
portraying every aspect of the black experience
in his films.





























*reflects*






















































Uh. Okay.

Now what the fuck is your problem again?


>The idea that somehow one director who you admitted works on a
>very specific subset of black life could showcase how race
>relations "actually" works is ridiculous.

Uh, dipshit, he's not showing how every single black person
interacts with every single white person.

That is physically impossible, let alone cinematically
impossible.

The point I made is no different than the point anyone makes
when the say movie (a) is realistic in regards to topic X and
movie (b) is not. In the case of 'The Family that Preys', the
writing and acting are nuanced to the point where they appear
to mimic actual interactions, relative to other films where the
interactions feel forced.

Its no different than women loving 'Steel Magnolias' because
the interactions seem genuine, and seem to mimick real
interactions between women. When they say: "Steel Magnolias
is realistic," they don't mean that it captures every
interaction between every woman interacting with every other
woman.

Hell, we don't even mean 'Steel Magnolias' captures every
white southern woman interacting with every white southern
woman.

We just mean the interactions feel genuine, and again,
seem to simulate the way women actually act. Its a sign
of good writing(and usually, acting).

^^^^That is a subtle, sound point that I made from the outset.
How you misinterpreted that to mean "Tyler Perry's film does a
great job of summarizing the way every black person in the
universe interacts with every white person in the universe"
is beyond me.

Idiot.

>But once again, maybe this film changes all of that. We'll
>see. I'll be very impressed if one movie can capture "the way
>black and white people actually interact." Condensing the
>totality of American black/white interactions into a two hour
>film seems like a tall order. But your ringing endorsement
>makes me hopeful.

Sure - Tyler Perry captures every aspect of all black
life and its interactions with white people.


LOL. Idiot.


>I wasn't backtracking I was giving us a chance to discuss the
>film instead of arguing about what we've been arguing about.
>You don't want to do that fine.

No, you're backtracking. You advanced stupid arguments,
and because you can't back them up, are now saying:

"Oh, well, let me see the movie first."

That's copping out and backtracking.

>I'm not running away. Fuck my post pretty much just said let's
>agree to disagree on the things we've been discussing.

Exactly -- let's agree to disagree because you made
bad points that you can't defend and commented on
a movie that you haven't seen.

>Don't act like I'm trying to back peddle now because if I was
>I wouldn't have reiterated the fact that I think you're a
>bitter douche bag.

Uh. Sure. LOL.


>You're a bitter douchebag.

Hmmmm...mad?

why?

>Tyler Perry hasn't made a good
>movie that I've seen (we'll see if he did once I watch The
>Family That Preys). And as such I find it sad that you need to
>malign and tear down other directors and films just to build
>up your favorite hack.

No, I don't. I just like to make insecure nerds like
you mad by peeing on popular movies that are horseshit
but lauded anyway. Its just fun. I was sort of a bully
in middle school and haven't shaken the tendency. Difference
is I'm mad smart now.

>That shit is sad. You're insecure. And maybe one day Tyler
>Perry will win the Palme d'Or so you can stop feeling so
>insecure because critics don't like Madea.

Hmmm....mad?