Not so fast, sparky.


>Yeah, I get that. I asked for examples of this at play. One
>guy who already gets work getting another job is a weak
>example.

Nice way to misinterpret the Underwood hiring.

Its a career role, actually, and perhaps his most
high profile job ever.

So no, its actually a very good example.

>Simply hiring Angela Bassett for one of his movies means
>squat.

Again - there you go with the oversimplification:

How about hiring Bassett in her highest profile
role in years?

He didn't "hire" her to be a goddamn extra.



>Yes, one example. Forgetting for a moment that Blair Underwood
>works steadily and is hardly "neglected," you need more than
>one example to make the case for this "theory."

Oh, I see: So are you suggesting that his latest role
is not a major high profile role that dwarfs pretty
much every single role he's had in the last decade?

If not, than please, shut the fuck up.

This is a major, major, coup for Underwood, as
by mere number of viewers, he's going to be seen
by more viewers than at any other point in his
career...add in the fact that he has a prominent
role, and not a secondary role, and Basaglia's point
is 100% correct.


>I never said he was a coon. I said he was a terrible
>filmmaker.

Good for you. I think Tarantino is a terrible
filmmaker. I'm also smart enough to know that he's
singlehandedly responsible for Travolta's resurrection,
and for the rise of Uma Thurman.


>I'm waiting for you to explain how her getting this one job
>"furthers" her career. Besides just getting her another
>paycheck.

If you don't see how her getting a high profile starring
role, in a major hollywood movie is good for her career,
than you're just inventing reasons to hate.

Bassett wasn't getting major starring roles AT ALL. Perry
gave an actress an opportunity to act on a grand stage.

That's good for her.

Not sure what you're confused about.


>I understand how someone might think Blair Underwood's career
>was furthered by being in a TP movie. But until we see what
>happens to Angela's career AFTER this movie, you can't say her
>career has been furthered. All she did was get another job.
>Some might say this is a step backwards for her career. That
>might be going to far.

Again - you're trying to argue a very specific point, that
isn't relevant. We all know that Angela Bassett is a great
actress. Even white people know that. Problem is, NO ONE
WAS CASTING HER FOR ANY LEADING ROLES in any respectable,
major hollywood films.

Perry casted her in a leading role in a respectable, major
hollywood film.



>Since when is Lionsgate a major studio? It's no rinky dink
>operation, but come on.

Oh, so its not expensive to pay for a commercial
on ABC? And is the film a major film, or not?

Answer the motherfucking questions.

>But disregarding that for a moment, are you really going to
>make the case that this movie is a big deal because they have
>commercials on TV? Lesser movies have commercials on TV too.
>I've seen commercials for movies playing in two cities.

Okay, but is this movie only playing in two cities?

Or is it going for nationwide release?





Oh, its a nationwide release movie with a fairly
notable cast?

So, why are you mentioning that small movies released in
two cities have commercials on TV?

What does that have to do with Perry's latest film?

Nothing?



Just like I thought.


>Wow. We all know TP movies make money. It has long since been
>established that Lionsgate is making big money off his movies.
>What does having a commercial on TV mean? Is this the first TP
>commercial you've seen?

No, dumbass, its evidence that this is Bassett's highest
profile leading role in a long, long, long, long,
long, time.




>Seriously. They have a commercial, must be a "real" movie.
>Lame.

Lol. Yeah. That's what I said.

Idiot.

You're getting desperate.


>Because having a commercial for a movie is no big deal. The
>fact that they advertise a black movie during a black movie is
>really not worth mentioning. I was curious why you mentioned
>it all. Now I realize it's because you're idiot.

Uh, no.

Its further evidence that this movie is a major studio
movie, which it is. That is what is so great about this
discussion -- at the end of the day, you haven't debated
the actual point:

This movie is a major hollywood movie, with nationwide
release.

And that is how they can afford to pay for
a fairly robust publicity campaign.



>Who made it is irrelevant. My point was about who you expect
>to buy it. If you're selling stuff black people buy, you
>advertise where the black people are.

Right, but that is a bad analogy, since a different
type of black person watched 'A Raisin in the Sun'
than the type of people you find in the "hood"
giddy to buy some Hennessey or buy a Cadillac
that they can't afford.


>Then there is also the point that, just like Hennessy and
>Cadillacs, people buying Tyler Perry movies is indicative of
>bad habits in the black community.

Oh jesus.

>That bad habit is supporting movies of inferior quality.

Right, like white people supporting Tarantino.

His most recent film was far worse than Perry's most
recent film, and fans of his have told me that. Didn't
stop them from buying the DVD.

How about white people and their bad habits?


I mean, we can have this debate if you want.


>Geez. You act like white people don't see cognac and malt
>liquor ads. But how many of them buy?

Actually, quite a few do.

But I'm black, and I buy neither.

Not sure what the fuck your point is.

>Ask your non-black, Ivy educated friends how many of them plan
>to see MEET THE BROWNS.

Actually, I saw the last Perry film with an educated
Latina, who absolutely loved it.

So I'm not sure what the fuck you're talking about.



----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"