trailer is out

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810095581/video/26098678

I hope Lucas does this justice, I know he'll knock the visual graphics of the fight scenes out the box it's the script I'm worried about.

I'm going to have to not think about Chef Radio in Pearl Harbor, but...
Outside of that, story (it's based on), action, cast all look outstanding!

I have a 400 year old chip on my shoulder.

nm

and films that are defined as being "black film" usually put me off. From the trailer T.Howard and cuba looked like they did good.

Also i believe aaron mcgruder was involved with the script so we don'thave to worry too much about lucasisms creeping in.

i'm getting tired of the circling wagons
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/red-tails/

______________________________

They're bureaucrats! I don't respect them.(c)Rick Sanchez

They wanted a historical movie. Lucas wanted to make a john Wayne style action movie.

Plus a bit of me thinks they are shitting on it because the studios told them to.

but i'm not going to see the movie. i just wanted to be able to placate those who try to guilt-trip me into 'supporting' Black film via this movie.

*eyes roll*

fuck you.

>but i'm not going to see the movie. i just wanted to be able
>to placate those who try to guilt-trip me into 'supporting'
>Black film via this movie.
>
>*eyes roll*

If you don't want to support the movie, then don't.

You don't have to placate anyone.

Stand up for yourself, for god's sakes.

fuck you.

It was passable. Why were they using the green screen? The score was corny as hell. And yes the script was weak, but the cast made the best of it and the dogfights are the shit. People stood and clapped at the end. LOL at niggas checkin' for Underworld 4 in 3D

------------------------------------------
America from 9:00 on: https://youtu.be/GUwLCQU10KQ

Let's be clear: George has flat out stated that this is a popCorn movie by design, with his target audience being black teenagers. The operative word in that sentence, to me, is teenagers; said blackness is secondary IMO. So, it's a popcorn flick telling the story of a historical event and not a weighty historical drama, which I suspect the RT reviewers are veiwing it as. Whenever Yahoo user satisfaction is this high for movies in this vein, IMO that's a better indicator of how well the movie will do financially. And really, isn't that the BIGGEST point of this movie, to make a shit load of money and widen the door for predominantly black films in genres outside of tyler perry films or queen latifah/ice cube flicks?

The(essentially) all-black cast is in and of itself an accomplishment for a movie with such lofty blockbuster aspirations. I mean, come on- Bay does a remake of Memphis Belle in the same aesthetic lane and releases it in June, and it'd be a fucking event film. Not that the topic itself is the same, just the period setting (considering MB was essentially the guys being protected by TTA) is more or less another side of that same coin. So to do a predominantly black film in the vein of a summer action blockbuster, with Lucas at the helm? How the fuck is that NOT worth seeing, if for nothing more than sheer curiosity?

If Lucas wanted to make a black film in the vein of a summer blockbuster, they would do well to release it in summer.

I'm not in the mood to play the "user reviews are a better indication"/"there's a racist critic conspiracy holding it back" thing today. I'll still go see it, but it'll be with that same unease I sat down in the theater to, uh, experience Tyler Perry's "For Colored Girls" with.

Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised as far as the film exceeding my meager expectations. I have a pretty good tolerance for corn (which is the main thing people say is wrong with the film), so I might enjoy it more than, say, the folks at Slant Magazine.

>If Lucas wanted to make a black film in the vein of a summer
>blockbuster, they would do well to release it in summer.


LOL--who the fuck said that?

"Aimed at teenagers" and "popcorn flick" does not mean
"summer blockbuster."


LOL.


>I'm not in the mood to play the "user reviews are a better
>indication"/"there's a racist critic conspiracy holding it
>back" thing today. I'll still go see it, but it'll be with
>that same unease I sat down in the theater to, uh, experience
>Tyler Perry's "For Colored Girls" with.


LOL -- why the fuck would you do that? "For Colored Girls"
was an unapologetically serious and sad drama based on a
boho play. 'Red Tails' is a popcorn movie with tons of
aerial combat scenes aimed at teenagers.

Supporting one has nothing to do with supporting the other.


>Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised as far as the film
>exceeding my meager expectations. I have a pretty good
>tolerance for corn (which is the main thing people say is
>wrong with the film), so I might enjoy it more than, say, the
>folks at Slant Magazine.

LOL--well good for you!

>LOL--who the fuck said that?

I did.

>"Aimed at teenagers" and "popcorn flick" does not mean
>"summer blockbuster."

That's the impression I get from everything I've read about it. Sorry, aimed at teenagers+popcorn flick+highly special effects driven action sequences is pretty much sitting in the same area occupied by summer blockbusters. Of course, I said it was in the same vein, which is simply saying it was made along those lines; in other words, not the 'same'. 'Along these lines' doesn't mean 'the same as'.

>>LOL--who the fuck said that?
>
>I did.
>
>>"Aimed at teenagers" and "popcorn flick" does not mean
>>"summer blockbuster."

Nobody in their right fucking mind thought this
was going to be a "Summer blocbuster." Lucas was/is
hoping for a strong showing that makes back its
budget and then some.

>That's the impression I get from everything I've read about
>it. Sorry, aimed at teenagers+popcorn flick+highly special
>effects driven action sequences is pretty much sitting in the
>same area occupied by summer blockbusters.

No, its not. "Summer blockbuster" is 'Ironman' and
'Transformers'. Not sure who the fuck lied to you.

Of course, I said
>it was in the same vein, which is simply saying it was made
>along those lines; in other words, not the 'same'. 'Along
>these lines' doesn't mean 'the same as'.

That didn't make a grain of sense. Read it again and
then inbox your apology.



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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




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

(C)Keith Murray, "

>Nobody in their right fucking mind thought this
>was going to be a "Summer blocbuster."

I didn't say that, did I? I said the movie was made along those same lines. You know, as in, it has those types of elements. Which, you know, the movie does, no matter how much you want to sit behind your computer and pretend it doesn't.

>hoping for a strong showing that makes back its
>budget and then some.

In other words, water is wet. That's sort of, you know, literally what everyone who makes a movie hopes for. Yet, somehow you're the condescending one in this farce of a conversation.

>No, its not. "Summer blockbuster" is 'Ironman' and
>'Transformers'. Not sure who the fuck lied to you.

Right. This movie contains similar elements, no matter how much you want to sit here and snark behind your computer screen.

>That didn't make a grain of sense. Read it again and
>then inbox your apology.

It makes perfect, logical, well thought out, rational sense. This is evident by the fact that you don't have a logical, well thought out, rational response and rely exclusively on smarmy, sarcastic troll dialogue. But then, that's your gimmick 'round these here parts, tired-as-fuck though it might be.

>I didn't say that, did I? I said the movie was made along
>those same lines. You know, as in, it has those types of
>elements. Which, you know, the movie does, no matter how much
>you want to sit behind your computer and pretend it doesn't.

LOL @ "elements"

Its not a summer blockbuster, like, at all



>In other words, water is wet. That's sort of, you know,
>literally what everyone who makes a movie hopes for. Yet,
>somehow you're the condescending one in this farce of a
>conversation.


Nah, you mad though.


>Right. This movie contains similar elements, no matter how
>much you want to sit here and snark behind your computer
>screen.


Nah, you just making shit up.

No elements at all. Cry, you sissy.


>It makes perfect, logical, well thought out, rational sense.

LOL. You post like a fat teenage girl on her period.


>This is evident by the fact that you don't have a logical,
>well thought out, rational response and rely exclusively on
>smarmy, sarcastic troll dialogue. But then, that's your
>gimmick 'round these here parts, tired-as-fuck though it might
>be.

No. You said 'Red Tails' was designed to be a summer blockbuster.

It was not.

That is stupid and wrong and you should slapped in the fucking
face for even saying it.

So instead of being intellectual, I'll just calling you a
stanky breath, you stanky stank dude, you.


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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




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

(C)Keith Murray, "

Honestly: I didn't read any of that shit.
Honestly: Enjoy your response to this one, because I don't feed trolls for long and won't bother responding to further foolishness from a guy who posts "in character".

>If Lucas wanted to make a black film in the vein of a summer
>blockbuster, they would do well to release it in summer.

It wasn't really his play, it was Fox that had control over the release date. It doesn't sound like you're all that up on the fucked up circumstances surrounding this movie, because NOBODY wanted anything to do with it.

>I'm not in the mood to play the "user reviews are a better
>indication"

....of how well a movie will do financially, which is what I was talking about? user reviews are generally a good grade higher than the critics, and this is especially true of action/big budget/effects driven movies.

So when users give a movie overwhelmingly good reviews, that means word of mouth is good, which means, generally speaking, financial success.


>"there's a racist critic conspiracy holding it
>back" thing today.

I didn't say that anywhere in my post. I said I believe the critics are viewing it different in a different light. To my recollection- could be wrong I guess- I didn't go near the race card in my statements regarding the critics

>I'll still go see it, but it'll be with
>that same unease I sat down in the theater to, uh, experience
>Tyler Perry's "For Colored Girls" with.
>Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised as far as the film
>exceeding my meager expectations. I have a pretty good
>tolerance for corn (which is the main thing people say is
>wrong with the film), so I might enjoy it more than, say, the
>folks at Slant Magazine.

What's so hard about simply having an open mind going in? You already seem to have a salty attitude about the movie, about any praise the movie recieves, and anything mentioning the very clear issues surrounding it.

>>If Lucas wanted to make a black film in the vein of a
>summer
>>blockbuster, they would do well to release it in summer.
>
>It wasn't really his play, it was Fox that had control over
>the release date. It doesn't sound like you're all that up on
>the fucked up circumstances surrounding this movie, because
>NOBODY wanted anything to do with it.

This may come as a shock to you, but niggas do read. I already know all the bullshit surrounding the movie - my response was in reply to your comment about it being "summer action movie like", which sounds more to me like an excuse for an underwritten movie rather than an actual aim/goal of the production. Which was my point.


>
>>I'm not in the mood to play the "user reviews are a better
>>indication"
>
>....of how well a movie will do financially, which is what I
>was talking about? user reviews are generally a good grade
>higher than the critics, and this is especially true of
>action/big budget/effects driven movies.
>
>So when users give a movie overwhelmingly good reviews, that
>means word of mouth is good, which means, generally speaking,
>financial success.

The movie hadn't even been playing in theaters a good seven hours when you made your reply. A good chunk of those reviews were likely premature. Also, this is an excuse used to combat bad reviews all of the time.

>
>
>>"there's a racist critic conspiracy holding it
>>back" thing today.
>
>I didn't say that anywhere in my post. I said I believe the
>critics are viewing it different in a different light. To my
>recollection- could be wrong I guess- I didn't go near the
>race card in my statements regarding the critics

Someone else in this post or another said that. I was addressing all of the excuses I'm hearing simultaneously.
>
>>I'll still go see it, but it'll be with
>>that same unease I sat down in the theater to, uh,
>experience
>>Tyler Perry's "For Colored Girls" with.
>>Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised as far as the film
>>exceeding my meager expectations. I have a pretty good
>>tolerance for corn (which is the main thing people say is
>>wrong with the film), so I might enjoy it more than, say,
>the
>>folks at Slant Magazine.
>
>What's so hard about simply having an open mind going in? You
>already seem to have a salty attitude about the movie, about
>any praise the movie recieves, and anything mentioning the
>very clear issues surrounding it.

It's hard to have an open mind about a movie when everyone whose opinion you respect says it sucks.

The Times article describing this as a John Wayne flick aimed at teenage boys helped sway me towards excitement again. Now, this Post review more or less states what I thought might happen in terms of the critical pans everyone expected.

Lumenick's review:

"An inspiring, rousing tribute to the heroic, history-changing Tuskegee Airmen and World War II movies of the ’40s, “Red Tails’’ would probably be acclaimed as a minor masterpiece if it was directed by Quentin Tarantino.

But because so many blame its producer, George Lucas, for desecrating their childhoods with the “Star Wars’’ prequels (not an issue for me), you’re going to hear people dump on this, a passion project Lucas personally poured $60 million into after trying to sell it to Hollywood studios for 20 years.

Listen to the naysayers and you’ll be missing one of the best January-releases of the past 30 years, a well-acted, well-directed (by TV veteran Anthony Hemingway) popcorn movie with great aerial battles and solid dramatic scenes that hold your attention for two good hours.

Perhaps more importantly, it will leave you thirsting to read more about the Tuskegee Airmen, the first African-American pilots in the US Army.

Loosely inspired by their exploits, the film centers on a couple of archetypes, excellently played by a pair of little-known actors. Capt. Marty “Easy’’ Julian (Nate Parker) is a squadron commander who drinks to cope with the stress of making life-or-death decisions.

Easy’s best friend, Joe “Lightning’’ Little (David Oyelowo), is a showboating pilot with little use for rules or his pal’s commands, most excitingly deciding to wreak havoc on a Nazi battleship on the spur of the moment.

At a time when many white officers still believed blacks were “mentally inferior to the white man’’ (in the words of a 1925 Army War College study quoted at the outset), the Tuskegee Airmen are based far from enemy lines in Italy.

A bigoted Pentagon big shot (Bryan Cranston) continually tries to marginalize the Red Tails, so-called because of the distinctive markings on their planes.

But word of Lightning’s exploits finally enables the commander of the 332nd Fighter Group (Terrence Howard) to secure a plum assignment of escorting flying fortresses that have been suffering massive losses while on bombing runs. (Oscar winner Cuba Gooding Jr. delivers his best and most subtle performance in years as the pipe-smoking second-in-command.)

The measure of the Red Tails’ historic accomplishment is beautifully illustrated by a later scene where Easy and Lightning are walking past a segregated officers’ club in Italy and a white officer calls out to them.

They fear a racially motivated attack, but it turns out the officer is a bomber pilot who wants to buy them a drink to celebrate their heroism — and the Red Tails end up being toasted inside the club by formerly hostile white airmen.

Heavier themes are handled with restraint in a film clearly aimed at the family trade — not making a big deal, for instance, of Lightning’s interracial romance with a beautiful Italian woman but allowing the audience to wonder what will happen if their plans to marry actually come true.

The other major subplot involves a young pilot named Ray “Junior’’ Gannon (Tristan Wilds) who Easy allows to fly a mission despite serious vision problems. When he’s forced to bail out, Junior becomes the first black prisoner at a POW camp where he demonstrates a different kind of heroism.

“Red Tails’’ isn’t a perfect movie. Some of the dialogue is awkward, especially early on (but it’s not like “Star Wars’’ prequels, which seem to have been translated into Sanskrit and then back into English).

And you’d think Lucas, the founder of Industrial Light and Magic, would have more state-of-the-art special effects than the sometimes cheesy ones on view here.
That said, “Red Tails’’ — a welcome change from Hollywood’s historic January dumping ground — is lot more fun to sit through than Steven Spielberg’s pretentious, self-important “War Horse.”"

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Nate Parker and David Oyelowo were good leads and I appreciated the appearances from Andre Royo and Method Man but Ne-Yo was annoying (what else is new?) and Michael B. Jordan and Tristan Wilds weren't given much to do, so when Tristan is shot down, joins the resistance, disappears, then reappears at the very end, it was hard to care...

Cuba annoyed me with the pipe and Terrence Howard's sole purpose seemed to be to glare at people and make speeches designed to get people clapping in the audience...

I needed more narrative glue to stick to the action scenes, which I thought were top-notch.

And please don't get me started on the love story.

Wasn't terrible but it wasn't as rousing and engaging as it should have been...

________________________________________________________________________
A TOM CROOZE PRODUCTION.

Come on man.

_________________________________________________________________________
A TOM CROOZE PRODUCTION.

Saw it last night, and I agree with what you said....but when you hold it up against the old films that Lucas was trying to emulate, it worked.

It was the patriotic war movie that generations of black kids never got.

I don't think a truley authentic film would have made it to the big screen...at least black kids get to have fun watching black people kill nazis for a change.

I mean, yay, we got to see black folks killing Nazis for once, cool.

The movie in which they did so should have been much better, even by cornball George Lucas standards.

_________________________________________________________________________
A TOM CROOZE PRODUCTION.

Hell Saving Private Ryan was kind of corny and that was Oscar bait for adults.

Both of Eastwood's films were good...but at this point WWII films almost write themselves.

WWII has become a cheesy pageant for Americans anyway. The USSR defeated Hitler and they paid dearly for it. We dropped atomic bombs and committed a grip of war crimes, sat back while Jews were slaughtered, and ignored our own principles after the war by fucking over Vietnam.

99% off WWII movies are white-washed. I don't feel slighted, my nephew liked it, and at the end of the day these guys get to be part of our rose-tinted American nostalgia.

Rose tinted glasses and all.

We can sit up and compare war movies all day and talk about who liked what. THIS movie should have been better.

And it's not like I was asking for a searing portrait of American heroism, so let's not suggest otherwise. I knew what I was getting going in. Still doesn't change my opinion that it should have been a better movie.

_________________________________________________________________________
A TOM CROOZE PRODUCTION.

Give me a historical war movie that was fun and had
tons of action and was high quality.


Because 'Top Gun' is laughably bad and cliche when you
watch it as an adult.


I'm listening.

You can only tell the SAME story in so many different ways.

IF you want a "serious drama", then go watch "Tuskeegee Airman" that was on HBO.

If you want a decent action flick with explosions and planes and shit gettin' blown up, then go see Red Tails.

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

And also can you do me the favor of actually reading and UNDERSTANDING what I typed about this movie?

Because until then, any and all discussion and questions aimed at my like or dislike of the movie is going to go ignored.

Also, not making this post about me would go a long-ass way for y'all. Nothing you cats will type will "change my mind" about my thoughts on this film, so you might as well quit while you're ahead.

Thank you.

________________________________________________________________________
A TOM CROOZE PRODUCTION.

>Because until then, any and all discussion and questions aimed
>at my like or dislike of the movie is going to go ignored.
>
>Also, not making this post about me would go a long-ass way
>for y'all. Nothing you cats will type will "change my mind"
>about my thoughts on this film, so you might as well quit
>while you're ahead.
>
>Thank you.


You sound mad.


Don't be mad


Go watch black people blow up nazis.


While you're at it, have a coke and a smile.



But whatever you do, try not to mad while doing it.


Sincerely,

Orbit_Established

>Also, not making this post about me would go a long-ass way
>for y'all. Nothing you cats will type will "change my mind"
>about my thoughts on this film, so you might as well quit
>while you're ahead.
>

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

_________________________________________________________________________
A TOM CROOZE PRODUCTION.

Thanks for the objective opinion of how awful this movie is,everyone on here is coppin pleas now is disgusting. The movie was terrible, the characters were not fully developed (too many), the plot was awful and dialogue was a catastrophe. The movie was full of cliches.

-How does the one pilot get to do whatever he wants...I'm going to go fly this way home..and oh by the way I'll blow up this battleship while I'm out....
-Mike from the Wire gets captured, the white POWs 'request' him and they just happen to be the ones planning to escape
-Why did dude go into the all white bar in the first place...that whole seen was just...cliche
-How do you get your ass beat by the whole bar but there is not a scratch on you???
-The whole love plot was unbelievable....cliche
-ALL, I mean ALL of the dialogue of the bomber pilots was fucking awful...like "oh gosh...I'm so jolly those Red Tails are here to save the day!
-Check box for the evil Nazi ace pilot...cliche
-Check box for 13,eleven inspirational Cuba and Terrence speeches
-Cuba and that damn pipe

I could go on and on and on, that movie was bad, bad, bad, bad, bad and bad. Don't cop pleas now that it was targeted toward teenagers, or that it was a good for an 'action film' or this or that other war film was bad too....GTFOWTBS!!!

that's becoming a cliche' nowadays

"you sure you wanna hang with old eddie kane?"

So the movie wasn't targeted at a specific audience?

Dislike the movie if you want, but the target audience statement you made was flat out lame.

You want us to compare this to the Hurt Locker or some other hyper-realistic film? My nephew doesn't know or care about PTSD. He wants to see dog fights, and heroism. You can paint in broad strokes when your audience is filled with 13 year olds.

I bet you had to stop yourself from commenting on the authenticity of the bomber jackets.

Also...WWII films as a genre are hackneyed, so I don't know why this one gets dinged for using the common tropes of the genre.

>I bet you had to stop yourself from commenting on the
>authenticity of the bomber jackets.

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

making a poor film. And an obvious one.

First, no one makes war pictures specifically for teenagers as the main target audience, because (1) they're expensive (2) such films have a built in dedicated fan base of flying fans and military men and (3) if the film had been actually aimed at black kids, it would have been marketed as such, emphasizing the young stars among its cast (even though only one of the younger stars, Ne-Yo, is truly recognizable to black teens). It was not.

Even when Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks make "kids' films", they (attempt to) make stories that aren't watered down so far that the adults in the audience are rolling their eyes, which is what my eyes were doing during most of this film.

For example, "Ratatouille", a film some would argue has a younger target audience than "Red Tails", makes this film look like a 16-page storybook compared to a NYT Bestseller's novel.

>making a poor film. And an obvious one.

No..it's a statement of demographics. Who the fuck was this movie for then? Seeing as how you know more about distribution than the people who made it.

And pointing out the target audience doesn't excuse the negatives...but I don't think 13 year olds are going to be turned off by choppy dialogue and characters that behave more like archetypes than real people.

>First, no one makes war pictures specifically for teenagers as
>the main target audience, because (1) they're expensive (2)
>such films have a built in dedicated fan base of flying fans
>and military men and (3) if the film had been actually aimed
>at black kids, it would have been marketed as such,
>emphasizing the young stars among its cast (even though only
>one of the younger stars, Ne-Yo, is truly recognizable to
>black teens). It was not.

You know what your problem is? You want this film to be flags of our fathers...well I hate to break it to you but the dubstep in the tv trailer and the teen girls getting upset because Tristan got captured kind of put that desire in check

Also what is your second point actually supposed to prove? Because most war films are made for crotchety old white men this one has to be too? And for the record order I saw a few old vets sprinkled in amongst the black teenagers and young black parents.

>Even when Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks make "kids' films",
>they (attempt to) make stories that aren't watered down so far
>that the adults in the audience are rolling their eyes, which
>is what my eyes were doing during most of this film.

And this film is obligated to follow that mold why?

Why are you comparing a collection of animated films of disparate themes and styles to a cheesy war movie?

My dad has a pretty extensive collection of Golden Age Hollywood movies and if you think red tails was wooden then you have never seen old Hollywood war movies. Some of those films are cringe inducing, but they're not meant to be character studies...they're war pictures. Oh and young people watched those films back in the day so...

>For example, "Ratatouille", a film some would argue has a
>younger target audience than "Red Tails", makes this film look
>like a 16-page storybook compared to a NYT Bestseller's
>novel.

Were those movies even trying to do similar things? I mean at all?4

Also that's your opinion. Ratatouille was good, but I doubt I'll be rewatching it for years to come. I never had the hard on for Pixar that everyone else seems to. Toy Story...maybe Up...other than that meh. Ratatouille is the same story about an exceptional individual leaving his small home to seek fame and fortune that I've seen for years. All we're talking about now is style points.

understand a single thing I said.

You don't feel like typing a long ass response, or cuz you just don't want to that's cool.

But saying I didn't understand what you said is just lazy. You're on a message board talking about a George Lucas picture....not giving a lecture at MIT.

Not agreeing with you or not reaching the conclusion you tried to lead me to with your arguments isn't the same as not understanding what you said.

Good try though.

lecture you on major motion picture marketing, "target audiences", and the fine art of the cop-out interview. ANd I don't have the time or interest to lecture anyone; you're right.

Plus, your perceptions of what teenagers can and can't process seems condescending and reductive - puzzling since you yourself are closer to your teens than I. Also, you believe the words coming out of Lucas' mouth at face value.

I honestly don't feel like i could carry on the convo without talking down to you. In fact, I'm well aware I'm talking down to you right now, and I apologize.

>lecture you on major motion picture marketing, "target
>audiences", and the fine art of the cop-out interview. ANd I
>don't have the time or interest to lecture anyone; you're
>right.

You're just some mf on a message board over analyzing a movie. Lecture away...it wouldn't be the first time someone on the internet tried to bullshit their way through an argument about pop culture. Lmao..."the fine art of the cop-out interview.' You mean directors try to spin their work in the best possible light? Holy shit! My mind is fucking blown. Where can I buy a copy of your book professor?

>Plus, your perceptions of what teenagers can and can't process
>seems condescending and reductive - puzzling since you
>yourself are closer to your teens than I. Also, you believe
>the words coming out of Lucas' mouth at face value.

Where did I say that teenagers can't process more complex material. The only thing I said that could be interpreted that way( I mean assuming that you were deliberately trying to misrepresent my point) was me saying that 13 year olds might be more willing overlook wooden dialogue. There are 8 year olds reading War and Peace right now, the fuck does that have to do with the fact that the vast majority of them would much rather be reading Diary of a Wimpy Kid?

You want to lecture about demographics and what kids can and can't process? Why don't you start with analyzing why Red Tails was advertised on Cartoon network but The Hurt Locker wasn't? I know some 13 year olds that could handle the latter film.


Just because a film might talk down to its audience, in your opinion, that doesn't mean there wasn't an intended audience. So until you can tell me who this movie was made for, I'm going to go with what I saw at the theater and the places where I saw the heaviest advertising.

As for George Lucas. No I don't take what he says at face value, but I've followed his movies enough to know that he pretty much only makes movies for young people.

Go ahead and list some movies where this isn't true. I'll help. American Graffiti was for boomers who grew up in the 1950's. Oh and there's uh....um...OK you go.

Also..an age shot? Really family? You go to the Newt School of debating?


>I honestly don't feel like i could carry on the convo without
>talking down to you. In fact, I'm well aware I'm talking down
>to you right now, and I apologize.

Hey when you don't have anything else, at least have confidence.

Good luck with that sport.

You need to learn the difference between a well-written film that's aimed at kids or teens and a poorly written one. One difference is that the well-written film never uses "this was made for teens" as a cop-out for poor filmmaking because it never has to.

Also, understand the methods of moviemaking - even when you have a "target audience", your goal in most films that cost over a certain amount of money is to make the film accessible to as many people as possible. There aren't enough black teenagers in this country to justify a square focus of a film that costs even _this_ much on their demographic, without regard for whether or not the material would have crossover appeal to other demographics. That's why all of your Disney and DreamWorks films are loaded with jokes that none of the small children these films are ostensibly aimed at will get, and also why they are cross-marketed at times in "adult" outlets (read: talk shows, major articles in NYT, Entertainment Weekly, and such).

I still highly doubt Lucas truly had black teenagers as his target audience unless he envisioned himself as one, because, yes, as you said earlier, he did have old-fashioned war movies in mind when he made this film. But even a beginning filmmaker will tell you what worked (barely) in 1947 is not likely to work in 2012 (well, 2010). Second, there are _very_ few black teens who would sit through a patriotic old-fashioned war film unprompted.

Red Tails was promoted on Cartoon Network and not The Hurt Locker because one is a general entertainment piece in wide release, and the other was limited release Oscar bait.

And that cop-out still doesn't excuse the poor writing. It's not just simple or made to be easily digestible; it is poor. It's not an overanalysis, and I'm not just "some MF on a message board" either. I've barely scraped the surface of why the film is poor (the film lacks depth, so why should I?) I've spent more words arguing with people about why poor films do not deserve our praise and countering excuses for bad films than I have _talking about the actual picture itself_.

>You need to learn the difference between a well-written film
>that's aimed at kids or teens and a poorly written one. One
>difference is that the well-written film never uses "this was
>made for teens" as a cop-out for poor filmmaking because it
>never has to.

I never said this movie was well written. I just said that your sweeping indictment of pointing out the target audience was lame. Which it is.

At any point in this thread have I claimed that this movie was well written? If anything I've pointed out that most of Lucas's movies have bad dialogue and more often than not underrealized characters.

But that is only tangential to the real issue. This is about whether or not pointing out a target audience is inherently copping pleas.

>Also, understand the methods of moviemaking - even when you
>have a "target audience", your goal in most films that cost
>over a certain amount of money is to make the film accessible
>to as many people as possible. There aren't enough black
>teenagers in this country to justify a square focus of a film
>that costs even _this_ much on their demographic, without
>regard for whether or not the material would have crossover
>appeal to other demographics. That's why all of your Disney
>and DreamWorks films are loaded with jokes that none of the
>small children these films are ostensibly aimed at will get,
>and also why they are cross-marketed at times in "adult"
>outlets (read: talk shows, major articles in NYT,
>Entertainment Weekly, and such).

Yeah the movie was also advertised during NBA games, Al Sharptons show, and a few other random cable channels...not just BET and TV one. And as I said anecdotaly, I saw many old white men in the theater....I'm sure they heard about it somehow.

So the movie had a target audience and they tried to market it to as wide an audience as they could.

OK..glad we got that out of the way.

>I still highly doubt Lucas truly had black teenagers as his
>target audience unless he envisioned himself as one, because,
>yes, as you said earlier, he did have old-fashioned war movies
>in mind when he made this film. But even a beginning filmmaker
>will tell you what worked (barely) in 1947 is not likely to
>work in 2012 (well, 2010). Second, there are _very_ few black
>teens who would sit through a patriotic old-fashioned war film
>unprompted.

Well I wouldn't put it past George. Also they were prompted, by the advertising that emphasized action, the talk of Ne-yo, etc.

>Red Tails was promoted on Cartoon Network and not The Hurt
>Locker because one is a general entertainment piece in wide
>release, and the other was limited release Oscar bait.

Glad we're on the same page then.

>And that cop-out still doesn't excuse the poor writing. It's
>not just simple or made to be easily digestible; it is poor.
>It's not an overanalysis, and I'm not just "some MF on a
>message board" either. I've barely scraped the surface of why
>the film is poor (the film lacks depth, so why should I?) I've
>spent more words arguing with people about why poor films do
>not deserve our praise and countering excuses for bad films
>than I have _talking about the actual picture itself_

I'm not making excuses for George Lucas...lord knows I've let that go. The difference between the two of us is that I have realistic expectations and you seem to be personally offended by a kids movie...and worse than that you seem to think that because one of the most successful studios of all time, the one that ushered in a new type of film, makes excellent films for young and old alike, that other movies aimed at the young are undersereving their audience just because they lack the same level of execution. A lot of films do...but Red Tails isn't nearly as egregious an offender, in my opinion, as a lot of other films.

Now if you'd like to explain why this movie was poorly written compared to all the other movies aimed at kids,teens, black teens, etc that have been released in the last few years, I'm all ears. Don't forget by the way, that Pixar doesn't make all of those movies.

>I never said this movie was well written. I just said that
>your sweeping indictment of pointing out the target audience
>was lame. Which it is.

Your using "it's written for teenagers" as an excuse for this film's shitty writing - which is quite lame - is what I was addressing.

>
>At any point in this thread have I claimed that this movie was
>well written? If anything I've pointed out that most of
>Lucas's movies have bad dialogue and more often than not
>underrealized characters.
>
>But that is only tangential to the real issue. This is about
>whether or not pointing out a target audience is inherently
>copping pleas.

It is if the executive producer is using it in the context of defending a film before the reviews came out (doesn't this same interview use the phrase "a popcorn movie needs to have a lot of corn in it" as well?). I know you're not unfamiliar with the concept of pre-emptive damage control.

>
>Yeah the movie was also advertised during NBA games, Al
>Sharptons show, and a few other random cable channels...not
>just BET and TV one. And as I said anecdotaly, I saw many old
>white men in the theater....I'm sure they heard about it
>somehow.
>
>So the movie had a target audience and they tried to market it
>to as wide an audience as they could.
>
>OK..glad we got that out of the way.

I still don't believe "black teenagers" were this film's intended target audience (primary reason: nothing about the film's tone, style, editing, or even its action sequences is made to make it appealing to teenagers - unless we're talking about teenagers from 1985) and nothing short of internal story meeting documents will make me think otherwise.

>
>>I still highly doubt Lucas truly had black teenagers as his
>>target audience unless he envisioned himself as one,
>because,
>>yes, as you said earlier, he did have old-fashioned war
>movies
>>in mind when he made this film. But even a beginning
>filmmaker
>>will tell you what worked (barely) in 1947 is not likely to
>>work in 2012 (well, 2010). Second, there are _very_ few
>black
>>teens who would sit through a patriotic old-fashioned war
>film
>>unprompted.
>
>Well I wouldn't put it past George. Also they were prompted,
>by the advertising that emphasized action, the talk of Ne-yo,
>etc.

They were prompted by being goaded and prodded into going to see the movie because it was supposed to be "important". Like most of the rest of us.

>
>I'm not making excuses for George Lucas...lord knows I've let
>that go. The difference between the two of us is that I have
>realistic expectations and you seem to be personally offended
>by a kids movie...and worse than that you seem to think that
>because one of the most successful studios of all time, the
>one that ushered in a new type of film, makes excellent films
>for young and old alike, that other movies aimed at the young
>are undersereving their audience just because they lack the
>same level of execution. A lot of films do...but Red Tails
>isn't nearly as egregious an offender, in my opinion, as a lot
>of other films.

1. this isn't a kids' film by anyone's definition of the term.
2. I'm personally offended by any movie this bad.
3. Consensus has it that Lucasfilm hasn't made an "excellent" film in roughly 20 years. Now, with the first three Star Wars pictures on your resume, that may be all you need, but entertainment tends to operate on the "What Have You Done for Me Lately" factor.
4. Re: level of execution: no one expects SAT words and artistic cinema experiments in young peoples' films. There is, however, a basic expectation of decent writing, decent characters, decent dialogue, decent acting, and decent direction/filmmaking. Plenty of kids' films - especially the ones like the works of Disney that manage to still make money 70 and 80 years after their first releases - pull this off. "Red Tails" does not. This film has (barely) decent acting, and that's it.

>
>Now if you'd like to explain why this movie was poorly written
>compared to all the other movies aimed at kids,teens, black
>teens, etc that have been released in the last few years, I'm
>all ears. Don't forget by the way, that Pixar doesn't make all
>of those movies.
>

The existence of other bad kids' movies (and there are tons) does not permit or excuse the creation of more. It makes the creation of more _understandable_, but it doesn't save them from being shitted on. Especially if I'm guilted into attending.

when people point out that tyler's movies are for a specific audience, y'all will cuban B that point and keep stressing it's a bad film.

well, this joint was BARELY passable for me, but i ain't giving it extra dap because of the target audience.

it came up way short, for all its hype.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

To analyze a movie.

I have nothing against Tyler Perry making movies for his audience or for trying to broaden his scope.

I know because okp is filled with agenda posting we all get lumped in together, but that hasn't been one of my lines of attack. As far as I'm concerned even within the TP cannon some of his films are more successful than others right? Willow was still some bullshit...The Phantom Menace was wack even though it was still made for Lucas's audience. When you make a movie like Star Wars that succeeds despite your limitations, like dialogue, it makes me less apt to forgive your errors on later films. Red Tails wasn't as bad as Indy 4 or the first two Prequels. Similarly since TP has films like The Family That Preys, which "succeeds" despite his flaws, you are less apt to forgive his movies that fail to do the same. And this is true of most directors. I just happen to not like dude's movies by and large. So I'm not claiming I have no bias, but I wouldn't ignore taking his audience into consideration.

That being said, audience is just one factor among many. My point in this post is that audience considerations aren't an automatic plea cop.

If I've given the impression that I think that TP is a bad director because of his relationship with his audience...mea culpa.

Also I'm going to again point out that I haven't been lauding this film as the next great American classic.

Anyway...this is all getting very tedious to type out on a phone.

OK...TP isn't the devil, Lucas movies have a key demo and is corny, Red Tails isn't the worst thing for your 12 year old son to watch.

Stay black you guys.

i think thats going understated.

"my god. those pilots are AFRICAN! :O"

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

aka Indiana Jones Nazi mode.

But I am guessing his description of black pilots as "African" is probably accurate to how a German in the 40s seeing black people would phrase it.

--------

hell-below.com

really type all that and then edited later to add the "spoiler" notation?
really?

u owe dude an apology for that.

lol

"you sure you wanna hang with old eddie kane?"

but youre so right about Terrence Howard.
Sam Jackson couldve done that role more justice

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

Tho i dont kno how mcgruder cld put his jar jar binks hate aside and then kiss the lucasfilms ring & spit out that cliche fest

Initially i liked the idea of the 2 other flicks in the story (prequel and epilogue), but considering those wld be way more dialogue driven, and the dialogue was the worst part of red tails, now im having second thoughts


Lead acting was good, bubbles was good,
Casting definitely cld have been better for the howard cuba and neyo roles

Action scenes were great except the pow scene

But all in all it was cool for a pg13 family aimed flick


And amc giving out free popcorn this weekend

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

Not the best flick by any standard but I don't feel like I wasted my $11.50.

and i'm fine with it


~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

at certain points it really felt like i was watching Episode One all over again, cept without cutesy kids or jar jar and with more "chase/race" scenes...which was a GOOD thing...

...and i was happy to see the matinee nearly packed...

"yes, sometimes my rhymes are sexist, but you lovely bitches and hos should know i'm tryin to correct it"- hiphopopotamus

Why do you hate America?


I liked it better than the HBO version.

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

Could it have been better? Absolutely

Did I have fun watching & learn a thing or two in the process? Same answer

The two leads were good & I'm glad they gotta chance to shine over the more established cast members. Didn't know Ne-Yo was in this & thought I'd hate him as soon as he appeared on screen but he kinda grew on me by the time the credits rolled.

Kinda funny that the cheesiest dialogue came from nazi's & white american pilots.

I think Cuba's pipe was loaded with some good ass weed cause he was lovin the shit outta that piece.

And winced, like:

"WTF??? This movie sucks."

Trite ass storyline. Its beautiful drawing and cute
one-liners. That's it.

It sucks as an actual movie.

Why is it arguably the most powerful animated movie
ever?

Because it wasn't made for my old intellectual ass.

It was made for my nieces and nephews.


Magically, niggas wanna abandon "target audience" in
the context of 'Red Tails'.


I mean, I actually liked it...but it was damn near a
masterpiece for its target audience: boys 11-15.





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

Young Broadway Star Urgently Needs a Bone Marrow Donor. Is it you? http://MatchShannon.com/







O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




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

(C)Keith Murray, "

film ever?

It's not even Disney's best animated film; it's just their best (fully) animated financial performer.

You out yo damn mind if Lion King ain't in yo TOP 5 list of Disney movies.

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

and after that there's still "Dumbo", THEN there's "The Lion King".

"The Lion King" is not a bad movie. It's biggest problems are that (a) like "Dreamgirls", its biggest, boldest moment is at its midpoint and everything thereafter is a letdown, (b) that moment is the inciting incident, meaning you sit through roughly 40 minutes of meandering plot set-up and (c) is the character of adult Simba - once Simba grows up, you don't give a flying fig about this wimpy, wishy-washy adult lion, and Matthew Broderick's voice performance doesn't aide this at all.

And out of the films in this Top 6, though "Lilo" and "Dumbo" are not as technically proficient and ornate looking and sounding as the others on the list, they are probably the two best pieces of cinematic storytelling on the list.

As far as "most powerful" animated film ever, it's up against "Fantasia", "Sleeping Beauty", and much of Pixar's output. And I haven't seen them yet, but there's also foreign films like "Watership Down" and "Animal Farm" that are considered up there.

http://humorcastle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Edward-Norton-Closing-Laptop.gif

- - - Begin Sig. - - -

"Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is that little voice at the end of the day that says, 'I'll try again tomorrow.'" ~ ~ Anne Radmacher

list, or at least this order.

However, "Lilo & Stich" is easily one of the best _films_ Walt Disney Animation Studios has ever put out. It has fully drawn (no pun intended) characters, a well-written plot, is well-directed (which, in the terms of an animated film since i'm sure I'll need to explain it, means that all of the individual elements that make up a film come together properly to create a great end result), and artistic-wise has a unique and well executed (if economical) style.

Unless you've actually seen all of these pictures within the last two years (I have) and you can sit and debate with me each one from direction nto story to music to editing to character animation to color design to background design, etc (I can), I'd suggest you sit down.

because i didn't wanna rip the shit out of it. luckily, it saved itself to at least get a solid 2.5/4.

niggas can't act, man.

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

Pass the Popcorn has too many "black movie" bias on here. It'd be nice if folks could take the hate out of their heart and review or comment on a movie without prejudice. People will always consider word of mouth before paying to see a movie, so your bias can have impact.

Too often, when there is a movie with mostly black actors, a lot of the key participants of this board respond with a racist negative undertone.

A perfect example is when some key participants on here shitted on Night Catches Us. Now that its on Netflix, for those that were frightened into not watching it at a theater, can now watch it and then you'll have an idea just how prejudiced some of the posters can be on here.

I'm not going to comment on Red Tails as I haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to see it tonight. I will review AFTER i see it. But to see the history of this post, and the negative comments said about it back in July 2011 is disappointing. Frank Longo says "it will suck" back in July of 2011!! Really!?!? Biased at all Frank? You are the worst culprit of this. Always have been. You should have that OK symbol removed because it implies authority and your bias and prejudice is childish and misguided.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

>I'm not going to comment on Red Tails as I haven't seen it
>yet, but I'm going to see it tonight. I will review AFTER i
>see it. But to see the history of this post, and the negative
>comments said about it back in July 2011 is disappointing.
>Frank Longo says "it will suck" back in July of 2011!!
>Really!?!? Biased at all Frank? You are the worst culprit of
>this. Always have been. You should have that OK symbol removed
>because it implies authority and your bias and prejudice is
>childish and misguided.

Yes, I was extremely concerned when reports came in that Hemingway was no longer manning the helm and Lucas was doing the reshoots. Shouldn't anyone be concerned at that report? Turns out they were exaggerated reports-- Hemingway just couldn't get out of his committed schedule, which is why Lucas shot them, not due to being fired.

Then, in this very post, (if you'd scrolled down), you'll see I posted a positive review of the film and said I was now excited for it.

So... yeah. Troll on, I suppose. But at least make accurate statements when trolling.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

So....these weren't your posts in July saying this movie "will suck" and "bound to blow chunks"?

Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
57865 posts Fri Jul-29-11 08:27 PM


6. "January release date? LMAO, oh shit. This will suck."
In response to Reply # 4

Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
57865 posts Fri Jul-29-11 08:29 PM


7. "An article detailing why this movie is bound to blow chunks:"

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."

There is no rhyme or reason, they're just doing what's nature in the hater nature.

.
.

Life is Good.

This dude is a troll, and he is ignoring the fact that I had concerns about the film sucking for legitimate reasons, and then I changed my tune when my concerns were alleviated.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Did you see how, after I was pessimistic due to misleading reports, I changed my tune? Yes or no.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Dude, It's cool if you "changed your tune" later. The issue was that you PRE-judged before even seeing the movie. Okay, you changed your tune. It's what happens when you PRE-judge something. Sometimes, you'll have to "change your tune" from your PRE-judgement. It happens. That's cool.

Can you at least deal with the evidence that you PRE-judged the movie and MAY POSSIBLY have a color complex as it relates to movies? We don't need to pretend some people don't have color complexes. Some do. It happens. People get sick all the time. When they do, they usually take medicine or practice preventative methods. Maybe you just need some medication or need to practice prevention. For some, it simply requires awareness to the condition. Maybe that's all it takes for you.

The "troll" crap is just kiddie. Are you incapable of expressing your point of view without name-calling? "Troll"?? Really?? Come on man. Is it meant to hurt my feelings? Is it meant to discredit ME, to help YOU ignore what I'm saying? Well it does neither. I hope you can be bigger than that. But if you keep trying to take it there, i can go there. But, I'd rather there be a focus on the issue of not having a complex of being negatively prejudiced towards so called "black films" on this board.

Princeguy reviews:

"No pretentiousness.

No pompous re-interpretations.

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. You work hard for your money.

The decision is yours.

See and enjoy what YOU like."