Cliches that you are tired of..

[Malte279]

I'd like a see movie just what the Native Americans and Africans were already doing to each other before evil ol' whitey even got their hands on them.

Like Apocalypto?
While I do not oppose the call for showing both sides of the same coin, I do not think the examples brought up here are particularly well chosen.
In case of Africa, the governmental (monarchic) structures there were not comparable to the monarchies in Europe. Even though certain leaders there assumed the the title of king, the structures there were more on a tribal level with the tribes being played out against each other (something that had happened in Europe in the time of tribal structures as well).
Terrible atrocities were committed by liberated slaves during the revolt in Haiti (killing and torturing whites without distinction of age, sex, or whether or not the respective whites had been slaveowners at all) but these atrocities could not be described objectively without pointing out the almost 300 years of atrocities against slaves on Haiti which preceded the revolt.

Also there are movies depicting the role of African rulers and slave hunters though admittedly not as a main topic as such movies tend to be about the fate of the slaves with the capture being only the beginning of this. An example for such a movie would be the movie "Amistad", but apart from a significant number of historical errors the movie is also extremely emotional and divides people up in neatly defined "good people" and "bad people" while history and presence are just not so simple. It does depict some gross atrocities, but all the whites are either extremely in favor of slavery or very much against it.
The same problem can also be found in the movie "Mississippi burning" about the time of the civil rights movie. In that movie any member of the FBI is automatically a "good guy" without any reservations against African Americans.

I agree that there are movies giving a one sided view of things and that a balanced view would be desirable. But there is a good reason to guard against euphemizing the events. So far white caucasians have not been subjected to a genocide comparable in its dimensions by anyone except other white caucasians. I am not saying that with the necessary technology etc. it could not have been the other way round, but this is really hypothetical.
The depiction of the crimes of whites against the native Americans or Africans is on the one hand important to make sure that we do not forget about the parts of our histories which (among the plenty movies taking rather glorifying approaches to chapters of history which seem suitable for this) many would rather forget. On the other hand a one sided and abundant depiction of this might also contribute to making the scars more difficult to heal up.
More importantly however the movies tend to make us believe that such things are exclusively a matter of the past. Most whites who are being asked today would claim that perfect racial equality has been achieved in the US already and sure enough great progress has been made in many respects. High ranking and highest ranking African American politicians are a shining example how racist structures in the upper stairs of social life are breaking up. The importance of this must not be underestimated and yes I think pride about this is well deserved.
But for all this it ought not to be totally ignored that for the ranks achieved on the highest steps of social standing African Americans also make up for a disproportionally high part of society's lowest spheres. If one was given the chance for job chance's sake to pick either white or black skin color I'm afraid it is for good reason that a huge majority would want to be white. There are possibilities for African Americans to rise to the highest level in society. Equal opportunity in life has still not been achieved. Also many would agree (or at least not contradict) to claims that it is "the black mans own fault" if a disproportionally large number of them were a the bottom of society. In such claims I see remains of old racism and stereotypes that have not yet been quite overcome.
Much has been achieved to be proud about. There is still more to be achieved. Movies should not mislead us to think of social history of a given part of the population to have ended with the end of the movie of the latest setting. It continues right now while we are typing here.

[WeirdRaptor]

THank you, Tiger. Yeah, really. It's not just Whites who have treated people bad. The truth is, everyone has been a tormentor to someone at one point in history. It's not just Caucasians who do bad things. I also meant no disrespect towards anyone. I'm just tired of this backlash against White people that's been happening when the whole point of civil rights has to put every on equel grounds and to have a unitified nation for everyone. I know racism will never die completely, but by all that is good and Holy, people, I'm sure racism could die a little more than this.

Yeah, I would love to see a movie about that massacre in Haiti, but Hollywood would never have the guts to show it, because that would be admitting that those of the darker skin persuasion aren't perfect.

In response to Malte:

I've not seen Apocalypto. I couldn't work up the interest, personally.
Hmm. Very interesting concerning Africa. Tribes constantly at war, sounds a lot like the Native Americans.

Regardless of what happened in the blacks before they killed all the whites in Haiti, it's still an example of inhuman crualty that cannot be justified. If everyone requires an eye for an eye, we're going to end up blind.

I'm willing to bet most of these films you speak of are modern American made, though, Malte, because the over-whelming majority of films that touch on this issue take "whites=bad; everyone else=good" stance.

So what if Caucasians haven't met the same level of discrimination at the hands of others? We're all still people and a far out view is required if the filmmakers intend to do something other than point the finger for something I cannot alter.

The depiction of the crimes of whites against the native Americans or Africans is on the one hand important to make sure that we do not forget about the parts of our histories which (among the plenty movies taking rather glorifying approaches to chapters of history which seem suitable for this) many would rather forget. On the other hand a one sided and abundant depiction of this might also contribute to making the scars more difficult to heal up.

I agree that it is important not to forget about what we did to Natives and Africans in the past, however, my point is that we're constantly reminded and often in the condescending ways imaginable. I do think the over-whelmingly one-sided approach Hollywood always takes is making it harder for those scars to burn.

I am aware racism still exists. My point is that we're over doing it with the White guilt and it's not getting anything positive accomplished. You want proof? I've seen blacks get mad about what happened over the course of a film concerning the topic being discussed here and then take it out some random white (me). Okay, the blacks in question were being jerks, but still, the film worked up negative emotions in them.

[Malte279]

I do get your point WR and like I said before I do agree to the degree that such movies can prevent the wounds from healing up. But it is important to see both sides of the coin.

I've not seen Apocalypto. I couldn't work up the interest, personally.

Personally I don't think you have missed too much, but what you did miss was a movie mostly about pre-columbian conflict between native Americans of genocidal dimensions. There is among other a scene in which the main character is standing on a huge field covered with the bodies of sacrificed bodies that bears a very eerie resemblance to some of the pictures we know from the Holocaust death camps.

Yeah, I would love to see a movie about that massacre in Haiti, but Hollywood would never have the guts to show it, because that would be admitting that those of the darker skin persuasion aren't perfect.

Would you want such a movie with the exclusion of the suffering of the slaves that preceded the revolt and its atrocities? In that case it would not be objective. But if the suffering prior to the revolt, the suffering of whites during the revolt, and the suffering of the fighters on both sides during the French retribution was put in I'm afraid the movie is still likely to be interpreted as anti-white. Also the white retribution mentioned above should not be excluded from a movie that is meant to depict the whole story.

But are dark skinned people really always depicted as good? What about 300 in which Xerxes was (more likely than not unhistorically) depicted as an African looking man? The movie depicted vicious darker skinned people (some of whom actually looked almost like lord of the rings orcs) fighting the harsh but noble whities.

I'm willing to bet most of these films you speak of are modern American made, though, Malte, because the over-whelming majority of films that touch on this issue take "whites=bad; everyone else=good" stance.

What would you bet for? It depends of course on what you define as modern. Amistad is from 1997 and Mississippi Burning from 1988. But isn't it a rather common scheme in movies about white racisim to let "good whites" appear as well? I think the problem there is not so much making the skin color the only determiner for good or bad, but rather the exclusion of the many gray shades in between (Mississippi Burning is a particularly good example for this).
But can you name me one movie about white racism that does NOT include a good whitey? From uncle Tom's cabin on (and presumably it holds true for earlier stories as well) such movies don't really come without at least some good whiteys in each story.

There are also modern day movies which present a rather questionable view on some parts of history. An example would be "Gods and Generals". Made in 2003 as a prequel to the movie Gettysburg it falls regrettably short of that movies quality. While there are two speeches against slavery in the movie, they come across as very much of a matter of "political correctness". Both of the two African American characters in the movie think that slavery is bad but they still side actively with the south. One of the two characters (a cook of Stonewall Jackson) did really exist and there had been some strong bonds of loyalty between some slaves and their owners. Depicting this is not a wrong thing to do. But without a serious depiction of the other side of the coin and the brutality of slavery the movie fits very well into the still very much alive legend of the "lost cause" in the south.

So what if Caucasians haven't met the same level of discrimination at the hands of others? We're all still people and a far out view is required if the filmmakers intend to do something other than point the finger for something I cannot alter.

I hear what you are saying, but one problem is that it is relatively easy to say from the perspective of the people who were not the victims to the crimes committed.
We must NOT be held responsible for crimes committed before we were even born. But assume for a moment that you were an African American still exposed to the kind of discrimination mentioned above with a chance, but a much lesser chance to get a good job than a white person (just for example)? Would it not then annoy the crap out of you if movies depicted the big black man as the evildoers and the white people as the good ones... come to think of it, isn't that exactly what actually IS happening on TV (not on the great screen) every day? Isn't the big black man still a main subject in so called reality shows about crime?

[WeirdRaptor]

I do get your point WR and like I said before I do agree to the degree that such movies can prevent the wounds from healing up. But it is important to see both sides of the coin.

I already see both sides of the coiin and I say that what Hollywood is doing is condescending and it only dredges up hard feelings.

Would you want such a movie with the exclusion of the suffering of the slaves that preceded the revolt and its atrocities? In that case it would not be objective. But if the suffering prior to the revolt, the suffering of whites during the revolt, and the suffering of the fighters on both sides during the French retribution was put in I'm afraid the movie is still likely to be interpreted as anti-white. Also the white retribution mentioned above should not be excluded from a movie that is meant to depict the whole story.

At least the film would show Mr. Black isn't Mr. Perfect.

But are dark skinned people really always depicted as good? What about 300 in which Xerxes was (more likely than not unhistorically) depicted as an African looking man? The movie depicted vicious darker skinned people (some of whom actually looked almost like lord of the rings orcs) fighting the harsh but noble whities.

Yes, they are, in films that are regared at all. That being said, 300 is a bad example because no one takes that film seriously.

What would you bet for? It depends of course on what you define as modern. Amistad is from 1997 and Mississippi Burning from 1988. But isn't it a rather common scheme in movies about white racisim to let "good whites" appear as well? I think the problem there is not so much making the skin color the only determiner for good or bad, but rather the exclusion of the many gray shades in between (Mississippi Burning is a particularly good example for this).
But can you name me one movie about white racism that does NOT include a good whitey? From uncle Tom's cabin on (and presumably it holds true for earlier stories as well) such movies don't really come without at least some good whiteys in each story.

Said good whiteys get over-shadowed even in story. Besides which, having just some good whiteys just leads to all sorts of unfortunate implicationas. Like there are only a few good Caucasians or something of the like. For the most part, those films do treat pale skinned ones as true monsters in over-whelming proportions, and it's because of the factor you pointed out. No gray areas at all.

There are also modern day movies which present a rather questionable view on some parts of history. An example would be "Gods and Generals". Made in 2003 as a prequel to the movie Gettysburg it falls regrettably short of that movies quality. While there are two speeches against slavery in the movie, they come across as very much of a matter of "political correctness". Both of the two African American characters in the movie think that slavery is bad but they still side actively with the south. One of the two characters (a cook of Stonewall Jackson) did really exist and there had been some strong bonds of loyalty between some slaves and their owners. Depicting this is not a wrong thing to do. But without a serious depiction of the other side of the coin and the brutality of slavery the movie fits very well into the still very much alive legend of the "lost cause" in the south.

I'm not saying we should stop making films that remind us of the atrocities that were committed in the part, Malte. I'm saying they need to stop being made in such huge amounts. It seems that I am under constant reminder that I'm distantly relaed to someone who owned slaves or something of the like and it seems almost like they're point the finger at us and it's getting tiring. I'm not going to budge on this issue.
Yeah, unfortunately, the South (the part of the country that the rest of us try to ignore) do still hold on to a lot of old issues from the "lost cause". It's not just slavery, though. It's just about everything from the old days of North vs. South. A lot of those guys are still sore about even still being a part of the union (even though chances are that we'd have lost both world Wars had America not been a unified nation).

I hear what you are saying, but one problem is that it is relatively easy to say from the perspective of the people who were not the victims to the crimes committed.

I have a black friend who agrees with me on this. He says that forgetting the past is wrong, but we seriously need to start moving forward instead of making sure we have a continual stream reminding us every day of the past.

We must NOT be held responsible for crimes committed before we were even born. But assume for a moment that you were an African American still exposed to the kind of discrimination mentioned above with a chance, but a much lesser chance to get a good job than a white person (just for example)? Would it not then annoy the crap out of you if movies depicted the big black man as the evildoers and the white people as the good ones... come to think of it, isn't that exactly what actually IS happening on TV (not on the great screen) every day? Isn't the big black man still a main subject in so called reality shows about crime?

What's the point of this last paragraph? Just because some wrongs are still committed against blacks I have to just sit here and accept every bit of backlash racism thrown my way. Is that what you're trying to tell me? To fucking hell with that! I am not going to be told I'm evil just for being white in an over-whelmingly high number of films and such which are far more common than the crime dramas you mentioned. My whole point was from the beginning is that we should be working on accepting each other instead of continuing to point the finger and that these movies are not helping!
And actually, if you watch the crime dramas in question, just as many white criminals are featured. It's just that black criminals are made a bigger deal of. I know, I sat down and watched a so-called unfair cops reality show. They picked up one black criminal, total, in the episode. The others were two whites, an Asian, and one girl who I think had a mixed background.
If I misunderstood this last paragraph, I apologize in advance, because  I tend to get very nippy on this topic.

[Malte279]

What's the point of this last paragraph? Just because some wrongs are still committed against blacks I have to just sit here and accept every bit of backlash racism thrown my way. Is that what you're trying to tell me? To fucking hell with that! I am not going to be told I'm evil just for being white in an over-whelmingly high number of films and such which are far more common than the crime dramas you mentioned. My whole point was from the beginning is that we should be working on accepting each other instead of continuing to point the finger and that these movies are not helping!

Please WR, there is no need to get angry. As I said repeatedly I do see the problem which you are addressing, but I am trying to point out some of the reasons for the problem, some problems which may be easier to overlook from a white-only perspective, and also some examples for movies which do NOT fit into the scheme that you criticize. I know there are plenty of movies to match the criteria which you are addressing though none has been named so far.

At least the film would show Mr. Black isn't Mr. Perfect.

There are plenty more movies depicting black people as not all good and whites as not all bad. The use of the certainly not so kindly meant phrase "Mr. Black" kind of worries me as it really makes it sound like you were blaming black people for the movies which you don't like. Remember, most of the directors and script writers are white WR.
Here are some more movies which I think disprove the view that the existing movies showed black people as perfect people:

The movie "Birth of a nation" is not really an argument in this debate as being shot in 1915 it is by now more of a historic source than a movie that would be aired to entertain people. However, I am mentioning this movie which contributed to the second rising of the KKK because it did take a strong influence on the depiction of blacks in later movies and because it did gain a kind of "official blessing" from then US president Woodrow Wilson who claimed the movie to show the historic truth.
Another rather old movie that shows blacks in negative roles as well (negative may also include the stereotypical image of black people as stupid, silly, and careless) would be "gone with the wind". Yes, I know this movie also is very old 1939 or 1940 I think, but because it is so famous and popular that it will still be aired it may have a better right to be mentioned in this thread than "Birth of a Nation".
Getting out of the sphere of pre-civil rights movement movies we have the 80s TV series "North and South". It includes "good whites" and "bad whites" on both sides of Mason Dixie with some shades of gray (but not much of that). However apart from the "good blacks" there are also "bad blacks". It is a while since I saw the series, but I am pretty sure there were blacks torching down the homes of whites there and murdering whites. They even allyed with a former slave overseer (who was NOT in command, so it was not the bad white causing the good blacks to do bad). That was not so "blacks are good only".
Another movie would be "Glory" of 1989 (music by James Horner by the way). The movie is mostly about the 54th (black) Massachusetts regiment in the Civil War. Looking at the movie you will find many scenes which would support your view of whites being depicted as evil, but I think that there are more cases to be found in the movie which contradict that view. Again the main protagonist is the well meaning white which can be found in practically every movie on the matter I am aware of (can you name a single movie on the matter without the "good white" character?). And even though the movie does (as the title suggests) glorify the events we do get to see a good deal of acts which will not depict the blacks as good only. Apart from them pecking on each other within the ranks we see a black trying to rape a white women before being shot by an (evil) white man, burning down a town (yes, that one is ordered by the aforementioned evil white man), and shooting an innocent civilian who wants to surrender (no order from an evil white man there).

That being said, 300 is a bad example because no one takes that film seriously.

Is it so? I'm afraid there are plenty enough people who actually mistake the movie 300 as a close depiction of historical events. As to whether or not the movie is taken seriously, assume for a moment that tomorrow a movie was launched in the "Arab world" depicting the "Western world " and the US in such a light as 300 did depict the "hordes of Asia". I think it is quite likely that some people here would take it very seriously. It is always easy not to take a movie too serious if oneself does not belong to the group that feels offended by it. You don't think so?
Then what about the Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves Iraq"? I did not watch it and I don't want to watch it, but the reaction of the "western world" was not amused. From what I have read the movie includes very strong anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian messages. American Soldiers are portrayed as brutal rambos. But apart from pure atrocity propaganda it also included references and depictions of atrocities which have de facto been committed in recent years. Is it easy not to take that serious when one is on the receiving end of such a depiction?

Again, I do not deny the problem which you addressed does exist WR, but some of the things you write (e.g. your agreement to making a movie about the atrocities committed by blacks on Haiti but please without reference to the atrocities of the previous centuries of slavery which caused and the brutal retribution that followed it) I really cannot agree with. If a problem really IS to be solved one needs to look at it from both sides of the matter. On the one hand you claim that you do see both sides of the coin, but on the other hand you are sounding so furious and use formulations (e.g. "Mr. Black isn't perfect.") that make it very difficult to believe that you really do. Your not knowing any of the movies I listed which are NOT the way you describe movies in general to be further adds to this impression.
WR I am neither out to offend you, nor do I deny the existence of the problem which you address. My point is that the problem is not as universal as you may think (which may make you happy), and also that other related problems exist, some of which provide a basis for the problem you are concerned about. One cannot solve the one without solving the other there.

[WeirdRaptor]

Please WR, there is no need to get angry. As I said repeatedly I do see the problem which you are addressing, but I am trying to point out some of the reasons for the problem, some problems which may be easier to overlook from a white-only perspective, and also some examples for movies which do NOT fit into the scheme that you criticize. I know there are plenty of movies to match the criteria which you are addressing though none has been named so far.

I know the reasons for the problem, though. Whitey was a dick to other enthnicities in the past and Hollywood is bound determined that no one is going to think about anything else for very long.
Alright, you want examples: Avatar, for one. Evil Western civilization vs. the peaceful Natives who can do no wrong.
Too many depictions of the Civil War Era to count. Almost every Spike Lee film. Just about any film taking place in "the hood", unfortunately. A ton of films during the Rights March.

I don't blame black people for any of these films. I blame the filmmakers who are overly sensative and bending over backwards in some misguided effort to make up for past attrocities. A film with 2D depictions of the issues is not the way, Hollywood.

"Birth of a Nation". Good choice.

Yeah, Gone with the Wind really knows how to rack up the unfortunate implications, doesn't it? Again, I admit history right on up to film has to been unfair to minorities.

"North and South", very good. A surprisingly fair minded show, all tooo rare.

Good point about the "good white guy" character, though sometimes it almost seems like they're every bit of a much token character as...I hate to say this, the token black which Hollywood has the insipid habit of inserting....because apparently they just can't give an ordinary role to someone with skin darker than Halle Berry's. However, in the case of Glory and films concerning Abe Lincoln and the like, these well meaning guys existed. These are also literally some of the only films where you'll find positive white figures in them.

Is it so? I'm afraid there are plenty enough people who actually mistake the movie 300 as a close depiction of historical events. As to whether or not the movie is taken seriously, assume for a moment that tomorrow a movie was launched in the "Arab world" depicting the "Western world " and the US in such a light as 300 did depict the "hordes of Asia". I think it is quite likely that some people here would take it very seriously. It is always easy not to take a movie too serious if oneself does not belong to the group that feels offended by it. You don't think so?
Then what about the Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves Iraq"? I did not watch it and I don't want to watch it, but the reaction of the "western world" was not amused. From what I have read the movie includes very strong anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian messages. American Soldiers are portrayed as brutal rambos. But apart from pure atrocity propaganda it also included references and depictions of atrocities which have de facto been committed in recent years. Is it easy not to take that serious when one is on the receiving end of such a depiction?

They do? I've got to take more part in 300 online discussions, because I've never met a person up close who thought the film was accurate. It was made by the same guys who brought us Sin City, for crying out loud. Hmm. This may explain how Mel Gibson won so many awards for the demodrama that was Braveheart, AKA "Mel Gibson Really Hates the English Part I".
Valley of the Wolves Iraq sounds utterly horrible. Well, that's true what you said when the inaccurate demonization is directed at you suddenly makes a ridiculous premise more relevant. However, I can at least give the makers of 300 the benefit in that they weren't doing it on purpose and the hordes were the villains in that instance. This "Valley" movie by contrast sounds like it was intentionally malicious towards the Western world at large.

Again, I do not deny the problem which you addressed does exist WR, but some of the things you write (e.g. your agreement to making a movie about the atrocities committed by blacks on Haiti but please without reference to the atrocities of the previous centuries of slavery which caused and the brutal retribution that followed it) I really cannot agree with. If a problem really IS to be solved one needs to look at it from both sides of the matter. On the one hand you claim that you do see both sides of the coin, but on the other hand you are sounding so furious and use formulations (e.g. "Mr. Black isn't perfect.") that make it very difficult to believe that you really do. Your not knowing any of the movies I listed which are NOT the way you describe movies in general to be further adds to this impression.

I know both sides of the issues have to be tackled. That's exactly what Hollywood is not doing most of the time, however. The films you listed are by far in the minority as media featuring evil whites in this kind of story are disproportionately huge. I'll be back with a list of various stuff I've seen this unfair portrayal in when I've gathered enough of it.

WR I am neither out to offend you, nor do I deny the existence of the problem which you address. My point is that the problem is not as universal as you may think (which may make you happy), and also that other related problems exist, some of which provide a basis for the problem you are concerned about. One cannot solve the one without solving the other there.

Oh, I am happy that there are fair minded project out there. Believe me. It still seems like the backlash directed at those who were not involved with of the above attrocities is still overly disproportion. It's not like any of us chose to be related to slave owners and such and I don't believe in "sins of our fathers".

[Amaranthine]

^Quite a debate here guys, awesome! I just need a whole week and some good vitamin C to understand and read all of it.

I really wish dogs wouldn't die in movies all the time. >_> And they are always the heroes. For once, why can't a cat be a hero for his/her family?

Also, all of these teen movie stories where there the main character is supposed to be an "average" girl, when she is obviously not and the "hottest" guy in the whole school decides to not follow the crowd and suddenly becomes "reformed".

[jedi472]

Honestly WR, I think you're really overreacting. You're taking the portrayal of Caucasians in certain films as a personal insult. The Western world is villainized in many films because, in many cases through history, it was a villain. That is history. That is fact. Nothing can change the fact that colonization by the Western world resulted in many an injustice. The colonization efforts of Western nations engulfed the entire Earth, and I can honestly see why the dangers of imperialism have become such a universal theme. The entire planet was affected by it, and its only natural that people wish to create cautionary tales to ensure that nothing of this nature should occur again. Whites are a very universal symbol of aggressive imperialists, mostly due to the fact that they were all white. So, in turn, it's only natural that the antagonists in these tales be white.

Yes, there were no doubt many cases where natives were already at each other's throats and doing nasty things to each other, but what right did the Western world have to attempt to solve these disputes? What gave Europe the right to attempt to assimilate smaller cultures, even in the name of peace and civilization? Nowadays, internal affairs of other nations are usually not to be meddled with by outsiders, simply because it, quite frankly, is none of any foreign power's business. Yes, there certainly are exceptions, but I can't help but feel that, had this policy been exercised more frequently by European explorers, some suffering might have been avoided. WR, you say you are tired of being told to feel like an asshole who descended from other assholes who wrong minorities just by being white. Those "other assholes" you speak of did not wrong other sects of humanity "just by being white". I think the imperialists of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries more than earned their historical reputation as "assholes" when they chose to use deadly force against native populations. As for the overwhelming majority of evil whites in these kinds of stories, I suppose you don't like the fact that, in most historical events of this nature, whites were the aggressors. Again, just a fact.

Now, all that being said, you have a point. This generation is not responsible for the sins of our forefathers. I heartily agree with that, but I think you're interpreting films of this nature as insults to Caucasians everywhere. As I said before, I believe they are intended to be cautionary tales. I am sorry you believe films of this nature are telling you you're an asshole because of your skin, and can only advise you to stop attempting to read so far into the film. Just take it for what it is and get on with life.

I'd like to point out that I mean no disrespect, and see that you have valid points. I just think you're getting a bit overzealous about this whole thing.

[Amaranthine]

I wonder if we should have a seperate thread for the racism debate? I just think this thread became VERY off topic.
 
I might post a video of my opinion on this here, I just think debates like these are very worthy to bring forth to other people.

[WeirdRaptor]

Well said, jedi. Perhaps I do take it too personally. My problem I guess is that I tned to get very tired of negative things and react badly to them upon even further experiences.

[jedi472]

Well said, jedi. Perhaps I do take it too personally. My problem I guess is that I tned to get very tired of negative things and react badly to them upon even further experiences.

Really? Wow, I honestly thought I was making a fool of myself when I typed that up. I guess I'm not as incoherent as I thought. Usually when I tired I type whole paragraphs that make no sense.

I guess we should probably get back on topic, though, so...dragons. Seriously, I freakin' love dragons, but it just seems like they're in pretty much everything, and, when they appear as characters, usually are never really expanded upon.

[thebigdeal]

When a man meets a woman at the beginning and in the end they get married.
Anyone notice that?

[Cancerian Tiger]

Or how 'bout when a couple breaks up, and then the guy wins the girl back in the end by impressing her with some accomplishment ?

[thebigdeal]

Or how 'bout when a couple breaks up, and then the guy wins the girl back in the end by impressing her with some accomplishment ?

i need an example for that one...

[MrDrake]

When a man meets a woman at the beginning and in the end they get married.
Anyone notice that?

And yet, Enchanted took that out of proportion, shows you that a happily ever after doesn't really exist when you mean the one you love first.

Very different in the real world indeed.

[Cancerian Tiger]

Or how 'bout when a couple breaks up, and then the guy wins the girl back in the end by impressing her with some accomplishment ?

i need an example for that one...

One example I could think of, since I'm more into comedies than romance films, is the film "Flubber" .  So the main character's engaged to his girlfriend.  However, he keeps forgetting to show up at their wedding 'cuz he's more preocupied with a science project.  He screws up again when he creates flubber, and she calls off their relationship and ends up dating another guy: one who is not nearly as eccentric and really does pay attention to her.  It took the main character most of the film to even get back on her good side, let alone impress her with his new invention.  Needless to say, they got married at the end .

[thebigdeal]

When a man meets a woman at the beginning and in the end they get married.
Anyone notice that?

And yet, Enchanted took that out of proportion, shows you that a happily ever after doesn't really exist when you mean the one you love first.

Very different in the real world indeed.

Or Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull

[Malte279]

If there is a love-triangle (usually involving two men and a woman) one can be quite sure that in the end the man who was there first "wins" while the other one has a fair chance of getting killed (e.g. Pearl Harbor and 2012, but there are more examples).

[Ptyra]

Anti-Christs that pop out of no where and blow everything up ("End of Days", for example). And most of the time...they're flat out stupid. Look at the one in End of Days. He fell for some of the oldest tricks in the book!

Thank goodness Stone Alexander came along. That guy was THE BEST Anti-Christ EVAR! And not because Michael York did the part...okay, that's some of it. He did a wicked job with that role. "YOU HAVE BETRAYED ME!!!"
He did make a ton of stuff obvious to us that we really don't want to think about. "Old ladies die every day. What good is it to keep them from dying?"...or something like that.

The only part that disappointed me was the end when Big Light Dude started getting rid of the bad guys and he just stood there. Although, he did have some awesome last bits.

But come on, let's get some better Anti-Christs out there...like Stone Alexander!

[WeirdRaptor]

Another thing about these movie Anti-Christs... Why are they always so obvious? According to the Book of Revelation, the Anti-Christ is going to be loved by nearly one and all, so a high amount of charisma and good people skills would be a must to cover up their true nature.

And speaking of love triangles: I would love to see the leather jacket wearing "bad boy" lose out to the reliable nice guy who wears double breasted suits just once.