Quoted: Christ, you've got to be kidding.

Either explain yourself - or STFU.

Quoted: Quoted: Christ, you've got to be kidding. Either explain yourself - or STFU.

You can't HONESTLY believe that your friend's story isn't quite obviously a blatant slam at the Republican Party.  The red state map is a dead giveaway, as is the shot at the war on terror.  I don't know...maybe you actually believe what you're saying---it's doubtful but possible, but your friends quite obviously meant this movie as a slam at conservative values and the South.

Quoted: You can't HONESTLY believe that your friend's story isn't quite obviously a blatant slam at the Republican Party.  The red state map is a dead giveaway, as is the shot at the war on terror.  I don't know...maybe you actually believe what you're saying---it's doubtful but possible, but your friends quite obviously meant this movie as a slam at conservative values and the South.

Well - I belive the film was written and filmed while Clinton was still in office. One of the main story lines is a man running for President in  the year 2000. (IIRC) You would be surprised how long it takes to create an independent film - and even longer to get it to a market.

I know that the film was "finished" before 9/11. Thus there was no "war on terror".

Perhaps the Flash animator tooka a pot shot at Republicans with his red map.

The "shot on the war on terror" was me. And its a work of FICTION. I wrote it based on the fictional world and I imagined on what it would do.  I peronsally love alternate universe story lines and had a ball creating the time line.

The film is not a real slam on anything. Its much more benevolent than perhaps you think Hell - I would expect Jessie Jackson to call it racist against blacks, IMHO. The trailer is meant to be sensationalistic - it perks up interest (Good or bad) which is what an indie film needs to get life in the beginning.

The CSA in the film is not a reflection on the south circa 1860. Its more of a fun  house mirror. It asks a "what if" - and uses some exaggeration to make its point. And its no longer the "south" by the end of the film - it is the whole CSA. Everyone has a similar mindset that slavery is now ok (which is a fantasy, because through out our countrys history we have NEVER had EVERYONE agree on any one subject). Again - this isnt a serious film. It takes liberties with history and though it explains "why", the likely hood it woudl have gone down like this is slim to nil.

Also - its not like there are not opposing view in the film. IIRC Gen. Lee encouraged the new CSA to abolish slavery. And Pres Jefferson didnt want Jews to be outlawed.

The point of the film is to 1) to entertain - and there are some good parts 2) get people talking - which it obviously has. 3) to maybe show people that our past isnt that far behind us. There are many commerical with "racist" products. Some of them like the Shackle are made up - most of them like Coons Chicken and Nigger Hair cigarettes were real products. Many of them under 50 years old.

But the film isnt a "lets make whitey  look bad" film. There are some non PC moments - but done for a laugh. In fact the director has told me many times that "I dont mind pissing people off - but only to make a point - or to get a good laugh." In fact, he did reel me in and had me SOFTEN some of the things in my timeline.

The film is smart and funny. You laugh at something that perhaps you shouldnt laugh at - but you do - because it is funny. You might indeed hate it - but you should watch it first.

You probably just arent used to a movie with out lots of explosion and little story. Unlike Hollywood, independent films can take some bigger risks. I guess the next time someone wants to make  a film that involves the south - they stick to shitty remakes of the Dukes of Hazard.

Quoted: Wait a minute... If the film was" "finished" before 9/11"-- your words,-- how did your "shot on the War on Terror" make it into the film at all?

It isnt in the film. The timeline was meant to be a "realistic" one. You know - like what you would pull out of a National Geographic. Thus, I was able to take current events and put them into the timeline.

In fact, very little of what is on the time line, and certainly NOTHING that is indepth, is in the film. And I spent HOURS researching milestones and trying to figure out what to change.

Also - I had to find all the pics from the National Archives or other Public domain sites. But the one of the Pope I took myself when I was in Italy.

Quoted: Well - I belive the film was written and filmed while Clinton was still in office. One of the main story lines is a man running for President in  the year 2000. (IIRC) You would be surprised how long it takes to create an independent film - and even longer to get it to a market. I know that the film was "finished" before 9/11. Thus there was no "war on terror". Perhaps the Flash animator tooka a pot shot at Republicans with his red map. The "shot on the war on terror" was me. And its a work of FICTION. I wrote it based on the fictional world and I imagined on what it would do.  I peronsally love alternate universe story lines and had a ball creating the time line.

All right, I take it back then.  Not having had a chance to see the film, I will take your word on this.  But I tell you what, if interest in the film is what you hope to drum up with that trailer, I don't think you'll get the kind of interest you want.

You probably just arent used to a movie with out lots of explosion and little story. Unlike Hollywood, independent films can take some bigger risks. I guess the next time someone wants to make  a film that involves the south - they stick to shitty remakes of the Dukes of Hazard.

Oh yeah.  Just because I object to what SEEM to be obvious slams of conservative values, the South and the Republican Party, that MUST mean I am not "used to a movie without lots of explosions and little story" and that I want movies like the Dukes of Hazzard.  With this little remark, you just undid all the good will the rest of your post created.

Quoted: Oh yeah.  Just because I object to what SEEM to be obvious slams of conservative values, the South and the Republican Party, that MUST mean I am not "used to a movie without lots of explosions and little story" and that I want movies like the Dukes of Hazzard.  With this little remark, you just undid all the good will the rest of your post created.

Touche...

On the flip side - just because you SEEM to not beable to appreciate humor or reserve some of your judgement until you have a bit more info - dont wonder why I thought you would enjoy films that are a bit more straight forward.

Furthermore - I suppose I should beg your forgivness for jumping to conclusions after the leaps and bounds you made.

And I didnt say that you enjoyed the new Dukes of Hazzard. No one did. Im was just taking a pot shot at hollywood in general that makes "safe" movies that are total shit. And while they are shit - they dont seem to get anyones ire up.

Really. You call me scum then you get 'fussy' over my ridicule of your film choices? Pfft.

Quoted: On the flip side - just because you SEEM to not beable to appreciate humor or reserve some of your judgement until you have a bit more info - dont wonder why I thought you would enjoy films that are a bit more straight forward. Furthermore - I suppose I should beg your forgivness for jumping to conclusions after the leaps and bounds you made. And I didnt say that you enjoyed the new Dukes of Hazzard. No one did. Im was just taking a pot shot at hollywood in general that makes "safe" movies that are total shit. And while they are shit - they dont seem to get anyones ire up. Really. You call me scum then you get 'fussy' over my ridicule of your film choices? Pfft.

I called you scum because until the last post you made, you gave every indication of being just what I said.  You explained the whole thing much more clearly in your last post than you had before...in fact, you had seemed up till then to basically be "pooh-poohing" everyone else's concerns, as if they were idiots to BE concerned after that trailer.  I haven't seen the movie because I haven't had an opportunity, but usually they make trailers for movies to tell you what they're about, ya know?
This trailer, if what you say is accurate, seems more intended to make liberals come all over themselves and conservatives so pissed off they won't see the movie.

It just seems from the trailer that it's ONLY about race, and being a Texan I don't like the implication that we'd all have slaves, Jews would be virtually wiped out, etc, if the South would have won.  Why not make a western where the indians win, and in modern times we're all running around in buck skins, living in teepees?  We could all be sending smoke signals to each other rather than posting on this board.  Sounds just as feasible.
And if spike lee had nothing to do with this film, why put his name on it?

Quoted: I called you scum because until the last post you made, you gave every indication of being just what I said.  You explained the whole thing much more clearly in your last post than you had before...in fact, you had seemed up till then to basically be "pooh-poohing" everyone else's concerns, as if they were idiots to BE concerned after that trailer.  I haven't seen the movie because I haven't had an opportunity, but usually they make trailers for movies to tell you what they're about, ya know? This trailer, if what you say is accurate, seems more intended to make liberals come all over themselves and conservatives so pissed off they won't see the movie.

Well the reason I was more clear in my lasts post is because you finally made your concerns more detailed, rather than just solicit hand jobs from Spike Lee. ;o)

You know - its funny how people react. Personally, my thought from the beginning - and with the trailer - is that people would view this as "horrible" because its against blacks. The scenario is a Klansman's wet dream - not a Liberals. I personally - as a conservative - dont see why it should offend me. Its not saying modern conservatives wouild condone this in anyway.

Originally Posted By Rakky  It just seems from the trailer that it's ONLY about race, and being a Texan I don't like the implication that we'd all have slaves, Jews would be virtually wiped out, etc, if the South would have won. Why not make a western where the indians win, and in modern times we're all running around in buck skins, living in teepees? We could all be sending smoke signals to each other rather than posting on this board. Sounds just as feasible. And if spike lee had nothing to do with this film, why put his name on it?

You need to take a second and see where this is coming from. This is not touted as a documentary like Ferenheit 9/11. It was never meant to be a serious study of what if the south had won. Its a mockumentary. The "what if" is what if we had slavery today. Of course having the south win and having it institutionalized as part of all Americas culture would be one way for that to happen.  BUT - its not something done where you have "real" experts debating if this could happen. Its 100% MADE UP.

And - as I said - not all southerners are for or against the outcome. As I said, they debated slavery, the jewish reservation, and even if Catholics were considered Christain.

I think your idea about what if the Indians had won would be great. OR what if the US had simply honored treaties, and 1/2 of our nation was another nation. Thats a great idea. write a script! I dont think that we would have stopped technological advances (its a modern world in the film). But it would be interesting having a modern Native American nation. You were being silly, I am sure, but its the same vein. Its as realistic as 12 monkeys or another alternate reality film.

As for why Spikes name is on it - one word - marketing. See, if you have Paramount buy your film, you have millions of dolars for advertising. Indie films dont get that luxury. When they can get an established director to attach their name to your film, it can get some legs. As shown here. It went from Sundance, to being bought by the IFC to just now getting some theatre showings. Will it go to DVD in a few months, or like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, will it have legs and be successful?

I personally dont really like Lee. I think his early films were ok. But hes gone to raving nut job IMHO. But I am not the Writer/director of the film - Kevin Wilmont is. And if this relationship helps him - I say go for it.

Edited to fix some typos, etc.

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> I have read the article, and frankly, its reliance on Karl Marx for some of its points disturbs me. Another issue is its claim that slavery was touted in the South as a means to inflame the passions of the Southerners.  How does that square against the oft-repeated claim that only a miniscule proportion of  Southerners owned slaves, and hence  only a small number were interested in the "peculiar institution's" existence? I also generally look askance at most things posted on Lew Rockwell's site.

First off, I'm not ever too terribly enthused when Marx is used, either.  Still, it's somewhat of an ad hominem approach to dismiss him outright.  For example, Marx, Hitler, and William Jefferson Clinton are all correct (regardless of our opinion of them) when they assert that the sky is blue (for example).

As to your central issue (which can be summed thusly: "What's up with the claim that the South started all the 'This war's about slavery' talk"?), I have no good answer.  You must remember that I only came across the article whilst doing a Google search for the Dickens quote (which is actually longer and more involved than the one sentence I quoted).  I thought the arguments therein were novel, and potentially answered some of your questions, so I cited it.  If you read the whole article (which it sounds like you did), you'll see that he reaches a conclusion that's almost a non sequitur of his whole article:

So, in that sense, slavery was at the root of the entire conflict between the North and the South, though tariffs may well have been the immediate precipitating factor, just as Adams contends.

In short, I quoted the article because it: had the Dickens quote, along with a few interesting points (which I thought might address some of your earlier questions), and had a strong central argument (though I thought the conclusion lacked in conviction).

Again, I didn't go to Lew's site and find the article, I searched for the quote and the article (on Lew's site) came up.  I usually do not rely on him for truth and objectivity, either.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, I have answered YOUR question.  Still waiting for an answer to MY question about how the slaves were "represented" in the Confederacy. I don't mean to speak for Rikwriter, but I answered your question, above. And Lincoln was an idiot...IMHO. He could have waited out the South...and allowed cooler heads than his to prevail. Ah, but History is a bitch, ain't she? And in this case a real Yankee bitch! Eric The(AndTheyAreTheVeryWorseKindOfBitches)Hun We'll never know if Lincoln, left to his own devices, would have waited.  Seems like the Confeds firing on Ft. Sumter took that option off the table. I said that History was a Yankee Bitch, didn't I? But Lincoln decided NOT to wait, as he was being urged to do by all around him, to reinforce Fort Sumter. As regrettable as the War Between the States was, what followed was even more Hell. Eric The(Unreconstructed,ISay)Hun Wrong again, Eric.  Sumter was fired upon well before any reinforcements or supplies could reach the starving, undermanned outpost which was all the while was being ringed ever-tighter by batteries of cannon directed at it..

Wrong again, Yankee boy!

I didn't say that the reinforcement and resupply ships ever reached Ft. Sumter - they didn't.

But everyone in the North and South knew they were coming, bright boy!

Lincoln informed the Governor of South Carolina, the relief squadron was coming.

Don't pretend to be an ignoramus.

How dare Lincoln attempt to reinforce a Federal garrison in danger of its life!  How dare he!

Yes, indeed, how dare he!

Everyone was looking for a way out...except Lincoln, it appears.

Oh, and PTG Beauregard?  The Officer who ordered Ft Sumter shelled and started the whole war?  Looks like he was none too well regarded by his fellow Confeds:

WTF does that assertion have to do with the subject at hand?

Posturing, again, m'boy?

You're out of your league, here.

To be fair, he did whip Ben Butler, arguably the worst Union General of the War.

Save it for your fan club.

Whoever he may be.

Eric The(ForeverUnreconstructed)Hun

Quoted: I can't think of a single technological advance that would replace people you could buy for next to nothing and work like a draft horse for free.

Edited to make clear that this was posted for humor purposes only.

Quoted: Interesting that almost all agree here that "slavery would eventually have died out". Sez who?  On what basis do you make that assumption? Slavery and liberty are incompatible ideas on the long term.  As the CSA's secession was over a matter of limiting federal government in favor of the liberty of the states, it follows that given time their beliefs would have extended to individual rights over those of the states. As they already did for most ethnic groups at that time. Stealing has never been eradicated, so why should we expect that the practice of stealing another's labor by force (slavery) would be any different?

No practice has ever been eradicated.  Stealing is against the law, as is slavery, even in the countries you mentioned.  Declaring something illegal and eliminating it are two very different things.

Quoted: Quoted: Interesting that almost all agree here that "slavery would eventually have died out". Sez who?  On what basis do you make that assumption? Why do you make that claim when slavery in modified forms exists today in countries ranging from China to the Sudan?  The former Soviet Union used slave labor until recently.  Currently, Russia still has "Labor Camps". Stealing has never been eradicated, so why should we expect that the practice of stealing another's labor by force (slavery) would be any different? It would have died out as a natural part of being the 'anglosphere'.... All the 'english' speaking countries have generally adopted more 'civilised' behaviour while the rest of the world carried on with their heathen behaviour.... It was just the way of the world in the 19th Century, if you spoke 'english' you lived in a civilised country, if you didn't, well that usually meant things sucked. ANdy

Also, we've got a lot of liberals (God bless them for some things; God curse them for others).  They wouldn't have let it stand.

Tag

Yep... dems black folk sure do wantsta get rid of the racism, dont day.

What is the target audience for this movie?
Free popcorn if you're wearing your white hood at the theater or free soda if you pop a cap in the screen while yelling kill whitey? I'm confused.

I guess we've really been slipping on our white guilt. This'll give everyone a nice jump start on how we should be paying retribution for taking blacks out of that utopia known as Africa.

Watch Hotel Rwanda or Tears of the Sun... then tell me who's better off in the long run.

Anyone seen the previews for the new FX show BlackWhite?

PS... IBTL... this will no doubt end up with some CoC violating remarks.

I like many of the smaller independent films because without the big Hollywood budgets, they're forced to take some chances. They generally have to come up with some good writing and develop a story that isn't so dependent on big explosions and special effects. In short, they really need to be more creative and develop a story that the moviegoers will tell their friends to go and see, a la "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." While this movie offers up an interesting premise, without having seen it, I think it fails on a couple of levels.

Any film that plays into such broadly accepted stereotypes as Southern bigotry, and the preference of Southerners to continue owning slaves, isn't really interested in creatively stretching all that much. Those are easy cheap shots, and although Spike Lee may not have had anything to do with the writing and production of this movie, I'm sure he was pleased to attach his name to it.

I wonder if Lee would have any interest in doing a film about Martin Luther King, that showed Charlton Heston as an active participant in many of King's marches in Alabama? How about a film that shows such historically accurate items like Southern integration being blocked by (now revered) Southern Democrats like Al Gore, Sr., Bill Clinton's mentor, Wm. Fulbright, Strom Thurmond, and former Klansman Robert Byrd? Those would be taking some chances, but this film to me may as well show drunken Irishmen and Italians with Mafia connections. The premise of the film may be interesting for conversation's sake, but anyone who thinks that Spike Lee wasn't delighted to attach his name to such a film is delusional. The money-men backing the film sure knew what they were doing when they approached him, and I'll bet Lee needed about two minutes to consider whether or not he wanted to sign on.

This film will do nothing more than provide yet another vehicle to widen the racial divide in this country. We can debate the historical accuracy of the intentions and outcomes of the Confederacy's and Union's leaders, who was most at fault, etc., but at the end of the day, I doubt that this movie's audience will have an interest in those discussions. Sure as heck, Spike Lee won't.

Read this book.

The Real Lincoln

Now, a movie I WOULD see about the south winning would be a Harry Turtledove book made into a movie. Something that would be just as speculative but at least entertaining to watch, as opposed to being made to stir up a shit pot.

Quoted: Quoted: I can't think of a single technological advance that would replace people you could buy for next to nothing and work like a draft horse for free. www.gom-france.com/home/images/appli/mesure3d/control_auto/atos3_robot.gif Edited to make clear that this was posted for humor purposes only.

something tells me that ain't "costing next to nothing, or working for free."

I put in a bid for Jupiter and kin also bought me 4 sets of them new fangled shackles in anticipation of my winnin the auction yall

Quoted: Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery.

I bet if the south never had slaves in the first place the Civil War would not have ever happened.

You know, slaves weren't cheap. They were expensive as all get out, and then you were responsible for their well being. You had to feed them, cloth them, shelter them, give them water, hire a few field masters if you had large property. You had to make sure they were hale and whole if you wanted to get your money's worth out of them.

I, in full confidence, would place the demise of slavery in the Confederate States, if secession had succeeded, at no later than 20 years after secession. I doubt it would be economically feasible after ten years, or politically viable after seven to twelve years after secession.

Furthermore, Mister44, it seems to me from your comments that you have outright stated you've worked on this movie. Please, then, enlighten me as to whether or not you had credible historians and economists giving advice, and whether you were following their advice.

Quoted: I bet if the south never had slaves in the first place the Civil War would not have ever happened.

And if humans had never evolved, we never would have had war.

Ban evolution. It's the peaceful thing to do.

You can take causes back as far as you want.

Slavery led to the seccesion. The seccesion was resisted by one side, which led to war. That doesn't make the war about slavery, because if the North had withdrawn their forces from what was now a sovereign state, the war would most likely never have begun.

Quoted: Quoted: I bet if the south never had slaves in the first place the Civil War would not have ever happened. And if humans had never evolved, we never would have had war. Ban evolution. It's the peaceful thing to do. You can take causes back as far as you want. Slavery led to the seccesion. The seccesion was resisted by one side, which led to war. That doesn't make the war about slavery, because if the North had withdrawn their forces from what was now a sovereign state, the war would most likely never have begun.

I never believed the war was OVER slavery, but slavery was 100% the cause.

There shouldn't have been slaves in the first place.

Quoted: I never believed the war was OVER slavery, but slavery was 100% the cause.

What's the difference?

Either way, you are incorrect. the cause of the war was 100% the fact that Lincoln refused to withdraw Union troops from Union forts and installations on Southern soil. Period.

There shouldn't have been slaves in the first place.

Of course, and if pigs had wings, Congress would be an airport.

Quoted: Quoted: Too bad for Spike.. but the Civil War wasn't over slavery. I bet if the south never had slaves in the first place the Civil War would not have ever happened.

So should just the north have had slaves?    As long as we're talking about "in the first place," it's a valid question.

For anyone who wants to know the truth, I suggest "The Politically Incorrect History of the United States."  

Another thing that often goes overlooked is that it was BLACK slave traders who sold their own people.  And it was most often a trusted slave who was respected by the landowner and granted many fringe benefits who doled out the punishment and harsh treatment of slaves, NOT the slaveowner.  

The real question is not "What if the South had won the war?", but "What if there never would have been slaves?"  Would our country be different now and how so?  Obviously we will never know, but racists and politicians will have this country paying for slavery for perhaps our entire future.  There is great power in the political concept of entitlement.  Common sense ceased being common decades ago.

Blake

Quoted: <snip> Another thing that often goes overlooked is that it was BLACK slave traders who sold their own people.  And it was most often a trusted slave who was respected by the landowner and granted many fringe benefits who doled out the punishment and harsh treatment of slaves, NOT the slaveowner.   <snip>

There was actually a name for those slaves; I wish I could remember it.  They were (obviously) not very well liked by their "fellow" slaves.

Quoted: There shouldn't have been slaves in the first place. Of course, and if pigs had wings, Congress would be an airport.

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.


Evil people.

Quoted: Quoted: I never believed the war was OVER slavery, but slavery was 100% the cause. What's the difference? Either way, you are incorrect. the cause of the war was 100% the fact that Lincoln refused to withdraw Union troops from Union forts and installations on Southern soil. Period.

"Southern soil" only existed because they tried to succede. And the succession was at root, because of slavery.

Quoted: Now, now, Eric.  No ned to get testy.  People will think you're losing the argument or some such.

Smart folks will be under no such illusion.

Not at all.



Eric The(Snider'nHades)Hun

Quoted: What is the target audience for this movie? Free popcorn if you're wearing your white hood at the theater or free soda if you pop a cap in the screen while yelling kill whitey? I'm confused.

Neither - as  neither of them have the brains to "get" it.

Its a hypothetical "what if". It pushes what one should laugh at - but no more than Dave Chapelle "Black Klansman" sketch.

It isnt film made to make whites feel guilty.

Quoted: I like many of the smaller independent films because without the big Hollywood budgets, they're forced to take some chances. They generally have to come up with some good writing and develop a story that isn't so dependent on big explosions and special effects. In short, they really need to be more creative and develop a story that the moviegoers will tell their friends to go and see, a la "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." While this movie offers up an interesting premise, without having seen it, I think it fails on a couple of levels.

All I can say is - maybe check it out someday. Every person I know that has seen the film enjoyed it.

And no - they arent all faggots or commies.

Quoted: I wonder if Lee would have any interest in doing a film about ...

This really isnt about Lee. He did like it and "endorsed it". But its about what Kevin Wilmont wanted to do. And he didnt want to tackle the issue seriously. This isnt about modern southern stereotypes. The racism in the film is much more broader than that. The CSA is no longer "the south". Its a new American culuture - but one that is 100% MADE UP. It is not based on fact. While they get from point A to point B - the path they take isnt a historically feasable one - nor does it pretend to be.

Quoted: This film will do nothing more than provide yet another vehicle to widen the racial divide in this country. We can debate the historical accuracy of the intentions and outcomes of the Confederacy's and Union's leaders, who was most at fault, etc., but at the end of the day, I doubt that this movie's audience will have an interest in those discussions. Sure as heck, Spike Lee won't.

I think you are wrong. We had our era of civil rights. Then we had an era of wacked out PC - where you couldnt say anything to offend anyone. I think now we are at a point socially that we can look back at the past and appreciate it - as well as poke fun at it. Dave Chapelle has done some racy stuff on his show. Is he also widening the racial devide? One does not come away hating anyone or anything. One does not come away with a feeling of shame. While there are a few sobering moments when the "racist products" are shown as real things in our past - the film over all is a work of entertainment. The plot isnt presented as "real" - thus debating any historical accuracy is completely moot.

That said - I think it also sparks some discussion. You can actually sort of talk about slavery or other topics that you wouldnt normally talk about. Ever talk about slavery with a black person? I highly doubt it - unless you perhaps took a course in college. And even then, you probably havent in a casual setting. The subject is taboo. This film I think helps break that taboo.

Humor is a universal language. If we can get pepole laughing about it - we can get them talkin about it.

I think $899.00 for a slave isn't realistic.   Hell, I paid $600.00 for my dog.

Quoted: It isnt film made to make whites feel guilty.

Oh, yeah.

Mistuh Spike Lee wouldn't want 'whitey' feeling guilty about 400 years of trafficking in 'human chattel.'

Nosuh, nosiree!

Really, I cannot determine who is the bigger fool, you or Spike Lee.

We'll call it a draw, and be done with it.

Eric The(StillSassy,PostReconstruction)Hun

Quoted: I think $899.00 for a slave isn't realistic.   Hell, I paid $600.00 for my dog.

I'd rather spend it on a new "black" gun...

Quoted: Quoted: It isnt film made to make whites feel guilty. Oh, yeah. Mistuh Spike Lee wouldn't want 'whitey' feeling guilty about 400 years of trafficking in 'human chattel.' Nosuh, nosiree! Really, I cannot determine who is the bigger fool, you or Spike Lee. We'll call it a draw, and be done with it. Eric The(StillSassy,PostReconstruction)Hun

First off... Spike Lee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

He didnt concieve it - he didnt write it - he didn't direct it - he didnt film it - he didnt edit it - he didnt do the soundtrack - he didnt do the website.

All he did was endorse the film in order to hopefully have another company take interest in it and buy it. If he loved it soooooo much *HE* would have bought and marketed the film.

Next off - did Dave Chapelles "Roots" sketch make you feel guilty?

Its rather brazen to call someone  a fool when you really dont know what you are talking about. Whats next on your list, a book review on a book you have never read? A range report on a gun you've never shot? I cant wait!

Quoted: Quoted: I like many of the smaller independent films because without the big Hollywood budgets, they're forced to take some chances. They generally have to come up with some good writing and develop a story that isn't so dependent on big explosions and special effects. In short, they really need to be more creative and develop a story that the moviegoers will tell their friends to go and see, a la "My Big Fat Greek Wedding." While this movie offers up an interesting premise, without having seen it, I think it fails on a couple of levels. All I can say is - maybe check it out someday. Every person I know that has seen the film enjoyed it. And no - they arent all faggots or commies. Quoted: I wonder if Lee would have any interest in doing a film about ... This really isnt about Lee. He did like it and "endorsed it". But its about what Kevin Wilmont wanted to do. And he didnt want to tackle the issue seriously. This isnt about modern southern stereotypes. The racism in the film is much more broader than that. The CSA is no longer "the south". Its a new American culuture - but one that is 100% MADE UP. It is not based on fact. While they get from point A to point B - the path they take isnt a historically feasable one - nor does it pretend to be. Quoted: This film will do nothing more than provide yet another vehicle to widen the racial divide in this country. We can debate the historical accuracy of the intentions and outcomes of the Confederacy's and Union's leaders, who was most at fault, etc., but at the end of the day, I doubt that this movie's audience will have an interest in those discussions. Sure as heck, Spike Lee won't. I think you are wrong. We had our era of civil rights. Then we had an era of wacked out PC - where you couldnt say anything to offend anyone. I think now we are at a point socially that we can look back at the past and appreciate it - as well as poke fun at it. Dave Chapelle has done some racy stuff on his show. Is he also widening the racial devide? One does not come away hating anyone or anything. One does not come away with a feeling of shame. While there are a few sobering moments when the "racist products" are shown as real things in our past - the film over all is a work of entertainment. The plot isnt presented as "real" - thus debating any historical accuracy is completely moot. That said - I think it also sparks some discussion. You can actually sort of talk about slavery or other topics that you wouldnt normally talk about. Ever talk about slavery with a black person? I highly doubt it - unless you perhaps took a course in college. And even then, you probably havent in a casual setting. The subject is taboo. This film I think helps break that taboo. Humor is a universal language. If we can get pepole laughing about it - we can get them talkin about it.

I agree

I think most of us would like this,
{.Liberals move to Canada. The nation chooses an expansionist policy and conquers Cuba, Mexico and South America. (www.csaamericathemovie.com)}

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It isnt film made to make whites feel guilty. Oh, yeah. Mistuh Spike Lee wouldn't want 'whitey' feeling guilty about 400 years of trafficking in 'human chattel.' Nosuh, nosiree! Really, I cannot determine who is the bigger fool, you or Spike Lee. We'll call it a draw, and be done with it. Eric The(StillSassy,PostReconstruction)Hun First off... Spike Lee had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

Uh-huh, that's what the website said, all right.

He didnt concieve it - he didnt write it - he didn't direct it - he didnt film it - he didnt edit it - he didnt do the soundtrack - he didnt do the website.

No, it appears that he certainly didn't.

All he did was endorse the film in order to hopefully have another company take interest in it and buy it. If he loved it soooooo much *HE* would have bought and marketed the film.

Yes, it certainly appears that he thinks it's a film that should be distributed, even if he doesn't do it himself.

Do you wonder why?

I don't. I know why.

Next off - did Dave Chapelles "Roots" sketch make you feel guilty?

Nothing that these idiots do make me 'feel' guilty, or think of myself or other white Americans as having anything to be guilty about concerning slavery.

But the dweebs, the libs, the mentally and emotionally infirm, cannot make such rational conclusions.

Its rather brazen to call someone  a fool when you really dont know what you are talking about.

Oh, but I do. You do not.

Whats next on your list, a book review on a book you have never read? A range report on a gun you've never shot? I cant wait!

Again, pure idiocy rears its ugly head...in Kansas?



Eric The(SmarterAss)Hun

Quoted: Again, pure idiocy rears its ugly head...in Kansas? Eric The(SmarterAss)Hun

Use all the smilies you want - the fact is you havent seen the film and do not know what you are talking about.

Its fine not to like Spike Lee. I'm not a fan. But to condemn a film just because he likes it, is - in your words - idocy.

ETA - Just because someone doesnt agree with you - doesnt make them stupid.

Quoted: Just because someone doesnt agree with you - doesnt make them stupid.

Spike Lee may not be stupid(in your opinion), but he certainly is ignorant.  True, I haven't watched the movie, but the way it's portrayed in the trailer shows it is definitely not meant to HELP race relations.

Quoted:

Use all the smilies you want - the fact is you havent seen the film and do not know what you are talking about.

I don't need  to pick up dog poo off the sidewalk for closer inspection to understand that I shouldn't step in it, either.

And when reading your posts, I think 'smiley', 'smiley', 'smiley'.

Its fine not to like Spike Lee. I'm not a fan. But to condemn a film just because he likes it, is - in your words - idocy.

Hey, Rube - I don't 'condemn' this film simply because Spike Lee likes it, loves it, or wants to suck it off in public.

Capiche ?

ETA - Just because someone doesnt agree with you - doesnt make them stupid.

No, they can disagree with me simply because they are an arrogant jackass with all the emotional stability of a crack baby, and the intellectual capacity of the common loon, as well, I suppose.

Or, again, they can merely be stupid.

Take your choice.



Eric The(WiseBeyondHisEars)Hun