Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You and i both know that TV does that all the time. You can't show the same things on network TV that you show in the theatres. Come on Ford....i know damn well that you're smarter than that.
In 1974 people (the market) were far less sensitive to what WHITE ACTORS said regarding highly combustible racial terms. Today in 2011, it could prove financially detrimental to have WHITE ACTORS say the things on film that were said in 1974. A producer may want to make the film but the people who pay for it would perhaps feel that the risk of offending certain groups would not be worth it.
Not a shred of evidence exists to back up that paragraph. None whatsoever.
And we're not talking about "the people" here. The reason that you feel it wouldn't get made today is because you obviously think that someone would be offended...and that someone is black people. C'mon...you think i don't understand THAT? What "certain groups" are you referring to? You think that your statement is so nebulous that i can't see that?
Again, prove to me that blacks would be up in arms about it when they weren't back when the original was made?
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't say conclusively that the movie could be made in this day-and-age. It barely got made 35 years ago.
Aside from that, I respect people's opinion that the film is tasteless, and perhaps even offensive. Not everyone "gets" satire. And almost no one gets all satire. That may be particularly true with Blazing Saddles' outright silly satire. I often write satirical posts and I'm always ready for people to "not get it". Humor by its nature has the potential to be offensive, at least to some people.
Tropic Thunder had Robert Downey Jr playing a role in blackface. That's a huge potential firestorm. It did create controversy, bloggers and critics discussed the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of a white actor doing such a thing, given the racist history of whites mocking blacks with blackface and minstrel shows. But controversy aside, the film was made and screened, and in 2008.
I haven't seen Blazing Saddles more than twice, and a long time ago, but I thought it was demeaning to racists, not demeaning to black people. Yes, it uses demeaning language - used by idiots. Bart is a confident capable man, and is clearly the superior to the white men who are so stupid to be fooled when Bart takes himself "hostage" by pointing his own gun at his head!
A) You've got me confused with another poster because this very sentence is the first time I've mentioned NAACP and ALCU.
B) Why are you speaking for this person? Is this another one of those "two screennames, one account" situations?
C) Are you Charlie Sheen?
On A that can be true.
I was simply gobsmacked at the comment made to DD and assumed that that the other idiot post was of the same ilk.
B, I was speaking for myself and not for anyone else.
I didn't understand and your comments were absurd and directed at DD.
See, in a community, one can support another. That's what community does.
In fact, that's what a society does... supports others.
C, apparently not.
I used logic and followed your incoherent comment to a post.
Make a movie like that and the lawsuits would fly. The NAACP would throw a huge party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.