Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2018, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,944 posts, read 2,911,818 times
Reputation: 3805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
I honestly wonder what Walt Disney himself (seeing as The Walt Disney Company has owned ABC since 2/9/1996) would think this of his move, let alone the SJW practices in various American media the last 5 years.
Walt Disney was a businessman he would likely produce whatever produced the most money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2018, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,390 posts, read 13,645,751 times
Reputation: 18582
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
I do think it is different ways of seeing it.



Probably because as a black kid in the 1980s, I knew black people whose parents had died and they were raised by black family members. Kids think pretty much in terms of how they live first and foremost.



None of the other scenarios are really the equivalent of 1980s USA black America. In the 1980s USA black America - if your parent dies - then your aunties/uncles or your grandparents or godparents raised you - not a rich white man lol. So for me it was not realistic.
..........

Yes, perhaps in reality....but we are talking TV and TV itself may exist along the same lines as that of science fiction where we can ask the question "what if?".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 04:34 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,617,896 times
Reputation: 20027
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah View Post
James Bond was suppose to be an experienced agent who was recruited from the Royal Navy and had done lots of intelligence work before he got the 00 designation. So when "Casino Royale" showed him acting like a kid in the candy store, I turned off the franchise and have not gone back to it.



Now one can say, "But that flick showed how he matured" but that's not the point for he was suppose to be matured before he got the 00 designation.



Which, I suppose in the current discussion, takes us right back to 1967 in that ........



Sir James: From now on, all remaining agents and trainees will be known as James Bond 007, including the girls.
Cooper: Won't that be rather confusing, sir?
Sir James: Exactly! The enemy won't know which way to turn. You are now, James Bond.
Miss Moneypenny: Congratulations, 007.
Cooper: And you, 007, sir.
Sir James: Good hunting, 007!



(from Casino Royale (1967))
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Oh, that version of Casino Royale was a spoof of the original series. I think it came about due to lawsuits and wrangling over rights to the story. With Peter Sellers, David Niven and Woody Allen, right?

yep, that casino royale was a spoof film. niven wanted to make it a serious bond film, but could not get any support from ian flemming and is production company, so he decided to make the spoof film. dont judge the rest of the bond franchise from that film.


another tidbit of information, there was actually a third casino royale film made in the 1950s, where bond was a CIA agent, not MI6.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2018, 07:10 PM
 
6,835 posts, read 2,371,383 times
Reputation: 2727
Sometimes I think these people do these reboots just to anger people who grew up watching the original version of that show or movie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2018, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Elysium
12,269 posts, read 7,976,190 times
Reputation: 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
I agree with this.



However, just wanted to note that there was a political spin to the original show too if people are so "into" trying to find a political POV for fictional TV shows.



One also has to remember that Endora didn't live in the same world/reality 100% of the time as Samantha. Samantha gave up her home world in a way to be with her husband and live the life she wanted to live. One could also view it from a feminist perspective of Samantha dumbing herself down for herself and the benefit of her husband. I also "got" that kind of from the show. She was always helping her husband too and in many ways he was a bumbling white male buffoon same as what is probably going to be on the reboot.



I find it interesting that the OP and others commenting on the show's reboot overlook these facts and I think they do mostly because they chose to ignore the images in the older show. IMO other than the lead being black and a single mother initially (which many black people would be upset about) there is no difference really in the proposed plot of the show. I'll note that many black people will also be upset about her being with a white man. I've been in many conversations with various people about them being upset that a lot of shows now feature a black woman with a white man like they are trying to encourage black women to be with white men or to ingrain the idea to black females that white men are better mates than black men (note my family is predominantly black males and they see this stuff in a lot of shows lol - so the OP IMO is kind of a flip of this type of man - always trying to find something racial, political, or gender based to complain about in regards to media and/or TV).
The pitch was a bit of a slacker who is tall with good hair versus exceptional black woman. Okay fine. In the original Darrin was anything but a slacker. Even if he won the marriage lottery and could have slacked while his wife twitched her nose to get him anything he wanted he had the work ethic to get by on his own wits and talents.

Just going by the pitch it seems as if the reboot would be Darrin trying to get Samantha to start producing the golden eggs especially if his tall body, good hair and smile doesn't open doors for him instead of doing it for himself..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2018, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Japan
15,292 posts, read 7,699,438 times
Reputation: 10004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
The pitch was a bit of a slacker who is tall with good hair versus exceptional black woman. Okay fine. In the original Darrin was anything but a slacker. Even if he won the marriage lottery and could have slacked while his wife twitched her nose to get him anything he wanted he had the work ethic to get by on his own wits and talents.

Just going by the pitch it seems as if the reboot would be Darrin trying to get Samantha to start producing the golden eggs especially if his tall body, good hair and smile doesn't open doors for him instead of doing it for himself..
That's a good point. While Samantha greatly limited her magic, usually doing things the hard way even when her mother chided her for it, Darren wanted no magic at all. He was insistent on not enjoying any special privilege due to his wife's powers. The new version apparently wants to teach us that Darren already enjoys huge privilege due to being a white man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2018, 06:43 PM
 
5,891 posts, read 3,193,687 times
Reputation: 5548
Its pretty sad that black activists and these other race pimps in Hollywood have to dredge up shows created by white people, performed by white people, and just turn them black.

Isn't that cultural appropriation?

Why doesn't "the black community" have people within it that can just create original content that mainstream society wants to watch?

Because now people get the impression that black creativity is limited to just copying what white people have done and "claiming" those works as their own.

That's also sad. It hurts the perception and reputation of "the black community".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2018, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Morrison, CO
34,106 posts, read 18,343,082 times
Reputation: 25674
Many shows are now about advancing the Leftist agenda which unnaturally promotes minorities, women, and gays in an unrealistic, and overly important manner. No, I don't watch them, so I am not among the indoctrinated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2018, 09:02 PM
 
6,835 posts, read 2,371,383 times
Reputation: 2727
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
Its pretty sad that black activists and these other race pimps in Hollywood have to dredge up shows created by white people, performed by white people, and just turn them black.

Isn't that cultural appropriation?

Why doesn't "the black community" have people within it that can just create original content that mainstream society wants to watch?

Because now people get the impression that black creativity is limited to just copying what white people have done and "claiming" those works as their own.

That's also sad. It hurts the perception and reputation of "the black community".
It is or something similar to cultural appropriation. SJW logic (both liberal and conservative, but mainly liberal) is screwy at times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2018, 10:57 PM
 
Location: California
2,083 posts, read 1,073,815 times
Reputation: 4422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Many shows are now about advancing the Leftist agenda which unnaturally promotes minorities, women, and gays in an unrealistic, and overly important manner. No, I don't watch them, so I am not among the indoctrinated.
Yes , often over the top trying to fit every race or gender and trans etc., into a single show. Now they’re even remaking Disney classics and turning the characters and animals into gay or transgender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment View Post
That's a good point. While Samantha greatly limited her magic, usually doing things the hard way even when her mother chided her for it, Darren wanted no magic at all. He was insistent on not enjoying any special privilege due to his wife's powers. The new version apparently wants to teach us that Darren already enjoys huge privilege due to being a white man.
Whole premise doesn’t even make sense. Why have new Darren a slacker when most black women who are single is because their children’s fathers are slackers.

Furthermore if she’s a witch why marry a bum? Why not make her husband Darren an educated highly successful black ad executive and show all the goings on at his office? Now that’d be worth watching.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top