StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Surprised BEn Stein's "eXpelled" hasn't been posted here yet.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Surprised BEn Stein's "eXpelled" hasn't been posted here yet.

Just 2 posts above you.

When World Collide always deeply bothered me since I was a child (and it's not helped by the fact the small group of selected survivors on the evacuation craft were entirely white bread Americans).

I can't believe no one has mentioned The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Orcs and Uruk-hai are obviously meant to be blacks; the orcs perform slave labor, and surprise surprise, they are evil. The treatment of the Hobbits by the others is reprehensible as well; Gandalf the like make them do something that is totally out of their league. They succeeded, but look at the shit they went through.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Orcs/Uruk-hai = blacks is about as silly as Neimoidians = asians. If anything, the fact that hobbits pulled everyone's ass out of the fire rather goes against any racist message.

Anyways, +1 to listing torture porn movies as reprehensible movies.

I'm pretty sure Tuck was joking. Half the posts in this thread are fucking ridiculous. Seriously? Rush Hour?

This thread should have ended at "Torture Porn".

A lot of people may disagree with me on this one, but I've always thought Grease was somewhat reprehensible. Its message seems to be, "Don't be shy and a good student; go wild in high school and drink and do drugs. Conform to everyone else, and you will be happy." At least, it seems to me that this is what happens to Sandra. Somehow it's good that she gives up her sweet, serious personality.

Rocky II.

It just shits on the first one. Rocky had a simple moral; it wasn't about beating Creed. It never fucking was at any point. It was about Rocky putting himself in the ring, and showing the everyone and himself that he wasn't just a bum. It was about going the distance, and taking everything Creed could throw at him. The boxing is just a metaphor for his struggles.

Rocky II? "Fuck it, just have him beat Creed somehow."

Balrog wrote:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Orcs/Uruk-hai = blacks is about as silly as Neimoidians = asians. If anything, the fact that hobbits pulled everyone's ass out of the fire rather goes against any racist message.

I was joking, This thread is obviously a huge fucking joke. I have heard that complaint before, though.

Well, reprehensible is a strong word, so it's difficult to include any movies that aren't blindingly offensive, like the Klansman or the movie for rape fetishists, I Spit on Your Grave, which Rogert Ebert railed against here. Yes, some movies carry dubious moral messages the likes of which permeate TV Tropes, the most noticeable probably being "the group is always right and you should never speak against it" but such lessons are generally the result of a half-assed attempt to introduce a moral (in this instance, get along with others) rather than something "reprehensible."

So, while I can't claim the following is strictly reprehensible, I can say that Freddie Got Fingered is simply crass and devoid of any value, culturally, morally or humorously. I admit, it's hard for me to tell whether its just my own bias that makes me feel that way or if its more "objectively true" like other examples.

Hey, there's a place for shock value and gross-out humour. But in this movie, it's just so tired. Every skit is laboured and exists only to shock and repulse. There's no punchline, no anything. Movies about "stupid" people can be smart. Dumb and Dumber is about two of the stupidest damn people ever, doing stupid things for two hours. But the movie itself is smart. Freddie Got Fingered is a stupid movie about, quite simply, a maniac, and that's why I find it, if not reprehensible, then at least devoid of any positive attributes.

JLTucker wrote:

Balrog wrote:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Orcs/Uruk-hai = blacks is about as silly as Neimoidians = asians. If anything, the fact that hobbits pulled everyone's ass out of the fire rather goes against any racist message.

I was joking, This thread is obviously a huge fucking joke. I have heard that complaint before, though.

The movie may have ditched the racist shit, but anyone who has read the book can tell you flat out that there are some pretty racist ideas in there. For instance, the Numenorians whose lifespans became reduced as they interbred with the "lesser races of men".

JLTucker wrote:

Balrog wrote:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Orcs/Uruk-hai = blacks is about as silly as Neimoidians = asians. If anything, the fact that hobbits pulled everyone's ass out of the fire rather goes against any racist message.

I was joking, This thread is obviously a huge fucking joke. I have heard that complaint before, though.

How is it a joke? We know that Tolkien consciously intended LOTR to serve as a sort of mythology for western Europe. This means that the "Men of the West" really are western Europe. The vast sub-human horde is a classic European cultural way of viewing attackers from the east, whether they're Persians, Huns, or Mongols. And then there's Harad: a country from the southeast, just like Africa in relation to western Europe, and which just happens to use elephants, just like the Africans did in real-life.

Are we supposed to accept all of this as meaningless coincidence, despite the fact that Tolkien openly stated that his story was to serve as a mythology for western Europe?

^I'd like to add that some leeway must be granted to materials created in a different social context. Take for example the works of H.P. Lovecraft, wich drip racism and even sexism from every page, yet are the product of his era (and his somewhat fucked up mind).

In the case of Tolkien's representation of Eastern societies as hostile monsters, it would be reprehensible today if modern interpretations of his works embraced said messages, but the Lord of the Rings movies actually have scenes making an anti-racist message, thus updating the story to modern ideals.

LordOskuro wrote:^I'd like to add that some leeway must be granted to materials created in a different social context. Take for example the works of H.P. Lovecraft, wich drip racism and even sexism from every page, yet are the product of his era (and his somewhat fucked up mind).

In the case of Tolkien's representation of Eastern societies as hostile monsters, it would be reprehensible today if modern interpretations of his works embraced said messages, but the Lord of the Rings movies actually have scenes making an anti-racist message, thus updating the story to modern ideals.

Actually, that scene was in the books as well, but not spoken by Faramir; it was Sam who thought about what lies and threats drove the Men of East and South to serve Sauron the Ring-lord.

I never saw the Orcs as represantation of Eastern or Southern people; they were merely monsters and bogeymen. Tolkien even included many scenes in which the honor and humanity of the humans who opposed the book's heroes became more clear or evident. And some scenes even depict him as feeling pity towards the Orcs themselves, bound to the will of Sauron and living lives of violence and murder because the Dark Lord needs an army of thugs and slaves. However, these points can be disputed, depending on the point of view: certainly Tolkien had more racist views than he would have today, but not as much as some claim (the one and only time when he spoke about Orcs in real life context was when he spoke about "Orcs" among the British armed forces).

Tiriol wrote:I never saw the Orcs as represantation of Eastern or Southern people; they were merely monsters and bogeymen.

And what about the darker-skinned human men of Harad who just happened to come from the Southeast of Western Europe, er- the lands of the Men of the West, and who rode elephants into battle, like the Africans and Indians of old? Mere coincidence, right?

Darth Wong wrote:

Tiriol wrote:I never saw the Orcs as represantation of Eastern or Southern people; they were merely monsters and bogeymen.

And what about the darker-skinned human men of Harad who just happened to come from the Southeast of Western Europe, er- the lands of the Men of the West, and who rode elephants into battle, like the Africans and Indians of old? Mere coincidence, right?

Tolkien based the empire of Gondor on the Eastern Roman Empire. Gondor itself is just constantinople in another form. Thus, it stands to reason the enemies have arab/Berber traits.

Would it have been better for the desert-dwellers to be Nordic Vikings riding Direwolves? If we're talking about a quota system of there not being enough white villains in the films, recall that there were the men of Dunland similarly tricked into joining the bad guys by the evil White Wizard himself, who pretty much took up all of the second movie.

As far as the Orcs are concerned, their skin color varies greatly in the films, from green to grey to white, and the concept of evil, misshapen beings existed long before white Europeans developed notions of racism, much less had contact with other ethnicities.

Flagg wrote: The movie may have ditched the racist shit, but anyone who has read the book can tell you flat out that there are some pretty racist ideas in there. For instance, the Numenorians whose lifespans became reduced as they interbred with the "lesser races of men".

No, they became reduced when they pissed God off by worshiping Morgoth with human sacrifices. The Numenoreans started losing their normal lifespan long before the exodus and subsequent mingling with Middle-earth.

would joseph king of dreams qualify? It is a prequal to Prince Of Egypt, but the religious aspects are muted except for the "forgiveness is better then revenge" part. And the scene were he forgives them still makes me cry.

Balrog wrote:Would it have been better for the desert-dwellers to be Nordic Vikings riding Direwolves? If we're talking about a quota system of there not being enough white villains in the films, recall that there were the men of Dunland similarly tricked into joining the bad guys by the evil White Wizard himself, who pretty much took up all of the second movie.

Am I talking to a brick wall here? It's not about "a quota system"; it's about the fact that certain groups in the movie were literally intended to represent certain racial groups in real history.

And? Is it really that shocking that someone creating a fictional culture samples from RL cultures? Unless you're trying to say that Tolkien, and by extension Jackson, basing the Haradrim in part on non-Europeans (Berbers, etc.) is meant to be a commentary on those RL groups. Which doesn't really mesh with his personal views or his writing in general.

And? Is it really that shocking that someone creating a fictional culture samples from RL cultures? Unless you're trying to say that Tolkien, and by extension Jackson, basing the Haradrim in part on non-Europeans (Berbers, etc.) is meant to be a commentary on those RL groups. Which doesn't really mesh with his personal views or his writing in general.

I thought he was relatively progressive in viewpoints for the time and while the LOTR was indeed quite racists, I find it easier to stomach being written in the 1930s etc, vs 300 which had no such excuse and outright take pride in it, without the fantasy grounding excuse of the LOTR.

Darth Wong wrote: And what about the darker-skinned human men of Harad who just happened to come from the Southeast of Western Europe, er- the lands of the Men of the West, and who rode elephants into battle, like the Africans and Indians of old? Mere coincidence, right?

That's exactly the scene we were talking about. I don't remember how it went on the book, but on the movie (extended version) they ambush an elephant and kill the riders, and then Faramir muses over the corpse of one of the eastern men about wether he had a family back home, and about what leverage did Sauron use to force them into battle. In other words, he acknowledges that they are simply soldiers fighting for the other side, just as he is.

Of course then you get how the movie portrayed the Elephant "drivers" as distorted tribalistic fiends, oh well.

Balrog wrote:And? Is it really that shocking that someone creating a fictional culture samples from RL cultures? Unless you're trying to say that Tolkien, and by extension Jackson, basing the Haradrim in part on non-Europeans (Berbers, etc.) is meant to be a commentary on those RL groups. Which doesn't really mesh with his personal views or his writing in general.

Nice spin-doctoring. So a near-perfect parallel is just "sampling" now? Darker-skinned folk, riding elephants into battle, coming from the south, wearing tribal war paint ... all just "sampling", right? And the fact that every part just happens to fit ... well that means nothing to you, right? Just totally random "sampling", from an author who said up-front that it was supposed to be a mythology for western Europe ... *cough*bullshit*cough*

LordOskuro wrote:That's exactly the scene we were talking about. I don't remember how it went on the book, but on the movie (extended version) they ambush an elephant and kill the riders, and then Faramir muses over the corpse of one of the eastern men about wether he had a family back home, and about what leverage did Sauron use to force them into battle. In other words, he acknowledges that they are simply soldiers fighting for the other side, just as he is.

Of course then you get how the movie portrayed the Elephant "drivers" as distorted tribalistic fiends, oh well.

It's right here (embedding is disabled on this particular video). Faramir says,

You wonder what his name is. Where he came from. If he was really evil at heart. What lies or threats led on this long march from home. He rather not have stayed there, in peace. War will make corpses of us all.

The fact that the extended cut of the film includes a scene where Faramir acknowledges their humanity hardly nullifies the accusation that the Men of Harad are a caricature of Africans. Oooh, they admit that the enemy is human!