Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Here's the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2000781/Cannes-Film-Festival-Spike-Lee-criticises-Clint-Eastwood-over-all-white-Iwo-Jima-films.html that states:


Eastwood has made two movies about the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima, one from a US perspective and one from the point of view of Japanese troops.

"Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen," Lee said.

"I've no idea why he did that. That was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed. It's not like he didn't know. It was a conscious decision not to have any black people."

The director was speaking at the Cannes Film Festival, where he is launching Miracle at St Anna, the true story of four black US Army soldiers trapped behind enemy lines in Italy. While fighting the Nazis, they also have to contend with racial abuse from their superiors.

"Here's the paradox. These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second class citizens," Lee said.

Eastwood is also in Cannes, promoting his latest film, The Exchange. But he declined to comment on Lee's attack when questioned about it yesterday.

The Dirty Harry star was not the only film-maker to come under fire from Lee, the always outspoken director of Do The Right Thing and Malcolm X.

He said of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen: "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't. Look, I love the Coen brothers, we all studied at NYU. But they treat life as a joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that."

Miracle at St Anna will be released in October and is likely to premiere at either the Venice or Toronto Film Festivals, Lee said.

His next project is a feature-length documentary on basketball star Michael Jordan, which is being financed by the NBA. Lee and Jordan have worked together in the past on a series of Nike adverts.

I do think stuff like that happens often but complaining about it only makes white people say, "Look at what black people can do today! Why would they (not Lee, but they as in all black people) say such a thing?!" (generalization yes, but this is what tends to happen in public discourse)

Not even worth talking about because the argument remains circular. No one is going to come to a middle ground even though what Lee said has plenty of validity.

If Clint Eastwood actually made a conscious effort to not include black people in his Iwo Jima films, that is messed up, but I seriously doubt that was his intention. And to say the Coen Brothers don't take life seriously? Spike Lee is just looking for attention, trying to raise some controversy to promote his new film. For God's sake, he makes Nike commercials.

Originally posted by chithappens
I do think stuff like that happens often but complaining about it only makes white people say, "Look at what black people can do today! Why would they (not Lee, but they as in all black people) say such a thing?!" (generalization yes, but this is what tends to happen in public discourse)

Not even worth talking about because the argument remains circular. No one is going to come to a middle ground even though what Lee said has plenty of validity.

Well, you talked about it.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
If Clint Eastwood actually made a conscious effort to not include black people in his Iwo Jima films, that is messed up, but I seriously doubt that was his intention. And to say the Coen Brothers don't take life seriously? Spike Lee is just looking for attention, trying to raise some controversy to promote his new film. For God's sake, he makes Nike commercials.

On the Coen brothers he is saying the gore is a bit much, long story short.

Eastwood is supposed to be attempting a real portrayl of WWII and those happenings so why the hell would there not be other races of American soldiers?

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
If Clint Eastwood actually made a conscious effort to not include black people in his Iwo Jima films, that is messed up, but I seriously doubt that was his intention. And to say the Coen Brothers don't take life seriously? Spike Lee is just looking for attention, trying to raise some controversy to promote his new film. For God's sake, he makes Nike commercials.

Spike Lee is an annoying and racist turd. His only decent film to date is Bamboozled.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Well, you talked about it.

Perhaps I should have said talked about it and hoping people will pay any attention and try to change anything.

The media shits on minorities and poor people. That itself is a fact.

Originally posted by chithappens

Eastwood is supposed to be attempting a real portrayl of WWII and those happenings so why the hell would there not be other races of American soldiers?

Because in certain cases, blacks were segregated in the military. Remember, this was the 40's.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because in certain cases, blacks were segregated in the military. Remember, this was the 40's.

I know that. They were often the front men to see if anyone was sniping or in Vietnam the ones to check mine fields.

But they were not always in completely separate platoons. I don't think any scholar or veteran would valid that.

Originally posted by chithappens
I know that. They were often the front men to see if anyone was sniping or in Vietnam the ones to check mine fields.

But they were not always in completely separate platoons. I don't think any scholar or veteran would valid that.

Wrong, the "operation dark shield" is a myth.

Yes, there were in fact all black and all white (or at least non-black) units at times. War or no, segregation was still alive. Spike Lee is making a film about an all black unit that served in Italy.

Edit: I misread what you said, yes, whites and blacks served together at times. I am not sure why Lee is crying all Eastwood though, as he is making a movie about an all black unit. Then again, I do know. He likes to cry foul at others, becuase he's a racist turd himself.

From a movie goer perspective. All names mention above have made great films. I like their styles of film making as well as their style in story telling. From an artistic point of view those guys have excellent talent.

However, on a personal note...I think Spike just needs to learn from his own films and understand that in order to move forward you need to stop going back and point fingers. Learn from the past and move forward.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong, the "operation dark shield" is a myth.

Yes, there were in fact all black and all white (or at least non-black) units at times. War or no, segregation was still alive. Spike Lee is making a film about an all black unit that served in Italy.

Edit: I misread wht you said, yes, whites and blacks served together at times, I am not sure why Lee is crying all Eastwood though, as he ismaking a movie about an all black unit.

Again, I know that. The most well known all-black unit came from Tuskegee, AL (and I think that's the one his movie is based from).

BUT not all of the units were segregated like you are suggesting.

I'm not suggesting that. See above, I specifically said whites and blacks did serve together.

my mistake, did not see the edit

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf


However, on a personal note...I think Spike just needs to learn from his own films and understand that in order to move forward you need to stop going back and point fingers. Learn from the past and move forward.

Black media has a thing about not being "accepted" in Hollywood. There was over a three decade gap between black men winning Oscars for "best actor" and Halle Berry (the only black woman to win) won "best actress" in 2001 for Monster's Ball (and honestly, she was not that great in the movie which is why black people started saying stuff like it was just because of the sex scene with Billy Bob... sigh). Both Denzel Washington (who won in 2001 also) and Berry had much better performances in other movies so this raised some eyebrows. It was almost as if the Oscars were like, "Here! God damn! You happy now? Now maybe you will shut the **** up about it for another two decades."

On TV, unless it's drugs, there is no black drama.

There are other things but those black celebrities who do voice out concerns about media portrayal do have a point.

The Oscars are overrated and pointless in my book.

Given that...Black Cinema (using the term broadly) or Blaxpotaion was really fun and entertaining. Never understood why NAACP had issues with them.

On TV there was Martin and Living single and other shows no one bother to watch. So for me when they said "we weren't given a chance" that's just show business for ya. Try again. There is a lot of talent out there and competion is rigid.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
The Oscars are overrated and pointless in my book.

Given that...Black Cinema (using the term broadly) or Blaxpotaion was really fun and entertaining. Never understood why NAACP had issues with them.

On TV there was Martin and Living single and other shows no one bother to watch. So for me when they said "we weren't given a chance" that's just show business for ya. Try again. There is a lot of talent out there and competion is rigid.

It's not a "we didn't have a chance" thing. Those sitcoms were cool and were "average" people, not sitcoms about those in the luxurious life. I'm not a huge fan of Rosanne but I think that represented what life is often like for the average American.

The thing is that black media changed a lot from the mid 90s up to this point. Black people had control of it but those in charge kept selling stuff to corporations. Once BET was sold, that was the end of any creative, realistic stuff coming out consistently regarding the portrayal of black people.

For example, hip hop had gangsta rap but there was also a nice amount of other sorts of artists coming out. Now, it's hard for any rapper to come out unless he's a complete ho to a contract. Strap on his diamond chain and thong and go make that money.

Edit: For the record, Living Single finished it's run.

Martin Lawerence was having random drug issues and was having issues with his co-star concerning sexual harassment so it ended on a awkward note where his wife on the show was never in the same scene he was in.

Aside from the obvious...

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Spike Lee is just looking for attention, trying to raise some controversy to promote his new film.


...I think Mr. Lee didn't actually watch the films, for considering how tunneled his vision is, he would have surely noticed the two people up front in this scene from FOOF:

Originally posted by botankus
Aside from the obvious...

...I think Mr. Lee didn't actually watch the films, for considering how tunneled his vision is, he would have surely noticed the two people up front in this scene from FOOF:

His racist complaints are that there weren't any black soldiers in the movie, the turd.

Well then he should have said "Damn honky didn't cast any black soldiers with speaking roles" instead of "Damn honky didn't put any black actors ON SCREEN."

It would be like me saying, "Spike Lee loves white people" instead of "Spike Lee loathes white people."

Originally posted by chithappens
Perhaps I should have said talked about it and hoping people will pay any attention and try to change anything.

The media shits on minorities and poor people. That itself is a fact.

How is that a fact? Is Clint Eastwood THE MEDIA? I work for a news media station and I've never once had a meeting or been told or had a secret alliance with anyone to shit on minorities. I go shoot the news and if it happens to be some black guy who did something, we report it. If it's some white guy, we report it.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
How is that a fact? Is Clint Eastwood THE MEDIA? I work for a news media station and I've never once had a meeting or been told or had a secret alliance with anyone to shit on minorities. I go shoot the news and if it happens to be some black guy who did something, we report it. If it's some white guy, we report it.

I get that you were talking about the film industry in general now that I've read all your other posts since the one I quoted in my last post. You may have a point there.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
How is that a fact? Is Clint Eastwood THE MEDIA? I work for a news media station and I've never once had a meeting or been told or had a secret alliance with anyone to shit on minorities. I go shoot the news and if it happens to be some black guy who did something, we report it. If it's some white guy, we report it.

You haven't gained high enough clearance, yet. Bid your time, you'll eventually be given a secret password and invited to join a super secret media gathering, where old white men in three-piece suits wring their hands together and devise plans to take out the blacks and other minorities. Don't ask me how I know these "facts", I've already spoken to much.

Personally, the BET is the biggest affront to black people, nothing but pure garbage.

I think by "media" he was talking about Klansman Grand Wizard Don Imus, the guy whose show is now banished to the Dingleberry Network.

wait. did black people fight in iwo jima? if so then they should have been represented on screen. imho misrepresentation of history in movies is a sin and thus mel gibson should be eternally skull****ed in hell.

Originally posted by Schecter
wait. did black people fight in iwo jima? if so then they should have been represented on screen. imho misrepresentation of history in movies is a sin and thus mel gibson should be eternally skull****ed in hell.

While I think you're being facetious, I'd like to point out that all Hollywood historical film directors should get their skulls lubed, as their films are jazzed up to sell tickets at the box office.

How many African American soldiers serve in any of the Pacific Campaigns in WWII? Is it significant enough to make it a point to put it in his(Clint Eastwood's) movies and make a point of increasing equality(Or show discrimination...depending on your perspective)?

The African Americans were few and far between in any of the Pacific War campaigns. An accurate portrayal of the movie by following "white" soldiers makes more sense. Why in the hell would he write in a special African American platoon of marines if the film wasn't about covering African American history, rights, etc.? It would be very out of place and seem to be too PC and actually get in the way of the "story" being told. If he would have done that, people may think that he is being a PC appeaser.

I guess its expected to be as PC as possible in anything down or seen by the media, but after a certain point, it becomes abusrd or even insulting.

Originally posted by botankus
While I think you're being facetious, I'd like to point out that all Hollywood historical film directors should get their skulls lubed, as their films are jazzed up to sell tickets at the box office.

well yes i agree. however there is a difference between a film with some trivial fudging and a propaganda piece designed to slander people. take scorsese for example. he took some artistic liberty in gangs of new york but it didnt make his film amount to a hideous lie at someone else's expense.

If he's that pissed about it, I think Spike Lee should re-make "Flags of Our Fathers" with Usher, Flavor Flav, Michael Vick, and Bill Cosby raising the flag. Then, he can proclaim himself as doing the man who finally did the right thing (pun intended).

Originally posted by Robtard
Personally, the BET is the biggest affront to black people, nothing but pure garbage.
It's not all pure garbage. They also have pure crap.

Little Spike Lee should grow up and stop trying to make controversy when there is absolutely none

Originally posted by dadudemon
How many African American soldiers serve in any of the Pacific Campaigns in WWII? Is it significant enough to make it a point to put it in his(Clint Eastwood's) movies and make a point of increasing equality(Or show discrimination...depending on your perspective)?

The African Americans were few and far between in any of the Pacific War campaigns. An accurate portrayal of the movie by following "white" soldiers makes more sense. Why in the hell would he write in a special African American platoon of marines if the film wasn't about covering African American history, rights, etc.? It would be very out of place and seem to be too PC and actually get in the way of the "story" being told. If he would have done that, people may think that he is being a PC appeaser.

I guess its expected to be as PC as possible in anything down or seen by the media, but after a certain point, it becomes abusrd or even insulting.

Spike Lee is not saying the film should follow black soldiers as much as white soldiers. He's saying that it is an inaccurate stance to say rhetorically, by not having any black soldiers, that they did not participate in the war at all. It is not important to those who already know the history and have read the background; however, to someone who is ignorant to the particulars of WWII, it is a "this is how it really was" scenario.

Similarly, I think it is insulting that civil rights movement (which black people somehow completely took as simply a "black" thing) documentaries almost always leave out the fact that white people were involved in the movement to support blacks getting equal rights. At the same time, there are many, many people taking action like the Appalachian miners, Native Americans, women rights were beginning to pick up - a lot of things were happening at once and it is lost in the fact these other movements are not discussed AT ALL.

Skewing the psychology of people is not always about lying. Sometimes it is simply omitting things that are relevant.

Originally posted by chithappens
On TV, unless it's drugs, there is no black drama.

Have you seen anything on the WB? From my childhood with Urkle (Erkle?) (whatever) to this writing diarrhea that Tyler Perry has mystifyingly become famous over, I can't think of a single black-centric television show that is stomachable. I could enjoy an episode of the Cosby Show when I was a kid, but I haven't seen it in years and I don't even know if it is played in reruns. So, black drama is not alone. Their situational comedies are pure garbage. And I don't know what Spike Lee's intentions in this are, but I know the man can't write, direct or perform in a single one of his movies to save his life.

Originally posted by Devil King
Have you seen anything on the WB? From my childhood with Urkle (Erkle?) (whatever) to this writing diarrhea that Tyler Perry has mystifyingly become famous over, I can't think of a single black-centric television show that is stomachable. I could enjoy an episode of the Cosby Show when I was a kid, but I haven't seen it in years and I don't even know if it is played in reruns. So, black drama is not alone. Their situational comedies are pure garbage. And I don't know what Spike Lee's intentions in this are, but I know the man can't write, direct or perform in a single one of his movies to save his life.

Yeah that's true about Lee's acting skills.

Tyler Perry is famous because he leeches off the Black Christian Baptist stereotypes (multiple movies and plays where he dresses like an overweight grandmother touting a gun). His sitcom is crap. Sitcoms now are completely . I seriously can't think of a show I actually expect to tune in for anymore...

The Wire is a great show on HBO that has a mostly black cast. Yeah, it involves police and drug dealers, typical black stuff . . . but the characters are not the Hollywood stamped trademark drug dealers, pimps, etc. The acting is top notch and the stories are based on actual events that happened in Baltimore. Both good guys and bad guys are played by black people, but even the bad guys are shown in the same amount of screen time as the good guys, so you get to know the characters as people, not as good guys and bad guys. Anyway . . .

Spike Lee is a racist and a hack. Spouting bullshit like this is the only way he can get in the news these days.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
The Wire is a great show on HBO that has a mostly black cast. Yeah, it involves police and drug dealers, typical black stuff . . . but the characters are not the Hollywood stamped trademark drug dealers, pimps, etc. The acting is top notch and the stories are based on actual events that happened in Baltimore. Both good guys and bad guys are played by black people, but even the bad guys are shown in the same amount of screen time as the good guys, so you get to know the characters as people, not as good guys and bad guys. Anyway . . .

Yeah but damn can we have some regular middle class shit also?

The Wire is a well done show, yes, but there needs to be more shown of black people besides drugs, rap, and sports.

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah but damn can we have some regular middle class shit also?

The Wire is a well done show, yes, but there needs to be more shown of black people besides drugs, rap, and sports.

I agree, and why is there not such a show?

Because this is how black people are to be portrayed by those with enough influence to make things happen.

Obviously, people come up with other ideas all the time, but they don't want to hear it. The reason rap is so diluted now is because they only want one sort of product to be given on a macro level. This crosses over to other forms of media also: Check out the "urban fiction" section in a book store - all sex stories with half dressed men and women on these "rough, tough streets where you gotta hustle to make a livin', naw mean?" Even the regular "African American" fiction is just a bunch of Zane/"woman who can find a man has lots of sex" books that middle school teenagers read are just turned into cliche movies like "How Stella Got Her Groove Back."

I was a co-editor for a minority newsletter on a college campus for the past two semesters and we couldn't say anything worthy of actual conversation. We weren't doing anything that pushed the envelope too far but it was not acceptable to the leaders of the university even though these were matters that were important to both students of the campus and citizens in the city of Knoxville, TN regardless of race.

On a mass scale, those in power seem uncomfortable with discussing stuff that takes a different route than the status quo. As I mentioned before, it is not just a black thing, it's way bigger than that, but I'm trying to give context rather than just rant.

Originally posted by Schecter
well yes i agree. however there is a difference between a film with some trivial fudging and a propaganda piece designed to slander people. take scorsese for example. he took some artistic liberty in gangs of new york but it didnt make his film amount to a hideous lie at someone else's expense.

I'll probably regret this, but as it's about movies and I'm curious:

Where did Mel Gibson film a hideous lie at someone's expense in a historical movie?

Braveheart or Passion of the Christ? Or The Patriot or We Were Soldiers?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'll probably regret this, but as it's about movies and I'm curious:


Where did Mel Gibson film a hideous lie at someone's expense in a historical movie?

Braveheart or Passion of the Christ? Or The Patriot or We Were Soldiers?
(Sorry to interject Schecter)

In regards to The Passion:

That bit about the Jews yelling like foam frothing rabid dogs preferring Barabus, a thief and murderer be spared instead of Jesus was most likely bullshit, yes, I know it was accurate according to the Bible, but from a logical standpoint, it's just nonsense.

Even if the Jew leaders indeed did make that choice, there is an EXTREMELY small chance that Pontius Pilot would have agreed. Barabus had killed Roman soldiers, in essence he was a rebel fighter against Roman rule. One thing we do know for certain about the Romans, they were not lenient on those who questioned their rule, as fact.

If Pilot had let Barabus go, he could have expected that either his very own men killed him for letting a killer of legionnaires walk or Rome itself would have sent orders to have him dispatched and replaced.

Originally posted by Robtard
(Sorry to interject Schecter)

In regards to The Passion:

That bit about the Jews yelling like foam frothing rabid dogs preferring Barabus, a thief and murderer be spared instead of Jesus was most likely bullshit, yes, I know it was accurate according to the Bible, but from a logical standpoint, it's just nonsense.

Even if the Jew leaders indeed did make that choice, there is an EXTREMELY small chance that Pontius Pilot would have agreed. Barabus had killed Roman soldiers, in essence he was a rebel fighter against Roman rule. One thing we do know for certain about the Romans, they were not lenient on those who questioned their rule, as fact.

If Pilot had let Barabus go, he could have expected that either his very own men killed him for letting a killer of legionnaires walk or Rome itself would have sent orders to have him dispatched and replaced.


But as you said, it's in the bible. And that's what's portrayed on screen.

Jesus was criticized, run out of temples, and nearly pushed off a cliff by a crowd in his hometown because of the things that he was teaching.

The Jewish leaders did in fact want his crucifixion over Barabbas, and as it's portrayed, the Roman governor Pilot was worried about a riot from all those who wanted Jesus killed if he didn't give in.

(that's why he tried to contrast Jesus with Barabbas, to dispel the crowd. But they surprised him by wanting the killer freed, and he knew then that he'd have a real problem on his hand if he let Jesus go. So he washes his hands of it, finding no guilt personally, and orders his men to carry out the wishes of the people.)

Now historically accurate or not, it's the account given in the Bible and what Gibson put on film. Moreover, other than assumptions about what Roman high command would or wouldn't do, are there any proofs that it didn't go down the way the bible says it did?

I don't see it as a slam on Jewish people. Jesus was a Jew, all his disciples and the founders of the early Christian church were Jewish. If it had happened in France, and Jesus were French and his disciples French, but the citizens in France called for his execution, would the movie be anti-Frenchitic? Or just history as it happened?

Well yes, but historically, it would be false, as in all probability wouldn't have happened that way. There are many stories that are based on real historically events, yet the author takes artistic freedom to add improbable fantasies to embelish it here and there.

It's not assumptions about the Romans, they weren't merciful to those who rebelled against them, AS FACT. How do you think they kept control for so long. There is documentation in how the Romans operated, and letting free rebels who murdered Roman soldiers isn't one of them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, but historically, it would be false, as in all probability wouldn't have happened that way. There are many stories that are based on real historically events, yet the author takes artistic freedom to add improbable fantasies to embelish it here and there.

It's not assumptions about the Romans, they weren't merciful to those who rebelled against them, AS FACT. How do you think they kept control for so long. There is documentation in how the Romans operated, and letting free rebels who murdered Roman soldiers isn't one of them.

Yes, I know.

But is there any documentation that this PARTICULAR instance didn't happen? (in order to avoid a riot they let go one guy who they can just kill or catch again after?)

I mean, isn't even in Roman history that Jesus was crucified by Pilot's men?

Whether they reflect the Barrabas part of the story or not, the bible says it and Gibson showed it.

It hardly makes him a teller of "a hideous lie at someone else's expense" as Schecter put it. He's making a movie about Jesus crucifixion, for goodness sake. Of course he'll portray the bible's account of it.

Bringing around stories of faith are different than discussing stories of history (in this way, I mean factual and not having a bias that ties into religion) and understanding the way it describes a group of people.

I don't know the particulars but the movie 300 is a better example of what you are trying to get at, I think.

I wish I knew what thread those "300" comments were in.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, I know.

But is there any documentation that this PARTICULAR instance didn't happen? (in order to avoid a riot they let go one guy who they can just kill or catch again after?)

I mean, isn't even in Roman history that Jesus was crucified by Pilot's men?

Whether they reflect the Barrabas part of the story or not, the bible says it and Gibson showed it.

It hardly makes him a teller of "a hideous lie at someone else's expense" as Schecter put it. He's making a movie about Jesus crucifixion, for goodness sake. Of course he'll portray the bible's account of it.

You are correct. He was not telling a lie. It is the bible that is telling the lie.

the passion is not a direct telling from the bible

Braveheart is massively historically incorrect.

Actually I found a good story from the BBC which states the historical side of things, including

a.) That there was such a thing as a Passover Amnesty once a year.

b.) Pilot had 6,000 troops in a city that had 2.5 million jews (he did have 30,000 more on standby in Syria)

c.) He was called to Rome to answer for the events of the crucifixion, but the Roman emporer Tiberius died before he got there. Pilot ends up committing suicide not long after the crucifixion.

Here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_2.shtml

So it appears that The Passion (and the Bible) version of events is possible (and probable, as the article mentions how he tried to use the Barabbas trick to avoid a riot) and that there is no direct evidence against it.

Gibson's film is off the hook for what Schecter (and Rob?) said it was doing and any claims otherwise are just angry viewers trying to create anti-semitism where none exists.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Braveheart is massively historically incorrect.

not only that but the history behind william wallace is so vague its been rendered downright folklore. but hey, as long as mel gets to bash protestants and f@gs, its alright

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Yes, I know.

But is there any documentation that this PARTICULAR instance didn't happen? (in order to avoid a riot they let go one guy who they can just kill or catch again after?)

I mean, isn't even in Roman history that Jesus was crucified by Pilot's men?

Whether they reflect the Barrabas part of the story or not, the bible says it and Gibson showed it.

It hardly makes him a teller of "a hideous lie at someone else's expense" as Schecter put it. He's making a movie about Jesus crucifixion, for goodness sake. Of course he'll portray the bible's account of it.

I highly doubt the Romans would keep documentation of murders they didn't let go, considering how many people they executed as a means to keep order.

As far as your riot, the Roman garrison would have been more than capable of keeping a riot in check, as not every Jew would have rioted. If the Jews had rioted and taken over, they could have expected with 100% certainty that the Romans would have returned with a legion and kicked Jewish ass from Jerusalem to Damascus. So they deciding to up-rise now over just little old Jesus and not the years of oppression is just a stupid illogical thought.

Again, the Roman's didn't necessarily keep records of everyone they killed, as that would have been a massive list.

Well yes, I'm not agreeing that Gibson was wrong in doing it, but to try and pass off illogical accounts as historical fact is insulting to intelligence. What's next, do a movie that shows dinosaurs and man living together as claim it's historically accurate?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Braveheart is massively historically incorrect.

And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.

On topic, this isn't the first time Spike has been critical of other directors. He also have a feud with Quentin Tarantino for his use of the N word.

Just keep making movies Spike.

He also tried to sue Spike TV for using the word 'Spike'.

The guy is a joke.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.

On topic, this isn't the first time Spike has been critical of other directors. He also have a feud with Quentin Tarantino for his use of the N word.

Just keep making movies Spike.

I wasn't fighting for a case that it should be so. I was joining in a debate that has been going for a few pages, concerning the historical validity of Gibson's films. Why not read back a bit? Down right presumptuous.

Originally posted by Robtard
I highly doubt the Romans would keep documentation of murders they didn't let go, considering how many people they executed as a means to keep order.

As far as your riot, the Roman garrison would have been more than capable of keeping a riot in check, as not every Jew would have rioted. If the Jews had rioted and taken over, they could have expected with 100% certainty that the Romans would have returned with a legion and kicked Jewish ass from Jerusalem to Damascus. So they deciding to up-rise now over just little old Jesus and not the years of oppression is just a stupid illogical thought.

Again, the Roman's didn't necessarily keep records of everyone they killed, as that would have been a massive list.

Well yes, I'm not agreeing that Gibson was wrong in doing it, but to try and pass off illogical accounts as historical fact is insulting to intelligence. What's next, do a movie that shows dinosaurs and man living together as claim it's historically accurate?

The Romans couldn't even stop large riots taking place in Rome and their possibility in foreign cities was huge, and definitely something Governors had a responsibility to avoid. Not to mention Governors were the type to die in such things.

Sorry, but the story is actually entirely plausible, though there is little direct evidence for it.

its not in the story but in the presentation. big nosed filthy ugly hissing jews, classic disney villains all of them. while jesus had a substantial following of jews (well technically not hebrews at that point, but still) in the passion he is depicted as alone and betrayed among nothing but monsters. except for pilot and the romans who were completely sympathetic and whom you would probably allow to babysit your kids.

:edit: its been over 20 years since i had to recite this so ill just copy and paste the apostles creed:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right Hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the Living and the Dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting. Amen."

:edit 2: ush, its also quite plausible that the romans whitewashed their own history with catholicism upon adopting their faith, as the passion depicts them in an innocent and sympathetic light. they had no choice. only trouble is that jesus declared himself king of Jerusalem and was crucified for treason. so i dont think it overly presumptuous to say that the romans wanted him dead as well.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Romans couldn't even stop large riots taking place in Rome and their possibility in foreign cities was huge, and definitely something Governors had a responsibility to avoid. Not to mention Governors were the type to die in such things.

Sorry, but the story is actually entirely plausible, though there is little direct evidence for it.

The legions were not allowed to cross the Rubicon, let along go into Rome, per Roman law. The only military presence in Rome itself was the Emperor's Praetorian guards.

Are you really questioning the ability of the Roman military force's ability to keep control, especially during that era, when they were one serious mother****ing military force? Do you think they conquered and keep all that land because they couldn't keep control? Use your head.

By what we do factually know of Roman operation, the story is most likely just a story made to praise Jesus while condemning Jews.

To an added point that Shecter furthered, the Jews were shown as vicious blood-thristy animals, while poor old unwilling Pilot was forced (by people under his rule no less) to punish Jesus. Considering Gidson's known hate of Jews, this isn't surprising.

well, to be fair to gibson, the passion has always been a play designed to evoke antisematism and sympathy for the very people who ordered his death. its not like he rewrote anything. just 'sexed it up' so to speak and with great pleasure im sure.

Originally posted by Schecter
its not in the story but in the presentation. big nosed filthy ugly hissing jews, classic disney villains all of them. while jesus had a substantial following of jews (well technically not hebrews at that point, but still) in the passion he is depicted as alone and betrayed among nothing but monsters. except for pilot and the romans who were completely sympathetic and whom you would probably allow to babysit your kids.

:edit: its been over 20 years since i had to recite this so ill just copy and paste the apostles creed:

"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilot, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right Hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the Living and the Dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting. Amen."

:edit 2: ush, its also quite plausible that the romans whitewashed their own history with catholicism upon adopting their faith, as the passion depicts them in an innocent and sympathetic light. they had no choice. only trouble is that jesus declared himself king of Jerusalem and was crucified for treason. so i dont think it overly presumptuous to say that the romans wanted him dead as well.

Good points

The Legions may not but the Praetorians and the Cohorts (plus whatever extea bodyguards were around at the time, as often happened) were huge- more than enough to act as an army.

Yes, I am really questioning their ability. Because the Romans always, ALWAYS knew they could not rule by force alone, they constantly ruled in co-operation with the local authorities and the possiblity of Jewish revolt taking away the entire east was very VERY real indeed. They never had enough troops to hold against a full revolt- in any of their provinces. Jewish authorites were given great power and relative deference. If Pilate promised an amnesty, he would have meant it, whatever the choice.

I AM using my head, that's the point. Your idea that it could not have happened as Romans would have massacred the population is you not using yours- that's a complete fantasy. If that was all Rome had to offer, they would never have held the Empire.

Gibson's Jewish hate aside, you put forward the idea that the Barabbas thing cannot possibly true. Well, sorry- it's entirely plausible, and I rather feel your commentary on it above was plucked out of thin air with no reference to the political reality at the time. Therefore Gibson should not be so criticised for filming a possiblity that is not absurd.

Who the **** cares what Spike Lee thinks?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Who the **** cares what Spike Lee thinks?

YOUR A RACIST!!!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The Legions may not but the Praetorians and the Cohorts (plus whatever extea bodyguards were around at the time, as often happened) were huge- more than enough to act as an army.

Yes, I am really questioning their ability. Because the Romans always, ALWAYS knew they could not rule by force alone, they constantly ruled in co-operation with the local authorities and the possiblity of Jewish revolt taking away the entire east was very VERY real indeed. Jewish authorites were given great power and reference.

I AM using my head, that's the point. Your idea that it could not have happened as Romans would have massacred the population is you not using yours- that's a complete fantasy. If that was all Rome had to offer, they would never have held the Empire.

Gibson's Jewish hate aside, you put forward the idea that the Barabbas thing cannot possibly true. Well, sorry- it;s entirely plausible, and I rather feel your commentary on it above was plucked out of thin air with no reference to the political reaslity at the times. Therefore Gibson should not be so criticised for filming a possiblity that is not absurd.

Oh my... yes the Romans keep control by appeasing and not constantly crushing those they conquered, they let them have certain freedoms, as in keeping their local religions, customs and what have you, as long as they obeyed Roman law.

Regardless, they initially conquered with the sword and the way of the sword was always in the back of the minds of the people they conquered.

If you actually read above, I said the Jews could have revolted and taken Jerusalem, but it would have been a short lived victory, as the Romans would have returned with greater forces, this was in the very low BC's, when Rome was powerful, not rome in the late 400's.

Liek I said, I gave reasons why it is in all likelyhood didn't happen that way. Roman's freeing foreigners who murdered Roman soldiers just wasn't common practice.

Originally posted by Schecter
YOUR A RACIST!!!
I meant to say:

"Who the **** cares what Spike Lee, a goddamn n*gger, thinks?"

Originally posted by Robtard

If you actually read above, I said the Jews could have revolted and taken Jerusalem, but it would have been a short lived victory, as the Romans would have returned with greater forces, this was in the very low BC's, when Rome was powerful, not rome in the late 400's.

you made a mistake there vin

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I meant to say:

"Who the **** cares what Spike Lee, a goddamn n*gger, thinks?"

OMG I HAET YOO DIEDIEDIEDIE DIE CRACKER!!!!

Originally posted by Schecter
you made a mistake there vin

WHERE!

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Actually I found a good story from the BBC which states the historical side of things, including

a.) That there was such a thing as a Passover Amnesty once a year.

b.) Pilot had 6,000 troops in a city that had 2.5 million jews (he did have 30,000 more on standby in Syria)

c.) He was called to Rome to answer for the events of the crucifixion, but the Roman emporer Tiberius died before he got there. Pilot ends up committing suicide not long after the crucifixion.

Here's the link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_2.shtml

So it appears that The Passion (and the Bible) version of events is possible (and probable, as the article mentions how he tried to use the Barabbas trick to avoid a riot) and that there is no direct evidence against it.

Gibson's film is off the hook for what Schecter (and Rob?) said it was doing and any claims otherwise are just angry viewers trying to create anti-semitism where none exists.

Nobody responded to this, must've gotten missed.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh my... yes the Romans keep control by appeasing and not constantly crushing those they conquered, they let them have certain freedoms, as in keeping their local religions, customs and what have you, as long as they obeyed Roman law.

Regardless, they initially conquered with the sword and the way of the sword was always in the back of the minds of the people they conquered.

If you actually read above, I said the Jews could have revolted and taken Jerusalem, but it would have been a short lived victory, as the Romans would have returned with greater forces, this was in the very low BC's, when Rome was powerful, not rome in the late 400's.

I did read what you said, and what I said was in response to your idea that it could not have happened because the Romans would have come back and massacred all.

Nope, they'd never think like that, let alone provoke. And if Pilate had provoked such an uprising he would have been fish food in days after his return to Rome- it would have been a staggering cock up. Rome was constatly in great fear of such uprisings, and even if they could deal with them- which was never certain- it left them weak and distracted and in a very poor position indeed.

So once more. They ruled in constant co-operation with the local authorities, and whether Barabbas killed Romans or not, if there was an amnesty offered and he was the one picked, Pilate would have let him go. That is absolutely and totally feasible. It's just basic politics. They let far worse people go over time.

There are not actually any compelling reasons why it couldn't have happened. You can believe many things are made up, for sure, but that's not a reason to criticise a possible historical event being dramatised.

Originally posted by Robtard
WHERE!

B.C. 'before christ'....unless fetal jesus declared himself king of the jews

Originally posted by Schecter
B.C. 'before christ'....unless fetal jesus declared himself king of the jews

My bad, low AD's

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I did read what you said, and what I said was in response to your idea that it could not have happened because the Romans would have come back and massacred all.

Nope, they'd never think like that, let alone provoke. And if Pilate had provoked such an uprising he would have been fish food in days after his return to Rome- it would have been a staggering cock up. Rome was constatly in great fear of such uprisings, and even if they could deal with them- which was never certain- it left them weak and distracted and in a very poor position indeed.

So once more. They ruled in constant co-operation with the local authorities, and whether Barabbas killed Romans or not, if there was an amnesty offered and he was the one picked, Pilate would have let him go. That is absolutely and totally feasible. It's just basic politics. They let far worse people go over time.

There are not actually any compelling reasons why it couldn't have happened. You can believe many things are made up, for sure, but that's not a reason to criticise a possible historical event being dramatised.

The idea that the Jews would have uprising to the extent that they took back Jerusalem because of Jesus and not done it before because of years of Roman rule sounds plausible? That's like not getting upset at someone burning down your house, but deciding to kill him because he crashed your car. If anything, they would have had a double crucifixion that day, why not just take out Jesus the "king of the Jews" and Barrabus together? Barrabus is said to have also committed atrocites against Jews, so why would the Jews spared him, they could have also asked for a double execution.

Who are these "far worse" people they let go?

Originally posted by chithappens
Because this is how black people are to be portrayed by those with enough influence to make things happen.

On a mass scale, those in power seem uncomfortable with discussing stuff that takes a different route than the status quo. As I mentioned before, it is not just a black thing, it's way bigger than that, but I'm trying to give context rather than just rant.

And it's interesting how this thread's topic has veered into the history of Religion concerning Christ and Jews. Okay, Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews. Do you think, just to bring Jews into the actual topic, do you think Jews are the majority of the people who fear taking a different route than the status quo? Jews created the film industry. They have a lot of clout in Hollywood, and of course we already know this. Are Jews the reason that black characters in movies and television shows are stereotyped and cast so often as rappers, thugs, pimps, etc?

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
And it's interesting how this thread's topic has veered into the history of Religion concerning Christ and Jews. Okay, Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews. Do you think, just to bring Jews into the actual topic, do you think Jews are the majority of the people who fear taking a different route than the status quo? Jews created the film industry. They have a lot of clout in Hollywood, and of course we already know this. Are Jews the reason that black characters in movies and television shows are stereotyped and cast so often as rappers, thugs, pimps, etc?

actually it was my fault since i bought up mel gibson's butchering of history. though i was referring to the patriot and braveheart, the conversation seemed to take a natural turn to the passion...because mel gibson hates kikes. the rest...well...there you have it

Originally posted by sithsaber408
c.) He was called to Rome to answer for the events of the crucifixion, but the Roman emporer Tiberius died before he got there. Pilot ends up committing suicide not long after the crucifixion.

Can you provide the link?

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
And it's interesting how this thread's topic has veered into the history of Religion concerning Christ and Jews. Okay, Jews this, Jews that, Jews Jews Jews. Do you think, just to bring Jews into the actual topic, do you think Jews are the majority of the people who fear taking a different route than the status quo? Jews created the film industry. They have a lot of clout in Hollywood, and of course we already know this. Are Jews the reason that black characters in movies and television shows are stereotyped and cast so often as rappers, thugs, pimps, etc?

... That's a loaded question really. It is a known fact that they own a lot (and by that, I mean vast majority of Hollywood and most media outlets).

I'm among those that think it's all about making money; however, in the case of black media, this is a very odd way of making money. But I can't say this was not an issue for the Native Americans and how they were seen by white people during the cowboy phase of American culture. Native Americans were demonized the same way black citizens of the U.S. are today so there is obviously a pattern coming into play.

* My girl wants to talk so I'll have to finish later

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.

On topic, this isn't the first time Spike has been critical of other directors. He also have a feud with Quentin Tarantino for his use of the N word.

Just keep making movies Spike.



Originally posted by BackFire
He also tried to sue Spike TV for using the word 'Spike'.

The guy is a joke.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
And? Who goes to the movies to study history? Last I heard you go to the movies to be entertain. You want historically correctness...go to a library.

In many ways I agree with you. However, if a story from history is not entertaining enough for it to be told accurately, then perhaps it should not be told at all. Especially since I have friends who go nuts over Braveheart, and from the moment they saw it they walked out of the theater and assumed they'd just watched an accurate protrayl of the life and times of Wallace. However the counter to that point are those of my friends that used it as a jumping off point. My friend Eric is of Scottish decent and he actually started researching the true history of Wallace and Scottland and actually learned the actual history of the man and the land. So, I guess it is really up to the individual viewer. Eric bettered his understanding of his heritage as well as enjoyed the movie. But we're all familiar with the quote "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". And far too often the facts get lost in the legend. And it can only be for the betterment of everyone when the legend becomes fact, we print the facts.

(pay no attention to the fact that I LOVE Reign: The Conqueror)

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Here's the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2000781/Cannes-Film-Festival-Spike-Lee-criticises-Clint-Eastwood-over-all-white-Iwo-Jima-films.html that states:


Eastwood has made two movies about the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima, one from a US perspective and one from the point of view of Japanese troops.

"Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen," Lee said.

"I've no idea why he did that. That was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed. It's not like he didn't know. It was a conscious decision not to have any black people."

The director was speaking at the Cannes Film Festival, where he is launching Miracle at St Anna, the true story of four black US Army soldiers trapped behind enemy lines in Italy. While fighting the Nazis, they also have to contend with racial abuse from their superiors.

"Here's the paradox. These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second class citizens," Lee said.

Eastwood is also in Cannes, promoting his latest film, The Exchange. But he declined to comment on Lee's attack when questioned about it yesterday.

The Dirty Harry star was not the only film-maker to come under fire from Lee, the always outspoken director of Do The Right Thing and Malcolm X.

He said of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen: "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't. Look, I love the Coen brothers, we all studied at NYU. But they treat life as a joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that."

Miracle at St Anna will be released in October and is likely to premiere at either the Venice or Toronto Film Festivals, Lee said.

His next project is a feature-length documentary on basketball star Michael Jordan, which is being financed by the NBA. Lee and Jordan have worked together in the past on a series of Nike adverts.

Spike Lee really needs to keep his self righteous bullshit confined to his movies. I'm surprised he didn't work in a rant about how Clint Eastwood and the Cohen brothers were behind the bombing of the levy, because they obviously hate black people too

Did you even see that documentary about New Orleans/Katrina?

yeah, it was an incredibly well made and emotional documentary, but i think it's as ridiculous to say that the Government destroyed the Levy's to erase the black community as it is to say that the Government is building concentration camps to imprison the American populace. Spike Lee is a hardcore conspiracy theorist, i've heard him talk openly on many talk shows about 9/11, the Levy's and the men behind the curtain.

The government made sure to kill off and dehumanize Native Americans.

It's not that big a stretch for those who consider stuff like that.

Originally posted by chithappens
The government made sure to kill off and dehumanize Native Americans.

It's not that big a stretch for those who consider stuff like that.

That's a whole lot of work to perform and damage to do (that you'll eventually have to fix) to just kill 2,500 people, and that's suggesting that only blacks were killed during the Katrina incident. Surely the 'gob'ment' is craftier, afterall, they did pull off Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

(not in the documentary) The theory is that they wanted to take the land renovate (similar to white flight in other cities across the nation) except this does not take anyone buying out undervalued property. A lot of people don't know martial law was imposed and I doubt there can ever be a completely truthful account of what went on once that happened.

As many coups as the government has done abroad and underhanded things they have been a part of domestically, it wouldn't surprise me, but I have no proof of something like that.

I can't reccall, what was the reason the levee's were blown in the last hurricane?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Who the **** cares what Spike Lee thinks?

Thank you.
He would criticize people who has more money than him.

Originally posted by ThoraxeRMG
Thank you.
He would criticize people who has more money than him.

so at what point does "more moeny" cross over the relevance or importance line of "more than enough" money?

Originally posted by Devil King
I can't reccall, what was the reason the levee's were blown in the last hurricane?

The government's position remains that they simply failed to hold.

Originally posted by chithappens
(not in the documentary) The theory is that they wanted to take the land renovate (similar to white flight in other cities across the nation) except this does not take anyone buying out undervalued property. A lot of people don't know martial law was imposed and I doubt there can ever be a completely truthful account of what went on once that happened.

As many coups as the government has done abroad and underhanded things they have been a part of domestically, it wouldn't surprise me, but I have no proof of something like that.

So, has the land been taken and have high-class condos been put in place? Maybe a golf course for the Japanese tourist? Starbucks? Baby Gap? Saks 5th Ave.?

Martial was was imposed because as you know, there are a lot of degenerates in the world who would use the mass confusion of a disaster like this to loot, kill and rape.

So there is no proof, just speculation based on bogeyman stories.

Originally posted by chithappens
The government's position remains that they simply failed to hold.

If I recall correctly, they failed to hold because the local government failed to keep them up to spec.

The people (and there were many) who ultimately failed the most to do their job, were the very local leaders, the Mayor and Governor.

Originally posted by Robtard
So, has the land been taken and have high-class condos been put in place? Maybe a golf course for the Japanese tourist? Starbucks? Baby Gap? Saks 5th Ave.?

Martial was was imposed because as you know, there are a lot of degenerates in the world who would use the mass confusion of a disaster like this to loot, kill and rape.

So there is no proof, just speculation based on bogeyman stories.

The evidence that is there is suspect to this point for mass murders.

I do think there is something to the real estate though because there is hardly any progress being made so far (I visited not long ago) and it seems that they are just waiting on people to give up on the land.


Originally posted by Robtard
If I recall correctly, they failed to hold because the local government failed to keep them up to spec.

The people (and there were many) who ultimately failed the most to do their job, were the very local leaders, the Mayor and Governor.

Yes, you are right. This does raise eyebrows concerning issues of class because we all know that in an upper class neighborhood, that would be unacceptable.

Originally posted by chithappens
The government's position remains that they simply failed to hold.

not during Katrina, but during the last hurricane that destroyed New Orleans.

i agree with kanye west.

sorry *shrug*

Originally posted by Schecter
i agree with kanye west.

sorry *shrug*
Jesus walks with you?

hahaha

no, i mean that bush simply didnt give a shit, which all his actions during and after the disaster pretty much proves. no conspiracy. no plot to destroy the black community. he just doesnt give a shit.

"Them poor people aren't worth shit. Don't buy no gas, don't route me money."

Originally posted by Devil King
not during Katrina, but during the last hurricane that destroyed New Orleans.

There is a storm where the government did break the levees. I actually found about it while watching the History channel when they discussed Katrina. I forget the name of it and using a search engine on dial up is depressing...

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Who the **** cares what Spike Lee thinks?

Probably the same people who care what you think?

Originally posted by Devil King
Can you provide the link?

It was in the earlier post, but here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/relig...edjesus_2.shtml

Not taking this topic there again, promise.

mm...lets see....none of the flag raisers...1st or 2nd flag were black...and to my knowlege...none of the japanese were black

hence...no black people

shame really

Originally posted by jaden101
mm...lets see....none of the flag raisers...1st or 2nd flag were black...and to my knowlege...none of the Japanese were black

hence...no black people

shame really

...But we should put blacks as Japanese anyway.

I want to see a remake of Gone With The Wind, but make all the slave owners black and the slaves white.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I want to see a remake of Gone With The Wind, but make all the slave owners black and the slaves white.

I'd like to see that too, but only if it's in a double feature with Rodney King: The Movie with Vince Vaughn playing the title role.

Originally posted by Schecter
hahaha

no, i mean that bush simply didnt give a shit, which all his actions during and after the disaster pretty much proves. no conspiracy. no plot to destroy the black community. he just doesnt give a shit.

You know what that really implies, right? That implies that Dubya knewed his geographicles.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
It was in the earlier post, but here you go:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/relig...edjesus_2.shtml

Not taking this topic there again, promise.

Sorry, I did not see it.

If I had, I would not have asked.

Also, I would not have asked if I thought it were true that the Imperial authorities in Rome had called for a provincial administrator to travel all that way to answer for the execution of one of the many fringe Jews claiming to be the messiah. It simply does not make sense.

I might take flak for this, but I was never really impressed with Spike Lee's films, not counting School Daze.

Originally posted by Devil King
In many ways I agree with you. However, if a story from history is not entertaining enough for it to be told accurately, then perhaps it should not be told at all. Especially since I have friends who go nuts over Braveheart, and from the moment they saw it they walked out of the theater and assumed they'd just watched an accurate protrayl of the life and times of Wallace. However the counter to that point are those of my friends that used it as a jumping off point. My friend Eric is of Scottish decent and he actually started researching the true history of Wallace and Scottland and actually learned the actual history of the man and the land. So, I guess it is really up to the individual viewer. Eric bettered his understanding of his heritage as well as enjoyed the movie. But we're all familiar with the quote "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". And far too often the facts get lost in the legend. And it can only be for the betterment of everyone when the legend becomes fact, we print the facts.

(pay no attention to the fact that I LOVE Reign: The Conqueror)

I think the proper term would be Historical Fiction. I also think that historical fiction have been around for ages but in different forms. Troy for example, I think it was meant to be taken as historical fiction put in a poetry but became fact for some people.

I think that films that use history should be more measure on how much were you entertain by the story than by the events depicted in the story (running sentence....sorry)

Case in point. I really liked Apocalypto.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sorry, I did not see it.

If I had, I would not have asked.

Also, I would not have asked if I thought it were true that the Imperial authorities in Rome had called for a provincial administrator to travel all that way to answer for the execution of one of the many fringe Jews claiming to be the messiah. It simply does not make sense.

No worries.

The article is pretty informative on the cultural situation of the time.

It wasn't so much that Pilot executed a prisoner, it was that the prisoner was loved and adored by many, and also hated and scorned by many who would riot if he wasn't killed.

The Passover Amnesty releasing of the prisoner who killed Roman soldiers may have been part of it, but I image that governor was probably in more trouble for letting such a person (Jesus) arise in any kind of power, gather a following, cause civil unrest, etc...

Off topic but I can't resist any longer.

My favorite Spike Lee films:

Do the Right Thing
Malcom X
Get on the Bus
25th Hour

Gawd I love those movies.

Yeah, I don't see him gaing much power. That's why I take acception with what the BBC is saying. Jesus wasn't powerful, otherwise there would be more corresponding records. And the idea that Pilate killed himself right after, as though it would have something to do with the crucifiction of Jesus. I don't see Jesus causing much of a blip of the Roman radar, is my point.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Off topic but I can't resist any longer.

My favorite Spike Lee films:

Do the Right Thing
Malcom X
Get on the Bus
25th Hour

Gawd I love those movies. Meh.....Jungle Fever was OK, Do the right thing not bad.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, I don't see him gaing much power. That's why I take acception with what the BBC is saying. Jesus wasn't powerful, otherwise there would be more corresponding records. And the idea that Pilate killed himself right after, as though it would have something to do with the crucifiction of Jesus. I don't see Jesus causing much of a blip of the Roman radar, is my point.

He had a rather large following, and was hailed as the new king on Passover by a huge crowd... how many thousands isn't really on record.

That's kinda a big deal. Remember, that king Herod tried to have all the firstborn Hebrew babies killed 33 years earlier just because a couple guys saw something in the stars. He was a Jewish king, but very pro-Roman and funded and supported by them to control his territory as they'd like.

I think that there weren't many corresponding records of Jesus followers and his "power" with the people (if you're not counting the bible as a record) is because the movement was just starting to gain widespread notice. Before it was centralized in a few small villages and towns. Many large crowds gathered, and his teachings already angered people, but when he came riding into the capital and the people fell at his feet is when the stakes suddenly jumped.

In any event, it's recorded that he had some followers and also had many people who wanted him killed that day, which is why Pilate feared the riot. He probably didn't know much about Jesus of Nazareth, other than that he seemed like a chill dude who was innocent.

Also, I didn't mean to infer that he killed himself because of the crucifixion, necessarily. My guess would be more that he was depressed over failing to control his province, knew his emperor would be angry, and that he'd be killed anyway. So he did them a favor and killed himself.

But incredible as it may sound, it seems historically accurate that the events transpired exactly as portrayed in The Passion. He was teaching crowds, he grew in influence, was hated by religious leaders, entered the capital to wide praise and worship, was arrested and charged, found not guilty, picked for death over Barabbas, and then crucified. Gibsons film portrays it just like that.

That's not really the question, the question is did he rise from the dead after and is he the son of God?(for the religion forum, obviously)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I think that there weren't many corresponding records of Jesus followers and his "power" with the people (if you're not counting the bible as a record) is because _______

Originally posted by Devil King


Well then if he had no power of influence over people and wasn't causing a problem with the religious leaders of the day then why was he crucified?

Originally posted by botankus
If he's that pissed about it, I think Spike Lee should re-make "Flags of Our Fathers" with Usher, Flavor Flav, Michael Vick, and Bill Cosby raising the flag.
Replace Usher, Flavor Flav and Cosby with dogs then have Vick take the whole island himself.

Now that would be a great remake!

Originally posted by Robtard
Spike Lee is an annoying and racist turd. His only decent film to date is Bamboozled.

25th Hour was quite enjoyable.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Well then if he had no power of influence over people and wasn't causing a problem with the religious leaders of the day then why was he crucified?

Regional turmoil or recognition is not my point. That anyone in Rome would consider him is my point. as has been pointed out, I can see some form of ecord being manufactured after the entire empire went Christian. But it actually happening in a contemporary form strikes me as totally silly. And if Pilate required punishment or inquiry in his time, what effect did Jesus' death actually have on the region?

Originally posted by Devil King
You know what that really implies, right? That implies that Dubya knewed his geographicles.

Originally posted by dadudemon




Dude...wtf.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude...wtf.

What? You can't see an immature joke when you see one?

knewed=nude geek

Originally posted by dadudemon
What? You can't see an immature joke when you see one?

knewed=nude geek True

Originally posted by Bardock42
True

"True" on all three accounts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"True" on all three accounts.
Dude...wtf.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Dude...wtf.

A Bardock sock?

Originally posted by Bardock42
25th Hour was quite enjoyable.

I forgot he did that. It was.

When did anyone start caring what Spike Lee thought?

I think it is an off base complaint.

Nonetheless, the premise for Miracle at St Anna sounds pretty freaking good.

Originally posted by botankus
Aside from the obvious...




...I think Mr. Lee didn't actually watch the films, for considering how tunneled his vision is, he would have surely noticed the two people up front in this scene from FOOF: I'll see your black civilians and raise you black soldiers.
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/416/19178056aw5.th.jpg

But apparently Spike Lee sees neither.

Eastwood should print that picture and staple it right to Lee's racist forehead.

Apparently, I wasted my time in this topic. Guess I was right on the first page

Originally posted by chithappens
Apparently, I wasted my time in this topic. Guess I was right on the first page If Clint Eastwood had wanted to make two films focused on black Americans or black Japanese during WWII in the Pacific he would have.

FOOF came out like two years ago. Spike Lee comments on it now, when he's promoting a new movie. That's not shameless attention-whoring at all. I mean it's not like we're talking about the same guy who tried to sue over using the word "Spike."

Originally posted by chithappens
Apparently, I wasted my time in this topic. Guess I was right on the first page

You said it's a "circular argument with no middle ground". Yet, we see that Lee was wrong in his accusation. There were black soldiers shown in the movie, maybe they weren't the stars, but then again, the guys who raised the flag weren't black.

So I have no idea on what grounds your argument stands, Lee was wrong and the most likely scenario (as mentioned on the first page and beyond) for his crying was to use Eastwood's name as a crunch to draw attention to his movie. Which is both a dick and weasel move.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'll see your black civilians and raise you black soldiers.
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/416/19178056aw5.th.jpg

But apparently Spike Lee sees neither. Game. Set. Match.

Originally posted by Robtard
You said it's a "circular argument with no middle ground". Yet, we see that Lee was wrong in his accusation. There were black soldiers shown in the movie, maybe they weren't the stars, but then again, the guys who raised the flag weren't black.

So I have no idea on what grounds your argument stands, Lee was wrong and the most likely scenario (as mentioned on the first page and beyond) for his crying was to use Eastwood's name as a crunch to draw attention to his movie. Which is both a dick and weasel move.

Yeah, he wants the attention but the point is still there. While I don't agree with just pointing out Eastwood (as far as minority representation goes) there is a shortage of minorities in Hollywood getting quality roles. There are not a lot of recent newcoming minority actors or actresses (Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Halle Berry - all get proper kudos but there are few newcomers).

In Hollywood movies, you get one or two minorities in supporting roles but they will be damn near the only ones the entire movie (including extras). I don't look for it, but it hard not to notice when it's in damn near any picture that isn't directed by a minority.

It's weird cause it's subtle rhetoric that people just don't pay much attention to.

When I play Final Fantasy RPG games (I've played II, VI, VII, X, XII) , the only people I see with tans are natives who all wear those bear skin covers over their waist. The only minority not like that I recall is in FFVII, but he had to be a sloth with big muscles and bad speech.

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, he wants the attention but the point is still there. While I don't agree with just pointing out Eastwood (as far as minority representation goes) there is a shortage of minorities in Hollywood getting quality roles. There are not a lot of recent newcoming minority actors or actresses (Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Halle Berry - all get proper kudos but there are few newcomers).

In Hollywood movies, you get one or two minorities in supporting roles but they will be damn near the only ones the entire movie (including extras). I don't look for it, but it hard not to notice when it's in damn near any picture that isn't directed by a minority.

It's weird cause it's subtle rhetoric that people just don't pay much attention to.

When I play Final Fantasy RPG games (I've played II, VI, VII, X, XII) , the only people I see with tans are natives who all wear those bear skin covers over their waist. The only minority not like that I recall is in FFVII, but he had to be a sloth with big muscles and bad speech. You probably should take that up with the JAPANESE creators and owners.

You probably should READ my other posts. I've already mentioned that the rhetoric is an American issue also

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, he wants the attention but the point is still there. While I don't agree with just pointing out Eastwood (as far as minority representation goes) there is a shortage of minorities in Hollywood getting quality roles. There are not a lot of recent newcoming minority actors or actresses (Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Halle Berry - all get proper kudos but there are few newcomers).

In Hollywood movies, you get one or two minorities in supporting roles but they will be damn near the only ones the entire movie (including extras). I don't look for it, but it hard not to notice when it's in damn near any picture that isn't directed by a minority.

It's weird cause it's subtle rhetoric that people just don't pay much attention to.

When I play Final Fantasy RPG games (I've played II, VI, VII, X, XII) , the only people I see with tans are natives who all wear those bear skin covers over their waist. The only minority not like that I recall is in FFVII, but he had to be a sloth with big muscles and bad speech. I for one wasn't saying there isn't any point. I was saying Spike Lee is a shameless hack. The few seconds of black soldiers in Flags wasn't intended to dispel any particular point, other than Spike Lee's attention whore claim.

At the end of the day it's a film industry - studios produce what will sell, or more accurately what they think they can sell to a general audience, and they are more than happy to trade artistic merit and historical accuracy in for whatever they perceive as marketability including whitewash entire casts.

It is both the studios' fault for holding this perception and the general public if they do indeed ascribe to this perception, or the "feel-good" answer a miscommunication in what the general public is willing to pay for - at which point fault cannot really be attributed to either party. As well as a self-perpetuating cycle in which studios won't take chances on minority leads or predominantly minority casts because they fear box office failure, with the lack of minority box office successes (due to the lack of) minority films as a major reason for their fear.

I don't see it so much as race as "the economy, stupid." Consumers vote with their wallets.

Also Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson is a relative newcomer, and her predominantly black casted film's box office success will probably do more for the "black actor cause" than whatever Mr Lee decides to make about black soldiers in WWII if the latter doesn't make the same financial impact.

And as already noted, Final Fantasy is a silly example of any perceived Hollywood bias. The creators are Japanese and make video games. And it doesn't strike you as more odd that in a game made by Japanese i.e. Asians, FFVII, the only Asian character is a ninja, or that there are no Asians in FFVII (maybe Eurasians), FFIX or FFXII, and that the protagonist is generally a male. Are they being self-racist and sexist? Or are they just catering to a predominantly white male Western demographic?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I wasn't saying there isn't any point. I was saying Spike Lee is a shameless hack.

At the end of the day it's a film industry - studios produce what will sell, or more accurately what they think they can sell to a general audience, and they are more than happy to trade artistic merit and historical accuracy in for whatever they perceive as marketability including whitewash entire casts.

It is both the studios' fault for holding this perception and the general public if they do indeed ascribe to this perception, or the "feel-good" answer a miscommunication in what the general public is willing to pay for - at which point fault cannot really be attributed to either party. As well as a self-perpetuating cycle in which studios won't take chances on minority leads or predominantly minority casts because they fear box office failure, with the lack of minority box office successes (due to the lack of) minority films as a major reason for their fear.

I don't see it so much as race as "the economy, stupid." Consumers vote with their wallets.

Also Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson is a relative newcomer, and her predominantly black casted film's box office success will probably do more for the "black actor cause" than whatever Mr Lee decides to make if the latter doesn't make the same financial impact.

And as already noted, Final Fantasy is a silly example of any perceived Hollywood bias. The creators are Japanese and make video games. And it doesn't strike you as more odd that in a game made by Japanese i.e. Asians, FFVII, the only Asian character is a ninja, or that there are no Asians in FFVII (maybe Eurasians), FFIX or FFXII, and that the protagonist is generally a male. Are they being self-racist and sexist? Or are they just catering to a predominantly white male Western demographic?

"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power."

- Malcolm X

I understand your points, and agree with them. In fact, I said almost the same thing verbatim about two hours ago to a friend (particularly about marketability, Asian features mysteriously missing from characters in an anime, and Jennifer Hudson is a not a good actress - she got it for a musical picture which is cool but I doubt we see her post 2009). However, the main point is about the psychology this creates in people.

The Sean Bell situation (three unarmed black guys shot at fifty times by cops) is unlikely to happen without this crazy ass psychology fed by the media. It goes two fold: Black men walk around thinking it's cool to walk around dressed as "thugs." Cop see thug attire and thinks "danger!" I walk around with khakis and a polo shirt with glasses on, around the corner from my college campus, and women clutch their purses when I pass by. It doesn't matter what the hell I have on: I'm a black man and I'm a threat. Where the hell does the idea come from? Media.

Charles Barkley for years has said that non-famous people just believe whatever the hell comes out the mouths of people on TV. There's a sad truth to that. It really shouldn't matter what the hell is seen on TV; it should not become anyone's personal mantra. Black people who do not interact with white people, or who never go outside the city, seem to think all white people shit gold. When I mention poor white people, they look at me like I got a booger on my teeth.

So yeah, it's just the industry being the industry, but it's hard to ignore how it affects society as a whole.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I for one wasn't saying there isn't any point. I was saying Spike Lee is a shameless hack. The few seconds of black soldiers in Flags wasn't intended to dispel any particular point, other than Spike Lee's attention whore claim.

At the end of the day it's a film industry - studios produce what will sell, or more accurately what they think they can sell to a general audience, and they are more than happy to trade artistic merit and historical accuracy in for whatever they perceive as marketability including whitewash entire casts.




dont really see what the big deal is about "21" given that card counting was actually invented by Edward Thorp at MIT...a white professor....him, Bill Kapplan and John Chang are all roled into one with Kevin Spacey's character

not to mention that Kate Bosworth is playing effectively the role of Jane Willis who was white

mountains out of molehiles really

Originally posted by chithappens
You probably should READ my other posts. I've already mentioned that the rhetoric is an American issue also Yeah, I read you saying that. I saw you using Japanese stuff as example though.

Well I could also use Christian rhetoric as an example: You die and stand on a cloud in this long ass line while some guy with a book of your sins stands there and decides if you go to heaven. If you are good in this life, you become an angel!

None of this is in the Bible, but it's plastered throughout the media, accepted and taught in the church like a fable within a fable.

The media "industry" is just being industry.

Originally posted by chithappens
Didn't know the mormon belief on that though. Where does that come from?

Comes from what we call a modern day prophet. Joseph Smith claimed to speak to God as does our current Prophet.

I must admit, I'm pretty lame when it comes to knowledge about Mormons, but don't their beliefs originate with Christian doctrines?

Originally posted by chithappens
I must admit, I'm pretty lame when it comes to knowledge about Mormons, but don't their beliefs originate with Christian doctrines?

Sort of. We ARE Christians...but there are fundamental differences between Mormons and other Christian Sects.




If you have more questions, let's take it to PM because I don't want to piss off the mods.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Here's the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2000781/Cannes-Film-Festival-Spike-Lee-criticises-Clint-Eastwood-over-all-white-Iwo-Jima-films.html that states:


Eastwood has made two movies about the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima, one from a US perspective and one from the point of view of Japanese troops.

"Clint Eastwood made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total and there was not one Negro actor on the screen," Lee said.

"I've no idea why he did that. That was his vision, not mine. But I know it was pointed out to him and that he could have changed. It's not like he didn't know. It was a conscious decision not to have any black people."

The director was speaking at the Cannes Film Festival, where he is launching Miracle at St Anna, the true story of four black US Army soldiers trapped behind enemy lines in Italy. While fighting the Nazis, they also have to contend with racial abuse from their superiors.

"Here's the paradox. These African-American men wanted to fight against fascism in the name of democracy. At the same time, they were still second class citizens," Lee said.

Eastwood is also in Cannes, promoting his latest film, The Exchange. But he declined to comment on Lee's attack when questioned about it yesterday.

The Dirty Harry star was not the only film-maker to come under fire from Lee, the always outspoken director of Do The Right Thing and Malcolm X.

He said of brothers Joel and Ethan Coen: "I always treat life and death with respect, but most people don't. Look, I love the Coen brothers, we all studied at NYU. But they treat life as a joke. It's like, 'Look how they killed that guy! Look how blood squirts out the side of his head!' I see things different than that."

Miracle at St Anna will be released in October and is likely to premiere at either the Venice or Toronto Film Festivals, Lee said.

His next project is a feature-length documentary on basketball star Michael Jordan, which is being financed by the NBA. Lee and Jordan have worked together in the past on a series of Nike adverts.


Lee needs to shut the f*** up. How often do black directors put white people in their movies? How often are white people given a favorable depiction? I'd find it pretty revolting if they had black soldiers in a WW2 movie for the sake of political correctness when it wasn't historically possible due to segregation. The white man deserves to have nice things for himself...no one, whether a black person, a woman, a homosexual or anything else, has the right to think they can take those things from him.