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

Native Actors Walk off Set of Adam Sandler Movie After Insults to Women, Elders





TL-DR version:

Movie with Native Americans and lots of jokes at Native American's expense hires Native American advisor and actors. When advisor actually gives them advise and actors say stuff is offensive, they get brushed off because 'it's a comedy,' and finally walk.

What did they expect from an Adam Sandler movie?

So let me get this straight...


They were completely unaware of the script/themes/setting and were offended by the content of the movie before they signed on/signed a contract/started acting in the film?


Sounds like a ploy, to me. Anyone with even a little bit of knowledge on how an actor gets a job in a movie knows that this is just an attention-ploy.


Sorry, not buying this politically correct bullshit.

"I'm soooo offended about a movie I signed up for, have a contract on, and was participating acting in, and was blind-sided by completely out-of-nowhere racism!" GTFO

Originally posted by dadudemon
So let me get this straight...


They were completely unaware of the script/themes/setting and were offended by the content of the movie before they signed on/signed a contract/started acting in the film?


Sounds like a ploy, to me. Anyone with even a little bit of knowledge on how an actor gets a job in a movie knows that this is just an attention-ploy.


...

They hired a cultural advisor specifically to, supposedly, not offend people. They hired the actors reassuring them that they'd have a cultural advisor and be sensitive.

They then proceeded to ignore everything those people said, so they walked.


So, you're pretty much misrepresenting things 180 there. It seems more like the production company hired the cultural advisor just to rubber stamp whatever they were doing, without actually telling the cultural advisor or the actors that that's what they were doing.


You know, like how bad-science movies hire 'NASA science advisors' and advertise that, while actually just doing whatever crap science they want? Like that, except with not being a bigot.




Sorry, not buying your anti-politically correct kneejerk bs. It doesn't fit the facts.

i'm not watching this crap anyway

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Did you expect him to read the OP?

Stop trolling.

I must wonder at which point they read the script, or were they just background characters? I can't imagine the leader of a rock band wanting such a small role, and if he wanted a large role he would have read the script and either demanded rewrites before signing or not done the film to begin with. If he signed without reading the script, he's stupid and if he knew about the offensiveness and still signed and chose to walk off now he's either a weak coward or an attention whore.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
i'm not watching this crap anyway

Originally posted by Lestov16
I must wonder at which point they read the script, or were they just background characters? I can't imagine the leader of a rock band wanting such a small role, and if he wanted a large role he would have read the script and either demanded rewrites before signing or not done the film to begin with. If he signed without reading the script, he's stupid and if he knew about the offensiveness and still signed and chose to walk off now he's either a weak coward or an attention whore. He's the frontman of a little garage metal band, not the frontman of Metallica. I couldn't actually find a song by them in youtube, and was too lazy to search elsewhere. He's not some big shot.

Also, why do you think a bunch of extras were given the full script upfront?

Furthermore, some of the aspects they took offense to, like the fake native costumes and props, or them outright ignoring the cultural consultant during filming, wouldn't be in the script.

You should probably read the full OP. He was assured that there would be a cultural consultant and that they would take pains to not be offensive. Only to be told to gtfo if he had a problem, lol.

The only real sign that he's up to no good is a tweet earlier where he said he was having a great time, though that might have been before shit got too much for him.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You should probably read the full OP. He was assured that there would be a cultural consultant and that they would take pains to not be offensive. Only to be told to gtfo if he had a problem, lol.

The only real sign that he's up to no good is a tweet earlier where he said he was having a great time, though that might have been before shit got too much for him.

And heck, he's just one of the actors, when dozens walked including the cultural consultant.


Who was being ignored on simple stuff like 'blatantly the wrong culture.'

So people aren't just walking out of theatres whenever his movies are on but now they're actually walking off set

Originally posted by steverules_2
So people aren't just walking out of theatres whenever his movies are on but now they're actually walking off set

Originally posted by steverules_2
So people aren't just walking out of theatres whenever his movies are on but now they're actually walking off set This is funnier than any movie he has made in decades.

Sandler should walk off the set, forever.

Originally posted by Q99
...

They hired a cultural advisor specifically to, supposedly, not offend people. They hired the actors reassuring them that they'd have a cultural advisor and be sensitive.

You're taking quite a bit of liberty on your interpretation, here.

Originally posted by Q99
They then proceeded to ignore everything those people said, so they walked.

And you invented this part. Like...literally made up a statement that you'd like to present as fact to support your position.

Originally posted by Q99
So, you're pretty much misrepresenting things 180 there. It seems more like the production company hired the cultural advisor just to rubber stamp whatever they were doing, without actually telling the cultural advisor or the actors that that's what they were doing.


You know, like how bad-science movies hire 'NASA science advisors' and advertise that, while actually just doing whatever crap science they want? Like that, except with not being a bigot.


No, what happened was, some people signed up for a movie that they knew exactly what it was about. Seems like they did so specifically to make a point about it being offensive. That's pretty obvious. It is highly unlikely that they did not read the script. It is also highly unlikely all of them were without agents. It is also extremely unlikely that those agents did not look over the scripts themselves and get an idea of what they were getting their clients into.

Those are the points you're glossing over which completely makes everything you're stating/concerned about seem irrelevant.


How many people sign up for a film with the expectation of changing the basic presentation? "I'll go ahead and sign up for this film but I'm changing the shit out of it because I don't like it."


Edward Norton? lol




Originally posted by Q99
Sorry, not buying your anti-politically correct kneejerk bs. It doesn't fit the facts.

Sorry, I don't believe you're taking a hard-line stance with bent facts. I think you actually agree with me on this but hate to admit that my point is pretty dang good. It's cognitive dissonance that you're experiencing right now. No worries...let it sink in. Admit that this was just another "politically correct" ploy by some people looking to make a statement. Social Justice Warriors is what they are called. It takes quite a bit of suspension of disbelief to believe these was just an innocent situation where actors were blind-sided and offended by some parts they haphazardly took on a film.

Originally posted by Mindset
Did you expect him to read the OP?

Stop trolling.

But, I did. And I read another news article, using Google search, to see if there was more/better information.

If the quote is true, a certain set of standards were promised to this individual before he agreed to participate, these standards weren't upheld.

I'm not sure on the process of how much information they are given about the movie in its entirety, or how much of the complete script they are able to see at all stages of filming; but this information becomes slightly irrelevant when you have producers, like I mentioned earlier, making promises of accommodation in regards to the actors misgivings about potential offensive content.

If anything, it's likely that the producers said anything they could to get this movie rolling and hoped the actors would just stay onboard when they found out they were lied to.

Originally posted by Mindset
If the quote is true, a certain set of standards were promised to this individual before he agreed to participate, these standards weren't upheld.

If this is the argument from either side, either side's argument is too arbitrary.

"We upheld our commitment to providing tasteful changes."

"We did not feel there were enough changes."


Cool. Both arguments are arbitrary. Useless.

Yea, I'm having a hard time believing producers would make any significant changes to please unknown actors in minor roles.

Didn't you just post how it's unreasonable for them to think they would?

It's like me promising if you bought a new car I'd help you pay for it, then I gave you 1 dollar toward the payment.

"Wtf, man, I fulfilled my promise!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
So let me get this straight...


They were completely unaware of the script/themes/setting and were offended by the content of the movie before they signed on/signed a contract/started acting in the film?


Sounds like a ploy, to me. Anyone with even a little bit of knowledge on how an actor gets a job in a movie knows that this is just an attention-ploy.


Sorry, not buying this politically correct bullshit.

"I'm soooo offended about a movie I signed up for, have a contract on, and was participating acting in, and was blind-sided by completely out-of-nowhere racism!" GTFO

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/22/article-2221587-15A02433000005DC-411_634x418.jpg

Originally posted by Mindset
Didn't you just post how it's unreasonable for them to think they would?

I think a contribution like...removing a genocidal joke against Apaches would be an appropriate recommendation/advice that they would take/listen to.

But asking Adam Sandler - a person known for his movies being racist (mostly against Jews and blacks) in over-the-top absurd portrayals - to fundamentally change the nature of a film is rather stupid. Not just dumb: it's stupid. This is why I think this was just a SJW ploy (other than the obvious "we didn't know anything about the film" point I made earlier).

Originally posted by Mindset
It's like me promising if you bought a new car I'd help you pay for it, then I gave you 1 dollar toward the payment.

"Wtf, man, I fulfilled my promise!"

Yes, this is a good analogy.

How dare you ignore my laughing indian.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think a contribution like...removing a genocidal joke against Apaches would be an appropriate recommendation/advice that they would take/listen to.

But asking Adam Sandler - a person known for his movies being racist (mostly against Jews and blacks) in over-the-top absurd portrayals - to fundamentally change the nature of a film is rather stupid. Not just dumb: it's stupid. This is why I think this was just a SJW ploy (other than the obvious "we didn't know anything about the film" point I made earlier).



Yes, this is a good analogy. Hollywood is notoriously underhanded and deceitful. I'd feel comfortable saying the producers said whatever they could to get this movie made, even saying they would make more significant changes than they were ever really willing to make. Yea, and I doubt any of those other movies went so far as to say they would hire a cultural advisor so things didn't become too offensive.

They knew this movie would be offensive, they just didn't know to what level. When they no longer felt comfortable with the direction the movie was going, they foolishly took the producers words at face value and tried to voice their complaints. Then they got told, "Nope, we're not changing it, leave if you want", so they left. This is a more reasonable scenario than them agreeing to make a movie then quitting so they could get some attention for 5 minutes IMO.

After being reassured precisely on an area where the producers turned out to be lying to them.

So no, that's a lie. If you gotta make up your argument, what's the point?




What a bankrupt argument

"These people didn't encounter something offensive and get offended as a result, why, they were just looking to be offended!" (Meanwhile, everything they named as a problem really is there and really is a problem)

Turned out, things were horrible *and* the reassurances that there was a cultural advisor was worth squat.

And notably, the producers went to cast them in the first place.



Actually, extras and minor roles often don't get full scripts.

And as others mentioned, some of the problems aren't even ones in the script, but rather simple things like costuming.


Too long;didn't read version- Dadudemon doesn't like people being offended for pretty legitimate reasons.

Why should we care that you're offended by people reacting to legitimate issues?

Heck, to borrow your own words, you're just looking to get offended, and with far less reason.


Originally posted by Squirtle
They complain about being stereotyped in the script but then say it makes them look like comanches? ...lol



The costuming did.


It's sorta like having your Chinese characters all dress up as Japanese... conflating two groups that don't even like each other (the Comanche invaded the Apache before the western settlers even got there, to fairly brutal results).


And it's something that could be changed without even script changes, showing the depth of how little effort they were willing to spend in the area.

Makes sense.

Extras and background actors are not provided scripts. They are cast in groups and pulled from piles of headshots. Knowing something is a comedy beforehand doesn't mean "Oh so this will be offensive and I know what I'm getting into."

Extras and group casting aren't even provided full breakdowns of the plot of the movie. It reads more like this:

"RUSH CASTING CALL:

LOOKING FOR REAL APACHE NATIVE AMERICANS
20'S TO 30'S
FOR A MAJOR MOTION PICTURE COMEDY"

Similar to that ^

So an apache goes and gets approved and shows up and then realizes the content of the movie. They think "Wait...this stuff is wrong guys."

"Excuse me, film advisor? This isn't actually right."

The advisor responds with an answer that essentially means that "doesn't matter."

The Apache indians, realizing this film is racist nonsense, leave. They don't picket the movie. They don't sue. They just don't take part. A journalist hears this and interviews them. They express that sentiment.

But they are sensitive idiot jerks who knew what they were getting into....?

Originally posted by Quincy
The Apache indians, realizing this film is racist nonsense, leave. They don't picket the movie. They don't sue. They just don't take part. A journalist hears this and interviews them. They express that sentiment.

But they are sensitive idiot jerks who knew what they were getting into....?

'Xactly.


Dadudemon is just trying to be edgy, while ironically resembling an overly sensitive idiot.

DDM hates Native Americans.

I've been saying that for years.

Originally posted by Robtard
I've been saying that for years. We should have listened.

Originally posted by Mindset
We should have listened.

Yes, I hate the members of my family. I'm no different than a self-loathing black man.

cry

This argument is funnier than the film will be. Guaranteed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I hate the members of my family. I'm no different than a self-loathing black man.

cry Shut up, racist.

Originally posted by jaden101
This argument is funnier than the film will be. Guaranteed. My grandfather dying last January was funnier than this film will be.

You can have problems with a script without seeing a script.

The problem is with the dialogue IN the script. So if someone takes issue with what the actor is saying in the film, that's someone having a problem with the script.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I hate the members of my family. I'm no different than a self-loathing black man.

cry

Now you're pulling a Johnny Depp, you racist.

"My great, great, great, great grandmother might have gone down on an Indian or something."

Originally posted by Quincy
The problem is with the dialogue IN the script.

One of the problems was with the dialogue, iirc. There were multiple other issues, though.

Originally posted by Quincy
So if someone takes issue with what the actor is saying in the film, that's someone having a problem with the script.

That's an interpretation that is not directly supported. It's a possible conclusion, yes, but the words used were, "According to The Associated Press, the Native-American actors found elements of The Ridiculous Six's script offensive and stereotypical."

That seems to be stating that they had problems with some elements of the script, but not all of it. That's different than, "We were only exposed to a very small bit of the script that only involved our parts."



But we are not addressing my underlying concern: why did they wait until production to bring these up?

Originally posted by Mindset
Shut up, racist.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/22/article-2221587-15A02433000005DC-411_634x418.jpg

Originally posted by NemeBro
My grandfather dying last January was funnier than this film will be.

The genocide of the native American people was funnier than this film will be.

Originally posted by jaden101
The genocide of the native American people was funnier than this film will be. Jack and Jill was funnier than this film will be.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's test to see how bankrupt the argument is:

"I'm offended because I was cast as a character named 'Beaver's Breath.' I had no idea what I was getting into." Why didn't they walk off when cast as such, beforehand? And, I'm "in be for Q99 says they didn't know what they were getting into until the day of." That's not how casting works. They were already on set. Production had started. This wasn't pre-production where casting occurs. Roles are already assigned. Now you're going to say that they wanted to wait until a day on production, on set, to argue changing the names, huh? Cool. That's not going to fly. Why wait until production starts to make these arguments? Why doesn't that strike you as odd?

"But...but...they were just cast the day before...or something!" Yeah, okay. haha



Aside from the fact that minor roles often *don't* get the script... why would knowing in advance make it not offensive? What about all the stuff outside the script that could've been changed on the spot? Heck, why not change the script?

That's a rather gaping hole in your argument about their complaint. Namely.... it doesn't make their complaint not 100% legit in any way.

They're still right about it being offensive. What's your point?

Aren't counterarguments supposed to counter.... something? Yours really doesn't, it just seems to be complaining that people care.




Of course they knew, they were specifically worried about it, were specifically reassured, found they had issues and things were worse than expected, presented these problems to the producers, as was literally the job of the cultural advisor, and then were blown off entirely even when the changes wouldn't affect the script.

This is what they said in their complaints, and this invalidates their arguments... why exactly?

Whining that "they knews!" doesn't make it not-a-problem. I don't see why you're complaining so much while trying to brush off, you know, the rest of the chain of known events that the actors themselves laid out.

Seriously, you don't *really* think that makes everything free and clear?

From the noise you're making on it you seem to seem to think 'they were worried going in' is an argument against the actors somehow, and that's just dumb.





That's exactly what those on the set complained about.

You're rejecting the claims of a few dozen people who quit over it, including the Cultural Advisor, because... what? You think you'll get argument points?

"People quit over not being listened to. Gimme evidence that they weren't listening to!" is not a very good argument on your part. Grasping at straws, even, the evidence is right there at the start.




"Period accurate" wasn't the complaint. "Dressing characters from one tribe up as another tribe that literally killed them," was.

As well as generally being insulting to the cultures in question.

So, backpeddling, goalpost shifting....




You're loudly complaining over several posts about these people.

You're certainly acting like you're offended. You're grabbing for flimsy, not-there arguments and moving your goalposts around a lot, and when called in it, you doubled-down. That's not what 'not caring' looks like,

Just edgy, bandwagon "Oh, I'm going to pretend I don't actually care, I'm just going to complain about it and think it makes me look cool," type offended.




*Shrugs* You were name-calling the actor on extremely shaky grounds.

If you insult people on something, you open yourself on being insulted on the same grounds.

You're being hypocritical, trying to act oh-so-cool for calling people on.... caring that the cultures in question are respected.

Now you are complaining about them on the ground that you find it... too PC? That's too petty for me to take seriously.




Nope, your stance is, frankly, dumb, and really comes off as just something you think will make you look cool when it does anything but.




Actually, it is.

People are complaining about something that's truthfully pretty offensive. You think you can score edgy hipster-points by calling it 'mad political correctness.'

When in reality, you're just raising a fuss about something far more petty than the people you're trying to mock, and come across as trying to make yourself look big by mocking people... who have an actual, real point where you don't.


So, would you like some cheese with your whine?






Ah, so 'bandwagon jumping' is your excuse.


And that's all it is- you think that if you call something 'political correctness gone mad,' you can ignore the actual merits of the arguments and pretend that anyone caring about anything is somehow... bad.

It's just shallow, and people using 'political incorrectness gone mad!' as a lazy cover to protect racist comments is nothing new either.



Stop, step back, re-examine the actual merits, and don't think that just because you can call something 'politically correct' that that actually says anything of substance beyond 'you don't like it/think you can score points by decrying it.'


You're all-over-the-place on your excuses, and don't actually have anything concrete, you just decided you don't trust the article and people involved.... with nothing to back it up other than calling them 'politically correct gone mad,' an empty accusation that itself has nothing to back it up. Because you know better than actual people who study the cultures what's a petty complain and what's not, huh? Even when the cultural advisor was talking about what's going on and it's really, really, really basic stuff that could be fixed no problem and one doesn't actually need to be an expert to realize, oh, hey, the cultural advisor is totally right.


So yea, this was an attempt on your point to act cool and rally against 'PCness,' and it fell flat on it's face.

Originally posted by Q99
Aside from the fact that minor roles often *don't* get the script... why would knowing in advance make it not offensive? What about all the stuff outside the script that could've been changed on the spot? Heck, why not change the script?

That's a rather gaping hole in your argument about their complaint. Namely.... it doesn't make their complaint not 100% legit in any way.

They're still right about it being offensive. What's your point?

Aren't counterarguments supposed to counter.... something? Yours really doesn't, it just seems to be complaining that people care.




Of course they knew, they were specifically worried about it, were specifically reassured, found they had issues and things were worse than expected, presented these problems to the producers, as was literally the job of the cultural advisor, and then were blown off entirely even when the changes wouldn't affect the script.

This is what they said in their complaints, and this invalidates their arguments... why exactly?

Whining that "they knews!" doesn't make it not-a-problem. I don't see why you're complaining so much while trying to brush off, you know, the rest of the chain of known events that the actors themselves laid out.

Seriously, you don't *really* think that makes everything free and clear?

From the noise you're making on it you seem to seem to think 'they were worried going in' is an argument against the actors somehow, and that's just dumb.





That's exactly what those on the set complained about.

You're rejecting the claims of a few dozen people who quit over it, including the Cultural Advisor, because... what? You think you'll get argument points?

"People quit over not being listened to. Gimme evidence that they weren't listening to!" is not a very good argument on your part. Grasping at straws, even, the evidence is right there at the start.




"Period accurate" wasn't the complaint. "Dressing characters from one tribe up as another tribe that literally killed them," was.

As well as generally being insulting to the cultures in question.

So, backpeddling, goalpost shifting....




You're loudly complaining over several posts about these people.

You're certainly acting like you're offended. You're grabbing for flimsy, not-there arguments and moving your goalposts around a lot, and when called in it, you doubled-down. That's not what 'not caring' looks like,

Just edgy, bandwagon "Oh, I'm going to pretend I don't actually care, I'm just going to complain about it and think it makes me look cool," type offended.




*Shrugs* You were name-calling the actor on extremely shaky grounds.

If you insult people on something, you open yourself on being insulted on the same grounds.

You're being hypocritical, trying to act oh-so-cool for calling people on.... caring that the cultures in question are respected.

Now you are complaining about them on the ground that you find it... too PC? That's too petty for me to take seriously.




Nope, your stance is, frankly, dumb, and really comes off as just something you think will make you look cool when it does anything but.




Actually, it is.

People are complaining about something that's truthfully pretty offensive. You think you can score edgy hipster-points by calling it 'mad political correctness.'

When in reality, you're just raising a fuss about something far more petty than the people you're trying to mock, and come across as trying to make yourself look big by mocking people... who have an actual, real point where you don't.


So, would you like some cheese with your whine?






Ah, so 'bandwagon jumping' is your excuse.


And that's all it is- you think that if you call something 'political correctness gone mad,' you can ignore the actual merits of the arguments and pretend that anyone caring about anything is somehow... bad.

It's just shallow, and people using 'political incorrectness gone mad!' as a lazy cover to protect racist comments is nothing new either.



Stop, step back, re-examine the actual merits, and don't think that just because you can call something 'politically correct' that that actually says anything of substance beyond 'you don't like it/think you can score points by decrying it.'


You're all-over-the-place on your excuses, and don't actually have anything concrete, you just decided you don't trust the article and people involved.... with nothing to back it up other than calling them 'politically correct gone mad,' an empty accusation that itself has nothing to back it up. Because you know better than actual people who study the cultures what's a petty complain and what's not, huh? Even when the cultural advisor was talking about what's going on and it's really, really, really basic stuff that could be fixed no problem and one doesn't actually need to be an expert to realize, oh, hey, the cultural advisor is totally right.


So yea, this was an attempt on your point to act cool and rally against 'PCness,' and it fell flat on it's face.

All of your post just rehashes your same arguments. You didn't bring anything new. This is how it always is when we argue: you argue in circles. Repeating yourself does nothing. People will read our argument (possibly) and see that you just post "but apples, dammit! Apples! Apples!" Oh yeah? Well oranges. Deal with them oranges.


You're upset because someone called bullshit on something you thought was worth "Social Justice Warrior" fighting for. It's bullshit. They clearly had the scripts. One person, Anthony, was tweeting on set; excited, blessed, and happy to be working with classic characters like Beaver Breath; and then, magically, decided to walk. Smells very funny. Very obvious that he was convinced to walk by others. It's obvious to me that one or more signed up just to make a point of it and make it a Social Justice Warrior stunt and convinced several to leave that same day Anthony was "feeling blessed" to be on set working with others.

And that stunt worked. Went all over the internet and made it to national news.

Every argument you make is factually incorrect (going down the list: they didn't have the script when they did, they had lots of meetings with producers about cultural bla bla and they never did, etc.). They had access to the script (literally states that in the news article), to the names of their characters, they were cast well before production, etc. This was a stunt. Plain and simple. Find a better topic to have your social justice warrior fun with.

In the mean time, enjoy this quote from Netflix that you clearly missed:

"The movie has ridiculous in the title for a reason: because it is ridiculous. It is a broad satire of Western movies and the stereotypes they popularized, featuring a diverse cast that is not only part of -- but in on -- the joke," said Netflix in a statement."

Hey man, are upset that this one "Rock Band Guy" had a script and then left? Or are you upset that a group of extras walked off as well?

Because even if he had the script, that doesn't mean that everybody else did...?

Anything racist or insulting is quickly labelled as "Satire" by organizations, companies, individuals - anything of the like. It's not a way of apologizing or making note of the "failure" of their joke. It's a write-off.

Extras usually only make $50 to $100 a day and access to the catering truck goodies. Guess if we see Sandler fat in this pic, we know why.

Originally posted by dadudemon
All of your post just rehashes your same arguments. You didn't bring anything new. This is how it always is when we argue: you argue in circles. Repeating yourself does nothing. People will read our argument (possibly) and see that you just post "but apples, dammit! Apples! Apples!" Oh yeah? Well oranges. Deal with them oranges.


Because... the point didn't change? And you're trying to move around the point?

Movie was casually racist in a fairly dumb way. Actors left, and were right to do so. You used a set of empty buzz-word to attack it, and that didn't work, and now you're frustrated.





Hey, calm down, you're the one who came in stamping in the thread angry.

And more empty buzz-words... 'social justice warrior' is what people call people when they can't actually think of what's wrong with their argument. That doesn't actually say what's supposed to be wrong about them walking off, it just says you don't like it.




And we should care why? They were still right, the movie producers were still being racist.

And the job of a Cultural Consultant is to look at something and recommend changes. Even knowing it had bad bits going in, that person was hired to offer recommendations, and the other people thought they could offer recommendations, and it turned out that there was more problems than even the script would have and their bosses rudely blew off any suggestion entirely.

Plenty of people quit jobs if their bosses blow them off, on matters more minor.




Because they offered recommendations to change it, and were rudely blown off. That's exactly what they said. Why are you acting like this is some revelation instead of what they said...?




Smells exactly like what was described. It seems to be you only consider it 'smells funny' because you don't like people caring about race, and it gets you bothered and frustrated.


Maybe you should, y'know, stop getting mad when people care about respect for cultures?


You do know that they aren't complaining about vague, unspecified problems, right? They said exactly, specifically what several problems were.





Because a bunch of people can't get to together and express grievances?

Or, you know, pissed off about a scene which happened that day? He's one of the minor actors, not the Cultural Advisor, and before the scene that... he's complaining about.

C'mon, you're being silly.

You say 'stunt,' but again, they're listing a number of concrete, real problems.

It's a stunt if those problems are false. If they're true... well, then you're just whining over nothing, aren't you?




You say, while blowing off and ignoring the facts of the article because you're frustrated at them for.... some reason.






Oh, I didn't miss that, and it's a dumb argument. The cultures weren't in on the joke- they walked, and the movie is continuing with them after people of those cultures said, 'hey, we don't like this'. They said they were offended by this bit and that bit, and the other bit, and the producers said they, in turn, didn't care.

The conflating of different, historically actively opposed cultures isn't even part of a joke.


Lone Ranger was able to not mix up tribes' appearances, the Comanche were in fact quite happy with it (it still oddly mentioned 'Wendigo,' in one line, but it got most things right even thought it cast Depp as the most visible member. Because they had a cultural consultant too, they just listened to theirs).


You should calm down, step away from the keyboard, and ask yourself, "Is getting pissed off that some people mind casual racism against several groups really something I should spend my time on?"

Let's bottom line this conversation:

Q: Some movie people were being racist and actors/cultural advisor walked.

D: They knew it was racist going in!

Q/Others: Probably not... but so?

D: So, buzzwords about political correctness and social justice! They *totally* knew!

Q: Again, so?

D: You just keep saying 'so?'!

Q: Nothing you've said actually explains why the movie makers aren't totally in the wrong. Also, you seem... rather mad about this for some reason.
---

The problem is still the film makers are being racist and blowing off their Native American consultant when he told them how not to be racist. Whether or not the people knew- and again, the story fits fine, but even if it doesn't thinking something is racist going in doesn't make it not racist- doesn't actually, you know, change anything of importance.

New Interview, by the cultural consultant.




Oh yes, and this is the *sixth* movie he's worked on, so plenty of others have gotten the greenlight from him, and he hadn't seen the script:





Not that it'd matter if he had known, by the sound of it.


Also, an Interview with an actress



Which is the worst bit I've heard so far.

their fault...sue, sandler for what he's worth...,he'll pay it. they sihn

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
their fault...sue, sandler for what he's worth...,he'll pay it. they sihn

There's no grounds or reason for a lawsuit that I can see. It's culturally very insulting, but that's a different thing.


Really the best result is if someone got a better movie, hired these people, got native cultures right, and blew Sandler's trash out of the water ^^

They should put a curse on him.

Turns out they had access to the script. Script had also been around since 2012.

Here's a point I was wrong on: there was a meeting with the producer about the script. But this occurred before production (which is odd...why didn't they walk out after the producer said "if you're offended by this, leave"?)

Also, people were tweeting from set (lol...that's so against production rules). They were also recording cellphone videos on set (this is a great way to get banned from any movie production for life while also getting sued). This was a ploy.

Perhaps they did this after their pre-production meeting with the producer? Meaning, after they knew they couldn't get the changes they wanted done in pre-production, they decided to stage a walk-out? If so, it was still a ploy and I'm right but it does not seem as bad as before.

But, yeah, this was a planned walk-out. They just didn't convince everyone to leave the set until the day of. I'm thinking it started with the Cultural Adviser since he was the first to walk.



So who still has a social justice boner, still?


I'm going to see this movie, for sure.


Originally posted by Q99
Really the best result is if someone got a better movie, hired these people, got native cultures right, and blew Sandler's trash out of the water ^^

Why would a movie that gets the cultural representation right, which is supposed to be a satirical comedy of racist Old West films, be better to you than Sandler's film?

Rather, I should ask, in what ways would you satirize the racism to make it better? In what ways would you satirize the racism while also getting the "culture right"? It seems those two ideas are "diametrically opposed."



And before you start in with anything ragey or personal attacks, forget everything we have been discussing and give me a sincere, kind, honest answer. This is your chance to convince me that Sandler has f*cked with his choice of satire. I am not persuaded with insults and condescension. I'm persuaded by well reasoned, calm, and intelligent arguments (check Quincy's post about extras and scripts for an example of the type of thing that convinces me to stop being argumentative).

Personally a good satire and one I've seemed used before often makes light of idiotic racists instead of the people bring target ed for racism.

For example instead of turning the native Americans into racist charictures of their culture you actually make them smart and intelligent so when the the racists are trying to be racist the laughs are against them.

Originally posted by Newjak
Personally a good satire and one I've seemed used before often makes light of idiotic racists instead of the people bring target ed for racism.

For example instead of turning the native Americans into racist charictures of their culture you actually make them smart and intelligent so when the the racists are trying to be racist the laughs are against them.

Like...you mean...

Make the racist white people, in the movie, be hillbillies who drink moonshine, love guns, and speak poorly? That's what you mean?

And contrast that with highly educated, well-spoken, Native Americans?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like...you mean...

Make the racist white people, in the movie, be hillbillies who drink moonshine, love guns, and speak poorly? That's what you mean?

And contrast that with highly educated, well-spoken, Native Americans? IF it's satire of old westerns yes because that is good role reversal. You also don't even have to make the cowboys stupid just make it so their racism comes off as stupid.

That would be good satire.

Originally posted by Newjak
IF it's satire of old westerns yes because that is good role reversal. You also don't even have to make the cowboys stupid just make it so their racism comes off as stupid.




That could work. I wonder what Q99's take on your idea would be.

Q99, stop having a life and indulge us!

Originally posted by Newjak
Personally a good satire and one I've seemed used before often makes light of idiotic racists instead of the people bring target ed for racism.

For example instead of turning the native Americans into racist charictures of their culture you actually make them smart and intelligent so when the the racists are trying to be racist the laughs are against them. Red Dead Redemption did this.

The Native American character Nastas is far wiser and more likable than the racist Professor McDougal (or whatever the dude's name was).

A good Western satire was Blazing Saddles.

I'm sure Sandler's movie was just offensive stupidity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Turns out they had access to the script. Script had also been around since 2012.

And they still hadn't, personally, read it.


You're still in the wrong about it even being a bad thing for them to act as they did.

The Cultural Consultant's job is to give advice on how to properly portray cultures, his culture, and he was blown off whenever he had a complaint.



By you, to defend racists, for non-racists calling them on their crap.

Yea, someone cell-recorded it... during the final meeting with staff, after the Creative Consultant had already left, and the actors wanted answered.


You've completely failed to explain why anything they did is a bad thing, you just keep saying 'ploy' and 'SJW'.


Are you a parrot, or can you actually explain your stance beyond buzzwords?






Why do you think racism is a good thing? Why do you think social justice is a bad thing?




Well, Blazing Saddles has already been mentioned.


Having the white characters get it wrong would be one way, but not the only way.

Having fake-Apache next to real ones would be good. Show contrast.


One thing would be to have the Indians act ... well, like these, stupid names and offensive jokes and all, then when others are out of sight, toss off the bad uniforms, knock down the crap-fake-tipi, and look proper and start discussing how they can't believe people actually buy that crap.


There is always more to satire than 'do a thing, but badly'. Especially if it's an area where people do it badly often anyway and most people legitimately cannot recognize some stuff that is cultural offensive but, in fact, matters a lot. Like imagine doing a bunch of Christian stuff with the cross upside down and people disrespecting a bible... buuut done by people who didn't know enough about Christianity to actually make that part of any jokes, they just had that in the background, and instead just gave a priest an insulting name that, in turn, wasn't a joke at Christianity. It wouldn't be a Christian Satire at that point, it's just people getting stuff wrong through laziness.




Yet, that was your opening post, and your second post, and several more of your posts. Don't complain when people aren't being nice to you when you open acting negative, it's pretty hypocritical.


And heck, isn't your whole thing here that you don't care if people are offended? That's like hanging up a sign 'it's ok to offend me'! Open-season!

'Who cares if something who doesn't care about people getting offended gets offended?' By your own standards, it's ok to piss you off.

(And if you have a problem with that? Oh hey, you could change your standards!)

Originally posted by Q99
And they still hadn't, personally, read it.


They did.


So where's your argument, now? Be serious, what's left of your argument knowing that they had access to and read the script (and access was available since 2012 with only minor edits since then)? They did a reading (or several), bla bla bla, etc. just like a typical film. Again, for the 6th time, they specifically cited problems with "some of the script." Script was read. They did reharsals/readings. This movie didn't have a special exception to how pre-production was run.

Also, I didn't bother reading your PM which was probably frought with more rage, weird accusations, and insults. I just deleted it. For someone who preaches quite a bit of Social Justice, you do an awful lot of abuse: the same abuse you decry. I tried being nice but you're just not a nice person in public or private (I'm not sure why you're angry about it being obvious these actors ran a ploy to get 15 minutes of fame). You represent the typical SJW that people groan about: abusive, know-it-all, and that thinks people's right to be offended is the number 1 concern on the planet.

By the way, at no point in our discussion did I rage, get upset, whine, cry, etc. But if you want me to, YOU POOPOO! YOU DOODOO POOPY PANTS! There, now you have some rage to have a SJW fit over. "OMG, guys, he tooootally raged on me! Insults were flying! Justice has been served! He's clearly an angry right-wing ultra conservative racist Christian."

Originally posted by Q99
Having fake-Apache next to real ones would be good. Show contrast.

This is a good idea. And make them stand in awkward silence as they look at each other. Then the real Apache just say, "Yup."


Originally posted by Q99
One thing would be to have the Indians act ... well, like these, stupid names and offensive jokes and all, then when others are out of sight, toss off the bad uniforms, knock down the crap-fake-tipi, and look proper and start discussing how they can't believe people actually buy that crap.



This is also a really good idea.

In fact, Sandler should end his film that way after the resolution.

Cast is diverse and weird...

And it looks like there might be music involved in this film:


http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Adam-Sandler-Ridiculous-6-Has-Weirdest-Cast-I-Ever-Seen-Seriously-69410.html

Originally posted by dadudemon
They did.


So where's your argument, now?

The advisor, the first person who walked off, specifically hadn't, as has been specifically pointed out to you specifically multiple times.

So, lie on your part.

Also, again, some of the problems they walked off over like the tipi weren't in the script.




That the movie makers were still being jerks to their culture and ignored even straightforward advise on how to fix minor problems.


I have asked repeatedly what difference foreknowledge even makes, and you've dodged the question repeatedly.


You're looking for a scapegoat to write them off, you're not actually addressing what's supposed to be bad about them having a problem with how their cultures are presented, bringing it to the creators, and then when they're brushed off and ignored, leaving.


They're... still in the right! And no amount of calling them SJWs will change that.





"If you think that it's perfectly ok to offend them, then what's the problem with them offending you? It's not that you're ok with everyone being offended, you're *against* them offending you by drawing attention to this. It's one-way, that.


If it's ok for you to have a problem with them for walking off, then it's ok for me to have a problem with you for being against them walking off. If you don't like how I'm talking to you, well, then, that's an acknowledgement that you *do* care and want the right to be offended on behalf of others."


Basically, taking you to task for being so overly-sensitive. Oh yea, and on dodging my *one* single question after I'd answered *six* of your, on why you had a problem.

You said you'd already answered, and referred to the times you said that you had a problem, but when it comes to 'why,' you still dodge that like it was a flaming turd.


Is it so hard to explain your reasons, rather than simply re-state your stance? Bring some substance into your arguments, don't simply state you dislike something, then leave out your reasoning entirely.

Oh yes, and New York Times article on Native American stereotypes and how it negatively impacts the hiring opportunies of actor

2% of the the population, 0.3% of the movie roles.

So, there's a very practical reason to fight this kind of stuff too.

Originally posted by Q99
2% of the the population, 0.3% of the movie roles.

What percent of movie roles are Native American roles? Of that percentage, what percent of those roles are filled by actual Native Americans?

What percent of the Native American population seeks out movie roles? And what constitutes "Native American" from that number if such a number exists?

Is the issue you outline a symptom of the lack of movies that have Native American-specific roles or is the issue you outline a symptom of subversive racism against Native Americans?

Lastly, does walking out on a set from a movie which is satirizing racist - specifically, racism against Native Americans - portrayals from old films, help fight against potential racist bias for Native American actors?

Originally posted by Q99
The advisor, the first person who walked off, specifically hadn't, as has been specifically pointed out to you specifically multiple times.

Are you moving goals posts? Yup. You are.

Originally posted by Q99
Also, again, some of the problems they walked off over like the tipi weren't in the script.

Are you ignoring the most often cited reason - the reason being "problems with the script - on purpose?


Originally posted by Q99
I have asked repeatedly what difference foreknowledge even makes, and you've dodged the question repeatedly.

Has anyone else in this thread seen how I answered this question about 5 times, already?


Originally posted by Q99
You're looking for a scapegoat to write them off, you're not actually addressing what's supposed to be bad about them having a problem with how their cultures are presented, bringing it to the creators, and then when they're brushed off and ignored, leaving.

Yeah, I directly addressed why this is a problem over a dozen times, now: you keep ignoring it.


Originally posted by Q99
They're... still in the right! And no amount of calling them SJWs will change that.

Misplaced and even hypocritical self-righteousness is not very cool, imo. You consider that being in the right. I consider it what it is: a SJW ploy to get 15 minutes of fame.




Originally posted by Q99
"If you think that it's perfectly ok to offend them, then what's the problem with them offending you? It's not that you're ok with everyone being offended, you're *against* them offending you by drawing attention to this. It's one-way, that.


If it's ok for you to have a problem with them for walking off, then it's ok for me to have a problem with you for being against them walking off. If you don't like how I'm talking to you, well, then, that's an acknowledgement that you *do* care and want the right to be offended on behalf of others."


Basically, taking you to task for being so overly-sensitive. Oh yea, and on dodging my *one* single question after I'd answered *six* of your, on why you had a problem.

You said you'd already answered, and referred to the times you said that you had a problem, but when it comes to 'why,' you still dodge that like it was a flaming turd.


Is it so hard to explain your reasons, rather than simply re-state your stance? Bring some substance into your arguments, don't simply state you dislike something, then leave out your reasoning entirely.


Too many words where you show you ignore what I've said and you demonstrate that you don't even have a halfway decent comprehension of my perspective. Congrats on being a brick wall.

You have a right to get offended. I have a right to think your reasons for getting offended are stupid or even naive.

I like that they even bothered to hire a "cultural adviser" for an Adam Sandler movie. It almost makes his movies still seem relevant. Now if they'd only bring in some comedy advisers.

I'd not worry about it, another bomb or two and Sandler won't get hired anymore, unless he bankrolls the film himself.

I think black magic was used to prevent himself from getting blacklisted by Hollywood after "Jack and Jill".