Keith Stanfield
Active member
Um..lets no forget that Spike Less is a groundbreaking director/actor as well. He isnt exactly 'some director' who is dissing a "legend."
Seems that Spike can pitch, but he can't catch.
- Thread starter Jim Brennan
- Start date
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
they buried the "N-word hatchet" long ago. right before tarantino did a cameo in Girl 6.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
Doesn't make his comments any less insulting.
What do you think would happen if a white director made the comment that Lee made about Eastwood directing Bird to a Black director working on a biopic of a famous white musician?
i.e. Why is a Black guy making that!?
He would be labeled a racist.
Lee should learn to shut his mouth.
Why don't we get back on topic. His movie is now being criticized for its lack of authenticity, something he bashed Eastwood about. His response, I'll make what ever movie I want. I agree, he should. Which is why he should have kept his mouth shut in the first place.
Mike
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Italy and Germany were aligned but there was an Italian resistance that opposed the Axis alignment and Mussolini. They fough the Germans hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement
-
And Spike's bs on the Eastwood's film that Blacks were not represented is a sad publicity stunt and the film still tanks; lol.
I can't stand Spike and echo Michael's sentiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_resistance_movement
-
And Spike's bs on the Eastwood's film that Blacks were not represented is a sad publicity stunt and the film still tanks; lol.
I can't stand Spike and echo Michael's sentiments.
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Ian-T
Veteran
The history being taught in this country has always been one sided. I mean "so what" if Spike Lee questioned why a non-black director is portraying a prominent black figure? Being black myself I never new anything about Tuskegee airmen until I watched (I believe) and HBO movie on it about 8 years or so ago. I did not know about the first open heart surgery being performed by a black man..etc. All the info I learned about this country's history growing up in school mostly omitted black people. Forget George Washington Carver or Martin Luther King...there a millions of other stories out there to tell in regards to black history. Someone mentioned "agenda".... let me tell you something..."every" director has an agenda (whatever it may be) and it would be stupid to think otherwise.
There's no doubt Clint Eastwood is a great director who starred in some great movies..Spike Lee is no different. But from what I am reading into in this thread....it goes a little deeper than Spike Lee. You can hate the man but can't deny his talent. I don't agree with everything he spits out...but neither do I with Clint Eastwood. There are a lot of folks who hate Spike Lee because they think he is Anti-White when he should be looked at more of just a controversial figure. He seems to go where others don't want to tread. And folks hate it when he brings out the truth (in regards to race issues) in his films. Sometimes it's good to push some buttons.
Now the issue with his latest flick is not unusual for any director making a similar kind of piece. There are those who will always say.."this isn't true"...."it's not what really happened." You say he didn't do his homework? I'm sure he did. You are always going to get different accounts of what happened. Hell....I never knew there were black folks at Iwa Jima...I only learned that from this thread. And to hear that there were mostly black folks witnessing what happened there is suprising to me. I'm not saying Clint Eastwood did anything wrong or on purpose....but since you stated that Spike Lee should have done his homework...don't you think Clint should have done the same? I mean....it would have been a more accurate representation right?
Nobody is perfect...they both have their faults. But everyone's argument here seem to be a little one sided....sort of like our American history. And maybe....just maybe....that's why Spike asked that question. You think?
Last edited:
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Don't even go there. We had a whole thread about this recently. Agenda's and propaganda, etc. I think you're right. Honestly I hated Jungle Fever, I think it was a dishonest portrayal of interracial relationships in the modern era, but I loved "School Daze" and "Inside Man" and what about the hated "X" that was such an awesome film.
I understand Lee's reaction. I admit it was a bit strong and Eastwood had a strong response but Spike says things that need to be said sometimes. Now maybe Spike and Eastwood have some other beef no one knows about but whatever. Yes he's a loud mouth and says what he feels. I've gotten this too because I'm pretty vocal about certain things. So I don't think he was out of line, he simply spoke his mind, as did Eastwood.
-Nate
Ian-T
Veteran
I understand that this is a rhetorical question. But my answer to this is taken from your statement above....It would probably be "criticized for its lack of authenticity." Not necessarily by the viewers....but by those looking for imaginary holes in the story. All you need is one person casting a shadow of doubt to taint it. Think about it...if it were Spike Lee who directed "Schindler's List" (not some different iteration of it but the exact same film) do you think it would have the same reception it has today? I doubt it.
Ian-T
Veteran
Exactly!!
And I agree with what you said about those movies. Jungle fever might have been entertaining...but as you say a "dishonest portrayal of interracial relationships in the modern era."
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
I think we make a lot of assumptions about the intent of filmmakers. And I know with a director as outspoken as Spike Lee is, it can be even easier to make those assumptions (accurate or not). And while I agree that every director has some sort of agenda, I would speculate that what we assume that agenda might be, is probably different from what it actually is.
And we also tend to judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intent. In other words, we know what we are trying to say, so we understand our motivations. But from the outside looking in, that is often less clear. With other people, we just see the results, and that is what we judge.
I really wasn't trying to stir up a heap of controversy with this thread. This set of circumstances gave me the impression that Spike seems more willing to give criticism than to take it.
And, for the record, I have a healthy respect for both directors. Neither one of them are among my favorites, but I admire each one for having the ability to craft films that are recognizable as their own in an increasingly homogeneous media marketplace.
And we also tend to judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intent. In other words, we know what we are trying to say, so we understand our motivations. But from the outside looking in, that is often less clear. With other people, we just see the results, and that is what we judge.
I really wasn't trying to stir up a heap of controversy with this thread. This set of circumstances gave me the impression that Spike seems more willing to give criticism than to take it.
And, for the record, I have a healthy respect for both directors. Neither one of them are among my favorites, but I admire each one for having the ability to craft films that are recognizable as their own in an increasingly homogeneous media marketplace.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I echo these sentiments and it is an unfortunate fallout from years past. The country is still young by most accounts and hopefully this fact will change in time. Progress, slow, is still progress.
Part of Spikes problem is that he uses the issue of race as a form of controversy when he should be using it to being about harmony. His moaning about Tarantino or Eastwood or the film Bird does nothing but incite distress.
He does push buttons but it isn't always for the good or the right reasons.
I find Clint to be an above average filmmaker, but his recent accolades have left me puzzled. Million Dollar Baby winning over The Aviator ? And ... I would have picked Sideways over MDB as well.
Incidentally, I would have chosen A Few GOod Men over The Unforgiven.
Seems the Academy is all over his jock.
There is no fault though. That's the effin point. The film was about the flag bearers. Was Clint supposed to WRITE IN a subplot or shoot footage of black soldiers simply to appease all demographics ? Bitching about in the first place is absurd.
I just wish Spike would shut up for once and let his work do the talking. Perhaps he is viewed as controversial by some, but why not stop running the smack and whining and just let the work speak ?
I think Spike is an above average director, but surely no master. (I feel the same about Clint)
GET THIS
"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 at the Cannes Film Festival. "In his version of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist." Eastwood's counter:
"Has he ever studied history? [African-American soldiers] didn't raise the flag," he said. "If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, they'd say, "This guy's lost his mind.'"
Eastwood also told Lee to "shut his face," prompting Lee to amplify the racism charge: "[Eastwood] is not my father and we're not on a plantation, either," he fumed. "I'm not making this up. I know history."
WTF ? On the plantation ? Spike needs therapy. He's an angry old dude.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
Exactly.
I'm not debating who is a better Director. I'm just saying that Lee has a huge chip on his soldier. He's tries to puff up his movies with controversy and always plays the race card. His comment on Bird and his 'plantation' remark says it all.
Time to just shut up and concentrate on making great movies.
J.R. I totally disagree with you on MDB. It blows Sideways away and Aviator ran on too long for my liking. :thumbup: But now we're really going off topic.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
That's not the point. Using your analogy, would a white director publicly say... "why is a black guy making that film?
And what would you think of him for making that comment? Be honest.
Also, history should not be taught with movies, it should be taught in school.
Saving Private Ryan has plenty of flaws but it is a good MOVIE.
Movies should be as historically accurate as possible but they should not be used as a teaching tool.
Sorry guys, we're getting way off topic here. Even though I think most of you have agreed that Lee has a big mouth and has said things just to provoke controversy. Can we just agree on that and move on?
Ian-T
Veteran
I think this is great discussion and not too controversial. So don't beat yourself up. I agree with the thread title...especially in this case. For me it is easy to seperate the individual from his/her craft. I can admire their work on the screen but totally disregard their personal life issues. In this case...Spike can come off as a crybaby.
Ian-T
Veteran
I for one think everything being discussed in this thread is relevant. It's all going back to why a man like Spike Lee is saying the things he is saying about another well respected director. Me personally, I'm actually learning about a lot of this stuff in this thread (I don't follow actor or directors lives in the media too much).
I'm just trying to tackle what I see as a double standard. Lee questions Eastwood about his films authenticity regarding the roles of blacks and their lack of presence in his film. Now..the tide is turning on Spike because he is currently going through the same kind of questioning in his movie. Spike was lambasted for asking a question that probably needed to be asked. So...should the folks now criticizing Lee for his current flick be treated the same? After all....both these situations are very similar. It should not matter who the director is...or does it?
Yeah Spike has a big mouth....but I don't necessarily see that as a bad or a good thing. It's like some college professors who love to bring up a controversial topic just so as to stir up some thought. Out of that thought comes fresh/new ideas and/or solutions. The professor did what had to be done....whether it be for better or worse.
@ Mike...it's ok but I think you totally missed my point. But...you are right ..history is supposed to be taught in schools and not on the movie screen. That's a whole other discussion. But I believe as story tellers or filmmakers we have a personal responsibility to do what is right. Clint or any other director has the right to omit..put in...anything they want in their film (I believe that's what Clint's remark to Spike was about). But for me when a director/write adds to or takes away from historical events on film it just shows me what's in their mind (way of thinking) and loses credibility. That's just me..you don't have to agree.
I'm just trying to tackle what I see as a double standard. Lee questions Eastwood about his films authenticity regarding the roles of blacks and their lack of presence in his film. Now..the tide is turning on Spike because he is currently going through the same kind of questioning in his movie. Spike was lambasted for asking a question that probably needed to be asked. So...should the folks now criticizing Lee for his current flick be treated the same? After all....both these situations are very similar. It should not matter who the director is...or does it?
Yeah Spike has a big mouth....but I don't necessarily see that as a bad or a good thing. It's like some college professors who love to bring up a controversial topic just so as to stir up some thought. Out of that thought comes fresh/new ideas and/or solutions. The professor did what had to be done....whether it be for better or worse.
@ Mike...it's ok but I think you totally missed my point. But...you are right ..history is supposed to be taught in schools and not on the movie screen. That's a whole other discussion. But I believe as story tellers or filmmakers we have a personal responsibility to do what is right. Clint or any other director has the right to omit..put in...anything they want in their film (I believe that's what Clint's remark to Spike was about). But for me when a director/write adds to or takes away from historical events on film it just shows me what's in their mind (way of thinking) and loses credibility. That's just me..you don't have to agree.
Michael Anthony Horrigan
More Cowbell Pictures
I think he just wanted to focus on the flag bearers. If you watch the movie that's what it's all about.
Had he shown black soldiers doing some of the menial tasks they were required to do during that time in history he may have received even more flack!
Even though when things got nasty they too did more than their part. :thumbup:
Just my 2 cents.
Like I said though, a movie like SPR left out many other people that fought and died on that beach. No big deal to me, it's a movie.
Cheers,
Mike
Nathyn
Low Budget Ninja
Have you ever seen MAD TV's "Friends" parody? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK7EPkuhf9w
I don't think Spike Lee meant Clint had to make a "sub-plot" or something, but aren't there background scenes in films like this. Couldn't there have been blacks soldiers in the background. Not even a lot but some just to show more than white people. White people don't think about the fact that even today they control the way black people (any many others are seen). Spike Lee still has to gather money from friends and family to make movies because studios don't like to back films with too many black faces unless it's specifically a "black" film and that means a budget that isn't as big as others.
Nothing against white people but a film like Forbidden Kingdom comes out and it has Jet Li and Jackie Chan and the hero is a white guy. Don't you think there's a problem when even white people thought it was bad. Not one person in that theater came to see this little white boy. Everyone wanted to see one scene involving two Asian men: Jet Li versus Jackie Chan. (Asian = not white). I actually feel sorry for Michael Angarano because he will forever be "the annoying white kid that screwed up a great Jet Li/Jackie Chan (take your pick) film." Even Tom Cruise as the last Samurai was this annoying. Atleast Cruise was the "Star power" in the film versus a film with two major international stars being usurped by a some white kid no one knew or cared about. Maybe if he was known for martial arts but before this he was mostly known for a role on Will and Grace. WILL AND FRIGGIN' GRACE! WTF!!!!!!! Now he's doing high powered martial arts with Li and Chan. Whoever thought this was a good idea should be decapitated by the original white guy trained to be a deadly killing machine a.k.a Army Private Joe Armstrong - the American Ninja. LOL.
Serious, take the movie "Spawn"? D.B. Sweeney played Terry Fitzgerald. In the comic book Terry was black. But this extra black face would've cost $20,000,000. With too many negros means your film is automatically a "black film". Suddenly the number #1 comic in America (at one time out selling X-men) was suddenly too black for consumption.
Let's be more modern. Blade 3. A successful action franchise starring Wesley Snipes and Kris Kristofferson. Basically a black guy, white guy buddy cop film. Always a hit. So what do we need? More white folks. Blade 3 is considered the worst Blade film ever. One was good, two was better than one, three was simply bad. The need to add white faces overrides even the success of a film. Sure it made money. But people still think it sucks. I didn't go to see it because all my friends said it sucked (and if several of my comic loving friends say that it usually turns out to be true).
Let's check out "Wanted". A big Hollywood success with a white woman (Angelina Jolie) in the lead role as A BLACK WOMAN! No one cared. Samuel Jackson plays Nick Fury (whose actually black in the Marvel Ultimates line which the movies are based on) and there's public outcry. I guess if you have the proper amount of tits and ass no one cares.
Be honest now. How much of a tan does Jolie need
to pull of this look?
As a black filmmaker I do understand why Spike blows up sometimes. White people really don't understand. We are still told black people don't sale overseas. Suddenly when Snipes (at one point considered America's favorite action star) is blackballed his next option is grade-B films? Where are these films sold at? Mainly overseas. Even BET is owned by a white company. Don't you get it? Is it really that hard to understand? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FRIGGIN' EASTWOOD!
Need I go on? Halle Berry is "Catwoman". Do you really think they would've given Jolie this script? It's not even the Catwoman from the book. No one wants a black female connected with their lead character (Batman). Ironically in the sixties Eartha Kitt played Cat Woman and it's wasn't a big deal. Cat Woman is probably the only character who can be either Black or White thanks to the TV show. So you have Halle Berry in a hot Leather outfit:
(You have Halle dressed in this and your film still flops you're an idiot.
It's called reading the source material you friggin' a-hole).
Ultimate Catfight. Halle versus Harley.
This is your movie! All you need is a half way decent script. Who makes the decision to change the character's name, take out of Gotham, in essence erase everything that makes her Catwoman. Why has her in such a stupid plot? Who is Patience Phillips? Who is Laurel Hedare? To my knowledge these people aren't in the comic? Catwoman is Selina Kyle a jewel thief (an ex-prositute) with a history of abuse. While she's a thief at the same time she's also a vigilante. She may steal but doesn't particularly like to see people get hurt and I believe she is protective of children, particularly girls if I'm correct. Does any of this sound like what we saw? Doesn't the basic description sound better than the film? Bet Jolie or some other actress would've gotten this juicy role. But a not so good Halle-ploitation film is what we get. Hm. Very simply script. Batman fights the Joker right? Hm. How about Catwoman versus Harley Quinn? (Joker's girlfriend). See this stuff isn't rocket science but Hollywood is too full of racist and stupid people to do things right and if you think it's all about money you're a damn fool! Who here in this forum wouldn't read the source material for something you write? Or maybe in the end go, hell screw it. What another irony:
Do an image search for Wanted and the character "Fox". You notice a striking ressemblence to Halle Berry? Yea that was done for a reason. The writers wanted Halle in the movie. I guess they couldn't get Halle and I guess there are no other black actresses in Hollywood so it had to be Jolie. You ever notice how cat-like Jolie appears many times. Is it me or is this a no brainer.
Are black people paranoid or is this done on purpose? It's odd that it keeps happening. Then we get Hancock, the flawed black hero. When will we see a Cyborg film? What about a Luke Cage film? What about a Black Panther film? What about Mr. Terrific film? How about a New Warriors film (super team lead a by a black superhero name Night Thrasher).
It's not just movies, even in the comics themselves. Everyone knows the only people with a stable super solider serum flowing through them is Isaiah Bradley's son Josiah X. Josiah is a ex-Vietnam vet. (Isaiah Bradley is the black Captain America, the one they experimented on with the unstable Super Solider Serum before they gave the stable serum to Steve Rogers).
Elijah Bradley aka Patriot is Josiah's nephew. While originally Eli did use the illegal Mutant Growth Hormone to gain his powers he did indeed receive a blood transfusion from Isaiah after a battle that caused major blood loss. Now he too has a stable super solider serum in his blood. Here's a freaking family of black patriot superheros, all super soldiers. The father is dead but the son and nephew live on, but I bet not one will carry the mantle of Captain America. Why? Simply not white enough.
Isaiah Bradley Captain America Prime
Josiah X aka A-39
Elijah Bradley aka Patriot. That's one of Capt's old shield's he's holding.
Everyone knows Elijah Bradley is poised to be the next Captain America (until Marvel makes up another white male or maybe a woman). He's patriotic and according to Marvel themselves "Eli Bradley comes from a family of heroes. Eli's grandfather, Isaiah, one of the first Super-Soldiers produced by the U.S. military, fought against the Axis in World War II (see: "Truth: Red, White & Black"), and his uncle, Josiah X, continued the family tradition, enlisting in Vietnam and recently taking up Isaiah's old Captain America uniform and joining the Crew." Most people also know that won't happen.
Speaking of "The Crew". This was a black superhero team on par with the Avengers (the Avengers is Marvel Comic's Justice League for those who don't know). The Crew was also the only non-manga book at Marvel that was black and white - it failed. Think about it. When Spike Lee pops off sometimes, it's not just about what he's talking about. There's a lot more to it. And many people will die not understanding how deep this all runs.
-Nate
I don't think Spike Lee meant Clint had to make a "sub-plot" or something, but aren't there background scenes in films like this. Couldn't there have been blacks soldiers in the background. Not even a lot but some just to show more than white people. White people don't think about the fact that even today they control the way black people (any many others are seen). Spike Lee still has to gather money from friends and family to make movies because studios don't like to back films with too many black faces unless it's specifically a "black" film and that means a budget that isn't as big as others.
Nothing against white people but a film like Forbidden Kingdom comes out and it has Jet Li and Jackie Chan and the hero is a white guy. Don't you think there's a problem when even white people thought it was bad. Not one person in that theater came to see this little white boy. Everyone wanted to see one scene involving two Asian men: Jet Li versus Jackie Chan. (Asian = not white). I actually feel sorry for Michael Angarano because he will forever be "the annoying white kid that screwed up a great Jet Li/Jackie Chan (take your pick) film." Even Tom Cruise as the last Samurai was this annoying. Atleast Cruise was the "Star power" in the film versus a film with two major international stars being usurped by a some white kid no one knew or cared about. Maybe if he was known for martial arts but before this he was mostly known for a role on Will and Grace. WILL AND FRIGGIN' GRACE! WTF!!!!!!! Now he's doing high powered martial arts with Li and Chan. Whoever thought this was a good idea should be decapitated by the original white guy trained to be a deadly killing machine a.k.a Army Private Joe Armstrong - the American Ninja. LOL.
Serious, take the movie "Spawn"? D.B. Sweeney played Terry Fitzgerald. In the comic book Terry was black. But this extra black face would've cost $20,000,000. With too many negros means your film is automatically a "black film". Suddenly the number #1 comic in America (at one time out selling X-men) was suddenly too black for consumption.
Let's be more modern. Blade 3. A successful action franchise starring Wesley Snipes and Kris Kristofferson. Basically a black guy, white guy buddy cop film. Always a hit. So what do we need? More white folks. Blade 3 is considered the worst Blade film ever. One was good, two was better than one, three was simply bad. The need to add white faces overrides even the success of a film. Sure it made money. But people still think it sucks. I didn't go to see it because all my friends said it sucked (and if several of my comic loving friends say that it usually turns out to be true).
Let's check out "Wanted". A big Hollywood success with a white woman (Angelina Jolie) in the lead role as A BLACK WOMAN! No one cared. Samuel Jackson plays Nick Fury (whose actually black in the Marvel Ultimates line which the movies are based on) and there's public outcry. I guess if you have the proper amount of tits and ass no one cares.
Be honest now. How much of a tan does Jolie need
to pull of this look?
As a black filmmaker I do understand why Spike blows up sometimes. White people really don't understand. We are still told black people don't sale overseas. Suddenly when Snipes (at one point considered America's favorite action star) is blackballed his next option is grade-B films? Where are these films sold at? Mainly overseas. Even BET is owned by a white company. Don't you get it? Is it really that hard to understand? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FRIGGIN' EASTWOOD!
Need I go on? Halle Berry is "Catwoman". Do you really think they would've given Jolie this script? It's not even the Catwoman from the book. No one wants a black female connected with their lead character (Batman). Ironically in the sixties Eartha Kitt played Cat Woman and it's wasn't a big deal. Cat Woman is probably the only character who can be either Black or White thanks to the TV show. So you have Halle Berry in a hot Leather outfit:
(You have Halle dressed in this and your film still flops you're an idiot.
It's called reading the source material you friggin' a-hole).
Ultimate Catfight. Halle versus Harley.
This is your movie! All you need is a half way decent script. Who makes the decision to change the character's name, take out of Gotham, in essence erase everything that makes her Catwoman. Why has her in such a stupid plot? Who is Patience Phillips? Who is Laurel Hedare? To my knowledge these people aren't in the comic? Catwoman is Selina Kyle a jewel thief (an ex-prositute) with a history of abuse. While she's a thief at the same time she's also a vigilante. She may steal but doesn't particularly like to see people get hurt and I believe she is protective of children, particularly girls if I'm correct. Does any of this sound like what we saw? Doesn't the basic description sound better than the film? Bet Jolie or some other actress would've gotten this juicy role. But a not so good Halle-ploitation film is what we get. Hm. Very simply script. Batman fights the Joker right? Hm. How about Catwoman versus Harley Quinn? (Joker's girlfriend). See this stuff isn't rocket science but Hollywood is too full of racist and stupid people to do things right and if you think it's all about money you're a damn fool! Who here in this forum wouldn't read the source material for something you write? Or maybe in the end go, hell screw it. What another irony:
Do an image search for Wanted and the character "Fox". You notice a striking ressemblence to Halle Berry? Yea that was done for a reason. The writers wanted Halle in the movie. I guess they couldn't get Halle and I guess there are no other black actresses in Hollywood so it had to be Jolie. You ever notice how cat-like Jolie appears many times. Is it me or is this a no brainer.
Are black people paranoid or is this done on purpose? It's odd that it keeps happening. Then we get Hancock, the flawed black hero. When will we see a Cyborg film? What about a Luke Cage film? What about a Black Panther film? What about Mr. Terrific film? How about a New Warriors film (super team lead a by a black superhero name Night Thrasher).
It's not just movies, even in the comics themselves. Everyone knows the only people with a stable super solider serum flowing through them is Isaiah Bradley's son Josiah X. Josiah is a ex-Vietnam vet. (Isaiah Bradley is the black Captain America, the one they experimented on with the unstable Super Solider Serum before they gave the stable serum to Steve Rogers).
Elijah Bradley aka Patriot is Josiah's nephew. While originally Eli did use the illegal Mutant Growth Hormone to gain his powers he did indeed receive a blood transfusion from Isaiah after a battle that caused major blood loss. Now he too has a stable super solider serum in his blood. Here's a freaking family of black patriot superheros, all super soldiers. The father is dead but the son and nephew live on, but I bet not one will carry the mantle of Captain America. Why? Simply not white enough.
Isaiah Bradley Captain America Prime
Josiah X aka A-39
Elijah Bradley aka Patriot. That's one of Capt's old shield's he's holding.
Everyone knows Elijah Bradley is poised to be the next Captain America (until Marvel makes up another white male or maybe a woman). He's patriotic and according to Marvel themselves "Eli Bradley comes from a family of heroes. Eli's grandfather, Isaiah, one of the first Super-Soldiers produced by the U.S. military, fought against the Axis in World War II (see: "Truth: Red, White & Black"), and his uncle, Josiah X, continued the family tradition, enlisting in Vietnam and recently taking up Isaiah's old Captain America uniform and joining the Crew." Most people also know that won't happen.
Speaking of "The Crew". This was a black superhero team on par with the Avengers (the Avengers is Marvel Comic's Justice League for those who don't know). The Crew was also the only non-manga book at Marvel that was black and white - it failed. Think about it. When Spike Lee pops off sometimes, it's not just about what he's talking about. There's a lot more to it. And many people will die not understanding how deep this all runs.
-Nate
Last edited:
I don't know what point you're making. There's still plenty of racism in the world but at the same time America's favorite heroes are usually Black. Will Smith, depending on which metric you use, is the world's most bankable actor, A skinny guy from Hawaii is sprinting towards the presidency of the world's most powerful nation, and Jordan still makes a hundred million a year off endorsements. I feel like all your examples, with a little adjustment, would work better as straw man arguments for Rush Limbaugh, they don't support what I think you're trying to say, they undercut it. There is a lot of unfairness and bigotry out there, to find it most people don't have to look past the tips of their noses. But the stuff you're listing sounds petulant and false. Hollywood makes calls on the basis of the market and what they think will yield a ROI. Personally I think Spike Lee would be better off if he focused more on making good movies (ala Carl Franklin) instead of trying to teach us all something trite like "Racism is baaad!".
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
Spike has had a viral case of diarrhea of the mouth for several years.
First of all...Eastwood (like Spielberg) is a big time WWII buff. Of course, even a novice war historian like myself knows that black soldiers (with very few exceptions) were not allowed to take part in front-line combat duty. Not to say that the 1 million some odd black WW2veterans (from both theatres) weren’t invaluable to the war effort...but including those cats in his film would have made no sense. It would have been contrived and obvious. The History vs. Hollywood debate rages on, but Spike should know full well that some liberties just can’t be taken.
First of all...Eastwood (like Spielberg) is a big time WWII buff. Of course, even a novice war historian like myself knows that black soldiers (with very few exceptions) were not allowed to take part in front-line combat duty. Not to say that the 1 million some odd black WW2veterans (from both theatres) weren’t invaluable to the war effort...but including those cats in his film would have made no sense. It would have been contrived and obvious. The History vs. Hollywood debate rages on, but Spike should know full well that some liberties just can’t be taken.
Matt Grunau
Adobe Demigod
Wow. Way to reach for a jibe.
I agree with Cal, as usual.
Spike's got a big mouth, and uses it to bring himself attention. God knows, unless he stumbles into making a good film, his work lately sure as hell won't.
He has shown himself the bigot so much it has demolished the small amount of credibility he gained from the few good works he has done.