Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Joshpantera

SJW-Hood, in theaters now

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

Well who cares if it's a terrible movie, they have a black guy playing a "good" muslim so they can check that box. 

 

They did that back in Kevin Costner's version. It's not something inserted out of thin air.

 

I think we have a problem on two fronts today. First there are genuine instances of inserting political and cultural issues into media where it doesn't make much sense. That happens, and it can be annoying. Like how Christians keep inserting their religion into what would otherwise be good movies.

 

The other issue is that there is a new culture springing up that rejects anything they don't like in media as "SJW". They are a hammer, and to these people every new movie or TV show seems to be a nail.

 

People complaining about movies and the messages in them is nothing new. Its just messages change and so do the people complaining.

 

Now someone mentioned that 'historical revision' was going on. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Robin Hood was actually historical. I understand he's a traditional story, and over time stories change, and whoever is telling the story can tell it how they want to.

https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/robin-hood

 

What's more, the guy (Hoodie) is and always has been a commie socialist Marxist - stealing from the rich giving to the poor. Wealth distribution and all that shit. I'm surprised anyone here watches any version of that Marxists crap!

 

 

(An interesting historical note is that the subject of wealth distribution has been around for a long time. Methinks it will be around for a lot longer.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What's more, the guy (Hoodie) is and always has been a commie socialist Marxist - stealing from the rich giving to the poor. Wealth distribution and all that shit. I'm surprised anyone here watches any version of that Marxists crap!

 

Yes, that's why they honed on the Robin Hood theme - robbing the rich and giving to the poor. The new editions are the cultural trappings of the contemporary period. Like putting all of the blame on christians while glorifying muslims. I'm sure that wasn't part of the historical myth of Robin Hood in England. That's exactly historical revision based on contemporary politics. Everyone leaving the theater in my group picked up on it.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Now someone mentioned that 'historical revision' was going on. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that Robin Hood was actually historical. I understand he's a traditional story, and over time stories change, and whoever is telling the story can tell it how they want to.

https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/robin-hood

 

Doesn't have to be. It's an historical myth centuries old that everyone's pretty well aware of. No other point is necessary. People can butcher it up various ways, but because it's an historical tale the butchering will be quite evident, possibly off putting. So goes the game of retelling myths. If someone retold the jesus myth and placed jesus as Chinese or Aboriginal they might expect that it doesn't catch on well. It's not really an historical account but it is an historical tale that everyone's well aware of, even to the extent of it's both orthodox and gnostic versions. The Chinese or Aboriginal versions would left field of both, and some what completely ridiculous. A type of historical revision in that way. Like the way Robin Hood is going. 

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

They did that back in Kevin Costner's version. It's not something inserted out of thin air.

 

No, they didn't do that at all. The plots are different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Prince_of_Thieves

 

The only part that's not out of thin air is introducing a black character into the myth. But even in 91' that was a PC move that they made and some what of a precursor to the decades ahead where social marxism would rise in popularity. The muslims weren't the good guys and it didn't make a social marxist play about the muslims as oppressed and the Europeans as oppressors. And why would it, around a decade before 911, after which these social marxist ideas began to flourish along with SJW oriented celebrating of victimhood.

 

And Morgan Freeman was a newly introduced character, not the traditional "Little John," English character which they've switched around to an authoritative, black muslim to which Robin Hood is subservient and reports back to. That squarely reflects some of the most popular contemporary political ideologies. But comes off as very nonsensical for a Robin Hood movie. 

 

 Robin returns to England with Azeem, who has vowed to accompany him until Azeem's life-debt to Robin is repaid.

 

No, this movie is more along the lines of the movement in Hollywood to market themes to the gen Z crowd. You can see the differences between the gen X and gen Z marketing approaches. But they have a faint similarity in that the gen X version was a precursor for what was yet to come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yes, that's why they honed on the Robin Hood theme. The new editions are the cultural trappings of the contemporary period. Like putting all of the blame on christians while glorifying muslims. I'm sure that wasn't part of the historical myth of Robin Hood in England. That's exactly historical revision based on contemporary politics. Everyone leaving the theater in my group picked up on it. 

 

Doesn't have to be. It's an historical myth centuries old that everyone's pretty well aware of. No other point is necessary. People can butcher it up various ways, but because it's an historical tale the butchering will be quite evident, possibly off putting. So goes the game of retelling myths. If someone retold the jesus myth and placed jesus as Chinese or Aboriginal they might expect that it doesn't catch on well. It's not really an historical account but it is an historical tale that everyone's well aware of, even to the extent of it's both orthodox and gnostic versions. The Chinese or Aboriginal versions would left field of both, and some what completely ridiculous. Like the way Robin Hood is going. 

 

No, they didn't do that at all. The plots are different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Prince_of_Thieves

 

The only part that's not out of thin air is introducing a black character into the myth. But even in 91' that was a PC move that they made and some what of a precursor to the decades ahead where social marxism would rise in popularity. The muslims weren't the good guys and it make a social marxist play about the muslims as oppressed and the Europeans as oppressors. And why would it, around a decade before 911 after which these social marxist ideas began to flourish along with SJW oriented celebrating of victimhood. And Morgan Freeman was newly introduced character, not the traditional "Little John," English character. 

 

No, this movie is more along the lines of the movement in Hollywood to market themes to the gen Z crowd. You can see the differences between the gen X and gen Z marketing approaches. But they have a faint similarity in that the gen X version was a precursor for what was yet to come. 

 

I think that because you're actively looking for things, you are finding them.

 

I'm not saying that this stuff isn't in the movie at all, just that because you went into the film with a bias towards finding that sort of thing [which you've admitted], it's probably safe to assume that you have amplified it at least a bit to make it sound like it is more prominent than it actually is.

 

If you get down to it, Robin Hood has always been a sort of "social marxism" I mean, the whole "rob from the rich and give to the poor" thing was there from the start. It predates actual marxism, but it's kind of silly to point that out as if it's something new that was added as a modern political dynamic to the story.

 

The "Muslim among the Merry Men" has been a thing since the very early 80s. It was already common in retellings of the story by the time 91's Prince of Thieves came along. By the way, that movie is totally worth it if only because of Alan Rickman hamming it up as the Sheriff. Costner was kind of a stick in the mud and was very out of place, as was Mastrantonio's Marian to a lesser degree, but the supporting cast carried the movie, with Rickman in particular being a standout.

 

It actually makes sense to have a Muslim character because even in the original story, the reason Prince John was in control was because King Richard was dealing the crusades. The story has always been set in that period.

 

I do believe that Robin being a soldier in the crusades is a relatively new addition. He was always a wealthy aristocrat who ended up "standing up for the common man" by becoming an outlaw. I believe his social standing would have kept him out of the war IRL. I believe his position was above that of a Knight, even though he was a minor noble.

 

It's also worth noting that the original myths are very anti-clerical. So while the "twist" is a new and politically charged addition [that has more to do with geo-political commentary than SJW social politics], the idea behind the church being the villains is actually true to the original versions of the story. The addition of Friar Tuck was a later addition probably meant to sanitize the story to make it less antagonistic towards the church. Marion didn't appear until around the same time.

 

There are elements of this movie that are definitely SJW. Marion's active role in exposing the plot of the Sheriff being a good example. Still, you seem to be seeing more of it in the movie than there actually is according to various other accounts I've seen regarding the film.

 

TL;DR: It sounds like you're making it sound worse than it actually is, especially considering you admitted that you were actively looking for it when watching the movie, so there's probably some confirmation bias going on here.

 

By the way, I still stand by my statement that the movie is awful, and that I don't need to have seen it to think so. The trailers and synopses I've seen of it are more than enough to convince me.

 

I also can't really say for certain that the above is true, it just seems like it when I compare what you're saying about it to other accounts I've seen of it. I can't honestly discount a confirmation bias being at play here given what you've said about your attitude going in. I'm not defending the movie, just pointing out that we should take your account of how much SJW stuff is actually in the movie with a grain of salt, since you already admitted that you were actively looking for it to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After watching the 2 minute trailer I felt the need to picket a Ben Shapiro speech.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, midniterider said:

After watching the 2 minute trailer I felt the need to picket a Ben Shapiro speech.

 

You SJW cuck you!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fweethawt said:

And that is like Star Wars, how? :twitch:

 

I hope Star Wars had black muslim droids in it or I am going to seriously write bad words on some web forum somewhere. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You SJW cuck you!

 

Hey, did you ever figure out what your main problem is? :)))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

TL;DR: It sounds like you're making it sound worse than it actually is, especially considering you admitted that you were actively looking for it when watching the movie, so there's probably some confirmation bias going on here.

 

As I said above - if you are a hammer then everything is a nail, and this movie is a good example of that.

 

There doesn't seem to be any radical difference in storyline from the last one as CB points out. Robin Hood prince of thieves has Robin save a Moor (Muslim). They embark on a trip back to England and take on the sheriff blah blah.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood:_Prince_of_Thieves

 

Looking for SJW in everything is like looking for god in everything. You'll find it simply because of the way you define it.

 

The problem (Going back to SW) with Rey is not that she's female, its that an untrained person is besting, with no training, a trained dark side warrior. The problem with that admiral is not she's a female with pink hair. It's that she's written poorly, but not as poorly as Hux however who is a total arrogant dunce with the military foresight of a womp rat! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Hey, did you ever figure out what your main problem is? :)))))

 

Nah, and Dude won't tell me to my face. Can't figure out if he's being kind or malevolent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ContraBardus said:

I also can't really say for certain that the above is true, it just seems like it when I compare what you're saying about it to other accounts I've seen of it. I can't honestly discount a confirmation bias being at play here given what you've said about your attitude going in. I'm not defending the movie, just pointing out that we should take your account of how much SJW stuff is actually in the movie with a grain of salt, since you already admitted that you were actively looking for it to begin with.

 

I never said I went into it thinking it would be anything. I went in to watch the new Robin Hood. When it started, I saw that it was simply another ploy like the new Star Wars movies as it continued to unfold. Because of my awareness of the Star Wars movies, I was able to see the plot of Robin Hood unfolding very similar. That's what I'm saying. There was no confirmation bias involved. If you do watch the movie it will probably be more obvious than trying to compare other peoples reviews. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

There doesn't seem to be any radical difference in storyline from the last one as CB points out. Robin Hood prince of thieves has Robin save a Moor (Muslim). They embark on a trip back to England and take on the sheriff blah blah.

 

In this one, Robin is nearly killed by a Moor in combat, and doesn't take him home at all. The Moor secretly stows away on the medical ship back to England. He wasn't saved by Robin Hood. They do take on the sheriff, but due to the Moors plan and he assumes the roll of Little John. I suppose without seeing the movie it will be hard to wrap your mind around plot just on the brief descriptions here in the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I never said I went into it thinking it would be anything. I went in to watch the new Robin Hood. When it started, I saw that it was simply another ploy like the new Star Wars movies as it continued to unfold. Because of my awareness of the Star Wars movies, I was able to see the plot of Robin Hood unfolding very similar. That's what I'm saying. There was no confirmation bias involved. If you do watch the movie it will probably be more obvious than trying to compare other peoples reviews. 

 

Actually, you kind of did:

 

Quote

...By Robin Hood I was focused in on it from the outset. 

 

Again, it's a shitty movie. I just think it sounds like you're reading into it more than you should and are finding extra flaws simply because you're actively looking for them.

 

Though, as I said, that is fueled in part by some elements that are exactly what you're saying they are. I am not saying there is no SJW propaganda going on here, just that from what I've heard, it doesn't drive the movie as much as you're suggesting.

 

It could also be that you're defining SJW as something much broader than I'm used to seeing.

 

I just don't think it's as bad as you're making it sound based on reviews and commentary I've heard from others about it, as well as a spoiler synopses of the film.

 

Though, again, I haven't seen it, and don't plan to. I only have second hand accounts to work with here, but yours seems to be claiming this is a worse problem in the movie than other accounts I've heard. You're the odd one out in regard to claims about how bad the SJW element is, not in regard to whether it is there or not at all, as it definitely is.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I think I should take the severity of your claims with a grain of salt unless I see for myself based on what I've heard about it from other people, and well...

 

YWZw.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

...By Robin Hood I was focused in on it from the outset. 

 

And I explained what that means

 

5 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

I never said I went into it thinking it would be anything. I went in to watch the new Robin Hood. When it started, I saw that it was simply another ploy like the new Star Wars movies as it continued to unfold. Because of my awareness of the Star Wars movies, I was able to see the plot of Robin Hood unfolding very similar. That's what I'm saying. There was no confirmation bias involved. If you do watch the movie it will probably be more obvious than trying to compare other peoples reviews. 

 

Not expecting anything other than the suspense of a new movie. Then hearing, "forget everything you know about history..." Then watching the unfolding of what turned out to be very similar to SJW-Wars. 

 

8 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Again, it's a shitty movie. I just think it sounds like you're reading into it more than you should and are finding extra flaws simply because you're actively looking for them.

 

Again, they're just there for the taking. It is what it is. I wish they weren't there if I had any control of it. It would have made for a better movie. And if I did go in there with some idea of how it would unfold (because I never even saw a trailer) I would have been happy to see something different which ran against any confirmation biases that would have been involved. I don't want the movies to suck. I don't want to waste money on them for the sake of an, "I told you so." 

 

11 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Though, as I said, that is fueled in part by some elements that are exactly what you're saying they are. I am not saying there is no SJW propaganda going on here, just that from what I've heard, it doesn't drive the movie nearly as much as you're suggesting.

 

 

Yes, I get it. I'm not misjudging the film you just don't like the way I've critiqued it here with my opinions. Whether other critics see it that way or not I'm not aware of because I haven't read through all of the reviews. I was a little skeptical about the bad reviews everyone was giving Solo around here before I ever watched it for myself. I more or less liked it when I saw it. Even though I'd watched all of the bad reviews before hand. I did see the points that were being made about SJW content. So I guess that's just a thing now. I still think Solo is an alright prequel. I'm just dealing with what we're being dealt in terms of Star Wars. But I agree with the critics who point out the social marixist and SJW type content. It doesn't stop me from owning the movies though. 

20 minutes ago, ContraBardus said:

Though, again, I haven't seen it, and don't plan to. I only have second hand accounts to work with here, but yours seems to be claiming this is a worse problem in the movie than other accounts I've heard. You're the odd one out in regard to how bad it is, not in regard to whether it is there or not at all, as it definitely is.

 

It's not a problem so much as it's just another case of writers bleeding political narratives of the contemporary period into an age old English classic. I was saying in the OP, heads up, here's another SJW film. Go out and see it for yourselves, see what you think of it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

...Go out and see it for yourselves, see what you think of it.

 

Like I said...

 

MdwU6Pc.gif

YWZw.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I hope Star Wars had black muslim droids in it or I am going to seriously write bad words on some web forum somewhere. :)

 

There is... BB-H8

 

M0bjFXR.jpg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Fweethawt said:

The Meg synopsis - Jason Statham kicks ass of giant shark.

 

What more needs to be said really? 

 

Well....I mean I can make an exception for Jason Statham.... ❤️❤️❤️ 

 

12 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

The other issue is that there is a new culture springing up that rejects anything they don't like in media as "SJW". They are a hammer, and to these people every new movie or TV show seems to be a nail.

 

I can honestly see evidence to support this and I think that's a fair point. My only real comment on that, while there is plenty of truth in what you said, is that I see comments like yours regularly used to dismiss legitimate objections. If it becomes so noticeable that I STOP low-key checking out Ben Swole-o or Boyega and find it MORE worth my time to be actively annoyed at pandering and SHIT acting/plots that's BAD. Lol it gives me PTSD from religious proselytizing.

 

You wanna make like Disney and produce actually diverse movies about other cultures? Great! You wanna stop the "poor maiden needs to be saved by her man so they can fall in love" plot and make awesome movies about things besides romance for princesses? Great! Moana and Coco were pretty fucking dope! Beauty and the Beast and even Frozen had nods to the gay community, which is a good example of changing times but doing so respectfully. They celebrated diversity by placing an interesting plot in cultural context! It was amazing!! But don't approach your casting with a little checklist of what radically liberal college kids (who think they know everything) want to see and think others should see to be "educated." It's hard to describe, but there is a HUGE difference and I can just tell. Even Zootopia, which wasn't even about humans, made me want to vomit it had such a preachy "vibe."

 

Like I said, y'all, it just makes me sad because I like good movies. I feel strongly about this (and politics lol). I am perfectly comfortable letting "white people step out of the limelight" for more "diversity," but make it good shit! GIVE ME COCO, GODDAMNIT. Sometimes, I want to jump up and down and holler "You guys are doing the same thing as Christians; trying to convince us we have all these "problems" for which we need social justice!!" I get it, I'm white. But sometimes, you (generic you) and I have can agree on a problem and disagree vehemently on how to fix it. That's why I get mad. Because I can so clearly see the biased feedback loops that BOTH SIDES have created and it makes it hell for moderate, libertarianish types like me who see the problems both sides have and disagree with both on how to approach it. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why all the fuss? The movie is a fictional story and a capitalist venture to make money. It's not exactly a "Birth of a Nation" or "Brokeback Mountain" or even "Song of the South." It hits the target or it doesn't. It's not a liberal plot. No need to get triggered. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, florduh said:

Why all the fuss? The movie is a fictional story and a capitalist venture to make money. It's not exactly a "Birth of a Nation" or "Brokeback Mountain" or even "Song of the South." It hits the target or it doesn't. It's not a liberal plot. No need to get triggered. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner!!!

 

Don't fuss-shame me, Florduh, I shall fuss if I so choose. :P x'D I bitch about the church for the same reason I bitch about lame, preachy movies. Why all the fuss about fussing, hmm?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I wanna see Coco...

 

... and I don't even know wtf it is.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in the next Robin Hood movie, Robin will be a black gay transexual woman, Friar Tuck will be an atheist, the villain will be Exxon Corp, and the Merry Men/Women will be students from Ohio State.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, midniterider said:

Maybe in the next Robin Hood movie, Robin will be a black gay transexual woman, Friar Tuck will be an atheist, the villain will be Exxon Corp, and the Merry Men/Women will be students from Ohio State.

 

A gay transsexual woman....I feel like that's just normal straight with some kinky shit thrown in, but what do I know these days. :P I'd go see an atheist Friar Tuck in heartbeat though. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they should go overboard on this but I remain outraged until I see a classic movie remake featuring a Native American/Asian transsexual dwarf in a wheelchair quoting L. Ron Hubbard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, midniterider said:

Maybe in the next Robin Hood movie, Robin will be a black gay transexual woman

 

And a combined character, going by the name of:

 

7 hours ago, midniterider said:

Friar Tuck

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

A gay transsexual woman....I feel like that's just normal straight with some kinky shit thrown in, but what do I know these days. :P I'd go see an atheist Friar Tuck in heartbeat though. xD

 

That depends, is she a man that identifies as a woman, or a woman that identifies as a man? Should I assume the proper pronoun is being used here or not?

 

If she's gay, does that mean she prefers men or women? As a trans, would she prefer trans men or women or non-trans men or women?

 

I don't know what this would be, and can't assume that someone describing it isn't just making assumptions about their gender, or preference, or is mislabeling them, or properly labeling them but in a wrong and entitled manner, or labeling something adjacent to them in a way that misrepresents and properly represents their identity at the same time.

 

What would this be exactly? I'm afraid to identify it.

 

Moving on to a safer subject...

 

If Friar Tuck is an Atheist, he's not a Friar. He'd just be Mr. Tuck.

 

Well, that was easy.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina. But sometimes boys have a vagina, except they really have a penis like Bruce Jenner still does but we can't call him Bruce because that would be dead-naming.

 

All of this stuff is and has been an old and tired subject to me. I feel sorry for the mentally unstable and the otherly horny, but I can't play the game anymore. It isn't very funny anymore.

 

God or no God, if the world keeps going down the road towards total retard, what can I do about it?  Nothing? That's fine with me because by the time the world goes down the black hole to Hell what's left of my loved ones will either be dead already or staring at their phones while their world ends and they won't know the difference.

 

Oh wait! To stay on topic I have to say that I couldn't be bothered to give a shit about any Pedowood Hollywood remake. There are how many Spidermans now?  How many Batmans? How many stories retold that are worse than the originals? Lots.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.