|
Lt. Danger posted:Valentine is an old, bespectacled nerd with a lisp; he's effete. He's not a scary black man, you racist. quote:Obama is the current American president. Who else are they going to use, a resurrected Nixon?
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So just a generic white guy as presdient is impossible? What do you have against black people as American presidents? I suppose a white guy with Bill Clinton's accent would have been OK, considering he was the first black president.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Its Samuel L. freaking Jackson. You think they hired him by complete accident? "poo poo, I meant to hire Laurence Fishburne. Oh well, Mr. Jackson has already been on set, lets just keep going with this." Yeah, it's a nice piece of casting. Like casting Henry Fonda as a cold blooded killer in "Once Upon a Time in the West"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Where the film lets itself down most is in Eggsy's transformation into upper-class Galahad at the end, when instead he should have (for example) been able to switch between working-class and upper-class modes at will. But doesn't he? He still does the chav thingy and he breaks character when the princess suggests buggery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I don't think (leftist) anarchism has much in common with bourgeois leftish liberalism, so it shouldn't necessarily be a surprise that the film disapproves of middle-class: global warming activists; academics with esoteric ideologies; the American Democratic Party, etc. Where the film lets itself down most is in Eggsy's transformation into upper-class Galahad at the end, when instead he should have (for example) been able to switch between working-class and upper-class modes at will. He does though. He's still swearing like a dock worker at the end of it. He is the best of both worlds, and he isn't in denial like Michael Caine's character was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:But doesn't he? He still does the chav thingy and he breaks character when the princess suggests buggery. But is it really breaking character for a chav to engage in buggery?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Its Samuel L. freaking Jackson. You think they hired him by complete accident? "poo poo, I meant to hire Laurence Fishburne. Oh well, Mr. Jackson has already been on set, lets just keep going with this." Is a character who vomits at the sight of blood a scary person? Jackson is playing against type specifically for meta-humour, not because Valentine and the Samuel L Jackson 'persona' are similar. I think "scary black man" has specific socioeconomic connotations which Samuel L Jackson doesn't meet in this film. In fact he embodies pretty much the opposite of what is meant by "scary black man." quote:He does though. He's still swearing like a dock worker at the end of it. He is the best of both worlds, and he isn't in denial like Michael Caine's character was. Swearing isn't a class thing though (unless you're middle-class)? I'm thinking specifically of the final scene in the pub, where he's completed adopted the mode and manner of Colin Firth, down to the words he uses. Maybe I'm misremembering but it's a scene that shows his transformation as complete - and the finished article is an aristocrat. He's left his old life behind him and wants his mum to come with him too. The implication is clear: a hero wears a suit, not trackie bottoms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Is a character who vomits at the sight of blood a scary person? Jackson is playing against type specifically for meta-humour, not because Valentine and the Samuel L Jackson 'persona' are similar. You could also read it as maturity. That accent and voice is the product of education, not breeding, and the film makes that point more than once. He's finally an adult, confronting the man-children who are in a state of arrested development. Or, it's not that he's adopted the guise of an aristocrat, but Galahad himself, his mentor. Galahad is quite specifically and emphatically not a snob. Plus, suits are better than track pants. This is a fact. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Is a character who vomits at the sight of blood a scary person? Jackson is playing against type specifically for meta-humour, not because Valentine and the Samuel L Jackson 'persona' are similar. What could possibly be scarier than a genocidal black man? An "angry black man"? Snowman_McK posted:You could also read it as maturity. That accent and voice is the product of education, not breeding, and the film makes that point more than once. He's finally an adult, confronting the man-children who are in a state of arrested development. The film also makes the point that adults who are well educated are also willing to genocide pretty much the entire human species. I'm not entirely sure that there is a legitimate lesson to be learned from this film. I also don't know what killing a companion that trusts you completely is meant to prove (even if there were blanks in the gun). Unless the goal was to get Eggy to shoot at the guy that commanded him to do so. I mean, if a reason had been given, maybe I could understand it a little more, but telling someone to shoot a dog he had been tending to for years seems a little bizarre. And I'm saying years because there's no way someone could become that competent in a matter of days or months. Jakcson fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:The film also makes the point that adults who are well educated are also willing to genocide pretty much the entire human species. quote:I'm not entirely sure that there is a legitimate lesson to be learned from this film. quote:I also don't know what killing a companion that trusts you completely is meant to prove (even if there were blanks in the gun). Unless the goal was to get Eggy to shoot at the guy that commanded him to do so. I mean, if a reason had been given, maybe I could understand it a little more, but telling someone to shoot a dog he had been tending to for years seems a little bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:I also don't know what killing a companion that trusts you completely is meant to prove (even if there were blanks in the gun). Unless the goal was to get Eggy to shoot at the guy that commanded him to do so. I mean, if a reason had been given, maybe I could understand it a little more, but telling someone to shoot a dog he had been tending to for years seems a little bizarre. And I'm saying years because there's no way someone could become that competent in a matter of days or months. The PURPOSE of the test is pretty clear: you demonstrate your loyalty to your superiors and the Kingsmen by doing what is required of you, even if it means going against your own personal feelings. You show that you are trusting that the organization as a whole is good. That trust, of course, would subsequently be rewarded since the gun held blanks. However, Eggsy refused to pull the trigger, and that turns out to be the right choice - after all, his superiors turn out to not be morally superior, with Arthur actually joining the 'bad guys'. The test itself seems strange because the whole "put your conscience aside and do as your told" motif is something bad guys usually require of their minions - not good guys. That's why it seems strange for the Kingsmen test to be passed only when you do this. But it's also the fact that Eggsy doesn't go for it that makes him a 'good guy' to the audience. Soul Reaver fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Soul Reaver posted:The PURPOSE of the test is pretty clear: you demonstrate your loyalty to your superiors and the Kingsmen by doing what is required of you, even if it means going against your own personal feelings. You show that you are trusting that the organization as a whole is good. That trust, of course, would subsequently be rewarded since the gun held blanks. So it's basically this kind of test? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_eSwq1ewsU
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:But is it really breaking character for a chav to engage in buggery? On the other hand, would a gentleman disregard the wishes of a princess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the other hand, would a gentleman disregard the wishes of a princess? If he didn't want to get hepatitis or GRID... yes. Do gentlemen really think vaginas are icky? Jakcson fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:So it's basically this kind of test? More like this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cSFyZOfy6U&t=188s Supposedly, the SS used to raise German Shepards from puppy to grown dog as part of their training and killing them. It started getting attributed to almost every special forces unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Supposedly, the SS used to raise German Shepards from puppy to grown dog as part of their training and killing them. It started getting attributed to almost every special forces unit. This is actually a lie spread by Soviet propagandists. What really happened was that the SS were required to rip apart a Jewish baby with their bare hands as part of their training, tan the skin with baby brains, and stitch together a wallet using the entrails and shattered bones, and they always kept this wallet with them throughout their careers, so they would always remember how far they were willing to go for the Master Race. Which is nowhere near as bad as how during WW II, American Marines were known to eat living Japanese babies and store the blood of Japanese women in their canteens, as they loved the taste of human flesh. Jakcson fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:If he didn't want to get hepatitis or GRID... yes. He was quite happy about the royal vagina, but then he went and saved the world. Actions have consequences and he was forced into risky behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:If he didn't want to get hepatitis or GRID... yes. Of all the people who are likely to give you hepatitis or HIV, a Swedish princess is not at the top of the list. Also, a true gentleman never suggests anal, but never refuses it when offered. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:What could possibly be scarier than a genocidal black man? I'm not really sure of your point. Jackson's race seems largely incidental to his character, which strikes me as exactly what you'd want in any character, to not be defined by a racial attribute. The fact that he is playing against type, a mirror to Colin Firth who is doing the same, just adds some extra juice to the steak that is this film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
Ah, I see the thread has independently arrived at my highly regarded "anal gentleman" theory,
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:What could possibly be scarier than a genocidal black man? In the eyes of many white middle-class Americans, yes. "Scary black man" is a particular racist archetype and it's incorrect to say Valentine is a scary black man when he isn't. He's very specifically a Steve Jobs figure, not a criminal/politically radical, physically/socially/sexually intimidating, loud and angry lower-class black American who might drive down house prices, sleep with your daughter and be upset about hundreds of years of racism and slavery. What's interesting is Gazelle appears to be a Hispanic domestic servant. Eggsy : Galahad :: Gazelle : Valentine? Working-class commandos facing off against one another at the behest of their upper-class overlords - one version American, one British?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:What's interesting is Gazelle appears to be a Hispanic domestic servant. Eggsy : Galahad :: Gazelle : Valentine? Working-class commandos facing off against one another at the behest of their upper-class overlords - one version American, one British? If she's the same as her actor, then she'd actually be Algerian - which can still work, being a former colonial territory and thus often seen as being 'behind' western nations. Valentine may have provided her a rare opportunity for some work, and really, who'd pass up on high power cyborg legs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:In the eyes of many white middle-class Americans, yes. You really don't think it is scary when a black man attempts to genocide the entire human race?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:You really don't think it is scary when a black man attempts to genocide the entire human race? "Scary black man" was originally invoked in reference to the racist conservative archetype, which has little to do with genocide. It doesn't mean 'a black man who is scary'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:You really don't think it is scary when a black man attempts to genocide the entire human race? I'd think it would be scary if any person of any race attempted to genocide the entire human race hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:
Username post combooooooooooo 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:You really don't think it is scary when a black man attempts to genocide the entire human race? What if I told you that actually, it's cool and good
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Jonny Angel posted:What if I told you that actually, it's cool and good And I would respond by yawning and posting about how I'm yawning in response to your post. It just wasn't edgy enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
quote:SCARY BLACK MEN The future of movie casting: quote:Wanted: accomplished actor to play the antagonist in a multimilliondollar blockbuster. In line with our deep commitment to social justice, and owing to the fact that to ever cast one as the villain would be to stereotype them, negroes need not apply. Kingsman was one of the most genuinely fun movies I've been to in years, and probably the one that made me laugh longest, and loudest. I was a fan of the comic when it was released, and while the film isn't a 1:1 adaptation it captures enough of the spirit while filing off enough of Millar's rough edges to make it something that I'm actually considering seeing in the theater twice. The Church scene is such a beautiful ballet of violence, and all-in-all it straddles the line between tongue-in-cheek self-awareness and outright farce wonderfully. Breetai fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Mar 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
I'm just going to put the kibosh on this right now, if you think Samuel L. Jackson's character is a scary black man solely because he is both the film's villain and also black, you're more racist than the movie was. This is a really stupid debate to be having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
*On screen an effete man in a pink shirt lisps his way from scene to scene: serving McDonald's to guests with a childlike spirit, swooning at the sight of blood, and approaching the violent aspects of his role with comedic gingerness* CineD poster: "BY JOVE! The terrifying barbarism of this tribesman truly knows no bounds! I had thought this race of people's savagery to be a noble one, however I'll not make that mistake again lest I eat my pith helmet!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Breetai posted:*On screen an effete man in a pink shirt lisps his way from scene to scene: serving McDonald's to guests with a childlike spirit, swooning at the sight of blood, and approaching the violent aspects of his role with comedic gingerness* If Michael Jackson had played the same role, I would have considered him to be a scary white man. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
He's not a scary black man, but he is an effeminate environmental liberal elitist- among 1% figures he's definitely coded closer to Soros or Gates than Koch or Murdoch. (The idea that environmental policies are the first step to cullings and feudalism is kinda common.) The central "class vs conduct" theme- trying to reclaim manners and aesthetics from caste- was well done but then you had goofy "political satire" like the church full of howling bigots. I guess that's so you won't feel too bad when Colin Firth kills them all but it's so out of place. I like the bits that feel like a modern Avengers episode but the "edgier" stuff doesn't quite fit, and some bits of the story feel underserved (like the theoretical female lead who feels like she had more to do in the script or the comic). A little sloppy, but I will give it points for Colin Firth as John Steed / Obi-Wan Kenobi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Just came from the screening, didn't know anything about it beforehand except for having seen a trailer once. Thought it had so much going on for it: great cast, good writing and directing, interesting theme, sharp editing, BEST FIGHT SEQUENCE CINEMATOGRAPHY/EDITING I HAD EVER SEEN, great and memorable sequences all around.... but really went off track in the third act. Mainly, the fights with absolutely useless stormtroopers in the end had no gravitas, it felt like some FPS endgame filler. They even winged the technology such as missile technology of all sorts, it just felt cheap and rushed. The anal sex stuff was wrong and out of place in the context of the rest of the movie. Good movie, which is a shame, because it came so close to being great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
pigdog posted:The anal sex stuff was wrong and out of place in the context of the rest of the movie. I don't see how you can really say this. Kingsman is pretty blatantly a nod to the bond films of earlier generations, films where the gentleman hero always gets the girl. The film takes this concept to the same over the top conclusion as it does everything else, making her a nordic princess seriously lacking in inhibitions, while also throwing in the more racy elements that modern cinema gets away with. The whole scene is a tongue in cheek "This is what Bond always classily cut away from, but this isn't a Bond film bitches" spoof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Caros posted:I don't see how you can really say this. Kingsman is pretty blatantly a nod to the bond films of earlier generations, films where the gentleman hero always gets the girl. The film takes this concept to the same over the top conclusion as it does everything else, making her a nordic princess seriously lacking in inhibitions, while also throwing in the more racy elements that modern cinema gets away with. The whole scene is a tongue in cheek "This is what Bond always classily cut away from, but this isn't a Bond film bitches" spoof. Exactly! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQaNZ1KKehs
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
I loved the "Colorful bad guy" line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I took the princess-related scene at the end was that Hey, a beautiful woman promised me sex if I saved the world, I wound up saving the world. Having sex with a beautiful woman is more fun than not having sex with a beautiful woman, so I'm going to do it. It would have been awkward/uncomfortable if the movie played up a romantic angle with whats-her-face, but they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I took the princess-related scene at the end was that Hey, a beautiful woman promised me sex if I saved the world, I wound up saving the world. Having sex with a beautiful woman is more fun than not having sex with a beautiful woman, so I'm going to do it. That is the character's logic. But the character is not a real person - this is not a documentary, this did not actually happen. So the more interesting issue is why the screenwriter/director/everyone involved created this scenario. That is what the discussion is about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Loved: Killing a bunch of religious zealots in the South Yesssssssssss. The girl with the blade legs. Holy poo poo she was gorgeous and a fun character. Where did she come from? SLJ lines: "What the gently caress?!" When stuff wasn't going as planned. Did I mention the killing the zealots in the South yet? Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people. "The honor is not in being being better than your lessors, but better than who you were before" Colin Firth Your Head Asplode A butt at the end Didn't like: He was still a dickhead at the end of the movie  "Are we going to stand around or are we going to fight?" Did he learn NOTHING?I like butts, but come on, it was over the top and silly and otherwise marred a good movie. We get it, he wins. The baby crying in the bathroom. That was sad and I knew she was gonna be OK but it was still scary.  The blade leg girl dying that way. Laaaaame. She was too hot/skilled to go out to POISON. Ah well. Ultimately a fun movie and would definitely recommend!
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2015 21:45
|
|