Post: #126

(06-21-2018 03:21 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  I'm only two episodes into 'The Alienist' (Netflix) and it's pissing me off already.

I was intrigued that it heavily featured a young Theodore Roosevelt during his role as New York Police Commissioner. Unfortunately, they got him all wrong in my opinion; he was just too passive and quiet for my liking. Teddy would have been all over the investigation in real life and nobody else would have got a word in edgeways.

But now to the enforced diversity. Dakota Fanning plays 'the first woman police officer' or something. This is mentioned virtually every-time the character is on-screen. She is subjected to constant sexual abuse apparently and is just a miserable pain in the arse to everyone she meets. She plays the type of harpy whereby you can't even say a simple 'good morning' to without getting a lecture about 'the Patriarchy'.

I was firmly under the impression from marketing etc that her character was a real historical figure. But is she fuck;

.... the same interview, "Manhattan at that time was a melting pot of culture (all Western culture) and religion (all Christian religion - you just had Catholics and protestants of all fibers - with a drop of Chinese - close to none others - Muslims were banned entry) and races (nope - almost all Whites, even Indians got deported, there were small numbers of Chinese), and I think to honor the book and to honor Caleb Carr’s authenticity was part of the draw to the production, to make it as real as possible."[/i]


Yeah, I forgot to say the show is all about underage trannies. So far, the show is garbage, far inferior to the similarly themed Mindhunter.

Male trannies? Transvestites were known in all ages, but they were a subculture of gays and male prostitutes were only for gays.

It's all propaganda in our times - they are likely redrawing history making NYC look far more "diverse" than it truly was. The BBC made 17th century London 30% black - those psycho-fuckers.

And cops in the field were clearly retarded to use - everyone knew that even if they were detectives. But it was not such a terrible "misogynist" time - there were female scientists, doctors and lawyers - they were just very few of them. Being proud of female cops is like being proud of frontline soldiers who get to be sent in first into WWI.

Post: #127

I've just watched 'The Darkest Hour'. Can't believe that con-man Oldman bagged an oscar for this crap. I might stick a review on the movie thread later about how utterly shit this film was. Incidentally, if you want to see a 'good' Churchill performance watch John Lithgow in The Crown. A 6ft 5" American made a far more convincing Churchill than the inexplicably overrated Gary Oldman did here.

It was already a poor film, when it got to this scene and the film was transformed from 'average' to 'shit' instantly;

---------
(Scene Description);

Churchill gets guilt-pangs that he's out of touch with Londoners during the war so he gets out of his taxi and takes a London Underground train to meet up with the common folk and sing Kum-Ba-Yah with them.

The useless film-makers immediately have him make a bee-line for the only black man on the train whom he proceeds to become best pals with and swap poetry recitations together. Not even kidding about the poetry, the black man just happens to be the only one on the train that can complete Churchill's rendition of McCauley's 'Then Out Spake Brave Horatius ...'
------------

This scene was one of the schmaltziest, cringiest, most condescending things I've ever seen in a lifetime of watching movies. Being White, I felt insulted, but if I were Black I'd be disgusted. Churchill was patting him on the shoulder like they were best mates and at one point I thought they were going to start rapping together.

Up until then, I'd been under the impression that the film was attempting to be a faithful representation of events during this important period in British history. This train scene was so jarring that I just knew there was something wrong with it, so I duck-duck-go'd it and sure e-fucking-nuff;

Quote:Walking away from director Joe Wright's Darkest Hour, there is one scene in particular that truly sticks with you. On the advice of King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn), Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman) makes the decision to let the voice of the people guide his decisions at a crucial moment, seeking their opinions while taking a ride on the London Underground. It's a powerful moment in the movie that showcases the remarkable strength of the British people during a perilous time in history... but the truth is that the events in real life didn't exactly happen as they are portrayed. Wright recently told me,

We tried to be as accurate as possible, basically. And especially in the positions taken by the various characters - Halifax, Chamberlin, those kind of characters. I didn't want to misrepresent them, or slander them really, especially because they can't answer back. But then there are scenes in the movie, like the Underground scene for instance, which is a fictionalization of an "emotional truth," as you put it. Churchill was known to go AWOL at times, no one could find him. They didn't know where he went. And he was also known to go and visit the people of London and seek their counsel, and have a little cry with them sometimes. So you have to be very careful with all that stuff.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1731500...ills-us-in

They know full well that most of the plebs out there only get their history from movies like this (that they feel obliged to see on account of the pre-arranged oscar talk) and as such they view everything they see as being the gospel truth.

So what I guess they are saying, is that Churchill and Britain only decided to fight the Nazis and ultimately win WW2 (rather than discuss peace terms), because of his serendipitous meeting on a train with London's only black man at the time. Outstanding. And this garbage passes for 'high-cinema' these days?! You can keep it, I might as well have watched The Rock jump off skyscrapers.

Post: #128

Notice the technique though.

All it takes is just ONE little crack of ambiguity and they fill that crack with their own fetid bullshit.

Post: #129

Here's another movie I won't be paying to watch at the cinema/and/or buy on 4k Blu-Ray (saving me approx £40 ($50));

'Mary Queen of Scots'

I saw the trailer for this one some time ago and immediately spat out my tea at the girl-power and historically inaccurate (lying) diversity in the cast;



I recognised Adrian Lester from being on British tv a while ago, so I was curious to see exactly which black man he was meant to be playing in an English Tudor court. For weeks now, he's been the only name on IMDB who didn't have a role assigned to him! I guess, they just waited till the last minute, but now it's been announced that he'll be playing 'Lord Thomas Randolph', ambassador to Mary Queen of Scots.

Well, it's no surprise that Lord Randolph wasn't black. Not that they care;


https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/mary-que...urate.html

Quote:The film, which is written by Beau Willimon (“House of Cards”) and based on a book by John Guy, stars Saoirse Ronan in the titular role as Mary Stuart and Margot Robbie as her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. It also showcases a number of actors of color in prominent roles in both Mary’s and Elizabeth’s courts, including decorated Shakespearean actor Adrian Lester, who is black; he portrays Elizabeth’s ambassador to the Scottish court, Lord Thomas Randolph.

Rourke told TheWrap that colorblind casting a period drama was important to her, because of the many years black and other people of color were left out of such portrayals and films.

“I was really clear, I would not direct an all-white period drama,” Rourke said. “Adrian, who plays, Lord Randolph, grew up 40 miles from the birthplace of William Shakespeare; he is one of our eminent Shakespearean actors. I needed to cast an ambassador who could move between the two courts and help this make sense. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t cast him.”

There were people of color in England during that time. According to the U.K. national archives, Elizabeth would have employed black servants and musicians, and even had a black chambermaid, though seeing a person of color as high up as Lord Randolph would have been improbable. Rourke said, however, that she didn’t see any reason that these actors couldn’t play these prominent roles in “Mary Queen of Scots.”

The almost comically white Bess of Hardwick's family may be surprised to find that their famous ancestor was actually Chinese!

Bess of Hardwick (Actual);




The new cultural marxist version as played by Gemma Chan (WB by the way);





Honestly, at this point is even worth attaching any historical value at all to these movies?! At what point does it just become fantasy?

EDIT: For fuck's sake! This just gets worse when you read the reviews for the fucking film. Hilariously predictable 'review' from the New York Times;

Quote:History has generally treated Mary as a villain, and “Mary Queen of Scots” seeks both to revise this judgment and to examine its sources in misogyny, nationalism and bigotry.

Wow. That's all the bad words, right there.

The same rag finds the movie to be 'enjoyably anachronistic'. Yeah, I bet you do. The rag goes on to describe 'Mary’s declarations of tolerance — for foreigners, sexual nonconformists and freethinkers'

The writer of this 'review', A.O.Scott ('yes', no need to google by the way) was ready for my posting on rvf it seems;

Quote:No doubt the usual pedantic fact-checking (he means me) will follow the release of “Mary Queen of Scots.” I have neither the expertise (no, you don't) nor the temperament for such an exercise, and I admire the audacity and intelligence of the performers and the filmmakers in pursuing a vigorous and provocative historical fiction, even one that doesn’t entirely work.

Post: #130

(11-28-2018 11:35 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  



I highly encourage you to find the time to watch the Battlefield V: Inclusive Revisionism video whether you play video games or not. This is important to see just how far and deep propaganda runs. They literally rewrote real conflicts, missions, battles of WWII to prop up women and minorities and vilify white men. I see my fair share of ill shit from SJWs, the left, PC culture, ect ect.... however this really really struck a nerve with me.

Post: #131

not from true stories, but clearly added for diversity:

I started watching Ozark last week. 3 episodes in, the two FBI agents in charge of the investigation are revealed to be ex-boyfriends (one is black, of course; the other is, appropriately, a psychopath). and not only that, but they make sure to show us the white sodomite getting a blowjob and gagging a male prostitute (if they went any further would be full blown porn). what the fuck is wrong with these people? why do they have to insert sodomites into everything? the agents could have been the same exact characters without us knowing anything about their sexual proclivities. but of course not, gotta jam that sodomy pill down everyone's throats.

sick.

Post: #132

I noticed that before I canned my Neflix account a while back.

Like an idiot I kept waiting for that assumed point at which you find out why those various additions become relevant.

"Ah, the gay character has a highly conservative priest for a father and he must hide his gayness."

"Oh. The black character in this Icelandic setting married a local girl on holiday, but she died under mysterious circumstances and he remained there to find her killer despite being an obvious outsider."

Many episodes later its "nope, it's just obligatory gay sex and diversity casting".

Post: #133

Following up on my last post about Ozark. right away on episodes 4 and 5, they set up and deliver yet another progressive cliché:

The white sodomite is undercover in the small town, and to further his investigation pretends to befriend an ex-con redneck that is involved, if only tangentially, with the main character. He does this by offering the guy money to show him fly-fishing spots. redneck accepts.

At one point while fishing, he mentions he dated a 'total psychopath' (he's the actual psychopath, whereas the black guy plays the fictional 'normal gay'), to which the redneck says 'well, I hope that she was at least hot' or something of the sort, to which the sodomite replies 'it was a he, not a she'. redneck is taken aback, disgusted and sort of scared. 'don't worry, I only fuck men that want to be fucked', says the noble sodomite, trying to break down social taboos among the backward savages. end of scene.

Later, in the redneck's backyard, the sodomite offers him more money to show him other spots for fishing. Being the raging homophobe that he is, declines with prejudice. His cousin, who listened to the conversation, asks him why he didn't take the money, to which the redneck replies 'he's a fucking faggot'.

Next episode, the redneck ends up seeking out the sodomite to accept his offer. I knew where this was going immediately. We would be presented with the age-old fantasy of classic leftist projection, that every homophobe is just a closeted homo, and all that anger and disgust would vanish if they simply 'accepted themselves as they are'.

I just didn't think it would play out so fast and so in your face. Within the same episode, we see the sodomite try to kiss the redneck, earning him a beating, and then, 5 or so minutes later in the show, the redneck showing up at the sodomite's house for some sodomy. It's the fastest I've seen this cliché displayed. But there you go, another diversity addition to a show that does exactly nothing to advance, or is at all related to, the plot.

I will also add this about the show, and while I haven't watched many recent shows it seems to be a trend with the ones I have watched (either entirely or partially): all characters (other than, maybe, the children) are morally reprehensible in all sorts of ways, you cannot feel sympathy when bad stuff happens to them or empathize with their dillemas; or, as is the case with the pastor, they are good natured and well intentioned but naive and helpless idiots. This, I believe, is to convey the idea that acting morally is a sort of mental deficiency, that 'enlightened' people are above basic ethical behaviour, not because they can get away with it, but even if they don't - it's just something 'smart' and 'interesting' people do. If you are a decent person, have a wife you don't cheat on, treat others with respect, tell the truth, work hard and don't steal, etc, you are, by necessity, intellectually inferior and also boring as hell. Because if you weren't, you would cut corners and do whatever you want with no regards for others, like all the 'enlightened' people do.

Post: #134

Netflix takes the cake in this.

The remake of dynasty from the 80s is one example. But they take it one step further. They made being white a negative. With the cheap comments like "old white man". Why not say old man. Stuff like that. Yes the Main family is white. A lot of this other stuff is unnecessary.

they like to push the gay agenda in ozark and el chapó.

Post: #135

Ozark season two is garbage by the way.

Post: #136

(03-13-2018 09:00 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  You guys still watch films and tv series? Why?

... right? I started tuning out around 2013-14 as shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Boardwalk Empire started to wind down. 2014 might be the last good year for movies that I recall (Whiplash, Nightcrawler, and Gravity wasn't bad despite its woman astronaut premise). Even quality series like Black Mirror don't quite do it for me anymore (and I loved the first two seasons).

I cancelled my Netflix a long time ago but occasionally watch using someone else's and holy fuck I just do not have the attention span for any of it. Everything seems either predictable, boring, unoriginal, or as the OP points out, SJW propaganda disguised as entertainment. Is this just a kind of black-pilling?

Also, this South Park episode comes to mind. Everything seems like utter shit. I remember watching it when it aired and fully empathizing with Stan.

Post: #137

(12-15-2018 11:14 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 09:00 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  You guys still watch films and tv series? Why?

... right? I started tuning out around 2013-14 as shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Boardwalk Empire started to wind down. 2014 might be the last good year for movies that I recall (Whiplash, Nightcrawler, and Gravity wasn't bad despite its woman astronaut premise). Even quality series like Black Mirror don't quite do it for me anymore (and I loved the first two seasons).

I cancelled my Netflix a long time ago but occasionally watch using someone else's and holy fuck I just do not have the attention span for any of it. Everything seems either predictable, boring, unoriginal, or as the OP points out, SJW propaganda disguised as entertainment. Is this just a kind of black-pilling?

Also, this South Park episode comes to mind. Everything seems like utter shit. I remember watching it when it aired and fully empathizing with Stan.

Except - it's not because of generations thinking that other generations' music is crap because of age differences.

What you have now are movies which are just marxist propaganda - they twist and turn even plot points to adhere to that. The comparison is more Soviet or North Korean propaganda movies.





"Was there a time we were fighting without diversity?"
"Diversity was always with us."
"Oh great leader of diversity, thank you for your progressive wisdom!"

I stopped watching the crap. The only TV series I watch is Goblin Hunter, One Punch Man and Rising of the Shield Hero. I can live with raping and killing goblins, funny world building around a humble God-powered superhero and about a fantasy hero who struggles under a false rape accusation At least the Japanese don't have enough "fellow Japanese people" dominating their entertainment. They get the same marching orders from the globalist bankers, but somehow it does not make it down to the fiction production departments.

Post: #138

Tarzan.

Post: #139

Captain Marvel is the ultimate diversity SJW character - the same goes for the MaRey Sue from Star Wars:





I like this guys views on the comic world since he read them more than I did in the 1980s and 1990s as a kid. I fully agree with his take on things and he lists well the reasons for all of it. It's funny that supposed racial divisions don't exist among the real comic/video games fans. We like good stories and characters and we all hate badly written ones regardless of background.