RED TAILS Discussion - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barkatthemoon 

Saw a new TV spot today. They finally done gone and went full hip hop with the advertising. It was only a matter of time.

seriously....W T F !!

does a historical (?) film like this really need to be marketed in this way to get people to go see it?

If it's the same ad I saw, what exactly is hip hop about it? Are you referring to the music? Because that's not hip hop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

If it's the same ad I saw, what exactly is hip hop about it? Are you referring to the music? Because that's not hip hop.

while it's true that the 'new' music isn't "hip hop", the overall point is the same...it strikes me as nothing more than a cheap marketing ploy to make the film appear to be something it isn't (shouldn't be?).

below is the commercial in question (quality is not great but it was the first version that I could find)

I do realize that this isn't the first time that hollywood has tried to tried to manipulate the actual 'feeling' of a film but in this case, it seems really out of place. Watch the original trailer...it has a much more epic and historical feel to it...which IMO, it should have.

That being said, I am extremely wary of anything that Lucas is involved in these days.

edit to add- IF, and that's a big IF, this new commercial were to have the effect of getting more people to go see the movie and encourage people to read and learn more about the topic at hand (Tuskegee Airmen, WW2 history) , maybe it's done it's job?

Who cares? It's not as if people are going to watch the ad, listen to the music but not notice the WWII era planes and dogfights. And if they do, then they're probably too stupid to go see this in the first place. Bitching about ads is so ridiculous because virtually ever ad (not just for movies) is deceptive. The fucking ads for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy were deceptive to some degree. 

Not hip-hop.  DUBSTEP.

I remember TV spots for Starship Troopers making heavy use of Blur's Song 2.  

When my friend and I finally saw the movie, he asked, "Where was the song!?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

Bitching about ads is so ridiculous because virtually ever ad (not just for movies) is deceptive. 

Deceptive would be if the movie turns out to be halfway decent. Because the trailers make this look like ass. CG ass, but ass. 

I was gonna comment about how ridiculous and lame that commercial is but then I remembered how much I loved the NIN 300 trailer.

So I'll just shut up, let the youngsters have their dubstep and be old in the corner.

Gotta say, I'm probably in the bag for this one.  The trailer did a fantastic job of showcasing the visuals as well as the crap dialogue ("Take that, Mr. Hitler!").   I'll be checking this out, most likely.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I remember TV spots for Starship Troopers making heavy use of Blur's Song 2.  

 

When my friend and I finally saw the movie, he asked, "Where was the song!?"

Riiiiiight Nooj. "Your friend" asked where the song was.

(cue Shyamalan-esque third act montage of the reality of past scenes)

GASP!!!

I HAD NO FRIENDS!!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

I was gonna comment about how ridiculous and lame that commercial is but then I remembered how much I loved the NIN 300 trailer.

 

So I'll just shut up, let the youngsters have their dubstep and be old in the corner.

I'm looking forward to seeing this, and I still have no freaking clue what dudstep is.

Dubstep!
 

It's actually not half-bad. Probably better suited for TV viewing, though.

I am glad to see I was not the only one to have seen the ad and thought it was curious that a movie set in World War II would use a dubstep song during the commercial and have a title displayed that looks 80's-riffic to me with the font and the bright red.

By the way, dubstep is a music genre from London that is based off of dance music and has a lot of bass to it, to oversimplify things. It's been around for awhile but has become more popular in the last year.

To me, while the producer has me wary, the story is interesting and hopefully the film is not a failed attempt at telling that story; I'm hoping for more than just dogfights that hopefully are bitching.

Saying that makes me sound not that intelligent compared to the racial discussion that happened on the first page, but I have nothing to add to that line of dialogue. 

Has anyone here seen the 1995 HBO 'version' of this movie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tuskegee_Airmen

Hey, this movie is co-directed by George Lucas.

Like, half of it:

'I love dogfights and I know how to do them," he says. "I told Anthony, 'You worry about the actors and the story on the ground, and I'll worry about the one hour we're in the air'

...from an article from USA Today.

Other interesting quotes:

'I have only one agenda, and that's for a lot of young people to see this movie," says Lucas, who adds that corporations already have signed on to sponsor screenings at schools. "I think kids who see this, be they black or white, will walk out thinking (the Airmen) were cool'

...which makes sense of the Hip Hop in the commercials, I guess.

''My girlfriend is black, and I've learned a lot about racism including the fact that it hasn't gone away, especially in American business," Lucas says. "But on a social level there's less prejudice than there was. So I figured, let's put another hero up there." He notes that the Airmen were largely college-educated and after the war many went on to become captains"These guys are part of American history, not a side note''

Not only did Lucas pretty much do all the CG-related stuff (since he practically INVENTED all the gizmos they were using), but when they did extensive reshoots, Anthony Hemmingway was on Treme, so George Lucas directed them. So, hey, maybe more than half.

Sort of a Return of the Jedi situation. Well, Lucas can do action, but I hope Hemmingway got to make his mark with the characters and storytelling.

Now that it's apparent to me that Lucas has directed all the action in the movie, and that the emotional stuff he currently sucks at has been outsourced, my interest in this seeing movie has just quadrupled.
 

Just noticed: Anthony Hemingway directed the zombie episode of Community.

Hemingway's TV track record is pretty fucking solid.  First AD on 23 episodes of The Wire, producer/supervising producer/director on most of Treme. The only black spot as far as I'm concerned is Heroes.

Lucas talks about his career, his fans/detractors, and Red Tails.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/george-lucas-red-tails.htm

Originally Posted by Fafhrd 
Hemingway's TV track record is pretty fucking solid.  First AD on 23 episodes of The Wire, producer/supervising producer/director on most of Treme. The only black spot as far as I'm concerned is Heroes.

Please tell me that was on purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Dubstep!
 

nah - THIS is how you dance to Dubstep

This flick needs to hurrry up and ocme out, because if I hear Terrence Howard talk about returning soldiers to their wives one more time, I'm gonna lose it. 

"We count our victories BAW THE HUUZBANDS WE RETURN TO THEIR WAAAAAAAAAAAIVES!"

Andy, that's HORRIBLE!

It made me laugh so hard...

Andy you terrible terrible human being.

I was watching Iron Man with my father, and when Terrence Howard came onscreen he just shrank completely. He thought Howard was a good actor, but considered it absolutely HORRIBLE casting to see him as a military man because he's so "soft" and has such a "girly voice." I don't know why I find that hilarious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

This flick needs to hurrry up and ocme out, because if I hear Terrence Howard talk about returning soldiers to their wives one more time, I'm gonna lose it. 

 

"We count our victories BAW THE HUUZBANDS WE RETURN TO THEIR WAAAAAAAAAAAIVES!"

He forgot to tell them to use baby wipes as well.

Dammit!  I can't eat and laugh at the same time!

Howard will make some offensive comment about dirty women towards Hobson, get fired and replaced by Cheadle for the sequel.

Then Lucas will digitally replace Howard with him in future special editions of Red Tails.

No no no no!  You misread me!

Lucas is Cheadle!

Cheadle is Lucas!

Lucas digitally replaced Howard in Iron Man 2!

For some reason I wouldn't put it against Lucas to show up in black face in one of his movies. He already showed up in blue face in Episode III.

I don't want to thump the drum for this movie, exactly. It's kind of dumb, some of the performances are deadweight, and it's way too long.

But I think it's got a refreshingly old-timey vibe and simplicity that's kind of novel in contemporary filmmaking. I knew the critics would be harsh towards this, but I wasn't expecting it would be this hostile. There's some racism at play here - not so much that the mostly white critics (and some blacks) are decrying the cornpone goofiness that white actors used to be celebrated for, but that they don't understand the complexity of seeing these hoary cliches acted out by strong, genuinely complex black characters and, surprisingly, actors. This is super rare, and will continue to be super rare as long as critics continue to lob pointless fastballs at this film.

Its an ensemble, but the leads are Nate Parker and David Oweloyo, and they're both really quite good, even through these ridiculous cliches and expository bits of dialogue. Parker is the noble, good looking, tough guy hero. And Oweloyo is the nutcase loose cannon, the daredevil who breaks the rules to get results. Both well-worn parts, but they're both so good, and deserve a little bit of heat behind them. Oweloyo, in particular, is great, charismatic and funny in spurts - it took me awhile to see that the same actor, who is playing an early twentysomething in this, was the corporate villain in the new Planet of the Apes. He's also in Lincoln, One Shot and The Paperboy soon, so I guess he's going to pop up a lot.

I think a lot of people aren't properly engaging with the film. The effects, for example, are super cartoony. And I feel like a lot of people who have never once been in a fighter plane are critiquing these scenes as looking phony. Well, of course they look phony - Lucas let these scenes play out with intentionally shiny, theatrical effects. Stuff like that needs to be judged by its consistency, not its relation to real life. It's in the VERY FIRST SCENE. If you're breaking off your handshake with the film because that sort of stuff isn't 1005 photo-realistic, you're not going to be onboard for ANYTHING in this movie.

You seem to be saying that the film deserves a pat on the back for allowing black actors to playroles that whites played years ago. It's nice that some of the cast got to shine despite the cliches, but if the film is just a procession of awful PEARL HARBOUR-style cheese then giving it a pass because it affords black actors the chance to occasionally overcome that cheese seems just as skewed as any negative racial feelings it might provoke.

I mean, the attack sequences in HARBOUR were gleamng, often visceral stuff, but it's still a piece of shit. A truly post-racial world would allow such criticism of RED TAILS, regardless of its dedication to telling a little-known "black" story.

Most of the reviews seem to be decrying the film for not going as in depth with the storied history of the Tuskeegee Airmen as they should've, not showing the infamous, near circus-sideshow treatment they got during basic training, the scientific studies that came out stating that Black people were genetically ill-equipped to handle heavy machinery, etc, etc.

For me, it's almost just as important that Lucas made a simple heroic action film that just allows black men to be heroes. Not victims of white society. Not gleaming paragons of their race. Just, simply, badass pilots saving the world. Normalizing black men carrying a big budget film is probably the greatest gift Lucas could accomplish. The '95 film exists for when the question of "Would you like to know more?" comes up.

I just hope it works. I'll be finding out later today.

Except there's Bryan Cranston heeling it up as Major McKKK. And the guys going to a whites-only club and getting beat up. This isn't just black dudes getting to star in their very own action film.

And what the Hell,  Denzel Washington and Will Smith have already accomplished far more "normalising" of black people in blockbusters than Lucas can dream of.

Bryan Cranston is in one or two scenes. Barely.

Not sure what that changes, but okay.

The guy's not really heeling it up if you barely hear from him. He's literally got like two or three lines. And his disapproving racist character is more of a function of the tone of the film, which is overly simplistic, good guy-bad guy dichotomy. We're talking fighter pilots, Nazis, soldiers and burecratic assholes. The focal points for all broad genre moviemaking.

My point is that you're judging the film in a contemporary setting as a movie and nothing more. And while I understand your desires to view this film under a colorblind lens, I don't feel like we're there yet as a society, no matter how much wishful thinking we're doing. As a result, this is a film with great racial significance in 2012, simply because of it's structure. It's a novelty that should not be, a natural corrective to what we've seen more than a thematically-rich, complex story.

And again, I'm not saying it's a fantastic four star movie. There are degrees of goodness at play here. But I think we have to realize what's more important than just "meeting an arbitrary standard of 'good movie'" when it comes to "Red Tails." Is it important that it realistically depicts these characters and their real life situation with respect and complexity? Yes. Is it more significant that a film exists where young black actors can look heroic, attractive, and without a doubt in the right against a global evil? As long as the film is fitfully entertaining (it is), structurally sound (for the most part) and not excessively dumb (sure), then it's kind of a big deal.

All "excuses" aside, I had a good time with this one. I doubt I'll remember it by years' end, but still, it hit the right marks for me.

EDIT: Also, one of them goes to the all-whites club, and when someone calls him a name, I forget which, he explodes and stupidly tries to fight them all. Later, they fly a successful mission and the all-whites club invites them all for a drink, and they all get along because, quite simply, they saved each others' lives. It's worth noting that at this point, most of the black characters are openly skeptical of these white dudes inviting them, a reversal from where you'd usually see that one figdety guy who's like, "Why did we invite the darkies?"

I guess I'm just not seeing the "watershed moment" here, I don't think. Denzel's been looking heroic and playing upright characters, regardless of skintone, for twenty years. Why is this one film any different? Why is this being hailed as racially significant, but the likes of, say, ATTACK THE BLOCK, which actually critiques the racial and class divides of society while delivering a bonza genre movie, isn't?

I guess what I'm getting at is why is it a victory for a group of black actors to star in a film that's so cliched and well-worn it HAS to have the "black story" angle attached to it in order for it to get made?

Bad movies is bad movies is bad movies:

http://www.chud.com/81144/review-red-tails/

Wow this article is so wrong headed;

“Red Tails” Could Set Black Film Back

http://newsone.com/entertainment/johnswilson/red-tails-will-set-black-film-back/

Quote:

Red Tails is a universal story of integrity, leadership, perseverance, and values. There’s little doubt that everyone should watch it. I wish for it to be successful and spawn more faith in the creation, promotion, and patronage of black film, but chances are it won’t achieve any of that.

And George Lucas is to blame.

The audience for Black films is almost exclusively Black. That’s pretty much a principle of filmmaking.Andrew Weaver, assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University at Bloomington, looked at how the racial makeup of films affected filmgoers. He found, among other things, that the “intended audience” for the film was far less likely to see the film when 70 percent of the cast was black.” At minimum this appears discriminatory, and at worst, it is as though his research was conducted at Newt Gingrich’s family reunion.

But Professor Weaver believes that this perception could be changed “if more mainstream movies cast minorities. If multiracial casts became the norm and movies were marketed to all demographics, the stigma could fade away,” he says.

Terrence Howard and Cuba Gooding, Jr. at Red Tails premiere

Lucas putting nearly $100 million into a film doesn’t change that fact. Cuba Gooding, Jr., a third-rate actor at best these days (and just a talentless shell of his former Oscar-winning self), starring in this picture doesn’t change that fact, either.

Ironically, by the looks of the marketing thus far, Lucas doesn’t know how to market an all-Black film any better than Hollywood does. The main reason anyone has even heard about the film is because of what he said on the John Stewart show, and it’s now become some ill-fated rallying cry in the African-American community that won’t yield what Lucas intended.

Folks want to stick it to Hollywood by supporting it. Great. But this movie won’t recoup what it cost if only Black audiences go see it. And therein lies another problem — Lucas spent too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

 

And what the Hell,  Denzel Washington and Will Smith have already accomplished far more "normalising" of black people in blockbusters than Lucas can dream of.

That's a dangerous apples and oranges comparison.  Smith and Denzel are hopelessly trapped in their own stereotypes now.  Denzel as the noble black savior who doesn't get laid, and Smith as the wise cracking white people relaxer.  I think Lucas was aiming to give blacks a different stereotype to normalize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

I guess I'm just not seeing the "watershed moment" here, I don't think. Denzel's been looking heroic and playing upright characters, regardless of skintone, for twenty years. Why is this one film any different? Why is this being hailed as racially significant, but the likes of, say, ATTACK THE BLOCK, which actually critiques the racial and class divides of society while delivering a bonza genre movie, isn't?

 

I guess what I'm getting at is why is it a victory for a group of black actors to star in a film that's so cliched and well-worn it HAS to have the "black story" angle attached to it in order for it to get made?

I think you're looking at this in extremes.

Watershed moment is exaggerating. This is just one small movie, one example of much-needed progress.

And note your qualifier - "regardless of skin tone." A lot of the times, your examples of Smith and Washington are either playing black cliches, or their skin tone isn't at all an issue, and racial politics are swept under the table. It's colorblind casting, which we should have, and it should be important, but there should also be an active niche for movies like this and your example of Attack The Block. They're different - Block explores certain divides, as you said, but it still takes place in the "ghetto," which likely turned off a large swath of white viewers* and engaged in stereotypes about black films featuring underclass criminal characters.

The black experience is more than that, and yet, the idea of black characters as kickass heroes who save the world, get the girl and thrive in spite of the social restrictions of their skin tone - that doesn't happen in Hollywood film. Hell, look at casting for The Bourne Legacy - the role was as a generic ass-kicking spy, and who was on the studios' wish list? A long name of white actors, some with very little experience. If Paul Dano is on your list to play a badass, over all black actors in Hollywood, well... there are problems with that.

I read one ridiculous review (and I'm sure there are more out there) that had qualms about the movie's depiction of Nazis, citing that they were faceless, and we don't see their deaths, even though not every German soldier wasn't a true blue soldier of Hitler. Ignoring the fact that these are Movie Nazis, the single greatest resource for villainy ever, this is criticism in a bubble - it was only four years ago when the studios agreed to bankroll a $100 million movie about a team of HEROIC Nazis who go after Hitler. $100 million for a mainstream movie about HEROIC NAZIS. But nobody is willing to dig $60 million into a competent WWII movie with African American heroes? In other words, fuck Nazis.

*Anecdotally.

I'm trying to recover from the shock that Paul Dano was considered by anybody at any point in time to be cast in Bourne.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I was watching Iron Man with my father, and when Terrence Howard came onscreen he just shrank completely. He thought Howard was a good actor, but considered it absolutely HORRIBLE casting to see him as a military man because he's so "soft" and has such a "girly voice." I don't know why I find that hilarious.

It's true!  Listen to the way he shouts for Tony in his house in Act 3.  "TONAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!  TONAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!"