Sunday, February 18, 2018

Wakanda

22 comments:

Joshua Sinistar said...

Looks like the Public Screwls have emptied their bank accounts to prop up this deranged black ego trip. They'll need to make every penny here. No one in Asia will bother to see this black crap. The whole world turns its back on negro stupidity. Only here and Europe do our (((enemies))) prop up this bioterror weapon. This should ramp up crime for the rest of the year.

Civil War II is CLOSE.

Sid said...

I won't watch Black Panther, but I've been exposed to the premise through the social media marketing.

I'm sorry, but if "vibranium" actually existed somewhere in Africa, the local leaders would have hoarded the resource and violently eliminated all potential rivals to the it. From there, they would've sold that resource to international markets and pockets the billions. You would thereafter see a handful of oligarchs living in the most absurd levels of wealth imaginable while the rest of the population lived in squalor. Look at Equitorial Guinea and tell me where I'm wrong.

Having resources doesn't stave off colonialism - if anything that attracts it.

I know it's just a dumb comic book movie that's supposed to be fun. That's fine, but there are so many people asking us to take it seriously that the absurdity of the premise needs to be laughed at.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

WE
WUZ
WAKANDA

I think it is hilarious that blacks are treating this movie like a documentary rather than a fictional comic book movie. We're so deep in clown world that if you point out that this is a movie based on a comic book created by two (((white))) people, you are a racist.

Sid said...

Random Dude,

I seriously don't know how Black Panther *doesn't* constitute cultural appropriation. As you said, the comic book was developed by two (((white))) men in the 1960s.

Shouldn't the "black" in Black Panther be a microaggression? We don't call Batman "White Bat," but we throw in the race of Black Panther into the title.

Isn't "panther" also a microaggression? Comparing the skin color of Africans to the fur of an animal sounds racist to me.

The thing is, major companies know how to direct the Current Year hysteria in whatever direction they want. There's no real sense or logic to it. It's not based on facts or science, so much as a kind of groupthink reasoning. Disney in particular seems especially astute at getting Millennial critics to shill for its products and has near-immunity to charges of, "That is NOT OK!"

Frank Gappa said...

If the average IQ on the African continent is 85, it is easy to understand why the conditions of their society are so bad. I feel sympathy for the talented 10th in these Countries who have good intentions but are faced with incompetence and corruptions all around them. No wonder the smarter ones tend to find their way to NYC to become taxi drivers.

Feryl said...

I'm waiting for someone (on the Left) to say the obvious:

The movie exists to make shit loads of money......For white producers, CEOs, and shareholders. While the black director and several older actors are presumably getting "points" on the movie (e.g., after expenses are accounted for a percentage of the gross accrues to whoever negotiated for it), in addition to their regular paycheck, a huge chunk of the profit will go primarily to whites.

I thought that maybe, just maybe, Hollywood would head this off by having the producers be all black, or the whites involved declining a pay check/giving it to blacks or Leftist charities, that doesn't seem to have happened. At the rate that POC are getting territorial, it wouldn't surprise me if a white producer gets slammed by a black mob for stealing a brotha's job.

In Hollywood, messages are incidental to making money.

How much of the Disney elite are non-white?

The movie's audience is about 1/3 black and 1/3 white. Since blacks don't have the same income as whites (nor do they believe in honestly paying for stuff like whites do), I'd be curious to know how much repeat business the movie will do. In the MN Twin cities, we used to have an all rap station, from like the late 90's-most of the 2000's, but eventually it changed formats because advertisers have little to gain from music that appeals to young blacks, who've got no damn money.

It has been proven, every once in a while, that an all-black movie can make a decent amount of a movie due to how happy blacks are to get "their own movie" (that still makes money for the whites who made the movie, but whatever). But rarely, if ever, do these movies become blockbusters. The Disney Marketing machine and the Epic Event reviews and news coverage are of course responsible for driving so much of the black population to the theater. But will this ever be repeated in our life times? And a sequel won't be able to get the same SJW ecstasy, after the novelty fades away.

Keeping my eyes on Amren.com for collecting of news stories involving gang violence and the like at screenings of the movie.

It bears repeating, though: America is 60-70% white, and the movie's being attended by a 1/3 white audience. The movie clearly means nothing to most whites who are neither liberals nor nerds. At my work today, nobody talked about the movie. Whereas with every Vikings game over the last 4 or 5 weeks of the season, everybody talked about it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

Yep, $200 million in the US on its opening weekend. How many of those ticket sales are to blacks? Somewhere in the area of 5-10 million?

Sid,

Ha, is there a place that is more resource-rich than sub-Saharan Africa is? There are very obviously places that are far more resource-poor, at any rate.

Random Dude,

Right. A fictional place dreamed up by two Jews half a century ago and brought to the big screen by tech teams of whites and Asians is being treated as Black America's greatest achievement! Clown world indeed.

Frank,

Mean sub-Saharan African IQ is closer to 70. The gap between black Americans and black Africans is roughly as wide as the gap between whites and blacks in the US is. Let that sink in for a moment, look at the image on the left (it's from Sierra Leone, incidentally), and then start thinking seriously about the world's most important graph.

Feryl,

Is there really any entertainment enterprise where that isn't the case? What do blacks produce mostly/entirely on their own in the US? Maybe rap music now, though it doesn't make anywhere near the money it did a generation ago.

Feryl said...

Prior to the 1990's, virtually all American films (about blacks or otherwise) were directed and/or produced by whites. That did change a bit, with most of the "hood" movies of the 90's being directed by blacks.

Seems to me that the phenomena of 1970's and 80's cultural de-segregation, which Silents and Boomers adamantly fought for, delayed the "necessity" of getting blacks to handle black material in the 90's and subsequent decades. Agnostic, after Prince died, pointed out that Prince's band and fan base were multi-racial, yet MTV et al only interviewed black figures when he died. Joe Bob Briggs, some years back, ridiculed the apparently iron-clad notion among post-1990 media outlets that you need to be of a certain ethnicity to cover a certain topic related to that ethnicity. It would be "insensitive" for a white guy to cover Thai transgender issues. And this reaches self-parody lows with the "as a trans-alien, this is my experience" type stories, which suggest that no-one but a narrow band of the population could possibly, possibly grasp the life or identity of particular "community" (a term that in the 90's began to encompass all kinds of goofy things, like the "homeless" community or the "Star Trek" community).

Reminds me also of the risible "slotting" in football. Brian Davis, Scott Case, and Jason Sehorn were the last white cornerbacks to be "allowed" to play starting cornerback in multiple games in the same NFL season. Davis was relegated to back up in the 90's, while Case was a starter until about 1993. Sehorn soldiered on into the early 2000's, then his retirement signaled the apparent end of the white Cornerback. Whites made up 30-50% of NFL safeties as late as the early 80's, with the Bears having two starting white Safeties (Gary Fencik and Doug Plank) for 2-3 seasons and the Dolphins for one or two seasons used brothers Glen and Lyle Blackwood at Safety. For that matter, Terry Schmidt (training to be an orthodontist at the time) played CB for the Bears, too! Yes, that's right: the Bears on occasion had a D back field that was 3/4 white! No really. These days that would be grounds for a congressional investigation. It looks like the cultural Marxist net really did not began to ensnare everyone until the later 80's, but even then whites weren't that barred from playing certain positions.

I've been looking at hundreds of old NFL trading cards to track what happened. Prior to about 1983 it wasn't uncommon for white Running backs to be among their team's top 3 or 4 rushers. Once I gather the cards and stats, I'll figure out more. Off the top of my head, Craig James and Mark Van Eeghen had seasons of over 1,000 yards in the 70's/early 80's. And Merril Hoge led the Steelers in rushing in 1988, 1990, and 1991. More famously, Larry Csonka (early-mid 70's) and John Riggins (late 70's/early 80's) were perennial leading rushers. White RB's aren't quite as taboo as White CBs, given that Mike Alstott had some good seasons in the late 90's/early 2000's, while Danny Woodhead and Rex Burkhead have lately been "allowed" to touch the ball regularly.

As for the defense in general, the Miami Dophins regularly had 4-7 white defenders on the field at the same time in the 70's and early 80's. And they won a lot of games. The NY Jets had some great defenses in the late 70's and early 80's, and their defensive line often had 3 whites getting a lot of action. The Houston Texans in the early 2010's were about the only post-1990 team to play 3 whites on the D-line simultaneously (JJ Watt, Brooks Reed, and Connor Barwin).

Joshua Sinistar said...

I find it HILARIOUS that blacks are gonna start touting how if they had a "magic rock" fall from the sky, they could have a Western Style Civilization. This is the kind of STUPID you have to SEE and HEAR to believe.

A magic rock makes blacks rich and live like European Whites. A MAGIC ROCK THAT FELL FROM THE SKY!!!

Feryl said...

Doofus whites over the last 28 years have come to think of whites as incapable of being anywhere near as fast, big, and tough as blacks. Clearly nobody seemed to think anything of whites playing positions requiring tenacity or speed before the 1990's. What happened? I think people became much less outgoing after the early 90's, and we fell into ALWAYS relying on stereotypes. White people are lame and weak, black people are always smooth and cool, etc. Just because stereotypes have some basis in reality doesn't mean that every single white person is exactly the same, or every single black person is the same. And for the record, whites have similar overall strength as blacks. It's just that blacks are slightly more powerful, meaning that they can jump higher, sprint faster, and punch harder than whites.....On average. But of course, stamina and psychological toughness matter in many cases. And that's why Slavs are now doing so well in boxing, and why whites in general do well in MMA.

Feryl said...

https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/black-panther-45839/showtimes/black-panther-45839/2018-02-19/amc-coon-rapids-16/all

The whiter/higher income suburban/exurban areas are all experiencing much less ticket sales. The 3D showings are much less popular; some of this can be attributed to 3D declining in popularity, but some of it is due to the fact that blacks are less able than whites to fork over an additional 3-4 dollars for eye strain.

It would be crazy for the nice suburban theaters to keep this stupid movie on a kajillion screens for the next month. Conversely, in the cruddy parts of Atlanta/Baltimore/Detroit etc., there's no reason to play any other movie for the next 6 months.

Hollywood would be naive to think that they can keep replicating this level of success with this kind of movie. Blacks make up less than 20% of the population, they're the poorest demographic, and middle American whites largely don't care about all-black movies, let alone ones predicated on SJWism. For all the talk about the movie kicking off some kind of grand new era, at the end of the day it'll be BAU for Hollywood. Some movies will try to ride the same train that BP built, but eventually the train will derail. Esp. if blacks become a major nuisance and further alienate whites from attending.

Feryl said...

In other news, Hispanics don't give a shit about the movie. Sailer would point out that generic and tacky modern blockbusters do gangbusters with Mexicans.....But that's only if the movie isn't a giant middle finger to non-blacks. It looks like the move is a cuck test of non-blacks, with the only non-black attendees being white "families", lame-o white nerds, and of course guilt-ridden liberal whites. Even amongst white liberals, though, the central enemy remains the wrong kind of whites, not whites in general. They can't fantasize about being a black badass in a mythical black city. They can fantasize about being a (white) butt kicking babe, but not about assuming another race. I think white liberals, whether they realize it or not, want to rule over others, esp. trad-whites. Seeing blacks dominate a place or people doesn't really do much for them.

Anonymous said...

Increased racial consciousness among blacks isn't as bad as it appears at first glance.

YT is subject to the "Tyranny of Inclusion" while all other tribes are permitted to engage in rampant identity politics.

The more examples we get of blacks expressing exclusionary sentiments, will move the Overton window towards the identitarian side.

There is also the terminal phenomenon of self-hating whites, whom we need to given their own space for maximum deracination.

Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club said...

Isn't the premise at the heart of wack-ass Wakanda actually still a slam of sub-Saharan Africans? Even in fictional form, a successful black nation exists not through their abilities, intelligence, or hard work, but because of a secret stash of a phony-baloney "mineral" that is really just a disguised magic wand.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Tatooine, you totally misunderstand these imbeciles. Magical thinking is as close to thought as they get. They wuz kangs is a running gag, but quite true. Magic space wheels patterned after the space station in 2001 a space odyssey and flying pyramids like Stargate SG-1 are what they ACTUALLY BELIEVE. Do not underestimate their stupidity and egotism. The blacks STILL DO NOT ACCEPT THE GERM THEORY OF DISEASE. In Africa, they blame witches and burn them if they have a medical condition. Boiling the bones of an albino is the most common Witch Doctor "medicine". Science may as well be Greek to them...

P S Bindy said...

Frank Gappa said...

If the average IQ on the African continent is 85, it is easy to understand why the conditions of their society are so bad.

Sir, 85 is the average IQ for American Negros. They have benefited from White racial admixture and from American schools/workplaces.

The average IQ of Negro Africans is 70.

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

Touche. Literally laughed out loud reading that.

Feryl,

One of the first dates I went on with my wife was the first Avengers movie. The story was predictably bad but the special effects were fun. I suspect I could tolerate about one of those sorts of flicks every five years or so. We have to be reaching a saturation point now, and the SJW/black power aspects must be making it worse.

Joshua Sinistar said...

My God but that Avengers movie was dumb. They even dumb down comic books. Not sure why. It amazes me that Hollywood purchases the rights to these things and doesn't stay true to the material. What is the point of this?

I remember they also made a film of The British Avengers. That was horrible as well. They actually used the costume worn by Diana Rigg and it DIDN'T FIT Uma Thurman.

The costumes are horrendous nowadays. They seem to prefer leather on just about everyone. The spandex costumes weren't great, but these leather costumes do not even resemble the original costumes. The producers and directors also seem to make everything far too dark. I suppose they must be fans of film noir. Some movies are so dark it looks like they shot everything in the dark of night.

I loved the old Batman series. It was shot during the introduction of color televisions and the producers went out of their way to take advantage of the new color TVs. I don't know why they don't do that now. The old color TVs sometimes had washed out colors, but Today's high definition has so much rich color. None of these idiots take advantage of this. The old 1966 Batman with Adam West looks BRILLIANT on these new TVs.

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

Yes, it was dumb. The "wow" factor from the stimulus overload was more the result of my not watching movies with any regularity (less than one per year in adulthood) than of anything objectively memorable.

I assumed the long bouts of darkness that is semi-standard now is borne out of laziness--don't have to do background, extras, etc.

Feryl said...

Josh-

The trend toward desaturation started in the mid 90's. Audiences are now more OCD than they were in the 60's. People feel threatened by stimulation. And that's why bright colors (in art and in fashion) have now declined for a couple decades.

Also, it's possible to use darkness in a good way, with good photography. Again, though, good photography is stimulating. So that's why movie photography has come to really suck over the last 15-20 years. Audiences want it to suck. They want movie scenes where there's no crisp delineation between the objects and people, where filmakers give literally everything in the movie a fake and overblown color tint or not much color at all (color tinting with grading and/or filters goes back decades, but since the early 2000's a lot of movies make everything orange and teal or give movies a sickly desaturated look, where even healthy summer lawn grass looks olive drab, not grass green).

The leather look is stupid. Leather makes no sense as a full body garment, unless you plan on standing upright all day long. In real life, soldiers wear cotton/polyester and armor typically worn on the upper torso. Leather is too heavy and stiff to be worn practically as a first layer, and it doesn't protect as well as Kevlar does. Outside of footwear, you'd be hard pressed to find any one going into combat wearing any leather. Recently Marvel has been using more spandexy outfits with all kinds of space age athletic fibers, probably because first of all, the actors don't like the leather, and secondly, the comic book stigma doesn't exist anymore so studios are now more comfortable with comic book tropes like tights costumes. For some characters, like Spider Man, they've always gone with a "tights" look, even on film. Leather makes no sense for such an agile character.

Corvinus said...

It's absolutely hilarious that the Alt Right and SJW's are all in a lather about a movie about black superheroes. Truly cringeworthy.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Yeah because the increase in black crime that happens now will be totally unrelated to this black ego trip huh blackbird? This Raven seems tedious. When the sharp uptick in crime happens, what shall be blamed this time? Trump? Warmer weather? Climate change?
The blacks apparently have no agency. Things just happen to them. Like criminal activity or poverty. They are apparently not capable of actually causing their own lives to happen. Even guns have more agency than blacks apparently.