Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

The International DJANGO UNCHAINED Trailer!

Nordling here.

I've read a little bit on some political blogs about reaction to the first DJANGO UNCHAINED trailer, and it seems that either some people don't get it or they haven't been seeing very many Quentin Tarantino movies.  Tarantino is playing with a controversial bit of history, for sure, but he's doing the same thing here that he did in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS - he's creating alternate worlds for the audience to play with and enjoy.  I don't think there's a mean-spirited bone in QT's body.

In short, politicos - lighten up.  It's a movie.

I think this might be our first look at Samuel Jackson in DJANGO UNCHAINED, although it's a very brief one.  This one centers a little more on plot than the US Trailer, but the result is the same - this looks incredibly fun and I can't wait for Christmas.  That shot of the blood on the cotton is pure Sergio Leone stuff:

Nordling, out.  Follow me on Twitter!

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 13, 2012, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Someone may give you shit about "DKANGO"...

    by ATARI

    but not me.

  • June 13, 2012, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Looks a bit better than the US trailer

    by jimmy rabbitte

    It gives a better sense of the film's tone than the US trailer. The first trailer felt a lot more choppy. I feel better about Django Unchained already... not that I felt all that bad about it; but I do have a much better feeling about this now.

  • June 13, 2012, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Looks like too much fun.

    by Hipshot

    And I suspect that the majority of hard-core haters will be from a specific chunk of the political spectrum... Me, I'll be there Christmas Day.

  • June 13, 2012, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Kill Dicaprio..

    by LeonardsBellbottoms

    ..but bound to be a twist other than the trailer hints at..Looks good QT!

  • June 13, 2012, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Leone never had spraying chunks of blood

    by ZOMBRE

    at least not in the Sergio Leone films i've seen... Patton Oswalt has a great bit on how un violent and un gory Leone westerns were.. Im probably wrong though...

  • Look I know Taratino's white telling a slave story. As a Black man I'm not offended. I look forward to this it looks like fun. I thought Basterds was ok & I did enjoy the alternate world he created. So I look forward to what he does with Django. Especially when most films about Slavery had been incredibly watered down, or a failure to capture the cruelty of it. I like his idea of addressing a serious issue in a entertaining way like a Western. Just like he addressed WWII ala Men on a Mission film with Basterds.

  • June 13, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Different shot of Leo

    by DC Films

    Used the wide-shot on the "...You got my attention ..." line.<p><p>Can't wait, hope it channels the Sergio potential of Kill Bill 2 desert scenes and the start of Inglorious...

  • June 13, 2012, 7:58 a.m. CST

    This will be amazing.

    by SuperSaiyan2112

    Anyone who says otherwise is only fooling themselves.

  • June 13, 2012, 7:58 a.m. CST


    by James

    that's what the fuck I'm talkin about. CAN'T wait.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Nordling, by your logic...

    by Logan_1973

    I have to be familiar with all of QT's work before I can understand this film? How is that being objective? The idea is to judge the film on its own meritsz not on the directors past efforts.

  • How'd that turn out? Temper your hopes, fellas.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Prometheus was amazing

    by syn_flood

    This, however, looks shit.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:28 a.m. CST

    Well the thing is...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...if this Django film does well Rodriguez will make a Sartana film next spring, then Del Toro will make a Sabata movie for the fall. Basically they will all take place in the same universe and they'll be connected by the Jackson character. If everything goes well all the characters will appear together in a movie the year after next.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:30 a.m. CST

    Damn you Michael Bay


    Damn you Michael Bay

  • June 13, 2012, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Blood on Cotton seems more De Palma to me

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • June 13, 2012, 8:33 a.m. CST

    Going to watch Blazing Saddles tonight

    by Hoots Mon

    And now, for my next impression... Jesse Owens.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:35 a.m. CST

    How can this 'look like shit'?

    by DukieMichaelNamondRandy

    What kind of preconceived notions did you have before Basterds? I hated 'Kill Bill' when it first came out, and totally understand why people hate 'Death Proof' (even though I like it), but really, what can we see in a trailer that can unravel our whole opinion of a movie? that AND these past two trailers have been really well edited without ruining the story. great cinematography, great excitement. Now what did you think of the 'Inglorious Basterds' trailers before you saw it? Granted, if you didn't enjoy IB, you might not be into 'Django Unchained'. So then, of course, you can say it looks like shit.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Movie looks great but didnt like the James Brown music

    by AshokForgiven

    First half with Johnny Cash = A Seconds half with James Brown = F Movie itself looks ace tho. And Kill Bill and Basterds were great.

  • Is he unchained in the US but somehow still in chains internationally? Some kind of meta-Django occupying different times and places simultaneously? Trailers shouldn't be this confusing.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:45 a.m. CST

    No interest in this. I'm tired of Tarantino's act

    by Smartacus

    So to me then yes, this does look like shit. I understand why a lot of you are excited about it. You're not tired of this yet. Maybe you never will be and that's fine. It doesn't make me right and you wrong or vice-versa. I'm all Tarantino'd out though so I will be passing on this one.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:45 a.m. CST


    by AshokForgiven

    Interesting, because I'm kind of tired of you!

  • June 13, 2012, 8:56 a.m. CST

    judging film "on its own meritsz not on the directors past efforts."

    by DukieMichaelNamondRandy

    The deal is, Logan_1973, in a way we really can't avoid, is that Tarantino is now a Franchise. It's the same way that when a Stephen King book comes out that his name is almost bigger than the title on it. In some cases, this blows up in the writer/director/etcs face. Michael Bay doesn't need to put his name on his Explosion-o-ramas, but does, and since we just see his initial stamp on it, many of us turn away. I've heard people literally groan in the theater when M. Night Shyamalan's name pops up on screen. So seeing the words "directed by Quentin Tarantino" on a poster is like seeing McDonald's arches on the horizon. You anticipate it because its gained a track record in your mind that the corporation know will bring in sales.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:59 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    That tracks a theme I've brought up. My thought is that it is sociobiological, a fear of being out-bred by "the other." I can't claim to "know" what it is, but I can prove it exists, and depresses box office results. This is complicated to prove in general, but easy in one way: no non-white male stars have sex in any film earning over 100 million domestic. It is absurd to think that this reflects anything except out-group discomfort with the images, because white guys get laid just fine (the two most popular films ever, Titanic and Avatar, both have love scenes. The overall percentage of films with at least PG-level love scenes is about 20%). It's fascinating, and yes, Foxx's love scene with his wife is interrupted by an horrific rape.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:01 a.m. CST

    Yup, @samuel fulmer, more De Palma than Leone,

    by django_1

    and can we get off the tit that Tarantino references everything. He did blood on white before (O-Ren Ishii's blood on snow in the awesome duel at the House of Blue Leaves snowy courtyard.) I find Quentin packs his films with symbolisms, and one of the joys for me in analyzing his movies is to find them and hopefully intuit a plausible interpretation (yeah, I have read some wild way out views on some of them. LOL)

  • June 13, 2012, 9:01 a.m. CST

    "I like the way you die boy"

    by Pigdog

    Already a classic line.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Foxx is...

    by grandwiz

    Miscast. Also he looks like a Black Austin Powers with a contemporary hair cut.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:08 a.m. CST

    @ hipshot, excellent thought on sociobiological. Thanks!

    by django_1

  • June 13, 2012, 9:11 a.m. CST


    by Smartacus

    You must get tired of a lot of people I imagine. Unfortunately I'm not going anywhere and from what I can tell this forum lacks a simple "ignore" feature. I think you're shit out of luck pal.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:13 a.m. CST


    by gerry derboven

    is basically my reaction to any new material from QT. I will graciously "forget" Death Proof if Mr Tarantino continues on the elan of Inglorious Basterds. This man is such a cool moviemaker I suspect he pisses Mr Freeze and shits Cornetto's. Bring on Xmas!!

  • June 13, 2012, 9:15 a.m. CST

    django_1-Yeah it's just lazy

    by Samuel Fulmer

    It's like anything Tarantino has done since Kill Bill just gets Leone thrown on it. If someone wants to say that the first scene in Inglorious Basterds is shot/staged/plays out like Leone than yes, I agree. I swear though, some people just get lazy and anything that looks cool about this new film just say, oh my god it's so Leone. I mean shit, I wouldn't be shocked if someone says, wow James Brown music, that's so Leone. Or Kerry Washington being cast, wow that's so Leone.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:16 a.m. CST

    dukiemichaelnamondrandy, I agree

    by Logan_1973

    Doesn't mean I have to like it ;)

  • June 13, 2012, 9:24 a.m. CST

    samuel fulmer, to be fair...

    by Red Ned Lynch's sort of hard to erase the iconic image of Kerry Washington as Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And trying to pretend that she wasn't the best thing in For a Few Dollars More, with the pocket watch that played the music and the pistol with a rifle stock, is just revisionist history.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST


    by DukieMichaelNamondRandy

    I agree with ya too

  • But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and blood on cotton just looked cool and wasn't meant to reference any past film.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:42 a.m. CST

    S'okay, Andromedus

    by Hipshot

    Note that I'm not suggesting white guys are worse about this than anyone else. I think it a male thing, connected to the disproportionate deaths of black males (killing the competition) in fantasies (fiction) and the disproportionate representation of black women being obese (removing competition) in "chick flicks." It's fascinating, really, as I consider that the "100 million+" club thing is indicative of unconscious or unspoken patterns of tribalism. Now, I know the producer on "Django" and have spoken to him about multiple issues...but haven't been able to bring myself to ask point blank about the sex thing, whether Tarantino changed this in his Xmas re-write. Not sure why...maybe I want to be surprised, and maybe I don't want to put my friend on the spot, and maybe I'm just chicken. My suspicion: the sex is interrupted and there is a dream sequence where they get it on (possibly also interrupted by him waking up.) If I'm right, it will be fascinating to see who considers this sex and who does not. In other words: non-reproductive. Fun to watch the human psyche at play.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Remember when Lambers sex dream was interrupted in Fortress???

    by Tikidonkeypunch

    Now that was racism at it's finest.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:57 a.m. CST

    I just can't buy Foxx as a badass

    by Cassius_Crackhead

    I keep seeing Ugly Wanda from "In Living Color".

  • June 13, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    If Lambert's dream was interrupted, that is a single data point. But if every white actor either had no sex, or interrupted sex, it would indeed suggest a pattern. And if black men had been the decision makers, or rejected sexual images of white men at the box office for decades, then that would be evidence of racist attitudes, yes. But a single act, separate from pattern? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You got nothing.

  • He is fast becoming a parody of himself. All so self masturbatory look at me's (zzzzzzzz)

  • June 13, 2012, 10:15 a.m. CST

    hipshot: It was meant as sarcasm and how idiotic that argument is.

    by Tikidonkeypunch

    If white guys didn't like to see white women getting drilled by massive black cocks than why is the internet flooded with just that type of porn? I mean every site has that category and there is definitely no shortage. Maybe it's simply a Jew thing since, you know, they control Hollywood. (and if you call me an anti-semitic than you and Galifinakus can go fuck yourselves in your uptight asses) But I agree, a cigar is sometimes just a cigar.

  • So, I do believe the emasculation of black on black sex in main stream movies does not fit here. From the first trailer, I do see that Django may have a fantasy sequence and maybe he does get to "shoot off", then ; )

  • June 13, 2012, 10:31 a.m. CST

    First trailer took a few views to grow on me

    by BlaGyver

    This one is so much better. I'm starting to jump on the train that says DiCaprio's gonna get his Oscar for this. Looks like he's having a LOT of fun.

  • June 13, 2012, 10:48 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    I'm going assume you're white. That is relevant because of the following thing: any time I mention black men not getting laid in movies, some white guy IMMEDIATELY brings up interracial sex. I didn't mention it--you did. And this has happened for forty years. I now declare that that aversion seems to be, specifically a fear of this happening. 1) Your porn example means nothing. The rules of porn and those for mainstream cinema have little in common. IF I was to take your point seriously, I would look at relative numbers of images, and their relative popularity in terms of cash, hits, etc. No idea of the relative numbers--and I suspect that neither do you. 2) Women have claimed for decades that porn operates to degrade women. If that were true, then all it means is that the interracial imagery is specifically sought out by men who would also search out beastiality porn--they are specifically seeking negative images. Porn women are not movie women (perhaps) and women in mainstream cinema are desired as love objects, women in porn simply meat. So "degrading them" with "black cock" lowers their potential value, and audiences avoid it. 3) I know two women in the porn industry, and have heard that white women who appear with black men damage their careers. I don't know if this is true, but it's what I've heard. ##

  • June 13, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    No, it doesn't change the black male sex thing: it is still a white guy's judgement call, and he chose to exclude this aspect of Django's humanity (if indeed that happens). Doesn't mean the movie won't be wonderful. But he could just as easily have had them make love...and she is kidnapped the next day, or while in the afterglow. Artists make choices based on their values. If they go with that script, Django starts screwing her, is interrupted, and then she is gang-banged, literally "drowning" his seed with theirs. IF a filmmaker was uncomfortable with black sexuality (is that a possibility: noting Vin Rhames' rape, and the fact that "Jackie Brown" was called QT's "Blaxploitation" movie--which had the odd circumstance of white guys getting all the nookie, something that never, ever happened in the Blaxploitation genre) then we might suspect that QT is a human being, and in that humanity has the same male insecurities that devil many of us, and that his choice there might well be a part of the pattern--interruption of reproduction, followed by rape. But note how fucking smart this is: he gets to give black audiences a revenge fantasy, and white male audiences the fantasy that they have the only dicks that work--and from what I can see there is plenty of white-on-black sex on view. See how the two cancel each other out? He gets controversy without actually ever violating the Unwritten Law: Black Man Shall Not Cock-Block. It's really kind of genius, but I think it's just unconscious stuff, and in NO way diminishes my respect for him. Hell, if I judged him for that shit, I'd have to hate every white filmmaker in Hollywood.

  • June 13, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    So if PROMETHEUS doesn’t crack 100 million...

    by frank

    it will be because Idris Elba bangs Charlize Theron in it. And no other reason.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    1) He doesn't bang Charlize Theron. He doesn't even touch her. 2) I say nothing about individual films. It is the pattern, encompassing thousands of films, that I discuss. About 20-23% of films with box office over 100 million have love scenes. About 15% of all films over 100 million star non-white males. These circles do not overlap. You can "explain away" how this is purely a statistical fluke all you want, but you're only convincing yourself. Look the shit up: it's in black and white.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    But I'll tell you what the sexual repartee DID do: it told me that Elba was absolutely going to die. (Not much of a stretch: no black man has ever survived an Alien film). And I responded as I always do when filmmakers doom the only black characters: I sit back, munch popcorn and enjoy watching the white folks die. Sauce for the goose.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    No, in fact they have sex.

    by frank

    It is made explicitly clear that Janek and Vickers have sexual intercourse in PROMETHEUS. That is why they miss the transmission from the guys on the engineer’s ship.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I am all kinds of excited about this movie.

    by Royston Lodge

    That is all.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Hipshot, I love your thoughts man, but...

    by django_1

    I think you underestimate Tarantino's (particularly, his whiteness) understanding of the issue. "[He]...has the same male insecurities that devil many of us, and that his choice there might well be a part of the pattern--interruption of reproduction, followed by rape." The rape is significant to the overall theme of slavery in that is was about white entitlement and forced "superiority" (even uneducated/non-book smart "hicks.") You may say, Tarantino should break the cycle of the emasculation of black on black sex in mainstream cinema, but I think he illustrates the origins.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:14 a.m. CST

    um (spoiler)

    by frank

    Everyone dies in PROMETHEUS except Noomi Rapace and the android. You usually sound so reasonable and insightful hipshot, but whenever you drag out this theory it makes you seem so freaking paranoid. Nobody gives a fuck if a black guy has sex in a movie. It’s 2012, not 1960. No one cares anymore. We elected a black guy to be in charge of our entire country. And we know he has had sex at least twice, and are not bothered in the slightest.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:15 a.m. CST

    The name is Django. Miss Django if youre nasty.

    by ajit maholtra

  • June 13, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    THE BIRTH OF A NATION is "just a movie" too...

    by Prague23

    I don't think Q.T. is looking for trouble with this film, I'm just saying that the term "just a movie" doesn't mean it can't be a rallying pot-boiler for real-life trouble. Just thought that needed to be pointed out.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    I don't think that this stuff is conscious. Every instance of exclusion can be explained away. White people won't even notice the exclusion, which they would need to be educated. And black people don't need it. No, I won't celebrate that choice. I think he is an amazingly talented film-maker...but he's still a human being. And human beings are oblivious to their own unconscious drives. That's what makes them unconscious. I'm not saying I'm correct: I'm saying that after over half a century of observing media, I no longer extend faith on this particular issue. But that said, I'm REALLY looking forward to this movie!

  • June 13, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    Is there a love scene? A kiss? Do they even fucking touch? Please. Movies are the visual image, guy. There was NOTHING. Imagine a James Bond movie where the only comment is: "meet me in the bedroom in ten minutes" and we saw nothing. Think anyone in the audience would be satisfied? Come on, man. They knew how to do relatively chaste love scenes in the 1940's: couple is alone together in a bedroom. They kiss. Pan to the wall. Fade to morning. It doesn't take a lot. But there has to be SOMETHING.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    I meant ‘Prometheus' spoiler in my above post.

    by frank

  • June 13, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Inglorious Basterds = best movie headbutt.

    by Nomoredirtyanything

    The movie itself is a masterpiece. But Brad Pitts blind headbutt on Lander is now the pinnacle. I have watched the movie over 20 times and it still cracks me up. Django will kick fuckin ass. Fuck off trolls. San Dimas High School football Rules!!!!!!!!

  • June 13, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    True hipshot,

    by frank

    and I’m sure the reaction of all white males was: ‘Thank goodness they didn’t show us the Charlize Theron sex scene! That would have been awful!’ I know that is what I was thinking.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    If IB wasn't mean-spirited, then yeah I guess I didn't 'get it'

    by Frisco

    And speaking of not getting it, I think you'd have to be pretty obtuse to think that tons of movie-goers and downloaders in the US and around the world won't take to heart the actions and attitudes portrayed in Django Unchained as being generally representative of the antebellum South. Shit, I can already hear the group of movie geeks outside the theater discussing it after the showing: "But you don't get it, man, that's how things WERE!" It'll probably be good, and I HOPE it will be good. But I do wish that Tarantino had created a different alternative world for us to "play with," perhaps one where the setting and real-world history didn't do so much of the storytelling for him.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:30 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    I would think that if you averaged out "Django" and the image of slavery in (arguably) the most popular and pervasive film on the era ever made, Gone With The Wind, you probably have the average reality. Balance is a good thing. I've spent my whole life hearing white people talk about how GWTW represented the Real South. I survived that bullshit, and you'll survive this.

  • I agree to disagree about Tarantino on this one. Besides, Tarantino really does not explore sexual issues in his films. He is more interested in the "code" of "warriors" (male or female.) Most of his characters are really criminals or perform extreme inhuman acts. I see the humanity in QT films within a quest construct similar to classic Greek mythology. I was amazed he pulled in off in Inglourious Basterds (the landscape was movies and the movie industries of that era, and the real backdrop of WWII in Europe.)

  • June 13, 2012, 11:37 a.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    No, I don't think that. Remember I said "unconscious"? But here's what I think happens: if there IS a sex scene the audience disconnects emotionally, and they go back and tell their friends that "they just didn't believe the movie" or "I just didn't get into it." When there is something in a film that makes you uncomfortable, the reaction is "it's only a movie"--which pops you out of the illusion, which sends you searching for "reasons" to justify your reaction. And there is no such thing as a movie without flaws, so there is ALWAYS justification. Note something: that is why I never talk about individual films, except as part of a pattern. You might point to movie X or Y as being bad, trying to apply that across hundreds of movies, you're just gonna sound silly. I know my stats on this one, and all you'd have to do to disprove me is find a single 100-million domestic film with a black star who gets laid in even a PG level love scene, and you can't. So do all the Reductio ad absurdum you want. The pattern persists, and denial is just putting your head in the sand.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Looks good and i


    always have faith in QT, but im still not sold on Jamie Fox.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:44 a.m. CST


    by Tank Williams

    Thanks. Thats kinda what I figured. Just had to be sure, were living in an age of constant delays, unfortunately

  • June 13, 2012, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Black orgasm

    by Malbeuf

    Waiting to Exhale, depicts orgasms without issues.

  • June 13, 2012, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but Hipshot, this territory...

    by Red Ned Lynch a minefield no matter what you do. I haven't written fiction for money in more than a decade but recently some guys who knew me from the old days asked me to write a standalone novel that could be developed into a series for a sort of throwback weird press imprint they are going to try to get off the ground. There are a lot of characters and five of the central characters are black, three of them male. One of these characters is a giant of a man. He drinks a lot, eats a lot, is immensely strong and is both sexually insatiable and extremely appealing to women. He's sort of a Falstaff character, but an extremely moral one. In the first novel he already has three wives and is preparing to take a fourth. Now he's only a black guy because that's how I saw him in my head. This is an urban fantasy but I wanted to play with some high fantasy archetypes and this character is essentially my woodland god. There are a couple of fairly explicit sex scenes (though the second one does take a rather horrific turn...not terminally so...for him). The guys I'm writing this for, who are good guys, have expressed profound discomfort over this character's race. They feel like it plays into a number of negative stereotypes and they feel like it would be better to change his race. Now there are a couple structural reasons I don't want to do this (the main one being that it's important to show that a number of escaped slaves fled to this county and were able to more easily integrate into the dominant power structure than a couple another community) but if I was to change this character's race I am then left with two significant black male characters: A bookish young gay man scarred by the circumstances of his father's death and a hideous physical assault by his mother. A former Army psychiatrist who is the more reasonable half of a salt and pepper team of tough guys. (and I'm stretching things by referring to this guy as a major character, though he has a few bits that I certainly had fun writing). And those are two very safe black characters to have in a story. I mean they are pretty much the definition of what you're talking about above. Now when the story was coming together in my head I knew I needed certain things and there were some characters who needed to be of a particular race because their point of origin was of importance to the story. But I didn't make Marsburg black as either a political or social statement. I wasn't, at least consciously, thinking that way. Now I am. This is a subject where it is very, very hard to win.

  • June 13, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Your stats don’t prove what you are saying at all, hipshot.

    by frank

    They don’t contradict your hypothesis, but in no way do they prove it either. There are so many different possible interpretations of that data. I’m sure what you are saying was true in the past. In 1955, I imagine that a love scene with a black guy would significantly affect the box office of a movie. I can see it being true maybe even as late as the 80’s. There are still plenty of racial issues involved with the current film industry I am sure, but in 2012 a black guy having sex in a movie is not on it’s own enough to determine whether or not the average white guy likes that movie. Which is what you are saying. This would have to be the basis for the general trend that you are talking about. PROMETHEUS would be a perfect test case. They should do an experiment where they show two cuts of the film to to randomly sampled audiences of white males. One cut would be what is currently playing in theaters, and the other would include a tasteful yet sexy love scene between Charlize and Idris. If your hypothesis is correct, the test audiences would rate the movie without the sex scene more highly than the one with the sex scene. My hypothesis is that if there is any difference at all, it would be that the white males would rate the movie with the Charlize Theron sex scene more highly, regardless of who her partner was.

  • June 13, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST

    If every movie had to be 100% historically accurate ...

    by Royston Lodge

    ... every movie would suck.

  • June 13, 2012, 12:47 p.m. CST

    100 internet points for frisco ...

    by DrMorbius

    solely for the inclusion of antebellum in his post!

  • I'm not going to proclaim this to be a bad movie, but that scene is just so exceptionally conventional looking, it's such a cheap, juvenile, tacky beat from any G-rated movie, what the fuck is the point? I'm also worried that I can't distinguish between this Christoph Waltz character and the one in Inglorious Bastards.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Red Ned Lynch

    by Hipshot

    Of course you can win. By deciding the game you're playing. You can go for the money, you can create art you yourself would want to read, or you can seek to have some kind of political power of persuasion...or other things, or some combination. But no one gets to tell you what your definition of success should be...unless you are a child. If you are controlled by outside definitions, you're screwed. Now that you see some aspects of the way the system works, you can go back to sleep, subvert it, ignore it, or whatever. Each has consequences. But if "win" means "make everyone happy" then you're screwed. Christ was as enlightened a human being as myth or history offers, and they nailed his ass to a tree. Give it up.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:14 p.m. CST

    "alternate worlds" = bad, lazy writing. FACT

    by Arcadian Del Sol

  • June 13, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    When a movie crosses the 100 million mark, you have a point. Not until. For over thirty years, I've heard white guys say the exact same thing: "well, maybe in the past, but it doesn't matter now!" The exact same thing you just said. day they'll be right. But until a movie crosses that line, you don't have a leg to stand on.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Still looks dull

    by Phil Black

    I might see it after some word-of-mouth feedback as these days trailers are diverging from the films they advertise at an alarming rate.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    royston lodge

    by Hipshot

    It's even worse than that. There has never been, and will never be, a movie that is 100% historically accurate, no matter how hard they try. It simply isn't possible. Someone will always disagree, or point out flaws. Always.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    Or to put it more reasonably: you may be correct. One day you almost certainly will be. But I have no interest in extending faith that that day has come. Even a SINGLE movie making it across that line is an outlier, not an indication that the entire culture has shifted. A better indicator? Over an entire decade, white and black male sexuality impacts the box office equally. However, just that first one will make a huge difference. "Think Like a Man" got to 90 million--not bad at all. Close, but no cigar.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    My position is that black male sexuality turns off white male audiences, as proven by diminished box office performance and most clearly seen in the total lack of black guys getting laid in movies earning over 100 mill--a damned odd statistical "blip" (about 22% of those films have love scenes...but they're all white guys). So "Waiting To Exhale" definitely has love scenes. It also fell 33 million short of the line Hollywood considers "mass acceptance." While I don't propose a causal connection in any individual case (which would be impossible to prove) the pattern carried out over hundreds or thousands of films is, in my mind, inarguable to anyone with a minimum of fairness in their blood. No, I'm not "whining"--just pointing it out. Not asking people to do a damned thing different, if they have no inclination to. That's your business.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Foxx and DiCaprio are ruining this for me.

    by moonlightdrive

    And I've really enjoyed many of DiCaprio's performances and some of Foxx's previous work. I'd prefer lesser known actors though or at least ones not so prevalent or with such a distinct tone and/or delivery.

  • June 13, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    What's your name? Motherfucker Jones.

    by moonlightdrive

  • June 13, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Quentin's Universe

    by bluesharpo

    I like to think all his movies take place in the same universe, a la View Askewniverse or the Marvel films. I mean we do have recurring characters (Vega Brothers, Earl McGraw.) For example, if you went up to Butch from Pulp and asked him how Hitler died, he'd say "They blew up some theater he was in." But that's just me geeking out..........I.....I'll see myself out.

  • June 13, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST


    by NoArrow

    I don't know how you can justify using Tarantino's mind as an example of the mass' subconscious... He's a pretty sexually repressed filmmaker. The only sex acts shown in any of his movies all depicted the man awkwardly and embarrassingly drilling his partner from behind (JB, IB, and Pulp Fiction if you like). Why does he relish his violence with such sensuality while handling sex with such anxiety? My guess is because for half of his life he was an unpopular, gross-looking nerd. But whatever it is, if he shows an actually sexy sex scene between Django and his wife it'll be the first of its kind in a movie he's directed, which means something I think, even if it's interrupted. And your response to the point about porn was illogical. You're making points about mass subconscious, not just Hollywood, so it doesn't make sense to exclude popular black-on-white porn as a meaningful example. White guys don't like watching black men have sex in movies, but are okay with it when they're masturbating? And you can't just say, "some people say porn is degrading to women, therefore the only men who watch black-on-white porn are the same kind who watch women have sex with animals." I can think of one movie that was popular that featured uninterrupted black-on-white sex, and that was "Save the Last Dance." Another, with black-on-latino: "Money Train." These are just off the top of my head.

  • June 13, 2012, 2:52 p.m. CST

    by Umney

    '"alternate worlds" = bad, lazy writing. FACT' Wowsers.

  • June 13, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Blacks murdering whites

    by captzeep

    Blacks were slaves 150 years ago! In some places! By some white people! So let's celebrate hatred and murder of whites by blacks! Because all white people are evil because of this!

  • June 13, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    My point about what Tarantino shows or doesn't show is only supported by what you said. We can assume he is repressed sexually by his absence of healthy "normal" sexual relationships. (Actually, I thought the relationship between Butch and his girl in "Pulp Fiction" was perfectly fine.) But by that same logic, you have to allow that the absence of black male sexuality--despite the fact that his films include many black people, plausibly indicates preferences and aversions as well. As for your examples, again you're veering into black-on-white sex. That was the mistake of the previous guy, because I don't give a shit about that. I'm just saying there is a statistically demonstrable effect, everyone denies it applies to them or anyone they know, and I find it reasonable to suggest it is the result of an unconscious tribal instinct, especially true in males. No, I don't extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone, but nor do I think it makes them bad people. Just...people. And I like people quite a bit.

  • Miami Vice.

  • June 13, 2012, 3:17 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    And the porn comments had already been answered: Unless you have statistics on gross and relative popularity and profitability, we can't draw conclusions about mere existence. There are films with black guys being sexual. The point is that white audiences reject them, as noted by the total absence of such images in popular films (defined as above 100 million domestic) Secondly, it was suggested that feminists have long said that porn is degrading to women, so it might be suspected that some segment of the population might seek it the same way they might seek beastiality. Third, I have friends in the porn industry who have told me that girls who fuck black guys in movies take a career hit for it. Don't know if that's true, but I've heard it, and it would make sense.

  • June 13, 2012, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Django will rule all this Christmas!

    by ThulsaBoom

    I remember when I saw the first IB trailer. I was just as unimpressed with it as these first couple of Django bits. That turned out great in my eyes, and I felt a bit silly for having so much doubt in the project, mostly over Brad Pitt's line delivery. I'm getting the same feeling here, but I can't wait to be proved wrong. At least since Kill Bill they've marketed the "fun" of QT's movies but not the "weight." Slavery is relatively untouched by American cinema, which would rather churn out another Holocaust movie every year, and keep up the demonization focused outward. America's greatest shame is ripe with drama. That's what we're not seeing in these trailers yet, and my bet is that is what will give the movie it's wings.

  • June 13, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    @ floating turd..., I laugh,

    by django_1

    whenever I read something like this: "Tarantino's only concerns are juxtaposing cinematic tropes in new contexts." And I do believe your statement is suggest that there is very little "depth" to his movies. It's soooo reductive and diminishes any sign of Tarantino intelligence. Yes, he aims to entertainment first and foremost, and he does exactly what you wrote in that sentence, but there are many intelligent morsels in the subtexts, in each and everyone of his movies (even the much maligned (primarily males) "Death Proof.") By the way, racial subtext is ALWAYS (sofar) weaved in his movies (oh yes, it's there, very readable in Reservoir Dogs for sure. ; ) )

  • June 13, 2012, 3:43 p.m. CST

    typos: is (to) suggest; aims to (entertain)

    by django_1

  • June 13, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    $100+ million grossing movie with a black on black sex scene....

    by deanmail

    Can somebody name one please. I'm curious now if there has been one as I had not even thought about it until hipshot mentioned it (black on latina doesn't count) and I'd like to hear a movie title to prove to hipshot that there HAS been a $100+ million grossing movie with a black on black sex scene....

  • June 13, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    The only exclusion is black or Asian men. Women of those groups can have sex in the 100 Million + domestic club--as long as it's with white men. The thing I love is that the stats are readily available: no one can argue with them. The only argument can be about interpretations of what it means.

  • June 13, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by Red Ned Lynch misunderstand. That wasn't a woe is me or what should I do post. I went around that block too many times when I was young and as much as I wish I hadn't been such a egotistical little bastard while I was doing it I'm pretty happy with how everything turned out. What I was trying to point out is that there is a lot of fear and uncertainty in both directions. Because of cultural stereotypes about black men being oversexed these guys were afraid of my oversexed black man, even though he was a (generally) positive character. There was no problem with the gay scholar because that is clearly not a predominant cultural view of black men. And the tough but loyal to his white brother black man, especially with his academic background, wasn't a problem because the tough black guy devoted to some brotherhood of manly men that transcends race is a cliche no one not on the fringes finds threatening. But what that ultimately does is limit black characters to only roles which are not identified, in the cultural id, with black people. And some of the best, meatiest roles are therefore off-limits. That makes my ultimate point a simple question and I do not pretend to know the answer. Could the reluctance to placing black actors in this sort of role arise from the fear of the image of the sexual black male (because not a lot of sex in the movies is loving sex between man and wife) overshadowing what the movie is about with its easy vulnerability to accusations of stereotyping and the propagation of negative role models?

  • I'll say this about Reservoir Dogs. A questions really, the Dogs harbors some racial prejudices for sure, but who was the most "moral" professional in the piece? Think the trainer on the rooftop. On Death Proof, yeah Tarantino telegraphed too much the phallus car symbolism (the second groups sure did strap it on in the dialog, for sure) Feminist allegory could be a bit much, but a female empowerment romp at minimum.

  • June 13, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST


    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...I am in fact one of those people who you're railing against. Here's the thing. If you don't want to think about the possible subtext or symbolism in a particular artistic work that's fine. And many times there is subtext and symbolism in creative works that was not consciously intended by the artist. But when you claim that because you didn't perceive this subtext or symbolism or even when you are able to (justly or unjustly) claim that the artist didn't intentionally include a particular subtext or symbolism that the subtext or symbolism does not exist...'re wrong. You're not wrong to not care. You're not wrong to ignore it. But you are wrong to state that because you are not looking for it or do not believe there was intentionality behind it, that it doesn't exist. One of the great things about art is that it's a two way street. The purpose of any sort of art is provoke an emotional and or intellectual response in the consumer. One of those responses, and one of the most exciting ones, is exactly the kind of analysis you're decrying. Folks looking for hidden themes and subtext in a creative work are being creative themselves. Sometimes they uncover things that were there. Often they recognize things that were never intended, but that, as well, is a creative act. And that's pretty cool.

  • June 13, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST


    by frank

    It is more likely that movies featuring black men in sex scenes also have tend to have other attributes that prevent them from being as broadly popular as would be required to achieve blockbuster status. I really hope Michael Bay casts a black guy as the lead in the next Transformers movie and he bangs (on screen!) whatever vapid underwear model is his co-star so that we can shut up about this. Race is a useless distinction and soooooo boring to talk about at this point.

  • June 13, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    My only concern is this-

    by Aiden Blackwell

    The trailers for Inglorious Bastards sold you a film that was totally and utterly removed, both tonally and story-wise, from the one you actually saw in the cinema. It had plenty going for it, but it was clearly written to placate the Weinsteins (a Jewish revenge fantasy...?)following their sizable losses on Grindhouse, and deliberately miss-sold to audiences to ensure ticket sales. After that, there is no way I'm trusting the trailers for this film. I'll wait until someone has seen and tells me what it is actually about, in case it actually revolves around a 2hr, 3-way dialogue scene which takes place inside a wooden hut on the plantation Django is freed from...

  • June 13, 2012, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Black Orgasm would be a great TB username.

    by Royston Lodge

  • June 13, 2012, 5:40 p.m. CST

    It would also make a great name for a Norwegian metal band.

    by Royston Lodge

  • June 13, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    How many $100 million+ movies feature on-screen sex at all?

    by Royston Lodge

    They don't show a lot of sex in blockbuster movies. They talk about it. They hint at it. They rarely show it. Sex is usually shown in art-house flicks. There was Knocked Up ($219 million box office) I suppose ...

  • June 13, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST


    by Donald Callahan

    "placate the Weinsteins" with a Jewish-revenge fantasy? Really? Did you know that Jews make up approximately .2% of the world's population? I hardly think that made Basterds a safe bet. After a bona-fide box-office disaster, Tarantino could have taken the safe route and remade one of the three films Hollywood has yet to remake, all-but-ensuring box-office success. (And if you think those offers weren't coming his way after the failure of Grindhouse, you're on crack.) Instead, the guy doubles down, making a wholly original film that defies expectations at every turn. Basterds was one hell of a risk, and thankfully, it paid off, laying the foundation for Django Unchained. This movie looks better than anything to come out of Hollywood since Basterds.

  • June 13, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    I am not Mel Gibson.

    by Aiden Blackwell

    However, if memory serves me correctly, I remember seeing the heroine of Inglorious Bastards screaming "BEHOLD THE FACE OF JEWISH VENGEANCE!!!" from the screen of her cinema, while the entire higher command of the third reich burned to death... It was widely reported that the Weinsteins were unhappy with Grindhouse. I imagine the Inglorious Bastards script was far from a hard sell following that. It most certainly was a safe bet- not for audiences, but for getting green lit. And tricking the audience via misleading trailers is not 'defying expectations'. Its tricking the audience, period. Defying expectations means that something is perceived by the audience to be significantly better than promised, not significantly different.

  • June 13, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST


    by IwatchMovies

    Just release the DVD already.

  • June 13, 2012, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Royston Lodge

    by Hipshot

    About 23%, as I said. Look it up. Here's a hint: both Avatar and Titanic.

  • June 13, 2012, 6:48 p.m. CST

    Red Ned Lynch

    by Hipshot

    You ask if the problem is sensitivity. Remember: I didn't say movies weren't made. I said the AUDIENCE didn't turn out. That, then, trains the studios on what to release. The view of black men as "oversexed" among anybody is just more of the same, in my estimation. I saw the exact same thing in exclusion most of my life, and in the science fiction field. People bandy around a dozen different reasons white guys (the ones making the decision) have an aversion to such images. But saying they're doing it for MY benefit, is a howl. When black people make movies for each other, they are as sexual as any others. Having seen this in every media, it very naturally lead to the question: "well, gee...racism was institutionalized until 1970 or big a stretch is it that making something illegal doesn't remove it from people's hearts?" Not much, for me. Personally, I think that about 5-10% of the population is straight-up bigoted, but quiet about it except...where? Why, right here on Talkbacks. Note the nastiness that pops up when black stars are in controversial roles, or get "uppity" or take "white" roles. Ahh, the squealing is a lovely thing to hear. Think these guys don't make a box office impact? Think Hollywood execs and directors and writers are cut from sterner stuff than the average person? Guess again. Sure, I'm sure people tell themselves: "we're doing it for your benefit." But it's not. So one has to ask oneself if they are simply wrong, or lying their asses off because they don't want to accuse their audience of racism...or don't want to admit that they themselves aren't comfortable. I mean, I'll deal with James Cameron killing every black man he ever put in a movie (until AVATAR) without rancor, but I find it impossible to believe that this was a mere statistical fluke. This is just, in my book, the way human beings are. Almost all of us a little, and a few of us...quite a lot.

  • June 13, 2012, 6:53 p.m. CST


    by Hipshot

    Excuse me, sir, but did you not read that the standard is 100 million? MIAMI VICE earned 63 million. Starting to see the picture? You can't find a Non-whites STAR in about 15-18% of those movies...and there's sex in about 23% of 'em. But every single guy that gets laid is white. So we're not talking black-on-black sex, or black-on-white sex. Just normal, heterosexual sex. My theory: something in the hindbrains of people with racial problems revolts at the sight. In most people, it's slight enough that they might not even realize it...but they look for reasons to dislike the film. Just a theory, but it would fit into other emotional aversion patterns.

  • June 13, 2012, 7:54 p.m. CST

    that's a much much much better trailer

    by MainMan2001

  • June 13, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    white dick is HUGE in the U$A ...

    by deanmail

    Overly simplified theory: white on white love scene appeals to 7/8 of US population black on black love scene appeals to 1/8 of US population white on white = 7 times more money potential than black on black when white on white love scene= $100 million then black on black love scene= $14 million Conclusion: white dick is 7 times bigger than black dick...financially.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Boomerang = $70 million domestic (so says wikipedia)

    by deanmail

    I think hipshot is talking about a film making $100 million in the USA. Miami Vice didnt hit that mark in the U.S. either but to be fair that awful film could've had Colin Farrell in a 5 way gangbang with the blondest white women in Germany and it STILL would've been a box office failure.

  • June 13, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST

    No sale?

    by CherryValance

    Booo.... I liked the other trailer better, fancypants. :p I tend to think that the Austin Powers clothes signal that some interesting shenanigans probably went on for him to end up in an outfit like that. You guys should know QT by now. That's no accident.

  • June 13, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST

    @ floating turd..., this is what I object:...

    by django_1

    "In the case of Tarantino, there IS meaning to be found in his work, but it is not authorial." The part "...but is not authorial," is offense because it suggests that Quentin Tarantino DOES NOT THINK about the specific symbols and symbolism he chooses to put in his films. I do acknowledge there are some that are unintentional "interpretations," but to say none are authorial is ridiculous. You don't have that much authority of his mind. He has specifically says he does not talks about the subtexts and he is cagey of any meaning of his works (but he does love reading what others think about them.) He says it more fun for each viewer to make their own movie in the viewing, even though he is providing a narrow highway for each to follow (I paraphrased that from my memory of a Charlie Rose interview.)

  • June 13, 2012, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Even Max is a little scared by her.

    by ChaunceyGardiner

  • June 13, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    MooseMalloy, THAT should have been in the movie.

    by ChaunceyGardiner

  • June 13, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    I am STILL underwhelmed by this trailer, and I'll tell you why

    by D.Vader

    I *hate* QT showing us Django kill someone, especially when that someone is being played by a familiar actor to me, MC Gainey who played Tom Friendly from LOST. SPOILER alert, motherfuckers. Also, I really don't like Jamie Foxx's line delivery for anything except his first line- answering "Django" when the Dr. inquires about his name. Everything else sounds forced or fake, *especially* the bar scene where he says his name is Django and the D is silent. I feel like I'm watching one of his sketches from In Living Color. His delivery is just so damn off and unbelievable. He can be a good actor, but here, I'm just not feeling it whatsoever. It doesn't help that diCaprio seems to be the only one with any life in these trailers. I'll see it mainly for him and QT. I do complain about all this and readily admit I hated the Inglorious Bastards trailers, but I ended up loving the movie. I just think these trailers are pretty bad.

  • June 13, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST

    But Michael Mann is the Man, so... he gets it.

    by ChaunceyGardiner

  • I really want to see an alternate trailer with Smith in place of Foxx now. And I was sorta championing Foxx at first.

  • I won't get to see it for another two nights. Goddamnit.

  • June 13, 2012, 11:10 p.m. CST

    I had to wait for it too, D. Vader. It was worth it in my opinion.

    by ChaunceyGardiner

  • June 14, 2012, 12:56 a.m. CST

    by Darth_Inedible

    I don't get why this isn't being released in November to maximize the Obama guilt-vote/rape-murder threat.

  • Seriously. I know that you want to race to form an opinion, but it's uninformed and just dumb. Remember that twenty years ago, John Travolta was a joke, too. Ten years ago, David Carradine was a has-been. Pam Grier hadn't been a lead star in years and nobody knew who Robert Forster was. Anyway, Jamie Foxx was a believable badass in Miami Vice even if the movie itself kinda sucked.

  • June 14, 2012, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Bluesharpo: QT has said he has two universes...

    by GilbertRSmith

    One with RD, Pulp Fiction, Inglourious Basterds and anything else that can more or less happen in the real world, and then a "movie movie" universe where you have Kill Bill and Dusk til Dawn. He says that when characters in Pulp Fiction go to the movies, they see movies taking place in the Kill Bill and Dusk til Dawn universe where characters like The Bride exist alongside characters from other non-QT movies like the Five Deadly Venoms and Coming Home in a Bodybag from True Romance. So it's actually a pretty neat, layered thing he's doing here with a fictional universe inside of a fictional universe, sort of like how Stan Lee exists within Marvel comics. A lot of the characters are related, too. One of the characters in True Romance is supposed to be the grandson of The Bear Jew.

  • If so.... racism! Not *reverse* anything, just racism. I've never understood why anyone started to use that term. Reverse racism. Doesn't make sense. It either is, or is not racism. That can't be the criticism. Is it??

  • June 14, 2012, 7:36 a.m. CST

    @ chaunceygardner, credit due to hipshot,

    by django_1

    "Turd, I felt that Django1 was saying that those in the film industry itself (who, to a degree, are indicative of society - and often feel that THEY speak for the audience) are afraid of said imagery." As much I value my own comments (I suppose all of us do of our own), the rightful credit should go to hipshot for his excellent comments on the subject of black on black sex in mainstream movies and the "hollywood" executives whose heads are in the sand.

  • June 14, 2012, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Well ChaunceyGardner, I certainly hope so

    by D.Vader

    I'm getting tired of avoiding these Spoiler-Bombs everywhere!

  • Even though Tarantino's films may not suit everyone's taste, he does know how to create chemistry with his actors.

  • Then certainly Tarantino can have fun with this! And for those debating the merits of black on this or that sex in films, who cares? In my opinion 99% of sex scenes in films are entirely pointless and add absolutely nothing. Okay, we get it! Move on!

  • June 14, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    How did a PROMETHEUS discussion break out in here?

    by CherryValance

    *sprays disinfectant* Anywho, can I ask for something? Lately with so many writers the big movie discussions are getting spread out over several talkbacks and it's making a mess. I thought the PROMETHEUS main discussion would be in the global reaction thread but it quickly jumped to subsequent talkbacks. So I was wondering if maybe when someone starts a new article/talkback on a movie that already has one or two articles maybe you could include a link(s) to all the previous ones? I mean I know how to go hunting for them but it's just complicated. And once they drop off the front page talkbacks unrelated like this one can get contaminated by people who still want to talk about the other movie. Thank you for your time. :D

  • June 14, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST


    by big_dicks_cum_from_small_beginnings

  • June 14, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Hipshot, STFU.

    by Nachokoolaid

    Blazing Saddles, probably one of the most recognizable black on white sex scenes, which obviously was taboo at the time, grossed over 500 mil. Or what about Coming to America, all about a black guy finding a mate= 247 mil. Anyone can make numbers fit their argument, like you did, and like I did here. And why the arbitrary $100 mil mark? Why not $200mil, or $50? Correlation doesn't equal causation in every instance. *Profits adjusted for inflation.

  • June 14, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Boyz N the Hood

    by Nachokoolaid

    108 mil. There's another. I just don't buy your argument. If anything, I think there's a fear of all sex in general ranging back to the Puritan roots of this country that make all sex on film taboo.

  • June 14, 2012, 5:40 p.m. CST


    by big_dicks_cum_from_small_beginnings

    Why didn't y'all just say so.