BREAKING: Universal Pictures Cancels Release Of Film Showing Liberals Hunting Conservatives

Not real? Oh you mean like all the bogus claims the collective political Left made last week that Trump advocates for White Nationalists?

 

I think you are wasting your time debating anything with clearly insane people living in denial.Just imagine someone made the similar movie and reversed the roles.The deplorables hunting liberals around some posh estate somewhere in the USA.Anyway the gloves are off.Democrats,Liberals, leftists etc...whatever you want to call them are inciting violence.They are clearly insane people who are ready to destroy the country if they don't get their way. Hold on to your guns.Look at this Black supremacist and racist.The liberal media have become the main source of hatred.They spew hate 24/7.

MSNBC Guest Calls For "Torches And Pitchforks" Outside Trump Fundraiser At SoulCycle Owner's House

msnbc_guest_calls_for_torches_and_pitchforks_outside_billionaire_trump_supporters_house.html

 

That's not a movie, that's reality.

 

Anytime a movie relates to real world politics and promotes violence- it's NOT satire; it's incitement. It's promoting a perception and justification.

 

So now what? Start banning books and movies and people on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube?

How about the stuff that influences white supremacists who murder people in cold blood? Websites, books, videos, etc....

How Old Racist Books, Artifacts Are Influencing White Nationalists Of The Digital Age
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/05/7483...influencing-white-nationalists-of-the-digital

 

I mean the fact that movies aren't real life. Do I really need to explain more or are you guys still going down the path of pretending real Mexican American lives are equivalent to the fictional lives of fictional conservative characters in a fictional film? I understand if you need to try to change the subject again rather than actually address the facts.

I don't agree that Trump advocates for white nationalists. Meanwhile you are here claiming, without any kind of evidence or sliver of rational thought, that these filmmakers were literally advocating for the murder of conservatives.

Get your own house in order before trying to clean house for others.

 

More snowflakey playing make-believe that a movie having violent scenes means that it is promoting said violence. No, it isn't promotion, it isn't justifying anything, and it isn't inciting anything. Thin skin and a lack of awareness for how fiction works is not proof that anyone is actually promoting violence. Sorry.

 

Are you an investor in the movie? If not, what do you care?

 

I only care about the snowflakey misrepresentations accusing people of "advocating violence" when they have done no such thing. I have no financial interest in the film. I have a rational interest in intellectually honest discussion.

Notice that I haven't condemned the movie being cancelled. If that's what Universal wants to do, fine. Maybe there's a good reason for it. What I care about is the intellectual dishonesty going into all of the "criticism."

 

Do you have a source on the hero/villain assertion? Also, consider more than one possible motive for not reversing the roles if what you say is accurate. What casting of hero/villain would stir up more hate and anger? And with whom?

 

You can watch the trailer if you want. It is clear who the protagonist is.

 

Cool. Where did you watch it? I wish it would be released. I don’t like wastefulness. If it was important enough to spend money producing it should be released.

 

Here's a link to the trailer, but let me know if it doesn't work. I'm sure it is being taken down from a lot of places. TL;DR - the rich elitist hunters are the bad guys. The hunted underdogs are the good guys. Which, well, has been the same story for every single interation of this story since Most Dangerous Game.

 

Thanks. Watched it. Yeh, that was a good short story. It’s what came to mind the first time I heard the plot of this movie. Probably something to learn from both although movies seldom live up to their print ancestors.

 

I would have watched it just because I'm a Blumhouse fan. I'm a sucker for shlock horror. The original story and others like it are, of course, of better quality. I'm not going to say that other variations of The Most Dangerous Game aren't entertaining, but the original had a more horrific banality to it. It felt realistic and all the more horrifying for it.

 

And I'm sure if Birth of a Nation was made today, glorifying the KKK, you'd be fine with that, too, right? It's just a movie.

 

In Birth of a Nation, the KKK were the protagonists. You understand that, right? I wish I didn't have to ask, but none of the snowflakes in this thread seem to understand the difference between an antagonist and a protagonist. They think the Indiana Jones movies advocate Nazism and that Red Dawn advocates communists killing American high school students.

 

It was a leftist who tried to murder a congressman in a baseball field.

 

If the right-wingers in the movie are the protagonists, why did Universal Pictures pull the movie? Something doesn't add up.

 

The rich elite hunters were the antagonists. Their prey were the protagonists. Like every other iteration of The Most Dangerous Game. This isn't a new story. Watch the trailer. The RW panic is the "something" that doesn't add up here.

 

Again, why did Universal pull the picture?

 

Ask Universal. Meanwhile, address all of the rest if you can.

 

Evidently, the right wing trash blogs are leaving that out. After all, that would spoil their victim narrative.

 

Smart choice to pull. Maybe they can show it in Hell...

 

We already have laws against inciting riot and violence. The question is the point at which writing and entertainment cross the line from fiction to inciting illegal acts. When you do something that inspires hate or violence, especially if it appears that was your intent- the law should come knocking. This film uses present day political terminology and emotion to drive it's plot, and legitimizes the emotional hostility of people into criminal level conduct. There is a line that separates such things according to degree. That is an arbitrary line, but one society must and has set. Imagine the same film, but the story is one where the "deplorable" set out to hunt liberals- or socialist, or democrats, and it takes place in some kind of legally protected area. I can just imagine the kind of outrage that would erupt, and of course- make it the ultimate proof that Trump wants to kill the opposition. If you can't balance something like this and see it the same from both perspectives, it needs serious review. Or you do.

Funny- I don't know any "white supremacists". I'm old, and have never met a person who could be honestly identified that way. However I have met a lot of people who want to label groups in some offensive manner to lend validity to their own hate, to justify their own failures. They usually hate successful people- in truth because those people set a benchmark they do not want to be measured against. They hate wealthy people, because somehow they believe that their poverty is due to someone else's wealth instead of their own poor decisions. We have many people in our society whose character is highly questionable- and many of them are in positions where their title includes the term "Honorable".

There will always be trouble makers trying to shift responsibility from themselves, trying to label others, trying to manipulate the balance of public opinion and trying to build support for their hate and point of view. These aren't the people who solve problems in society- they are the people who make problems. This film fits in perfectly with the mindset of the worst of such people.