F___L___O___P

No it doesnt. Haha! nice made up figure.
MGM/Sony already stated it is a success and still hasnt opened in all markets.
So your boycott campaign is a waste of time.

Speaking of Trump (not a fan, but I like the way he's become a bogeyman to the Stupid Left*), if the movie wanted an evil-capitalist villain who advocates coercion, they should have used George Soros. I'm unaware of Trump killing anyone; but Darth Soros is a big fan of the State, the biggest, bloodiest, most heavily-armed gun-toter in History. "Der Staat" makes Bogue's hired guns look like Quakers.


*where Saul Alinsky meets the Dumbest Generation.

People need to read more. Sad times.

Let me correct you: it has been depicted thus in any Hollywood movies set in the Jim Crow era, and made before this recent demand for Westerns pretending racism wasn't really a problem at all, and white people back then were ultimately really, really, enlightened (despite supporting slavery for generations).

All those earlier films you snub were at least the more honest to just avoid the issue completely, by ignoring the fact there were any black people in that era (excepting a fat mammy for Rhett Butler or a stable hand or some other menial laborer).

For the majority of black people in America living in that time this was an honest rendering of their lives and expectations! Far more so than a rendering of the wild West where Will Smith or Denzel Washington ride about on fancy freaking ponies dispensing justice to evil doing white rubber barons etc etc. Freed slaves were often land owners, but these would not be significant holdings, merely subsistence farming to support themselves, and many weren't successful, and certainly would not have provide them with wealth enough to provide their children with education or land of their own, they were still hampered by institutional racism, so most did work as laborers, farm hands, servants etc. This is no reflection on the capabilities of black people, but a broad reflection of the racism of white society after the civil war.

If you want to talk about a Western set after Jim Crow sure, there won't be so many limitations on black people, or racial violence, because it's after the 50's. That's the 1950's, about a century after this film is set. We are talking about 19th century, and living under Jim Crow laws, or their defacto equivalent, and before those laws the Black Codes, and before that slavery.

Now you idiots seem pretty determined to accuse anyone of racism who points out this movie was rubbish for its portrayal of historic race relations, the expectations of contemporary black people, and the attitude of most people in that time, and I have to ask why?

The people saying a black man could not be the character Denzel was in the time this movie was set are not racists. They do not think a black man was either unworthy or incapable, physically or mentally or for any reason within his control unable to be that person. They do not subscribe to phrenological theories that black people have three bumps in their skulls making them docile, nor contemporary scientific 'wisdoms' that declared the black man somewhere been human and ape!

What they are saying, and rightly believe, is that for over a century after the civil war, America remained hostile to black people (and, arguably, is still). While this hostility did not meet the barbarity of the treatment of the native Americans by whites, they did continue to suffer oppression, and abject racism, and could very rightly have feared for their safety if they did not exercise caution in a many of the white communities at that time, if they were welcome at all.

This film and others like it present a fantasy, and that fantasy white washes the very real oppression black people continued to suffer long after the civil war. Identifying that is not in any sense racist. Perhaps you are confused about what it means to be racist, or just generally confused about most things...

What sparks my curiousity is why so many seemingly fragile Americans are determined to preserve some mythical, fantastically and farcically enlightened distortion of their history.

Jim Crow laws covered the Southern states, and it wasn't much different anywhere else.

After the war you could be a lot of things if you were black. You could marry, and not worry about your master selling your wife, your children, or you, or having you flogged, beaten, raped or killed at their discretion.

It was indeed a very enlightened and exciting time for black people!

What a magical place it must have been then... not even a generation after being a slave with no rights, and nothing more than property, to find overnight all the white people awoken from their racist slumber, and accepting you as a fully fledged member of their society!

(this is the myth being peddled on here by the real racists)

In this new multi-ethnic society you had no fears at all! As a black person you could be a sheriff, and ride about the land, and from state to state, as if you owned it, without paying a curious or concerned white person a never mind. Hell, you could even speak your mind to white strangers who caused you offence, or arrest them willy-nilly and without the direct instructions or authority from a white superior. You would not be harassed, beat up, or lynched in many parts of the country. And very certainly only evil white people called black people the big bad 'N' word, and if they did, a black man was in every right to have words and/or shoot that white person, for not affording them the respect due cause of emancipation.

Oh, yes. The sky was the limit for black people in 1850.

(Of course that is just the mythology this film perpetrates, and the fantasy of the deluded racists that think black people had a fair hand in America as soon as Grant beat Lee)

Of course it is great for all children to have aspirations, and if a black kid wants to be a cowboy, and be like Denzel. GO FOR IT! More power to you.

But as responsible adults we shouldn't want to encourage that kid to make a time machine and go back to 1850 to try and be one!