Hudlin Entertainment Forum

Show Bizness => Latest Flicks => Topic started by: Reginald Hudlin on April 04, 2015, 12:10:23 am

Title: Hancock
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 04, 2015, 12:10:23 am
Somehow I had never seen this film, but was really impressed. 
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Marvelous on April 04, 2015, 03:43:44 pm
I really enjoyed the movie too, even though a lot of peeps hated on it.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: KIP LEWIS on April 04, 2015, 06:01:52 pm
I really enjoyed it but hated his "trigger" word.   For broadcast TV they had to replace it with another word (I forget which word).
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Marvelous on April 04, 2015, 06:47:34 pm
I really enjoyed it but hated his "trigger" word.   For broadcast TV they had to replace it with another word (I forget which word).

Psycho.  ;)
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 04, 2015, 09:52:11 pm
I saw it on TV.  What was the real word?
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Vic Vega on April 05, 2015, 06:33:46 am
I saw it on TV.  What was the real word?

Asshole.

Hancock would last about 5 seconds driving in New York.  :)
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Marvelous on April 05, 2015, 10:12:12 pm
I saw it on TV.  What was the real word?

I need to get you the Blu-Ray.  ;D
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Redjack on April 12, 2015, 08:15:23 pm
watch it again with this thesis.


This film could be retitled: NEVER DATE A WHITE CHICK.


It looks good but it's actually pretty anti-black.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 13, 2015, 08:34:00 pm
watch it again with this thesis.


This film could be retitled: NEVER DATE A WHITE CHICK.


It looks good but it's actually pretty anti-black.
did you ever read the original script? TONIGHT, HE COMES?  Bears no relation to the final product to me.  Always interesting when the story and characters are changed so much that it becomes new material.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Redjack on April 13, 2015, 11:20:04 pm
never did. I would imagine it made several different points.


waiting on static, man. one of us needs to be driving before i die.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 14, 2015, 06:10:08 am
never did. I would imagine it made several different points.


waiting on static, man. one of us needs to be driving before i die.
Almost done with the first draft.  Really loving it so far. 
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: powrermanmarvel on April 22, 2015, 08:00:03 am
what network will static be on.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Francisco on April 25, 2015, 08:12:20 pm
I won't say the movie is anti-black. Hancock looked like a black man but was actually some sort of god. And the reason they couldn't be together had nothing to do with race but with the nature of their powers. Hancock's alcoholism? Not related to him been black but to him having no memory of his past and his inability to have sex without killing women.


PS: Still waiting for the sequel. Don't think it will ever come though.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Redjack on April 29, 2015, 04:02:38 pm
look up the word subtext.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Kristopher on April 29, 2015, 05:51:22 pm
look up the word subtext.


(http://images.clipartpanda.com/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-face-laughing-emoticon.jpg)
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Francisco on April 29, 2015, 07:58:58 pm
look up the word subtext.

Put Tom Cruise/Ryan Raynolds/ Gosling in Will Smith's place. Is the movie still antiblack?
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Redjack on April 29, 2015, 11:14:09 pm
look up the word subtext.

Put Tom Cruise/Ryan Raynolds/ Gosling in Will Smith's place. Is the movie still antiblack?


doesn't matter. no one ever made that movie.


THIS movie, the one that actually got made, goes like this.


Hancock is a black drunk and perpetual f*ck-up who gets the sh*t kicked out of him whenever he tries to hook up with or even get close to a white woman (sometimes by the woman herself). He needs to be taught how to act like a good human being by a white guy. The very white guy who ends up having the life with his lover that he could never have. (Whoever made this film is working out some issues.) Hancock ends the film okay with this arrangement, as all neutered house negroes should  and spends the rest of his life as a sexless security guard dog, happily looking out for the perfect caucasian nuclear family.


his white female fellow "god" is FANTASTICALLY more powerful than he is. her non-powered white spouse is fantastically smarter than he is. Hancock is the character sam jackson played in Django with a happy boyish face.




the moral.


white people know best.
black people are to be civilized but kept in a metaphorical pen by whites until such time as they realize their duty in life it to protect and nurture the world affluent whites have built for themselves.


black men stay away from white women.


and it's it all SO funny.


except not.
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: KIP LEWIS on April 30, 2015, 05:17:51 am
Do you know if the role (or the Original story) was written for Will Smith or any Black actor?  Or was it written for a  white actor and then they cast Will Smith because he wanted the role?  The reason I ask,  if it is the latter then the subtext only possible because Will Smith wanted the role and it wasn't the intent of the writer.    If it is the former,  I can see the subtext. 

(I know there is the incident that caused him to lose his memory points to a Black character,  but she said that these attacks always happened,  even long before the U.S. even existed. )

Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Kristopher on April 30, 2015, 06:07:19 am
Do you know if the role (or the Original story) was written for Will Smith or any Black actor?  Or was it written for a  white actor and then they cast Will Smith because he wanted the role?  The reason I ask,  if it is the latter then the subtext only possible because Will Smith wanted the role and it wasn't the intent of the writer.    If it is the former,  I can see the subtext. 

(I know there is the incident that caused him to lose his memory points to a Black character,  but she said that these attacks always happened,  even long before the U.S. even existed. )


Kip, have you ever read the original spec script, that eventually (after A LOT of rewrites) turned into what we now know as "Hancock"?
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/7108/tonight.pdf (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/7108/tonight.pdf)
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Reginald Hudlin on April 30, 2015, 07:06:54 am
look up the word subtext.

Put Tom Cruise/Ryan Raynolds/ Gosling in Will Smith's place. Is the movie still antiblack?


doesn't matter. no one ever made that movie.


THIS movie, the one that actually got made, goes like this.


Hancock is a black drunk and perpetual f*ck-up who gets the sh*t kicked out of him whenever he tries to hook up with or even get close to a white woman (sometimes by the woman herself). He needs to be taught how to act like a good human being by a white guy. The very white guy who ends up having the life with his lover that he could never have. (Whoever made this film is working out some issues.) Hancock ends the film okay with this arrangement, as all neutered house negroes should  and spends the rest of his life as a sexless security guard dog, happily looking out for the perfect caucasian nuclear family.


his white female fellow "god" is FANTASTICALLY more powerful than he is. her non-powered white spouse is fantastically smarter than he is. Hancock is the character sam jackson played in Django with a happy boyish face.




the moral.


white people know best.
black people are to be civilized but kept in a metaphorical pen by whites until such time as they realize their duty in life it to protect and nurture the world affluent whites have built for themselves.


black men stay away from white women.


and it's it all SO funny.


except not.
The minute I saw Will Smith, one of the coolest, smartest, nicest men in this town, as a drunk loser, my desire the see the film went away.  Which is why I just saw this now. 
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Battle on April 30, 2015, 07:34:28 am
RedJack better stop posting juicy, insightful stuff before I become a fan of his again!   ;)
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Francisco on May 04, 2015, 06:56:35 am
look up the word subtext.

Put Tom Cruise/Ryan Raynolds/ Gosling in Will Smith's place. Is the movie still antiblack?


doesn't matter. no one ever made that movie.


THIS movie, the one that actually got made, goes like this.


Hancock is a black drunk and perpetual f*ck-up who gets the sh*t kicked out of him whenever he tries to hook up with or even get close to a white woman (sometimes by the woman herself). He needs to be taught how to act like a good human being by a white guy. The very white guy who ends up having the life with his lover that he could never have. (Whoever made this film is working out some issues.) Hancock ends the film okay with this arrangement, as all neutered house negroes should  and spends the rest of his life as a sexless security guard dog, happily looking out for the perfect caucasian nuclear family.


his white female fellow "god" is FANTASTICALLY more powerful than he is. her non-powered white spouse is fantastically smarter than he is. Hancock is the character sam jackson played in Django with a happy boyish face.




the moral.


white people know best.
black people are to be civilized but kept in a metaphorical pen by whites until such time as they realize their duty in life it to protect and nurture the world affluent whites have built for themselves.


black men stay away from white women.


and it's it all SO funny.


except not.

Then again put a white actor in Will Smith's place and the movie works just the same but no one would be talking about anti white or anti asian propaganda, in case Will was to be replaced by Jet Li or Jackie Chan. Your point is that black characters must be perfect people or they automatically become stereotypes? Tom Cruise as Hancock would've been just Tom Cruise playing a troubled character but Will Smith or Laurence Fishburne or Denzel or Snipes is automatically playing antiblack propaganda. I guess Blade is anti-black propaganda since he injects himself a serum to keep the blood thirst at bay?

Subtext: Looking for sh*t to get mad about
Title: Re: Hancock
Post by: Redjack on May 05, 2015, 06:29:35 pm
Please allow me to make my own points because you're lousy at it.


I'm a professional screenwriter. I'm perfectly fine with imperfect characters. I make them up, daily.


When I point out these sorts of things, it's not because I'm "looking for something to get mad about." It's because I understand what, in this instance, certainly, are OBVIOUS subtextual tropes that were clear deviations from the original script.


And, frankly, not that sub.


It's fine if you want to ignore it or look past it. You paid your money and you can enjoy it or not enjoy it as you see fit.


but you're not allowed to pretend it's not there because it very much is.