True Grit Trailer

Off Topic
61

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]WolBarret wrote:
black Cowboy[/quote]

I heard something stupid so I had to wake up and see what it was…yep, I’m going back to bed.[/quote]

As an honorary member of the Black Superhero Squad you are close to losing membership for making a stupid statement. Roughly a third of cowboys were either black or Native American. Now, go to the library and read, then you can go to bed.[/quote]

Haha. Just give Wol shit for his otherwise seemingly randomness.

62

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]WolBarret wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107863/[/quote]

Ahhhh come onnnnn, that does not even count as a movie…much less a Cowboy Movie.[/quote]

They need to re-make Posse. On paper, it could be a bad ass movie. The execution wasn’t that great.[/quote]

Agreed! It look to much like a early 90’s Music video…And who cast Big Daddy Kane??? It was shyt like this that made him think he could be a R&B singer…just F*ckin it up for everyone.[/quote]

How would you cast it now?[/quote]

Samuel L. Jackson for Father Time
Michael Clark Duncan for “Tiny”

I’m not sure on the rest.

63

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]WolBarret wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107863/[/quote]

Ahhhh come onnnnn, that does not even count as a movie…much less a Cowboy Movie.[/quote]

They need to re-make Posse. On paper, it could be a bad ass movie. The execution wasn’t that great.[/quote]

Agreed! It look to much like a early 90’s Music video…And who cast Big Daddy Kane??? It was shyt like this that made him think he could be a R&B singer…just F*ckin it up for everyone.[/quote]

How would you cast it now?[/quote]

Samuel L. Jackson for Father Time
Michael Clark Duncan for “Tiny”

I’m not sure on the rest.[/quote]

I like where you are going with this…hmmmm

64

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]WolBarret wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]doogie wrote:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107863/[/quote]

Ahhhh come onnnnn, that does not even count as a movie…much less a Cowboy Movie.[/quote]

They need to re-make Posse. On paper, it could be a bad ass movie. The execution wasn’t that great.[/quote]

Agreed! It look to much like a early 90’s Music video…And who cast Big Daddy Kane??? It was shyt like this that made him think he could be a R&B singer…just F*ckin it up for everyone.[/quote]

How would you cast it now?[/quote]

Samuel L. Jackson for Father Time
Michael Clark Duncan for “Tiny”

I’m not sure on the rest.[/quote]

OK. You’re forgiven your transgression. LOL

Dwayne Johnson for Jesse Lee
Billy Zane could reprise his role as Colonel Graham. It was the best thing about the movie for me. LOL
Zoey Saldana for Lana
Dave Chapelle for Weezy

65

^DAVE CHAPELLE FOR WEEZY, ok that was worth me loging back on just so I could say DAMN THAT WAS A GOOD CHOICE. LOL…someone call a producer this could work

67

this looks good!johnny cash…josh brolin…the coen brothers…it has to work.I was about 10 when I watched the original with john wayne.All I can remember is him having a big sack full of hard biscuits.mmmm biscuits.

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.

69

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

Lew you are probably talking about a median age of 24-25 years old on this site, this is not a surprise on the romanticism.

70

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

Lew you are probably talking about a median age of 24-25 years old on this site, this is not a surprise on the romanticism. [/quote]

Cowboys represent a turbulent time in American history and the fading of the frontier - there is a lot of emotional baggage of the nations identity tied up in that one. Which is one reason cowboys have been represented they way they have in the mass media - simplified stories of good verses bad - when the ‘wild west’, or anyplace and life for that matter, is rarely that clear. Although I disliked the term, with Bush’s “cowboy” diplomacy fit, not because it reflected the real experiences of cowboys, but rather, the simplified good vs evil of the cowboy genre.

That said:

Plus, they were called ‘boys’ because that is what many of the where, teenagers with some younger.

And one more for good taste:

71

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

I will concur with this statement. If being a cowboy was so awesome, why do ranchers use automated trucks to feed cattle and use ranch hands to do most of the work, because the work sucks teh balls. Living on a ranch is fun, getting beat up by cattle for 365 days a year is not.

72

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

Lew you are probably talking about a median age of 24-25 years old on this site, this is not a surprise on the romanticism. [/quote]

But it’s still no excuse. At that age, hell even younger, I had a sense of the larger world and was smart enough not to take and believe everything that was spoon fed to me. I know exactly what type of mentality and awareness of self and the world at large I am dealing with. I work on a college campus. I see it across all the forums and areas of this site, regardless of where these guys are from.

The vast majority have been coddled by Momma and not been made to mature mentally and emotionally and get a rude surprise when the world kicks them in the balls. Much better that one or two learn from an old bald black guy on the internet rather than have the world hand them their asses.

73

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

Lew you are probably talking about a median age of 24-25 years old on this site, this is not a surprise on the romanticism. [/quote]

But it’s still no excuse. At that age, hell even younger, I had a sense of the larger world and was smart enough not to take and believe everything that was spoon fed to me. I know exactly what type of mentality and awareness of self and the world at large I am dealing with. I work on a college campus. I see it across all the forums and areas of this site, regardless of where these guys are from.

The vast majority have been coddled by Momma and not been made to mature mentally and emotionally and get a rude surprise when the world kicks them in the balls. Much better that one or two learn from an old bald black guy on the internet rather than have the world hand them their asses.
[/quote]

Well that’s where your perception is off, you are on a college campus where the majority are coddled. I have a lot of guys I do phyiscals on that are Pipefitters, welders etc. While not the “book smart” type are a hell of a lot more grounded and have a less rigid mentallity. Most have obligations and would not have time to ask questions about eating an 1/8 of a bananna.

I do agree about trying to school the ignorant, and I must say you do an excellent job. Carry on.

74

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

Lew you are probably talking about a median age of 24-25 years old on this site, this is not a surprise on the romanticism. [/quote]

Cowboys represent a turbulent time in American history and the fading of the frontier - there is a lot of emotional baggage of the nations identity tied up in that one. Which is one reason cowboys have been represented they way they have in the mass media - simplified stories of good verses bad - when the ‘wild west’, or anyplace and life for that matter, is rarely that clear. Although I disliked the term, with Bush’s “cowboy” diplomacy fit, not because it reflected the real experiences of cowboys, but rather, the simplified good vs evil of the cowboy genre.

That said:

Plus, they were called ‘boys’ because that is what many of the where, teenagers with some younger.

And one more for good taste:

[/quote]

Bush is not a cowboy, unless Connecticut has cowboys in those mansions and cowboys own baseball teams in states they never grew up in.

75

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There actually were a fair number of black cowboys. True cowboys, not gunman.

I think many of you might not fully comprehend what a true cowboy was, and is. A true cowboy worked cattle. It’s that simple. A true cowboy did not roam the West shootin’ folks for a livin’.

Lewwhitehusrt is correct. [/quote]

Exactly. Even though a fair number of gunmen and outlaws were black and Native American as well. It is romanticized today but being a cowboy was considered shit work, so what do you think was the easiest job for a recently freed slave or an Indian “savage” to get? Even most white cowboys were poor and not looked upon too highly by everyone else. You guys need to read and research instead of looking at the romanticized and sanitized vision of everything the media puts out. It’s the same romanticism that had some guys on here thinking the Mafia had honor and class in some of the threads and posts I have seen on here in the past. Most of you guys have no clue, simply because you don’t know how to read and research on your own.[/quote]

Lew you are probably talking about a median age of 24-25 years old on this site, this is not a surprise on the romanticism. [/quote]

But it’s still no excuse. At that age, hell even younger, I had a sense of the larger world and was smart enough not to take and believe everything that was spoon fed to me. I know exactly what type of mentality and awareness of self and the world at large I am dealing with. I work on a college campus. I see it across all the forums and areas of this site, regardless of where these guys are from.

The vast majority have been coddled by Momma and not been made to mature mentally and emotionally and get a rude surprise when the world kicks them in the balls. Much better that one or two learn from an old bald black guy on the internet rather than have the world hand them their asses.
[/quote]

Well that’s where your perception is off, you are on a college campus where the majority are coddled. I have a lot of guys I do phyiscals on that are Pipefitters, welders etc. While not the “book smart” type are a hell of a lot more grounded and have a less rigid mentallity. Most have obligations and would not have time to ask questions about eating an 1/8 of a bananna.

I do agree about trying to school the ignorant, and I must say you do an excellent job. Carry on. [/quote]

No, my perception isn’t off. I see plenty of guys in that age range who aren’t in college who are just as spoiled and clueless. Chances are, the guys you are seeing have a better sense of the world because they actually had to work and earn something. Most guys that young never really have, because people have been afraid to let them fail and succeed on their own which is something that you HAVE to do if you want to truly mature and grow. The young guys on campus who work in maintenance or groundskeeping or are janitors, etc. are generally better grounded than the others in that age range that I see.

76

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that this could be better than the original. Good remakes do exist e.g. 3:10 to Yuma, and I like the darker direction they’ve gone with for this one.

I watched the original not so long ago, and although it’s undoubtedly a classic, it’s very much a product of its time, in all of its Technicolour glory. Great story but the production is pretty twee.

77

[quote]Diddy Ryder wrote:
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that this could be better than the original. Good remakes do exist e.g. 3:10 to Yuma, and I like the darker direction they’ve gone with for this one.

I watched the original not so long ago, and although it’s undoubtedly a classic, it’s very much a product of its time, in all of its Technicolour glory. Great story but the production is pretty twee.

[/quote]

Could be?? Could be?? It will be better than the original.

79

This movie is going to be really good. The notion that the original is untouchable is absolutely ridiculous. Wayne was given an Oscar for it as a sort of life-time achievement award–“well you’re really not that great of an actor, and you basically just slur your way through dialogue playing the exact same character in every single fucking movie, but you’ve been at it for so long and have an admittedly awesome screen presence so we’ll give you this for your mediocre performance in this mediocre movie you just made.”

Jeff Bridges could act circles around The Duke. Matt Damon is a fucking great actor, if you don’t believe it watch Good Will Hunting. The fact that he didn’t want Sarah Palin as vice president–a sentiment thankfully shared by millions–has no bearing on the movie.

And with the Coens at the helm it will undoubtedly be well done. That being said, I do wish someone would adapt Blood Meridian for the screen–and I wish it would be the Coen brothers (their taste for violence would fit perfectly). It is widely regarded as Mcarthy’s best work and one of the great pieces of American literature, right up there with Faulkner and Melville. It would have to be more of a horror film than a western–no cool lines like “fill your hand you son of a bitch” or “I can’t do nothin’ for you son.” Instead just straight murder and chaos and evil–a hell of a lot closer to the reality of “the wild west”.