Group Info Group Founded 10 Years ago 623 Members
26,242 Pageviews463 Watchers

Hey! this group is for everyone and take all art!

add whatever you like (but try and keep it clean) suggest what we need

let's get to 500 members

50 members ██
100 members ████
150 members ██████
200 members ███████

there are some real amazing artist on this group so please take a look at any and everything and if your new join :D


You're not here because you're not logged in
  • :iconyyoumei:
    Visited here 5 days ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconeskerata:
    Eskerata - Members
    Visited here 6 days ago
    Did something awesome 1 week ago
  • :iconjoyceandjim:
    Visited here 6 days ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconunknown3173:
    unknown3173 - Members
    Visited here 1 week ago
    Did something awesome 1 week ago
  • :iconkwyparte:
    KwypArte - Members
    Visited here 1 week ago
    Did something awesome on February 1st, 2021
  • :iconackelb:
    ackelb - Members
    Visited here 1 week and 2 days ago
    Did something awesome 1 week, 2 days ago
  • :iconlouisetheanimator:
    Louisetheanimator - Members
    Visited here 1 week and 2 days ago
    Did something awesome on July 30th, 2020
  • :iconeuderion:
    Euderion - Members
    Visited here 1 week and 5 days ago
    Did something awesome 1 week, 5 days ago
  • :iconthaeonblade:
    Thaeonblade - Members
    Visited here 1 week and 6 days ago
    Did something awesome 2 weeks ago
  • :iconmagnus-greel:
    Magnus-Greel - Members
    Visited here Apr 2, 2021, 6:30:17 PM
    Did something awesome 3 weeks, 6 days ago

Newest Members

Originally posted by Sc1r0n

Hello everybody!

Our older members know about this, so I believe it's time we inform our most recent members too

Our group never had and never will host a contest,because obviously our group wasn't created for that reason. That's why instead we promote the contests of our
sister group


This time it's a huge contest called Freedom of Expression and big prizes are given out, like many points,premium membership,free commissions from amazing artists and many more will be added along the way, so don't miss the oportunity, as it's an all art contest with no quality level applied.


So check it out and good luck to everybody!

Find the Journal to the contest here :…
send me a note if your interested
More Journal Entries

Gallery Folders

SailorMoon by Ryusoko
Rick and Morty - Rick valentine 2016/17/18 by Championx91
Elizabeth Mably (freezing) by al'd.baran by AldbaranTaurus
Cherith  by TanukiAngel

Mature Content

Sengoku Koihime Naughty Cheerleaders by quamp
Taruto X (Tokyo Mew Mew) by StraGen410
Christmas Gift Art For Haru2Sora by StraGen410
Bone Pone Funnies #37 by Eskerata
Bone Pone Funnies #36 by Eskerata
Little Ursa (Part #1) by 1Vestina
Little Ursa (Part #2) by 1Vestina
selfie by AppleBlossomGirl
Sharing tea with a fascinating stranger by unknown3173
Tate by Magnus-Greel
Untitled Yv, stage SEVEN, safe, more shading by Magnus-Greel
4 15 21 II by ButterflyBlew
Mourning cloak by AppleBlossomGirl
presence of silence by ionWill
Radiant Twilight by ionWill
Natural forms
View over the shoulder - Blue Planet by Euderion
A Dragons Wrath by MarquisAmon
Distant Worlds by Euderion
European Hedgehog by unknown3173
The Lexx by Euderion
Peregrine Attack Fighter by Euderion
SSV Leonidas - Alliance Destroyer by Euderion
Mass Effect Nelson Destroyer by Euderion
all other work
Morisa. Portrait sketch by ackelb
Fairy Vixen by 1Vestina
Seth MacFarlane as Wakko Warner (Animaniacs) by MZimmer1985
DnD party commission for Kevin Tracy by ackelb
Logics Insight: Gladiator et Kingdom of Heaven 2/2Part 2...I have three leading theories as to why Kingdom of Heaven gets more flack than Gladiator. I put them into their own segments so that I can go more in depth and better articulate why these three points raise up Gladiator and kick down Kingdom of Heaven. Some of this has to do with the films inherent content and quality. Other aspects are related to the audience's response and how the director/studio handled the film.Political and Cultural BiasLet's just address the obvious elephant in the room. Gladiator's subject matter is more politically neutral than Kingdom of Heaven's subject matter. Gladiator is set in a long-gone ancient civilization while Kingdom of Heaven tackles a political/cultural/religious conflict that is still ongoing in the present. Worst is that the movie tries to give its own spin on the subject rather than present the material as history sets it up. Thus, audiences more sensitive to the topic are baited into a more negative reaction.To be clear, Gladiator does the same thing as I noted in the previous section. Gladiator very much has a high opinion of Roman culture and the hegemony of the Pax Romana. Rome is repeatedly stated to be the light of civilization. The movie is also openly favorable about the Roman Senate and the Republic preceding the Empire.In truth, the Roman Empire brought about the Pax Romana through centuries of conquest and warfare costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Most of the rewards of said conquest were not enjoyed by the conquered peoples under Roman hegemony. Romans often forced conquered peoples to compromise their cultures and even religions in submission to Roman superiority. This is why the Romans were so persistent in their persecution of Jews and Christians because they refused to compromise their faith and hundreds of thousands were killed.Kingdom of Heaven on the other hand presents its subject with a pre-loaded moral already cocked and loaded. This movie is very harsh regarding religious zealotry and waging war in the name of religion. With a few exceptions, all of the crusader lords are shown as bloodthirsty butchers using the crusading cause as a smokescreen for their warmongering, ambition and greed. The movie is unsubtle about its commentary on holy war and that the crusades were a mistake.I'm personally conflicted here as I understand what Scott was trying to do. The movie came out during the War on Terror when the USA had first sent tens of thousands of troops into the Middle-East. Beginning a conflict that has killed at least 800 thousand people; worsened the USA's reputation on the world stage; made an already tenuous geo-political situation in the Middle-East even more unstable; and has spring-boarded even more violence and conflict instead of ending it.Scott wanted to use the movie to impress into the audiences that religious warfare was not new and that it was futile. To show the monstrous acts and attitudes that were done a thousand years ago in the name of God. He wanted to warn his Western Christian audience that broadly painting all Muslims as the enemy is wrong and would only create more harm than good. To do this, he felt like he had to play up the wrongdoing of the crusaders and downplay those of the Muslims led by Saladin.But this was a mistake. Even if I understand why he did it, it was still the wrong way to convey the message.What if I told you that the Crusades could be seen as a justified defensive response to over 400 years of Muslim aggression? By the time the 1st Crusade had begun, about 2/3rds of the Christian World had been conquered after Islam's explosive rise in power and numbers in the mid 600s.Conquered Christians were at the mercy of their Muslim overlords. Some were reasonable and merciful (some muslim rulers treated their non-muslim subjects better than christian rulers did) while others were harsh and cruel. But most christians and jews had to pay a jizya tax as a token of submission to Islam. They were allowed to practice their faith, but were not allowed to preach to muslims, they were regarded as second class citizens in society and law, and any Muslim who converted to either faith were stoned to death as Apostates.The Rise of Islam also brought about an extensive slave trade where millions of captives from East and North Africa, Central and Eastern Europe and West Asia were subjected to horrific treatment. Many male slaves were castrated to control the number of slaves with some dying from the ordeal. Females with pleasing features were taken as concubines/sex slaves by some Muslim Masters as part of their harems. Many slaves simply died as a result of the harsh journey that they were forced to undertake and the harsh conditions that they had to undergo. Seriously, this sounds just as horrible as the American/Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.Some may ask why no Christian power responded until much later? The reason why no one responded earlier was because there wasn't yet a strong enough kingdom or organization who could gather enough support for a counterattack. The pope's power was still very modest for a long time in a political scene; Francia/France was busy keeping itself together and that just left the Byzantine Empire to fight a losing unending conflict with various Muslim attackers that chipped away at its territory and power. Everyone else in Europe were weaker petty kingdoms, counties and etc too far away to care and already occupied fighting each other or the vikings.I don't want to go into too many details here, but the 1st Crusade was started by the perfect storm of socio-political figures and changes. A new more aggressive group of Conquerors called the Seljuk Turks had entered the area. With their cavalry based military, they swiftly defeated Levantine Muslims and Byzantine Christians to control an Empire spanning from Persia through Mesopotamia, Syria, and most of Anatolia. The Byzantine Emperor was barely able to hold onto what remained of his Empire and personally sent a call for help to the Pope in Rome.To be clear, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE CRUSADERS DID NOTHING WRONG! In the first crusade alone, thousands of Jews, Eastern European and Near-East Christians and Muslim civilians were slaughtered by the crusaders. In Antioch, native christians were butchered alongside muslims because the crusaders didn't care to try to tell them apart.When Jerusalem was taken, chroniclers account how the crusaders were wading in ankle deep blood after their massacre of the city. These acts were noted as being especially bloody even within a bloody time when sacking a conquered city was expected if not encouraged. And don't even get me started on the Fourth Crusade, aka...Christians killing Christians and crippling the Byzantine Empire thus allowing the Ottoman Empire to eventually rise up.If Ridley wanted to convey his message, then he should have stuck to the truth. Artistic liberties aside, he honestly messed up by downplaying or marginalizing the actions of the Caliphates, Sultanates and Emirates in the time period leading up to and during the Crusades. You can't really say that Religious Warfare is bad when you only criticize one group and not the other. The truth is that both Islam and Christendom committed great atrocities in the name of God during the Medieval period.This bias can create a heavy backlash since the audience may have its own bias well. 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds even after 4 years. Throw in a movie seemingly lionizing Muslims as morally superior to Christians while demonizing medieval Christians and the backlash is inevitable. I also read a rumor that Muslim watchdogs were consulted to ensure that the portrayal of Islam in the film didn't offend Muslim sensitivities. Director Ridley Scott was even provided with 4 security guards by Morocco's king while filming in Morocco to protect him from potential backlash.Now if I sounded harsh earlier that's because I am merely stating the facts as history presents them. History is filled to the brim with actions, attitudes and beliefs that would piss off modern learners. Personally, I find the institution of slavery to be disgusting regardless of who practiced it and whether it was "actively oppressive or not". But I can still put aside my personal feelings to study and understand history as it was. If you truly want to respect the history that you are showing, then you have to tell the truth including the hard truths.A lot of messed up shit happened in history and we cannot change that. All we can do is record, study and understand the events and those who participated in them. Therefore, we can learn from the past to carve a greater future. Or else we risk repeating the mistakes of the past in the present and suffering the consequences long into the future. But we cannot do that if we rewrite history to suit our comforts or our sensitivities. Cinematic CraftThis will be a dozy.It could come down to one movie objectively being better than the other. Maybe one film has better cinematography? Better acting and cast? Better action? Better pacing and editing? Better musical score? Better script? Better themes and story? For me, this is going to go down to the wire as I believe both films are excellent works of cinematic craft.That said, it is possible that people love Gladiator more because it told its story better than Kingdom.Kingdom of Heaven does tell a compelling story of faith and hope in dark times. Balian is a man in a crisis of faith after he lost his newborn child and his wife killed herself. He is also tormented constantly by his jealous asshole half-brother who is also a church monk. Then some crusader baron shows up and admits that he's his absentee father after a medieval one-night stand with Balian's mother.Right after that his monk brother rubs his wife's suicide in Balian's face to make him take the Crusade. Already under immense mental, emotional and spiritual distress, his brother's latest taunt is the straw that breaks the camel's back. In a fit of rage, Balian murders his own brother with an unfinished sword and commits three taboos in one act: Murder (Thou Shalt not Murder); Fratricide (Murdering one's own brother); and Murdering a Priest.And then his father dies protecting him when local men-at-arms arrive to arrest Balian for his crime of passion. Then he's thrown into the christian-muslim conflict and must honor his father's last wishes while still trying to find himself. Thus we have a story with a character in conflict with both external adversaries and internal struggle.Balian's arc is resolved with his surrender of Jerusalem. He has unorthodoxly given up the kingdom of heaven to protect the people and forsakes political power for ethical and moral resolution. Thus he solves the external conflict by withdrawing from it and refusing to grasp hold of something he could never control.When he defeats Guy in a duel and spares his life, Balian resolves his internal conflict. In the beginning of the movie, he killed his enemy in wrath and at the end, he spares his enemy to overcome his hate. He spares Guy even though the latter had insulted him, disrespected him, destroyed the kingdom, and tried to kill Balian twice. Balian tells him that if he rises again then he must "rise a knight".Balian is turning the other cheek as Jesus would have commanded. He is forgiving his enemy and praying that he atones for his wrongful acts. For all of Guy's evil deeds and pride, he'll never be able to change for the better if Balian kills him. By surrendering Jerusalem, he is also eschewing political power as Christians are taught that spiritual and moral action and fiber are more important. What good is it to gain the world and lose your soul?Of course, this arc for Balian and the moral imperative is not perfect. The movie's issues regarding its bias hamper this theme considerably. Plus, Balian's heavily fictionalized background just displaces what could have been the more interesting truthful background.Furthermore, Balian having a fictional affair with Sybilla is odd both for historical reasons and because "thou shalt not commit adultery" is one of the ten commandments. No seriously, adultery was a heavy offense against medieval law and the church and even kings had been excommunicated for adultery. There was no need to make-up a love affair for Balian when the real Balian was happily married to Sybilla's stepmother. Alright, I'll shut up the love affair subplot.I believe that the film would have been stronger if Orlando Bloom's character was fictional like Russell Crowe's was. Then this bastard blacksmith exiled from France in the middle of an emotional and spiritual crisis comes upon the real Balian while he's visiting kinsmen in France.The blacksmith accompanies Balian to Jerusalem and becomes his man-at-arms. Through the years, he rises up to become a minor landed knight under Balian's rule and his experience in Jerusalem reshapes him and changes him. Maybe he convinces Balian to surrender Jerusalem as its not worth defending if they lose all of the people they swore to defend.Another issue with the movie is that Orlando Bloom just isn't a great leading actor. He's honestly best as a part of a larger ensemble cast where he can prop up the dynamics of other actors. This is best seen with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Troy where he works well with other actors in key moments to bring out the best in both. But a leading actor must be able to both work well with the rest of the cast and be able to carry the scenes where they're the focus. Now I'm not saying that Orlando Bloom is a bad actor at all. I don't believe he's just a pretty face and he can do a solid performance in the roles he's given. But at the time of Kingdom of Heaven, Bloom just wasn't leading man material yet.This where Gladiator beats out Kingdom of Heaven. On top of having a great cast, Russell Crowe just carries his movie far better than Orlando carries his. He reads his lines naturally while also giving subtle emotion to a stoic character. He's emotional scenes are great in expression, action and speech delivery. When he gets more intense, he does so in a way that stays in character and makes Maximus stand out more as a main character. Why else do you think his "Are you not entertained" scene sticks out so much in your mind?It's possible that having a fictional character as your main protagonist is an advantage for Gladiator. I say this because this would allow Scott the freedom to do whatever he wanted with the character. Thus Maximus becomes the central piece of a riches-to-rags tale of a great noble figure brought low by tragedy and misfortune and having to adapt to his new menial life.It is a simple story, but one that seems to be heavily layered. Marcus Aurelius wrote a book concerning the philosophy of Stoicism and "Like Heroes of Old" made an excellent video on how it ties into Gladiator's characters and story. Maximus embodies his emperor's philosophies despite his adversities and maintains an inner discipline throughout his journey. That discipline gives him strength even when he has lost everything and allows him to triumph over the emperor.By contrast, Commodus lacks this inner discipline despite his great power. He constantly yearns for external validation and this yearning is the root of his depravity. He murdered his father because he was neglected and now his birthright is given to his rival. But he still lacks peace and so he lusts for his sister out of a desire to be loved. He throws the gladiator games and bankrupts Rome to make the people love him. He becomes a tyrant because he decides that if he can't be loved than he will be feared. He fights a wounded Maximus to prove to the crowd that he is more worthy of love than the fallen general. But all Commodus does is ensure his own doom when the stoic Maximus slays the cruel emperor despite his condition.Commodus is also a better written and portrayed antagonist compared to Kingdom of Heaven's cartoonish portrayals of Reynald and Guy. Despite being evil as hell and being a real figure who was evil as hell, Joaquin Phoenix still manages to convey a sense of twisted humanity within the mad emperor. You almost pity Commodus as all of his evil is his way for getting back at his father for neglecting and overlooking him. Commodus is a man who spent his life in his father's shadow and always failing to live up to his standards. It is heavily hinted that Commodus is jealous of the respect and attention that Marcus gives to Maximus. His yearning for his father's approval and his jealousy of Maximus hits a boiling point when he learns that Maximus is his father's choice as heir. He then basks in the debauchery and cruelty which he holds as Rome's Emperor. But he cannot find peace, happiness or love and thus descends further into evil and madness, even threatening both his sister and his nephew. Marketing and TimingMaking a movie is hard. You have to have a solid script; decent production; a committed cast; a decent director; a stable budget and trustworthy studio backer. Then you have to spend additional funds to market your movie and interest potential moviegoers into watching it. Then sit back and pray that you'll at least make back twice of the money that you sank into this film. At the same time, hope that enough audiences and critics like it to where they'll rewatch the movie in theaters and buy it on home release.A lot can go wrong on the set of a movie or even during pre-production. The making of both Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are filled with examples of disasters that can occur. It's a wonder that Ridley Scott was even able to finish making either movies. Gladiator suffered from constant script rewrites and conflicts with the cast and among the cast. Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott went back and forth over the screenplay with Crowe sometimes leaving set when he didn't get his way. Oliver Reed died before finishing his scenes, requiring the use of digital and body doubles to complete his part. Also more script rewrites were necessary on account of his untimely death.Interestingly, the first draft of the script by David Franzoni would have had Maximus as Narcissus, the trainer who actually strangled Commodus to death. Narcissus would fight a CGI rhino in the arena and Lucilla would be executed with several senators inside of a Sicillian brazen bull. But things were changed because the dialogue didn't seem natural, Maximus' family was killed off to give him motivation and Commodus' villainy was downplayed because Scott thought people would see it as unrealistic.But that's nothing compared to Kingdom of Heaven. Gladiator's production was at least fruitful and worked out many kinks to make a great movie. Kingdom of Heaven on the other hand suffered horribly from executive meddling at almost every step of production. For starters, the movie originally started as a project called Tripoli.Tripoli would have been set in the 1800s and star Christian and Muslim rebels working together against Tripoli's ruler on the Barbary coast. But Russel Crowe was busy with the film Master and Commander and Fox wasn't interested in sponsoring the project. So Scott and writer William Monahan refocused towards a story about the Crusades.While filming for Kingdom of Heaven was largely smooth, Scott had to fight the executives again. This time, Ridley Scott was forced to cut the film from 186 minutes to 145 minutes. The studio was worried that the audience wouldn't stick around for a three hour movie and apparently forgot about the hits of Titanic and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. They also thought that the subplot of Sybella's son was pointless and forced Scott to remove it.To add insult to injury, the film was poorly marketed prior to its release. I can't find the source, but reportedly Scott wanted to fire the marketing team. Previews gave a terrible impression of the film as an exotic love story plus Gladiator in the Crusades and not a dramatic examination of religious conflict. This contributed to the film's disappointing box office figures domestically though it was thankfully received better overseas particularly Egypt and other Arabic-speaking countries. Unhappy with the Theatrical Cut's outcome or its handling, Scott eventually released the original director's cut on dvd and blue ray. This version is unanimously praised for its greater insight into the story and its characters personalities and motivations. Some even heralded it as the greatest directors cut of all time. However, this cannot take away the shadow of the theatrical cut's failure.Gladiator also got an extended cut, but only adds 15 minutes of deleted and extended scenes. To be frank, Gladiator wasn't screwed by the executives as badly as Kingdom was. Therefore, audiences gravitated more to Gladiator's theatrical cut while Kingdom of Heaven's theatrical release disinterested potential audiences.Another thing to consider is that Gladiator came out in 2000 and was the first of the recent epic historical "sword and sandal" dramas that came out in the early to mid 2000s. By the time Kingdom of Heaven was released, other films like Troy, Alexander, Scorpion King, Julius Caesar, King Arthur and Atilla. Kingdom of Heaven wasn't able to stand out against the competition and people's interest had waned after a slew of okay to mediocre films in the same genre.Contrast with 300 of all movies which stood out thanks to its art style, blood pumping action, and story framing device that is proudly biased. And would you know it, this film and its sequel Rise of an Empire are both hit and miss with their historical accuracies. However, when you consider that they're adaptations of comics based on movies based on greek propaganda based on real events, counting the inaccuracies seems futile. 300 was such as success that it retains a strong fanbase to the present day with continued interest in third film about Alexander the Great.Kingdom of Heaven is remembered for what it missed and how it was mis-marketed. I immensely enjoyed the Director's Cut and it appears that everyone who watched it did as well. But I can't say that everyone who watched the theater version picked up the Director's Cut, so perhaps only a fraction of moviegoers saw Scott's intended vision. For all of the problems it faced, Gladiator was spared from this unfortunate pitfall.ConclusionLike I said, both movies are some of my favorites and I do believe that they are great films. I won't say for sure that my three theories are why Kingdom of Heaven is knocked on more as opposed to Gladiator. Though they lend to my belief that Kingdom of Heaven's historical inaccuracies were more bothersome than Gladiator's because of the many factors surrounding each release.Let's face it, a movie can be awesome and still be historically inaccurate as hell. Just look at Braveheart which might as well be fantasy fiction. Or Saving Private Ryan which is historically authentic and opens with an accurate account of the D-Day Landings, but centers on a fictional mission with WW2 as a sandbox. Another film of Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down is a great story, but omits details and facts which would paint the USA and its allies in a negative light regarding the Somali Civil War.Maybe the simple truth is that general audiences just want to be entertained.Making a truly historically accurate film and exciting the audience is a tricky balance. Some artistic liberties need to be taken to keep the audience from scratching their head. In the show Barbarians for instance, the Germanic tribes are speaking in modern German so that modern German and Western audiences can relate to them. Often times, characters speak English when they should be speaking an ancient dead language because the audience needs to be in the loop on what is happening. In fact, the call for greater fidelity to historical accuracy is a more recent development and most would not have cared before the late 20th century.However, I for one think the balance between a good movie and an accurate movie is worth shooting for. Outlaw King starring Chris Pine as Robert the Bruce appears to have achieved this along with Barbarians. 12 Strong got a mixed reception, but I'm surprised that it got a lot of things accurate apart from a few errors and artistic liberties. So I happily encourage future writers and directors to work towards that balance to entertain and spark interest in real historical events.Just avoid every mistake Michael Bay made with Pearl Harbor made and you'll be fine.The End
Logics Insight: Gladiator et Kingdom of Heaven 1/2Gladiator and (et=and in Latin fyi) Kingdom of Heaven are two of my favorite movies of all time.It's not a coincidence that several of my favorite movies were directed by Ridley Scott. The man is a great and prolific director despite a few mistakes (sneezes Alien: Covenant and 1492: Conquest of Paradise). He understands setting a good tone, he understands character exploration and development, he understands the importance of the environment and setting to the characters and story, he knows how to show and tell a theme, and he can chart out a decent plot as well. He's also great at picking great composers to create great music for his films.Also, the action in his movies are really visceral and great. He mostly films dramas and character driven stories, but he doesn't neglect on the action. Some of the most memorable actions scenes that you think of come from his movies where the action is honestly minimal. He also has a wide range in his filming ability from historical epics to sci-fi movies and even crime-tragedies like Thelma & Louise. Furthermore, he embraced the advent of computer generated effects while choosing to continue using practical effects. Thus helping his audience to immerse themselves in the stories that he tells.With that said, Ridley Scott is not a perfect director and his career has several bumps. While he won acclaim for Gladiator and even got a few academy awards for it, Kingdom of Heaven was a tragic disappointment. Kingdom was a domestic box office failure, its critical reception was mixed and it got a lot of criticism for historical accuracy and authenticity. Worse is that Scott was forced to heavily edit down Kingdom due to executive meddling and the marketing campaign failed to accurately present the film.What baffles me is why Kingdom gets more flack for historical accuracy than Gladiator. A lot of critics including historians on the time period bash on Kingdom of Heaven for its historical inaccuracies. I'm not here to disagree with them as they are professionals who have studied history for years. But in truth, I'd say that Kingdom of Heaven appears more accurate to its history than Gladiator was.Let me clarify that statement. Both movies are big budget action dramas set in historical backgrounds. Both take heavy liberties with the histories that they are conveying along with the backgrounds and major actors of said historical events and locations. If you are watching a movie based on true events, you will have to expect some level of inaccuracies. If you want truly accurate history then go read a well researched historical book, don't go to Hollywood. It is in this context that I question the double standard at play in regards to Ridley Scott's two historical epics. Both movies arguably commit the same crimes in regards to historical accuracy and authenticity. Yet Gladiator is universally acclaimed as one of the best movies of the genre. By contrast, Kingdom of Heaven is seen as a mixed bag with people either loving it or hating it. But before I get repetitive or ahead of myself, let's go over each movie briefly. I will also be exploring possibilities as to why Gladiator is judged more favorably than Kingdom of Heaven despite both having major failures in historically presenting its material.The MoviesGladiator was released in 2000 and starts in the last year of Rome's Philosopher-Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The main character of this story is a Roman General/Legate named Maximus, a skilled and loyal soldier of Rome. As the elderly emperor watched from a distance, Maximus leads his legion of Roman soldiers into victory against the Germanic Barbarians invading Rome's borders.Plots and tragedies would strip everything from Maximus and bring the acclaimed general down to a slave. As a slave, he would be trained as a gladiator to fight, kill and survive for the amusement of the mob. All while Marcus' cruel son, Commodus, wastes Rome's glory with his madness and excessive games.After being purchased by a rather ambitious gladiator trainer, Maximus uses his experience as a legionnaire and a commander to adapt to his new status. Fate brings him to Rome where he is caught up in a plot against Commodus made by Commodus' sister Lucila and leading members of the Senate. Thus Maximus battles for his freedom, his life and revenge against a madman. Kingdom of Heaven was released in 2005 and centers around the Christian-Muslim conflict preceding the Third Crusade. The story stars Balian, a blacksmith disillusioned with his faith after a great family tragedy. Fate would raise him up as a knight of Jerusalem as he is thrown into a conflict with roots spanning back hundreds of years.Almost 90 years earlier, host of Christian knights, lords and princes from across Europe successfully campaigned against Islamic sultans and emirs. Their victory resulted in the creation of four Christian States within the Levant centered on Edessa, Antioch, Tripoli and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In the present, Jerusalem is ruled by a wise king. But King Baldwin is a leper cursed to die a slow death while his subjects scheme and plot to take power after Baldwin's death. At the same time, Baldwin's rival Saladin rules Egypt and Syria and is poised to strike the Christian states. Balian finds his courage and his spirit challenged as he contends with fellow Christian adversaries, Muslim warriors in jihad against Jerusalem and his own heart. As these films have been out for 15-20 years, I'm not going to go into a scene-by-scene synopsis. For the record, I'm not listing every single thing that the movies get wrong historically. I'm going to focus on the most obvious inaccuracies as relevant to the stories presented in each movie. All so that you can see for yourself how both films are fairly spotty on historical accuracy when honestly compared back to back.Kingdom of Heaven's Historical InaccuraciesObviously, the real Balian of Ibelin was not a bastard blacksmith. Instead, he was born into nobility in the Holy Land as the youngest son of Barisan of Ibelin. Born in 1143, Balian became lord of Ibelin in 1169 after the passing of his eldest brother Hugh as the older brother Baldwin preferred Ramla over Ibelin. Thus, Balian became a vassal of his brother and a rear-vassal of King Amalric and later King Baldwin IV.Balian also did not have an adulterous affair with Princess Sybilla. In fact, Balian was happily married to Sybilla's stepmother Dowager Queen Maria Komnene, great-great daughter of Byzantine Emperor Alexios Komnenos and great-niece of Byzantine Emperor Manual I Komnenos. There are loose rumors of Sybilla having a crush on Balian's older brother, but there's no evidence that this was true. Hell, Balian supported Sybilla's half-sister Isabella as the preferred heiress to the throne since she was his step-daughter and also wasn't married to a weak-willed idiot.It is true that Guy really did doom the Kingdom of Jerusalem through his stupidity and weakness. However, his weakness stemmed from his indecisiveness and lack of commitment to the kingdom's defense and the crusader cause. In his defense, he did initially want to avoid the march to Hattin, but was persuaded by Raynauld who used Guy's past record against him. In fact, Raynauld only supported Guy because he felt that Guy would be a useful puppet on the throne.Guy really did march his army into the desert and got Jerusalem's army slaughtered. He was held captive by Saladin for several years before he was eventually released. Guy immediately tried to rally the remaining Christian cities to retake his conquered kingdom, but a lot of cities ignored him. Especially after Guy's wife Sybilla and their three daughters died of sickness, thus cutting off Guy's legitimate claim to the throne.Salah Al-Din (Saladin) truly was a formidable yet honorable foe for the Crusader Kingdoms. Having united Syria and Egypt under his control, Saladin was able to surround the Levant on three sides and could gather large armies to batter the Crusader borders. After years of fighting with Baldwin IV, Saladin made a truce. Though this was less for religious idealism and more for buying time to replenish his diminished armies.He also was a very savvy and intelligent individual who was a devoted muslim, but was shrewd to not let zealotry blind his thoughts. He did lead an army to attack Reynald at Kerak and while his encounter with Baldwin was fictional, he did withdraw when the main crusader army was on its way. This is because Saladin's control over his fellow Muslims was tenuous and he could not afford another defeat like Montgisard. In fact, the Battle of Montgisard nearly ruined Saladin as he lost over 20 to 26 thousand men to Baldwin's host of 3 to 4.5 thousand. His reputation would never recover until after the Battle of Hattin or the taking of Jerusalem.I'd also point out that Saladin's terms of surrender to Jerusalem were not so generous. In the film, he allows all knights, soldiers, civilians, nobles and royals to leave in peace if Balian surrenders. In truth, he only allowed about half of the people to depart if they could pay their ransom. Those who couldn't were captured and sold into slavery. To be fair, he did forbid the desecration and destruction of Christian holy places; allowed native christians and jews to reenter the city and worship in peace; and did let a few thousand people go free without ransom. It should also be acknowledged that Saladin's actions were still considered just and merciful for the time period. Just keep this in mind because it will be relevant for a latter point.Sybilla's child Baldwin V really did die within a short year of taking the throne. Yet, he was not killed by his mother to spare him the pain of suffering a lifetime of leprosy. However, history doesn't actually record which sickness took the boy king's life. He is said to have always been a sickly child and prone to disease, few believed that he would survive his childhood. Another big inaccuracy is that Sybilla and Guy actually had a loving marriage. They had two daughters and Sybilla refused her brother's attempts to divorce her from Guy. She was the one who made Guy King of Jerusalem by his marriage to her after she promised to divorce Guy to become Queen. She also didn't leave the Crusader States after Jerusalem's fall, but stayed at her husband's side and died of a sickness during the siege of Acre.Lastly, it is true that Raynauld De Chatillion of Oultrejordan really did assault muslim caravans moving near and through his territory. There was a chronicler who wrongly stated that Raynauld killed Saladin's sister, but this is incorrect. In truth, the raids caused Saladin to raise the guard on his sister as she traveled. Raynauld's actions truly were in violation of the King's truce with Saladin and Saladin really did march on army on Raynauld's capital Kerak in retaliation. Raynauld even ignored both Baldwin and Guy's orders to stop because...the king's authority does not extend into his territory...No really, a vassal of the king said that his king couldn't tell him what to do in his territory within the king's kingdom....Interestingly, Raynauld is a controversial figure even among history buffs. Some regard him in line with what the movie depicts. Not just because of his killing of muslim travelers, but also because of some ill-deeds done earlier in his life. If I'm remembering correctly, Raynauld imprisoned a priest and starved him to death.On the other hand, some regard Raynauld as a harsh, but admirable crusader figure. That Raynauld's actions were necessary in disrupting Saladin's power and fervently guarding the eastern frontier. Even his threat to raid Mecca and Medina were seen as justified for reasons that I'll get into later on.Lastly, Raynauld's death in the film is very accurate to how his death at Saladin's hands were infamously described. The movie portrays this event as Raynauld reaping what he had sowed. However whether or not you see a villain or hero being executed depends on your perspective regarding Raynauld's actions and motives.Gladiator's Historical InaccuraciesWhile it is true that Kingdom's take on Balian is heavily fictionalized, Gladiator's Lead Maximus never even existed. His mannerisms and character appear to be plausible for a Roman legate. However, the character of Maximus was made up for the movie. He may be loosely inspired by a real historical character called Tiberius Claudius Pompeianus. Pompeianus was a chief general in Marcus Aurelius' Marcomanic Wars and one of his most trusted advisors. After his co-emperor Lucius Varus died from the Antonine Plague, Marcus arranged for his widowed daughter Lucilla to marry Pompeianus. Marcus also offered to appoint Pompeianus as his caesar and heir but the general declined. Pompeianus would be offered the position of Emperorship two more times. Once after Commodus was murdered, Pompeianus was offered the Imperatorship by Pertinax, but refused and the Praetorian Guard made Pertinax the new emperor. Then in the chaos of the year of five emperors, Didius Julianus desperately offered for Pompeianus to be his co-ruler, but the retired general declined again. Gladiator depicts Marcus as wanting Maximus to succeed him and transfer power back to the Senate. Marcus wanted Rome to become a Republic and the last thing he wanted was for Commodus to become Emperor. As Commodus was not a moral man and was fairly selfish and unwell mentally. This is confirmed when Commodus strangles his father to death, orders Maximus' death along with his family, lusts for his sister and threatens his nephew's life.Historically speaking, Commodus really was a madman. The movie sugarcoats just how insane Commodus truly was. But unto his deathbed, Marcus was adamant about Commodus succeeding him as the next Emperor. He even appointed Commodus as junior co-emperor in the last years of his reign. Furthermore, the idea that Marcus wanted to turn the Empire back into a Republic is laughable. By the time of Marcus' reign, Rome had been an Empire for 200 years and were now at the height of their power. Almost all of the known world was under the dominion of the Roman Eagle and the Pax Romana ensured peace and prosperity across all controlled provinces. The people of Rome were more than happy with having executive power centered on the Emperor and his governors. Additionally, the Senate was only a ceremonial part of Roman government and they largely gave rubber stamps to the Emperor's orders. Plus, inherited knowledge determined that it was the infighting and indecisive bickering of the Old Senate that led to the Roman Republic's collapse into civil war. Most patricians only sought out being a Senator as a ceremonial stepping stone to becoming legates of the Roman legions. Hell, the Senate itself was always an oligarchy of the richest and most prominent patricians in Rome who were appointed by the Censor; Consul or the Emperor and never the people.While Commodus was a paranoid madman, he didn't have an incest-lust obsession for his older sister. In fact, he had Lucilla executed after her failed attempt to assassinate the emperor. Strangely, he didn't go after her Widower Pompeianus or their children. It seems that since Pompeianus and Lucilla's marriage was strained at the time, Commodus assumed that the retired general had nothing to do with the attempt on his life. A very strange lucid train of thought for a paranoid madman. Guess a broken clock works some of the time.Commodus was an avid lover of gladiators and even acted as one. Killing dwarfs, invalid/crippled veterans, and animals dressed up as a gladiator himself. However, he wasn't killed by a man who never existed. However, the tidbit about him mortally wounded Maximus and then fighting him could be a nod to Commodus rigging his own matches to ensure that he would win. The part where the Praetorians abandon Commodus and refuse to give him a sword could also be a nod to his real death. As the Praetorian guard arranged for Commodus' personal trainer to strangle Commodus to death when he tried to bathe.In the movie, Commodus is shown as ruling for a few weeks or months, when in truth he ruled for 13 years before his assassination. Commodus' death was a not a great breath of fresh air that meant that Rome's glory would return. In truth, Commodus was such a bad ruler that even his death could not reverse the decline he set into motion. After his death was the year of 5 emperors where one emperor was murdered because Commodus left him without any money to secure the Praetorian Guard's loyalty. The praetorian guard put up the empire for sell to the highest bidder and the victor had to contend with 3 legates revolting and declaring themselves emperor. The last emperor standing was Septimius Severus who was a solid and strong ruler, but ushered in the reign of the Severan Dynasty. The Severans would turn out a short line of emperors who were either crazy, tyrannical, or weak, with no moderation in between. Even Severus himself made the big mistake of debasing Rome's currency to 50% to pay off the increasingly enlarged and enriched legions. All of these mistakes and misrules piled up and the last Severan emperor was murdered by his own men, thus starting the Crisis of the Third Century.There also many more historical inaccuracies that can be pointed out. As a Roman Citizen, it would be impossible for Maximus to be made a slave within Roman territory. In fact, pretending to be a slave was tantamount to fraud. Marcus Aurelius never banned gladiators throughout the empire, he only did so in Antioch as punishment for supporting a short-lived coup. Furthermore, Gladiator fights to the death were considered uncommon unless it was a one-sided execution as gladiators were considered too valuable to waste. Slaves and freedmen alike fought as gladiators and were heralded as celebrities of their time. Some gladiators were even recruited into the Roman Legions while others were used to endorse politicians and businesses. In fact, Ridley Scott left out the later because he thought that the audience would consider this too ridiculous.IntermissionI hope that I have given you an accurate impression of where I'm standing in my confusion. Both films have heavy historical inaccuracies and anachronisms. There are many more that I didn't even list and thus focused on the most character and story related inaccuracies. These films can be best seen as historical fantasy which can inspire interest in studying the real-life topics as they did for me. Plus, they are really well made and entertaining films with equal parts drama, character study and action.I do currently have three theories as to why Gladiator is looked upon more favorably than Kingdom of Heaven. These theories are as follows: Director and Audience Bias and Sensitivities; The Stories and lead actors for each movie; and Marketing and TimingHowever, I'll need to cover these in part 2 as each theory will require a good deal of analysis and thought. See you in Part 2....
Logics Impression: Coming To America 2,I'm just telling you right now that I'm not going to watch this movie.Which is a shame because I was looking forward to a sequel to the 1987 classic Coming to America. I had heard talk about a sequel since the 2000s and I got excited when the first announcements and teasers came out. Maybe I should've known better by now, but I was still optimistic about a sequel that was at least entertaining and funny.The original Coming to America was a very special movie for me personally. It was one my family's go to comedies whenever we were together. In fact, this movie was one of my late Grandma Winnie's favorites. Now looking back, it may not be the best or funniest movie, but it still hits all of the right notes. The OriginalThe movie stared Eddie Murphy as Prince Akeem Joffer, heir to the throne of the fictional african kingdom of Zamunda. Akeem is having second thoughts about an arranged marriage or the pampered lifestyle of royalty. So Akeem travels to America with his best friend Semmi played by Arseno Hall to find his own queen. They end up in Queens New York where they meet a lot of crazy and interesting people, get into a lot of hilarious situations and Akeem meets the love of his life Lisa McDowell played by Shari Headley. Apart from being an excellent comedy, Coming to America was also a great coming of age story in a sense. Even as an adult, Akeem still lives a life premade for him by his loving, but traditional parents King Jaffe Joffer played by James Earl Jones and Queen Aoleon Joffer played by Madge Sinclair. His adventure to America is Akeem's way of coming into his own as a man. Eagerly and diligently taking a crap job at a McDonalds rip-off owned by Lisa's father and living within the ghetto of Queen's worst neighborhood. Akeem is mocked, downtrodden, and even robbed in broad daylight. But never loses his resolve or his cheerful resilience. He is determined to show that he can live as a real man without the wrappings of royalty. He wants to find a woman he loves and who loves him and spend the rest of his life with her. In fact, He offers to abdicate as prince of Zamunda just to prove to Lisa that he truly loved her. Which made the ending all the better when they got together, Akeem's resolve had convinced his parents to change tradition and let him marry the woman he loved.I don't mean to overanalyze a late 80s comedy, but Akeem stands out as a good man for black viewers to admire and emulate. A breath of fresh air in a media oversaturated with hyper-tokenized, stereotypical and negative personas for people of color. He's also a good example of a strong static character who stays the same throughout the story, but whose actions and convictions influence and change others around him.I'd also point that despite its portrayal of the "black ghetto", the movie still shows plenty of warmth and respect for the black community. Despite being African royalty, Akeem never looks down on the Americans and makes an effort to accommodate to the culture that he's visiting and speaks to everyone with respect. In fact, much of the comedy comes from the culture clash created by the African diaspora.But enough gushing about the original. I just wanted to give you some context as to why I love the first Coming to America. Therefore, you know where I stand in regards to the sequel. The SequelAs I've said before, I was excited when it was confirmed in 2019 that the sequel was going forward with most of the original cast reprising their roles. Though some have passed away such as Madge Sinclair who died of leukemia in 1995. Others couldn't come back due to scheduling issues like Samuel L Jackson as the McDowell's robber and others like director John Landis either weren't asked to come back or retired. The cast will also have a lot of new people like Weasley Snipes, Leslie Jones, Tracy Morgan and Jermaine Fowler. The movie was going to be released to theaters in August, 2020. But the movie was delayed due to the Pandemic. Then in November of 2020, Amazon purchased the distribution rights to the movie for 125 million dollars (twice the movie's 60 million dollar budget). Thus, the movie was set to be released on March 4th, 2021 on Amazon Prime Video Streaming. According to Amazon, film had the best opening weekend of any streamed film since March 2020.So what's the problem? We have a strong cast; most of the original crew are back; the trailers and teasers were funny; Almost twice the budget of the original movie; and a new director who worked with Murphy before on a good project (Dolemite Is My Name). Where could they possibly go wrong?For starters: the movie is PG-13. Which inevitably means that the movie will be toned down compared to the R-rated original. AVP, the Mortal Kombat movie and Mortal Kombat vs DC all show what happens when you try to make a PG-13 adaptation to an R-rated classic. The adult situations, language and content added to the comedy of Coming to America. Not to mention that Eddie Murphy himself was a very NC-17 comedian and it showed in his best skits and routines. But the rating isn't the deal-breaker, the first Mortal Kombat movie was still decent and even MK vs DC was an alright game.My beef with the movie centers around three major turnoffs. I could accept the first one and bite the bullet for the second one. But the third one really pisses me off and I've chosen not to waste the energy by watching a movie that I'll hate. There will be mild spoilers in these upcoming points, so you've been warned.1) Akeem had a One Night Stand and has a long-lost sonI'm not spoiling anything as this is in the trailer. Apparently, Akeem had a one night stand while in Queens and has to find his long-lost son Lavelle. This is because Zamunda tradition dictates that only a male can sit the throne of Zamunda and Akeem and Lisa only have 3 daughters Meeka, Omma and Tinashe. Three intelligent, beautiful, skilled and well raised daughters, but daughters nonetheless.Well, I already know where this is going to go. This situation is set up so that Akeem is initially going to set up his son as heir, but his daughters will resist because they don't like to be displaced. The feminist overtone will eventually have Akeem realize that tradition must change and he'll change the law so that his daughters will be the rightful heirs. Then all of the children will get along as one big family as princesses and princes of Zamunda.Fine. If that's how the movie goes then go for it. I do have issues with contriving for Akeem to have a one night stand out of nowhere. The whole point of going to Queens was to not to get laid or "sow his royal oats" with random stranger. He was in Queens to find a queen, fall in love and get laid for the rest of his life. So this chipped away at the wholesome characterization of Akeem. Granted, he didn't have any problems with being cleaned by nude bathers every morning (I'll be honest, I wouldn't). So it's not too much of a stretch and the concept is at least passable. It would also be a way for Akeem to take responsibility for the reckless act of his youth. I just don't personally like it because I am sick of the oversaturation of absentee black fathers and single parents. Especially the hound dog black man who sleeps around and is absent from his children's life until its convenient. I could stomach it...but there is one detail to how Akeem's son was conceived. But I'll save that for a bit later.2) Double standards and Jokes about genital mutilation aka circumcisionSo...Akeem brings his long lost son to Zamunda along with Lavelle's mother, uncle and aunt. The young man gets used to Zamunda culture and being a prince. He's also set to engage in a few tests to prove his worth as prince of Zamunda and heir to his father. One of these tests involves something to do with a lion as the trailer shows Lavelle running frantically from it.The second involves Lavelle getting circumcised and the whole affair is treated as a joke. On a purely personal and ethical level, I despise circumcision and those who think it's hygienic or ok to mutilate someone else's genitals especially if they're newborn babies. What disgusts me more is that female circumcision is rightly regarded as wrong and a violation of the girl/woman's body autonomy. Yet, the same people who talk down female circumcision are silent when it comes to male circumcision or sing a completely different tune.I don't want to get into the many levels of why people uphold this cruel practice. This touches on misplaced religious and cultural adherence, blindly tradition, societal ignorance, the profit incentive of the medical industrial complex, cognitive dissonance, casual subconscious sociopathy and cruelty, lack of common sense in regards to hygiene and preventing STDs and more. I'm not going to argue with anyone who wants to tell me how circumcision isn't wrong, because you won't make me budge.Many cultures in Africa feature both male and female circumcision and there has been a lot of criticism towards the latter. Even the WHO has regarded female circumcision as a crime and yet male circumcision is promoted. Worse is that people wrongly think that circumcision will make you less susceptible to AIDs which is rampant in Africa. This is despite the fact that AIDS rates remain high overall, the studies encouraging circumcision as a remedy were flawed and have had holes poked in them over the decades and the USA has the highest rate of AIDs and STDs even though Americans have the highest rates of male genital mutilation in the First World.So I hope you have some perspective about why I'm disgusted that Lavelle has to "sharpen his sword" to prove his worth. Shit, I'm shocked that he's not already circumcised in a vain attempt to connect to his supposed African roots or for the hospital to gouge more money from his mother. It's also disheartening to see Akeem go along with this horror for tradition's sake even though the whole point of the first movie was defying tradition and that sometimes tradition should change.Now while writing this up, I looked at a leak and in said leak, Lavelle doesn't actually get mutilated. The circumcision knife was just a potato and the whole ritual was another test for Akeem's son. A test to prove if he can put aside his pride when necessary. So I'm going to let myself cool off somewhat and I'll roll with the implication of Zamunda being the rare african country that doesn't circumcise or it was a tradition that Akeem changed.But my impression from the trailer still stands and my stance against circumcision and joking about it also still stand! I would not know that Lavelle wasn't mutilated unless I watched the movie or looked at a spoiler. Plus, it's kind of fucked that Lavelle has to self-mutilate to prove that he's man enough to be a prince. I know history is filled with messed up coming of age rituals and traditions, but this is 2021 and some traditions should be changed or set aside! And you don't make a joke about a casual atrocity that American Society refuses to acknowledge or stop. Look up more for yourself because I'll burn off my hair in rage if we don't stay on the main topic. Now as far as the movie goes this wasn't the worse part!Now the third point features major spoilers, so if you don't want to the movie ruined for you then skip to the conclusion.3) More Double standards and Jokes!I would be alright with Akeem having a one-night stand and a child was conceived from it. But when I found out about how that one-night stand went, I almost flipped the table in rage. I had to surf the internet to make sure that I was not misreading this spoiler. I wanted to make absolute sure that this wasn't a fake leak that got popular. But after looking at multiple sources including an interview with Slate staff writer Rachel Hampton, I can confirm with certainty that this happens.Akeem finds out via the bedridden Jaffe Joffer and a witch doctor played by Arseno Hall that he has a son. Akeem is shocked as he thinks he's only ever slept with Lisa, but Semmi confesses the truth. At some point before they met Lisa, Semmi wanted to get laid so he enticed two nightclub ladies to join him by revealing that Akeem was a prince. So the ladies agree and one of them Mary Junson played by Leslie Jones tries to pair with a reluctant Akeem at her place. Mary puts an unspecified hallucinogenic drug in Akeem's drink and date-rapes Akeem while he hallucinates about being attacked by a wild boar. Which explains why Akeem didn't remember the encounter or know about his bastard son before now-Wait.Leslie Jone's character date-rapes Prince Akeem and it's played for laughs.Wait.Akeem must take responsibility for the son conceived from his violation and also must bring his rapist with him to his home and family. Said rapist is open about only letting her son be acknowledged because she's a gold digger. The rapist gets to be treated as a royal guest and even befriends her victim's wife. She also faces no consequences whatsoever from drugging and raping the crown prince of a sovereign country. In fact, Akeem only ever expresses anger for Semmi rather than his rapist. Also all of the discomfort about this situation is thrown on Akeem's shoulders and never the rapist's. Lisa and his daughters treat Akeem as though he choose to have a bastard son and at one point is even thrown in the dog house. All while the rapist gets to party and enjoy the good royal life.WHAT!?!?!I don't know how many levels of wrong that this crosses! But all I know is that I am angry and disgusted even more now! Playing up the stereotype of the hound-dog black man is one thing. Making jokes about a man getting his dick chopped to prove himself is another. But joking about a man being date-raped while being put down more than his rapist is jaw-dropping!This type of shit would never fly if the genders were reversed. I'm pretty sure that a big deal is made about how its wrong to blame the victim for being raped. Or how its terrible to gaslight victims into misremembering something as better than it was. Or that a rapist is one of most horrible kind of criminals and that using any drug or influencer to alter someone's ability to consent qualifies as rape. But no one batted an eye lash about my boy Akeem getting date-raped and having to take responsibility for everything as though he wasn't drugged and raped.Rape is horrible regardless of who is the offender or what their gender is. It is one of the most horrible things you can to do someone as it hurts them physically, emotionally, psychologically, mentally and spiritually. The damage can haunt the victim for years to come and I believe there were survivors of war rapes committed in WW2 who were still traumatized when interviewed decades later. This trauma is amplified when the victim is ostracized or disgraced because people believe they lied. In some cultures, rape victims are murdered for being raped.The only way you could possibly get away with a rape joke is if the scenario of the joke is so absurd and ridiculous that it becomes dark humor. Even then, you're pushing it unless you're George Carlin. But Coming to America 2 doesn't get this pass because it's depiction of its date-rape joke is too close to how many reported date-rape situations happened. The victim went to someone's home, they got a drink laced with a drug, the victim is physically or consciously incapacitated while their rapist has their way with them and then the victim has only a scant recollection of events or none at all. And then the rapist goes through the movie being treated as a comic relief stereotypical gold-digger black woman as though she didn't date-rape the main character. I'm not sorry for sounding like a broken record here, but I cannot emphasize enough that my boy Akeem was date-raped and the movie is not only acting like its his fault, but the incident is treated as a joke.This also paints a horrible impression for the apparent feminist overtone that this sequel will have. As it plays into the very real double-standard about how many disregard male victims of rape especially if they were assaulted by women. Hell, many believed for a long while that men could not be raped and women-on-men rape is still under researched compared to other areas of sexual violence. You cannot empower one gender while playing down the issues of the other. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite at best and a liar at worse.I mean, Pepe Le'pieu has been officially cancelled by Looney Toons because of the unfortunate implications of his character. But not a peep about Wonder Woman having sex with her dead boyfriend while he's possessing a "handsome man" who is incapable of consenting (whether or not he would is NOT the point). And this script featuring Prince Akeem being date-raped by Leslie Jone's character got a green light for a PG-13 movie. Because nothing says appropriate for teens like jokes about date-rape and double standards regarding the white-washing of the rapist.Alright, I'm wrapping this up before I vomit.ConclusionI'm not watching the movie, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.The movie may even be good, I do see that it's at least a crowd pleaser. I'm happy for Eddie Murphy and the cast and hope that they do well. If people watching it are able to get a laugh and a smile from the movie in these divisive and dark times, then good for them. I'm not telling people to not watch the movie.I'm just expressing why I won't watch the movie. I see big problems with the movie's premise and unfortunate implications that I cannot ignore. So I will sadly choose to skip this movie and spend my energy elsewhere.Now excuse me while I find a bucket of ice to dip my head in. THE END
Elizabeth Supergirl by ranshin06
N7 Commander - Happy N7 Day 2020 by Euderion
Parade flight - SSV Normandy by Euderion
2nd Fleet by Euderion
Destroyer Reaper by Euderion


:iconsupershow2016: SUPERshow2016 L.A. Zen | Art of Senselessness :iconeverythingallowed: EverythingAllowed Unlimited Art :iconartistsmind: ArtistsMind :icondandridge: Dandridge :iconanimemangafreaks: AnimeMangaFreaks Where all the Freaks are :P :iconwatevanigga: watevanigga whatever :iconi-can-do-that: I-Can-Do-That :iconeverything-is-wanted: Everything-is-Wanted :icondontworrymakeart: DontWorryMakeArt Art is the Key :iconpeople-and-bodyparts: People-and-BodyParts Love Your Body :iconsmash-tv: SMASH-TV I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!! :iconlicking-group: Licking-group :iconmidway-games: Midway-Games It's for the bankrupt company. :iconquiz-and-dragons: Quiz-and-dragons :icongamefreak-fanclub: GameFreak-fanclub It's for the Game Freak Company. :iconstrapless-clothing: Strapless-clothing :icondonkey-kong-64: Donkey-Kong-64 Who wants it on the 3DS/New 3DS? :icongirl-detectives: Girl-Detectives You don't have to be female :icongaiapolis-club: Gaiapolis-Club :iconzero-ideas-left: ZERO-IDEAS-LEFT No club ideas left? Come on down :iconhomersimpsonlovers: HomerSimpsonLovers :iconhomerandmargesimpson: HomerAndMargeSimpson Homer and Marge :iconlitratoon: LitraToon Your place for toony fiction :iconthe-roots-of-art: The-Roots-Of-Art :icondeviantsgallery: DeviantsGallery Worldwide Dedication to Art :iconlegendofzelda-fans: LegendOfZelda-Fans :iconamateurasu-team: Amateurasu-team Malaysia Doujin Group :iconcaic-empire: CAIC-Empire Creativity and Innovation FTW :icongamecomplete: GameComplete :iconthe-youngest-artists: The-Youngest-Artists For people 25 and under

Group Info

this is a group for all different art and design anything you have to that you want to share place it here
Founded 10 Years ago
May 26, 2011


Group Focus
Art Creation

623 Members
463 Watchers
26,242 Pageviews


Add a Comment:
Mimsys-Kitchen Featured By Owner May 3, 2020

Going through affiliates of other groups, I stumbled my way here, but I can't figure out what this group is about.
MZimmer1985 Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2018
"all other work" is full.
MZimmer1985 Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2016
I've been submitting by comic book movie casting choices to the "Comic" section, but it seems like it's being limited to comic strips. Should I submit somewhere else?
Kaio-Silva Featured By Owner Jan 1, 2016
thank for accept me in this groupHeadbang! 
2snails1shell Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist

We don't want anyone thinking we're some obnoxious renegade submitters, so here's an explanation we just sent to group admin: 'So we just uploaded some images into specific folders, and they went to the "Literature" folder for some odd reason. (Photographs) 'Reclamation' and '2Snails1Shell (formerly Solitude)' were submitted to the "Photography" folder, and 'Cyborg Baby Air Brigade...' was submitted to "all other work". Just letting you know. Great group, by the way! Thank you for starting it.'

:D Kaptain Kwirk & Kalamity Kiki :D

mangartcomic Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I have moved them, thanks for the comments.
Thanks for joining the group.  
AStoKo Featured By Owner Aug 27, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
thanks a lot for accepting my work :hug:
mangartcomic Featured By Owner Aug 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
ur welcome
TBAComic Featured By Owner Aug 6, 2013
I have a daily web comic that has been out for roughly 10 months and was wondering if I would be able to join and somehow submit it all.
mangartcomic Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
can you submit like two or three of them instead of all of them  into the comic section. Thanks 
Add a Comment: