BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Part of what made Raging Bull so great.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gawker: Here's what's missing from Straight Outta Compton - The women Dre beat up
- Thread starter bananafactory
- Start date
- Status
Part of what made Raging Bull so great.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Not every domestic abuser about whom a movie might be made is Jake La Motta, where the abuse is central to understanding them as a person. It may or may not be, based on the large narrative of the work in which they're being depicted. In this case, the film is supposed to be the story of four guys, not just one of them, and getting into something as heavy, politicized, and potentially cliche may have undercut the film in other ways.
dream
Member
I think that throwing her through a door is wrong. Dre shouldn't have put his hands on her.
What trips me up, though, is how everything Dee Barnes has done blurs the line between seeking justice and seeking profit. I mean, even her author biography reads, "Dee Barnes is currently writing her memoir, Music, Myth, and Misogyny: Memoirs of a Female MC. She is looking for a publisher."
Intheflorsh
Banned
And the problem with the title is...?
"Bitches ain't shit..." Ugh.
I listened to this garbage music in high school and it definitely had an impact on me and everyone around me in how we treated women. Hopefully this movie doesn't catch on with young people so the gross misogyny isn't glorified yet again. The sad thing is that young men tend to gobble up any justification for misogyny largely out of fear of their own sexuality.
dream
Member
Well, calling herself an emcee is a bit of a stretch.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Prototype Viktor
Member
Except cube and easy e's wife wrote it so it probably wasn't even considered before Dre got involved
Intheflorsh
Banned
God forbid someone talks about something that happened to them in a memoir. Dr. Dre has the right idea, just skip all the unpleasant bits.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
"I think that assaulting women is wrong, but if it happens, they shouldn't be able to profit from it financially"
You must hate Samantha Geimer, huh. Her book title was sooo tacky.
It's actually really fucking unsettling. And further evidence that money, power, and fame will get you out of anything. Bill Cosby survived on that ideal for 4 decades.
True. I honestly stopped following the music a long time ago. Not only did I find it extremely sexist, I found it to be extremely materialistic and shallow. I don't enjoy people singing about how great they are.
Public Enemy helped to shape my political views when I was very young. Most hip hop after that was ruined because it seemed so shallow. Still, I'll admit I was drawn into Dr. Dre and Snoop for a couple years because they did make great songs. It is too bad their message was absolute shit.
I can still put on Fear of a Black Planet now and feel overwhelmed by the power of the music and the message. If I listen to something by NWA, I mainly just feel disgusted.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Of course! But Public Enemy at the time was extremely popular on a national scale. Who is making politically conscious music with that kind of message and that kind of reach right now? Intelligent music was overwhelmed by NWA type garbage because it sold well to white america.
It was much cooler to hear about pimps, hoes, bitches and sluts than anything that actually made you think about racial disparity. Songs about gang warfare or even just black on black violence sold much better than someone trying to make an intelligent point about race relations at large. Plus drugs, drugs, and more drugs.
The whole gangsta rap movement was a giant step in the wrong direction.
The message went from "I got a letter from the government the other day. I opened and read it, it said they were suckers" to "Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks. Lick on these nuts and suck the dick."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM5_6js19eM
How can anyone listen to this song and think something isn't missing right now in comparison?
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
Here goes... defending Gawker...
THAT is a bold claim.
This movie coming out that glamorises events means it is no longer old news. The article is about the discord between actual events and depicted events. The idea that someone severely assaulting people isn't a noteworthy event is fucking insane. It'd be like doing a documentary on the Titanic and never mentioning it crashed into an iceberg.
It's quite a good article. Maybe if people would read the good articles on Gawker, there wouldn't be as many shitty puff-pieces.
Yes, Gawker is funded by advertising revenue. Those monsters.
THAT is a bold claim.
This movie coming out that glamorises events means it is no longer old news. The article is about the discord between actual events and depicted events. The idea that someone severely assaulting people isn't a noteworthy event is fucking insane. It'd be like doing a documentary on the Titanic and never mentioning it crashed into an iceberg.
It's quite a good article. Maybe if people would read the good articles on Gawker, there wouldn't be as many shitty puff-pieces.
Yes, Gawker is funded by advertising revenue. Those monsters.
Thats not it, its just that people have known about the Dee barnes situation for close to, if not 10 years, and Gawker being opportunists douches is much more recent.
You are just seeing what you want to see.
In any case, its a few hours long and its not about Dre its about NWA. There's a shitstorm of personal life issues from the members left out of the movie.
Or not when you don't want to.
Excuse me. That wasn't my narrowed down and quick quoted point there mate. Gawker isn't a news agency, its a popup ad with troll titles and behavior professionally. I said that the message is valid, but Gawker has no intellectual integrity or journalistic to be taken seriously. Which is why i'd prefer a larger news outlet cover this, before the film was out.
Don't insult your and my intelligence. Don't just shrug it off with "herp derp advertising makes everything ok" No, Gawker has no integrity. Which makes the messenger suspect as in, its clearly just in the business of hits, and doesn't really have a statement or mission to make progress on the issue of domestic violence. Its an attempt to grab hits for ad revenue. Nothing productive. Thats not cool with me, which Is why I said what I said about gawker. But don't dwindle this down to a company making money off of ad revenue like you had some revelatory point.
Its a serious issue that deserves a conversation. Gawker isn't going to be the arbiter of that.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
But the fact that this type of shit is able to get left out of an adaptation of real events is annoying.
The Social Network, as a movie, pisses me off. It's a great script for a fictional situation.
Also: Jobs. What a whitewash.
T
Transhuman
Unconfirmed Member
You say the article isn't productive, but did you read it?
You're calling Gawker sensationalist garbage, does that extend to the author? And why do you draw the line on releasing this article before the movie opened as opposed to after? What makes one more ethical than the other.
The producer of a sanitised biography doesn't fight to include mention of his less than acceptable past behaviour? Shocking.
Totally expected. I will be disappointed if it doesn't get correct mention in reporting media as the event in question remains relevant particularly with the release of such a tailored biography selling a particular message.
Totally expected. I will be disappointed if it doesn't get correct mention in reporting media as the event in question remains relevant particularly with the release of such a tailored biography selling a particular message.
Are you now controlling how victims shall talk about their suffering?
I do think you entirely missed the point and set up a strawman.
theignoramus
Member
PartTimeWarrior
Banned
And that's why I'll never give this movie my time. Fuck Dre
UltraGunner
Banned
Dre has always been a piece of shit,but a piece of shit that made money. There was no way this movie wasn't gonna put him on a pedestal.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
:lol Yeah, I'm sure your sole reason to not see it is they didn't show him beating the shit out of Dee Barnes.
So what?
She has to go through life watching the guy who stomped the shit out of her become a billionaire loved by countless fans. What is your problem with her trying to make some scratch off it?
karmaforgotme
Member
You gonna take advice from somebody who slapped Dee Barnes?
This first part is objectively incorrect unless you are just speaking about Dre as a rapper. His record company ended up having a bigger influence than Ruthless or Death Row. The last part is subjective, but you seem to be in the minority in this one. Funny I don't care much for it either, but I wouldn't call it shit.
10 years? I've know about Dee Barnes for over 20 years. Heck the Slim Shady LP came out 16 years ago, and it mentions Dee Barnes.
This first part is objectively incorrect unless you are just speaking about Dre as a rapper. His record company ended up having a bigger influence than Ruthless or Death Row. The last part is subjective, but you seem to be in the minority in this one. Funny I don't care much for it either, but I wouldn't call it shit.
10 years? I've know about Dee Barnes for over 20 years. Heck the Slim Shady LP came out 16 years ago, and it mentions Dee Barnes.
zero shift
Banned
Didn't Dre publicly apologize for his domestic abuse, start (or support) a charity against violence toward women over the years, and has stopped abusing women since his N.W.A. days?
So what would you do if someone beat the career right out of you? Should she continue to hide away in obscurity as Dre intended her to do when he nearly killed her and then had her blackballed?
karmaforgotme
Member
Just curious has there been any other accusations of domestic violence against Dre?
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
As far as I'm aware he never apologized. That recent interview where he said he regretted it was as far as he's ever come to apologizing. His actual reaction at the time when he was asked was "People talk all this shit, but you know, somebody fucks with me, I'm gonna fuck with them. I just did it, you know. Ain't nothing you can do now by talking about it. Besides, it ain't no big thing I just threw her through a door."
He did a court ordered PSA against domestic violence but never started a charity.
His ex has accused him of abuse since then.
PartTimeWarrior
Banned
More like I don't want to give money to a woman beater
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Serious question, are you gamergate supporter? You whining about ethics in calling yourself an MC is borderline gamergate behavior.
Stay classy gawker
Dude Abides
Banned
Yes how gauche of them to ask someone who knew one of the film's subjects to write about it. Truly shameful.
She didn't have to watch the movie herself to do that.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
they paid someone who was assaulted to watch a movie all about the person who assaulted her
And she agreed to do it, which is a sign of her being in control of the situation. Good for her. People attempting to shift the spotlight from Dre's misogynistic and violent past to her and/or Gawker being opportunistic are just pathetic.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
What are you saying? She shouldn't have been paid? That Gawker shouldn't have asked for her insight? I'm lost to whatever point you're trying to make.
The point is that Gawker did it looking for drama, which is just typical Gawker bullshit. That she took the money doesn't necessarily speak to her comfort level with watching the film, it speaks to the amount that she needs the money.
I understand that people are pissy about the use of the word "trigger" these days, but this is a situation where watching the film could absolutely have triggered someone who experienced a trauma.
This also doesn't take the focus off of Dre's actions, so don't use language about "spotlighting" anything. If Gawker wanted a story, they could have interviewed her and asked about the omission. Instead, they just sent her in hoping for a melt-down.
Looking for drama? The Dee Barnes chapter of NWA/Dre's history was huge. It didn't just get glossed over by Dre in the movie. It got erased. Shining a light on that is "looking for drama"? So when you watch the news, do you just constantly think to yourself, "Well this is just a shameless attempt to garner some drama."?
She could have left the screening or said no at any time. In a thread where people are calling her a whore, who are we to suggest her own comfort level?
There would have been ways to write a similar piece without putting her in a triggering situation.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
You sound like you believe Gawker is some cartoon villain. I mean, I get not thinking respectfully of the company, but I honestly doubt they were hoping to trigger her and cause a meltdown. A more reasonable assumption is they knew the film left out something that, while yes, will generate clicks, and thus revenue, is important nonetheless. And that bit was Dee Barnes' story, and who better to tell that missing part than Dee Barnes herself? So they went to her, asked if she'd write about her feelings on it being left out, and she agreed.
You can shine a light on it without risking someone's mental health. You can shine a light on it by interviewing her. Gawker's strategy of sending someone into the movie blind is basically a click-bait article in the making: "We had Dee Barnes watch Straight Out of Compton...you won't believe what happened next!"
Again, bringing attention to a media outlet pulling yet another blatantly irresponsible stunt in an attempt to make the news instead of reporting on the news in no way draws attention from the Dre story.
You can find Dre's mistreatment of women disgusting and Gawker's mistreatment of news media distasteful all at the same time. We're not goldfish. We can focus on two things at once.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked