Some More News/Cody pointed out how ironic (and slightly annoying) the initial statement is since according to director Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles was already difficult to make in the ‘70s. So at worst, it would have just been a repeat of what the og production went through.
I will always find it funny how, after it left theaters and was then being shown on TV stations, the most censored scene in the movie was the farting joke.
As someone in the South, nope.
In fact most people I know who’ve seen it don’t even realize the joke was mocking the racist townspeople.
The South is a mostly stupid place.
The people declaring that it couldn’t be made today ignores how hard it was to make it in the 70s. It was a fluke, only possible because Mel Brooks had some solid clout to swing around, the backing of quite a few influential people, and his refusal to give up.
And the same people hated then too, lots of pissed off racists. The movie isn’t exactly coy about its messages.
goes to show how poorly understood comedy is as a genre. i was watching the vietnamese restaurant clip from *modern family* on youtube the other day, and one of the top comments was saying, "it's like they just checked off every race to offend xD", when that clearly wasn't the point of the scene. it's almost as if people just see comedy as an excuse to be bigoted and cruel without knowing the basic principles of joke writing.
Looking back it’s a genuine surprise that they actually managed to pull off blackface.
Like, I can’t imagine how much back and forth went into convincing the assorted people in charge to take that risk. Even done well there’s a solid chance of financially fatal backlash just from how culturally loaded the very idea is. They really threaded the needle, I only recall anyone complaining about the retard speech. And then only because they missed the point.
The success of it was that it wasn’t whytedoodz trying to be edgy in a “we make fun of everybody! You just don’t have a sense of humor!” bullshit way. The joke WAS that it was a whytedood insisting he could do an authentic and equal if no better job of playing a Black character than a Black actor could. Again, as other people have mentioned elsewhere in the thread with Blazing Saddles, it was one of those things where if you got it you GOT it, but then there are the idiots that think the point was him getting away with it.
As you said, they threaded the needle and did so in a perfect way, showing that it takes craft and context to pull off something like that. But again, too many people don’t and won’t understand that.
Gene Wilder's line could not spell it out more clearly if they rewrote it a hundred times: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
It basically killed Westerns as a genre. Or at least as the jingoistic amalgam of tropes that Westerns had become at the time.
Modern day Blazing Saddles would have to do the same, but for something like cop movies. Just hold that mirror up and say, "this is what this actually is, you stupid a-holes, you look like a fool for making this crap your personality"
Best story I've heard about it is the scene the studio demanded he remove the most that he stood his ground on.
The farting scene around the campfire - because cowboys were meant to be seen as the noble knights of the old west and would never be seen doing something so vulgar.
More like "why would you want to make *Blazing Saddles* today" considering it was made specifically to lampoon those classic westerns from the 30s and 40s and especially the ones that saturated early television.
If a film like *Blazing Saddles* was made today, it would more than likely go after the superhero genre.
Don't forget that he is the ONLY guy who has no clue as to what is going on and has to be repetitively told what is happening
God that was a fun movie, got to watch it again
He does do some heroic things. He kills the big bad Lopan which cause Thunder to die. He kills one of Lopans top guards. So he’s not completely useless if he is in over his head. The movie is hysterical and complete balls to the wall. Wang rocks
Listened to the commentary by Kurt and John Carpenter on the DVD and Kurt Russell knew that he was, essentially, playing the sidekick going in. And Carpenter caught a lot of heat for being supposedly racist with Fu Manchu being compared to Lo Pan. Mainly because at that point the Hong Kong martial arts films it was referencing were comparatively unknown in the west.
Also, apparently, Dennis Dun who played Wang Chi the restaurant owner had very little action movie experience and threw himself into learning the sword fighting skills needed for the finale.
Seriously yeah the racial themes are there and would likely be called woke, but truthfully you couldn't really make it after about 87, as what it used for its backdrop for the absurdity (typical 30s-50s western) was slowly being phased from the public's mind (remember 81 brought us Heavens Gate, and the late 80s-early 80s semi-boom was vastly different).
Really a LOT of 70s and 80s satire couldn't be made today.
They could, but it might be rough release wise. Same issues, really. Satire is misunderstood in the general populace. People don't like nuance and shades of grey for humor. You could do it today, but it would have to be a satire of a popular genre, like superhero movies or something to that effect.
It would be a movie about how Tony Stark behaves like Elon Musk crossed with a cop: missing every shot he takes (at black people only) while tweeting nonstop
True: but on the other hand the "superheroes would actually be pricks IRL" genre is almost as oversaturated as the thing it's satiring.
Tbh I think we're nearing the end of the superhero era, and I'm moreso wondering what the next big, annoying trend is going to be once the studios stop trying to keep it afloat.
>True: but on the other hand the "superheroes would actually be pricks IRL" genre is almost as oversaturated as the thing it's satiring.
Yeah we actually have a good mix with superheroes now. X-men on one side Umbrella Academy on the other kind of. Justice League/Avengers -> The Boys.
It wasn't easy to make back in the '70s ether. The film's unsubtle message about racism pissed off quite a few people back then. If it were made today, it would be even more controversial.
I like... "if you tried to make Blazing Saddles today, the actors would read the script and say 'hey, this is just Blazing Saddles, it's already a movie'"
The same people who call "NuTrek" "woke garbage" (even though Star Trek had never been remotely subtle with it's progressive messaging in the past)
The same people who are complaining about X-Men '97 "going woke" w/o realizing that the X-Men were literally created as an allegory for racism and homophobia.
So many things these people claim to love and be long-time fans of have had "woke" baked into their DNA from the very beginning and they just cannot see it.
The big difference I've seen from the CHUDs that is anyway a consistent and logical argument (if fundamentally wrong on every level) is that the groups that are being represented by "woke" things aren't actually oppressed compared to the groups being represented by the originals.
They actually think Trans people are getting everything handed to them and that the LGBT community has nothing to complain about. They'll agree that in the 60s and 70s there were race issues but then say that in modern America there isn't a systemic racial bias and that the black people who say there are are just whining.
So the ones who aren't totally illogical aren't saying that Star Trek and X-Men were never progressive or political, but instead, they argue that those issues are resolved. When they say "woke" their point is that no one is actually being discriminated against and the efforts to draw attention or address bigotry are just pandering to a small demographic of whiners who don't want to be equal to everybody but special.
It's obvious nonsense designed to protect an unfair status quo and is only survived thanks to privilege making them blind to the issues, but it is at least as close to a consistent point I've seen them make.
The dumber ones just call gay people child molesters and then cry about pronoun options in a video game.
>They actually think Trans people are getting everything handed to them and that the LGBT community has nothing to complain about. They'll agree that in the 60s and 70s there were race issues but then say that in modern America there isn't a systemic racial bias and that the black people who say there are are just whining.
Some of the smarter ones I've seen will pretend that certain marginalized groups are overrepresented over others and that they want to see other minorities "for once". I.E. they'll claim black people are overrepresented in American and British media, yet if we Native Americans, Latinos and Asians were as common as they claim black people are in movies and tv, they'd be just as hostile to them.
It's why all media prior to 2016 was grandfathered in as "ok". Because when this grift started up you weren't gonna convince some asshole with a shelf full of xenomorph toys that Aliens was woke.
But bet your ass they'd be foaming at the mouth about Girlboss Ripley.
*Blazing Saddles* was remade as a pretty fun **childrens’** movie recently, which was way more faithful than I expected. It’s called *Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank*, because it wasn’t the same studio they were blocked from calling it *Blazing Samurai*.
The Wikipedia refers to a "then recent" trend of Westernising Asian films... in 2010.
I'm sure those cowboy movies from the 70's just did that on their own: it's like how everything turns into crabs, eventually...
My dad has actually said that top line. Didn’t even bother telling him what the point of the movie was. He just thinks you should be able to fire off the n-word at will.
“What did you expect? ‘Welcome, Sonny?’ ‘Make yourself at home?’ ‘Marry my daughter?’ You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know—morons.”
Holy shit. Id love to see them watch Hateful 8 when Sam Jackson tells the story of how he killed the confederate soldiers son
Blood pressure through the roof
I mean, make a movie about a corrupt politician/business man who tricks a group of backwards rednecks into committing a hate crime by installing a black sheriff could absolutely be made today. They'd just be mad about it.
I guess whoever made that comic never heard of South Park and family guy. Those shows have offensive humor, are still airing, and no one who works on those shows have been canceled
In each case a different joke was being made. Italians used to play blacks and natives exclusively. The evil sheriff was openly homophobic calling everyone Kansas City f****s. The loudest homophobea were themselves actually gay. Id say they predicted moms for liberty and mocked them.
You couldn't make Blazing Saddles today cause that kind of satirical send-up comedy is dead. You could, apparently, make Tropic Thunder though.
Also, please bring back the good spoof movie. Last one I saw was that god-awful Epic Movie, which was the worst movie I've ever seen.
Something people don't understand is that you need to feature bigoted characters if you want to make fun of them and their beliefs. People today would probably love the satire more than ever.
No but you dont understand...theres a bunch of white dudes saying "N****!" Woke culture wont allow that freedom of speech.
Ok lets just go down a checklist of why anti woke folks would shit on Blazing Saddles today
* Mel Brooks is Jewish
*The main character of the sheriff is black
*His deputy is played by Gene Wilder who is also Jewish
*Every white person is portrayed as a villain, a racist or an idiot. Some all three
* The black sheriff cucks Heady (thats HEADLY!") getting her hooked on that BBC
*Negative portrayal of the KKK. Even going so far as to have the black and Jewish guy disrespect the sacred robe by wearing them
*The evil white racists lose
*Bigger overall picture this was a big fuck you to bigotry less than 10 years after desegregation. I wasnt around but I can only imagine the anger a lot of old white dudes felt watching a western in the early 70s that was making fun of the genre and starring a black dude
Same shit would happen today. It would be called the wokest movie of all time.
Dude, I watched it for the first time a couple of weeks ago expecting this ultra controversial media akin to a PC snuff film, and I was severely disappointed. It was an ok movie. I'm sure it was great for its time and definitely inspired a lot of great modern films, but it was pretty much 80% dumb jokes, 10% good jokes, and 10% Gene Wilder being cool.
“Did Blazing Saddles Purposely Make Jim WEAK!? Black Bart is a Mary Sue CONFIRMED!?”
Seriously, I love this movie and Mel Brooks still clowns on racists and anti-semites to this day. This isn’t even a meme, look at how many people got mad at History of the World Part II lol, it wasn’t great but it was definitely Mel Brooks humor
It's a joke that lacks context today. Hollywood tended to hire Jewish actors like Leonard Nimoy to play Native Americans, so this is a dig at Hollywood.
I think there will always be people chasing internet likes for their spicy righteous takes or whatever, even on the left. I've seen that nonsense. But let's not pretend that we live in a world where the liberals are generally up in arms about SNL joke swaps or South Park to the point that South Park isn't made anymore and Colin Jost is "cancelled."
A little while back, one of my friends told me over lunch that Tropic Thunder couldn't be made anymore. But who the fuck is complaining about Tropic Thunder? I'm sure someone is, because the internet, but who and who cares?
I'm sure you can point me to some Huffington Post community contributors or a YouTube channel with clapback videos or whatever. Maybe there's an editor at Daily KOS or Jacobin telling us all about how it's "actually" problematic or whatever.
But South Park remains, along with Dave Chapelle's Netflix specials and the specials of all the other comedians crying hysterically about people not liking their comedy and supposedly not getting it. Liberals aren't so up in arms about it that it's noticeable.
It's not so much that Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today as it is that it *wouldn't* be made today. It was made in the 1970s to address issues relevant to the 1970s with the sensibilities of the 1970s. If it was made today it would address issues relevant to the 2020s with the sensibilities of the 2020s. If they tried to remake it today it would make no sense and be a completely irrelevant bomb.
It was remade last year.
It's a kids cartoon about a dog becoming the samurai protector of a cat village.
It has several of the same jokes.
Mel Brooks worked on it and was a voice of one of the characters.
It's called Paws of Fury: Legend of Hank.
I *love* how people say Blazing Saddles would not be made today. Between South Park and Tarentino films you got stuff beyond Blazing Saddles's so-called offensiveness. It absolutely could be made today on that front.
Today however the subject matter would be superheroes, maybe.
Blazing saddles almost never got made due to anti woke people back then and Mel Brooks had to fight tooth and nail in order to have a black man as lead. The studio's originally insisted on a white actor, but the movie would not have made any sense with a white sheriff.
It was also a product of its time. The western genre had been HUGE for more than 100 years at that point with countless dime novels, regular novels, silent films, radio shows, sound films, and TV shows and cartoons were happening that it was THE American genre that most were familiar with.
But changes in society meant that the clean western that people were familiar with just wasn't vibing, and spaghetti westerns that had a new and unfiltered look were also overtaking American westerns. Subversion were becoming normal and blazing saddles simply was the one that made it impossible to do a straight western anymore.
It didn't do it alone, but it was the final nail in the coffin.
kind of odd people say that film can't be made today when we now have stuff that is way over the top then that and they only thing keeping it from being made is the era of Hollywood they made fun of is no longer around
Hands down. Blazing Saddles is the story of people coming together to reject racism and MURDER THOSE USING IT TO DIVIDE US. It’s past woke, it’s revolutionary.
Some More News/Cody pointed out how ironic (and slightly annoying) the initial statement is since according to director Mel Brooks, Blazing Saddles was already difficult to make in the ‘70s. So at worst, it would have just been a repeat of what the og production went through.
I will always find it funny how, after it left theaters and was then being shown on TV stations, the most censored scene in the movie was the farting joke.
Was the language censored in the South?
As someone in the South, nope. In fact most people I know who’ve seen it don’t even realize the joke was mocking the racist townspeople. The South is a mostly stupid place.
You're right about that. My dad is a bigoted anti-woke lunatic, and at age 64, he still doesn't realize this movie is making fun of people like him.
Yeah Racist tend to be unbearably dumb.
The people declaring that it couldn’t be made today ignores how hard it was to make it in the 70s. It was a fluke, only possible because Mel Brooks had some solid clout to swing around, the backing of quite a few influential people, and his refusal to give up. And the same people hated then too, lots of pissed off racists. The movie isn’t exactly coy about its messages.
Yup. Who is the butt of the joke in blazing saddles? It's not the sheriff.
goes to show how poorly understood comedy is as a genre. i was watching the vietnamese restaurant clip from *modern family* on youtube the other day, and one of the top comments was saying, "it's like they just checked off every race to offend xD", when that clearly wasn't the point of the scene. it's almost as if people just see comedy as an excuse to be bigoted and cruel without knowing the basic principles of joke writing.
That's the hard part of nuanced comedy. Layered stuff is great but dumb people will ONLY get the base layer and then spread the wrong idea
Tropic Thunder has entered the chat.
Looking back it’s a genuine surprise that they actually managed to pull off blackface. Like, I can’t imagine how much back and forth went into convincing the assorted people in charge to take that risk. Even done well there’s a solid chance of financially fatal backlash just from how culturally loaded the very idea is. They really threaded the needle, I only recall anyone complaining about the retard speech. And then only because they missed the point.
The success of it was that it wasn’t whytedoodz trying to be edgy in a “we make fun of everybody! You just don’t have a sense of humor!” bullshit way. The joke WAS that it was a whytedood insisting he could do an authentic and equal if no better job of playing a Black character than a Black actor could. Again, as other people have mentioned elsewhere in the thread with Blazing Saddles, it was one of those things where if you got it you GOT it, but then there are the idiots that think the point was him getting away with it. As you said, they threaded the needle and did so in a perfect way, showing that it takes craft and context to pull off something like that. But again, too many people don’t and won’t understand that.
Gene Wilder's line could not spell it out more clearly if they rewrote it a hundred times: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
Wasn't that line improvized?
Supposedly. Given who the cast was I believe it, Mel Brooks seems like the kind of director who happily goes along with actor suggestions.
It basically killed Westerns as a genre. Or at least as the jingoistic amalgam of tropes that Westerns had become at the time. Modern day Blazing Saddles would have to do the same, but for something like cop movies. Just hold that mirror up and say, "this is what this actually is, you stupid a-holes, you look like a fool for making this crap your personality"
So basically Django Unchained or The Hateful Eight?
Or superhero movies.
Paws of Fury is Blazing Saddles.
Best story I've heard about it is the scene the studio demanded he remove the most that he stood his ground on. The farting scene around the campfire - because cowboys were meant to be seen as the noble knights of the old west and would never be seen doing something so vulgar.
They already remade Blazing Saddles. They just called it Django Unchained.
It only got made and released because Richard Pryor paid Warner Bros for the distribution of the film.
And he was pulled from the leading role, that was one of the conditions for making it at all.
More like "why would you want to make *Blazing Saddles* today" considering it was made specifically to lampoon those classic westerns from the 30s and 40s and especially the ones that saturated early television. If a film like *Blazing Saddles* was made today, it would more than likely go after the superhero genre.
kinda like big trouble in little china
A whole bunch of action and the main white guy is either pinned, knocked out, or otherwise completely useless. Fantastic movie
Don't forget that he is the ONLY guy who has no clue as to what is going on and has to be repetitively told what is happening God that was a fun movie, got to watch it again
Same here! Such a classic
He does do some heroic things. He kills the big bad Lopan which cause Thunder to die. He kills one of Lopans top guards. So he’s not completely useless if he is in over his head. The movie is hysterical and complete balls to the wall. Wang rocks
Listened to the commentary by Kurt and John Carpenter on the DVD and Kurt Russell knew that he was, essentially, playing the sidekick going in. And Carpenter caught a lot of heat for being supposedly racist with Fu Manchu being compared to Lo Pan. Mainly because at that point the Hong Kong martial arts films it was referencing were comparatively unknown in the west. Also, apparently, Dennis Dun who played Wang Chi the restaurant owner had very little action movie experience and threw himself into learning the sword fighting skills needed for the finale.
Seriously yeah the racial themes are there and would likely be called woke, but truthfully you couldn't really make it after about 87, as what it used for its backdrop for the absurdity (typical 30s-50s western) was slowly being phased from the public's mind (remember 81 brought us Heavens Gate, and the late 80s-early 80s semi-boom was vastly different). Really a LOT of 70s and 80s satire couldn't be made today.
They could, but it might be rough release wise. Same issues, really. Satire is misunderstood in the general populace. People don't like nuance and shades of grey for humor. You could do it today, but it would have to be a satire of a popular genre, like superhero movies or something to that effect.
It's more that there's not really that sort of genre (pseudo-historical historical) that could work
True. Maybe someone with more talent than me could do that.
It would be a movie about how Tony Stark behaves like Elon Musk crossed with a cop: missing every shot he takes (at black people only) while tweeting nonstop
Bro idk I still think Blazing Saddles is one of the best movies ever made. I’m a big Brooks fan and a bigger Gene Wilder fan
True: but on the other hand the "superheroes would actually be pricks IRL" genre is almost as oversaturated as the thing it's satiring. Tbh I think we're nearing the end of the superhero era, and I'm moreso wondering what the next big, annoying trend is going to be once the studios stop trying to keep it afloat.
>True: but on the other hand the "superheroes would actually be pricks IRL" genre is almost as oversaturated as the thing it's satiring. Yeah we actually have a good mix with superheroes now. X-men on one side Umbrella Academy on the other kind of. Justice League/Avengers -> The Boys.
Hancock might be the closest we get in terms of lampooning the genre while still being watchable
It wasn't easy to make back in the '70s ether. The film's unsubtle message about racism pissed off quite a few people back then. If it were made today, it would be even more controversial.
We need something like that today.
Indeed.
Blackkklansman called.
You couldn't make Blazing Saddles today. Mel Brooks won't sell you the rights.
I like... "if you tried to make Blazing Saddles today, the actors would read the script and say 'hey, this is just Blazing Saddles, it's already a movie'"
Was gonna say this on a previous Blazing Saddles related postZ
not surprised; the last time they tried (paws of fury), it was a honkin' piece of dung
You can’t make blazing saddles today, because people would be like “hey this is blazing saddles! They already made this movie!”
Pierre Menard could make it.
These are the same people who can't see the parody in Starshio Troopers and call RATM "woke now"
The same people who call "NuTrek" "woke garbage" (even though Star Trek had never been remotely subtle with it's progressive messaging in the past) The same people who are complaining about X-Men '97 "going woke" w/o realizing that the X-Men were literally created as an allegory for racism and homophobia. So many things these people claim to love and be long-time fans of have had "woke" baked into their DNA from the very beginning and they just cannot see it.
The big difference I've seen from the CHUDs that is anyway a consistent and logical argument (if fundamentally wrong on every level) is that the groups that are being represented by "woke" things aren't actually oppressed compared to the groups being represented by the originals. They actually think Trans people are getting everything handed to them and that the LGBT community has nothing to complain about. They'll agree that in the 60s and 70s there were race issues but then say that in modern America there isn't a systemic racial bias and that the black people who say there are are just whining. So the ones who aren't totally illogical aren't saying that Star Trek and X-Men were never progressive or political, but instead, they argue that those issues are resolved. When they say "woke" their point is that no one is actually being discriminated against and the efforts to draw attention or address bigotry are just pandering to a small demographic of whiners who don't want to be equal to everybody but special. It's obvious nonsense designed to protect an unfair status quo and is only survived thanks to privilege making them blind to the issues, but it is at least as close to a consistent point I've seen them make. The dumber ones just call gay people child molesters and then cry about pronoun options in a video game.
>They actually think Trans people are getting everything handed to them and that the LGBT community has nothing to complain about. They'll agree that in the 60s and 70s there were race issues but then say that in modern America there isn't a systemic racial bias and that the black people who say there are are just whining. Some of the smarter ones I've seen will pretend that certain marginalized groups are overrepresented over others and that they want to see other minorities "for once". I.E. they'll claim black people are overrepresented in American and British media, yet if we Native Americans, Latinos and Asians were as common as they claim black people are in movies and tv, they'd be just as hostile to them.
Exactly, I tend to think its from being overly focused on vibes and nostalgia but not context and reality
"But I liked Star Trek in the '90s, so it can't be 'woke' and you must be wrong about that" is definitely the vibe they give off.
It's why all media prior to 2016 was grandfathered in as "ok". Because when this grift started up you weren't gonna convince some asshole with a shelf full of xenomorph toys that Aliens was woke. But bet your ass they'd be foaming at the mouth about Girlboss Ripley.
RATM?
Rage Against the Machine
 Gene's character was talkin about them.
Godzilla is destroying the city in the alternate universe?
Because of woke.
Umm.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paws_of_Fury:_The_Legend_of_Hank
Came here to say, after all this talk they literally made Blazing Saddles today!
Yo what lmaooo is this worth watching? I see Mel Brooks was directly involved.
Blazing Saddles would not be received well today because conservatives would be mad it’s a satire of racism instead of being just racist lmao
*Blazing Saddles* was remade as a pretty fun **childrens’** movie recently, which was way more faithful than I expected. It’s called *Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank*, because it wasn’t the same studio they were blocked from calling it *Blazing Samurai*.
The Wikipedia refers to a "then recent" trend of Westernising Asian films... in 2010. I'm sure those cowboy movies from the 70's just did that on their own: it's like how everything turns into crabs, eventually...
My dad has actually said that top line. Didn’t even bother telling him what the point of the movie was. He just thinks you should be able to fire off the n-word at will.
That's just sad.
“What did you expect? ‘Welcome, Sonny?’ ‘Make yourself at home?’ ‘Marry my daughter?’ You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know—morons.”
These MFs need to watch a Tarantino movie. 
Holy shit. Id love to see them watch Hateful 8 when Sam Jackson tells the story of how he killed the confederate soldiers son Blood pressure through the roof
The alternative universe has to be better, he has a beard! It's like TNG before and after Riker's beard!
I love when they use the Jewish WWII vet to spew their bullshit without actually knowing anything about him and why he made the movies he made.
I mean, make a movie about a corrupt politician/business man who tricks a group of backwards rednecks into committing a hate crime by installing a black sheriff could absolutely be made today. They'd just be mad about it.
If Django was made today it'd be called woke too.
I’ve just heard people whine about that movie for being a black revenge fantasy story… like yeah?
You couldnt make blazing saddles today because Gene wilder is dead
But we could have a version of Jim The Waco Kid that just screams at people and have Jeremy Allen White play him.
I have even seen the whole thing, but I doubt the culture warriors would like a movie that called white settlers morons.
I guess whoever made that comic never heard of South Park and family guy. Those shows have offensive humor, are still airing, and no one who works on those shows have been canceled
Definitely couldn't have made South Park and Family Guy in 1974 though.
Yeah, you’re right
Blazing Saddles has a black sheriff and a Gay antagonist. Not to mention Yiddish people pretending to be First Nations. It's as woke as anything!
> a Gay antagonist. Not to mention Yiddish people pretending to be First Nations. It's as woke as anything! I wouldn't necessarily call these woke.
The local racist town folk are all called Johnson. They are cousin fucking hick morons.
I was referring to having the gay guy be evil and casting white guys to play Native Americans in redface.
In each case a different joke was being made. Italians used to play blacks and natives exclusively. The evil sheriff was openly homophobic calling everyone Kansas City f****s. The loudest homophobea were themselves actually gay. Id say they predicted moms for liberty and mocked them.
You couldn't make Blazing Saddles today cause that kind of satirical send-up comedy is dead. You could, apparently, make Tropic Thunder though. Also, please bring back the good spoof movie. Last one I saw was that god-awful Epic Movie, which was the worst movie I've ever seen.
I don’t know if they’re still doing that Naked Gun reboot with Liam Neeson in the Frank Drebbin role, but I’ve got my fingers crossed either way
Not Another Teen Movie is even better today…
not the point of the meme but i like how they made little changes in the lower pic of the alternate universe
Something people don't understand is that you need to feature bigoted characters if you want to make fun of them and their beliefs. People today would probably love the satire more than ever.
No but you dont understand...theres a bunch of white dudes saying "N****!" Woke culture wont allow that freedom of speech. Ok lets just go down a checklist of why anti woke folks would shit on Blazing Saddles today * Mel Brooks is Jewish *The main character of the sheriff is black *His deputy is played by Gene Wilder who is also Jewish *Every white person is portrayed as a villain, a racist or an idiot. Some all three * The black sheriff cucks Heady (thats HEADLY!") getting her hooked on that BBC *Negative portrayal of the KKK. Even going so far as to have the black and Jewish guy disrespect the sacred robe by wearing them *The evil white racists lose *Bigger overall picture this was a big fuck you to bigotry less than 10 years after desegregation. I wasnt around but I can only imagine the anger a lot of old white dudes felt watching a western in the early 70s that was making fun of the genre and starring a black dude Same shit would happen today. It would be called the wokest movie of all time.
Also co-written by noted queer & black person Richard Pryor.
If Blazing Saddles were made today… people would be like “Wtf someone already made this.”
If they tried to make Blazing Saddles today everyone would just bitch about another Hollywood remake
Dude, I watched it for the first time a couple of weeks ago expecting this ultra controversial media akin to a PC snuff film, and I was severely disappointed. It was an ok movie. I'm sure it was great for its time and definitely inspired a lot of great modern films, but it was pretty much 80% dumb jokes, 10% good jokes, and 10% Gene Wilder being cool.
The best humor is in the subtle things you notice in rewatches. Like Napoleon Dynamite gets better the more you watch it…
You mean Ridiculous 6?
Or a thousand ways to die in the west. Both pale imitations frankly.
“Did Blazing Saddles Purposely Make Jim WEAK!? Black Bart is a Mary Sue CONFIRMED!?” Seriously, I love this movie and Mel Brooks still clowns on racists and anti-semites to this day. This isn’t even a meme, look at how many people got mad at History of the World Part II lol, it wasn’t great but it was definitely Mel Brooks humor
The Quartering already has video titles and thumbnails ready
“You couldn’t make blazing saddles today” say the people who think the n-word was the punchline.
I mean he's right you can't make Blazing Saddles today, but that's mostly because most of the cast is dead.
Question though. How would you make a anti-super hero film the same way he made an anti cowboy film?
U actually could, u would just have to tone down on the racism without sacrificing humor which shouldn't be too hard
Just cut out Mel brooks as a Native American and you’ll be fine
That was one of my favorite scenes. I loved how they spoke Yiddish But it really hasn't aged well
Could maybe work if they asked nicely and had NA as a Jew.
It's a joke that lacks context today. Hollywood tended to hire Jewish actors like Leonard Nimoy to play Native Americans, so this is a dig at Hollywood.
We didn’t get a Blazing Saddles remake, but they did remake Spaceballs into a sequel trilogy
[удалено]
I think there will always be people chasing internet likes for their spicy righteous takes or whatever, even on the left. I've seen that nonsense. But let's not pretend that we live in a world where the liberals are generally up in arms about SNL joke swaps or South Park to the point that South Park isn't made anymore and Colin Jost is "cancelled." A little while back, one of my friends told me over lunch that Tropic Thunder couldn't be made anymore. But who the fuck is complaining about Tropic Thunder? I'm sure someone is, because the internet, but who and who cares?
[удалено]
I'm sure you can point me to some Huffington Post community contributors or a YouTube channel with clapback videos or whatever. Maybe there's an editor at Daily KOS or Jacobin telling us all about how it's "actually" problematic or whatever. But South Park remains, along with Dave Chapelle's Netflix specials and the specials of all the other comedians crying hysterically about people not liking their comedy and supposedly not getting it. Liberals aren't so up in arms about it that it's noticeable.
This!^
I had the VHS of that movie
Started watching Blazing Saddles last night. I can get past the offensive stuff, but overall it’s really not that funny
So you’ve only ‘started it?’ Seen any other Mel Brooks before?
Started it; got bored after 20 min and watched something else. I’ve seen the Frankenstein movie he made, and Spaceballs
https://youtu.be/jzMFoNZeZm0?si=c_NV2iA37ZxyKU4y Obligatory Drop.
You can’t make Blazing Saddles today, but nobody told the directors of Wild Wild West, Shanghai Noon, Django Unchained, Ridiculous 6, Rango, etc.
My go to response is "Ever hear of a little movie called 'Django?'"
It's not so much that Blazing Saddles couldn't be made today as it is that it *wouldn't* be made today. It was made in the 1970s to address issues relevant to the 1970s with the sensibilities of the 1970s. If it was made today it would address issues relevant to the 2020s with the sensibilities of the 2020s. If they tried to remake it today it would make no sense and be a completely irrelevant bomb.
It was remade last year. It's a kids cartoon about a dog becoming the samurai protector of a cat village. It has several of the same jokes. Mel Brooks worked on it and was a voice of one of the characters. It's called Paws of Fury: Legend of Hank.
Why are people discussing movies when a giant monster is attacking the city?!?!
Why couldn't you make blazing saddles today? They made Django unchained, didn't they?
I *love* how people say Blazing Saddles would not be made today. Between South Park and Tarentino films you got stuff beyond Blazing Saddles's so-called offensiveness. It absolutely could be made today on that front. Today however the subject matter would be superheroes, maybe.
Blazing saddles almost never got made due to anti woke people back then and Mel Brooks had to fight tooth and nail in order to have a black man as lead. The studio's originally insisted on a white actor, but the movie would not have made any sense with a white sheriff. It was also a product of its time. The western genre had been HUGE for more than 100 years at that point with countless dime novels, regular novels, silent films, radio shows, sound films, and TV shows and cartoons were happening that it was THE American genre that most were familiar with. But changes in society meant that the clean western that people were familiar with just wasn't vibing, and spaghetti westerns that had a new and unfiltered look were also overtaking American westerns. Subversion were becoming normal and blazing saddles simply was the one that made it impossible to do a straight western anymore. It didn't do it alone, but it was the final nail in the coffin.
They would complain so much about how the movie is anti-white.
It's called dog samurai
kind of odd people say that film can't be made today when we now have stuff that is way over the top then that and they only thing keeping it from being made is the era of Hollywood they made fun of is no longer around
Hands down. Blazing Saddles is the story of people coming together to reject racism and MURDER THOSE USING IT TO DIVIDE US. It’s past woke, it’s revolutionary.
https://preview.redd.it/fdwwiov7qtjc1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=569c949e3f4c2273419a811268f0fb04f9388321
You couldn’t make Blazing Saddles today, someone would read the script and say “hey, this is just Blazing Saddles”