http://ditcradio.com/2010...s-episode/

[img:$uid]http://ditcradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tyler-perry.jpg[/img:$uid]

According to gossip blogger Carlton Jordan, the episode was so true to life, that Tyler Perry is convinced that someone on his staff leaked information to the writing staff of “The Boondocks.”

So he fired them all. Here is the epipisode I am talking about. you be the judge…..

Click on the link above to view the episode they are speaking of.

[Edited 6/25/10 15:12pm]

Where's the link? And I saw that episode. HILARIOUS

oh I see the link

Someone started a thread the other day, but I didn't watch it because I'm not into the Boondocks. I just finished watching it this time...

I was curious about what Tyler Perry could be so pissed about.

If he's not really like that, why is he so bent out of shape?

(or is the firing a rumor?)

Wow...I watched that episode because I like the Boondocks. Even with it's overt political incorrectness. Yanno, something was always a bit bizzare about Tyler Perry to me. And it went even past the whole cross dressing Madea thing. I really have no idea how he is with his staff and cast, but that Boondocks episode definitely appeared to have some pretty obvious Tyler Perry themes in it ie. "Homo-erotic Christian Cult". I know that Tyler has a "tight camp" and that can possibly why people on the inside feel like it's a "cult". Wouldn't be surprised if one of his cast members "dropped dime" on the real Tyler. But who's to really say.

I always saw things in Tyler that very few other people saw, and this would lead to arguements when I expressed my views about him and his work, so now I just don't say shydt. Good to know that I wasn't the only one out there "sensing" that there was something a bit "different" or amiss about ole boy.

Sometimes when one of "our" people do well for themselves no one can dare say anything that is perceived to be negative or critical about that person less you get a verbal tongue lashing, and get accused of being a crab in a barrel. So I won't even state what my real feelings about Tyler are.

What I will say is that his empire has been amazing, he is definitely talented. I think he addresses some themes in his work that is very sensitive for him seeing that he has been abused by his father, and molested etc. I'm sure his work is therapeutic for himself, and people seem to gobble it up. I just hate his Meet The Browns series and whatever other crappy minstrel type series that he has on television.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Spike said about Tyler. Spike didn't lie, and Tyler handled the criticism like a lil bitch as far as I'm concerned. Hell there's an "audience" for everything. Just because you have an "audience" for something doesn't mean that the work is steller. Tyler got "schooled" by one of his peers and by someone who has paid his dues in the business long before Tyler crawled out of the bad situation that he was in. Tyler should have listened instead of "flexed". Hell Spike took tons of critcism. He was like the first to be accused of being an "angry black man". He just took it, and spun it out and delivered better and better work. He didn't bitch.

[Edited 6/25/10 16:55pm]

It's false. Rumor.

RebirthOfCool said:

It's false. Rumor.

Even if that entire skit was "made up"....there is a degree of truth to it in regards to Tyler Perry's character for anyone who really closely listens to what Tyler has to say. Not saying that a Boondocks episode was completely true. But like I said...I wouldn't be surprised if someone "dropped dime".

I wonder if there is any evidence that his staff was in fact fired. That would be something that would be relatively easy to prove. If everybody who once worked for Tyler, no longer works for him....then one can make a "conclusion".

Reel said:

RebirthOfCool said:

It's false. Rumor.

Even if that entire skit was "made up"....there is a degree of truth to it in regards to Tyler Perry's character for anyone who really closely listens to what Tyler has to say. Not saying that a Boondocks episode was completely true. But like I said...I wouldn't be surprised if someone "dropped dime".

I wonder if there is any evidence that his staff was in fact fired. That would be something that would be relatively easy to prove. If everybody who once worked for Tyler, no longer works for him....then one can make a "conclusion".

No, what I'm saying is, the "he fired his staff" is false.

as much as i detest tyler perry, i will wait to hear it from a credible news source

cborgman said:

as much as i detest tyler perry, i will wait to hear it from a credible news source

Why do you detest him?

I only started checking out his movies in recent months and like the 4 movies I've seen of his. (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Medea's Family Reunion, Medea Goes to Jail and I Can do Bad All by Myself).

I don't know what his personal stances are.

I don't watch the Boondocks.

I have no idea what this episode is supposed to be revealing about him.

[Edited 6/25/10 21:55pm]

Watching the episode now. Clever. Cute.

It's alright to crossdress for God.

johnart said:

cborgman said:

as much as i detest tyler perry, i will wait to hear it from a credible news source

Why do you detest him?

I only started checking out his movies in recent months and like the 4 movies I've seen of his. (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Medea's Family Reunion, Medea Goes to Jail and I Can do Bad All by Myself).

I don't know what his personal stances are.

I don't watch the Boondocks.

I have no idea what this episode is supposed to be revealing about him.

[Edited 6/25/10 21:55pm]

well, personally, and it is only my opinion, i think that his movies are poorly written and directed pandering bits of fluff that try to pass themselves off as something deep, and i agree with spike lee that there is a whole lot of cooning and buffoonery in his stuff.

as far as his personal life, i dont particularly care, but i do find it fascinating that he is a gay man who is pandering to christians and somehow successfully selling them a lame drag character by just talking a whole lot about jesus and god. but, that doesnt bother me half as much as how poorly written and directed his stuff is. that is the cardinal sin of him for me.

there is part of me that appreciates that he is out to make money, and will do anything to get it, but there is part of me that thinks it's uncle tomming to pretend to be straight to make his fortune off christian fundamnetalists, and manipulating an audience by feeding them mass quantities of cinematic high fructose corn syrup with a made by jesus label.

there are a wealth of far superior black writers and directors with strong and interesting voices and stories who are ignored while he is raking it in hand over fist by pandering.

just my opinion though.

[Edited 6/25/10 22:31pm]

and god help him if he screws up "for colored girls"

cborgman said:

johnart said:

Why do you detest him?

I only started checking out his movies in recent months and like the 4 movies I've seen of his. (Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Medea's Family Reunion, Medea Goes to Jail and I Can do Bad All by Myself).

I don't know what his personal stances are.

I don't watch the Boondocks.

I have no idea what this episode is supposed to be revealing about him.

[Edited 6/25/10 21:55pm]

well, personally, and it is only my opinion, i think that his movies are poorly written and directed pandering bits of fluff that try to pass themselves off as something deep, and i agree with spike lee that there is a whole lot of cooning and buffoonery in his stuff.

as far as his personal life, i dont particularly care, but i do find it fascinating that he is a gay man who is pandering to christians and somehow successfully selling them a lame drag character by just talking a whole lot about jesus and god. but, that doesnt bother me half as much as how poorly written and directed his stuff is. that is the cardinal sin of him for me.

there is part of me that appreciates that he is out to make money, and will do anything to get it, but there is part of me that thinks it's uncle tomming to pretend to be straight to make his fortune off christian fundamnetalists, and manipulating an audience by feeding them mass quantities of cinematic high fructose corn syrup with a made by jesus label.

there are a wealth of far superior black writers and directors with strong and interesting voices and stories who are ignored while he is raking it in hand over fist by pandering.

just my opinion though.

[Edited 6/25/10 22:08pm]

While I kinda get the whole "coonery" critisism to a certain extent, I just can't get too wrapped up in it. I never do, for anything.

I'm a firm believer that, for good or bad, stereotypes come from a real place. For me it's really about what you do with that stereotype. Our community does the same thing. When there's a big ole sissy on the screen, I can only judge it by the bigger picture of what I'm watching cuz like it or not...we got a lot of sissies and I won't pretend we don't . Communities preach diversity at the expense of sweeping the unpopular/politically incorrect/out of style stereotype under the rug.

I know (I might be one? depends on who you ask I suppose)sissies and I've known Medea's.

I find it hard to be here nor there on his stuff. I don't think it's groundbreaking in anyway or by any stretch of the imagination. I just find what I've seen so far entertaining. There's been some good acting moments (Kymberlie Elise/Jill Scott/Taraji) and some clever lines.

As far as his writing, I think there's been some good clever moments.

He's no August Wilson, that's for sure. Is he supposed to be?

[Edited 6/25/10 22:31pm]

I 'm with cborgman on this topic. His productions are boring-not that that he doesn't have moments. Mr. Perry's work feel contrived and bland.

He may be no August Wilson, but could he at least be a Charles Schulz?

johnart said:

cborgman said:

well, personally, and it is only my opinion, i think that his movies are poorly written and directed pandering bits of fluff that try to pass themselves off as something deep, and i agree with spike lee that there is a whole lot of cooning and buffoonery in his stuff.

as far as his personal life, i dont particularly care, but i do find it fascinating that he is a gay man who is pandering to christians and somehow successfully selling them a lame drag character by just talking a whole lot about jesus and god. but, that doesnt bother me half as much as how poorly written and directed his stuff is. that is the cardinal sin of him for me.

there is part of me that appreciates that he is out to make money, and will do anything to get it, but there is part of me that thinks it's uncle tomming to pretend to be straight to make his fortune off christian fundamnetalists, and manipulating an audience by feeding them mass quantities of cinematic high fructose corn syrup with a made by jesus label.

there are a wealth of far superior black writers and directors with strong and interesting voices and stories who are ignored while he is raking it in hand over fist by pandering.

just my opinion though.

[Edited 6/25/10 22:08pm]

While I kinda get the whole "coonery" critisism to a certain extent, I just can't get too wrapped up in it. I never do, for anything.

I'm a firm believer that, for good or bad, stereotypes come from a real place. For me it's really about what you do with that stereotype. Our community does the same thing. When there's a big ole sissy on the screen, I can only judge it by the bigger picture of what I'm watching cuz like it or not...we got a lot of sissies and I won't pretend we don't . Communities preach diversity at the expense of sweeping the unpopular/politically incorrect/out of style stereotype under the rug.

I know (I might be one? depends on who you ask I suppose)sissies and I've known Medea's.

I find it hard to be here nor there on his stuff. I don't think it's groundbreaking in anyway or by any stretch of the imagination. I just find what I've seen so far entertaining. There's been some good acting moments (Kymberlie Elise/Jill Scott/Taraji) and some clever lines.

As far as his writing, I think there's been some good clever moments.

He's no August Wilson, that's for sure. Is he supposed to be?

[Edited 6/25/10 22:31pm]

i think there is a place for more stereotypical characters and people (of which i by no means include you), so long as they are balanced with other representations and dont become the exclusive representation. it's something i constantly watch for in my writing, be it a stock character or stereotype of any representation. for instance, in gaging, jeff is somewhat of a stereotype of a macho straight man, but is balanced by the presence of noel. kevin is a litttle bit on the stereotyped side of being a stuttering nervous gay character, but is balanced by the presence of ben.

and wilson is a perfect example of a BRILLIANT black writer (arguably one of the best playwrights of the last century, black, white, or whatever) who most folks dont even know. but most people know madea. i think spike lee is a far superior director and writer (though he often loses his story in the third act in my opinion), and his movies barely break even for the most part.

what really makes me sad is seeing brilliant actors like angela bassett, alfre woodard, and the much lesser known jenifer lewis doing his silly schtick to stay afloat. is it his fault that there is a dearth of quality black material coming out of hollywood? no. but it would be nice if he would actually do something deep instead of silly stuff.

i'd give my left nut to write something for angela bassett.

i am curious to/dreading seeing "for colored girls" though. if he doesnt fuck it up, he'll get a whole new level of respect from me. but even with that spectacular cast, i really anticipate it being bad and toothless compared to the brilliant play/poems it is adapted from. particulary with his rampant chriatian preaching in his stuff, i really think he is gonna fuck up the abortion stuff in it and make it very ham-handed.

but that's just my opinion. i am not discrediting anyone else's.

kewlschool said:

I 'm with cborgman on this topic. His productions are boring-not that that he doesn't have moments. Mr. Perry's work feel contrived and bland.

He may be no August Wilson, but could he at least be a Charles Schulz?

But my question is, this: for all the critisism...are they supposed to be intellectually challenging films/plays??? Or do people go to see them for some laughs (OK and maybe some Jesus praisin :lo:)?

That's a serious question. I've just taken the ones I've seen for what they are. Middle of the road, entertainment.

If people are looking to his work for life changing filmmaking, then that's kinda on them. No?

I know almost nothing about this person.

However, is he gay? Has he actually admitted to that?

johnart said:

kewlschool said:

I 'm with cborgman on this topic. His productions are boring-not that that he doesn't have moments. Mr. Perry's work feel contrived and bland.

He may be no August Wilson, but could he at least be a Charles Schulz?

But my question is, this: for all the critisism...are they supposed to be intellectually challenging films/plays??? Or do people go to see them for some laughs (OK and maybe some Jesus praisin :lo:)?

That's a serious question. I've just taken the ones I've seen for what they are. Middle of the road, entertainment.

If people are looking to his work for life changing filmmaking, then that's kinda on them. No?

One of the reasons I avoid anything with David Hasselholff, NBC, or any of THEVOID'S threads.

(Relax-I'm kidding about thevoid's threads)

cborgman said:

johnart said:

While I kinda get the whole "coonery" critisism to a certain extent, I just can't get too wrapped up in it. I never do, for anything.

I'm a firm believer that, for good or bad, stereotypes come from a real place. For me it's really about what you do with that stereotype. Our community does the same thing. When there's a big ole sissy on the screen, I can only judge it by the bigger picture of what I'm watching cuz like it or not...we got a lot of sissies and I won't pretend we don't . Communities preach diversity at the expense of sweeping the unpopular/politically incorrect/out of style stereotype under the rug.

I know (I might be one? depends on who you ask I suppose)sissies and I've known Medea's.

I find it hard to be here nor there on his stuff. I don't think it's groundbreaking in anyway or by any stretch of the imagination. I just find what I've seen so far entertaining. There's been some good acting moments (Kymberlie Elise/Jill Scott/Taraji) and some clever lines.

As far as his writing, I think there's been some good clever moments.

He's no August Wilson, that's for sure. Is he supposed to be?

[Edited 6/25/10 22:31pm]

i think there is a place for more stereotypical characters and people (of which i by no means include you), so long as they are balanced with other representations and dont become the exclusive representation. it's something i constantly watch for in my writing, be it a stock character or stereotype of any representation. for instance, in gaging, jeff is somewhat of a stereotype of a macho straight man, but is balanced by the presence of noel. kevin is a litttle bit on the stereotyped side of being a stuttering nervous gay character, but is balanced by the presence of ben.

and wilson is a perfect example of a BRILLIANT black writer (arguably one of the best playwrights of the last century, black, white, or whatever) who most folks dont even know. but most people know madea. i think spike lee is a far superior director and writer (though he often loses his story in the third act in my opinion), and his movies barely break even for the most part.

what really makes me sad is seeing brilliant actors like angela bassett, alfre woodard, and the much lesser known jenifer lewis doing his silly schtick to stay afloat. is it his fault that there is a dearth of quality black material coming out of hollywood? no. but it would be nice if he would actually do something deep instead of silly stuff.

i'd give my left nut to write something for angela bassett.

i am curious to/dreading seeing "for colored girls" though. if he doesnt fuck it up, he'll get a whole new level of respect from me. but even with that spectacular cast, i really anticipate it being bad and toothless compared to the brilliant play/poems it is adapted from. particulary with his rampant chriatian preaching in his stuff, i really think he is gonna fuck up the abortion stuff in it and make it very ham-handed.

but that's just my opinion. i am not discrediting anyone else's.

The part I'm always conflicted about (I guess on principle) is that any portrayal or production has to be balanced. So we can't portray a family of stereotypical assholes (gay, str8, white,asian..whatever) if we don't somehow inject some sort of positive portrayal to counteract it?

Sometimes there are stories to be told and there's nothing but assholes in it.

I do hope he does a good job on "for colored girls".

I don't know that we can fairly say that any given actor does his movies just to stay afloat though (meaning that they despise being in his productions or anything like that), unless we hear it from them. That said, if a wealth of challenging parts were available to folk like Alfre (one of my 2 favorite actresses ever ) and Angela I'm sure they'd jump on those.

I don't know. There's a bunch of angles to the whole thing I guess.

[Edited 6/25/10 23:02pm]

johnart said:

kewlschool said:

I 'm with cborgman on this topic. His productions are boring-not that that he doesn't have moments. Mr. Perry's work feel contrived and bland.

He may be no August Wilson, but could he at least be a Charles Schulz?

But my question is, this: for all the critisism...are they supposed to be intellectually challenging films/plays??? Or do people go to see them for some laughs (OK and maybe some Jesus praisin :lo:)?

That's a serious question. I've just taken the ones I've seen for what they are. Middle of the road, entertainment.

If people are looking to his work for life changing filmmaking, then that's kinda on them. No?

i think once you evoke religion, you've pretty much inherently crossed into a more deep territory.

but that is because i personally view it as a fascinating and incredibly nuanced and deep thought process. other people (largely his audience) probably would disagree as they accept religion as being a pure and unquestionable thing, where i do not.

his comedy stuff doesn't bother me as much as his more dramatic stuff. i got talked into going to see "why did i get married?" opening weekend, and that was pretty much the breaking point for me. the minute he had women praying to end their husbands' physical, mental, and verbal abuse and cheating, it pretty much set me against him and his movies, and that was the last one i saw.

i just thought it was an insanely irresponsible message to be sending out:

your husband hits you? pray he stops.

your husband cheats on you and doesnt even try to hide it? pray he stops.

your husband repeatedly calls you a fat pig and talks about how physically disgusting he thinks you are to your face and the face of all your friends? pray he stops.

and so on.

cborgman said:

johnart said:

But my question is, this: for all the critisism...are they supposed to be intellectually challenging films/plays??? Or do people go to see them for some laughs (OK and maybe some Jesus praisin :lo:)?

That's a serious question. I've just taken the ones I've seen for what they are. Middle of the road, entertainment.

If people are looking to his work for life changing filmmaking, then that's kinda on them. No?

i think once you evoke religion, you've pretty much inherently crossed into a more deep territory.

but that is because i personally view it as a fascinating and incredibly nuanced and deep thought process. other people (largely his audience) probably would disagree as they accept religion as being a pure and unquestionable thing, where i do not.

his comedy stuff doesn't bother me as much as his more dramatic stuff. i got talked into going to see "why did i get married?" opening weekend, and that was pretty much the breaking point for me. the minute he had women praying to end their husbands' physical, mental, and verbal abuse and cheating, it pretty much set me against him and his movies, and that was the last one i saw.

i just thought it was an insanely irresponsible message to be sending out:

your husband hits you? pray he stops.

your husband cheats on you and doesnt even try to hide it? pray he stops.

your husband repeatedly calls you a fat pig and talks about how physically disgusting he thinks you are to your face and the face of all your friends? pray he stops.

and so on.

I get you on the religion stuff.

I feel DEEPLY about religion and not in the way religious folk do.

I'd have to watch the movie (Why Did I Get Married) again. I don't remember what came after prayer, but I thought the women took control of their lives, which is why I didn't mind them "praying" on their issues. I could be wrong.

TheVoid said:

I know almost nothing about this person.

However, is he gay? Has he actually admitted to that?

he kind of tap dancey avoids the question.

[Tyler Perry] acknowledges first, that climbing into a dress and wig and packing his face full of Maybelline could very well lead people to question for which side he's hitting. "It used to bother me a whole lot in the beginning, it really, really did," says Perry. "But what it's done is give me firm seating in my manhood. And if some people can't separate the character from the man that I am, then that's their issue, not mine."

cborgman said:

TheVoid said:

I know almost nothing about this person.

However, is he gay? Has he actually admitted to that?

he kind of tap dancey avoids the question.

[Tyler Perry] acknowledges first, that climbing into a dress and wig and packing his face full of Maybelline could very well lead people to question for which side he's hitting. "It used to bother me a whole lot in the beginning, it really, really did," says Perry. "But what it's done is give me firm seating in my manhood. And if some people can't separate the character from the man that I am, then that's their issue, not mine."

Is that a Ricky Martin quote??

BTW, I finished watching the Boondocks episode. It was cleverly done. If Tyler Perry can't see how he has set that joke up (the subject as a whole) to be made then...

johnart said:

cborgman said:

i think there is a place for more stereotypical characters and people (of which i by no means include you), so long as they are balanced with other representations and dont become the exclusive representation. it's something i constantly watch for in my writing, be it a stock character or stereotype of any representation. for instance, in gaging, jeff is somewhat of a stereotype of a macho straight man, but is balanced by the presence of noel. kevin is a litttle bit on the stereotyped side of being a stuttering nervous gay character, but is balanced by the presence of ben.

and wilson is a perfect example of a BRILLIANT black writer (arguably one of the best playwrights of the last century, black, white, or whatever) who most folks dont even know. but most people know madea. i think spike lee is a far superior director and writer (though he often loses his story in the third act in my opinion), and his movies barely break even for the most part.

what really makes me sad is seeing brilliant actors like angela bassett, alfre woodard, and the much lesser known jenifer lewis doing his silly schtick to stay afloat. is it his fault that there is a dearth of quality black material coming out of hollywood? no. but it would be nice if he would actually do something deep instead of silly stuff.

i'd give my left nut to write something for angela bassett.

i am curious to/dreading seeing "for colored girls" though. if he doesnt fuck it up, he'll get a whole new level of respect from me. but even with that spectacular cast, i really anticipate it being bad and toothless compared to the brilliant play/poems it is adapted from. particulary with his rampant chriatian preaching in his stuff, i really think he is gonna fuck up the abortion stuff in it and make it very ham-handed.

but that's just my opinion. i am not discrediting anyone else's.

The part I'm always conflicted about (I guess on principle) is that any portrayal or production has to be balanced. So we can't portray a family of stereotypical assholes (gay, str8, white,asian..whatever) if we don't somehow inject some sort of positive portrayal to counteract it?

Sometimes there are stories to be told and there's nothing but assholes in it.

I do hope he does a good job on "for colored girls".

I don't know that we can fairly say that any given actor does his movies just to stay afloat though (meaning that they despise being in his productions or anything like that), unless we hear it from them. That said, if a wealth of challenging parts were available to folk like Alfre (one of my 2 favorite actresses ever ) and Angela I'm sure they'd jump on those.

I don't know. There's a bunch of angles to the whole thing I guess.

[Edited 6/25/10 23:02pm]

agreed, it's a complex issue.

i just cant imagine why on earth people like angela, alfre, jenifer, and others would do his dreck but to stay afloat. they're tremendous actresses who deserve sooooo much better.

i do think there is smomething to be said for balance though. i think there are precious few movies or tv shows or plays in which there is not a balance achieved. the balance may not always be a leading char and the stereotype is not always a supporting, but you can usually find some sort of yardstick char to measure those chars against.

i am very very protective of my characters, but i strive to achieve a balance with them.

though it's a completely different issue of stereotypes to compare what i am about to... i also strive to achieve a blance in each character

one of the things that came up in feedback for "beasts" at the reading was how much people wanted the char whose dark history of molestation to be more of a monster so they could dislike him more, though they also want to cheer on the woman drugging him, keeping him hostage, physically abusing him and arguably raping him as revenge on adult for sins he committed in his teenage years.

i really took HUGE efforts to keep that from happening as i dont want the audience to be able to say that he is better or worse than her in his guilt, as i think it is pandering and far too easy to digest if the guy is a total monster and she is a hero. i love the balance of guilt between her, him, and even ben and kevin himself in kevin's state of being. most of the rewrites are to further implicate kevin and ben. of the four characters, there are no innocents in that piece. nothing in it is black or white, only grey when it comes to guilt and innocence.

i like that balance. i hate seeing stock characters who are only good or only bad, just as i hate seeing chars that are only flaming or only macho. it just feels like a bad melodrama to me and untrue to any kind of logical reality and is very lazy writing.

it was something i fought heavily with one of the co-writers with on gaging. he wanted anna to be an innocent damsel in distress who just happened to faint and fall on the subway track to be rescued, and i told him i would quit and take the script with me (this was pre-contract) before i would let anna become a stock damsel in distress waiting to be rescued. it flew against not only my belief in writing but my feminist sensibilities to have some tedious innocent girl who serves no function but to be rescued, not to mention it completely disrupted the interesting relationship of ben and kevin in which you have two males, one an innocent pure soul rescuing the lead from himself. and then you have noel, who is the traditional superhero who ends up the sacrifical lamb. i chose to run against the grain of comic book clicches as much as i could.

[Edited 6/25/10 23:40pm]

johnart said:

BTW, I finished watching the Boondocks episode. It was cleverly done. If Tyler Perry can't see how he has set that joke up (the subject as a whole) to be made then...

oh, yeah. big time.

god, i sound like the most pompous and self-congratulatory amateur writer to ever string two words together in this thread

cborgman said:

god, i sound like the most pompous and self-congratulatory amateur writer to ever string two words together in this thread

Honey we know and love your self-congratulatory (jk) ass.

johnart said:

cborgman said:

i think once you evoke religion, you've pretty much inherently crossed into a more deep territory.

but that is because i personally view it as a fascinating and incredibly nuanced and deep thought process. other people (largely his audience) probably would disagree as they accept religion as being a pure and unquestionable thing, where i do not.

his comedy stuff doesn't bother me as much as his more dramatic stuff. i got talked into going to see "why did i get married?" opening weekend, and that was pretty much the breaking point for me. the minute he had women praying to end their husbands' physical, mental, and verbal abuse and cheating, it pretty much set me against him and his movies, and that was the last one i saw.

i just thought it was an insanely irresponsible message to be sending out:

your husband hits you? pray he stops.

your husband cheats on you and doesnt even try to hide it? pray he stops.

your husband repeatedly calls you a fat pig and talks about how physically disgusting he thinks you are to your face and the face of all your friends? pray he stops.

and so on.

I get you on the religion stuff.

I feel DEEPLY about religion and not in the way religious folk do.

I'd have to watch the movie (Why Did I Get Married) again. I don't remember what came after prayer, but I thought the women took control of their lives, which is why I didn't mind them "praying" on their issues. I could be wrong.

after that, i pretty much checked out of the movie and just began observing the audience's reaction to it.