Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Deleted line(s) 5 (click to see context) :
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking its subjects when they're down") that simply making fun of it comes off as insensitive regardless, not helped by the fact that [[WhiteMansBurden one of its more unfortunate tropes]] is played with little to no irony.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking its subjects when they're down") that it still comes off as insensitive despite it's best efforts, not helped by the fact that [[WhiteMansBurden one of its more unfortunate tropes]] is played with little to no irony.
to:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking its subjects when they're down") that simply making fun of it still comes off as insensitive despite it's best efforts, regardless, not helped by the fact that [[WhiteMansBurden one of its more unfortunate tropes]] is played with little to no irony.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking its subjects when they're down"), not to mention still plays [[WhiteMansBurden one of its more unfortunate tropes]] very straight.
to:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking its subjects when they're down"), not to mention down") that it still plays comes off as insensitive despite it's best efforts, not helped by the fact that [[WhiteMansBurden one of its more unfortunate tropes]] very straight.is played with little to no irony.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* ValuesResonance: In regards to Julie and her multiple teen pregnancies. Although such a subject matter is still a strong source of debate, the fact that teen pregnancy isn't nearly as stigmatized as it was when this film came out helps it to be this trope. Furthermore, in spite of the film mocking the fact that she had three children before graduating high school, she is still portrayed as a good mother, bringing her babies to class with her and is in a committed relationship with her boyfriend and the children's father, who also loves her and their family.
to:
* ValuesResonance: In regards to Julie and her multiple teen pregnancies. Although such a subject matter is still a strong source of debate, the fact that teen pregnancy isn't nearly as stigmatized as it was when this film came out helps it to be this trope. Furthermore, in spite of the film mocking the fact that she had three children before graduating high school, she is still portrayed as a good mother, bringing her babies to class with her and is in a committed relationship with her boyfriend and the children's father, who also loves her and their family.family.
----
----
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's subjects when they're down"), not to mention still plays [[WhiteMansBurden one of it's more unfortunate tropes]] very straight.
to:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama with derision, it was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's its subjects when they're down"), not to mention still plays [[WhiteMansBurden one of it's its more unfortunate tropes]] very straight.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it depicted a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality with any sort of levity turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's subjects when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
to:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of doesn't treat actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that drama with derision, it depicted was still an irreverent take on a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality with any sort of levity turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's subjects when they're down"), resulting in not to mention still plays [[WhiteMansBurden one of it's failure.more unfortunate tropes]] very straight.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it depicted a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality with any sort of levity turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's subjects when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
to:
* CrossesTheLineTwice:
** In regards to the missing high school vice principal, virtually everyone (students and teachers alike) treat his disappearance as a joke, with one student even making light of the possibility that he's buried underneath someone's porch. And upon the school's reputation getting better, [[spoiler: he returns unharmed, only for him to be abducted ''in broad daylight'' once again after the school goes back to becoming a hellhole.]]
** During the climax of the film, when Clark is in a fight with Doyle, they stumble into a self-defense class full of women and end up in the exact same pose of a man grappling a woman on a poster seen in the background proclaiming "Don't Be a Victim!"
** The many different ways the statue of Marion Barry is defaced throughout the film also counts, even at one point the school's name being written as "Marion Barry ''Is'' High".
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it depicted a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality with any sort of levity turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's subjects when they're down"), resulting in it'sfailure.failure.
* ValuesResonance: In regards to Julie and her multiple teen pregnancies. Although such a subject matter is still a strong source of debate, the fact that teen pregnancy isn't nearly as stigmatized as it was when this film came out helps it to be this trope. Furthermore, in spite of the film mocking the fact that she had three children before graduating high school, she is still portrayed as a good mother, bringing her babies to class with her and is in a committed relationship with her boyfriend and the children's father, who also loves her and their family.
** In regards to the missing high school vice principal, virtually everyone (students and teachers alike) treat his disappearance as a joke, with one student even making light of the possibility that he's buried underneath someone's porch. And upon the school's reputation getting better, [[spoiler: he returns unharmed, only for him to be abducted ''in broad daylight'' once again after the school goes back to becoming a hellhole.]]
** During the climax of the film, when Clark is in a fight with Doyle, they stumble into a self-defense class full of women and end up in the exact same pose of a man grappling a woman on a poster seen in the background proclaiming "Don't Be a Victim!"
** The many different ways the statue of Marion Barry is defaced throughout the film also counts, even at one point the school's name being written as "Marion Barry ''Is'' High".
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it depicted a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality with any sort of levity turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking it's subjects when they're down"), resulting in it's
* ValuesResonance: In regards to Julie and her multiple teen pregnancies. Although such a subject matter is still a strong source of debate, the fact that teen pregnancy isn't nearly as stigmatized as it was when this film came out helps it to be this trope. Furthermore, in spite of the film mocking the fact that she had three children before graduating high school, she is still portrayed as a good mother, bringing her babies to class with her and is in a committed relationship with her boyfriend and the children's father, who also loves her and their family.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it spoofed a film genre that was deeply rooted in reality turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking inner city students when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
to:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it spoofed depicted a film genre that was so deeply rooted in reality with any sort of levity turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking inner city students it's subjects when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film is careful not to make any direct potshots at actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it spoofed a film genre that was deeply rooted in reality turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking inner city students when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
to:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film is careful not to make any direct potshots at isn't outwardly derisive of actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it spoofed a film genre that was deeply rooted in reality turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking inner city students when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* UnacceptableTargets: While the film is careful not to make any direct potshots at actual inner-city schools or gangland drama, the fact that it spoofed a film genre that was deeply rooted in reality turned a lot of audiences off (Creator/RogerEbert referred to the film's premise as "kicking inner city students when they're down"), resulting in it's failure.
