Talk:Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song/Archive 1

Explicitness
While it very well may be true that the sex scenes are "unsimulated", the reality is that they aren't really explicit, you don't see anything that couldn't have been simulated if they had wanted to simulate it. 70.20.219.114 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The point wasn't to be explict. Melvin explained in an interview that they started off simulated, but that the actresses couldn't fake orgasms well, so they started filming the scenes unsimulated, so it would look better onscreen. (Ibaranoff24 09:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

Criticism
If any article deserves a criticism section it is this one. Despite throwing acclaim at this film I find most people find it to be barely watchable. Not to mention that due to possible child porn content it was banned in some countries. It is not actually clear if Mario Van Peebles actually had sex with the woman or not from my understanding. Adding a criticism section to this is simply doing the film justice. There is a lot to be critical of and there is also a lot to report about the criticism of this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.68.250 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mario did not actually have sex with the woman in the opening scene. The "response" section features some criticisms of the film. To turn the article into a negative diatribe against the film would violate Wikipedia's guidelines. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Gay Content
There seems to be a lot of "gay" content from beginning to end. Was that unusual in 1971? Or notable for any reason under any context from any pov? --72.173.2.163 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

discrepancy in box office take
Why does the earlier part of the article cite $4.1 million, while a later portion claims "$15,000,000+"? 24.86.226.181 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anachronism
Article in Sweet_Sweetback's_Baadasssss_Song stated ''' "Hollywood studios were led to attempt to replicate the film's success by producing black-oriented films such as Shaft and Super Fly." ''' (referred to else where in Wikipedia here: Shaft_(1971_film)) That 'Shaft's production being inspired by, as a result of this movie. However, the novel, 'Shaft' was written in 1970. 'Sweetback' was in production in 1971. The movie 'Shaft' was in production concurrently, in 1971. So 'Shaft' could not have been an "attempt to replicate" the film's success. Both 'Shaft' and 'Sweet Sweetback ...' were both part of an already ongoing trend. Let's remove this anachronism in the Wikipedia page. B'H. 24.228.89.236  (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In line with the above, i have placed a Citation needed tag on the statement which is currently not supported by any cited source. I intend to remove this statemnt as unsources and probably inaccurate unless discussion her eindicates a different course. The subsequent statement  is true, in that the cited article in Variety does say that. However, the reasoning in the above comment by  indicates that this is, at best, over simplified and inaccurate in detail. Sweetback may well have been a significant influence on later films, including the ones mentioned in the Spike Lee quote. But there were clearly other reasons for the making of Shaft in particular. We can't say this in the article as it stands, because that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Besides, we don't know what those other reasons were. Can we find a reliable source that analyzes these films and talks about the influence of Sweetback on ;later films, and the sources/inspirations other than Sweetback for Shaft, Super Fly and others? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)