comment: >
  
  Anyone who think we can no longer be politically incorrect has never tuned into South Park.
context: I completely agree. Racial commentary is very relevant, and very lucrative if you can hit the right vein. This is why Blazing saddles holds up, or tropic Thunder. >
  
  What do you mean "you people"?! >
  
  
  chronologically online people
  
  Where do they fit in the timeline? >
  
  Haha very funny, my bad >
  
  no, you couldn't.
  mel brooks could... but YOU couldn't!! >
  
  Mel Brooks played an Indian Chief in Blazing Saddles.
  "REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ThAt'S cUlTuRaL aPpRoPrIaTiOnS! CaNcEl HiM! REEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - Karens, probably.
  The people that complain have no concept of humor. >
  
  They also have no concept of social commentary. Mel Brooks playing the Sioux Chief was explicitly satirizing Hollywood's tendency to cast white guys as Native American characters back in the day, and speaking Yiddish just to make it even more ridiculous. >
  
  Nothing in the movie is particularly offensive or shocking nowadays. South Park and Its Always Sunny gets away with more. >
  
  
  Nothing in the movie is particularly offensive or shocking nowadays.
  
  Some people LIVE to be offended.
  They'll complain about anything. Real or imagined. >
  
  I agree to that, many people just take things too far and do more harm than good >
  
  People who disagree are just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the new West. >
  
  There's one major reason why you couldn't make it today, though it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
  There was an article earlier about the death of the mid priced movie.  Blazing Saddles cost $2.6 million back then, which is $13 million today.  Unfortunately, in today's marketplace, that's a disaster waiting to happen that no studio will put money towards.  You either have a big budget movie that targets worldwide success, or you have a budget movie that will return money because it cost nothing to make.
  The mid budget movies now end up on streaming services rather than cinemas, where they can't possibly bring in millions of dollars.  And because of that, they're not going to be promoted by the streaming services.
  Just as a question, name the last comedy that placed in the top 5 of movie grosses that you can think of.  Prior to 2006, practically every year had a top 5 comedy.  Post 2006, it's like once a decade where a comedy will break that mark.  (From 1958-2005, there were only 3 years where the top 5 movies didn't include a Comedy.  From 2006-2022, The Hangover Part 2 is the only comedy to break the top 5.  Ted, The Hangover, and Talladega Nights are the only original IP comedies to even break the Top 10.) >
  
  Yeah, this. 
  In the old days, the studios could have 50 projects at $10mil each. The idea being you spend half a billion in the hopes that they collectively return $1billion in sales. 
  The problem is that the returns are uneven. (You might have 5-10 big winners, and 40-45 flops that nobody remembers)
  Today, if you're a studio, why take the risk of alienating investors and causing controversy? Why not just spend half a billion on 1 mediocre movie that's all but guaranteed to do well enough worldwide to cover the costs involved.