its not? Isnt running away from gangsters who are looking for their large amount of drugs, while killing anybody in their path, so they wont kill you parkour?  Doesnt that go back to the origins of using it to save a life or the life of another? Just wondering. Maybe i miss-read you or something. Im just wondering what your train of thought is. I hope i dont sound mean, im just wondering why you would say that.  ß

im no good at internet sarcasm...no tone of voice

I would accept money to perform Parkour.  I would not accept money to perform freerunning.  I would leave the set if I were asked to do something that I would never consider to be "Parkour."

"PK is not like music where you change what you play so you can make money.  Movement is movement."

Hmmm ... I agreed with you right up until this point ... and I even agree with what I THINK you were getting at, but it's the opposite of the point you made.

"where you change what you play so you can make money" - yes, that would be selling out - changing what you do to make money.

"Movement is movement" - this is where I disagree, by this you're inferring that Parkour = Movement, so any movement is OK ...

Parkour = Parkour. So if you're calling something parkour, it should be parkour. If you call it movement, or freerunning, or whatever else, then it should be those things.

If you specifically call something that isn't parkour parkour to make money, then you are selling out parkour.


Let's be very clear though about what selling out Parkour means ... going to the example of David Belle, he has tons of videos with him doing parkour and doing flips, is he selling out Parkour? No. Is it because he comes on and says in EACH video "this is / this is not parkour"? No. It seems there are only one or two well known places where he does says flips and acrobatics aren't parkour, but since it's david belle it's understood and it's OK, anyone else gets crucified for the same thing (Skipper's one flip in Dispersion, way less than the "spinny moves" in David Belle's video at DDL.

So, I think people need to be careful and take into account a broad spectrum of information when they talk about selling out Parkour, and different people selling things out or not selling things out. Also, (I know this will draw criticism) there are times when the "net effect" has to be considered. I'm not in any way saying I'm the person to make that judgement, but there are times when publicity for Parkour which includes even high drops and moves that can be considered purely parkour are done for effect, even though they don't convey the best message for a general audience. So, is showing only high drops sellling out Parkour because you're going for the wow factor and virtualy ignoring the true usefulness of Parkour?
 

they both made movies that were entertaining, both using skills developed through parkour. 

what else is he supposed to do for money? clearly hes not skilled in any other vocation 

I never said it was not a Parkour movie.  I never said he was selling out.

I said that Parkour was not EXPLICITLY mentioned in the movie because they were trying to avoid misrepresentation.  That is all.

Maybe you should've organised your thoughts a LOT better before posting. Im trying hard not to flame you. I really really am. The man is shy and reclusive for a reason, its called being observent, really observent, and he doesn't need to fly the parkour flag in everything he does. The movie had a message, and it wasn't "hey look its parkour". If he had really sold out it would go something like this: Belle does flips and wallruns off a platimun wall with bacardi and redbull ads all over it and yells parkour every three seconds, then drinks a redbull mixed with bacardi and tells you that their products make you better at parkour.


YEESH!