Amazon, Warner Bros in Talks for LOTR Series Adaptation: Variety

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Problem there Halfy is you cant just say screw history as for many, especially young people, they first get their history from tv and film like it or not, and they are being fed lies. Not political correctness not lets just give black actors jobs they wouldnt normally have, lies. Anne Bolyn was not black, Churchill was not black, Margaret Thatchet did not come from a minority group. Facts should matter, especially when it comes to our history. And yes that can and should include all th shitty things done to black people in the name of Empire, thats important too.
And even contemporary drama should reflect the society its supposed to be set in. I have precisely zero black friends, growing up I had 2 thanks to the US Navy being here, as an adult I know 1 to talk to and he retired here after having been here in the navy. I had 2 Scottish asian friends until they moved away. Thats not becuase Im racist its because the black population of the entire country makes up less than 1% of the country and Asian less than 3%. There are almost no black people here to know. Thats just how it is. But youd never know that from our tv shows.
As I said above there is loads of hugely interesting black british historic characters who were real and whose stories have never been told on tv or film. Why shoehorn black actors into roles they are not suited for telling the stories of white people when there are so many great stories of black people left untold? It is purely virtue signalling. If they were serious about giving black actors roles theyd be a lot more roles for and about black britons and the black british experience. }}

But you're still saying black actors can't play a king unless it's of an african tribe or such like, which is every bit as removed from the modern black experience as having a white person play an african king.   Every now and then you should be able to mix things up.  If you're irritated by it, well...it wasn't made for you.  Don't watch it.

To me it doesn't look like subtle insidious color washing just to "do the right thing", it's blatant "we'll do what we feel like" and that makes it okay. It's like Hamilton - nobody's going to be fooled by this.

{{ They shouldnt play a historical King in a drama meant to be taken seriously as an historic drama, no. Not unless the king was black, and none of ours were, ever. As Ive said already there are plenty of black British stories to be told, both historic and contemporary.  Figg mentioned two excellent films about minority British families and their experience, both I'd highly recommend for a watch. Honest, fair and truthful- which is exactly what a historical drama with mixed races everywhere at a time when there were none, is not. Its false, untrue, a lie.

It also says to white folk, you cant have a white history, you cant show or tell your own stories if they are only about white people, we will put black people into them replacing the white ones, and that is just as racist and as disrespectful to our culture as casting a white North European woman to play Rosa Parks would be.

So there are several issues I have with it, its not true and distorts history, it replaces white cultural and historic history, which belongs to them, with other peoples cultures and concerns, it denies making and telling stories about actual black people in Britain , written by, starring, directed and produced by black people, or Asian, or which ever minority group it is. They have great stories to tell but dont get given the chance it seems to do so. But comedy shows like Goodness, gracious Me! and films like My Beautiful Laundrette show the way.
On of my favourite shows, The Thick of It is written by a Scottish Italian, he is not black but compared to the average Scot he is brown, or at least darker than the average as he has a Medditerean skin tone, in his satire of UK politics there is not a single minority in it, everyone is white, because that truthfully reflects the ratio of white to black/asian in the civil service and top levels of our political system. It makes a point by standing out as not featuring minorities in any lead role, the one episode featuring a black woman she is a House of Commons cleaner with mop and bucket, it makes its point so well by simply reflecting the reality. By showing us back the truth, as good satire should. If they want to make a point about race and have more roles for minorities let them tell their stories. TV Producers (who will be all white of course) have to be cleverer than just replacing white roles with black ones, patting each other on the back for sticking it to the racists, and calling it a day. They are not converting over any racists this way, they are confirming in them why they are right, it affronts and offends them.
Something like East to East, or even Four Lions does far more by telling the true experience and having the power to engender empathy by showing that really, were all just humans making the same dumb mistakes, feeling the same pains, worrying about the same things, just trying their best to get through life. Thats how to do it, we need more of that, not lazily shoehorning in ethnic minorities in what traditionally and by common sense, is a white role. Thats no help.
And lastly its no less racist or offensive than when it is done the other way. A white actress should not play Rosa Parks, or Winnie Mandela, nor should it occur the other way round.

Oh and if you havent seen it Four Lions is great, fun with jihad.

}}

totally agree Petty, lazy cultural appropriation is not going to help.

Petty - you obviously have not attempted to understand a single thing I've said because your responses are completely wrong.

They shouldnt play a historical King in a drama meant to be taken seriously as an historic drama, no.

They NEVER said it was supposed to be taken seriously as a historical drama.  Quite the opposite - they said they are imagining history they way they'd like it to be.  They no more want to be taken as "historical" as the comedy The Great wants to be taken as historical, or Hamilton.  They are simply using the themes to play with.

If they want to make a point about race...

NO.  THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT RACE.  Get that through your thick head.  Both of you.

I give up.  Four Lions is great.  Everything else you said may pertain to other attempts to colorwash drama, but that's not what is being done here.  Read what the creators say about it....I took the trouble to do so, did you?  Didn't think so.

The director said,

"It seeks to 'challenge conventions' of who we think Anne Boleyn was and shine a 'feminist light' on her story."

They may not be making a point about race in itself, but they are USING race to sell it.

Of course they are using race as bait, but the point is that what they are doing is a different approach to the usual reasons for sticking in a multiracial cast.  Nearly all the complaints I saw so far were the old PC-taken-to-far arguments, which is actually a fairly passive-aggressive approach of trying to get everyone used to seeing multi-racial characters.

I don't think they are trying to get people to "accept" things.  They are trying to throw people out of the typical historical moment to read things differently, and race-swapping is one of the tools to jolt people out of their groove.  It's a work of art, NOT NOT NOT a "historical drama".  If it was, you should be complaining about people not peeing in the stairwells, which was historically accurate but I suppose folks can pick their own fights.

It IS a historical drama though, its got historically accurate costumes and sets, they haven't set it in 21st century Brixton with modern clothes, its about Anne in her last few days, in the Renaissance period. Its about a real person, real events, and nothing is as dramatic and psychologically interesting as the truth of what REALLY happened to her. Saying they can somehow improve on her story and turn her into a feminist is doing the real historical person a great disservice.

I have no problems with such complaints - it's the same reason I was so steamed about The 300 - why would you try to "improve" a story which was in part so fascinating because it was true?

My problem was with complaints that Bridgerton was using a colored cast out of PC motives.  That wasn't it at all.  If your complaints are about them making an ARTISTIC choice that is not as good as history, then I have no argument with you.

I actually haven't seen the damn thing, just read about it and thought their take on racial casting was interesting and artistically valid.  Whether or not their choices work or is more worthwhile than a careful historical study is something else.

BTW, Back to the Future was very careful about getting cars and dress historically accurate - does that make it a historical film? Should we get mad that they screwed up history?

I haven't seen The Great yet, but am totally looking forward to it.  It will not enlighten me in the slightest about Catherine the Great, and that's fine because I know that's not the purpose.  I'm happy with the purpose being comedy.  I may not be as happy if the purpose was a Freudian analysis of power and sex, but if they want to do that so long as they are clear about it, fine with me, I just won't care to watch it.

{{ They are making a point about race, and as I did read their blurb and it was clear from it, and indeed the very bit Figg quotes above, that this project is agenda driven. It states two agendas outright, to challenge conventions and to shine a feminist light on it, the first part pertains to their casting of a black actress in a traditionally expected white role, and the second to the substance of the subject matter. But race is clearly there, stated as the first part of the reason for this existing.
Just as the progressive feminist movement is reassured its done in the name of their cause too. So they know it favours and promotes their point of view too.
It a marketing appeal to agendas.

And when it is done, even in the slightest manner, as the current storm over Gal Godot being cast as Cleopatra is showing, the other way round its subject to a firestrom of claims of whitewashing and cultural appropration and cries to bouycot it and its production company.

This production is selling itself on the fact they cast a black women in the role, it was no coincidence those were the first photographs to 'leak' from the set to the tabloid newspapers, they knew it would make a stir and be controversial and get them attention and eyeballs. Whilst at the same time claiming its being done only for loftier more noble reasons. But its just race-baiting for profit.

Swapping races where it doesnt make sense or is completely at odds with time and setting is cheap and lazy, when it would be far better to let those communities tell the stories they want to tell, just as punk was born out of disenfranchised white working class growing up in the 70's, a time of economic decline and no jobs, and being unheard, coming out of run down broken council estates they expressed themselves through art; music and fashion in its case. There needs to be similar from the black and asian communities, the creation of a true level playing field to artistically express their own experiences in television and film.
That is sadly lacking because now we think just race swapping is good enough as a replacement because what really matters is how many twitter counts and reddit threads, and youtube videos it can generate talking about it. Thats why I think its lazy. }}

If you want to call any type of race swapping a lazy way to get attention, then fine, have at it. But it seemed to me that most of your ire arose from past efforts to throw in race just because it was the right thing to do, and you were classing this with those past PC efforts.

The Cleopatra uproar is silly in part because Cleopatra was Greek, which in my mind is not too far from Israeli. But even if she was Nubian I can see why people who seldom get cast in starring roles due to race would be upset that once the obvious role came up they'd be passed over.

It's all fine to be racially historically accurate if that's what you are trying to do, but when they clearly indicate no real attempt at historical accuracy (costumes are just being fun, so don't really count) then all need to be racially accurate is off.

halfwise wrote:I have no problems with such complaints - it's the same reason I was so steamed about The 300 - why would you try to "improve" a story which was in part so fascinating because it was true?

My problem was with complaints that Bridgerton was using a colored cast out of PC motives.  That wasn't it at all.  If your complaints are about them making an ARTISTIC choice that is not as good as history, then I have no argument with you.

I actually haven't seen the damn thing, just read about it and thought their take on racial casting was interesting and artistically valid.  Whether or not their choices work or is more worthwhile than a careful historical study is something else.

BTW, Back to the Future was very careful about getting cars and dress historically accurate - does that make it a historical film?  Should we get mad that they screwed up history?

I haven't seen The Great yet, but am totally looking forward to it.  It will not enlighten me in the slightest about Catherine the Great, and that's fine because I know that's not the purpose.  I'm happy with the purpose being comedy.  I may not be as happy if the purpose was a Freudian analysis of power and sex, but if they want to do that so long as they are clear about it, fine with me, I just won't care to watch it.

If you read my comments I didn't criticise Bridgerton for having Black actors, I said that it looked a fun production but it was probably a marketing ploy. Its fictional and they can go all out and their artistic choices are legit. They are using a multi-coloured cast to shake up tired historical drama and there is nothing wrong with that, its fashionable at the moment and it attracts a new audience. Bridgerton doesnt really have an agenda as such it doesnt ram it down your throat, its just frothy fun and good luck to them.

My problem is with Anne Boleyn and those sledgehammer unsubtle agendas. It is also pretty old-fashioned I thought we had evolved past turning historical figures into feminist icons. Its hardly radical or fresh. It looks a bit desperate to me, as Petty said, its click-bait.

Wait a minute - Bridgerton is set in the early 1800's, how did Anne Boleyn get mixed up in this?

Since we seem to be talking about something else - if it's a historical drama then of course Anne Boleyn should be white.  If it's historical fantasy, they can do whatever the hell they want.  They'd be messing up the real story anyway, so after that, who cares? But do we know which way they're taking this yet?

BTW, here's a very nice article along the lines of what Petty was saying, though my point is we don't have to cast racially appropriate roles so long as it's clear there's no attempt at historical accuracy. Cast whoever you feel like. Though it would be nice for non-european stories to see the light of day.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/nov/04/why-are-people-losing-their-heads-over-a-black-anne-boleyn

All this sturm und drang about Bridgerton it seems to me came from a misguided interpretation of what is essentially fantasy instead of a historical drama.  It's like foaming at the mouth over the inaccuracies in Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Killer.

yep we were talking about two different things, Bridgerton, and the new Anne Boleyn historical drama. I think we all agree about Anne Boleyn needing to be white but Bridgerton being a fictional story they can do what they like, its down to artistic choice. I am quite looking forward to Bridgerton.

It's up on Netflix, but it's largely a romance schtick, and not a period I'm particularly interested in, so I likely won't be watching it. Though what's her name who caused a ruckus by "raping" Duke what's his name - she looks like quite the dish. Might poke my head in once to see what she's up to.

{{ Yup I dont know anything about Bridegton one, I was taking about casting a black Anne Bolyn in a historical drama about the last days of her life, and selling it on its race swapping and feminism. }}

Yeah, I see that you two had switched back to Anne Boleyn while I was still on Bridgerton. Took a whole page and a half to figure out we were arguing about different shows. Sheesh.

must admit I am a sucker for stuff like Bridgerton, I love costume dramas. I dont have access to Netflix, I cant be bothered paying for it if I am only going to be watching a few things.

Netflix is LOADED with period dramas. It's actually quite jaw dropping : the Medici, Vikings (um, "Veekings"), Marco Polo, the siege of Constantinople...the list just goes on and on. For the longest time I only got DVD because I like having the extras and commentaries, and had no clue what a tsunami of material Netflix was busy producing on its own. Oodles of stuff is produced in other countries (like China, Korea) and dubbed over, so the whole world is busy as bees producing series for Netflix. Costume dramas out the wazzoo.

So I've found it's totally worth it.

Speaking of historical dramas, I started watching Medici on netflix. For some reason they shoved me into season 3, so I don't know if what I say applies to earlier seasons.

The acting and direction is so good I honestly can't tell if the writing is any good. I know it's not bad, but there's no memorable lines. But the whole thing is so magnetic I can't tear myself away while watching it.

Saw a review by an italian historian tearing it to pieces on the details, claiming the actual history is good enough there's not need to deviate. But honestly, medieval/renaissance Italian history is so complicated I'd never be able to tell the difference, partly because I'd never be able to keep enough of it in my head.

I have seen season one of The Medici and it was fantastic, I thought it went downhill in the later season. The first one attracted international actors like Dustin Hoffman and the guy who played Robb Stark, the trouble with Italian drama is they like to do a lot of yakking and it slows things up a bit.

Third season seems pretty good, though I haven't compared to season one.

https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2021/01/12/110065-exclusive-official-show-synopsis-for-amazons-lord-of-the-rings-series/

And here's the map they've released:

That makes me realize something - if numenor is really that far south, why did they spend so much time dorking around in the northern lands?  Is it because Harad is mainly desert?

Also the wind flow patterns means that they would be sailing up the coast to the north mainly in winter, returning in summer.  Unless they tacked north until parallel and then sailed east, but that would not be the first pattern of visits.

I need Dave's expertise. Where is he?