Sorry to say this but the film has great actors so it will be a great movie :)).
I saw it before and I love it :)).
A white man here that can play basketball and jump here :P.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know :P.
And I liked it, that films is a satire :D and a great one.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL, this kind of not so intelligent topic.
by the way all humanity originated by a region called Africa so ...
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point was origin is irrelevant to me, what a person does is important.
What Einstein did is beyond him being not European or american.
Do you think I will ever care that Alan was gay, the fuck I care
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
But the ones that did what they did to him I would like the death sentence for them, they destroyed a mind that could create more than all their 100 generations and this is sad :(.
Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexual acts, when by the Labouchere Amendment, "gross indecency" was a criminal offence in the UK. He accepted chemical castration treatment, with DES, as an alternative to prison. Turing died in 1954, 16 days before his 42nd birthday, from cyanide poisoning. An inquest determined his death as suicide, but it has been noted that the known evidence is also consistent with accidental poisoning.[15] In 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for "the appalling way he was treated." Queen Elizabeth II granted him a posthumous pardon in 2013.[16][17][18] The Alan Turing law is now an informal term for a 2017 law in the United Kingdom that retroactively pardoned men cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts.[19]
This man created what I love the most and studied for 11 years :D.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do I need to show "sarcasm" plate every time?)
Yes, north people (politically correct only, no other mentions) reach such technological progress, they are explorers, discoverers, but they rip nature, pshysics. But native African people are closer to nature, they observe nature, accept it as it is.
Freddie Mercury was gay, but he is still one of the best Voice of humanity.) Even nowdays children know who he is.)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is a complicated subject and is more in the nature of humanity which is like a plague to the planet.
This is not only in the north people, China is no represent of the north people and they did some crap things to the planet.
Edo period Japan is an example of how to do things and not modern Beijing and so one.
As I said this is a complicated subject and the cause is simple us aka you and me :(.
Also sarcasm with no context aka with no nonformat input is no that simple :D.
And the fact that your text is minimal doesn't help :)).
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't make me melodramatic I am big fan of cosmology and one of my idols is Steven Hawkins that died :(.
from my pov humans are stupid period, they don't understand how rare this planet is for the low level of technology that we have now :(.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwi5L8jcXpg
This makes you feal so small : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJuag32iE6o
Comment has been collapsed.
by the way all humanity originated by a region called Africa so ...
by the way, this is a factually incorrect statement.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok you seam smarter then me by using factually then were did the homo sapiens originate ?
In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, also called the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA), recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), replacement hypothesis, or recent African origin model (RAO), is the dominant[1][2] model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).
The model proposes a "single origin" of Homo sapiens in the taxonomic sense, precluding parallel evolution of traits considered anatomically modern in other regions,[3] but not precluding limited admixture between H. sapiens and archaic humans in Europe and Asia.[note 1] H. sapiens most likely developed in the Horn of Africa between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago. The "recent African origin" model proposes that all modern non-African populations are substantially descended from populations of H. sapiens that left Africa after that time.
There were at least several "out-of-Africa" dispersals of modern humans, possibly beginning as early as 270,000 years ago, and certainly during 130,000 to 115,000 ago via northern Africa.[4][5][6][7][8][9] These early waves appear to have mostly died out or retreated by 80,000 years ago.[10]
The most significant "recent" wave took place about 70,000 years ago, via the so-called "Southern Route", spreading rapidly along the coast of Asia and reaching Australia by around 65,000–50,000 years ago.[11][12][note 2] while Europe was populated by an early offshoot which settled the Near East and Europe less than 55,000 years ago.[13][14][15]
In the 2010s, studies in population genetics have uncovered evidence of interbreeding of H. sapiens with archaic humans both in Africa and in Eurasia,[16] which means that all modern population groups, both African and non-African, while mostly derived from early H. sapiens, to a lesser extent are also descended from regional variants of archaic humans.
Beginning 135,000 years ago, tropical Africa experienced megadroughts which drove the humans from the land and towards the sea shores, and forced them to cross over to other continents.[22][note 4]
Modern humans crossed the Straits of Bab el Mandab in the southern Red Sea, and moved along the green coastlines around Arabia, and thence to the rest of Eurasia. Fossils of early Homo sapiens were found in Qafzeh cave in Israel and have been dated 80,000 to 100,000 years ago. These humans seem to have either become extinct or retreated back to Africa 70,000 to 80,000 years ago, possibly replaced by southbound Neanderthals escaping the colder regions of ice-age Europe.[23] Hua Liu et al. analyzed autosomal microsatellite markers dating to about 56,000 years ago. They interpret the paleontological fossil as an isolated early offshoot that retracted back to Africa.[24]
The discovery of stone tools in the United Arab Emirates in 2011 indicated the presence of modern humans at least 100,000 and 125,000 years ago,[4] leading to a resurgence of the "long-neglected" North African route.[5][25][6][7]
In Oman, a site was discovered by Bien Joven in 2011 containing more than 100 surface scatters of stone tools belonging to the late Nubian Complex, known previously only from archaeological excavations in the Sudan. Two optically stimulated luminescence age estimates place the Arabian Nubian Complex at approximately 106,000 years old. This provides evidence for a distinct stone age technocomplex in southern Arabia, around the earlier part of the Marine Isotope Stage 5.[26]
According to Kuhlwilm and his co-authors, Neanderthals contributed to modern humans genetically around 100,000 years ago, from humans which split off from other modern humans around 200,000 years ago.[27] They found that "the ancestors of Neanderthals from the Altai Mountains and early modern humans met and interbred, possibly in the Near East, many thousands of years earlier than previously thought".[27] According to co-author Ilan Gronau, "This actually complements archaeological evidence of the presence of early modern humans out of Africa around and before 100 ka by providing the first genetic evidence of such populations."[27] Similar genetic admixture events have been noted in other regions as well.[28]
In China, the Liujiang man (Chinese: 柳江人) is among the earliest modern humans found in East Asia.[29] The date most commonly attributed to the remains is 67,000 years ago.[30] High rates of variability yielded by various dating techniques carried out by different researchers place the most widely accepted range of dates with 67,000 BP as a minimum, but does not rule out dates as old as 159,000 BP.[30] Liu, Martinón-Torres et al. (2015) claim that modern human teeth have been found in China dating to at least 80,000 years ago.[31]
Comment has been collapsed.
By the way you really showed me there :D.
By the way I was referring to modern humans us, see the wall of text above.
If you believe us came from the nord for example when we had a ice on our ass your are wrong.
If you found other articles that date our ancestors more then 300k years ago then give me a link :P.
Comment has been collapsed.
by the way all humanity originated by a region called Africa so ...
By the way I was referring to modern humans
Nice backpedal.
Anyway, the Out of Africa theory has been called into question in the past few years, specifically the second wave of migration. If you had continued reading the wikipedia page and its following sources that you so callously copy/pasted, you would already know this. You should also realize that historical models such as this are always evolving under peer review and recent discoveries-- it is not meant to be taken as gospel.
However, given your candor here and your unwillingness to explore your own sources, I'd wager you are less interested in the actual topic and more concerned with being "right."
Comment has been collapsed.
Was ,is but still is better then nothing :)).
In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, also called the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA), recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), replacement hypothesis, or recent African origin model (RAO), is the dominant[1][2] model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're going to just keep copy/pasting the wiki page, at least clean it up. Either hyperlink to the correct sources or remove the notations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aaa nope.
This is not a scientifically paper, I let them be there as a prof to see that it is from wiki :D
I will probably do that later
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, not the entire theory itself, but the significance of the second migration on our own current genetic makeup. Point being, the OoA group that was originally thought to be our direct ancestors is likely a smaller part of the pie than originally conceived.
"IT BEGAN IN AFRICA" does have a great ring to it, though, and marketing is everything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again you are so sure, link the actual paper so we can read it :D.
I only state what I know it is the norm now, I can be wrong because I didn't research this :)).
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice counter argument, well what was the couter argument.
ALL humanity to you means all individual ever birthed :))), lol FFS no one can claim that, FFS you realy want me to explain the logic of what you implied that I implied that all singular individuals of this small planet were created from an adam and eve and they were from Africa.
No my man that still thinks that he is so smart, it mean that i implied that our origin is linked by the region of African as the wall of text implied, if you have a better theory the show it to the worlds and would quote you.
"You should also realize that historical models such as this are always evolving under peer review and recent discoveries-- it is not meant to be taken as gospel"
This is just garbage, so again you have no greater model but we should see this one as not good because of reasons .
Called in question is irrelevant to this date as your assumption on the semantics on a sentence that had 12 words many of which were connectors which in itself would say something on your logic :D.
Comment has been collapsed.
Should I always assume you're not actually intending the definition of the words you choose?
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually as a regular here you should know better than to discuss with this person at all :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow I am the boogie man now, can you explain why ?
Hmm I am famous now not that I care :D.
If you are referring that I debate my point of view a lot then I agree with you and that is who I am and love it:D.
Comment has been collapsed.
The bogeyman is scary. Having witnessed a couple dozen discussions you were part of I'd rather describe it as tilting at windmills.
Comment has been collapsed.
Elaborate, can you ?
Also did I say something wrong or incorrect ?
Did I offend someone?
It may had happen, I maybe was wrong, I am certainly nor the fountain of truth and will never be.
But I usually don't agree with crap arguments and I may be aggressive to use my points.
Also if I offended someone , you can provide my a link and I can apologize, I never mind where someone shows me where I did wrong!
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can't see it yourself it's not for me to point it out.
And no, you did not offend me, at least not that I can remember.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't want to point it I respect that.
Also if you follow the context, I was saying something with someone about the origin of humans, then someone contradicted me based on semantic, I agree that that semantic was misleading, but I explains using logic that all humans ever made can't be the context because it is illogical.
All the contras were semantics, then it is contradicted now, Wikipedia copy paste etc.
Nothing related to the original issue the origin of the humans so I may be in the wrong but don't see it in his counter arguments at all.
So I say this, do we not share a common ancestor that originates from Africa ?
Comment has been collapsed.
You should not assume anything, ask questions for better details.
I agree all humanity would mean something that is misleading from a point of view so I apologize for the lack of proper context and correct words :D.
When I amused I said that I amused, if not say it and I rectify that.
Also base that supposition on common ground, if no one can prove that all individual have an Adam and Eve how can I ?
Comment has been collapsed.
If you can read my comments you will see that this is what I said.
And no one said anything about that but about what I wrote aka all humans :D.
Comment has been collapsed.
My pleasure, the point was that I didn't have the intention to make a debate but someone said it is not true what I said, ok I agree show me that I am wrong.
And then the usual template is used, semantics, punctuation, context etc.
Which psychologically speaking are excuses.
Now I hear because I am defending my point of view with strength aggressively I am someone that is let me quote "tilting at windmills". mkay I can agree show me were, when and how.
Then they backtrack and say there is not their role to do so.
What can I say more, ok I respect that and that is all.
As a conclusion it is not easy to make me say I had it, you defeated my point, because usually I don't write weak points or if I do I say ok I don't know and move on.
This is the internet and I have fun debating on different subject, I agree, disagree, learn new things and so one, but one thing is that I don't care about the feelings because well I don't know personally the one that I am communicating with :(.
Comment has been collapsed.
O I remember something similar done by SJW but the problem is that the bad guys used the "shame" game :)).
Also I am immune to this stuff and I respect more my pov then the feelings of someone from the internet!
I will have because I am playing titan quest after 11 years and having a blast.
A good day to you too.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more a matter of people most of the time being bored and dissatisfied with their own life and standing in society, expressing their desire to belong somewhere in the most offensive and snubby way they can think of. People like that seem to get offended by things they literally don't know the first thing about and twist and intermix these with their own agendas, not giving a damn about the issue and the people affected by it at all (or just trying to bash someones skull in for the sake of their own amusement). It's much easier to blame someone else for one's own failures instead of taking responsibility and to jump on or even create a bandwagon, trying to boost their own ego with someone else's cause and by that hurting it more than contributing in any form whatsoever. Most of the time, people that like to do so are called politicians. And I don't mean the good ones.
From what I know, Hollywood and other media outlets always were influenced by politics and prone to promote segregation, be it ethnicity-, class- or gender-wise, simply representing the will of the ones trying to force their view of things onto others that willingly and blindly follow like the dumb sheep they treated as, not realizing the ones they admire don't give the slightest fuck about them and are only after cash and power, 'cause their as dumb as the ones they believe to just be that. There's no big conspiracy to it either, it's just how the world works or rather how we as humans made it work, unable to overcome our basest instincts and thereby shoving our cash and dreams into the next chimney available, disguised as a good-meaning shepherd we just like to trust because he so comfortably explains this complicated thing called planet earth for us in such easy black/white schemata, which don't force our brains to think for themselves for once.
For the same reason we only get 90% trash movies and more of the same in form of sequels than something really worthwhile our time, there's still racism and discrimination rampant in our societies, in reality not really giving a fuck which 'side' you're on - if you don't go with the flow, you're out, easy as that. Don't rattle the sheep, they could get upset and start to think for themselves :o!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mind zombies in movies, but why are they always given the bad guys roles?
That's just stereotypical and hurtful.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well there is usually a basis of truth for most stereotypes :)
But honestly, most zombie roles go to zombies with little to no talent, only given the role because they are a zombie. Ive seen plenty of mosters that could act circles around half the zombies in hollywood.
This is one of the very few that i would consider to be a talented zombie...
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone who use the word "libtard" automatically get the no credibility tag for me.
The problem with the US is that there's no actual left among the big parties. You've got the right-wing democrats, and the extreme right-wing republicans. To the highly conservatives, anything that's not as much to the right as them is considered "the left". That's why you have a distortion field that considers liberals to be part of the left when they're rightly seen as part of the right by everyone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
I remember hearing an interview recently with a former US Republican - who worked in the White House in a prominent position for Republican president Reagan (who's now often hailed as the prime example of Republicanism), so he was pretty Republican - talking about how his political views haven't changed over the past few decades but that the Republican party has shifted so far to the right compared to when he was in the White House that he's no longer a Republican. His party moved so far to the right that they left him behind, and just by standing still and sticking to his formerly Republican views he found that his views now made him a Democrat.
Comment has been collapsed.
true that, and those are not monolithic groups either.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, there are a couple different things at play here.
1) People want to watch movies, and play games, starring people that are like them. They want to be able to project themselves into the characters, and most people find that easier when the characters are similar to them. When most protagonists tend to be white males, minorities feel a little put out. It's not even about equal representation or proportional representation, it's about having purposefully diverse stars that every minority can look at a movie or game and think, "Wow, that character is like me!"
2) People leave stupid reviews, and dislike things for stupid reasons. If you need proof of this, just look up the reviews for any Steam game and I'm sure you'll find some examples. But that's why I think the most useful element of a review is not whether someone liked or disliked a thing, but why they liked or disliked it. That way, you'll know if it applies to you or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
i always hate when movies get white washed or black washed or asian washed.
like netflix version of death note. i was furious it was all white people. they are spos to be asian v__v
i also get butt hurt when people say hermonie granger is black from harry potter books lol....
original art and stories should be held true to their creators way of portraying its characters.
i hate when people change stuff. same as i get upset when a movie based off a book, doesnt follow the book very well. for example. the first percy jackson movie.
Comment has been collapsed.
You looked at reviews on the internet, a place notorious for turning otherwise reasonable people into frothing lunatics simply because of quasi-anonymity, an audience, and a place to exaggerate and vent. If we look at the worst examples and take them to represent the whole (or just too much of a demographics actual views) then it will normally cast some pretty big shade. It is possible for a vocal minority to appear as a vocal majority by a factor of exposure, and once you bring in political issues (particularly those you disagree with) there can be an element of confirmation bias, or even exposure bias as you seek to find how deep that rabbit hole goes. Social media, heated subjects, and enclosed societies account for a lot of it.
I'm sure there are plenty of people that have firm opinions on race and sex ratios in casting, but simply don't play them out as more than just a personal peeve. I find it hard to get an accurate read on such matters because of the whole deal of living as only one race, sex, nationality, etc. It's one thing to try the mental exercise of walking in anothers shoes but there can be so many hidden exacerbating factors, or things that build up over time. In an earlier comment I offered caution in the idea that if most movies you saw had casts heavily weighted to skintones very different from yours (yes, talking of it as a scale rather than a binary), then you might be more likely to take note, especially if that repeats over a good number of movies. I can't tell personally whether it is because of the lighter skintones of leading roles / supporting roles in movies I've watched (and therefore have a core blindness, coupled with my own town in the UK being overwhelmingly white / lighter skin-tones), or because I just don't pay attention to apparent races, accents and sex. I do admit the majority of main casts I recall seeing had light skin, but I'm also not exactly all that worldly so I wouldn't be able to tell a tanned caucasian from a light hispanic or asian, especially not with the way my monitor calibration is half the time (viewing angles, hnnng).
It's not exclusive to black people grouching at white people. Far from it. I didn't follow it personally so take this with a pinch of salt, but I do remember a few repeating groansome takes about "If there is a Black Panther then why not White Panther?" I find it best not to listen to those who are obviously just barking for catharsis sake, and only really pay attention when someone tries to make a point. Even then, keeping an honest track of what sentiments are loudest given how user feedback and social media segments interests now, it's pretty hard not to get a weird kaleidoscopic effect where what you see depends on what angle you came looking at it from.
Comment has been collapsed.
So from what I've gathered. Some people really wants equality that they would settle for an illusion, not only would they believe this illusion, they would allow racism to have this illusion.
What I mean is that they would want Hollywood to "once in a while" hire a minority, not by their talent, but by their skin color. This is racism, pure and simple, but they would refuse that fact so when they watch a movie, they would see diversity (hence the illusion).
I suppose some people would rather live in lies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who said that Hollywood should hire minorities based on their skin color and not their talent? I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't see anyone making that claim.
On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence of minorities being passed over for parts in favor of putting a white actor in that role. Look at the Ghost in the Shell remake, for example. It literally features a Japanese woman being played by a white actress. It even has a scene where an older Japanese woman looks at the white actress, and remarks on how she reminds her of her daughter. Really? How does this white woman, who hasn't said a word or done anything, remind you of your Japanese daughter?
Do you really think that talent is disproportionately located in white people? Do you think that minorities aren't cast in roles because they aren't as talented as white actors?
But from what I've gathered by your statements, you'd rather be outraged and claim "racism" based on some people making stupid online reviews than hold an open-minded conversation about entertainment and minorities.
Note I said minorities, and not race, because it extends well beyond race. Many people were similarly outraged when an Assassin's Creed game split the starring role between a male and female character. Being forced to play as a female character for half the game? Outrageous! How dare they!
As far as settling for an illusion, we are talking about movies, aren't we? Works of fiction? They're all illusion, from start to finish.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a very strange thing to gather from the posts, though since people tend to reinforce their original opinion regardless of what's being said, it's a natural result.
There are two points to casting actors of colour:
It lets people of colour feel more included in society and provides them with role models. By role models I mean that they can imagine that colour isn't something which would stop a person from achieving something.
It helps other people accept that people of colour can fill any role.
Talent has very little to do with who is being cast, especially in AAA movies. It's more about the looks, and there I think it's fine to deliberately cast a different look.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel like this generation is the weakest most whiny to ever exist...and I feel bad for their children
Every generation says this about the generation to succeed them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel like this generation is the weakest most whiny to ever exist...and I feel bad for their children
Jeesh. Seeing this Le Wrong Generation bullshit makes me want to gag. Why was Gen X better then? Why are they stronger and since when have they been less whiny?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, remember back when white people used to ride around their pickup trucks with white hoods and white cloaks, with shotguns in their hands, lynching black people? When black people couldn't buy houses in the newly formed suburbs because there were white-only neighborhoods? Or when they flat out couldn't sit in the front of the bus? Or when only white people were police officers and in other forms of genuine power?
Look, yeah, back in the day, you could say "This ni**er came into my house and I said, there's no drugs in here! So he drops his watermelon and fried chicken and starts having sex with my wife. So I cut his genitals up and hung him with my Klan buddies in front of his family's house.". But there's a huge reason why you can't do that. It's common decency. You're in the end making fun of someone else for your amusement. Whether it's for a race or a single person, that's a shitty thing to do unless you know that person well and are friendly with them. Now, with a person, you can be friendly, no problem. But it's tough being friends with a race. I'd say impossible, but I don't want to crush some random reader's dreams if they thought that. If you can't make jokes about something else without relying on race jokes or gender based jokes, then the fact is that you're not clever or that smart. But there are exceptions, as with any type of joke. Self-deprecation's pretty much always fine. Same goes with your own race. Plus, jokes that are genuinely very well made that don't really make fun of the race are still fine. They've always been fine. I used to think they weren't because I watched a bit too much right-wing crap like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder and other such people, but in the real world, those are very rare cases, which usually end with lawsuits and bad publicity, where the fired person wins.
If you're struggling to make a joke where it doesn't involve saying something negative about Asians, Caucasians, African(s)-Americans, Native Americans, Romani people, Hispanics, whomever else group that you're not affiliated with, then you don't have the chops to make jokes. Making a Hitler joke with your close knit group of friends once in a while is okay, because you might be hunting for that sweet shock value as a joke (which I also do), but it shows a lot about you if you are finding it to be so difficult that you can't make genuinely just funny jokes. You don't have to be the comedian in your office and if you're lacking the chops to do it, then don't do it. You're edging towards the snowflakes, who want equity, not equality now.
But yeah, what else other than the jokes do you have for the previous generation? Because I genuinely am still waiting for some examples, because presenting just one issue is like trying to score a goal with a single kick at the world cup... taken from the opposite side of the field. You'll never do it there are a million ways that it can not work.
I took a guess and guessed you were talking of Gen X as the previous generation, not Gen Y/Millennials. Correct me if I was wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
The question is not what their race is, but it should be how well they act and can they really carry the role. Anyway, that's how it should be, but usually isn't. Sigh
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact is that as you said, we're all human. But it's extremely obvious that all humans aren't represented equally, regardless of how much they work. That representation should be usually around the same percentage that the country's population is, because it just statistically makes the most sense (I'm not talking of equity here, btw).
Now, in reality, there's so much here that plays a role. Money, prejudices, ideals, scripts, characters, even damn movie titles play a role. Literally everything. And to break it all down, a person would need hundreds, if not thousands of hours of research and then hundreds of pages to write all that stuff down and then to make all the possible conclusions.
What you've essentially asked is "Why do things happen to things?". It's hard to answer because this stuff is hard to look through. Whatever argument someone puts forward, there will be a valid counter to it. Put all those things together and then you'll get a proper and useful answer that actually addresses everything it should address.
Personally, I think people overreact sometimes (like The Great Wall, which was literally about a white guy in China). But also, sometimes they're completely on the money (like Ghost in a Shell, where an asian character was replaced with Scarlett Johansson purely for profits). It's all case by case. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more black people in movies or more asians, hispanics or whomever else. As long as you can act/direct, then go for it.
I watch movies that are good. Not movies that have certain races in it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly I can't care less about the rase of the actor - what I am bothered with is if there is an actor of a certain race in historical movies just to meet quota and it doesn't make the slightiest sense. I think it was a movie Centutrion or The Eagle of the Ninth legion that had a black Roman legionnaire stationed in Britain. Or a movie about historical characters that were not who they were supposed to be - I am looking at you Elizabeth Taylor or John Wayne.
Oh and that might be because I am a history teacher and I am against all movies screwing history from behind.
Comment has been collapsed.
" what I am bothered with is if there is an actor of a certain race in historical movies just to meet quota and it doesn't make the slightiest sense. I think it was a movie Centutrion or The Eagle of the Ninth legion that had a black Roman legionnaire stationed in Britain."
Of which there were some - all recorded by the Romans themselves.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not entirely true: I live in York (Eboracum under the Romans). Theres been a lot uncovered in digs here in recent years - including evidence that a lot of the occupational (and subsequent "peacetime" imperial forces were in fact rather a mixed bag - especially in this city.
However, going back to your quote:
"what I am bothered with is if there is an actor of a certain race in historical movies just to meet quota and it doesn't make the slightiest sense. I think it was a movie Centutrion or The Eagle of the Ninth legion that had a black Roman legionnaire stationed in Britain"
You don't seem to know which fim it is that bothers you, so theres no context, secondly, both were terribly innacurate on a historical level to begin with (bordering on Hollywood tripe tbh), so as a history teacher, I would imagine you should throw both films out of your mind.
Certainly in my capacity as an archaologist here in years gone by, a lot of us enjoyed such films, but we never took them seriously.
Anyways, if you want to read up some more on what I've said, Id suggest looking for York in Roman related historical news (also on BBC iPlayer if you can access that) of the last ten years or so - though if the opportunity arises, I'd just suggest coming here instead (I think the mesh of hsitory here should interest you).
Comment has been collapsed.
There is a context, I am just not willing to rewatch any of those movies ever to find out which one was it as it is not important for the discussion Also you are not understanding the problem - yes, there were Africans in the army, but in Auxilia and not Legionary as was shown.
The problem with those movies is that it is giving kids wrong ideas about the actuall history. I won't even mention how much headache I had in school after 300 went out.
Also that was a lesser problem out of those two I have named
Comment has been collapsed.
As stated - neither of the two films are historically accurate, both border onto fantasy (and theyre both a bit crap really).
300 is a pure "mythical" take on a historical event - and is pretty obviously so.
Also, as stated, there have been numerous findings to the contrary of your own historical viewpoint. I do urge you to look them up.
Perhaps you should stick to documentaries or films released as being historically accurate, rather than straight to dvd flicks and films based on a fantasy edged graphic novel?
Comment has been collapsed.
Would you be annoyed if all Holywood movies (that could conceivably include a all-white cast, i.e. not movies specifically about non-whites) would include 100% only white actors and actresses? Assuming you would find it annoying, then at what percentage would it stop annoying you? If you just draw the line at a different point from others, then you're not that different from them. Those who are different are the "very fine people" who wouldn't mind even if all movies at all-white casts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having Asian people in live action anime adaptions though...
Everybody knows that anime characters are white.
Comment has been collapsed.
The question is more complex than just about the skin color.
As soon as race, origin or religion are involved and some stereotypes for the according group appear, someone is going to feel offended. Others might be offended if there isn't a stereotypical element present, while in their opinion there should.
Political correctness (in movies) was always a pain and it's not going to get any easier.
As for your point, you question people for asking that their "favourites" are represented as main characters because the lack thereof until now, right? Because there isn't enough of it to begin with. Well, while one or the other doesn't make a movie better or worse, some people long for diversity. The origin of a main character can add to this diversity. So can the sexual preference, by the way. There are a great many ways to achieve that goal.
As long as a certain amount of respect and tolerance is kept, there's room for everything and everyone in this world (and its movies).
Comment has been collapsed.
16 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by zeus9860
331 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by SJkr8
6 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by doomofdoom
6 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Ewoda
114 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by tungmapu
75 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by PicoMan
11 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by adam1224
65 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by TirNaNog
23 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by mirum
10,148 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by CurryKingWurst
30 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by mourinhos86
17,674 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by cpj128
57 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by stahlfrau
733 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by Y6i7mmm
So I was trying to find a good movie to watch and I decided to read some reviews and damn.. people are really concerned about which race play the characters and specially the protagonist. Some review says "too much white people". It just doesn't make sense to me.
We are all humans here, who cares? does that really make the movie better if an asian person is the protagonist? If a movie is based on books, real life, other media, then I think the race should stay the same as it was based on. If it make sense that the character should be that race because of settings, etc, then yeah, I understand the critics, but when people are demanding the race to be different simply because there isn't enough of that race in movies, then I don't understand.
Maybe I am missing something here. People give bad reviews because of that reasons, it grinds my gear.
psst. also im asian..I know people will assume I'm white if I don't include this, also the title is a bit click baity.. sorry
Comment has been collapsed.