(((historically))) accurate shows or movies? Pic related

(((historically))) accurate shows or movies? Pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DueSvcjn810
twitter.com/AnonBabble

*poot*

Does Sup Forums seriously think this forced "(((______)))" meme is funny?

Jesus Christ please turn 18.

>>((((((78485977)))))))

I think it's funny

lancelot don't real.

It's not meant to be funny. It's meant to highlight the Jewish influence on said thing

Way more "immature" stuff on the site, bud

Why does this make people so mad? It's just some dumb fantasy show for teenagers

I-if u thank that knights in sheet wasint black n sheet than u is a racist mane

Blacks would be passed off if ((hollywood)) ran around taking every figure from their culture and history, and casting them as white. They would flip their lid.

I not about raceswapping characters for SJW brownie points (mostly because it's so disingenious, especially since diversity always means black and never latino, asian, or sandmonkey) but If you think about it, making Lancelot black made perfect sense

Because blacks weren't knights.

If they made white people part of African tribes or Chinese warlords or Eskimos it would be equally stupid.

Blacks are as far away from whites as you can get, save for abos

It's a work of fiction. People playing a role. If we can have Andy Serkis play a being that doesn't even exist why can't we have a black guy play whoever he wants? Or a hasidic jew playing the fucking Queen of England. It doesn't fucking matter, IT'S PLAYING PRETEND!

Ok but why don't they have whites playing as African tribes men.

Where is my white Zulu king oh yeah......... They have an agenda to exclude whites

So when kids make stage plays of whatever the fuck fantasy story, with entities that aren't even human, should they be stopped if the characters they're supposed to represent aren't kids? Should we start breeding dragons? I know we already have fairies 'cause there's you. You're equating playing a role to going back in time and changing history. You are probably the most retarded person on Sup Forums right now.

>Kids making a stage play

This is a fucking tv show you idiot with script writers, budget, directors, executive s producers

>their culture and history

>from their culture and history
So you have mansa musa and...

Africans are genetically closest to Europeans, Aboriginals are furthest from Africans

And it's still make believe but on a bigger scale. What's your point?

There's already sandnigger and mixed-race characters in Arthurian myth these kikes didn't even bother with and instead just took some of the most popular characters and made them niggers.

It was an analgy to make you understand a point, you dense motherfucker.

It was a terrible analogy

youtube.com/watch?v=DueSvcjn810

It should be held to a higher standard than kids playing make believe.

Because someone went out of their way to cast a black person for this role, for no other reason other than to be "political correct".

There are thousands of white British actors looking for a spot on network television

but instead, we have to deal with an inaccuracy that borderlines on insulting because of just how obnoxious and arrogant it is

Dunno what this shit is but Cleese is the definitive Lancelot.

It's pandering, but Once at least has the excuse of being an American fairy tale. I.e., it projects modern day America back in time and builds its fantasy setting upon that.

>Arthurian myth
What's a good thing to read about it besides Le Morte d'Arthur?

Oh I see, it's a conspiracy to piss right wingers off.

Do you want actual medieval stuff or more modern (ie 19th century - today)?

Well, you asked. Maybe next time use your brain to figure out why a black person playing the central role in a Celtic folklore tale might be considered stirring the pot

I'd prefer an overview of both and how the former influenced the latter. If that's not an option, then just the actual medieval stuff.

Lancelot is French not Celtic
But that just makes it funnier to me

Quite literally no one except racist right wingers are being stirred by this actually.

It is. That's why numbnuts wrote about it having a budget and production value. It's still the same concept. It's like I'm trying to communicate with apes. Ok, let me put it in a way you mongoloids can understand:

>black kid is 12
>he plays Lancelot for a school play
>ok whatever, he's just playing pretend
>black kid is 16
>playing Lancelot again for a highschool play
>ok, whatever, it's theater, it's just playing pretend
>black kid is now 20 (or whatever the age of the actor is)
>he gets to play Lancelot for a TV series
>ok, whatever, he's just playing pretend

I understand your whole agenda angle, pushing for diversity for the sake of diversity. But focus on that. Focus on finding some proof to that statement without coming off as a mental case.

Doesnt Lancelot cuck Arthur with Guinevere?
>:)
D E E P E S T
L
O
R
E

You asked the question, so why are you acting like a condescending stupid asshole now that someone told you?

Lancelot is French, but the Arthurian mythos is Briton.

Well the whole presumption that they chose a black man on purpose just to cause controversy is ridiculous. Maybe they chose him because. God forbid, he's a talented actor and deserved the part more than anyone else.

You completely ignored the difference between amateur productions and professional productions. Amateur shit can be whatever it wants to be, no one should care.

But professional productions aren't the same thing at all. They need to be high quality, logical, consistent productions. It doesn't make sense for a French character from a British myth to be sub Saharran African. Not at a professional level. If you were refraining the story to be completely set in Harlem with an aLloyd black cast that's one thing, but just making Lancelot an African in an otherwise traditional telling of the mythos is retarded.

So only brits can play the Arthurian mythos? Or... or... or... your issue is with the colour of their skin.

He's not "perfect" for that role if the first thing noticeable about him is his black skin that is out of place
>Or... or... or... your issue is with the colour of their skin.

Yes. Skin color is an important aspect to certain characters. Why are you acting dumbfounded by this?

Yes, if you're telling a traditional Arthurian legend the cast should be ethnically British. Just like if I were making a traditional Zulu movie Shaka should be ethnically African.

> but just making Lancelot an African in an otherwise traditional telling of the mythos is retarded

Why? Seriously, explain to me why any person can't pretend to be anyone or anything for a play, be it theatrical or motion picture?

>it's another Sup Forums veiled episode

Because it isn't accurate. The character is already defined, extensively, and by deviating from that you're diminishing the story you're trying to tell.

There is a good black character in Once Upon a Time and this isn't him.

The difference being one is a fairytale and not in any way trying to tell a historical narrative.

You're an idiot. The Arthurian legends are intrinsically tied to the historical identity of Britons vs the saxon. Race and culture are overwhelmingly important here.

I asked why can't a person pretend to be another person. I didn't ask what would be the result of an ill suited person playing a role.

Well there's the real old shit like Nennius and the Historia Brittonum and the Welsh stuff in the Mabinogi where Arthur and his warriors are hairy assed wilderness men with superpowers. Geoffrey History of the Kings of Britain is a big work too and set down a lot of the long lasting tales like Arthur fighting the Roman empire. There's also Parcifal. The other big works are the French poems by Chretien which gave us Lancelot and the shift to courtly romance. There's more that I'm probably forgetting.
In the 19th century Arthur and chivalry got huge because of the moral standards of the time and a ton of writers mostly inspired by Malory wrote Arthurian adaptations, (I like Howard Pyle's works), James Knowles, Roger Lancelyn Green and Tennyson's Idylls of the King.

>he Arthurian legends are intrinsically tied to the historical identity of Britons vs the saxon

What the actual fuck are you talking about? History is intrinsically tied to the historical identity of Britons.

A person can absolutely pretend to be someone else, but when they aren't suited for a role they shouldn't be casted and paid on a professional level. A black person can't portray a white person and vice versa. They are physically different.

There are all black Shakespeare plays. Part of the appeal is seeing the play preformed by a different race.


But, if I watched a show about ancient China, I wouldn't want to see a white person or a black person.


But if the show was some Chinese mythology and it was all black or white cast, it would be fun to watch

I'm saying the cultural and ethnic identity of the Britons are important aspects of Arthurian legends.

Tracing the trajectory of the Arthurian myth over the centuries is very much linked to the history of Britain.

>But, if I watched a show about ancient China, I wouldn't want to see a white person or a black person.

I wouldn't want to see it either. But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't do it. Their own financial success aside, they can re-enact Saving Private Ryan shot by shot with dogs and alpacas for all I care.

No they're fun stories you tell young boys so they aspire to the concepts of chivalry and honour. The fact that it's set in medieval Briton is a side note.

Right, but if you're going to start shoving in different races into Arthurian legends that break the viewers focus, you may as well go all the way and cast the whole thing as an all black retelling of the story

Have you got any familiarity with Arthur outside of Disney? It's a clear us vs them story as the Britons struggle against the invading Saxons. British identity is the whole fucking point of it.

Thanks, user. The History of the Kings of Britain and Howard Pyle's books look interesting. I'll give them both a try. (If I can find a modern translation of The History.)

worked well for Hamilton

What about all the actors in Beowulf? Should they all be brits? Fuck it, why stop there. Historical accuracy is what we're going for, let them all speak Old English. Can't understand Old English? Fuck you, it's accurate and that's all that matters when playing pretend.

That's different. Hamilton didn't ignore it, they promoted it, laughed at it, and thats what the shtick was. If they ignored it, Hamilton would just look goofy

You're a cuckolded retard.

I'd unironically love to see a movie in Old English or Middle English (with subs).

Yes, they should all be ethnically British unless you're resetting the entire story elsewhere. They are , at least in part, defined by their Anglo Saxonness.

The second half of your post is just being intentionally obtuse.

Nobody even uses it correctly, it fucking pisses me off.

Your forced "Ebonics" speaking "meme" isn't funny either, it's pretty cringeworthy.

There was a period in Arthurian myth where Arthur becomes the fucking emperor of Rome coordinated on Christmas Day, this was expressly done as a fuck you to Charlemagne and the French, you better believe British history has a vast significance over the tone of the tales.

I guess I'll bitch on TV about a show that I don't watch not being historically accurate by depicting a fake white guy as a fake black guy.

Arthur isn't Anglo-Saxon...He's fighting the Anglo-Saxons

Beowulf isn't British. It's Danish. The manuscript was found in England.

Beowulf is Anglo saxon. Beowulf is not arthurian, which is Brythonic.

If you have Kindle you can find a lot of the medieval writings in "modern English" for very cheap if not free.
I enjoy Pyle's work because they feel kind of Tolkien-esque in tone a bit. It also raises interesting issues like how Arthur doesn't want to use Excalibur because he thinks it's unfair for a knight to use a magic sword in battle, but Merlin tells him since he's king his life isn't his anymore and he can't risk the kingdom based on chivalry.

What are we arguing about again?

the myth is a composite from various sources, it has no real canon, and certainly shouldn't be treated as actual history

If you mean Anglo-Saxon as in non-viking British, then no. If you mean Anglo-Saxon as in vikings, then that's what Beowulf is. And its closer to Danish than English

Arthur was Celtic who was fighting against the people who wrote Beowulf (before those people assimilated together)

All of those sources were white people

Serious question. By those standards would it be okay for oduduwa or anansi to be played by white people?

The cultural arbiters on the Left are hypocritical. News at 11.

Shaka?

Who should play Smaug?
Who should play Smeagol?
Who should play an atlantean?
Who should play a neanderthal?
Who should play a Sup Forums poster?

Keep in mind, historical accuracy is key to making this character.

>cringe worthy
How is high school going

>maybe if I act like a retard about completely different characters, it will somehow strengthen my previous argument

>we wuz knights n wizards n sheet

Are those not well defined characters with firm footing in their mythology? I mean, if you're policing what people should pretend to be for a play, then what's the difference in characters? I'm just curious to see your flawless authority at work. Regale me, please.

Yes, those are well defined but they're bad examples. Smug are both cgi creations, it doesn't matter who plays them as long as they look like a dragon and a proto hobbit.

The rest of your examples are vague backgrounds for characters that, yes, have predefined looks if you want to be authentic.

It's fine when kids are in plays. There's no agenda there at all. I think a little black girl playing Snow White would be cute and funny. In a TV series, though, you've got people trying to push blackies into everything just so that they can have some darkness and call it diversity. There's actual agenda in the media, believe it or not.

It's an English poem, but the character is meant to be Swedish.

>forced
You see it everywhere, not just on Sup Forums.

Are Muricans white treats black that badly, that they need to give special treatment for them in every movie/tv? What ever happen to Asian, Mexicans, Arabs, etc? Are these races don't have a single competent actor/actress?

WE HAZ ERRYTHANG!

I'm your history now.

Technically the cradle of life was in Africa sooooo

Right, except there is a continuous trend with these previously European roles in literature or film now being used by leftist and / or Jewish producers and directors as a place to plant black people.

It serves at it's deepest to demoralize and stamp out the history of the people by portraying them as something they aren't.

By your argument, MLK Jr. should be portrayed by white men in a biopic because, after all, it's just pretend and the actors need work. Why not take it a step further since we've changed his race, let's also change their sexual orientation? Add commentary that they may have been racists.

>Once upon a time

Isnt the fairytale world actually the 'real world' in that show, and what we think is reality is that actually a sort of artificial reality like in the matrix?

Asians have had it pretty bad throughout history in America but no one focuses on it. Probably because Asian Americans tend commit less crime, have higher iqs, stronger family unity/culture, and have a higher average income than blacks. They've integrated perfectly in society

>By your argument, MLK Jr. should be portrayed by white men

I wouldn't say should. I would say that he can. Or she can. A cocker spaniel could play MLK for all I care.

You have to at least understand your opinion is not the norm.

No it wasn't you piece of shit, it was a completely different situation you related to the one at hand because it had limitations not present here, all in the hopes that you could use those limitations to justify the poor decisions at hand.

T. Not that user