- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The trailer for the latest miniseries on the life of Anne Boleyn has dropped...
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:03 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:03 pm to RollTide1987
I'm going to audition for the lead in the next Malcolm X biopic.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:08 pm to VoxDawg
quote:Another one is Batwoman.
Bob Hearts Abishola says 'sup.
It made it 3 seasons, when it really should have ended after 1.
You could potentially make an argument for 2 seasons if Ruby Rose would have remained, but she didn’t.
Then, to consider a 3rd season after season 2 is insane.
The only logical reason is because journalists loved the “wokeness” of it.
Hell, while the actual viewership declined, the critic ratings increased.
That is the only justification for any executive even considering a 3rd season.
Actual viewership is becoming a declining aspect in this.
We see it with sports too.
Viewership declines, yet TV deals increase significantly.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:12 pm to Scruffy
This is another side of the obvious trend in commercials to show interracial couples, trans mental patients, etc as 100% mainstream.
Find me a commercial in 2021 where there's a white, nuclear family (65%+ of the population, remember), and I'll show you 10 where the families are either of mixed race, or some inexplicable beige ethnicity.
Find me a commercial in 2021 where there's a white, nuclear family (65%+ of the population, remember), and I'll show you 10 where the families are either of mixed race, or some inexplicable beige ethnicity.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:15 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
it was intended as a TV show, not a precise representation of a historical event.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:20 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
The Crown isn’t fully historically accurate.
There is a difference between accuracy and authenticity. The Crown FEELS real because it looks and sounds authentic. Obviously it took creative liberties with the story but that doesn't matter because it does such a good job with immersion. If Queen Elizabeth II and the Royal Family had all been portrayed by black actors, it would have lost that feeling of authenticity.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:22 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
There is a difference between accuracy and authenticity. The Crown FEELS real because it looks and sounds authentic.
Holy moving the goalposts.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:22 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
And yet Hank Azaria will self-flagellate for a decade because of "any pain he might have caused Indians" due to voicing Apu.
Universal will re-cast the Italian dub of Laverne Cox's character in Promising Young Woman because they used a male voice actor.
But this is cool.
The hypocrisy is where I have the issue.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:29 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Holy moving the goalposts.
I'm not moving the goal posts. Where did I once bring up historical accuracy? You are the one who did that, madam. I challenge you to find the phrase in my OP and my follow-up. You can save the energy because you won't be able to. The buzzwords I used were "realism" and "authenticity." There isn't a single Hollywood production out there that is 100% historically accurate. Creative liberties are always taken with any story set in the past.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 1:30 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
The hypocrisy is where I have the issue.
If it weren't for double standards, leftists wouldn't have any standards at all.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 2:15 pm to RollTide1987
Ok so lets break this down and I will point out the inaccurate parts of your argument.
By thinking that your negative "reviews" have an impact on their ratings.
Firstly, I put reviews in quotes because you or anyone else who disagrees with the revisionist nature of this show in it's casting isn't giving a review of the show. You are expressing discontent over that specifically, not giving a review of the show.
The show isn't out yet. Nobody knows if it is good or bad. You have to view a show before you can review it. It is primarily for entertainment purposes not accurate historical depiction. That is self evident in their casting choices. Which won't really matter if its a show with good acting, writing and pace.
Since accurate historical depiction seems to be your preference, you are clearly not the targeted demographic for this show. Therefore they don't care about your opinion of their casting choices.
Your second false assumption is that you expressing disagreement with their casting choice on this public forum (or any other) is going to hurt their viewership when the truth is the exact opposite. You have exposed people who otherwise might have never heard a damn thing about this show to it (me being one of those people). Thus giving the shows creators free advertising and undermining your intent of undermining them. You played yourself in this aspect.
Your third false assumption is that a majority of people who read this thread or might watch this show see this casting choice as a deal breaker on watching it. The vast majority of people are more concerned with being entertained when watching TV than they are with such a trivial matter. If the show itself is good, Anne being black won't matter.
The choice of casting a black woman, whether purposeful or not, has now set them apart from the other shows you mentioned by being "different" and "new" even though its a centuries old story that has been retold countless times. They have received free advertising from it (by virtue of the thread you started about it) and was a smart choice instead of a dumb one like you insist.
At the end of the day the casting choice is just lazy innovation on a played out subject to project pseudo activism for some free ad space, self serving clout and diversity quotas. It will have little bearing on the end result.
Now get off your arse and back to protecting us from the dudes who stole the podium from congress and put their feet up on Pelosi's desk. Apparently they are the greatest threat to mankind.
quote:
Where did I claim I was making a difference?
By thinking that your negative "reviews" have an impact on their ratings.
Firstly, I put reviews in quotes because you or anyone else who disagrees with the revisionist nature of this show in it's casting isn't giving a review of the show. You are expressing discontent over that specifically, not giving a review of the show.
The show isn't out yet. Nobody knows if it is good or bad. You have to view a show before you can review it. It is primarily for entertainment purposes not accurate historical depiction. That is self evident in their casting choices. Which won't really matter if its a show with good acting, writing and pace.
Since accurate historical depiction seems to be your preference, you are clearly not the targeted demographic for this show. Therefore they don't care about your opinion of their casting choices.
Your second false assumption is that you expressing disagreement with their casting choice on this public forum (or any other) is going to hurt their viewership when the truth is the exact opposite. You have exposed people who otherwise might have never heard a damn thing about this show to it (me being one of those people). Thus giving the shows creators free advertising and undermining your intent of undermining them. You played yourself in this aspect.
Your third false assumption is that a majority of people who read this thread or might watch this show see this casting choice as a deal breaker on watching it. The vast majority of people are more concerned with being entertained when watching TV than they are with such a trivial matter. If the show itself is good, Anne being black won't matter.
The choice of casting a black woman, whether purposeful or not, has now set them apart from the other shows you mentioned by being "different" and "new" even though its a centuries old story that has been retold countless times. They have received free advertising from it (by virtue of the thread you started about it) and was a smart choice instead of a dumb one like you insist.
At the end of the day the casting choice is just lazy innovation on a played out subject to project pseudo activism for some free ad space, self serving clout and diversity quotas. It will have little bearing on the end result.
Now get off your arse and back to protecting us from the dudes who stole the podium from congress and put their feet up on Pelosi's desk. Apparently they are the greatest threat to mankind.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:Guess the British still hate the French for all of those warring years.
ViacomCBS’s UK network Channel 5
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:08 pm to SLafourche07
quote:
Nelson Mandela starring Gary Oldman.

Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:16 pm to RollTide1987
Race swapping BS aside.
Do we really need another movie/miniseries/tv show about Anne Boleyn. She was a social climbing whore who used sex to get Henry. She pushed him to get rid of Catherine and then got the Ax (literally) when she couldn't produce the goods. She's not even really a strong woman if that's the direction they are trying to go. She was manipulated by her family and Henry.
Do we really need another movie/miniseries/tv show about Anne Boleyn. She was a social climbing whore who used sex to get Henry. She pushed him to get rid of Catherine and then got the Ax (literally) when she couldn't produce the goods. She's not even really a strong woman if that's the direction they are trying to go. She was manipulated by her family and Henry.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:46 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
And yet Hank Azaria will self-flagellate for a decade because of "any pain he might have caused Indians" due to voicing Apu
It's almost as if an entire industry lacks any self awareness, at all.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:49 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
Bob Hearts Abishola says 'sup.
Lol. You know this is a pretty innocuous sitcom, right? It doesn't push any particular liberal messaging, it also tends to make fun of wokeness and white guilt. It's about as benign a comedy as you can get.
Posted on 5/14/21 at 8:49 pm to WicKed WayZ
“Ratings and money ABSOLUTELY still drive what movies get sequels and what TV shows get picked up. Always has and always will.”
Wrong
Wrong
Posted on 5/15/21 at 6:25 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I 100% disagree. It's a period drama for a reason. If I'm watching a TV series or movie that's supposed to take place in a time period far removed from the present day, I expect authenticity.
You must have hated Braveheart.
Posted on 5/15/21 at 6:29 am to Methuselah
quote:
You must have hated Braveheart.
While entertaining, probably one of the most historically inaccurate movies masquerading as history. From Isabella being around 8 at the time he supposedly has sex with her to the battle of Stirling Bridge...not having a fricking bridge! Also Kilts and tartan weren't really thing during that time period.
Posted on 5/15/21 at 7:04 am to RollTide1987
At least she's British, right?
Posted on 5/15/21 at 7:17 am to Navtiger1
quote:
While entertaining, probably one of the most historically inaccurate movies masquerading as history. From Isabella being around 8 at the time he supposedly has sex with her to the battle of Stirling Bridge...not having a fricking bridge! Also Kilts and tartan weren't really thing during that time period.
And the thing that rankles me most: the battle scenes.
Popular
Back to top


0










