Oh joy of joys, here we go.
Just for reference…
All he posts makes me PROUD I had kin in the American army that roflstomped into Mexico City in the 1840’s. > Blockquote
Fun fact: I was born in mexico and my ancestors were from the United States during the 1800s and during the mexican-american war, my american ancestors fought against the mexicans and hundreds of years later, one of their descendants was born on the nation they fought against. Funny isn’t it?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We shouldn’t be re-writing white characters to be black (or black characters to be white), we should be creating NEW and ENGAGING characters of color. See: Moana.
We shouldn’t be remaking The Little Mermaid at all.
This is my opinion as well, but I’d go so far as to say:
Originals should stand on their own. You either appreciate them for what they are, even if the media is outdated, the artistic techniques are no longer used, or the ideals presented are anitquated, or you move on to other art.
But to be kinda pedantic they aren’t rewriting her in this case, they are remaking a past work and have chosen to cast someone in the part who does not look like the animated version. It makes no change to the story, it’s just a casting. Do we insist the actors in a production of Hamlet look like the first actor to play him when Shakespeare was still involved in the production?
Get out of here with your logic!
On topic, anyone know if the woman they’ve cast can hit the notes she needs to?
No, but we would insist he is white and not black, because he was white in Shakespeare’s tragedy.
laughs Oh wait, you think you’re making a good point?
The Royal Shakespeare Company begs to differ.
Right, because The Royal Shakespeare Company speaks for the public.
And you do with your preoccupation with skin tones where they don’t matter one bit?
Shakespeare has been done over and over again, with countless twists on the design. Hamlet is the character, and frankly, you can change tons of things and have it work as long as the actor can convincingly act the part. The boring particulars of Hamlet (the person) have nothing to do with what has kept the play around. A child gets upset at the speed at which one of their parents has remarried after the death of the other, they try to find out and then prove that the new spouse is responsible for that death and dial things to 11 to try and avenge that parent and kill off most of the cast in the process. None of that has any particular casting demand on the part, male, female, any race, hell, there’s probably been productions that go into non-human characters, and it does not matter to the story, still Hamlet no matter what the actor looks like.
Yet the tragedy is about a Danish prince in the late middle ages and I doubt there were many black royal families ruling Denmark at the time. Historical accuracy is also important in Shakespeare’s work.
I can confirm there were NO African races in that part of the world at that time; nor for a long time after.
In fact, I can attest that my ancestors would have taken one look, screamed ‘TROLL’ and slain him.
Conversely, if there WERE a few knowledgeable travellers there, it would have been
‘Oh okay; a Blue Man from Afric! How much am I bid?’.
Rough times.
Skäl.
Oh man, you are hilarious.
Butts in seats and groundlings by the stage was what was important. And on occassion a commission by a powerful family to make them look good or their enemies look bad. He cared about drama and wrote the equivalent of soap operas that have aged extremely well.
" Were Shakespeare’s Histories Accurate?
Another characteristic of Shakespeare’s histories is, for the most part, they’re not historically accurate. In writing the history plays, Shakespeare was not attempting to render an accurate picture of the past. Rather, he was writing for the entertainment of his theater audience and therefore molded historical events to suit their prejudices or preferences."
https://www.thoughtco.com/shakespeare-histories-plays-2985246
She can. There’s a Facebook video of some of her musical performances.
…all of which makes for perfect sense, in your mind only, as to why its okay to totally rewrite classics.
Actually, and to be precise, EUROPEAN classics.
What about some Aftican tales, hmm?
(don’t you DARE say 'Black Panther OR Lion King!))
See? Ever heard of this guy? Neither have I, until now.
So maybe you should be a little less terrified to voice support for actual African stories about actual African peoples places and times AND a whole lot MORE caring as to why Hollywood, the self-appointed story-teller of the world(to hear them tell it) refuses entire genres and just continues with LAME remakes, reboots and re-imaginings.
I, Alfgerdr the PROUD Viking Elf, has spoken!
These are my words.
Skäl!
Oh, I did hear about that Spider during the “World Tour” arc in season 2 of Disney’s Gargoyles. Y’know Gargoyles, right? The show with a strong female ethnic lead before it was trendy and a marketing gimmick?
I’ll look it up.
Thank you!
Skäl!
Who is rewriting? You’re just obsessed over purity of what you think you have a claim on and are making ridiculous statements about who can be cast as what.
Show us all where I made false claims.
Yeah because carefully choosing the right actor for the right part has NEVER been done for any production right?
The only ridiculous thing here is your spurious angry over whatever it is you perceive.
The continued cultural misappropriation of classic tales and legends by Hollywood is disgusting; as is the FOOLS who think this is not only no big deal but actually a good thing.
Skäl.
I dunno your whole falsk nordmann persona you keep pulling out seems pretty fake
I’m not angry, this is hilarious watching people pretend they’re concerned about things the playwright wasn’t worried about. I mean, it’s not like there wasn’t the whole thing about how women were played by boys back then.
Now will you top it off and tell me you are very concerned about the purity of the English language too? That’d be another good laugh