What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition

[Mad Vader]

Exactly. It's disgusting because it's such an obvious one-upping game

It's not that at all. The intention is to PROMOTE inclusion and diversity, not to attack whites. The narrative "male hetero whites are under attack" is pure conservative identity politics, because that's not the point at all.
However, forcing blacks everywhere in entertainment is a heavy-handed way of doing this, and alienates the neutrals. Only the hard left is pleased, while the moderate left (like me) are trying hard not to say anything critical, as it would be criticizing allies and giving ammo to enemies. That comes back to bite us when the neutrals turn to the right in a backlash against wokism.

 

[Antonis]

I remember reading about a guy from an African myth (I can't remember the specific country or much of the details), but now, that's a chad worthy of being known. He went on a search when he was a teenager, he bagged all sorts of giants, animal-men, he porked an old woman/witch who (I think?) became younger after said porking, then faced a sort-of titan, by releasing from his sack all the monsters he captured and which, by that time, had become his friends. Or a Lewis and Clark show, from the point of view of the Indian lady (I know her name, but I cannot spell it).
I'd loooooooooove to see that.
And let's not even start by mentioning all the various myths and historical figures from all the Asian countries, or even the most well-known ones.
No need for more Eurocentric stories. Yeah, there are a lot, but it's been done to death, and coating them with another colour doesn't make them new or original.

 

[Mad Vader]

The obvious problem with that is few would watch original stories based on obscure myths, no matter how interesting. It's a risk.
Vikings, on the other hand, can be milked indefinitely, as well as the parts of English history known to Americans.
This is one reason to appreciate the setting of vanilla Mount and Blades. If Taleworlds wanted to sell out completely, they would have made Vikings vs. Chinese and covered the two biggest markets.

 

[Antonis]

Yeah, I can understand that. It was just a counterargument on the side of how to make diverse shows, without being obnoxious.
Not particularly practical, but certainly wishful thinking.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

i don't really know why it matters so much. lotta pearl clutching over something so inconsequential as a fantasy tv show. have none of you seen vikings? crying about how ahistorical a black character is while ignoring all the other crap, is, well, hilarious, frankly.

i don't know that the "hard left" particularly cares, or why it's even being brought up - it's not like secret commies are running some racialised casting campaign. i can guarantee you there's more "hard left" folks whining about how this is "annoying liberal idpol" or whatever than those who actively like it (and more who don't give a **** than both of those, for that matter).

 

[Antonis]

Speaking for myself, I am not bothered about the unhistorical (and not a-historical) side of it. Or any other, for that matter, as long as it is clearly stated as such. If it is historical, I will be bothered if Hitler is played by a Nigerian, as much as I will be with a German playing a Nigerian. Maybe whining, but I accept that.
What kinda annoys me is, as I said, why they didn't bother finding a proper name (seriously? They couldn't just use a random name generator for Female Nordic Names? I am not asking for in-depth etymology, here) or why they go to such length to find actors that stick out of the setting or even the rest of the cast. It's like saying, "hey, watch me, watch me!", all the while being obnoxious about how holier than thou and I they are.
And my whining shall continue here, as there are tons of stories they could tell, with diversity, social criticism and various points they want to raise, that haven't been done before and will be interested and fun to watch, for a change. They just don't want to, for various reasons.

And yes, it is really trivial and doesn't impact on our lives in any significant way, whatsoever, but we are in a forum talking about TV shows. Trivial is what we are dealing with.

 

[Mad Vader]

i can guarantee you there's more "hard left" folks whining about how this is "annoying liberal idpol" or whatever than those who actively like it (and more who don't give a **** than both of those, for that matter).

Well, I'm glad if that is so, but then who actually supports this kind of activism? Who is the intended audience? BLM?
Because they are certainly losing viewers over this and they are annoying possible supporters too.

 

[Grank]

The intention is to PROMOTE inclusion and diversity, not to attack whites.

Meh. You could say that, but the reality is that people insult those who complain about the blackwashing, no matter the motivation behind the complaint. It's hard to believe that the intention is good when the actions are evil. Unless you're telling me that people are so dumb that they don't realize they're committing racism to erase racism.

have none of you seen vikings? crying about how ahistorical a black character is while ignoring all the other crap, is, well, hilarious, frankly.

Because nobody will think that vikings wearing biker gears or cutting through metal swords is part of a dumb political agenda. It's just the usual stupidity, instead of a racially motivated one.

 

[Adorno]

i don't really know why it matters so much. lotta pearl clutching over something so inconsequential as a fantasy tv show. have none of you seen vikings?.

It's not fantasy. It specifically says it's historical, just like it's filled with historical characters and events.
My objection is to not call it historical, and not use historical characters. Make it fantasy if it's fantasy.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

who actually supports this kind of activism

it's not activism. activism requires actually doing things. so no primarily activist group is likely to care.

dumb political agenda.

this is your assumption and therefore your problem, not the show's. black people acting in an ahistorical show is not political. there's no conspiracy here.

It's not fantasy

babe they meet and talk to gods.
it's as historical as most of what the history channel spawns (even tho the spinoff has moved to netflix). ie fantasy. call it pseudomythologic fiction if you want.

it has never been anything close to historical, and having this character be black or a woman is no more inaccurate than any of the other **** they've pulled.
people treating it differently reveal more about themselves than about the show - charitably, that they weren't paying attention before (edit: which is the correct choice, because it's a bad show).

 

[Adorno]

You misunderstand. I object to all the things that are ahistorical, whether it's clothing, a man turned woman, weaponry, scenery, combat etc.
I only watched the first few episodes of Vikings and had to stop. There were gods, not just as visions?
We need 'historical' to actually mean something when productions use that word, and not just "we've had fun mashing together some stuff".

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

historical never means anything when it's used by marketing or entertainment people. never has, likely never will. lost cause imo.

and as said, the charitable assumption is that you weren't aware of the first show's crap. objecting to this character, but not the previous stuff, has two reasons, and that (understandable) ignorance is one of them. you can guess the other.

do yourself a favour and never watch more of it. it is literally just fiction that happens to use some norse stories' names, from from start to finish.

 

[DanAngleland]

I have no interest in these types of shows and given the nonsense in all their other aspects I don't see the big deal about a woman playing the role of a viking ruler, but it seems pretentious not to call her the queen rather than king. Not when it is apparently supposed to be based on real people and events (going by what others have said in this thread).

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

they pulled the same thing in the first show, having a character be surprised that the earl he was gonna meet was a woman.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The obvious problem with that is few would watch original stories based on obscure myths, no matter how interesting. It's a risk.

This isn't true. Any original story will be bingewatched if it is marketed well, especially now when you have so many people who have watched practically everything on every streaming service. The idea that some stories are fundamentally unmarketable is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on what marketing departments have internally decided. Look at the range of stuff back in the 1950s and 1970s when the culture industry was more decentralised and more power was given to individual directors, and there was a lot more experimentation.

More generally, and as the only black person in this discussion, all I have to say is "it doesn't matter". The current wave of blackwashing is pointless and cynical and kind of cringe, but I really don't see why anyone should care about the skin colour or even appearance of actors. Plus, this alone pales in comparison to the overall level of cringe in the show Vikings. If people had an inkling that this would be any good, nobody except the dumbest edgelords would care. British historical productions have had disproportionate numbers of black actors for years now, and nobody focusses on that because those are actually pretty good. But because almost everyone is somewhat aware that Vikings is trash TV, it's like it hasn't "earned" the right to do break from the current convention (which unfortunately means having an all white cast), so people are singling out the unconventional weird thing rather than accepting more holistically that the show itself is trash.

Back when the BBC wasn't terrible, they made a handful of really well directed historical shakespeare adaptations. They mostly stuck to the plays, but did some "unconventional" stuff with the casting. yet nobody cared because The Hollow Crown was amazing, probably the last truly great thing the BBC ever put out. Anyone saying "why did they SHOEHORN a NONWHITE WOMAN into a HISTORICAL TV SHOW" would come across just as bitter and unhinged as someone saying the show was problematic for not having any gay characters or whatever. But when something is genuinely ****, it's much harder to criticise those people.

 

[DanAngleland]

they pulled the same thing in the first show, having a character be surprised that the earl he was gonna meet was a woman.

She should have been an Earless! Mind you, then she'd look strange, unless they cut off her ears.

At least then the show has form on this, and it is part of the lore.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Meh. You could say that, but the reality is that people insult those who complain about the blackwashing, no matter the motivation behind the complaint. It's hard to believe that the intention is good when the actions are evil. Unless you're telling me that people are so dumb that they don't realize they're committing racism to erase racism.


Because nobody will think that vikings wearing biker gears or cutting through metal swords is part of a dumb political agenda. It's just the usual stupidity, instead of a racially motivated one.

Ok let's make on thing clear though: this is not about "blackwashing". There is no grand conspiracy where people want to replace white historical figures with black people. This is just caused by the fact that there is a perceived importance of diversity from the public (and to that I say, about time), but there's also extreme laziness from producers in implementing it. Plus there's the fact that the main topics are still very much white, and in that sense I would argue that it's more racist towards the black actors than the white characters they are playing. What I mean by that is that they are pretty much saying: "Yeah we know we need to show more diverse roles in our stories, but we can't get bothered to write something about your actual heritage so there, be a dear and play a blonde viking for us instead".

On a semi related note, as an Italian I find it infuriating when American TV shows have Spanish speaking actors play the role of Italian characters and have them speak in (extremely broken) Italian. Is it related to what we were talking about? Kinda but probably not really. I just like to complain about things, and especially Americans.

 

[Adorno]

historical never means anything when it's used by marketing or entertainment people. never has, likely never will. lost cause imo.

Some stories can stay close to reality and still be good. I recall the classic "I, Caudius" as pretty historical without Claudius being an empress.
Or the recent (popular) "The Crown". No princes have become princesses there, and the events are not far from factual. They've even done a lot to make the cast look like the historical characters (which is also more pressing since everyone knows them).

I would also rank ahistorical elements. Complaining about silly looking weapons, or anachronistic building materials is not on the same level as making a king a woman. Anachronistic weapons change practically nothing whereas a "female king" changes a lot.
In Mary Queen of Scots they make Mary and Elisabeth I physically meet, which they likely didn't. But they lived very close (Mary as prisoner) and no doubt communicated a lot, so it's not far fetched fictionalisation. However, making Elizabeth I a man would be absurd and change everything.
You can't just say "nothing is truly historical and it's all just levels of fictionalisation" without realising the vast differences.

 

[Grank]

it's not activism. activism requires actually doing things. so no primarily activist group is likely to care.

Making a TV series is actually doing things. It's an actual work.

this is your assumption and therefore your problem, not the show's. black people acting in an ahistorical show is not political. there's no conspiracy here.

Tell me the reasons why it's a good idea to cast a black woman for that role. If it's "representation" or "diversity" then it's dumb politics. Again, I'm Indonesian. I have no relation to black or white people whatsoever. From my perspective it's just westerners caring so much about skin color and gender that they alter entertainment in a stupid way. The original character is male. Changing that actually causes story problems, like Adorno has explained.

Diversity is literally our national motto. You don't push for diversity by shoving one race into everyone's throat. Simply accept them as part of your society and treat them like you treat normal people.

Any original story will be bingewatched if it is marketed well

True true. Look at Bahubali. It's dope ****.

If westerners really care about "representation" or "diversity" so much, surely they will go crazy over stories from other parts of the world. Unless that's not actually what they want. Maybe it's actually just a collective hate boner against white people for their past slavery. Who knows?

There is no grand conspiracy where people want to replace white historical figures with black people. This is just caused by the fact that there is a perceived importance of diversity from the public (and to that I say, about time), but there's also extreme laziness from producers in implementing it.

Sure. I never said it's a conspiracy either, but a trend that undeniably exists. I see people claiming that stuff in the past was actually black people, insulting white people of the past, etc. I agree with you that the extreme laziness is insulting. That's why I'm disgusted by this whole trend.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Maybe it's actually just a collective hate boner against white people for their past slavery. Who knows?

Its not that either. Its just out of touch pr departments trying to come across as less evil in the only way they know how. The people making these decisions are like 60 years old and live in completely isolated suburbs, they have no idea what most of their audience's views are and just follow whatever PR trend they think will please their stockholders, who are equally clueless and isolated.