- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: My Lady Jane canceled by Amazon
Posted on 8/22/24 at 7:31 am to Scruffy
Posted on 8/22/24 at 7:31 am to Scruffy
quote:
Can you even call a show like this “alternate history”?
Probably better to label it Historical Fantasy.
I’ve read some book series like that. For instance, Melanie Karsak has a series on Lady Macbeth but it weaves in magic, fae, etc. while using some historical events/people. It’s very obviously not “real history”.
It’s definitely a large genre though. And I know, at least for me, it has spawned some interest in the actual history which I don’t think is a bad thing.
0
Posted on 8/22/24 at 9:11 am to Scruffy
quote:
Can you even call a show like this “alternate history”?
They generally try to throw their books in as many categories as they can to increase chances of people finding them.
The book this show is based off of is listed as
Historical Fiction
Fantasy
Romance
Young Adult
Historical
Fiction
Retellings
Humor
Young Adult Fantasy
Feel-Good
History & Culture
Witty
King
Posted on 8/22/24 at 11:08 am to ThoseGuys
quote:
Eh the only reason this is getting a thread here or even talked about on any website is because of that. It's like a Bat-signal for lazy show.
It's getting a thread here because we celebrate the cancellation of shows or under-performance of films that dare to acknowledge that black and/or gay people exist.
Something that noone seemed to care about until around 8 years ago. Prior to that, you just found other things to watch if you weren't interested. But then 2016 hits, when someone decided the best way to win was to get people pissed off... and the best way to get people pissed off is to create an enemy for them to be pissed off at... And since the target market is ~10-15 IQ points lower than average, we need low-IQ reasons for them to buy into being pissed off...i.e. race, sexuality, etc... easy differences to exploit.
The irony is that all these newly pissed off people love to call everyone else "sheep" when they themselves were literally puppeteered into hatred as part of a successful marketing plan
It's delicious when you think about it. When in all actuality, this was just Amazon's attempt to have a Bridgerton of their own and it was a poorly ran, boring show that didn't have a prayer of capturing the Bridgerton love Amazon was looking for.
But no that can't be the reason... we celebrate because we know the real reason it didn't succeed... them pesky black and gay folk.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 11:42 am to gizmothepug
quote:
These type of shows spit in the face of history while showing some alternate realities for the sake of peoples feelings
This show (that you probably never even watched) isn't preventing you from learning history or remembering history that you have learned. No one is promoting this show as an accurate re-telling of historical events or as a documentary.
Sometimes entertainment is just entertainment. Bridgerton is a good example of this. It has some things that are historically in context and some that aren't. I don't confuse it with actual history from the Regency period.
This post was edited on 8/22/24 at 11:46 am
Posted on 8/22/24 at 11:53 am to JustinBRLA
quote:
It's getting a thread here because we celebrate the cancellation of shows or under-performance of films that dare to acknowledge that black and/or gay people exist.
Because Edward VI was a gay man of west African descent.
He most certainly could have been gay though he died very young (15 years of age), so his sexuality is quite ambiguous to say the least. However, to say he was black is really, REALLY pushing it considering he was the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour - two members of English royalty who were of Caucasian descent.
Though I must admit you are half-right. I started this thread to celebrate the cancellation of a show featuring gay and black characters who did not exist at any point in English history - namely a gay and black King Edward VI.
This post was edited on 8/22/24 at 11:57 am
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:12 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Because Edward VI was a gay man of west African descent.
He most certainly could have been gay though he died very young (15 years of age), so his sexuality is quite ambiguous to say the least. However, to say he was black is really, REALLY pushing it considering he was the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour - two members of English royalty who were of Caucasian descent.
What you are missing is that this show is Fiction.
The name Edward VI serves to give you an idea of the setting in which this world takes place, a backdrop similar to 1500s England
Changing his skin color and stuff is a quick way to let the audience know this world is very different than our 1500s England.
This post was edited on 8/22/24 at 12:15 pm
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:15 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Changing his skin color and stuff is a quick way to let the audience know this world is very different than our 1500s England.
Complete bullshite.
Shut the frick up you putrid hack.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:17 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:I wonder why historical inaccuracies are never brought up or harped on when this board discusses shows like Deadwood.
These type of shows spit in the face of history while showing some alternate realities for the sake of peoples feelingsquote:
This show (that you probably never even watched) isn't preventing you from learning history or remembering history that you have learned. No one is promoting this show as an accurate re-telling of historical events or as a documentary.
You would think this board would have celebrated Deadwood’s cancellation due to the historical inaccuracies that must be protected against.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:17 pm to Philzilla2k
Maybe you see it and think "oh my god they are trying to say Edward VI was black!"
A more normal reaction would be "ah so something is off here"
A more normal reaction would be "ah so something is off here"
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:19 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
What you are missing is that this show is Fiction.
So is Outlander.
When I watch a show set in a historical time period, I appreciate it when it makes an effort to make it feel like I have been transported back to that period with accurate depictions of historical characters, mannerisms, and costumes.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:21 pm to drizztiger
quote:
I wonder why historical inaccuracies are never brought up or harped on when this board discusses shows like Deadwood.
You would think this board would have celebrated Deadwood’s cancellation due to the historical inaccuracies that must be protected against
They probably never spotted any historical inaccuracies in anything they watched until they see a black person, we aren't exactly talking about critical thinkers.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:24 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
So is Outlander.
When I watch a show set in a historical time period, I appreciate it when it makes an effort to make it feel like I have been transported back to that period with accurate depictions of historical characters, mannerisms, and costumes.
Outlander isn't a fantasy series where men can shapeshift into horses. Their objective is completely different than this shows goal of showing a historical setting and turning it on its head in a fantastical way.
Did the dragons in game of thrones ruin it for you because they didn't have them during the war of the roses?
Game of thrones uses medieval technology, knights, and tourneys as the backdrop for it's story in a similar way this show uses 1500s England.
Its a lot harder to explain an entire new world to the audience than it is to keep some elements based on reality to build on.
This post was edited on 8/22/24 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:28 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
They probably never spotted any historical inaccuracies in anything they watched until they see a black person, we aren't exactly talking about critical thinkers.
As a historian, I have noticed numerous historical inaccuracies in multiple projects because it's impossible to keep things historically accurate 100% of the time for various reasons, some due to budget, others due to story issues, and even some due to characterization. Films such as Braveheart and The Patriot have been rightfully raked over the coals for their historical inaccuracies but have also been praised for being technically well-made with stories that keep viewers invested.
However, there is no reason to race swap historical characters unless you are trying to generate clicks or views. That tells me your product isn't very good. However, there is absolute no need to do this because there are plenty of "minority" characters from history who impacted European society. One of those that comes to mind is General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, Napoleon's so-called "Black Devil" from his campaigns in Italy and Egypt.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:29 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
Outlander isn't a fantasy series where men can shapeshift into horses.
No, it's just a fantasy series where men can travel through time using druid stone circles. Equally as possible and just as "outlandish."
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:31 pm to drizztiger
quote:
I wonder why historical inaccuracies are never brought up or harped on when this board discusses shows like Deadwood.
You would think this board would have celebrated Deadwood’s cancellation due to the historical inaccuracies that must be protected against.
Hell, if we want to get even more specific to the OP what about Showtime's The Tudors? It really did portray itself as a more historically accurate portrayal but it was way the frick off on a lot of things. Henry VIII certainly wasn't as attractive Jonathan Rhys Meyers when he was all full of gout and had a weeping wound on his leg.
I think I've only seen one or two historical depictions of Catherine of Aragon show her actual Auburn hair. Everyone else went with the "Oh she's from Spain, jet black hair for you my dear!".
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:31 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
However, there is no reason to race swap historical characters unless you are trying to generate clicks or views. That tells me your product isn't very good. However, there is absolute no need to do this because there are plenty of "minority" characters from history who impacted European society. One of those that comes to mind is General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, Napoleon's so-called "Black Devil" from his campaigns in Italy and Egypt
Seems you are missing the entire point.
It is supposed to make you think about what happened in their alternate universe that caused their Edward VI to be different than ours (which is later revealed).
It is not changed to make you think well this is our universe and they are changing our history.
Think of across the spideyverse and all the different Spiderman that appear in it. All the Spiderman still exist, they just have different traits/characteristics/abilities in each alternate universe.
This post was edited on 8/22/24 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:35 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
However, there is no reason to race swap historical characters unless you are trying to generate clicks or views. That tells me your product isn't very good. However, there is absolute no need to do this because there are plenty of "minority" characters from history who impacted European society. One of those that comes to mind is General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, Napoleon's so-called "Black Devil" from his campaigns in Italy and Egypt.
How is racial swapping in the shows we're discussing here any different from portraying a character with other different physical traits then what history has told us? Like color of hair or eyes? Or height/physical stature?
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:46 pm to BluegrassBelle
It is definitely more disconcerting, but I only care when it is done in a historical show.
If someone wrote a show where the first scene was a black Robert E Lee sitting in an oval office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the capitol of the United States of America, I wouldn't think they were trying to erase our history. I would think that the point of the show is that this world is not ours, and that I would need to keep watching to find out why.
If someone wrote a show where the first scene was a black Robert E Lee sitting in an oval office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the capitol of the United States of America, I wouldn't think they were trying to erase our history. I would think that the point of the show is that this world is not ours, and that I would need to keep watching to find out why.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:47 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
How is racial swapping in the shows we're discussing here any different from portraying a character with other different physical traits then what history has told us?
I think we both know the answer to that so there's no reason for me to dignify that with a response. Rarely, if ever, are you going to get an actor who looks exactly like their historical counterpart. Usually because men and women from history were normally average looking humans and audience goers don't want to look at average-looking humans for two and a half to three hours. The same goes for long-form television.
Posted on 8/22/24 at 12:51 pm to RollTide1987
If you want to watch a good movie:
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News