D&D Movie/TV Bridgerton Star Regé-Jean Page Joins D&D Movie

Zardnaar · Feb 17, 2021

robus said:
My wife’s a medievalist and she loves A Knight’s Tale because it‘s art not history.

Its self aware it's not pretending to be real.

robus · Feb 17, 2021

Shakespeare’s plays were (and are) ahistorical as hell (men played the women’s parts even

) and you don’t see people up in arms about them.

Well probably someone is unhappy... But really, art needs historical purity? What century is this?

Enevhar Aldarion · Feb 17, 2021

Jaeger said:
Theories should not be made as statements of fact when they are still in dispute. You could have at least thrown a possibly in there...

But this is the internet, where everything is always done in absolutes all the time. (see what I did there?)

Anyway, if Hamilton can do it and be a huge smash, then other shows should be able to also.

As for period dramas in general, they are just not my thing, unless it is something unusual, like Pride & Prejudice & Zombies. That was a fun movie. Throw in some magic and it could be a late period D&D movie.

Zardnaar · Feb 17, 2021

robus said:
Shakespeare’s plays were (and are) ahistorical as hell (men played the women’s parts even ) and you don’t see people up in arms about them.

Well probably someone is unhappy... But really, art needs historical purity? What century is this?

That's because good women didn't act and it was a disreputable profession.

Whizbang Dustyboots · Feb 17, 2021

Spohedus said:
It’s not racist on the viewers point to despise this new genre of false period pieces.

I think it's a misalignment of expectations. Regency romances aren't meant to be accurate historical pieces -- for one thing, everyone involved has a lot more sexual freedom than people had in that era. They're fantasies, just with a lot of boinking and not a lot of dragons.

Demetrios1453 · Feb 17, 2021

robus said:
Shakespeare’s plays were (and are) ahistorical as hell (men played the women’s parts even ) and you don’t see people up in arms about them.

Well probably someone is unhappy... But really, art needs historical purity? What century is this?

Shakespeare's historicals speed up or slow down timelines, get things out of order, have people in places or in scenes they couldn't possibly have been at, and are riddled with anachronisms. Sometimes he reshapes stories and people in a completely ahistorical manner (looking at you Macbeth). And then there's King John, where he just throws any semblance of the actual chronology completely out the window. But, it's all in the name of a good story - and that's all that matters in the end for something that is supposed to entertain, isn't it? If something is supposed to educate, then, yes, harp on its inaccuracies; but you have to be flexible when it just supposed to entertain (as long as there aren't any claims of accuracy for things that demonstrably aren't)

Fallen star · Feb 17, 2021

TwoSix said:
Well, that's 4 stars attached. Who's the fighter, who's the rogue, who's the cleric and who's the wizard?

Also, are all four humans? Or Drow,half orc, firbolg, tiefling?

TheSword · Feb 17, 2021

Zardnaar said:
That's because good women didn't act and it was a disreputable profession.

Sure, but that was wrong. So now even though it may be historically inaccurate we do let women take those roles.

Paul Farquhar · Feb 17, 2021

TwoSix said:
Well, that's 4 stars attached. Who's the fighter, who's the rogue, who's the cleric and who's the wizard?

Fallen star said:
Also, are all four humans? Or Drow,half orc, firbolg, tiefling?

I'll bite.

Pine: human bard. A hopeless con-man who ends up leading the resistance.
Rodrigues: tiefling fighter. Starts off working for villain but switches sides.
Smith: human wizard.
Page: apparently human warlock. Villain.

Unannounced CGI characters:

Goblin rogue.
Firbolg Druid.

TheSword · Feb 17, 2021

Jaeger said:
Theories should not be made as statements of fact when they are still in dispute. You could have at least thrown a possibly in there...

The fact is that the speculations about Queen Charlotte are still unproven and made by historians who's argument's are based on a familial connection made 300 years before her birth. With many historians on the other side of the issue with just as much, if not more, evidence to support their views.

Statements with actual sources that can be read by yourself to make up your own mind can be found here:

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mainstream media outlets and ahistorical tv shows should not be your first and last stop for historical facts.

Again - People's tolerance for ahistorical elements varies.

Like in A Knight's Tale. Some liked it, and that's OK.

But for others the ahistorical elements were too much. That is also OK.

Filming period pieces with an eye to historical authenticity is OK.

Not liking period pieces due to the ahistorical elements - no matter what they are - is also OK.

I can play this game too.

With all due respect...

You ought to refrain from backhanded comments about the cultural views of people you have never met.

The amount of prejudicial assumptions you have rattled off about people do not know simply because they found the ahistorical elements in the adaptation of a well known book series set in Regency England immersion breaking is telling.

I have said my piece - further dialogue will be counter productive.

I'm out.

And if you’d restricted your comments to the costumes, music and design aesthetic you definitely wouldn’t have got the response you did.

I’m not sure it is ok to excluded black actors (and a host of other people of colour) from several hundred years of period drama because they don’t look right in the opinion of some. It’s the reason black actors couldn’t get work in Shakespeare for decades unless they were playing Othello. Luckily we’ve moved on.

This show is attempting even out the score. Good for them. They’ve clearly done a good job of it.

Take care of yourself.