• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Regé-Jean Page has joined the cast of the upcoming Dungeons & Dragons movie - which currently has Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, and Justice Smith attached - in a leading role, according to Hollywood Reporter. He played the Duke of Hastings in the period drama which is Netflix's biggest ever show.

BRIDGERTON_108_Unit_01959R.jpg



 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Jaeger

That someone better.
Nice casting news, but I'd frankly have a lot more faith in the film if they began referring to it as, say, The Crystal Shard or Dragons of Autumn Twilight or similar. Those are the names of successful, interesting, and popular stories.

"Dungeons & Dragons," on the other hand, is quite the opposite. As a movie, anyway.

I completely agree.

But I had that debate on the D&D movie thread, and a lot of posters weren't buying what I was selling...

Evidently those successful, interesting, and popular stories were all a bit pants.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Given the social and historical setting of the books, a so-called "whitewash" would have been entirely appropriate for the material.
The black queen was actually historically accurate.

What we believe the past to look like is based on what gatekeepers told us it was like.

For instance, there was actually a concerted effort in the early 20th century to remove Black people and women from the American literary canon, which is why the grandchildren of people who read and adored Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Charles W. Chesnutt had no idea these major 19th century figures existed.

If you like Turn of the Screw, check out Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper. If you like Twain, check out Chesnutt. They can stand shoulder to shoulder with the folks you know, but some old dead White dudes decided you didn't need to know their names.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
People have varying tolerances for ahistorical elements in period pieces that they are able to assimilate when immersing themselves in a story.

Lots of people enjoyed A Knight's Tale. To others it was unwatchable, precisely because it was ahistorical as hell.

No other motives need be inferred from either preference.




My parents, are both fans of the genre and rather well read on the history of the era. They are what anyone looking at them side by side would call a mixed race couple, and they simply found the ahistorical elements immersion breaking for them.

Finding ahistorical elements immersion breaking, just means that they found them immersion breaking.

Inferring a racial prejudice to their perception of a show that is adapted from a well known literary genre that prides itself on portraying period historical accuracy in terms of speech, dress, and culture is laughable.




If you really believe that the ethnic make up of the British Nobility and upper class in Regency England was the result of atrocious racism, then you have just admitted to a startling degree of historical ignorance.

Also just a bit insulting to many fans and authors of the Regency romance genre about the "accessibility" of the books they like. Obviously authors like Stacy Reid could use a few pointers from you.

The authors loyal fanbase plus several other factors I listed.

I also said it was a bet Netflix could win. If they have hit on a Regency Romance version of A Knight's Tale, then they'll run with what works.
This is going to go well off topic so I will be curt. Considering that the single greatest political issue post American Independance was abolition I stand by my point that society at the time was atrociously racist by any modern standard.

While there is increasing weight given to the notion that society was more diverse than was given credit for - Queen Charlotte being one example - this fact has been whitewashed by the artists (and later historians) responsible for preserving records of appearance.

Even if people don’t accept this, as I said, there is a lot of artistic merit in presenting superficial elements in a contemporary fashion in order to make the non-superficial elements more accessible. We don’t criticize programs when they don’t properly speak in old English. It’s pretty disheartening to have two-thirds of the worlds population excluded from roles unless they are playing servants. Are we not at a point now where the colour of persons skin is irrelevant to the kinds of roles they can portray?

I have no doubt that the majority of viewers had never heard of the author. I’m sure she will receive a lot of attention though following the show. In much the same way GRR Martin did.

I’m not saying your parents are racists, I’m saying it’s a shame they couldn’t enjoy the show because they felt the costumes weren’t right and there were too many black people in it for the time. If I have that wrong then please do correct me.
 
Last edited:

Spohedus

Explorer
It’s not racist on the viewers point to despise this new genre of false period pieces. The show has the trappings of a historic film but is in fact not, which bothers some viewers. The same viewers would enjoy a proper period piece in sub Saharan Africa. But not if actors were inserted from Asia to play African roles. I find this genre of mixing actual history with an alternate whim of history to be intellectually dishonest and insulting to the viewer. Many feel as I do. The distaste has more to do with an intolerance of lies than racial prejudice imo.
 

TheSword

Legend
Supporter
It’s not racist on the viewers point to despise this new genre of false period pieces. The show has the trappings of a historic film but is in fact not, which bothers some viewers. The same viewers would enjoy a proper period piece in sub Saharan Africa. But not if actors were inserted from Asia to play African roles. I find this genre of mixing actual history with an alternate whim of history to be intellectually dishonest and insulting to the viewer. Many feel as I do. The distaste has more to do with an intolerance of lies than racial prejudice imo.
I make no accusations of racism.

Do you expect Robin Hood remakes to speak in Anglo-Saxon or Norman English with subtitles?

Do you take issue with 1st and 2nd WW films that portray the entire British army as white... when they patently weren’t.

Do you have an issue with the portrayal of Romans as white caucasian’s when they hailed from every continent bounded by the Med.

Or is it just black people playing ‘white peoples roles’ you take issue with?
 



Jaeger

That someone better.
The black queen was actually historically accurate.

What we believe the past to look like is based on what gatekeepers told us it was like.
...

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:

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

...We don’t criticize programs when they don’t properly speak in old English. .... Are we not at a point now where the colour of persons skin is irrelevant to the kinds of roles they can portray...

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’m not saying your parents are racists, I’m saying it’s a shame they couldn’t enjoy the show because they felt the costumes weren’t right and there were too many black people in it for the time.

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.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Legend
Depends what a tv show or movie is trying to achieve.

If it's a serious period piece it should probably represent the time frame warts and all. How prominent those warts are depends on what it's trying to do.

If it's something like the knights tale it's not pretending to be serious who cares?

If it's not on earth, alternate reality or is sci fi etc once again who cares. Sunset ainvadion magic using Aztecs invade UK bring it on. Spain would be even better.
 




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

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

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.
 
Last edited:

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



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?
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

Legend
Supporter
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:

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.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top