Death on the Nile

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

Usually I love Kenneth Braugh's work but skip this movie.

It is not accurate to the book and the casting is PC.

What is so hard about keeping casting accurate to 1914 and 1937? I know the movie was going woke when there were black soldiers in the Belgium Army scenes for WW1. Same thing with other characters. Be accurate. The roles and scenes took me out of the setting.

If I watch a movie set in medieval Japan, I don't want to see races of people who wouldn't be there. If they made a movie about MLK, I don't want Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role.

Every damn 2022 cause was there: gay, anti-wealth, race. Etc.

The final scene with Periot was insulting to his character.

An insult to a great book.

[ThaVirus]

Rabble rabble rabble!

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Rabble rabble rabble!

Intelligent rebuttal.

Some of us prefer to watch period pieces that strive for accuracy over pandering. Or respectful adaptations of cherished works.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by Carr4MVP

Intelligent rebuttal.

Some of us prefer to watch period pieces that strive for accuracy over pandering. Or respectful adaptations of cherished works.

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-onlin...force_publique

What's so weird about it?

Not to mention, King Leopold owned the Congo Free State from 1885-1908. Like, it wasn't even a colony. He outright owned it like a personal possession until he was pressured to release it to the Belgian government as a typical colony. It was literally called Belgian Congo until 1960.

It seems highly likely that there'd have been many black folk fighting for many countries in WW1 and WW2.

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-onlin...force_publique

What's so weird about it?

Not to mention, King Leopold owned the Congo Free State from 1885-1908. Like, it wasn't even a colony. He outright owned it like a personal possession until he was pressured to release it to the Belgian government as a typical colony. It was literally called Belgian Congo until 1960.

It seems highly likely that there'd have been many black folk fighting for many countries in WW1 and WW2.

That article only talked about participation in African campaigns. The scene in the movie was 1914 in Belgium. Seems very, very unlikely for any such participation.

It was clearly an example of Hollywood ignoring history to pander.

[ThaVirus]

Well, I haven't seen the movie so I can't comment on that, but it seems strange for you to care so much about seeing a black, gay, Muslim, etc. person in media.

Black people make up probably 20%+ of the global population, Asians probably 50% or more, there were over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide last I heard, and even conservative estimates would put the LGBT community at like 5% of the total population.

These people are all around us. Why are you so offended when you see them?

[Frazod]

The commercial was bad enough. Branagh's ridiculous frog accent reminded me of the obnoxious soldier from Monty Python, but not in a good way.

[ThaVirus]

I only care about this sort of thing when it actually matters. Like, if their race/gender is supposed to be central to their character.

Originally Posted by Carr4MVP

If I watch a movie set in medieval Japan, I don't want to see races of people who wouldn't be there. If they made a movie about MLK, I don't want Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role.
.

This makes sense. Being a black dude is pretty damned central to MLK's character. If I'm casting MLK, I'm not going to consider Tom Hanks, as I wouldn't consider Idris Elba for the role of Eminem or Anna Kendrick for the role of George Washington.

But you're talking about a couple jamokes in the Belgian army- nameless soldiers, extras lol who gives a shit if they're black?

[Zebedee DuBois]

It's not like the movie history has ever made an effort to have accurate casting...John Wayne as Ghengis Khan, white dudes playing all the natives in the old westerns, etc.