3 ms·

Just setting something in a powerful nation of early medieval or pre-Roman times would make it naturally non-Eurocentric. Eastern Roman empire, Sasanian or olde

Just setting something in a powerful nation of early medieval or pre-Roman times would make it naturally non-Eurocentric. Eastern Roman empire, Sasanian or older Persian empires, Alexander's Asia, Ethiopia, Pontus, Artaxiad Armenia, Baktria, pre-delenda'd Carthage, golden age Islamic empires, archaic Mesopotamian kingdoms, (further eastern empires that I'm honestly not educated about), ... "Córdoba was a city that had street lighting and paved streets while London was still just a village." - Prince Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia

volkk 4y ago
My wild guess is that most AAA/Hollywood creators are completely clueless about those cultures and histories and the effort required to do research to hit a level of accuracy outweighs the budgets they have, so we're stuck with culturally diverse medieval ages. furthermore, i imagine the PR agencies that tell them that they're going to be wrecked and dragged all over the internet if they do some Persian themed thing and get something wrong. add that all up and they probably decide it ain't worth it.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  I'm sure they can figure out the history well enough to depict it, or punt on the accuracy. They probably figured it wouldn't be a popular enough setting for the intended audience. It's been done a few times. Prince of Persia was set in a fantasy land without a real attempt at historical accuracy, but it was sorta Sasanid Persia. Similarly, Aladdin in Iraq. There was also the 2004 Alexander which was quite accurate, but it wasn't a good movie. And Lawrence of Arabia, sorta fictionalized but accurate in spirit, which was the best. 300 was interesting cause they made it clear the story was being told from the Greek perspective by having Dilios narrate it, and he hyped it up even more than the actual Greek historians did, instead of the movie presenting it as a factual view. The movie still pissed off the Iranian government, but whatever.
  - hot_gril 4y ago
    Oh yeah, Mulan too.

volkk 4y ago

My wild guess is that most AAA/Hollywood creators are completely clueless about those cultures and histories and the effort required to do research to hit a level of accuracy outweighs the budgets they have, so we're stuck with culturally diverse medieval ages. furthermore, i imagine the PR agencies that tell them that they're going to be wrecked and dragged all over the internet if they do some Persian themed thing and get something wrong. add that all up and they probably decide it ain't worth it.

hot_gril 4y ago
I'm sure they can figure out the history well enough to depict it, or punt on the accuracy. They probably figured it wouldn't be a popular enough setting for the intended audience. It's been done a few times. Prince of Persia was set in a fantasy land without a real attempt at historical accuracy, but it was sorta Sasanid Persia. Similarly, Aladdin in Iraq. There was also the 2004 Alexander which was quite accurate, but it wasn't a good movie. And Lawrence of Arabia, sorta fictionalized but accurate in spirit, which was the best. 300 was interesting cause they made it clear the story was being told from the Greek perspective by having Dilios narrate it, and he hyped it up even more than the actual Greek historians did, instead of the movie presenting it as a factual view. The movie still pissed off the Iranian government, but whatever.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Oh yeah, Mulan too.