4 ms·

Macbeth is fiction, albeit written long ago. Even so, I think some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others. For instance, you can go the route o

Macbeth is fiction, albeit written long ago. Even so, I think some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others. For instance, you can go the route of Throne of Blood. It transposes the plot to feudal Japan, and doesn't call itself Macbeth. This allows you to hit all the story beats with the freedom to change literally anything else you want, and still be "faithful" in its adaptation. I'd argue it's also a more intriguing approach for film. Alternatively, you can opt for the original dialog, names, historical setting, and aesthetic. If you go this way, with a story set in Medieval Scotland that is not genre fantasy, then having something as incongruent as a change of race in the main character will stick out. Notwithstanding, here no one cares because a) Macbeth's been done to death, b) no one gives a damn about Macbeth. You can of course suggest that people are nonplussed about this for movies in general, but if they aren't invested in any way they may not see your film either. So in fact you aren't likely to see this done for every film set in a historical period all the time, and the minor controversy and trolling if anything helps create buzz for a film that will otherwise flop anyway. Were you going to see it in theaters? Statistically, not likely.

mpalmer 2y ago
Gladiator is fiction that is extremely loosely based on historical people and events. Gladiator 2 must necessarily be even more inaccurate if it maintains continuity with the first movie. Ridley Scott is on record as being extremely exasperated with historians when it comes to his historical films. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. > a) Macbeth's been done to death > b) no one gives a damn about Macbeth These are very bizarre claims you make very confidently. I don't see how both of these aren't equally applicable to Gladiator 2, the sequel(!) to one of the worst Best Picture winners in history. > So in fact you aren't likely to see this done for every film set in a historical period all the time, and the minor controversy and trolling if anything helps create buzz for a film that will otherwise flop anyway. Were you going to see it in theaters? Statistically, not likely. So... what are you saying exactly? It was fine to make Macbeth black because no one was going to see it anyway? It was a good idea to make Macbeth black because controversy? The clearest point you are making is that you cannot see outside your own point of view when it comes to race in cinema.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  I'm not sure you know what you're trying to say. > Ridley Scott is on record as being extremely exasperated with historians when it comes to his historical films. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This is a bizarre non-sequitur. You might as well have said "My friend Mike likes pizza, so I'm not sure what you're getting at". What's the point? > These are very bizarre claims you make very confidently. https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=macbeth https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=macbeth -- count them. The latest ones were flops. For instance Macbeth 2015 grossed $16 million worldwide against its production budget of $20 million. So yeah, I make the claim "confidently". > I don't see how both of these aren't equally applicable to Gladiator 2 You brought up Gladiator 2! And speaking of bizarre claims, for Gladiator to have been "done to death", it would have needed a sequel! > It was fine to make Macbeth black because no one was going to see it anyway? No. This has to be a weird projection because I did not say anything near that. Whitey Macbeth has been done many times, no one's being deprived of Whitey Macbeth. My answer to those who complain is: if you're watching, it's for you. If not you're not watching, it's not for you. Producers are banking on someone watching. > It was a good idea to make Macbeth black because controversy? Probably.
  - mpalmer 2y ago
    You don't understand why I would point out that Gladiator is unapologetically fiction in my reply to your comment? I'm not sure why you're denying that you implied that diversity is fine in movies that don't do well. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw - especially in the context of this discussion - from your assertion that "no one cares about Macbeth" ? I'm puzzled why your points are all now strictly based on how well the movies have done at the box office. You were talking about artistic and stylistic judgments before. Now it's about the business?
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      > You don't understand why I would point out that Gladiator is unapologetically fiction in my reply to your comment? Nope. That would be unsurprising, it being fiction and all. > I'm not sure why you're denying that you implied that diversity is fine in movies that don't do well. Because that isn't what I fucking said. > What other conclusion am I supposed to draw - especially in the context of this discussion - from your assertion that "no one cares about Macbeth" ? That no one cares; it's a moot point, there will not be that much discourse surrounding it. That is the observation. There's no possible way to contrive that suggests "it's only justifiable to have diversity in films that don't do well". The important part of the paragraph that belonged to is that some stylistic changes can seem incongruent with the whole of a film. A black Scottish medieval king is incongruent. That's not even a value judgement, and it's not always clear whether audiences will be drawn or repelled. > I'm puzzled why your points are all now strictly based on how well the movies have done at the box office. You were talking about artistic and stylistic judgments before. Now it's about the business? Wow, you are obtuse. Be puzzled then, run off and do something else.

mpalmer 2y ago

Gladiator is fiction that is extremely loosely based on historical people and events. Gladiator 2 must necessarily be even more inaccurate if it maintains continuity with the first movie. Ridley Scott is on record as being extremely exasperated with historians when it comes to his historical films. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. > a) Macbeth's been done to death > b) no one gives a damn about Macbeth These are very bizarre claims you make very confidently. I don't see how both of these aren't equally applicable to Gladiator 2, the sequel(!) to one of the worst Best Picture winners in history. > So in fact you aren't likely to see this done for every film set in a historical period all the time, and the minor controversy and trolling if anything helps create buzz for a film that will otherwise flop anyway. Were you going to see it in theaters? Statistically, not likely. So... what are you saying exactly? It was fine to make Macbeth black because no one was going to see it anyway? It was a good idea to make Macbeth black because controversy? The clearest point you are making is that you cannot see outside your own point of view when it comes to race in cinema.

slothtrop 2y ago
I'm not sure you know what you're trying to say. > Ridley Scott is on record as being extremely exasperated with historians when it comes to his historical films. So I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This is a bizarre non-sequitur. You might as well have said "My friend Mike likes pizza, so I'm not sure what you're getting at". What's the point? > These are very bizarre claims you make very confidently. https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=macbeth https://www.imdb.com/find/?q=macbeth -- count them. The latest ones were flops. For instance Macbeth 2015 grossed $16 million worldwide against its production budget of $20 million. So yeah, I make the claim "confidently". > I don't see how both of these aren't equally applicable to Gladiator 2 You brought up Gladiator 2! And speaking of bizarre claims, for Gladiator to have been "done to death", it would have needed a sequel! > It was fine to make Macbeth black because no one was going to see it anyway? No. This has to be a weird projection because I did not say anything near that. Whitey Macbeth has been done many times, no one's being deprived of Whitey Macbeth. My answer to those who complain is: if you're watching, it's for you. If not you're not watching, it's not for you. Producers are banking on someone watching. > It was a good idea to make Macbeth black because controversy? Probably.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  You don't understand why I would point out that Gladiator is unapologetically fiction in my reply to your comment? I'm not sure why you're denying that you implied that diversity is fine in movies that don't do well. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw - especially in the context of this discussion - from your assertion that "no one cares about Macbeth" ? I'm puzzled why your points are all now strictly based on how well the movies have done at the box office. You were talking about artistic and stylistic judgments before. Now it's about the business?
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    > You don't understand why I would point out that Gladiator is unapologetically fiction in my reply to your comment? Nope. That would be unsurprising, it being fiction and all. > I'm not sure why you're denying that you implied that diversity is fine in movies that don't do well. Because that isn't what I fucking said. > What other conclusion am I supposed to draw - especially in the context of this discussion - from your assertion that "no one cares about Macbeth" ? That no one cares; it's a moot point, there will not be that much discourse surrounding it. That is the observation. There's no possible way to contrive that suggests "it's only justifiable to have diversity in films that don't do well". The important part of the paragraph that belonged to is that some stylistic changes can seem incongruent with the whole of a film. A black Scottish medieval king is incongruent. That's not even a value judgement, and it's not always clear whether audiences will be drawn or repelled. > I'm puzzled why your points are all now strictly based on how well the movies have done at the box office. You were talking about artistic and stylistic judgments before. Now it's about the business? Wow, you are obtuse. Be puzzled then, run off and do something else.