3 ms·

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 fil

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
    Oh dear. Sorry. If you truly didn't mean to say: - Macbeth is old fiction, but some approaches to adapting it are BETTER than others - Don't do something "incongruent" and "brazen" like cast a black man and call your movie Macbeth, because that isn't one of the BETTER approaches. - But honestly, no one cares because ugh Macbeth is so played out, NO ONE gives a damn. Then you shouldn't have said those things? As it stands, you have drawn a rhetorical distinction between fictional Macbeth and the also-fictional Gladiator 2 without actually saying how they're different vis a vis performer ethnicity, other than "more people care about" Gladiator 2. You accuse me of being obtuse and then fail to actually make a point about why people are complaining about Gladiator 2, only that bringing up Macbeth is dumb because who cares about stupid Macbeth.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      > - Macbeth is old fiction, but some approaches to adapting it are BETTER than others I did say and mean that. > - Don't do something "incongruent" and "brazen" like cast a black man and call your movie Macbeth, because that isn't one of the BETTER approaches. That isn't what I said. Do cast a black man, do call it Macbeth. But seriously, keep going. It's weird to set something in Medieval Scotland and make just one guy a-historical. Make half the cast black, or whatever. It's seems like restraint or half-measure to try to keep in tradition in every other way but a single character. There's no reason you can't go full Bridgerton. I think that would serve it better. I hope that's clear. I'm not sure if you actually aren't capable of grasping, or refuse to do so because you'd rather project racism. It's a bit weird. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". I think if it feels coherent then it works. > fail to actually make a point about why people are complaining about Gladiator 2 Dude. You brought up Gladiator 2, not me. Ask them why they're complaining, because I sure didn't. > As it stands, you have drawn a rhetorical distinction between fictional Macbeth and the also-fictional Gladiator 2 without actually saying how they're different vis a vis performer ethnicity, other than "more people care about" Gladiator 2. I don't know anything about Gladiator 2 other than it's an entirely new spectacle.

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
  Oh dear. Sorry. If you truly didn't mean to say: - Macbeth is old fiction, but some approaches to adapting it are BETTER than others - Don't do something "incongruent" and "brazen" like cast a black man and call your movie Macbeth, because that isn't one of the BETTER approaches. - But honestly, no one cares because ugh Macbeth is so played out, NO ONE gives a damn. Then you shouldn't have said those things? As it stands, you have drawn a rhetorical distinction between fictional Macbeth and the also-fictional Gladiator 2 without actually saying how they're different vis a vis performer ethnicity, other than "more people care about" Gladiator 2. You accuse me of being obtuse and then fail to actually make a point about why people are complaining about Gladiator 2, only that bringing up Macbeth is dumb because who cares about stupid Macbeth.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    > - Macbeth is old fiction, but some approaches to adapting it are BETTER than others I did say and mean that. > - Don't do something "incongruent" and "brazen" like cast a black man and call your movie Macbeth, because that isn't one of the BETTER approaches. That isn't what I said. Do cast a black man, do call it Macbeth. But seriously, keep going. It's weird to set something in Medieval Scotland and make just one guy a-historical. Make half the cast black, or whatever. It's seems like restraint or half-measure to try to keep in tradition in every other way but a single character. There's no reason you can't go full Bridgerton. I think that would serve it better. I hope that's clear. I'm not sure if you actually aren't capable of grasping, or refuse to do so because you'd rather project racism. It's a bit weird. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". I think if it feels coherent then it works. > fail to actually make a point about why people are complaining about Gladiator 2 Dude. You brought up Gladiator 2, not me. Ask them why they're complaining, because I sure didn't. > As it stands, you have drawn a rhetorical distinction between fictional Macbeth and the also-fictional Gladiator 2 without actually saying how they're different vis a vis performer ethnicity, other than "more people care about" Gladiator 2. I don't know anything about Gladiator 2 other than it's an entirely new spectacle.