3 ms·

> 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

> 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

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.