No, he is clearly from northern Italy.Maybe Geppeto was Sicilian.
No, he is clearly from northern Italy.Maybe Geppeto was Sicilian.
Sounds like someones been reading Wikipedia all morningI will say that I'd never heard of Sir Moriaen before today. But he's also a completely unimportant minor character, whereas Palamedes was a major rival/eventual comrade of Sir Tristan, even to the point of avenging Tristan's murder by slaying King Mark and being in turn murdered by Sir Gawain.
A pleb like you probably doesn't even know the story of Tristan and Iseult(Isolde).Sounds like someones been reading Wikipedia all morning
Maybe because you didn't ask a question?you didnt answer my question. we both know why
Maybe because you didn't ask a question?
But it's fine, just admit you don't know who the petty kings of the Arthurian mythos are and that you've never read or watched anything beyond maybe that Clive Owen movie.
but did you ever playWRONG
I watched the cartoon too.
America was built by white people. it was a bunch of brown canibals before we got here. the cool builders that we see the ruins of today were all murdered by those brown fucking canibals. my family helped build this country. that being said, i would not try to take a role that i would be racially wrong for. either should Apu Patel as Sir Gu-wan from Kebab.I'm not going to convince you otherwise but, for the record, you're wrong. Unless you're descended from first nation you're about as American as you claim he isn't British, or English.
I'm not, the Arthurian mythos is one of those worthless bits of knowledge I know quite a bit about.now stop regurgitating wikipedia here
Fairy tales elements don't suffer from this.
I've seen Excalibur and the Monty Python movie, that is the extent of my knowledge of King Arthur's mythos. But I think that's largely because the pop culture entries into the mythos I am aware of, beyond those 2, have either been garbage or forgettable. Hopefully this one doesn't disappoint. I'm only aware of Gawain as the name of a knight but have no background on the story, but the trailer and design looks really cool.Maybe because you didn't ask a question?
But it's fine, just admit you don't know who the petty kings of the Arthurian mythos are and that you've never read or watched anything beyond maybe that Clive Owen movie.
on a certain level i understand and somewhat agree with your point, but fundamentally it's erroneous. if you're doing a historical piece about ww2 and cast a black guy as general patton, you end up missing an entire chunk of nuance about african americans in ww2. obviously patton was white and didn't deal with any kind of racial issues so that wouldn't be a part of the story, which implies that african american soldiers were never faced any of that nonsense. it IS instrinsic to guys like General Benjamin Davis (first black general), the tuskagee airmen, etc. so making patton black actually takes away from the real life struggles that black soldiers had.For some historical figures, the color of their skin / race was an important part of what made that character historically relevant.
For example MLK and Hitler, if you have a black guy playing Hitler it will be a joke as one of the historical facts of hitler and ethos was aryan superiority, and you can not disentangle the two of them. The same way MLK, you can not dissociate his race/skin color with his history.
Fairy tales elements don't suffer from this. It makes zero difference to the Pinocchio story, that Geppetto would be player by a black actor.
"A countries History/Legends/Mythos/Religion can fall into multiple categories."
one actually happened (history) while the rest is made up garbage. You are forgetting that very important part.
Historical figures in which the skin color are not a part of the historical value can be represented by a multitude of actors.
For example a black actor can be casted as General Patton in a WW2 Historical piece, why because racial identity is not intrinsic to General Patton's story and historical significance.
It would be impossible to cast Abraham Lincoln as a black actor in a historical piece and not have the narrative fall apart.
Which is funny because Gawain has a pretty pivotal role in Excalibur. He was played by Liam Neeson.I've seen Excalibur and the Monty Python movie, that is the extent of my knowledge of King Arthur's mythos. But I think that's largely because the pop culture entries into the mythos I am aware of, beyond those 2, have either been garbage or forgettable. Hopefully this one doesn't disappoint. I'm only aware of Gawain as the name of a knight but have no background on the story, but the trailer and design looks really cool.
What?? No.on a certain level i understand and somewhat agree with your point, but fundamentally it's erroneous. if you're doing a historical piece about ww2 and cast a black guy as general patton, you end up missing an entire chunk of nuance about african americans in ww2. obviously patton was white and didn't deal with any kind of racial issues so that wouldn't be a part of the story, which implies that african american soldiers were never faced any of that nonsense. it IS instrinsic to guys like General Benjamin Davis (first black general), the tuskagee airmen, etc. so making patton black actually takes away from the real life struggles that black soldiers had.
on a certain level i understand and somewhat agree with your point, but fundamentally it's erroneous. if you're doing a historical piece about ww2 and cast a black guy as general patton, you end up missing an entire chunk of nuance about african americans in ww2. obviously patton was white and didn't deal with any kind of racial issues so that wouldn't be a part of the story, which implies that african american soldiers were never faced any of that nonsense. it IS instrinsic to guys like General Benjamin Davis (first black general), the tuskagee airmen, etc. so making patton black actually takes away from the real life struggles that black soldiers had.
that's the problem with changing details about history or myths and legends. it fundamentally changes who these characters are based on what we already know about the time period. i like dev patel, i don't have a problem with him as an actor. but certain care has to be taken if you are trying to be faithful to the source material, in this case, arthurian legend.
though, for argument's sake, i do believe that an actor's job is about pretending to be someone you are not. it's why i think it's silly when people get all up in arms when scarjo was going to play a trans character. they were like, "she's not trans, it's disrespectful to the trans community to have the part played by a non-trans actor!" at a certain point you have to figure out that if you're the only one who's offended, maybe that means something
What?? No.
Colin Powell being casted as General Patton does not remove anything from the other black generals, because the story is not about them, it is about General Patton, a person who story had nothing to do with race. Again, Patton's story is not about race, it is about military leadership. A black actor can deliver that without an issue. Did you see the Patton movie? Did it involved the racial struggles of the pilots? No it did not, because the story is not about them.
Now the narrative will fall apart if in the course of the movie, he would meet Benjamin Davis and congratulates him on being the first Black General. Then the movie would make no sense.
But since it doesn't, then it would be perfectly fine.