why is afromurican in some old timey bullshit queen and king setting?!? this makes no sense, this is literally something anti-sjw people would come up with as satirical comedic take against modern day sjw retardation. this is so retarded it cant be real. the little hats must be more subtle with their propaganda lmfao
shareIt was a marketing move, they knew this casting will turn heads and create free publicity for the series which it succesfully did.
shareThere were black people and other POC, including aristocrats, living in England during the Regency Era:
https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-real-bridgerton-black-history
This show is a fantasy which pretends that all racism hasn't ended after the king fell in love with a racially-mixed woman who becomes the future queen.
I'm sure racists like the OP prefer racism to exist, therefore this series is for them.
Figures. You don't really see people of color popping up in art from the time depicting the English aristocracy. Excluded no doubt.
shareI think what it is is that's it's a fictional show.
Some people always seem to get confused by this and think that they should be watching a documentary series using lost HD video camera footage from 200+ years ago which has just been found.
I appreciate that it can seem confusing but once the penny drops and you appreciate you are watching a fictional show, you should be all good 👍🏾.
there's 1 billion things I would rather do than waste one minute watching this dumb show
share"It's just fiction, not a documentary"
Only complete morons like Fred above use that argument.
It's literally presented as historical fiction.
It's trash, but it's not pretending that its accurate.
Nothing historical about it, Fred.🍆
shareIt's alternative history, if you like. Call it what you want. It's just fiction.
shareNo, it's not "just fiction". It's not freaking Star Wars. It pretends to take place in an actual era of our history with actual historical characters, except every historical fact has been rewritten.🍆🍆🍆
shareYes, in an idealised historical setting. It's fiction. There are plenty of historical fictional shows. Vikings is historical fiction. You know korea does this shit all of the time with their own history. It is nothing new.
Why do you give a shit?
Historical fictional stories are about fictional stories in real historical settings. This is just rewriting historical facts, and completely unnecessary since it wasn't like that in the books. Does Korea also have all the races of the world peacefully co-existing together in their mono-ethnic society without any logical explanation? If they do, that's just as moronic.
Maybe you should give less shit about people giving a shit, Fred.🍆🍆🍆
>Historical fictional stories are about fictional stories in real historical settings.
And this is also a form of historical fiction. No-one is pretending that it's actually historical accurate.
>Does Korea also have all the races of the world peacefully co-existing together in their mono-ethnic society without any logical explanation?
No, but they have fictional kings, fictional wars.
>Maybe you should give less shit about people giving a shit, Fred.🍆🍆🍆
It's pointless battle. I would understand it if this series purported to be accurate. But it doesn't.
"No-one is pretending that it's actually historical accurate."
It pretends all of this shit could've happened in a real historical era with real historical people by ignoring real historical facts. That's the whole obvious point.
Fictional kings and wars are still realistic premises. So a BS argument.
"It's pointless battle."
Yes, the battles you always start here in the name of woke are utterly pointless. Go away, Fred, you will certainly never be able to change anybody's mind on that, no matter how many socks you use.🍆🍆🍆
>It pretends all of this shit could've happened by ignoring actual historical facts. That's the whole obvious point.
It's like I'm talking to George from Blackadder. It's not real. It's fiction. It's not pretending that it actually happened. It's not trying to accurately portray the aristocracy in the 19th century.
>Fictional kings and wars are still realistic premises. So a BS argument.
So it's okay if Korea makes up fictional kings. There's a subgenre of Chinese historical dramas that literally is about fictionalised versions of Ancient China. With made-up dynasties. Bridgerton itself is just Regency Romance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regency_romance except that it is just colour-blind. That's it.
I'm a Brit by the way, and I couldn't give a fuck. You're like a social justice warrior taking offence on behalf of others.
Kingdom is a Korean TV series set in the Joseon period that includes zombies. Are you angry about that?
>Yes, the battles you always start here in the name of woke are utterly pointless. Go away, Fred, you will certainly never be able to change anybody's mind on that, no matter how many socks you use.🍆🍆🍆
I don't use any "socks". You still haven't pinpointed a supposed single alternative account of mine.
And I'll do whatever the fuck I like. I don't answer to you.
Lol, sweetie, are you saying your brown emoji was not an intentional hint? 🤣
The creator has explicitly stated it's NOT colorblind casting, but intentional to be "inclusive". It's inclusive to pretend that black people were a prominent and visible part of European society? Well okay then, no more whining about slavery! Stop cherrypicking and let's pretend that never happened either!
If zombies were real, they could also exist in the Joseon period. So your argument is once again BS, dear Baldrick.
People don't have to answer to you either, even though you seem to think otherwise. But go ahead, Fred, just spend the rest of your life on an insignificant movie site obsessively going after strangers who don't like the political garbage you seem to get off on. Have fun.👍🏾
>Lol, sweetie, are you saying your brown emoji was not an intentional hint? 🤣
What are you on about?
>The creator has explicitly stated it's NOT colorblind casting, but intentional to be "inclusive". It's inclusive to pretend that black people were a prominent and visible part of European society? Well okay then, no more whining about slavery! Stop cherrypicking and let's pretend that never happened either!
Okay. It's still fiction. It's adapted to reflect the demographics modern audiences. It doesn't claim that it is being historically accurate. So why do you care?
>If zombies were real, they could also exist in the Joseon period. So your argument is once again BS, dear Baldrick.
But they aren't real. So why is Bridgerton wrong and Kingdom right?
>People don't have to answer to you either, even though you seem to think otherwise.
When did I say you have to answer to me?
>But go ahead, Fred, just spend the rest of your life on an insignificant movie site obsessively going after strangers who don't like the political garbage you seem to get off on. Have fun.👍🏾
You're also here.
And I don't watch Bridgerton. It's a essentially a romantic drama series marketed to women.
"But they aren't real. So why is Bridgerton wrong and Kingdom right?"
Holy shit, Baldrick, black people aren't real???
I meant not real in the sense that it black people weren't in those upper class positions then. And zombies don't exist.
Yet you think it's fine for Kingdom to make shit up, but not Bridgerton?
Korea has done it many times: Song of the Bandits is obvious nonsense. Gyeongseong Creature is nonsense.
"I meant not real in the sense that it black people weren't in those upper class positions then. And zombies don't exist."
Which means the two premises have nothing in common whatsoever. If zombies were real, why would there be any restrictions on the era it's set in?
I have no clue what those two Korean shows are about. You want me to comment on something I know nothing of???
>Which means the two premises have nothing in common whatsoever. If zombies were real, why would there be any restrictions on the era it's set in?
And black people actually are real. So why can't we have no restrictions there? The whole premise of your complaint is begging the question. There's no reason to care because it's an alternative history. They aren't pretending it happened.
Are you equally outraged by Man in the High Castle, and The Plot Against America? There's also a Russian show which imagines a modern-day Russia if the Tsardom was never overthrown.
>I have no clue what those two Korean shows are about. You want me to comment on something I know nothing of, like you?
Songs of the Bandits imagines a Robin hood like resistance movement existing against Imperial rule in 1920s occupied Korea. Robin Hood itself is historical fiction.
I'm not outraged about anything, just pointing how absurd the concept of this show is. You seem to be outraged at everyone who expresses their dislike of this type of woke nonsense.
They are pretending it could've happened, which is the obvious point of criticism here.
What if the Nazis had won the war or the Russian czar was never overthrown were two very real possibilities. Considering how it would've affected history, present and future is what true "alternative history" stories are about. The "what if" scenario is not even part of the premise of Bridgerton, we're just supposed to go along with non-white people being prominent and visible members of British society in the Regency era without any explanation. It is just stupid and the differences with the former two shows are so plainly obvious.
I don't see why a "Robin Hood like resistance movement" in 1920s Korea would be out of the realm of possibilities.
>I'm not outraged about anything, just pointing how absurd the concept of this show is. You seem to be outraged at everyone who expresses their dislike of this type of woke nonsense.
It is absurd. I solve it by not watching it. It's a cheesy romantic drama for people who like Jane Austen. It's not that deep.
>What if the Nazis had won the war or the Russian czar was never overthrown were two very real possibilities. Considering how it would've affected history, present and future is what true "alternative history" stories are about. The "what if" scenario is not even part of the premise of Bridgerton, we're just supposed to go along with non-white people being prominent and visible members of British society in the Regency era without any explanation. It is just stupid and the differences with the former two shows are so plainly obvious.
Yes. Because it's fiction. It's up-front about it. If you can't accept it.... just don't watch it?
You can accept zombies in an alternative history, but not a racially equal society.
>I don't see why a "Robin Hood like resistance movement" in 1920s Korea would be out of the realm of possibilities.
All of the characters and situations were totally made-up.
It's less absurd to come here and comment on an aspect of a show you dislike and that convinces you not to watch it than it is to come here to go after such people even though you don't even watch a show cause it's not in your genre...
"Yes. Because it's fiction. It's up-front about it. If you can't accept it.... just don't watch it?"
It's a fictional story in a historical setting. An historical that is incorrectly portrayed. If you're going to change shit, at least make it plausible. What the hell makes you think I watch it? I can only comment on it if I do?
"All of the characters and situations were totally made-up."
EVERYTHING was made up? Then it's not comparable to this show.
>It's a fictional story in a historical setting. An historical that is incorrectly portrayed. If you're going to change shit, at least make it plausible. What the hell makes you think I watch it? I can only comment on it if I do?
Because it's historical fiction. The notion that zombies are somehow more plausible to you and something you can dismiss than reimagining the UK to be multiracial in the 19th century is beyond farcical to me.
>EVERYTHING was made up? Then it's not comparable to this show.
I mean the wider setting is not: It depicts Japanese occupied Korea.
"The notion that zombies are somehow more plausible to you and something you can dismiss than reimagining the UK to be multiracial in the 19th century is beyond farcical to me."
Absolutely mindboggling. Zombies are complete fantasy, once you get past that, a historical setting is no restriction. Black people are not fantasy, to accept an inclusive multiracial society in early 19th century is to ignore the complete history of humankind. Any reasonable person would understand the difference, but you're just out to prove to everybody else that you're some kind of morally superior person who just doesn't see race. Well, give yourself a pat on the back, good boy!
"I mean the wider setting is not: It depicts Japanese occupied Korea."
And that could never ever happen in a fictional story too, of course...
Bridgerton it filled with fictional characters and their fictional stories, that was obviously not my point.
>Absolutely mindboggling. Zombies are complete fantasy, once you get past that, a historical setting is no restriction.
And black people in high positions of power in the UK in the early 19th century are also examples of complete fantasy. So what's the difference?
>Black people are not fantasy, to accept an inclusive multiracial society in early 19th century is to ignore the complete history of humankind.
And accepting the existence of zombies spread by a kind of fungal infection is also complete fantasy.
>Bridgerton it filled with fictional characters and their fictional stories, that was obviously not my point.
As is Song of the Bandits. As is Gyeongseong Creature. As is Robin Hood. As is Sharpe. Pennyworth is a more modern example that depicts Pennyworth boning Queen Elizabeth in the 1960s. It also present (subtly) a more racially 'equal' society in its casting.
"And black people in high positions of power in the UK in the early 19th century are also examples of complete fantasy. So what's the difference?"
Are you AI??? I mean, it's not possible a real person other than a troll would actually utter those words. Or are you saying Bridgerton suggests a fungal infection caused black people to be in those high positions of power???
I can't believe I've wasted any of my time on a trollboy like you...
Now you just go ahead, go fight the good fight!✊🏾
>Are you AI??? I mean, it's not possible a real person other than a troll would actually utter those words. Or are you saying Bridgerton suggests a fungal infection caused black people to be in those high positions of power???
No, I'm saying that they're both things that did not happen in history. Yet you find one offensive, and the other not.
I'm not saying you should watch, or even like Bridgerton. I don't care about it myself. I live in Britain. I am British. No-one here gives a flying fuck about this series because it doesn't claim to be authentic history. You're doing exactly what woke people do on behalf of other cultures: taking offence on their behalf.
It's very different than the Netflix 'docudrama' of Cleopatra that did claim to be historical. That was outrageous.
Or Vikings Valhalla which did some dodgy casting.
Puhleaze, I'm not offended on behalf of anybody else. The only thing it offends is my intelligence. I'm not going to accept something so non-sensical just for the sake of diversity. And there is no other purpose to it than that.
And for the love of humanity, you can't seriously mean this is comparable to the zombie concept. If a zombie fungal infection was real, there is no reason it couldn't have happened in the past. Black people were very real at the time, but there were several reasons they were not in high positions in Britain in the Regency era.
Cleopatra was even worse, I'll give you that.
>Puhleaze, I'm not offended on behalf of anybody else. The only thing it offends is my intelligence. I'm not going to accept something so non-sensical just for the sake of diversity. And there is no other purpose to it than that.
So don't watch it then. Of course its dumb. It's a chick-flick. It's not trying to be much else. It's marketed to women who like upper class romances.
>And for the love of humanity, you can't seriously mean this is comparable to the zombie concept. If a zombie fungal infection was real, there is no reason it couldn't have happened in the past. Black people were very real at the time, but there were several reasons they were not in high positions in Britain in the Regency era.
And there are many scientific reasons why a zombie fungal infection (or zombies in general) aren't viable. But you're willing to overlook that potentially.
I mean I stopped watching Pennyworth when he became Queen Elizabeths secret lover. I wasn't upset. I just thought it was dumb and moved on. My expectation was for the show to be grittier and less goofy.
If anybody's upset it's you. I simply expressed my opinion that it's a stupid aspect of the show. I'm not ranting and raving about it. I also DO NOT WATCH THE SHOW. I think I already said that.
"It's not trying to be much else"
Except that the creator admits it's about being inclusive. And many, many shows and movies these days have been doing the same. It's more political than you make it out to be.
"But you're willing to overlook that potentially."
Because the whole concept of the show is that a zombie fungal infection exists. If you accept that it does, then time is not a restriction. However, black people are already real, not some elven folk, and they can't simply pop up in high positions in Regency England out of nowhere. It's infantile pandering.
>Except that the creator admits it's about being inclusive. And many, many shows and movies these days have been doing the same. It's more political than you make it out to be.
Okay, they're trying to be "inclusive". So? That's not really some controversial thing really.
Many other shows do it and pretend they don't (I'm talking chiefly about historical dramas here). At least Bridgerton is honest that it's being historical fiction.
If someone wants to reimagine a historical period with modern values, it's whatever. Just so long as they are honest they're doing that. How I see it is that in a general sense inclusivity in terms of casting decisions usually only matters when more capable white actors are shafted purely because of their race. It doesn't matter necessarily if its set in a time period where the racial makeup would be plausible. Now in the case of historical dramas, this in particular usually matters - but because Bridgerton is basically just an upper class romance drama which doesn't pretend to be historically accurate, it really doesn't bother me.
>Because the whole concept of the show is that a zombie fungal infection exists.
And the whole concept of this show is that the Uk had different levels of integration and demographics in that period of history.
>However, black people are already real, not some elven folk, and they can't simply pop up in high positions in Regency England out of nowhere. It's infantile pandering.
I would consider it pandering if they were purporting to be historically accurate. They aren't.
That's not the concept at all. The stories would be exactly the same with an all-white cast, like the book series it's based on.
The creator supports completely unfounded claims that Charlotte was a biracial woman, so they actually are trying to promote inaccurate history.
But admitting outside of the show that it's not historically correct makes no difference and neither does it being a trashy romance show. Just like all those other shows/movies, they're trying to put a certain image of history out there. And they don't even bother providing an explanation, let alone a plausible one.
If you want to be "inclusive", then tell a different story. There is no good reason for this current trend of misrepresenting history. If you think "whatever" about a show doing something like that, then it's astonishing you get so worked up about people simply posting a complaint about it. Follow your own advice...move on!
>That's not the concept at all. The stories would be exactly the same with an all-white cast, like the book series it's based on.
Okay?
>The creator supports completely unfounded claims that Charlotte was a biracial woman, so they actually are trying to promote inaccurate history.
That's stupid, but according to the Guardian: "Queen Charlotte begins with the disclaimer that it is “fiction inspired by fact” and that “all liberties taken by the author are quite intentional”. There turn out to be quite a lot of liberties. This prequel chronicles Charlotte’s arranged marriage to George III in 1761, which blossoms into real love and ushers in a new era of racial unity in Britain – just like Harry and Meghan didn’t."
>But admitting outside of the show that it's not historically correct makes no difference and neither does it being a trashy romance show. Just like all those other shows/movies, they're trying to put a certain image of history out there. And they don't even bother providing an explanation, let alone a plausible one.
If it's obviously implausible, as Bridgerton certainly is, no-one will care. I seem to recall A Discovery of Witches doing that shit in S02 a bit, but it was hardly a show grounded in reality. Pennyworth did. It had a proto-fascist political group based in 1960s UK where there were black people in the higher ranks. But it was obviously absurd. I think you overestimate how many people genuinely think that Bridgerton or Queen Charlotte represents any kind of fact.
>If you want to be "inclusive", then tell a different story. There is no good reason for this current trend of misrepresenting history. If you think "whatever" about a show doing something like that, then it's astonishing you get so worked up about people simply posting a complaint about it. Follow your own advice...move on!
To be clear, I don't just mean you - but the teeth gnashing and grinding from everyone. Especially as its (often) from Americans getting riled up over British history. Does the Hamilton musical also irritate you so?
It's not necessarily about the possible effect on the viewers, it's mostly about the intentions of the people behind the show. What they're doing is idiotic and I'll say it every time I see a movie or show do the same thing, because I don't see why they should not know that what they're doing is not appreciated.
While Hamilton is more satirical, I find it stupid as well, especially because its politics are way more in your face.
>It's not necessarily about the possible effect on the viewers, it's mostly about the intentions of the people behind the show.
Yeah, it's pandering maybe. Or just trying to allow black/hispanic/asian people to be in some weird multiracial reimagining of a historical period.
But I just don't see it as a big deal. At least not in Bridgertons case. The only one that was genuinely racist was Cleopatra. And the writer admitted she did it to (effectively) antagonise Egyptians.
the crying wont matter though.. nothing can be done about it
next generation will now grow up misbelieving british royals were black just like previous generations grew up misbelieving christian jesus was white
and the circle of life advances another revolution
In the end, it won't matter because everyone will be mixed race.
And then these numpties who cannot appreciate they are watching fiction rather than documentary footage from the nineteenth century will be lost.
They'll still want the stories of their important white historical figures to be told but will torn apart knowing that's not going to happen without casting actors of non historically accurate race. What a pickle!
I guess they have similar issues if African schools are doing productions of Scott of the Antarctic or Shakespeare say. It's great that these important white traditions are being played out but it's black kids playing the parts! Outrageous or so they want that history to continue to strong culturally worldwide? Again what a pickle for those custodians of "true" history...
nope i cant necessarily agree
starting from millions, down to about 200,000 years of modern human history till today evolving and yet we still don't have "everyone mixed race" in the way you mean here. so no, don't get your hopes up. maybe you are thinking millions of years into the future, things turn around?
besides that, look far in the future presumably there is realistic AI generated actors or something. real people won't be necessary at all. if anything -if that turns out to be the case- they'll have greater visually historical accuracy than we achieve now, not less; it would all be accurately synthasizable from nothing, or something
in this case also, it's different from the shakespeare etc because i'm pretty sure this is british/american production of bridgerton... not africans scrambling to find british actors. it's a conscious choice for fiction. but you are probably right actually: either way these are the kind of people who probably still would cry 'appropriation' if africans played shakespeare, because they are crying equivalent of that now with bridgerton.. (probably while denying they themselves appropriate elsewhere by the way). lots of people do that though. for example in USA i hear sometimes some black americans crying whenever nonblacks try rap or complain when white people dress and dance as traditional african on tiktok. they also 'fear' things "stolen from them" too. yes, it goes all ways.
plainly, in the case of entertainment, there's just political opportunism on all sides....though this is at least fictional. not a big deal. it's not a repeat of the ridiculous cleopatra case. it's just that everything now gets muddied up in the minds of the impotent riffraff
First of all, they believe Jesus actually existed, a claim for which there is no evidence outside the Bible. But if he did exist, he was a Jew, which is Caucasian, which is white.
share