Empire and a Sopranos video game?
This show will be trashy AF.
I can not stop laughing, like that is the best they could get?
Empire and a Sopranos video game?
This show will be trashy AF.
I mean McGruder actually had some talent behind his show from jump.
Confederate copped the lead writer of Empire, and McGruder made Black Jesus. No contest
Seven Killings begins with the attempted assassination of reggae icon Bob Marley and explores its aftermath, looking at one vital day in multiple time periods. The novel looked at Jamaican politics, poverty, race, class and the volatile relationship between the U.S. and the Caribbean, and traced the connection between CIA efforts to destabilize a left-wing Jamaican government in the 1970s to the brutal realities of gang wars in the Kingston ghettos and their spread to New York in the 1980s.
Melina Matsoukas, chief director of the HBO series Insecure, is tackling an adaptation of the award-winning Marlon James novel A Brief History of Seven Killings for Amazon Studios.
Matsoukas is developing the project as a series and will executive produce as well as direct the episodes. Teaming with her is James, who will write the script as well as executive produce, while Malcolm Spellman, a writer and co-executive producer on Empire, will be the showrunner and exec produce as well.
Empire and a Sopranos video game?
This show will be trashy AF.
If you had a "what if the Nazis won" story pitched about Germany, a lot of Germans would not be happy.
The US doesn't have a history of 1940s Nazis running the country. It does have a history of slavery. Hence, the difference.
He's also the showrunner for Amazons TV adaption of Marlon James's A Brief History of Seven Killings.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...er-prize-winning-novel-amazon-studios-1042835
Hey, if you cant trust the tester of the hit videogame "tiny tank" to write this, who can you?
I mean its basically a spin on the "what if the Nazi's won WW2" plot that gets used a lot. No one accuses Bethesda of glorying the Nazi's in Wallenstein or in every sci fi TV show that has used it every now and again during the last 30 years.
With this I think it is just not the right time for it. People are simply not in the mood
The creators of the show have already shown themselves. It being D&D who is making this show has a LOT to do with why this is getting backlash.
Their work on GOT is a pretty good gauge and look who they hired to run and write the show.
They are producing a product for consumers, consumers are allowed to talk about a product until they seen it?
Obviously no one can directly prevent them.
Im simply waiting to see the fucking thing before I judge it. Unlike the majority of GAF going by the past few threads on the subject.
In principle I object to shouting the thing down before it even really exists.
Great stuff. Was worried they would get cold feet due to all that furore. Looking forward to this show.
I mean, is it even remotely possible those two learned something from their past experiences? I don't know, honestly. And that's why I'd like to see the thing before I jump too far down HBO's throat over it.
Yup, they took away the anti-war message of GoT and replaced it with the glorification of violence. Trusting them would probably be a mistake
I mean its basically a spin on the "what if the Nazi's won WW2" plot that gets used a lot. No one accuses Bethesda of glorying the Nazi's in Wallenstein or in every sci fi TV show that has used it every now and again during the last 30 years.
With this I think it is just not the right time for it. People are simply not in the mood
The day this show is up, I'm dropping HBO. I'll miss John Oliver but by then veep will likely be over as will game of thrones and maybe Insecure.
Other People: "Stop oppressing HBO!"HBO: "Watch our new show with slavery in it!"
Black people: "You should probably not do that. This is a bad idea and harmful to us as a race of people."
HBO: "Please understand."
I can not stop laughing, like that is the best they could get?
HBO: "Watch our new show with slavery in it!"
Black people: "You should probably not do that. This is a bad idea and harmful to us as a race of people."
HBO: "Please understand."
But if one half of the creative team is responsible for the single most successful property in HBO's history, and the other half is not, how can you say they're equal? If there is a creative disagreement between the four of them, who's side do you think HBO is going to take? They're fundamentally not equal.
United but unequal
I dont trust the Game of Thrones writers with racial issues at all. They enjoy violent, pornographic material too much and it's my firm belief they would put out the equivalent of Goodbye Uncle Tom if they believed they could get away with it.
Frankly, Im still annoyed with the Orientalist way non-White people and cultures were depicted in some of those Game of Thrones episodes. I still have flashbacks to the scenes where they made sure to have the darkest of Black people playing slavers or slaves and hundreds of brown people bowing down in fealty and worship to an Aryan White queen.
You really see no difference between how things were handled after the confederacy lost vs when the nazis lost?Sure, but the US does have a history of Americans being killed by Nazis and Jewish-Americans either fleeing the Nazis or their parents/grandparents/families fleeing or killed by the Nazis. That's why Nazis are such easy punching bags in this country -- we all agree they were evil and did a lot of harm to us or people we know.
Is she wearing jeans?
I highly, highly doubt it. GoT's monumental ratings aside, this show doesn't seem like it's trying to be a mass-appeal, demographic-crossing hit. HBO believes in this as their answer to 'political' TV, a show that pushes buttons and gets people talking across the spectrum. It's Emmy bait, just very poorly considered Emmy bait.It will have high ratings just to show you how many white people want this show. I wouldn't be surprised if it tops Game of Thrones ratings.
You really see no difference between how things were handled after the confederacy lost vs when the nazis lost?
I'm not sure where you got that from my post.
HBO: "Watch our new show with slavery in it!"
Black people: "You should probably not do that. This is a bad idea and harmful to us as a race of people."
HBO: "Please understand."
I'd feel (slightly) more optimistic if it was being created by David Simon. GoT creators give me zero confidence it will be anything but a shit show.
You're using Man in the High Castle as a comparison, are you not?
So do you see why the two are completely different or no?
I have been told by people within HBO that Benioff, Weiss, Nichelle and Malcolm Spellman pitched the show together and have "equal say" on the show.
But if one half of the creative team is responsible for the single most successful property in HBO's history, and the other half is not, how can you say they're equal? If there is a creative disagreement between the four of them, who's side do you think HBO is going to take? They're fundamentally not equal.
And I've since heard a little more of the concept, and I have even less confidence in the concept than I did originally.
Also, if the idea is that the North and South fought to a stalemate, yet the South got to keep slavery until modern times, then they didn't fight to a stalemate. The South fucking won.
My point was that I don't see why Confederate gets raked over the coals and something like Man in the High Castle doesn't when both shows effectively empower their respective villains from history. I am not saying Confederate doesn't deserve criticism, I am saying why doesn't Man in the High Castle or similar historical fiction stories about Nazis winning the war get more flak, particularly now when we have Neo Nazis making themselves louder and bolder than ever before?
A lot of the Confederate criticism seems to boil down to three different but overlapping points: that D&D are bad writers, that D&D are racists, and that D&D, even with the best of intentions, may accidentally (or perhaps intentionally, since they are allegedly racist) create slaveholder characters that are sympathetic or likable in some way that emboldens real life white supremacists. I disagree with the first two points, and think the third is certainly possible, but don't see why it's any more potentially problematic here than in any other piece of historical fiction that creates potentially likable, charismatic main characters out of historical villains.
One difference is Nazis got defeated, so it's fine to do a what if on that.
America has never addressed its own slavery and racism issue since "winning" the war. It's insulting that it is entertainment fodder.
Not that racism isn't still an enormous, and even understated, problem today, but the idea that America has *never addressed* slavery and racism is so absurd I don't even know where to start.
The Nazis were defeated, and yet Neo Nazis and anti-Semites continue to not only exist but peddle their influence in growing numbers. We just saw hundreds of them chanting JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US in the open last month! The Nazis may have lost, but Nazism and its ideological underpinnings are still alive and well.
My point was that I don't see why Confederate gets raked over the coals and something like Man in the High Castle doesn't when both shows effectively empower their respective villains from history. I am not saying Confederate doesn't deserve criticism, I am saying why doesn't Man in the High Castle or similar historical fiction stories about Nazis winning the war get more flak, particularly now when we have Neo Nazis making themselves louder and bolder than ever before?
A lot of the Confederate criticism seems to boil down to three different but overlapping points: that D&D are bad writers, that D&D are racists, and that D&D, even with the best of intentions, may accidentally (or perhaps intentionally, since they are allegedly racist) create slaveholder characters that are sympathetic or likable in some way that emboldens real life white supremacists. I disagree with the first two points, and think the third is certainly possible, but don't see why it's any more potentially problematic here than in any other piece of historical fiction that creates potentially likable, charismatic main characters out of historical villains.
How has it ?
Not sure what you are saying here? That literally nothing has been done?