Is it good to portray an “aspirational” history in fiction?

[OddBeMe]

It’s not rewriting history. But it could be glossing over horrible bits.

This guy would be dead by Ep 2

it’s not good

It’s fine

Other

[Drewtate]

I don't think it's good. Its often delusional.

I mean if you ever seen Bridgerton the idea that there was a black British queen and black members of the aristocracy is ridiculous when the British empire basically during the period had vast colonies of slaves and ruled a vast empire of colored people they thought of as racially inferior and treated as such.

I get why the white feminist wokies do it. Its because they like the costume period, the lifestyle of these aristocrats and all those Jane Austen type novels but all of that is problematic because POC are not represented on screen in them and the period is basically racist and they seek to address this by shoehorning POC into these shows. White feminist women love these Bridgetton, Jane Austen, Emily bronte stories because the life of a wealthy privileged entitled spoiled woman who is so oppressed by society but really has no real problems compared to the majority of society who basically had the aristocracy standing on their backs as their servants. If you make movies about European history there won't be POC in it, just white people.

[OddBeMe]

Being a history buff whilst my wife watches season 2 was even worse. Indians would be the servants not rich fucks. Lol

[Drewtate]

Indians could be rich f*cks but in India only, those 3 indian women they wouldn'tbe allowed to rub shoulders with the British elites. The Bridgerton guy would have married one of his cousins, kept a mistress and if he was sent to India as an official of the British government he would have had those 3 Indian women as his mistresses because that's exactly what the British did up until the white women were brought over.
The only thing I did like about the depiction of history in the show was George III, he was probably the best king the British ever had. He was instrumental in pushing through science and technological advancement. The British depict him as the mad King and we jn America as a tyrant.

[OddBeMe]

I mean a show that dipicted that would be better I think. I remember David Mamet’s review of Schindler’s List and how it made all viewers feel vindicated from guilt (not direct guilt but just humanly).

But Hollywood has a formula for a reason. Deviate off it and you make no money. Supply/demand.

[Drewtate]

I don't know why the viewer should feel guilt over schindler's list unless their country was part of the Axis.
I think Hollywood's formula is getting tired and is costing them but also Hollywood has a weird concept of morality that in a lot of recent movies when they try to take the moral high ground falls apart. Like if you ever seen those jurassic world movies, in the 2nd movie all these prehistoric dinosaurs escape into the wild and there's a PETA like save the dinosaur group morally opposed to killing off the dinosaurs but the problem with that is that if dinosaurs were somehow reintroduced to the world they would be a completely invasive species that would wipe out most other animal life. Giant dinosaurs swimming the seas eating all the Wales, top predators being hunted to extinction, pterodactyls preying on people etc. The entire ecology and climate changed.

[strateguy632]

in fiction no problem to dramatize and change characters

[Sevenpointfive]

what do you mean by aspirational? like an alternate?

[OddBeMe]

Isn’t it?

[Sevenpointfive]

i just didn't know if by aspire you intended to mean what it means. but with that clarified you are talking about FICTION. i think any fiction is good fiction. it could be MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE where the nazis won, or something like that. if you take the fiction away, then what's left? thought crimes?