BBC and Black Achilles Controversy: Politically Corectness Gone Mad?

[Fragony]

If we are going by ethnics, there was a time I dated a Greek girl and her father was angry and upset with her for dating an inferior white person. Though the fact her cousin was discovered to date a black person a couple of weeks later softened his stance a little as her cousin was effectively disowned. As expected it was short-lived regardless.

Though if we take a look at this picture of looks blended by nationality...there are differences between a English guy and a Greek guy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

However, I don't care if I see a black James Bond or whatever. It is clear the ones who do are simply discriminating against actors of colour rather than any sense of assigning the right 'ethnicity' to the person. If they want to go that far, campaign for Greek actors to do the role, don't be "satisfied" with an English man because he is "white" in some very ambiguous broad-term because that ain't Greek.

It's not discrimination to be against a black Bond, I wouldn't mind myself but there is nothing wrong with it if people do, Bond is just a certain character. Imho a black Bond is ok because the character keeps evolving, the grim Bond in the movies with Daniel Craige is completily different from the Bond films with lighthearted Roger Moore

[Beskar]

Nevermind a black man playing as a Greek.. Ancient Britons were black with blue eyes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192

[Fragony]

Nevermind a black man playing as a Greek.. Ancient Britons were black with blue eyes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192

BBC...

Could be, where are they? And how does it resonate with making Achilles black? Which was perfectly possible by the way but that doesn't matter really. The BBC simply has an agenda, that's all. They want to educate people, bend things to their will. Reality doesn't resonate with their disorder so they get pushy.

[Beskar]

BBC...

Could be, where are they? And how does it resonate with making Achilles black? Which was perfectly possible by the way but that doesn't matter really. The BBC simply has an agenda, that's all. They want to educate people, bend things to their will. Reality doesn't resonate with their disorder so they get pushy.

"This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in western Europe during this period."

We all had the same ancestors. Even then, Cheddar Man was actually from a later wave of migration as Cold Snaps pushed populations out of the area on at least two occasions.

Interesting was there is even a relative in the village, which means Cheddar man is their great x300~ grandfather.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eddar-Man.html

Now, you cannot accuse the Daily Fail of having the same 'agenda'...

[HopAlongBunny]

And another source:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/chedda...-eyed-boy.html

The science seems pretty clear; when the paper is released we will likely learn more.

[Fragony]

"This combination might appear striking to us today, but it was a common appearance in western Europe during this period."

We all had the same ancestors. Even then, Cheddar Man was actually from a later wave of migration as Cold Snaps pushed populations out of the area on at least two occasions.

Interesting was there is even a relative in the village, which means Cheddar man is their great x300~ grandfather.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eddar-Man.html

Now, you cannot accuse the Daily Fail of having the same 'agenda'...

Why is it a point, ever thought about that. And why.

[Viking]

With your Norwegian sample, the typical informed viewer shouldn't have their enjoyment of the show impacted by pseudo-Norwegian, whereas a Norwegian nationalist (or a certain type offended on behalf of Vikingdom) could have their sensibilities violated and take the performance as an insult to them personally or to their ethnic group collectively. Godless is set in the Wild West, and were it especially focused on the experience of Norwegian immigrants then the inauthenticity of the language could be a sign of laziness and detract from the experience.

[...] the series was filmed in South Africa). I'm sure, for instance, some nerds could nitpick topographic or botanical details, but for most purposes there likely isn't a great difference...

In both cases, many or most viewers who were knowledgeable or familiar enough with the topics at hand would find the inaccuracies off-putting and that they break the "suspension of disbelief" whenever they are at the centre of their attention.

Even if people speaking a certain language were the focus of a production and you told and convinced the audience in advance that the voice acting was far off the mark, a majority might still not care if the production otherwise appeals to them. Unless the spoken words obviously are complete gibberish, they can't tell how or when the voice acting is off, so they cannot personally experience the inaccuracies; they are abstract and theoretical to them.

(kind of relevant)

[CrossLOPER]

BBC...

Could be, where are they? And how does it resonate with making Achilles black? Which was perfectly possible by the way but that doesn't matter really. The BBC simply has an agenda, that's all. They want to educate people, bend things to their will. Reality doesn't resonate with their disorder so they get pushy.

The reality of an ancient myth.

[Noncommunist]

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

[Fragony]

The reality of an ancient myth.

Reality of a new religion; multiculturalism

[Husar]

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

Perhaps because you get no audience then?

[Gilrandir]

Perhaps because you get no audience then?

You underestimeate the power of the dark side of the force Hollywood.

[Husar]

You underestimeate the power of the dark side of the force Hollywood.

So which Hollywood movies are situated in Africa and did really well?

The White Masai?

[Fragony]

Shaka Zulu? A classic

[Husar]

Shaka Zulu? A classic

Never heard of that, I only watch movies about Germany.

No, seriously, we can also ask the WaPo, although even they seem more concerned about who is in it than where it takes place:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.ee1801344192

For all its grandeur, Hollywood is a fiscally conservative industry, and studios and financiers have long proved hesitant to invest tens of millions of dollars into projects backed by filmmakers they do not know.

Very often, the people they know share their skin tone. In 2013, more than 92 percent of movie studios’ senior executives, 82 percent of film directors and 88 percent of film writers were white, UCLA researchers said.

“When I go to [film studio] offices, I see no black folks except for . . . the security guard,” director Spike Lee said while accepting an honorary Oscar last month at the Governors Awards. “It’s easier to be the president of the United States as a black person than to be the head of a studio.”

That monolithic whiteness has created a chicken-and-egg problem: Talented actors and filmmakers of color are routinely shut out because they were never given a chance in the first place.

Over the past year, “my sense is not a lot has changed,” said Darnell Hunt, director of UCLA’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies. “The people who control the industry are still very reluctant to take a risk on untested talent — that is to say, people of color.”

It's a bit like the question why Activision releases a new Call of Duty every year and doesn't just produce a Point and Click adventure with an innovative new idea instead. Because they know CoD will sell.
It's not just Hollywood either, how many movies starring Africans come from Bollywood? Why is Doctor Who always "British" and why does he always visit the UK to get his sidekicks? Racist much? Then again the German movie industry produces mostly movies situated in Germany as well. With the exception of a few cheesy ones that are set in Istanbul, England, Africa, etc. It's the same everywhere, you get mostly home turf and a few different ones for the exotic factor.

I don't think movies from Uganda feature a lot of white actors for diversity.
Anyway, I'm hungry.

[CrossLOPER]

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

I'm still not understanding what issue you are trying to solve.

Reality of a new religion; multiculturalism

Isn't that one of those meaningless words that you keep saying? I'm not sure how the cognitive dissonance hasn't ripped you in two, yet.

[Fragony]

Cognitive dissonance is also just a word. I know all about it I got a psycholigy degree. Which also means nothing, at all

[Suraknar]

@ Suraknar

If the film was for a primarily Greek audience I would agree, it is however not. As I've argued with Montmorency, this myth has been appropriated by general 'Western' society. It's one of the tragedies of something being so successful that the original 'owners' of something are overshadowed by the wider successive theme. Yoga is more associated with affluent white women than India in the West, Romeo and Juliet is associated with Shakespeare instead of the original Italian author, Buddha looks fat and Chinese in most portrayals instead of a thin Indian and so on. This casting decision has brought to light that some pockets of 'western society' don't agree with that choice. The reaction will be muted of course and it'll be a new normal.
Personally I'd prefer it to be as accurate as reasonable can be done. 'Historical' films and series that attempt that certainly win my viewership. The 300 was an abomination in my eyes, Disney's Pearl Harbor reboot was terrible as well. I'm picky about my myths and history, most people are ignorant about both so be prepared for this to continue on further.

I agree with the fact that there has been some "appropriation" as you say, however I disagree about the reason of it. In my view, the appropriation was done for one goal, financial profit.

The Movie "Troy", with Brad Pitt was also not for a primarily Greek Audience. In fact I would argue that it is precisely because a movie is meant for a wider audience that it has the responsibility, when positioning itself as a Historical movie, to be Historically Accurate because of the Educational and Informative characteristic.

If the movie was like "300", which did not claim to be History but rather an adaptation of a Cartoon for the Big Screen, and thus its lavishly artistic style, then I would accept it as this and say "if you liked it click here to know more : The real History of the 300 Spartans"...

Nevertheless, as you said, and I agree as well with that statement, the reaction, yours mine a portion of a population, will be muted and ignored within the fanfare of sensationalism of the media, marketing, trailers, pats on the back, movie awards interviews and, as you mention, surfing upon the wave that is general ignorance about History etc etc...

Yet, it still does not make it right. Financial Profiteering trumps all other considerations...at the expense of Knowledge. And that is the real tragedy in the end for Humanity.

[Suraknar]

Here's my overall summary to wrap things up, followed by the quibbles:

The new Troy miniseries is a Game of Thrones style drama with an aesthetic of Hollywood neo-antique (something cf. neo-medievalism. of which there are endless examples). It doesn't aim for an authentic reproduction of the original work in the context of its Classical reception, what and how it meant to Ancient Greeks. It's a wholly modern adaptation, with modern tropes and contrivances.

I don't maintain that Achilles must be cast with a black guy.

I don't maintain that some roles or jobs, regardless of setting, should always be set aside for a given underrepresented group.

I don't maintain that this particular adaptation is sure to be a good watch, or a critical hit, or even that casting a black Achilles (or this specific actor as Achilles) must be an improvement over other possible configurations.

I do maintain that casting a black guy as Achilles does not intrinsically damage the source material, the adaptation, or the Greek people/heritage.

For me, the issue is strictly Historical Accuracy. I believe I mentioned that in the end this does not make any Greek Insecure about their Heritage. It is all a question of disappointment. Which means that there is agreement to the point that you make in relation to damaging the source material. No it doe snot.

What it does damage however is people's knowledge. In a world where we have several societies which have come to the point of getting their education from movies literally. It is important that the information expressed is Historically accurate when claiming to be showing History.

Now, if as indeed as you say, this series is just loosely using Source material to try and invent its own narrative for purely entertainment "artistic" and financial profit goals then I suppose not much is damaged and this is no different than Cartoon Hercules from Disney. If you want to know the real History press here. :)

In retrospect, for me the Beauty and awesomeness of a series such as game of Thrones is the fact that it is a Fiction Masterpiece. Trying to emulate Game of Thrones by borrowing from real history in an attempt to provide the backdrop of the setting upon which we can express a different "interpretation" (again for profit)..is in my view a poor way to try and get a piece of the pie that lacks creativity and innovation. ;)

But it may actually work, unfortunately, because most people are not knowledgeable about History in general, and will relish the entertainment of it all. Which is again what I find deplorable and disappointing about the Producers.

It's not clear to me whether Netflix is involved in the production in addition to the international distribution, but let's say it is.

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-...hit-or-a-myth/

Yes, this is a Co-Production between Netflix and BBC.


[quote]I won't bash the desire for sensitivity, in that people may want their culture portrayed respectfully and authentically.

But here I would rejoin:

1. If the Iliad is a foundational text of Western culture, then Greeks cannot claim cultural propriety over its dissemination, at least not within the West. Maybe the Iliad is just as much an Anglo-American, German, or Italian fixture as a Greek one.

I do not agree with the logic here.

If you like to pain in tones of Yellow (your original culture) and I like to Paint in tones of Blue (Greek culture). And You like my paintings and get influenced by my use of Blue and you choose to incorporate some of blue in your paintings and they turn out Green (Western Culture).

Does that mean that I lose ownership of my original preference and choice to use Blue which characterizes my Culture? Of course not. My Culture iremains mine and the events and deeds that define it remain my property, independently of the fact that they influenced you and contributed to the definition of your culture.

You may portray your culture as you wish, describe it as you wish even with any amount of blue in it even if it came from me because as yours because your actions made the Green and not mine. But you cannot say that Blue is now yours and it doe snot mean that you can rewrite the events that led me to use Blue in the first place, you are not owner of those.

In that sense, the new Series, is a Cartoon, a Caricature of Ancient Greek History. Wish you to have many profits and enjoy the Champagne.

2. Greeks and Greek culture are not threatened by a British production, while other cultures could potentially be (more so). Nor does (hackles alert for conservatives) a production threaten the culture within which it is made.

Not threatened since this is a Caricature for the Goal of Financial Profit. Not claiming to be Historical or Historically Accurate.

3. In many respects the historical details of the Trojan war and the people involved are not well known, and controversial.

They are written black on white...why can't people follow them? The evocation of a controversy is just there to justify the Historical inaccuracy or deviation from Historical source.

3.a. Multiple interpretations are possible that would conform with available evidence, so even productions interested in historical-rootedness could come to fairly different results.

I am sorry why does the mention of Achilles being blond in the Illiad need interpretation? What evidence is there about Achilles other than Homer who is the source material? No, deviating from source material turns the object of creation (the series) a caricature...

3.b. Ancient Greece is not modern Greece, the Iliad is an ancient text and the evidence for the events it describes is basically archaeological. Philology and archaeology are specialized disciplines and their study is not confined to the country of the objects of study. Greeks don't have special knowledge of Ancient Greece by the fact of being born Greeks.

Modern Greeks are descendants of Ancient Greeks, it is a continuous evolution. It did not stop and re-claimed by some other people who had no link to the previous ones. This is Greece we are talking about not FYROM. I know that many in the West like to make this distinction because it makes it easier for appropriation. But the facts are facts.

Now, You are right that Greeks don't have special knowledge of Ancient Greece by the fact of being born Greeks, because any Greek could be born anywhere and knowledge of history depends where you grow up and what you learn in school.

In Greece, we start learning History from the 3rd year of elementary and the History of Troy is included. In High school, we learn to read and Ancient Greek and for three years go through both the Homeric Epics in Philology Classes. And this along side Philosophy, Modern Greek Literature. One doe snot have to go to University in a specialized program in Greece to learn these things. All learn it as part of basic education.

[quote]4. Most historical movies, including ancient-historical movies, apply modern preconceptions and interpretations in constructing a cinematic world, with just a few cases paying special attention to surface trappings like clothing, art, architecture, weaponry, etc.; by all accounts you should be disappointed in almost every production portraying Ancient Greek/Hellenic culture and history for their disrespectful inaccuracies. [quote]

To a degree I am. But hey no one and nothing s ever perfect. Perfection is an illusion that we often pursue at the begging of our lives :)

With all that said, what do you think of the Brad Pitt Troy from 2004? [...]

Actually I somehow liked it, it was a Take of the story sans the Supernatural element. Achilles was not an Immortal but perceived as one due to his prowess in combat. It was a realistic take of the story. The way he dies in the end, pulling all the arrows out of his body (which were the ones causing his death) except the one on hi heel, the way that he was found lying in the ground and the way he was seen by the fellow Greek soldiers who considered him invincible suggests the source upon which the "Legendary and Mythical" parts of the story followed and evolved later through oral tradition to the form we got from Homer.

It also put forth the fact that Hellen and Paris love affair was actually a pretext to Agamemnon's ambition to unite all of the city states under his rule. This is something that is known and suspected and discussed even when learning the Iliad.

It had inaccuracies of course. From uniforms to People and events even..but overall I would say OK. Now..I will of course watch the new Series even if I disagree with the casting Choice. Especially since it is Caricature or more or less Fiction.

I believe we are misunderstanding each other. We agree that myth has a historical basis. What I'm noting is that the Iliad is the written version of an oral tradition, so it is a historical work but not a work of history. The Iliad is not a factual description of a series of people and events. It suggests to us there was a war involving kingdoms in Greece and kingdoms in Asia Minor, but nothing more can be taken for granted. The history of the Iliad comes from evidence outside the Iliad. We have no knowledge of or evidence for real, specific people corresponding to those named in the Iliad, outside the Iliad. They are no different from Hercules in this respect. Therefore, we have no reason to speak of a "historical" Achilles or "historical" Menelaus simply on the basis of the Iliad. Not to say these figures can't have existed, just that we have no reason to believe they did. Indeed, we give just the same treatment to most of the Bible, because the Bible is not a treatise on history.

So I take it that you are not aware of the Archeological Finding of the City of Troy and the other Mycenaean cities of mainland Greece? You are not aware of the the archeological finds of Agamemnon? I reckon, evidence is not as clear as the Classical period of Greece. Lets not forget that shortly after Troy there was a 400 year Dark Period in the region from which only the Egyptians seem to have survived intact albeit weakened. Still, these are not myths, the remnant evidence of all this exists.

This is all to say that the "story of Troy" is history - but the Iliad is not the history of Troy or the Trojan War.

I agree, same as the Bible, the Homeric Works are not Historical ones according to our modern notion of what makes a historical work. Still they are part of the History of a People, who considered this work a chronicle of their history in their times. It may have come to us as a mythical story today. Yet I think we can, understanding the ancient literary style of expression, also try and place ourselves within that context and realize that it is not Myth. And of course corroborated by the archeological evidence available to us, since there is corroborating evidence. I am not asking for leaps of faith here.

Cheers!

[Gilrandir]

So which Hollywood movies are situated in Africa and did really well?

The White Masai?

They just didn't try hard.

They are written black on white...why can't people follow them? The evocation of a controversy is just there to justify the Historical inaccuracy or deviation from Historical source.

Perhaps because they are written as a myth or Homer's epic, but NOT as an accurate historic account.

[CrossLOPER]

Cognitive dissonance is also just a word. I know all about it I got a psycholigy degree. Which also means nothing, at all

So why do you keep posting? Why not suspend the account and go volunteer at a homeless shelter or something?

[Fragony]

My own place is a shelteer for homeless, I don't agree with immigration policies but I won't deny them a spare bed if I have one

[Sarmatian]

My own place is a shelteer for homeless, I don't agree with immigration policies but I won't deny them a spare bed if I have one

Not so sure that's so safe for them considering the amount of violent friends you have.

[Fragony]

Not so sure that's so safe for them considering the amount of violent friends you have.

What do you mean by that, my friends are artists doctors, there is no threat at all from me.

Example, Syrian, gay, sure welcome. He was absolutely terrified of the people in those assylum camps. Nothing to be afraid about with me I never harm what doesn't want to harm me. My friends will also never hurt you, I basicly saved his life.

[Montmorency]

What do you mean by that, my friends are artists doctors, there is no threat at all from me.

Example, Syrian, gay, sure welcome. He was absolutely terrified of the people in those assylum camps. Nothing to be afraid about with me I never harm what doesn't want to harm me. My friends will also never hurt you, I basicly saved his life.

How did you find him? What happened to the African staying with you a couple years ago?

[Montmorency]

In both cases, many or most viewers who were knowledgeable or familiar enough with the topics at hand would find the inaccuracies off-putting and that they break the "suspension of disbelief" whenever they are at the centre of their attention.

Even if people speaking a certain language were the focus of a production and you told and convinced the audience in advance that the voice acting was far off the mark, a majority might still not care if the production otherwise appeals to them. Unless the spoken words obviously are complete gibberish, they can't tell how or when the voice acting is off, so they cannot personally experience the inaccuracies; they are abstract and theoretical to them.

(kind of relevant)

I've thought about it, but the more I think the more it seems like a case-by-case and personal evaluation. The only real universal or common thread I can think of is identifying "holes" in plot events or character decisions. Everything else is highly variable between viewers. There could be a time travel movie in which Old Character X and Young Character X interact. If the two are cast with different actors and there is a strong mismatch in appearances, it might affect the experience negatively, or it just might not. Same without time travel but a portrayal of the same character decades apart. Moreover, what if they cast the same actor but the makeup is off? Not only does it depend on the individual viewer, it interacts with all the other elements of the movie to determine the final impression.

Or back to military history. When I learned something about the mechanics of cavalry warfare, a lot of movie scenes were downgraded in my view. Most memorably, the cavalry charges in the Peter Jackson LOTR trilogy look a lot like bull stampedes: the horses just sort of run through the enemy ranks, and the riders don't even use their weapons. Later on, I revised my negative impressions because I considered the safety aspect for the performers, and ultimately it's not that big a deal anyway. Probably the ones who were bothered most are the ones who already disliked the movies for their approach to the Tolkien universe.

And so on.

Yet, it still does not make it right. Financial Profiteering trumps all other considerations...at the expense of Knowledge. And that is the real tragedy in the end for Humanity.

This is one of those things largely distinct from the other points under discussion, but why does a visual adaptation need to be "historically accurate", keeping in mind that they are usually mostly inaccurate? If there were no financial motive, inaccuracy would still persist. The argument that it's a responsibility of the maker to prevent the audience from getting incorrect impressions of a period, person, or event is really quite restrictive and seems to ignore the purpose of media is as a rule to be evocative rather than informative. The answer is an audience that knows how to think critically, rather than accepting illiteracy and trying to equate image with text or abstract knowledge.

I do not agree with the logic here.

If you like to pain in tones of Yellow (your original culture) and I like to Paint in tones of Blue (Greek culture). And You like my paintings and get influenced by my use of Blue and you choose to incorporate some of blue in your paintings and they turn out Green (Western Culture).

Does that mean that I lose ownership of my original preference and choice to use Blue which characterizes my Culture? Of course not. My Culture iremains mine and the events and deeds that define it remain my property, independently of the fact that they influenced you and contributed to the definition of your culture.

This is actually a bad analogy, because the use of a color is such a basic thing that no person or group could reasonably claim ownership of it. The thing to acknowledge is that in the context of a Western culture there is no need for deference or restraint in the circulation of Western ideas and symbols; that ship sailed a thousand years ago.

They are written black on white...why can't people follow them?

I am sorry why does the mention of Achilles being blond in the Illiad need interpretation? What evidence is there about Achilles other than Homer who is the source material? No, deviating from source material turns the object of creation (the series) a caricature...

Why does it need to, and why specifically the appearance of Achilles compared to any other detail? Adaptation inevitably deviates from or adds to the source material, and "it was in the source material" is never a justification for inclusion of any which thing. What is your opinion of the Peter Jackson LOTR movies?

Actually I somehow liked it, it was a Take of the story sans the Supernatural element. Achilles was not an Immortal but perceived as one due to his prowess in combat. It was a realistic take of the story. The way he dies in the end, pulling all the arrows out of his body (which were the ones causing his death) except the one on hi heel, the way that he was found lying in the ground and the way he was seen by the fellow Greek soldiers who considered him invincible suggests the source upon which the "Legendary and Mythical" parts of the story followed and evolved later through oral tradition to the form we got from Homer.

It also put forth the fact that Hellen and Paris love affair was actually a pretext to Agamemnon's ambition to unite all of the city states under his rule. This is something that is known and suspected and discussed even when learning the Iliad.

It had inaccuracies of course. From uniforms to People and events even..but overall I would say OK. Now..I will of course watch the new Series even if I disagree with the casting Choice. Especially since it is Caricature or more or less Fiction.

So you liked 2004 Troy for having a meta-discursive take on the supernatural aspects of the story, or for trying to have one. But I'm not sure what distinction you are making by calling it a "caricature". The Life of Brian is a caricature, a satire. The History of the World, Part I is a caricature.

What do you make of The Warriors, a gangland adventure set in 1970s New York City but based on (a book based on) Xenophon's Anabasis? How about a stage adaptation that did the same thing with the Iliad, faithfully and accurately representing the characters and themes of the original (including the cultural and religious stuff) but with a cast and setting of New York City slums?

I agree, same as the Bible, the Homeric Works are not Historical ones according to our modern notion of what makes a historical work. Still they are part of the History of a People, who considered this work a chronicle of their history in their times. It may have come to us as a mythical story today. Yet I think we can, understanding the ancient literary style of expression, also try and place ourselves within that context and realize that it is not Myth. And of course corroborated by the archeological evidence available to us, since there is corroborating evidence. I am not asking for leaps of faith here.

What's the point you're making? I'm not contesting the possibility of a conflict like that described in the Iliad (though there is no direct evidence for one). There is no evidence for any of the specific people or things mentioned. But as I'm saying, the historical details are never really the basis for adapting literature.

Why not just set more stories in Africa so you get more stories where you can use black actors and where it historically(or legendarily) makes more sense?

Never heard of that, I only watch movies about Germany.

No, seriously, we can also ask the WaPo, although even they seem more concerned about who is in it than where it takes place:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.ee1801344192



It's a bit like the question why Activision releases a new Call of Duty every year and doesn't just produce a Point and Click adventure with an innovative new idea instead. Because they know CoD will sell.
It's not just Hollywood either, how many movies starring Africans come from Bollywood? Why is Doctor Who always "British" and why does he always visit the UK to get his sidekicks? Racist much? Then again the German movie industry produces mostly movies situated in Germany as well. With the exception of a few cheesy ones that are set in Istanbul, England, Africa, etc. It's the same everywhere, you get mostly home turf and a few different ones for the exotic factor.

I don't think movies from Uganda feature a lot of white actors for diversity.
Anyway, I'm hungry.

We can do both. But keep in mind that black people exist outside of Africa.

For example, movies like Get Out and TV series like Blackish and Insecure. Still haven't seen Get Out, but I watched the first season of Insecure and it seems competent enough, though I'm not so interested in this kind of "slice-of-life" programming.

[Husar]

We can do both. But keep in mind that black people exist outside of Africa.

For example, movies like Get Out and TV series like Blackish and Insecure. Still haven't seen Get Out, but I watched the first season of Insecure and it seems competent enough, though I'm not so interested in this kind of "slice-of-life" programming.

Sure, but just because 10% of people are left-handed, we don't demand that 50% of computer mice are for left-handed people or symmetrical.
Black people are already represented in film, but if they're 10% of the population, fairness does not mean they need 50% of the roles. Because then Asians will want 50% of the roles, middle easterners will want 50% of the roles and eastern europeans will want another 50% of the roles. and then we have to give yet another 50% of the roles to the disabled (or various sub-groups) and 50% to the LGBTQs and so on.
If anyone is really underrepresented in mainstream TV in the western world, it's probably the disabled.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/rele.../cb12-134.html

20% of the US population have some kind of disability, 12.7% of the US population are African Americans, but none of that seems to feature on TV. I can think of a few exceptions such as Navy CIS, although the actress is not actually disabled, so the roles usually go to able-bodied actors, a bit like painting a white actor black. So I'm pretty sure that African Americans feature far more prominently in movies than disabled people. Which is not to say I really care about how many African Americans are in movies, it just appears that for full fairness in terms of representing the actual population of the country in Hollywood, more African Americans are statistically not the biggest concern.

Now that I think about it, maybe we could add that to the many problems I have with Scorpion. Not only are they really obnoxious about their IQ numbers and have to rub them into everyone's face, I don't really remember a single black "genius" on the show so far, although they did include an asian. It is possible that there was a single musical "genius" on one episode, but I barely remember what he looked like (could have been white as well).

[Montmorency]

OK? It's perfectly true that disability isn't depicted either frequently or realistically. Informally I've observed that individual characters with disabilities, incidental or otherwise, may be less common than movies about disabilities or movies with protagonists who have disabilities. Last one I saw: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2405372/ Or maybe I just don't remember them.

That everything that exists must be represented in everything is both impossible and an obvious strawman. I didn't expect that coming from you.

[Fragony]

How did you find him? What happened to the African staying with you a couple years ago?

There are many. Syrians, Somali's Etheopians, Dutch, I think weall have a silent mutual agreement to forget everything, it's dehumasing to have to depend on someone.I will help when I can, it's not our fault that they need help, it isn't their fault. I think I can congratulate myself on actualy doing something, actually helping people. Doing something yourself is a lot more demanding then having others do it and feel feel good about yourself, parasites imho/ I will never ask anything in return, I'll celebrate my kind nature silently

[Husar]

That everything that exists must be represented in everything is both impossible and an obvious strawman. I didn't expect that coming from you.

The point is not necessarily that everything has to be represented, but who decides what is worthy and what is not? Or when it is enough?
You said earlier in this thread (I apologize if I misremember) that black actors also want jobs, but so do disabled actors. So why should I campaign for black actors to get more jobs even if they become over-represented while disabled ones also want jobs and are still underrepresented? Of course ideally everyone would get their dream job and then there wouldn't be an issue, but that seems a bit unrealistic at this point, no?

I may have also left the rails of the thread a bit. My point about Africa wasn't that Hollywood should make more movies about Africa, but that there needs to be a bigger/international African movie industry that can then make movies about Africa. Preferably one financed from inside Africa. And by Africa I mean ideally in all or several African countries. Hollywood is US-centric because that's their main audience and their main source of income. The problem might just be that they make the best movies now by far and audiences choose their movies over others with limited time and money being available for movies. This is an inherent stepping stone for industries in other countries to become bigger and more relevant. Til Schweiger didn't try to become big in the German movie industry, he tried to go to Hollywood. He failed there, came back and now he's trying to make bigger domestic movies here and is somewhat successful. This is important because it shows that Hollywood is the only elephant in the room and everybody else is second at best. Africa is not an important market for them and the US has a 12.7% black population, plus they market a lot to Europe with a similar or lower ratio of black people. I would guess that aside from inherent racism, they also base their decisions on market research, even if that only means the box office returns of previous movies. And so they don't include a lot more black actors.

Regarding the BBC, they're in the unique and important position that popularity and income are not the only factors they have to consider, although I would guess they also have viewership targets that they have to try to meet. They already made Porthos in The Musketeers an Algerian IIRC and if anything that made him more interesting. They're clearly on a missionary streak as well, that much is obvious by watching Dr. Who, who mentions the beauty of diversity one way or another on at least every second episode. The thing is it's British, they're weird. They think the BBC is brainwashing, but when they did the same thing in all their colonies after forcefully subjugating the locals by killing most of their military age men, they now claim the people there should be thankful for having been indoctrinated with civilization. So I say let them go ahead and indoctrinate the English knuckleheads with more civilization now, they shall be thankful in a few years!