Da Illest-yiad

www.google.com

>user's face when if you look at the cave drawings of stone age man, most of them are furverts
i don't see why people think history is boring
why did they make achilles black when eurybates is actually black? next they'll include the fall of troy.

I like it. He looks fierce and shit. Veeky Forums is such a racist hole, I'm not SJW, but clearly this is as close to Achilles as Brad Pitt was (ie very little but who cares) though no one was complaining then.

Eurybates is the only black man among the greeks that we know of

I think Brad Pitt was bad casting too. Both are bad casting. The problem is that this is obviously politically motivated and is not a retelling but a rewriting.

>clean shaven negro with no scars, sweat, or grime looks feirce
I think blacked.com is mroe your speed

No worse than casting a fucking ANGLO
as a MEDITERRANEAN GOD
like they USUALLY do

The previous one wasn't a retelling either. Not defending this one btw, I don't expect anything other than trash from hollywood adaptations.

Zzzzzzz

Oi there
fancy this
we were Jews and shite

Howdy pardner
we were ghengs and shit

nos sunt lupi et stercore

sup brah
we were zulu and what have you

Still, I agree but this is a politically motivated rewriting.

Hey, samefag, I don't think any of us are defending this shit in the reverse either. Races should represent their own races. Obviously this annoys us more because it's a nigger replacing Achilles.

Somebody doesn't find my jokes funny
why weren't you mad when they let angos and slavs play greeks in movies?
is it possible that melanin matters to you more than the rest of the gene pool?

sounds like it's the case... bitchass waiboi

PS: my whole point isn't that "look the other guys do it too" so much as "cultural appropriation is a silly non-issue, regardless of who's talking about it"

don't get so triggered
it's literally the only edge you have over SJWs

pipe down nigger, you‘re the only one that‘s assblasted ITT

I wrote a piece like this called the Drilliad

Although I don't generally like Hollywood productions, I am not particularly against neither Brad Pitt nor this guy. That's why I say "who cares". If you're not going for the documentary vibe, I don't mind if a story is historically inaccurate as long as the main gist of it is there and that depends on what they are going for, what attracts them to this story. This is not something that happened 30 years ago with known people, there are no friends and descendants of Achilles who could complain his true self is undermined by neither actors.

My point is not that this is not politically motivated. The point that is often missed is that casting Brad Pitt is also politcally motivated.

You can think of Achilles not as that one true person who did this and that, but a symbol of great strenght and so on. When people are to cast him they surely think "hmm who could inspire that feeling in people?" and both Brad Pitt at that time and this guy in this time seem to fit the bill according to the mindset of the audiences they are trying to approach. There is no "normal" approach there is no approach that is not politically motivated. The white heroes of 99.99% of all films and series prior to a few years are all equally stupid in that regard to this that is happening. Think of all the Fu Manchu stereotypes on screen, or all the films with black people emptying their ak-47s, they are just ridiculous and naive. This stupidity is a characteristic of Hollywood and other mass media stuff and this is just a new turn of events with new parameters, but the same logic.

the helmet is cool and he looks angry, idk man I just saw the pic

Athena came down from heaven (for Hera had sent her in the love she bore to them both), and seized the son of Peleus by his yellow hair, visible to him alone, for of the others no man could see her.

Surely it’s eramus

Why does the BBC (clue is in the name lol) always pick Blacks, never Indians or Chinese who actually outnumber blacks in Britain.
Its almost like it has nothing at all to do with representation

And Brad Pitt wasn't? Like most of the holywood movies in general? Neither Pitt nor this black mang has anything to do with ancient greeks. Save that "i agree" shit for another post, you said that this one's a rewriting and implied that the other one was a retelling. Get a grip.

hahhaha

>hurdurdurdur
>he isn't towing the Veeky Forums line
>he must be a nigger or jew

>i subvocalize his words in a triggered tone
>therefore he must be triggered

>i made a thread to complain about cultural appropriation of European heritage
>the guy who says "who cares" is the triggered one

>our they are wolves and away from shit
if you were going for "we wuz wolves and shit" you missed

No, because in Pitt's case, both the character and actor are blond

The more I read this the funnier it gets
"Hey samefag I hate the racism in both directions, it's just... I'm pissed about the NIGGERS in a show I'll never watch anyway."

the fucking cognitive dissonance of you SQWs

>the character and actor are blond
[citation needed]

This is laughable. Καρkίνο σε σένα kαι στο σόι σου, πουτάνας γιε. Τ'αρχίδια θα σου ξεριζώσω, ωμά να σου τα φάνε τα σkυλιά.

ayy yo Athena grabs him by his nappy ass hair

In the Iliad, Achilles' hair is described as ξανθῆς (ksanthēs), usually translated as blonde, or golden but sometimes as red or tawny. His son Neoptolemus also bears the name Pyrrhus, a possible reference to his own red hair.

Not that user, but that doesn't matter much.

It's not like making a movie about Hitler and forgetting about the moustache. Or a movie about Don Quixote with a young actor in his twenties.

There are light haired and dark haired Hamlet interpretations, no one really complains about it either way. Jack Nicholson played McMurphy from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, although in the book he is a ginger with a huge bandaid on his nose for the greater part of it. I wouldn't want them to dye his hair or cast another actor. It's not important at all and if you focus too much on that, you lose what you really want to say with the story.

The Irish roots of the Ancient Greeks finally coming to light

i rike some purp

Iliad book I verse 197
You are. ξανθῆς δὲ kόμης
>It's not like making a movie about Hitler and forgetting about the moustache.
So it's more like pic related?

So your reasoning for the previous movie not being a retelling is that both Achilles and fucking Brad Pitt are blonde?
Where did you get that it's a reference to his fucking hair?

that's a maybe ginger maybe blond for achilles (though of course the heroic traditions could affect that colouring), now, cite for brad pitt, especially since he didn't go strawberry blond or full blond for the movie.

it's not an accurate representation for that movie either, and if they really wanted to be accurate, they'd have cast simon pegg.

>Iliad book I verse 197
and when did brad pitt make his hair ginger?

Sick wikipedia skills, buddy. Stay triggered, this doesn't change that you're getting caught up in this black/white dichotomy and are selective in which propaganda you're getting mad at. Pro tip: both of them are/will be. Same with shit like 300 (Persians were monsters apparently, but hey the good guys were whites so whatever heh) or other "historical" movies that you're not mad at, like the previous Troy. Πήγαινε να kρεμαστείς, σkουπίδι.

If it really upsets you, boycott it

>No worse than casting a fucking ANGLO

This is truly the worse take on this. Even some pretty boy britt is WAY better than a goddamn African.

this whole thread is essentially whataboutism

over casting choices

in things that shouldn't be popular anyway but are because people are dumb

elite tip: Never complain about pleb taste. Just capitalize on it

Yeah, both of them are ancient greeks as well.

>Africans aren't Greek
...nigger what did you think alexandria was doing so far south of the islands?

>I care about what color Achilles is in the 29449345345th lame TV production of a thing only normies are going to watch anyway

Why?

its just wrong that a theatrical version of homer is not made with the same standards as Apocalypto with real race and language used

Stop trying to be "accurate". There is no way that things are "meant to be represented". I'm not saying this solely to justify this casting, but to justify all castings. It's not that stories should be taken out of context, but any film in whatever way you make of it is itself a new context. The question is not how do we better reproduce the story as it was, but how do we reproduce the story for us today. It's a new story, always. Those who don't realize this are bound to tell a new story thinking they are telling the old one and the differences will be on their blind spot everytime, their ideology will show up the more neutral they try to be, making the new story more confusing in terms of priorities of effects you are trying to evoke.

Mel Gibson should make more movies desu

There is strong evidence that red hair and blue eyes were common caucasoid phenos before they were bred out with time. The Ancient Greeks weren’t nords, those phenos are just recessive and disappeared with time.

>I'm too cool and above it all to care how state funded media is altering history for the sake of social engineering

>There is no way that things are "meant to be represented"
well, there is, but none of these people complaining about casting choices really want a blind guy singing at them in greek for the length of an epic without actors.

I care somewhat. But not that much. I'm not going to watch the show.
I'm just against their idea of diversity and how they are using it, the same idea that are used in other parts of society.

I won't be watching it.

The Iliad is history now? Interesting.

>people will actually believe achilles was black because the BBC once casted a black dude as achilles

>you must think highly of yourself because you won't get pissed about cultural appropration

it's not they were bred out with time, it's that the celts moved. you still find people in what used be illyria who still have red hair, and further east, but they're not caucasoid. keep in mind that caucasians from the actual caucuses aren't white necessarily. iranians would be caucasians but wouldn't pass as white most places. same with turks and others. the idea of a caucasian race is really misfounded.

I'm a red head and therefore more engaged in studying this and I can tell you that this whole narrative that red heads were more common or that they are going to disappear is a myth. Recessive genes don't work that way and while there might be differences in population over time, it's negligible. Those who say otherwise are just cherry picking examples of red heads in cultural representations and making their case upon it. I believe red heads were always more represented in culture than their actual number, because depending on the time and place they were seen as either divine people or demonic outcast retards. It's also a cheap way to make a character a bit more interesting, like adding an eye patch or something like that.

No, my reasoning is that if I am told by the poet that a character is blond, the least I could do is cast a blond actor in the role. Or at least give the man a wig. Likewise I would make sure thick, dark eyebrows would be on the face of whoever plays Zeus.

It doesn't mean ginger.

I am simply baffled that the actor for Achilles forgot his wig.

Were you against the previous show when every Greek warrior from different parts of the country (plenty of them came from different φύλλα as well) but looked like they're from London? Whitewashing was a thing, and now there's this fake, forced diversity so that the coons and the neoliberals will shut the fuck up and ignore what actually happens in a society that they're no part of. All this makes neither show true to Homer's epic, and both are political choices like most of the "entertainment" that comes out of holywood productions.

>I am simply baffled that the actor for Achilles forgot his wig.
That's because we're still in BETA

But isn't Achilles yellow-haired in Homer's epic?

Its still a manipulation of history and a normalization of the current state of affairs as eternal.
Perpetuating the delusion that sub-90 IQ negroids who never managed to build anything more impressive than mudhuts could be legitimately associated with the works of Ancient Greece and the foundations of the West.

Its all very silly for a hyper-ironic lastman like yourself until the day comes when the comfort you rely on becomes undermined by the lecherous brown hordes

He is.

>the celts
hmm im not entirely convinced these were celts user, i believe in the med-pie-semite-eurasian diaspora theories but i’d need a little more than what you’re offering here. circa 700 BCE id imagine the Celts would still already be in Western europe and not Anatolia and Greece. Please provide me with your information, i don’t claim authority here. I just don’t like nordicism or idiot liberals who deny the prevalence of blonde hair and blue eyes south of Scandinavia and the Rhine
>im a red head
ok
>im an authority
are you a geneticist
>recessive genes don’t work that way
explain what you mean by this
>the red heads were overrepresented in art
i find this terribly hard to believe considering their near constant depiction in works of little significance all over the Aegean, Macedonia, Anatolia and as far away as Persia.
>ancient Persians and Indians weren’t whyte
ok since i assume both of you aren’t nordicisist /pol/ niggers i can be vaguely open with you. when i say whyte i don’t really mean nordics or Germanics, which is the most anti-intellectual absurdity i’ve ever seen advanced in the study of physical anthropology and population genetics. i just mean pale skinned, progressive skull, higher intelligence and can have blue or green eyes, traits extremely rare away from eurasia.

when i say Aryans i mean black haired (and sometimes reddish-blonde baired), pale skinned, blue-green-grey eyed horse taming warriors from Pakistan, India, Iran, Anatolia, Assyria. Their cousins the Semites, Germanics and Slavs are caucasians and the Germanics and Nords seem to have retained significantly more of the Steppe genes than the Semites and Slavs who seem to have been sublafed into native farming pops which is why they’re less progressive looking, physically less robust, darker skinned etc.

Whyte is basically the caucasoid populations who kept the robustness and skull morphology, height and ferocity that the other caucasoids lost. Im aware that ancient Vedics would not have seen Nords as their relatives and that ancient greeks on the whole looked much closer to paler skinned native Greeks today than some curly haired Swiss athlete which is the type of meme’ing you get on rw forums. Germanics likely broke off from the IE migrations and also inbred heavily with European HG which is why their faces are so gaunt and sharp and why nords look like ayys compared to depictions of the ancients.

The anatolians and assyrians look like Aryan analogues to Semites, the Vedics look like gracile Aryans. Im not trying to steal history. I just do believe firmly that there was a huge loss of whyte phenos after the bronze age collapse. Even the phoenicians who were Semites looked extremely aryanized compared to ancient Jews, Babylonians, Arabs etc. Again, you don’t have to worry about nordicist meme’ing i don’t have a horse in this race at all.

No.
The jump from greeks to africans is way more obvious.

>It doesn't mean ginger.
Well I presumed when you cited a line which is about god not driving off sickness from the Danae that you weren't referring to him being blond. However, if you want the word used in the Iliad to describe Achilles, it does say ginger. Just like Alexander.

Yeah, I know, but hear me out on this. Suppose we could talk with the ancient Greeks about it and I asked them how this story was meant to be told. They would clearly say it is meant to be told in that way. But then, what if we could ask them why that's the best way to tell the story. You'd see that's the way that the people of that time had to appreciate the story. It has to do with language, with how we spend our time, what is engaging for us.

Suppose I translate the story quite well and then proceed in present it in this way. Who of us today would not be bored of it? I myself would rather just read it. In that sense, isn't making a movie or a series more "accurate" to how the story was "meant to be represented"? In this case, it is not the method of storytelling that is reproduced in an accurate way, but the level of engagement to the experience.

Of course, some is lost in it, but that is true to any translation or reproduction of anything. To sit by the fire with other people and listen to some guy may have no counterpart today, but you'll see that if you actually reproduce this setting today, everyone would just be on their phones. And if you think that by not allowing phones in, you'd make it as it was, then you'd have a bunch of people anxious to go back to their phones. Because it is the people themselves that have changed along with the world.

>hmm im not entirely convinced these were celts user, i believe in the med-pie-semite-eurasian diaspora theories but i’d need a little more than what you’re offering here. circa 700 BCE id imagine the Celts would still already be in Western europe and not Anatolia and Greece.
Literally look up Illyria. Wikipedia will give you a basic understanding of why Alexander who's from a state that side might well have shared a gene pool with them.

How about you look up Zenodotus and the origin of genres and the current text of Homer we have. Turning the epic into a theatrical event stops it being Homeric.

if the muse sings through the director the film will be truly Homeric, on an epic scale like lord of the rings

>yfw most of what you think is the director is the editor
>yfw it's probably a girl editor too
pls prost

>are you a geneticist
Are you?

Jesus, you can't even half-joke in this place.
I just searched online about it in a potentially more interested and slightly deeper way than most people who are just trying to make a point about it online, while the subject concerns me personally.

>i find this terribly hard to believe
Then don't.

>ok since i assume both of you aren’t nordicisist /pol/ niggers
Genuinely stopped reading there, you talk like a dickhead.

would you mind explaining what you mean tho? the celts are a germanic tribe who would’ve entered europe from the north and poured down into iberia and gaul, crossed over into albion. they wouldn’t have passed through the asia minor like the anatolians and greek IE peoples. Im just not seeing how the Greeks were celts when they morphologically look completely disrinincr from Celts in nearly all of the Doric and Ionian depictions of their ancestors. I just checked wikipedia and also looked at their garbage prehistory of the Balkans there’s no mention of Celts at all. Just uncited insinuations about Dorians and the Kurgan hypothesis which is a tenuous theory in phys anth and isn’t entirely supported by pop genetics. by the time of Alexander and way before, the time of Homer, there is no evidence there was a significant presence of Celts in West Asia. I need you to do a little more leg work and convince me otherwise. I don’t believe that the Germanic tribes necessarily passed through that part of Eurasia and left significant genetic influence in those populations. It seems really unlikely to me that the groups we associate with the Celts and Germanics didn’t just head right through eastern europe, cross the danube and the rhine and then the english channel into Albion and down into Iberia and Gaul.

But dude just look at this statue, clearly the Ancient Greeks had no connection to modern Europeans as much as sub-saharans

>would you mind explaining what you mean tho?
I mean literally every contemporary source from the Greeks on up through the Romans says that your history of the Celts is wrong and poorly researched, even by the Roman "make shit up about peoples you've never seen" standards.

>I just checked wikipedia
In the picture for that page I recommended, it clearly marks the Keltoi on the map. It's not my fault you're too dumb a fuck to read a map.

I just hate niggers, what’s so wrong with that?

nothing, it's just a different book

I'M SINGIN BOUT THAT NIGGA AND HIS DEAGLE

Actually yes, you should leave this board if you can't understand the historical significance of the Iliad

Clearly. Also, sub-saharans culture take just as much from the greeks as the western Europeans.

(skipping the irony a little, hey, maybe this show will get the immigrants interested in reading the greeks)

>are you?
no i just don’t really listen to people unless they cite their sources from academia or scientific studies and what your suggesting seemed implausible. now im wondering why you’re shutting down
>can’t joke
what?
>concerns me deeply
what? who cares!
>then don’t
why make an empirical claim if you don’t want to talk about it?
>gets offended by calling /pol/ what they are on a Bangladeshi Tiger Skinning Forum
this place is so anti-intellectual. im not attacking either of you. i just want sources and well formulated arguments

my claims:

yes the ancient greeks and anatolians had significant numbers of people with blue eyed and light haired phenos

no they absolutely were not germanic or nordic, look at their phyisongomy and hair texture, their build relative to Scythians and Gauls and Germanics. they’re not the same race

yes Ancient Aryans were whyte; no they were not Nords or Germanics they’re groups which are tangentially related by being from the same giant range of caucasoids who left Africa and developed up in those higher lattitudes of the Caucasus

no the Celts probably didn’t leave significant traces in Greece and since they probably skipped over Greece since it logistically made no sense for a human migration to move in such a way, a different wave of IE people’s likely contributed those light haired and eyed phenos.

yes moderns are darker and swarthier from turkics and breeding out a lot of those traits

no it is not signficant enough to constitue racial replacement, just studing the oldest Mycenaen art shows us they were simply higher fitness, more robus versions of the moderns

I want studies, arguments or convincing rhetoric. if you’re going to shy away like schoolboys being asked to prove they actually saw a leprachaun then the discussion is over

NO wikipedia and “i have red hair m8” is not convincing to me.

I know, user, I agree.

My point is that there is no way to be Homeric today, not even if you do it exactly like it was in the old times, because we are not in the old times.

I'm not saying we should make it theatrical, just that if you want to truly respect a piece (of literature or any other) that you want to reproduce, you ought to consider a bunch of other things besides how it was done in a particular time (not in spite of it, but along with it). We can negotiate those differences to reach a better performance of it, that means both casting choices as choices of format, language, and so on.

If you perform Shakespeare in English to an audience that doesn't speak English, then the play will be nonsense no matter how brilliant it is in the original. A translation might not be the same as how it was written, but it would do more justice.

>Its still a manipulation of history and a normalization of the current state of affairs as eternal.
Welcome to what every society ever does with its propaganda

>Perpetuating the delusion that sub-90 IQ negroids who never managed to build anything

"Unlike those niggers who I hate so much I personally built all those marble statues and composed all those sonnets."

Look jack. Just because you're white doesn't mean you achieved anything. Just because something is in your heritage doesn't mean you aren't a "sub 90 IQ" piece of shit yourself. You are on Veeky Forums complaining about the fact that a black dude has accomplished more than you by being casted as Achilles.

Start your own media company and cast some strapping young white lad as achilles

stop bitching about blacks
stop leeching off of white identity
your accomplishments do not belong to your race
your race's accomplishments don't belong to you
welcome to individualism

>who never managed to build anything more impressive than mudhuts could be legitimately associated with the Works of Ancient Greece and the foundations of the West

so much anger
so much hate

>what? who cares!
Someone or no one. Not you though, but it's alright.

>can’t joke
>what?
See:
>why make an empirical claim if you don’t want to talk about it?
It's not an empiracl claim, it's a half-jokingly personal claim, you autist fuck. Chill.

And it's not that I don't want to talk about it, just not with you
>because
it's
>annoying
as fuck
>when people talk
like this
and you have your head so high up your ass you don't even realize it

>my claims:
Literally stopped reading there

Individualism sucks btw.

None of those actors got casted because of "individualism".

Rage—Goddes. sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses,...... the hate and anger is appropriately Homeric

>which is about god not driving off sickness from the Danae
lmfao

>ginger
no

>Just like Alexander.
The Alexander the Great of Aelian, Pseudo-Callisthenes, and Plutarch, whose hair is yellow and "lion-colored."

The facts are facts. If you went back in time and placed people like me, verifiably high IQ whites with naturally constructive sensibilities in the place of Greek babies we would grow up and contribute to society that made Western Enlightement possible.
If you were to do the same with negorids, assuming the Greek parents wouldn't rightfully drown the animals at first glance Greece would have quickly decayed into a raucous shithole just as every African nation did as soon as the guardianship of whites was taken away.

It may not be a comfortable fact to face but it is clear as day to anyone with the mind and intellectual integrity to admit it. Blacks are simply not neurologically wired to be anything but concerned with anything but being fruit picking apes.