Umm how do we deal with this sweethearts

i've been up against /pol/ and their hysterics but it seems suspect to me
it seems they go out of their way to cast blackamoors

Mabalo mukembe, the leader of an african militia

the big thing that /pol/ gets wrong is that these films aren't trying to curb society toward more liberal views through film, they're catering within films to the political/social ideologies present in their societies in order to fill the most seats/get the highest ratings
it isnt some huge political conspiracy, it's all about money pham

i agree,/pol/ seems to be ignorant about the term pandering but i still don't see what their target market is

>in character as
Literally how is she even distinguishable as Jean d'Arc? If you put a dirty blonde woman in a suit of armor with a fringe cut and stood her on a burning stake, -maybe- a historically educated person could say 'oh that's jean d'arc'

After the Emoji movie I don't think studios know what they're doing anymore, they just throw shit at a wall and see what sticks

This. Ignoring that she's black, it's just her stupid face. There's nothing to distinguish her as Joan of Arc.

At least Morgan Freeman can act. There's an argument to be made there for the value of his capability and renown being more valuable for the film than historical authenticity; the woman in the OP is a literal who.

My guess is that they ran out of people who claimed to know what audiences want or they fucked it up too hard, got fired, and are just doing whatever hoping to land a hit.

I assume this is after the stake?

Well played

By spamming threads about it on Veeky Forums

I see, is she doing joan after she's been burned at the stake?

the problem is more that marketing has become a profitable sekret klub. New marketing concepts haven't really been developed since the fucking 60s and with the rise of tertiary education it's turned into a career of hiding all the 'trade secrets' and charging huge sums for education where all you learn is how to do the same thing over and over again.

These same college kiddies are also hyper liberal, so they push for dumb shit like this

i only posted it after i saw it,needed to heard about Veeky Forums valued opinion

This. Fuck wh*Teoids for blackwashing MENA history

Unacceptable. Why can't wh*Teoids stick to blackwashing their own history

reeee

NUMIDIANS WERE NOT NIGGERS

SAINT PETER WAS NOT A NIGGER

MOORS WERE NOT BLACK

>casting a black character as white causes an outrage
>casting a canonically white person as black is somehow okay
Double Standards?

You don't have to be /pol/ to find blacks unattractive.

WE

when has this happened that people weren't pissed?
Also, sometimes innacurate ethnicities have to be endured for the sake of getting an actor with enough audience appeal to benefit the movie (see the western Ghost in the Shell, nobody would have watched it at all if it had some literal who asian actress)

some were though

WE

user stop

Some moors were black. Not most. But some.

>implying there are no Asian actresses in the West
>implying anyone watched """Ghost in the Shell""" movie

Nobody did watch it at all.

>people are makings things I don't like!
Idk, whine more? You sensitive fag.

WUZ

Ok in fairness, Shakespeare wrote him as black. It's entirely possible that he didn't know that Moors aren't black.

What is this from?

Show me one of those. They were some black in north africa but they didn't identified with any berber group. No, being the slave of a berber doesn't makes you one.

History Channel's Barbarians Rising

The History Channel special "The Bible" had Samson as a black man, and Delilah (of course) as a white woman.

>Shakespeare wrote him as black

No he didn't

Why is it never a whitie and a black girl?

Because that would be RAYCISS, obviously

But how? And they do the opposite with asians, it's always a white man and an asian girl, never the other way around.

No they were not. None of the Moors were black

It's often exactly that. Watch more films.