Like, what is Lestrade even supposed to be? You know very well they wouldn't have even hired a Jew back in those times, let alone someone non-white.
It's impossible to watch any modern movie or series without this nonsense.
Diversity is the future, embrace it.
share
Yeah, but the events in the movie take place over a century ago.
Doesn’t matters diversity takes priority.
shareOver what? Physical reality? Laws of nature?
shareOver racism which appeals to "historical context" in order to try and exclude black bodies from being cast.
share
Oh, you mean you were actually serious with this yesterday? I thought you were being sarcastic!
That should tell you something.
And btw, there were Indian and Asian characters who couldn't have been in that society at the time either. Not everything is about the black race.
BTW, being racist against races other than black people isnt ok either.
share
And my statement was racist how? 🙄
In fact, this wasn't possible even much more recently than the end of 19th /beginning of 20th century.
The bottom line is that no reasonable person would insist on this artificial retroactive diversity.
Newsflash: you're in the twenty-first century and racism is bad.
share
Another ridiculous individual.
How does revising history in movies change anything that actually happened?
Oh the irony..
share
Indeed.
whoosh
share
Blam.
What's most ironic btw is someone making an entirely asinine remark that has zero relevance in the real world and, when dismissed as the drivel that it is, being certain that it must have simply gone over the other person's head.
You can justify literally any sort of idiocy like that.
Newsflash: Racism is not good or bad it is simply the way nature made us. Long ago before humans even knew how to read or write they existed and thrived in large part because of racism. A wandering human in the wild saw a tribe of humans, if they didn't look like his tribe he kept the hell away so he didn't get killed. That's how racism was good and allowed humans to thrive.
Fast forward to now, and people that are physically attracted to their significant other are attracted because of race. If you have a hard on for dark skin you aren't going to be lusting after Scandinavians any more than the person with a hard on for blonds is going to be lusting after Asians.
Racism is what it is and isn't good or bad. Bigotry is a different thing and for some reason you ignorant SJW don't seem to understand the difference. You are a racist just like every other person. That doesn't mean you have to treat other races poorly but don't go around pretending the Earth is flat.
Sigh..when will home schooling finally be banned? Lookup discrimination, then lookup racism. Better yet: have someone google it for you.
shareFirst of all, of all systems not based on merit quotas (racial, tribal, class, sex etc) are one of the worst. I think it actually worse than nepotism. Any society that uses quotas for hiring and\or advancing people will always slide into mediocrity.
But more importantly in art "diversity" shouldn't mean sh*t. Casting depends on a medium, genre and, of course, the artist's vision.
Again with the racism veiled as a comment.
share
Nah, you are barking up the wrong tree with that. Are you saying that only a racist, then, would care about any semblance of historical accuracy?
You need to learn what the word racism means, clearly you are just one of those clueless SJWs that goes around accusing everyone of being racist, homophobe or misogynist simply because you don't agree with what someone says.
The fact is the OP was correct. If you were to make a movie about Zulu Warrior it would make no sense to cast red headed Irishmen as the Zulus... and likewise it makes no sense to cast someone non-white in the role of Lestrade in this movie. Doesn't matter if Doyle ever described the ethnicity of Lestrade or not, the historical reality of the place and time the movie is set dictates that certain rules in casting are followed.
It wasn't just Lestrade - the various women in Eudoria's group and a black coffee shop owner (or even an employee, for that matter) could not have happened back in those times either.
Believe me, if someone complaints about racial diversity to the point of posting a comment only about that feature of a movie, the term is accurate. Me, a SJW? I'm too much of a critical thinker for that club.
shareSo asking a XIXth century London setting to look like XIXth century London is racist.
I see.
Thank you for your contribution.
Why couldn't they just fill the diversity quota with Wiggins and the other Bakers Street Irregulars. They were all Arabian, right?
shareThe one named "Simpson" was described as "a small street Arab." But at that time this was just an expression for nomadic homeless children who wandered about. It did not literally mean that he was of Arabian ethnicity.
shareLol. I know. When I first read those stories, I thought they were middle eastern refugees or something until I looked up what a street arab was.
shareIt's part of a trend of 'stylized' depictions of the past that look more like today in terms of demographics. The recent David Copperfield movie was similar.
shareIt’s not quite as innocent as being ‘stylised’, it’s Marxists trying to erase white history to demoralise whites, while bolstering the minority groups they use to attack Westen culture.
So there's a handful of people of colour in a movie that showcases a white heroine and a majority white cast. I think somebody would have to be pretty insecure to be "demoralised" by that.
On the other hand, for those of us who have been marginalized for years, it's nice to see a bit more background representation in the popular media to acknowledge that we exist as human beings, even if it may not be 100% historically accurate to the setting.
Your deceit here is pretending that this is a one-off when it’s clearly part of a relentless Marxist propaganda programme to desecrate Western history and crowbar ‘diversity’ into historical situations where it obviously wouldn’t belong.
You haven’t been marginalised, get over yourself, your race is irrelevant.
There was nothing about the character that indicated race or religion so you can just think of him as an actor playing a role. In other words, the actor's race was not part of the story so he could have been played by anyone.
shareEnola Holmes is a fictional character inserted into the world of another fictional character, Sherlock Holmes. So I find it odd that you can accept a world that combines Enola Holmes (2006-2010) with the ideas and characters presented in the Sherlock Holmes novels (1887-1927) and yet you take issue with the inclusion of diversity.
share
What a bizarre response. She was made part of the Holmes family in the late 19th century, but you don't understand why I would expect some historical accuracy for the period??
It wasn't like Sherlock and Mycroft were transposed to 2006-2010.
The point I'm making is: In a fictional re-imagining of a fictional world, why is race even an issue? Why does it need to be historically accurate? It's not history.
shareHaving a sister isn't exactly a 21st century phenomenon. The story still takes place in the late 19th century world of the novels. So yes, it's history.
shareI guess that's something I just can't understand. Revising the entire "history" of a character's family is acceptable, even when it removes the main character from their role of main character, because sisters aren't novel in any century - but POC playing secondary characters isn't.
You don't understand the difference between real history and the fictional personal history of a fictional character in a fictional story?
While I dislike this specific premise, the "what if" scenario of Holmes having a sister is still believable, the diversity thing not so much. All of the Holmes stories, including this one, are supposed to take place in our world. If it took place a long time ago in a galaxy far away, you might have a point.
It's more about POC playing specific kind of roles that are historically unrealistic.
Plus let’s not forget that this has all come about becuase Marxists are launching a relentless attack on Western culture and the white race.
This isn’t some unique example, it’s part of a constant process of demoralisation.
This isn’t some unique example, it’s part of a constant process of demoralisation.
Yes this is it. It's what George Carlin called being constantly hit over the head with a big club every day being told what to believe and what to think. It is Orwellian and it is evil.
Exactly.
The Marxist will want you to be on the back foot, defending the historical accuracy etc, to divert from the fact that this is part of a vast and constant attack on our culture by the Marxists themselves.
Correct their lie, then counter-attack. Then seek them out and crush them before they can cause more damage.
A good place to start would be the Universities and schools. Fire all the Neo-Marxist Post-Modernist teachers that are brainwashing the youth with this dangerous ideology.