MovieChat Forums > The Spanish Princess (2019) Discussion > Dear dumbasses in Hollywood....

Dear dumbasses in Hollywood....

posted 5 years ago by AmeriGirl26 (12299)
14 replies | jump to latest

When making a movie or a tv show about the Tudor Dynasty, quit going to Philippa Fucking Gregory for your material! She's a terrible writer, doesn't know the character of these historical figures at all, makes up crap or re-arranges the story to suit her own needs, and is about as accurate in her story-telling as "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was at telling what the real Middle Ages were like. And while you're at it, quit bringing in costume designers that are on crack. Last thing you need are people who don't do ANY research on Tudor fashions and drape these ridiculous RENFAIRE/carnival/mess costumes on the actors. Seriously!

It seems the only thing you got right this time around was FINALLY casting a light-skinned redhead with blue eyes to play Catherine of Aragon!

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I haven't seen this, don't even know which network it's on, but I am very interested in Catherine. It is good to know they cast a light-skinned redhead for the part. Not so pleased about them relying on Phillipa Gregory.

[–] Popcorngal (4346) 4 years ago

Considering she was Spanish, did she have a fair complexion and red hair?

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Yes she did, and so did her daughter Queen "Bloody" Mary.

The major European royal families of that era were interbred to the point of being inbred, most of them probably shared little genetic material with their subjects. Well, little that was pronounced legitimate.

[–] Popcorngal (4346) 4 years ago

Regarding inbreeding, that wasn't only customary among European royalty. Hawaiian , Egyptian, and Middle Eastern monarchies did it as well. Let's not forget it was also common amoung American elite families as well. Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were distant cousins.

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

Well, the major royal families of that era didn't practice direct incest like the Pharoahs and Hawaiian monarchs did, but they still had a problem. Because of the long custom of intermarrying to create alliances and settle disputes, they were all related, all cousins to some degree or another. Marrying first cousins was common and stayed common into the modern era, in the 19th century Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were first cousins, and produced children with the genetic defect of hemophilia, but that's not the problem I was referring to.

During the Tudor era, the one and only church (Catholic) forbade marriage between cousins closer than 3rd cousin, and most of the major royals of marriageable age were more closely related than that. First or second cousins had to get a special dispensation from the Pope to marry, which wasn't usually a problem for royals, but this wasn't always done. Sometimes the Pope had political reasons not to agree, sometimes the parents setting up the match didn't bother to get the dispensation, because they wanted to reserve the option of annulling the marriage. I forget whether there was such a dispensation for Katherine of A.'s marriage to Henry or his brother Arthur, but probably not since Henry used a different reason when he wanted a divorce.

Oh, and Franklin and Eleanor were fifth cousins, at that point what the hell.

[–] Popcorngal (4346) 4 years ago

I think it's a common practice in some parts of Africa as well. Maybe Asia too. I think it is also icky when a person married a foster, step or adopted sibling as well. They are not blood related, but grew up together. Czar Nicholas's son had the same medical condition.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

It's quite common in Islamic countries. Since Mohammed married a cousin, it's considered as morally correct (otherwise it would imply that the Islam prophet was wrong).

Here you have a map of consanguinity in different countries in the world from the wiki. Draw your own conclusions.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I'm told that in countries where cousin marriages are common and accepted, levels of developmental defects are sky-high.

No, I don't have a link.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

I agree. I remember to have read that those defects disappear in a 2-3 generations if cousin marriages are banned, but I'm not sure. What I mean is that I think they're not permanent and can be reversed. Of course, they'll stay as long as cousin marriages are common.

[–] MillerJones (464) 2 years ago

This show and neither of the others linked to it are suppose to be documentaries they are fantasy history dramas which is the case with all Philippa Gregory material (history is not 100% true anyway)

Why did you bother with the show as soon as you had seen who was attached to it and what it was based of which are novels you should of stayed clear.

You are moaning for no real reason.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12299) 2 years ago

It's shows like this that make history buffs like me really squirm, because you know that idiots are gonna watch this and think that that's what really happened. Are you even aware of just how ignorant most movie-watchers are of real history? It's partially due to Hollywood! When they present crap like this, they are tricking a lot of unknowing people into following a false narrative, one that many will not look into and learn just how fake it all is.

Funny how you defend this show and take time out of your day to bother me about it. I have every reason to get angry by shitty portrayals like this. It's like feeding junk food to kids and calling it "nutritious." You can stuff your brain with garbage like this all you like, but don't come moaning to me when you make yourself look like an idiot by using this dog shit show to show off your bad info about Catherine of Aragon in the future.

[–] MillerJones (464) 2 years ago

If you are a history buff why does it matter what other people know or do not know it makes 0 difference.

It's peoples choice if they want to educate themselves with the truth in which I already stated all history is partial truth none of it is 100% factual anyway.

Bringing up "junk food" as a comparison makes again no sense at all its a different subject all together.

If you wanted to compare anything the media on how it reports stories makes more sense they twist the truth.

Do you even know what junk food is I expect not.

If you are so smart and know about all history answer this question was Perkin Warbeck really Richard or a pretender?

[–] cyguration (3843) 2 years ago

The point is significant because it affects how people interpret history, how they reflect on the choices made within that period, and how they adapt their thoughts to modern times.

For instance, a lot of people don't even know that elected officials are civil servants and are supposed to serve the people as opposed to ruling them. But media and cultural cultivation has leaned people into accepting that elected officials are closer to rulers than servants. How different would the landscape look if people actually treated incumbents like the servants they're supposed to be? How different would the laws look if people were actually educated about the role their officials are supposed to play?

This all stems back to ideation being formed by cultural impressions that people pick up from a number of places, including books, classes, and media. If the media that conveys to them that history was something it was not, people will come away with a false impression.

For instance, the idea that women can beat up men in real life because Hollywood incessantly conveys that 90lbs women can physically manhandle 200lbs men. In real life if a woman tries it she can get brain trauma from one punch to the head. Also how Hollywood misconvey the role of firearms in shootouts, showcasing hot-shot cops shooting criminals in the arms or legs, and having a double-digit I.Q., puppet like Biden regurgitate that concept to the general public as a way for police to engage criminals, as if the average cop is a crackshot and can disable a criminal like that every time. Where did Biden get that ridiculous notion? Hollywood.

[–] MillerJones (464) 2 years ago

What you have described has nothing to do with the original subject.

You have written a load of waffle.