Years ago, probably high school, I read a book called Cross of Iron. It was about the eastern front and absolutely brutal.
I go bananas when a movie is supposed to take place in , say 1960, and there is a 1962, model car in it.
People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Marv’s cocaine parties in Bloomington are legendary.People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Repeating Marv's point....neither of you can prove/disprove that there wasn't a single black man in Hastings in 1066. So, documentary or entertainment, the point still applies.
By the same logic, you also can’t prove or disprove there wasn’t a pregnant Chinese lesbian there who was 6 feet tall and also fighting.People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Repeating Marv's point....neither of you can prove/disprove that there wasn't a single black man in Hastings in 1066. So, documentary or entertainment, the point still applies.
It’s about what is most likely, not what can be definitively proven about an event 1000 years ago.
I didn’t know England of 1000 years ago had African black people or that they fought as soldiers. I’m sure most people don’t either. I do know the BBC is concerned with diversity in casting roles and most others see that too. So the assumption that the latter was the impetus and not a concern for historical accuracy seems reasonable, even if it might be wrong.
@jdb was it billed as a documentary? I see King and Conqueror listed as a drama. In which case compare it to other dramas. I love Tora Tora Tora (made up the quote about waking a sleeping giant) and Longest Day (made up the nuns walking in under fire to provide medical aid). Those are dramas, Ken Burns Civil War would be held to a higher standard.
In all probability, no Blacks were there. But I don't think it impossible a Black was there either as a knight or a peasant pressed into service. If it showed numerous Blacks, that would be one thing. But for a drama, how high is that standard?
By the same logic, you also can’t prove or disprove there wasn’t a pregnant Chinese lesbian there who was 6 feet tall and also fighting.People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Repeating Marv's point....neither of you can prove/disprove that there wasn't a single black man in Hastings in 1066. So, documentary or entertainment, the point still applies.
It’s about what is most likely, not what can be definitively proven about an event 1000 years ago.
I didn’t know England of 1000 years ago had African black people or that they fought as soldiers. I’m sure most people don’t either. I do know the BBC is concerned with diversity in casting roles and most others see that too. So the assumption that the latter was the impetus and not a concern for historical accuracy seems reasonable, even if it might be wrong.
It was a drama. I suspect every drama has errors, they are dramas. I have mentioned BoB, Longest Day, Tora Tora Tora. Would you like to start threads complaining about each of them.
By the same logic, you also can’t prove or disprove there wasn’t a pregnant Chinese lesbian there who was 6 feet tall and also fighting.People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Repeating Marv's point....neither of you can prove/disprove that there wasn't a single black man in Hastings in 1066. So, documentary or entertainment, the point still applies.
It’s about what is most likely, not what can be definitively proven about an event 1000 years ago.
I didn’t know England of 1000 years ago had African black people or that they fought as soldiers. I’m sure most people don’t either. I do know the BBC is concerned with diversity in casting roles and most others see that too. So the assumption that the latter was the impetus and not a concern for historical accuracy seems reasonable, even if it might be wrong.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a drama. And there were black people there in that era. So much ado about nothing, IMO.
@jdb was it billed as a documentary? I see King and Conqueror listed as a drama. In which case compare it to other dramas. I love Tora Tora Tora (made up the quote about waking a sleeping giant) and Longest Day (made up the nuns walking in under fire to provide medical aid). Those are dramas, Ken Burns Civil War would be held to a higher standard.
In all probability, no Blacks were there. But I don't think it impossible a Black was there either as a knight or a peasant pressed into service. If it showed numerous Blacks, that would be one thing. But for a drama, how high is that standard?
My mistake. I misread the source as something else BBC apparently produced on the Battle of Hastings, which was a documentary.
Here's a historian's take
@jdb if the BBC had called me up as a technical adviser, and who knows why they didn't, I would have told them not to make that casting decision. It wasn't a smart decision. But out of all the stupid decisions in the world, it isn't very high on the list as to importance. Right there near Cracker Barrel's logo.
But I am serious about the question, when are we not to be colorblind? If I had a restaurant and noticed I had no Black employees and no Black customers, is it ok to think I need a few Black employees to increase Black comfort in coming to my restaurant? One Eyed undertaker (my favorite Dylan song) made the point about a lighter Jesus and White homes. Comfort does matter to people. Race is just one way. Some people are not comfortable around cities, other religions, other languages. I have heard many people complain about hearing foreign languages even when the person complaining is really just mad they could not eavesdrop.
When Netflix decided to drop BoB and The Pacific in two weeks, I saw a social media discussion. Evidently The Pacific is woke garbage. Who knew. The people never said why. I just think our antenna are set to supersensitivity.
Would you feel differently if the black actor is playing an Anglo-Saxon vs. a person from Africa or African descent?By the same logic, you also can’t prove or disprove there wasn’t a pregnant Chinese lesbian there who was 6 feet tall and also fighting.People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Repeating Marv's point....neither of you can prove/disprove that there wasn't a single black man in Hastings in 1066. So, documentary or entertainment, the point still applies.
It’s about what is most likely, not what can be definitively proven about an event 1000 years ago.
I didn’t know England of 1000 years ago had African black people or that they fought as soldiers. I’m sure most people don’t either. I do know the BBC is concerned with diversity in casting roles and most others see that too. So the assumption that the latter was the impetus and not a concern for historical accuracy seems reasonable, even if it might be wrong.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a drama. And there were black people there in that era. So much ado about nothing, IMO.
But I am serious about the question, when are we not to be colorblind? If I had a restaurant and noticed I had no Black employees and no Black customers, is it ok to think I need a few Black employees to increase Black comfort in coming to my restaurant? One Eyed undertaker (my favorite Dylan song) made the point about a lighter Jesus and White homes. Comfort does matter to people. Race is just one way. Some people are not comfortable around cities, other religions, other languages. I have heard many people complain about hearing foreign languages even when the person complaining is really just mad they could not eavesdrop.
I suppose that would depend on context too, but generally, in 2025, I would say yes. However, if this restaurant remote North Dakota or Iowa - it may not be alarming. In fact, you could argue Black people were smart enough not to make such a silly decision.
I think today's context is much different than it was back in the time periods we are talking about. All I am saying is, let's just use some basic logic and judgment. Don't cast a gay, black, disabled king as King Edward. Don't cast Eminem as Shaka Zulu. Don't cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan. Don't cast Ken Jeong (one of my favorite comedy actors) as George Washington (leave him to play Che Gueverra 
).
Would you feel differently if the black actor is playing an Anglo-Saxon vs. a person from Africa or African descent?By the same logic, you also can’t prove or disprove there wasn’t a pregnant Chinese lesbian there who was 6 feet tall and also fighting.People seemed to like Inglorious Bastards for some reason, not close to realistic. Kelly’s Heroes? I have a buddy who gets bent out of shape when the wrong tanks are used, or wrong planes.
Doesn't context matter Marv? You are comparing entertainment films that were not meant to be realistic with a documentary series. I enjoy both types - stricter reenactments (e.g., Gettysburg, Battleground, Das Boot) and those with more entertainment value (Kelly's Heroes is one of my favorites, Battle of the Bulge, Midway - 1976 version).
If you have historians getting bent out of shape because Kelly's Heroes used T-34s modified to look like Tigers, those historians should probably lose their invite to your next party.
Repeating Marv's point....neither of you can prove/disprove that there wasn't a single black man in Hastings in 1066. So, documentary or entertainment, the point still applies.
It’s about what is most likely, not what can be definitively proven about an event 1000 years ago.
I didn’t know England of 1000 years ago had African black people or that they fought as soldiers. I’m sure most people don’t either. I do know the BBC is concerned with diversity in casting roles and most others see that too. So the assumption that the latter was the impetus and not a concern for historical accuracy seems reasonable, even if it might be wrong.
It wasn't a documentary, it was a drama. And there were black people there in that era. So much ado about nothing, IMO.
in this very, very, very specific instance, I would presume that the black soldier was merely fighting for one side in the war, not being portrayed as an Anglo-Saxon necessarily.
but yes, it would seem weird to have only one black actor portraying an Anglo-Saxon when all of the rest of the Anglo-Saxon’s are represented by white actors.
Don’t cast a gay, black, disabled king as King Edward. Don’t @ @cast Eminem as Shaka Zulu. Don’t cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan. Don’t cast Ken Jeong (one of my favorite comedy actors) as George Washington (leave him to play Che Gueverra
).
My small quibble is this person wasn't Harold Godwinson, rather just a nameless face. So I completely agree not to cast Wayne as Khan and the rest. I haven't seen this series, though now I suspect i will. But I suspect this person is "Knight 43".
But I am serious about the question, when are we not to be colorblind? If I had a restaurant and noticed I had no Black employees and no Black customers, is it ok to think I need a few Black employees to increase Black comfort in coming to my restaurant? One Eyed undertaker (my favorite Dylan song) made the point about a lighter Jesus and White homes. Comfort does matter to people. Race is just one way. Some people are not comfortable around cities, other religions, other languages. I have heard many people complain about hearing foreign languages even when the person complaining is really just mad they could not eavesdrop.
I suppose that would depend on context too, but generally, in 2025, I would say yes. However, if this restaurant remote North Dakota or Iowa - it may not be alarming. In fact, you could argue Black people were smart enough not to make such a silly decision.
I think today's context is much different than it was back in the time periods we are talking about. All I am saying is, let's just use some basic logic and judgment. Don't cast a gay, black, disabled king as King Edward. Don't cast Eminem as Shaka Zulu. Don't cast John Wayne as Ghengis Khan. Don't cast Ken Jeong (one of my favorite comedy actors) as George Washington (leave him to play Che Gueverra
The problem is the show that got you all riled up did none of that. They just cast a black guy as a random soldier in a battle at a time when it's perfectly plausible there might ahve been a random black guy in the ranks. If they had gone out of their way to cast a famous black actor as Harold, you might have a point (although less of a point if it doesn't bother you they cast a Dane, instead), but they didn't do that. It's just some guy in the ranks holding a spear. Chill out.