Notably, a very large number of them have to do with either Cleopatra, mummies, or Bible stories. How come?
Willing Thinker {What Box} Member # 10819
posted
Does any one know what tribe that was in The Excorcist 2?
I never saw it, I just saw some footage.
The movie looked comical and a little corny.
...but again I didn't see it.
It looked like yet another portrayal of spooky gruesome mysterious africans [b] witch strangely matches the portrayals of the "white" egyptians in their movies...
Notably, a very large number of them have to do with either Cleopatra, mummies, or Bible stories. How come?
Simply, because those are the topics that have been (and still are) popular in the West.a
But I'm sure if more movies came out that focused on other-- more historical aspects of Egyptian history, those other topics would become more popular also.
I wonder what would happen if one were to come out with a movie about the origins of Egyptian civilization like Narmer uniting Upper and Lower kingdoms into one and if the Egyptians and their culture were depicted as they really were -- black African.
I'm sure not only would there be a firestorm, but it would become more popular for people everywhere (not just black people).
But of course Hollywood is not at all interested in that at the moment, but prefers the 'traditional' stuff-- the same tired old crap. *sigh*
Notably, a very large number of them have to do with either Cleopatra, mummies, or Bible stories. How come?
Simply, because those are the topics that have been (and still are) popular in the West.a
But I'm sure if more movies came out that focused on other-- more historical aspects of Egyptian history, those other topics would become more popular also.
I wonder what would happen if one were to come out with a movie about the origins of Egyptian civilization like Narmer uniting Upper and Lower kingdoms into one and if the Egyptians and their culture were depicted as they really were -- black African.
I'm sure not only would there be a firestorm, but it would become more popular for people everywhere (not just black people).
But of course Hollywood is not at all interested in that at the moment, but prefers the 'traditional' stuff-- the same tired old crap. *sigh*
Yes, the conquest of Lower Egypt would be an interesting movie (a bit too much AE fiction is set around the New Kingdom anyway), but unfortunately, we don't know enough to construct a good plot. Why did Narmer conquer Lower Egypt? And how did the people to Egypt's south fit into all this?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^Why did Sargon conquer Mesopotamia, or Maurya conquer India? For power and the chance to unify the peoples into a stronger nation.
Before this unification there is evidence of certain periods of conflict between Upper and Lower Egypt. We also see this conflict between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia.
I seriously doubt Hollywood would show the close relation Egypt had with 'Nubia' anytime soon.
I mean, just look at how they portrayed the 'Nubian' Medjay!
Tyrannosaurus Member # 3735
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^Why did Sargon conquer Mesopotamia, or Maurya conquer India? For power and the chance to unify the peoples into a stronger nation.
Before this unification there is evidence of certain periods of conflict between Upper and Lower Egypt. We also see this conflict between Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia.
I seriously doubt Hollywood would show the close relation Egypt had with 'Nubia' anytime soon.
I mean, just look at how they portrayed the 'Nubian' Medjay!
Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't like to romanticize brutal conquerors (unless they're white).
Here's an idea for a movie: the Persian invasion of Egypt. It would have the Egyptians heroically resisting the armies of Persia. Plus, the Egyptians tried to get help from Sparta, so we would have kickass Spartan warriors yelling "WE DINE IN HELL!" too. I can envision it now: Gerard Butler in Spartan gear and Denzel Washington (or some other really good black actor) with the blue crown of war, ripping through Persian formations and kicking Immortal ass.
Notably, a very large number of them have to do with either Cleopatra, mummies, or Bible stories. How come?
Simply, because those are the topics that have been (and still are) popular in the West.a
But I'm sure if more movies came out that focused on other-- more historical aspects of Egyptian history, those other topics would become more popular also.
I wonder what would happen if one were to come out with a movie about the origins of Egyptian civilization like Narmer uniting Upper and Lower kingdoms into one and if the Egyptians and their culture were depicted as they really were -- black African.
I'm sure not only would there be a firestorm, but it would become more popular for people everywhere (not just black people).
But of course Hollywood is not at all interested in that at the moment, but prefers the 'traditional' stuff-- the same tired old crap. *sigh*
There are plenty of eras about AE that can be made into movies.
1. The Unification 2. The Hyksos Expulsion which set up the New Kingdom 3. Sesostris' military campaigns (even though some are debated) 4. The Armarna Period
quote:I mean, just look at how they portrayed the 'Nubian' Medjay!
HAHAHAHA...Ardeth Bay (or whatever his name was). The Mummy is incredibly unaccurate, and I'm not even talking about race. You would probably have to make the movie independently...like Mel Gibson did with Passion of the Christ.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^^Yes. Unfortunately, I don't expect Hollywood to change its traditions anytime soon, so an independent movie would be best to portray the historic reality of Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn't like to romanticize brutal conquerors (unless they're white).
Well this just proof that Eurocentric dogma is perpetuated by Hollywood.
Eurocentric doctrines # 7:
IF IT WAS WHITE, IT MUST HAVE BEEN GREAT. Thus, the conqueror Charlemagne was a great man, in spite of his genocidal campaign against the Saxons, but the Asian conquerors Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan were simply evil. Stereotypes of head-hunters picture Africans (in the absence of any evidence for the practice) but never Celtic head-hunters in France and Britain -- much less Lord Kitchener making off with the Mahdi's skull in Sudan, or U.S. settlers taking scalps and body parts of Indian people. This doctrine also underlies the common assumption that European conquest must have improved life for subject peoples.
And Eurocentric docrine # 8:
IF IT WAS NOT WHITE, AND ITS GREATNESS IS UNDENIABLE, THEN IT MUST BE DEPRECATED IN SOME WAY: Example:The Epic of Man, published in the '60s by Time/Life Books, says of the advanced civilization of ancient Pakistan: "It is known that a static and sterile quality pervaded Indus society." It used to be the academic fashion to call ancient Egypt a "moribund" civilization which "stifled creativity." Similar writings dismissed the "Incas" (Quechua) as "totalitarian," or the Chinese as "isolated" and "resistant to change."
quote:Here's an idea for a movie: the Persian invasion of Egypt. It would have the Egyptians heroically resisting the armies of Persia. Plus, the Egyptians tried to get help from Sparta, so we would have kickass Spartan warriors yelling "WE DINE IN HELL!" too. I can envision it now: Gerard Butler in Spartan gear and Denzel Washington (or some other really good black actor) with the blue crown of war, ripping through Persian formations and kicking Immortal ass.
LOL Well as Scorpion says, there are many periods in Egyptian history that could be made into good movies. How good and how accurate depends on the producers.
posted ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
But of course Hollywood is not at all interested in that at the moment, but prefers the 'traditional' stuff-- the same tired old crap. *sigh*