We are talking about an 8 year old girl with a bloody tiara mate and she's being compared to a serial killer.
Behave.
Keeping up with the Markles
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
We are talking about an 8 year old girl with a bloody tiara mate and she's being compared to a serial killer.
Behave.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2020
- Posts
- 44
- Location
- In a universe nobody understands
Not the young girl. Of course just a child. But what she has become. How she has acted and been found out. It paints a very narcissistic type person.
We were just speaking about that video...if people take anything from that then there agenda is clear.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2011
- Posts
- 5,441
I don't think it reflects at all on her future aspirations, but it does kind of make her statements about barely having any knowledge of the royals look slightly less credible
If there is any profession that is going to know and take an interest in royalty it is actors.
They play Kings, Queens and other royalty all the time in films and plays.
For an actor to say they know nothing about royalty is a bit like a firefighter saying they know nothing about fires.
They play Kings, Queens and other royalty all the time in films and plays.
For an actor to say they know nothing about royalty is a bit like a firefighter saying they know nothing about fires.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,317
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I reckon if I go through my home videos of my daughters I am 100% sure there will be Kings & Queens and Princes & Princesses role plays.
When you think they grow up on Disney cartoons and kids TV it is very common.
However if you asked them exactly what the Royals get up to they wouldn't know.
I'd love to tear Meghan a new one but you're picking at straws here.
Blackfishing
This world is becoming more and more farcical by the day.
It's internally consistent. To a racist, it's wrong and foul and disgusting for an inferior race to claim to be a superior race. So of course pro-"black"/anti-"white" racists are appalled at the idea of a "white" person claiming to be "black". To them, it's wrong and foul and disgusting. It's an inevitable part of racism and the idea of racial purity (which is itself an inevitable part of racism).
It's not universal amongst those racists. Not yet, anyway. Some of them still hold to the old "one drop of black blood" idea, at least for as long as doing so is useful in driving anti-"white" racism. Of course, it's only a matter of time before that's dropped. Racial purity always features in racist ideologies. The beginnings of it are already in place, with people who are "not black enough" being assigned a second class state and, of course, blamed for it. Victim-blaming is a very "progressive" act. They call their particular implementation of racial purity and victim-blaming 'colorism'.
Eh?
It's more like an actor who plays the role of a crime scene investigator in a TV series saying they know nothing about crime scene investigation. Or an actor who plays the role of a doctor in a TV series saying they know nothing about being a real doctor. Or an actor who plays the role of a firefighter saying they know nothing about fighting fires. Etc, etc.
In many cases, screen depictions of something are unrealistic. Sometimes deliberately so because whoever is making the decisions decides it's more dramatic. Sometimes deliberately so because whoever is making the decisions decides that's what the audience expects. Sometimes just because the person making the decisions doesn't know about the reality and doesn't care enough to find out. The purpose of screen depictions isn't realism. It's usually profit. It's sometimes propaganda.
Sure, some actors sometimes take the trouble of learning enough about the subject to be able to better fake it. But they don't have to because realism is not the purpose. An actor needs to be good at faking what they're told to fake, not what's realistic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
What you require for this hobby:Blackfishing
Fishing rod
20lbs line
25" Chrome spinner
Flask of weak lemon drink
Actually you are quite right, she is not a serious actor and would not do stuff like Shakespeare.
Actors don't need to know massive amounts about a subject to play the role but they do need to know a reasonable amount.
Agreed a lot of the stuff they do is unrealistic but it still has to be based on some fact.
When am I coming to your house for dinner? I think I should come to your house for dinner.
I expect lots of discussions about aliens. It's important.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,317
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
and you would be welcome however both my daughters are getting married this year.
For some reason the idea seems slightly less interesting.
It has to be based on what will sell (if the motive is profit) or promote the desired emotions and beliefs (if the motive is propaganda). Or both, as they're not mutually exclusive. But it doesn't have to be based on fact. Also, the actor doesn't need to know anything other than what they're told to fake. Their job is to play the role they're told to play in the way they're told to play it. Whether that's realistic or not.
There are cases where both the people making the decisions and the actors choose to learn a reasonable amount about a subject. Sometimes even a lot about the subject. But that's not necessary and it's unusual enough to be noteworthy when they do. Possibly the gold standard for that is the film "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World", where the director demanded and got absolute control and pretty much a blank cheque in both time and money and the understanding that they would only make the film if they were allowed to make it as accurate as possible. It made a small profit despite being extremely well regarded by critics, winning 2 Oscars and being nominated for 10 of them. Realism is both expensive and unnecessary in a commercial sense.
To do the above it has to be based on an awfully large amount of fact for example a War Movie, something this country was pretty good at during WW2. The story can be fiction but the equipment, terminology and surroundings have to be right for propaganda to work.
Any actor working on the above film would learn a lot about the military with very little effort. For example they would know what a rifle from that period looked like, how to aim it and carry it etc. Having said that they would not need to fire it or be able to hit a target with it.
In that case, yes, for current times or very recent history. But not always. Not even for war movies if they're set further back in history and/or somewhere else. It's very rare indeed for pre-modern warfare or smaller scale combat to be shown on screen in anything like a realistic way. Even the films that hire an expert to advise them ignore everything the expert says - they're hired solely so the TV/film company can truthfully state that they hired a historical advisor. It's almost all wincingly inaccurate for the very small minority of people who know something about it. Flaming arrows, often thousands of them. "Catapults" (which won't be catapults) hurling flaming fireballs of doom which explode on impact. A hundred siege towers rolling up the castle walls and hundreds of soldiers running out of them onto the top of the walls. Light cavalry charging infantry as a first choice. Full on charge, straight in. All cavalry charging up to infantry and then stopping to engage in hand to hand combat with the infantry. Lots and lots of twirly sword dancing passed off as swordfighting(*). Swords routinely cutting through metal armour. Etc, etc, etc ad nauseum. In some cases there's wild inaccuracy even for current warzone films. There are a number of videos on Youtube of ex soldiers with relevant experience commenting on the depictions in modern films. Explosives disposal is probably the worst in that respect, probably because hardly any viewers will have any idea about it. Gotta cut the right wire before the handily displayed timer built into the bomb for no reason reaches zero! All that sort of nonsense.
But getting back to the direct point of this bit of this thread...did Meghan Markle ever play the role of someone marrying a prince of the UK? If not, then it's irrelevant how much an actor learns about reality in order to play a role. Although it is relevant if she learned nothing about the appropriate protocol before getting involved in it. If nothing else, Harry should have told her at least the basics ahead of time.
* I know that there are some circumstances in which a lot of movement, including some rotation, is realistic in a fight scene but most of the time it's not used in the right context. Nobody even halfway to shouting distance of having a clue would do in in 1v1 or with >1 enemy but on the same side of them. You'd do it only if you had enemies on more than one side and thus had to turn your back to some enemies some of the time. Rotation might enable you to maintain a plausible threat at each enemy, buying you time.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,293
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
You obviously never had kids or completely forget your childhood. My girl was always playing dress up with her friends because of Disney films and things like Frozen. I am not a fan of Megan but this particular piece of propaganda is just wrong. When my daughter learnt about Henry VIII they were all discussing which wife they would be. LOL
Despite how backwards America seems to be I would have thought the kids would learn a little bit about the monarchy.
Hopefully her choice was "none of them". Although one of his wives did well out of the marriage. One of the divorced ones. She was gifted considerable wealth and maintained a position of influence. Henry VIII is an interesting character if you look into him more. He changed for the worse over his life. He wasn't always the way he's usually portrayed as being.
I'll have to look it up now...Anne of Cleves.