HBO finally confirms that David Benioff and D.B. Weiss' slavery drama, Confederate, is dead
Aux Features TV
“If you can get it right, there’s a real opportunity to advance the racial discussion in America.” This is what HBO president Casey Bloys said after scores of people made it clear they didn’t, actually, want a speculative series about slavery in the modern age from the two guys in the above picture. Well, it appears they couldn’t “get it right,” because Bloys has confirmed to TVLine that Confederate, a show the exec was really excited about once upon a time, is really, truly dead.
Announced in the summer of 2017, the series from Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss was set in an alternate reality where the South won the Civil War and successfully seceded, resulting in a world where “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution.” The blowback was swift, and not only because the show was touted by HBO as the brainchild of two white dudes. Some called it “slavery fanfic,” and, as we opined at the time, such speculative projects are as tired as they are exploitative, especially in a country that’s still got a serious race problem. “[A]ll its exciting political intrigue,” we wrote, “revolves entirely around a fantasy where black people are still slaves, a fantasy that America (specifically white America) loves to indulge in.” Just look at how, despite there being a number of worthy contenders, the only person of color to be nominated for an acting Oscar this year was playing Harriet Tubman.
HBO remained committed to the series in the aftermath of the controversy, but said it was not being “actively worked on” come that December, adding that they wouldn’t “be able to focus on this new project for a while, maybe 18 months.” Since then, Benioff and Weiss botched the final season of Game Of Thrones, dropped a divisive finale, and disembarked from the Star Wars trilogy they were set to develop. They also signed a highly lucrative deal with Netflix, which was probably proof enough that Confederate wasn’t going to happen. Still, it’s nice to know we’re finally done writing about it.
178 Comments
I’ll admit that at first I was supportive of the project. If handled well it could be good and stuff like Man in the High Castle got made. Buuuuuuuuuuuut after see Thrones season 8 I’m sure they would have been tone deaf and fucked it up. Maybe it could work in better hands but with Benioff and Weiss? No.
I don’t think anyone would trust it to begin with unless the writing team is very diverse and the showrunner is a Black person, preferably with heavy experience of dealing with the topic of slavery in fiction, to avoid the easy to see fuckery that would happen otherwise.
What a dumb opinion. You are the reason we can’t have nice things. No one owes you anything. Certainly not media companies or writers.
Yeah you’d have to be very careful with a subject like this and DnD can’t do it. All the original stuff they wrote for the series was rather heavy handed. I mean the burning of Kings Landing used so much 9/11 imagery its all too much.
How would you have any insight into what they can or cannot “do”?
Without actually black people leading the project, what I tend to find is that stories based on racism created by white people, just end up being palette cleansers for their own “white guilt” rather than anything meaningful.
Which is both funny and sad. And I have no doubt this show would of ended up the same way, haha.
You want someone like Jordan Peele doing this maybe. Someone you trust to actually do something interesting and subversive with it. Fair enough if you want to involve some white writers you think are of good quality, but the overall vision needs to be someone that can be trusted with it.
Yeah.. honestly it’s not the premise that was the problem… you’ll really need a writing staff with a lot of very specific knowledge and very diverse points of view to pull something like that off.Nor D&D and that’s a fact.Especially after GoT 8… they are now persona non grata at HBO I think.Cheers
As someone who enjoyed Swiss Army Man, I’m also of the school that there are no bad ideas if you can pull them off, but the number of people who could both pull this off and are willing to touch it would be small.
Man talk about a movie that on every level should not work but somehow does.
I’d watch it if David Simon were writing.
But he wouldn’t need to write it, he examines the legacy and reality of race and racism in almost all of his work.
How does a history of examining race mean he wouldn’t make another show that does it?
It doesn’t, but it does establish a pattern of how he likes to examine race and society. A former journalist, he tends to focus on the recent past and the present, based on his own lived experience and/or contemporaneous research i.e. most of the info comes from living sources.His settings are usually urban and frequently Baltimore. Not only is he familiar with these places, he has stated that one of his goals is to tell the stories of these areas.Simon couldn’t be clearer about 1) what interests him creatively and 2) that he works on what he wants to, not what he has to.
He’s already adapting a Philip Roth alternate history book into an HBO series, so I think he’s willing to tackle this sort of thing.
Valid point, but I would argue that Simon, a Jewish American adapting an alternative history story about Jewish family experiencing American fascism in the 1930s, is probably pulling from his knowledge of the actual history and his personal familiarity with that community.
Sure, but he’s also very familiar with life for people with backgrounds radically different from his own, and could draw on actual history for it either way. I just can’t think of an argument for Simon to be badly suited for a project like this that wouldn’t also disqualify him from making The Wire.
That’s a valid argument and I’ll acknowledge its an overstep to frame my pov in absolutist terms. I think its based solidly in what he’s done and said, but its still conjecture.
I think before they announced the Roth thing I would agree with you, but at this point his scope seems wider.
You’re not exactly wrong, but I kind of feel that we’re maybe taking and debating what is ultimately a bit of wishful thinking and fantasy casting a bit too seriously here.
Agreed, although that doesn’t change the fact that I am absolutely, completely right. Kidding. I think my point is valid, but its not that serious.
My thoughts exactly! I was thinking if they had a really diverse group of writers and actors involved, there was a chance it could work. After seeing the final season of GOT and then hearing some of the stuff D&D said afterwards, I realized just how wrong I was.
Watchmen was a better speculative fiction exploration of race than that series could ever hope to be.
And that had a white showrunner, though a) The entire writer’s room clearly brought something to that show he wouldn’t have been able to do on his own, and b) It’s firmly set in a sci-fi comic book world, which grants some leeway.
Lindelof has said in podcasts that a diverse writer’s room was integral to the show and elements like the Black Wall Street massacre came from that group. I think Lindelof’s skills as a show runner are nothing short of remarkable. Creating a sequel to a classic is daunting enough, add in a cohesive examination of race and the degree of difficulty seems impossibly high.
It wasn’t just season 8. These are the guys that are responsibile for “sexposition” entering the modern lexicon and that was season 1. It should have been obvious from the start that their ability sensitively portray anyone who isn’t a fratty middle aged white guy like them, is less than stellar.
I would like to see Jordan Peele’s take on it.
And nothing of value was lost.
Yeah you would have a lot of insight into that.
Aww, I remember you! Still lurking in comment sections desperately trying to get a rise out of strangers as the only form of human interaction in your sad life, huh? Well, have fun with that!
Yup. Literally no one is sad about this. If David Beinoff and D.B. Weiss never wrote anything else again, I’d be fine with it. Maybe they can do adaptations that are actually finished. But their own stuff? No.
I was actually really interested to see what they came up with….but then I got a gander of what these guys were capable of with GoT S8 and suddenly wasn’t that hyped anymore. Well, really when they started running out of material that George actually wrote we started seeing cracks in their storywriting.Maybe if they had a really solid base of source material to go on, like GRRM’s actual text for GoT, it could’ve worked. Failing that, well….
Yes, and their first cut of “Winter is Coming” had to be shelved and completely re-made because they made mistakes worthy of a freshman taking Screenwriting 101. In their own words. Probably should have sent up red flags to George right there that maybe these two were not the best choice with whom to entrust your magnum opus (I think the books are terrific).
The Dorne storyline was when the cracks begun showing. Remember how much of a shit show that was? They didn’t have the books to draw upon because they never bothered with Dorne, they wrote their own instead, and it was a mess.
But..but…it had Dr. Bashir!!!
I look forward to a bunch of peoples strong opinions on a series that was never made but that they somehow know would have been “problematic”. Judging something before it even exists is so fun isn’t it? We don’t even have to wait for something to exist anymore before we destroy it for being “problematic”. What a brave new world.
LOL. I signed up for a free trial to binge-watch Game of Thrones so I could keep up with the ‘commentary’. Now I know WAY too much about a series that should have been axed after the first season; and anyone who “loves” this series should be put in isolation away from the rest of us.In other words, great. These two Jokers don’t need any more encouragement.
So you’re saying you’re stupid. The show had its problems towards the end but as far as fantasy tv goes, it was damn near perfect for 5-6 seasons.
Lol. Thanks ammo. Troll better. GOT is “damn near perfect?”
I wouldn’t ever say “perfect” but before they had to start putting out original narrative (e.g. not actually penned by George), it was great.
Ah, the famed hipster hot take.
“and anyone who “loves” this series should be put in isolation away from the rest of us.”But why?
Why? Violence porn, imo. I have only watched one other series that was more dependent on grotesquely gratuitous violence than GOT. If you enjoyed the scene with a 12-foot wall of dead bodies (Ok, many of the men still alive and screaming), and “Whitewalkers” throwing themselves onto a fire so that their mates could use their bodies as a bridge….? No, I don’t want to know you.
As others have said, no great loss. Now, how about a Rome-style, warts-and-all series about the actual Civil War?
Yes, Roundheads and Cavaliers! Oliver Cromwell! Wait, you mean the much later US one that has been done to death a million times. Hell, even the current Little Women is technically a US Civil War movie.
One of my favourite jokes from ‘Frasier’ is Niles and Daphne arguing over which Civil War is more interesting. (Niles says English, Daphne says American.) Frasier arrives and Niles asks him, “What’s the most interesting civil war?” Frasier’s response is, “Spanish, but I don’t have time to tell you why.”
Aha, we can have Kelsey narrate it too!
It’s a good gag, but I suspect Kelsey Grammer thought it was best ‘cos it ended with a Fascist government in power.
“that has been done to death a million times” – nah, you’re thinking of British royalty dramas. We Yanks have decades of catching up to do when it comes to putting our rulers on film. :p
Well they had a whole movie, it starred Captain America and everything
I’d like to see a high-profile documentary about the US Civil War that wouldn’t have D.W. Griffith nodding happily as he watched.
“Announced in the summer of 2017, the series from Game Of Thrones showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss was set in an alternate reality where the South won the Civil War and successfully seceded, resulting in a world where “slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution.”Seriously? An “alternate reality?”You don’t have to look for an “alternate reality.” I’m fairly certain that you can just Google “Slavery Porn” and get what you need. I don’t speak from experience because B&B have already convinced me that they are sick AF: GOT has likely already spawned loads of torture porn. But if you want to see porn featuring POC in some kind of “slavery setting,” it probably exists. These two pieces of exploitative trash would certainly ride that wave – even if someone ELSE had created it first.
Am I the only one who didn’t see any version of this show (another showrunner, minority showrunner, black writing staff, etc.) working? An America where slavery still exists? Slavery DOES still exist, it’s just been rebranded. As the article mentions, no version of this concept is not #slavepornNow, a show about a contemporary America in which American slaves overthrew their owners… That would be genuinely fascinating and would actually be thought-provoking.
Yeeeeep. Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana (and most other states) prisons all use prisoners as effective slaves.
https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_5e65f21b-6c01-5216-a622-ca1663561b3b.html
Yeah, when they commit crimes. Which isn’t…slavery. So…..
Actual slaves, as allowed by the 13th Amendment. Being owned as property is literally still a legal punishment for a crime.
Slavery is allowed under the Constitution if you are a prisoner. Gods damn this country never seems to get it quite right.
If you want to get technical, the South actually won in the long term. Mostly because Andrew Johnson was a racist jackass who hindered Reconstruction and did nothing to prevent former Confederates from launching coups on democratically elected governments throughout the South. The Compromise of 1878 basically solidified their control of the South just so that Hayes could be President.
This is a next level stupid comment.
It was half Andrew Johnson’s racism, obstructionism, & incompetence; the other half the GOP’s vindictiveness, throwing out Lincoln’s reconstruction plan once he was dead in favor of their own harsher version which left the South bitter & resentful for the next 170 years. Booth potentially did more long-term damage to the South than General Sherman did.
In this alternate reality would things be better than in reality? I ask because I think people generally find it depressing to contemplate alternate histories where things are better than in real life. Why do you think alternate histories where the bad guys won are the most popular?
I got a little thing called the West Wing that disagrees with you.
How much different was the history in that show? I don’t think a better version of our current reality is an alternate history.
The speculated divergence point was Nixon’s implosion triggering a change to the election cycle and setting it off by two years. Bartlet was elected in 1998, and the show mentions a Reagan-analog Republican elected in 1978 and again in 1982, followed by a Carter-analog Democrat serving one term elected in 1986. Otherwise, the world is basically the same.
I don’t think you know what “alternate history” means
I think it means a much bigger point of divergence than The West Wing.
Well you’re wrong
Watchman (TV Series) did a good job exploring this. What if the US won the war in Vietnam and it became a US state? So much is different with us winning in Vietnam.
For All Mankind posits an alternative history (Russians win the race to the moon) that is arguably better than ours: a chastened US ends the Vietnam War early, Ted Kennedy cancels his trip to Chappaquiddick to lead hearings about how NASA screwed up and gains the stature to challenge Nixon’s reelection, female cosmonauts on the moon gives the Equal Rights Amendment an extra push, etc.
And the horrible discussions it would start. Slavery wasn’t so bad, the owners cared because the slaves were property.
And Ken Burns would probably make an epilogue to The Civil War so he could let someone like Shelby Foote wax poetic about how awesome the antebellum South was again.
It is really tough to imagine. I think anyone who tried to write it and make it work would be considered by their social position. Something like The Man in the High Castle works because of kind of a shared narrative: an American writing, as part of the America who won against Nazi Germany, a what-if where America loses and Nazi Germany wins is clearly making a negative portrayal. So if a minority writer wrote Confederate, it might have more of that certainty, and yet, I don’t think many would go that way. Because, written by an African American, this might be seen as saying, “Wouldn’t it have been terrible if the good guys lost? Good thing they won, and fixed everything. Look at how bad it would have been if they hadn’t!” And that would be completely ridiculous.
Now you’ve got me thinking what a flex it would be to release Confederate after all this build-up and controversy, only to reveal that it’s not set in an alternate universe at all – it’s set in ours, treating the prison system as a modern-day Confederacy.
Yeah, I think Firefly pretty well demonstrated that the only way to make the confederates sympathetic was if the setting had NO slavery in the first place, which Dumb & Dumber here were not gonna consider.
Nope, this was a terrible idea from the start. I suspect it’s been dead a while but HBO didn’t want to throw gasoline on the fire around the time Game of Thrones was ending by also announcing that this show wasn’t happening.
Harry Turtledove explores this a bit in “The Disunited States of America”. Basically the US never moves beyond the Articles of Confederation and everything kinda goes down hill from there.
But…it sounded like such a good idea.
If it helps it was already done very well in C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America a film from 2004 which managed to be effectively disturbing.
I’m actually a bit disturbed by how these articles always erase the involvement of Nichelle Tramble Spellman and Malcolm Spellman, the two African-American executive producers of the show. The show may have been terrible (we’ll never really know), but I don’t think erasure of people of color is a great way cover this story.
I thought I remembered there being some African-Americans involved in the project. Nice to know I wasn’t going crazy.
Woke Club found their narrative and they will beat it until it dies, then beat it some more. They are not interested in untangling the strands of complication that make this sort of worth discussing.
Lol @ you
It would just kill you to admit I have kind of a point, wouldn’t it? This show had two exec producers and lead writers of color; why does this article pretend like they don’t exist? The obvious answer is that it doesn’t serve the only story they think their readership wants, which is “widely-internet-hated white guys did ill-advised, possibly racist thing.” It’s a sort of spin. Easier to attack the caricature than to parse something that is at least a little bit complicated.
The piece the Root posted about this a couple years ago was far more interesting, and has a lot of quotes from the Spellmans about their take on the material and the backlash. Granted, I would not expect the AV Club to do that. This is a different site, with different points of focus. And the writing staff here is (always has been) mostly white, so maybe they don’t feel comfortable talking about it in depth. But I can also say I’d rather read an article like the Root’s any day than another bauble from the outrage gumball machine.
Do you think the reaction wasn’t based on the fact that the people of color weren’t the ones in charge of the show and the two trust fund dipshits who’ve already proven they can’t write their way out of a paper bag were?
Sure. But I also think this point has also been made extensively (this is the 7th article posted here about a show that was never even made); that the only reason they’re beating it into the ground is that post-GoT hate and white-dudes-making-bad-choices are things that get clicks; and that it’s still not too much to ask to at least mention the Spellmans, who, again, are people of color and were exec producers/lead writers on the bad-idea show that never was. And given how prevalent the idea of erasure is in current progressive discourse, it’s not a good look to erase two black writers from a show they were helping to write, even if it simplifies and sharpens the point they want to make. To my mind, that’s an especially poor reason to do it. If you can’t make your point in the face of a little complicating reality, maybe you’re not equipped to speak on it in the first place.
Which, really, is the thrust of most of my criticisms of this site. They should stick to lightweight pop culture news and commentary, because nobody left here seems thoughtful or careful enough to write about much else. Every place a scalpel is called for, they come at it with a machete. Aping the broader style of O’Neal without an iota of his nuance, or sense for when to pull back and get serious.
This is a news article about Harry and Lloyd flopping yet again. It’s not a deep essay on the politics of depicting slavery. What would mentioning them have added to delivering this news? The bottom line is that this show would have been a disaster and we’re all better off without it. And I’d be a great deal more likely to take your criticisms at face value if you hadn’t been banging the Wokeness Gone Mad drum around here for years now.
Well, maybe it’s on me. No, really. I just want more/deeper commentary than this site gives most of the time. These little news blurbs with a side of snark, usually leaning hard left by default, do nothing for me. I don’t feel entertained and I certainly don’t feel intellectually stimulated by them; instead I just get annoyed that they keep harping on the same subjects (again, see the previous six articles on this show that never was made), and tossing in a “lol white dudes” or “lol trump” just because those are the lowest-hanging fruit right now. Maybe this site has just stopped being for me.
As far as the wokeness drum-beating, you have a point. I’ll just say this: I like to play devil’s advocate. To question received wisdom and popular ideas. My tendency–mostly unconscious–is to find whichever way a given forum or comment section leans, and then poke holes in it. I would get nothing from joining the chorus here; would much rather rub against the grain a bit and try to provoke a real conversation. Especially among liberals, I tend to do this, because I find them much closer to sane than conservatives, on average. Get a lot more reasonable debates here than I would posting in the comments over at Fox News about how they’re all maybe just a TAD too afraid of immigrants and LGBT people.
But still—this is the internet. It is what it is, and I should know better. It’s like one time in ten or twenty that I get that real conversation, and the rest of the time, it’s just a pissing match and people assuming the worst about each other.
Yeah, see, here’s the thing; there’s no need to play devil’s advocate. Especially when it comes to shitty takes like “stop criticizing the rich white television producers for their racist bullshit.” Seriously, it takes a lot of arrogance to hear people complaining about racism and say, “Ah! I bet these people have never heard anyone be dismissive about this very volatile issue in their lives! I need to supply them with lukewarm opinions on why getting mad about things that affect their lives is bad, particularly when they don’t affect mine! That’ll shake up their complacent little lives! It’s not like anyone’s been dealing with this shit since they were born or anything!” Meanwhile, we’re making a last-ditch attempt to stave off a total fascist takeover and you’re surprised when your contrarianism isn’t well received. Come on. Even if I was to take your comment at face value, learn to read the room.Also, if you think the AV Club is hard left, you’ve never seen “hard left.” Plus glib attempts at snark about the Woke Police or whatever is hardly going to engender “real conversations” with anyone.
I disagree that there’s no need to play devil’s advocate. Basically everyone’s received wisdom needs to be put through its paces. Ideas with genuine merit will rise to the top; the rest will deservedly sink. Or, more often, just be retooled into different and hopefully more evolved ideas tomorrow.
“stop criticizing the rich white television producers for their racist bullshit”That is not and never has been my take. It’s possible to think racism is bad and people propagating it deserve to be blasted, while also thinking that sites like this do a very poor job of that task on multiple levels, and are basically just skimming ad revenue off of the progressive left’s (generally justified) anger. This is why you and I just don’t ever see eye to eye, I think. I come into the comment section always wanting to talk about the job the AV Club is doing, which I view as mostly poor and cynical; you come in wanting to be mad about the same thing they are mad (or pretending to be mad) about. We are talking past each other.
Meanwhile, we’re making a last-ditch attempt to stave off a total
fascist takeover
I don’t wholly agree with your alarmist language, though I can also say bluntly that if Trump is re-elected, I’m going to be about as dismayed as I’ve ever been at an election result (or anything else). Yes, he needs to go. BUT: here is another place you and I part ways. You seem to be implying that whatever the AV Club is doing here is helping remove Trump and his ilk from power and/or the popular discourse. I don’t agree. If they’re not actively part of the problem (which I think is arguable), they are at least doing fuck-all to alleviate it. The media at large has fallen down on the job of “resisting,” and sites like this are some of the very worst, with their puddle-deep takes and general preaching-to-the-choir mentality. No resistance is happening here, it’s just a bunch of young liberals venting, and Univision collecting click money. So I come to criticize them, yes. They’ve truly earned it. And if I wasn’t criticizing, I might not be here at all. (Hold your applause please, I haven’t left yet.)
Even if I was to take your comment at face value
That’s just it—I wish you would take more (or any) of my comments at face value, instead of trying to read the tea leaves and discern whatever agenda you think I “really” serve. I just told you my agenda, and I believe my comment history backs that up. I’m not trolling, I’m not here to “own the libs”—I just like discussing things that bother me, and I’m kind of an old crank. That’s my whole story.
“Woke Club!” Hahaha! How does it keep up with the news like that?
Part of the problem is that the Spellmans were introduced as executive producers after the initial blowback, which came off as the TV equivalent of “I can’t be racist; here’s my black friend!”
Another part of the problem is that this show existed in the first place.
I mean kind of? Unless there was information about their involvement in the writing/production process, the existence of black staff doesn’t change anything other than that a couple of black people co-signed to it.
So my question is, how involved were they? PoC have been used as shields for criticism plenty of times, after all.
I’d watch a modern-day slavery show…if it was about the slaves joining together in a bloody uprising and slaughtering all the racist slave owners. Like Django Unchained, except in modern times.
They worked so hard to rush GoT to an ending so they could jump to other projects (SW, this) only to see those projects disintegrate in the wake of disappointment surrounding the rushed ending of GoT.
They could have just quit Game Of Thrones and let someone else finish it if they wanted out so badly. But no.
It’s always fun how this gets regurgitated ad nasuem because someone said it in a Youtube video even though any actual look into the GOT timeline and Star Wars timeline shows that there’s no way that’s the case since they announced in 2015 the show was almost over and Disney/Lucasfilms plans for Star Wars were radically different at the point.THe Force Awakens hadn’t even released yet when they said the show was more than halfway over. That’s just wild to keep on thinking that idea is true.They rushed the ending because the story they were interested in telling wasn’t what interested some fans and hell George’s ending may not have interested them, but it wasn’t because of Star Wars.
Saying the story is “half over” isn’t the same as insisting on wrapping up the show with a truncated last season with plotting and characterization that made not a lick of sense. They were the ones who insisted on the relatively small number of episodes in Season 8 (for example). That’s why the rumors of each episode being two hours long started floating around. Because no one could figure out how they’d wrap up the story in the time. And it turned out they couldn’t.
After making 40 hours of a show and saying there’s fewer than 40 hours left and then filming a little less than 40 hours is kind of the same.Granted, I’m not arguing over pacing issues in S8. I’ve said for awhile that the biggest issue of S8 is the behind the scenes mentality of making mini-movies which has been rumored for years that HBO originally wanted to release the final season (Whenever they got to it) as a trilogy of movies. There are aspects of disbelief in the final seasonal that people would accept from a movie that they song accept on a TV show.But, I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing the Star Wars BS. They planned out the end of the show in 2013 with Martin. They knew what key events they wanted to hit and felt they could do it in less than 80 hours. It was known information. I’m just saying the rushing for Star Wars is bullshit, I’m not arguing over takes on the final season. I liked it, others didn’t. That’s whatever.
They weren’t fired from SW for rushing this. They were fired from SW because it came to light that they’re shitty showrunners that don’t understand the basics of storytelling.
Maybe this means they can do an alt history series based on something that hasn’t been done to death?Like the Temeraire Series. It’s basically Horacio Hornblower but with dragons.
Where’s my ‘Mongol Empire successfully invades Europe’ alt history show that merges heavy Asian influences with European nobility to give us Maggie Q as alternate Queen Elizabeth, or Remy Hii as young Louis XIV or Michelle Yeoh as Catherine Midici.
Give us something new for god’s sake
I would watch the shit out of that.
How about an adaptation of Lord Conrad by Leo Frankowski? Last couple books were weak, but what else is new…https://www.goodreads.com/series/43333-conrad-stargard
Not really that premise specifically, but you’d like a series from “The years of rice and salt”. 😉 Or you can read the book if you’d like. :)Cheers
A key thing about the Temeraire Series is that colonialism doesn’t work when groups like the Incan Empire can field an Air Force.
The South shall not rise again after all it seems.
https://www.theonion.com/south-postpones-rising-again-for-yet-another-year-1819565548
I’m not sure this project was a good idea. But I am sure that condemning it sight unseen is a horrible idea. Fuck you AV Club.
It’s dead at HBO. I don’t think HBO would have owned the concept. I wouldn’t be surprised if this shows up on their Netflix dead.
I was so looking forward to running “tits and cannons” jokes into the ground.Ah well.
I still don’t see why this would be more problematic than The Man in the High Castle.
I would say if you read some of the other comments in this post you might find them helpful.
I have.
Then idk what your problem is because it’s really, really clear to anyone who understands historical context
Historical context? You mean like the fact that there are Holocaust survivors who are still alive, which I think would arguably make High Castle more problematic?
Are there actual depictions of extermination camps in High Castle? Because if not, I don’t think your comparison works.
Was Roots problematic because it showed Kunta Kinte getting whipped?
Oh, I didn’t realize Roots was an alternate history?Why do you want this so bad, dude?
I’m guessing he’s a troll or very, very stupid. If you can’t see why “two white guys with the social understanding of that pretentious college boy with one sociology 101 class under his belt” making slavery porn is bad on your own, having it clearly and repeatedly explained to you won’t help.
Do you frequently insult people you disagree with?I wonder if you think it was problematic for Philip K. Dick, a white Gentile with a questionable grasp on reality, to write The Man in the High Castle. Also, “slavery porn”? Do you think horror movies are murder porn?
Do you think horror movies are murder porn?A lot of them, yeah. Are you not aware that “torture porn” is a common description of a certain kind of horror movie that centers around finding elaborate ways to torture and kill their characters.
Fuck off, troll.
I don’t see what being alternate history has to do with whether or not showing oppression is problematic.
Good thing nobody’s claiming that
Actually, I’d say it is problematic. Not in a “OMG TAKE THIS OFF THE AIR, DON’T LET ANYONE SEE THIS” kind of way. But Roots and the dozens of other slave movies fit into a complex category of exploiting suffering for entertainment/education.
These types of depictions sort of act like a “scared straight” program in the way they condition audiences to think about race, but never really challenges any of their preconceived notions about themselves or their roles in society. But that’s really off topic.
Though I think it’s possible The Man in the High Castle could also suffer from this issue. But the way Americans interact with the Holocaust and slavery are two different beasts.
Maybe because the guys who made it tried to make us sympathize with slavers in GoT to make Danerys look bad in the last season by riffing on a famous poem about the Holocaust?
That’s quite a reach.
The part where Tyrion called the slavers “evil men”?
Since Laserface keeps dismissing my responses to his posts(even when his post is in response to one of my posts. Way to fight fair, dude!), I’d like to point out that in the scene he’s referencing Tyrion calls the slavers “evil men.”
Yeah, that was a dick movie on my part and for that I apologize. The thing is that the whole monologue in that scene is the show grinding to a halt to justify to why Dany is evil and needs to be killed. However, Dany crucifying slavers, while to some extent cruel by our standards, seems to ignore instances like Jon Snow executing a child or Tyrion using Dragonfyre at the Battle of the Blackwater. In short, the use of invoking her killing slavers was holding her to a double standard.It also shows they’re willing to infer a “Both Sides are Bad” theme to resisting slavery, which would be detrimental to Confederates.
I don’t think it’s so much “both sides” as “good intentions can be taken too far.”
Right. And Sansa fed her enemy to a pack of savage dogs. Arya tricked her enemy into eating his own children. Were we seriously supposed to believe that any of those people had a leg to stand on regarding moral treatment of an enemy? It made no sense and was so comically shallow that I am so relieved that they won’t be inflicting “Confederate” on the world.
Yes. And his argument is that killing those particular “evil men” makes you as bad as those evil men. It’s a fancied up version of “It’s the people who preach tolerance who are the REAL intolerant people,” speech. It’s also the argument used by oppressors everywhere to justify maintenance of the status quo. And saying that, “The only good kind of victim is the one who does not seek power or justice,” is also a disgusting philosophy.
Who said anything about how victims shouldn’t seek power or justice? All I’m saying is that even with good intentions there’s such a thing as going too far.
So people with good intentions can go “too far” … as opposed to practically everyone else in the story who did not have good intentions. What that gives us is a story that frames the person fighting for destruction of an oppressive social system as insane and dangerous, while framing the people seeking personal power and maintenance of the oppressive status quo as safe and moral. Not really the kind of people I’d want writing a show called “Confederate.”
I wasn’t really that interested in the question of how well-written Confederate would be. I was talking more about the idea some people had that the idea of such a show existing would be problematic in a way that High Castle wasn’t. Did you have any opinions along those lines?
The reason they find it more problematic is because it would be badly written. As Moggett said, B&W have shown that with GoT Season 8 that they view people who fight for social change in an oppressive regime are just as bad as the people who maintain the regime in question. When you put that in the context of an alternate history where the Confederacy won the Civl War, naturally this leaves concerns that B&W would frame those resisting the Confederacy as just as bad as the people they’re fighting against.
Bingo.I’ll take a step back and add that probably the better show to handle alt-history social commentary is adapted by someone who worked on the deeply sympathetic “X-Files” from an equally sympathetic and canonically unimpeachable novel, not pitched by two persons known entirely for their bankable adaptation of a good writer’s lesser work’s worst tendencies toward cynical politicking and verbose nudity.
There’ve been revolutions against oppressive regimes that ended up being as bad as or worse than what they replaced. I bet a lot of people didn’t see how a pro-equality revolution could be worse than life under the czar.
“There’ve been revolutions against oppressive regimes that ended up being as bad as or worse than what they replaced”And that makes keeping slavery or the inherent goal of ending it bad somehow? I guess that means we should all just accept oppressive governments and never demand reforms because “What if we make Super Hitler?”.It’s not like you don’t understand this at this point since you’re always reposting the same comment any time Confederates is brought up no matter how many times people explain why B&W would mishandle it. It really begs the question of whether or not you’re acting in good faith.
Who said anything about trying to end slavery being bad? All I was saying was that good intentions can go too far. I’m pretty sure that’s what Tyrion was saying, and I don’t see what made you think he or the writers were saying that therefore trying to improve things is inherently bad.I was never that interested in Confederate in and of itself; as people keep saying, alternate histories about the Confederacy winning have been done to death. My problem was with people getting offended by the show merely existing(sometimes I come to the defense of things/people I think get unfairly maligned even if I’m not a big fan of them). Sure, people have said they think the show would suck, but I don’t see why that in and of itself justifies the outrage directed at it. It seems like some people think the show would have some kind of negative real world impact; they think that a show about a world where black people are slaves would be traumatizing to black people(I don’t recall people being worried about whether High Castle would be traumatizing to still-living Holocaust survivors), or that it would embolden white supremacists(people don’t usually worry that entertainment about bad people will embolden real life ones). What bothers me about all this is that I think it’s part of a trend where some people think we need to control what people see and hear so they don’t get any wrong ideas. They think if we so much as allow some bad viewpoint to be heard, we’re “normalizing” it, and that we should only allow “good” views to be heard so everyone will fall in line. I don’t think that kind of thinking is good for a free society. We’ve moved past the idea that video games cause violence, so I think it’s bizarre that some people seem to think that a show about the Confederacy winning would cause the sheeple to suddenly think slavery wasn’t that bad.
And saying that, “The only good kind of victim is the one who does not seek power or justice,” is also a disgusting philosophy.It also contradicts what Varys said in Season 7 when he said that Robert was a bad king not because he was evil, but because he had not interest in ruling.
I do see why it could be – outright Nazism has never been anywhere near as big a thing on our shores as American slavery and discrimination was/is, but I don’t think it’s an outlandish comparison, either. Whether there was any real merit to the project I have no idea, but all in all, it did sound like more trouble than it was worth.
maybe because Man in the High Castle was based on a piece of already existing speculative fiction? And wasn’t a brainchild of two people who have demonstrated no ability to write compelling original content?
The problem is that there is still a very big race issue in America. It isn’t like America is some racially euphoric place where then it would be kinda of intriguing to see something like this. There are a lot of racial issues in America as it is and the idea just seems like two guys thought “hey what if the south won and also we got human advancement from it” it comes off racist. Now i’m not saying these guys a racist im just saying thats how it comes across.
Just to add “The Man in the High Castle” is about an alternate world war 2 ending and yes the holocaust did happen but that is hardly the reason America entered the war they entered because of the attack on pearl harbor and the fact that Germany, Italy and Japan were basically plotting world domination, those are the themes “The Man in the High Castle” explores not the oppression of a single group of people.
Because the South had less of a chance to win the Civil War than Germany had of winning WWII, and Germany was fighting a two-front war, with one of the fronts being on the ground in fucking Russia. Our credulity can only stretch so far, especially to accommodate this turd of an idea.
Whatever happened to that other alt history post-civil war show announced around the same time about African Americans getting their own nation that ends up doing better than the US?
You know, I’d love to see an alt-history series where the First Nations Americans fight back against colonisation and, after a long war of attrition, gain control of the country while still allowing white settlements to exist under Native law. I’d be fascinated to see what a 21st century, multi-tribal America could look like.(I’m a white Australian, and have often wanted to see a similar story about a country governed by the indigenous peoples of my homeland.)
Ahem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BabaKiueria(It’s not quite what you were thinking, but I remember seeing it at school and getting a kick out of it.)
I saw this in school too! It was pretty entertaining, though I’m not sure how many of us saw beyond the joke to the issues it was talking about.
I do remember at the quiz they gave us afterwards answering a question along the lines of “whose oppression does this video make you think about” and, in what can only be described as a truly spectacular case of taking what I’d just seen a bit too literally, writing “the white people”. So yeah, in hindsight it may not have been the most effective teaching tool. Still fun, though.
WAKANDA FOREVER
I’ll say what I said when this idea was first announced: I have zero confidence that the guys who failed to see why Sansa getting raped would be controversial would have the sensitivity to handle a topic like “the Confederacy wins” in a good way.
hack frauds
Between Watchmen and the upcoming adaptation of Lovecraft Country, it seems like HBO has already staked their ownership of lofty speculative fiction about racism. No need to fill their bench with a poorly executed fantasy written by a couple of tone-deaf hacks.
Regardless of the creative team involved, I’m not sure an America where people find plantation tours that mention the horrors of slavery too preachy is ready for a project like this.
The tour I took of Monticello a few years ago would have been right up those people’s alley.
I’m not sure America is ready for different flavors of Oreos, let alone this.
I hear instead they’ll be working on an alternate history series that examines what the U.S. would look like if the Whigs had remained as a political party. It pretty much resembles the U.S. today, except there is better funding for the interstate highway system.
Weird, the guys who read Game of Thrones and thought, “You know what this story needs? More rape and pointless violence against women,” couldn’t get a show about “What if slavery existed in modern day?” right.
What do you mean couldn’t get a show? They had the show and left it behind when they jumped ship HBO for Netflix.It’s been obvious since the Netflix announcement that this show was dead. But at one time they had it in the bag and it was their choice to leave.
Best news of 2020 so far! With those two show runners behind it, it was just like they were walking around holding a stick of old glistening dynamite, not understanding, obliviously, that it was waiting to go off at any moment’s notice.They have proven themselves to have a terrible track record, and inevitably, at any given moment, this endeavor would have exploded.We just don’t need those two inexperienced, very privileged white men running and creating a show about such a charged racial topic using HBO money. Bring me Spike Lee and/or Jordan Peele, and then we could talk.
“Still, it’s nice to know we’re finally done writing about it.”Or ARE we?
Good.
The premise at the time sounded more like an unused draft for a Sliders episode. And come to think of it, I wouldn’t mind a new Sliders show.
We could have had George R. R. Martin’s Doorways!I wish there was a reboot!
I think there are two separate problems here.First, the slavery problem. Although I think it’s important to have realist content which tackles real atrocities and real flaws in humanity rather than airbrushing them and giving all the characters a happy ending, I really doubt this story is the best approach.Second, the Benioff & Weiss problem. I have a pet theory that they’re awesome when they don’t have a completely blank page; give them somebody else’s story to fine-tune and they’ll do a great job. GoT, of course, was great viewing until they reached the limit of GRRM’s books, then they had to strike out on their own and it went badly wrong. I loved Troy but, let’s face it, there was original material to draw on. Ditto for Kite Runner. I haven’t seen it but Google tells me that Benioff wrote & directed “When The Nines Roll Over” from scratch, not relying on anybody else’s story / characters / universe, and it gets a whopping 3.3 out of 10 on IMDB.
TBH I’m quite interested in alternate history and was mildly curious in a “let’s-wait-and-see” fashion about this, but I can’t say I’m too cut up that it’s not going ahead. It had major car-wreck potential.
I mean, I get the issues, but The Handsmaid Tale is the exact same thing, but women.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
It was effectively canceled with in weeks of being announced and everyone knew it. The show was a terrible idea no matter who was running it.1 It would way to too likely to make a mistep and end up exploiting or insulting African Americans.2 Even if it avoided the first pitfall it its a terrible idea to create a fake problem(modern American slavery) that would tend to be conflated with related but separate real problems.You would would be hard pressed to find a show more likely to actually make racial issues worse in America than this idea.
There was a movie years ago, meant to be a satire, called CSA: The Confederate States of America, written and directed by Kevin Willmott, an African-American, that was a “mockumentary” of this same concept.
This is one of the things that led Willmott to become Spike Lee’s regular “co-writer” for roughly the past decade now.
The faux doc was interrupted by fake commercials for things like a home shopping network for slaves and a sort of LoJack system for catching runaway slaves.
It’s available on YouTube.
It seems many of the commenters think the filmmaker is white and blast it for that reason.
The fact that they thought this should be a show in the first place is the problem.
Instead they’ll be bringing their terrible ideas to Netflix.
This is very disappointing. I think this show could offered a very interesting “what if” and probably could have been far better than The Man in the High Castle. There are many excellent “alternative” novels/series and what these compelling isn’t that these try to present a better world. Far from it. The idea is a different world with truly different problems.It is fascinating, and even disturbing, to me that so many people were against a show before it was even made! Yet, how is it different from something like The Handmaid’s Tale, which is another dystopian reality (if not a quasi-alternative reality)?Confederate could have so many rich stories, a modern underground railroad, the building a slave rebellion, a Cold Civil War between the USA and CSA, etc. To suggest that it was just slave fanfic or slaveporn doesn’t even want to give it a chance.That audience apparently just wants more vampire and super hero stories instead of something truly different and potentially edgy.