Empress Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Empire was the King of Hungary, because the Hungarian kingdom had no legal or traditional position for a Queen as an actual ruler. It's not an unheard of situation, but on the other hand we all know random american woketards know fuck all about such things and they merely chose the "woman king" name because it's le based feminism or whatever.
I never watched the movie but I do recall that the kingdom of Dahomey was an actual slave state that defined itself by raiding other weaker tribes and selling them into slavery. That's... basically that's the defining feature of Dahomey. It's what they were known for. Later on when the British abolished the transatlantic slave trade (under threat of blowing your shit up unless you comply) it was precisely Dahomey that complained the most, because the slave trade was so integral to their economy and way of life. Furthermore, the French soldiers upon facing the kings female guard/units (technically wives) were extremely vary of shooting at them because they considered it unmanly to fight women. They were essentially shirking to fight, until they were directly ordered to and disciplined by the officers, after which they naturally blew them apart and won the war. With ease. This also ended Dahomey proper and thus slavery within Dahomey. God bless the French I suppose?
These American revisionist movies aren't just inaccurate, but outright lies built on top of lies and have fuck all to do with anything.
this is the movie that was 100% the opposite of reality, yeah? About the muhhomies or whatever they were called? The slavers who got their asses handed to them by the French yeah?
No.
It's the one where alt-righters were smugly assured that they had one over on hollywood because the real-life tribe sold slaves and the film is about them doing the opposite.
If I remember right, in actuality, the film is a romanticisation but generally accurate (a lot moreso than something like Gladiator). They did actually have a king who vowed to end slavery and they fought some large battles about it.
But a few years after the events of the film, they went back to trading slaves. Or something like that.
>Argo releases and pretends that Americans were the ones doing the saving, not Canadians like in real life >gets nominated/wins a bunch of major awards >right wingers have no issue with it >American Sniper releases and is full of inaccuracies while painting all Americans as good boys fighting a completely unambiguous war against cartoonish terrorists >right wingers applaud it and laud it as a masterpiece >U-571 releases and pretends like Americans were the ones to capture the enigma machine >no one accuses the film of propaganda except the british and right-wingers never bring it up as hollywood propaganda >a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly >right-wingers claim that it's the most dishonest film ever made and indicative of all hollywood propaganda
Wow. I wonder what the difference was?
you're not the ones complaining this time, it's the the other team?
>right wingers
Are these right wingers in the room with you now? You want to name some of these right wing film critics that were silent about Argo and American Sniper? The criticisms you list were made by people who knew history, you’re the one who wants to silence people who know history because you feel the need to protect “The Woman King” for some reason. I feel absolutely no desire to silence accurate criticism of Argo or U-571
>The slavers who got their asses handed to them by the French yeah?
Yes.
They came at the French with machetes whilst the latter had guns. Despite the heavy losses, the Dahomey still kept charging at the soldiers like rabid animals.
well hey maybe we're the bad guys for trying to put an end to slavery and injustice everywhere we found it. It seems like all the more basic types are cool with enslaving each other and all that.
The reason every other non-white race is eternally jealous of white people is because said non-white races, themselves, want to continue perpetuating the self-same atrocities they've committed throughout recorded history (i.e. slavery, debauchery, sacking, hedonism, pedophilia, depravity, genocide, etc). Northern-Caucasians are a convenient scapegoat to project their accumulated guilt onto since the former has, historically speaking, the lowest crime rates in all of history compared to everyone else, hence the millennia-long collective butthurt from the cultures whose skin pigments are several hues south of genetic purity. This is why a certain ~~*group*~~ infiltrated Western civilization as part of a millennia-long scheme to wipe out their anglo-saxon enemies to ensure a complete ethnic cleansing over the long term via political conditioning, historical revisionism, and genetic inbreeding. Considering recent decades, it's escalated to directing certain phenotypes of lesser races into becoming weaponized & just accelerating the genocide plan as blatantly as possible.
A pretty decent historical action film. Though it's let down because there are like 4 battle scenes and 2 of them are underwhelming/bad.
But if you're an easily-triggered /misc/tard then you already know you hate it
>Argo releases and pretends that Americans were the ones doing the saving, not Canadians like in real life >gets nominated/wins a bunch of major awards >right wingers have no issue with it >American Sniper releases and is full of inaccuracies while painting all Americans as good boys fighting a completely unambiguous war against cartoonish terrorists >right wingers applaud it and laud it as a masterpiece >U-571 releases and pretends like Americans were the ones to capture the enigma machine >no one accuses the film of propaganda except the british and right-wingers never bring it up as hollywood propaganda >a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly >right-wingers claim that it's the most dishonest film ever made and indicative of all hollywood propaganda
Wow. I wonder what the difference was?
Are these right wingers in the room with you now? You want to name some of these right wing film critics that were silent about Argo and American Sniper? The criticisms you list were made by people who knew history, you’re the one who wants to silence people who know history because you feel the need to protect “The Woman King” for some reason. I feel absolutely no desire to silence accurate criticism of Argo or U-571
>a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly
They were fighting to maintain slavery you absolute retard. Also, the movie was written by a israeli woman and directed by a mulattoe who was adopted and raised by upper middle class white parents.
I'll describe how each of the movies would've played out if they had the same level of historical revisionism as the woman king
Argo: >the US kidnapped innocent iranian citizens and held them hostage and only by slipping away to the saudi embassy was a plan enacted to rescue them, by Saddam Hussein
American Sniper: >Iraq has invaded the US to increase its oil reserves
U-571: >The US is killing israelites and conquering europe
>a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly
They never fought to end slavery. They were slavers. Once the Whites buck broke them and took away their slaves they collapsed.
There’s a difference between a movie having small inaccuracies and a movie completely flipping history to make the protagonists look good. They were slavers. They fought White people to keep slavery and lost. Big time. Their female warrior group was slaughtered in hand to hand combat with the French.
The tribe she was a part of engaged in human sacrifices and the war was because Europe was dismantling slavery (which Da homies based their entire economy and culture around). Also, they got their shit pushed in hard and didn't win fuck all when it came to battles.
revisionist history gives hope I guess, like that indian movie called rrr or whatever it was. where the history it was based off of was comedically tragic for these people who just wouldn't stop, could never learn, and subsequently gave away so much.
they briefly touch on the Dahomey being massive slavers but try to pass off the move away as a moral choice. In reality it was due to the banning of slavery across most european colonies so they needed new shit to sell to europeans.
>what the fuck was this again?
A historical revision about a basketball tribe that, IRL, were actually brutal savages who sold their own to European traders in exchange for money + weapons. That being said, Hollywood portrayed them as unsung abolitionist heroes led by a stronk independent POC womyn that don't need no man.
Fun Fact: the lead writer was a white liberal woman.
Sony, for some reason, decided to release this in China and it did extremely poorly. <$1 million in total. The CCP only allows so many foreign movies per year. Why this?
Why did they kill so many innocent people at the end? I thought this was supposed to make them seem misunderstood or something but they actually chimped out for no reason.
The big white cock king
I liked it a lot. One my favorites of last year.
>woman
>king
next we'll have the man queen if we haven't already
i'm not some shill or whatever but this is actually something that literally happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland
Empress Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Empire was the King of Hungary, because the Hungarian kingdom had no legal or traditional position for a Queen as an actual ruler. It's not an unheard of situation, but on the other hand we all know random american woketards know fuck all about such things and they merely chose the "woman king" name because it's le based feminism or whatever.
I never watched the movie but I do recall that the kingdom of Dahomey was an actual slave state that defined itself by raiding other weaker tribes and selling them into slavery. That's... basically that's the defining feature of Dahomey. It's what they were known for. Later on when the British abolished the transatlantic slave trade (under threat of blowing your shit up unless you comply) it was precisely Dahomey that complained the most, because the slave trade was so integral to their economy and way of life. Furthermore, the French soldiers upon facing the kings female guard/units (technically wives) were extremely vary of shooting at them because they considered it unmanly to fight women. They were essentially shirking to fight, until they were directly ordered to and disciplined by the officers, after which they naturally blew them apart and won the war. With ease. This also ended Dahomey proper and thus slavery within Dahomey. God bless the French I suppose?
These American revisionist movies aren't just inaccurate, but outright lies built on top of lies and have fuck all to do with anything.
So a queen?
My tongue belongs inside a nagger woman’s anus
MUH VAGINA
Monke Queen
this is the movie that was 100% the opposite of reality, yeah? About the muhhomies or whatever they were called? The slavers who got their asses handed to them by the French yeah?
No.
It's the one where alt-righters were smugly assured that they had one over on hollywood because the real-life tribe sold slaves and the film is about them doing the opposite.
If I remember right, in actuality, the film is a romanticisation but generally accurate (a lot moreso than something like Gladiator). They did actually have a king who vowed to end slavery and they fought some large battles about it.
But a few years after the events of the film, they went back to trading slaves. Or something like that.
Because you sound like you’re so well educated about this
>when you nit a nerve
*knit
Yeah that’s what happened. Epic victory captain retard
>still seething
Promo's good.
You sound like a colossal, onions homosexual. Post chin.
>They did actually have a king who vowed to end slavery.
>But a few years after they went back to trading slaves.
very africanesque
I love the idea of portraying slavers as freedom fighters, fighting for the freedom to capture and sell slaves.
The freedom to enslave others will always remain the highest form of freedom.
Confederacy kino when?
>The slavers who got their asses handed to them by the French yeah?
Yes.
They came at the French with machetes whilst the latter had guns. Despite the heavy losses, the Dahomey still kept charging at the soldiers like rabid animals.
well hey maybe we're the bad guys for trying to put an end to slavery and injustice everywhere we found it. It seems like all the more basic types are cool with enslaving each other and all that.
The reason every other non-white race is eternally jealous of white people is because said non-white races, themselves, want to continue perpetuating the self-same atrocities they've committed throughout recorded history (i.e. slavery, debauchery, sacking, hedonism, pedophilia, depravity, genocide, etc). Northern-Caucasians are a convenient scapegoat to project their accumulated guilt onto since the former has, historically speaking, the lowest crime rates in all of history compared to everyone else, hence the millennia-long collective butthurt from the cultures whose skin pigments are several hues south of genetic purity. This is why a certain ~~*group*~~ infiltrated Western civilization as part of a millennia-long scheme to wipe out their anglo-saxon enemies to ensure a complete ethnic cleansing over the long term via political conditioning, historical revisionism, and genetic inbreeding. Considering recent decades, it's escalated to directing certain phenotypes of lesser races into becoming weaponized & just accelerating the genocide plan as blatantly as possible.
Actually they had a lot of guns. So did the Zulu.
Yes but very few had the accuracy and training to use them.
Yes pretty much
>Muhhomies
Still makes me laugh how this is really what their tribe was called.
A pretty decent historical action film. Though it's let down because there are like 4 battle scenes and 2 of them are underwhelming/bad.
But if you're an easily-triggered /misc/tard then you already know you hate it
Yeah only chuds would have an issue with a movie that is obviously propaganda and completely lies about history.
>Argo releases and pretends that Americans were the ones doing the saving, not Canadians like in real life
>gets nominated/wins a bunch of major awards
>right wingers have no issue with it
>American Sniper releases and is full of inaccuracies while painting all Americans as good boys fighting a completely unambiguous war against cartoonish terrorists
>right wingers applaud it and laud it as a masterpiece
>U-571 releases and pretends like Americans were the ones to capture the enigma machine
>no one accuses the film of propaganda except the british and right-wingers never bring it up as hollywood propaganda
>a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly
>right-wingers claim that it's the most dishonest film ever made and indicative of all hollywood propaganda
Wow. I wonder what the difference was?
are you okay? did you take your meds today?
you're not the ones complaining this time, it's the the other team?
>right wingers
Are these right wingers in the room with you now? You want to name some of these right wing film critics that were silent about Argo and American Sniper? The criticisms you list were made by people who knew history, you’re the one who wants to silence people who know history because you feel the need to protect “The Woman King” for some reason. I feel absolutely no desire to silence accurate criticism of Argo or U-571
The left is always so schizo lol
>a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly
They were fighting to maintain slavery you absolute retard. Also, the movie was written by a israeli woman and directed by a mulattoe who was adopted and raised by upper middle class white parents.
I'll describe how each of the movies would've played out if they had the same level of historical revisionism as the woman king
Argo:
>the US kidnapped innocent iranian citizens and held them hostage and only by slipping away to the saudi embassy was a plan enacted to rescue them, by Saddam Hussein
American Sniper:
>Iraq has invaded the US to increase its oil reserves
U-571:
>The US is killing israelites and conquering europe
>The US is killing israelites and conquering europe
Don't you DARE threaten me with a good time.
>a film about africans who fought to end slavery but didn't do it perfectly releases, where it implies they did do it perfectly
They never fought to end slavery. They were slavers. Once the Whites buck broke them and took away their slaves they collapsed.
NO NOT MY HECKIN HISTORY THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN 100% ACCURATE BECAUSE ITS SO IMPORTANT IT SHOULD BE MORE LIKE BRAVEHEART
calm down loser
Sneed.
There’s a difference between a movie having small inaccuracies and a movie completely flipping history to make the protagonists look good. They were slavers. They fought White people to keep slavery and lost. Big time. Their female warrior group was slaughtered in hand to hand combat with the French.
The tribe she was a part of engaged in human sacrifices and the war was because Europe was dismantling slavery (which Da homies based their entire economy and culture around). Also, they got their shit pushed in hard and didn't win fuck all when it came to battles.
revisionist history gives hope I guess, like that indian movie called rrr or whatever it was. where the history it was based off of was comedically tragic for these people who just wouldn't stop, could never learn, and subsequently gave away so much.
they briefly touch on the Dahomey being massive slavers but try to pass off the move away as a moral choice. In reality it was due to the banning of slavery across most european colonies so they needed new shit to sell to europeans.
>revisionist history
It isn't revisionist so much as rewriting it as the exact opposite for the sake of propagandizing.
>what the fuck was this again?
A historical revision about a basketball tribe that, IRL, were actually brutal savages who sold their own to European traders in exchange for money + weapons. That being said, Hollywood portrayed them as unsung abolitionist heroes led by a stronk independent POC womyn that don't need no man.
Fun Fact: the lead writer was a white liberal woman.
some obese single mom came in to my wagie cage complaining about how her teenage son didn’t want to see this movie with her
Black supremacist come
Kings have dicks. That is all.
They literally made a movie about the most notorious slave empire in Africa and made them the heroes.
His hat makes him look like a pimp.
The traditional African pimp hat.
There were theater goers who actually though this was a sequel to Black Panther.
Don't know, never saw it, never will.
why are yogurt monkeys so afraid of black excellence?
for me it was the Cleopatra movie
An awful movie that bombed deservedly.
They ignored that the tribe it was based on were actually fairly prolific slavers.
I guess it didn't fit the narrative of YASSS BLACK KWEEN SLAY
Sony, for some reason, decided to release this in China and it did extremely poorly. <$1 million in total. The CCP only allows so many foreign movies per year. Why this?
Why did they kill so many innocent people at the end? I thought this was supposed to make them seem misunderstood or something but they actually chimped out for no reason.
Marxist agitprop garbage?
idk i enjoyed it