posted
i hear there is a movie about him coming. the question is. is denzel washington a good candidate racially? maybe he is too black
Yonis Member # 7684
posted
Thats crazy, I don't think he should accept that role. The Carthagians were descendent of phonecians, and they came from an area which is today around Syria and Libanon. So I don't think Hannibal looked the slightest as Denzel. He should definetly not take that part, it wouldn't look credible. This is how hannibal most likely looked like
Denzel should join the Nefertiti crew instead, he would fit great as General/Pharao Horemheb.
If he plays Hannibal it will look as rediculas as this white dude who played Djingis khan.
yazid904 Member # 7708
posted
Yonis,
We all imagine ourselves as openminded. I see nothing wrong with a white man playing Moses so it follows that a black man playing Hannibal is fair. I would personally prefer Vin Diesel playing Hanibal or even Cibrian since they fit the phenotype!
allahu akbar
Horemheb Member # 3361
posted
The point to remember is that movie production revolves around money, $$$$$$$. They could care less about all this racial accuracy baloney one way or the other. Yul Brenner and Charleston Heston were nop brainers for Moses and Ramses II. From a business standpoit a person would have to be a complete idiot to cast anyone else in those parts. It just so happens that in that case brenner was a good Ramses II, that may have been a pretty close match even though they were not doing it for that reason.
ausar Member # 1797
posted
The bust of Hannibal that people often showcase was never actually comissioned by Hannibal himself. The bust was an idealized potrait of Hannibal. However, I do agree that Hanibal most likely was Phonecian royalthy that came from modern day Lebanon. Many of the residents of Carthage probably were ''black'' because the indigenous people known as the Afers were described as such in Greco-Roman writings.
Hollywood producers and directors hardly get movies right and tend to go for stars that will earn large box oficce grosses. Denzel Washingston would be a better choice for a serious movie about Hannibal as opposed to a sword and sandal type epic that would better qualify Vin Disel.
yazid904 Member # 7708
posted
Like Gabow, Denzil is too 'black' only due to the funding/financing of the film and its audience. Diesel is much more of the type and build of the conqueror as opposed to the 'mild' physicality of Denzil.
bruh man from 5th floor Member # 9705
posted
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Thats crazy, I don't think he should accept that role. The Carthagians were descendent of phonecians, and they came from an area which is today around Syria and Libanon. So I don't think Hannibal looked the slightest as Denzel. He should definetly not take that part, it wouldn't look credible. This is how hannibal most likely looked like
Denzel should join the Nefertiti crew instead, he would fit great as General/Pharao Horemheb.
If he plays Hannibal it will look as rediculas as this white dude who played Djingis khan.
I agree, this is about the most sensible post in this thread.
osirion Member # 7644
posted
A Black Hannibal? Now he did have Nubian warriors. He himself is 'Rather IndoEuropean in origins though'
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by osirion: A Black Hannibal? Now he did have Nubian warriors. He himself is 'Rather IndoEuropean in origins though'
Hannibal may have had black warriors but how were they Nubian? As Ausar said, there were native blacks in the area of Tunisia where he lived.
And what the heck is this "Indo-European" origins?! Hannibal was of Carthegenian descent and the Carthegenians themselves were Phoenician colonists. In fact the '-bal' in the name Hannibal is derived from the Semitic god Baal. Besides, when you say Indo-European origins, one could take it to mean the actual origin of the Indo-European languages when even by the time of the Phoenicians Indo-European speakers were diverse peoples from Europe to India.
posted 
