I saw the movie in IMAX 3D and it was such a VISUAL SPECTACLE. So beautiful!

Moses and Ramses had such HOT exotic wives though. Shocked that Sigourney barely had lines. Not too fond on how they ended the movie.

Isn't is whitewashing if the Ancient Egyptians weren't white though, regardless if they were Black or not?

The fact that they spray tanned the people in this movie says it all.

what's really stupid is how the leads are white

and then pretty much everyone else, the slaves, women, etc. are all suddenly the proper ethnicities

that's what makes it worse imo

I am going to see this movie anyway

Dark skin tone is not a good indicator of race or ethnicity. Skin tone and color can vary significantly within the race. Caucasian race is the race which is associated with the white people of Europe and North America who belong to it, yet its also the same race to which also the dark skinned and brown skinned people of Mediterranean area, India, Arabia, North Africa belong to, including most probably also Ancient Egyptians. They most probably havent belonged to the same race as black people of central and south Africa or Afro-Americans do.



So wouldnt it be equally wrong to portray them by for example Afro-Americans than by tanned caucasian people? (Just a rhetorical question. I really think this shouldnt matter.) See? Its not that simple.

People read too much in these movies. Is Hollywood and this is a science fiction story anyway.

Somalian people have Caucasoid skulls but they're still considered black.

I don't think Ancient egyptians were black (although I did see this statue of an Egyptian king with African features) but if they were they probably looked similar to Somalians/Ethiopians.

Finally someone who knows what he is talking about. Exactly as you are saying, its a skull comparison and that one thing is incorrect, I know. I was just lazy to search for a better example, this one only served the main purpose as an illustration.

I have tried to explain this several times on ATRL and mentioning exactly this previously, Im just tired of repeating myself, so here is a link for anyone interested:

http://atrl.net/forums/showpost.php?p=25015348

Even if the dark skinned and brown skinned people of the Mediterranean area are classified as "white," the movie still doesn't feature people who look like them. That's in itself is a problem. Even if the Egyptians weren't black, we know that they most likely didn't resemble the Europeans featured in this film. The Egyptian's own artifacts are proof enough of that.

Further, why not just cast a diverse cast of all backgrounds instead of leaving the roles of servant and thief to the minorities... Now you wanna think about possible accuracy when it comes to criminals and servants, but nothing beyond those roles. Oh ok




Either way it goes, I don't care enough to argue about it. I just know I wasn't here for the film, and apparently nobody else was either.

Race is a social construct, and it doesn't exist biologically. Caucasian therefore, as someone mentioned already, is only defined by skull shape, and nose shape also (if i'm correct...). The very obvious problem with that is it fails to take into account skin complexion, other features (facial, body proportions), and hair which are all distinguishing traits that aid in identifying race.

So essentially, the term Caucasian is profoundly meaningless in a discussion of race, as it isn't even remotely exclusive to whiteness, as many misunderstand it to be.

With that said, ancient Egyptians definitely resembled modern day Horn of Africa peoples (Ethiopians, Somalians, etc...) more so than they do sub-Saharan blacks, which is what the US (slave descended) population stems from. But by this point, it's more an issue of splitting hairs, as again, even the features of Horn Africans are not exclusive, and are possessed by many sub-Saharan's as well. Not to mention, many of the busts and statues depicted people with sub-Saharan features.

Most likely they were a mixed society of various brown and black people, like the today's Horn of Africa people, where some would be interpreted (in our current time) to be black, and others not (but not Arab either).

With all of that said, they obviously weren't white, so the film remains a whitewashed travesty.

Race is not only a social construct. Yes, its supported by geography, linguistics, archeology, culture etc., but race is also a part of biological classification of human population based on physical traits (like shape of skull, nose, ears, eyes, eyelids, lips, fingerprints, cross section of hair, pigmentation of irises etc.) and genetics.
All anatomical, biological and genetic similarities and social affiliations are taken into account, so the pigmentation of skin is just one factor, far less important than it may seem to you. To which race an individual belongs to is determined by which traits specific for each race are prevalent.

If you want to deny the existence of races, that some large groups of people are biologically and genetically closer to each other than others (even tho there is a huge variety within the groups), its your prerogative, but dont scream racism then, it would be contradictory

Of course the roles of Ancient Egyptians could have been given to actors from Egypt, they could have cast people from Sudan to play Nubians to make the movie more authentic (genetic research indicates that their descendants still live there), but that is not the thing people are attacking this film for. I dont think there would be this huge backlash if the main roles were given to Afro-Americans, what wouldnt make the movie any more accurate, ironically.

GOOD! Serves them right.

I'm glad this movie is also flopping

When I think Black I think Sub-Saharan not all people of color are Black in my opinion. I would have rather them use no Black people in the movie at all than to use people of Sub-Saharan decent as just slaves, thieves and servants. Most of the cast should have been of Arab decent, than again they could have looked more like Sudanese people who knows.

excellent