11:25 I made the comparison with Bamboozled in the first part of this series. I feel Bamboozled is a better parallel than The Producers due to its focus on the TV and Film industry as well as how the TV executive played by Michael Rapaport reminds me of Richard Plepler (the main character Damon Wayans who pitched and eventually supported the Minstrel Show ISN’T like D&D to be perfectly clear, he was fed up how much racism is in the TV industry even though he’s a talented writer). Max and Leo were arrested for their scheme in The Producers, but the executives in Bamboozled that brought the most ludicrously offensive show on the planet on screens everywhere only suffered what they considered minor losses.
As a huge fan of absolute train wrecks, I am so sad the executives stopped doing coke for juuuuust long enough to realise what a misguided idea this was.
The fact HBO execs announced it probably means they DID realize it was insane - by realizing it was a fake pitch, they called D&D’s bluff by rushing it to a green light. Consider how little effort they put into announcing it, as if even they didn’t want to seriously make it
The more I learn about D and D the more I come to the conclusion is they're beyond nuts. I remember reading about the press release. I thought it was an adaptation from Timeline 191 which would of been interesting but soon realized it wasn't an adaptation and some strange show.
I sleep better at night knowing this show is forever scrapped, as both a Black woman and a victim of their previous fuckups. That ending was so bad that we all deserve compensation for damages in a civil suit 😂
You really think they could make a show that was even remotely offensive in 2024? In a world where an utterance of a racial slur is treated as worse than 100 murders?
To your bullet point of the C.S.A. would want its own Trans-Continental Railroad: They would first have to have amended their constitution to make that possible. Their Article I, Section 8, clause iii reads, "To regulate commerce between foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes, *but neither this, nor any other clause contained in this constitution shall ever be construed to delegate to congress the power to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce...* " They empowered their congress to regulate commerce, so long as they did not actually regulate commerce. The Confederacy was anti-Hamiltonian. They would not have wanted their own Trans-Continental Railroad. There could be no Confederate Trans-Continental Railroad under their constitution. There would be no Confederate Hoover Dam; there would be no Confederate Manhattan Project; there would be no Confederate Apollo Program. They despised the idea that the congress should have the authority to facilitate commerce; they spelled out that hatred in their own constitution. Alexander Hamilton's system was an anti-slavery system; these issues were directly related. To amend their constitution in such a way as to permit their congress to regulate commerce they way that our constitution allows our congress to regulate commerce would have defeated the purpose of the secession. At that point, they might as well have rejoined the Union, and ended slavery.
They address that in the books; constitutions get amended over time as attitudes change; I mean they also grudgingly outlaw slavery (well, nominally - basically it’s just sharecropping era). They also eventually have political parties - banned under their constitution original constitution, they just amend it eventually
@@thedragondemands5186 Thank you for the reply, good sir. I suspected that was a point from the book series; I have not read those books. The Confederate constitution never outlawed slavery, though. It became the first federal constitution on American soil to explicitly protect that peculiar institution, and it did so no fewer than nine times. For one example, new states were welcome to join the Confederacy, so long as the petitioning state made explicit protections for slavery in its own constitution and the Confederate Congress agreed to the… merger. Also, I am unable to identify where political parties were banned under their constitution. Perhaps they should be, or should have been. Modern Confederate sympathizers like to claim that the Confederacy modeled their constitution after our founders’ constitution, but they did so only in structure, not in principle. The Confederacy was a pre-planned fall-back vehicle to the condition of nation-wide and perpetual slavery, which originated from a compromise made at the constitutional convention regarding the practice of that institution. We did not want a slave nation. Slavery already existed here during the constitutional convention. Our founders did not make it so; but they left it so, because they saw no good way to get rid of it at the time. They were confronted at that convention by certain southern states which threatened to bolt the table for the British cause - or their own, which amounted to the same thing - unless they could keep their slaves. What to do? Call their bluff, and form two separate nations at the start - one a free republic and the other a slave-holding tyranny - which scenario would likely devolve into conflict as each competed with the other for continental territory to make slave or free? No, they compromised, and allowed these interests to keep their slaves *temporarily* in order to gain the Union which they believed - they knew - was essential to securing the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity long-term. They hoped that the sentiment of a free people which is the rose of our Declaration of Independence would survive the pressures of this weed, and not be snuffed out by it. They also knew that hope alone was no plan, so they included language to deal with insurrection in the event that these interests would be called upon to honor the compromise they made at that convention and respond to it by seceding from the Union they had sworn to defend by drafting their own constitution and taking up arms against the Union which threatened to fulfill that compromise and end slavery altogether, by constitutional amendment. Which brings up another interesting conundrum with how the Civil War is remembered, today. If the battle of Gettysburg had turned out differently, the Confederate Army would have headed to Washington, D.C., to overthrow the Union and establish a Confederate government over the whole territory. They were not about to risk another Abraham Lincoln popping up who was literate and well-read, who could decipher the compromise made in the language of both the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. How does a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable, God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness permit slavery in the first place? It could only have been the result of such a compromise, revealed in the language which ends the slave trade in 1808, as well as from the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, which prohibited slavery from those territories where it had not existed. Our original constitution itself permitted the slave trade only by those states now existing. If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, there would not have been a United States alongside them. The United States would have been folded into the Confederate States, by force. The south fired the first shots, and they call it “the War of Northern Aggression….” Very interesting coverage, as always. Keep up the great work, sir! Thank you again.
@@thedragondemands5186 That’s quite hysterical, actually. The _casus belli_ for the Civil War - the potential that slavery would end in the United States by constitutional amendment - lasted less than two decades before the Confederacy itself ended slavery by constitutional amendment in this alternate history…. Thank you for the clarification. Very amusing premise from the author of those books.
it really creeps me out these two grown men are known as Dan and Dave. Not, this is Dan, and that is Dave but this is Dan and Dave and they are always being hired together. It is just weird.
It’s really just David Benioff plus his sidekick Dan Weiss. Who would hire the relatively untrained Benioff, one man? By presenting it as a “writing duo” Benioff gives the sense of more credibility
@@kdkseven no the fact that these two grown men are known as dan and dave, i find it weird, they are a single entity. If I am a writer, it means I have a story to tell, and I don't need someone else's ideas. I don't need someone ruining my story. I would take pride in my writing. I would not split a paycheck with someone who would be interfering with my writing. They have no story to tell. They are given a homework assignment and they make it up as best as they can. That's why he needs his little gremlin partner. They are not writers, they are conmen. And maybe netflix is stupid enough to pay them two salaries instead of forcing them to split a single salary.
@@thedragondemands5186 if i was a studio, duo to me means more money. I would take David aside and ask him "are you a writer or not? Why do you need this idiot?" as i point at dave. Do you have a story to tell or not or are you going to season 8 my show?
@@thedragondemands5186 if they were in a band playing different instruments I would get it. But writing comes from the mind, the last thing I would want is someone interfering.
Machines made slavery obsolete. In the Dune universe after the Machine Crusade slavery would be brought back to fill the need that machines once occupied.
Very good this show was cancelled. What is the point. Provocative, ugly, offensive in a bad way. What could they possibly say with it? It may be OK topic for 1 episode of some scifi, just like Nazi won WW2. To show the different world, but beyond that, nothing interseting and more like some twisted fantasy fulfillment.
This is some clown commentary. Making a show about slave times is now racist? The 24/7 racial hysteria in this ‘racist country’ where nobody can name an actual racist is hilarious. Race hasn’t been an obstacle for anyone in 70 years. And GOT was some of the best recorded television ever - hands down - relax on season 8 - there was no way the show could have ended well. You would have hated it no matter how it ended. I like ‘puff piece’ about their new show - did these guys commit some crime on the public? Do you expect them to have contentious interviews about their work? They had a great show - better than anyone could do - and the ending sucked - but that was still probably better than anyone could do. It’s easy to criticize.
11:25 I made the comparison with Bamboozled in the first part of this series. I feel Bamboozled is a better parallel than The Producers due to its focus on the TV and Film industry as well as how the TV executive played by Michael Rapaport reminds me of Richard Plepler (the main character Damon Wayans who pitched and eventually supported the Minstrel Show ISN’T like D&D to be perfectly clear, he was fed up how much racism is in the TV industry even though he’s a talented writer). Max and Leo were arrested for their scheme in The Producers, but the executives in Bamboozled that brought the most ludicrously offensive show on the planet on screens everywhere only suffered what they considered minor losses.
As a huge fan of absolute train wrecks, I am so sad the executives stopped doing coke for juuuuust long enough to realise what a misguided idea this was.
The fact HBO execs announced it probably means they DID realize it was insane - by realizing it was a fake pitch, they called D&D’s bluff by rushing it to a green light. Consider how little effort they put into announcing it, as if even they didn’t want to seriously make it
Im just amazed the media treated them like gods. Far more talented people like Chris Carter never got put on that kind of pedestal.
I have some theories as to why, a couple of factors….even other contemporaries like Vince Gilligan didn’t get this kind of celebrity cult
Most people in media are as fraudulent as those two clowns, of course they would celebrate mediocrity.
The more I learn about D and D the more I come to the conclusion is they're beyond nuts. I remember reading about the press release. I thought it was an adaptation from Timeline 191 which would of been interesting but soon realized it wasn't an adaptation and some strange show.
Their latest project is premiering on Netflix in March. An adaptation of the sci-fi novel The Three-Body Problem.
A dragon never loses its fire.
I sleep better at night knowing this show is forever scrapped, as both a Black woman and a victim of their previous fuckups. That ending was so bad that we all deserve compensation for damages in a civil suit 😂
Point is it was apparently an intentionally offensive fake pitch - which in and of itself is cynical and offensive
You really think they could make a show that was even remotely offensive in 2024? In a world where an utterance of a racial slur is treated as worse than 100 murders?
@@thedragondemands5186in a world where millions and millions show their virtue daily by taking a stand against racism that hasn’t existed in decades.
This confirms my beliefs that game of thrones was doomed from the start and d&d should of never gotten a hold of got they are bogus for this
No one can land D&D except Martin. It's crazy to suggest these two dingdongs had any chance of accomplishing that.
You're a great researcher
To your bullet point of the C.S.A. would want its own Trans-Continental Railroad:
They would first have to have amended their constitution to make that possible.
Their Article I, Section 8, clause iii reads, "To regulate commerce between foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes, *but neither this, nor any other clause contained in this constitution shall ever be construed to delegate to congress the power to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce...* "
They empowered their congress to regulate commerce, so long as they did not actually regulate commerce. The Confederacy was anti-Hamiltonian. They would not have wanted their own Trans-Continental Railroad. There could be no Confederate Trans-Continental Railroad under their constitution. There would be no Confederate Hoover Dam; there would be no Confederate Manhattan Project; there would be no Confederate Apollo Program.
They despised the idea that the congress should have the authority to facilitate commerce; they spelled out that hatred in their own constitution.
Alexander Hamilton's system was an anti-slavery system; these issues were directly related. To amend their constitution in such a way as to permit their congress to regulate commerce they way that our constitution allows our congress to regulate commerce would have defeated the purpose of the secession. At that point, they might as well have rejoined the Union, and ended slavery.
They address that in the books; constitutions get amended over time as attitudes change; I mean they also grudgingly outlaw slavery (well, nominally - basically it’s just sharecropping era). They also eventually have political parties - banned under their constitution original constitution, they just amend it eventually
@@thedragondemands5186 Thank you for the reply, good sir. I suspected that was a point from the book series; I have not read those books.
The Confederate constitution never outlawed slavery, though. It became the first federal constitution on American soil to explicitly protect that peculiar institution, and it did so no fewer than nine times. For one example, new states were welcome to join the Confederacy, so long as the petitioning state made explicit protections for slavery in its own constitution and the Confederate Congress agreed to the… merger.
Also, I am unable to identify where political parties were banned under their constitution. Perhaps they should be, or should have been. Modern Confederate sympathizers like to claim that the Confederacy modeled their constitution after our founders’ constitution, but they did so only in structure, not in principle.
The Confederacy was a pre-planned fall-back vehicle to the condition of nation-wide and perpetual slavery, which originated from a compromise made at the constitutional convention regarding the practice of that institution. We did not want a slave nation. Slavery already existed here during the constitutional convention. Our founders did not make it so; but they left it so, because they saw no good way to get rid of it at the time. They were confronted at that convention by certain southern states which threatened to bolt the table for the British cause - or their own, which amounted to the same thing - unless they could keep their slaves.
What to do? Call their bluff, and form two separate nations at the start - one a free republic and the other a slave-holding tyranny - which scenario would likely devolve into conflict as each competed with the other for continental territory to make slave or free? No, they compromised, and allowed these interests to keep their slaves *temporarily* in order to gain the Union which they believed - they knew - was essential to securing the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity long-term. They hoped that the sentiment of a free people which is the rose of our Declaration of Independence would survive the pressures of this weed, and not be snuffed out by it. They also knew that hope alone was no plan, so they included language to deal with insurrection in the event that these interests would be called upon to honor the compromise they made at that convention and respond to it by seceding from the Union they had sworn to defend by drafting their own constitution and taking up arms against the Union which threatened to fulfill that compromise and end slavery altogether, by constitutional amendment.
Which brings up another interesting conundrum with how the Civil War is remembered, today. If the battle of Gettysburg had turned out differently, the Confederate Army would have headed to Washington, D.C., to overthrow the Union and establish a Confederate government over the whole territory. They were not about to risk another Abraham Lincoln popping up who was literate and well-read, who could decipher the compromise made in the language of both the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. How does a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable, God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness permit slavery in the first place? It could only have been the result of such a compromise, revealed in the language which ends the slave trade in 1808, as well as from the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, which prohibited slavery from those territories where it had not existed. Our original constitution itself permitted the slave trade only by those states now existing.
If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, there would not have been a United States alongside them. The United States would have been folded into the Confederate States, by force. The south fired the first shots, and they call it “the War of Northern Aggression….”
Very interesting coverage, as always. Keep up the great work, sir! Thank you again.
@@joeltraten5967yeah I’m saying in the alternate history books by the 1880s they needed a constitutional amendment to ban it
@@thedragondemands5186 That’s quite hysterical, actually. The _casus belli_ for the Civil War - the potential that slavery would end in the United States by constitutional amendment - lasted less than two decades before the Confederacy itself ended slavery by constitutional amendment in this alternate history….
Thank you for the clarification. Very amusing premise from the author of those books.
it really creeps me out these two grown men are known as Dan and Dave. Not, this is Dan, and that is Dave but this is Dan and Dave and they are always being hired together. It is just weird.
It’s really just David Benioff plus his sidekick Dan Weiss. Who would hire the relatively untrained Benioff, one man? By presenting it as a “writing duo” Benioff gives the sense of more credibility
Creative partnerships are weird?
@@kdkseven no the fact that these two grown men are known as dan and dave, i find it weird, they are a single entity. If I am a writer, it means I have a story to tell, and I don't need someone else's ideas. I don't need someone ruining my story. I would take pride in my writing. I would not split a paycheck with someone who would be interfering with my writing. They have no story to tell. They are given a homework assignment and they make it up as best as they can. That's why he needs his little gremlin partner. They are not writers, they are conmen. And maybe netflix is stupid enough to pay them two salaries instead of forcing them to split a single salary.
@@thedragondemands5186 if i was a studio, duo to me means more money. I would take David aside and ask him "are you a writer or not? Why do you need this idiot?" as i point at dave. Do you have a story to tell or not or are you going to season 8 my show?
@@thedragondemands5186 if they were in a band playing different instruments I would get it. But writing comes from the mind, the last thing I would want is someone interfering.
It was weird I briefly thought about that today and how it seems to have been forgotten.....but I'm not surprise this channel didn't
D and d...the only two guys that could hurt the confederacies reputation
I've not even heard about them wanting to do that was it ever talked about back then
Maybe people could actually have watched the Battle of Winterfell if it was shown in cinema, lol.
Machines made slavery obsolete. In the Dune universe after the Machine Crusade slavery would be brought back to fill the need that machines once occupied.
Very good this show was cancelled. What is the point. Provocative, ugly, offensive in a bad way. What could they possibly say with it? It may be OK topic for 1 episode of some scifi, just like Nazi won WW2. To show the different world, but beyond that, nothing interseting and more like some twisted fantasy fulfillment.
What's the problem with alternative history shows? Man In The High Castle was popular and is the same premise.
I directly bring that up
The problem would be DnD making it
@@hypatiakovalevskayasklodow9195 in a nutshell 😂 like DD said, who would trust them with either race or grape??
This is some clown commentary.
Making a show about slave times is now racist? The 24/7 racial hysteria in this ‘racist country’ where nobody can name an actual racist is hilarious. Race hasn’t been an obstacle for anyone in 70 years.
And GOT was some of the best recorded television ever - hands down - relax on season 8 - there was no way the show could have ended well. You would have hated it no matter how it ended.
I like ‘puff piece’ about their new show - did these guys commit some crime on the public? Do you expect them to have contentious interviews about their work?
They had a great show - better than anyone could do - and the ending sucked - but that was still probably better than anyone could do. It’s easy to criticize.