Talk:Tut (miniseries)

Removal of opinion
I am removing the following section:

"Most Egyptians who have seen this feel insulted by the selection of actors used. This is because Egyptians were not Asian nor white, the chosen races of people for the main characters, but they were mixed Africans as seen throughout their history. The worst part is Tutankhamun being played by an extremely racially inaccurate actor. He seems more suited to a role in Marco Polo than in this mini series."

It is all opinion and no facts, here's why:

"Most Egyptians" What evidence do you have for that? how do you know?

"...feel insulted by the selection of actors used." - what evidence do you have for that?

"This is because Egyptians were not Asian nor white," A fact that may be true (though you don't give (a) a definition for Asian or white or (b) give alternatives to these options).

"the chosen races of people for the main characters" really? Who says?

"The worst part is " Why is that the worst part? Sound like it is just your opinion.

"Tutankhamun being played by an extremely racially inaccurate actor." What does "racially inaccurate" mean? Does it matter? Why does it matter? REMEMBER: don't give us YOUR opinion, give us a reference to a reliable source.

"He seems more suited to a role in Marco Polo than in this mini series." Who says so? Why would he be suited to a role in Marco Polo? Is that even relevant?


 * I didn't realize that Marco Polo was Indian. The actor who plays Tutankhamun is of Indian descent. JanderVK (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another removal of opinion
I removed this text:

"There is also the use of blacks as Mitanni's! The Mitanni were not black but from Syria/Iraq and were semetic! (While diversity in the acting crew is certainly welcome, then why not just go with 'Nubians' which the Egyptians were also battling at the time, instead of changing the Mitanni's ethnicity.) "

No reference and just an opinion. Eg: "While diversity in the acting crew is certainly welcome, then why not just go with 'Nubians" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.14.108 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Academic Response
Anyone find any responses/reviews from experts such as historians & archaeologists? Searching myself, but coming up with none JanderVK (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Balanced World Wide and Academic Truthfulness?
The above posters are correct. This page is unusual in not referring to how it may or may not deviate from real life events though claiming it is based on his life, rather than just being a fictionalized characterization of King Tut. This page requires the views of experts who can address the truthfulness of this portrayal of the events and people involved.

It's also curious that a passage reflecting Egyptians negative views of the series would be removed. This is their history. If Americans can call this a frivolous shampoo commercial as if King Tut was a mere invention of modern day fiction, then the real life opinions of the people who have King Tut and Egypt as part of their own personal history should also be validin fact more valid than some stuffy American critic's view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:103C:F33F:1FFA:732E (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect information in this description (see below)
"Tutankhamun invites Tustratta to the palace for a peace offering, but after the Mitanni king declines it, Tut leads his plague-weakened army in a sneak attack through a secret entrance to the enemy's capitol. Meanwhile, as the young pharaoh is away, Amun leads a revolt against him and orders his priests to kill the king so he can save Egypt from the worship of Aten. After knowing about the assassination Suhad is put in danger and Ankhesenamun kills her. During the attack, a dying Tustratta breaks Tut's leg and instead of tending to his injury, Tut returns to Thebes to destroy the last of his enemies. He conspires with General Horemheb, Ay and Nakht to kill Amun during the festival of Ra at the temple. With the love of his life dead by his own sister and infection setting in, Tut's homecoming is filled with sadness. On his deathbed, Tut makes amends with Ay and Ankhesenamun, who both reassure him he will be remembered for all eternity as a powerful ruler. However, Ay sees that Tut is buried in a lesser tomb meant for one who will never be known, thus remaining undiscovered for over 3,000 years."

The two bold parts of this episode description are WRONG! I corrected them but someone named KNHaw restored the INCORRECT information because the edits weren't constructive! In the real world CORRECTING wrong information is entirely constructive. As for the corrections I will list them below:

The first example is spelled wrong, it should be spelled Tushratta with an H.

The second example has the wrong person listed as the person who broke Tut's leg in the battle/attack. It should say Prince Tis'ata who is Tushratta's son (in the mini-series).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tut_(miniseries) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.171.82 (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)