Why is everything "historical" on Netflix either cinspiracy

>>3082588

Actually Narco was pretty good and kept to historical events mostly.

My main problem is that the lead is the best anti-here in a series in a long time and if you grew up in the 1990's you know how it ends. So its sad kind of.

Those are the things people want to watch. Most people think history is boring, and can only get interested if some drama is being sold, like through a scripted series or an /x/-tier documentary about the "real" history that's been covered up for whatever reason.

>>3082588
Because normies would rather watch drama than true historical documentaries

>>3082601

Also Marco Polo was pretty good, but had no basis in reality or history. If you treated it like Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings and ignored the plot holes about the Pope sending a crusader army to Mongolia.

>>3082601
Seriously, Pablo was probably the best anti-hero in a long time
I legit wanted the cops to just leave him alone after he goes back to the farm

Winter on Fire is a pretty good documentary, even if it's biased.

>>3082669
I can't watch that kind of shit. I don't like being lied to so blatantly like I'm some kind of retard.

Can't watch many WW2 docs because of that.

>>3082632
Was mind numbingly boring at times imo. Overall was pretty good tho.

>>3082678
It's not so much that it lies, more than it hides information from you.

>>3082689
Which is a form of lying, imo. Leaving out facts to frame things a certain way is gross.

>>3082632
Seconded. One of the best Netflix originals maybe. Even if it was stupid (like Jackie Chan movie tier stupid) at times, it's a very pretty show with great performances in an interesting period of history. Shame they cancelled it.

>>3082690
Yeah it's not better, but maybe it's more bearable to watch for you. As in you find out that it's bullshit after watching it.