Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Soulwind]

You're lumping together disparate things here, and also making arbitrary distinctions - somehow you're saying that someone being a different SPECIES is the same thing as them being a particular RACE, and that all of those are just "physical appearance" that always works and applies the same way. Which is ludicrous.

What you're doing is picking race specifically as something that matters over other factors. No one ever complains about hair or eye color, say; but skin color? HOLD ON, IMMERSION BREAKER! Nobody complains if someone of Germanic ancestry plays Julius Caesar in a play - even though the irony of Germanic vs. Roman is more than palpable in such a context. But have someone from North Africa or the Middle East do the same? Suddenly it's cries of HERESY that would put the Empire of Man to shame.

That's the point people are trying to make: these categories of "race" that seem so obvious to some people are just arbitrary distinctions drawn for largely arbitrary reasons, and if you dig deep enough they really truly just DO NOT MATTER for the vast majority of contexts. Especially for contexts that already require - as you admit - so much suspension of disbelief that it's very suspicious why skin color of all things should suddenly be a step too far.

"I'm fine with dwarves, orcs, and elves. Fireballs and dragons? No problemo. BUT BLACK PEOPLE?! Come on, think of our IMMERSION, where would a black dwarf even COME FROM! That's not REALISTIC!"

My point was that everything is fine, as long as you take the time to explain it. You say hair and eye color don't matter, but they can. Joffrey Baratheon should have been brown haired, but because he was blond, Ned Stark suspected his actual origin. If you have a show in which three generations of a family are shown to have blond hair and blue eyes, and you have a random brunette, dark eyed character, people are going to ask what's the deal with that character, regardless of their skin color.

You can absolutely have a fantasy setting in which nobody cares what anybody looks like. LotR isn't it, though. Because the very basis of it is that these species have grown distant from each other, and it takes a group of heroes to break the mold and prove how they're stronger together, and how evil wins when they allow their differences to divide them.

Now with this show, I'm supposed to pay attention to the fact that a pointy eared man is an elf, which is a completely separate species from another man with smaller ears and they hate each other, but I can't even question that two men with different skin color live in the same town with nothing ethnically or culturally different about them.


And I'm sorry but no, "it's fantasy so anything goes" isn't an excuse for, well, anything. You can make an adaptation of LotR in which Robocop shows up at the end, shoots Sauron, grabs Frodo and flies to the Enterprise, but not only it won't be a good adaptation, you are going to be asked a lot of questions about your narrative choices that "you just have to suspend your disbelief" won't answer.

[Stormwolf64]

I imagine not everyone can be like you and this guy:

Yep, not everyone can be this badass

[Specialka]

The idea that adaptations of a fantasy world need to stick to the racial demographics that were acceptable by a British scholar writing in the 1930's and 40's is just ridiculous. "Tolkien wrote it therefor it must be followed to the letter" isn't a good enough excuse. Tolkien created a wonderful world filled with diversity and narratives about good vs evil, power, free will, and courage, a world that wasn't rooted in the history of the real world. The idea that this world was strictly created for white people with characters that can only be portrayed by white people is without a doubt a racist ideology.

What desolate corners of the internet do you have to visit to still find the outrage concerning two of the most pivotal characters in the movies being cast with American actors? If Aragorn and Frodo were played by actors such as Chiwetel Ejiofor, Idris Elba, Riz Ahmed, or Rege-Jean Page I can only imagine the spike in blood pressure you and your merry band of racist gatekeepers would have. Obviously the implication is that being white is more British than actually being British.

Tolkien is dead, and whatever he might have thought about the great diversity in what constitutes the people of Britain nowadays is irrelevant. He wanted to make a mythology for England, and this is what England looks like now (Tolkien never specified that he just wanted to make fantasy for white English people). Just as adaptations of Shakespeare's works don't have to adhere to the strict norms and demographics of his time, neither do Tolkien's. If you want to continue to push for this idea of racial purity in works where it has no place then don't be surprised when people call you out for what you are.



Elves aren't humans. They didn't evolve like humans. The don't have the same physiology as humans. They don't need to adhere to the biology of real world humans. It's a non-issue in the context of a world where humanoid creatures are simply awakened into being, essentially immortal and capable of fantastical superhuman feats. Hell, even the Men of Middle Earth aren’t actually Homo sapiens given that they share no biological or evolutionary history with actual humans. So yeah, fuck off with your "but melanin" excuse.

More importantly, get your fucking Tolkien right before you spout your bullshit. The Sindar that merged with the silvan elves in the 2nd Age forming the Woodland Realm under the rule of Oropher adopted the SILVAN language and customs. On top of that, the silvan elves existed (referenced by Tolkien himself) all the way into the 4th Age. Appendix B states that after the War of the Ring, after Galadriel's passing and Celeborn settling in Imladris "In the Greenwood the Silvan Elves remained untroubled". So yeah, a wood-elf in the 2nd Age could very well refer to themselves as a silvan elf.

Wonder how Kiriku with white guys would be received ? Have to insert a little diversity in the African culture after all.

[Biomega]

You say hair and eye color don't matter, but they can. Joffrey Baratheon should have been brown haired, but because he was blond, Ned Stark suspected his actual origin.

Yes, that's why I said "the vast majority of contexts" not "all contexts". If it's SPECIFICALLY made into a topic, it matters; that's why a white MLK wouldn't make sense either, for example, because it's SPECIFICALLY about race in that context. But in the vast, vast, VAST majority of contexts it's an ancillary afterthought of no appreciable relevance.

To take your example, Joffrey Baratheon's hair color mattered for the story; but, Harry Potter's hair color, say, does NOT matter. Not in any way, even if it's set to be something specific in the books, because it has no actual relevance to the story itself. It's a minor detail of no narrative importance, just like it is for almost any other character.

You can absolutely have a fantasy setting in which nobody cares what anybody looks like. LotR isn't it, though.

Says who? Why does SKIN COLOR of all things suddenly become relevant in LotR?

Because the very basis of it is that these species have grown distant from each other, and it takes a group of heroes to break the mold and prove how they're stronger together, and how evil wins when they allow their differences to divide them.

And you equate difference (or a lack thereof) specifically with skin color? Why? Sure it's ONE marker of difference, but why is it more important than others? Why is THAT marker specifically the one that's relevant?

And I'm sorry but no, "it's fantasy so anything goes" isn't an excuse for, well, anything.

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "anything goes", I'm saying "you need to justify why you have a problem with some things that are supposedly unrealistic, but not with other things that you seem to accept unquestioningly". That doesn't mean all bets are off no rules apply, it just means that if you think that ignoring the mechanics of SKIN COLOR specifically makes a setting less believable than ignoring, idk, PHYSICS, then you better have a damn good justification for it. And "in the real world, these people wouldn't just mix!" isn't a good reason when the rules of the real world are flagrantly violated left and right anyway without anyone objecting.

You can make an adaptation of LotR in which Robocop shows up at the end, shoots Sauron, grabs Frodo and flies to the Enterprise, but not only it won't be a good adaptation, you are going to be asked a lot of questions about your narrative choices that "you just have to suspend your disbelief" won't answer.

Don't get me wrong, I am the first to criticize shit writing.

But to equate bad writing with diverse casting is a category error. To imply that casting a black person in even in the same GALAXY as "Robocop shows up and flies to the Enterprise" is at best hilariously ignorant, and at worst actively malicious disingenuousness.

[Soulwind]

Says who? Why does SKIN COLOR of all things suddenly become relevant in LotR?

And you equate difference (or a lack thereof) specifically with skin color? Why? Sure it's ONE marker of difference, but why is it more important than others? Why is THAT marker specifically the one that's relevant?

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying "anything goes", I'm saying "you need to justify why you have a problem with some things that are supposedly unrealistic, but not with other things that you seem to accept unquestioningly". That doesn't mean all bets are off no rules apply, it just means that if you think that ignoring the mechanics of SKIN COLOR specifically makes a setting less believable than ignoring, idk, PHYSICS, then you better have a damn good justification for it. And "in the real world, these people wouldn't just mix!" isn't a good reason when the rules of the real world are flagrantly violated left and right anyway without anyone objecting.

I'm not saying skin color is more important than any other trait. But it's a rather obvious and superficial one. If a character having slightly pointier ears is going to be looked at weirdly because he's OBVIOUSLY a half-elf, or rather short guy CLEARLY has dwarven blood, and those are traits that characters and factions in that world use to differentiate themselves from each other, and that is integral to the story, it takes some strong suspension of disbelief to think that skin color wouldn't be relevant. Just like wings, glowing eyes or mermaid tails would be, but thankfully they didn't randomly sprinkle those in, because they didn't have an agenda about them.

Physical discrimination and segregation are already established elements of that universe. These writers are the ones introducing new traits that somehow don't play by the same rules, without providing an explanation. What's even funnier is that, going by some of the more in-depth posts in this thread, they did have plenty of established cultures that they could have used to introduce racially diverse characters, they just took the easier path of "the real, modern, world is interracial, so Middle Earth is too, and anyone who questions it is racist".

Don't get me wrong, I am the first to criticize shit writing.

But to equate bad writing with diverse casting is a category error. To imply that casting a black person in even in the same GALAXY as "Robocop shows up and flies to the Enterprise" is at best hilariously ignorant, and at worst actively malicious disingenuousness.

It was hyperbole, my the point is that a writer shouldn't lose focus of their universe. This cast isn't going to make or break the show, but it's a symptom that the priority of the producers wasn't making a good LotR adaptation, and probably not even a good story.

[Gumble]

And you equate difference (or a lack thereof) specifically with skin color? Why? Sure it's ONE marker of difference, but why is it more important than others? Why is THAT marker specifically the one that's relevant?

It would be no more important than if you cast a tall man to play a dwarf. If the role you are casting for is "short stocky man with beard" and you pick a tall lanky guy, does that matter?

Maybe.... maybe not.... but it certainly shows you aren't sticking to the books very well...... Now MAYBE that tall lanky actor is so amazing that you can make the part work. Probably not going by the track record.

Again, would you have a problem if they cast the little mermaid with a fat, bald guy? I mean maybe he's an amazing actor who could do justice to the part of Ariel...... and maybe not.

What about for Black Panther 2? Should they recast T'challa with an Asian actor? I mean Wakanda is a fantasy setting that does not exist, so whose to say they can't have an asian actor play the Black Panther?

Maybe the people they mis-type-cast for parts will be awesome and make everyone eat their words...... hasn't ever happened so far, but maybe.

Don't get me wrong, I am the first to criticize shit writing.

Bet you won't

But to equate bad writing with diverse casting is a category error. To imply that casting a black person in even in the same GALAXY as "Robocop shows up and flies to the Enterprise" is at best hilariously ignorant, and at worst actively malicious disingenuousness.

Diverse casting is used as a shield to prevent critcism of bad writing. Its meme-level obvious at this point. They aren't hiring an amazing actor who is perfect for the part, they are hiring a black guy so they can show you they hired a black guy. They didn't care about his acting ability, only his skin color....

Guess what that makes them.... and you

[Biomega]

I'm not saying skin color is more important than any other trait. But it's a rather obvious and superficial one.

Sure. So is hair color or eye color, and nobody gives a shit about those (save for the Joffrey Baratheons, as explained earlier). So why is skin color suddenly so special it's a deal breaker?

it takes some strong suspension of disbelief to think that skin color wouldn't be relevant.

Stronger than the existence of dwarves, elves, and dragons?

You're saying you're fine with all the things in fantasy that make not a lick of (RL) sense, but suddenly a black person comes along and you're like hold it, this has gone too far? COME ON.

Physical discrimination and segregation are already established elements of that universe.

Yes, but who says that has to be about skin color? These are different species after all. Why would a BLACK dwarf suddenly be a problem, as opposed to just a dwarf?

Could it be that it's only a problem... FOR YOU? For reasons that have nothing to do with the actual setting/lore?

These writers are the ones introducing new traits that somehow don't play by the same rules

What rules?

The real-world rules of how skin color came to be, that are somehow more important than the real-world rules of physics and biology that no one has a lick of a problem with when it comes to the most quotidian elements of a fantasy setting?

This is the whole "dragons I can accept, but black people make no sense" bullshit all over again.

"the real, modern, world is interracial, so Middle Earth is too, and anyone who questions it is racist".

I don't condone simple cop-outs like that, but I have zero problems with diversity in casting on principle, where there are no real, relevant narrative obstacles. Tolkien barely if ever talks about skin color, and there's nothing that's in the way of having a diverse cast in that kind of narrative. It matters not one bit for the story, because it's about elves, dwarves, and humans, not about black elves or white dwarves or whatever. Never has been, never mattered.

This is a work of fiction, and an adaptation of a work of fiction. Realism is observed to some degree, and ignored to others. If you have no problem with a Germanic person playing Julius Caesar, you shouldn't have a problem with an African person playing him either. And if you do, I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation for why that's not just veiled racism.

It was hyperbole, my the point is that a writer shouldn't lose focus of their universe.

I agree.

Where I don't agree is that "the universe" includes a strict skin color makeup that's not backed by profound and specific narrative reasoning.

This cast isn't going to make or break the show, but it's a symptom that the priority of the producers wasn't making a good LotR adaptation, and probably not even a good story.

I agree that there will likely be many things to criticize about the show, but if you want to call out bad writing, call out BAD WRITING; don't suddenly turn this around and go "the writing is bad because they cast black people!" which is ridiculously incorrect on a logical level, let alone the blatant racism that it implies.

[Nurasu]

They didn't care about his acting ability, only his skin color....

Guess what that makes them.... and you

And if they excluded minorities from these roles? I mean what the fuck man? Also, I'll go ahead and point out that it's pretty fucking racist to critique a minority's acting ability (and only the minority actors) without ever having seen it.

[Biomega]

It would be no more important than if you cast a tall man to play a dwarf. If the role you are casting for is "short stocky man with beard" and you pick a tall lanky guy, does that matter?

I'd just like to point out that John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in LotR is in fact 6'1" so... yeah.

What about for Black Panther 2? Should they recast T'challa with an Asian actor?

I mean you quoted me but did you READ what I said? I specifically talked about cases where race is narratively important.

Bet you won't

I am in fact doing that for a living.

Diverse casting is used as a shield to prevent critcism of bad writing.

Yes, and I've already said as much (and condemned it) earlier in this thread. That's WHY I say it's a category error. You don't really know what that means, do you.

[Nurasu]

This thread always devolves into mask-off racism. Makes me wonder how many LARP groups are actually neo-nazi incubators. Elves are the last bastion of white supremacy.

[Joszef Kiprich]

It would be no more important than if you cast a tall man to play a dwarf.

Someone like John Rhys-Davis?

[s_bushido]

Someone like John Rhys-Davis?

lol

The clueless are adorable sometimes, aren't they?

I remember they specifically mention that his height was great because he could be filmed next to the shorter hobbit actors for group shots without having to do a separate pass to make him look taller.

[VMSmith]

I'd just like to point out that John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in LotR is in fact 6'1" so... yeah.

Was he portrayed at his full height, then?

I suppose you could make the case that the LoTR movies are sizeist in the sense that they didn't cast actual dwarfish people to play the dwarfs. Since minority parts are only allowed to be played by actors belonging to those minorities, whether it be by race, gender, sexuality, gender expression, religion, disability, etc ... Straight cis white men are the only people on the planet incapable of acting out a role that embodies anything other than their inherent characteristics, and they are thusly not allowed to.

If someone pitched a new version of Roots with Jason Alexander as Kunta Kinte and Idris Elba as a slavedriver, and mixed up both the slaves and slaveowners with an entire variety of races portraying any character all higgledy-piggledy then people would likely fume only about the fact that Alexander and the other white people playing slaves had been cast in those parts. Plus, the show would absolutely suck because no one would buy these actors as those characters. I'm sure there would still be defenders of how brave it was to cast Elba in that part.

Stronger than the existence of dwarves, elves, and dragons?

You're saying you're fine with all the things in fantasy that make not a lick of (RL) sense, but suddenly a black person comes along and you're like hold it, this has gone too far? COME ON.

Make a Lord of the Rings movie with a neon-pink/green/yellow dragon that speaks like Paul Lynde, do you think it would be a success? Would great writing save it? Or would people rebel against it because we have preconceived ideas of what a LoTR dragon looks and sounds like, just like we have preconceived ideas of what LoTR elves and dwarves look and sound like because we've been reading these books for decades.

[Nurasu]

Was he portrayed at his full height, then?

I suppose you could make the case that the LoTR movies are sizeist in the sense that they didn't cast actual dwarfish people to play the dwarfs. Since minority parts are only allowed to be played by actors belonging to those minorities, whether it be by race, gender, sexuality, gender expression, religion, disability, etc ... Straight cis white men are the only people on the planet incapable of acting out a role that embodies anything other than their inherent characteristics, and they are thusly not allowed to.

If someone pitched a new version of Roots with Jason Alexander as Kunta Kinte and Idris Elba as a slavedriver, and mixed up both the slaves and slaveowners with an entire variety of races portraying any character all higgledy-piggledy then people would likely fume only about the fact that Alexander and the other white people playing slaves had been cast in those parts. Plus, the show would absolutely suck because no one would buy these actors as those characters. I'm sure there would still be defenders of how brave it was to cast Elba in that part.



Make a Lord of the Rings movie with a neon-pink/green/yellow dragon that speaks like Paul Lynde, do you think it would be a success? Would great writing save it? Or would people rebel against it because we have preconceived ideas of what a LoTR dragon looks and sounds like, just like we have preconceived ideas of what LoTR elves and dwarves look and sound like because we've been reading these books for decades.

I think the point is that if a black person is to the level of a neon-pink dragon for you then there's something wrong with you, fundamentally.

[Triceron]

Was he portrayed at his full height, then?

I suppose you could make the case that the LoTR movies are sizeist in the sense that they didn't cast actual dwarfish people to play the dwarfs. Since minority parts are only allowed to be played by actors belonging to those minorities, whether it be by race, gender, sexuality, gender expression, religion, disability, etc ... Straight cis white men are the only people on the planet incapable of acting out a role that embodies anything other than their inherent characteristics, and they are thusly not allowed to.

That's quite a lot of splitting hairs with the ultimate point to it being 'it doesn't really fucking matter'.

Like, you're trying to illustrate the existence of rules that don't really exist for the sake of defending a point that really doesn't matter. At the end of the day either you're okay with the choices or you aren't, because there's never going to be some universal rule that defines whether it is 'morally acceptable' for any living Human to portray a fictional non-Human race.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Was he portrayed at his full height, then?

I suppose you could make the case that the LoTR movies are sizeist in the sense that they didn't cast actual dwarfish people to play the dwarfs. Since minority parts are only allowed to be played by actors belonging to those minorities, whether it be by race, gender, sexuality, gender expression, religion, disability, etc ... Straight cis white men are the only people on the planet incapable of acting out a role that embodies anything other than their inherent characteristics, and they are thusly not allowed to.

If someone pitched a new version of Roots with Jason Alexander as Kunta Kinte and Idris Elba as a slavedriver, and mixed up both the slaves and slaveowners with an entire variety of races portraying any character all higgledy-piggledy then people would likely fume only about the fact that Alexander and the other white people playing slaves had been cast in those parts. Plus, the show would absolutely suck because no one would buy these actors as those characters. I'm sure there would still be defenders of how brave it was to cast Elba in that part.

You must be aware that it only hurts what ever point your trying to make when you compare a fantasy setting where race doesn’t matter at all to movies about real time periods and real race based processes.

I mean do you people try and make your selfs look like fools with stuff like this or do you really lack self awareness on such a level?

[Biomega]

Make a Lord of the Rings movie with a neon-pink/green/yellow dragon that speaks like Paul Lynde, do you think it would be a success?

Okay, so clearly some changes make sense and others don't. With you so far.

Now explain why SKIN COLOR is one of those problematic ones, and not one of the ones you wouldn't have a problem with.

Because clearly "well you wouldn't want everyone to be be NEON-GREEN either" is not a good argument, since that doesn't tie into anything and is an arbitrary exaggeration that doesn't explain why, say, some random character being blond instead of brunette WOULDN'T bother you, even though you could leverage the same exaggeration against that.

Why single out skin color?

Would great writing save it?

In principle... yeah, probably. It'd have to be pretty fucking great, and I have no idea how it would work in detail, but I wouldn't categorically exclude a neon-punk version of LotR from ever working period.

But again: you're only explaining that SOME aspects would probably be more problematic than others, which I'm sure no one in their right mind would disagree with.

You're NOT explaining why SKIN COLOR is such a problematic aspect.

just like we have preconceived ideas of what LoTR elves and dwarves look and sound like because we've been reading these books for decades.

So what you're saying is:

1. YOU have preconceived notions about what LotR elves and dwarves look like (despite the rather sparse physical descriptions by Tolkien, who never even mentioned elves having pointed ears, for example)
2. You think that those preconceived notions are a good thing, and shouldn't ever be challenged or changed; despite the fact that numerous adaptations have already changed SOME things that you probably aren't complaining about

I'd like to hear more about why either of those are in fact the case and/or relevant

[Nerovar]

What rules?

The real-world rules of how skin color came to be, that are somehow more important than the real-world rules of physics and biology that no one has a lick of a problem with when it comes to the most quotidian elements of a fantasy setting?

This is the whole "dragons I can accept, but black people make no sense" bullshit all over again.

This isn't really about the "importance" of these rules. It's about which ones are deliberately suspended by the narrative and which ones are not. Different ethnic groups that correspond to geographical locales exist in middle earth analogous to our own world. Different peoples and their appearance and history are often described by the author. Racist notions exist within the setting even if only sparsely explored (description of the men of Far Harad comes to mind). The existence of Elves and Dwarves is expained and explored as part of the narration. Nothing similar exists that would elucidate why the peoples of middle earth would all look like the modern day United States.

I find this whole line of argumentation kind of tiresome. I wonder what kind of inclusion to make Middle Earth "reflect what the world actually looks like" would present a sort of red line for people like you (assuming there even is one). Can we assume wheelchair bound characters would be feasible since the text isn't an exploration of ableism?

[Nurasu]

This isn't really about the "importance" of these rules. It's about which ones are deliberately suspended by the narrative and which ones are not. Different ethnic groups that correspond to geographical locales exist in middle earth analogous to our own world. Different peoples and their appearance and history are often described by the author. Racist notions exist within the setting even if only sparsely explored (description of the men of Far Harad comes to mind). The existence of Elves and Dwarves is expained and explored as part of the narration. Nothing similar exists that would elucidate why the peoples of middle earth would all look like the modern day United States.

I find this whole line of argumentation kind of tiresome. I wonder what kind of inclusion to make Middle Earth "reflect what the world actually looks like" would present a sort of red line for people like you (assuming there even is one).

Why are we even casting humans for fictional races in the first place? Surely they'd be better as full CGI?

Can we assume wheelchair bound characters would be feasible since the text isn't an exploration of ableism?

It wouldn't have been much of a stretch to turn Radaghast into this based off of Peter Jackson's portrayal, and it wouldn't have been any great travesty to have done so.

- - - Updated - - -

Plays / drama presentations/ Broadway must be excruciating for you guys with such limited imaginations.

[rogoth]

This dude kinda ruined any arguments against RoP when he was super fine with Legolas' shenanigans in the LotR movies, tbh.

Why is "artistic license" ok there, but not here?

please post the quote where i say i was ok with it, because unless i need to see an optician, i can't find that in anything i said, the comparison i made was to highlight the difference between the two projects, and the fact you still can't see that point speaks volumes frankly, what PJ did with legolas was artistic license, what Amazon and these clowns called writers/showrunners are doing is rewriting the entire basis of middle earth and how things function, that was the difference i was trying to point out, and yet here you are once again trying to put words in my mouth that never existed, twisting what's written to make yourself look clever when it does the opposite really, and honestly i'm bored of it, you're not the only one that does it but it's sad that that's what you fall back to as your main form of arguement, misquoting and misspeaking, almost as if you are natural born politician.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, so clearly some changes make sense and others don't. With you so far.

Now explain why SKIN COLOR is one of those problematic ones, and not one of the ones you wouldn't have a problem with.

Because clearly "well you wouldn't want everyone to be be NEON-GREEN either" is not a good argument, since that doesn't tie into anything and is an arbitrary exaggeration that doesn't explain why, say, some random character being blond instead of brunette WOULDN'T bother you, even though you could leverage the same exaggeration against that.

Why single out skin color?


In principle... yeah, probably. It'd have to be pretty fucking great, and I have no idea how it would work in detail, but I wouldn't categorically exclude a neon-punk version of LotR from ever working period.

But again: you're only explaining that SOME aspects would probably be more problematic than others, which I'm sure no one in their right mind would disagree with.

You're NOT explaining why SKIN COLOR is such a problematic aspect.


So what you're saying is:

1. YOU have preconceived notions about what LotR elves and dwarves look like (despite the rather sparse physical descriptions by Tolkien, who never even mentioned elves having pointed ears, for example)
2. You think that those preconceived notions are a good thing, and shouldn't ever be challenged or changed; despite the fact that numerous adaptations have already changed SOME things that you probably aren't complaining about

I'd like to hear more about why either of those are in fact the case and/or relevant

right, lets take this to an extreme, are you familiar with the fairy tale of hansel and gretel by hans christian andersen?

based on his writing the characters of hansel and gretel are portrayed as being your children, one male, one female, both of them are white, both of them are stereotypical of the region of where the author was from (denmark), meaning that they would have been fairly pale and likely blonde haired with blue or brown eyes.

200 years later, lets take this fairy tale and 'have it depict what our modern day looks like' instead of stereotypically scandinavian children, they have been race swapped into african american children, because we all know that black people outside of the USA wouldn't work, and instead of finding a witches cabin made of sweets, they find a crack house and become mules for the druglord (again taking the example to an extreme), how do you think people would react to this change? do you think people would be justified in their anger at having the original characters race swapped?, should we just say 'well it's modern times and people need to get with the times and stop complaining' (like many people have basically said in this thread), should we dismiss the complaints as people being 'racist' because they don't want these new iterations of characters?, i'm genuinely curious why this is such a hard concept for people to get their head around and yet are the ones screeching the loudest about racism and 'why can't *insert POC/minority group here* be "X" character?' despite all written accounts telling us why, i'm genuinely perplexed by the utter moronic arguements being made that defend this garbage project.