Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[SirDjord]

Why?

And what he wrote was his own mythology INSPIRED by a lot of Northern-European mythological material, which doesn't mean that it always and forever has to reflect the exact makeup of Northern Europe at the exact time that mythology was conceived.

And besides, this is an adaptation. Adaptations change things all the time. What matters is the writing, and how well it works in the end; faithfulness to the adaptation is just one metric among many, and not even the most important one.


This is a different matter.

I agree that diversity (or "message", as you put it) is not a substitute for good writing. Can't be, shouldn't be. But it also isn't mutually exclusive with good writing, either. The story doesn't magically become good because it has a diverse cast, and it ALSO doesn't magically become bad because it has a diverse cast. Those are separate things that need to be evaluated differently, despite their occasional connection points.

Not necessarily, yet we have an obligation to present his work in the light of how and when it was written. When its based upon old Norse sagas (Gandalf is taken from Odin) that should reflect the world and characters the way he intended them. If you disapprove of his work then thats to bad its his intellectual property. If you want to create a world where Richard III has pink hair and indulges in homosexual acitivity then do it, noone is stopping you.

Just have to go back a month to the Kenobi show where the message and women empowerment is way more important than telling a compeling and good written story.

The fear that this will be another "message" and "inclusive" show where the storytelling has taken a backseat seems unfortunately to be justified.

[Nerovar]

So point out where Tolkien talked about the skin colors of dwarves or elves, and how they're different because of where they're located.

I'm happy to be shown references.

After a quick search, I only found a clear description about the Elves but I'm sure I can dig deeper if it isn't abundantly clear by this point.

"They [the Quendi] were a race high and beautiful, the older Children of the world, and among them the Eldar were as kings, who are now gone: the People of the Great Journey, the People of the Stars. They were tall, fair of skin and grey-eyed, though their locks were dark, save in the golden house of Finarfin."

There's also the very obvious fact that no Elf is ever described as anything but fair-skinned.

There's SOME references to different HUMANS, although with them, too, it's very hard to tell where/if Tolkien is talking about skin color and not something else. Just like him describing elves as "fair" does not have to refer to their complexion, as it can (and most likely does) simply mean "beautiful to behold" rather than "light-skinned". And even where he IS talking about skin color, one group being primarily one skin color would not automatically mean all OTHER groups of humans are ALSO just one skin color.

It's really not that hard unless you try your hardest to engage in motivated reasoning.

Easterlings being used synonymously with "Swarthy Men" isn't ambiguous. The Men of Far Haraad being described like racist caricatures from colonial time isn't ambiguous.

The description of the men of the west isn't really ambiguous either.

"The Folk of Hador were ever the greatest in Number of the Atani [...] For the most part they were tall people, with flaxen or golden hair and blue-grey eyes, but there were not few among them that had dark hair, though all were fair-skinned. [...] There were fair-haired men and women among the Folk of Beor, but most of them had brown hair (going usually with brown eyes), and many were less fair in skin, some indeed being swarthy. [...] But these differences in body and mind became less marked as their short generations passed, for the two peoples became much mingled by intermarriage and by the disasters of the War."

Skin color wasn't what Tolkien was interested in, it's as simple as that. His narrative revolves around different forms of categorization, and those are preserved even if you have a black dwarf or an Asian-looking elf.

Some of his work might be preserved, some of it might be lost. I'm not the authority on the matter. I don't know what was personally important to Tolkien (and neither do you). I can only assume that the things he wrote were there for a reason and respect that decision.

You and me both. Mostly because 90% of it isn't an argument, it's just "I don't want black people in my fantasy, because they don't belong in there for... uh... reasons that aren't racist I promise I swear I really do".

It's especially tiresome since people have spent literal decades telling us why Tolkien's work is on the same level of racism as the Turner Diaries and now you have to endure talking to people who want to gaslight us into believing that Tolkien intended Middle Earth to look like downtown New York so we don't criticize Amazon's billion dollar shitshow.

That's a complete misrepresentation of the argument. It's not about a fictional setting reflecting "what the world actually looks like". It's about removing selection criteria for which there is no good, relevant narrative or artistic justification. What you're suggesting is getting that process entirely backwards.

You're the one who has it backwards. Demanding fidelity to a text doesn't require any further justification. Pushing changes that break with established facts does. The justification given by the showrunners was making Tolkien's fictional world reflect "what the world [meaning our modern world] actually looks like" presumably to appeal to new audiences, right historic injustices, yadda yadda yadda.

[s_bushido]

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?

"I'm not racist, I just associate black people with crack houses."

[Biomega]

Not necessarily, yet we have an obligation to present his work in the light of how and when it was written.

That's an incredibly vague criterion that could mean all sorts of things, and ALSO is far from self-evident. Why do we have that obligation?

Just have to go back a month to the Kenobi show where the message and women empowerment is way more important than telling a compeling and good written story.

The fear that this will be another "message" and "inclusive" show where the storytelling has taken a backseat seems unfortunately to be justified.

You keep going back to this, which is not a point we're in disagreement on - but it's a DIFFERENT point.

Bad writing is bad, and diverse casting doesn't make bad writing good OR good writing bad. They're. Separate. Things.

After a quick search, I only found a clear description about the Elves but I'm sure I can dig deeper if it isn't abundantly clear by this point.

[...]

The description of the men of the west isn't really ambiguous either.

That's fair, I can accept those descriptions.

I don't know what was personally important to Tolkien (and neither do you). I can only assume that the things he wrote were there for a reason and the respect that decision.

Here's where we run into a bit of a problem, though. I agree neither of us knows what was or wasn't important to Tolkien directly (how could we), but we DO know indirectly by what he wrote about, and what he concerned himself with. Which was NOT about skin color at all, but about species (elf, dwarf, human, etc.) as well as about culture. That's the prime distinguisher of collective identity in practically his entire work, and while skin color clearly isn't absent (you've proved that sufficiently) it also isn't a main focus, and occurs only very sporadically.

The more important question then becomes not "what did Tolkien intend/consider important", but what do WE consider important - because we're interpreting his work in any adaptation, and we have to analyze what we're given based on certain criteria. And there really is practically nothing to suggest that skin color as a distinguisher is more important to the narrative he built than factors like species or culture (or even language). Which means that when creating an adaptation, we have to decide where to observe the source material, and where to deviate.

There is no question about that deviation, let's be clear - ANY adaptation WILL deviate in SOME way. It's purely a matter of deciding where and by how much. And given that there seems to be an overwhelming presence of species, language, and culture defining the relationships between the various collectives in Tolkien's works and only a vanishingly small amount of mention of skin color (let alone making it a direct driver of narrative as species, language, culture are in his works), wouldn't you say it's not unreasonable to largely disregard this characteristic in casting - considering we're disregarding all sorts of other details mentioned in passing, too.

It's especially tiresome since people have spent literal decades telling us why Tolkien's work is on the same level of racism as the Turner Diaries and now you have to endure talking to people who want to gaslight us into believing that Tolkien intended Middle Earth to look like downtown New York so we don't criticize Amazon's billion dollar shitshow.

Let's be clear: my argument at least has never been about "this is what Tolkien intended" - as you said earlier, we have no idea what his intentions were aside from a few stated ones he made in letters etc. (almost none of which are pertinent here, save for the whole Galadriel = OP woman warrior thing, which is a different matter). Author intention is more of a layman's approach anyway, scholarship tends to avoid it altogether and focus on the work itself.

Nor is my argument ever "I want things to look like New York/the US/whatever", which is equally preposterous, and backwards logic.

My argument is purely this: when selecting people involved in any form of cultural production, be very clear about which characteristics are ACTUALLY RELEVANT to the choice, and which are not. In the case of narratives, that means characteristics that are clearly and profoundly relevant to the narrative - and in 99.99% of cases, skin color is not that. There ARE cases where it is, and those need to be dealt with appropriately; but most of the time it's an ancillary side detail of no real narrative impact or relevance.

That's all. My goal is not "have 30% PoC actors" or whatever, it's simply saying "if the skin color doesn't matter to the narrative, disregard it for the casting". I don't care about author's intent or the history of the work unless it's relevant to the narrative - story comes above all else, for me. With some narratives the author's intent or the history ARE relevant, but, again, in the vast majority of cases they're simply not.

You're the one who has it backwards. Demanding fidelity to a text doesn't require any further justification. Pushing changes that break with established facts does.

That's a biased argument, though. There's plenty of changes NOBODY cares about, which means it's not about "fidelity to a text" - it's about SPECIFIC features that somehow are more important than others. If a character is described as 6'2" and you cast an actor that's 6'4" nobody will give a shit, and nobody will go "BUT MUH TEXTUAL FIDELIITTTTTY!" because it's very clearly a detail that's (most likely) completely irrelevant to the actual story. Yet somehow there's characteristics - like skin color - that are singled out from this and are MADE relevant despite the fact that they're equally meaningless to the narrative.

THAT is the problem. If it was as simple as "make it 100% text-accurate, period" we could easily go by objective criteria and make sure - but it's never that. Everyone accepts SOME things don't matter, yet others do, and the problem lies purely in who gets to decide which is which, and why.

[s_bushido]

That's a biased argument, though. There's plenty of changes NOBODY cares about, which means it's not about "fidelity to a text" - it's about SPECIFIC features that somehow are more important than others. If a character is described as 6'2" and you cast an actor that's 6'4" nobody will give a shit, and nobody will go "BUT MUH TEXTUAL FIDELIITTTTTY!" because it's very clearly a detail that's (most likely) completely irrelevant to the actual story. Yet somehow there's characteristics - like skin color - that are singled out from this and are MADE relevant despite the fact that they're equally meaningless to the narrative.

Case in point: Hugh Jackman is 6'3". Wolverine is canonically 5'3". No one cared. Logan is one of the most well-received superhero movies ever made. And I don't think the massive discrepancy in his height was ever cited as a reason for the poor quality of any of the X-Men movies where he played that character...including X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

[Xath]

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?


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.

Speak for yourself I get fairly irritated when details that don't need to be changed are changed. For example Hermione's Yule ball garb was changed from floaty periwinkle blue ROBES to a pink dress in the goblet movie and Magical Water Plants of the Mediterranean was chanced to Magical Water Plants of the Highland Lochs because reasons. Yes this includes hair color. Eye colors I'm slightly more sympathetic to because people can have issue with contacts but hair and skin color are highly visible visual markers along with clothing styles.

[Biomega]

Speak for yourself I get fairly irritated when details that don't need to be changed are changed. For example Hermione's Yule ball garb was changed from floaty periwinkle blue ROBES to a pink dress in the goblet movie and Magical Water Plants of the Mediterranean was chanced to Magical Water Plants of the Highland Lochs because reasons. Yes this includes hair color. Eye colors I'm slightly more sympathetic to because people can have issue with contacts but hair and skin color are highly visible visual markers along with clothing styles.

You're free to demand any level of fidelity you like, but objectively you cannot deny that there's ALWAYS going to be deviation, and it's purely about negotiating where and why. If the color of a dress or whatever is what breaks the deal for you, fair enough, but there's no way that'll ever be a level of detail realistically observed in adaptations of virtually any kind.

[Adamas102]

It's become engrained in our society and perception that elves have long flowing hair and fair skin, stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Oh man, the irony of spouting this bullshit on a WoW forum…

Yeah, Tolkien’s version of things like elves, dwarves, and orcs guided much of the modern perception of how those creatures look, but just as he took existing references and expanded on them, so have others since Tolkien.

D&D, MTG, Harry Potter, Warcraft, Warhammer, and a multitude of other games and books have been expanding on Tolkien’s fantasy races for decades now. Depending on what games you play or books you read, what constitutes as an elf, dwarf, orc, hobbit/halfling, goblin, wizard, ranger, etc might be pretty different from how Tolkien described.

Female dwarves without beards, elves with a variety of skin tones and hair colors, orcs as hulking green aliens. Yeah, the foundations that Tolkien set were important in how these fantasy races developed, but we’re way past his narrow descriptions for them.

- - - Updated - - -

First of all, I don't think you can compare Shakespeare to Tolkien since they wrote in totally different genres. Tolkien himself described the difference rather aptly:
"Thus, if you prefer Drama to Literature (as many literary critics plainly do), or form your critical theories primarily from dramatic critics, or even from Drama, you are apt to misunderstand pure story-making, and to constrain it to the limitations of stage-plays. You are, for instance, likely to prefer characters, even the basest and dullest, to things. Very little about trees as trees can be got into a play."

That’s fair, but this whole thread is pretty much about adapting the literature to a dramatic medium. That’s why things like character and action are far more important than any and every minor detail. As great as Tolkien was in describing the details of his world, when brought to a visual medium there’s still a lot of room for interpretation while maintaining the spirit of the setting. Additionally, many of those details (such as the timelines) simply don’t work when adapting the story to a drama.

As for the narrative themes being adapted in the show:
- Covering the fall of Numenor explores how the power hungry and corrupt can lead to the downfall of a civilization
- The story of Arondir and Bronwyn mirrors that of Aragorn and Arwen (and by extension Beren and Luthien). A rare romance between an elf and a human
- Not sure what they’ll be doing with the Harfoots, but it stands to reason that it’ll follow the whole “courage of even the smallest folk in the face of evil” theme that was the backbone of Frodo’s journey

These stories are all very much Tolkien, transposed into a part of his legendarium that he never really fleshed out. If you don’t want to watch them, that’s fine. If you don’t like which details they chose to keep and which they chose to change or drop, that’s fine, too. But given what little we’ve seen so far the show still looks and feels like the dramatic interpretation of Tolkien that we’ve gotten used to since Peter Jackson’s movies.

Why don't you try that excercise with the following characters:
- Elrond
- Tar-Míriel
- Galadriel

Pretty loose interpretation of “main character” but sure:

Elrond - Lord of Rivendell. Great warrior turned advisor and protector. Member of the White Council and host to the creation of the Fellowship. Caring father.

Galadriel - Lady of Lorien. Tall. Beautiful, intelligent, and enigmatic. Ring Bearer. One of the most powerful elves in Middle Earth, but wise enough to resist the power of the One Ring when offered. Gift giver.

Obviously some of these traits change depending on what point in the story you’re considering, these being specific to the 3rd Age. I would say that Galadriel’s hair color is a pretty notable detail, being compared to other important narrative devices in the story (the Two Trees of Valinor and the Silmarils). To the point of her depiction in the show, descriptions of her as Amazon-esque, strong in body, mind, and will, tall as a man and capable of matching the other elf princes in feats of athleticism, and student to all the Valar, the idea of her as a capable warrior isn’t outlandish. Nor does it detract from how she is presented in the 3rd Age, like Elrond having taken a position more as an advisor and protector than a warrior.

As for Tar-Miriel - this isn’t a character. She’s a name and plot device that appears once in the appendices. “Rightful ruler, usurped” is pretty much the extent of her role in the story, and that gives a pretty good amount of leeway in interpreting the character for the show.

- - - Updated - - -

Not necessarily, yet we have an obligation to present his work in the light of how and when it was written. When its based upon old Norse sagas (Gandalf is taken from Odin) that should reflect the world and characters the way he intended them. If you disapprove of his work then thats to bad its his intellectual property. If you want to create a world where Richard III has pink hair and indulges in homosexual acitivity then do it, noone is stopping you.

One of the best movie adaptations of Richard III portrays him as a 1930’s fascist. Pink hair would hardly detract from what makes the character what he is to the story. The idea that anyone is obligated to present adaptations strictly in line with how and when they were written is hardly true.

James Bond, despite having been created in the 1950’s with a very particular look and history, has endured through various renditions and is always adapted to modern times.

Characters based on those from the Norse sagas are played nowadays by Australians, Britons, Canadians, and Americans. Heimdall is still Heimdall, whether he’s played by Idris Elba or a Norwegian actor. As for Gandalf, there’s a lot more to him than simply “visually based on Odin”.

[Specialka]

So point out where Tolkien talked about the skin colors of dwarves or elves, and how they're different because of where they're located.

I'm happy to be shown references.

There's SOME references to different HUMANS, although with them, too, it's very hard to tell where/if Tolkien is talking about skin color and not something else. Just like him describing elves as "fair" does not have to refer to their complexion, as it can (and most likely does) simply mean "beautiful to behold" rather than "light-skinned". And even where he IS talking about skin color, one group being primarily one skin color would not automatically mean all OTHER groups of humans are ALSO just one skin color.

Skin color wasn't what Tolkien was interested in, it's as simple as that. His narrative revolves around different forms of categorization, and those are preserved even if you have a black dwarf or an Asian-looking elf.


You and me both. Mostly because 90% of it isn't an argument, it's just "I don't want black people in my fantasy, because they don't belong in there for... uh... reasons that aren't racist I promise I swear I really do".


That's a complete misrepresentation of the argument. It's not about a fictional setting reflecting "what the world actually looks like". It's about removing selection criteria for which there is no good, relevant narrative or artistic justification. What you're suggesting is getting that process entirely backwards.




This can and does happen in fiction ALL THE TIME. In fact your example is a pretty good one, as "updated" reinterpretations of classic folk/faerie tales are ubiquitous across all kinds of genres. That's a GOOD thing, and it's done in all sorts of contexts and in all kinds of literary spaces. Some of those stories are great, some are shit; but that's because for ALL stories some are great and some are shit. Nothing new there.

What YOU would need to explain here is how Hänsel and Gretel being white matters to the story. In fact, stories like that are often dissected into constituent parts in academic scholarship, which are largely context-agnostic - i.e. for the vast majority of them the principles at the root of the narrative do not care one bit about whether it's two white kids or whether it's a boy and a girl or whatever, and the story would work just the same - at a fundamental level - if it was two black girls or two Asian boys.

You've effectively demonstrated precisely WHY race does NOT matter for a majority of stories, and is relevant only to those narratives that specifically and profoundly engage with those characteristics themselves. So thanks, I guess!

The issue is that their whole race/clan is white but not those two characters for whatever reasons. If at least, the narration would explain why they do not have the same skin color that their brethrens, it would be more welcomed. If it is not explained, we can conclude they were inserted for political reasons and that is what most people hate about that.

Simple as that.

[Varodoc]

Oh man, the irony of spouting this bullshit on a WoW forum…

Yeah, Tolkien’s version of things like elves, dwarves, and orcs guided much of the modern perception of how those creatures look, but just as he took existing references and expanded on them, so have others since Tolkien.

D&D, MTG, Harry Potter, Warcraft, Warhammer, and a multitude of other games and books have been expanding on Tolkien’s fantasy races for decades now. Depending on what games you play or books you read, what constitutes as an elf, dwarf, orc, hobbit/halfling, goblin, wizard, ranger, etc might be pretty different from how Tolkien described.

Oh right! And I totally forgot that this is a Warcraft show! Not, you know, a Tolkien show.

Also, Warcraft and Warhammer elves are literal copy-paste of LOTR elves in appearance. It's not exactly a secret that, back when TBC released, most Blood elf hunter players were Legolas wannabes.

[MCMLXXXII]

Those dark skinned night elves sure look like their LotR brethren?

[Fantomen]

Heimdall is still Heimdall, whether he’s played by Idris Elba or a Norwegian actor.

I have a question, if the Black Panter was played by white Norwegian, would it matter? Will it matter if the make Wakanda a mulit race society with loots of asian and europeans.

[Varodoc]

Those dark skinned night elves sure look like their LotR brethren?

I'm glad you agree that skin colour is important and is not some "Irrelevant detail" like one guy here said, thus black elves are not faithful to LOTR lore.

[Valdhammer]

The concern I have is that the show will be poorly written. The casting choices will then be the only thing left to talk about and the attempt to more inclusively portray Tolkein’s world will sink as a consequence of poor writing.

[ClassicPeon]

That whole "influencer" fiasco was stupid because literally all those vapid idiots talked about for 15 minutes was diversity and not about anything of substance like whether the story is interesting enough to be engaging. I swear that people who only give a damn about the most inconsequential aspect of a characters existence (aka skin colour) are some of the most boring and sad individuals ever because literally there's nothing tangible about whether a character is white, black or brown that makes them interesting. We've gone decades where characters that were predominantly white were appreciated equally by people of colour and then all of a sudden you get these idiot zoomers and some millennials who think it's wrong to like them because they can't associate with them due to their skin colour.

Thats exactly my point.

As long as it tics diversity boxes thats all that matters. Doesnt matter how good it is because people *should* see it because of diversity. You are a bigot if you dont like it because of diversity.

[eschatological]

I have a question, if the Black Panter was played by white Norwegian, would it matter? Will it matter if the make Wakanda a mulit race society with loots of asian and europeans.

The Black Panther is literally a story about an African Prince. It would not be appropriate to be played by a white man.

However, if they made Nick Fury a white man (as he's been for long stretches in the comic), or made War Machine a white man (no precedent in the comics), I doubt anyone would give a shit.

I grew up with Ben Kingsley, an Englishman, playing the patriarch of my country, which was oppressed and colonized by Englishmen. He gave a masterful performance. That doesn't mean I don't want to see an Indian man play the role.

[MCMLXXXII]

I'm glad you agree that skin colour is important and is not some "Irrelevant detail" like one guy here said, thus black elves are not faithful to LOTR lore.

Nope, you claimed all elves are faithful to LotR depictions claiming they ALL are fair skinned. Night elves aren't fair skinned.
Tolkien never claimed all elves are fair skinned. It's a fantasy world. Why couldn't different skin complexions be a thing?

[Varodoc]

Nope, you claimed all elves are faithful to LotR depictions claiming they ALL are fair skinned. Night elves aren't fair skinned.
Tolkien never claimed all elves are fair skinned. It's a fantasy world. Why couldn't different skin complexions be a thing?

Nope, I said an objective fact, which is that common perception of elves is that they are fair-skinned and long-haired. If you ask a random person how they imagine an elf to look like, rest assured, they won't say "black with crop hair".

[Biomega]

I have a question, if the Black Panter was played by white Norwegian, would it matter? Will it matter if the make Wakanda a mulit race society with loots of asian and europeans.

The argument is specifically about ignoring race when it DOESN'T matter for the narrative, so bringing up a character where it DOES is kind of a silly argument.

Try something like Batman or James Bond or whatever, where race has been nothing but character tradition and has no narrative function.

Nope, I said an objective fact, which is that common perception of elves is that they are fair-skinned and long-haired. If you ask a random person how they imagine an elf to look like, rest assured, they won't say "black with crop hair".

And is that a GOOD thing?

[Varodoc]

And is that a GOOD thing?

Considering how long-haired and fair-skinned elves like Legolas, Thranduil, and Annatar are objectively beautiful and attractive, Yes, it's a good thing. I can assure you, when fangirls first say Thranduil in the Hobbit trailers, their reaction wasn't "wait why isn't he black?".