Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Nerovar]

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.

You're effectively just saying "we're going to deviate anyways" and that skin colour isn't really important on a narrative level (which no one denied). But when you are portraying a world (or time period) that is different from our own that has its own implied history, groups of people etc. the suspension of disbelief becomes much easier when this is also reflected in the appearance of the people. Doesn't really matter if the world is fictional or not either. If I watch a movie about feudal Japan I'd expect the people there to look the part. It's not the kind of thing that makes or breaks a narrative but it's pretty much always going to be perceived as jarring when you don't adhere to it because it will send the message that you aren't taking the world building seriously.

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.

This is basically just repeating what you said earlier. On a sidenote, what academics consider to be important to the analysis of text isn't really all that relevant when it comes to the question of whether the average person watching the show feels like the source material is receiving the proper respect and whether the adaptation achieves the sort of inner consistency they have come to expect from Tolkien's world.

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.

Well, this is just an accusation of hypocrisy. There's no excuse to deviate in other areas (like not making Gil-galad's hair silver). It's just that skin colour will unfortunately always stick out more for obvious reasons and is usually associated with a whole cluster of things (like different hair, eye colour etc.) that is also loosely connected to things like geography, culture (like in the case of hairstyles). I think most people understand this on an intuitive basis.

I think what this really boils down to is that you're only coming from this from a purely dramatic perspective. You're just interested in seeing a good story and interesting characters. Other people are interested in being transported to a vibrant and authentic world that tries to be more than just a stage prop and takes itself seriously enough to hold up to scrutiny. In the case of Tolkien, the world building happens to make up a not insignificant part of the appeal. You don't care about that stuff? Fine. However, there are plenty of people who do.

[Biomega]

Considering how long-haired and fair-skinned elves like Legolas, Thranduil, and Annatar are objectively beautiful and attractive, Yes, it's a good thing.

So... are you saying black-skinned, crop-haired people aren't or can't be "objectively beautiful and attractive"?

Just making sure before any names start flying.

[MCMLXXXII]

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?".

Ahh showing your true face now. Black people can't be beautiful and attractive?

You'd better stick with your Alleria simping. It's cringe but at least you look less racist.

[Biomega]

You're effectively just saying "we're going to deviate anyways" and that skin colour isn't really important on a narrative level (which no one denied). But when you are portraying a world (or time period) that is different from our own that has its own implied history, groups of people etc. the suspension of disbelief becomes much easier when this is also reflected in the appearance of the people.

So, again: you're saying it's easier to believe in elves, dwarves, and dragons than it is to believe in black people? And before you go "but those are what fantasy is all about!" - that's the POINT, exposing those kinds of biases that basically exclude certain skin colors for no good reason, just because it's "tradition". They'll never change unless we change them.

If I watch a movie about feudal Japan I'd expect the people there to look the part.

But that's a gross category error, because you're using something that is SPECIFICALLY historical and contrast it with something that isn't; in fact, something that is SPECIFICALLY fictitious (again to the point of featuring elves, dwarves, dragons, and all manner of completely made-up thing).

Where the narrative SPECIFICALLY demands something, it should be observed. But the whole point is that a fantasy narrative like this DOES NOT. So bringing up an example where this is in fact the case is not only meaningless, it also demonstrates you don't actually understand what's going on.

Oh, and: even in works with great historical specificity, there's liberties taken. Hence why I like to bring up the argument of a Germanic-descended person playing Julius Caesar, which nobody has a problem with DESPITE the fact that it's historically ludicrous and flies in the face of the entire personal and historic context of that character and setting.

On a sidenote, what academics consider to be important to the analysis of text isn't really all that relevant when it comes to the question of whether the average person watching the show feels like the source material is receiving the proper respect and achieves the sort of inner consistency they have come to expect from Tolkien's world.

The point is, those are people who engage a lot more with the actual material, and have a much greater understanding of it. "The average person" is an idiot who is effectively trained to follow tradition - that's not a good thing, because it fosters directly notions of "it's always been like that so why change it" which are inherently pernicious when it comes to entrenched inequity. We SHOULD change things, for good reasons; and "the average person", while not irrelevant by any means, is simply unlikely to have studied those reasons well enough to be taken as a measuring stick.

Well, this is just an accusation of hypocrisy. There's no excuse to deviate in other areas (like not making Gil-galad's hair silver). It's just that skin colour will unfortunately always stick out more for obvious reasons and is usually associated with a whole cluster of things (like different hair, eye colour etc.) that is also loosely connected to things like geography, culture (like in the case of hairstyles). I think most people understand this on an intuitive basis.

Of course most people have an intuitive understanding of how skin color etc. connect to geographic distribution in the real world.

But that doesn't mean that should just be taken as license to REPEAT patterns of systematic exclusion. This is just an argument by tradition - "this is how it usually is, so let's keep doing it". Which doesn't hold water in a status quo that shouldn't be preserved for very good reasons. If you want to change the paradigm and establish a new normal, you have to challenge tradition, not swallow it whole-cloth as immutable and innate.

If you DON'T want to change the paradigm, just say that. You can totally hold the position of "I don't want to see black people in my fantasy because I don't like that", with all the consequences that come with it. But don't pretend that you really do, it's just that, unfortunately, not your fault, you see it's not how it's done, really it's too bad but that's just HOW IT IS.

I think what this really boils down to is that you're only coming from this from a purely dramatic perspective. You're just interested in seeing a good story and interesting characters. Other people are interested in being transported to a vibrant and authentic world that tries to be more than just a stage prop and takes itself seriously enough to hold up to scrutiny.

No, that's a mischaracterization. Quite seriously so.

You are asserting here - without evidence - that having a diverse cast means a world CAN'T be vibrant or hold up to scrutiny; and as for "authentic", that means very little when you're ALWAYS deviating, so what you're effectively saying is "all THOSE changes are fine even if they're not 'authentic', but SKIN COLOR suddenly makes things NOT 'authentic'" which is again smuggling in the argument without backing, explanation, or evidence.

You're just CLAIMING that skin color makes something not "authentic" when all the OTHER changes from an original source somehow REMAIN "authentic". THAT is my problem.

[Varodoc]

So... are you saying black-skinned, crop-haired people aren't or can't be "objectively beautiful and attractive"?

Just making sure before any names start flying.

Ahh showing your true face now. Black people can't be beautiful and attractive?

You'd better stick with your Alleria simping. It's cringe but at least you look less racist.

Long-haired white people being beautiful and attractive means that black people are ugly and unattractive? What an interesting extrapolation from both of you. I'll admit it wasn't on my mind initially.

[MCMLXXXII]

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".

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?".

Nope that was all you.

[Varodoc]

Nope that was all you.

Nope.

I said that our perception and imagery of elves is commonly associated with how they are depicted in LOTR.

Someone here asked me if that was a good thing. I answered, YES, because the main elven characters of Middle Earth are beautiful and attractive.

You and the other guy then got all cranky and accused me of being racist and saying that black people are ugly. Don't project your ideals onto me. If you think that it's racist to say that white elves are beautiful, well, that sounds like your problem, not mine.

[Biomega]

Long-haired white people being beautiful and attractive means that black people are ugly and unattractive? What an interesting extrapolation from both of you. I'll admit it wasn't on my mind initially.

No, but saying "long-haired and fair-skinned" is "objectively beautiful and attractive" has certain implications as a statement, when the topic is black-skinned, short-cropped people.

You have two choices:

1. "long-haired and fair-skinned" people can be "objectively beautiful and attractive", but so can black-skinned, short-cropped people; in which case why did you bring it up as an argument, since clearly it's not making a point.
2. "long-haired and fair-skinned" can be "objectively beautiful and attractive", but black-skinned, short-cropped people can't be; in which case, congrats Mr. Racist.

You can really pick either one, that's entirely up to you.

[SirDjord]

We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. In a way we were trying to make these films for him (the author) not for ourselves. - Peter Jackson


"It feelt only natural to us that an adaption of the authors work reflect what our world actually looks like" - RoP creators

Nuff said.

[Varodoc]

No, but saying "long-haired and fair-skinned" is "objectively beautiful and attractive".

That's not what I said.

I said that Legolas and Thranduil are objectively attractive:

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?".

Do you disagree that they are presented as such in the story and that they are meant to be seen as beautiful? At one point in the Hobbit movie, it's even remarked in-universe by a dwarf that Thranduil is "pretty". So, Canonically, Thranduil is pretty. What I said is factually correct.

You have two choices:
1. "long-haired and fair-skinned" people can be "objectively beautiful and attractive", but so can black-skinned, short-cropped people; in which case why did you bring it up as an argument, since clearly it's not making a point.
2. "long-haired and fair-skinned" can be "objectively beautiful and attractive", but black-skinned, short-cropped people can't be; in which case, congrats Mr. Racist.

You're making it harder than it needs to be. Everyone knows how Middle Earth elves look like, and they are fair-skinned and long-haired. As such, a black elf with cropped hair doesn't fit the universe, it's simple.

[Orby]

People, are we still talking about skin colour?

I am sure there are like so mnay more things from the trailer you can pick out that are worth time and energy to nit picj.

Costumes
set design
scenes
acting
story (to be confirmed until we see the show)
characters
action
special effects
fight scenes

I mean most of my complaints are costume based right now and while the last trailer looked more promising than the first trailer I am still very sceptical about the show. I still think there is very little to argue about on the show because it isn't out yet. With that said maybe its good maybe it isnt, I do feel some people have made their mind up if its good or bad, as fandom is silly like that. I choose to have an honest opinion once I see the show, not before. and will onyl complain about what I have currently seen, which isnt very much. :P

[Biomega]

That's not what I said.

I said that Legolas and Thranduil are objectively attractive:

BULLSHIT.

You said:

common perception of elves is that they are fair-skinned and long-haired

To which I asked why that would be a good thing, and you answered with:

Considering how long-haired and fair-skinned elves like Legolas, Thranduil, and Annatar are objectively beautiful and attractive, Yes, it's a good thing.

You are ABSOLUTELY making a connection between skin color and attractiveness, and we're asking WHY.

To then go "no what I meant was these two good-looking dudes just happened to be white" begs the question of WHY YOU EVEN WENT INTO SKIN COLOR AT ALL, not to mention that it doesn't at all address the original problem, which was me questioning the benefit of perpetuating an association of white skin = beautiful.

You're making it harder than it needs to be. Everyone knows how Middle Earth elves look like, and they are fair-skinned and long-haired. As such, a black elf with cropped hair doesn't fit the universe, it's simple.

OOOOH so now we go from "they're not beautiful" to "they don't fit the universe", because "Everyone knows" what they're supposed to look like.

I can only say what I said to someone earlier: if you have a problem with black people in fantasy, you can just say so, and take the repercussions. Don't couch your racism in "everyone KNOWS this geez" generalization bullshit.

[Rennadrel]

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.

And I think that's where the problem lies. The people who so often defend mediocre shows and films that are diverse are defending them because of that aspect, and not whether the product itself stands up as being interesting from a writing perspective. I've legitimately loved both Invincible and The Boys despite the clearly obvious woke leanings of the shows. I don't care if Invincible has a black girlfriend who is also a social justice warrior or that Maeve is bisexual and they played up the lesbian aspect in season 2 of The Boys, or that they've played up the whole BLM/white supremacist trope pretty hard. Because those shows are still entertaining and the writing is good enough to make me appreciate that there is more to their characters than what is on the outside. I honestly don't care if a show is diverse or not, I care that the characters and story are compelling or at least entertaining.

All I'm judging this Amazon show on is it's production value at this point and whether it's going to be faithful at all to Tolkien's work, which looks like utter garbage. 30+ million per episode and their costume budget looks like it's Halloween costume grade quality and we can already see that they are trying to cram in narratives about characters that don't exist.

[Nerovar]

So, again: you're saying it's easier to believe in elves, dwarves, and dragons than it is to believe in black people? And before you go "but those are what fantasy is all about!" - that's the POINT, exposing those kinds of biases that basically exclude certain skin colors for no good reason, just because it's "tradition". They'll never change unless we change them.

I mean, we already walked through this. "You can imagine this thing which gets explicitly explained so why can't you imagine this thing that contradicts the setting and has no explanation whatsoever" will never be a valid argument. It's about which divergences from reality are explained and which ones are not. I can believe in Elves because the narrative actually explores why these being exist in the fictional world to begin with. Being expected to believe that societies magically become multiethnic in an area of the world where the inhabitants are otherwise likened to northern Europeans without any sort of explanation is what makes it jarring.

But that's a gross category error, because you're using something that is SPECIFICALLY historical and contrast it with something that isn't; in fact, something that is SPECIFICALLY fictitious (again to the point of featuring elves, dwarves, dragons, and all manner of completely made-up thing).

Where the narrative SPECIFICALLY demands something, it should be observed. But the whole point is that a fantasy narrative like this DOES NOT. So bringing up an example where this is in fact the case is not only meaningless, it also demonstrates you don't actually understand what's going on.

Why would it be of importance in the case of a historical Japanese setting but not in the case of the fictional setting when the fictional setting has its own history, its own peoples which are delineated like any actual historical ethnic group? The distinction is completely arbitrary and of no importance to an observer who necessarily has to presuppose both worlds as "real" in order to engage with them.

The point is, those are people who engage a lot more with the actual material, and have a much greater understanding of it. "The average person" is an idiot who is effectively trained to follow tradition - that's not a good thing, because it fosters directly notions of "it's always been like that so why change it" which are inherently pernicious when it comes to entrenched inequity. We SHOULD change things, for good reasons; and "the average person", while not irrelevant by any means, is simply unlikely to have studied those reasons well enough to be taken as a measuring stick.

Yeah, I don't agree with this elitist take on art nor do I agree with the notion that it is the job of art to be subservient to political goals such as "tackling entrenched inequity" - especially in the case of escapist fantasy.

Of course most people have an intuitive understanding of how skin color etc. connect to geographic distribution in the real world.

But that doesn't mean that should just be taken as license to REPEAT patterns of systematic exclusion. This is just an argument by tradition - "this is how it usually is, so let's keep doing it". Which doesn't hold water in a status quo that shouldn't be preserved for very good reasons. If you want to change the paradigm and establish a new normal, you have to challenge tradition, not swallow it whole-cloth as immutable and innate.

If you DON'T want to change the paradigm, just say that. You can totally hold the position of "I don't want to see black people in my fantasy because I don't like that", with all the consequences that come with it. But don't pretend that you really do, it's just that, unfortunately, not your fault, you see it's not how it's done, really it's too bad but that's just HOW IT IS.

You can make this as morally charged as you like, prefacing your arguments with "if you don't agree with me that means you don't like black people" doesn't really change anything. If you want to subvert tradition, change the paradigm, create your new normal etc. feel free to do so. I don't hold the position that you can't have diverse fantasy universes. I'm saying that this particular fantasy setting isn't and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

No, that's a mischaracterization. Quite seriously so.

You are asserting here - without evidence - that having a diverse cast means a world CAN'T be vibrant or hold up to scrutiny; and as for "authentic", that means very little when you're ALWAYS deviating, so what you're effectively saying is "all THOSE changes are fine even if they're not 'authentic', but SKIN COLOR suddenly makes things NOT 'authentic'" which is again smuggling in the argument without backing, explanation, or evidence.

You're just CLAIMING that skin color makes something not "authentic" when all the OTHER changes from an original source somehow REMAIN "authentic". THAT is my problem.

You are the one mischaracterizing my argument.

I'm not asserting that a diverse cast means a world can't be vibrant or have internal consistency. I'm asserting that in the specific case of this show set in this specific secondary world with this specific cast of characters it cannot because it is in conflict with the established facts of the universe (which you have already conceded). No one would give a shit if they had a diverse cast because they e.g. explored the colonization of Harad by the Númenoreans because that would be in line with the established facts of this world. You're also falsely attributing the position to me that skin colour is somehow the only thing that could possibly bother me in an attempt to poison the well when I have EXPLICITLY stated in the paragraph prior to the one your quoted that other divergences are not to be excused. Kinda bad faith if you ask me.

[InfiniteCharger]

The show isn't going to flop because of any of the crap that people in this thread have been bitching about (casting minorities, action oriented focus on Galadriel, condensed timeline, haircuts, interviews with the showrunners, etc). Believe it or not, the vast majority of people who are going to check out this show aren't coming in with some preconceived notion of how the appendices at the back of the book the probably didn't read should be adapted. They're going to see that the tone and aesthetics match the popular movies that they watched and that there's a recognizable character that bridges things together.

Even if they made the show 100% true to every detail in the source material, it could still flop if things like plot, pacing, acting, and writing make it a boring slog. These are the things that make or break shows. Not dark skinned hobbits and female warriors. If the story is well told with understandable character motivations and arcs, good pacing, clear stakes, captivating plot and action, then it doesn't matter how many people cry about "not MY Galadriel", it's going to do just fine. If it lacks the fundamental principles that make for a good narrative (something that Tolkien didn't leave behind for this part of his work), then it may well fail.

I would argue this show is going to flop precisely because it does not follow the source material and that includes the ways the characters are depicted. That depiction includes phenotype, height, how they dressed, mannerisms, gestures, languages and so forth. Because Tolkien spent a whole lot of time and effort to flesh this out beyond what was required to write just the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings novels. And for these people at Amazon to act like because it is the second age, they can just make up whatever they want is absolutely a red flag to those who want to see something actually faithful to that work.

While I would definitely agree with this in principle, there DOES exist a correlation between representational casting and bad writing - just not in the way the "anti-woke" crowd thinks. It's not that having PoC or women actors or whatever lowers the quality; they can and do make for perfectly fine actors, and there's absolutely a need to diversify roles more. The problem is with the writers and producers, who far too often tend to think that diversity = quality, and that if they just write/cast diverse enough, that's a substitute for good writing/casting in and of itself. Which is patently untrue, and actually counterproductive, even insulting, to the goal of normalizing diversity.

"We cast some black people and women, therefore the show must be good; and if you disagree, you're just a bigot who hates diversity!" seems to be an implicit, unspoken verdict that hangs over far too many projects. Which is NOT how you do diversity OR quality right. Of course, the same holds in reverse: "They cast a bunch of black people and women, therefore the show must suck; and if you disagree, you're just a woke libtard!" is equally untrue, and both damaging and unhelpful.

At the end of the day, bad writing is bad writing. THAT is what I'm afraid of for the show more than anything.

I think that this dialectic ignores the reality that these companies are pushing diversity as part of corporate mandates. And a lot of shows and movies today have this as a talking point for the producers and actors involved in the show, so it isn't something that is happening just by coincidence. Because of that, being true to the source material is no longer a priority as opposed to following mandates. But following mandates is not how actual diversity works or "representation" works in story telling. In actual story telling it is the job of the writer to "represent" the motivations, desires and actions of those characters in a realistic way based on the story they are telling and the world it is set in. And if some one is adapting a story created by someone else and just arbitrarily changing those characters and what defines them, then they are not being true to that source, no matter what it is. Tolkien as a writer was very familiar with all of these things and wanted to write a story that had its own mythology meaning the time periods prior to the 3rd age were part of the mythology of middle earth. All of that mythology was definitely laid out in his writings as to the overall narrative of Middle Earth and how these various characters fit together into an overarching narrative covering thousands of years.

Diversity was absolutely part of that mythology, but not in a ad-hoc way as is often the case with these mandates from entertainment corporations. If there was a black elf in Tolkien's world, for starters, there wouldn't be just one and there would be a whole backstory on how they came about, what they were called and how they differed from other elves in character and temperament. So it was about more than just randomly putting a POC in a certain role just so you can say you care about diversity while not actually having thought of the backstory and lore behind that character. That is why some people reject this kind of token character promotion because it literally doesn't fit in the world and setting that was created by the original author. It is not a rejection of diversity but rejecting shoehorning something where it doesn't belong and doesn't make sense.

Given the amount of times this sort of thing has come up in threads about various shows it’s pretty clear that some people think that having X minority cast for a roll means that role only exist because they wanted a minority not because they could have been a good actor who just so happens to fit.

Pretty much only the white actors can get by on skill while the minority’s are only there so “people can’t call it back without being labeled racist” or “to fit a quota”.

It is actually in response to what the people making the show have actually said, which is including this kind of diversity is more important than sticking to the source material. Which means it is the producers and often the actors themselves who are saying this, including some of them saying that "I want to see myself on screen", not as an elf, not as a fictional character, but as "themselves".

[Okacz]

BULLSHIT.

You said:



To which I asked why that would be a good thing, and you answered with:


You are ABSOLUTELY making a connection between skin color and attractiveness, and we're asking WHY.

Just throwing it out here, is it really so terrifying? Skin color is one of the most visually prominent part of someones appearance. People of different cultures - Irish, Afgan, Phillipino, Nigerian - tend to be called beautiful in their unique ways, and skin color plays a part. Same with a fantasy setting where a race of elves can be called beautiful, while having this beauty associated with their fair skin among other things. Other settings might have a race of Dark Elves, also called beautiful within their universe for their unique gray/purple skin color. Don't think it's a crime for highlighting the skin color as one of the reasons why a particular race is called "beautiful" in the verse".

Unless of course talking about even noticing someones skin color is too uncomfortable, which yeah, might be due to historic circumstances. But eh, perhaps we can power through it at least for fantasy universes, where authors tend to specifically create different races with common skin colors in mind.

[Biomega]

I think that this dialectic ignores the reality that these companies are pushing diversity as part of corporate mandates.

I mean, that's definitely something that can be highlighted, but I don't think it's ignored in the point I was making. I don't really care WHY someone uses diversity as a pretense to cover up bad writing; that they're doing it is what concerns me. And there really isn't any excuse for it, not corporate and not ideological. I'm all on board with more diversity etc. but not in this way. That's why I say it's actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to true equality to do things like that, even if they're well-intentioned. And as you rightly say, often they're not, they're just a smokescreen for profit-driven virtue signaling. I have no problem pointing that out as a problem, but I think the larger point still stands and includes it anyway.

And a lot of shows and movies today have this as a talking point for the producers and actors involved in the show, so it isn't something that is happening just by coincidence.

I don't think I suggested anywhere that this was just "coincidence". I said it's not a CONSPIRACY, but that doesn't mean it's random chance, either. It's a systemic problem, a symptom of a long, complicated legacy of privilege and exclusion that's become highly entangled in a myriad of historical, social-cultural, political, and economic contexts. None of it is easily reducible, but it's definitely not just happenstance or coincidence.

In that sense, there are absolutely agendas being pushed, on all parts of the spectrum. No question about that. I was specifically talking about bad writing, though - THAT I don't think is an intentional, actively perpetuated conspiracy or agenda at work. The OTHER stuff may be - studios angling for brownie points by virtue signaling etc. is absolutely a reality. But that only serves to cover up bad writing, it doesn't actively promote it. And it also isn't ALWAYS an agenda at work, like some secret cabal plotting the exclusion of minorities or whatever. There's plenty of systemic bias that's taking care of

Because of that, being true to the source material is no longer a priority as opposed to following mandates.

Truth to the source was never a priority to begin with, let's get that right. ALL adaptations deviate in SOME way. Period. Always have, always will. It's purely about negotiating where and how, and by how much. The priority should always be "good writing" - sometimes that means more deviation, sometimes that means less. Things that get in the way of that priority are a problem, including diversity agendas; but at the same time, most of those agendas do not (at least not categorically) preclude good writing. And in the same sense, source fidelity is only useful insofar as it promotes and reinforces good writing; where it doesn't, it SHOULD be deviated from.

In actual story telling it is the job of the writer to "represent" the motivations, desires and actions of those characters in a realistic way based on the story they are telling and the world it is set in.

I'm not sure I'd accept such a generalized, simplistic definition of storytelling; I get what you're trying to say, but this is a bit flimsy and vaguely worded. Primarily because...

And if some one is adapting a story created by someone else and just arbitrarily changing those characters and what defines them, then they are not being true to that source, no matter what it is.

...this is not a good demand to make. For one, it asserts "arbitrary" changes, which is usually a gross mischaracterization. The problem isn't when people are being arbitrary, it's specifically when they're NOT because they have some goal in mind. And the idea of fidelity is, again, a red herring to begin with (see above).

If there was a black elf in Tolkien's world, for starters, there wouldn't be just one and there would be a whole backstory on how they came about, what they were called and how they differed from other elves in character and temperament.

That's fallacious reasoning. It presupposes that skin color IS EVEN RELEVANT. But that's far from in evidence. In fact you could argue that while there are sporadic mentions of skin colors in Tolkien's work (and really only very few), it's never an ACTUAL TOPIC for anything. it quite simply never matters for the narrative in any way, it's all just ancillary cosmetic details that completely fade away in light of categories Tolkien ACTUALLY put in the foreground, such as species, language, culture, etc. To suddenly bring in skin color is GIVING it an importance it DIDN'T previously have - and to try and justify this with some kind of essentialism as though skin color changed "character and temperament" is dangerously close to outright racism.

That is why some people reject this kind of token character promotion because it literally doesn't fit in the world and setting that was created by the original author.

The point is, there's already plenty of things that don't fit the world and aren't exactly how it is in the original - and nobody has any problems with those. Skin color is singled out for no good reason, and that is absolutely a problem.

Just throwing it out here, is it really so terrifying? Skin color is one of the most visually prominent part of someones appearance. People of different cultures - Irish, Afgan, Phillipino, Nigerian - tend to be called beautiful in their unique ways, and skin color plays a part.

That's not the point here, though. Of course "beauty" is a complex paradigm comprised of an interplay of many factors, both physical and not; that's not really the debate here.

The problem is when you say someone is beautiful BECAUSE they're a particular skin color - the point made wasn't "these two people are beautiful" the point was "these two WHITE people are beautiful therefore it's okay if we let 'white skin = beautiful' stand as a standard for aesthetic perception". Because doing that DOES absolutely have implications about what skin color means, and who gets to define a STANDARD of beauty (and why).

This was not about differentiation and doing away with skin color as just "one factor among many", which, you know, IS THE PROBLEM. If it really was just one drop in a pool of traits, we wouldn't have a problem; but that's not the debate here, unfortunately.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It is actually in response to what the people making the show have actually said, which is including this kind of diversity is more important than sticking to the source material. Which means it is the producers and often the actors themselves who are saying this, including some of them saying that "I want to see myself on screen", not as an elf, not as a fictional character, but as "themselves".

Ya, no.

We have had plenty of shows and movies where there isn’t even a source material for it to be based off on and they get all the same complaints like clock work, see any recent starwars for an example.

[Rocksteady 87]

Yes, my only issue so far is the lack of dwarven beards on the womenfolk. If I recall correctly (which I may very well not be; I could be confusing this with Terry Pratchett), they're just straight-up indistinguishable from male dwarves in most cases. That's a core characteristic of the race, and it's perfectly reasonable to be upset with them changing that.

As for skin colors? Who the hell cares? Why would the other races only have peoples who lived in a temperate zone with no variation from living elsewhere on the planet, especially when there's plenty examples of humans who live in sunnier climes and had to develop melanin to combat it. Elves, especially, are way more cosmopolitan than even humans are. An argument could be made about dwarves given their penchant for living underground, but still... who the hell cares? Why does it matter in the slightest? What's so special about skin color vs. hair or eye color? I'll never understand it.

[Biomega]

I mean, we already walked through this. "You can imagine this thing which gets explicitly explained so why can't you imagine this thing that contradicts the setting and has no explanation whatsoever" will never be a valid argument.

The disagreement is in how it "contradicts the setting" or how it requires an explanation any more than other details. You're singling out one thing while glossing over the countless others that ALSO make no sense and are not explained, and I'd like to know why skin color SPECIFICALLY is suddenly a deal breaker when all the other things not in line with the source aren't even mentioned.

Being expected to believe that societies magically become multiethnic in an area of the world where the inhabitants are otherwise likened to northern Europeans without any sort of explanation is what makes it jarring.

But that's just a preconception at work. The only reason WHY you think it's jarring is because you come into this expecting one thing, and find another. What you should question, then, isn't why there's difference, but why you have this particular expectation of something to begin with. And, again: truth to the source material can't really be it, at least not without explaining why all the OTHER things that aren't exactly like the original don't matter, but skin color does.

That's the issue here: why people have this special problem with skin color in particular, and why that trait above all others seems to create so much friction with their preconceptions.

Why would it be of importance in the case of a historical Japanese setting but not in the case of the fictional setting when the fictional setting has its own history, its own peoples which are delineated like any actual historical ethnic group?

Because one is fictional and the other isn't, and one is - in your own words - a HISTORICAL setting and the other one is not.

And by the way: historical fiction can and does take lots of liberties with racial makeups etc. as well, both in the positive and the negative. You think all Romans were Northern-European-looking white dudes? Not even close. But look at what "historical" settings of Rome have usually been depicted as.

The distinction is completely arbitrary and of no importance to an observer who necessarily has to presuppose both worlds as "real" in order to engage with them.

You can call it arbitrary, but in one case there is narrative importance attached to certain traits, and in others there isn't. And that MATTERS, and is far from "completely arbitrary", whether it's historical fiction or fantasy fiction or whatever else. Where the narrative demands a particular skin color or racial makeup or whatever, it should be observed; but ONLY IF AND WHEN IT DOES.

Yeah, I don't agree with this elitist take on art nor do I agree with the notion that it is the job of art to be subservient to political goals such as "tackling entrenched inequity" - especially in the case of escapist fantasy.

No one is asserting that art has some particular job or function here. The point is purely that when it comes to analyzing the structures of narratives, experts will know a lot more about how and why things work as they do than some random person, and when it comes to analyzing things like racial biases or whatever, experts will have a much better view on them than a random person - even though the audience is likely to be almost no experts and almost all random persons. That doesn't mean experts get to say WHAT SOMETHING SHOULD BE, it just means that they're the ones to turn to if you want to know HOW SOMETHING IS PUT TOGETHER.

You can make this as morally charged as you like, prefacing your arguments with "if you don't agree with me that means you don't like black people" doesn't really change anything.

Which is not what I did, anywhere. So, uh... morally charged by prefacing something with that is... what you just did?

If you want to subvert tradition, change the paradigm, create your new normal etc. feel free to do so. I don't hold the position that you can't have diverse fantasy universes. I'm saying that this particular fantasy setting isn't and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

You're free to hold that position, all people are asking for is justification - and so far there hasn't been much that isn't just "but the original says so!" or "that's just how we think it should look like, don't you know that?". There hasn't been one good reason why there is a profound narrative justification for a particular racial makeup within the species Tolkien describes. All we have is cosmetic details that are never made into actual plot points or have any narrative relevance whatsoever anywhere at all.

If your position is "this can't be a diverse setting", PROVE IT.

I'm asserting that in the specific case of this show set in this specific secondary world with this specific cast of characters it cannot because it is in conflict with the established facts of the universe (which you have already conceded).

And as I've pointed out repeatedly, "it's not exactly like it is in the original" is not an argument when it flies in the face of an entire catalog of things that aren't like in the original yet nobody ever has a problem with. Why is skin color special in that respect, and what reason is there OTHER than "it's not like that in the text"?

You're also falsely attributing the position to me that skin colour is somehow the only thing that could possibly bother me in an attempt to poison the well when I have EXPLICITLY stated in the paragraph prior to the one your quoted that other divergences are not to be excused. Kinda bad faith if you ask me.

I'm not saying it's the ONLY thing, I'm saying there's a ton of other things nobody cares about, but they DO care about skin color, and I want to know why. That doesn't mean there can't be other things ALSO bothering you; and I'd totally want to know why for each of those, too, if and when they come up in debate.