Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Hansworst]

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?".

[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.

[Hansworst]

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.

[Hansworst]

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