Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Adamas102]

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.

While Wakanda is a fictional place, it's firmly rooted in the real world continent of Africa, and designed to reflect the peoples and cultures of sub-Saharan Africa. The racial identity of Wakanda is an important part to the story of the region and how it is seen by the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, the gods of the Norse pantheon (and pretty much all gods in general) aren't human. In the MCU specifically they're aliens from space. So while the characters were created by the peoples of a certain region, gods are mostly just humanoid avatars for natural phenomena used to tell creation and morality tales, and their skin color is merely a product of who named them and not really a key part of what makes them what they are.

A more appropriate comparison would have been to ask if it mattered having a white Danish man play an Egyptian god. On its own I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but the reason that movie got so much backlash was because ALL the main characters were played by white European and Australian actors, which of course brings up the issue of whitewashing.

[Varodoc]

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.

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.


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.

Sauron took the form of a white elf to manipulate and please the masses, I don't know what you want me to explain. It's literally in the lore that the elves find a fair-skinned individual attractive and beautiful, and Sauron knew this fact.

As for the rest, it's not racist to acknowledge that a black elf does not fit with the pre-established lore of elves who have always been portrayed as white.

[Biomega]

Sauron took the form of a white elf to manipulate and please the masses, I don't know what you want me to explain. It's literally in the lore that the elves find a fair-skinned individual attractive and beautiful, and Sauron knew this fact.

And what do you think is important there: that he was white-skinned, or that he was beautiful?

And what do you think was the case, that they found a person beautiful and that it also happened to be a person who had white skin, or that they found them beautiful BECAUSE of the white skin.

And do you think they WOULDN'T have found a person with dark skin beautiful?

[Jastall]

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.

As for the skin color part, for some people it's merely emblematic of a perceived lack of respect for the source material- which I personally disagree with at least in a vaccum but I can at least understand the argument.

Some of the other comments levied here and elsewhere however... it's kinda hard to not think of the R word whenever I see one associate black people with crack houses and ugliness.

[Adamas102]

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.

You mean the relatively tiny minority who a.) are fans of Tolkien's more obscure works and b.) are extremely triggered by the appearance of dark skinned people in fantasy world? Yeah, pretty sure when considering the viewership of major streaming shows you're talking about a minuscule fraction of the audience. I guarantee you most of the people who watch it whose major experience with Tolkien are the PJ movies won't be exclaiming "Galadriel in armor?! But in the movie that took place thousands of years later she wore a dress! *gasp*" but more than likely "Galadriel? Cool, I remember her from the movies".

[Varodoc]

And what do you think is important there: that he was white-skinned, or that he was beautiful?

And what do you think was the case, that they found a person beautiful and that it also happened to be a person who had white skin, or that they found them beautiful BECAUSE of the white skin.

And do you think they WOULDN'T have found a person with dark skin beautiful?

Given how the servants of evil in Middle Earth are typically dark-skinned, No, Sauron would not have been as successful if he assumed a dark-skinned form.

[s_bushido]

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.

If that's a "core characteristic," then we already saw that pretty blatantly violated in Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. The dwarf women depicted there had some facial hair, but they certainly weren't indistinguishable.

[Rocksteady 87]

If that's a "core characteristic," then we already saw that pretty blatantly violated in Jackson's Hobbit trilogy. The dwarf women depicted there had some facial hair, but they certainly weren't indistinguishable.

You missed the "in most cases" bit. Which means there are exceptions. Not that it matters in this particular case as there were far too many exceptions in the trilogy, and it's a fault of said trilogy.

I don't know why you seem to think "well they fucked up then, so it's okay to fuck up now!!!" as a brilliant response.

[VMSmith]

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

And yet, Anne Boleyn was a Queen of very white England in the 16th Century and AMC cast a black woman to play her and expected (and received) praise for it, despite it not being appropriate at all. And that's a historical figure, not some comic book character.

Also, there are white Africans you know. There are multiracial societies in Africa, in fact. So why is it suddenly a stretch for an African prince to be white when there are white people all over Africa?

[s_bushido]

I don't know why you seem to think "well they fucked up then, so it's okay to fuck up now!!!" as a brilliant response.

Considering how synonymous the art design of his team in those movies has become to the world of Tolkien in people's minds, the fact that they "fucked up" this way and it had absolutely no bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of that trilogy should be a hint...

And yet, Anne Boleyn was a Queen of very white England in the 16th Century and AMC cast a black woman to play her and expected (and received) praise for it, despite it not being appropriate at all. And that's a historical figure, not some comic book character.

Also, there are white Africans you know. There are multiracial societies in Africa, in fact. So why is it suddenly a stretch for an African prince to be white when there are white people all over Africa?

It's always funny to me that people go to the ONE black character they can think of in a sea of white superheroes in a flaccid attempt to point outa double standard.

If you want to tell/watch a story about a white monarch doing white monarch things, there are probably hundreds of examples in film/television for you to choose from. Equating that with a character specifically created to be a black superhero because that was something sorely lacking up to that point...well...good luck with that.

Nevermind that in the context of the MCU and the story so far, if there was a point where Bucky found himself in the suit to help out an ailing Wakanda (in return for everything they'd done for him), it would work just fine.

AND nevermind that in the context of this show, the black guy that the racists have flipped their shit over is exactly what anti-woke dipshits are always demanding: a new character created specifically for the series, and not simply a race-swap of a pre-existing one.

[InfiniteCharger]

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.


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

This isn't about bias in the abstract and doesn't make sense, because this literally isnt 1920 and there are plenty of films and series with diversity in them. So for all these shows to claim that they need to change things for this reason is actually dishonest. Case in point, how many shows at SDCC 2022 were talking about 'breaking ground' in terms of diversity? How is it possible for all of them to be breaking the same ground when it literally was also being done on other shows and movies from earlier this year, the year before that and on back going back many years now? At some point, they should just stop pretending they are breaking new ground when they aren't. Most people could care less about that dubious achievement.

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.

But if you are deviating so far from the source material, especially written source material, that you need to do a lot of writing to justify the changes, then something is wrong. At that point you aren't really adapting the story, as opposed to making something new that is similar to an existing story. Making a live action transformers is not the same as claiming to be "adapting" Tolkien. One is simply re-imagining an existing franchise in a new medium, the other is literally taking what exists on the written page and putting it into live action. The need for fidelity is going to be judged differently between the two.

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...

Staying relevant to the source material is all about the characters, their world and the actions taking place in it as defined in the source. That is the only definition of a story and specifically if said story is popular already, then the adaption is trying to piggyback off of that. But the catch is that changing something that is already popular, because of the original source material, risks potentially far less popularity because of those changes. And that applies to everything. One of the reasons Peter Jackson stayed close to the source is because he felt that was the only way to honor Tolkien and likely to not wind up with something corny, derivative or looking like a parody. And this is the problem specifically with things involving high fantasy or fantasy in general, they often tend to come off as corny or derivative in live action, especially due to writing and characters, but also due to effects. So there are a lot of things that can go wrong with such a live action adaptation. The difference is that in the past corporations weren't trying to guilt trip people into going to see these films and nobody was grandstanding about diversity. Which often today, is done almost all the time, especially with European fantasy as if somehow black people need to see themselves in fantasy based on European history or mythology? Like why? By that logic nobody can watch an Asian martial arts story because they aren't Asian or nobody not American can watch an American movie or television show because they aren't American. It is absurd reductionist logic.

...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).

This is the problem with Hollywood thinking where they literally believe that "adapting" something gives them license to re-imagine everything about it. The problem becomes what is the definition of an adaptation and as I mentioned above with Transformers vs Tolkien, there is no one yard stick as "adaptation" means different things in different contexts. Right now the biggest issue with this specific show is they are trying to claim that they are literally writing what Tolkien never wrote, while going against what he did write. This is not abstract or theoretical, it is about them trying to market the show based on a false premise, which implies that they are staying true to Tolkien when they are not. This is what is getting a lot of the outrage from many people specifically for this show.

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.

Skin color, textures and other features are relevant to defining the characteristics of peoples and creatures in a fantasy world. It is fantasy and you need to define the characteristics of the world in order to have characters defined in it that operate in a way that is realistic for that world. And again, this is why Tolkien is so respected because he took the time to define those things as part of a mythology. It is a fantasy world modeled on specific real world myths and legends. And contrary to your point, mythology and folklore have never been "diverse" in the sense of including everybody in them. Most mythology and folklore is specific to the culture and people that created it and not about including anybody and everybody. Just like in real life almost no army has ever been made up of 50% female warriors, but sure that could happen in fantasy, but that is not part of Tolkien's fantasy story is the point.

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.

And again, the studio themselves are the ones making skin color part of the marketing for the show. The actors have said it in interviews and the producers have talked about it as well. So it isn't just that the people are noticing and making an issue of it. Again, it is fallacious reasoning because Tolkien has fans of the source material all over the world and I don't recall any non Europeans demanding "representation" in his work. If they just changed those things and didn't say anything about it to call it out as "ground breaking", that would be one thing, but not only are they calling it out, the entire story they are telling is built around it. So it is impossible in this case to separate the changes for "diversity" from the other changes that go against the lore. They all go together.

[Nerovar]

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.

The insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow singling out skin colour is disingenuous. Just because we are currently talking about this particular thing doesn't mean it's the only issue I have with the show. There are plenty of concerns people have with this show and skin colour isn't even close to being the most prominent.

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.

I have the expectation for Tolkien's universe to look like Tolkien's universe because that's the way Tolkien describes it?

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.

That's not an argument. That's just a truism. Why is adherence to known facts important in a historical setting but not in a fantasy setting?

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.

If we stick with the example of a movie set in feudal Japan (pre contact with the Portuguese) would it matter then? In that case there would be "no narrative importance attached" to the racial makeup because there were no real racial antagonisms as we know them that could make it relevant. Do you think it would then be unreasonable for people to think it's jarring to have white/black Samurai fighting each other in feudal Japan without any given explanation?

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.

This is different from what you said earlier. You said that the average person is an idiot who doesn't understand why we should change things and that only academic elites have a solid enough grasp on these topics to speak with any authority on the matter. But again, I don't think we'll find any sort of agreement in regards to this.

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

Everyone can read what you said. Wanting an adaptation to be true to its source material = repeating patterns of systematic exclusion which is then further qualified with the strawman position of "I don't want to see black people in my fantasy because I don't like that". The implication is very obvious.

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.

Just because you don't care about the justification does not mean it's not a valid concern. You can repeat ad absurdum that it doesn't affect the narrative. It doesn't need to in order to be perceived as jarring. You could gender swap most characters without "affecting the narrative". That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a jarring deviation from the source material.

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"?

Yeah. Nobody ever has any problem with anything except skin colour. Why are you so desperately trying to frame this as an issue of hipocrisy?

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.

What do you want me to say? That people are annoyed by the "woke pandering" of this show that deliberately tries to make its diversity a selling point? That this particular thing receives special attention because racists exist? That you can only view this through the lense of culture war issues? Wow, what a shocking concept.

[InfiniteCharger]

You mean the relatively tiny minority who a.) are fans of Tolkien's more obscure works and b.) are extremely triggered by the appearance of dark skinned people in fantasy world? Yeah, pretty sure when considering the viewership of major streaming shows you're talking about a minuscule fraction of the audience. I guarantee you most of the people who watch it whose major experience with Tolkien are the PJ movies won't be exclaiming "Galadriel in armor?! But in the movie that took place thousands of years later she wore a dress! *gasp*" but more than likely "Galadriel? Cool, I remember her from the movies".

No. I mean the people who read the books and were happy with them as they were. No different than people who watched Akira and were happy with it being set in Japan. The idea that people "needed" to see themselves in Tolkien is the issue here as I don't know anybody who has been demanding this except these producers and leftist academics. So it is circular argument because basically they claim to be making the change because people are racist and against the change. So when people say something about it, that justifies their changes, which is purely political and has absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien. He wasn't writing his story to be an allegory for racial relations in 19th or 20th century America or Europe.

[RobertoCarlos]

Latest trailer it's weird. It's clearly had a lot of money put into it. But it does look very fake and cheap. If they had everyone except galadriel roll around in the mud before shooting it might not be so bad. Its like a rich person's house where everything is clean and nothing looks lived in

[Xath]

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.

Why in the world not? It's not like being accurate within spitting distance is hard these are multi million dollar productions.

[Adamas102]

He wasn't writing his story to be an allegory for racial relations in 19th or 20th century America or Europe.

The only people trying to bring racial relations into this are the people who can't see dark skinned people in a fantasy world without demanding an explanation (or claiming that they simply don't belong).