Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[ohwell]

"We've already decided it's garbage because we think it's not normal to have brown people in the show, but we're not racist, guys! We swear!"

Can't wait to see you applaud a series based on Anasi Tales with Christian Bale as the title character. Oh wait it doesn't work that way right?

[Radeghost]

What also baffles me is these activists are trying to "take over" stuff created by white guys (taking great pride in doing so), instead of creating something themselves. They say stuff like "Tolkien was racist for not including PoC", so why even touch his creations? Why not create something that's "better"?

[s_bushido]

That is how you would explain that ? What a shitty writer you would be

So the racist ignores the question that I asked in return? Unsurprising.

Why does a black person need to justify their presence in a piece of media?

And while I'm asking questions: Why would their skin color need any different explanation than the differences in hair or eye color other members of their race have?

[Biomega]

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.

But that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying bad writing is bad writing, and diversity doesn't excuse bad writing; and, in much the same way, good writing is not invalidated by diversity either. And there's no conspiracy actively pushing bad writing, it's just a corollary of people using a cheap cop-out of diversity to cover up shoddy writing jobs.

That says nothing about whether or not there are people actively pushing for diversity - there absolutely are. That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm only talking about the quality of the writing, and that it should be called out if bad, no matter what else is going on.

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. I don't care how much people deviate, I only care about the end result - if it's good, then I don't care if it's 5% accurate; and in the same way, if it's bad I don't care if it's 99% accurate either. I want good writing, period. The rest is negotiable. In its entirety.

Now, there does seem to be some CORRELATION between truth to the source and quality of the writing - mostly because if something is worth adapting, chances are it's already fairly good writing (though there are exceptions). The more you deviate the harder it is to get things right; but that's a matter of practice, not principle.

The need for fidelity is going to be judged differently between the two.

That's mostly a red herring to me. I don't care about the terminological quibbles over what's an "adaptation" and what is merely "inspired". Doesn't matter to me. Doesn't change how I view the result. Good writing is good writing, bad writing is bad writing - whether it's an adaptation or a reimagination or inspiration or whatever else doesn't interest me. Only the quality of it does.

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's also a red herring. ALL adaptions deviate in SOME way. That's not up for discussion, that's pretty much an unavoidable fact borne out of the different mediums and formats.

Even if you care about accuracy (and I explain above why I don't really), it's never about "is this accurate", it's ONLY EVER about "HOW accurate is this".

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 yet there's an entire catalog of things he DID change, including an egregious intervention in the plot with the whole Faramir thing. All adaptations change something. Period.

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?

Mostly because black people exist in the world, and saying to someone "sorry, you don't belong here" would need a VERY good reason - and "well it's just always been like this" just isn't one.

Here I can refer back to my Julius Caesar example: you would have the exact same historic right to deny a Germanic-descendent person playing the role of Julius Caesar, because come on the Germanic tribes literally destroyed Rome they can't just suddenly be the most revered politician in Roman history. AND YET nobody ever gives a shit when that happens, and nobody cries about historical accuracy or anything you brought up.

Why? Because somehow, white or black skin is SOMETHING ELSE, and seems to be treated in a special way. And very often there's just as much - or rather, just as LITTLE - reason to exclude them.

Because at the end of the day, accuracy only matters to foster the narrative. And if the narrative doesn't care, we shouldn't either. The only reason it upsets people is preconception and tradition, and it's easy to say "why do we need to change anything, it's not a problem for me" when you're the one who gets to have everything and be everywhere by default.

This is the problem with Hollywood thinking where they literally believe that "adapting" something gives them license to re-imagine everything about it.

And who then should be the gatekeeper of adaptational purity? Who gets to decide what can and can't be changed, and by how much?

At the end of the day the audiences are what drives behaviors. Don't reward shit writing with attention (i.e. money). Stop buying bad products. They'll change REAL quick if they realize it's not working. The reason they keep getting away with it is because PEOPLE LET THEM. Be a discerning, critical consumer. That's the only way they'll get your message (whatever that message may be).

they are literally writing what Tolkien never wrote, while going against what he did write.

I call bullshit on this. What are they "going against" that he wrote? Skin color was never more than a cosmetic detail for Tolkien. He never made it a theme or topic, never used it as anything but ancillary information in very few places. He didn't give a shit about skin color, because to him culture, language, etc. were the ACTUALLLY important things.

You haven't even seen this show, yet somehow the existence of a few black elves or dwarves "goes against what Tolkien wrote"? Please.

Skin color, textures and other features are relevant to defining the characteristics of peoples and creatures in a fantasy world.

Says who? If Frodo was played by a black actor in the original LotR and there were black hobbits around, HOW IN ANY WAY would the narrative change?

You're taking minor cosmetic details and blowing them up to be narrative elements they're simply not.

And contrary to your point, mythology and folklore have never been "diverse" in the sense of including everybody in them.

Was I making that point? Anywhere?

My point is much simpler: IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER what color someone is 99.99% of the time. There's a few isolated stories where it's of relevance, and I agree it's different for such cases, but for the vast majority of narratives it just doesn't matter one lick. Historical accuracy in a mythological narrative is worth fuck all, and basically completely irrelevant in almost every case.

And in fact a lot of stories ARE fungible across cultures, as people did when adapting stuff like e.g. the Pañcatantra across cultures for hundreds of years. Or look at stuff like Orpheus and the story of Izanagi and Izanami - completely irrelevant to the story that one is Ancient Greek and the other one is Ancient Japanese, the mythology works basically identically.

Are there some mythological narratives that are easier to adapt and some that are harder? Absolutely. But that doesn't matter - the point is, they're not ALL FIXED, and they CAN be and WERE adapted across cultures for centuries.

And again, the studio themselves are the ones making skin color part of the marketing for the show.

The virtue signaling problem is a separate issue. I'm not okay with people mining diversity for profit if it comes at the expense of quality. That's counterproductive and potentially actively harmful to normalizing a more diverse society.

But that's a different debate, and not liking corporations engaging in excessive virtue signaling with badly written content does NOT IN ANY WAY translate to having a problem with diversity in principle.

[eschatological]

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?

Afrikaaners are colonizers who've lived in Africa a few hundred years, at most. Most white people in Africa are colonizers - which is why it isn't appropriate for them to play an African Prince of an isolated African country which was never colonized.

Unless you're talking about Egyptians etc, who are more Middle Eastern than white.

As for the Anne Bolyn thing, I didn't see that. What was the context of it? Hamilton as a musical play obviously race-bends the Founding Fathers, but it doesn't pretend to be a historical piece, it's a lens through which the Founding Fathers are reintroduced in a modern way. Yanno, like how Shakespeare plays are modernized into movies like 10 Things I Hate About You, or Romeo Must Die. Is that what the Anne Bolyn thing was? Or was it supposed to be a straight historical piece?

[Radeghost]

So the racist ignores the question that I asked in return? Unsurprising.

Why does a black person need to justify their presence in a piece of media?

And while I'm asking questions: Why would their skin color need any different explanation than the differences in hair or eye color other members of their race have?

I've answered you, but you're ignoring that, trying to paint yourself like some kind of a white savior. Yikes.

[Adamas102]

Oh man, it's going to be shocking when you discover that Middle-Earth isn't based on XXI century Europe.

It's not based on ANY century of European history. It draws its inspiration from a variety of sources, but more importantly it's a complete fabrication that was created by a scholar of language and literature in the 1930's who used narrative and framing devices to give the impression of myth and history and as a home for his made up languages. Tolkien's legendarium is NOT "European heritage and history". It's pure fantasy.

[Specialka]

So the racist ignores the question that I asked in return? Unsurprising.

Why does a black person need to justify their presence in a piece of media?

And while I'm asking questions: Why would their skin color need any different explanation than the differences in hair or eye color other members of their race have?

Because context matters.

And reported for calling others racist. It is pure slandering.

[Radeghost]

Afrikaaners are colonizers who've lived in Africa a few hundred years, at most. Most white people in Africa are colonizers - which is why it isn't appropriate for them to play an African Prince of an isolated African country which was never colonized.

Unless you're talking about Egyptians etc, who are more Middle Eastern than white.

As for the Anne Bolyn thing, I didn't see that. What was the context of it? Hamilton as a musical play obviously race-bends the Founding Fathers, but it doesn't pretend to be a historical piece, it's a lens through which the Founding Fathers are reintroduced in a modern way. Yanno, like how Shakespeare plays are modernized into movies like 10 Things I Hate About You, or Romeo Must Die. Is that what the Anne Bolyn thing was? Or was it supposed to be a straight historical piece?

Dude, did you really just said that white guy playing African prince in fictional universe is inappropriate, but black gal playing European princess in history-based series is okay?

Talk about double standards.

[RachelMadcow]

Some of the casts in this show are too ugly. No thanks. Not gonna bother.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And a decent explanation why we have PoC in a people that was known to be white ?

Don't expect one, Don't think its needed.

If it's not core to the story/character I don't think casting needs any explanation and in the case of the dwarfs I believe there skin color is never described by Tolkien at all from what others have said.

[s_bushido]

Because context matters.

The context of what. Care to point out passages in Tolkien's work where the skin/hair/eye color of an elf/dwarf/man was anything more than a descriptor? To point out where they view themselves and each other differently based on those qualities in the same way that we do in the real world?

And reported for calling others racist. It is pure slandering.

Waaaah!!!

[eschatological]

Warning: This thread is derailing too far off the beaten path. Discussing how Tolkein may have described his races vs. how this show is portraying them is fine (or depictions of other characters in other media), but walks a line. This thread is not for discussion about social agendas or politics writ large, which is considered off-topic for this particular subforum, you can go to GenOT for that. Get back on track.

[InfiniteCharger]

Go re read the first post you quoted and tell me where I was only taking about Tolkiens work.

If you aren't talking about Tolkien then what is the point? This thread is specifically about Tolkien and changing what he wrote but still calling it Tolkien.

[Rocksteady 87]

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...

Oh cool, so Moses, Genghis Kahn, Jesus Christ, and Ramses II really were all white guys. Cool, cool, cool. Got it.

I mean, white guys played them, and it had absolutely no bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of their respective movies. Or does that logic only apply when you want it to apply, as I suspect is the case?

[Biomega]

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.

And I'm not saying it is. I'm sure there's lots of issues. My point isn't that skin color is the ONLY issue, it's that it's given SPECIAL ATTENTION for no apparent reason considering it's a cosmetic detail like a gazillion others (in most cases) but while all those get handwaved away with not a care in the world, this one does not.

That doesn't mean there aren't other problems, but this debate - as you yourself said - is about this particular one.

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

And yet I'm sure you have NO PROBLEM with other minor details being not "the way Tolkien describes it". If he describes Erkenbrand's shield as red and it's grey in the movie, does that really bother anyone? If someone's horse is described as piebald but is actually dapple in the movie WHO THE FUCK WOULD CARE?

Clearly it's NOT about perfect accuracy, because some things are more important than others - and I want to question why skin color is suddenly so important, when on a narrative level it's basically as relevant as a horse being dun or bay, and nobody ever cries foul on THAT.

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?

Why is historical accuracy more important in a HISTORICAL setting than in a fictional one?

Tough one.

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?

You do not know anything about Japanese history, do you. The racial makeup of Japanese society was a MAJOR theme all through the Sakoku periods and beyond. It became a national obsession in the Meiji period.

But sure, let's humor the ill-informed take: no, in a narrative that ACTUALLY doesn't involve any of that, I have zero problems with diverse casting. Bring out your black and Asian Romans or whatever. Don't care. A Chinese actor playing Julius Caesar bothers me not one bit more than a German one doing it, unless the narrative makes it matter.

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.

When it comes to the actual structure and dynamics of narratives, yes, absolutely. Most people know fuck all about narratology.

What's wrong with that? You wouldn't trust Johnny Random to explain to you how a nuclear reactor works, yet somehow everyone is equally qualified to dissect the sociocultural complexities of a narrative? Get real.

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.

But that's not what your original response said, at all. NOW you're actually quoting, before you were just making shit up. Also, I did not equate things simply like that; and to portray it as though I did is some serious bad-faith arguing. If you want to quote (which I encourage) do it correctly. I could take some statements you made, too, and just put a = in between to make you sound like a buffoon.

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.

I'm fine with people just admitting they don't like something. I'm all about honesty in that respect - what I have a problem with is people PRETENDING they have good reasons when they don't. If you just want to say "I know it doesn't matter for the story, but it bothers me that there's a black person in there", by all means. You do you.

I'm not the racism police. I'm just pointing out when people portray certain points to be what they don't seem to actually be.

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.

It'd be great to get something more than "it's just jarring, idk man", because that is - again - just saying "I know it doesn't matter, but it's bothering me" which is exactly what I'm getting at: people's biases at work.

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'd suggest you read the sentence again, because that's not what I'm saying.

I'm not saying "no one has a problem WITH ANYTHING BUT skin color", I'm saying "there's a great number of problems nobody has a problem with, but they DO have a problem with skin color". Those are not identical statements, because I in no way exclude OTHER problems also being relevant, like you're trying to make it sound like.

This is the whole Instagram meme where someone goes "nobody has a problem with oranges yet somehow they hate kiwis" and your reply is "SO YOU'RE SAYING PEOPLE ONLY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH KIWIS? WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO HATE LEMONS, YOU IDIOT!".

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?

I have a problem with commercial exploitation of virtue-signaling, too; especially if it's used to gloss over poor quality. But me hating the exploitation of diversity doesn't mean I hate diversity, and I like to be very clear about how those are, indeed, very distinct problems that can't just be conflated.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

If you aren't talking about Tolkien then what is the point? This thread is specifically about Tolkien and changing what he wrote but still calling it Tolkien.

Read my post, the Point is exactly what it says with nothing else added.

[Biomega]

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

Because if they get the dress right, they'll get the shoes wrong, and so on and so forth - you can ALWAYS find SOMETHING that doesn't match, which is a basic reality of all adaptations. And it's especially egregious when it comes to details wholly irrelevant to anything in the narrative - demanding perfect accuracy is a pipe dream.

[VMSmith]

If producers and big corportation are so set on pushing messages and diversity then why don't they make their own fantasy show?

Because that's hard work and carries more risk. It's simpler to appropriate the cachet of Tolkien to push your goals and see some degree of success.

How well did Bright do? I imagine there are black elves in Shadowrun so why not base their story in that setting? Simple, it doesn't carry the prestige of Middle Earth.

Remember kids, European culture is the only one that it's ok to appropriate and make your own.

[s_bushido]

Remember kids, European culture is the only one that it's ok to appropriate and make your own.

Middle Earth is literally not Europe. Christ.