Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Adamas102]

I'm sorry but if you think it is dangerous that some people expect actors to roughly represent the look and feel of a certain time period or fictional world, you have lost the plot. It's not any more racist than me (as a dude) not being able to play Catherine the Great is sexist.

Yes, it’s dangerous when you tell people that they’ll never be X enough because their skin is the wrong color. It’s one of the many excuses historically used to marginalize minorities and here you are spouting it like your incredibly fragile suspension of disbelief is in anyway more important. Talk about ignorance borne from privilege…

- - - Updated - - -

That means they don't see the need to adapt any of the numerous stories, myths and legends based in Africa or even Native American ones because they feel it is too niche, for the cost.

Except they do adapt those as well, they just typically cast white American, European, and Australian actors in all the main roles because money.

- - - Updated - - -

Which results in this idea that you only to see yourself in European culture and history no matter if your history and culture is not from Europe.

So yeah, basically confirming that you don’t think non-white people can ever identify as European. That, for instance, Americans and Australians are more worthy of portraying Europeans than people who were actually born and raised in Europe because “culture” (which of course in this context really just means “skin color”).

[Nerovar]

Because YOU ASKED.

Where?

Based on what, the three times skin color is mentioned in passing? You have one reference about "dark humans" in the East, and suddenly ANY dark human ANYWHERE could ONLY have come from the East?

What am I supposed to assume? That they grew on a tree? That Tolkien lied to me and the people of Middle Earth don't actually look the way he described them?

Which should be a clue. Apparently it isn't. Mull it over some more, you'll figure it out.

Good job dodging the point once again. Even cropped the quoted part.

You're trying to create a situation that didn't exist, and was never real. The point here isn't "to sound smart", it's to show you that you KNOW FUCK ALL about the topic, and that's why in your mind your ludicrous concoction makes sense - when it doesn't to anyone who's actually familiar with what was going on.

It's called a hypothetical. You merely decided to act stuck-up and somehow brought up examples that took place AFTER the period I specified in the hypothetical (not that it would matter for the hypothetical to begin with). You simply couldn't resist ""flexing"" your historical knowledge as if it was a substitute for actually making a point.

Since you're apparently not capable of abstraction: no I don't think it's reasonable for other people to take issue with it, UNLESS it's relevant to the narrative in which case I take issue with it, too, and so should others.

I am plenty capable of abstraction. It has just become apparent over the course of this conversation that I have to deliberately ask you to directly answer the question like I'm talking to a child so you don't weasel out later on and cry crocodile tears about me misrepresenting you.

I'll throw the "not what we're talking about" right back at you. Faithfulness of adaptations is a red herring. It's meaningless because ALL adaptations differ, and it's purely about how. This is about much more complicated issues than "the dress is red in the book but blue in the movie", which to most average people are not going to be either easily accessible OR immediately obvious.

It's meaningless TO YOU. Your conceptions about literature and drama likely don't apply to the average person reading LOTR or watching an adaptation. You can play Ship of Theseus with any fictional universe or story as much as you like. People will most likely not jive with it. The only reason why you brought up academia to begin with was to that you could grandstand while acting like you have some sort of authority to fall back on even though it was from the very start completely irrelevant to what we were talking about.

You're changing MY words, and then you want ME to go and rephrase what I said?

This is generally how it works. If you tell me that I misunderstood your point then I'm going to ask you to rephrase it for me as to clear up the misunderstanding. Shocking.

That's pretty bold for someone who goes black people = just jarring to me, don't know why don't know how, just are.

You probably think this is some witty ironic statement but in reality this is the position you wanted to ascribe to me from the very start of this conversation.

If there is no good narrative reason, then demanding that certain skin colors not be present IS racist, yes.

Thank God that faithfulness to a setting (be it historic or fictional) is as good a reason as any.

Not sure why that's a big problem, but I guess for some people skin color really does just create visceral responses they're not ready to deal with.

Yeah, I think I'm just gonna block you and move on from this shitshow. Keep fighting the good fight.

If there is no narrative reason, then yeah it would just be bias. If it doesn't matter to the story, then swap away. And if you have a problem with it, you better have a GOOD reason, and "I have no reason I just don't like it" is EXACTLY what you said: a sexist bias.

So if someone made an adaptation of LOTR where every characters was race and gender swapped any person who goes "Wait a second, this isn't what I had in mind when I read the books. Not interested" is a racist, sexist chud. This is cartoonishly silly.

Really? You think any complaint has validity just because ONE person SOMEWHERE complained about it at some point?

But sure, let's humor the bad-faith take anyway: what I'm talking about are minor cosmetic details that practically no one ever notices: hair color, eye color, someone being an inch too tall or too short, someone being a few years older or younger, someone not having crooked teeth, whatever. Cosmetic shit of no relevance that is broadly accepted as a quotidian deviation from the original of no relevance, except that it fits the EXACT SAME claims of "not faithful to the original" that people use to argue against skin color.

Already explained why these things can be qualitatively different and why some are more likely to be brought up.

And the entire argument boils down to which settings really AREN'T compatible with it, and which settings are, but people make up bad reasons to claim otherwise. Like somehow a black elf means people are confused about whether or not they're evil, and that's not racist no no no it's all IN THE TEXT.

Here you go making shit up again.

Yes, it’s dangerous when you tell people that they’ll never be X enough because their skin is the wrong color. It’s one of the many excuses historically used to marginalize minorities and here you are spouting it like your incredibly fragile suspension of disbelief is in anyway more important. Talk about ignorance borne from privilege…

I will never be Queen Catherine the Great. I will never be Black Panther. I will never be Guan Yu. Woe is me.

[Adamas102]

I will never be Queen Catherine the Great. I will never be Black Panther. I will never be Guan Yu. Woe is me.

Do you suddenly identify as a woman? Someone of African or Chinese descent? Or is this just more of your pathetic attempt at white victimhood while telling other people that they can never really be part of their birth nation because “wrong skin color”?

[Biomega]

What am I supposed to assume? That they grew on a tree? That Tolkien lied to me and the people of Middle Earth don't actually look the way he described them?

No. This is what you're doing:

-Tolkien described some men in the East as "dark-skinned"
-he did not describe the men of Rohan as "dark-skinned"
-therefore, ANY human with dark skin MUST be from the East

Which is logically fallacious. The only reason you're jumping to that conclusion is racism.

AND EVEN IF he HAD described the men of Rohan as ALL white-skinned (as opposed to just some of them), that STILL wouldn't mean you couldn't just change it for a TV series because skin color, EVEN IF EXPLICITLY MENTIONED, is not made into a narrative element by Tolkien anywhere and in any way, and is purely a cosmetic detail that HE never endowed with ANY meaning beyond that.

Good job dodging the point once again. Even cropped the quoted part.

Less rolling of eyes, more using what's behind the eyes, I'd say. You'll figure it out eventually.

It's called a hypothetical. You merely decided to act stuck-up and somehow brought up examples that took place AFTER the period I specified in the hypothetical (not that it would matter for the hypothetical to begin with). You simply couldn't resist ""flexing"" your historical knowledge as if it was a substitute for actually making a point.

You're trying to use HISTORY as an argument, then come up with a HYPOTHETICAL that never existed in history the way you describe it. And when someone points out that you got it all wrong, your defense is "you're just trying to sound smart, derp derp derp!" which in all honesty is not much of a challenge when you bring drivel like that to the table.

I am plenty capable of abstraction. It has just become apparent over the course of this conversation that I have to deliberately ask you to directly answer the question like I'm talking to a child so you don't weasel out later on and cry crocodile tears about me misrepresenting you.

Yes, who's crying here, exactly. You're trying to do literal readings of complex points to which I can only reply "I am not a crocodile wtf do you not even know crocodiles can't type ".

Is this just trolling at this point?

It's meaningless TO YOU.

It's meaningless because claiming faithfulness as an argument WHILE ALSO accepting without protest or issue the fact that ALL adaptations change SOMETHING is logically inconsistent and argumentatively dishonest.

I'm not making wild claims here, I'm giving you reasons. YOU are the one who refuses to give reasons for claims.

This is generally how it works. If you tell me that I misunderstood your point then I'm going to ask you to rephrase it for me as to clear up the misunderstanding. Shocking.

So what you're saying is you don't understand it and want me to explain again? Just re-read it. It's still there.

You probably think this is some witty ironic statement but in reality this is the position you wanted to ascribe to me from the very start of this conversation.

Nothing ironic about it. That's literally what you said.

Thank God that faithfulness to a setting (be it historic or fictional) is as good a reason as any.

If it actually was applied consistently, it would be.

But you can't go "We can't do X because it's not the same as it was written in the book!" but then completely gloss over 2,000 other things that ALSO aren't as it was written in the book but don't bother you.

My point is that you're just PRETENDING it's about faithfulness to the original, and that the real reason is something else. Because if it was ACTUALLY about faithfulness, not only would other things have to bother you that quite evidently bother practically no one, but you'd also NEVER be satisfied, because the practical necessities of ANY adaptation WHATSOEVER demand changes of SOME kind, period.

This "argument" is a smokescreen; that's why I call it a red herring.

Yeah, I think I'm just gonna block you and move on from this shitshow. Keep fighting the good fight.

Ah yes, "I don't know how to respond to this, so I'll just ignore it". Fingers up the ears, lalalala the bad man and his logic can't hurt my precious biases anymore.

So if someone made an adaptation of LOTR where every characters was race and gender swapped any person who goes "Wait a second, this isn't what I had in mind when I read the books. Not interested" is a racist, sexist chud. This is cartoonishly silly.

How to tell me you have understood nothing without saying "I understood nothing", I guess. You're incapable of answering in anything but tangents or hyperboles, aren't you.

Already explained why these things can be qualitatively different and why some are more likely to be brought up.

Yes, see above. You made an argument that's logically inconsistent, and never mind the racist part about it.

Here you go making shit up again.

Like what? If you think I'm misrepresenting you, correct me. If you're not doing that I can only assume I hit the mark and you're afraid to out your views further. Which, fair enough, don't blame you.

I will never be Queen Catherine the Great. I will never be Black Panther. I will never be Guan Yu. Woe is me.

If you were an actor, and the ONLY reason people denied you a role was "sorry you're white", then yeah, woe would be you. That's not how it works in the examples you've given, of course, which I'm sure you may know - you picked false examples on purpose to sound smug, but ignored the fact that I have said repeatedly and in many places that all this only holds true for narratives where it DOESN'T matter what race/gender/whatever someone is; you bringing up characters where it DOES matter shows you either 1. didn't understand shit about what was said or 2. did understand but know you can't refute it, so you're trying to strawman things in a desperate attempt to salvage your non-point.

Or maybe it's both, who the fuck knows.

[Lady Atia]

The Hobbit movies are absolutely more in the "interpretation" camp. I'd go so far as to say they are more of the "inspired by" sort of re-telling. They play fast and loose with the existing story, add hours upon hours of non-canonical story, create characters that never existed in the story and are absolutely unnecessary to the actual story of The Hobbit, simply to pad out the runtime for three movies. They weren't political-agenda driven changes, IMO, but they warped the story as they pleased to tell the story they wanted to tell, not Tolkien's story.

And those movies have been hammered ever since the first one came out, and not just by Tolkien purists. But fans of Tolkiens works overwhelmingly hate that trilogy of movies and have never been ashamed of being extremely vocal about it. It had nothing to do with skin color or gender of anyone and everything to do with the fact that they were categorically NOT Tolkien's actual story except in the most necessary of ways. Where the LoTR movies succeeded by only changing where absolutely necessary for the medium of film, The Hobbit movies failed because they wanted to tell someone other than Tolkien's story while using the skeleton of Tolkien's story.




Reading this I think of the movie Moana, which was a wonderful film. The thought of including white people in a Pacific Islanders' tale makes no sense whatsoever and would only have served to distract from the film. There's nothing wrong with telling stories of people of specific racial/geographic origins and making the characters look like the people in those areas. It's actually amazing because it introduces us all to the diversity in the world that we may not be aware of. But, for some reason, it's acceptable to erase these people whenever they are of European origin, and none other. And when you dislike the fact that this one group of people are made acceptable to erase and must justify their inclusion in things to a standard no other ethnicity is held to and seek actual equality, you are called "racist".

- - - Updated - - -



So we're back to Brad Pitt as Black Panther being ok, then? Because you folk have argued that it makes no sense for T'Challa to be white and would be unacceptable. Mind yourself on that hypocrisy.



You just have a special reason for every example of why it's ok to erase white people and promote others, don't you? In one breath you say real history is important, in the next you say it's "entertainment". It all depends on what you need in the moment to promote your racist ideology, isn't it?

First, the Hobbit Trilogy was awesome and they mostly added stuff from the Silmarillion/FotR into it, the only exception was the Nazgul part which iirc would contradict the books. And Tauriel, but she was an actually good addition since the original book had no female characters in it, sadly.

Secondly, holy moly "erasing white people" in movies is not racist ideology. It's 2022, how can people be so damn ignorant and right-winged?! Tolkien strongly opposed Nazi racial theories, no clue how anyone can use his name and say shit like this.

[Al Gorefiend]

Where?


What am I supposed to assume? That they grew on a tree? That Tolkien lied to me and the people of Middle Earth don't actually look the way he described them?


Good job dodging the point once again. Even cropped the quoted part.


It's called a hypothetical. You merely decided to act stuck-up and somehow brought up examples that took place AFTER the period I specified in the hypothetical (not that it would matter for the hypothetical to begin with). You simply couldn't resist ""flexing"" your historical knowledge as if it was a substitute for actually making a point.


I am plenty capable of abstraction. It has just become apparent over the course of this conversation that I have to deliberately ask you to directly answer the question like I'm talking to a child so you don't weasel out later on and cry crocodile tears about me misrepresenting you.


It's meaningless TO YOU. Your conceptions about literature and drama likely don't apply to the average person reading LOTR or watching an adaptation. You can play Ship of Theseus with any fictional universe or story as much as you like. People will most likely not jive with it. The only reason why you brought up academia to begin with was to that you could grandstand while acting like you have some sort of authority to fall back on even though it was from the very start completely irrelevant to what we were talking about.


This is generally how it works. If you tell me that I misunderstood your point then I'm going to ask you to rephrase it for me as to clear up the misunderstanding. Shocking.


You probably think this is some witty ironic statement but in reality this is the position you wanted to ascribe to me from the very start of this conversation.


Thank God that faithfulness to a setting (be it historic or fictional) is as good a reason as any.


Yeah, I think I'm just gonna block you and move on from this shitshow. Keep fighting the good fight.


So if someone made an adaptation of LOTR where every characters was race and gender swapped any person who goes "Wait a second, this isn't what I had in mind when I read the books. Not interested" is a racist, sexist chud. This is cartoonishly silly.


Already explained why these things can be qualitatively different and why some are more likely to be brought up.


Here you go making shit up again.


I will never be Queen Catherine the Great. I will never be Black Panther. I will never be Guan Yu. Woe is me.

Peter Jackson would NEVER have been allowed to have an all white cast of characters in the original trilogy if it were made today. Not a chance in hell, he'd infuriate people. It was a different time, Tolkien's era was a different time. Those times have changed. You're going to have to accept and appreciate the times we live in now. Strong female leads are the in thing now for Hollywood (amazing, it was like 5 years ago people thought a female superhero couldn't be the title star), strong black female leads are empowering to many people. The strong female is going to give the men of the film the business each and every time.

You might shit a brick, but we're going to end up with a black James Bond any year now. Accept it, be happier, be less racist.

[Nerovar]

Peter Jackson would NEVER have been allowed to have an all white cast of characters in the original trilogy if it were made today. Not a chance in hell, he'd infuriate people. It was a different time, Tolkien's era was a different time. Those times have changed. You're going to have to accept and appreciate the times we live in now. Strong female leads are the in thing now for Hollywood (amazing, it was like 5 years ago people thought a female superhero couldn't be the title star), strong black female leads are empowering to many people. The strong female is going to give the men of the film the business each and every time.

You might shit a brick, but we're going to end up with a black James Bond any year now. Accept it, be happier, be less racist.

Not sure if this is supposed to be a post-ironic shitpost or not.

[InfiniteCharger]

Except they do adapt those as well, they just typically cast white American, European, and Australian actors in all the main roles because money.

Which proves the point they only care about money and in Tolkien's case, prestige, not actual diversity and only promote it when convenient.

So yeah, basically confirming that you don’t think non-white people can ever identify as European. That, for instance, Americans and Australians are more worthy of portraying Europeans than people who were actually born and raised in Europe because “culture” (which of course in this context really just means “skin color”).

I think you misunderstand what I mean by identify. Anybody can identify with LOTR as it is without seeing themselves personally in it as some native of ancient Europe with some personal tie to that history or culture. There is a difference. I can identify with Greek mythology just fine, but that doesn't mean that I identify as Greek, same with Chinese mythology, Indian mythology and other mythologies. That doesn't mean I need to literally see myself in it as part of my own self identity as a person, but of course anyone can imagine themselves as anything. Diversity means diverse settings, based on diverse mythologies and characters that are true to those, not just putting every culture into Tolkien. And if you do add all of that into Tolkien then it is no longer Tolkien's world but a different world inspired by Tolkien. Again, the idea here is that because Tolkien is an important work of European literature that is already popular they would rather shoehorn their own ideas into it versus making something "diverse" of their own based on other mythologies from other places. It implies those other cultures and mythologies don't have the same value to them.

According to the logic of your post a person can only identify something if characters in it look just like them. So if they don't have someone who is bow legged or someone with spina bifida or someone with vitiglio or someone who has mixed Indian and Mexican ancestry or someone who has a specific shade of skin color or someone who has a certain hair texture, they cant "identify" with it. That is absurdly false and you know it. And nobody is going to include that in general story telling, so arguing that this needs to be done for Tolkien and only for Tolkien and other European fiction and fantasy is nonsensical.

[Biomega]

Which proves the point they only care about money and in Tolkien's case, prestige, not actual diversity and only promote it when convenient.

And if they'd stayed true to the original material 100%, they'd have done it for the love of the books and NOT because they thought it would increase their profit margin and they only care about money. RIGHT?

Yes, big AAA entertainment corporations are in it for the moolah. That is a shocker to all of us.

You know what you might ask yourself? If they're doing diverse castings "only for the money"... what is it, exactly, that makes that work? Could it be there's people who reward such choices with a purchase, indicating that it is, perhaps, not such a bad idea and something many people actually appreciate?

Or are those people's opinions somehow not worth as much as the opinions of people who don't like diversity?

[Al Gorefiend]

Not sure if this is supposed to be a post-ironic shitpost or not.

Not at all. I anticipate and expect all remakes and revivals to follow this same suit. When Peter Jackson's trilogy gets old enough for a new Hollywood director to want to remake it, you'll have the Fellowship of the Ring composed entirely of characters that share no physical traits amongst one another for maximum inclusivity. Gandalf the Yellow, Aragorn the disenfranchised Eastern European, Legolas the Legless, finest archer in a wheelchair. Gimli the fat stupid comic relief who stays the only white character. Faramir and Boromir as proper "brothers", the Hobbits all of varying pronouns. That gives everyone in the audience someone they can identify with, which is the way movies should have always been made. No more role casting specifically for an actors background or skin, but more for their merit as professionals actors.

Honestly, wanting an entire ensemble cast to be all white people is pretty racist of a want, doesn't bode well with today's standard of excellence in visual media.

[s_bushido]

Legolas the Legless, finest archer in a wheelchair

Rest of the delusional bigoted rant aside, people like yourself are constantly using "person in a wheelchair" to mock the idea of diversity...but when was the last time someone like that actually appeared in a mainstream movie? Literally the only one I can think of that even came close was Patrick Stewart rolling out in the Professor X's big yellow hoverchair. Which...you know...doesn't really count, seeing as the man can still walk, and the character he was playing is supposed to be unable to.

[Al Gorefiend]

Rest of the delusional bigoted rant aside, people like yourself are constantly using "person in a wheelchair" to mock the idea of diversity...but when was the last time someone like that actually appeared in a mainstream movie? Literally the only one I can think of that even came close was Patrick Stewart rolling out in the Professor X's big yellow hoverchair. Which...you know...doesn't really count, seeing as the man can still walk, and the character he was playing is supposed to be unable to.

How am I mocking diversity? Legless just sounds like Legolas. Blame Hollywood if you're upset able-bodied actors are acting to be paraplegic.

[Dhrizzle]

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.

Do you mean would it matter to the story of an isolationist African nation that deliberately avoided the colonial powers? I wish the fake-fans who think up these stupid examples would do a little bit of research before blurting crap like "bUt WhAt If BlAcK pAnThEr WaS wHiTe?"

[s_bushido]

How am I mocking diversity? Legless just sounds like Legolas. Blame Hollywood if you're upset able-bodied actors are acting to be paraplegic.

Cowards that can't even defend the horseshit they post are adorable.

[Jastall]

Not sure if this is supposed to be a post-ironic shitpost or not.

I'm personally not even sure why a black James Bond would be so bad anyway. Every new Bond is explicitly a different take on the archetype so it's not like Daniel Craig's bond suddenly looks like a black guy for no reason, it's a different Bond. The only common denominator between Bonds was that they're from the British Isles. He's been English, Scottish, Irish, Blonde, but having a skin color that is, if not common, at least not that rare in the Isles is just not OK?

[Dhrizzle]

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.

Then Peter Jackson went on to create films that "eviscerated the story" to make "action films for 15 to 25 year olds," and replaced the theme of "war is bad" with "war is awesome with a big enough special effects budget, check out my radical surfing elf!"

BTW skin colour is a casting decision, not about "politics, messages or themes."

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Do you mean would it matter to the story of an isolationist African nation that deliberately avoided the colonial powers? I wish the fake-fans who think up these stupid examples would do a little bit of research before blurting crap like "bUt WhAt If BlAcK pAnThEr WaS wHiTe?"

Most these people can't stand a few black people in any fantasy shows do you really think they know of any other black media to use an example? Black panther is so main stream that they can't help but have heard of it which is why its all they got.

[Veggie50]

I think arguing that Tolkien didn’t intend his main characters to be white is being obtuse. The man was very much a product of his time, being an English professor. Yeah, in his mind those characters very much were white.

The other side to the argument, is wether or not it’s important for the showrunners to be faithful to that part of Tolkien. For any adaptation you make adjustments, some you like, some you don’t.

I don’t care if some elf is black, or if hobbits are more dusky than expected. None of that changes anything in the narrative.

If Tolkien had written about the political struggles between different skin colours within lothlorien, then changing those skin colours would be changing the narrative. It’s not a focus of his stories though, so ask yourself why it’s so important to you. If the answer is “because that’s what the book implies” than you shouldn’t watch any kind of adaptation, because there are ALWAYS deviations.

[Rocksteady 87]

I think arguing that Tolkien didn’t intend his main characters to be white is being obtuse. The man was very much a product of his time, being an English professor. Yeah, in his mind those characters very much were white.

Exactly this. The region of Middle Earth his stories focused on took place basically in England, of our world just in the distant past. England way before the Romans or even the Norse were carting slaves from other regions of the world into the area. England before it was anything even remotely close to being a melting pot of peoples.

Why wouldn't they all have similar melanin levels in their skin? It was the same climate, it was the same pool of the different races for millennia. That they didn't all look similar is what would be weird, which is precisely why most* (admittedly there are some racist cunts blathering about, but they're just a vocal minority as usual) people are raising a brow at the choices in the show. Not because they're racist, but because it doesn't make a whole hell lot of sense.

It's like complaining that a story taking place in China was exclusively Chinese, or at least predominately Chinese with a few Mongols, Koreans, Japanese, and other neighboring peoples scattered here and there. You know, which is why people like those white knights in this thread bicker and bitch about the "white washing" of movies when white guys are cast in those types of movies. Precisely because it doesn't make sense.

Less than a month to go... wonder how much more of a festering shit pile this thread can get when we finally get there.

Is this really all you do in threads?

[Biomega]

Why wouldn't they all have similar melanin levels in their skin? It was the same climate, it was the same pool of the different races for millennia. That they didn't all look similar is what would be weird, which is precisely why most* (admittedly there are some racist cunts blathering about, but they're just a vocal minority as usual) people are raising a brow at the choices in the show. Not because they're racist, but because it doesn't make a whole hell lot of sense.

As opposed to dragons and elves and dwarves, all of which make PERFECT biological sense, just like how melanin does.

Oh wait, you're saying you're fine with those being completely made-up stuff with no connection to the actual mechanics of real-world biology?

Isn't that the darnedest thing.