Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Rocksteady 87]

You mean the same professor that only ever mentioned skin color in passing and in very few spots, leaving it undefined in most places and never attaching to it any kind of plot significance or narrative role whatsoever? That one?

That would be the ones, yes. Except that when it was mentioned, that was the defining. Unless one is so dim-witted that they have to be told the same information over and over and over and over and over and over and over again before it sinks into their skull.

He's also the same professor who stated in no uncertain terms that the works took place on our world, in the distant past, with all of his descriptions very clearly taking place in northwestern Europe. So sure, such an educated person who put tons of thought into his world would be all "fuck it, dey's all kinds of racial archetypes jus so I don't piss off Biomega in the future, lulz. I jus won't mention it cause, yanno, even tho I spend 20 pages describin' a single blade of grass, I'd leave sumfin like that out."

[Al Gorefiend]

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

Literally no idea what you're on about. You act like a handicapped person being a hero is so outlandish someone who brings it up must be mockingly.

[s_bushido]

Within the context of the world-building done by an educated professor (and with the exception of dragons since, you know, they're more like a lizard than a human), yes. Yes it does make perfect biological sense. All four of the major races in that part of Middle-Earth did, in fact, live and evolve in that part of Middle-Earth.

Which is why other races from different regions of the world, most notably the south, tended towards darker skin colors. Because, you know, that's how skin colors work in humans and human-adjacent types over long periods of time/natural evolution. The colder northern climes require lighter skin in order to get enough vitamin D and the like.

Jesus Christ. These races were created by magic, not evolution. For the first X hundred years of the life of the elves, there wasn't even a sun. But please, tell me more about how their skin color matters in the slightest.

[Dhrizzle]

Within the context of the world-building done by an educated professor (and with the exception of dragons since, you know, they're more like a lizard than a human), yes. Yes it does make perfect biological sense. All four of the major races in that part of Middle-Earth did, in fact, live and evolve in that part of Middle-Earth.

Which is why other races from different regions of the world, most notably the south, tended towards darker skin colors. Because, you know, that's how skin colors work in humans and human-adjacent types over long periods of time/natural evolution. The colder northern climes require lighter skin in order to get enough vitamin D and the like.

And as I said in a previous post, the only one that really doesn't make much sense is dwarves. But they should be tending towards albinism rather than light beigey skin, so them having darker-skinned members is even more illogical.

The major races didn't evolve anywhere, Elves awoke under the stars, Dwarves were hand-crafted by a Valar and awoke shortly after the Elves, Men awoke with the first sunrise (except in the unwritten version where it was much earlier) and Orcs were corrupted from an existing species of Incarnate (nominally Elves though Tolkien had an issue with them possessing immortal Elven souls and preferred the idea of them being corrupt humans, hence the unwritten version of them awakening earlier.)

Evolution has nothing to do with the way races appear in Tolkien's Legendarium. Melanin and vitamin D are alien concepts to beings who were conceived in music before the world existed to bring harmony among the angelic entities that preceded them.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be the ones, yes. Except that when it was mentioned, that was the defining. Unless one is so dim-witted that they have to be told the same information over and over and over and over and over and over and over again before it sinks into their skull.

He's also the same professor who stated in no uncertain terms that the works took place on our world, in the distant past, with all of his descriptions very clearly taking place in northwestern Europe. So sure, such an educated person who put tons of thought into his world would be all "fuck it, dey's all kinds of racial archetypes jus so I don't piss off Biomega in the future, lulz. I jus won't mention it cause, yanno, even tho I spend 20 pages describin' a single blade of grass, I'd leave sumfin like that out."

Yeah in Tolkien's mind the stories take place in our world in the distant past, but at the same time they're stories about magic that have been filtered through the concepts of the fictional authors and translated into another language that he then pretended to translate. Also he has potatoes and tobacco existing in "Europe" in a time when the Americas may not have existed so it's hardly a 100% accurate history.

[Adamas102]

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.

Dude, what are you talking about? I'm not referring to people who "imagine" themselves as anything. I'm not talking about audiences who want to imagine themselves in fictional worlds. I'm talking specifically about British actors who YOU say don't count as British and cannot play in roles alongside their British counterparts.

Anthony Hopkins (Welsh), Tom Hiddleston (English), Idris Elba (English). You see this list of actors? All of them play Norse gods in a movie together. None of them identify as Scandinavian or "natives of ancient Europe". All of them were born in Britain and are part of British culture, history, and heritage via their contributions to drama. However, you're saying that only one of them doesn't fit, and no matter how much you want to beat around the bush we know exactly why you think that.

Diversity means diverse settings, based on diverse mythologies and characters that are true to those, not just putting every culture into Tolkien.

What the fuck... No one is "putting every culture" into Tolkien (unless you're equating culture and skin color which of course would be extraordinarily ignorant).

Again, taking the example of Lenny Henry who is cast as a Harfoot hobbit in the show. The man was born in ENGLAND, has been KNIGHTED by the Queen, has been honored with the title Commander of the Order of the BRITISH Empire (an honor he shares with Tolkien himself) for his contributions to BRITISH drama and comedy. Lenny Henry doesn't "imagine" himself British, he IS British. Him being cast in the show isn't throwing cultures into Tolkien that don't belong because his culture is BRITISH culture.

[Jastall]

Yeah, I don't care. Didn't they plan to cast Idris Elba as James Bond or was that merely a rumour?

I think so? But as much as I think he'd have nailed it, as he nails everything, he's too old for the role. James Bond is usually active for, what, almost 10 years per actor? More for some like Craig. Elba's already 50. I strongly doubt he'd commit to such a physically active role for that long. You really don't want this to be Taken where the action cuts every half second in part because the lead is just too old for this shit.

[Rocksteady 87]

By all means, explain to me why a man who put ridiculous amounts of thought into his world and storytelling, and who would spend pages describing the most mundane thing, failed to be all "oh, bee tee dubs, these guys' skins are all kinds of rando colors. Even better, since it's magic, heck, there's even green, red, blue, and purple folks running around! I just won't mentioned it, cause, you know, who cares amirite?"

Funny how he did mention skin colors when it did matter, though. Because, for some reason, it mattered then that they were 'swart' and he felt the need to mention it. Almost like because it wasn't a normal trait or something. But, hey, fuck basic logic right?

[Biomega]

That would be the ones, yes. Except that when it was mentioned, that was the defining.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I said it's undefined in most places; you reply with "but where it was mentioned, it was defined!". Yes. Yes it was. Not sure how that was ever in question since it's a self-evident truth, but sure. You're 100% correct, where he defined it he did, in fact, define it.

Unless one is so dim-witted that they have to be told the same information over and over and over and over and over and over and over again before it sinks into their skull.

Seems to be the case for you, idk. See above.

- - - Updated - - -

By all means, explain to me why a man who put ridiculous amounts of thought into his world and storytelling, and who would spend pages describing the most mundane thing, failed to be all "oh, bee tee dubs, these guys' skins are all kinds of rando colors.

That's not the argument most people are making, though.

It's "Tolkien never considered skin color important for the narrative anywhere and in any way, so nothing of substance actually changes if we have black elves or dwarves or whatever".

No it's not the same as Tolkien wrote it, but neither are 2,000 other things in the movies and TV shows made based on his materials. Why is skin color suddenly the deal breaker, considering Tolkien himself never made it a topic of any kind and it has zero impact on the story?

Funny how he did mention skin colors when it did matter, though. Because, for some reason, it mattered then that they were 'swart' and he felt the need to mention it. Almost like because it wasn't a normal trait or something. But, hey, fuck basic logic right?

So now we're going from "he mentioned it" to "it matters".

What about all the OTHER details, do those matter, too? In which case you couldn't like ANY adaptation of his works, because some detail that yes Tolkien did explicitly mention is ALWAYS going to be different.

Could it be that "it's not what he wrote" is not by itself a substantive argument at all? Or would you raise the same kind of hell for a shield that's grey instead of red, or someone who's blonde instead of brown-haired, or for a dun horse instead of a bay one, LIKE IT SAYS IN THE BOOKS, AFTER ALL?

[Adamas102]

By all means, explain to me why a man who put ridiculous amounts of thought into his world and storytelling, and who would spend pages describing the most mundane thing, failed to be all "oh, bee tee dubs, these guys' skins are all kinds of rando colors. Even better, since it's magic, heck, there's even green, red, blue, and purple folks running around! I just won't mentioned it, cause, you know, who cares amirite?"

Funny how he did mention skin colors when it did matter, though. Because, for some reason, it mattered then that they were 'swart' and he felt the need to mention it. Almost like because it wasn't a normal trait or something. But, hey, fuck basic logic right?

This might be news to you, but Tolkien wasn't perfect. Not as a man or as a writer. He certainly wasn't omniscient, nor did he write his books/notes/letters with the idea of dramatic adaptation in mind. He wrote literature as he knew how to, and took into consideration the norms of his time, but not every detail he wrote is important for creating an adaptation of his work from one medium to another. For something he dedicated "to England" it should actually be kinda nice to see that the majority of the cast for the show is in fact British, participating in a dramatic adaptation of part of THEIR history and heritage (whether or not Tolkien had each of them in mind when he wrote).

[Rocksteady 87]

This might be news to you, but Tolkien wasn't perfect, not as a man or as a writer. He certainly wasn't omniscient, nor did he write his books/notes/letters with the idea of dramatic adaptation in mind. Not every detail he wrote is important for creating an adaptation of his work from one medium to another, and for something he dedicated "to England" it should actually be kinda nice to see that the majority of the cast for the show is in fact British, participating in a dramatic adaptation of part of THEIR history and heritage.

Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.

[s_bushido]

Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.

It's pretty telling that you people always have to jump to outlandish garbage in order to defend your "black people shouldn't be in the show" stance.

[Dhrizzle]

Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.

Awesome, now go get a billion dollars to put your idea on screens.

[Adamas102]

Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.

I did. The answer was "just because he wrote it doesn't mean it matters when adapting the literature to drama".

He differentiated a single subgroup of humans by their skin color, something that in a show or movie can be done through a variety of ways that don't include skin color in order to get the same effect. In Peter Jackson's movies most of the Haradrim barely had any visible skin, their differences denoted more by their armor which was based off of Pacific Islander and Aztec design, their fighting style, and their language.

You being an overly dramatic child tossing around non-human-skin colors doesn't really strengthen whatever argument you think you have here.

[Rocksteady 87]

I did.

No, you didn't.

Here's the question again, more succinctly put: "Why would a professor who put so much detail and emphasis on descriptions in his world, a world based on our world and set in a specific area of said world, fail to mention something as definitive as a person's (or race's) skin color? Especially when he did do it when describing other peoples/races from different areas of the world where--clearly--their skin color was a notable and distinctive trait of them."

Answer that question. Not whatever question that exists solely in your head.

- - - Updated - - -

This thread isn't really worth much more than those few words, thanks to people like you, I'm afraid. Sorry.

Yeah, saying "why's it so hard to understand that people are scratching their head at this when you're the same people who get up in arms at a white guy playing Ghengis Khan or Ramses II?" It's exactly the same thing. It's not a racist question, even if there are some painfully obnoxious racists in this thread.

You'll note at no point whatsoever that I've said I have a problem with them doing it. I've just said it's a completely reasonable question to ask, as it doesn't make any sense within the confines of Tolkien's work. Just like it'd be fine to ask why all the humans in the show have neon blue skin, if they had chosen to go that route.

Apparently the answers are "it's magic!" and "shut up racist!"

You could have ignored it? /shrug

You could have not trolled. Yet there you are. Repeatedly and ad nauseum.

[Jastall]

There is literally nothing bad about just having a black English dude be James Bond. People have wanted Idris Elba in the role for years. It's only an issue for certain people.

I'd even be down for a black Welshman if they can find a suitable candidate somewhere. Two first times for the price of one.

[InfiniteCharger]

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?

If they are in it for the money then they would stick to the source material that is already popular. Again, this nonsense argument that if I write a story about all white people doing something, it is inherently racist or wrong is false. If that is the case then Shakespeare is racist. If that is the case then Homer is racist. And of course, that means Tolkien is racist. And that is because they had the gall to write stories that are timeless and admired around the world without the diversity that you claim is needed. But don't worry you are going to tell us how you cant just write your own diverse story. Nope. That isn't enough. You have to "fix" Homer or Shakespeare or Tolkien or whoever else because of course, their work is below par according to "modern" standards.

You know right there that is some pure bull crap.

I have no problem with diversity. But altering and twisting someone else's work to include it, just for the sake of including it, is just derivative, unoriginal and pandering, especially when the original was already popular as is. You want a high fantasy world with all diverse creatures then fine, make one. But this argument that Tolkien's world must have that is false because no writer is obliged to create a fictional world in the image YOU think it should look like. That is like saying they are supposed to be writing YOUR story for you. No, they are only required to tell the stories they want to tell and if that doesn't suit you (as in the case of these studios) then make your own and stop trying to pretend that you are honoring Tolkien or whoever else you are riding the coattails of. But they cant or don't want to do that so all they can do is make up new definitions of what is an adaptation is or what is required for "modern" day people or any other numerous nonsense arguments.

[Jastall]

Is it bad that I now want a Welsh Bond with a thick Welsh accent?

Absolutely not. Three of the United Kingdoms have been represented thus far, having a Welshman with an accent so thick you can cut it with a knife woo/shoot his way across the world would be a most excellent way to continue the Bond saga.

[InfiniteCharger]

Dude, what are you talking about? I'm not referring to people who "imagine" themselves as anything. I'm not talking about audiences who want to imagine themselves in fictional worlds. I'm talking specifically about British actors who YOU say don't count as British and cannot play in roles alongside their British counterparts.

Anthony Hopkins (Welsh), Tom Hiddleston (English), Idris Elba (English). You see this list of actors? All of them play Norse gods in a movie together. None of them identify as Scandinavian or "natives of ancient Europe". All of them were born in Britain and are part of British culture, history, and heritage via their contributions to drama. However, you're saying that only one of them doesn't fit, and no matter how much you want to beat around the bush we know exactly why you think that.

Stop making up straw men. I said that no story or mythology is supposed to include the diversity of all the worlds people. That is just a fact. And there are plenty of stories that are popular and successful to this day without it. There are fans of European literature with NO diversity around the world and people are NOT complaining because of it. There are fans of Tom Cruise, James Bond, Spiderman and Tokien all over the world without the diversity you claim is required. This is just a fact. People keep making up reasons for these mandates that are all based on invalid logic such as "people need to see themselves", yet have provided no proof or evidence for this. Tolkien's work has been around for over 60 years and published in many different languages but all of a sudden some white people at Amazon have decided that his work isn't inclusive enough and needs to be "fixed". That is BS and demonstrably false is the point. They are only trying to inject their own made up story into the world of Tolkien using diversity as a shield against criticism. You can whine and moan all you want but that is the fundamental point that people are calling out. It isn't about rejecting diversity in fiction or real life, it is about forcing changes on other peoples work that already is popular among diverse audiences just so you can "claim credit" for something you did not create.

What the fuck... No one is "putting every culture" into Tolkien (unless you're equating culture and skin color which of course would be extraordinarily ignorant).

Again, taking the example of Lenny Henry who is cast as a Harfoot hobbit in the show. The man was born in ENGLAND, has been KNIGHTED by the Queen, has been honored with the title Commander of the Order of the BRITISH Empire (an honor he shares with Tolkien himself) for his contributions to BRITISH drama and comedy. Lenny Henry doesn't "imagine" himself British, he IS British. Him being cast in the show isn't throwing cultures into Tolkien that don't belong because his culture is BRITISH culture.

Of course it is putting every culture into Tolkien, because by the logic that you must reflect the "modern" world, then you must reflect all the different ethnic groups, languages, cultures and populations in the modern world of the common wealth. And that spans almost the entire world. This is literally what the show runners claimed to be doing even as Tolkien himself rejected such usage of his work. But of course, what does he know, he just wrote the story, these show runners know best what his story should really be about.

If Tolkien did not write a character looking like Lenny Henry into his story then who cares? There were no significant stories about Harfoots in the second age. This is all made up by Amazon and has absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien. Using Lenny Henry as some kind of shield doesn't change that fact and I don't care about his credentials. That does not justify butchering Tolkien's work in order to justify his inclusion. Same thing with Galadriel and Miriel. They never met each other in Tolkien's work, but according to you changing timelines and story in order to make these women have significant roles as warriors in the story still counts as "faithful" to Tolkien. No it is not.

This is not about "diversity" in the abstract. It is about staying true to the source material. And there is a lot more going on than just the simple idea of superficial skin color changes. It is the cumulative effect of all the changes being made that is being called out, especially when they claim to be "honoring" someone who didn't want their work used as an analogy for "modern" realities. This is the point, but people just keep ignoring that because of their own made up justifications. If you want diversity in some kind of Middle Earth setting, then make your own and stop pretending that this made up BS is Tolkien. It is not.

[Biomega]

If they are in it for the money then they would stick to the source material that is already popular.

So are they just doing it for the money or not?

Seems to be some conflicting statements around.

Again, this nonsense argument that if I write a story about all white people doing something, it is inherently racist or wrong is false.

Don't think many people are saying it like that.

Excluding non-white actors for no real, substantive narrative reason, though? Definitely racist.

If that is the case then Shakespeare is racist.

Same thing applies. Oh, and: there's PLENTY of Shakespeare productions FULL of diverse casts, and very few people seem to be complaining.

If that is the case then Homer is racist.

Wasn't there a black Achilles somewhere not too long ago? Can't remember. Doesn't seem to me to be a role that changes in any way if the actor is black. So... yeah, same thing. Again.

And of course, that means Tolkien is racist.

You seem to be confusing things quite severely here.

This about casting in adaptations. The racism doesn't come from the authors of the original, it comes from people doing the casting and excluding people of color for no good narrative reason.

No one is going to complain that books written 100 or 1,000 or whatever years ago weren't as diverse as contemporary society, at least not in the sense that they're making accusations against the authors; except of course against authors who were provably racist (and there's enough of those). Plus, "racist" as a category is applied very differently in historic contexts (have a look at Kant's text on race, Von den verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen from 1775; that's some seriously fucked-up shit but it's not exactly held up to modern standards by scholars).

This discussion isn't about that. It's not about whether TOLKIEN was racist, it's about whether refusing roles in adaptations to people based on skin color for no good narrative reasons is racist.

I have no problem with diversity. But altering and twisting someone else's work to include it, just for the sake of including it, is just derivative, unoriginal and pandering.

Ah, yes. "I'm fine with black people, just not in my back yard!". An old one, but a good one.

You want a high fantasy world with all diverse creatures then fine, make one. But this argument that Tolkien's world must have that is false because no writer is obliged to create a fictional world in the image YOU think it should look like.

You are, AGAIN, making the argument into something it isn't.

The problem isn't "this must have black people in it!", the problem is "why should we turn away black people just because they're black when there's no narrative reason to do so". At least in principle. I'm sure there's overcompensation at play somewhere; how could there not be, biases don't just go away on a say-so.

No, they are only required to tell the stories they want to tell and if that doesn't suit you (as in the case of these studios) then make your own and stop trying to pretend that you are honoring Tolkien or whoever else you are riding the coattails of.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I don't think Tolkien would mind, skin color never seemed to have concerned him much; his focus was far more on culture and language than on cosmetic details like skin color. If he'd have a problem with anything, it'd be the writing, not the casting. Nobody is saying Tolkien would have cheered and praised any adaptation; that's not the question, anyway. The only question in this context is, would Tolkien have objected to SKIN COLOR specifically; and while we don't know and can't ask him, the fact that he never made it a concern of his in his writing seems to suggest he wouldn't have cared much.

Also: "if you don't like it, go away and do your own thing" works both ways, you know.

[Adamas102]

No, you didn't.

Here's the question again, more succinctly put: "Why would a professor who put so much detail and emphasis on descriptions in his world, a world based on our world and set in a specific area of said world, fail to mention something as definitive as a person's (or race's) skin color? Especially when he did do it when describing other peoples/races from different areas of the world where--clearly--their skin color was a notable and distinctive trait of them."

Answer that question. Not whatever question that exists solely in your head.

Tolkien wrote from his experience as a white European in the early 1900’s. The fact that he wrote his exotic foreigners as dark skinned people wasn’t some unique decision, much less one of literary brilliance.

The “why” he did it as also irrelevant for two reasons:
The first was noted in the prior post, that in adapting the work to a different medium you don’t have to stick to every minute detail if the effect can be achieved differently (the example was costumes rather than skin color).
Secondly, as lofty as Tolkien’s ideas of creating a mythology for England were, none of us consider these stories to be the history or myths of the British Isles. Whether he wished it or not, he became the father of modern fantasy. Very entertaining works from a very imaginative man.