1. #2361
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Art is a reflection of the time it was created in. But art isn't static and set in stone. It evolves and changes with the time.
    But try remaking Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" and see how far that goes.

    Such things always reflects back to the original.

  2. #2362
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I mean, it should also be noted that Tolkein was great friends with C.S. Lewis, who definitely did have some racial issues. The Chronicles of Narnia were littered with blonde-haired blue-eyed Narnians and "high" cultures who worshipped Aslan (the true god), while turban-wearing, desert-dwelling brown folks with literally curly-toed shoes worshipped Tash (the false god).

    These men were products of their time. Tolkein may be better than Lewis, but his dwarves are "tropes" of Jewish people, just as his hobbits are, in his mind, "tropes" of good-hearted English people. And he probably did mean for Rohan and Gondor to mirror western Europeans, while the Harad and the southron and eastern folks were dark-skinned and, weird coincidence, evil.

    So as I see it, there's two possibilities in adapting his work:
    1) Either you acknowledge the man's shortcomings as a man of his time and cast it as he probably envisioned it, leading to a very white cast of good guys fighting a very dark-skinned cast (in re: human forces, at least) of evil, or
    2) you say "race shouldn't really matter to who these characters are because good and evil is a character's choice, and not delineated by how you look or where you come from," and adapt it from there, kindly whitewashing the very deliberate choices of a man who lived in the early to mid 20th century.

    Like, these are the same issues in comics. The first superheroes were white men because white men wrote them in a time when people of color and women were considered quite literally inferior and second-class citizens. Even if those comic writers didn't believe it themselves, that was the time, and their art reflected it. So the question when adapting it always should be: is the race of this character important to the central narrative of this story? If not, cast whoever you want that you think will act the part as you want.

    Art is a reflection of the time it was created in. But art isn't static and set in stone. It evolves and changes with the time.
    I've said it before but apparently it bears repeating: While it's under the umbrella of "fantasy," Tolkien's works are tentatively an alternate history of the world.

    If you want to claim it's quasi-racist ("he's a product of his time") that he effectively made all of the foreigners of the story evil, that's one thing. But to say it's because he had the peoples of a specific region of a specific world all look the way the peoples of a specific region of a specific world looked like, that's ridiculous. Again, I don't understand how people like you lose your shit at the idea of John Wayne playing Genghis Kahn or state that Wakanda has to be in Africa with African people. It's literally the same thing. Literally literally.

    His stories take place millennia upon millennia before the Romans, Norse, and others brought slaves from other parts of the world into the region. Areas were largely isiolated with limited breeding stock; everyone should look mostly the same, especially within local areas. But no, it's a melting pot of real-world races that make absolutely no sense.

    Clutching your pearls and acting outraged at the idea that people -- a lot of people, only a tiny fraction of them being the racist douchenozzle types -- are scratching their heads and wondering why there's so much diversity in the show is absurd. It's a very reasonable and sensible question to be asking, but you people just keep coming up with the most ridiculous excuses, all while acting like you're riding the highest of horses regarding how 'enlightened' you believe yourselves to be.

    There's a huge difference between asking those questions and screaming your bloody head off about how you're not going to watch the show and refuse to have anything to do with it because you're a racist twat. The former doesn't make you the latter, anymore than you asking why John Wayne is playing Genghis Kahn.

  3. #2363
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I mean, it should also be noted that Tolkein was great friends with C.S. Lewis, who definitely did have some racial issues. The Chronicles of Narnia were littered with blonde-haired blue-eyed Narnians and "high" cultures who worshipped Aslan (the true god), while turban-wearing, desert-dwelling brown folks with literally curly-toed shoes worshipped Tash (the false god).

    These men were products of their time. Tolkein may be better than Lewis, but his dwarves are "tropes" of Jewish people, just as his hobbits are, in his mind, "tropes" of good-hearted English people. And he probably did mean for Rohan and Gondor to mirror western Europeans, while the Harad and the southron and eastern folks were dark-skinned and, weird coincidence, evil.

    So as I see it, there's two possibilities in adapting his work:
    1) Either you acknowledge the man's shortcomings as a man of his time and cast it as he probably envisioned it, leading to a very white cast of good guys fighting a very dark-skinned cast (in re: human forces, at least) of evil, or
    2) you say "race shouldn't really matter to who these characters are because good and evil is a character's choice, and not delineated by how you look or where you come from," and adapt it from there, kindly whitewashing the very deliberate choices of a man who lived in the early to mid 20th century.

    Like, these are the same issues in comics. The first superheroes were white men because white men wrote them in a time when people of color and women were considered quite literally inferior and second-class citizens. Even if those comic writers didn't believe it themselves, that was the time, and their art reflected it. So the question when adapting it always should be: is the race of this character important to the central narrative of this story? If not, cast whoever you want that you think will act the part as you want.

    Art is a reflection of the time it was created in. But art isn't static and set in stone. It evolves and changes with the time.
    Do we have to change Leonardo da Vinci's works too, because he didn't depict any black people and lgbtiq+ folk???

  4. #2364
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Acidz View Post
    Do we have to change Leonardo da Vinci's works too, because he didn't depict any black people and lgbtiq+ folk???
    You do know that people have been adapting and changing Leonardo da Vinci's works for a long long time right? The the vitruvian man for example has uncountable variations at this point as well as being used in other media like fallout4 or westworld.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  5. #2365
    Quote Originally Posted by Acidz View Post
    Do we have to change Leonardo da Vinci's works too, because he didn't depict any black people and lgbtiq+ folk???
    Are you quite sure about that?
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  6. #2366
    Imagine thinking DaVinci, one of the gayest painters to ever paint, never painting a queer painting.

    And so much art is derived from his work. He invented a style, and people have iterated on his style over and over again. You can draw a straight line from DaVinci's Mona Lisa to Van Gogh's self portrait......and even though they're very different pieces, the influence and inspiration is there. Imagine thinking individual artists operate in a vacuum of their own creation.

    But if you're asking about more literal re-paintings - that has been done, over and over again as well. The Masters (the commercially successful ones, at least) all had workshops of people painting their own paintings, reproducing their works with slight variations. Half of art authentication is trying to figure out whether one of the Masters actually painted a painting with his signature on it. On some of them we'll never know, because the students were quite literal in their adaptation to the point that it simply was a copy of the original, and added nothing.

  7. #2367
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Sorry, what? We've literally had people say "they're just changing it for the money", and then had you say "no, if it was just for the money they wouldn't change anything".

    That's... in this thread. Black and white. Nothing "in your head" about it, those are conflicting statements.

    So, again: are they doing it just for the money or not?
    Again, the conflict is in your head, because you can't understand that Lord of the Rings is one of the best selling books of all time.
    Obviously they bought the rights to adapt the 2nd age because they want to make money.
    You are confusing how much money they "could" make versus how much money they "will" make.
    And all of that boils down to how many people like their adaptation.
    So yes, they want to make money, but just because they want to make money doesn't mean they will make money.
    And my argument, is that spending a billion dollars, just to change the story that Tolkien wrote is not a formula for success.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That depends on how you got there. Did you have a good REASON for it, or was it just "idk man, black people just don't, like, fit"?
    Stop trying to tell me what was in my head when I wrote my dam book. I wanted to write a story about 3 white men in the woods. That's the reason pure and simple. This is not a story about 3 black people or 3 "men" of whatever background. It is very specific. The point being that I am not obliged to follow any mandates to include a certain kind of "diversity" in my stories. If you want to write a story about "diverse" men in the woods, then write your own book and call it something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I specifically said my problem is with an exclusionary casting process; you can't just gloss over the core part of my argument and jump straight to the end result.
    You cant cast someone without a story and characters. And the casting has to follow the background of the characters from the story. Stop making up absolutely irrelevant and illogical nonsense. According to you, casting supersedes what is in the actual story and the actual characters defined along with it. No it does not. Casting does not supersede or override what the original author wrote or intended these characters to be. Stop making up nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    So what are they, then, TEXT-ACCURATE interpretations?

    What's your problem here, exactly? That people are doing diverse Shakespeare productions, or that they're "pretending to be liberal interpretations" (whatever that means)? And how does one even do that, pretend to be a liberal interpretation? As opposed to what, actually being a conservative interpretation?
    Why are you going on about this? Romeo and Juliet are about a white couple in Medieval Italy. Obviously if you are being true to Shakespeare, the actor and actress playing them would be white. Stop trying to sit here and pretend that you are so color blind that you cannot see the difference between a literal adaptation of Romeo and Juliet versus something paying homage to the story while taking it in a new direction.

    Amazon Rings of Power came out claiming that they were "writing the story Tolkien Never wrote".
    The point here is that this is NOT the story Tolkien never wrote. It is completely made up by Amazon and only inspired by Tolkien and does not fit into the lore that Tolkien wrote. Period. You can't have it both ways. There is no conflict here except in your head where you think setting LOTR in the Jungles of the Amazon is perfectly fine and can still be called Tolkien if it has "good writing and casting". You aren't making any sense. That is not Tolkien at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    How about you stop writing and START READING. Like, what I said.
    I gave you a very specific example of the source material specifically being written to have 3 white men in it.
    Stop trying to make up excuses how this can be changed to have 3 "diverse" men and still be true to the original work.
    If you change it 3 diverse men then it is not true to the original work. That is what you have been debating me about is it not?
    Stop sitting here acting like you don't understand the point because it goes against your made up "but equity in casting" argument.
    Casting has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I've mentioned several times now that this is a backwards approach, and that it's not about "this can't have all white people!" but that it's about "is there a REASON you want to exclude non-white people?". If you wrote something in a way that HAS a good narrative reason, that's fine. The problem lies SOLELY with those stories that DO NOT have a good narrative reason to be excluding non-white people.

    Now read that again, and then one more time, so you don't screw it up AGAIN.
    Dude. Stop trying to paraphrase your way out of this. If it is a story about 3 white people then that is the story. There is no other way to tell that story but to hire 3 white actors for those roles and yes that means not hiring non white people. You again are insinuating that a story about all white people is racist because you can't hire any non white people to be in it. Which again is you trying to tell me what kind of stories I can and cannot write and who I can and cannot put in them. Who are you or anybody else to tell me or any other author what I am supposed to write about? If you want "diverse" stories then write your own then. There is nothing theoretical or abstract about this. A story about 3 white men is narrative reason. And there is nothing racist about it.

    How many Africans or Asians were in Norse mythology?
    How many elves, fairies and other creatures in Norse mythology are very pale or light skinned?
    How many dark skinned people are in Snow White?

    Tolkien made a story that is supposed to be a mythology for England. How many dark skinned people were in England 2,000 years ago?
    Why shouldn't a story set there be mostly white? There were no airplanes back then. There was no fast sea travel back then.
    People "from all over the world" weren't in England back then.

    It is not backwards or racist to write a story about that setting with all or mostly white people as Europeans in that setting.
    Just like it is not backwards or racist to have all black people in a story based on the mythology of central Africa.

    You just keep trying to squirm your way around this and really what you are saying is that writing something about a fantasy world based on ancient Europe with all or mostly white people is racist. That is basically all you are saying. According to you, a story cant be written about all white people from ancient Europe for some reason. There is nothing wrong with that.

    But that is absolutely what you keep going on about as if it is "limiting opportunities". No it isn't.
    Every story does not have to include everybody.
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Oh I get you, alright.
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    BUT AGAIN: it's not about diversity "being required". It's about "is there a good narrative reason to EXCLUDE PEOPLE?".

    Now read THAT again, too. And one more time for good luck. It'll sink in eventually.
    The story and lore is the narrative and they don't have to include diversity. Like I said and keep saying.
    You keep going round and round in circles about this. DEI mandates have absolutely nothing to do with "narrative".
    DEI mandates will change the narrative to include diversity where it does not exist because it is a mandate.
    So you are again being dishonest because this is not simply about the source material as is being open to interpretation.
    This is about corporations mandating a certain amount of diversity and therefore changing the source material to include it.
    That is what is happening in Rings of Power. You keep trying to argue this theoretical nonsense and ignoring the facts.
    Tar Miriel was explicitly written as a white woman. There is no "narrative" justification for her not to be white, if this is an "adaptation".

    You are just arguing just to argue with abstract rhetoric and ignoring the facts specific to Tolkien.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's not my argument. My argument is that if there's not a good narrative reason to be excluding certain races from the casting, then THAT is racist.

    If there IS a good reason, then it's fine.

    Read it again. Twice. Because gods know you seem to need to.
    So what was the "narrative" justification for changing Tar Miriel from a white woman to a black woman?

    Lets stick to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Holy hell, that nearly gave me a stroke. Not sure I can tolerate this much bad logic, please think of my blood pressure.

    Did I not explain, in an entire paragraph no less, how I'm not looking at the AUTHOR but at the CASTING of an ADAPTATION?

    I'm pretty sure I did. *goes back to look* Yes, yes I did.
    Because you are saying that the author is racist for not explicitly including diversity and trying to pretend that casting supersedes the author.
    Again, how does casting justify making Tar Miriel a black woman when the author and the narrative of the source materiel said she was white.
    You keep trying to duck and dodge this but if the story is 3 white men or "Tar Miriel the fair with blonde hair" then how is there any other "narrative" that is going to make them black or otherwise "diverse" without going against the source material. You just keep making up nonsense and going in circles with your make pretend narrative argument. The source material is the narrative. There is no other narrative that is relevant unless you are making up a different narrative for the purposes of including diversity that was not present in the source material. You keep trying to whine and moan about casting as if it that somehow "needs to include" diversity, but that logically implies that the source material "needs to include" diversity in the narrative. Which means that if the original author didn't include it, then by all common sense, they are racist because they are excluding non white actors. There is no other way to say it. Try as you may to make up this narrative nonsense that somehow avoids that logical conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Because - and this may shock you, as you've never read it before - if there is no GOOD NARRATIVE REASON to exclude non-white actors from the casting, that is, by definition, racist.

    If it's written so there IS a good narrative reason, that's very different.
    The source material is the narrative. The story is about 3 white men in the woods. There should be no non whites casted for this story, just like no dolphins, sea creatures or desert animals as they don't live in the forest. That narrative doesn't include non white people. Period. And there is nothing racist about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I wouldn't phrase it like that, but sure, in broad terms; with the important exception of - drumroll! - a good narrative reason to do otherwise.

    Being accurate to the source material is a red herring. ALL adaptations deviate from the source in SOME way. That's a self-evident truth borne out of the necessities of adaptation. It's purely about finding good reasons for what to change and what not to change.
    There is no drumroll required. Amazon is deliberately changing the narrative by making up a new story to include diversity in casting.
    That is the point. You just keep avoiding it. The source material is the narrative. If Amazon made up their own story and narrative then they are not being true to the source material AND doing so to justify diverse casting. That is exactly the crux of the issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Sorry, not clear here - I claim that WHAT is required, exactly? Not excluding people based on skin color from acting roles unless there's a good narrative reason? Yes, I do claim that. And that's a universal claim, it's not specific to Tolkien.

    Also: "nobody is complaining" about what? I said nobody goes around calling Tolkien a racist just because he didn't write diversity to 21st century standards. That doesn't mean an ADAPTATION should behave the same way. Those are entirely separate things.
    The source material is the narrative. There is no other narrative. If the story is about 3 white men in the woods there is no narrative reason not to cast 3 white men.

    If the source material says Tar Miriel was a white woman, there is no narrative justification to cast her otherwise.

    You keep running away from this because it exposes your dishonesty on this point specific to Tolkien. Tar Miriel in Tolkiens narrative was a white woman who had no interaction with Galadriel and was not a queen. That is the narrative in the source material. What Amazon has done was to create a new narrative, which has absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien in order to justify this casting and story about Galadriel and Tar Miriel as warrior queens.

    There was no narrative reason for any of this within Tolkien's actual work. This is a new made up narrative totally different from Tolkien is the point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Only if you're doing it despite a good narrative reason. If her being white has some specific relevance to the plot, if it's made into a narrative element in and of itself - then we have a conversation. If it's just a cosmetic description and changing it doesn't change anything about the actual narrative, then skin color shouldn't matter; because it clearly doesn't in the story.

    Because, again: truth to the source is never perfect. Every adaptation deviates in some way. Always will. So why is skin color important, when so many other details are not? If the text says she has grey eyes but the actress has blue eyes; if the text says her hair went to her shoulders and the actress' hair only goes to her neck; are THOSE deal-breakers too? Assuming the eyes or hair play no narrative role of course. And if not... why is skin color any different?
    You are contradicting yourself and exposed your anti white bias. If the story says she was white, there is no reason to change it.
    But according to you that isn't good enough. According to you there has to be some "separate" narrative justification for casting a white woman.
    According to you the source material saying specifically this was a white woman from a long line of white Kings and Queens isn't enough.
    Man you just hate hiring white actors don't you?


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    BAD BAD BAD language.

    "Going against" is not the same as "differing from".
    If it is not the same as the source material then effectively it is going against it. That is a factual statement.
    If the source material says specifically that Galadriel was not a warrior going around leading armies, then Amazon putting it into the show is going against that. You keep trying to word smith your way out of the fact that everything you are saying is ultimately pointless and irrelevant.
    Amazon made this change because they felt women needed more of a prominent role as warriors. Tolkien did not write that.
    Therefore, they went against him. And that is absolutely the point. You keep losing this argument but trying to turn it into a win.
    You aren't winning because these people are deliberately changing Tolkien to suit their agenda. There is no debate about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's a VERY different discussion. Until we actually see how it turns out, we can't really comment on it.

    Is it the same as Tolkien wrote it? Nope. But every adaptation differs in some way (I'm sure you've heard it before). Whether or not these changes make for good writing we will have to see in the finished product. And judge them based on whether they're good writing or not; not based on how accurate they are to the source.
    Dude. You keep losing and then trying to save face. The fact is that you have been proven wrong. There was no narrative in Tolkien about Tar Miriel as white. There was no reason to cast any other kind of actress. Amazon changed the whole entire narrative of the 2nd Age in order to have Tar Miriel be riding into battle along side Galadriel. Her skin color is part of all of that. None of that is what Tolkien wrote and people who are rejecting it are rejecting it as not being true to Tolkien, because it isn't. Period. Whether it may be good or not doesn't change the fact that it is not Tolkien. Also, Tolkien's work was already excellent to begin with. Amazon isn't Tolkien and people aren't going to watch this show to see Amazon's made up narrative. They want to see Tolkien because it is being advertised as being "true" to Tolkien when it is not. This isn't theoretical or abstract.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And apparently you've also never heard this adage, which just shows you don't... well, know a lot about all this. Are you sure you should be talking about race problems if you've never even heard of NIMBY?
    Because it isn't relevant to the fact that Amazon is deliberately changing Tolkiens work in substantial ways to craft "a new narrative".
    Fine. But that isn't Tolkien. All your points are irrelevant to that. If they have a new narrative then stop calling it Tolkien.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    See above for repeated clarifications on what I'm actually saying, with instructions to carefully read them three times to make sure you don't say nonsense like this again next time.
    Tolkien is high fantasy. Amazon is changing Tolkiens work to include more diversity in that High fantasy. These are all factual statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Never said anything of the kind, and I'd kindly direct you to look above and follow the instructions. They seem to be sorely needed.
    Did you not talk about excluding non whites from casting for roles? Stop being dishonest. That is what you are talking about.
    Otherwise why are you here having this long back and forth with me about this show?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    OOOOOH IRONYGASM! Geez, boyo, that was a BIG one. Whew.


    Depends entirely on what you mean by "honoring Tolkien", which is a very vague statement (and far from anything I'd ever say, just to be clear). Is it accurate to the source? No. Does that matter? Also no. For reasons explained above.
    It doesn't depend. It is fairly well understood what "honoring Tolkien" means. You because you don't mind substantial changes to Tolkien's lore as "honoring Tolkien" doesn't mean everybody else does. So yes, if they are calling this show an "adaptation" of Tolkien but making substantial changes to what he wrote, then it is not an "adaptation". You can keep spinning around in circles on this all you want. This isn't about your subjective opinion about whether or not the show will be good or not. Tolkien's work already is one of the best selling stories of all time. It is already popular as objective fact. Making substantial changes to it aren't required to make it popular.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's a bold statement. We don't know what Tolkien wanted - we DO know he planned to make Galadriel more of a centerpiece and flesh her out as more of a woman warrior. He said so. He just never got to write it into stories before he died. But that was what he WANTED. Tolkien's works kept changing and evolving all the time; we have no idea what he "wanted" or not for most characters. We know he didn't write stories like those, but that doesn't really matter; I think I've explained why.
    It is not a bold statement. We know what he wrote and we have specific examples of them going against what he wrote.
    He did not write that Galadriel was a warrior in the 2nd age alongside Tar Miriel.
    So this is not about making up new stories to cover things he did not write. It is about changing substantially what he did write.
    You are so desperate to defend these changes to the extreme of denying that they are changes is the problem.
    They are not what Tolkien wrote and nobody can argue that this "changed narrative" is supposed to be as popular as the original work.
    That is going to be decided on the merits of the show itself, which is fine, but it is no longer Tolkien at that point, but something different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    As to whether or not to call it an "adaptation" or something like "inspired by" or "derivative of" or whatever... Don't really care, because that's just terminological quibbling. Call it whatever you like. I use adaptation as a methodological descriptor, not as a label - if you want to use another word, doesn't bother me. I attach no significance or epistemological value to it, beyond its mechanical-descriptive usage. The quality of the product is what interests me, not the nomenclature.
    Again, you keep changing the goal posts. "Adaptation" is very well defined. If it is not a literal "adaptation" then don't call it one. We have been over this. You aren't changing the definition of what is an adaptation. You have made it very clear that you personally are OK with all of these changes, but stop pretending that these aren't substantial changes to what Tolkien wrote, because they are. And just because you are OK with it doesn't mean everybody else is supposed to be. People who were quite happy as fans of the original work are not required to like this "new and original" version of that work. It isn't the same thing at all. You are pushing this line of thinking that just as long as it has the name Tolkien in it, existing fans of Tolkien should just accept it and treat it as literally the same as what Tolkien wrote, when that is absolutely not how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    There are MANY other ways to say it, preferably ones that actually engage with what I ACTUALLY WROTE instead of some hare-brained confabulation that's effectively just there to mask your discomfort with your own biases.
    If you are the one talking about excluding actors of different races in the casting, then you are calling the original author racist for not having characters of different racial backgrounds. That is literally what you are saying. Otherwise, stop pretending that somehow it is wrong to cast white people in roles for characters written as white. If you have a problem with that, then you are literally claiming that the author is racist for not including enough non white people in their work. I already gave the example of Tar Miriel. She is explicitly written as a white woman. There is no other excuse for changing her to a black woman other than to promote diversity as part of Amazon's DEI policies. You can sit here and argue that this isn't true but Amazon themselves have said this and so have the actresses and actors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    READ, girl. This is a discussion about LITERATURE. It's not too much to ask you actually read and parse what people are writing, is it?
    I am not a girl so stop calling me out of my gender.

  8. #2368
    Herald of the Titans rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,501
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Streaming is a global phenomenon and these services are in almost every country around the world, yet they don't hire and promote that many artists and creators from all over the world to make new content. In their minds, they still believe that European centered stories and programs, including those from the Americas, are the gold standard for entertainment for everyone around the world. Therefore including non Europeans in those stories, when they literally shouldn't be there, is just pushing European culture and history as the default for everyone and not really about promoting diversity. Sure, I can go watch Korean fantasy shows on streaming or Chinese fantasy shows where diversity isn't a prerequisite, but those shows are mostly just licensed from those countries not truly created by the streaming services in house.

    Therefore, given that, adapting a fictional story set in an a world based on African culture and history is not a priority. Because they know that most of their money comes from European and American audiences and would rather take the lazy route of randomly including black folks in European stories to get a wider audience. 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. Because in reality the idea that somebody needs to see themselves in these stories based on their skin color or other attributes is something mostly made up by the executives, social justice degree employees and leftist academics. That has never been true in real life, but that is why they put so much effort into marketing this stuff a certain way to make it seem more important than it really is. For them, being able to change Tolkien then becomes the holy grail of such made up "achievements" as if it is special and important to anyone but themselves that they changed characters for this reason. It is only important to them because it represents a very lofty achievement in European fantasy literature and therefore as part of indoctrinating everyone into seeing European culture as the pinnacle of creativity, they need to inject these things into it. Not to mention it is simply lazy because they know Tolkien is already popular so they can spend less time and effort than actually creating something new and diverse from scratch. 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. And that is as offensive in many ways as what they claim to be "fighting" against.
    there's no such thing as 'european culture', what you consider to be 'european culture' is just anglo/germanic medieval settings, with maybe a hint of franco influence here and there, if you're talking about the entire european continent then you need to get yourself checked, you have a VAST and DIVERSE history, not to mention hundreds of different cultures over time all meshed and mingled together to create the society we have today, i suggest you check your ignorance and educate yourself before making any further comments using false and incorrect terminology.

  9. #2369
    Shakespeare originally had all his female parts played by men on stage. Is that "the artist's vision" which we can't deviate from?

    Or is that a product of the time Shakespeare lived in, when women were second class citizens and not allowed to be involved in the arts? Hamlet and Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet have been played by people of all walks of life for literally more than a hundred years at this point.

    Your main argument against diversity is that these authors lived in times that weren't diverse, and in fact, very oppressive of people of color/women, and thus, their work through all of time cannot be diverse. To believe that, you have to basically say that the environment which these works were created don't matter, or, worse yet, that they were good, and to change them is to defy that environment in which they were created.

    The example is perhaps more clear elsewhere. H.P. Lovecraft was a vile racist. But because his brand of vile racism was socially acceptable at the time, his work gained traction and noteriety. You're arguing that his racist depictions should be untouched and unaltered, that the story somehow depends on them (they do not), and to deviate from them is a faithless adaptation. I'm arguing that the themes of his work *are* worthy of adaptation IN SPITE OF the racism, which should be excised out. Meanwhile, works where the racism is the point, like The Birth of a Nation, can be relegated to the history books.

    You remind me of people who take the Bible literally. The type who say women can't be priests because Jesus's 12 Apostles were men, ignoring 1) the political cobbling together of the New Testament to fit the Roman Empire's needs in the 3rd century, 2) apocryphal gospels which showed Jesus having some very close female apostles, and, most importantly, 3) the context: that Jesus would have been an unmarried Jewish man and to have close traveling companions (who would sleep and eat together in the same place) of the opposite sex would be highly abnormal and culturally taboo.

  10. #2370
    Scarab Lord MCMLXXXII's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Delta swamp of the west
    Posts
    4,812
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Imagine thinking DaVinci, one of the gayest painters to ever paint, never painting a queer painting.

    And so much art is derived from his work. He invented a style, and people have iterated on his style over and over again. You can draw a straight line from DaVinci's Mona Lisa to Van Gogh's self portrait......and even though they're very different pieces, the influence and inspiration is there. Imagine thinking individual artists operate in a vacuum of their own creation.

    But if you're asking about more literal re-paintings - that has been done, over and over again as well. The Masters (the commercially successful ones, at least) all had workshops of people painting their own paintings, reproducing their works with slight variations. Half of art authentication is trying to figure out whether one of the Masters actually painted a painting with his signature on it. On some of them we'll never know, because the students were quite literal in their adaptation to the point that it simply was a copy of the original, and added nothing.
    Funny thing, there are scholars that say the Mona Lisa is a self portrait by Da Vinci.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    But try remaking Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" and see how far that goes.

    Such things always reflects back to the original.
    Like this?


  11. #2371
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Shakespeare originally had all his female parts played by men on stage. Is that "the artist's vision" which we can't deviate from?
    What the fuck does that have to do with it? That's not even remotely relatable to this.

    Your main argument against diversity is that these authors lived in times that weren't diverse, and in fact, very oppressive of people of color/women, and thus, their work through all of time cannot be diverse. To believe that, you have to basically say that the environment which these works were created don't matter, or, worse yet, that they were good, and to change them is to defy that environment in which they were created.
    Wrong.

    The main argument is that the story -- an alternative history of the Earth -- takes place in a region of the world notably lacking any sort of diversity due to numerous reasons.

    But I'm sure you'd be totally fine with T'challa being a Chinese woman ruling over Wakanda, whose population has huge swatches of Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and other Aboriginals, and so on. Because that's literally what's going on here. The sad part is it makes even more sense for Wakanda due to how easy it is for people to travel across the world now, amongst other reasons. But I'm sure you'd lose your shit if they tried doing that in a Black Panther movie.

    It'd be one thing if, say, all the dwarves on the show were portrayed by black actors. That'd be far more believable within the context of the story than a wide diversity of people. "So why is one of them black, especially a noble, while no one else is?" "I 'unno, shut up racist, it's magic. Something something Shakespeare something something DaVinci." Those are the dumbest arguments, yet it's the only thing you people seem to offer up to anyone pointing out how it doesn't make a lick of sense within the context of the story and when/where it's set.

  12. #2372
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Again, the conflict is in your head
    No, the conflict is in two contradictory statements, as outlined above.

    Answer the question asked, not some other racist tangent you want to get out.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Stop trying to tell me what was in my head when I wrote my dam book.
    I'm not telling you what you wrote, I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOU WROTE, you illiterate snot noodle.

    Are you just incapable of correctly parsing the most banal statements?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You cant cast someone without a story and characters. And the casting has to follow the background of the characters from the story.
    To what extent? To practically anyone, it doesn't matter if a character is 6'1" but the actor is 6'2". Yet somehow skin color differences matter? Where do you draw the line between what is CLEARLY not a problem to deviate on, and what is?

    You're throwing out vague statements like "background", but that's never going to be 100% accurate to the books; so where do you deviate, by how much, and why?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Casting does not supersede or override what the original author wrote or intended these characters to be. Stop making up nonsense.
    The only spouting nonsense here is you, because no casting in the history of the world has been absolutely 100% accurate to the source material. Period. You're retreating into an illusory argument that holds no merit, neither logically nor practically.

    And how do you know what an author INTENDED for a character to be, in the absence of direct statements? Clearly it can't just be 100% text accuracy, because that's NEVER fulfilled. So how do you get this information, then? How do you decide what can and can't be changed?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Why are you going on about this? Romeo and Juliet are about a white couple in Medieval Italy. Obviously if you are being true to Shakespeare, the actor and actress playing them would be white.
    And if being true to the source was the goal or of any interest, that'd be relevant. But that's not the goal, and it can't be, for reasons I've explained 50 times now and you just keep ignoring because you have no answer.

    Also: you've never seen West Side Story, have you. Not to mention that Romeo and Juliet IS ALREADY AN ADAPTATION based on earlier material (like "Pyramus and Thisbe" by Ovid). You didn't know that, either. Because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Amazon Rings of Power came out claiming that they were "writing the story Tolkien Never wrote".
    Then take them to task for that. Call it a bullshit statement, I'm fine with that.

    But it has NOTHING to do with the fact that you don't want black people in it. And stop trying to pretend it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I gave you a very specific example of the source material specifically being written to have 3 white men in it.
    And I have said, MANY TIMES, that IF YOU HAVE A GOOD NARRATIVE REASON for a specific skin color, then I am ENTIRELY FINE with casting for that skin color. And that I have a problem ONLY for those stories where there IS NO GOOD REASON to restrict casting.

    I've written this out a half dozen times, with detailed instructions to read and re-read. And you're STILL refusing to acknowledge it.

    So at this point let's clarify: are you just incapable of having an honest conversation engaging with what people ARE ACTUALLY AND REPEATEDLY SAYING, or are you aware of it, but ignoring it intentionally because you know it completely deflates your entire standpoint?

    Just let me know, please. Almost every paragraph you wrote has the same response from me: that is not what I'm saying, I've explained it twenty times now and asked you to carefully read it, and the next paragraph you AGAIN go on with the same shit.

    How about this: write it out. Acknowledge what my point is. Repeat it back to me. Then I don't have to re-write the same fucking thing to every one of your inane responses that have this massive blind spot to the actual argument.

    And if you don't want to do that, then we all know that you're just unwilling to honestly engage with the discussion, and if you're just a dishonest interlocutor only interested in spewing incoherent racist tirades, just go away and do it somewhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Because you are saying that the author is racist for not explicitly including diversity
    Okay, quote me where I said this. In any way.

    You're just lying to my face now.

    QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS.

  13. #2373
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    13,026
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    there's no such thing as 'european culture', what you consider to be 'european culture' is just anglo/germanic medieval settings, with maybe a hint of franco influence here and there, if you're talking about the entire european continent then you need to get yourself checked, you have a VAST and DIVERSE history, not to mention hundreds of different cultures over time all meshed and mingled together to create the society we have today, i suggest you check your ignorance and educate yourself before making any further comments using false and incorrect terminology.
    Every country has a culture and a history to that culture. Its what defines every place you go to. If you think every European country is the same, then you havent travelled much. There is a big difference to how all countries have been built and have evolved. From our myths and folklore to our art, to our films our music, literature, and even our philosophy. I am British and as much as I love some of the things that define British culture trust me, we have a culture. And its most a imperial awful culture but its a culture that we are rooted in. Like our examples some cultures are not always good in hindsight. To throw away European culture as just all one encompassing mesh is pretty naïve. Italy is a great home of culture I suggest paying that visit.
    Last edited by Orby; 2022-08-08 at 03:00 PM.
    I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW

    Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance

  14. #2374
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Shakespeare originally had all his female parts played by men on stage. Is that "the artist's vision" which we can't deviate from?

    Or is that a product of the time Shakespeare lived in, when women were second class citizens and not allowed to be involved in the arts? Hamlet and Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet have been played by people of all walks of life for literally more than a hundred years at this point.

    Your main argument against diversity is that these authors lived in times that weren't diverse, and in fact, very oppressive of people of color/women, and thus, their work through all of time cannot be diverse. To believe that, you have to basically say that the environment which these works were created don't matter, or, worse yet, that they were good, and to change them is to defy that environment in which they were created.

    The example is perhaps more clear elsewhere. H.P. Lovecraft was a vile racist. But because his brand of vile racism was socially acceptable at the time, his work gained traction and noteriety. You're arguing that his racist depictions should be untouched and unaltered, that the story somehow depends on them (they do not), and to deviate from them is a faithless adaptation. I'm arguing that the themes of his work *are* worthy of adaptation IN SPITE OF the racism, which should be excised out. Meanwhile, works where the racism is the point, like The Birth of a Nation, can be relegated to the history books.

    You remind me of people who take the Bible literally. The type who say women can't be priests because Jesus's 12 Apostles were men, ignoring 1) the political cobbling together of the New Testament to fit the Roman Empire's needs in the 3rd century, 2) apocryphal gospels which showed Jesus having some very close female apostles, and, most importantly, 3) the context: that Jesus would have been an unmarried Jewish man and to have close traveling companions (who would sleep and eat together in the same place) of the opposite sex would be highly abnormal and culturally taboo.
    We know the history of European expansionism and colonialism over the last 500 years.
    That doesn't mean ancient Europe was as "diverse" as modern Europe.
    To suggest that because of that history of colonization we should pretend ancient Europe was always diverse is ridiculous.
    Actually to even be more honest, why would any group that was subject to injustice want to be part of European culture in that case?
    Who is making the argument that changing these stories is somehow "repayment" for the wrongs of the past.
    Last I checked it was executives at these companies making up these talking points and most of them are white.

    Doesn't mean that there cant be diverse stories based in a European setting as fiction.
    But to argue that all fiction based on European history and mythology MUST include diversity is a problem.

    It takes talent and creativity to define a world and all the different cultures, conflicts and controversies.
    That includes defining the different customs, mannerisms, languages, traditions, styles of fighting, costume and so forth.
    Tolkien did that and is admired for that which is how you now have D&D based games like WOW which are all directly influenced by Tolkien.
    All of these games have diversity baked in, but that includes a lot of world building in defining all these "races" their customs and traditions.
    So it is not like there isn't plenty of diversity in high fantasy already. It is just that Tolkien himself wrote a very specific story.
    And that story had specific characters, cultures and customs. There were no night elves, void elves, night borne and so forth.
    All of that kind of diversity came later, but exists in the greater genre of high fantasy.

    This obsession with Tolkien is basically more or less trying to attach his prestige to a set of diversity mandates from studios.
    Otherwise they would just make a new high fantasy story and do whatever they want with it.


    In European mythology elves were often depicted as pale, angelic like ethereal beings or sometimes like fairies and gnomes.
    And outside of high fantasy, they are most often seen associated with Christmas and Santa Claus.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-08 at 03:24 PM.

  15. #2375
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    takes place in a region of the world notably lacking any sort of diversity due to numerous reasons.
    Notably usually means someone noted it, which in this case didn't happen.

  16. #2376
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    What the fuck does that have to do with it? That's not even remotely relatable to this.


    Wrong.

    The main argument is that the story -- an alternative history of the Earth -- takes place in a region of the world notably lacking any sort of diversity due to numerous reasons.

    But I'm sure you'd be totally fine with T'challa being a Chinese woman ruling over Wakanda, whose population has huge swatches of Caucasians, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans and other Aboriginals, and so on. Because that's literally what's going on here. The sad part is it makes even more sense for Wakanda due to how easy it is for people to travel across the world now, amongst other reasons. But I'm sure you'd lose your shit if they tried doing that in a Black Panther movie.

    It'd be one thing if, say, all the dwarves on the show were portrayed by black actors. That'd be far more believable within the context of the story than a wide diversity of people. "So why is one of them black, especially a noble, while no one else is?" "I 'unno, shut up racist, it's magic. Something something Shakespeare something something DaVinci." Those are the dumbest arguments, yet it's the only thing you people seem to offer up to anyone pointing out how it doesn't make a lick of sense within the context of the story and when/where it's set.
    The whole “same world alternative history” thing makes me wonder, if the the birth of man was in the first age and said age ended 500 years later according to the wiki, surely men should all be various shades of black as there is no where near enough time in the first/second age for them to have all turned white or other shades.

    It very much seems like a have your cake and eat it to scenario where we should abide by it being the same world and thus limit who would be where but also ignore that by the same merit there shouldn’t even be white people at all.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  17. #2377
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    No, the conflict is in two contradictory statements, as outlined above.

    Answer the question asked, not some other racist tangent you want to get out.


    I'm not telling you what you wrote, I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOU WROTE, you illiterate snot noodle.
    This is just devolving into nonsense. Now you are arguing that I did not literally write "A story about 3 white men in the woods".
    Are you saying you did not read that or are you saying you purposely ignored the part of "3 white men" because you seem to have a problem with that?

    Which one is it? I really cannot understand the point of this debate now because you are really seriously being dishonest if you don't understand what "3 white men in the woods" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Are you just incapable of correctly parsing the most banal statements?
    I am capable of reading and writing just fine. You just keep moving goal posts when your lose your argument.
    To the point of pretending that this is somehow about reading comprehension.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    To what extent? To practically anyone, it doesn't matter if a character is 6'1" but the actor is 6'2". Yet somehow skin color differences matter? Where do you draw the line between what is CLEARLY not a problem to deviate on, and what is?

    You're throwing out vague statements like "background", but that's never going to be 100% accurate to the books; so where do you deviate, by how much, and why?
    How on earth do we get into a discussion of height when we were specifically talking about my made up story called "3 white men in the woods". This is what I mean about you being dishonest and changing goal posts to avoid the fact your argument makes no sense. The story is about "3 white men in the woods". There is no other narrative. You cannot talk your way out of the logical conclusion that an adaptation of this story can only cast 3 white actors and be faithful to the source material. All this talk about misrepresenting your point is just you trying to avoid the logical fact that your point about "narrative" makes no sense and is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    The only spouting nonsense here is you, because no casting in the history of the world has been absolutely 100% accurate to the source material. Period. You're retreating into an illusory argument that holds no merit, neither logically nor practically.
    This isn't about 100% accuracy, it is about the point you made which is that they should not be "excluding" people. You brought it up and now you want to pretend that this isn't what you said. Now it is about how tall these people are and not about skin color? Are you seriously saying this is all about how tall someone is when casting? Just stop. If the story is explicitly written about a certain group of people with certain characteristics, then of course the casting should follow that. Your nonsense about "narrative" is irrelevant unless the studio or those making this adaptation are deliberately making changes in casting for some other reason than staying true to the original story. We have been over this many times relative to the rings of power but you refuse to admit that this isn't about "narrative" but about DEI policies specifically for promoting diverse casting choices. This is a fact. You are just making up irrelevant talking points and then get mad when shown to be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And how do you know what an author INTENDED for a character to be, in the absence of direct statements? Clearly it can't just be 100% text accuracy, because that's NEVER fulfilled. So how do you get this information, then? How do you decide what can and can't be changed?
    Tar Miriel was written explicitly as white. Stop ducking this specific example. You are so desperate to defend your made up theoretical casting argument that you ignore the specific examples that I am giving you from this show. And you keep doing it because you keep getting proven wrong. This isn't about staying true to the source material. They have said it multiple times now. That is my point and the casting goes along with this "new narrative" and it has absolutely nothing to do with what Tolkien wrote. He was very specific about this character and therefore it wasn't "open to interpretation". You are just making up nonsense that is totally and completely irrelevant to the facts at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And if being true to the source was the goal or of any interest, that'd be relevant. But that's not the goal, and it can't be, for reasons I've explained 50 times now and you just keep ignoring because you have no answer.
    You have not explained anything, because the people making this show have said specifically why they made these changes and part of that is to add more inclusion in the casting process. This is not about Tolkien it is about DEI policies at Amazon itself. Your made up argument about "narrative" is irrelevant because they have changed the whole narrative of the 2nd age by compressing timelines and many other things. It is a totally different story and has no real relationship to Tolkien other than in name only. You keep trying to argue that this is the same as Tolkien but it is not. You keep saying it is about "narrative" as if what Tolkien literally wrote is not the most important reference point. You have made it abundantly clear that you don't care how much the source material has changed.

    Below is the only narrative that is relevant to this discussion about casting. Stop trying to pretend your made up "narrative" theoretical argument has any relevance to reality. The literal writing of the author is being changed to suit the policies of the studio. This is not a debate. The studio is open and public about it. Just admit you are wrong and stop pretending to be right.
    We recognize that ensuring equity in the future requires correcting inequities of the past. This policy will focus on specific goals with respect to the stories we tell and the people we engage to tell them. Going forward, we’ll hold ourselves accountable by tracking data, and we plan to increase representation both on screen and behind the camera year-over-year. As our trusted creative and production partners, we ask you to join us in these efforts so we may move the industry toward a more representative and inclusive future.
    https://dei.amazonstudios.com/inclusion-policy/

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Also: you've never seen West Side Story, have you. Not to mention that Romeo and Juliet IS ALREADY AN ADAPTATION based on earlier material (like "Pyramus and Thisbe" by Ovid). You didn't know that, either. Because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
    Romeo and Juliet is Romeo and Juliet. It is not an adaptation of anything. You are so desperate to win, changing goal posts, ducking and dodging to avoid the fact that some stories are written specifically to include only white people. There I said it. And that is what you seem to have a problem with. Otherwise, why are you constantly bickering with me about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Then take them to task for that. Call it a bullshit statement, I'm fine with that.
    I have said this before but somehow you keep trying to argue in justification for it as if you are defending it. Otherwise what are you arguing?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    But it has NOTHING to do with the fact that you don't want black people in it. And stop trying to pretend it does.
    I gave the example of Tar Miriel. You keep avoiding that in order to promote a diatribe that is irrelevant to the point.
    You are calling me racist but have a problem with calling Tolkien racist for explicitly writing Tar Miriel as a white woman.
    Then you want to sit here and claim that making such a change shows how "I am racist" for not liking it because it isn't in the source material.
    Your circular inconsistent logic is the problem because by definition, if you don't like the fact that Tolkien wrote her as a white woman, then by definition you are calling him racist in defending this casting change. You introduced this issue of casting and therefore you are implicitly making that argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And I have said, MANY TIMES, that IF YOU HAVE A GOOD NARRATIVE REASON for a specific skin color, then I am ENTIRELY FINE with casting for that skin color. And that I have a problem ONLY for those stories where there IS NO GOOD REASON to restrict casting.
    What narrative is there other than the source mateiral? You keep saying this like there is some "other" narrative at work here. If Tolkien literally wrote that Tar Miriel was a white woman born from a white mother and a white father who in turn had white grand parents, then how is there some "other" narrative. What the hell are you talking about? That is not Tolkien is the point. You can certainly change the narrative but stop calling it Tolkien. I keep saying this but you keep going on in circles about this BS about some made up "narrative" other than the actual source material.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I've written this out a half dozen times, with detailed instructions to read and re-read. And you're STILL refusing to acknowledge it.

    So at this point let's clarify: are you just incapable of having an honest conversation engaging with what people ARE ACTUALLY AND REPEATEDLY SAYING, or are you aware of it, but ignoring it intentionally because you know it completely deflates your entire standpoint?

    Just let me know, please. Almost every paragraph you wrote has the same response from me: that is not what I'm saying, I've explained it twenty times now and asked you to carefully read it, and the next paragraph you AGAIN go on with the same shit.

    How about this: write it out. Acknowledge what my point is. Repeat it back to me. Then I don't have to re-write the same fucking thing to every one of your inane responses that have this massive blind spot to the actual argument.

    And if you don't want to do that, then we all know that you're just unwilling to honestly engage with the discussion, and if you're just a dishonest interlocutor only interested in spewing incoherent racist tirades, just go away and do it somewhere else.
    I gave the specific example of Tar Miriel as an example of casting that goes against the source material, not just because of skin color but because of wholesale changes to Tolkien's lore. You keep AVOIDING that because you want to keep going on about some made up BS of some other "narrative" more important than the source material. And I have shown you that the only reason this casting was done by the studio is for their DEI policy. That is the only narrative that matters here. You keep claiming that somehow these wholesale changes to the source material are still "faithful to Tolkien". They are not, this is what this argument is about and there is no other "narrative" that is going to make that true. You just keep going in circles trying to avoid that logical conclusion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post

    Okay, quote me where I said this. In any way.

    You're just lying to my face now.

    QUOTE WHERE I SAID THIS.
    You literally said this a page or so ago:
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Sorry, what? We've literally had people say "they're just changing it for the money", and then had you say "no, if it was just for the money they wouldn't change anything".



    That depends on how you got there. Did you have a good REASON for it, or was it just "idk man, black people just don't, like, fit"?

    I specifically said my problem is with an exclusionary casting process; you can't just gloss over the core part of my argument and jump straight to the end result.
    Why would you have a problem with the exclusionary casting unless the source material is not inclusive to begin with? Which by extension means the source material is not inclusive. How do you sit here and go pages of pages arguing that somehow I am misunderstanding your point when you literally keep talking about casting as the crux of your argument. You just do not want to accept that this literally is what you are saying. Otherwise, why are you introducing casting into a discussion about sticking to the source material unless you believe that the nature of the characters in the source material isn't part of the problem? You cannot keep following this line of debate without coming to the logical conclusion that there must be something wrong with the source material if it doesn't allow for diverse casting. Don't try and pretend that this is not what you are saying. Otherwise why are you arguing with me about it?

  18. #2378
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post

    Why would you have a problem with the exclusionary casting unless the source material is not inclusive to begin with? Which by extension means the source material is not inclusive. How do you sit here and go pages of pages arguing that somehow I am misunderstanding your point when you literally keep talking about casting as the crux of your argument. You just do not want to accept that this literally is what you are saying. Otherwise, why are you introducing casting into a discussion about sticking to the source material unless you believe that the nature of the characters in the source material isn't part of the problem? You cannot keep following this line of debate without coming to the logical conclusion that there must be something wrong with the source material if it doesn't allow for diverse casting. Don't try and pretend that this is not what you are saying. Otherwise why are you arguing with me about it?
    The source material is ambivalent. To ignore its ambivalence would mean introducing racist casting measures.

  19. #2379
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    The source material is ambivalent. To ignore its ambivalence would mean introducing racist casting measures.
    There is nothing ambivalent about Tar Miriel being the daughter of King Tar Palantir in the lineage of the Numenoreans.
    She is described as the "most beautiful" and in "The History of Middle Earth" has silver hair unlike most Noldor.
    All of the Numenorean rulers are descended from a union of Elves (Noldor) and Men.
    Noldor are described as fair skinned with black or brown hair.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-08 at 03:48 PM.

  20. #2380
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    This is just devolving into nonsense. Now you are arguing that I did not literally write "A story about 3 white men in the woods".
    Holy shit are you blind.

    I. Am. ASKING. YOU. For. Details. About. What. You. Wrote.

    I am not saying saying what you did or did not write.

    I AM ASKING YOU. ASKING. ASKING.

    Got it now? Is that enough to get through?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I am capable of reading and writing just fine.
    No.

    QED above.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    How on earth do we get into a discussion of height
    Because that's an arbitrary characteristic like any other. Pick something else if height doesn't work for you. The point is that you can never be 100% text accurate, and this is an example of something that while not text-accurate, doesn't bother anyone. Yet skin color does.

    That's all.

    This has nothing to do with your hypothetical 3-white-men story. This is a general point.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    This isn't about 100% accuracy, it is about the point you made which is that they should not be "excluding" people. You brought it up and now you want to pretend that this isn't what you said. Now it is about how tall these people are and not about skin color? Are you seriously saying this is all about how tall someone is when casting?
    I'm not sure I believe that you genuinely didn't understand the point I'm making.

    If you REALLY and HONESTLY did not understand, I am very sorry. Clearly you have some kind of intellectual disability, and I should not have railed on you. That's my bad, and I'll refrain from doing so any further.

    If you're just pretending you don't understand, then fuck right off.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Tar Miriel was written explicitly as white. Stop ducking this specific example.
    I'm not. I have no idea if it's true, since I don't recall the original, but that doesn't really matter. I'm entirely willing to humor the point, and say she was written explicitly and in no uncertain terms as white. 100% on board with that.

    The point is, DOES THAT MATTER for the narrative, or is it just some cosmetic detail like many others, MANY of which are often ignored when casting for adaptations and nobody cares.

    So you would have to show that either:

    1. Her being white has a narrative function and is not just a cosmetic detail
    -or-
    2. No other cosmetic detail can ever be changed either, about anything in any adaptation

    I'm fine with a demonstration for either one.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You have not explained anything, because the people making this show have said specifically why they made these changes and part of that is to add more inclusion in the casting process.
    Something which I've never denied nor ever endorsed. But that's not what I'm talking about. I've said what I am talking about explicitly, WITH INSTRUCTIONS, about 10 times now. I really cannot see how it's unclear, unless you're deliberately ignoring it.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You have made it abundantly clear that you don't care how much the source material has changed.
    Finally you have said something accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Romeo and Juliet is Romeo and Juliet. It is not an adaptation of anything.
    I can only repeat: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. R&J is not an original story. It's an adaptation of previous materials, told in a different setting. That's, you know, PROVEN FACT.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I have said this before but somehow you keep trying to argue in justification for it as if you are defending it. Otherwise what are you arguing?
    The thing I've stated explicitly in big letters and with instructions to read a half dozen times. You may find it if you look.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    What narrative is there other than the source mateiral? You keep saying this like there is some "other" narrative at work here.
    No. I've never said anything about an "other" narrative, in any way shape or form. I've said I need NARRATIVE REASONS for something to be relevant, I've never claimed or suggested that there is more than one narrative going on somewhere or somehow.

    Engage with WHAT I SAID, please. Stop making shit up.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I gave the specific example of Tar Miriel as an example of casting that goes against the source material, not just because of skin color but because of wholesale changes to Tolkien's lore.
    And I've said, repeatedly, that something being not like it is in the original isn't relevant unless there's a NARRATIVE REASON for it to be relevant. Everything else is just cosmetic details that can be AND ARE changed in all adaptations, all the time. If you have a good reason not to change something, then that's fine and it shouldn't be changed. BUT ONLY IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A GOOD REASON.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Why would you have a problem with the exclusionary casting unless the source material is not inclusive to begin with?
    That's a false statement. The CASTING PROCESS should not be exclusionary; that doesn't mean the SOURCE MATERIAL is. At most you could say it's "not racially diverse", which is a very different thing. That doesn't mean it's "exclusionary" or "not inclusive", because it's not contemporary and thus not held to the same standards of inclusivity. But a contemporary casting process IS. YOU are smuggling in the racism by using the wrong words to describe things.

    You're playing it fast and loose with terminology here without understanding what it really means.


    Also, you completely ignored my request for you to please demonstrate that you understand my argument, despite me being VERY clear about it. So that probably means you know your argument holds no water, but if you admit as much, you look like a racist tool.
    Last edited by Biomega; 2022-08-08 at 04:12 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •