1. #2381
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    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.
    You're conflating fair with white, and are disregarding Tolkien's own rather passionate disapproval of comparing LoTR with the real world by continuing in this vein.
    Last edited by Nurasu; 2022-08-08 at 04:19 PM.

  2. #2382
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    You're conflating fair with white, and are disregarding Tolkien's own rather passionate disapproval of comparing LoTR with the real world by continuing in this vein.
    4: having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light
    - fair hair
    - fair skin
    - a person of fair complexion

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

  3. #2383
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    2,557
    Quote Originally Posted by gamz247 View Post
    4: having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light
    - fair hair
    - fair skin
    - a person of fair complexion

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
    5: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
    The innkeeper had two fair daughters.


    Considering how little skin color played into the rest of his work (Dwarves' are never even mentioned, for instance), I'm leaning toward this one as far as his intent.

  4. #2384
    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.
    Someone mentioned how Shakespeare actors should be all white because Shakespeare wrote plays about all white people.

    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.
    You are the only one saying this. As someone else pointed out, if this was genuinely an alternate history of man, it would START would black people. Also, Europe as a whole was very diverse from even before medieval times, in terms of Middle Easterners, North Africans, and, religiously, Muslims, Jews, and pagans. Now, maybe the British Isles were never really diverse then, but that's not what you suggested. In fact, if Rohan is based on Spain, and Gondor France (since the LOTR most closely mirrors the conflicts of the World Wars), you would expect some darker skinned people there pretty much through their history stretching back to the Roman Empire.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    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.
    Firstly, I didn't suggest these times were diverse as modern times. I said that *because* they're not as diverse, we shouldn't care about casting black actors to play race-neutral parts. In this case, race neutral means - "race not being an integral part of their CHARACTER" as opposed to "race not being a part of their DESCRIPTION."

    Secondly, Europe has been fairly diverse since the Roman Empire. The British Isles, the Germanic tribes, maybe not as much, but Italy/Spain/France, those areas were literal melting pots of the three nearby continents (the Middle East/AKA Asia, Africa, and Europe)

    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.
    So you admit they were tiny faery like creatures - but have no problem with Tolkein making them tall?!? Hypocrisy much?!? /s

  5. #2385
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    Notably usually means someone noted it, which in this case didn't happen.
    Except he did note it... when it was a notable change. Like he did with the Southrons. Again, if it wasn't a distinguishable characteristic (compared to the 'norm' of the region), there'd be absolutely no reason to mention it.

    Also again, this is the same man who spent an inordinate amount of time describing the smallest detail of his world...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.
    You may have noticed the first two sentences of my last paragraph of the post you quoted. "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."

    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?
    Having had time to let this stir in my head, I realized that this is exactly the same argument as is being made. In his time, they were using inappropriate actors to portray specific roles; just in this case it was men playing women. Why, exactly, was it okay to deviate from that in order to cast more appropriate actors for the role, but not here?
    Last edited by Rocksteady 87; 2022-08-08 at 04:41 PM.

  6. #2386
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post

    Having had time to let this stir in my head, I realized that this is exactly the same argument as is being made. In his time, they were using inappropriate actors to portray specific roles; just in this case it was men playing women. Why, exactly, was it okay to deviate from that in order to cast more appropriate actors for the role, but not here?
    It wasn't okay, just like blackface wasn't okay, yet he had white men playing Othello, a play he specifically wrote about a black man. The point is that that's how Shakespeare put on his plays, because of the context of the society he lived in (which didn't allow women or black men on stage). So, since that's how the play was originally put on - does that mean we have to stick with that forever? Because the society didn't allow for anything else, even if Shakespeare pretty clearly wrote about everyone?

    Are all the old version of Peter Pan where Peter is famously played by a woman invalid adaptation?

    Is Michael Jackson's The Wiz an invalid adaptation of The Wizard of Oz?

    A hypothetical: If I put on a Lovecraft story in a movie, but changed it so it wasn't racist, but kept the eldritch horror, is that an invalid adaptation?

  7. #2387
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurasu View Post
    5: pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality
    The innkeeper had two fair daughters.

    Considering how little skin color played into the rest of his work (Dwarves' are never even mentioned, for instance), I'm leaning toward this one as far as his intent.
    "And last of all the mounting wave, green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls."

    http://www.henneth-annun.net/events_view.cfm?evid=711

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    It wasn't okay, just like blackface wasn't okay, yet he had white men playing Othello, a play he specifically wrote about a black man. The point is that that's how Shakespeare put on his plays, because of the context of the society he lived in (which didn't allow women or black men on stage). So, since that's how the play was originally put on - does that mean we have to stick with that forever? Because the society didn't allow for anything else, even if Shakespeare pretty clearly wrote about everyone?

    Are all the old version of Peter Pan where Peter is famously played by a woman invalid adaptation?

    Is Michael Jackson's The Wiz an invalid adaptation of The Wizard of Oz?

    A hypothetical: If I put on a Lovecraft story in a movie, but changed it so it wasn't racist, but kept the eldritch horror, is that an invalid adaptation?
    I think you are confusing adaptation and portrayal. The Wiz is an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. It is not simply The Wizard of Oz with all black actors. Women portray Peter Pan, oddly enough, because of English labor laws in the early 20th century. However, they also happen to look like early teenage boys a lot longer than early teenage boys do.
    Last edited by gamz247; 2022-08-08 at 05:29 PM.

  8. #2388
    Quote Originally Posted by gamz247 View Post
    "And last of all the mounting wave, green and cold and plumed with foam, climbing over the land, took to its bosom Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls."
    And what makes more sense here, "whiter than silver" or "more beautiful/precious than silver"?

    Ivory, pearls, and silver or gold (depending on cultural context) are THE classical reference materials of great value in ancient times (along with jade if you're looking at East Asian contexts). They were the most precious of the widely used ornamental materials at the time, as e.g. diamonds didn't really come to the forefront as ornamental gemstones until the modern era; they were mostly used for their hardness during ancient times, e.g. for drilling holes into other precious stones, not for their beauty which doesn't really come out without sophisticated cutting and polishing technologies.

  9. #2389
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And what makes more sense here, "whiter than silver" or "more beautiful/precious than silver"?
    I can see that passage meaning both, actually.

  10. #2390
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,794
    Quote Originally Posted by gamz247 View Post
    I can see that passage meaning both, actually.
    What does whiter then silver ivory or pearls look like on a person, a porcelain doll?
    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.

  11. #2391
    Y'all gotta chill.

  12. #2392
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    What does whiter then silver ivory or pearls look like on a person, a porcelain doll?
    Sure. Who says Númenóreans can't have skin that color?

  13. #2393
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,794
    Quote Originally Posted by gamz247 View Post
    Sure. Who says Númenóreans can't have skin that color?
    Nobody I suppose, though it might be a bit hard to find some porcelain people to cast for book accuracy for those who want it.
    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.

  14. #2394
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    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 some of the most nonsensical ranting I've seen so far in this thread. What the fuck do Tom Cruise, James Bond (a character that has undergone a lot of modernization and has changed drastically from when he was written, and may well be played by a person of color soon), and Spider-man (a character who has been portrayed with a lot of diversity in print runs and movies) have anything to do with this?

    And it's not about whether every story should have an increase in diversity when adapted to the screen, or anyone saying diversity is required. What you're trying to argue is that THIS story specifically needs to not have ANY diversity in its cast, and you're apparently basing that on "because that's how it was originally written" and "look at these other well liked white characters/people". Obviously neither of those are good reasons for purposefully excluding actors based on their skin color when they can do the job just fine otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    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.
    That's NOT inserting culture. When the Peter Jackson movies came out, did you complain about people like Viggo Mortensen, Elijah Wood, and Sean Astin inserting "American culture" into Tolkien? From the British cast of the Fellowship we had English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish representation from various generations, yet you seem to have been ok with that diversity. The elves were mostly Australians and New Zealanders, but apparently no cultural issues there either, right?

    None of these people were from the same generation as Tolkien, much less identify as whatever "ancient Europeans" you think their characters are inspired by. They're MODERN actors who do their best to play the roles they're given. That extends as well to the cast of this show. And again, the only issue you seem to have is with the color of their skin, which again has nothing to do with culture here.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    If Tolkien did not write a character looking like Lenny Henry into his story then who cares?
    You do, apparently. Plenty of people have no problem accepting him as a hobbit if the only difference between him and Ian Holm is the color of their skin.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    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. 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.
    Apparently you're unaware of how adaptations actually work, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting something as childish as every adaptation of book to screen is a "butchering" of the source material. And yes, this all has to do with Tolkien since it's based in the world he started creating using the creatures and characters he made a few notes about. Adaptations are NEVER required to be 100% faithful translations of the original sources because what works for one medium might not work for another quite as well. This show (like the movies) is drama, and the literature only forms a basis for what gets adapted to the screen.

  15. #2395
    Scarab Lord MCMLXXXII's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Delta swamp of the west
    Posts
    4,804
    The Silmarillion is also a travesty. It's using parts written by Tolkien but edited by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay. How dare they invent new stories based on the true gospel of Tolkien. /s

  16. #2396
    nuke this retarded thread already.

  17. #2397
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    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.
    no, i don't, and that was the entire fucking point i was making, hence my response to the person i quoted, they used a term 'european culture' which simply doesn't exist, PURELY BECAUSE OF THE MYRIAD CULTURES AND PEOPLES THAT MAKE UP EUROPE, did you even bother to read what i wrote?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    It wasn't okay, just like blackface wasn't okay, yet he had white men playing Othello, a play he specifically wrote about a black man. The point is that that's how Shakespeare put on his plays, because of the context of the society he lived in (which didn't allow women or black men on stage). So, since that's how the play was originally put on - does that mean we have to stick with that forever? Because the society didn't allow for anything else, even if Shakespeare pretty clearly wrote about everyone?

    Are all the old version of Peter Pan where Peter is famously played by a woman invalid adaptation?

    Is Michael Jackson's The Wiz an invalid adaptation of The Wizard of Oz?

    A hypothetical: If I put on a Lovecraft story in a movie, but changed it so it wasn't racist, but kept the eldritch horror, is that an invalid adaptation?
    if the project is to be historically accurate, then yes, and you make sure that both the audience and the people behind the project understand this ahead of time, because in this instance the casting of all men in all roles is not only a social commentary, it's also historical fact, you can however have the exact same story and as long as you make known ahead of time that you will be casting it 'as intended' then that's perfectly fine also, the problem with the ringding of powah project, every single interview/PR stunt dressed up as marketing pushed the narrative that they were doing a faithful adaptation of the works of JRR Tolkein, then after the heaviest and most pronounced backlash against a 'woke agenda pushing, diversity riddled mess' they have constantly flip flopped between different types of medium to describe what they are doing, going from a pure 'adaptation', to making it a 'reimagining', now it's being tagged as a story 'inspired by' the works of Tolkein, all of these things are vastly different to each other and none of them have any crossover, and yet here we are with the showrunners who have since in very recent interviews come out and said themselves they have neglected aspects of the story because it didn't fit with their narrative, they have admitted that they were changing aspects of already established lore.

    and just for some kind of education for you and everyone else who uses theater productions as an arguement, pantomime productions in the UK ALWAYS have the 'panto dame' played by a man, not only is it a nod to history in that men played all roles, but it's traditional and is something that is held onto for those reasons, i doubt you would find any successful Panto production with a female 'dame'.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by haediff View Post
    nuke this retarded thread already.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI8wt5soxXE

  18. #2398
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    12,995
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    no, i don't, and that was the entire fucking point i was making, hence my response to the person i quoted, they used a term 'european culture' which simply doesn't exist, PURELY BECAUSE OF THE MYRIAD CULTURES AND PEOPLES THAT MAKE UP EUROPE, did you even bother to read what i wrote?
    I'll admit, I misread then, my apologies.

    Being dyslexic and down with the flu must be a bad combo for forum scrolling.
    I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW

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

  19. #2399
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    Imagine spending your time arguing with strangers online about shit they don't have control over.

  20. #2400
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    if the project is to be historically accurate
    LotR isn't history. Obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    the narrative that they were doing a faithful adaptation of the works of JRR Tolkein, then after the heaviest and most pronounced backlash against a 'woke agenda pushing, diversity riddled mess' they have constantly flip flopped between different types of medium to describe what they are doing, going from a pure 'adaptation', to making it a 'reimagining', now it's being tagged as a story 'inspired by' the works of Tolkein, all of these things are vastly different to each other and none of them have any crossover
    There is nothing contradictory about saying you want to stay faithful to the source material while reimagining parts of it to suit the story you actually want to tell. Especially given how little source material they actually have access to in the case of this production. That's how adaptations work. One day you might figure that out, but I'm not holding my breath.

    And if they did actually change their messaging in an attempt to appease the bigoted fucks who see a black person and scream "woke agenda pushing, diversity-riddled mess," that would have been their mistake. Not casting the black guy in the first place. Because those people deserve no consideration beyond calling out their bullshit on WoW fan forums.

Posting Permissions

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