Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

It is implicit in the statment "3 white men in the woods".

No it's not. That's why I asked the question.

And instead of just ANSWERING like a reasonable human being, you wrote an essay about fifty things I never said.

Except in this case, we are talking about Tolkien and again, not to beat a dead horse, the issue is whether Tolkien's narrative was intended to be based around people looking similar to those in ancient England and therefore white, especially for the Elves and Numenoreans.

The issue is whether it MATTERS, not whether it's MENTIONED.

Which you apparently STILL don't see a distinction between, despite me repeating it so often.

OK. But again, we are talking about Tolkien and I do not agree that these characteristics are arbitrary because hes spent a lot of time fleshing out this world and the "races" in it to a very detailed degree. That is not arbitrary.

You're too hung up on the word "arbitrary" (which YOU introduced into this in the first place, not me). The question I'm asking is DOES IT MATTER for the story, not whether or not Tolkien just rolled the dice or had something in mind. There's a whole catalog of cosmetic details authors choose for NON-arbitrary reasons but that nevertheless have NO SUBSTANTIAL NARRATIVE ROLE of any kind - things like for example hair color, height, eye color, the color of clothing, and so on and so forth. All cosmetic details that were chosen to be JUST SO by authors, yet in the grand scheme of the narrative are usually of no to negligible importance narrative (and, as always, in cases where they're NOT negligible, they should be retained). My point is that for most stories, skin color is on exactly that level of relevance - a cosmetic detail, not a plot driver.

That does NOT mean I'm saying it's "arbitrary", and it does NOT mean I'm saying "the author just did this because they're racist!". All I'm saying is that given the story at hand, there seems to be no substantial function to that particular characteristic, and as such, it's one of the many many details that can freely be changed without significantly affecting anything about the story.

That's EXACTLY what happens in adaptations for any number of details without substantial relevance to the narrative, and no one ever raises a problem about THOSE; yet they somehow DO for skin color.

1) whether Tolkien intended certain races of characters to be white

The problem is right here.

You've never offered ANYTHING of substance to show why their skin color MATTERS to anything in the narrative.

All you've ever put forward was "Tolkien wrote them/intended them to be white" and "making them non-white would not be how it is in the original".

Which is the exact same argument you could make for any number of OTHER cosmetic details that also have no relevance to the actual narrative, and no one ever seriously complains about THOSE. Why is skin color different?

If it is not a lie then why are you sitting here telling me that skin color is arbitrary in a work of fiction based on ancient Europe?

The reason I put Lie. on things is, as I explained, because it's you claiming something I never said.

Like what you're saying there.

I'll continue to do this, so please don't bother offering statements I never made; if you disagree, all you need to do to disprove me is quote something. Should be simple, right?

Please explain how you can argue that roles should "not exclude anybody" unless you believe that non whites should be able to play roles defined as white?

I feel insulted that you're now asking me to please explain what I've BEEN EXPLAINING in clearly marked, clearly pointed out form, FOR THREE DAYS.

Kindly re-read the 20 or so times I literally explained this exact thing.

You literally just said "Not unless it also has an actual narrative function, rather than being a cosmetic detail" as if to say that these things are open to interpretation and the source material doesn't matter.

The FACT of whether or not something is described as X in the source is not open to interpretation.

Whether or not X is RELEVANT to the narrative in some substantive way, that absolutely is.

And if your position is that skin color IS relevant to the narrative, all I'm asking is that you back up that claim with more than "well that skin color is what it says in the text", which is a tautology.

This whole discussion is about sticking to the source material

No it isn't.

YOU are trying to MAKE it about that, because your entire argument is "well it's not like that in the text!" and you have nothing else to support your position.

As I've explained many times, truth to the source material by itself is not an argument, just a red herring - because of the existence of a huge amount of details that are quite clearly irrelevant to the plot and are changed ALL THE TIME in any kind of adaptation without anyone complaining. That PROVES that JUST going "but the teeeeext!" isn't sufficient to argue anything; you need to show why a detail is RELEVANT, too, in order to make any sort of point.

An analogy that does nothing to elaborate the point about skin color which is obvious.

So that's a "yes" then, on being incapable of parsing analogies?

Why should they have to "drop more black people" into the story if they already weren't there?

To address the problem of "omg how is there ONE SINGLE BLACK PERSON all of a sudden I AM SO CONFUSED!" that you invented as a rather hyperbolic hypothetical. Which, as I've explained in that same paragraph, isn't actually something that'd ever happen, but even IF IT DID, it has the simple fix above.

The point being that yours is not a sensible objection to begin with.

You are free to have your own views and opinions on what qualifies as a good "adaptation".

HOLD ON.

I was talking about the LABEL "adaptation". Now you are suddenly talking about what makes a GOOD adaptation.

Those are not the same thing, poppet. Not even close.

Please argue HONESTLY.

These stories were all about white Europeans was the point. You haven't provided any evidence otherwise. LOL

Because I'm not disputing that point. Never have. I'm not arguing about the facts, I'm arguing about their RELEVANCE.

Which you'd know if you were interested in parsing my statements, rather than just making your own. "LOL".

The point though is that wouldn't be Tolkien anymore. That is an objective fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not it "could" work is irrelevant to that.

You keep making about things I'm not and never was talking about. I've literally said so, many times.

Why? Why do you keep going back to things I've already SAID MANY TIMES I don't dispute and am not arguing against?

"But this hat is BLUE!"

"Yes, yes it is. Does that matter, though?"

"Dude, stop saying the hat isn't blue, IT IS FUCKING BLUE!"

"I... I know. I've said it is. But why is that relevant?"

"LMAO I can't even, you clown, THE HAT IS BLUE, it SAYS SO RIGHT THERE are you for real."

"I don't deny that. But is the color actually important?"

"Holy shit how are you still trying to say the hat isn't blue IT IS BLUE, BLUE, BLUE it says in the text EVERYWHERE that it is fucking BLUE!"

This is kind of surreal at this point.

[Adamas102]

Except in this case, we are talking about Tolkien and again, not to beat a dead horse, the issue is whether Tolkien's narrative was intended to be based around people looking similar to those in ancient England and therefore white, especially for the Elves and Numenoreans. I believe it was and that is the crux of the issue. Other people may want to interpret it differently but my point is that there is nothing inherently racist if that is what he intended.

Except that given the time span he set his legendarium in, the ancient peoples of Europe were only just developing the genetic markers that contributed to their skin lightening. So the men of the 1st and 2nd Age should actually be mostly dark or tanned skinned.

Tolkien knew he wanted to set his stories on Earth, but he was going for pre-historic mythology, so the idea that he was aiming to encapsulate the ACTUAL Europeans of that time (which would all have been nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers) is silly. He also knew that the landmass he created didn't match up to what Europe looked like at any point in time. He knew that the time and place he was setting his stories in were completely imaginary, but rooted in the familiarity of Earth.

When asked what sort of clothing the people of Middle-earth wore he didn't say "that's easy, 10th century English clothing". He said he didn't know, but that it would be quite varied depending on location and custom and referenced the Bayeux Tapestry (11th century Normand horsemen) for Rohan and ancient Egypt for Numenor (specifically detailing the crown of Gondor as resembling that of Egyptian Pharaohs so more indicative of people who lived hundreds of years before the Romans even arrived in the Britain).

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I wonder why, after so long with it not really even being mentioned in the thread outside of a handful of times months ago, there is this (seemingly sudden) massive push on "alternative history for England" As I recall, it was simply meant to be a "fictional place with its own history, people, and languages," and isn't meant to be placed into our own history, anthropologically speaking.

As an Englishman, am I meant to care more about it supposedly being an "alternate history" for my country?

Likely some YouTuber or outrage monger mentioned it recently that tends to be the case when you see multiple people brining up the same point which wasn’t widespread for months of prior discussion.

[Orby]

Holy walls of text...

I am too tired of the discussion to read it all... its all blurred lines to me lol

I just want to talk about something else about that show that doesn't involve the same discussion for the last 40 pages lol

Likely some YouTuber or outrage monger mentioned it recently that tends to be the case when you see multiple people brining up the same point which wasn’t widespread for months of prior discussion.

I keep blocking those youtubers... they keep popping up, only because I have some Tolkien themed channels that talk about lore YouTube also thinks I want some angry white dude talk about why RoP is a hot mess recommended to me too.

[Adamas102]

James Bond has always been white and popular around the world and is based on a character from novels going back over 70 years. Peter Parker as Spiderman has always been white and is the best selling character in Marvel comics. None of these characters as white had a problem being popular was the point. You haven't proven otherwise.

You said Spider-man, a character that has been portrayed in a variety of ways. Peter Parker is white, but Spider-man has also been black (Miles Morales) and Irish-Mexican (Miguel O'Hara) and female (usually going by the moniker Spider-Girl or Spider-Woman, but still is essentially the same superhero).

As for James Bond, despite the initial push back, Daniel Craig proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the original description of James Bond isn't what makes the character. His build, his eye color, his skin color, and his hair color aren't set in stone. He's also a character that has been modernized every time he has been adapted to the screen.

No one is even saying that white characters can't be popular, but these characters aren't popular BECAUSE of the color of their skin.

Studios like Amazon have diversity mandates So that means a certain amount of diversity is required, regardless of what the source material says. That implicitly means injecting diversity into the story of Tolkien as a number of the actors and actresses for this show have come out and said. Which again, implies that Tolkien's work somehow wasn't popular already without that and potentially racist for not explicitly including that kind of diversity.

This was debunked already. Amazon has no diversity mandate for casting characters other than nationality, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability SHOULD match between actor and role. The numbers that were thrown around in this thread (30%, 50% by 2024) pertain to above-the-line roles (directors, writers, producers).

There's also no implication that Tolkien's work wasn't popular or was racist. Lack of diversity doesn't automatically mean something was racist, but it also doesn't mean it has to maintain that lack of diversity when adapted for modern audiences.

We are talking about modern Britain having a lot of immigrants from various parts of the world, unlike ancient England. The main characters and stories from Middle Earth were intended to reflect the population of England and is based on European mythology. While there are other parts of the continent of Middle Earth that would be similar to Africa and Asia, those areas were not the main setting for his stories. So there is diversity in his world, but the main stories of the Elves, Hobbits and Dwarves are based around the mythology and people indigenous to England and Europe.

They are of European descent so obviously they represent the characteristics of ancient indigenous Europeans. Unless you are claiming that Africans and Asians are indigenous to England? England being in Northern Europe would have an indigenous population adapted to Northern environments, which means light to white skin is the point. Just like populations indigenous to Africa would have dark skin because Africa straddles the equator. This isn't arbitrary.

Actually, it is arbitrary because you're picking a particular time in prehistory (less than 5,000 years ago) that Tolkien didn't specify. In fact, the stretch of time that Tolkien noted as a reference to our history (6,000 - 16,000 years ago) coincides with the time that the hunter gatherer tribes of Europe were only just starting to develop the genetic makeup that lead to their skin whitening. So the first Men who arrived in Beleriand would mostly (if not entirely) be of dark skin, with white skin only becoming prevalent later in the 3rd Age.

As for Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves, they aren't even human, but if you really want to belabor the point that they should reflect actual human skin tones of the time and region, then given the span of time that these creatures existed (thousands of years) and the longevity of these species, there's no reason why you couldn't have a variety of skin tones within each group.

I have a problem with giving Harfoots which are technically Hobbits a major role in the 2nd age when they had none in the source material. And therefore, regardless of skin color, they shouldn't have a prominent role in those stories. Using Lenny Henry as an argument for "diversity" doesn't justify that change. And if they really cared about it, then why not make whole large groups of elves black, whole groups of Numenoreans black and whole groups of Dwarves black instead of just 1 or 2? If you are going to go in then go all the way in. Either way, none of that is what Tolkien intended is the point and it isn't necessary to make his work popular.

Lenny Henry isn't an argument for diversity or for Harfoots. He's an argument for the ridiculous notion that black people aren't of the right culture given that he's a fixture of British culture, same as the likes of Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Sean Bean.

As for the inclusion of Harfoots, the whole point of the show is to flesh out the loose set of notes that comprises things like the Appendices of LotR. Tolkien referenced Harfoots, so there's no reason not to include them in stories that draw from his works.

The source materials that this show is drawing from are NOT popular. It's based on appendices, letters, and notes. Not on the narratives that people are familiar with.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I keep blocking those youtubers... they keep popping up, only because I have some Tolkien themed channels that talk about lore it thinks I want some angry white dude talk about why RoP is a hot mess.

Ya they are an absolute plague, I’ve just stopped watching videos of some franchises all together to avoid months of clearing there sludge.

Thankfully my looking into Tolkiens work on YouTube was a couple of years ago so I’ve dodged that bullet this time around and I’m not gonna be clicking on any videos about it for the foreseeable future.

[Orby]

Ya they are an absolute plague, I’ve just stopped watching videos of some franchises all together to avoid months of clearing there sludge.

Thankfully my looking into Tolkiens work on YouTube was a couple of years ago so I’ve dodged that bullet this time around and I’m not gonna be clicking on any videos about it for the foreseeable future.

Oh same. I been following Nerd of the Rings and Broken Sword (back when they were called History of Middle Earth) for like 5 years? Maybe a little less. But as someone who is not some big tolkien fan I enjoy those channels as a casual reader to keep me up to date on whats what. (Only read LotR, Hobbit, The Silmarillion and Beren and Lúthien)

I feel like that's probably the most likely reason, unfortunately.


YouTube is awful like that. You'll watch one video about something out of interest, suddenly it just throws 600 videos that are sort of related at you, most of which are complete garbage.

I wonder if Star Wars fans had a similar experience as I am not into Stars Wars that much :P

[gamz247]

There could very well be entire armies of black people waiting to be seen in the series.

Why would there be armies consisting only of dark-skinned Men? That suggests that they are somehow separate from the rest of the Númenóreans.

[Belize]

Imagine being this angry there are black people in a TV show.


Anyways: So far from the few trailers/screenshots we've had, this show looks like CGI hell, and not in a good way. Uff.

[bledgor]

Imagine being this angry there are black people in a TV show.


Anyways: So far from the few trailers/screenshots we've had, this show looks like CGI hell, and not in a good way. Uff.

I'm not sure if it is bad CGI or just the complete over use of CGI, miss the days when CGI was used to enhance scenes instead of its current day use of making scenes, real sets had that tangibility that you could see/feel, and the lack of it now just makes everything feel off/fake.

[Dhrizzle]

Holy walls of text...

It really is an impressively huge block of words. I wonder if it's any good.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder why, after so long with it not really even being mentioned in the thread outside of a handful of times months ago, there is this (seemingly sudden) massive push on "alternative history for England" As I recall, it was simply meant to be a "fictional place with its own history, people, and languages," and isn't meant to be placed into our own history, anthropologically speaking.

As an Englishman, am I meant to care more about it supposedly being an "alternate history" for my country?

When he spoke about making a "new mythology" for England it seemed to be more like a gift for the country than a new way for us to look at life. Lots of other cultures had these amazing interconnected stories of gods and monsters that English literature myths couldn't compare to (in his opinion.)

On top of that he used a literary device where he pretended to only be translating a text in Old English that came from a much older source (The Red Book of Westmarch which is a continued version of the book started by Bilbo and Frodo.) Through this it is assumed that it tells of a pre-prehistory though Tolkien had plans for massive retcons to make that work.

- - - Updated - - -

TIL. Wonder if Amazon will go with 5 seasons.

AFAIK they have pre-approved all 5 seasons. Bezos is a Tolkien fan and probably said he'd cover the cost if it flops.

[Triceron]

But try remaking Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" and see how far that goes.

Such things always reflects back to the original.

Well, Lego recently did and people love it.



Like, does anyone legit have a problem with it? Everyone knows this isn't the original and no one is mistaking it for it.

We can appreciate an 'adaptation' for literally being an adaptation. It is what it is, and it is not the original.

[Logwyn]

Like, does anyone legit have a problem with it? Everyone knows this isn't the original and no one is mistaking it for it.

We can appreciate an 'adaptation' for literally being an adaptation. It is what it is, and it is not the original.

There are a number of things Tolkien admitted he "did not know" about Middle Earth. Maybe the Amazon is just some of those things being fleshed out. Would be nice to know what happened to the Ent Wives

[Triceron]

There are a number of things Tolkien admitted he "did not know" about Middle Earth. Maybe the Amazon is just some of those things being fleshed out. Would be nice to know what happened to the Ent Wives

Even as a pure work of fiction within the 'Middle-Earth' universe, I don't think anyone is really mistaking this to be an authentic retelling of any of Tolkien's work.

Like, even games like Shadows of Mordor took huge creative liberties with the LOTR material. I don't really quite understand why people are dying on a hill on having Rings of Power be super authentic. It never will be.

[InfiniteCharger]

You said Spider-man, a character that has been portrayed in a variety of ways. Peter Parker is white, but Spider-man has also been black (Miles Morales) and Irish-Mexican (Miguel O'Hara) and female (usually going by the moniker Spider-Girl or Spider-Woman, but still is essentially the same superhero).

The original white Peter Parker Spiderman is the best selling comic title for Marvel. James Bond was created by Ian Fleming based on an era when Jamaica was still a colony of Britain and the jet set crowd was made up of royals and rich folks from various places in Europe and elsewhere. And despite all of that, is still one of the most popular franchises with a white main character. That was my point. You haven't shown otherwise. If what you were saying were true then Miles Morales and all these other versions of Spiderman would be selling more than the original and they are not. Still to this day Peter Parker Spiderman is the top selling Marvel comic, along with the original white Batman from DC.

As for James Bond, despite the initial push back, Daniel Craig proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the original description of James Bond isn't what makes the character. His build, his eye color, his skin color, and his hair color aren't set in stone. He's also a character that has been modernized every time he has been adapted to the screen.

He is still white and still based on a character modeled on the openly patriarchal era of playboys and rakes in the 1950s. And still the character has been popular nevertheless.

https://therake.com/stories/icons/rakes-of-the-riviera/

No one is even saying that white characters can't be popular, but these characters aren't popular BECAUSE of the color of their skin.

No they are popular DESPITE the color of their skin as most of them were created in an era where equity and equality wasn't even a thing. But even with that they are popular among many audiences world wide. Otherwise, they wouldn't still be popular this day among widely diverse audiences. So changing their skin color is not required for popularity among a diverse audience.

This was debunked already. Amazon has no diversity mandate for casting characters other than nationality, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability SHOULD match between actor and role. The numbers that were thrown around in this thread (30%, 50% by 2024) pertain to above-the-line roles (directors, writers, producers).

Amazon and other companies absolutely have diversity mandates for including characters of different ethnic backgrounds in their shows. Which specifically results in them changing characters in stories that may not have been diverse. And they have said this themselves in interviews and press releases.

There's also no implication that Tolkien's work wasn't popular or was racist. Lack of diversity doesn't automatically mean something was racist, but it also doesn't mean it has to maintain that lack of diversity when adapted for modern audiences.

If Tolkien's work is already popular among modern audiences then it doesn't need "more diversity" for modern audiences. Most of the time this is coming from within the studio and/or certain leftist academics who help guide and drive these policies but not necessarily from the general public. This obsession with putting x characters into shows set in Europe is not coming from actual "diverse" artists and creators and it is not coming from the general public either. Sure, they can do it, but that doesn't mean it will be more popular just because of that among the public at large.

Actually, it is arbitrary because you're picking a particular time in prehistory (less than 5,000 years ago) that Tolkien didn't specify. In fact, the stretch of time that Tolkien noted as a reference to our history (6,000 - 16,000 years ago) coincides with the time that the hunter gatherer tribes of Europe were only just starting to develop the genetic makeup that lead to their skin whitening. So the first Men who arrived in Beleriand would mostly (if not entirely) be of dark skin, with white skin only becoming prevalent later in the 3rd Age.

As for Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves, they aren't even human, but if you really want to belabor the point that they should reflect actual human skin tones of the time and region, then given the span of time that these creatures existed (thousands of years) and the longevity of these species, there's no reason why you couldn't have a variety of skin tones within each group.

What you describe is not Tolkien. The 3 houses of the Edain from the first age are all described in ways modeled on cultures from ancient Europe who were white (Goths, Nordics, Vikings, Saxons, and mostly Welsh). All of the men of Middle Earth of course were not white, but those who joined with the Elves and fought against Morgoth were definitely white. And from this alliance came the marriage of Edain and Elf that produced the line of Half Elves who would go on to found the line of kings of Numenor. Other groups of men existed in other parts of Middle Earth but they were not the ones primarily involved in the main stories of Tolkien which surround the Elves, the Edain, the Numenoreans and other groups of men in these regions around Northern Middle Earth. That also includes the Dwarves as well who also may have been diverse across Middle Earth with some looking similar to Mongols and other eastern cultures, but those were not the main ones featured in the stories of Tolkien. Just like European mythology concerns mainly peoples of Northern Europe and therefore involves gods and other mythological entities with white skin. Of course diversity exists on planet earth, but that does not mean Northern European history and mythology was diverse 2,000 years ago. In general the continent of Middle Earth loosely reflects the real world earth were Northern Middle Earth is Northern Europe and Southern Middle Earth is Africa and Eastern Middle Earth is Asia. But most of the main events of Tolkien are set in Northern Middle Earth. If they really wanted to do diversity in this context they would have explored more about the cultures of Southern or Eastern Middle Earth which Tolkien covered far less than Northern Middle Earth.

Lenny Henry isn't an argument for diversity or for Harfoots. He's an argument for the ridiculous notion that black people aren't of the right culture given that he's a fixture of British culture, same as the likes of Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Sean Bean.

As for the inclusion of Harfoots, the whole point of the show is to flesh out the loose set of notes that comprises things like the Appendices of LotR. Tolkien referenced Harfoots, so there's no reason not to include them in stories that draw from his works.

The source materials that this show is drawing from are NOT popular. It's based on appendices, letters, and notes. Not on the narratives that people are familiar with.

The outline of the main events of the 2nd age were written in Tolkens various works. There was no major role involving Harfoots (who are Hobbits) in the 2nd age. The main players in the 2nd age were Elves, Dwarves and Numenoreans. So there should be no major story involving Harfoots/Hobbits in the 2nd age similar to the story of the Hobbits in the 3rd age. The crafting of the Rings of Power had absolutely nothing to do with Hobbits, neither did the fall of Numenor or the final battle against Sauron. So making them diverse doesn't change the fact that this is absolutely not part of what Tolkien outlined. Everything we know about the 2nd Age comes from the outlines, but these are not mere notes. There were whole books published after his death which provide the general outline of the 2nd age and a geneaology of various clans that played a major role in it, such as the various Elven Houses and the Numenorean Kings. This isn't trivial at all. No matter what notes Amazon had access to, they are still using those other works outside of the appendices in order to do the story of the Numenoreans. But at this point they have also already admitted that they are telling their own story and this is why they have condensed the timeline because this is not Tolkien's story for the 2nd age.

[Shadowferal]

Well, Lego recently did and people love it. Like, does anyone legit have a problem with it? Everyone knows this isn't the original and no one is mistaking it for it. We can appreciate an 'adaptation' for literally being an adaptation. It is what it is, and it is not the original.

It's still Van Gogh "The Starry Night." The Legos didn't change a thing.

[InfiniteCharger]

No it's not. That's why I asked the question.

And instead of just ANSWERING like a reasonable human being, you wrote an essay about fifty things I never said.

Why are you still going on about this? You know the point being made we have discussed it to death.
You just want to be "right" when there is no right or wrong in the sense of people having personal opinions.
I already said it is fine if you feel that "adaptation" can be a very loose or substantial change to the source material.
But that is not how I look at it. You are absolutely full of BS if you are claiming that somehow this is an issue of Englilsh comprehension.
I said in plain English I don't agree with you, no matter how you word it or try and phrase it.
All this round and round is you just trying so hard to seem "right" in your opinion as if I must somehow agree with you.
I don't. Period.

The issue is whether it MATTERS, not whether it's MENTIONED.

The issue is whether you and I agree on what matters. That is my point.
Your definition of what matters is not my definition of what matters.
This isn't an issue of misunderstanding.
You aren't convincing me that my position is wrong because it isn't wrong.
Just leave it at that and stop trying so hard to "win" something.
There is no "win" here.

Which you apparently STILL don't see a distinction between, despite me repeating it so often.

You apparently fail to realize that there is a distinction in how I look at things and how you look at things.
And you refuse to simple agree to disagree instead of sitting here acting like this is an issue of reading comprehension.
You just wont let it go at that.

You're too hung up on the word "arbitrary" (which YOU introduced into this in the first place, not me). The question I'm asking is DOES IT MATTER for the story, not whether or not Tolkien just rolled the dice or had something in mind. There's a whole catalog of cosmetic details authors choose for NON-arbitrary reasons but that nevertheless have NO SUBSTANTIAL NARRATIVE ROLE of any kind - things like for example hair color, height, eye color, the color of clothing, and so on and so forth. All cosmetic details that were chosen to be JUST SO by authors, yet in the grand scheme of the narrative are usually of no to negligible importance narrative (and, as always, in cases where they're NOT negligible, they should be retained). My point is that for most stories, skin color is on exactly that level of relevance - a cosmetic detail, not a plot driver.

You are the one that is hung up because you wont just agree to disagree. Rather than going on and on about your opinions.
It is simple enough for you to read about Tolkiens work for yourself and not rely on me and my views on it.
Again, the obvious fact here is that you don't care as much about being faithful to the source material as I do.
I am not changing my position no matter how much you keep droning on about your own made up rules.
So what is the point here? You are just going in circles.

That does NOT mean I'm saying it's "arbitrary", and it does NOT mean I'm saying "the author just did this because they're racist!". All I'm saying is that given the story at hand, there seems to be no substantial function to that particular characteristic, and as such, it's one of the many many details that can freely be changed without significantly affecting anything about the story.

If Tolkien wrote a whole bunch of works and left copious amounts of notes and letters relating to the world of Middle Earth, then obviously all of that detail was relevant to the fantasy world he was building. To sit here and act like this man didn't spend a large amount of his later years on this is what is annoying. You keep acting like this specific author just wrote one or two books and that was it. This is getting ridiculous at this point in your insistence on ignoring all the stuff the man actually wrote. Obviously all of it was important for the story, narrative, lore and mythology of Middle Earth or he wouldn't have written it. You just keep ignoring this acting like this is some abstract discussion about fantasy and fiction in general.

Just agree to disagree and stop with this inane need to explain yourself as if you are changing my mind on this.

That's EXACTLY what happens in adaptations for any number of details without substantial relevance to the narrative, and no one ever raises a problem about THOSE; yet they somehow DO for skin color.

Again, I disagree with you. You just keep repeating yourself because you refuse to agree to disagree.
Why do you feel the need to keep explaining yourself like I don't understand you? This is not about understanding.
There is only one narrative and that is the source material and there is a whole lot of work that was done by the man to lay it out.
Now if you haven't or don't want to read or at least get an idea of all the writing he has done in fleshing out that world, then fine.
But the point is, he did because all of that was relevant to the narrative of Middle Earth that he created from his imagination.
There is no "other" narrative than that which is going to be true to his intent. You are basically saying that "adaptations" can do whatever.
You just keep repeating yourself acting like I don't understand you because you just wont let go and agree to disagree.

The problem is right here.

You've never offered ANYTHING of substance to show why their skin color MATTERS to anything in the narrative.

All you've ever put forward was "Tolkien wrote them/intended them to be white" and "making them non-white would not be how it is in the original".

Which is the exact same argument you could make for any number of OTHER cosmetic details that also have no relevance to the actual narrative, and no one ever seriously complains about THOSE. Why is skin color different?

Going in circles again because you refuse to agree to disagree. You are so hard set on making your opinion seem right and wont let go.
Just constantly repeating yourself over and over again. All you are doing is justifying your position that substantial changes are justified.
And I keep saying that those changes therefore mean it is no longer Tolkien's work. You can keep going in circles all you want.
You aren't changing my opinion on this. Skin color is just one small part of all of this.

The reason I put Lie. on things is, as I explained, because it's you claiming something I never said.

Like what you're saying there.

I'll continue to do this, so please don't bother offering statements I never made; if you disagree, all you need to do to disprove me is quote something. Should be simple, right?

So are you actually trying to say that Tolkien did not intend that his work reflect the people and culture of ancient Britain and Europe?
And that everything he wrote including the languages he crafted, the letters, the substantial other materials aren't relevant to that?
That is my proof. Again, you are being dishonest because you already have said you don't care about being true to source material.
So therefore, it doesn't matter whether skin color is relevant because anybody can come along and change it and you would be OK with it.
This is the point you keep making but act like I don't understand. I understand you perfectly. This is not Tolkien is my point.
All of the various works he took many years to create say that those things were relevant to his story. You just refuse to accept that.
If you would just stop trying so hard to act like you are "right" and that I must agree with you things would be fine.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. I am not going to hate you. Just let it go for goodness sake. This is ridiculous.

I feel insulted that you're now asking me to please explain what I've BEEN EXPLAINING in clearly marked, clearly pointed out form, FOR THREE DAYS.

Kindly re-read the 20 or so times I literally explained this exact thing.

Now you are going to argue that saying whether skin color is "relevant" is different than saying that it is arbitrary.
I know you cannot be that silly to sit here and pretend to be arguing that "relevant" and "arbitrary" have different meanings in this context.
You introduced both of these terms as part of your explanation that changes to source material can be made and still be an "adaptation".
And you specifically stated that casting should be open to everybody. And you used the word "relevant" in justification for this.
The point I am making is that if Tolkien spent so many years writing additional details defining the people of middle earth, they must be relevant.
What you are arguing is that it is not up to Tolkien alone as to what is "relevant" or not or what the "narrative" is.
Therefore, someone else can come along and decide that what is "relevant" is totally different than what Tolkien wrote.
Again. I disagree with you. What is and is not relevant is what is in the source material written by the author.
That is my point. You keep pretending that what is and isn't relevant or important is up to someone other than Tolkien.
And you keep repeating yourself like I don't understand you. I understand you just fine.
You just refuse to let go and agree to disagree. Repeating yourself even more is not going to make me agree with you.

The FACT of whether or not something is described as X in the source is not open to interpretation.

Whether or not X is RELEVANT to the narrative in some substantive way, that absolutely is.

If the author took the time to define it and write it then it must be relevant. It came from their imagination.
So there is no other "authority" on what is relevant in someones imagination. You are just continuing to repeat yourself.
I do not agree with you that the decision on what is and isn't relevant is outside of the hands of the author.
That does not mean that someone doing an adaptation cannot change stuff, but that means they have a different imagination.
And therefore, depending on what they define as "relevant" the result may be substantially different from the source material.
This means it is no longer the same as what the author or creator intended or felt was relevant for their story.
You can keep trying to pretend that this isn't the point and I don't understand.
I do understand and again for the 20th time, I don't agree with you on what constitutes staying true to the source material.

And if your position is that skin color IS relevant to the narrative, all I'm asking is that you back up that claim with more than "well that skin color is what it says in the text", which is a tautology.

I am saying that if Tolkien took the time to write substantial amounts of information about the characteristics of populations of Middle Earth it is relevant and far beyond cosmetic. And that would include skin color. You just keep going in circles trying to argue against that simple point.

No it isn't.

YOU are trying to MAKE it about that, because your entire argument is "well it's not like that in the text!" and you have nothing else to support your position.

As I've explained many times, truth to the source material by itself is not an argument, just a red herring - because of the existence of a huge amount of details that are quite clearly irrelevant to the plot and are changed ALL THE TIME in any kind of adaptation without anyone complaining. That PROVES that JUST going "but the teeeeext!" isn't sufficient to argue anything; you need to show why a detail is RELEVANT, too, in order to make any sort of point.

Yes it is. Because why are you spending so much time explaining to me about what is "relevant" or what is "arbitrary" when doing an adaptation?
You cannot seriously be claiming that this is not about source material where you are spending so much time trying to explain to me how adapting a work of fiction is about what is "relevant" to the "narrative" or "arbitrary". It is about what I view as being "true" to the source material versus what you accept as being true to the source material. I don't agree with you on what constitutes staying true to source material. I don't even know what you think you are debating me about.

Your position is that source material is a red herring because AS YOU KEEP STATING what is relevant or arbitrary in the source material is up to interpretation by those doing the adaptation. You keep saying this but acting like I don't understand you. I don't agree that this is a red herring. That is another example of you using words to try and pretend that the source material isn't relevant to doing an adaptation when it absolutely is. Because these changes being made are done consciously by those doing the adaptation and therefore they know what they are changing and why. Because they have decided, separate from the original author, what is "relevant" or "arbitrary" from the source material (in this case Tolkien) and therefore must be followed or not, whether that be skin color or anything else. Again, this all boils down to you have a different idea of what constitutes a faithful adaptation from mine and refuse to accept that and move on. You swear you are changing my mind by repeating yourself when you are not. Stop repeating yourself. I am not changing my mind on this.

So that's a "yes" then, on being incapable of parsing analogies?

The analogy is irrelevant to the discussion of a story about white people casting non white actors.
You are just going on and on about nothing.

To address the problem of "omg how is there ONE SINGLE BLACK PERSON all of a sudden I AM SO CONFUSED!" that you invented as a rather hyperbolic hypothetical. Which, as I've explained in that same paragraph, isn't actually something that'd ever happen, but even IF IT DID, it has the simple fix above.

The point being that yours is not a sensible objection to begin with.

Nobody said anything about being confused. What I said was Tolkien spent a lot of time and effort creating the family tree of the Numernorean kings.
I guess according to you, that this isn't relevant to Miriel who we only know about because of that family tree written by Tolkien.
Somehow you don't understand how people in the same family tree would share traits like skin color, meaning there wouldn't be just one person popping up with a certain skin color if everyone else in the family has a different skin color. That doesn't make any biological sense.
But according to you this kind of genealogy and biology doesn't matter even if Tolkien spent a lot of time and effort creating it.

Right.

HOLD ON.

I was talking about the LABEL "adaptation". Now you are suddenly talking about what makes a GOOD adaptation.


Those are not the same thing, poppet. Not even close.

Please argue HONESTLY.

You like talking in circles..... did you not say this a few pages ago?

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.

You just love making up new words to focus on in order to play dumb. LOL!

You yourself used the word "good" in reference why I should demand that they stick to the source material.
The argument this whole time was that changes to the source material don't mean that it isn't an adaptation.
And that it can still be considered an adaptation with "good" writing and "good" casting.
Now you object to the word "good". You love just dragging this out instead of just agreeing to disagree.
You can't be silly enough to think this is about the word "good". You are so dam dishonest it is pathetic.

Because I'm not disputing that point. Never have. I'm not arguing about the facts, I'm arguing about their RELEVANCE.

If I introduced that example specifically to point out that stories exist with all white people from Europe and would be casted as such. Now you sit here and claim that wasn't the point. You know that was the point and you actually tried to argue that somehow by these being adaptations, they were changing the characters from non white Europeans into white Europeans. All of those other stories also included white Europeans. I proved you wrong now you try and change goal posts. Pathetic. Or I guess you will say I am misunderstanding you or that that wasn't your point. Or you will say that an "adaptation" of Romeo and Juliet doesn't have to have white people.

Right.

Lets just agree to disagree and stop with this nonsense.

Which you'd know if you were interested in parsing my statements, rather than just making your own. "LOL".


You keep making about things I'm not and never was talking about. I've literally said so, many times.

Why? Why do you keep going back to things I've already SAID MANY TIMES I don't dispute and am not arguing against?

"But this hat is BLUE!"

"Yes, yes it is. Does that matter, though?"

"Dude, stop saying the hat isn't blue, IT IS FUCKING BLUE!"

"I... I know. I've said it is. But why is that relevant?"

"LMAO I can't even, you clown, THE HAT IS BLUE, it SAYS SO RIGHT THERE are you for real."

"I don't deny that. But is the color actually important?"

"Holy shit how are you still trying to say the hat isn't blue IT IS BLUE, BLUE, BLUE it says in the text EVERYWHERE that it is fucking BLUE!"

This is kind of surreal at this point.

So I guess this babbling means you cant win that point so you just will go onto something else.
Now it is about the word "blue". Yeah that's it. I don't understand what you mean by blue elves.

Right again.

LOL.

[Triceron]

It's still Van Gogh "The Starry Night." The Legos didn't change a thing.

What do you mean they didn't change a thing?

It's not a painting. It's a set built with Lego's. It's limited by the color palette available to Lego bricks. It contains zero brush strokes. It is quite different from the original.

And that is my point. Differences and changes that represent something original do not have to beholden to being anything like the original. This Lego creation does not have to be a painting made of brush strokes. It is a Lego creation that is an adaptation of a famous painting; a derivative works that is itself an original creation. And people can appreciate (or criticize) it for what it is.

A remake can be, and should be, gauged on its own merit, and not merely of the standard of being 'true to the original'. A Lego set that is represents Starry Night does not have to strive to being 'true to Van Gogh's vision' in order to be appreciated as a work of art or entertainment. It can be appreciated merely for the sake of being a Lego set.

[Krawu]

Imagine being this angry there are black people in a TV show.


Anyways: So far from the few trailers/screenshots we've had, this show looks like CGI hell, and not in a good way. Uff.

I apologize in advance for the incoming Wall of text but I feel I need to address this properly.

Hardly anyone has issues with black people being on TV in general. This is a bad faith misrepresentation of what people are actually angry about.

There's always the very valid question of WHY they're there. In a show like this with all the world building detail we have it really does feel like they're mere token characters.

You can't be mad at fans who want their adaptations to be true to the source material. Middle Earth is just a tiny part of Arda, the world Tolkiens Lengendarium is set in. Middle Earth corresponds to Europe, with the Shire being the equivalent of rural England and Gondor that of Spain or Italy. This makes sense because, as Tolkien said, he wanted it to be a mythology for England.

Given that it's a fantasy world without easy travel options and lots of danger it's reasonable to expect people to remain local unless they're traders or diplomats. Going further than the nearest market town would be an exceptional journey for anyone. People are distrustful of outsiders. That means the diversity, while laudable in our world, makes no sense here and represents an intrusion into the world building.

They could've gone the GoT Route to diversify the cast and story. Tolkien never did any in-depth exploration of the lands outside Middle Earth. If they'd wanted backlash-free diversity on their show they could've simply expanded on what's going on on other continents on Arda. They could've invented any peoples or races living there and spun them into the story as travelers, adventurers, traders, their own fellowship on a mission to do something in Middle Earth and nobody would've complained.

I use that same measuring stick for any TV show or movie with a fantasy or historical setting. The Last Airbender live action movie should've starred exclusively Asian actors since the entire premise of the cartoon was based on Chinese mythology and spiritual concepts - but it was white- and brownwashed instead.
Son Goku in Dragonball Evolution should've Asian since the Character is based on Sun Wukong. In Black Panther non-black Wakandans would make absolutely no sense given that it's a secretive and isolationist country. Imagine a historical movie about the Zulu tribe where they cast Bryan Cranston as Shaka Zulu. I'm sure he's the right caliber of actor for such a role but he IS white, so he's simply out of the race (no pun intended) by default, and rightfully so.

In contemporary and Sci-fi settings diversity is easy to accomodate. You don't even need to try. It doesn't need to be explained because we're already used to it in our world. But in the past it didn't exist for a myriad of geographical, societal and logistical reasons, so in history and fantasy settings you need to have a good explanation for it.

[Triceron]

I use that same measuring stick for any TV show or movie with a fantasy or historical setting. The Last Airbender live action movie should've starred exclusively Asian actors since the entire premise of the cartoon was based on Chinese mythology and spiritual concepts - but it was white- and brownwashed instead.

To be very honest, this is a hangup rather than any substantial means to 'measure' a show or movie with a fantasy or historic setting. White and Brown-washing had little to do with Avatar being a poor movie. It was hurt by its poor pacing, bad script and sub-par acting more than anything to do with visual appearances.

Just the same, I could point at any portrayal of Aladdin as being 'unfaithful' to its original story, but no one would care the actor is being 'brown-washed' with Middle Eastern actors even though the character is supposed to be Chinese. Like, no one has this hangup, mostly because they don't even know it's a thing. It's really not worth making a point of even, since no modern depiction of Aladdin is expected to have a Chinese actor as its main lead even if that's how it was in the original story (which most people don't even know of)

As long as the depiction is respectful, I don't see any problem in having a white actor in a role of Asian (Ancient One in Dr. Strange was absolutely fine), and it doesn't really make the movie any better or worse for it. Like, does the Ancient One really need to be an Asian actor just because they were Asian in the comics? I don't think so. Of course, everything is context sensitive. Black Panther, Shang Chi; these are very specific characters we're talking about where it wouldn't make sense to race swap, because they have very close ties to a particular culture which is important to their stories. But something like a White woman portraying the Ancient One or a Black man portraying Baron Mordo doesn't really make or break Dr. Strange, especially when the Mystic Arts are already meant to surpass any single culture.