Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Mace]

Except you're jumping the gun by assuming your hangups are the main reason they are failing, rather than defaulting to a more reasonable explanation that the overall production was just poorly justified or made overall.

Like, does the virtue signalling actually take priority in any of the examples brought up here? Did Airbender and GITS really fail because of virtue signalling? I don't think so at all. Neither did Dragonball Evolution fail because of having a white actor lead. There would have been just as many problems with the movie if they'd cast an Asian actor as the lead, let's get this completely out there.

These are all cases of bad shows being bad, bad movies being bad. There are plenty of series where diversity happens where it did not in the original, and the series were good because they were good. Battlestar Galactica comes to mind as an example. Even as far back as 10 years ago, people were criticizing making one of the leads a female, and people had major hangups over Starbuck's casting. Those issues don't even matter today in retrospect and no one gives credence to those former hangups.

Actually, I was saying they are failing because of bad scripts / plots and production, but part of the reason these things are bad is beacuse they are hiring for acitvism and focusing on political messaging - they care more about this than actually doing something etnertaining or sensible -s o it affects script/production/content - because focus is diverted that way.

But then we've always had far more bad movies/series than good.

[Adamas102]

Why is it not be appropriate? Compare to a black queen of Númenor.

Because Wakanda is defined by being a technologically advanced nation located in the African continent, making it a world power in a region that most people dismiss. Its peoples and cultures are designed as being directly related to the real world countries of that region. The connections to Africa and black people are key to Wakanda’s (and by extension, T’Challa’s) place in Marvel’s fictionalized version of Earth.

As for Numenorians, they’re a society that have no dynamics related to skin color. No history of colonial subjugation, slavery, or discrimination based on skin tone. A black Numenorian queen is no different than a white Numenorian queen.

At its core, skin color is little different than hair color, eye color, height, etc. The only reason it carries weight is the long history of racism based on it. It’s kind of insane that some people don’t recognize that history, or that those historical elements are present in some stories/characters and completely absent from others.

[Triceron]

Actually, I was saying they are failing because of bad scripts / plots and production, but part of the reason these things are bad is beacuse they are hiring for acitvism and focusing on political messaging - they care more about this than actually doing something etnertaining or sensible -s o it affects script/production/content - because focus is diverted that way.

But then we've always had far more bad movies/series than good.

I mean, like I said, the 'activism' has no real bearing on the quality or overall perception of whether a show is good or bad.

This same 'Activism' exists in every Marvel and Star Wars product, and each is viewed on their own merits. Mandalorian S2 final episode literally had an all-girl badass team do badass stuff while Mandalorian blundered his way through and came out on top through the sheer strength of attrition of his literal plot armor. And it wasn't any less egregious than say the all-girl action scene at the end of Avenger's End-game. We know this shit exists, we know the reasons they are in these shows, and it doesn't really get in the way of making-or-breaking the shows or movies they are a part of.

The only things that really matter is whether the overall product is good or bad; as you already acknowledge that we've had far more bad movies than good in this respect.

[Koriani]

You thought the post you replied to was "nasty"? Nasty?!

All I saw was a very simple question. And they're right, what is there to even be discussed on the presence of at least one black lady dwarf that hasn't already been discussed several times at this point?

Hell, I've now seen Amazon's apparent diversity policy listed as a negative, and then that negative corrected at least 3 times in the last few days. The thread is just a circle now. There doesn't seem to be anything new to really discuss.

At least we're close to release, so conversation might pick up with some actually meaningful discussion on what people can finally watch.

haha - I'm really curious to see whether the show launching provides another 130 pages of anything - be it real discussion or ongoing circle jerks.

Usually there's much less discussion of any sort after the launch of the show/movie -regardless of the possibly hundred pages of "passionate argument" prior to its release. Even the WoT thread didn't double in size after release.

The trend (at least here on MMOC) seems to be way more "discussion" on what might be/might happen/worst fears then anything about what actually goes on screen after release. At least in the threads where there's dozens and dozens of pages of arguments before release. (Doesn't really hold if the thread only had 4-8 pages before release.)

Just interesting.

Even those people who have their worst fears realized (by the show/movie) don't seem to be as passionate about it once they are 'proven right.' I'm hoping that means less hate watching going on, in any case. That's just silly.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

As for Numenorians, they’re a society that have no dynamics related to skin color. No history of colonial subjugation, slavery, or discrimination based on skin tone. A black Numenorian queen is no different than a white Numenorian queen.

... I recommend you read Tolkien, beside hubris, colonial subjugation and slavery exerted on Harad were all aspects of Numenors downfall.

[Rennadrel]

Because Wakanda is defined by being a technologically advanced nation located in the African continent, making it a world power in a region that most people dismiss. Its peoples and cultures are designed as being directly related to the real world countries of that region. The connections to Africa and black people are key to Wakanda’s (and by extension, T’Challa’s) place in Marvel’s fictionalized version of Earth.

As for Numenorians, they’re a society that have no dynamics related to skin color. No history of colonial subjugation, slavery, or discrimination based on skin tone. A black Numenorian queen is no different than a white Numenorian queen.

At its core, skin color is little different than hair color, eye color, height, etc. The only reason it carries weight is the long history of racism based on it. It’s kind of insane that some people don’t recognize that history, or that those historical elements are present in some stories/characters and completely absent from others.

Tell me you haven't read Tolkien without telling me you haven't read Tolkien.

The Numenorians subjugated Harad for so long that they wound up siding with Sauron during the War of the Ring.

[Adamas102]

... I recommend you read Tolkien, beside hubris, colonial subjugation and slavery exerted on Harad were all aspects of Numenors downfall.

“Based on skin tone” being the operative phrase. There are plenty of real world examples of such conquests and oppression with skin color not being a factor.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me you haven't read Tolkien without telling me you haven't read Tolkien.

The Numenorians subjugated Harad for so long that they wound up siding with Sauron during the War of the Ring.

See above.

The first Numenorians that arrived in Harad helped the natives by teaching them things like agriculture and craftsmanship while creating settlements with seemingly no sense of superiority, racial or otherwise (an idyllic version of colonialism, perhaps).

It wasn’t until the reigns of Tar-Ciryatan and Tar-Atanamir, who were proud and greedy men, that the oppression of the natives began. Their motivations seemed more in line with greed (pillaging the land of precious resources) and the first signs of the shadow that spread across Numenor. The enslavement and human sacrifices during the reign of Ar-Pharazon were certainly more a direct influence of Sauron by that time.

So no, the point still stands that the written word doesn’t specifically point to hatred based on skin color and therefor it need not be a part of the setting (or compared to settings where skin color is a factor).

[InfiniteCharger]

Because you asked.

No you just like repeating yourself because you just cant let someone disagree with you and move on.

*cough* And this, dear psychology students, is what we call "projection". Now let us move on to lesson 2, the eminent symptoms of severe narcissism...

So now you are psychologist and able to diagnose disorders over the net. Just like being a cinematographer, writer and script casting director.
Anything but just letting go and agreeing to disagree. Because yes, you want so hard to be seen as "right" when you are no authority on Tolkien or anything else. And neither am I. And rather than just admit that you keep going on and on and on with nonsense.

You've demonstrated sufficiently that in many cases it absolutely is, since I've had to explain things to you several times - up to a dozen plus times, in some cases. And this is just for you to UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about, not to AGREE with it. You kept on repeatedly misrepresenting or contradicting what I said, so it's either understanding that's the issue, or it's you DELIBERATELY refusing to engage honestly. You can take your pick. And all this is happening BEFORE we get to a point where we would agree or disagree.

OK. I am going to spell it out to you since you like acting stupid. There is nothing wrong with casting all white actors for a show in a setting where all the characters are white. This doesn't require "diverse" casting choices or diverse auditions. It is normal and natural that all or mostly white characters would exist in a story set in Europe. You can sit here and do this dance all dam day pretending that there is something else at play all you want because you just refuses to accept that it is OK for all white people to be in a movie or TV show.

Fine. Just let your head explode some more because that idea bothers you so much.

And that's not my goal, not really.

No. You actual goal is to see how much you can keep talking in order to avoid the obvious point that white people are white and they can be in movies.
I know this is something you can't understand it is outside the parameters of how you see things so whatever.

What I want is to hear you DEFEND your position with ARGUMENTS.

There is nothing to defend about white people being the dominant population in Europe now and historically.
Whether you like or accept changing stories and lore for whatever reason, doesn't mean that I have to have the same opinion.
Again. Just agree to disagree and stop pretending there is something extra I need to do because I am not trying to convince you of anything.
So you just contradicted yourself because I said you want so dam much to be right but you just came out and said "I need to defend myself" as if somehow I am wrong and you are right. And this is why you keep going on and on because you refuse to just let it go.

Because all you've done so far is throw out tautologies or unsubstantiated claims. Your entire "argument" has effectively become "but this isn't how it is in the text, stop trying to convince me it is", which is not only NOT what I ever argued but is also a circular argument in its entirety.

Like I said before there is no right or wrong here. This is you problem because you believe that you are "right" and keep insisting I need to prove otherwise. There is only one person right about the world of Tolkien. That is Tolkien. Period. I don't care if you like what Amazon does with this show. That doesn't mean I have to like it. This is the fundamental disagreement. There is no right or wrong in this you and I have different opinions and thats that.

Just let it go dude.

I've asked you before to just give us REASONS instead of hollow truisms, and so far you haven't.

I don't have to give you reasons for my opinions on Tolkien. Why don't you just let it go and stop trying to be right?
Obviously you have serious problems with that simple concept. There is no right or wrong here about whether someone is OK with a specific piece of entertainment. You keep trying to confuse your opinions about this show and how it treats the source material with the actual FACTS of Tolkiens work which is not an opinion. Those are two different things and it is very easy to see that this show is going to be very different than that source material and they have admitted it numerous times. So again, just agree to disagree and stop dragging this on like you are "right" about anything when you are only expressing an opinion.

That's not usually something I find fruitful. It's a cop-out to end a conversation, not a valid result from an argument. It's usually brought up by people attempting to elevate a position they can't defend to a position that doesn't NEED TO BE defended because it's just "a matter of opinion". Which is bullshit.

So basically like I keep saying You wont let it go because you obviously feel the need to be right. You aren't going to be right about what my opinion is on this TV show. You can only express your opinions on it. You are not Amazon and you are not Tolkien and neither am I. Everything you are debating about is opinion basically, outside the basic historical facts of white people being in Europe, Tolkien being the author of the lore and details of Middle Earth and so forth. But everything else is just you spouting your opinion about how you feel about adaptations which is not a right or wrong issue. You are perfectly entitled to that. So just let it go.

The only time this is valid is when it's not actually an argument. You can say "I like chocolate" and someone else can say "I hate chocolate", but that's not an argument; that's just a juxtaposition of preferences.

So you are trying to be right then. Since you keep posting replies to this when I keep telling you to just let it go, you refuse because you want so dam much to be right. LOL.

If YOUR position is "I just don't like black people in fantasy", then there's not much to discuss. You're free to hold that preference, and I may find it abhorrent but I can't really refute it because it's not an argument, it's just a preference. If instead, however, you want to argue "I think black people shouldn't be in fantasy/in Tolkien/in whatever" then that is something you need to BACK ARGUMENTATIVELY. It's not just a preference, and so wanting to just hold that position unchallenged and unquestioned is not a valid claim; or it needs to be turned into a preference, in which case we're back to the first one.

I never said that. And when you quote where I did say that I will agree with you.
Otherwise, in reality the simple fact that hurts your dam brain so much is there is nothing wrong with all or mostly white people in a fantasy or fictional world set in Europe (or Middle Earth). You can keep trying to twist this all you want but that is the point. Diversity is not "required" in everything. If people want to add it to Tolkien then that is fine, but at the same time, they must also accept that some of those things are not what Tolkien intended, along with other changes being made for this show.

These are not opinions in the sense of preference; they're not just position I hold because I like them, they're positions I hold because I have good reason to do so, and I've GIVEN those reasons.

Its your opinion. I don't disagree with you having an opinion. I just don't have the same opinion. So you are not "right" in trying to convince me that my opinions are wrong. My opinions are my own it isn't a right or wrong issue. This again is you trying so desperately to be right that you won't just let it go. You can inject all the new terms you want into this discussion. Position and preferences are still opinions. So just let it go and agree to disagree.

If you want to refute them, give BETTER REASONS, not just tautologies and personal preferences.

I am not trying to refute your opinions. I am telling you to let it go because you aren't going to change my opinions on this and obviously I am not going to change yours. Just agree to disagree and move on. It is a simple concept. But you just want to be "right".

Your opinion does not trump my argument. You want to attack an argument, bring another argument. Going "well but I just have a different opinion!" disqualifies you from that kind of discourse, and relegates you to an entirely different discourse.

Your argument is only your opinion. There is no other argument to be had. Again, you are still trying to be right.
Tolkien is the only one who is "right" about the world of Middle Earth. Anybody else with whatever ideas about that are not Tolkien.
Those are simple facts. You just keep trying so dam hard to turn your opinions on this topic into the facts of what is Tolkien when they are not.
You can disagree with me on interpreting different aspects of Tolkien all you want but those are still going to be subjective opinions.
This is why you just refuse to agree to disagree as you so desperately want to pretend to be right somehow.

If all you want to say is "this is what I think, don't care what you think I'm just letting people know my opinion and I'm not interested in what they think about it" then cool, we can live with that. Air your grievances, garner your attention, and then quietly go away.

I didn't say that. Again, you persist in arguing just to argue. I said that you have the right to your opinion. And me to mine so agree to disagree.
But no. That doesn't work for you. You need desperately to be right. You just wont let good enough alone.

REALLY, YOU THINK SO?

So now, rather than agreeing to disagree you are going to sit here and say all these multiple rounds of back and forth are not about this show and whether or not it is a faithful adaptation and that you don't have your opinions on it like I don't have mine? Come on dude. You are losing your mind. Going round and round in circles with strawman after strawman in order to avoid just letting it go.

You sure you want to disagree with that statement in particular? Because it's trivial to prove true. I'm not here to tell you what to argue, but you definitely picked something there on the level of "rain is wet".

I want to just stop replying trying to defend yourself with this asinine deluge of strawmen.
Just let it go and agree to disagree. This isn't about water being wet, it is about the specifics of Tolkiens story and how they are being adapted to the screen. The facts of Tolkiens writing speak for themselves. Your opinions on this show are completely separate from that, just as mine.

Because your replies demonstrate that you either don't understand, or do understand but are deliberately ignoring it and trying to make contrarian points anyway.

They demonstrate that you clearly believe that you are "right" and wont just let go in this asinine quest to tell me what to think about a TV show based on Tolkiens work. Just let it go. You aren't "winning" anything. White people are indigenous to Europe, there is nothing wrong with writing a story about mostly or all white characters set in a European setting and casting accordingly. And if someone decides to introduce diverse characters, then fine. But that does not mean it is what Tolkien intended. Again, Amazon themselves have said they are making substantial changes to Tolkien and that they don't have all the rights to Tolkien. That is a fact and not an opinion. Just like Amazon no longer calls this show an adaptation as opposed to something "inspired" by Tolkien. You can have an opinion all day on whether you like it or not and I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with you refusing to accept that large portions of Tolkien's work were intended to be modeled on white European mythology and history. That is not subject to debate, because the man himself stated it.

I go with the former because the latter is not a pleasant situation for anyone.

No, because you think you are "right" and wont just admit you are only defending your own opinion vs my opinion about this show as it relates to what Tolkien intended and that includes everything from skin color, to costumes to hair and timeline compression.

See, saying something like this, for example, shows you didn't understand what I've said. And mind you, this is not about whether or not you AGREE with what I said; you are making an insane, disconnected point logically removed from any semblance of engagement with my actual argument. Agree or disagree, you aren't even working with what I actually SAID.

Here we go again with the "you don't understand me" straw man, because you swear that this is not just your opinion and you want so dam much to be "right".

Come on dude just let it go.

No. And you asking that question is ANOTHER demonstration of how completely you do not understand my point. Not that you DISAGREE with it, but that you don't UNDERSTAND it.

It demonstrates you refuse to accept facts in order to promote straw man arguments and wont accept that outside of what Tolkien wrote everything else is an opinion. You can have an opinion about how a certain character looked or certain groups, but those are still opinions. But the fact is that the author was ultimately the one who defined these characters, including how they looked. There is no other authority over the works of Tolkien other than Tolkien himself and the Tolkien estate. Anything else will either be an adaptation subject to whatever agreements and consent is given by the estate or an interpretation also agreed upon or consented by the estate. And yes there are some within the estate that have differing views on what an adaptation should look like. That just shows that everyone has their own views on this, including members of Tolkiens family. But at the end of the day, the final answer really can only go back to the author as he is the one who created it.

You and I are not part of any of that and are just debating opinions on this show in terms of how it relates to the source material itself.

Yes. That's how language works.

And since you understand that you understand this disagreement isn't going to end. So just let it go.

You may not agree with it, but words mean different things, and "relevant" and "arbitrary" are not antonyms. That's just how English functions.

Strawman. This isn't about the English language. It is about the fact that every individual looking at a story can have a different definition of what is relevant or arbitrary in any work. And that therefore this can be very different from that of the original author who wrote the work. Your argument that somehow what is relevant and arbitrary is universally agreed upon is the problem, because obviously it is not. Obviously the original author as the one who created the work defined what was relevant and arbitrary in terms of the work itself. A studio doing an adaptation is not able to redefine what is or is not relevant or arbitrary in the original work. They can only do so in whatever adaptation they are working on, which is obviously separate from the source material and does not supersede it. You just refuse to admit that and just let it go and agree to disagree because again, you want to be "right".

I'm sure you just want to "agree to disagree", in which case I can only say "potato fridge treble absorb refresh", which disproves your entire point and invalidates your argument; and if you don't think it does, then let's just agree to disagree.

LOL.

And I say this fully cognizant of the fact that you are incapable of parsing analogies.

Yeah because agreeing to disagree is something you can't do because of analogies.
Your absurd strawmen just show you just wont quit and let it go. And you swear this makes you "right".

And I'd love to see an argument for this that isn't circular.

And I would love to see you just let it go and stop making up straw men in order to not let go and still seem to be "right".
Making more strawmen doesn't make you right.

Your entire position is "it's important because they wrote it; after all, they wrote it because it's important".

Lets see, Amazon spent a 250 million dollars to acquire the rights to some of what Tolkien wrote. It must be important enough for them to spend money on it. Meaning the literal words he wrote in his books must be important. But of course you are so daft that you pretend to be clever in denying that. Whether they want to stick to those words or not doesn't change the fact that those words define the characters, story and environments of Middle Earth. And the fact that Amazon had to pay for the rights to do a live action version of it means that those words are important by copyright law. Whatever Amazon does based on the terms of the rights they purchased does not constitute a change to the rights of the author relative to the original work as words representing ideas and concepts protected by law. So they are by definition important. You can keep making up all the nonsense you want. But those "words" that Tolkien wrote are considered important by law.

As such, whatever Rings of Power does is still considered a separate work from the original no matter how accurate it is to the source material. Because the work is still the IP of Amazon, even if it is based on something else, because that IP covers the decisions on plot and characters made by Amazon and what is relevant to what they are doing with their work.

Again, what Amazon decides is relevant is legally and logically not the same as what Tolkien thought as relevant. They are two fundamentally different and separate things. You just refuse to accept that.

Do you have anything other than tautologies to offer?

Other than facts you seem to refuse to accept?

I'm sure the irony about circularity must be apparent even to you.


I'm not using the word "arbitrary", YOU are. And you keep using it, and inserting it in ways that suggest I use it; I DO NOT. And, once again: "relevant" and "arbitrary" are not antonyms.

I am going to quote you again below since you keep trying to run away from the point I am making:

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.


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.

The issue you have a problem with is that what Tolkien wrote is the NARRATIVE he wanted. There is no other person that legally can change that narrative from the work as it exists and has been published. It is fixed in time and space. Anything someone else does based on that work is legally a separate entity and not the same because they have invested time, effort and intellectual activity to define and create something that has to be legally distinguished from the original work which represents the the time, effort and intellectual activity of the original author. The two things are not the same. What Tolkien considered relevant is defined in his work and protected by copyright. Anything else as an authorized reproduction of that work is legally a separate entity with the rights and power to decide on the final form of that work given to another group of people other than the author of the original work.

What I am saying is the original author is the only one that legally defines what is relevant and important in the original work as it exists and is published as a fixed entity protected by copyright law. Nobody can change that original work other than the original author or their authorized representatives. Anything else is a legally separate work. Meaning the "rights" for a reproduction of someones original work as a movie or television show are basically covering a studios authority to make decisions on the final product they produce which includes what characters are in it, who they cast, what is in the story, lines spoken, costumes, etc. Those decisions are from a legal perspective covered under those rights for this reproduction and considered as being separate from the original work. They are not the same thing. This is irrelevant to how close they are to the source material in any specific way.

You keep arguing that Tolkien's views on what is relevant in his original work is equivalent to what Amazon or Peter Jackson, or anybody else, with the rights to make a story set in Tolkien's world, think is relevant, arbitrary, important, matters, are narrative or are significant or insignificant in any other way when logically and legally they are not.

Stop trying to twist my argument into something it isn't.

I just quoted you above. Just agree to disagree and stop pretending to be "right".

Then argue against it.

There is nothing to argue against. Your opinion is your own and I disagree with it. You can call it what you want. But your opinion is just that and I don't need to convince you otherwise. So let it go.

Just going "nuh-uh!" is not a refutation of an argument. You haven't brought any argument against my case that wasn't tautological.

And repeating yourself isn't changing the point that I disagree and no amount of strawman arguments is going to change that.
So just let it go.

If your position is simply "I disagree and I don't need to explain myself" then just fuck off, because you're not interested in discussion you just want people to recognize your existence. Hereby recognized. Now scurry away.

Thats not what I said. What I said is no matter how you try to explain yourself to me or how many times I explain myself to you, we are not going to agree.

You just want to be right and wont accept that your opinions are not something I will agree with and just leave it at that.

Yeeeees. That was the case discussed here. And my answer is "Cool, in that case don't just change one, change a whole bunch. Then this problem goes away."

Fine, but it doesn't make sense to have one black women surrounded by all white people. If they want to show diversity then show diversity. Where are the "diverse" attendants? Where are the "diverse" guards and soldiers". Where is the "diversity" in the rest of the royal family line? That would make more sense than just one black woman in a sea of white faces from what we have been shown so far. And the point here is that, if they need to do all of that to justify just that one change, then they are going even further against the source material because if this "diversity" was already there, then such things wouldn't be necessary to begin with. Which obviously means that diversity wasn't already there in the first place.

We've come full circle. Again. Seems to be a theme with you. See this is what I mean by lack of understanding, you are going through a whole dance just to arrive where we started.

No. You have come full circle because you won't let go and like chasing your own tail. You didn't even know that Tolkien wrote the whole family lineage of the Numenoreans as part of defining the story of the 2nd age. That obviously is important to this particular character. But rather than admit that you just keep going on and on and just wont agree to disagree. I admire the fact that he took the time to do this and feel that Amazon isn't doing their story any justice in paying attention to that level of detail in taking on this work. Again, my opinion, you don't have to agree, but there is no disagreement on the fact that Tolkien did create the history of the 2nd age and the downfall of Numenor. And if they are not following that or making substantial changes to it, then they really aren't adapting Tolkien. And given that they don't have the rights to all of his works, technically they can't. So basically as Amazon themselves have admitted this is not necessarily "what Tolkien wanted" it is what Amazon wanted to do using some of Tolkiens work and isn't really the same thing at all... They have acknowledged this and there is no debate on this. And whether you are OK on this is up to you, but that doesn't change whether I am OK with it or not.

Another example of you not understanding something on a very fundamental level.

Again, you refuse to just agree to disagree and have to continue on with another inane strawman argument.

No one is "objecting to the word 'good'". The problem is the CATEGORY ERROR you are committing.


I was talking about the LABEL "adaptation". You suddenly turned this into a discussion about the QUALITY of an adaptation.

Those are separate discussions. I know you hate analogies, but here's one to make things clearer:

Me: "I don't care if you call it 'car' or 'vehicle' or whatever, I'm just talking about things with wheels that move people around and what you call them doesn't really matter to me."

You: "I don't get how you can say leather seats don't make for a better car, they clearly do!"

THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS - one is about "what is a car?" and one is about "what is a GOOD car?". YOU CAN'T JUST PRETEND THESE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING, EVEN IF SEPARATELY EACH HAS MERIT AS A DISCUSSION.

The error is you pretending to be the one who defines what qualifies as an adaptation when that is a legal issue far beyond your personal opinion.
You just want to be right so bad and wont just let it go and continue on with your inane bantering about nothing.
I can actually quote you where you said it is fine to make substantial changes to the source material as long as it has "good" writing.
You literally said that and now want to sit here and argue that you didn't.
Just let it go and agree to disagree. Its fine.

And just to show how full of s---t you are I am going to quote you again:

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.

Again this is the point you keep avoiding that I keep repeating. I disagree with you fundamentally on this because it is all based on your opinion and you refuse to accept it.

You are right, whether it is a faithful to Tolkien or not is separate from whether it is good or not.
The fact is, as Amazon themselves have stated, they have made substantial deviations from Tolkien. That is not up for debate.

However, you also said that you were OK with substantial changes being made and still being called an "adaptation". This is the part that is the opinion which I disagree with. That is the part I will never agree on and the part you just wont let go of. What you feel qualifies as an adaptation is your subjective opinion and that is fine, but I do not agree with it. So like I said, just let it go. No need to keep going in circles. There are legal rules that define what is and isn't an adaptation. And Amazon is no longer calling this story in their interviews a literal adaptation. So whatever you personally define as an adaptation is irrelevant as that has nothing to do with how the process actually works in legal terms. But on a personal level, my definition of what constitutes an adaptation differs from yours regardless there is no right or wrong here. There is no misunderstanding about this. You just refuse to admit I disagree with you.

But beyond that, there is the issue of what is a "good" adaptation, because again, you have your own personal opinion of what constitutes "good". And also I have mine. So there is not necessarily going to be an agreement on that. But even beyond that, the idea that "good" writing justifies a substantial deviation from the source material is another point I disagree on. If it is a substantial deviation from the source material in my view it is not an adaptation, I don't care how "good" the writing is. Again, this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree.

We gucci on that now?

I am not gucci and I don't agree with you.

Let's just go back to Lie.

Saves time.

I just quoted you on it. Again just agree to disagree.

No need to keep up these antics.

[Biomega]

So now you are psychologist

I have to say, it's been a while since someone has been so consistently entertaining. This analogy-blindness of yours is fascinating.

There is nothing to defend about white people being the dominant population in Europe now and historically.

Which was never in question by me or anyone, but I'm sure you know that. No one has ever disputed this, and the only reason YOU keep bringing it up is because you have no other arguments and so you're trying to make an argument out of something no one disagrees with or brought up or thinks is actually relevant to the point at hand.

You, sir, are a dishonest interlocutor unwilling (or unable) to engage with the ACTUAL points people are making.

I don't have to give you reasons for my opinions on Tolkien. Why don't you just let it go and stop trying to be right?
Obviously you have serious problems with that simple concept.

It's like it goes in one ear and out the other.

You keep trying to confuse your opinions about this show and how it treats the source material with the actual FACTS of Tolkiens work which is not an opinion.

I'll pick this one to save time, but the same reply goes for a lot of your other ramblings: no one, not me not others, is in any way disputing the "FACTS" of Tolkien's work. No one is saying characters who are white in the text aren't white in the text. No one is saying Tolkien didn't write as a European and from a European context. No one is saying that if Tolkien wrote A it is in fact Not-A.

THIS. IS. NOT. WHAT. WE. ARE. SAYING. AND. NEVER. WAS.

So stop bringing it up like your personal safety blanket.

Your argument is only your opinion.

You're objectively wrong there (again). Argument and Opinion are not the same thing. I even went and explained it earlier. But as usual, it just went completely ignored because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Strawman. This isn't about the English language. It is about the fact that every individual looking at a story can have a different definition of what is relevant or arbitrary in any work.

But not on what the WORDS "relevant" or "arbitrary" MEAN.

This isn't about what is or isn't relevant or arbitrary, it's about you USING THOSE WORDS INCORRECTLY.

That is not a matter of opinion, dum-dum. Words have definitions and usages. Consult a dictionary if you like.

Other than facts you seem to refuse to accept?

Like what? The fifty times you said I don't accept facts only for me to immediately point out I do and never didn't?

Care to provide evidence, or is this just another bold-faced lie?

There is nothing to argue against. Your opinion is your own and I disagree with it. You can call it what you want. But your opinion is just that and I don't need to convince you otherwise. So let it go.

And when I proffer an opinion, that's exactly what you should do.

When I proffer an ARGUMENT, refute it with a better argument, accept it, or shut up and move on.

The fact that you're not versed enough in the epistemological bases of discourse doesn't give you license to misuse terms and pretend you're engaged in an actual, honest debate. I'll call out anyone who's full of shit in a discussion, doesn't really matter what the discussion is about.

Fine, but it doesn't make sense to have one black women surrounded by all white people. If they want to show diversity then show diversity. Where are the "diverse" attendants?

You've seen the show, then?

Where and how? You seem very confident there is only "one black woman surrounded by all white people".

Could it be... you're just full of doo-doo and making a racist rant? COULD IT BE?!

However, you also said that you were OK with substantial changes being made and still being called an "adaptation".

Lie.

I've said repeatedly and in no uncertain terms I don't give a shit what you call it, whether "adaptation" or something else. You are STILL pretending I do, after I've explained TWICE that I do not.

Stop lying to my face.

It's pretty clear at this point you are not actually interested in a discussion. You're interested in promoting a purist, essentialist, hardliner stance about what YOU consider acceptable in terms of skin color in casting choices, and anyone who disagrees is either ignored or done away with "but that's just, like, your opinion, man".

You know what? You're free to have your opinion. It's a racist, bigoted, narrow-minded, and thoroughly undereducated and unintelligent opinion, but it's yours. And I'm not taking it away. Hold it close to your heart, precious one.

[s_bushido]

Forced diversity quotas being more important than entertainment value...

We can make entertainment and cast/hire black people? Amazing!

[Adamas102]

We can make entertainment and cast/hire black people? Amazing!

But…my immersion…

[Specialka]

We can make entertainment and cast/hire black people? Amazing!

Which is not the issue here.

[Askyl]

Which is not the issue here.

Correct! The issue is that VERY VERY FEW VOCAL (caps so you understand how few you are) people think a browner skin color makes the story, acting, immersion and everything around it null and invalid. Which speaks for it self.

[Specialka]

Correct! The issue is that VERY VERY FEW VOCAL (caps so you understand how few you are) people think a browner skin color makes the story, acting, immersion and everything around it null and invalid. Which speaks for it self.

Yes, it does when they are forced inserted in a population which have no reason whatsoever to have PoC. And I bet they won't even make the effort to explain why we have PoC in a white population. Btw, where are the asian or the latino ? I thought they wanted to make that serie looks like New York City ? (Which is also the issue in fact as it is not as Tolkien wrote it).

[Veggie50]

Yes, it does when they are forced inserted in a population which have no reason whatsoever to have PoC. And I bet they won't even make the effort to explain why we have PoC in a white population. Btw, where are the asian or the latino ? I thought they wanted to make that serie looks like New York City ? (Which is also the issue in fact as it is not as Tolkien wrote it).

Why would they need to adress poc characters?

When you see a black guy on the streets, do you walk up to them and ask them why they’re here?

[s_bushido]

Yes, it does when they are forced inserted in a population which have no reason whatsoever to have PoC. And I bet they won't even make the effort to explain why we have PoC in a white population.

And the racists wonder why I call them racist.

Elf =/= white. Dwarf =/= white. Numenorean =/= white. Fucking deal with it.

Btw, where are the asian or the latino ? I thought they wanted to make that serie looks like New York City ? (Which is also the issue in fact as it is not as Tolkien wrote it).

Ismael Enrique Cruz Cordova. That's the name of the black guy playing the elf. Congratulations. You played yourself.

[Specialka]

Why would they need to adress poc characters?

When you see a black guy on the streets, do you walk up to them and ask them why they’re here?

Because we are in the Middle Earth and people do not travel as we do in our world ?

- - - Updated - - -

And the racists wonder why I call them racist.

Elf =/= white. Dwarf =/= white. Numenorean =/= white. Fucking deal with it.



Ismael Enrique Cruz Cordova. That's the name of the black guy playing the elf. Congratulations. You played yourself.

Again, slandering. Do you know to not do that ? Or do you lack the cognitive capacity to not do that ?

So he is playing a black elf while being latino ? So that's acceptable ? Talk about double standards.

The setting is based around white population. Sorry to break it to you. You want PoC everywhere ? Make your own setting or make an effort to use one of the PoC population of the Middle Earth.

[Zalraki]

And the racists wonder why I call them racist.

Elf =/= white. Dwarf =/= white. Numenorean =/= white. Fucking deal with it.



Ismael Enrique Cruz Cordova. That's the name of the black guy playing the elf. Congratulations. You played yourself.

Congratulations! You obviously followed this instructional video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHSVjmO4iJY

[Veggie50]

Because we are in the Middle Earth and people do not travel as we do in our world ?

- - - Updated - - -



Again, slandering. Do you know to not do that ? Or do you lack the cognitive capacity to not do that ?

So he is playing a black elf while being latino ? So that's acceptable ? Talk about double standards.

The setting is based around white population. Sorry to break it to you. You want PoC everywhere ? Make your own setting or make an effort to use one of the PoC population of the Middle Earth.

You are certainly very focussed on race...

What makes you think people in middle earth don't travel? The most major books published by Tolkien (Hobbit and LotR) are about travelling. Just because Tolkien didn't describe the story of a Harad family fleeing the dark lords influence in Harad and settling in Gondor doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Remember it's a fictional world, as much as you may want it to be real. Anything you can accept, is alright. The fact it's easier for you to accept dragons than black elves is telling.

[Specialka]

You are certainly very focussed on race...

What makes you think people in middle earth don't travel? The most major books published by Tolkien (Hobbit and LotR) are about travelling. Just because Tolkien didn't describe the story of a Harad family fleeing the dark lords influence in Harad and settling in Gondor doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Remember it's a fictional world, as much as you may want it to be real. Anything you can accept, is alright. The fact it's easier for you to accept dragons than black elves is telling.

Telling nothing but in your sick head.

They do not travel as much as we do in the modern world. In the middle age, people rarely moved around their town.

And I perfectly accept a black elf if you give me a good reason why there is a black elf (or more) in a population of white elf. Same goes for the black princess of a white people. Good luck with that.

Infracted for flaming.