1. #2461
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

    Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.
    It's pretty telling that you people always have to jump to outlandish garbage in order to defend your "black people shouldn't be in the show" stance.

  2. #2462
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    Is this really all you do in threads?
    This thread isn't really worth much more than those few words, thanks to people like you, I'm afraid. Sorry.

    You could have ignored it? /shrug

  3. #2463
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

    Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.
    Awesome, now go get a billion dollars to put your idea on screens.

  4. #2464
    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    I'm personally not even sure why a black James Bond would be so bad anyway.
    There is literally nothing bad about just having a black English dude be James Bond. People have wanted Idris Elba in the role for years. It's only an issue for certain people.

  5. #2465
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    Stop trying to misdirect with bullshit and answer the questions that were asked.

    Or from now on, dwarves are officially purple and green plaid-skinned. He didn't say they were and, lol, magic! So there you go. Definitive.
    I did. The answer was "just because he wrote it doesn't mean it matters when adapting the literature to drama".

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

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

  6. #2466
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    I did.
    No, you didn't.

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

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

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    This thread isn't really worth much more than those few words, thanks to people like you, I'm afraid. Sorry.
    Yeah, saying "why's it so hard to understand that people are scratching their head at this when you're the same people who get up in arms at a white guy playing Ghengis Khan or Ramses II?" It's exactly the same thing. It's not a racist question, even if there are some painfully obnoxious racists in this thread.

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

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

    You could have ignored it? /shrug
    You could have not trolled. Yet there you are. Repeatedly and ad nauseum.

  7. #2467
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    There is literally nothing bad about just having a black English dude be James Bond. People have wanted Idris Elba in the role for years. It's only an issue for certain people.
    I'd even be down for a black Welshman if they can find a suitable candidate somewhere. Two first times for the price of one.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  8. #2468
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    You could have not trolled. Yet there you are. Repeatedly and ad nauseum.
    Where was I trolling? Have you seen the state of this thread since it was pretty much started? It was less troll and more a general statement of curiosity. Like, given the current state, just how much worse will it get considering some of the posters we have here that are adamant it cannot possibly be anything but a slap in the face to a dead guy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jastall View Post
    I'd even be down for a black Welshman if they can find a suitable candidate somewhere. Two first times for the price of one.
    Is it bad that I now want a Welsh Bond with a thick Welsh accent?

  9. #2469
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And if they'd stayed true to the original material 100%, they'd have done it for the love of the books and NOT because they thought it would increase their profit margin and they only care about money. RIGHT?

    Yes, big AAA entertainment corporations are in it for the moolah. That is a shocker to all of us.

    You know what you might ask yourself? If they're doing diverse castings "only for the money"... what is it, exactly, that makes that work? Could it be there's people who reward such choices with a purchase, indicating that it is, perhaps, not such a bad idea and something many people actually appreciate?

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

    You know right there that is some pure bull crap.

    I have no problem with diversity. But altering and twisting someone else's work to include it, just for the sake of including it, is just derivative, unoriginal and pandering, especially when the original was already popular as is. You want a high fantasy world with all diverse creatures then fine, make one. But this argument that Tolkien's world must have that is false because no writer is obliged to create a fictional world in the image YOU think it should look like. That is like saying they are supposed to be writing YOUR story for you. No, they are only required to tell the stories they want to tell and if that doesn't suit you (as in the case of these studios) then make your own and stop trying to pretend that you are honoring Tolkien or whoever else you are riding the coattails of. But they cant or don't want to do that so all they can do is make up new definitions of what is an adaptation is or what is required for "modern" day people or any other numerous nonsense arguments.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-08 at 12:12 AM.

  10. #2470
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post

    Is it bad that I now want a Welsh Bond with a thick Welsh accent?
    Absolutely not. Three of the United Kingdoms have been represented thus far, having a Welshman with an accent so thick you can cut it with a knife woo/shoot his way across the world would be a most excellent way to continue the Bond saga.
    It is all that is left unsaid upon which tragedies are built -Kreia

    The internet: where to every action is opposed an unequal overreaction.

  11. #2471
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Dude, what are you talking about? I'm not referring to people who "imagine" themselves as anything. I'm not talking about audiences who want to imagine themselves in fictional worlds. I'm talking specifically about British actors who YOU say don't count as British and cannot play in roles alongside their British counterparts.

    Anthony Hopkins (Welsh), Tom Hiddleston (English), Idris Elba (English). You see this list of actors? All of them play Norse gods in a movie together. None of them identify as Scandinavian or "natives of ancient Europe". All of them were born in Britain and are part of British culture, history, and heritage via their contributions to drama. However, you're saying that only one of them doesn't fit, and no matter how much you want to beat around the bush we know exactly why you think that.
    Stop making up straw men. I said that no story or mythology is supposed to include the diversity of all the worlds people. That is just a fact. And there are plenty of stories that are popular and successful to this day without it. There are fans of European literature with NO diversity around the world and people are NOT complaining because of it. There are fans of Tom Cruise, James Bond, Spiderman and Tokien all over the world without the diversity you claim is required. This is just a fact. People keep making up reasons for these mandates that are all based on invalid logic such as "people need to see themselves", yet have provided no proof or evidence for this. Tolkien's work has been around for over 60 years and published in many different languages but all of a sudden some white people at Amazon have decided that his work isn't inclusive enough and needs to be "fixed". That is BS and demonstrably false is the point. They are only trying to inject their own made up story into the world of Tolkien using diversity as a shield against criticism. You can whine and moan all you want but that is the fundamental point that people are calling out. It isn't about rejecting diversity in fiction or real life, it is about forcing changes on other peoples work that already is popular among diverse audiences just so you can "claim credit" for something you did not create.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    What the fuck... No one is "putting every culture" into Tolkien (unless you're equating culture and skin color which of course would be extraordinarily ignorant).

    Again, taking the example of Lenny Henry who is cast as a Harfoot hobbit in the show. The man was born in ENGLAND, has been KNIGHTED by the Queen, has been honored with the title Commander of the Order of the BRITISH Empire (an honor he shares with Tolkien himself) for his contributions to BRITISH drama and comedy. Lenny Henry doesn't "imagine" himself British, he IS British. Him being cast in the show isn't throwing cultures into Tolkien that don't belong because his culture is BRITISH culture.
    Of course it is putting every culture into Tolkien, because by the logic that you must reflect the "modern" world, then you must reflect all the different ethnic groups, languages, cultures and populations in the modern world of the common wealth. And that spans almost the entire world. This is literally what the show runners claimed to be doing even as Tolkien himself rejected such usage of his work. But of course, what does he know, he just wrote the story, these show runners know best what his story should really be about.

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

    This is not about "diversity" in the abstract. It is about staying true to the source material. And there is a lot more going on than just the simple idea of superficial skin color changes. It is the cumulative effect of all the changes being made that is being called out, especially when they claim to be "honoring" someone who didn't want their work used as an analogy for "modern" realities. This is the point, but people just keep ignoring that because of their own made up justifications. If you want diversity in some kind of Middle Earth setting, then make your own and stop pretending that this made up BS is Tolkien. It is not.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-08 at 12:17 AM.

  12. #2472
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    If they are in it for the money then they would stick to the source material that is already popular.
    So are they just doing it for the money or not?

    Seems to be some conflicting statements around.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Again, this nonsense argument that if I write a story about all white people doing something, it is inherently racist or wrong is false.
    Don't think many people are saying it like that.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    If that is the case then Shakespeare is racist.
    Same thing applies. Oh, and: there's PLENTY of Shakespeare productions FULL of diverse casts, and very few people seem to be complaining.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    If that is the case then Homer is racist.
    Wasn't there a black Achilles somewhere not too long ago? Can't remember. Doesn't seem to me to be a role that changes in any way if the actor is black. So... yeah, same thing. Again.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    And of course, that means Tolkien is racist.
    You seem to be confusing things quite severely here.

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I have no problem with diversity. But altering and twisting someone else's work to include it, just for the sake of including it, is just derivative, unoriginal and pandering.
    Ah, yes. "I'm fine with black people, just not in my back yard!". An old one, but a good one.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You want a high fantasy world with all diverse creatures then fine, make one. But this argument that Tolkien's world must have that is false because no writer is obliged to create a fictional world in the image YOU think it should look like.
    You are, AGAIN, making the argument into something it isn't.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    No, they are only required to tell the stories they want to tell and if that doesn't suit you (as in the case of these studios) then make your own and stop trying to pretend that you are honoring Tolkien or whoever else you are riding the coattails of.
    I'm not saying anything of the kind. I don't think Tolkien would mind, skin color never seemed to have concerned him much; his focus was far more on culture and language than on cosmetic details like skin color. If he'd have a problem with anything, it'd be the writing, not the casting. Nobody is saying Tolkien would have cheered and praised any adaptation; that's not the question, anyway. The only question in this context is, would Tolkien have objected to SKIN COLOR specifically; and while we don't know and can't ask him, the fact that he never made it a concern of his in his writing seems to suggest he wouldn't have cared much.

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

  13. #2473
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocksteady 87 View Post
    No, you didn't.

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

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

    The “why” he did it as also irrelevant for two reasons:
    The first was noted in the prior post, that in adapting the work to a different medium you don’t have to stick to every minute detail if the effect can be achieved differently (the example was costumes rather than skin color).
    Secondly, as lofty as Tolkien’s ideas of creating a mythology for England were, none of us consider these stories to be the history or myths of the British Isles. Whether he wished it or not, he became the father of modern fantasy. Very entertaining works from a very imaginative man.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2022-08-08 at 12:36 AM.

  14. #2474
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Tolkien wrote from his experience as a white European in the early 1900’s. The fact that he wrote his exotic foreigners as dark skinned people wasn’t some unique decision, much less one of literary brilliance.
    It's amazing when people get to the answer but then proceed to be utterly oblivious to the fact that they did.

    The “why” he did it as also irrelevant for two reasons:
    The first was noted in the prior post, that in adapting the work to a different medium you don’t have to stick to every minute detail if the effect can be achieved differently (the example was costumes rather than skin color).
    And again -- and I have no idea why people like you keep assuming this -- but I've never said I have a problem with them doing so. But it is asinine that people like you pretend to act shocked and appalled at people being confused or curious as to why they chose to do it. It is an aberrant choice for these characters, in exactly the same way as making Superman into a Chinese woman from New Beijing (a terra-formed moon orbiting Velcana IV), T'challa into a poor white guy from the Bronx, or casting John Wayne as Genghis Khan.

    Secondly, as lofty as Tolkien’s ideas of creating a mythology for England were, none of us consider these stories to be the history or myths of the British Isles. Whether he wished it or not, he became the father of modern fantasy. Very entertaining works from a very imaginative man.
    It doesn't matter one iota what you think in this regard. It being a fictional history of our world, taking place in what is now England and its surrounding regions, is part of the story. Just like Captain America: The First Avenger took part in 'our' world. Or literally any other work of fiction based on our world.

  15. #2475
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    So are they just doing it for the money or not?

    Seems to be some conflicting statements around.


    Don't think many people are saying it like that.
    The only conflict is in your head. Amazon paid upwards of a billion dollars for the rights to Tolkien because they know his stories are famous around the world. They want to make money off it, but they also have DEI mandates that require them to put certain kinds of actors in certain roles behind and in front of the camera. So they are trying to do a dance around all of that by claiming this is somehow "required" for Tolkien to be more popular which is absolutely stupid nonsense because it is already popular. That is where the conflict is and nowhere else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Excluding non-white actors for no real, substantive narrative reason, though? Definitely racist.
    Well if my story only had white people then you are again calling me racist. Stop trying to make up imaginary justifications for changing my theoretical story. If I write a story about 3 giraffes on the savannah, don't start talking BS about needing to give opportunities to Brown bears in entertainment. That has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Same thing applies. Oh, and: there's PLENTY of Shakespeare productions FULL of diverse casts, and very few people seem to be complaining.
    But those aren't pretending to be literal interpretations of Shakespeare. Stop being dishonest. The problem here is that I wrote 3 white men in the wilderness finding themselves and you argue that somehow they must be diverse. Like dude. Stop it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Wasn't there a black Achilles somewhere not too long ago? Can't remember. Doesn't seem to me to be a role that changes in any way if the actor is black. So... yeah, same thing. Again.
    True. Homer was quite diverse in his stories. But I didn't feel like looking up other Greek authors. You get the point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    You seem to be confusing things quite severely here.

    This about casting in adaptations. The racism doesn't come from the authors of the original, it comes from people doing the casting and excluding people of color for no good narrative reason.
    If the source material does not include it, then that diversity is simply not required. Your argument that casting something faithful to the original is racist is no different than saying the original author is racist. So in this case you are arguing that Tolkien is racist. There is no other way to say it. You keep trying to pretend this is about casting, but if the story is about a character who is white, how is casting a white actor racist? You keep making up nonsensical arguments that are irrelevant. According to you, "diversity" in hiring actors takes precedence over sticking to the source material. So my 3 white dudes finding themselves in a wilderness is racist and must be fixed. Fine. But don't call it 3 white dudes finding themselves in a wilderness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    No one is going to complain that books written 100 or 1,000 or whatever years ago weren't as diverse as contemporary society, at least not in the sense that they're making accusations against the authors; except of course against authors who were provably racist (and there's enough of those). Plus, "racist" as a category is applied very differently in historic contexts (have a look at Kant's text on race, Von den verschiedenen Rassen der Menschen from 1775; that's some seriously fucked-up shit but it's not exactly held up to modern standards by scholars).
    If nobody is complaining then why do it. This is why this is a circular conversation. You claim it is required but have nothing to show why it is required for Tolkien. Where are all the people around the world demanding to see themselves in Tolkien. It isn't there. This is just people making up their on justifications for changing something to tell a story they want to tell that has absolutely nothing to do with the original authors story and intent. Diversity is no "special exception" to that reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    This discussion isn't about that. It's not about whether TOLKIEN was racist, it's about whether refusing roles in adaptations to people based on skin color for no good narrative reasons is racist.
    If Tolkien said Tar Miriel was a white woman then casting a black woman in the role can be said to be racist. Not to mention it goes against what Tolkien specifically wrote. So either it is racist to change the character from white to black or making the original character white in the first place was racist. This is the clown logic people keep using to justify this made up nonsense. This isn't an abstract argument. They have made many serious and substantial changes to this story of the Second Age to get Galadriel and Tar Miriel together for these big epic battles that Tolkien never wrote. So it is made up Amazon stories being paraded around as Tolkien. I don't care about women being warriors in High Fantasy, but saying that this is what Tolkien wrote or intended for the characters of Galadriel and Tar Miriel I have problems with. And no amount of arguing about "opportunities" for diverse actors justifies this sort of wholesale slandering of Tolkien.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Ah, yes. "I'm fine with black people, just not in my back yard!". An old one, but a good one.
    I never said anything about my back yard stop misquoting me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    You are, AGAIN, making the argument into something it isn't.
    Here we go with the la la land childishness. You just sat here and talked about putting diversity into Tolkien when his work is considered as "high fantasy". So how is that not what this is about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    The problem isn't "this must have black people in it!", the problem is "why should we turn away black people just because they're black when there's no narrative reason to do so". At least in principle. I'm sure there's overcompensation at play somewhere; how could there not be, biases don't just go away on a say-so.
    The problem is that according to you that there are not enough black people in Tolkien. So we need to include them whether or not Tolkien explicitly wrote it that way or not. That is where you keep trying to twist reality into some sort of evil conspiracy against black actors when it is not. Again, by that logic then Tolkien is racist.

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

    Also: "if you don't like it, go away and do your own thing" works both ways, you know.
    Stop making up BS. If Tolkien didn't write Tar Miriel as a black woman then hiring a black actress for the role is not "honoring Tolkien". It is simple. And beyond all of that they are making her a Queen when she was not. And they are having her interact with Galadriel which she did not. All of this explicitly means this is NOT what Tolkien wanted for those characters and is strictly not an 'adaptation' of Tolkien. It is derivative or inspired by Tolkien but not "what Tolkien would have wrote". You can keep trying to argue this is about diversity in hiring all you want but that has absolutely nothing to do with it because it is basically saying that Tolkien was racist for not including certain characters with certain skin colors in certain roles in his story. There is no other way to say it.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-08 at 12:58 AM.

  16. #2476
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    The only conflict is in your head.
    Sorry, what? We've literally had people say "they're just changing it for the money", and then had you say "no, if it was just for the money they wouldn't change anything".

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Well if my story only had white people then you are again calling me racist.
    That depends on how you got there. Did you have a good REASON for it, or was it just "idk man, black people just don't, like, fit"?

    I specifically said my problem is with an exclusionary casting process; you can't just gloss over the core part of my argument and jump straight to the end result.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    But those aren't pretending to be literal interpretations of Shakespeare. Stop being dishonest.
    So what are they, then, TEXT-ACCURATE interpretations?

    What's your problem here, exactly? That people are doing diverse Shakespeare productions, or that they're "pretending to be liberal interpretations" (whatever that means)? And how does one even do that, pretend to be a liberal interpretation? As opposed to what, actually being a conservative interpretation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The problem here is that I wrote 3 white men in the wilderness finding themselves and you argue that somehow they must be diverse. Like dude. Stop it.
    How about you stop writing and START READING. Like, what I said.

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

    Now read that again, and then one more time, so you don't screw it up AGAIN.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    True. Homer was quite diverse in his stories. But I didn't feel like looking up other Greek authors. You get the point.
    Oh I get you, alright.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    If the source material does not include it, then that diversity is simply not required.
    BUT AGAIN: it's not about diversity "being required". It's about "is there a good narrative reason to EXCLUDE PEOPLE?".

    Now read THAT again, too. And one more time for good luck. It'll sink in eventually.

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

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

    Read it again. Twice. Because gods know you seem to need to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    is no different than saying the original author is racist. So in this case you are arguing that Tolkien is racist.
    Holy hell, that nearly gave me a stroke. Not sure I can tolerate this much bad logic, please think of my blood pressure.

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

    I'm pretty sure I did. *goes back to look* Yes, yes I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You keep trying to pretend this is about casting, but if the story is about a character who is white, how is casting a white actor racist?
    Because - and this may shock you, as you've never read it before - if there is no GOOD NARRATIVE REASON to exclude non-white actors from the casting, that is, by definition, racist.

    If it's written so there IS a good narrative reason, that's very different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    According to you, "diversity" in hiring actors takes precedence over sticking to the source material.
    I wouldn't phrase it like that, but sure, in broad terms; with the important exception of - drumroll! - a good narrative reason to do otherwise.

    Being accurate to the source material is a red herring. ALL adaptations deviate from the source in SOME way. That's a self-evident truth borne out of the necessities of adaptation. It's purely about finding good reasons for what to change and what not to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    If nobody is complaining then why do it. This is why this is a circular conversation. You claim it is required but have nothing to show why it is required for Tolkien.
    Sorry, not clear here - I claim that WHAT is required, exactly? Not excluding people based on skin color from acting roles unless there's a good narrative reason? Yes, I do claim that. And that's a universal claim, it's not specific to Tolkien.

    Also: "nobody is complaining" about what? I said nobody goes around calling Tolkien a racist just because he didn't write diversity to 21st century standards. That doesn't mean an ADAPTATION should behave the same way. Those are entirely separate things.

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

    Because, again: truth to the source is never perfect. Every adaptation deviates in some way. Always will. So why is skin color important, when so many other details are not? If the text says she has grey eyes but the actress has blue eyes; if the text says her hair went to her shoulders and the actress' hair only goes to her neck; are THOSE deal-breakers too? Assuming the eyes or hair play no narrative role of course. And if not... why is skin color any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Not to mention it goes against what Tolkien specifically wrote.
    BAD BAD BAD language.

    "Going against" is not the same as "differing from".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    They have made many serious and substantial changes to this story of the Second Age to get Galadriel and Tar Miriel together for these big epic battles that Tolkien never wrote.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    I never said anything about my back yard stop misquoting me.
    And apparently you've also never heard this adage, which just shows you don't... well, know a lot about all this. Are you sure you should be talking about race problems if you've never even heard of NIMBY?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Here we go with the la la land childishness. You just sat here and talked about putting diversity into Tolkien when his work is considered as "high fantasy". So how is that not what this is about?
    See above for repeated clarifications on what I'm actually saying, with instructions to carefully read them three times to make sure you don't say nonsense like this again next time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The problem is that according to you that there are not enough black people in Tolkien.
    Never said anything of the kind, and I'd kindly direct you to look above and follow the instructions. They seem to be sorely needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    Stop making up BS.
    OOOOOH IRONYGASM! Geez, boyo, that was a BIG one. Whew.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    If Tolkien didn't write Tar Miriel as a black woman then hiring a black actress for the role is not "honoring Tolkien".
    Depends entirely on what you mean by "honoring Tolkien", which is a very vague statement (and far from anything I'd ever say, just to be clear). Is it accurate to the source? No. Does that matter? Also no. For reasons explained above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    All of this explicitly means this is NOT what Tolkien wanted for those characters and is strictly not an 'adaptation' of Tolkien. It is derivative or inspired by Tolkien but not "what Tolkien would have wrote".
    That's a bold statement. We don't know what Tolkien wanted - we DO know he planned to make Galadriel more of a centerpiece and flesh her out as more of a woman warrior. He said so. He just never got to write it into stories before he died. But that was what he WANTED. Tolkien's works kept changing and evolving all the time; we have no idea what he "wanted" or not for most characters. We know he didn't write stories like those, but that doesn't really matter; I think I've explained why.

    As to whether or not to call it an "adaptation" or something like "inspired by" or "derivative of" or whatever... Don't really care, because that's just terminological quibbling. Call it whatever you like. I use adaptation as a methodological descriptor, not as a label - if you want to use another word, doesn't bother me. I attach no significance or epistemological value to it, beyond its mechanical-descriptive usage. The quality of the product is what interests me, not the nomenclature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    You can keep trying to argue this is about diversity in hiring all you want but that has absolutely nothing to do with it because it is basically saying that Tolkien was racist for not including certain characters with certain skin colors in certain roles in his story. There is no other way to say it.
    There are MANY other ways to say it, preferably ones that actually engage with what I ACTUALLY WROTE instead of some hare-brained confabulation that's effectively just there to mask your discomfort with your own biases.

    READ, girl. This is a discussion about LITERATURE. It's not too much to ask you actually read and parse what people are writing, is it?

  17. #2477
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Tolkien wrote from his experience as a white European in the early 1900’s. The fact that he wrote his exotic foreigners as dark skinned people wasn’t some unique decision, much less one of literary brilliance.

    The “why” he did it as also irrelevant for two reasons:
    The first was noted in the prior post, that in adapting the work to a different medium you don’t have to stick to every minute detail if the effect can be achieved differently (the example was costumes rather than skin color).
    Secondly, as lofty as Tolkien’s ideas of creating a mythology for England were, none of us consider these stories to be the history or myths of the British Isles. Whether he wished it or not, he became the father of modern fantasy. Very entertaining works from a very imaginative man.
    I mean, it should also be noted that Tolkein was great friends with C.S. Lewis, who definitely did have some racial issues. The Chronicles of Narnia were littered with blonde-haired blue-eyed Narnians and "high" cultures who worshipped Aslan (the true god), while turban-wearing, desert-dwelling brown folks with literally curly-toed shoes worshipped Tash (the false god).

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

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

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

    Art is a reflection of the time it was created in. But art isn't static and set in stone. It evolves and changes with the time.

  18. #2478
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I mean, it should also be noted that Tolkein was great friends with C.S. Lewis, who definitely did have some racial issues. The Chronicles of Narnia were littered with blonde-haired blue-eyed Narnians and "high" cultures who worshipped Aslan (the true god), while turban-wearing, desert-dwelling brown folks with literally curly-toed shoes worshipped Tash (the false god).

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

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

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

    Art is a reflection of the time it was created in. But art isn't static and set in stone. It evolves and changes with the time.
    Great. Make your own setting then.

  19. #2479
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    If they are in it for the money then they would stick to the source material that is already popular. Again, this nonsense argument that if I write a story about all white people doing something, it is inherently racist or wrong is false. If that is the case then Shakespeare is racist. If that is the case then Homer is racist. And of course, that means Tolkien is racist. And that is because they had the gall to write stories that are timeless and admired around the world without the diversity that you claim is needed. But don't worry you are going to tell us how you cant just write your own diverse story. Nope. That isn't enough. You have to "fix" Homer or Shakespeare or Tolkien or whoever else because of course, their work is below par according to "modern" standards.

    You know right there that is some pure bull crap.

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

    I also wholely agree that there isn’t a must to keep different ethnic groups out of the lotr series.

  20. #2480
    Need to get to know of the "southern" peoples and see them in a better light.


    Last edited by Shadowferal; 2022-08-08 at 08:55 AM.

Posting Permissions

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