Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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

I haven’t followed any of the advertising stuff but did they actually say any where that the elf was played by an African or caribbean actor or did you and others just see some one darker then a white guy and jump to him being African black?

[Veggie50]

Again ,you are wrong . When they spend , producers ,realisators and actors ,so much time speaking about inclusivity rather than the movie or serie itself , usually it means it will probably being shitty .

- Creators talk about Tolkien

- Black elf appears for 0.5 seconds

- Internet racists flood every social media channel with racist remarks around black elf appearance

- Creators respond to the turmoil

- Internet racists: "Look, all they wanna talk about is inclusivity"

[Mace]

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.
.

What Iw as saying is that the activism is the reason why the writing is so poor - some of the ideologies some of these people hold to, just make for weirdsituations, lines, actions that generally spoil the movie - e.g. ithose who subscribe to the rule that a man can't tell a woman what to do, nor can he defend her - not every movie is like that off course, but WoT is a classic example.

Furthermore, when studios don't care about the writing anywhere near as much it allows activists to write scripts and no vetting or vetoing, especially if the studio bosses are that way inclined - the money people never are. What it means is that scripts that focus on the message and the ideology rather than writing a good story or sensible characters a just don't show up. And while these type of people are in control they never will.

If they are leading the major studios like Warner media (before it was sold), Amazon and Disney - then this is a large amount of our entertainment content and some of most popular brands that will have this type of thing show up reducing its quality.

The ideology actually affects quite a lot and is why many are blaming it for the poor quality of scripts.

the sad thing is that diversity is not the prolbem, it's the extreme the activists ghave adapted and the warped views that they are now inserting in their creative works that is oftne just awful. But then if you're writing a story to preach your message rather than writing a sotry about life, it's going to be different.

[Celement]

I haven’t followed any of the advertising stuff but did they actually say any where that the elf was played by an African or caribbean actor or did you and others just see some one darker then a white guy and jump to him being African black?

In every interview they take great pains to point out the diversity of the cast to the point they rarely if ever even touch on the actual plot. The few times they talk about anything else its them trying to explain away their rewrites and lore errors.

[cyberglum]

In every interview they take great pains to point out the diversity of the cast to the point they rarely if ever even touch on the actual plot. The few times they talk about anything else its them trying to explain away their rewrites and lore errors.

They also repeat the same phrases and sentences from interview to interview.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

In every interview they take great pains to point out the diversity of the cast to the point they rarely if ever even touch on the actual plot. The few times they talk about anything else its them trying to explain away their rewrites and lore errors.

Not really relevant. I didn't ask if they touched on the plot or lore, I asked if that one actor as actually been said to be African or Caribbean any where because they said a latino playing a black elf is a double standard.

[Celement]

Not really relevant. I didn't ask if they touched on the plot or lore, I asked if that one actor as actually been said to be African or Caribbean any where because they said a latino playing a black elf is a double standard.

I doubt anyone is following the tokenism to the point of knowing that.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I doubt anyone is following the tokenism to the point of knowing that.

The comment above mine is about how there repeating the same phrases and sentences in multiple interviews, So if people are keeping track of something like that id expect some people to know if they ever actually refer to the elf's race in any of them.

[Adamas102]

I doubt anyone is following the tokenism to the point of knowing that.

Being primary/secondary characters that parts of the plot actually revolve around means they’re decidedly NOT token characters.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Being primary/secondary characters that parts of the plot actually revolve around means they’re decidedly NOT token characters.

Minority actors are always token to some folk no matter how important they are to the actual movie/show. The only way they can see them being cast is to deflect criticism or to virtue signal never because of there actual talent.

[Triceron]

What Iw as saying is that the activism is the reason why the writing is so poor - some of the ideologies some of these people hold to, just make for weirdsituations, lines, actions that generally spoil the movie - e.g. ithose who subscribe to the rule that a man can't tell a woman what to do, nor can he defend her - not every movie is like that off course, but WoT is a classic example.

Furthermore, when studios don't care about the writing anywhere near as much it allows activists to write scripts and no vetting or vetoing, especially if the studio bosses are that way inclined - the money people never are. What it means is that scripts that focus on the message and the ideology rather than writing a good story or sensible characters a just don't show up. And while these type of people are in control they never will.

If they are leading the major studios like Warner media (before it was sold), Amazon and Disney - then this is a large amount of our entertainment content and some of most popular brands that will have this type of thing show up reducing its quality.

The ideology actually affects quite a lot and is why many are blaming it for the poor quality of scripts.

the sad thing is that diversity is not the prolbem, it's the extreme the activists ghave adapted and the warped views that they are now inserting in their creative works that is oftne just awful. But then if you're writing a story to preach your message rather than writing a sotry about life, it's going to be different.

But you haven't been able to actually string together a cohesive argument.

Your argument is akin to saying 'this cake is terrible because the bakers like dogs more than cats'.

There is no correlation between 'activism' and poor or better story writing. I've given you multiple examples where Marvel and Star Wars pulls the same shit and still comes through with decent writing, like Dr Strange movies or Mandalorian S2. Or it comes out with shit writing altogether like the Sequel trilogy.

There is nothing supporting your argument other than pure belief that something you don't like must be the reason it is failing. Same as blaming the quality of your cake on any external factors other than the pure skill of the baker, who is responsible for the recipe and quality of ingredients. Whether they prefer cats or dogs doesn't change how the cake is baked.

Does the script suddenly get better if the actress is white instead of black? Or Asian instead of white?

IMO, there is no correlation, because diversity is pretty much standard across most shows nowadays. Whether we're talking Star Wars or Marvel or anything, there aren't many shows that go out of their way to have an all X cast unless there is a good reason for it. Like, even shows like the Witcher have black/brown actors in it. Would you make the same argument that the agenda in the Witcher gets in the way of it being a good series? Because IMO, these are completely unrelated things; the existence of agenda and the quality of writing/production of a series. There's no direct correlation between the quality of a show and a decision to diversify a cast.

[InfiniteCharger]

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


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.

So now back to trolling me with nonsense about me being dishonest about the fact that I have been repeatedly saying that casting all white people for a show set in Middle Earth is perfectly fine. You sit here and keep trying to play ring around the rosie because you want to call me racist for saying that.

You keep pushing this BS that there is a misunderstanding of the point when their isn't.
You want to be seen as "right" and virtuous in defending "diversity", when it is just your opinion.
And you want me to be seen as "racist" and "bigoted" for believing that the source material does not have to include "diversity".
You can sit here and talk all the BS you want. Everybody reading this knows this is the point.
You don't know me or anything about me but yet you can swear up and down that I am a bigot or racist without knowing me.
This is the point and has always been the point with your silly replies.

This is why you so desperately keep trying to seem to be 'right' in spouting your dam opinion like it is some kind of unchallenged fact.
GTFOH with that nonsense.

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

Yes your ears have tunnels between them because that is literally what is happening.

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.

In other words, you cannot challenge what I said so you are back to defending your opinion.
You haven't substantially changed the point other than you are back to defending your opinion.
You cannot argue against facts because you have no choice to accept them.
It is all about your opinion which again is not a right or wrong issue.
But you persist in this nonsense that there is some "right" argument that I am missing.
No. That is not correct. You are trying so desperately to be "right" when you are only debating 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.

Again another strawman. Nobody said that argument and opinion are the same thing.
What I said was you are arguing about your opinion on this show as an adaptation of Tolkien.
You cannot argue about the facts of Tolkien. You cannot argue about the facts of what Amazon is doing.
Everything else is simply you arguing your opinion of the final product.
You don't make any dam sense.

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.

Another silly strawman. I said what is arbitary, or relevant in Tolkiens work is solely up to Tolkien. Just like what is relevant and arbitrary in Peter Jacksons adaptation is also up to Peter Jackson. There is no incorrect usage of the term. The point is that YOUR opnion on it doesn't matter and this is where your little head just keeps blowing up because you swear you are "right". This has absolutely nothing to do with a dictionary.
This is about the fact that Peter Jackson, Tolkien and Amazon didn't consult you to find out what is relevant or arbitrary to their work.
So to sit here and argue about those two words and the usage of their words is just you obviously avoiding those basic facts to continue an inane attempt to be right about something. Again, you keep pushing this nonsense and then denying it at the same time.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be sitting here and trying to now argue that this whole debate is about how I use the words arbitrary and relevant.
You are absolutely losing and just grasping at straws to defend yourself rather than letting it go and leaving it at agreeing to disagree.

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?

Because you can't and you know it.
Therefore all you are left with is opinions but you refuse to accept that.

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

I am doing it now. You have accepted that the fundamental facts cannot be challenged.
But you insist that your "argument" is somehow misunderstood as not being an opinion.
You are absolutely being full of s---t on this acting like your opinion is some misunderstood set of facts that you are arguing and I must accept if I understood them correctly. This isn't even a defense it is a BS strawman because you know that what you are arguing is an opinion and nothing else.

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

Because the facts that I present you haven't challenged so all you are doing is supporting your own opinion.
There is no right or wrong in that. You can have that all you want. But to suggest that your 'argument' is based on disagreement on objective facts that are either right are wrong is just you pushing a strawman.
You keep agreeing with me on the fundamental facts. So whatever it is you think you are arguing is an opinion.

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

When you make an argument about your opinion I don't have to refute it because it is an opinion.
So you actually are agreeing with me that you wont leave this discussion where it is because you want to be right.
Because according to you this "argument" is about some kind of objective facts of reality not based on subjective interpretation that I am somehow missing.

No it isn't. You thought you could try and use certain words like "narrative" as if there is a single definition by all parties in a work of fiction or adaptation. I proved that there isn't. Now you are saying that well it is about my usage of the term "arbitrary" and "relevant" when you yourself implied that there is a single agreed upon definition for any specific work of fiction or fantasy by all parties, including the reader, when there isn't. Now you are just going in circles making up some other 'argument' outside of those fundamental points. You just wont agree that the only thing you are debating is your own opinion and that opinion isn't really right or wrong and I already accepted that. You just refuse to accept that 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.

Now you are going to introduce the philosophical structure of language to try and 'argue' that you are not debating your opinion.
Another strawman as usual. This isn't a philosophical debate. You have your opinion and I have mine. It is that simple.
The fact you are trying to turn it into more than that shows your dishonesty and the fact you just want to be "right".
And I have already said you have every right to your opinion and I am not going to try and change it.
But you won't let it go.

You've seen the show, then?

Have you?

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

I said in what we have seen so far or did you ignore that on purpose? I knew you would try and pull that straw man.

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

There it is. The root of all your angst. The fact that I would have the gall to think that most of these characters were intended to be white just bothers you so much that you can't stand it and have to reject it and call me names.
Finally the truth comes out.

Lie.

Again you keep ducking and dodging. I am going to show you how you keep ducking and dodging.

I posted this

This isn't about 100% accuracy, it is about the point you made which is that they should not be "excluding" people. You brought it up and now you want to pretend that this isn't what you said. Now it is about how tall these people are and not about skin color? Are you seriously saying this is all about how tall someone is when casting? Just stop. If the story is explicitly written about a certain group of people with certain characteristics, then of course the casting should follow that. Your nonsense about "narrative" is irrelevant unless the studio or those making this adaptation are deliberately making changes in casting for some other reason than staying true to the original story. We have been over this many times relative to the rings of power but you refuse to admit that this isn't about "narrative" but about DEI policies specifically for promoting diverse casting choices. This is a fact. You are just making up irrelevant talking points and then get mad when shown to be wrong.


Tar Miriel was written explicitly as white. Stop ducking this specific example.

To which you replied:

I'm not. I have no idea if it's true, since I don't recall the original, but that doesn't really matter. I'm entirely willing to humor the point, and say she was written explicitly and in no uncertain terms as white. 100% on board with that.

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

So you would have to show that either:

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

I'm fine with a demonstration for either one.

Which is a statement on your opinion. Whether you are OK with this is your opinion. It is not an objective fact.
Like I said, what Tolkien defined as something that MATTERS to the narrative is not the same as what Amazon decides "MATTERS to the narrrative". You already accepted that. And this also applies to what is considered cosmetic as well.
Those 2 things are explicitly based on different views between the work of the author and the work of the studio. They are not the same. Whether you are "fine with a demonstration of either one" is just your opinion. I don't have to be "fine" with anything because you are.
You just refuse to admit that.

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.

Just address the quote you made above. You keep trying to avoid that this about you pretending your opinion is some objective "truth" that I must accept.

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.

Finally you agree that my opinion is mine. Whew. That took forever.

[Adamas102]

You want to be seen as "right" and virtuous in defending "diversity", when it is just your opinion.
And you want me to be seen as "racist" and "bigoted" for believing that the source material does not have to include "diversity".
You can sit here and talk all the BS you want. Everybody reading this knows this is the point.
You don't know me or anything about me but yet you can swear up and down that I am a bigot or racist without knowing me.
This is the point and has always been the point with your silly replies.

Being dead set on pushing an anti-diversity, all-white agenda in a setting where not every individual or group of people is described as white is indeed racist, no matter what excuses you want to throw about. It has already been pointed out multiple times that Tolkien explicitly stated that this section of Middle-earth was never intended to be reflective of a solely white, solely Northern European world. No amount of “but the source material” is going to change that.

And to be clear on one more point; Tar-Miriel is NOT described as white in the source material that this show is working off of. In the appendices she’s relegated to a single line with absolutely no physical description.

[Biomega]

So now back to trolling me with nonsense about me being dishonest about the fact that I have been repeatedly saying that casting all white people for a show set in Middle Earth is perfectly fine.

Lie.

I've said you're a dishonest interlocutor in general. I've never said in any way shape or form that you're being dishonest ABOUT THAT FACT.

And you want me to be seen as "racist" and "bigoted" for believing that the source material does not have to include "diversity".

Lie.

I've repeatedly said it's not about the source material, and that neither me nor anyone else is taking Tolkien to task for not being more diverse. This is and has always been purely about what happens in OTHER MEDIA that use that material.

But as I've said many times - you keep going back to the same point no one disagrees with you on, because you have no actual argument. That you do this AGAIN after I've just pointed that out just further proves the point.

In other words, you cannot challenge what I said

Lie.

We don't WANT to challenge THIS PARTICULAR POINT because it's not something we ever disagreed on, nor is it in any way the actual argument we are making instead.

The ONLY ONE coming back to this AGAIN AND AGAIN is YOU, because you are using something everyone agrees on as a retreat that gives you a point that's not actually in contention. By anyone.

Again another strawman. Nobody said that argument and opinion are the same thing.

Uh, yeah, you did. You keep using them interchangeably, which is HIGHLY incorrect. You can't "agree to disagree" (your favorite phrase, I never use it) on arguments, only on opinions. You insisting that's what we should do means you must either be talking about opinions when we're talking about arguments, or you don't know the difference.

Another silly strawman. I said what is arbitary, or relevant in Tolkiens work is solely up to Tolkien. Just like what is relevant and arbitrary in Peter Jacksons adaptation is also up to Peter Jackson.

You used "arbitrary" and "relevant" as antonyms. And as I said, CLEARLY AND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, the comment was about the MEANING of those words, not about their application on anything, not Tolkien and not Peter Jackson. I've said this explicitly.

If only there was a word for trying to make a point about something it's not actually about. It's at the tip of my tongue...

This is about the fact that Peter Jackson, Tolkien and Amazon didn't consult you to find out what is relevant or arbitrary to their work.

*cough* Sorry, what? You nearly made me spill my drink.

I am doing it now. You have accepted that the fundamental facts cannot be challenged.

There wasn't anything to "accept" here because there was never any denial. I have not, at any point, disputed the "fundamental facts" about Tolkien's work. YOU kept on bringing them up, and I kept on saying that I never did nor do now disagree with them. And then you brought them up again. And again. And again. And to everyone's surprise yes, I still do not disagree, because I never did, not once.

Would you like to bring up again how Tolkien wrote certain characters as white? Go ahead. Do it.

Because the facts that I present you haven't challenged so all you are doing is supporting your own opinion.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Challenge is a transitive verb, but it has no object in your sentence.

Is this just a typo and you meant to say "changed"? In which case refer to the above reply - the facts haven't changed, and neither has my acceptance of them, which was always there from the start despite you pretending otherwise.

You're free to refute me, by the way. Quote anything, anything at all, where I said I do not agree with something EXPLICITLY mentioned in the text. Like something where you go "Tolkien wrote this character as white!" and me going "No he didn't!" (assuming it was actually explicitly in the text, of course) would be nice. Oh, and: me going "Yes, but that doesn't matter" isn't me going against facts. Just to preempt that.

When you make an argument about your opinion I don't have to refute it because it is an opinion.

You are definitely not clear on how to use those words. Like, holy moly.

You have your opinion and I have mine. It is that simple.

Oh yeah, so, so, SO not clear on how to use those words.

There it is. The root of all your angst. The fact that I would have the gall to think that most of these characters were intended to be white just bothers you so much that you can't stand it and have to reject it and call me names.

I don't think you need angst to recognize that "I know there's no story reason for it, but the original characters were white so I don't want any black people in this, please" is a racist statement. That's just kinda how it works - you see something racist, you call it racist. Angst or no angst.

Why, do YOU only do that when you have angst?

[InfiniteCharger]

Lie.

I've said you're a dishonest interlocutor in general. I've never said in any way shape or form that you're being dishonest ABOUT THAT FACT.


Lie.

I've repeatedly said it's not about the source material, and that neither me nor anyone else is taking Tolkien to task for not being more diverse. This is and has always been purely about what happens in OTHER MEDIA that use that material.

But as I've said many times - you keep going back to the same point no one disagrees with you on, because you have no actual argument. That you do this AGAIN after I've just pointed that out just further proves the point.


Lie.

We don't WANT to challenge THIS PARTICULAR POINT because it's not something we ever disagreed on, nor is it in any way the actual argument we are making instead.

The ONLY ONE coming back to this AGAIN AND AGAIN is YOU, because you are using something everyone agrees on as a retreat that gives you a point that's not actually in contention. By anyone.


Uh, yeah, you did. You keep using them interchangeably, which is HIGHLY incorrect. You can't "agree to disagree" (your favorite phrase, I never use it) on arguments, only on opinions. You insisting that's what we should do means you must either be talking about opinions when we're talking about arguments, or you don't know the difference.


You used "arbitrary" and "relevant" as antonyms. And as I said, CLEARLY AND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, the comment was about the MEANING of those words, not about their application on anything, not Tolkien and not Peter Jackson. I've said this explicitly.

If only there was a word for trying to make a point about something it's not actually about. It's at the tip of my tongue...


*cough* Sorry, what? You nearly made me spill my drink.


There wasn't anything to "accept" here because there was never any denial. I have not, at any point, disputed the "fundamental facts" about Tolkien's work. YOU kept on bringing them up, and I kept on saying that I never did nor do now disagree with them. And then you brought them up again. And again. And again. And to everyone's surprise yes, I still do not disagree, because I never did, not once.

Would you like to bring up again how Tolkien wrote certain characters as white? Go ahead. Do it.


I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Challenge is a transitive verb, but it has no object in your sentence.

Is this just a typo and you meant to say "changed"? In which case refer to the above reply - the facts haven't changed, and neither has my acceptance of them, which was always there from the start despite you pretending otherwise.

You're free to refute me, by the way. Quote anything, anything at all, where I said I do not agree with something EXPLICITLY mentioned in the text. Like something where you go "Tolkien wrote this character as white!" and me going "No he didn't!" (assuming it was actually explicitly in the text, of course) would be nice. Oh, and: me going "Yes, but that doesn't matter" isn't me going against facts. Just to preempt that.


You are definitely not clear on how to use those words. Like, holy moly.


Oh yeah, so, so, SO not clear on how to use those words.


I don't think you need angst to recognize that "I know there's no story reason for it, but the original characters were white so I don't want any black people in this, please" is a racist statement. That's just kinda how it works - you see something racist, you call it racist. Angst or no angst.

Why, do YOU only do that when you have angst?

Look silly, if Tolkien spent a large portion of his life writing the geneology of Numenor, then obviously he had a narrative reason for it and that these things weren't "simply cosmetic". That is where you keep tripping and falling over your face with all these made up ad hominems and straw men.

If he spent the time and effort writing down these characteristics in order to clarify the specifics of these characters in a work that would then become the defacto standard in terms of copyright for usage of those characters, then it is not "arbitrary". In this context, when dealing with a written work of fiction, because these ideas are all in the imagination and mind of the author, they need to write down enough detail in order to convey those ideas to the reader. This is where what is "arbitrary" and "relevant" come into play. If a character is described as "male" with a medium build and having a large protrusion on their forehead, then obviously those things are not "arbitrary" and are "relevant" to the definition of the character and as such protected by copyright because they represent a unique characterization in a work of creative intellectual property. Anything specifically written down is therefore "relevant" and anything not explicitly written down is "arbitrary" to defining that character in terms of the original author. So in this scenario of the male with the protrusion, his skin color, eye color, hair texture, height and so forth are all arbitrary, because the original description did not specify those things. But him being male, of medium build and having a protrusion are not.

What you keep trying to do is to mix these things up by saying that Amazon as a legal entity separate and independent from Tolkien in buying the rights to Tolkien and making choices about how to translate those characters from the written work to live action, is overriding or replacing what was in the work of the original in their adaptation. That is not true at all. And I know you know this isn't true. The point of saying this is that those two views of how a particular character looks in a story is based on two separate definitions of what is "relevant", "cosmetic" or "arbitrary" by two separate legal entities. And therefore, in this case a studio can decide to make changes to those characters they have the legal rights to as part of them doing an adaptation. It is not an either or situation. It is both. Whatever Amazon does with these characters does not replace or override the original definition of those characters in the copyrighted source material.......

Therefore, if Tolkien wrote down and created the genealogy of the Kings of Numenor and defined their characteristics that means that in his mind and imagination they had common features as being related by blood and descended from half elves. Again, I know you agree on this but the point is, does Amazon agree on this or do they have a different interpretation of this. That is the point. It doesn't have to be the same. And if it isn't, then different people are going to have different opinions on the result. Skin color is just one aspect of this.

Again, your opinion on the final result is your opinion. I have mine. And that's it. It isn't racist to support sticking to the source material. You just refuse to admit that.

[Biomega]

Look silly, if Tolkien spent a large portion of his life writing the geneology of Numenor, then obviously he had a narrative reason for it and that these things weren't "simply cosmetic".

Prove this.

That's not self-evident. Why? Easy. Just change a detail and see how much the narrative changes outside of that detail. Like, add "Frodo had midnight-black skin and coarse hair" at the start of LotR, and then see how the story changes.

Do it. Do it and tell me it's not a cosmetic detail and nothing else.

Your entire argument is circular: "it's how it is in the original, therefore it must be important". But at the same time, your problem in adaptations seems to NOT extend that standard to any number of other categories that are equally founded in the original but are changed across all sorts of adaptations (like height, hair color, eye color, color of clothes, coats of horses, etc. etc.).

So either you are giving skin color some kind of special importance that those other characteristics do not enjoy (in which case explain why, and "it's like that in the original" obviously doesn't apply since it works for the others as well), or you are objecting to ANY KIND of adaptation WHATSOEVER because it's not the original and it'll always differ in some way (in which case cool, we're done, move along; but why did you come to a thread about an adaptation, just to tell us you don't agree with any kind of adaptation?).

If a character is described as "male" with a medium build and having a large protrusion on their forehead, then obviously those things are not "arbitrary" and "relevant" to the definition of the character and as such protected by copyright because they represent a unique work of creative intellectual property.

First of, YOU keep bringing up "arbitrary", not me. I don't use the term, and I object to the way you use it here because it suggests something that isn't the case and I would never claim is the case. It's not the opposite of "relevant". That's just not what that word means or how it's used, check with a dictionary if you like.

You also claim that "relevance" is self-evident simply by its presence. This is a circular argument: you are saying it's important because it's mentioned, and that it's mentioned because it's important. This is fallacious reasoning, on a logical level.

Lastly, you're trying to suddenly make a LEGAL argument, which is 1. not done correctly (copyright protection extends well beyond single characteristics, you can't just make Batman black and suddenly it's not copyright-protected) and 2. not relevant to the point (because no one was arguing from the standpoint of copyright law, anywhere).

What you keep trying to do is to mix these things up by saying that Amazon as a legal entity separate and independent from Tolkien in buying the rights to Tolkien and making choices about how to translate those characters from the written work to live action, is overriding or replacing what was in the work of the original in their adaptation.

Are you okay? Any illicit substances currently percolating somewhere?

When did I EVER say ANYTHING LIKE THAT? In any way? What?

Did you reply to the wrong person or something?

[InfiniteCharger]

Prove this.

That's not self-evident. Why? Easy. Just change a detail and see how much the narrative changes outside of that detail. Like, add "Frodo had midnight-black skin and coarse hair" at the start of LotR, and then see how the story changes.

Do it. Do it and tell me it's not a cosmetic detail and nothing else.

Your entire argument is circular: "it's how it is in the original, therefore it must be important". But at the same time, your problem in adaptations seems to NOT extend that standard to any number of other categories that are equally founded in the original but are changed across all sorts of adaptations (like height, hair color, eye color, color of clothes, coats of horses, etc. etc.).

So either you are giving skin color some kind of special importance that those other characteristics do not enjoy (in which case explain why, and "it's like that in the original" obviously doesn't apply since it works for the others as well), or you are objecting to ANY KIND of adaptation WHATSOEVER because it's not the original and it'll always differ in some way (in which case cool, we're done, move along; but why did you come to a thread about an adaptation, just to tell us you don't agree with any kind of adaptation?).

I don't have to prove it because it is an objective fact. You are being dumb about it. The character of Miriel was written as having silver hair which was unique among the bloodline of the Numenorean kings and she was relatively short, unlike elves and half elves who were relatively tall compared to humans. All of this is "relevant" to defining the world and characteristics of those people in Middle Earth. It is legally protected by copyright and therefore, not subject to being changed in that original work. Not to mention Miriel was not a queen and she never was a leader of any armies of Numenoreans. Therefore, her narrative purpose within Tolkien was not to be either one of those things. That is all defined and protected within the source material by copyright as a unique set of characteristics, narrative functions and stories.

Obviously the way Amazon decided to depict Miriel is totally different from that source material. That is not a debate, which means they decided for whatever reason that other things relating to how that character should look function were important. There is no debate on that. You just keep talking stupid s---t trying to dance and dodge that point. These two versions of Miriel are not the same. Therefore, there is no "one" definition of what is cosmetic and what isn't because obviously they are different. You keep trying to pretend that they can be seen as the 'same' when they are not, legally, creatively and logically. This is what you keep trying to dance around. The narrative function of these two characters is substantially different and therefore not the same and not part of the same canon. Again, this is not an opinion this is a fact.

First of, YOU keep bringing up "arbitrary", not me. I don't use the term, and I object to the way you use it here because it suggests something that isn't the case and I would never claim is the case. It's not the opposite of "relevant". That's just not what that word means or how it's used, check with a dictionary if you like.

Stop throwing out straw men. That has nothing to do with it. You just don't want to accept the point that what the hell you claim to be arguing is irrelevant to the point that two different legal entities have different ideas about what these characters should look like and what function they serve in the larger narrative. You know this but keep trying to BS your way around it. Because in your opinion they can be seen by you or the viewer in general as being the same because they within something called an "adaptation" of Tolkien and have a narrative purpose, regardless of whether that narrative purpose is different from the source material or not. That is purely your opinion.

You also claim that "relevance" is self-evident simply by its presence. This is a circular argument: you are saying it's important because it's mentioned, and that it's mentioned because it's important. This is fallacious reasoning, on a logical level.

It is defined by law in terms of copyright. Stop BSing. That is why Amazon had to buy the rights to reproduce those characters on screen. These are facts you just keep making up s---t.

Lastly, you're trying to suddenly make a LEGAL argument, which is 1. not done correctly (copyright protection extends well beyond single characteristics, you can't just make Batman black and suddenly it's not copyright-protected) and 2. not relevant to the point (because no one was arguing from the standpoint of copyright law, anywhere).

You didn't disprove anything and again trying to shift goal posts to avoid the fact that the copyright protects any of the meanings relevant to the words used to define these characteristics by the author. I didn't say anything about what else it may or may not extend to. You just are full of s---t trying to avoid the implication that it means those defining characteristics aren't arbitrary, otherwise they wouldn't require copyright. Because anyone rendering those same characteristics together in another work can be subject to a lawsuit based on copyright. Again, why Amazon had to purchase them in the first place, regardless of how they used them or depicted them.

Are you okay? Any illicit substances currently percolating somewhere?

When did I EVER say ANYTHING LIKE THAT? In any way? What?

Did you reply to the wrong person or something?

Yeah of course just totally ignore the fact you have no point with more inane nonse.

[Theangryone]

It would be interesting to see the shows metrics. I think the bulk of people who have amazon prime have it for shipping rather then the shows.

I expect it to go as well as a wheel time but like I've said I'm willing to be surprised.

The problem with Amazon metrics is they go off of minutes watched. They used that big time to promote WotT on the front end and not so much the back of the first season. I would think unique accounts viewed would be better but I honestly have no idea if that would even be possible to track

[Adamas102]

I don't have to prove it because it is an objective fact. You are being dumb about it. The character of Miriel was written as having silver hair which was unique among the bloodline of the Numenorean kings and she was relatively short, unlike elves and half elves who were relatively tall compared to humans. All of this is "relevant" to defining the world and characteristics of those people in Middle Earth. It is legally protected by copyright and therefore, not subject to being changed in that original work. Not to mention Miriel was not a queen and she never was a leader of any armies of Numenoreans. Therefore, her narrative purpose within Tolkien was not to be either one of those things. That is all defined and protected within the source material by copyright as a unique set of characteristics, narrative functions and stories.

Obviously the way Amazon decided to depict Miriel is totally different from that source material. That is not a debate, which means they decided for whatever reason that other things relating to how that character should look function were important.

Seriously, you really need to stop with this bullshit. Go pull out your copy of LotR (if you even have one) and find where Tar-Miriel is described. Go on, we’ll wait.

And of course once you come back and admit that she wasn’t described as such we can finally put this to rest.

[Biomega]

I don't have to prove it because it is an objective fact.

"Skin color is not just a cosmetic detail" is not an objective fact (in most cases, there exist some where that's obviously different). I've GIVEN you a case where you can PROVE that nothing changes if you change that detail (outside of the detail itself, obviously).

You can call it "objective fact" all you like, but short of finding a comment by Tolkien somewhere where he goes "and the skin colors I chose are not mere cosmetic details" (which I'm happy to accept if you have it), you cannot claim this as "objective fact" because it's demonstrably untrue.

It is legally protected by copyright and therefore, not subject to being changed in that original work.

No one is, nor has ever been, talking about changing anything IN THAT ORIGINAL WORK.

What an insane argument to be bringing up. Suddenly because we're not casting all white people in an adaptation, we want to go and rewrite Tolkien's books? Are you okay? Everything good at home?

Stop throwing out straw men.

I kindly direct you to look at the comment above. Then back at this one. Then back at the one above. Then at a mirror. Then at the ground, at your feet. Then stay there for a while, in shame and contemplation.

It is defined by law in terms of copyright.

What is? "Relevance" of skin color? Do two things for me, then:

1. Prove that this is the case. You can cite case law or civil law, I'll be happy to accept either. Please include the reference numbers so I can look up if you quoted correctly.
2. Show why legal relevance is the same as creative relevance or narrative relevance. Alternatively, show why it legally wouldn't be permissible to change skin color in an adaptation; again case law or civil law are both fine for reference.

If you can't prove 1. we're done because you made a false statement; if you can't prove 2. we're done because what you said isn't relevant. If you can prove both, we'll take it from there and keep talking.

Easy. YOU brought up legal arguments, you better be prepared to back them. Don't you dare just go "I don't have to prove shit".

the fact that the copyright protects any of the meanings relevant to the words used to define these characteristics by the author.

You say this is a "fact".

Prove it. Civil law or case law, either is fine.

You just are full of s---t trying to avoid the implication that it means those defining characteristics aren't arbitrary

How often do I have to say that I'm not using the word "arbitrary" anywhere (except to explain how I'm not using it) before you stop inserting it into my arguments? I don't think these things are arbitrary. I never did, and never will. That isn't the same as thinking they're RELEVANT. Those are not antonyms. For the n-th time. Why do you keep doing this, when I've said so many times it's not what I'm talking about, and not a word I ever use?

Why do you insist of inserting YOUR words into MY arguments, then hanging your objection on a word I NEVER USED? Does that not seem majorly fucked-up to you?

Yeah of course just totally ignore the fact you have no point with more inane nonse.

What point? I never talked about any of the stuff you raised. I never made legal arguments. I never talked about copyright. Where is all this coming from?

You are confusing me with someone else, or else are VERY confused yourself.