Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Adamas102]

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.

He’s not even referencing the source material that Amazon has access to (the works that Tolkien actually had published, not the unfinished notes that were edited and compiled after his death).

[Orby]

I think we should all look at this Rings of Power show as a show very distant from Tolkien's work and is more as a show that's based loosely on Tolkien's work instead. At the end of the day we still have the books always there for us when we want them and we'll always have the movies that you loved, nothing is changing. I think we should try and be more open minded when looking at the show. Try and separate yourself from a faithful adaptation and see something as a loose work,

Look at Jurassic Park, a movie that is nothing like the book, at all, and still is praised as a great movie. Men in black is another movie based on a comic that is very different from the movie they created, and get this, 'they replaced a white dude from the comics, with a black dude in the movie (Will Smith)' *gasp*. How about Jaws... the classic movie, I have read the books, its very different from the classic movie. and I wont even go into Starship Trooper, Die Hard and many others that ignored source material and changed a lot for the sake of finding success.

Now that's not to say the show will be a success, it'll probably flop (I don't think it will flop due to the name recognition), but the biggest bit of whinging I have seen on this forum so far has been, 'they changed the source material' which isn't a big deal when it comes to adaptations. It happens a lot, sometimes for the best sometimes for the worst.

We should try and embrace the show for what it is, not what it is compared to. That's how I am going into it anyway. Let's try and look at it as its own thing. Like Jurassic Park, or Die Hard or Men in Black was.

[Triceron]

I think we should all look at this Rings of Power show as a show very distant from Tolkien's work and is more as a show that's based loosely on Tolkien's work instead. At the end of the day we still have the books always there for us when we want them and we'll always have the movies that you loved, nothing is changing. I think we should try and be more open minded when looking at the show. Try and separate yourself from a faithful adaptation and see something as a loose work,

Look at Jurassic Park, a movie that is nothing like the book, at all, and still is praised as a great movie. Men in black is another movie based on a comic that is very different from the movie they created, and get this, 'they replaced a white dude from the comics, with a black dude in the movie (Will Smith)' *gasp*. How about Jaws... the classic movie, I have read the books, its very different from the classic movie. and I wont even go into Starship Trooper, Die Hard and many others that ignored source material and changed a lot for the sake of finding success.

Now that's not to say the show will be a success, it'll probably flop (I don't think it will flop due to the name recognition), but the biggest bit of whinging I have seen on this forum so far has been, 'they changed the source material' which isn't a big deal when it comes to adaptations. It happens a lot, sometimes for the best sometimes for the worst.

We should try and embrace the show for what it is, not what it is compared to. That's how I am going into it anyway. Let's try and look at it as its own thing. Like Jurassic Park, or Die Hard or Men in Black was.

You'd think that some people are watching a movie based on a popular book series for the first time ever.

[Orby]

You'd think that some people are watching a movie based on a popular book series for the first time ever.

Or a TV show in this case :P

[bledgor]

I think we should all look at this Rings of Power show as a show very distant from Tolkien's work and is more as a show that's based loosely on Tolkien's work instead. At the end of the day we still have the books always there for us when we want them and we'll always have the movies that you loved, nothing is changing. I think we should try and be more open minded when looking at the show. Try and separate yourself from a faithful adaptation and see something as a loose work,

Look at Jurassic Park, a movie that is nothing like the book, at all, and still is praised as a great movie. Men in black is another movie based on a comic that is very different from the movie they created, and get this, 'they replaced a white dude from the comics, with a black dude in the movie (Will Smith)' *gasp*. How about Jaws... the classic movie, I have read the books, its very different from the classic movie. and I wont even go into Starship Trooper, Die Hard and many others that ignored source material and changed a lot for the sake of finding success.

Now that's not to say the show will be a success, it'll probably flop (I don't think it will flop due to the name recognition), but the biggest bit of whinging I have seen on this forum so far has been, 'they changed the source material' which isn't a big deal when it comes to adaptations. It happens a lot, sometimes for the best sometimes for the worst.

We should try and embrace the show for what it is, not what it is compared to. That's how I am going into it anyway. Let's try and look at it as its own thing. Like Jurassic Park, or Die Hard or Men in Black was.

Thing is for ever Jurassic Park you have 10 Eragons, and this sure does look like an Eragon especially considering all the interviews they have done really only talk about how diverse and inclusive the show is, and not anything about the show. THe actress for Diza even had the comment they "aren't changing anything, but they are interpreting everything", like bruh come on.

[Triceron]

Thing is for ever Jurassic Park you have 10 Eragons, and this sure does look like an Eragon especially considering all the interviews they have done really only talk about how diverse and inclusive the show is, and not anything about the show. THe actress for Diza even had the comment they "aren't changing anything, but they are interpreting everything", like bruh come on.

How's this any different from any other PR bullshit you get out of any actor interviews? Like, literally same shit happens, regardless of whether the movies are good or bad. Look up any article on Variety and you'll find questions and talks of diversity.

PR =/= quality or success of the show.

[s_bushido]

Thing is for ever Jurassic Park you have 10 Eragons, and this sure does look like an Eragon especially considering all the interviews they have done really only talk about how diverse and inclusive the show is, and not anything about the show.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the only thing you hear about when your knowledge of the show comes exclusively from outrage merchants who make a living selling dipshits on the horrors of the Nefarious Woke Agenda™.

Meanwhile, back in reality, one of the first things that comes up in the RoP news section is the guy who plays Elendil talking about his character:

Opening up about the adventures that await his character, he says, "In the beginning of the series, Elendil is a sea captain, a very capable mariner. He is a widower trying to bring up his three adult children. All of us are suffering from great grief and there is a great turbulence in the family. What you find is that Numenor has been polarised between people with a nationalist view, the people who want to live forever – the kingsmen, and those who are loyal to the elves. That polarization is represented between the family and Elendil finds himself being drawn toward the seat of power. He has a battle going on between his head and his heart. His heart is elvish and loyal, but his head is practical and trying to chart a beautiful route for his family in the new world and new city."

The character Elendil, previously played by Peter McKenzie, makes a brief appearance in Peter Jackson's 'Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' where he is at the forefront of the Battle of the Last Alliance. The books too have only a few mentions about the character. Sharing how the makers and showrunners pieced together his character, Owen says, "For Elendil, Tolkien left these flag poles and signposts along the way so you have an idea of who he is, but don’t really know him and that’s what’s really exciting."

He goes on to add, "What is gorgeous about playing this character, is that we know from what Tolkien has written, that we have to get him to the last alliance of Elves and men which is him, Gil-Galad, Elron and Galadriel fighting together against Sauron. I am so looking forward to how JD and Patrick are writing this reluctant hero – a man who doesn’t want to lead, who has his head down and is suffering the loss of his wife. This is about how he has to take responsibility. The Tolkienian theme is fate and recognising what your fate is. What we see in this first season is perhaps Elendil understanding how he thought his fate was one thing but he is being told it is another."

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/93492185.cms

You know, typical actor interview shit. But I did deceptively cut off the beginning of the article where they briefly talk about his role in a Bollywood film. Which I'm sure means that everything else he says thereafter is 100% about "diversity and inclusion."

[InfiniteCharger]

"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).

Again, that is your opinion. The objective fact is that the details of Miriels character were described by Tolkien and one of those characteristics was silver hair. That was significant to his intent for that character. There is no definition of that character outside of what Tolkien wrote and whatever Amazon does with that character is a legally separate entity and not to be confused with the original work of Tolkien. You just so desperately want to "win" that you cannot accept that Amazons version of Miriel is not a replacement for the Miriel in Tolkiens work because it is a wholly separate creation and legally distinct from the original. It is not the same literal character. So your argument that how she looked wasn't important IS SUBJECTIVE OPINION.

And this is the issue you keep avoiding where Tolkien has letters along with the Tolkien Foundation, stating that they do not want the work of Tolkien to become a commodity with many different versions and interpretations of his characters. He specifically wrote that he wanted what he wrote to be considered as the definitive representation of that world and the story in it. And therefore he was very resistant to people doing adaptations because he felt they would not respect his wishes. And you are basically saying exactly that by arguing that whatever some company decides is important about any of Tolkiens characters is the only thing that counts. When in reality that is not the only thing that counts when it comes to the actual origin and source of those characters as they should always be seen as the truest most accurate version and anything else just a copy or derivative. Whether the Amazon version is as important in terms of what the actual character of Miriel is intended to look like over and above the actual original source material is just an opinion. Legally Amazon only has rights to their adaptation and not Tolkiens original work and they cannot and not supersede those original rights.

Meaning, 20 years from now if another studio decides to do something in Tolkien's world, they still have to go through the Tolkien estate or appropriate right holders to make an adaptation and not Amazon. Because Amazon doesn't own the rights to Tolkiens work. So whatever they have is limited in scope to a few pieces of his work they rights to adapt. As such they could not stop another studio from buying the rights to other parts of Tolkien such as the Simarillion and Fall of the House of Numenor and doing a completely different version of Miriel. Which again, goes against whatever nonsense argument you keep trying to make because the only "true" Miriel is in Tolkiens work and everything else is simply another character based on the original but not literally or legally the same as the original.

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.

Stop making up BS. How he described the character is how she is described in terms of copyright. There is nothing "cosmetic" about it. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. If it was just "cosmetic" then Amazon wouldn't have had to pay for the rights to do an adaption with a version of that character, because all of his work related to defining that character, her story and the narrative are legally protected. There is nothing cosmetic about that. What Amazon decides is cosmetic is only in relationship to the legal rights to portray that character in a work based on Tolkien but that does not replace or redefine the character as described in the original copyrighted texts. You just like making up s---t.

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

Of course because legally it cant be done. Duh. What you are talking about is your opinion on Amazons interpretation of that character from Tolkien's 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?

That is not what I said and you know it. What I said is that the character in the adaptation itself is legally separate character and does not supersede or override that character as defined in the original. There is nothing to debate here silly. These are two separate legally protected works. Tolkiens work is one thing and Amazons work is another. They are not the SAME and don't have to be the same. You keep trying to jump around between what Amazon does with their version of the character and what Tolkien wrote defining the character as interchangeable. They are not interchangeable. The Amazon version of this character would not work or function within Tolkiens work and not because of skin color per se but all the other changes being made to go along with it. You just keep acting like even just a skin color change is cosmetic when what is and isn't cosmetic is irrelevant to what is under copyright which has to do will all of the combined characteristics defined by the author in the original work whatever those characteristics are. You just keep making up s---t trying to sound smart. The only thing really you can do is say whether you are personally OK or not with the result produced by Amazon, which again is your opinion. Amazon making Miriel a black woman does not mean that Tolkien intended her to be a black woman. Whether you are OK with that is a totally separate issue and cosmetics has nothing to do with it. Because it isn't up to Amazon to define what is and isn't cosmetic about Tolkien's original work because that is fixed in writing and under copyright. They can only decide what what is cosmetic for the scope of their rights to doing an adaptation and that is totally separate from the original work.

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.

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.

Stupid, the entire work is protected by copyright. Therefore nobody can use a character from a place called Middle Earth who is named Miriel and part of something called Numenor without permission of the copyright holder. All of the characteristics defined by the author of said character in the copyrighted work is part of any potential lawsuits against other characters that could be constituted as copies of that character. This is common sense. You keep talking s---t out your behind to pretend to be saying something but you aren't. Skin color is just one part of this and cosmetic has absolutely nothing to do with it.

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.

Now you are just BSing some more pretending to claim that you don't understand copyright. Obviously if what Tolkien wrote wasn't important in terms of copyright, Amazon wouldn't have had to pay for it. Silly attempts to argue that skin color, hair and other characteristics are not relevant to that copyright as "purely cosmetic" is stupid. That is you just making up s---t trying to be right when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

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".


You say this is a "fact".

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

The fact Amazon had to pay for the rights is simple enough. But of course you like dancing around facts because you want to pretend that what is and isn't cosmetic is not based on the interpretation of different individuals. Because how the original character is defined is covered by legal copyright. How other people imagine the character is irrelevant to that. So in the future, someone making another story with the rights to Tolkien can make a story about Numenor and have a totally different version of Miriel that is Native American, European or Asian. That is because what Amazon only has legal rights to is limited to their own work and not the original definition of the character which is still with the Tolkien estate. And therefore anybody who also purchases the appropriate rights could also therefore have another version of Miriel different from Amazon. Amazon cannot force them to make Miriel look the same just like Peter Jackson cannot force Amazon to make Elrond look the same as he did in the Lord of the Rings movie. Meaning rights to an adaptation do not force a consistent definition between all of these parties as to what this character looked like. It isn't an issue of an agreed definition of cosmetics, versus an issue of interpretation by the parties involved in the adaptation as to what is important for their story and therefore is cosmetic. And none of those versions overwrite or supersede Tolkien's work which is the only authority in terms of what the original character looks like in that work. Anything else is a totally separate entity and therefore subject to totally different thought processes and decisions on what is and isn't "cosmetic" and what should be maintained from that original characters description.

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?


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.

You keep using words like cosmetic, "important to the narrative" and all these other words to describe your opinions as if they are hard facts. The only hard facts are those I stated about copyright and the legal rights afforded to those doing adaptations. As such there can be many different interpretations and versions of the same character in various adaptations of the same work from comic books, to animations, to movies and television. All of those versions do not have to follow the characteristics defined in the source material. And this is exactly what Tolkien did not want. You just are arguing that certain characteristics can be deemed not important to the narrative in any particular adaptation. Which I actually agree with. What I disagree with is this idea that the definition of what is cosmetic is going to be shared by all parties doing adaptations or with Tolkien himself, which means it is subject to interpretation. They are not going to be shared because everyone has their own imagination and interpretations and narratives that they want to tell even within the scope of Tolkien's world. So the word cosmetic only applies to the rights of the those doing the adaptation and legally has nothing to do with what Tolkien already wrote in terms of defining those characteristics relative to the original copyright. They can only be considered cosmetic in the legal scope of an adaptation which at that point is a totally separate legally protected entity even if it is describing or depicting the same character. These studios can not define what is and is not cosmetic in Tolkiens original work which would constitute theoretically changing the original work, even though we both know they can't. So saying skin color is cosmetic only applies to Amazon's rings of power and not to the original work itself because what Tolkien wrote is the only thing that matters in that work. Cosmetic has nothing to do with it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The full story of Miriel (not Tar Miriel because she wasn't a Queen), is not told in LOTR. There are only references.

I already posted this. To even do an appropriate adaptation of the 2nd age they need more than the appendices and they don't really have much more than that.

So a lot of this being created from scratch because they really don't have the rights to a lot of what Tolkien actually wrote.

Tolkien wrote a detailed genealogy for line of Numenorean Kings. That is the source material from which we know about this character. It is literally a genealogy, showing the family tree from the first King and Queen all the way to Tar Miriel who died at the destruction of Numenor. For her to be black, would mean others in that family tree would also have to be black. There is no way for her to just pop up as black in the middle of a line of people who are not black. Her cousin is Ar Pharazon who is also in this series and is not black. So how is it possible for a black woman to show up in a family tree that is white? It doesn't make sense. And this shows that the source material clearly defines the reason and purpose for these characters and why their relationships as Numenoreans are important. There is no "other" narrative to this. Again, Amazon has made substantial changes to this.

The Line of Elros: Kings of Númenor is a chapter in the book Unfinished Tales, written by J.R.R. Tolkien and published posthumously by his son, Christopher Tolkien. Less an actual tale, it resembles more a chronicle, consisting of a complete list of the Kings of Númenor from the kingdom's foundation, in the year S.A. 32 to its destruction, year 3319.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/The_...f_N%C3%BAmenor

Elros was the son of Eärendil, the great hero of the First Age, and his wife Elwing. He was the twin brother of Elrond and both were Half-elven.[3] Choosing to live as a mortal Man, he became a lord of the Edain and the first King of Númenor, taking the name Tar-Minyatur.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Elros

Eärendil the Mariner was one of the Half-elven, and an important figure in the legends of the Elder Days. Descended from all Three Houses of the Edain, he was the first known person to reach Aman in the First Age after the Noldor went into exile. He was crucial in the War of Wrath and the patriarch of the line of the Kings of Númenor through his son Elros.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/E%C3%A4rendil



This is how much Tolkien actually wrote about the history of Middle Earth. This is why he is so respected for his work. To arbitrarily just drop a black woman into this, with no explanation as to how that was possible, when both the Edain and Noldor are described as "fair" doesn't make absolutely any sense. But according to you this doesn't count as important to whatever "narrative" Amazon is making up. He even created a language for the Elves and culture and histories for each of the various family lines. This isn't just some old random story that is being adapted with no well defined back story and history. It is a very unique work which is why people are calling out Amazon on their changes to the source material because it ruins everything else Tolkien wrote.

For example, Miriel was never a queen of Numenor:

"And last of all the mounting wave... took to its bosom Tar-Míriel the Queen, fairer than silver or ivory or pearls." — The Silmarillion, Akallabêth

Tar-Míriel was the only child of the late-marrying Tar-Palantir, the twenty-fourth King of Númenor.[1] By the Law of Succession, established by Tar-Aldarion, she should have become the fourth Ruling Queen of Númenor. However, after her father's death, Míriel's cousin Pharazôn took her unwillingly as his wife and seized the Sceptre of Númenor for himself, taking the title of Ar-Pharazôn the Golden. He changed Míriel's name to Ar-Zimraphel.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Tar-M%C3%ADriel

[Biomega]

Again, that is your opinion.

So what you say is "objective fact", and what I say is "my opinion".

Really? You're making it THAT easy to dismiss you?

The objective fact is that the details of Miriels character were described by Tolkien and one of those characteristics was silver hair.

But that's not the fact anyone is disagreeing with (and I love how you went from "she's white" to "she has silver hair" all of a sudden).

The problem is that you claim "her skin color is NOT just a cosmetic detail" as "objective fact". And that is bullshit you cannot (and apparently don't want to) substantiate.

It seems you really cannot stop going back to your safety blanket no matter where things go, huh.

Stop making up BS. How he described the character is how she is described in terms of copyright.

Since we're on the topic of "stop making up BS", I'd like you to prove this is true, please.

You wouldn't be making up BS. WOULD YOU?

Of course because legally it cant be done. Duh. What you are talking about is your opinion on Amazons interpretation of that character from Tolkien's work.

So the reason YOU brought it up is...?

That is not what I said and you know it.

Allow me:

subject to being changed in that original work

So yeah, liar liar pants on fire.

Stupid, the entire work is protected by copyright.

But you didn't talk about "the entire work", you talked about VERY SPECIFIC things.

I'd like proof THESE SPECIFIC THINGS are protected, like you said. Because that is very different from THE WHOLE WORK being protected - legally as well as in the vernacular.

Prove your claims or GTFO, really.

Now you are just BSing some more pretending to claim that you don't understand copyright.

I want YOU to PROVE what you said is TRUE.

Just going "lmao don't you know it is?" is not going to fly here, maggot.

You've been lying your ass off for close to a week. I'm tired of this BS-slinging.

PROVE YOUR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS OR SHUT UP.

YOU brought this whole legal stuff up. YOU DID. Not me. YOU. YOU. YOU.

Now demonstrate you actually know wtf you're talking about, or admit you just made shit up.

[Triceron]

So what you say is "objective fact", and what I say is "my opinion".

You're misquoting.

The objective fact in question was how a certain character was visually described in the books (Hair color in the example), and how that description is by all accounts factual, objectively.

Anything you're point you're pushing beyond that was not covered in the reply. Skintones are not an objective fact in Tolkien's work unless it is explicitly stated what that is. The description of 'Fair' is really up to debate, and in most cases skintones aren't brought up at all. So applying a statement such as 'Skintone is just a cosmetic detail' is really just an opinion, because there isn't anything pertaining to actual facts when it comes to Tolkien's work. The work itself doesn't make a statement on whether skintones are a cosmetic detail or are more important to the lineage of characters beyond what is already described in the material.

Anything beyond that is literally interpretation; pure opinion.

Like, we could literally be having a conversation about "Green Eggs and Ham". One could make a point that it doesn't matter what color the Eggs and Ham is, the core story is about trying something new while the actual color is merely cosmetic. It could be Purple Eggs and Ham, or Blue Eggs and Ham, and the story wouldn't play out any differently. But if we're going by objective facts of the story, then the Eggs and Ham are objectively Green. So one could say the Ham and Eggs don't need to be Green in order to be told because color is purely cosmetic, but that would be purely opinion. We can't just pretend the story doesn't exist and doesn't already play out with the Ham and Eggs being Green; it is an objective fact that the story presents Green Eggs and Ham. These points aren't mutually exclusive nor do they negate the core arguments that either of you two are making. If anything, you both merely disagree on the point of how things should be interpreted.

On the one hand, it'd be perfectly acceptable to swap out Green Eggs and Ham for any other color with no loss to the integrity of the story; completely valid and viable. On the other hand, changing the color of the Eggs and Ham takes away from the spirit of the original story which was written specifically to have Green Eggs and Ham; yet a different completely valid and viable point. There is no right or wrong here.