Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[InfiniteCharger]

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

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


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.


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?


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


Allow me:


So yeah, liar liar pants on fire.


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.


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.

Come on dude. Just come off it. Your opinion on this show is all you can talk about.
The point of white hair is that this is something that is also different in the show vs the source material.
The point is that Amazon is not following the source material and they don't have to and are well within their right not to.
Just as any other company that buys the rights and does another work set in Tolkien's world doesn't have to.
Whether those changes that are made from the source material are "good", "cosmetic", "releavant" or anything else is pure interpretation on Amazons part or any other studio. Just the ability to like those changes and see the result as "good" is purely subjective opinion on the part of the viewer separate from the facts of what Tolkien wrote.

Stop pretending this is about anything more than that.

I don't need to prove facts because they are facts. You just keep doing this silly duck dance around things you cant refute.

Surely your point here is not to pretend to argue with me about the facts of copyright law or what legally Amazon can and cannot do with this adaptation.

[Logwyn]

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

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

I agree with this. I'll just be happy to see Elves, Orcs, and Rings of Power running around.

[Biomega]

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.

Actually not.

THAT fact no one would dispute (it's there, black and white). What was in question there was whether "skin color is NOT just a cosmetic detail" was an objective fact, which is NOT in evidence.

Here's the original quote:

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".

And here's my responses:

Prove this. That's not self-evident.

"Skin color is not just a cosmetic detail" is not an objective fact

I was not - there or anywhere else - disputing what was actually in the books. In fact this whole thing STARTED with me saying I don't know what's in the books because I haven't read them in a while, but I'm fine with just accepting what people say is in there is in fact in there, because my argument isn't contingent on that anyway.

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.

No. There is an easy test for this, that doesn't require personal preference: does the narrative change in any way by changing this detail, outside of the detail itself?

As I've said many times, where there are actual narrative reasons for someone's skin color, I'm 100% fine with preserving that in casting. It's just that in the vast majority of cases, there isn't actually such a reason, and skin color is on the same narrative level as any number of other details that can be and are changed in adaptations all the time without anyone ever complaining, such as height, eye color, hair color, horse coats, color of clothing, etc. etc. If you want to elevate skin color above those details which are tacitly accepted as mutable by practically everyone, give me a REASON.

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.

Why would that be purely opinion if you can DEMONSTRATE that nothing about the story changes if you switch out the color to green?

Opinions are preferences outside of evidentiary contingency. They need no justification and have no refutation. This example, however, is easy to provide evidence for and justify. Having an opinion that is identical to an argument is pure redundancy; it's like saying "I have faith in physics" - you're free to do that, but it's redundant because faith is belief without justifiable reason and you can already believe in physics WITH a justifiable reason.

If you refuse to engage with the argument for a position YOU HOLD and only want to engage with it as an opinion, you're free to do so; but that means the discussion is over, because there is no arguing about opinions. And of course you can't do that for arguments made by SOMEONE ELSE, because turning them into a redundant opinion is not up to you, only to them.

We can't just pretend the story doesn't exist

Which no one is doing, or ever claimed they were, or ever said they wanted to do.

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

That's saying "the color is important because it was written like that originally, and it was written like that originally because it's important". Circular arguments aren't arguments. If you think there is a reason, name it; don't turn things into a tautology.

Come on dude. Just come off it. Your opinion on this show is all you can talk about.

You're objectively wrong. I can make arguments about it, which aren't simply subjective preference - which is what I'm doing. If you want to refute those arguments (which I encourage), do it by bringing better arguments.

You don't get to bring in your opinion against my argument; and you also don't get to turn my argument into an opinion. That's dishonest discourse.

I don't need to prove facts because they are facts.

And we need to take your word for that, or something? The whole POINT of providing proof is to show they ACTUALLY ARE FACTS. That's what proof means.

Are you for real? Like actually?

You just keep doing this silly duck dance around things you cant refute.

That's not how the burden of proof works.

You don't just get to say things, claim they're facts, and then wait to be disproven. YOU make a claim, YOU have to prove it. That's how discourse functions.

Otherwise please disprove that you are not just being a massive troll and writing these things wrong on purpose, because you actually agree with me and just want to have a laugh RP-ing as someone with bad arguments. Which is, according to you, A FACT I don't need to prove because it's a FACT. And if you disagree, disprove it.

See how that works?

[Gumble]

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.

The difference between those movies you listed and the stuff that has come our recently is that the changes made to those previous properties made the product better. Getting Will Smith for MiB made that movie WAY better due to his acting ability.

It is entirely possible that the changes they have made to Tolkien's world will make for a better product that makes people go "wow this really is better!"

However, judging from the works that have come out over the past few years, the trend says that simply won't be the case.

Who knows, maybe everyone will be wrong, but I'd wager that not a single person in this thread defending the show would actually put money on it being good.

[Biomega]

Getting Will Smith [...] made that movie WAY better due to his acting ability.

Well, here's something I never thought I'd hear said XD

[Triceron]

Actually not.

THAT fact no one would dispute (it's there, black and white). What was in question there was whether "skin color is NOT just a cosmetic detail" was an objective fact, which is NOT in evidence.

"Skin detail is (not) cosmetic" is purely opinion. It is interpretation. It isn't objective fact. I'm not sure what you're confused about otherwise, since what you're talking about here is not fact to begin with, and no one has agreed upon your use of the term to be factual whatsoever. Defining whether any detail as being cosmetic or not is all rooted in opinion.

I'll even go back to the Green Eggs and Ham example. Is the color of the Eggs and Ham merely a cosmetic detail? There is no such thing as an objective, factual answer to this question. It is purely subjective.

No. There is an easy test for this, that doesn't require personal preference: does the narrative change in any way by changing this detail, outside of the detail itself?

You'd fail your own test since your own question is subjective. One can only interpret a narrative change though any change in details. There is no way to measure whether a change to the story is a narrative one or a non-narrative one, everything is contextualized through the reader's opinion. Does changing Green Eggs and Ham to Purple Eggs and Ham change the narrative? There is no objective answer to this, because the color of the Eggs and Ham are subjectively tied to the narrative. John can say yes it affects the narrative, Kevin can say no it doesn't affect the narrative, and neither of them would be wrong.

Why would that be purely opinion if you can DEMONSTRATE that nothing about the story changes if you switch out the color to green?

The entire concept of Green Eggs and Ham is meant to invoke an idea of tasty food that is visually abnormal and unpleasing. It'd be quite different if we're talking about Yellow Eggs and Pink Ham, wouldn't you agree? I could argue that the narrative changes if the story was about normal colored Eggs and Ham. And I could also argue that the narrative doesn't change if we're only concerned about Sam being stubborn in trying any type of food regardless of its color, even if its normal like yellow eggs and pink ham. It's really up to interpretation, that is the whole point. There is no objective factual answer here.

Let's put it this way - if all the Dwarves in this new show were digitally altered to have bright-blue skin like the aliens in Avatar, would you still argue that skin color is merely cosmetic? Extreme example this may be, this hammers in the point that there is no objective factual answer to this question.

[Biomega]

It isn't objective fact.

Exactly.

I'm not sure what you're confused about otherwise, since what you're talking about here is not fact to begin with, and no one has agreed upon your use of the term to be factual whatsoever. Defining whether any detail as being cosmetic or not is all rooted in opinion.

I've given an empirical test. You don't have to take this on faith, you can just... test it.

Is the color of the Eggs and Ham merely a cosmetic detail?

Yes, but with one caveat - it matters, in this case, that they're NOT yellow. Aside from that, pretty much any color works. The only narratively important part is that it's a color other than yellow, not that it's green specifically. (Rhyme aside, of course, which you can include by limiting it to any color of appropriate syllabic structure, if you like)

These things are TESTABLE. They're not just subjective preferences. You can check if something changes or not.

[eschatological]

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.

Your logic breaks down here. The "spirit of the original" is subjective. Specific detail by an author isn't indicative of spirit at all, it is purely descriptive. Whether that description informs the "spirit" of the work is different from work to work.

I hate to go back to the same well again: Black Panther vs. Nick Fury.
Both are described as black.
The spirit of the Black Panther story is about an African Prince of a country which purposefully hid and isolated itself during European colonization.
The spirit of the Nick Fury story is about a government bureaucrat putting together a team of superheroes.

The former's spirit is changed by changing the description of the character. The latter is not. These are analyses made independent of the same descriptors.

The question is if there's an objective reading of when a description is tied to the spirit of a work. And I think Biomega's definition is perfectly fine: Does the description changing change the spirit of the story? I'd add another question: if it does change the spirit of the story, is there another worthwhile story to be told there as well?

Of course, there's bad faith arguments to be made that changing Nick Fury (or War Machine's race) does change the spirit of the story, but it seems obvious to me that that can be dismissed for the bad faith it is.

[Triceron]

Yes, but with one caveat - it matters, in this case, that they're NOT yellow. Aside from that, pretty much any color works. The only narratively important part is that it's a color other than yellow, not that it's green specifically. (Rhyme aside, of course, which you can include by limiting it to any color of appropriate syllabic structure, if you like)

These things are TESTABLE. They're not just subjective preferences. You can check if something changes or not.

You can't exactly waive away Yellow as though it were an exception to your rule. It is the singular point I'm using to illustrate how a cosmetic detail CAN have a crucial impact to overall narrative, if interpreted so.

And if you were to pass off any other variation of Green Eggs and Ham, would you say that everyone would accept this new color variation as nothing more than mere cosmetic detail? It would be mired in controversy. You would have people coming out of the woodwork both in defense on both sides of the fence. Meaning it is NOT an objective fact that this is merely a cosmetic detail that has no impact on the overall narrative. It can, because the narrative itself is subject to the reader's interpretation of the product of the whole.

Someone could interpret the narrative as singularly focusing on Sam's stubborness, and they could be fine with any color of Eggs and Ham. Another person could see the signficance of the Eggs and Ham being Green to be narratively important to invoke a sense of disgust, since it is visually comparative to moldy food. There is no singular objective way to define the narrative.

[eschatological]

And if you were to pass off any other variation of Green Eggs and Ham, would you say that everyone would accept this new color variation as nothing more than mere cosmetic detail? It would be mired in controversy. You would have people coming out of the woodwork both in defense on both sides of the fence. Meaning it is NOT an objective fact that this is merely a cosmetic detail that has no impact on the overall narrative. It can, because the narrative itself is subject to the reader's interpretation of the product of the whole.
.

There is such a thing as literary analysis. Once the analysis is made that the "spirit" of Green Eggs and Ham is about "trying new things," you can objectively say that any color eggs which don't conform to "old things" is fine to maintain the spirit of the story.

[Triceron]

Your logic breaks down here. The "spirit of the original" is subjective. Specific detail by an author isn't indicative of spirit at all, it is purely descriptive. Whether that description informs the "spirit" of the work is different from work to work.

The 'Spirit of the original' is purely subjectively defined. Just as my explanation to Biomega here about the narrative, there's no way you can define the spirit of the original through the Author, it can only be defined through the lens of the reader and how they choose to interpret the works.

Like with Lovecraft's work and some of his more controversial racially insensitive inclusions in his story. Would we say it's in the 'Spirit of the originals' to include the racism as originally depicted? Or could we have a story that is just as relevant to the "Spirit of the original" with its removal? These are only answerable through the reader, nothing more or less.

[Biomega]

You can't exactly waive away Yellow as though it were an exception to your rule.

Why not? I've ALWAYS included a provision for characteristics that DO have a narrative reason - if it matters a character has white skin, then casting should preserve that, too. It's only irrelevant for cases without a narrative reason. That was always my point from the beginning, and it's the same case here.

I'm not saying it NEVER matters, I'm saying where it DOESN'T, you can change it. And that's always been what I was saying, from the start.

And if you were to pass off any other variation of Green Eggs and Ham, would you say that everyone would accept this new color variation as nothing more than mere cosmetic detail?

That's a flawed question. I can't control people's minds.

What I can say is that people who wouldn't accept it wouldn't have a GOOD REASON to not accept it. That doesn't mean they WILL.

And by the way: NOT changing it ALSO doesn't mean "everyone would accept the old color variation" either. So it's really not a good point to be trying to make.

It would be mired in controversy.

Yes, and? Is something only valid if it causes no controversy? Or perhaps only if it causes minor controversy? How much controversy do you say is acceptable?

The best you can do is check for good reasons; popularity isn't always going to follow that, but that's not a disqualifier. Lots of things were unpopular in some way but were done anyway WITH GOOD REASON; and I'm sure lots of things will be done in the future that will be unpopular in some way but also be done with good reason. Popularity isn't really a great measure here.

Meaning it is NOT an objective fact that this is merely a cosmetic detail that has no impact on the overall narrative.

That's entirely independent of whether or not people LIKE it when you change something. This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[Triceron]

There is such a thing as literary analysis. Once the analysis is made that the "spirit" of Green Eggs and Ham is about "trying new things," you can objectively say that any color eggs which don't conform to "old things" is fine to maintain the spirit of the story.

https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/t...is-subjective/

Sure you can do an analysis on it but it'd only ever be a subjective analysis.

There is nothing objective to glean from this. There is no objective singular way to define the "Spirit" of any given narrative. The closest thing you can come to is a general concensus or agreed-upon collective opinion. It is not objective by any means.

- - - Updated - - -

That's entirely independent of whether or not people LIKE it when you change something. This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

The very nature of being able to be interpreted subjectively makes it subjective.

There is no objective way to define the change of the color of Green Eggs and Ham as not affecting the narrative.