1. #2521
    Herald of the Titans Serpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,507
    All I can say after seeing clips and pictures of this show, all male elfs look really bad, round and square faces. Maybe it's just me but shouldn't they have more of oval, long faces with smooth skin? So far they look like meth addicts and Galadriel looks below average. And the ears...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAmbient View Post
    Holy walls of text...
    Some people have clearly way to much time on their hands.
    Quote Originally Posted by Venant View Post
    I think many people will agree that genocide can be justified.

  2. #2522
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    It is implicit in the statment "3 white men in the woods".
    No it's not. That's why I asked the question.

    And instead of just ANSWERING like a reasonable human being, you wrote an essay about fifty things I never said.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Except in this case, we are talking about Tolkien and again, not to beat a dead horse, the issue is whether Tolkien's narrative was intended to be based around people looking similar to those in ancient England and therefore white, especially for the Elves and Numenoreans.
    The issue is whether it MATTERS, not whether it's MENTIONED.

    Which you apparently STILL don't see a distinction between, despite me repeating it so often.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    OK. But again, we are talking about Tolkien and I do not agree that these characteristics are arbitrary because hes spent a lot of time fleshing out this world and the "races" in it to a very detailed degree. That is not arbitrary.
    You're too hung up on the word "arbitrary" (which YOU introduced into this in the first place, not me). The question I'm asking is DOES IT MATTER for the story, not whether or not Tolkien just rolled the dice or had something in mind. There's a whole catalog of cosmetic details authors choose for NON-arbitrary reasons but that nevertheless have NO SUBSTANTIAL NARRATIVE ROLE of any kind - things like for example hair color, height, eye color, the color of clothing, and so on and so forth. All cosmetic details that were chosen to be JUST SO by authors, yet in the grand scheme of the narrative are usually of no to negligible importance narrative (and, as always, in cases where they're NOT negligible, they should be retained). My point is that for most stories, skin color is on exactly that level of relevance - a cosmetic detail, not a plot driver.

    That does NOT mean I'm saying it's "arbitrary", and it does NOT mean I'm saying "the author just did this because they're racist!". All I'm saying is that given the story at hand, there seems to be no substantial function to that particular characteristic, and as such, it's one of the many many details that can freely be changed without significantly affecting anything about the story.

    That's EXACTLY what happens in adaptations for any number of details without substantial relevance to the narrative, and no one ever raises a problem about THOSE; yet they somehow DO for skin color.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    1) whether Tolkien intended certain races of characters to be white
    The problem is right here.

    You've never offered ANYTHING of substance to show why their skin color MATTERS to anything in the narrative.

    All you've ever put forward was "Tolkien wrote them/intended them to be white" and "making them non-white would not be how it is in the original".

    Which is the exact same argument you could make for any number of OTHER cosmetic details that also have no relevance to the actual narrative, and no one ever seriously complains about THOSE. Why is skin color different?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    If it is not a lie then why are you sitting here telling me that skin color is arbitrary in a work of fiction based on ancient Europe?
    The reason I put Lie. on things is, as I explained, because it's you claiming something I never said.

    Like what you're saying there.

    I'll continue to do this, so please don't bother offering statements I never made; if you disagree, all you need to do to disprove me is quote something. Should be simple, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Please explain how you can argue that roles should "not exclude anybody" unless you believe that non whites should be able to play roles defined as white?
    I feel insulted that you're now asking me to please explain what I've BEEN EXPLAINING in clearly marked, clearly pointed out form, FOR THREE DAYS.

    Kindly re-read the 20 or so times I literally explained this exact thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You literally just said "Not unless it also has an actual narrative function, rather than being a cosmetic detail" as if to say that these things are open to interpretation and the source material doesn't matter.
    The FACT of whether or not something is described as X in the source is not open to interpretation.

    Whether or not X is RELEVANT to the narrative in some substantive way, that absolutely is.

    And if your position is that skin color IS relevant to the narrative, all I'm asking is that you back up that claim with more than "well that skin color is what it says in the text", which is a tautology.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    This whole discussion is about sticking to the source material
    No it isn't.

    YOU are trying to MAKE it about that, because your entire argument is "well it's not like that in the text!" and you have nothing else to support your position.

    As I've explained many times, truth to the source material by itself is not an argument, just a red herring - because of the existence of a huge amount of details that are quite clearly irrelevant to the plot and are changed ALL THE TIME in any kind of adaptation without anyone complaining. That PROVES that JUST going "but the teeeeext!" isn't sufficient to argue anything; you need to show why a detail is RELEVANT, too, in order to make any sort of point.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    An analogy that does nothing to elaborate the point about skin color which is obvious.
    So that's a "yes" then, on being incapable of parsing analogies?

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Why should they have to "drop more black people" into the story if they already weren't there?
    To address the problem of "omg how is there ONE SINGLE BLACK PERSON all of a sudden I AM SO CONFUSED!" that you invented as a rather hyperbolic hypothetical. Which, as I've explained in that same paragraph, isn't actually something that'd ever happen, but even IF IT DID, it has the simple fix above.

    The point being that yours is not a sensible objection to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    You are free to have your own views and opinions on what qualifies as a good "adaptation".
    HOLD ON.

    I was talking about the LABEL "adaptation". Now you are suddenly talking about what makes a GOOD adaptation.

    Those are not the same thing, poppet. Not even close.

    Please argue HONESTLY.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    These stories were all about white Europeans was the point. You haven't provided any evidence otherwise. LOL
    Because I'm not disputing that point. Never have. I'm not arguing about the facts, I'm arguing about their RELEVANCE.

    Which you'd know if you were interested in parsing my statements, rather than just making your own. "LOL".

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    The point though is that wouldn't be Tolkien anymore. That is an objective fact. Your subjective opinion on whether or not it "could" work is irrelevant to that.
    You keep making about things I'm not and never was talking about. I've literally said so, many times.

    Why? Why do you keep going back to things I've already SAID MANY TIMES I don't dispute and am not arguing against?

    "But this hat is BLUE!"

    "Yes, yes it is. Does that matter, though?"

    "Dude, stop saying the hat isn't blue, IT IS FUCKING BLUE!"

    "I... I know. I've said it is. But why is that relevant?"

    "LMAO I can't even, you clown, THE HAT IS BLUE, it SAYS SO RIGHT THERE are you for real."

    "I don't deny that. But is the color actually important?"

    "Holy shit how are you still trying to say the hat isn't blue IT IS BLUE, BLUE, BLUE it says in the text EVERYWHERE that it is fucking BLUE!"

    This is kind of surreal at this point.

  3. #2523
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Except in this case, we are talking about Tolkien and again, not to beat a dead horse, the issue is whether Tolkien's narrative was intended to be based around people looking similar to those in ancient England and therefore white, especially for the Elves and Numenoreans. I believe it was and that is the crux of the issue. Other people may want to interpret it differently but my point is that there is nothing inherently racist if that is what he intended.
    Except that given the time span he set his legendarium in, the ancient peoples of Europe were only just developing the genetic markers that contributed to their skin lightening. So the men of the 1st and 2nd Age should actually be mostly dark or tanned skinned.

    Tolkien knew he wanted to set his stories on Earth, but he was going for pre-historic mythology, so the idea that he was aiming to encapsulate the ACTUAL Europeans of that time (which would all have been nomadic tribes of hunter gatherers) is silly. He also knew that the landmass he created didn't match up to what Europe looked like at any point in time. He knew that the time and place he was setting his stories in were completely imaginary, but rooted in the familiarity of Earth.

    When asked what sort of clothing the people of Middle-earth wore he didn't say "that's easy, 10th century English clothing". He said he didn't know, but that it would be quite varied depending on location and custom and referenced the Bayeux Tapestry (11th century Normand horsemen) for Rohan and ancient Egypt for Numenor (specifically detailing the crown of Gondor as resembling that of Egyptian Pharaohs so more indicative of people who lived hundreds of years before the Romans even arrived in the Britain).

  4. #2524
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    20,815
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    I wonder why, after so long with it not really even being mentioned in the thread outside of a handful of times months ago, there is this (seemingly sudden) massive push on "alternative history for England" As I recall, it was simply meant to be a "fictional place with its own history, people, and languages," and isn't meant to be placed into our own history, anthropologically speaking.

    As an Englishman, am I meant to care more about it supposedly being an "alternate history" for my country?
    Likely some YouTuber or outrage monger mentioned it recently that tends to be the case when you see multiple people brining up the same point which wasn’t widespread for months of prior discussion.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  5. #2525
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    12,351
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAmbient View Post
    Holy walls of text...
    I am too tired of the discussion to read it all... its all blurred lines to me lol

    I just want to talk about something else about that show that doesn't involve the same discussion for the last 40 pages lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    Likely some YouTuber or outrage monger mentioned it recently that tends to be the case when you see multiple people brining up the same point which wasn’t widespread for months of prior discussion.
    I keep blocking those youtubers... they keep popping up, only because I have some Tolkien themed channels that talk about lore YouTube also thinks I want some angry white dude talk about why RoP is a hot mess recommended to me too.
    Last edited by Orby; 2022-08-09 at 04:22 PM.
    "People fear, not death, but having life taken from them. Many waste the life given to them, occupying themselves with things that do not matter. When the end comes, they say they did not have time enough to spend with loved ones, to fulfill dreams, to go on adventures they only talked about... But why should you fear death if you are happy with the life you have led, if you can look back on everything and say, 'Yes, I am content. It is enough.'" - Wynne ( Dragon Age: Origins.)

  6. #2526
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    Likely some YouTuber or outrage monger mentioned it recently that tends to be the case when you see multiple people brining up the same point which wasn’t widespread for months of prior discussion.
    I feel like that's probably the most likely reason, unfortunately.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    I keep blocking those youtubers... they keep popping up, only because I have some Tolkien themed channels that talk about lore YouTube also thinks I want some angry white dude talk about why RoP is a hot mess recommended to me too.
    YouTube is awful like that. You'll watch one video about something out of interest, suddenly it just throws 600 videos that are sort of related at you, most of which are complete garbage.

  7. #2527
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    James Bond has always been white and popular around the world and is based on a character from novels going back over 70 years. Peter Parker as Spiderman has always been white and is the best selling character in Marvel comics. None of these characters as white had a problem being popular was the point. You haven't proven otherwise.
    You said Spider-man, a character that has been portrayed in a variety of ways. Peter Parker is white, but Spider-man has also been black (Miles Morales) and Irish-Mexican (Miguel O'Hara) and female (usually going by the moniker Spider-Girl or Spider-Woman, but still is essentially the same superhero).

    As for James Bond, despite the initial push back, Daniel Craig proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the original description of James Bond isn't what makes the character. His build, his eye color, his skin color, and his hair color aren't set in stone. He's also a character that has been modernized every time he has been adapted to the screen.

    No one is even saying that white characters can't be popular, but these characters aren't popular BECAUSE of the color of their skin.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Studios like Amazon have diversity mandates So that means a certain amount of diversity is required, regardless of what the source material says. That implicitly means injecting diversity into the story of Tolkien as a number of the actors and actresses for this show have come out and said. Which again, implies that Tolkien's work somehow wasn't popular already without that and potentially racist for not explicitly including that kind of diversity.
    This was debunked already. Amazon has no diversity mandate for casting characters other than nationality, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability SHOULD match between actor and role. The numbers that were thrown around in this thread (30%, 50% by 2024) pertain to above-the-line roles (directors, writers, producers).

    There's also no implication that Tolkien's work wasn't popular or was racist. Lack of diversity doesn't automatically mean something was racist, but it also doesn't mean it has to maintain that lack of diversity when adapted for modern audiences.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    We are talking about modern Britain having a lot of immigrants from various parts of the world, unlike ancient England. The main characters and stories from Middle Earth were intended to reflect the population of England and is based on European mythology. While there are other parts of the continent of Middle Earth that would be similar to Africa and Asia, those areas were not the main setting for his stories. So there is diversity in his world, but the main stories of the Elves, Hobbits and Dwarves are based around the mythology and people indigenous to England and Europe.

    They are of European descent so obviously they represent the characteristics of ancient indigenous Europeans. Unless you are claiming that Africans and Asians are indigenous to England? England being in Northern Europe would have an indigenous population adapted to Northern environments, which means light to white skin is the point. Just like populations indigenous to Africa would have dark skin because Africa straddles the equator. This isn't arbitrary.
    Actually, it is arbitrary because you're picking a particular time in prehistory (less than 5,000 years ago) that Tolkien didn't specify. In fact, the stretch of time that Tolkien noted as a reference to our history (6,000 - 16,000 years ago) coincides with the time that the hunter gatherer tribes of Europe were only just starting to develop the genetic makeup that lead to their skin whitening. So the first Men who arrived in Beleriand would mostly (if not entirely) be of dark skin, with white skin only becoming prevalent later in the 3rd Age.

    As for Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves, they aren't even human, but if you really want to belabor the point that they should reflect actual human skin tones of the time and region, then given the span of time that these creatures existed (thousands of years) and the longevity of these species, there's no reason why you couldn't have a variety of skin tones within each group.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I have a problem with giving Harfoots which are technically Hobbits a major role in the 2nd age when they had none in the source material. And therefore, regardless of skin color, they shouldn't have a prominent role in those stories. Using Lenny Henry as an argument for "diversity" doesn't justify that change. And if they really cared about it, then why not make whole large groups of elves black, whole groups of Numenoreans black and whole groups of Dwarves black instead of just 1 or 2? If you are going to go in then go all the way in. Either way, none of that is what Tolkien intended is the point and it isn't necessary to make his work popular.
    Lenny Henry isn't an argument for diversity or for Harfoots. He's an argument for the ridiculous notion that black people aren't of the right culture given that he's a fixture of British culture, same as the likes of Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Sean Bean.

    As for the inclusion of Harfoots, the whole point of the show is to flesh out the loose set of notes that comprises things like the Appendices of LotR. Tolkien referenced Harfoots, so there's no reason not to include them in stories that draw from his works.

    The source materials that this show is drawing from are NOT popular. It's based on appendices, letters, and notes. Not on the narratives that people are familiar with.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2022-08-09 at 04:29 PM.

  8. #2528
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    20,815
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    I keep blocking those youtubers... they keep popping up, only because I have some Tolkien themed channels that talk about lore it thinks I want some angry white dude talk about why RoP is a hot mess.
    Ya they are an absolute plague, I’ve just stopped watching videos of some franchises all together to avoid months of clearing there sludge.

    Thankfully my looking into Tolkiens work on YouTube was a couple of years ago so I’ve dodged that bullet this time around and I’m not gonna be clicking on any videos about it for the foreseeable future.
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  9. #2529
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    why not make whole large groups of elves black, whole groups of Numenoreans black and whole groups of Dwarves black instead of just 1 or 2?
    Just because you only saw less than a handful in the trailer, that does not mean that there won't be others. A trailer can only show so much, and will only show certain bits to grab attention. There could very well be entire armies of black people waiting to be seen in the series.

  10. #2530
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    12,351
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    Ya they are an absolute plague, I’ve just stopped watching videos of some franchises all together to avoid months of clearing there sludge.

    Thankfully my looking into Tolkiens work on YouTube was a couple of years ago so I’ve dodged that bullet this time around and I’m not gonna be clicking on any videos about it for the foreseeable future.
    Oh same. I been following Nerd of the Rings and Broken Sword (back when they were called History of Middle Earth) for like 5 years? Maybe a little less. But as someone who is not some big tolkien fan I enjoy those channels as a casual reader to keep me up to date on whats what. (Only read LotR, Hobbit, The Silmarillion and Beren and Lúthien)

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    I feel like that's probably the most likely reason, unfortunately.


    YouTube is awful like that. You'll watch one video about something out of interest, suddenly it just throws 600 videos that are sort of related at you, most of which are complete garbage.
    I wonder if Star Wars fans had a similar experience as I am not into Stars Wars that much :P
    "People fear, not death, but having life taken from them. Many waste the life given to them, occupying themselves with things that do not matter. When the end comes, they say they did not have time enough to spend with loved ones, to fulfill dreams, to go on adventures they only talked about... But why should you fear death if you are happy with the life you have led, if you can look back on everything and say, 'Yes, I am content. It is enough.'" - Wynne ( Dragon Age: Origins.)

  11. #2531
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    There could very well be entire armies of black people waiting to be seen in the series.
    Why would there be armies consisting only of dark-skinned Men? That suggests that they are somehow separate from the rest of the Númenóreans.

  12. #2532
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    I wonder if Star Wars fans had a similar experience as I am not into Stars Wars that much :P
    I can just about guarantee it. YouTube's algorithm is shocking in this regard. They don't care what they send you, they'll just send you anything remotely related. Its how a lot of people end up in such outrage bubbles.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by gamz247 View Post
    Why would there be armies consisting only of dark-skinned Men? That suggests that they are somehow separate from the rest of the Númenóreans.
    Let me help you out.

  13. #2533
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,556
    Imagine being this angry there are black people in a TV show.


    Anyways: So far from the few trailers/screenshots we've had, this show looks like CGI hell, and not in a good way. Uff.

  14. #2534
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Imagine being this angry there are black people in a TV show.


    Anyways: So far from the few trailers/screenshots we've had, this show looks like CGI hell, and not in a good way. Uff.
    I'm not sure if it is bad CGI or just the complete over use of CGI, miss the days when CGI was used to enhance scenes instead of its current day use of making scenes, real sets had that tangibility that you could see/feel, and the lack of it now just makes everything feel off/fake.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  15. #2535
    TIL. Wonder if Amazon will go with 5 seasons.

    The writers of Prime Video's The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power are in it for the long haul. The series still hasn't debuted but already has a two-season commitment from Amazon. However, J.D. Payne tells Empire Magazine that their plans for the show go far beyond that. Five seasons of The Rings of Power are already meticulously planned out, including exactly how the show will end. "We even know what our final shot of the last episode is going to be," Payne says. "The rights that Amazon bought were for a 50-hour show. They knew from the beginning that was the size of the canvas – this was a big story with a clear beginning, middle and end. There are things in the first season that don't pay off until Season 5."

  16. #2536
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAmbient View Post
    Holy walls of text...
    It really is an impressively huge block of words. I wonder if it's any good.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    I wonder why, after so long with it not really even being mentioned in the thread outside of a handful of times months ago, there is this (seemingly sudden) massive push on "alternative history for England" As I recall, it was simply meant to be a "fictional place with its own history, people, and languages," and isn't meant to be placed into our own history, anthropologically speaking.

    As an Englishman, am I meant to care more about it supposedly being an "alternate history" for my country?
    When he spoke about making a "new mythology" for England it seemed to be more like a gift for the country than a new way for us to look at life. Lots of other cultures had these amazing interconnected stories of gods and monsters that English literature myths couldn't compare to (in his opinion.)

    On top of that he used a literary device where he pretended to only be translating a text in Old English that came from a much older source (The Red Book of Westmarch which is a continued version of the book started by Bilbo and Frodo.) Through this it is assumed that it tells of a pre-prehistory though Tolkien had plans for massive retcons to make that work.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    TIL. Wonder if Amazon will go with 5 seasons.
    AFAIK they have pre-approved all 5 seasons. Bezos is a Tolkien fan and probably said he'd cover the cost if it flops.

  17. #2537
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    But try remaking Van Gogh's "The Starry Night" and see how far that goes.

    Such things always reflects back to the original.
    Well, Lego recently did and people love it.



    Like, does anyone legit have a problem with it? Everyone knows this isn't the original and no one is mistaking it for it.

    We can appreciate an 'adaptation' for literally being an adaptation. It is what it is, and it is not the original.

  18. #2538
    Legendary! Logwyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dagobah
    Posts
    6,925
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Like, does anyone legit have a problem with it? Everyone knows this isn't the original and no one is mistaking it for it.

    We can appreciate an 'adaptation' for literally being an adaptation. It is what it is, and it is not the original.
    There are a number of things Tolkien admitted he "did not know" about Middle Earth. Maybe the Amazon is just some of those things being fleshed out. Would be nice to know what happened to the Ent Wives

  19. #2539
    Quote Originally Posted by Logwyn View Post
    There are a number of things Tolkien admitted he "did not know" about Middle Earth. Maybe the Amazon is just some of those things being fleshed out. Would be nice to know what happened to the Ent Wives
    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.

  20. #2540
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    You said Spider-man, a character that has been portrayed in a variety of ways. Peter Parker is white, but Spider-man has also been black (Miles Morales) and Irish-Mexican (Miguel O'Hara) and female (usually going by the moniker Spider-Girl or Spider-Woman, but still is essentially the same superhero).
    The original white Peter Parker Spiderman is the best selling comic title for Marvel. James Bond was created by Ian Fleming based on an era when Jamaica was still a colony of Britain and the jet set crowd was made up of royals and rich folks from various places in Europe and elsewhere. And despite all of that, is still one of the most popular franchises with a white main character. That was my point. You haven't shown otherwise. If what you were saying were true then Miles Morales and all these other versions of Spiderman would be selling more than the original and they are not. Still to this day Peter Parker Spiderman is the top selling Marvel comic, along with the original white Batman from DC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    As for James Bond, despite the initial push back, Daniel Craig proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the original description of James Bond isn't what makes the character. His build, his eye color, his skin color, and his hair color aren't set in stone. He's also a character that has been modernized every time he has been adapted to the screen.
    He is still white and still based on a character modeled on the openly patriarchal era of playboys and rakes in the 1950s. And still the character has been popular nevertheless.

    https://therake.com/stories/icons/rakes-of-the-riviera/


    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    No one is even saying that white characters can't be popular, but these characters aren't popular BECAUSE of the color of their skin.
    No they are popular DESPITE the color of their skin as most of them were created in an era where equity and equality wasn't even a thing. But even with that they are popular among many audiences world wide. Otherwise, they wouldn't still be popular this day among widely diverse audiences. So changing their skin color is not required for popularity among a diverse audience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    This was debunked already. Amazon has no diversity mandate for casting characters other than nationality, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and disability SHOULD match between actor and role. The numbers that were thrown around in this thread (30%, 50% by 2024) pertain to above-the-line roles (directors, writers, producers).
    Amazon and other companies absolutely have diversity mandates for including characters of different ethnic backgrounds in their shows. Which specifically results in them changing characters in stories that may not have been diverse. And they have said this themselves in interviews and press releases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    There's also no implication that Tolkien's work wasn't popular or was racist. Lack of diversity doesn't automatically mean something was racist, but it also doesn't mean it has to maintain that lack of diversity when adapted for modern audiences.
    If Tolkien's work is already popular among modern audiences then it doesn't need "more diversity" for modern audiences. Most of the time this is coming from within the studio and/or certain leftist academics who help guide and drive these policies but not necessarily from the general public. This obsession with putting x characters into shows set in Europe is not coming from actual "diverse" artists and creators and it is not coming from the general public either. Sure, they can do it, but that doesn't mean it will be more popular just because of that among the public at large.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Actually, it is arbitrary because you're picking a particular time in prehistory (less than 5,000 years ago) that Tolkien didn't specify. In fact, the stretch of time that Tolkien noted as a reference to our history (6,000 - 16,000 years ago) coincides with the time that the hunter gatherer tribes of Europe were only just starting to develop the genetic makeup that lead to their skin whitening. So the first Men who arrived in Beleriand would mostly (if not entirely) be of dark skin, with white skin only becoming prevalent later in the 3rd Age.

    As for Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves, they aren't even human, but if you really want to belabor the point that they should reflect actual human skin tones of the time and region, then given the span of time that these creatures existed (thousands of years) and the longevity of these species, there's no reason why you couldn't have a variety of skin tones within each group.
    What you describe is not Tolkien. The 3 houses of the Edain from the first age are all described in ways modeled on cultures from ancient Europe who were white (Goths, Nordics, Vikings, Saxons, and mostly Welsh). All of the men of Middle Earth of course were not white, but those who joined with the Elves and fought against Morgoth were definitely white. And from this alliance came the marriage of Edain and Elf that produced the line of Half Elves who would go on to found the line of kings of Numenor. Other groups of men existed in other parts of Middle Earth but they were not the ones primarily involved in the main stories of Tolkien which surround the Elves, the Edain, the Numenoreans and other groups of men in these regions around Northern Middle Earth. That also includes the Dwarves as well who also may have been diverse across Middle Earth with some looking similar to Mongols and other eastern cultures, but those were not the main ones featured in the stories of Tolkien. Just like European mythology concerns mainly peoples of Northern Europe and therefore involves gods and other mythological entities with white skin. Of course diversity exists on planet earth, but that does not mean Northern European history and mythology was diverse 2,000 years ago. In general the continent of Middle Earth loosely reflects the real world earth were Northern Middle Earth is Northern Europe and Southern Middle Earth is Africa and Eastern Middle Earth is Asia. But most of the main events of Tolkien are set in Northern Middle Earth. If they really wanted to do diversity in this context they would have explored more about the cultures of Southern or Eastern Middle Earth which Tolkien covered far less than Northern Middle Earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Lenny Henry isn't an argument for diversity or for Harfoots. He's an argument for the ridiculous notion that black people aren't of the right culture given that he's a fixture of British culture, same as the likes of Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, and Sean Bean.

    As for the inclusion of Harfoots, the whole point of the show is to flesh out the loose set of notes that comprises things like the Appendices of LotR. Tolkien referenced Harfoots, so there's no reason not to include them in stories that draw from his works.

    The source materials that this show is drawing from are NOT popular. It's based on appendices, letters, and notes. Not on the narratives that people are familiar with.
    The outline of the main events of the 2nd age were written in Tolkens various works. There was no major role involving Harfoots (who are Hobbits) in the 2nd age. The main players in the 2nd age were Elves, Dwarves and Numenoreans. So there should be no major story involving Harfoots/Hobbits in the 2nd age similar to the story of the Hobbits in the 3rd age. The crafting of the Rings of Power had absolutely nothing to do with Hobbits, neither did the fall of Numenor or the final battle against Sauron. So making them diverse doesn't change the fact that this is absolutely not part of what Tolkien outlined. Everything we know about the 2nd Age comes from the outlines, but these are not mere notes. There were whole books published after his death which provide the general outline of the 2nd age and a geneaology of various clans that played a major role in it, such as the various Elven Houses and the Numenorean Kings. This isn't trivial at all. No matter what notes Amazon had access to, they are still using those other works outside of the appendices in order to do the story of the Numenoreans. But at this point they have also already admitted that they are telling their own story and this is why they have condensed the timeline because this is not Tolkien's story for the 2nd age.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-09 at 10:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

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