Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Mayia]

I don't really understand why it was made this way, well i do kinda "woke" ripping off LOTR as much as possible to make a cash cow but.
Why not make an interesting series even a short one about Drawves who do end up living outside and in that case.. TAN and become dark skinned, there are tribes of drawves who aren't explored in Tolkens work where a story as to why they live above ground would be a good start.. however i don't think they could have their cake and setup the excuse for Diversity at the same time, I don't think anyone looks at a black person being cast and is like "Right lets get the triple letter folks and march" they don't care as a rule until it recasts a role that isn't written that way.

Then magically you are racist for pointing out a species who live underground don't get much Sun..
The two blues wizards are also a great jumping off point for a series why not follow their adventures see who they encountered far off from the main cast, I think its also acceptable they could've had a fairly large part behind the scenes in LOTR for good or ILL, perhaps it becomes a brother vs brother thing where one is evil one is good, and the counter each other out.. allowing the war of the ring to proceed how it does without a tipping of good or evil from either one.
And these fellows can encounter, and perhaps encourage the Drawves to live on the surface even have them live along side Hobbits...

Writing for Tolken is REALLY easy if you spend a few hours looking into the material its just sad this team doesn't seem to have done that.
I predict a disaster its already blaming men for not wanting it, If by some Magic they manage to turn it around a little like the Witcher isn't 100% bad.. then Great.. wont hurt to have something decent to watch.
However these people can never make one statement about politics and leave it at that.. they have to keep trying to follow the same muddy path every other woke production does.

[Biomega]

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

What's the problem, exactly, with checking if changing a characteristic changes anything about the story other than the characteristic itself?

Seems like a reasonable AND practicable test to me.

[Triceron]

What's the problem, exactly, with checking if changing a characteristic changes anything about the story other than the characteristic itself?

Seems like a reasonable AND practicable test to me.

Because like I said, it's subjective.

Just because you think it's reasonable and practical doesn't make it agreeable.


I could say adding one more brush stroke to the Mona Lisa wouldn't change 99% people's perception of the painting. They may never even notice. But it wouldn't be true to the original painting, and not everyone would agree that even a single brush stroke would be an acceptable change to the painting, even if there was a good reason to do so. There's no objective way to come to a conclusion on whether adding a brush stroke to an existing work of art would be considered a reasonable or practical change.

"GOOD REASON" is always going to be subjective.

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?

Controversy validates nothing. Even objective facts like 'the world is round' can be mired in controversy. I don't understand the point of your questioning other than to be argumentative.

My point is there is no singular approach to how to 'reasonably change Green Eggs and Ham with GOOD REASON'. There is no way to define this in any objective basis.

[s_bushido]

I don't think anyone looks at a black person being cast and is like "Right lets get the triple letter folks and march" they don't care as a rule until it recasts a role that isn't written that way.

Then magically you are racist for pointing out a species who live underground don't get much Sun..

Both of the black characters that racists have their panties in a wad over were literally written for the show, and don't appear in Tolkien's work. So complaints about them being "recast" are made purely in ignorance and, you guessed it, racism.

And given how little of Tolkien's canonical work they actually have access to, they are essentially doing exactly what you said they should. The only difference is that they're using it as an opportunity to flesh out other existing characters instead of writing a story about blue wizards, or whatever.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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.

It really isn't. The point of contention in the story is that the unnamed subject claims that he does not like "Green eggs and Ham" but it is revealed through the narrative that he, in actual fact, has never actually tried green eggs and ham and when he finally does just to rid himself of Sam-I-Am...he discovers that he actually likes them a lot and is very grateful that Sam-I-Am was so persistent about getting him to try them. The moral of the story is very clear and not at all subjective. So, in this case, you're right... the "green" is not just a cosmetic colour. choice... it is the entire point. If Sam-I-Am were just offering regular eggs and ham...buddy would just have some breakfast, go about his day, and nothing would have been learned.

But that's a specific case and doesn't apply universally. The question here is "Are Black Dwarves anything more than a cosmetic change?"

Also, this:

[Adamas102]

Then magically you are racist for pointing out a species who live underground don't get much Sun..

The racist part comes from people being so adamant about excluding non-whites that they grasp at any and every straw to do so, in this case trying to bring some sort of biological realism to the table where it doesn't belong.

Orcs also don't get much sun and yet their skin seems to have darkened compared to the humans or elves they evolved from. Most of the fantastical creatures in Middle-earth are biological impossibilities (trolls that turn to stone in the sun, spiders the size of people, massive reptile-like creatures that can fly and breathe fire, etc). Elves and humans being able to have fertile children should be biologically impossible, and all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Tolkien was never interested or concerned with biological realism.

Once we establish that biological realism isn't necessary, and acknowledge that Tolkien never mentioned what skin tone(s) dwarves could be, there really is no reason to deny the existence of dark skinned dwarves.

What a lot of people don't tend to realize is that skin color is just like hair color in that it is determined by melanin and is derived more from genetic mutation than directly from the environment. Modern humans lived for tens of thousands of years in Europe after migrating from Africa before the genetic mutation for white skin even developed. Over time lighter skin did become more genetically favorable, but it wasn't necessary for people to live in these regions. Dwarves seem to have developed the mutations for a variety of hair colors independent of their environment, so why not mutations for varying skin colors as well? Given the amount of time they spend underground, the color of their skin would have little bearing on synthesizing vitamin D from sunlight and therefor there would be no evolutionary pressure for either light or dark skin.

[Triceron]

It really isn't. The point of contention in the story is that the unnamed subject claims that he does not like "Green eggs and Ham" but it is revealed through the narrative that he, in actual fact, has never actually tried green eggs and ham and when he finally does just to rid himself of Sam-I-Am...he discovers that he actually likes them a lot and is very grateful that Sam-I-Am was so persistent about getting him to try them. The moral of the story is very clear and not at all subjective. So, in this case, you're right... the "green" is not just a cosmetic colour. choice... it is the entire point. If Sam-I-Am were just offering regular eggs and ham...buddy would just have some breakfast, go about his day, and nothing would have been learned.

But that's a specific case and doesn't apply universally. The question here is "Are Black Dwarves anything more than a cosmetic change?"

Sure, you could say it doesn't apply universally, but the 'cosmetic change' of Green Eggs and Ham to another color could be argued to be on the same level as having Black Dwarves in Tolkien's work. In both cases, we're talking about changing something that isn't meant to be changed and does have narrative relevance no matter how you look at it.

It's all a matter of subjective suspension of disbelief whether anyone openly accepts a change to Green Eggs and Ham or the skincolor of Dwarves.

In my opinion? I'm not bothered if there are Black Dwarves being represented in an adaptation. And at the same time, I wouldn't go out of my way to prefer having them either when there has been no depiction of them in the original story. I'm openly regarding RoP to be a unique creation that is merely based on the works of Tolkien, and I can have a nuanced opinion on the matter without having it affect anyone else, or have anyone else affect mine.. But that doesn't mean I'd turn a blind eye and pretend it'd 'merely be a mere cosmetic change that has no impact on the narrative'.

Regardless of whether Sam is disgusted or not in the narrative, we don't know enough about his past experiences to fully grasp his motivations against trying something new. Had he even tried regular Eggs and Ham? And if so, is the food merely being Green the reason why he chooses not to eat it? The narrative is open enough to be interpreted multiple ways, even if the overall moral being about being open to trying new things. There's no way to pin point any change to affecting the 'spirit of the original' because any change is going to be a change regardless of how minor it is, and I don't think it's fair to waive anything away on the basis of a few people considering the change 'merely cosmetic'. As I explained above, many people associate 'Green food' with spoiled or moldy food, which brings about an immediate reaction of disgust. It's possible that maybe Sam had a previous bad experience with 'Green food' which sours his opinion on any other Green colored food, and Green happens to be significant to Sam's personal history. The narrative plays out differently to each reader who may be self-inserting themselves into Sam's story and building their own interpretation of the narrative.

It's all subjectively valued.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sure, you could say it doesn't apply universally, but the 'cosmetic change' of Green Eggs and Ham to another color could be argued to be on the same level as having Black Dwarves in Tolkien's work. In both cases, we're talking about changing something that isn't meant to be changed and does have narrative relevance no matter how you look at it.

Okay...what's the narrative significance regarding the skin colour of dwarves?

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of whether Sam is disgusted or not in the narrative, we don't know enough about his past experiences to fully grasp his motivations against trying something new. Had he even tried regular Eggs and Ham? And if so, is the food merely being Green the reason why he chooses not to eat it? The narrative is open enough to be interpreted multiple ways, even if the overall moral being about being open to trying new things. There's no way to pin point any change to affecting the 'spirit of the original' because any change is going to be a change regardless of how minor it is, and I don't think it's fair to waive anything away on the basis of a few people considering the change 'merely cosmetic'. As I explained above, many people associate 'Green food' with spoiled or moldy food, which brings about an immediate reaction of disgust. It's possible that maybe Sam had a previous bad experience with 'Green food' which sours his opinion on any other Green colored food, and Green happens to be significant to Sam's personal history. The narrative plays out differently to each reader who may be self-inserting themselves into Sam's story and building their own interpretation of the narrative.

First of all "Sam" is not digusted by green eggs and ham... "Sam-I-Am" is the one trying to get the unnamed subject to try Green Eggs and ham.

Also, if you want to dig that deep into it...than not even the type of food matters in the story. The important thing is that the subject has already decided that he does not like X...even though he has never actually tried X. X could be anything. Sam-I-Am could be presenting Red peas and lamb and we'd arrive at the same point...without even changing the rhyming scheme. Sam-I-Am is not telling the subject that he should try rotten food. The moral of the story is that you should try new foods before writing them off. It's really not that complex.

[Triceron]

Okay...what's the narrative significance regarding the skin colour of dwarves?

So firstly; Tolkien never specifies the skin color of Dwarves. We merely assume them to be white. There is no official source on what exactly their skin tone is.

Tolkien never actually addressed the skin color of the dwarves, but it’s assumed that they were also white. ((REWRITTEN AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH: Men see more variation that elves and dwarves. Some men are described as fair skinned (this is usually the men of Rohan, and the Dunedain/descendants of Numenor, such as the men of Gondor.) Others are described as “swarthy” or as having slightly darker skin - such as the Dunlendings, and some small communities in Gondor. And the men of the far south (Harad) are consistently described as having dark skin. https://askmiddlearth.tumblr.com/pos...%20dark%20skin.

Getting that out of the way, in the narrative there is a section where the Hobbits see 'Black' people for the first time. They witness these foreign men as a part of Sauron's armies, and their appearance is alien to the Hobbits, and they are shocked by their appearance. Whether intentional or not, there is a level of xenophobia at play in how the Hobbits and the 'fair' races regard men with 'Swarthy' skin complexions. There is narrative significance because this shock is meaningful to how the Hobbits know the world to be. They have never seen men with Dark skin before. No one in the narrative has openly discussed the existence of people with dark skin tones. The world they do know of does not contain Hobbits or Men or Elves or Dwarves with Swarthy complexions; otherwise they wouldn't be as shocked to see people existing with such complexions as they were.

And considering Bilbo would have been witness to MANY Dwarves at the Battle of 5 Armies and would have been absolutely down to the details in describing each and every one of them to Frodo as a child, there would have been assumed that Bilbo would have made mention of a Black Dwarf or Black Elves had he seen them himself, and thus passed that knowledge down to Frodo as well. Skin color does have significance in the overall narrative, even if it may not seem important.

If Black skinned Dwarves were a normal thing and not worth even mentioning, then Bilbo would still have made note of their presence and existence and Frodo and crew wouldn't have been so surprised to see other humanoids with such complexions.


Now, whether you feel this part of the narrative has 'aged well' or not, and whether you feel like it's worth considering for modern audiences, that's a completely separate topic. I'm merely answering your question here, in that it DOES have impact on the narrative, because specifically we have a scene where the Hobbits openly react in shock in first time becoming aware that any human(oid) with dark skin tones could even exist. And the significance of this in the overall narrative is that Frodo's shock is meant to be relayed to the reader, because he is the POV narrator that we follow the journey of. It is his experiences that we experience the world of Middle Earth through the lens of. And if Frodo is shocked to see a dark skinned man for the first time, so are we in the context of the overall narrative.

And if you want to argue that 'Well there could exist Black Dwarves that Bilbo and Frodo never seen', that could be very well true. That is a possibility. However, the narrative comes through the perspectives of Bilbo and Frodo, and not some other-wordly narrator beyond, so any existence of a Black Dwarf in Tolkien's work would be beyond the narrative.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So firstly; Tolkien never specifies the skin color of Dwarves. We merely assume them to be white. There is no official source on what exactly their skin tone is.

Which is a big strike against the whole "Skin colour is not subjective" POV

Getting that out of the way, in the narrative there is a section where the Hobbits see 'Black' people for the first time. They witness these foreign men as a part of Sauron's armies, and their appearance is alien to the Hobbits, and they are shocked by their appearance. Whether intentional or not, there is a level of xenophobia at play in how the Hobbits and the 'fair' races regard men with 'Swarthy' skin complexions. There is narrative significance because this shock is meaningful to how the Hobbits know the world to be. And they have not explored or known much of the world, but the world they do know of does not contain Elves or Dwarves with Swarthy complexions; otherwise they wouldn't be as shocked to see people existing with such complexions as they were.

Black Humans. And is that even that important to the narrative? If you swapped "Black Skin" with "Pink Hair"...wouldn't that make them just as notable?

[Triceron]

First of all "Sam" is not digusted by green eggs and ham... "Sam-I-Am" is the one trying to get the unnamed subject to try Green Eggs and ham.

Also, if you want to dig that deep into it...than not even the type of food matters in the story. The important thing is that the subject has already decided that he does not like X...even though he has never actually tried X. X could be anything. Sam-I-Am could be presenting Red peas and lamb and we'd arrive at the same point...without even changing the rhyming scheme. Sam-I-Am is not telling the subject that he should try rotten food. The moral of the story is that you should try new foods before writing them off. It's really not that complex.

Thank you for the correction. Yes, I meant the unnamed character refusing to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

You are right that the overall moral of the story doesn't change, but the narrative does if you switch the color and food item entirely. For example, many kids don't like peas period, so they may actually side with the unnamed character's opinion on refusing to eat Peas altogether. Eggs and Ham are chosen because they are commonly known good-tasting foods that not many people have problems with. Peas and Lamb on the other hand are much more questionable. I know some people who absolutely hate the taste of Lamb.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is a big strike against the whole "Skin colour is not subjective" POV

Why would it be a big strike? It's not like the Dwarves would suddenly be Blue just because Tolkien was never specific to assigning a particular skintone to the race.

Black Humans. And is that even that important to the narrative? If you swapped "Black Skin" with "Pink Hair"...wouldn't that make them just as notable?

If Frodo were reacting in shock to pink haired men from the south instead of them being dark skinned, I would say that the narrative is changed quite a bit. To the reader, it would be more confusing or amusing, depending on how seriously this is meant to be depicted. I'm not sure why you even use this as an example.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Thank you for the correction. Yes, I meant the unnamed character refusing to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

Here's the clincher... in later versions of the story...the unnamed subject is named "Guy-am-I". Does this change from the source material alter the narrative in any significant way?

You are right that the overall moral of the story doesn't change, but the narrative does if you switch the color and food item entirely. For example, many kids don't like peas period, so they may actually side with the unnamed character's opinion on refusing to eat Peas altogether. Eggs and Ham are chosen because they are commonly known good-tasting foods that not many people have problems with. Peas and Lamb on the other hand are much more questionable. I know some people who absolutely hate the taste of Lamb.

Many kids don't like any type of food that's new. In this particular version... this person doesn't like green eggs. To another person, it could be red peas.

There was even a petition once created by a "save the pigs" organization that wanted to change the story to "Green eggs and JAM"...complete with new art replacing the ham with jam...would that also change the story? Once again, every other line in the story would be exactly same...you would just swap out that single word. Does it change anything important?

And it doesn't matter if people hate the taste of lamb...because the point of the story is that the character has never actually tried the food being presented. Once the character actually tries the dish in question...they discover that it is their very favourite thing and they would eat it in all of the situations previously presented. Whether its Green Eggs and Ham or Red Peas and Lamb..it makes no difference.

Why would it be a big strike? It's not like the Dwarves would suddenly be Blue just because Tolkien was never specific to assigning a particular skintone to the race.

Why not? Dwarves are an entirely fictional race in an entirely fictional world with magic. They are just as likely to be blue or black as they are white.

If Frodo were reacting in shock to pink haired men from the south instead of them being dark skinned, I would say that the narrative is changed quite a bit. To the reader, it would be more confusing or amusing, depending on how seriously this is meant to be depicted. I'm not sure why you even use this as an example.

How has the narrative changed? Frodo is still shocked by seeing humans that look different.

[Triceron]

Why not? Dwarves are an entirely fictional race in an entirely fictional world with magic. They are just as likely to be blue or black as they are white.

Just because it's fiction doesn't mean there are no rules.

How has the narrative changed? Frodo is still shocked by seeing humans that look different.

There is a change, because Frodo was not shocked by seeing men with Pink Hair. He was shocked at seeing men with Dark Skin. There is a narrative difference because we don't actually know if Frodo would be shocked by Pink Hair; that's speculation beyond the narrative we're given.

Now, if you're asking how the narrative is different in your personal interpretation, then that's really up to you to decide. If your suspension of disbelief does not change whether they have pink hair or dark skin or whatever, then that is really up to you to decide. It's a subjective opinion that you're allowed to have.

If you're implying that the narrative has not changed at all, then that is an argument in ignorance, because we're literally talking about a change in the narrative.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Just because it's fiction doesn't mean there are no rules.

That's exactly what it means. Or, more precisely, you can make the rules up as you go along. And there is no "rule" in the Tolkien universe that states the Dwarves have to be white.

Also, rules can change. When a rule no longer works... you change it.

There is a change, because Frodo was not shocked by seeing men with Pink Hair. He was shocked at seeing men with Dark Skin. There is a narrative difference because we don't actually know if Frodo would be shocked by Pink Hair; that's speculation beyond the narrative we're given.

That's not a significant change. His reaction to pink hair is the same as dark skin. And it's no different with the dark skin. We know Frodo was shocked by dark skin...because the story tells us so. If the story instead told us he was shocked by pink hair... then we would know Frodo was shocked by pink hair.

Now, if you're asking how the narrative is different in your personal interpretation, then that's really up to you to decide. If your suspension of disbelief does not change whether they have pink hair or dark skin or whatever, then that is really up to you to decide. It's a subjective opinion that you're allowed to have.

I'm not asking about personal interpretation. I'm asking what significant change it makes to Frodo's quest to destroy the ring.

If you're implying that the narrative has not changed at all, then that is an argument in ignorance, because we're literally talking about a change in the narrative.

A purely cosmetic change... which is the exact thing being discussed.

[Orby]

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.

You know all those interviews and commentaries are for shareholders and PR people as well as talk that are conducted by those that interview them anyway. They are not meant for us. Just listen to them everything they say sounds like corporate speak. Maybe start looking at the show not what goes on behind it, if you start judging the show based on PR then man you are gonna hate it

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.

I am not so much defending as I am trying to be optimistic, the show may be shit for all I know, but that second trailer did look far better than the first trailer, despite some complaints I had about the costumes, and CGI. I just dont see much to judge just from watching a trailer, its a TV show, I don't expect quality on the level of the movies, that's some big shoes to fill, I think we should realise that, lightening doesn't get caught in a bottle twice. Look at the Hobbit, despite the fact I personally liked the first Hobbit movie, its the other two movies that were a problem. :P

Maybe I should learn my lesson after getting burned by Wheel of Time, and I do see some resemblance in production which worries me, but I doubt I will come out of the show with at least some praise. I think there is going to be plenty to like, unless it is on the quality of Wheel of Time then we're fucked, but I remain optimistic due to the amount of money poured into it. I think there's plenty of time for complaints after the show is done, I just think a lot of people that are hating the show now are not going to have their minds changed when the show is released, its like you pre-booked the hate, and have pre-ordered the pitchforks.

I do feel judging from this thread if your only complaint is skin colour, then this show has it good.

[Triceron]

That's exactly what it means. Or, more precisely, you can make the rules up as you go along. And there is no "rule" in the Tolkien universe that states the Dwarves have to be white.

Also, rules can change. When a rule no longer works... you change it.

At this point, I would assume you'd have no perception issue if Green Eggs and Ham were changed to Green Shit and Phlegm. As long as the moral is the same, right?

Well you have that right to an opinion. But the fact is, the narrative would change. It changes because we are literally talking about changing it.

Whether you consider the rule to be significant or not is not the point. We are talking about whether it is a change to the narrative, and that it is.

Whether anything is considered significant is merely a personal measure of suspension of disbelief. If you think blue skinned Dwarves is fine, then that is what it is to you. It does not mean the rules are changeable at the reader's behest.

That's not a significant change.

In your opinion, which is the beauty of subjectivity.

You are allowed to have that opinion just as I am allowed to disagree with your conclusion.

A purely cosmetic change... which is the exact thing being discussed.

If your suspension of disbelief allows it, then of course you'd be okay with it. But at no point does your opinion extend beyond your own regard of the situation.

We are talking about a speculations beyond the narrative if you're telling me that Frodo would be shocked to see pink hair. We have nothing in the narrative to go on how he would have reacted to it, and your personal opinion that he'd be just as shocked is by no means anything but pure and baseless speculation.

I'm not asking about personal interpretation. I'm asking what significant change it makes to Frodo's quest to destroy the ring.

You're asking personal opinion if you're asking someone what they think the significance of something is. You understand this, right?

'Significant' can only be quantified subjectively. We can objectively quantify a change happening. The significance of the change can only be defined by the individual.

I can point to this as a narrative change because Frodo has never encountered someone with Pink Hair. How significant that change would be is up to the reader to decide.

If you're asking my opinion, then it is significant because there is no record of Pink hair exosting naturally or artificially in tthe novels, and it has a butterfly effect to the rest of the mythology that Tolkien has built. No different than if you'd suggested Frodo whip out a celphone and call a taxi. It would be considered an anomoly in the context of Middle Earth as we know it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

At this point, I would assume you'd have no perception issue if Green Eggs and Ham were changed to Green Shit and Phlegm. As long as the moral is the same, right?

A story about a person trying to convince another person to eat Green Shit and phlegm would be an entirely different story...because that is not food. It casts the character of "Sam-I-Am" in an entirely different light.

The point of the story is that the person has decided they do not like a certain type of food even though they have never tried it.

In your opinion, which is the beauty of subjectivity.

What is the significant change?

If your suspension of disbelief allows it, then of course you'd be okay with it. But at no point does your opinion extend beyond your own regard of the situation.

If we're talking about my suspension of disbelief...I don't find black skin shocking in the slightest. I am also not shcoked by pink hair... but it is less common.

We are talking about a speculations beyond the narrative if you're telling me that Frodo would be shocked to see pink hair. We have nothing in the narrative to go on how he would have reacted to it, and your personal opinion that he'd be just as shocked is by no means anything but pure and baseless speculation.

We have nothing in the narrative to go on about how he would react to black skin either...until the story says "this is shocking to Frodo". If the story instead said "He was shocked by their pink hair" it would have just as much significance.

Let me give a different example from a different series.

In the Sandman comics...Rose Walker is a white girl. In the TV series, she is a black girl.

What significant change to the narrative results from this change from the source material?

[Triceron]

A story about a person trying to convince another person to eat Green Shit and phlegm would be an entirely different story...because that is not food. It casts the character of "Sam-I-Am" in an entirely different light.

The point of the story is that the person has decided they do not like a certain type of food even though they have never tried it.

There is a significance to Eggs and Ham because they're not just a certain type of food, it's a food that has universal appeal and is generally agreed upon as good-tasting. Even if we were to go with your previous example of Red Peas and Lamb, the narrative would still change.

There is no way to change it cosmetically and imply that the narrative didn't change. It surely would, because the story isn't about Red Peas and Lamb, it is about Green Eggs and Ham. The unnamed character is made out to make a judgement call that is unreasonable, while having a more questionable food choice would make his decision less unreasonable.

While green shit and phlegm is an extreme example... It doesn't exsctly change the narrative that you deemed to have clear moral to that is not subjective. Like, Green Eggs and Ham don't exist and we don't know what it really tastes like. We wouldn't know if Sam I Am and the unnamed character would enjoy eating Green Shit and Phlegm either. If the story played out the same then we're still talking about the same morals. Yet it's clear that the narrative has changed

What is the significant change?

Significance is subjective.

If you don't consider any change to be significant, then no answer I give you would matter. Right? You're asking a loaded question which only you can personally answer.

If we're talking about my suspension of disbelief...I don't find black skin shocking in the slightest. I am also not shcoked by pink hair... but it is less common.

I totally get that, and in my opinion I am not shocked by it either.

Would it be shocking to see in Middle Earth though? Arguably yes, because it would be highly abnormal to see that in this particular setting.

Same can be said about Dwarves with Blue Skin not fitting the setting. It's a butterfly effect that puts the integrity of the rules of the fictional universe into question. Are we even regarding these blue skinned creatures as Tolkien's Dwarves any more?

We have nothing in the narrative to go on about how he would react to black skin either...until the story says "this is shocking to Frodo". If the story instead said "He was shocked by their pink hair" it would have just as much significance.

And regardless, the narrative would change.

Indiana Jones is afraid of Snakes. If we talk about changing that fear to something else, then there is a narrative change involved. How significant the change would be would only be up to the individual to decide. If he had a fear of pufferfish instead of snakes, would it be the same narrative significance? I would say no, because it is established that he has a fear of snakes and not a fear of pufferfish, and the movie illustrates his fear in situations that involved snakes. The stakes would not be the same even if they swapped all the Snakes to Pufferfish.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There is a significance to Eggs and Ham because they're not just a certain type of food, it's a food that has universal appeal and is generally agreed upon as good-tasting. Even if we were to go with your previous example of Red Peas and Lamb, the narrative would still change.

Again, it doesn't matter how popular the food is...because the point is that the character decided they did not like Green eggs and ham before ever tasting them.

There is no way to change it cosmetically and imply that the narrative didn't change. It surely would, because the story isn't about Red Peas and Lamb, it is about Green Eggs and Ham. The unnamed character is made out to make a judgement call that is unreasonable, while having a more questionable food choice would make his decision less unreasonable.

The "unreasonable judgement call" is deciding that the character does not like the food before they have even tried it. It doesn't matter what the food is...the judgement is stilll unreasonable.

Significance is subjective.

If you don't consider any change to be significant, then no answer I give you would matter. Right? You're asking a loaded question which only you can personally answer.

I don't consider cosmetic changes to be significant.

Again, we can only speak out on our own opinion on the matter, because the interpretation of the narrative and the significance of the event is only relevant to us as individuals.

It does not mean no change has happened. And if you are asking what is significant about it, then you're merely asking an opinion rather than making any point

I'm not saying no change happens. I'm saying that the change doesn't matter to the story.

No different than if I pressed you on whether adding pineapples on pizza is a significant change or not. We could both agree that it's not very significant at all, and it doesn't prove anything. We'd just be giving out opinions on the matter. It doesn't mean it is universally insignificant just because we both agree it isn't.

Adding pineapple to a pizza does significantly change the pizza, though. It would have been one thing...and now it is something new. It smells different, it tastes different, it feels different in your mouth, it will be more filling, you might even get more nutrients if the heat of the oven hasn't completely destroyed everything of value.

Liking pineapple on a pizza is a subjective opinion. Putting pineapple on a pizza creates a different pizza is an objective fact.

What you personally feel about pink hair or black skin has no bearing outside of your own opinion. Understand? It has no bearing on how anyone else would interpret the narrative

You're right, my feelings about black skin or pink hair don't matter. Only Frodo's. And the only reason we know the Frodo was shocked by black skin was because we are told he found it shocking. If instead we were told he found pink hair shocking...the same result would happen. Yes, there was a change...but it was a change that didn't actually alter anything.

How I or anyone else view the narrative doesn't matter. The writer can't control that. What the writer can control is whether pink hair or black skin shocks one of the characters they are writing about.

You ignored my question about Sandman

I'll ask again:

Does Rose Walker being Black in the Netflix series significantly change the story?

[Triceron]

Again, it doesn't matter how popular the food is...because the point is that the character decided they did not like Green eggs and ham before ever tasting them.

The "unreasonable judgement call" is deciding that the character does not like the food before they have even tried it. It doesn't matter what the food is...the judgement is stilll unreasonable.

Lemme play devil's advocate here:

Should it not matter with Green Shit and Phlegm? If all the importance of the narrative is about an unreasonable judgement call and a suspension of disbelief that whatever is being eaten is tasty, then does it really matter to the story that we're talking about shit and phlegm? Either way, the unnamed character has never tried it, and either way both Sam I Am and the unnamed character proclaim enjoying it.

Frodo pink hair reaction, right?

I don't consider cosmetic changes to be significant.

I'm not questioning your beliefs.

I'm making a point that you're asking me something that only subjectively pertains to your own regard of what a significant change means. It's not something I can evaluate on your terms if you explicitly say you are not asking for a personal opinion

I can't quantify any answer as being a significant change if you only give me examples of changes that you don't consider to be significant. Again, my point is that this is a loaded question

I'm not saying no change happens. I'm saying that the change doesn't matter to the story.

And all regard of the story is subjective.

So all you're saying is.. it doesn't matter to you.

Adding pineapple to a pizza does significantly change the pizza, though. It would have been one thing...and now it is something new. It smells different, it tastes different, it feels different in your mouth, it will be more filling, you might even get more nutrients if the heat of the oven hasn't completely destroyed everything of value.

Liking pineapple on a pizza is a subjective opinion. Putting pineapple on a pizza creates a different pizza is an objective fact.

You don't think skin color or pink hair is subjective, but it also creates a subjective experience and it creates a different product from Tolkien's original depiction. That is also objective fact.

Let's make no mistake here, Amazon's Rings of Power is not Tolkien's depiction of Middle Earth. It is a different pizza.

How I or anyone else view the narrative doesn't matter. The writer can't control that. What the writer can control is whether pink hair or black skin shocks one of the characters they are writing about.

Yet that is exactly my point above. How you or I view the narrative doesn't matter... And defining whether a change matters to the story or not is a viewpoint of the narrative...

The writer sets the rules of the universe, makes the pizza. If another writer jumps in and adds pineapple to the pizza, are we still talking about the same pizza?

By your own admission, it is a new pizza.

You ignored my question about Sandman

I'll ask again:

Does Rose Walker being Black in the Netflix series significantly change the story?

I can't answer because I don't know anything about the sandman series other than it exists.

I will however say that no matter how faithful the show may be to the comic... It's a different pizza to the comic as well. That is the nature of being an adaptation.