Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Adamas102]

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.

The appendices IS the source material. The Silmarillion is a supplement and obviously the Tolkien estate didn't deem it necessary for setting the show in the Second Age. If you disagree then that's on you, but the appendices has all the barebones structure for the people, places, and events of this time period, which is what is most important for developing a dramatic adaptation.

I'm also going to point out a few things in what you re-quoted that should be addressed:

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.

A detailed genealogy, huh? It only takes a cursory glance I notice that half of the couples that produced this line of descendants is absent. Who was Tar-Miriel's mother? Who was Al-Pharazon's? Their grandmother was Inzilbeth, but who was their great grandmother? There are A LOT of links missing in this chain, and while the names there are obviously the important ones for following the line of succession, when it comes to genetics it hardly gives the full picture.

We know that the Edain were mixed race, with those of the Houses of Beor and Haleth expressing genetic markers for darker hair and skin than those of House Hador. As descendants of the Edain, Numenoreans would certainly carry all those genetic markers which would lead to a fairly varied group of people (wide variety in hair, eye, and skin color). Without a full knowledge of the fictitious genetic mutations that led to the differences between the Edain, there's no definitive way to say how these traits were passed down through the line of kings or how dark a Numenorean's skin could be depending on their parentage or how those traits were expressed. Without knowing that, or anything about Tar-Miriel's mother, or being beholden to the Silmarillion, there's plenty of room for interpretation.

You could also argue that it's likely that further mixing of Numenoreans with darker skinned people might have occurred during the time of Aldarion and his travels setting up havens in places like Umbar. Not enough mixing to dilute the Numenorean lineage as what happened later on, but for a good 1,000 years there were friendly relations between Numenor and the peoples of Harad. Would it have been completely inconceivable?

And lastly, Cynthia Addai-Robinson is (like the Numenoreans) of mixed heritage, and thought it doesn't need to be I'd say her skin tone falls well within the range for someone who strongly inherited the genetic markers of House Beor. And without knowing anything at all about who her mother was, who knows what other inherited genes might have played a role in how she looked.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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?

Do you really think it's unreasonable to not want to eat green shit and phlegm? I

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.

Tell me how it changes the story then.

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

It was always going to be a different "pizza" just from moving from books (and notes) to television. Peter Jackson's LotR wasn't Tolkiens middle earth either. Neither was Ralph Bakshi's.

I'm asking how a black dwarf changes anything. You've already said yoursself that Tolkien never said Dwarves had to be white.

The writer can control whether black skin or pink hair shocks the character. 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.

The difference is when you add pineapple...you end up with a fundamentally different pizza. It's more than a cosmetic change.

How does a black dwarf change the flavour of the "pizza". It's entirely cosmetic.

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

I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

[Adamas102]

There is a change, because Frodo was not shocked by seeing men with Pink Hair. He was shocked at seeing men with Dark Skin.

Was he, though? He didn't see the Haradrim at the Black Gate. Gollum identified them while Frodo and Sam hid. The description he gives the hobbits is pretty detailed, so focusing in on their skin color rather than their war paint or striking red banners or just the feeling of evil that they exude (according to Gollum) might be reading too much into it. When they were with Faramir's men during the ambush, the reaction was from Sam's point of view and the shock was at the violence. In fact, Sam's contemplation about whether the dead Haradrim had even been evil seems to show more recognition of him as just another man rather than some sort of oddity.

It has been a while since I read the books so if there was another point you're referring to, let me know. As far as I remember, there really is no moment where skin color is specifically cited as causing a reaction of shock or curiosity.

[Triceron]

Do you really think it's unreasonable to not want to eat green shit and phlegm? I

At the outset, it is already unreasonable to want to eat Green Eggs and Ham.

There is nothing normal about this except what we are told through the narrative. In real life, I wouldn't eat green colored eggs and ham, even after reading the book. It's inly within the context of the story that this absurdity is treated as normal.

If we're talking about absurdities being cosmetic, then green shit and phlegm shouldn't be much different if all we're looking at is the narrative. And that you do regard it as a significant change means it can be subjectively evaluated

Tell me how it changes the story then.

I did explain, and you straight up said it wasn't significant and started bringing up examples of pink hair.

You see, you weren't asking my opinion on significant change. You're asking a loaded question which you'd shoot down as bit meeting your own personal standard of being significant.

There's no way I can answer you if I don't know what you actually regard as a significant change. I'm hoping you aren't asking me a question in bad faith.

It was always going to be a different "pizza" just from moving from books (and notes) to film.

I'm asking how a black dwarf changes anything.

If you regard it as a different pizza then my reply that everyone has a subjective opinion to the change should easily suffice.

Tolkien never created a pizza with pineapples on it. It was just an undescript pizza, with toppings that are regarded by all the people in the fictional world as being a standard, like having tomato sauce and cheese. If a new writer jumps in and decides that the pizza should have pineapples and say it's always had pineapples, then that isn't something that Tolkien explicitly wrote the pizza to be.

It is a different pizza. And people can have opinions about the pizza being different.

All you're questioning here is 'what"s so bad about pineapples? It doesn't really change anything'. Cuz in this case, you're viewing the pineapples as mere cosmetic change, even though you fully regard this to be a different pizza and acknowledge the existence of pineapples on there and recognize that the original author never had them on the pizza to begin with.

already said yoursself that Tolkien never said Dwarves had to be white

It doesn't mean we can apply revisionist history to say the pizza always had pineapple on it.

If the pizza was described as being normal and with tomato sauce and cheese, then that is what it is. And if pineapple is explained elsewhere in the fictional world as being an exotic topping, then there is no reason to retrofit them onto the pizza as a 'normal topping'. It would be an exotic one in regards to the rules outlined by the author.

How does a black dwarf change the flavour of the "pizza". It's entirely cosmetic.

The same way Pineapple changes the flavour of the pizza.

It was never a topping and it changes the look and taste, and we both regard it as a different pizza to the one Tolkien originally made. Pineapple is regarded by the author as being an exotic topping, one not normally found on pizza in the locations depicted in the greater main narrative. That an exotic topping suddenly gets retroactively applied as a normal topping does not mean it is and always has been normal, nor should it be treated as a normal topping. The rules have outlined that it is an exotic one.

It doesn't matter if you don't think the taste is significantly different. The objective fact is that it is a different pizza. And we're talking about a very clear exception to the rule that is trying to be passed off as always having been the rule. Just because this new pizza restaurant has pineapple as a main ingredient on all its pizzas doesn't mean the pizzas are no different to the originals.

I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

Thank you for your opinion.

That's all I can regard it as.

[Sialina]

Do you really think it's unreasonable to not want to eat green shit and phlegm? I




Tell me how it changes the story then.



It was always going to be a different "pizza" just from moving from books (and notes) to television. Peter Jackson's LotR wasn't Tolkiens middle earth either. Neither was Ralph Bakshi's.

I'm asking how a black dwarf changes anything. You've already said yoursself that Tolkien never said Dwarves had to be white.

The difference is when you add pineapple...you end up with a fundamentally different pizza. It's more than a cosmetic change.

How does a black dwarf change the flavour of the "pizza". It's entirely cosmetic.



I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

For me it's about verisimilitude, elves comes from a time of only starlight and they live very long lives, some of the elves alive in middle earth existed before the sun. For them to have melanin with such slow evolution and being born under starlight makes no sense.

Dwarves live underground, also not known for having a lot of sunshine, so it makes no sense for them to have a lot of melanin.

Hobbits are not very common in the world, they live far north, not quite far enough for permanent ice, but pretty close, this is likely partially based on Great Britain, hobbits are not fond of adventure, and because you travel on foot, most won't have gone very far outside of the shire, they are cut off from the events of the world, living their own slow lives. It makes no sense for hobbits to have different skin colors from each other, they could've all been black, brown yellow like me or white.

If you want to have people with darker skintones in a Lord of the rings adaptation there are perfectly fine people to choose from without having to change anything from the source material. How about the people of Rhûn? they are a sea faring people so it would be easy to have a ship arrive in Numenor, traders with guards, now you have the darker skinned characters there, no lore broken, noone would care, you can add all the cool characters you want.

[Accendor]

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.

I really do not want to get into the other part of that discussion, but hard disagree on this. Creating your rules and then changing them randomly at some point just makes for very bad storytelling and world building - You can see that on WoW, where the story never was great, but after they abandoned all continuity and adapt on the fly, it really has gone to shit.

[cyberglum]

I'll answer it for you then. It doesn't change anything about her character. She fullfills the same role she filled in the comics. There are changes to her background...but those are a result of other factors and have nothing to do with her skin color.

Genuine question; If race/gender swapping doesn't matter in adaptations of stories from one media to another then why do it?

[Adamas102]

For me it's about verisimilitude, elves comes from a time of only starlight and they live very long lives, some of the elves alive in middle earth existed before the sun. For them to have melanin with such slow evolution and being born under starlight makes no sense.

So how do you explain the mutation that led to some elves having increased melanin in their hair? If they can spontaneously develop genetic mutations that lead to increased melanin in one part of their body then why not another?

Dwarves live underground, also not known for having a lot of sunshine, so it makes no sense for them to have a lot of melanin.

Same as elves. They seem to have a variety of melanin related mutations that give them a wide range of hair colors.

The mutation that gave people light skin was selectively advantageous for vitamin D synthesis in climates with less sun. Since dwarves spend so much of their lives underground, they clearly don’t need the sun for such human physiological necessities so melanin (a lot or a little) is completely irrelevant.

If they’re not just going to have skin so pale it’s almost translucent (like many animals that never get sunlight) the any skin tone works for them.

Hobbits are not very common in the world, they live far north, not quite far enough for permanent ice, but pretty close, this is likely partially based on Great Britain, hobbits are not fond of adventure, and because you travel on foot, most won't have gone very far outside of the shire, they are cut off from the events of the world, living their own slow lives. It makes no sense for hobbits to have different skin colors from each other, they could've all been black, brown yellow like me or white.

Harfoots (the most common hobbit type) are described as browner in color than other hobbits. With no baseline that means that means they really could fall anywhere on the spectrum of human skin tone that is at least “darker than white”.

So yeah, maybe you should amend what you think of as “verisimilitude”.

- - - Updated - - -

Genuine question; If race/gender swapping doesn't matter in adaptations of stories from one media to another then why do it?

Variety. Some call it the spice of life.

[Veggie50]

Loving how theres a deep dive going on about the deeper meaning of green eggs and ham

[Gumble]

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

He hasn't made anything good recently, but back in the 90s and early 2000s having him in a movie was gold for audiences. Everyone my age can still sing the entire Fresh Prince theme at the drop of a hat. He was quite the draw.

- - - Updated - - -

Loving how theres a deep dive going on about the deeper meaning of green eggs and ham

It is quite amusing. Though the amount of people strawmanning each other back and forth makes me feel like Dorothy any time I click on one of these threads.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Reminds me of Starship Troopers and how monumentally different that movie is from the book its based on. Is this adaptation also fine, in hindsight? Perhaps Rings of Power may also be. We can only wait and see.

Using Starship Troopers as a metric for adaptations is quite the take, given how it was essentially a provocative parody of the original Heinlein work. Not to mention the assumed whitewashing of not only the main protagonist but of the entire cast.

But yeah perhaps in a similar vein, it'll become a future reference for the quirks of adaptations made in its era, maybe this time without turning the male black protagonist into a comic relief after throwing in the toilet all its potential...

In retrospect, I guess modern "adaptations" mirror those such as Starship Troopers, with key points being contemporary political messages be them dressed directly or in parody, and/or using or requiring forceful shifts in color palette to be marketable enough to their respective eras.

[Sialina]

So how do you explain the mutation that led to some elves having increased melanin in their hair? If they can spontaneously develop genetic mutations that lead to increased melanin in one part of their body then why not another?



Same as elves. They seem to have a variety of melanin related mutations that give them a wide range of hair colors.

The mutation that gave people light skin was selectively advantageous for vitamin D synthesis in climates with less sun. Since dwarves spend so much of their lives underground, they clearly don’t need the sun for such human physiological necessities so melanin (a lot or a little) is completely irrelevant.

If they’re not just going to have skin so pale it’s almost translucent (like many animals that never get sunlight) the any skin tone works for them.



Harfoots (the most common hobbit type) are described as browner in color than other hobbits. With no baseline that means that means they really could fall anywhere on the spectrum of human skin tone that is at least “darker than white”.

So yeah, maybe you should amend what you think of as “verisimilitude”.

- - - Updated - - -



Variety. Some call it the spice of life.

Variety? We have Elves dwarves and gods, I would argue by bringing them closer to humans we are taking variety out, not adding it in.

The elves were created by Illuvatar and the Valar in the song of creation, the elves closer to the flame of creation often had traits like darker hair and dark eyes, they were all fair though. A notable example here would be Fëanor, but there are plenty of others.

Dwarves were also created before the sun existed, under ground by Aulë, he created them in his own image but he was not mighty enough to
give them life. When Illuvatar saw his creations he got angry, but eventually helped him give them life. These were the 7 fathers of the dwarves.
The dwarves awoke a century after the elves, during the first age before the sun and the moon, under the starlight. They too were created, but you
have to remember, just because something was created doesn't mean it can later break the laws of logic.
If I create a room for you that contains blue paint and red paint, you can make all shades of red blue and purple, but you won't be making green or yellow.

As for harefoots, sure, but Hobbits are not supposed to be out and about during the second age. What is wrong with having easterlings instead? the people
that are actually supposed to have darker skin?

[Dhrizzle]

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."

Yeah but they gave the character a beard which means it is all Woke bullshit that wants to spit on Tolkien's grave.
/s

[Triceron]

So how do you explain the mutation that led to some elves having increased melanin in their hair? If they can spontaneously develop genetic mutations that lead to increased melanin in one part of their body then why not another?

Many of these races are based on real life cultures that did had different hair and eye colors but not vastly different skin colors.

[eschatological]

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.

Why is it changed, except for pre-existing racist notions of what it means to be black in real life?

When I read those passages, my interpretation was two-fold: 1) That Tolkein, the author, was being a bit xenophobic himself, putting darker skinned (viewed as lesser) humans on the side of Sauron, and 2) that the Hobbits were more shocked that any human would join Sauron when humans had free will (and orcs were considered corrupted to evil). The former reason alone is reason to change how humans are represented (in that it should be less white people vs. dark people) in the story, the latter reason isn't changed by changing the skin tone.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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.

Frodo being shocked really doesn’t mean all that much when it comes to dwarf skin tones given that even in real life you can have people be shocked that A member of X race has Y hair type/eye colour even if they have seen it on some one else before. It could very well just mean that Frodo has never seen a black human so even through black members of the other races exist he’s still surprised that it applies to humans as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Genuine question; If race/gender swapping doesn't matter in adaptations of stories from one media to another then why do it?

Easy answer is to cast the best actor they have trying out for the role given that there race or gender doesn’t actually take any thing away from the performance.

[Triceron]

Why is it changed, except for pre-existing racist notions of what it means to be black in real life?

What do you mean 'what it means to be black on real life'? There's no real life commentary being made in regards to Middle Earth.

When I read those passages, my interpretation was two-fold: 1) That Tolkein, the author, was being a bit xenophobic himself, putting darker skinned (viewed as lesser) humans on the side of Sauron, and 2) that the Hobbits were more shocked that any human would join Sauron when humans had free will (and orcs were considered corrupted to evil). The former reason alone is reason to change how humans are represented (in that it should be less white people vs. dark people) in the story, the latter reason isn't changed by changing the skin tone.

That's a fair interpretation.

Yet the point still stands that black skinned people do exist, and described to be exotic and rare in the Hobbit's knowledge of the world as they know it. Considering their familiarity with the Dwarves indirectly through Bilbo, if there existed Black Dwarves known to them then such would be described existing, as such a rarity wouldn't be missed out as a mere overlooked detail.

The fact that Black skinned Dwarves aren't mentioned through the Hobbit's narrative while dark skin in other depictions are made in great detail implies that Black skinned Dwarves would not have been a common sight. To the reader's knowledge, it was never a sight at all. That is not to say they couldn't exist, but they would not have appeared in the Battle of five armies or in any other known depictions where dwarf skin colors are concerned. If that is the way the author established the Dwarf race and their known culture, then that is the world as we know it (through the narrative of the Hobbit's POV).

The change to add black skinned Dwarves would be a change to what we know of the Hobbit's own account of the world at large. And it's through their lens that we see and bear witness to the world of Middle Earth. It would be no different than adding pink hair where there was none. It would be a change because the Hobbits have never encountered people with pink hair, and we could not merely assume their reactions would be the same as something 'equally shocking'. They've never seen cars or cellphones either, and it doesn't mean we can freely swap those in places where they had genuine reactions of awe over what they consider to be magical artifacts.

My point isn't to say Rings of Power couldn't or shouldn't make these changes. I'm well aware of what's happening and I fully support it. My point is there is no reason to regard Rings of Power as a depiction of Tolkien's established world as he describes it to be. Black Dwarves are a creative liberty. This is not a bad thing, but it is something we sgould fully acknowledge as being new, being different, and ultimately not as a part of Tolkien's original work. Because merely saying 'what's the difference' is ignoring the fact that there is a difference.

Many of the arguments being presented here are in the vein of 'the difference is not very significant'. I argue that if there is a difference at all, then the value of its significance will be in the eye of the beholder, and is not an argument that can be used for or against the change. We should acknowledge the change, and we should respect that there are going to be people who have different views concerning the change. That is the ultimate point I present.

The more we pretend that the change is insignificant, the more we are alienating the fact that there is any change at all. And I don't think that's fair at all. Even with the Peter Jackson movies, as great as they are, they are full of inconsistencies to the books. There are plenty of differences. Do we need to justify the changes by asking 'what's the difference?'. No, we can both acknowledge that there are differences and that the creative liberties are welcomed as a part of an adaptation that has become recognized as its own masterpiece. It is not Tolkien's depiction of Middle Earth, and we don't have to make arguments that would assume it to be one.

Elves being present at Helms Deep is a BIG change to the narrative of the books. If someone asks 'What's the difference' then I will tell them in detail. If they are implying that the changes are not significant, then I will explain why narratively it is. But overall, it doesn't mean 'm against the change. I think it's cool that they did add Elves to Helms Deep. I simply do not agree with anyone who believes that the change is insignificant or non-existent. IMO, there is no excuse to downplay the change for the sake of defending its existence. It only gets in the way of recognizing the strength of the work on its own merit. Changes can be embraced and appreciated, and there's no reason to pretend they aren't changes for the sake of justifying their existence.

That is why I find some of these arguments in favour of Black Dwarves to be so baffling, because it involves more revisionist history than simply embracing and celebrating an adaptation for making use of its creative liberties.