Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Gumble]

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.

And this is where you hit the nail on the head but miss the mark....

Race/gender/whatever swapping characters to slot in the best actor for the part IS an absolutely reasonable idea that generally ends up with fan appreciation and acceptance (easiest example, Nick Fury). Nobody suspects that they cast Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury to show off that they put a black guy in Avengers. They see it and go "its because they could get Samuel MFing Jackson to play the part".

However the fact that so many of the shows and movies that have done it recently end up casting actors who DO NOT do a good job, even a remotely good job, indicates that this factor has slid away from casting decisions (as has releases of casting calls that literally say what they are doing...) and have instead went with "cast a black guy for this role". They are no longer attempting to cast the best actor for a role, regardless of their race/gender/etc, but are now casting BECAUSE of it.

And while maybe this show is different, and they literally did it purely because of the amazing actors who they selected are going to kill those roles so hard...... the problem lies in that the same types of projects, for years now, have shown that not to be the case. Its much more likely they cast a subpar actor purely due to their desire to fill a "we need this many black guys, or gay women, or whatever rediculous requirement they came up with" and cast based on that, rather than ability.

And it shows.

And people have started to catch on.

And casting people like they have been, where their ability is secondary to their immutable characteristics isn't leading to good products.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Of course it's more valid. Tolkien himself explains the Dwarves are based on medieval depictions of Jews. We know this from the horse's mouth, therefore it's not mere assumption, it is proven from the author themselves. They gave a direct line of reference to real life culture that they are based on. "Medieval depictions of Jews" is quite a specific monoethnic culture being referenced here.

If the dwarfs are suppose to adhere to medieval depictions of Jews while they wouldn’t be black you could very well argue for them being various shades of brown along with white depending on what Tolkien actually had on hand/in mind when making them as there is plenty of medieval Jewish art which has them questionable brown and some pieces that has obvious different skin tones.



- - - Updated - - -

And while maybe this show is different, and they literally did it purely because of the amazing actors who they selected are going to kill those roles so hard...... the problem lies in that the same types of projects, for years now, have shown that not to be the case. Its much more likely they cast a subpar actor purely due to their desire to fill a "we need this many black guys, or gay women, or whatever rediculous requirement they came up with" and cast based on that, rather than ability

There have been plenty of movie's which have done poorly with a race swapped character who's actor is obviously good but has been given a poorly written role in a poorly written movie, FF4 with Michael B. Jordan as an exmple. Hell I can't think of a single example where there has been a well written role that has been dragged down by a bad minority actor.

It almost always all comes down to the writing.

[Triceron]

I’d the dwarfs are suppose to adhere to medieval depictions of Jews while they wouldn’t be black you could very well argue for them being various shades of brown along with white depending on what Tolkien actually had on hand/in mind when making them as there is plenty of medieval Jewish art which has them questionable brown and some pieces that has obvious different skin tones.

Well a good question would be if Tolkien based any of his writings and depictions of Dwarves on this particular reference image then.

What say your research?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

“You’re racist because you don’t like black characters in this originally white story”

“You calling me racist shows your ignorance on the subject”

Summary of 95% of this thread

"Black characters can't exist in Middle-Earth"

"Why not?"

"Cuz it ruins everything!!!!"

"How?"

"Cuz Tolkien never wrote black characters"

"But how does the existence of black characters ruin everything?"

"Cuz it's a white story"

Summary of 95% of this thread

once again:

[Adamas102]

But that's speculation.

Sure, you could argue that if you accept one, then you could accept the other. But the fact is, the other doesn't exist in the fiction.

Except it does. Humans and hobbits are both explicitly described as having varying skin tones so the mutations for such exist in Middle-earth. After that it's about using that interpretation to fill in the gaps that need to be filled in order to adapt to the screen (namely, hiring actors). This isn't a world breaking, reality bending thing.

Just like I could say that the One Ring has magical properties to make one invisible. Therefore it shouldn't be hard to accept if Frodo could also fly. Yes, it's true, magic is magic and there is no limit. But the fact is, there are no magical items that we know of that grants flight. Making the assumption that flight would be perfectly acceptable is nothing more than speculation, because magical items that grant flight do not formally exist in the fiction.

So your argument, while valid on a technical level, has no bearing on a discussion of Middle Earth as depicted by Tolkien. At this point, you might as well pose the question of why Jedi and Lightsabers couldn't also exist. There literally is no difference in discussion, because we're talking about pure speculation that does not exist within the existing narrative universe.

It always comes to the most absurd examples, huh? That in a world that does have examples of varying skin tones having a character whose skin tone isn't specified be anything other than white is on the same level as blue skin, lightsabers, and magical flight... You do see how seeing so much push back against something so natural in a setting where it already exists can become so fucking frustrating, right? I mean, this is the epitome of bad faith argument.

No rules are being broken. Humans (such as the first men of House Beor from whom the Numenoreans decended) and hobbits (Harfoots, who are the most common type of hobbit) exhibit darker skin than others of their race without massive deviations in culture or ethnicity. These rules are already in the setting.

Of course it's more valid. Tolkien himself explains the Dwarves are based on medieval depictions of Jews. We know this from the horse's mouth, therefore it's not mere assumption, it is proven from the author themselves. They gave a direct line of reference to real life culture that they are based on. "Medieval depictions of Jews" is quite a specific monoethnic culture being referenced here.

Tolkien made an effort to distance himself from his early depiction of dwarves after the Hobbit (around the time when certain people in Germany were looking for any way to dehumanize Jews). The connections were more in language and the diaspora that guided the quest of Thorin and his band. Again, drawing the connection all the way to skin color is purely assumption on your part. Not to mention that being black and being Jewish aren't mutually exclusive. Are they more rare? Sure. But so were/are Jewish people with red hair, and I imagine until now you were perfectly fine with red haired dwarves.

[Xath]

"Black characters can't exist in Middle-Earth"

"Why not?"

"Cuz it ruins everything!!!!"

"How?"

"Cuz Tolkien never wrote black characters"

"But how does the existence of black characters ruin everything?"

"Cuz it's a white story"

Summary of 95% of this thread

once again:

Or because it's contrary to what Tolkien wrote. There are a ton of changes beyond skin color that go directly against what Tolkien wrote and that's just what is known. There's also a direct example from the same studio of going full death of the author on a fantasy property with a decidedly negative outcome. Not having access to Sil doesn't give free license to directly contradict it.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Well a good question would be if Tolkien based any of his writings and depictions of Dwarves on this particular reference image then.

What say your research?

I can't say I know any where near enough about Tolkien to even began searching info of that degree. If I had to make a wild guess though id say there are no records of what he was actually using as a direct reference as Id expect it to have come up before this point and be rather wide spread.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Or because it's contrary to what Tolkien wrote. There are a ton of changes beyond skin color that go directly against what Tolkien wrote and that's just what is known. There's also a direct example from the same studio of going full death of the author on a fantasy property with a decidedly negative outcome. Not having access to Sil doesn't give free license to directly contradict it.

There's tons of changes to what tolkien wrote in Peter Jackson's films as well...I don't see you rallying against them...



but we're specifically talking about the changes to skin colour here. What exactly makes those changes so terrible other than an extremely dogmatic view of Tolkien's works?

[Biomega]

Or because it's contrary to what Tolkien wrote.

So is using a brown horse when Tolkien wrote piebald horse, and I'd like to see where anyone is seriously complaining about THAT.

This is the ultimate red herring, because it's trying to appeal to a kind of purity that isn't just completely unrealistic, but that's also blatantly ignored by the very same people as long as it's about any cosmetic detail BUT skin color.

Either adherence to the source matters for EVERY detail - in which case you'll never accept any kind of adaptation whatsoever, so why are you here arguing about something you'll never accept and never were going to accept as a matter of definition.

Or it matters for SOME details but not others - in which case you'll have to provide a GOOD REASON for every detail that you claim should not be changed. And "because Tolkien wrote it!" is not one, since that's tautological, circular logic.

[Triceron]

Except it does. Humans and hobbits are both explicitly described as having varying skin tones so the mutations for such exist in Middle-earth. After that it's about using that interpretation to fill in the gaps that need to be filled in order to adapt to the screen (namely, hiring actors). This isn't a world breaking, reality bending thing.

Humans and Hobbits do not have the same lineage or creation myth as the Dwarves. So no, just because certain things exist in one race does not somehow magically apply to all other races. Otherwise we'd be talking about Orcs and Goblins with fair complexions because they share lineage with the Elves.

To say there are no depictions of fair skinned Orcs is not some controversial talking point against Orcs. It's literally pointing out how it doesn't exist, and if someone chose to adapt a Fair skinned beautiful Orc into Middle Earth, we could literally point at it as being a change or creative liberty taken that diverges from the original material.

It always comes to the most absurd examples, huh? That in a world that does have examples of varying skin tones having a character whose skin tone isn't specified be anything other than white is on the same level as blue skin, lightsabers, and magical flight... You do see how seeing so much push back against something so natural in a setting where it already exists can become so fucking frustrating, right? I mean, this is the epitome of bad faith argument.

It's no less absurd than arguing that Black skinned Dwarves would have existed when they never did exist in the narrative.

It's literally no different in argument because both changes can be deemed acceptable or absurd. It's all a matter of suspension of disbelief. I'm using an extreme example to illustrate the absurdity, but if you understand why I chose these examples, it really isn't as absurd as it sounds. Jedi force powers are equivalent to some of the Magic we've seen Gandalf and Galadriel use in the movies. Force pushing. Mind tricks and telepathy. Lightsabers aren't a far cry from the literal glowing swords we've already known about through Elven blades. Sting, Orcrist, both which glow bright colors.

What you call absurd has already become acceptable through the Peter Jackson movies. The Wizard fight is literally two Jedis using Force powers against each other. Depictions of Gandalf using Orcrist to slice through goblins like butter is much more graphically shown than ever depicted in the books. I'm illustrating that you could easily call something like Jedi and Lightsabers as absurd even though I can literally point out examples of similar things already existing in the mythology. Just the same way as you can point out similar things to Black Dwarves existing in the mythology even though others may deem it to be absurd.

You talk about how these would have major pushback, but they already are in full display in the movies, and the pushback isn't even anywhere close to what we're seeing with the existence of a Black Dwarf. That is why I literally made the comparison, because the absurdity and acceptability is literally subjective. PJ made Jedi powers and Lightsabers seamlessly fit into the world of Middle Earth in a way that makes sense. We have yet to see whether Rings of Power will be able to do the same with their racial diversity.

Tolkien made an effort to distance himself from his early depiction of dwarves after the Hobbit (around the time when certain people in Germany were looking for any way to dehumanize Jews). The connections were more in language and the diaspora that guided the quest of Thorin and his band. Again, drawing the connection all the way to skin color is purely assumption on your part. Not to mention that being black and being Jewish aren't mutually exclusive. Are they more rare? Sure. But so were/are Jewish people with red hair, and I imagine until now you were perfectly fine with red haired dwarves.

And regardless, unless he retroactively changed his depictions officially, my point remains that the original intent and vision of the works was representing Dwarves in a certain way, and it remains factually true.

If Tolkien revised his works to reflect his latest thoughts and feelings, then we would be talking about a different Middle Earth. And yes, creators can and have changed their own canon - Lucas officially and canonically has Greedo shoot first, and outright states that this is how he always intended it to play out. If we regard Star Wars canon, then this is the canon we collectively regard and talk about (though not necessarily have to agree with).

[Veggie50]

I love how you just call it "white" story instead of fantasy or anything else, really telling.

Woooooosh…

[Adamas102]

It is part of it. Tolkien had not finished fleshing out the story of the 2nd age until later. The fall of Numenor and other things are not described until the Simarillion and Unfinished Tales.

"Númenor was thrown down and swallowed in the Sea, and the Undying Lands were removed for ever from the circles of the world. So ended the glory of Númenor."

That's directly from the appendix to RotK, so yeah it was described in the source material that Amazon is using.

The Edain were not a "mixed race", as they were simply a sub group of humans who traveled to the lands of Elves, and were described as being organized into 3 houses. And members of those houses were described as having somewhat different features and yes some of the Beor were described as swarthy, but that doesn't imply these were different races. Not to mention most of the Beor were wiped out even before the founding of Numenor. And ultimately Miriel was described as fair, with silver hair.

Their obvious variations in phenotype is as much an indication of "mixed race" as dark skin vs light skin. And yes, while much of House Beor was wiped out, not all were and all it takes is one member with the specific genetic mutations for the physical traits of House Beor to continue passing down through generations. Obviously those traits for darker skin and hair were pretty strong since Aragorn's description is more in line with the phenotype of House Beor than of House Hador.

Speaking of Aragorn, were you just as livid when Erendil, Isildur, and Aragorn were portrayed in the movies as being bearded when their elvish blood should have prevented that? How many forums threads were spawned from that divergence from lore?

Could be, but the Numenoreans saw themselves as above other men, due to their larger stature and lifespan, so it would likely not be something they would dilute by having children with non Numenoreans. The whole theme of the second age revolves around conflicts related to the gift of immorality only being granted to the Elves, rejection of the Valar by some factions of Elves wanting to rule Middle Earth, such as galadriel, and so forth. Not having the Numenoreans see themselves above the other humans would be taking away from the original narrative, which is they fell partly due to Sauron but also due to their own ego and pride.

Unlikely? Sure. But there is precedence as far back as Tar-Aldarion of kings who married below their status. He wed Erendis who was of Beorian descent, and had a shorter lifespan and was of lesser status than Aldarion since she didn't come from the royal house. Their daughter, Tar-Ancalime became the first ruling queen and due to her lineage the genetics of House Beor could continue through the line of Kings (meaning that any of those marriages to women we'll never know about could have produced children of darker skin than the typical Numenorean descended from House Hador, which in turn answers your question of how Miriel in the show could be dark skinned).

And lets be honest here, on the scale of human skin tone Addai-Robinson's is a pretty middle-of-the-road light brown, not black like the people of Far Hadar. I remember watching her on Spartacus (not a big fan of her character there. but whatever) and she didn't stand out much at all from the pretty tan, white Australian and New Zealand actors of the show. Continually talking about her like she's a fucking 10ft tall blue smurf in the midst of a bunch of pasty Englishmen is poor form.

Note we have see no Asian elves, no Asian dwarves or Asian Harfoots. Not to mention no Native American Elves, Dwarves or humans, nor any Pacific Islanders, Eskimos and Australian Aborigines either. So why does diversity only mean black people?

It doesn't. I mean, maybe to people who see everyone who isn't white as "black" it might seem that way, but Ismael Cruz Cordova is Puerto Rican (a country that is predominately multiracial Hispanic) and Nazanin Boniadi is of Iranian descent.

[Orby]

There's tons of changes to what tolkien wrote in Peter Jackson's films as well...I don't see you rallying against them...



but we're specifically talking about the changes to skin colour here. What exactly makes those changes so terrible other than an extremely dogmatic view of Tolkien's works?

I stand by really thinking that those dumb stunts near took me out of the original movies. Funny thing about that scene, everyone hated it back then online too. lol. I think I even rolled my eyes upon seeing some of that Legolas stuff. I know Tolkien Elves were described as being fleet of foot, but I didn't think he meant it literally :P

[Veggie50]

I stand by really thinking that those dumb stunts near took me out of the original movies. Funny thing about that scene, everyone hated it back then online too. lol. I think I even rolled my eyes upon seeing some of that Legolas stuff. I know Tolkien Elves were described as being fleet of foot, but I didn't think he meant it literally :P

Haha this reminds me of religious people…

“Being gay is against the lords will and you will burn in hell, it’s literally in the bible!”

“-Well yes… it also says you’ll go to hell if you dress in two different fabrics.”

“You’re not supposed to take that literally!”

[bledgor]

I stand by really thinking that those dumb stunts near took me out of the original movies. Funny thing about that scene, everyone hated it back then online too. lol. I think I even rolled my eyes upon seeing some of that Legolas stuff. I know Tolkien Elves were described as being fleet of foot, but I didn't think he meant it literally :P

The non-Tolkien fans have to bring up things like this to try and make the OG trilogy look bad so RoP looks closer to not being complete utter shit, better off just ignoring them.

[Adamas102]

It's no less absurd than arguing that Black skinned Dwarves would have existed when they never did exist in the narrative.

It all boils down to this. In one post you're all about leaving the blanks in the literary work unfilled ("If he did not clarify, then it remains unclarified, simple as that" were your exact words), and in the next you're wholeheartedly accepting the assumption of light skinned only dwarves which were never noted in the narrative while calling dark skinned dwarves absurd.

We both agree on the original assumption that dwarves are of human skin tone, right? They're not blue, they're not green, they're not ruby red with hints of purple. Human skin tone varies due to different levels of melanin, human hair color varies due to different levels of melanin. Dwarves have hair of varying color (just like people), so skin of varying color (just like people) isn't a large leap. It's filling in a blank with creative license (a necessity since actors need to be cast) but remaining true to similar descriptors directly in the text.

Meanwhile, here you are taking it another step further and assuming that you know what Tolkien apparently meant to write, and based on those further assumptions are putting additional constraints on dwarven skin tones where none exist in the narrative. And why? Because you apparently think dark skin is absurd unless explicitly stated while white skin can just be the default when not explicitly stated.

I think I've got the gist of your underlying mentality on this one...

[Sialina]

"Black characters can't exist in Middle-Earth"

"Why not?"

"Cuz it ruins everything!!!!"

"How?"

"Cuz Tolkien never wrote black characters"

"But how does the existence of black characters ruin everything?"

"Cuz it's a white story"

It's funny how I'm a "PoC" and I think this is garbage, I want you and Adam102 to tell me one thing, very honestly
Are you super duper sad that Chinese movies and Dramas don't feature white people? Because they don't, 98% of our shows contain Chinese people and 0 whites.
Why? Because they are often about Chinese mythology, or ancient China, and very few white people were present back then.
Do you want some token white characters in our mythological stories to not feel left out?
If not, why are you taking offense on someone elses behalf? Lets be honest and answer this.

[Triceron]

It all boils down to this. In one post you're all about leaving the blanks in the literary work unfilled ("If he did not clarify, then it remains unclarified, simple as that" were your exact words), and in the next you're wholeheartedly accepting the assumption of light skinned dwarves which were never noted in the narrative while calling dark skinned dwarves absurd.

I think I've got the gist of underlying mentality on this one...

Well, no. You don't have a grasp at all.

If I asked you what you think my stance is on Black Dwarves in Rings of Power, what would you believe? I will outright tell you where my stance is.

I am pro Rings of Power having Black Dwarves. Let's get this out of the way.


My point has always been that Rings of Power is an adaptation of Tolkien's work, and because it is an adaptation it should be regarded as a separate piece of work that involves changes to the original source material. It is a different creation, a separate work of fiction from that which Tolkien originally created and presented. As an adaptation, none of the changes or creative liberties made for Rings of Power need to be justified to exist in the original works. Just like Peter Jackson's creative choices are not beholden to having to be explained to fit the original works. I want to clarify that Rings of Power and Peter Jackson's trilogy are not Tolkien's work. So when I am talking about Tolkien's work, I am specifically talking about the original source material - the novels and its appendices.

Now, when I am making points about depictions of Dwarf skintones and what was meant to be represented in the original fiction, I am talking about how Tolkien presented Dwarves in his fictional world, and the evidence we have that illustrates that there were no depictions of Black Dwarves in the original narrative. I'm establishing this fact, objective fact, in order to make a distinct difference to Rings of Power. I would just as much make this argument that Peter Jackson's trilogy is not canonical to the original works in the same way; there are creative liberties that make it its own thing.

What I think you're trying to do here is convince me that Black Dwarves can exist in Tolkien's work, and that it would not be a big leap since we have evidence of other races with varying skin colors and tones that exist. Or you're using arguments such as 'mutations' that imply skin tones could be the result of mutations, which is consistent to other races like Men and Hobbits.

1- If we are talking about Rings of Power, then yes everything you said can be true. An adaptation has the freedom to break the rules and adapt how it sees to fit a new medium and narrative. And because it is an adaptation, there doesn't need to be any explanation as to why any changes exist. Within this new narrative, the changes are part of the narrative and the universe. If there exists Black Dwarves and Elves and Harfoots, then that is how this universe operates. If PJ says Orcs and Goblins are different species with different physical traits, then that is how that universe operates.

2- If we are talking about Tolkien's original narrative, then no this can not be true. It would only be true if Tolkien incorporated it into the narrative, and explictly so. Making any leap or change is literally a step into fan-fiction/speculation/creative liberty. And in most context here, I've been talking about Tolkien's original narrative, and have been specific about it

At one point, you assume I am calling Dark skin Dwarves absurd. I have explictly told you that whether or not anything is absurd or acceptable is literally subjectively defined by individuals. *I* am not defining Black Dwarves as being absurd. I have no reason to.
In regard my explanation in #1, Black Dwarves can exist in an adaptation with no further explanation and with full acceptance, because we are regarding a work of fiction where they exist and have always existed. Yet if we are ever regarding the work in the context of Tolkien's original work, then this explanation can not be retroactively applied to fit the original work. Tolkien did not design Middle Earth to have Black skinned Dwarves, Elves and Harfoots (to the best of our knowledge).

We can talk about Rings of Power taking creative liscence and expanding on a new mythology. But at no point can we argue that Black Dwarves would retroactively work in Tolkien's original narrative. And where I'm making a point is that you literally responded to someone's opinion on the original narrative and why they don't think Black Dwarves should exist, and the points being made are specific to the original Tolkien universe. Where you come in is in arguing as though the original universe has room to be modified or changed, and I will flat out say that is not how any of this works. The original work is not flexible or modifiable in any way. It is a static snapshot of a world that will forever remain static. It is only through adaptations that anything can be progressed, and any and all adaptations will always be considered separate works of art from the original.

Whether or not something is a logical leap or not doesn't matter when we're talking about fiction. Fiction has its own rules. And it's by its own rules that we understand how the world works. If we arbitrarily treat the rules as tools to our own whims, then we are dealing with headcanon and fanfiction, not discussing the actual fictional world itself. And further more, if any time we are talking about an adaptation like Rings of Power or PJ's trilogy, then no explanation is needed to justify any change or creative liberty existing in the universe. It will merely exist as a part of the new fictional universe which the adaptation is now presenting. PJ decides Goblins and Orcs are two different species? Then that is what it is in the PJverse. No one needs to retroactively argue how this fits back into the original Tolkien novels.

And if someone comes out with the opinion that they don't like the concept of Black skinned Elves and Dwarves that's not how it was depicted in the novels? Then that is a fair opinion. There is no reason for anyone to respond to that by trying to apply Ring of Power's creative decisions back into the original novels to try to defend the adaptation's choices. It simply doesn't work like that, because we're regarding two entirely different works of fiction. Rings of Power doesn't need to justify its choices to have Black Dwarves. And there is no excuse for anyone to have to defend or justify the choices the adaptation for taking its creative liberties; it's absolutely pointless because the rules of the universe would not work the same as the original anyways. The rules are changed. Whether anyone expresses their preference of the original Tolkien work or the new adaptations (PJ, Rings of Power, etc) is all pure opinion. It does not need to be contested as though there is any defensible way to argue that Black Dwarves can exist in the original narrative when there simply have never and never will exist.

That is my point. I hope this clears some things up about the discussion.

[InfiniteCharger]

"Númenor was thrown down and swallowed in the Sea, and the Undying Lands were removed for ever from the circles of the world. So ended the glory of Númenor."

That's directly from the appendix to RotK, so yeah it was described in the source material that Amazon is using.

That one line from the appendix is not the full story of how that downfall occurred. This is what is in the Simarillion and other work.

Their obvious variations in phenotype is as much an indication of "mixed race" as dark skin vs light skin. And yes, while much of House Beor was wiped out, not all were and all it takes is one member with the specific genetic mutations for the physical traits of House Beor to continue passing down through generations. Obviously those traits for darker skin and hair were pretty strong since Aragorn's description is more in line with the phenotype of House Beor than of House Hador.

They were all part of the same "race" of men, but not vastly different in phenotype, such as the difference between Asians and Europeans or Europeans and Africans. In the world of Tolkien there were different phenotypes in different parts of the world such as in Harad and so forth, who also were identified as "swarthy". But what swarthy means is very much open to interpretation here, but that doesn't mean that the house of Beor would look like real world Africans, Asians, Eskimos, Polynesians or Native Americans. If anything it implies that some of those groups may have had a slightly darker phenotype but not so vastly different as being implied by "mixed race". A better term would be mixed complexion. I think you are expanding a whole lot beyond what swarthy means in the English language to imply extreme differences in phenotype, when it doesn't.

Speaking of Aragorn, were you just as livid when Erendil, Isildur, and Aragorn were portrayed in the movies as being bearded when their elvish blood should have prevented that? How many forums threads were spawned from that divergence from lore?

Don't see what it has to do with this particular discussion other than to say other adaptations have not followed canon.
Which really I don't have any control over and how one accepts or rejects that is up to them. I personally wasn't paying that much attention. That said, because so much of the LOTR movies follows faithfully to the books, which I read prior to watching them, it was hard for me personally to be too upset either. As far as adaptations go, Peter Jacksons LOTR is still, to me, one example of film staying very true to the original source material, even if it isn't 100%.

Unlikely? Sure. But there is precedence as far back as Tar-Aldarion of kings who married below their status. He wed Erendis who was of Beorian descent, and had a shorter lifespan and was of lesser status than Aldarion since she didn't come from the royal house. Their daughter, Tar-Ancalime became the first ruling queen and due to her lineage the genetics of House Beor could continue through the line of Kings (meaning that any of those marriages to women we'll never know about could have produced children of darker skin than the typical Numenorean descended from House Hador, which in turn answers your question of how Miriel in the show could be dark skinned).

And the key point is that it would be unlikely if following what is established in the lore, but again that has nothing to do with skin color per se. The first issue here is that Tolkien never described these other populations of men in all the different parts of Middle Earth with enough detail to define all the variations in phenotype that existed. Generally, at best, what you get is they were swarthy or something like that. So without that kind of almost anthropological understanding of all the different types of variation found among all the different human populations, you are basically opening the door to whatever interpretation you want. And at that point lore and what literally is in Tolkien isn't really going to matter. Just as it is obvious that the depiction of Miriel in this show as black is not matching what is in literally in the lore so she could equally have been Asian, Eskimo, Pacific Islander or any of the other variations of phenotype from the real word. But the house of Beor as sometimes being swarthy doesn't imply or suggest someone looking like a black African no more than it does a person looking Asian or Native American.

And lets be honest here, on the scale of human skin tone Addai-Robinson's is a pretty middle-of-the-road light brown, not black like the people of Far Hadar. I remember watching her on Spartacus (not a big fan of her character there. but whatever) and she didn't stand out much at all from the pretty tan, white Australian and New Zealand actors of the show. Continually talking about her like she's a fucking 10ft tall blue smurf in the midst of a bunch of pasty Englishmen is poor form.

That is still not matching the description from the book regardless, as I mentioned above. They didn't change her because they were trying to flesh out the diversity in phenotype among the humans of Middle Earth. It is obvious they wanted to put a black woman in that role because of some real world significance they attached to it. If they were doing the former they would have put more variation in skin color among the rank and file and other royal members of the household. And again, that is going by what we have seen so far, I am sure the show will give us more about her ancestry and whether she got her looks from her father or mother but the point about the general population still applies. I don't really see this as Amazon making Numenor like a melting pot of cultures and phenotypes as you are implying.

It doesn't. I mean, maybe to people who see everyone who isn't white as "black" it might seem that way, but Ismael Cruz Cordova is Puerto Rican (a country that is predominately multiracial Hispanic) and Nazanin Boniadi is of Iranian descent.

What I mean is there is more to diversity in the real world than just Africans or Europeans. I mean there are different types of Africans in terms of culture and features, different types of Asians, different types of Europeans, etc. Just one or two black women does not in any way represent to me a more wider or 'inclusive' understanding of diversity in Middle Earth. And this is because there wasn't that much detail put into every single feature and characteristic of every group to begin with in Tolkien's work. So it is basically whatever Amazon wanted it to be, as it wasn't following Tolkien anyway. But if I was doing a "diverse" fantasy world sticking with the blueprint of Tolkien it would be more like WOW or other Fantasy MMOs or even DnD where there is an attempt to describe in some level of detail the different languages, customs, forms of dress, phenotypes, features, kingdoms, conflicts and so forth among all the "races" of that fantasy world, human and otherwise. And if there were some "black" populations in that world, they would have kingdoms, cultures, factions and populations of their own and not simply be "a few" here and there. Their presence would be more organic and flow according to that description along with all the other populations also described. Tolkien was just one of the first authors to do this and as such as time went on other authors went much further in defining high fantasy worlds with all kinds of diversity than he did. So if Amazon wants kudos for a few black people in Tolkien they won't get it from me because this has already been done much better in many other works in the High Fantasy genre. And given how much press they have given to this idea of diversity in the show, apparently even Amazon knows that these characters were intended to be white, otherwise they wouldn't need to call it out. Not to mention how many Haradrim are we going to see in this series if they really care about the diversity of Middle Earth?

Also another thing that goes along with this lack of explicit detail of every feature is the fact that most mythology does not specify phenotype when describing their characters or "humans" in general. Most of the time it is assumed they look like whatever group created that mythology to begin with. And it is only when these myths are recorded in artwork that you understand the phenotype associated with these people and other beings. I doubt you will find an ancient text that explicitly says Odin was a white dude with a beard.

[s_bushido]

It's funny how I'm a "PoC" and I think this is garbage, I want you and Adam102 to tell me one thing, very honestly
Are you super duper sad that Chinese movies and Dramas don't feature white people? Because they don't, 98% of our shows contain Chinese people and 0 whites.
Why? Because they are often about Chinese mythology, or ancient China, and very few white people were present back then.
Do you want some token white characters in our mythological stories to not feel left out?
If not, why are you taking offense on someone elses behalf? Lets be honest and answer this.

A bit hilarious you'd bring this up, given that the only recent movie I can think of that had something to do with China was that one starring...Matt Damon.

If you're talking about movies made in China, I've never understood the laughable narrative that nefarious woke leftist filmmakers are somehow in the wrong for not holding themselves to the standards of a notoriously oppressive/xenophobic regime.

Nevermind that Tolkien's stories aren't actually "English mythology," even if that was the style/theme he was trying to convey.