

Those are not mutually exclusive. You're assuming that merit can not only always be measured objectively, but that it also always distills down to one option.
That's just not the case. If it WAS as easy as "let's just look who's best qualified and take that person", we wouldn't have any problems. But we do, because you reach a point in the hiring (or casting) process where you cannot just go "well one candidate has score 45 and the other candidate has score 46, so we'll go with the 46 one" and all the candidates you have available are objectively qualified; and then it becomes very SUBJECTIVE who you hire, and experience has shown that somehow magically mysteriously white people tend to get hired significantly more EXCEPT when you set it up in a way that conceals racial traits, when suddenly that doesn't happen anymore (to everyone's shock and surprise).
And with acting it's the same thing. At some point someone goes "yeah this person is just, you know, the BEST FIT" and it's not down to them evaluating objective metrics. And to more shock and surprise it's somehow the black guys who get to be drug dealers and the white guys who get to be investment bankers and nobody knows why and how and it's all very mysterious.
"Just hire based on merit" is an IDEAL that I also subscribe to (I've said so in an earlier post, too), but it's a UTOPIAN ideal. We should strive to get there, and we should do our utmost to approach that goal, but in PRACTICE there's things that we need to compromise on in order to make things more equitable in the long run even if they're less equitable in the short term.
The crux here lies in the "it makes sense for the character/story/setting" part, because that's where the reasons need to come in. Are there GOOD REASONS for casting a particular skin color? If so, I'm 100% fine with doing that. That's why Black Panther is black and Atticus Finch is white, and changing that would affect the stories they're in on a level that would be difficult to justify. However, for the vast majority of stories, that is not the case - there skin color is just a cosmetic detail of no plot relevance, and can be freely changed without affecting the narrative in any substantial way. Just as things like hair color, eye color, height, etc. are changed all the time and nobody ever gives a shit (except that one guy who keeps complaining Hermione's dress was pink and not blue because it's the internet and there's always that guy).
And I do mean GOOD REASONS are needed to fix traits like skin color. A lot of the time, we hear a variation of three things:
1. "It's not like that in the original" - that's a circular argument saying you can't change it because it is what it is and if you changed it, then it wouldn't be
2. "It just doesn't feel right" - that's just plain ol' garden-variety racism
3. "It's not how we've done this in the past, so why change it" - that's an argument from tradition, which is a bit weird when the tradition we're trying to change is that certain people have been discriminated against because of their skin color
None of these are good reasons, in any way, shape, or form. But there CAN BE good reasons.
That's the fallacy, though. You're implying that picking someone for their skin color ALSO means picking someone less qualified. Which is neither self-evident nor logical, and is, by the way, doubly ironic because that's precisely what can happen when white people get jobs/roles/etc. because of their skin, too. It's just somehow swept under the rug there as though white people were always also the most qualified.
But as I said earlier, 100% merit based choice is an ideal, not a practical reality; and often it's an illusion to begin with.
And the trick is to focus on that last part as well as the first part, and be VERY thorough about it.
But to be clear, that wasn't really what I was talking about when I said "diversity is a goal in and of itself". It's not saying diversity is more important than certain other things, it's saying that you don't need justification for being diverse other than that being diverse is already a justification. It's not the final word, it's not a trump card that obviates other factors by default, it's just that you do not need to ask "but why do we NEED non-white people anyway?".
Last edited by Biomega; 2022-08-14 at 04:57 PM.

Interesting discussion of what constitutes "Tolkenian" which actually brings up some good points.
However, the bigger issue is that ultimately, the Tolkien estate is not Tolkien the man and as time goes on they will have differing views on what is "Tolkienian".
Simon Tolkien already has had strong opinions on this.
And unfortunately what may actually likely wind up happening is that as time goes on you will get exactly what Tolkien did not want. There will be all kinds of various and sundry shows, books, movies, comics, cartoons, etc claiming to be Tolkien but not lining up with each other, let alone the writing of Tolkien himself.
Just like it is quite possible, but not likely that someone at some point may try to reboot the LOTR movies.......

And here is Tolkien himself speaking on his intent:

I especially like when he talks about Middle Earth not being any representation of anything real but just "a different imagination", and that of course neither time nor space nor culture would make any sort of 'real-world' sense applied to Middle Earth.
But sure, it has to be all white people because reasons. Mmmmm-hmmmmm.
Evil only wins when it spreads. It can cause destruction, it can cause death—but those are consequences of its nature, not its victory. Not its goal. The danger of evil, the purpose of evil, is that it causes those who would oppose it to become evil also.
You also know their role in the overall world as well then. People are picking up on when changes are made solely to pander and it's the mark of a shit product. Useful idoits then defend the product blindly because they are told its morally correct to. The product then fails as the pandering trash it always was and those same idoits spout off " you couldn't of known!!!".
I could end up eating crow but given how they are hiding the plot I'm willing to bet this will go over as well as the wheel of time and the new Ghostbusters.

As much as I personally dislike the WoT show, it WAS just greenlit for season 3 before we even got season 2... Which would suggest that it goes over well with SOMEONE, even if it's not me (or you, apparently).
I'll reserve my judgement for this show for when I actually get to watch some of it. I do wish I had the time of my life I wasted on 3 eps of WoT back, but that's the price you pay if you want to see for yourself, I guess. So I'll donate at least some of my time to this show, too, to find out what we've got.
The irony of this bullshit, of course, is that those who are convinced it will be a failure because there are filthy brown and black people in it are the same ones who show up in comments sections of youtube videos mindlessly regurgitating the same exact comments they heard from [insert online culture war outrage-monger]. The projection is spectacular.
I have prime for shipping already so I will likely take a peek but my hype level is between ep 2 of wot and ep 2 of halo.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes that is the mindless defense of it... the moment plot and source material takes a back seat the production has already given its death rattle.
Lol no.
There is no “picking up on when changes are made solely to pander” people just screech that they are always pandering at any thing like this even if there is no source material to change like with recent examples Obiwan and Prey.
Also absolutely love that people are still harping on about ghost busters 6 years later and completely ignoring that we have far more analogous comparisons with things like the Witcher which didn’t have any problems being a hit even though it did the exact same things.
Evil only wins when it spreads. It can cause destruction, it can cause death—but those are consequences of its nature, not its victory. Not its goal. The danger of evil, the purpose of evil, is that it causes those who would oppose it to become evil also.
Witcher snd Ghostbusters did not do the same things. At all. I don't think this is comparable considering both handle diversity and representation' in very different ways.
The only way I see Witcher being comparable to that Ghostbusters is if Geralt was genderswapped and given Jasker's personality and Yennefer became a strikingly handsome dude with the intellect of a bicycle.
In fairness Christopher Tolkien did say that stuff like that ruined the trilogy (or "eviscerated the story" as he phrased it.)
- - - Updated - - -
Licensing is complicated. The Fall of Numenor is mentioned in the appendices so they can use that in the series, they can use other published works as reference for that event. On top of that the Tolkien Estate can grant them permission to use anything on a case-by-case basis which is probably how we got that shot of Melkor poised to destroy the Two Trees.
- - - Updated - - -
It's honestly impressive that you can quote parts of the policy and then lie about what it says.
- - - Updated - - -
On the bright side a reboot of the LotR movies might do the books justice and get all the characters right.
Who did the movies get wrong? I can take a guess, like Aragorn is the standout I think, I know Aragorn felt very different than the books, I'd go out on a limb say Faramir too. Also maybe Glorfindel will get his appropriate spot.
I do feel for the most part a lot of the character were quite faithful to the books, there are nit pick slight changes like Frodo and Sam and maybe the ents, but none that do massive harm to the books.
Last edited by Orby; 2022-08-15 at 10:44 AM.
I love Warcraft, I dislike WoW
Unsubbed since January 2021, now a Warcraft fan from a distance
'People will be willing to give up their human rights for the false promise of security and get none in return'

Denethor was done a little dirty. His character wasn't actually changed that much, it's just that we never got to see him before his descent into despair, for which Sauron was partly to blame due to the visions that Sauron fed to him through the palantir.
Eowyn came across way too sappy in the film compared to how she is in the books.
Gimli, Merry and Pippin all became comic relief.