1. #2761
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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...
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2022-08-12 at 10:22 PM.

  2. #2762
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    "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.

  3. #2763
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-12 at 11:05 PM.

  4. #2764
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    "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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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%.


    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-13 at 01:50 AM.

  5. #2765
    Quote Originally Posted by Sialina View Post
    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.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2022-08-12 at 11:07 PM.

  6. #2766
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    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.
    I was talking about films made in China, the part about mythological stories should have made that clear.

    Since you took it upon yourself, how about you answer the question, do you want white people in our movies? It sounds like you'd rather we don't put white actors in? And then you want to accuse me of being "oppressive/xenophobic"? How about you stop deflecting and just answer the question honestly
    If you see a movie made in China, are you sad when it doesn't have white actors?

  7. #2767
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    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?
    Probably because I was a kid when it came out and it's still far more faithful than directly changing lines of succession and how they came about

  8. #2768
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    There's tons of changes to what tolkien wrote in Peter Jackson's films as well...I don't see you rallying against them...

    I can't say I've heard of anyone thinking the shield thing is anything other than silly and stupid. Except kids, When I was a kid I just liked watching cool shit, now though... surely stupid.
    Expecting people to argue or rave on about that detail when it was long ass time ago is quite silly.

    Not a good meme, I give 2/10.

  9. #2769
    Quote Originally Posted by Sialina View Post
    I was talking about films made in China, the part about mythological stories should have made that clear.

    Since you took it upon yourself, how about you answer the question, do you want white people in our movies? It sounds like you'd rather we don't put white actors in? And then you want to accuse me of being "oppressive/xenophobic"? How about you stop deflecting and just answer the question honestly
    If you see a movie made in China, are you sad when it doesn't have white actors?
    Why should I care if there are white people in "your movies?" If a Chinese director or studio wants to cast white people, they can cast white people. If Chinese audiences want to see white actors in those productions, and the studios think they will make more money by casting them, they will cast white actors. This shit isn't complicated.

  10. #2770
    Quote Originally Posted by Sialina View Post
    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.
    The only people taking offense are the people who apparently find it offensive that dark skinned people were cast in this show.

    I've said it several times already in this thread. I would have had no issue with the show having cast only white actors. Tolkien's writing left a lot of ambiguity in the descriptions of a lot of peoples and specific characters. I'm fine with the showrunners using that ambiguity to cast a diverse set of actors. That's it, super simple.

    Tolkien specifically said that this portion of Middle-earth is not in anyway congruent with white Northern Europe (geographically, archeologically, culturally, or spiritually) and he detested it being referred to as 'Nordic' (as an intrinsically white narrative), so having non-white skin tones where none where specified isn't some butchering of his work. But I will say that it's pretty disturbing seeing the lengths people will go to try to push a virulently exclusionary whites-only agendas. Even if you yourself aren't white, these are still segregationist agendas.

    In this thread we've had everything from "black people can't be elves because elves are supposed to be attractive" to "black British actors don't have the right culture to play British people". It's pretty bad.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2022-08-12 at 11:25 PM.

  11. #2771
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumorii View Post
    I can't say I've heard of anyone thinking the shield thing is anything other than silly and stupid. Except kids, When I was a kid I just liked watching cool shit, now though... surely stupid.
    Expecting people to argue or rave on about that detail when it was long ass time ago is quite silly.

    Not a good meme, I give 2/10.
    People DID take the piss out of Legolas riding a shield, And even more so when he ran across falling rocks in the hobbit movies.

    So yeah its a terrible point/meme
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  12. #2772
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertoCarlos View Post
    People DID take the piss out of Legolas riding a shield, And even more so when he ran across falling rocks in the hobbit movies.

    So yeah its a terrible point/meme
    Sure, people had a laugh about it...but not to the point where they thought it "ruined" the trilogy or would have tolkien spinning in his grave.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  13. #2773
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Sure, people had a laugh about it...but not to the point where they thought it "ruined" the trilogy or would have tolkien spinning in his grave.
    The only people saying the show is ruined is tolkien purists who take the work far too seriously and people who are sick of needless race swaps instead of being faithful to the source material they adapt when they could make up their own IP's but no they want their cake of the already established fanbase and new comers for the wokeness to eat it
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  14. #2774
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    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.
    Quite possible. It could very well be the issue is simply the writing/direction of these movies/shows that drags them down and the actors simply get caught with the blame.

    Totally possible. It could be that crap writing and direction has simply grown along with the efforts to force diversity into products that didn't have it previously, and the two simply aren't a 1 to 1 thing.

    That is possible, but until I see a few examples of forced diversity that don't end up with a crap product, I'm not expecting much from things like this LOTR show or anything else like it. Could be proven wrong, but certainly not expecting it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    The only people taking offense are the people who apparently find it offensive that dark skinned people were cast in this show.
    You must have alot of people blocked......

    This is just as dumb and shouldn't be done either:


  15. #2775
    Wasn't Prince of Persia considered one of the best video game movies for quite awhile? I don't remember, tbh.

  16. #2776
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Wasn't Prince of Persia considered one of the best video game movies for quite awhile? I don't remember, tbh.
    Not by anyone I know, I remember hearing it was more video game adaptation garbage, further proof games shouldn't be made into movies. Only game to movie adaptations around that time I heard positivity towards are the first Resident Evil and Silent Hill movies, and even those it wasn't people raving about them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  17. #2777
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Wasn't Prince of Persia considered one of the best video game movies for quite awhile? I don't remember, tbh.
    I mean thats not much of a claim of quality being the "best video game movie" when 99% of them are dog shit. But no it wasnt considered good, was a commerical flop, and was more later mocked for being a bad example of race swapping when its never really been about the race swapping per say but the fact the studios want a bankable movie star like Jake Gyllenhaal and there are not many Persia super stars waiting around. Which perhaps highlights a racism issue with casting in the first place to get to said star level.
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  18. #2778
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    I've literally complained in this thread about them changing Hermione's outfit from a a perwinkle blue robe to a pink dress for the yule ball yes I care about that type of accuracy and it bugs me but that was at least with author consent you can't get author's consent when they are dead.

  19. #2779
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    Why should I care if there are white people in "your movies?" If a Chinese director or studio wants to cast white people, they can cast white people. If Chinese audiences want to see white actors in those productions, and the studios think they will make more money by casting them, they will cast white actors. This shit isn't complicated.
    At least you are nice enough to admit you had no argument, great!

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    The only people taking offense are the people who apparently find it offensive that dark skinned people were cast in this show.

    I've said it several times already in this thread. I would have had no issue with the show having cast only white actors. Tolkien's writing left a lot of ambiguity in the descriptions of a lot of peoples and specific characters. I'm fine with the showrunners using that ambiguity to cast a diverse set of actors. That's it, super simple.

    Tolkien specifically said that this portion of Middle-earth is not in anyway congruent with white Northern Europe (geographically, archeologically, culturally, or spiritually) and he detested it being referred to as 'Nordic' (as an intrinsically white narrative), so having non-white skin tones where none where specified isn't some butchering of his work. But I will say that it's pretty disturbing seeing the lengths people will go to try to push a virulently exclusionary whites-only agendas. Even if you yourself aren't white, these are still segregationist agendas.

    In this thread we've had everything from "black people can't be elves because elves are supposed to be attractive" to "black British actors don't have the right culture to play British people". It's pretty bad.
    You are arguing in bad faith, I've given you several options, all supported in the lore, that could see dark skinned character in the series, both as main cast and supporting cast, heroes and villains, that doesn't suit your agenda though, so you ignore it every time in favor of the current tokenism.

    Lets get one thing clear, the show this far has a TON of problems, this is just one of them.

  20. #2780
    Quote Originally Posted by Sialina View Post
    At least you are nice enough to admit you had no argument, great!
    What argument am I supposed to have? I don't give a shit if a Chinese production casts white people any more than I give a shit if an American production casts black people. Why should I?

    It's pretty easy to justify basically any casting choice if you actually try. From an all-Chinese production of West Side Story to an all-Black production of Mulan. The only time the race/ethnicity of the actors matters in crap like this is if the intention is to be as historically accurate as possible. When that comes to the historicity of fictional races in a fictional world? You'll forgive me if I just can't muster up very much Give a Fuck.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2022-08-13 at 01:44 AM.

Posting Permissions

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