Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

You haven’t actually gone to the Witcher thread on here have you?

Before launch people had all the same complaints about race swapping characters and not following the books and games and how it was going to cause the show to flop. Those complaints obviously died down a bit after the people making them were proven wrong by the show being a hit but they were still around even for season two.

The only difference between ROP and the Witcher is people weren’t complaining about fighting woman and people were saying that the author of the books should be ignored and that he didn’t matter and the games were more important because he said casting blacks people was A-okay.

The Witcher and RoP and Ghostbusters are all different movies/shows. You can't really take ones complaints and apply them the others as though they're the same complaints.

Take any competitive game for example. Every competitive video game will have people in the forums complaining about balance in one form or another. On the surface, you could take that as being 'the same complaints', but it'd be quite an ignorant assumption to apply to different games. Every game has their own balance issues, and even if some of the general complaints may be similar, they all have different reasons for being complained about. And none of the arguments work across different games; gameplay balance complaints for World of Warcraft aren't going to be comparable to balance complaints for any other game other than WoW.

Diversity complaints are no different here; they are case specific to the shows being talked about. Even if the complaints seem to repeat the same rhetoric. As I said, you used an example of Ghostbusters, but honestly the diversity complaints in that movie are not about race at all, considering we're looking at the same ethnicities that were portrayed in the original Ghostbusters. And overall, none of its criticisms can be compared to that of Rings of Power or Witcher. It's really naive to assume that just because you're hearing the same repeated rhetoric that the arguments must be the same.

And there's also the fact that diversity arguments will never be black-and-white. It's always going to be subjective. It's a matter of taste. We're talking about modern adaptations that are taking creative liberties to modernize ethnic representations where they were not originally (or fictionally) meant to be represented as being multicultural. There will always be a point of contention when race swapping or gender swapping in an adaptation. And the arguments are not all the same even if it comes from the same crowd. And I get that there will be some people who WILL be making the same arguments across the board, but let's not pretend that all complaints over diversity are one and the same and that somehow these issues are unified whatsoever. Just as with my example above with gameplay balance, everyone will have their own idea of what 'Balance' means, and would be complaining about or asking parity for their own ideal concept of how the game should play. No different here when subjectively talking about TV shows that adapt existing source material.

Cuz let's face it, we could be talking about a movie like the more recent Magnificent Seven which diversified the ethnicity of all the main characters. Is this a good or bad thing? Is this right or wrong? Absurd or acceptable? It's up to individuals to decide what their preferences are, and there's no blanket argument for or against this type of adaptation. There is no right and wrong when it comes to subjective preferences, even if some people choose to associate certain points of view as being 'racist' or 'woke'.

I'm making an argument based on principle here. Even if I don't agree with people who complain a game as being imbalanced when I think the balance is fine, I wouldn't discredit their opinions on the basis of them complaining 'the same problems as on every other competitive gaming forum'. People are entitled to their own opinions.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The Witcher and RoP and Ghostbusters are all different movies/shows. You can't really take ones complaints and apply them the others as though they're the same complaints.

The Witcher literally got the exact same complaints you can go read the thread your self and see them.

you used an example of Ghostbusters

No I didn’t, I said it was silly that people are still using a 6 year old movie as an example when we have the Witcher which is much more recent and much more analogous as it got the exact same race based complaints.

[Triceron]

The Witcher literally got the exact same complaints you can go read the thread your self and see them.

No I didn’t, I said it was silly that people are still using a 6 year old movie as an example when we have the Witcher which is much more recent and much more analogous as it got the exact same race based complaints.

We also have complaints in Wheel of Time and other shows.

And yes, I've read them, and no they're not all 'the same complaints'. The complaints are always context sensitive.

The Witcher doesn't have the same fictional setting as any other show. It's not Middle Earth. It is its own setting. And if people have a problem with the diversification of the cast, then they're free to have those opinions. They're not somehow analogous to Rings of Power just because they're similar complaints. The Witcher is still a different setting with different characters that people have specific expectations for how they should be represented. I'm not as well versed with the Witcher universe as I am with Middle Earth, but I don't think there are mentions of any Black ethnicities at all. Middle Earth does have Black ethnicities, and so there are expectations from some fans that if we have Black characters they should be representing the ethnicities that already exist in the mythology. Whereas in the Witcher, I don't even know if that's the case if there are Black ethnicities represented in the universe at all, and it may be literally seen as inserting multiculturalism where it literally does not fictionally exist within its own universe. As far as I am aware, there are no black people at all in the Witcher novels.

I want to make this point clear because we're conflaiting two typical arguments into one.
1- The original source material presents certain locations as being monoethnic (or dominant), and an adaptation should respect the original presentation of fiction
2- Diversity should be expected for any modern adaptation, regardless of what the original source chose to originally depict

These are two arguments, not one. And although they seem mutually exclusive to each other, they are not. I've illustrated in posts earlier here that there are many ways to adapt diversity into a fictional setting that still respects #1. You could create new ethnic characters based on the different ethnicities that already exist in the fictional worlds. An example is having a wandering Haradrim/Southron/Easterling character who becomes one of the good guys. Or in the case of the Witcher, literally create new locations where new ethnicities and cultures derive from, and retrofit that back into the narrative as being foreigners to the land.

Instead, many modern adaptations are merely casting ethnic actors into white-culture oriented roles. They are literally being retrofit into cultures they are not originally sourced from. Elves were never meant to be presented as polyethic, so there will always be a point of contention when adapted in this way. It's diversity for the sake of diversity, rather than building it into the fictional universe and narrative. These type of adaptations will always be contentious because it doesn't respect the presentation of the original fiction. Elven culture is not a multicultural melting pot of many different ethnicities.


And I would say anyone using Ghostbusters as a point of comparison would be just as negligent.

[InfiniteCharger]

As he says in the interview, when you grow up all in one play it all mixes together and isn’t all that notable but when you have a sudden shift in place memory’s are super imposed on each other and are more vivid. So when people say adaptations should reflect Tolkien’s world and thus only have who’re people Tolkien's own views conflict with that as his world and memory’s weren’t as black and white as some would think.

And not related to the South Africa bit but yes he says dwarfs were based off of historical Jews, which notably weren’t (and aren’t) all white.

But again as you said the populations are not to be an allegory for anything in real life, so why fuss over rather only white people are cast or not? We obviously shouldn’t settle for less then lore accurate casting of real elfs dwarfs and hobbits.

Tolkien wrote Middle Earth as having different variations of populations in different regions. There is nothing to suggest that North Western Middle Earth was intended to reflect the entire diversity of Middle Earth as a "melting pot" of all groups and cultures. That was never something that came across in his work and the fact that he spent so much time describing the geography and various cultures and ethnic groups across suggests other wise. So you aren't arguing that this is what Tolkien literally intended, as opposed to whether or not any specific "type" of diversity can be justified in an adaptation of his work. Two completely different and separate things.

And the ultimate point here is Amazon can do what they want but what they do has no bearing on what other studios may do with the same characters or settings if they get the rights. These other studios are under no obligation to follow Amazons ideas as the rights come from the Tolkien estate. At that point, these things become less about Tolkien and more about each studio and their interpretations and adding their own spin on it. They don't have to follow Amazons interpretation of Galadriel, they don't have to follow Amazons compressed timeline, they don't have to follow Amazon's made up characters and they don't have to follow any specific casting choices either. All of this is exactly what Tolkien did not want his work turned into, as a cheap cash grab.

And ironically, all the hype aside, this is not the definitive live action adaptation of Tolkien's second age. It is Amazon's made up story of the second age and as such has little actual bearing on what Tolkien's story of the Middle Age actually was about.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And yes, I've read them, and no they're not all 'the same complaints'. The complaints are always context sensitive.

Ya I’m gonna have to press X to doudt given that you already posted this.

People aren't complaining about Witcher because the characters represent the same from the books and are generally played out the same way. Rings of Power is getting flak for how it's chosen to adapt characters, like what we've seen with Galadriel.

[Triceron]

Ya I’m gonna have to press X to doudt given that you already posted this.

And?

It doesn't change the point that they're different arguments applied to different shows.

Are the complaints over Yennefer comparable to that of Galadriel? You asked if I've been to the thread and read the complaints, and I've seen many different complaints for many different reasons. It's not like the complaints are somehow universal.

If you want to be specific, then be specific. Otherwise, feel free to keep doubting.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Tolkien wrote Middle Earth as having different variations of populations in different regions. There is nothing to suggest that North Western Middle Earth was intended to reflect the entire diversity of Middle Earth as a "melting pot" of all groups and cultures. That was never something that came across in his work and the fact that he spent so much time describing the geography and various cultures and ethnic groups across suggests other wise. So you aren't arguing that this is what Tolkien literally intended, as opposed to whether or not any specific "type" of diversity can be justified in an adaptation of his work.

Of course I’m not arguing what Tolkien literally intended as there is no way for You or Me to know where he was pulling from when he didn’t mention it, for all we know when referring to Dwarfs being based on Jews he only had brown Jews in mind and they were never suppose to be white given that he never once mentioned there skin tones, there is literally no way to tell what he would have wanted so it’s all left up to Interruption.

Nor do we have any way of knowing if he would give a toss one way or another if elf’s hobbits or any other none human race/characters were portrayed by none white actors given that as you said they aren’t suppose to line up with real life groups and he rarely mentioned there skin tones and never gives such a divide as he did the humans in the setting.

[Triceron]

Of course I’m not arguing what Tolkien literally intended as there is no way for You or Me to know where he was pulling from when he didn’t mention it, for all we know when referring to Dwarfs being based on Jews he only had brown Jews in mind and they were never suppose to be white given that he never once mentioned there skin tones, there is literally no way to tell what he would have wanted so it’s all left up to Interruption.

That would be quite a twist of interpretation to imply that though.

I could make the same argument that we don't know if Tolkien intended to Dwarves to be Blue skinned because he wasn't specific, but we know from the overall narrative that this wouldn't be the case because if they were blue skinned, he would make the effort of going out of his way to describe them being blue. And narratively speaking, the Hobbits would make mention of skin tones that so wildly differ from their own.

That the Hobbits and the overall narrative doesn't differentiate Dwarves in a major way from the Hobbits who percieve them informs us that they would have been a skin tone that Hobbits would consider familiar and normal. So we can gather that the Dwarves wouldn't have had a skin tone that was that much different from that of a Hobbit's expectations, otherwise it would have been worth noting as much as is described of any general feature that seemed outstanding to a Hobbit (thick beards, big noses, dark hair, broader physiques, etc).

IMO, brown skin would be quite exotic to the Hobbits. So even though we don't know the true skin color of Dwarves, it's reasonable to assume it would be white (or variation of) because of the lack of description.

Even Harfoots in the appendices are mentioned to be 'browner of skin' than the Hobbits, and if such a detail is recorded then I can't imagine Dwarves being omitted from having a similar detailing if they were meant to have darker skin tones than that of Hobbits.


Since Dwarves were the creation of Aulë from the stone of the earth, we could assume they came in all sorts of colors that stone comes in. But if such a detail were so important, one could question why this was never elaborated on, especially in the eyes of the narrators.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And?

It doesn't change the point that they're different arguments applied to different shows.

Are the complaints over Yennefer comparable to that of Galadriel? You asked if I've been to the thread and read the complaints, and I've seen many different complaints for many different reasons. It's not like the complaints are somehow universal.

If you want to be specific, then be specific. Otherwise, feel free to keep doubting.

When you make silly statements like “People didn't complain about the Witcher because the characters represent the same way they did in the books” and “they didn’t get the same complaints” it tells me your lying when you say you read the thread as race swapping was one of the earliest complains the show got and likely the biggest of them as well.

- - - Updated - - -

That would be quite a twist of interpretation to imply that though.

I could make the same argument that we don't know if Tolkien intended to Dwarves to be Blue skinned because he wasn't specific,

Sure point me to the historically blue skinned Jews that Tolkien could have used as a reference, I mean it’s not hard to point to brown Jews when he referred to them back when they were more warlike so it must be just as easy for blue ones right?

[Triceron]

Sure point me to the historically blue skinned Jews that Tolkien could have used as a reference, I mean it’s not hard to point to brown Jews when he referred to them back when they were more warlike so it must be just as easy for blue ones right?

Point me anywhere that the skin tone of Dwarves was meant to represent Jews in real life just the same.

Your argument is just as baseless and without merit. You're merely correlating the fact that the inspiration was Medieval Jews to any depiction you see fit, whereas the truth of the matter lies deeper than your personal interpretations.

I mean, you're literally trying to argue technicalities here. You might as well imply that Dwarves wear yamakas and spin dreidels during their festival of lights.

Tolkien's work was never meant to be a mirror of real life, so I'm not sure why you're holding the skin tone of Dwarves to a standard of reflecting that of the real life culture they are based on. We know skin color is not one of the things described in the novels. What we understand of what the skin tones could be is literally based on the fact it lacks a description, and contextualizing it in a narrative where physical details are usually denoted when they are considered worth noting, typically because of an exotic nature.

Like the whole depiction of long-eared Elves in fantasy derives from Tolkien's own fiction, yet is generally a creative liberty taken by fantasy artists who then run with the depiction, whereas the original source merely implies that Elven ears are merely slightly more pointed versions of Human ears. There is no specific depiction on how long an Elf's ears really are, whether they'd be crazy long like we see in Warcraft or in Anime fantasy depictions, or if they're just slightly pointed like we see in traditional Tolkien adaptations. There is no right or wrong answer there, and the commonly accepted Tolkien Elf is the one that doesn't take radical creative liberties with its interpretation. It doesn't mean Tolkien Elves can't be depicted with radically long ears, it just means it wouldn't be a commonly accepted interpretation of Tolkien's work.

Cuz let's be clear, while there is no right or wrong for depicting diverse skin tones for Dwarves, it will not be a commonly accepted interpretation of Tolkien's work. Just like no one commonly accepts long-eared Elves as being that of the Middle Earth variety, even though it very well could be. And for that matter, we could extend that to many other fantasy tropes that have derived from Tolkien's works as well that do not retroactively apply to Tolkien's own works, like bright green skinned Orcs and Goblins. There would be nothing wrong with having a Middle Earth adaptation with a bright green skinned goblin or orc, but it wouldn't be a commonly accepted interpretation of the original work.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Your argument is just as baseless and without merit.

Well no not as such as I’m referring to real possibility’s based on what Tolkien said while you aren’t, but your mostly there which is why I already said I’m not arguing what Tolkien literally intended as there is no way for me or any one else to actual know that given that he never gave out such info.

[Triceron]

Well no not as such as I’m referring to real possibility’s based on what Tolkien said while you aren’t, but your mostly there which is why I already said I’m not arguing what Tolkien literally intended as there is no way for me or any one else to actual know that given that he never gave out such info.

Then this argument applies to some of the examples I mention above.

Warcraft's own wild fantasy depictions of Elves and Orcs and Dwarves are all caricatures of Warhammer, which itself caricaturized Middle Earth depictions of the same races. They're rife with creative liberties on depicting the same races as those described to exist in Middle Earth. Yet these depictions do not retroactively apply to Middle Earth specifically because these depictions do not fit the context of how Tolkien described his fictional races.

One can argue that the lack of description of the length of an Elf's ears or the exact pigmentation of an Orc's skin allows for creative freedom of interpretation, just as you are implying here with the racially diverse skin tones for a Dwarf. But my point is none of it would retroactively fit as being commonly accepted depictions of Tolkien's work because they apply creative liberties that extend beyond what is described in the original fiction.

Same can be said of Peter Jackson's depictions of various creatures in his movies, like the snub-nosed Trolls or the hyena-like Wargs. Even the depiction of a Balrog with wings. Those are creative liberties that are not common depictions of Trolls and Wargs and Balrogs in the original fiction. And there's nothing wrong with PJ taking creative liberties with his adaptation. The point is to note that there ARE differences from the original material, and to make a point that arguments against these being close depictions of the original material are absolutely valid and reasonable because we are literally talking about these depictions being designed specifically for movie adaptations.

What you're doing here with your arguments is somehow trying to defend a creative liberty as though it were retroactively applicable to fitting the original source. That's not how it works. No matter how hard you try to argue it, the PJ depiction of Trolls, Wargs and Balrogs will never retroactively fit the original works, because that is not how any of these races were intended to be described. PJ's creatures will always be a product of the movies, and accepted as being modern adaptations with creative liberties taken into account. There's no point in trying to retroactively argue that PJ's work would always fit back into the original narrative through whatever argumentative technicalities you want to bring to the table.

We can discuss racially diverse Dwarves as a part of an adaptation that is allowed to take creative liberties with its own adaptation. At no point does any of this retroactively apply to the original works as though Tolkien himself would have supported such depictions. It wouldn't work any more than arguing long-eared elves or bright-green skinned goblins are how Tolkien intended to have these races to be interpreted as.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

But my point is none of it would retroactively fit as being commonly accepted depictions of Tolkien's work because they apply creative liberties that extend beyond what is described in the original fiction.

What is commonly accepted and creative liberties are irrelevant in this case as the line of discussion was about what Tolkien him self has in mind coming off a interview of the man himself.

And what he had in mind is vague being just that they are based off of Jews when they were more war like, there is no definitive statement that can be made on dwarf skin tone based on that statement so any one who says they should be white is just as wrong and just as right as any one saying they should be brown or any shade in between.

[Triceron]

What is commonly accepted and creative liberties are irrelevant in this case as the line of discussion was about what Tolkien him self has in mind coming off a interview of the man himself.

And what he had in mind is vague being just that they are based off of Jews when they were more war like, there is no definitive statement that can be made on dwarf skin tone based on that statement so any one who says they should be white is just as wrong and just as right as any one saying they should be brown or any shade in between.

All you're arguing here is a lack of definition being able to be open to interpretation. And as I have explained above, there is no way to formally consider a liberal creative interpretation that is not clearly defined in the original source as being a commonly accepted depiction for the original fiction.

This is literally no different than addressing long-eared Elf interpretations and somehow trying to fit this as being something Tolkien always had in mind. Because the choice to apply creative liberties in the adaptation and how the fiction is originally presented are two different things.

A fictional work is tied to its depiction at the time of the writer's intent. If the writer then has a different idea or concept of how things should be and does nothing to change the original work, then the philosophies don't apply.


An extreme example is if an atheist creates a work of art that reflects their atheist beliefs, and later in life the artist finds god and changes their beliefs, the original work is not going to change its original intended meaning. It doesn't become a reflection of the artist after their change of beliefs. It would forever remain as work that is intended to be a reflection of atheist beliefs.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Find me any credible expert analysis of Tolkien's work that supports the idea that Dwarves are meant to be non-white then. Anything that even remotely considers it commonly acceptable.

What better Analysis can you get then Tolkien him self who has an interview posted in this very thread, and right out of the horses mouth does he tell us that the Dwarf's were based off of past Jew's when they were still out and about warring.

Do you want to guess the skin tone of Jew's in such times? because it wasn't only white.

[Triceron]

What better Analysis can you get then Tolkien him self who has an interview posted in this very thread, and right out of the horses mouth does he tell us that the Dwarf's were based off of past Jew's when they were still out and about warring.

Do you want to guess the skin tone of Jew's in such times? because it wasn't only white.

Dwarves aren't Jews so there's no point in making this argument.

Correlation is not causation. Sorry dude, but all you're doing is strawmanning a technicality.

This is a case of you taking historic ethnic influences too literally. Feel free to interpret the Dwarves as wearing Yamakas and spinning Dreidels. It doesn't make it any more true to how the original fiction is meant to be depicted.


It's like if Metzen came out and said modern Warcraft Orcs were influenced by Star Trek's Klingon culture, emphasizing Honor and the Warrior spirit, and you take it so literally to argue that Orcs are intended to use Bat'leths and speak Klingon.

[InfiniteCharger]

Of course I’m not arguing what Tolkien literally intended as there is no way for You or Me to know where he was pulling from when he didn’t mention it, for all we know when referring to Dwarfs being based on Jews he only had brown Jews in mind and they were never suppose to be white given that he never once mentioned there skin tones, there is literally no way to tell what he would have wanted so it’s all left up to Interruption.

Nor do we have any way of knowing if he would give a toss one way or another if elf’s hobbits or any other none human race/characters were portrayed by none white actors given that as you said they aren’t suppose to line up with real life groups and he rarely mentioned there skin tones and never gives such a divide as he did the humans in the setting.

My point was his definitions of these different regions and populations in them suggest they would be relatively homogeneous within themselves while across the entire expanse of Middle Earth there was diversity. Therefore as if the hobbits were blue in one area, pink in another or grey in a third, similar to how we see elves in WOW, versus each population of hobbits being a blend of all those colors. I see nothing in his writing that suggests otherwise and technically that reflects how diversity works on a global and regional level. Therefore, generally the hobbits of the shire would all look similar, the Elves of whatever clan would all look similar and the dwarves of the Mines of Moria the same. And as he mentioned in the interview most of these groups were defined by bloodlines, especially at the level of kingship, which he believed in a lot. So that is another example of how he distinguished or segregated groups from one another by bloodline as being part of distinct clans or houses. Also, there are "black" dwarves in Middle Earth, just not the ones we know of from the North Western areas of Middle Earth. Those swarthy or dark skinned dwarves are further south in the lands of Harad. Again, reflecting that these different groups in their respective regions generally looked the same. There is a difference between diversity at the group level vs diversity at the individual level and I don't see Tolkien as intending that individual diversity would exist as implied by Amazaon. In fact, I would argue that even what we have seen so far from Amazon is far from promoting diversity in its fullest sense at the individual level. They have a few black Numenoreans, a few black elves, a few black hobbits and a couple black dwarves out of all these populations, which is what makes it look out of place, because it is just a few which makes them stand out as being so few. No Asian elves, no Asian hobbits, no Asian dwarves, no variation in skin color between the various individuals in these groups showing some as "mixed" for lack of a better term, etc. It looks more like the random choices of a studio rather than what one would expect of a homogeneous population as implied by Tolkien. I honestly don't think they gave more thought to it than some of us in this thread.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Dwarves aren't Jews so there's no point in making this argument.

Your right Dwarfs aren't Jew's but they are how ever based off of them as per Tolkien him self which obviously takes president over any other expert analyst of his work. If you want to say any and every thing Tolkien based is work off of is Irrelevant sure you can do that I suppose but ill stick to his owns from his interview where he said it was Deliberate.

[Triceron]

Your right Dwarfs aren't Jew's but they are how ever based off of them as per Tolkien him self which obviously takes president over any other expert analyst of his work. If you want to say any and every thing Tolkien based is work off of is Irrelevant sure you can do that I suppose but ill stick to his owns from his interview where he said it was Deliberate.

Then all you're doing is telling me you're subjectively interpreting how you see his interview. Nothing more.

I'm not here to argue how you choose to interpret his interviews. I'm here to point out his interviews have no bearing on the depiction of his original works if he didn't outright revise them to reflect his latest opinions on the matter.

Sorry but fictional canon isn't retroactive to any author's shift in perspectives.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Then all you're doing is telling me you're subjectively interpreting how you see his interview. Nothing more.

Lol, Ya I'm subjectively interpreting it by going of of Tolkien's own words that he pulled from various real life things, sure why not.