Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Adamas102]

New stories can be written, new characters introduced, without shifting the universe and creating a multicultural melting pot out of every race.

This is the most telling bullshit that keeps popping up constantly.

Skin color isn’t culture.
Skin color isn’t ethnicity.

It’s the deeply ingrained (and yes, racist) notion that skin color automatically separates people socially. That’s OUR history, and it certainly doesn’t need to apply to a fantasy world that doesn’t share our unique real world history of skin color driven race relations.

Having dwarves of a full range of different skin tones (just like they have different hair color) doesn’t make them multicultural or multiethnic. Assuming that is just imprinting your own personal view of how skin color divides peoples. The same goes for elves, hobbits, and humans in Middle-earth.

[Biomega]

I don’t know “black people are so inhumanly different that even if made by magic without any of the history or culture of the real world they would still be vastly different then white people” is a really convincing argument Mabye these totally not racist posters have a point and we should keep such monster out of media.

DAMN. #mindblown

I sure hope someone doesn't come along and points out that black people aren't in the original material, though. That'd REALLY shake my confidence.

[Triceron]

This is the most telling bullshit that keeps popping up constantly.

Skin color isn’t culture.
Skin color isn’t ethnicity.

It’s the deeply ingrained (and yes, racist) notion that skin color automatically separates people socially. That’s OUR history, and it certainly doesn’t need to apply to a fantasy world that doesn’t share our unique real world history of skin color driven race relations.

Having dwarves of a full range of different skin tones (just like they have different hair color) doesn’t make them multicultural or multiethnic. Assuming that is just imprinting your own personal view of how skin color divides peoples. The same goes for elves, hobbits, and humans in Middle-earth.

Er, no. Not at all.

Skin color ABSOLUTELY separates people socially in Middle Earth, and is the very reason why Southrons, Haradrim and Easterlings are not merely a melting pot of multiculturism that is indistinguishable from any other Human cultures.

The argument works both ways, and is integral to making a point of why it matters. Middle Earth makes those distinctions within its own fiction.


You can make an argument that an adaptation does not have to adhere to those rules, and I will happily agree with you. But you can't merely pretend that this isn't how the original fiction depicted various races and cultures.

[Biomega]

Rings of Power isn't canon. Pointing out that it isn't canon isn't bullshit lol.

And it's also not what I called bullshit on.

Is there some reading deficiency at work here, or are you just being Dishonest Dan today?

I'm making a clear distinction that the original fiction can not be changed retroactively.

And I'm pointing out that "black dwarves could have worked in the original and changed nothing, you know" DOESN'T mean the same thing as "let's go back and rewrite the original to have black dwarves in it!".

Which I've had to say twice now, in the probably vain hope that it sinks in.

I'm not sure why you're so adamant that Tolkien's original work has to change to fit a new creative change.

Me neither. The confusion probably stems from the fact I NEVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT ANYWHERE, EVER. It's understandable.

[Triceron]

And I'm pointing out that "black dwarves could have worked in the original and changed nothing, you know" DOESN'T mean the same thing as "let's go back and rewrite the original to have black dwarves in it!".

Which I've had to say twice now, in the probably vain hope that it sinks in.

That merely makes it an adaptation with creative liberties implied.

And like I said, I have no problem with that. So I don't even know why you're bothering using this example. If your point isn't about changing the original fiction and you're merely saying that the story would work the same if the races/skin tones were swapped out, then I have nothing to disagree here. That is literally the definition of an adaptation.

Throne of Blood is a Kurosawa adaptation of Macbeth with an all-Japanese cast. I have absolutely no problems with this because it's an adaptation and presents itself as an adaptation.

[Adamas102]

J. R. R. Tolkien was a Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and then afterwards a Merton Professor of English Language and Literature. Nothing in either of those fields of study of English literature would suggest mythologies and languages tied to Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Americas or anywhere else. As such his imagining of dwarves, gnomes, Elves and other such fantasy creatures would be from that European tradition.

Perhaps you should rewatch that video you linked a few pages back. You know, the one where he struck down the idea that the Two Trees of Valinor were based on Yggdrasil of Norse mythology and instead were inspired by the Trees of Sun and Moon in India.

And how his inspiration for dwarves drew from a variety of sources, not just those of Northern Europe. From the “warlike” Jews of the Levant (pre-middle ages) to the Romani people and their use of secret language.

And of course his letters that detailed the clothing of the Numenoreans to most resemble those of the ancient Egyptians.

Atlantis was also an important source for Tolkien’s Numenor, it’s roots going all the way back to Plato (Ancient Greece) who suggested that the lost city existed near the Strait of Gibraltar between Europe and Africa.

So no, Tolkien didn’t limit himself to Northern European mythology. He was an educated and worldly man who drew from a great variety of sources.

[Biomega]

That merely makes it an adaptation with creative liberties implied.

Like, you know, ANY ADAPTATION EVER.

No adaptation is 100% accurate. Ever.

I have absolutely no problems with this because it's an adaptation and presents itself as an adaptation.

As opposed to this, which presents itself as... what, exactly?

Is this just a terminological quibble about the word "adaptation" or something?

[Triceron]

Like, you know, ANY ADAPTATION EVER.

No adaptation is 100% accurate. Ever.

Again, we're both in agreement here.

As opposed to this, which presents itself as... what, exactly?

Is this just a terminological quibble about the word "adaptation" or something?

As opposed to being a 'retcon' of the original fiction 'as the author intended it to be'.

[Biomega]

As opposed to being a 'retcon' of the original fiction 'as the author intended it to be'.

That seems specious, since this is an adaptation and not the original. It literally can't be that, so either you're misrepresenting something or they're just being metaphorical and are playing it fast and loose with their PR talk, in which they are assuming no one in their right mind would think that a TV series is ACTUALLY trying to go back and rewrite the books (because how could it, that makes no sense).

[Triceron]

That seems specious, since this is an adaptation and not the original.

But I'm not making any criticism on Rings of Power.

I'm literally talking about Lorgar's arguments that Tolkien intended Dwarves to be depicted multiculturally/with many skin tones. That would be a retcon.

That's why it's weird when you jumped into the conversation to defend his talking point by implying magic would be able to make Black Dwarves happen. Well, I'm literally talking about the original fiction not being subject to retcons, so that's where I started with disagreeing with your example.

[Biomega]

And for whatever reason you felt bothered enough to jump back here and say, and I quote:

Oi, listen here, you.

YOU replied to ME. I didn't jump into your conversation. YOU. REPLIED. TO. ME. When I quoted someone else, who ALSO wasn't responding to something you said.

What kind of clownery is going on here.

[Xath]

This is getting really dumb if an author specifies a specific appearance for a group and doesn't specify the appearance for the "main cast" we can assume that specified appearance falls outside the norm. If a writer from say Nigeria specifically talked about a group of people that had super pale skin we wouldn't presume that the majority of people in the story had super pale skin we would assume they looked like the author.

Regardless of casting my worry is more the messing around with canonical lines of succession and the reasons they have for doing that and whether certain characters backstories are going to get changed significantly as a result.

[jonnysensible]

alot of you really need to understand that amazon studios makes a massive loss and its entire point isn't to make good tv or art (if it does thats just a byproduct). Its to give Jeff Bezos access to the Hollywood social scene.

I wouldn't get too beat up about being faithful to the original or whatever

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'm literally talking about Lorgar's arguments that Tolkien intended Dwarves to be depicted multiculturally/with many skin tones. That would be a retcon.

Not an argument I ever made, I said that based on where he got inspiration from (warlike jews) they could be white brown or in between and no matter which you want to pick they are all as unsupported as each other and we CAN NOT know what he intended.

Not once did I said they would be multiculturally even if they were based off of jews of every shade they would still be a mono culture.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

And of course his letters that detailed the clothing of the Numenoreans to most resemble those of the ancient Egyptians.

It is a rather bold if not exaggerated claim, as per his own words he starts by his own admission of not knowing the detail of clothing, followed by a rejection of "King-Arthurish" and "mediaeval" style (most likely the at the time prevalent Romanticist vision of the middle ages, filled with iconic Late Middle Ages style of dress and armour which were markedly different from those of earlier eras (full plate armor, elaborately fitted clothes and hennins, opposed to mail armor, tunics and veils of simpler cuts).

His description of Gondor focuses on their architectural grandeur and only specifically describes the crown.
As for the clothing, it was most certainly not similar to what Ancient Egyptians wore during most of their history : a loincloth. But we could assume that, pretty much like everyone else, they'd be wearing tunics, especially given we do have a description of Pippin's Guard of the Citadel, which featured chainmail, something unknown to Ancient Egypt, but originating in the European Iron Age, like many of the Myths Tolkien drew his inspiration from.

'Question 4': What clothes did the peoples of Middle-earth wear? Was the winged crown of Gondor like that of a Valkyrie, or as depicted on a Gauloise cigarette packet?

Question 4. I do not know the detail of clothing. I visualize with great clarity and detail scenery and 'natural' objects, but not artefacts. Pauline Baynes drew her inspiration for F. Giles largely from mediaeval MS. drawings – except for the knights (who are a bit 'King-Arthurish') the style seems
to fit well enough. Except that males, especially in northern parts such as the Shire, would wear breeches, whether hidden by a cloak or long mantle, or merely accompanied by a tunic.
I have no doubt that in the area envisaged by my story (which is large) the 'dress' of various peoples, Men and others, was much diversified in the Third Age, according to climate, and inherited custom. As was our world, even if we only consider Europe and the Mediterranean and the very near 'East' (or South), before the victory in our time of the least lovely style of dress (especially for males and 'neuters') which recorded history reveals – a victory that is still going on, even among those who most hate the lands of its origin. The Rohirrim were not 'mediaeval', in our sense. The styles of the Bayeux Tapestry (made in England) fit them well enough, if one remembers that the kind of tennis-nets [the] soldiers seem to have on are only a clumsy conventional sign for chainmail of small rings.
The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms. In many ways they resembled 'Egyptians' – the love of, and power to construct, the gigantic and massive. And in their great interest in ancestry and in tombs. (But not of course in 'theology' : in which respect they were Hebraic and even more puritan – but this would take long to set out: to explain indeed why there is practically no oven 'religion',* or rather religious acts or places or ceremonies among the 'good' or anti-Sauron peoples in The Lord of the Rings.) I think the crown of Gondor (the S. Kingdom) was very tall, like that of Egypt, but with wings attached, not set straight back but at an angle. The N. Kingdom had only a diadem (III 323). Cf. the difference between the N. and S. kingdoms of Egypt.

[Adamas102]

Er, no. Not at all.

Skin color ABSOLUTELY separates people socially in Middle Earth, and is the very reason why Southrons, Haradrim and Easterlings are not merely a melting pot of multiculturism that is indistinguishable from any other Human cultures.

The argument works both ways, and is integral to making a point of why it matters. Middle Earth makes those distinctions within its own fiction.

You can make an argument that an adaptation does not have to adhere to those rules, and I will happily agree with you. But you can't merely pretend that this isn't how the original fiction depicted various races and cultures.

Still more bullshit.

The idea that skin color is THE distinguishing factor between the men of the South and East isn't rooted in the text. The populations from these regions have a variety of differentiating factors (YOU seem to only be focused on the color of their skin). When Gollum describes the Haradrim at the Black Gate, he doesn't just say "they're just men with dark skin". He describes their eyes, their hair, their clothes, their jewelry, their weapons and shields, and their warpaint. And even still, Sam's only concern is whether there were Oliphants (another distinguishing factor of the peoples that to Sam at least is obviously more important than their skin color).

The men of Near Harad are described as brown and swarthy (both terms used at different times to describe Numenoreans and hobbits) with black eyes and black hair, while those of Far Harad are described as black-skinned with white eyes and red tongues. Despite these differences in appearance, they're for the most part simply grouped together as "Haradrim", because it's their origins in the south and their allegiances that are more important as a differentiating factor than their skin color.

As I've quoted several times in this thread directly from Tolkien's Daily Telegraph interview, he was very clear that the racialist 'Nordic' ideas of whiteness being an important and delineating factor had no place in Middle-earth (specifically this small section of Middle-earth where the stories took place). The notion that light skin vs dark skin was really what drove how these peoples viewed themselves is certainly not in line with how Tolkien thought.

You could fill every gap that Tolkien left in the text with the full gamut of human skin tones and all of these peoples would still be unique and distinguishable. The idea of skin color not being an indication of culture is one you seem unable to grasp as you continue to make arguments like the one below:

I'm literally talking about Lorgar's arguments that Tolkien intended Dwarves to be depicted multiculturally/with many skin tones. That would be a retcon.

No one is saying that dwarves should be depicted as multicultural, and it wouldn't be a retcon since there is no established skin tone to begin with. Having dark skinned dwarves wouldn't automatically make them multicultural in the same way having dwarves with different hair color and eye color doesn't make them multicultural. No one would mistake a dark skinned dwarf with a man from Harad given the vast differences between the two that are more than skin deep.

[Orby]

I reckon Merry is the one who probably had his character shredded the most by the movies, but largely the issue is the way they rush through some aspects of the books in order to focus on the big action scenes. Yeah that makes for a good film but it really doesn't do the books justice. A long series that can double or triple the run time with a focus more on the characters and world, and less on the flashy visuals would be much more true to Tolkien's vision.

Someone mentioned Merry and Pippin but I still think they had little to no personality in the books I thought, I havent read the books for a while so maybe I am misremembering :P

I know they were never as big of comic relief as they were in the films. Alot of their lines were pretty cringe like the whole 'mission, quest, thing' line. :P

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Not an argument I ever made, I said that based on where he got inspiration from (warlike jews) they could be white brown or in between and no matter which you want to pick they are all as unsupported as each other and we CAN NOT know what he intended.

Not once did I said they would be multiculturally even if they were based off of jews of every shade they would still be a mono culture.

Tolkien drew his inspiration primarily from the Germanic/Norse Dwarves and then gradually fleshed their cultures with elements of the Medieval vision of the Jews. Focusing only on the latter's antiquity is rather disingenious.

Plus speaking of the actual historical Jews, there has never been an unadultered mono culture since the mythical times of Salomon, or at least the Exile to Babylon, given the accounts of the historical divide between the two kingdoms and the later, sometimes extreme, diversification of the Diaspora ranging from Ethiopia to the Maghreb and England to China.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone mentioned Merry and Pippin but I still think they had little to no personality in the books I thought, I havent read the books for a while so maybe I am misremembering :P

I know they were never as big of comic relief as they were in the films. Alot of their lines were pretty cringe like the whole 'mission, quest, thing' line. :P

An omission I wish would be corrected is that of Imrahil of Dol Amroth, as I consider it important in the fleshing of Gondor as a kingdom, an its connection to the elves not limited only to the King's lineage.

The Minas Tirith as depicted by Jackson felt a bit too much like the Mont Saint-Michel : a citadel towering a desert, and not like the capital of an actual kingdom, which the walled, richly cultivated Pellenor Fields of Tolkien text conveyed, instead of the cinematographic barren wasteland.

[Adamas102]

It is a rather bold if not exaggerated claim, as per his own words he starts by his own admission of not knowing the detail of clothing, followed by a rejection of "King-Arthurish" and "mediaeval" style (most likely the at the time prevalent Romanticist vision of the middle ages, filled with iconic Late Middle Ages style of dress and armour which were markedly different from those of earlier eras (full plate armor, elaborately fitted clothes and hennins, opposed to mail armor, tunics and veils of simpler cuts).

His description of Gondor focuses on their architectural grandeur and only specifically describes the crown.
As for the clothing, it was most certainly not similar to what Ancient Egyptians wore during most of their history : a loincloth. But we could assume that, pretty much like everyone else, they'd be wearing tunics, especially given we do have a description of Pippin's Guard of the Citadel, which featured chainmail, something unknown to Ancient Egypt, but originating in the European Iron Age, like many of the Myths Tolkien drew his inspiration from.

"The Númenóreans of Gondor were proud, peculiar, and archaic, and I think are best pictured in (say) Egyptian terms."

Yes, it's far from descriptive, but using the phrase "best pictured" definitely suggests a sort of visual likeness, especially as part of the answer to the question "What clothes did the peoples of Middle-earth wear?" and in describing them as both peculiar and archaic. If all he wanted to do was to point to an interest in tombs and love of constructing massive structures, "best pictured in Egyptian terms" seems to be an odd way of putting it.

The picture that he drew of the crown also ties at least some of their style to that of "ancient" Egypt, which is just to say the time of the pharaohs.

I'm not saying that the Numenoreans of Gondor should look EXACTLY like Egyptians of the 8th century BCE, but the point was that Tolkien obviously took references from far more varied sources than just Northern Europe as the poster I was responding to asserted.

[Dhrizzle]

Someone mentioned Merry and Pippin but I still think they had little to no personality in the books I thought, I havent read the books for a while so maybe I am misremembering :P

I know they were never as big of comic relief as they were in the films. Alot of their lines were pretty cringe like the whole 'mission, quest, thing' line. :P

So, Merry...
Knew about the Ring as he had seen Bilbo use it to avoid the Sackville-Bagginses. I think he even managed to catch a glimpse of it in Bag End.

Deduced Frodo would be leaving the Shire some time after Bilbo's party. Set up the conspiracy with Sam, Pippin and Fredegar.

It's worth noting at this point that the Hobbits all knew the Ring was very important and they would be travelling in opposition to the Enemy. They started the adventure with eyes wide open, they didn't just stumble across it in a field.

Acquired Frodo a house om Buckland and oversaw its furnishing and provisioning.

Had nice hot baths waiting for Frodo and co. when they made the journey from Hobbiton.

Knew a relatively obscure way to leave the Shire, had some adventuring experience in Fangorn (but not enough to avoid Old Man Willlow.)

In Bree Merry was out strolling while the other Hobbits were being silly in the Prancing Pony, he saw the Black Rider and warned the others (to Aragorn's wonderment he had a "stout heart" and tried to follow it.)

All this in the first half of Fellowship, without him Frodo would likely have been still wondering how to leave the Shire when the Nine descended on Hobbiton and razed Bag End or be dead on the road to Bree.

In Rivendell Merry spends most of his time studying maps. When he and Pippin are captured by Orcs he makes a good account of himself, chopping off hands and arms before he is taken, and when they do escape it is thanks to studying the maps he is able to head towards civilisation.

Meriadoc Brandybuck in the books is clever, brave, competent, adventurous and loyal. In the films he is Pippin's slightly goofier sidekick.