Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

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.

Yes, you absolutely are.

Any and all discussion on the nature of a Dwarf's skintone will ultimately be subjective, because there is no objective fact on what their skin color is.

Even my own answers to you here are not anything beyond subjectivity, because Tolkien himself has not clarified what skin color they actually are. All we can point to objectively is how it isn't clarified and left ambiguous. All we can do is discuss and bring evidence to support what we believe Dwarf skin colors could be. I'm clear to point out that the evidence we have that they were white skinned is not merely baseless, meritless interpretation, but is commonly accepted within the narrative because of many external factors which I've pointed out. And this has been analyzed by Tolkien experts and come to reasonable conclusions that it would be fair to assume that they were white. Commonly accepted depictions are not objective fact, but they are still important to the overall discussion of how things are meant to be depicted. Because in truth, we're still unsure whether Elves have pointed ears at all, and it's still a matter of debate among the experts. All we can say is that they (objectively) aren't depicted with pointed ears in the original fiction.

If one were to argue that Tolkien meant for Elves to have pointed ears and make note of certain things that he said in interviews regarding their length, then it would be a subjective interpretation of the facts. The fiction itself does not make a clear statement on whether or not their ears were pointed. Tolkien's own opinion on the matter doesn't retroactively apply to how the fiction is presented or interpreted (his opinion, not to be confused with a direct clarification of the lore). It's literally up to fans to decide whether it's fine or not. And making a point that pointed ears are not described in the fiction is important to make a distinction that any modern depiction isn't actually derived from the original fiction, and that it's merely an adaptation or fictional representation that has become commonly accepted. It can not be interpreted as deriving from the original fiction.

This is where the debate on Dwarven skin tone becomes absolutely ambiguous, because we're lacking information to reasonably apply multicultural skin tones to the Dwarves and it wouldn't be based on any actual descriptions from the novels. Which is the same as taking a creative liberty of separating Orcs and Goblins as different races even though there is nothing in the fiction to support it. It's purely a creative choice for an adaptation.

[InfiniteCharger]

This is the backdrop of Tolkiens fantasy creatures:

Elf mythology Europe


Dwarf mythology Europe


Goblin mythology Europe



And when most people read Tolkien, it is from that backdrop of European mythology.
Not to mention most of the imagery associated with Lord of the Rings has been based on that European mythos.

[s_bushido]

And when most people read Tolkien, it is from that backdrop of European mythology.
Not to mention most of the imagery associated with Lord of the Rings has been based on that European mythos.

"Therefore, no darkies allowed!" Is that the punchline?

[Dhrizzle]

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.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I can't remember if it goes into the details in the LotR books or if I picked them up elsewhere, but Denethor is a magnificent character. Like Aragorn his blood runs true to Old Numenor and he is frankly a level above pretty much any other Men around him, almost Elven in his capabilities, which makes him a great ruler but also a lonely figure, respected but not really liked by those around him. It's his singular nature that allowed him to believe he was capable of facing Sauron through the Palantir and ultimately led to his downfall. But I guess some old guy eating a tomato in a gross way is cool too...

[Jastall]

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.

- - - Updated - - -



I can't remember if it goes into the details in the LotR books or if I picked them up elsewhere, but Denethor is a magnificent character. Like Aragorn his blood runs true to Old Numenor and he is frankly a level above pretty much any other Men around him, almost Elven in his capabilities, which makes him a great ruler but also a lonely figure, respected but not really liked by those around him. It's his singular nature that allowed him to believe he was capable of facing Sauron through the Palantir and ultimately led to his downfall. But I guess some old guy eating a tomato in a gross way is cool too...

Personally I think Denethor was mishandled the most. Gimli becoming comic relief was meh but I'd say it served the movie by adding some levity and diversity in terms of personality within the Three Hunters and their immediate cast. Merry and Pippin, the latter especially were never the most mature in the books and the capstone of their arc happening during the Scouring which was cut, for relatively understandable reasons but still.

Denethor was a gray character in a narrative that, I'll be honest, needed some. He does terrible things out of somewhat sympathetic motives. In the movie he's almost a caricature, not much more than a haggard madman who is bad because it creates tension before and during the battle. I didn't pick it up that much on first watch but on re-reading the books and re-watching it became more and more obvious to me.

[Biomega]

"Therefore, no darkies allowed!" Is that the punchline?

Isn't it always?

They jump through a lot of hoops, but in the end it's always "this isn't 100% like the original", "this isn't what elves used to look like in the LotR films", and of course the classic "I just don't want black people in there because, uh... they don't... uh... fit".

[Triceron]

Isn't it always?

They jump through a lot of hoops, but in the end it's always "this isn't 100% like the original", "this isn't what elves used to look like in the LotR films", and of course the classic "I just don't want black people in there because, uh... they don't... uh... fit".

I love how this implies ignoring the source material is somehow a good thing.

[s_bushido]

I love how this implies ignoring the source material is somehow a good thing.

If your interpretation of the source material is that the only dark-skinned people should be the orcs and evil men of the south, then...yeah. It would be kind of a good thing to ignore that.

[craigw]

so after 146 pages of this shit. who has the biggest lore-dick?

[Triceron]

If your interpretation of the source material is that the only dark-skinned people should be the orcs and evil men of the south, then...yeah. It would be kind of a good thing to ignore that.

Good thing no one is arguing that's the only way the source material needs to be interpreted then.

Why do they have to always be evil if we're talking about an adaptation that takes tells a story that exists beyond what was in the original novels? New stories can be written, new characters introduced, without shifting the universe and creating a multicultural melting pot out of every race.

I mean the 2nd age is ripe with stories of how the Numenoreans oppressed and enslaved the men of the east and south, which lead them to distrust the men of the west and side with Sauron. Interesting stories can be told in between, like having a civil conflict between those who sought to join Sauron and those who refuse side with darkness. There's plenty that can be done with the source material without literally shoehorning people of ethnic backgrounds into white-centric roles.

I'd say the same thing about casting Asians into the role of Elves or Dwarves for the sake of diversity. Why do that when Middle Earth is absolutely open to exploring Asian culture through any other number of means? Rhûn exists. Easterlings exist. There's plenty of untapped material to work with here.

[Rennadrel]

If your interpretation of the source material is that the only dark-skinned people should be the orcs and evil men of the south, then...yeah. It would be kind of a good thing to ignore that.

You do realize that you can tell interesting stories about the people of Harad, their subjugation by the Numenorians and even what ultimately drove them as a society to fighting for Sauron, right? Because that's a story that Tolkien never actually delved into and frankly that would be a lot more interesting than whatever this meme-worthy shitshow is gonna be that tries to play on nostalgia by trying to play on nostalgia with Hobbits despite them not really existing in the time period that the show is set it.

[s_bushido]

Good thing no one is arguing that's how the source material needs to be interpreted then.

Why do they have to always be evil if we're talking about an adaptation that takes tells a story that exists beyond what was in the original novels?

lol. The same people freaking out over the prospect of a black elf/dwarf were also mocking the idea of orcs that weren't inherently evil. I quoted them parts of a Tolkien letter that said that they (and even Sauron) had the possibility of being redeemed.

New stories can be written, new characters introduced, without shifting the universe and creating a multicultural melting pot out of every race that we already know of as being monoethnic cultures.

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be repeated: There's no reason to believe these people would view skin color as a different "ethnicity" in the same way we do in the real world. Nevermind that these are new characters as part of a new story. Nothing has been shifted other than the expectations of racists. Sorry.

Hobbit movies introduced a new red headed elf character and that was fine. It still respected the rules of the fictional world.

lol again. So unprecedented red hair is fine because she was still a hot white woman. Got it.

[Biomega]

I love how this implies ignoring the source material is somehow a good thing.

I love how "ignore skin color" becomes "ignore THE ENTIRE LORE why dontcha".

We get it. Black people make you uncomfortable. Try and get over it.

[Triceron]

lol again. So unprecedented red hair is fine because she was still a hot white woman. Got it.

What do you have against them?

- - - Updated - - -

I love how "ignore skin color" becomes "ignore THE ENTIRE LORE why dontcha".

I mean if you're talking about ignoring skin color then what do you think if they made this show with Elves with Purple skin like we have in Warcraft? Or Dwarves with Blue skin?

[Master Factician]

Still excited for this. Still not bothered by a Black elf in Tolkien fantasy.

Actually just googled the actor and he's Puerto Rican. I don't even know if he's Black, don't care lol. He looks badass in the clips I've seen and hopefully he smashes the role.

[Biomega]

I mean if you're talking about ignoring skin color then what do you think if they made this show with Elves with Purple skin like we have in Warcraft? Or Dwarves with Blue skin?

Putting aside for the moment the fact that "oh so if black people are okay PURPLE PEOPLE ARE OKAY TOO RIGHT" is a pretty hare-brained objection, yeah, if they make purple elves work, I'm down to fuck.

I would LOVE to see some well-made neon punk interpretation of popular materials, in fact. That sounds pretty rad.

[Triceron]

Putting aside for the moment the fact that "oh so if black people are okay PURPLE PEOPLE ARE OKAY TOO RIGHT" is a pretty hare-brained objection, yeah, if they make purple elves work, I'm down to fuck.

I would LOVE to see some well-made neon punk interpretation of popular materials, in fact. That sounds pretty rad.

And I'm sure it'd be an interesting adaptation at that.

And people will very likely make their voices heard on how it's not canonical to the source material and ignores the lore. If that makes you uncomfortable, you can try and get over it.

[Polyxo]

obvsly only zombie Jan Sobieski can play Theoden because history an shit.

[Biomega]

And people will very likely make their voices heard on how it's not canonical to the source material and ignores the lore. If that makes you uncomfortable, you can try and get over it.

It doesn't and never has.

Because NO adaptation, PERIOD, is ever going to be 100% accurate to the source material. You're just negotiating about details. Unless you have an objection to casting black actors that isn't just "but they're not black in the book!", "they weren't black in other films", or "black people in fantasy are just WEIRD, idk", there's little to talk about.

[Triceron]

It doesn't and never has.

Because NO adaptation, PERIOD, is ever going to be 100% accurate to the source material. You're just negotiating about details. Unless you have an objection to casting black actors that isn't just "but they're not black in the book!", "they weren't black in other films", or "black people in fantasy are just WEIRD, idk", there's little to talk about.

I don't have an objection to the casting of black actors. I'm merely making points about how it's not canonical to the original depiction and strays from the original fiction.

I can point out that there are differences to the original book without it being an objection. Just like if I point out that the original source material didn't have Orcs and Goblins as different races, it's not an objection to the Peter Jackson movies. It's literally just pointing out the differences. And I'm doing so because there are people literally trying to explain how black dwarves fit back into Tolkien's original narrative. It simply doesn't, because skin tone isn't mentioned at all, and the concept of multicultural/ethnic Dwarves wouldn't be supported in the original. It'd merely be a product of being an adaptation.

Which makes me wonder why merely pointing out the facts bothers you so much. If it really didn't bother you, I don't see why you'd even bother bringing attention to it.