Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

This argument is still subject to the same fallacies I illustrated above. We're still lacking an authorative or mutually-agreeable standard, we're still regarding these reasons subjectively

If you HAVE a way to evaluate these things objectively, then by all means, tell us - philosophers have been arguing about objective morality for thousands of years, if you've finally found it, that'd be worth knowing.

I also love how I've pointed out that authority doesn't apply here several times, and you start with it AGAIN. It's like you're not reading what I'm saying at all. You're just waiting for your turn to talk.

Not sure why you wanted to make that distinction. There is no difference whether we're talking about 'all-white cast' or 'all-white cast because of exclusion'

Sure there is. One is about the result, the other is about the process. Which is relevant because, you know, THE PROCESS IS ALL I'VE EVER TALKED ABOUT.

Not that you'd know. It would require reading what I say.

Would you consider an adaptation to be excluding Black actors if it depicted an all-white Dwarf race while also employing Black actors in other major (non-Dwarf) roles?

Doesn't really matter WHERE the exclusion happens, if there is no good reason to exclude people based on skin color, then I wouldn't accept it. This isn't a trade-off situation, where being racist in one area is okay because you're not being racist in another area. It's like saying "what if we keep our drinking fountains color-separated, but let black people sit in the front of the bus?" - one doesn't make the other okay somehow.

It's very strange to me that you'd even bring this up. That's some 1950s Deep South shenanigans.

And per my argument above - if Black actors are cast in non-Dwarf, non-Elf roles, in roles that make sense for their appearance in the narrative, would it be an acceptable reason to have an all-white casting for Dwarves and Elves without being subject to being exclusion?

I don't know what "being subject to being exclusion" means. But see above - there is no trade-off game to try and justify skin-color-based castings for no good reason. Stop it with the separate-but-equal level bullshit.

So.... the way I see it is no one has actually made those arguments to exclude people based on their skin color (exclusive reasoning), therefore there's no reason to throw around the 'racist' card as though it applies to anyone or their argument in this thread...

Who's talking about "throwing around the racist card as though it applies to anyone"? Like, are you TRYING to just turn every argument into something nobody said?

All I'm saying is if you have no good reason to exclude people based on their skin color but want to do it anyway, that's racism, son. Doesn't seem particularly complicated or esoteric to me.

Stop trying to take this and make it into "oh so ANYONE is racist then?".

As for "nobody has made this argument"... Anyone who's ever said "I don't want X to be cast by people of Y skin color" and not had a good reason made a racist argument. By, you know, definition. The fact that THEY thought they HAD a good reason only means THEY don't think it's racist. That's how discourse works. Not sure what the mystery is, there.

Like, it's literally a non-issue because no one here is actually arguing in exclusion to Black actors for the sake of their skin color.

Plenty of people here have said "I want characters that are white in the books to be white in the series", or something to that extent. I'd like to know how you think that would happen WITHOUT excluding non-white actors. Whether or not someone literally used the word "exclude" doesn't matter.

Not at all.

Like I said with my example of the Lighthouse. Would you call this a racist or discriminatory movie because it does not have an all-white, non diverse cast?

I'm sorry, how does this prove that what you said wasn't fallacious? Could you engage with the actual thing you quoted, or something?

I would also like to point out that this movie has had zero controversy or criticism over the lack of diversity in the casting, and I have (anecdotally) heard no complaints over the casting choices and its creative choice to be centered on all-white actors.

Yes. I've also mentioned 2-actor productions as obviously absurd edge cases (because the sample size is too small to talk about diversity).

Which you again didn't read, from the looks of it.

[Xath]

It's not a premise I agree with. I don't have a good reason that would justify that premise.

But that's not how it works. You're reversing the burden of proof.

If YOU want to EXCLUDE people based on their skin color, then YOU need to give a good reason. I don't have to find a reason to justify your actions, YOU do.

That's all I'm saying and all I've ever said. Stop trying to turn this around, and stop trying to pretend I need to know all possible reasons for all possible scenarios or there are none.


None. And I've said already that a notion of ANY authority here is fallacious to begin with.

There is no authority. There's only arguments against arguments.


Why? We have no authority on what "good" is, period. There is no objective morality, and no moral authority either. Everything is a negotiation in discourse.

You want to know the fallacy? Your statement.


That's correct. Because one is concrete, and the other is abstract. Just like saying "I'm against murdering this person" is not the same as "I'm anti-murder"; and even though someone who is against murdering a particular person in a particular case is MORE LIKELY to ALSO be against murder, it is not a logical consequence to go from one statement to the other because they're two different categories of statement.


Again, you are misrepresenting things. My point is that excluding people based on skin color for no good reason is racist. And if that all-white cast came about because of exclusion of people of other skin colors for no good reason, then that's racist FOR THAT REASON. If it didn't come about because of exclusion or if it did have a good reason, there's no problem.

But your hypothetical of there being a (contemporary) all-white cast where no one was ever excluded for their skin color without a good reason anywhere at any point just ISN'T REALITY, outside of edge cases like a local school play in All White Falls, Missouri, population 35 (and in those cases, I likely would NOT have a problem).


If you give me a good reason, we're square. If you do not, we might have a problem. It's simple, really.

You're again constructing an illusory hypothetical of some contemporary production taking place that somehow excludes non-white people, but is never questioned on it, has no obvious justification, and doesn't give reasons out of its own accord and just... happens. THAT JUST ISN'T REALITY.

And even if there WAS such a case, I'd ASK for reasons. If they refuse to give any, well... that in itself is telling. It's not conclusive, but if they someone excluded non-white people for no discernible reason, are then asked about a reason and REFUSE to give one, I think we're reasonably certain what's going on. Could we possibly be wrong? Sure. That's an acceptable failure rate, because in the real world, that scenario always ends up racist.


Well, "as far as we've seen" is kind of a BIG PROBLEM you can't just handwave away. I make no pronouncements about information I do not have. If it turned out there really wasn't any Asian person to be seen anywhere, that WOULD BE a problem. I agree. And then the questions would need to begin.

But we KNOW there ARE Asian people in this, because we've seen at least part of the cast details. Nazanin Boniadi is of Iranian descent, and Thusitha Jayasundera is from Sri Lanka. And there's bound to be more that we don't have info on yet (or that I simply haven't seen).

So... yeah.

P.S.: I'm not surprised you didn't even, you know, bother to CHECK if this was actually the case. Because you're not really interested in having good information, are you.

Good reason author defined specific groups by skin color therefore it can be assumed that non defined groups were the author's skin tone. Just as I wouldn't expect for there to suddenly be a bunch of random white people in an adaptation of a story written by an author from Sudan. Especially if they made specific reference to some white people in the story it would make no sense to assume others than those specified were different in appearance from the author. Now if the author themselves gives consent to changing those characters fine but that's kind of hard to do when they are long dead.

Also about 90% of your posts on this topic have been pushing an authoritarian viewpoint screaming if you want an adaptation that follows how the portrayals were originally written you are racist. TBH if I was a betting person I would put even money on you being one of the people that complained that Finn Jones was cast as Iron Fist and claiming it was whitewashing.

Either way the biggest issue is the messing with stuff with the line of succession and what it could mean to the backstories of specific characters.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Have none of you folks ever heard of a farmer's tan seriously curious.

farmers tan, lol. ya sure that's what the animators were going for.

[Biomega]

Good reason author defined specific groups by skin color therefore it can be assumed that non defined groups were the author's skin tone. Just as I wouldn't expect for there to suddenly be a bunch of random white people in an adaptation of a story written by an author from Sudan. Especially if they made specific reference to some white people in the story it would make no sense to assume others than those specified were different in appearance from the author. Now if the author themselves gives consent to changing those characters fine but that's kind of hard to do when they are long dead.

That doesn't fly, because the only reason here is circular logic - "it's not how the author wrote it, therefore it shouldn't be changed because then it wouldn't be how the author wrote it".

And there's HUNDREDS of things that aren't how the author wrote it in ANY adaptation - things like height, hair color, eye color, the color of clothing, coats of horses, etc. etc. are all changed all the time and nobody complains. Why is skin color different? If "it's not like in the books" was sufficient as an argument, all those OTHER details also wouldn't work (and indeed NO adaptation could EVER observe such strictness).

Either way the biggest issue is the messing with stuff with the line of succession and what it could mean to the backstories of specific characters.

That's trivial to fix, though. This rests on the assumption that character X has their skin color changed but no one in their family tree - including those characters that are never seen - do NOT have their skin color changed. Which you have no way of knowing, and could easily be fixed by, you know, ALSO changing those characters.

But even if you do not - the same as above applies here. There's plenty of times where some characters are related in the story, but the actors could not possibly be; usually because of eye color/hair color combinations that don't work genetically, or traits like cleft chins, dimples, etc. all of which have specific requirements in order to be present in certain familial relationships. BUT NOBODY EVER CARES ABOUT THOSE. Why suddenly care about skin color?

[Triceron]

If you HAVE a way to evaluate these things objectively, then by all means, tell us - philosophers have been arguing about objective morality for thousands of years, if you've finally found it, that'd be worth knowing.

I also love how I've pointed out that authority doesn't apply here several times, and you start with it AGAIN. It's like you're not reading what I'm saying at all. You're just waiting for your turn to talk.

Again, I'm questioning your own argument. If you can't even define a simple definition of what a 'good reasoning' is then I have no way of meeting that criteria through any sensible argument.

You can repeat that it's the standard you stand by, and I can continue to point out how ridiculous this standard is.

Sure there is. One is about the result, the other is about the process. Which is relevant because, you know, THE PROCESS IS ALL I'VE EVER TALKED ABOUT.

Not that you'd know. It would require reading what I say.

The process doesn't apply equally across the board to all movies.

Is Crazy Rich Asians racially discriminant for excluding white and black actors in the same roles? Is the Northman racially discriminant for choosing to exclude casting any people of color?

Doesn't really matter WHERE the exclusion happens, if there is no good reason to exclude people based on skin color, then I wouldn't accept it. This isn't a trade-off situation, where being racist in one area is okay because you're not being racist in another area. It's like saying "what if we keep our drinking fountains color-separated, but let black people sit in the front of the bus?" - one doesn't make the other okay somehow.

If you can't give me a good reason for why any movie should or could have an all-white cast, then it tells me that the argument is simply unacceptable to you period.

Like the Northman- what can you say about this movie to justify it having an all-white cast? You wouldn't be able to, because such movies exist beyond your (as to my understanding) comprehension. I'd imagine you consider this movie to be racially discriminant.

It's very strange to me that you'd even bring this up. That's some 1950s Deep South shenanigans.

Not quite sure what you're equating to. I'm assuming this is some American history thing?

I don't know what "being subject to being exclusion" means. But see above - there is no trade-off game to try and justify skin-color-based castings for no good reason. Stop it with the separate-but-equal level bullshit.

Because per your lack of explanation, 'no good reason' even exists.

Northman is a highly acclaimed modern movie with an all-white cast that has not had much controversy over its casting choice or lack of diversity. I would argue that this is a strong example of a movie that would have reason to exist with an all-white cast. I could not tell you exactly what that reason is though, because it really depends on how you see Northman. If you deem it a product of racial discrimination, then by all means there is no good reason for me to use this as an example at all- if you deem it a product of racism.

Who's talking about "throwing around the racist card as though it applies to anyone"?

If it applies to no-one then it's not worth mentioning in your examples. If you toss it in your examples then I would assume you're intent on applying it somehow in the context of our conversation. Like, otherwise what is the point of even equating certain arguments to 'could be seen as racist' if no one is making them?

Plenty of people here have said "I want characters that are white in the books to be white in the series", or something to that extent. I'd like to know how you think that would happen WITHOUT excluding non-white actors. Whether or not someone literally used the word "exclude" doesn't matter.

What if all the Dwarf and Elf actors were picked for their performance and they just happened to be white? How would we be able to tell the difference?

Yes. I've also mentioned 2-actor productions as obviously absurd edge cases (because the sample size is too small to talk about diversity).

Which you again didn't read, from the looks of it.

Then the Northman.

Same argument applies.

"it's not how the author wrote it, therefore it shouldn't be changed because then it wouldn't be how the author wrote it".

There's no way to define 'shouldn't be changed' because changing the depiction of the source material is not some inevitable consequence of adapting it.

We can argue that an adaptation will never be 100% faithful to the adaptation, but you can't somehow twist that to implying that a work must be held to modern standards because it's an adaptation.

I will stand by my example of the Peter Jackson films adapted Elves and Dwarves in a way that remains socially acceptable even by today's standards. No one would have a problem with the same depiction being presented in a modern adaptation, and I'd argue that more people would actually prefer it. And by no means would it be seen as exclusionary to People of Color. As I said, the Hobbit movies still exist less than a decade ago.

I have not heard one single argument out there that Lord of the Rings movies are discriminatory because it didn't have Black Dwarves and Elves. Not any more than I hear arguments that the movies (and even Rings of Power) are excluding East Asian actors for not having East Asian Dwarves and Elves.

[Rennadrel]

I bet if you tried to insert white characters into the hierarchy of Wakanda, people like Triceron would throw a temper tantrum and call you a colonialist, bigoted racist for doing so, even if it made complete sense to the plot (which it doesn't, because Black Panther is based in Africa, not America). Middle Earth is a culmination of Germanic cultures, with the Easterners and Southrons being of darker skin. Kind of like Europe and it's proximity to the Middle East and Africa. It makes sense that the northern realms are a reflection of Anglo Saxon and Nordic skin tone while those in the south and east are darker, that's literally how the geography of our world worked when Tolkien created his works.

[Triceron]

I bet if you tried to insert white characters into the hierarchy of Wakanda, people like Triceron would throw a temper tantrum and call you a colonialist, bigoted racist for doing so, even if it made complete sense to the plot (which it doesn't, because Black Panther is based in Africa, not America). Middle Earth is a culmination of Germanic cultures, with the Easterners and Southrons being of darker skin. Kind of like Europe and it's proximity to the Middle East and Africa. It makes sense that the northern realms are a reflection of Anglo Saxon and Nordic skin tone while those in the south and east are darker, that's literally how the geography of our world worked when Tolkien created his works.

I'm honestly not sure why you're using me as an example.

All I can ask is... do you have a point to make or are you merely intent on trolling me?

I'm open to having a conversation if you wish to actually have one. Otherwise I don't appreciate the character assassination.

[Biomega]

Again, I'm questioning your own argument. If you can't even define a simple definition of what a 'good reasoning' is then I have no way of meeting that criteria through any sensible argument.

First off, "good reasoning" is something very different from a "good reason".

Secondly, I don't have to define it, because it's ALL ABOUT the evaluation. I have no idea what it could be, therefore I'm not putting restrictions on it. That's how presenting evidence works in court, too, by the way - no court has a catalog of what evidence could possibly be, you bring it before them and they decide if they accept it as evidence or not. Because the set of potential reasons is (at least in principle) infinite.

And I'm not the one making the determination anyway - YOU are. I want you to bring what YOU think is a good reason, and then I'll see if I agree or not.

You can repeat that it's the standard you stand by, and I can continue to point out how ridiculous this standard is.

Sure you can. And I can point out that this is how evidence has worked for, oh, idk, a couple hundred years at least (probably thousands). You don't have to agree with this. It'd be ridiculous not to, but you don't HAVE to agree.

The process doesn't apply equally across the board to all movies.

Is Crazy Rich Asians racially discriminant for excluding white and black actors in the same roles?

Gee I wonder, did Crazy Rich ASIANS perhaps have a GOOD REASON to want ASIANS in their cast?

You already forgot about how my entire argument works on a fundamental level, didn't you. Because it's your turn to talk now, so you don't have to care about what I've been saying.

If you can't give me a good reason for why any movie should or could have an all-white cast, then it tells me that the argument is simply unacceptable to you period.

I've given you an example AND repeated it AND pointed out that I gave you an example and repeated it.

That is THREE TIMES this was brought up across THREE posts.

And somehow you still didn't read it? You trollin' or you just, idk, REALLY don't care about what other people are saying?

Like the Northman- what can you say about this movie to justify it having an all-white cast?

I haven't seen it, but I imagine they're making a historic argument there. Without more information I couldn't say if it was a good reason or not, but historic films at least have a POTENTIALLY good reason in trying to be historically accurate; that's not a perfect reason, mind you. I'd be 100% with black Vikings, but you could at least in principle make arguments for realism if you have a historic setting contingent on a people as such (i.e. Vikings as a people). I'd have to see the film to say more.

Not quite sure what you're equating to. I'm assuming this is some American history thing?

*cough* you're joking, right?

Because per your lack of explanation, 'no good reason' even exists.

Aside from the two examples I've given that you stubbornly ignored, you mean? Or the standards of evidence that we've operated under in both discourse and law for a couple dozen centuries?

You know fuck all about how this works. Don't lean too far out the window, or you'll fall.

If it applies to no-one then it's not worth mentioning in your examples.

This is about the stupidest thing you've said so far.

I said you can't just say the racist card applies to anyone, and you go from there to "oh so it applies to NO ONE?" - that's a mistake in logic so elementary it boggles the mind that anyone over the age of 12 would ever think to make it.

Is this just a language problem? Do you not know how "anyone" works in that sentence? "it applies to anyone" and "it applies to everyone" are not the same thing. The first means "anyone COULD BE hit by this" and the second one means "everyone WILL BE hit by this".

What if all the Dwarf and Elf actors were picked for their performance and they just happened to be white? How would we be able to tell the difference?

You wouldn't. But in a large enough sample, statistics say this is so unlikely to happen that even if it did, it's fine to ignore because it's a one-in-a-billion fluke that doesn't warrant treating the other nine-hundred-ninety-nine-million-etc. cases differently. It's a very acceptable failure rate.

It's also why extremely small productions can't really be evaluated the same.

There's no way to define 'shouldn't be changed' because changing the depiction of the source material is not some inevitable consequence of adapting it.

Yes. Yes it is. No adaptation in the history of the world has ever been 100% accurate, unless it's for an extremely short, extremely trivial text (like idk, Hemingway's "shortest story" or whatever).

Nothing on the level of a novella or novel has ever been adapted with 100% accuracy.

We can argue that an adaptation will never be 100% faithful to the adaptation, but you can't somehow twist that to implying that a work must also change because it's an adaptation.

I'm not saying that it MUST, I'm saying that it DOES. If you want that to mean MUST, FOR REASONS OF PRACTICAL REALITY then I'm fine with that.

But my argument is NOT that "you HAVE to change skin colors in an adaptation", if that's what you're getting at. Not in any way, shape, or form.

I will stand by my example of the Peter Jackson films adapted Elves and Dwarves in a way that remains socially acceptable even by today's standards.

How do you know? I'd object to it if it was made today, and the only reason I'm not is that it's, well, NOT MADE TODAY. How do you know other people aren't objecting to it for that same reason? Heck, how do you even know it actually IS "socially acceptable", it's not like there's widespread discussion about it.

I'd argue that more people would actually prefer it.

Even IF that was true (and I don't know how you could even tell), it wouldn't matter. Popularity isn't relevant. Good reasons are. Arguing that something is right because it's popular is a logical fallacy.

I have not heard one single argument out there that Lord of the Rings movies are discriminatory because it didn't have Black Dwarves and Elves.

Because 1. there isn't exactly a big discourse on a 20-year old film to begin with; and 2. people who examine such films critically tend to be aware that you can't just apply today's standards to a work from 20+ years ago.

[Triceron]

How do you know? I'd object to it if it was made today, and the only reason I'm not is that it's, well, NOT MADE TODAY. How do you know other people aren't objecting to it for that same reason? Heck, how do you even know it actually IS "socially acceptable", it's not like there's widespread discussion about it.

Okay, I will be more specific then since we're getting into speculative territory, and I don't want to misrepresent my argument.

In my opinion, I believe an adaptation of LOTR material that continues to have an All-white cast depiction of Elves and Dwarves would continue to be socially acceptable today because we had the Hobbit movies within the last decade without controversy. We're talking about less than 10 years ago, these movies are still relevant today. We're not talking about the 1950's, we're talking about mid-2010's. And because we literally have movies like the Northman with an all-white cast that is not deemed racially discriminatory, and is considered socially acceptable today.

In my opinion, the common depiction of all-white Elves and Dwarves is timelessly socially accepted. It is a work of fiction, and more importantly it exists itself in a time when such depictions of mythical races is intended to be white-centric. This allows any modern adaptation of the work with an all-white cast to remain socially acceptable today. It would be akin to any movie choosing to adhere to limit casting diversity for the sake of historical accuracy.

I don't think that an all-white depictions of Elves and Dwarves would be socially unacceptable today.

*cough* you're joking, right?

I'm not American so I don't know what you're actually referring to. Are you talking about Slavery?

I'm not saying that it MUST, I'm saying that it DOES. If you want that to mean MUST, FOR REASONS OF PRACTICAL REALITY then I'm fine with that.

But my argument is NOT that "you HAVE to change skin colors in an adaptation", if that's what you're getting at. Not in any way, shape, or form.

I think that's agreeable and understandable. I have nothing to contend here, and I apologize if my argument implied that you believe it does. I will retract this point respectfully.

Because 1. there isn't exactly a big discourse on a 20-year old film to begin with; and 2. people who examine such films critically tend to be aware that you can't just apply today's standards to a work from 20+ years ago.

The Hobbit was within this decade, and followed in LOTR's example. People didn't call it out for racial discrimination 20 years ago, and didn't do so 10 years later. And I can tell you why - because it's not actually racially discriminating anything.

A choice to depict a fictional race by casting certain ethnicities is not a point of racial discrimination. It is a casting choice. It is an adherence to the depictions of the original novels. And arguably, adherence to the source material can be good reasons to have monoethnic cast roles.

As it was with Lord of the Rings, as it was with the Hobbit, as it is with modern movies like the Northman.

[Biomega]

Okay, I will be more specific then since we're getting into speculative territory, and I don't want to misrepresent my argument.

In my opinion, I believe an adaptation of LOTR material that continues to have an All-white cast depiction of Elves and Dwarves would continue to be socially acceptable today because we had the Hobbit movies within the last decade without controversy.

So your argument for why a 20-year old movie would be fine is that a 10-year old movie would be fine?

I'm not sure I'd agree. But it's a specious point anyway because it's an unprovable hypothetical. At the end of the day, I don't really CARE whether or not a LotR movie cast the exact same way as it was 20 years ago would rile people up or not. I'm concerned with what is ACTUALLY happening. Hypotheticals like that have no value as an argument, because they're pure speculation.

In my opinion, the common depiction of all-white Elves and Dwarves is timelessly socially accepted.

I'm not sure what "timeless" is supposed to mean there; but it doesn't matter. This is just another way of arguing from popularity. I don't really care if something is accepted or not, I care about whether or not there are GOOD REASONS behind it. Was interracial marriage socially accepted in the US during the 1950s? Not even close. Were there good reasons to do it anyway? YES. Were Jim Crow laws socially accepted in the US during the 1950s? Yes. Was there a good reason to have them? FUCK NO.

I don't think that an all-white depictions of Elves and Dwarves would be socially unacceptable today.

And if that was ever something that was relevant to me, I'd care about it, I guess. I never talked about social acceptance or that mattering in any way. People can "socially accept" terrible things, that doesn't make them good things (and vice versa). And whether or not something is a good thing is all I care about.

I'm not American so I don't know what you're actually referring to.

I'm not American either. But anyone with any kind of education really should know what was going on in the US Deep South in the 1950s. PARTICULARLY in a discussion about race.

[s_bushido]

I bet if you tried to insert white characters into the hierarchy of Wakanda

You realize that Martin Freeman was one of the major characters in the first movie, and is reprising his role in the 2nd...right? And yet magically no one cared that there was a white guy in a mostly black movie about a fictional country in Africa. Amazing how that works.

Middle Earth is a culmination of Germanic cultures, with the Easterners and Southrons being of darker skin. Kind of like Europe and it's proximity to the Middle East and Africa. It makes sense that the northern realms are a reflection of Anglo Saxon and Nordic skin tone while those in the south and east are darker, that's literally how the geography of our world worked when Tolkien created his works.

Talking about the geography of a fictional world where its god literally made a sphere out of what was once a flat earth because of the evil actions of men...well...that's certainly a take one could have.

But even if it were true that this whole thing was based on "Germanic cultures," I wonder what you think about that requires those people to have a certain skin color. Especially since they don't belong to "Germanic cultures" themselves.

[Triceron]

So your argument for why a 20-year old movie would be fine is that a 10-year old movie would be fine?

I'm not sure I'd agree. But it's a specious point anyway because it's an unprovable hypothetical. At the end of the day, I don't really CARE whether or not a LotR movie cast the exact same way as it was 20 years ago would rile people up or not. I'm concerned with what is ACTUALLY happening. Hypotheticals like that have no value as an argument, because they're pure speculation.

Arguably, any good reason for an all-white cast for a modern LOTR would be hypothetical.

If you're not interested in speculation and hypotheticals, then I don't see why you would bother humoring any good reason for a scenario that literally does not exist.

It's not just 'a point', it's literally this entire discussion.

I'm not sure what "timeless" is supposed to mean there; but it doesn't matter. This is just another way of arguing from popularity. I don't really care if something is accepted or not, I care about whether or not there are GOOD REASONS behind it. Was interracial marriage socially accepted in the US during the 1950s? Not even close. Were there good reasons to do it anyway? YES. Were Jim Crow laws socially accepted in the US during the 1950s? Yes. Was there a good reason to have them? FUCK NO.

Then all you're saying is you don't care whether it makes sense, you only care whether it makes sense to you.

There is no actual common ground to your argument. We're not actually meeting in between anywhere. There's no actual standard at which we can meet.

On one hand you criticize the choice to have an all-white cast as being subject to social criticism and how it would not work today (with no good reason). Then you say you don't care about social criticism and only care about whether there's a good reason for it to happen.

And now you say you're not interested in speculation at all, while any 'Good reason' would be hypothetical.

I honestly don't know what you're actually looking for.

And if that was ever something that was relevant to me, I'd care about it, I guess. I never talked about social acceptance or that mattering in any way. People can "socially accept" terrible things, that doesn't make them good things (and vice versa). And whether or not something is a good thing is all I care about.

I'd argue that an all-white cast sticking to the source material to depict a fictional all-white race is not a terrible thing.

I'm not American either. But anyone with any kind of education really should know what was going on in the US Deep South in the 1950s. PARTICULARLY in a discussion about race.

That's quite ignorant to assume when I already told you I don't know what you were talking about. So I guess you don't read everything I say after all.

I'm not sure why you even consider it relevant to the movie depiction of fictional races.

[Biomega]

If you're not interested in speculation and hypotheticals, then I don't see why you would bother humoring any good reason for a scenario that literally does not exist.

What are you referring to here? I'm a bit confused. I'm concerned with actual films actually being cast in the actual present. You're the one who keeps bringing up hypotheticals.

And just to be clear: hypotheticals are not the same as principles.

Would people complain about a LotR cast from 20 years ago today? If not, that'd strengthen your position; if yes, that'd strengthen my position. Which one is the real one? NO FUCKING WAY TO EVER TELL, because it's a completely fabricated scenario that's untestable and unprovable. It's useless for a discussion.

On one hand you criticize the choice to have an all-white cast

Okay let's cut this off right here.

I told you SIX TIMES to stop it with the "all-white cast" thing. That's something YOU invented. I'm NOT talking about that, and I've told you many times. You keep going back. Are you interested in engaging with my ACTUAL position, or not? Tell me now.

And now you say you're not interested in speculation at all, while any 'Good reason' would only be applicable to a hypothetical situation.

When did I ever say "good reason" is "only applicable to a hypothetical situation"? When I told you to stop trying to find some "objective" truth and just BRING ME ACTUAL REASONS, perhaps?

YOU brought in the hypotheticals. I only ever talked about them when answering you about them. I'm talking about PRINCIPLES, not hypotheticals; those are not the same fucking thing, so stop pretending they are.

I honestly don't know what you're actually looking for, nor at this point do I really care.

That's been pretty clear. You were never interested in engaging with my positions, which is why you never got them right, repeatedly ignored examples then asked me for examples, and STILL can't get something right I've corrected you on SIX TIMES (even counting as I did so).

That's quite ignorant to assume when I already told you I don't know what you were talking about.

How is that "ignorant", you illiterate fuck? I'm LAMENTING the fact you don't know about something that should be common knowledge for anyone of even moderate education, obviously I'm aware you don't know it when I'm saying YOU SHOULD. Are you genuinely incapable of parsing even the simplest statements, or what's going on here?

Tell me if you have some kind of reading deficiency or something, I don't want to rail on you if it's not your fault. But read a fucking history book sometime or something, hot damn. We're trying to discuss the problems of racism and you don't know what went on in the Southern US in the 1950s. I mean COME ON.

[Triceron]

What are you referring to here? I'm a bit confused. I'm concerned with actual films actually being cast in the actual present. You're the one who keeps bringing up hypotheticals.

Would people complain about a LotR cast from 20 years ago today? If not, that'd strengthen your position; if yes, that'd strengthen my position. Which one is the real one? NO FUCKING WAY TO EVER TELL, because it's a completely fabricated scenario that's untestable and unprovable. It's useless for a discussion.

So is defining whether Rings of Power's choice for forced diversity is a good thing today. THAT IS LITERALLY A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.

The show isn't even out yet.

Rings of Power has been subject to a backlash that puts the benefits of forced diversity into question. As someone who supports the creative choices behind this series, I can't even remotely say whether its creative choices are a good thing or not.

I don't have a strong opinion on the casting choices either way because I'm not even remotely interested in the characters or how this show chooses to depict them. I'm literally only interested in seeing the creatures and rise of the Nazgul, not for its acting or plot. Pretty much how I just watched the Hobbit movies for Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies.

I'd prefer for this adaptation to stick to the source material and depict Elves and Dwarves in a similar fashion to the Peter Jackson movies. I value the world and setting of Middle Earth, and I'm fond of Peter Jackson's depiction of its races. But I'm not going to be remiss if they choose not to stick to the source (or PJ adaptations) either, and I'm in full support of them taking creative liberties where they choose to. I'm not going to be watching RoP for its plot anyways, I can just treat it as a typical hollywood blockbuster that I don't have to invest myself into too deeply.

Okay let's cut this off right here.

I told you SIX TIMES to stop it with the "all-white cast" thing. That's something YOU invented. I'm NOT talking about that, and I've told you many times. You keep going back. Are you interested in engaging with my ACTUAL position, or not? Tell me now.

"if there is no good reason to exclude people based on skin color, then I wouldn't accept it"

And I've been arguing that the creative choice to have an a cast mono-ethnically does not immediately equate to 'excluding people based on skin color' for the mere reason of their skin color. There is sufficient reasoning through adherence to the depiction of races in the source material.

Does Crazy Rich Asians have a good reason to exclude people based on skin color? I would say Yes it does have a good reason, and we both seem to agree here.

Does Lord of the Rings have a good reason to exclude people based on skin color for the depiction of certain fictional races? I would say Yes, and you would argue No.

In both situations, we're talking about representing certain cultures a certain way by casting people of a certain ethnicity into the roles.

On principle, there is no difference whether we are talking about representing a real life ethnic culture, like we have in Crazy Rich Asians, or if we're talking about a fictional ethnic culture, like the Elves in Lord of the Rings. The principle behind accepting a monoethnic casting choice to represent the ethnicities/races in both movies should be the same. They should not be subject to 'excluding people based on skin color' because they are both seeking to represent a particular ethnic culture, whether historic, modern or fictional.

How is that "ignorant", you illiterate fuck? I'm LAMENTING the fact you don't know about something that should be common knowledge for anyone of even moderate education, obviously I'm aware you don't know it when I'm saying YOU SHOULD. Are you genuinely incapable of parsing even the simplest statements, or what's going on here?

Tell me if you have some kind of reading deficiency or something, I don't want to rail on you if it's not your fault. But read a fucking history book sometime or something, hot damn. We're trying to discuss the problems of racism and you don't know what went on in the Southern US in the 1950s. I mean COME ON.

Neither of us are American
We aren't actually talking about American history.
I admitted to not understanding your reference
You took no effort in elaborating or explaining what you were actually talking about while continuing to make references as though I should.

And you dare call me an 'illiterate fuck' while admitting you were aware that I didn't know?


I'll let you dwell on this one.

[Veggie50]

First off, "good reasoning" is something very different from a "good reason".

Secondly, I don't have to define it, because it's ALL ABOUT the evaluation. I have no idea what it could be, therefore I'm not putting restrictions on it. That's how presenting evidence works in court, too, by the way - no court has a catalog of what evidence could possibly be, you bring it before them and they decide if they accept it as evidence or not. Because the set of potential reasons is (at least in principle) infinite.

And I'm not the one making the determination anyway - YOU are. I want you to bring what YOU think is a good reason, and then I'll see if I agree or not.


Sure you can. And I can point out that this is how evidence has worked for, oh, idk, a couple hundred years at least (probably thousands). You don't have to agree with this. It'd be ridiculous not to, but you don't HAVE to agree.


Gee I wonder, did Crazy Rich ASIANS perhaps have a GOOD REASON to want ASIANS in their cast?

You already forgot about how my entire argument works on a fundamental level, didn't you. Because it's your turn to talk now, so you don't have to care about what I've been saying.


I've given you an example AND repeated it AND pointed out that I gave you an example and repeated it.

That is THREE TIMES this was brought up across THREE posts.

And somehow you still didn't read it? You trollin' or you just, idk, REALLY don't care about what other people are saying?


I haven't seen it, but I imagine they're making a historic argument there. Without more information I couldn't say if it was a good reason or not, but historic films at least have a POTENTIALLY good reason in trying to be historically accurate; that's not a perfect reason, mind you. I'd be 100% with black Vikings, but you could at least in principle make arguments for realism if you have a historic setting contingent on a people as such (i.e. Vikings as a people). I'd have to see the film to say more.


*cough* you're joking, right?


Aside from the two examples I've given that you stubbornly ignored, you mean? Or the standards of evidence that we've operated under in both discourse and law for a couple dozen centuries?

You know fuck all about how this works. Don't lean too far out the window, or you'll fall.


This is about the stupidest thing you've said so far.

I said you can't just say the racist card applies to anyone, and you go from there to "oh so it applies to NO ONE?" - that's a mistake in logic so elementary it boggles the mind that anyone over the age of 12 would ever think to make it.

Is this just a language problem? Do you not know how "anyone" works in that sentence? "it applies to anyone" and "it applies to everyone" are not the same thing. The first means "anyone COULD BE hit by this" and the second one means "everyone WILL BE hit by this".


You wouldn't. But in a large enough sample, statistics say this is so unlikely to happen that even if it did, it's fine to ignore because it's a one-in-a-billion fluke that doesn't warrant treating the other nine-hundred-ninety-nine-million-etc. cases differently. It's a very acceptable failure rate.

It's also why extremely small productions can't really be evaluated the same.


Yes. Yes it is. No adaptation in the history of the world has ever been 100% accurate, unless it's for an extremely short, extremely trivial text (like idk, Hemingway's "shortest story" or whatever).

Nothing on the level of a novella or novel has ever been adapted with 100% accuracy.


I'm not saying that it MUST, I'm saying that it DOES. If you want that to mean MUST, FOR REASONS OF PRACTICAL REALITY then I'm fine with that.

But my argument is NOT that "you HAVE to change skin colors in an adaptation", if that's what you're getting at. Not in any way, shape, or form.


How do you know? I'd object to it if it was made today, and the only reason I'm not is that it's, well, NOT MADE TODAY. How do you know other people aren't objecting to it for that same reason? Heck, how do you even know it actually IS "socially acceptable", it's not like there's widespread discussion about it.


Even IF that was true (and I don't know how you could even tell), it wouldn't matter. Popularity isn't relevant. Good reasons are. Arguing that something is right because it's popular is a logical fallacy.


Because 1. there isn't exactly a big discourse on a 20-year old film to begin with; and 2. people who examine such films critically tend to be aware that you can't just apply today's standards to a work from 20+ years ago.

You do know there are very explicit rules about what evidence qualifies for use in court, though?

This discussion can go on for hundreds of pages and still not resolve. Both sides believe the other sides arguments are ludicrous.

There are arguments on both sides, to be sure. I happen to stand in the camp that believes inclusivity in this is more important than staying true to the source material. With a movie like “the northmen” I believe it’s a good thing they made an all white cast. I don’t see these as contradictory facts, because they’re a different type of movie.

Saying they don’t need to make it more inclusive, because the lotr or hobbit wasnt, seems like a fallacy. “This can’t be wrong, my family has done this for generations”. Were we to follow that logic, slavery would not have been abolished in the USA.

There will always be a “forefront” of social development. In the 19th century people were mocked for wanting voting rights for women. In the 20th century people were mocked for their liberal ideas of letting women attend college.

Perhaps this point will someday stand among those. Perhaps it won’t. Time will tell.

[Triceron]

You do know there are very explicit rules about what evidence qualifies for use in court, though?

This discussion can go on for hundreds of pages and still not resolve. Both sides believe the other sides arguments are ludicrous.

There are arguments on both sides, to be sure. I happen to stand in the camp that believes inclusivity in this is more important than staying true to the source material. With a movie like “the northmen” I believe it’s a good thing they made an all white cast. I don’t see these as contradictory facts, because they’re a different type of movie.

I think you make some valid points here, and thank you for being respectful to both sides.

Saying they don’t need to make it more inclusive, because the lotr or hobbit wasnt, seems like a fallacy. “This can’t be wrong, my family has done this for generations”. Were we to follow that logic, slavery would not have been abolished in the USA.

There will always be a “forefront” of social development. In the 19th century people were mocked for wanting voting rights for women. In the 20th century people were mocked for their liberal ideas of letting women attend college.

Perhaps this point will someday stand among those. Perhaps it won’t. Time will tell.

I get where you're coming from, and I respectfully disagree.

I think most people come at this from a perspective of preference, rather than one of moral significance. The argument isn't that "anything other than White Elves and White Dwarves would be wrong", it's that the 6 movie adaptations we already have depict it a certain way and people prefer that depiction. And considering this is a work of fiction with races known to be depicted as being white, I don't see how it would be any different to the Northman in creatively choosing to depict its cast that way. I personally do not think that following the logic of the previous LOTR films would prevent or regress diversity in movies moving forward. I honestly consider this comparable to that of the Northman. Both history and Middle Earth's fiction sources a white-dominant setting, and both are depicted as being white dominant. Neither of these works are racially discriminant nor are they intentionally excluding other races without sufficient reasoning.

Just my opinion, but Lord of the Rings isn't necessarily the best platform to progress social development. I'd say that if we want greater diversity and inclusion in media, then we should support the creators who tell those stories. I don't think forced diversity and race swapping into existing properties has been good for the progress of inclusion and diversity in media. We can look around right now, and this type of movement has been controversial and dividing opinions on the internet into tribes. I feel like companies are weaponizing diversity, and it's dividing the fans. We want more Martin Luther King, not more Malcolm X.

[Veggie50]

I get where you're coming from, and I respectfully disagree.

I think you make some valid points here, and thank you for being respectful to both sides.


I think most people come at this from a perspective of preference, rather than one of moral significance. The argument isn't that "anything other than White Elves and White Dwarves would be wrong", it's that the 6 movie adaptations we already have depict it a certain way and people prefer that depiction. And considering this is a work of fiction with races known to be depicted as being white, I don't see how it would be any different to the Northman in creatively choosing to depict its cast that way. I personally do not think that following the logic of the previous LOTR films would prevent or regress diversity in movies moving forward. I honestly consider this comparable to that of the Northman. Both history and Middle Earth's fiction sources a white-dominant setting, and both are depicted as being white dominant. Neither of these works are racially discriminant nor are they intentionally excluding other races without sufficient reasoning.

Just my opinion, but Lord of the Rings isn't necessarily the best platform to progress social development. I'd say that if we want greater diversity and inclusion in media, then we should support the creators who tell those stories. I don't think forced diversity and race swapping into existing properties has been good for the progress of inclusion and diversity in media. We can look around right now, and this type of movement has been controversial and dividing opinions on the internet into tribes. I feel like companies are weaponizing diversity, and it's dividing the fans. We want more Martin Luther King, not more Malcolm X.

You make a lot of interesting points, so I'd like to go by them point by point (starting where you disagree, of course. Agreement makes terrible discourse).

I think most people come at this from a perspective of preference, rather than one of moral significance. The argument isn't that "anything other than White Elves and White Dwarves would be wrong", it's that the 6 movie adaptations we already have depict it a certain way and people prefer that depiction.

This is definitely the most optimistic approach to why people would prefer a non-inclusive cast. I've seen many MANY arguing that it's wrong because "dwarves can't be black, they live underground". In my opinion arguments like that hold little water, but I wouldn't want your take to feel lobbed in with them, because it is a genuine point.

I would however challenge it with "we don't know which version people prefer, or wether it makes a difference in the appraisal at all. It hasn't released yet."

And considering this is a work of fiction with races known to be depicted as being white, I don't see how it would be any different to the Northman in creatively choosing to depict its cast that way.

While I agree the people of the west in middle earth are likely imagened as purely white by Tolkien, it is still a complete fantasy world so the races COULD be different. This is purely an opinion, and to my opinion being a little less faithful here to be more inclusive is a very acceptable trade-off. The difference with The Northman is that Northman actually refers to an historic people. I also believe a poc shouldn't be playing the queen of England in a historical drama.

I personally do not think that following the logic of the previous LOTR films would prevent or regress diversity in movies moving forward. I honestly consider this comparable to that of the Northman. Both history and Middle Earth's fiction sources a white-dominant setting, and both are depicted as being white dominant. Neither of these works are racially discriminant nor are they intentionally excluding other races without sufficient reasoning.

This might surprise you, but I don't disagree. I do not in any way consider the original trilogy to be a negative to inclusivity.

Apparently the creators of this show are not satisfied with "not being a negative" and want it to be "a positive". I don't believe that is a bad or wrong idea. It just prioritizes something different than absolute adherence to Tolkien. Of course that's a shame, and we can disagree on wether that's a worthy trade-off, but here we are.

Just my opinion, but Lord of the Rings isn't necessarily the best platform to progress social development. I'd say that if we want greater diversity and inclusion in media, then we should support the creators who tell those stories. I don't think forced diversity and race swapping into existing properties has been good for the progress of inclusion and diversity in media. We can look around right now, and this type of movement has been controversial and dividing opinions on the internet into tribes. I feel like companies are weaponizing diversity, and it's dividing the fans. We want more Martin Luther King, not more Malcolm X.

I agree it's not the BEST place, but it is also not a BAD place for a small step. Social change always creates a feeling of some unease, because it's a change in the status quo. That unease inherently creates different camps, it always has in history. Companies "weaponizing" anything would require the companies wanting to harm someone (as per the use of a weapon). I believe Hanlon's razor is at work here, meaning they just want to appeal to as many people as possible, and just fuck it up sometimes.

Hey if the black elf starts throwing rap beats I will agree this is one of the fuckups. A dark elf/dwarf/hobbit being in the series at all though? In my opinion; who cares, and it's important to others.

[Gombadoh]

My dudes.. what are you doing here.

All of you, plx. … just please stahp these walls of texts and enjoy your time off…


I was hoping to see some fun banter about the lotr series but… well this is not that.

[Veggie50]

My dudes.. what are you doing here.

All of you, plx. … just please stahp these walls of texts and enjoy your time off…


I was hoping to see some fun banter about the lotr series but… well this is not that.

Sorry, it fell to the overarching debate about racial inclusivity in modern media.

[Orby]

My dudes.. what are you doing here.

All of you, plx. … just please stahp these walls of texts and enjoy your time off…


I was hoping to see some fun banter about the lotr series but… well this is not that.

I did want to create another thread like name it the 'positive discussion'. Cos I do agree you cannot discuss anything about the show here because its smothered by people talking about skin colour. I have tried to change the subject around but it just goes back to the same shit again.

Not sure if the mods would allow it, but hopefully they will let us create another thread. And leave this thread to the outrage. ITs not fair on those that are looking forward to the show. this coming from someone who is highly sceptical about the show myself.