Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Your argument is just as baseless and without merit.

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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

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

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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

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

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

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


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

[InfiniteCharger]

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

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

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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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

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

[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.