Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

My rebuttal will always remain the same. Whether or not you consider it sufficient or not is not my problem. If you don't think it's a good reason, you can feel free to disagree and move on.

If you are only interested in proffering subjective preferences and not discussing them, why are we talking?

The objections I raised aren't based on preference - I gave specific reasons and explained the fallacy of the internal logic of the statement. That's not "I just think it's wrong"-levels of reasoning.

If your reply is nothing but "I disagree and I don't need to explain why" then that means you're not interested in a discussion. You have a subjective preference you're not interested in examining, to which I can only say "cool story, bro" and move on because you've effectively terminated the discourse.

If you want to actually CONVINCE anyone that your point has merit as an argument, you need to actually defend it. If that's not what interests you, just move on. Everyone has their preferences, and we can't really do anything other than acknowledge them because they're not up for debate.

If you asked me (for example) why I hate cats and I say it's because they stink, and you don't think that's a good reason, then I'm not beholden to give you an alternative reason to justify my opinion.

You're misrepresenting things a bit there. I didn't just go "not a good reason!" - I explained WHY it's not a good reason. You also used a subjective criterion in this analogy - "stink" doesn't just denote the existence of a smell, it makes a value judgement (i.e. bad smell). You've smuggled in a subjective position that's guarded against objective reasoning, but that's NOT what happened in the original example - as evidenced by me giving you objective reasons why the internal logic of your statement was problematic.

That's more like you going "I hate cats" me going "okay why?" and you going "because they have five legs". I then point out that this is demonstrably false, but you go "well let's just agree to disagree, I hate cats and you don't, the end". You simply avoided having to talk about the problem with your REASON and tried to go back to the CLAIM, invoking subjective preference so as to not explain the objection to your justification.

And let's be clear: in that example, you are totally fine to keep hating cats, just like you are fine believing that "it's not like the book" is a good reason to exclude people based on skin color. That's your preference. It won't CONVINCE anyone, though, and people can look at it and go "that's a pretty racist position to have", but that doesn't mean you can't have that position. If you want to JUSTIFY that position, you need to engage with the arguments, and that means responding to objections. If you don't want to justify it, you can just move on and let people think what they think.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too - you can't have a preference you don't need to defend and ALSO expect it to convince people to respect your position. They respect that you HAVE a position, that doesn't mean they have to respect the position ITSELF.

Prove what? My opinion that it's not wrong?

If that's just your opinion as in subjective preference, then you don't need to prove it. I will just go "okay, I guess he thinks that" and move on. Discussion terminated. And if I then also think "I guess that's kinda racist, though" you don't get to object - you've already removed yourself from the debate by asserting this is a preference, not an argument, so you wouldn't have to defend it. You can't have it both ways (see above).

If the law that defines racial discrimination is not enough of a reason for you, then I don't know what would be.

No, laws against discrimination are NOT enough. There's plenty of discrimination that goes on that's entirely legal, and it's STILL WRONG.

If you seriously think that discrimination is only wrong when it's actually illegal, that is a pretty fucked-up stance to have, not gonna lie.

Again, I have no obligation TO overcome your objections. I have no obligation to play into your bad faith arguments.

Same thing. You don't need to defend your positions. But you don't get to not defend them and ALSO expect others to respect them. That's not how discourse works.

We all respect your right to have an opinion. That doesn't mean we have to respect that opinion.

"AHA! You can't overcome my objections, you were wRoNg! GOTCHA!"

Yes, that's kind of how it works. If I make an objection to your argument, and you have no way to overcome it, then... you were wrong. By, uh, definition of how arguments work? IDK why that's somehow funny to you.

You even AGREE that it is not inherrently racism. That is why you have the stipulation of a GOOD REASON.

But you realize, I hope, that adding the word "inherently" there changes the statement? And that saying "it's racism" is very different from "it has something to do with racism", which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?

Why this compulsion to keep changing my statements? You're already quoting them. Can't you just respond to them as is without changing their meaning? It's fine if you paraphrase, but you can't CHANGE THE MEANING by adding qualifiers or making different claims.

as an example of it SUPPORTING creative decisions to cast based on skin color that are not deemed racially discriminant.

And that's my point.

Just because something isn't deemed racial discrimination UNDER THE LAW doesn't mean there's no racial discrimination. Laws have very specific circumstances under which they do and don't apply, and those don't always cover the same areas that public discourse does. And no one here is arguing from a LEGAL standpoint anyway - because of precisely what I said in response, "it's not racism unless it's illegal" is not a good stance to take. Same with morality, by the way. Plenty of immoral things are also illegal; but plenty more are not. And you can't just go "it's not immoral unless it's illegal".

Well of course it would be puzzling. There's no other way to dealing with paradoxical principles like yours.

What paradox are you referring to, specifically?

[DarkAmbient]

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.

It just never fucking ends...

[Triceron]

If you are only interested in proffering subjective preferences and not discussing them, why are we talking?

What about the subjective preferences haven't being discussed?

I literally am pointing out that we did discuss them, and we both reached disagreement. I think it should end there. Why are we still talking? Because you're still asking me to 'prove my reasons' or whatever.

The objections I raised aren't based on preference - I gave specific reasons and explained the fallacy of the internal logic of the statement. That's not "I just think it's wrong"-levels of reasoning.

If your reply is nothing but "I disagree and I don't need to explain why" then that means you're not interested in a discussion. You have a subjective preference you're not interested in examining, to which I can only say "cool story, bro" and move on because you've effectively terminated the discourse.

It doesn't matter what you base your principles on, they are still an expression of your subjective opinion.

The only way to regard your 'principles' is by discussing them, and choosing to agree or disagree. It doesn't matter if you (even) used scientific fact to reach your conclusion, the nature of the conclusion you reached is still ultimately based on your subjective opinion, because it is not something that can be objectively defined. 'Racial discrimination' is not objectively defineable, we'd agree yes? Racial discrimination will always be in the realm of subjectivity, because the lines are always fluid and prone to change.

If you want to actually CONVINCE anyone that your point has merit as an argument, you need to actually defend it. If that's not what interests you, just move on. Everyone has their preferences, and we can't really do anything other than acknowledge them because they're not up for debate.

I'll just say it's hard to move on when the person on the other side then implies if you can't make the argument you must be a closet racist. But I admit, I took the bait, and here we are.

You are right though, I am okay to move on.

You're misrepresenting things a bit there. I didn't just go "not a good reason!" - I explained WHY it's not a good reason. You also used a subjective criterion in this analogy - "stink" doesn't just denote the existence of a smell, it makes a value judgement (i.e. bad smell). You've smuggled in a subjective position that's guarded against objective reasoning, but that's NOT what happened in the original example - as evidenced by me giving you objective reasons why the internal logic of your statement was problematic.

That's more like you going "I hate cats" me going "okay why?" and you going "because they have five legs". I then point out that this is demonstrably false, but you go "well let's just agree to disagree, I hate cats and you don't, the end". You simply avoided having to talk about the problem with your REASON and tried to go back to the CLAIM, invoking subjective preference so as to not explain the objection to your justification.

And let's be clear: in that example, you are totally fine to keep hating cats, just like you are fine believing that "it's not like the book" is a good reason to exclude people based on skin color. That's your preference. It won't CONVINCE anyone, though, and people can look at it and go "that's a pretty racist position to have", but that doesn't mean you can't have that position. If you want to JUSTIFY that position, you need to engage with the arguments, and that means responding to objections. If you don't want to justify it, you can just move on and let people think what they think.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too - you can't have a preference you don't need to defend and ALSO expect it to convince people to respect your position. They respect that you HAVE a position, that doesn't mean they have to respect the position ITSELF.

"I prefer how the books and Peter Jackson movies depict it" is subjective.
"This is how the books and the Peter Jackson movies depict it" is not subjectively defined. We are talking about something tangible that exists; it is objective and we can point to it with evidence.

The Peter Jackson films depicting Elves and Dwarves with an all-white cast is an objective scenario. It exists. It is not a 'cat with 5 legs' that you can somehow dispute as being non-existent. Its depiction is not 'demonstrably false' merely because you have the opinion that it could have been adapted some other way. The objective fact is this is how it's actually depicted. Make sense?

"That's your preference. It won't CONVINCE anyone, though, and people can look at it and go "that's a pretty racist position to have"

Which was my previous hangup. You are right, and I fell into the trap of trying to defend that point.

People are free to think I'm racist, an asshole, illiterate - whatever they choose. I realize now that it's not worth getting bothered about, as you suggested previously.

People having those opinions does not inherrently make it true, and I'm not defined by the opinions of those people. Just like if someone called me a Nazi sympathizer, I have no obligation to prove to them that I'm not one. It'd just be an insult in ignorance.

If that's just your opinion as in subjective preference, then you don't need to prove it. I will just go "okay, I guess he thinks that" and move on. Discussion terminated. And if I then also think "I guess that's kinda racist, though" you don't get to object - you've already removed yourself from the debate by asserting this is a preference, not an argument, so you wouldn't have to defend it. You can't have it both ways (see above).

Right. If you choose to be an asshole and continue to act like one, that's beyond my control. I am fully aware of this now. Thank you.

No, laws against discrimination are NOT enough. There's plenty of discrimination that goes on that's entirely legal, and it's STILL WRONG.

Then you are arguing principles which I do not agree with, and we can leave it there.

I had a different understanding of the topic of discussion when I initiated with you. Now that I'm aware of what you're talking about, I'll just say we can respectfully agree to disagree, and you can continue to deem me as 'proably a racist' if that pleases you.

If you seriously think that discrimination is only wrong when it's actually illegal, that is a pretty fucked-up stance to have, not gonna lie.

No, I don't think legality is the only way to define what is wrong when. There are plenty of cases where it can be unacceptable beyond the law.

As far as my viewpoints are concerned, RoP and PJ's adaptations are not subject to being products of racial discrimination.

Same thing. You don't need to defend your positions. But you don't get to not defend them and ALSO expect others to respect them. That's not how discourse works.

We all respect your right to have an opinion. That doesn't mean we have to respect that opinion.

Right, and really I shouldn't expect others to have the moral aptitude to be able to distinguish between subjective preference and racial discrimination. Thank you for opening my awareness that there are people who are unable to distinguish betwee the two, and wililngly judge others as racist for merely having an opinion that does not align with their own. I don't often encounter people like this in my discussions, surprisingly.

Yes, that's kind of how it works. If I make an objection to your argument, and you have no way to overcome it, then... you were wrong. By, uh, definition of how arguments work? IDK why that's somehow funny to you.

No, because bad faith arguments are a real thing. Fallacies and paradoxical arguments are examples of arguments that can not be proven 'right' at all, therefore it doesn't make one automatically wrong. "I object to your claim that the world won't end in 2031. Prove it. You can't? You must be wrong! That means I was right and the world WILL end Mwahahahah!"

Argumental fallacies are real, and understanding them may help you understand what arguments to avoid in order to be more reasonable. Because I can say that this entire discussion has been quite unreasonable.

But you realize, I hope, that adding the word "inherently" there changes the statement? And that saying "it's racism" is very different from "it has something to do with racism", which was WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?

Why this compulsion to keep changing my statements? You're already quoting them. Can't you just respond to them as is without changing their meaning? It's fine if you paraphrase, but you can't CHANGE THE MEANING by adding qualifiers or making different claims.

The civil war also had 'something to do with racism' and would be equally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And that's my point.

Just because something isn't deemed racial discrimination UNDER THE LAW doesn't mean there's no racial discrimination. Laws have very specific circumstances under which they do and don't apply, and those don't always cover the same areas that public discourse does. And no one here is arguing from a LEGAL standpoint anyway - because of precisely what I said in response, "it's not racism unless it's illegal" is not a good stance to take. Same with morality, by the way. Plenty of immoral things are also illegal; but plenty more are not. And you can't just go "it's not immoral unless it's illegal".

And if there were something that were deemed to be immoral and prone to judgement of being racist, then that's what it would be to you.

If you define a certain act to be racist, and there's no argument that convinces you it would not be, then it is what it is. The only alternative to avoid being judged as 'probably a racist' under your principles would be to abide by your principles and values, and absolutely no one is beholden to following your personal values for the sake of not being judged 'probably a racist'.

Opposing your moral values is something I think I can live with.


----

I think we both agree there's nothing left to discuss, and I'm done contributing to the derailment of this thread.

I think we both have a reasonable assessment of where we both stand, and how we're not going to see eye to eye. Despite the heated argument, I don't bear any ill will nor do I carry any hard feelings. With no disrespect to you or this discussion, I'm willing to set it aside for the sake of letting the thread breathe. Feel free to have the last word.

[davesurfer]

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.

Ditto. I saw this and hoped to see something about the show not some political discussion. Can’t even enjoy fantasy anymore, what is the problem with the permanently offended people. Sigh

[Biomega]

What about the subjective preferences haven't being discussed?

I literally am pointing out that we did discuss them, and we both reached disagreement.

Then you need to re-read what I said.

You going "I just don't agree, gg no re" when I raise an objection isn't discussion. It's you invoking "opinion" to AVOID having a discussion. That's why I'm saying if you're not interested in discussing things, just SAY so. Just admit all you want is to give your opinion and have other people hear it, without having to explain or defend yourself.

If that's NOT what you want and you ARE interested in actually convincing people your position is justified, you have to defend it. And that includes engaging with objections, not just dodging the discussion with "just my opinion, man".

It doesn't matter what you base your principles on, they are still an expression of your subjective opinion.

No. They're arguments. Open to objections and rebuttals. I give justification for what I'm convinced of, either out of my own initiative or on demand. Things I don't want to or can't justify (and that aren't trivial presuppositions) I usually don't bring into these debates. Because they have no place in a debate.

The only way to regard your 'principles' is by discussing them, and choosing to agree or disagree. It doesn't matter if you (even) used scientific fact to reach your conclusion, the nature of the conclusion you reached is still ultimately based on your subjective opinion

That's just not true. I reach conclusions based on how convincing their justification is. If I have objections to those justifications, I raise them. If I can't find an objection, I accept them. That's how discourse works.

What you're describing isn't discourse. "I like vanilla ice cream, but not chocolate" isn't an argument, it's just a preference. Nothing can be discussed about this. "Racism is bad" is NOT just a preference - everyone can (and should) give justification for why they think so. These either convince someone or they do not, based on the justifications given. That's usually an ongoing discourse. The second you turn "Racism is bad" into "I like vanilla ice cream", you've left the discourse. And you should admit as much.

That doesn't mean all discourse needs to reach a conclusion every time. This is an open-ended process. But "agree to disagree" is not a valid position, it's just a termination of the discourse. And that's very different from "we've reached a point where neither of us can further justify or prove their position", which can happen, too. But you refusing to engage with an objection and just pulling the "opinion" card is not that, either.

'Racial discrimination' is not objectively defineable, we'd agree yes?

"Attitudes and behaviors towards a group or individual caused solely by the fact that group or those individuals display particular racial characteristics". Would you disagree that this is an objective definition of "racial discrimination"?

Or what are you getting at, exactly?

I'll just say it's hard to move on when the person on the other side then implies if you can't make the argument you must be a closet racist.

Nobody said this. You're trying to make this into a general point, when it's a SPECIFIC point.

I'm saying if you can't justify excluding people based on skin color with a good reason, that's being racist. That doesn't mean the same is true for ANY argument. It just means it's true for THIS ONE.

"I prefer how the books and Peter Jackson movies depict it" is subjective.

Yes, this is a subjective preference.

"This is how the books and the Peter Jackson movies depict it" is not subjectively defined. We are talking about something tangible that exists; it is objective and we can point to it with evidence.

That's also correct.

The Peter Jackson films depicting Elves and Dwarves with an all-white cast is an objective scenario. It exists. It is not a 'cat with 5 legs' that you can somehow dispute as being non-existent.

And that's not what I objected to.

I objected to "they should be white because that's how they are in the books". The CLAIM is "they should be white", the REASON is "because that's how they are in the books". I objected to the REASON and pointed out that "because that's how they are in the books" is not sufficient on it's own because it's circular reasoning and a tautology. Either it demands 100% accuracy (which is a practical impossibility in any adaptation) or it's fine with <100% accuracy, in which case the argument is no longer sufficient on its own (because clearly it doesn't apply to some characteristics). That's not subjective opinion. That's the internal logical structure of the statement.

My objection is about the REASON, and you never engaged with it. Instead, you went back to the CLAIM and just went "well that's just what I prefer". That's what I was pointing out here.

People having those opinions does not inherrently make it true, and I'm not defined by the opinions of those people. Just like if someone called me a Nazi sympathizer, I have no obligation to prove to them that I'm not one. It'd just be an insult in ignorance.

Just for completeness, I want to make sure that I tried hard never to call you "a racist" (and if I did, feel free to point out where I did and I will specifically apologize about each time). I only ever called certain statements or arguments racist (or racism). I don't believe in personalized generalizations beyond the trivial technical level (e.g. "you told a lie therefore you are a liar by definition" is technically true but I wouldn't call someone a liar anyway; I'd just call a specific statement a lie so as not to imply that it's habitual).

Then you are arguing principles which I do not agree with, and we can leave it there.

Same warning as before applies, "it's not racism unless it's illegal" is not something most people would be comfortable with. You're free to hold that position, but be aware that it could get you into serious trouble out in the world.

Right, and really I shouldn't expect others to have the moral aptitude to be able to distinguish between subjective preference and racial discrimination.

I don't understand this. Those are very disparate things, where exactly is that distinction coming into play? Are you saying that it's okay to be racially discriminatory as long as it's your subjective preference? Surely not? This needs some explanation.

Thank you for opening my awareness that there are people who are unable to distinguish betwee the two, and wililngly judge others as racist for merely having an opinion that does not align with their own.

AAAHH, I see, you're saying I'm calling your opinion racist just because I don't respect it. So you're just, you know, LYING TO MY FACE. Got it.

No, because bad faith arguments are a real thing.

If you think I'm arguing in bad faith, object to it on those grounds. Show where I was arguing in bad faith, and present your case. If you can't do that, why should I believe it actually was arguing in bad faith? Why should YOU believe it, for that matter?

You can't just go "you're arguing in bad faith, and I don't have to explain why that's just how I feel" again. Subjective preferences have no place in arguments, because they're beyond argumentative discourse. Don't try to use them like arguments.

Because I can say that this entire discussion has been quite unreasonable.

You can, but - once again - you'd have to show where, and why. If you think there's fallacies in my arguments, point them out. I did that for some of your arguments. I explained in detail what fallacy was at work, and why. You can just do the same.

You're very prone to just CLAIMING "this is paradoxical" "this is fallacious" etc. but you have to, you know, actually demonstrate that's the case.

The civil war also had 'something to do with racism' and would be equally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And if someone in a discussion about racism had no idea what the US Civil War was, I'd tell them to sit down and read about it on Wikipedia exactly the same way. Everyone can be expected to know the basics of that kind of historical event, ESPECIALLY if the discussion topic is more than tangential. Same if someone was in a discussion about, idk, economics and didn't know what the Industrial Revolution was. And so on.

If you define a certain act to be racist, and there's no argument that convinces you it would not be, then it is what it is.

I have never once in my life uttered the words "there's no argument that convinces me". AT BEST it would be "I haven't heard an argument yet that has convinced me", or "I couldn't imagine an argument that would convince me (but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't)". I do not, EVER, engage in absolutes of this kind, and I find it offensive for you to be suggesting I would. I take great pains to be precise and systematic in my arguments, and observe the rules of discourse; I ask no less of others. To intimate that I'm somehow refusing to honestly engage with arguments if they're presented correctly is an outrageous claim.

Opposing your moral values is something I think I can live with.

Clearly. Which is fine. You need to square your positions with yourself above all else, and many people hold many positions I consider untenable. That doesn't mean they're not allowed to hold them; and it doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be disdainful of those positions.

[VMSmith]

Erebor would also be third age, but maybe amazon is going to go rule of cool and show morias fall and the longbeard migration to the lonely mountain early for giggles. I'd be mad about the timeline fuckery, but thrilled to see Erebor founded.

Actually, this touches on my main issue with this series. Legendary events of the past shrouded in the mists of time thrill us specifically because they are mysterious. The Pyramids in Egypt have long been fascinating because of their mysteriousness, the more we learned about them the less interesting and more mundane they became, while still impressive. Darth Vader was amazingly cool when we knew so little of how he came to be the way he was, the prequels ruined our image of him irrevocably. Try imagining Darth Vader now without remembering him also being a brat whining about sand in his asscrack.

Ancient events in Middle Earth are fascinating because we don't know exactly how they happened. By actually showing those events it takes away that mystique and we end up seeing them as just a thing that happened.

I don't want to see legends of the past brought to life, I'd prefer to see what comes afterward.

[Triceron]

Darth Vader was amazingly cool when we knew so little of how he came to be the way he was, the prequels ruined our image of him irrevocably. Try imagining Darth Vader now without remembering him also being a brat whining about sand in his asscrack.
---
I don't want to see legends of the past brought to life, I'd prefer to see what comes afterward.

*cough* Sequel Trilogy *cough*

[VMSmith]

*cough* SEQUEL TRILOGY *cough*

Well, what comes afterward isn't always guaranteed to be good I still prefer that over prequels, messy as the sequels may be, every time.

The only prequel sort of show I've truly enjoyed from top to bottom has been Strange New Worlds. They are doing a phenomenal job with that show.

[Biomega]

Ancient events in Middle Earth are fascinating because we don't know exactly how they happened. By actually showing those events it takes away that mystique and we end up seeing them as just a thing that happened.

IDK, I feel it can go either way depending on the story/subject in question. Your pyramid example I always found the exact opposite - that unraveling the mysteries of the world made the world MORE interesting, not less. But I also agree that NOT knowing Anakin was a horndog with a child-murder fetish kinda did make Darth Vader more impressive as a character.

I'm in two minds about it. Taking all the mystery out of world-building can be a detriment, but how much is too much is still negotiable. Will RoP go too far? Wait and see, I guess. It's a potential pitfall to be sure, how much of a deal it'll actually end up being who can tell. Until we see it.

Personally I've always thought the truly "high" fantasy of the early ages in Tolkien's work was more appealing than the LotR stuff. Valinor, the big wars with legions of balrogs, all that kind of stuff. But maybe it sounds better in the way it's presented written in the Silmarilion etc. and is only going to end up pure CGI schlock on screen.

[Triceron]

Well, what comes afterward isn't always guaranteed to be good I still prefer that over prequels, messy as the sequels may be, every time.

The only prequel sort of show I've truly enjoyed from top to bottom has been Strange New Worlds. They are doing a phenomenal job with that show.

Not sure if you're into Breaking Bad, but Better Call Saul is actually pretty good. I'd recommend it.

[VMSmith]

Your pyramid example I always found the exact opposite - that unraveling the mysteries of the world made the world MORE interesting, not less.

I don't know your age, so it may have just been different for your time, but when I was a kid the pyramids were mysterious and people literally thought they may be magical. No one knew what lay beyond the sealed doors and it could have been anything. Plus, how in the world did they ever even build them? Maybe aliens helped?

Turns out it was just a great way to stack rocks and even their primitive technology was more than sufficient to move blocks. The treasures inside were, indeed, fascinating ... but they also could have turned out to be Al Capone's Vault.

But maybe it sounds better in the way it's presented written in the Silmarilion etc. and is only going to end up pure CGI schlock on screen.

That's my worry, that something magical in our imaginations will just end up as crass CGI. Jackson's LoTR could have ended up the same way, as well, and he did a decent job of it so here's hoping this crew can at least match that. The animated LoTR is still my favorite and likely always will be.

Not sure if you're into Breaking Bad, but Better Call Saul is actually pretty good. I'd recommend it.

I know these shows are supposed to be fantastic, but they just don't seem like my kind of thing. Real world drama just doesn't do it for me.

[Veggie50]

I don't know your age, so it may have just been different for your time, but when I was a kid the pyramids were mysterious and people literally thought they may be magical. No one knew what lay beyond the sealed doors and it could have been anything. Plus, how in the world did they ever even build them? Maybe aliens helped?

Turns out it was just a great way to stack rocks and even their primitive technology was more than sufficient to move blocks. The treasures inside were, indeed, fascinating ... but they also could have turned out to be Al Capone's Vault.



That's my worry, that something magical in our imaginations will just end up as crass CGI. Jackson's LoTR could have ended up the same way, as well, and he did a decent job of it so here's hoping this crew can at least match that. The animated LoTR is still my favorite and likely always will be.



I know these shows are supposed to be fantastic, but they just don't seem like my kind of thing. Real world drama just doesn't do it for me.

Lots of people still do think pyramids are magical... When I visited the pyramids in Gizeh last year some guy asked my wife and I to take a picture of him sitting in the sarcophagus because it has "healing powers". We refused.

I'm fairly sure there's a large overlap between those people and the "crystals have healing powers" crowd.

[NineSpine]

Yes. We know. Everyone knows.

They just don't give a shit.


And it's pointless and trivial, but sure, you do you I guess?


I think there might be a difference between "let's put black dwarves in the original narrative" and "the original narrative still works even if the dwarves were black".

One might also point out that the original narrative definitely doesn't say dwarves AREN'T black. For all that's worth (see above).


Those are not the same thing.


I think you confuse something. I didn't say it BOTHERS me, I said I don't give a shit what the original does or doesn't say about skin color UNLESS there's a good reason to.

What BOTHERS me is people using "but but but originaaaaal!" as a smokescreen for their obvious racism.

You gotta stop quoting the wrong people, especially when you accidentally quote me instead of one of the not-so-subtle racist dogwhistlers over here.

[Biomega]

You gotta stop quoting the wrong people, especially when you accidentally quote me instead of one of the not-so-subtle racist dogwhistlers over here.

My apologies, I've corrected the post in question.

[NineSpine]

My apologies, I've corrected the post in question.

Thanks. Some of the people in this thread are... something else. Simultaneously whining that everyone is offended by everything, while having an absolute meltdown over the skin color of a fictional character of a fictional race in a fictional world.

[InfiniteCharger]

New info from Amazon

[Koriani]

And to add THIS to the mix - as its sideways related:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/18/embr...-property.html

(its CNBC but if you type in "New Tolkien Rights" or "Embracer Group" into google you'll get other articles from other sites if that one isn't working for someone.)

[Triceron]

And to add THIS to the mix - as its sideways related:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/18/embr...-property.html

(its CNBC but if you type in "New Tolkien Rights" or "Embracer Group" into google you'll get other articles from other sites if that one isn't working for someone.)

Interesting news.

I don't think this will have a big impact on RoP's liscence though, since Amazon has been rumored to have 5 seasons planned and it is probably part of the $250 million liscencing deal. This is just a change of rights holder, and it will probably be a few years out before we hear how the handover will impact the current (and near-future) projects and their liscencing deals.

[s_bushido]

Lots of people still do think pyramids are magical... When I visited the pyramids in Gizeh last year some guy asked my wife and I to take a picture of him sitting in the sarcophagus because it has "healing powers". We refused.

Maybe he's just a big fan of Stargate.

[Rocksteady 87]

Out of curiosity, what's so hard to simply say something to the effects of: "Yes, it's very odd that there is so much mixed-race diversity in the show. It would make more sense, at the very least, for everyone to have similar physical traits within the same fictional race at the very least, even if not every race sharing the same traits. But it doesn't really matter to me and I'm okay with them choosing whichever actors they felt played the role best despite that. At least they're not trying to whitewash everything like Hollywood traditionally has done." You know instead of screaming "racist!!!!" at everyone raising a brow at it and then coming up with the most BS reasons to rationalize it, all while acting like you're on the highest of horses.

Again, admittedly, there are way too many racists in the thread that deserve to be called out. But the majority of people discussing the topic are pointing out how, rightly, it does not make sense given the context of the show, the isolation of its people, and real world analogies.