Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Triceron]

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.

You can't have a centrist opinion in the eyes of certain people here. Even if you support the casting choices in Rings of Power, if you express any preference to the Peter Jackson adaptations they'll consider you a filthy racist dogwhistler.

[Veggie50]

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.

While I have uttered the exact sentiment you described here, you do get out of a discussion what you put into it. If someone goes into the discussion with “it’s gonna be shit because black people” then my feelings on the matter are irrelevant. That person is just a racist.

I have had very nuanced discussions about this in this very topic though, with people who gave arguments about why they dislike the castings.

[Biomega]

Maybe he's just a big fan of Stargate.

That WOULD explain things. In SG the sarcophagus is, after all, known to cause irrational behavior in humans.

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.

I get what you're driving at, but I thought this part needs a bit more talking-about. Part of the problem is exactly the fact that we've been conditioned by the depictions in media to go "everyone within a race needs to look very similar" - and I'm not talking number of arms and legs levels here, but so similar they might as well be siblings. That's done to create a kind of aesthetic cohesion that makes it immediately obvious who belong with whom, but it has the side effect of suggesting a kind of uniformity that is neither realistic nor particularly sensible in a time where diversity is increasingly turning from a signifier of distrust and confusion to something quotidian.

Just look at humans as a species. Variation is ENORMOUS between human individuals, and it's practically never that diverse in depictions of fictional races, many of which are effectively just visual clones of each other (often because it's cheaper to do in production).

I'm not saying that every fictional race needs to work or look like RL humans, of course, but the idea that "they should all look very similar" is mostly a tradition and convenience, not some kind of diegetic constraint we have to accept.

You're absolutely right on the other part, though: just accepting that this is an actor playing a role and judging it based on how well they do that rather than on what color their skin happens to be (and the same goes for many other characteristics) is absolutely something we should get more used to. Funnily enough - and as a bit of a paradox - audiences used to do exactly that in the days when everyone on stage was just a white male. They just suspended their disbelief that this GUY in a dress wasn't really a woman, or that this white dude with soot on their face wasn't really a moor, and took the role as it was. That had other problems of course (big ones), but it also showed that the demands of drama really center on the audience participating in the illusion to some extent, and focusing on what's important: the story being told. I guess in a way we've gone full circle.

[Lady Atia]

That would be quite a twist of interpretation to imply that though.

I could make the same argument that we don't know if Tolkien intended to Dwarves to be Blue skinned because he wasn't specific, but we know from the overall narrative that this wouldn't be the case because if they were blue skinned, he would make the effort of going out of his way to describe them being blue. And narratively speaking, the Hobbits would make mention of skin tones that so wildly differ from their own.

That the Hobbits and the overall narrative doesn't differentiate Dwarves in a major way from the Hobbits who percieve them informs us that they would have been a skin tone that Hobbits would consider familiar and normal. So we can gather that the Dwarves wouldn't have had a skin tone that was that much different from that of a Hobbit's expectations, otherwise it would have been worth noting as much as is described of any general feature that seemed outstanding to a Hobbit (thick beards, big noses, dark hair, broader physiques, etc).

IMO, brown skin would be quite exotic to the Hobbits. So even though we don't know the true skin color of Dwarves, it's reasonable to assume it would be white (or variation of) because of the lack of description.

Even Harfoots in the appendices are mentioned to be 'browner of skin' than the Hobbits, and if such a detail is recorded then I can't imagine Dwarves being omitted from having a similar detailing if they were meant to have darker skin tones than that of Hobbits.


Since Dwarves were the creation of Aulë from the stone of the earth, we could assume they came in all sorts of colors that stone comes in. But if such a detail were so important, one could question why this was never elaborated on, especially in the eyes of the narrators.

But there are literally brown skinned hobbits (or harfoots or whatever) in RoP so brown skinned dwarfes would also be "normal" for hobbits. And if it's normal there is literally no reason to "elaborate on it in the eyes of the narrators".

[Triceron]

But there are literally brown skinned hobbits (or harfoots or whatever) in RoP so brown skinned dwarfes would also be "normal" for hobbits. And if it's normal there is literally no reason to "elaborate on it in the eyes of the narrators".

The description that the Harfoots had browner skin does not come from the Hobbit's point of view themselves, it is just a foot-note in the Appendices; a description that comes from a gods-eye POV. The timeline seems far removed enough that Hobbits may not have even encountered Harfoots and been aware of their skintones (by means of seeing it in person). Harfoots are considered ancestral Hobbits, and they would have lived generations apart.

[s_bushido]

You can't have a centrist opinion in the eyes of certain people here. Even if you support the casting choices in Rings of Power, if you express any preference to the Peter Jackson adaptations they'll consider you a filthy racist dogwhistler.

lol...what complete bullshit. People are being called racist dog-whistlers because of the racist shit they're saying, not "becuz her der I like da Jacksun moviez!"

For example, if literally the only thing a person would care to point out as an example of how "faithful" the Jackson trilogy was is that everyone (who wasn't under layers of orc/uruk prosthetics) was white, then yeah...that's probably a racist talking.

[Triceron]

lol...what complete bullshit. People are being called racist dog-whistlers because of the racist shit they're saying, not "becuz her der I like da Jacksun moviez!"

For example, if literally the only thing a person would care to point out as an example of how "faithful" the Jackson trilogy was is that everyone (who wasn't under layers of orc/uruk prosthetics) was white, then yeah...that's probably a racist talking.

I mean, you just literally proved what I was saying.

All I did was present a simple example, and you immediately assumed it's only for the sake wanting an all-white cast, and cry 'RACIST!'.

[Gumble]

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.

Quite logical, and I'd bet the first few times they did this, that is what people said.

A few too many remakes or reimaginings down the road, and you now have two camps that have strayed far away from the middle

Camp 1: Everyone who doesn't like this is a racist! Or sexist! or ISTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
- These people are ironic in that they are right that racists probably would not like the inclusion of other races into a property that didn't have them before. However, most of their ideas tend to end up with concepts that mirror the racists they despise so much. Its racist to exclude people based on race, but they forget, its ALSO racist to include people based on race.

Camp 2: THIS ISN'T LIKE THE THING I LIKED BEFORE!
- This group tends to despise anything that doesn't match their head cannon exactly for any property, especially the ones they care about. While most of them don't particularly care about the race of the characters, they care very much if it differs from the original.



I'd say alot of people fall into camp 1, right up until the thing they cared about gets remade, then they go "oh camp 2 has a point, at least for the thing I loved from childhood".

At this point, I feel I lean more heavily towards camp 2, but mostly because I've noticed that every time this comes up, it never seems that the changes end up making a better product, which leads me to believe they aren't making changes "to get the best actors and make the best story". Whether its an outright agenda as the diehards in Camp 2 would claim, or simply a misguided belief that making shows more diverse will automatically make them better.... hard to say. I've just noticed that each time they do this, it ends up ruining the product.

Happy to be proven wrong, but so far hollywood is batting a zero the moment they tout "diversity and inclusion" for any product they make. They can do it well if its just done with good actors where there is no reason not to, but the moment they use it to try to convince people to watch it, I immediately know the product will suck.


But good on you for hoping for moderation.... like the politicians who want a moderate party, you'll find that moderates tend to just avoid the issue entirely and not voice an opinion.

[Triceron]

But good on you for hoping for moderation.... like the politicians who want a moderate party, you'll find that moderates tend to just avoid the issue entirely and not voice an opinion.

Back-and-Forth arguments are keeping the thread in the "Recent Forum Posts" box and at the top of the subforum. The only reason there's so much activity in this thread is literally because of the controversy Amazon stirred up; it works because it's got people talking about it. Otherwise I think this thread would be as obscure as say the current Stranger Things thread where there's nothing much to talk about till the new season hits. I mean, InfinityCharger posted a new video talking about the story and like... no one else even cared to respond to that.

Shit floats to the top, so they say.

[Adamas102]

The description that the Harfoots had browner skin does not come from the Hobbit's point of view themselves, it is just a foot-note in the Appendices; a description that comes from a gods-eye POV. The timeline seems far removed enough that Hobbits may not have even encountered Harfoots and been aware of their skintones (by means of seeing it in person). Harfoots are considered ancestral Hobbits, and they would have lived generations apart.

The hobbit breeds were described in the Prologue to LotR, and while all three (Harfoot, Stoor, and Fallohide) mixed in various degrees to form the families of the hobbits we know, the lineages can still be traced through descriptions.

Harfoots are the most common type of hobbit and make up the majority of hobbits in the Shire, with the Baggins' being a strong Harfoot family (Frodo and Bilbo had Brandybuck and Took mothers respectively so they do have strong Fallohide features in them as well). Sam is considered a Harfoot as well given that the only two descriptions of his skin tone are his brown hands.

“Sam sat propped against the stone, his head dropping sideways and his breathing heavy. In his lap lay Frodo’s head, drowned deep in sleep; upon his white forehead lay one of Sam’s brown hands, and the other lay softly upon his master’s breast.” -TT: The Stairs of Cirith Ungol

“Sam drew out the elven-glass of Galadriel again. As if to do honor to his hardihood, and to grace with splendor his faithful brown hobbit-hand that had done such deeds, the phial blazed forth suddenly, so that all the shadowy court was lit with a dazzling radiance like lightning.” -RotK: The Tower of Cirith Ungol

[rogoth]

The hobbit breeds were described in the Prologue to LotR, and while all three (Harfoot, Stoor, and Fallohide) mixed in various degrees to form the families of the hobbits we know, the lineages can still be traced through descriptions.

Harfoots are the most common type of hobbit and make up the majority of hobbits in the Shire, with the Baggins' being a strong Harfoot family (Frodo and Bilbo had Brandybuck and Took mothers respectively so they do have strong Fallohide features in them as well). Sam is considered a Harfoot as well given that the only two descriptions of his skin tone are his brown hands.

so why aren't you outraged at the fact peter jackson 'whitewashed' sam gamgee in his trilogy with the casting of sean astin?, why aren't you screaming from the rooftops that black people have been wronged yet again by Hollywood because of this slight, why is it that this gets a pass yet when people point out the opposite they are somehow all racist trolls with no point to make other than being racists, by your and many others dim, narrow and fucked up world view.

[Adamas102]

Camp 1: Everyone who doesn't like this is a racist! Or sexist! or ISTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
- These people are ironic in that they are right that racists probably would not like the inclusion of other races into a property that didn't have them before. However, most of their ideas tend to end up with concepts that mirror the racists they despise so much. Its racist to exclude people based on race, but they forget, its ALSO racist to include people based on race.

First off, I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that people have to LIKE the show. These discussion pop up when certain people try to explain WHY they don't like the show with reasoning that is often times heavily influenced by racist ideology. By all means, hate the show based on boring looking trailers, "cheap" looking CGI and costumes, changes to character arcs and narrative, etc.

Not everyone in this thread who dislikes this show is being racist, but there are definitely a good handful of posters who are espousing racist views (some overtly, others just as a product of subconscious bias).

And no, being more inclusive of minorities is not in any way, shape, or form "racist". The idea of "reverse racism" is honestly the most idiotic thing that always pops up in any thread that has to do with diversity and inclusion.

[Triceron]

The hobbit breeds were described in the Prologue to LotR, and while all three (Harfoot, Stoor, and Fallohide) mixed in various degrees to form the families of the hobbits we know, the lineages can still be traced through descriptions.

Harfoots are the most common type of hobbit and make up the majority of hobbits in the Shire, with the Baggins' being a strong Harfoot family (Frodo and Bilbo had Brandybuck and Took mothers respectively so they do have strong Fallohide features in them as well). Sam is considered a Harfoot as well given that the only two descriptions of his skin tone are his brown hands.

I've actually heard this argument before (brown hands), and yes I'd absolutely consider this valid and a reason for casting someone that would closer resemble the depiction of Samwise from the books.

I thoroughly enjoyed Sean Astin's depiction of Samwise. And I'd prefer if they cast someone with a skin tone that matches the depiction of Sam in the books, though to be honest my personal interpretation was that his hands were brown from exposure to the sun from his work as a gardener. Your explanation does shed some light if he were descended directly from Harfoots and retained that skin color, that is something I had not considered before. I wouldn't be opposed to a brown(er) skinned actor playing the role of Samwise at all.

[Gumble]

so why aren't you outraged at the fact peter jackson 'whitewashed' sam gamgee in his trilogy with the casting of sean astin?, why aren't you screaming from the rooftops that black people have been wronged yet again by Hollywood because of this slight, why is it that this gets a pass yet when people point out the opposite they are somehow all racist trolls with no point to make other than being racists, by your and many others dim, narrow and fucked up world view.

How do you know he didn't find that wrong too? Admittedly, with those references, Sam does sound he should/could have been played by a black guy as a hobbit. Its possible that he was brown from tanning/being outside alot, but its also possible he was simply a darker skin tone and should have been more logically played by an actor with a darker skin tone too. He could have been played by an Indian actor too, many of them are quite dark as well.

Of course, if Jackson's LOTR was a crapfest and the actors/script sucked, and Sean Astin played a crap Sam..... then yea, I'd say damn Jackson for casting someone for racist reasons rather than for talent.

If you cast for racist reasons rather than talent and make a crapfest out of your show, you should be taken the task. I agree with you Rogoth!

- - - Updated - - -

Not everyone in this thread who dislikes this show is being racist, but there are definitely a good handful of posters who are espousing racist views (some overtly, others just as a product of subconscious bias).

And no, being more inclusive of minorities is not in any way, shape, or form "racist". The idea of "reverse racism" is honestly the most idiotic thing that always pops up in any thread that has to do with diversity and inclusion.

There are racists everywhere. There is no such thing as reverse racism. Its just racism. If you treat people differently, good or bad, based on their race..... that's racism.

Whether the diehard right-leaner thinks black people are inferior and doesn't want them cast or the woke left-leaner thinks black people can't succeed on their own without a white savior "granting" them opportunity...... all sounds pretty racist to me.

Ryan Long has a great skit on this, more people should watch it.

[Triceron]

so why aren't you outraged at the fact peter jackson 'whitewashed' sam gamgee in his trilogy with the casting of sean astin?, why aren't you screaming from the rooftops that black people have been wronged yet again by Hollywood because of this slight, why is it that this gets a pass yet when people point out the opposite they are somehow all racist trolls with no point to make other than being racists, by your and many others dim, narrow and fucked up world view.

I dunno, maybe because Sean Astin was cast for his talent instead of based on his skin color?

[Gumble]

I dunno, maybe because Sean Astin was cast for his talent instead of based on his skin color?

We don't know that! Did he do a bad job as Sam? Was he a disappointment in the general LOTR fan community?

[Triceron]

We don't know that! Did he do a bad job as Sam? Was he a disappointment in the general LOTR fan community?

I dunno, I DUNNO! OH NO I OUTED MYSELF AS A CLOSET RACIST!

[Gumble]

Camp 1 is coming for you. TO THE GULAG WITH YOU!

[Triceron]

Whether the diehard right-leaner thinks black people are inferior and doesn't want them cast or the woke left-leaner thinks black people can't succeed on their own without a white savior "granting" them opportunity...... all sounds pretty racist to me.

See, those extremes are easy to spot. It's the gray zones in between that always makes me wonder what people actually consider to be racist.

Like casting calls for a Black person for the role of MLK - It excludes people based on skin tone so would that be discrimination?