Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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?

[Adamas102]

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.

Is there any evidence of it being brought up to Peter Jackson that Sam’s skin tone should be browner than Frodo’s and him saying “fuck that, Tolkien heroes should all be white. Hire an American, please”? If so then yeah, that would probably be problematic.

Having grown up in the 80’s and 90’s the default idea of fantasy being almost exclusively white was something I grew up with as well. It’s not that there was anything inherently wrong with that, the issue is with people who can’t seem to break away from that idea of thinking and are dead set in pushing for some sort of white purity in terms of fantasy race skin colors.

I doubt any of this will actually sink in since you seem to think that evolving views on fantasy adaptations and character interpretations is “narrow and fucked up”.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Only like one or two posters in this thread have really come close to any sort of superiority/inferiority mentality having to do with skin color. The more common aspects (which are still racist) are segregation and forced/denied identity.

I’ll refrain from naming names but examples like certain posters refusing time and time again to acknowledge British born and/or mixed heritage actors as anything other than “black Africans” is definitely racist. The other example that comes up often boils down to “they (minorities) don’t belong over here in the most recognizable parts of the fantasy where 99% of the narratives are centered. Someone should instead make a separate-but-‘equal’ home for them elsewhere so that they don’t have to mix with our other characters”.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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.

So Ill bite the bullet and say I don't care if they turned Sam white or not, would you be willing to say the same and all of the Various minority casting in ROP is totally fine given that Peter Jackson already set the precedent and the books them self already had people of none white skin tones as Per Sam?

[Gumble]

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?

That's fair, the gray area is always harder to really tell. You generally have to make a judgement call on that and try to err on the side of understanding, unless its obvious the person/company doesn't deserve it.

If its a person making a movie about MLK and they are trying to get someone who authentically looked like him? Seems fine. For historical figures, its usually best to stick to as close as possible of a look. For fiction characters, shoot for what people know the character as unless you have a good reason not to.

Perfect example from something I care about. The Aiel in Wheel of Time. Having a HUGE group of people that are all very tall gingers in the desert is a tall order to fill. You can certainly get away with many of them not being overly tall, or not all having reddish hair (the books do list a number of them having different colored hair, red was simply more prominent). However they should try to establish a look amongst them that makes you think "Ah the Aiel". Or for example, the Sea Folk in that story are all very dark skinned. Does it matter if a few of them having lighter complexions than super duper black? Nah, you there can be variety in what you cast, as long as a theme works for them, if a theme was present in the original work. Should a random black person be in the Aiel? Or a random white person be in the Sea Folk? Nope, that shows you did a bad job casting.

One change they made in that show that I frankly enjoyed (though I've heard mixed reports) is changing Padan Fain to a black guy. His character had no reason not to be any actor of any color (though it would have been odd to make him a woman). The actor they picked did what I think is a great job. I've read people who disagreed with that, but I really liked him as Padan Fain. The ending of the season and what they made him do/act like then wasn't good, but at the start I really liked him. He is an example of where you can make changes without it mattering.

But back to the subject of gray area. Sometimes it is hard to know, but my general rule is "if whomever is making the show/movie/etc seems like they have respect for what it is they are making, and are trying to make the best version of that thing, I'm cool with changes"...... the shows like LOTR or WOT or many of the others that have come out are made by people that could care less about the original. They want to tell their own story and they simply use a backdrop of "that thing you like" to get people to watch it.

A good storyteller can tell a story that fits in a universe to expand upon that universe.

A bad storyteller wants to tell you their story, and if forced will cover it in the paint of a universe they don't care about to try to trick you into listening.

- - - Updated - - -

Only like one or two posters in this thread have really come close to any sort of superiority/inferiority mentality having to do with skin color. The more common aspects (which are still racist) are segregation and forced/denied identity.

I’ll refrain from naming names but examples like certain posters refusing time and time again to acknowledge British born and/or mixed heritage actors as anything other than “black Africans” is definitely racist. The other example that comes up often boils down to “they (minorities) don’t belong over here in the most recognizable parts of the fantasy where 99% of the narratives are centered. Someone should instead make a separate-but-‘equal’ home for them elsewhere so that they don’t have to mix with our other characters”.

I can't say I've read nearly as much of this thread, so I'll take your word on that. Those types of comments do in fact sounds quite racist. I would agree with you on that. I just stop in every few days to see if the arguments have changed (shocker they haven't)

That type of behavior is fine to call out, but when you, or people like you paint anyone that doesn't like the changes being made to a show, for reasons they showrunners have distinctly pointed out are an attempt to force diversity into a product they felt didn't have it, as racist..... all you do is make yourselves look as rediculous as the types of people you just pointed out. Boy who cried wolf and all that.

[bledgor]

But back to the subject of gray area. Sometimes it is hard to know, but my general rule is "if whomever is making the show/movie/etc seems like they have respect for what it is they are making, and are trying to make the best version of that thing, I'm cool with changes"...... the shows like LOTR or WOT or many of the others that have come out are made by people that could care less about the original. They want to tell their own story and they simply use a backdrop of "that thing you like" to get people to watch it.

A good storyteller can tell a story that fits in a universe to expand upon that universe.

A bad storyteller wants to tell you their story, and if forced will cover it in the paint of a universe they don't care about to try to trick you into listening.

Think what you are looking for here is passion, one of the things you could feel from Peter Jackson, like he shopped the movies, created his own special effects companies for it. He genuinely loved and had passion for the books/lore.