Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rogoth]

So just to be clear as your post is a bit ramblely, You would be 100% fine with them race swapping existing characters from Tolkins work if they had got big actors and were other wise as faithful as possible ya?

if they had come out and said *insert worldwide known and loved minority actor here* had auditioned for the leading role and he/she was the best option during auditions, and they had made it a known quantity from the outset that this would be a thing, i wouldn't really care, but as i have said now for third time since you started this train of questioning, that's not what they said, they stated that it was going to categorically be a 'faithful adaptation of the story of the second age', and it wasn't until all of their marketing material got shown for the utter shite that it is, that they were forced to come out recently in interviews and admit they had not been truthful, and that much of the writing of the show is going to be fabricated with very little actually coming from the source material.

[Dhrizzle]

i already have my response to this asinine question a hundred pages back or so, but for your benefit i'll give it again:

i have no issues with diverse casting, no issue with the best person for the job being given a role regardless of what they look like.

my issue with this project is that when it was announced, it was stated by the showrunners that it was going to be a 'faithful adaptation of the second age epic showcasing the forging of the rings of power and the events that led up to the war of the ring' ERGO the expectations set from the outset was that they were going to be writing and showcasing a story in the same vein as what peter jackson did for the LOTR trilogy of films.

Where are you getting that quote from?

[Orby]

Did they promote that artwork with press releases saying they would be as faithful as possible to the source material then they release this piece of artwork?

Creative liberties are fine if the artists or creators are transparent about their intentions. Like, Shadow of Mordor videogame went as far as having Shelob be able to present herself as a beautiful human or elf woman. No one really gets upset st that because the game makers were clear they just wanted to make a cool game in the Middle Earth universe and tell a cool story. They didn't go out of their way to promote the game as being super faithful to the source material like some upcoming TV show did.

The controversy surrounding RoP is really a product of Amazon's marketting, and its hard to tell whether they intended to be faithful and continue to think they are, merely understated how much the show would deviate from the books, or intentionally want to stir a hornets nest for the sake of building buzz.

errr there were tons out outrage about that, there were articles and outcry from both side, one side crying about how they diverged from the source material and another about how they sexualised Shelob, just look it up there should still be louds of articles online. xD

Where were you? xD

I know this doesn't have to do with the Amazon show, but it's tangentially related (especially given the news a page or two back of another entertainment group purchasing the rights to Tolkien's works). Below is a diorama of the Pelennor Fields (released today) that comprises the art for 18 cards that will appear in a soon to be released M:tG set based on Middle-earth. At the bottom there are some of the members of the Fellowship (including someone who is more than likely Aragorn, wielding a more literal version of the "Flame" of the West).

If these things sorts of things are going to bother you that much, then you're going to have a tough time with a lot of modern Western fantasy adaptations and interpretations. As has been noted so many times in the thread, no one is going back and erasing the books to create a new canon. They will always be there as the direct words of the author, while adaptations will always be up to the artist's imagination (and no, not being hamstrung by every little detail doesn't mean you hate the lore). We don't NEED a black Aragorn, but at the same time we also don't NEED dozens of carbon copies of a Viggo Mortensen looking Aragorn.

Lets not forget Native American Aragorn played by John Hurt (RIP) :P



Also if I may add, the best Aragorn to date... This movie is finally starting to grow a cult following despite the fact it isn't a perfect movie, but its got some great stuff in it.

[Lady Atia]

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.

Afaik the appendices make it clear that all three "types" of hobbits settled together at the shire, and that harfoots did often had fallohides as their leaders. It never says that modern hobbits don't follow one of the three "breeds" (or a mix of them which would also include the browner skins) though as far as I'm aware.

[Kumorii]

errr there were tons out outrage about that, there were articles and outcry from both side, one side crying about how they diverged from the source material and another about how they sexualised Shelob, just look it up there should still be louds of articles online. xD

Where were you? xD

There will always be complaints. There will always be purists, there will always be people complaining about sexy women, there will always be some complaining about X.
Saying the backlash for the game compared to ROP is equal is a bit disingenuous I feel.
And why do they receive different amount? Probably because one party is straight up lying to people, while another just did what they wanted to do.

Vast majority I know of and what i've heard praises the games, there are of course articles. But there always will be, it draws views if anything. Outrage sells. Hell, one of the articles I remember were talking about the tutorial section in the first game where you used stealth and then pressed "A" to kiss your wife as a way to teach you how to use stealth and assassinate orcs. They wrote how it portrayed women or relationships in a toxic way and what not, it was bizarre as hell.

McGee's alice in wonderland is another good example of someone really just taking their own liberties with a story and it's characters and from what I know, most like it. Even if they don't like the game in of itself, I've heard little complaints about the setting and style. I'm sure there are some.
But why is that? Probably because it wasn't advertised as being faithful to, lets say, disneys alice in wonderland. People would have had other expectations then and then they get a horror version of it. Of course people would be more mad about that because it's DECEIVING. That's the biggest crux with advertisement for ROP.

If Amazon had gone out with saying that they would do their own thing and tell their own stories in this world, they would still get flack from purists and what not, but you would get less complaints overall. It wouldn't guarantee a success either way, so it could still be shit, but the optics would be wildly different.

People seem excited to the new Winnie the Pooh horror flick as well. Because it's advertised to be a grotesque horror flick and not a "faithful Winnie the Pooh story".

[crusadernero]

Long time fan of LOTR here. Seen what can be seen & read what can be read. I gotta say, at first I was very skeptical about this show for many reasons. I was even at a point were I wouldnt watch this. But, as we draw closer to premiere, i've pretty much desided to give it a serious go. Cause why not? It might be great, it might be something new and fresh in this great & cool universe.

Or it might be absolute dogshite of a horrorshow and I will regret ever watching it. Oh well, thats life. and to be honest, a risk im willing to take. In the end, I want more LOTR stuff.

[Adamas102]

Did they promote that artwork with press releases saying they would be as faithful as possible to the source material then they release this piece of artwork?

Creative liberties are fine if the artists or creators are transparent about their intentions. Like, Shadow of Mordor videogame went as far as having Shelob be able to present herself as a beautiful human or elf woman. No one really gets upset st that because the game makers were clear they just wanted to make a cool game in the Middle Earth universe and tell a cool story. They didn't go out of their way to promote the game as being super faithful to the source material like some upcoming TV show did.

The controversy surrounding RoP is really a product of Amazon's marketting, and its hard to tell whether they intended to be faithful and continue to think they are, merely understated how much the show would deviate from the books, or intentionally want to stir a hornets nest for the sake of building buzz.

This whole argument is just silly. These companies/creators buy the rights to use the source material and then create art/drama/etc very clearly based on that source material. Regardless of the marketing, all of them are very much trying to firmly ground themselves in the source material, even if they take creative liberties with a lot of details. The video games still market themselves as "Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor", the TCG set is marketing itself as "The Lord of the Rings: Tales of Middle-earth". Obviously the point of all of them is to produce something that can fit into our ideas of Middle-earth.

How faithful an adaptation might be is a pretty arbitrary metric anyway. If you want to go through every detail (for the show or for the artwork) and make a comprehensive list of "things that are correct/things that are incorrect" and then determine what percentage constitutes "faithful" then go right ahead. For some people even a single change will make it unfaithful in their eyes while for others you can have many changes while still being faithful to the spirit and feel of the world and stories within.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

This is another handover of the rights that Tolkien sold back in 1968 and specifically covers film, stage, and merchandising. The rights that Amazon got (global television rights) came from the Tolkien Estate and are not covered by this Embracer Group deal.

Warner Bros still retains some movie rights as well (the ones associated with the Peter Jackson movies), and any products that are based on those movies, nor will this deal affect the animated movie they’re developing.

[Triceron]

How faithful an adaptation might be is a pretty arbitrary metric anyway. If you want to go through every detail (for the show or for the artwork) and make a comprehensive list of "things that are correct/things that are incorrect" and then determine what percentage constitutes "faithful" then go right ahead. For some people even a single change will make it unfaithful in their eyes while for others you can have many changes while still being faithful to the spirit and feel of the world and stories within.

What you're describing as a metric of faithfulness is purely subjective. And i wouldn't equate subjective values on faithfulness as being arbitrary, rather they are reason for people to express likes and dislikes as they please.

Just because you and I are okay with a Black Aragorn does not mean everyone else will be, and no one would be wrong for having a differing opinion. And if Aragorn is the example you wish to use, then it is absolutely relevant to how the source material has clear descriptions of what Aragorn looked like. Not everyone has to be accepting of every adaptation, not everyone will, and not everyone should be beholden to accepting it either. And I want to clarify that not preferring a Black Aragorn in this MTG art would not somehow be a racist opinion, since we aren't talking about anyone's rights being infringed here. We're talking about an interpretation of art.

This level of 'calling out' people is like telling everyone they shouldn't have problems with pineapple on their pizza. No one needs someone policing their preferences.

We can have a mutual discussion of opinions without calling people out on their preferences and making judgements on how they're somehow wrong for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Afaik the appendices make it clear that all three "types" of hobbits settled together at the shire, and that harfoots did often had fallohides as their leaders. It never says that modern hobbits don't follow one of the three "breeds" (or a mix of them which would also include the browner skins) though as far as I'm aware.

That argument has been recently put to light for me, and I think that's a sensible way to interpret the lore. I wouldn't mind that depiction then, and would find it acceptable if it remains reasonably faithful to the original fiction.

My personal interpretation and from those around me were that Hobbits would have been fair skinned, and even examples of Samwise's hands would have been a result of external factors rather than genetic. Now that I am aware that there is a reasonable interpretation for Hobbits to have Brown skin then I'd absolutely be open to that option.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

if they had come out and said *insert worldwide known and loved minority actor here* had auditioned for the leading role and he/she was the best option during auditions, and they had made it a known quantity from the outset that this would be a thing, i wouldn't really care, but as i have said now for third time since you started this train of questioning, that's not what they said, they stated that it was going to categorically be a 'faithful adaptation of the story of the second age', and it wasn't until all of their marketing material got shown for the utter shite that it is, that they were forced to come out recently in interviews and admit they had not been truthful, and that much of the writing of the show is going to be fabricated with very little actually coming from the source material.

Well then here’s have a “not a racist” stamp, hopefully with will get a more faithful LoTR movie with idris elba as Aragorn in the future.

[Gumble]

Well then here’s have a “not a racist” stamp, hopefully with will get a more faithful LoTR movie with idris elba as Aragorn in the future.

Lol he is like Henry Cavill.... you can slot him in as any male character and people will go "ah I'll approve"

[InfiniteCharger]

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.

There is more discussion on social media about the phenotype of the actors than the show itself, showing that there isn't much interest in it. Which means that their marketing and advertising are not getting support for the Amazon "brand" of Tolkien.

But the more ironic point behind the video is that it shows a new wholly made up group called the Southerners and none of them are diverse. No representation of Harad and the Haradrim who were supporters of Sauron and obviously included various diversity in phenotype. Which means they just randomly inserted 'diverse' skin colors among a couple elves, a couple of dwarves and maybe one or two Numenoreans and called it a day while ignoring Harad and the Haradrim all together, not to mention the Easterlings.

LOL!

Again, going to my point if they were serious then half the Numenoreans would be black or mixed race, another 1/4 would be Asian or mixed and the rest European. And there would be a whole group of black Elves and not just one or two plus various and assorted black dwarves. But they didn't do that now did they. Because at the end of the day, that would show a true commitment to diversity, while these chocolate sprinkles can be ignored by any other studio as 'non canon'.

[Biomega]

There is more discussion on social media about the phenotype of the actors than the show itself, showing that there isn't much interest in it.

Well, the show also isn't, you know, OUT YET. So it's not like the actual story is something we can talk about in great detail because... we don't know it in great detail yet.

In the absence of plot, people latch on to other things.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

There is more discussion on social media about the phenotype of the actors than the show itself, showing that there isn't much interest in it. Which means that their marketing and advertising are not getting support for the Amazon "brand" of Tolkien.

But the more ironic point behind the video is that it shows a new wholly made up group called the Southerners and none of them are diverse. No representation of Harad and the Haradrim who were supporters of Sauron and obviously included various diversity in phenotype. Which means they just randomly inserted 'diverse' skin colors among a couple elves, a couple of dwarves and maybe one or two Numenoreans and called it a day while ignoring Harad and the Haradrim all together, not to mention the Easterlings.

LOL!

Again, going to my point if they were serious then half the Numenoreans would be black or mixed race, another 1/4 would be Asian or mixed and the rest European. And there would be a whole group of black Elves and not just one or two plus various and assorted black dwarves. But they didn't do that now did they. Because at the end of the day, that would show a true commitment to diversity, while these chocolate sprinkles can be ignored by any other studio as 'non canon'.

Do you mean this trailer about the southerners? because it's diverse, at 48 and 57 seconds you can see a group shot with black people Asians and white people as well as there being other miscellaneous brown people through out the trailer.

[InfiniteCharger]

Do you mean this trailer about the southerners? because it's diverse, at 48 and 57 seconds you can see a group shot with black people Asians and white people as well as there being other miscellaneous brown people through out the trailer.

Ahhh, right, random sprinkles that technically don't look distinct from the Harfoots or Numenoreans. I mean all of these folks just look like random "humans" from Middle Earth versus the distinct groups found in the books. Look at the harfoots and then look at these "southerners" and they just look the same really, Amazon made up generic characters with generic peasant costume. Where is the actual diversity in being able to distinguish these groups on any level? I mean you can distinguish clearly between Gandalf, dwarves, hobbits and elves in the books as examples of "diversity" in Middle Earth. This is just absurd at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the show also isn't, you know, OUT YET. So it's not like the actual story is something we can talk about in great detail because... we don't know it in great detail yet.

In the absence of plot, people latch on to other things.

People who are hyped about something like this would be talking about the costumes, potential easter eggs, potential plot points and characters yet to be revealed and speculate about what is actually going to happen based on the Lore. That isn't even really happening for this.

[s_bushido]

Do you mean this trailer about the southerners? because it's diverse, at 48 and 57 seconds you can see a group shot with black people Asians and white people as well as there being other miscellaneous brown people through out the trailer.

This "Southlands" isn't even Harad. You can see from the map that they briefly show at the beginning that this is the area that would become Mordor. East of Gondor and north of Harad.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Ahhh, right, random sprinkles that technically don't look distinct from the Harfoots or Numenoreans. I mean all of these folks just look like random "humans" from Middle Earth versus the distinct groups found in the books. Look at the harfoots and then look at these "southerners" and they just look the same really, Amazon made up generic characters with generic peasant costume. Where is the actual diversity in being able to distinguish these groups on any level? I mean you can distinguish clearly between Gandalf, dwarves, hobbits and elves in the books as examples of "diversity" in Middle Earth. This is just absurd at this point.

hobbit's dwarfs and elves are all different races with different cultures and norms if the southerners are just suppose to be a group of Men and one that apparently didn't break off based on skin tone why would they have divides as big as whole different races instead of just having a uniform culture like the hobbits dwarfs and elves?

- - - Updated - - -

This "Southlands" isn't even Harad. You can see from the map that they briefly show at the beginning that this is the area that would become Mordor. East of Gondor and north of Harad.

Don't know if there is any basis for this within the actual works but if its where Mordor pops up and north of Harad it could be argued that theses are suppose to be the same people but Mordor popping up pushed them further south.

[s_bushido]

Don't know if there is any basis for this within the actual works but if its where Mordor pops up and north of Harad it could be argued that theses are suppose to be the same people but Mordor popping up pushed them further south.

No idea. Given what we've seen in the trailer(s), this is probably going to be the main area of military conflict in the season. The orcs moving in and Sauron establishing his kingdom. It might even be the place we see completely turned to ash in those red-tinted shots of Galadriel, but it's been a while since I saw the breakdown that mentioned it.

[Rennadrel]

Well, the show also isn't, you know, OUT YET. So it's not like the actual story is something we can talk about in great detail because... we don't know it in great detail yet.

In the absence of plot, people latch on to other things.

The fact that they aren't talking about the story less than a month before it airs, should be setting off warning klaxons. Spoilers be damned, your promos need to have something about the narrative on them.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh, right, random sprinkles that technically don't look distinct from the Harfoots or Numenoreans. I mean all of these folks just look like random "humans" from Middle Earth versus the distinct groups found in the books. Look at the harfoots and then look at these "southerners" and they just look the same really, Amazon made up generic characters with generic peasant costume. Where is the actual diversity in being able to distinguish these groups on any level? I mean you can distinguish clearly between Gandalf, dwarves, hobbits and elves in the books as examples of "diversity" in Middle Earth. This is just absurd at this point.

- - - Updated - - -



People who are hyped about something like this would be talking about the costumes, potential easter eggs, potential plot points and characters yet to be revealed and speculate about what is actually going to happen based on the Lore. That isn't even really happening for this.

The funny thing is that their take on Harfoots just look like homeless humans in the promo pictures. Like, they don't even attempt to make them look short and their feet don't look enlarged like you'd expect from LOTR.

[InfiniteCharger]

This "Southlands" isn't even Harad. You can see from the map that they briefly show at the beginning that this is the area that would become Mordor. East of Gondor and north of Harad.

Yes, it is a completely made up group of humans not part of Tolkien's Lore. In the actual Lore, Sauron's main armies that gathered against the Elves were made up of Easterlings and Southlings. Both of these groups were distinct.

What he could not control by subtlety, Sauron resolved to destroy by force. He obtained the allegiance of Men that lived in lands that were adjacent to Mordor, including in regions of the White Mountains and in Calenardhon. The Númenóreans who occupied the Ethir Anduin and the coasts of Lebennin discovered his activities and informed Gil-galad about them. Hover Sauron did not allow the tribes of eastern Men to come in sight of the Númenóreans or of Men of Good Will that lived in Eriador, Calenardhon, the Vales of Anduin, Greenwood the Great or in the plains between that wood and Mordor to avoid the risk that his gathering of armies in the east would be discovered. Sauron gathered and trained his armies for approximately ninety years before he felt ready to attack. He was able to gather less troops than he hoped for, because powerful enemies in the East and South opposed his gathering of troops. Among those powerful enemies in the East were the two wizards Morinehtar and Rómestámo. Their task was to stir up rebellion and to cause dissension and disarray in the East. Otherwise the forces of the East would have outnumbered those of the West in the Second Age and in the Third Age. In S.A. 1695 Sauron's vast armies passed through Calenardhon, invaded Eriador and turned north to attack Eregion.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/War_...ves_and_Sauron

And the "south land" in Tolkien is an actual separate continent:

The Dark Land, also referred to as the South Land, was a continent that lay in south-east Arda.

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dark_Land

[s_bushido]

Like, they don't even attempt to make them look short and their feet don't look enlarged like you'd expect from LOTR.

Well, that's a lie.