1. #3001
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    12,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Gombadoh View Post
    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.
    I did want to create another thread like name it the 'positive discussion'. Cos I do agree you cannot discuss anything about the show here because its smothered by people talking about skin colour. I have tried to change the subject around but it just goes back to the same shit again.

    Not sure if the mods would allow it, but hopefully they will let us create another thread. And leave this thread to the outrage. ITs not fair on those that are looking forward to the show. this coming from someone who is highly sceptical about the show myself.
    Last edited by Orby; 2022-08-17 at 09:47 AM.
    "People fear, not death, but having life taken from them. Many waste the life given to them, occupying themselves with things that do not matter. When the end comes, they say they did not have time enough to spend with loved ones, to fulfill dreams, to go on adventures they only talked about... But why should you fear death if you are happy with the life you have led, if you can look back on everything and say, 'Yes, I am content. It is enough.'" - Wynne ( Dragon Age: Origins.)

  2. #3002
    The Lightbringer Hansworst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Schiedam, the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,332
    The other one will end up exactly the same.

  3. #3003
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That doesn't fly, because the only reason here is circular logic - "it's not how the author wrote it, therefore it shouldn't be changed because then it wouldn't be how the author wrote it".

    And there's HUNDREDS of things that aren't how the author wrote it in ANY adaptation - things like height, hair color, eye color, the color of clothing, coats of horses, etc. etc. are all changed all the time and nobody complains. Why is skin color different? If "it's not like in the books" was sufficient as an argument, all those OTHER details also wouldn't work (and indeed NO adaptation could EVER observe such strictness).


    That's trivial to fix, though. This rests on the assumption that character X has their skin color changed but no one in their family tree - including those characters that are never seen - do NOT have their skin color changed. Which you have no way of knowing, and could easily be fixed by, you know, ALSO changing those characters.

    But even if you do not - the same as above applies here. There's plenty of times where some characters are related in the story, but the actors could not possibly be; usually because of eye color/hair color combinations that don't work genetically, or traits like cleft chins, dimples, etc. all of which have specific requirements in order to be present in certain familial relationships. BUT NOBODY EVER CARES ABOUT THOSE. Why suddenly care about skin color?
    I literally do care about those. Also the lines of succession part has nothing to do with skin color which just tells me you are just hear to call people racist or you would know what I was talking about.

    I'm trying hard not to spell it out in case they do use some form of the original line even if it looks super unlikely.

    Also this isn't an American story there is no reason the American melting pot should be present I specifically used an example that you would foam at the mouth if cast members of the principal cast were changed to white

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    I bet if you tried to insert white characters into the hierarchy of Wakanda, people like Triceron would throw a temper tantrum and call you a colonialist, bigoted racist for doing so, even if it made complete sense to the plot (which it doesn't, because Black Panther is based in Africa, not America). Middle Earth is a culmination of Germanic cultures, with the Easterners and Southrons being of darker skin. Kind of like Europe and it's proximity to the Middle East and Africa. It makes sense that the northern realms are a reflection of Anglo Saxon and Nordic skin tone while those in the south and east are darker, that's literally how the geography of our world worked when Tolkien created his works.
    I think you mean Biomega here not Triceron, ya know the dude who can only come up with movie about Nazis as a reason for an all white cast. Can't even come up with Midwest biopic from the 40s in rural Indiana
    Last edited by Xath; 2022-08-17 at 12:32 PM.

  4. #3004
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    So is defining whether Rings of Power's choice for forced diversity is a good thing today. THAT IS LITERALLY A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.
    That's not what hypothetical means or how you use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'd prefer for this adaptation to stick to the source material and depict Elves and Dwarves in a similar fashion to the Peter Jackson movies.
    And by that do you mean skin color or do you mean something else?

    Are you okay with excluding actors of certain skin colors from depicting elves/dwarves? And if yes - why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    "if there is no good reason to exclude people based on skin color, then I wouldn't accept it"

    And I've been arguing that the creative choice to have an a cast mono-ethnically does not immediately equate to 'excluding people based on skin color' for the mere reason of their skin color. There is sufficient reasoning through adherence to the depiction of races in the source material.
    So BRING THOSE REASONS. You keep saying this, but you don't bring the actual reasons.

    All you've brought so far is "it's not like in the books" and "the PJ films did it differently". Do you HAVE good reasons? Then bring them and we can discuss them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    On principle, there is no difference whether we are talking about representing a real life ethnic culture, like we have in Crazy Rich Asians, or if we're talking about a fictional ethnic culture, like the Elves in Lord of the Rings. The principle behind accepting a monoethnic casting choice to represent the ethnicities/races in both movies should be the same.
    Except both stories don't TREAT skin color/race the same. Skin color in Tolkien's works has never been anything but a cosmetic detail. It's never made the topic of any of his plots, it's never given narrative relevance of any kind anywhere, and in many cases it's not even mentioned or defined AT ALL in the first place (like for the dwarves). For Tolkien, culture and language are the prime distinguishing factors, skin color is not.
    In CRA, race plays an integral role; heck the film BEGINS with a scene about racism (Eleanor in the hotel). It's about a specific culture in which race ABSOLUTELY plays a role, including phenotype.

    Those are not the same kind of story, and they treat race/skin color VERY differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    They should not be subject to 'excluding people based on skin color' because they are both seeking to represent a particular ethnic culture, whether historic, modern or fictional.
    You're asserting that ethnicity equals skin color and matters to Tolkien in any way. Culture and language matter to him. Skin color does not. Which is why it's barely mentioned anywhere and is NEVER relevant to the plot ANYWHERE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You took no effort in elaborating or explaining what you were actually talking about while continuing to make references as though I should.
    And YOU SHOULD. Read Wikipedia or something, it takes all of ten minutes to get the gist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And you dare call me an 'illiterate fuck' while admitting you were aware that I didn't know?
    Oh 100%. I've talked about something in history that's of extreme importance to the history of racism (and that really everyone should know about, period). You said you didn't know about it. AND DID YOU GO AND REMEDY THAT BY READING UP ABOUT IT SOMEWHERE? Apparently not.

    QED.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    I literally do care about those.
    If your standards are so strict you demand 100% accuracy to the original text, no adaptation EVER is going to suffice.

    If you accept less than 100% accuracy, then it's a negotiation about which details matter and which do not, in which case you need to justify why skin color matters if e.g. the color of a dress does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    Also the lines of succession part has nothing to do with skin color which just tells me you are just hear to call people racist or you would know what I was talking about.

    I'm trying hard not to spell it out in case they do use some form of the original line even if it looks super unlikely.
    How about you DO spell it out so people know what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    Also this isn't an American story there is no reason the American melting pot should be present
    And that's not my argument. I'm not saying and have never said "this cast needs to look like US society". I'm only ever saying "if you want to exclude actors based on skin color, you need a good reason".

    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    I think you mean Biomega here not Triceron, ya know the dude who can only come up with movie about Nazis as a reason for an all white cast. Can't even come up with Midwest biopic from the 40s in rural Indiana
    So you're being a disingenuous snot noodle who goes from "here's one example" to "LOL HE THINKS THIS IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE"? I've even said, explicitly, that there's potentially infinite reasons, which is WHY I don't concern myself with making an exhaustive list but judge everything that's brought case-by-case.

    But that would require you actually reading what I said, wouldn't it.

  5. #3005
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    And by that do you mean skin color or do you mean something else?

    Are you okay with excluding actors of certain skin colors from depicting elves/dwarves? And if yes - why?
    I am okay with it because casting choices are inherrently going to be exclusionary at some level no matter how you cut it.

    I personally do not expect a role like Galadriel was inclusive and auditioned people of color for her role. Nor would this have applied to a majority of the established characters like Elrond, Gil-galad and such. I believe Amazon had to a certain depiction of the characters in mind and cast accordingly. If your argument that these roles were inclusive and did not exclude people of color, then the burden of proof is on you to show it and prove that Rings of Power is free from exclusion at all levels, per your argument.

    So yes, I will argue that I'm okay with 'some levels of exclusion' because I do not equate all casting choices with certain skintones in mind to be a product of racial discrimination (though it can be, in certain cases). I do not consider all roles being equally open to every actor regardless of skintone, and that skin tone playing a factor in the casting of certain roles as being a normal part of film casting and production. I do not believe Rings of Power is a strong example of a production that is free from the practices of casting roles exclusively for skintone.

    Exclusion will continue to exist unless we are talking about a work that involves race swapping every role, where skin color is literally treated as a cosmetic as you imply it to be. Something like the Hamilton theatre play where every character is representable by any person of color.

    I don't think this applies equally across the board with Rings of Power. I think the casting choices are targeted and specific. If your argument is that having black actors cast in various roles does not justify excluding them from others, then I'll happily point out that every known white depicted Elf from the PJ films are also being depicted by white actors in Rings of Power. The only black actors in the show are representing new characters. The representation of Elves and Dwarves remains 90+% white (as far as we've seen). I do not consider this an example of a show that is free from exclusion.

    So BRING THOSE REASONS. You keep saying this, but you don't bring the actual reasons.

    All you've brought so far is "it's not like in the books" and "the PJ films did it differently". Do you HAVE good reasons? Then bring them and we can discuss them.
    Regardless of what your personal convictions are, those are good reasons.

    It's not my problem if you have zero regard for any adaptation being faithful to the source material or are indifferent to how people prefer depictions from existing adaptations. I have no potion of ignorance-curing to offer you.

    Except both stories don't TREAT skin color/race the same. Skin color in Tolkien's works has never been anything but a cosmetic detail. It's never made the topic of any of his plots, it's never given narrative relevance of any kind anywhere, and in many cases it's not even mentioned or defined AT ALL in the first place (like for the dwarves). For Tolkien, culture and language are the prime distinguishing factors, skin color is not.
    In CRA, race plays an integral role; heck the film BEGINS with a scene about racism (Eleanor in the hotel). It's about a specific culture in which race ABSOLUTELY plays a role, including phenotype.
    If that were the case then there is no reason for the cast to remain 80%+ white.

    There is no reason why any of the main Elf characters would be white as we see them now in thr trailers. Your argument literally does not work when applied across the board, and you have made a point to argue against justifying any type of exclusion despite there already being strong cases that certain roles have been cast exclusively with an actor's skin and hair color in mind (hair color may be more flexible since wigs are a thing).

    Despite what you think Rings of Power is actually doing, there are always going to be roles that will be specific to a certain look in mind that ultimately excludes people of certain races and gender.

    Rings of Power is not an example of an adaptation that is free from exclusion.

    Those are not the same kind of story, and they treat race/skin color VERY differently.

    You're asserting that ethnicity equals skin color and matters to Tolkien in any way. Culture and language matter to him. Skin color does not. Which is why it's barely mentioned anywhere and is NEVER relevant to the plot ANYWHERE.
    You can make an argument that the plot would be the same even if the actress is different, but I will make a point that Galadriel is literally depicted in the same skin tone and hair color as depicted in both the source material and PJ films, and that a casting choice to stick to the source material would involve exclusion at some level.

    Our debate is literally relevant only to the small percentage of POC actors, and somehow you are propping this minority of diversity on a pedestal as a shining example of progress and inclusion, and as an example of a show that has been freed from exclusion. It's quite ridiculous.

    We have literally seen one Black Elf and one Black Dwarf. Any others may be represented merely by a handful of extras. In your own argument, this would not justify casting (potentially) excluding people of color for a majority of other roles.


    Oh 100%. I've talked about something in history that's of extreme importance to the history of racism (and that really everyone should know about, period). You said you didn't know about it. AND DID YOU GO AND REMEDY THAT BY READING UP ABOUT IT SOMEWHERE? Apparently not.
    Sure. If you can cohesively explain how Amazon's Rings of Power adaptation is relevant to this specific point in American history then I'll consider looking it up.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-17 at 03:58 PM.

  6. #3006
    I'd like to know how many people here were upset that the new Jake from State Farm is black. Still wearing khakis, though!

  7. #3007
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's not what hypothetical means or how you use it.


    And by that do you mean skin color or do you mean something else?

    Are you okay with excluding actors of certain skin colors from depicting elves/dwarves? And if yes - why?


    So BRING THOSE REASONS. You keep saying this, but you don't bring the actual reasons.

    All you've brought so far is "it's not like in the books" and "the PJ films did it differently". Do you HAVE good reasons? Then bring them and we can discuss them.


    Except both stories don't TREAT skin color/race the same. Skin color in Tolkien's works has never been anything but a cosmetic detail. It's never made the topic of any of his plots, it's never given narrative relevance of any kind anywhere, and in many cases it's not even mentioned or defined AT ALL in the first place (like for the dwarves). For Tolkien, culture and language are the prime distinguishing factors, skin color is not.
    In CRA, race plays an integral role; heck the film BEGINS with a scene about racism (Eleanor in the hotel). It's about a specific culture in which race ABSOLUTELY plays a role, including phenotype.

    Those are not the same kind of story, and they treat race/skin color VERY differently.


    You're asserting that ethnicity equals skin color and matters to Tolkien in any way. Culture and language matter to him. Skin color does not. Which is why it's barely mentioned anywhere and is NEVER relevant to the plot ANYWHERE.


    And YOU SHOULD. Read Wikipedia or something, it takes all of ten minutes to get the gist.


    Oh 100%. I've talked about something in history that's of extreme importance to the history of racism (and that really everyone should know about, period). You said you didn't know about it. AND DID YOU GO AND REMEDY THAT BY READING UP ABOUT IT SOMEWHERE? Apparently not.

    QED.

    - - - Updated - - -


    If your standards are so strict you demand 100% accuracy to the original text, no adaptation EVER is going to suffice.

    If you accept less than 100% accuracy, then it's a negotiation about which details matter and which do not, in which case you need to justify why skin color matters if e.g. the color of a dress does not.


    How about you DO spell it out so people know what you're talking about.


    And that's not my argument. I'm not saying and have never said "this cast needs to look like US society". I'm only ever saying "if you want to exclude actors based on skin color, you need a good reason".


    So you're being a disingenuous snot noodle who goes from "here's one example" to "LOL HE THINKS THIS IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE"? I've even said, explicitly, that there's potentially infinite reasons, which is WHY I don't concern myself with making an exhaustive list but judge everything that's brought case-by-case.

    But that would require you actually reading what I said, wouldn't it.
    I am shocked by this. You really need to take a chill pill and calm down. Resorting to insults and name calling is only hurting your case, not helping.

  8. #3008
    Quote Originally Posted by Orby View Post
    I did want to create another thread like name it the 'positive discussion'. Cos I do agree you cannot discuss anything about the show here because its smothered by people talking about skin colour. I have tried to change the subject around but it just goes back to the same shit again.

    Not sure if the mods would allow it, but hopefully they will let us create another thread. And leave this thread to the outrage. ITs not fair on those that are looking forward to the show. this coming from someone who is highly sceptical about the show myself.
    To be fair, this topic is broad enough to have affected many other shows that it may as well be a dedicated topic unto itself.

  9. #3009
    This show is going to end up a massive fucking meme.

  10. #3010
    Epic!
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by mauserr View Post
    This show is going to end up a massive fucking meme.
    I dunno, the trailers have been fantastic imo. And the boys, I know different team but still Amazon, was amazing so I have high hopes

  11. #3011
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    Gotta wait for the folks that'll hate watch, or watch angry YT videos, or have their friends tell them what their opinion should be to get anything new to complain about, tbh.

    What are we now, about 3 weeks to go for when it finally airs? I just hope its enjoyable, that's literally all I want from it lol
    This. Except my definition of enjoyable pretty much hinges entirely on how much screentime the dwarves get. If I get to see a fully living and breathing Moria (possible for second age) thats instantly good points for me. In that same vein the existance of Durins bane in the trailer makes me worry...considering that wasn't until third age. But maybe its just another balrog, or the same one just pre-Moria sacking.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Minikin View Post
    "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never....BURN IT"
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You are kinda joe Roganing this topic. Hardly have any actual knowledge other than what people have told you, and jumping into a discussion with people who have direct experience with it. Don't be Joe Rogan.

  12. #3012
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    You make a lot of interesting points, so I'd like to go by them point by point (starting where you disagree, of course. Agreement makes terrible discourse).
    Agreed. Oh wait-

    This is definitely the most optimistic approach to why people would prefer a non-inclusive cast. I've seen many MANY arguing that it's wrong because "dwarves can't be black, they live underground". In my opinion arguments like that hold little water, but I wouldn't want your take to feel lobbed in with them, because it is a genuine point.

    I would however challenge it with "we don't know which version people prefer, or wether it makes a difference in the appraisal at all. It hasn't released yet."
    That is why I am in full support of the casting choices in Rings of Power. It offers variety that we do not yet have, and I think that helps inform what people like or not like when they get their eyeballs on it.

    Certainly, I praise the Peter Jackson movies for many things, but even his adaptations are not consistent across the board. There are many things depicted that I liked in the LOTR but I hated in the Hobbit, and many things I liked in the Hobbit that I hated in LOTR. And for all the things I hate in the Hobbit, there's always the Maple cut.

    While I agree the people of the west in middle earth are likely imagened as purely white by Tolkien, it is still a complete fantasy world so the races COULD be different. This is purely an opinion, and to my opinion being a little less faithful here to be more inclusive is a very acceptable trade-off. The difference with The Northman is that Northman actually refers to an historic people. I also believe a poc shouldn't be playing the queen of England in a historical drama.
    Understandable, and I would agree to certain extents.

    I don't see any problem with Rings of Power adapting the way it's choosing. I also do not see it as any 'shining example of progress', considering we're looking at one major Black Elf and Black Dwarf being portrayed out of all the Elves and Dwarves we've seen. It's inclusive, but (imo) at a very token level. Of course, merely having it opens up the potential for having more in the future, and I figure that's what this is all about. A step towards progression.

    And yet it's exactly with your example of 'poc shouldn't be playing the queen of england in a historical drama' that has caused controversy for this very show. Arguably, some people hold the depiction of Elves and Dwarves with the same regard as the depiction of the Queen of England. It's all subjective, after all.

    This might surprise you, but I don't disagree. I do not in any way consider the original trilogy to be a negative to inclusivity.

    Apparently the creators of this show are not satisfied with "not being a negative" and want it to be "a positive". I don't believe that is a bad or wrong idea. It just prioritizes something different than absolute adherence to Tolkien. Of course that's a shame, and we can disagree on wether that's a worthy trade-off, but here we are.
    I agree with the intention, not with the execution.

    The abrasive promotion of diversity and feminism makes it a target for controversy. I mean, I'm all in support of their casting and creative choices, but even I can't stomach how they've promoted the show through interviews and spotlights. They prop diversity above everything else, while barely informing what the actual plot of the show would be. I really question the marketting behind this show.

    I agree it's not the BEST place, but it is also not a BAD place for a small step. Social change always creates a feeling of some unease, because it's a change in the status quo. That unease inherently creates different camps, it always has in history. Companies "weaponizing" anything would require the companies wanting to harm someone (as per the use of a weapon). I believe Hanlon's razor is at work here, meaning they just want to appeal to as many people as possible, and just fuck it up sometimes.

    Hey if the black elf starts throwing rap beats I will agree this is one of the fuckups. A dark elf/dwarf/hobbit being in the series at all though? In my opinion; who cares, and it's important to others.
    I guess my own opinion will be a bit conservative in this regard.

    The way I see it, the promotion of black actors in this way only makes them targets. I won't make any excuses for the toxic fans or suggest movies should make any appeal to avoid controversy, but I will say that we've already seen the result of this with many other shows and adaptations done with good intentions and poor execution that ended up causing more problems to the actors than give them the recognition of talent that they should deserve. The poor treatment we've seen of the POC actors in the Star Wars sequels comes to mind, both from the studio and from its fans.

    And we do have movies like Rogue One and Mandalorian that embrace diversity and are not steeped in controversies. They merely didn't weaponize diversity or bring controversy to themselves in the same way that the Star Wars sequels did.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-17 at 06:34 PM.

  13. #3013
    Quote Originally Posted by inafume View Post
    I'd like to know how many people here were upset that the new Jake from State Farm is black. Still wearing khakis, though!
    If he wasn't wearing khakis, I'd be pissed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Minikin View Post
    "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never....BURN IT"
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You are kinda joe Roganing this topic. Hardly have any actual knowledge other than what people have told you, and jumping into a discussion with people who have direct experience with it. Don't be Joe Rogan.

  14. #3014
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I am okay with it because casting choices are inherrently going to be exclusionary at some level no matter how you cut it.

    I personally do not expect a role like Galadriel was inclusive and auditioned people of color for her role. Nor would this have applied to a majority of the established characters like Elrond, Gil-galad and such. I believe Amazon had to a certain depiction of the characters in mind and cast accordingly.
    That's a different thing entirely, though. "They were exclusionary about their casting" is a completely separate argument from "it's okay to be exclusionary". Nobody is saying Amazon did everything right or perfectly or that they weren't being discriminatory somewhere. That was never the debate, and I've never talked about it in any way.

    What you're doing here, effectively, is justifying your exclusionary choices by pointing out that someone else was being exclusionary, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If your argument that these roles were inclusive and did not exclude people of color, then the burden of proof is on you to show it
    When and where have I EVER made an argument ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

    Why are you bringing up something I never said, or even came close to saying? Ever? Anywhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    and prove that Rings of Power is free from exclusion at all levels, per your argument.
    I didn't say that, either, IN ANY WAY. It's shocking that you'd claim anything like this.

    Are you really just never reading what I say? Like, ever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    So yes, I will argue that I'm okay with 'some levels of exclusion' because I do not equate all casting choices with certain skintones in mind to be a product of racial discrimination (though it can be, in certain cases).
    I'm not saying that either (big shocker, you AGAIN didn't understand my argument).

    I'm saying that if there ARE NO GOOD REASONS, then we have a problem. If there ARE good reasons, we do not have a problem. How does that turn into "ALL casting choices are a product of discrimination"? In any way, logically or argumentatively?

    Why do you completely misrepresent my argument like that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Exclusion will continue to exist unless we are talking about a work that involves race swapping every role, where skin color is literally treated as a cosmetic as you imply it to be. Something like the Hamilton theatre play where every character is representable by any person of color.
    I'm not sure I'd generalize it quite like that, but roughly speaking, sure - the goal is to eliminate any characteristic for which there is no good reason to be a certain way from being an exclusion criterion in the casting process. Skin color tends to be the most prominent one, but it's not the only one. That's a utopian goal, of course, that can only ever be approached asymptotically, but it's about the principle of the thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If your argument is that having black actors cast in various roles does not justify excluding them from others, then I'll happily point out that every known white depicted Elf from the PJ films are also being depicted by white actors in Rings of Power.
    Which I also don't think is a good thing. So... what's the point here, precisely? That because they did it the same way PJ did, that makes what they did automatically the right thing? Or...?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I do not consider this an example of a show that is free from exclusion.
    I don't either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Regardless of what your personal convictions are, those are good reasons.
    I've explained the problems with those reasons. Several times.

    One is a circular and tautological argument that isn't sufficient on its own (because it doesn't explain why other details are changed without objection); the other is an appeal to tradition fallacy (i.e. just because we did it one way in the past doesn't mean that what we did was the right thing).

    Please explain how you get over those objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There is no reason why any of the main Elf characters would be white as we see them now in thr trailers. Your argument literally does not work when applied across the board
    That's because somehow, despite me pointing it out almost ten times now, you still aren't representing my argument correctly. This is just a rephrasing of your "all-white cast" nonsense.

    My argument IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN "I need a reason for this character to be white, otherwise it needs to be non-white", which is what you're implying when you point out that "There is no reason why any of the main elf characters would be white".

    That's a distortion YOU invented by somehow trying to turn things around and make it sound as my objection was to "all-white casts". That's not my argument, I've told you many times it's not my argument, and it keeps. coming. back.

    I'm beginning to think you're doing that on purpose because that way, you have an actual way of objecting. You're objecting to something I'm not saying. Please stop doing that. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Despite what you think Rings of Power is actually doing
    And what is it that I think RoP is "actually doing"? Can you perhaps quote somewhere where I talked about what I think RoP is doing?

    Or could this just be another invention of yours going on about something I never talked about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Rings of Power is not an example of an adaptation that is free from exclusion.
    No, it is not.

    Which, AGAIN (surprise!), is not something I ever said or claimed anywhere in any way.

    It's getting a bit weird now, how EVERY PARAGRAPH you write starts with something I never said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You can make an argument that the plot would be the same even if the actress is different, but I will make a point that Galadriel is literally depicted in the same skin tone and hair color as depicted in both the source material and PJ films, and that a casting choice to stick to the source material would involve exclusion at some level.
    *Sigh* You really have NO argument other than "it's not like in the books!", do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    somehow you are propping this minority of diversity on a pedestal as a shining example of progress and inclusion, and as an example of a show that has been freed from exclusion. It's quite ridiculous.
    Sorry I'm doing what where now?

    What's ridiculous is you lying to my face like that. That's just rude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We have literally seen one Black Elf and one Black Dwarf. Any others may be represented merely by a handful of extras. In your own argument, this would not justify casting (potentially) excluding people of color for a majority of other roles.
    YES. Quite probably.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Sure. If you can cohesively explain how Amazon's Rings of Power adaptation is relevant to this specific point in American history then I'll consider looking it up.
    If you don't think the history of the Southern US in the 1950s is relevant in a discussion about racism and exclusion based on skin color in an American TV production, things are even worse than I thought.

    If you're really stubbornly refusing to invest 10 minutes on Wikipedia to get a better understanding of the history of racism for no other reason than to, you know, broaden your general knowledge of a topic that's kind of important in the present day, then kudos, you are not just ignorant you are actively CELEBRATING that ignorance.

  15. #3015
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    My argument IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN "I need a reason for this character to be white, otherwise it needs to be non-white", which is what you're implying when you point out that "There is no reason why any of the main elf characters would be white".

    That's a distortion YOU invented by somehow trying to turn things around and make it sound as my objection was to "all-white casts". That's not my argument, I've told you many times it's not my argument, and it keeps. coming. back.

    I'm beginning to think you're doing that on purpose because that way, you have an actual way of objecting. You're objecting to something I'm not saying. Please stop doing that. Thank you.
    You understand that 'There is no reason to exclude a person of color when there is no good reason to' is not a blanket standard that applies to every casting role, right?

    If a role calls for a White Female actress, then the casting will seek out Actresses of White skin tone and cast accordingly. As far as law is concerned, this is not considered racially discriminant. Casting for a 'Brown actress' is not racially discriminant, and would be a casting choice that ultimately excludes all 'non-brown' actors from the role.

    If you are arguing that the practices themselves are bad and shouldn't be done, then you're free to have that opinion. Overall, it still has nothing to do with the actual casting decisions in Rings of Power and why it could not also continue to have an all-white cast. I don't have to provide you with any good reason because I'm not beholden to your principles and ideals. We're clear on this, right?

    And what is it that I think RoP is "actually doing"? Can you perhaps quote somewhere where I talked about what I think RoP is doing?

    Or could this just be another invention of yours going on about something I never talked about?
    If you're not talking about RoP then what the fuck is your argument actually about?

    We're in a discussion thread about RoP. If you're talking about principles that even RoP itself doesn't meet, then I don't any relevance in arguing your personal 'principles' for being racially inclusive that extend beyond what's actually happening.

    No, it is not.

    Which, AGAIN (surprise!), is not something I ever said or claimed anywhere in any way.

    It's getting a bit weird now, how EVERY PARAGRAPH you write starts with something I never said.
    Your arguments imply it. If you want to clarify your argument, feel free to do so, otherwise simply saying 'That's not what I said! You don't understand!' won't suddenly change the paradigm here.

    Explain yourself clearly. Make a clear and concise statement. Set the record straight.

    *Sigh* You really have NO argument other than "it's not like in the books!", do you?
    There doesn't need to be any argument beyond this. Anything else would merely complicate the simple message that should be easily understood.

    And you can feel free to disagree if you wish. I'm not obligated to convince you to change your opinion or agree with my reasons. Understand?

    YES. Quite probably.
    And regardless of what you personally think is justifiable or not, there is nothing actually wrong with Ring of Power's approach. Nor Peter Jackson's approach.

    Neither are examples of racially discriminant practices, and both can be justified for casting based on skin tones.

    Whether you agree or not is really up to you, so I'll just leave it at that. If you feel bothered by their casting choices... try to get over it.

    If you don't think the history of the Southern US in the 1950s is relevant in a discussion about racism and exclusion based on skin color in an American TV production, things are even worse than I thought.
    Yes, it's not relevant because what we're talking about right now doesn't actually have anything to do with racism

    Racial exclusion is not inherrently racially discriminant.

    That is why there are specific racial discrimination laws that protect against such happening, while companies are still free to have choice in casting based on skin color without being deemed racially discriminant or insensitive because there are specific nuances that allow them to. And there is no mandate or shift to define current practices AS being racism. Such as casting a Black actor for MLK; it would not be deemed racially discriminant to all other actors of various skin colors. And such casting can extend to an entire production, without being deemed discriminant (ie, Northman).

    Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it true. What we're talking about has no relevance to the racism and segretation in the 1950's. It's actually quite abhorrable that you'd make a direct connection to it. Casting practices are not infringing on the rights and livelyhood of an entire ethnic peoples. Fucking ridiculous.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-17 at 05:42 PM.

  16. #3016
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You understand that 'There is no reason to exclude a person of color when there is no good reason to' is not a blanket standard that applies to every casting role, right?
    I do. That's why I, you know, put "NO GOOD REASON" in there.

    I am not objecting to the ones that HAVE a good reason. That's why I put that in there. It's a bit frightening you... didn't notice that before, or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If you're not talking about RoP then what the fuck is your argument actually about?
    About a general principle. What, you thought I only cared about excluding people in RoP, and gave fuck all about other shows?

    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We're in a discussion thread about RoP.
    That doesn't mean that every point I make ONLY APPLIES TO RoP, or that any general statement I make IS ABOUT RoP SPECIFICALLY.

    If and when I talk about RoP SPECIFICALLY, I make sure to mention it.

    And by the way: even if you REMOVE the reference to RoP from statements you made like "and prove that Rings of Power is free from exclusion at all levels, per your argument." I still never said ANYTHING REMOTE LIKE THAT, ANYWHERE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Your arguments imply it.
    That doesn't mean you can use it to fabricate a specific statement. If I say "I object to murder on moral grounds" you cannot use that to then go "He could not have murdered Santa Claus because he objects to murder" because the argument ISN'T ABOUT ANYTHING SPECIFIC and you can't ADD SOMETHING SPECIFIC and connect it back to me, even if the argument itself isn't invalidated by it.

    Whether or not I agree or disagree with the statement you created isn't the point, it's something I didn't say or talk about, so don't put it out there as though I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Explain yourself clearly. Make a clear and concise statement. Set the record straight.
    You know I explained the same point ten times to you NUMBERING EACH ONE and you still didn't get it right, though?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There doesn't need to be any argument beyond this.
    I explained many times why that argument alone can't be sufficient. IN THAT VERY POST, in fact.

    Is there a reason you just, you know, IGNORED THAT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And regardless of what you personally think is justifiable or not, there is nothing actually wrong with Ring of Power's approach. Nor Peter Jackson's approach.
    Okay. Prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Neither are examples of racially discriminant practices, and both can be justified for casting based on skin tones.
    Justify it, then. I've asked you, REPEATEDLY, to just BRING ME REASONS.

    You've continued, REPEATEDLY, to bring nothing except "it's not like in the books!". When I explained why that can't be sufficient reason on logical grounds (REPEATEDLY) you ignored the explanation (REPEATEDLY).

    Is that because you, well, HAVE no way to overcome that objection, perhaps?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If you feel bothered by their casting choices... try to get over it.
    And if you feel bothered that your insistence on the justification of exclusion based on skin color sounds racist... try to get over it.

    If that's the way you want to play it, that's fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Yes, it's not relevant because what we're talking about right now doesn't actually have anything to do with racism
    Excluding people based on skin color doesn't have anything to do with racism?

    OOOOKAY. Guess I was operating under several false assumptions here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That is why there are specific racial discrimination laws that protect against such happening
    It may shock you, but "it's not racism unless it's illegal" doesn't quite come across as the most convincing position. You may wish to think about that one a bit more before you say it public.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it true.
    Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it false, either.

    You've brought this up several times, in various flavors. It's very puzzling.

  17. #3017
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The abrasive promotion of diversity and feminism makes it a target for controversy. I mean, I'm all in support of their casting and creative choices, but even I can't stomach how they've promoted the show through interviews and spotlights. They prop diversity above everything else, while barely informing what the actual plot of the show would be. I really question the marketting behind this show.
    This is the crux tbh. The fact that they went out and said that it wouldn't be influenced by modern politics and then all we hear in interviews is just that. The focus on modern politics. It went from not being influenced to suddenly "it should reflect todays society" and how empowering and important it is with diversity, which is just modern politics.

    Which is fine on it's own, but to me they are just trying to deceive people which doesn't exactly give me hope in the show when you say one thing, do another and then on-top of that calling out people for saying "hold on a minute... this is a uno reverse".

    The entire thing with being faithful and then use the term "Harfoots" to put hobbits in a time they didn't exist in as a loophole, even though it isn't since Harfoots are a type of hobbit, doesn't really instill hope that they respect the source either. There's so many red flags that this is just taking an existing IP and then do whatever with it. Which is FINE if you are upfront about it instead of deceiving.

    The marketing sure is a damn right mess. Which is why people are having fun with it.
    Last edited by Kumorii; 2022-08-17 at 06:07 PM.

  18. #3018
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    About a general principle. What, you thought I only cared about excluding people in RoP, and gave fuck all about other shows?
    Okay. This clarifies a whole bunch. I have been clear that my argument is about RoP, is about Tolkien's fiction. If you are merely talking about principles that apply beyond RoP, and that RoP itself is not bound to satisfying said principles, then you're talking about something well beyond my understanding of your intent.

    I respectfully admit a miscontruance of your argument, and apologize if I had made examples that extend beyond your intention. I had been applying it all to Rings of Power assuming we were actually talking about Rings of Power exclusively. I had no idea you were talking about something much broader, and merely applying your personal principles to this for the sake of discussing said principles.

    I hope we are on the same page now.

    I explained many times why that argument alone can't be sufficient. IN THAT VERY POST, in fact.

    Is there a reason you just, you know, IGNORED THAT?
    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 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. Make sense? If I hate cats because they stink, then that's my reasoning. If you don't think it's a good reason, you're free to disagree. Neither party is obligated to meet to an agreement.

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

    Justify it, then. I've asked you, REPEATEDLY, to just BRING ME REASONS.
    If the law that defines racial discrimination is not enough of a reason for you, then I don't know what would be.

    Again, I have no obligation to give you alternative reasons than it literally not being an example of racial discrimination as defined by the law. If you want to argue principles beyond that, then I'll say that I have no obligation to adhere to your personal convictions.

    You've continued, REPEATEDLY, to bring nothing except "it's not like in the books!". When I explained why that can't be sufficient reason on logical grounds (REPEATEDLY) you ignored the explanation (REPEATEDLY).

    Is that because you, well, HAVE no way to overcome that objection, perhaps?
    Again, I have no obligation TO overcome your objections. I have no obligation to humor bad faith arguments.

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

    And if you feel bothered that your insistence on the justification of exclusion based on skin color sounds racist... try to get over it.
    I admit, it did bother me, and that is why I attempted to humor your argument and open up to this discussion.

    At this point, I'm fully aware you are merely judging people based on your personal convictions and principles, and I don't have a potion of cure-ignorance to offer you. So feel free to go on about your way. Whether you think I sound racist or not is not something I can change. If you have the opinion that I'm illiterate as well then there's nothing I write here that would change that opinion either.

    You have the right to be an asshole if that's how you choose to act.

    Excluding people based on skin color doesn't have anything to do with racism?

    OOOOKAY. Guess I was operating under several false assumptions here.
    You even AGREE that it is not inherrently racism. That is why you have the stipulation of a GOOD REASON.

    Casting choices can be justified casting by skin tone if there is a (by your definition) GOOD REASON for it. If we're talking about 1950's segregation, there IS NO GOOD REASON to justify it whatsoever.

    These two situations are NOT comparable.

    I will repeat: Casting practices are not infringing on the rights and livelyhood of an entire ethnic peoples. Fucking ridiculous.

    It may shock you, but "it's not racism unless it's illegal" doesn't quite come across as the most convincing position. You may wish to think about that one a bit more before you say it public.
    HAgain, these decisions WOULD be protected under the same laws that I'm talking about, which protect their creative decision to do so. I'm not bringing up the laws as a SINGULAR DEFINING reason why casting based on skin color would not be inherrently racist, but as an example of it SUPPORTING creative decisions to cast based on skin color that are not deemed racially discriminant.

    Racial discrimination laws support the (exclusive) casting of a Black Actor in the role of MLK without deeming it racially discriminant (in the eyes of the law) towards people of other skin tones. These laws don't draw a line, but they helps define guidelines which we follow today. And if those guidelines are to be changed then that is another argument altogether. If your principles disagree with the law, then that's a different conversation than one that we have been having thus far. And frankly, it's one that I'm going to avoid. That is literally another rabbit hole that would literally be off-topic in this discussion, in this thread.

    Just because you personally perceive it a certain way... doesn't make it false, either.

    You've brought this up several times, in various flavors. It's very puzzling.
    Well of course it would be puzzling. There's no other way to dealing with paradoxical principles like yours.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-17 at 06:55 PM.

  19. #3019
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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?

  20. #3020
    Quote Originally Posted by Gombadoh View Post
    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...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •