Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

If you can accept variance in hair color within the context of the fictional world but fail to apply that to variance in skin color, then it’s because you can’t see beyond skin color.

Except that's a bad example as well because hair color changes aren't accepted across the board by everyone either. There are people who call out hair color changes, and do not accept them when they are not depicted correctly too. I'm honestly not sure why we're using blanket generalizations as though it's universal that everyone accepts the hair color of all the Elves in all the media we've seen so far. It isn't, it hasn't and surely there are people out there who aren't happy with changes to hair color of certain characters. And my point remains that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I don't think these blanket generalizations are really helping anyone.

This isn’t a matter of opinion. If you think it makes no sense for light skinned people and dark skinned people to be of a single race and culture then that means you have a poor education in basic evolutionary biology and history as well as a fixation on racist ideologies concerning the division of people based primarily on visual traits.

Except none of that really applies to fictional races who are not bound to 'basic evolutionary biology and history' as it works in our own real life history.

We don't have a race of beings created by Aule in real life. We don't have long-lived humanoid races that are nearly-indistinguishable from us except in eye color and voice. There is no way to apply real life to these races. What we know of Elves is what exists in the fiction, and through external references and notes by the author in creating this fictional race.

I don’t care that you’re accepting of the casting choices. The fact that you insist on the idea that the only explanation is executive decision is precisely why you don’t have the mental capacity to understand this concept.

It has nothing to do with mental capacity. It has to do with interpretation. You can't attribute an objective value to something that is ultimately subjective.

Just like if we're talking about Warcraft's rainbow colors of races being adapted to Middle Earth, it isn't going to be widely accepted by all fans just because it's totally normal for a setting like Warcraft. It has nothing to do with mental capacity. There is context to our conversation.

Is it a lack of mental capacity if people are totally okay with rainbow colored races in Warcraft but not in a setting like Middle Earth? We could be talking about a Middle Earth adaptation that has Blue skinned Dwarves and Purple skinned Elves and Green skinned Orcs, and just the same, some people will be okay with this and others will not be. It's not going to be some binary situation where anyone who can't accept it must be lacking mental capacity, because we're talking about a very specific fictional setting, where that wouldn't be considered normal in the context of the fictional setting.

If it were merely a 'lack of mental capacity' then these same people would not be able to accept Warcraft's setting being normal, and I doubt that would be true. It's not a matter of people being unable to accept the existence of 'bright Green colored Orcs' or 'Purple skinned Elves', rather it's about making a point that these depictions aren't typical to the Middle Earth universe.

- - - Updated - - -

There is indeed an in-universe explanation. It’s the exact same explanation that allows dwarves to have varying hair and eye color. These are literally all the same thing. They were apparently created with genetic mutations similar to humans which govern melanin production in various body parts. Hair, eyes, and skin are all the same in this respect. If you want to accept two of those and deny the third simply because your mind can’t get over that hurdle then that’s a you problem, not a problem with the explanation.

Except 'genetic mutations' have never been the reason why they look different. We're talking about fictional race born of stone and given life by a god. How their physiology actually works is beyond human comprehension. You can interpret their difference in hair color and eye color and skin color to be genetic mutation, but it is not a universal explanation, it is your personal interpretation of how and why the fictional race works the way they do.

Again, it doesn't apply universally. Hell, to make the point, I'd disagree with the person who originally tried to explain why they thought certain races shouldn't look dark skinned because of melatonin in their skin. It may be reasonable to them, but it is nothing more than head-canon. There is no actual in-universe explanation to why Dwarves look different, and whether it's a choice, internal physiological reasons, or external reasons conditioned by their nature and environment. We just don't know.

And as for deviations in skin color - Tolkien never depicts their skin color so we don't actually know how much they deviate. All we know is certain Dwarves had different hair color and different body shapes.

- - - Updated - - -

According to whom? None of this is real. There is nothing to fall back on here. It's purely descriptive - "this is what other people called their own creation" and nothing more, nothing binding, and certainly nothing authoritative.

You're INVENTING a "standard" by setting YOUR preference as the default.

Game of Thrones and the Hobbit did not invent the meaning of 'Dragon'. They both source historical depictions of the mythical creature, and both literary sources define them as having 4 legs and 2 wings. Not sure why you're using this argument when the authoritative source would literally be be the books.

Pretty obvious you don't even know what you're talking about, and are arguing for the sake of arguing. Not sure why you're even jumping into this conversation, really.

"Trying to explain fiction with logical reasons just makes you sound pretentious"

Except I'm making a point that those reasons actually aren't logical at all to the fictional universe, because we're talking about fictional races that do not follow the rules of human physiology.

"Trying to explain fiction with real-life logic that does not apply in this fictional setting" is more to the point.

[Biomega]

Game of Thrones and the Hobbit did not invent the meaning of 'Dragon'. They both source historical depictions of the mythical creature, and both literary sources define them as having 4 legs and 2 wings. Not sure why you're using this argument when the authorative source would literally be be the original books.

Could you please cite where Tolkien defines Dragons as having 2 pairs of arms/legs plus a separate pair of wings?

[Triceron]

Could you please cite where Tolkien defines Dragons as having 2 pairs of arms/legs plus a separate pair of wings?

Looking at Tolkien's artwork (he was also a great artist btw)... the following Thror's map of the Lonely Mountain was drawn by Tolkien for the first edition of The Hobbit in 1937 and we can see slim dragon with 4 legs

https://i.stack.imgur.com/ySnxP.jpg

---

And fun fact, the first Hobbit movie shows a Smaug with 4 legs and 2 wings, and that's the design they were initially aiming for. They only changed up the design after seeing Benedict Cumberbatch's full motion capture acting, and decided to make the wings his front limbs to better fit the actor's performance. Creative reasons.

Now imagine if someone came along and tried to explain in-universe how Smaug loses his front limbs between the first and second movie, all the while implying anyone who doesn't agree lacks mental capacity...

[Biomega]

Putting aside for the moment the fact that this is a stylized doodle, the front legs and wings on that are in fact so close together you can't tell if the wings really ARE separate, or if the front legs are merged with the wings (like e.g. a bat would look like). In fact, if you look closely, you can see the wings and legs are a single unit - the white interior continues between legs and wings with no separating line.

That drawing does not, in fact, have separate wings, but does, in fact, have them merged with the front pair of legs.

Do you have actual descriptions from the text, or just a doodle?

[Triceron]

Putting aside for the moment the fact that this is a stylized doodle, the front legs and wings on that are in fact so close together you can't tell if the wings really ARE separate, or if the front legs are merged with the wings (like e.g. a bat would look like). In fact, if you look closely, you can see the wings and legs are a single unit - the white interior continues between legs and wings with no separating line.

That drawing does not, in fact, have separate wings, but does, in fact, have them merged with the front pair of legs.

Do you have actual descriptions from the text, or just a doodle?

I mean if I literally give you Tolkien's artwork and you're still going to contest it, then it doesn't really matter what else I provide you since you won't believe it and choose to interpret the way you see fit anyways, right?

Perhaps you should do your own research and present a formal counter-argument if you have one, rather than merely asking for sources which you seem to have no intention of regarding. If you find evidence that Tolkien intended Dragons to be 2-limbed 2-winged like they looked like in Desolation of Smaug, then feel free to present it to support whatever argument you have. I'm open to having a discussion if you actually want one. Otherwise I'm not really interested in humoring bad faith requests like this. I gave you exactly what you wanted, it's not on me to provide you with more if you're the one who fails to recognize the evidence. It's not my job to convince you anything, that would be on you to do for yourself. If you want to see more of Tolkien's dragon art, all you have to do is google it.

Again, even Smaug has 4 limbs in the first movie.

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/ques...egs-in-the-2nd

If you dig deep enough into the comments, you can see some explanations and further artwork by Tolkien depicting Smaug with 4 limbs and 2 wings. That is, unless you continue to argue that they're all connected because that's how you want to see them.

[Biomega]

I mean if I literally give you Tolkien's artwork and you're still going to contest it

I'm not contesting anything.

I'm DESCRIBING what's IN THE ARTWORK.

Are YOU contesting that the front legs and wings ARE divided? Because they're clearly, you know, not. Solid white interior from the front legs goes over into the wings seamlessly. That's... fact. Right there, in the picture.

Perhaps you should do your own research and present a formal counter-argument if you have one

A counter to WHAT?

YOU are the one claiming Tolkien's dragons have 2 pairs of legs and separate wings. You provided one drawing to back that claim, but in that drawing, the front legs and wings are A SINGLE UNIT, not separate.

I'm happy to refute your evidence if you present it. I've refuted one piece of evidence (that picture). I'm happy to look at more.

I'm also happy to make a counterargument if and when your initial claim (Tolkien's dragons have 2 pairs of legs and separate wings) is actually DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRUE.

Until then, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

[Triceron]

I'm not contesting anything.

I'm DESCRIBING what's IN THE ARTWORK.

Are YOU contesting that the front legs and wings ARE divided? Because they're clearly, you know, not. Solid white interior from the front legs goes over into the wings seamlessly. That's... fact. Right there, in the picture.
A counter to WHAT?

YOU are the one claiming Tolkien's dragons have 2 pairs of legs and separate wings. You provided one drawing to back that claim, but in that drawing, the front legs and wings are A SINGLE UNIT, not separate.

I'm happy to refute your evidence if you present it. I've refuted one piece of evidence (that picture). I'm happy to look at more.

I'm also happy to make a counterargument if and when your initial claim (Tolkien's dragons have 2 pairs of legs and separate wings) is actually DEMONSTRATED TO BE TRUE.

Until then, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

You might add to your answer the fact Tolkien says explicitly in chapter XIV when describing Bard's lethal blow to Smaug, "The black arrow sped straight from the string, straight for the hollow by the left breast where the foreleg was flung wide." Two-legged animals don't have forelegs.

https://middle-earth.xenite.org/why-...ack-lake-town/
And in this link, a picture of the Death of Smaug. The site specifically asks not to hotlink the picture directly.

Happy? Or are you still intent on bad faithing this?

And before you jump into any strawmanning, I will be clear that my point is that adaptations are A-OK, and in-universe explanations for why Dragons only have 2 limbs aren't required for any film or TV adaptation. It is pointless to apply a logical explanation to something that has no in-universe logic behind it. If there is no pre-existing in-universe explanation, then it would be nothing more than headcanon or flawed logic.

I think Desolation of Smaug depicting him as a Wyvern is absolutely fine, and the performance was great. It doesn't need an in-universe explanation to make sense of it. It isn't bound to being a translation of the original text. And people are free to love or hate Smaug's depiction as they please, without any judgement on their mental capacity or lackthereof.

[qwerty123456]

I'm not contesting anything.

I'm DESCRIBING what's IN THE ARTWORK.

Are YOU contesting that the front legs and wings ARE divided? Because they're clearly, you know, not. Solid white interior from the front legs goes over into the wings seamlessly. That's... fact. Right there, in the picture.

Dude they are clearly separate. You can see the dragon has a fore arm, upper arm, and wing. Are you trying to say the wing extends from the top of the upper arm? They aren't even going in the same direction. You wouldn't draw a wing like that if it was attached to the arm.

[Voidwielder]

There's a low-res screen recording of about 3 minutes of footage from the show, all about dwarves.

[Triceron]

Dude they are clearly separate. You can see the dragon has a fore arm, upper arm, and wing. Are you trying to say the wing extends from the top of the upper arm? They aren't even going in the same direction. You wouldn't draw a wing like that if it was attached to the arm.

He even admits that he'd be happy to refute evidence if I present it. No intent on even considering it, just a blanket refusal. It's clear to me he's nitpicking for the sake of pushing his bad faith argument.

[Radeghost]

There's a low-res screen recording of about 3 minutes of footage from the show, all about dwarves.

It looks… comical.


Infracted.

[s_bushido]

Yeah, but the """criticisms""" of the show have nothing to do with racism. Nope, nothing at all.

[jonnysensible]

whens this shit coming out and if it flops how much will prices go up on amazon

[Radeghost]

Yeah, but the """criticisms""" of the show have nothing to do with racism. Nope, nothing at all.

Yeah, not because the cast looks like straight outta 4chan memes. Nobody would bat an eye if at least costumes and characterization was good, like Velaryons in HotD.

[tikcol]

Yeah, not because the cast looks like straight outta 4chan memes.

That's giving it too much credit

[InfiniteCharger]

The problem with this whole debate over "creative liberty" is that this is a two edged sword. If some other company down the road does a different adaptation of the second age and decides to portray dwarves and elves differently then who is "right"? How can they all be correct? The point of cannon is that it is supposed to be the definitive answer on these things so that everyone is following the same blueprint. To argue that in one version it is fine to have characters portrayed one way and then in a different adaptation have them portrayed a different way and both adaptations not being the same as the source material is problematic. At that point it really just becomes a question of whether these are just loose interpretations or true adaptations. That is always the risk with these kinds of changes, especially those with substantial changes, because such changes only belong to the studio making those changes and are not canon to the original story and don't have to be followed by anybody else. And if Amazon can take liberties with this story then so can any other studio which means they all get to make up whatever they want in Tolkiens world, which would result in a wide variation of stories and characters all supposedly in the same world. Tollkien is not the Marvel multiverse and he did not want multifaceted versions of the same characters and stories. He wanted his stories to be true to themselves and any adaptations to honor that intent. Obviously the Tolkien estate and Simon Tolkien have changed that position, which is how you get Amazon claiming to want to "update" Tolkien to represent something it was never intended to represent, as in the "modern world".

[frn1]

You know Biomega CANT BE WRONG since he writes CERTAIN WORDS in caps lock.

The show looks to be a dumpster fire. What kind of ism or ist am i for saying that?

[unfunnymeme]

You can't make this shit up. Actual domesticated herd animals barking on command so they get to consume this slop.



I think I need to lay down for a while. This is bleak.

[BigToast]

I just don't like the casting choices. I don't like elves and dwarves being mixed. Elves are always fairy in fantasy and have that sort of 'glow' attached to them in LotR. Dwarves should be pale considering where they live.
Middle-Earth isn't multicultural, it's not XXI century Earth, or New York, or 2022 London, it's fantasy with an established world consisting of various races and skin colors. Doesn't make sense to make it all mixed up. That's a weird American fetish to make everything look like their multicultural cauldron.

It's really tiring that by having an opinion like this makes you racist in eyes of some Amazon boot lickers. Okay, I get it, you just want everyone to mindlessly consume the media and be blind to casting choices. But we simply aren't. I don't remember boycotting Nick Fury being race swapped. I don't remember boycotting Morpheus in the Matrix being black, I don't remember boycotting Blade or anything else. If despite all of this, you think there's some racist agenda among the viewers, you're just blind.

In House of the Dragon I didn't really like that Velaryons are potrayed by black actors, because they should be looking just like Targaryens, but the character design is done so amazingly well I simply had no choice but to fall in love with that. Meanwhile in RoP the char design looks like they were taken straight from some ghetto



Only opening music tho

....racist....

[Asrialol]

This show will get review bombed by people who don't like black actors, that much is clear.