Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Rennadrel]

The male elves... mostly Elrond and Celebrimbor look like they would be dwarves, just shaven. It's amazing how long straight hair is important to the elf look. People often think it's the ears, but those are often covered. The short hair really makes them not look like elves.

The show is trying to be different because of difference sakes, which is an odd take and is rarely important.

WoT did the same thing. Why the hell do characters have side cropped haircuts when they are traveling? If you are spending months or even years traveling, you aren't going to get a buzzcut at every single village to retain that look. Pretty sure by the end of the books, Rand had long hair, as did Mat and Perrin had grown out a massive beard and long curly hair on his head. Costumes and hairstyles definitely break immersion in adaptations, especially when there's an aesthetic already set.

[Gumble]

WoT did the same thing. Why the hell do characters have side cropped haircuts when they are traveling? If you are spending months or even years traveling, you aren't going to get a buzzcut at every single village to retain that look. Pretty sure by the end of the books, Rand had long hair, as did Mat and Perrin had grown out a massive beard and long curly hair on his head. Costumes and hairstyles definitely break immersion in adaptations, especially when there's an aesthetic already set.

Wait, do you mean to say that the author described in great detail what the people and places should look like and its very telling when the TV show version of it looks nothing like what the book says it looks like??????



Man... its almost like that argument has been going on for how long now?


I'll go watch Shogun, the only movie to really try to nail the book as close as it could.

[Triceron]

The issue is that you’re so conditioned to see skin color as such a differentiating factor when it’s really no different than something like hair color or eye color. In the real world all those variations happened the same way: with gene mutations that tweaked the amount of melanin production in the associated body part. The only reason skin color is seen differently in our world is because of thousands of years of people using it as a measure of superiority or inferiority. None of that has to apply to a fantasy world.

I mean you can explain it in this way but no one has to agree with your headcanon explanation on what is 'no different' or 'is different' when we're talking about a creative adaptation of fiction that has no credible explanation for why certain features deviate and others do not. You can't explain away why some Dwarves will look like real life African descent and others look real life European descent. You just can't. There is no explanation other than 'the creatives decided to adapt it this way'.

Just like you can't take a work like Hamilton and explain why the founding fathers are portrayed by people of different skin tones and cultures. No explanation is going to suffice because the play is built on intentional nonsense. It is a work of fiction that builds off its own rules, rules that have no logical reasoning or explanation behind them.


Same shit happened with depiction of Dragons in fantasy. Game of Thrones and Smaug are both depicted as 2-limbed 2 winged Wyverns, rather than the classical depiction of traditional Dragons that have 4 limbs and 2 wings. That's just how the creative adaptations decided to portray these 'Dragons'. No amount of explanation would make sense out of it, as the reasons for choosing to adapt them this way were purely a creative decision and not one that can be explained or rooted in anything other than simply being a creative liberty for an adaptation. These decisions aren't rooted in the world of the fiction itself, and they can not be compared to any real world logic. Trying to explain fiction with logical reasons just makes you sound pretentious.

The only reason there are Black Dwarves is because some creative or exec at Amazon decided it to be. And it was agreed upon that it should happen. There's no other explanation behind how or why it happens in Middle Earth, or for Rings of Power's story; it's just something people will accept as a normal part of this adaptation just like how Galadriel will be a sword-wielding badass when she isn't ever depicted this way in the original story. It's a creative liberty, that's it.

You're not actually going to convince anyone of your bullshit reasons. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Adamas102]

I mean you can explain it in this way but no one has to agree with your headcanon explanation on what is 'no different' or 'is different' when we're talking about a creative adaptation of fiction that has no credible explanation for why certain features deviate and others do not. You can't explain away why some Dwarves will look like real life African descent and others look real life European descent. You just can't. There is no explanation other than 'the creatives decided to adapt it this way'.

It’s not about “headcanon explanation”, this is objective fact. That you, the poster I responded to, and several others in this thread simply lack the mental capacity to understand doesn’t change that.

There is no significant difference between people of European descent and people of African descent. The fact that you feel it necessary to divide them based on a genetic mutation that has only existed in Homo sapiens for about 4% of our existence is an issue with your lack of education and your narrow world view.

I know I’m not going to convince you because you’ve been so conditioned to see skin color as an intrinsic part of race and culture that you just aren’t mentally equipped to separate those ideas when considering a work of fiction that deals with fantastical creatures that aren’t even human. Exemplified by the fact that you seem to think there is no explanation for why dark skinned and light skinned dwarves can be of a single peoples. If you can wrap your mind around the idea of dwarves having different hair and eye color but can’t apply that to skin color then that’s just a mental deficiency on your part.

[Biomega]

You can't explain away why some Dwarves will look like real life African descent and others look real life European descent. You just can't.

Sure you can. "They were created that way". End of explanation. It's not like they're the product of evolution, or something - this is literally magic that brought them into being. Any particular reason why that magic would have to remain restricted to a single skin color?

Same shit happened with depiction of Dragons in fantasy. Game of Thrones and Smaug are both depicted as 2-limbed 2 winged Wyverns, rather than the classical depiction of traditional Dragons that have 4 limbs and 2 wings.

See, this is what's REALLY going on here.

YOU have a particular image of something fictional that you see as "classic" - and anything that deviates from that is, to you, not doing it right. But you have no justification for that standard. These are not real creatures. Their fictional depictions vary massively. You just picked one you like, and suddenly that's the 'right' one? By what possible justification, other than "this is just what I like", in which case cool, you go ahead liking what you like and leave the rest of us out of it.

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

RIIIIIGHT, but using a lack of logical reasons to explain fiction, THAT is a valid argument and iron-clad basis for critique? Because that's what, you know, YOU ARE DOING when you're saying:

You can't explain away why some Dwarves will look like real life African descent and others look real life European descent. You just can't.

Gotta love the hypocritical double standards again, friendo.

[Triceron]

I know I’m not going to convince you because you’ve been so conditioned to see skin color as an intrinsic part of race and culture that you just aren’t mentally equipped to separate those ideas when considering a work of fiction. Exemplified by the fact that you seem to think there is no explanation for why dark skinned and light skinned dwarves can be of a single peoples. If you can wrap your mind around the idea of dwarves having different hair and eye color but can’t apply that to skin color then that’s just a mental deficiency on your part.

I'm not sure why you're targetting this answer to me at all since I've told you many times that I am fine with Rings of Power's adaptation, and many adaptations like it. Dr. Strange is a fine example, where both Baron Mordo and the Ancient One are depicted by people who do not resemble their original comic counterparts. Mordo is black, the Ancient One is now celtic. I have no problems with these changes, and the fact is, these changes do not have to be explained away in the adaptation. They merely are.

Yet my ability to see past skin color and simply accept the adaptation as is does not make it a norm. Not everyone is going to see it the way we do, and not everyone needs to. And no, it is not a problem if 'seeing skin color as a part of race and culture' because there isn't any one singular reasoning why people can choose to accept or not accept the changes. Every individual has their own reasoning, and by you even trying to generalize it down to a singular point is just as flawed as what you are arguing against - why diversity should be accepted in the first place. It's equally as flawed, because arguably the choice to be diverse shouldn't even be prioritized over keeping characters looking like their original depictions anyways. Just like Dr. Strange actually looking like his comic counterpart isn't some jab at diversity isn't some statement against excluding people of skin color in that particular role. It's simply a creative decision that for his role, they want to keep his character looking the part, while they wished to be creatively free to explore other looks for Mordo and the Ancient One. And they particularly wanted to avoid certain 'Oriental' stereotypes that existed back in the day. There aren't any in-universe explanations for the changes, these are all done externally, and need not be explained with any internal means to the logic of the fiction. I mean, they did end up waving it all away with the 'Multiverse' explanation, but that's besides the point as well.

"Exemplified by the fact that you seem to think there is no explanation for why dark skinned and light skinned dwarves can be of a single peoples."
Because there isn't one. And everyone will have their own subjective opinion about it. There's no singular defined way to interpret something that has no explanation, much like art. Some people will find certain art fascinating, others will find it disgusting. There's no way to define it in a singular way, even if intended by the Artist to be interpreted a certain way. That is the subjectivity of art, and it absolutely applies here. So while you have a full acceptance of skin color not being equated to race and culture, it is not relevant to how any one else chooses to interpret the existence of dark and light skinned dwarves. All you're doing is presenting your own take. If you're going beyond to try and tell people how they're somehow wrong for not being convinced, then you're just being pretentious.

I mean even in an argumentative sense, people generally aren't going to be convinced when they're told they're wrong. They tend to double down on their beliefs, and that's whats happening here considering you seem to go that extra step to imply that I'm one of the people who can't see beyond skin color even though I've not presented any opinion to you that implies it. I'm bringing to your attention that your explanation doesn't apply to everyone, nor should it apply to everyone. It will only and always apply to you. And it's fair for you to express your opinion, but it is unfair to imply that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is somehow interpreting the adaptation incorrectly.

[bledgor]

This close and with the casting released, guess we can firmly poor a cold one out for the fallen, RIP Celeborn, Celebrian, and Cirdan the Shipwright. Guess Elrond will have to find a new wife.

[Triceron]

See, this is what's REALLY going on here.

YOU have a particular image of something fictional that you see as "classic" - and anything that deviates from that is, to you, not doing it right. But you have no justification for that standard. These are not real creatures. Their fictional depictions vary massively. You just picked one you like, and suddenly that's the 'right' one? By what possible justification, other than "this is just what I like", in which case cool, you go ahead liking what you like and leave the rest of us out of it.

There are textbook definitions of what Dragons are and what different types of Dragons there are. A Wyvern is still technically a type of Dragon, but it is not a 'Dragon' in a definitive sense in the fiction they derive from. So by 'Classic' I mean pertaining to the original definition they derive from and are presented in the fiction, as opposed to a technicality of 'Wyverns are types of Dragons so they are Dragons'.

If you don't understand the difference, then you won't grasp the nuance of why people care about these kinds of changes and why these changes stir up fans of the books. Of course, I don't expect you to either, since you seem to have a twisted set of moral ideals to begin with.

RIIIIIGHT, but using a lack of logical reasons to explain fiction, THAT is a valid argument and iron-clad basis for critique? Because that's what, you know, YOU ARE DOING when you're saying:

I wouldn't call it iron-clad, but I don't see why it wouldn't be valid.

Are you implying that the point is invalid? Do you disagree with my point that that there is no in-universe explanation for why Dwarves look like they are African descent and European descent in Rings of Power? The point is literally to present that this is merely a creative decision that needs not be explained in-universe, much like why Smaug only has 2-limbs instead of 4. Or why all Elves have pointy ears, even though it was never depicted this way in Tolkien's own fiction.

If someone were to come along and say Elves have pointy ears because of certain genetic attributes stemming from pointy-eared ancestors, then I'm gonna call bullshit on that reasoning all the same. It's not an in-universe explanation, nor is it even valid to the original fiction which doesn't even make mention of Elf ear shapes. All the roots to Elves having pointy ears comes from various artist's depictions of Tolkien's work being popularlized and widely accepted, with no contention from Tolkien himself who seemed indifferent to the way they had been depicted in those artworks.

[Adamas102]

to imply that I'm one of the people who can't see beyond skin color even though I've not presented any opinion to you that implies it.

Except you did present that opinion, right down here:

"Exemplified by the fact that you seem to think there is no explanation for why dark skinned and light skinned dwarves can be of a single peoples."
Because there isn't one.

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.

And everyone will have their own subjective opinion about it. There's no singular defined way to interpret something that has no explanation.

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.

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.

[Biomega]

There are textbook definitions of what Dragons are and what different types of Dragons there are.

Bullshit.

At best there's collections of various depictions in various contexts. There is nothing authoritative about fictional creatures.

A Wyvern is still technically a type of Dragon, but it is not a 'Dragon' in a definitive sense in the fiction they derive from.

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.

I wouldn't call it iron-clad, but I don't see why it wouldn't be valid.

The validity problem arises from your own argument. You can't say "Trying to explain fiction with logical reasons just makes you sound pretentious" and then use a lack of logical reason in an explanation of fiction as your angle of criticism.

If you don't think one is valid, then the other isn't, either. You're trying to have it be invalid when other people use it, but valid when you use it. That don't work, son.

Do you disagree with my point that that there is no in-universe explanation for why Dwarves look like they are African descent and European descent in Rings of Power?

GEE I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IF YOU'D READ, IDK, THE FIRST SENTENCE OF MY POST YOU COULD TELL?

Are we immediately back to you just not reading shit? We've been down that road before.

[Adamas102]

Do you disagree with my point that that there is no in-universe explanation for why Dwarves look like they are African descent and European descent in Rings of Power?.

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.

[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.