1. #3061
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  2. #3062
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-29 at 11:56 PM.

  3. #3063
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.

  4. #3064
    There's a low-res screen recording of about 3 minutes of footage from the show, all about dwarves.

  5. #3065
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    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.

  6. #3066
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwielder View Post
    There's a low-res screen recording of about 3 minutes of footage from the show, all about dwarves.
    It looks… comical.


    Infracted.
    Last edited by eschatological; 2022-08-31 at 03:23 PM.

  7. #3067
    Yeah, but the """criticisms""" of the show have nothing to do with racism. Nope, nothing at all.

  8. #3068
    whens this shit coming out and if it flops how much will prices go up on amazon

  9. #3069
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    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.

  10. #3070
    Quote Originally Posted by Radeghost View Post
    Yeah, not because the cast looks like straight outta 4chan memes.
    That's giving it too much credit
    "In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be"

    End of quote. Repeat the line.

  11. #3071
    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".
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-31 at 12:19 PM.

  12. #3072
    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?

  13. #3073
    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.

  14. #3074
    Quote Originally Posted by Radeghost View Post
    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....

  15. #3075
    I am Murloc! Asrialol's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,858
    This show will get review bombed by people who don't like black actors, that much is clear.
    Hi

  16. #3076
    Quote Originally Posted by Asrialol View Post
    This show will get review bombed by people who don't like black actors, that much is clear.
    If only there was a race of people who canonically had darker skin. A race that has little to no expanded lore that could have been expanded on, using these wonderful black actors. Oh yes, the Haradrim exist. huh.
    But no, why create when you can only alter and tear down. Disrespecting canonical precedent is all anyone can do anymore. Basically the modern version of iconoclasm.

  17. #3077
    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    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".
    Why is it problematic? The current showrunners think the aesthetics of a racially homogenous cast isn't a good enough reason to deny certain roles to actors based on their skin colour. People in the future might feel differently.

    Future people might also choose to portray characters like Aragorn in a lore accurate way by making him beardless, or put the Numenoreans in the canonical mail armour instead of plate. Have Glorfindel rescue Frodo from the Nine. That doesn't mean the Peter Jackson films (which never had the blessing of Christopher Tolkien or the Tolkien Estate btw) are problematic, just that he decided to go against the text to make it appeal to a modern cinema audience.

    BTW having the skin tones of the actors mixed in the same way they are in modern society doesn't mean the setting is "representing" modern society, in the same way an all-white cast doesn't mean they are "representing" pre-WW2 British society.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by unfunnymeme View Post
    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.
    Your point would probably have been made better if you left out the them saying how magnificent the experience was and how the show made up for the slight inconvenience.

  18. #3078
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Your point would probably have been made better if you left out the them saying how magnificent the experience was and how the show made up for the slight inconvenience.
    You'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly trust the opinion of an actual herd animal on what decent quality television is.

  19. #3079
    I am Murloc! Asrialol's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,858
    Quote Originally Posted by unfunnymeme View Post
    If only there was a race of people who canonically had darker skin. A race that has little to no expanded lore that could have been expanded on, using these wonderful black actors. Oh yes, the Haradrim exist. huh.
    But no, why create when you can only alter and tear down. Disrespecting canonical precedent is all anyone can do anymore. Basically the modern version of iconoclasm.
    You know, most people don't give a shit about whether they canonically had darker skin or not. Most people aren't basement dwellers who can't accept other interpretations of others work.
    Hi

  20. #3080
    Quote Originally Posted by Asrialol View Post
    You know, most people don't give a shit about whether they canonically had darker skin or not. Most people aren't basement dwellers who can't accept other interpretations of others work.
    You do not need to be a basement dwellers to not accept that kind of "other interpretations".

Posting Permissions

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