Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Kumorii]

They don't really have much to maneuver without liscence for Silmarillion, IMO. They're kinda hamstrung into adapting whatever is in the appendices, and frankly their decision to take it in a different direction is sensible from a production standpoint. I mean, all they care about it is banking on the franchise name anyways. It'd be no different than all the liscenced LOTR videogames that aren't based on the movies.

It's sensible, problem was that they said it wouldn't be.

[Triceron]

True, but if that is the case, I am sure you would agree that they should have found a more experienced production team instead of a bunch of nobodies and not blackballed Tom Shippey who was a consultant on the project until they canned him for disliking how they were doing things. If they really cared about making something good that people will latch on to, spending money on the aspects that matter like costumes, acting talent and good writers and producers, makes a lot more sense than pissing it all away on CGI. If Peter Jackson could do with 100 million per film and a literal all-star cast of actors as well as some unknowns who really showed their chops in those films, there's no excuse Amazon couldn't do it for a TV series. I can't even say I know of anyone in the cast, they might as well be literally who's to me and that doesn't bode well in my opinion. One can make the argument that the majority of the LOTR cast weren't A-list actors, but most of them were all established by the time FOTR came out.

To be honest, I don't know where all that money is being spent at all. It's clear to me they just wanna do their own thing with Rings of Power, and frankly that's up to them to do with their money.

We're well past any hope of this actually being close-to-canon, so I'm not sure if there's any point left in debating whether this should have or not, regardless of whatever had been said about faithfulness to books and whatnot. If the show is a good watch, I'm all for it. If it's terrible, then I'll probably still hate-watch it for the lols, because it's a big enough show that people will be talking about it like last season of GoT.

[unfunnymeme]

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.

Most people are mindless cattle that don't actually care about anything but consuming? Yeah, I can see that.
Any person that cannot or refuses to appreciate the canonical integrity of a universe is hard to even call human life. It's like going to a fucking museum and thinking everything would look better re-painted or defaced. It's despicable.

Oh the irony.

Again, the opinion of an actual subhuman on something like this is meaningless.
Everyone involved in that indignity is genuinely wretched.

Infracted.

[s_bushido]

Most people are mindless cattle that don't actually care about anything but consuming?

Hipsters went out of style a decade ago. No one cares that you think you're above it all.

It's like going to a fucking museum and thinking everything would look better re-painted or defaced. It's despicable.

It's actually not like that in the slightest. Because the originals still exist for you to pretend to enjoy all you want. Even if this show turns out to be as terrible as the bigots have already convinced themselves it is, that has absolutely no impact on Tolkien's work itself.

[Triceron]

Again, the opinion of an actual subhuman on something like this is meaningless.
Everyone involved in that indignity is genuinely wretched.

"Ignore their opinion when it's not convenient to my argument."

lol

[unfunnymeme]

"Ignore their opinion when it's not convenient to my argument."

lol

Would you ask a cow its opinion on fine art?

It's actually not like that in the slightest.

It's exactly like that, because these cretins own the rights to it now.
And no, I don't care much for the original LoTR movies these days. If something isn't a one-to-one retelling, it's not good, no matter how well written or acted. But at least Jackson understood that he was adapting something and maintained some small amount of respect for the universe.

[Triceron]

Would you ask a cow its opinion on fine art?

Nope. Which is why I'm not asking for yours lol

[s_bushido]

It's exactly like that, because these cretins own the rights to it now.

"Owning the rights" doesn't mean the originals suddenly disappear. And the Jackson trilogy isn't "the original." Obviously...

If something isn't a one-to-one retelling, it's not good, no matter how well written or acted.

That's a completely useless standard. Literally nothing is going to be a one-to-one retelling when adapting it from book to screen. Especially not something like this, where they have very little material to work with in the first place.

[InfiniteCharger]

That's flawed thinking, because there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' when dealing with any adaptation. There is zero way any adaptation to be 100% faithful to text, especially when there are ambiguities such as the complete lack of description of what Elves or Dwarves would actually look like.

Like the pointed tips of Elf ears? Not in the original text. Elves are described to look so similar to Men that they could be confused for them, and their eyes and voices are their only distinguishing features. By this measure, no modern visual adaptation of Middle Earth's Elves is 'right'. But that doesn't make it right or wrong, because adaptations are free to depict Elves with pointed ears, to the point where it's become widely accepted.

If you're a stickler to your own definitions, then all modern visual adaptations of Tolkien's Elves is wrong. Does it even matter? I don't think anyone would think of an Elf any other way. The creative liberty has become a part of how people recognize Tolkien's Elves. I'd say the same with modern depictions of Balrogs with actual wings.

The original canon isn't so much a blueprint as it is a guideline. Text does not translate to the big screen, that is why we're talking about adaptations.

I said it was a two edged sword, meaning that if one studio can make changes, then so can others, which means they don't all have to match each other... That was the whole point, meaning one studio cannot give their "version" more importance and significance over any other studios 'version' as they all have the right to make their own changes for whatever reason. But you cannot have one depiction of something be vastly different than another depiction and not acknowledge that both of them cannot be equally 'valid' as either one or both are purely creative decisions and therefore not canon, regardless of the reasons for the change. Tolkien did not intend for his stories to become some cinematic universe of various stories and content that only loosely are connected to each other as being "Tolkien" while drastically varying in theme and character. That is very different from Marvel and DC who are the ones making these kinds of changes to IP that they own, which basically boils down to remaking and reinventing characters and stories that have been around for years. Tolkien specifically stated that is not what he indented for his work to be.

A good example of diametrically opposing story changes would be something like whether Galadriel is married to Celeborn before the 2nd age or not. Either she was or she wasn't. It cannot be both and equally be 'right' according to the source material or according to being stories in the same universe. One is objectively wrong and one is objectively right in that context, regardless of whether a studio has the "rights" to deviate from that canon if they so desire (or whether people like it or dislike it). Doesn't change the facts of what is in the source material as a literal single set of events, character traits and actions over time.

[Dhrizzle]

If the creator wrote it that way and nobody was complaining then why change it?

They're changing it because they think it is more important to choose the correct actor regardless of their skin colour, Tolkien didn't have to worry about getting the right actors so he could write his characters to look however they want.

This argument is basically trying to claim that Tolkien's work as it already existed in written format wasn't 'good enough' as it already was and that all these changes are require or necessary to make it better.

No it isn't because books are different to TV shows. Saying Tolkien's work would have been "better" if he had cast the best actors regardless of skin colour is nonsense.

The idea that 'denying people jobs' is the reason for this change is BS. They are doing it to try and basically claim that all white people in stories is racist which it is not

That's a stupid argument.

no more than all Asians in stories is racist when it is not. In order for that argument to hold water, any story that features a racially homogenous cast should be changed,

Not if the people casting for the show think that skin colour is an important enough factor in the story.

Not to mention that this basic idea that homogenous white casts is bad, means that Tolkien was racist for writing his story that way, which is a contradiction.

Not even remotely true, Tolkien wasn't denying an actor a chance to play a role based on their skin colour with no good narrative reason.

Aragorn is not part of this story. None of the changes made by Amazon for this show has to be respected by anybody other than Amazon because they are not canon, in that they are not Tolkien. And if you are going to argue that it is OK to change Tolkien for whatever reason, then by definition you admit it is no longer Tolkien's world or story. And by making so much noise to justify going against Tolkien to make up whatever it is you want to insert into Tolkien, you basically have set the precedent that anybody can do whatever they want down the road just like Amazon did.

I brought up Aragorn and the other examples because there has already been a very popular adaptation of Tolkien's work by a director called Peter Jackson. It made numerous changes for aesthetic purposes or to better serve the movie-going audiences of the time and it didn't seem to do any harm, and by your argument it set the precedent that anyone can change anything.

But why do this if you are so intent on telling a different story which is not like what the actual author wrote? At that point you may as well just make a new IP and stop calling it Tolkien, but that means your work would succeed or fail on its own merits instead of being propped up by the prestige of being attached to Tolkien. And this is more an issue with those holding the rights to said IP as to what they will allow and what they won't. But at this point whatever Amazon is doing is not Tolkien and does not have to be followed by anybody else as not being cannon, meaning not literally what Tolkien wrote. That goes for time compression, new non canon characters, how existing characters are portrayed and so forth. Amazon cannot give itself exclusive authority to do this and demand others respect their version when they didn't respect the original version of the author or other versions made by other studios.

The main reason Amazon are doing this is because the Tolkien Estate, at the time headed by the author's son Christopher, asked production companies to bid for the rights to make some sort of TV series. It's Tolkien in so far as it is using the framework Tolkien made for the characters, events and nature of Middle-earth during the Second Age with cooperation from the inheritors of Tolkien's estate. The reason the showrunners are doing it is Tolkien created an incredibly detailed and enthralling mythology that is fertile ground for "other hands and minds" to add colour and drama.

I am going by what the showrunners actually said. So you must be talking to them then because that is literally what the showrunners, producers and actors have been saying.

You'll have to show me the quotes you mean because the ones I have seen say they are happy that the cast will be reflecting the people you see in modern society, but it doesn't mean that the fictional society is representing modern society. If they bring in situations where people are being discriminated against due to their skin colour, or make part of the story allegorical to current social issues (bearing in mind Tolkien's description of the difference between allegory and inspiration) then I'd agree they're taking a wild swing away from Middle-earth, but I won't be able to judge that until I've seen the show.

why didn't they cast more Asians, Eskimos, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Pakistanis? There are a lot of Pakistanis in Britain and why don't they have any leading roles in this if that is the point they are making?

How many Asians. Eskimos, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Pakistanis applied to audition for roles in the series? How many were better suited for the role than the actors who will be playing them?

[Triceron]

How many Asians. Eskimos, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Pakistanis applied to audition for roles in the series? How many were better suited for the role than the actors who will be playing them?

How many roles were called out specifically to find actors of specific skin tone? We wouldn't know that either.

[rogueMatthias]

Seen the first two episodes already at the premiere.
Hate to say it but a lot of the acting and writing is just really bad; the Elves are especially wooden and rarely deliver a believable sentence.
The Harfoots are every country cliche with the distractingly bad accents to match.
It improves in the second episode at least, so I'll stick around. The Dwarves have a lot more charisma & chemistry together and are some of the best scenes.

Galadriel is definitely the weakest link so far. The actress can overact standing staring into the distance and the character isnt particularly likeable in this.

5/10

[Adamas102]

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.

So you just don't understand the concept of adaptation at all, huh?

Canon is always the original source material and it doesn't change, even when we have multiple adaptations that deviate from that source material (like we have for LotR). This isn't problematic. No one is "right" or "wrong", they are just adaptations. The idea that they all have to be "correct" or they cease to be adaptations is just something you've made up.

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".

"The modern world" isn't being represented here. None of these characters are representing any part of our modern world. All are part of Middle-earth in its timeless state which isn't meant to reflect any particular time period in our world, modern or ancient. The fact that you seem to think having varying human skin tones is only applicable to "the modern world" is an issue you need to personally get over.

[Kumorii]

"The modern world" isn't being represented here. None of these characters are representing any part of our modern world. All are part of Middle-earth in its timeless state which isn't meant to reflect any particular time period in our world, modern or ancient. The fact that you seem to think having varying human skin tones is only applicable to "the modern world" is an issue you need to personally get over.

It's the showrunners own words...

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ies-first-look

Amazon’s series will also broaden the notion of who shares the world of Middle-earth. One original story line centers on a silvan elf named Arondir, played by Ismael Cruz Córdova, who will be the first person of color to play an elf onscreen in a Tolkien project. He is involved in a forbidden relationship with Bronwyn, a human village healer played by Nazanin Boniadi, a British actor of Iranian heritage. Elsewhere, a Brit of Jamaican descent, Sir Lenny Henry, plays a harfoot elder, and Sophia Nomvete has a scene-stealing role as a dwarven princess named Disa—the latter being the first Black woman to play a dwarf in a Lord of the Rings movie, as well as the first female dwarf. “It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like,” says Lindsey Weber, executive producer of the series.

[jonnysensible]

"The modern world" isn't being represented here. None of these characters are representing any part of our modern world. All are part of Middle-earth in its timeless state which isn't meant to reflect any particular time period in our world, modern or ancient. The fact that you seem to think having varying human skin tones is only applicable to "the modern world" is an issue you need to personally get over.

not to mention that the whole thing is set in a mythological version of earths history 6000+ years ago. So its no surprise the world is diverse.

[Othraerir]

Oh he's not that iconic, he's just the actor who played one of the most famous elves in fiction.

someone needs to do a movie or tv series with THE most famous elf in fiction

[InfiniteCharger]

How many roles were called out specifically to find actors of specific skin tone? We wouldn't know that either.

The show runners, producers and actors have all said they wanted to make something resembling the modern world or modern Britain.
So, I am just pointing out that they couldn't have been doing that if they didn't include any of the groups I mentioned.
Africans, Iranians and Puerto Ricans aren't the only non European people in modern Britain.

[Specialka]

not to mention that the whole thing is set in a mythological version of earths history 6000+ years ago. So its no surprise the world is diverse.

The world was far less "diverse" back then than it is today.

[jonnysensible]

The world was far less "diverse" back then than it is today.

thats true not many honkeys around

[InfiniteCharger]

They're changing it because they think it is more important to choose the correct actor regardless of their skin colour, Tolkien didn't have to worry about getting the right actors so he could write his characters to look however they want.

No it means it was important to choose certain actors because of their skin color as obviously certain roles in certain stories are not open to anybody with any skin color. A movie or television studio using the casting process to justify changing how a particular character looks from a different form of media is making a conscious decision in opening the role to actors of various complexions, genders and backgrounds. There is nothing inherently 'racist' about casting if you say you are looking for a 20 to 30 year old male, medium build of European descent or white. That is normal in entertainment and happens every day. All casting calls are not open to everybody, no matter how some of you like to pretend everything should be open to everybody. It has never been like that and never will be like that. So it is up to a studio as to whether they want to open up specific roles to a wider casting process. It is a conscious decision either way.

No it isn't because books are different to TV shows. Saying Tolkien's work would have been "better" if he had cast the best actors regardless of skin colour is nonsense.

I am specifically addressing the things said by the showrunners and actors themselves who said that 'diversity' was required in order to bring this story into the modern world and therefore 'improve' it. Again, all of this is a conscious decision and only reflects the mindset at Amazon studios and their producers not any specific group of people because I do not remember any "black lives matters" protests claiming to be out in the streets because of 'representation' in JRR Tolkien. So them claiming all these changes were required are both saying that Tolkien was racist for not including enough diversity in certain parts of the story and therefore not a 'good story'. By your logic making a live action version of Akira is justified in changing the setting from Tolkyo to NYC, like they were talking of doing, which is just as stupid and dumb. And certainly if you want to champion some cause such as supporting justice for those who are victims of racism then donate a percentage of your profits to black people. But more realistically to address lack of black faces in entertainment, just hire and promote some actual African creators and artists to create stories that are organically African and diverse from the ground up instead of trying to pretend that African identity starts in ancient European history or mythology. Not to mention it gives diversity a bad name when a lot of these shows and movies turn out to be garbage, especially those going against the source material and making such a big deal about making these kinds of changes for diversity.

That's a stupid argument.

It is not stupid because no author is under any obligation to 'represent' any specific group of people whether it be based on skin color, disability status, gender, sexual orientation or any other such characteristics. Artistic freedom means the right to create what ever you want without being pressured or forced to change it for any reason. The only thing an author is obligated to represent is the ideas from their imagination. What people like you are saying is that because live action adaptations involve jobs and roles for people working in real life, that those stories can and should be subject to dictates and mandates that have absolutely nothing to do with the creative process for the purposes of not discriminating against anybody. But while discrimination in employment based on superficial characteristics should never be tolerated, that does not mean injecting a quota system into the creative process and remove the artistic freedom from the process. All of that process of quotas is something coming from studios not the original creators themselves who are no obligated to follow them. If a writer wants to make a story about all white people. Fine. If a writer wants to make a story about all black people, asian people, Indian people, that is also fine. None of that is 'racist' and biology isn't racist either.

Not if the people casting for the show think that skin colour is an important enough factor in the story.

No it is because of the reality that human societies around the world in history have never been melting pots. China is mostly Chinese, India is mostly Indian, Japan is mostly Japanese, Africa is mostly African. Technically the only places where there are melting pots are those places invaded and colonized by Europeans who then implemented selective immigration policies(quotas) preferring Europeans over natives another populations. Which is why these discussions are even happening in the first place, but that history of colonization doesn't change the fact that most human societies in history, whether European or otherwise were homogenous. Vikings, Welsh, Norse, Scottish and other groups were not melting pots of Africans, Asians, Native Americans and Europeans in history prior to 1000 years ago. Yes, there were 'black Europeans' at some point in the ancient past, but those would have had the same features as other Europeans, with darker skin. And the history of mistreatment of Africans is because they were not indigenous black Europeans. Which means there is no absolute reason for any fictional story to be a melting pot either as that is not the 'rule' in reality either. Therefore injecting Africans into European history as if they represent the diversity of 'indigenous' Europeans historically is nonsense in general. If someone wants to make a high fantasy story that represents a melting pot of various species that are very diverse then make one, but changing existing stories to force that diversity goes against creative freedom and rarely makes the original story any better. Just take WOW as a perfect example. All Elves don't look alike and there is no 'melting pot' Elven society. Every group of elves is homogenous. Night elves all look the same. Void Elves all look the same. etc. Orcs all look the same and so forth. There are no grey, brown, and tan Orcs.

Not even remotely true, Tolkien wasn't denying an actor a chance to play a role based on their skin colour with no good narrative reason.

Tolkien was writing a story and under no obligation to include any particular form of diversity according to any mandates for inclusion and representation. Creative freedom means being able to create whatever you want based on your on imagination and talent, not following mandates for diversity and inclusion. If someone wants to create a world that is a melting pot of diversity among all groups then they can certainly do it, but that doesn't mean trying to force that kind of melting pot diversity into something that doesn't already have it. All of that is purely up to the studio and whether they have it as a priority and we know that Amazon studios absolutely has a diversity and inclusion policy for their shows. That has absolutely nothing to do with any particular story or creator and is simply a quota system.

I brought up Aragorn and the other examples because there has already been a very popular adaptation of Tolkien's work by a director called Peter Jackson. It made numerous changes for aesthetic purposes or to better serve the movie-going audiences of the time and it didn't seem to do any harm, and by your argument it set the precedent that anyone can change anything.

I was not talking about Aragorn specifically and you included him in this discussion.

The main reason Amazon are doing this is because the Tolkien Estate, at the time headed by the author's son Christopher, asked production companies to bid for the rights to make some sort of TV series. It's Tolkien in so far as it is using the framework Tolkien made for the characters, events and nature of Middle-earth during the Second Age with cooperation from the inheritors of Tolkien's estate. The reason the showrunners are doing it is Tolkien created an incredibly detailed and enthralling mythology that is fertile ground for "other hands and minds" to add colour and drama.

Tolkien's own words said he did not want his story to be told be consistent and not have multiple different 'interpretations' varying in scope and character from what he wrote. And Christopher Tolkien was very much following his fathers wishes, which is why it wasn't until after he died that Amazon got the rights to do this TV show. Simon Tolkien is now working with Amazon and has always had a very different opinion from his father and his brother on whether studious should be able to deviate from his fathers work. And that is how this show came to be, which means that the Estate itself is changing as time goes on.

You'll have to show me the quotes you mean because the ones I have seen say they are happy that the cast will be reflecting the people you see in modern society, but it doesn't mean that the fictional society is representing modern society. If they bring in situations where people are being discriminated against due to their skin colour, or make part of the story allegorical to current social issues (bearing in mind Tolkien's description of the difference between allegory and inspiration) then I'd agree they're taking a wild swing away from Middle-earth, but I won't be able to judge that until I've seen the show.

And that is objectively false, because China and India make up the largest percentage of human diversity on earth, yet there are no Chinese in this show in any prominent roles. Tolkien was not writing his story to reflect a modern melting pot and there is no reason to include it other than studio mandates. And Tolkien as an author is not subject to those mandates and therefore doing this is not part of canon and simply irrelevant to the lore of what he actually wrote. So if some Asian studio decides to do Tolkien with all Asians then that is fine, because that too reflects the modern world, but it still isn't Tolkien.

How many Asians. Eskimos, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Pakistanis applied to audition for roles in the series? How many were better suited for the role than the actors who will be playing them?

The point is if the studio wanted those kinds of actors in the story to represent the modern world, they would have found actors fitting that background. So it is not a reflection of "the modern world". The modern world has all those groups of people and yet this show doesn't include them, so the statement is false advertising. No Chinese. No Indians, No Pakistanis and those groups are all part of the "modern world". Which means they just made up these decisions on their own as a studio for the purposes of including some black people in order to address historic racism against black people. But Tolkien was not writing his story to be racist against black people. So to argue that including them was necessary is to claim Tolkien was racist.