Originally Posted by
InfiniteCharger
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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 was not talking about Aragorn specifically and you included him in this discussion.
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.
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.
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.