1. #3201
    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.

  2. #3202
    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....

  3. #3203
    I am Murloc! Asrialol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,759
    This show will get review bombed by people who don't like black actors, that much is clear.
    Hi

  4. #3204
    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.

  5. #3205
    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.

  6. #3206
    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.

  7. #3207
    I am Murloc! Asrialol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,759
    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

  8. #3208
    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".

  9. #3209
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-08-31 at 03:46 PM.

  10. #3210
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    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.
    If the creator wrote it that way and nobody was complaining then why change it? And this goes for anything not just skin color. Tolkien is not some obscure author who wrote a lesser known novel that Amazon is trying to make popular. Tolkien is one of, if not the, best selling book of all time and it not obscure or unknown and popular all over the world. 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. That is supreme arrogance on the part of showrunners and producers who have never produced a thing of their own, written or otherwise and can only gain fame for attaching themselves to the work of someone else. 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, 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, but I don't see this being applied to stories from Asia with all Asian casts, stories from Bollywood with all Indian casts, stories from Africa with all African casts and so forth. Why is it only European stories that are singled out for this treatment? 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. Why adapt the story of a racist to begin with if it is racist? That cannot be fixed by "casting". This idea of trying to attach yourself to something already popular and make up nonsensical arguments for changing it as if that is going to be "better' than the original to justify it is the problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    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.
    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. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    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.
    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. And none of that has anything to do with Tolkien. Your attempt to claim otherwise is just contradicting what you said previously which is that the showrunners didn't think a racially homogenous cast wasn't a good idea. So at that point it doesn't matter what the author originally wrote now does it? They are going to do what they want and if that is the case, then 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?
    Last edited by InfiniteCharger; 2022-08-31 at 11:54 PM.

  11. #3211
    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.
    *Fan complains about the pre-screening, but says it was worth the troubles and the screening was magnificent*

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

  12. #3212
    Despite the various 4 * reviews out there (mostly given I expect out of gratitude for being able to attend the premiere), I expect this 1* review is more on-point.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ngs-Power.html

  13. #3213
    Quote Originally Posted by Festisio View Post
    Despite the various 4 * reviews out there (mostly given I expect out of gratitude for being able to attend the premiere), I expect this 1* review is more on-point.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ngs-Power.html
    It's a mess and that's to be expected for anyone that has been paying attention to anything regarding this series.
    "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.

  14. #3214
    Quote Originally Posted by Festisio View Post
    Despite the various 4 * reviews out there (mostly given I expect out of gratitude for being able to attend the premiere), I expect this 1* review is more on-point.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...ngs-Power.html
    Congratz on being the only person ever to refer to DailyMail as "on point."

  15. #3215
    Titan Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Under the stars
    Posts
    12,363
    If you are sensitive to spoilers watch at your own risk, I would believe its spoiler free regardless, but you know how the internet is when it comes to spoilers, everything is a spoiler , especially if you do not want to know anythign before the show is out, for everyone else, knock yourself out.



    For me personally I will not watch this as I have been avoiding anything related to the show, be it this thread ( for the last few weeks ), as well as any news going into it, I want a clear mind before watching.
    "People fear, not death, but having life taken from them. Many waste the life given to them, occupying themselves with things that do not matter. When the end comes, they say they did not have time enough to spend with loved ones, to fulfill dreams, to go on adventures they only talked about... But why should you fear death if you are happy with the life you have led, if you can look back on everything and say, 'Yes, I am content. It is enough.'" - Wynne ( Dragon Age: Origins.)

  16. #3216
    Quote Originally Posted by tikcol View Post
    It's a mess and that's to be expected for anyone that has been paying attention to anything regarding this series.
    I think what always gets me is why pay a ton of money for an IP only to rewrite it into something completely different?

    You can argue brand power but given what they paid for it even with Hollywood accounting I doubt they are gonna male it back much less turn a profit.

  17. #3217
    Quote Originally Posted by Celement View Post
    I think what always gets me is why pay a ton of money for an IP only to rewrite it into something completely different?

    You can argue brand power but given what they paid for it even with Hollywood accounting I doubt they are gonna male it back much less turn a profit.
    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.

  18. #3218
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    13,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Rennadrel; 2022-08-31 at 06:03 PM.

  19. #3219
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  20. #3220
    Quote Originally Posted by Rennadrel View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

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