1. #7821
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    They didn't lump all detractors into that category. I don't understand why you and others have to keep claiming to be victims when it didn't actually occur. It doesn't invalidate your other criticisms. "Respecting the ip" is also meaningless. As the Tolkien Estate thought the Jackson films didn't respect the IP but it isn't dismissed because of that. Hiding behind things that only matter when you personally dislike something shows how shallow they are as issues.
    this is the last time i will respond to your asinine bullshit, and i'm only doing so to highlight just how fucking pathetic and ignorant you are:

    Amazon, and those representing them on this project branded EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON WHO CRITICISED IT an istaphobe of some variety, they had twitter campaigns bribing the old movie cast members to wear clearly rushed and fucking hilariously bad quality T-shirts with the whole 'all are safe here' bullshit because of people rightfully complaining about the blackwashing of races in middle earth that should not and do not in any piece of established literature have them, because the only defence Amazon had against this valid criticism was to deflect and hide behind the racism shield they tried so very hard to put up, that failed so epically that they dropped it pretty fast, then you had the debacle of 'disabling reviews for 3 days to prevent trolls' when the reality was they disabled the service for a full week, and even when 1* reviews were posted AND VERIFIED BY A HUMAN BEING TO BE POSTED they deleted them hoping nobody would notice, sadly for them, everyone noticed and the backlash was so severe they were forced to roll back the deletion and reinstate the bad reviews, not content with that but their other owned property IMDB, they forced censorship so hard on that platform that if you wanted to leave a review that was 5* or less, it was auto deleted, you're only allowed to provide 6* or higher, they were that desperate to quell the overwhelming and vocal backlash against this steaming pile of garbage that they restricted free speech, not only illegally breaking the American 1st amendment to your stupid and outdated constitution (i digress that's a topic for another discussion), but also illegally restricting free speech laws in many countries around the world as a result of their desperate attempts as damage control to try and spin the narrative they wanted to spin which was a total and complete fabrication, much like the plotline to this show, but then you have the sycophantic fucks like you and the others who have mysteriously gone silent from this thread now that this complete and utter waste of bandwidth has been unleashed for all to see, they no longer have any comebacks to it, they no longer have any arguements that make any sense to defend it, except here you are, dying on little mound of self righteous goalpost shifting bullshit making up whatever you think will make your asinine and wrong assertions seem plausible, and every turn being shot down and proven wrong and yet still here you are, posting away with no understanding of anything that you're trying to argue and you still think your in the right, it's astounding really.

  2. #7822
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    I think consistency in world building is just way more important in fantasy, where so much of the focus in on building a detailed, coherent world that is different than our own, than in comic books like Marvel or shows like Jack Ryan. The only one close is Star Wars, and let’s face it, Star Wars’ lore is painfully thin and a lot of show like the Mandalorian are essentially working with a blank canvas.
    Well considering the huge gaps in the 2nd Age, Rings of Power was game to be set in a blank canvas for the most part too. I think they managed to do some interesting things with the Dwarves and the aesthetic portrayal of the Harfoots (their lore and story, not so much). Adar added an interesting nuance to the world too. I honestly don't know where they were going with Arondir and the Watchtower Elves, I still think they could have omitted them completely and the show would not be any different. Nothing against his character or portrayal, I just think he was the Tauriel of the series; needless filler in a series with too many POV's to begin with.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-11-16 at 09:50 PM.

  3. #7823
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by jackofwind View Post
    615 words of drivel that can be wholly refuted by the fact that the Tolkien estate and a sect of "hardcore" fans also vehemently hated PJ's LotR trilogy, which is widely held up as one of the best book adaptations ever rendered on film.

    The generations old fanbase of Tolkien's work is not unified in their opinions, and plenty of them hate everything but Bakshi's trash heap of an animated film because reasons. It's all just varying degrees of hipsterism.
    you're welcome to have that opinion, it's wrong but you're welcome to it nonetheless, furthermore, there's been issues with EVERY piece of media ever made based upon a source material, it's only through the lens of retrospection that we can see either how good or how bad that media was and whether the criticisms were justified or not, in the case of the bakshi animation, it was the first and only thing of its kind in relation to the lord of the rings, and is also a victim of its time as much as it is of its creator and the extremely stylised nature of other works by said creator, it took better part of 4 decades before another project would be given the green light to be produced and even then it was a monumental gamble, and while some of the criticisms of the day were warranted, they were nowhere near the issues being talked about when referencing this dumpster fire of a show, and i would even argue the vast majority of the main plotlines that needed to be made, were kept very accurate to the lore and made sense within the world and the scope of the films themselves, which is a huge amount of praise for something that was restricted to the 'FILM' medium, not only that but it's all thanks to said films that this show even has a platform to exist.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Definitely true. ROP or the SW sequels have massive issues that have fuck all to do with diverse casting or social-issue topics - they're neither to blame for those problems, nor do they excuse them.

    The whole premise of positioning "woke" (a term that should just go and die already anyway) as somehow opposed to or mutually exclusive with good writing is nonsense to begin with. And those errors are committed on all sides of the debate, be it people going "woke is ruining good writing" OR people going "you only hate the writing because it's woke" (or anything in between that presupposes that kind of oppositional binary).

    It's not easy to write something well. But it's not impossible, either. There's tons of highly talented writers out there - so the problem isn't "we can't find the right people". It's entirely the fact that the money people want PRODUCTS, not works of art (not unless they're also products, of course), and products have a tendency to be hawked with reckless disregard for substance. That's how we got into this mess: all of a sudden the virtue-signaling value of "woke writing" became a silver bullet that allows hack writers to produce product you can tout on the basis of its inclusivity, without any need to actually, you know, make it good. Partly that's on us, the consumers: a lot of the time that WORKS, and people are happy to buy into the hoodwink. But a lot of it is also simply a push from above to streamline things across demographical agendas much more so than social ones; corporations don't REALLY care about minorities, they merely care that their customers care. And the tacit agreement is that we play along because "fake it 'till you make it" does kind of work in terms of establishing societal norms.

    The crux lies in what I said initially: quality and "woke" are not mutually exclusive, and in fact have very little to do with each other. And we need to take a stand and make sure people aren't pulling one over on us as consumers by (implicitly or explicitly) pretending like they are. That's not only better for us because it increases the quality of the products we consume, it's also better for society because it makes social issues into more than mere virtue-signalling selling points.
    in the case of this trashpile, the 'wokeness' is amplifying the utter inadequacies' of the writing and putting a lens on just how bad it actually is, it's allowing people to see what would normally be covered up and is acting like a giant neon sign showcasing just how bad the writing on this show is, everything about this show compounds on itself for showcasing mediocrity and abject failure with the things that would normally be used as a crutch for blame being used ALONGSIDE the things that actually cause the problems to begin with, in this example the woke aspects are not actually the issue, they just compound and add to the already lengthy list of other problems that it's easy to point at the 'woke' aspects as a valid criticism alongside the myriad other issues.

  4. #7824
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Definitely true. ROP or the SW sequels have massive issues that have fuck all to do with diverse casting or social-issue topics - they're neither to blame for those problems, nor do they excuse them.

    The whole premise of positioning "woke" (a term that should just go and die already anyway) as somehow opposed to or mutually exclusive with good writing is nonsense to begin with. And those errors are committed on all sides of the debate, be it people going "woke is ruining good writing" OR people going "you only hate the writing because it's woke" (or anything in between that presupposes that kind of oppositional binary).
    While I don't buy 'Woke = Broke' being the cause of bad writing, the agenda itself is quite apparant and is a symptom of the greater problem.

    The way I see it, the problem is that diversity has become prioritized over verisimilitude. It has become a status quo, and diversity has become a badge of modern progression.

    Cuz let's be honest, James Cameron has had strong female characters and leads in almost every one of his productions, and I don't see any of that being woke, because he builds them into his world. There is very strong verisimilitude, very strong sense of purpose for these characters. It's not just what they do and what they're capable of, it's who they are in the story. And the problem with the 'woke' issues in other productions sometimes stems from writers lacking that same verisimilitude, because they don't really know what purpose their characters fill to begin with. They're kind of just there for the sake of the status quo.

    As long as verisimilitude is prioritized, I have no problems with 'meeting the status quo'.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-11-16 at 10:17 PM.

  5. #7825
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    Agreed that in some ways it was a blank canvas, but there are just things they did totally wrong that are completely inconsistent with the lore - I keep coming back to telling the character who, in lore, has refused to return to Valinor for thousands of years "congratulations, you're going to Valinor!", and the morally grey orc storyline seems like next season's version of that.
    The return to Valinor, the importance of Mithril to the salvation of the Elves, the emnity of the Numenoreans to Elves 'taking their jobs', the two Durins existing at the same time... There's some dubious changes to the lore that were quite needless and I don't think were very necessary to the story they chose to tell.

  6. #7826
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The way I see it, the problem is that diversity has become prioritized over verisimilitude.
    That's just another misdirect from a larger heading of quality. Verisimilitude is just one aspect, and it's often dreadfully overused in lay debates. Ever since postmodernism, that's not really how people do literary analysis anymore. Believability or internal logic are aspects of it that crop up, but aspirations of realism in general are pretty much out the window - doubly so in genres like fantasy or SF, where concepts like e.g. cognitive estrangement have long since redrawn the evaluation parameters (and even that is an old hat at this point).

    ESPECIALLY when it comes to diversity, the classic view of cultural verisimilitude has definitely outlived its usefulness. Denying diverse castings a share of suspension of disbelief is just an artifact of historical heteronormativity, and any supposed contingencies for narrative quality are (largely) an illusion. There's specific contexts in which it makes sense for specific reasons and to specific degrees, but by and large, it's just a smokescreen for crusted thought structures and resistance to change.

    That's not to say that it's an anything-goes world now, just that analyses have to be reframed. A simplistic view in the sense of classic understandings of verisimilitude is something that's at least 20-30 years out of date now in literary analysis, and is mostly found in philosophy of language at this point.

    There's no one answer to what makes good writing; not anymore, and perhaps there never was. We've diversified too much for simple concepts, unless they're extremely broad - that's why I like to use 'quality', and just deal with things case-by-case instead of aspiring to grand generalizations that have so many exceptions they might as well be ditched to begin with. If there was an easy recipe or formula to follow, we wouldn't be having these issues now, would we

  7. #7827
    The Unstoppable Force Lorgar Aurelian's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    24,776
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    nothing but diversity hires to check the boxes to pander to the minorities,
    just curious now that the shows been over for a while, would you say all the “diversity hire” actors are bad actor and even if they were given better material they would be bad?
    All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.

  8. #7828
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    If there was an easy recipe or formula to follow, we wouldn't be having these issues now, would we
    There can be a recipe or formula, but it has to be acknowledge that not everyone is beholden to enjoying the final product.

    Malcolm Gladwell covers this quite well. "There is no perfect pickle; there are only perfect pickles.”

    As long as there is enough variety to satisfy various groups, that is the best way for companies to maintain success. Not by adding diversity in a show, but by diversifying their shows.

    And I kind of think this rings true for Rings of Power, considering it feels like 3-4 different shows all packed into one.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-11-16 at 11:24 PM.

  9. #7829
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There can be a recipe or formula, but it has to be acknowledge that not everyone is beholden to enjoying the final product.

    Malcolm Gladwell covers this quite well. "There is no perfect pickle; there are only perfect pickles.”
    I'm not talking about horizontal segmentation. I'm talking about a definition for "good writing" that's widely applicable and useful, and there isn't any beyond the most broad, most vague generalizations. In a world riddled with "how to write a good book" books, the only thing anyone can agree on is that there isn't such a thing as the one "how to write a good book" book - only books that give you some advice on some things that may or may not be useful to some people. Which has its own kind of merit, but is NOT a formula for what "good writing" is.

    Which is why it's not a useful approach to try and distill everything down to a simple term like "verisimilitude" - to the degree that it's useful it's far too vague, and to the degree that it's concrete it isn't useful.

    Variety and segmented appeal is a whole different thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Not by adding diversity in a show, but by diversifying their shows.
    I don't know if you've heard, but "separate, but equal" has not proven super popular as a marketing approach

    You're confusing two different kinds of diversity here.

  10. #7830
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Lorgar Aurelian View Post
    just curious now that the shows been over for a while, would you say all the “diversity hire” actors are bad actor and even if they were given better material they would be bad?
    lets look at each one as they appear:

    Arondir goes from pouting, apathetic and disinterested in what's going on to superhero combat master leading those he previously looked down upon and had no interest in, and i'm not even gonna touch the whole pedo aspect of the writing with a barge pole, overall, he played his role about as expected with all previous knowledge prior to release, everyone expected him to be the 'legolas' of the show based on both being male, an elf, and the tiny snippets of 'action' shown in the marketing material, i think honestly he probably did whatever he was told to do and did not deviate from it at all, and the material he had to work with was some of the better written stuff, not exactly a raging endorsement of quality but ultimately it made no difference how bad his part was, his moronic 'modern' haircut completely broke immersion and him being a lone black guy in a sea of white characters was very off putting but ultimately he could have been a white actor and his stuff would have been just as bad, so all in all a neutral outcome i feel.

    Disa, cast as a token black woman in a sea of white characters who embody the stereotype of historical scotland, her character is there to add some degree of comedic relief along with all of the dwarf characters, seeing as the showrunners took that as the only lesson of the PJ films from the Gimli casting, overall her character is one of the better written characters and her overall performance showed that the woman behind the character was to a greater degree than some of her cast mates a decent actor and was able to actually perform to a level that would be expected of the budget this mess has had, so for her i would say that her tokenism is also off putting considering her surroundings but ultimately she had a positive performance, i think given that she would probably be better suited to a role where the material was better quality and she was hired as a result of her work and not because she ticked the necessary boxes.

    Miriel, not only is the character an utter bastardisation of the established character, the person acting her out was horrendous, basically just mirroring the supposed 'main character' of the show trying to get 1 up on her in every scene that she is featured in, overall i think even with better quality material the woman behind the character would be a bad hire and would bring down the material, her casting is one of the weaker casting choices so far.

    village healer turned wartime general, honestly, i still don't know what the fuck her character is supposed to be, from all of the promotional fluff that was put out i expected to get multiple episodes of her in her village being stuck at home with the elf visiting periodically, and her doing things to help the village periodically, but instead the writing of her character was atrocious and the person behind her character didn't provide any actual meaningful evidence of what she was supposed to be, not only that but she along with 'main character' had 1-2 facial expressions and didn't deviate from that seemingly at all, and she didn't provide any meaningful reasons why we the audience should care about her because of how little emotion is shown not to mention her seemingly brilliant battlefield tactics coming out of thin air, providing yet more reason to question what the fuck her actress was trying to portray, overall i feel like the actress here was very poor and would fail with any material given to her.

    lenny henry: this guy is a law unto himself, he is well known in the UK for what he has done historically, usually as a comedian and through his long standing adverts with the hotel company travel lodge, he is known as a bitpart actor who has never really done much of anything meaningful and frankly, i found his acting in this to be extremely sub par compared to what i know to expect from him, i think some of that might be to do with the shambolic directing and such, but some of that might be down to the fact he hasn't really acted in anything for a very very long time so is likely very much out of loop and is dragging things down as a result, his last major acting role that didn't involve presenting or kids TV shows was back in 2017, prior to that it was 2015 where he had a minor role in a TV show in its third 'season' as you would call it and was only 6 episodes, in total over the last 10 years he has had 3 major acting roles with huge gaps inbetween and overall i feel like he wouldn't be able to do much better with an actually well written script ultimately providing a fairly negative performance as most of the time he is on screen the only emotion he elicits is anger, anger at the fact he doesn't get killed off sooner.

    overall a 1 out of 5 for positive outcomes 2 out of 5 for neutral/positive outcomes and 3/5 for negative outcomes, not a great return considering the money spent, i think 'discount legolas' could well turn out to be a good actor if given better direction and provided better quality material to work with that suits his acting style better, i think that the woman who plays token black dwarf woman could do really well in some plays and dramas, i dunno if she is really suited to high fantasy but she had an overall good performance, the rest were ranging from plain bad to downright atrocious and no amount of good writing would have saved them, it sort of speaks volumes that the ones mentioned above who did somewhat well despite the utter trash script left the others to flounder and flail and fail, that shows they were bad hires and weren't suited to the roles at all, justifying the masses of criticism prior to release.

  11. #7831
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I don't know if you've heard, but "separate, but equal" has not proven super popular as a marketing approach
    Not sure what that has to do with anything really

  12. #7832
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Not sure what that has to do with anything really
    Evidently not. That's kind of the problem.

    Diversifying your product to better sell to different segments of the market is not the same as deciding not to exclude people of a certain skin color from certain things for no good reason, even though both could be described using the term "diversity".

  13. #7833
    Legendary! TirielWoW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    6,616
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    Mithril's discovery was a mess of storytelling, and the creation of the rings was done all out of order. You could argue that "Mordor was founded" belongs but that's really gonna happen next season once Sauron yeets Adar.
    Can agree with most of this, although I still like the Harfoots :-P

    But, the Mithril thing is still weird af. Like, Mithril wasn't that rare in the time period this is supposed to take place in.
    Tiriél US-Stormrage

    Signature by Shyama

  14. #7834
    Brewmaster
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    B'ham, AL
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Fair enough. I'll own up to this, it really is a result of my own hubris.

    Done and done! Back to the depths I go
    Thank you! <3 And naw back to the depths - you're better than that.

    And all of you are - just look at the last 2-3 pages - actually discussion of the show that hasn't devolved (so much) into stupid back and forth virtiol about pointless non-related anythings.

    Its like the best 3 pages of the entire thread here!! Keep it going guys! =D THANK YOU! I knew you could do it!

    (hopes she didn't just jinx it)
    Koriani - Guardians of Forever - BM Huntard on TB; Kharmic - Worgen Druid - TB
    Koriani - none - Dragon of Secret World
    Karmic - Moirae - SWTOR
    inactive: Frith-Rae - Horizons/Istaria; Koriani in multiple old MMOs. I been around a long time.

  15. #7835
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Evidently not. That's kind of the problem.

    Diversifying your product to better sell to different segments of the market is not the same as deciding not to exclude people of a certain skin color from certain things for no good reason, even though both could be described using the term "diversity".
    What constitutes 'excluding skin color for no good reason', though? Movies are an artform. How they choose to be represented is itself an expression of that art.

    Like look at this deliberate choice of casting being apparant in the Northman. All white cast, but not as a means to exclude 'for no good reason'. There is a reason, this is how they chose to depict their setting. I don't think this is a problem. This should be an expression of an artform, not a status quo.

    Rings of Power choosing to have diversity is no different than PJ LOTR choosing to stick to a white dominant cast, and I don't think either are problematic. Neither is a bollywood movie having an all indian cast and lacking diversity, or a HK action flick having an all chinese cast with a token 'foreigner' bad guy. These are ultimately expressions of the artform. Ethnic diversity itself is a choice. Not every historic tale of the founding fathers has to follow in the footsteps of Hamilton.

    The only real 'no good reason' I could see applying to is something obviously deliberate, like black face/brown face/yellow face. That I could completely understand as being unacceptable today (though I'd make an exception for certain parodies). Outside of that, I personally don't see this being a flaw of PJ's LOTR or the first run of Game of Thrones. I think a white dominant cast for a fictional Euro-centric settings is acceptable and not a product of 'excluding ethnicities for no good reason'. Now, it can obviously argued whether these fictional settings have to be adapted as such, and that still plays into what I said above - that is a deliberate creative decision. I think the story and setting plays a significant part in determining whether ethnicity is being excluded.

    That's just my opinion.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-11-17 at 06:23 PM.

  16. #7836
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    What constitutes excluding skin color though? Movies are an artform. How they choose to be represented is itself an expression of that art.
    So what? Since when does "but it's art!" give you license to be racist? You can make horrifically offensive art, and it'd still be art - but it wouldn't mean nobody can criticize you for it. What a silly notion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    All white cast, but not as a means to exclude 'for no good reason'. There is a reason, this is how they chose to depict their setting. I don't think this is a problem. This should be an expression of an artform, not a status quo.
    And I added that rider specifically for cases where it DOES make sense. I believe we've had this discussion before in this thread. There are times when it makes total sense to factor race into casting. There's also many many MANY more times when it does not, and people are only pretending it does because of established racial biases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Rings of Power choosing to have diversity is no different than PJ LOTR choosing to stick to a white dominant cast, and I don't think either are problematic.
    If you don't think either are problematic, that's just racial bias at work. Simple as that. Refer to 100 pages back (or wherever it was) for exhaustive explanations as to why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Not every historic tale of the founding fathers has to follow in the footsteps of Hamilton.

    That's just my opinion.
    No, but neither does every historic tale of the founding fathers have to just be whiter than sour cream.

    And you're free to have racist opinions, too. Nobody is saying you can't have an opinion - but all anyone is required to respect is that you have a right to HAVE an opinion, not to respect the opinion ITSELF.

  17. #7837
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    So what? Since when does "but it's art!" give you license to be racist?
    Depends on what you are defining to be racist.

    Absence of diversity is not ethnic exclusion. Northman is one example which I bring up. I do not consider it to be racist because I don't consider this movie particularly excluding any ethnicity that would make sense for this particular story and setting. The casting is a creative choice, one that I do not find its absence of diversity to be racist.

    And I added that rider specifically for cases where it DOES make sense. I believe we've had this discussion before in this thread. There are times when it makes total sense to factor race into casting. There's also many many MANY more times when it does not, and people are only pretending it does because of established racial biases.
    But the thing is, simply making sense (to factor race into casting) doesn't mean an absence of it would be considered discrimination.

    I could say an adaptation has the creative right to depict certain Middle Earth Elves as being Purple and Pink skinned, like we have with the Night Elves. This doesn't mean by not having purple and pink skinned Elves, we are excluding them. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean its absence is now inherrently exclusion. It would be exclusion if the story and setting had their inclusion in mind and there is a deliberate choice to exclude them. IMO we have to consider the context of the story and setting and what creative decisions are being applied to the adaptation.

    No, but neither does every historic tale of the founding fathers have to just be whiter than sour cream.
    I don't think it would be racist considering the founding fathers historically were 'whiter than sour cream'. I think this plays into 'case where it DOES make sense'. Wouldn't you agree?

    And you're free to have racist opinions, too.
    And so are you. That's a shared freedom.

    I don't see what this has to do with anything since neither of us are expressing racist opinions.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-11-17 at 07:05 PM.

  18. #7838
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Depends on what you are defining to be racist in terms of ethnic exclusion.

    Do you consider every Bollywood movie to be inherrently racist because it excludes other ethnicities?
    I feel like we've had this conversation before. I specifically said EXCLUDE FOR NO GOOD REASON. Every word in that is important. And just to be clear, Bollywood isn't free from exclusion problems either, not even close - they just manifest it in different ways. The Indian subcontinent has its own particular, very long history of systematic biases and exclusion on the basis of language, religion, caste, etc. etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But the thing is, simply making sense where it fits doesn't mean an absence of it would be considered excluding it.
    Which is not what I said, in any way; in fact I went out of my way to be specific and only talk about EXCLUSION on the basis of something that isn't a GOOD REASON. If no black person applies for a role even though they totally could and there's no implicit barriers, that's not exclusion. If the story is set up in a way that makes races an important factor to consider, that's not exclusion without a good reason. So don't bring up those cases going HURR DURR BUT WHAT ABOUT... when my entire premise was specifically designed not to be about those cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I could say an adaptation has the creative right to depict certain Middle Earth Elves as being Purple and Pink skinned, like we have with the Night Elves. It makes sense in the adaptation, just like Orcs can be creatively adapted to be practically any color.
    If you can find a good reason, you can do whatever you want. For some things it's easier, for other things it's harder. But you'd need a GOOD REASON, and a lot of the reasons people give aren't that - they're just remnants of long-standing, deeply entrenched racial biases, justified through baseless, vapid tropes like "it's not like that in the book!" or whatever. Nothing in LotR would change, for example, if Frodo was played by a black actor. ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. I don't know if they specifically excluded black actors from consideration during the original casting, but if they did, that was most definitely racist and not justifiable. Irrespective of whether or not they ultimately went with a white dude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But this doesn't mean by not having purple and pink skinned Elves, we are excluding them.
    This is a nonsense argument, because there's no purple-skinned actors. This is about REAL PEOPLE and REAL PROBLEMS, don't belittle the issues of systemic racial bias by going "Cast black people? For goodness sake, NEXT THEY'LL BE ASKING US TO CAST ALL THE PURPLE PEOPLE! WHERE DOES IT END!" like an imbecile.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    just because it makes sense doesn't mean the absence of them is now considered racist.
    Do you perhaps not know what 'exclusion' means? That's not a synonym for 'absence', what a ridiculous misrepresentation of fact.

    There is an entire WORLD of difference between "no black people were at my birthday party" and "no black people were allowed at my birthday party". How absolutely stunningly idiotic that you would suggest the two are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I don't see how it would be racist considering the founding fathers historically were 'whiter than sour cream'.
    I was talking about constraints on a fictional REPRESENTATION of historical fact.

    Not about historical fact ITSELF.

    Also, I wasn't saying it was racist - you brought that in. I was saying that there's nothing inherently prohibiting fictional representations from taking liberties when it comes to things like race - quite EVIDENTLY SO, as you already provided the example with Hamilton. That doesn't mean "anything goes!" that doesn't mean "race is irrelevant to history!", it only means that there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with adaptations taking creative liberties IF AND WHEN THEY CAN JUSTIFY IT.

    And before you ignore parts of that statement again, let me emphasize that every part of it is relevant and required for it to make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You just said you added a rider for cases where it does make sense, while still arguing against a scenario that historically makes sense.
    Those are not mutually exclusive. You can change it if and when it makes sense; you can also leave it as-is if and when it makes sense. "Historical fact" is just one reason out of many possible ones, and it's neither immutable nor absolute. This only becomes a contradiction if you assume that historical fact trumps all, and can never be changed in an adaptation - which is patently absurd.

  19. #7839
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    Which is not what I said, in any way; in fact I went out of my way to be specific and only talk about EXCLUSION on the basis of something that isn't a GOOD REASON. If no black person applies for a role even though they totally could and there's no implicit barriers, that's not exclusion. If the story is set up in a way that makes races an important factor to consider, that's not exclusion without a good reason. So don't bring up those cases going HURR DURR BUT WHAT ABOUT... when my entire premise was specifically designed not to be about those cases.
    This is going to be a complicated discussion.

    If you understand how the casting process actually works, then you will realize that no matter how inclusionary it is, it will always 'exclude' something or someone in some way. They could merely be appealing to opening up diversity for various roles, like in their background extras, or some notable Harfoot characters, or for some of the Numenoreans and Southlanders. It doesn't mean they are being fair and not excluding their choice of actor for their 'Galadriel'. I doubt the casting directors went out to cast every person of any color to find their 'Galadriel'. They may have only be looking for a fair skinned white female for this particular role.

    Whether this is good exclusion or bad exclusion is subjective. Someone could say it's okay because at least they're casting people of color in other roles. Someone else might say it's completely unacceptable practice, because X movie has a person of color in a leading role that was traditionally depicted as white. There's no real universal standard to what reasons are considered good or bad.

    And I'll also want to address that I may have been using 'Ethnic exclusion' in places where I actually meant to address 'Absence of diversity'. I have edited that in my response above, if that helps. I apologize ahead of time if I'm sending out mixed messages and sound like I'm defending any deliberate Ethnic Exclusion, I am not.

    This is about REAL PEOPLE and REAL PROBLEMS, don't belittle the issues of systemic racial bias by going "Cast black people?!" (What will they think next?)
    If this isn't a part of my argument, then there's no reason for you to overreact over something that was never said.

    I made an example of how absence of diversity is not equivalent to ethnic exclusion, and used a fictional example for that. It doesn't belittle any systemic racism because like you said, what you're actually talking about isn't relevant to my example of absence of diversity.

    The premise here is whether you define an absence to be exclusion. And if I bring up Purple and Pink skinned Elves as an example, and you are replying that it belittles a real life Black casting issue, then I see this as conflating two unrelated issues into one.

    If we put things into context, has any of my previous comments about not focusing on making diversity a status quo actually an example of the Black casting issue that you're talking about? No, it doesn't. Because nothing I'm talking about is inherrently related to the issues you're bringing up.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-11-17 at 07:31 PM.

  20. #7840
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    This is going to be a complicated discussion.

    If you understand how the casting process actually works, then you will realize that no matter how inclusionary it is, it will always 'exclude' something or someone in some way.
    Yes, any solution will always be asymptotic. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't try your best. Exclusion will never disappear completely, but that is in no way a reason not to try and reduce it wherever and however we can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I doubt the casting directors went out to cast every person of any color to find their 'Galadriel'. They may have only be looking for a fair skinned white female for this particular role.
    And then it purely becomes a question of "can we justify this?". There will never be universal agreement on this - it's just about presenting a case, and seeing how convincing it ends up being. I don't think there's a good CREATIVE reason to exclude black actors from playing Galadriel. But there may be good ECONOMIC reasons, which you can judge morally however you wish. Studios aren't people. They'll want to make money, and if that means screwing over minorities in the process, so be it. Until that costs them more money than not doing it, there's little reason for them to change. Be that as morally repugnant as it may.

    And let's be clear here: you are still misunderstanding the word 'exclusion'. It doesn't mean "let's go round up all the black people, see if they want the job". It means removing barriers for them to make the choice to apply THEMSELVES. Some of those barriers are explicit, some are implicit. But my point is solely about reducing exclusion, not about actively filling quotas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Whether this is good exclusion or bad exclusion is subjective.
    That's our judgement to make, collectively. What is or is not a good reason needs to be negotiated. That's how all discourse works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Someone could say it's okay because at least they're casting people of color in other roles. Someone else might say it's completely unacceptable practice, because X movie has a person of color in a leading role that was traditionally depicted as white. There's no real universal standard to what reasons are considered good or bad.
    No, but that works both ways. You can't implicitly accept one default without justification, like "it was traditionally done that way" - that's a logical fallacy (argument from tradition), not an actual justification. ESPECIALLY when the issue is that we would perhaps like to CHANGE how we've always done things, because how we've always done things was, in a lot of ways, racist and bigoted. That's the problem, so you can't simply skirt the issue by appealing to a tradition that is in fact very much at stake in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And I'll also want to address that I may have been using 'Ethnic exclusion' in places where I actually meant to address 'Absence of diversity'.
    Those are very much not the same thing. They're interrelated, but they are not synonymous. Grossly negligent to use them interchangeably, implicitly or explicitly.

    "Absence of diversity" is a much more complicated problem, and it's very difficult to assess broadly. My focus is purely on exclusion in this debate, because that's a concrete angle of attack. There's a separate discussion about the absence (or presence) of diversity that can and should be had, but it's far more difficult to engage with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I made an example of how absence of diversity is not equivalent to ethnic exclusion
    Cool. Something I never questioned or disagreed with or even... talked about. I only ever talked about exclusion. That you have trouble with distinguishing that from diversity and its absence/presence isn't on me. Don't try and bring this in as though this was a point of contention - I never engaged with it that way, at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It doesn't belittle any systemic racism
    It does if you make simple equivocation fallacies (see above), because it betrays ignorance about core issues. Trying to paint over things as though they were the same when they're not is exactly what's problematic about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The premise here is whether you define an absence to be exclusion.
    I don't, and never have. That being said, absence can be INDICATIVE of exclusion, and not all exclusion is explicit. You can claim all you want "but we never stopped people from applying!" when the framework of the entire process makes it clear that would be futile - those are implicit barriers, and they're very tricky to deal with. One good example for this is women in STEM fields - no one actually actively stops them from going into STEM, but there is a slew of implicit barriers that makes them not want to go into STEM. And that IS a form of exclusion, just not a very visible, very explicit form.

    But still: that does NOT make absence of diversity and exclusion the same thing. It only makes them related in certain ways.

    That's relevant to Hollywood, too. It takes a lot for an actor of color to go to a casting for a role that's always been or is strongly described as white - even if no one stops them from trying out for the role, a lot of people simply won't bother because they are convinced they'll never get it. That's an implicit barrier, and implicit exclusion, and it's very difficult to tackle.

Posting Permissions

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