Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

1) I deliberately copy/pasted something from a source I knew to be bad to see what your response would be, instead of trying to reason,

So this is just an admission that colour dwarfs aren’t an issue at all with what Tolkien put down on paper and your just fishing for a respond.

Are you willing to actually say that out right or are you just now going to hide behind “I was trolling the whole time” while actually holding to the “troll” belief still?

[Adamas102]

So this is just an admission that colour dwarfs aren’t an issue at all with what Tolkien put down on paper and your just fishing for a respond.

Are you willing to actually say that out right or are you just now going to hide behind “I was trolling the whole time” while actually holding to the “troll” belief still?

He's absolutely lying, of course. The whole "I wanted to see you destroy my purposefully bad argument because that's a win for me" is honestly even worse than just not understanding that what he was using didn't help his original argument. The best thing he could have done was to just not post again and let time wipe away the shame, but he can't help himself so he's just going to keep compounding his losses.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

He's absolutely lying, of course. The whole "I wanted to see you destroy my purposefully bad argument because that's a win for me" is honestly even worse than just not understanding that what he was using didn't help his original argument. The best thing he could have done was to just not post again and let time wipe away the shame, but he can't help himself so he's just going to keep compounding his losses.

Well ya that seems like a given, only real question is rather he'll admit that the dwarfs are fine and he's been wrong or if he'll double down any way.

[Adamas102]

1) I deliberately copy/pasted something from a source I knew to be bad to see what your response would be, instead of trying to reason, you went off the deep end like usual and tried tearing things down with stereotypical fervour and zeal that the other white knights would be proud of, hence my sarcastic tone with that specific excerpt.

2) I asked for specificity because the way your moronic clap back was worded made it seem like you believe people of colour have only been marginalised for the past 100-150 years and nothing before that point in history matters, so I gave myriad examples as an exercise and you can't even register that what your saying is PREDOMINANTLY an American problem, and has little to no bearing on the UK or the rest of Europe for that matter, but please tell me more about something I very clearly have no concept for despite having read plenty of media related to the topic, I'm sure I could use some first-hand experience from a naturalized American such as yourself who clearly knows more than anybody on the topic they can lecture others.

3) dictionary definition of 'inclusive': 'not excluding any of the parties or groups involved in something.' - last time I checked, that didn't mean excluding a certain demographic because of racist hiring mandates.

dictionary definition of 'representative': 'typical of a class, group, or body of opinion.' - last time I checked, that didn't include needing to have the mentally deranged 1000 genders or whatever other nonsense 'represented' in an already defined, well-loved work of literature that's existed for longer than everyone alive today, but I'm sure you'll find some way to shoehorn in things that don't make sense in the context of the setting because 'we need modernity in media now'.

4) I don't even know what 'alt-right' means, as stated quite clearly, I'm from the UK, I'm British, we don't use moronic terms such as that here, and for the record, my political 'lean' would be described as centre-left based on our political structure, so again, your using the alphabet mafia playbook for name calling and failing spec-fucking-tacularly at it, perhaps you should get the leader of your church to go over your handbook because you seem to need a refresher course in the 'progressive' and 'inclusive' indoctrination methods.

5) I am genuinely bored of you, and the other muppets in this thread still defending this absolute steaming pile of shite, ignoring basic logic of any capacity when discussing this show, ignoring the fact that this work was written in such a way, and it's EXPECTED from fans that an adaptation would REPRESENT that writing, instead, all that's been served is a bunch of badly written fan fiction that shits all over the source material, terrible acting from people that should not have been anywhere near this project, and just so there's no confusion I'm talking about the VAST MAJORITY of the cast because we have all seen how you love throwing the old racism card around when someone doesn't like that well-established aspect of the lore changed for 'modern audiences'.

from the terrible outfits, and the sub-par sets, to the blatant and pathetic copying of the PJ movies line for line in many cases, this show is a creatively bankrupt badly written fan fiction monstrosity, that is nothing more than a vehicle for money laundering, with a viewer count so laughably low considering it's the most expensive tv show in human history, and STILL you defend it.

I am praying that they take this thing out the back and put it down like the rabid beast it is because that's all it deserves, and I pray that your little cult dies just as fast because I am sick and tired of 'the message' being the only thing these supposed entertainment companies seem to care about, and it's morons like you who keep enabling that, with your vapid defence of the indefensible and your mental gymnastics as to why it totally makes sense to rewrite the established lore of such a great work.

1. Yeah, everyone knows you're lying.

2. "...As pertains to western media". I'll be here when you catch up.

3. Hey, you CAN read! And you even mentioned why so much of western media has historically lacked inclusivity of non-white actors/characters; certain demographics being excluded due to racist hiring mandates. Bravo. And yes, being more representative of modern demographics is exactly why increased inclusivity is a good thing. Absolutely necessary all the time? No, but generally speaking it's always a net positive. "Because that's not how it was before" is a piss poor excuse for denying representation.

4. He can search the internet for bad quotes to copy/paste into his posts, but he can't google a term to learn it's definition. Classic. If you'd looked it up you'd know that it's essentially just a conservative, white nationalist ideology. So, does it apply? Let's see. "Has a strong desire to exclude people of color by appealing to traditionalism and ethnocentric nationalism". Yep, checks out.

5. Yes, SO bored that you continue to type out lengthy responses, flailing about with incoherent rants about cults and mafias and "the message". It's pretty obvious which youtubers you take your cues from and how they've contributed to your brain rot.

[Triceron]

To preface, I am not defending anyone else's comments on Dwarf skin tones. The following opinions are my own.


I still don't think it was a good idea from a creative standpoint, and that the choice to have the character of Disa be portrayed as dark skinned is a creative choice that I don't agree with. The depiction of the LOTR universe is meant to be based on very specific cultural and mythological backgrounds. It is a work of fiction, but it still depicts a very Western view of the world at large. I don't think a prominent queen of Dwarves would have been dark skinned, and if such a character existed I think it would be more well established than a simple, generic blurb about dark skin tones.

Let me get this out of the way - I absolutely enjoyed Disa as a character. I think the actress did a wonderful job at portraying the character, and she is surprisingly one of my favourite characters of the series (which isn't saying much considering how poor I think many other characters were portrayed). The Elrond/Durin arc was the best part of the series, and Disa contributed much to that. That being said, I don't think it mades sense for the Dwarves of Erebor would have had skin tones as diverse as we've seen here. I think they would have all looked similar, since Dwarves were divided up into various clans/tribes where it would make sense for their appearances to be similar. Much in the same vein that Peter Jackson's LOTR already depicts Dwarves and other races.

And I would even extend this criticism to the creative decision to depict Dwarves in a more diverse fashion in the Hobbit. I didn't like the visual depictions of Fili and Kili. I don't think they looked like Dwarves at all, and I would say it was all for the sake of adding sex appeal. Ori is what I think the archetypical 'young dwarf' should look like, not Fili and Kili. I'm not in favour of Dwarves with thinly trimmed beards.


I think the creative decisions to add sex appeal or add diversity harms the collective vision of what the fantasy of Middle Earth should really be. I don't think these are good decisions at a creative level. I'd even run this parallel to Black Myth: Wukong being criticized for lacking diversity. Not everything needs to be diverse, not everything should be diverse. We're so preoccupied on debating whether Dwarves could be dark skin toned that we aren't stopping to think whether they should be.


Like what if this were an animation instead? Let's say the actress who played Disa was still doing the voice for this character and the role remains all inclusive. Should the character of the wife of Durin be portrayed as being dark skinned? I personally don't think the character should be. And I would point to the War of the Rohirrim animation as an example, where the main characters are depicted with similar skin tones. It's a depiction of certain cultures and peoples, where it makes sense to have them all have similar skin tones.

[Raisei]

To preface, I am not defending anyone else's comments on Dwarf skin tones. The following opinions are my own.


I still don't think it was a good idea from a creative standpoint, and that the choice to have the character of Disa be portrayed as dark skinned is a creative choice that I don't agree with. The depiction of the LOTR universe is meant to be based on very specific cultural and mythological backgrounds. It is a work of fiction, but it still depicts a very Western view of the world at large. I don't think a prominent queen of Dwarves would have been dark skinned, and if such a character existed I think it would be more well established than a simple, generic blurb about dark skin tones.

Let me get this out of the way - I absolutely enjoyed Disa as a character. I think the actress did a wonderful job at portraying the character, and she is surprisingly one of my favourite characters of the series (which isn't saying much considering how poor I think many other characters were portrayed). The Elrond/Durin arc was the best part of the series, and Disa contributed much to that. That being said, I don't think it mades sense for the Dwarves of Erebor would have had skin tones as diverse as we've seen here. I think they would have all looked similar, since Dwarves were divided up into various clans/tribes where it would make sense for their appearances to be similar. Much in the same vein that Peter Jackson's LOTR already depicts Dwarves and other races.

And I would even extend this criticism to the creative decision to depict Dwarves in a more diverse fashion in the Hobbit. I didn't like the visual depictions of Fili and Kili. I don't think they looked like Dwarves at all, and I would say it was all for the sake of adding sex appeal. Ori is what I think the archetypical 'young dwarf' should look like, not Fili and Kili.


I think the creative decisions to add sex appeal or add diversity harms the collective vision of what the fantasy of Middle Earth should really be. I don't think these are good decisions at a creative level. I'd even run this parallel to Black Myth: Wukong being criticized for lacking diversity. Not everything needs to be diverse, not everything should be diverse. We're so preoccupied on debating whether Dwarves could be dark skin toned that we aren't stopping to think whether they should be.


Like what if this were an animation instead? Let's say the actress who played Disa was still doing the voice for this character and the role remains all inclusive. Should the character of the wife of Durin be portrayed as being dark skinned? I personally don't think the character should be. And I would point to the War of the Rohirrim animation as an example, where the main characters are depicted with similar skin tones. It's a depiction of certain cultures and peoples, where it makes sense to have them all have similar skin tones.

The problem really is not the inclusivity. It is the diversity/inclusivity is used as a replacement for much more complex parts of the creation of a good product: Quality as a whole even. Characters and actors are not characters and actors anymore but checkboxes. And when the product then predictably fails, because the creators only focussed on delivering their activist message and cared nothing for the quality, then the diversity is used as a shield against any and all criticism.

By all means add all the diversity you wish, I certainly do not mind. BUT pair it with quality. Otherwise this is just another form of abusing the diverse people.

I know why it happens. It is much easier and cheaper for the big studios to hire people by checkboxes instead of finding good people. And since all criticism can then be deflected with various -ist accusations against the critics they cannot even be judged for this. It is a really smart tactic.

What I don't understand is why so many people do not see through this. Do they really think Disney's suits or Bezos care a shit for diversity? They want money and prestige. They swam with the wave when diversity was hype, made use of it and now where movies/series/games are more and more criticized for focusing ONLY on that, they start paddling back bit by bit.

RoP is certainly an absolute victim of this. The simple lack of quality that even an amateur can spot without a problem is unimportant for the showrunners as long as Elrond's troop can look like they went into a californian Starbucks and hired the first 5 people they saw.

I am unsure if Bezos will allow another season to happen like this.

I know I will likely be accused as one of the -ist people by the defenders now, but to quote Rick Sanchez: "Your Boos mean nothing to me, I have seen what you clap for."

[Syegfryed]

They could have just made some clans with dark skin, like they did in house of the dragon, where house velaryon was black, instead of adding ONE person, or half a dozen randomly and calling a day

I am unsure if Bezos will allow another season to happen like this.

Oh he will, its his vanity project, canceling would mean admitting defeat.

They already paid for at least 5 seasons, they need to make otherwise they will be losing even more money. Unless they realize making the rest would be a greater cost

[Triceron]

The problem really is not the inclusivity. It is the diversity/inclusivity is used as a replacement for much more complex parts of the creation of a good product: Quality as a whole even. Characters and actors are not characters and actors anymore but checkboxes. And when the product then predictably fails, because the creators only focussed on delivering their activist message and cared nothing for the quality, then the diversity is used as a shield against any and all criticism.

To be fair to the show, Disa's portrayal was not a quality issue to me. I think the performance was very well done. I think the character was absolutely charming and engaging. I think the actress knocked it out of the park. But I still don't think the character itself fit into the world that I expected to see. Which is akin to adding white or black actors to Journey to the West and calling it a day. Yes, there are absolutely adaptations that have done this, like Into the Badlands or Enslaved: Odyssey to the West; but these are clearly loose adaptations and creative choices to not stick close to the original source. Rings of Power however has always been marketted as an extension of the Peter Jackson movies, going so far as to bring back creatures and architectural designs from the PJ Trilogy. It was not set out to be its own self-contained thing, and that's what I think damages it the most.

If Rings of Power set out to be its own thing from the start, I'd have less expectations and bad impressions on the direction they've chosen for the series. Having it attempt to be connected to the PJ films just makes it feel like poorly planned fan fiction.

[Adamas102]

I still don't think it was a good idea from a creative standpoint, and that the choice to have the character of Disa be portrayed as dark skinned is a creative choice that I don't agree with. The depiction of the LOTR universe is meant to be based on very specific cultural and mythological backgrounds. It is a work of fiction, but it still depicts a very Western view of the world at large. I don't think a prominent queen of Dwarves would have been dark skinned, and if such a character existed I think it would be more well established than a simple, generic blurb about dark skin tones.

I would argue that by suggesting that depictions of LotR maintain the archaic viewpoints and aesthetics that they were originally based on you are missing much of what Tolkien was trying to create. Myths and fairy tales aren't meant to be static. Stories like these are meant to change and grow as they endure through time. In place of the oral tradition that used to pass these sorts of stories from generation to generation, we now have adaptation into visual mediums. And unlike those traditions of old where details might be lost in translation and to time, we will always have the original written word. This idea that Tolkien's works should remain stagnant, never changing divorces them from what he was trying to mirror.

It's also short sighted to argue for more static interpretations because the most enduring stories are the ones that can adapt over time. I've mentioned the works of Shakespeare already in this thread, but characters like Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur, and many more all continue to capture our imaginations BECAUSE they aren't shackled to their original works. I'd like to rank Tolkien's works amongst those legends, and part of that is the fact that it thrives as it grows and changes with the times.

That being said, I don't think it mades sense for the Dwarves of Erebor would have had skin tones as diverse as we've seen here. I think they would have all looked similar, since Dwarves were divided up into various clans/tribes where it would make sense for their appearances to be similar. Much in the same vein that Peter Jackson's LOTR already depicts Dwarves and other races.

Unlike the other Fathers of the Dwarves, Durin I awakened alone and wandered until he founded Kazad-dum. In Tolkien's notes he said "his people were Dwarves that joined him from other kindreds west and east". So of all the dwarven kingdoms, it would make sense that Durin's Folk could be the most diverse.

You mention Peter Jackson's LOTR dwarves so lets use that as a basis for what you think is acceptable. In the Council of Elrond scene there are five dwarves present (3 more than in the book, but presumably all are still emissaries of Dain) and all of them have hair of varying colors, from Gimli's red to a sort of dirty blond to light brown, dark brown, and white. You see that and you don't even give it a second thought because you see no issue with people having hair of varying colors. However, you start adding in darker skin tones and suddenly it no longer makes sense? This is a world completely different from our own, that doesn't share our same origin of species or evolutionary biology, and a fantastical race of which very little is given in terms of physical descriptions. So of all variations in appearance why is skin tone such a sticking point for you?

I chalk it up to biases molded over thousands of years of human history. I don't know how you get beyond that other than desensitization to the notion that in a setting that doesn't share our history the skin/eye/hair color of a character can be completely interchangeable with no need for further explanation.

And I would even extend this criticism to the creative decision to depict Dwarves in a more diverse fashion in the Hobbit. I didn't like the visual depictions of Fili and Kili. I don't think they looked like Dwarves at all, and I would say it was all for the sake of adding sex appeal. Ori is what I think the archetypical 'young dwarf' should look like, not Fili and Kili.

I think the creative decisions to add sex appeal or add diversity harms the collective vision of what the fantasy of Middle Earth should really be. I don't think these are good decisions at a creative level. I'd even run this parallel to Black Myth: Wukong being criticized for lacking diversity. Not everything needs to be diverse, not everything should be diverse. We're so preoccupied on debating whether Dwarves could be dark skin toned that we aren't stopping to think whether they should be.

You forgot about Thorin! But therein lies the answer to your misgivings. We're talking about a completely different medium; visual language is not the same as written language. Toning down the more exaggerated features that more familiar depictions of dwarves have in favor of more "traditionally attractive" aesthetics was definitely part of that story telling language. It's kind of like asking why most actors tend to be pretty good looking people. Because in general people like seeing good looking people, whether they're a heroic leader or romancing an elf.

As for your second point, no one has really argued that everything NEEDS to be more diverse. All the arguments I've seen center around the position that they CAN be more diverse in opposition to people who want to claim that it shouldn't be possible. Of all things I'd say fantastical settings and stories that aren't burdened with our real world history are the perfect place to have this kind of diversity. Just as there doesn't need to be an explanation for why a fictional population can be depicted with actors of varying hair or eye color, there doesn't need to be an explanation for having actors of varying skin color within that fictional population either.

Like what if this were an animation instead? Let's say the actress who played Disa was still doing the voice for this character and the role remains all inclusive. Should the character of the wife of Durin be portrayed as being dark skinned? I personally don't think the character should be. And I would point to the War of the Rohirrim animation as an example, where the main characters are depicted with similar skin tones. It's a depiction of certain cultures and peoples, where it makes sense to have them all have similar skin tones.

I would argue that there would be no problem with depicting her either way. Same with the people of Rohan in the animated movie. In fact, such a thing has already kinda been done. The Tales of Middle-earth set has been by far the most successful MtG set of all time with some fantastic art depicting a far more diverse looking cast of familiar characters. They didn't NEED to do that, but it's pretty cool that they did. And even though the art actually included a lot of details from the books that the movies had omitted or changed, of course all of the negativity was strictly about skin color.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem really is not the inclusivity. It is the diversity/inclusivity is used as a replacement for much more complex parts of the creation of a good product: Quality as a whole even. Characters and actors are not characters and actors anymore but checkboxes. And when the product then predictably fails, because the creators only focussed on delivering their activist message and cared nothing for the quality, then the diversity is used as a shield against any and all criticism.

This is a pretty silly argument. How do the decisions of the casting director affect the decisions of the writer or the effects team or the director of photography. Do you think it costs more to chose an actor with dark skin and therefor less money goes to pay the writers? You do know that creating a show or movie like this is the work of literally thousands of people, so how does a producer at the top saying "I'd like you to find a more diverse set of actors for the elves and dwarves" have ANY bearing on the work put out by all the other people that have nothing to do with those casting decisions? It makes no sense. They could have cast nothing but white actors for this entire show and NOTHING would have changed. The sad thing is that a lot of people who dislike the show now would probably have no problem with it were that the case.

[Triceron]

You forgot about Thorin! But therein lies the answer to your misgivings. We're talking about a completely different medium; visual language is not the same as written language. Toning down the more exaggerated features that more familiar depictions of dwarves have in favor of more "traditionally attractive" aesthetics was definitely part of that story telling language. It's kind of like asking why most actors tend to be pretty good looking people. Because in general people like seeing good looking people, whether they're a heroic leader or romancing an elf.

I would have preferred a longer beard on Thorin. I don't think the shorter beard does him justice. I have many issues with the Hobbit, they went in a much more flexible adaptation, IMO for the worse. Thorin's beard isn't a make or break, but I think it could have been better. I would prefer Dwarves looking like Dwarves, not just thicker, shorter humans. Expressing this shouldn't really offend anyone so long as you gave enough empathy to recognize an opinion when you see one.

As for your second point, no one has really argued that everything NEEDS to be more diverse. All the arguments I've seen center around the position that they CAN be more diverse in opposition to people who want to claim that it shouldn't be possible. Of all things I'd say fantastical settings and stories that aren't burdened with our real world history are the perfect place to have this kind of diversity.

Just because it is fantasy doesn't mean it immediately has the right to have any race depicted with any skin color as pleased. It still should make sense in the fictional world, and to me, it was not presented very well. Similarly to Wheel of Time, the show just expects the audience to accept this as normal, when it's clearly not.

Things still should make sense, and I don't think the extreme depictions make sense. Any more than if they added a Dwarf that clearly looks Asian (and for the record, I am Asian). This could be justified by being a fantasy world, and IMO it doesn't mean it is right for the medium. Yes it could happen, and it doesn't automatically mean it should.

If the show were clearly presented itself as a loose adaptation merely based on the works of Tolkien, I wouldn't have as much of an issue. As I said though, they went through many pains to tie itself directly to the PJ LOTR trilogy.

The Tales of Middle-earth set has been by far the most successful MtG set of all time with some fantastic art depicting a far more diverse looking cast of familiar characters. They didn't NEED to do that, but it's pretty cool that they did. And even though the art actually included a lot of details from the books that the movies had omitted or changed, of course all of the negativity was strictly about skin color.

I have no stake in MTG or their LOTR adaptation. But seems like you're justifying my position if you're aware of there being controversy/contention concerning skin tone.

It goes back to what I've said. It's not everyone's jam. The negativity you're seeing? It's from people who would prefer something else, something different from what is being presented.

[Adamas102]

Just because it is fantasy doesn't mean it immediately has the right to have any race depicted with any skin color as pleased.

On the contrary, whoever holds the rights to the product does indeed have the right to do with it as they wish. In 20-25 years both The Hobbit and LotR will be public domain at which point EVERYONE will have the right to create pretty much any sort of derivative work from them.

Things still should make sense, and I don't think the extreme depictions make sense. Any more than if they added a Dwarf that clearly looks Asian (and for the record, I am Asian). This could be justified by being a fantasy world, and IMO it doesn't mean it is right for the medium. Yes it could happen, and it doesn't automatically mean it should.

What's "extreme" about dark skin? Or Asian features? How do these things simply existing not "make sense"?

Again, it's not a matter of "should", and what I've said is that there is no need for "justification". It just...is.

I have no stake in MTG or their LOTR adaptation. But seems like you're justifying my position if you're aware of there being controversy/contention concerning skin tone.

Then you misunderstood what I said. To put it bluntly, it's racism.

I don't buy the "we just want it to match the books" crowd, and I'll give you an example. Aragorn has three notable features to his physical appearance: dark hair with flecks of grey, grey eyes, and pale skin. We have one dramatic depiction where not only are his eyes and hair not "correct", but his personality is drastically changed. This depiction is nearly universally praised. Then you have officially licensed art depicting him with the correct hair and eyes, but with dark skin. When that version is met with controversy and negativity from a small but vocal minority, how else do you explain that?

Skin color only means something because for hundreds of years HUMANS used it as an excuse to treat other humans differently. It's just an extension of tribalism, and it's use to denote different "races" is entirely a social construct. When you have a setting (like Middle-earth) that is completely and utterly divorced from our history, that particular social construct does not exist. It's literally no different than any other physical feature.

[Triceron]

What's "extreme" about dark skin? Or Asian features? How do these things simply existing not "make sense"?

Better question.

How does it make sense?

You admit fictional races aren't equivalent to our own, yet Rings of Power has not established why the diversity exists in a place that is otherwise presented as an isolated underground kingdom. You're relying on your own interpretation of Tolkien's explanations of Durins folk to mean they are diverse, but no where does the show establish this. It is not up to the viewer to interpret the morphology of a fictional race that mimics Human ethnicities but otherwise follows none of our biological or social cues. It is up to the medium to establish the traits and give reasoning, lest the viewer start questioning it.

If you want to convince me that the Tolkien line saying Dwarves of the East and West meeting is the reason why Durins folk is depicted being multicultural, then the show should be establishing it, not left to the viewer to dig through the source material for a possible explanation. Otherwise I've heard dozens of different theories like Dwarves being the color of stone or Disa being part of a particular tribe from elsewhere. None of these explanations have been established by the show, and that is what I'm criticizing here. It is up to the show to pick and present an explanation. I don't want to headcanon a reasonable explanation that makes sense to me. I could come up with a reasonable theory that Disa has a rare form of reverse albinoism, it doesn't mean this is makes sense for the world building of the show. We shouldn't have to fill in the blanks with headcanon.

Then you misunderstood what I said. To put it bluntly, it's racism.

Those fictional characters don't exist. They are fictional. Elves and Dwarves are not real, therefore there is no actual racism going on here. What bigotry against fictional races do you consider to be discriminated against? Is discussing the skin tone of Dwarves going to discriminate against real life blacks or real life asians? Ludicrous.

It isn't racist if someone said they don't like the Klingons from the 60's Star Trek and prefer the ones from Star Trek the Next Generation and beyond. It isn't racist to say they don't like the big ears on Ferengi, or the hairstyles of the Vulcans, or the blue skin of whatever blue skin aliens are in the show.

You admit that the social construct doesn't exist in middle earth, therefore debating skin color of said race isn't actually racist by nature. It COULD POTENTIALLY be racist if it is meant to insult or defame a certain real life ethnic group, but that isn't what's happening here. We are merely discussing the visual portrayal of skin tone of a fictional race, and that is not racist or discriminatory.

To say 'I'd prefer Aragorn with lighter skin' is not inherently racist, because Aragorn is fictional and the opinion isn't aimed at hurting anyone. No one is being discriminated by that statement, since Numenoreans and their descendents aren't real. And implying it to be racist would also imply that no one should speak out on skin tones of fictional characters lest they out themselves as racist, and I find that notion completely ridiculous. I guess anyone talking about Dwarf skin tones who isn't a Dwarf themselves must be racist then, eh? Sorry, that's not how things work.

Disa being the only prominent dark skinned Dwarf we see in the series makes her character the Elephant in the Room. The show does nothing to explain why there is an elephant in the room, it just expects everyone to accept it as normal. It is completely reasonable to question the elephant in the room. No one can have a discussion on the topic if people like you are projecting some irrational fear of becoming a bigot for even questioning it.

Skin color only means something because for hundreds of years HUMANS used it as an excuse to treat other humans differently

If you understand this as some type of truth, then it makes it even more important for the medium to establish and explain why we are seeing extremely diverse ethnicities or skin tones within a given group. Every race IS clearly treating other races differently because of their looks (Humans in Southlands hate Elves, Harfoots fear all other races, everyone hates Orcs) but everyone in the world turns a blind eye to skin tones, which our own human reflex would flag as an elephant in the room. And the only defense the show has for this jarring creative decision is 'anyone who questions it is a bigot'. I think that's ridiculous.


I'll even give you an example of a show where different skin tones and cultures actually makes sense. One Piece. The entire world is multicultural because everyone comes from different islands and travels by ships. It makes complete sense why even the smallest villages could have a diverse population. Every village has access to the sea and is constantly visited by pirates and adventurers alike. The skin tones of certain characters don't match up to the Manga, but it still works because the show retains the same world building that explains why it makes sense.

Nojiko (who is black) and Nami (who is white) are presented as sisters. Immediate elephant in the room. The show then establishes them as war orphans taken under the wing of a former Marine. The world building is there, and it gives insight into how things work in the rest of the world. This is a world of islands and seafaring. This is a world plagued by pirates and war. This is a world where orphans and slaves are normalized. This is a perfect explanation for diversity. No one is left guessing, we're given enough info to fill in the details.

In RoP, the Dwarves of Erebor are quite isolated. Disa is very much an elephant in the room. Where is the world building to explain Disa's heritage and background? None exists. We're just left to wonder how it's all connected.

[Syegfryed]

There's also no forced ship between her and Sauron. .

https://nerdist.com/article/the-ring...box=1728082616

Right from the mouth of the beast, GALADRIEL, was actually in love with Halbrand persona, AKA Sauron, fuck her Husband who she think is dead lol

This is the kind of garbage show, made by hacks thay you try to say it is decent

Also, pretty funny when you remember they said season 2 would be more CANONICAL, this show has to be the biggest joke ever made

[En Sabah Nur]

‘The Rings of Power’ on Verge of Season 3 Renewal by Amazon

In the wake of its second season finale and strong ratings, the fantasy epic is very close to getting a pickup.

[Fencers]

Amazon/MGM will likely ask for the next season budget to be reigned in. This was an expensive 1/2 seasons for them and were betting on shopping this show down the road.

[Adamas102]

Better question.

How does it make sense?

You admit fictional races aren't equivalent to our own, yet Rings of Power has not established why the diversity exists in a place that is otherwise presented as an isolated underground kingdom. You're relying on your own interpretation of Tolkien's explanations of Durins folk to mean they are diverse, but no where does the show establish this. It is not up to the viewer to interpret the morphology of a fictional race that mimics Human ethnicities but otherwise follows none of our biological or social cues. It is up to the medium to establish the traits and give reasoning, lest the viewer start questioning it.

If you want to convince me that the Tolkien line saying Dwarves of the East and West meeting is the reason why Durins folk is depicted being multicultural, then the show should be establishing it, not left to the viewer to dig through the source material for a possible explanation. Otherwise I've heard dozens of different theories like Dwarves being the color of stone or Disa being part of a particular tribe from elsewhere. None of these explanations have been established by the show, and that is what I'm criticizing here. It is up to the show to pick and present an explanation. I don't want to headcanon a reasonable explanation that makes sense to me. I could come up with a reasonable theory that Disa has a rare form of reverse albinoism, it doesn't mean this is makes sense for the world building of the show. We shouldn't have to fill in the blanks with headcanon.

Well, to begin with, no that's not a better question. You posed the statement that it didn't make sense and I asked you to clarify that. Trying to flip it to ask why I want you to clarify is silly.

As for how it's established, I explained to you in a previous post how the PJ movies already established that there is much diversity in the dwarves of Durin's line when they presented a group of them at the Council of Elrond. The bottom line is that it has been established that they have diverse physical traits and with no set limitations on that (either in the source material or the movies) there is no need to set our own limitations. As such, dwarves with dark skin make as much sense as dwarves with black hair. The fact that they're not equivalent to real life humans to begin with means that these things can absolutely be accepted with no further need for explanation. Like I said before, it just IS.

It also needs to be cleared up that just as eye color doesn't indicate multiculturalism, neither does skin color. You're making the mistake of applying archaic racialist views to a setting where those don't apply. Just as a person with dark skin who is born and raised in England can be culturally English, Durin's Folk have a wide range of variety in their physical features AND they are still all culturally Durin's Folk. Just like the different hair colors, it needs no other explanation.

What you're saying is all predicated on this idea that black people need to explain their existence to you. Even if you don't have overt negative feelings towards them it's still a racist mentality. You've fully accepted physical variation in these specific dwarves before. Stop asking for explanations when you didn't need any before. Just accept it again, the way you did before.

Those fictional characters don't exist. They are fictional. Elves and Dwarves are not real, therefore there is no actual racism going on here. What bigotry against fictional races do you consider to be discriminated against? Is discussing the skin tone of Dwarves going to discriminate against real life blacks or real life asians? Ludicrous.

It isn't racist if someone said they don't like the Klingons from the 60's Star Trek and prefer the ones from Star Trek the Next Generation and beyond. It isn't racist to say they don't like the big ears on Ferengi, or the hairstyles of the Vulcans, or the blue skin of whatever blue skin aliens are in the show.

You admit that the social construct doesn't exist in middle earth, therefore debating skin color of said race isn't actually racist by nature. It COULD POTENTIALLY be racist if it is meant to insult or defame a certain real life ethnic group, but that isn't what's happening here. We are merely discussing the visual portrayal of skin tone of a fictional race, and that is not racist or discriminatory.

To say 'I'd prefer Aragorn with lighter skin' is not inherently racist, because Aragorn is fictional and the opinion isn't aimed at hurting anyone. No one is being discriminated by that statement, since Numenoreans and their descendents aren't real. And implying it to be racist would also imply that no one should speak out on skin tones of fictional characters lest they out themselves as racist, and I find that notion completely ridiculous. I guess anyone talking about Dwarf skin tones who isn't a Dwarf themselves must be racist then, eh? Sorry, that's not how things work.

Disa being the only prominent dark skinned Dwarf we see in the series makes her character the Elephant in the Room. The show does nothing to explain why there is an elephant in the room, it just expects everyone to accept it as normal. It is completely reasonable to question the elephant in the room. No one can have a discussion on the topic if people like you are projecting some irrational fear of becoming a bigot for even questioning it.

This part is not about the characters themselves. There is no such thing as elves or dwarves (in the fantasy sense), and therefor they are played by actors. Rogoth was unable to wrap his head around this, but the things that you and he are suggesting are the reason why people of color had such low representation in western entertainment media pretty much since its inception. Looking for any excuse to exclude non-white actors from participating in movies and shows where there really is no barrier to them existing simply perpetuates segregation. This isn't a story about how any of these races persecute each other based solely on the color of their skin, so there is no reason why a casting call needs to take that into account.

The actor who plays Disa is English. Born and raised. I'd say she's just as "culturally" English as Tolkien, but funnily enough Tolkien was actually born in Africa. Yes, I'm aware that he moved to the UK when he was very young so his experience living in a British colony is minimal, but I think we all know that no such leniency would be extended to any of these black actors had they been born in Africa before emigrating. So no, just as there is no good reason to think of the actor as anything other than British, there is no reason to think of Disa as anything other than a dwarf of Durin's Folk.

As for your comments on Aragorn's depictions, I'd agree that it's not racist to prefer one depiction over another. However, there is no shortage of people who will say that a version with darker skin is diminished or inferior ONLY because of that change, and yes that is very much racist.

"The show does nothing to explain why there is an elephant in the room, it just expects everyone to accept it as normal." This is a YOU problem, not a problem with the show. It's entirely predicated on your idea that certain people don't belong simply because their skin is a different tone. These are human actors playing roles as fantastical creatures. You're not owed an explanation for that.

[QUOTE=Triceron;54566322]If you understand this as some type of truth, then it makes it even more important for the medium to establish and explain why we are seeing extremely diverse ethnicities or skin tones within a given group. Every race IS clearly treating other races differently because of their looks (Humans in Southlands hate Elves, Harfoots fear all other races, everyone hates Orcs) but everyone in the world turns a blind eye to skin tones, which our own human reflex would flag as an elephant in the room. And the only defense the show has for this jarring creative decision is 'anyone who questions it is a bigot'. I think that's ridiculous.

We're not talking about diverse ethnicities. Skin color is not ethnicity. It's also not "human reflex" to flag someone with a different skin color as an "other". That's a you thing. You and everyone else who struggles to see people as just people regardless of their outward appearances. And yeah, that's a pretty common sentiment, but it's learned behavior due to centuries of racial tensions. We don't need to bring that baggage to a fantasy setting.

I feel like this should be somewhat eye opening to you. That these reactions that you have where seeing a black person in a particular place is "jarring" to you are based on racial biases. That it SHOULDN'T be "an elephant in the room" just as having a dwarf walk in with brown hair shouldn't suddenly stand out to you. Additionally, the fact that you think this discussion has anything at all to do with multiculturalism or ethnicity really points to your misunderstanding of race in general.

In RoP, the Dwarves of Erebor are quite isolated. Disa is very much an elephant in the room. Where is the world building to explain Disa's heritage and background? None exists. We're just left to wonder how it's all connected.

Disa isn't the "elephant in the room" unless you can't get over the notion that people with different skin tones need no explanation for existing. You keep bringing up this idea that the dwarves are isolated so they shouldn't have any variation, but no support for that exists in the text and other media has already set a precedent of variation.

I don't know anything about One Piece, but however they want to depict different cultures, ethnicities, and races has no bearing on how Middle-earth Longbeard dwarves are depicted since they're one culture, ethnicity, and race. Going back to what was said before, it's not that anyone is saying that there NEEDS to be variation in skin tones. It's that there is no reason why there can't be, and unfortunately this entire discussion is predicated on some people not being able to see a black actor playing a completely fictional role without feeling like they're owed an explanation.

[Triceron]

Disa isn't the "elephant in the room" unless you can't get over the notion that people with different skin tones need no explanation for existing.

The fact we are even still discussing this is proof of there being an elephant in the room. The fact ANYONE has brought up the issue is an example of it being the elephant in the room. They fact you even acknowledge this same issue existing in the MTG game is a proof of there being an elephant in the room. We are all aware of it being there, you're the one choosing not to consider it to be normal. An elephant in the room is reflective of the current cultural zeitgeist, not your personal opinion. You're not the only person in the room.

And it goes back to what I said - we can't have a discussion about the elephant in the room if you can't bother acknowledging that isn't normal for everyone. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was. You wouldn't have to tell me negativity against Black Aragorn exists if it were actually normal.


If the elephant wasn't in the room, we wouldn't even be talking about it. No one would be. It would ACTUALLY be considered normal, for everyone. Make sense?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The fact we are even still discussing this is proof of there being an elephant in the room. The fact ANYONE has brought up the issue is an example of it being the elephant in the room. They fact you even acknowledge this same issue existing in the MTG game is a proof of there being an elephant in the room. We are all aware of it being there, you're the one choosing not to consider it to be normal. An elephant in the room is reflective of the current cultural zeitgeist, not your personal opinion. You're not the only person in the room.

And it goes back to what I said - we can't have a discussion about the elephant in the room if you can't bother acknowledging that isn't normal for everyone. We wouldn't be talking about it if it was. You wouldn't have to tell me negativity against Black Aragorn exists if it were actually normal.


If the elephant wasn't in the room, we wouldn't even be talking about it. No one would be. It would ACTUALLY be considered normal, for everyone. Make sense?

here lets agree the elephant is in the room, PJ movies already established that there is much diversity in the dwarves of Durin's line when they presented a group of them at the Council of Elrond. and in setting it has been established that dwarfs have diverse physical traits and with no set limitations on that (either in the source material or the movies) there is no need to set our own limitations. As such, dwarves with dark skin make as much sense as dwarves with black hair.

whats next?

[Triceron]

here lets agree the elephant is in the room, PJ movies already established that there is much diversity in the dwarves of Durin's line when they presented a group of them at the Council of Elrond. and in setting it has been established that dwarfs have diverse physical traits and with no set limitations on that (either in the source material or the movies) there is no need to set our own limitations. As such, dwarves with dark skin make as much sense as dwarves with black hair.

whats next?

What exactly was considered abnormal about the Dwarves at Council of Elrond? I don't remember there being any controversy around this.

I can't say I follow your example since I don't recognize Dwarves at Council of Elrond being abnormal in any way and haven't heard any controversy surrounding it. It sounds to me like apples and oranges, two different scenarios. One that didn't have controversy, and one that did.

Rings of Power needs to explain the diversity for itself. The lack of any explanation is, in my opinion, a very big part of there being any controversy at all. Whatever you're drawing from LOTR doesn't really work to explain it, since we're all aware the controversy exists without anyone bringing up the Council of Elrond.

The second part of it is the fact that this adaptation banked on making it controversial, rather than easing the audience into the concept. I think easing it in would have helped, similar to the examples I gave from One Piece. World building would have helped.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

What exactly was considered abnormal about the Dwarves at Council of Elrond? I don't remember there being any controversy around this.

Nothing were using it to address the current elephant not making a new one.

So as it establishes there is diversity in the line, said diversity can easily extend to dark skin to go with the dark hair, can we acknowledge that?