Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

Wrong. We're talking about human skin tones being represented in a fictional setting. While we've been talking predominately about dwarves in our exchanges, you do realize that this also applies to the elves and humans in the show, right?

Would it change the discussion at all?

Numenoreans and Elves are also fictional. I wouldn't call the discussion of their appearances racist and bigoted. Any more than if someone decided to comment on the skin tones of an Orc or Troll or Harfoot. These are fictional races that can be depicted however the show wants.

And I've said many times before, I have no issues with the show taking that direction. I'm fine that the show has chosen this direction. I'm not the one complaining about Disa being black, or saying she should be replaced because of her skin color. I enjoy her character completely, and I think she's one of the better characters in the show.

That doesn't mean I don't think it was a poor choice to do this in the setting of Middle Earth in the way that they chose to. These choices have been intentional to stir the pot, to generate controversy for itself, to gain the attention of a wider audience through said controversies. Same way I think the 2016 Ghostbusters movie was made for all the wrong reasons; it intentionally tried to bank on being progressive with an 'all female cast', when it did more to hurt the movie than help it. And it has nothing to do with having an all-female cast; it has everything to do with alienating what long-term fans and audience of the franchise want to see.

Power to the people who made 2016 Ghostbusters for boldly presenting their vision. But let's face it, it invited the criticisms and controversy when making their choices. And I can now point at the recent Ghostbusters movies as a comparison. I don't think Afterlife or Frozen Empire were great movies, but they gave fans what they wanted. We can see how these movies can have strong female characters in them without making a gimmick out of it. We can see how we can have a successful modern Ghostbusters movie without having to invite controversy to itself.

The issue is that it hinges on the ignorance that you showed in terms of mistaking skin color with culture/ethnicity.

Yes, and the Dwarves aren't shown to be different ethnicities. As far as the show has decided to present them, the Dwarves of Erebor are one culture. If there exists subcultures within that framework, we wouldn't know; the show does nothing to touch on it or explain it. So let's be clear, no one is mistaking culture/ethnicity of Dwarves. They are one peoples, who are merely depicted having different skintones, with little to no explanation behind it.

When I did touch on ethnicity, it was as a suggestion as a means to explain differences in skin tones, something that would make sense within the fictional world. It is not as a means to equate it to real life Humans. So I want to clear up whatever misunderstanding you have with my examples and my points.

It's the fact that a lot of people look at these actors solely based on the color of their skin with little thought beyond that.

There is nothing to think about, because the show gives you nothing to think about. That's part of the problem.

To pretend it is normal is part of the problem. Middle Earth and LOTR is not a modern creation. It is a long-standing franchise that dates back decades. There are expectations. Decades of depictions and visual interpretations, decades of expectations.

Just like you can't just present Ghostbusters with a completely new cast with no connections to the original movies and pretend it's going to be a rolling success across all audiences. It's inviting controversy. And just like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, Rings of Power's only defense is dismissing the criticisms as products of bigotry and discrimination, and I can easily say that's nothing more than excuse. We have new Ghostbusters movie today to show how that's absolutely not true. The main character is a teenage girl! The movies made triple the amount that the 2016 movie did! If it was really a fanbase of bigots and sexists, then we would have seen controversy surrounding the choice to have ANY female Ghostbusters in these new movies. So where is it?

In my opinion, Rings of Power is not flawed for choosing to present these fictional characters with a diverse range of skin tones. Yet that creative choice does not absolve them of inviting controversy to themselves. And the way I see it,, based on the promotional material and their reactions to the criticisms, they have been manufacturing controversy to create more attention to the show.

You have yet to explain why you never felt the need to delve into Kili's heritage and backstory as a lone blond dwarf. Where was the world building as to why he and his brother and his uncle all have different hair color?

I don't remember if there even was any explanation in the Hobbit Trilogy for why Kili or Fili looked different. In my opinion, if such an explanation even did exist, it was not memorable enough to matter. My personal preferences for their portrayal isn't Watsonian, it is Doylist. I'm not looking for an explanation to make sense of them, because it is their entire characterization as insert-sex appeal that I have problems with overall. I've stated this before, that i don't like the appearances, because I am aware of the reasons these choices were made, and it breaks my expectations and immersion of what I expect a Dwarf should look like and act like. I will always be opposed to the addition of a romance subplot. Personally it breaks my immersion more than enhances it. And I also think I've been clear to say this isn't a mistake or a problem of the movies. Just as Peter Jackson is free to choose to go in that direction, I am free to have an opinion and preference that disagrees with that direction.

Because let me be clear, my statements on Kili and Fili are personal, not an expression of what I think the movies could have done to avoid widespread controversy. Power to the people who liked the romance subplot, but that wasn't for me.

Why don't you apply the same standard that you set for Nojiko and Nami? Why the double standard when it comes to Disa?

Like I said, Nojiko and Nami have a reasonable explanation for why they are sisters. It is not a detailed explanation at all, and it doesn't need to be. All I need is enough information so that I don't have to question what I'm being presented. They're orphans, and they were picked up from various villages and adopted by a marine. That works! I don't need to think about it any further. It is reasonably plausible. I don't need to ask where all the black skinned people come from, I don't need to wonder if this world operates on different biology, or if skin color in this world is naturally random, or delve into the source material to find some measure of explanation.

Rings of Power doesn't give us any of that. If I asked you why dark skinned Dwarves exist in Rings of Power, without tapping into ANY OTHER SOURCE MATERIAL, can you give me an explanation from the show itself? No. NOTHING.

That is the core difference between how One Piece represents Nami and Nojiko, and how Rings of Power presents Disa.

I have NO PROBLEMS with having black actors or black skinned characters represented in these fictional universes, but I do have standards on where I think it is done right, and were I think it isn't. Wheel of Time is another example where I think it's poorly handled.

Now, how about you finally address the elephant in the room and acknowledge the fact that skin color doesn't need to be indicative of or supported by multiculturalism?

The elephant in the room has nothing to do with multiculturalism. It has to do with the decision to subvert the popular culture expectations of the visual depictions of the races in Middle Earth.

Same if they decided to go the Anime/Warcraft route and give Elves super-long ears. In my opinion, it welcomes itself to controversy and criticism for going in that direction. There is nothing wrong with fictional Elves with long ears. The problem is the choice to subvert expectations of the intended target audience, all the while dismissing their expectations and reactions as a product of bigotry. Such decisions will always invite attention to itself, because they intentionally subvert expectations. As long as we all understand what's going on, there's really no reason to blanket all criticism as discrimination.

Does this make sense?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

At the end of the day, random skin tones of an isolated nation that has existed for thousands of years only makes sense if you don't think about it. Yet the way to make people not think about it is not by avoiding an explanation; it's avoided by presenting a sensible explanation, just as I have made an example of with One Piece.

still waiting to find out why hair colour is ok to vary but skin colour isn’t.

Is it another case of it only making sense if you don’t think of it or is it an ok exception.

[Adamas102]

At the end of the day, random skin tones of an isolated nation that has existed for thousands of years only makes sense if you don't think about it

Now explain why you don't make the same distinction when it comes to hair despite it being the same thing.

Putting this one at the top since you really should address it.

Would it change the discussion at all?

Numenoreans and Elves are also fictional. I wouldn't call the discussion of their appearances racist and bigoted. Any more than if someone decided to comment on the skin tones of an Orc or Troll or Harfoot. These are fictional races that can be depicted however the show wants.

Oops, forgot about the Harfoots. There wasn't as much talk about them this season since the story shifted away from them, but yes those are also included (you can go back to the discussions from season 1 to see people claiming that there shouldn't be black actors there either). Does it change the discussion? No, it has always been about the same thing. Casting black people to play various characters in a fantasy setting where some people think they shouldn't belong.

And again you're trying to deflect using orcs, which are portrayed with pretty non-human greyish greenish skin. No one feels threatened about varying orc skin color the way they do about black people encroaching on something that some people view as "culturally white".

When I did touch on ethnicity, it was as a suggestion as a means to explain differences in skin tones, something that would make sense within the fictional world. It is not as a means to equate it to real life Humans. So I want to clear up whatever misunderstanding you have with my examples and my points.

There is nothing to think about, because the show gives you nothing to think about. That's part of the problem.

It's not meant to be something to think about. You're just hyper focused on this idea that someone with dark skin can't belong without an explanation. How many times do we have to go back to this? Do you not understand that demanding an explanation is very much the wrong approach? In some settings (like One Piece) that's applicable, but in other settings it's not. I understand it feels weird to you, but that's just something you need to work on personally.

To pretend it is normal is part of the problem. Middle Earth and LOTR is not a modern creation. It is a long-standing franchise that dates back decades. There are expectations.

Yes, and those expectations are wrong. Shakespeare's works are WAY older, and yet there is no expectation that adaptations of those works strictly adhere to the original settings. That even applies to the ones rooted in actual history, so this idea that a relatively modern fantasy setting NEEDS to adhere to some archaic views that might be associated with it is completely wrong. In my very first post to you in this exchange I explained how these changes are very much in line with Tolkien's intent in terms of creating a shared mythology. I don't think you ever addressed that paragraph at all.

[Triceron]

still waiting to find out why hair colour is ok to vary but skin colour isn’t.

Is it another case of it only making sense if you don’t think of it or is it an ok exception.

I much prefer PJ's consistent portrayal of long-haired Elves with no facial hair (even though I would be flexible on facial hair) than the wider assortment of hairstyles in Rings of Power.

What would we glean from this opinion? That having a preference equates to not being okay to vary? That expressing a preference would be discriminatory?

Where are we at with making sense?


We should break down what 'okay to vary' means. In my explanation above to Adamas, I think variance is tied to all pre-existing expectations from years of interpretations and visual depictions. Is it okay to vary the length of ears of an Elf? I don't see this as a binary situation. It's not okay or not okay. I imagine it to be a scale or slider, where the more you choose to vary it away from common expectations, the more you invite attention to said variance.

Is it okay to add black skinned dwarves to an adapation of Lord of the Rings? Well, this isn't answered in 'okay' or 'not okay'. I view it as a range, where the more you alter people's expectations, the more you invite attention to it. If it's a subtle change, then maybe only a small minority would care. If it is an egregious change, then expect there to be pushback. Does this explanation suffice?

- - - Updated - - -

Now explain why you don't make the same distinction when it comes to hair despite it being the same thing.

Sliding scale of variance.

Varying skin tones is a more sensitive subject than varying hair styles or hair color. And it's all relative to how much variance we're talking about. I'm sure you've seen criticisms of the Black Elf's hairstyle more than you see criticisms of Elrond or Celebrimbor. And I would believe much of that is directly proportional to subversion of expectations. Anecdotally, I've not seen or witnessed much controversy over hairstyles, even though I am aware some exists. I just don't have any real stake in that discussion, since I don't consider it to be a highly visible controversy to begin with.

people claiming that there shouldn't be black actors there either).

Let's be clear here. You're talking to me, I'm talking to you. You speak out for yourself, I speak out for myself. Let's not muddle this discussion as though I'm defending everyone in this thread for whatever they say.

The examples you've brought up to me, within your own words, have not really convinced me of any actual discrimination or racism. And right now, what I'm seeing is you presenting statements that sound racist, for the sake of arguing. Well, I didn't say that, and it's not relevant to my argument, so please, can we stop this pointless projection? I'm not addressing any racist-sounding paraphrases that you wish to bring to the table here. It's neither here nor there. Now back to the topic.

Does it change the discussion? No, it has always been about the same thing. Casting black people to play various characters in a fantasy setting where some people think they shouldn't belong.

The show has all the power to choose to do this. My point is that the controversies that follow are not excusable by their choices.

I strongly believe in what I've said so far about expectations being subverted. This isn't unique to Lord of the Rings or fictional race skin tones.

And again you're trying to deflect using orcs, which are portrayed with pretty non-human greyish greenish skin. No one feels threatened about varying orc skin color the way they do about black people encroaching on something that some people view as "culturally white".

Even if we were to talk about Warcraft Orcs that are vibrantly green and human-like brown, having any opinion on the skin tones is not going to reflect an opinion on real life brown-skinned humans. Again, it speaks to an inability to discern fantasy from reality.

It's not meant to be something to think about.

Then why can't the show just give an unambiguous explanation or backstory that resolves this?

Again, if I ask you why Disa's skin is black, what possible explanation from the show itself can you give me?

If you asked me why Nojiko is black, I could give you a very reasonable explanation for that, even with what little backstory she has.

Yes, and those expectations are wrong.

Expectations (of visual depictions of fictional characters/races) are never right or wrong. That you can call it wrong means you're projecting your own biases onto a situation that is well beyond your understanding.

Someone expecting James Bond, a character that has been portrayed by multiple actors, to not be anything other than white, is not right or wrong. James Bond is a fictional character, and opinions based around him would not be dealing with the discrimination of any real life people. No race or individual is hurt by saying Sean Connery is the only James Bond, or Daniel Craig is the only James Bond, or Timothy Dalton is the only James Bond. Whether it is hyperfocused on skin tone or not, it doesn't make it racist. James Bond isn't real.

Shakespeare's works are WAY older, and yet there is no expectation that adaptations of those works strictly adhere to the original settings

And yet people are FREE to have opinions regarding their depictions.

Throne of Blood is an adaptation of Macbeth set in fuedal japan, with an all Japanese cast. It's one of Kurosawa's most well known movies. It's highly acclaimed and very well recieved.

Not everyone has to like Throne of Blood. And surely, disliking Throne of Blood does not make one a racist bigot.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I much prefer PJ's consistent portrayal of long-haired Elves with no facial hair (even though I would be flexible on facial hair) than the wider assortment of hairstyles in Rings of Power.

What would we glean from this opinion? That having a preference equates to not being okay to vary? That expressing a preference would be discriminatory?

Where are we at with making sense?

I don’t believe I’ve mentioned discrimination at all thus far as I'm not really interested in rather people are or not.

What I’m trying to narrow down is why we need an explanation at all beyond “god made them that way” as it’s the presumed reason they can and do vary in hair colour and any other feature.

We should break down what 'okay to vary' means. In my explanation above to Adamas, I think variance is tied to all pre-existing expectations from years of interpretations and visual depictions. Is it okay to vary the length of ears of an Elf? I don't see this as a binary situation. It's not okay or not okay. I imagine it to be a scale or slider, where the more you choose to vary it away from common expectations, the more you invite attention to said variance.

Is it okay to add black skinned dwarves to an adapation of Lord of the Rings? Well, this isn't answered in 'okay' or 'not okay'. I view it as a range, where the more you alter people's expectations, the more you invite attention to it. If it's a subtle change, then maybe only a small minority would care. If it is an egregious change, then expect there to be pushback. Does this explanation suffice?

We have already moved past this, we acknowledged the elephant is in the room ie there is push back which we are now addressing.

So now that said expected push back is here what’s the next step, do we look to the setting to address it? Can’t really do that as the setting doesn’t give us any clarity with a lack of skin colour ever given. Do we look to other adaptations to address it? PJ’s movies don’t have black dwarfs but as pointed to they do have variety among the dwarf hair colouration so why can’t we expand that to skin as well as hair? Do we look to Tolkien him self? He refers to what would like be brown Jews in his interview, so if we want to hold to him it wouldn’t be unlikely for every dwarf on screen to be just as wrong as a black one.

The main through line is that the push back is here the elephant is seen, what next?

[Triceron]

So now that said expected push back is here what’s the next step, do we look to the setting to address it? Can’t really do that as the setting doesn’t give us any clarity with a lack of skin colour ever given. Do we look to other adaptations to address it? PJ’s movies don’t have black dwarfs but as pointed to they do have variety among the dwarf hair colouration so why can’t we expand that to skin as well as hair? Do we look to Tolkien him self? He refers to what would like be brown Jews in his interview, so if we want to hold to him it wouldn’t be unlikely for every dwarf on screen to be just as wrong as a black one.

The main through line is that the push back is here the elephant is seen, what next?

The elephant in the room is only as relevant as there are people in the room. As the show is clearly distancing itself from the people who have a problem with it, there will be less and less attention given to the elephant over time.

The series itself survives or fails on its own accord. And history will have a very clear picture of what this show would be in hindsight. We can only see the 'what's next' as we live past it.

Star Trek, mired with controversy surrounding the choice to have a diverse cast. We now look back at it with admiration for being ahead of its time. 'If the south won' then maybe Star Trek could be regarded as an experimental failure, or worse yet, completely ignored and forgotten. We won't know which path is taken till we get there. And it's a bit difficult to consider which it would be viewed as in retrospect, since our current history is so divided that even the performance of any 'Woke' show differs depending on who you talk to.

IMO, we have no power to change the show. The show runners have shown no incentive to change what they have. It will remain on course, and it could either ride the waves to the shores of Valinor, or sink and be forgotten. And how that is viewed would also be subject to whether history is in the hands of the mortal races, or the dark lord. Only time will tell. Right now we're still a point where collective opinions are extremely tribalized and divided. We're living in a world where Black Myth Wukong can get a bad rating for lacking diversity. Is this right? Is this wrong? Depends on who you ask, wouldn't you agree?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

The elephant in the room is only as relevant as there are people in the room. As the show is clearly distancing itself from the people who have a problem with it, there will be less and less attention given to the elephant over time.

Ok so we’re just stuck in a loop aren’t we?

You say there an elephant in the room, I agree and ask how it should be addressed in regard to the setting and other Tolkien works/statements, you just go back to saying there’s an elephant in the room and Mabye mentioned a different show or game.

Theres no way past this is there?

[Triceron]

Ok so we’re just stuck in a loop aren’t we?

You say there an elephant in the room, I agree and ask how it should be addressed in regard to the setting and other Tolkien works/statements, you just go back to saying there’s an elephant in the room and Mabye mentioned a different show or game.

Theres no way past this is there?

Then tell me what exactly you're looking for 'to get past this'?

Give me some multiple choice options so I know what framework you're actually asking this question in. What answers are you expecting that I haven't already given here?

Are you under the impression that the elephant in the room is a problem that needs to be removed? Because that's not the point.

Here's how it works. An elephant in the room is a difficult issue that is being ignored, despite everyone being aware of it being there. To address the elephant in the room, we must acknowledge it being there, and that in turn makes it into an obstacle, which can then be tackled.

Problem is, the only ones who can tackle the problem are out of everyone's control. It is solely in the show runners to deal with it. And this goes back that I said above. There is nothing to do about the elephant in the room. But as you may be aware, there are still people who carry on the discussion without recognizing there being an elephant in the room at all. That is the purpose of bringing it up - to establish awareness, not to resolve an obstacle.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Then tell me what exactly you're looking for 'to get past this'?

Give me some multiple choice options so I know what framework you're actually asking this question in. What answers are you expecting that I haven't already given here?

Something like these.

A. Tolkiens dwarfs are based off Norse dwarfs and should reflect them being fair skinned.


B. PJ should be the base line given that Rop is coasting off being linked to it, they should strictly stick to how he portrayed races.

C. Tolkien is an English writer who lived in a set time casting should be limited to reflect that.


D. Black people simply shouldn’t play dwarfs they should only be cast in “black” material.

E. Dwarfs would reflect the kinds of people Tolkien mentioned when talking about them and should be Arabic Jew esc.


F. Tolkien didn’t care and never listed a skin colour any one should be able to play a dwarf.

G. Were willing to accept that the god of LoTr made dwarfs varied in features as shown by hair colour, this could be extended to skin colour as well.

Some are wrong, some are racist, some I would agree with some I wouldn’t, all of them are past us saying there an elephant and trying to explain why the elephant shouldn’t be there or why it should be fine. And of course these aren’t the only options just ones off the top of my head.

[Triceron]

Something like these.

A. Tolkiens dwarfs are based off Norse dwarfs and should reflect them being fair skinned.


B. PJ should be the base line given that Rop is coasting off being linked to it, they should strictly stick to how he portrayed races.

C. Tolkien is an English writer who lived in a set time casting should be limited to reflect that.


D. Black people simply shouldn’t play dwarfs they should only be cast in “black” material.

E. Dwarfs would reflect the kinds of people Tolkien mentioned when talking about them and should be Arabic Jew esc.


F. Tolkien didn’t care and never listed a skin colour any one should be able to play a dwarf.

G. Were willing to accept that the god of LoTr made dwarfs varied in features as shown by hair colour, this could be extended to skin colour as well.

Right. And in whose power would it be to enact those changes? And how do we manage to get those changes made?

There's nothing to do about it, because those answers are all in the hands of Rings of Power show runners, and I have zero faith in humoring creative solutions for the sake of discussion (or argument).

I'm not here to fix RoP's mess. I've been quite clear that I would have preferred they avoided it, instead of digging the hole that you're now asking me to fill.

I'd be far more interested in discussing the 'what ifs' and potential alternatives they could have taken to make a better show. A way to present an Elephant to the people, without putting it in the same Room as them. We can take the people to the Zoo, or visit them in the serengeti, or watch a movie about Elephants, or look at a picture in a book. Many different ways to see Elephants in a very normal way. But if the Elephant is already in the Room, then there's nothing to do about it but gawk at it. The only people who have the power to move it out are only interested in having people pretend it's normal, and shame people who think otherwise.

Some are wrong, some are racist, some I would agree with some I wouldn’t, all of them are past us saying there an elephant and trying to explain why the elephant shouldn’t be there or why it should be fine. And of course these aren’t the only options just ones off the top of my head.

And none of them matter. I mean, I don't know what else to say. I don't think there is a solution, and I don't have any interest in discussing one, for the very reason that I know it's pointless.



Buuuut

If you want to humor some alternatives to what ROP did, I think it requires a completely different approach. If the goal is to make Black Dwarves in Middle Earth acceptable, then people need to feel comfortable around the concept. And in my opinion, a spinoff series that is flexible enough to be standalone from main canon could be a way to do introduce that.

Something like Drizzt Do'Urden . It started as a novel series that had the freedom to fail. A good Dark Elf character isn't normal, and was a hard pill to swallow at the time of its introduction. Introducing the character and making him a badass is the first part. Making the audience feel comfortable with the character and the concept of 'good aligned' Dark Elves is the next step. Then, once there is a significant time passage and (if there is) a significant enough following for it, we introduce the character directly into a mainline campaign or series that has many eyeballs on it. That's how I would go about introducing Black Dwarves (or Elves or Harfeet) to Middle Earth.

You start small and build up. If it works, it works. If it fails, you move on and try a different approach.

And of course there's cases where it does work immediately, like James Gunn's Guardian of the Galaxy piercing the cultural zeitgeist. It still defies my logical understanding to this day. There's something special about being able to get people to embrace the absurd. Maybe the key is humor? But like I said before, Guardians started small; a standalone movie. Marvel allows it to succeed or fail on its own merit, with no connections to the mainline Marvel series. As people become more comfortable with the idea of Aliens in the Marvel universe (beyond what we saw in Thor), the doors become opened to embrace a whole universe of alien races in the MCU. Or how they tried to replicate that recently with Kang the Conquerer, which utterly failed, and so they're moving on completely.

[DingDongKing]

These floods of tears over ‘source material’ being set in stone is quite representative of how organised religion creates chaos. ‘This book from 2000 years ago should hold water today!’ No, it fucking shouldn’t.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'd be far more interested in discussing the 'what ifs' and potential alternatives they could have taken to make a better show. A way to present an Elephant to the people, without putting it in the same Room as them.

and so the wheel turns ever onwards.

[bledgor]

These floods of tears over ‘source material’ being set in stone is quite representative of how organised religion creates chaos. ‘This book from 2000 years ago should hold water today!’ No, it fucking shouldn’t.

Okay, then why go out of your way to adapt said book? You are trying to adapt it because you want the inbuilt audience, so don't be mad when the inbuilt audience you are courting gets upset when you make vast changes.

[rogoth]

@Adamas102careful, your American is showing again, you are once again exhibiting your inability to understand the basic concepts here, and are still trying to conflate the actor playing the character, and the character itself as the same thing, even when it's explained to you in baby-like detail your tiny little grey matter nugget can't fathom the point being made and must always default back to this holier than thou bullshit trying to project and deflect.

the genetics governing hair colour and eye colour are VERY VERY different to those governing skin colour and general skin properties, lest we forget, the skin is the largest organ of the human body, but of course, don't let common sense and scientific reasoning get in the way of your moronic 'it's fantasy it doesn't matter' paper thin retort, and here's a little nugget for you to try to wrap your head around, if a genetic source is made exclusively of one genome type, it's LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a new and unique genome type to present itself from the D.N.A source, all of the dwarves of Durin were made with one particular archetype in mind, or when he was creating the dwarves did aule make a single token black dwarf because in this fictional universe he had the foresight to know that thousands of years down the line some idiotic moron would need his moronic opinion validated by a bunch of mentally ill and deluded 'modern audience' types who get enraged when legitimate criticism is levied against their flimsy and without merit arguments?

the only way for the character of 'disa' to exist in Middle Earth, is if at the founding of the earth, some dwarves were black, and since we know that was not a thing, it's safe to say that the Amazon mandate of hiring 30% female/minorities for casting was used for this character and nothing more, the actor is a token check box on a list to make sure the company adheres to the mandate, the same goes for the 'elf of colour', the elves of middle earth are all based on the etymology of the word elf, this is known fact, and even if you try to hand wave and ignore this fact, the above biology still applies to them also, the lore states how they appear, the lore states what they all look like, and unless there's some hidden unseen writing that Tolkien forgot to add that only you are privy to, then again, the actor hired for that role was done so under the hiring mandate from Amazon, these characters, in this setting, should not exist, yet here we are.

The Harfoot characters aren't talked about much because again, they shouldn't exist IN THEIR ENTIRETY, lemme just repeat that for you since you seem to like cherry picking things to argue against, THE ENTIRE HARFOOT POPULATION SHOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED IN THIS SHITSHOW OF A PRODUCTION, not only are female 'frodo' and female 'sam' there purely to try and nostalgia bait, but they have no point in the narrative of the second age story because they are purely a fabrication of these morons trying to pass as writers.

as I stated in a previous reply, the actor playing Isildur in terms of his appearance is the only one that is close to what the general populous of Numenor would have looked like, the problem is, you have yet another token hire being used as a 'strong independent wahman' in a position of power when in the established lore, all of which by the way Amazon can't use because they do not have the rights for it, she is never in a place of power, she is a political prisoner, a pretty bird in a cage to be shown off as a curiosity and trophy, but can you imagine the OUTRAGE there would be if the amazon mandated hire was depicted in this way? a black woman, treated basically as a slave, oh heavens to Betsy not in 2024 surely *insert shocked Pikachu face here*, no, in 2024 the pendulum is swung towards the other end of the spectrum and everyone is supposed to clap like trained seals.

Elendil THE TALL Yeah, so tall he's barely eye height with the rest of the cast, while I don't know the actor who was given this role and so I won't comment on his acting specifically here, but really, not even bothering to even try to give the illusion of the person being tall, in the lore it is said that Elendil stood over 7ft tall and was abnormally tall even among the numenoreans, this isn't reflected in the show either, but then it's par for the course when you look at all the other character assassinations going on.

and lastly, I especially LOVE your use of Shakespeare as a defence here, because you can take literally any work of his, replace all the characters with modern-day analogues, and the story still fucking works, that's what makes a lot of his works so fucking good, they have been taken and copied myriad times, and the underlying story is still easily identifiable, with this shitshow, there's literally no cohesion, the characters have been so badly and fundamentally changed that they cannot be recognised, the plot makes no sense because it's trying to take events that happen over the span of thousands of years and forcing you at gunpoint to believe that it's all happening in the space of a week or two, and even if you ignore all of that, the cinematography is barely what you could call amateur, the writing is so laughably bad that I have seen and read stuff made by teenagers with better quality than this drivel, there's the special effects not working properly sometimes, there's the laughably bad costume design, the pacing that's got more akin to watching paint dry than an actual tv show, but go on, I can't wait for you to call me a raging racist bigot some more because I won't kowtow to your asinine delusion.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

the only way for the character of 'disa' to exist in Middle Earth, is if at the founding of the earth, some dwarves were black, and since we know that was not a thing,

post the passages saying white dwarfs are a thing but doesn’t mention black ones, You were able to go out of your way to grab an incorrect wiki entry to get a rise so why not go to the source and get it for real to end any question once and for all.

[Syegfryed]

"The wizard doesn't find his staff, it finds him"

DUDE AUHEUHAUAEH they are even stealing lines from Harry Potter now, holy shit, how did they find those terrible writers? This has to be a money laundry scheme

[Adamas102]

Then why can't the show just give an unambiguous explanation or backstory that resolves this?

Again, if I ask you why Disa's skin is black, what possible explanation from the show itself can you give me?

If you asked me why Nojiko is black, I could give you a very reasonable explanation for that, even with what little backstory she has.

And again, no explanation is needed. Disa's skin is as natural a color as Kili's hair. Both lie on the spectrum of human features which dwarven features are consistently derived from.

Why on earth would I ask you why Nojiko is black? If I were going to watch this show about pirates and shit in a completely fictional world I'm not going to ask "what is this black person doing here?". I find that to be a very weird question to begin with.

Expectations (of visual depictions of fictional characters/races) are never right or wrong. That you can call it wrong means you're projecting your own biases onto a situation that is well beyond your understanding.

Someone expecting James Bond, a character that has been portrayed by multiple actors, to not be anything other than white, is not right or wrong. James Bond is a fictional character, and opinions based around him would not be dealing with the discrimination of any real life people. No race or individual is hurt by saying Sean Connery is the only James Bond, or Daniel Craig is the only James Bond, or Timothy Dalton is the only James Bond. Whether it is hyperfocused on skin tone or not, it doesn't make it racist. James Bond isn't real.

The reason behind having an expectation as well as the reaction to having your expectation subverted can indeed by wrong. See if you can spot the difference here:

My expectation is that the next James Bond is portrayed by a white British actor based on the fact that that's always been the case. If a non-white actor or non-British actor is cast as James Bond then my expectations will have been subverted, BUT as a well adjusted adult it will not make me angry.

Alternatively, my expectation is that the next James Bond is portrayed by a white British actor because that's how it's MEANT to be because it was made by a white author who based the character on a white man and anything other than that would be a disgrace and debasement of the character. If a non-white actor is cast (even if they're British) my reaction is then to fume about how woke culture is destroying everything and that "they" (black actors) should make up their own characters, preferably for stories centered around Africa, instead of inserting themselves where they don't belong.

The expectation in the second example is predicated on something that is simply wrong; that things NEED to be a certain way just because that's how they were before, and even worse it's backed by ideas that uphold racial divisions. And if you see nothing problematic with that second example (which draws on a lot of the arguments taking place within this very thread), then I'd seriously question whether you even know what prejudice even means.

And yet people are FREE to have opinions regarding their depictions.

Not everyone has to like Throne of Blood. And surely, disliking Throne of Blood does not make one a racist bigot.

Racism is less the action itself and more the mentality behind the action.

Disliking Throne of Blood could definitely indicate prejudiced mentality if that dislike derives from thinking that certain stories "belong" to white people/culture and in turn are degraded when non-white people derive works based on or are simply included in those stories.

And yeah, people can have those opinions, and in turn those opinions can be openly challenged, which is what is going on here.

[Triceron]

And again, no explanation is needed. Disa's skin is as natural a color as Kili's hair. Both lie on the spectrum of human features which dwarven features are consistently derived from.

Yes, from a Watsonian perspective, there is no need to explain it.

But from a Doylist point of view, that of the choice to have Black skin present in the 'Human' fictional characters in Middle Earth, there would be expectations for some measure of explanation to make sense of it. Because as I said, a lack of addressing the elephant in the room is part of the whole reason it's a 'big deal' at all. We wouldn't have to talk about it if there were an explanation, however brief. A blurb about Aule creating everyone in the color of stone, a blurb about different Dwarf clans from the east, whatever it may be.

It is not a universal solution, not a cure-all, but it would help alleviate some of the arguments about it making no sense in Middle Earth. As I've said before, I think the best solution would have been to avoid it entirely, and alternatively, introduce the concept through a standalone way much like Drizzt Do'urden or Guardians of the Galaxy introduced 'subverted expectations' and managed to normalize them to fit their respective universes. Without any need for controversy.

Why on earth would I ask you why Nojiko is black? If I were going to watch this show about pirates and shit in a completely fictional world I'm not going to ask "what is this black person doing here?". I find that to be a very weird question to begin with.

Because the show immediately shows you a black character and a white character are sisters. Normally people would be curious about the true nature of their relationship, how and why they are sisters.

The reason behind having an expectation as well as the reaction to having your expectation subverted can indeed by wrong. See if you can spot the difference here:

My expectation is that the next James Bond is portrayed by a white British actor based on the fact that that's always been the case. If a non-white actor or non-British actor is cast as James Bond then my expectations will have been subverted, BUT as a well adjusted adult it will not make me angry.

I'd say that's fine. And that's an example I could see providing you as an example; an expectation that is free from prejudice or emotional outlash.

Alternatively, my expectation is that the next James Bond is portrayed by a white British actor because that's how it's MEANT to be because it was made by a white author who based the character on a white man and anything other than that would be a disgrace and debasement of the character. If a non-white actor is cast (even if they're British) my reaction is then to fume about how woke culture is destroying everything and that "they" (black actors) should make up their own characters, preferably for stories centered around Africa, instead of inserting themselves where they don't belong.

While I wouldn't agree with such an opinion, I find this example to be a bit 'on the nose'.

Let's break this down a bit - Everything up to the 'fuming at the nose' is still gravy. Yes, the opinion that a character being 'anything but X' being a disgrace for a fictional character could be a very strong opinion to hold, but I do not consider that to be discriminatory to any real life race or peoples. A fictional character is still a fictional character. Just like if someone prefers Mr. T to always be portrayed by a Black man of African American descent and nothing less, they're free to have that opinion, and it is not actually discriminating anyone.

The second part of that, the fuming and the blaming of woke culture and the talk about 'Black actors' is a completely separate issue being tacked on, and it's loaded at best. You could add this part to the former example and it would just as easily make it bad.

My expectation is that the next James Bond is portrayed by a white British actor based on the fact that that's always been the case. If a non-white actor or non-British actor is cast as James Bond then my expectations will have been subverted, and if a non-white actor is cast (even if they're British) my reaction is then to fume about how woke culture is destroying everything and that "they" (black actors) should make up their own characters, preferably for stories centered around Africa, instead of inserting themselves where they don't belong.

See what I mean?

You're somehow equating having an expectation subverted will not make you angry, while implying any other type of expectation would immediately lead to racist vitriol. If you're going to frame something so blatantly as 'Good' and 'Evil', then the problem is with your examples and your world view, not with the opinions themselves.

Like an example I gave previously, is it wrong for someone to hold the opinion for Chadwick Boseman to play as the (loosely) African-based T'challa character, without him actually being from Africa? I don't think it is. And whatever reactions said otherwise would color that opinion, since I don't really support any type of 'fuming' or spewing of racial vitriol. We can still have a moderate conversation about these actors, characters and roles without automatically framing it in black-and-white terms.

Throughout our back and forth, you clearly see me on the opposite end of the table from your position. Would you consider me being the latter, as a vitriolic racist who is fuming at woke culture destroying everything? I honestly hope not. I'm still trying my best to be respectful of all opinions in this matter, even if I think you are prone to bad faith arguments and blatant ignorance.

Racism is less the action itself and more the mentality behind the action.

Yet who are you to be the judge of mentality?

A religious fundamentalist could judge someone to be sinful for the wrong reasons as well. 'You play that Dungeons and Dragons? That's the Devil's game, you're going to hell!'. In their views, the mentality of 'worship of false idols' can be twisted to apply to video games and role playing games, and they can choose to paint anyone who partakes in these kind of games as being sinners who will go to hell. Is this a universal standard for the mentality of people who play Dungeons and Dragons? Are they all devil worshippers, or worshippers of false idols? I would argue it wouldn't be.

Part of the judgement of 'mentality' comes from the eye of the beholder, and observation is easily biased. Would there be any way to convince the fundamentalist to change their mind about Dungeons and Dragons not actually being sinful? If their beliefs are not easily shaken, then no matter what's said, they will still hold to a bias that D&D is inherrently sinful, and the mentality of all those who play it are sinners. It doesn't mean it becomes a universal truth.

Disliking Throne of Blood could definitely indicate prejudiced mentality if that dislike derives from thinking that certain stories "belong" to white people/culture and in turn are degraded when non-white people derive works based on or are simply included in those stories.

Right.

So who are we to immediately cast that judgement blanketly to anyone who decides to give criticism on Throne of Blood and its choice to be set in Feudal Japan, with Japanese actors? Right now, the way this is playing out, I would believe you would condemn any opinions that remotely involve talking about the Japanese cast as being racist. Would I be wrong?

And yeah, people can have those opinions, and in turn those opinions can be openly challenged, which is what is going on here.

To what degree? Are you looking for truth, or are you looking for an excuse to call them bigots?

To be honest here, I think I represent the former 'expectations are subverted' example you gave above, but our entire back-and-forth has you mining every statement I've made, searching for any nuggets to find a 'GOTCHA' statement that would paint me a bigot. Let's not pretend I don't know what you've been doing. It's absolutely clear that you haven't actually bothered considering the middle ground and listening. You've been openly challenging for the sake of arguing and finding a GOTCHA. And I'm not even looking to convince you to agree with my opinions or my beliefs, my point has always been to simply recognize the situation at hand and be aware of the 'elephant in the room' and that there are people who are reacting to having their expectations subverted, and that not all of them are immediately 'racist' for simply having a preference or opinion.

ANd the fuming and vitriol you're seeing? Well, I'd hedge my bets that you're seeing people be frustrated having their opinions dismissed, and lashing back in frustration. Or, they're straight up playing it up and trolling, because they see how easily they can get a reaction out of people like you. Calling them bigots doesn't calm that down, it just raises the tensions and adds fuel to the fire, and I'm sure you're aware of that but you still do it anyways because it seems to be second nature to your core beliefs to cast judgement on the 'sinners'. Neither side backs down, neither side aims to reach common ground. If you actually bothered to listen instead of condemn, maybe they wouldn't have to fume so much. Just adding some perspective here.

[Syegfryed]

A blurb about Aule creating everyone in the color of stone, a blurb about different Dwarf clans from the east, whatever it may be.

We literally just needed this, but they can't do that. I just mentioned how they did that in House of the dragon and it worked fantastic, in fact, it even made the story better in my opinion.

We need to understand that the writers of rings of power are hacks. Plan and simple, bad writers who don't know how to write a good fantasy story, they might be good in another thing, but here they aren't(and that is a big question mark, as the showrunners only had a small credit on a star trek movie)

If they are bad at writing, you cannot expect then to write a reason, even small as it is.

There is also a need to understand they are not up for diversity, they don't rly care, this is all virtue signaling, therefore, they don't see a need or reason to give a context, nor do they care about the context of the story and its source material, they act as just Adamas right now, because this gives then traction, it gives then a Shield

Its why also the narrative some "tolkien professors/scholars" are pushing now is that "there is no such thing rly as canon in tolkien"

[Triceron]

We literally just needed this, but they can't do that. I just mentioned how they did that in House of the dragon and it worked fantastic, in fact, it even made the story better in my opinion.

Thank you, and I'm glad you agree that all we need is a little explanation to help alleviate our subverted expectations. I think I've found a solid angle to really hit the nail on the head on the biggest issues around the controversy, without putting a spotlight on skin tones or hair color. I do think the show runners simply did a terrible job at executing their plans. Many other shows have done it better, done it right, without attracting controversy.