Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Dhrizzle]

Define necessary.

You think it sylvanas was always blue skin and alleria and. Vereesa weren't it would be all okay all naturally assumed to be family? Because i wouldn't. I'd ask questions about the cteative decisions and form an opinion about it.

And when it is explained that the performance of the actors outweighed their appearance... oh wait you've gone from comparing naturally dark skin tones with outlandish colours to talking about animated characters.

[Adamas102]

Because of world building inconsistencies.

I have no problem with black actors in those roles but there literally is no in world explanation for what reasons other than let the fans pick their poison.

And again, where are your complaints against Tolkien himself for not explaining the variety that he portrayed in these groups? Are you calling Tolkien a bad writer because he didn't bother to "world build" out a reason for a blond dwarf being descended from a group of dwarves that are not described as having blond hair?

You keep coming back to this idea of world building, but the fact is that these things don't require world building. They don't require explanation. They're not that important. Tolkien literally wrote an entire book centered around a group of dwarves who were all descended from the same progenitor, and yet the few that Tolkien gives physical descriptions of have hair colors ranging from yellow to blue (likely grey or black) to white to brown. Their appearances weren't that important. Then you have Gimli in the PJ movies portrayed with reddish hair (despite Tolkien never specifying the color). Did you need Peter Jackson to explain to you why Gimli's hair is that color? Did you need that bit of "world building" in order to sit back and enjoy the story?

- - - Updated - - -

I am not conflating the two. The person I was replying to asked for an explanation related real people instead of fictional ones.

Regarding the point you make, I agree partially. There is nothing wrong with reimagining fictional material, but I strongly believe that the reimagining must be done to improve it and make it digestible for an audience. For example, I know Tom Bombadil is there in the Fellowship, but I am thankful that he is not in the movie adaptation, because he would be so incredibly boring and drive away people right from the start.
In this context, reimagining a story means that you can make a successful transposition to a media that was not intended for it initially (book > movie). And there is a BIG difference between "you can" and "you think you can". Reimagining as of late seems to just be limited to dipping the product in current trite politics, which does nothing but ensure that the reimagined story will be horribly obsolete in 10 years max. Also a lot of producers nowadays gloat that they don't know the source material. Honestly I do not see how anything good can come from the arrogance they have been displaying. Reimagining is first and foremost a work of love. This is why Jackson's trilogy is beloved even if it took concessions towards the original.

I agree that a big part of adaptation involves making changes so that a narrative can better suit a different storytelling medium. However, as for your argument on the purpose of adaptation I would very much disagree. Transposing the words from the page with as close an adherence to how the original author MIGHT have envisioned it is certainly ONE option, but it is not the only option.

There is absolutely no rule that adaptation needs to adhere to any specific parts of a source material. Everything from names, locations, time setting, and so on can be on the table. I could bring up Shakespeare again, but I feel like I've done that plenty and no one has given a good reason why Tolkien's works should be treated differently. You could pick out dozens upon dozens of other stories and characters that exemplify the fluidity and modernization of storytelling as well as the diversity that can come from new adaptation. Everything from Dracula to James Bond. This idea that Tolkien's works NEED to adhere to whatever archaic European examples of acceptable diversity is simply a personal preference of some people.

I would also wonder what you think constitutes "current trite politics". Casting actors with dark skin tones is not a political issue. It's also not going to be obsolete in 10 years. Despite the outcry from a vocal minority of people who wish to maintain some sort of "racial purity" when it comes to certain stories they perceive as Eurocentric, in general there is more and more acceptance of this sort of diversity. Normalization is a good thing. And in about 25 years, when The Hobbit and LotR are both in the public domain, you'll probably see even more diversity in the works that people come up with.

[Triceron]

And again, where are your complaints against Tolkien himself

Because. Even tolkien himself did not use specifics to adapt his own descriptions. It is poetry. Same as the description of elf ear shapes, up to the reader to interpret. He refused to use visuals to confirm these shapes specifically. So hsrd to complsin because the medium is different. The novel is open to interpretation and imagination, visual medium is not. I work in animation, i know the importance of visual language and symbolism, and my opinions would differ to those who hold different values and importance over visual like rhorle who says it doesn't change the story. Yes but it changes world building. Just like Macbeth retold with japanese people would be the same story but setting informs how much sense it makes. Retelling in feudal Japan makes sense.

Imo, if a visual adaptation is applied, it still needs to make sense in world building, same way why Elves in Tolkien don:t have anime elf ears. If elrond did and no other elf had long ears, is that suddenly treated as normal? We'd want to know.if someone looks vastly different we want to know why. lllidan and his golden eyes is rare, broll having antlers is rare, etc. In rop, we visually wee that disa's skin tone is quite rare. There are very few other dwarves we see like her, do you not agree?

[Volatilis]

So you agree but still need to find a way to tear down the scene. Strange. The scene was no different then Jackson having the council of Elrond and them talking about what to do with the ring. A viewer that read the book would have a similar reaction to yours. That doesn't make it bad writing, milking, or anything else. It just means you didn't like it.

No I dont agree, don't put words in my mouth.

What I was saying was,

Legendary elf characters are not comparable to mere mortals like you or I and that makes them more difficult to write for and why writers like JRR Tolkien are held in such high regard because it is difficult to write other worldly characters. And why we don't need hacks trying to write their own ideas into established stories to just carry on the back of popular IP when why not just write your own story rather than bastardize beloved stories.

[Triceron]

And when it is explained that the performance of the actors outweighed their appearance... oh wait you've gone from comparing naturally dark skin tones with outlandish colours to talking about animated characters.

You don't know that though. You are assuming without evidence. That is your opinion, and having one doesn't,'t make mine wring. This doesn't address my comment at all since i could say this casting was part of the diversity policy too, unverifiable at this moment but could also be true. as veggie explained, diversity policies are also inherently discriminant, like how northman gets flak for sticking to a creative vision.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.wowhead.com/guide/blood-...ns-shadowlands

Yes, it would be okay to assume elves of different skin tones are part of the same family. If they are presented as one then that is world building stating it is possible. It could further define it or just leave it at that. You can ask questions. Nothing wrong with that. But when you only ask when it involves certain characteristics,

That is catch 22.

Yes you Can question but no you can't because questioning it would be racist

Black skin tbh is something you all get triggered by and hung up on. I equally applied questioning existence of Tauriel fitting in the Hobbit, yet everyone ignores this because what? She was not Black so no problem? Seems hypocritical to say i can question then draw the line at skin color. Sounds like a fear of bigotry for even discussing the appearance of a fictional character...

I bring up alleria and sylvanas being blue. Yes it could be established that way but then it needs to be more than just having sylvanas being the only blue elf in lore like she is now. We'd want to see or know of other notable characters who share the trait, to know how common or uncommon it could be. Atm disa is unexplained as being common or rare and that still matters to world building. Again, nothing against The actress or her looks, we are talking fictional character as if tolkien weaved her into lore. Bear in mind the line of thorin descends from Durin.

[rhorle]

No I dont agree, don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't. You said "Well sure but". That is an agreement and with you trying to attach a conditional to it. Legendary immortal characters are not more difficult to write. It isn't difficult to write other worldly characters. You are moving the goal posts to attacking Ring of Power writers instead of if smart people can get inspiration from being told simple things.

- - - Updated - - -

That is catch 22. Yes you Can question but no you can't because questioning it would be racist

It is not a catch 22. You can question things but continuing to question them and doing so with bigotry-leaning arguments will make you lean towards being a bigot.

The only one getting triggered by and hung up on black skin is yourself. You are the one making it a big deal instead of just accepting that it exists. You are the one that needs an explanation beyond it exists in the world of the adaptation. You are the one that says it makes no sense for skin tone to be different in a bloodline/family while ignoring other traits that are different. You are the one ignoring that Tolkien never made it impossible in his own world building.

For WoW it doesn't need to be established that Sylvanas is the only blue elf. Again, it just exists that way in the lore. The lore of Warcraft is that elves can have their appearances modified by exposure to magic. It is why Nightborne, Night Elves, Void Elves, and Blood Elves all came from the same Highborne but look different. You are trying to force views that don't fit the world building Blizzard did on to it.

You don't need to know how common or uncommon the darker skin trait is. That isn't required for world building. You don't ask the same of the different hair colors of the dwarves, do you? Gee, I wonder why you might be called a bigot for asking questions that only happens with certain skin tones and nothing else.

[Triceron]

I didn't. You said "Well sure but". That is an agreement and with you trying to attach a conditional to it. Legendary immortal characters are not more difficult to write. It isn't difficult to write other worldly characters. You are moving the goal posts to attacking Ring of Power writers instead of if smart people can get inspiration from being told simple things.

- - - Updated - - -



It is not a catch 22. You can question things but continuing to question them and doing so with bigotry-leaning arguments will make you lean towards being a bigot.

The only one getting triggered by and hung up on black skin is yourself. You are the one making it a big deal instead of just accepting that it exists. You are the one that needs an explanation beyond it exists.

Whixh means what to you?

How big is the deal?

Is it damning to RoP? No, i never said so. All i have ever done is question the choice and lack of in universe explanation, which unfortunately leans on being perceptible as an external decision to incorporate mordern pc values and reflections for the sake of it. Kinda like adding romance to the hobbit for the sake of modern appeal( Tauriel). I can criticize it without being anti romance in movies or anti romance in tolkiens works. The idea you all conflate a criticism to being extremism is absolutely ridiculous to me.

That you all can't accept the opinion of the characters withoutt fear of bigotry also speaks to bias, not reason. All casting is discriminatory in some way. We want a female character with blonde hair for galadriel. So sucks to all the redheads or asians or black women who could have acted the role better? Like i said, the idea the disa actress won the role bexause of performance over looks frees it from discrimination, well i think she is better than galadriels actress, so why isn't she galadriel instead? Its a poor argument to insist that assumption of their casting to be free of all discriminant factors. End of the day, Amazon wanted a bpoc Dwarf intentionally casting for one. That is a creative choice. It is not free from discrimination on a technical level.
We should simply recognize the difference between intentionally harmful choices and holding a vision that may seem racist but is not actuallly ( like pj lotr)

[rhorle]

Is it damning to RoP? No, i never said so. All i have ever done is question the choice and lack of in universe explanation, which unfortunately leans on being perceptible as an external decision to incorporate mordern pc values and reflections for the sake of it. Kinda like adding romance to the hobbit for the sake of modern appeal( Tauriel). I can criticize it without being anti romance in movies or anti romance in tolkiens works. The idea you all conflate a criticism to being extremism is absolutely ridiculous to me.

So did you also hate Arwen? Peter Jackson said she was given an increased role (and powers/stuff different from the books) to balance the male dominated cast. A "modern PC value". The in universe explanation is it just exists. The same as with hair colors that don't have an in-universe explanation for why they exist. You keep focusing on black skin tones and demanding that only they are explained.

You aren't criticising it on a technical level because you are only applying those criticisms to black skin tones. You aren't applying it equally to everything that exists in Tolkien's work or Rings of Power. Bigotry takes many forms and isn't just intentionally harmful choices. There is a reason why systemic and structural racism are concepts and how many seemingly innocent systems have been engineered to oppress.

[Syegfryed]

Like i said, the idea the disa actress won the role bexause of performance over looks frees it from discrimination, well i think she is better than galadriels actress, so why isn't she galadriel instead?

Right? so stupid.

And its funny when the actress playing galadriel is like 1,60m, totally going against the book description of her being amazonian tall

[Dhrizzle]

You don't know that though. You are assuming without evidence. That is your opinion, and having one doesn't,'t make mine wring. This doesn't address my comment at all since i could say this casting was part of the diversity policy too, unverifiable at this moment but could also be true. as veggie explained, diversity policies are also inherently discriminant, like how northman gets flak for sticking to a creative vision.

You think animation studios make orange and blue characters because of diversity policies?

[rhorle]

And its funny when the actress playing galadriel is like 1,60m, totally going against the book description of her being amazonian tall

Cate Blanchet is 5'7". Morfydd Clark is 5'4". Is three inches the difference between well cast and not well cast? Of course if we are going to start picking on height nothing compares to Hobbits. In the books they are between 2' and 4' in the movies they are pushing that upper range and Elijah Wood is 5'4".

Another thing to consider is average height was different when Tolkien started his story. What is "amazonian tall" then might not be the same now. The below link was linked to in a discussion of heights in Tolkien's work that I found. If you are allowing "modern values" to invade how you see amazonian tall then why is it that modern values can't be used for diversity? Strange, right? Modern things are fine as long as they agree with your views.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23896855

[Triceron]

You think animation studios make orange and blue characters because of diversity policies?

What absurd whataboutism

- - - Updated - - -

So did you also hate Arwen? Peter Jackson said she was given an increased role (and powers/stuff different from the books) to balance the male dominated cast. A "modern PC value". The in universe explanation is it just exists. The same as with hair colors that don't have an in-universe explanation for why they exist. You keep focusing on black skin tones and demanding that only they are explained.

You aren't criticising it on a technical level because you are only applying those criticisms to black skin tones. You aren't applying it equally to everything that exists in Tolkien's work or Rings of Power. Bigotry takes many forms and isn't just intentionally harmful choices. There is a reason why systemic and structural racism are concepts and how many seemingly innocent systems have been engineered to oppress.

I xon't hate Tauriel so to say jate Arwen means you miased the fucking pooint.

If someone wyestions Arwen having Glorfindels role, that is their opinion. No need for hate to question the drcision.

Therr os no in universe explanation cor Areen having more dcenrs, it is a doylist rraaon. Same as egat i have been saying about blackbskin. It is not a eatsonian chsnge, it is s doylist change.

Kackdon fid it ti addbmorecharacter building snd epphasize romance with arwen. Disa is because what? Obvioisly diversityto reflect modern values..

Is lotr story better with more Arwen scenes? I can confidently say no. It dorsn't make it worse either and tge needs for sex appeal iand romance s common for big movies to have, but exectmution also mattters. More Arwen gives depth to Aragorn, making the story more character centric. Meaningdul World building. Taurirls romance was awkward snd fairly meaningless overall. So two differnt exampples of how i think both can be wuestionrd and analyzed

I said before. Wanttp see good diversity change. One piece live action did it right. Ample reasons in world to make sense of a doylist decision to add more diversity.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Cate Blanchet is 5'7". Morfydd Clark is 5'4". Is three inches the difference between well cast and not well cast? Of course if we are going to start picking on height nothing compares to Hobbits. In the books they are between 2' and 4' in the movies they are pushing that upper range and Elijah Wood is 5'4".

Another thing to consider is average height was different when Tolkien started his story. What is "amazonian tall" then might not be the same now. The below link was linked to in a discussion of heights in Tolkien's work that I found. If you are allowing "modern values" to invade how you see amazonian tall then why is it that modern values can't be used for diversity? Strange, right? Modern things are fine as long as they agree with your views.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23896855

3 inches is a lot, particularly if you're substracting that several times from 6' as any man and women will know. Plus Cate Blanchet was put on platform shoes, as they were well aware that the character had to be tall and majestic.

An actress as tall as Gwendoline Christie would have been more befitting, particularly since they went with lots of action scenes where the character is shown next to athletic men.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Is lotr better eith more Arwen scenes? O can confidentlyvsay no. It dorsn't make it eorse either and tge needs for sex appeal iand romance s common for big movies to have, but exectmution also mattters.

Are you having a stroke?

[rhorle]

I xon't hate Tauriel so to say jate Arwen means you miased the fucking pooint.

What? Arwen had her role changed for the same reason why Tauriel was added to The Hobbit which you said you didn't like because of "modern appeal" and being an "external decisions". Nothing about the story of Lord of the Rings is made worse because a black dwarf exists. Lol, you get angry when you get called a bigot then imply that the changes for Disa make the story worse.

If Disa being a black dwarf doesn't make the story better or worse then what is the real issue? It isn't world building because Tolkien didn't define the skin tones of dwarves. He didn't give you what you seek from Rings of Power but you have no problem with his original work in that regard.

- - - Updated - - -

3 inches is a lot, particularly if you're substracting that several times from 6' as any man and women will know. Plus Cate Blanchet was put on platform shoes, as they were well aware that the character had to be tall and majestic.

Okay, then what about a 6'2" guy playing Thorin Oakenshield who is supposed to be 5'2"? I know The Hobbit trilogy isn't as well loved but I don't remember many complaining that Thorin was miscast or that it was an issue. Sure, Rings of Power could have done more to be book accurate but it doesn't really change the story at all. Just a small change that is part of the adaptation.

Jackson envisioned elves in his own way that weren't explicitly from Tolkien's work. It is what adaptations do.

[Triceron]

Are you having a stroke?

Actually yes, i had a minor stroke on Wednesday. In rehab right now no joke, not trolling. Lost control of my left arm butt i am stable. Luckily was a minor stroke but still got perm damage to my subcortical. On the road to recovery though.

- - - Updated - - -

What? Arwen had her role changed for the same reason why Tauriel was added to

Just because the reasons are the same does not mean their sense in world building is the same, you agree?
Any people have criticized jow Tairiels arc diminishes the importance of Gimli overcoming the discrimination between elf snd dwarf through his awe and admirstion of galadriel, a very inportant moment in the whole history of elves and dwarves. Arwen also enhances aragorns character bettering the film.

So the same reasons can still have different outcomes.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Actually yes, on Wednesday. In rehab right now no joke, not trolling.. Lost control of my left arm hut i am stable. Luckily was a minor stroke but still got perm damage to my subcortical. On the road to recovery though.

Well hopefully you recover quickly and well *thumbs up*.

[rhorle]

Just because the reasons are the same does not mean their sense in world building is the same, you agree?

So world building is just a dog whistle. As you ignore it when it is a change you don't care about but can't ignore it when it is a change you do care about. Arwen was changed from the books for "modern pc values". To give a female a large role in a male dominanted cast. She was given abilities and story arcs that she didn't have in the books in order for her to fit into the movie.

You make an exception for Arwen because you have no problem with those changes. You don't make an exception for a black dwarf because you have a problem with that change. Even though it doesn't go against anything stated by Tolkien's world building.

[Triceron]

Well hopefully you recover quickly and well *thumbs up*.

Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

So world building is just a dog whistle. As you ignore it when it is a change you don't care about but can't ignore it when it is a change you do care about. Arwen was changed from the books for "modern pc values". To give a female a large role in a male dominanted cast. She was given abilities and story arcs that she didn't have in the books in order for her to fit into the movie.

You make an exception for Arwen because you have no problem with those changes. You don't make an exception for a black dwarf because you have a problem with that change. Even though it doesn't go against anything stated by Tolkien's world building.

I don't ignore it. I try to analyze the creative decisions and how it fits the overall narrative. Then i form an opinion.

Which is why i prefer rhe hobbit Maple edit that cuts out legolas, radagast and tauriel. I like radagast too but his character arc is all filler that i think hurt the pacing of the movies. I love his world building, but it was definitely filler. Imo cutting him out made the movies flow better. Overall i think hobbit movies focused too much on action scenes, rather than emphasizing the adventure. Why it should have been one movie not three. Maple edit condenses it all without too much rushing of plot and cutting filler making the pacing much more focused on the heroes getting things done.

[rhorle]

I don't ugnorecit. I analyze the situation and how it fits the overall narrative. Then i form an opinion.

Accepting world building being broken for Arwen in the Jackson adaptation but not accepting world building being broken for the Amazon adaptation is you ignoring world building when you feel like it. World building, in the way you keep using it, is just a code word for "I like it so its fine" or "I don't like it so it isn't fine".