Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[ringpriest]

I think we have plenty of stories about good guys (and girls) standing up against evil that also conform to our modern day notions of what societies should look like. So why does this need to be imposed on every story with brute force? Furthermore, there are ways to create more female presence without overwriting the rules of a setting. It would simply take more effort.

Tolkien's universe is fundamentally medieval. It draws on medieval poetry, uses medieval styles of writing and is largely medieval in the way society is organized. Tolkien goes to great lengths to create an "air" of historicity for his world. This naturally includes gender relations which are explicitly stated throughout his works. If you take that aspect away, you are changing these stories whether you want to admit it or not. For example, Éowyn's story wouldn't even make sense if women were equal to men because (contrary to your claim) this character is literally defined by her gender and her personal struggle to conform with the social role it entails.

There's a great essay on this by Michael Martinez.

Tolkien’s Middle-earth Doesn’t Look Like Medieval Europe

The short answer is "no" - Middle-earth is not medieval. (Though some artists may erroneously think it is.)

[Nerovar]

There's a great essay on this by Michael Martinez.

Tolkien’s Middle-earth Doesn’t Look Like Medieval Europe

The short answer is "no" - Middle-earth is not medieval. (Though some artists may erroneously think it is.)

Of course, I don't have the time to address everything said in this blogposts but a lot of the arguments in this seem stretched.

A character named Pippin putting his hands in the lap of his liege swearing fealty is not really fealty, knights are not really knights... I mean, come on.

It's also at best tangential to the argument. Either way we are talking about societies that are beyond any doubt pre-modern. Whether they sway more towards late antiquity or the early middle ages is immaterial to the discussion.

[eschatological]

My wife was absolutely distraught at the death of Gandalf, having not read the books, and practically dragged me to the next two films ... even though I was the one who listed The Hobbit as the first book I ever read (on the recommendation of my mother, as well).

And some of my favorite movies are Me Before You and The Holiday, among many other romantic comedies and tragedies and such.

What I find funny is that while trying to accuse people of sexist ideology you personally engage in sexist accusations. Claiming that women don't like swords and sorcery and men don't like romance is your inner sexist showing through. Much like the accusations of "racist!" whenever someone states that they don't like diversity casting for the sake of diversity casting ... it's people projecting their inner racism onto others.

LOL, I love romantic comedies.

But the business of Hollywood doesn't lie - science fiction and fantasy have long had male-dominated audiences, and romantic comedies have had female-dominated ones. Whether it's Sex and the City or Lord of the Rings, the past 20 years has been Hollywood trying to figure out how to expand their audiences to people not traditionally seeing their movies. Apparently, according to another poster, LOTR had a big part in expanding that audience.

That you (or I) like a romantic comedy or that your wife saw LOTR doesn't make these movies "universally accessible." Movies have a push and pull with culture - trying to affect culture, but also often a reflection of current culture. Introducing women and people of color as elves in Tolkein's world is part of that effort, and, imo, doesn't affect the themes or story of Lord of the Rings, which, as someone else pointed out, is mostly about the character of people, and their actions to stand against evil.

Hell, there's a whole industry of YouTube reactors which is just basically "women watch movies their terminally online male fans insist they should have seen 20 years ago."

[Adamas102]

I think we have plenty of stories about good guys (and girls) standing up against evil that also conform to our modern day notions of what societies should look like. So why does this need to be imposed on every story with brute force? Furthermore, there are ways to create more female presence without overwriting the rules of a setting. It would simply take more effort.

Tolkien's universe is fundamentally medieval. It draws on medieval poetry, uses medieval styles of writing and is largely medieval in the way society is organized. Tolkien goes to great lengths to create an "air" of historicity for his world. This naturally includes gender relations which are explicitly stated throughout his works. If you take that aspect away, you are changing these stories whether you want to admit it or not. For example, Éowyn's story wouldn't even make sense if women were equal to men because (contrary to your claim) this character is literally defined by her gender and her personal struggle to conform with the social role it entails.

With brute force? Now that’s a little dramatic… No one is forcing you to watch these movies/shows. The books don’t all get hurled into a bonfire after they’re adapted to the screen. They’ll still be there for the purists.

There’s no need to segregate everything as “ok, this is heroic fantasy for men and over there is the stuff for women”. You claim all the die-hard fans you know are women who enjoy the stories despite the overwhelmingly male characters, so why does it suddenly become an issue for you if an adaptation tries to mix up the focus?

Tolkien’s world isn’t medieval. It draws a lot more from romanticized fairy tales than any sort of historical basis. Parts of the world have elements of feudalistic society, but not all of it. You’re not wrong that Eowyn’s story is diminished by having more fighting women in the Rohirrim, but that’s only a small segment of the social dynamics exhibited throughout the world. Her story can still exist while finding other places to explore more diverse dynamics.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

My post was about how they prioritize their modern day political goals over the facts of the world Tolkien has created. Care to point out where I'm wrong?


Was Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy not "for everyone"? Do you think women cannot watch those movies because there are no female Gondorian soldiers or Rohirrim (apart from Éowyn) fighting on the Pelennor fields? Do you even realize how absurd this line of argumentation sounds?

I don’t think Peter Jackson’s movies are a great example given that they also changed/added things to try and reach a wider audience with things like Gimli being made comedy relief, changing designs like the Balrog, making battles more epic by adding factions which weren’t present in the books, ect. Then of course the hobbit movies went above and beyond with the changes.

Obviously they aren’t targeting the same audiences as ROP but they did go out of there way to make it more targeted at kids/teens even if it meant deviating from Tolkien’s actual word.

[Nerovar]

With brute force? Now that’s a little dramatic… No one is forcing you to watch these movies/shows. The books don’t all get hurled into a bonfire after they’re adapted to the screen. They’ll still be there for the purists.

Brute force doesn't mean that I'm forced to watch it. It refers to the clumsy manner in which they try to apply their modern day political desires to stories that weren't written with these things in mind. You can't force a square peg through a round hole.

There’s no need to segregate everything as “ok, this is heroic fantasy for men and over there is the stuff for women”. You claim all the die-hard fans you know are women who enjoy the stories despite the overwhelmingly male characters, so why does it suddenly become an issue for you if an adaptation tries to mix up the focus?

Well, it's not just my claim. I already linked and quoted the article saying that roughly 50% of the audience from the PJ movies was female (with more women watching the last movie repeatedly) so it being a "sausagefest" didn't appear to be an issue back in the day. Furthermore, if women were perfectly fine with these movies (despite the fact that fantasy flicks were much more niche back in the day and associated with male dominated nerd culture) doesn't the argument that you have to change the facts of the universe Tolkien has created in order to appeal to women kinda fall flat? And even if they didn't watch it, aren't there ways to give more attention to female perspectives without changing the stories and the social roles women inhabit in this secondary world?

Tolkien’s world isn’t medieval. It draws a lot more from romanticized fairy tales than any sort of historical basis. Parts of the world have elements of feudalistic society, but not all of it. You’re not wrong that Eowyn’s story is diminished by having more fighting women in the Rohirrim, but that’s only a small segment of the social dynamics exhibited throughout the world. Her story can still exist while finding other places to explore more diverse dynamics.

It can exist despite these changes but it necessarily becomes absurd. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Mhyroth]

The SDCC Trailer comments are fun as hell.

"the part where Galadriel ..."
"the part where Galadriel..."
"My favorite part of the trailer.."

This is going to be a shitshow obviously.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

Yes, it wasn't for everyone. I'm in my 40s and every woman my age never saw it until they had young kids of their own, usually boys. Most of them said it's "one of those dumb movies about men and their swords." This is changing, as women become more involved in nerd culture, but that's a very recent development.

Ironically, I'd bet you'd be totally on board with the idea that romantic comedies are "for women" and alienate male audiences, while not understanding how high fantasy epics like LOTR do the same.

ngl this feels really patronizing to me. i never cared if i was "represented in a movie" as long as the movie was good. and i mean like, eowyn is an interesting character precisely because she's the only woman! feels like now you'd have tons of gals in the army even though it makes no sense lol


though admittedly i also don't get why movies should be "for everyone." maybe this is because I prefer reading, but like...uh, books are hyper specifically targeting to an audience. No one seems to complain that the most popular books (trashy romance) are micro targeted to women or that thrillers or whatever are targeted to men. Like...who cares lol? there is more entertainment right now than anyone can possibly consume in multiple lifetimes! Even if you refuse to read a book if it doesn't have exactly X, Y, and Z i guarantee you can find a ton of that.

[Soikona]

ngl this feels really patronizing to me. i never cared if i was "represented in a movie" as long as the movie was good. and i mean like, eowyn is an interesting character precisely because she's the only woman! feels like now you'd have tons of gals in the army even though it makes no sense lol


though admittedly i also don't get why movies should be "for everyone." maybe this is because I prefer reading, but like...uh, books are hyper specifically targeting to an audience. No one seems to complain that the most popular books (trashy romance) are micro targeted to women or that thrillers or whatever are targeted to men. Like...who cares lol? there is more entertainment right now than anyone can possibly consume in multiple lifetimes! Even if you refuse to read a book if it doesn't have exactly X, Y, and Z i guarantee you can find a ton of that.

Because the same people that complain about “inclusion” are the same people that can’t read more than 280 characters.

[s_bushido]

ngl this feels really patronizing to me. i never cared if i was "represented in a movie" as long as the movie was good. and i mean like, eowyn is an interesting character precisely because she's the only woman! feels like now you'd have tons of gals in the army even though it makes no sense lol


though admittedly i also don't get why movies should be "for everyone." maybe this is because I prefer reading, but like...uh, books are hyper specifically targeting to an audience. No one seems to complain that the most popular books (trashy romance) are micro targeted to women or that thrillers or whatever are targeted to men. Like...who cares lol? there is more entertainment right now than anyone can possibly consume in multiple lifetimes! Even if you refuse to read a book if it doesn't have exactly X, Y, and Z i guarantee you can find a ton of that.

If books were comparable to television/movies, studios wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions adapting them to the screen.

And the "inclusion/representation doesn't matter to me, so why should it matter to you" shit goes both ways. If it doesn't matter what a character looks like and it's just as easy for you to identify and/or empathize with them regardless, then all the hand-wringing over them being the wrong skin color or gender is meaningless.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

And the "inclusion/representation doesn't matter to me, so why should it matter to you" shit goes both ways. If it doesn't matter what a character looks like and it's just as easy for you to identify and/or empathize with them regardless, then all the hand-wringing over them being the wrong skin color or gender is meaningless.

It just seems patronizing to tell me Im only allowed to like something if it panders to me (which people, almost always white dudes, tell me all the time??) I dont care if dudes want some big tiddy anime shit, there's infinite other stuff to watch!

Also we aren't talking about new properties here (totally different convo), this is changing existing ones or it wouldn't even be controversial!

If books were comparable to television/movies, studios wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions adapting them to the screen.

Not sure what this is getting at. Are you saying if movies weren't made to pander they wouldn't make as much money? Because, uh...I'm not sure modern history agrees. If anything they are probably losing money by not targeting demos more accurately. Like talk to anyone in marketing. Also that was kinda my point with books. Look at Top Gun lmao! Perfectly targeted movie that made a gajillion dollars.

I think this stuff is more social than money driven, producers et al want to feel like Good People™ and believe they are making a difference (or project that attitude to the world). Which is fine of course, but also seems kinda arrogant to me, believing that your casting choice in a stupid movie is going to change the world.

[VMSmith]

Also we aren't talking about new properties here (totally different convo), this is changing existing ones or it wouldn't even be controversial!

Yep, this is exactly the issue. If studios were just churning out what amounts to morality plays about modern society I'm sure there would still be some people complaining about their existence at all, but most of us just want stories that are based on pre-existing material to respect that original material in a way that at least allows us to suspend our disbelief. Otherwise, who are these movies/shows even being made for? Non-fans of the original material? Then why even use it, just make a new story that's similar but tells the moral message you want to get across, right? No, they want the cachet of the original material's name-recognition, then twist it into whatever they actually want it to be and call it "art" to excuse this process.

I think this stuff is more social than money driven, producers et al want to feel like Good People™ and believe they are making a difference

I imagine very many people who get into visual entertainment share this goal, actually. The whole point of telling a story is that you want to get something across, from as simple as a few thrills to a complex message about morality.

My quibble is when they alter someone else's story to encompass their personal goal, rather than creating a story of their own that gets their message across. They're piggybacking on someone else's effort to get instant results rather than doing the difficult work of creation on their own.

[Adamas102]

Brute force doesn't mean that I'm forced to watch it. It refers to the clumsy manner in which they try to apply their modern day political desires to stories that weren't written with these things in mind. You can't force a square peg through a round hole.

There's nothing political about making a fictional story more inclusive of demographics that have historically been pretty marginalized. There's also nothing particularly clumsy about it in this case other than the fact that you just don't like it. We haven't even seen a single episode yet so these changes could very well be seamlessly blended into the narrative.

Well, it's not just my claim. I already linked and quoted the article saying that roughly 50% of the audience from the PJ movies was female (with more women watching the last movie repeatedly) so it being a "sausagefest" didn't appear to be an issue back in the day. Furthermore, if women were perfectly fine with these movies (despite the fact that fantasy flicks were much more niche back in the day and associated with male dominated nerd culture) doesn't the argument that you have to change the facts of the universe Tolkien has created in order to appeal to women kinda fall flat? And even if they didn't watch it, aren't there ways to give more attention to female perspectives without changing the stories and the social roles women inhabit in this secondary world?

It's great that a lot of women enjoyed the movies. There's obviously an audience for it now that didn't really exist when Tolkien was writing the books. However, it's also pretty disingenuous to ignore the fact that this genre (and action/adventure/fantasy in general) has always been very male dominated, so for many women it was pretty much a take it or leave it when it comes to the stories available to them. There is certainly more variety in the voices creating things now (which includes adapting older stories), but that doesn't mean everything created in the past needs to adhere to whatever norms influenced its creators.

For Tolkien specifically, his stories revolve around a lot more than just being male and being white. Those aspects are a product of him and his era, and while there's nothing wrong with that, you can also still relate the themes of his writings without being a strict purist on every single detail.

I didn't say that you HAVE to change things to be more inclusive. I know it doesn't fit the narrative that you have to be on one side or the other, but I was very clear in saying that it's fine either way. I think leaning into making the world more inclusive of minority groups that were more marginalized at the time the works were created is a good thing, but if people want to make an adaptation that is strictly

It can exist despite these changes but it necessarily becomes absurd. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Uh, what? It doesn't become absurd because her story is always about her and the traditions of HER people in HER time. Whether other societies during other ages in Middle Earth had different traditions in terms of women combatants doesn't diminish HER story. I mean, is a story about a woman breaking away from the social norms of a repressive modern day society absurd just because women on the other side of the Earth enjoy more freedoms? Of course not.

[Zodiark]

When a movie with a race changed character fails...you guys will say "Get woke Go Broke".

But when a movie with a race changed character succeeds you'll always try to find some other reason for that.

It's like the people on this very site that will still claim that Captain Marvel was only successful because Disney bought out empty theaters.



"A black batman doesn't make sense because a black man with power, money, and social status isn't believeable"



Batman lives in a reality where the most popular being on earth isn't even a human.... it's fair to say that the "reality of race" is very different than what we are familiar with.



"They need to justify hiring black people if the story doesn't explicitly require black people".

Actually. The way I personally see it is that when a movie fails it's a multitude of reasons. It just so happens that many movies fail AND are the subject of race/gender swaps. Because part of those many reasons said (insert example movie here), might have failed is because the mindset that goes into it thinking that the characters are disposable and can be swapped to the producers want that fits their current political idiology, also lends itself to bad movie making decisions overall.

It's like I always say, it's all about respect. If you don't respect something then you've already failed. Peter Jackson respected the work of Tolkien. Amazon is just trying to cash in on an IP.

[Dhrizzle]

i thought sauron would look something like this, sneaky guy, not emo goth drugged face eminem..

No-one has said that the lady with bleached hair is Sauron, at the moments best bets are saying she's some sort of preacher for the cult of Morgoth or Sauron. However that doesn't mean she isn't Sauron, at this point he was more like a malign presence on the land and took many forms to spread evil.

- - - Updated - - -

My post was about how they prioritize their modern day political goals over the facts of the world Tolkien has created. Care to point out where I'm wrong?

What political goals, are you expecting this film to be a cry for universal healthcare or lower taxes or something?

- - - Updated - - -

Tolkien's universe is fundamentally medieval. It draws on medieval poetry, uses medieval styles of writing and is largely medieval in the way society is organized. Tolkien goes to great lengths to create an "air" of historicity for his world. This naturally includes gender relations which are explicitly stated throughout his works. If you take that aspect away, you are changing these stories whether you want to admit it or not. For example, Éowyn's story wouldn't even make sense if women were equal to men because (contrary to your claim) this character is literally defined by her gender and her personal struggle to conform with the social role it entails.

Sorry what are the "explicitly stated" gender relations of Numenor in the Second Age, where are they written? I can make suppositions based on how elvish society is organised and the fact Numenoreans are "high men" who are elevated close to the Eldar in nature but I don't know anything concrete.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, I don't have the time to address everything said in this blogposts but a lot of the arguments in this seem stretched.

A character named Pippin putting his hands in the lap of his liege swearing fealty is not really fealty, knights are not really knights... I mean, come on.

You should at least read a little more carefully. The "knights" are not "knights" in a feudal sense but "knights" in a "special warrior class" sense, the fealty isn't to Denethor as liege-lord it is too Gondor as a land. These make Gondor very different to feudal Europe. Also the Hobbit's name isn't Pippin, it's Razar. Pippin is the translation from Westron to Old English.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, this is exactly the issue. If studios were just churning out what amounts to morality plays about modern society I'm sure there would still be some people complaining about their existence at all, but most of us just want stories that are based on pre-existing material to respect that original material in a way that at least allows us to suspend our disbelief. Otherwise, who are these movies/shows even being made for? Non-fans of the original material? Then why even use it, just make a new story that's similar but tells the moral message you want to get across, right? No, they want the cachet of the original material's name-recognition, then twist it into whatever they actually want it to be and call it "art" to excuse this process.

They're obviously making it for old fans (by which I mean fans of Tolkien, not fans of internet drama and opportunistic YouTubers) and for people who may not have experienced anything related to his work, like potentially anyone born within the last 20-30 years.

Anyone who is actually a fan of Tolkien, and especially the huge Tolkien nerds who understand the crazy amount of stuff that exists outside of the stories he wrote and published, should be happy that his work is being made relevant for a new time as that is how myths stay alive. And of course the original books and notes will always exist and a series created for a modern audience will be a platform for new fans to get into his original works.

- - - Updated - - -

It's like I always say, it's all about respect. If you don't respect something then you've already failed. Peter Jackson respected the work of Tolkien. Amazon is just trying to cash in on an IP.

There are dozens of examples of Jackson deviating from the books in ways that severely changed the deep lore, the characters or the overall message. Probably the most egregious thing is swapping Tolkien's message of "war is awful and terrible and really, really bad" to " war is awesome and cool if you have a big enough special effects budget." That's probably why Christopher Tolkien derided them as "action movies for 15-25 year olds."

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Actually. The way I personally see it is that when a movie fails it's a multitude of reasons. It just so happens that many movies fail AND are the subject of race/gender swaps. Because part of those many reasons said (insert example movie here), might have failed is because the mindset that goes into it thinking that the characters are disposable and can be swapped to the producers want that fits their current political idiology, also lends itself to bad movie making decisions overall.

It's like I always say, it's all about respect. If you don't respect something then you've already failed. Peter Jackson respected the work of Tolkien. Amazon is just trying to cash in on an IP.

I'm gonna have to call you out on this...because you aren't waiting for the show to be released and finding the "multitude of reasons" before condemning this project.

[bledgor]

I'm gonna have to call you out on this...because you aren't waiting for the show to be released and finding the "multitude of reasons" before condemning this project.

The show being good/bad is up for debate, there is literally no debate that it is a bad adaptation, people have listed the dozens of changes from just the few minutes of they show they have released and interviews that are large changes from what Tolkien wrote.

[s_bushido]

It's like I always say, it's all about respect. If you don't respect something then you've already failed. Peter Jackson respected the work of Tolkien.

Stealing a comment from Reddit:

And Tolkien was like “Legolas kicks up a shield and no scope snipes like 6 orcs while surfing at Helm's Deep.”

But Legolas had flowing golden hair and a fair complexion, so it was a perfectly respectful no-scope sniping.

[Adamas102]

The show being good/bad is up for debate, there is literally no debate that it is a bad adaptation, people have listed the dozens of changes from just the few minutes of they show they have released and interviews that are large changes from what Tolkien wrote.

Changes and reinterpretations are REQUIRED to adapt a work from one medium to another. Try again.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

No, they want the cachet of the original material's name-recognition, then twist it into whatever they actually want it to be and call it "art" to excuse this process.

My quibble is when they alter someone else's story to encompass their personal goal, rather than creating a story of their own that gets their message across. They're piggybacking on someone else's effort to get instant results rather than doing the difficult work of creation on their own.

Yeah this is it exactly. Nobody relevant is going to care if you make something new that does whatever you want. If it is good and there is an audience for it, you are good to go.

The problem is that corporations are trying to have their cake and eat it too with existing IPs. they don't trust that what they want to write will actually have an audience on its own, so instead they are piggybacking on other stuff. And then they call people bad names if they don't appreciate the fact that their favorite character(s) were changed/sacrificed/whatever on the altar of pushing a new character or plot or message or whatever.

It's just happening over and over. Then you have a few examples where the studio really tries to nail it for the existing audience instead (Top Gun comes to mind, I would probably also say Dune, and a lot of people say Cobra Kai is like this also, but I have not watched it) and behold, you have a massively successful product.

I don't know, but personally I think crapping on the work someone did before you while trying to siphon off their success is really gross and cynical. Just find an audience and make something new! And if there is no audience for it, stop peeing in someone else's pool lol