Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[DarkAmbient]

Tell me you are a racist without telling me you are racist.

There's no indication of racism in this thread and I'm pretty sure the mods would nuke it if there were. Maybe you're just taking an overly simplistic view of things.

[Shadowferal]

One Ring is suprisingly good.

Of the more popular artists, I admit it took me a while to warm up to Angus Mcbride. But his "Characters of Middle-earth" have made an impression.

- - - Updated - - -

[Flarelaine]

Of the more popular artists, I admit it took me a while to warm up to Angus Mcbride. But his "Characters of Middle-earth" have made an impression.

Oh, Angus McBride is still the definitive artist when it comes to Middle-Earth. I just noted One Ring as a game is pretty good.

[Ara Myrr]

There's no indication of racism in this thread and I'm pretty sure the mods would nuke it if there were. Maybe you're just taking an overly simplistic view of things.

It's more culture than race tbh, though there's a thin line between the two with our multicultural society.

Having black actors portray characters that are very much rooted in northern European mythology... it'll piss people off, it's not 'their' culture.

Having white actors portray characters from African mythology would provoke the same response. I'm pretty sure everyone remembers the whole Gods of Egypt shitshow.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

Dwarf Queen should have a beard.

Good pick. Dunno why but I'm unable to see the facial hair the blonde might have, but its probably me.

[Xath]

Tell me you are a racist without telling me you are racist.

Agree it's extremely racist to feel the need to add token characters to settings created as analogous to medieval Europe specifically the UK area rather than adapting stories that would naturally have largely minorities cast and very few if any white people.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, I don't know what you are on about because I did not answer based on movie and TVs. My perception is not only shaped by that and it's foolish for you to think that. Not only that, but it was a pure guess out of nowhere.

I can claim that they have less opportunities because directors, actors, producers and industry insiders have said so. The academy literally admitted it. Hollywood literary admitted it. And when they are cast, they are cast for minor roles. Lately things have been getting better, but in 2018, the year Black Panther release, take a look on how many movies had a African american protagonist.

I mean, did you forget the entire oscar debacle?

I will also not discuss this further as I said previously.

They are literally wrong though. For Hispanics yes there is a major dearth of opportunities. For black actors the awards and opportunities are actually higher than the population percentage would indicate in the current time period. I can name multiple black actors who are star level basically zero hispanic ones and outside kung-fu roles nearly zero Asian ones. There is absolutely racial profiling but there isn't a lack of roles for black Americans like there are for other minority groups

Infracted.

[AcidicSyn]

Wait, how is this trolling?

You literally were the one who came up with an example of a white man, living in Wakanda, who is somehow miraculously associated with Black Panther's character as a runner up to his title. And I literally point out that such a character exists in the comics already, which you probably weren't even aware of.

How is that trolling?

-edit- I see you updated a previous post, gonna address that here



It all exists within its own canon. It all exists within 'Rings of Power'. That's all that needs to be said.

No different than Shelob being a human woman in Shadows of Mordor 2. No different than Kili-Tauriel romance in the Hobbit. It's all non-canonical, and only relevant to its own self-contained medium. Take it or leave it.

And I'm being absolutely honest here when I say fans don't have to enjoy everything that comes out that is based on the thing they like. I'm a huge Marvel fan, I don't have to love everything Marvel or hold it to the 'source material'. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, I don't have to love the Sequel trilogy, High Republic or Book of Boba Fett. They can be made for the fans who like that particular story and setting. Not liking that particular adaptation doesn't make it any less 'Marvel' or 'Star Wars'. And simply not sticking to the source material doesn't automatically mean it's inauthentic either, considering we're talking about material that exists beyond canon.


Also, the dwarf lady does have facial hair, albeit hard to see. It seems she sports some mutton chops.

Holy crap I didn't notice those before! Kick ass! +2pts for the source material.

[Veggie50]

It's more culture than race tbh, though there's a thin line between the two with our multicultural society.

Having black actors portray characters that are very much rooted in northern European mythology... it'll piss people off, it's not 'their' culture.

Having white actors portray characters from African mythology would provoke the same response. I'm pretty sure everyone remembers the whole Gods of Egypt shitshow.

To be fair... Gods of Egypt did not need racial controversy to suuuuuuck.

[Soulwind]

I might be strawmanning this, but it's how I see these discussions:

A: We're including other races in the story because historically there's been a lack of diversity in movies and shows.
B: Alright, then work them into the story, introduce nations and factions whose background explains their appearance.
A: No, no, we are trying to show how people of all races are mixed in society, to represent the real world. <- Goalpost moved.
B: Alright, then you should feature actors from the middle and far east, south America, northern Europe...
A: No, no, we want to represent modern American society, and focus on American minorities. <- Goalpost moved again.
B: Alright, then you should feature native-americans, latinos...

And at that point I don't think I've ever seen a decent response. "They're too much of a minority" isn't a great argument when you're the one pushing for minorities to be represented in the first place.

The truth is simpler, certain minorities are trendy right now, and producers want to cash in to that.

That isn't necessarily wrong. It's greedy, creatively bankrupt, and slightly racist. But not ill-intended. Although it should be obvious to anyone when a movie or a show is sincere about their representation, and when they're just virtue signaling for money, and anyone not getting a paycheck shouldn't be parroting their excuses as if they believed them.

Infracted.

[s_bushido]

No, no, we want to represent modern American society, and focus on American minorities.

[filmed in NZ and the UK]

lol... Try again. Black people exist outside of the US and Africa. In case you were wondering.

[Soulwind]

[filmed in NZ and the UK]

Your argument is what, that they grabbed people off the streets? That they only got inspired to include these minorities after visiting the filming location?

It's an american company with american actors playing around with american politics to, hopefully, earn more money.

[Frontenac]

Everything they are doing with Galadriel is stupid. They think that she's more hot-headed and brash due to being younger, but they are completely wrong, because Galadriel was one of the very few who were suspicious of Sauron from the start. While the other elves realized they were deceived only after Sauron created the One Ring, Galadriel was already very suspicious of "Annatar" and didn't trust him at all. So she's not "more naive" just because she's younger, they are butchering her character.

Then they put Galadriel in plate armour like a warrior and they think that makes her strong, when that's antithesis of her character. Galadriel was always portrayed as an otherworldly and magical being, not a warrior lol. She was the only not wielding any sort of weapon at Dol Guldur, but she was also the one who overpowered and banished Sauron himself.

But Tolkien himself said that Galadriel was proud, brash and ambitious. She was very tall and strong, as in athletic. He mother called her "Nerwen", which means "Man-maiden". She was one of the leaders of the Noldor Rebellion. As a member of the White Council, she participated in the attack on Dol Guldur. And she probably used a sword or a bow in that attack. She wouldn't use magic that much. It's Middle-earth, not Dungeons & Dragons. Even Gandalf used a sword when he was fighting. He wasn't throwing fireballs around.

"But elven women were healers! Men were the warriors!" Right, but Elrond, while being a great warrior, was also a great healer. In fact, that's how we see him in LotR. Was he acting womanly?

Also, being brash and hot-headed is not antithetic with being wise or insightful.

[Nyel]

The trailer was terrible. Like truly horrible. It was the most generic and bland piece of Fantasy I saw in the last years. It really rivals Wheel of Time or those cheap Netflix Fantasy shows.

What the f* happened? Like honestly. I am so happy the reception is devastatingly negative. It's not even about the political bullsh*t they try to implement (there are no black Elves or Dwarves, period), it just looks cheap. The diversity casting just makes it worse, not bad in general.

Infracted.

[DarkAmbient]

Did it really look so bad? I mean I've got my criticisms of the casting, but I thought in terms of the overall look it was good. That opening shot could have been straight out of the Jackson films. I don't know what people were expecting. What could they have done to satisfy people who thought it looked generic?

[Wilian]

Even Gandalf used a sword when he was fighting. He wasn't throwing fireballs around.

Common misconception produced by movies. In books he most definately used magic, often and in nearly every combat encounter. Hell. During their walk towards Caradhras when the wolves and the warg attacked them he set entire ring of trees ablaze to guard them and flamed up Legolas's arrows midflight. He wasn't so much the sword-slashing action hero like in the movies even if he carried and used it.

[Ara Myrr]

Did it really look so bad? I mean I've got my criticisms of the casting, but I thought in terms of the overall look it was good. That opening shot could have been straight out of the Jackson films. I don't know what people were expecting. What could they have done to satisfy people who thought it looked generic?

Eh, some of the cgi is kinda poor.

Galadriel hanging from the cliff looks terrible, there's video games that look better.

The autumn trees/waterfall/council looks *really* bad, the trees off on the left side of the shot look straight out of Skyrim.

[Wilian]

Did it really look so bad? I mean I've got my criticisms of the casting, but I thought in terms of the overall look it was good. That opening shot could have been straight out of the Jackson films. I don't know what people were expecting. What could they have done to satisfy people who thought it looked generic?

The thing is that as is usual with these modern productions, the sweeping, scene setting shots of landscapes, cities etc. do look good. Really good even. The problem arise when we get into more minute details and events. As is usual, armours and clothes tend to be overdesigned with idea that more clutter is always better, closer sets appear sterile and almoust feel like that if camera shifts even little bit we can see the studio hall peeking from the corner or it's so CGI'd up it cannot be missed. This while general makeup/styling is bland (not bland as is colourless or necessarily poorly made but the sort that doesn't convey a look at real people. Rather, they look like cosplayers trying to appear like the people they actually are).

This has been my issue with many of these new modern fantasy series.

[Frontenac]

Did it really look so bad? I mean I've got my criticisms of the casting, but I thought in terms of the overall look it was good. That opening shot could have been straight out of the Jackson films. I don't know what people were expecting. What could they have done to satisfy people who thought it looked generic?

"Generic" is the go-to word parroted by people, especially fans of a franchise, who just want to hate on something when they cannot say why. It means nothing, and people probably use it without even knowing what it means. Some people hate "The Rings of Power" because of brown elves and clean-shaven dwarf princesses, so the trailer must be bad. Since they find nothing objectively bad about it, they resort to "it looks like any other fantasy show or movie (Wheel of Time, Narnia, etc)". It's "generic". Well, of course, it is a fantasy show, they would share some tropes. It's like when, in new Star Trek shows, they introduce a new ship or a new race. Well, some people hate Kurtzman's guts, so of course the new ship must be bad, so they say it's "generic." It's not that there's anything wrong about it, it's just that it looks like a ship from any other Sci-Fi show, it does not scream "Star Trek", so it's bad and Kurtzman "hates the fans", etc. Well of course it does not scream Star Trek, it's new! The first Borg ship, when it was introduced, did not scream Star Trek at all. And it was a cube, can you have more "generic" than that? Guess fans were a bit more open-minded back then...

- - - Updated - - -

Common misconception produced by movies. In books he most definately used magic, often and in nearly every combat encounter. Hell. During their walk towards Caradhras when the wolves and the warg attacked them he set entire ring of trees ablaze to guard them and flamed up Legolas's arrows midflight. He wasn't so much the sword-slashing action hero like in the movies even if he carried and used it.

He was still using a sword to attack enemies, and Legolas' arrows still killed those wargs, even if Gandalf set them on fire. I never said magic was absent, just that it was more subtle than in D&D or other fantasy settings. Galadriel would be the same. She would wear some armor and carry a weapon in battle. Or at least there is nothing in the legendarium that prevents it.

[Wilian]

He was still using a sword to attack enemies, and Legolas' arrows still killed those wargs, even if Gandalf set them on fire. I never said magic was absent, just that it was more subtle than in D&D or other fantasy settings. Galadriel would be the same. She would wear some armor and carry a weapon in battle. Or at least there is nothing in the legendarium that prevents it.

My point was that it wasn't subtle and happened constantly. Going by the books he barely used his sword in comparison. It's a movie thing. And it was not really subtle either. Skies were filled with lightning seen tens to hundred miles away, setting entire circles of trees on fire. Casting light so bright it consumed entire flight of Nazguls.

There were more subtle moments of magic usage as well yes, just as there is in DnD but there were enough of these blazing moments as well and typically in almoust every battle scene he is involved.

[Nerovar]

I might be strawmanning this, but it's how I see these discussions:

A: We're including other races in the story because historically there's been a lack of diversity in movies and shows.
B: Alright, then work them into the story, introduce nations and factions whose background explains their appearance.
A: No, no, we are trying to show how people of all races are mixed in society, to represent the real world. <- Goalpost moved.
B: Alright, then you should feature actors from the middle and far east, south America, northern Europe...
A: No, no, we want to represent modern American society, and focus on American minorities. <- Goalpost moved again.
B: Alright, then you should feature native-americans, latinos...

And at that point I don't think I've ever seen a decent response. "They're too much of a minority" isn't a great argument when you're the one pushing for minorities to be represented in the first place.

The truth is simpler, certain minorities are trendy right now, and producers want to cash in to that.

That isn't necessarily wrong. It's greedy, creatively bankrupt, and slightly racist. But not ill-intended. Although it should be obvious to anyone when a movie or a show is sincere about their representation, and when they're just virtue signaling for money, and anyone not getting a paycheck shouldn't be parroting their excuses as if they believed them.

This is a good post. Unfortunately, many people these days feel the reflexive need to jump to the defense of these companies merely because they get criticized by the wrong crowd. This makes these sorts of conversations incredibly tiring.

Did it really look so bad? I mean I've got my criticisms of the casting, but I thought in terms of the overall look it was good. That opening shot could have been straight out of the Jackson films. I don't know what people were expecting. What could they have done to satisfy people who thought it looked generic?

I guess the shots just have that weird marvel CGI "gloss" all over them. The Jackson movies had this gritty, realistic feeling of a lived-in world which was achieved by the clever combination of CGI and practical effects like models for the cities. They also made great use of the new color grading technologies that were becoming available at that time to give every scene a different mood and create more vibrant images that in some cases look more real than the real world. The Jackson movies also seem to have much better camera work that gives off a very serene feeling and places an immense sense of gravity on the objects and characters in the right moments.

Now, I know that they did some costly practical effects for that teaser scene in the water but when it comes to the other shots I couldn't really tell if they incorporated any. It's like with the Star Wars prequels which also made use of a lot of practical effects but ultimately got drowned out by the overbearing use of CGI.