Lord of the Rings TV series gets multi-season order at Amazon

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The comments about this news were seriously disgraceful. Being passionate about the source material is no excuse.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LOTRUpdat...90294983905284

People are... disgusting. Nor is it even 'passionate about the source material'; there are no sources claiming that all seven houses of the dwarves were pale, and frankly I doubt there's even one for the Longbeards! It's just knee-jerk racism.

~

Overall I'm not 100% convinced by that twitter account's claims. They're sourcing from this one, and things like... the absolutely covered-in-gold character is Gil-Galad, whose whole theme is silver? Are you sure?

But that's fandom rumours for you. Probably some are true, some are not. We will all find out in - cripes - seven months.

If they are right, then we seem to have three timeframes represented in the posters:

- The First Age. They're claiming Galadriel on the Helkaraxe, and I've seen a very plausible theory that the broken sword could be Gurthang. Also, y'know, Two Trees image.

- The War of the Elves and Sauron. Celebrimbor, and potentially Durin.

- The Akallabeth. This is most of them. ^_^ They've namedropped Elendil, Pharazon, and a surprisingly-scruffy Isildur (and his sister Carine*).

(*Which would be Ca-ri-në, not Ca-reen. Plausibly Quenya but without any obvious derivation.)

I've seen suggestions that the First Age material is limited to the first episode; whether that means it's just a prologue, or whether they're devoting an entire episode to Beleriand, I can't even speculate.

(I was gonna start posting theories about the posters, but a) lots of work, and b) if there's official rumours, there's not a lot of point.)

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

People are... disgusting. Nor is it even 'passionate about the source material'; there are no sources claiming that all seven houses of the dwarves were pale, and frankly I doubt there's even one for the Longbeards! It's just knee-jerk racism.
hS

I rather take exception to that. There can be other motivations which have nothing to do with "knee-jerk racism," starting with a wish to see Middle-earth rendered as its creator envisioned it. And while, no, T never said explicitly that the Seven Houses were all pale-complected, within the overall structure of the world -calqued upon Europe as it expressly is - it would take a direct counter-statement for me to accept it (e.g. T telling us point blank that Dwarven women had beards).

But more than that, there is the aesthetic objection to everything in pop culture being arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup, the universal condiment of the 2020s. This is not casting-Sidney-Poitier-in-the-Sixties social courage; it's just more pumpkin spice product.

Does it represent an artistic improvement? No. It is an entirely political superimposition; and its defenders tend to react to artistic objections in (insulting) political terms.

Would it be "racist" to object to an adaptation of Things Fall Apart including white and Asian and Latino actors, because "diversity?" Should Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon be castigated because there isn't a single non-Chinese character anywhere? Should Moby-Dick (which always had a racially diverse crew) be re-shot with women whalers interjected, and would objections thereto be "sexist?"

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I rather take exception to that.

You take exception? I rather take exception to the claim that seeing any non-white characters in a story that spans thousands of miles of fictional terrain, and runs from the Arctic to nearly the equator, is "arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup", "more pumpkin spice product", and "an entirely political superimposition". I take exception to the insistence that every Good character in Tolkien must be white, because... well, because they must be, right? Tolkien would never have imagined that the Good races could include non-white people, right? Because...?

"Racism" is not a political term. It is a matter of fundamental ethics. Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them (which answers most-to-all of your "scare-quoted" questions at the end, by the way), is wrong. Excluding them from things - yes, including playing characters in an adaptation of Tolkien - for no more reason than that you're comfortable with the way things are is wrong.

And I firmly believe Tolkien would agree with me.

Originally Posted by Appendix A

For the high men of Gondor already looked askance at the Northmen among them; and it was a thing unheard of before that the heir to the crown, or any son of the King, should wed one of lesser and alien race. There was already rebellion in the southern provinces when King Valacar grew old. His queen had been a fair and noble lady, but short-lived according to the fate of lesser Men, and the Dúnedain feared that her descendants would prove the same and fall from the majesty of the Kings of Men. Also they were unwilling to accept as lord her son, who though he was now called Eldacar, had been born in an alien country and was named in his youth Vinitharya, a name of his mother's people.

Therefore when Eldacar succeeded his father there was war in Gondor.

When Gondorian nobles objected to immigrant Northmen playing Beren on stage, I bet you it was on "aesthetic" grounds.

hS

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

You take exception? I rather take exception to the claim that seeing any non-white characters in a story that spans thousands of miles of fictional terrain, and runs from the Arctic to nearly the equator, is "arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup", "more pumpkin spice product", and "an entirely political superimposition". I take exception to the insistence that every Good character in Tolkien must be white, because... well, because they must be, right? Tolkien would never have imagined that the Good races could include non-white people, right? Because...?

"Racism" is not a political term. It is a matter of fundamental ethics. Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them (which answers most-to-all of your "scare-quoted" questions at the end, by the way), is wrong. Excluding them from things - yes, including playing characters in an adaptation of Tolkien - for no more reason than that you're comfortable with the way things are is wrong.

And I firmly believe Tolkien would agree with me.

It is Tolkien's mythology for England. The heroes as well as the most malevolent characters are white. The area of Northwestern Europe wherein lies much of the plot has white ethnic groups. Only when one travels to the far south or east are there deviations (not surprisingly mimicking global trends). I am quite certain the heroes and villains of most African ethnic groups' mythologies are decidedly dark skinned (I am only acquainted with Yoruba and Zulu mythos, but they are applicable).

Greek mythology has a lot of Greeks in it -- their gods and heroes. This may be distracting or absurd to you, I know, but it suited the Greeks. Did you get indignant when decidedly non-Greek Brad Pitt played Achilles -- other than the bad acting, of course?

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

When Gondorian nobles objected to immigrant Northmen playing Beren on stage, I bet you it was on "aesthetic" grounds.
hS

"No Irish Need Apply". Actually, if you read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the worried monks who scribbled the annals spoke of the "demon race" the Danes, damnable invading white guys who were not Danish for the most part and were nearly kissing cousins of the Saxons priests they were pillaging.

The refined and perhaps debauched Gondorions probably viewed these proto-Goths in much the same way.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

You take exception? I rather take exception to the claim that seeing any non-white characters in a story that spans thousands of miles of fictional terrain, and runs from the Arctic to nearly the equator, is "arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup", "more pumpkin spice product", and "an entirely political superimposition". I take exception to the insistence that every Good character in Tolkien must be white, because... well, because they must be, right? Tolkien would never have imagined that the Good races could include non-white people, right? Because...?

"Racism" is not a political term. It is a matter of fundamental ethics. Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them (which answers most-to-all of your "scare-quoted" questions at the end, by the way), is wrong. Excluding them from things - yes, including playing characters in an adaptation of Tolkien - for no more reason than that you're comfortable with the way things are is wrong.

And I firmly believe Tolkien would agree with me.

I don't want to raise the temperature in here, but you are getting very close to name-calling.

Yes, it absolutely is political. One confusion of our confused and angry age seems to be the conflation of the two, the (intentional?) obfuscation of the difference between the political and the moral- because it seems more suited to the censorious contemporary mindset to say not "I disagree with you" but "I condemn you;" not "You are wrong" but "You are evil." And so the denial that the entirely political decision that People of Color need representation injected into in a work written in the 1940s by a middle-aged Englishmen is political, and is instead (and inaccurately) recast as "ethical."

Could you explain to me exactly what artistic or aesthetic enhancement is involved here? It certainly has nothing to do with "Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them" Nobody is treating POC as "lesser or unwanted" by observing that they simply weren't there. Would you make the same argument with regard to an adaptation of David Copperfield or Pride and Prejudice or (ha!) Vanity Fair? These were books written in England from an English perspective featuring Englishmen (and -women). Tolkien was writing from the perspective of an England where just about nobody, unless they had been out to the Empire, had so much as seen a black person in the flesh until American GIs started coming over.

Tolkien was writing about "the North-West of the Old World." A place which, as he understood it (long before the Nationalities Act), was populated by Europeans. To the extent POC stepped on the stage they were, like the Easterlings and Haradrim, the Other, the hostile invaders from south and east.




Now, it would be entirely one thing If you were to come back with "You are wrong; Tolkien did not envision his world as being all-white," and argue from there. You could even attempt an argument that the work is somehow artistically improved by a multiracial cast. What you cannot legitimately do is play lazy ad hominem games and accuse me of racism (which I am not) because I do hold that opinion- nor, frankly, for mocking the current rather silly fashion for Diversity Ketchup, especially its empty claims to moral imperative.

[Zigûr]

I don't see how any of it matters at this point. If it isn't true to the source material (which it clearly isn't) then that's simply the way it is. There's nothing any of us can do about it except to not watch the show; I don't intend on watching it. I already don't have an Amazon Prime subscription and this isn't going to get me to pay for one. I already avoid buying books from them except where they've monopolised the market for something that I need for my academic research (into Tolkien).

And I say all this as someone who couldn't care less if there are more roles for women and non-white people in the show. That was inevitable and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I simply don't care if Elves or Dwarves aren't all white. I don't think they need to be for an adaptation to work; personally I don't think you need an all white and predominantly male cast to still have the same tone as Professor Tolkien's work. But the tone will be the thing they almost certainly don't capture because audiences wouldn't get it, and they probably don't get it themselves.

I can't help but feel as if Amazon wants these arguments about diversity and "politics" to be happening to create more conversation around their show. It just remains to be seen whether it's successful with their core audience or not; Tolkien fans aren't exactly going to be making up a majority of their market share at the end of the day.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I can't help but feel as if Amazon wants these arguments about diversity and "politics" to be happening to create more conversation around their show.

This is the truest statement on this thread, I think, and it is arguable that they're getting what they want, if so. If even the Huorns have been roused on the 'Downs, there is conversation aplenty!

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

This is the truest statement on this thread, I think, and it is arguable that they're getting what they want, if so. If even the Huorns have been roused on the 'Downs, there is conversation aplenty!

Personally though, I am not against a rousing of the Huorns, and I maintain that this is one of the good consequences of the show, as proof that good can come of evil.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I don't see how any of it matters at this point. If it isn't true to the source material (which it clearly isn't) then that's simply the way it is. There's nothing any of us can do about it except to not watch the show; I don't intend on watching it. I already don't have an Amazon Prime subscription and this isn't going to get me to pay for one. I already avoid buying books from them except where they've monopolised the market for something that I need for my academic research (into Tolkien).

And I say all this as someone who couldn't care less if there are more roles for women and non-white people in the show. That was inevitable and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I simply don't care if Elves or Dwarves aren't all white. I don't think they need to be for an adaptation to work; personally I don't think you need an all white and predominantly male cast to still have the same tone as Professor Tolkien's work. But the tone will be the thing they almost certainly don't capture because audiences wouldn't get it, and they probably don't get it themselves.

I can't help but feel as if Amazon wants these arguments about diversity and "politics" to be happening to create more conversation around their show. It just remains to be seen whether it's successful with their core audience or not; Tolkien fans aren't exactly going to be making up a majority of their market share at the end of the day.

Hear, hear. It does seem that one detail out of very, very many is generating a lot of heat and very little light, ridiculously because it isn't really any more or less important than any of the other myriad infelicities which make up the malodorous whole. It's no better, or worse, than a beardless Dwarf-queen or "Nori Brandyfoot" or plate-armored General Galadriel on her Roaring Rampage of Revenge- or, for that matter, the almost-guarantee that they are going to slap a beard (or at least scruff) on Ar-Pharazon. And yet even these remain violations of geekish details, just the scabs encrusting the surface of the rotten non-Tolkienian chancre.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Hear, hear. It does seem that one detail out of very, very many is generating a lot of heat and very little light, ridiculously because it isn't really any more or less important than any of the other myriad infelicities which make up the malodorous whole. It's no better, or worse, than a beardless Dwarf-queen or "Nori Brandyfoot" or plate-armored General Galadriel on her Roaring Rampage of Revenge- or, for that matter, the almost-guarantee that they are going to slap a beard (or at least scruff) on Ar-Pharazon. And yet even these remain violations of geekish details, just the scabs encrusting the surface of the rotten non-Tolkienian chancre.

I pretty much concur, except with a small - but I believe crucial - adjustment here. Let me (try to) sum up succintly what I believe are the biggest problems in the discussion, especially the one "out there" - I think this forum hosts, thankfully, a much more civilised debate:

1) Of course what matters is "the core", i.e. the spirit, whether this is Tolkien or just a bad generic fantasy. However, many fans seem to be pre-decided that this is going to be bad, so bad, already before seeing very much and ignoring the signs that might (potentially) also point to the contrary (e.g. the facts that the authors seem to be honestly trying, that there are "real fans" among them, that they have been reading Tolkien every morning before filming and so on). (Sidenote, before anyone shelves me as a defender, let me restate that I am against all and any adaptations including this one, but I am trying to be objective!)

2) Which is directly connected to the next one, where I would ask everyone (does not necessarily apply to members of this forum of all things, but everyone try to discern about yourselves) to try to examine their own thoughts and feelings about the topic, and tell to themselves TRUTHFULLY what does your negative feeling about the show truly depend on and where does it come from. I mean: often human mind works the way that once you decide that something is bad (or good), then you just keep looking for more proofs for that things are the way you see them. But what was the first trigger, and what was the first major "proof" that solidified your belief? Were you the most annoyed by that Galadriel was wearing armour, or was it by that there was a non-white-skinned Dwarf or Elf? And are all your subsequent arguments only addendums, while your issue with the show lies in this? Or are you jumping on some train of thought that may be built on false dependency? ("If they cast dark-skinned Elves, it means they are not treating Tolkien canon with enough respect, or are not trying to be true to the spirit." - That for example would absolutely be false dependency, as that's an aesthetic choice about the same weight of deciding whether Númenor has statues that are inspired by Greek, Egyptian, Roman or Aztec art.)

To sum it up: I don't think we have enough details to say with certainty that there is a "rotten non-Tolkienian chancre". There definitely are "scabs on the surface", and then the question is, how much weight we give to them - and to which ones, and for what reasons. I very much wish all the fans to be honest to ourselves about it.