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

[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.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

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!)

I am curious - can anyone imagine a good TV adaptation of Tolkien? Not a simplified children's version, not an action movie, but legitimate Tolkien?

Originally Posted by Legate

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.

Is there a lot of dissatisfaction, perhaps, because the portrayal of Tolkien's world is not how you imagined it to be, and that just grates too much? A superficial rub rather than a deeper lack of understanding on the show's part?


Personally, I think they could have made a great generic fantasy show. Have it in Second Age Numenor, you could put an entire Game of Thrones in there without a problem, have some familiar names mentioned in the background... It it legit Tolkien? Of course not. But it could have been a good show - a Tolkien-themed story, set in Tolkien's universe, but also disconnected from the main stories and able to shine as an independent TV production, free to take the story and visuals wherever they want to make the show good. I had such high hopes for it. But then they make it very clear that they are NOT making it disconnected and independent; in fact, it seems that they are doing everything possible to link it up with existing material, movie and book alike. And some of that is good - I think we will find a lot of neat references in there. And some of the references are probably gonna be incorrect, but that won't be the problem - that would probably be good fun. But then they begin encroaching on things that are sacred, and people get mad. What is sacred? It's different for everyone, and I don't know if it's possible to pinpoint exactly what it is. I think that people generally tolerate discrepancy between the imagined and the portrayed fairly well when it really is something that is a mere detail; like, ok, maybe you'd find the adaptation "ok" instead of "exceptional", but I don't think people often give bad reviews for non-critical details. However, when you are emotionally attached to certain things, that sort of change is a lot harder to accept. And that can be a visual depiction, or a character, or a dialogue, or a culture, or a landscape, or the details of just how exactly something is said or done. If you are sufficiently emotionally attached to the story in one version, you naturally react stronger to changes to that vision, from the way it was in your head and the way you cherished it for so long. So of course people get mad over details of every sort - we are all emotionally attached to Tolkien's world, and some aspects of it are more vivid for some and less vivid for others, and the vision is more rigid for some than for others, but we all get angry when that little sacred part gets stepped on. Or at least that's my theory of why fans get mad about adaptations in general, not specific to Tolkien or fantasy or any other specific genre.

As an objective measure, I propose a test of recognition. Obviously we will all imagine things differently; however, with a faithful enough portrayal, we should be able to recognize familiar people and places without difficulty. If you struggle to recognize a character or place without the name or context provided, just by the visual, it probably means that the visual is not a great representation. This is true for art - when I look through various fan-art, it's amazing how you can usually place each picture within seconds. You'd think that in Tolkien art everyone is dressed sort of the same in some medieval costume, but there is always a gestalt of details that lets you identify the character - even on the black and white pencil drawings, where you can't go by hair colour or colour of clothes. And then there is some art where you just wouldn't be able to tell what that is without there being a deciphering caption or title. So let's put the trailer to the test. Is there sufficient visual detail and acting skill to portray people and places in an easily recognizable manner? As a first step, would you be able to guess that the places and people are from something Tolkienesque? For step two, if you were shown a still photo of these characters and told "this is from somewhere in Tolkien" but not any more details, would you be able to identify the person or place (or race of people, or specific named item, or any other specifier)? (Or, do you think there is a better way to put these questions - if so, let's go for it. Let's run a survey experiment and see where opinions fall. Of course, it's not truly objective, because it depends on a what-if scenario where you already know the answer. But try to think of your first reaction when you saw the images or heard bits of the plot).

Doing the test for myself, and thinking back to my first about this, I find that if I didn't already see Galadriel and Elrond in the article prior to the trailer, with explanations of who they are, I would not recognize them easily. Elrond - not at all, Galadriel - maybe after a lot of thinking through who this could possibly be, in a world with not that many named female characters. It's not just about their physical appearance, but because so far we haven't seen them do what we most often imagine them doing, in places where we most often imagine them being. (Like, for instance, there's a good chance that at some point in her life Galadriel happened to be near an icy waterfall, but by virtue of statistical probability you're more likely to imagine her in a forest or an Elvish palace). So, if this is to be treated as a sort of fan-fiction, they've only shown the "fiction" part of it - but with just enough canon to enable everyone to scream "no! this is wrong!". And based on the few scenes that we have, is it then not natural to have incredulity, if they don't match our imaginations to such a large extent? I am curious who thinks they would recognize Galadriel in the raft scenes without being told this is her. Galadriel with armour - I think I might have come to that deduction after some playing detective. But Galadriel on the raft? And if the show's image of the character (their combined visual appearance, actions, and acting) are so bizarrely different from your mental image, even despite a few correct details (e.g. blonde hair), is it any wonder that people complain?

Similar story for the Silvan Elf (does he have a name yet?): that is not how I would imagine a Silvan Elf, and I don't think I would be able to place him in that category without being told to expect him - not that there is any specific detail that is wrong or lacking, but the gestalt, from the haircut to the clothes to, well, unspecified gestalt. But then again, all that we've seen him do so far is do ridiculous looking stunts - we haven't heard him speak, we haven't seen him even walk normally, we just know he catches arrows in mid-flight. So while it's possible that he might actually be a decently made character, of what I've seen so far there is more evidence against than there is for.

I won't go through all the characters (lol, Meeple), but honestly, going by the people alone, there's not much to go with without any context. Gil-Galad? Wouldn't know him (are we even sure it's him?). So I don't think it's wrong of people to offer more criticism than support, because 1) we have concrete evidence for criticism, and while there is a possibility of good dialogue and acting and maybe even plot, at this point in time that is all faith and wishful thinking; and 2) experience teaches that putting too much faith in movie adaptations results in disappointment.

That is different for some of the inanimate items though. The Two Trees dagger is very suggestive. Several other details in the armour and weapons are perhaps not placeable immediately, but suggest that they may become placeable with a little bit more development (e.g. we might see them associated with certain characters or groups). I think that has potential.

As for places, for myself it was a mix. It only took me a few seconds to place Numenor, which to me says that it's probably a good depiction. And you can argue that the architecture is off or that Meneltarma is not sufficiently steep, but it's recognizable. The Dwarves-in-cave scenes are presumably Moria, but this is due to a paucity of such locations more than recognition by details. The rest are not easily identified (the Golden Wood is apparently Lindon, which I found confusing), and I suppose they are too generic to say much. They do look nice though, and there is a good breadth of geography which is fitting.


So, on the whole, the only thing I can conclude from my own experience is that they just chose the worst possible way to make the trailer. Perhaps the idea was that they'll flash a few characters to allow people to identify some people and places, and leave the rest up to guesswork, hoping that would heat the hype. Except that in selecting the scenes that they did, they managed to include a lot of the wrong stuff, and have neglected to put in any right stuff. The audience of book-supporters is probably less interested in arrow catching and explosions and the "fiction" part of the fan-fiction, and those scenes just tend to trample the sacred without offering much in return. As a rule of thumb, don't judge a book by its cover, and don't judge a movie by its trailer - but if that's all you have to judge by, how can you not.

But more than that, I am curious what the answers would be if we actually did do a sort of informal survey, on how many book-readers could recognize these characters without being told who they are. How much does the show measure up to our imaginations? It is absolutely going to differ, but I still maintain that on average a good depiction will still be recognized by most. And if, on the contrary, most people would not associate this depiction with the character, I would question the gestalt of the portrayal - how the character looks, speaks, dresses, acts - and, in some way, I suppose that is synonymous with the "core" or "spirit" of the character and the work.

Anyone else wanna do the recognizability test?



(Thank you Legate for giving me something to chew on, and for a new line of thinking)