battlewraith
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
I think you are misunderstanding the context of the conversation and what he is saying in the interview. Again, political drama/satire has its place. I believe trying to compare works like Citizen Kane, Milk, JFK or All the King's Men to Tolkien is just wrong as they are entirely different. You are trying to compare apple to oranges. Tolkien was looking to tell a good story to entertain, not express a moral or political message. There is plenty of documentation available around Tolkien that enforces this. It is also one of the many reasons his work still endures to this day. Above all else, it is a great story.
I think any reasonable analysis of Tolkien's work shows this to be false. Tolkien is absolutely telling a moral tale. LoTR is talking about the nature of power, human corruption, mortality, etc.
In many ways it's a riff on Christian ideology with a battle between good and evil that hinges on some divine plan involving the return of a messianic figure that will restore order to the world. It's naive and pretty insulting to the narrative to just write it off as just a simple fantasy yarn. People complain about politics in media when it's not their politics. I wouldn't even call any of this controversy political. Political would be telling people to avoid Amazon altogether because of their union busting.
This could very easily be done by exploring the untapped worlds of men in Middle Earth. Again, people objecting to the diversity being introduced into the elves and dwarves in the Amazon RoP series is a valid criticism. Tolkien's work is based heavily on Norse and Anglo-Saxon mythologies, where there would have been few if any people of African descent. It is not him being a racist, it is him trying to stay true to historical fact in creating his fantasy mythology. This is no different than the African stories and lore lacking anyone of caucasian descent and why fictional places like Wakanda lack ethnic diversity. It is just part of the fictional world in the story. Tolkien did however mention quite a lot of diversity in the worlds of men.The problem is that Tolkien's mythology is not simply about a certain demographic of people at a certain time. It traces back to the gods. The elves and wizards are their progeny and/or incarnations on Earth. And they are lily white. Galadriel, the elfiest of elves is both mightiest and fairest of the elves. So the question is this: does Tolkien's narrative have universal themes or is it inextricably bound this notion of a white history. Shakespeare went through this. Shakespeare was actually used by the British to "educate" colonized people about what civilized culture was. Eventually people realized that Shakespeare's work did not need to be tied to a certain historical and ethnic perspective. The changes I see in these teaser images are super minor. If the whole narrative collapses because of the addition of some pigment, then it must be built on a weak premise to begin with.
-
2 hours ago, InvaderStych said:
I have no reason to doubt the skill or motivation of the actors. Why not cast them in an adaptation of an Ursula Le Guin series? One of any of hundreds of examples. I just don't believe that Amazon is being genuine here: I know they can do better in terms of production quality and there is no shortage of material. Plenty of authors writing from the voices they claim to want to represent who would be more than happy for an option deal. I would love to be wrong. I would love nothing more than for the series to be absolutely amazing in every way and for their intentions to be genuine, but ...
... to paraphrase the incomparable Ms Agashdaloo's Chrisjen Avasarala:
One of us has the wrong impression about Amazon's intent here: I fear that it is you, but I hope that it is me.
I don't disagree with you in general. But the problem, in my opinion, is that you can go too far in reading into the intent behind films. On some level, all major entertainment is a cynical cash grab because--it is. It is business. New Line Cinema made the Jackson trilogy to cash in on Tolkien, not as some kind of public service. But within this economic structure, there are professionals--writers, actors, costumers, matte painters, etc. who are doing their damndest to make this worthwhile. We should be hoping that it's decent. Even if this thing turns out to be shit overall, good things can come from it.
-
1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:
So, again, this is not about defending the shit-heels at Amazon. There is no shortage of source material in the world. They chose to do this specifically for controversy in order to cash in on the moment. I appreciate that the reviewer does some semblance of addressing that point, but he's dead wrong about the job of writers/creators in a general sense.
It's very plausible that Amazon is making casting choices in order to stir up controversy and drive publicity. It's also possible that there are a variety of interests represented in this venture and that some people love Tolkien's world and would simply like to see some people that look like them in this world. Even less likely but still possible is that there were simply some good actors that auditioned for parts and got them. There was no apparent reason (for me at least) to cast Zazie Beetz as Domino in Deadpool 2. But she rocked that shit.
I'm sorry about your friends in the Ukraine.
-
2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:
Chris Gore is a film reviewer in case you did not know. He has been doing this for a long time. You misunderstood the conversation in the video and it is definitely not a hit piece. You will note he did not say the new show is going to be a failure. He is only speaking to what he has seen so far and offering his opinion on that. He is not claiming to be a Tolkien scholar and commenting on who deviated from the books more.
With regard to the quotes by Jackson and the Amazon crew, he is addressing the motivations behind altering the story of an existing property. Jackson said they made it a point to leave their personal political beliefs and baggage out of the writing process. The Amazon crew said the opposite. His point was their job as writers and creators is to entertain, not preach and push their personal beliefs and political agenda because in his experience, the work ultimately suffers for it and thereby the fans.
To be honest, you are the one coming off like an entitled pissed off person who feels they have more of a claim to fandom. None of what you wrote here makes you special or entitles you to declare yourself more of a fan than the next person. You have no more claim on the fandom than anyone else.
The point about not reading the books is that he's attributing the success of the Jackson's movies to his faithfulness towards the source material. Not budget. Not cast and crew. Not Jackson's experience as a director vs. somebody else's. Not the fact that LOTR is Tolkien's is the masterpiece of the series. Faithfulness. Except that, as you and I have already discussed many times, Jackson did make changes to the material. Why is it that Jackson's Arwen defeating the nazgul or Galadriel driving away Sauron are not being seen as Jackson injecting his political beliefs/ideology/baggage etc.? Isn't this some woke message about girl powa? When I've pointed this out to you, you've said "oh well I had issues with Jackson's version as well." But then you post Chris Gore making the same trash one-sided analysis and completely glossing over the hypocrisy of it because he's never read the source material.
I get that you and others think I'm the entitled one. Maybe when I start making blanket statements about "what we want" or "alienating the fans" there will be some truth to it.
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
You completely and totally missed the mark here. Like you didn't even pay attention to what was said at all. The discussion was about the writers intent behind their changes and he's 100% spot on. His point is about respecting the source material and not injecting any of your own political garbage into it. He's got a lot more credibility as a film reviewer than you ever will for sure.
Neither do you. You're no more entitled to the fandom here than anyone else but you certainly sound like you should be entitled to it.
Try to reason this through: how do you know that someone has respected the source material if you haven't read the source material?
"You're no more entitled to the fandom here than anyone else but you certainly sound like you should be entitled to it." Thanks? Is English your second language?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting or expecting any of the Tolkien works to get adapted word for word identical to the books. Yeah differences are inevitable, but it's the clear intent here that's pissing people off. That guy in the video @ShardWarrior linked above spells that out very eloquently. I'm watching some of the other videos he's done and what he's saying there about alienating your fan base is spot on.
The funniest thing to me about that interview is that the guy talks about how great Jackson's initial trilogy was and he relates this to how Jackson intended this to be Tolkien's story. They weren't going to add any of their own baggage, etc. But then the guy admits that he's never read the books. So how the hell does he know that Jackson was faithful to Tolkien? LOL.
It's a hit piece. Take a favorable quote from Jackson about LOTR (not the cash grab Hobbit movies). Contrast that with the most contentious quote from the miniseries (as if it's all about the casting and the showrunners have no concern with Tolkien's world).
"You are going to alienate the fans that have lived with these stories for decades and probably read them as children..."
From the guy who never read the books. I read the Hobbit and LOTR probably 2-3 times a year as a kid. Saw the Rankin Bass versions, the Bakshi version. Have seen the extended version of Jackson's multiple times at the theater and watch it with the family every year around Christmas. I try to forget that I saw the Hobbit movies. These entitled pissed off people do not own the fandom.
-
7 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
They had to do it. It was the law.
But whoever took that or was there at the time and didn't leak it must have had either the willpower of the Gods or one of Feige's robot cybertanks parked on their lawn.
Probably both.
Hmmm..I assumed that was a photomanipulation.
-
1 hour ago, Hyperstrike said:
Guys. Give it up. He's not going to budge.
And he's going to continue to squirm out of answering direct questions and pretend you asked something else.
Oh and pretend that you're an EEEEVUL RAYYYYCIIIIST!
He's not going to discuss this in good faith.
And nothing you do is going to MAKE him discuss it in good faith.
Leave him to his virtue signal.Holy crap you're tilted. I responded to you once with a link to a wikipedia article that you obviously didn't read.
Maybe when you've calmed down you can reread this conversation and point out where I called people evil racists.
-
3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:
For the third time, I have issues with changes Peter Jackson made to the source material for his films as well, so there is no double standard here. Yes, this is not a scene written by Tolkien and I never suggested it was. It does however show that spell casters can be shown to be very powerful without needing to be decked out in armor wielding a sword to vanquish their enemies. Sauron may have been weakened here, but your average person in armor with a sword would never have stood a chance against him.
The point you're ignoring for the nth time is Jackson deviated from the source material in order to appeal to an audience demographic and/or make something visually dramatic. Those films were well received despite these deviations. It was a success, it did not destroy the IP despite the fact that I saw the Hobbit movies once and don't intend to watch them again. The complaint that Galadriel was never described as wearing armor or wielding a weapon is inane when you're pointing to a scene that never happened in the books to bolster the case that she works really well without armor or a weapon.
Galadriel is described as having taken part in multiple armed conflicts during the age of elves. Against other powerful elves. The idea of her strolling out on to a battlefield, unarmed and dressed like this is utterly stupid. Tolkien was writing mythology, not making movies. Anyone wanting to flesh this stuff out would do well to at least make some concessions to practicality. Elves like to shoot arrows, you know. Maybe armor would help with that. Or maybe she just disintegrates them with her mind. Or mind hacks all the archers on the other side before they can fire.
The average person in armor with a sword would never stand a chance against Boromir, lol.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
You have what is happening in the scene totally wrong. Did you miss the part where she single handedly banished Sauron and the Ringwraiths using her magic alone? Something Elrond and Sarumon were unable to accomplish. No sword or armor needed by her.
If I'm not mistaken, Tolkein didn't specify anything that happens in this scene. Sauron anticipated the white council's move and left before they even got there. This example you're using to prop up your stance is Jackson's version. Another double standard about not following what Tolkein wrote.
And no, I didn't miss anything. She frees Gandalf and zapps an orc. Sauron starts trashtalking her with the black speech and she crumbles as the nazgul approach. Sarumon and Elrond fight them off. It they didn't, it stands to reason she would've been shanked. After the nazgul are dispatched and she's spent a few minutes just spread out on the floor, she gets her shit together and *banishes* Sauron--meaning he leaves and goes to Mordor. Keep in mind that this is a Galadriel that is 1000 years older than the one in this miniseries and has a ring of power, facing down a weakened ghost version of Sauron. And how stupid is this entire scene? These heads of state decide to trek over to Dol Goldur alone? They don't even bring any of their guards?
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
You must have watched a very different movie than everyone else. Looks like using magic and not needing a sword and armor worked just fine for her.
Lol yeah it works when you have Sarumon and Elrond preventing you from being shanked while you lie there gassed out on the ground.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
Black Panther and Falcon are tertiary characters in a fictional world. Is it acceptable to recast them as Arabs or Asians or do you honestly believe there would not be an outrage by the fanbase if this were done?
You're asking two different questions--is it acceptable? Would there be outrage from the fanbase if this were done?
Black Panther and Falcon are not tertiary characters. Black Panther had his own hit movie and Falcon had a miniseries after featuring prominently in the Captain America films. Could changes like that have been done back when they were only in the comics? Maybe. Look at all the variations of Captain Marvel.
Acceptable in what sense?
1. Artistic. Sure why not? There could be some aspect or facet of these characters to be explored by changing their background.
2. Social trends. Probably not. Because major non white superhero characters are few and far between to begin with. Roles for black actors have been very limited historically. Etc.
3. Commercial. Media companies exist to make money. If doing this would make money they would be expected to do it.
Outrage from the fanbase is perpetual these days. The fact that major companies like Amazon are swinging towards inclusive casting suggests to me that that is the more commercially viable way to go.
-
5 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:
So for you it would be perfectly fine to re-cast Black Panther or Falcon as a dwarf of Arabic descent or an Asian and to re-imagine Wakanda as all Chinese?
Lol. I have a background in theater. Gender bending and color blind casting is old hat. One of the best Shakespeare productions I saw was a Julius Caesar set in 14th century Mali with an all black cast. So yeah, if there was an actual compelling artistic rationale for your contrived examples I would be fine with them. It's also hilarious that you think these examples are on a par with anything we've discussed.
-
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:
If you scroll up the thread, I did say there were many changes made by Jackson for his films that I objected to. All based on my personal opinion, some of his edits were ok, some I found were improvements to the story and some were just outright awful. Changing out Glorfindel with Arwen here is another noteworthy mention. If you will recall, the writers had also planned on having Arwen show up at Helms Deep to go full Xena mode which drew quite a lot of negative criticism from fans, leading the idea to be totally scrapped by the filmmakers.
The key issue is that anyone objecting to these changes to the established lore are being shouted down as misogynists and/or racists by virtue signallers pushing a political agenda. Sure, there are idiots out there, however most of those I see expressing these concerns are not women hating racists.
Given the lack of source material here, there is plenty of room to create a whole slew of new characters for this series that can interact with and be guided by established characters. There is a great diversity in the worlds of men that has never been explored much, so why not start there rather than distorting established characters?
Yes you may have objected to these changes in the Jackson trilogy, but the point is that those movies were a major success. The Arwen change did not sink it. So why is this glimpse of Galadriel in the teaser such a big deal. It may be the case that the whole thing sucks, but I don't think that's established yet. And I don't think it's a fair criticism in principle given what Jackson got away with.
Regarding the key issue: the agenda here is to appeal more to women and other racial demographics. This is as much a business decision as a political one. Certainly not everyone who wants manly vanilla Tolkein is a woman hating racist. But there is certainly a cottage industry of right wing critics who want to play the victim and stir up outrage over this sort of thing. I think the shouting is aimed at them. And I also think it's part of the business plan--feed the controversy and get people talking about the series. It's like a rap feud for nerds.
Why not explore new territory rather than distorting established characters? Because it doesn't pay off. It's very difficult to attract an audience to new creations compared to doing variations of existing ones. Go to a comic convention and look at what artists are selling. Endless variations of existing popular characters. People respond more to a known entity. Even then there may be problems getting something off of the ground. Look at how huge a hit GOT was, but the planned prequel series never got off the ground.
-
13 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:
Please do not virtue signal to push some woke agenda. Some of my most favorite movie action heroes are characters like Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor. Questioning why Galadriel is being altered to the degree of making her into Xena Warrior Princess does not make someone a misogynist. It is utterly ridiculous to even suggest this given the existence of characters like Eowyn in the source material. Tolkien himself was famous for refuting suggestions of allegory to political themes in his writings.
But getting triggered over Galadriel behaving like a warrior is odd. The character is thousands of years old and lived through violent times. Is it implausible that she would've picked up some skills as a warrior? Is that a bad sort of thing for a filmmaker to infer for some reason?
Well you say that Tolkein didn't write it that way. Ok, but if I remember correctly Tolkein didn't have Arwen whip out a sword and face down the Nazgul who were after Frodo. That was Glorfindel. We didn't get him. We got Arwen instead because Jackson and co. wanted to have more female presence in the movie to appeal to women. Did that ruin the IP? Did it make the film bad. Where is the nerdrage over that transgression? Particularly when Galadriel is inherently more badass then Arwen.
Derivative media like films and miniseries are always going to reevaluate and adapt source material in light of contemporary sensibilities and aesthetics. I still know crusty nerds that are salty that Wolverine in the Xmen movies wasn't an extremely hairy 5' tall man. Tough shit. Nobody wants to see that but them. Most people were very happy with Hugh Jackman. I personally would much rather see an armored warrior Galadriel than than the one in the shitty Hobbit movies who treks all the way over to Sauron's hideout in her robes and the proceeds to flop over and swoon until Elrond and Sarumon show up to fight off the Nazgul.
-
The other outcome which seems more plausible to me is that our descendants will no longer be what we currently consider to be human. The solution to survival in other areas of the universe might be less about finding or creating earth like conditions than making future people less reliant on those conditions.
-
We are a violent species. This is balanced by a capacity for empathy and adaptive cultural mechanisms that make it bad to run around hurting people.
So instead we have ritualized violence like sports and heroic fantasy narratives where the bad guys get what's coming to them. The bad guys are written that way
so that it is ok for us to relish the experience of watching the hero beat someone to death. Or a sanitized version where the recipient of the beatdown is healed or dragged
off to jail.
More morally ambiguous recent comics call heroism into question and we get varieties of asshole superheroes and antiheroes. I think "are heroes murderers" is the wrong question. The real question is "does narrative moralizing make violent acts good?" That's why I quoted the Tool song Vicarious earlier. We don't want to experience these things ourselves, but watching them or engaging vicariously through a videogame is a major source of entertainment.
You arm a superhero with a giant sword or battleaxe because imagining that kind of devastation is badass. It doesn't matter what it's called or what is shown due to the limitations of the game engine. That or you possibly some strange object fetish.
-
1 hour ago, Marshal_General said:
The problem is when society becomes too civilized that it starts to break down and criminals no longer fear the law because more often that not the law protects them from the consequences of their actions.
Far too often the police can do nothing about someone who is an obvious threat until he/she actually does something and then far too often for someone it is too late.
"Shes dead? I guess she was right about him being a threat. We can arrest him now"
The law is structured in part to protect citizens from the government. Thus a high bar is set to establish guilt (in theory). The downside is that sometimes guilty people go unpunished. The upside is that they can't (in theory) kick in your door and haul you to jail simply because you look threatening or resemble a suspect.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
While not entirely wrong, the actually situation is far more complicated than this simple statement implies.
The sky is generally blue and grass is generally green. While these observations are not entirely wrong, the actual situation is far more complicated than this simple statement implies.
*nods sagely*
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Luminara said:
A sentence doesn't equal time served, or even reflect the true gravity of the crime in our current society.
It may. It depends on the charge and state laws. There are a lot of permutations here you're glossing over. There also may be no gravity to the crime committed. It's fairly common for innocent people wrongly arrested, for example, to take a plea deal to a lesser crime and get out of jail rather than stay in custody, lose their jobs, and risk going to prison for a more serious offense. Plea bargaining is regarded as coercion and prohibited in some other countries like the UK. Not to mention all the people serving ridiculously harsh mandated sentences for minor drug offenses.
-
1 hour ago, Luminara said:
Also, the penal system in the United States is a joke. We've all become inured to the idea of criminals being back on the streets within months, weeks, even hours after committing felonies. Of course we're not fretting the fact that a purse-snatcher in a video game is back on the streets three minutes after being arrested. It's a barely exaggerated reflection of reality.
No clue what you're talking about here. The USA has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world. you are more likely to be imprisoned for a crime and to have a longer sentence.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, The_Warpact said:
But, based on what? You and societies standards or their version of justice. What about some countries that still execute on the smallest infractions according to their law.
Or what about in the past when "justice" was metted out which was usually death for minor things?
I think we are getting into perspective or opinions based on rules by whatever group of people control that area.
Face it justice, the court systems, mental health care all are a joke, the punishment should fit the crime.
Yes notions of justice are relative to different groups at different times and places. So what? Historical progress in these areas has occurred. You could make the same argument about medicine or architecture or anything else. Some group thinking that leeches will cure a disease doesn't mean that modern healthcare is a joke, even though we will likely have better treatments for various things in the future.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lieWhy can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?We won't give pause until the blood is flowing
Neither the brave nor bold
The writers of stories sold
We won't give pause until the blood is flowingI need to watch things die
From a good safe distanceVicariously I, live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same so
Why can't we just admit it?Blood like rain come down
Drawn on grave and groundPart vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and voyeur
Stare at the transmittal
Sing to the death rattle -
Yes, it’s just a minor inconvenience, if that. The core activity of coh is grinding. You don’t win the game. It doesn’t reset if you beat a final boss, or if your character is defeated. The general assumption is that you should be able to beat anything unless you goof up, which is why people said they’re embarrassed when defeated.
-
1
-
Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Posted
Yeah, I'm well aware of that quote. Frankly I think Tolkien was being naive here. For one thing, I doubt that he expected the LOTR to become a huge phenomenon that people would be interested in reinterpreting. Secondly, he did not want people to view it as relating to WWII. Anyone with a brain can see the meanings and ideology of LOTR. If there is no hidden meaning in the text it's because it's blatant.
But let's run with this. There is no deep meaning or significance to the story. It's just an entertaining yarn. Then what is with all the griping about minor changes to the representation of characters in a derivative work? Why, for the sake of entertainment, is it not alright to update aspects of a filmed work to cater to current aesthetics and sensibilities rather than slavishly following those of Tolkien's generation? What's the damage gonna be, particularly when the books will still be there unchanged?
You are literally sawing off the branch on which you're sitting.
"Shakespeare and Tolkien are two completely different animals."
Correct. Shakespeare has long been considered the greatest author of the English language. The stakes were far higher in discussing/interpreting Shakespeare than Tolkien.