battlewraith

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.

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.

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?

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.

Hmmm..I assumed that was a photomanipulation.

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.

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.

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?

Lol yeah it works when you have Sarumon and Elrond preventing you from being shanked while you lie there gassed out on the ground.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies You all need it too, don't lie Why 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 flowing I need to watch things die From a good safe distance Vicariously 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 ground Part 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.

I use an automotive primer called Duplicolor primer filler. It's really good for filling in print lines. Spray the model and then you're sanding the primer to the level of the lines, rather than trying to sand down the ridges of the plastic.

I'm not an expert on toxic materials and maybe the sources I'm looking at are dated (eg. there are non-toxic resin brands on the market). But a quick google search on resin will say that it is very toxic, should not be handled without gloves, needs proper ventilation, and is extremely damaging to the environment if not disposed of properly. Note that by toxic I don't mean "unpleasant to be around". I'm talking about damage to your skin, particles in your eyes and lungs, etc.

Are you doing anything to address the layer lines before you paint? Resin printers are definitely better for smoothness and detail, but I've stayed clear of them because the resin is a lot more toxic than working with PLA.