ShardWarrior

Same here! So excited for this one. Absolutely love Ewan McGregor in this role! He was the best part of the prequel series IMO. Cannot wait to see this. I have been pumped for this since it was first announced.

Chances are very good that it is the latter unfortunately. ☹️ Would certainly be very cool to have though.

A little bit of interesting and cool news about STO - Thomas Marrone (ship designer on STO) had a few of his designs make it into official canon on Star Trek Picard.

They stopped supporting Mac a long time ago. There is not enough people using Macs to justify maintaining two different systems.

Yes I hope the parental controls are up to snuff there for sure!

Will be available on Hulu. https://www.superherohype.com/tv/511010-hulu-orders-a-futurama-revival-with-original-cast-members-returning https://www.superherohype.com/tv/511828-john-dimaggio-is-officially-returning-for-hulus-futurama-revival

I tried watching this and fell asleep. Very boring in my opinion.

Not to further derail the thread, but since you asked... you can consider that flimsy all you like, there is no question it is canon to the source material. There are non Asgardians residing in Asgard in the Marvel Universe. Following your logic, it should be no issue at all for you to have Whites, Asians, Arabs, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and whatever other ethnic group you can think of portrayed as natives to places like Wakanda or have characters in the upcoming sequel from Wakanda recast as non-African to give non-African actors a chance. Again, there is a great diversity among the worlds of men in Middle Earth. You can even make the case that there is diversity among the Hobbits as I believe they were supposed to be closely related to men. In the races of elves and dwarves, not so much. That much is very clear from the source material.

Some yes. All of them, no. So was Saruman the White and various other people. Ok so you do not want to post any of the various other critics which you seemed to allude there were many of. That is fine. It should be more than abundantly clear to anyone looking at the image you posted what the influences of the character design are. Point being, Kirby allowed for non-white characters to exist in Asgard, so it stands to reason they would be in the MCU.

Source - https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/daredevil-marvel-stream-disney-plus-1235188404/ Looks to include Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. as well. Very cool! Will be surprising to see The Punisher on Disney Plus!

No need to get angry. I cannot help it if you are wrong. Kirby created Hogun who is depicted of Asian descent as one of the integral characters in the Thor comics, so there is existing precedent in the Marvel universe for there to be non-white characters in Asgard.

The same can be said for the various races of men who fought one another for a whole host of reasons, not just Easterlings or Haradrim. Tolkien's notes, letters and other writings provide a picture of what his intentions were. What we read in his published works is just the very tip of the iceberg with regard to the story and world he was creating. There was simply no way for him to cram all of it into the LoTR. This is why there is so much information presented in the appendices, some of which is critical to the characters of the story. He still is not a literary critic making assertions about the authenticity of the work and whether it is "true Tolkien" or not. I would like to read those critiques if you do not mind posting them.

Again, please do your research. Not all characters in Asgard in the Thor comics were Asgardian. Hogun - one of the warriors three - was not Asgardian.

I can only speak for myself here but I am not feeling any vitriol or animosity directed at me. I rather enjoy a good debate and find them to be a very good, very healthy thing. Again, please do your research. As @TheOtherTed pointed out, you are grasping at straws here. No, not all Easterlings were evil. So it is inaccurate because it is based on Tolkien's own notes and writings? That makes no sense at all. As @TheOtherTed asked, please post them. I would like to read them as well. Interviews with his son Christopher are not the same thing as literary critics.

Please do your research. This is not at all accurate. Not even remotely close. Ilúvatar created the race of men, which encompasses all the races we read about in Tolkien's work. The Haradrim were, like many other kingdoms in the worlds of men, divided in their allegiances. Some sided with Sauron, others opposed him. So no, not all "dark skinned" races were evil. Many took up arms to oppose Sauron. As I and others have pointed out in the thread, there is a very rich, very diverse, very interesting story in the worlds of men that has never been explored in depth. The events touched on in the video above would be a great setting for that epic GoT type series Bezos wanted to use LoTR for. How would those Haradrim who opposed Sauron feel about not getting a ring of power? Lots of interesting tales to be told revolving around Umbar and places in the south.

I understand what Tolkien himself wrote on this very topic of discussion. He drew from various historical and religious influences, but he was not including any of it as topical or allegorical. You are mistakenly trying to apply allegory and direct correlation where Tolkien himself said there was none. Things like the White Tree of Gondor being a symbol for Gondor and having meaning in the books is not a direct correlation to anything Christian or real world related. This is not at all difficult to understand, especially since the man himself made that absolutely clear. Again, Tolkien knew what he was talking about and what his intent for what he created. These things influenced him, sure. They were not direct correlations though. I think there is a distinction between an existing fan base who enjoys a work as written versus angry twitter mobs who just want to complain about every little thing. I would agree the latter are not worth listening to.

Right so the original author clearly explaining the intent behind his life's work is wrong and your interpretation of his work is correct. Got it. Give us a break. I would counter this with ask why is it necessary to update it at all? If anything, history has more than proven Tolkien's work has globally universal appeal. At one point, it was known as being second only to the bible in terms of readership. There was no need to update it or modernize it or change it to tailor to individual regional and political tastes. Quite clearly people from all over the world found the story appealing and enjoyed it without it needing to be reworked or re-imagined to cater to them despite it having a traditional English setting. People all over the world still are finding Tolkien and enjoying his work coming up 70 years after LoTR was published. History is proving it does not need to be updated with modern day political messaging to have appeal. As to what the potential damage could be, I think the video I linked above and subsequent discussion has already covered that. To recap, it is abundantly clear that these changes are alienating quite a lot of the existing fan base and not in a good way. Who is this going to be for if not for the fans? This is not a good place to start from in my opinion. I cannot speak for everyone, but I personally see Tolkien's work and LoTR in particular as something of a period piece. I understand Tolkien was trying to create a fictional English history. Modern sensibilities, tastes and current world politics did not exist then and I just do not see the necessity to try and inject them into the story now. The characters and story are strong enough as is to not need to be updated to put these things into it. This is why LoTR has endured for so long, it is a very good, timeless story. Wanted to share another interview which I thought was relevant to the discussion. Another opinion piece of course, but he does make some good points here.

Yet again, Tolkien himself refuted this kind of analysis. His own words - The word allegory means "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one." Repeating this from Tolkien's own words - So quite clearly you have it wrong, unless you want to try and say Tolkien was lying or did not know what he was talking about. Shakespeare and Tolkien are two completely different animals. And again, Tolkien described quite a lot of diversity in the worlds of men in Middle Earth.

It is not disingenuous at all and you are misunderstanding what the word allegory means. Yes, Tolkien was drawing heavily on Anglo Saxon and Norse mythology to create an alternate English history. That does not mean he was looking to make some kind of moral or political message. Again, he was famous for stating his creation was not allegorical. He was just looking to tell a good story. 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 can understand his reasoning for bringing Arwen into the story as she is an crucial figure toward understanding how Aragorn behaves. She also has an important role in introducing the theme of death into the story. As I remember it, Tolkien had wanted to find a way to work her into the story proper but never found a sufficient way of doing so, which is why her story with Aragorn is relegated to the appendices. Sad to have Glorfindel replaced by her yes, however it is one of the changes Jackson made that I can understand. I may not fully agree with it, but I can understand it. Now, had he kept the version of her where she goes full Xena Warrior Princess at Helm's Deep, that would have been utterly terrible in my opinion. Having her rescue Frodo and barely make it back to Rivendell is not totally horrible in my opinion. Exactly. For the record, I totally agree about the Hobbit films deviating wildly from the source material. It never should have been dragged out into a trilogy in my opinion. I get that they wanted to try and tie it into the LoTR trilogy, however this is a great example of studio interference hurting. Totally agree. I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges here. There are books/films written where the clear intent is to be political or to tell an allegorical sort of story. Of course there is a place for such works. With that said, Tolkien's work is not among those. He famously refuted any attempts to attach allegory of any kind to his work. That is what Gore is objecting to in the interview. 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.

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.

Just leaving this here

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.

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.