Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[battlewraith]

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.

[InvaderStych]

15 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

It is not disingenuous at all and you are misunderstanding what the word allegory means. 

 

I understand perfectly well what the word means, thank you very much.  That sort of talk does not foster discussion.  I am, however, far more cynical about human nature than you are, apparently (or at least in this specific instance) and will admit that my assessment on his comments is likely tainted by that cynicism.

 

15 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I think you are misunderstanding the context of the conversation and what he is saying in the interview. 

 

Again, no, I understand perfectly the context.  Were he to confine his comments to "Amazon did a poor job of this, and here is why" I would have simply dismissed him as an opportunist.  But when he extends that to encompass "Good Advice for anyone embarking upon an adaptation of ..." or whatever the wording is, he is instructing future artists on what he thinks they should and should not be doing and what he thinks is, unfortunately, reactionary and lacks broader perspective because LotR is such a dearly beloved property and because he is capitalizing on a moment.

 

Let me try this one more time, from another example.  Because what we are talking about here is a question of execution.  His word choice of "preach" and such is very deliberate, but the way he connects Amazon's botched execution of something to the broader idea of approaching adaptations from a personal/cultural lens just does not fly with me. He's effectively implying that all attempts to do so are doomed to fail and no one should ever try.  He's just being a lot more polite about it than I am.

 

Kurosawa's Ran is widely accepted as an "adaptation" of Shakespeare's King Lear.  This is almost accurate.  Kurosawa did not set out to adapt this work, but he did discover KL in the process of writing Ran and ended up with something near as makes no difference to an adaptation. A framework for all that he wanted to say with the film.

 

With Japanese Actors, in Japanese, pulling the King Lear story/plot into Japanese History/Mythology, and making a deeply personal film with tons of cultural context, personal belief, and lots to say about that transitional period and its impact on Japan moving forward. All elements that would not have existed in the original King Lear stage play. He literally started with something to say, and adapted the plot of King Lear in order to say it.

 

By Gore's "advice for creators," given somewhere around the time he's discussing the Jackson quote, Kurosawa should never have made Ran, widely regarded as one of his greatest films.  Every critique written about the Amazon Tolkien Trailer could easily be made about Ran for all the same reasons, but no one does so because of the execution.  Gore would hardly try to make the case that the film should not have been made, but if Kurosawa had followed his "good advice for anyone approaching an adaptation of a beloved property" the film would not exist.  He's reacting to a list of poor executions and saying the effort is un-worthy without looking at the broader context and investigating counter-examples where the approach has worked.  Re-makes are hardly new.  We have been re-making/adapting British television here in the US since the late 1950s.

 

I'll admit that it's an extremely harsh assessment of his position, but that middle bit where he says "everyone should avoid trying to do this sort of thing because a handful of people screwed it up big time" is just, I mean, seriously.... baffling.

[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.

 

 

[Luminara]

14 hours ago, Excraft said:

Yeah differences are inevitable, but it's the clear intent here that's pissing people off.

 

Here's a summation of what I've collated from the discussion in this thread:

 

Some imaginary secondary and tertiary characters from a fantasy story are being slightly changed in a filmed adaptation of that story, some people objected to that, the company filming the adaptation reacted to the criticism in a less than kind or intelligent way, and then everyone started acting like twats to each other.

 

Yeah, I don't really care.  That's a normal day online.  If you tell me there's a massive controversy over banana smoothies in gender politics, I'll tell you that it's Saturday.

 

And there's a subtext of intent on both sides.  The "influencers" are riding this pony for all it's worth, manipulating people to make money; and the company, whatever the intent behind the changes, is now using this bruhaha to generate heightened interest in the adaptation in hopes of convincing more people to see it so they can figure out why it was controversial.

 

Yes, the people who criticized the complainers, rather than respond to the complaints and engage in positive exchanges, are wrong.  But so are the people who turned the complaints from a molehill into a mountain, for profit.  Both sides are wrong.  And the people maintaining the fight are wrong.  In a year, this'll be a two paragraph blurb page on Wikipedia and everyone involved will be repeating the fight on another platform, another product, another mountain built out of a molehill, and laughing as they cash their checks at the bank.

 

But at least I get to see a bunch of monkeys fling poo at each other.  That's entertaining.  👍

[GM Crumpet]

Please keep this discussion civil. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and they also have a right to have that opinion differ from other peoples. I'm sure a lot of the different opinions will change for better or worse once the show is released, but that will also be a personal opinion. Myself I love the movie Howard the Duck, but I can also understand if you think it's the worst movie ever made and that I'm bonkers 🙂 

[Haijinx]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

But at least I get to see a bunch of monkeys fling poo at each other.  That's entertaining.  👍

 

Think those are goblins

 

[Luminara]

1 hour ago, Haijinx said:

 

Think those are goblins

 

 

I didn't say you could post my nudes.

[ShardWarrior]

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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.

 

Yet again, Tolkien himself refuted this kind of analysis.  His own words -

 

Quote

"The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them."

...

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."

 

9 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

I understand perfectly well what the word means, thank you very much. 

 

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 -

 

Quote

"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."

 

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.

 

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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.

 

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.

[Hyperstrike]

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

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.

Fairest of the elves?

Someone want to remind him of Glorfindel?

Or maybe Luthien?

[TheOtherTed]

15 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

Kurosawa's Ran is widely accepted as an "adaptation" of Shakespeare's King Lear.  This is almost accurate.  Kurosawa did not set out to adapt this work, but he did discover KL in the process of writing Ran and ended up with something near as makes no difference to an adaptation. A framework for all that he wanted to say with the film.

Let's throw in "She's the Man," "The Lion King," and "West Side Story" while we're on the topic of Shakespearean remakes - and these are just the tip of the iceberg.  Some have clear political or social statements to make, others less so, but they all share a couple of important qualities.  First, few (if any) of them uses Shakespeare's original title or, for that matter, his name.  Second, they have their own settings, their own characters, and ways of telling the stories.

 

Amazon, on the other hand, is releasing... something... specifically under the title of "Lord of the Rings." and showing at least a couple of established characters from the books and movies.  It is possible to re-tell LotR through a truly modern lens*, but Amazon isn't even claiming to do that.  They're waving the LotR flag and a splashing a couple of LotR characters, presumably in an attempt to lure in LotR fans specifically.  The attempt to "modernize" the film is based either on a mis-read of the fans of the franchise, or it's a form of guerilla marketing to generate negative buzz between potential viewers.  Either way, it's a cynical attempt to draw people in.

 

*Imagine the Aragorn character, a two-bit ambulance-chasing lawyer whose parents are from India, teaming up with the Frodo character, an accident victim from Haarlem who holds information that could bring down New York City's most powerful mob boss...

[Excraft]

17 hours ago, Luminara said:

Yeah, I don't really care. 

 

LOL!  Then why come here and post a long winded diatribe that no one cares about?  Yeah no, fans of a property questioning changes that muck up their favorite show or book should defend themselves when they get called racists and misogynists for asking questions.  Creating controversy to generate a buzz about it might be the motive, but if that's all it's got then it's a sign that the show is going to suck in my opinion.

 

17 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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.

 

What's the problem here?  It's the world the author created and the races are how he envisioned them.  This isn't any different than Stan Lee and Jack Kirby creating Wakanda and setting it in Africa with all African people with thousands of years of history.  It's the worlds as their creators intended.  You really seem to be trying to push the race issue here.  As others have pointed out, there are peoples like the Haradrim and Easterlings in LoTR.  The story just doesn't focus on them as much, but they're in Middle Earth. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Excraft

[Luminara]

17 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Then why come here and post a long winded diatribe

 

...

 

Does anyone want to field this one, or should we just cough loudly and give each other sidelong glances while we wait for him to check my post history and put two and two together?

[battlewraith]

9 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Yet again, Tolkien himself refuted this kind of analysis.  His own words --

 

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.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

What's the problem here?  

 

Reading comprehension? You quote me as saying it's not about demographics, then reply by talking about demographics.

[ShardWarrior]

55 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

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.

 

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. 

 

57 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

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? 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Reading comprehension? You quote me as saying it's not about demographics, then reply by talking about demographics.

 

You going to continue to try and deflect or are you going to answer the question? 

 

3 hours ago, Luminara said:

Does anyone want to field this one, or should we just cough loudly and give each other sidelong glances while we wait for him to check my post history and put two and two together?

 

I could give a hoot about you and your post history to be honest.  I just find it mildly amusing someone who says they don't care about a topic comes to makes posts in a thread about the topic they say they don't care about. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Excraft

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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. 

 

No, you don't get it. Does Gandalf the Grey dying and returning as Gandalf the White mean something? Does the white tree in the courtyard of Minas Tirith mean something? Lol if there's no meaning to any of this, why is it even written this way? Did Tolkien just arbitrarily throw things in there that he thought were cool?

 

Tolkien was a scholar and translator of other literary works. For example Beowulf:

 

Ten years after finishing his translation, Tolkien gave a highly acclaimed lecture on the work, "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics", which had a lasting influence on Beowulf research.[64] Lewis E. Nicholson said that the article is "widely recognized as a turning point in Beowulfian criticism", noting that Tolkien established the primacy of the poetic nature of the work as opposed to its purely linguistic elements.[65] At the time, the consensus of scholarship deprecated Beowulf for dealing with childish battles with monsters rather than realistic tribal warfare; Tolkien argued that the author of Beowulf was addressing human destiny in general, not as limited by particular tribal politics, and therefore the monsters were essential to the poem.[66] Where Beowulf does deal with specific tribal struggles, as at Finnsburg, Tolkien argued firmly against reading in fantastic elements.[67] In the essay, Tolkien also revealed how highly he regarded Beowulf: "Beowulf is among my most valued sources"; this influence may be seen throughout his Middle-earth legendarium.[68]

 

So you think its reasonable to assume that someone who's professional work is to preserve the meaning of texts from one language to another, along with arguing for specific critical understandings of key texts, decided to forego any of these concerns in his own literary work. In the process, scrubbing clean the meaning any of his relevant sources would have had. Got it. Give me a break.

 

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

History has shown that LOTR and the Hobbit have universal appeal. It also shows that there's a generation of fans that haven't even read the books and is taking Peter Jackson's vision as cannon. This project is a prehistory of the LOTR that takes place in an earlier age. I don't even know if the showrunners consider this an update. In my opinion these complaints we've been discussing are pretty trivial. The script, acting, overall production value, etc. are the things that are things that are going to make or break this thing.

 

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

Well to begin with there are a contingent of triggered "fans" who will hop from franchise to franchise and raise hell about anything that offends their political sensibilities. And there are influencers who feed this and profit off of it.  So when a controversy like this erupts it's honestly difficult to tell whether these people even matter. They may have just whined themselves into irrelevancy.

 

Look at the Star Wars franchise. First one was a classic. Second one was my favorite. Third one sucked. Then the prequels came out and I thought they were pretty bad. Lucas got fed up with the fanbase and blamed them for ruining it. Then he walked away from it. The new movies are some of the most reviled by the triggered anti-woke contingent of fans. Problem is they made billions of dollars. Obviously there were lot's of fans of these movies. So are companies wrong to more or less ignore the ones with the vitriol?

 

I started watching that video you linked earlier and I had to stop. A film critic that says 99 percent of big budget films are bad and something like 50 percent of indie films are bad. He's positioning himself to appeal cool to a certain kind of consumer. I can't take him seriously, sorry.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

You going to continue to try and deflect or are you going to answer the question? 

 

The question is more or less answered in the thing you quoted. You just don't get the objection.

If Kirby's Wakanda was like Tolkien's Middle Earth, Kirby's marvel stories would be set in Wakanda. The Eternals would all be dark skinned. And the Celestials would presumably all be dark skinned. Lee and Kirby making Wakanda was their progressive politics btw.

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

I could give a hoot about you and your post history to be honest.

 

Well that's very nice of you! The forums could probably use a lot more positivity and people giving hoots for each other. 

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

No, you don't get it. Does Gandalf the Grey dying and returning as Gandalf the White mean something? Does the white tree in the courtyard of Minas Tirith mean something? Lol if there's no meaning to any of this, why is it even written this way? Did Tolkien just arbitrarily throw things in there that he thought were cool?

 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Well to begin with there are a contingent of triggered "fans" who will hop from franchise to franchise and raise hell about anything that offends their political sensibilities. And there are influencers who feed this and profit off of it.  So when a controversy like this erupts it's honestly difficult to tell whether these people even matter. They may have just whined themselves into irrelevancy.

 

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.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

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. 

 

This is why Tolkien's quote strikes me as naive. It supposedly had no inner meaning because it wasn't topical (ie related to current events) or allegorical (which I take him to mean a direct correlation--Gandalf as Christ for example). As if these two options are the only gateways to meaning. The structure of the narrative embodies well established tropes about a people who have fallen into decline due to corruption or human weakness. The fated hero of the series is God's chosen representative who will return to restore order and prosperity to the land. It reflects a certain worldview. Saying there's no meaning in this structure is like saying there's no meaning in Arthurian legend. I suspect that what Tolkien was trying to actual signal here is that he wasn't sending a message. His work was not meant to proselytize.

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

History has shown that LOTR and the Hobbit have universal appeal. It also shows that there's a generation of fans that haven't even read the books and is taking Peter Jackson's vision as cannon.

 

This is absolutely true and absolutely proves you're totally wrong with what you're pushing about equality and equity here.  The Peter Jackson LoTR movies were huge critical and box offices successes worldwide raking in billions.  They did all of that without needing to inject racial diversity in the casting.  The films were a smash success without it.

 

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

If Kirby's Wakanda was like Tolkien's Middle Earth, Kirby's marvel stories would be set in Wakanda. The Eternals would all be dark skinned. And the Celestials would presumably all be dark skinned.

 

If "God" or whatever his name is in Middle Earth wanted everyone to be white, he wouldn't have created the races of men which Tolkien wrote into the story as being diverse in color.  You're still not getting the point about Wakanda.  There can be regions/places in fiction that are predominantly one ethnic background and that isn't a bad thing at all.  It's just what the creators imagined. 

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

This is absolutely true and absolutely proves you're totally wrong with what you're pushing about equality and equity here.  The Peter Jackson LoTR movies were huge critical and box offices successes worldwide raking in billions.  They did all of that without needing to inject racial diversity in the casting.  The films were a smash success without it.

 

I'm not pushing for equality and equity. I'm addressing the people who have their panties in a wad about nontraditional casting of 2 characters out of what is no doubt a large ensemble cast. As has already been discussed, Jackson deviated from Tolkien's story to add more female content to the saga. If that was a success, maybe these liberties will work out as well. "But he didn't write it that way" is already true of the Jackson version.

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

If "God" or whatever his name is in Middle Earth wanted everyone to be white, he wouldn't have created the races of men which Tolkien wrote into the story as being diverse in color.

 

There's no account given for the diversity of men in the lore. The god may not have created them--they may have arisen from Morgoth's corruption of reality, same as trolls and dragons. What is stated is that the Easterlings fought for Morgoth. The Haradrim fought for Sauron. The Numenoreans who sided with evil were called black Numenoreans. You see a pattern here yet? Thematically, anything good is associated with light. Anything bad is associated with darkness--including depictions of the dark skinned men when they actually enter into the narrative. I don't think it's racist but it comes across as the weakest aspect of the writing imo.

 

[ShardWarrior]

17 hours ago, battlewraith said:

There's no account given for the diversity of men in the lore. The god may not have created them--they may have arisen from Morgoth's corruption of reality, same as trolls and dragons. What is stated is that the Easterlings fought for Morgoth. The Haradrim fought for Sauron. The Numenoreans who sided with evil were called black Numenoreans. You see a pattern here yet? Thematically, anything good is associated with light. Anything bad is associated with darkness--including depictions of the dark skinned men when they actually enter into the narrative. I don't think it's racist but it comes across as the weakest aspect of the writing imo.

 

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.

[Haijinx]

It may not be intended as such but a lot of this reads like vitriol. 

[battlewraith]

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

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 looked it up. I misread a passage about Tolkein not specifying the origin of their culture (rather than their actual origin). However the rest of what I said is accurate. To the extent that they relate to the people of Middle Earth, they are antagonists:

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Easterlings  

 

The Nerd of the Rings video you posted leans heavily on the recently published The Nature of Middle Earth, which is based on a variety of fragmentary Tolkien writings that have been compiled into this book. Even the Silmarillion is considered suspect by a lot of critics because it was published after his death and had two editors who had to flesh out some of the sketchy material. 

 

Interestingly though, in going over this stuff it turns out the first beings that men encountered upon awakening were "dark elves", called Avari. These elves who refused the call to go to the west may have also been the elves that were later tortured and turned into orcs. Maybe the showrunners are exploring Tolkien's diversity.