Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[TheOtherTed]

3 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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.

You're grasping at straws, and it's gone beyond tiresome.

 

For the casual readers out there, the Avari were called "dark elves" (or, more specifically, Moriquendi) by the Noldor, because they had never seen the light of the blessed realms.  The term "Avari" itself means "refusers," and refers to their initial unwillingess to take the journey west with the other Elves.

 

So "dark," in this instance, has jack-all to do with the color of their skin, or their morality.  In fact, we know next to nothing about them.

 

4 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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.

I would really, really like to see some of these critiques.  I've seen criticisms of The Silmarillion, but by and large, they were aimed at the dryness and disconnected nature of the work (more on this in a bit) rather than the "sketchiness" of the editiors who put it together.

 

Again, for the folks who'd like to know, Christopher Tolkien (one of the editors) had helped his father collate, organize, and critique his work while he was alive.  When his father died, he decided to publish posthumously the work that his father had wanted to publish as far back as the 1950s (maybe earlier).  He asked Guy Gavriel Kay to help him with the undertaking.  I haven't heard that Kay (or Chris, for that matter) did any significant embellishment of the Professor's stories, but I would be interested in hearing about it.

 

As for the critics who panned The Silmarillion based on its weightiness, I suspect they did not realize that Tolkien (senior) wrote it to help himself flesh out the world he was creating for "The Lord of the Rings."  From what I've read, it seems he also came to see it as an essential companion guide for LotR.  Thus, IMO, it was more of a background and history for LotR and the characters in it than a story on its own, and any critic who treats it as the latter is missing the point.

 

Chris has gone on to publish a lot more of his father's work in a much more direct way (in as much as a bunch of false starts, half-finished tales, and diversions can be directly published).  As I mentioned before, he treats his publications more as scholarly works than anything else, and I have a hard time believing that the passages he quotes are embellished much at all.

 

Anyway, with that, I think I've said anything that might be worth saying (and many things that aren't - which may be all the things I said).  It's high time I bowed out of this thread.  Before I do, though, I'd like to leave you all with the following clip:

 

 

[battlewraith]

3 hours ago, TheOtherTed said:

For the casual readers out there, the Avari were called "dark elves" (or, more specifically, Moriquendi) by the Noldor, because they had never seen the light of the blessed realms.  The term "Avari" itself means "refusers," and refers to their initial unwillingess to take the journey west with the other Elves.

 

So "dark," in this instance, has jack-all to do with the color of their skin, or their morality.  In fact, we know next to nothing about them.

 

I honestly don't know how you can ignore what's staring you right in the face. These elves are, as you say, dark because they had not seen the light of the blessed realms. They weren't just unwilling to take the journey west, They ignored the call to do so. This doesn't mean they were evil, but it is absolutely indicative of a moral failing in the context of the spirituality of this world: they were not following the dictates of the higher powers.

 

Now, aside from that we know next to nothing about them. So casting a non-white ethnicity as a dark elf in a derivative work would be bad because.................................................why?

 

3 hours ago, TheOtherTed said:

I would really, really like to see some of these critiques.

 

I was going off of the Silmarillion wikipedia entry. If you dig through their citations there are some interesting sources. The most relevant one to this discussion is probably a rare interview that Christopher Tolkien gave the French magazine Le Monde. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20170423160837/https://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/my-father039s-quotevisceratedquot-work-son-of-hobbit-scribe-jrr-tolkien-finally-speaks-out

 

When Tolkien died, Christopher received his papers--70 boxes, each stuffed with thousands of handwritten pages. Hardly anything numbered or dated. Even worse, to protect the original documents the son worked from photocopies, which made dating things even more difficult. In the article, Christopher describes himself as a historian and interpreter of the work. He had this to say about the Silmarillion:

 

First in England, then in France, he reassembled the parts of The Silmarillion, making it more coherent, added padding here and there, and published the book in 1977, with some remorse. "Right away I thought that the book was good, but a little false, in the sense that I had had to invent some passages," he explains. At the time, he even had a worrying dream. "I was in my father's office at Oxford. He came in and started looking for something with great anxiety. Then I realized in horror that it was The Silmarillion, and I was terrified at the thought that he would discover what I had done."

 

[Excraft]

On 2/27/2022 at 4:37 PM, battlewraith said:

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.

 

Peter Jackson's movies were successful without the need for any "non traditional casting" of characters in his films that also had a large ensemble cast.  He respected the source material.  The cast worked just fine and the films raked in billions worldwide.  People of all ages, races and genders had no problem enjoying the story. 

 

If these characters in the Amazon version are so minor and no big deal, why is there a need to cast them "non tradtionally"?  What's so difficult to understand people want the source material respected and kept as the author intended instead of "updatimg it for a modern audience" and caving to identity politics?  All you need to do is read what the showrunners have said to address people questioning them to understand where they are coming from.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

So casting a non-white ethnicity as a dark elf in a derivative work would be bad because.................................................why?

 

Aside from you not understanding the source material, why is it necessary at all?  What's the harm in keeping the world the way the original author intended it?  "Dark" doesn't mean dark skin in the context of the dark elves.  I'll ask again, would it be a bad thing to recast Wakandan characters in Black Panther to be Arab or Asian or white?  Not everyone in Africa is black, so would it be ok to show people of all colors living in Wakanda?  It's ok, I already know what your answer will be.  For someone who says they aren't pushing equality and equity, you're sure trying your hardest to advocate for totally unnecessary changes to the source material that support "more diversity". 

 

Found this and thought there's a few good tidbits in here.  I don't agree with all of it, but the fake "superfan" videos are a huge red flag. 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Excraft

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

 

Peter Jackson's movies were successful without the need for any "non traditional casting" of characters in his films that also had a large ensemble cast.  He respected the source material.  The cast worked just fine and the films raked in billions worldwide.  People of all ages, races and genders had no problem enjoying the story. 

 

If these characters in the Amazon version are so minor and no big deal, why is there a need to cast them "non tradtionally"?  What's so difficult to understand people want the source material respected instead of "updatimg it for a modern audience" and caving to identity politics?  All you need to do is read what the showrunners have said to address people questioning them to understand where they are coming from. 

 

You should read that interview with Christopher Tolkien I posted. He hated the Jackson movies and said they eviscerated his father's work. When given the opportunity, he would not meet with Jackson. This was the foremost authority on respecting the source material. I've been over this again and again in this thread--Jackson made significant changes to the story in order to make it entertaining and appealing to his audience. It's arbitrary and hypocritical to across the board say that similar changes cannot be made in another derivative work. Execution matters. If it's done well, it will be a success. If not, it will fail. Even if it fails it might draw in new fans to the series.

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

If these characters in the Amazon version are so minor and no big deal, why is there a need to cast them "non tradtionally"?

 

To give non white actors an opportunity to take part in the project. To signal to fans that there is diversity in this world--rather than waiting on some hypothetical epic concerning the easterlings or the Haradrim that probably nobody is thinking of doing. To cater to people that would like to see a few people that look like them. We've been over this. Hearing reasons like this again is not going to sway you if it hasn't already. That has to do with your politics as much as the showrunners.

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

What's so difficult to understand people want the source material respected instead of "updatimg it for a modern audience" and caving to identity politics?

 

People huh? Who are these people? You're not just griping about what you want are you? 

Luminara's post from Friday about adaptions and their relation to source material was very eloquently stated. If that didn't get through to you, nothing I say is likely to either.

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

It's ok, I already know what your answer will be.

You should know, I answered basically the same question back on Wednesday.

[Excraft]

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

You should read that interview with Christopher Tolkien I posted. He hated the Jackson movies and said they eviscerated his father's work. When given the opportunity, he would not meet with Jackson. This was the foremost authority on respecting the source material. I've been over this again and again in this thread--Jackson made significant changes to the story in order to make it entertaining and appealing to his audience. It's arbitrary and hypocritical to across the board say that similar changes cannot be made in another derivative work. Execution matters. If it's done well, it will be a success. If not, it will fail. Even if it fails it might draw in new fans to the series.

 

And he'd be over the moon about the changes Amazon is making?  LOL!  You're still deflecting.

 

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

To give non white actors an opportunity to take part in the project. To signal to fans that there is diversity in this world--rather than waiting on some hypothetical epic concerning the easterlings or the Haradrim that probably nobody is thinking of doing. To cater to people that would like to see a few people that look like them. We've been over this. Hearing reasons like this again is not going to sway you if it hasn't already. That has to do with your politics as much as the showrunners.

 

Oh come on.  Where's Brie Larson to tell these people this stuff "isn't meant for them"?  See, that's the problem with this PC garbage.  It only ever goes one way and anyone who disagrees or questions it is some racist misogynist.  If everything needs to be changed so people can feel they're seeing "people who look like them" on screen in the story or to give non-white actors out there a chance, where exactly does this end and who defines when it is or isn't appropriate to change the source material?  What incentive does Hollywood have to make movies about predominantly non-white people in non-white settings if they can just arbitrarily inject diversity into existing properties when it's not supposed to be there? 

 

Can movies like The Last Emperor be redone to include more Arabic people?  Can Black Panther be redone to include more Asians?  Can Shang Chi be rewritten to include more Native American representation?  My politics isn't the problem here.  Your politics are.  None of the people in the Tolkien books, movies or animated films look like me and I don't really care and I don't need any of it changed to cater to me.  I like it because it's a great story and accept the setting its in.  It doesn't at all detract from the story and from me liking it.  I don't look like King T'Challa, but I enjoyed his movie.  I don't look like Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley or Wonder Woman yet I really enjoyed their movies (at least the first WW one lol).   I've got zero problem with including all kinds of representation where it makes sense and fits the world and story.   There's absolutely nothing wrong with elves and hobbits and dwarves being white in Tolkien's world because that's the setting it's in.  It's no different than Wakanda being all African because that's the setting for it.  I'd be saying the same things if Disney tried to push there being tons of non-African people in Wakanda.  It doesn't fit the source material. 

 

8 hours ago, battlewraith said:

People huh? Who are these people? You're not just griping about what you want are you? 

 

Watch the video I posted above.  I'm not the only one objecting to the blatant political agenda pandering.  I can share a whole shitload more of them if you would like me to.  There's certainly an abundance of them out there.

[ShardWarrior]

22 hours ago, Haijinx said:

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

 

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. 

 

20 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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  

 

Again, please do your research.  As @TheOtherTed pointed out, you are grasping at straws here.  No, not all Easterlings were evil.

 

 

20 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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.

 

So it is inaccurate because it is based on Tolkien's own notes and writings?  That makes no sense at all.

 

20 hours ago, battlewraith said:

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. 

 

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.

Edited March 1, 2022 by ShardWarrior

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

And he'd be over the moon about the changes Amazon is making?  LOL!  You're still deflecting.

 

Woooosh! Another point goes sailing majestically over your head.

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

I'd be saying the same things if Disney tried to push there being tons of non-African people in Wakanda.  It doesn't fit the source material. 

 

Did you have the same outrage over the MCU Thor movies? Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like that is the closest parallel to what Rings of Power is doing in terms of casting. Norse mythology doesn't indicate that there are black or Asian Asgardians. Kirby's comic book imagining doesn't either. I don't know what the reason was behind this casting. But all that mattered in the end was that they were good movies with good performances. 

2 hours ago, Excraft said:

Watch the video I posted above.  I'm not the only one objecting to the blatant political agenda pandering.  I can share a whole shitload more of them if you would like me to.  There's certainly an abundance of them out there.

 

There is a cottage industry of outrage peddlers on youtube and social media. Algorithms on sites like Facebook and youtube have been shown to favor controversy in terms of searches, etc. because it drives traffic. So yeah, you can show an abundance of rage over this issue, including the cancel-culturish drive to downvote the trailers and promotional materials. I'll wait until September when the thing actually airs to try to gauge the general reaction.

[ShardWarrior]

48 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Did you have the same outrage over the MCU Thor movies? Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like that is the closest parallel to what Rings of Power is doing in terms of casting. Norse mythology doesn't indicate that there are black or Asian Asgardians. Kirby's comic book imagining doesn't either. I don't know what the reason was behind this casting.

 

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.

Edited March 1, 2022 by ShardWarrior

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

Again, please do your research.  As @TheOtherTed pointed out, you are grasping at straws here.  No, not all Easterlings were evil.

 

That's not what I said. I said To the extent that they relate to the people of Middle Earth, they are antagonists. I believe the rundown I cited supports this.

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

So it is inaccurate because it is based on Tolkien's own notes and writings?  That makes no sense at all.

 

It's not a question of accuracy. It relates to authorial intent. Tolkien had published works and then he had a plethora of notes, correspondences, related articles, etc. NerdoftheRings appears to take all of these things as straightup  canon. 

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

I already said where I was getting that. I'm not going to start posting sections of Tolkien criticism here, dig for yourself.

If I had read the Christopher Tolkien first, I wouldn't have even referenced anyone else because that interview perfectly sums up the point I was trying to get across.

 

J.R.R. Tolkien described Christopher as his chief critic and collaborator. I went over the challenges of publishing the Silmarillion, and Christopher Tolkien's feelings about it. The point is that the guy closest to Tolkien, who was in charge of editing and interpreting the work, had reservations about the published work because he had to inject himself into it. It is not, strictly speaking, Tolkien's work. There are even living authors who feel that their works are significantly changed through the course of translation and editing. That's why you have don't just have a single translation or edit of classic texts.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

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 said that Kirby did not reimagine Asgardians as black or Asian. What does Hogun, who is not Asgardian, have to do with anything?

The Asgardian people. Not the residents of Asgard. This is so tedious and petty man, Seriously.

 

[ShardWarrior]

8 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

That's not what I said. I said To the extent that they relate to the people of Middle Earth, they are antagonists. I believe the rundown I cited supports this.

 

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. 

 

9 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It's not a question of accuracy. It relates to authorial intent. Tolkien had published works and then he had a plethora of notes, correspondences, related articles, etc. NerdoftheRings appears to take all of these things as straightup  canon. 

 

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. 

 

13 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I already said where I was getting that. I'm not going to start posting sections of Tolkien criticism here, dig for yourself.

If I had read the Christopher Tolkien first, I wouldn't have even referenced anyone else because that interview perfectly sums up the point I was trying to get across.

 

J.R.R. Tolkien described Christopher as his chief critic and collaborator. I went over the challenges of publishing the Silmarillion, and Christopher Tolkien's feelings about it. The point is that the guy closest to Tolkien, who was in charge of editing and interpreting the work, had reservations about the published work because he had to inject himself into it. It is not, strictly speaking, Tolkien's work. There are even living authors who feel that their works are significantly changed through the course of translation and editing. That's why you have don't just have a single translation or edit of classic texts.

 

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.

[ShardWarrior]

7 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I said that Kirby did not reimagine Asgardians as black or Asian. What does Hogun, who is not Asgardian, have to do with anything?

The Asgardian people. Not the residents of Asgard. This is so tedious and petty man, Seriously.

 

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.

Edited March 1, 2022 by ShardWarrior

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

Were these men shown to be consistently in the employ of Morgoth or Sauron in Middle Earth?

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

He is not only a literary critic, he was a member of Tolkien's literary society along with people like C.S. Lewis. The interview I quoted literally comments on his anxiety over the authenticity of the work. I don't feel the need to pursue this further. If you want to go further with it, go where I told you. Also do more reading on issues related to translation and publication in general.

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

Except that Hogun is not Asian. His lands and people were destroyed. He has strength and durability typical of the people of Asgard  so he's not human. The only thing Asian about him is the headgear which is reminiscent of something Mongolian.  And maybe the mustache which varies from 70s pornstar to fu manchu depending on who's drawing him. His skintone in the comics is the same as Thor's. People decided to cast Hogun with actors of Asian descent and you're incorporating that into your understanding of the character. 

 

 

Based on that image alone, I'd cast Dan Severn to play Hogun. And you completely dodged the casting of Heimdall, who is supposed to be Sif's brother.

[ShardWarrior]

6 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Were these men shown to be consistently in the employ of Morgoth or Sauron in Middle Earth?

 

Some yes.  All of them, no.  So was Saruman the White and various other people.

 

7 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

He is not only a literary critic, he was a member of Tolkien's literary society along with people like C.S. Lewis. The interview I quoted literally comments on his anxiety over the authenticity of the work. I don't feel the need to pursue this further. If you want to go further with it, go where I told you. Also do more reading on issues related to translation and publication in general.

 

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.

 

8 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Except that Hogun is not Asian. His lands and people were destroyed. He has strength and durability typical of the people of Asgard  so he's not human. The only thing Asian about him is the headgear which is reminiscent of something Mongolian.  And maybe the mustache which varies from 70s pornstar to fu manchu depending on who's drawing him. His skintone in the comics is the same as Thor's. People decided to cast Hogun with actors of Asian descent and you're incorporating that into your understanding of the character. 

 

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.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

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.

 

The furred cap looks Mongolian. The horns look Norse. The strappy skirt bits look Roman. The cowl looks European. Boots are superhero. Big blobby mace and bracer with dagger on it --who knows. Real abundantly clear. Here's another image:

 

 

 

 

But if I'm following your logic here--since Kirby included what you take to be a non white character residing in Asgard then the MCU's inclusive casting is alright. Idris Elba as Heimdall works because not everyone who lives in Asgard is white. Is that correct? If so, that is the weirdest flimsiest justification for a non traditional casting I've ever heard. If you were to apply this rationale consistently to other properties then the casting in ROP shouldn't be a problem. Middle Earth has non whites in it. Therefore some casting of elves and dwarves as non white should be fine. Otherwise there's a double standard.

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

But if I'm following your logic here--since Kirby included what you take to be a non white character residing in Asgard then the MCU's inclusive casting is alright. Idris Elba as Heimdall works because not everyone who lives in Asgard is white. Is that correct? If so, that is the weirdest flimsiest justification for a non traditional casting I've ever heard. If you were to apply this rationale consistently to other properties then the casting in ROP shouldn't be a problem. Middle Earth has non whites in it. Therefore some casting of elves and dwarves as non white should be fine. Otherwise there's a double standard.

 

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.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

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.

 

Absolutely there are non Asgardians residing in Asgard. I'm not disputing that. The point is that Heimdall and Valkyrie are two white Asgardian characters from the comics who were cast as other ethnicities in the MCU. I'm not talking about non Asgardian residents of Asgard. You keep glossing this over. What specifically about the canon comic source material justifies the casting of Idris Elba as Heimdall or Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie? They were both native Asgardians in the comics--meaning members of the caucasian Asgardian species. That's canon. 

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

Following your logic

 

Hold on there. Is that your actual logic? It makes absolutely no sense. This is what I'm getting:

Kirby created a race of white gods. He also had some non white people from other races living with them. Guess I'm fine doing some colorblind casting of a couple of these white gods.

Tolkien created a race of white elves. He also had some non white people from other races living with them. Is it ok to colorblind cast a couple characters--oh hell no!

 

That is a double standard. 

 

Would I cast non-blacks as natives of Wakanda? Maybe. Depends on the script. There are reasonable narrative justifications for some additional diversity in Wakanda, particularly with the events of Endgame and the current focus on the multiverse.

[Excraft]

12 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Woooosh! Another point goes sailing majestically over your head.

 

Nothing went over my head.  You're still deflecting.

 

12 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Did you have the same outrage over the MCU Thor movies? Based on what I've seen so far, it looks like that is the closest parallel to what Rings of Power is doing in terms of casting. Norse mythology doesn't indicate that there are black or Asian Asgardians. Kirby's comic book imagining doesn't either. I don't know what the reason was behind this casting. But all that mattered in the end was that they were good movies with good performances. 

 

Deflect deflect deflect.  Again everything boils down to race and the questions never get addressed.  Whataboutism at its finest in avoiding the discussion.  That's the problem with virtue signallers ... their thinking only goes one way, anyone who disagrees is a racist misogynist and equality and equity only ever goes one way.  And for the record, I'm not outraged at anything.  Amazon can cast whomever they want in whatever role they want.  I'm not going to watch this crap.  The showrunners blaming the fans for not liking their garbage already tells me it's not something I'll be interested in.

 

12 hours ago, battlewraith said:

There is a cottage industry of outrage peddlers on youtube and social media. Algorithms on sites like Facebook and youtube have been shown to favor controversy in terms of searches, etc. because it drives traffic. So yeah, you can show an abundance of rage over this issue, including the cancel-culturish drive to downvote the trailers and promotional materials. I'll wait until September when the thing actually airs to try to gauge the general reaction.

 

Ah I see.  Anyone who genuinely might dislike something is an outrage peddler.  Again, PC virtue signalling at it's finest.  Don't worry, you did Brie Larson proud. 

 

5 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Would I cast non-blacks as natives of Wakanda? Maybe. Depends on the script. There are reasonable narrative justifications for some additional diversity in Wakanda, particularly with the events of Endgame and the current focus on the multiverse.

 

Complete horseshit.  There would be a global meltdown about whitewashing African culture and you know it.  Disney would never risk it.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

And for the record, I'm not outraged at anything.

 

Lol oh no. You don't sound outraged at all.

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

Complete horseshit.  There would be a global meltdown about whitewashing African culture and you know it.  Disney would never risk it.

 

Stop your tantrum long enough to follow the script. He asked me if I would cast it that way. I am not Disney. It's a hypothetical question. 

Sorry to hear about the traumas you've suffered at the hands of Brie Larson and the like. Get some therapy.

mmmmmkkthxbai

[Excraft]

49 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Lol oh no. You don't sound outraged at all.

 

Stop your tantrum long enough to follow the script. He asked me if I would cast it that way. I am not Disney. It's a hypothetical question. 

Sorry to hear about the traumas you've suffered at the hands of Brie Larson and the like. Get some therapy.

mmmmmkkthxbai

 

I'm not outraged at all.  I just find your insincere, totally transparent, hypocritical virtue signalling mildly entertaining at best, that's about it.  I'm getting a decent laugh reading your posts, so thanks for that. 

 

I haven't suffered any trauma from Brie Larson.  I don't care about her or anything about her at all.  Her movies suck.  She's a terrible actress, a terrible person with zero personality and another virtue singalling transparent hypocrite like yourself.  Like I said earlier, it's totally fine for woke virtue signallers to say "it's not meant for you" only for stuff they like and care about.  Anyone else who says it to try and preserve their favorite IP from vandalization by woke PC crap is some sort of evil misogamist racist.  That's being a hypocrite and applying those double standards that you're whining about here.

 

I don't need any therapy, thanks.  Btw I'm not white, in a mixed race marriage and I'm definitely not a victim of white people.  I absolutely don't need to see anyone who is the same gender as me or who looks like me in movies in order for me to enjoy the story and characters.  I don't need or want characters recast to gender or race swap them just to appease the frail woke twitter mobs.  I'm perfectly fine watching good movies with good stories and good characters that are 100% white as white can be.  It doesn't bother me at all. 

 

Anyway, this topic has pretty much been played out.  You go right on trying your best to virtue signal and I'll continue to be amused by your hypocrisy.   I'll wait until the fall to read about how fans are to blame when this series fails spectacularly.

[Indystruck]

They should put in some Mexicans into the new show and really get people steamed, just straight up say "yeah they're from Mexico"

[battlewraith]

6 hours ago, Indystruck said:

They should put in some Mexicans into the new show and really get people steamed, just straight up say "yeah they're from Mexico"

 

I already got some fanart for that baby!:

 

[ThaOGDreamWeaver]

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

I already got some fanart for that baby!:

 

 

Soy la Tejedora de Sueños, y apruebo este mensaje. ¡Viva Machetelrond!

[PeregrineFalcon]