LOTR: the new series comes like the in rushing sea to Númenor:

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

Oh, so it's 80%... now, but there's a lot more roles to be announced, and they seem to have shot their shot when it comes to the primary POC performers in the show (I think there's only one other POC of note from the character teaser posters who I don't think has been revealed yet). Just glance at scenes in the trailer with other performers as yet unnamed (for example, the old dwarf lords when Durin IV break the rock, or the high-res image of Gil-galad meeting other elves). 

Well..yeah.  20-25% is significantly different than 10%, both quantitatively and qualitatively (assuming there's only ~10-12 "main" characters, which is what it looks like to me for the first season at least).  Is it perfect?  No.  But it definitely gives the impression of legitimate diversity and that ethnicity doesn't matter as opposed to mere tokenism which seemed to be what you were suggesting.

I strongly disagree with the notion that only doing the two extremes - sticking with Tolkien's canon (which presumably means an all-white cast) or going full Hamilton - are the only "brave" things they can do.  Or at least, I strongly disagree with the inverse implication that doing anything in the middle would be "cowardly."  Sure, it may be purely cynical on the corporate end (shocker) - and you're right, it probably is the safest thing possible. 

But so what?  That's no reason to impugn the producers for constructing a cast that's generally as representative as many if not most other shows.  Certainly, most other shows wouldn't receive such scrutiny if they had a cast with such a racial makeup.

[The Marquis de Leech]

28 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think an all-PoC LotR would be cool. We had our mostly-canon-accurate take in Jackson's film and past cartoons, it's fair enough to start treating it like Shakespeare and just go wild with it. That they don't, and then people act as if they're doing something that isn't literally the safest possible thing they can do today, is bizarre to me. There's nothing principled about the show's casting. It's all commerce-driven. Bravery would either have been to stick to Tolkien's canon despite the relative paucity of people who'll loudly complain on social media, or to throw it out the window and actually say something about reimagining art.

Agreed. Bezos isn't investing a billion dollars into this because he wants to feel edgy.

(I also would love to see a racially-flipped LOTR. It'd never happen, of course, but giving Tolkien the Shakespeare treatment would be awesome).

[Arakan]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

sticking with Tolkien's canon (which presumably means an all-white cast)

That’s not true as you know. Another idea: nothing in Tolkien lore with regards to the Second Age would restrain the show producers to show very diverse human kingdoms. They could easily establish a multitude of Haradrim POV factions, some of which fall for Sauron‘s centuries of manipulations (not that hard given the increasing brutality and exploitative nature of the Numenor empire), some which ally themselves with the Elves and Faithful Numenoreans (aka Gondor and Arnor). Nothing in Tolkien lore contradicts this. Not only would that have opened the door door for so many actors of all kind of ethnic backgrounds (basically the whole spectrum) but it would be intriguing, mature, grey. 

And of course six unused tribes of dwarves…

And if you wanna break Tolkien lore, make it at least meaningful and consistent. Give me a black or Far East Asian Galadriel, Elrond, Gil-Galad, etc pp.

What we got is corporate „woke washing“: Inventing token characters and giving those random roles to POC actors. And afterwards everyone is patting themselves on the back…it’s fake. It’s the equivalent to greenwashing and sportswashing. Pretending to do so something meaningful while actually doing nothing of relevance. The big hitters and legacy characters of which we know so far are all white anyway: Elendil, Isildur, Galadriel, Elrond, Gil-Galad, Sauron 

It’s just cynical. Reminds me of „socially aware“ politicians who write a one-time cheque and think with that they successfully fought structural poverty and income inequality. 
 

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Arakan said:

That’s not true as you know. Another idea: nothing in Tolkien lore with regards to the Second Age would restrain the show producers to show very diverse human kingdoms. They could easily establish a multitude of Haradrim POV factions, some of which fall for Sauron‘s centuries of manipulations (not that hard given the increasing brutality and exploitative nature of the Numenor empire), some which ally themselves with the Elves and Faithful Numenoreans (aka Gondor and Arnor). Nothing in Tolkien lore contradicts this. Not only would that have opened the door door for so many actors of all kind of ethnic backgrounds (basically the whole spectrum) but it would be intriguing, mature, grey. 

Again, sure, that'd be an interesting show, but it isn't the actual show we're dealing with that wants focus on the the story of Sauron, Galadriel, Elrond, etc. in the Second Age - however questionably they're doing it with the time compression, etc. 

There seems to be an underlying sentiment that since they're "breaking with Tolkien lore" they necessarily have to do something even more bold and meaningful than simply providing standard racial diversity.  If they did that would it be cool?  Absolutely.  But just because they did the standard thing doesn't mean it's purely cynical on behalf of all involved.  If you wanna complain about the corporate overlords don't let me stop you, but this strikes me as an unfair overreaction and blame attribution towards everybody else.

[The hairy bear]

8 hours ago, Ran said:

I was thinking about this all and what would actually have been bold would have been to do a Hamilton and simply cast pretty much everyone from minority groups only. Then it really doesn't matter because by changing everything they're just making it a non-issue (lore wise)

The thing about Hamilton is that its diverse cast works very well with the theme that the revolutionaries were a mish mash of oppressed immigrants from different origins that joined together to fight for a common cause (it's not by chance that the only 'white' member of the original cast plays King George). There's an intended parallelism between the struggles of the founding fathers and the struggles of minorities for equality. And in any case, in a genre where the characters express themselves through rap and hip hop, it's already obvious that historical realism is not the intended goal.

All of this doesn't work at all in a Tolkien adaptation. This is a world where genealogies play an integral part to the story. Lineage defines your status, your allegiances, and even your lifespan. The characters are defined by their ancestry, and in many cases the ancestry goes hand in hand with the looks. A blind casting would sell a completely misleading image of how Middle Earth is.

As I see it, the only reasonable way to include minorities in a Middle Earth show would be fleshing out Haradrim and Easterlings. What they have done is lazy writing, as IMO. Though from what we've seen so far, that'll far from the greatest flaw of the show.

[polishgenius]

4 hours ago, Arakan said:

Sorry but that’s the biggest nonsense argumentation I have ever seen with regards to Tolkien. Like 100%. Guess what? The Haradrim and Easterlings WERE Sauron’s vassals. They DID serve him. And ALL of this was already shown in the movies…no notion has to be changed at all (do you actually know LOTR? honest question)

Imagine the nerve of responding to someone from a culture that's suffered oppression who's explaining to you some potential issues in your proposal from their perspective by dismissing it as stupid with no engagement with their concern at all.

 

'It's codified that way in Tolkien' isn't much of a counter-argument coz the whole point of what almost everyone has been saying is that Tolkien codified some things that now look problematic, and that while no-one is really blaming Tolkien for that because of the context he wrote in and such things not really being in the cultural conversation, but now isn't then and people are allowed to have that cultural conversation around adaptations of his work.

 

 

Also: it's quite amusing that you keep responding to my posts by using 'strawman' as a strawman, but not very helpful.

 

The reason I keep thinking you're against diversity is that, for all you present your own ideas, you keep responding to almost any disagreement with the language of the right wing, and thing is you've been told before about how for example the blanket aggression towards 'woke' as being dumb and oversensitive is a right wing tactic, but have now apparently decided to keep doing it anyway.

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

29 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It's codified that way in Tolkien' isn't much of a counter-argument coz the whole point of what almost everyone has been saying is that Tolkien codified some things that now look problematic, and that while no-one is really blaming Tolkien for that because of the context he wrote in and such things not really being in the cultural conversation, but now isn't then and people are allowed to have that cultural conversation around adaptations of his work.

Question: Would you consider Aragorn's desire to take the throne of Gondor "problematic"? Was Peter Jackson's decision to make him more reluctant therefore justified?

[polishgenius]

12 minutes ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Question: Would you consider Aragorn's desire to take the throne of Gondor "problematic"? Was Peter Jackson's decision to make him more reluctant therefore justified?

 No. Do I have to regard all changes for which a justification can be made as good to find some changes for which a justification can be made as good? Coz honestly I can't see otherwise where you're going with that question.

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

1 minute ago, polishgenius said:

 No. Do I have to regard all changes for which a justification can be made as good to find some changes for which a justification can be made as good? Coz honestly I can't see otherwise where you're going with that question.

Others might however consider Tolkien's work to be pro-monarchist and problematic. If a work having problematic elements justifies changes in the adaptation, why should a Tolkien adaptation not implement changes to get rid of the pro-monarchist elements? What makes your opinion more "right" then theirs?

[Corvinus85]

As someone who enjoys seeing scientific accuracy in fiction, I think they should change Tolkien's completely ridiculous world creation events. The sun formed first, then Arda, then its moon, and so on. 

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

I strongly disagree with the notion that only doing the two extremes - sticking with Tolkien's canon (which presumably means an all-white cast) or going full Hamilton - are the only "brave" things they can do.  Or at least, I strongly disagree with the inverse implication that doing anything in the middle would be "cowardly."  Sure, it may be purely cynical on the corporate end (shocker) - and you're right, it probably is the safest thing possible.

The Shakespeare treatment would basically depoliticize the issue.

In all honesty, within the setting the only way to faithfully include PoC into a Tolkien adaptation is as villains or primitives. The good guys are all white.

And as I said in the other thread - changing this certainly changes the meaning of the work. The author deliberately decided to make the non-white folks all servants of Sauron and Morgoth, made their culture inferior to that of the great men of the West, etc. I think people should actually accept that Tolkien and his works are most definitely not children of the 21st century - more like of the 19th. And that shows.

Some PoC Avar or Nando or anything along those lines would put them at the lower end of the racial/ethnic hierarchy where they, in Tolkien's mind, clearly belong (the Nandor and Avari compared to the Eldar in Aman). Even if such a PoC Avar turned out to be a good guy - we would still talk about the trope of the noble savage ... which would mean reinforcing racial stereotypes rather than overcoming them.

2 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Others might however consider Tolkien's work to be pro-monarchist and problematic. If a work having problematic elements justifies changes in the adaptation, why should a Tolkien adaptation not implement changes to get rid of the pro-monarchist elements? What makes your opinion more "right" then theirs?

That is actually a pretty good point. We are pretty blind to the dangers of monarchism since we generally view that as a thing of the past (even the British just seem to pretend that they are a monarchy rather than actually buying it).

But if we had a political landscape where the question whether we should have an (absolute) monarchy was actually getting a lot of traction Tolkien's works could be read as monarchist propaganda ... just as you can - and should - actually realize that there ethnic and cultural hierarchies in those books. And that's not viewed as problematic.

Insofar as colonialism is concerned I assume we can buy to a point that Tolkien wasn't in favor of the British Empire's atrocities ... but it is one thing to abhor that and quite another to not believe in a cultural hierarchy. Tal-Elmar doesn't present the people of Middle-earth as people with a similar civilization or culture as the Númenóreans.

[Calibandar]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

 

@Calibandar

I feel strongly that it'll be Sauron, but they'll play him up as maybe being Gandalf for a time.

It just seems too obvious and on the nose for it to be Sauron though? I mean if you would ask people to guess who this stranger would be, their first choice would be Sauron cause we have not see him yet and we know he's in it. But the look of that character does not match at all what we would expect Sauron to look like, as Annatar or otherwise, and in fact does look very much like an Istari. And Olorin is a Maia of Fire, it could be appropriate.

I just think its way cooler if its one of the Istari cause that adds a very interesting character to the mix, and we know Sauron is in it anyway.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I must say, I don't view the Jackson movies as good adaptations of LotR. There are good elements there - production value, acting, wardrobe, landscape, effects - but the actual writing is pretty bad when they invent new material. Jackson's childish humor has no place in Middle-earth, most, if not all, the artificial arcs they came up with for the core characters suck (Aragorn the reluctant king, Théoden the Moron, the Frodo-Sam conflict in RotK, Elrond the Man-hater (a completely ridiculous idea), the Ents being complete morons, the travesty that's Denethor, the Barad-dûr Lighthouse, etc.

How bad the writing is can also be drawn from silly results like the over-use and subsequent disappearance of Saruman from the plot. In FotR Christopher Lee seems to be literally in every single villain scene and then they literally cut his death from the original cut of RotK. [Not to mention that this death scene is utterly ridiculous in itself, cutting the weird element of the Maia spirit form rising from the disintegrating corpse.]

Over-emphasizing the role of Helm's Deep turns TTT into a shitshow. I mean, cutting the Shelob's Lair cliffhanger from TTT is something that makes absolutely no sense. The same with them failing to make the finale of the other plotline the final confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf at Orthanc. Considering how Saruman was played up as a threat in FotR he, as a person, was much more threatening than his army of mindless Orcs.

I'm still at a loss as to what exactly went wrong in the pre-production process there when they decided to shove basically the second half of TTT into the the third movie, filling the gaps in the material with a lot of invented scenes and drawn-out 45 minutes battle.

Also, it is completely weird how they could cut/ruin things like the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king at the gates of Minas Tirith.

In relation to the new show, I think, we can pretty much stop discussing the thing as a Tolkien adaptation. If they truly have no rights to UT material (or the Akallabêth from the published Silmarillion) then whatever they come up with couldn't be *that* faithful to Tolkien's material anyway.

 

Just want to agree with almost your points and examples, the unfortunate changes to the characters were the thing that irritated me more than certain invented scenes. I do very much enjoy the films, but as I said one effect of this series will be that Jackson will suddenly be praised as this very faithful adapter, in fact the showrunners did just that in the Vanity Fair piece. I think TTT in extended edition is a fine film though, thats where we differ, but it was bizarre how the Voice of Saruman was moved into the next film.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Just want to agree with almost your points and examples, the unfortunate changes to the characters were the thing that irritated me more than certain invented scenes. I do very much enjoy the films, but as I said one effect of this series will be that Jackson will suddenly be praised as this very faithful adapter, in fact the showrunners did just that in the Vanity Fair piece. I think TTT in extended edition is a fine film though, thats where we differ, but it was bizarre how the Voice of Saruman was moved into the next film.

On a superficial level - looks, costumes, sets - the Jackson movies are very faithful. But if you get down to the plot they pretty much suck. The amazon stuff doesn't even seem to be very faithful in that department - and it is no surprise that people spot that.

The Voice of Saruman as given sucks even more since they actually reshot it for RotK giving Saruman all those 'Sauron will win' and 'Gandalf is a fool' lines ... and then it wasn't even in the movie.

The way they released it it could have been a completely faithful book scene because it would just be seen by the fans who bought the disk sets, anyway.

Properly written the Voice of Saruman would have been the finale for Saruman's ambitions ... and then they could have closed the movie with us actually seeing Sauron in person with Pippin in the palantír, followed by the arrival of the Nazgûl.

I think Sauron as depicted by Jackson is actually the worst movie villain in history - a pitiful, helpless eye glued to a lighthouse - when he should have been one of the more intimidating.

[Corvinus85]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I must say, I don't view the Jackson movies as good adaptations of LotR. There are good elements there - production value, acting, wardrobe, landscape, effects - but the actual writing is pretty bad when they invent new material. Jackson's childish humor has no place in Middle-earth, most, if not all, the artificial arcs they came up with for the core characters suck (Aragorn the reluctant king, Théoden the Moron, the Frodo-Sam conflict in RotK, Elrond the Man-hater (a completely ridiculous idea), the Ents being complete morons, the travesty that's Denethor, the Barad-dûr Lighthouse, etc.

How bad the writing is can also be drawn from silly results like the over-use and subsequent disappearance of Saruman from the plot. In FotR Christopher Lee seems to be literally in every single villain scene and then they literally cut his death from the original cut of RotK. [Not to mention that this death scene is utterly ridiculous in itself, cutting the weird element of the Maia spirit form rising from the disintegrating corpse.]

Over-emphasizing the role of Helm's Deep turns TTT into a shitshow. I mean, cutting the Shelob's Lair cliffhanger from TTT is something that makes absolutely no sense. The same with them failing to make the finale of the other plotline the final confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf at Orthanc. Considering how Saruman was played up as a threat in FotR he, as a person, was much more threatening than his army of mindless Orcs.

I'm still at a loss as to what exactly went wrong in the pre-production process there when they decided to shove basically the second half of TTT into the the third movie, filling the gaps in the material with a lot of invented scenes and drawn-out 45 minutes battle.

Also, it is completely weird how they could cut/ruin things like the confrontation between Gandalf and the Witch-king at the gates of Minas Tirith.

Unfortunately, since we're talking about adapting Tolkien's works for a modern audience, childish humor is a prerequisite. 

I would say that the stuff where Jackson wasn't so faithful weren't truly far off, they just missed the mark (other than the Voice of Saruman and Denethor being too unhinged). It's too early to tell how much the new show will miss the mark, but I don't feel optimistic.

[HoodedCrow]

Proudfeet!
 

[fionwe1987]

9 hours ago, Arakan said:

Sorry but that’s the biggest nonsense argumentation I have ever seen with regards to Tolkien. Like 100%. Guess what? The Haradrim and Easterlings WERE Sauron’s vassals. They DID serve him. And ALL of this was already shown in the movies…no notion has to be changed at all (do you actually know LOTR? honest question)

How can it not be better to show how the ACTIONS and wrongdoings of one imperial power led to that situation, which is 100% codified anyway. 

Thats like saying: show me all the atrocities committed by the FLN against French civilians but please do not give me any context whatsoever and ignore everything the French did or what their goals were. And calling this balanced history teaching. Yeah, right….

You're aware that the Haradrim and Easterling all being Sauron's vassals was a decision Tolkien made, and not actual history he had no choice but to accurately report, right?

What I'm trying to tell you is that if you keep that as truth, exploring Numenorian colonialism in Harad isn't actually going to address concerns about the portrayal of non-White races in Middle Earth, because the story will show the Numenorians committing atrocities, and then we're supposed to buy that in response, they Harad all followed Sauron, no dissention, no contradictory voices deciding it doesn't make sense to make a deal with the devil just because he offers strength against the Numenorian colonisers?

There's a perfectly analogous historical corrolary that Tolkien would have been intimately familiar with too: during the Second World war, while some Indian political leaders sought Nazi and Japanese support end the British Raj, a substantial majority of the political factions rejected any thought of joining with the Axis powers despite considerable outreach. This despite Churchill refusing to send food during a famine in Bengal in 1943 (caused entirely by British farming policies), which caused 3 million deaths from malnutrition and disease.

Humans under colonial rule, of any skin color, do not make pan-societal deals with the devil. It is hugely offensive to suggest otherwise, and beliefs in that kind of nonsense was used to justify colonial rule in the first place. Yet this kind of depiction of the Haradrim is what you suggest is a way out increase diversity in the show?

3 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Others might however consider Tolkien's work to be pro-monarchist and problematic. If a work having problematic elements justifies changes in the adaptation, why should a Tolkien adaptation not implement changes to get rid of the pro-monarchist elements? What makes your opinion more "right" then theirs?

I suppose, as others said, it's only that there isn't exactly a strong pro-monarchy drive anywhere in the world. 

If we ever truly get post racial, I think one signal of that would be that an all white cast for an LotR adaptation would no longer occasion any comment. Unlike absolute monarchy, though, racism hasn't been consigned to the garbage heap of history. 

[SeanF]

4 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Question: Would you consider Aragorn's desire to take the throne of Gondor "problematic"? Was Peter Jackson's decision to make him more reluctant therefore justified?

It’s a trope I hate, that a good leader is reluctant to lead.  Good leaders are people who are confident and who wish to lead.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

You're aware that the Haradrim and Easterling all being Sauron's vassals was a decision Tolkien made, and not actual history he had no choice but to accurately report, right?

What I'm trying to tell you is that if you keep that as truth, exploring Numenorian colonialism in Harad isn't actually going to address concerns about the portrayal of non-White races in Middle Earth, because the story will show the Numenorians committing atrocities, and then we're supposed to buy that in response, they Harad all followed Sauron, no dissention, no contradictory voices deciding it doesn't make sense to make a deal with the devil just because he offers strength against the Numenorian colonisers?

There's a perfectly analogous historical corrolary that Tolkien would have been intimately familiar with too: during the Second World war, while some Indian political leaders sought Nazi and Japanese support end the British Raj, a substantial majority of the political factions rejected any thought of joining with the Axis powers despite considerable outreach. This despite Churchill refusing to send food during a famine in Bengal in 1943 (caused entirely by British farming policies), which caused 3 million deaths from malnutrition and disease.

Humans under colonial rule, of any skin color, do not make pan-societal deals with the devil. It is hugely offensive to suggest otherwise, and beliefs in that kind of nonsense was used to justify colonial rule in the first place. Yet this kind of depiction of the Haradrim is what you suggest is a way out increase diversity in the show?

I suppose, as others said, it's only that there isn't exactly a strong pro-monarchy drive anywhere in the world. 

If we ever truly get post racial, I think one signal of that would be that an all white cast for an LotR adaptation would no longer occasion any comment. Unlike absolute monarchy, though, racism hasn't been consigned to the garbage heap of history. 

Actually, I’d find it entirely believable that people on the receiving end of Numenorean/Gondorean/Rohirric aggression would view Sauron or Saruman as the lesser evil.  

The Finns and Balts allied with the Germans in WWII, because of their grievances against the Soviets, for example. And plenty of people who had no love for communism saw the Soviets as preferable to the Nazis.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

The Shakespeare treatment would basically depoliticize the issue.

In all honesty, within the setting the only way to faithfully include PoC into a Tolkien adaptation is as villains or primitives. The good guys are all white.

And as I said in the other thread - changing this certainly changes the meaning of the work. The author deliberately decided to make the non-white folks all servants of Sauron and Morgoth, made their culture inferior to that of the great men of the West, etc. I think people should actually accept that Tolkien and his works are most definitely not children of the 21st century - more like of the 19th. And that shows.

Some PoC Avar or Nando or anything along those lines would put them at the lower end of the racial/ethnic hierarchy where they, in Tolkien's mind, clearly belong (the Nandor and Avari compared to the Eldar in Aman). Even if such a PoC Avar turned out to be a good guy - we would still talk about the trope of the noble savage ... which would mean reinforcing racial stereotypes rather than overcoming them.

That is actually a pretty good point. We are pretty blind to the dangers of monarchism since we generally view that as a thing of the past (even the British just seem to pretend that they are a monarchy rather than actually buying it).

But if we had a political landscape where the question whether we should have an (absolute) monarchy was actually getting a lot of traction Tolkien's works could be read as monarchist propaganda ... just as you can - and should - actually realize that there ethnic and cultural hierarchies in those books. And that's not viewed as problematic.

Insofar as colonialism is concerned I assume we can buy to a point that Tolkien wasn't in favor of the British Empire's atrocities ... but it is one thing to abhor that and quite another to not believe in a cultural hierarchy. Tal-Elmar doesn't present the people of Middle-earth as people with a similar civilization or culture as the Númenóreans.

But, I think one could explore - through what is essentially a piece of fan fiction - that the people of Harad etc. actually have very genuine grievances against the Numenoreans.  Nor do I think it would be untrue to the author’s intent, given his views on imperialism.

[Darryk]

Whatever issues one may have had with the Peter Jackson trilogy (personally I didn't like the way Gimli is portrayed, or how they handled the Paths of the Dead, but other than that consider them to be my favourite movies); one can't deny that Peter Jackson GOT it, he understood what the books were about at their heart, and tried to remain true to that.

Not convinced these guys have a single clue.