Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Give me the valid in world/universe reasons why suddenly a particular fantasy race shows diversity that mimics ours, and I would have no problem with it.

Give me the valid in-universe reason why it shouldn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I think your translation point is interesting but it lets the writers off the hook too easily. I know they’re capable of better than “knife ears”!

Maybe. But is the objection because it's a bad line in isolation, or because we're in the minority of viewers that have played a bunch of Dragon Age and strongly associate it with that setting? For me it feels like more of the second, it's cringe-worthy because it's such a blatant ripoff but I don't know that I'd feel the same way if I'd never heard it before.

As to “knife ears” coming from a simpleton’s perspective, the problem there is that the simpleton wouldn’t think to call out the ears because the ears aren’t the problem. It’d be like a Man calling an Elf “fancy cloak”; while the Elves do indeed have better-made clothes than these villagers, that’s not what the villagers resent about them.

There are plenty of real-world racial slurs that work that way. Skin color is the popular choice for many of them, not because it is somehow causal or central to the hatred, but because it's the most visible sign of difference. It's as simple as "they've got pointy ears, we don't", and much easier to turn into a one or two word insult than the actual sources of resentment.

I definitely think recognizing it from Dragon Age is what made me cringe the hardest, I’ll give you that!

So the discussion of fantasy racism has gone on for over half the thread. Is that the only topic we’re going to cover or shall I just see myself out?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Give me the valid in world/universe reasons why suddenly a particular fantasy race shows diversity that mimics ours, and I would have no problem with it.

Give me the valid in-universe reason why it shouldn't.

I ''love'' that kind of responses. Have it anyway. Firstly, was it created like that by the particular author the movie/show is based on, or is that just (insert all the reasons the showrunners already said)? Secondly, is those races' biology identical/very close with ours (so for example, is their evolution solving the problems with a too much sun, using the same mechanics as ours? Any of this is enough to me but when you are trying to force it (insert all the reasons...) then it feels forced not natural.

@AduroT

By all means, feel free to just bring up any topic about the show you’re interested in, rather than just scolding the thread

 Manchu wrote:
I definitely think recognizing it from Dragon Age is what made me cringe the hardest, I’ll give you that!

I have to say I don't know what else would work: "pointy ears" is too comical. You'd have to say you pointy eared something or other.

That sounds like Doctor McCoy yelling at Spock.

 Manchu wrote:
I definitely think recognizing it from Dragon Age is what made me cringe the hardest, I’ll give you that!

Thinking on it, what really makes it jump out as inappropriate is that in the Dragon Age context "knife ear" is always said with contempt by the oppressor. The humans have won, elves are the defeated underclass living in poverty in the worst part of the city, and the tone of voice is always like a white plantation owner talking to one of his black slaves and making it very clear just how sub-human the slave is. And after hearing it so many times in the game that tone is inseparable from the words. But in RoP the elves are the oppressor and the person saying "knife ear" is the defeated peasant. So it's jarring to hear that implicit tone in a place where it's completely inappropriate. But I don't think someone who wasn't familiar with Dragon Age would have that same connotation on the words and have it stand out as much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
Firstly, was it created like that by the particular author the movie/show is based on, or is that just (insert all the reasons the showrunners already said)?

Good question. I asked earlier for canon examples or statements by Tolkien that all of the inhabitants of Middle Earth are white, and that real-world racial diversity is not present. Do you have any of those, or merely your own imagination's images of what Middle Earth looks like?

Secondly, is those races' biology identical/very close with ours (so for example, is their evolution solving the problems with a too much sun, using the same mechanics as ours? Any of this is enough to me but when you are trying to force it (insert all the reasons...) then it feels forced not natural.

Do you ask the same question about why elves have pointy ears, or why all dwarves have beards?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Good question. I asked earlier for canon examples or statements by Tolkien that all of the inhabitants of Middle Earth are white, and that real-world racial diversity is not present. Do you have any of those, or merely your own imagination's images of what Middle Earth looks like?

So using your own method: are there any canon examples of racial diversity mimicking ours or is this your/showrunners own imagination?

Do you ask the same question about why elves have pointy ears, or why all dwarves have beards?

Why should I ask this in the context of our discussion? How is it relevant? They were created like this by the author. When you suddenly wanted to make dwarves 2 metre hight or elves having 1 metre hight just because you do not want to offend both big and small people (being offended in our world because of their hight) then it would be even slightly comparable.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
So using your own method: are there any canon examples of racial diversity mimicking ours or is this your/showrunners own imagination?

I don't have to provide anything. You're the one objecting to it as a contradiction of Tolkien's work. If neither of us can provide any canon sources then we're left with the conclusion that Tolkien himself is silent on the issue and the RoP interpretation is as valid as any other.

Why should I ask this in the context of our discussion? How is it relevant? They were created like this by the author. When you suddenly wanted to make dwarves 2 metre hight or elves having 1 metre hight just because you do not want to offend both big and small people (being offended in our world because of their hight) then it would be even slightly comparable.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Tall dwarves would be a contradiction of Tolkien's work because he explicitly says they aren't tall. No such canon statement exists about skin color, you had to make the argument that it would be unrealistic for races in Middle Earth to have different skin colors because they didn't follow the real-world evolutionary history. And if you're going to be upset about black elves being bad for evolutionary reasons I'd better see your defense of why all dwarves would evolve to have beards.

I have not played Dragon Age… the only time I have heard the slur “knife ears” said was at Drachenfest (a big larp in Germany). I found it then, as I also found in the show, a poor slur. But then I also see Elves as much more than Humans with pointy ears. Galadriel trying to hide her ears on the raft seemed ridiculous to me because if nothing else her other than Human beauty and grace, let alone her Elven made clothing and dagger would give her away as non-Human. Her “other than Humanly graceful fighting” displayed against the Troll would be difficult to mask even if she was trying to appear clumsy.

Many of my thoughts on the racial aspects of this discussion have been better articulated by Olthannon and in general I agree with him.

As an American of Irish/Welsh/Croatian descent the idea of Tolkien only writing a Nordic/Scandavian/Anglo-Saxon mythology for the English rather… insulting/foolish/misguided. It is a complex set of emotions that the idea evokes in me. And the idea that a number of people seem to think “White European Male culture ”is being ignored/stolen/corrupted by this show evokes a similarly complex set of emotions however it really illustrates a core cultural divide in our contemporary society. A divide also present in Tolkien‘s lifetime and I can not but wonder how he would have taken to this discussion.

I must admit that I expected this show to suffer the same kinds of flaws I have seen in Star Trek Discovery, Picard, Wheel of Time, and the last few Star Wars movies. I was prepared to be disappointed by this show so maybe I went in with low expectations and I am just happy that so far it seems to be doing much better than I expected. I have seen a number of people say that the show is fine as generic Fantasy but it needs to do much better to be worthy of Tolkien. Of course it does! What writers can expect to be elevated to the level of Tolkien? Perhaps some folks are expecting a bit too much but I suppose the showrunners set themselves up for this by wanting to tackle a story of Galadriel. “A” story of Galadriel. Not “THE” story of Galadriel. Not even Tolkien was set on what was “THE” story of Galadriel.

In a way it reminds me of Mad Max and creator of Mad Max said the movies were stories of the myth of Mad Max so of course they were inconsistent or even contradictory and without a clear timeline. This frustrated me at first but I have come to accept it. I suppose I will need to do the same here, as even Tolkien has different backstories for Galadriel depending on where you look.

And the inclusion of the Harfoots so far seems better than Lucas and his decision to add Ewoks to Return of the Jedi.

EDIT: I will also add it makes me incredibly sad that real world racial conflict makes this thread spend more time on skin color of actors than the use of plate armor instead of scale and maille armor.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

I don't have to provide anything. You're the one objecting to it as a contradiction of Tolkien's work. If neither of us can provide any canon sources then we're left with the conclusion that Tolkien himself is silent on the issue and the RoP interpretation is as valid as any other.

Which means the only reason they are there is just because the showrunners wanted it because their particular world view.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Tall dwarves would be a contradiction of Tolkien's work because he explicitly says they aren't tall. No such canon statement exists about skin color, you had to make the argument that it would be unrealistic for races in Middle Earth to have different skin colors because they didn't follow the real-world evolutionary history. And if you're going to be upset about black elves being bad for evolutionary reasons I'd better see your defense of why all dwarves would evolve to have beards.

I never said it would be unrealistic to have racial diversity as ours but wanted the reasons why it would be the same. Are there any in world reasons telling that their biology is the same or not? If their biology differs than what is a reason they look like us. No problem with whatever color elves etc. are, but be it more than that ''our world is made of various shades of skin so all fantasy races need to reflect this or the show will be attacked for being racistic''.

Ah, the beard thing is what bothers me the most. Why, oh why wasn't Disa given a proper, massive beard? I'm here for stout hirsute androgyny, to balance the tall, smooth, elven androgyny.

Actually... the elves aren't that androgynous either in this version. They really didn't go for lean, pretty dudes this time.

Which means the only reason they are there is just because the showrunners wanted it because their particular world view.

Hey ‘member where it was claimed no-one had claimed folk were cast simply because they’re not white and I was told nobody had made such a claim then I demonstrated they had?

I ‘member.

And there you go again.

Again, please provide evidence anyone cast in The Rings of Power isn’t there on merit, but melanin.

I’ll wait.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Ah, the beard thing is what bothers me the most. Why, oh why wasn't Disa given a proper, massive beard?

Honestly, as I mentioned further up the thread, by far my biggest gripe as well. They better be changing that up.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Hey ‘member where it was claimed no-one had claimed folk were cast simply because they’re not white and I was told nobody had made such a claim then I demonstrated they had?

I ‘member.

And there you go again.

Again, please provide evidence anyone cast in The Rings of Power isn’t there on merit, but melanin.

I’ll wait.

@Manchu had already answered you - the creators stated that they wanted the racial diversity there.

I don’t think Middle-earth should “reflect what the world actually looks like” — for example, should Amazon’s goal be that 18% of Middle-earthers are portrayed by Han Chinese?

To me, the better way to put it is that real-world racial categories have no meaning in Middle-earth. Disa is portrayed by a black actress BUT Disa is NOT a black dwarf. There aren’t black Dwarves and white Dwarves; there are just Dwarves. In the real world, white people have many different skin tones; black people have many different skin tones; etc, etc. There is no reason that, in Middle-earth, Dwarves would not have many different skin tones — and there is also no reason why those skin tones would particularly matter to them. Same goes for Elves, Men, and Hobbits.

There are two separate issues:

- in Middle-earth, real-world race is meaningless

- in the real-world, the producers have a goal of casting some non-white actors

The second issue exists because of real-world concerns, which have virtually nothing to do with Middle-earth. There’s no point in arguing over whether or not there are non-white people in Middle-earth considering that there are no white people in Middle-earth, either; these categories have nothing to do with Middle-earth.

So leaving that aside, the remaining question is whether one thinks it is appropriate to have a goal of employing X or X% non-whites. I don’t think we’re going to make any headway on that issue ITT.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Which means the only reason they are there is just because the showrunners wanted it because their particular world view.

Hey ‘member where it was claimed no-one had claimed folk were cast simply because they’re not white and I was told nobody had made such a claim then I demonstrated they had?

I ‘member.

And there you go again.

Again, please provide evidence anyone cast in The Rings of Power isn’t there on merit, but melanin.

I’ll wait.

100% totally agree - who is not pulling their weight as an actor? All are stellar. While I can see many of the parts are going to be one race color, as Tolkien envisioned, I see no issue with any part being given to any color actor on their acting merit. I think it might be short-sighted to insist every single person be anglo-caucasian simply because the source material was assumed (and probably written) to be that way. We are a long time past all of that today.

Edit: And, sorry, I like my fantasy version of dwarven women without beards, whether Tolkien envisioned them way or not.

 Manchu wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
mere inspiration doesn't mean an absolute rule that Middle Earth must be mythological England and nothing else

Agreed, especially because even if it was the case that Tolkien’s only or primary intent was to create an English mythology (which is, again, just a theory anyhow) the actual reception of his work goes well beyond that goal.

I think it’s worth pointing out that Tolkien was devoutly religious and considered his work to be fundamentally Catholic. Unlike the theory about English mythology, he made this point explicitly himself. But it’s abundantly clear that his work has been received by people of many different faiths or none. It’s nor more “just for Catholics” than it is “just for English”.

I want to hammer Manchu's point a bit more.

If anyone has any interests to "how Tolkien became Tolkien", I'd recommend this book:
A Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War: How J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis Rediscovered Faith, Friendship, and Heroism in the Cataclysm of 1914-1918

The author here really makes that point that Tolkien's Middle Earth is really about man's place in the world, with a religious context, in a subtle manner. If you know your religion, especially Catholicism, you'd easily be able to pick out religious references/allegories throughout his works.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
mere inspiration doesn't mean an absolute rule that Middle Earth must be mythological England and nothing else

Agreed, especially because even if it was the case that Tolkien’s only or primary intent was to create an English mythology (which is, again, just a theory anyhow) the actual reception of his work goes well beyond that goal.

I think it’s worth pointing out that Tolkien was devoutly religious and considered his work to be fundamentally Catholic. Unlike the theory about English mythology, he made this point explicitly himself. But it’s abundantly clear that his work has been received by people of many different faiths or none. It’s nor more “just for Catholics” than it is “just for English”.

I want to hammer Manchu's point a bit more.

If anyone has any interests to "how Tolkien became Tolkien", I'd recommend this book:
A Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War: How J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis Rediscovered Faith, Friendship, and Heroism in the Cataclysm of 1914-1918

The author here really makes that point that Tolkien's Middle Earth is really about man's place in the world, with a religious context, in a subtle manner. If you know your religion, especially Catholicism, you'd easily be able to pick out religious references/allegories throughout his works.

Which is nice in a scholarly kind of way, but also The Author Is Dead. Both literally and figuratively. Frankly, any religious intent they had doesn't matter. Or any intent for that matter. If thats what YOU want to get out of the work then thats great. And others taking something completely different out of the work is equally valid. Tolkien's intent does not survive the distribution and consumption of the work.

The Death of the Author is a form of literary analysis. It is not some divine rule for interpretation bestowed upon us from the heavens. His intent may not matter to you but does that not mean that it did not matter to him or does not matter to others.

A better "set in stone rule" would be that adaptations without the direct oversight of the original author cease to be the work of said author. Disney's Star Wars is not Lucas' Star Wars. Roddenberry's Star Trek is not modern Star Trek or even any Star Trek after ST:TPM. This is where the divide occurs. Some fans regard the new work as equivalent to the original. Others simply want more of the original and reject the new interpretations. In the case of LOTR even a well-regarded adaptation such as Jackson's LOTR films deviated heavily from the source material but was significantly less divisive because it was perceived as being a "love letter" to the original work whereas The Rings of Power is an adaptation that draws far more heavily from modern culture.

Ultimately this discussion is pointless...no adaptation is ever really true to the original author's work. This is not necessarily a bad thing but claiming that The Rings of Power is somehow true to Tolkien's vision or intent is frankly absurd.

My ultimate criticism is of modern media capatalizing off of existing IPs because they have a built-in fanbase and some degree of guaranteed success while claiming that their product is somehow true to the original author's intent when said author or creator is dead or otherwise not remotely involved.

trexmeyer wrote:
The Rings of Power is an adaptation that draws far more heavily from modern culture.

What does that mean?
I'm not wanting to put words in mouths here so I'd appreciate you explaining what exactly you mean by "modern culture".

I guess this will not be to everyones taste but it made me laugh

That aside, what is the deal with Amazon delaying viewers reviews of TROP? Do they really think it will help the show? Do they really think that every review judging the show as bad is written by some troll/nazi/insert the usual nonsense explanation?

Let's not start wheeling in YouTube's famously gakky takes, that's not going to bring people's tempers down and I'd like for this thread not to get closed.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
I will also add it makes me incredibly sad that real world racial conflict makes this thread spend more time on skin color of actors than the use of plate armor instead of scale and maille armor.

This. Middle-earth is a mythological realm, all the peoples of the world springing out of it after they were placed there by Iluvatar. If some are black then they are because God made them so, and that is what they are. I'd prefer that to the show claiming they are explicitly Taleri or Vanyar.

So let's talk about the armour instead. Everywhere I look it's people complaining about the stuff they wear on the boat - and I'm not convinced that's not like, really old or ceremonial or something. The plate in the flashbacks looked fine, and the chainmail in the north sequence, with the stars woven in I thought looked really good!

I did not mind the plate, specifically because it seemed ceremonial.

I was more bothered by the Green Man armour. It felt like someone had leftovers from a different fantasy show, which is not likely given the budget. Just a really weird design choice for what should be practical combat gear.

All this talk about minorities, but nobody is appreciating the quality writing that tells us that rocks sink because they look downwards, while boats float because they look upwards; but then how do you know which way is up if the light from the sun/tree reflects off the water. That's the less we should all learn, because the immortal elf who doesn't have a word for death won't be here forever.
...wha..?

I mean, it was terrible. What else is there to say?

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Let's not start wheeling in YouTube's famously gakky takes, that's not going to bring people's tempers down and I'd like for this thread not to get closed.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:
I will also add it makes me incredibly sad that real world racial conflict makes this thread spend more time on skin color of actors than the use of plate armor instead of scale and maille armor.

This. Middle-earth is a mythological realm, all the peoples of the world springing out of it after they were placed there by Iluvatar. If some are black then they are because God made them so, and that is what they are. I'd prefer that to the show claiming they are explicitly Taleri or Vanyar.

So let's talk about the armour instead. Everywhere I look it's people complaining about the stuff they wear on the boat - and I'm not convinced that's not like, really old or ceremonial or something. The plate in the flashbacks looked fine, and the chainmail in the north sequence, with the stars woven in I thought looked really good!

I seem to recall reading various folks online talking about the Elves having armor like “the scales of fish” and Dwarves inventing maille. No mention of plate beyond perhaps vambraces? But I may be misremembering. It was a hot topic a few times over on the Lead Adventure Forum and forms part of the foundation of the Dark Ages aesthetics that several Tolkien fans have created.

Doing a bit of quick research on the plate armor, her “ceremonial armor” does not look as bad in the still as I remember… perhaps it was something with how it looked as it was being removed. It looked too much like a prop. Now, if the showrunners are going to sell me on Elven plate, the second photo does a better job. And that was the thing with Jackson. His vision of Gondor armor and Uruk-Hai armor was very different from mine…. but he sold it to me by looking cool enough for me to give him a pass on them.

I would not be keen to wear maille in Arctic cold.. but if I did, having cool looking stars in the armor is a nice touch. ⭐️

Edit: I did not mind the Green Man leather leaf amor. I was not particularly keen on it but nor did it bother me. It is not what I would have chosen but it was better than how the Wheel of Time showrunners decided to design the costuming for the Whitecloaks. I know, I know… low bar and all that.

And I like Elves that can have long hair to have long hair. But I am not precious about it. I can as easily except a bearded Cirdan as a short haired, dark skinned Arondir. Elves do not need to be clones. I was a bit irked that Prince Durin's wife (sadly I forget her name just now) did not have facial hair but then I saw she had a bit. I wish they had gone for more. I like the idea of beards for male and female Dwarves, moustaches for the males. Of course this would put a bit of a spin how how Jackson did the looks of the Dwarves in the Hobbit.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
That aside, what is the deal with Amazon delaying viewers reviews of TROP? Do they really think it will help the show? Do they really think that every review judging the show as bad is written by some troll/nazi/insert the usual nonsense explanation?

Yes, they accurately think the majority of one-star reviews are by racists and/or trolls and are not a valid assessment of the show's quality. Do you dispute that the show is being review bombed like that?

(And please keep in mind that a one-star review means you believe this show is among the worst ever created, not merely flawed or not to your specific taste.)

 Gitzbitah wrote:
...I definitely regret the loss of detail of the magical barrow blades the hobbits carried and their role in slaying the Witch King, but an extra 30 minutes of Tom Bombadil singing about his yellow boots would not be worth it.

I do not regret that loss. Mostly because it was kind of bad storytelling to have extreme coincidences that solve the heroes' problems, and that's all that really is.

They just randomly find those daggers for no reason and take them with them for equally no reason and only after killing the Witch King of Angmar is it revealed that this hobbit has been carrying around a dagger created with the magic power to wound the Witch King of Angmar specifically- AND it undermines the more interesting gaes story (the Macbeth style prophesy) of how the Witch King is defeated.

That everything sort of hinged on that innocuous moment reminds me of the story of how the little red droid that malfunctioned in A New Hope was force sensitive and was able to see into the future and know that if he malfunctioned at this exact moment it would lead to the downfall of the Empire. And it FEELS like a retcon (because Tolkien didn't revise as much as he should have).