This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My facebook has been ablaze with the War of the Rings of Power, and by that I mean Amazon putting out tons of propaganda to indicate that everyone is racist for not liking the the Rings of Power, followed by half of the people saying no that doesn't make us racist, and the other half saying they just don't like it because it's a bad show. A similar thing is going on for the Little Mermaid, too. Alas, that these evil days should be mine.
The thing that strikes me is that no one is saying the obvious. To me, and I'll guess to many others, I really don't mind diversification of media. Or, that is to say, I wouldn't mind it, if it weren't for the fact that it's now the norm, it's practically mandatory for any show that doesn't want to be cancelled by internet SJWs, it's crammed down my throat everywhere, and it's turned into a major moral issue where half the audience browbeats the other. I feel like I'm being subjected to someone else's religion.
But that woke audience always comes back to "Why are you against black people playing roles? What are you, racist?" Well, no, I honestly don't think I'm racist. But in the position I'm put in, I get that I am taking actions that a racist would. The only difference is that a true racist would be against black people being cast no matter what, and I am only against it being mandatory and moralized. But since we live in this world, where it is mandatory and moralized, does that mean that there's nothing that would really satisfy me short of black people not being cast?
I don't quite think so. Another point that the woke audience comes to is "They clearly just thought that Halle Berry was the best person to play Ariel". And really, I think the answer to that is, no, they clearly prioritize diversity casting. She is black and they want to cast lots of black people because it scores them points with the woke crowd (and possibly also because it drums up controversy, which may be good for business). And then on top of that, they thought she'd be fine for the part. I don't know how I can prove that, but it just seems evident to me that diversity casting for its own sake is something that is being given high priority. In some limited cases, it's possible to prove it, such as with Ryan Condal, the showrunner for House of the Dragon who indicated that they cast black people to play Valerians explicitly for the purpose of diversity-washing. However, I'm guessing that Condal regrets saying that outright, because it's not a good look. It gives the other side ammo and also casts doubt as to whether the people hired really would have earned the spot on merit alone.
At this point. I don't really know what it would take to convince me that most castings of black people are not just to fill a quota. But this puts me in a tough spot, because I don't really want to be racist in action, even if I know I'm not in thought.
So what's wrong with this anyways? If Amazon wants to cast more black / POC actors and actresses that's neutral if not good. I don't get the problem.
There are three problems:
Thematic: The explicit purpose of casting non-white actors was to "better represent" the modern world; so that people will think or feel in different ways about others (or those like themselves). This is nonsensical because including constant reminders of "the world today" is inherently contrary to immersing the audience in a fantasy setting. Nobody watches Middle-Earth to think about New York. Whatever case you might have for such casting decisions on *other *grounds, this specific angle made it artistically destructive. It's especially bizarre where the elves and dwarves are concerned, because neither of them are supposed to be human, yet they both have exact analogues for human racial variation.
Political: Tolkien was an English author who created Middle-Earth to substitute a lack of extant Anglo-Saxon mythology. Removing this for "inclusion reasons" not only denies the value of people developing specific histories or cultural works, but declares it an active problem, and posits that only universal stories are legitimate. It's especially tasteless because one of the strongest themes in Tolkien's writing is the tragedy of peoples' decline and disappearance -- the Ents are doomed to extinction, the Elves will leave the land, the Dwarves are a shadow of their former selves, and Numenor is entirely destroyed.
In-universe: Even if we ignore 1 and 2, ROP does not involve races in a way that makes sense in its type of setting. Humans live in kingdoms or villages, and the modern mass transportation that creates diverse cities today isn't the norm. Why so many unlike people live in the same place could be explained within the story, but it would make significant demands of the setting and plot. In LOTR, for example, Easternlings appear in Middle-Earth because they were recruited for the War of the Ring -- ROP has no such situation. It's taken for granted that this can happen because such situations are normal in (parts of) the modern (largely urban, Western) world, -- they're not normal in a world dominated by the horse and cart, and ROP was clearly more invested in thinking about the former than the latter.
More options
Context Copy link
Its not neutral, or good, its bad, because it is world-breaking. Sure, if you are writing a story set in the fantasy equivalent of Constantinople, a bustling trade hub for merchants and people of all places, and the capitol of a diverse empire, go ham with diversity. If your setting is a remote Finnish town, or a insular group of hunter gatherers that seem to have shunned all outsiders for hundreds of generations, then diversity is just idiotic and results in confusion.
More options
Context Copy link
If they wanted to just cast non-white actors, there a plenty of existing IPs that could be adapted to the screen which allow for this to be naturally cast.
Someone needs to do Malazan Book of the Fallen - most of the major characters are POC.
I think you're saying black people in LoTR are not natural. What else are you trying to say? Tolkein didn't have a problem with black people.
As much as I appreciate someone actually taking up the gauntlet of arguing the "woke" position here, your responses are drifting into low-effort and uncharitable insinuations. This entire thread is full of people who "don't have a problem" with black people but have nonetheless articulated why black elves and dwarves in LotR bothers them. You can think their arguments are bad and you can think their arguments are racist, but make that case and avoid this kind of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife? question.
Armlegx218 said in their comment that LoTR was not naturally cast, which implies that there is something unnatural with Amazon's using black people for their show. What does that have to do with other people in this thread? It sounds pretty racist to me honestly and other people saying non-racist things in the same discussion doesn't change that.
natural, in this context, just means 'fitting', 'easily', or 'well'. And OP is arguing that race-fitting actors would have worked well for a show that's a parallel for ... historical england, just like black actors work for a show set in africa. If that's wrong, then argue that, but "natural" is just a vague term.
More options
Context Copy link
I pointed to the rest of the thread because these arguments about race-based casting are not new, and rather than engage with them, you just implied that Armleg218 has a problem with black people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Amazon can create their own new original fantasy/SF/whatever show stuffed to the gills with BIPOC actors and good luck to them, I don't care if they do, that's no skin off my nose. In fact, write a good new show with Dev Patel in a lead role and I will be "You interest me strangely, pray continue".
Even if they went the whole hog of casting every single character in Rings of Power as BIPOC, I would say "That's non-canonical but by Aule's ever-creative hammer I have to admire your balls".
The fact is, they didn't. They (Bezos) wanted a Big Hit Show comparable to Game of Thrones to really sell Prime streaming service subscriptions. You not alone want to watch this show, you need to watch this show to be au courant with what all your friends, family, and work colleagues are talking about. And for that, you need a Prime subscription.
So they needed A Really Big Name production, with a built-in guaranteed fan base audience and casual viewership appeal. Who is the Really Big Name in fantasy? Sorry George, still not you, it's the guy you joked about "but what was the tax base of his realm?" They snaffled the rights to LOTR and the Appendices, with Warner Studios breathing down their necks about "you can't remake the movies". Hence "Rings of Power" - it's got Galadriel! Elrond! And as many other LOTR characters as we think we can fit in without breaching legal terms!
Why they picked two nobodies to write this, I have no idea. Treating Tolkien's work as a cash cow licence to print money that means nothing to anyone involved (Bezos' dead-eyed boiled frog 'I really really love what's his name's work' appearances being the cherry on top) invoked its own curse, or Doom of the Noldor. They couldn't remake the movies, they weren't talented enough or experienced enough to be able to take the skeleton outline of the Second Age from the Appendices and make it into a coherent plot, so they fell back on common tropes (Strong Woman done down by the Patriarchy is the only one who is right about every single thing, on quest of vengeance, to take down the world-threatening evil, women and minorities most affected) and Generic Fantasy TV Show plots, and gave us this mess where the actress playing Galadriel has about two expressions, both of them like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle, and the character of a two thousand year old noble Elf lady is a whiny teenage rebel (Elendil's verbal smackdown of her as being the same as his two clueless kids is just one more reason he's one of the few likeable characters in this entire show).
They're trying to cover up their blatant lack of quality with "if you criticise this show, it's because you're a racist".
I don't think you're racist if you criticize LoTR, but I think it's pretty racist if you care that Amazon hired black actors for this. If the show sucks why do you need to bring the black actors into this at all? Everybody is saying the black actors are there so you can't criticize the show, and instead of criticizing the show you're criticizing the black actors.
Galadriel is too much for me but that doesnt have anything to do with Amazon hiring black actors.
Amazon thinks I should care. They put out a zillion publicity puff pieces about how I and everyone else should care. They made this video to sell it to people about how they should care.
Personally, I find the actor playing Arondir rather wooden (like his cuirass) but others, even those critical, have found him one of the few good actors. Whatever, opinions differ.
I would be very happy to see this actor playing a character in Middle-earth - say, a human inhabitant of the village of Tirharad (invented for the show) which is populated by descendants of the Men who fought under Morgoth and are being watched (over) by the Elves. Tirharad is a canon-compliant notion for being all black and brown actors, and having white Elves as an occupying force would reinforce the show's parables about colonialism and blaming people for the sins of their ancestors and so forth. Oddly enough, Tirharad is very white; Bronwyn and Theo are the only brown humans I've seen, and we got a nice scene of White Guy Racist To Black Elf in the tavern.
If they gave literally two minutes establishing who is Princess Dísa (e.g. she is from the royal house of the Blacklocks, one of the two Dwarven strongholds in the East), then that would avoid all the "who is this one, single, solitary black Dwarf in Khazad-dum among all the other white Scottish Dwarves?" questions.
I don't care that Tar-Míriel is played by a black actress. At least she's a human playing a human who looks like a queen should look. And you can find some way that her ancestry would be not contradictory with canon if you go into the history of the Three Houses of the Edain and their allies. No quibbles there.
Do you want to call me "pretty ageist" because I think the actor cast as Celebrimbor is too old for the part, and the character should be younger? Go right ahead, fill out the entire bingo card while you're at it.
Why do you care that Amazon cares?
If my brother tries to piss me off by, like, wearing a blue shirt, why would that bother me? Casting black people doesn't bother me, so it doesn't bother me when Amazon casts black people even if they're trying to be twats while they do it.
It sounds like you have a lot of problems with the script and I agree they could have done a lot of things better. I get that and I agree that Disa is not a good character. Isn't that a problem with the script though? What does it have to do with the casting?
Like, basically, if you only have problems with thr script, that makes sense. If you think Amazon is trying to attack you I can understand being annoyed. But there's nothing wrong with using black actors so being annoyed that Amazon is doing it makes it seem a lot more racist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This comment, and this one, are really uncharitable. In particular, the idea that it is "racist" to "care that Amazon hired black actors" requires a great deal more discussion (an in particular, a clear definition of "racist") given that race was not at all the focus of the comment to which you replied. Rather, the criticism was that people are using accusations of racism to defend the show; you've dispensed with the defending of the show, but kept the unproven accusation of racism.
Don't do that.
How is this uncharitable?
Someone said that black casting in LoTR is unnatural. How else am i supposed to disagree with it?
A lot of people are criticizing LoTR for casting black and minority actors while saying that Amazon only did this so they couldn't criticize the show at all. But then instead of attacking the show people are attacking the casting. Why does the casting matter if both sides say it doesn't matter?
I think calling the casting unnatural is racist and there's no other way to put it. That's my honest opinion. But I don't think anyone wants to explain what else they could mean, so now I'm the bad guy for pointing it out.
Sweet Eru Iluvatar. If some studio were making a new movie - hang on a mo, I just thought of the perfect example.
Now, suppose the studio thought "We really need an A-list actress in the lead role to make this a sure-fire blockbuster", and they cast, lemme see, Scarlett Johansson as General Nanisca. Would you say that was "naturally cast" or rather that casting black actresses, be they African-American or other black ethnic mix, was the "natural casting"?
One argument would be "they should only cast native Dahomeans in the parts". That's not the argument we're making.
The second argument would be "wait a minute, that's completely the wrong actress to cast in the part, it doesn't matter if she's really good".
You are trying to make the equivalent of "Why not cast Scarlett Johansson?" and telling the rest of us we are racists if we say "That's not the proper casting for this character". If they have (and they probably do) white European slave purchasers in this movie, or white European generals etc. then casting Scarlett as Lady Brassnobs is fine and appropriate. But casting Scarlett as part of the Dahomean Amazon army, and the only white Amazon, is going to make people go "What the hey, movie studio, this is not the correct thing to do even if white people do exist in this world and the Dahomeans are in contact with them".
More options
Context Copy link
Literally no one said that but you.
One person (not the one you replied to here, but in the other link I mentioned) referred to certain casting choices as "natural," which (charitably) seems like an obvious reference to fitting the lore Tolkien wrote. There are races in the original Middle Earth; different people from different regions are described as having varied skin tones etc. Just like in the real world. Nobody said it was unnatural to cast black people, unless you uncharitably modify the words they used in a separate context.
In roles where it doesn't make sense--not unlike casting a black child as the natural offspring of a Norse father and a Japanese mother. Maybe these people are wrong or mistaken or even racist, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to actually argue against what their real position is--not the naked one you (or Amazon) invented for maximum pearl-clutching.
Sure, I'd be surprised if this was Amazon's reason for casting that way (I assume they're just on the "maximum skintone diversity" train like everyone else in the movie business outside of Bollywood). But if people think Amazon does seem to be responding to real criticism by deflecting to "you're racist," that's an argument that seems plausible, too, and it's not racist to point that out.
Er... you were just telling me about people on both sides of the casting issue who think the casting matters, so I don't understand this question.
Then don't call it unnatural, as you're, again, literally the only one who has done so. But even if that's the only way to put it, you still have to actually explain yourself. Why is it racist to think that characters shouldn't be skin-tone-swapped from their author's visions in film adaptations? Like, if the next Black Panther movie had the king of Wakanda played by Tom Hanks, I assume some people would be upset--would they have a point? I've seen tons of people get annoyed at originally-Asian characters being played by white actors, so it seems to me that movie watchers are pretty consistent about being annoyed by this, and Hollywood is pretty consistent about telling them to fuck off, since they're gonna buy the movie tickets anyway.
Calling people "racist" is a serious accusation, certainly an inflammatory one, and so if you're going to do it you have to do it with lots of evidence and clear reasoning. You can't just be like "y'all racist" without putting in some work. Define your terms, or better yet, taboo your words. If you literally can't explain your problem without using the word "racist," then you don't actually understand your own problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think I explained this in my post. The why and when of what I dislike about this sort of casting decision is what my post is primarily about.
Even if Amazon is using diversity to "antagonize" you why does it bother you? If my brother wore a blue shirt to piss me off I wouldn't get pissed off, I'd think, "so what, there's nothing wrong with wearing a blue shirt." I'm not trying to dismiss you but I don't get why this is something you care about at all.
What if it was gradually becoming only acceptable to wear blue shirts? And if you make a comment about your brother wearing a blue shirt, saying that maybe it'd be nice if he wore a different color, then you'd be called out as a bigot? What if you really like wearing other color shirts, in addition to blue?
But people all really think that all existing shirts should be dyed blue, because if they don't, then it's perpetuating a "harmful culture where blue shirts are underrepresented". But then, later when only blue shirts are produced, due to the years of preexisting social pressure, people who were blue-shirt advocates start saying, "Well what's your problem with it? They're clearly making blue shirts just because people like blue shirts, so they sell better." The metaphor might be a little tortured, but I hope you get my idea.
There are lots of movies out there that will cater to you if you don't want minorities in your movie.
Thank you for making your position clear about what you think we are saying.
More options
Context Copy link
Once again, I think you've missed the point entirely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This wasn't how the mainstream media perceived the OK sign or "It's OK to be white" campaign: in both cases the plain meaning was ignored, in favour of what the they thought the intended meaning was. Which was white supremacy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because it takes you out of the world of the show you're trying to watch. When a black elf appears in LOTR I'm suddenly very aware that I'm not a fly on the wall in this fantasy world and that I am, in fact, just sitting on my couch watching something some people at Amazon decided to write and some actors acted out. Same with The Little Mermaid, I've seen the original and I'm used to white Ariel, when she turns up as black I'm suddenly made aware that I'm not watching Ariel, I'm just watching some actress pretend to be a mermaid by saying the lines she's told to. It's disillusioning and ruins the experience.
This seems a bit of an issue, we know Tom Cruise isn't a fighter pilot or a spy or a 6 foot 2 bruiser, so any famous actor should also pull you out. Or James Bond, played by different actors, with different accents and different hair colours and of different ages.
The original Little Mermaid was a cartoon, but the fact she is animated didn't wreck your immersion? Or the fact that she is a mythical sea creature with a talking singing crab et al? Why particularly is skin color the thing that breaks your immersion? This isn't a gotcha, I find it legitimately perplexing.
As an aside, I do have an amusing vision of a marine biologist complaining about how the Little Mermaid breaks his immersion because crabs don't sing like that, or a Greek classicist complaining about the fact that mermaids should really be bird women not fish women.
Animation is the choice of medium -- that always has to be taken for granted to establish suspension of disbelief for all fiction.
The other two points are either the setting in essence or an ordinary extension of the setting's logic (why wouldn't there be talking fish in a world with magical sea creatures?)
The casting is unlike the first two because, just like ROP, its point is to make you conscious of topics outside the setting's context. That sort of commentary isn't always bad -- but it is bad when the commentary takes the form of the fiction's existence itself and its execution doesn't involve playing a part in the story. Noticing that the Little Mermaid is black now happens entirely apart from the actual story of the Little Mermaid, and it comes off as the blatant coattail-riding it really is.
And if you knew that it wasn't coattail riding but that this specific actress was cast due to being the best at audition? Would that change your perception?
If we knew that, sure, but we know she's not, as diversity has been an explicit, loudly-opined goal of the bloc supporting her. While it's possible she's the best candidate, it's so unlikely as to beggar belief, and I know you don't really think she was. You get what you optimize for, and they're not optimizing for the best person.
Careful with consensus building. You may heavily suspect she is not, but you don't (unless you have access to more information about the casting decisionmaker's internal state)absolutely know. Which you then admit in your next sentence in fact. The director's statement:
"After an extensive search, it was abundantly clear that Halle possesses that rare combination of spirit, heart, youth, innocence, and substance — plus a glorious singing voice — all intrinsic qualities necessary to play this iconic role,” Marshall said in a statement."
Now he might be a liar here. But your own statements contradict yourself. If you KNOW she's not the best choice, then it isn't POSSIBLE she is. You can heavily suspect, your priors might heavily point that way, but if you admit there is a possibility she was chosen because she was the best, then I don't think you can also state you KNOW she wasn't!
But anyway, that is all besides the point. We're operating in the hypothetical where you do know she was picked because she was the best. Given that, would that impact how you felt about it? Or would you still think they shouldn't pick a black actress even if she was the best in audition?
No, I'm quite comfortable saying that when you optimize for X you're going to get X, not Y. If you want to pretend these people are meritocratic, they need to start optimizing for meritocracy, not diversity, very, very loudly.
As for the what-if, my answer is "I reject the hypothetical". If things were different they'd be different. That's not useful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Interrogating what does or does not break my suspension of disbelief is a lot like accusing my libido of hypocrisy.
What? You can crank one out to a big titted redhead with visible implant scars, but not a big titted blonde with a slightly lazy eye? Hypocrisy!
I mean first off, is this even the type of work that asks for your suspension of disbelief? One of my favorite movies is Shoot Em Up. It's fantastically stupid. No part of it is believable in even the remotest sense. I'm not sure where to place James Bond in this category. The Daniel Craig ones appeared to be asking for your suspension of disbelief. Moonraker a lot less so. That series of movies has had changes, and it would be hard to fault anyone for preferring some over others. Or outright dismissing swathes of them as not being "true" Bonds. As the age old debates of who played Bond best proves. There are some real Sean Connery die hards out there.
Second, my suspension of disbelief can bend. Personally, I can stretch my disbelief that Tony Ja, who looks approximately 90 lb and 4'5" (I kid, I kid) can defeat 7' viking DNA giants in The Protector. It is literally impossible for me to believe no matter how hard I try that a waifish and menopausal looking Uma Thurman can do the same. Lucky for Tarantino he doesn't ask for my suspension of disbelief (see rule #1). The point I'm trying to make is, if I'm supposed to take your action movie "seriously", in the style of a Gladiator or a Rocky 1, at least look the part.
Third, if world building is remotely important to this work, have it make at least plausible sense. And this is where all the race-swapping in pre-built fantasy worlds gets me. These are worlds that already have established phenotypes for it's inhabitants. Already have, and frequently center in the oral history told to the character, the movements of those peoples. They take place in a worlds with very little globalization. Don't fucking portray them as some sort of post-racial globalized society! They can plausibly get away with a little diversity if the setting is an empire and they are in the trade capital. But none of this "3 out of 4 main and background characters are non-natives, as well as most of the important people in assorted hierarchies". No country except in the last 30 years was that eager to cuck their native population, except the conquered.
Except they are not the same version as the original. As mentioned above Ultimates Nick Fury is different than 616 Fury (originally at least). In this version of the LoTR history there are black dwarves. They can change the background so in that universe it is not regarded as "cucking their population" or whatever. Now the Doylist reason for that is increasing diversity representation or etc., and that is a reasonable position to oppose. But from a Watsonian perspective your pre-knowledge about how there would only be black characters because of post-racial globalization no longer holds. You can dislike the change, but you seem to be saying that it HAS to have the same background as our world. That black dwarves came from some Africa equivalent, rather than being a magical mutation, or any other reason under the sun. Perhaps when Aule created the seven fathers of the dwarfs, they were different shades and Valar magic means one seventh of the population will always be black. Your assumption seems to be that there can only be black characters in this version if they come from some far off place, and in Tolkien's original that may be the case. But this is not that. It is an adaption.
Tolkiens novel's may have had established phenotypes, but the adaptions may or may not. The black dwarf can be a native, so can a white dwarf (Grombrindal aside perhaps). Plausible world building does not require that it matches our own world's history. To me, Tolkien's histories don't even make internal sense in the first place, so adding some extra features that also don't make sense is barely an issue. I might raise an eyebrow if they revealed Middle-Earth was on the back of a turtle, but I would at least be looking forward to seeing the Patrician in action.
The fact there are magical god-Wizards and the earth was flat until it became round and there wasn't a sun but the world was lit by trees, already shows that the history can depart radically from our own. In this version, it is altered more such that there are black dwarves or hobbits or whatever. To me the latter seems a much smaller departure than the former. Since I accept the former as part of the world, I can also accept the latter.
Now if you don't suspend your belief for either, then that is a different and quite reasonable objection. If you're like the aforementioned biologist complaining that dragons that big could never fly with those wings, or that clearly the elven stories about the world having once been flat and lit by trees are clear nonsense, then complaining about phenotypes also makes sense, you're grounding the world in our reality and finding it lacking. But that isn't the objection I mostly seem to see.
Original Nick Fury was of Irish descent, Fury/Furey is an Irish surname. They can change white Nick to black Nick because the Watsonian explanation is in-universe it is a multiverse. The Doylist explanation is that (a) they thought it would be cool to have Samuel Jackson in the part and (b) comics ret-con stories all the time.
That's not the case here. If you could argue convincingly that Middle-earth is in a multiverse situation, then fine, black Dwarves and Chinese hobbits and whatever else you like. But Middle-earth, although a fictional creation, is not meant to be some imaginary world out there in the vast universe, it is supposed to be our world in the very, very remote past.
You can't argue that "Okay now these North-Western Europeans from the dawn of history who are all deliberately created for Tolkien's view of a native English mythology are non-white, just because". There is no "in this version", there is compliant with canon or their own invention.
And they are going for their own invention, but they skipped making Galadriel black because they knew there was no possible way to get away with that, and arguing about "but in this version" wouldn't cut it. They didn't want black Galadriel or black Elrond or black Dain, because they wanted to draw in people with the lure of the original movies.
Of course Aule could have created black Dwarves, and if the showrunners spent two minutes crafting some coherent explanation for how come Dísa is a black Dwarf, then yeah I'd accept the "only racists are objecting" argument. But they didn't, and the show relies on "we're doing this, and the only reason you're objecting is because you are a racist".
What is much, much worse than one (1) black Elf amongst all the white Elves and one (1) black Dwarf amongst all the white Dwarves is the terrible writing, the leaden fake-profound dialogue, and changing the character of Galadriel to be some 90s Grrl Power bratty teenager. I don't even care about the whole "Galadriel was never a warrior" argument, because I think she had some experience of battle and fighting, but Tolkien's point again and again and again is that running around killing things is not the way to live:
For Tolkien, the show's version of Galadriel is not a heroine, but someone profoundly damaged and in need of healing. The showrunners can burble on about their own updated to reflect the modern world version all they like, but they cannot claim this is Tolkien's world. They cannot eat their cake and have it, too.
In the books Glorfindel drives back the Nazgul. In the movies it is Arwen. Two different versions of the same story. Each is a separate contained universe. One is the original and the other is an altered adaption. You don't need an (internal to the story) multiverse for that. It's an issue that already exists. The 80's animation, the books, the movies, the extended version of the movies.
And if they pay the licensing fee to Tolkiens estate they absolutely can claim that. They bought it fair and square. With caveats of what they could and could not do. Art can be bought and sold.
They replaced Glorfindel with Arwen, and while I hate this choice, I understand it.
They did not replace Glorfindel with a single mother brown Human healer from an invented village in the far South populated by the descendants of the Men who fought in Morgoth's armies, and had Jackson even tried doing that, the first movie would have sunk like a stone that looks down into the darkness which is why it does not float like a ship that looks up at the light.
They did not have Japanese Elrond or Hispanic Legolas.
Think about what you are saying, because what you are saying is "Amazon are making their own version of a fantasy world and just calling it Middle-earth", which is in agreement with what the rest of us are arguing about.
If a Chinese studio wanted to do a version of LOTR and cast every single part with Chinese actors - it would be feckin' glorious because they know how to do epic fantasy and ethereally beautiful people of fairy descent. I would not say a single word about it.
I would, however, squawk like a goose if they decided that Gondor was in fact the Qin Dynasty and Númenor had been Korea, and cast accordingly with the rest of the parts being White European as per the book.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are no "versions". There are just things that are Lord of the Rings, and things that are not Lord of the Rings. This is not Lord of the Rings. It's a bastardized cash grab pushed out by cultural vandals who hate and disdain everything the original represented.
I'm not a fan of any "living document" interpretations.
Ahh, well, that is where we differ I think. The books, the 80's movie, the Jackson Trilogies, and the new series have fundamental incompatibilities. Jackson replaces Glorfindel with Arwen. for example. That doesn't stop his trilogy being Lord of the Rings. It isn't the original version. But it also isn't something entirely new.
It's a bastardized cash grab ** -agreed-** pushed out by cultural vandals who hate and disdain everything the original represented. - I disagree here, they may have a different view of things, but reading some interviews with the writers it certainly does not appear that they "hate and disdain" everything. They have different views than they do, of course but that isn't the same thing.
Is Glorfindel an Elf? Is Arwen an Elf? Or is Arwen a Sassy Black Girl?
Because one of these things is not like the other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, but Maverick was a new character and so when watching the original Top Gun I had no priors as to what he should look like. In an alternate universe where Maverick were originally black I don't think there would be any immersion-breaking; if the new Top Gun movie had a black guy play Maverick after Tom Cruise already had in the original then it would be immersion-breaking.
Things have to be internally consistent. I have the same issue with fantasy settings where something happens that doesn't make sense in the setting but people try to tell me "bro it's all make-believe, they're time travelling anyways who cares if that character suddenly can do something with no explanation that would have been helpful before". I accept the premises of the world upon starting a show and am fine so long as the conclusions follow from those premises even if they don't follow the premises of real life; if the show starts creating contradictions with its own premises then that is a problem and I can no longer believe anything it tells me.
I feel like Dwight from the "Asian Jim" bit on The Office: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cLNyF1Zw5tg
Imagine a new Top Gun movie where originally black Maverick was replaced by Cruise, or whatever white actor is the Hot New Action Star.
Yeah, I think we all agree that right now in this current climate, this is not a world where that can happen, and anyone trying the "this is a different version of the original world, so it's copacetic to have a black character played by a white guy" argument would be flayed alive.
More options
Context Copy link
That is fair, but if in the new rebooted universe there are black mermaids then that can be internally consistent. It doesn't need to be internally consistent with the previous version necessarily. Like 616 Nick Fury was white and Ultimates Universe Nick Fury was black. If Ultimates Fury was shown having white parents then if it wasn't explained that would be strange, but he doesn't have to be consistent with 616 Fury's white ancestry.
In our example, it wouldn't be white Jim becoming Asian Jim, it would be a rebooted version of the Office where (in that new universe) Jim was always asian. Internal consistency is internal to the reboot, not to the previous version. Otherwise actors would have to be the same as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they feel little need to stick with the source material when it comes to character depictions then why would we expect them to stick with source material in other, perhaps more significant elements?
Its more just a signal that their priorities lie somewhere other than producing a quality product. Staying true to the source is usually easy to do, so a deliberate decision to change it indicates some other underlying logic at work.
A pretty reliable signal, at this point. Are people not allowed to wonder why certain changes were made, and how this might impact the quality?
Ok, but why does it matter to you? I'm not going to prevent you from caring or say you're not allowed to care. But I don't get why you care about race specifically. Criticize them for making a bad series, not for using some black actors.
Yeah, that's the thing. If his garrison were all mixed, it would be less of a problem (yes, some people would still complain, but you wouldn't have him sticking out as so Obviously Different).
Of course, the show can't even bother to put in the time to develop the other Elves, so when they all get slaughtered by the Orcs and the Warg, it's very hard to get worked up over "Oh no, it is Arondir's best pal, Whosis, dying in his arms!" and then "Double oh no, his commander What's his face has been Boromired!"
More options
Context Copy link
If I enjoy a particular series, I tend to want it to maintain a decent level of quality, and to stay true to the elements that led me to enjoy it. If I've devoted some substantial amount of time and money to it, I would like to think said time and money was well spent.
I don't have many ways to influence the quality of a given series other than voicing opinions and spending or not spending money on it. For extremely popular series, the influence of my input is probably close to nil.
It really doesn't matter to me in any way that influences my life, but I'd really prefer if we had more good media and less mediocre media, and I think I'm allowed to set my expectations accordingly.
I do criticize bad series, there's just so many of them. And the point was that they're using minority actors as a shield to deflect criticism by pretending that racism is the driving cause of the critiques. Which is patently and obviously false! They (a billion dollar conglomerate) are essentially claiming victimhood on behalf of the actors they intentionally cast!
And thus, I'm not criticizing them for using black actors. I'm criticizing them for deflecting honest complaints with a blatantly misleading, dishonest tactic. They're the ones intentionally using the tactic, and pointing out the tactic seems justifiable.
If they would just cast characters based on what makes sense for the work in question and not center all the marketing on how diverse and progressive their casting choices are then perhaps we'd see improvements in quality and thus a reduction in complaints/critiques.
Top Gun: Maverick pulled this off. Added in female, hispanic, black characters, didn't make it a big deal, made a fun movie, and people absolutely fucking loved it.
Just a thought.
Is there anyone who doesn't think this scene in Aliens II is fabulous? Whatever your opinion about women in the military or realism or anything?
More options
Context Copy link
I think Top Gun proves my argument because nobody was distracted from the "authenticity" by minority and black casting. People say they're just bothered by LoTR being a bad show but they keep talking about the black actors. Nobody cared about it with Top Gun when Top Gun did exactly what people say they don't like by taking an existing franchise and including black people.
People keep saying that criticism of LoTR has nothing to do with diversity, but then they keep criticizing diversity.
I'm biting my tongue very hard here to keep from swearing. Top Gun: Maverick is explicitly set in our current day world, where yeah, minority and BIPOC and even female women of the feminine persuasion exist and join the armed forces. You are trying to make it parallel that someone saying "Why is there a black Elf in Rings of Power?" is on the same level as someone saying "Oh my stars and garters, why is there a coloured person who is not a servant in that movie set in 2016, and what is more, they allow him to be on terms of equality with his white betters?"
Given that there have been black soldiers in the American military since the Revolutionary War, that would indeed be a thinly-veiled racist question. But imagine a movie set in a world where there had never been any black soldiers at all, and this new movie had one (1) black soldier or pilot amongst an otherwise all-white cast. I think that there could legitimately be asked "who is this guy and what is he doing here and where did he come from?" without it being racist. Is he from a country where they always had black soldiers? Is he meant to be the first black soldier? Is this a propaganda movie trying to get black people to enlist in the army?
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, do you not see how the settings of these two works might cause 'diversity' to be less distracting and noticeable in one, compared to the other?
Especially when, again, the creators center marketing around it and make it out like they're doing something brave and special... and show that they're not prioritizing the source material.
If Maverick were set in, say, WWII and there were female fighter pilots added in, you think that might stick out a bit and cause some dissonance?
And even then, there are certainly ways they could do it effectively! But it helps to not intentionally stir the controversy and then play the victim.
Again, RoP's creators made the deliberate choice on casting as they did, and further deliberate choice to emphasize said casting. Why did they do it? What creative process led to this outcome, and how much of it was related to the quality of the series?
I could ask Maverick's creators why they did cast the way they did and maybe they can give answers that relate to increasing the strength of the story. Or they can say "well we literally just chose the best actors we could find because the characters' racial and gender identities doesn't effect the plot." I don't know if they would, but they have that out.
They especially have that out because they made a great movie from start to finish.
Can RoP's creators do the same? It just seems obvious that the choice is made specifically for the controversy and not to serve the story.
And indeed, it may have led to the story being less good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or take the Fast and the Furious movies. It's almost certainly the most racially diverse film franchise in Hollywood, yet I've never heard a single complaint about their diverse casting. Turns out it's not the diversity per se that bothers people, it's the feeling that they're being lectured or pandered to that they don't like.
This seems like such a self-evident conclusion it should take active, extensive effort to somehow ignore it. I can't even steelman the case that audiences aren't tolerant of 'diversity' (in AMERICA, globally it may be different) because the counterexamples are just too plentiful.
If it weren't for the culture war background to all of this, I'd be baffled as to how Hollywood manages to make it into an actual issue.
I also feel like growing up in the 90's making movies and films with diverse casts was the standard. Like Captain Planet, they'd have a 'token' member of various races and only occasionally would this be remarked upon or milked for drama.
You can certainly make an argument for why tokenization is not ideal and could contribute to stereotyping, but holy cow there's just no argument that audiences raised on 90's media are somehow mad about diversity in their entertainment. NONE.
I have yet to see a decent argument for why our current setup, where diversity is treated as the entire point of the exercise and excoriating anyone who protests is actually better for anyone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link