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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed, but the first argument is whether any changes can be made at all. Then we can discuss object level changes and how acceptable they are. If we don't agree on the first part, there is no point discussing if specific changes are ok are not.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link