*****The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power*****

151,452 Views | 1847 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by maroon man
Lathspell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What an astute and well written breakdown of the truth. Unfortunately, you will still be mocked and accused of being a racist, homophobe, and sexist.

It doesn't matter if you love countless performances from great black actors, appreciate the art of many black artists, etc... if you critique this idea of inclusion in spite of anything else, there are those on this board who will scream at you and label you a racist. Any thought or criticism about anything is obviously influenced by your innate and deep-seated racism. You need to be better!

I simply posted how I will criticize it because it is obvious and distracts from the immersion of the story and plot. I even said I accept it, but it's still there. From that post, I get responses about how i am "complaining" about it, or that i'm "upset" by it. Truly, it doesn't affect my life much, so I don't really care. This just happens to be an entertainment board where we discuss various shows and such. If the showrunners make it a huge point to do something, we should then be able to comment on it, imo.
Chipotlemonger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Madmarttigan said:

Not going to care about the nitty gritty discussion of the show, but this is far superior to Wheel of Time so far. Also those complaining about weird races playing elves/dwarves should be glad this show is nothing in comparison to what wheel of time did. I don't really care either way but WoT so much more noticeable they were going for the full spectrum of inclusion.


Yep. The way I see it there is really no comparison. In RoP we are talking elves and dwarves and thousands of years outside of anything we have seen on screen.

Jordan wrote WoT to be so culturally diverse and interesting and Amazon just up ended all of it. Reading WoT and the world feels incredibly large and diverse. On screen it was all one bowl of mush.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, there's nothing wrong with inclusion or representation, but it shouldn't be driving anything either. That's not racist or sexist, it's just a good ground rule for not making something ****ty and keeping priorities straight. If you are making changes to the source material, adding unnecessary scenes, or sacrificing scenes that build characters or plot so you can jump up and down and yell, "Look at us! Look how woke and diverse we are!" then you're probably going to put out some crap because the story, the characters, and the overall finished product isn't your focus.

Amazon could have easily made a generic fantasy epic with as much diversity as they wanted, and I wouldn't care. No one would they could have all of the black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc dwarves, elves, orcs, and whatever else that what and it wouldn't matter. There wouldn't be any problems because there would be no deviations from an existing source (though Tolkien himself would likely disagree and call it a travesty, that's a digression). Instead, they chose to POC-wash a well established and popular epic to ride its coattails. They tried really hard to make something great and replicate Jackson's LOTR trilogy, and the series certainly looks like a billion dollars, but ultimately what they got is The Hobbit that WB ****ed up with their artificial demands. This series feels like a slow, generic fantasy series with a huge budget and Tolkien's brand slapped on it, and based on the entirety of the changes and the concern for DEI instead of faithful storytelling, that's basically what it is.

I get that some changes would need to be made to tell this story in film. That's just the way it is for film adaptations of literary works. However, making inclusivity a goal is not one of them. Ever. For any adaptation. It's not helping the plot or character development fit into the time or visual constraints of the film medium. It's not visually expounding written narrations or histories. It's not summarizing long passages or simplifying plot points. It serves no purpose buy to make the creators feel better about themselves. If the original work isn't diverse enough for you, find another work or create your own original one.

If anyone doesn't like that opinion, sorry not sorry.
canadiaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I knew I recognised the actor who plays Arondir's commanding officer, it's Crassus from Spartacus
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

. . . If the original work isn't diverse enough for you, find another work or create your own original one. . .


Or buy the rights to it and be as creative and diverse as they
want since they paid the rights holders for the privilege, much to the chagrin of unrelated third parties.

If it's bad don't watch it. That's what happened to the animated Tolkien flicks of my youth.
CondensedFogAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ABATTBQ11 said:

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with inclusion or representation, but it shouldn't be driving anything either. That's not racist or sexist, it's just a good ground rule for not making something ****ty and keeping priorities straight. If you are making changes to the source material, adding unnecessary scenes, or sacrificing scenes that build characters or plot so you can jump up and down and yell, "Look at us! Look how woke and diverse we are!" then you're probably going to put out some crap because the story, the characters, and the overall finished product isn't your focus.

Amazon could have easily made a generic fantasy epic with as much diversity as they wanted, and I wouldn't care. No one would they could have all of the black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc dwarves, elves, orcs, and whatever else that what and it wouldn't matter. There wouldn't be any problems because there would be no deviations from an existing source (though Tolkien himself would likely disagree and call it a travesty, that's a digression). Instead, they chose to POC-wash a well established and popular epic to ride its coattails. They tried really hard to make something great and replicate Jackson's LOTR trilogy, and the series certainly looks like a billion dollars, but ultimately what they got is The Hobbit that WB ****ed up with their artificial demands. This series feels like a slow, generic fantasy series with a huge budget and Tolkien's brand slapped on it, and based on the entirety of the changes and the concern for DEI instead of faithful storytelling, that's basically what it is.

I get that some changes would need to be made to tell this story in film. That's just the way it is for film adaptations of literary works. However, making inclusivity a goal is not one of them. Ever. For any adaptation. It's not helping the plot or character development fit into the time or visual constraints of the film medium. It's not visually expounding written narrations or histories. It's not summarizing long passages or simplifying plot points. It serves no purpose buy to make the creators feel better about themselves. If the original work isn't diverse enough for you, find another work or create your own original one.

If anyone doesn't like that opinion, sorry not sorry.
Well that was a confusing mess.

You just said there's nothing wrong with inclusion, then go on to complain about inclusion. You say if it's epic, diversity doesn't matter, then you say diversity isn't helping the plot or character development or 'visually expounding'.

I get it, everything wrong with the show you're blaming on inclusiveness. Or maybe you're blaming it because of inclusiveness.

Lucky for you and us, you don't have to watch it for whatever reason you want.
AmarilloBQ02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well said ABATT. The tokenism that the above two posters are cheering on is likely a part of what is preventing us from getting quality new fantasy IPs like what you describe.
canadiaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AmarilloBQ02 said:

Well said ABATT. The tokenism that the above two posters are cheering on is likely a part of what is preventing us from getting quality new fantasy IPs like what you describe.


"Casting non-whites is why fantasy IPs are ****" sure is a hot take.

Not sure why it's such a big deal in this show when everyone seems to be praising House of the Dragon, which made one of the important Valyrian families black. Maybe it's because GRRM is alive and a producer of the show, so clearly it has his blessing. Either way, it doesn't seem to have affected HotD's quality - that show has been a total hit.
jeffk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So are y'all going to stop watching the show because of your disappointment/anger/frustration? Or are you going to hate-watch the rest of the season?
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
the problem with modern film is "The Message" is more important than story telling.
bluefire579
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
canadiaggie said:

AmarilloBQ02 said:

Well said ABATT. The tokenism that the above two posters are cheering on is likely a part of what is preventing us from getting quality new fantasy IPs like what you describe.


"Casting non-whites is why fantasy IPs are ****" sure is a hot take.

Not sure why it's such a big deal in this show when everyone seems to be praising House of the Dragon, which made one of the important Valyrian families black. Maybe it's because GRRM is alive and a producer of the show, so clearly it has his blessing. Either way, it doesn't seem to have affected HotD's quality - that show has been a total hit.
People were definitely raising a stink over it, they just haven't been as loud as the LotR fanboys. Probably because of the ending of GoT and the cautious approach a lot of folks had to HotD, it just didn't get as much attention.

But definitely agree that it's a ridiculous take.
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't really have an issue with hobbits, dwarfs etc being different races. As long as there is some nod to why there are seemingly different races in society's as segmented and closed off as the dwarves and the elves.

With TWOT it just seems like the goal for the show was to push diversity for diversity's sake. The most eye rolling part of the season to me is when they ran into the farmers with Indian parents and a white kid. I understand that the writers want to show us a post racial society, but it's to the shows detriment. The best parts of TWOT is all of these different cultures and races coming together and setting aside their differences to defeat evil. If you don't show the conflicts at the beginning of the series, or explain what makes one medieval country different from the other, then the payoff will never be fulfilled.
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can't wait to see some of the reactions to the Black Superman movie.
Life is better with a beagle
The Collective
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thought the newest episode was fairly interesting
Quincey P. Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I forgot one was releasing today. Now I have to remember to avoid this thread until later.
canadiaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Collective said:

Thought the newest episode was fairly interesting


Numenor looked super cool. Called back (called forward?) to Gondorian architecture and culture but it was bright, joyous, without the pallor of Mordor hanging over it the way it was in Minas Tirith in RotK.
CondensedFogAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AmarilloBQ02 said:

Well said ABATT. The tokenism that the above two posters are cheering on is likely a part of what is preventing us from getting quality new fantasy IPs like what you describe.

Funny, all you've done is complain about this show throughout the thread, even before it came out, posting nothing but criticisms.

Woulda thought you'd have found a better use of your time by now instead of enlightening us with more complaints.
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FYI, you guys are spelling Tolkien-ism wrong in almost every post.
Life is better with a beagle
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Collective said:

Thought the newest episode was fairly interesting
The ending kind of pissed me off. Just focus the camera, dammit!!

I love the elves using their chains as weapons, maybe didn't love the constant use of slow-motion leg whipping of the chain. I am beyond ready to get Arondir unleashed on these mf-ing orcs. The little taste we were given was not enough for my hearty appetite.

Galadriel is sure no diplomat, at this point. Elendil is pretty cool, except when his kids are stubborn...just like most parents. Ha

Halbrand is a completely invented character?

Is it possible the fallen man is Glorfindel?
AmarilloBQ02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
canadiaggie said:

AmarilloBQ02 said:

Well said ABATT. The tokenism that the above two posters are cheering on is likely a part of what is preventing us from getting quality new fantasy IPs like what you describe.


"Casting non-whites is why fantasy IPs are ****" sure is a hot take.

Not sure why it's such a big deal in this show when everyone seems to be praising House of the Dragon, which made one of the important Valyrian families black. Maybe it's because GRRM is alive and a producer of the show, so clearly it has his blessing. Either way, it doesn't seem to have affected HotD's quality - that show has been a total hit.
I think you are misunderstanding my post. There appears to be a market for black characters in fantasy, and I think that energy is being wasted by just race swapping a handful of black characters into an existing IP and calling it good. I don't think we will get a quality fantasy IP with black characters deeply ingrained into the narrative until this tokenism ends.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the second part of your comment. GRRM can do whatever he wants with his story as it is still being created, but Tolkien and Robert Jordan are both dead. There was opportunity for diversity in both the WoT and LoTR universes that fit within the narratives provided by both authors without trying to make every village as cosmopolitan as modern American society. Combine that Amazon's early "Superfans" marketing campaign and members of the RoP cast talking about how they were bravely breaking barriers in every interview, and I think you can account for a significant portion of the difference in reception.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CondensedFoggyAggie said:

ABATTBQ11 said:

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with inclusion or representation, but it shouldn't be driving anything either. That's not racist or sexist, it's just a good ground rule for not making something ****ty and keeping priorities straight. If you are making changes to the source material, adding unnecessary scenes, or sacrificing scenes that build characters or plot so you can jump up and down and yell, "Look at us! Look how woke and diverse we are!" then you're probably going to put out some crap because the story, the characters, and the overall finished product isn't your focus.

Amazon could have easily made a generic fantasy epic with as much diversity as they wanted, and I wouldn't care. No one would they could have all of the black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic, etc dwarves, elves, orcs, and whatever else that what and it wouldn't matter. There wouldn't be any problems because there would be no deviations from an existing source (though Tolkien himself would likely disagree and call it a travesty, that's a digression). Instead, they chose to POC-wash a well established and popular epic to ride its coattails. They tried really hard to make something great and replicate Jackson's LOTR trilogy, and the series certainly looks like a billion dollars, but ultimately what they got is The Hobbit that WB ****ed up with their artificial demands. This series feels like a slow, generic fantasy series with a huge budget and Tolkien's brand slapped on it, and based on the entirety of the changes and the concern for DEI instead of faithful storytelling, that's basically what it is.

I get that some changes would need to be made to tell this story in film. That's just the way it is for film adaptations of literary works. However, making inclusivity a goal is not one of them. Ever. For any adaptation. It's not helping the plot or character development fit into the time or visual constraints of the film medium. It's not visually expounding written narrations or histories. It's not summarizing long passages or simplifying plot points. It serves no purpose buy to make the creators feel better about themselves. If the original work isn't diverse enough for you, find another work or create your own original one.

If anyone doesn't like that opinion, sorry not sorry.
Well that was a confusing mess.

You just said there's nothing wrong with inclusion, then go on to complain about inclusion. You say if it's epic, diversity doesn't matter, then you say diversity isn't helping the plot or character development or 'visually expounding'.

I get it, everything wrong with the show you're blaming on inclusiveness. Or maybe you're blaming it because of inclusiveness.

Lucky for you and us, you don't have to watch it for whatever reason you want.


Reading is hard. I'll try to spell it out as simply as I can...

There's nothing wrong with inclusion and representation as long as you don't do it for its own sake.

If you tell an author to go write a short story, of no more than 4000 words, in 90 minutes, you will likely get a decently developed and edited plot and characters because the author is allowed to focus on and develop whatever elements they feel are necessary in their limited timeframe. Now, do that same exercise and tell them that they must now include at least one trans character, 2 POC characters, and a strong female protagonist and you will likely get a pile of crap because the task has become fulfilling these constraints, not writing a good short story. Many of those 90 minutes become wasted on figuring out who these people are, why they are there, and what they're doing. Some of the narrative development must also be sacrificed to make sure they are adequately represented and not just passing mentions. That's why diversity for the sake of diversity as a requirement detracts from story development, not diversity in and of itself. I know that's a hard distinction to make, but I have faith in you.


As for
Quote:

You say if it's epic, diversity doesn't matter, then you say diversity isn't helping the plot or character development or 'visually expounding'.

it's not, "if it's epic, diversity doesn't matter," it's, "If it's original, diversity doesn't matter." "They could have made a generic fantasy epic... Instead, they chose to POC-wash a well established and popular epic." I can see how the original writing might be confusing, but the point is that if they wanted to make a fantasy series for the sake of a fantasy series with diversity, they should have just made their own instead of retooling an already well regarded work and trying to play on popularity built by someone else.


Modifications are always made when literary works are adapted to film, but they are necessary to make the story fit properly into the differing constraints of a movie or show. For instance, Tolkien's LOTR trilogy separates what happens with Frodo and Sam from what happens with everyone else in separate books in The Two Towers and The Return of The King. This really wouldn't work theatrically, and Jackson's movies shift between these story lines instead of keeping them separate. That was a necessary change. Tom Bombadil being cut entirely was necessary to keep The Fellowship of the Ring concise and smooth. Those changes and others served a purpose that was central to fitting Tolkien's literary work into films.

In Amazon's case, they made a lot of changes to the timeline to compress what happens on a timescale of hundreds of years to a few years or months depending on how everything plays out. That's a necessary change, and fine, because a long timescale like that is impossible to communicate on film when characters aren't supposed to age and you don't have a narrator giving backstory and signaling changes. Now, insisting on a diverse looking cast serves what purpose on that translation, exactly? It has nothing to do with the plot, character development, timing, or really anything at all. It's diversity introduced for the sake of diversity. That's an unnecessary, and it's bad. Had Amazon made an original work and started out with, "We want to tell a story of diversity in a fantasy epic format," and gone from there with writing, casting, etc, no one would care what the cast looked like.



Madmarttigan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

You do realize you sound like you would be against one black elf or dwarf even if he was the best actor for the part because it wouldn't fit your narrative of what an elf or dwarf should be. In your mind you would automatically assume it was for inclusion's sake and automatically hinder the story.

Have you ever considered that Wheel of Time just simply had a terrible screenplay? The inclusiveness was dumb but you can't prove that its failure was because of their woke focus. It is just a bad show that also happens to be woke and people love to blame wokeness for everything when the two are largely independent variables. Casting has nothing to do with screenplay, special effects, cinematography, directing and the numerous other failures of WoT.


Merely making a possible woke casting choice (which thus far is all LOTR has maybe done) does not hinder a shows story and quality unless it is a bad actor who didn't deserve it.

I have seen other points about the girl power scene in End Game which I understand. It was an actually a change in writing and story to accommodate a completely ridiculous scene. To call out an inclusive cast when the story remains intact with no changes is … well we know what it is but not gonna throw around the word.


The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't really give a **** about what you two are arguing over, but could you please stop quoting each other's posts? The **** is long enough as it is.
Life is better with a beagle
Quincey P. Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Liked the episode. I also enjoyed seeing Numenor. I'm assuming that ending kills all speculation about meteor man being Sauron.
aggietony2010
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can we all at least agree that the super slow mo horse riding scene was more cringeworthy than any casting decision? Holy crap who signed off on that.
The Dog Lord
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
***Theory/question time***

Is Halbrand supposed to be Sauron, or are they just trying to get us to think that? The few clues from this episode were him wanting to forge something, winning over the locals at the bar, saying his name depended on how well they new him (going by many names), and having a connection to the Southlands (he would be there new "king" eventually). Maybe they're just trying to make us wonder about this so they can surprise us later with someone else?
Quincey P. Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I assumed the fuzzy guy we see at the end is Sauron, but maybe I'm assuming too much.
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I just want to say that anybody complaining about skin tones in a world full of elves, dwarves, hobbits, harrfots, orcs, ect is so freaking weird. I havent read the books but have watched all 6 movies. If your imagination can accept all these make believe creatures but have a problem with skin tone i absolutely feel sorry for you. I hope one day you have the self realization about some of your insane comments. Your brain accepts eleves and dwarves and **** but cant accept a dark skin color? That is ****in weird.
Quincey P. Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I just want to say, can we stop beating the crap out of this dead horse? Everything has been said on it already, to include the concept in the last post.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quincey P. Morris said:

I assumed the fuzzy guy we see at the end is Sauron, but maybe I'm assuming too much.
There is a lot of speculation on the internet about Halbrand. I agree that the out of focus "Adar" was, at the very least, intended to make everyone think it was Sauron. I'm not sure who else it would be to get so much reverence from the orcs.

On Halbrand, though, We know that eventually Sauron ends up in Numenor to corrupt them into worshiping Morgoth. I mentioned in a previous post how I thought the sailing into the west seemed kind of ominous. Then lo and behold here's halbrand on a raft, willing to sacrifice his companions. For the record, I don't think so. I don't think there's any way Sauron would save an elf from drowning.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oh, and I'm curious about the final scene in numenor... "the elf has arrived"
swc93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Third episode is like a third date, its ****ing awesome.

Show for me officially has legs.
Quincey P. Morris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
redline248 said:

Oh, and I'm curious about the final scene in numenor... "the elf has arrived"


It may be pointless because obviously they're adding some things, but I'm still probably going to have to read up on Numenor some more this weekend and refresh my memory on things, at least in a general sense.
canadiaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Just finished the third episode. The Harfoot story is meh but the show has finally made a bit of a splash for me and I'm looking forward to more.

The show is best when the different groups interact. Elf/Dwarf, Human/elf, etc
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The time line for this show seems like it's way off from Tolkien Lore. So I guess that means anything we think we may know is not that useful. That's fine, as long as the show doesn't suck
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.