Amazon, Warner Bros in Talks for LOTR Series Adaptation: Variety

Mrs Figg wrote:If you find brown people in the snowy North it looks odd, not because it couldn't happen or shouldn't happen, its just you don't expect brown Vikings or Wildings and because they stand out it takes you out of the moment as you wonder how they got there.

Because people travel around, and neither historical Northern Europe nor fictional northwest Middle-earth were devoid of non-white people.

Mrs Figg wrote:There is no harm in expecting a tale about Northern Europe to have only white people in it, and I don't see why we should apologize for wanting just white people in it.

Even if you're not opposed to an all-white cast, why would it be something to actively want?

Because people travel around, and neither historical Northern Europe nor fictional northwest Middle-earth were devoid of non-white people.- Eldy

{{Devoid no, at least not all the time, but rare- yes, very rare at some times. So rare that the appearance of such a person would raise eyebrows, be a source of curiosity and in a narrative require some explanation (hell this was true when the US Navy were here when I was a kid because for most locals black American sailors were the only real black people they had ever seen or met outside a tv or cinema screen- and that was the 1970's let alone say 4,000bc when we were sticking stone circles up everywhere.)
When people of colour are presented in such time frames and just presented as if a common feature of society excepted as such by everyone as an accepted unexceptional bit of society its weird.

'why would it be something to actively want?'

Perhaps, though not presuming to answer for Figg, perhaps because they want proper representation, not skewed representation in pursuit of an agenda that exists outside the narrative being told.
For example in the opening Who episode, going on the people we see in it, the ethnic population of Sheffield Enlgand is about 90% ethnic and about 10% white, going on the casting- almost every secondary character we meet in Sheffield is from an ethnic minority. Now what colour they are has absolutely no bearing on the script or events, but its not representational in any way of Sheffield-

'The census found the racial and ethnic composition of Sheffield to be: 84% White (81% White British, 0.5% White Irish, 0.1% Gypsy or Irish Traveller, 2.3% other white) 8% Asian (4% Pakistani, 1.3% Chinese, 1.1% Indian, 0.6% Bangladeshi, 1.0% other Asian) 3.6% Black (2.1% African, 1% Caribbean, 0.5% other black'

Based on the actual make up of Sheffield the chances the narrative of the episode would have affected almost solely people who were from an ethnic background and not white people is quite low (8% at best)- yet what we see represented on screen as Sheffield, England is the exact opposite of this with whites closer to the 8% figure and ethic represented at close to the real figure for whites! There is barely a white face on display, and when it is, its old and quickly killed off!

Is this representational? Is this an accurate way to represent people honestly and fairly? Because there are actors who did not get a bit part in Who because they were white, and being white didn't fit into the agenda of diversity casting at the BBC. Diversity casting that is done in the face of the statistics about our actual diversity in the UK.

By the same token if I watching a film based on the history of the Zulu people I dont expect the film-makers to make half the Zulu tribe white for the sake of diversity casting. It would be stupid. And whilst you could argue there might be some historical incident somewhere recording a Zulu woman having a white child it would be exceptional enough to require narrative explanation- you'd not just have white folk there as if it hat was normal and the rest of the Zulus just accepting it without question or raised eyebrow.
There is no real difference however to doing this than changing the ethnic make up of Sheffield to be reflective of a political aim and agenda not actual reality. Burt somehow most folk would think half the Zulus being white would be unrepresentative of the Zulu people, but they think nothing of a majority white population being replaced on screen with an ethnic majority one. And if you point the fact out you get slapped racist and told its a good thing!

Now just to be clear I am all for characters of colour, different backgrounds, class, mental health conditions, disabilities and any gender or colour you please- but within its proper context, within a story where it makes sense. Being very careful of the ethnic casting of Dune makes sense because the ethnic make up of the various people, the thousands of years of Bene Gesserit breeding programs across those groups is a core part of the narrative and world- diversity there is not a slap in addition, not a shoe horned in agenda for the sake of it being there- its core to the narrative being told.
By the same token Aragorn in Harad makes sense for there to be majority people who are not white obviously, narratively fine, make half the Rohirrim ethnic for the sake of diversity and that's not what Tolkien wrote. It would not feel authentic.


edit add- by same token I felt same way about Pj chickening out for pc reasons of casting black actors to play the Haradrim. As he did not want to be accused of black=evil people. But its not only a mistaken reading of Tolkien to do so, its unauthentic feeling for me and took me out the film when the Haradrim show up clearly not from Harad as Tolkien describes it.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:make half the Rohirrim ethnic for the sake of diversity and that's not what Tolkien wrote. It would not feel authentic.

If only there were options other than this and there being no non-white people at all in northwest Middle-earth, which is what the post I responded to was about.

Eldy wrote:
Because people travel around, and neither historical Northern Europe...devoid of non-white people.

Well in fairness, not everyone travels around, vast parts of modern day Europe are still entirely devoid of non-white people, looking at my own secondary (high) school there were maybe nine or ten ethnic minority students out of roughly 400 students in my year, and the three nearest cities to me are still about 90-95% white British, even today it's possible to live your entire life in Europe and never encounter a non-white person. I don't want to get into some unnecessary long-winded political discussion about demographics etc, but the multi-cultural UK/europe we have today is a fairly recent thing (unlike say the USA which has been a mixtures of cultures since the country was founded) and I think it's worth remembering that, Tolkien grew up and lived in a very different England and his writing reflects that.

E.g. I remember reading a statistic that during WW2 out of some 4 million total UK armed forces personal that served during the conflict, proportional roughly 7,000 would have been likely to come from a non-white background, for reference over 100,000 African American servicemen were stationed in the UK during WW2.

malickfan wrote:Well in fairness, not everyone travels around, vast parts of modern day Europe are still entirely devoid of non-white people, looking at my own secondary (high) school there were maybe nine or ten ethnic minority students out of roughly 400 students in my year, and the three nearest cities to me are still about 90-95% white British, even today it's possible to live your entire life in Europe and never encounter a non-white person.

I guess I have to update one of my posts on the previous page:

Eldy wrote:The other main point is that fiction, by its nature, is made up. Stories almost constantly diverge from "realism" in a multitude of ways. Even if a particular situation was actually uncommon in a given historical context, the inevitable argument that it shouldn't be the focus of stories (not that this variant of the argument has occurred here yet) fails as soon as you consider all the ways in which protagonists and other major characters are exceptional, since that is often what makes them interesting to audiences in the first place.

{{The problem Eldy is never generally in intention but usually execution.

Take Bree. Now it actually makes sense to me that you might find one or two faces there that were not white northern European, but at the time of LotR's such a small genetic drop in the local pool would be much watered down and merged with the locals. So rather you'd get people who would look, to use that great word again, swarthy.
And given I agree with Dave about the tanned leathered look to outdoor folks (besides the occasional black navy personally the brownest adult I knew was white, but he had been raised on a farm and worked as a hill-sheep  shepherd his entire life, he was permanently a deep rich brown, but weather-beaten like old leather. So in Bree I envision the majority look of the inhabitants of being fairly dark, not necessarily through race but as a consequence of location, life style and race- including the possibility that in older times travellers of more than one race made it up the Greenway in trade or the spirit of adventure. But by Frodo's time the genetic mix and the browning from a more outdoor life would make incomers and natives hard to distinguish on skin colour alone if not impossible. More likely it would be in more nuanced differences, a family with a particular bent for thick dark tightly curled hair perhaps, or a slight difference in eye shape or jaw structure, something probably rather subtle.

Largely for the same reason I think this should be true of Dale, which was at one point the most Northerly point in an export/import trade route down the entire length of the Great River to Gondor and so to its trade and political/social connections with Harad.

But its not usually thought out like this, what they normally do is check some statistics on demographics, worry about twitter responses and offending different groups and they alter stuff to accommodate these viewpoints, even often at the expensive of the narrative or characters or stretching plausibility. Or they do something utterly token that is equally out of place, like make half the background extras no matter where the scene is set ethnic, usually in order solely to meet some internal quota on the hiring of ethnic groups, done in turn not out of a spirit of helping anyone but of a desire by the Corporation making the thing to cover their arse and so they can then claim they are a diverse hirer and caster. And it is when its done like that, clumsily, feeling shoehorned in for the sake of being there and no other, or just to appease a particularly vocal group of the moment, or to meet a hiring quota - that is where it starts to annoy people and get their goat and spark their crabbit!   }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:feeling shoehorned in for the sake of being there and no other ... that is where it starts to annoy people

Yeah, I realize that some people get annoyed by the idea that representation and diversity are desirable in and of themselves.

I think this is one of those discussions that will remain fruitless, as even the best-worded arguments stand no chance of convincing someone on the other "side" of a disagreement over such a fundamental presupposition. This sort of thing always results in people talking past each other because there's no common frame of reference to start with. No one's to blame for that, but you practically have two different conversations going on--sorta like what happened in movie debates when someone who rejected the idea that adaptations should be faithful stumbled across this place.

I realize that some people get annoyed by the idea that representation and diversity are desirable in and of themselves.- Eldy

{{You see that the sort of slightly snarky remark that does not help the debate. Of course they are desirable in and of themselves.

But that desire does not excuse sloppy writing, dubious motives for doing so, shoe-horning stuff in where it has no narrative purpose or point to be being other than to be there as a show of being there, and where it may even dilute the work by being inappropriately applied, it does not excuse preaching at your audience, patronising them or talking down to them- all common complaints when the decision to put the desirability of representation and diversity before all else overrides all else. }}

I wasn't trying to be snarky and I'm honestly not sure why you're objecting now when the last page-ish of this thread has seen repeated statements against the idea of diverse casting "for the sake of being PC", "for the sake of diversity and appeasing SJWs", etc.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Shoe horning it into an Aragorn story and letting it dominate the narrative as it has done in so many other franchises by being done badly ... is not being representational, its just mucking up a story for the sake of being pc.

Lorient Avandi wrote:Petty has a point in that there is a difference between an accurate, respectful representation of other peoples/cultures where they fit into a narrative naturally, and shoehorned diversity for the sake of diversity and appeasing SJWs.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:There are plenty of current or ongoing examples of where attempts to force diversity into programs, formats, stories or narratives has had a negative effect on the overall product and quality of it. The fear is that diversity is included not to serve the purposes of the narrative better, but just as a show of being representative,of being pc.

Mrs Figg wrote:its not being racist, its just 21st century over-sensitivities which demand that in every single film or tv show every single race be represented, which is fuqing annoying.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:diversity there is not a slap in addition, not a shoe horned in agenda for the sake of it being there- its core to the narrative being told.

I reject the idea that there needs to be a reason for diverse casting. It does not have to serve a particular narrative need. It does not have to be in a certain type of story. It does not have to be in accordance with strict historical plausibility. I am on board with diversity being an "agenda" that I'd like to see as a general rule, not just if a project fits some criteria, and not limited by the size of ethnic minorities as a percentage of the general population. Other people feel differently and do want certain criteria to be met by a show or movie with diverse casting, rather than seeing it everywhere. As noted above, I think this makes it unlikely this discussion will avoid continuing to go in circles, so I will recuse myself instead of continuing to be a nuisance.

I reject the idea that there needs to be a reason for diverse casting. It does not have to serve a particular narrative need. It does not have to be in a certain type of story. It does not have to be in accordance with strict historical plausibility. - Eldy


{{So for you, to use my earlier example, in a film in which all the historical details were as broadly possible accurate, about the Zulu nation, you'd be fine with all the Zulus being played by actors who were white Europeans, Chinese, and Indians then? As that would certainly be diverse casting for Zulus!

I am just trying to understand if your position is that diversity in casting should be included as a default position regardless of all other considerations? Because that is what it sounds to me like you are saying here. }}}

Just my opinion, but I'd say that considering the extent to which race discussions seem to dominate  all the news feeds in both North America and Europe these days (can't speak for Asia), the  discussion of race and diversity casting in films is probably going to be happening for several more years. Same thing was happening in the 60's and 70's, which gave us some movies that are REALLY AWKWARD today

Honestly, I don't think at this time the producers have any choice but to address diversity if they're hoping to ensure the financial success of a film, and then it falls to to the writers and directors to make it fit as seamlessly as possible within the story they've been asked to tell. And mistakes will be made and more awkward movies will follow....

Wouldn't mind a partial list of those really awkward films from the 60s and 70s, Dave.

Eldy wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:If you find brown people in the snowy North it looks odd, not because it couldn't happen or shouldn't happen, its just you don't expect brown Vikings or Wildings and because they stand out it takes you out of the moment as you wonder how they got there.

Because people travel around, and neither historical Northern Europe nor fictional northwest Middle-earth were devoid of non-white people.

Mrs Figg wrote:There is no harm in expecting a tale about Northern Europe to have only white people in it, and I don't see why we should apologize for wanting just white people in it.

Even if you're not opposed to an all-white cast, why would it be something to actively want?

Would you ask that a white person be cast for a story about indigenous tribe of Massai herdsmen just because a white man could have travelled from Timbuktoo and settled there?

halfwise wrote:Wouldn't mind a partial list of those really awkward films from the 60s and 70s, Dave.

Well for starters, how long has it been since you watched "Silver Streak"?  

And then there's the whole Blaxploitation film debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEURNrGxKQw

Wikipedia wrote:The genre's role in exploring and shaping race relations in the US has been controversial. Some held that the blaxploitation trend was a token of black empowerment,[11] but others accused the movies of perpetuating common white stereotypes about black people. As a result, many called for the end of the genre. The NAACP, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and National Urban League joined to form the Coalition Against Blaxploitation. Their influence in the late 1970s contributed to the genre's demise. Literary critic Addison Gayle wrote in 1974, "The best example of this kind of nihilism / irresponsibility are the Black films; here is freedom pushed to its most ridiculous limits; here are writers and actors who claim that freedom for the artist entails exploitation of the very people to whom they owe their artistic existence."

Start with "Shaft" and then go as deep down the pulp rabbit hole as you like...

Ah yes, the blaxploitation oeuvre. To be viewed with a cultivated air of refinement as a study in cultural crosscurrents and what-the-fuckitude.

Yeah, I realize that some people get annoyed by the idea that representation and diversity are desirable in and of themselves. -Eldy

Often I get annoyed by the way those words are used as political catch-phrases. The whole thing feels like it started somewhere with a good foundation, and then sped out of control, to the point that I suspect the use of these words.

It seems like a lot of these arguments break down to mean that: Representation actually means representing non-white people in popular media. And Diversity means changing all-white groups into not-all-white groups so that said group is better than it used to be. Diversity does not mean diversifying a mono-ethnic group of people by bringing in other groups, unless those other groups are not white. If white people are introduced into a mono-ethnic group, the white people are usually acting as White Saviours and that is bad.

It's like some convoluted way of apologizing for how every white person has been deeply racist up until the invention of Twitter.

I don't enjoy talking about these things. Describing "white" and "black" people makes me uncomfortable because of how much politicized noise surrounds these terms. And besides, the words are exaggeratory and unrealistic if taken literally: there is not and has never been a person with naturally "white" or "black"-skin, only skin a shade of brown. That's a minor quibble, but I guess it's part of why I don't like these terms very much.

halfwise wrote:Ah yes, the blaxploitation oeuvre.  To be viewed with a cultivated air of refinement as a study in cultural crosscurrents and what-the-fuckitude.

Cheers to what-the-fuckitude!

Forest Shepherd wrote: Describing "white" and "black" people makes me uncomfortable.... there is not and has never been a person with naturally "white" or "black"-skin, only skin a shade of brown.

Is there anybody else here who self-identifies as grey?

So..ummm….this is a thing:

https://twitter.com/LOTRonPrime/status/1097495925163868162/photo/1

Calenardhon? I'd bet no Aragorn.

It'll take more than a little name on a map to convince me that the show that has been presented as a Young Aragorn show is not going to be about young Aragorn.

Something for everyone:

There is the truth.

There is our own personal perception of truth.

There is our own personal interpretation of the truth.

There is someone else's personal perception of the truth.

There is someone else's personal interpretation of the truth.


We tend to only focus on that 'our' truth must be the right one, without considering that to others we are the someone else.

Wanting things to be 'true' can colour our perception.

Oddly enough I think it's a recurring theme in Tolkien's works. In many ways his adaptation of his life experiences in the form of his writing was a deliberate stance on showing how desires, hopes and dreams shape your own personal reality. You could even say the entire creation of Middle Earth was in the mind of a broken soldier, dying in a far off land.

Edit to add: There are too many 'if's' for this new venture. The main thing for me is that I know the end already. How he gets to that point, sure it could be interesting but I doubt it. All the persons we know from the books we love or love to hate because of the depth of character Tolkien created for them, the way he wove the threads together. For this to have any emotional connection for the viewer we'd need that same level of creation in new characters, which takes time. I know I won't care for any of them characters that I don't already know, they will either die or leave and never be seen again - otherwise we would have read about them... - unless they are going for a total reboot of LotRs and are setting up some new history. In anycase time is not in the actors favour.

Actually knowing the story before hand doesn't do all that much damage. For those in the know, it only hurt the Lord of the Rings films when it deviated from what we already knew!

As for knowing the ending but no the in-between parts, I'm reminded of Columbo. In that series you see the murder being committed right from the start, the fun is how the hero figures it out. We already know Aragorn plays a prominent role in both Rohan and Gondor, but how does he rise from a nobody to those positions? There's plenty to work with.

Remember watching Robin Hood Prince of Bad Accents in the 80s or whenever it was. Morgan Freeman as the Moorish warrior was pretty cool and thought-provoking. He was tootling round Northern England an exotic juxtaposition to the green and wild landscape. But it worked, because being pc wasn't a 'thing' then, it wasn't political messaging or Diversity, or quotas or woke, it was just a damn entertaining story about two dudes coming back from the Crusades, a bit traumatized but loyal friends. If they did that story these days, it wouldn't be about the story, the first thing you would think is 'I know why that Muslim dude is in the story'. maybe we are all sadly more aware of these things and have lost our simple story-telling ability. But I preferred it when there wasn't a political message in everything.

btw I watched half of Black Panther before realizing it wasn't a parody of African people. They were actually being serious.

Oh I don't know about that particular example. I've never felt that Morgan Freeman was included in a movie for any reason but that he's a great actor and is fun to watch.