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

From there they detailed a bit of Isildur’s relationship with his sister claiming, “Isildur’s sister (Carine) doesn’t want Isildur joining the army. There is said to be one emotional scene where she chases Isildur through the Numenorean crowd yelling ‘Isil, isil, isilduurrr.'”

Uh....

Yeeey....So classic hysteric woman? Very Tolkien. Can hardly wait.

I bet she falls in love with Lenny Henry and they have loads of little hairy-footed kids with a fro and a Brummie accent. No wonder Uncle Isildur wants to join the army.

I fail to see what is objectionable about the mere idea of giving Isildur a sister. Isildur and Anárion each had at least four children (though we only know the name of Anárion's fourth-born; would people object to Amazon including the older three?), so there clearly wasn't a cultural norm against Númenórean aristocrats having large families. It's hardly a leap to suggest that Elendil had more than two kids, or that Amandil had more than one. And we know the family trees for the late Second Age are incomplete: Amandil, Elendil, Isildur, Anárion, Tar-Palantir, and Gimilkhâd all had legitimate children and thus must have had wives, but we have no information about any of them. Tolkien stated that the descendants of the Númenóreans preserved few records of their ancestral homeland—hence the paucity of information we have about it—but the TV show will be depicting events with immediacy, as they "happened." It would be weird for them not to include characters not found in the Akallabêth or the LOTR Appendices.

(I'm trying to be charitable and not assume the problem is solely that this original character is a sister, not a brother, despite my doubts.)

I was going to object up until the point that you mentioned we don't know the name of Isildur's wife. That definitely throws a light on what's missing.

{{ I think the problem is Eldy we all suspect we know why they decided to do this, and its not to fill in a possible blank in a family tree. Just as making Haroots Mouris's, Asians and African is not because Tolkien once described someones hand colour as brown. There seems to be a clear agenda afoot here to insert current cultural and social arguments into Tolkien where they dont belong. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ I think the problem is Eldy we all suspect we know why they decided to do this, and its not to fill in a possible blank in a family tree. Just as making Haroots Mouris's, Asians and African is not because Tolkien once described someones hand colour as brown. There seems to be a clear agenda afoot here to insert current cultural and social arguments into Tolkien where they dont belong. }}

We don't suspect it, we know why they did it. twitter

There is literally no way for them to make this series without making up original characters. The Second Age simply is not fleshed out enough in Tolkien's works. I'm trying to figure out what you guys want here: should there not be any original female characters in this series because that's dangerously woke? Is adding both male and female characters to the adaptation supposed to be contrary to the spirit of Tolkien? I don't think people actually want them to avoid original characters of any gender and try to create multiple seasons of television with like 20 named characters, total, most of whom have no "canonical" interactions, but maybe I'm misreading the room.

I don't really have anything to say about the racial angle that we haven't discussed a dozen times before. I would rather not see Hobbits in the show at all, mainly because I find them uninteresting compared to most of what we know about the Second Age. There are definitely more textually grounded ways to include characters of color, if in fact the showrunners considered this a goal in and of itself. But I think the pearl-clutching response to the idea of northwest Middle-earth as anything but uniformly white, which has been going continuously (on many different sites) since the day this adaptation was first rumored, says more about Tolkien fandom and its hangups than anything else.

{{ Tolkien was clearly writing a 'lost English mythology' set equally clearly in a version of NW Europe. The lay out is clear- Shire- England. Gondor- Italy. Easterlings and Wainriders- Russian steppes and Mongols. Haradrim- north Africa.
So there is clear scope for folk of different races- in their proper lands and places. Multicutural hobbits makes no sense. Tolkien based everything on the languages, how does that work with Mouri, Black and Asian hobbits? Why then is their culture clearly based on white England of Tolkiens youth?
And for that matter why cant white people keep their own stories? If this was based on an African folktale or myth I wouldnt be happy to see it cast with white folks either. Its appropriation.

But mainly I think it undermines the story telling and suspension of disbelief. Just as I think elves at Helms Deep undermines what Tolkien wrote. Doesn't make me anti-elvish. It just doesn't fit or work or make sense.

Of course there is scope for adding in characters. Thats not whats in question. The questions are why these characters in this way and to what purpose? Whats the point of multi-race hobbits? What is so wrong about hobbits being white that it couldn't stand and had to be changed? PJ's films went down well with folk all over the world. Ive never seen a black reactor watching them unable to enjoy or relate to them because no one is black. The themes are universal. But the particulars are not. They are European. And until very recently northern Europe was 99.9% white (a lot of it still is).

Figgs is right when she says LotR is a northern European based myth, it is. Filling it full of other peoples cultures just to show how diverse they are is weak reason for doing so, and I can see no other justification for why they are doing so than virtue signalling. It doesnt make sense in the confines of the setting, the movement of peoples or language or the fact their culture is clearly English and white (and in the case of the main hobbits in Tolkien middle to upper class bar Sam- a class system that is itself intrinsically English and white).

And the concern is they use these multi cultural intrusions as a premise to add in current day social issues and commentary. And they just dont belong in Tolkien. I'm as equally annoyed and find offensive the notion it might have nudity and sex too. Doesnt mean I dont like sex! It just doesn't belong here.}}

I'm on record as being fine with the show diverging from its source material in various ways, including adding sexuality (though it seems highly unlikely they'll go as far as I would), so there's not much I can say to most of your post. I understand and respect that some people put a lot of stock in the idea of fidelity to the text. Real old-timers may remember I used to be the loudest voice advocating for that position in this community, before Petty stole my thunder (and my feelings later shifted).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And for that matter why cant white people keep their own stories?

I disagree with the notion that Tolkien being inspired by northwest Europe means the legendarium belongs to white people in any way that makes it "theirs".

Filling it full of other peoples cultures just to show how diverse they are is weak reason for doing so, and I can see no other justification for why they are doing so than virtue signalling.

I know nothing about the writers, casting directors, etc for the show, so I'm not going to speculate on their motivations. But plenty of people enjoy reading and writing ethnically and culturally diverse stories set in Middle-earth just because they enjoy stories with ethnic and cultural diversity, regardless of what other people think of them for it.

{{ I am not saying it 'belongs to white people' as I said above (though in an edit so you may have missed it- the themes are universal, but not the particulars) but it is about white people. Its not that it belongs to anyone, but its set in white culture, its full of white cultural history and tropes- the Rohirrim are Anglo-Saxons who were white. Their culture and language only makes narrative sense and has cohesion in the world building within that context. It undermines the credibility of the story telling and world building so make arbitrary changes just for the sake of them. And for me this is true of multicultural hobbits even  more so as more than any other people they are clearly white English of Tolkiens time in culture, mannerisms, societal structure, everything.

Though there is a secondary argument that as Tolkiens explicit aim in writing the stories was to make up for lost myths and legends of the white English people of England it is 'theirs' by design. Meant to replace something lost by English culture.

And folk are free to write any fanfaction they like based in ME with whatever type of folks they like- but its not what Tolkien was writing about. And this is supposed to be an adaptation of his work, not fan ficton.}}

I'm not sure what "their stories" is supposed to mean other than implying that they belong to a group, but okay.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:And folk are free to write any fanfaction they like based in ME with whatever type of folks they like- but its not what Tolkien was writing about. And this is supposed to be an adaptation of his work, not fan ficton.

I really do not care if the series is "about" different things than the books. I might still care if this was an adaptation of one of Tolkien's finished stories, but it's not—as people are fond of complaining about, this will, by necessity, mostly be original material—so I say have at it!

More importantly, I wanted to respond to the idea that the only "justification" for diverse stories is to improve one's reputation by reading or writing them, with the implication that the people doing so don't care about anything else. I am sick and fucking tired of being told I'm not a real Tolkien fan because I don't share people's distaste for Amazon's casting (or the idea that Amazon might cast actors of color, since this has been going on since before anything was confirmed). I know you're not saying that, but I am by now automatically suspicious of the phrase "virtue signaling".

{{ I just cant see a sensible 'in-world' reason for multicultural hobbits. I don't see what it adds but I do see what it takes away - the world building, the believability, the premise of languages Tolkien built everything on and their movement with peoples through time and the world, the culture of hobbits which is inherently English and white.
What does it add beyond- 'look we've made it multi-cultural'? Is that not the definition of virtue signalling. Doing it just for the sake of being able to say you have? And I just dont think that as a reason is justification enough on its own to warrant undermining the rest. It s not like these Harfoots are suddenly going to be unlike all the hobbits we know and suddenly do maori hakas and have African or Asian traditions to explore or they won't seem or feel like hobbits- they will still be effectively English, only now with a huge disconnect between culture and appearance.}}

{{ Should add its also unnecessary as the setting and stories of that time already provide lots of scope for actors of different races- if they cover Numenor empire building then we will have Umbar and Haradrim. If they cover who the Nine were then we have Haradrim, Numenoreons and Easterlings. There is no need to make hobbits multicultural on top of that. Theres plenty room and scope already for them to work within Tolkiens world, not reorder it.

edit add- it also risks looking like they are saying you can have black culture with Harardim, you can have Asian culture with Easterlings, but you cant have any white culture we're taking that alone away and making it multicultural.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:What does it add beyond- 'look we've made it multi-cultural'? Is that not the definition of virtue signalling.

If the showrunners' motivation for casting actors of color is to make others think they're good people, then the accusation of virtue signaling would have at least some merit. (As noted above, I don't know if this is their motivation, but I do know people will accuse them of it no matter what.) I would agree that casting actors of color but otherwise changing absolutely nothing from other depictions of Hobbits could be circumstantial evidence that the showrunners' motivation is primarily about reputation, but I would not go so far as to call it proof. I'd like to think the show will do something new and intriguing with Hobbits since it's set so far in the past (I'd want that regardless of the race aspect), but I suspect they've been included as a way to emphasize the show's connection to LOTR, so I'm not optimistic.

I agree there are many more intuitive alternatives for including characters of color. I would be far more interested in exploring cultures outside northwest Middle-earth than in revisiting Hobbits. The scale of the Númenórean Empire in the late Second Age, and the movement of peoples that empires often enable, also opens up the possibility of a racially diverse Númenor. That's not the same as an egalitarian Númenor: Tolkien wrote Númenor as an oppressive colonial empire engaged in environmental destruction (UT, Galadriel and Celeborn, Appendix D), ethnic cleansing (HoMe XII, "Tal-Elmar"), and eventually slavery (TS, Akallabêth). I would have serious reservations with any depiction of Númenor that does not grapple with its massive shittiness, unless it's an alternate universe story charting a course completely detached from canon. There is, however, comfortably room within a canon-adjacent Middle-earth for non-shitty societies in the east and south of the world, independent of both Númenor and Mordor.

{{ I am slightly worried about how they will convey the Empire aspect. Numenor didnt start out coming to ME to conquer or subjugate, though in many instances they ended up doing just that as you point out, and after Saurons influence it was deliberate and desired. But I hope they also show the good and the bad of Empire, in much he same way the British Empire set forth with the best of intentions from their perspective- not to subjugate or force conformity to British culture, but to give all people what they saw as the equivalent of human rights of their day- law, fair trials, individual freedom and 'modern' infrastructre to uphold it all- transport, police, courts etc. They didnt ban other religions, they didnt stop or prevent local cultures, though they did challenge any parts they felt were not in line with their Judeo-Christian view that they saw as the good they were doing (such as the case of the Indian tradition of widow burning to which the British governor responded by saying that if it was their tradition to burn widows alive then the British would not stop them doing it, but they would have to permit that the British were equally allowed to likewise follow their customs and traditions of hanging men who burned women alive. Widow burning soon after died out entirely as a tradition). My fear is that they go don the simple and false route of 'empire is bad' or worse conflate it with commentary on modern events like Afghanistan or Iraq where modern nation building was attempted, which is quite a different thing from empire altogether. How nuanced they make it will be the deal breaker for me on the Numenoreon empire front. Plus nuance is just dramatically more interesting than just Empire bad messaging which is boring as well as intellectually devoid of real substance or comment.

ps it so good to have you back and engaged in some debate, even if on a somewhat contentious matter, that Im inclined to keep it going as long as I can, but as its 2.44am and Im supposed to be at work at 7 I may have to retire for the moment and hope you'll still be here tomorrow. I don't lose my precious sleep time for any old lass you know but its worth it in your case to have you back.}}

At some point Tolkien will go the way of Shakespeare and people will be quite content to see a black Aragorn and Numenorians wearing German shorts and suspenders, or what have you because most of it will be seen as universal with a few culturally specific holdovers that people are willing to ignore.

Though I'd feel more comfortable seeing actors that align with the images currently engraved in my brain, I also think there's a lot to be said for picking the best actor for the role regardless of race.  If that is what they do then they'd get a full pass from me.  If they are trying to be diverse just for the sake of being diverse then it's somewhat annoying but acceptable if the actors do indeed still fit the roles.   It's if the quality suffers for the sake of diversity then it's a problem.

If it's well written and well acted, I think any present complaints about not fitting the vision of how the cast should look will quickly fade.

As always, the onus lies on those who would change things to explain why they wish to do so. And not on the expectant crowd to defend themselves against accusations of racism and sexism when they are presented with something unexpected.

The simple reality is that a cultural phenomenon in Western societies is busily working to value creative projects more highly than they otherwise would if they concern, or involve, non-Europeans.
I see this in tabletop RPGs, I see it in my local Shakespeare theater, I see it in awards shows, I see it amongst friends and relatives, and I now see it in the casting and writing choices for the new Amazon show.
Heck, there's a fucking flag that codifies this idea.

It is morally wrong and fake, and has the undesirable secondary effect of devaluing creative projects that simply involve non-Europeans in general, as a backlash against the movement. I do my best to stifle down these thoughts when inappropriate, but it will take an excellent first season of the show to convince me that this trophy-hunting effect is not happening here.

The thing that annoys me with a lot of this stuff in both fiction and non-fiction is that the "diversity" seems to come at the expense of something else... like replacing a white character with a black one, or straight with homosexual.

What annoys me about that is that it suggests that these demographics of people don't have their own story or place in history, or that they are so boring and/or beneath the rest that they are not worth telling.

Stop ticking the box by making Queen Elizabeth Black and make a fucking thing that is actually about someone who wasn't white. Africa, the Middle East, India, South East Asia... all of them had plenty of people creating interesting history while white people were just getting started, and plenty since then.

The same can be done in fiction and particularly Tolkien. We know there was a lot of cultural mixing in certain parts of the world. Let's see how that could play out.

^What he said.

Imagine if you will someone making a film adaptation about the sacking of the island of Lindisfarne and the hiding of the Lindisfarne Gospels. One of the greatest Anglo-Saxon/Celtic work of art ever made. It 'belongs' to a certain people, it belongs to a certain race and culture, it belongs to a white culture. Now imagine in this film that the director has been instructed to make it 'diverse' due to societal pressure, so that some of the raiding Vikings are Afro-Americans, and that some of the monks are women and Chinese. I think that Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Viking races should be allowed to have their own history without interference and apology. No doubt some bright spark would say, "why cant the monks be women" why cant the Vikings be Mouri, we demand diversity". Well for the first case its not historically correct, its insulting and its distracting, it misrepresents and it panders to the loud voices on twitter demanding Black Elves. I don't have to apologise for my race and I want my history and culture represented in a respectful way. History is hard enough to understand without adding ridiculous elements, and it confuses children learning this stuff. That's why Anne Boleyn is not from the Caribbean, and Hobbits are not Nigerian. But on the other hand if its done well, considering, in Robin Hood a typical Northern European myth there is a Black guy, it was done well in the Kevin Costner film, his friend a Moor who he met on the Crusades, perfectly reasonable and done with the right intentions. It was a great success, it added to the story of Robin being exiled and connected to King Richard. But that was a time before identity politics had infiltrated everything.

{{ The pretty much nicked the Moor bit from Robin of Sherwood the tv series which was the first to introduce a foreign character into the Merry Men via the character Nasir who was a Saracen captured in Palestine during the Crusade and brought back as henchman by an English Baron. They made it something that not only fitted the historic period but also used the character to expand narratives and story in a way which complemented the original Hood tales rather than compromised them. A great example of doing it right.
Actually that film nicked quite a lot from the tv series, including how the Sherriff acts only they dialled it up to a million for comedy effect turning the original brilliant portrayal by Nikolas Grace into parody.

Problem here is black, asian and mouri hobbits don't naturally fit into the history or stories of ME and I struggle to see what it adds to the narrative of hobbits as we know them in Tolkiens work or what purpose it serves. }}

I agree, those two examples added to the richness of the story and nobody thought "uh-oh, they plonked the Moor in to appease the offended on twitter", they put the Moor in to make it fresh, interesting and was historically at least feasible. The difference now is that we know why a Moor or any other incongruous personage has been added to any story. As in Who, its glaringly obvious why, as there is a clear agenda and it doesn't do the story any favours. Its one thing to make the Bridgerton show which was unashamedly marketed as multi-racial and boundary challenging take on Regency Romance, and quite another to use Tolkien, a classic of English Anglo-Saxon literature and turn it into another Game of Thrones which had a lot of cultures ranging from desert Arabic, to North African looking peoples.

What about an unashamedly marketed multi-racial and boundary challenging take on classic English Anglo-Saxon fantasy literature?

Because that's all it would be, marketing. Shallow, cynical and would do nothing for the story.