Lord of the Rings on Prime

[Radhruin_EU]

If Amazon actually tried to do 2000 PJ's version of LotR now in 2022 It would fail misserably, they're not dumb enough to lose money from a larger audience just to make happy 5 or 10 conservative LotR fans.

No, mate, in my experience most people don't give a damn about that stuff. Just because some people float around in a bubble doesn't mean we all do. You can see perfectly well from all the fuss there's been about RoP that there are way more LOTR fans who like it the way it is than anyone had counted on. When something's purposely archaic people get that and don't expect it to look like the modern world.

Projecting overtly modern values onto past times always rings false. You might want to do that with a stage-play or an art-house film to make a point by contrast but that's niche and the mass-market audience is a wholly different matter,

[LagunaD2]

Projecting overtly modern values onto past times always rings false. You might want to do that with a stage-play or an art-house film to make a point by contrast but that's niche and the mass-market audience is a wholly different matter,

It depends.



But the cognitive dissonance of having the leaders of a slave-holding society played by people who look like those they enslaved is part of the intended message of Hamilton, rather than tacked on by some no-name who thinks they know better than the original author.

[Radhruin_EU]

It depends.

Which was why I mentioned doing stuff like that on stage to make a point. Plenty of other examples of that. But there's a huge difference between that and gimmicky forced representation that has no real point to make and is solely there as a marketing ploy,

[miriadel]

Cirdan confirmed woooooo!!!!

https://time.com/6205027/cirdan-the-...ower-season-2/

[Aranaan]

So, in your conception of things, giving rights to black people in the US was a bad move because almost half of the population was incredible racist and didn't agree with that at that moment in time?

In fact KK K was born the next day after the US goverment gave all citizenship rights to black people. So, does it mean that black peoples' rights should go into a trashbin?



Besides that, "Being and Time" argument and Deconstruction is indisputable at this point.

Mainly because logic supports it, and since logic is the science of what's real, it should be taken as face value. We Westerners used to believe that everything was built on "trascendental meaning" and binarisms because we were dumb and deluded by our own language and social constructions, and now we know that opposite binarisms are just ways in which our lazy subjectivity tries to create meaning on things "men as the opposite of women" or "women as the opposite of men", etc, to organize them.

Now, if you actually believe that trascendental meaning and binarisms actually exist, as many people do, well, you should go a grab a book and educate yourself on XX century logic, ontology & epistemology.

I see you didnt understand anything I wrote and decided to attack me as a person instead and in the progress add opinions about my person, that Im not.
And doing so, you also turn the discussion into other topics, fitting your arguments.

You are the perfect example of the woke/cancel generation.
Fanatics with a agenda and no ears to other opinions. Most of you manage to give people another opinion than they have expressed.

[TesalionLortus]

I see you didnt understand anything I wrote and decided to attack me as a person instead and in the progress add opinions about my person, that Im not.
And doing so, you also turn the discussion into other topics, fitting your arguments.

You are the perfect example of the woke/cancel generation.

It's especially telling how quick they were to engage you and some others with pseudo-intellectual jargon (lots of difficult words and academic terms that seem like they might be onto something - and indeed that's how they feel, like they are onto something and we're just ignorant or stupid - but they're just smoke screen, nothing more, no substance there). At the same time, they ignored my longer response to their narrative behind RoP's handling that they preach, which pretty much exposed their entire line of thinking as flawed and utterly hypocritical regarding RoP. Run into it time and time again - when constructively exposed, they don't even try to frame it as if you were a bad person, they're just at a loss for words so they ignore you... or block you... since this function on social media has turned into a 21st century's nightmare, an excuse to shut oneself off from the world of other POVs (not just sexual harassers, actual rude persons and actual trolls, which was the original purpose) and the world normalized it in the last decade or so, like it's nothing, a normalcy. So then they stay in their own echo chambers in perpetuity and the level of insanity we're in increases. That's why you can't win nor convince them of anything.

In fact you can deconstruct the argument of those people that do virtue signalling by exposing the oppositions within their own discourse, but many people won't do that because they're afraid of being exposed or criticized. They're cowards basically.

So let it sink in and how ironic this one sounds. Not sure if what I'm doing (or anyone else for that matter) is virtue signaling in your mind or not, doesn't matter, but I'm not a coward and I'm ready to be exposed or criticized if viable. Are you?

[TesalionLortus]

You can see perfectly well from all the fuss there's been about RoP that there are way more LOTR fans who like it the way it is than anyone had counted on. When something's purposely archaic people get that and don't expect it to look like the modern world.

It's worth adding: doesn't even need to be "purposely archaic" and, for real, only LGBT/gay kind of signaling would have been inappropriate here in terms of canon (and who Tolkien was as a person/traditionalist). But representation of all kinds? Struggles that can be reminiscent of some SJW ones of our world, with characters that could become icons and inspiration? Perfectly doable, just... in different places, with different lands, in different configurations, with different (or better explained) characters, with different plots... something I was really excited about, actually, if they approached it in constructive manner. So why not, what was so hard? There was nothing overly hard about it, they're just insane, plain and simple.

[Radhruin_EU]

It's worth adding: doesn't even need to be "purposely archaic" and, for real, only LGBT/gay kind of signaling would have been inappropriate here in terms of canon (and who Tolkien was as a person/traditionalist). But representation of all kinds? Struggles that can be reminiscent of some SJW ones of our world, with characters that could become icons and inspiration? Perfectly doable, just... in different places, with different lands, in different configurations, with different (or better explained) characters, with different plots... something I was really excited about, actually, if they approached it in constructive manner. So why not, what was so hard? There was nothing overly hard about it, they're just insane, plain and simple.

Or just lazy, which is how I'd read it. Doing it properly would take actual work and proper writing. A box-ticking exercise is a lot easier.

[TesalionLortus]

Or just lazy, which is how I'd read it. Doing it properly would take actual work and proper writing. A box-ticking exercise is a lot easier.

Depends on who you hire too though. If they hired me I would go insane from all the box-ticking and lack of substance, but something more grounded, written properly would be far easier for me (which doesn't mean lazy/no work)

[Radhruin_EU]

Depends on who you hire too though. If they hired me I would go insane from all the box-ticking and lack of substance, but something more grounded, written properly would be far easier for me (which doesn't mean lazy/no work)

Box-ticking goes with the territory: here's Amazon Studios' inclusion policy.

[LagunaD2]

Box-ticking goes with the territory: here's Amazon Studios' inclusion policy.

If you actually read it, it contains this, which seems fine in principle:

Casting

The story comes first. The Inclusion Policy recommends casting characters from all backgrounds, as long as it does not compromise the authenticity of the narrative. For example, when a movie or series focuses on a particular racial/ethnic group, or is set in a homogenous context or location, it will be exempted from the requirements to diversify casting.

They've effectively violated their own policy.

[TesalionLortus]

They've effectively violated their own policy.

LOL. It did humor me a lot. Nice catch.

[DavidmeetHal]

They've effectively violated their own policy.

That's hilarious, made me laugh out loud.

[Radhruin_EU]

If you actually read it,

Which I had, it's come up before. The point was that by default they have diversity quotas and they're very loath to do anything other than that sort of 'paint by numbers' diversity.

They've effectively violated their own policy.

Of course they did, because to borrow a line from elsewhere it's "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules" when it suits them. As if they were going to let anything as iconically Northern European in inspiration as LOTR et al. pass unscathed, it was absolutely guaranteed they'd find every possible excuse to break with it, like pretending Harfoots are somehow not the same thing as hobbits.

[TesalionLortus]

I read it now in full, it is funny.

Though this one below is even more ironic. So first they're like being super specific how many % of what, how many gay and that there always need to be X set of something. A lot of details, many pages, detailed guidelines. But then this one comes up at the very end of it:

Please remember, in all hiring, a particular employment decision may not be made on the basis of an individual’s race, age, color, gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristic. We are an equal opportunity employer and will consider all qualified applicants and make all hiring decisions based on qualifications, experience, and other legitimate business factors.

So whenever they hire based on skin color and sexuality to fill the quota, which is recommended and the process described in their policy, they're violating the last lines of their own policy by hiring based on race and not at all on legitimate business factors. Their own policy violated their own policy long before castings even begun. Welcome to Wonderland.

[LagunaD2]

So whenever they hire based on skin color and sexuality to fill the quota, which is recommended and the process described in their policy, they're violating the last lines of their own policy by hiring based on race and not at all on legitimate business factors. Their own policy violated their own policy long before castings even begun. Welcome to Wonderland.

Equal opportunity laws do not behave as you would like to caricature them.

Casting an actor of a particular race or sex when the character they are to play has those characteristics is not racial discrimination under the law.

Similarly, it is not age discrimination to refuse to consider a 70 year-old actor for the role of a 6 year-old child.

[TesalionLortus]

Casting an actor of a particular race or sex when the character they are to play has those characteristics is not racial discrimination under the law.

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter because it's all predetermined from the start with the percentages so they already did the numbers and know exactly which characteristics for which role = everything determined by race etc and no equal opportunities based on qualifications at all. Sounds like even more violations of the policy and the law then. One giant rabbit hole.

[Radhruin_EU]

I read it now in full, it is funny.

Though this one below is even more ironic. So first they're like being super specific how many % of what, how many gay and that there always need to be X set of something. A lot of details, many pages, detailed guidelines. But then this one comes up at the very end of it:

They're saying not to choose whether or not to hire someone *specifically* on the basis of protected characteristics, because that'd be discriminatory (which would be illegal). As I understand it the people going for the job have to meet the business requirements for it first, but you're allowed to take positive action on top of that if it's for the benefit of a group who are under-represented or disadvantaged and that's where the diversity stuff comes in. So that's nothing out of the ordinary in itself.

[TesalionLortus]

They're saying not to choose whether or not to hire someone *specifically* on the basis of protected characteristics, because that'd be discriminatory (which would be illegal).


As I understand it the people going for the job have to meet the business requirements for it first, but you're allowed to take positive action on top of that if it's for the benefit of a group who are under-represented or disadvantaged and that's where the diversity stuff comes in.

In theory, yes, but those two don't really fit well together. 1) If you allow everyone to apply but then you pick someone based on superficial features to fill a certain quota, which is obviously happening with some of these roles given how there is a quota in the first place, you might as well say it was discriminatory hence illegal. 2) If you say you're looking for a black male for unspecified role shrouded in mystery but it turns out to be a role that is either disrespecting source material by having a black person in this particular role or there is nothing in terms of narrative/plot that says that it needs to be a black person specifically, and you know all that from the begging but you still saying black male just because you have your check box... then you're making a choice based on race and not being inclusive from the start, hence also illegal, if we are not being hypocrites. So that's what I mean, the entire thing is a farce, both when viewed though the law and though their own conflicted policy and empty slogans.

Also, being allowed to take positive action on top of that if it's for the benefit of a group who are under-represented or disadvantaged is still sort of discrimination because what if all of those considered "disadvantaged" happen to be just a bad fit for the role, since, you know, professional qualities in question should be first and foremost their acting skills and what they can do with the given character. So it really is something that shouldn't be regulated neither by laws nor silly corporate policies in the first place, let the best actor get the role and let creators choose freely the actors' "characteristics" (if they feel like they want something specifically or that their creation needs some constraints).

[Radhruin_EU]

In theory, yes

Casting is apparently a bit different because the requirements for a role can legitimately include appearance. It seems they still have to be a bit careful how they go about it but they can apparently justify some quite specific casting if they can show good enough reason for it, as long as there's no systematic bias across the board. Them's the breaks.

[Halphast]

... let the best actor get the role and let creators choose freely the actors' "characteristics" (if they feel like they want something specifically or that their creation needs some constraints).

You don't know that they DIDN'T pick the best actor for each role and some just happened to be black. The idea that there's some imaginary "best (white) actor" who got passed over, and somehow there were NO qualified black actors but they just chose one anyway to fill a quota is really...... gross.

In reality there's no shortage of skilled, talented actors in this world. For a project as high-profile as this one, there would have been plenty of candidates for each role. Of that group probably half of them have good acting skills and probably five or ten would be truly stellar. The final choice is always subjective, always biased in some way. This isn't "The Wiz" where the entire production is black people- the main characters are still overwhelmingly white for this show.

I barely check in on this thread anymore because from page 1 it's been people complaining about race. Note that we're not still chewing over their timeline-crunch or the other ways they're going to break the lore, no no- we're still fighting about the preservation of people's precious lily-white Middle Earth.

[Secantur]

They finally messed with a fan base that won't stand for the planned destruction of their beloved classics. So there is that.

---

[TesalionLortus]

You don't know that they DIDN'T pick the best actor for each role and some just happened to be black

So from the quote you attached - in case of RoP which is what you're referring to now, but the quote from above is actually in general terms I didn't mean just RoP - you would need the "apply some constraints" part in case of LOTR oriented material (that's assuming the hired showrunners have any brain cells to do that of course). But if the quota exists then it's impossible that it doesn't somehow factor into decision making so that's what I meant, but go ahead, be naïve that everyone was just picked for their acting skills nothing attached. Anyway, casting and policy aren't the only issues.

With RoP there is another layer, you can pick the best actors of all races but if the narrative doesn't make sense out of its peoples and turns everything into your regular New York city (ethnically) - that's still bad lazy writing because that's not how it works. So there is little justification here for RoP. No, we aren't racist and we don't want white Middle-earth. I was very excited for diversity in the world of Middle-earth on screen... and then it turned out Harad and more exotic places South won't probably exist here, what a joke. (and they've also turned Numenor into full-on diversity island were King's Men aren't as blood obsessed as Tolkien's Numenoreans were and, worst of all, their Numenor doesn't appear to be a colonial empire but instead the elves are the occupants of the "Southlands" - which btw, doesn't make any sense, South of where? I bet they called it Southlands because they want their viewers to forget the actual South, as in Harad, exists... or something)

[Melank]

I see you didnt understand anything I wrote and decided to attack me as a person instead and in the progress add opinions about my person, that Im not.
And doing so, you also turn the discussion into other topics, fitting your arguments.

You are the perfect example of the woke/cancel generation.
Fanatics with a agenda and no ears to other opinions. Most of you manage to give people another opinion than they have expressed.

The fact is that you have no arguments because you're uneducated on the subject and you think you can place labels on people to fit your small narrative and be happy.

[Melank]

Projecting overtly modern values onto past times always rings false. You might want to do that with a stage-play or an art-house film to make a point by contrast but that's niche and the mass-market audience is a wholly different matter,

You think that casting black people as elves or dwarves is against Tolkien?

Where did Tolkien said that elves and dwarves should look white, european or scandinavian?


What's "modern values"?

Maybe not making racism a main theme and ignoring it completely has nothing to do with being or not being faithful to God Tolkien.