The reason we object to these changes is because there are plenty of lore cultures to include a wide variety of skin colors. This change is a dog whistle that they've gutted everything Tolkien cared about in favor of their own message. I don't want to escape to a dissertation on identity politics I want to escape to middle earth, which by it's very definition, does not reflect the modern world.
Also not true. Most fans love Ripley, a strong female protagonist (one of many). There are plenty of other ips that provide the very things you claim should be included. So make those ips don't rewrite original ips because that never ends well. These are very simple concepts.
Adding black characters doesn’t really make it a reflection of the modern world; it just makes it a reflection of the world. Much of the story was already a reflection of Tolkien’s world - at least try e way he perceived it. The world of lotr is full of people of different skin colours. Unfortunately, Tolkien put all the non-whites on the side of evil. Some would say that was a dog whistle in itself.
@@arman_1024 Yes, they were mentioned on the side of evil but we really no bugger all about them. You could have created an entire series about how they ended up there. What's their culture like, why do they dislike Gondor (an essentially white culture), how they relate to Sauron. He could still be tricking them like he did with the rest of Middle Earth. It would fit with the Lore. As a fan that would be VERY INTERESTING! Middle Earth was not written as a book. It was written as a lost mythology for England in roughly the Middle Ages. LOTR was written primarily as an introduction. They are essentially cashing in on the name which is why it's called LoTR:Rings of Power and have to include a certain amount of different colours to fill their quota.
"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. ... In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves." - Peter Jackson If the Rings of Power went in with this philosophy I would actually give them a chance of being more than just another pop drama show. This is the only way to respect the source material and achieve Peter Jackson level of good.
They actually CAN'T do that for two reasons (maybe three). 1) Amazon has a DEI list of "must haves" to greenlight any production. I have read them and I think any good writer could work them in effectively, but some people are going to be lazy about it 2) They arent adapting anything. Tolkien didn't write Rings of Power. There is no narrative story to adapt. They have to make one up. 3) The expectations of audiences has changed from 20 years ago. Like number 1, I think this is mostly a good thing but it can be executed poorly and I do have fears that this show is going to feel a lot more like derative fantasy based on Tolkien than Tolkien. But then... how could it not?
PJ *said* that, but is it true? Twenty years ago, Jackson’s LotR was attacked for getting rid of Glorfindel and replacing his parts of the story with Arwen. This was derided as “political correctness” to permit more screen time for women and outright heresy against Tolkien that a female elf was carrying a sword, on horseback, and confronting the Nazgûl. Apparently, that's all down the memory hole now. PJ is canon, and Amazon's Galadriel is heresy.
@@Patrick-qed Tolkien fans, generally, were not against that "...a female elf was carrying a sword, on horseback, and confronting the Nazgûl." The character Luthien in the Silmarillion fights Sauron and defeats him. Eowyn, although human, fights against the Witch King and defeats him. If Eowyn was switched out for Arwen, fans would have been as vocal if not more so. The issue fans had was that it seemed that Arwen was going to be part of the fellowship since pictures were leaked with her fighting orcs. This is consistent with not altering the text to the degree of making it something else, and most importantly respecting the intent of the author. Many fans are also purists and any change to the text is unwelcome. This has nothing to do with sexism. Memory is an interesting thing, and one can reshape it according to present sensibilities.
@@Rabbithole8 There indeed was advance criticism based on suspicion that Arwen might be fighting orcs and/or in the Fellowship. But those weren't the only complaints about Arwen. There were gripes about "political correctness" and lack of fealty to canon. (Please note: I was not one of those folks complaining. I thought replacing Glorfindel with Arwen worked fine for a film. About Arwen's life becoming connected to the ring though . . . don't get me started.) I saw that someone actually put together a list of pre-release gripes about PJ films. The link is below. Here are a few of the gripes (hyperlinks on the original page) about Arwen though: theArwen-warrior-spell-casting-witch-ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim-steroid wench REALLY REALLY BOTHERS ME!!!!! I think that by turning her into this warrior sorceress Mr. Jackson is twisting and cheapening her character And I'm not someone who always hates "political correctness." But this is different entirely. If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely... But political correctness (also known as BULLS**T) in Hollywood won't allow that. Lets make the characters more "exciting" and "politically correct", regardless of how Tolkien wanted it... Why don't we just make Lassie a cat. Down with PJ! // (He's referring to the movie/tv show about a dog called Lassie) the screenwriter is a woman, and as we all know middle earth is a very sexist planet, so in the interest of pleasing half of the audience of the movie a woman would need to be shown more often and as someone more important www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/strutc/a_look_back_on_how_fans_in_2001_criticized_pjs/
I'm left leaning (and as a Canadian that's probably even more left than an average American) and I'm on the side of the critical here. The new Galadriel does seem like the typical male idea of strong female where they just masculanize the femiine so I'm not a fan of that. I thought how the movies expanded Arwen worked but would 've been happy if they completely scrapped Tauriel's character as she was treated as a limp love interest. I think they could've diversified Middle earth in a way that embraced lore but they were lazy and just tossed it in without any thought. And the fact that they've spotlighted it themselves shows how showy it is, so I have no faith it will be done well.
FWIW, IMO, when they masculinize female characters, they DE-feminize them... which isn't really pro-female... To me, it's more like a subtle insult to the feminine. "You can't be a strong female and still be feminine." That seems to say that you can't be both strong and feminine.
The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@Nyet-Zdyes I agree. Jackson's Galadriel was strong and feminine, as was Arwen. I was disappointed in Eowyn's casting so I can't comment on her fairly.
@@amys0482 The 'leaks' have her as a rage fueled amazon who has yet to learn self control, but will 'grow' into the mature and wise Galadriel portrayed in the books/Jackson
Great analysis, i'm more on the "get woke go broke" side i guess...but even i can see that some of the things said on my side are dumb and just lazy attemps at getting views. But the idea that people who are against "wokeness" are racist or sexist is weird to me. Just look at the TV show Arcane, it is as progressive as it gets yet every content creator labbeled as "anti woke" Or "right wing trolls" agreed that it was one of the best tv show made in years. I'm "anti woke" yet one of my favorite movie is C.R.A.Z.Y wich is about an homosexual coming to term with his own sexuality. At the end of the day, "anti woke" people are pretty much just nerds. And the reason why nerds are so pretective of their "culture" is because people like us used to get laughed at and beat up in school for liking things like anime and fantasy. For a lot of us, these things were a form of escapism from reality. We don't want to see real world representation, we want to escape it. And also, its funny to me when people are surprised that we argue about "small details" like color of skin and things like that. We are nerds and that's what we do. We focus on every tiny little detail and overthink them. We have been arguing about wether batman is stronger than superman for over 50 years and still dont agree.
The people driving get woke go broke as a political campaign the most are alt right supremacists, sometimes white supremacists, sometimes male supremacists, or America first nationalists. Their targets are agitated nerds who have a variety of viewpoints. The goal is to radicalize them. As to "protected spaces", I loved all of this stuff as a child but was kept out of social spaces because I was a girl. That hurt. And it is not new.
@@amys0482 do you have any names or person in perticular in mind? In my 28 years of being a nerd i still have not encountered a single person or "influencer" trting to convince me that white people are superior.
Let's address the elephant in the room. They have cast the character of Dis (Disa) the Dwarf princess with a Black actress. In Tolkien's lore, The father of Dis is Thrain (White), her brother is Thorin (White), and her sons are Fili and Kili (White). How in the world does casting that character with a Black actress make sense? The one youtuber who has replied just dismissed my question as "it does not matter". He dismissed my question. Dismissive because he presumably did not have a good answer.
Tolkien's work was not accused of being racist when it was first published. For one thing the concept of race was different. It included what we now consider as ethnicity. However, he wasn't elevating the "English" over other people. His world is a mythopoeic one, and whomever is not English can enjoy it, such as the French, Italians, Greeks, and everyone else. Tolkien enjoyed literature form other cultures. His work was for England and the English, but not in an exclusive sense. Just as today, Japan creates manga and anime for the Japanese, but that doesn't mean everyone else can't enjoy it. It in fact is enjoyable to non-Japanese preciously because of its Japanese flavor. He has only been accused of racism in the last couple of decades even though Tolkien spoke against anti-semitism and he hated American and British colonialism . Those that make accusations are simply ignoring facts to establish their ideology. Recently, this is even more so with the woke obsession with race, and notions of "decentralizing white normative" Europe, which is absurd. Imagine decentralizing Asian normative Asia.
1st of all Tolkien discribes just the Eldar-Elbs as only white ! He never claimed that the Avari-Elbs are white to ! Further he discribes in "History of middle-earth band 10" the Elb "Majegle" the son of "Eol" as dark Colored !!! He changed it later to white-colored!!! So he originally had dark-colored Elbs in his Universe !! By the way the word "veer" means "white" but also "pretty" !! Further this only white sentences are from "Humphrey Carpenter" who wrote Tolkien's biographie and not explicit from Tolkien himself and no, i don't think Carpenter was a racist, i don't know and don't care.. If u have a problem with dark-colored Elbs you are no real fan or a racist.. So anyway Tolkien wasn't !!! Yes he started with the Idea of a british saga and yes he changed his mind so he discribes for example Numinor and Gondor as "Egypt-like culture people" !!! Further Numinor is Based on Atlantis !! So no you are wrong.. Yes Tolkien had dark colored Elbs in his universe and it's no british saga, only the idea of the saga was based on it, not the saga it self !!! So if Tolkien would see this video he would turn around in his grave ! Sources Tolkien: " band 10" letters : "131" (year 1951) means even before the publishing of LOD / "210" So before u talk, read !! And for the anti-racism community : TOLKIEN WASN'T a RACIST, just a lot of his fans have been and still are..! So don't let these racist or uninformed so called fans destroy your interest ! this is a STUPID FAKE NEWS VIDEO
I was also "burnt" by the Wheel of Time TV-show, and so are sceptical to Rings of Power. Too early to say anything definitive about it, but if they are just making up their own stories, and slapping Tolkiens name on them, I think it's more than likely going to suffer when compared to Lord of the Rings; and everyone will do that. Looking forward to hear what you have to say about the show when it airs. Keep it up.
well I mean it's not like they can do the silmarillion version of events. they don't own the right to it. So in other words they are gonna make up the events as they go along. The question really becomes at that point that are you interested in two guys who after 13 years basically have nothing to show for it running all around 2nd age myths and making a show out of it. Personally that's not something that fills me with confidence especially when "galadriel killed so many orcs while wearing her bad ass armor that her sword split in twain!" as one of the show runners exitedly claimed. Galadriel is also in a brawl with guards in Numenore and is barely able to hold her temper and is kept in check by the new human character Halbrad. Each for their own I suppose. Not really into fan fiction writing especially when "representation and diversity" are basically the only words they had in their very much scripted interview with the *fellowship of influencers" as they so charmingly called themselves.
@@juusovuolle8251 Yeah, the signs are not good. I want to wait until I actually watch it, but I am sure I will have a lot of critiques. And while I dont object to the concept of Galadriel as a warrior, there is a good and a bad way to do that and some of the rumors sound bad to me.
@@daniachiyti1162 Who are you commenting to? This is one of the pleasanter comments. I agree that more people have a "problem" with the actors than they let on, or allow themselves to be influenced by those who do. I have some reservations around some rumors of the script, but as they are just rumors, I want to wait. The diversity in the cast does not bother me personally. It's an interpretation by a studio who bought the rights to do what they please.
@@daniachiyti1162 It certainly doesn't prove anything of the sort. To be honest, what bothered me most about the dark-skinned elf, was his short hair. But making the discussion about race and gender, and not about the quality of the show, seems to be a common ocurrence when a studio want's to deflect critizism....But you have a good point; let's wait to judge until we see the show, I agree wholeheartedly with this. And, again, please don't call starngers on the internet "racist", just because they are sceptical towards the show.
"I will be annoyed if they portray Galadriel as young and brash". The moment I wrote this show off as going to be awful was when they came out and said Galadriel was going to be full of "piss and vinegar". Their words, not mine and is the biggest problem I have with this to date. No way they're going to be even close to getting this show written well. I'd say someone's gone "hey wouldn't it be cool for Galadriel to be a warrior princess? She can be angry and independent and stab lots of things and that can be her only character traits" and run with it without thinking it through as to who and what she actually is. I'll bet that they've forgotten "young Galadriel" isn't 18 years old. She's been around far longer than that that, and shouldn't be acting like an impulsive, angsty teenager. Also you don't have to be a powerful warrior that doesn't need help from anyone in order to be a "strong", respected female character. That is something that is often missed in modern media. The trailer also looks super generic. You could sub in another title and I'd never guess it was supposed to be Tolkien themed. Even the title is badly worded. As you're saying, it's hard to tell what they're going to do with it and to me that screams that they suspect they don't have a gripping story to tell and are relying on nostolgia (look here's that statue you've seen before, remember? Here's characters with the same name, you know them right? etc) with a dash of controversy by highlighting some of their character choices in the trailer to get eyes on it and deflect any criticism of poor writing and production choices rather than actually making something that will stand on its own. It seems like it'll be uninspired and a tick the metric boxes fest rather than something that has a core storyline that is at the forefront of the priorities to do well. I mean compare the original LOTR trailer to this one. It's like night and day in the inspiration and showing you what you'll be expecting department. I'd also like to point out the "superfan" interviews that were very quickly hidden. The people hired had little to no tolkien content on their channels, and seemed to focus a lot on how inclusive the casting was rather than the story itself. It was almost certainly scripted. I'm actually not someone who really cares about the casting of POC changes, (I can see why some Tolkien purists were, but to me personally if the actors are good, it's definitely not a deal breaker for me at all. I'd be in a similar category to you. I've read most of the books starting with the hobbit in primary school, seen the movies, and love and like to discuss them but don't study every aspect super closely like some of the really dedicated fans) but I can spot tokenism when I see it. It seems clear that Amazon has decided to put a few token POC in the show and then push that to the front for the sole reason as to get patted on the back about how progressive they are and why no one can give legitimate crit of the show, even anything that is unrelated to casting choices, rather than actually caring about anything for real. I mean they could have done an amazing show about some of the other lands that were comprised largely of a non-white population in canon, and their side of what was going on during those times and cast most of the main characters as POC. But it's interesting to note that they chose not to. To me it feels like their intentions are not genuine. I think this tokenism feeling rather than something that's been written from the heart to tell a genuine story with characters that are going to feel well rounded and real, and have actors cast because they just embody that characterisation so well (Elrond's casting- oh dear!) is why many people are jumping on the "it's woke" bandwagon instead of explaining why they feel this way, which unfortunately just gives Amazon ammunition to come back with "well you're just racist/sexist" reply. I do also agree there are genuine racists and mysogynists jumping into the conversation with agendas of their own, but I think there are a lot of people out there that have just gotten sick of their fandom's being "fixed" by studios that don't understand or care about actually trying to make something good or that makes sense in the long run (because it'll probably be cancelled before they get backed into a writing corner or they'll just wing it with plot holes), rather than something that just ticks the metrics boxes and almost seem to use "but the look at who we cast" aspect as a shield against any legitimate criticism even when it has nothing to do with casting, and more to do with just terrible show writing and production such as happened in wheel of time's adaption. Sometimes they almost seem to want to stir up controversy amongst the book fan base so they can demonize the entire community and write them off as the cause of all problems. (ie: Wheel of time book fan: I didn't like removing Saidin/Saidar split. The gender differences and the fact that people are stronger together is one of the important aspects of these books. It also makes no sense for the Dragon reborn to be potentially reborn female as this takes away all of the danger associated with a man going crazy and breaking the world. It's also stated that "men make the power filthy" due to their huberis (see LTT's scene) so only women can handle it safely now, but people can be reborn into any gender so souls are not therefore gendered. Why then should this be the case? It isn't explained. Amazon show defender: Oh no, you're just sexist. Women and Men need to be equal always (the power they use and potential to be the DR) so that means we have to get rid of the power split and we won't get into the other things you're saying because it's obvious that you're not worth engaging with.) I actually had a few conversations with people (book fans, no one was interested on the show fan side) about that LTT scene by the way. In the books it was a desperate move by LTT to try and salvage the situation. Latra and co disagreed and that is why LTT took the men only to seal the bore. He didn't fail, they did seal it and thereby likely saved the world at this time, but it was a patch, and came at a terrible cost. So should Latra have sided with him? Maybe. If she did, maybe the bore could have been sealed for good. On the other hand maybe she was right to refuse as the possible result could have been both sides of the source being tainted and the resulting madness x 2 could have wiped all life from the earth with no hope of recovery. We'll never know for sure. These shades of grey are so much more interesting that LTT and his merry men were just bad. He was caught up in his arrogance and broke the world, where as Latra was good for some reason just letting him do it knowing full well what the consequences would be, but didn't try to stop it. She just kind of shrugs, tells him what will happen and then and walks away and leaves him to it. I mean what? This is what happens with screen writers start thinking they can make changes to the original books that will be "better" despite not being best selling authors who understand the source material really well themselves. I know this is WOT and we're talking LOTR which hasn't come out yet, but seeing what they've done here does not make me hopeful they can manage something that has even less source material to draw from and do it well. Especially when you see how little the showrunners have done before being given such a huge project (also the case for WOT). I mean why would you trust your flagship series to someone so inexperienced, unless it was so that the corporates feel that they can more easily influence and interfere with the production as they see fit (which rarely ends well in terms of getting a cohesive storyline that doesn't look committee designed and patchy.) I don't agree the CGI looks great in all the scenes either. For what the budget is, some of them look quite bad. I actually hated the ice cliff scene because not only does it not look great, it's like why on earth is Galadriel climbing an ice covered mountain in full armour??? That's just silly, not inspiring. If she doesn't fall from the weight, sh'e'll freeze to death before getting to stab any of those orcs. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain it'll be another WOT. It almost seems like they were using WOT as a trial run for how to do damage control because they knew in advance they were going to do similar things to LOTR, but underestimated how hard many people were going to reject it once the trailer dropped. I was cautiously optimistic about Amazon's LOTR, but what they did to WOT really soured me towards future projects and has left me in the I'll need to be convinced they can make a decent adaption, rather than my previous I'll given them the benefit of the doubt stance. I'm just seeing so many parallels between the way the two are being marketed and defended by Amazon that it really gives me little hope it will be a show with any decent writing or substance.
I have a bad feeling too but I really want to withold judgement until I see an episode. It won't surprise me, though, if what we get is just... not good.
Thanks for trying to offer a more balanced perspective. You made some good and worthy points. However around 30:00 when you try to put the Rings of Power controversy within the context of "get woke, go broke" your analysis begins to stumble. I followed the Sad Puppies brouhaha, I largely share concerns about how entertainment industry has been coopted by ideology and agenda. I am fully aware the "go broke" part of the slogan doesn't always happen. But darn right the "get woke, go broke" slogan is political, of course it is. It's pushing against soft totalitarianism, totalitarian in the sense that there are forces in postmodern Western society that want to deny us any place of escape from politics, they want us angry and divided, because relatively happy people are less likely to foment revolution. With respect, I think your take on woke-ism is naive.
I'll give you a point that I don't think the rhetoric I have seen from some liberals is effective. I tried to capture that with the commentary at the end that your vision of the world needs to include everyone. However, I think the desire to escape from injustice is a weird thing to want. Not everyone can do that.
I will try to be brief lol. I enjoy your videos, they're insightful and clearly massive amounts of work go into them. Kudos to you. Truly. Personally, I think the left has circled the globe and landed squarely on the right, but since they're still looking left, they're......confused, and so is everyone else. You probably disagree, that's okay, I know I am not running on all thrusters. In regards to the phrase "get woke go broke" and the track record of franchises dying. It is my opinion this has less to do with ideologies, and more with the fact the people like showrunners and writers have been given the keys to the kingdom, and then lost the keys. In the early days of franchises, the creators has to EARN the fans' devotion. Budgets and lack of technology led to an unspoken agreement between creator and audience. We the audience accept your styrofoam boulders, please oh friendly creators give us quality to compensate. Fans of those days were mocked, ridiculed, and dare I say, marginalized socially. Many were beaten and bled for their stories. It doesn't compare to what others have endured, of course, nor do they pretend it compares. With JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, the message went forth the corporations were in control and the audience was no longer a factor in their equations. Today, creators don't care much to earn a fan's "devotion", instead many attack fans before their product is even released, hoping to "bully" the pre-existing audience AND draw in a younger crowd. Today's creators can no longer create, only churn out commercial product. Older audiences resent being treated like they're stupid, and resent the younger audience for being content with what both perceive as checkboxes being marked. Another way to put it is, we were SHOWN that Captain Janeway was a strong female character, we were TOLD that Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers was a strong female character.........with No Doubt playing in the background. I believe that is the seed from which everything else has grown, with some legitimate real world problems as fertilizer. Well, this went a little long, thanks for reading this far.
I appreciate your perspective. I would like to do a review of Disney Star Wars trilogy... but I have to finish it first. The Last Jedi was a deeply unfortunate installment in the franchise. It was so irritating that I did not even watch Rise of Skywalker. But I actually like Captain Marvel. I think much of the criticism of that one is overblown and reaching for things to complain about. The criticism can be interpreted as an outright condemnation of feminism, but not as a movie.
It’s not a matter of racism. As a Brit, this is the usual Hollywood acquisition of a beloved English literary classic which has often topped the lists as Britain’s most favourite novels of all time, for which history shows is littered with disastrous results. Rarely, if ever getting the British cultural iconic fiction right in any way at all. Classic Hollywood crassness in this area of the genres. Calling Lord all of the Rings fans and Tolkien racist, is totally ridiculous. As he created Dwarves, Elves, a Maian/Wzard, Dunédain, alongside men. And that’s just the good guys of the fellowship. They’re different races and cultures that have to put aside their prejudices to cooperate against evil. There’s no need to black skin these already diverse multi cultural characters. That’s already that part the actual narrative. The worldwide PoC audience who got the point, would feel insulted that they would not empathise these themes, unless further clumsily shoehorning in forced in skin tone diversity! This is lazy research and writing, as they are already handed a platinum platter of the continent of Harad, that Tolkien purposely created as populated by people of colour, who even appeared if briefly in Jackson’s movies. A literal blank slate that could be so fascinating to have expanded upon. But no, they can’t be bothered with Tolkien’s people of colour, ignoring these races in the lore altogether. To me, that looks ‘racist’ by Amazon, right there! What Amazon are doing, by not even bothering to adapt anything and throwing all of Tolkien’s works out the window and purloining LOTR characters, employing a couple of sub par Hollywood Hacks who have the temerity to think they can ‘write a book that Tolkien never wrote’ and applying ‘story to reflect the modern world’ in a historically themed fantasy that occurs eons before LOTR’s third age, really? This is blatant cultural appropriation, that if merely attempting this nowadays from the opposite direction, would then be deemed as wholly unacceptable!!
"there's not a minority out there who's complaining about this trailer". wrong. everyone/anyone who is a devoted tolkien fan is complaining about this trailer. race has nothing to do with it. Living Anachronism and Just Some Guy are both minority youtubers who have been outspoken against this before the trailer even came out.
Yea I'm a minority & will be boycotting this woke trash. The far left think they speak for all minorities but they definitely don't & their minority support is dropping as a reflection of it.
there was one aspect that bugs me, which you did mention briefly. About how ingenuous the "wokeness" is. On twitter you see people mocking puritan fans and saying "Okay now I'm actually going to watch it!" So by presenting a trailer like this, the companies might be banking on fans' infighting to build a viewer base for them. Essentially, being able to make subpar content but seeing it do well purely because some people want to stick it to the racists'. Personally I want inclusion and progressiveness, but done right. With good storytelling and keeping faith to the original author's themes ("cough* wheel of time *cough*). I feel this is very predatory/lazy of said companies. I do hope the Rings of power series is good though. Like you, I gave Wheel of Time the benefit of the doubt and feel deeply disappointed.
I would be surprised if Amazon is taking that angle with a property they have spent so much money to acquire. I can see Judkins possibly doing that with WOT. I will have to see what the themes are with LOTR. I suspect it will be "bad" more because the creators underestimate what it takes to write something like this.
Strictly going by the vanity fair article and the teaser, I will not watch. I’ve spent years reading Tolkien’s works and what I’ve seen is a slap in the face to his work.
@@amys0482 If they present some random dummies as "superfans" to the potential fans of their show, they already show they have no clue of the subject matter (= Tolkien's creative legacy). They will tank with it.
thats actually a huge part of why modern reboots and newer ip's usually die. Wider appeal means shallower interest. You may rope in the casuals but what makes them casual is they're fair weather fans. Their money is as fleeting as their interest. So yeah amazon may see a quick boost in viewership but the hate boner anti fans feel wont last long enough to recoup those losses.
To truly understand what the fans are upset about people need to watch "The Superfans" video, and read some of the articles available such as The Vanity Fair articles and pictures. The Superfans video has Amazon Prime blatantly using fake fans who only talk about race, representation, diversity and inclusion. They show no interest in anything such as lore or story and have very poor knowledge of Tolkien. Upon checking these Superfan's websites there is nothing related to Tolkien or LoTR. You have to watch it to see the unbelievable amount of cringe it evokes. The showrunners say they want the show to reflect the modern world. We as fans read and watch Tolkien to escape into a much loved fantasy realm, not to be reminded of the modern world. Galadriel participated in athletic game, she was never an armor plated, sword wielding warrior who led armies. A warrior who apparently has killed so many orcs with her sword that it is now broken. And now she is the leader of the northern armies, pretty sure that job was supposed to be Elrond's. But he's to busy building houses in his new job of architect now. Well at least when he's not too busy knocking door to door for election votes. I am a liberal in my politics and I'm sure many of the other fans who are complaining are as well. Many of these same fans are POC as well. Because I am defending Tolkien's work I'm now a racist (though I'm black/white), a far right wing extremist, and a mass murderer (love that one). Somehow our love for Tolkien's lore is getting buried under a pile of ists, isms and politics and that is simply sad.
yep that's the new world these neo marxists have created. either get on with the program or be prepared to be crushed by the propaganda machine. The best you can expect is that people won't call you a racist but in the same breath they will call your point of view as right wing.
Yes. This is accurate. The show will be fan fiction. The stupidity and ignorance enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 Mostly the Teleri elves splintered as their leader Elu Thingol got lost into the woods where he met his future wife Melian the maia. Later on he took the remaining elves in the coastal area under his wing and they became known as Sindarin elves. They were also some times called the Avari or the forsaken as none of them saw the light of Aman or met the valar. The title dark elf was reserved to few individuals I believe. Eöl was one he mostly spent his time in a dark forest and forbade his wife from meeting any strangers or relatives. Which the Noldor took grim view on considering that his wife was the sister to the High king Turgon. It's been quite some time though maybe they called Sindarin dark elves too in occasion but I have no memory of such.
@@bryanrhodes369 oh right that is a far better word for it. What a great man Tolkien was 60 years after his passing and people are still using his made up languages.
I think you are missing the point about 'woke'. A show can have diversity and strong females without being 'woke'. Arcane for example is a great show with diversity , female leads and even class war, but made with love of the story (made by non americans by the way). The teaser for THE RINGS OF POWER don't try to sell it as a good story and the producers of the show actively say they insert politics in the show. By the way from the prespective of non white, non american, your politics (left or right) are mostly stupid, and as a country you are failing. From some aspects i don't think of the US as a first world country (health care for example ). I still think US are one of the best things that happen in the world because the alternative empires are far worse.
America can't afford universal health care because we are to busy spending our money on the defense of other welfare countries who do have universal health care who don't put in their share for their own defense. Instead rely on the US to do it for them. So while you get to go the doctor for free and mooch off of America's defense I'm afraid to go to the doctor because it's going to break my bank account. If we cut our funding toward NATO then maybe I don't need to be scared to death about breaking a bone.
People like to point to Arcane, which I agree is wonderful, but Arcane is also political, or the setting is political. So why is that not "woke"? What I see is cherrypicking. The films and TV shows that aren't good are "woke" but shows that do all the "woke" things well are ignored. They just aren't talked about. So the criticism feels disingenous. Diversity doesn't make shows bad. Look at Arcane. Political messaging doesn't make shows bad. Look at Arcane. But Star Wars is bad because of the diversity and political messaging? Or is something else going on?
@@Dovieandi_Se_Tovya_Sagain Resistance to single payer healthcare in America is steeped in fear of Marxism and the desire to ignore the problem because the current system benefits the rich. The current capitalist system rewards the rich and punishes the poor. "The people who matter" are doing just fine. Changing the system puts a tax burden on the rich so they are against it and they are the ones in control of legislation. Plus, lobbyists. Personally, I don't think socialized healthcare is socialism and we are mad not to move to that system.
@@amys0482 I agree but the top 1 percent is already paying over 40 percent of US taxes while the bottom 90 percent pay less than 30 percent of taxes. I don't know how much more you'd like them to spend but I think they are putting in their fair share. But I doubt a little extra would hurt them. But it doesn't matter if the government continues to waste money. Wasn't it like 2013 that the Pentagon announced they lost 1 billion dollars. Just didn't know where it went. Unaccounted for and we just shrug our shoulders and say oh well. And we expect our government to stop global warming or anything else for that matter. I'm not counting on it. Additionally America is responsible for most of modern day medical advances. And capitalism is partly responsible for that. If there's an incentive to create cures people are willing to fund more research etc.
@@amys0482 for some reason I don't see your last post but you mentioned something about the tax rate to the 1950s. 55 percent compared to today at 40 percent is probably feasible but you and I both know if the rich want to hide their money from preventing to pay they will and there will be nothing anyone could do about it. If you start taxing to high (or at least what the rich thinks is too high) they'll start doing more of their shenanigans to hide their wealth. I enjoy the engagement. Thanks for your content.
I disagree with a great amount of what you say, mainly from the standpoint as a writer/author of science-fantasy, and supporter of the purist (edit: purist lore) viewpoint. I dislike when the original things are changed to replace men with women, and other such changes to characters. If people want to change these things... they shouldn't be adapting original things... they should be making their own new things with the things they want to see. (edit 2: I also dislike when sequels, in franchises which have their "rights" bought, and such decide to degrade the original characters to prop up their new original characters)
That's weird since I accept the purist viewpoint. I think it is fine to dislike an adaptation for deviating from the source material. I think it's not fine to dislike it because it is feminist or diverse and inclusive.
@@amys0482 I think a lot of the purist viewpoint gets thrown into the political camp to discredit their point of view, or put words into their mouths, or to imply they have motivations other than what they themselves say. And I do see malicious intent behind many changes that you see as innocent and positive. Perhaps I'm just jaded by seeing horrible things happen to properties I love, in the name of diversity, inclusion, and feminisim. (giving those causes a bad name, in my book, due to the track record.)
@@NameNotAChannel Yes, but the canon view gets thrown in with the political right because the political right is actively trying to recruit canon lovers to view the "liberal agenda" as evil and ruinous. It's not, though. At worst, it's a mixed bag.
@@amys0482 the problem here is that the ones that made those changes are making the changes in this one direction only, which when you point you've been called ist and a phobe and they are hiding behind this when the major problem - the story itself - gets drowned in the background. And the last few years this happens more and more and more. Reading the comments above - someone mentioned Idris Elba in Thor. Well, I can point to him in The Gunslinger, where in the books the character of Roland (that Elba portrayed) is described like 99.9% Clint Eastwood. Thus said, in the movie, the actor convinced me that he is Roland The Gunslinger - he had the aura of the said character and the chops to play him. But then there was the problem with the entire script of the said movie, that was just hot, steaming pile of garbage. And here we come to the main problem with the vast majority of these "woke" or "progressive" adaptations and/or changes of original IPs that we see lately - their storytelling is absolute garbage on top of the changes that they make in the lore (the WoT is one still hot example of this) and the vast majority of the actors in those imaginations are no Idris Elba. Edit: I'd have next to zero problems with the inclusion of characters that are of color if they made sense by a world building view in any IP. Meshing a village in the ass of nowhere (scuse my French) in the WoT, with people of all sorts of colors and religions is not world building. The WoT world has A VAST world building to pull from and at the end one of the points of the series was that all those people had to work together, women and men alike. Having black people in the NORTHERN Realms hopping all around in The Witcher is another such example. What do I mean with this? You want to have black elves? Why no make all the elves black? Merchants from far lands can be Arabic etc. etc. Done deal. The masculinification (that a word) of women, like, Galadriel, which was described in The Silmarilion as a sorceress and extremely wise, not a warrior, is another problem in all of those "imaginings" - masculinity is not the only thing that can be "strong". Femininity in itself is strength itself. I'm sorry, I went a bit long with this post.
The purist argument completely falls apart and is revealed as ignorance when when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). Even a casual researcher will easily find their way to Snorri Sturleson's works and recognize both their importance to Tolkien (all the dwarves in the hobbit are specifically named, including Gandalf) and the existence of dark-skinned elves in the mythos. In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands. Insisting on racial purity in a fantasy world where that racial purity never actually existed is, by definition, racist.
Some solid points, particularly about the impact of social media, but also some points I really have to question, as follows: - Generally it seems like you are overlooking the racism of the political left, or progressives, or whatever label you prefer. The Rings of Power (ROP) isn't providing diversity, it is inserting one race in the form of black elves, black dwarves, black Harfoot, a black human princess (I think?). That isn't diversity, that is race fetishism. Being a man of his time if Tolkien was going to insert other human races he would probably think of India, given British fascination with that country. News now is that Game of Thrones is swapping out a white family (faction?) for black, because its almost always about inserting black people. And that's not racist because . . . ? - When is it morally justifiable to take something from one race and give it to another? That suggests race 1 did something wrong and that race 2 is deficient in some way, and you are perpetuating the idea that people should be treated differently based on their race. I'm really wondering who is so confident of their moral insight that they feel they hold the scales of justice that allows them to judge races. - Why does 'white supremacist' anchor one end of your definition of racism? Racism is better concieved of as a set of cognitions and behaviors that anyone can carry off (cf. the treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese - no white people involved there). If you are going to say 'whites racists are more powerful in this context' then you are back into the Marxist stuff. Please recognize the irony that racism doesn't carry what your race is, you too can be a racist. - 'White supremacists love a hierarchy' - so do the racists of the political left. It's called the 'progressive stack' and is an intersectional politics way of rating who is society's greatest victimes, and their rationale for excluding white people or treating them poorly based on their skin color. If your goal is to be anti-hierarchical, then do include the victimhood olympics crowd. Please also recognize that racism is baked into intersectional politics, because you can't have a victimhood focus without a perpetrator, and they've chosen whites and white men in particular as the 'big bad' perpetrator. Meritocracy and hierarchy have their faults, but the alternative of racial quotas is worse. I very much doubt if you are going to the hospital emergency room you cry out 'get me your most diverse doctor!' instead of 'get me your best doctor'. - Historical arguments about imperialism are cringey and ironic. Arguably what the left is doing is cultural imperialism, via taking over entertainment properties of various cultural subgroups and then making those properties into something they prefer. If it's bad back then, then it's bad right now. I get the frustration with wanting social change, but this isn't the way to do it. There is an intergroup conflict theory called 'Social Identity Theory' by Tajfel and Turner that is very well researched and has been around since the 1980s. What progressives are doing to entertainment checks off just about every box the theory has found that antagonizes racial relations. Lastly, as a thought experiment, find the Inclusion Policy statement over at the Amazon Studios website, and apply paragraphs three and four under 'Casting' to the movie Mulan. Better or worse movie?
I wont watch any of the disney live action movies. they all look terrible. I'm not defending tokenism or performance inclusion. But you might be confusing racism with prejudice. At least in this context, racism denotes a hierarchy, hidden or obvious, that is throughout all of society.
It’s not racist to want works specifically designed as Northern Europeans mythology not to have gay Puerto Ricans with buzzcuts and first time shitty directors making it look like trash
I have no problem with inclusion and diversity, but it has no place in fantasy. Tolkien created the world of Middle Earth as a replacement for the mythology his ancestors lost with Roman and Nordic invasions (a problem most of Europe has since everyone knows the Greek/Roman and Norse mythology, but French, German or Dutch mythology is near non-existant). Andrzej Sapkowski, who wrote the Witcher, did the same. Slavic mythology was near eradicated after German and Russian rule (and oppression) of Poland, and Sapkowski brought it back with his series. These aren't just stories set in a "fantasy" setting, it's tales based their culture. By forcing modern culture upon these works, you're disrespecting the original culture. And the same applies on other fantasy works. Robert Jordan created different cultures for his Wheel of Time, yet those cultures weren't respected in the adaptation. For me, this is because the main driving force behind this "woke culture" are Americans, who do not have a long lasting history and culture themselves, and (incorrectly) assume the rest of the western world doesn't either. I myself am part of an ethnic group who merely sixty years ago was oppressed in my own country, solely because we were born in a certain part of the country and spoke a different language than the "ruling class". These people did their best to erradicate our written culture by denying us education and nearly succeeded if it had not been for a book that told us the biggest victory in our history, which sparked a cultural revolution. In case you're wondering, I'm not from a third world country, but from Western Europe. I am proud of my culture and history, and as a result, I respect other cultures. Americans don't have a long term history, and therefore no respect for other cultures.
Except... What you wrote is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. Drizzt D'urden from forgotten realms lore wasn't created whole cloth disconnected from the Gylfaginning of Snorri Sturleson. Seriously look it TF up. Objecting to their presence based on cultural racial purity is by definition racist. In Tolkien canon, thes e dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
If i remade roots and cast a korean as kunta kintai how much backlash do you think there would be? How about a show based on solomon and the qween of sheeba, can i make the qween of sheeba scandinavian? Can i make juilan sandar from the wheel of time a white englishman? I think we all know what the reaction to these things would be. And why do we keep having to make all our female heros men. It seems the only way a woman can be powerful is if she has masculine attributes.
Because they want to destroy femininity because that will destroy the attraction between men and women and that will destroy the family unit and that will rot and corrupt society, weaken the nation, and level it in preparation for the "Great Reset"
Thank you for your balanced look at this debate. I am a long time fan of the great J.R.R. Tolkien. I have no problem with there being a diverse cast in the Rings of Powers, BUT I do have a problem with those elements of the trailer and promotional shots that suggest that they will not be sticking to the lore. For me, if you are going to base a film, series, etc. on someone's work, you should stick as close to the written lore as possible. Where he did not stick entirely to the books, Peter Jackson's adaption followed the spirit of the books and tried to honour Tolkien's works. Now I do have a problem with dark skinned Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits, as such goes against Tolkien's descriptions of these races. IF they had wanted a diverse cast, they could easily have done so by having human characters from the Easterlings, Haradrim or Southrons, and thus remain true to the lore. Where these peoples were allied with Sauron during the Lord of the Rings, the series is supposed to be set during the mid-Second Age, some 4,000 years earlier, during which much of the lands of the Haradrim and Southrons was influenced by the people of Numenor. The people of Numenor had come to the lands as teachers at first, but over time turned to conquerors. They could have used the series to explore these peoples, potentially showing how the oppression of the people of Numenor might have driven them into an alliance with Sauron. Where some of the Elves might have moved to warmer climates, there have not been enough generations for them to have developed darker skin, maybe deeply tanned, but nothing more. As for the Dwarves, a race that spends most of there time underground, with some spending there whole lives without venturing on to the surface, has little need to evolve a way to protect themselves from the light of the sun. For me, someone wanting ethnically diverse Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits, would be the same as wanting the people of Wakanda in the Black Panther film to be ethnically diverse. And before anyone says anything, I had no problems with the lack of diversity of the people of Wakanda, as they were shown true to the lore of the setting. This comment is just to say that if someone wants diversity, it should work both ways. As for Galadriel, personally I disagree with "warrior" Galadriel in the Second Age. If the series was set in the days of the Rebellion of the Noldor following the destruction of the Trees, or the early days of the First Age, then it would be plausible. But by the Second Age, no, not because she cannot wear armour and use weapons, but because after centuries studying under Melian, she does not needs such. So in that clip where she is leading a cavalry charge, if instead of armour she was wearing her iconic white dress, then that would be the Galadriel that I expect. As for a comment that I have seen that she will be young and brash, where in the mid Second Age she is much younger than in Lord of the Rings, she is still over 5,000 years old!!! That is twice the age of Legolas as the time of the Fellowship of the Ring, so hardly young. Now personally, I like a well written, strong, female character. My favourite characters from Lord of the Rings were Eowyn and Galadriel. I would love it if they created such a character for the series, maybe a lady of the Numenoreans, Haradrin or Southrons. Also, I have to ask, WHY make a series set in the Second Age when they have not purchased the rights to a lot of Tolkien's materials that cover that time period?
I do think the show is going to prioritize the wrong things to appeal to as big as an audience as possible and actually end up making something that appeals to fewer people. This is a depressing evolution of the conversation around woke entertainment, but we'll have to wait and see
@FatalPies I NEVER said that I am ok with anything that goes against Tolkien's works and I definitely do NOT agree with diversity for the sake of diversity, and there is no need for the name calling. ALL that I said was that IF Amazon had wanted diversity, then they could have done so and remained within the lore by having characters from those human ethnic groups with darker skin that Tolkien mentions in his works. We know that the men of Numenor explored the coast of Middle-Earth and met such people, so representing them is not breaking the lore. Personally I do not think that it needs such characters, I have just said IF Amazon wanted such. Given the material for the Second Age that Amazon can use, as in just the appendix of the Lord of the Rings, it should be obvious that they would need to create original characters, as the appendix hardly goes into great detail or present a large cast of characters. For example, we know that before the downfall in Numenor there were two political groups, The Faithful and the King's Men, but very few named individuals from either group, therefore to depict any meeting of the Faithful that is more than just Isildur's family would require some original characters, where Tolkien did not specifically create such characters they are not strictly against his lore, as in other member of the Faithful existed, they were just not named or fleshed out (after all there were enough to fill 9 ships when Numenor fell). Likewise, we know that Celebrimbor worked with a brotherhood of jewelsmiths, but none are named, therefore any representation of this brotherhood would require original characters. That said I do NOT agree with Amazon's original characters, as they appear unnecessary with little to do with either the creation of the rings or the fall of Numenor. Likewise, given the material Amazon has to work with, and they they wanted five seasons, it is obvious that they were going to have to flesh out the story.
I think people want honest intentions behind the storytelling, though many have a hard time articulating as much in their arguments thus they come off as intolerant rather than simply inarticulate. And, to elaborate, when I say "honest intention" I mean that the story is genuinely being told as the established setting and context would have it. For instance, if you create a movie or show set in Wakanda, and then race bend characters who were originally conceived as being black, but you're now making them white for the purposes of something other than what accurately represents the story world, then I would call such a thing out as disingenuous treatment of the source material for reasons outside of pure storytelling. Which, in such a case, means the writer isn't being honest in their intent to create stories in that established world for the sake of deepening its lore, respecting it wholly, or entertaining its fans. And, in such a case, I would ask that they not use Wakanda for their own personal causes, and instead create an original work and setting they can populate with as many characters who fit 'x' agenda as they please, to serve whatever it is they're pushing. But, of course studios all want the financial sure thing, so instead of greenlighting original works where progressives can speak their truth to the masses while the studio risks losing money on an unknown quantity, instead they co-opt 'bankable' IP and bend it to serve their own interests. After which they waste little time castigating fans of said established IP as being intolerant bigots when they have misgivings but often have a hard time articulating why. Really, it's just that a lot of the audience recognizes when they're not being engaged with honestly, but in their anger lack the ability to state their grievances in a coherent, non-clumsy fashion. Which isn't to say there aren't bigots among a given IPs audience, but I do not think they comprise the majority, though the media conglomerates affiliated with the studios would have us all think otherwise for the purposes of protecting the brand. By highlighting the bigoted few, or by simply and purposefully misrepresenting the inarticulate many, the conglomerates manipulate consumer behavior in the name of maximizing profit under the cynical guise of promoting the social good again signifying the dishonesty of their intentions.
The "other side" of this that might be worth consideration is the plundering of original IP created by people of color to profit from white audiences. This is egregious in music, but has also happened in books and film, meaning an author writes a story and the studio changes Black characters to white characters so they can sell more. This has been happening in America forever, and it isn't restricted to Black Americans. In film they call it white washing, like casting Scarlett Johansen to play a Japanese woman in the Ghost in a Shell movie, but it extends beyond film. There is probably a notion by some people to reverse this, which is where you may see some truth to the concept of sticking it to white men in rewriting who stars in future installments of old franchises. And I personally think this is okay, but I will still judge the whole work on its writing, not just that one aspect.
@@amys0482 The problem, as I see it, with the white-washing argument is that it only ever appears to go one way. If someone is genuinely committed being authentic to source material and/or real life, then you'd expect the same person who was upset with Scarlett Johanson's casting in Ghost in the Shell to be just as upset when Jodie Turner Smith is cast as Anne Boleyn for instance. In my experience at least, this rarely happens. For what it's worth the same problem exists in both directions, and I don't think it's entirely a binary situation either; as Ken Ward has pointed out I think the *intent* (as it's perceived) of the casting choice is important also. In many cases though, such casting choices seem actively inflammatory. At least with Ghost in the Shell one can legitimately argue that Scarlett Johanson is an extremely bankable actress (at that time the highest paid in history I believe), and while that doesn't exactly excuse the choice it does provide a plausible explanation that isn't about making a political statement.
@@amys0482 It's the retributive nature of the intent, or this idea of 'evening up' by altering old works to fit the current cultural zeitgeist that I have a problem with. Changing Indiana Jones to a woman isn't justice, it's graffiti. If you feel white men require less representation in Hollywood, then simply don't make another Indiana Jones movie, or James Bond, or Luke Skywalker. Make something else. Something that represents what you want to say featuring who you want to represent. But, the rebuttal to that would be, "I wanted to do that, but the studio wouldn't give me money to make something unless it was attached to an established money-making IP." Okay, I get that, but you have to be honest then with the fans of said IP in what your intentions are with their beloved property from the start. And, don't immediately throw up your hands and claim bigotry, etc when fans bristle at your politically motivated alterations of a thing they've valued for a long time. And, don't gaslight them by pretending your intentions with the franchise were always pure and coming from a place of deep fandom, respect, etc when if that were true you wouldn't alter it so fundamentally. If you want Indiana Jones to change and be something else, do the fans of that IP a favor and just make something else. Sure, the Catch-22 of that situation isn't lost on me, but that only brings me back to the intent behind the telling/creating of the story in the first place. Maybe it'd be better if Hollywood concentrated on entertaining rather than preaching. There are other avenues available for activism and political discussion, including in filmmaking via documentaries, and I wish retributive minded academes would seek redress there instead of via genre screenwriting and genre filmmaking. If you can no longer rely on the fiction 'entertainment' world for escapism it's no wonder you're going to see more and more anger among audiences who increasingly feel they have no outlet in a world that seems to be becoming more political in more aspects of life, and more polarized by the day.
@@amys0482 The real issue here is that there's this misinformation being spread that dark elves and black elves don't exist at all in the cultural diaspora. That is, by definition, whitewashing. You can find dark or black elves all over the place in historic documents housed under glass in museums. Those that argue from a place of ignorance may not like hearing that they're ignorant, or may not want to be lectured by nerds or the left, but they were the people who got it wrong in the first place, by asserting that black elves didn't exist in Celtic Nordic and Tolkien mythology. These are people who want to present themselves as experts on something that they aren't experts on, in the service of racial purity. If ignorance in service of racial purity isn't the strict definition of racism or white supremacy, then the words have no meaning. Black is white, red is green, and you're going to have some kind of conflict at the next intersection.
The reason I follow your channel is that your in depth and intelligent discourse on media - something I find sorely lacking in the various social media platforms I use. Bravo! I am less knowledgeable about Tolkien lore than you. I've only read the main Lord of the Rings trilogy (once), the Hobbit (once) and parts of the Silmarillion. I agree one cannot judge this show as an adaptation as they only had the annexes to work with. They can't use Tolkien's actual work from those ages so they have to do their best in filling in the blanks to make it work as a show. I don't know why any of this would break cannon as they're not based on the actual cannon - only cliff notes. From what I saw in the trailer, I'm intrigued enough to watch it. I'm not bothered by the diversity casting. If the writing is logical and compelling, I will enjoy it. Unlike WoT, the magic system in Tolkien's work is a bit nebulous so I don't think there's anything to break in that respect - unlike WoT. I am a bit hesitant about the portrayal of Galadriel. I disagree with you that just because she is described as physically powerful/imposing as a male elf, her power needs to be portrayed with military prowess. To me, Galadriel is not powerful because she is wearing armor or carrying a sword. She just radiates it - that and her magical abilities. She does not need physical weapons. She is one herself which I think is why Sauron feared her. I think you lose some of that if you lean too much into the warrior trope. By the way, just a funny aside, the actor who plays Elrond is the same actor who played young Ned Stark in GoT. I thought he looked really familiar and only realized when someone else mentioned it.
The part that was completely missed here is the part where one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. Drizzt D'urden from forgotten realms lore wasn't created whole cloth disconnected from the ••Gylfaginning and Prose Edda by Snorri Sturleson••. Seriously look it TF up. Do the research if one is going going to use that as the basis of a call for cultural purity. If one hasn't connected the dots,, objecting to the presence of black elves based on a cultural racial purity that never existed is by definition racist. In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 I'm not sure if your comments were meant for me. I did say I was NOT bothered by the diversity casting so am in no way advocating for racial purity of portrayals of the elves in the show. However, I appreciate the information you shared. It is very interesting. I'm only a casual fan of Tolkien's work and have admitted that I am not very knowledgable with the lore nor the mythology they were based on.
@@bryanrhodes369 Nowhere in the Eddas skin colour is mentioned concerning the elves. Light elves are barely mentioned at all. Fun fact: Dark elves in the nordic mythology are dwarves. Dark elves in Tolkien's books are elves who never went to Valinor to see the light of the trees. I don't like the idea of dark skined elves in the show because it problematic storywise (we never saw any of them anywhere). I absolutely can see dark skinned dwarves - there are six house of dwarves in the lore we never heard anything important of in the books or the movies.
I am an old guy who grew up in the 1960s with Star Trek ideals. I couldn't care less about the inclusion of actors of color in Rings of Power as long as their characters are interesting and well written. I appreciate your thoughts regarding "Woke" notions and name calling. It seems that intelligent discourse between people with different views is an archaic notion in this age of cancel culture. We can no longer exchange different ideas and grow from the sharing because too many of us dwell in echo chambers listening to variants of our own voices.
A wonderful presentation. I absolutely love your critical lens. You did an exemplary job tackling very difficult topics and you used your critical analysis skills to explain why so many fans have a difficult time with the preview. What I appreciated was you’re ability to stay on point and produce evidence on all the disagreements and controversies. You actually helped me understand how to counter argue against some of the arguments these fans make for their outrage. Saying instead, lets take a step back and really dive into what we’re saying and how we’re responding.Thank you!
Did Anglo Saxons have tabaco, pipes and weeds? Aren't these new world artifacts? Gandalf has fire works .... had he visited a middle earth version of China?? Denethor eats tomatoes in the return of the king film.... (Anglo Saxons didn't have tomatoes). There's no religion in middle earth either, which means Tolkien was limited with this create a mythical little Anglo Saxon england thing.... It is interesting how GoT avoided US accents in Westeros as did LoR and the Hobbit films. Some Dwarves had Scots accents to project some northern quality in The Hobbit film. So, will conservatives object to US accents in the Amazon project?? Will they mind if some elves or dwarves have Texas accents?
@@amys0482 well there are no US accents in GoT despite it being full of US actors....there are UK accents. Same with LoR films. Someone obviously thought this important. Please check the rich variety of UK accents in both GoT and LoR (films) and the paucity of US ones. P.s. the point was LoR 'represents an Anglo Saxon world' to millions of people. You could also have included some discussion of objects, things and articles. Why are bicycles not allowed in either the films nor the books? Even dwarves are not permitted to ride bikes. Why? Because Tolkien knew that bicycles have a place in our imaginations and WE wouldn't tolerate bikes. Bikes would be ok if there was a total disconnect between Earth and Middle Earth. But there isn't. . . .
While we would love both long production and short quick production videos from you, if I had to choose one or the other, I would rather have fewer videos of high quality. You are a shining star of analysis and this kind of work takes care and time. Anyone can do a hot take, very few can dissect an issue so deftly.
What a joy it is listening to a smart, articulated and well informed opinion. This was very much a very in depth discussion of multiple facets on that whole discussion. And while I find myself agreeing with most (all?) of what you said, it may be difficult to respond to some of it because so many arguments were touched. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it and - having listened to it - I wouldn't change one line. But at the same time, if the information were to be broken down into more bite sized pieces, it could be easier to engage in a discussion or reflection of it in the comments. In any case, I will watch this again and take notes so I can maybe write a reaction that does your careful research and deliberation justice.
We actually dont care what colour they include IF IT FITS WITH THE LORE. The Easterlings were essentially Black. They could have created an entire series about how they ended up there. What's their culture like, why do they dislike Gondor (an essentially white culture), how they relate to Sauron. He could still be tricking them like he did with the rest of Middle Earth. It would fit with the Lore. As a fan that would be VERY INTERESTING! Middle Earth was not written as a book. It was originally written as a lost mythology for England in roughly the Middle Ages. LOTR was written primarily as an introduction. They are essentially cashing in on the name which is why it's called LoTR:Rings of Power and have to include a certain amount of different colours to fill their quota. They are completely missing the point, introducing modern politics onto a Fantasy (by definition does NOT reflect the real world). It will be a massive success but could have been many times more if they had approached it with the mindset P. Jackson did. I expect it will be a commercial success for Amazon but will NOT go down in history.
Peter Jackson also had a dark-colored Elf in the movie by the way ! Statist in the big Battle with Sauron just in the beginning of Lord of the rings !!! Are the movies the same problem for u ?? If yes i got u.. If no, is it because the dark-colored Elf is a main-character and not just a statist ?? Think about it and read and check the sources in my comment..
@@skebbsis A dark coloured Elf in the beginning? The difference between filling in extras because of casting limitations (?) and a main character are night and day. The fact of the matter simply is that there are no Black elves in Middle Earth. It doesn't matter which way you swing it. I really don't care if there are black characters but it has to fit with the Lore
When I watched the first episode of the WoT I was really taken aback by the diverse ethnicity of a lot of the characters, and I had to explore internally why that was, and while ultimately I had imaged most of those characters as white other than Rand who I imagine as more copper skinned with red hair (which is why he stood out as different), I felt it was less about that and more about the fact that there's no way a backwater town that's been isolated for near 3000 years would have so many different nationalities in it. I have no problem with different racial ethicities playing characters, such as the Tolkein elves, I really don't care, as I see it being believable enough. To me it comes down to storytelling and world building. A place like the WoT universe has plenty of opportunities to include different races in it. I had no issues with Lan being Asian because it was quite obvious that Shienar was based off Japanese culture, so it would make sense that Malkier could be as well. Conversely I did have an issue with his weird breakdown in episode 5 at the funeral. I think it's hard when it comes to fantasy worlds, because they are somewhat whitewashed, so I know that obviously when it comes to making movies and shows, we should be understanding on that front. I want people to feel represented. I also want good storytelling and good worldbuilding. I don't think that's too much to ask. Hell, they could have made everyone in the Two Rivers black for all I care, at least the level of homogenization in an isolated town would have been logical. Does the dark skinned Sylvan elf come from a tribe of dark-skinned Sylvan elves? Makes sense. Does he not? Might not make sense. That's all.
It's myopia on the part of woke hollywood writers. They live in muticultural American cities. And they see it as normal and everyday. They have a desire to portray everything as multicultural... which usually breaks the grittiness or groundedness of most productions. It's fine if you are making a campy broadway show... but unless you are covering a world/setting where a very diverse multiculural cast makes sense (like a future setting, or modern metropolises), then it only serves to take people out of the movie... even tho most of the time, like your experience, they can't immediately put their finger on why. LOTR is a world where ethnically diverse societies would be rare. You are more likely to have entire tribes of dark-skinned elves, dwarves, or hobbits... not a bunch of ethnically diverse people peppered in throughout the world.
How about Amazon create their own stories? The issue is that Amazon had the audacity to "improve" or "update" Tolkien's work of art by adding characters and bastardizing existing ones. If it's not there, it's not there. It's like putting Nike shoes on a Rembrandt painting and calling it "new and improved" for today's generation.
I'm afraid I disagree that not liking the current media's misandric slant is anything todo with a desire against equality, indeed I have always counted myself as a liberal marxist gender equalitarian. Calling out series like the wheel of time for misandry isn't due to a belief in male supremacy. I'm also afraid I disagree that sighting media as "better in the past", is involved with some sort of "make america great again", type of arguement. Contrast here the wheel of time books; with a message of gender equality, vs the wheel of time series, hyjacked for a specific political message. I'm definitely in favour of more rational discussion , but I'm afraid I do believe there is a serious difference between "Anti woke", and "conservative here. Indeed, you mention wondering about political differences in other countries. though Britain is unfortunately getting more polarised these days, there is still not quite the absolute "left right, us them", mentality that there is in the states, indeed, I suspect that most British conservatives would be pretty middle of the road politically as far as America is concerned.
From a New Zealand perspective much of what passes for political discourse in the USA seems quite nutty. That's true of both ends of the spectrum, and especially on the topic of race. Unfortunately the USA's biggest export is culture, and it's effecting the rest of us too.
@shanon, this is unfortunately true. I'll say as an Englishman married to an American, I did notice some strange tendencies when visiting my lady's family in Pennsylvania five years ago. EG how such outgoing and and generally nice natured people, could be so starkly opinionated and so radically bent to a formal set of assumptions. My father in law once asked me if it was treu there were places in Britain where the police refused to go for fear of extreme Islam. I informed him that while there were dodgy bits of cities; probably like everywhere in the world, I'd never heard of any where "the police refused to go", and as for "extreme Islam", all the Muslims I knew, were perfectly decent people, and were indeed, quite literally "people I'd grown up next door to." He then stated uncategorically that he "still thought America was safer." I also noticed this with gender, with a much more formal male/female divide, in conversation and activities than I was generally used to, with women mostly discussing mutual friends or the doings of their church, and men mostly staying silent unless the subject came around to sport or home improvement (which made me feel rather out of place). then again, my lady's childhood female friends; who like my lady and I tended to be interested in literature, music, theatre and geek culture, were people I also got on with very well. All this being said, I will say people tended to be far more outgoing and less freaked out by disability than in Britain, indeed my lady, whose lived in several countries including Germany, Belgium and Britain, said that in terms of attitudes towards visually impaired people, Britain is worst than most, America included. so, mmm, while American culture has it's good points, unfortunately it does seem most of the rest of the world is getting caught up with the worst side of it, especially at the moment.
Very well done. A long, coherent essay that is well-balanced. I'm at about the same level as you in my Tolkienness and I watched the trailer and thought it was provisionally fine. I guess what we hope for with any adaptation is that, if it's not book-faithful, that it's authorially-faithful, in that the new plotlines, characters, etc, have the feel of what the author might've created if they'd woken up on the opposite of the bed that morning. For example, the first LOTR trilogy and the first 5 seasons or so of Game of Thrones were mostly book-faithful, and were beloved by all, including the book purists for which there were few surprises. It was just exhilarating to see these classic book scenes realized (and, in some cases, nuanced) on-screen. But when filmmakers start injecting new elements, such as in The Hobbit trilogy or seasons 6-8 of GoT (or season 1 of WoT), it became immediately obvious that we were witnessing 2nd- or 3rd-rate worldbuilding that was not deeply thought out and would not hold up. Memo to showrunners: you don't need to one-up the storytelling masters. Just cinematically realize their visions and you've done good work and will have your praises sung plenty (see: Dan & Dave's reputations for the first few seasons of GoT, or Peter Jackson's after the original LOTR trilogy).
Great video. I think you nailed it. Any criticism of "woke" at this point just comes off as disingenuous at first pass. Due to all the right leaning reactionary channels criticizing almost everything based entirely off a teaser trailer. It muddies the waters so much valid criticisms get thrown out with the baseless ones. I found it difficult to engage about how terrible I thought Wheel of Time was due to people jumping in adding it's "woke" which I wasn't arguing. I was just talking about how cheap the show looked and how poorly written I found the show to be.
what do you mean cheap they spent a billion dollars on it lol. the problem is they fired the only Tolkien scholar they had on the production team and replaced him with somebody who didn't read the books.
@@env0x my criticism was of wheel of time not LOTR. Don't know how you missed that. How would I know if LOTR looks cheap I've literally only seen the teaser.
The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 Dark Elf does not necessarily mean skin color and often does not. This is akin to those Black Hebrew fools who think the Irish were blacks from Africa because someone in mythology had the nickname "the black" in it.
Having followed your discussions about the role of different media in presenting their stories faithfully to the way the medium works, i.e., movies don’t slavishly reproduce a book on film, I have grown to be less critical of the Peter Jackson version of the LOTR. As a lover of the book, however, the film presentation seems to sometimes veer into video game territory in the battle scenes (IMHO). Nonetheless, I appreciate learning more. I am impressed with your analytical abilities and erudition. Please continue your efforts; we have so many who use a hammer on everything.
The Peter Jackson LOTR movies are good overall but there are things in them that I dislike, like Legolas surfing on shields or elephant trunks, Eowyn making soup for Aragorn in the director's cut, and even the elves joining the fight at Helm's Deep. Mostly minor irritations, though. They are very decent adaptations.
Hi Amy, great stuff. The treatment of WoT has made me negative. I think “Woke” and it’s pushers are responding poorly to a entertainment trend. It is not happenstance that the trailer packs inclusion politics into its 30 seconds. It’s what Hollywood and the industry is doubling down on right now. I am simply tired of the corruption of classic fantasy - the writers and show runners really want to tell their own stories, but lack the talent or opportunity to do so. Instead, they take an existing work to benefit from the existing fans, but then they don’t want the criticism for making changes.
I definitely enjoy these "longer" videos of yours, especially because of their quality. Please continue making them. Quality is rare, thus precious. Thank you.
Yay! Another video! Wow did not expect the Sad Puppies fiasco to be brought up. I am one of the LOTR fans that was turned off by the ROP trailer. The more i learn about it, the more i am worried about it straying into the "fan fiction" side. I found your channel after watching WOT, and had to see if anyone else shared my ennui towards the series. I hope ROP is a great show, but i don't have a good feeling about it.
Boy the end went down a road I was not expecting with the title. But back to the topic at hand. I don't care about skin color of elves or dwarves so much, but dwarf women reguardless of skin color need beards. Which leads me to this I am curious, why use the brand LotR? Why not just make a new series, elves and dwarves are fairly common across all stories, so just make your own story about elves, humans and dwarves.
Because, as Milan Kudera said: "“The first step in liquidating a people,' said Hubl, 'is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new [movies and tv shows] manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.”
For the money. But you knew this. I expect ROP will feel like other generic fantasy stories written after tolkien that were inspired by Tolkien. Some of those are good and many are dreadful.
I really enjoyed your commentary and your thesis in very on-point. The only thing I would have added regarding your synopsis of the state of storytelling is while there is a lot of real racism and misogyny masquerading as critique, at times is seems that when characters of color and/or female characters are written poorly (little to no dynamic emotional range and/or zero challenges/quirks/flaws to overcome, or added as solely a character device for another character or comic relief etc) I would postulate that some fair criticism has been lumped in as racist or misogynistic as a screen or defense for lazy or poor character development, (you do touch on it, but I think that it exacerbates the vicious cycle creating or fueling the "divide" and while it shouldn't give legitimacy to the surface racism/misogyny you discussed, these often non-political critiques are "weaponized" until they are embedded with other bigoted statements). As an aside, though I am not a Tolkien expert (I have read the Silmarillion, Hobbit, and the LOTR at least a dozen times, but none of the extended works) I am uncertain if skin-tone or even national/regional identity was of great importance to Tolkien. His stories often involve characters who are individual evil. Though some greater evil is present, some characters cause their own downfall or through members of their own kin (even high elves, ala the sons of Faenor). I can't really speak for Tolkien but I personally think that the skin-tone of the elves or dwarves (fictional races) or even humans shouldn't matter IMHO.
But elves, & dwarves were written as pale. He also had dark skinned humans. Tolkien wasn't a idiot, dwarves which spent most of their existence underground wouldn't have the adaptation of such dark skin. It's 100% about pushing wokism.
The thing I'm most concerned about what I've seen so far of the show is the dialogue and story. Not the only thing but certainly foremost in my list of concerns. It bothers me that some ppl think now that Tolkien fans are racist just on the grounds that they think for the reasons that I have listed. This whole thing seems crazy and overwhelming at times. I just want to watch the show and see if it's any good and move on at this point!
There actually are dark-skinned humans in Tolkien’s story (described as ‘swarthy men’) who were enslaved to Morgoth before he was banished to the void, and who later co-existed with the elves for at least a thousand years. So it’s entirely possible that there was some interbreeding between the two, resulting in a lineage of darker-skinned elves. I have no idea if that’s the direction the show is planning on going, But if so, it wouldn’t really break any lore. That said, his haircut is absolutely ridiculous in this setting in my opinion one way or another. From both a lore and a biological perspective though, dark-skinned dwarves make absolutely no sense unfortunately.
@@amys0482 Only in the sense of immersion. I personally don’t think that it is a big deal, and I get really frustrated by all the vitriol that’s going on about it. But I can’t deny that at least some part of me wants the world building of a story to make sense. And given that dwarves are mostly subterranean/cavern dwellers who often dislike open spaces, having them be dark skinned will feel kind of out of place. Like I said though, in my particular case, it’s mostly just nitpicking.
The main problem is that we need a middle ground here not sorting all peopple to left or right. If i watch an original movie i couldn't care less if the actors are black or white, gay, or heterosexual or bisexual or trans. What matters is the story that is being told and how that person plays the role. To assume that people can only relate to people that have the same skin tone or are from the same culture as them is just ridiculous. I just watched a korean series about a bunch of young women who want to become idol singers and i definitely could relate to their struggles and hardships although they were from a different culture and a different gender. And for me the thing is that if it is ok in an literature adaption or historical movie to swap genders, sexual orientation or cultures than that has to be in both directions. If you would feel offended if an european actor plays the role of an african or asian character then you should feel the same way about an african or asian actor playing the role of an european character. Only if you are ok with both directions you are truly ok with the concept. And yeah i have no problem with more female characters in movies or tv shows and didn't mind Rey as a female force user in Star Wars but there seems to be a notion that these female characters are not allowed any weakness or learning curve. Yes it's mostly conservatives who say that but if you just look at Star Wars and the WoT series it is hard not to agree to it. Anyway i truly despise people who attack the actors and actresses personally. They don't write the scripts so they are not to blame. I also despise people who respond by name calling instead of thinking about and responding to the arguments made. After seeing WoT i do have little hope for Rings of Power but yes i will probably watch the first episodes to see if it works for me.
Liked the actual review of the trailer, agreed with. Almost everything you said. Then you went right off your political cliff. Inserting your person stereotypes regarding conservatives, it was absolutely blatant. It's like the guy who mouths off at you non-stop, but then blames you when you attack back as being " toxic". But this is how the actual game is played. You have to have the blinders on, if you actually think the personal attacks are overwhelmingly played by conservatives to liberals, as opposed to the woke liberals attacking the conservative on literally everything. Which, I'm sure, I will no doubt be for posting my opinion. Most of the time creating "wars" when none was ever needed. When you consider that just about every one of us conservatives have been called a racist by at least one person on the left, for just about every idea we've ever had. For even basically pointing out reality. I personally felt it was quite the letdown. originally I honestly thought this was going to be a neutral fair ' balanced' review of the trailer to the end. To be completely Fair for the most part it was.... Before you started being a champion for the insanity of the far left. Remind me how long Star Trek had a female Captain for in Voyager?? Overwhelming the majority loved that show. When you think of "Starbuck" now from Battlestar Galactica do you think man or woman? Of course the thing about Battlestar Galactica was you weren't messing with somebody's mythology.. Like I said, I liked your actual review, fair and honestly well thought out. But not the fake stereotype spin. White supremacist? Please, y'all need to stop playing that card! I have lived around the world and have never once, actually met a 'white supremacist" face to face!. You can't honestly call yourself "fair" when you attack some 80 million voters with your stereotype, based on what maybe a few thousand white supremacists (at most) in all of America, tops do? Come on! We are better than that! I liked your opinion on skin color, Ok if it's absolutely "meaningless" then let's look at the other side. They could have done the human numinarian, easterling or horadron.. and none of the fandom would have blinked but instead went for the two most pale races, void of life with a sun to do it! So "meaningless" they actually had to do it? It is just sending a woke message, for no reason because they know all of this war they've caused is just good advertising. Does any of this by the way apply to B.ET. ? Would you have a problem with me writing a new stage play for the book Roots , Casting all of the slaves as white people and all of the Masters as black people? Yes ? Is that "okay"? Keep in mind the actual story Roots is not an actual a historical account/ story either. And just as a side note on your point about white people not actually being its own "culture', yes, you're right! That is actually a good point because for the most part aside from the slanted one-sided, bad only history being taught today. "White people" have not been the ones to hold is culture only to themselves over time. moreover "whites" tend to bend way over backwards to include others.. You can say what you want but I only know of one country that ever fought a war predominantly by one color to free a people of another " color". This may also come as a shocker to you but where I was born I was the minority. Now back to the main point, Elves for example are considered a different race! before the sun was created. It is as far as stretch to say a white human can be an elf as it is to say a black human can be a elf! Why are we trying to put human representation on another race? I don't see anyone trying to do that with the orcs or the goblins? To demand an entirely separate race, in another culture's mythology have your representation, is not only arrogant, it's stupid! Considering we are all part of the human race and don't have pointed ears and live for 800 years! What we're saying is stop giving them human attributes of any kind!. If we want representation why don't we get rid of the pointed ears... ? Again you're arguing from both sides of your mouth on one hand you're pissed off the conservatives are trying to push for censorship and are undemocratic, while at the same time, making comments that we don't have the right to question anything on UA-cam without it being" fact checked" by a third controlling party ? Or being allowed to question an obviously problematic election. We all know how that works out! . And as you pointed out it's every post that conservatives make, it is what gets censured and pull down regularly. so how is that freedom of speech and democracy? Again your argument fails to consider the overwhelming response from both male and female fans, along with fans of every single ethnic group, who all United overwhelmingly in one voice. To say no to your sides censorship and agenda. I noticed that continuously gets left out. And seriously, you brought up the election?? Lol ! Perhaps, you have not actually heard both sides of the argument. Perhaps this will help, and no. I don't think it is as blatantly anti-woke or conservative hate as you subtly alluded to. ua-cam.com/video/LLj2qamFUuI/v-deo.html Sorry this "rant " was so long. I am still going to watch it and will honestly try and give it a fair chance. Maybe I am way off the mark. Maybe not. We will see.
I think you should be allowed to question everything. I don't think purists to lore are racist and sexist. I absolutely do think that SOME people are racist and sexist and that there is a political campaign at play to radicalize nerds into supporting their politics.
@@amys0482 fair enough, I still don't know how that justifies changing the Tolkien mythology. However, "some" does not justify ignoring the main bulk of the fandoms justified concerns. I would agree with that assumption that there is a group of people trying to turn "nerds" into their political agenda Waterboys. Only then I would argue they are the Democrats. I can just as easily accuse multiple Democrats and liberals for being sexist and racist based entirely on their historical and present day actions. I find having this discussion while watching the most recent fraudulent race crime against "white conservatives" from an actor of Empire, (I know I cannot spell his name) who created an entire hoax to attack Trump supporters and white people on is now something like complaining about his jail cell, extremely ironic. This is a perfect example of the Hollywood leftists mentality and agenda push hoax. And of course it ignores the point that I made above on just how many minorities in the fandom have risen up in unison with the white voices. You guys are making this out to be a white supremacist thing, the problem is the fandom is made up of just about every color and gender you can imagine. what do you say about that? Or is it just that if you're a member of the conservative fandom " you ain't black". If you're, truly of the opinion that " racist conservative white people" are somehow creating this argument and backlash to support their agenda and to win nerds over. Would you also be willing to accept the fact that, the Democrats and liberals are doing the same thing also, by creating things like The wheel of Time and this new, late second age whatever. Very determined because it really looks like it's shaping up to be nothing more then a sjw soapbox. So yes I completely agree with what you just said, but I think the liberals are the biggest culprits, who don't care what damage they cause. For example... ua-cam.com/video/OGMehkRcEEI/v-deo.html Look forward to seeing how all this shakes out in the end. Keep the up the good thought-provoking videos.
@@davidlaurahay I am not familiar with the Empire controversy (also never watched that show) but there are shitty people all across the political spectrum so that sounds plausible. Some make controversy for the profit or glory. Some are misguided would-be-do-gooders. Some criticism of SJWs has merit. But quite a lot of it is steeped in far right ideology. The argument that some minorites are conservative is meaningless to me. Quite a lot of Black men, for example, are anti feminist and anti queer. I actually see more anti feminism among the far right than racism, and plenty of women supporting it, which is whole separate discussion. I think it absolutely essential to talk about these controversies without resorting to name calling, though. Disrespect doesn't get us anywhere.
@@davidlaurahay I really like ua-cam.com/users/FDSignifire if you are interested in intelligent critique of Black media. His review of Insecure made me watch that show and I am so happy I did because it is phenomenally well written.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that people having a problem with Galadriel’s portrayal directly correlates with how well they know the lore. First, it’s not merely that Galadriel is a “warrior,” it’s that she is “the Commander of the Northern Armies.” So, while her taking up arms might seem of plausible to someone who’s not as steeped in the lore, her being a battlefield commander should sound ridiculous to anyone who’s touched the Silmarillion. As you mention, Galadriel is described as someone who has “Amazonian disposition” in athletic feats. She’s tall and she’s strong and she’s quite competitive. She is also, undoubtedly, a leader of the Noldor. She was there in the discussions/debates following the theft of the Silmarils and she was one of the leaders of the party of the Noldor that refused to participate in the first kinslaying (especially after her father repented and turned back for Valinor). Her leadership shines through especially in the second and third ages as she increasingly becomes one of the most powerful elven rulers in Middle Earth (and part of the White Council, etc. etc.). She is (with the possible exception of Glorfindel, and that’s because he gets a special gift from the Valar) the most powerful elf in Middle Earth from the second age onwards, owing to both her tutelage under the Valar in Valinor and her tutelage with Melian. She is not, however, a warrior. I would have loved to see this story from the perspective of Galadriel, as she’s one of the first people to intuit that Anatar is evil and no one should trust him, her struggle to protect the Elven realms against his corrupting influence and her taking a front-line position in “the long defeat of the elves” and the melancholy of her watching the majority of the elven realms fall to Sauron (which then adds content to her temptation in LotR, when all of the sudden she’s presented with an object that could, in theory, help undo all that). Instead, we get a flattened warrior princess character, who’s basically non-descript male elf #47, with Galadriel’s face copy/pasted. The Light of the Trees still lives in Galadriel’s hair and eyes all of the non-elves (and most of the elves) who meet her want to fall at her feet. There’s evil rumors in Rohan about Lothlórien, because everyone who wanders into the realm of the Galladhrim never comes out. The Rohirrim assume that’s because Galadriel ensnares them, but the opposite is the truth, they are so awed by her and it that they never want to leave, even the Fellowship had to be eased out, because they didn’t want to leave. Instead, then, of a battle of wills between Galadriel and Sauron through the second age, which could have been as epic as (in fact, far more epic than) the battle of wills between Littlefinger and the Spider, we get Galadriel on a horse charging down at God-knows-what and, so the articles have said, she’s a prisoner in Númenor early in season 1, her ethereal beauty which causes everyone to draw back in awe from her apparently not affecting anyone. But why did I say that Galadriel being a battlefield commander is ridiculous? We find out when the first kinstrife happens that the Noldor have been making their weapons in secret (apparently, the Teleri had been as well). No one before that point had given any thought to warfare. The Elves, then, learn to fight in the first age, and their commanders of note develop into such through their conflict with Morgoth. By the time of the War of Wrath everyone shows up to fight Morgoth, even the Vanyar (for whom this is their first time leaving Valinor and who-presumably-have been educated in warfare by the Valar, otherwise they would have had no idea what to do in the battlefield). In all of these conflicts, Galadriel is never once mentioned as a participant. So let’s suppose that she’s really angry at some point in the second age and she decides to strap on a sword. Ridiculous, but ok. But she then becomes the commander of the northern armies? Why, because she’s a good athlete? JJ Watt is a beast of an athlete, does anyone with two brain cells to rub together think he’d be a good candidate for a general? And apparently she’s assigned to this job over Elrond, who is the banner-bearer of Gil-Galad in the lore and a veteran of the War of Wrath (where he fought with his father, who’s one of the greatest heroes of the first age), and presumably all of the other commanders of the Noldor who are still alive. I’m sorry, but that makes no sense.
There is no basis to say that a 60-second teaser proves that the show will simply depict Galadriel as "a flattened warrior princess character, who’s basically non-descript male elf #47." If it does, shame on them. But the LotR says that Galadriel wasn't even in Beleriand any more at the time of the War of Wrath, and she clearly had different views about the possibilities of success contending against Sauron rather than Morgoth.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts I enjoyed them. I recently watched a middle school play, a 12 y/o white girl had a 12 y/o black girl as a mother. Obviously this doesn't make historical sense. It didn't matter. It was a fun play to watch, and the actors did a great job (for middle schoolers anyway). If the Rings of Power is good or bad, I don't think the race or gender will have anything to do with it. I don't have much confidence that it will be good because the Wheel of Time was so poorly done. It doesn't make sense to me to have so much diversity in such a remote village as Emond's Field, however the races of the Emond's Fielders was not the problem with the show. I actually liked all of the actors in the Wheel of Time show. The Wheel of Time books have amazing women in them, and those women were made worse in the show by bad writing. Rings of Power will be good or bad based on the writing, directing, and acting; not on the skin color or gender of the actors.
Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful commentary; while I agree with much of what you presented I also have my share of disagreements. When it comes to the trailer and the backlash that followed, my posture is certainly relaxed. From what I see in the trailer I think there is a possibility that modern day politics has infiltrated the world of JRR Tolkien but I remain relaxed as long as his works remain intact - I can chose not to watch the series. I do not put labels on my self but certainly have my own political views and if others want to label that one way or the other so be it. The one label I will gladly accept is that of being a Tolkien fan- having read almost everything written by JRR Tolkien and his son Christopher, many of the works more than once, I think I qualify. What I would strongly object to, and not relax, is the purposeful altering of Tolkien’s written works to make it more compatible with someone’s distorted views of what the world should be. This was a suggestion by a so called Tolkien scholar out of Glasgow University because the works were said to be inherently racist resulting for the time and place of Tolkien’s existence. Next they will want to alter the the Mona Lisa because her smile is considered racist. So having said this Amazon can bastardize this however they see fit and I can chose not to engage in watching what would be a tremendous disappointment to me but rather retreat to the Cottage of Lost Play and reread the Tolkien works of my choice should I need to get lost in the world of JRR Tolkien and momentarily escape the politics and insanity of the modern day world.
I personally object to the darker skinned elves of mainly the bases of, elves are supposed to be creatures of light that even slightly glow a sort of pale light and I simply can’t see how this would be visualised with a darker skin shade and not have it look strange
Ms. Stewart, let this be the hour all Phans cross swords together. We have officially denounced Amazon's "The Rings of Power" Series via our 4k word Encyclical the condemns the heresy of the ring. Tolkien is very dear to us and even dedicated the first book in our series to him. Combat heresy with Orthodoxy, and EXSURGE TOLKIEN!...(ARISE O TOLKIEN)
Tolkien initially called his Elves , Nomes. But changed that because of the association with Garden ornaments. He said he regretted calling them Elves at one point. So he certainly did not name the based on an etymology meaning "White" . The Elves were also based on Celtic mythology and Faerie. Notable the Irish Tuatha Dé Danann. Fair in this context refers to a kind of spiritual power not colour. Notably the most powerful elves are the ones who saw the light of the trees and were enriched them and the oldest of the Elves. Glorfindel in LOTR is an example returned from Valinor and so "Fair" his fea (spirit) shone bright in the Spirit world that Frodo could percieve. The flip side is Dark Elves, who equally were Lesser, due to not having seen the Light of the Trees. Not a reference to colour. It encompasses the entirety of the Atani, the Sindar and the Wood elves (and more) Legolas would be a Dark Elf. As to colour, what we know from Tolkien is Elves were first created by Eru Iluvatar around the banks of a lake in Cuivienen , and were awakened first the three leaders (whose names meant first , second and third or similar) who then found "batches" of elves of various group sizes. Nothing precludes some of these being dark skinned. (most likely the Teleri since they had the most groups and the most numerous). Likewise The Dwarves were created by Aule the Smith, seven different "Fathers" of Dwarves. Nothing stops variation with them either. In fact since Tolkien did have variation with humans in skin tone, then its not a stretch other species would to. One objection that has been made that is absolutely wrong is the idea that genetics would stop dark elves. The logic that Elves healing factor means evolving dark skin would not happen. Because Dwarves , Elves , Men , Ents and even Orcs did Not evolve. They were created as is. Elves altered by proximity to Valar ( the Sindar, notably Thingol) or by travelling to Valinor and seeing the light of the trees. That's it.
Yes, the longform explanations are a welcome retreat from all of the yelling and misinformation that is currently going around UA-cam. It's a lot easier to just yell out "The trailer is Woke!" or "Elves aren't black!" and then join the fray. You take an entirely academic and analytical approach that feels informed and balanced. Great work. Seriously. Excellent work. You should be proud of what you have posted today! I don't care if there are dark skinned elves in the show, because I do not see the show as canon. It's a fanfiction piece. Let's hope the writing and dialogue do Tolkien justice though. From this line forward I hit EDIT for a last thought. IF the show were canon, and had the actual rights to create a proper adaptation, then I WOULD disagree with making the radical change of including darker skinned people as elves. For no reason other than that is not what Tolkien wrote. If he wrote them as white elves, then they are white elves. If he wrote them as dark skinned humans, then they should be thus. But I'm going by a strict canon interpretation and one that actually represents his writing. But again, I do not see this as canon. I'm sure someone is going to call me a racist for saying this.
I agree with you. I prefer a first adaptation of an author's work to be as canon as possible. I feel this way about almost every movie based on a book that I have ever seen. After something has been done, or if it is new original work in a franchise, I care less and sometimes new interpretations can be really refreshing. It's a preference, not a political view in that sense. I think Rings of Power is 100% studio fanfiction set in Middle Earth, but it's like a stage play of the real thing and theatre thrives on creativity. Whether I will like it or not is TBD.
@@amys0482 sorry to disagree here, but for me it seems to be a show with only the title "Lord of the Rings" that is NOT in Middle Earth, because even in a 1 min teaser trailer we see a lot of deviations from Tolkiens lore. Add to this the reaction of Amazon to the fan critics ( and of cause some of them went to far with their outrage ) and i have only small hope for this show to be anything worth its IP. And look at this show from this view: The show invents events in the second age for us viewers to keep invested for 5 saisons, but has not the rights to use everything Tolkien deemed noteworthy in detail happening in the second age ( thats the Silmarillion mostly ). So anything the show CAN show us concerning the overall lore of Middle earth HAS to be of little impact to the history with teh exception of the few things mentioned in the 150 pages of the Appendix and some tales and songs mentioned in the Trilogy. Yes, i am what one calls a Tolkien Purist. I like Peter Jacksons Trilogy, yet have some problems with his decisions ( Battle of Helms Deep, Battle on the Pellenor Fields ) but overall he kept true to Tolkiens lore, so i think it is a good adaptation. I accept, but don't like the Hobbit ... you can see that PJ had to take over, had no time to prepare and had too much to insert as demands from the production side ( love interest, blowing it up to 3 movies, having to fall back to too much CGI ) and sadly that shows. Its at best a mediocre adaptation. But now the production team of the show is very open in their plan to insert all that modern political correctness and invent everything, Tolkien never even thought to include in HIS world. So called Fan-sites now even fall back to call Tolkien himself ( next to everyone critizising the show ) a racist. The PR is a total desaster with choosing those influencers with no lore knowledge to try and sell us a good product. I sadly have a very very bad feeling about this being the next beloved franchise to be corrupted beyound recognition, but maybe... just maybe they can give us a good product.
@@marcel7077 The problem with The Hobbit is that the studios got greedy and took a short 1 book children's story and turned it into a movie trilogy. Even Peter Jackson wanted it to be shorter.
I've been following this controversy with morbid curiosity recently. I've heard some of the rants on UA-cam. It is nice to get an actual analysis rather than a festival of nerd rage. Even if that anger is justified, it is better to step back, think things through carefully, calm down, and come up with a reasonable argument. I would probably be considered a moderate Lord of the Rings fan. I've read the main works and some of the Lost Tales material. I tend to be a bit of a purist, and I am skeptical of adaptations but willing to give them a chance. The Peter Jackson trilogy that came out two decades ago was a pleasant surprise; while not perfect, it captured the feel of the original better than I had expected. I haven't watched the bloated Hobbit trilogy yet, and I'm not in a hurry due to the lackluster reviews. As for the Amazon TV series, there isn't enough information yet to make a strong judgment, so all the anger is premature. I don't have high hopes for it, but this is mainly because it will be fan fiction, as it is based on very little of Tolkien's actual work. Fan fiction seldom does justice to the original body of work. A few inconsistencies with the lore wouldn't bother me all that much if the characters and story were of high quality, but though I may speculate that this will not be well written, there is no way to know for certain until the TV series is available for viewing. I won't watch it immediately since I don't have or want Amazon Prime, but if it gets stellar reviews from critics and fans, I will seek it out at some point. If it bombs, I'll forget that it exists unless it looks like it might be so bad that it is funny - then, I'll definitely want to watch it. I am rather tired of the tendency lately to beat old franchises to death. The film and TV industry sees a cash cow and milks it dry. The failure of certain movies and TV shows might not be because of "get woke go broke" but because of third rate stories in zombie franchises that should have been set aside a long time ago. Judging from reviews, Star Wars may be suffering from this, but I haven't seen any of the recent material, so I can't tell for certain. The upcoming Amazon TV series could easily push Lord of the Rings down this regrettable path. Wouldn't it be better if people came up with new material rather than tinker around in someone else's world? Tolkien is a tough act to follow; lesser writers working in his world face a severe uphill battle.
coming up with new material is harder than it sounds. it's why written works that gain a high level of popularity should be lovingly adapted with as much faithfulness as possible.
"What could possibly go wrong?" We are seeing only 60 seconds so far and the choice of images has left me wondering how much this will feel like Middle Earth. The Hobbit was not well received and it looked like Middle Earth and felt like Middle Earth, but the never accepted couple caused it to flop for it's departure from canon. Amazon's Wheel of Time and it's treatment of Robert Jordan's lore is a big call for concern. Given the film history of the writers and directors, the fandom is deeply concerned. Social media trolls us to confirm that our growing concerns are worse than we ever imagined. Like the Wheel of Time, I will give it a try, but the writing needs to be good and the acting strong to overcome my predisposition toward thinking that this is not looking good. The trailer and its lackluster, "ever wonder what wonders lie beyond our wanderings..." troubling. Hope that it only looked foul, but will feel fair.
It's Harry Potter and the Cursed Child or Voldemort, Origins of the Heir... Guess the first struck me as a pathetic cash grab. I watched it after reading, that doesn't help, but then again perhaps I had already determined it was a cash grab and tossed it in the refuse bin. I was ok with the latter because it was just fan fiction done with love and concern for the lore. Perhaps, I really am allowing my preconceived notions of the world I have come to love to cloud and jade my thoughts on the matter... but many others also thought the same. Confirmation bias? Perhaps, but then again, should I have to force myself to like it? No. I will give it a try though.
@@amys0482 That sounds like something not to go into at all. That's the problem for me. A world I've loved for decades seems utterly uninteresting here, and unrecognizable at points. Can the actual product be different? Sure, but I've already been burned by the same studio so I don't see a reason to give it a chance by actually engaging with it. I believe the basis of fanfiction is that even if characters and some events are different, the lore of how the world works is the same. That's not what we saw in Wheel of Time, and so far it's not what we're seeing here. Regardless, it could very well be a well-written butchering of lore which would be worth something, but again that's not what we saw in Wheel of Time, and the trailer does nothing to assuage those worries.
@@amys0482 If I want Middle Earth fan fiction, I will grab the One Ring RPG, grab some friends, and write my own. I am not OK with a globalist corporation lying to my face about what they are selling me, especially when I am paying them money to watch it.
I still find it annoying that people can not separate real life from fantasy (which is meant to be different). I never saw a point in chaning any story in adaptions because why take that story as source material in the first place. If you can not identify with it leave it. Or even better...try not to bring politics or social controvercy in to literally everything. As mentioned fantasy or sci fi or whatever is meant to be different from our world so there is no reason to compare. A place to escape for some that has none of our BS attached to it and instead their own (dwarves and elves hatred in Tolkiens world for example). Also has its own races so why project ours onto those. I see elves as elves and not as humans so our races in RL would not apply to them. It is like comparing donkeys with eagles. Could go on forever but i will have to add i am not racist before anyone throws a tantrum at me.
Imo Racism always played a part in Tolkiens work, though it was not between black and white, but eg. between elves and dwarves. And I think Tolkien always was against racism, since how he wrote the stories, it was always that working together is better than fighting eachother. Eg. the relationship between Gimli and Legolas, they were very suspicious at each other for a long time until they came to a point where they started to trust eachother. Same with elves and humans. In the end, the races in middle-earth fight together versus a greater evil. I couldn't care less, which skin color an actor has, unless it ruins the story, it's a fantasy world overall (btw, dark elves have violet skin :P) As for the show: most important is, that it has a good story and good actors. Racism and Nationalism never did any good to the world (as we sadly can see again atm).
This is a very good commentary on the noise over Amazon's show. A few comments: I'm in the "wait & see" camp. It may be terrible -- in which case all of us will have every right to say so. But the teaser certainly doesn't prove it will be bad. Your points -- and textual backup -- about Galadriel and her potential combat prowess are quite right. I'd add that in the Unfinished Tales, Tolkien expressly wrote that Galadriel "fought fiercely" in the 1st Kinslaying at Alqualondë. It doesn't say with her bare hands. And thanks for the references to the *ears* dispute. (I'm in the ears-are-the-same-for-elves-and-humans camp which is why Tuor could be mistaken for an Elda.) You point about maybe there was a missed opportunity to present the Dwarves as nonbinary was clever. Oh, how un-woke they are. A note though: Princess Disa has a beard. It's not visible in the singing images, but it is in the poster image. The beard is like mutton-chops for lack of a better word. On race, you're very correct how noticeable it is that skin color has inflamed a certain segment of people far more than other changes (yes, including Galadriel -- but not Arwen with a sword b/c that is now fine apparently) by Amazon or Peter Jackson. I don't think it's quite right, though, to say that black elves or dwarves are contrary to canon/lore. It's better to say that there's an opening in the lore & Amazon is happily stepping through it. Here's what I mean: There is not a single word in Tolkien's writings about Dwarves' skin color. There is, however, the creation of the Khazad (as they called themselves) by Aulë. Tolkien said Aulë created them from his dim vision from the Ainulindalë of what the Children of Ilúvatar looked like. Tolkien is express that human skin color varies. Why exactly would Aulë have picked only one skin color for the Khazad? A similar point is true for the Quendi (Elves). Tolkien expressly wrote that humans and Quendi are the same species. Why exactly would the Quendi have only one skin color unlike humans??? I'm not sure Tolkien ever thought about it (and I do think all the Quendi he depicted by name are white), but if he had confronted the question, it seems strange that he would have said they were all white given his hatred (as you note) of the Nazis and apartheid. On the "fair" skin issue, that passage in the Appendices was an error -- indeed Christopher Tolkien called it a "perversion" that he couldn't explain how it got into the published LotR b/c his father meant it *only* for the Noldor. Again, though, very thoughtful video. Buuuuut, as you mention re: pronunciation: Tol-keen, not Tol-ki-en, Sow-ron, not So-ron, Keleborn, not Seleborn.
All fair. I accept this interpretation. I think the arguments that dwarves have to be pale bc they live underground is putting too much weight on science for a mythology.
Thanks for the great analysis. I was personally not going to watch the series anyway even before the trailer came out, and unfortunately the trailer confirmed why. wheel of time's obvious agenda and blatant misandry was bad enough, and Tolkien is waaaaay too important to me to want to see it get the same treatment. Thus, while I wouldn't normally! have problems with Galadriel wielding a sword and leading an army, the fact the trailer chooses to show a sword wielding Galadriel leading an army while Elrond is exclusively not, just seems to promise more of the same, especially given all the articles, superfans videos and everything else pushing the series "diversity!", or facts like Amazon literally creating Isildur a sister just to be a main character in the series. If the story and writing were likely to be good, I wouldn't have too much problem with tweaking Tolkien's cannon as regards skin colour. I might grimace a bit, like I do when Legolas gets the fleeing orcs direction wrong in the two towers film, but if the story, themes and ideas are all in keeping with Tolkien anyway, I'd just shrug my shoulders and say: "well it's only a film!" However, the more focus that is put exclusively onto diversity, the less the series sounds like that sort of story, and the more it sounds like yet another case of hijacking a beloved universe to make political points. Thus, I have zero problem with Galadriel, or any other female characters being prominant series protagonists (tolkien actually wrote several kickass women even if they were exceptions to social norms in his world), however, I don't want to see male characters, either newly created ones, or existing ones like Elrond and Isildur receive the same denigration that characters like Luke Skywalker, Heman, and pretty much every male character in the wheel of time got. Btw, as a final point about representation, as a visually impared person (registered blind though I do have some vision)), I'm afraid I find I am not especially sympathetic to those who prate over not being able to "identify", with characters who do not share their racial or sexual orientation. I identify with many characters, most notably Frodo from Lotr, yet none of them are visually impaired, indeed visually impaired characters (when they appear at all), tend to be horribly written. This is I'm afraid why I find the hole subject of "diversity", a rather hollow one, and would prefer to just see well written characters, with whatever characteristics. As author Robin hobb said, when asked about her own "diverse", cast of characters, if a character is alesbian vampire with a gambling problem, what exactly "defines", that character's identity.
I have misgivings too. I would like to do a video on "strong female characters" as the default that this means women must be efficient killers is annoying to me.
@@amys0482 I hope you do make this video. I remember growing up thinking Ellie from Jurassic Park was a great female character because she was grounded and competent.
@@zipperzee oddly played by the same actress (Laura Dern) who plays the forgettable Vice Admiral Holdo in The Last Jedi. She deserved a more interesting character to portray.
Defacto excluding fans of the source material from the show through your purposeful century long established lore deviations is not being more diverse. It kills your diversity. It is a deliberate attempt to alienate the built-in audience in hopes of replacing them with people you think are more in keeping with your desired corporate messaging. "Just some guy" nails his critique of this. And he's a black guy who has been driven off by Amazon..
Thank you for talking about this! We cannot forget the historical context in which Tolkien lived and wrote his stories. That does not make me love them less, but especially think about the "bad" Easterlings and Haradrim. Bad or less civilized people from the South and East? That does sound rather familiar, right? And is just one example. So if the TV show points at those problematic aspects, I am fine with that. What, for me, is more of an issue, is the time compression, and how that might work out. But I will just have to wait and see.
I agree with you on the time compression being an issue. The other part made me think, is there an angle, mostly supported by Tolkien's own writings that could elaborate further on the Evil men situation and explain why they joined the side of Evil that is not wholly problematic under modern thinking? I came up with the following: The "evil" men are on the side of Sauron, - at least originally - for a reason. In some ways you could argue they are (in the expanded legendarium at least) a commentary on colonization. The reason they joined Sauron was mostly twofold: Firstly, pervasive generational indoctrination and propaganda by an - arguably industrial - imperial power (Mordor under Sauron and Morgoth before him) spreading lies about how things are better under His powerful aegis and the promise of revenge or dominion. It is then further lies, mostly to do with eternal life and the misunderstanding of the "Gift of Man" and the unfairness of the "Ban of the Valar" that Sauron would eventually use to doom Numenor itself. Secondarily In the example of the Haradrim and the many different kinds of middle-men it also comes down to Numenorean (and in the case of the Haradrim also Gondorian) oppression and direct colonization by brutal power, especially during the apex of Numenor, a time they were so powerful they crushed Sauron's armies almost effortlessly. But that is mostly from expanded material the writers of Rings of Power do not have access to.. Another example of "good" peoples capacity for evil is the actions of the Rohirrim in displacing the hill-men of Dunland from Rohan, their native land. Thus leading to Saruman, - another industrial Tyrant - to be able to incite them to war in the name of (to them) justified reconquest and revenge. I would personally really enjoy a exploration of these themes though, showing how even the "good guys" are not always good and that "evil" people have their reasons for joining the evil side. I am reminded of the saying that "Every villain is the hero in their own story"
I agree that how can one to know if will like a new series without even watching it? The arguments people have made about the The Rings of Power seem to be silly or naive. I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but read the books many years ago and really enjoyed Peter Jackson's adaptations when they came out. I echo your feelings 100 percent about The Hobbit movies! They should have been condensed and released as one movie, but none the less they were entertaining to watch once through.
One point of contention though the quote about Galadrial being amazonian, I hope I spelt that correctly, comes from the unfinished tales which is a collection of rough ideas that Tolkien created that would act as a frame for his eventual creation of middle earths history and how his characters would look and act however how cannon or how much actually made the cut in Tolkiens mind is debatable, for my part I would only trust the Silmarilion and his letters.
I don't really care if LotR has Black Elves (or Brown or "Yellow"). I don't care if LotR has beardless female Dwarves. I *really* enjoyed having the strong female warrior in The Hobbit, although not really the romance involving her. Likewise, I enjoyed Eowyn in the original trilogy. I also think it's MUCH too early to tell if Amazon's LotR is going to be bad... or even "woke". As for simply asserting that someone who DOES object to having Black Elves or Dwarves is automatically racist... or likewise making that criticism of anyone who accuses ANY show/movie of being "woke"... How many of those alleged "racists" object(ed) to having Black (or Asian) Vulcans or Klingons (or helmsmen or communications officers) in Star Trek? How many object to having Blacks in anything set after 1700 in USA or England? On the other hand, having racial quotas is rather blatant racism, as is race-swapping known characters... while having gender quotas and gender-swapping is likewise sexism.
The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 I always thought Dokkalfar had sort of dark purple/violet skin, typically with white hair, eyebrows, etc... At least, those are the usual images I've seen.
@@bryanrhodes369 I will repeat my first sentence from this thread... "I don't really care if LotR has Black Elves..." I'm not one of the ones making an argument that dark/black Elves do/don't exist in Tolkien.
The neat thing about Diversity and Inclusion is that there are now more opportunities for historically underrepresented people to be associated with good AND bad writing. "We" as an audience need to call out the bad writing for what it is, and stop being lazy by yelling "woke". Let the bad writers stick to network TV, and force them to hire great writers for prestige, big budget shows.
The thing is 'woke' is a mind virus that has infected hollywood, so you have people who want to speak up but are afraid it's hard to imagine but they hire writers based on race or progressive stack, and then if anyone is to say anything negative they are now racist, or homophobe u name it, so we end up with poor writing on most of these woke projects and no one says anything, just let it happen. It won't change untill ppl are less afraid to be fired or life ruined, I think there will be a shift and ppl will be able to talk normal again at some point. I mean Elon tweeted Netflix waiting for Ukrane war to end so they can hire a black, trans person to film a docu on it, ppl get it. It's just how Hollywood thinks atm. Anyone who points it out is attacked.
@@drifter6870 The Showrunners for LOTR look like the whitest White boys I've ever seen. I don't know if they were hired due to a "progressive stack", but nothing jumps out doing a quick search. Aligning your moral compass with a shitposter like Musk is probably something to be reconsidered. How many Black Trans writers are showrunning Prestige TV?
@@bjbilyk Lol, how many "black trans writers" that write screenplays can you name off the top of your head? The world doesn't revolve around .03% of the population. And the identity of the author isn't what matters, it's their ability to write to an audience.
Late to the comment party... I think the real issue here (and in the case of WoT), is not that Amazon wanted to be more inclusive. I don't think most people would have any issue with that. It is the way in which they went about it. In both cases (WoT way more so than RoP), the canons provide ample opportunity to be inclusive within the established lore. By purposefully (or incompetently) not doing that, but rather doing it in a forced, militant way, it makes it feel political and anti-story. Not to mention it ruins the established "nostalgic memory" many people have cultivated for these IPs over decades and decades. That's arguably what makes these IPs so beloved in the first place. People want to re-immerse into the worlds they grew up with. Amazon's WoT is NOT Jordan's WoT. And all indications point to RoP NOT being Middle Earth. It's baffling. Amazon had to make up Second Age stories whole cloth for RoP, so why didn't they write a main storyline within the lore, featuring a leading female Haradrim? Why take one ambiguous line about Galadriel and completely change her image? Or they could have created a new female warrior elf character and included the traditional Galadriel right along side her. A bodyguard perhaps? Why add "Harfoots" to an age where they didn't exist? If they wanted hobbit ancestors, they could have created their own version, even to the point of having it multi-cultural. Then perhaps people wouldn't be so angry that a once-in-twenty-years chance to revisit their established nostalgia was botched (at best) or purposefully manipulated for political purposes (at worst). What a waste.... P.S. Please keep up the videos. They are intelligent, interesting, and entertaining!
I Love reading, and I love good writing. Good writing can exist in television and movies, yet it often is subpar, and I feel like the reason for this is not as simple as bad writers. It seems like lately either producers do not care about a good story, or they are making it simple on purpose. I believe the answer is clear.
I have seen more good movies and TV shows than bad ones in recent years, and much better overall than 20 years ago. Bad ones still get made, of course, and I think this is more likely to happen in a franchise that is already popular because the money will come in either way
This was excellently done! - as for my stance I agree with some of the very well written defensives to not changing things below. I would have liked you to have also included watching the 'super fan influencers' Amazon video and factored that into your discussion - they are been very blatant with their intentions for this show and the changes made to the lore. I have also seen quite a number of POC comment how against this they are, they could see what they are doing and how disingenuous it is as they loved Tolkiens worked for just what it was - they never needed representation to love it. And also subbed :)
Great video overall. Keep up the good work and I'm sure your channel will find it's following :) I do worry that sometimes you're simply writing off the criticisms of people crying "woke" as simply being the result of bad writing though. I'm not suggesting that you're wrong on that point by the way, as I think most agenda-driven writing is also terrible myself. But it seems to be a sort of rhetorical trap; by defining "woke" as a subset of "bad writing" then I think it becomes easier to dismiss peoples concerns about trends that they're seeing. But I appreciate that you go out of your way to look at both sides and have a wonderfully nuanced take on these things. Not everybody is a wordsmith capable of writing water-tight treatises on social media, but nearly everyone can tell when they're being mocked or lectured to. Some of anti-woke are definitely caught up in the same sort of cult the woke are, but many more are just frustrated every-day people tired of being talked down to. Edit: On a more cheerful note one of the more popular film critics on youtube (The Critical Drinker) released a video on starting out and growing your channel just a few days ago. If you're not familiar with him already I expect you'll have a few issues with his general style, but he understands the craft and genuinely cares about good story telling. You're probably already aware of the points he makes here but it might help in some way. This is his secondary channel, but it's not hard to find the main one. ua-cam.com/video/nb44P0SoyQQ/v-deo.html
I'm familiar with The Critical Drinker. For woke vs. bad writing, I would argue that the alt right cherry picks entertainment where the writing is bad and makes a case that it is bad because it is woke. There are a few cases where this is true, but only a very few. The larger aim is insidious, and I am suspicuous of any who wave this banner with regularity. This is a thorough coverage of the issue from a political lens: rewritingripley.medium.com/in-plain-sight-how-white-supremacy-misogyny-and-hate-targeted-the-star-wars-sequel-trilogy-and-2fd0be4b242
@@amys0482 I have read that article before, and it strongly reminds me of the game "six degrees of Kevin Bacon". Frankly, I don't find the conspiracy theories here plausible, and I believe the author has gone down a rabbit hole. If you're looking for cherry-picking, then I think that's an excellent example of it.
@@Golmov_the_Wretched The first half of the article is just grouping together what these people say blatantly about themselves and their agenda in one place... The social media analysis toward the end gets a little far afield.
Wont be a popular opinion but i find the idea of 'wokeness' as a derogatory term to be lazy. As for the new show, i am a fan of Tolkien but am not worried about elf hair colour or skin colour - i will see whether the story captures Tolkiens world and judge then. Oh and Galadriel did fight. Tolkien described her as 'amazonian', 'a commander', 'the most valiant woman of the house of finwe' and described her as 'fighting fiercely' so i do not understand the massive fuss about her being depicted as a warrior at some point since she clearly fought and led in battle when younger.
I am concerned that the politics will interfere with the storytelling and that it will alter the canon to the point of ruining the story. However, I am completely unconcerned about having folks of other races playing characters that were originally defined as anglo. Recently, Denzel Washington played Macbeth, and completely rocked it. Furthermore, several other characters were also played by African Americans. However, the film makers thoroughly respected Shakespeare's work, and politics did not have a great impact upon the story.
An intelligent and detailed analysis that I wish the algorithm would have promoted instead of the dozen other opinion pieces I’ve suffered thru while researching this issue. Thank you for the content.
I wanted to stop watching at about 5 min, but stayed to the end. You definitely put a good deal of effort into writing and editing this video. I do not agree with everything you said, but your justifications were reasonable. I have read about the same amount of Tolkien as you have, but Instead of having read it "years" ago; for me it is over 30 years ago. I am a bit of a purist, however. By that I mean if I hear someone mispronounce the name of Sauron, which happened almost all the time before the Peter Jackson movies, that meant that the person had read the books, but not the appendices'. For me that is like asking someone if he or she likes Jethro Tull, and that person responds, "Yeah, he is great." I do not have a newer reference, so you may have to look that up. Just like a dwarf jumping up from one free falling stone to another free falling stone in the "Hobbit" movie totally took me out of the story, having a black elf in the "Rings of Power" will totally take me out of it. I believe that the vast majority of Tolkien fans are also huge fans of Star Trek. And yet, I have never, in my life, heard of anyone complain about Uhura. I've never heard any white person not in the media mention the fact that she is not white. I apologize for rambling. I meant to congratulate for a good job, and got caught up in my own shit. Probably a good example of one of your points about getting emotional.
I respect the purist point of view. I get nettled with every difference from a book I have read and liked so I totally understand that. I didnt like most of the changes from the books in the Peter Jackson films, so I am sure this will be much worse. But I am also going into it expecting it to be Tolkien fanfiction, like most generic fantasy that followed Tolkien for decades. That will temper my emotions somewhat.
This is very intelligent but... can I make a plaintive plea for critics and defenders (if there are any left) to have the debate about Art? Tolkien wrote a literary manifesto, 'On Fairy-stories', to explain his concept of Fantasy, which he required above all to have -- 'the inner consistency of reality' -- Strangeness and Wonder The trailer gives a nod to Wonder. But will they be be telling, not showing? "Inner consistency" I read as a more physical, tangible quality than most have understood it. The phrase was lifted from the Oxford English Dictionary article on Fancy. It derives, I believe, from a passage by John Ruskin "the imaginative faculty ... depriving the subject of material and bodily shape, and regarding such of its qualities only as it chooses for particular purpose, it forges these qualities together in such groups and forms as it desires, and gives to their abstract being consistency and reality" -- Ruskin, 'Modern Painters' Vol II, Chapter 4; quoted in OED 'Consistency' If the show fails these tests, no amount of diversity and inclusivity will save it. I'm OK with both, I've tried to respect them as a lecturer. Art -- well, I'm not so sure
Here is suggestion: do a video on how toxic Amazon and Jeff Bezos are as a company. For me this has always been as simple as that, especially as Tolkien was known to really, really hate soulless industry. Insofar as race in concerned, consider it’s known that films studios have been doing this because they actually want to spur a racist response to get free advertising. This is sick on so many levels, but consider how badly that effects the actual actors who take these roles. Consider how Disney treated John Boyega or how the Bond film treated Lashana Lynch. They cast Lynch to stir up fake controversy, then literally chopped here scenes down because they were worried it would affect the bottom line. So this poor actress is out to generated a racist response, then when the studio worries that would affect the box office, they diminished her role! Point being, this all reflects back on the studios themselves and time and time again they have been shown to do these things for the most cynical reasons possible.
Progandia is an acid which burns through everything it touches. We can identify progandia when the people who react poorly to a trailer are immediately labeled as "bad" people. The response to the reaction reveals the intention.
This is also my stance. The Super-fans promotion and the attacks on the fans, instead of focusing on the story they wanted to tell, was very telling for me. Star Wars, WOT went through similar issues, I think its a sad trend.
Look the 'remakes' are either ruining franchises and IPs on purpose or else out of complete incompetence and baffoonery. Either way, the people behind them need to go. That is something "left" and "right" ought to be able to agree on.
I'd say incompetence (too much work to write compelling stories/characters) mixed with a virtue signalling PR machine, and greed (target more people for more $$)
Because in the zeitgeist white supremacism is supposed to be the equivalent of Melkor in evil while other forms of supremacism are either entirely justified as the only just means by which to combat the former, or merely a lesser evil, like Saruman.
I would probably throw male supremacism on the same side and there are some folks, including people of color, who are anti racism but also anti-women. I don't know if that is what you mean, though.
Feminism is not antithetical to a hierarchical system as long as women are on the top of that system. While the notion of feminism began with a mind to seek 'equality for women' that is no longer the focus of the movement and it would be naive to think that it is and totally disingenuous to say it is so. Frankly the topic of the fan fiction Rings of Power series doesn't need to stray this far from the topic of the series to be lucid. For my part, I am a 'Normal Fan' who read the books decades ago and I enjoyed the movies. I've also had a long history with both the Middle Earth Role playing game and some of the computer games. I owned and made thorough use of the Middle Earth Companion book and while I didn't read the Silmarilion, I have a fairly good idea of what it is and what it is not. i don't support any agenda that forces the adjustment of media to conform to standards that are based upon social and political motives. I don't agree with the kindof sensorship that conservatives use nor do i endorse the diversity and inclusion concepts that inundate modern media. That one is especially insidious as they actually write up 'guidelines' for equity and diversity / inclusion' quotas that are themselves racist and sexist. In the ROP teaser, for instance, they give a focus on the black female dwarf queen and that caused a lot of stir. I, personally, don't care that she is supposedly a woman of color. I say supposedly since I'm legally a blind man, so her color is not a factor to me nad from what I could see, she wasn't very dark. Logically, the idea of a dark skinned darf is silly... they don't exactly get a lot of sun down there. But it wasn't the part of the 'Black and Beardless Dwarven Queen' that I would take issue with... it was the fact that they are giving us a Beardless Dwarven Queen'. I really wouldn't care much if dwarven women were bearded or not, but the dwarves had 'Lords' not Queens. They were definitely patriarchal, so having them rules by a queen is a contradiction of the lore. I have to suppose the motivation behind it is 'diversity and inclusion' but that is a poor answer. Feminism is another possability and also not a good reason to change the basic structure of the dwarven race since it would alter the way they think and creates logcal inconsistencies in the world. Those are the things that I personally dislike most in my stories.. logical inconsistencies. When the world stops making sense, it knocks me out of the story and I move on. Tolkien's world made sense to me, as it was. Every time they make a change, they tip the scale a bit more. They did it to the Wheel of Time and that show is hot garbage now. This show isn't even a Tolkient Story, they are just using his world building... and then cutting out the foundations and pouring in modern political agendas. No, that won't end badly, will it?
As many others have said I really enjoy your videos, I think I watched this when it had been out for like 8 min? Keep it up! I am close enough to your viewpoint that pretty much the entire video I was like "Yeah that's what I think as well, but well laid out and clear as opposed to my rambling"
Hi Amy, firstly, good job. I am officially a fan of your work and I admire you. I like your presentation style, your level of detail and the articulate and concise way you make your points. I really appreciate the background you gave on your self as it gave good context on your analysis style and approach. I am impressed you have replied to so many comments, but that makes me think you dig this kind of thing, in some way. Please don't take that or anything I say as negative, because I don't mean to be. Also I identify with being on the Autistic spectrum. One impressions that came to mind was that you have not declared your political alignment, I think if you are making commentary on political sides it would help to be open about which side your on, (the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth). I think even the best of us are suspectable to cognitive bias and unconscious bias, I wonder if people commenting below were triggered by something you presented unconsciously. I am pro fair, pro diversity, pro inclusion, pro empowerment but I also don't like the idea of 'woke'. I don't like male characters being changed with the intention to further a political view, over telling a story. Think, would Shakespeare do it? Given I want fairness, diversity, inclusion and empowerment, but don't agree with woke, I think this is mostly not a disagreement on values but rather an argument on perspective. I think this is actually a clash of generational perspective on the same values.
I was raised conservative and became liberal. I am aghast by how much inaccurate information and propaganda there was in my upbringing. This experience informs my viewpoints and also my creative works.
@@amys0482 Thank you, I note you did mention that in the video but I wasn't sure if that is were your at now. Now I know. I am curious, do you give any credence to my notion that this is a clash of generational perspective on the same values?
@@markusloane1149 There is always going to be nuance when evaluating something so broad. There is cultural nuance, generational nuance, location nuance, occupational nuance, individual experiences, and so on. But broadly speaking, no. I don't think so. I think the same fight has been happening for centuries. The labels and angles change -- who is on top and who is being trampled -- but the struggle for power is consistent. In America today, being "conservative" means wanting to preserve the status quo, or to regress to a state in the past, like before women had rights to abortion (one example). This "state of the past" puts power in the hands of the wealthy, the white, men generally, and Christians, especially protestants. Again, broadly speaking. Being liberal means wanting individuals to be free of control by these groups and for "individuals" to be more inclusive of the diversity that reflects the actual people in this country. The way conservatives and liberals see government playing into this differs. Liberals are afraid of an authoritative state. Conservatives are afraid of socialism (although an incorrect understanding of socialism). In other countries this is kind of the same and kind of different. It is all based on historical context. In the UK, for example, "conservative" is class based and pro perserving the monarchy and aristocracy. But in every country there is a power struggle to perserve some version of power as defined in the past for the few versus the many who want power to be more distributed.
@@amys0482 I love the way your mind works, your depth of understanding of the dynamic at play in this niche community. That said, I would caution, what hurts us is not what we don’t know but what we think we know but don’t. I think no one is simply conservative or liberal but may have conservative or liberal views dependant on the circumstances in question. For example I don’t like change, and that is a conservative view, (I am being simplistic and general because this medium lacks), but I embrace diversity, inclusion, equality and empowerment. I see those things as liberal and progressive. So I think it is ill considered to brand any person as a conservative or liberal in general as it is not giving credence to the fact that that they maybe the opposite to what ever label they were judged by, in some circumstances. i don’t like the current centralised power balance in the world, I don’t like that life is not fair to all people. I also think that a lot of the world doesn’t know woke from any other concept and don’t care to know it. I think that we that are having this debate are already among the privileged. Aka a first world problem. I see your point that many nuances feed this debate however, for me, I can’t help but feel a major thread of this multifaceted conversation is that this is an ‘upcoming generation’ trying to assert its voice and place in the world by presenting their values their way. I am all for this, the old makes way for the young. I think what offends some is that it is being introduced a little forcefully and without enough consideration for those that went before and that built the foundations of the privilege we all benefit from and that allows us to participate in such wistfulness. Of course there are many other threads in this dynamic, I am choosing to focus on this one because it touches me.
@@markusloane1149 I appreciate your perspective. I don't know you, but you may be more politically liberal than you think you are, even if you like routine in your day and consistency in societal expectations. If you haven't taken a political test in awhile, that might be interesting. You get different answers at different point of your life as values become more defined. I like organization and efficiency, but I also value liberty to free expression and I do not like rules that are unnecessarily restrictive to how people live their personal lives. I would side with someone just wanting the space to be themselves over society's expectation for conformity, so I lean liberal almost always.
The reason we object to these changes is because there are plenty of lore cultures to include a wide variety of skin colors. This change is a dog whistle that they've gutted everything Tolkien cared about in favor of their own message. I don't want to escape to a dissertation on identity politics I want to escape to middle earth, which by it's very definition, does not reflect the modern world.
Also not true. Most fans love Ripley, a strong female protagonist (one of many). There are plenty of other ips that provide the very things you claim should be included. So make those ips don't rewrite original ips because that never ends well. These are very simple concepts.
@@natenichols9569 Ripley was voted the most popular character in science fiction. Voted by a majority of male voters. And Sarah connor was number 2
What's also stupid is giving the black elf a crew cut. They couldn't have at least straightened a black guys hair to make him look more like an elf?
Adding black characters doesn’t really make it a reflection of the modern world; it just makes it a reflection of the world. Much of the story was already a reflection of Tolkien’s world - at least try e way he perceived it. The world of lotr is full of people of different skin colours. Unfortunately, Tolkien put all the non-whites on the side of evil. Some would say that was a dog whistle in itself.
@@arman_1024 Yes, they were mentioned on the side of evil but we really no bugger all about them. You could have created an entire series about how they ended up there. What's their culture like, why do they dislike Gondor (an essentially white culture), how they relate to Sauron. He could still be tricking them like he did with the rest of Middle Earth. It would fit with the Lore.
As a fan that would be VERY INTERESTING!
Middle Earth was not written as a book. It was written as a lost mythology for England in roughly the Middle Ages.
LOTR was written primarily as an introduction.
They are essentially cashing in on the name which is why it's called LoTR:Rings of Power and have to include a certain amount of different colours to fill their quota.
"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. ... In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves." - Peter Jackson
If the Rings of Power went in with this philosophy I would actually give them a chance of being more than just another pop drama show. This is the only way to respect the source material and achieve Peter Jackson level of good.
They actually CAN'T do that for two reasons (maybe three). 1) Amazon has a DEI list of "must haves" to greenlight any production. I have read them and I think any good writer could work them in effectively, but some people are going to be lazy about it 2) They arent adapting anything. Tolkien didn't write Rings of Power. There is no narrative story to adapt. They have to make one up. 3) The expectations of audiences has changed from 20 years ago. Like number 1, I think this is mostly a good thing but it can be executed poorly and I do have fears that this show is going to feel a lot more like derative fantasy based on Tolkien than Tolkien. But then... how could it not?
@@amys0482 : They waited for the son of Tolkien died go figure. says enough.
PJ *said* that, but is it true? Twenty years ago, Jackson’s LotR was attacked for getting rid of Glorfindel and replacing his parts of the story with Arwen. This was derided as “political correctness” to permit more screen time for women and outright heresy against Tolkien that a female elf was carrying a sword, on horseback, and confronting the Nazgûl. Apparently, that's all down the memory hole now. PJ is canon, and Amazon's Galadriel is heresy.
@@Patrick-qed Tolkien fans, generally, were not against that "...a female elf was carrying a sword, on horseback, and confronting the Nazgûl." The character Luthien in the Silmarillion fights Sauron and defeats him. Eowyn, although human, fights against the Witch King and defeats him. If Eowyn was switched out for Arwen, fans would have been as vocal if not more so. The issue fans had was that it seemed that Arwen was going to be part of the fellowship since pictures were leaked with her fighting orcs. This is consistent with not altering the text to the degree of making it something else, and most importantly respecting the intent of the author. Many fans are also purists and any change to the text is unwelcome. This has nothing to do with sexism. Memory is an interesting thing, and one can reshape it according to present sensibilities.
@@Rabbithole8 There indeed was advance criticism based on suspicion that Arwen might be fighting orcs and/or in the Fellowship. But those weren't the only complaints about Arwen. There were gripes about "political correctness" and lack of fealty to canon. (Please note: I was not one of those folks complaining. I thought replacing Glorfindel with Arwen worked fine for a film. About Arwen's life becoming connected to the ring though . . . don't get me started.) I saw that someone actually put together a list of pre-release gripes about PJ films. The link is below. Here are a few of the gripes (hyperlinks on the original page) about Arwen though:
theArwen-warrior-spell-casting-witch-ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim-steroid wench REALLY REALLY BOTHERS ME!!!!!
I think that by turning her into this warrior sorceress Mr. Jackson is twisting and cheapening her character
And I'm not someone who always hates "political correctness." But this is different entirely.
If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely... But political correctness (also known as BULLS**T) in Hollywood won't allow that.
Lets make the characters more "exciting" and "politically correct", regardless of how Tolkien wanted it... Why don't we just make Lassie a cat. Down with PJ! // (He's referring to the movie/tv show about a dog called Lassie)
the screenwriter is a woman, and as we all know middle earth is a very sexist planet, so in the interest of pleasing half of the audience of the movie a woman would need to be shown more often and as someone more important
www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/strutc/a_look_back_on_how_fans_in_2001_criticized_pjs/
150 million copies in 38 languages. But Amazon needs to make it "inclusive".
My biggest fear? Another adaptation like Amazon's "The Wheel of Time" season 1, A.K.A., no respect for the characters nor the lore...
I think we will get some bad writing, but... tbd
I'm left leaning (and as a Canadian that's probably even more left than an average American) and I'm on the side of the critical here. The new Galadriel does seem like the typical male idea of strong female where they just masculanize the femiine so I'm not a fan of that. I thought how the movies expanded Arwen worked but would 've been happy if they completely scrapped Tauriel's character as she was treated as a limp love interest.
I think they could've diversified Middle earth in a way that embraced lore but they were lazy and just tossed it in without any thought. And the fact that they've spotlighted it themselves shows how showy it is, so I have no faith it will be done well.
This might end up being the case, but I will reserve judgment until I see more of how Galadriel is written for the show.
FWIW, IMO, when they masculinize female characters, they DE-feminize them... which isn't really pro-female... To me, it's more like a subtle insult to the feminine.
"You can't be a strong female and still be feminine." That seems to say that you can't be both strong and feminine.
The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@Nyet-Zdyes I agree. Jackson's Galadriel was strong and feminine, as was Arwen. I was disappointed in Eowyn's casting so I can't comment on her fairly.
@@amys0482 The 'leaks' have her as a rage fueled amazon who has yet to learn self control, but will 'grow' into the mature and wise Galadriel portrayed in the books/Jackson
Great analysis, i'm more on the "get woke go broke" side i guess...but even i can see that some of the things said on my side are dumb and just lazy attemps at getting views.
But the idea that people who are against "wokeness" are racist or sexist is weird to me. Just look at the TV show Arcane, it is as progressive as it gets yet every content creator labbeled as "anti woke" Or "right wing trolls" agreed that it was one of the best tv show made in years. I'm "anti woke" yet one of my favorite movie is C.R.A.Z.Y wich is about an homosexual coming to term with his own sexuality.
At the end of the day, "anti woke" people are pretty much just nerds. And the reason why nerds are so pretective of their "culture" is because people like us used to get laughed at and beat up in school for liking things like anime and fantasy. For a lot of us, these things were a form of escapism from reality. We don't want to see real world representation, we want to escape it.
And also, its funny to me when people are surprised that we argue about "small details" like color of skin and things like that. We are nerds and that's what we do. We focus on every tiny little detail and overthink them. We have been arguing about wether batman is stronger than superman for over 50 years and still dont agree.
This!
Well said.
This right here, this is what so many people seem to miss.
The people driving get woke go broke as a political campaign the most are alt right supremacists, sometimes white supremacists, sometimes male supremacists, or America first nationalists. Their targets are agitated nerds who have a variety of viewpoints. The goal is to radicalize them.
As to "protected spaces", I loved all of this stuff as a child but was kept out of social spaces because I was a girl. That hurt. And it is not new.
@@amys0482 do you have any names or person in perticular in mind?
In my 28 years of being a nerd i still have not encountered a single person or "influencer" trting to convince me that white people are superior.
Let's address the elephant in the room. They have cast the character of Dis (Disa) the Dwarf princess with a Black actress. In Tolkien's lore, The father of Dis is Thrain (White), her brother is Thorin (White), and her sons are Fili and Kili (White). How in the world does casting that character with a Black actress make sense? The one youtuber who has replied just dismissed my question as "it does not matter". He dismissed my question. Dismissive because he presumably did not have a good answer.
I am more bothered by how compressed the timeline is.
Tolkien's work was not accused of being racist when it was first published. For one thing the concept of race was different. It included what we now consider as ethnicity. However, he wasn't elevating the "English" over other people. His world is a mythopoeic one, and whomever is not English can enjoy it, such as the French, Italians, Greeks, and everyone else. Tolkien enjoyed literature form other cultures. His work was for England and the English, but not in an exclusive sense. Just as today, Japan creates manga and anime for the Japanese, but that doesn't mean everyone else can't enjoy it. It in fact is enjoyable to non-Japanese preciously because of its Japanese flavor. He has only been accused of racism in the last couple of decades even though Tolkien spoke against anti-semitism and he hated American and British colonialism . Those that make accusations are simply ignoring facts to establish their ideology. Recently, this is even more so with the woke obsession with race, and notions of "decentralizing white normative" Europe, which is absurd. Imagine decentralizing Asian normative Asia.
1st of all Tolkien discribes just the Eldar-Elbs as only white !
He never claimed that the Avari-Elbs are white to ! Further he discribes in "History of middle-earth band 10" the Elb "Majegle" the son of "Eol" as dark Colored !!! He changed it later to white-colored!!! So he originally had dark-colored Elbs in his Universe !! By the way the word "veer" means "white" but also "pretty" !! Further this only white sentences are from "Humphrey Carpenter" who wrote Tolkien's biographie and not explicit from Tolkien himself and no, i don't think Carpenter was a racist, i don't know and don't care.. If u have a problem with dark-colored Elbs you are no real fan or a racist.. So anyway Tolkien wasn't !!! Yes he started with the Idea of a british saga and yes he changed his mind so he discribes for example Numinor and Gondor as "Egypt-like culture people" !!! Further Numinor is Based on Atlantis !! So no you are wrong.. Yes Tolkien had dark colored Elbs in his universe and it's no british saga, only the idea of the saga was based on it, not the saga it self !!!
So if Tolkien would see this video he would turn around in his grave !
Sources Tolkien: " band 10" letters : "131" (year 1951) means even before the publishing of LOD / "210"
So before u talk, read !! And for the anti-racism community : TOLKIEN WASN'T a RACIST, just a lot of his fans have been and still are..! So don't let these racist or uninformed
so called fans destroy your interest !
this is a STUPID FAKE NEWS VIDEO
I was also "burnt" by the Wheel of Time TV-show, and so are sceptical to Rings of Power. Too early to say anything definitive about it, but if they are just making up their own stories, and slapping Tolkiens name on them, I think it's more than likely going to suffer when compared to Lord of the Rings; and everyone will do that. Looking forward to hear what you have to say about the show when it airs. Keep it up.
well I mean it's not like they can do the silmarillion version of events. they don't own the right to it. So in other words they are gonna make up the events as they go along.
The question really becomes at that point that are you interested in two guys who after 13 years basically have nothing to show for it running all around 2nd age myths and making a show out of it.
Personally that's not something that fills me with confidence especially when "galadriel killed so many orcs while wearing her bad ass armor that her sword split in twain!" as one of the show runners exitedly claimed.
Galadriel is also in a brawl with guards in Numenore and is barely able to hold her temper and is kept in check by the new human character Halbrad.
Each for their own I suppose. Not really into fan fiction writing especially when "representation and diversity" are basically the only words they had in their very much scripted interview with the *fellowship of influencers" as they so charmingly called themselves.
@@juusovuolle8251 Yeah, the signs are not good. I want to wait until I actually watch it, but I am sure I will have a lot of critiques. And while I dont object to the concept of Galadriel as a warrior, there is a good and a bad way to do that and some of the rumors sound bad to me.
But we don't know anything about the series, we don't know anything about the story, it proves that you had a problem with the color of some people.
@@daniachiyti1162 Who are you commenting to? This is one of the pleasanter comments. I agree that more people have a "problem" with the actors than they let on, or allow themselves to be influenced by those who do. I have some reservations around some rumors of the script, but as they are just rumors, I want to wait. The diversity in the cast does not bother me personally. It's an interpretation by a studio who bought the rights to do what they please.
@@daniachiyti1162 It certainly doesn't prove anything of the sort. To be honest, what bothered me most about the dark-skinned elf, was his short hair. But making the discussion about race and gender, and not about the quality of the show, seems to be a common ocurrence when a studio want's to deflect critizism....But you have a good point; let's wait to judge until we see the show, I agree wholeheartedly with this. And, again, please don't call starngers on the internet "racist", just because they are sceptical towards the show.
"I will be annoyed if they portray Galadriel as young and brash". The moment I wrote this show off as going to be awful was when they came out and said Galadriel was going to be full of "piss and vinegar". Their words, not mine and is the biggest problem I have with this to date. No way they're going to be even close to getting this show written well. I'd say someone's gone "hey wouldn't it be cool for Galadriel to be a warrior princess? She can be angry and independent and stab lots of things and that can be her only character traits" and run with it without thinking it through as to who and what she actually is. I'll bet that they've forgotten "young Galadriel" isn't 18 years old. She's been around far longer than that that, and shouldn't be acting like an impulsive, angsty teenager. Also you don't have to be a powerful warrior that doesn't need help from anyone in order to be a "strong", respected female character. That is something that is often missed in modern media.
The trailer also looks super generic. You could sub in another title and I'd never guess it was supposed to be Tolkien themed. Even the title is badly worded. As you're saying, it's hard to tell what they're going to do with it and to me that screams that they suspect they don't have a gripping story to tell and are relying on nostolgia (look here's that statue you've seen before, remember? Here's characters with the same name, you know them right? etc) with a dash of controversy by highlighting some of their character choices in the trailer to get eyes on it and deflect any criticism of poor writing and production choices rather than actually making something that will stand on its own. It seems like it'll be uninspired and a tick the metric boxes fest rather than something that has a core storyline that is at the forefront of the priorities to do well. I mean compare the original LOTR trailer to this one. It's like night and day in the inspiration and showing you what you'll be expecting department.
I'd also like to point out the "superfan" interviews that were very quickly hidden. The people hired had little to no tolkien content on their channels, and seemed to focus a lot on how inclusive the casting was rather than the story itself. It was almost certainly scripted. I'm actually not someone who really cares about the casting of POC changes, (I can see why some Tolkien purists were, but to me personally if the actors are good, it's definitely not a deal breaker for me at all. I'd be in a similar category to you. I've read most of the books starting with the hobbit in primary school, seen the movies, and love and like to discuss them but don't study every aspect super closely like some of the really dedicated fans) but I can spot tokenism when I see it. It seems clear that Amazon has decided to put a few token POC in the show and then push that to the front for the sole reason as to get patted on the back about how progressive they are and why no one can give legitimate crit of the show, even anything that is unrelated to casting choices, rather than actually caring about anything for real. I mean they could have done an amazing show about some of the other lands that were comprised largely of a non-white population in canon, and their side of what was going on during those times and cast most of the main characters as POC. But it's interesting to note that they chose not to. To me it feels like their intentions are not genuine. I think this tokenism feeling rather than something that's been written from the heart to tell a genuine story with characters that are going to feel well rounded and real, and have actors cast because they just embody that characterisation so well (Elrond's casting- oh dear!) is why many people are jumping on the "it's woke" bandwagon instead of explaining why they feel this way, which unfortunately just gives Amazon ammunition to come back with "well you're just racist/sexist" reply.
I do also agree there are genuine racists and mysogynists jumping into the conversation with agendas of their own, but I think there are a lot of people out there that have just gotten sick of their fandom's being "fixed" by studios that don't understand or care about actually trying to make something good or that makes sense in the long run (because it'll probably be cancelled before they get backed into a writing corner or they'll just wing it with plot holes), rather than something that just ticks the metrics boxes and almost seem to use "but the look at who we cast" aspect as a shield against any legitimate criticism even when it has nothing to do with casting, and more to do with just terrible show writing and production such as happened in wheel of time's adaption. Sometimes they almost seem to want to stir up controversy amongst the book fan base so they can demonize the entire community and write them off as the cause of all problems. (ie: Wheel of time book fan: I didn't like removing Saidin/Saidar split. The gender differences and the fact that people are stronger together is one of the important aspects of these books. It also makes no sense for the Dragon reborn to be potentially reborn female as this takes away all of the danger associated with a man going crazy and breaking the world. It's also stated that "men make the power filthy" due to their huberis (see LTT's scene) so only women can handle it safely now, but people can be reborn into any gender so souls are not therefore gendered. Why then should this be the case? It isn't explained. Amazon show defender: Oh no, you're just sexist. Women and Men need to be equal always (the power they use and potential to be the DR) so that means we have to get rid of the power split and we won't get into the other things you're saying because it's obvious that you're not worth engaging with.)
I actually had a few conversations with people (book fans, no one was interested on the show fan side) about that LTT scene by the way. In the books it was a desperate move by LTT to try and salvage the situation. Latra and co disagreed and that is why LTT took the men only to seal the bore. He didn't fail, they did seal it and thereby likely saved the world at this time, but it was a patch, and came at a terrible cost. So should Latra have sided with him? Maybe. If she did, maybe the bore could have been sealed for good. On the other hand maybe she was right to refuse as the possible result could have been both sides of the source being tainted and the resulting madness x 2 could have wiped all life from the earth with no hope of recovery. We'll never know for sure. These shades of grey are so much more interesting that LTT and his merry men were just bad. He was caught up in his arrogance and broke the world, where as Latra was good for some reason just letting him do it knowing full well what the consequences would be, but didn't try to stop it. She just kind of shrugs, tells him what will happen and then and walks away and leaves him to it. I mean what? This is what happens with screen writers start thinking they can make changes to the original books that will be "better" despite not being best selling authors who understand the source material really well themselves. I know this is WOT and we're talking LOTR which hasn't come out yet, but seeing what they've done here does not make me hopeful they can manage something that has even less source material to draw from and do it well. Especially when you see how little the showrunners have done before being given such a huge project (also the case for WOT). I mean why would you trust your flagship series to someone so inexperienced, unless it was so that the corporates feel that they can more easily influence and interfere with the production as they see fit (which rarely ends well in terms of getting a cohesive storyline that doesn't look committee designed and patchy.)
I don't agree the CGI looks great in all the scenes either. For what the budget is, some of them look quite bad. I actually hated the ice cliff scene because not only does it not look great, it's like why on earth is Galadriel climbing an ice covered mountain in full armour??? That's just silly, not inspiring. If she doesn't fall from the weight, sh'e'll freeze to death before getting to stab any of those orcs. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain it'll be another WOT. It almost seems like they were using WOT as a trial run for how to do damage control because they knew in advance they were going to do similar things to LOTR, but underestimated how hard many people were going to reject it once the trailer dropped. I was cautiously optimistic about Amazon's LOTR, but what they did to WOT really soured me towards future projects and has left me in the I'll need to be convinced they can make a decent adaption, rather than my previous I'll given them the benefit of the doubt stance. I'm just seeing so many parallels between the way the two are being marketed and defended by Amazon that it really gives me little hope it will be a show with any decent writing or substance.
I have a bad feeling too but I really want to withold judgement until I see an episode. It won't surprise me, though, if what we get is just... not good.
Thanks for trying to offer a more balanced perspective. You made some good and worthy points. However around 30:00 when you try to put the Rings of Power controversy within the context of "get woke, go broke" your analysis begins to stumble. I followed the Sad Puppies brouhaha, I largely share concerns about how entertainment industry has been coopted by ideology and agenda. I am fully aware the "go broke" part of the slogan doesn't always happen. But darn right the "get woke, go broke" slogan is political, of course it is. It's pushing against soft totalitarianism, totalitarian in the sense that there are forces in postmodern Western society that want to deny us any place of escape from politics, they want us angry and divided, because relatively happy people are less likely to foment revolution. With respect, I think your take on woke-ism is naive.
I'll give you a point that I don't think the rhetoric I have seen from some liberals is effective. I tried to capture that with the commentary at the end that your vision of the world needs to include everyone. However, I think the desire to escape from injustice is a weird thing to want. Not everyone can do that.
I agree. She starts going off the rails at 30:00
@@jscottupton Her left wing/ wokism definitely started to shine at that point.
I will try to be brief lol. I enjoy your videos, they're insightful and clearly massive amounts of work go into them. Kudos to you. Truly. Personally, I think the left has circled the globe and landed squarely on the right, but since they're still looking left, they're......confused, and so is everyone else. You probably disagree, that's okay, I know I am not running on all thrusters. In regards to the phrase "get woke go broke" and the track record of franchises dying. It is my opinion this has less to do with ideologies, and more with the fact the people like showrunners and writers have been given the keys to the kingdom, and then lost the keys. In the early days of franchises, the creators has to EARN the fans' devotion. Budgets and lack of technology led to an unspoken agreement between creator and audience. We the audience accept your styrofoam boulders, please oh friendly creators give us quality to compensate. Fans of those days were mocked, ridiculed, and dare I say, marginalized socially. Many were beaten and bled for their stories. It doesn't compare to what others have endured, of course, nor do they pretend it compares. With JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, the message went forth the corporations were in control and the audience was no longer a factor in their equations. Today, creators don't care much to earn a fan's "devotion", instead many attack fans before their product is even released, hoping to "bully" the pre-existing audience AND draw in a younger crowd. Today's creators can no longer create, only churn out commercial product. Older audiences resent being treated like they're stupid, and resent the younger audience for being content with what both perceive as checkboxes being marked. Another way to put it is, we were SHOWN that Captain Janeway was a strong female character, we were TOLD that Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers was a strong female character.........with No Doubt playing in the background. I believe that is the seed from which everything else has grown, with some legitimate real world problems as fertilizer. Well, this went a little long, thanks for reading this far.
I appreciate your perspective. I would like to do a review of Disney Star Wars trilogy... but I have to finish it first. The Last Jedi was a deeply unfortunate installment in the franchise. It was so irritating that I did not even watch Rise of Skywalker. But I actually like Captain Marvel. I think much of the criticism of that one is overblown and reaching for things to complain about. The criticism can be interpreted as an outright condemnation of feminism, but not as a movie.
@@amys0482 Rise of Skywalker was a Frankenstein's monster of a story. It had good, it had bad, it had sand. There's always sand. It gets everywhere.
@@duskshadows5106 haha this meme always cracks me up 😂😂😂
It is not even fan fiction but corporate fiction.
No, no. Let me get this straight lady, the fandom base IS NOT DIVIDED. They are UNITED AGAINST THIS CRAP🤣😂
exactly. if you're a fan of tolkien's legendarium, you're against this
It’s not a matter of racism. As a Brit, this is the usual Hollywood acquisition of a beloved English literary classic which has often topped the lists as Britain’s most favourite novels of all time, for which history shows is littered with disastrous results. Rarely, if ever getting the British cultural iconic fiction right in any way at all. Classic Hollywood crassness in this area of the genres.
Calling Lord all of the Rings fans and Tolkien racist, is totally ridiculous. As he created Dwarves, Elves, a Maian/Wzard, Dunédain, alongside men. And that’s just the good guys of the fellowship. They’re different races and cultures that have to put aside their prejudices to cooperate against evil. There’s no need to black skin these already diverse multi cultural characters. That’s already that part the actual narrative.
The worldwide PoC audience who got the point, would feel insulted that they would not empathise these themes, unless further clumsily shoehorning in forced in skin tone diversity!
This is lazy research and writing, as they are already handed a platinum platter of the continent of Harad, that Tolkien purposely created as populated by people of colour, who even appeared if briefly in Jackson’s movies. A literal blank slate that could be so fascinating to have expanded upon. But no, they can’t be bothered with Tolkien’s people of colour, ignoring these races in the lore altogether. To me, that looks ‘racist’ by Amazon, right there!
What Amazon are doing, by not even bothering to adapt anything and throwing all of Tolkien’s works out the window and purloining LOTR characters, employing a couple of sub par Hollywood Hacks who have the temerity to think they can ‘write a book that Tolkien never wrote’ and applying ‘story to reflect the modern world’ in a historically themed fantasy that occurs eons before LOTR’s third age, really?
This is blatant cultural appropriation, that if merely attempting this nowadays from the opposite direction, would then be deemed as wholly unacceptable!!
"there's not a minority out there who's complaining about this trailer".
wrong. everyone/anyone who is a devoted tolkien fan is complaining about this trailer. race has nothing to do with it. Living Anachronism and Just Some Guy are both minority youtubers who have been outspoken against this before the trailer even came out.
im a minority and i hate what they are doing in this series.
lol. Minority in this context means less than a majority. A majority of people are complaining.
Yea I'm a minority & will be boycotting this woke trash. The far left think they speak for all minorities but they definitely don't & their minority support is dropping as a reflection of it.
there was one aspect that bugs me, which you did mention briefly. About how ingenuous the "wokeness" is. On twitter you see people mocking puritan fans and saying "Okay now I'm actually going to watch it!"
So by presenting a trailer like this, the companies might be banking on fans' infighting to build a viewer base for them. Essentially, being able to make subpar content but seeing it do well purely because some people want to stick it to the racists'. Personally I want inclusion and progressiveness, but done right. With good storytelling and keeping faith to the original author's themes ("cough* wheel of time *cough*).
I feel this is very predatory/lazy of said companies.
I do hope the Rings of power series is good though. Like you, I gave Wheel of Time the benefit of the doubt and feel deeply disappointed.
I would be surprised if Amazon is taking that angle with a property they have spent so much money to acquire. I can see Judkins possibly doing that with WOT. I will have to see what the themes are with LOTR. I suspect it will be "bad" more because the creators underestimate what it takes to write something like this.
Strictly going by the vanity fair article and the teaser, I will not watch. I’ve spent years reading Tolkien’s works and what I’ve seen is a slap in the face to his work.
@@shawnac9289 He is rolling in his grave.
@@amys0482 If they present some random dummies as "superfans" to the potential fans of their show, they already show they have no clue of the subject matter (= Tolkien's creative legacy). They will tank with it.
thats actually a huge part of why modern reboots and newer ip's usually die. Wider appeal means shallower interest.
You may rope in the casuals but what makes them casual is they're fair weather fans. Their money is as fleeting as their interest. So yeah amazon may see a quick boost in viewership but the hate boner anti fans feel wont last long enough to recoup those losses.
To truly understand what the fans are upset about people need to watch "The Superfans" video, and read some of the articles available such as The Vanity Fair articles and pictures. The Superfans video has Amazon Prime blatantly using fake fans who only talk about race, representation, diversity and inclusion. They show no interest in anything such as lore or story and have very poor knowledge of Tolkien. Upon checking these Superfan's websites there is nothing related to Tolkien or LoTR. You have to watch it to see the unbelievable amount of cringe it evokes.
The showrunners say they want the show to reflect the modern world. We as fans read and watch Tolkien to escape into a much loved fantasy realm, not to be reminded of the modern world.
Galadriel participated in athletic game, she was never an armor plated, sword wielding warrior who led armies. A warrior who apparently has killed so many orcs with her sword that it is now broken. And now she is the leader of the northern armies, pretty sure that job was supposed to be Elrond's. But he's to busy building houses in his new job of architect now. Well at least when he's not too busy knocking door to door for election votes.
I am a liberal in my politics and I'm sure many of the other fans who are complaining are as well. Many of these same fans are POC as well. Because I am defending Tolkien's work I'm now a racist (though I'm black/white), a far right wing extremist, and a mass murderer (love that one). Somehow our love for Tolkien's lore is getting buried under a pile of ists, isms and politics and that is simply sad.
yep that's the new world these neo marxists have created. either get on with the program or be prepared to be crushed by the propaganda machine. The best you can expect is that people won't call you a racist but in the same breath they will call your point of view as right wing.
Yes. This is accurate. The show will be fan fiction. The stupidity and ignorance enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 Mostly the Teleri elves splintered as their leader Elu Thingol got lost into the woods where he met his future wife Melian the maia. Later on he took the remaining elves in the coastal area under his wing and they became known as Sindarin elves. They were also some times called the Avari or the forsaken as none of them saw the light of Aman or met the valar.
The title dark elf was reserved to few individuals I believe. Eöl was one he mostly spent his time in a dark forest and forbade his wife from meeting any strangers or relatives. Which the Noldor took grim view on considering that his wife was the sister to the High king Turgon.
It's been quite some time though maybe they called Sindarin dark elves too in occasion but I have no memory of such.
@@juusovuolle8251 Moriquendi is the term you are looking for.
@@bryanrhodes369 oh right that is a far better word for it. What a great man Tolkien was 60 years after his passing and people are still using his made up languages.
I think you are missing the point about 'woke'. A show can have diversity and strong females without being 'woke'. Arcane for example is a great show with diversity , female leads and even class war, but made with love of the story (made by non americans by the way). The teaser for THE RINGS OF POWER don't try to sell it as a good story and the producers of the show actively say they insert politics in the show.
By the way from the prespective of non white, non american, your politics (left or right) are mostly stupid, and as a country you are failing. From some aspects i don't think of the US as a first world country (health care for example ). I still think US are one of the best things that happen in the world because the alternative empires are far worse.
America can't afford universal health care because we are to busy spending our money on the defense of other welfare countries who do have universal health care who don't put in their share for their own defense. Instead rely on the US to do it for them. So while you get to go the doctor for free and mooch off of America's defense I'm afraid to go to the doctor because it's going to break my bank account. If we cut our funding toward NATO then maybe I don't need to be scared to death about breaking a bone.
People like to point to Arcane, which I agree is wonderful, but Arcane is also political, or the setting is political. So why is that not "woke"? What I see is cherrypicking. The films and TV shows that aren't good are "woke" but shows that do all the "woke" things well are ignored. They just aren't talked about. So the criticism feels disingenous. Diversity doesn't make shows bad. Look at Arcane. Political messaging doesn't make shows bad. Look at Arcane. But Star Wars is bad because of the diversity and political messaging? Or is something else going on?
@@Dovieandi_Se_Tovya_Sagain Resistance to single payer healthcare in America is steeped in fear of Marxism and the desire to ignore the problem because the current system benefits the rich. The current capitalist system rewards the rich and punishes the poor. "The people who matter" are doing just fine. Changing the system puts a tax burden on the rich so they are against it and they are the ones in control of legislation. Plus, lobbyists.
Personally, I don't think socialized healthcare is socialism and we are mad not to move to that system.
@@amys0482 I agree but the top 1 percent is already paying over 40 percent of US taxes while the bottom 90 percent pay less than 30 percent of taxes. I don't know how much more you'd like them to spend but I think they are putting in their fair share. But I doubt a little extra would hurt them. But it doesn't matter if the government continues to waste money. Wasn't it like 2013 that the Pentagon announced they lost 1 billion dollars. Just didn't know where it went. Unaccounted for and we just shrug our shoulders and say oh well. And we expect our government to stop global warming or anything else for that matter. I'm not counting on it. Additionally America is responsible for most of modern day medical advances. And capitalism is partly responsible for that. If there's an incentive to create cures people are willing to fund more research etc.
@@amys0482 for some reason I don't see your last post but you mentioned something about the tax rate to the 1950s.
55 percent compared to today at 40 percent is probably feasible but you and I both know if the rich want to hide their money from preventing to pay they will and there will be nothing anyone could do about it. If you start taxing to high (or at least what the rich thinks is too high) they'll start doing more of their shenanigans to hide their wealth. I enjoy the engagement. Thanks for your content.
After what this same studio did to WoT, I see no reason whatsoever to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I disagree with a great amount of what you say, mainly from the standpoint as a writer/author of science-fantasy, and supporter of the purist (edit: purist lore) viewpoint. I dislike when the original things are changed to replace men with women, and other such changes to characters.
If people want to change these things... they shouldn't be adapting original things... they should be making their own new things with the things they want to see.
(edit 2: I also dislike when sequels, in franchises which have their "rights" bought, and such decide to degrade the original characters to prop up their new original characters)
That's weird since I accept the purist viewpoint. I think it is fine to dislike an adaptation for deviating from the source material. I think it's not fine to dislike it because it is feminist or diverse and inclusive.
@@amys0482 I think a lot of the purist viewpoint gets thrown into the political camp to discredit their point of view, or put words into their mouths, or to imply they have motivations other than what they themselves say. And I do see malicious intent behind many changes that you see as innocent and positive. Perhaps I'm just jaded by seeing horrible things happen to properties I love, in the name of diversity, inclusion, and feminisim. (giving those causes a bad name, in my book, due to the track record.)
@@NameNotAChannel Yes, but the canon view gets thrown in with the political right because the political right is actively trying to recruit canon lovers to view the "liberal agenda" as evil and ruinous. It's not, though. At worst, it's a mixed bag.
@@amys0482 the problem here is that the ones that made those changes are making the changes in this one direction only, which when you point you've been called ist and a phobe and they are hiding behind this when the major problem - the story itself - gets drowned in the background. And the last few years this happens more and more and more.
Reading the comments above - someone mentioned Idris Elba in Thor. Well, I can point to him in The Gunslinger, where in the books the character of Roland (that Elba portrayed) is described like 99.9% Clint Eastwood. Thus said, in the movie, the actor convinced me that he is Roland The Gunslinger - he had the aura of the said character and the chops to play him. But then there was the problem with the entire script of the said movie, that was just hot, steaming pile of garbage. And here we come to the main problem with the vast majority of these "woke" or "progressive" adaptations and/or changes of original IPs that we see lately - their storytelling is absolute garbage on top of the changes that they make in the lore (the WoT is one still hot example of this) and the vast majority of the actors in those imaginations are no Idris Elba.
Edit: I'd have next to zero problems with the inclusion of characters that are of color if they made sense by a world building view in any IP. Meshing a village in the ass of nowhere (scuse my French) in the WoT, with people of all sorts of colors and religions is not world building. The WoT world has A VAST world building to pull from and at the end one of the points of the series was that all those people had to work together, women and men alike. Having black people in the NORTHERN Realms hopping all around in The Witcher is another such example. What do I mean with this? You want to have black elves? Why no make all the elves black? Merchants from far lands can be Arabic etc. etc. Done deal.
The masculinification (that a word) of women, like, Galadriel, which was described in The Silmarilion as a sorceress and extremely wise, not a warrior, is another problem in all of those "imaginings" - masculinity is not the only thing that can be "strong". Femininity in itself is strength itself.
I'm sorry, I went a bit long with this post.
The purist argument completely falls apart and is revealed as ignorance when when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves).
Even a casual researcher will easily find their way to Snorri Sturleson's works and recognize both their importance to Tolkien (all the dwarves in the hobbit are specifically named, including Gandalf) and the existence of dark-skinned elves in the mythos.
In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
Insisting on racial purity in a fantasy world where that racial purity never actually existed is, by definition, racist.
Some solid points, particularly about the impact of social media, but also some points I really have to question, as follows:
- Generally it seems like you are overlooking the racism of the political left, or progressives, or whatever label you prefer. The Rings of Power (ROP) isn't providing diversity, it is inserting one race in the form of black elves, black dwarves, black Harfoot, a black human princess (I think?). That isn't diversity, that is race fetishism. Being a man of his time if Tolkien was going to insert other human races he would probably think of India, given British fascination with that country. News now is that Game of Thrones is swapping out a white family (faction?) for black, because its almost always about inserting black people. And that's not racist because . . . ?
- When is it morally justifiable to take something from one race and give it to another? That suggests race 1 did something wrong and that race 2 is deficient in some way, and you are perpetuating the idea that people should be treated differently based on their race. I'm really wondering who is so confident of their moral insight that they feel they hold the scales of justice that allows them to judge races.
- Why does 'white supremacist' anchor one end of your definition of racism? Racism is better concieved of as a set of cognitions and behaviors that anyone can carry off (cf. the treatment of the Uyghurs by the Chinese - no white people involved there). If you are going to say 'whites racists are more powerful in this context' then you are back into the Marxist stuff. Please recognize the irony that racism doesn't carry what your race is, you too can be a racist.
- 'White supremacists love a hierarchy' - so do the racists of the political left. It's called the 'progressive stack' and is an intersectional politics way of rating who is society's greatest victimes, and their rationale for excluding white people or treating them poorly based on their skin color. If your goal is to be anti-hierarchical, then do include the victimhood olympics crowd. Please also recognize that racism is baked into intersectional politics, because you can't have a victimhood focus without a perpetrator, and they've chosen whites and white men in particular as the 'big bad' perpetrator. Meritocracy and hierarchy have their faults, but the alternative of racial quotas is worse. I very much doubt if you are going to the hospital emergency room you cry out 'get me your most diverse doctor!' instead of 'get me your best doctor'.
- Historical arguments about imperialism are cringey and ironic. Arguably what the left is doing is cultural imperialism, via taking over entertainment properties of various cultural subgroups and then making those properties into something they prefer. If it's bad back then, then it's bad right now.
I get the frustration with wanting social change, but this isn't the way to do it. There is an intergroup conflict theory called 'Social Identity Theory' by Tajfel and Turner that is very well researched and has been around since the 1980s. What progressives are doing to entertainment checks off just about every box the theory has found that antagonizes racial relations.
Lastly, as a thought experiment, find the Inclusion Policy statement over at the Amazon Studios website, and apply paragraphs three and four under 'Casting' to the movie Mulan. Better or worse movie?
I wont watch any of the disney live action movies. they all look terrible.
I'm not defending tokenism or performance inclusion. But you might be confusing racism with prejudice. At least in this context, racism denotes a hierarchy, hidden or obvious, that is throughout all of society.
It’s not racist to want works specifically designed as Northern Europeans mythology not to have gay Puerto Ricans with buzzcuts and first time shitty directors making it look like trash
I have no problem with inclusion and diversity, but it has no place in fantasy. Tolkien created the world of Middle Earth as a replacement for the mythology his ancestors lost with Roman and Nordic invasions (a problem most of Europe has since everyone knows the Greek/Roman and Norse mythology, but French, German or Dutch mythology is near non-existant). Andrzej Sapkowski, who wrote the Witcher, did the same. Slavic mythology was near eradicated after German and Russian rule (and oppression) of Poland, and Sapkowski brought it back with his series. These aren't just stories set in a "fantasy" setting, it's tales based their culture. By forcing modern culture upon these works, you're disrespecting the original culture. And the same applies on other fantasy works. Robert Jordan created different cultures for his Wheel of Time, yet those cultures weren't respected in the adaptation.
For me, this is because the main driving force behind this "woke culture" are Americans, who do not have a long lasting history and culture themselves, and (incorrectly) assume the rest of the western world doesn't either. I myself am part of an ethnic group who merely sixty years ago was oppressed in my own country, solely because we were born in a certain part of the country and spoke a different language than the "ruling class". These people did their best to erradicate our written culture by denying us education and nearly succeeded if it had not been for a book that told us the biggest victory in our history, which sparked a cultural revolution. In case you're wondering, I'm not from a third world country, but from Western Europe. I am proud of my culture and history, and as a result, I respect other cultures. Americans don't have a long term history, and therefore no respect for other cultures.
Except...
What you wrote is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. Drizzt D'urden from forgotten realms lore wasn't created whole cloth disconnected from the Gylfaginning of Snorri Sturleson. Seriously look it TF up. Objecting to their presence based on cultural racial purity is by definition racist.
In Tolkien canon, thes
e dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about.
If i remade roots and cast a korean as kunta kintai how much backlash do you think there would be? How about a show based on solomon and the qween of sheeba, can i make the qween of sheeba scandinavian? Can i make juilan sandar from the wheel of time a white englishman? I think we all know what the reaction to these things would be.
And why do we keep having to make all our female heros men. It seems the only way a woman can be powerful is if she has masculine attributes.
Because they want to destroy femininity because that will destroy the attraction between men and women and that will destroy the family unit and that will rot and corrupt society, weaken the nation, and level it in preparation for the "Great Reset"
@@nathanmorgan3647 this is no one's agenda that I know
Thank you for your balanced look at this debate.
I am a long time fan of the great J.R.R. Tolkien.
I have no problem with there being a diverse cast in the Rings of Powers, BUT I do have a problem with those elements of the trailer and promotional shots that suggest that they will not be sticking to the lore. For me, if you are going to base a film, series, etc. on someone's work, you should stick as close to the written lore as possible. Where he did not stick entirely to the books, Peter Jackson's adaption followed the spirit of the books and tried to honour Tolkien's works.
Now I do have a problem with dark skinned Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits, as such goes against Tolkien's descriptions of these races. IF they had wanted a diverse cast, they could easily have done so by having human characters from the Easterlings, Haradrim or Southrons, and thus remain true to the lore. Where these peoples were allied with Sauron during the Lord of the Rings, the series is supposed to be set during the mid-Second Age, some 4,000 years earlier, during which much of the lands of the Haradrim and Southrons was influenced by the people of Numenor. The people of Numenor had come to the lands as teachers at first, but over time turned to conquerors. They could have used the series to explore these peoples, potentially showing how the oppression of the people of Numenor might have driven them into an alliance with Sauron.
Where some of the Elves might have moved to warmer climates, there have not been enough generations for them to have developed darker skin, maybe deeply tanned, but nothing more.
As for the Dwarves, a race that spends most of there time underground, with some spending there whole lives without venturing on to the surface, has little need to evolve a way to protect themselves from the light of the sun.
For me, someone wanting ethnically diverse Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits, would be the same as wanting the people of Wakanda in the Black Panther film to be ethnically diverse. And before anyone says anything, I had no problems with the lack of diversity of the people of Wakanda, as they were shown true to the lore of the setting. This comment is just to say that if someone wants diversity, it should work both ways.
As for Galadriel, personally I disagree with "warrior" Galadriel in the Second Age. If the series was set in the days of the Rebellion of the Noldor following the destruction of the Trees, or the early days of the First Age, then it would be plausible. But by the Second Age, no, not because she cannot wear armour and use weapons, but because after centuries studying under Melian, she does not needs such. So in that clip where she is leading a cavalry charge, if instead of armour she was wearing her iconic white dress, then that would be the Galadriel that I expect. As for a comment that I have seen that she will be young and brash, where in the mid Second Age she is much younger than in Lord of the Rings, she is still over 5,000 years old!!! That is twice the age of Legolas as the time of the Fellowship of the Ring, so hardly young.
Now personally, I like a well written, strong, female character. My favourite characters from Lord of the Rings were Eowyn and Galadriel. I would love it if they created such a character for the series, maybe a lady of the Numenoreans, Haradrin or Southrons.
Also, I have to ask, WHY make a series set in the Second Age when they have not purchased the rights to a lot of Tolkien's materials that cover that time period?
I do think the show is going to prioritize the wrong things to appeal to as big as an audience as possible and actually end up making something that appeals to fewer people. This is a depressing evolution of the conversation around woke entertainment, but we'll have to wait and see
@FatalPies I NEVER said that I am ok with anything that goes against Tolkien's works and I definitely do NOT agree with diversity for the sake of diversity, and there is no need for the name calling.
ALL that I said was that IF Amazon had wanted diversity, then they could have done so and remained within the lore by having characters from those human ethnic groups with darker skin that Tolkien mentions in his works. We know that the men of Numenor explored the coast of Middle-Earth and met such people, so representing them is not breaking the lore. Personally I do not think that it needs such characters, I have just said IF Amazon wanted such.
Given the material for the Second Age that Amazon can use, as in just the appendix of the Lord of the Rings, it should be obvious that they would need to create original characters, as the appendix hardly goes into great detail or present a large cast of characters. For example, we know that before the downfall in Numenor there were two political groups, The Faithful and the King's Men, but very few named individuals from either group, therefore to depict any meeting of the Faithful that is more than just Isildur's family would require some original characters, where Tolkien did not specifically create such characters they are not strictly against his lore, as in other member of the Faithful existed, they were just not named or fleshed out (after all there were enough to fill 9 ships when Numenor fell). Likewise, we know that Celebrimbor worked with a brotherhood of jewelsmiths, but none are named, therefore any representation of this brotherhood would require original characters.
That said I do NOT agree with Amazon's original characters, as they appear unnecessary with little to do with either the creation of the rings or the fall of Numenor.
Likewise, given the material Amazon has to work with, and they they wanted five seasons, it is obvious that they were going to have to flesh out the story.
I think people want honest intentions behind the storytelling, though many have a hard time articulating as much in their arguments thus they come off as intolerant rather than simply inarticulate.
And, to elaborate, when I say "honest intention" I mean that the story is genuinely being told as the established setting and context would have it. For instance, if you create a movie or show set in Wakanda, and then race bend characters who were originally conceived as being black, but you're now making them white for the purposes of something other than what accurately represents the story world, then I would call such a thing out as disingenuous treatment of the source material for reasons outside of pure storytelling. Which, in such a case, means the writer isn't being honest in their intent to create stories in that established world for the sake of deepening its lore, respecting it wholly, or entertaining its fans. And, in such a case, I would ask that they not use Wakanda for their own personal causes, and instead create an original work and setting they can populate with as many characters who fit 'x' agenda as they please, to serve whatever it is they're pushing.
But, of course studios all want the financial sure thing, so instead of greenlighting original works where progressives can speak their truth to the masses while the studio risks losing money on an unknown quantity, instead they co-opt 'bankable' IP and bend it to serve their own interests. After which they waste little time castigating fans of said established IP as being intolerant bigots when they have misgivings but often have a hard time articulating why. Really, it's just that a lot of the audience recognizes when they're not being engaged with honestly, but in their anger lack the ability to state their grievances in a coherent, non-clumsy fashion. Which isn't to say there aren't bigots among a given IPs audience, but I do not think they comprise the majority, though the media conglomerates affiliated with the studios would have us all think otherwise for the purposes of protecting the brand. By highlighting the bigoted few, or by simply and purposefully misrepresenting the inarticulate many, the conglomerates manipulate consumer behavior in the name of maximizing profit under the cynical guise of promoting the social good again signifying the dishonesty of their intentions.
The "other side" of this that might be worth consideration is the plundering of original IP created by people of color to profit from white audiences. This is egregious in music, but has also happened in books and film, meaning an author writes a story and the studio changes Black characters to white characters so they can sell more. This has been happening in America forever, and it isn't restricted to Black Americans. In film they call it white washing, like casting Scarlett Johansen to play a Japanese woman in the Ghost in a Shell movie, but it extends beyond film. There is probably a notion by some people to reverse this, which is where you may see some truth to the concept of sticking it to white men in rewriting who stars in future installments of old franchises. And I personally think this is okay, but I will still judge the whole work on its writing, not just that one aspect.
@@amys0482 The problem, as I see it, with the white-washing argument is that it only ever appears to go one way. If someone is genuinely committed being authentic to source material and/or real life, then you'd expect the same person who was upset with Scarlett Johanson's casting in Ghost in the Shell to be just as upset when Jodie Turner Smith is cast as Anne Boleyn for instance. In my experience at least, this rarely happens.
For what it's worth the same problem exists in both directions, and I don't think it's entirely a binary situation either; as Ken Ward has pointed out I think the *intent* (as it's perceived) of the casting choice is important also. In many cases though, such casting choices seem actively inflammatory. At least with Ghost in the Shell one can legitimately argue that Scarlett Johanson is an extremely bankable actress (at that time the highest paid in history I believe), and while that doesn't exactly excuse the choice it does provide a plausible explanation that isn't about making a political statement.
@@amys0482 It's the retributive nature of the intent, or this idea of 'evening up' by altering old works to fit the current cultural zeitgeist that I have a problem with. Changing Indiana Jones to a woman isn't justice, it's graffiti. If you feel white men require less representation in Hollywood, then simply don't make another Indiana Jones movie, or James Bond, or Luke Skywalker. Make something else. Something that represents what you want to say featuring who you want to represent.
But, the rebuttal to that would be, "I wanted to do that, but the studio wouldn't give me money to make something unless it was attached to an established money-making IP." Okay, I get that, but you have to be honest then with the fans of said IP in what your intentions are with their beloved property from the start. And, don't immediately throw up your hands and claim bigotry, etc when fans bristle at your politically motivated alterations of a thing they've valued for a long time. And, don't gaslight them by pretending your intentions with the franchise were always pure and coming from a place of deep fandom, respect, etc when if that were true you wouldn't alter it so fundamentally. If you want Indiana Jones to change and be something else, do the fans of that IP a favor and just make something else.
Sure, the Catch-22 of that situation isn't lost on me, but that only brings me back to the intent behind the telling/creating of the story in the first place. Maybe it'd be better if Hollywood concentrated on entertaining rather than preaching. There are other avenues available for activism and political discussion, including in filmmaking via documentaries, and I wish retributive minded academes would seek redress there instead of via genre screenwriting and genre filmmaking. If you can no longer rely on the fiction 'entertainment' world for escapism it's no wonder you're going to see more and more anger among audiences who increasingly feel they have no outlet in a world that seems to be becoming more political in more aspects of life, and more polarized by the day.
@@kenward1310 I do think they should be upfront about it. Sometimes they are, though.
@@amys0482
The real issue here is that there's this misinformation being spread that dark elves and black elves don't exist at all in the cultural diaspora. That is, by definition, whitewashing. You can find dark or black elves all over the place in historic documents housed under glass in museums. Those that argue from a place of ignorance may not like hearing that they're ignorant, or may not want to be lectured by nerds or the left, but they were the people who got it wrong in the first place, by asserting that black elves didn't exist in Celtic Nordic and Tolkien mythology. These are people who want to present themselves as experts on something that they aren't experts on, in the service of racial purity. If ignorance in service of racial purity isn't the strict definition of racism or white supremacy, then the words have no meaning. Black is white, red is green, and you're going to have some kind of conflict at the next intersection.
The reason I follow your channel is that your in depth and intelligent discourse on media - something I find sorely lacking in the various social media platforms I use. Bravo!
I am less knowledgeable about Tolkien lore than you. I've only read the main Lord of the Rings trilogy (once), the Hobbit (once) and parts of the Silmarillion. I agree one cannot judge this show as an adaptation as they only had the annexes to work with. They can't use Tolkien's actual work from those ages so they have to do their best in filling in the blanks to make it work as a show. I don't know why any of this would break cannon as they're not based on the actual cannon - only cliff notes. From what I saw in the trailer, I'm intrigued enough to watch it. I'm not bothered by the diversity casting. If the writing is logical and compelling, I will enjoy it. Unlike WoT, the magic system in Tolkien's work is a bit nebulous so I don't think there's anything to break in that respect - unlike WoT.
I am a bit hesitant about the portrayal of Galadriel. I disagree with you that just because she is described as physically powerful/imposing as a male elf, her power needs to be portrayed with military prowess. To me, Galadriel is not powerful because she is wearing armor or carrying a sword. She just radiates it - that and her magical abilities. She does not need physical weapons. She is one herself which I think is why Sauron feared her. I think you lose some of that if you lean too much into the warrior trope.
By the way, just a funny aside, the actor who plays Elrond is the same actor who played young Ned Stark in GoT. I thought he looked really familiar and only realized when someone else mentioned it.
The part that was completely missed here is the part where one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. Drizzt D'urden from forgotten realms lore wasn't created whole cloth disconnected from the ••Gylfaginning and Prose Edda by Snorri Sturleson••. Seriously look it TF up. Do the research if one is going going to use that as the basis of a call for cultural purity.
If one hasn't connected the dots,, objecting to the presence of black elves based on a cultural racial purity that never existed is by definition racist.
In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 I'm not sure if your comments were meant for me. I did say I was NOT bothered by the diversity casting so am in no way advocating for racial purity of portrayals of the elves in the show. However, I appreciate the information you shared. It is very interesting. I'm only a casual fan of Tolkien's work and have admitted that I am not very knowledgable with the lore nor the mythology they were based on.
@@mickypea1 they were meant for anybody reading this thread and not specifically directed towards you
@@bryanrhodes369 Nowhere in the Eddas skin colour is mentioned concerning the elves. Light elves are barely mentioned at all. Fun fact: Dark elves in the nordic mythology are dwarves.
Dark elves in Tolkien's books are elves who never went to Valinor to see the light of the trees.
I don't like the idea of dark skined elves in the show because it problematic storywise (we never saw any of them anywhere). I absolutely can see dark skinned dwarves - there are six house of dwarves in the lore we never heard anything important of in the books or the movies.
@@Agantyr23 so it's the skin color that is bothersome?
I am an old guy who grew up in the 1960s with Star Trek ideals. I couldn't care less about the inclusion of actors of color in Rings of Power as long as their characters are interesting and well written. I appreciate your thoughts regarding "Woke" notions and name calling. It seems that intelligent discourse between people with different views is an archaic notion in this age of cancel culture. We can no longer exchange different ideas and grow from the sharing because too many of us dwell in echo chambers listening to variants of our own voices.
The fandom isn’t divided we all think it’s absolute trash. That’s why every single piece of media they out gets ratio’d to death
A wonderful presentation. I absolutely love your critical lens. You did an exemplary job tackling very difficult topics and you used your critical analysis skills to explain why so many fans have a difficult time with the preview. What I appreciated was you’re ability to stay on point and produce evidence on all the disagreements and controversies. You actually helped me understand how to counter argue against some of the arguments these fans make for their outrage. Saying instead, lets take a step back and really dive into what we’re saying and how we’re responding.Thank you!
Did Anglo Saxons have tabaco, pipes and weeds? Aren't these new world artifacts? Gandalf has fire works .... had he visited a middle earth version of China?? Denethor eats tomatoes in the return of the king film.... (Anglo Saxons didn't have tomatoes).
There's no religion in middle earth either, which means Tolkien was limited with this create a mythical little Anglo Saxon england thing....
It is interesting how GoT avoided US accents in Westeros as did LoR and the Hobbit films. Some Dwarves had Scots accents to project some northern quality in The Hobbit film.
So, will conservatives object to US accents in the Amazon project?? Will they mind if some elves or dwarves have Texas accents?
Middle Earth isnt present day earth so not exactly relevant.
@@amys0482 well there are no US accents in GoT despite it being full of US actors....there are UK accents.
Same with LoR films. Someone obviously thought this important. Please check the rich variety of UK accents in both GoT and LoR (films) and the paucity of US ones.
P.s. the point was LoR 'represents an Anglo Saxon world' to millions of people.
You could also have included some discussion of objects, things and articles. Why are bicycles not allowed in either the films nor the books? Even dwarves are not permitted to ride bikes. Why? Because Tolkien knew that bicycles have a place in our imaginations and WE wouldn't tolerate bikes. Bikes would be ok if there was a total disconnect between Earth and Middle Earth. But there isn't. . . .
While we would love both long production and short quick production videos from you, if I had to choose one or the other, I would rather have fewer videos of high quality. You are a shining star of analysis and this kind of work takes care and time. Anyone can do a hot take, very few can dissect an issue so deftly.
What a joy it is listening to a smart, articulated and well informed opinion.
This was very much a very in depth discussion of multiple facets on that whole discussion. And while I find myself agreeing with most (all?) of what you said, it may be difficult to respond to some of it because so many arguments were touched. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it and - having listened to it - I wouldn't change one line. But at the same time, if the information were to be broken down into more bite sized pieces, it could be easier to engage in a discussion or reflection of it in the comments.
In any case, I will watch this again and take notes so I can maybe write a reaction that does your careful research and deliberation justice.
I'll be doing the same. At least I'll break it down into timestamped sections.
Elf literally means “white being” which Tolkien took from Germanic lore
We actually dont care what colour they include IF IT FITS WITH THE LORE. The Easterlings were essentially Black. They could have created an entire series about how they ended up there. What's their culture like, why do they dislike Gondor (an essentially white culture), how they relate to Sauron. He could still be tricking them like he did with the rest of Middle Earth. It would fit with the Lore.
As a fan that would be VERY INTERESTING!
Middle Earth was not written as a book. It was originally written as a lost mythology for England in roughly the Middle Ages.
LOTR was written primarily as an introduction.
They are essentially cashing in on the name which is why it's called LoTR:Rings of Power and have to include a certain amount of different colours to fill their quota.
They are completely missing the point, introducing modern politics onto a Fantasy (by definition does NOT reflect the real world).
It will be a massive success but could have been many times more if they had approached it with the mindset P. Jackson did. I expect it will be a commercial success for Amazon but will NOT go down in history.
Peter Jackson also had a dark-colored Elf in the movie by the way ! Statist in the big Battle with Sauron just in the beginning of Lord of the rings !!! Are the movies the same problem for u ?? If yes i got u..
If no, is it because the dark-colored Elf is a main-character and not just a statist ?? Think about it and read and check the sources in my comment..
@@skebbsis A dark coloured Elf in the beginning? The difference between filling in extras because of casting limitations (?) and a main character are night and day.
The fact of the matter simply is that there are no Black elves in Middle Earth. It doesn't matter which way you swing it. I really don't care if there are black characters but it has to fit with the Lore
When I watched the first episode of the WoT I was really taken aback by the diverse ethnicity of a lot of the characters, and I had to explore internally why that was, and while ultimately I had imaged most of those characters as white other than Rand who I imagine as more copper skinned with red hair (which is why he stood out as different), I felt it was less about that and more about the fact that there's no way a backwater town that's been isolated for near 3000 years would have so many different nationalities in it. I have no problem with different racial ethicities playing characters, such as the Tolkein elves, I really don't care, as I see it being believable enough.
To me it comes down to storytelling and world building. A place like the WoT universe has plenty of opportunities to include different races in it. I had no issues with Lan being Asian because it was quite obvious that Shienar was based off Japanese culture, so it would make sense that Malkier could be as well. Conversely I did have an issue with his weird breakdown in episode 5 at the funeral.
I think it's hard when it comes to fantasy worlds, because they are somewhat whitewashed, so I know that obviously when it comes to making movies and shows, we should be understanding on that front. I want people to feel represented. I also want good storytelling and good worldbuilding. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Hell, they could have made everyone in the Two Rivers black for all I care, at least the level of homogenization in an isolated town would have been logical.
Does the dark skinned Sylvan elf come from a tribe of dark-skinned Sylvan elves? Makes sense. Does he not? Might not make sense. That's all.
It's myopia on the part of woke hollywood writers. They live in muticultural American cities. And they see it as normal and everyday.
They have a desire to portray everything as multicultural... which usually breaks the grittiness or groundedness of most productions. It's fine if you are making a campy broadway show... but unless you are covering a world/setting where a very diverse multiculural cast makes sense (like a future setting, or modern metropolises), then it only serves to take people out of the movie... even tho most of the time, like your experience, they can't immediately put their finger on why.
LOTR is a world where ethnically diverse societies would be rare. You are more likely to have entire tribes of dark-skinned elves, dwarves, or hobbits... not a bunch of ethnically diverse people peppered in throughout the world.
How about Amazon create their own stories? The issue is that Amazon had the audacity to "improve" or "update" Tolkien's work of art by adding characters and bastardizing existing ones. If it's not there, it's not there. It's like putting Nike shoes on a Rembrandt painting and calling it "new and improved" for today's generation.
Amazon didn't start that trend. Their goals are definitely monetary, though.
I'm afraid I disagree that not liking the current media's misandric slant is anything todo with a desire against equality, indeed I have always counted myself as a liberal marxist gender equalitarian.
Calling out series like the wheel of time for misandry isn't due to a belief in male supremacy.
I'm also afraid I disagree that sighting media as "better in the past", is involved with some sort of "make america great again", type of arguement.
Contrast here the wheel of time books; with a message of gender equality, vs the wheel of time series, hyjacked for a specific political message.
I'm definitely in favour of more rational discussion , but I'm afraid I do believe there is a serious difference between "Anti woke", and "conservative here.
Indeed, you mention wondering about political differences in other countries.
though Britain is unfortunately getting more polarised these days, there is still not quite the absolute "left right, us them", mentality that there is in the states, indeed, I suspect that most British conservatives would be pretty middle of the road politically as far as America is concerned.
From a New Zealand perspective much of what passes for political discourse in the USA seems quite nutty. That's true of both ends of the spectrum, and especially on the topic of race.
Unfortunately the USA's biggest export is culture, and it's effecting the rest of us too.
@shanon, this is unfortunately true.
I'll say as an Englishman married to an American, I did notice some strange tendencies when visiting my lady's family in Pennsylvania five years ago.
EG how such outgoing and and generally nice natured people, could be so starkly opinionated and so radically bent to a formal set of assumptions.
My father in law once asked me if it was treu there were places in Britain where the police refused to go for fear of extreme Islam. I informed him that while there were dodgy bits of cities; probably like everywhere in the world, I'd never heard of any where "the police refused to go", and as for "extreme Islam", all the Muslims I knew, were perfectly decent people, and were indeed, quite literally "people I'd grown up next door to."
He then stated uncategorically that he "still thought America was safer."
I also noticed this with gender, with a much more formal male/female divide, in conversation and activities than I was generally used to, with women mostly discussing mutual friends or the doings of their church, and men mostly staying silent unless the subject came around to sport or home improvement (which made me feel rather out of place).
then again, my lady's childhood female friends; who like my lady and I tended to be interested in literature, music, theatre and geek culture, were people I also got on with very well.
All this being said, I will say people tended to be far more outgoing and less freaked out by disability than in Britain, indeed my lady, whose lived in several countries including Germany, Belgium and Britain, said that in terms of attitudes towards visually impaired people, Britain is worst than most, America included.
so, mmm, while American culture has it's good points, unfortunately it does seem most of the rest of the world is getting caught up with the worst side of it, especially at the moment.
Well most of the fans being critical of this trailer is the same that was very disappointed in WOT. So we see the same thing happening again.
Very well done. A long, coherent essay that is well-balanced. I'm at about the same level as you in my Tolkienness and I watched the trailer and thought it was provisionally fine. I guess what we hope for with any adaptation is that, if it's not book-faithful, that it's authorially-faithful, in that the new plotlines, characters, etc, have the feel of what the author might've created if they'd woken up on the opposite of the bed that morning. For example, the first LOTR trilogy and the first 5 seasons or so of Game of Thrones were mostly book-faithful, and were beloved by all, including the book purists for which there were few surprises. It was just exhilarating to see these classic book scenes realized (and, in some cases, nuanced) on-screen. But when filmmakers start injecting new elements, such as in The Hobbit trilogy or seasons 6-8 of GoT (or season 1 of WoT), it became immediately obvious that we were witnessing 2nd- or 3rd-rate worldbuilding that was not deeply thought out and would not hold up. Memo to showrunners: you don't need to one-up the storytelling masters. Just cinematically realize their visions and you've done good work and will have your praises sung plenty (see: Dan & Dave's reputations for the first few seasons of GoT, or Peter Jackson's after the original LOTR trilogy).
Great video. I think you nailed it. Any criticism of "woke" at this point just comes off as disingenuous at first pass. Due to all the right leaning reactionary channels criticizing almost everything based entirely off a teaser trailer. It muddies the waters so much valid criticisms get thrown out with the baseless ones. I found it difficult to engage about how terrible I thought Wheel of Time was due to people jumping in adding it's "woke" which I wasn't arguing. I was just talking about how cheap the show looked and how poorly written I found the show to be.
what do you mean cheap they spent a billion dollars on it lol. the problem is they fired the only Tolkien scholar they had on the production team and replaced him with somebody who didn't read the books.
@@env0x my criticism was of wheel of time not LOTR. Don't know how you missed that. How would I know if LOTR looks cheap I've literally only seen the teaser.
The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
The "woke" criticism gets thrown around way too much but you can't watch the super fans video and say that isn't woke
@@bryanrhodes369 Dark Elf does not necessarily mean skin color and often does not. This is akin to those Black Hebrew fools who think the Irish were blacks from Africa because someone in mythology had the nickname "the black" in it.
Having followed your discussions about the role of different media in presenting their stories faithfully to the way the medium works, i.e., movies don’t slavishly reproduce a book on film, I have grown to be less critical of the Peter Jackson version of the LOTR. As a lover of the book, however, the film presentation seems to sometimes veer into video game territory in the battle scenes (IMHO). Nonetheless, I appreciate learning more. I am impressed with your analytical abilities and erudition. Please continue your efforts; we have so many who use a hammer on everything.
The Peter Jackson LOTR movies are good overall but there are things in them that I dislike, like Legolas surfing on shields or elephant trunks, Eowyn making soup for Aragorn in the director's cut, and even the elves joining the fight at Helm's Deep. Mostly minor irritations, though. They are very decent adaptations.
Hi Amy, great stuff. The treatment of WoT has made me negative. I think “Woke” and it’s pushers are responding poorly to a entertainment trend. It is not happenstance that the trailer packs inclusion politics into its 30 seconds. It’s what Hollywood and the industry is doubling down on right now. I am simply tired of the corruption of classic fantasy - the writers and show runners really want to tell their own stories, but lack the talent or opportunity to do so. Instead, they take an existing work to benefit from the existing fans, but then they don’t want the criticism for making changes.
There is truth to the notion that producing sub par content for a franchise that is already popular will make money whether it is good or not.
Evil can not create anything that is real, it can only destroy what is good.
I definitely enjoy these "longer" videos of yours, especially because of their quality. Please continue making them. Quality is rare, thus precious. Thank you.
Yay! Another video! Wow did not expect the Sad Puppies fiasco to be brought up. I am one of the LOTR fans that was turned off by the ROP trailer. The more i learn about it, the more i am worried about it straying into the "fan fiction" side. I found your channel after watching WOT, and had to see if anyone else shared my ennui towards the series. I hope ROP is a great show, but i don't have a good feeling about it.
It's totally going to be fanfiction. It might be decent fanfiction, but I have my misgivings.
@@amys0482 Yeah not the good fan fiction, like "Harry Potter Learns Fire Bending". Its going to be the bad fan fiction, like "Twilight in Seattle".
@@Wildgoose-pd7um 🤣
Boy the end went down a road I was not expecting with the title. But back to the topic at hand. I don't care about skin color of elves or dwarves so much, but dwarf women reguardless of skin color need beards.
Which leads me to this I am curious, why use the brand LotR? Why not just make a new series, elves and dwarves are fairly common across all stories, so just make your own story about elves, humans and dwarves.
Because, as Milan Kudera said:
"“The first step in liquidating a people,' said Hubl, 'is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new [movies and tv shows] manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.”
For the money. But you knew this. I expect ROP will feel like other generic fantasy stories written after tolkien that were inspired by Tolkien. Some of those are good and many are dreadful.
I really enjoyed your commentary and your thesis in very on-point. The only thing I would have added regarding your synopsis of the state of storytelling is while there is a lot of real racism and misogyny masquerading as critique, at times is seems that when characters of color and/or female characters are written poorly (little to no dynamic emotional range and/or zero challenges/quirks/flaws to overcome, or added as solely a character device for another character or comic relief etc) I would postulate that some fair criticism has been lumped in as racist or misogynistic as a screen or defense for lazy or poor character development, (you do touch on it, but I think that it exacerbates the vicious cycle creating or fueling the "divide" and while it shouldn't give legitimacy to the surface racism/misogyny you discussed, these often non-political critiques are "weaponized" until they are embedded with other bigoted statements).
As an aside, though I am not a Tolkien expert (I have read the Silmarillion, Hobbit, and the LOTR at least a dozen times, but none of the extended works) I am uncertain if skin-tone or even national/regional identity was of great importance to Tolkien. His stories often involve characters who are individual evil. Though some greater evil is present, some characters cause their own downfall or through members of their own kin (even high elves, ala the sons of Faenor). I can't really speak for Tolkien but I personally think that the skin-tone of the elves or dwarves (fictional races) or even humans shouldn't matter IMHO.
we're in agreement
But elves, & dwarves were written as pale. He also had dark skinned humans. Tolkien wasn't a idiot, dwarves which spent most of their existence underground wouldn't have the adaptation of such dark skin. It's 100% about pushing wokism.
The thing I'm most concerned about what I've seen so far of the show is the dialogue and story. Not the only thing but certainly foremost in my list of concerns. It bothers me that some ppl think now that Tolkien fans are racist just on the grounds that they think for the reasons that I have listed. This whole thing seems crazy and overwhelming at times. I just want to watch the show and see if it's any good and move on at this point!
I love the detail and nuance of your analysis. It's always thought provoking and I look forward to more.
There actually are dark-skinned humans in Tolkien’s story (described as ‘swarthy men’) who were enslaved to Morgoth before he was banished to the void, and who later co-existed with the elves for at least a thousand years. So it’s entirely possible that there was some interbreeding between the two, resulting in a lineage of darker-skinned elves. I have no idea if that’s the direction the show is planning on going, But if so, it wouldn’t really break any lore. That said, his haircut is absolutely ridiculous in this setting in my opinion one way or another.
From both a lore and a biological perspective though, dark-skinned dwarves make absolutely no sense unfortunately.
Yes, but does it need to make biological sense? These are mythologies that "explain" things in an unscientific way.
@@amys0482 Only in the sense of immersion. I personally don’t think that it is a big deal, and I get really frustrated by all the vitriol that’s going on about it. But I can’t deny that at least some part of me wants the world building of a story to make sense. And given that dwarves are mostly subterranean/cavern dwellers who often dislike open spaces, having them be dark skinned will feel kind of out of place. Like I said though, in my particular case, it’s mostly just nitpicking.
The main problem is that we need a middle ground here not sorting all peopple to left or right.
If i watch an original movie i couldn't care less if the actors are black or white, gay, or heterosexual or bisexual or trans. What matters is the story that is being told and how that person plays the role. To assume that people can only relate to people that have the same skin tone or are from the same culture as them is just ridiculous. I just watched a korean series about a bunch of young women who want to become idol singers and i definitely could relate to their struggles and hardships although they were from a different culture and a different gender.
And for me the thing is that if it is ok in an literature adaption or historical movie to swap genders, sexual orientation or cultures than that has to be in both directions. If you would feel offended if an european actor plays the role of an african or asian character then you should feel the same way about an african or asian actor playing the role of an european character. Only if you are ok with both directions you are truly ok with the concept.
And yeah i have no problem with more female characters in movies or tv shows and didn't mind Rey as a female force user in Star Wars but there seems to be a notion that these female characters are not allowed any weakness or learning curve. Yes it's mostly conservatives who say that but if you just look at Star Wars and the WoT series it is hard not to agree to it.
Anyway i truly despise people who attack the actors and actresses personally. They don't write the scripts so they are not to blame. I also despise people who respond by name calling instead of thinking about and responding to the arguments made.
After seeing WoT i do have little hope for Rings of Power but yes i will probably watch the first episodes to see if it works for me.
Liked the actual review of the trailer, agreed with. Almost everything you said. Then you went right off your political cliff. Inserting your person stereotypes regarding conservatives, it was absolutely blatant. It's like the guy who mouths off at you non-stop, but then blames you when you attack back as being " toxic". But this is how the actual game is played.
You have to have the blinders on, if you actually think the personal attacks are overwhelmingly played by conservatives to liberals, as opposed to the woke liberals attacking the conservative on literally everything. Which, I'm sure, I will no doubt be for posting my opinion. Most of the time creating "wars" when none was ever needed.
When you consider that just about every one of us conservatives have been called a racist by at least one person on the left, for just about every idea we've ever had. For even basically pointing out reality. I personally felt it was quite the letdown. originally I honestly thought this was going to be a neutral fair ' balanced' review of the trailer to the end. To be completely Fair for the most part it was.... Before you started being a champion for the insanity of the far left.
Remind me how long Star Trek had a female Captain for in Voyager?? Overwhelming the majority loved that show.
When you think of "Starbuck" now from Battlestar Galactica do you think man or woman? Of course the thing about Battlestar Galactica was you weren't messing with somebody's mythology..
Like I said, I liked your actual review, fair and honestly well thought out. But not the fake stereotype spin. White supremacist? Please, y'all need to stop playing that card! I have lived around the world and have never once, actually met a 'white supremacist" face to face!. You can't honestly call yourself "fair" when you attack some 80 million voters with your stereotype, based on what maybe a few thousand white supremacists (at most) in all of America, tops do? Come on! We are better than that!
I liked your opinion on skin color, Ok if it's absolutely "meaningless" then let's look at the other side. They could have done the human numinarian, easterling or horadron.. and none of the fandom would have blinked
but instead went for the two most pale races, void of life with a sun to do it! So "meaningless" they actually had to do it? It is just sending a woke message, for no reason because they know all of this war they've caused is just good advertising. Does any of this by the way apply to B.ET. ? Would you have a problem with me writing a new stage play for the book Roots , Casting all of the slaves as white people and all of the Masters as black people? Yes ? Is that "okay"? Keep in mind the actual story Roots is not an actual a historical account/ story either. And just as a side note on your point about white people not actually being its own "culture', yes, you're right! That is actually a good point because for the most part aside from the slanted one-sided, bad only history being taught today. "White people" have not been the ones to hold is culture only to themselves over time. moreover "whites" tend to bend way over backwards to include others.. You can say what you want but I only know of one country that ever fought a war predominantly by one color to free a people of another " color". This may also come as a shocker to you but where I was born I was the minority.
Now back to the main point, Elves for example are considered a different race! before the sun was created. It is as far as stretch to say a white human can be an elf as it is to say a black human can be a elf! Why are we trying to put human representation on another race? I don't see anyone trying to do that with the orcs or the goblins? To demand an entirely separate race, in another culture's mythology have your representation, is not only arrogant, it's stupid! Considering we are all part of the human race and don't have pointed ears and live for 800 years!
What we're saying is stop giving them human attributes of any kind!. If we want representation why don't we get rid of the pointed ears... ?
Again you're arguing from both sides of your mouth on one hand you're pissed off the conservatives are trying to push for censorship and are undemocratic, while at the same time, making comments that we don't have the right to question anything on UA-cam without it being" fact checked" by a third controlling party ? Or being allowed to question an obviously problematic election. We all know how that works out! . And as you pointed out it's every post that conservatives make, it is what gets censured and pull down regularly. so how is that freedom of speech and democracy?
Again your argument fails to consider the overwhelming response from both male and female fans, along with fans of every single ethnic group, who all United overwhelmingly in one voice. To say no to your sides censorship and agenda.
I noticed that continuously gets left out. And seriously, you brought up the election?? Lol !
Perhaps, you have not actually heard both sides of the argument. Perhaps this will help, and no. I don't think it is as blatantly anti-woke or conservative hate as you subtly alluded to.
ua-cam.com/video/LLj2qamFUuI/v-deo.html
Sorry this "rant " was so long.
I am still going to watch it and will honestly try and give it a fair chance. Maybe I am way off the mark. Maybe not. We will see.
Thanks. You put into words what my exact thoughts were.
I think you should be allowed to question everything. I don't think purists to lore are racist and sexist. I absolutely do think that SOME people are racist and sexist and that there is a political campaign at play to radicalize nerds into supporting their politics.
@@amys0482 fair enough, I still don't know how that justifies changing the Tolkien mythology. However, "some" does not justify ignoring the main bulk of the fandoms justified concerns. I would agree with that assumption that there is a group of people trying to turn "nerds" into their political agenda Waterboys. Only then I would argue they are the Democrats. I can just as easily accuse multiple Democrats and liberals for being sexist and racist based entirely on their historical and present day actions. I find having this discussion while watching the most recent fraudulent race crime against "white conservatives" from an actor of Empire, (I know I cannot spell his name) who created an entire hoax to attack Trump supporters and white people on is now something like complaining about his jail cell, extremely ironic. This is a perfect example of the Hollywood leftists mentality and agenda push hoax. And of course it ignores the point that I made above on just how many minorities in the fandom have risen up in unison with the white voices. You guys are making this out to be a white supremacist thing, the problem is the fandom is made up of just about every color and gender you can imagine. what do you say about that? Or is it just that if you're a member of the conservative fandom " you ain't black".
If you're, truly of the opinion that " racist conservative white people" are somehow creating this argument and backlash to support their agenda and to win nerds over. Would you also be willing to accept the fact that, the Democrats and liberals are doing the same thing also, by creating things like The wheel of Time and this new, late second age whatever. Very determined because it really looks like it's shaping up to be nothing more then a sjw soapbox. So yes I completely agree with what you just said, but I think the liberals are the biggest culprits, who don't care what damage they cause.
For example...
ua-cam.com/video/OGMehkRcEEI/v-deo.html
Look forward to seeing how all this shakes out in the end. Keep the up the good thought-provoking videos.
@@davidlaurahay I am not familiar with the Empire controversy (also never watched that show) but there are shitty people all across the political spectrum so that sounds plausible. Some make controversy for the profit or glory. Some are misguided would-be-do-gooders. Some criticism of SJWs has merit. But quite a lot of it is steeped in far right ideology. The argument that some minorites are conservative is meaningless to me. Quite a lot of Black men, for example, are anti feminist and anti queer. I actually see more anti feminism among the far right than racism, and plenty of women supporting it, which is whole separate discussion. I think it absolutely essential to talk about these controversies without resorting to name calling, though. Disrespect doesn't get us anywhere.
@@davidlaurahay I really like ua-cam.com/users/FDSignifire if you are interested in intelligent critique of Black media. His review of Insecure made me watch that show and I am so happy I did because it is phenomenally well written.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that people having a problem with Galadriel’s portrayal directly correlates with how well they know the lore. First, it’s not merely that Galadriel is a “warrior,” it’s that she is “the Commander of the Northern Armies.” So, while her taking up arms might seem of plausible to someone who’s not as steeped in the lore, her being a battlefield commander should sound ridiculous to anyone who’s touched the Silmarillion. As you mention, Galadriel is described as someone who has “Amazonian disposition” in athletic feats. She’s tall and she’s strong and she’s quite competitive. She is also, undoubtedly, a leader of the Noldor. She was there in the discussions/debates following the theft of the Silmarils and she was one of the leaders of the party of the Noldor that refused to participate in the first kinslaying (especially after her father repented and turned back for Valinor). Her leadership shines through especially in the second and third ages as she increasingly becomes one of the most powerful elven rulers in Middle Earth (and part of the White Council, etc. etc.). She is (with the possible exception of Glorfindel, and that’s because he gets a special gift from the Valar) the most powerful elf in Middle Earth from the second age onwards, owing to both her tutelage under the Valar in Valinor and her tutelage with Melian. She is not, however, a warrior. I would have loved to see this story from the perspective of Galadriel, as she’s one of the first people to intuit that Anatar is evil and no one should trust him, her struggle to protect the Elven realms against his corrupting influence and her taking a front-line position in “the long defeat of the elves” and the melancholy of her watching the majority of the elven realms fall to Sauron (which then adds content to her temptation in LotR, when all of the sudden she’s presented with an object that could, in theory, help undo all that). Instead, we get a flattened warrior princess character, who’s basically non-descript male elf #47, with Galadriel’s face copy/pasted. The Light of the Trees still lives in Galadriel’s hair and eyes all of the non-elves (and most of the elves) who meet her want to fall at her feet. There’s evil rumors in Rohan about Lothlórien, because everyone who wanders into the realm of the Galladhrim never comes out. The Rohirrim assume that’s because Galadriel ensnares them, but the opposite is the truth, they are so awed by her and it that they never want to leave, even the Fellowship had to be eased out, because they didn’t want to leave. Instead, then, of a battle of wills between Galadriel and Sauron through the second age, which could have been as epic as (in fact, far more epic than) the battle of wills between Littlefinger and the Spider, we get Galadriel on a horse charging down at God-knows-what and, so the articles have said, she’s a prisoner in Númenor early in season 1, her ethereal beauty which causes everyone to draw back in awe from her apparently not affecting anyone.
But why did I say that Galadriel being a battlefield commander is ridiculous? We find out when the first kinstrife happens that the Noldor have been making their weapons in secret (apparently, the Teleri had been as well). No one before that point had given any thought to warfare. The Elves, then, learn to fight in the first age, and their commanders of note develop into such through their conflict with Morgoth. By the time of the War of Wrath everyone shows up to fight Morgoth, even the Vanyar (for whom this is their first time leaving Valinor and who-presumably-have been educated in warfare by the Valar, otherwise they would have had no idea what to do in the battlefield). In all of these conflicts, Galadriel is never once mentioned as a participant. So let’s suppose that she’s really angry at some point in the second age and she decides to strap on a sword. Ridiculous, but ok. But she then becomes the commander of the northern armies? Why, because she’s a good athlete? JJ Watt is a beast of an athlete, does anyone with two brain cells to rub together think he’d be a good candidate for a general? And apparently she’s assigned to this job over Elrond, who is the banner-bearer of Gil-Galad in the lore and a veteran of the War of Wrath (where he fought with his father, who’s one of the greatest heroes of the first age), and presumably all of the other commanders of the Noldor who are still alive. I’m sorry, but that makes no sense.
Exactly. It doesn't make any sense.
Have you heard the leaks? Oh boy. There's more nonsense to come.
There is no basis to say that a 60-second teaser proves that the show will simply depict Galadriel as "a flattened warrior princess character, who’s basically non-descript male elf #47." If it does, shame on them. But the LotR says that Galadriel wasn't even in Beleriand any more at the time of the War of Wrath, and she clearly had different views about the possibilities of success contending against Sauron rather than Morgoth.
First time viewing your content and I really enjoyed the depth of your analysis. Subscribed.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts I enjoyed them.
I recently watched a middle school play, a 12 y/o white girl had a 12 y/o black girl as a mother. Obviously this doesn't make historical sense. It didn't matter. It was a fun play to watch, and the actors did a great job (for middle schoolers anyway).
If the Rings of Power is good or bad, I don't think the race or gender will have anything to do with it. I don't have much confidence that it will be good because the Wheel of Time was so poorly done. It doesn't make sense to me to have so much diversity in such a remote village as Emond's Field, however the races of the Emond's Fielders was not the problem with the show. I actually liked all of the actors in the Wheel of Time show. The Wheel of Time books have amazing women in them, and those women were made worse in the show by bad writing. Rings of Power will be good or bad based on the writing, directing, and acting; not on the skin color or gender of the actors.
Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful commentary; while I agree with much of what you presented I also have my share of disagreements. When it comes to the trailer and the backlash that followed, my posture is certainly relaxed. From what I see in the trailer I think there is a possibility that modern day politics has infiltrated the world of JRR Tolkien but I remain relaxed as long as his works remain intact - I can chose not to watch the series. I do not put labels on my self but certainly have my own political views and if others want to label that one way or the other so be it. The one label I will gladly accept is that of being a Tolkien fan- having read almost everything written by JRR Tolkien and his son Christopher, many of the works more than once, I think I qualify. What I would strongly object to, and not relax, is the purposeful altering of Tolkien’s written works to make it more compatible with someone’s distorted views of what the world should be. This was a suggestion by a so called Tolkien scholar out of Glasgow University because the works were said to be inherently racist resulting for the time and place of Tolkien’s existence. Next they will want to alter the the Mona Lisa because her smile is considered racist. So having said this Amazon can bastardize this however they see fit and I can chose not to engage in watching what would be a tremendous disappointment to me but rather retreat to the Cottage of Lost Play and reread the Tolkien works of my choice should I need to get lost in the world of JRR Tolkien and momentarily escape the politics and insanity of the modern day world.
I personally object to the darker skinned elves of mainly the bases of, elves are supposed to be creatures of light that even slightly glow a sort of pale light and I simply can’t see how this would be visualised with a darker skin shade and not have it look strange
Ms. Stewart, let this be the hour all Phans cross swords together. We have officially denounced Amazon's "The Rings of Power" Series via our 4k word Encyclical the condemns the heresy of the ring. Tolkien is very dear to us and even dedicated the first book in our series to him. Combat heresy with Orthodoxy, and EXSURGE TOLKIEN!...(ARISE O TOLKIEN)
Tolkien initially called his Elves , Nomes. But changed that because of the association with Garden ornaments. He said he regretted calling them Elves at one point. So he certainly did not name the based on an etymology meaning "White" . The Elves were also based on Celtic mythology and Faerie. Notable the Irish Tuatha Dé Danann.
Fair in this context refers to a kind of spiritual power not colour. Notably the most powerful elves are the ones who saw the light of the trees and were enriched them and the oldest of the Elves. Glorfindel in LOTR is an example returned from Valinor and so "Fair" his fea (spirit) shone bright in the Spirit world that Frodo could percieve.
The flip side is Dark Elves, who equally were Lesser, due to not having seen the Light of the Trees. Not a reference to colour. It encompasses the entirety of the Atani, the Sindar and the Wood elves (and more) Legolas would be a Dark Elf.
As to colour, what we know from Tolkien is Elves were first created by Eru Iluvatar around the banks of a lake in Cuivienen , and were awakened first the three leaders (whose names meant first , second and third or similar) who then found "batches" of elves of various group sizes. Nothing precludes some of these being dark skinned. (most likely the Teleri since they had the most groups and the most numerous).
Likewise The Dwarves were created by Aule the Smith, seven different "Fathers" of Dwarves. Nothing stops variation with them either. In fact since Tolkien did have variation with humans in skin tone, then its not a stretch other species would to.
One objection that has been made that is absolutely wrong is the idea that genetics would stop dark elves. The logic that Elves healing factor means evolving dark skin would not happen.
Because Dwarves , Elves , Men , Ents and even Orcs did Not evolve. They were created as is. Elves altered by proximity to Valar ( the Sindar, notably Thingol) or by travelling to Valinor and seeing the light of the trees. That's it.
Yes, the longform explanations are a welcome retreat from all of the yelling and misinformation that is currently going around UA-cam. It's a lot easier to just yell out "The trailer is Woke!" or "Elves aren't black!" and then join the fray. You take an entirely academic and analytical approach that feels informed and balanced. Great work. Seriously. Excellent work. You should be proud of what you have posted today! I don't care if there are dark skinned elves in the show, because I do not see the show as canon. It's a fanfiction piece. Let's hope the writing and dialogue do Tolkien justice though. From this line forward I hit EDIT for a last thought. IF the show were canon, and had the actual rights to create a proper adaptation, then I WOULD disagree with making the radical change of including darker skinned people as elves. For no reason other than that is not what Tolkien wrote. If he wrote them as white elves, then they are white elves. If he wrote them as dark skinned humans, then they should be thus. But I'm going by a strict canon interpretation and one that actually represents his writing. But again, I do not see this as canon. I'm sure someone is going to call me a racist for saying this.
I agree with you. I prefer a first adaptation of an author's work to be as canon as possible. I feel this way about almost every movie based on a book that I have ever seen. After something has been done, or if it is new original work in a franchise, I care less and sometimes new interpretations can be really refreshing. It's a preference, not a political view in that sense. I think Rings of Power is 100% studio fanfiction set in Middle Earth, but it's like a stage play of the real thing and theatre thrives on creativity. Whether I will like it or not is TBD.
@@amys0482 sorry to disagree here, but for me it seems to be a show with only the title "Lord of the Rings" that is NOT in Middle Earth, because even in a 1 min teaser trailer we see a lot of deviations from Tolkiens lore. Add to this the reaction of Amazon to the fan critics ( and of cause some of them went to far with their outrage ) and i have only small hope for this show to be anything worth its IP.
And look at this show from this view: The show invents events in the second age for us viewers to keep invested for 5 saisons, but has not the rights to use everything Tolkien deemed noteworthy in detail happening in the second age ( thats the Silmarillion mostly ). So anything the show CAN show us concerning the overall lore of Middle earth HAS to be of little impact to the history with teh exception of the few things mentioned in the 150 pages of the Appendix and some tales and songs mentioned in the Trilogy.
Yes, i am what one calls a Tolkien Purist. I like Peter Jacksons Trilogy, yet have some problems with his decisions ( Battle of Helms Deep, Battle on the Pellenor Fields ) but overall he kept true to Tolkiens lore, so i think it is a good adaptation.
I accept, but don't like the Hobbit ... you can see that PJ had to take over, had no time to prepare and had too much to insert as demands from the production side ( love interest, blowing it up to 3 movies, having to fall back to too much CGI ) and sadly that shows. Its at best a mediocre adaptation.
But now the production team of the show is very open in their plan to insert all that modern political correctness and invent everything, Tolkien never even thought to include in HIS world. So called Fan-sites now even fall back to call Tolkien himself ( next to everyone critizising the show ) a racist.
The PR is a total desaster with choosing those influencers with no lore knowledge to try and sell us a good product.
I sadly have a very very bad feeling about this being the next beloved franchise to be corrupted beyound recognition, but maybe... just maybe they can give us a good product.
@@marcel7077 The problem with The Hobbit is that the studios got greedy and took a short 1 book children's story and turned it into a movie trilogy. Even Peter Jackson wanted it to be shorter.
Not watching it...simple as. ;) The 9 year old who loved the story didn't even know what racism is.
I've been following this controversy with morbid curiosity recently. I've heard some of the rants on UA-cam. It is nice to get an actual analysis rather than a festival of nerd rage. Even if that anger is justified, it is better to step back, think things through carefully, calm down, and come up with a reasonable argument. I would probably be considered a moderate Lord of the Rings fan. I've read the main works and some of the Lost Tales material. I tend to be a bit of a purist, and I am skeptical of adaptations but willing to give them a chance. The Peter Jackson trilogy that came out two decades ago was a pleasant surprise; while not perfect, it captured the feel of the original better than I had expected. I haven't watched the bloated Hobbit trilogy yet, and I'm not in a hurry due to the lackluster reviews.
As for the Amazon TV series, there isn't enough information yet to make a strong judgment, so all the anger is premature. I don't have high hopes for it, but this is mainly because it will be fan fiction, as it is based on very little of Tolkien's actual work. Fan fiction seldom does justice to the original body of work. A few inconsistencies with the lore wouldn't bother me all that much if the characters and story were of high quality, but though I may speculate that this will not be well written, there is no way to know for certain until the TV series is available for viewing. I won't watch it immediately since I don't have or want Amazon Prime, but if it gets stellar reviews from critics and fans, I will seek it out at some point. If it bombs, I'll forget that it exists unless it looks like it might be so bad that it is funny - then, I'll definitely want to watch it.
I am rather tired of the tendency lately to beat old franchises to death. The film and TV industry sees a cash cow and milks it dry. The failure of certain movies and TV shows might not be because of "get woke go broke" but because of third rate stories in zombie franchises that should have been set aside a long time ago. Judging from reviews, Star Wars may be suffering from this, but I haven't seen any of the recent material, so I can't tell for certain. The upcoming Amazon TV series could easily push Lord of the Rings down this regrettable path. Wouldn't it be better if people came up with new material rather than tinker around in someone else's world? Tolkien is a tough act to follow; lesser writers working in his world face a severe uphill battle.
coming up with new material is harder than it sounds. it's why written works that gain a high level of popularity should be lovingly adapted with as much faithfulness as possible.
"What could possibly go wrong?" We are seeing only 60 seconds so far and the choice of images has left me wondering how much this will feel like Middle Earth. The Hobbit was not well received and it looked like Middle Earth and felt like Middle Earth, but the never accepted couple caused it to flop for it's departure from canon. Amazon's Wheel of Time and it's treatment of Robert Jordan's lore is a big call for concern. Given the film history of the writers and directors, the fandom is deeply concerned. Social media trolls us to confirm that our growing concerns are worse than we ever imagined. Like the Wheel of Time, I will give it a try, but the writing needs to be good and the acting strong to overcome my predisposition toward thinking that this is not looking good. The trailer and its lackluster, "ever wonder what wonders lie beyond our wanderings..." troubling.
Hope that it only looked foul, but will feel fair.
I think it will be best enjoyed if you go into it thinking it's going to be fanfiction or like a stage play set in Middle Earth
It's Harry Potter and the Cursed Child or Voldemort, Origins of the Heir... Guess the first struck me as a pathetic cash grab. I watched it after reading, that doesn't help, but then again perhaps I had already determined it was a cash grab and tossed it in the refuse bin. I was ok with the latter because it was just fan fiction done with love and concern for the lore. Perhaps, I really am allowing my preconceived notions of the world I have come to love to cloud and jade my thoughts on the matter... but many others also thought the same. Confirmation bias? Perhaps, but then again, should I have to force myself to like it? No. I will give it a try though.
@@amys0482 That sounds like something not to go into at all. That's the problem for me. A world I've loved for decades seems utterly uninteresting here, and unrecognizable at points. Can the actual product be different? Sure, but I've already been burned by the same studio so I don't see a reason to give it a chance by actually engaging with it.
I believe the basis of fanfiction is that even if characters and some events are different, the lore of how the world works is the same. That's not what we saw in Wheel of Time, and so far it's not what we're seeing here. Regardless, it could very well be a well-written butchering of lore which would be worth something, but again that's not what we saw in Wheel of Time, and the trailer does nothing to assuage those worries.
@@SaikoDeMoN Exactly.
@@amys0482 If I want Middle Earth fan fiction, I will grab the One Ring RPG, grab some friends, and write my own. I am not OK with a globalist corporation lying to my face about what they are selling me, especially when I am paying them money to watch it.
I still find it annoying that people can not separate real life from fantasy (which is meant to be different). I never saw a point in chaning any story in adaptions because why take that story as source material in the first place. If you can not identify with it leave it. Or even better...try not to bring politics or social controvercy in to literally everything. As mentioned fantasy or sci fi or whatever is meant to be different from our world so there is no reason to compare. A place to escape for some that has none of our BS attached to it and instead their own (dwarves and elves hatred in Tolkiens world for example). Also has its own races so why project ours onto those. I see elves as elves and not as humans so our races in RL would not apply to them. It is like comparing donkeys with eagles. Could go on forever but i will have to add i am not racist before anyone throws a tantrum at me.
Imo Racism always played a part in Tolkiens work, though it was not between black and white, but eg. between elves and dwarves. And I think Tolkien always was against racism, since how he wrote the stories, it was always that working together is better than fighting eachother. Eg. the relationship between Gimli and Legolas, they were very suspicious at each other for a long time until they came to a point where they started to trust eachother. Same with elves and humans. In the end, the races in middle-earth fight together versus a greater evil.
I couldn't care less, which skin color an actor has, unless it ruins the story, it's a fantasy world overall (btw, dark elves have violet skin :P) As for the show: most important is, that it has a good story and good actors.
Racism and Nationalism never did any good to the world (as we sadly can see again atm).
dark elves having violet skin is NOT a Tolkien thing, lol
Legit all I want is for the words written in book to be acted out and presented on screen lmfao why is that so much to ask? XD
There isn't a book to adapt for Rings of Power. Anything in this time period has to be an original script.
This is a very good commentary on the noise over Amazon's show. A few comments:
I'm in the "wait & see" camp. It may be terrible -- in which case all of us will have every right to say so. But the teaser certainly doesn't prove it will be bad.
Your points -- and textual backup -- about Galadriel and her potential combat prowess are quite right. I'd add that in the Unfinished Tales, Tolkien expressly wrote that Galadriel "fought fiercely" in the 1st Kinslaying at Alqualondë. It doesn't say with her bare hands. And thanks for the references to the *ears* dispute. (I'm in the ears-are-the-same-for-elves-and-humans camp which is why Tuor could be mistaken for an Elda.)
You point about maybe there was a missed opportunity to present the Dwarves as nonbinary was clever. Oh, how un-woke they are. A note though: Princess Disa has a beard. It's not visible in the singing images, but it is in the poster image. The beard is like mutton-chops for lack of a better word.
On race, you're very correct how noticeable it is that skin color has inflamed a certain segment of people far more than other changes (yes, including Galadriel -- but not Arwen with a sword b/c that is now fine apparently) by Amazon or Peter Jackson. I don't think it's quite right, though, to say that black elves or dwarves are contrary to canon/lore. It's better to say that there's an opening in the lore & Amazon is happily stepping through it. Here's what I mean: There is not a single word in Tolkien's writings about Dwarves' skin color. There is, however, the creation of the Khazad (as they called themselves) by Aulë. Tolkien said Aulë created them from his dim vision from the Ainulindalë of what the Children of Ilúvatar looked like. Tolkien is express that human skin color varies. Why exactly would Aulë have picked only one skin color for the Khazad? A similar point is true for the Quendi (Elves). Tolkien expressly wrote that humans and Quendi are the same species. Why exactly would the Quendi have only one skin color unlike humans??? I'm not sure Tolkien ever thought about it (and I do think all the Quendi he depicted by name are white), but if he had confronted the question, it seems strange that he would have said they were all white given his hatred (as you note) of the Nazis and apartheid. On the "fair" skin issue, that passage in the Appendices was an error -- indeed Christopher Tolkien called it a "perversion" that he couldn't explain how it got into the published LotR b/c his father meant it *only* for the Noldor.
Again, though, very thoughtful video. Buuuuut, as you mention re: pronunciation:
Tol-keen, not Tol-ki-en,
Sow-ron, not So-ron,
Keleborn, not Seleborn.
All fair. I accept this interpretation. I think the arguments that dwarves have to be pale bc they live underground is putting too much weight on science for a mythology.
Thanks for the great analysis.
I was personally not going to watch the series anyway even before the trailer came out, and unfortunately the trailer confirmed why.
wheel of time's obvious agenda and blatant misandry was bad enough, and Tolkien is waaaaay too important to me to want to see it get the same treatment.
Thus, while I wouldn't normally! have problems with Galadriel wielding a sword and leading an army, the fact the trailer chooses to show a sword wielding Galadriel leading an army while Elrond is exclusively not, just seems to promise more of the same, especially given all the articles, superfans videos and everything else pushing the series "diversity!", or facts like Amazon literally creating Isildur a sister just to be a main character in the series.
If the story and writing were likely to be good, I wouldn't have too much problem with tweaking Tolkien's cannon as regards skin colour.
I might grimace a bit, like I do when Legolas gets the fleeing orcs direction wrong in the two towers film, but if the story, themes and ideas are all in keeping with Tolkien anyway, I'd just shrug my shoulders and say: "well it's only a film!"
However, the more focus that is put exclusively onto diversity, the less the series sounds like that sort of story, and the more it sounds like yet another case of hijacking a beloved universe to make political points.
Thus, I have zero problem with Galadriel, or any other female characters being prominant series protagonists (tolkien actually wrote several kickass women even if they were exceptions to social norms in his world), however, I don't want to see male characters, either newly created ones, or existing ones like Elrond and Isildur receive the same denigration that characters like Luke Skywalker, Heman, and pretty much every male character in the wheel of time got.
Btw, as a final point about representation, as a visually impared person (registered blind though I do have some vision)), I'm afraid I find I am not especially sympathetic to those who prate over not being able to "identify", with characters who do not share their racial or sexual orientation.
I identify with many characters, most notably Frodo from Lotr, yet none of them are visually impaired, indeed visually impaired characters (when they appear at all), tend to be horribly written.
This is I'm afraid why I find the hole subject of "diversity", a rather hollow one, and would prefer to just see well written characters, with whatever characteristics.
As author Robin hobb said, when asked about her own "diverse", cast of characters, if a character is alesbian vampire with a gambling problem, what exactly "defines", that character's identity.
I have misgivings too. I would like to do a video on "strong female characters" as the default that this means women must be efficient killers is annoying to me.
@@amys0482 I hope you do make this video.
I remember growing up thinking Ellie from Jurassic Park was a great female character because she was grounded and competent.
@@zipperzee oddly played by the same actress (Laura Dern) who plays the forgettable Vice Admiral Holdo in The Last Jedi. She deserved a more interesting character to portray.
Defacto excluding fans of the source material from the show through your purposeful century long established lore deviations is not being more diverse. It kills your diversity. It is a deliberate attempt to alienate the built-in audience in hopes of replacing them with people you think are more in keeping with your desired corporate messaging. "Just some guy" nails his critique of this.
And he's a black guy who has been driven off by Amazon..
Great video, thank you so much for taking the time to share your thoughts on this Amy !
Thank you for talking about this! We cannot forget the historical context in which Tolkien lived and wrote his stories. That does not make me love them less, but especially think about the "bad" Easterlings and Haradrim. Bad or less civilized people from the South and East? That does sound rather familiar, right? And is just one example. So if the TV show points at those problematic aspects, I am fine with that.
What, for me, is more of an issue, is the time compression, and how that might work out. But I will just have to wait and see.
I agree with you on the time compression being an issue. The other part made me think, is there an angle, mostly supported by Tolkien's own writings that could elaborate further on the Evil men situation and explain why they joined the side of Evil that is not wholly problematic under modern thinking? I came up with the following:
The "evil" men are on the side of Sauron, - at least originally - for a reason. In some ways you could argue they are (in the expanded legendarium at least) a commentary on colonization. The reason they joined Sauron was mostly twofold: Firstly, pervasive generational indoctrination and propaganda by an - arguably industrial - imperial power (Mordor under Sauron and Morgoth before him) spreading lies about how things are better under His powerful aegis and the promise of revenge or dominion. It is then further lies, mostly to do with eternal life and the misunderstanding of the "Gift of Man" and the unfairness of the "Ban of the Valar" that Sauron would eventually use to doom Numenor itself.
Secondarily In the example of the Haradrim and the many different kinds of middle-men it also comes down to Numenorean (and in the case of the Haradrim also Gondorian) oppression and direct colonization by brutal power, especially during the apex of Numenor, a time they were so powerful they crushed Sauron's armies almost effortlessly. But that is mostly from expanded material the writers of Rings of Power do not have access to..
Another example of "good" peoples capacity for evil is the actions of the Rohirrim in displacing the hill-men of Dunland from Rohan, their native land. Thus leading to Saruman, - another industrial Tyrant - to be able to incite them to war in the name of (to them) justified reconquest and revenge.
I would personally really enjoy a exploration of these themes though, showing how even the "good guys" are not always good and that "evil" people have their reasons for joining the evil side. I am reminded of the saying that "Every villain is the hero in their own story"
I agree that how can one to know if will like a new series without even watching it? The arguments people have made about the The Rings of Power seem to be silly or naive. I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, but read the books many years ago and really enjoyed Peter Jackson's adaptations when they came out. I echo your feelings 100 percent about The Hobbit movies! They should have been condensed and released as one movie, but none the less they were entertaining to watch once through.
One point of contention though the quote about Galadrial being amazonian, I hope I spelt that correctly, comes from the unfinished tales which is a collection of rough ideas that Tolkien created that would act as a frame for his eventual creation of middle earths history and how his characters would look and act however how cannon or how much actually made the cut in Tolkiens mind is debatable, for my part I would only trust the Silmarilion and his letters.
that is an impressive looking mini library behind you ... very nice.
I don't really care if LotR has Black Elves (or Brown or "Yellow").
I don't care if LotR has beardless female Dwarves.
I *really* enjoyed having the strong female warrior in The Hobbit, although not really the romance involving her.
Likewise, I enjoyed Eowyn in the original trilogy.
I also think it's MUCH too early to tell if Amazon's LotR is going to be bad... or even "woke".
As for simply asserting that someone who DOES object to having Black Elves or Dwarves is automatically racist... or likewise making that criticism of anyone who accuses ANY show/movie of being "woke"...
How many of those alleged "racists" object(ed) to having Black (or Asian) Vulcans or Klingons (or helmsmen or communications officers) in Star Trek? How many object to having Blacks in anything set after 1700 in USA or England?
On the other hand, having racial quotas is rather blatant racism, as is race-swapping known characters... while having gender quotas and gender-swapping is likewise sexism.
The stupidity and ignorance and racism enters in when one realizes that dark elves exist in both Tolkien and in the mythos he pulled from. One can go back to Celtic and Nordic mythology and find du-sidh (black elves) and Dökkálfar (dark elves). And yes,, that also refers refers to skin color. In Tolkien canon, these dark elves are the ones who never chose to travel to Aman, the Undying Lands.
@@bryanrhodes369 I always thought Dokkalfar had sort of dark purple/violet skin, typically with white hair, eyebrows, etc...
At least, those are the usual images I've seen.
@@Nyet-Zdyes if the argument is that they don't exist in cultural lore (when they actually do) it doesn't really matter now does it?
@@bryanrhodes369 I will repeat my first sentence from this thread...
"I don't really care if LotR has Black Elves..."
I'm not one of the ones making an argument that dark/black Elves do/don't exist in Tolkien.
The neat thing about Diversity and Inclusion is that there are now more opportunities for historically underrepresented people to be associated with good AND bad writing. "We" as an audience need to call out the bad writing for what it is, and stop being lazy by yelling "woke". Let the bad writers stick to network TV, and force them to hire great writers for prestige, big budget shows.
The thing is 'woke' is a mind virus that has infected hollywood, so you have people who want to speak up but are afraid it's hard to imagine but they hire writers based on race or progressive stack, and then if anyone is to say anything negative they are now racist, or homophobe u name it, so we end up with poor writing on most of these woke projects and no one says anything, just let it happen. It won't change untill ppl are less afraid to be fired or life ruined, I think there will be a shift and ppl will be able to talk normal again at some point. I mean Elon tweeted Netflix waiting for Ukrane war to end so they can hire a black, trans person to film a docu on it, ppl get it. It's just how Hollywood thinks atm. Anyone who points it out is attacked.
@@drifter6870 The Showrunners for LOTR look like the whitest White boys I've ever seen. I don't know if they were hired due to a "progressive stack", but nothing jumps out doing a quick search. Aligning your moral compass with a shitposter like Musk is probably something to be reconsidered. How many Black Trans writers are showrunning Prestige TV?
@@bjbilyk Lol, how many "black trans writers" that write screenplays can you name off the top of your head? The world doesn't revolve around .03% of the population. And the identity of the author isn't what matters, it's their ability to write to an audience.
Late to the comment party...
I think the real issue here (and in the case of WoT), is not that Amazon wanted to be more inclusive. I don't think most people would have any issue with that. It is the way in which they went about it. In both cases (WoT way more so than RoP), the canons provide ample opportunity to be inclusive within the established lore. By purposefully (or incompetently) not doing that, but rather doing it in a forced, militant way, it makes it feel political and anti-story. Not to mention it ruins the established "nostalgic memory" many people have cultivated for these IPs over decades and decades. That's arguably what makes these IPs so beloved in the first place. People want to re-immerse into the worlds they grew up with. Amazon's WoT is NOT Jordan's WoT. And all indications point to RoP NOT being Middle Earth. It's baffling. Amazon had to make up Second Age stories whole cloth for RoP, so why didn't they write a main storyline within the lore, featuring a leading female Haradrim? Why take one ambiguous line about Galadriel and completely change her image? Or they could have created a new female warrior elf character and included the traditional Galadriel right along side her. A bodyguard perhaps? Why add "Harfoots" to an age where they didn't exist? If they wanted hobbit ancestors, they could have created their own version, even to the point of having it multi-cultural. Then perhaps people wouldn't be so angry that a once-in-twenty-years chance to revisit their established nostalgia was botched (at best) or purposefully manipulated for political purposes (at worst). What a waste....
P.S. Please keep up the videos. They are intelligent, interesting, and entertaining!
You’re back!!! Can’t wait to hear your takes throughout this one!
Sorry you lost me at "" Celtic "" . ...
i for sure prefer this style of video. loved the wheel of time ones.
I Love reading, and I love good writing. Good writing can exist in television and movies, yet it often is subpar, and I feel like the reason for this is not as simple as bad writers. It seems like lately either producers do not care about a good story, or they are making it simple on purpose. I believe the answer is clear.
I have seen more good movies and TV shows than bad ones in recent years, and much better overall than 20 years ago. Bad ones still get made, of course, and I think this is more likely to happen in a franchise that is already popular because the money will come in either way
This was excellently done! - as for my stance I agree with some of the very well written defensives to not changing things below. I would have liked you to have also included watching the 'super fan influencers' Amazon video and factored that into your discussion - they are been very blatant with their intentions for this show and the changes made to the lore.
I have also seen quite a number of POC comment how against this they are, they could see what they are doing and how disingenuous it is as they loved Tolkiens worked for just what it was - they never needed representation to love it.
And also subbed :)
Great video overall. Keep up the good work and I'm sure your channel will find it's following :)
I do worry that sometimes you're simply writing off the criticisms of people crying "woke" as simply being the result of bad writing though. I'm not suggesting that you're wrong on that point by the way, as I think most agenda-driven writing is also terrible myself. But it seems to be a sort of rhetorical trap; by defining "woke" as a subset of "bad writing" then I think it becomes easier to dismiss peoples concerns about trends that they're seeing. But I appreciate that you go out of your way to look at both sides and have a wonderfully nuanced take on these things.
Not everybody is a wordsmith capable of writing water-tight treatises on social media, but nearly everyone can tell when they're being mocked or lectured to. Some of anti-woke are definitely caught up in the same sort of cult the woke are, but many more are just frustrated every-day people tired of being talked down to.
Edit: On a more cheerful note one of the more popular film critics on youtube (The Critical Drinker) released a video on starting out and growing your channel just a few days ago. If you're not familiar with him already I expect you'll have a few issues with his general style, but he understands the craft and genuinely cares about good story telling. You're probably already aware of the points he makes here but it might help in some way.
This is his secondary channel, but it's not hard to find the main one. ua-cam.com/video/nb44P0SoyQQ/v-deo.html
I'm familiar with The Critical Drinker. For woke vs. bad writing, I would argue that the alt right cherry picks entertainment where the writing is bad and makes a case that it is bad because it is woke. There are a few cases where this is true, but only a very few. The larger aim is insidious, and I am suspicuous of any who wave this banner with regularity.
This is a thorough coverage of the issue from a political lens: rewritingripley.medium.com/in-plain-sight-how-white-supremacy-misogyny-and-hate-targeted-the-star-wars-sequel-trilogy-and-2fd0be4b242
@@amys0482 I have read that article before, and it strongly reminds me of the game "six degrees of Kevin Bacon". Frankly, I don't find the conspiracy theories here plausible, and I believe the author has gone down a rabbit hole. If you're looking for cherry-picking, then I think that's an excellent example of it.
@@Golmov_the_Wretched The first half of the article is just grouping together what these people say blatantly about themselves and their agenda in one place... The social media analysis toward the end gets a little far afield.
Wont be a popular opinion but i find the idea of 'wokeness' as a derogatory term to be lazy. As for the new show, i am a fan of Tolkien but am not worried about elf hair colour or skin colour - i will see whether the story captures Tolkiens world and judge then. Oh and Galadriel did fight. Tolkien described her as 'amazonian', 'a commander', 'the most valiant woman of the house of finwe' and described her as 'fighting fiercely' so i do not understand the massive fuss about her being depicted as a warrior at some point since she clearly fought and led in battle when younger.
I am concerned that the politics will interfere with the storytelling and that it will alter the canon to the point of ruining the story. However, I am completely unconcerned about having folks of other races playing characters that were originally defined as anglo. Recently, Denzel Washington played Macbeth, and completely rocked it. Furthermore, several other characters were also played by African Americans. However, the film makers thoroughly respected Shakespeare's work, and politics did not have a great impact upon the story.
An intelligent and detailed analysis that I wish the algorithm would have promoted instead of the dozen other opinion pieces I’ve suffered thru while researching this issue. Thank you for the content.
I wanted to stop watching at about 5 min, but stayed to the end. You definitely put a good deal of effort into writing and editing this video. I do not agree with everything you said, but your justifications were reasonable. I have read about the same amount of Tolkien as you have, but Instead of having read it "years" ago; for me it is over 30 years ago. I am a bit of a purist, however. By that I mean if I hear someone mispronounce the name of Sauron, which happened almost all the time before the Peter Jackson movies, that meant that the person had read the books, but not the appendices'. For me that is like asking someone if he or she likes Jethro Tull, and that person responds, "Yeah, he is great." I do not have a newer reference, so you may have to look that up. Just like a dwarf jumping up from one free falling stone to another free falling stone in the "Hobbit" movie totally took me out of the story, having a black elf in the "Rings of Power" will totally take me out of it. I believe that the vast majority of Tolkien fans are also huge fans of Star Trek. And yet, I have never, in my life, heard of anyone complain about Uhura. I've never heard any white person not in the media mention the fact that she is not white. I apologize for rambling. I meant to congratulate for a good job, and got caught up in my own shit. Probably a good example of one of your points about getting emotional.
I respect the purist point of view. I get nettled with every difference from a book I have read and liked so I totally understand that. I didnt like most of the changes from the books in the Peter Jackson films, so I am sure this will be much worse. But I am also going into it expecting it to be Tolkien fanfiction, like most generic fantasy that followed Tolkien for decades. That will temper my emotions somewhat.
Good video.. I’ve been fighting against the woke argument for a year now and I have to say you argued it much better than I ever could!
This is very intelligent but... can I make a plaintive plea for critics and defenders (if there are any left) to have the debate about Art? Tolkien wrote a literary manifesto, 'On Fairy-stories', to explain his concept of Fantasy, which he required above all to have
-- 'the inner consistency of reality'
-- Strangeness and Wonder
The trailer gives a nod to Wonder. But will they be be telling, not showing?
"Inner consistency" I read as a more physical, tangible quality than most have understood it. The phrase was lifted from the Oxford English Dictionary article on Fancy. It derives, I believe, from a passage by John Ruskin
"the imaginative faculty ... depriving the subject of material and bodily shape, and regarding such of its qualities only as it chooses for particular purpose, it forges these qualities together in such groups and forms as it desires, and gives to their abstract being consistency and reality" -- Ruskin, 'Modern Painters' Vol II, Chapter 4; quoted in OED 'Consistency'
If the show fails these tests, no amount of diversity and inclusivity will save it. I'm OK with both, I've tried to respect them as a lecturer. Art -- well, I'm not so sure
Here is suggestion: do a video on how toxic Amazon and Jeff Bezos are as a company.
For me this has always been as simple as that, especially as Tolkien was known to really, really hate soulless industry.
Insofar as race in concerned, consider it’s known that films studios have been doing this because they actually want to spur a racist response to get free advertising. This is sick on so many levels, but consider how badly that effects the actual actors who take these roles. Consider how Disney treated John Boyega or how the Bond film treated Lashana Lynch.
They cast Lynch to stir up fake controversy, then literally chopped here scenes down because they were worried it would affect the bottom line. So this poor actress is out to generated a racist response, then when the studio worries that would affect the box office, they diminished her role!
Point being, this all reflects back on the studios themselves and time and time again they have been shown to do these things for the most cynical reasons possible.
Progandia is an acid which burns through everything it touches. We can identify progandia when the people who react poorly to a trailer are immediately labeled as "bad" people. The response to the reaction reveals the intention.
This is also my stance. The Super-fans promotion and the attacks on the fans, instead of focusing on the story they wanted to tell, was very telling for me. Star Wars, WOT went through similar issues, I think its a sad trend.
Look the 'remakes' are either ruining franchises and IPs on purpose or else out of complete incompetence and baffoonery. Either way, the people behind them need to go. That is something "left" and "right" ought to be able to agree on.
But if it's on purpose then one side has an interest in not stopping.
I'd say incompetence (too much work to write compelling stories/characters) mixed with a virtue signalling PR machine, and greed (target more people for more $$)
Good review! Question, why do you put "White Supremacism" on one side of the spectrum instead of "Supremacism"?
Because in the zeitgeist white supremacism is supposed to be the equivalent of Melkor in evil while other forms of supremacism are either entirely justified as the only just means by which to combat the former, or merely a lesser evil, like Saruman.
I would probably throw male supremacism on the same side and there are some folks, including people of color, who are anti racism but also anti-women. I don't know if that is what you mean, though.
@@amys0482 what he is pointing out is that the other races have supremacist movements of their own.
To show where the hearts of those people are, just watch the interviews, the 'super-fans' podcasts and all we hear about the production itself.
I missed this but from I have heard, it was a pretty obvious and awful PR stunt
Feminism is not antithetical to a hierarchical system as long as women are on the top of that system. While the notion of feminism began with a mind to seek 'equality for women' that is no longer the focus of the movement and it would be naive to think that it is and totally disingenuous to say it is so. Frankly the topic of the fan fiction Rings of Power series doesn't need to stray this far from the topic of the series to be lucid. For my part, I am a 'Normal Fan' who read the books decades ago and I enjoyed the movies. I've also had a long history with both the Middle Earth Role playing game and some of the computer games. I owned and made thorough use of the Middle Earth Companion book and while I didn't read the Silmarilion, I have a fairly good idea of what it is and what it is not. i don't support any agenda that forces the adjustment of media to conform to standards that are based upon social and political motives. I don't agree with the kindof sensorship that conservatives use nor do i endorse the diversity and inclusion concepts that inundate modern media. That one is especially insidious as they actually write up 'guidelines' for equity and diversity / inclusion' quotas that are themselves racist and sexist.
In the ROP teaser, for instance, they give a focus on the black female dwarf queen and that caused a lot of stir. I, personally, don't care that she is supposedly a woman of color. I say supposedly since I'm legally a blind man, so her color is not a factor to me nad from what I could see, she wasn't very dark. Logically, the idea of a dark skinned darf is silly... they don't exactly get a lot of sun down there. But it wasn't the part of the 'Black and Beardless Dwarven Queen' that I would take issue with... it was the fact that they are giving us a Beardless Dwarven Queen'. I really wouldn't care much if dwarven women were bearded or not, but the dwarves had 'Lords' not Queens. They were definitely patriarchal, so having them rules by a queen is a contradiction of the lore. I have to suppose the motivation behind it is 'diversity and inclusion' but that is a poor answer. Feminism is another possability and also not a good reason to change the basic structure of the dwarven race since it would alter the way they think and creates logcal inconsistencies in the world. Those are the things that I personally dislike most in my stories.. logical inconsistencies. When the world stops making sense, it knocks me out of the story and I move on. Tolkien's world made sense to me, as it was. Every time they make a change, they tip the scale a bit more. They did it to the Wheel of Time and that show is hot garbage now. This show isn't even a Tolkient Story, they are just using his world building... and then cutting out the foundations and pouring in modern political agendas. No, that won't end badly, will it?
As many others have said I really enjoy your videos, I think I watched this when it had been out for like 8 min? Keep it up! I am close enough to your viewpoint that pretty much the entire video I was like "Yeah that's what I think as well, but well laid out and clear as opposed to my rambling"
Hi Amy, firstly, good job. I am officially a fan of your work and I admire you. I like your presentation style, your level of detail and the articulate and concise way you make your points. I really appreciate the background you gave on your self as it gave good context on your analysis style and approach. I am impressed you have replied to so many comments, but that makes me think you dig this kind of thing, in some way. Please don't take that or anything I say as negative, because I don't mean to be. Also I identify with being on the Autistic spectrum. One impressions that came to mind was that you have not declared your political alignment, I think if you are making commentary on political sides it would help to be open about which side your on, (the truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth). I think even the best of us are suspectable to cognitive bias and unconscious bias, I wonder if people commenting below were triggered by something you presented unconsciously. I am pro fair, pro diversity, pro inclusion, pro empowerment but I also don't like the idea of 'woke'. I don't like male characters being changed with the intention to further a political view, over telling a story. Think, would Shakespeare do it? Given I want fairness, diversity, inclusion and empowerment, but don't agree with woke, I think this is mostly not a disagreement on values but rather an argument on perspective. I think this is actually a clash of generational perspective on the same values.
I was raised conservative and became liberal. I am aghast by how much inaccurate information and propaganda there was in my upbringing. This experience informs my viewpoints and also my creative works.
@@amys0482 Thank you, I note you did mention that in the video but I wasn't sure if that is were your at now. Now I know. I am curious, do you give any credence to my notion that this is a clash of generational perspective on the same values?
@@markusloane1149 There is always going to be nuance when evaluating something so broad. There is cultural nuance, generational nuance, location nuance, occupational nuance, individual experiences, and so on. But broadly speaking, no. I don't think so. I think the same fight has been happening for centuries. The labels and angles change -- who is on top and who is being trampled -- but the struggle for power is consistent.
In America today, being "conservative" means wanting to preserve the status quo, or to regress to a state in the past, like before women had rights to abortion (one example). This "state of the past" puts power in the hands of the wealthy, the white, men generally, and Christians, especially protestants. Again, broadly speaking. Being liberal means wanting individuals to be free of control by these groups and for "individuals" to be more inclusive of the diversity that reflects the actual people in this country. The way conservatives and liberals see government playing into this differs. Liberals are afraid of an authoritative state. Conservatives are afraid of socialism (although an incorrect understanding of socialism).
In other countries this is kind of the same and kind of different. It is all based on historical context. In the UK, for example, "conservative" is class based and pro perserving the monarchy and aristocracy. But in every country there is a power struggle to perserve some version of power as defined in the past for the few versus the many who want power to be more distributed.
@@amys0482 I love the way your mind works, your depth of understanding of the dynamic at play in this niche community. That said, I would caution, what hurts us is not what we don’t know but what we think we know but don’t. I think no one is simply conservative or liberal but may have conservative or liberal views dependant on the circumstances in question. For example I don’t like change, and that is a conservative view, (I am being simplistic and general because this medium lacks), but I embrace diversity, inclusion, equality and empowerment. I see those things as liberal and progressive. So I think it is ill considered to brand any person as a conservative or liberal in general as it is not giving credence to the fact that that they maybe the opposite to what ever label they were judged by, in some circumstances. i don’t like the current centralised power balance in the world, I don’t like that life is not fair to all people. I also think that a lot of the world doesn’t know woke from any other concept and don’t care to know it. I think that we that are having this debate are already among the privileged. Aka a first world problem. I see your point that many nuances feed this debate however, for me, I can’t help but feel a major thread of this multifaceted conversation is that this is an ‘upcoming generation’ trying to assert its voice and place in the world by presenting their values their way. I am all for this, the old makes way for the young. I think what offends some is that it is being introduced a little forcefully and without enough consideration for those that went before and that built the foundations of the privilege we all benefit from and that allows us to participate in such wistfulness. Of course there are many other threads in this dynamic, I am choosing to focus on this one because it touches me.
@@markusloane1149 I appreciate your perspective. I don't know you, but you may be more politically liberal than you think you are, even if you like routine in your day and consistency in societal expectations. If you haven't taken a political test in awhile, that might be interesting. You get different answers at different point of your life as values become more defined. I like organization and efficiency, but I also value liberty to free expression and I do not like rules that are unnecessarily restrictive to how people live their personal lives. I would side with someone just wanting the space to be themselves over society's expectation for conformity, so I lean liberal almost always.
21:07 Forgive the nitpick, but Tolkien was born and left South Africa prior to the institutionalization of Apartheid.
I really enjoyed this video. I think all the points you made were fair.