Papa Smurf wrote:You are free to disregard anything I say of course but you should at least recognize that there is a political motivation behind having black and white 'versions' of all sentient creatures in the show (not sure if there are black and white orcs; how about trolls and dragons?), whether it makes sense or not (as in the case of the dwarves). Same with the 'strong woman' trope.

Well, yeah. Quite a lot of people in the US, Canada, and Europe would describe themselves as being pretty liberal, in the sense that they would probably be supportive of such things as BLM and women's rights. Businesses? Appealing to public opinion for profit? Who would've thought.

Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that the show writers and directors are just as callous in their attempts to establish a viewer base, or is it possible that they're just generally liberal themselves? Are you of the opinion that the black actors brought in were only brought in because they're black, or is it possible that they're good actors? Is it possible that they're leaning into their politics as a response to public outcry? If you had to take a wild guess, would you say that someone who wanted to adapt Tolkien literature is more likely or less likely to be a fan of Tolkien's work?

I did read your post, by the way. The point was that you directly contradicted yourself in your efforts to decry the show. It's apparently very important that dwarves be white because of all these real world biological mechanisms despite it being a fantasy which, in your own words, decidedly not meant to reflect the real world, and the lore (again, by your own profession) provides an explanation as to why they could be black anyway.

Did you read your post?

Papa Smurf wrote:

Animavore wrote:your tiresomely unoriginal opinion clearly lifted straight from YouTube seriously.

What I said about it making no sense to have dwarves with dark skin are entirely my own thoughts, haven't read or heard about that anywhere (that's not to say that nobody else has mentioned this, it's just that I haven't come accross it). Try again (EDIT: and address the actual argument I made).

And if you haven't noticed the pattern wrt strong female lead characters in movies you have not been paying attention. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have noticed this so I would expect this to be mentioned by others. I'm not a casual movie watcher, I watch a lot of movies. Like really a lot. Have been doing so for a long time. I don't depend on critics or YouTube or whatever to form my opinion on movies. But somestimes, just sometimes, a few trailers is all it takes. If I didn't feel so strongly about Tolkien's work I would not be making such a fuss about this. I wasn't even sure I wanted to see Peter Jackson's take on LOTR but I took a chance and have to say it was a pretty good attempt. He very much tried to stay close to the source material and I understand why he deviated in some places. Some things simply don't translate to the screen.

You are free to disregard anything I say of course but you should at least recognize that there is a political motivation behind having black and white 'versions' of all sentient creatures in the show (not sure if there are black and white orcs; how about trolls and dragons?), whether it makes sense or not (as in the case of the dwarves). Same with the 'strong woman' trope.

I'm not sure what is supposed to be 'political' about human beings and their skin colour?

As for the 'strong woman' trope, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care about that. That seems entirely like a you problem. No one cared when Legolas was pulling off superhero shit but they lose their minds when Galadriel does it? Doesn't make sense to me. Especially since...

"Elves are (generally) unusually beautiful in face and body. There is little physical difference between males and females except that which is required for reproduction."
https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Elves

I found a most-scathing negative review of the series-thus-far, from a YT channel with a million and a half subscribers, and known to hate on shamelessly-derivative fan-fiction-y sequels of fantasy franchises, and do it with a vengeance...



You can love the show or hate it: all the same to me, but this review articulates failures in this production that go far, far beyond the fact that the casting is end-to-end check-boxing diversity. I'm happy to see diverse actors get a chance to work in big-budget productions, but I'm always going to be asking myself whether their acting is any good and whether it's in the service of a well-constructed plot and whether their character arcs are not just character-arc paint-by-numbers. It doesn't have to be Olivier, Hepburn, or even Alan Rickman, ffs. Polished acting and carefully-wrought stories and dramatic tension are what I look for in visual story-telling. Especially when they're forking out 60 million bucks per episode trying to buy my loyalty.

The Critical Drinker? Are you kidding me? A knee-jerk reactionary and culture war shit-stirrer? The fucking epitome of 'rage-bait'.

Animavore wrote:The Critical Drinker? Are you kidding me? A knee-jerk reactionary and culture war shit-stirrer? The fucking epitome of 'rage-bait'.

Dog-whistle, much, Ani? Is the Ministry of Truth going to be telling me who I should or should not listen to? If I had your child-like take on rhetoric, I might indeed have to censor myself from viewing stuff that cannot be un-seen, lest my doctrinal purity become polluted.

I'm not telling you who to listen to at all, you're presenting this to us to be listened to, citing his over a million viewers no less as some sort of evidence of veracity, but I already know this "reviewer" and his history and I can't think of anyone less biased and less balanced.

And "child-like take on rhetoric"? The Critical Drinker has that in spades so I don't know why it's suddenly an issue.

Just watched episode seven. This show is so frustratingly uneven. For every plus there's a minus. They need to really work on some things for season two.

The dwarves were back and great as usual. Maybe they can put more focus on them. They've got themselves in a position right now where the lead protagonist's story is the least interesting.

It's still above The Hobbit so there's that.

Animavore wrote:II can't think of anyone less biased and less balanced.

That's very telling, Ani. I didn't know cinema reviews needed to be balanced, as if we were talking politics and human rights. But I think you meant to write more biased. Get back to me when you develop a capacity to keep your thoughts organized.

Balanced in a review means pointing out good and bad things. Saying what worked and what didn't. Start with something positive, put the criticism in the middle, end with something positive. Being constructive etc. Basic stuff really.

Maybe I'm just too old school but this style of just ripping into things in a mean-spirited way doesn't appeal to me. I guess it's the reason he gets the clicks and views. It's lowest common denominator, peanut gallery stuff.

If he didn't drink so much his balance might improve a bit.

Seriously, you've got to love the way he hates on stuff for being political and diverse, but pretty much all the stuff he actually likes is also very political and diverse. It's as though the reasons why he likes or dislikes them have nothing to do with either.

I watched Critical Drinker's review of Black Panther, and came away with the impression that he's a shitty reviewer for three reasons:

1. He either doesn't retract mistakes he makes, or is willing to simply lie about the media he's criticizing. In his review, he claims that the movie is fundamentally flawed because Rojava can't pose a similar threat to the world that previous MCU movies presented; however, the movie never posed Rojava as such a threat. In fact, the main concern at that point in the movie was that declaring war on the outside world would culminate in the destruction of Rojava. This review is years old.

2. An inability or unwillingness to engage with ideas, even ones expressed in a blunt manner. Black Panther very clearly takes an anti-tradition stance, with the movie's main problem and the protagonist's biggest failure being a result of abiding by tradition, while eschewing tradition resolved the problem. Critical Drinker fails to even acknowledge this.

3. He conflates ideas. Not that he's correct about this, but Critical Drinker argues that Black Panther has an arc wherr he comes into his own as black panther in Captain America: Civil War, and that they just repeated the same character arc in Black Panther as king of Rojava. I'd think it obvious that a superhero and a king are rather different roles to play.

I could watch the review for Rings of Power, but I would only do so with the idea in mind that he probably doesn't engage with media very well.

EDIT: I dunno why I kept saying Rojava instead of Wakanda, but there you go.

He doesn't so much engage with the media as enrage with it.

Greg the Grouper wrote:I watched Critical Drinker's review of Black Panther, and came away with the impression that he's a shitty reviewer for three reasons:

1. He either doesn't retract mistakes he makes, or is willing to simply lie about the media he's criticizing. In his review, he claims that the movie is fundamentally flawed because Rojava can't pose a similar threat to the world that previous MCU movies presented; however, the movie never posed Rojava as such a threat. In fact, the main concern at that point in the movie was that declaring war on the outside world would culminate in the destruction of Rojava. This review is years old.

2. An inability or unwillingness to engage with ideas, even ones expressed in a blunt manner. Black Panther very clearly takes an anti-tradition stance, with the movie's main problem and the protagonist's biggest failure being a result of abiding by tradition, while eschewing tradition resolved the problem. Critical Drinker fails to even acknowledge this.

3. He conflates ideas. Not that he's correct about this, but Critical Drinker argues that Black Panther has an arc wherr he comes into his own as black panther in Captain America: Civil War, and that they just repeated the same character arc in Black Panther as king of Rojava. I'd think it obvious that a superhero and a king are rather different roles to play.

I could watch the review for Rings of Power, but I would only do so with the idea in mind that he probably doesn't engage with media very well.

Fucking hell. The arc in Civil War was a very basic revenge is poisonous arc.

In Black Panther his arc is realising Wakanda can't just stay in the shadows and not help any longer.

Basic fucking stuff he can't even get right.

And yeah, almost tempted too to watch his RoP video to see how badly he botches it but I'm not giving him clicks, ie. revenue.

Anyway, a quick glance on Reddit does suggest he gets basic stuff wrong and doesn't even appear to care much for Tolkien anyway.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Well, yeah. Quite a lot of people in the US, Canada, and Europe would describe themselves as being pretty liberal, in the sense that they would probably be supportive of such things as BLM and women's rights.

You can include me in that category.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Out of curiosity, are you of the opinion that the show writers and directors are just as callous in their attempts to establish a viewer base, or is it possible that they're just generally liberal themselves?

How should I know? Nor does it matter to me. I only care about the end result which, to me, is very unsatisfying to put it mildly.

Greg the Grouper wrote:Are you of the opinion that the black actors brought in were only brought in because they're black, or is it possible that they're good actors?

Why not both? I would assume they were selected because they are good actors. But I strongly believe that what roles they were cast into was politically/ideologically motivated.

The film industry as a whole should be diverse and inclusive but that does not mean that every role has to be open to any ethnicity. If I watch a movie about feudal Japan, I don't want to see caucasian actors playing the part of Japanese people. Could Mulan haven been played by a blond haired caucasian woman? Would you want to see a movie about a central African kingdom with a white dude playing the king?

About all this being fantasy, yes it is fantasy but it is not set in some alternate universe so there are limits to what you can do. To take it to the comically absurd, would you be okay with the humans in this series having blue skin (which is a fantastic skin color btw)? How about yellow polka dot skin?

Tolkien's mythology is mostly his take on creating a mythology for our actual world, arguably centered mostly around England and Northern Europe (which becomes very apparent if you read the tales about Eriol the mariner, a predecessor to his 'regular' published works). The events in his mythology take place perhaps a few thousand years before our time but at some point they segue into our own (pre)history. According to The Hobbit there are still Hobbits in our world today.

What this means is that there are certain limits to the liberty you can take with these stories before they become inconsistent with our actual reality. The events clearly predate our own written history. For the most part we did not have cultures with mixed ethnicities as diverse as today until fairly recently. There certainly were no black knights, kings or peasants in medieval Europe as far as I know. It therefore makes no sense that societies in this fantasy would be as diverse as ours (in many western countries at least) today, it's entirely incongruous with our actual history. This has been forced onto the material without rhyme or reason.

Greg the Grouper wrote:If you had to take a wild guess, would you say that someone who wanted to adapt Tolkien literature is more likely or less likely to be a fan of Tolkien's work?

Since you are allowing me to guess, I'm going to guess that the producer and show runner are not truly Tolkien fans.

Greg the Grouper wrote:The point was that you directly contradicted yourself in your efforts to decry the show.

I did not contradict myself. I explained how, in theory and if taken to the extreme, (almost) anything is possible in fantasy, except that this particular fantasy deals with events from our own actual world from a long time ago. I also explained why it doesn't make much sense to have white and black dwarves and also why black dwarves by themselves does not make too much sense either (they are cave dwelling). Again, if it being fantasy justifies anything they could have given dwarves or humans blue or polka dot skins.

Greg the Grouper wrote:It's apparently very important that dwarves be white because of all these real world biological mechanisms despite it being a fantasy which, in your own words, decidedly not meant to reflect the real world

I have clarified this above sufficiently I think. And as I said before, it would have been better to have only black dwarves then black and white dwarves if they are going to ignore everything that takes places in Peter Jackson's LotR anyway. I personally hate it when franchises reboot and retcon and so on. This again makes it more difficult for me to engage in suspense of disbelief.

Greg the Grouper wrote:and the lore (again, by your own profession) provides an explanation as to why they could be black anyway.

Except that this gratuitous explanation does not make actual sense given that it actually is our world but thousands of years ago regarding an unrecorded history that had been forgotten until the red book (There And Back Again) was discovered and from which The Hobbit purports to draw most of its content.

Look, if none of this bothers you go ahead and enjoy the show. I have seen enough that I know I would not enjoy it and that it would destroy a world that I have created in my head that I'm rather fond of and I will do my best to try and block out and forget the things I have seen from it so I'm definitely not going to watch anything related to this ever again.

Animavore wrote:I'm not sure what is supposed to be 'political' about human beings and their skin colour?

See my response to Greg the Grouper and the quote from Lindsey Weber I referred to earlier:

Lindsey Weber wrote:It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like

"what the world actuall looks like today" she means. But these events do not take place today, they take place in our actual world but some thousands of years ago. That world most certainly did not look like today's world.

Lindsey Weber wrote:As for the 'strong woman' trope, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care about that. That seems entirely like a you problem.

I never said that you should care about it or that it should be your problem. I simply explained why seeing the same template cookie cutter unrealistic characters appearing in so many movies for reasons that are obviously political (must have strong and powerful woman: check) doesn't work for me.

Lindsey Weber wrote: No one cared when Legolas was pulling off superhero shit

I did. Some of that really was way over the top and ridiculous. Didn't do the movie any favors. I'm still trying to forget the scene where he skidded down the stone stairs on a shield as if it were some kind of snowboard, that was entirely anachronistic to me. A cheap attempt at comic relief. I never said the Peter Jackson movies were perfect, far from it.

Lindsey Weber wrote: but they lose their minds when Galadriel does it?

Galadriel's power is magical. In later times she protected her realm by magic akin to what Melian did to protect Doriath. Melian was a Maia (one of the Ainur, which also includes the Valar), just like Gandalf and as such Melian was extremely powerful. Galadriel's magic powers were clearly also immense if she managed to accomplish the same thing as Melian (even if she was perhaps helped by the ring she bore). Portraying her as some sword swaying warrior is demeaning to her imo.

Papa Smurf wrote:
Look, if none of this bothers you go ahead and enjoy the show. I have seen enough that I know I would not enjoy it and that it would destroy a world that I have created in my head that I'm rather fond of and I will do my best to try and block out and forget the things I have seen from it so I'm definitely not going to watch anything related to this ever again.

Oh, don't do that. Strike it down with all your anger, but it will return, stronger than you can imagine...



It's basically nothing to do with the Middle Earth you know and love, but a GoT refit, a riot of conflict with a veneer of Middle Earth places and character names, and lots of mediocre special effects. We can enjoy it for what it is, an investment that needs to pay off its bankers and an army of willing suckers to help them do it. Who could care if the reviews are bad except for those who need to throw a tantrum at the footie match because someone's not supporting 'their' side.

Hopkinson's satires don't get down in the muck with the SJWs; instead it takes potshots at violations of Tolkien canon. But hey, we can make of it whatever we wish, even if that wish is just another installment of the celebration helping us feel special, again.

Papa Smurf wrote:

Animavore wrote:I'm not sure what is supposed to be 'political' about human beings and their skin colour?

See my response to Greg the Grouper and the quote from Lindsey Weber I referred to earlier:

Lindsey Weber wrote:It felt only natural to us that an adaptation of Tolkien’s work would reflect what the world actually looks like

"what the world actuall looks like today" she means. But these events do not take place today, they take place in our actual world but some thousands of years ago. That world most certainly did not look like today's world.

Lindsey Weber wrote:As for the 'strong woman' trope, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care about that. That seems entirely like a you problem.

I never said that you should care about it or that it should be your problem. I simply explained why seeing the same template cookie cutter unrealistic characters appearing in so many movies for reasons that are obviously political (must have strong and powerful woman: check) doesn't work for me.

Lindsey Weber wrote: No one cared when Legolas was pulling off superhero shit

I did. Some of that really was way over the top and ridiculous. Didn't do the movie any favors. I'm still trying to forget the scene where he skidded down the stone stairs on a shield as if it were some kind of snowboard, that was entirely anachronistic to me. A cheap attempt at comic relief. I never said the Peter Jackson movies were perfect, far from it.

Lindsey Weber wrote: but they lose their minds when Galadriel does it?

Galadriel's power is magical. In later times she protected her realm by magic akin to what Melian did to protect Doriath. Melian was a Maia (one of the Ainur, which also includes the Valar), just like Gandalf and as such Melian was extremely powerful. Galadriel's magic powers were clearly also immense if she managed to accomplish the same thing as Melian (even if she was perhaps helped by the ring she bore). Portraying her as some sword swaying warrior is demeaning to her imo.

"They take place in our actual World but some thousands of years ago."

Do you think Lord of the Rings actually happened?

I'm still waiting for you to point out anything political about the show except, "It has people of colour and strong women", which isn't even a political thing to me. I don't see how it even could be. At least not since the 50/60s.

The story completely lack politics. It doesn't even have political intrigue like Game of Thrones. It has, like LOTR, a very unsubtle black and white story of good and evil. There's no modern day analogies or metaphors to anything going on in the real World like, for instance, Dwarves Lives Matter, or Sauron resembling Trump.

Simply having non-whites being just there without comment is such a low bar for what qualifies as "political" to me. Seeing a black female dwarf married to a white ginger one just doesn't have an impact today. This isn't Kirk having an onscreen kiss with Uhuru. It doesn't really matter what bullshit the show runners said outside of the show, it's not reflected in the show. Which you would know if you actually saw it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Papa Smurf wrote:It's basically nothing to do with the Middle Earth you know and love, but a GoT refit, a riot of conflict with a veneer of Middle Earth places and character names

Pretty much.

Animavore wrote:Do you think Lord of the Rings actually happened?

Seriously? You do not understand what is meant by fantasy and suspense of disbelief?

Animavore wrote:I'm still waiting for you to point out anything political about the show

If you have not grasped what I'm getting at you'll have to keep waiting. I'm not going to continue arguing about this, that would be an even bigger waste of my time than watching the damned show. At this point I'm actually starting to think you're being disingenuous but it doesn't really matter if you are or not, there's no point in continuing this conversation either way.

Animavore wrote:It doesn't really matter what bullshit the show runners said outside of the show, it's not reflected in the show.

Except that it is and that it is blatantly obvious, at least to me. Anyway, I have seen enough of it to know that it's not for me.

Enjoy the show.

Papa Smurf wrote:Seriously? You do not understand what is meant by fantasy and suspense of disbelief?

Says the person who thinks a black dwarf is just too unrealistic.

Papa Smurf wrote:

If you have not grasped what I'm getting at you'll have to keep waiting. I'm not going to continue arguing about this, that would be an even bigger waste of my time than watching the damned show. At this point I'm actually starting to think you're being disingenuous but it doesn't really matter if you are or not, there's no point in continuing this conversation either way.

There's nothing to grasp here. The inclusion in this show affects nothing. It doesn't even raise an eyelid to me. You're the one with the issue so I think it's safe to say you are the one being political, not the show.

Papa Smurf wrote:Except that it is and that it is blatantly obvious, at least to me. Anyway, I have seen enough of it to know that it's not for me.

Something is blatantly obvious alright.