"Wait, there is a black elf?" Topic

I'm late to the party but the new Lord of the Rings show has a black elf? Are they the evil Drow ones?

Meh, who cares Morfydd Clark is SMOKIN. I'd give her my vowels any day.

Yeah.

It's not Tolkien anymore, it's a $Billion fantasy franchise using Tolkien as a backdrop.

Has been since the first Peter Jackson film.

Which is fine I guess. Everything else gets "updated" – for example the Jane Austen Zombiekiller series of Books and films. The creator gets all the free publicity and interest because there is an existing fanbase, compared to having to get a new idea (if such a thing exists) across.

As Tom Petty sang:

"If you reach back in your memory
A little bell might ring
About a time that once existed
When money wasn't king
If you stretch your imagination
I'll tell you all a tale
About a time when everything
Wasn't up for sale"

Elves are fantasy creatures. Being fictional they can be any color. Comments such as this suggest it may be your underlying beliefs of what a fictional character "should" be that are truly dark.

@Pavelft, Or, the fans expect the books they loved reading would be followed and not changed due to woke nonsense.

How about Eol ?

This has given me the outline for a LotR Strategy Battle Scenario:

A group of Sylvan Elves lead by Amaudir have left the Wood and explored the ruins of Dol Guildur. Upon leaving, they are beset upon by High Elves on horseback who fear treasure may have been stolen. Unable to run away, Amaudir and his gang must fight their way back to the Wood.

Has been since the first Peter Jackson film.

Actually the prophet himself, Tolkien, sold the film, stage and merchandising rights of his works to United Artists in 1968.
And the current rights holder can do more or less what he wants with them.
The rest is freedom of contract.
There is an offer, you accept it or you don't.
It's the same as with GW prices, no one is forced to buy their toys.

It is my understanding that it also takes place 1,000 years before "The Hobbit."

There have been black elves in different stories for years. Fans have had no issue with that. You've read about them in books and seen them in various shows and movies.

However, in Tolkien, they are clearly described as fair of skin and tall- very fair of skin to appear as unnatural to human eyes. So a Black Elf is perfectly normal in a lot of non-Tolkien fantasy, but in the original Tolkien, there were no Black Elves. Dwarves, on the other hand, are not so universal in the lore as the angelic appearing Elves. There is only a single female Dwarf discussed in the original LOTR trilogy, Dis (in the appendices), and her appearance is not discussed. Even then, in The Hobbit there were Dwarves (including females), and even Black Female Dwarves appearing as extras in some shots. No one cared then as I recall.

So fans of Tolkien who expect the show to match the lore are correct to question Black Elves. The funny thing is- there are various races in Tolkien and the show could have embraced that and featured heroic people from around Middle Earth. This would have subverted two expectations- that all Haradans or Easterlings were evil, and that only white folk need apply in Tolkien's fantasy setting. That would have been a lore and fan respectful way to handle the franchise, but the social revision march goes on.

Eol was the Dark Elf in Tolkien (singular- he was the only one referred to that way) . That did not refer to his skin color, but rather his outlook and manner and the darkness in his heart which ultimately led to the Fall of Gondolin.

Tgerritsen +1

I'm still surprised that anyone still expect the movies to be true to the books. It is such a rare occurrence.

@arjuna -I know Tolkien sold the film rights, on the grounds that he thought it was unfilmable and he needed the money. No-one is arguing over whether people can then "do what they like", what I said was exactly that if you read it.

It's not Tolkien anymore, it's a $Billion fantasy franchise using Tolkien as a backdrop.

Has been since the first Peter Jackson film.

Which is fine I guess.

The animated Tolkien film did stick closer to the book. And for me John Hurt was a better Aragorn: "I look foul but feel fair?"

But that's just personal preference – Viggo Mortensen was, again for me, one of the better parts of the Jackson films.

I've no axe to grind against the new TV show – but it isn't really Tolkien anymore. Does that matter? Probably not in the grand scheme of things. Would I like to see it all done "properly"- well, yes, but it won't be. So it goes.

anyone still expect the movies to be true to the books

Not me!
And wouldn't want to have it.
For example I can get along without a Lady Beard Disa…

Allthough, could be worse…

@pavelft – somewhat trite comment – Tolkien described "his" version of elves quite well, and for good or bad that's what he wrote. So changing that will upset some people, personally – for me so much else has already changed that it really doesn't matter. It's Tolkien as backdrop, not Tolkien as the creating author. It is what it is.

Despite your hinted suggestion I personally have no real problem with "colour blind" casting – Idris Elba for Bond, why not? Bond has been Scottish, English, Irish (has there been a Welsh Bond?) and Australian – so there's no attempt to "stick to the books" and anything goes. Why not a woman? Who cares?

And the recent David Copperfield was one of my favourite films of that year with a perfect cast throughout.

But I doubt that Viggo Mortensen would be a good choice for a new Black Panther though…

@20thmaine

what I said was exactly that if you read it.

I did, but you weren't the addressee at all.
;)

And with a single hop and a backflip, I gracefully dismount from my soapbox….

Excellent, since you have made the soapbox free for me, I can make a fool of myself by hopping on it.
:)))

Does it matter?

Guess elves can be a person of color (even though Tolkien base his story on Anglo Saxon England) after all Anne Boleyn was black so why not elves and dwarfs. And Topps change Aragon to a black character

Yeah – and the sad thing is that Jodie Turner-Smith is great.

But it makes as much sense as casting Meryl Streep at Martin Luther King.

I mean, we all agree that Laurance Olivier was a bad choice for Saladin.

But on the other hand Ben Kingsley (born in Yorkshire) takes a lot of flack for Ghandi. But he was born Krishna Pandit Bhanji – so maybe that is just a tad unfair. Although his dad was actually born in Africa, although his paternal grandfather was from India.

It's a bit of a minefield, ain't it?

I thought Ben was good in Enders Game – but he really isn't a Maori.

Bang.

That's another mine going off….

Are we all happy now? Has this discussion gotten miniatures painted or helped us design scenarios?

Has it made us feel better about our fellow miniatures players? Or just served as another launchpad for attacks on one another's politics?

Give it up, guys. Plenty of political sites.

To quote Lord Flashheart, "Well, this (posting my opinion that nobody cares about) isn't a reasonable use of my time and resources, but I'm gonna do it anyway."
I have no problem with updating certain books/films to suit modern ideas and sometimes fan theories can be awesome, but as for me, there are certain things that should be left alone.
Someone mentioned the example of James Bond. I subscribe to the fan theory that "007" is a just a code word for an agent. As one retires, they re-issue the number to the next in line. That is why it doesn't bother me at all that the various "Bonds" have different origins and personalities. Any suave action star, of any race (so long as they come from the British Empire) would be just fine – I would watch it.
I feel the same way about generic fantasy films – make it however you like, if it's good, I'll watch it. I would watch a Conan movie starring Dwayne Johnson, for example.
Other things are just wrong. John Wayne as Genghis Khan or Mickey Rooney as an Asian are two prime examples.
For me, Tolkein's & Dumas' works are prime examples of books that need to be true to the author. There's a reason both have sold millions of copies in hundreds of languages. I have all the movies and miniatures based upon both.
Although I have watched most of the 3M films, many of them just drive me nuts. I hate it when they mess with the main characters personality as written. Whether they try and make D'Artagnan some kind of Bruce Lee wannabee (The Musketeer), or make Milady some kind of sympathetic victim or Porthos a guttersnipe – I hate it. Sometimes the source material is so good, you just have to stay true!
I feel the same way about LotR. I love Jackson's films – heck, I even enjoyed the Hobbit. But Galadriel is not Xena! Elrond is not Machiavelli, and I sure hope meteor-man is not Gandalf.
I was looking so forward to it when I first heard about it.
But now it is a hard pass.

Or just served as another launchpad for attacks on one another's politics?

It was more about how politics ruins art. I tried watching Hamilton thinking "What the ?" Hamilton wasn't Black and never rapped. I don't know what the fuss was about; it made for a crappy period musical.

Plus, this is the Fantasy Media board.
The current state of fantasy portrayed on screen is definitely up for discussion.
+1 Korvessa

I agree with Korvessa that some authors' work demands good adherence to the source. I actually would love to see 007 played by Idris Elba, or Doctor Who played by Richard Ayoade. I prefer The Black Green Lantern (John Stewart in the comics) over the earlier white character, and Samuel L. Jackson is Nick Fury as far as I am concerned. Sisko was my favorite Star Trek Captain by far, while I abhor Michael Burnham from Discovery.

On the other hand, Tolkien's work is probably the most widely translated and successful non-religious work in history and one of the most accessible bits of fiction ever created as it already stands. It's Anglo-Saxon folklore writ large as fantasy with very clear depictions by the author.

I would not want to see Shogun remade with non-Japanese in all the Japanese roles, or Zulu remade with non-black Zulus. I wouldn't want to see Wonder Woman with a man in the lead role. But if it's ok to recast Anne Boleyn as Black, the why wouldn't it be ok to do any of these examples?

Sometimes a gender or race swap can be a very bold choice- Marilyn Monroe played by a Cuban actress, or Hamilton with an all black cast. But often it is as lazy and vapid as the turgid all female Ghostbusters remake. I liked Arwen's bigger role in the LOTR movies (but less so Liv Tyler's breathless portrayal).

I recently watched the last, and most disappointing season of The Last Kingdom, and was bugged to see two clearly Asian actors as Scottish bodyguards to the king, not because I have anything against Asian actors finding work, or politics, but rather sheer logic. It made no logical sense. I would be equally upset if I watched one of my guilty pleasure Korean Joseon culture movies and a white guy just appeared out of nowhere without explanation.

I get it, many of those examples are not fiction based, but would you line up to see white Wakandans?

Maybe I am biased because I did professional design work and writing in the LOTR franchise under the old regime before Christopher died. We worked hard to keep Tolkien's original vision alive and be respectful to the source while introducing non-white heroic characters and female dwarves that were well received by the fan base. I see a new attitude of, ‘Whatever, it's not his vision anymore' and it just bugs me. Especially when there were opportunities to stay true to his vision and add non-white heroes that could have rocked.

Whether you liked or hated Jackson's take on Tolkien, he started with the premise that they were trying to portray Tolkien's work, not their own. They went on to be some of the most successful films ever made. This new show started with the premise that this fictional world had to represent our modern world in it. If it is fiction, why? The rush to do the latter has ruined great franchises and led to dull shows with sloppy, lazy writing. I hold out hope that this won't suck, but from what I've seen so far, I won't hold my breath.

A great writer can make a hardened Klansman feel empathy for a black character and create opportunity for change. Lazy writers create caricatures and then blame the audience when they don't relate.

this is the Fantasy Media board

Absolutely!

Board description:

For the discussion of books, films, music, and other media involving wargaming-related fantasy.

People talking about their different tastes regarding some new fantasy flic.
Some bicker, some poke fun, some argue, most talk to themselves.
Everything is fine.

That's what the Internet is for, gossip.
And porn of course, but that's just fantasy.

Inspiring thread.
I'm tempted to paint up some of those boring GW Noldor as black people, just to offend the crowd.
They could be up against a bunch of White Zulus living deep between the eerie fir trees of the Black Forest, Bavaria.

Great stuff, thank you.

Doctor Who played by Richard Ayoade.

That would be perfect!

007 played by Idris Elba

I don't know the lore but anyone could get to be a "double naught spy" right?

I wouldn't want them to be James Bond but 007 is fine.

Well….not just anybody

00 just signifies "licence to kill"

Sean Bean was 006 (?) in one of the movies.

It's so long since I read the novels I can't recall if any other 00 agents appear (or even get referenced). I think sometimes (once?) Bond gets assigned when another 00 has been killed.

I shall always treasure the issue of MAD in which M says "SMERSH has killed 001 through 006 in exact numerical order. And you know what, Bond?"
"What, Sir?"
"I think you may be next."

I can't recall if any other 00 agents appear

00 agents in the franchise – On Wikipedia

In 'You Only Live Twice', the novel, he was elevated to agent 7777.
It didn't stick.
Presumably he had gamed the expense report, again.

THey are called Drow!

It's ironic that for all the virtue signaling done by the show runners and cast, they actually whitewashed Middle Earth! So they tokenized some black actors into being Elves Dwarves and Hobbits and such -- and then wiped out the non-European cultures described by Tolkien!

The fictional "Tarharad" in the "Southlands" (depicted by a camera sweep over a map area encompassing Mordor and parts of Rhun and Harad) was have been predominantly peopled by Asiatic cultures and perhaps Middle East/Persian-esque cultures.

But in the show, Tarharad is a fairly generic fantasy village full of English-accented white folks and a smattering of black actors, and the one main actress with Iranian heritage (which is not apparent at all). That's it.

It doesn't look like anything appropriate to the setting, just another European-style fantasy village. What a shame, Tolkien included these interesting cultures -- and they will not be shown.

Agree SBminisguy – totally wasted opportunity.

Audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is 34% if that means anything to people.

Interesting that the 4.5/5 star reviewers almost all take the time to call negative reviewers the usual names. Incels, trolls, haters and so on.

If the show wasn't explicitly supposed to be in Middle Earth, it would be a decent generic fantasy action show -- because other than a few character names and some places, there is zero JRRT content in the show. Every character has been changed, and they go places they never went, to do things they never did with people they never met.

Middle Earth is little more than a really expensive brand name for Amazon's own original show.

After hearing the dialogue for the show, it's not even a good generic show. The word-salad of nonsense makes them sound very stupid.

If they sack the writers, hire good ones and phase out 75% of the characters, it could be salvaged as a generic show.

I guess, I'll pass.
At least it inspired me to listen to the German audio book version of the Silmarillion and pondering to watch the Bakshi LotR again.

Now I have to find the GW Noldor that I have lying around somewhere.
I have already found the Zulus.
I already have heaps of fir trees.

Bandolier I agree with you. Very poor writing, acting was what you would expect in a B level movie and very slow.

I have no problem with the inclusion of actors of any colour in roles, just in including them in Tolkien, especially as elves. Many already note that the description of them is pale and fair in the extreme. As Tgerritsen stated, if there can be coloured actors in these roles, why not white actors amongst the Zulu's or Samurai? It wouldn't be right, but it would tick whatever box the producers felt needed to be ticked. There are enough references of the peoples in the southern lands that, given how little of what was filmed matches the original, the writers could have easily added characters from these lands, and cast them as they wished. How hard would it have been to work someone from Harad or Rhun into this alternate history version of Tolkien's works? Certainly, the humans at least could be a very diverse group. It wouldn't muck around with what JRRT wrote, mainly because he had little concrete writings about the whole region.
The real problem with the show is not the cast, but the material they are working with. The series itself was supposedly made at great expense but it is hard to see where all of the money went. The elves are unlike any elf representation ever seen and appear to dress, act and be scripted like a community theatre effort (apologies to those in the community theatre world, you may feel insulted). There is no majesty, no impression of power or knowledge from them, when they should really be near the height of their strength. When they sail from Valinor it looks more like a regatta than a nation of to war. Aside from Galadriel, who has become a kick-ass uber warrior princess, they do not look like they would actually last long against the dark ones forces. The dwarves, especially the guards that escort Elrond in, look like Oompa Lumpah's playing dressup and not elite warriors of a hardy race. Why they must still be portrayed as Scottish I'm still not sure. Aside from having them come from ‘the north', Tolkien clearly based them on another cultural background than that. Both the dwarves and the Harfoots appear to be included to lighten the mood, to provide a little humour and perhaps make the series a little more family friendly. The plot is, for me, poor because I foolishly thought that it would at least fit into the source in some way. As a fantasy story in its own right it is barely passable, as Tolkien it is dismal and the 2 hours I spent watching the first 2 episodes are 2 wasted hours. Clearly this is an extremely loose interpretation of his works, to the point of being virtually unrecognisable. Of course, they were only permitted certain material as their source but the writers (I detest the term showrunner, it should more often be show ruiner) have botched even that.

The show has managed to destroy the lore enough to make everyone with a mild interest in Tolkien to ignore this abomination.
Tossing in a joke about bowel movements is the last straw. It's not the joke itself, it's the fact that this was written into this world demonstrates the writers have lost the plot.

That aside, what is presented is so poorly done. Each episode the breaks the threads of logic to the extent the plot builds on one nonsense to another. We know there's going to be some kind of battle, but the viewers don't care enough for the characters to care about their fates.

Season one is a write-off.
If they sack the show-ruiners (thanks D6Craig), the main producers and writers, we can forget about this season and try to do something respectable for season 2.