This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Because it takes you out of the world of the show you're trying to watch. When a black elf appears in LOTR I'm suddenly very aware that I'm not a fly on the wall in this fantasy world and that I am, in fact, just sitting on my couch watching something some people at Amazon decided to write and some actors acted out. Same with The Little Mermaid, I've seen the original and I'm used to white Ariel, when she turns up as black I'm suddenly made aware that I'm not watching Ariel, I'm just watching some actress pretend to be a mermaid by saying the lines she's told to. It's disillusioning and ruins the experience.
This seems a bit of an issue, we know Tom Cruise isn't a fighter pilot or a spy or a 6 foot 2 bruiser, so any famous actor should also pull you out. Or James Bond, played by different actors, with different accents and different hair colours and of different ages.
The original Little Mermaid was a cartoon, but the fact she is animated didn't wreck your immersion? Or the fact that she is a mythical sea creature with a talking singing crab et al? Why particularly is skin color the thing that breaks your immersion? This isn't a gotcha, I find it legitimately perplexing.
As an aside, I do have an amusing vision of a marine biologist complaining about how the Little Mermaid breaks his immersion because crabs don't sing like that, or a Greek classicist complaining about the fact that mermaids should really be bird women not fish women.
Animation is the choice of medium -- that always has to be taken for granted to establish suspension of disbelief for all fiction.
The other two points are either the setting in essence or an ordinary extension of the setting's logic (why wouldn't there be talking fish in a world with magical sea creatures?)
The casting is unlike the first two because, just like ROP, its point is to make you conscious of topics outside the setting's context. That sort of commentary isn't always bad -- but it is bad when the commentary takes the form of the fiction's existence itself and its execution doesn't involve playing a part in the story. Noticing that the Little Mermaid is black now happens entirely apart from the actual story of the Little Mermaid, and it comes off as the blatant coattail-riding it really is.
And if you knew that it wasn't coattail riding but that this specific actress was cast due to being the best at audition? Would that change your perception?
If we knew that, sure, but we know she's not, as diversity has been an explicit, loudly-opined goal of the bloc supporting her. While it's possible she's the best candidate, it's so unlikely as to beggar belief, and I know you don't really think she was. You get what you optimize for, and they're not optimizing for the best person.
Careful with consensus building. You may heavily suspect she is not, but you don't (unless you have access to more information about the casting decisionmaker's internal state)absolutely know. Which you then admit in your next sentence in fact. The director's statement:
"After an extensive search, it was abundantly clear that Halle possesses that rare combination of spirit, heart, youth, innocence, and substance — plus a glorious singing voice — all intrinsic qualities necessary to play this iconic role,” Marshall said in a statement."
Now he might be a liar here. But your own statements contradict yourself. If you KNOW she's not the best choice, then it isn't POSSIBLE she is. You can heavily suspect, your priors might heavily point that way, but if you admit there is a possibility she was chosen because she was the best, then I don't think you can also state you KNOW she wasn't!
But anyway, that is all besides the point. We're operating in the hypothetical where you do know she was picked because she was the best. Given that, would that impact how you felt about it? Or would you still think they shouldn't pick a black actress even if she was the best in audition?
No, I'm quite comfortable saying that when you optimize for X you're going to get X, not Y. If you want to pretend these people are meritocratic, they need to start optimizing for meritocracy, not diversity, very, very loudly.
As for the what-if, my answer is "I reject the hypothetical". If things were different they'd be different. That's not useful.
That wasn't your claim however. Your claim was stronger. That in this case you KNOW she was not the best choice. Yet you also admitted it was possible she was. Your own words contradict themselves. You can indeed optimize for X and still get Y. Perhaps rarely, perhaps less so depending on the extent of your optimization.
I'm just suggesting to adjust your language to hedge a little more in line with the rules of the forum. If you don't actually know something (and you own words indicate you do not) then reduce the strength of your certainty.
For example, I think it is highly likely that pretty much every politician is corrupt, given my direct experience and the various set of incentives involved. But that doesn't mean every single specific politician is. And if I don't have specific evidence for any specific politician I should probably not claim I KNOW they are corrupt. Here at least.
Yes, we know she wasn't the best choice, because we know -- because they say it all the time -- that they're optimizing for diversity. If the world was different, she could be the best. But the world isn't different. In this world, when you proclaim how important it is to increase BIPOC representation in film, we know you're aiming for BIPOC representation in film.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Interrogating what does or does not break my suspension of disbelief is a lot like accusing my libido of hypocrisy.
What? You can crank one out to a big titted redhead with visible implant scars, but not a big titted blonde with a slightly lazy eye? Hypocrisy!
I mean first off, is this even the type of work that asks for your suspension of disbelief? One of my favorite movies is Shoot Em Up. It's fantastically stupid. No part of it is believable in even the remotest sense. I'm not sure where to place James Bond in this category. The Daniel Craig ones appeared to be asking for your suspension of disbelief. Moonraker a lot less so. That series of movies has had changes, and it would be hard to fault anyone for preferring some over others. Or outright dismissing swathes of them as not being "true" Bonds. As the age old debates of who played Bond best proves. There are some real Sean Connery die hards out there.
Second, my suspension of disbelief can bend. Personally, I can stretch my disbelief that Tony Ja, who looks approximately 90 lb and 4'5" (I kid, I kid) can defeat 7' viking DNA giants in The Protector. It is literally impossible for me to believe no matter how hard I try that a waifish and menopausal looking Uma Thurman can do the same. Lucky for Tarantino he doesn't ask for my suspension of disbelief (see rule #1). The point I'm trying to make is, if I'm supposed to take your action movie "seriously", in the style of a Gladiator or a Rocky 1, at least look the part.
Third, if world building is remotely important to this work, have it make at least plausible sense. And this is where all the race-swapping in pre-built fantasy worlds gets me. These are worlds that already have established phenotypes for it's inhabitants. Already have, and frequently center in the oral history told to the character, the movements of those peoples. They take place in a worlds with very little globalization. Don't fucking portray them as some sort of post-racial globalized society! They can plausibly get away with a little diversity if the setting is an empire and they are in the trade capital. But none of this "3 out of 4 main and background characters are non-natives, as well as most of the important people in assorted hierarchies". No country except in the last 30 years was that eager to cuck their native population, except the conquered.
Except they are not the same version as the original. As mentioned above Ultimates Nick Fury is different than 616 Fury (originally at least). In this version of the LoTR history there are black dwarves. They can change the background so in that universe it is not regarded as "cucking their population" or whatever. Now the Doylist reason for that is increasing diversity representation or etc., and that is a reasonable position to oppose. But from a Watsonian perspective your pre-knowledge about how there would only be black characters because of post-racial globalization no longer holds. You can dislike the change, but you seem to be saying that it HAS to have the same background as our world. That black dwarves came from some Africa equivalent, rather than being a magical mutation, or any other reason under the sun. Perhaps when Aule created the seven fathers of the dwarfs, they were different shades and Valar magic means one seventh of the population will always be black. Your assumption seems to be that there can only be black characters in this version if they come from some far off place, and in Tolkien's original that may be the case. But this is not that. It is an adaption.
Tolkiens novel's may have had established phenotypes, but the adaptions may or may not. The black dwarf can be a native, so can a white dwarf (Grombrindal aside perhaps). Plausible world building does not require that it matches our own world's history. To me, Tolkien's histories don't even make internal sense in the first place, so adding some extra features that also don't make sense is barely an issue. I might raise an eyebrow if they revealed Middle-Earth was on the back of a turtle, but I would at least be looking forward to seeing the Patrician in action.
The fact there are magical god-Wizards and the earth was flat until it became round and there wasn't a sun but the world was lit by trees, already shows that the history can depart radically from our own. In this version, it is altered more such that there are black dwarves or hobbits or whatever. To me the latter seems a much smaller departure than the former. Since I accept the former as part of the world, I can also accept the latter.
Now if you don't suspend your belief for either, then that is a different and quite reasonable objection. If you're like the aforementioned biologist complaining that dragons that big could never fly with those wings, or that clearly the elven stories about the world having once been flat and lit by trees are clear nonsense, then complaining about phenotypes also makes sense, you're grounding the world in our reality and finding it lacking. But that isn't the objection I mostly seem to see.
Original Nick Fury was of Irish descent, Fury/Furey is an Irish surname. They can change white Nick to black Nick because the Watsonian explanation is in-universe it is a multiverse. The Doylist explanation is that (a) they thought it would be cool to have Samuel Jackson in the part and (b) comics ret-con stories all the time.
That's not the case here. If you could argue convincingly that Middle-earth is in a multiverse situation, then fine, black Dwarves and Chinese hobbits and whatever else you like. But Middle-earth, although a fictional creation, is not meant to be some imaginary world out there in the vast universe, it is supposed to be our world in the very, very remote past.
You can't argue that "Okay now these North-Western Europeans from the dawn of history who are all deliberately created for Tolkien's view of a native English mythology are non-white, just because". There is no "in this version", there is compliant with canon or their own invention.
And they are going for their own invention, but they skipped making Galadriel black because they knew there was no possible way to get away with that, and arguing about "but in this version" wouldn't cut it. They didn't want black Galadriel or black Elrond or black Dain, because they wanted to draw in people with the lure of the original movies.
Of course Aule could have created black Dwarves, and if the showrunners spent two minutes crafting some coherent explanation for how come Dísa is a black Dwarf, then yeah I'd accept the "only racists are objecting" argument. But they didn't, and the show relies on "we're doing this, and the only reason you're objecting is because you are a racist".
What is much, much worse than one (1) black Elf amongst all the white Elves and one (1) black Dwarf amongst all the white Dwarves is the terrible writing, the leaden fake-profound dialogue, and changing the character of Galadriel to be some 90s Grrl Power bratty teenager. I don't even care about the whole "Galadriel was never a warrior" argument, because I think she had some experience of battle and fighting, but Tolkien's point again and again and again is that running around killing things is not the way to live:
For Tolkien, the show's version of Galadriel is not a heroine, but someone profoundly damaged and in need of healing. The showrunners can burble on about their own updated to reflect the modern world version all they like, but they cannot claim this is Tolkien's world. They cannot eat their cake and have it, too.
In the books Glorfindel drives back the Nazgul. In the movies it is Arwen. Two different versions of the same story. Each is a separate contained universe. One is the original and the other is an altered adaption. You don't need an (internal to the story) multiverse for that. It's an issue that already exists. The 80's animation, the books, the movies, the extended version of the movies.
And if they pay the licensing fee to Tolkiens estate they absolutely can claim that. They bought it fair and square. With caveats of what they could and could not do. Art can be bought and sold.
They replaced Glorfindel with Arwen, and while I hate this choice, I understand it.
They did not replace Glorfindel with a single mother brown Human healer from an invented village in the far South populated by the descendants of the Men who fought in Morgoth's armies, and had Jackson even tried doing that, the first movie would have sunk like a stone that looks down into the darkness which is why it does not float like a ship that looks up at the light.
They did not have Japanese Elrond or Hispanic Legolas.
Think about what you are saying, because what you are saying is "Amazon are making their own version of a fantasy world and just calling it Middle-earth", which is in agreement with what the rest of us are arguing about.
If a Chinese studio wanted to do a version of LOTR and cast every single part with Chinese actors - it would be feckin' glorious because they know how to do epic fantasy and ethereally beautiful people of fairy descent. I would not say a single word about it.
I would, however, squawk like a goose if they decided that Gondor was in fact the Qin Dynasty and Númenor had been Korea, and cast accordingly with the rest of the parts being White European as per the book.
Right but your original point was that you needed a multiverse to have different versions. But that isn't the case (which you seem to accept), which is fine, now we are back to objecting to the SPECIFIC changes made, which is also fine I think. Let me rephrase. If you dislike the race swapping because:
No changes should be made at all, Arwen replacing Glorfindel is also wrong (and what happened to Tom Bombadil, Jackson you monster!)- entirely reasonable in my view (maybe a minority opinion across the population, but when has that ever stopped us here?)
The changes they made were not explained appropriately within the setting - entirely reasonable in my view.
The changes they made were explained within the setting, but I don't accept that change because black people can't be natives of this area of Middle Earth, no matter how well it is explained in universe. - this seems like it may be an issue (again in my opinion) - see below.
I don't care about the Watsonian reasons, I object because of the Doylist reasons for the change (i.e. creators pushing diversity in casting) are ones I dislike for x reason - entirely reasonable in my view (I may disagree with it, but it is I think it is a reasonable position to hold).
Going back to your example, if the makers of RoP had a flashback to Aule creating dwarfs and revealed he made them in different skin colors, I think you said, that you would be ok with this. (Please correct me if I am wrong!) but the OP I was responding to seemed to be of the opinion that if you included anyone black they would HAVE to be explained as a foreigner within the concept space of this version of the show and also import our own race dynamics such that it should also be regarded as racial "cucking" et al. That's the part that I think is a little unreasonable.
None of that should be taken to say that the writers have indeed explained it, or even agree with me that they should. More discussing the hypothetical.
You need a multiverse to have black Arwen, which was your argument; you're the one who brought up Marvel universe and Nick Fury is white in one Earth and black in another.
You can't skip from "different versions belong in different universes" to "different versions in the same universe" as it suits your argument. Either Middle-earth is indeed different in every version, in which case Amazon do not get to call it Tolkien's work, or it's the same world in the different versions.
You're trying to argue that we could change George Washington to a New Zealand Maori because hey, a history text book is different from a painting of him crossing the Delaware is different to the movie made about the Revolutionary War.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are no "versions". There are just things that are Lord of the Rings, and things that are not Lord of the Rings. This is not Lord of the Rings. It's a bastardized cash grab pushed out by cultural vandals who hate and disdain everything the original represented.
I'm not a fan of any "living document" interpretations.
Ahh, well, that is where we differ I think. The books, the 80's movie, the Jackson Trilogies, and the new series have fundamental incompatibilities. Jackson replaces Glorfindel with Arwen. for example. That doesn't stop his trilogy being Lord of the Rings. It isn't the original version. But it also isn't something entirely new.
It's a bastardized cash grab ** -agreed-** pushed out by cultural vandals who hate and disdain everything the original represented. - I disagree here, they may have a different view of things, but reading some interviews with the writers it certainly does not appear that they "hate and disdain" everything. They have different views than they do, of course but that isn't the same thing.
Is Glorfindel an Elf? Is Arwen an Elf? Or is Arwen a Sassy Black Girl?
Because one of these things is not like the other.
Indeed, but the first argument is whether any changes can be made at all. Then we can discuss object level changes and how acceptable they are. If we don't agree on the first part, there is no point discussing if specific changes are ok are not.
Can changes be made when adapting something in one medium for a work in a different medium? Yes.
Can we make any changes we like? No.
There you go, my opinion on the matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, but Maverick was a new character and so when watching the original Top Gun I had no priors as to what he should look like. In an alternate universe where Maverick were originally black I don't think there would be any immersion-breaking; if the new Top Gun movie had a black guy play Maverick after Tom Cruise already had in the original then it would be immersion-breaking.
Things have to be internally consistent. I have the same issue with fantasy settings where something happens that doesn't make sense in the setting but people try to tell me "bro it's all make-believe, they're time travelling anyways who cares if that character suddenly can do something with no explanation that would have been helpful before". I accept the premises of the world upon starting a show and am fine so long as the conclusions follow from those premises even if they don't follow the premises of real life; if the show starts creating contradictions with its own premises then that is a problem and I can no longer believe anything it tells me.
I feel like Dwight from the "Asian Jim" bit on The Office: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cLNyF1Zw5tg
Imagine a new Top Gun movie where originally black Maverick was replaced by Cruise, or whatever white actor is the Hot New Action Star.
Yeah, I think we all agree that right now in this current climate, this is not a world where that can happen, and anyone trying the "this is a different version of the original world, so it's copacetic to have a black character played by a white guy" argument would be flayed alive.
More options
Context Copy link
That is fair, but if in the new rebooted universe there are black mermaids then that can be internally consistent. It doesn't need to be internally consistent with the previous version necessarily. Like 616 Nick Fury was white and Ultimates Universe Nick Fury was black. If Ultimates Fury was shown having white parents then if it wasn't explained that would be strange, but he doesn't have to be consistent with 616 Fury's white ancestry.
In our example, it wouldn't be white Jim becoming Asian Jim, it would be a rebooted version of the Office where (in that new universe) Jim was always asian. Internal consistency is internal to the reboot, not to the previous version. Otherwise actors would have to be the same as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link