@athousandyoung saidSo, van Gogh’s Starry Night isn’t very good, because it doesn’t stick to the source material? And Picasso isn’t very good either?
Sometimes the proof of the pudding lay in the fact that it is visibly not a pudding. I don't have to eat a a ham sandwich to prove it's not pudding.
Of course it's possible the show is very good but it's clearly not true to the source material.
In fact, Fellowship of the ring isn’t worth watching, because that didn’t stick to the source material either (Tom Bombadil, anyone? How did Aragorn get those swords for the hobbits anyways? ) ?
Everything in art is an interpretation.
@no1marauder saidSounds to me like ‘equal opportunity’ casting mandated by the director/producers, nothing to do with the story or its author.
Does casting black and Hispanics in some of the roles in this miniseries ruin Tolkien's vision as some right wingers insist?
"Morse is deputy managing editor of RedState, a conservative news site. He says "The Rings of Power" producers have cast non-White actors in a story based on European culture and who look wildly different from how Tolkien originally described the ...[text shortened]... le should pay less taxes" thingy doesn't work as well in focus groups so they need something.
@athousandyoung saidRomeo and Juliet was performed for centuries with all-male casts which is what the Bard intended.
I saw a Romeo and Juliet movie that was "modernized" with a tranny Mercutio and guns.
I thought that movie was obnoxious for the same reasons.
Here's that "famous" scene at the petrol station:
[youtube R&J Petrol Station]SEzskNtFnIY[/youtube]
@athousandyoung saidI doubt seriously Tolkien's vision is impacted by the "race" of the actors playing the parts.
I would imagine people who care about "ruin[ing] Tolkien's vision" care about faithfulness to the source material which is the topic of this thread.
@moonbus saidOr maybe they picked the actors they thought were best for the parts and didn't worry about their "race"?
Sounds to me like ‘equal opportunity’ casting mandated by the director/producers, nothing to do with the story or its author.
I remember people freaking out when the great English actor, Idris Elba, who happens to be black, played the Gunslinger in an adaptation of the Stephen King books. It was remarkably stupid then and it remains remarkably stupid now.
@shavixmir saidThere is no source material for Van Gogh or Picasso and in the words of Tolkein "Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative" (Carpenter, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 144 (April 25, 1954)"
So, van Gogh’s Starry Night isn’t very good, because it doesn’t stick to the source material? And Picasso isn’t very good either?
In fact, Fellowship of the ring isn’t worth watching, because that didn’t stick to the source material either (Tom Bombadil, anyone? How did Aragorn get those swords for the hobbits anyways? ) ?
Everything in art is an interpretation.
Interpretations can be authentic without being exact copies.
https://journals.openedition.org/jso/10633
The word “authentic” in this paper means “real, or genuine, and not counterfeit,” as applied to dramatic narrative feature films.3 The notion that representation of a people or a culture in a fictional film (a “made-up” story) should be “authentic” is a paradox. After all, works of fiction may draw from real life (such as events or persons) but they are not documentaries, the medium we most commonly associate with factual accuracy. This being the case, why then is authenticity (which is another word for “accuracy” ) important in fictional films? Is it because a narrative feature (especially a dramatic narrative) aspires to create on screen a fictional world that is a representation of reality? Such an authentic representation allows the viewer to “suspend disbelief” and to believe that the representation is genuine and not counterfeit. The ideal is when the representation is so authentic that the viewer is totally immersed in the narrative as it unfolds and the experience of watching a film is meaningful, satisfying, and even deeply moving. In short, a worthwhile experience.
@no1marauder saidEvidence from his writings about Orcs, Haradrim and others is inconsisent with your doubt.
I doubt seriously Tolkien's vision is impacted by the "race" of the actors playing the parts.
@athousandyoung saidHowever, I do insist that removing the "Locke and Demosthenes" subplot completely ruined Ender's Game. Authentic interpretation into a new medium like prose to movies can be challenging.
There is no source material for Van Gogh or Picasso and in the words of Tolkein "Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative" (Carpenter, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 144 (April 25, 1954)"
Interpretations can be authentic without being exact copies.https://journals.openedition.org/jso/10633
The word “authentic” in this paper m ...[text shortened]... a film is meaningful, satisfying, and even deeply moving. In short, a worthwhile experience.
@athousandyoung saidUh… starry night is an interpretation of the night sky. Which looks nothing like the painting.
There is no source material for Van Gogh or Picasso and in the words of Tolkein "Tom Bombadil is not an important person – to the narrative" (Carpenter, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 144 (April 25, 1954)"
Interpretations can be authentic without being exact copies.https://journals.openedition.org/jso/10633
The word “authentic” in this paper m ...[text shortened]... a film is meaningful, satisfying, and even deeply moving. In short, a worthwhile experience.
As you say: interpretations can be authentic without being exact copies.
Unless it’s skin colour then? Everything else can change, according to you?
@no1marauder saidTrevor Noah on Idris Elba as James Bond:
Or maybe they picked the actors they thought were best for the parts and didn't worry about their "race"?
I remember people freaking out when the great English actor, Idris Elba, who happens to be black, played the Gunslinger in an adaptation of the Stephen King books. It was remarkably stupid then and it remains remarkably stupid now.
@athousandyoung saidNo, they are not. There is nothing to indicate that those descriptions esp. the skin pigmentation are essential to the plot.
Evidence from his writings about Orcs, Haradrim and others is inconsisent with your doubt.
@shavixmir saidStarry Night is an interpretation of a mentally ill man looking at the night sky through the lens of his madness. It IS the source material.
Uh… starry night is an interpretation of the night sky. Which looks nothing like the painting.
As you say: interpretations can be authentic without being exact copies.
Unless it’s skin colour then? Everything else can change, according to you?
The analogy works like this -
Literal night sky = literal Anglo-Saxon history
Van Gogh's painting = Tolkein's writing
Imaginary new painting "in Van Gogh's style" of a similar scene of the Dutch countryside but with the houses replaced with a politically correct assortment of house types from across the world =? Rings of Power
@no1marauder saidExcept when Orcish spies are identified by the heroes via those descriptions
No, they are not. There is nothing to indicate that those descriptions esp. the skin pigmentation are essential to the plot.
@athousandyoung saidThe Orcs in the Rings of Power and in the LOTR and Hobbit series are sufficiently different to be identified without resort to their skin color.
Except when Orcish spies are identified by the heroes via those descriptions
In fact, the main protagonist in the Hobbit movies is a white Orc. He was played by a New Zealand actor of Irish, Scottish and Maori descent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Bennett