Amazon, Warner Bros in Talks for LOTR Series Adaptation: Variety

Sure, if you dig into the appendices you see the nuances, but that didn't come through in the main text of Lord of the Rings.  Films tend to be "main text" sort of vehicles that lose nuance unless you have good writers.

{{ But this series is set in the 2nd Age when a bulk of these cultural interactions are ongoing. So there is scope within the boundaries of the stories Tolkien wrote for there to be represention of different races and cultures without the need to just turn all the white races black or asian for no good reason other than to virtue signal.
They have the opportuity to write black and eastern characters who make sense geographically within the world Tolkien describes, so there is no need to artficially undermine the white northern races with multiculturalism where it would simply not have logically existed. }}

That's what I'm saying : they are likely planning to take advantage of the intrinsic racial make up of Tolkien's world by bringing in a Southron storyline. The risk is turning them into caricatures rather than fully fleshed out characters.

There's two race based mistakes to avoid:
1. Turning Gondor or the like into a multi-racial society
2. Keeping the races separate, but only fleshing out one of them.

Game of Thrones rarely got criticized for lack of a multi-racial cast. They escaped this by having some non-white characters in major roles (such as melisandre) but only if appropriate. They did get caught in the white saviour theme, but didn't let it distract them from appropriate casting.

Melisandre is the witchy leech lady, but I know what you guys mean.

Yeah I'm really curious how it all turns out. I wish we didn't have to worry that these things won't be handled in a sensible way, but based on some recent film-making...

Oops, Missandei not Melisandre. Almost the same name, different hair.

{{ There is certainly cause for concern as this neatly proves-

Anne Bolyn from her portrait-



And as she appears in a new period drama about the last days of her life-



I dont understand why its perfectly fine apparently to cast a black woman as a historical white woman, but if you cast a white actress as say Rosa Parks there would be outrage. }}

Is this a play or a historical drama? For a play it's fine because you are working out the artistry of the playwright's words. For a historical drama it doesn't make sense.

{{ Historic period drama with a psychlogical twist. And apparently stunt casting!}}

There's a new show out called Bridgerton that's doing the same thing with a Regency era setting. It's... bizarre. I guess it's jumped from stage productions to actual film and television now. Of course, unlike stage productions, film is meant to immerse one fully within the art. And a multi-racial cast including a half-black English queen in 1800 is just...

"Race-bending", they're calling it, and "blind-casting". Of course, as I was telling my sister, there is nothing racially-blinded about it considering the agenda being pushed here. It is one thing to talk about having more non-white actors and actresses in productions; it is another to start black-washing period pieces. As one comment read on the article I was reading about this, "I can't wait to see Meryl Streep as Rosa Parks!"

I'm getting so sick of "white" and "black" in political terms actually. They are over-generalizations of an enormous grab-bag of cultures and peoples, a dumbing-down of how we see the world.

{{ What I  dont understand is that there are plenty of important, interesting, and dramatic tales to be told about actual black people who ended up in Britain, two that spring immediately to mind are Joseph Knight  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Knight_(slave)  

and Olaudah Equiano, who wrote his own autobiography of his experiences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interesting_Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Olaudah_Equiano

Ive never seen dramatisations of either of these important and fascinating people, instead they'd apparently rather turn Anne Bolyn into an African woman for some reason and call it progressive!
And I've no doubt there are plenty of black and immigrant folk in the UK now who have contemporary tales to tell that would make great drama too.
I just dont get it. It seems there are those who believe its more important to supplant white history and white stories with people of colour than it is to actually let them tell their own stories and history. And that seems wrong to me.
As a white person Im not going to learn anything from a black Anne Bolyn, I'm just going to be annoyed, have my immersion and believability broken and be offended by it, but I am pretty sure Id learn far more from a dramtisation of real history of the black experience in the UK down the centuries and enjoy it far more. That would actually be new, fresh and interesting to watch.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ There is certainly cause for concern as this neatly proves-

Anne Bolyn from her portrait-



And as she appears in a new period drama about the last days of her life-



I dont understand why its perfectly fine apparently to cast a black woman as a historical white woman, but if you cast a white actress as say Rosa Parks there would be outrage. }}

that is a disgrace and a fucking insult to the intelligence, not to mention really tedious, talk about inverted racism and that is it. The woke agenda is bending even history to its twisted agenda. I wont be watching that crapola.

Forest Shepherd wrote:There's a new show out called Bridgerton that's doing the same thing with a Regency era setting. It's... bizarre. I guess it's jumped from stage productions to actual film and television now. Of course, unlike stage productions, film is meant to immerse one fully within the art. And a multi-racial cast including a half-black English queen in 1800 is just...

"Race-bending", they're calling it, and "blind-casting". Of course, as I was telling my sister, there is nothing racially-blinded about it considering the agenda being pushed here. It is one thing to talk about having more non-white actors and actresses in productions; it is another to start black-washing period pieces. As one comment read on the article I was reading about this, "I can't wait to see Meryl Streep as Rosa Parks!"

I'm getting so sick of "white" and "black" in political terms actually. They are over-generalizations of an enormous grab-bag of cultures and peoples, a dumbing-down of how we see the world.

I guess I really don't mind this at all, Its OTT and hyper colourful fiction so they can do what they like. The lead guy looks like a Black Aiden Turner But yeah, it is a purely political agenda and nothing whatsoever to do with storytelling. It hits you in the face it is so unsubtle but the production is also highly sexualised as well including gay sex so they may be trying to do a Game of Thrones type Pride and Prejudice/Jane Austin. It is a fashion, it will look very dated in a couple of years, they are trying to make money out of diversity.

So I had to go look up Bridgerton. Haven't actually watched it, but the premise seems playful and utterly at odds with the idea of claiming to be race neutral by deliberately casting people of color where there probably wouldn't be any. Instead, they are doing the same thing but proclaiming they are NOT ignoring race. The switcheroo is part of the plot. Fairly fresh idea from someone who has the producer's cred to pull this off (Shonda Rhimes). I may have to give it a look.

Thing is they are using race as an actual marketing tool. This is pretty unsubtle when you really think about it. They are saying hey look at out multi-racial hip and cool TV show, please watch it, it has Black people in it, hey lets be all inclusive and attract a diverse audience, lets make money with upending racial stereotypes, whoop whoop a Black Mr Darcy!
I will probably watch it though, it looks lots of fun with nice costumes.

Reading about it one of the creators said they are not color washing a historical drama, they are rewriting history they way they'd like it to be. The first is an attempt to be subtle, the second is cheerfully waving it in your face. Looks the same but feels very different.

{{ I think its a different matter if its pure fiction, or isnt meant to be based on the actual history, unlike the Boleyn one. And I'd still much rather see actual true historic stories about the lives of black people than just shoving black people into white roles. Its almost as if they are actually afraid they wont get an audience for a show about black people so they stick to tried and tested stuff (Henry and his wives has proved popular many, many times for drama) and put them in that instead. }}

It seems a lot like deliberate provocation to me in the case of the Boleyn casting, what does that casting add to the story? why would they like Anne Boleyn to be heavily West-Indian looking? it makes no sense historically or culturally. It would never ever have happened in the real world. The Boleyn story happened in a world before mass slavery of Africans to Europe, it happened before colonialism took off. In no way would an African become a queen of England in the Northern Renaissance period.
Therefore its fake, a modern pseudo-intellectual shoe-horning of 21st century minority political agendas on history. It adds no value, it serves no purpose other than shock value and confusing school children. Reading the publicity blurb, they are talking clap-trap about 'strong women' and feminist agendas. what utter bullshit. Anne Boleyn was probably a ruthless piece of work, she was no victim and certainly not a heroine of feminism. They will probably try to turn her into some bullshit matriarch.

if you look at it as a Dr Who type of rewriting of history you may have an easier time swallowing it.

{{ Who deals it with more realistically than this, in Human Nature black companion Martha has to work in disguise as a maid at a posh private school in 1913, where she is subjected to casual racism with lines like "with hands that colour how do you know when something is clean?" and this scene,



When Bill who is also black was companion she encountered racism in Regency England-



and of course the Rosa Parks episode, which though I felt it was heavy handed, badly written and way, way too preachy, it still didnt hide the fact the past was often racist-





In general Id say Who dealt with the subject matter a lot better and in a more realistic way than these so called period dramas are. And given its just a ridiculous family show about time travel and aliens thats a bit worrying. }}

Dr Who didn't turn Churchill into a West-Indian, which is just as bad as blackface. Who was dealing with real racism and whether you think it is appropriate in a sci-fi show or not, it did try to tackle thorny issues in an way that wasn't insulting to the intelligence. I applaud them for the 19th century episodes in particular.
btw this is not a racist rant, its just an observation coming from someone who hasn't lived in the UK for 20 years, but at the moment in the UK if you watch the adverts on Channel 4 channel 5 or ITV, you would think the whole of Britain was a microcosm of a London/Brixton inner city. you would never know it was an 80% white country. Now I can stream UK TV I was taken aback by the fact that 90% of the adverts had at least one BAME person in them, mostly they were all BAME people, maybe the advertisers are cashing in on the current BLM thing in society, but a casual observer from outside would be forgiven for thinking the UK was like the US, South Africa or Brazil and hugely multi-racial. I don't know what the adverts are like in Scotland, it took me aback a bit because it was odd. Obviously its not odd because I think British people can't be Black, of course they are British and have every right to be represented and seen on TV adverts, that bit is refreshing. But I wonder what everyone else in the country who doesn't live in inner city London suburb thinks. The only truly indigenous advert was for Yorkshire Tea with Sean Bean. Feel free to have a pop at me for bringing this subject up, I don't mind, its important to be able to express ones opinions and debate difficult issues. My opinions might be very old-fashioned and not acceptable for all I know.

I think it's a good point that most of these show runners live in big cities where a multiracial cast is less jarring. They'll also have more non-white actors whose palette of roles is severely constricted if historicity is observed.

The key point is whether they are saying "look how virtuous we are! We have a multi-racial cast!" versus "Screw history, these actors will never get a shot at playing royalty and why the hell can't they?"

I might be wrong but I think that Petty mentioned that African and Caribbean nations in particular have their own fascinating history and could easily tell some interesting new stories, whether they are commissioned by TV companies and film companies is another matter of course, so the only other alternative is to stuff BAME actors into white history, they obviously need to work like anyone else and are just as talented. But why not commission more stuff like Small Axe instead? A Black Anne Boleyn just doesn't sit well, its just random, and it also actually stokes resentment and racism, it does the opposite of what they want to achieve imo.

{{ Problem there Halfy is you cant just say screw history as for many, especially young people, they first get their history from tv and film like it or not, and they are being fed lies. Not political correctness not lets just give black actors jobs they wouldnt normally have, lies. Anne Bolyn was not black, Churchill was not black, Margaret Thatchet did not come from a minority group. Facts should matter, especially when it comes to our history. And yes that can and should include all th shitty things done to black people in the name of Empire, thats important too.
And even contemporary drama should reflect the society its supposed to be set in. I have precisely zero black friends, growing up I had 2 thanks to the US Navy being here, as an adult I know 1 to talk to and he retired here after having been here in the navy. I had 2 Scottish asian friends until they moved away. Thats not becuase Im racist its because the black population of the entire country makes up less than 1% of the country and Asian less than 3%. There are almost no black people here to know. Thats just how it is. But youd never know that from our tv shows.
As I said above there is loads of hugely interesting black british historic characters who were real and whose stories have never been told on tv or film. Why shoehorn black actors into roles they are not suited for telling the stories of white people when there are so many great stories of black people left untold? It is purely virtue signalling. If they were serious about giving black actors roles theyd be a lot more roles for and about black britons and the black british experience. }}

{{ I think tv just needs to be braver, there was a comedy sketch show called Goodness Gracious Me, written by and starring British Asians, it commentated on the asian experience living and growing up in the Uk as well as a lot of role reversal sketches to highlight it, and it was massively popular. }}

I remember that TV show, and I remember the first time I watched the film My Beautiful Laundrette and East is East, all ground breaking artistic triumphs that broke boundaries and kicked racial stereotypes up the bum. They were brave stories to tell and were enthusiastically received. No moaning about white privilege or victimhood, just ordinary families making a success of their lives in difficult circumstances like anyone else.
If you live outside London the adverts on telly don't reflect real life, at all. It must make people feel a bit disorientated and disconnected with their own place. Maybe this is a period of adjustment a period where film and TV is trying its best to be diverse and inclusive to all but at the cost of regional identity, its like local and regional identity is now being ironed out and given a glossy homogenous identity in favour of the uber-cool inner London BAME hipster.