Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:55:57 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on February 23, 2022, 08:19:24 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

  Wait a minute....Sympathetic white slave owners are out, but literal monsters that murder people and drain their blood are ok as sympathetic characters?  Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to rehab a slaver, but I just never got the whole vampire-hero fiction.  They are murdering blood suckers.   But the red flag is being a slave owner in the 1700's?  I should add, I do not care if they make Louis a child from the plantation, but he will still be a murderous blood sucker....right?

The alphabet community loves to identify with vampires for some reason. I think it has to do with society demonizing them for so long that they've internalized it and identify with literal cannibalistic supernatural monsters. Meanwhile, loads of straight women fantasize about being victimized by vampires, with the vampire bite being a psychosexual metaphor for sexual penetration. (The genre also attracts people who are just sick in the head and fantasize about being predators.)

This was already true when "Dracula" came out: a reaction to Victorian England "values". The stranger that during the night enters the chamber of the beautiful damsel and "sucks her neck". Only when Count Dracula was turned into Nosferatu the tale became all around horrific.

I always found "Carmilla" by Sheridan Le Fanu more interesting. It came out more that 25 years before "Dracula". This novel, too, opposed the traditional Victorian view of women as useful possessions of men. It has a bold lesbian undertone that, I guess, the readers of the era weren't prepared to catch. It is a more complex and ambiguous tale than "Dracula" and I guess this is the reason why it never gained a wider recognition.

The whole 'we wanna make Game of Thrones' keeps bugging the shit out of me, because it betrays a deep flaw in the show and its developers.

Tolkien's legendarium -- LOTR, Silmarillion, the Hobbit, etc -- is high fantasy. A mythos, if you will. Down-to-earth details are generally glossed over or ignored unless they are serious plot points.

But Game of Thrones is very much low fantasy, even when the dragons show up, until things kick off against the White Walkers.

The two are very different types of stories, and trying to cram one into the shoes of the other doesn't really work well.

If they'd licensed Asprin's Thieves World and used GoT as a guide, it probably would work quite well. This? Not so much.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 24, 2022, 08:02:40 AM
The whole 'we wanna make Game of Thrones' keeps bugging the shit out of me, because it betrays a deep flaw in the show and its developers.

Tolkien's legendarium -- LOTR, Silmarillion, the Hobbit, etc -- is high fantasy. A mythos, if you will. Down-to-earth details are generally glossed over or ignored unless they are serious plot points.

But Game of Thrones is very much low fantasy, even when the dragons show up, until things kick off against the White Walkers.

The two are very different types of stories, and trying to cram one into the shoes of the other doesn't really work well.

If they'd licensed Asprin's Thieves World and used GoT as a guide, it probably would work quite well. This? Not so much.

  Well the thing is...I thought I read somewhere that GRR Martin was inspired by Lord of the Rings to write a book that was a "Dark reflection" of that saga.  Meaning more in the blood and mud and bad parts of human nature and division, but with the over arching evil threat to everyone.  It read more to me like a allegory of George's likely high school experience where he is "getting even" with all the people he did not like in High school.    So if they make a "GOT clone" from what was essentially already a clone (from the dark alternate universe), does that mean we end up with a copy of a copy of a copy (since to me the HBO series was in many ways a copy of the novel and had things that simply did not exist, were never written-yet in the books)?   Seems these people may not even know what GOT was past the series that was "HBO-ified".

Quote from: AtomicPope on February 24, 2022, 02:00:22 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

Creating a new brand is hard, takes lots of money and time to advertise and build, and could fail.  Stealing an old brand and wearing it like a mask is a lot cheaper.  Or at least that's how they see it.

"Skinsuit". Not mask.

Quote from: RandyB on February 24, 2022, 08:50:46 AM

Quote from: AtomicPope on February 24, 2022, 02:00:22 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 23, 2022, 08:13:24 PM
This isn't even limited to non-political fiction. It's happening to progressive (for the time) fiction too. We're seeing a similar issue with the AMC Interview with the Vampire tv show adaptation. The plot has been largely rewritten aside from a couple of plot points. Why even buy the rights if the IP isn't actually being used?!

Louis was made black and changed to a 1900s brothel owner, because somehow keeping women in sex slavery is more palatable to modern audiences than a 1700s plantation owner. It's still human trafficking, fuck you misogynistic liberals!

Anyway, Louis being racebent to a child of the plantation actually sounds like a nifty way to add a minority POV without overturning the original story. Considering Rice's progressive political views before her death, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be one of the few changes she'd accept. Sympathetic white slave owners just won't fly in today's media environment.

But all the other changes are just arbitrary and unnecessary. Who is this for? It's definitely not for the fans.

Creating a new brand is hard, takes lots of money and time to advertise and build, and could fail.  Stealing an old brand and wearing it like a mask is a lot cheaper.  Or at least that's how they see it.

"Skinsuit". Not mask.

No IP is safe. I can't wait to see woke fans get butthurt over their fav woke IP being butchered by Hollyweird.

Quote from: Pat on February 23, 2022, 02:14:03 AM
I think you could do a great Othello with a Japanese/Chinese cast.

Pretty sure been done. Theres been a few adaptions out of Malaysia in the 80s or 90s.
Kurosawa did "Ran" which draws heavily from King Lear for example. And apparently another based loosely on Hamlet and another on Macbeth? Must have been a fan of Shakespeare.

Quote from: Omega on February 25, 2022, 05:05:35 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 23, 2022, 02:14:03 AM
I think you could do a great Othello with a Japanese/Chinese cast.

Pretty sure been done. Theres been a few adaptions out of Malaysia in the 80s or 90s.
Kurosawa did "Ran" which draws heavily from King Lear for example. And apparently another based loosely on Hamlet and another on Macbeth? Must have been a fan of Shakespeare.

Don't know about the Hamlet, but the Macbeth is titled Throne of Blood.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 23, 2022, 07:36:45 PM
  The black skinned dwarves that lived underground? You think they are alright, but I do not remember any references to black dwarves.    Browner of skin implied a tan.  They were all white, and that is all right.

Tolkien's dwarves are not described as any of white-skinned or dark-skinned. They are *not* supposed to be cave-like creatures like trolls. (Cave creatures tend to be hairless, pallid, and sometimes blind.) Also, they are not intended to be Norwegian. Their language is intentionally Semitic, according to Tolkien himself. He wrote in great detail about their Semitic language Khuzdul, but never mentions the color of their skin. To me, that indicates what is important to him.

As a Semitic people, I'd say they could be light-skinned or dark-skinned in different varieties. I wouldn't have a problem if Tolkien had described the dwarves as being fair-skinned like the elves or Numenoreans, but he didn't.

As I said, I think skin color is just one of many little details - like hair color or eye color. Having Frodo be a blue-eyed waif when he is a stout, red-cheeked 50-year-old in the books is a much bigger departure from the books. That was a change made clearly for marketing reasons, in my opinion. I still enjoyed Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but there were a bunch of intentional changes like this.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2022, 02:33:09 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on February 23, 2022, 07:36:45 PM
  The black skinned dwarves that lived underground? You think they are alright, but I do not remember any references to black dwarves.    Browner of skin implied a tan.  They were all white, and that is all right.

Tolkien's dwarves are not described as any of white-skinned or dark-skinned. They are *not* supposed to be cave-like creatures like trolls. (Cave creatures tend to be hairless, pallid, and sometimes blind.) Also, they are not intended to be Norwegian. Their language is intentionally Semitic, according to Tolkien himself. He wrote in great detail about their Semitic language Khuzdul, but never mentions the color of their skin. To me, that indicates what is important to him.

As a Semitic people, I'd say they could be light-skinned or dark-skinned in different varieties. I wouldn't have a problem if Tolkien had described the dwarves as being fair-skinned like the elves or Numenoreans, but he didn't.

As I said, I think skin color is just one of many little details - like hair color or eye color. Having Frodo be a blue-eyed waif when he is a stout, red-cheeked 50-year-old in the books is a much bigger departure from the books. That was a change made clearly for marketing reasons, in my opinion. I still enjoyed Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but there were a bunch of intentional changes like this.

I'd be fine with making dwarves black. But do you think anyone in Hollywood would be fine with that? Because if you're making dwarves black, then that suggests you're restricting races to certain ethnic profiles. And your humans and elves would be white.

The issue isn't anyone's skin color. It's this insane need to make all historical and fictional worlds identical to the fictional cosmopolitan America we see in TV commercials.

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2022, 02:36:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2022, 02:33:09 PM
As I said, I think skin color is just one of many little details - like hair color or eye color. Having Frodo be a blue-eyed waif when he is a stout, red-cheeked 50-year-old in the books is a much bigger departure from the books. That was a change made clearly for marketing reasons, in my opinion. I still enjoyed Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but there were a bunch of intentional changes like this.

I'd be fine with making dwarves black. But do you think anyone in Hollywood would be fine with that? Because if you're making dwarves black, then that suggests you're restricting races to certain ethnic profiles. And your humans and elves would be white.

The issue isn't anyone's skin color. It's this insane need to make all historical and fictional worlds identical to the fictional cosmopolitan America we see in TV commercials.

It's inauthentic and it sometimes bugs me, but I wouldn't call it insane. It's basic marketing. It's the same thing that movies in just about every time period and every country have done - make the subject more like the target audience. A 1950s Italian movie - even if it's fantasy - will tend to have people who look Italian in it. Historical and fantasy movies generally reflect the country and period that they are made in, rather than the true history and/or original fantasy source.

Personally, I'd prefer to have more authentic movies - but it's no different than watching old Errol Flynn movies or Hong Kong movies. No, they aren't authentic, and I'd prefer otherwise, but I can still enjoy them for what they are.

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2022, 02:36:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2022, 02:33:09 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on February 23, 2022, 07:36:45 PM
  The black skinned dwarves that lived underground? You think they are alright, but I do not remember any references to black dwarves.    Browner of skin implied a tan.  They were all white, and that is all right.

Tolkien's dwarves are not described as any of white-skinned or dark-skinned. They are *not* supposed to be cave-like creatures like trolls. (Cave creatures tend to be hairless, pallid, and sometimes blind.) Also, they are not intended to be Norwegian. Their language is intentionally Semitic, according to Tolkien himself. He wrote in great detail about their Semitic language Khuzdul, but never mentions the color of their skin. To me, that indicates what is important to him.

As a Semitic people, I'd say they could be light-skinned or dark-skinned in different varieties. I wouldn't have a problem if Tolkien had described the dwarves as being fair-skinned like the elves or Numenoreans, but he didn't.

As I said, I think skin color is just one of many little details - like hair color or eye color. Having Frodo be a blue-eyed waif when he is a stout, red-cheeked 50-year-old in the books is a much bigger departure from the books. That was a change made clearly for marketing reasons, in my opinion. I still enjoyed Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but there were a bunch of intentional changes like this.

I'd be fine with making dwarves black. But do you think anyone in Hollywood would be fine with that? Because if you're making dwarves black, then that suggests you're restricting races to certain ethnic profiles. And your humans and elves would be white.

The issue isn't anyone's skin color. It's this insane need to make all historical and fictional worlds identical to the fictional cosmopolitan America we see in TV commercials.

It's a mythology for England, yes the skin color is an issue.

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2022, 03:09:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2022, 02:36:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2022, 02:33:09 PM
As I said, I think skin color is just one of many little details - like hair color or eye color. Having Frodo be a blue-eyed waif when he is a stout, red-cheeked 50-year-old in the books is a much bigger departure from the books. That was a change made clearly for marketing reasons, in my opinion. I still enjoyed Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, but there were a bunch of intentional changes like this.

I'd be fine with making dwarves black. But do you think anyone in Hollywood would be fine with that? Because if you're making dwarves black, then that suggests you're restricting races to certain ethnic profiles. And your humans and elves would be white.

The issue isn't anyone's skin color. It's this insane need to make all historical and fictional worlds identical to the fictional cosmopolitan America we see in TV commercials.

It's inauthentic and it sometimes bugs me, but I wouldn't call it insane. It's basic marketing. It's the same thing that movies in just about every time period and every country have done - make the subject more like the target audience. A 1950s Italian movie - even if it's fantasy - will tend to have people who look Italian in it. Historical and fantasy movies generally reflect the country and period that they are made in, rather than the true history and/or original fantasy source.

Personally, I'd prefer to have more authentic movies - but it's no different than watching old Errol Flynn movies or Hong Kong movies. No, they aren't authentic, and I'd prefer otherwise, but I can still enjoy them for what they are.

Except my entire point is they're doing the exact opposite. They're not making it more like the target audience. The depictions are a tokenized fiction, and it's completely inauthentic. And it's not marketing, because marketing generally involves not pissing off your audience.

I'd be perfectly fine with adapting Journey to the West with a North American cast that was picked using purely race blind methods. But Hollywood and the other nu-racists online would would throw a fit, and demand the cast match a specific racial profile. Which is cultural and racial segregation, and more than that, a form of cultural terrorism.

Personally, I'd prefer to only have inauthentic movies. One of the greatest things is when someone from one culture finds something from another so inspirational, that they adopt and adapt from a new perspective. That's how cultures live and grow, how they spread, and how we as individuals in a particular cultural context learn about all the wonder and variety of the human experience. But they're imposing gatekeepers and walls, and denying us the basic ability to get to know each other by taking the fruits of another culture, wrestling with it, and making it part of our personal culture, as well.

I'm not sure I'm expressing how utterly evil it is to put people in these little racial and cultural boxes.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 25, 2022, 04:50:10 PM

It's a mythology for England, yes the skin color is an issue.

Don't care.

Quote from: Pat on February 25, 2022, 05:29:06 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 25, 2022, 04:50:10 PM

It's a mythology for England, yes the skin color is an issue.

Don't care.

1 That doesn't mean it's not an issue
2 Then you're part of the problem

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 25, 2022, 06:40:55 PM

2 Then you're part of the problem

Good.