Seriously...have we no bigger fish to fry?

It's a movie about a ficticious world.

andykeen said:

Lammastide said:

And then there is that.

though the Harfoots were "darker" as a rule than other Hobbits, I think it likely they were not as dark-skinned as someone from South Gondor or the Harad; only "dark" compared to other Hobbits.

Maybe, but who's to say one way or the other?

Lammastide said:

andykeen said:

though the Harfoots were "darker" as a rule than other Hobbits, I think it likely they were not as dark-skinned as someone from South Gondor or the Harad; only "dark" compared to other Hobbits.

Maybe, but who's to say one way or the other?

exactly, and "darker" than what, exactly? without any clear pictures, it's all relative; totally up to the imagination of the reader

I don't see that the stuff about the stories being partly based on the mythology of countries that now form part of Europe cuts much sway here. Whatever its origins, it's not a story about Europe, populated by the human peoples of Europe, with their vastly different appearances; it's a story about a fictional land, populated by various different nonhuman species which have never existed (and thus never had a physical appearance) in reality, and are being imagined and brought to the screen by the filmmakers, with reference to a few sketchy descriptions from Tolkien himself and, crucially, our collective expectations. It's not just this rejected actor who looks different to the final on-screen product, none of the actors really look like that: they're all caked in make-up for the role, and filmed using various techniques (e.g. none of them are really 4 ft tall).

It's not like anyone's suggesting there should be a hobbit called Token Baggins, who always appears clad in one of Stevie Wonder's old dashikis, and takes every opportunity to teach his hobbit brethren about diversity, or anything. It'd surely be no more than the notion that a darker-skinned actor could potentially play one, with the same kind of make-up and effects, but perhaps a slight differentiation in skin tone, ultimately. Tbh, I think that'd probably add to the overall 'believability' of the movie, as you'd get a sense of a variance of appearance amongst hobbits, and have a sense that there were perhaps different subtypes, plus a history of their intermingling, etc. I don't see that this clamour about it being 'absurd' is at all warranted.

Yea, fuck Hobbits.

Interesting.

PurpleJedi said:

Seriously...have we no bigger fish to fry?

It's a movie about a ficticious world.

Seriously!!!

Does it always have to come down to the same argument? Jeez!

Lammastide said:

andykeen said:

Prologue:

For they(Hobbits) are a little people, smaller than Dwarves; less stout and stocky, that is, even when they are not actually much shorter. Their height is variable, ranging between two and four feet of our measure ... Bandobras Took ... was four foot five and able to ride a horse. He was surpassed in all Hobbit records only by two famous characters of old.

Tolkien goes on: ... they seldom wore shoes, since their feet had tough leathery soles and were clad in a thick curling hair, much like the hair of their heads ... and further: The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless; their hands and feet were neat and nimble ... the Stoors were broader, heavier in build; their feet and hands were larger ... the Fallohides were fairer of skin and also of hair, and they were taller and slimmer than the others ... And he says The Harfoots ... were the most normal and representative variety of Hobbit and also the most settled. The four Hobbits of the Fellowship appear to have been Harfoots with (in the case of Merry, Pippin and Frodo at least) some Fallohide ancestry.

And then there is that.

i was gonna ask if the books describe the skintone....

but i remember white chicks and that show that did full body makeup to switch peoples races so cant they do that? i'll never forget when that black guy was painted white and at a bar and that white guy said something to the sorts that he hates shaking black peoples hands cause he feels dirty afterwards cause its brown like dirt...(what a weird freak!!)

guess they wanna save on makeup.

ufoclub said:

Seems like it would all be moot with the tons of makeup and wigs they will undoubtably use!

All the hobbit actors wore wigs in Lord of the Rings. But yes they were all caucasian. Actually if I saw a hobbit obviously played by another race from reality, it would be detrimental to the story for me. It would be an indication of real life politics or affirmative casting/marketing in my opinion, not feel true to the source material in which races are more simply divided by species (hobbit vs elf vs human vs dwarf).

like when you try and find a stock photo and you know they have deliberately tried to be PC and have someone from every continent?

deebee said:

I don't see that the stuff about the stories being partly based on the mythology of countries that now form part of Europe cuts much sway here. Whatever its origins, it's not a story about Europe, populated by the human peoples of Europe, with their vastly different appearances; it's a story about a fictional land, populated by various different nonhuman species which have never existed (and thus never had a physical appearance) in reality, and are being imagined and brought to the screen by the filmmakers, with reference to a few sketchy descriptions from Tolkien himself and, crucially, our collective expectations. It's not just this rejected actor who looks different to the final on-screen product, none of the actors really look like that: they're all caked in make-up for the role, and filmed using various techniques (e.g. none of them are really 4 ft tall).

It's not like anyone's suggesting there should be a hobbit called Token Baggins, who always appears clad in one of Stevie Wonder's old dashikis, and takes every opportunity to teach his hobbit brethren about diversity, or anything. It'd surely be no more than the notion that a darker-skinned actor could potentially play one, with the same kind of make-up and effects, but perhaps a slight differentiation in skin tone, ultimately. Tbh, I think that'd probably add to the overall 'believability' of the movie, as you'd get a sense of a variance of appearance amongst hobbits, and have a sense that there were perhaps different subtypes, plus a history of their intermingling, etc. I don't see that this clamour about it being 'absurd' is at all warranted.

omg that made my sides hurt, i'm crying.

understanding various ppls point, personally the random placement of a dark face in modern movies just to appease the masses i find downright irritating and insulting. I guess in some cases it's ok like in all the HP movies though i don't quite recall how that has worked. in this case i really can't get my feathers in a ruffle about it, i'm going to see these movies (if it doesn't get too many bad reveiws and enjoy it for what it is) i think there are bigger fish to fry in the moviemaking machine. my bp can blow a gasket over the sizable dump hollywood might take over the famous well respected name of imhotep, to me that's a bigger statement in the scheme of things.

So basically this girl got all mad because someone told her she didn't look like a Hobbit?

Really?

morningsong said:

Though in a lot cases I tend to agree with the analysis of the white british ideal (still ticked off about "clash of the titans"). Given that "the hobbit" is an adaptation of a british author who spent decades developing his idea of an ancient british folklore it kind of is a given in this case. I can't be mad at it.

It's pretty screwed up though given that new zealand has a majority browned skinned population and this movie stands to really bring in the bucks for that country like lord of the rings did. A lot of people got paid and paid well, some didn't, but most did.

Where on earth did you get that idea from?

New Zealand census 2006, see below.

DrRockdapuss said:

The shit is ludicrous.

I love how any adaptation that isn't happening now and on Earth is automatically cast as White and British.

Ancient Rome

Biblical films

Space films

Middle Earth

The Empire

Mt. Olympus

Always White and British. Why is that?

Billy D Williams

Sam Jackson

Temuera Morrison all had main rolls in the Star Wars movies

Google...movie...racism claims

The Hobbit, Cleopatra, Sex And The City 2, Avatar, Machete, Transformers 2, The Dead...

Oh well

lust said:

morningsong said:

Though in a lot cases I tend to agree with the analysis of the white british ideal (still ticked off about "clash of the titans"). Given that "the hobbit" is an adaptation of a british author who spent decades developing his idea of an ancient british folklore it kind of is a given in this case. I can't be mad at it.

It's pretty screwed up though given that new zealand has a majority browned skinned population and this movie stands to really bring in the bucks for that country like lord of the rings did. A lot of people got paid and paid well, some didn't, but most did.

Where on earth did you get that idea from?

New Zealand census 2006, see below.

okay? it's still an indigenous thing that's happening all over the world, i still empathize with it.

Jackson & co might have avoided this PR embarrassment if they'd posted "White Only" classified ads for prospective Hobbit extras.

But now to the main point.

It's obvious from the making of docos for the Lord Of the Rings movies that Peter Jackson takes the mythology and cultural accuracy very seriously for an authentic adaptation of the book.

It is also clear to most Tolkien fans that the books and the cultures do in some way mirror Europe.

It is mentioned that the North of Middle earth is far cooler and the lands far south are much hotter much like modern Europe. This is heavily alluded to when the final battle takes place and the armies from Harrad in the South join Sauron and march north with their massive elepahants. The book mentions that they are of dark skin due to the climate. It need not sepcifccaly mention that everyone else is white as it is implied and as the norm needs no clarification. It's like Europe 2000 years ago before there was any migrations from Africa or the Indian sub continent. Yes it mentions that one group of hobbits are of fairer skin but so were the scots compared to the English.

Also the hobbits are a unique and insular race who do not travel out of there shire or mix with outsiders, well not until Frodo and his mates packed a bag and went Stand by me style to
Mordor so either all hobbits are black or all hobbits are white anything else would be ludicrous to the mythology and making them all black or brown would make no sense to the geography.

So heres the deal, you can't have a beautiful Indian hobbit. They have to look like hick ruddy complectioned english bumpkins.

It's no more racist than if I was turned down for being white for a roll in a remake of Roots as a village elder in Africa.

[Edited 11/29/10 16:20pm]

ZombieKitten said:

ufoclub said:

Seems like it would all be moot with the tons of makeup and wigs they will undoubtably use!

All the hobbit actors wore wigs in Lord of the Rings. But yes they were all caucasian. Actually if I saw a hobbit obviously played by another race from reality, it would be detrimental to the story for me. It would be an indication of real life politics or affirmative casting/marketing in my opinion, not feel true to the source material in which races are more simply divided by species (hobbit vs elf vs human vs dwarf).

like when you try and find a stock photo and you know they have deliberately tried to be PC and have someone from every continent?

Ironically, some times those who have benefited from white privilege all their lives are quick to cry foul when someone of color brings a legitimate complaint about racial bias. If the basic criterion for the job was for someone to have "pale skin", there should have been prior notice.

Identity said:

Ironically, some times those who have benefited from white privilege all their lives are quick to cry foul when someone of color brings a legitimate complaint about racial bias. If the basic criterion for the job was for someone to have "pale skin", there should have been prior notice.

Actually from what i've read of the casting calls that was specified, people from all over the world have been chopping at the bit to get in on it, it's been nutz. I think it was a matter of wording that became the issue. idk could just be a plant to slow down production for the 99th time, who knows.

This just in from The New Zealand Herald website, the casting agent has been sacked sand at the bottom is an apparent quote from the books that Harfoots were of browner skin so I stand corrected. If there were Brown skinned hobbits in the books then they should be in the movies.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz...d=10691068

lust said:

This just in from The New Zealand Herald website, the casting agent has been sacked sand at the bottom is an apparent quote from the books that Harfoots were of browner skin so I stand corrected. If there were Brown skinned hobbits in the books then they should be in the movies.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz...d=10691068

See replies #18 and #23, mate.

The only Hobbit in the book is Bilbo from what I remember. So the role has to be for something other cause as much of a purist Jackson is I don't think hes going to be showing anything else.

lazycrockett said:

The only Hobbit in the book is Bilbo from what I remember. So the role has to be for something other cause as much of a purist Jackson is I don't think hes going to be showing anything else.

who is male, right? Since I'm sure that actress wasn't going for that role then.

lazycrockett said:

The only Hobbit in the book is Bilbo from what I remember. So the role has to be for something other cause as much of a purist Jackson is I don't think hes going to be showing anything else.

lol... didn't think of that, but it's true!

I going to step away from the discussion of the books and/or Tolkien's intent (even though I read them religiously, including the History Of books) and just say that I have the back of PJ and the staff who issued the statements saying it's an unfortunate error. I have no reason to believe that's not true. PJ has worked with many different types of actors in the past, including the LOTR films. Those films were filled with Maori extras, none of whom would be considererd "white" by American standards.

[Edited 11/29/10 19:40pm]

lust said:

This just in from The New Zealand Herald website, the casting agent has been sacked sand at the bottom is an apparent quote from the books that Harfoots were of browner skin so I stand corrected. If there were Brown skinned hobbits in the books then they should be in the movies.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz...d=10691068

Cool. Glad to hear it.

2freaky4church1 said:

Yea, fuck Hobbits.

fuck the lord of the rings...

its all about a wrinkle in time

[Edited 11/29/10 19:58pm]

PANDURITO said:

Google...movie...racism claims

The Hobbit, Cleopatra, Sex And The City 2, Avatar, Machete, Transformers 2, The Dead...

Oh well

What racism claims to you are legitimate?

[Edited 11/29/10 20:00pm]

PurpleJedi said:

Seriously...have we no bigger fish to fry?

It's a movie about a ficticious world.

Yep, I can't argue with the fact that there are bigger fish to fry overall in the world. I do always find people's different interpretations of and reactions to this sort of story very revealing, though -- often more so than the original event -- and I can sort of see why it's worth tossing it over a bit, in that respect.