You are an idiot if you think that is the problem people have with the Rings of Power. It’s the absolute lack of care for the lore, and the tarnishing of characters (Galadriel for example).
Tolkien fans (and I count myself as one) wanted Amazon to venture into the lands of Harad and Rhun in the 2nd age, as there is VERY LITTLE lore for those areas. Would have had the “representation” that people so love, while honoring the lore, and exploring a relatively unknown place within Tolkien’s universe. But no, we didn’t get that…instead we get this dumpster fire show.
Wrong. There are plenty of non-white races in Middle Earth, but Amazon refused to look into them. People are angry at how the lore is being disrespected. It doesn’t have anything to do with the skin color of actors. It’s about the lore.
No, because they don’t know it. They just know that one of their right wing pundits told them the lord of the rings show was woke, so they assigned themselves accordingly.
Hairfoots are not Hobbits, they are related to Hobbits though. Also, yes, Tolkien describes them as having “browner” skin, so there is no problem with having some of them be played by non-white actors, however Elves are NEVER described by Tolkien as being anything other than “fair”. Also, the queen of Numenor not being white is a stretch, but could be possible, so not a bigger issue.
Galadriel’s brother Finrod never had the task of hunting down Sauron. He died in the First Age protecting a human named Beren, who himself had the task of taking a jewel from the crown of Sauron’s boss.
The show seems to be presenting Galadriel as dangerously obsessed with this “great task,” in spite of the fact that Tolkien describes her as having a great deal of innate wisdom. For hundreds of years, she has witnessed (first or second hand) exactly where such obsession can lead, so having her repeat the mistakes of others undercuts a key aspect of her original personality - the one aspect that allows her to resist the lure of the One Ring later on.
The show runners stated early on that they intended to condense centuries of Second Age history into a “single moment in time.” IMO, that can only subvert and trivialize Tolkien’s description of the Fall of Numenor.
Speaking of which, Miriel never got to be the ruler of Numenor, though by law she should have. As soon as her father died, Pharazon forced her to marry him and usurped the throne.
Additionally, Tolkien makes no mention of Miriel or any other Numenorean ruler having a palantir (or “seeing stone”). He specifically states that the Elves gave the palantiri to Elendil’s father to help him and his followers in their time of need.
Harfoots are not ancestral Hobbits - they are one of three “strains” of Hobbits that existed at the end of the Third Age. Bilbo and Frodo might be Harfoot names; Samwise, Hamfast, and Tolman almost certainly are.
These “ancestral” Hobbits should absolutely not have names or surnames reminiscent of Third Age Hobbits. Tolkien showed how the naming conventions of Hobbits changed over 500 years by contrasting names like Smeagol and Deagol with, say, Bilbo and Frodo. Second Age Hobbit names should have their own flavor.
More generally, Tolkien put a lot of thought into names and the languages to which they belonged - hence names like Saruman and Radagast, Faramir and Denethor, Gimli and Legolas, etc. In comparison, RoP gives us Theo (of Greek or possibly Germanic origin) and Bronwyn (a modern Welsh name).
In short, Tolkien had some key themes in his works - language (and naming), mortality and temptation, hope, providence, etc. These themes were very important to him, his stories and characters were based on them, and yet the show-runners have not yet shown that they care about or are even aware of them. IMO, of course.
Things aren’t straight forward in discussions about the series.
There are people who are judging the shows strictly as standalone stories.
Totally legitimate, this group is divided between those who genuinely like the show and those who want something faster moving than the first instalments have been.
Then there are those who are unhappy with the show because the main story lines so far are simply made up with no obvious connection to the lore other than the names of some of the characters.
Then there is also a contingent of commenters in many discussions, sometimes on these forums, who are mainly concerned with political arguments about what some right-wing folks call “woke culture”.
As hard as it may be, and in spit of some overlap between the groups, it would be helpful to differentiate between them and not to assume hard core action fans, hard core fantasy nerds, and rightwing political folks are the same just because they criticize the same program.
Hobbits were still based off of European people. However we have the Haradrim (why aren’t we following them?) and the Easterlings. Could have been great, but nope.
No, I am mad at the inaccuracy. If the Elves in the books were described as having skin that ranges from light to dark, then I would have no problem with it, but there are not may elves and they are all the same people. Just like If someone made a movie about Zulu warriors and made two or three of them white for no reason.
They were not “all the brown people”. The Haradrim and Easterlings were not evil, Sauron just promised them that they could have Gondor if they joined him.
Not according to this wiki (if you click on the link, the articles provide citations from the prologue “Concerning Hobbits” in The Lord of the Rings):
Harfoots were the most common type of hobbit, and in their earliest known history they lived in the lower foothills of the Misty Mountains, in the Vales of Anduin, in an area roughly bounded by the Gladden River in the south and the small forested region where later was the Eagles Eyrie near the High Pass to the north.
The Harfoots were the first to migrate westward into Arnor, and there the Dúnedain named them Periannath or halflings, as recorded in Arnorian records around TA 1050. They tended to settle down for long times, and founded numerous villages as far as Weathertop.
By the 1300s of the Third Age, they had reached Bree, which was the westernmost home of any hobbits for a long while.
The Harfoots were joined between TA 1150 and TA 1300 by the Fallohides and some Stoors. The Harfoots took Fallohides, a bolder breed, as their leaders. The Shire was colonized long after this, in TA 1601, mostly by Harfoots.
Re: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Harfoots
It is unknown when Hobbits first appeared in Arda. They are only known to have originated somewhere in the valley of the Anduin River. By the time they were discovered by the other peoples of Middle-earth, they had already been around for many generations. The earliest known group of hobbits lived in the Vales of Anduin, in the region of Wilderland between Mirkwood and the Misty Mountains. According to The Lord of the Rings , they forgot any genealogical ties to the “Big People” (Men). At this time, there were three breeds, or tribes, of Hobbits, with different physical characteristics and temperaments: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. While situated in the valley of the Anduin River, the Hobbits lived close by the Éothéod , the ancestors of the Rohirrim, and this led to some contact between the two. As a result, many old words and names in Hobbitish are derivatives of words in Rohirric.
About the year TA 1050, they undertook the arduous task of crossing the Misty Mountains. Reasons for this trek are unknown, but it possibly had to do with Sauron’s growing power in nearby Greenwood, which was later named Mirkwood because of the shadow that fell on it. The Hobbits took different routes in their journey westward, but as they began to settle together in Bree-land, Dunland Angle formed by the rivers Hoarwell and Loudwater; the divisions between the Hobbit-kinds began to blur. In the following centuries some of the Stoors, dismayed by the power of Angmar and a change in the climate of Eriador, fled east over the Misty Mountains. This group of refugees eventually gave birth to Sméagol, but their fate is ultimately unknown, as their dwellings were abandoned by the end of the Third Age, likely as the Misty Mountains had become infested by Orcs.
Re: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Hobbits
So they were introduced as three strains of Hobbits of varying appearances (much like humans had become different strains over time many millennium ago) and then reunited (much like humans have in various places, most notable, the USA) in the Third Age.
The first line in that wiki article and your last paragraph are perfectly consistent with what I said - Harfoots are a “modern” strain of Hobbits. Note that I never said they wouldn’t have had a long history, but I’ll talk a bit about that below.
That said, I’ll admit I’m still hung up on Lenny Henry’s early description of them as “indigenous” nomads in the area that would much later become “The Shire.” Clearly, the “Shire” part isn’t true, so, half a point to you, I guess?
Nevertheless, two things about Harfoots stand out - the first literally. Their feet are too long, by any stretch of the imagination. They get in their own way, and they force the actors to walk like they’re wearing flippers in live action scenes (unless they walk veeerrrryyyy slowly). I honestly don’t know how or why anyone would have thought this was a good idea.
Two (and getting back to the language thing), they wouldn’t call themselves “Harfoots.” That term falls in with names like Samwise, Hamfast, and Tolman, i.e., Old English in origin, but vaguely recognizable to modern English speakers.
The “Harfoots” in RoP presumably existed at least a thousand years before Hobbits crossed over the Misty Mountains, and at least 1600 years before The Shire was founded. As I pointed out in my last post, there’s good evidence showing that Hobbit names and language can change dramatically over a few centuries - thus, the “Harfoots” of RoP would likely never have heard the term “Harfoot.” It’s lazy of Amazon to use the term, just as lazy as using the “modern” Hobbit naming scheme.
Finally, “Sadoc” sounds more like a Stoor name to me than Harfoot.
Actually… as you said, they are described as “fair”.
But what does “fair” actually mean? Why have we always presumed that it meant “white”? I mean other than the obvious that historically trying to make it seem like white skin is better than other complexions.
Does Tolkien ever say “fair” means “white”? I mean… given that it was 50’s and everyone was highly racist then I’m sure we can assume that’s what he meant but do we want to carry on the racist tendencies of the 50’s? “Fair”, as a generically positive term, could just mean free of blemishes? No pimples, no pock marks… just smooth skin. In which case, we know black people moisturize their skin on average far more than white people so they would probably have smoother skin.
“Fair” could also just mean pale as every culture around the world has the unfortunate tendency to see paler complexions as more attractive. Beyonce, having a lighter skin tone than most black people, could be considered “fair”. Shakira, having a lighter skin tone than most hispanic people, could be considered “fair”. The actor playing the black elf has a lighter skin tone and he doesn’t look like he has any pimples so why can’t he be considered “fair of skin”?
So until you find a source that Tolkien straight up says “These Elves are white. All of them. White and only white” then there is much wiggle room for interpretation. Especially if it gets us past the racist notion that a generically positive word such as “fair”, when used to describe skin only means white.