[ SECRET POST #2843 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2843 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #406.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

03. http://i.imgur.com/19nwGRu.png

[philstar22]

Okay? He's adapting the books, so yes, I do think that is an excuse, especially because he has gone out of his way to actually expand the role of women. I think it is possible to discuss Tolkien's racism and sexism while recognizing them within the cultural and temporal context and still enjoying his works.

[a_potato]

I agree with this. The films really can't be divorced from the books in the way that OP seems to think that they should be.

[(Anonymous)]

So, by that argument, we can excuse the racism in Sherlock because Moffat et al aren't as racist as Arthur Conan Doyle was?

[(Anonymous)]

Sadly, given how fandom reacted when PT had the audacity to decide the Hobbit was a sausage-fest and add a female character, I'm not surprised he kept most of the questionable stuff in.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh good lord. No one cared that he added a woman; in fact, most of the fandom was pleased. What pisses the majority off is that she was specifically created for the purpose of a love triangle, and to be a love interest. That's shitty.

[(Anonymous)]

Personally, I was all in favor of a female elf. I just wish she could be in it without her main function being a love interest for two of the main characters.

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I wouldn't have minded so much if he hadn't made her a love interest (AND had a love triangle of all things). Even the actress stipulated that she would only do it if there was no love story. And then she got called in for more scenes once principal photography was over...

[(Anonymous)]

Individual works do not have an obligation to be representative of anything. Jackson did not have any kind of moral obligation to include more women or POC in the adaptations.

[(Anonymous)]

"Individual works do not have an obligation to be representative of anything."

This is true, I guess. Which is a really convenient thing for the creators of works who only want to make movies, etc. about conventionally attractive, straight white people.

[(Anonymous)]

He did (even without moral obligation)! In addition to the canon minority characters in LotR (Easterlings and Haradrim), Peter Jackson actually went out of his way to include Uruk-Hai with brown skin, dreadlocks, and tribal face and body paint.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know that the films are necessarily given a free pass, but the fact of the matter is, Peter Jackson did expand the roles of the female characters in his adaptation. Was it enough? I don't know. He's got his hands tied to a certain extent simply because it's an adaptation and people are going to expect him to include a great deal of the book because it's a classic. Compressing all of LOTR and some backstory into three films was no mean feat in itself, and it doesn't leave a lot of time to add in a ton of diversity... but he still managed to add some.

[(Anonymous)]

Why do so many people call Tolkien racist, anyway? Was it something he said outside of his work? I mean, the books are set in a made-up fantasy world (yeah, I know it's based on Europe, so the people are white) so there's nothing about actual races that really exist.

[(Anonymous)]

Two primary reasons as far as I'm aware:

a) racial readings of LotR in which the orcs etc are read as representative of people of color or other similar things

b) the fact that Tolkien was a deeply politically conservative person who was profoundly concerned with Englishness and an English cultural identity

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious about this with the sexism. Was is because there are so few women? Because Tolkien wrote some awesome ladies.

[brooms]

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien's_Works#Indications

[(Anonymous)]

There were plenty of non-white people in Europe even in much older times. That is not an excuse.

[(Anonymous)]

Probably because he's a product of his time, but his time was sixty years ago and that's some serious culture gap right there.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you one of those nutjobs who wants the Fellowship to be entirely made up of transgender POC?

[(Anonymous)]

Go get raped ciscum male.

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem neither with the books nor with the movies, they're awesome. Sorry but as a straight woman I'm far more interested in watching attractive men than other women.

[bio_obscura]

What are you, 18? Those overactive hormones will drain out of your brain soon enough.

[(Anonymous)]

What bio_obscura said. Is everything you do filtered through your sexual urges? How inconvenient and unfortunate, both for you and the women (and any unattractive men) in your life. I'm also a straight woman but not everything I see has to cater to my sexual orientation. I'm glad of this, because it allows me to not be a dismissive horndog to everyone who doesn't appeal to me physically, which is 99.999% of the planet.

[bio_obscura]

Well, I'm sure the racism and sexism is part of why the story remains an appealing thing to adapt for contemporary audiences.

[(Anonymous)]

This; why do people think that the MCU makes so much money?