Hobbit Casting Agent Fired For Dismissing Non-White Hobbits

[Sovvolf]

I'm not disagreeing with that proposition, I'm just not seeing the relevance it bears to Peter Jackson and his production of Tolkien's The Hobbit.

It doesn't, you stated earlier:

"They're undertaking a major multi-million dollar interpretation of The Hobbit but haven't read every word in it 1000 times over, backwards and forwards, upside down, and inside out. What's the odds on that? I'd guess about the same as me hitting all six Lotto numbers drawn this coming Friday (but don't think, long odds notwithstanding, I'm not hopeful enough to still buy a ticket -- the jackpot just rolled over to $55 million)."

I was simply saying that, some companies do make multi-million dollar films without reading the source material. I think you've read way too into what I've just said or you've taken it the wrong way.

Unless you're attempting to use the proposition to suggest that Jackson should be included among those who don't closely research their source materials.

?? Where did I suggest that... Or even hint at that?

 

[JDKJ]

Yeah, I wouldn't rush to conclude that Peter Jackson and his production company, in production of what now counts as the fourth film based on Tolkien's trilogy, isn't well-familiar with Tolkien's written word.

No would and nor did I say that. I said that some film companies do make films based on books that they clearly haven't done much reading on.

I'm not disagreeing with that proposition, I'm just not seeing the relevance it bears to Peter Jackson and his production of Tolkien's The Hobbit.

I don't, you stated earlier:

"They're undertaking a major multi-million dollar interpretation of The Hobbit but haven't read every word in it 1000 times over, backwards and forwards, upside down, and inside out. What's the odds on that? I'd guess about the same as me hitting all six Lotto numbers drawn this coming Friday (but don't think, long odds notwithstanding, I'm not hopeful enough to still buy a ticket -- the jackpot just rolled over to $55 million)."

I was simply saying that, some companies do make multi-million dollar films without reading the source material. I think you've read way too into what I've just said or you've taken it the wrong way.

Unless you're attempting to use the proposition to suggest that Jackson should be included among those who don't closely research their source materials.

?? Where did I suggest that... Or even hint at that?

Perhaps by posting it in response to my original assertion that it is unlikely that Jackson and/or his people haven't done their homework. You do see how that could be construed as opposition of some sort to my assertion, don't you? If I say "X" and receive a response of the sort "not 'X' in some cases," what's the conclusion that I should more reasonably draw than that the response is somehow intended to refute my "X?"

 

[Sovvolf]

Perhaps by posting it in response to my original assertion that it is unlikely that Jackson and/or his people haven't done their homework. You do see how that could be construed as opposition of some sort to my assertion, don't you? If I say "X" and receive a response of the sort "not 'X' in some cases," what's the conclusion that I should more reasonably draw than that the response is somehow intended to refute my "X?"

Yes I can see how you could easily misinterpret my post, probably should have made my self a little more clear though it was very early in the morning when I wrote that. It wasn't in any means a refute but more of a side note.

 

[JDKJ]

Perhaps by posting it in response to my original assertion that it is unlikely that Jackson and/or his people haven't done their homework. You do see how that could be construed as opposition of some sort to my assertion, don't you? If I say "X" and receive a response of the sort "not 'X' in some cases," what's the conclusion that I should more reasonably draw than that the response is somehow intended to refute my "X?"

Yes I can see how you could easily misinterpret my post, probably should have made my self a little more clear though it was very early in the morning when I wrote that. It wasn't in any means a refute but more of a side note.

It's all good. If it was intended more as an aside than anything else, then I don't feel like a complete idiot for wondering what it's got to with my point. Especially not now that you've more fully explained that it indeed doesn't have too much to do with my point. It's all good.

 

[Mr. Socky]

The Hobbits are not "just white." According to Tolkien, there are three different breeds of Hobbits and one of those breeds, the Harfoot Hobbits, are are "of browner skin" than the other two breeds. I'd ask why you can't see this fact (given that, aside from it being clearly stated by Tolkien in The Hobbit's prologue, it's already been plastered all up and down this thread like floral wallpaper) but I'll just go ahead and assume that either: (a) you've never closely read The Hobbit or (b) you've never closely read this thread or (c) you can't be bothered with the facts and simply choose to ignore them for some strange reason.

(a) I haven't read the Hobbit in a few years, but I primarily remember the image of the Hobbits being white, though this may be because I'm white. (b) No, I didn't read every post on a 14 page thread; (c) thanks, it really helps your case to call me an ignorant jerk. I didn't have all the facts, and I'm not sure that "brownish" hobbits really counts as evidence that not all hobbits are white. Honestly, I know plenty of people with browner skin than I, and I still consider them white.

 

[JDKJ]

The Hobbits are not "just white." According to Tolkien, there are three different breeds of Hobbits and one of those breeds, the Harfoot Hobbits, are are "of browner skin" than the other two breeds. I'd ask why you can't see this fact (given that, aside from it being clearly stated by Tolkien in The Hobbit's prologue, it's already been plastered all up and down this thread like floral wallpaper) but I'll just go ahead and assume that either: (a) you've never closely read The Hobbit or (b) you've never closely read this thread or (c) you can't be bothered with the facts and simply choose to ignore them for some strange reason.

(a) I haven't read the Hobbit in a few years, but I primarily remember the image of the Hobbits being white, though this may be because I'm white. (b) No, I didn't read every post on a 14 page thread; (c) thanks, it really helps your case to call me an ignorant jerk. I didn't have all the facts, and I'm not sure that "brownish" hobbits really counts as evidence that not all hobbits are white. Honestly, I know plenty of people with browner skin than I, and I still consider them white.

Let's keep the record clear: I never called you "an ignorant jerk." Rather than bother you for an answer, I went ahead and answered my own question by posing what I thought were the three most probable answers. Feel free to pick one, all, or none as you find them applicable. But "you're an ignorant jerk" wasn't one of the possible answered I posed.

 

[rebus_forever]

so is this not prejudicing against tall people then? I wish I was a 7 ft black man in that casting line, grin on face, so why cant i be a hobbit again?
If I was to apply for the role of Muhammed Ali, being a skinny 5"8 white goth i would not be calling racism if i didnt get the job, hobbits are short and seemingly white, the whole lord of the rings story is largely a demonization of non white non Christians (arabs) so I rekon a little bit o sticking to the story shouldnt be defined as racism imo.

 

[rebus_forever]

The Hobbits are not "just white." According to Tolkien, there are three different breeds of Hobbits and one of those breeds, the Harfoot Hobbits, are are "of browner skin" than the other two breeds. I'd ask why you can't see this fact (given that, aside from it being clearly stated by Tolkien in The Hobbit's prologue, it's already been plastered all up and down this thread like floral wallpaper) but I'll just go ahead and assume that either: (a) you've never closely read The Hobbit or (b) you've never closely read this thread or (c) you can't be bothered with the facts and simply choose to ignore them for some strange reason.

(a) I haven't read the Hobbit in a few years, but I primarily remember the image of the Hobbits being white, though this may be because I'm white. (b) No, I didn't read every post on a 14 page thread; (c) thanks, it really helps your case to call me an ignorant jerk. I didn't have all the facts, and I'm not sure that "brownish" hobbits really counts as evidence that not all hobbits are white. Honestly, I know plenty of people with browner skin than I, and I still consider them white.

Let's keep the record clear: I never called you "an ignorant jerk." Rather than bother you for an answer, I went ahead and answered my own question by posing what I thought were the three most probable answers. Feel free to pick one, all, or none as you find them applicable. But "you're an ignorant jerk" wasn't one of the possible answered I posed.

I only read the hobbit a short while ago and I didnt think any of the hobbits that go with dildo baggins were dark skinned, I remember references but no introductions within the story, can u maybe send me some text and a page number in a pm, not being challenging i just dont like to think I missed such a relevant factor, ty



blibo, bilbo baggins, greatest little hobbit of them all : D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HQ1K7YyQM

 

[chinomareno]

I can't even remember if there was 1 non-Caucasian in the last film trilogy. I thought the entire point of casting was to be discriminatory, to appeal to law in this case would be more despicable than any potential bigoted feelings being harbored by the casters.

 

[JDKJ]

I can't even remember if there was 1 non-Caucasian in the last film trilogy. I thought the entire point of casting was to be discriminatory, to appeal to law in this case would be more despicable than any potential bigoted feelings being harbored by the casters.

Yes, casting inherently involves discrimination. But that discrimination must be reasonably related to the role being cast. For example, if you are casting for someone to play the role of Olympic athlete Jesse Owens, you can reasonably and therefore legally exclude non-blacks, women, the wheelchair-bound (assuming the role requires running down a track at full speed), etc., etc. And you can clearly state beforehand those exclusionary characteristics in your casting call. But if you are casting for a role in a scene that requires only that the actor sit behind a desk, never move from that position, and is never seen below the chest, then the fact that I'm a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair isn't (at least not obviously) a reasonable basis to exclude me and all other similarly situated handicapped persons from the casting call and to do so is therefore illegal. And I don't see why the handicapped in my hypothetical shouldn't complain if they've been illegally discriminated against. Aren't the anti-discrimination in hiring laws intended, in part, to: (a) protect the physically handicapped from illegal discrimination in hiring and (b) give them a basis to complain if they think they've been illegally discriminated against? If I wanna roll around in my wheelchair and appeal to the law that was intended to protect me from being summarily rejected by a casting call for a role I'm qualified for, what's "despicable" about that?

 

[JDKJ]

The Hobbits are not "just white." According to Tolkien, there are three different breeds of Hobbits and one of those breeds, the Harfoot Hobbits, are are "of browner skin" than the other two breeds. I'd ask why you can't see this fact (given that, aside from it being clearly stated by Tolkien in The Hobbit's prologue, it's already been plastered all up and down this thread like floral wallpaper) but I'll just go ahead and assume that either: (a) you've never closely read The Hobbit or (b) you've never closely read this thread or (c) you can't be bothered with the facts and simply choose to ignore them for some strange reason.

(a) I haven't read the Hobbit in a few years, but I primarily remember the image of the Hobbits being white, though this may be because I'm white. (b) No, I didn't read every post on a 14 page thread; (c) thanks, it really helps your case to call me an ignorant jerk. I didn't have all the facts, and I'm not sure that "brownish" hobbits really counts as evidence that not all hobbits are white. Honestly, I know plenty of people with browner skin than I, and I still consider them white.

Let's keep the record clear: I never called you "an ignorant jerk." Rather than bother you for an answer, I went ahead and answered my own question by posing what I thought were the three most probable answers. Feel free to pick one, all, or none as you find them applicable. But "you're an ignorant jerk" wasn't one of the possible answered I posed.

I only read the hobbit a short while ago and I didnt think any of the hobbits that go with dildo baggins were dark skinned, I remember references but no introductions within the story, can u maybe send me some text and a page number in a pm, not being challenging i just dont like to think I missed such a relevant factor, ty



blibo, bilbo baggins, greatest little hobbit of them all : D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HQ1K7YyQM

It's found in the Prologue to The Hobbit entitled "Concerning Hobbits" where Tolkien describes the Harfoots as "browner of skin" than the Fallohides and Stoors and the Fallohides as "fairer of skin and hair" than the Harfoots and Stoors.

 

[Carlston]

It has never "always been contested" that Africa is the birthplace of Mankind and, to the extent it is contested, the proponents of the theory that China is the birthplace of Mankind are a recent and small minority among the scientific community.

The overwhelming consensus among biologists and paleontologists is that Mankind's evolution originated from sites in East Africa, where the oldest hominid fossils have been found. Subsequent research employing mitochondrial DNA analysis has strengthened this theory. Recently, however, prominent paleontologists have begun to challenge East Africa's position as the evolutionary birthplace of Mankind, most notably due to recent research in connection with the unearthing of the Liujiang hominid of China, but that group of scientists remain in the minority.

Does the possibility that your evolutionary ancestry can be traced back to Africa bother you? In the same way the possibility of a brown-skinned Hobbit apparently bothers some individuals? Is that why you grasp at the straw which the alternative theory of China presents? How do you feel about the theory of continental drift and the possibility that the African continent was at one time the center of all land masses?[/quote]

Oh and had to sneak in the hint of Africa ancestry would bother me, I worry not about events 300 years ago my ancestors had nothing to with let alone where my first up right walking cousin came from few hundred thousand years ago. That does not mean I don't care about history and the past, I just refuse to feel bad about something done before i was born and have some fake guilt on me to baby someone because they are different than me or some silliness. It's called equality. I treat people fairly well and normally don't judge people unless they are making a ass of themselves to someone else before they get to me. I care about the now, the only thing I'll do about the past is not repeat it, but sure as hell will never bow down before someone not wronged and pretend I owe them because of a event my ancestors had nothing to do with. Using the past to make a buck now or get special treatment is the very definition of racist to me.

And the Hobbits. Why should non brown skinned hobbits bother someone? If there is no Africa in Middle earth, Forgotten realms, or what ever world that is not earth why should we demand a normal earth equality? If they say the main pigment of people is green and orange in a make believe land why must people in the real world worry about it? Make something made up in a world not this one, be some odd reflection of a false sense of rejection here? What next Peta being mad the Hobbits kill a jackalope and roast it? Reminds me of idiots whining about canned unicorn.

How do I feel about the old super continent? I think it's valid. Should Africa always be made more important because its in the center? Who cares if the first human came from there, it's about today, what they contribute to the world now.

A real problem of ramming down pointless facts like this just boils down to a waste of time. If they are not described as such in a fantasy world, why must it be forced on the story made into a movie to make a amazingly small pretend victims group happy? If Tolkien estate says go for it, do it tastefully...

 

[Kair]

Was it racist to cast Indians in Slum Dog Millionaire? Why did they not put an African or European in the main role? Forcing ethnicities into roles that were created for another ethnicity is racist, it is called positive discrimination.

See my "apples and oranges" post above your post.

I saw your post before I posted. Writing of a northern race does not demand one to define them as fair-skinned. Why are we arguing the ethnic diversity of a fictional race?

Because, as fictionalized by the writer, it does appear that he made that race to be diverse in skin color (fair to brown). Therefore, an actor with skin color that falls within that range would not be ipso facto excluded from being cast in that role and to exclude them on the basis of an entirely appropriate skin color suggests an ill motive (particularly, as noted by the poster above, where the exclusion on the basis of skin color is divided along gender lines for no apparent reason). Now, if the writer had made Hobbits to be solely fair skinned and blond haired, then your rhetorical question would bear relevance and make sense. But, because Hobbits aren't of a type (i.e., some are of brown skin) that would ipso facto exclude the actor who auditioned for the role of a Hobbit (i.e., being of brown skin herself), your rhetorical question is, as best as I can tell, irrelevant and nonsensical.

Perhaps your rhetorical question wasn't intended to be rhetorical and, instead, was intended to just randomly throw some thought out there for whatever value doing so may have. If so, fine. I guess you can't really go wrong in so doing. But if was intended to somehow disprove the possibility of ill-motivated exclusion, then for that purpose it has no value that I can see.

Well fine, if Tolkien wrote it so.

 

[Serioli]

Goddamit, next you'll be telling me that an entirely made up alien species like the Vulcans follows human evolution with respect to melanin production/deposition....

 

[JDKJ]

Goddamit, next you'll be telling me that an entirely made up alien species like the Vulcans follows human evolution with respect to melanin production/deposition....

Is that why they're always casting black people as Vulcans? I have always wondered what was up with that. I'd just figured that it had something to do with them being the only ones willing to sign up for having a shit-blob glued to their foreheads.

 

[JDKJ]

It has never "always been contested" that Africa is the birthplace of Mankind and, to the extent it is contested, the proponents of the theory that China is the birthplace of Mankind are a recent and small minority among the scientific community.

The overwhelming consensus among biologists and paleontologists is that Mankind's evolution originated from sites in East Africa, where the oldest hominid fossils have been found. Subsequent research employing mitochondrial DNA analysis has strengthened this theory. Recently, however, prominent paleontologists have begun to challenge East Africa's position as the evolutionary birthplace of Mankind, most notably due to recent research in connection with the unearthing of the Liujiang hominid of China, but that group of scientists remain in the minority.

Does the possibility that your evolutionary ancestry can be traced back to Africa bother you? In the same way the possibility of a brown-skinned Hobbit apparently bothers some individuals? Is that why you grasp at the straw which the alternative theory of China presents? How do you feel about the theory of continental drift and the possibility that the African continent was at one time the center of all land masses?

Oh and had to sneak in the hint of Africa ancestry would bother me, I worry not about events 300 years ago my ancestors had nothing to with let alone where my first up right walking cousin came from few hundred thousand years ago. That does not mean I don't care about history and the past, I just refuse to feel bad about something done before i was born and have some fake guilt on me to baby someone because they are different than me or some silliness. It's called equality. I treat people fairly well and normally don't judge people unless they are making a ass of themselves to someone else before they get to me. I care about the now, the only thing I'll do about the past is not repeat it, but sure as hell will never bow down before someone not wronged and pretend I owe them because of a event my ancestors had nothing to do with. Using the past to make a buck now or get special treatment is the very definition of racist to me.

And the Hobbits. Why should non brown skinned hobbits bother someone? If there is no Africa in Middle earth, Forgotten realms, or what ever world that is not earth why should we demand a normal earth equality? If they say the main pigment of people is green and orange in a make believe land why must people in the real world worry about it? Make something made up in a world not this one, be some odd reflection of a false sense of rejection here? What next Peta being mad the Hobbits kill a jackalope and roast it? Reminds me of idiots whining about canned unicorn.

How do I feel about the old super continent? I think it's valid. Should Africa always be made more important because its in the center? Who cares if the first human came from there, it's about today, what they contribute to the world now.

A real problem of ramming down pointless facts like this just boils down to a waste of time. If they are not described as such in a fantasy world, why must it be forced on the story made into a movie to make a amazingly small pretend victims group happy? If Tolkien estate says go for it, do it tastefully...[/quote]

"Why should non brown skinned hobbits bother someone?"

That's a real good question and one for which the answer to I have absolutely no idea. But, if you scroll back and find the post of the poster who said that if the Hobbits aren't white, they're not gonna go see the movie, then you can ask them what's up with that. If you do and they answer, lemme me know. I'm interested in knowing what's the answer.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

So, what? Does this mean that in the interest of equal opportunity employment they aren't gonna cast some Jewish guy as Gollum? That's ridiculous! Everyone knows that Gollum's Jewish.

Ahem, that's Golem you're thinking of. Golem is Jewish, Gollum is named after his own vocal sounds.

Ahem, there's a library full of scholarly research that suggests Tolkien's Gollum was inspired by the Golem of Jewish folklore.

See, for example, http://www.taylor.edu/dotAsset/57599.pdf

Haven't read the rest of your PDF, as I stopped reading right after it claimed the Judaism took the idea of the golem from the bible. Um, no, Judaism came first, otherwise Christ wouldn't have been Jewish now would he. Judaism has a rich enough heritage without having to steal from a younger religion. That pretty much destroyed any credibility that PDF had.

Edit: Just noticed that both post I replied to were yours. Coincidence, not some kind of personal grudge I assure you.

Are you aware that the first five books of the Christian Bible (the so-called Pentateuch) reappear almost word-for-word in the Torah (the Jewish equivalent of the Christian Bible)? In fact, the names of the first five books of the Torah translate from the Hebrew into English as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which is precisely what they're called in the English Christian Bible. In fact, Leviticus (which is mostly a set of laws) is named after the Tribe of Levi who, among the so-called Twelve Tribes of Israel, are known as "the law-givers."

Bible or Torah. If you're about talking the first five books of the New Testament or the Torah, ain't no difference.

I am aware of that, but the wording in the pdf implies that Jewish folklore was influenced by the bible when it was clearly influenced by the Torah. That's like me directly copying The Lord out the Rings for the first part of my book and then claiming that Games Workshop's Orks are inspired by my book. To steal an idea and then attempt to take credit for it instead of the original source is pretty low.

In regards to your other post, absolutely, the harfoots clearly do have darker skin, I was merely playing with the wording as your original comment could have been incorrectly taken to mean that all Hobbits were dark skinned.

Again though, Torah or New Testament Bible. What's the difference? To say something was influenced by the one is probably to just as well say it was influenced by the other. Doesn't a rose, regardless of what you call it, still smell just the same?

That makes no sense at all. The Torah came first, it's historical fact. It doesn't matter that they're the same, the new testament is a copy of the Torah, not the other way around. There's this crazy little thing called chronology that is often a good indication of what came first. There is no way that the Torah is influenced by the New Testament, and to claim that Jewish folklore is influenced by the bible is high preposterous and entirely based on Christian arrogance or delusion (by all means have your faith, just don't try to take credit for an idea that clearly came from elsewhere). The golem as a concept would have existed long before the bible did.

Takes a pretty sharp knife to split a thin hair, don't it?

What utter nonsense. Your pdf gave one religion credit for a concept that is known to be from an older source. The fact that the two books are practically the same just shows that the latter ripped the former off. Pull that shit nowadays and there's not a court that wouldn't call it plagiarism. That's not splitting hairs, that's pointing out that your pdf got it substantially wrong. If you can't see that then I'm not going to argue with you any further. You are wrong here, it's not a matter of opinion.

"The fact that the two books are practically the same just shows that the latter ripped the former off."

"Utter nonsense." Thanks. That was the expression I was looking for but couldn't recall.

If you stopped blabbering for a second and gave some thought to the fact that the point at which Judaism and Christianity meaningfully diverge is the point at which Judaism rejects the Christian notion of Jesus Christ as Savior and further consider the fact that the Torah and the Bible are both presented in chronological fashion (which explains why the Torah, while reflecting large parts of the Bible's Old Testament, doesn't so reflect the New Testament), you may realize -- but I'm not feeling overly optimistic about the prospects -- that to claim that one temporally preceded the other and to pit rights of authorship of one against the other and to cast accusations of plagiarism by the Bible of the Torah is to do very little more than to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of Judaism, Christianity, the Torah, and the Bible.

If you're still not intellectually taking yourself where you need to go, then consider the more simple fact that the various religions of both Judaism and Christianity are often collectively referred to as "Judeo-Christian" religions (reflective of the common roots of both) -- although, truth be told, I'm still not overly optimistic of you taking yourself where you need to go.

Or, on the remote chance that third time will be the charm, if, as you claim, the Bible is plagiarized from the Torah, then go ahead and identify the rightfu
l author of the Torah and the plagiarizing author of the Bible. You cannot reasonably claim a completed case of theft unless there's an owner of the stolen property and a thief that stole the property. Maybe your sure to be futile attempt to identify those authors will be the route that takes you where you need to go. Maybe.

Yeah, 'ripping off' was wrong, but focusing on that one thing doesn't hide the fact that you are ignoring basic logic.

Well, seeing as you know as well as I do that attempting to find exact authors and publication dates for either book is a fools errand, I shan't waste my time. It also doesn't matter at what point the religions meaningfully diverged. The basic principal here is that Judaism is historically known to be the significantly older of the two religions. Regardless of the Judeo-christian banner, they are very much separate religions, even though Christianity did indeed evolve from Judaism in a sense. By simple logic, any concepts shared(those explicit enough to be part of shared writings anyway) between the two faiths must logilly be credited to the source, ie the older faith. The pdf ignoring this fact is what made it reek of religious arrogance and made it lose all dibility to me. If it had credited the golem to 'judeo-christian writings' then by all means it would be fine, but it doesn't. It specifically claims that Jewish folklore got the idea of the golem from the bible. That's ludicrous. Even if both holy books contained identical content the statement would still be grossly incorrect.

Perhaps you're too close to this topic to see it rationally, I don't know, but either way I'm done with this.

 

[Horben]

Well... it's ugly, but in Tolkein's universe unless you were an Easterling, an orc or a member of another monstrous race... then you were Caucasian. The Easterlings themselves resembled Arabs.

 

[McNinja]

watch. All of the hobbits will be white anyway.

 

[murphy7801]

I would surprised if tolkien even saw anyone who wasn't Caucasian in his life time if understood his life being a oxford elite for most of his adult life.