Hobbit Casting Agent Fired For Dismissing Non-White Hobbits

[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.

 

[JDKJ]

Fucking load of mother fucking horse shit. If they did a film about Africa and they where asked to find Africans it wouldn't be racist. THIS IS FUCKING HORSESHIT. You need white people to play the hobbit you need fucking black people to play black people.

You're not being discriminated against, if discrimination is such a big problem for you why don't you fuck off back to Africa I'll even pay for your fucking ticket.

uh.... In all fairness, this idiot is from the Middle East....

What are you even talking about?

The better question is to which idiot the "idiot" refers. At least, that's what I'm asking myself.

Even though his rant may seem a bit unwarranted and needlessly offensive. He's got a point. Its not like a person can play the role of Mbatuwe the Hunter in a movie that plays out in Africa. For the same reason a middle-easterner or black person cannot take the roll of a Took in a Tolkien movie. Thats just silly and stupid. The movie shouldnt be punished just because some ignorant brown-shaded tard hasnt read the damn books or the lore.

He'd maybe have a point if the Tooks were to be the only Hobbit clan depicted in the film. But that, I imagine, while possible, is unlikely. The Hobbits of the Shire, according to Tolkien, are of "three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter . . . " and the Harfoots make up the majority of the Shire's inhabitants. So, to cast a "brown-shaded tard" in the role of a Harfoot would, to me, make perfect sense (more so because she's "brown-shaded" and less so because she's an alleged "tard").

Well they were trying to get the part of a took were they not?. As for the other types of Hobbits. Im well aware of the darker shaded ones.

I don't see that kind of specificity in the OP's article. All I see is reference to the fact that they were "casting for extra hobbits" and a requirement that the actor auditioning "look like a hobbit." Far as I -- and, I think, you -- can tell, they were casting for Hobbits regardless of particular breed or clan of Hobbit.

But still. They are overreacting. Its ridiculous and its getting old.

I'll tell what's ridiculous and getting old: racism. But, unfortunately, judging from the OP's article and many of the comments to this thread, it's alive and well and ain't goin' nowhere.

Yep, like the guy you quoted earlier. Its getting old and it goes both ways. Although as of late you can get accused of racism simply for being white. So thats really what irks me here. Oh you only hire white people to play white characters?! RACISM!!! And for all we know maybe the coloured characters already had actors but she didnt care too find out or something. Its just lame when people cry "racism" to get attention when things arent going their way. As if trying to get a sympathy card in order to get a job instead of getting it by merit and skill.

If you apply for a job in which to hire someone with brown skin makes some sense but are told that the job is only open to those with fair skin and which makes no sense, then to cry "Racism!" doesn't seem to me to playing a race or sympathy card. It seems to me that you've got a legitimate beef.

If you arent what they are looking for its yer own fricking fault if you go there. If they specifically mention what they want, wich was white females. Then its pretty obvious you dont go there to apply for it as its not for you. Whatever the reasons they have. And there is on legimitate beef. Its just whining and crying.

No it's not. Most civilized nations, including both the US and the UK, have laws against making race and gender a factor in a hiring decision for a job in which race and gender play no part. To be refused employment because you are a particular race or gender when race and gender is of no importance to the job being offered is illegal discrimination as a matter of law.

It's a bit different for movies isnt it, muppet? Like I said earlier. It'd make no sense to cast european whites in the roles of black africans in a movie. As there makes no sense in casting black people as vikings in a movie either. So quit being an overly political correct douché.

What makes you think that film production is exempted from the anti-discrimination hiring laws, Mr. Snuffleupagus? If a Harfoot Hobbit is, as Tolkien described, of brown skin, then it is against the law for a casting call to exclude actors with brown skin. There's no legitimate reason to say that a brown-skinned actor can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit. And to attempt to say so suggests that you're either a racist twat or a mumbling moron.

 

[KSarty]

Has anyone realized that she's playing the race card for what is probably the role of an extra? The only Hobbit actually featured in the book is Bilbo, you only see the others during the main characters' very brief stay in the Shire.

 

[PecosBill]

It makes you wonder how Hollywood manages to make any historic movies. You can't do a movie about 14th century England because 14th century England wasn't ethnically diverse and the casting calls would be declared "racist".

 

[JDKJ]

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?

 

[JDKJ]

That is absolutely ridiculous. The hobbits are white, plain and simple. I feel very sorry for the person who got fired.

Hobbits are not "white." That's plain. Are you simple-minded?

I would like to know what they are then.

They are of three breeds: Harfoots, Fallohides, and Stoors, ranging in skin color from the brown-skinned Harfoots to the fair-skinned Fallohides.

 

[kickyourass]

For God's sake, this damn movie has had soooo many problems I'm starting to think that they'd be better off if they just scrapped the whole thing and started over.

 

[Torrasque]

This is because the book itself was written a long time ago when Racism was a common thing, not a hot topic for debate.
I for one have always imagined Hobbits to be white, but thats because of the movies.

I agree with

Humphreys was understandably outraged, saying "It's 2010 and I still can't believe I'm being discriminated against because I have brown skin."

because it is 2010, we've made long strides in taking down racist perceptions, and hell, there is a black American president!
I always feel proud that I can say "what is a generic Canadian?" and have no specific race, skin color, etc. come to mind.
I still do have some racist perceptions (non-intentionally) and guiltily imagine Hobbits to be white, but why should they be?

 

[Kenko]

Fucking load of mother fucking horse shit. If they did a film about Africa and they where asked to find Africans it wouldn't be racist. THIS IS FUCKING HORSESHIT. You need white people to play the hobbit you need fucking black people to play black people.

You're not being discriminated against, if discrimination is such a big problem for you why don't you fuck off back to Africa I'll even pay for your fucking ticket.

uh.... In all fairness, this idiot is from the Middle East....

What are you even talking about?

The better question is to which idiot the "idiot" refers. At least, that's what I'm asking myself.

Even though his rant may seem a bit unwarranted and needlessly offensive. He's got a point. Its not like a person can play the role of Mbatuwe the Hunter in a movie that plays out in Africa. For the same reason a middle-easterner or black person cannot take the roll of a Took in a Tolkien movie. Thats just silly and stupid. The movie shouldnt be punished just because some ignorant brown-shaded tard hasnt read the damn books or the lore.

He'd maybe have a point if the Tooks were to be the only Hobbit clan depicted in the film. But that, I imagine, while possible, is unlikely. The Hobbits of the Shire, according to Tolkien, are of "three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter . . . " and the Harfoots make up the majority of the Shire's inhabitants. So, to cast a "brown-shaded tard" in the role of a Harfoot would, to me, make perfect sense (more so because she's "brown-shaded" and less so because she's an alleged "tard").

Well they were trying to get the part of a took were they not?. As for the other types of Hobbits. Im well aware of the darker shaded ones.

I don't see that kind of specificity in the OP's article. All I see is reference to the fact that they were "casting for extra hobbits" and a requirement that the actor auditioning "look like a hobbit." Far as I -- and, I think, you -- can tell, they were casting for Hobbits regardless of particular breed or clan of Hobbit.

But still. They are overreacting. Its ridiculous and its getting old.

I'll tell what's ridiculous and getting old: racism. But, unfortunately, judging from the OP's article and many of the comments to this thread, it's alive and well and ain't goin' nowhere.

Yep, like the guy you quoted earlier. Its getting old and it goes both ways. Although as of late you can get accused of racism simply for being white. So thats really what irks me here. Oh you only hire white people to play white characters?! RACISM!!! And for all we know maybe the coloured characters already had actors but she didnt care too find out or something. Its just lame when people cry "racism" to get attention when things arent going their way. As if trying to get a sympathy card in order to get a job instead of getting it by merit and skill.

If you apply for a job in which to hire someone with brown skin makes some sense but are told that the job is only open to those with fair skin and which makes no sense, then to cry "Racism!" doesn't seem to me to playing a race or sympathy card. It seems to me that you've got a legitimate beef.

If you arent what they are looking for its yer own fricking fault if you go there. If they specifically mention what they want, wich was white females. Then its pretty obvious you dont go there to apply for it as its not for you. Whatever the reasons they have. And there is on legimitate beef. Its just whining and crying.

No it's not. Most civilized nations, including both the US and the UK, have laws against making race and gender a factor in a hiring decision for a job in which race and gender play no part. To be refused employment because you are a particular race or gender when race and gender is of no importance to the job being offered is illegal discrimination as a matter of law.

It's a bit different for movies isnt it, muppet? Like I said earlier. It'd make no sense to cast european whites in the roles of black africans in a movie. As there makes no sense in casting black people as vikings in a movie either. So quit being an overly political correct douché.

What makes you think that film production is exempted for the anti-discrimination hiring laws, Mr. Snuffleupagus? If a Harfoot Hobbit is, as Tolkien described, of brown skin, then it is against the law for a casting call to exclude actors with brown skin. There's no legitimate reason to say that a brown-skinned actor can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit. And to attempt to say so suggests that you're either a racist twat or a mumbling moron.

Talk about misunderstanding everything on purpose in order to pretend being "smart". That all depends on whether she was trying to get the part of a Harfoot. If she did, it makes sense she gets it over a white person due to lore-wise reasons. This all depends on what part she was trying to get.

 

[Hosker]

That is absolutely ridiculous. The hobbits are white, plain and simple. I feel very sorry for the person who got fired.

Hobbits are not "white." That's plain. Are you simple-minded?

I would like to know what they are then.

They are of three breeds: Harfoots, Fallohides, and Stoors, ranging in skin color from the brown-skinned Harfoots to the fair-skinned Fallohides.

Caucasians can get pretty brown with help of the sun. Tolkien said that shire was located around middle England. Also, the Men from the south are noted as being dark skinned i.e from Africa, as Middle Earth goes as far down as southern Europe.

 

[Kasper Gundersen]

I don't see this as racism, since I just don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a black Hobbit... It's kinda the same with elves, they are said to have blue eyes and light skin... I guess that some fantasy races, are just created the way they are, with Hobbits being small, food-loving and white (perhaps created by looking at something like a Leprechaun?)...

 

[JDKJ]

Fucking load of mother fucking horse shit. If they did a film about Africa and they where asked to find Africans it wouldn't be racist. THIS IS FUCKING HORSESHIT. You need white people to play the hobbit you need fucking black people to play black people.

You're not being discriminated against, if discrimination is such a big problem for you why don't you fuck off back to Africa I'll even pay for your fucking ticket.

uh.... In all fairness, this idiot is from the Middle East....

What are you even talking about?

The better question is to which idiot the "idiot" refers. At least, that's what I'm asking myself.

Even though his rant may seem a bit unwarranted and needlessly offensive. He's got a point. Its not like a person can play the role of Mbatuwe the Hunter in a movie that plays out in Africa. For the same reason a middle-easterner or black person cannot take the roll of a Took in a Tolkien movie. Thats just silly and stupid. The movie shouldnt be punished just because some ignorant brown-shaded tard hasnt read the damn books or the lore.

He'd maybe have a point if the Tooks were to be the only Hobbit clan depicted in the film. But that, I imagine, while possible, is unlikely. The Hobbits of the Shire, according to Tolkien, are of "three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter . . . " and the Harfoots make up the majority of the Shire's inhabitants. So, to cast a "brown-shaded tard" in the role of a Harfoot would, to me, make perfect sense (more so because she's "brown-shaded" and less so because she's an alleged "tard").

Well they were trying to get the part of a took were they not?. As for the other types of Hobbits. Im well aware of the darker shaded ones.

I don't see that kind of specificity in the OP's article. All I see is reference to the fact that they were "casting for extra hobbits" and a requirement that the actor auditioning "look like a hobbit." Far as I -- and, I think, you -- can tell, they were casting for Hobbits regardless of particular breed or clan of Hobbit.

But still. They are overreacting. Its ridiculous and its getting old.

I'll tell what's ridiculous and getting old: racism. But, unfortunately, judging from the OP's article and many of the comments to this thread, it's alive and well and ain't goin' nowhere.

Yep, like the guy you quoted earlier. Its getting old and it goes both ways. Although as of late you can get accused of racism simply for being white. So thats really what irks me here. Oh you only hire white people to play white characters?! RACISM!!! And for all we know maybe the coloured characters already had actors but she didnt care too find out or something. Its just lame when people cry "racism" to get attention when things arent going their way. As if trying to get a sympathy card in order to get a job instead of getting it by merit and skill.

If you apply for a job in which to hire someone with brown skin makes some sense but are told that the job is only open to those with fair skin and which makes no sense, then to cry "Racism!" doesn't seem to me to playing a race or sympathy card. It seems to me that you've got a legitimate beef.

If you arent what they are looking for its yer own fricking fault if you go there. If they specifically mention what they want, wich was white females. Then its pretty obvious you dont go there to apply for it as its not for you. Whatever the reasons they have. And there is on legimitate beef. Its just whining and crying.

No it's not. Most civilized nations, including both the US and the UK, have laws against making race and gender a factor in a hiring decision for a job in which race and gender play no part. To be refused employment because you are a particular race or gender when race and gender is of no importance to the job being offered is illegal discrimination as a matter of law.

It's a bit different for movies isnt it, muppet? Like I said earlier. It'd make no sense to cast european whites in the roles of black africans in a movie. As there makes no sense in casting black people as vikings in a movie either. So quit being an overly political correct douché.

What makes you think that film production is exempted for the anti-discrimination hiring laws, Mr. Snuffleupagus? If a Harfoot Hobbit is, as Tolkien described, of brown skin, then it is against the law for a casting call to exclude actors with brown skin. There's no legitimate reason to say that a brown-skinned actor can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit. And to attempt to say so suggests that you're either a racist twat or a mumbling moron.

Talk about misunderstanding everything on purpose in order to pretend being "smart". That all depends on whether she was trying to get the part of a Harfoot. If she did, it makes sense she gets it over a white person due to lore-wise reasons. This all depends on what part she was trying to get.

Given that she was auditioning for the bit part role of an extra Hobbit, I assume her scene would most likely involve the Shire (as has been pointed out by another poster, other than at the beginning of The Hobbit (when Bilbo is visited by Gandalf at his Hole on the Shire) and at the end (when, on the completion of his mission, he returns to his Hole on the Shire) the tale doesn't involve any Hobbits other than Bilbo) and, because the majority of the Shire's inhabitants are of the Harfoot breed, there's a reasonable probability that the greatest need for Hobbit extras is that of Harfoot Hobbits to provide background on the Shire. It's not an inescapable conclusion but it isn't far-fetched to conclude that if they're gonna cast her at all, the odds are greater that it'll be in the role of a Harfoot than any other Hobbit breed. Pretend really hard that you're smart, and you just may understand what I'm saying.

 

[sir.rutthed]

And that's what you get for staying true to your source material. It actually says in the intro to Fellowship that the Hobbits inhabit what is now Scandanavia, a place peopled very heavily by whites as white as they come. This is such bullshit.

Ok, so it's perfectly acceptable to have a bunch of White guys pass as middle eastern nobility in that Prince of Persia film but a non-white hobbit is somehow completey unacceptable?

Would you listen to yourselves?

Its a freakin fantasy film, SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF IS IMPLIED.

Suspension of disbelief is very hard to achieve if a film actively goes against its own world. It's not racist to say a black hobbit would take you out of the film world, it makes sense because there are no black hobbits in the literature it's based on.

"Woah, that inconsequential background character isn't white! THIS IS TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE!"

Also, are you suggesting that having secondary characters be the wrong skin colour in a film is more jarring than having the entire main cast be the wrong nationality?

Thing is, the Hobbits are their own race. To draw a comparison, they could be likened to some American tribe. They're their own people with their own customs from a time period where there was almost no intermarrying between the races, and they're in a closed off part of the world with almost no outside trade. Where would they have even gotten the genes to have different skin colors? Having them have different skin colors just doesn't make any sense. There aren't that many Hobbits to begin with, maybe a couple thousand from what we can read. That means little genetic diversity, so they'll share many traits between them all. When you consider this, and the fact that all the Hobbits we've seen so far have been white, it makes no sense for there to be "minority" Hobbits. Whitewashing a film is dumb, I'll give you that. But it's just as dumb to have minorities represented within a minority where those minorities don't exist. It's political correctness at its most useless, and it accomplishes nothing but making the people involved look stupid.

Hobbits may be their own race, but within that race, according to Tolkien, there are three different "breeds" (Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides) with phenotypic characteristics that range from "browner of skin" (Harfoots) to "fairer of skin and hair" (Fallohides). Don't ask me how Tolkien takes a limited gene pool and comes up with these three distinct breeds within a species, but come up with them he does.

And where have "all the[se] Hobbits we've seen so far [that] have been white" appeared? In Peter Jackson's film trilogy? So what? If Jackson had, for whatever reason and as is his artistic right to do, decided to cast Gary Coleman in the role of Bilbo Baggins, would we therefore conclude that a Took Hobbit's as Black as the Ace of Spades? Just because Jackson's Hobbits were all white doesn't mean that Tolkien's Hobbits were all white. The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Nor does it mean that for ever and ever thereafter all Hobbits which appear in any film must also be white. That don't make no sense, either.

You'll also recall from the reading that two of those "breeds" have either died out or been assimilated into the Hobbiton stock, leaving one gene pool and one culture. "browner of skin" could mean anything from a South American complexion to just having a good natural tan. True, he could make the artistic decision to make Bilbo or any Hobbit any race he wants, but this isn't an artistic decision. They fired this guy because some whiney minority lady got pissed off at being turned away. That's what pisses me off about this whole mess, not necessarily that the Hobbits will be a different color, but that the decision is being made for PR and this guy got fired for following his source material.

 

[JDKJ]

That is absolutely ridiculous. The hobbits are white, plain and simple. I feel very sorry for the person who got fired.

Hobbits are not "white." That's plain. Are you simple-minded?

I would like to know what they are then.

They are of three breeds: Harfoots, Fallohides, and Stoors, ranging in skin color from the brown-skinned Harfoots to the fair-skinned Fallohides.

Caucasians can get pretty brown with help of the sun. Tolkien said that shire was located around middle England. Also, the Men from the south are noted as being dark skinned i.e from Africa, as Middle Earth goes as far down as southern Europe.

The rejected actor was, in her own words, "brown-skinned." You wanna start debating the difference between "brown-skinned" and "well-tanned?" If so, you may want to borrow the sharp knife from the guy who's trying to split the Bible-Torah hair.

 

[JDKJ]

And that's what you get for staying true to your source material. It actually says in the intro to Fellowship that the Hobbits inhabit what is now Scandanavia, a place peopled very heavily by whites as white as they come. This is such bullshit.

Ok, so it's perfectly acceptable to have a bunch of White guys pass as middle eastern nobility in that Prince of Persia film but a non-white hobbit is somehow completey unacceptable?

Would you listen to yourselves?

Its a freakin fantasy film, SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF IS IMPLIED.

Suspension of disbelief is very hard to achieve if a film actively goes against its own world. It's not racist to say a black hobbit would take you out of the film world, it makes sense because there are no black hobbits in the literature it's based on.

"Woah, that inconsequential background character isn't white! THIS IS TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE!"

Also, are you suggesting that having secondary characters be the wrong skin colour in a film is more jarring than having the entire main cast be the wrong nationality?

Thing is, the Hobbits are their own race. To draw a comparison, they could be likened to some American tribe. They're their own people with their own customs from a time period where there was almost no intermarrying between the races, and they're in a closed off part of the world with almost no outside trade. Where would they have even gotten the genes to have different skin colors? Having them have different skin colors just doesn't make any sense. There aren't that many Hobbits to begin with, maybe a couple thousand from what we can read. That means little genetic diversity, so they'll share many traits between them all. When you consider this, and the fact that all the Hobbits we've seen so far have been white, it makes no sense for there to be "minority" Hobbits. Whitewashing a film is dumb, I'll give you that. But it's just as dumb to have minorities represented within a minority where those minorities don't exist. It's political correctness at its most useless, and it accomplishes nothing but making the people involved look stupid.

Hobbits may be their own race, but within that race, according to Tolkien, there are three different "breeds" (Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides) with phenotypic characteristics that range from "browner of skin" (Harfoots) to "fairer of skin and hair" (Fallohides). Don't ask me how Tolkien takes a limited gene pool and comes up with these three distinct breeds within a species, but come up with them he does.

And where have "all the[se] Hobbits we've seen so far [that] have been white" appeared? In Peter Jackson's film trilogy? So what? If Jackson had, for whatever reason and as is his artistic right to do, decided to cast Gary Coleman in the role of Bilbo Baggins, would we therefore conclude that a Took Hobbit's as Black as the Ace of Spades? Just because Jackson's Hobbits were all white doesn't mean that Tolkien's Hobbits were all white. The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Nor does it mean that for ever and ever thereafter all Hobbits which appear in any film must also be white. That don't make no sense, either.

You'll also recall from the reading that two of those "breeds" have either died out or been assimilated into the Hobbiton stock, leaving one gene pool and one culture. "browner of skin" could mean anything from a South American complexion to just having a good natural tan. True, he could make the artistic decision to make Bilbo or any Hobbit any race he wants, but this isn't an artistic decision. They fired this guy because some whiney minority lady got pissed off at being turned away. That's what pisses me off about this whole mess, not necessarily that the Hobbits will be a different color, but that the decision is being made for PR and this guy got fired for following his source material.

I dunno about all that other blah, blah, blah, but I do know that if "browner of skin" means anything, it means that there's no legitimate reason that an actor of brown skin can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit.

 

[Kenko]

Fucking load of mother fucking horse shit. If they did a film about Africa and they where asked to find Africans it wouldn't be racist. THIS IS FUCKING HORSESHIT. You need white people to play the hobbit you need fucking black people to play black people.

You're not being discriminated against, if discrimination is such a big problem for you why don't you fuck off back to Africa I'll even pay for your fucking ticket.

uh.... In all fairness, this idiot is from the Middle East....

What are you even talking about?

The better question is to which idiot the "idiot" refers. At least, that's what I'm asking myself.

Even though his rant may seem a bit unwarranted and needlessly offensive. He's got a point. Its not like a person can play the role of Mbatuwe the Hunter in a movie that plays out in Africa. For the same reason a middle-easterner or black person cannot take the roll of a Took in a Tolkien movie. Thats just silly and stupid. The movie shouldnt be punished just because some ignorant brown-shaded tard hasnt read the damn books or the lore.

He'd maybe have a point if the Tooks were to be the only Hobbit clan depicted in the film. But that, I imagine, while possible, is unlikely. The Hobbits of the Shire, according to Tolkien, are of "three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter . . . " and the Harfoots make up the majority of the Shire's inhabitants. So, to cast a "brown-shaded tard" in the role of a Harfoot would, to me, make perfect sense (more so because she's "brown-shaded" and less so because she's an alleged "tard").

Well they were trying to get the part of a took were they not?. As for the other types of Hobbits. Im well aware of the darker shaded ones.

I don't see that kind of specificity in the OP's article. All I see is reference to the fact that they were "casting for extra hobbits" and a requirement that the actor auditioning "look like a hobbit." Far as I -- and, I think, you -- can tell, they were casting for Hobbits regardless of particular breed or clan of Hobbit.

But still. They are overreacting. Its ridiculous and its getting old.

I'll tell what's ridiculous and getting old: racism. But, unfortunately, judging from the OP's article and many of the comments to this thread, it's alive and well and ain't goin' nowhere.

Yep, like the guy you quoted earlier. Its getting old and it goes both ways. Although as of late you can get accused of racism simply for being white. So thats really what irks me here. Oh you only hire white people to play white characters?! RACISM!!! And for all we know maybe the coloured characters already had actors but she didnt care too find out or something. Its just lame when people cry "racism" to get attention when things arent going their way. As if trying to get a sympathy card in order to get a job instead of getting it by merit and skill.

If you apply for a job in which to hire someone with brown skin makes some sense but are told that the job is only open to those with fair skin and which makes no sense, then to cry "Racism!" doesn't seem to me to playing a race or sympathy card. It seems to me that you've got a legitimate beef.

If you arent what they are looking for its yer own fricking fault if you go there. If they specifically mention what they want, wich was white females. Then its pretty obvious you dont go there to apply for it as its not for you. Whatever the reasons they have. And there is on legimitate beef. Its just whining and crying.

No it's not. Most civilized nations, including both the US and the UK, have laws against making race and gender a factor in a hiring decision for a job in which race and gender play no part. To be refused employment because you are a particular race or gender when race and gender is of no importance to the job being offered is illegal discrimination as a matter of law.

It's a bit different for movies isnt it, muppet? Like I said earlier. It'd make no sense to cast european whites in the roles of black africans in a movie. As there makes no sense in casting black people as vikings in a movie either. So quit being an overly political correct douché.

What makes you think that film production is exempted for the anti-discrimination hiring laws, Mr. Snuffleupagus? If a Harfoot Hobbit is, as Tolkien described, of brown skin, then it is against the law for a casting call to exclude actors with brown skin. There's no legitimate reason to say that a brown-skinned actor can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit. And to attempt to say so suggests that you're either a racist twat or a mumbling moron.

Talk about misunderstanding everything on purpose in order to pretend being "smart". That all depends on whether she was trying to get the part of a Harfoot. If she did, it makes sense she gets it over a white person due to lore-wise reasons. This all depends on what part she was trying to get.

Given that she was auditioning for the bit part role of an extra Hobbit, I assume her scene would most likely involve the Shire (as has been pointed out by another poster, other than at the beginning of The Hobbit (when Bilbo is visited by Gandalf at his Hole on the Shire) and at the end (when, on the completion of his mission, he returns to his Hole on the Shire) the tale doesn't involve any Hobbits other than Bilbo) and, because the majority of the Shire's inhabitants are of the Harfoot breed, there's a reasonable probability that the greatest need for Hobbit extras is that of Harfoot Hobbits to provide background on the Shire. It's not an inescapable conclusion but it isn't far-fetched to conclude that if they're gonna cast her at all, the odds are greater that it'll be in the role of a Harfoot than any other Hobbit breed. Pretend really hard that you're smart, and you just may understand what I'm saying.

Well she obviously wasnt applying for the role of a fricking Harfoot. As she didnt get the part. And Harfoots are browner of skin. Not Brownskinned. Think spaniards or south europeans. Not middle-eastern brown. And for all we know she might as well have been fuckugly and they didnt choose her because of that. Stop defending some hysterical woman that throws around accusations of racism where there were none. Yer hunting ghosts bub, you are looking for "racism" where there was none. But hey, continue on your little internet warrior crusade protecting some imbecile who didnt get a part in a movie for reasons we dont know. And a guy who had done nothing wrong lost his job because of this idiot.

 

[JDKJ]

Fucking load of mother fucking horse shit. If they did a film about Africa and they where asked to find Africans it wouldn't be racist. THIS IS FUCKING HORSESHIT. You need white people to play the hobbit you need fucking black people to play black people.

You're not being discriminated against, if discrimination is such a big problem for you why don't you fuck off back to Africa I'll even pay for your fucking ticket.

uh.... In all fairness, this idiot is from the Middle East....

What are you even talking about?

The better question is to which idiot the "idiot" refers. At least, that's what I'm asking myself.

Even though his rant may seem a bit unwarranted and needlessly offensive. He's got a point. Its not like a person can play the role of Mbatuwe the Hunter in a movie that plays out in Africa. For the same reason a middle-easterner or black person cannot take the roll of a Took in a Tolkien movie. Thats just silly and stupid. The movie shouldnt be punished just because some ignorant brown-shaded tard hasnt read the damn books or the lore.

He'd maybe have a point if the Tooks were to be the only Hobbit clan depicted in the film. But that, I imagine, while possible, is unlikely. The Hobbits of the Shire, according to Tolkien, are of "three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors and Fallohides. The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller and shorter . . . " and the Harfoots make up the majority of the Shire's inhabitants. So, to cast a "brown-shaded tard" in the role of a Harfoot would, to me, make perfect sense (more so because she's "brown-shaded" and less so because she's an alleged "tard").

Well they were trying to get the part of a took were they not?. As for the other types of Hobbits. Im well aware of the darker shaded ones.

I don't see that kind of specificity in the OP's article. All I see is reference to the fact that they were "casting for extra hobbits" and a requirement that the actor auditioning "look like a hobbit." Far as I -- and, I think, you -- can tell, they were casting for Hobbits regardless of particular breed or clan of Hobbit.

But still. They are overreacting. Its ridiculous and its getting old.

I'll tell what's ridiculous and getting old: racism. But, unfortunately, judging from the OP's article and many of the comments to this thread, it's alive and well and ain't goin' nowhere.

Yep, like the guy you quoted earlier. Its getting old and it goes both ways. Although as of late you can get accused of racism simply for being white. So thats really what irks me here. Oh you only hire white people to play white characters?! RACISM!!! And for all we know maybe the coloured characters already had actors but she didnt care too find out or something. Its just lame when people cry "racism" to get attention when things arent going their way. As if trying to get a sympathy card in order to get a job instead of getting it by merit and skill.

If you apply for a job in which to hire someone with brown skin makes some sense but are told that the job is only open to those with fair skin and which makes no sense, then to cry "Racism!" doesn't seem to me to playing a race or sympathy card. It seems to me that you've got a legitimate beef.

If you arent what they are looking for its yer own fricking fault if you go there. If they specifically mention what they want, wich was white females. Then its pretty obvious you dont go there to apply for it as its not for you. Whatever the reasons they have. And there is on legimitate beef. Its just whining and crying.

No it's not. Most civilized nations, including both the US and the UK, have laws against making race and gender a factor in a hiring decision for a job in which race and gender play no part. To be refused employment because you are a particular race or gender when race and gender is of no importance to the job being offered is illegal discrimination as a matter of law.

It's a bit different for movies isnt it, muppet? Like I said earlier. It'd make no sense to cast european whites in the roles of black africans in a movie. As there makes no sense in casting black people as vikings in a movie either. So quit being an overly political correct douché.

What makes you think that film production is exempted for the anti-discrimination hiring laws, Mr. Snuffleupagus? If a Harfoot Hobbit is, as Tolkien described, of brown skin, then it is against the law for a casting call to exclude actors with brown skin. There's no legitimate reason to say that a brown-skinned actor can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit. And to attempt to say so suggests that you're either a racist twat or a mumbling moron.

Talk about misunderstanding everything on purpose in order to pretend being "smart". That all depends on whether she was trying to get the part of a Harfoot. If she did, it makes sense she gets it over a white person due to lore-wise reasons. This all depends on what part she was trying to get.

Given that she was auditioning for the bit part role of an extra Hobbit, I assume her scene would most likely involve the Shire (as has been pointed out by another poster, other than at the beginning of The Hobbit (when Bilbo is visited by Gandalf at his Hole on the Shire) and at the end (when, on the completion of his mission, he returns to his Hole on the Shire) the tale doesn't involve any Hobbits other than Bilbo) and, because the majority of the Shire's inhabitants are of the Harfoot breed, there's a reasonable probability that the greatest need for Hobbit extras is that of Harfoot Hobbits to provide background on the Shire. It's not an inescapable conclusion but it isn't far-fetched to conclude that if they're gonna cast her at all, the odds are greater that it'll be in the role of a Harfoot than any other Hobbit breed. Pretend really hard that you're smart, and you just may understand what I'm saying.

Well she obviously wasnt applying for the role of a fricking Harfoot. As she didnt get the part. And Harfoots are browner of skin. Not Brownskinned. Think spaniards or south europeans. Not middle-eastern brown. And for all we know she might as well have been fuckugly and they didnt choose her because of that. Stop defending some hysterical woman that throws around accusations of racism where there were none. Yer hunting ghosts bub, you are looking for "racism" where there was none. But hey, continue on your little internet warrior crusade protecting some imbecile who didnt get a part in a movie for reasons we dont know. And a guy who had done nothing wrong lost his job because of this idiot.

Oh, well. So much for my hopes that you pretending to be smart would make any difference in your ability to comprehend something. But, hey, at least I gave you the benefit of the doubt beforehand. That you proved me wrong and dashed my hopes isn't my fault.

 

[Waif]

As far as I am aware. The original books of J.R. Tolkien never had any colored hobbits. I don't think this is discrimination based on prejudice, rather, keeping to the original spirit of the novel. Naz Humphreys appears to be playing the race card, and it was easily predicted that she would do so. The ironic part of it is, that in by forcing your skin color into a fictional culture whereas such a provision was never made, is racist in itself. It does not respect the cultural heritage of the native hobbit. Maybe just ethnocentric?

Tolkien's books were also written in the 30's and 40's... that doesn't make him racist, more living in an era that didn't emphasise multiculturalism.

However look at it from the womans point of view. Say she wants to play a hobbit, say she loved the books and films... and then just as she is about to audition is told that her skin tone is wrong for her to be able to play part in a fictional race. It's not like they are changing anything substantial in the story by having a non-white hobbit! If Bilbo was suddenly black, that would drastically alter the book, but a background character... come on!

I never said Tolkien was a racist. In fact in response to another user I posted this quote:

"Obviously, there are no blacks in the land of Middle Earth and it's stories because it is derived entirely of Anglo-saxen (which Tolkein was a proffessor of at Oxford University) Celtic, and Norse lore which were all of the white race.

You see, the entire world of Middle Earth is based upon the mythology of these, and so it would be absurded to add a black character to the story. Middle Earth is, as a fantasy, supposed to be Europe, or more specificaly England, tens of thousands of years ago in a time that was lost and unknown to us - a place of lore and magic.

All of the characters in the book are English folk, and English culture is throughout it.

Imagine a fantasy written about the ancient history of Africa, it's people, and it's culture. Would you expect any whites to be there? Of course not. The same goes for The Lord of the Rings.

I assure you, it has nothing to do with racism or the ideals of discrimination very common in Tolkein's time. Any who suggest it know nothing of The Lord of the Rings."

However, I do feel that having dark skinned hobbits will detract from the story itself. It is minor, of course it is, but you have to understand how I look at it. LoTR is a masterpiece to me, therefore, tampering with it to be more "modern" is a slap in the face and is an insult to Tolkien's work. It's like repainting the Sistine chapel to show more acceptance of other religions, and to give a more fair representation of other religions. It's more modern yes, but it is insulting, and does not respect the work of the artist nor the system in which they kept it. For this reason, I don't agree with the idea of having dark skinned hobbits. However, this is how I view the situation, it changes nothing.

 

[theultimateend]

Well to be fair, the story is set in a Northern European looking environment.

Basically everyone in Northern Europe is dark skinned. So this guy should have been fired.

Just like any asshole who demands people playing Native Americans look like Native Americans be fired.

Everyone knows Native Americans were white as the driven snow.

I'm waiting for a film that is centered around the conflicts in the Congo and has a cast entirely of Asian and Indian people because they don't want to be fired.

It's a bit different for movies isnt it, muppet? Like I said earlier. It'd make no sense to cast european whites in the roles of black africans in a movie. As there makes no sense in casting black people as vikings in a movie either. So quit being an overly political correct douché.

Inevitably the issue is that people identify with what they are instead of who they are.

As long as an individual feels the most important qualities about themselves are the ones they couldn't alter, nor are even responsible for, we will never make it beyond the most base levels of interconnectivity and civility.

What makes you think that film production is exempted from the anti-discrimination hiring laws, Mr. Snuffleupagus? If a Harfoot Hobbit is, as Tolkien described, of brown skin, then it is against the law for a casting call to exclude actors with brown skin. There's no legitimate reason to say that a brown-skinned actor can't play a brown-skinned Hobbit. And to attempt to say so suggests that you're either a racist twat or a mumbling moron.

Third Option: They didn't read the book and are unaware that this is the case.

But then you wouldn't get your confirmation bias button tickled.

 

[JDKJ]

dub