Hobbit Casting Agent Fired For Dismissing Non-White Hobbits

[JDKJ]

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.

 

[JDKJ]

Ok dark skin is gained in human evolution by being out in direct sun with little to no clouds.

Hobbits live in Hills and most come out at night.

So hobbits being pasty goths would be better casting indeed.

Should they also sport black nail polish on their fingers and wear black eyeliner? And listen to weepy albums by The Cure?

And you've got the evolutionary process reversed. Man started out with an overabundance of melanin in their skin which they lost as part of the adaptive process (i.e., the less sunlight on the skin, the less need for the protective qualities of melanin) when they migrated out of the African continent (the birthplace of Mankind) and into the less tropical climates of Europe.

But that reversal of evolutionary science is frequently made. Often in a feeble attempt to place greater value on fair skin over that of dark skin. Racists come up with dumb shit like that all the time. It don't make no sense, but that don't stop 'em.

Eh as I see all I hear is racist crying about white washing, this that and the other thing while accepting restitution from a crime no commited by any oppressor alive for 200 years, and every time they are asked to be "equal" they cry and forget every place was a slave culture, or slave taking culture at one time that had any population worth not and waged war.

In the Power rangers day, Sabban made it's cash by buying the suit wearing fighting scene selling them to SEVERAL different countries, and a set of suits so each country could make their own racial perfered group fighting the evil pig head or the infamous book monster (don't trust books kids) And why the idiots who casted in the US didn't notice the yellow ranger thought popular asian girls make young boys interest...when she put on the suit her chest vanished and she got a package. Saber tooth tiger...well you got a fang going at least.


The racist argument is racist in itself since NO side wants equality they want special treatment, and to just win a argument with someone of opposite color you whine racist first...making the caller of course a racist for generalizing a entire race over one person and normal only to protect their OWN racist agenda.

Sad really. Then again I think humans learning to build houses, getting out of the sun rays and thus reducing melanin for energy to other system is a step in the right direction... if the other option is heat exposure, cancer, ect... but hey anything can be turned into this little troll game. Cooking food, farming, making hunting tools...



Oh and Africa last I checked has always been contested with China for birthplace of man kind...but that is also racial bias for who suckers in the scientists and the tourist trades.


In the end, if JRR said they are light skinned, fine... grey...make it grey... don't add in a wise cracking street wise Jar Jar thing just to even it out.

Make it to style or don't make it at all...

And since there is a frack ton of Hobbit clans...they could get midgets from all over the world to fill in who is a Furfoot and Mooseknuckle clan. But racist? Sorry, if the books says they are X they are X to demand they aren't with the excuse of racism the never ending fall back is racist in it's own way...

"Oh and Africa last I checked has always been contested with China for birthplace of man kind...but that is also racial bias for who suckers in the scientists and the tourist trades."

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?

 

[Thyunda]

Okay, so, looking at this, my first instinct was that the guy got fired for no good reason. If Hobbits are white in the books, you want white Hobbits in the movie. Then, however, it's pointed out that Tolkien had browner skinned Hobbits. I'm no expert in Hobbit geneology. Okay, all of a sudden, it looks like the casting guy is a bit of a fool, but I'm not going to judge too heavily, because plenty of fantasy takes place in a setting that is analogous to historical settings that are very white. Tolkien seems to fall into this trend, especially with so much borrowed from the Norse. So he went to far, but fired seems to be a bit much. However, in everyones zeal to whine about either racism or political correctness, it seems like everyone is overlooking one VERY important piece of information here...

The additional demand for light skin tones applied only to women.'

WHY ARN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THIS SENTENCE?!?!

Women have to be white? But not males? How does this make sense? If hobbits have black fathers, they will have darker skin. Is the casting guy inventing a bit of Tolkien mythos where darker skin color is a sex linked trait on the Y Chromosome? Or is he doing it because of his aesthetic views? This is the screwed up part, not any of this silly PC stuff were talking about so far. Suddenly, the guy getting fired might make more sense, but Im still really curious what the hell happened here.

From the evidence given, it sounds like this because only the woman complained about it. It's highly circumstantial - He may have been writing about women, then went on to mention the skin colour, and it was misunderstood as referring only to women.
Or perhaps the men had read and understood, and had opted out of trying...and it was simply the women whom he was trying to remind.
You might notice that a greater percentage of men over women will remember that hobbits are white. A lot of the people going for this would most likely be actors and actresses looking for something else to stick on their acting history, regardless of the role.

 

[Allison Chainz]

Never really thought of middle earth having what we would define as ethnicities but I figured there would still be a little genetic variety. As a little kid reading the books, it never occurred to me that all the nearly all the races were supposed to be the same skin color throughout. I don't remember any line saying every last hobbit (or elf, etc.) had pale skin. Surely some were tan just by the nature of mutations and other factors.

Then again, the book was a about a specific hobbit, getting into the nitty gritty of what the rest of them looked like was unnecessary. Not really a big deal either way though. If a particular universe is supposed to have a particular look, then it should.

 

[Sovvolf]

[

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.

 

[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. 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.

 

[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...