The Hobbit Cast Swaps Genders in All-Female Photoshoot

[Do4600]

Change that, and you could easily have a female Legolas too, and a female Haldir (in the movies), and you could show Galadriel actually doing something, and let Arwen not just wait in Rivendell until everything sorts itself out. To see a genuine, non-sexual friendship grow between Legolina and Gimli, wouldn't that be something cool, something which you don't see a lot in any story of any genre for that matter?
And speaking of the Hobbits and friendships, would it be so nonsensical for Sam being a girl? I mean, gardener is not exactly an overly manly profession, is it, and you could say there's some sexual tension between male Sam and Frodo anyway.
Now you just have to give Eowyn's arc a better ending, and these small and ultimately inconsequential changes already give you more and better female characters. And you still have your 'historically accurate' human societies, with armies without a single female soldiers, or women in leadership positions, so nothing has changed in this department.

Because that's not the story. If you begin to change the genders of the characters you make it less about the characters and the story and more about gender politics. Then the movie would have been bad because it was more about gender politics than the story.

Also if Sam had been a "girl" it would have made the story nonsensical...because that's not the story. Besides that point, you can joke about sexual tension all you want but what those characters have in that story is a deep and loving friendship, something that our culture can't seem to understand without adding "sexual tension" to it. All of sudden you have a romance instead of something far more rare.

It's like doing an episode of Band of Brothers and adding a black lesbian marine, a Chinese guy in a wheelchair marine and Katy Perry as a marine to it. The only reason they're there is for political reasons and the story has all of a sudden lost it's ability to capture the unique atmosphere of WWII trench.

Why do people think it's such a good idea to pull a Ranma 1/2 on stories in the name of diversity? In this one particular example you've taken perhaps the most endearing story ever written about a man having a loving non-sexual friendship with another man and turned it into a sexual romance between a man and woman, because we certainly don't have a billion of those and only half a handful of the other.

Also, just like every other profession, inequality was rampant in gardening until after the turn of the 20th century, and it's only after that time that gardening began to be a more "feminine" pursuit.

What I feel this is really about is that we, as a society, are no longer comfortable with letting stories be exclusively about white males, it's become sexist and racist to have a story exclusively about white males, and that's not okay, because nobody is saying you can't have a story exclusively about white women, or a story exclusively about black men or a story exclusively about Japanese women, or a story exclusively about black, lesbian, Muslim Atheists. Nobody is saying that you need to put a white male in any of those movies to reflect diversity and not only that, saying that would label you as a racist and a sexist. What we have is a violently slanted criteria for the production of movies and in a broader sense, stories, but that's not surprising considering that it's only been in the past 50 years or so that society has even begun to move ever so slowly towards equality. What we need is more and better stories about different people, not re-purposed stories by white male authors, you not only disrespect the author and the story, you allow the white male author to tell your story and then you've accepted the hegemony instead of attempting to influence it.

All you communicate, is: "Women can be the men in stories" Which is a much worse version of: "Women are women and women can be complex, men are men and men can be complex and both are equal."

The ironic reality is that in a totally egalitarian society nobody would care what the spread of diversity is in a movie.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because that's not the story. If you begin to change the genders of the characters you make it less about the characters and the story and more about gender politics. Then the movie would have been bad because it was more about gender politics than the story.

Er...depends. Do you mean take the existing story and change genders, or do you mean a hypothetical story which was "equivalent" but with different genders? I think people were talking about the latter.

Also if Sam had been a "girl" it would have made the story nonsensical...because that's not the story. Besides that point, you can joke about sexual tension all you want but what those characters have in that story is a deep and loving friendship, something that our culture can't seem to understand without adding "sexual tension" to it. All of sudden you have a romance instead of something far more rare.

Hey? Why would there have to be a romance if they were different genders? What if they were both women, or a man and a woman and both homosexual or celibate, or married to other people or otherwise not interested in a sexual relationship?

What I feel this is really about is that we, as a society, are no longer comfortable with letting stories be exclusively about white males, it's become sexist and racist to have a story exclusively about white males, and that's not okay, because nobody is saying you can't have a story exclusively about white women, or a story exclusively about black men or a story exclusively about Japanese women, or a story exclusively about black, lesbian, Muslim Atheists.

Except in practice. If we "can't" have movies about straight white males, but we "can" have movies about women or PoC...why are the movies predominantly about straight white males?

Where are the big budget all female movies that we should be decrying as sexist?

 

[CloudAtlas]

It's like doing an episode of Band of Brothers and adding a black lesbian marine, a Chinese guy in a wheelchair marine and Katy Perry as a marine to it. The only reason they're there is for political reasons and the story has all of a sudden lost it's ability to capture the unique atmosphere of WWII trench.

And on what historical events is the Lord of the Rings exactly based on that prevent it from having more than one really active female character, out of a cast of probably several dozen significant characters?

Again, I'm not demanding the LOTR to be changed or anything. I was just stating some ideas about how some minor changes would have achieved greater inclusivity without fundamentally altering the story.

What I feel this is really about is that we, as a society, are no longer comfortable with letting stories be exclusively about white males, it's become sexist and racist to have a story exclusively about white males, and that's not okay, because nobody is saying you can't have a story exclusively about white women, or a story exclusively about black men or a story exclusively about Japanese women, or a story exclusively about black, lesbian, Muslim Atheists. Nobody is saying that you need to put a white male in any of those movies to reflect diversity and not only that, saying that would label you as a racist and a sexist.

That is a false equivalency. Nobody is complaining about stories (in movies or games) without any white guys in it because those stories are pretty rare. If the roles were reversed, and you'd have few stories with white male leads, white guys would have every right to ask, hey, what about about a story where someone that looks like me is the hero for a change... or has just any character of any significance that looks like me in it, for that matter. However, the roles are not reversed. If other groups were better represented nobody would have a problem with stories exclusively about white guys. But they aren't.

It's simply about inclusivity, about not needlessly diminishing the ability of certain groups of people to enjoy a piece of entertainment (groups that had the shorter end of the stick throughout much of history in about any other area as well, mind you).

All you communicate, is: "Women can be the men in stories" Which is a much worse version of: "Women are women and women can be complex, men are men and men can be complex and both are equal."

I fail to see how saying that women can be just as capable/strong/badass as men in stories is something negative. Women do not have to play inherently different roles.

The ironic reality is that in a totally egalitarian society nobody would care what the spread of diversity is in a movie.

We do not live in a totally equalitarian society though.

 

[Do4600]

Spoiler: edit: spoilered for length

Because that's not the story. If you begin to change the genders of the characters you make it less about the characters and the story and more about gender politics. Then the movie would have been bad because it was more about gender politics than the story.

Er...depends. Do you mean take the existing story and change genders, or do you mean a hypothetical story which was "equivalent" but with different genders? I think people were talking about the latter.

I was quoting CloudAtlas who was talking in specifics about this movie not an equivalent.

Also if Sam had been a "girl" it would have made the story nonsensical...because that's not the story. Besides that point, you can joke about sexual tension all you want but what those characters have in that story is a deep and loving friendship, something that our culture can't seem to understand without adding "sexual tension" to it. All of sudden you have a romance instead of something far more rare.

Hey? Why would there have to be a romance if they were different genders? What if they were both women, or a man and a woman and both homosexual or celibate, or married to other people or otherwise not interested in a sexual relationship?

Again I was quoting from CloudAtlas who specified that Sam could have been a woman "Would it be so nonsensical for Sam being a girl?...and you could say there's some sexual tension between male Sam and Frodo anyway. " If a principle character has their gender changed and there is sexual tension "anyway" it implied to me that that sexual tension would be fitting for a woman in the role, either an implied romance or an explicit one.

What I feel this is really about is that we, as a society, are no longer comfortable with letting stories be exclusively about white males, it's become sexist and racist to have a story exclusively about white males, and that's not okay, because nobody is saying you can't have a story exclusively about white women, or a story exclusively about black men or a story exclusively about Japanese women, or a story exclusively about black, lesbian, Muslim Atheists.

Except in practice. If we "can't" have movies about straight white males, but we "can" have movies about women or PoC...why are the movies predominantly about straight white males?

Where are the big budget all female movies that we should be decrying as sexist?

They don't exist, yet. But I believe and am hopeful that they will before too long. Changing the genders of the characters now for diversity sets a precedent. In twenty years when they make a 600 million dollar movie based on a legendary novel about black, lesbian, Muslim athesists saving the world from a hyper intelligent AI I would find it incredibly depressing if people were saying they should change one of the main characters to be a white male for the sake of diversity.

Equality has to be about universal empathy, it's necessarily about being able to see a human being that is different than us and being able to empathize deeply with them even if they are deeply different in ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, paycheck etc.. If it's not then every story from here on out will have to have a main character of every combination of gender, ethnicity and sexual alignment to placate a diversity that accommodates all people.

 

[Harrowdown]

Love the idea of this, but the execution is lacking. As loads of people have already said, most of the models are too conventionally attractive compared to the more fantastical/'unattractive' male originals, and lady Gandalf is too young and has way too small a nose. Lady Thorin is straight up perfect, though. The purist in me mourns the lack of beards, but I also acknowledge that their inclusion might undermine the point of this a tad.

 

[Do4600]

Spoiler: edit: also spoilered for length

It's like doing an episode of Band of Brothers and adding a black lesbian marine, a Chinese guy in a wheelchair marine and Katy Perry as a marine to it. The only reason they're there is for political reasons and the story has all of a sudden lost it's ability to capture the unique atmosphere of WWII trench.

And on what historical events is the Lord of the Rings exactly based on that prevent it from having more than one really active female character, out of a cast of probably several dozen significant characters?

Again, I'm not demanding the LOTR to be changed or anything. I was just stating some ideas about how some minor changes would have achieved greater inclusivity without fundamentally altering the story.

It's not a story based on a historic event, it wasn't prevented from having more female protagonists it just wasn't written with them in it. Why is that a problem? It also doesn't have a Hispanic Jewish man in it, should we add that as well? Or a Indian woman who is bisexual and is "kinda sorta" agnostic. I feel that changing a story even in small ways to make it more inclusive by changing the attributes of the characters misses the point that we are capable of empathizing with everybody, we just rarely do. Not having a character in an artwork that fits ourselves doesn't block our ability to deeply empathize with the artwork. The problem is that all our artworks look roughly the same right now and I feel the solution is to produce far more varied artwork, not adjust the artwork we have to fix the deficit.

What I feel this is really about is that we, as a society, are no longer comfortable with letting stories be exclusively about white males, it's become sexist and racist to have a story exclusively about white males, and that's not okay, because nobody is saying you can't have a story exclusively about white women, or a story exclusively about black men or a story exclusively about Japanese women, or a story exclusively about black, lesbian, Muslim Atheists. Nobody is saying that you need to put a white male in any of those movies to reflect diversity and not only that, saying that would label you as a racist and a sexist.

That is a false equivalency. Nobody is complaining about stories (in movies or games) without any white guys in it because those stories are pretty rare.

It's not a false equivalency, NOBODY is saying you can't have a story about the groups of people I've mentioned, they are just not equally represented.

If the roles were reversed, and you'd have few stories with white male leads, white guys would have every right to ask, hey, what about about a story where someone that looks like me is the hero for a change... or has just any character of any significance that looks like me in it, for that matter. However, the roles are not reversed. If other groups were better represented nobody would have a problem with stories exclusively about white guys. But they aren't.

But they could be, and what's to stop somebody from in twenty years asking that a big budget movie based on a novel with all women characters to change the gender of a main character to represent diversity. Saying its just fine to change a story in the name of inclusivity is a dangerous precedent because it stifles the ability of a writer to write a story that doesn't have main characters from every single ethnicity, gender and sexual preference. When that movie about black, lesbian, Muslim athesists is released I don't want to see one of the main characters changed to a white male for the sake of diversity. Also, as I've said, I think equality has a great deal more to do with empathy.

It's simply about inclusivity, about not needlessly diminishing the ability of certain groups of people to enjoy a piece of entertainment (groups that had the shorter end of the stick throughout much of history in about any other area as well, mind you).

If that's true, then total equality is about only having stories that have every gender, ethnicity and sexual preference represented in them. I think equality is about having a diverse set of stories that represent the totality of human experience and having everybody being able to empathize with each and every one.

All you communicate, is: "Women can be the men in stories" Which is a much worse version of: "Women are women and women can be complex, men are men and men can be complex and both are equal."

I fail to see how saying that women can be just as capable/strong/badass as men in stories is something negative. Women do not have to play inherently different roles.

That's true, but in this case it's women literally acting in the shells of men. I just find it messy, like remaking Rambo with a woman as Jane Rambo where Jane Rambo does exactly the same thing that John Rambo does. There's nothing to say Jane Rambo shouldn't have every trait John Rambo has, but then why remake it with a woman in the first place if there's nothing to prevent a woman from empathizing with Rambo's traits other than the small differences between physical structure?

The ironic reality is that in a totally egalitarian society nobody would care what the spread of diversity is in a movie.

We do not live in a totally equalitarian society though.

I would like to eventually.

 

[CloudAtlas]

It's not a story based on a historic event, it wasn't prevented from having more female protagonists it just wasn't written with them in it. Why is that a problem? It also doesn't have a Hispanic Jewish man in it, should we add that as well? Or a Indian woman who is bisexual and is "kinda sorta" agnostic.

Don't be silly. Roughly half of all inhabitants of middle earth (orcs excluded) would have been female. I doubt you could say the same about the number of Jews, Hispanics, or Indians.

I feel that changing a story even in small ways to make it more inclusive by changing the attributes of the characters misses the point that we are capable of empathizing with everybody, we just rarely do.

Yes, we do have this ability. But as it is now, we expect everyone who is not a white guy to do that all the time, because there are relatively few characters that look like them. And I, being a white guy myself, being part of the privileged group, have no right to tell them to just suck it up and try harder to empathize when I rarely have to do the same. I have no right and I would be a hypocrite on top, because if the roles were reversed, I would complain about the lack of characters of my own gender or ethnicity too.

Hell, I'm already really happy to experience a story that doesn't play in the US, but on the continent I'm from.

But they could be, and what's to stop somebody from in twenty years asking that a big budget movie based on a novel with all women characters to change the gender of a main character to represent diversity. Saying its just fine to change a story in the name of inclusivity is a dangerous precedent because it stifles the ability of a writer to write a story that doesn't have main characters from every single ethnicity, gender and sexual preference. When that movie about black, lesbian, Muslim athesists is released I don't want to see one of the main characters changed to a white male for the sake of diversity.

Yea... let's talk again when that actually happens, when there are few movies with straight white male characters anymore. I doubt that'll be anytime soon.

The problem is not with individual movies anyway, it's about the aggregate.

If that's true, then total equality is about only having stories that have every gender, ethnicity and sexual preference represented in them. I think equality is about having a diverse set of stories that represent the totality of human experience and having everybody being able to empathize with each and every one.

You are right. However, we do not have this diverse set of stories right now, and in order to get there, we need more stories with more characters that are not white or male - exactly what I've been saying all along.

We do not live in a totally equalitarian society though.

I would like to eventually.

So would I. However, we are not there yet, and your arguments generally sounds as if we already were. You're always arguing on principle, but not on reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone was able to identify with anyone, but right now, one group often has to identify with someone else than them, while the other group rarely has. Yes, the end goal is not that everyone is equally represented in every story, but right now, everyone is equally underrepresented except for one group. And that sucks.

 

[Grimh]

Gotta say, not that impressed.
It seems like it's just pretty girls dressed up as those dudes in that thing.
I mean the outfits are pretty good if a bit pristine.
There's nothing actually bad about them. I just don't find them that interesting I guess.

Hmm, I don't know. Let's see what else this photographer's do- Oh... [http://500px.com/photo/45933264]

Huh...

 

[Dragonbums]

I wish she had the funds to employ different models. She probably only works for.....eh one of them. The rest, not so much. I appreciate the effort thought.

 

[Do4600]

The problem is not with individual movies anyway, it's about the aggregate.

I totally agree.

...your arguments generally sounds as if we already were. You're always arguing on principle, but not on reality. Yes, it would be nice if everyone was able to identify with anyone, but right now, one group often has to identify with someone else than them, while the other group rarely has. Yes, the end goal is not that everyone is equally represented in every story, but right now, everyone is equally underrepresented except for one group. And that sucks.

I'm arguing on principle because it's practically inevitable that it's going to happen eventually, I'm very confidant in that. The point that we disagree on is what to do now. I think changing the characters in a well known story for diversity sets the precedent that people can only empathize with somebody that looks like them, and I think that is a dangerous precedent that will make it more difficult for true equality in this medium in the future. If you can only add equality to a story by adding or changing main characters so they look like a person or a people you are trying to equalize than in the future it will be difficult to tell a story about a SPECIFIC people because people won't be able to empathize with it because they need somebody in it that looks like they do.

I'm saying equality based solely on somebody looking like you in a movie is a false equality, if it was a true equality then you could remake every single movie that's ever been made with a different cast and achieve total equality; but it's not because it's still just a story about western, white males that just has somebody other than a white male in the role. It would still be terribly lacking in stories about the people that are not equally represented.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I'm arguing on principle because it's practically inevitable that it's going to happen eventually, I'm very confidant in that.

I hope so too.

The point that we disagree on is what to do now. I think changing the characters in a well known story for diversity sets the precedent that people can only empathize with somebody that looks like them, and I think that is a dangerous precedent that will make it more difficult for true equality in this medium in the future. If you can only add equality to a story by adding or changing main characters so they look like a person or a people you are trying to equalize than in the future it will be difficult to tell a story about a SPECIFIC people because people won't be able to empathize with it because they need somebody in it that looks like they do.

I don't think we have to change already existing works either. That would be... a severe case of entitlement. But if, say, someone wants to make a movie out of a book, I welcome changes that aim for greater inclusiveness (such as Peter Jackson did to the Lord of the rings and The Hobbit movies), but a movie based on a book is not the same work as the book itself anyway.
When I'm writing about what could have been changed in the LOTR, for example, I am not doing that with the intent to demand these changes to be implemented, of course not, but to sort of help encouraging authors of future works to do better in this department.

I hope I can leave you with this somewhat concilliary note. On the actual issue, the representation of women in such works in general, we are in agreement, if I understood you correctly, so I do not see a reason to argue anymore with you.

 

[Roxor]

Would it have killed them to find some women over the age of 30, or at least put some makeup or prosthetics on them to age them up?

I mean, come on! Back To The Future did it back in the 1980s.

 

[Dragonbums]

Would it have killed them to find some women over the age of 30, or at least put some makeup or prosthetics on them to age them up?

I mean, come on! Back To The Future did it back in the 1980s.

That depends. Many cosplayers tend to be either themselves with a photographer, or just a group of friends.

It's clear that this is simply one person. I can also imagine that the material to make the outfits themselves cost her a pretty penny. Between all of that it comes to no surprise to me that she inevitably had no time or money to find and hire other female models of various age groups and body types to fill in the roles of the other characters.

 

[Ikajo]

Actually, in the scene where the dwarves run from the dragon. The female dwarfs are wearing dresses and have no beards... just saying. Really.

About Gandalf as a woman. An old man is wise, an old woman is just a hag. That's at least how it's been for quite a while. If any of you can give me an example of the opposite, I'm happy to listen.

It would also be good to remember, they made do with what they had. It's not THAT easy to create make-up. Never seen "Face of"?

And at last, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LDhsH79jAY

 

[ZtH]

Terrible, everyone knows dwarf women still have beards!

Seriously though this is really well done, the props were fantastic I wonder if they used any from the original set. Also I laughed really hard when I first mistook the Bilbo for Benedict Cumberbatch in drag, imo that would have been much better.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Oh come on, they did all that and they DIDN'T do a male version of the made up elf lady? That just would have been perfect.

Wouldn't that just be Orlando Bloom?

 

[ensouls]

Gotta say, not that impressed.
It seems like it's just pretty girls dressed up as those dudes in that thing.
I mean the outfits are pretty good if a bit pristine.
There's nothing actually bad about them. I just don't find them that interesting I guess.

Hmm, I don't know. Let's see what else this photographer's do- Oh... [http://500px.com/photo/45933264]

Huh...

Oh wow.

PROGRESS!

 

[JonnyHG]

Well, perhaps in some cases. But not in a fiction epos like LOTR, with a biiig cast of characters and absolutely no reason to not do that. Besides, wouldn't it also be rather dickish (and commercially unwise on top) if the creator of such a piece of entertainment that is potentially appealing to a really large audience torpedoes the ability of half of said audience to enjoy this piece because there aren't any people of their own gender to identify with for no good reason?

I agree that if trying to appeal to the largest possible audience is a priority, then lack of gender balance is commercially unwise. That being said, I don't think that was Tolkien's goal. Some of my favorite games on the PS3, the Arland Alchemist Trilogy, are heavily skewed towards females and female gender balance. Considering there's a notion out there that most guys wouldn't want to play a game as a 'chick', creating games that center heavily on females could be said to be commercially unwise. This may be true but they are great games, I'm better off for having played them, and I'm glad they exist.

Personally, I think that reasons which have already been stated as to why Tolkien did not include more female characters are valid. Tolkien's writings, while fantasy, did draw on his experiences. If his experiences were of wartime which included mainly males then I have no problem with that. At worst, it's a pretty good explanation for minimal female characters in his work. I realize you've stated that you do not accept those reasons, and that's perfectly fine.

After all that, I believe that everything should be put through the crucible: Everything can and should be able to be criticized. Tolkien should be able to be criticized. Exchanging ideas and opinions and responding to others' can only lead to better understandings. I will admit there was a time when I wasn't even aware of the lack of female characters in Tolkien's work. While I believe there's nothing wrong with a lack of female characters, having an awareness of it and the reasons why it bothers some is a good thing.

 

[Goofguy]

And here I thought Dwarven women were bearded like their male counterparts. Not too bad but they're basically attractive models in wigs and thick clothes.

 

[Jenvas1306]

I think this little gender swap didnt really work out, they changed way more than just the gender. casting all conventionally attractive girls just wont work for burly dwarves.
its more like neat cosplay than anything.