安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
该主题的作者已标记一个回帖作为问题的解答。
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I´ve heard that they have made Gollum, tall, slender and pale, to be more modern and inclusive.
After all.. the physical apperence matters not, only the personality and inclusion, most like you will not see any difference.
It's wrong. It is historical revisionism and is evil.
Like trying to redefine marriage or when people say "that wasn't real communism"
If you don't like the someone else's work or idea you move on and find some other work or idea you like. Or make your own work or idea.
It is a grave disrespect to try and change someone else's work. I see this attitude becoming more prevalent and I think it's disgusting. Like people today don't believe in the sanctity of the truth of things. That nothing is untouchable and everything is subject to revision as long as it makes them feel good. It's a poisonous mindset to have.
So no. Tolkien is a work of literature and that's not even debatable. To say Tolkien's writings isn't a literary work the most obvious and absurd lie and I know why you would try to argue that because as long as you can reclassify something you have power over it. But I'm not going to let you lie this time.
Tolkien's work is literature. By the very definition of the term.
What is literature:
https://www.britannica.com/art/literature
The importance of the literary work of J.R.R. Tolkien:
https://lord-of-the-rings.org/tolkien/literary_work.html
Words have meanings and you don't get to twist them to suit your own ends.
Uh, I am not the person who said Tolkein's writing isn't literature.
I will show you an example of literature:
"I did teh poop and teh pee pee."
There ya go.
"Literature," while frequently used to refer to written works of noted quality... can refer to just about anything that's "written."
"Literature" doesn't have any legal definition.
IF a creator licenses the privilege from the IP holder, they can use another's creative work as the basis for their own creative, commercial, effort. If that license allows them a great degree of creative freedom, they can do whatever that licensing agreement says they can do with it.
If a work is outside of copyright, then it becomes "public domain." Why? Because then it allows other creators to create more stuff, maybe even using their own envisioning of the originally copyrighted work.
Your disgust is entirely misplaced. Works that move into the Public Domain ADD to the creative freedom and variety of creative works.
I do agree that some alterations can truly disrespect the work. But, at that point, it's that specific creator that should be criticized and not the action of Public Domain.
This is a pretty famous vid on the subject that brilliantly demonstrates many principles surrounding copyright, trademark, Fair Use and IP law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
The art, cartoons, movies, etc. may have featured exclusively white characters in their depictions (if even that much is true?), but that can't be pinned on Tolkien.
As I understand it, his writings were meant as an allegory of the human condition. In what way does that have anything to do with white supremacy?
If this forum was Middle Earth, why would anyone be surprised that goblins and trolls hate this new tv show?
Sup Casey.
Well, I happen to love Tolkien's magnum opus and could, perhaps, call his work "Literature." But, that'd be just like.. my opinion an' stuff...
Many were always described as "fair skinned" IIRC, and, more importantly, he took particular care to describe other race's : http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Haradrim#Traits_and_culture
That's part of what formed a bit of controversy with Tolkien, but it was mostly just set aside as his work gained in popularity.
Tolkien did quite a few drawings and illustrations in his day. I don't know how many focus on the humanoids in his tales. He did more landscapes and pastorals and the like than portraits I think. There are probably a few of his drawings of various races and the like out there.
I don't know of any interpretation that lends itself to "white supremacy" though.
If I may use an example here, in Warcraft the Elves were decendents of the Troll Empire but the Trolls exiled them as they were "To Fair skinned" which basically means, that they were exiled as a result of ironically not being ugly enough then anything else xD
I think people forget that the US have a lot of film regulation, there are actual laws, that force them to make certain "choices" when they either make a movie or series.
The American film industry is one of the most restrictive in the world and it is the far greatest in terms of cersorship compared to any other artistic medium (ie videogames)
The current way it works, actually hurts inclusion and diversity, because it is not done artistically, but it is forced, often reducing x or y minority as a "gimmick" or "stereotypical"
Even a biased media such as Vox agree about this (think about that for a secound)
Networks also have specific roles on ie. The least % of writers that is ie. a specific gender, or a specific % of actors that needs to be x or y etnicity. (I am not joking here)
This makes it hard to actually make something immersive and specific (think about historical titles ie) because you are "forced" to have x or y % of something on screen (this could ie. be a Irish American, in a movie about China in 1255)
A casting director can´t legally ask a applicant to reveal anything about their ethnic background, religion, sexuality, etc. This means, that you ie. can´t ask an actor if they are ie. Chinese (if they applied for a Japanese role ie) couple this with the fact you need x amount of "very boxed in American style colour tone, rather than ethnicity" screen actors on each movie/series....
My point here is, that some western societies (lets take the American´s as an example) has law, that makes them focus more on having societal inclusion and representation of minorities in general (often those minorities are actually boxed and some minorities does not matter, there is no law on having an specific amount of Inuiets in your movies)
There are also laws that prevent you for making certain minority groups represented as "offenders" in law series/movies, since they enhance a society perspective on said minorities.
Again. The movie industry is extremely cencored and have many restrctions and we did not even talk about emotional, or Sexual visuals in said movies (there are harsh laws about that, believe it or not)
This all means, that when you try to adapt x or y book, you can end up with having actors/actresses that look out of context, compared to the book version, sometimes it does nothing (because the apperence has nothing to do with the character) sometimes, it breaks immersion and becomes urealistic (because of the focus of the character) Ie. When you hire an light/pale toned Englishman to play an middleeastern Arab (breaks immersion) or if you hire an actoress to play a little chubby high elf or one that stands out from the bunch (if all is pale, but then one is extremely dark toned, in skin colour.
A solution here, is to use make up or CGI.
But laws prevent you for doing that, you can´t even make x or y character an alien (even if the source material have them be purple, green, yellow or obsidian black) you have to showcase minority actor/actresses in their "pure" ethnicity..
When this happens, you don´t credit either the source material or the actor/actress..
With all this said, sometimes it can make sense to "change" and "interpret" source material and gain a better product (not everything needs to be the exact same) but the change, needs to make logical sense and be belieable.
(TLDR can start here, for more specific on topic)
In this situation with Tolkiens LotR lore, we could easily make an interesting and awesome storyline for a beautiful (no matter the gender) character (I don´t care about the actual ethnicity, gender or sexuality of the actor/actress) for a Moriquendë.
I mean.. that would properly become my favourite character if done well enough. It is based in the lore, has potential to give an interesting peak into something most don´t know and it will be a perfect way for American´s to circumveen restrictions and regulation, and still make a character focused on actual lore.
Again the most important to me, is not how humans look and what they play, the important part for me is that the role/character they play is belieable, in the setting they are in.
Instead here in modern day, people seems to be more interested in whatever eye colour, size of nose or ethnicity a particular person (not the character) have, rather than their actual character and their acting performance...
Maybe it is due to nostalgia, but if we go 25-30 years back, I had a lot less focus on whatever ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality a actor/actress had or the character they played, the overall performance and the beliveablity (and ofc all that goes into that) of the character was what mattered.
However, I can't get over the pure irony of those people hating on uni degrees earned by doing coursework in Gender Studies or Social Sciences, and yet with the same mouth lauding Tolkien Studies as viable scholarship.