Source inaccuracy to allow patriarchical views of femininity: Amazon's female LOTR dwarves are beardless

submitted by [deleted] from cbr.com

all 3 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think you're supposed to be creative when you go into the arts, as in create something. Who would look at LOTR, books and Peter Jackson's movies (skipping past the Hobbit movies) and think "I have something to say that will add to that" ? I would NEVER touch that and I shudder to think I'd call anyone "creative" who did. I mean a pay check sounds nice in theory, but how on earth can you approach that material and dare to do anything, or think it is worth doing? Especially if you are a "creative" you have so many projects you've been pushing or working on at all different stages of completion where you'd actually have something to say because you created it.

Not really a gender-related comment, but I can't really get behind the idea of anyone doing this without feeling hollow inside about who ever would do it. Don't you have your own thing you're working on? Apparently not. That studios are not paying for new ideas is not really the issue. If you're a "creator" you are not even thinking about doing what ever this is going to be.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yes. Gender aside, you shouldn't be changing with the work of a giant like Tolkien. That's why the Hobbit movies failed -- what Tolkien meant to be a children's fairytale was turned into an action movie on the level of LOTR. For this reason, the Rankin-Bass Hobbit movie is much better.

But it is sad that they messed with his work for gender reasons, and I blame the TRAs and their pushing of stereotypes for it.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is probably it, across all the corporate arts. I think it was Augusto Boal who talked about how the works of Machiavelli and the works of Shakespear (and maybe others, I forget) represent big changes in the kinds of writing before them because they were ushering in a society. The kinds of heroes changed, the nature of their battles and drama changed, and it reflected the values of an emerging "middle" class that .. well were greedy to say it crassly or maybe better stated they were carving out their own niche for themselves between the poor and the royalty or old money/power. I interpret his description as the birth of a morality-less age, but he's not a moralist. I don't know if that's a fair assessment of Shakespeare, or even it was Boal (It would be in Theater of the Oppressed I think), but I think there is a clear effort to chisel out the distinguishing features of the art of the past and remake it into a new art for the present that will appear to have always been like that. The same way the "struggle" for trans rights men using women's bathrooms to get off has been going on forever slightly less time than there's been women's bathrooms. I know for my analogy I'd have crossed out the other way around, but I just can't.