ZOMG PC

[Azathoth]

[quote="oOoOoOo":3ustoel1][/quote:3ustoel1]

But what identity group is Tyrion supposed to fit into? He's described in the book not simply as short but as misshapen, heterochromic, lame but with amazing upper body strength - he's more Quasimodo-like in the sense that "well, he's weird-looking and that means he must be creepy" than he's like to an actual little person.

Hobbits are pretty much white - intended to represent ye olde pre-war English heartland values or whatever - and so probably should be played by white people, if you can't find any citizens of ye olde pre-war English heartland around - you may as well shoot for the ye olde English part, namely whitey. If Jackson had elected to change this for LotR, I'd have been surprised, but presumably it could have been rationalized as a reassignment of the Shire's symbolic value - from Tolkien's idea of "idealized past rural England" to a universalized "a really nice countryside place full of nice people". But given that Jackson showed no interest in changing that, why expect him to change it now?

Tyrion, on the other hand, doesn't represent anything other than a persistently wronged and abused asshole who's out for himself and pretty much nobody else. He doesn't represent an identity group apart from misanthropes (or maybe "people who George R. R. Martin counts himself among", given that Martin consistently lists Tyrion as his favorite character). As it is, I'm pretty much content with Peter Dinklage playing Tyrion because he's not a bad actor and Tyrion's a difficult role. But if they'd announced their intent to have a non-little person play Tyrion through camera tricks and/or CG, I would hardly have angsted about it. From a storytelling point of view, all that has to be true about Tyrion is that he be considered really ugly and mostly physically incapable of living the way he's expected to - the fact that he's really short is not especially relevant to his character. His connection to the identity group of little people is tangential.

Also we're riffing off a Hal tinfoil-hat post so I really have no idea if we're even arguing against each other or just talking at random, really

[NemZ]

They should stick with the same casting guidelines they followed for the first trilogy for the sake of consistency. Whether they were correct or fair in the first place is debatable, but changing it now is just going to be jarring, especially in the case of casting actual little people.

That said, casting one hobbit of color would seem weird, while creating a whole group of non-white hobbit extras and portraying them as a particular group within the larger society wouldn't be a big deal.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

For those of you arguing in favour of white hobbits, are you equally pissed off that they've been casting big people to play the roles of small people?

Weren't hobbits described as having some sort of pudginess to them anyway? Then, yes. I am offended that hobbits have been portrayed in such a stereotypical light. The hobbits should take offense to this. In fact, I will take offense to this on behalf of the hobbits of Middle-Earth... wherever that is.

I remember the film school I went to having some sort of dumb contest about making a "Cavewoman" commercial similar to the caveman Geico commercials, and the women in the school were all up in arms about it. Something about the contest offending cavewomen around the world or something like that. I was offended simply because it was a dumb idea.

So all those darkies that the Romans were talking about weren't "real Europeans", I guess?

Romans? I was talking about England. Wrong time period and location. At the time of the Roman Empire, the Germans were savages, and there's no trace of that carrying over to Middle-Earth mythology either. I mean, you have some ugly looking orc stuff that seem to be sweating mucus or something, but that's about it when it comes to savages. Nothing really specific as to what they are, just things that are barely humanoid in the first place.

I'm not saying that black people didn't have anything to do with England. It just wasn't part of the majority culture portrayed in Middle-Earth. Unfortunately, none of us here described Middle-Earth. That's all Tolkien's doings in his little fictitious world, and Peter Jackson is just following the fictitious cultural norms portrayed in the book series. LOTR is kind of reminiscent of Biblical stories with a lot of dark-ages English trappings around it. And that's all it probably should be.

Though, back to the casting issue, I do wonder if something like this would be an issue if a white man was cast to play Shaft. Is it "right" for a white guy to play Shaft? Well, it isn't wrong. It might not make sense to cast a white guy either, since the film was supposed to appeal to a black majority. It's not racist, it's just marketing.

I think the same thing could be said about LOTR. It's not that casting a black guy would be wrong, it just wouldn't make sense. And since the movies has the audience following 5 different stories by the end of the trilogy, distracting them with a weird casting decision isn't the best idea in the world.

[Merridian]

Romans? I was talking about England. Wrong time period and location.

I think she was referring to the Roman historian who made mention of darker-skinned folk on the island during the time of their brief, despondent, understaffed, under-supplied, demoralized occupation.

Not that it matters seeing as how England is England and Tolkien's fantasy world was whatever the hell he wanted it to be.

[oOoOoOo]

Okay, so let's ignore the European/British history thing.

Let's assume Tolkien's intention was for Hobbits to be white. They are little persons with white skin. Now we need some actors to portray these Hobbits. If we want to be authentic to Tolkien's vision why is it that the "white skin" part is more important than the "little persons" part?

This is a matter of identity. For example, once upon a time (in certain countries) you'd have male actors portray female characters. You'd have white actors portray black characters. As society progressed, women and blacks were allowed to portray characters like themselves. (We're talking visually identifiable groups, of course.)

There are plenty of actors in the "little persons" identity group, such as Peter Dinklage. These people want to work. They want to get jobs. They are actors. Whether deformed or handsome, Dinklage's character has dwarfism. "Little people" is an identity group. Not only is it important for Dinklage's livelihood to land such a part, it is also important for other people with dwarfism and similar conditions. It opens doors and encourages other little people to enter the business. These people want serious roles aside from "elf in Santa's workshop" or "Ewok" or "Elijah Wood's stunt double".

So let's assume Hobbits are white little persons. Why is "white" the aspect many of you are so concerned about?

[Xard]

Hobbits don't look like midgets, O-chan

[oOoOoOo]

In the English language "midget" is akin to "nigger". "Little person" or even "dwarf" is preferred.

The height range for a Hobbit is the same as a person with dwarfism. In Tolkien's letters he describes a Hobbit as "a fairly human figure ... fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown). The feet from the ankles down, covered with brown hairy fur." (Pulled from Wikipedia.)

Achondroplasia is a genetic condition, where the limbs are disproportionate. That's the most common type. There is also a hormonal deficiency that results in proportionate dwarfism. There are two hundred different types, apparently.

Surely a little person resembles a Hobbit more than a big person.

[Xard]

In the English language "midget" is akin to "nigger". "Little person" or even "dwarf" is preferred.

I didn't know that. I know that using word "dwarf" is wrong from experience and "little person" most certainly isn't any official designation.

Surely a little person resembles a Hobbit more than a big person.

not with help CG. CG "big person" > midgets

in terms of looks.

Really O, why do you keep derailing this thread with all this idle meaningless talk? It's ridiculous.

[oOoOoOo]

Little People of America is one starting place.

"Idle meaningless talk" only to someone as deep in their tower of privilege as you. The end product is all that matters to you, not any of the people involved. It's nothing to worry yourself over, it's a fairly common condition suffered by white men.

[Xard]

"Idle meaningless talk" only to someone as deep in their tower of privilege as you. The end product is all that matters to you, not any of the people involved. It's nothing to worry yourself over, it's a fairly common condition suffered by white men.

What bothers me is the way you're turning topic about much-anticipated film into battlefield where you can launch your tirades against EVIL WHITE MEN

When the initial subject matter has been settled you then bring "WELL WHY DON'T THEY CAST MIDGETS HUH" in.

Fuck this bullshit.

and "little people" still sounds stupid and more diminutive than midget to me. Retarded PCism

[Mr. Tines]

What bothers me is the way you're turning topic about much-anticipated film into battlefield where you can launch your tirades against EVIL WHITE MEN

Quite.

Retarded PCism

The retarded PCism had already appeared a page or so back -- the phrase "identity group" had been used.

PCisms are of course newspeak, specifically intended to prevent unthoughts being expressed -- like the concept that it's only a negative -ism when the wrong people suggest that all people categorisable by accident of birth are indistinguishable.