• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the film "Lord Of The Rings" racist?

Is the film "Lord Of The Rings" racist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • No

    Votes: 51 81.0%

  • It's prophetic

    Votes: 2 3.2%

  • Idk

    Votes: 7 11.1%
  • Total voters
    63
radcen said:
Black to me, but I could see Arab or Turkish.
Click to expand...

Everyone imagines a little differently. I always imagined the Rohirrim as Nordic Sioux or Cheyenne rather than the proto-knights they became in the film.:peace
 
Jack Hays said:
I have to disagree. Any time a novel becomes a movie there has to be compression. I thought they did reasonably well. A film is visual and Helm's Deep is visual. That's to be expected. In a film all those long discussions don't work. It's the old saying: "Don't tell me. Show me.":peace
Click to expand...

I agree to a point. When he omits tons of stuff and then makes up stuff that is what I don't like. Helm's Deep was so long. Didn't need to be. Could have shortened it and added other things instead. Making Pippen freak out with the Glass Ball thing (can't remember right now) that glowed was lame. Having Aragorn have this made up conversation with the dead king was lame. Having Pippen light the signal fire when that never happened was lame. Having the King of Rohan make that incredibly long and idiotic speech at Helm's Deep was lame. It is like King went out of his way to screw with the books.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I agree to a point. When he omits tons of stuff and then makes up stuff that is what I don't like. Helm's Deep was so long. Didn't need to be. Could have shortened it and added other things instead. Making Pippen freak out with the Glass Ball thing (can't remember right now) that glowed was lame. Having Aragorn have this made up conversation with the dead king was lame. Having Pippen light the signal fire when that never happened was lame. Having the King of Rohan make that incredibly long and idiotic speech at Helm's Deep was lame. It is like King went out of his way to screw with the books.
Click to expand...

We all have our likes and dislikes. I thought the relay of the signal fire of Gondor was one of the great scenes of the film.:peace
 
Bodhisattva said:
What I said was that he screwed over the books, meaning that the movies are no where near as good. Changing who said what ruined the movies. Making Gimli a comic distraction in the movie ruined the movies. Taking out entire chapters ruined the movies. Making the battle of Helm's Deep 1/3 of the movie when it is 1/30 of the book ruined the movies. so yes... Adding a female character would ruin the movie.
Click to expand...
They held to the books much closer to the books than I feared they would, and overall I was pleased. One of my primary annoyances, though, is that they treated Gimli as comic relief. That was unnecessary and uncalled for.

Unfortunately, they became intoxicated with their success in LotR, and have completely bastardized The Hobbit to the point that I am "meh" about the remaining movies in that series.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
He wasn't brown... he was Radagast "the Brown" and even when Gandalf was "the Grey" he was still a white man.
Click to expand...

Actually he wasn't a man. The wizards were a different species. Aragorn and his bunch were men.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Who are Arwen and the Lady of Rohan then?
Click to expand...

By the time it was over I wanted to be Miranda Otto's love slave.

miranda otto.jpg
 
Grand Mal said:
I hear that a new character was created for "The Hobbit" because it didn't seem right that there were no female characters in such a long story.
Click to expand...

Galadriel was in the Hobbit as well as Tom Bombadil's wife and a number of female elves. Not to mention the female hobbits old and young.
 
clownboy said:
Galadriel was in the Hobbit as well as Tom Bombadil's wife and a number of female elves. Not to mention the female hobbits old and young.
Click to expand...

Tom Bombadil and Goldberry I recall from LOTR but not The Hobbit. But it's been a while.
 
Henrin said:
It might still be a good movie. :)
Click to expand...

I thought the first Lord of the Rings movie was good. I'm just not like a cult fan of it or anything.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I agree to a point. When he omits tons of stuff and then makes up stuff that is what I don't like. Helm's Deep was so long. Didn't need to be. Could have shortened it and added other things instead. Making Pippen freak out with the Glass Ball thing (can't remember right now) that glowed was lame. Having Aragorn have this made up conversation with the dead king was lame. Having Pippen light the signal fire when that never happened was lame. Having the King of Rohan make that incredibly long and idiotic speech at Helm's Deep was lame. It is like King went out of his way to screw with the books.
Click to expand...

All of that was faithful to the books. Pippen did stare into the palantir and get lost. Aragorn did have a significant conversation with the dead king and the King of Rohan did make a significant speech when he was freed from wormwood's influence.
 
clownboy said:
Galadriel was in the Hobbit as well as Tom Bombadil's wife and a number of female elves. Not to mention the female hobbits old and young.
Click to expand...

That was LOTR. The Hobbit did not have any of them...
 
clownboy said:
Galadriel was in the Hobbit as well as Tom Bombadil's wife and a number of female elves. Not to mention the female hobbits old and young.
Click to expand...

No, none of that happened in the Hobbit. Tom Bombadil and his wife are only in the Lord of Ring books and I believe a short story or two. As for Galadriel, she is like the prior characters you mentioned only in the Lord of the Ring books. The only Elves mentioned in the Hobbit are all male.
 
The Harad in LOTR were considered the equivalent of North African or Near Harad (Arab) and Sub Saharan Africa Far Harad (Black)...

Harad's tribes were divided--at least in the minds of the men of northwestern Middle-earth--into those of Near and Far Harad, although there were many tribes of the Haradrim, often mutually hostile. Those of Near Harad were brown-skinned, with black hair and dark eyes, whereas the people of Far Harad had black skin. Many say they only banded together due to the fact Sauron was slowly regaining power, and were fearful of Sauron if they continued to war against one another. This was mainly due to Sauron seeing the Harad's as his men and did not want a diminished army due to in-fighting. - Harad - Lord of the Rings Wiki
 
Jack Hays said:
The Hobbit is to LOTR as a lightning bug is to lightning.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I saw one movie and read two books a long time ago, so I'm not an informed fan such as yourself. :lol:
 
clownboy said:
All of that was faithful ti the biiks. Pippen did stare into the palantir and get lost. Aragorn did have a significant conversation with the dead king and the King of Rihan did make a significant speech when he was freed from wormwood's influence.
Click to expand...

Not about all the wanton hate is a state of dismay... and Pippen got lost but didn't run around the room with the ball blazing. Aragorn didn't have a significant conversation... in fact, the king never spoke in the book, let alone have this big glowing kingdom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom