Odola
Well-Known Member
Imho a little over-exaggerated. Tolkien himself was not free from "gatekeeper"ism. His critique of Disney's Snow White was far from pure acceptance of modern retelling of ancient tales.
Last edited:
Amazon series: reactions to news and rumours. (Spoiler alert!)
- Thread starter Haakon
- Start date
Rob Harding
Well-Known Member
Criticism is different
Gatekeeping works in academia and news to a degree as there are definitive truths to protect (as long as rules exist for questioning and balance).
Doesn’t work in objective art fields were people want to egotistically promote their personal interpretation as a definitive truth and belittle anyone who doesn’t hold that opinion as somehow not being a true fan or not truly understanding the work. When art is purely subjective and entirely dependant on interpretation.
‘This is like and you can only share in it if you like it in the ways I do.’
It’s just people wanting to be in charge of something they have no ownership over and minimising others to feel important. Snobbery. And I have no time for it.
Odola
Well-Known Member
Do not know if expressing: "to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing).”
counts as mere criticism.
Some of Tolkien's fans do feel exactly the same way towards any big corporation taking on his work - and they do seem to feel a kinship to Tolkien's "heartfelt loathing" indeed.
Last edited:
Rob Harding
Well-Known Member
That’s absolutely fine. That is opinion. Not gatekeeping
Odola
Well-Known Member
? Tolkien a priori excluded anything Disney or Disney-influneced from dealing with any of his works. This is gatekeeping - of course he is the author - but still.
Being critical is not gatekeeping. Having opinions about what is good and what is bad is not gatekeeping. Shouting down disagreement and telling people to go away is the hallmark of gatekeeping. It is an attempt to keep out certain voices through ostracization.
Gatekeeping is the 'no true fan of Tolkien' rhetoric, where an assertion is made that anyone who doesn't meet certain criteria isn't part of the fandom.
Oh, you haven't read/watched/participated in xyz? Then you must be fake and don't know what you're talking about. You don't agree with me? You are a shill for someone and don't understand the true meaning of whatever.
What is telling is that people often jump to an assumption about someone else's lack of experience without any knowledge of who they are talking to. So you wind up with Twitter exchanges between a 'fan' and the actual author of the work where the fan informs the author that they don't understand the world and probably didn't even read the source material. Um.
If a discussion has strong 'go away' vibes, or 'long-haired freaky people need not apply' implications, than that's an example of gatekeeping.
Tolkien disliked Dune when he read it. He chose to keep that opinion private, as he saw no benefit to publicly asserting that it wasn't to his taste. He didn't publish a review saying that no true fan of science fiction would enjoy this abomination. His discretion was not limited to this one example.
Gatekeeping is the 'no true fan of Tolkien' rhetoric, where an assertion is made that anyone who doesn't meet certain criteria isn't part of the fandom.
Oh, you haven't read/watched/participated in xyz? Then you must be fake and don't know what you're talking about. You don't agree with me? You are a shill for someone and don't understand the true meaning of whatever.
What is telling is that people often jump to an assumption about someone else's lack of experience without any knowledge of who they are talking to. So you wind up with Twitter exchanges between a 'fan' and the actual author of the work where the fan informs the author that they don't understand the world and probably didn't even read the source material. Um.
If a discussion has strong 'go away' vibes, or 'long-haired freaky people need not apply' implications, than that's an example of gatekeeping.
Tolkien disliked Dune when he read it. He chose to keep that opinion private, as he saw no benefit to publicly asserting that it wasn't to his taste. He didn't publish a review saying that no true fan of science fiction would enjoy this abomination. His discretion was not limited to this one example.
Odola
Well-Known Member
Not so sure. Tolkien has reportedly publicly rejected the change of the ;iturgical language of the Mass from Latin to the local languages - a change during his lifetime - and kept delivering the fixed answers in Latin loudly disturbing even the Divine Service that was now in English. He was not keeping his opinions private in matters he considered sacred to him.
Last edited:
Ilana Mushin
Well-Known Member
Tolkien had opinions and voiced them. That is not gatekeeping. He also says pretty explicitly that he has no control over how people respond and interpret his work. But he can like or dislike what they do in adapting or interpreting, as I do. The ‘orkishness’ comes from rejecting something out of hand without trying it first as inherently bad. It is rejecting the art because of the patron of the art. It is not allowing space for others to have their own reactions to the art. Would I reject the art of Renaissance artists just because they were funded by the Medicis? The orkishness comes from not accepting other people’s opinions and considering onesself the sole arbiter of how one should receive and relate to art. I can’t see Tolkien subscribing to that view. I am not a fan of the Hobbit movies but I would not judge someone who liked/loved them - I certainly would not consider them less of a Tolkien fan than I am.
Tolkien did not stop attending mass when it switched from Latin to the Novus Ordo (not just a translation into English, but a separate rite). He did not join the SSPX or declare the pope a heretic over this change. He didn't like it. He didn't suggest that those who did like it were bad Catholics!
Odola
Well-Known Member
Had he have access to SSPX in his time and place? And he was not merely "not liking the change". He was publicly disobeying the will of the Church Council and the bishops - a big deal. And he was not even above disturbing the Holy Liturgy just to express his dissent. What he said about the bishops who agreed to said change must not have been kind.
Him changing the parish and going to one where Latin was used still would be actually akin to "not watching the show" and "sticking with the books". But he did not do it but kept disturbing the new rite Mass (showing off his fluency in Latin to those of less priviledged class and education in his community at the same time).
The commenters also actually just voice their dissent publicly and disturb the smooth running of the series promotion by doing it. Do not see much difference?
Last edited:
Odola
Well-Known Member
@MithLuin The Tolkien Professor asked you while discussing the RoP Trailer music in the SilmFilm podcast about the haircolours of the elf children in said trailer. There seems to be a little Aredhel among the boys (the shouder-length haired one of the boys might be Fingon as such dark-haired longer haired Gil-galad might be countinuing his father's tradition) - and a little Galadriel seems to join them later - I have noticed that before. But will Aredhel feature in any way? Could Adar be Maeglin having survived the fall (or being necromanced back by Sauron?)
Last edited:
I've not been around the ROP discussion a lot but I've been watching the trailers out on Instagram and the most recent one is a character special on Tar-Miriel. I'm a little surprised at what they did with her, and while we don't know much about her in the text, I had always interpreted her as more aligned with the Faithful like her father. It seems they've written her as more in tune with Ar-Pharazon. They've also labeled her as Queen Regent in a blurb.
Eryn Lasgalen
Member
Hi kanji_d,
I haven’t seen the video you refer to so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that at the beginning of this season, Míriel is Queen Regent because her father Tar Palantir is elderly & has stepped aside from the rule. She is one of the Faithful while her cousin sees himself as more in tune with ‘the people’. I expect Pharazon’s usurping of the throne will happen much later.
It wasn't in any trailer, it was 20 seconds of leaked phone camera footage from the exclusive Hall H screening at San Diego Comic Con, posted on Twitter and taken down not too long later. It's much better in the actual show, but I can't find any proper clips of it from the show online.
Eryn Lasgalen
Member
I have a feeling we’ll see that depiction later in the season during a recounting/flashback. Would seem unlikely they would create an impressive scene like that but not show it.
Octoburn
Active Member
It's in the prologue of episode 1, it's just pretty vague. No Morgoth, no Ungoliant, just the trees turning black and dying. Probably due to rights issues (they've mentioned Morgoth multiple times, but have yet to show him.) so I highly doubt we will ever get the actual context.
My biggest disappointment? This show is produced by one of the largest retailers in the world, but there is literally zero merchandise available. Did they not acquire at least some limited merchandise rights in the deal? I understand they make a ton based on their subscriptions, but licensing the rights to things like apparel and action figures is a big part of how streamers can justify big budget shows like Stranger Things. Without that type of deal, I'm not certain how Amazon plans to recoup the $1billion+ they have and will spend on the series. I has puzzled me for a few months how there's literally zero merchandise for this show.
It's highly probable the merchandise rights even for this show still lie with Middle-earth Enterprises, which of course was just sold, presumably after lots of bidding and negotiation. Amazon of course can sell books like nobody's business, which is I'm sure one reason Harper Collins is on board with the show.