I am going to rock the boat a little. I am admittedly not a big Tolkien fan ( I think tried reading one book once and, to me, it was worse experience than Ulysses ). I can easily plead ignorance here.
Are there any black guys mentioned in those books? If not, not sticking to script is a valid complaint ( see how annoyed people were with Game of Thrones departure -- it is not a question of race; it is a question of movie not matching image in your head ). If yes, its downvoting for the sake of a different political ( anti-woke ) agenda.
Minor roles only as southerners "middelearth-terranean" pirates. LOT mimicks the Tolkien World, that was European and catholic, and roots deep in European mythology and about experiencing World War.
There is not a lot of room to introduce Asian or African characters in that history and they can distract easily from the immersion. Is not different that seeing white actors posing as American natives in old films with a ridiculous hairpiece and make up. Nobody expects forcing an African character in Chinese mythology, or imposing a white character in each African film, and this is perfectly Ok. Why shouldn't be ok?
The current trend to flood histories with stereotypes to please every single possible viewer is frankly annoying. I'm fearing the appearance of the bullied gay dwarf at any moment.
I must admit, the sight of a black man entering a tavern full of white people did not urk me in the slightest. In fact, the thought that it might be odd never even entered my mind and never broke my immersion.
The characters a bland enough that there is plenty to complain about that does not include their race or sexual orientation. Does "race" even apply considering there is literal other races?
> I must admit, the sight of a black man entering a tavern full of white people did not urk me in the slightest. In fact, the thought that it might be odd never even entered my mind and never broke my immersion.
This depends entirely on your knowledge. There are people who won't notice a 1970s car in a movie set in 1950s because they don't know anything about cars, and then there are those to whom it's utterly immersion-breaking because the anachronistic car is associated with much later things for them and the mismatch sticks out like a sore thumb.
The tricky part is that even if the source material has no non-white people in it, the real world does and representation matters.
If you cast diverse actors, you are less precise, but are making the world a (slightly) better place for underrepresented and disadvantaged people. If you don't, you are more precise and are making the world a (slightly) worse place for underrepresented and disadvantaged people.
You put me in a difficult position. I don't really watch movies anymore ( Joaquin's Joker was ok ). I rarely get into shows ( I was amused by Boys ). I still read a little. That said, I can absolutely guarantee you that never have I ever in my entire existence on this planet read something and thought to myself "If only Geralt was black, or at least a gypsy, the world would be a better place" for several different yet related reasons:
1. It is supposed to be my entertainment and not a social project ( or more accurately, it can be both, but entertainment should be the primary consideration; after all, if I pay, I expect some value )
2. I do not accept the assertion that it does make better place for underrepresented and disadvantaged people. Right now, it is actually making it worse. You may not be seeing it, but counter-culture is rejecting it pretty hard and that is with all the internet censorship in full swing ( granted, currently for corporate reasons, but censorship is censorship is censorship ). If anything, this hamfisted approach creates a whole new generation of actual racists.. I do not think that makes for a better place for "underrepresented and disadvantaged people".
I don't buy the binary framing either. To me, neither is important.
Things are inseparable. I mean you can write shallow stories, but anything attempting to map realistic worlds to fictional ones is going to have conflicts including those that are considered 'politics'.
The crux should be the writing, immersion, and ability to be invested in a story with these things.
I mean, Tolkien is dead. Shakespeare is dead. Homer is dead.
We can't make more Tolkien, Shakespeare, or Homer. We can just put our own spin on the stories they told, retell or reinterpret them as we see fit. The "most faithful" adaptation of their stories to the screen is still an adaptation.
If you enjoy the original works ... enjoy the original works.
Are there any black guys mentioned in those books? If not, not sticking to script is a valid complaint ( see how annoyed people were with Game of Thrones departure -- it is not a question of race; it is a question of movie not matching image in your head ). If yes, its downvoting for the sake of a different political ( anti-woke ) agenda.