Importance of white representation in fiction

[Valka D'Ur]

For example, we don't actually know how Middle-Earth looks, but it was loosely-inspired by various parts of Europe. Why then, was it filmed in New Zealand?

Xena: Warrior Princess is set in parts of Greece, Egypt, Rome, Turkey, India, China, Scandinavia, the steppes, and Japan. Yet the series was filmed in New Zealand.

It would appear that New Zealand offers attractive options for film crews, whether financial, infrastructure (as in you don't need to build soundstages from scratch every time), or scenery.

The same can be said of Canadian film sets that are used for international productions, whether they're in or near Vancouver, Calgary, or Toronto.

Besides... if you need a setting that has a lot of untamed vegetation or lush forests, you're not going to find as much of that in Europe as you used to since it's been tamed, sculpted, paved over, cut down, built over, or replanted with different vegetation. What you need just doesn't exist anymore, or at least not in any way to film without the current century's infrastructure intruding.

 

[Communist Violin Girl]

Like hypothetical casting of non-white actors in LotR aside I think Jude Owusu would make a great Aragorn. I was his Tamburlaine in 2018 and let me tell you his performance as an actor would make a much better adaptation that just appealing to the little white guys. Or maybe like David Gyasi as Saruman. Its not hard to think of actors who would be great for these roles who aren't necessarily white and yeah, I don't think they should have to be

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Communist Violin Girl Welcome to Off topic.

 

[Gorbles]

What did you see that conflicted with your data? And again I don’t know if the link I posted was accurate?

I was going off of you saying "It points to skin color actually being a prerequisite to getting a job", but the piece you provided does seem to suggest that.

By the stats I found, the majority of roles are still going to straight / or white and / or men. Non-minorities, basically.

 

[Sarin]

You accused me of selectively-quoting you. You didn't care about my reasons, you simply accused me of it. I'm saying you're doing the same thing, but it's okay when you do it, apparently

You selectively quoted my conversation with another poster. That's something else. You've inserted yourself into it, disregarding the conversation, riding only that one quote. I've chosen to ignore some of your ramblings that didn't really make an argument.

And? You're still reading into the unspoken in a way that conforms to your biases. Also, again, they're not depicted as East Asian like you claimed them to be lol. Nor is Saruman, who also went with them originally. Your entire premise of "Gandalf is black and therefore this would breed distrust" purely based on the similarity of skin tone is you transplanting real-world bias into Middle-Earth. Middle-Earth has its own reasons for bias. Skin tone is significantly-varied (you still haven't looked up the House of Beor, huh) that would cause distrust based on it to be an arguably unwise decision to default to.

And here we have the depth of your hypocrisy.

You've asserted previously in this thread that because his skin color is left unmentioned, Gandalf could be black. There's even less written on appearance of Blue Wizards. And yet, you deny them the same benefit. Why? Because I used same reasoning for asserting they COULD be Asian (you missed that, again. I never wrote they definitely are) to assert that there's a reason why Gandalf would likely be white? You even fall back to non-canonical depictions, which also depict Gandalf to be white, for your point.

And? So are you, to more posters than just me. Practise what you preach, and maybe you'll get different replies. I see someone whining about how a black Gandalf breeds "distrust" just because they're black and it's my initial thought is "lol".
I'm fine with being polite, personally. You can say someone is misquoting you while still being polite. You're just going straight to insults because you can't comprehend the basic notion that your opinion isn't fact. You proposed a theory. That a black Gandalf wouldn't be trusted by Gondor. This wasn't your first theory, but let's go with it. You have basically refused to accept any other possible theories, and you've dealt with criticism of your theory incredible badly. This isn't me lying, this is me just describing your behaviour.

In my book, politeness is being straight with someone. I do not consider empty smiles or words to be polite.

Here's a quote from the book, from a guard of Edoras: "Never have we seen other riders so strange". This was after Gandalf quizzed them on why they spoke Riddermark as supposed the Common Tongue. They already looked different. The guard also straight-up asked them if they were a spy from Saruman. There is literally no difference in Gandalf being black, because there was already mistrust (and the biggest enemies Rohan had in terms of geography were the Wildmen, who were, well, white).

"A wizard, elf and dwarf walk into the Golden hall, and doorman asks: Who's that hobo with you?"

The whole company certainly did look strange to them, all together. Only Gandalf, alone? Maybe not so much. And besides, Gandalf was known to be a a wizard...just like that troublesome white guy in a tower. Of course that he'd be suspicious AFTER Saruman's treachery. Also, it's funny how you switched toward Rohan, which IIRC wasn't in original Istari plan and Rohirrim only settled there way after the wizards arrived. Contrast that with the first chapter of RotK, where simply said he needs to see Denethor, blew past the guards and was ushered in without anyone saying a word against it.

I can write what I want, it doesn't matter if you don't read it. Of course you're not going to think my (or AZ's, or anyone's) arguments are solid, because you're convinced your opinion is fact. You do it again by talking about "disregarding the entirety of human history". Tolkien wasn't writing human history. He wrote an entire mythology. He invented realistic languages. Humans were in it. But so were orcs, ents, hobbits, elves, dwarves, dragons, and so on. You're trying to take our history, and mapping it 1:1 without any changes into Middle-Earth. That's on you. The fact that Middle-Earth is loosely based on Europe doesn't mean everything translates exactly as-is.

Nope. I'm merely projecting human nature upon humans of Middle-Earth. Earth's history is merely my evidence that I'm right about human nature. War breeds mistrust and hate. And other things, but it's the mistrust and hate that are relevant in this conversation.

You're "just self-inserting, that despite all that, his role would be more difficult if he wasn't white". It's not impossible. It's possible to write a version of Middle-Earth where Gandalf is black and finds his tasks more difficult. But likewise, it's possible to write a verison where he's black and it isn't. Because the writing doesn't clarify it either way. Because the writing that we have places no emphasis on skin tones in pretty much any interaction in the entire Lord of the Rings. There's more emphasis on the colour of someone's hair than there is skin tone. Grima was (explictly) white (or pale). Saruman was (implicitly) white. If skin tone drove distrust, logically you'd expect that to manifest based on these signifiers alone. But it doesn't. It's your belief that Gandalf being black would result in a different outcome. It's not factual. People aren't engaged in "wishful thinking" just because they disagree with your belief.

It's not my problem that you can't engage critically with other peoples' arguments. That's a you thing. And based on current evidence, you're not going to realise the problem anytime soon.

You haven't actually written much to be engaged with. Even when you're not being blatantly dishonest or hypocritical, your arguments seem to have problem with comprehension. When I wrote about human nature, as evidenced by history, you're only seeing word "history". You're sometimes ignoring modality in sentences. When I wrote about gaining trust, you wrote about using force to gain it-which isn't trust but fear, and it would be against Istari mission anyway.

So I'm done with you. No more replying. You're not worth wearing out the keyboard.

 

[Gorbles]

You selectively quoted my conversation with another poster. That's something else. You've inserted yourself into it, disregarding the conversation, riding only that one quote. I've chosen to ignore some of your ramblings that didn't really make an argument.

Alternatively, I chose to ignore the parts of your rambling that didn't really make an argument. But sure. You're justified in how you treat other peoples' posts and I'm not

And here we have the depth of your hypocrisy.

You've asserted previously in this thread that because his skin color is left unmentioned, Gandalf could be black. There's even less written on appearance of Blue Wizards. And yet, you deny them the same benefit. Why? Because I used same reasoning for asserting they COULD be Asian (you missed that, again. I never wrote they definitely are) to assert that there's a reason why Gandalf would likely be white? You even fall back to non-canonical depictions, which also depict Gandalf to be white, for your point.

No . . . you're just demonstrating the limitations of your argument. Because you see your opinion as fact, and everyone elses' opinion not as a different viewpoint to be respected, but something to be torn down and the posters insulted.

I'm demonstrating the inconsistency in your logic. The Blue Wizards, by my argument, could look however they want. You're the one who is both insisting that Gandalf can't be black, while simultaneously claiming that the Blue Wizards were East Asian. You're doing this because you've locked yourself into the argument that trust in Middle-Earth is driven primarily by characteristics like skin tone. Ergo, the Blue Wizards to you are likely not white, because they went off to Rhun. But Gandalf can't be black, because he's interacting with Gondor, the remnants of Arnor, and the like. I understand the argument you're trying to make. But it relies on inconsistent assumptions r.e. the skin tone of the wizards and the general setting of Middle-Earth that you yourself are trying to defend.

In my book, politeness is being straight with someone. I do not consider empty smiles or words to be polite.

You can define words however you wish. Doesn't make it right, but nobody can stop you.

"A wizard, elf and dwarf walk into the Golden hall, and doorman asks: Who's that hobo with you?"

The whole company certainly did look strange to them, all together. Only Gandalf, alone? Maybe not so much.

Assumption.

And besides, Gandalf was known to be a a wizard...just like that troublesome white guy in a tower. Of course that he'd be suspicious AFTER Saruman's treachery.

Correct. Rendering his skin tone in that context pretty irrelevant, no? My point was to demonstrate that trust was not necessary, and indeed, barely present, in interactions in the novel (and in the film, but they present the Edoras scene a bit differently there).

Also, it's funny how you switched toward Rohan, which IIRC wasn't in original Istari plan and Rohirrim only settled there way after the wizards arrived. Contrast that with the first chapter of RotK, where simply said he needs to see Denethor, blew past the guards and was ushered in without anyone saying a word against it.

I chose the Edoras scene because I had an excerpt to hand. Your argument needs to be consistent for all interactions in the novels, and not the ones you select just because they fit your assumptions.

But sure, let's pick Denethor and Gondor. Denethor, who canonically distrusts Gandalf due to the wizard being friendly with elves, and Denethor's own mental harm given his Palantir-staring contests with Sauron. The trust wasn't there, either. But you insist trust is required for such an audience, in direct contravention of the plot of the novel (and film).

Really struggling to see how your argument here isn't anything but you inserting content into the Lord of the Rings that doesn't actually exist.

Nope. I'm merely projecting human nature upon humans of Middle-Earth. Earth's history is merely my evidence that I'm right about human nature. War breeds mistrust and hate. And other things, but it's the mistrust and hate that are relevant in this conversation.

Thankyou for admitting you are projecting your interpretation of things into the setting. You aren't capable of projecting some kind of objective unbiased view - nobody is.

You haven't actually written much to be engaged with. Even when you're not being blatantly dishonest or hypocritical, your arguments seem to have problem with comprehension. When I wrote about human nature, as evidenced by history, you're only seeing word "history". You're sometimes ignoring modality in sentences. When I wrote about gaining trust, you wrote about using force to gain it-which isn't trust but fear, and it would be against Istari mission anyway.

Deciding that I'm being hypocritical is a choice you made early on because you both lack the critical understanding of Tolkien's works, and because you're dead-set on Gandalf being unable to be black and have decided a good way to do that is make comments about the posters, rather than their arguments, when they contradict or even just argue against you.

So I'm done with you. No more replying. You're not worth wearing out the keyboard.

I take no offense at you deciding this isn't worth the effort. I do however find this pretty funny after you spent the time and effort to try and get the last word in. Do not take this as some kind of invitation to force a reply - I just wanted to have my say, too.

 

[Akka]

It sticks out to you. Because of how the setting comes across to you personally. How is it contrived for someone else to view it differently?

We covered this extensively already. There are lots of details (official drawing approved by Tolkien, Viking-inspired mythology, white-skinned people unused to other-colour-skinned people not noticing his skin colour, etc.) that simply implies he's white. At some point I'm not going to just keep repeating the same things nor pretend that all these nuances count for nothing, especially as it's been argued for pages why and how implicit counts.

How is depicting the cultural diversity of society on the big screen political propaganda?

1) Because it's not our society that is depicted in the work.
2) Even if it were, it's not how it was depicted in the work to begin with.
3) The very concept of "representation" is a political message, which didn't exist in the work.
It's modifying the work to pass a political message, that's the very concept of propaganda.

Also, if we assume that we're trying to hire a good fit for the role, in modern society that's increasingly going to be someone who isn't necessarily white. Modern society is multicultural in a lot of respects (in Western countries), which means applicants looking to be cast in a role are going to be similarly diverse.

Terrible argument, someone who is a "good fit" for a role is already someone who should look like the character, the composition of society is totally irrelevant (unless there is such a lack of people looking like the character that there is a need to fall down on someone else, but by then it's not a choice but a constraint, we're far from being there yet).

This comes back to my stance that politics pervades things by default. Not changing something that was written seventy years ago is a conscious decision that will reflect the beliefs - cultural, political, you name it - of the person making the adaptation.

And I've already pointed this very problem, that it's stretching the concept and definition to such a point it becomes meaningless. Everything is also cultural, everything is also societal, and when I'm writing "lol" in chat it's also art, creativity, literature and computer science if we go by it. It's not because that, as humans, we are necessarily subject to the flow and ideas of our times (which means that yes, at some level politics do permeate several aspects of arts), that everything is relevant to politics.

This mindset of treating everything as political is precisely what I'm rejecting, what I don't want to see in adaptations (and what I'm tired to see in "art", with heavy quotes) and I absolutely refuse this absolutist vision where nothing has room to escape the political fundamentalism that tries to inject itself in every aspect of the life (governments that do that have a name : totalitarians).

 

[Gorbles]

We covered this extensively already. There are lots of details (official drawing approved by Tolkien, Viking-inspired mythology, white-skinned people unused to other-colour-skinned people not noticing his skin colour, etc.) that simply implies he's white. At some point I'm not going to just keep repeating the same things nor pretend that all these nuances count for nothing, especially as it's been argued for pages why and how implicit counts.

I understand the implicit argument. I'm asking why it's contrived to imagine it differently. Tolkien can't approve anymore drawings. All we can do is interpret the text and go from there. If the text isn't explicit, there's wiggle room. I understand why it matters to you, being more purist in terms of what you expect from an adaptation. I still don't understand why this wiggle room is apparently a contrivance, or somehow a net negative. Though I suspect it ties into your views on representation and the political nature of art, which I'll reply to next.

1) Because it's not our society that is depicted in the work.
2) Even if it were, it's not how it was depicted in the work to begin with.
3) The very concept of "representation" is a political message, which didn't exist in the work.
It's modifying the work to pass a political message, that's the very concept of propaganda.

1. We're increasingly portraying societies in a time and place which are impossible to depict wholly accurately. I appreciate the purist argument here, but I don't see it as viable as a permanent rule for adaptations.
2. Same as the above.
3. We have already established that things are changed in the work for less-political or apolitical reasons. I don't agree with "not existing in the work". The problem is people agreeing (or not) with the reasons for excluding or including things. Which is going to be subjective by their very nature.
4. But we respect political messages embedded by the creator, even if that itself could also be propaganda? I'm trying to establish a baseline that doesn't just apply to LotR, but consistently, generally. I don't believe authors are sacrosanct just because they happened to write something first. Maybe that's just something we agree to disagree on.

Terrible argument, someone who is a "good fit" for a role is already someone who should look like the character, the composition of society is totally irrelevant.

I don't agree, and I think it's unfair to call it a terrible argument. Regardless, as I mentioned above, I see the composition of society as necessary - and increasingly so as the world continues to change.

And I've already pointed this very problem, that it's stretching the concept and definition to such a point it becomes meaningless. Everything is also cultural, everything is also societal, and when I'm writing "lol" in chat it's also art, creativity, literature and computer science if we go by it. It's not because that, as humans, we are necessarily subject to the flow and ideas of our times (which means that yes, at some level politics do permeate several aspects of arts), that everything is relevant to politics.

This mindset of treating everything as political is precisely what I'm rejecting, what I don't want to see in adaptations (and what I'm tired to see in "art", with heavy quotes) and I absolutely refuse and reject this absolutist vision where nothing has room to escape the political fundamentalism that tries to inject itself in every aspect of the life (government that does that have a name : totalitarians).

So you don't want politics in art, fair enough. I fundamentally disagree, and that's probably where we differ. Does that mean I think entertainment for you should cease to exist? No. But I hope the reverse is also true.

 

[Senethro]

We covered this extensively already. There are lots of details (official drawing approved by Tolkien, Viking-inspired mythology, white-skinned people unused to other-colour-skinned people not noticing his skin colour, etc.) that simply implies he's white. At some point I'm not going to just keep repeating the same things nor pretend that all these nuances count for nothing, especially as it's been argued for pages why and how implicit counts.

1) Because it's not our society that is depicted in the work.
2) Even if it were, it's not how it was depicted in the work to begin with.
3) The very concept of "representation" is a political message, which didn't exist in the work.
It's modifying the work to pass a political message, that's the very concept of propaganda.

Terrible argument, someone who is a "good fit" for a role is already someone who should look like the character, the composition of society is totally irrelevant (unless there is such a lack of people looking like the character that there is a need to fall down on someone else, but by then it's not a choice but a constraint, we're far from being there yet).

And I've already pointed this very problem, that it's stretching the concept and definition to such a point it becomes meaningless. Everything is also cultural, everything is also societal, and when I'm writing "lol" in chat it's also art, creativity, literature and computer science if we go by it. It's not because that, as humans, we are necessarily subject to the flow and ideas of our times (which means that yes, at some level politics do permeate several aspects of arts), that everything is relevant to politics.

This mindset of treating everything as political is precisely what I'm rejecting, what I don't want to see in adaptations (and what I'm tired to see in "art", with heavy quotes) and I absolutely refuse this absolutist vision where nothing has room to escape the political fundamentalism that tries to inject itself in every aspect of the life (governments that do that have a name : totalitarians).

Accuracy to fiction is not a self evident good. And certainly not one to develop a bizarre reactionary position of some kind racial authenticity about.

You're complaining about political intent even as you've created one.

 

[Akka]

I understand the implicit argument. I'm asking why it's contrived to imagine it differently.

Because you're trying to find reason to not go with what is implicit. That's kinda the point of something being contrived.
I'll refer you to the samurai armor example.

But we respect political messages embedded by the creator, even if that itself could also be propaganda?

Yet again, it's a point I've already treated. A lot of times.
The first is here :

Obviously a work of art can be political. Lots of them are. Pamphlets are based on it. I don't mind that works of art can be political. What I mind is when taking an existing work and inserting new politics in it. If you (general "you") have a message to convey, then do it with your own work, don't piggyback what someone else created just to get a platform.

Someone makes a serie about inclusion and diversity and whatever ? Fine, do it. I mean, I'm probably not be interested in it because I'm just tired of the subject, but at worst I'll just say "oh gawd, another one", roll my eyes and go my way. Nobody said that a work of art has to please everybody.
But don't twist and bend something which already exists (and which has often its own message).

Not going to hunt down every other instances in the thread, this one is sufficient.

I don't agree, and I think it's unfair to call it a terrible argument. Regardless, as I mentioned above, I see the composition of society as necessary - and increasingly so as the world continues to change.

And that's just an example of altering an artistic work for political reasons which have nothing to do with the work. Shoo.

So you don't want politics in art, fair enough. I fundamentally disagree, and that's probably where we differ. Does that mean I think entertainment for you should cease to exist? No. But I hope the reverse is also true.

As said above in my previous quote, I don't care if someone create a work that happens to be political. What I don't want is the subjugation of art by politics, which is pretty different (something I again already said : I'm fine with whatever serves the art, I'm not fine with whatever exploit the art).

I also refuse the authoritarian vision that everything is political and as such we are conscripted into some sort of political battleground whether we want it or not as soon as we want to create anything. I reject the smothering of art under the requirement to conform to political mandate.

 

[Senethro]

"You can't political here, this is the Art Room!"

 

[RobAnybody]

Are only certain people seeing where @Akka said "Obviously a work of art can be political." Is that quote invisible to some posters? It's bizarre how people keep tilting at that windmill,

 

[Gorbles]

Are only certain people seeing where @Akka said "Obviously a work of art can be political." Is that quote invisible to some posters? It's bizarre how people keep tilting at that windmill,

I mean, if you want to actually quote "certain peoples'" arguments, instead of constructing some kind of strawman by inserting yourself after-the-fact, that might help. I'm kinda left rolling my eyes, sorry. I've made the debate of politics in art a core part of my argument, and am continuing to do so. I guess my doing so is just invisible to some posters

Because you're trying to find reason to not go with what is implicit. That's kinda the point of something being contrived.
I'll refer you to the samurai armor example.

But armour is explicitly described throughout Tolkien's works. There's quite a bit of debate about the specifics, but the descriptions of what characters wear is actually an area that Tolkien repeatedly went into detail on.

Regardless, I disagree that that's what "contrived" means. The whole point of something being implicit means that people are going to find different interpretations. Once again we seem to be back to the idea that doing so is inherently wrong, which I also disagree with.

Yet again, it's a point I've already treated. A lot of times.

Right. So would be it fair for me to say you think works of art made political are fine (regardless of their politics), but any changing of a piece of work to reflect any other politics is wrong?

And that's just an example of altering an artistic work for political reasons which have nothing to do with the work. Shoo.

I'm really getting the impression that you are effectively saying alterations to an artistic work that you find distasteful shouldn't exist. Am I wrong?

As said above in my previous quote, I don't care if someone create a work that happens to be political. What I don't want is the subjugation of art by politics, which is pretty different (something I again already said : I'm fine with whatever serves the art, I'm not fine with whatever exploit the art).

I also refuse the authoritarian vision that everything is political and as such we are conscripted into some sort of political battleground whether we want it or not as soon as we want to create anything. I reject the smothering of art under the requirement to conform to political mandate.

The problem is the definition between "serving the art" and "exploiting the art" seems to be a personal view you yourself hold, rather than any objective standard (if an objective standard is even possible).

r.e. "everything is political", perhaps the problem there is you see it as conscripting people into some kind of battleground. While that obviously does happen (see: "culture war" rhetoric), to me it doesn't automatically make it so. There doesn't have to be a mandate. Implicit vs. explicit. You are very insistent that the implicit matters when adopting Tolkien's work, but the impression I've got here on this tangent is you reject the implicit here. You require politics itself to be explicit. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[aelf]

I mean, if you want to actually quote "certain peoples'" arguments, instead of constructing some kind of strawman by inserting yourself after-the-fact, that might help. I'm kinda left rolling my eyes, sorry. I've made the debate of politics in art a core part of my argument, and am continuing to do so. I guess my doing so is just invisible to some posters

What seems to be happening a lot in this thread is people seeing only what they want to see and not seeing what they don't want to see.

Saw it early on when people had trouble processing the idea that stoicity as a necessary trait in masculinity is an outdated notion - they automatically assume that this means believing outdated ideas cannot make a comeback, refusing to see any other way of looking at it.

 

[Senethro]

The problem is the definition between "serving the art" and "exploiting the art" seems to be a personal view you yourself hold, rather than any objective standard (if an objective standard is even possible).

r.e. "everything is political", perhaps the problem there is you see it as conscripting people into some kind of battleground. While that obviously does happen (see: "culture war" rhetoric), to me it doesn't automatically make it so. There doesn't have to be a mandate. Implicit vs. explicit. You are very insistent that the implicit matters when adopting Tolkien's work, but the impression I've got here on this tangent is you reject the implicit here. You require politics itself to be explicit. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

There does seem to be a problem in that we lack an experienced and trustworthy person who can determine whether any new cultural works or adaptions are serving art or exploiting art. Perhaps we ought to commission an office of Correct Politics.

Better than self appointed volunteers, right?

 

[warpus]

I don't understand why it would be any indicator of the ancestral ethnicity of House Corrino. Liet-Kynes is a government employee, not a member of the Corrino family. He's not even slightly royal or even aristocratic.

No, not Kynes, I was talking about the Herald of change who shows up at the beginning of the movie. So far the hints we've seen of the Imperium have been played by black actors, which might be a hint for the sequel. Or not.

Weird? If you marry a black person and have kids with them, your sibling/sibling-in-law's kids may have black cousins.

What I meant was - would it be weird if you have a cousin and his whole side of the family be east Asian (or black or whatever), with no exceptions, but your other side of the family is all white? Like, the Atreides all seem to look alike, right? Same with the Harkonnen. I expect the Corinnos to all look similar to the same degree, whatever they end up looking like. Would it be realistic for them to all be related but each group looks completely different?

Wouldn't you expect a mixed family to be more mixed? And not so neatly split up into ethnic groups- this side of the family being black, this side of the family being white? I've looked up some interracial families and they seem a lot more mixed, so on a much larger scale you'd expect more mixing, not less. My family is more or less all Polish, with a German husband here, and.. a Scottish Canadian there. So I don't have any personal experience with a large multi-ethnic family or whatever, which is why I ask.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There does seem to be a problem in that we lack an experienced and trustworthy person who can determine whether any new cultural works or adaptions are serving art or exploiting art.

I can do that for you.....

 

[Valka D'Ur]

No, not Kynes, I was talking about the Herald of change who shows up at the beginning of the movie. So far the hints we've seen of the Imperium have been played by black actors, which might be a hint for the sequel. Or not.

Ah, okay. In the Lynch movie, Liet-Kynes fulfilled both duties, Imperial Planetologist and Judge of the Change.

It could be a coincidence.

What I meant was - would it be weird if you have a cousin and his whole side of the family be east Asian (or black or whatever), with no exceptions, but your other side of the family is all white? Like, the Atreides all seem to look alike, right? Same with the Harkonnen. I expect the Corinnos to all look similar to the same degree, whatever they end up looking like. Would it be realistic for them to all be related but each group looks completely different?

I understood what you meant, and no, it wouldn't be realistic.

But one thing to keep in mind, which fans understand but movie producers probably wouldn't, is that the Bene Gesserit decided who to push for Shaddam to marry, and they ordered her to only bear daughters. The Bene Gesserit had every intention of influencing the direction of the next generation of Imperial rulers, and Irulan had at least some Bene Gesserit training, though nowhere near as much as Jessica and she was never intended to become a Reverend Mother. And with the Bene Gesserit, it's genes that matter, not external factors such as skin color.

My impression from the trailers is that the Harkonnens are all bald. So that right there eliminates one of the clues Paul has that Jessica is really the Baron's daughter - because they both have red hair, and red hair is a known Harkonnen trait. Both the Lynch movie and the first miniseries kept this part of the canon to a large extent, though teenage/adult Alia was played by a dark-haired woman and miniseries Jessica (along with the other Atreides) was blonde.

Wouldn't you expect a mixed family to be more mixed? And not so neatly split up into ethnic groups- this side of the family being black, this side of the family being white? I've looked up some interracial families and they seem a lot more mixed, so on a much larger scale you'd expect more mixing, not less. My family is more or less all Polish, with a German husband here, and.. a Scottish Canadian there. So I don't have any personal experience with a large multi-ethnic family or whatever, which is why I ask.

Of course I'd expect more mixing. That said, some family genetic traits are extremely dominant, like in my family. My mother's side was full of red-haired people. My dad's side was mostly blond. When I was younger, I sometimes noticed the odd strand of strawberry blonde in my hair, in direct afternoon sunlight, but there weren't many. I take after my dad, and he took after his maternal grandfather. I was told that when I was a baby, my mother looked at me and was immediately reminded of my grandmother's sister. Having seen a photo of her when she was about 8, I have to agree that it was plausible. Aside from the different clothing, my hair was that color once upon a time, and I remember having worn that same grumpy expression when told to pose for a family photo and not wanting to. But the pictures were 60 years apart.

 

[warpus]

Are there any hints in the Dune universe of genetic engineering beyond what the Bene Tleilax do? I've been thinking about this a bit. Why do all Atreides look so Greek and all the Harkonnen look so.. Finnish or err Russian or whatever their ancestry is supposed to be? It makes sense until you remember that the great houses interbreed, like in medieval Europe. Shouldn't the royal families of all the Great houses be really intermixed in terms of how they look? Instead it seems that all the Atreides, whether it's the Duke and his familiy or a commoner - more or less look Greek-ish. I swear I got some of this from some of the 6 novels and not only the movie - am I misremembering?

One thing I really liked in the new movie was the Herald of Change. The actor is a Nigerian dude who just.. was perfect in the role. The way he carried himself, the way he looked, and the way he spoke.. all sort of just.. landed so well for me. I realize this scene was not in the novel, but it explains several aspects of the novel in a unique way, especially with the various characters glancing at each other throughout this scene, and all those kinds of nuances. A lot of the story was told in that one relatively short scene, I loved it.

It made me think.. Will House Corrino carry that sort of Nigerian-influenced vibe? How would that work with the rest of the story? How can everyone be related when they look just so different from the Atreides and Harkonnen and each of the houses looks so .. homogenous? Can we use genetic engineering to explain this? Does each house ensure that their children look like their ancestors or something? None of this is in the books, I don't think, but I want some headcanon ready for the sequel, in case they go in that direction. I really liked the Herald of Change, it's IMO the perfect sort of "vibe" for House Corrino, so maybe that's why I feel that they are going to go in that direction. It would feel right for me, but I want to be able to internally explain how they can be related while they look so different (and each house is so homogenous)

I suppose we'll see where they go with the casting, but this did raise the question of "Why is each house so homogenous looking if they interbreed?". If it's not genetic engineering, is it maybe the Bene Gesserit modifying some internal chemistry when they are pregnant or something? Just throwing some potential ideas out there. I swear the novels describe members of House Atreides to be all more or less Greek-ish, while the Harkonnen are described differently (the one similarity being the red hair maybe?)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are there any hints in the Dune universe of genetic engineering beyond what the Bene Tleilax do? I've been thinking about this a bit. Why do all Atreides look so Greek and all the Harkonnen look so.. Finnish or err Russian or whatever their ancestry is supposed to be? It makes sense until you remember that the great houses interbreed, like in medieval Europe. Shouldn't the royal families of all the Great houses be really intermixed in terms of how they look? Instead it seems that all the Atreides, whether it's the Duke and his familiy or a commoner - more or less look Greek-ish. I swear I got some of this from some of the 6 novels and not only the movie - am I misremembering?

One thing I really liked in the new movie was the Herald of Change. The actor is a Nigerian dude who just.. was perfect in the role. The way he carried himself, the way he looked, and the way he spoke.. all sort of just.. landed so well for me. I realize this scene was not in the novel, but it explains several aspects of the novel in a unique way, especially with the various characters glancing at each other throughout this scene, and all those kinds of nuances. A lot of the story was told in that one relatively short scene, I loved it.

It made me think.. Will House Corrino carry that sort of Nigerian-influenced vibe? How would that work with the rest of the story? How can everyone be related when they look just so different from the Atreides and Harkonnen and each of the houses looks so .. homogenous? Can we use genetic engineering to explain this? Does each house ensure that their children look like their ancestors or something? None of this is in the books, I don't think, but I want some headcanon ready for the sequel, in case they go in that direction. I really liked the Herald of Change, it's IMO the perfect sort of "vibe" for House Corrino, so maybe that's why I feel that they are going to go in that direction. It would feel right for me, but I want to be able to internally explain how they can be related while they look so different (and each house is so homogenous)

I suppose we'll see where they go with the casting, but this did raise the question of "Why is each house so homogenous looking if they interbreed?". If it's not genetic engineering, is it maybe the Bene Gesserit modifying some internal chemistry when they are pregnant or something? Just throwing some potential ideas out there. I swear the novels describe members of House Atreides to be all more or less Greek-ish, while the Harkonnen are described differently (the one similarity being the red hair maybe?)

Once you get hold of a copy of the Dune Encyclopedia, there are some very detailed articles explaining the Great Houses, the Houses Minor, how the Landsraad works, and so on.

My theory is that there are certain Great Houses that are more noble than others, and the Houses/families tend to stick with their own 'levels' of nobility. The best "mainstream" dramatic example I can think of is with the Harry Potter universe, in which it's explained why the Malfoy family looks down on the Weasley family even though they're both pureblood families. The Weasleys aren't wealthy and they're notoriously Muggle-friendly. This means they - and the Potters, another pureblood but Muggle-friendly family - are considered "blood traitors" and therefore not much better than half-bloods. There's also this "Sacred 28" business in which the loftiest of the pureblood wizarding families fall into one of just 28 Houses, many of which are either extinct by the time Harry is born, or nearly so. Some of the families tend to intermarry with each other over several generations (and sometimes marriages take place that aren't entirely approved but still tolerated if both are pureblood). This is why Harry, Sirius Black, Draco Malfoy, and Ron Weasley are all distant cousins - intermarriage occurred among their parents' or grandparents' generations and one of Sirius' cousins is Draco's mother. And one reason Sirius was always considered a bit odd had nothing to do with his 12 years in Azkaban, but rather because his parents were full cousins who married to help keep the Black family magic "pure".

So in the case of Dune, you have some of the Great Houses tending to intermarry with other Great Houses at their own levels, depending on how wealthy they are, how far back they can trace their noble lineage, how in or out of favor they might be with the Emperor, how closely they might actually be to House Corrino, and so on. In the novel it says that Duke Leto Atreides is a cousin to Emperor Shaddam IV "on the distaff side" so that does mean that Leto has some, albeit distant, legitimate claim to the throne. But Paul cuts through that (and the inconvenience of dealing with anyone who might have a closer claim) by marrying Irulan. Part of the plot of Children of Dune involves Irulan's younger sister, Wensicia, trying to assassinate the Atreides twins and putting her son, Farad'n, on the throne.

I honestly think the answer to your question is something of a mix between dominant genetic traits, Bene Gesserit manipulation, and what I described of certain Great Houses preferring to marry and interbreed with a limited number of other Great Houses (due to reasons of alliances both military and financial, political, tradition, and outright snobbery that they couldn't possibly marry anyone who couldn't trace their lineage back at least x number of generations).

But this has intrigued me enough to check out the Encyclopedia's articles about this to refresh my memory.