No, you can go back and see he cited the LOTR movies as well.
Not to mention this is TOLKIEN, the most renowned fantasy author of all time, and Rings of Power also had the huge support of LoTR movie goers to watch, it isn't like this show had no help coming in, it probably had the highest possible starting point you could get for a show (HotD COULD have equaled it if later seasons of GoT were actually good, but that is a tangent).
That's a MASSIVE difference to your argument that focuses only on Tolkien's name as though it were the only relevant factor here.
Now, whether what he says about RoP declining that popularity or not, that's completely debatable and I don't see there being any indication for a rise or decline of the property based on viewer numbers alone. It's too early to tell what the impact and reach would be just based on first 24-hour numbers, so I wouldn't be quick to judge that either way.
Last edited by Triceron; 2022-09-15 at 08:14 PM.
Well I don't know what we're arguing here then, since I said myself that I'm willing to bet PJs movies were a bigger draw than Tolkien's books.
- - - Updated - - -
Pot and kettle much? Nowhere did I defend RoP; I didn't even say it's good, I said the first few episodes were a boring world building affair.
It has sold about 150 million copies worldwide over the past sixty-eight years.
I'm not saying it's unknown, but it's definitely not some huge cultural touchstone. Not until, at least, the Jackson movies.
Don Quixote more than triples the number sold and if you mentioned it in casual conversation many people would have no clue what you're talking about. The first Harry Potter book has sold more than two-thirds the number of books as LotR and it's only twenty-one years old, less than a third the age of Rings.
The books are a previous generations story. More people today recognize the story due to the Jackson movies than the books. If you removed all the Jackson movies from existence and released Rings of Power in that vacuum then it would have only a fraction of the interest it currently has.
I'm sorry are you a teenager or something? Do you not know who Tolkien is or was? Do you not know that every modern fantasy writer credit his work and everyone in the world pretty much knew about Lord of the Rings before the movies came out? It's not a modern phenomenon.
All of Tolkiens books have sold over 600 million copies (Lotr, Hobbit, Silmarillion, Lost tales and all the other books C Tolkien finished from notes and stories).
What you said now is fucking hilarious and just show how amazingly unknowledgeable a person can be.
Edit: Also, as someone who've been a huge Tolkien nerd since I was like 8 years old, so soon 25 years of Tolkien nerdage. Read all books (except for Fall of Gondolin which I'm reading now), even learned Quenya and Sindarin as a teenager etc.. The show is fucking amazing. It would be better if they had Silmarillion and Lost Tales rights, but it's fucking amazing. To the point I hope Tolkien Estate get their act together and sell the rights for Silmarillion for some 1st age action on screen.
Last edited by Askyl; 2022-09-15 at 08:27 PM.
Cool and the Hobbit has sold 100 million, meaning 250 million total. It is #3 on your list behind Don Quixote a book over 400 years old and A Tale of Two Cities a book over 150 years old. Like what the fuck do you qualify as huge cultural touchstone? Does it have to have monuments in every city? Does it need to personal impact the lives of everyone on the planet?
Also if people you are conversing with have no clue what Don Quixote is, you aren't conversing with many people/people with a high school education. You go into Harry Potter which yes has amazing numbers without mentioning so many other details that are contextually important, but whatever, if you want to point to Harry Potter I don't think it helps your cause.
I would concede books are no longer a big hallmark of hobbies now, but they very much still have a market/are relevant. I would say a majority of younger people recognize the story due to Jackson films, but anyone teen+ during the Jackson films if not already knowing the novels would have learned of them by then, and most of those that enjoyed the film at least sampled the novels. Again HUNDREDS OF millions collective books sold, like what the fuck number does it have to be for you? A billion? 10 billion? How do you consider it overestimating?
If you removed all the Jackson movies I would again concede it would be a smaller interest, but I very strongly disagree it would only be a fraction, as the older generations would be starved for a good Tolkien adaptation then and be very interested in the potential of Rings of Power. Again, stop downplaying this shit, it is against all facts we have.
It also doesn't do anything to disprove my point that Rings of Power had all the potential in the world to be the greatest/largest show ever and has potentially (I would contend has already, but will need final numbers to confirm) fallen not just short of that, but very short. Using your example the Potter films deviated in quite a few ways from the books, and in the later films I would say to large detriments to the story, but they were still close enough/enjoyable enough for me to give each a watch and look forward to the next (and considering the praise and how the films grew I would contend others felt very much the same). This direction helped them to become one of the greatest/most profitable film franchise in history.
I think it's important to understand that being influential does not always translate to being popular as well.
Now I am not saying Tolkien wasn't popular, he created a world with a lot of depth that is hard to replicate, but there were multiple highly influential artists across all the platforms who died less fortunate than those they inspired. Probably a price to pay for being ahead of your time.
Yes, no one, because you went off on a tangent, and now we have a bunch of people making comments on Tolkien's work vs the adaptations because of your original strawman argument.
Like you said yourself, you agreed that the LOTR movies are wider reaching. Now let' go back - where does Bledgor say the books were more far reaching than the movie adaptations?
No where. Because he never said that. All he's pointing out is that the Author is well recognized and the Books are popular, both statements being true. There's no statement made about the entire LOTR multimedia franchise being popular because of the books alone. What was said is that the property was already based on a popular book series by a well known author, and RoP had the draw of this AND the people who watched the LOTR movies, which you have admitted to agreeing to.
So I take this as a misunderstanding on your part, if anything.
Last edited by Triceron; 2022-09-15 at 08:38 PM.
"Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."
Whoa, no need to get aggressive, man!
So we've established that Tolkien has less reach than Peter Jackson? I'm super, super curious to see how well will it go down here.
EDIT: And take a big breath before writing a comment, you editing it all the time makes it difficult to respond.
I know there's plenty of Americans here, and I can't say much for you. But I can promise you that in the rest of the world, Tolkien is "popular". His books, especially Hobbit, is usually a part of reading in school.
I honestly don't know a single person my age (millenials) or older that haven't read or atleast tried to read any of his books. Younger people I can't say anything for, I know most people don't read as much and we get movies for everything now.
In Europe Tolkien is a household name.
I mean I guess in the modern world yes, but then again you don't have Jackson/the trilogy without Tolkien so in other ways completely wrong.
Jackson while being Jackson is still Tolkien. Yes with a lesser producer the films are less popular/more forgotten, but with a lesser Author the same is true and maybe the movies never even get made. You still have Tolkien without Jackson being immensely successful/known (again hundreds of millions of books sold), but on the other side without Tolkien you can't have the Jackson films (not to say he wouldn't/hasn't produced other good movies, just not these movies in that case).
Which has nothing to with making money and the Tolkien estate wanting to make money. It is hilarious that you put work in to prove how off point you were. While actually thinking you got one up on me. Lmao. You started yelling at the wind about things never said.
"Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."
Man, this is a weird state of the world rly, people trying to say how good and amazing this series is, and trying to say "tolkien isn't as good" or "his work was not even that good", i can only imagine those people are baiting.
Like, every bit piece of fantasy after him, has his influence, motherfucker shaped the genre, the elves being like they are in every piece of media out there is because of how he did his own.