Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

No, the poem is referencing Sauron doing the ruling. One Ring, for Dark Lord, on his Dark Throne. One Ring, for the Dark Lord, to rule them all. That's why the context of the poem is important.

And yet the power was in the ring. Not with the Dark Lord. He became dependent on the Ring. So doesn't that mean the Ring is the true Lord as it is ruling the Lord itself? Just like people say a drug is the master of a person that is addicted to it.

"The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophize' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control. A man who wishes to exert 'power' must have subjects, who are not himself. But he then depends on them." -Letter 211

Right, Durin is a special name among the Dwarves. With the compressed timeline two are a live at the same time or they would have to leave a Durin out. Either way you, or others, would call it out as a fault right? If they left one out it would be a problem because a Durin doesn't exist like it did in Tolkien Canon. If they keep both it is a problem even though with the compressed time line both would have to exist.

The compression has nothing to do with sticking to the Tolkien Canon or not. Even if they didn't have the compression they still wouldn't have been faithful. It has everything to do with having the same non-elven characters present through out the 5 seasons. You say you don't need to be told this but then keep ignoring the reason for the compression to exist.

[Syegfryed]

Jesus Christ, the show is so garbage people are actually trying say Sauron isn't the Lord of the rings

[Skulltaker]

And yet the power was in the ring. Not with the Dark Lord. He became dependent on the Ring. So doesn't that mean the Ring is the true Lord as it is ruling the Lord itself? Just like people say a drug is the master of a person that is addicted to it.

"The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophize' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control. A man who wishes to exert 'power' must have subjects, who are not himself. But he then depends on them." -Letter 211

Right, Durin is a special name among the Dwarves. With the compressed timeline two are a live at the same time or they would have to leave a Durin out. Either way you, or others, would call it out as a fault right? If they left one out it would be a problem because a Durin doesn't exist like it did in Tolkien Canon. If they keep both it is a problem even though with the compressed time line both would have to exist.

The compression has nothing to do with sticking to the Tolkien Canon or not. Even if they didn't have the compression they still wouldn't have been faithful. It has everything to do with having the same non-elven characters present through out the 5 seasons. You say you don't need to be told this but then keep ignoring the reason for the compression to exist.

And yet no it wasn't. You're once more lying to try to make your bs point. Sauron kept control over the Nazgul even without the Ring. And literally no-one who has any education on the topic says that the drug is the master of a person that is addicted to it, because they understand the complex biochemical processes that lead to addiction.

The letter you quote actually proves this, btw. The Ring has potency. Without someone to act upon it, it's worthless.

And no, Durin is not just a special name. It's a name reserved for beings that Dwarves consider to be a reincarnation of the original. It makes as little sense to have two of them on screen as it would to have two Avatars in the Last Airbender franchise.

And the original reason for the compression, again, is laziness and incompetence, because the writers can't find a way to create tension or drama unless you have fast-paced action. They simply suck at creating a compelling narrative without blowing something up.

[Shadowferal]

So..Balrog wakes at 1450 of the Secong Age instead of waking in 1980 of the Third Age...hmf.

[rhorle]

And yet no it wasn't. You're once more lying to try to make your bs point.

I'm not lying. Tolkien has said that he succumbed to the ring. You can think differently then the author but don't claim it is a lie just because you don't like it. The quote also says it passes out of one's direct control. Which implies that even when Sauron used it it wasn't just him in control. It was the ring. The ealier quote from Galadriel states that the ring has power with or without Sauron.

"Special name" still applies to a name reserved for beings that dwarves consider to be a reincarnation of the original. You are just nitpicking in order to dismiss a statement that otherwise has nothing wrong with it.

[Skulltaker]

I'm not lying. Tolkien has said that he succumbed to the ring. You can think differently then the author but don't claim it is a lie just because you don't like it. The quote also says it passes out of one's direct control. Which implies that even when Sauron used it it wasn't just him in control. It was the ring. The ealier quote from Galadriel states that the ring has power with or without Sauron.

"Special name" still applies to a name reserved for beings that dwarves consider to be a reincarnation of the original. You are just nitpicking in order to dismiss a statement that otherwise has nothing wrong with it.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Ring is in control of his actions. It only means that Sauron himself wasn't able to resist the temptations of what the Ring offered. The way you present what Tolkien said is a lie, nothing more. And after all the blatant misrepresentations of facts you've made throughout this thread, I don't think you get to interpret what anything implies, or not.

And the Ring may still contain power, with or without Sauron, but that doesn't make it the Lord of the Rings, either. Only one character in Middle Earth has ever demonstrated the ability to control other Rings of Power and those who wield it, and that's Sauron, both with and without the Ring on his hand. There's exactly 0 indication that the Ring has the Power to control other Rings unless worn by Sauron.

And you may consider it nitpicking, but your very wrong opinion doesn't change the fact that it is nonsensical to have more than one Durin at the same time.

[Shadowferal]

Someone needs to make gif

"This is my brother Durin, and this is my other brother "Durin."

[Triceron]

The Ring of Sauron is only one of the various mythical treatments of the placing of one's life, or power, in some external object, which is thus exposed to capture or destruction with disastrous results to oneself. If I were to 'philosophize' this myth, or at least the Ring of Sauron, I should say it was a mythical way of representing the truth that potency (or perhaps rather potentiality) if it is to be exercised, and produce results, has to be externalized and so as it were passes, to a greater or less degree, out of one's direct control. A man who wishes to exert 'power' must have subjects, who are not himself. But he then depends on them." -Letter 211

Nothing about this is indicating or implying the title 'Lord of the Rings' is applicable to the Ring, lol. He even outright calls this the Ring of Sauron.

This is like trying to argue 'the Great Gatsby' could possibly refer to 'the great influence that alcohol has over people'.

[Recovery]

You are thoroughly confused. From my first post I said the problem was both are alive at the same time. Somehow you turned that into that I was complaining about "one of them not existing", which is the opposite - I am clearly complaining about both of them existing. You changed my argument to something nonsensical, then when I corrected you, you told me that I switched what I was saying.

It's really hard to have conversations with you when you keep getting totally lost on the basics.

- - - Updated - - -



What's fascinating is that in the past two years Amazon has put out series covering two huge fantasy series in Wheel of Time and Rings of Power, and both suffer from the same fatal flaw - complete disregard for the source material which has turned off serious fans. In both cases the showrunners have kind of made the argument that they can't just appeal to hardcore fans, but like - I'm pretty sure you should want hardcore fans to at least like the series, right? They become your core, guaranteed audience that helps draw other people in.

I'm truly fascinated at how they could have messed up so badly here. It's frankly incredible that they could get it so wrong, and because we're talking about two separate shows, it seems like this is an issue specifically with Amazon.

- - - Updated - - -



So my question for you is, why did they bother spending 250 million on the rights if all they needed to was create a generic fantasy series? This series shares very little with the source material other than the names. If you as their target audience don't care about the source material, and they weren't planning to use it anyway, just the names, why not just create their own character names and save 250 million?

You're hugely exaggerating by claiming that "only the names" from the source material have been used. Also, even if people don't generally know alot about "The Lord of the Rings", they know the name. The name alone will bring in viewers that will like the show for what it is, for the most part.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are 100% right in that the show is made for the "average man", the people who just wants to watch A show, aslong as it is pretty and something goes on, its pretty alright. The bar is not high, because it just fufills a purpose of having something to watch, the primary purpose of television.

That said, this is also a shame. It makes the viewer very un-ambitious about what they see, setting a low standard and makes the viewer somewhat uninterested in many levels of quality elements.

It makes me want to ask the question, why watch the show when one can watch anything else, like Marvel series, Wheel of time, Star Wars or a Transformers movie. What would make somebody like you ever return to this serie in a couple of years if at all?

The story has been more than fine. I've already watched all of the other stuff. When the other stuff as well as this has a new movie, or series, I will watch it as well. I'm a lover of fantasy. Good or bad when compared to the source material means nothing to me. For someone who is not a source nerd, and picking the material apart against the source, the show really isn't half bad. It's not great, but it's not bad. Very enjoyable to watch. I've been watching it on Sunday night around 8:00, right before house of the dragon airs... Well, up until the finale of both. lol

[Triceron]

The story has been more than fine. I've already watched all of the other stuff. When the other stuff as well as this has a new movie, or series, I will watch it as well. I'm a lover of fantasy. Good or bad when compared to the source material means nothing to me. For someone who is not a source nerd, and picking the material apart against the source, the show really isn't half bad. It's not great, but it's not bad. Very enjoyable to watch. I've been watching it on Sunday night around 8:00, right before house of the dragon airs... Well, up until the finale of both. lol

I think non-book readers is really the target audience of the show. People who may have watched the LOTR and Hobbit movies, and otherwise don't know anything about the Second Age.

To be honest, adaptations like this are best enjoyed without the frame of reference in mind. Like every time I think about how awful the M. Night Airbender movie was, I still remember that everyone I've talked to who enjoyed the movie were all people who never watched the original series. They didn't have a frame of reference to compare to, and they were able to enjoy the movie as a standalone thing.

[Kumorii]

I think non-book readers is really the target audience of the show. People who may have watched the LOTR and Hobbit movies, and otherwise don't know anything about the Second Age.

To be honest, adaptations like this are best enjoyed without the frame of reference in mind. Like every time I think about how awful the M. Night Airbender movie was, I still remember that everyone I've talked to who enjoyed the movie were all people who never watched the original series. They didn't have a frame of reference to compare to, and they were able to enjoy the movie as a standalone thing.

Not a book reader. The problems with the show isn't it not following canon imo. Even if I'd like people being respectful to the source material they adapt. Problems with RoP is more universal than that. Story, writing, pacing, acting etc etc... Even if the show followed canon it would still have these problems.

[rhorle]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Ring is in control of his actions. It only means that Sauron himself wasn't able to resist the temptations of what the Ring offered.

So he isn't able to resist the ring but the ring is not controlling him at the same time? It doesn't have to be 100% in control but it is corrupting him and influencing him. That shows that the Ring has power of its own and one that can control even the "Lord of the Rings". Which again makes the Ring the true Lord. I'm not changing anything about how Tolkien is presenting things. You are also interpreting what Tolkien said. It is strange how only I don't get to do so because it goes against your opinion. Strange, right?

Gandalf states that he would become just like Sauron if he wore the ring. The One Ring is also still bound to the other rings. It isn't something that exists just because Sauron was not in possession of the ring. The entire reason why Galadriel "passed a test" when Frodo offered her the ring was because she would become just like Sauron. Corrupted by the ring and "evil". Again something that is tied to the ring. A power that you keep downplaying.

And you may consider it nitpicking, but your very wrong opinion doesn't change the fact that it is nonsensical to have more than one Durin at the same time.

The word you are looking for is faithful. It makes perfect sense to have both alive at the same time when the timeline is compressed. As it has been compressed so events on the show would have them be alive at the same time. They could either have been faithful to only one Durin being alive at once. Or faithful to the events Durin IV and Durin III were present for. They picked one over the other to discard. It makes perfect sense.

[Triceron]

Not a book reader. The problems with the show isn't it not following canon imo. Even if I'd like people being respectful to the source material they adapt. Problems with RoP is more universal than that. Story, writing, pacing, acting etc etc... Even if the show followed canon it would still have these problems.

Oh, I don't doubt the show has problems. It's mediocre at best.

Just pointing out that the target audience wouldn't be book readers, because it leaves very little to desire as a book reader who would expect the world building to be intact. The show does some great stuff, like show what Numenor looks like, or gives us insight into the Dwarven kingdom before its fall. But the amount it changes, it might as well be a completely new fantasy series with new characters. Like there's nothing Galadriel about Galadriel, Sauron isn't even the same character depicted in the books, the overall plot adds plenty of world-changing tidbits like Mithril being the key to the Elves' salvation, etc. It's all fine as its own universe, but doesn't really connect or faithfully adapt the world that Tolkien readers would really expect to see. At least, not in a way that even PJ's trilogy was considered acceptable by most book readers.

- - - Updated - - -

Gandalf states that he would become just like Sauron if he wore the ring. The One Ring is also still bound to the other rings. It isn't something that exists just because Sauron was not in possession of the ring. The entire reason why Galadriel "passed a test" when Frodo offered her the ring was because she would become just like Sauron. Corrupted by the ring and "evil". Again something that is tied to the ring. A power that you keep downplaying.

Tolkien himself said in his notes that if Gandalf took the one ring, he could have been the one person who could possibly completely dominate Sauron's will.

That being said, the context of 'the Lord of the Rings' is still applied to Sauron. Not Gandalf, not Frodo, not the One Ring.

Do you know what the title of Frodo's book is called? The full title? It's not just 'The Lord of the Rings', like the movie calls it. It's 'The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King'.

The One Ring doesn't ever 'rise in power'. The One Ring doesn't have any downfall at all, since it never actually obtains power for itself. The downfall is referring to Sauron. This is emphasized in context by Gandalf's own description for him:

“The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world!”


But I can see as someone who didn't read the books at all or recalls any of its information how you could take the meaning to be ambiguous and applicable to the Ring. Its a common misunderstanding of the context of the title. And that's why I said from the start, let's nip this in the bud, because the title has a definitive answer. Everything else being argued here is in blatant ignorance of the context of the title's use. The 'Downfall of the Lord of the Rings' is not referring to the One Ring or characters like Frodo, Bilbo or Sam. The title 'the Lord of the Rings' is a direct reference to Frodo's finished works, which in the narrative is in reference to the Dark Lord, Sauron

The title is not meant to be up to interpretation. Just like 'The Hobbit' is directly contextual to Bilbo, even if one could argue the title has unintentional ambiguity to it. There is no other Hobbit it would refer to in the context of the narrative.

[rhorle]

At least, not in a way that even PJ's trilogy was considered acceptable by most book readers.

This part is amusing since the best link to "what is tolkien" had an issue with the Jackson work. As Christopher Tolkien thought it was to action oriented and the estate, at the time, wanted to put a spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings.

- - - Updated - - -

Tolkien himself said in his notes that if Gandalf took the one ring, he could have been the one person who could possibly completely dominate Sauron's will.

Are you sure you are remembering that note correctly? As Tolkien himself says the Ring would become the master.

"Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him – being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous
thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and
expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end."- Letter 246

Tolkien also implies the Ring Wraiths would have treated Frodo as Lord of the Ring if he kept it on and went with them. It would have led to a confrontation between Sauron and Frodo for possession of the ring. Frodo would have lost because he wouldn't have the power to challenge him and Sauron could assert his will over the ring far better. It would potentially take one of the 3 elves bearers to challenge Sauron directly. Or Gandalf who of course is a maiar like Sauron.

"I think they would have shown 'servility'. They would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'. With fair speeches they would have induced him to leave the Sammath Naur – for instance 'to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes'. " - Letter 246

[Triceron]

This part is amusing since the best link to "what is tolkien" had an issue with the Jackson work. As Christopher Tolkien thought it was to action oriented and the estate, at the time, wanted to put a spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings.

He had issues with it being action-oriented and the product being commercialized into an action blockbuster, which he thought reduces the philosophical depth and beauty of the original works. That's quite a different criticism than implying a completely different story was being told, as is the case with Rings of Power.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you sure you are remembering that note correctly? As Tolkien himself says the Ring would become the master.

And that could be true, but that doesn't change the fact the title 'the Lord of the Rings' is not reflecting Tolkien's notes on the subject of the One Ring's theoretical powers after reflecting on its nature. The title is directly referencing Sauron in every context of its mention in the novels. There is no point where we can take this information into changing the context of the "Lord of the Rings" being retroactively applied to the One Ring when it's already been applied to Sauron himself, exclusively, in the novels. I've stated this many times and you've ignored it many times - You have to take the title out of context and ignore how this title is used in the novels in order to allow this theory to actually work. It is an argument in ignorance.

Like I said, you're absolutely right about Tolkien mentioning that the Ring has power over the other Rings, that it has power over the wearer. That it *could* be considered given the title of 'the Lord of the Rings' theoretically. This has nothing to do with the actual title of the Lord of the Rings.

The context of the title 'The Lord of the Rings' is absolutely, definitively clear that it is applied directly to Sauron. And arguing against this fact is merely implying ignorance to an argument that you could come up with a theory around the facts. Just like you could argue that the Return of the King *could* be talking about the Witch King, you're absolutely allowed to present and hold on to that theory. Yet it would still be an argument in ignorance because the King is clearly referring to Aragorn. To argue that it is the Witch King is merely humoring a theory, no less different than 'Gandalf is not a Wizard, he's actually a Fighter' memes.

Just like I can say the title of 'The Hobbit' is definitively referring to Bilbo Baggins. Would you dispute this fact on the mere principle that 'there are more Hobbits than just Bilbo'?

[rhorle]

He had issues with it being action-oriented and the product being commercialized into an action blockbuster, which he thought reduces the philosophical depth and beauty of the original works. That's quite a different criticism than implying a completely different story was being told, as is the case with Rings of Power.

So if Rings of power captures the spirit of the works better you don't think he would be find it more agreeable then the Jackson work?

And that could be true, but that doesn't change the fact the title 'the Lord of the Rings' is not reflecting Tolkien's notes on the subject of the One Ring's theoretical powers after reflecting on its nature. The title is directly referencing Sauron in every context of its mention in the novels.

Unless Tolkien was being subtle about who the true master was, right? This is already after Eru destroyed Saruon's physical body. The ring during the TA was something Sauron was dependent on for total domination. He still almost won by basically defeating the last army capable of resisting him.

Also do you remember why this discussion was had? Because you said a theory for the Lord of the Rings applying to the rings couldn't exist. Yet here you are after all this time admitting the theory could exist while still arguing against its existence. Lmao.

[Triceron]

So if Rings of power captures the spirit of the works better you don't think he would be find it more agreeable then the Jackson work?

Considering Rings of Power is more egregiously commercialized than Jackson's work, why would I think he would ever find it more agreeable?

Amazon has blatantly made this into their own action-drama on the level of a CW series.

Are we talking about a theoretical Rings of Power which doesn't have trash writing like it does now?

Unless Tolkien was being subtle about who the true master was, right? This is already after Eru destroyed Saruon's physical body. The ring during the TA was something Sauron was dependent on for total domination. He still almost won by basically defeating the last army capable of resisting him.

Also do you remember why this discussion was had? Because you said a theory for the Lord of the Rings applying to the rings couldn't exist. Yet here you are after all this time admitting the theory could exist while still arguing against its existence. Lmao.

But he wasn't being subtle at all. The title of 'the Lord of the Rings' is not often used in the narrative at all. It's not meant to be some subtle hint at something greater than what it's meant to be, it's a condensed version of Frodo's own book title for his adventures, which comes from Gandalf's own explanation of the title directly referring to Sauron.

Also do you remember why this discussion was had? Because you said a theory for the Lord of the Rings applying to the rings couldn't exist. Yet here you are after all this time admitting the theory could exist while still arguing against its existence. Lmao.

I didn't say any other theories couldn't exist. Someone literally said the "Lord of the Rings refers to the One Ring that is ever present in the story.", and I said let's nip this in the bud, there's only one definitive answer to who the Lord of the Rings is referring to, and that is Sauron, not the One Ring. I didn't say anyone couldn't bring their own theories to the table, and let's be clear no one actually HAS been bringing one to the table at all. All you've been arguing is that it could be interpreted other ways, and I've continually said YES you could argue it, and it would in ignorance. Who the Lord of the Rings refers to is not up for debate, it is already answered. The definitive answer is Sauron, something which you have also not disputed entirely, only attacked on the principle that 'it ignores other theories' which it does not. The fact that there is a known answer does not mean you can't make an argument against it, it just means the arguments being made would be in ignorance of the facts.

I have no problem with acknowledging that alternative theories can exist. It doesn't change the fact that we have a definitive answer. Just like a Flat Earther can present their theory that the world is not round. The fact the world is round does not prevent anyone from coming up with alternative theories. It is an acknowledgement that 'the world is flat' would be an argument in ignorance because we have a much more substantiated, definitive facts which this theory ignores in order to make sense of itself.

Just like the Gandalf is a Fighter meme. We can only regard this theory in a context outside of the narrative, with intentional ignorance to the fact that Gandalf is a Wizard in the narrative. There are no theories that would actually dispute the fact that Gandalf is a Wizard, and no 'LOTR' theory would dispute it being a title exclusively used for Sauron.

Like, in our current reality, there is no way to regard Flat Earth theory as non-existent. It is real, it exists. All we can do is point out that it is a theory that implies ignorance in order to sustain itself. So you trying to tell me that I am allowing theories to exist proves nothing, because theories are merely arguments, and can be made in ignorance.

[rhorle]

Considering Rings of Power is more egregiously commercialized than Jackson's work, why would I think he would ever find it more agreeable?

Commercialization wasn't the issue. It was not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work. Again it doesn't matter if you agree or not because it still highlights how what you saw as "highly acceptable by book readers" was seen as an issue by the Tolkien Estate. It just shows how what book lovers want isn't what others think the spirit of Tolkien's work is. Which do you pander to? The cheap thrills and action or the spirit of the work?

I didn't say any other theories couldn't exist.

So which is it? It could theoretically be given the title Lord of the Rings and thus the book title be a subtle reference to that. Or it can't. You have to pick one side of the argument. You can't keep contradicting yourself and arguing that it can and can't be considered. There is no definitive answer to what the title refers to as Tolkien himself never definitively stated what it refers to.

Like I said, you're absolutely right about Tolkien mentioning that the Ring has power over the other Rings, that it has power over the wearer. That it *could* be considered given the title of 'the Lord of the Rings' theoretically.

[Triceron]

Commercialization wasn't the issue. It was not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work. Again it doesn't matter if you agree or not because it still highlights how what you saw as "highly acceptable by book readers" was seen as an issue by the Tolkien Estate. It just shows how what book lovers want isn't what others think the spirit of Tolkien's work is. Which do you pander to? The cheap thrills and action or the spirit of the work?

What are you even talking about?

You are the one who brought Christopher Tolkien in to this conversation. If you say Commercialization wasn't the issue then you're not regarding what Christopher Tolkien actually criticized about the PJ movies.

He never criticized the PJ movies for 'not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work'.

Outside of the business world, it is clear Christopher Tolkien's problems with Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy itself ran very deeply indeed. Speaking to Le Monde back in 2012, he launched a stinging criticism of the films. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," he complained. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away... They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."

I get you want to shitpost some more but this really isn't worth discussing at all, lol.

So which is it? It could theoretically be given the title Lord of the Rings and thus the book title be a subtle reference to that.

The One Ring could theoretically be given the title of the Lord of the Rings, and it would be a factually wrong theory in all regards of the narrative and its use of the title.

Just like 'Gandalf is not a Wizard he is actually a Fighter' can absolutely be regarded as a theory, but is well established as one that is intentionally ignorant of the facts in order to be entertaining.

There is nothing mutually exclusive between having a theory and disputing the facts. Theories can be wrong, and it doesn't make them any less a theory. In other words, you could have an infinite amount of answers (theories) to the question of 'What is 1+1', in which there can only be one factual answer and an infinite amount of wrong answers.

Just because you can claim there can be theories doesn't mean the theories aren't wrong, lol.

Also, nice way of taking my quotes out of context and cutting out the part that already addresses the question you're asking. How fucking dishonest lol.

[Ragedaug]

I think non-book readers is really the target audience of the show. People who may have watched the LOTR and Hobbit movies, and otherwise don't know anything about the Second Age.

To be honest, adaptations like this are best enjoyed without the frame of reference in mind. Like every time I think about how awful the M. Night Airbender movie was, I still remember that everyone I've talked to who enjoyed the movie were all people who never watched the original series. They didn't have a frame of reference to compare to, and they were able to enjoy the movie as a standalone thing.

Considering the writers didn't read the reference materials, it makes sense that their target audience didn't either. The thing that irks me in these situations is the studio buying rights to a property for the express purpose of fooling fans of said property to pay money to watch the show they made, knowing full well that those people they fooled to watch their show aren't the audience they wrote the story for.