Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

Can you elaborate? Plot conveniences exist in pretty much every fictional work. It's extremely convenient that Sauron decides to go looking for The One Ring after it passes on to Frodo and Gandalf is able to warn him, or that Strider finds the hobbits in Bree just before the Nazgul do, or that Glandalf shows up at Helms Deep just in time to save the day. The books are filled with plot conveniences, and if anything the movies play them up even more because those typically make for dramatic moments in visual medium.

The argument against some of the glaring issues of the show is to say the problems exist elsewhere, we already start great, didn't we?

Still, what you want to compare is a pound to a ton, a lake to an ocean, the plot conveniences of the show are retarded in many levels,

Like when just fucking jumps into the sea hoping to swim to the other continent, knowing it as impossible to do, but does anyway, and conveniently gets saved by an
wreckage, not on, but two times, THEN, when all hope seems los, they conveniently get saved by the numenorians

Not even amateurs' writers are bad enough to do this, and you have more across the season, of how she just happens to realize the mark is a map, despite having that for at least hundreds of years and never trying to look sideways.

The map for his people being marked by himself in her brother flesh is totally nonsensical and reeks of plot convenience as well, or how they manage to gather an army and save just so to happen the other protagonists at the right moment

Or how in the end it happens to have a numenorian abandoned base, they suddenly remember about there.

You don't really seem to know what tokenism is if you think Arondir and Disa fit the bill. Token characters are irrelevant to the plot and are ONLY included for token representation.

Thats exactly what they are, you remove then and nothing change from the plot, everything happens the same.

This also come to another case of plot convenience, when they kill all he elves who tried to escape, but no Arondir, h have to see Adar, for what fucking reason? none, just happens to be him, ah yes, the message, the ocs did not know about yet, thats what we call plot convenience.

Then he gets released with all his gear and weapons, and despite having being task to send a message, he still hunted by the orcs tried to kill him, you imagine they would be warned, but nooo

Arondir and Disa are pretty central characters to each of their plots. They're not background characters, when they're around they're usually right there at the forefront having meaningful interactions with other characters. So no, they're not an example of tokenism at all.

They are pointless characters, with pointless interactions, bcause they never existed in the lore and what they did changes nothing in the lore, his romance is just to pull yet another elf+human cringe relationship

And its completely bogus how they did not cast more black actors, unlike House of the dragon who did not handle perfectly, they did more than just one or two, you can see then everywhere, actually feeling organic.

You need to realize that the vast majority of people who watched this show have never read anything about the Second Age (probably never even read LotR or The Hobbit). The mysteries that were so easy for us folks who are familiar with the literature were indeed mysteries for many show watchers.

Anyone with half a brain knew he was sauron and you did not need to read anything to know hallbrand was sauron and meteor man is gandalf, hell you did not even kne to watch the movies, but if you did, you crack the case the episode they appear

Even still, I think their decision to go the Halbrand route was a good one. On the page, Annatar isn't an interesting character

Because discount Aragorn sure is a lot interesting, lets just rip-off Jackson version of Aragorn, not even the book one.

As for Gandalf, the only concrete proof that it's him was pretty much just the "follow your nose" line. "Fire magic" and "animal connection" aren't even specific traits to Gandalf in the books or movies.

Second episode he appear you already have blatantly proof its him with th same trick he pull on Bilbo in the movies.

Pacing is one of the aspects that I'd definitely say could have been improved. Depending on how the Gandalf/Harfoot storyline progresses, I think it probably would have been best to drop that one from this season and let the Galadriel/Elrond/Southland plots breathe a bit more. I never found it difficult to follow, but there were times when it felt like more time could have been given to certain scenes rather than cutting to a different plot/story line. It's something that happens in every show that tries to juggle more than 2 central plots.

An we go back to first point as trying to make less of a problem because other shos have a similar problem.

But i think he is talking bout time passing in the narrative not the pacing of the show

You have BS like elrond and Celebrimbor saying they should go to the dwarves and next scene is they already there, despite bing a days or weeks journey, they are in their everyday clothes, without supplies without travelling gear, they just teleport there

Same thing for the numenorian army, with their 300 people and 300 horses in 3 small ships, arriving at the southlands in the exact right moment, when there should be days of travel, or the horses would colapse


OR wait for it, i just remember, when Galadriel goes for Adar, they go first, Hallbrand follow then thereafter, bu he suddenly appears ahead of then how in the fucking hell he does that If Galadriel had to use magic to make her horse go faster, totally not stealing Arwen move?? Did he also teleport there? and that fact never crossed the head of our genius protagonist?

Thiis is bad in the levels of CW Flash, but that show did not have tha budget and did not took itself seriously.

but it also had some poorly filmed/edited scenes where it was somewhat difficult to follow what was going on. The time jumps also conveniently gloss over some unanswered plot threads (like why did no one do anything about Cole committing murder at a royal wedding, or why the Royces never followed up on the mysterious death of Rhea). Those shows are still good despite those weaknesses, and similarly RoP not being AS GOOD as those shows doesn't in turn make it bad (much less a train wreck).

Prtty balssy to say Hotd had poorly filmed and edited scenes while defending RoP m8, kinda seems like hypocrisy, did you saw the fight of Galadriel in the streets of numenor? (cause what else numenorians soldiers would train am i right)

No one did anything to Cole because if the velaryons did it would be blatantly the relationship of his son, they were probably gladly it happen, and the queen was backing him up, why would anything happen to him?

They did not follow the "mysterious" death of Rhea because it was not a mystery, and if they did, they would be fucked over by Daemon, he is the prince backed by the crown and would have taken the place if they insisted

Show definitely have weakness and we listen then in its thread, but ROP is a solid 3/10 and House is 8/10

[rhorle]

People are passionate about things they care about, if you aren't that is fine, but recognize others are and they are just as justified in being pissed and wanting to vent as you are in being okay/not caring.

There is a difference between venting and holding onto anger. There also is no gaslighting war with Hollywood. There are adaptations that are closer to source material just as there are some that are not. This is not some glorious war you are fighting here.

[Fabinas]

This is not some glorious war you are fighting here.

One of the richest comments in this thread.

Strong is the irony in this one.

[rhorle]

One of the richest comments in this thread. Strong is the irony in this one.

You honestly believe Hollywood is fighting a war with people? Lmao.

[MakeMeLaugh]

The show is rated pretty good and most ppl like the show that has watched it, ppl need to accept reality that more ppl enjoy the show than dont.

What's the point of discussing with someone that says something like this? That's a straight up lie.

[Fabinas]

You honestly believe Hollywood is fighting a war with people? Lmao.

Look in the mirror. Now read what i quoted in the first place.

[rhorle]

Look in the mirror. Now read what i quoted in the first place.

It is funny how you'll say a bunch of posters only act in bad faith when you are doing so yourself. At no point have I thought I've been fighting a war so I'm not sure what mirror I'm supposed to be looking into. All you are to doing is trying to deflect from the absurdity of another poster thinking they are fighting a war against Hollywood by playing an uno reverse card "what about u?!?!"

[Triceron]

It is funny how you'll say a bunch of posters only act in bad faith when you are doing so yourself. At no point have I thought I've been fighting a war so I'm not sure what mirror I'm supposed to be looking into. All you are to doing is trying to deflect from the absurdity of another poster thinking they are fighting a war against Hollywood by playing an uno reverse card "what about u?!?!"

Doesn't matter what you think, your actions speak louder than your words, Mr. 'Good conversation'

- - - Updated - - -

The data is right in your face, takes 2 secs to check several review sites that proves the show is good, you have provided no data proving the show is bad because there is none.

It takes less than that to call out the fact you haven't provided any proof for it being good.

And I don't have to provide any data for it being bad because I haven't said it was bad. I thought your point was that no one could know whether it was good or bad because of the millions of people in the world who have watched it?

[Orange Joe]

Case in point.

Not seeing the "Case in point" can you quote the text where he says you are wrong for disliking it?

[Kumorii]

Not seeing the "Case in point" can you quote the text where he says you are wrong for disliking it?

Sure

In the case of this show I'd say a lot of the dislike comes from people simply not getting what they wanted (which is par for the course with almost any adaptation). Unfortunately, they then come in here and try to rationalize their dislike by saying things like "the acting was bad" or "the directing was bad" when by any objective metric these were perfectly fine. Or, as the past few pages have shown, they'll post about user reviews as if that's a relevant metric for determining the quality of a show.

You are wrong for thinking acting was bad... I find the acting to be awful except for Disa, Erendil, During and Elrond.
But I'm wrong in thinking that even though it's a subjective thing. If someones acting ability works for you, it might not work for me and vice versa.

If you want to hate the show, that's fine. If you want to post on this forum that you hated the show, that's perfectly fine as well. If you want to instead claim that something was done poorly when it objectively wasn't then you're no longer in the realm of just having an opinion.

here he double downs on it.


I mean, 70% of the post is him saying it's objectively good. If something is objectively good you are wrong for thinking it isn't. Ergo, you aren't allowed to think the acting was bad...
But people tend to get subjective and objective wrong a lot, so it's understandable. When it comes to media it's barely anything that's "objectively good"...everything is influenced by personal taste, opinion and emotions. Making it subjective.

And no, even if 99% likes something, that doesn't make something subjective, objective.

Hence why I said that most arguments starts with "pro" people jumping in and saying how everyone is wrong for disliking something, because that's what happens and...case in point. He did it straight away. And I put an emphasis on 'most' because there sure are people doing the reverse, claiming it's objectively bad and people are wrong for liking it.

Sure, you can say "he didn't mean 'you' you, but general 'you'" to which my argument is the same, doesn't matter if it's me or someone else.


Bonus:

So basically you don't know what you're talking and you believe that you can straight up lie and just pass if off as "just an opinion". Glad we got that out of the way.

This was after my case in point though, but here he straight up give away his position... just confirming my case in point.
Claiming disliking it is lying and trying to disguise it as an "opinion" even though it is an...opinion.
Granted I've seen his posts throughout the thread so I kinda knew the angle he would come from even if it isn't obvious in isolation. So I have a bit more info to go on than a third-party just reading the posts between us.

Hopefully that clarified it a bit.

[Orange Joe]

Sure



You are wrong for thinking acting was bad... I find the acting to be awful except for Disa, Erendil, During and Elrond.
But I'm wrong in thinking that even though it's a subjective thing. If someones acting ability works for you, it might not work for me and vice versa.



here he double downs on it.


I mean, 70% of the post is him saying it's objectively good. If something is objectively good you are wrong for thinking it isn't. Ergo, you aren't allowed to think the acting was bad...
But people tend to get subjective and objective wrong a lot, so it's understandable. When it comes to media it's barely anything that's "objectively good"...everything is influenced by personal taste, opinion and emotions. Making it subjective.

And no, even if 99% likes something, that doesn't make something subjective, objective.

Hence why I said that most arguments starts with "pro" people jumping in and saying how everyone is wrong for disliking something, because that's what happens and...case in point. He did it straight away. And I put an emphasis on 'most' because there sure are people doing the reverse, claiming it's objectively bad and people are wrong for liking it.

Sure, you can say "he didn't mean 'you' you, but general 'you'" to which my argument is the same, doesn't matter if it's me or someone else.


Bonus:


This was after my case in point though, but here he straight up give away his position... just confirming my case in point.
Claiming disliking it is lying and trying to disguise it as an "opinion" even though it is an...opinion.
Granted I've seen his posts throughout the thread so I kinda knew the angle he would come from even if it isn't obvious in isolation. So I have a bit more info to go on than a third-party just reading the posts between us.

Hopefully that clarified it a bit.

No, it don't cause I don't see him saying you are wrong in your dislike? Is english not your first language?

[Koriani]

How the fuck do you contradict yourself in your own post this badly?

- - - Updated - - -

Who am I to tell people how statistics work, I guess! They know that you don't trust aggregated data over large numbers, you instead trust people whose professional success and livelihood depends on maintaining a good relationship with the people that have a vested interest in certain review outcomes. That's WAY more reliable.

Or something like that, I don't live in clown world so I wouldn't know. I trust the inhabitants to tell me how it works there.

Remember, this was the guy who said LOTR was unpopular and 'failure' as "just books", and not popular at all, until the Jackson movie released. (No matter what all the stats on the success of Hobbit/LOTR in the 50 years prior to the PJ movies say.)

Also he continues to insist that Star Citizen is the greatest gift to gaming since Pong.

He's a black-hole-bot of responses on why he's always right and everyone else isn't, so just give up now. Trust me, save yourself the headache. Pick ANYONE ELSE on the forums to argue in a circle with, they will at least be more interesting in their responses .

[Kumorii]

No, it don't cause I don't see him saying you are wrong in your dislike? Is english not your first language?

No it's not. Not sure how that's relevant either.
Do you want to elaborate on your answers?... you give me nothing to work with here in trying to clarify what's confusing.

I could give you a shorter answer.
When someone says "I don't like this" or "I found this to be bad", the only reason to jump in with "YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG" is to say you are wrong in your opinion.

He does it here:

Unfortunately, they then come in here and try to rationalize their dislike by saying things like "the acting was bad" or "the directing was bad" when by any objective metric these were perfectly fine.

And here:

If you want to instead claim that something was done poorly when it objectively wasn't then you're no longer in the realm of just having an opinion.

And here:

So basically you don't know what you're talking and you believe that you can straight up lie and just pass if off as "just an opinion".

Saying that I'm lying about my 'opinion'. He also claims it's not an opinion, just a disguise, how is that not saying my "opinion" is wrong when he even claim it isn't one?

[Triceron]

No, it don't cause I don't see him saying you are wrong in your dislike? Is english not your first language?

"You are not wrong for disliking it but you are wrong for calling it bad' is a contradictory argument considering both disliking something and calling it bad are equivalently subjective values. Neither which are definable as being right or wrong. These are expressions of opinion.

'You are just disguising it as opinion, you are still are wrong for calling it bad' is an erroneous argument, since the value of 'bad' is still purely subjective, and there isn't any reason why that would be wrong. It's pretty much semantics. Avoiding saying 'You are wrong for disliking it' yet still implying that when any dislike is expressed and worded differently. There is no real objective value to something being 'Good' or 'Bad'.

Even something defined by a general consensus isn't considered objective. 'Bad acting' isn't standardized, even if we have a general common understanding of its meaning outside of personal likes and dislikes. There is no objective standard to 'call someone out' on saying the acting was bad.

[Orange Joe]

"You are not wrong for disliking it but you are wrong for calling it bad' is a contradictory argument considering both disliking something and calling it bad are equivalently subjective values. Neither which are definable as being right or wrong. These are expressions of opinion.

'You are just disguising it as opinion, you are still are wrong for calling it bad' is an erroneous argument, since the value of 'bad' is still purely subjective, and there isn't any reason why that would be wrong. It's pretty much semantics. Avoiding saying 'You are wrong for disliking it' yet still implying that when any dislike is expressed and worded differently. There is no real objective value to something being 'Good' or 'Bad'.

Even something defined by a general consensus isn't considered objective. 'Bad acting' isn't standardized, even if we have a general common understanding of its meaning outside of personal likes and dislikes. There is no objective standard to 'call someone out' on saying the acting was bad.

The irony of the arguments coming out here kinda amazes me. You guys get to rip on anyone that likes it but when the rolls are reverse it's suddenly bad to rip on people......

[Triceron]

The irony of the argument coming out here kinda amazes me. You guys get to rip on anyone that likes it but when the rolls are reverse it's suddenly bad to rip on people......

Anyone gets to rip into anyone. What isn't acceptable is trying to reframe opinion into objective standards and dismissing them for being 'wrong'.

There's no collective 'side' making any of these arguments. It's individuals. And anyone who is arguing whether someone is allowed to even use the words 'good' or 'bad' is merely gatekeeping opinion, really. I'm just explaining why the entire argument is bogus, because there is no objective value to 'good' or 'bad'. People should be free to call things good or bad as they please so long as they frame it as opinion, and not regard it as as some sort of objective standard that can be valued as being 'right' or 'wrong'.

[rhorle]

Saying that I'm lying about my 'opinion'. He also claims it's not an opinion, just a disguise, how is that not saying my "opinion" is wrong when he even claim it isn't one?

What they are saying is that calling it bad acting, when it is not, is no longer just an opinion. It is just a way to justify your dislike with whatever excuse comes to mind. They also said calling something an "opinion" isn't an excuse to say whatever. They haven't said you are wrong for disliking the show. There is truly bad acting but RoP doesn't come close to that. Average? Sure.

That is the distinction they were making. That you are over exaggerating the performance of the actors for whatever reason. Opinions can be wrong but you are not wrong for having one.

[Triceron]

What they are saying is that calling it bad acting, when it is not, is no longer just an opinion. It is just a way to justify your dislike with whatever excuse comes to mind. They also said calling something an "opinion" isn't an excuse to say whatever. They haven't said you are wrong for disliking the show. There is truly bad acting but RoP doesn't come close to that. Average? Sure.

'Bad acting' isn't universally defined though. It's general concensus. RoP's acting hasn't exactly been free from that collective opinion.

https://startefacts.com/news/5-reaso...ding-to-reddit

Something that goes hand-in-hand with the dialogue is of course its delivery. Viewers have noted that the show, although has some rather good performances from much of the cast, falls flat for some of its characters. This has been especially targeted at Galadriel, portrayed by Morfydd Clark. Reddit users have mentioned they consider her delivery bland and wooden. Unable to portray the complicated range of emotions necessary for the part, and instead seems to provide 'random inconsistent face twitching' throughout.

It's not a universal thing where we can just say 'it's average', because whether the acting is good or bad or average still stems from opinion. Here, you're merely expressing that you regard it to be 'not the worst acting I've seen', which is completely valid, but does not subject anyone else's opinion to your personal definition.

Cuz just as you're saying it isn't just an opinion, the fact is it still is. There's also nothing definable as 'truly bad acting', because ultimately that is still opinion. It's all opinion, just a matter of how we regard the consensus.

[bledgor]

Also not good when you have your season finale on the 14th and the following week (17-23) you can't even retain a position in the top 10 of Nielsons, and are middle of the pack on the original category.

https://www.nielsen.com/top-ten/

[rhorle]

Also not good when you have your season finale on the 14th and the following week (17-23) you can't even retain a position in the top 10 of Nielsons, and are middle of the pack on the original category.

That doesn't really say much when season 1-15 of NCIS, Gilmore Girls, or Cocomelon are on the list. A lot of shows drop off once new content stops coming out and it isn't a good barometer of quality.