Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

again the full quote you are apparently allergic to.

Wolves are the "first dogs" too, doesn't mean wolves are actually dogs.

If he was just an normal orc, there is no fucking point to have a different term for him, and he would look different, either way, is besides the point since he does not look nothing like an orc.

They fake a fight with each other not other orcs and then slip away when the task master breaks it up.

Yes, and it is show how the other orcs around then have similar height

There are one's smaller then men, But one's the same size as men are not a rare expectation like you tried to point to earlier and the majority of Jacksons (and RoP) orcs are the size of men or mabye bigger making the whole size thing pointless.

Having ones the size of men does not contradict shit here, you know that right? - that the movies portrayed of orcs more faithful than adar who looks like an elf - the size is not pointless because bigger orcs only came to be later. just like the name Uruk, that the show make sure to mess up.

If your only going off of size sure Jackson used orcs that fit the size all of twice and used jagged tweeth, he didn't use dark skin slanted eyes or elongated arms, He also added a ton of characteristic Tolkien.

[I]"if you only going to use x" [/I... ]coming from someone who only want to use one bit that some elves though they were elves going savage that can mean fuck all and not that they look like Adar

And there is orcs with dark skin(not just the uruk-hai, orcs in mordor had black skin and were not made by saruman) and slanted eyes in the movies. Yes, he add different traits on his orcs, and he explain why, never deny that.

while Adar is also far from the listed characteristic he fits a evil and savage elf fine.

Evil? yeah, savage? not at all, and again the point is he look exactly like an elf, unlike the orcs show in the show and the movies. you are taking the quote and assuming it means they still retain ALL of their elvish characterises, when story tells they would not, see Gollun being corrupted, he was hobbit-ish but didn't look like a proper hobbit. It makes way more sense to assume Melkor, someone far stronger than the one ring, would corrupt worse than the one ring did to a hobbit, and they would not look like adar after the corruption. you can either put this as another shit they messed up like magic mithrill.

Nobody with the head in the right place can lok at him and say 'yep thats an orc, this will put orcs in a good light"

[rhorle]

Show call him Moriondor. Again, wolf dog scenario, you can call a wof a dog all you want

You are the one calling a wolf a dog. The show sets him up as an Orc. I provide the quotes earlier in the discussion for you to go back and see. You are the one that keeps trying to call him something else for whatever reason. Rings of Power invented the concept, and word, of Moriondor as it only appears in Rings of Power.

So it is silly to ignore what the show is calling him in one instance and accept it in the other.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody with the head in the right place can lok at him and say 'yep thats an orc, this will put orcs in a good light"

And yet you said he looks just like an Elf. Looking like an elf would put any dark and twisted being in a better light. We already have examples of this in Tolkien as there are shape shifters. Sauron took on a "fair visage" when he went to the elves as Annatar. Do you think he would have been received the same if he was ugly? Have you never encountered the concept of people being treated better based on their looks or clothing?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Wolves are the "first dogs" too, doesn't mean wolves are actually dogs.

If he was just an normal orc, there is no fucking point to have a different term for him, and he would look different, either way, is besides the point since he does not look nothing like an orc.

I've been ignoring the wolves are the first dogs as its just stupid and is unneeded fluff but fine lets go over it.

Wolves were not the first dogs, wolf and dogs are two distinct lines in canines with dogs coming from a now extinct line of canine as dogs genetics deviated and replaced them, The closest wolfs and dogs come generically are grey wolfs and that is not because they had the same ancestor its from domestic dogs breeding into the wolf line.

You continuously saying wolves are the first dogs is like saying lions are the first first cougar ignoring that they are two totally different lines with in the Feline family, it is also even stupider as Dogs have have such a mass variation in look size and shape that if you applied there structure to the orcs you'd be saying a great Dane isn't a dog Because it lives in a newfoundland with a bunch of newfy's and they don't look the same.

So in short, your point is stupid and ignorant and the show still disagrees with you and says he's an orc.

Having ones the size of men does not contradict shit here, you know that right? - that the movies portrayed of orcs more faithful than adar who looks like an elf - the size is not pointless because bigger orcs only came to be later. just like the name Uruk, that the show make sure to mess up.

having the majority of them being the size of men absolutely contradicts you saying ones the size of men were a "outlier, a rare exception".

[I]"if you only going to use x" [/I... ]coming from someone who only want to use one bit that some elves though they were elves going savage that can mean fuck all and not that they look like Adar

Adar fit's one mention of orcs, Jacksons fit another, Both are far from all the characteristics Tolkien used with Jacksons deviating further as Tolkien applied human features looks to his orcs even comparing them to a specific people while Jackson made them pure monsters.

Evil? yeah, savage? not at all, and again the point is he look exactly like an elf, unlike the orcs show in the show and the movies. you are taking the quote and assuming it means they still retain ALL of their elvish characterises,

Nope never said any thing about them keeping all characteristics just that they were recognizable as coming from elves, Black blood gaunt face questionable marking that could be scars or skin defects fit that even if its not perfect.

[rhorle]

Wolves were not the first dogs, wolf and dogs are two distinct lines in canines with dogs coming from a now extinct line of canine as dogs genetics deviated and replaced them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleist...e_domestic_dog

It is believed that domesticated dogs share a common wolf ancestor. That ancestor is not modern wolves but a now extinct one.

[Triceron]

Aren't wolves genetically close enough to dogs that they can actually interbreed?

[Syegfryed]

Aren't wolves genetically close enough to dogs that they can actually interbreed?

Yes, but they are different species, They came to be from the same lineage of the Pleistocene wolf

- - - Updated - - -

Wolves were not the first dogs, wolf and dogs are two distinct lines in canines with dogs coming from a now extinct line of canine as dogs genetics deviated and replaced them, The closest wolfs and dogs come generically are grey wolfs and that is not because they had the same ancestor its from domestic dogs breeding into the wolf line.

I obviously tried to be as common as possible with this because general people do not have common knowledge about the palaeontologist story of the canis genre, and im not as pedant to assume everyone should know this.(despite you trying to correct me on this one, paleontologists call the line that gave birth to the today wolves and dogs aas "pleistocene wolf, so me saying wolf is not wrong).

Its just to demonstrate how you need to have a prior, and different species, to give birth to a new one, so the family tree can diverge, and it takes thousand of years of speciation to happen.

If we use this as an example, the Moridian would be the ancestors of what we know as the species of orcs, even if people call then "first orcs' they are not the race/specie orc, just like we can call "the first dogs" the ancestor of the dog(one of the pleistocene wolves lineage) but they are not, Canis familiaris.

having the majority of them being the size of men absolutely contradicts you saying ones the size of men were a "outlier, a rare exception".

Nope, because in the third age, the time the trilogy happens, we already have plenty of uruks-hais breed with humans by Sauron and Saruman and orcs who grow bigger in Mordor, this is explained by Tolkien.

Adar fit's one mention of orcs

Nope, it does not, its just you using confirmation bias and ignoring the rest of the information, using then separate instead of together as they should be. Just because the elves saw then and said "those could be elves becoming evil and savage" does not mean, in the slightest, they are not, also, sallow, crooked, fanged, smaller and with longer arms. Its literally you removing all the characteristics that make an orc an orc, and using the ones you like to say he fit ONE(being evil) and think you won the argument by "numbers of box checked".

Despite this also you being dramatically verbatim, cause, what evil LOOKS like? this is literally you assuming that when those elves saw the orcs those orcs would look exactly the same as normal elves, like Adar,, but with a mean attitude, despise using the tolkien corruption and evil as example, they would not, as example,. Gollun, definitely look like a hobbit that went evil and savage. But he is not like Sam or Frodo, at all.

Well i guess when people see the southlands they will say they look orcish because they are humans that went savage and evil

Point still stand, Adar is 100% an elf in appearance, and the orcs in the movies and in the show are more tolkien accurate than him by far.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleist...e_domestic_dog

It is believed that domesticated dogs share a common wolf ancestor. That ancestor is not modern wolves but a now extinct one.

ugh Taxonomy is a slog.

All domesticated dogs share a common ancestor, rather that Ancestor was a "wolf" is in debate, some say they fall into Canis lupus other says they don't, what is known is that based on there genes wolfs and dog's distinct lineage and what overlap they do have is likely from domesticated dogs breeding with wolfs and not from them sharing an ancestor. there are sematic arguments about rather the Paleolithic dog was a "dog "wolf" or other unnamed canine but it is accepted that dog's do not come from the same Lineage as wolfs just like say coyotes or jackals don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_dog

[rhorle]

but it is accepted that dog's do not come from the same Lineage as wolfs just like say coyotes or jackals don't.

It isn't complicated at all. There are wolves in the lineage of domesticated dogs. From the Wikipedia article I previously linked to:

DNA sequences show that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, extinct wolf population which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It isn't complicated at all. There are wolves in the lineage of domesticated dogs. From the Wikipedia article I previously linked to:

DNA sequences show that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, extinct wolf population which was distinct from the modern wolf lineage

Yes quite, as I said "there are sematic arguments about rather the Paleolithic dog was a "dog "wolf" or other unnamed canine"

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but they are different species, They came to be from the same lineage of the Pleistocene wolf


I obviously tried to be as common as possible with this because general people do not have common knowledge about the palaeontologist story of the canis genre, and im not as pedant to assume everyone should know this.(despite you trying to correct me on this one, paleontologists call the line that gave birth to the today wolves and dogs aas "pleistocene wolf, so me saying wolf is not wrong).

See above for Taxonomy nonsense

If we use this as an example, the Moridian would be the ancestors of what we know as the species of orcs, even if people call then "first orcs' they are not the race/specie orc, just like we can call "the first dogs" the ancestor of the dog(one of the pleistocene wolves lineage) but they are not, Canis familiaris.

See the above link in the Taxonomy nonsense Paleolithic dog are called Canis familiaris

Nope, because in the third age, the time the trilogy happens, we already have plenty of uruks-hais breed with humans by Sauron and Saruman and orcs who grow bigger in Mordor, this is explained by Tolkien.

unless you want to say every single orc on screen is a uruks-hais beyond the post spider group and goblin town the majority are still mansized.

Nope, it does not, its just you using confirmation bias and ignoring the rest of the information, using then separate instead of together as they should be. Just because the elves saw then and said "those could be elves becoming evil and savage" does not mean, in the slightest, they are not, also, sallow, crooked, fanged, smaller and with longer arms. Its literally you removing all the characteristics that make an orc an orc, and using the ones you like to say he fit ONE(being evil) and think you won the argument by "numbers of box checked".

Not ignoring any thing I'm applying all of Tolkins descriptions of orcs and finding both Adar and jacksons wanting as both leave out more of what Tolkien said then they include and jackson adds on new bits that Tolkien never described.

[rhorle]

Yes quite, as I said "there are sematic arguments about rather the Paleolithic dog was a "dog "wolf" or other unnamed canine"

There is a difference between the Pleistocene wolf and the Paleolithic dog. It might be best if you just drop the subject because you keep confusing things. It isn't disputed that domesticated dogs have a wolf in their lineage. They are relatives to modern wolves after all. What is disputed is which wolf sub species and when the divergence and domestication happened as there are indications of multiple domestication events.

[Syegfryed]

See the above link in the Taxonomy nonsense Paleolithic dog are called Canis familiaris

You mean the one bit that literally says -> Canis c.f. familiaris(where c.f. is a Latin term meaning uncertain)<- ?, uncertain as it he is not sure?

Either way, the paleolithic dog, would not be Canis familiaris, the ones we have today, since the ones we have today had breed with other wolves along hundreds of years, with many cases/examples of domestication.

unless you want to say every single orc on screen is a uruks-hais beyond the post spider group and goblin town the majority are still mansized.

You will need to ask then about that, cause, for all we know, they could be.

You still keep ignoring the others ones i gave examples of, like there is only one, thus confirming your argument somehow.

Not ignoring any thing I'm applying all of Tolkins descriptions of orcs and finding both Adar and jacksons wanting as both leave out more of what Tolkien said then they include and jackson adds on new bits that Tolkien never described.

Nope you are not, because Adar look 100% an elf with a scar on his face, he does not look savage, crooked, smaller, sallow, dark skinned, long-armed and fanged, those are all traits you can find in orcs from the Jackson movies.

Your best bet here, is to ignore SEVEN key traits of the orc race, described by tolkien, to say Adar is an orc, just because he check the "evil-looking" just because he look gaunt with a scar, despite also he looking more like a proper elf than a lot of the actual elves in the show.

Despite the fact that for evil to have a "look" he would not look like Adar(100% an elf), but it would be something akin to to what happened to Gollum, an evil and savage hobbit, that does not look like a hobbit

"well, he looks evil" by this argument alone, any southlander would be an orc, cause they look evil and savage.

[rhorle]

"well, he looks evil" by this argument alone, any southlander would be an orc, cause they look evil and savage.

The show hasn't established any Southlander as being an Orc. The show has established this specific "evil elf" as being an Orc. They created a word to call him an Orc. He identifies as an Orc. He bleeds like an Orc. He leads Orcs. I really don't see why you are arguing against the facts of show. Tolkien never described the first elves to fall to corruption so it is impossible for you to say it ignores seven key traits of Tolkien.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You will need to ask then about that, cause, for all we know, they could be.

*shrug* fine there all uruks-hais's and we haven't even been talking about proper orcs at all.

[Fabinas]

This whole conversation feels like:

https://youtu.be/XEL65gywwHQ

Never clicked on it, so, whatever you tried to tell, never reached me.

However...

Yeah, especially because they are arguing with the wind. The data was collected. People who matter to the business made their decisions weeks or months ago.

There is no developmental executive thinking about SpaghettiMonk's opinion on orcs and elves on a subforum while sitting on their golden toilet.

pwnd

[Xath]

The streaming business is not about getting people to sign up for any particular show. No platform is ever going to get over to the point where you are signing up millions of subscribers just for X show. You're providing a service of various properties you can leverage.

Who you personally know and why they do this or that is not relevant.

I am not discussing or ever have been, the quality of the show or the motivations of the consumers. This is of zero interest and concern to me- I don't care about this show one bit.

Again prime is different because the main reason for signing up for it isn't to watch shows. The main reason most people have prime is for the shipping.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, especially because they are arguing with the wind. The data was collected. People who matter to the business made their decisions weeks or months ago.

There is no developmental executive thinking about Sven's opinion on orcs and elves on a subforum while sitting on their golden toilet.

Yes and those decision included MASSIVE changes to the production staff for a reason and it's not because the show did amazing.

[rhorle]

Yes and those decision included MASSIVE changes to the production staff for a reason and it's not because the show did amazing.

There were no MASSIVE or even massive changes. Two of Three directors were changed. Your logic is also flawed because House of the Dragon replaced one of their show runners who was also a director. So do you consider House of the Dragon to be a flop?

Just as Amazon Prime giving Prime Video for free is irrelevant because Amazon doesn't just say something was a success because they have a high total subscriber count. You are just looking for ways to put an asterisks so something that was successfully really wasn't.

[Fabinas]

Again prime is different because the main reason for signing up for it isn't to watch shows. The main reason most people have prime is for the shipping.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes and those decision included MASSIVE changes to the production staff for a reason and it's not because the show did amazing.

Stop connecting those issues with success.

Stop the circle. You arguments do not refute the issue at hand. They are pointing to different issues.

Unfortunately, people watched RoP, despite it being a huge trainwreck and one of the worst created shows ever, especially for its budget.
It doesn't matter that it was given for free with Prime. Also who cares why they made changes to directors, stuff etc. The latter ones were done probably for artistic and production value issues (which imo, were abysmal).

All that matters to people in the TV/Movie industry is the entrance to the Top15 of Nielsen's Streaming shows - Most minutes viewed.

With that particular and specific metric, people concerned will never see it as a failure. Only as success.

Stop debating this. Numbers are objective and not a matter of interpretation. It's not statistic, it's not rate, it's just that. Pure minutes viewed. Even if that meant EVERYONE who watched it, watched the first minute and never tuned in with the show again (obviously not a realistic example).

Start discussing the true failures of the show, instead trying to play the hero on a hill that was already nuked.

[Dhrizzle]

If the executives think that the data they collected means the show was a success, they are morons. Again, they took a valuable IP that was coming off a 20 year content drought and spent hundreds of millions of dollars producing a show that they gave away for free. Of course the first season will get a lot of interest. But you can't make much money giving a show away for free (I'm aware that they think it's advertising for their website, that they sell more books, etc., so they did get some revenue).

But in season 2 those built in advantages will fade, and that's where the real story will be told.

Ad a show it's considered a success because it was one of few original streaming shows to break into the top 15 that wasn't made by the market-dominating Netflix.

As a product Amazon consider it a success because of the number of people who signed up to Prime and made it one of the first things they watched - for Amazon that is an important metric because they use their streaming platform to get people through the doors of their shopping centre.

Both of those definitions are more important to the people making the show than how much a few people on social media are complaining about stuff.

[Dhrizzle]

Where's your source on people signing up to prime to watch Rings of Power? I've seen them say that it brought people to the service, but said very vaguely in a way that I assumed meant that they brought already existing prime subscribers to watch the free show.

https://deadline.com/2022/12/lotr-th...al-1235201384/

And again - any "success" should be measured relative to expectations. I personally would expect a LOTR show given away for free to have good ratings. It's not impressive to do what it's supposed to do.

No-one cares about your expectations, it's people who paid for and made the show who are relevant.

[Dhrizzle]

What's interesting is that there's nothing in the actual quoted interview about sign ups during the launch window.

First couple of paragraphs give a summary that mention record number of sign-ups during the launch window. He also mentions a huge surge of people signing up to watch after the full thing was released.

To your other point - I guess we should shut down the site then, all that matters is what executives think, huh?

Shut down what site?