Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Adamas102]

You look at it as a blank slate, where the show's plot contrivances are necessary for moving their plot forward. You don't see the show having to adhere to book lore at all. I see it as an adaptation of an established history, and one that falls short from being faithful while presenting a highly disjointed and poorly paced show with too many POVs to follow. Having Durins be faithfully adapted doesn't make up for everything else being changed to fit the condensed timeline and decision to involve Galadriel in most-to-all major historic event.

I don't look at it as a blank slate. The information presented in the appendices is obviously the starting point and the basis for the series. I also never said that the show should ignore the lore, I said that like all adaptations it need not be a slave to every detail of the source material (especially for an adaptation that moves from one medium to another).

If this were a completely new series, then sure this kind of adventure plot works fine. Hero's journey, I get it. But this is not just any story, this is LOTR's history and the creation of the Rings of Power, a series of historic events that (unlike LOTR) does NOT simply follow the journey of one main character. It is NOT a hero's journey story. It is a historic account of worldly politics, much of which spans generations. It was not an ideal setting and event to choose to tell a character-driven story.

The lore being covered in the series is a shadow of what LotR and the Hobbit are in terms of detail and narrative depth. People really need to get over this idea of this lore being some sort of definitive, sacred text. It's an appendix. It's notes and lists that are there to give a very brief and vague backdrop for the REAL story which was LotR. There is no narrative, there's almost no detail, characters have no descriptions, personalities, arcs or dialogue, and large swaths of time are left completely blank. And what's more, it wasn't even the final, definitive vision of the author (and neither was the Silmarillion which also barely touches upon the Second Age).

It's also not being presented as just a hero's journey. While Galadriel is the focus for a large portion of the show, it's very much a sprawling story told across several perspectives. You wouldn't say that GoT season 1 was centered on Ned Stark just because he had almost twice the screen time of any other character (roughly the same compared to Galadriel for season 1), or that the entirety of the series was centered on Tyrion, right?

I'm trying to think of a show or movie that doesn't ground itself with one or several main characters through whose perspective the narrative unfolds... I mean, certainly none of the best ones did, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why character driven drama is the benchmark for good storytelling (and has been since antiquity).

The lore was bastardized by the choice to make the show character-driven and centered on one particular character like Galadriel. They chose to use the lore to explain away their Hero's Journey, rather than actually tell history the way it was written. And because of that, much of the significance of the lore, history and worldbuilding are diminished.

So you wanted a documentary? Because the appendices are little more than that. Like I said above, the lore for this stretch of time is bare bones AT BEST. And again, it's NOT centered on one character. If you want a dry accounting of the lore then the appendices are still there for you to read. All 2 pages dedicated to the 2nd Age (only half of which occurs between the forging of the rings and the end of the age). The lore of Numenor from the forging of the Ring to the downfall is less than two pages (1,700 years covered in less than two pages, more than half of which is dedicated to Ar-Pharazon). The lore of Durin's folk for the Second Age is one paragraph. These are pretty easy reads if you really don't give a shit about having them adapted to the screen.

Like I can ask you why Numenor decides to join the fight against Sauron in the books vs why they decide to in the show. The books have a very rich history and culture built up for them, with Sauron's own proclamations leading them to take action.

The books have a very rich history? No, they don't. The description for why Tar-Minastir sent the fleet to aid Gil-Galad is "He loved the Eldar but envied them" (Appendix A). That's it. There is nothing at all about the relationship he had with the elves, how he "loved but envied them", no description of the force he sent to aid them, nothing at all about the battles that were fought. The Silmarillion has no details about it at all other than Sauron was still pissed about it centuries later ("nor did he forget the aid that Tar-Minastir had rendered to Gil-galad of old, in that time when the One Ring was forged"). Even the Unfinished Tales don't add much more than names to the locations of the battles.

It's like you've concocted this whole idea of a deep and detailed lore in your head completely separate from the reality that it's all based on just a handful of disjointed, often time contradictory, notes mostly edited and published posthumously.

[Triceron]

The lore being covered in the series is a shadow of what LotR and the Hobbit are in terms of detail and narrative depth. People really need to get over this idea of this lore being some sort of definitive, sacred text. It's an appendix. It's notes and lists that are there to give a very brief and vague backdrop for the REAL story which was LotR. There is no narrative, there's almost no detail, characters have no descriptions, personalities, arcs or dialogue, and large swaths of time are left completely blank. And what's more, it wasn't even the final, definitive vision of the author (and neither was the Silmarillion which also barely touches upon the Second Age).

That's little more than an excuse though.

If the film is an adaptation of a historic epic, then it should at least adhere to such basic things like... Following its history.

Of course things can change and be embellished. I am not arguing against RoP being an adaptation. It is free to be as creative as it wishes to be. But I've been pretty clear on bringing up direct examples of what in the show doesn't work.

There are certainly broad strokes being followed, but there's far too many drastic changes or creative license being apllied that creates some significant plot holes/contradictions, mainly because we are literally dealing with historic revision to fit the story they want to tell.

It's also not being presented as just a hero's journey. While Galadriel is the focus for a large portion of the show, it's very much a sprawling story told across several perspectives. You wouldn't say that GoT season 1 was centered on Ned Stark just because he had almost twice the screen time of any other character (roughly the same compared to Galadriel for season 1), or that the entirety of the series was centered on Tyrion, right?

The difference is the events of GoT (early seasons) still followed the major beats of the book. Details can change, while the major arcs remain on target, and it still resembles the book lore in broad strokes.

It wasn't changed to the point where Ned Stark was travelling around the world and inserting himself into multiple story arcs like going to the Wall and then appearing at Kings Landing then riding with the Dothraki. It wasn't the Ned Stark show even if he was a major POV character. The show didn't actually center around him and his actions even though he was at the center of the show, he was caught in the middle.

Contrast that with Galadriel's story, where the world is literally revolving around her presence. If not for her explicit presence, Numenor would have absolutely no involvement with the affairs of the world, Sauron may have been left stranded in the middle of the ocean, and the Rings of Power may never have been forged. The show presents her as being causal to these events all happening. The only real things out of her influence or control would have been the appearance of the Stranger and the eventual creation of Mordor.

I'm trying to think of a show or movie that doesn't ground itself with one or several main characters through whose perspective the narrative unfolds... I mean, certainly none of the best ones did, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why character driven drama is the benchmark for good storytelling (and has been since antiquity).

I'm not criticising the choice to tell a character story.

I'm criticizing the choice to use the Rings of Power story and setting to do so.

If this were a simpler 'Young Galadriel' story that just centers on her growth and misadventures, I'd have no problem. But this is a misadventures story that involves established history.

Like I said with the Warcraft movie, it's the wrong approach for a movie to bite off more than they could chew, and inserted waaay too much that killed the overall pacing.

So you wanted a documentary?

Rings of Power's setting spanning generations may not have been the best choice to tell a character story that focuses on Galadriel. Does my point make sense?


If they want to adapt Rings of Power, then they should adapt the lore and history of Rings of Power. The setting and story should be the priority. Instead, they chose to build the show around a popular well known character and have the entire show revolve around her adventures as though everything she was involved in became recorded history.

That'd be fine if it was Galadriel's adventures exploring Middle Earth, like the unrecorded adventures in history. But we're dealing with settings and events that are literally history to the LOTR, and the lore was bastardized in the process of them making room for the story and film they wanted to tell.

Like, regardless if whether you like the Mithril saves Elves expansion of the lore or not, it just doesn't connect to LOTR as history, and creates quite massive potential plot holes. Frodo's shirt would incredibly important to the Elves and would have been a HUGE bartering chip/motivating factor for getting them more involved with the war against Sauron instead of leaving to the west. Aragorn, who was raised by Elrond, would have known of its significance to the Elves, and would have had enough to convince them to stay. The mere introduction of 'mithril saves Elves' undermines the existing lore, not expand it. And Rings of Power does this throughout the series, like Galadriel being st Numenor like I said previously.

But like I said, we have different perspectives. It's obvious enough to me you don't think much about the repercussions of this affecting LOTR lore, or maybe you feel it's excusable for the mere sake of RoP being a self contained adaptstion that should be allowed the freedom to build its own canon. I don't see it the same way. If they wanted to tell a story about Galadriels adventures or the magical properties of Mithril saving Elves, then do so without creating massive potential plot holes/contradictions to the existing lore. A self contained 'untold history' adventure would have been fine for that.

[Adamas102]

That's little more than an excuse though.

If the film is an adaptation of a historic epic, then it should at least adhere to such basic things like... Following its history.

It's not an excuse. It's an actual evaluation of the lore which you believe to be deep and detailed when in fact it is very much the opposite. One sentence fragment to describe 300 years is not "history". You have an extraordinarily low bar for what constitutes "lore" and conversely an extremely high bar for adaptations to adhere to it. It's ridiculous.

Contrast that with Galadriel's story, where the world is literally revolving around her presence. If not for her explicit presence, Numenor would have absolutely no involvement with the affairs of the world, Sauron may have been left stranded in the middle of the ocean, and the Rings of Power may never have been forged. The show presents her as being causal to these events all happening. The only real things out of her influence or control would have been the appearance of the Stranger and the eventual creation of Mordor.

Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that most of you didn't really watch the show at all. Did you just put it on in the background while playing WoW, or something? You're making a lot of assumptions and seem to have wildly inaccurate ideas about how the show is structured.

The reveal a the end of the season was that her actions and decisions had been guided by Sauron almost the whole time, with the plan being to seduce her to his side. Galadriel is merely one of several vessels being used to explore and connect the disjointed lore points. Giving the character an arc during a time when her lore is non-existent isn't a bad thing either.

I'm not criticising the choice to tell a character story.

I'm criticizing the choice to use the Rings of Power story and setting to do so.

There is no Rings of Power story. Tolkien never wrote one. He jotted down a few sentences here and there and made a list of dates but that's it. When was the last time you actually pulled out your copy of LotR and took a look at the appendices?

If they want to adapt Rings of Power, then they should adapt the lore and history of Rings of Power.

That's exactly what they're doing! They took what was available to them, mapped out the key points, and developed a narrative by which those points could be presented in a cinematic storytelling style.

The setting and story should be the priority. Instead, they chose to build the show around a popular well known character and have the entire show revolve around her adventures as though everything she was involved in became recorded history.

No, the story is built around the events. The one of several characters that you keep harping on is just one of several means by which to bring those events to life as a cohesive narrative.

Like, regardless if whether you like the Mithril saves Elves expansion of the lore or not, it just doesn't connect to LOTR as history, and creates quite massive potential plot holes. Frodo's shirt would incredibly important to the Elves and would have been a HUGE bartering chip/motivating factor for getting them more involved with the war against Sauron instead of leaving to the west. Aragorn, who was raised by Elrond, would have known of its significance to the Elves, and would have had enough to convince them to stay. The mere introduction of 'mithril saves Elves' undermines the existing lore, not expand it. And Rings of Power does this throughout the series, like Galadriel being st Numenor like I said previously.

Did you miss the part about mithril on its own not being sufficient for the task? These aren't really plot holes if their just based on your misunderstanding of the plot.

But like I said, we have different perspectives. It's obvious enough to me you don't think much about the repercussions of this affecting LOTR lore, or maybe you feel it's excusable for the mere sake of RoP being a self contained adaptstion that should be allowed the freedom to build its own canon. I don't see it the same way.

There are no repercussions to LotR lore. IF the show is truly designed to be connected to the movies then keeping that in mind is indeed important, and thus far there hasn't really been any sort of egregious deviation (especially considering that we're only a fraction of the way though the events). Even if it isn't intended to feed into the movies, as an adaptation it doesn't build its own canon. The source material is still the only canon. The adaptation is merely a story retold through the perspective of the associated directors, writers, and actors.

[Triceron]

It's not an excuse. It's an actual evaluation of the lore which you believe to be deep and detailed when in fact it is very much the opposite. One sentence fragment to describe 300 years is not "history". You have an extraordinarily low bar for what constitutes "lore" and conversely an extremely high bar for adaptations to adhere to it. It's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is believing that Galadriel rallying Numenor and having a direct connection to Sauron would be a fine adaptation of the lore.

Perspective. You think I have a high bar, I think you have a low bar. We have different perspectives, that's all.

There'a little I can say that would satisfy what you want to hear, and I'm very aware of respectfully disagreeing on these points.

Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that most of you didn't really watch the show at all. Did you just put it on in the background while playing WoW, or something? You're making a lot of assumptions and seem to have wildly inaccurate ideas about how the show is structured.

The reveal a the end of the season was that her actions and decisions had been guided by Sauron almost the whole time, with the plan being to seduce her to his side. Galadriel is merely one of several vessels being used to explore and connect the disjointed lore points. Giving the character an arc during a time when her lore is non-existent isn't a bad thing either.

It doesn't make sense either way, because she wasn't actually being manipulated for most of her actions (not to say he wasn't manipulating her; he absolutely was). She was consistently making brash decisions from the get go. That's what makes the 'revelation' damning, because it's a hamfisted and contrived explanation that doesn't really work.

Galadriel's characterization is actually quite consistent. She is brash and stubborn in ger ways, and Halbrand does little to actually manipulate her. It was mostly her own doing, and he even ADMITS this like when he says he wasn't the one that told her he was a king of the Southlands, it was her own misguided assumptions. He wasn't manipulating her as much as she manipulated herself, and he just ran with it and got convinced of his own self worth in her zealousness. He was content to be left floating in the middle of nowhere and starting a new life, in this story.

There is no Rings of Power story. Tolkien never wrote one. He jotted down a few sentences here and there and made a list of dates but that's it. When was the last time you actually pulled out your copy of LotR and took a look at the appendices?

Shortly before the series came out.

There are no repercussions to LotR lore. IF the show is truly designed to be connected to the movies then keeping that in mind is indeed important, and thus far there hasn't really been any sort of egregious deviation (especially considering that we're only a fraction of the way though the events). Even if it isn't intended to feed into the movies, as an adaptation it doesn't build its own canon. The source material is still the only canon. The adaptation is merely a story retold through the perspective of the associated directors, writers, and actors.

The only way Rings of Power would make sense to the movie canon and work itself into the cinematic universe is if they added a scene with the little hobbits at Bilbo's party asking him "What happened next to Lady Galadriel?"

[Syegfryed]

Not many shows get anywhere close to 100 million viewers, you also need to realise not everyone needs to watch a show for it to be good

And since 67% of the audience didn'y even finish the show, you know it was shit.

Does not matter if you got 100mlion of minutes watched, not viwers btw, because you had a powerful ip behind, if people do not care about finishing your show

Shows also grow after the full series has been released, more and more ppl will eventually watch these shows.

no, no one is going to eventually watch garbage for no reason.

You are always going to have the wrong opinions when you ignore simple facts.

the fact is that 67% of their US audience didn't finish the show, this is a fact that people didn't like the show, period.

[Adamas102]

What's ridiculous is believing that Galadriel rallying Numenor and having a direct connection to Sauron would be a fine adaptation of the lore.

Perspective. You think I have a high bar, I think you have a low bar. We have different perspectives, that's all.

There'a little I can say that would satisfy what you want to hear, and I'm very aware of respectfully disagreeing on these points.

It's definitely a "fine adaptation". I might feel like I could have written it in a less convoluted way, but regardless it ties the disjointed lore together to form a cohesive narrative. It introduces many of the requisite characters as well as the conflict that will play a part in future events. And Galadriel interacting directly with Sauron at this point in the story doesn't break anything. It adds drama and narrative where none existed, but doesn't contradict any of the events to come. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing wrong with the premise itself.

It's not a respectful disagreement if you're grossly misrepresenting the source material. You say you read the appendices shortly before the series came out? Then how do you explain your blatant disregard for what little is actually on the page, while instead creating this fantasy of there being a rich and detailed history? This isn't a matter of perspective. It's you being dishonest and apparently not understanding the purpose of adaptation. If you wished that instead they just had a narrator read through the entirety of the Second Age lore (something that would take maybe 10 minutes) then you're not really adding anything of relevance to the discussion.

[Triceron]

It's definitely a "fine adaptation". I might feel like I could have written it in a less convoluted way, but regardless it ties the disjointed lore together to form a cohesive narrative. It introduces many of the requisite characters as well as the conflict that will play a part in future events. And Galadriel interacting directly with Sauron at this point in the story doesn't break anything. It adds drama and narrative where none existed, but doesn't contradict any of the events to come. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing wrong with the premise itself.

I agree, there's nothing wrong with the premise itself. I disagree on it being a fine adaptation.

The problem is that the premise breaks down when we consider what their relationship resulted in. The involvement of Numenor, the rise of Elendil, and of course, Galadriel's personal involvement in the creation of the Rings of Power. It's all interconnected because their direct relationship is causal to these events. The show implies that these historic events wouldn't have happened without a direct connection between Galadriel and Sauron, while the original source history of these events are not supposed to involve them together at all.

It's not a respectful disagreement if you're grossly misrepresenting the source material. You say you read the appendices shortly before the series came out? Then how do you explain your blatant disregard for what little is actually on the page, while instead creating this fantasy of there being a rich and detailed history? This isn't a matter of perspective. It's you being dishonest and apparently not understanding the purpose of adaptation. If you wished that instead they just had a narrator read through the entirety of the Second Age lore (something that would take maybe 10 minutes) then you're not really adding anything of relevance to the discussion.

I went through the appendices and Silmarillion together, and my previous comments about rich and detailed lore is in regards to everything we know about the Second Age. If you were talking specifically about the Appendices, then I'll admit to miscommunicating my response. My sentiment remains the same otherwise.

I don't really care if they don't have the rights to Silmarillion's 2nd Age. IMO, if they lack the rights to detailed accounts of specific historic events in the 2nd Age that they want to adapt; then just... don't use that specific setting. I would have no problem with a misadventures of Galadriel show. Kinda like what Star Wars is doing with Andor or Obi-Wan series; these are untold stories, not adaptations of recorded history and lore that end up being completely retconned.

And to circle around to the original point, it is a bastardization of the lore of the books, because it literally rewrites history to fit the story it wants to tell and does so poorly. It's not merely a romanticization of these events, it's a poorly executed adaptation overall that would imply many plot holes if connected to back to the books. Not saying they have to or should connect to the books, but merely arguing that if it did, it would introduce plot holes/contradictions that diminishes the original lore. Gil-Galad having authority to send Elves back to Valinor is one such example; Mithril saving Elves is another. And overall, the entire choice to condense timelines and center all major events to Galadriel is causal to such discrepencies.

If you really break down the changes they made to the lore, it feels like they were a result of reverse engineered plot. Like if their goal was to tell a story of Galadriel being in Numenor, and the writers needed some excuse to have Galadriel travel westward. There is no reason to give Gil-Galad the authority to send Elves back to Valinor in the show's own lore, and Gil-Galad having this authority serves no greater purpose after he sends them out to sea. It's merely used as plot element to situate Galadriel close to Numenor. And if that's how they actually went about writing this show, then IMO it's better if they just wrote something completely new instead of covering any existing lore and history from the books. Just tell an untold adventure story set in the 2nd Age instead.

[Adamas102]

The problem is that it does break when we include everything else that happened. The involvement of Numenor, the existence of Halbrand, and of course, Galadriel's personal involvement in the creation of the Rings of Power. It's all interconnected because their direct relationship is causal to these events. Most of these events and the written history wouldn't happen without them having a direct connection to each other, while the history of these events are not supposed to involve them together at all.

Galadriel and Sauron having a history is not lore breaking itself, but results in being responsible for certain events, which opens up significant plot holes when regarding the history it's intended to tell.

How is the lore broken with these events? Numenor is involved in battles against Sauron, and ultimately the fate of Numenor culminates in its destruction with very specific characters escaping the calamity to carry on the story to the established narrative that is LotR. Nothing so far suggests that fate will change. Some of the details have been changed to accommodate the medium of a 5 season series because casting 15 different kings of Numenor in order to get from the forging of the rings to the destruction of Numenor would be absurd (especially when many of them were nothing but a name on a list with no narrative relevance whatsoever).

Halbrand very clearly fills the role of Annatar while giving it more narrative depth (disguise used to teach elves jewelcraft isn't an example of deep lore). It's Sauron either way, there are no details as to what he actually teaches them, he simply acts as the catalyst for the elves creating the rings. Nothing really changed there.

As for Galadriel's role, all she really contributes is the idea to make three. There's nothing in the lore to explain why Celebrimbor made three so any explanation works as long as the three elven rings are made. Again, nothing broken there.

So again, where does it all break?

I went through the appendices and Silmarillion together, and my previous comments about rich and detailed lore is in regards to everything we know about the Second Age. If you were talking specifically about the Appendices, then I'll admit to miscommunicating my response. My sentiment remains the same otherwise.

I don't really care if they don't have the rights to Silmarillion's 2nd Age. IMO, lacking the rights to the material is not cause to go ham on a completely new thing and pass it off as being the history behind Lord of the Rings. IMO, if you lack they lack the rights to detailed accounts of specific historic events in the 2nd Age that they want to adapt; then just... don't use that specific setting.

I referenced the Silmarillion as well when you tried to cite a deep history for why Numenor (Tar-Minastir specifically) helped the elves in the fight against Sauron. It was one sentence with no real detail. The entirety of the events that cover the forging of the Rings and the subsequent battles is roughly six and a half pages in the version I have in front of me right now. In the context of real history, there are entire books that focus on a single event or battle. Rattling off a few names and covering events in one to two sentences isn't deep, rich history. The Silmarillion is a collection of notes, work in progress that was compiled posthumously. No matter how much you want to revere it, it's not a detailed account.

It's also just so ludicrous to me to say "just don't use the setting if you can't make it the way I want you to". There's nothing gained from your gatekeeping. If you don't like the adaptation or feel like it doesn't add anything to your enjoyment of the source material then that's fine. You can even criticize it if you want, whatever. But saying that other artists should be prevented from adapting the setting and the stories is just absurd.

[Triceron]

How is the lore broken with these events?

It is not broken.

It is a diminished form of those historic events.

Numenor rises to fight Sauron out of his hubris.

Halbrand very clearly fills the role of Annatar while giving it more narrative depth (disguise used to teach elves jewelcraft isn't an example of deep lore). It's Sauron either way, there are no details as to what he actually teaches them, he simply acts as the catalyst for the elves creating the rings. Nothing really changed there.

I will wait and see, but so far I'm not very sure where they're going with this with his reveal at the end of S1.

But what we have so far is a highly diminished versio of Annatar if we are making the comparison; one that is far less charismatic, effective, and showed his disguise to the enemy in an effort to sway them to his side. That never really happened with Annatar, and if anything, his guise was almost too convincing considering he had trouble gaining his Orc followers due to his appearance.

I referenced the Silmarillion as well when you tried to cite a deep history for why Numenor (Tar-Minastir specifically) helped the elves in the fight against Sauron. It was one sentence with no real detail. The entirety of the events that cover the forging of the Rings and the subsequent battles is roughly six and a half pages in the version I have in front of me right now. In the context of real history, there are entire books that focus on a single event or battle. Rattling off a few names and covering events in one to two sentences isn't deep, rich history. The Silmarillion is a collection of notes, work in progress that was compiled posthumously. No matter how much you want to revere it, it's not a detailed account.

It's also just so ludicrous to me to say "just don't use the setting if you can't make it the way I want you to". There's nothing gained from your gatekeeping. If you don't like the adaptation or feel like it doesn't add anything to your enjoyment of the source material then that's fine. You can even criticize it if you want, whatever. But saying that other artists should be prevented from adapting the setting and the stories is just absurd.

My opinion that they avoid doing something they don't have the liscence for does not equate to me having the power to prevent them from doing anything.

If you don't agree with my opinion, then feel free to disagree. I'm pro-adaptation, and also pro meeting fan expectations. I don't think these are mutually exclusive concepts. And no, expressing an opinion is not gatekeeping; forcing it on others would be gatekeeping. I am very clearly expressing a personal opinion, not extending a mandate for everyone to follow. I find these accusations quite insulting.

For example, we have two Mario movies that are unique adaptations that don't adhere to game lore. There's nothing wrong with the 90's SMB movie choosing to be creative and telling its own story, but I can have and express the opinion that it would be better if they stuck closer to the games and gave the fans something closer to what they came to see. And I can point at the success of the new Mario movie (which is an equally creative adaptation telling its own story) as an example of what I'm talking about when fan expectations are met. My opinions on these franchises come from my expectations as a fan, nothing more nothing less.

Of course, this is merely an opinion that I'm expressing, and by no means the primary fault of the series. If anything, I think RoP lacked a strong vision behind it. Even if the concepts and premises they had are arguably solid, the execution of the series was just terrible, and marred by poor pacing and way too many disjointed POVs and plot lines. This topic just happens to be about the lore, so that's what I've been generally sticking to, but by no means is the lore a root of the problem of the show. I'm of the opinion that there could have been better alternatives than what we got.

[Veggie50]

Conversation circle:

“Rings of power is objectively bad”

- “Why is it objectively bad?”

“Gives several subjective reasons”

- “those are not objective reasons, so it being bad is your opinion, not a fact”

“Yes it is bad, that’s a fact not an opinion”

- “so explain, what makes you say that?”

And restart the circle.

[s_bushido]

Conversation circle:

“Rings of power is objectively bad”

- “Why is it objectively bad?”

“Gives several subjective reasons”

- “those are not objective reasons, so it being bad is your opinion, not a fact”

“Yes it is bad, that’s a fact not an opinion”

- “so explain, what makes you say that?”

And restart the circle.

Whining about this or that interpretation of lore/source material is about as far from "objective" as it gets.

[Triceron]

Conversation circle:

“Rings of power is objectively bad”

Why is it objectively bad?

[kenn9530]

And since 67% of the audience didn'y even finish the show, you know it was shit.

Does not matter if you got 100mlion of minutes watched, not viwers btw, because you had a powerful ip behind, if people do not care about finishing your show



no, no one is going to eventually watch garbage for no reason.



the fact is that 67% of their US audience didn't finish the show, this is a fact that people didn't like the show, period.

- "Attracted more than 100 million viewers worldwide to the first season of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, making it the most watched Amazon Original series in every region of the world, with more than 24 billion minutes streamed," Amazon announced it its Q4 2022 earnings report.

You can at least attempt to back yourself up with some relevant information but you cant even be bothered to spend 2 mins to find accurate information that completely debunk anything you say, RoP is very successful and already proven to be a good show for all that watched it.

Facts are your opinions on the show dont matter, i cant be bothered watching house of the dragon yet or several shows but im not going to claim any of them are bad just because i have little interest in watching them.

[Shadowferal]

I'm sure Amazon will say whatever to shine up crap.

[The Stormbringer]

Considering this dipshit does not own the rights to anything in LOTR and interpretive works does not give you access to copyright protections if the work is interpreted from someone else's creation, he's gonna get crushed in a lawsuit. Amazon doesn't own the rights to anything LOTR either, they are merely licensing segments of the content, so they don't really have a case against the guy because they aren't the rights owners, but the Tolkien estate does.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that owner of the original IP can just yoink someone's fanfic and publish it...

[Ragedaug]

It’s definitely a large departure but here’s what I mean by compartmentalized:

In the book you have a bunch of humans under extreme duress defending helm’s deep. In the movie you have a bunch of elves. Either way, you basically never hear from those characters again, except that they are in the background in certain scenes. It is a departure that is 100% confined to that scene. The elves’ participation doesn’t drive any future or prior plot.

That’s fundamentally different from rings of power where all major story threads contain consistent long term deviations from the story.

Actually the Dúnedain replacement is not confined to that scene, and did have a further reaching major impact to the story in Return of the King. Which is a cautionary tale to why a story writer should do everything they can to stay on track with the book they are adapting. Similar to how GRR Martin talks about tiny changes in the first season or two of GoT , that were just a ripple created from a pebble, causing a tidal wave by the time you get to the last seasons.

And while watching Two Towers, I didn't mind the change to the Elves riding to Helm's Deep, as I understood the nature of the change was due to the reducing cost due to the medium; I would really have liked Jackson to keep the Dúnedain if it was possible.


For the record, the changes involve the Dead Men of Dunharrow, which lead to a huge departure in Battle of the Pelennor Fields. In the books, the Dead Men help Aragorn and the Grey Company defeat the 50 ships of Corsairs before the Corsairs can fortify the armies of Sauron. Then Aragorn releases the Dead Men from the curse at Pelargir. Only the Grey Company join Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. If memory serves, Minas Tiras and the Rohirrim were not overwhelmed like they were in the movies, with the arrival of the Rohan army tilting the battle in favor of Minas Tiras. The Dead Men served to cut off reinforcements that otherwise would have tilted the battle back to Sauron's favor. And then it's Aragorn and the Grey Company who help Minas Tirith make their final push to victory. The movie changes that to Minas Tirith being on the brink of falling when the ghost army shows up and presses their "I-Win" button. One of two major departures from the books that never sat well with me.

[Dhrizzle]

Conversation circle:

“Rings of power is objectively bad”

- “Why is it objectively bad?”

“Gives several subjective reasons”

- “those are not objective reasons, so it being bad is your opinion, not a fact”

“Yes it is bad, that’s a fact not an opinion”

- “so explain, what makes you say that?”

And restart the circle.

Nah, you also have to throw in the word "bastardize" every post like you're 8 years old and just discovered a legitimate way to use a swear word.

[Ragedaug]

Nah, you also have to throw in the word "bastardize" every post like you're 8 years old and just discovered a legitimate way to use a swear word.

While I would agree, using the phrase "objectively bad" is extremely difficult to justify when it comes to art, I can say that there have been a plethora of reasons given on each of every page of this thread to explain why the show is subjectively bad.

So I would argue that saying no reasons have been given to explain why the show is bad is quite a bit more disingenuous than someone being dramatic and using the word "objectively" instead of "subjectively".

- - - Updated - - -

- "Attracted more than 100 million viewers worldwide to the first season of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, making it the most watched Amazon Original series in every region of the world, with more than 24 billion minutes streamed," Amazon announced it its Q4 2022 earnings report.

This was due to the IP. The entire reason they paid for the story is because they knew at least 10's of millions would watch it based on Peter Jackson and Tolkien's work. It's completely disingenuous to claim that the show runners or quality of RoP was responsible for bringing in the 100M. If it was a quality show, it would have maintained or grew it's audience. You can't start a show with a baked-in audience of 100M strong, lose 2/3's of them before the first season is over, then call that "success".

Facts are your opinions on the show dont matter, i cant be bothered watching house of the dragon yet or several shows but im not going to claim any of them are bad just because i have little interest in watching them.

This is fair. You should not claim something is bad that you have not experienced. That said, there's very little of that here. I would contend that practically every poster in this thread who noted they have a problem with RoP, was among the 100M who started watching the series. That said, if you can find someone calling it "bad" who has not watched it, I would back you in criticizing them.

[rhorle]

I'm sure Amazon will say whatever to shine up crap.

I'm curious. If Amazon said it was a failure would you think they are lying as well? Or would you 100% believe Amazon because it matches your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

If it was a quality show, it would have maintained or grew it's audience. You can't start a show with a baked-in audience of 100M strong, lose 2/3's of them before the first season is over, then call that "success".

So Season 1 of any show can't be labeled successful because they can't maintain something that didn't exist prior to. Remember the article about Ring of Powers completion rate said 50% is solid for a show. Completion rate means zero with out a baseline of what is standard for shows and the industry. Is 100% normal? Is 50% closer to normal? The context also is that Amazon makes money on subscriptions and people engaging on other parts of their service.

So the show could still be a success because of subscriptions paid to watch it (yes some would be free trials) and some of those spending money elsewhere on Amazon. This notion that the show has to be a failure is silly. Are you another one of those that will think Amazon is lying until they say something that aligns with your viewpoint?

[Khaza-R]

Conversation circle:

“Rings of power is objectively bad”

- “Why is it objectively bad?”

“Gives several subjective reasons”

- “those are not objective reasons, so it being bad is your opinion, not a fact”

“Yes it is bad, that’s a fact not an opinion”

- “so explain, what makes you say that?”

And restart the circle.

To be fair, that's what happens when you try to make absolutist, overly general statements. About anything really. That's not to say the quality of a show is entirely subjective. Its the sum of thousands of different individuals pouring their efforts into creating a cohesive experience. It mostly certainly can be broken down piece by piece and scrutinized for quality on an objective basis.

But of course that's not what's happening here. This is just people debating their own opinions and preferences and trying to invalidate others.