Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Veggie50]

Except... people gave, time and time again, objective reasons.

The show is badly written, its an objective argument that the lines were nonsensical full of non seguitur, the analogy of the stone of the boat is dumb as fuck. The plot is all over the place and doesn't make sense, it its forcer to the way the showrunners wanted in not an organically way, like how the elves didn't notice the orcs bulding shit, or how in numenor they had the enemy plan wainting for galadriel to find, and they finding it was a map just by turning the symbol sideways, and why in the fuck does sauron would mark her brother with a map so they could find him????

The casting and acting was objectively bad from most of the characters, like they were just reading the script.

The changing from the original story were objectively bad, with bs like magic juice mithril and Galadriel going to numenor and leading then, or Galadriel and Sauron love quarry. it is objectively worse than what Tolkien wrote.

The choreography and fight scenes were bad, plain and simple, there is multiple times they didn't even touch the enemies and they simple are defeated

figurine? mostly bad, especially the numenorians. Hell even the edit of the show is bad, with the scene showing then in one position, but you cut from another angle and they are totally different, also, the power point name changing to mordor lol.

No one who is arguing with good faith can say those are "subjective" most of those stuff is the skeleton of what make a show decent.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you; the reason of my post.

As an aid for you, the word “bad” is ALWAYS subjective. You might well believe there is general concensus on your points and that the opposite view cannot be justified, but it is still subjective.

[Adamas102]

You seriously don't think condensing thousands of years and rearranging the sequence of events changes anything?

I didn't say that it doesn't change anything, but if there is no real detail associated with the passage of time then it's not of any narrative significance. Tolkien chose 300 years, but gave no reason for why it couldn't have been 200, or 100, or 1,000, or 20. As such, there is no lore there. It's just an arbitrary number to signify that time passed. Maybe it had to do with which mortals he wanted alive at the time the rings were completed, but from the perspective of an adaptation that is centered on particular events the number is not significant.

Every time I explain the full picture, you come back at me with a cherry picked scene and saying it doesn't break anything. But if you look at the entire picture, what you get is a completely different telling of the same story with events shifted and altered to the point where it no longer resembles the same outline of lore as in the books; some of which were made for the sake of merely getting a character from Point A to Point B. Annatar is not a character who is thwarted at every turn with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron. We have characters who have their suspicions, but his deception is maintained for a very long time. This characterizes Annatar in a way that Halbrand simply can't live up to (nor should it have to). And what I'm pointing out is the change to the lore inevitably bastardizes it, because we're talking about a show that is intent on adapting this specific history of Tolkien's works, and it's chosen a path of liberal romanticization.

I'm not cherry picking. I'm literally copy/pasting the entirety of the lore (what little there is). The point is that there is almost nothing TO diminish, or bastardize. You say "Annatar is not a character who is thwarted with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron", but HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? The lore doesn't tell us any detail of those 300 years other than "he instructed the Elven-smiths". That's not cherry picking, that's literally all the lore says. That and there were some who were suspicious of him. You can fill in the blank centuries if you want with this idea that everything went to plan and no one tried to figure out who he was, but it's simply your own headcanon and it's just as good as any other narrative that someone can come up with for how Annatar went about those years in Eregion. Yes, his deception was maintained, but we're not told whether there was conflict in doing so or not. And I wouldn't say that deciding to portray a narrative within that timespan would be bastardizing the lore because almost anything would be improving it. As long as the end result is the same and the rings are made using the knowledge he imparts on the smiths, any narrative is better than no narrative when it comes to adapting the story. So no, it's not a bastardization. It's an improvement.

It may not be the fault of the creators to break the lore, but it's a residual result of simply tackling this project under the premise of creating a singular narrative and story that doesn't span generations. This is why I express criticism on their choice to adapt the 2nd Age's history as a singular character-driven narrative. There are alternatives to choosing to adapting this huge a span of the 2nd Age. Like look at what War of the Rohirrim is aiming to do by telling a story set in Rohan during the time of Helm Hammerhand; a story that isn't going to be spanning generations to covering vast sections of lore, all within a single narrative.

What is the importance of that? It's a completely different type of story, yes, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's also important to note that Helm Hammerhand has about ten times more lore and infinitely more depth associated with him in the appendices than Annatar does in all the writings combined. There is narrative, there is insight into his personality, there is dialogue. SO much more to work with.

And again, I'm not preventing them from making RoP with a condensed timeline since they have the freedom to. All I'm pointing out is that it inevitably bastardizes the lore in the process of choosing to adapt it into a singular narrative, which it never was meant to be.

Your entire premise is flawed, because simply changing the narrative style doesn't mean the lore is necessarily diminished. In fact, dry detail (such as lore or even historical events) can be elevated by being drawn into dramatic narrative. Take Arcane for instance. Based on a handful of video game characters that had little more than short snippets of backstory, but drawn together into a fully formed narrative elevated the source material into one of the best (if not THE best) video game related adaptations.

You're coming at this from the perspective that the source material is ALWAYS the pinnacle, and any changes therefor make it diminished/corrupted/bastardized. This is again where your bias and lack of objectivity come into play.

Just like if we were to talk about an adaptation of real life history like Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or Inglorious Basterds. Both are great movies. Both are loosely based on history. Both bastardize history to tell their unique stories. There isn't anything insulting about the use of 'bastardization' here, it's a word used to describe a diminished copy; and in this context we are talking about what these movies do to real life history. Of course, the difference here is no one expects QT to be faithful to real history for his films; his entire style is predicated on exploitation films and heavily romanticized drama.

It's starting to sound like you just like throwing around the term "bastardization" with no real thought whatsoever. No, Tarantino's movies don't bastardize history. They don't diminish it. They embellish it. The movies don't serve to tell a historical account, so accuracy is never the intent. The historical setting, time period, characters, etc. serve the story the artist is trying to tell and are elevated from mere detail into a dramatic narrative.

And that's fine. But that's not lore depth, that's plot depth.

We're learning more about their interactions and character motivations in those scenes, which is great for the story they want to tell. But it's not doing anything for the greater lore, where we literally don't know why Halbrand is even helping Celebrimbor at this point. We just know he's manipulating him, we don't know exactly for what purpose, since his actual motives are mostly kept secret. Did he plan to have Rings of Power created from the beginning? Did he just come up with the idea after seeing what Celebrimbor was attempting to create? We don't know. There is no lore depth because there is no lore. We literally don't know what he is actually planning.

I'm not saying that the path they chose is perfect, but I AM saying that even the attempt is better than what little we get from the books. I mean shit, the books never even explain "why rings", but the show actually made an attempt to do so.

And what's the issue with not yet knowing Sauron's exact plans? There's still plenty more story to tell leading up to the One Ring. The only reason it's not a question in the books is because the entire forging of all 20 rings is covered in three sentences. And there is no explanation as to why rings, why did he leave after 16 were made, who did he expect to be wearing those 16 lesser rings, how did he not find out about the Three in the decade after leaving Eregion before completing the One, and so on. You're right, there lore has no depth and is almost a blank slate that many a narrative can be crafted to flesh out.

- - - Updated - - -

But unlike Tarantino's movies, there is an expectation for RoP to be as faithfully adapted as the PJ LOTR trilogy had been (not to be confused with calling LOTR a faithful adaptation; it is not). There is a bar set by PJ's trilogy for a film of this specific genre, adapting this specific author's work. It may sound unfair to compare it to LOTR, since the 2nd Age is literally just a spattering of historic events, but that's also the nature of choosing to adapt a spattering of historic events.

There's YOUR personal expectation (shared by many, I'm sure, but still not a universal expectation) as well as your subjective determination of how faithful the adaptation is. I wouldn't fault the people making the show for that, though. I'd consider that an error on the part of whoever thinks that adapting a spattering of disjointed notes can or should be viewed the same way as an adaptation of a complete and fully realized narrative. I would again argue that anyone who feels like the two are comparable simply doesn't understand the source material or how adaptation works.

[Yossarian]

I'm re-reading the Silmarillion on these days...

how could they fuck up SO MUCH the atmosphere, the lore, the stories...

to me, after all, this is most disappointing tv series I ever watched

[Adamas102]

And again, I'm not preventing them from making RoP with a condensed timeline since they have the freedom to. All I'm pointing out is that the process of choosing to adapt it into a singular narrative inevitably bastardizes the lore. So we can just accept it as what it is and move on, instead of trying to defend it for not breaking the very thing it's intentionally breaking.

Another example here that contradicts your entire premise would be episode 3 of The Last of Us. I know you said you have no experience with the game or the show, but I'll explain.

The third episode entails a massive deviation from the source material, crafting an entire episode-long story from a short sequence in the game. By your definition this would be a bastardization, a diminishing of the established source material by doing something that it didn't intend to do. However, it is one of the highlights of the series, and one of the most lauded episodes of TV this year. The lore and the source material aren't diminished, they're elevated. The choice to depart from the game canon added depth to the setting, a fantastic narrative, and a reinforcing of the themes the show was exploring.

So no, we're not just going to accept your take on the notion of adaptation changing the narrative structure "inevitably bastardizing lore" because it's simply, factually, objectively not true.

[Triceron]

I didn't say that it doesn't change anything, but if there is no real detail associated with the passage of time then it's not of any narrative significance. Tolkien chose 300 years, but gave no reason for why it couldn't have been 200, or 100, or 1,000, or 20. As such, there is no lore there. It's just an arbitrary number to signify that time passed. Maybe it had to do with which mortals he wanted alive at the time the rings were completed, but from the perspective of an adaptation that is centered on particular events the number is not significant.

That IS the lore. It doesn't matter if he didn't choose other numbers, that 300 years is the tine he chose. It is the fictional history.

And yes, you can argue that changing history isn't a big deal for the story you want to tell; ultimately that is subjective. Your regard of the significance of these numbers is subjective. It's still lore, no matter how insignificant you may think it is.

I'm not cherry picking. I'm literally copy/pasting the entirety of the lore (what little there is). The point is that there is almost nothing TO diminish, or bastardize. You say "Annatar is not a character who is thwarted with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron", but HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? The lore doesn't tell us any detail of those 300 years other than "he instructed the Elven-smiths". That's not cherry picking, that's literally all the lore says.

---
Yes, his deception was maintained, but we're not told whether there was conflict in doing so or not.
---+

That's exactly my point! Lore is HISTORY. If history isn't recorded, then nothing happens. Any attempt to fill in the blanks with headcanon that (intentional or not) diminishes the history is bastardizing it. Scouring of the Shire omission is one example. Changing the witch King's defeat is another. These are diminished accounts of the actual history of what happened in the actual lore.

And in this case, there is both objective and subjective value applied to the terminology. Think of it in like how 'Good' can have subjective value (that was a good show, I enjoyed it very much) or an objective value (A 90% score is typically considered a good score). The context of Bastardized Lore can be objectively considered in the right contextual framework, like describing how a romantacization corrupts the fictional history of a story to suit its own retelling of events. One such example is Disney taking popular fables snd telling them as kid-friendly tales that remove any tragic ending for the sake of modernization or palatability. Take the Little Mermaid for example, it's original story and ending are completely bastardized to suit a completely different story being told. And this description is not a an insult or derogatory statement, it is a description of the fictional history being changed and corrupted from the original texts; in this specific example changing from a Romantic Tragedy into a Romantic Fairy Tale. This is just a simple application of the term in context to the original lore. If you wish to call it an embellishment, you are also welcomed to; that is simply s description that favours creative changes over authenticity.

What is the importance of that? It's a completely different type of story, yes, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's also important to note that Helm Hammerhand has about ten times more lore and infinitely more depth associated with him in the appendices than Annatar does in all the writings combined. There is narrative, there is insight into his personality, there is dialogue. SO much more to work with.

Which is what I'm using as an example of what I think makes a better alternative to adapt than the broad history of 2nd Age that Rings of Power is attempting to cover. This is just my opinion here, not what I am demanding of Amazon to change like you somehow think.

I have similar criticisms for the first Warcraft movie, where I think they bit off too much to chew to put into a single movie. It may have been better if it spanned out as a miniseries, or if they merely picked one narrative that would have been better to translate into film, like Arthas' story. The pacing, the convoluted plotlines, and too many PoV plots to follow all mirror the same issues that complicates Rings of Power. And overall, the lore is collateral damage from merely choosing to adapt an epic into a single movie.

Your entire premise is flawed, because simply changing the narrative style doesn't mean the lore is necessarily diminished.

But it is for the specific case of the show we are talking about here.

You're coming at this from the perspective that the source material is ALWAYS the pinnacle, and any changes therefor make it diminished/corrupted/bastardized. This is again where your bias and lack of objectivity come into play.

No, it is NOT the pinnacle. It is the TOPIC of this specific discussion! It's like if you were commenting to my criticism on the show's poor pacing, I'm going to talk about the show's poor pacing. If we have a 30 page discussion on the pacing of the show, it does not suddenly mean I consider pacing to be the pinnacle of what makes a good show.

A question to you here is why do you even care if the lire is bastardized or not? You seem to be defending it without regarding book lore as being significant to the show at all, so this doesn't take ANYTHING away from your enjoyment of this show . It's like you only want to argue against it ib principle, while completely disregarding what the meaning of lore actually means, like when you say Tolkien picking 300 years has no significance. It doesn't matter if yiu think that or not, because Tolkien choosing 300 years isn't subjective, it is objective fact. We are talking act of changing history to fit a narrative that is meant to retell history.

The source material is NOT the pinnacle of what makes a good show, because my explanation of how the lore is being bastardized has nothing to do with defining the show being good or bad objectively.

The entire topic was predicated on the subjective use of the term to denote what they personally feel makes a good show. And I have been clear that I was not the one who applied this term to the show in regards to what it needed to do to become a better show.

It's starting to sound like you just like throwing around the term "bastardization" with no real thought whatsoever. No, Tarantino's movies don't bastardize history. They don't diminish it. They embellish it. The movies don't serve to tell a historical account, so accuracy is never the intent. The historical setting, time period, characters, etc. serve the story the artist is trying to tell and are elevated from mere detail into a dramatic narrative.

That it does not have the intent of being historically accurate does not remove it from what it is still doing. A dramatic narrative that embellishes history for the sake of its art may also be bastardizing it a byproduct of being based on historic accounts. What would define it as bastardization is dependant on how it is being embellished. inglorious Basterds, as intentionally canoy as it is, is still predicated on being based on history even if fictionally. And from that same historic perspective, history is clearly being bastardized for the sake of the art. It is both an embellishment AND a bastardization. The only difference is perspective.

Two sides of the same coin.

I'm not saying that the path they chose is perfect, but I AM saying that even the attempt is better than what little we get from the books. I mean shit, the books never even explain "why rings", but the show actually made an attempt to do so.

Again, we have different perspectives here if we are speaking our opinions of the show

I personally don't give it browny points for trying to explain something that isn't expected to be explained. It is quite inconsequential to me.

And what's the issue with not yet knowing Sauron's exact plans? There's still plenty more story to tell leading up to the One Ring. The only reason it's not a question in the books is because the entire forging of all 20 rings is covered in three sentences. And there is no explanation as to why rings, why did he leave after 16 were made, who did he expect to be wearing those 16 lesser rings, how did he not find out about the Three in the decade after leaving Eregion before completing the One, and so on. You're right, there lore has no depth and is almost a blank slate that many a narrative can be crafted to flesh out.

It's the job of a narrative to flesh out the details, very true. But as I point out, when adapting established history that is sparse on details, there is a duality between authenticity (documentary style, ala Appendices) and applying creative license. It's two sides of the same coin, and you can't flip both faces in the same side.

'Bastardization of the lore' is merely a term that leans towards favouring book authenticity over creative license. And this term was specifically being used someone who was favouring book authenticity over creative license. The term is perfectly applicable to the show. It is not a term that denotes a flaw or drawback at all, since Rings of Power is not beholden to adapting the lore faithfully.

When I say I'm speaking about this objectively, I am talking about not having a preference between being authentic/faithful to the source, or applying creative license. I remain quite agnostic on this topic, since I find equal value in both.

- - - Updated - - -

Another example here that contradicts your entire premise would be episode 3 of The Last of Us. I know you said you have no experience with the game or the show, but I'll explain.

The third episode entails a massive deviation from the source material, crafting an entire episode-long story from a short sequence in the game. By your definition this would be a bastardization, a diminishing of the established source material by doing something that it didn't intend to do. However, it is one of the highlights of the series, and one of the most lauded episodes of TV this year. The lore and the source material aren't diminished, they're elevated. The choice to depart from the game canon added depth to the setting, a fantastic narrative, and a reinforcing of the themes the show was exploring.

So no, we're not just going to accept your take on the notion of adaptation changing the narrative structure "because it's simply, factually, objectively not true.

Again, not gonna comment on stuff I don't know much about. I have no intention of arguing for the sake of arguing here.

'by my definition' doesn't mean much since you're applying it to a context that may or may not be applicable. inevitably bastardizing lore" is specific to adapting the 2nd Age"s history into a single narrative, while you're taking the comment out of context, which changes my definition.

My arguments are specific RoP, not intended to be used universally. For example, if we were talking Star Wars Prequels introducing controversial changes to the original trilogy lore, I would say the prequels define lore. Anything changed is effectively retcon, because the author is defining the lore. My arguments wouldn't be applicable to this context.

[Syegfryed]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you; the reason of my post.

I mean the reason of your post is that people refuse aknowledge the inherent flaws of the show, and think everything is objective

As an aid for you, the word “bad” is ALWAYS subjective. You might well believe there is general concensus on your points and that the opposite view cannot be justified, but it is still subjective.

The gold in this post is "the world bad is always subjective" is an objective statement, is the same bs that people say "there is no absolutes" when that in itself is an absolutist statement.

No, its not subjective, no matter how much people try to spin it, If everything was subjective there would be no critics to criticize the elements of a work, there would be no narrative elements that people study across ages in literature, etc etc.

What is subjective is TASTE, if people LIKE, or DON'T LIKE IT.

[rhorle]

What do you think insult means? You're putting words in my mouth, hence strawman.

this is a given, it's also indicative of fairly major hubris to take a super established work like the one that basically laid the foundation of modern fantasy and re-arrange it. It implies that you know better and the original author did a bad job, otherwise you wouldn't need to change it besides the concessions you may have to make to transform its medium from paper to film.

It isn't a strawman if you actually claimed that it is hubris and calling the original author bad. At least own up to the things you say.

They have the rights to the LotR trilogy, hobbit, and most importantly the appendices. This means they are lacking some crucial bits from the Silmarillion (which is why our view of Valinor is so limited). I think it's a folly to argue that Amazon does not have the rights to enough material, when the majority of the relevant characters of this era are also talked about in the LotR trilogy, as well as a lot of the 2nd age is showcased in the appendices.

Right. They have some information but they do not have all. If it appears in the works they don't have rights to then they can't use it for the show and have to invent a things to replace those parts of the characters, events, places, etc. You know the thing you called major hubris and calls the original author bad.

[bledgor]

You seriously don't think condensing thousands of years and rearranging the sequence of events changes anything?

Honestly they still could have done the 2nd age, but they should have segmented it, have each season be limited to a certain amount of years/events. Like if you want to keep Galadriel as the focus/connecting piece of each season, you can do so with the method.

So you get a season 1 with her and Celeborn journeying around as they fear the return of Sauron, and running into orcs/creatures, while Annatar/Sauron creates the rings/one ring.
Season 2 could be the fall of Eregion/Celebrimbor along with the the rise of Numenor.
Season 3 could be the collapse/death of Numenor and return of Sauron.
Season 4 you introduce the creation of ringwraiths, Elendil + Isildur creating the kingdoms of Gondor/Arnor and the growing conflict between man + elf vs Sauron.
Season 5 would be the Last Alliance of Elves and Man.

Doing that you can have large time skips, can have large upheavals, and still focus the story so you only have a few plot points going on in a given season rather than a dozen that you can't really seem to care about.

[Veggie50]

I mean the reason of your post is that people refuse aknowledge the inherent flaws of the show, and think everything is objective


The gold in this post is "the world bad is always subjective" is an objective statement, is the same bs that people say "there is no absolutes" when that in itself is an absolutist statement.

No, its not subjective, no matter how much people try to spin it, If everything was subjective there would be no critics to criticize the elements of a work, there would be no narrative elements that people study across ages in literature, etc etc.

What is subjective is TASTE, if people LIKE, or DON'T LIKE IT.

The point I make is lingual mate. The word bad is a subjective term, because it entails a judgement of percieved/relative quality.

The show deviated from lore <— objective

The deviation from lore is bad <— subjective

This is just the English language, don’t know what to tell you…

I don’t even disagree the show has some serious flaws. It being good or bad however, is subjective, even if you have corroborating evidence that 99.9999% of the population will agree.

[kenn9530]

since you lack the reading comprehension necessary i'll repeat it in simple terms:

the show has a DOMESTIC completion rate of 37%, the industry average is 55%+

the show has a GLOBAL completion rate of 48%, the industry average is 55%+

almost unanimously the 'viewer' ratings for this show are below a 4/10 average on every site excluding the heavily censored IMDB which RESTRICTED the ability for people to give less than a 5/10 on this show EXCLUSIVELY, no other show or movie on the site has had this level of censorship and oversight from the site owner Amazon.

critic reviews from those who actually watched the entire series have rated the show a 5/10 - 6/10 as the best scores seen, and staggeringly almost 90% of those who gave a 'pre release' score didn't actually watch the full series, they watched the same 2 episode release that everyone had access to and did not go back to watch the remaining episodes after giving that paid for favourable review.


all of these things are both immutable fact and are objective reality as to what has happened with this show, not just that but from a potential view pool of 220 million people, less than half of that even bothered to check it out despite the product being FREE TO VIEW for those people, meaning that the show was so piss poor that people either didn't know about it, or didn't care about it to even bother checking it out, valuing their time spent watching other media.

i also find it hilarious you're trying to compare a show, with a potential viewer base of ~90 million total HBO max subscribers, if you compare that as a %, then house of the dragon has a SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER viewer count than rings of power, an order of magnitude higher than this Amazon funded abomination, and something that house of the dragon did every episode was increase viewer count over the course of its run time, rings of power did the inverse by losing viewers every episode over its run time, to the point that the show lost more viewers from the first episode than watched the finale episode in total, as stated by industry insiders in several different articles posted in both magazines and online, this show is seen as a failure both commercially and critically, but you keep telling yourself it was a 'solid show'.

Again since you lack reading comprehension viewer ratings dont matter, taking the word of salty fans is not a real review, critic reviews are the only reviews that stand any sort of ground, reviews really mean nothing, they will never help you win an argument, all that matters is actual ppl who have watched the show in numbers.

Not everyone uses amazon prime to watch shows, not everyone even watches tv shows and movies and even less are interested in fantasy genre titles. House of the dragon does not have a higher viewer count than RoP thats simple facts, only 9.3 million tuned into the last episode of HOTD where around 40-50 million watched the whole RoP series back when it was released.

You keep lying to yourself when the facts call you out easily.

- - - Updated - - -

I watched it ( 3 episodes then I couldn’t stand it anymore) and it was shit.

Again opinions dont matter. Only total numbers matter.

- - - Updated - - -

I watched ALL of it and it was more shit than you could imagine.

If it was shit you wouldnt have watched it all, noone watches a whole series if they think its that bad, you are just lying here. Im not saying its the best series in the world but you must of found it entertaining enough to watch it all, you are not being honest in the slightest, i prefer sci fi series higher than fantasy.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

House of the dragon does not have a higher viewer count than RoP thats simple facts, only 9.3 million tuned into the last episode of HOTD where around 40-50 million watched the whole RoP series back when it was released.

No clue which show actually had more viewers but if Dragon had a supposed 9M for the last episode and had 10 episodes it would have likely be higher then 40-50M for the whole series with likely far more then 9M watching the first episode and then the number falling until every episode had around atleast 9M viewers

[kenn9530]

No clue which show actually had more viewers but if Dragon had a supposed 9M for the last episode and had 10 episodes it would have likely be higher then 40-50M for the whole series with likely far more then 9M watching the first episode and then the number falling until every episode had around atleast 9M viewers

10 million tuned in for the first and 9.3 million tuned into the last episode on its initial releases, the fantasy genre has a certain fanbase, the last of us got like 4 times that numbers but its a different genre, both shows are more than successful enough, so with similar or higher numbers why would anyone state rings of power is not just as successful as a series, the reason is certain posters on here are not posting constructively they just want to say its bad for the sake of it and not acknowleged the simple facts.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

10 million tuned in for the first and 9.3 million tuned into the last episode on its initial releases, the fantasy genre has a certain fanbase, the last of us got like 4 times that numbers but its a different genre, both shows are more than successful enough, so with similar or higher numbers why would anyone state rings of power is not just as successful as a series, the reason is certain posters on here are not posting constructively they just want to say its bad for the sake of it and not acknowleged the simple facts.

Well assuming all the numbers you stated are correct dragon would have likely have had like 80M watcher for the whole series which would be about double the number you gave for RoP.

And given that some people want to compare them and say one is good and one is bad that’s a fairly big assumed different they could point to.

[Fabinas]

If it was shit you wouldnt have watched it all, noone watches a whole series if they think its that bad, you are just lying here. Im not saying its the best series in the world but you must of found it entertaining enough to watch it all, you are not being honest in the slightest, i prefer sci fi series higher than fantasy.

Not everybody thinks the same way you do.

I may have watched it because i'm a masochist.

I kept on watching it hoping that it would pick up at some point. Or because i was curious.

I may have endured watching it in order to have an informed opinion. So i can actually call it "shit" and have noone tell me "but you didn't watch it, how would you know?"

But in your "logic", i watched it all, therefore i liked it.

What's next? Me saying it's shit is because i'm here to troll you, Rhorle, Adamas etc.?

[kenn9530]

Well assuming all the numbers you stated are correct dragon would have likely have had like 80M watcher for the whole series which would be about double the number you gave for RoP.

And given that some people want to compare them and say one is good and one is bad that’s a fairly big assumed different they could point to.

It seems you cant do basic math, each episode doesnt add another 10 million onto the viewer number, 1 viewer is 1 no matter if they watched 1 episode or all 10 episodes.

- - - Updated - - -

Not everybody thinks the same way you do.

I may have watched it because i'm a masochist.

I kept on watching it hoping that it would pick up at some point. Or because i was curious.

I may have endured watching it in order to have an informed opinion. So i can actually call it "shit" and have noone tell me "but you didn't watch it, how would you know?"

But in your "logic", i watched it all, therefore i liked it.

What's next? Me saying it's shit is because i'm here to troll you, Rhorle, Adamas etc.?

You are just lying here, if you hated it that much you wouldnt watch anymore its just that simple, anyone who watched the whole series actually did like the show, if you dont like something you stop watching it, its as simple as that, if you watch a whole series you liked it enough to watch it at least once.

[UhmHi]

"Anyone who watched the whole series actually did like the show."

Absolutely not true.

[Syegfryed]

The point I make is lingual mate. The word bad is a subjective term, because it entails a judgement of percieved/relative quality.

Word bad seems to pbe pretty fucking objective when its the opposite of good

The show deviated from lore <— objective

The deviation from lore is bad <— subjective

Here is the thing, deviation from lore, alone, is not good or bad, because is not tied to quality, just intent. What is good, bad or neutral is HOW they do it, and that is tied to quality. It can be better, it can be neutral, or it can be rly bad.

You have a show like House of the Dragon, that have deviation from the books, but a lot of the deviations were good, because many reasons(like the book being a story told by the pov of some characters, so they could get facts wrong distorted, or the author seeing that something different works better). The deviation from Rings of power is a bad fanfic that downgrade the quality of the original story.

Thats just basic storytelling mate, anyone can see that making mithril magic juju that heal elves, because they had to recharge their light was obnoxious.

It being good or bad however, is subjective, even if you have corroborating evidence that 99.9999% of the population will agree.

Thats...not how it works mate, you are arguing that shit, human feces, does not taste bad, because its a subjective word, and some people out there might like eating, thats not a hill do die on

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It seems you cant do basic math, each episode doesnt add another 10 million onto the viewer number, 1 viewer is 1 no matter if they watched 1 episode or all 10 episodes.

Um no.

You said 9M tuned into the last episode of dragon and 40-50M watched the whole series for RoP, last episode and whole series are vastly Different things.

If you meant to say those were the total unique viewers for both series sure but it’s not what you actually posted.

[Triceron]

I
You are just lying here, if you hated it that much you wouldnt watch anymore its just that simple, anyone who watched the whole series actually did like the show, if you dont like something you stop watching it, its as simple as that, if you watch a whole series you liked it enough to watch it at least once.

I watched the whole series, and while I enjoyed aspects of the show, overall it didn't meet my expectations and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who shares my taste in movies. Very few of my friends watched any more than the first 3 episodes.

I kept watching because I am a general fantasy genre fan, and there are so few shows of the genre that exist. Same can be said of me watching Wheel of Time and Willow entire seasons. The fantasy genre isn't exactly brimming with options here.

Same reason I pick up and play some new RTS games even if they may end up being mediocre; there's not a lot of options out there other than sticking to the same 10+ yr old ones. I'm a fan of the genre more I am of the specific games. It's just sad that it's unlikely we'd ever get more Warcraft or Starcraft RTS.

[kenn9530]

Um no.

You said 9M tuned into the last episode of dragon and 40-50M watched the whole series for RoP, last episode and whole series are vastly Different things.

If you meant to say those were the total unique viewers for both series sure but it’s not what you actually posted.

I only talk about unique viewers, its the same thing, 10 million started house of the dragon and 9.3 million finished the series, RoP started with 25 million and ended with 40-50 million ending the series, this is just who watched the show as it was being released, viewers are always calculated as seperate ppl.