Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Nerovar]

What political goals, are you expecting this film to be a cry for universal healthcare or lower taxes or something?

The more recent push for representation in media is a political goal whether you like it or not. I don't think this is really up for debate. Rewriting stories, characters and settings in order to conform with changing political realities is political.

Sorry what are the "explicitly stated" gender relations of Numenor in the Second Age, where are they written? I can make suppositions based on how elvish society is organised and the fact Numenoreans are "high men" who are elevated close to the Eldar in nature but I don't know anything concrete.

This is from the Unfinished Tales iirc:
"Men in Númenor are half-Elves (said Erendis), especially the high men; they are neither the one nor the other. The long life that they were granted deceives them, and they dally in the world, children in mind, until age finds them – and then many only forsake play out of doors for play in their houses. They turn their play into great matters and great matters into play. They would be craftsmen and loremasters and heroes all at once; and women to them are but fires on the hearth – for others to tend, until they are tired of play in the evening. All things were made for their service: hills are for quarries, rivers to furnish water or to turn wheels, trees for boards, women for their body’s need, or if fair to adorn their table and hearth[...]For men fashioned Númenor: men, those heroes of old that they sing of – of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain."
Of course, there's a lot of time between Tar-Aldarion's rule and the time when this show takes place (though I'm not exactly sure when it takes place because of the timeline compression).

You should at least read a little more carefully. The "knights" are not "knights" in a feudal sense but "knights" in a "special warrior class" sense, the fealty isn't to Denethor as liege-lord it is too Gondor as a land. These make Gondor very different to feudal Europe. Also the Hobbit's name isn't Pippin, it's Razar. Pippin is the translation from Westron to Old English.

Feudalism isn't the sole defining characteristic of the middle ages nor were knights exclusive to the feudal system. I have no interest in going into more detail about the article since it's not really related to the discussion.

[Adamas102]

Some changes, not literally deleting dozens of characters, adding half a dozen new characters, condensing thousands of years into a couple years, etc. There are so many fucking changes mate, so no try again.

Literally the only way you could argue otherwise is you don't give a single fuck about the lore, or you you hate Tolkien, so which is it?

Lore lore lore. Blah blah blah. The lore is interesting, but it's only fluff in comparison to narrative and story telling. As I've said before, if it weren't for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, this part of Tolkien's work would be long forgotten by anyone other than scholars who are interested in how a philologist might construct fictional languages and histories. "The lore" (especially what was buried in side notes and appendices) isn't what made those stories so enduring.

You want to see how this works? Sauron, the Balrog, the Nazgul, the orcs, Shelob. Of all the lore that Tolkien created for these antagonists, how much did the movies need to convey for them to be effective/scary/imposing villains? Did we need to know the deep history of the Numenorians and the Dunedain to understand Aragorn's character? Did we need to know the full backstory of the Maiar for Gandalf to play the part of the wise sage? Again, lore can be interesting, but telling a good story doesn't depend on it.

Maybe it would do you some good to pick up your copy of LotR and take a look at "the lore" that this show had available to it. In Appendix A: Numenor it's one page, back to front. In Appendix B: The Tale of Years it's another single page, and 3/4ths of it is just a list of "year - event". This isn't some amazing work of art that must be preserved at all costs. Even Tolkien himself wasn't above reconning as he saw fit, sometimes fixing inconsistencies and at other times creating new inconsistencies.

But hey, maybe someday someone else with buy the rights to The Silmarillion and make a word for word adaptation of the 30 pages of the Akallabeth for you and the other purists.

[bledgor]

You're making assumptions as to what Tolkien meant by "amazon," when in another letter he clearly defines it as a female soldier. He was a scholar and fan of myths so what else would he use the term "amazon" for if not in reference to the warrior-women of Greek myths? In later texts Galadriel most certainly fought at the first kinslaying and there are several times she would have fought defensively (as all elf-women do at times of need,) as well as there being at least one version who would have answered the call of Eonwe and fought in the War of Wrath. As one of the most powerful elves (if not the most powerful elf) in Middle-earth, a leader who travelled frequently, considered herself a commander and was concerned with the dark stain left by Morgoth from the start of the Second Age, it is difficult to see why Galadriel would not have found herself involved in battles throughout the lands. Out of interest, in your mind, what "magic" did Galadriel use to tear down a fortress (I assume you mean Dol Guldur?)

Debate-ably she fought in the kinslaying, as it changed, fine I forgot about the kinslaying POSSIBLY being a time she fought (though again it could have been as a wizard and not warrior), at no point can I find/recall her fighting in defense though, only at Alqualonde did Tolkien alter it later in his text to say she fought vs the sons of Feanor. As for the war of wrath I don't ever remember reading, quote that shit. I agree she is one of the most powerful elves, but being powerful doesn't = a warrior, she was always shown as a leader first, and a powerful spellcaster 2nd. At no point did we see her shown as a warrior/someone to fight on the front line with a sword (which is the issue with the rings of power, if they had Galadriel fighting in the back with magic, I would still be annoyed, but it would be acceptable levels like LoTR changes).

For Dol Guldur iirc the description used is similar to the description Luthien used for Til-in-Gaurhoth, so she basically used magic to destroy the stone walls, towers, etc.

Depending on which ageing system you use for elves Galadriel remained in the life-stage Tolkien referred to as "youth" either until the end of the Second Age or right through to the end of the Third. Using a young actress is not inappropriate and having her appear younger than Gil-galad is an issue with casting humans to play elves, the only casting decision I really have an issue with is Celebrimbor though I'll be interested to see if the try to justify him appearing older in the series or if they just liked the actor.

Like I said, it is all about the relativity of it, you can't have Galadriel looking the same age as Elrond (who is significantly younger) while looking at least a generation younger than Gil-Galad or Celebrimbor, who are both younger than her. If you use a young actress for Galadriel you also have to use young ones for Gil-Galad and Celebrimbor, and a younger one for Elrond (late teenage vs 20s for the other 3). I also don't have an issue with Gil-Galad, he is the only one I think is well cast (Elrond is okay age, but when you want to connect it to the LoTR mythos you should have found someone who looks closer to Hugo Weaving, this is another case where the Gil-Galad casting is spot on). I get liking an actor, but you have to keep the ages right or it messes shit up, you can't have people that are supposed to be younger looking like someones grandpa unless this is Benjamin Button. Cast a little bit older Galadriel, and a younger Celebrimbor, Elrond I would again been very annoyed with but could accept then.

I don't know how Annatar is being introduced in RoP for you to say who suspected what and when, what is made clear in her story is Galadriel was most acutely aware of dark forces moving in the wake of Morgoth's defeat, though at that time no-one knew it was sourced from one agent who would be revealed as Sauron.

? I am using the shit they told us in trailers/teasers, where Galadriel is being told be Elrond that the war is over, and she is like nah, then we have her talking with Mireil that darkness is coming. We also having Gil-Galad telling Elrond darkness is coming, when again in the books Elrond was the first to suspect, so more messed up stuff.

Also can I mention how fucking much I hate them throwing around the term politician to describe characters, I think they used it for 3 characters, including Elrond, who wasn't a politician, he was a leader, and a warrior. He was the herald of Gil-Galad and lead the elves with him in the battle vs Sauron in the War of the Elves and Sauron. It is disrespectful as fuck to paint him as some politician.

In general though Galadriel's character was very much in flux throughout Tolkien's life and her exact actions during the Second Age no doubt would have been made clear if he had got around to rewriting the Silmarillion as he intended. It's the uncertain nature of the Second Age that makes it fertile ground for telling stories without rewriting works that Tolkien had already set down as "canon."

In flux in some regards, but in other ways not. Her age never changed, her love and relationship with Celeborn never changed (RIP celeborn, either dead or forgotten), the birth of her children, her desire to be a good leader (not something one usually associates with brash and full of piss and vinegar), and if you asked most Tolkien fans one word to describe Galadriel, I would bet it is wise. She was always known better for her her leadership, her guidance, fuck even her casting of magic/spells/use of her ring Nenya, not her battling with a sword/fighting orcs head on. Again the only battle she was changed to fight in that I can recall is with the sons of Feanor, other elves(which again it never said she drew her sword and went into battle, it says fought).

Like you said there is room to work in the 2nd age, but the fact the few things we do know they are basically ignoring really fucks up any belief they are trying to be faithful. For example changes I can think of right now: all the Galadriel shit, the time length/period being massively condensed, the actions people did take/never did like Galadriel going to Numenor, the lack of Celeborn or Cirdan the shipwright, the inclusion of 6 new characters, the inclusion of Harfoots (who even if they did exist which is never shown didn't actively partake in any part of the age), and if rumors are right a wizard descending in the meteor which no wizard came till the 3rd age.

This is ignoring other large issues, like what actually happened to Mireil (she wasn't queen reagent, though her life is pretty fucking tragic), the fact two Durin's are alive at the same time (they are suspected to be reincarnations, couldn't be an in universe rumor if two lived at the same time), a Balrog being active (none where active in the 2nd age, it was either the war of wrath or well into the 3rd age when one awoke in Kazad-dum, so if they are including that in this story as the trailer hints at, it is now condensing like THREE THOUSAND years at least in this short time period).

This is all from what 4 minutes of footage they have shown and a dozen interviews, that is how many fuck ups I can come up with typing here, over that little of information being given. That is why I can't even comprehend how anyone can say this is a good/faithful adaptation, and why I believe it will be a shit show (which yes you can argue it will, all the power too you, but with the setup we have and how terrible Rafe of Time was, x to doubt).

[tikcol]

In flux in some regards, but in other ways not. Her age never changed, her love and relationship with Celeborn never changed (RIP celeborn, either dead of forgotten), the birth of her children, her desire to be a good leader (not something one usually associates with brash and full of piss and vinegar), and if you asked most Tolkien fans one word to describe her I would bet it is wise. She was always known better for her casting of magic/spells, not her battling with a sword and fighting orcs. Again the only battle she was changed to fight in that i can recall is with the sons of Feanor, other elves.

Where is Celeborn ? Weren't they already married? Maybe that's too boring for the showrunners. We might see Galadriel have a fling.. Independent women and all. So exciting !

[bledgor]

Where is Celeborn ? Weren't they already married? Maybe that's too boring for the showrunners. We might see Galadriel have a fling.. Independent women and all. So exciting !

ugh, dont make me more depressed. Saw someone on reddit said he heard she has a fling too, believe he claimed it was the new guy Halbrand. Would really cement what a steaming pile of shit this is.

Can't have her being a mother and giving birth to Celebrian (future wife of Elrond, mother of Arwen), nope has to be free and independent!!!

[Triceron]

Again you are free to "believe" (as you like to say) the story will be good, that is possible, but when almost everything they have shown is not how Tolkien wrote it you can't say it is a good adaptation.

Sure you can, because 'Good' is always going to be subjective.

Like, you're using the word bad as if there's any objective meaning behind it, but there isn't. Good and bad are subjective adjectives, nothing to do with objective fact. When anything is rendered good or bad, it is subject to general or personal opinion, but opinion nonetheless.

Perhaps you meant faithful adaptation, but even then if we're talking about adaptations, all measurement of quality would be subjective. There is no such thing as a purely faithful adaptation, as that would literally be a translation.

The only real context of a 'Good adaptation' is a 'An adaptation that people generally consider to be faithful and/or of good quality'. There is no factual basis beyond this.

Cuz that's pretty much how most people see PJ films. It's quality is good enough that most people overlook the fact that it is not a faithful adaptation at all. It is a very creatively liberal adaptation, where Balrogs are depicted with wings, Elves were present at Helms Deep and the Scouring of the Shire never really happened. We consider it a good adaptation not because it respected the books, but because its quality superceded its lack of faithfulness to the source material. Respect and faithfulness aren't the only metrics for a 'Good' adaptation, and if anything, popular concensus has more of a say than any factual basis of faithfulness to the source material.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...unfaithful_to/

The Shining, Jurassic Park, Blade Runner, Starship Troopers to name a few. Good movies that are adaptations of existing material. The metric of good and bad are merely applied to the movies. The term 'adaptation' applies because they are not unique creations, and are movies based on existing material. Thus, these are all considered Good Adaptations even if they aren't very similar to (or even respect) the source material.

[Dhrizzle]

Debate-ably she fought in the kinslaying, as it changed, fine I forgot about the kinslaying POSSIBLY being a time she fought (though again it could have been as a wizard and not warrior), at no point can I find/recall her fighting in defense though, only at Alqualonde did Tolkien alter it later in his text to say she fought vs the sons of Feanor. As for the war of wrath I don't ever remember reading, quote that shit. I agree she is one of the most powerful elves, but being powerful doesn't = a warrior, she was always shown as a leader first, and a powerful spellcaster 2nd. At no point did we see her shown as a warrior/someone to fight on the front line with a sword (which is the issue with the rings of power, if they had Galadriel fighting in the back with magic, I would still be annoyed, but it would be acceptable levels like LoTR changes).

For Dol Guldur iirc the description used is similar to the description Luthien used for Til-in-Gaurhoth, so she basically used magic to destroy the stone walls, towers, etc.

The fact you're trying to characterise her as a "wizard" or "spellcaster" makes it difficult to take you seriously. Several "magical" techniques exist and magicia which is causing direct effects through the spirit was very limited and used sparingly by the elves, it being largely the preserve of the Ainur and wicked men corrupted by Sauron (possibly a power he granted them.) For elves feats that mortals might call "magical" were achieved by the spirit working through the body. Crafting items of power was one expression of this, the ability to heal through touch another, but most common in battle is spiritual strength fortifying the body giving them greater physical power than can be explained by their physiology. There was no battle magic or people stood at the back slinging spells.

I'm not going to delve through the dozen or so volumes of published notes to cross reference the ways Galdriel could be expected to join the War of Wrath. There's a passage that describes Eonwe summoning all the free elves and men of Beleriand to fight alongside the Host of Valinor, there's a passage that explains Galadriel and Celeborn had moved to far east to answer the call in time, and a later account of those two (possibly when Celeborn was Teleporno and a Falmari) has them in Beleriand at the time the summons was given, though nothing was expanded on that. It's supportable but not explicit in Tolkien's writings.

The destruction of Dol Guldur was likely achieved through "lore," not some inherent power of her own but a deep knowledge of the "magic" holding the fortress together that Galadriel could exploit. It does not suggest that she could run around battlefields casting Arcane Explosion and Firebolts.

[bledgor]

Sure you can, because 'Good' is always going to be subjective.

Like, you're using the word bad as if there's any objective meaning behind it, but there isn't. Good and bad are subjective adjectives, nothing to do with objective fact. When anything is rendered good or bad, it is subject to general or personal opinion, but opinion nonetheless.

Perhaps you meant faithful adaptation, but even then if we're talking about adaptations, all measurement of quality would be subjective. There is no such thing as a purely faithful adaptation, as that would literally be a translation.

The only real context of a 'Good adaptation' is a 'An adaptation that people generally consider to be faithful and/or of good quality'. There is no factual basis beyond this.

.. I said that, it could be a good show, but not a good/faithful adaptation...

Bad in this case to mean not faithful/accurate, its called context mate, use it. The exact amount can be debated, but you can factually say something is a bad adaptation, for example if you make an adaptation of LoTR set in 2022 with laser swords, and space oozes that fuck monkeys to create unicorn-raptors, there is no argument that this is a good adaptation.

Yes you have room in how much you can do in an adaptation, as no sane person is expecting 1-1, but every step you take does make it less faithful, in ways measurably so. Once you get to far from the source, you become a bad/not faithful adaptation.

[Triceron]

.. I said that, it could be a good show, but not a good/faithful adaptation...

Bad in this case to mean not faithful/accurate, its called context mate, use it. The exact amount can be debated, but you can factually say something is a bad adaptation, for example if you make an adaptation of LoTR set in 2022 with laser swords, and space oozes that fuck monkeys to create unicorn-raptors, there is no argument that this is a good adaptation.

Yes you have room in how much you can do in an adaptation, as no sane person is expecting 1-1, but every step you take does make it less faithful, in ways measurably so. Once you get to far from the source, you become a bad/not faithful adaptation.

But that's always subjective. It's always going to be based on a certain opinion whether something is a good or bad adaptation.

In truth, there is no such thing as a faithful adaptation because all adaptations have some measure of difference to the source material. And how much room is deviated is literally a subjective measurement.

As stated, even PJ's LOTR can be argued to be unfaithful to the source. Would you acknowledge that they are Bad Adaptations? I wouldn't, because faithfulness is not the only metric being applied to the term 'Bad adaptation', and I disagree with it being synonymous to 'unfaithful adaptation'. If faithfulness to the source was the primary metric we're talking about, then PJ's LOTR fails that completely, because it intentionally takes creative liberties wherever it can. Less than half of the dialog of the entire movies is actually taken from the books, with some of it being cut and paraphrased in ways that changed the entire context of the source material. It was much more light-hearted and geared towards being an entertaining movie if anything, like all of the Legolas-Gimli banter or most of Pippin's lines. These characters are not in the same spirit of how they were in the books, even if they kept many of their personality traits. All this said, and I would still confidently call the movies a Good adaptation, and would not ever consider them to be Bad adaptations for taking all of its creative liberties.

[bledgor]

The fact you're trying to characterise her as a "wizard" or "spellcaster" makes it difficult to take you seriously. Several "magical" techniques exist and magicia which is causing direct effects through the spirit was very limited and used sparingly by the elves, it being largely the preserve of the Ainur and wicked men corrupted by Sauron (possibly a power he granted them.) For elves feats that mortals might call "magical" were achieved by the spirit working through the body. Crafting items of power was one expression of this, the ability to heal through touch another, but most common in battle is spiritual strength fortifying the body giving them greater physical power than can be explained by their physiology. There was no battle magic or people stood at the back slinging spells.

It is way closer to being accurate, and is way more seriously than any chud calling her a warrior. Not the most accurate, but she is more a leader, than either, and mentor, but alas she does seem to use magical powers at time (through her Elven ring mostly) so thus the not most accurate labeling of wizard.

I'm not going to delve through the dozen or so volumes of published notes to cross reference the ways Galdriel could be expected to join the War of Wrath. There's a passage that describes Eonwe summoning all the free elves and men of Beleriand to fight alongside the Host of Valinor, there's a passage that explains Galadriel and Celeborn had moved to far east to answer the call in time, and a later account of those two (possibly when Celeborn was Teleporno and a Falmari) has them in Beleriand at the time the summons was given, though nothing was expanded on that. It's supportable but not explicit in Tolkien's writings.

Again nothing to say she fought physically in the battle, rather than being a tactician or support. So the problem continues with her taking up a sword to fight, nothing you have said has proven it, and again if you want to force in Galadriel in battles do it as support/a spell weaver.

The destruction of Dol Guldur was likely achieved through "lore," not some inherent power of her own but a deep knowledge of the "magic" holding the fortress together that Galadriel could exploit. It does not suggest that she could run around battlefields casting Arcane Explosion and Firebolts.

When did I ever say she went around casting arcane explosion or firebolts? Do you think that is what Gandalf did? Inserting even more bullshit than the directors of Rings of Power are you? You want be more accurate, fine, since you want to ignore context she is loosely a spell weaver/casting, and used magic forces to tear down the walls. Way more credit to her being a wizard (yes it would be more accurate to say she weaves spells, but I was being lazy) than a sword wielding warrior.

But that's always subjective. It's always going to be based on a certain opinion whether something is a good or bad adaptation.

So my example of the LoTR with uni-raptors set in 2022 with lasers and shit is only subjectively a bad adaptation? Okay....

In truth, there is no such thing as a faithful adaptation because all adaptations have some measure of difference to the source material. And how much room is deviated is literally a subjective measurement.

... Okay this conversation is pointless.

[Triceron]

So my example of the LoTR with uni-raptors set in 2022 with lasers and shit is only subjectively a bad adaptation? Okay....

There's no way for you to quantify it as being anything but subjective, yes.

[BigToast]

... Okay this conversation is pointless.

This guy gets it.

[Joszef Kiprich]

This guy gets it.

It only took him 20+ pages to realize.

[Shadowferal]

Hmm

[bledgor]

Hmm...

Don't bring logic here, the only opinions allowed are what the mega corps tell us.

[Shadowferal]

That Galadriel is my waifu.

[Adamas102]

Don't bring logic here, the only opinions allowed are what the mega corps tell us.

Really? Not going to bitch about the plate armor now? Or was that some other whiny poster?

[s_bushido]

Really? Not going to bitch about the plate armor now? Or was that some other whiny poster?

Yeah, their armor is the stick up a different poster's butt.

Though I do enjoy that we're now using card game stats as some sort of canonical reference.

[Xath]

There's no way for you to quantify it as being anything but subjective, yes.

Whether something is a good movie / show is subjective whether it's a good adaptation really isn't. That comes down to how much the source material is messed with especially core events and characters

[Triceron]

Whether something is a good movie / show is subjective whether it's a good adaptation really isn't. That comes down to how much the source material is messed with especially core events and characters

But even the evaluation of how much is messed with is subjective.

For instance, removal of Tom Bombadil's lines. Is that particular adaptation considered bad because they didn't stick exactly as it was in the books? IMO, it's arguable, because it's a subjective value for how it is handled as an adaptation.