Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

I'm starting to wonder whether they are using a bad buzz strategy to stir up controversy and raise interest or if their communication is just terrible.

The events of the 2nd age being condensed over a few years might only be a thing as far as the human and nothobbit characters are concerned, with a timeline much more spread for the Elven and Dwarf characters, probably through the use of flashbacks.

Action girl Galadriel would sort of make sense if this was a depiction of her we see in early 1st age flashbacks, with her 2nd age persona being another, distinct from the 3rd age version we have already seen.

Several Durins being listed could also make sense if one is on the human/nothobbit timeline, with the other being present in a flashback.

On all the other zeitgeist cliché adaptations points, I wonder if we'll be given some exposition or if those are things that will just be there.

Wondering whether they will delve in the corruption of the main Numenorean society opposed to the minority Faithful, or if they will simply gloss over it, or reinvent it for modern politics.

On the dwarven princess, I wonder if there will be some exposition, like perhaps a concept such as from time to time among dwarves exceptional individuals with dark skin being born. IMHO it would have been more innovative/provocative to make all the dwarves dark skinned and get rid of the scottish accent trope altogether : instead of a peachy complexion, dark, earthen or copper colors would have been quite in tune with the concept of them having been shaped by Aulë the Smith, and would have reinforced their contrast with the elves (especially given their 1st age depiction as aboriginal people initially perceived as animals and hunted for sports by the newcomer elves).

[Nerovar]

There's nothing political about making a fictional story more inclusive of demographics that have historically been pretty marginalized. There's also nothing particularly clumsy about it in this case other than the fact that you just don't like it. We haven't even seen a single episode yet so these changes could very well be seamlessly blended into the narrative.

You proclaim it's not political while invoking historical injustices to defend it in the very same sentence. Is this doublespeak?

It's great that a lot of women enjoyed the movies. There's obviously an audience for it now that didn't really exist when Tolkien was writing the books. However, it's also pretty disingenuous to ignore the fact that this genre (and action/adventure/fantasy in general) has always been very male dominated, so for many women it was pretty much a take it or leave it when it comes to the stories available to them. There is certainly more variety in the voices creating things now (which includes adapting older stories), but that doesn't mean everything created in the past needs to adhere to whatever norms influenced its creators.

Again, none of this stopped women from enjoying the PJ movies. So why do all of the things you mentioned warrant changes to "appeal to women" when they already liked a version of Lord of the Rings that was a "sausagefest" in a "male dominated" genre as you put it?

I didn't say that you HAVE to change things to be more inclusive. I know it doesn't fit the narrative that you have to be on one side or the other, but I was very clear in saying that it's fine either way. I think leaning into making the world more inclusive of minority groups that were more marginalized at the time the works were created is a good thing, but if people want to make an adaptation that is strictly

And I'm not saying that you can't do it. It's just that a lot of people would prefer an approach that prioritizes the rules of the setting and respects the choices of the author.

Uh, what? It doesn't become absurd because her story is always about her and the traditions of HER people in HER time. Whether other societies during other ages in Middle Earth had different traditions in terms of women combatants doesn't diminish HER story. I mean, is a story about a woman breaking away from the social norms of a repressive modern day society absurd just because women on the other side of the Earth enjoy more freedoms? Of course not.

I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.

[Lady Atia]

You proclaim it's not political while invoking historical injustices to defend it in the very same sentence. Is this doublespeak?


Again, none of this stopped women from enjoying the PJ movies. So why do all of the things you mentioned warrant changes to "appeal to women" when they already liked a version of Lord of the Rings that was a "sausagefest" in a "male dominated" genre as you put it?


And I'm not saying that you can't do it. It's just that a lot of people would prefer an approach that prioritizes the rules of the setting and respects the choices of the author.


I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.

Just because I enjoyed the PJ movies doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have more female representation in them. You know, you can like things and still want them to improve.

[MCMLXXXII]

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

A good adaptation is also subjective. A faithful adaptation however isn't.

[s_bushido]

Just because I enjoyed the PJ movies doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have more female representation in them. You know, you can like things and still want them to improve.

Nevermind that deliberately made attempts to give the Arwen/Aragorn story more screentime. Down to even training Liv Tyler to use a sword for an appearance at Helm's Deep.

[Adamas102]

You proclaim it's not political while invoking historical injustices to defend it in the very same sentence. Is this doublespeak?

Are you surprised that not everything is "political"? I think the word you're looking for is "social". Banning segregationist policies at a government level is different than artists recognizing and trying to amend a dearth in minority representation in certain entertainment genres. There's a connection in that it's a recognition of marginalization, but it's not all political. The only reason some people label it all political is so that they can spout the whole "keep your politics out of X" bullshit.

Again, none of this stopped women from enjoying the PJ movies. So why do all of the things you mentioned warrant changes to "appeal to women" when they already liked a version of Lord of the Rings that was a "sausagefest" in a "male dominated" genre as you put it?

I really don't know how to make it any more clear after repeating it twice already. Maybe the third time is the charm...

It's not necessary, or warranted, or something that has to be done. It's just a valid option when adapting these works. I'm fine if they want to stick more strictly to the source material, and I'm fine with them leaning into making the fictional world more inclusive.

And I'm not saying that you can't do it. It's just that a lot of people would prefer an approach that prioritizes the rules of the setting and respects the choices of the author.

Yeah, and those people typically don't understand how to adapt a work of literature. The timeline thing is a pretty glaring one.

Many of the events Tolkien lists in Appendix B are connected in a domino effect, but split over decades or even centuries. Trying to adapt the story to include those exact time jumps such that every episode starts with something like "50 years later" would absolutely kill any sort of tension. That timeline might work for a quick prologue, but not for an adaptation that seeks to weave a narrative that connects those events. That event A comes before event B is usually a lot more important than the exact amount of time in between them.

For instance, lets take the timeline of the forging of the rings according to the appendices. Sauron wins over the smiths of Eregion, then it takes 300 years for them just to learn how to create the rings, then another 90 years before the rings are complete, then 10 years after that is when Sauron creates the One Ring, then 93 years later they go to war. There's a pretty linear narrative there, but adapting it to the screen with those time jumps would be absurd. The idea that the timeline has to be respected despite it not having been created with a screen adaptation in mind is absurd.

I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.

Why do you assume the story of Eowyn would have to change? Even though they've said it's not meant to be a direct prequel to the movies, given how much effort they've put into maintaining the aesthetic, it's not at all problematic to consider both the show and the movies to be within the same canon. Eowyn's story can still exist within the canon where Second Age women are included on the battlefield. There's nothing absurd about that.

[s_bushido]

I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.

Yes, if they included women in the Rohirrim and then made it a plot point to exclude Eowyn for no other reason than that she was a woman, that would make no sense. But if they wanted to include those same changes to the army and keep her story intact, literally all they'd have to do was emphasize that she was the last family Theoden had (that wasn't either already dead or potentially riding to their death with him), and he wanted to keep her safe while setting her up as the leader and defender of Rohan if he and the rest of his soldiers should fall in battle.

This isn't hard. Nor is it a good idea to assume that simply because this culture that existed thousands of years before Eowyn's story took place are depicted a certain way, that it should effect her and her culture.

[Xath]

Just because I enjoyed the PJ movies doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have more female representation in them. You know, you can like things and still want them to improve.

They literally cut a secondary character and gave his role to Arwen to give her more screen time.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, if they included women in the Rohirrim and then made it a plot point to exclude Eowyn for no other reason than that she was a woman, that would make no sense. But if they wanted to include those same changes to the army and keep her story intact, literally all they'd have to do was emphasize that she was the last family Theoden had (that wasn't either already dead or potentially riding to their death with him), and he wanted to keep her safe while setting her up as the leader and defender of Rohan if he and the rest of his soldiers should fall in battle.

This isn't hard. Nor is it a good idea to assume that simply because this culture that existed thousands of years before Eowyn's story took place are depicted a certain way, that it should effect her and her culture.

That would be incredibly stupid and would be a King people wouldn't follow. You want to take my kid to war who is barely in his teens but protect your daughter while I'm already serving on the front lines as a mom hell no.

[s_bushido]

That would be incredibly stupid and would be a King people wouldn't follow. You want to take my kid to war who is barely in his teens but protect your daughter while I'm already serving on the front lines as a mom hell no.

lol...
You say this as if it wouldn't already happen with fathers watching their young sons being conscripted to go off to die alongside them. Pretty sure there were literally scenes of women crying as their children were taken from their arms and straight to the armory at Helm's Deep in the 2nd movie.

[Xath]

lol...
You say this as if it wouldn't already happen with fathers watching their young sons being conscripted to go off to die alongside them. Pretty sure there were literally scenes of women crying as their children were taken from their arms and straight to the armory at Helm's Deep in the 2nd movie.

Yes and the King wasn't hiding his son not letting him fight. In fact his son died because he was raised to fight. Of course there are those scenes but the difference is the King himself isn't hiding his progeny while making others fight. It's boys who have seen too few winters or old men who have seen too many. The women and girls are protected because that's what you did back then since women were treated as resources due to the shockingly high fatality rates during wars.

[MCMLXXXII]

The women and girls are protected because that's what you did back then since women were treated as resources due to the shockingly high fatality rates during wars.

Back when? This isn't history. It's a fictional world.

[Shadowferal]

Back when? This isn't history. It's a fictional world.

Tolkien had a fetish for history.

[MCMLXXXII]

Tolkien had a fetish for history.

He also had a fetish for folklore and self invented languages.
Hobbits and elves aren't history based. It's funny people get triggered because they see a woman fighting. WoMaN sTrOnK.

[jonnysensible]

He also had a fetish for folklore and self invented languages.
Hobbits and elves aren't history based. It's funny people get triggered because they see a woman fighting. WoMaN sTrOnK.

imagine you can go along with orcs, goblins, whatever the fuck tom bombadil is and u get big mad when u see a doris with a sword lmao

[Lady Atia]

They literally cut a secondary character and gave his role to Arwen to give her more screen time.

- - - Updated - - -



That would be incredibly stupid and would be a King people wouldn't follow. You want to take my kid to war who is barely in his teens but protect your daughter while I'm already serving on the front lines as a mom hell no.

I know, I read the books. Which I also enjoyed. And I still can say that more representation is still a good thing.

In other news, I really hope the show does well so we can get a "The Children of Hurin" spinnoff show/movie set during the first age from Amazon. That story was the best one Tolkien ever wrote <3.

[Shadowferal]

He also had a fetish for folklore and self invented languages. Hobbits and elves aren't history based. It's funny people get triggered because they see a woman fighting. WoMaN sTrOnK.

And we saw how many fighting among the Rohirrim?