Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

So if it isn't canon and you agree then why are you still going on about it?

Again. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement. No one has called Rings of Power canon. You keep inventing arguments so you can keep arguing.

They are telling their own story loosely based on characters and settings from the 2nd age and are not calling it an adaptation.

They say "based on" which is calling it an adaptation. Things don't have to be canon in order to be an adaptation.

[Triceron]

Did you bitch as much when LOTR didn't make sure to film the 30 odd years before Frodo left the shire? Like make the movie 10 films long with the first 4 being Frodo and the gang hanging out and smoking pipes.

Like ya'll are whiney. If you have an issue with a 3000 year story being compressed, you come up with a better solution.

To be honest, most of the criticisms in this thread come from people who are discussing what would be better solutions, one of which is not picking this particular timeline to tell this story. The entire show is predicated on adapting something from the appendices that wouldn't have translated well onto the big screen, and so they have to rearrange, compress and practically invent an entirely new story to make it work. And what we have is barely recognizeable as an adaptation of any pre-existing work at all, if not for the names of settings and characters and a general theme of the making of the Rings of Power. It's otherwise quite on the level of fan fiction.

And if we're talking about fan fiction, like.. .there's infinitely better solutions that any fan can come up with that would be better than what we're getting now. Just like how I point out there are fan edits of the Hobbit trilogy series that cuts it down to a single 4-hour movie that IMO is far superior than the full 3 movies we got in theatres.

There are fan edits right now of other shows out there, like Obi-Wan, which fixes some issues that many people had with pacing and sequencing in the show. Just cutting out some fluff or rearranging some scenes changes the tone a lot. Rings of Power could definitely benefit from better editing, but sadly that wouldn't be a solution for all the other problems this show has, like in characterization or overall plot.

- - - Updated - - -

Again. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement. No one has called Rings of Power canon. You keep inventing arguments so you can keep arguing.

You're doing the same thing dude. You're just as equally inventing arguments for the sake of shitposting. No fucking difference lol.

[rhorle]

You're doing the same thing dude. You're just as equally inventing arguments for the sake of shitposting. No fucking difference lol.

How is using words another posts inventing an argument? Of course a made up story isn't canonical. That is why it is made up rather then using canon. That isn't inventing an argument. It is an observation. Same thing you are doing right now, right?

So you are saying I am right and salty that this made up story literally isn't even trying to be canonical?

How can a made up story be canonical when the entire reason it is made up is because it wasn't in the canon? lol.

[Mace]

No intelligent person can swithc on their brain and call this show good, not because of ideology or Tolkien, just the plot and lines on their own -

To enjoy this show, i have to switch off my brain, and even then, it's hard, and I'm quite good at doing that for entertainment. But if you want to storm the world, you have to at least write well.

I don't know if it's the show writers or the environemnt.. i mean, only their bubble would think this was great, they don't seem to see how obviously bad so much of it is - the characterisation and writing (I mean), but it's terrible because of their world view, tolkien's world is not the place for such

[Triceron]

How is using words another posts inventing an argument? Of course a made up story isn't canonical. That is why it is made up rather then using canon. That isn't inventing an argument. It is an observation. Same thing you are doing right now, right?

So you are saying I am right and salty that this made up story literally isn't even trying to be canonical? <- Rhetorical question that doesn't need to be answered to get the point that he's unhappy about Rings of Power because it is not canonical, and to the point, not a faithful adaptation of the canon.

You're literally agreeing with a statement he made and yet arguing it because you want to catch him in a 'gotcha' because you think his rhetoric implies that Rings of Power could ever be 'canonical'.

The story was never meant to be canonical, but more to the point, Rings of Power doesn't even attempt to be faithful to the original story. That is what is being pointed out, that is the reason for the rhetoric, which is overdramatized to make a point. You seem to take it at face value. IC's point isn't about the show needing to be canon, it's about the fact that the show isn't even close to being a faithful adaptation of actual source material. It's a loose adaptation that is merely inspired by a section in the appendices which they are taking completely out of context and retelling with a compressed timeline, through new characters or by reinventing ones that had been established.

But hey, it's easier for you to just focus on the 'canon' part of the argument for the sake of argument. Cherry pick what you can take and get people on the 'Gotcha's. Good job fostering Good Discussion with shit posting.

[InfiniteCharger]

Again. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement. No one has called Rings of Power canon. You keep inventing arguments so you can keep arguing.



They say "based on" which is calling it an adaptation. Things don't have to be canon in order to be an adaptation.

No you just keep repeating yourself. You say that it isn't canon but then say it is an "adaptation".
There is no complete story of the second age that Tolkien wrote so it isn't an adaptation.
And not to mention they aren't following what is written in the appendices either.
So literally it is mostly a made up story. So why are you so offended by that?
If you like it and are happy with it why is that statement bothering you so much that you keep replying to me about it?

Any studio trying to do the entire story of the 2nd age would be taking on risk due to the lack of a complete novel in this era.
And yes, even if they did focus on smaller parts of the 2nd age and just did a series on that, things would have to be made up.
That is where the risk comes into play. This isn't unique to Amazon, it is just that some people are pretending otherwise.

[Levelfive]

My point is about their ideology, not about race changing - as a black gay person, I think I understand the difference. Tolkien has a world view and an ideology, we all do, , but you can like someone else's work immensely even if you don't share their world view or beliefs, you can appreciate a great story.

You then want to see that story, I don't need to see my current 21st century world or politics reflected in everything. When i come to watch Tolkien ii like his work so i want to see things the way he saw them. I can appreciate people who are different from me, i don't' expect them to change to me or change to reflect me, there different stat is interesting and unique and when it's good i like to see it.

Everyone and everything doesn't have to be the same as me.

If you are doing Tolkien's work and Tolkien's world your audience will expect his world, reflecting his ideals and world view, not yours.


They have changed things in this series, because they are injecting their world view and messaging.. this is why Galadriel has to behave just so, and this character that character so, this is why elves, behave like so where they are very different in Tolkien's work.






Look they can do what they want, and they clearly did, just realise that most people who like Tolkien want to see Tolkien's work reflected, not a cocky show runner's view of the world or how they think the world should be. They can go write their own fantasy for that, and their are plenty others who around that follow that world view - don't kid yourself to think their won't be backlash if you change one of the world's most popular fantasy books to fit your US urban left wing view of things- and expect everyone to be happy. - You'd piss off everyone on your right, everyone who doesn't share your views, not only that, you'd piss up people like me who mostly share a less extreme version of your views, not because of the views, but because you changed Tolkien's work which is what you sold it to me as - I came to see Tolkein's world reflected and stories expanded, not changed and bastardised or coopted version so naturally this disappoints

You literally said they were "changing race in a bad way" so I'm going to take you at your word. If you're going to claim that black characters and "modern feminine heroes" existing is "political" then you're going to have to admit their absence is, too, but that in the latter case you're fine with politics in your preferred works of fantasy as long as it's excluding the people you're comfortable being excluded. You seem all good with Peter Jackson's take even though, for instance, he had Eowyn kill the Witch-King rather than Merry (how woke!), so what are these "views" you keep insisting are not being faithful to Tolkein? Because things like strength in diversity and the overlooked and marginalized doing great things when given the chance seem right on brand to me, which makes your claims about supposed lack of fidelity ring false and just seem wildly overwrought generally. Lastly, speaking of arrogance, please don't speak for "most people who like Tolkein."

[rhorle]

You're literally agreeing with a statement he made and yet arguing it because you want to catch him in a 'gotcha' because you think his rhetoric implies that Rings of Power could ever be 'canonical'.

What gotcha am I trying to catch him in? Why would I think him saying that Rings of Power is not canon actually means that he thinks it is canon? You are doing the same t hing he is doing. Inventing an argument that exists only in your head. Just so you can argue. Lmao.

[Biomega]

There is no complete story of the second age that Tolkien wrote so it isn't an adaptation.

Nothing says adaptations can only come off complete stories.

Yet again, a restriction completely invented by you.

So literally it is mostly a made up story.

Also doesn't matter. You can have very loose adaptations, that doesn't mean they're not adaptations. You have no actual criteria to go by here as to the degree of faithfulness that is required to pass for adaptation or not.

If anything is "a made up story" here, it's your repeat insistence on non-existent standards of adaptation.

[rhorle]

No you just keep repeating yourself. You say that it isn't canon but then say it is an "adaptation".

What is wrong with that? An adaptation doesn't have to be canon. They are adapting the parts they have the rights to into a story. If it is mostly made up, your own words, then they are clearing adapting the non-made up parts, right? The only one getting offended here is yourself. Lol.

It is like the MCU compared to Comics. The comics are "canon" as they are the original source. The MCU adaptations are not canon because they only adapted some things from the comics. The industry, and wider world, doesn't use the restrictive definition of adaptation that you use.

[DarkAmbient]

>open thread
>people are still replying to him

[InfiniteCharger]

Nothing says adaptations can only come off complete stories.

Yet again, a restriction completely invented by you.


Also doesn't matter. You can have very loose adaptations, that doesn't mean they're not adaptations. You have no actual criteria to go by here as to the degree of faithfulness that is required to pass for adaptation or not.

If anything is "a made up story" here, it's your repeat insistence on non-existent standards of adaptation.

They only have the rights to the appendices. I have said this literally multiple times. The appendices are not a complete story.
So literally they are not adapting a novel like Lord of the Rings, where you have dialog, events and characters that are well defined.
I said this before and you keep ignoring it in order to make your argument.

Meaning, this is not like Lord of the Rings which adapted a complete story written in books.
This is a mostly made up story that only loosely follows the appendices.
In reality it is an "imagining" or "reimaginng" of events of the 2nd age.
It is not literally an adaptation of a complete work or series of stories of the 2nd age.

- - - Updated - - -

What is wrong with that? An adaptation doesn't have to be canon. They are adapting the parts they have the rights to into a story. If it is mostly made up, your own words, then they are clearing adapting the non-made up parts, right? The only one getting offended here is yourself. Lol.

It is like the MCU compared to Comics. The comics are "canon" as they are the original source. The MCU adaptations are not canon because they only adapted some things from the comics. The industry, and wider world, doesn't use the restrictive definition of adaptation that you use.

See above. Literally they only have the rights to the appendices and to use those as "inspiration" for their own made up story set in Tolkien's 2nd age. You keep debating this but agreeing with it at the same time. Meaning these are possible ways for the events to have happened, but because there is no explicit source material on all of the events of the 2nd age, it is literally not an adaptation. Comic books with multiple issues and chapters are not a comparison for this, because Marvel owns the IP and can reinvent these stories and characters however they want.

You keep trying to throw around the word adaptation as if it is trying to follow a very detailed story when it isn't versus simply being a made up story with the rights to use characters and settings from Tolkien. That is literally all this is. And if you agree then what is the point of continuing this line of discussion?

[Triceron]

What gotcha am I trying to catch him in? Why would I think him saying that Rings of Power is not canon actually means that he thinks it is canon? You are doing the same t hing he is doing. Inventing an argument that exists only in your head. Just so you can argue. Lmao.

Which is exactly what you're doing too, do you not realize that?

It's the formulation of opinion. And the odd thing is, you actually agree with it, yet still arguing it on principle of non-canon stories can still be enjoyed, when that is a completely subjective matter which is the deriding point of why he doesn't like RoP to begin with. He doesn't like RoP because of it lacking faithfulness to the canon.

It's like someone saying they don't like the taste of pineapple because it's sour, and you reply with an observation that sour-tasting foods can be good too. Like, yes you made an observation, but there's no real point to it other than thinly-veiled gatekeeping. That is the context of your argument.

[Biomega]

They only have the rights to the appendices. I have said this literally multiple times. The appendices are not a complete story.
So literally they are not adapting a novel like Lord of the Rings, where you have dialog, events and characters that are well defined.

"They're not adapting a novel" is NOT THE SAME as "this is not an adaptation".

Don't pretend that was what you were saying. Because even if you were, that's an absolutely asinine point to make that was never in dispute to begin with, since no one claimed they were adapting a novel. Ever. Anywhere.

Meaning, this is not like Lord of the Rings which adapted a complete story written in books.

And nobody ever said "this is an adaptation like the Lord of the Rings" OR "this is an adaptation of a complete story written in books".

No one. Anywhere. Ever. Said. That.

In reality it is an "imagining" or "reimaginng" of events of the 2nd age.

You can call it that if you want, but that doesn't mean it's NOT an adaptation. Those are not mutually exclusive categorizations.

It is not literally an adaptation of a complete work or series of stories of the 2nd age.

Since those do not exist, it can't be. Which is why no one ever claimed it was.

But, again - this is NOT the same as saying "this is not an adaptation". Which is what you did, repeatedly.

[Triceron]

"They're not adapting a novel" is NOT THE SAME as "this is not an adaptation"

To be honest, it's an adaptation only through the most technical of definitions. Otherwise, it's pretty clear this is very loosely adapted, and if anything, merely 'inspired by'.

It's pretty close to the level of calling Dragonball an adaptation of Journey to the West. It is, and it isn't.

[InfiniteCharger]

"They're not adapting a novel" is NOT THE SAME as "this is not an adaptation".

Don't pretend that was what you were saying. Because even if you were, that's an absolutely asinine point to make that was never in dispute to begin with, since no one claimed they were adapting a novel. Ever. Anywhere.

I am distinguishing the fact that this series is based on the appendices which are not a complete novel or story.
Therefore, they have to mostly make up characters, dialogs, events, settings and everything else to tell a complete story.
You know that yet you sit here and try and pretend that this wasn't the point I was making when I literally laid it out the first time I said it.

And nobody ever said "this is an adaptation like the Lord of the Rings" OR "this is an adaptation of a complete story written in books".

No one. Anywhere. Ever. Said. That.

Because it isn't an adaptation of any book containing the complete story of the 2nd age.
That is simply a fact, versus Lord of the Rings literally being a complete work of literary fiction.
The fact that you cannot see the difference between the two and throw around the term "adaptation" as if those are the same is the problem.
Literally it is two completely different things.

You can call it that if you want, but that doesn't mean it's NOT an adaptation. Those are not mutually exclusive categorizations.


Since those do not exist, it can't be. Which is why no one ever claimed it was.

But, again - this is NOT the same as saying "this is not an adaptation". Which is what you did, repeatedly.

The fact is they only have the rights to the appendices which gives them the rights to use characters and places from Tolkien.
And the rest is a mostly made up story not based on any existing novel or complete work of fiction. That is a fact.
You are just arguing to argue as if that is literally not the case.

[kenn9530]

Sure, the Approved data proves me that, cute.

Any review above 6 is a lie and below 2 is a meme, simple as that, the show is bad by all critical points you can name it, with the exception of the visuals, even if you think otherwise

You get proven wrong on a regular basis, just because you dont like something doesnt mean plenty others are more than happy with the results, i dont need to think its there to see and proven by all data available that the show is good and you are just upset you cant prove otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

The data that is manipulated and rigged by Amazon omegalul, you didn't just say that with a straight face.

There is more than just amazon, the information is backed up by every single bit of data available, your opinion doesnt change the simple fact the show is still good.

[rhorle]

It's the formulation of opinion. And the odd thing is, you actually agree with it, yet still arguing it on principle of non-canon stories can still be enjoyed, when that is a completely subjective matter which is the deriding point of why he doesn't like RoP to begin with. He doesn't like RoP because of it lacking faithfulness to the canon.

What? You are inventing an entire in-depth argument that I never made just so you can complain about me.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep trying to throw around the word adaptation as if it is trying to follow a very detailed story when it isn't versus simply being a made up story with the rights to use characters and settings from Tolkien. That is literally all this is. And if you agree then what is the point of continuing this line of discussion?

So then they adapted characters and settings from tolkien into a TV show. An adaptation doesn't require a novel to do so. It is why poems and other things have been adapted onto film. The movie 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' was adapted from a poem that was itself a play on 'Twas the Night Before Christmas' poem. You say Marvel can do adaptations because they own the rights to those stories and characters while arguing that Amazon can't when they own the rights to some stuff. Why the double standard? It also ignores how the MCU couldn't mention "mutants" and other stuff prior to Disney acquire 20th because of rights to adaptations of characters. Same reason why Sony holds the rights to Spider-man adaptations even though they don't to the comics. Marvel cut a deal with them to have Spider-man in the MCU but can't stream those movies on D+ (in the US at least) because Sony doesn't want it there.

[Biomega]

I am distinguishing the fact that this series is based on the appendices which are not a complete novel or story.

That's a VERY different point than "this is not an adaptation". A point which you have made repeatedly.

You know that yet you sit here and try and pretend that this wasn't the point I was making

What I KNOW is that you find yourself backed into a corner with untenable positions, and are now trying to back-pedal your way into a diversion.

Because it isn't an adaptation of any book containing the complete story of the 2nd age. That is simply a fact

A fact that was never in dispute.

This also isn't an adaptation of Harry Potter, the Kama Sutra, or Atlas Shrugged, either. That is simply a fact. A fact that was never in question, no one asked for, and no one needs, but a fact nonetheless.

So... cool.

The fact that you cannot see the difference between the two and throw around the term "adaptation" as if those are the same is the problem.

Just because the same categorical term covers different things doesn't mean those things are the same. What kind of lunacy is this? "You call apples 'plants' and you call oranges 'plants', AS IF APPLES AND ORANGES WERE THE SAME THING LMAO".

Holy shit, man, you are really going off the deep end here.

You are just arguing to argue as if that is literally not the case.

No.

No.

Nononono.

How about you stop it with the fucking misrepresentations and strawmen? Nobody is nor has ever argued that. You fucking lunatic. Geez man, this is making me ANGRY.

[Syegfryed]

You get proven wrong on a regular basis, just because you dont like something doesnt mean plenty others are more than happy with the results, i dont need to think its there to see and proven by all data available that the show is good and you are just upset you cant prove otherwise.

- Terrible acting
- nonsensical plot
- Garbage writing
- bad cast
- awful passing

"the show is good because manipulated data say it is"

See how you cannot name or show any good thing from the show, your argument is "data", this is the only proof that i need.