Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Varodoc]

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 - - -



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.

Are you a thinking human being or a robot?

Can you formulate your own opinion on anything?

I couldn't care less that the totally-not-manipulated data shills for this show.

[Syegfryed]

Yeah I think without question Durin and Elrond's friendship friendship and the other dwarves are the saving grace of the show.

I'm not entirely sure how much sense their storyline makes though. The king Elve clearly knew without any doubt that Durin had discovered Mithrill, long before sending Elrond in to see if they'd discovered Mithrill. If he thought that Elrond might better be able to convince Durin to help then that should have been the story from the start.

Even that its awfully done.

You have Elrond being a scummy douche liar, that keep pretending he there because his friendship with Durin, and he is fucking lying the whole ordeal

the very first thing he do when he comes back is break the promise he made with his "friend" and tell about the mithrill to the old guy with point ears

Then, he tells Durin he lied, and Durin is super cool about it, despite being mad with him for simple not going to his weeding. This show is beyond stupid and defies people's ability to reason..

------


And, have to say how nonsensical and bad is the plot that now elves need mithril otherwise they die, yet again another crap into the bloated plot of the show, that may not go anywhere

- - - Updated - - -

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

I think this is the perfect analogy

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget such amazing lines like "I have a temptest inside me", or "give me the meat and give it to me raw".

Jesus christ, i forgot about those, so awful

Galadriel is just o insufferable that i almost block everything she says, like trying to order the queen around, she is basically a Karen

[kenn9530]

- 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.

The data proves you wrong because far more ppl like it than dont simple as that, everything you say is an uneducated opinion, i can claim the tollien books themselves were written poorly full of holes and bad plotlines but you can still enjoy it regardless of what other ppl seem to think.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you a thinking human being or a robot?

Can you formulate your own opinion on anything?

I couldn't care less that the totally-not-manipulated data shills for this show.

Its not just my opinion the show is good, its backed up by the data also so you are just proven wrong if you think something is bad.

[Syegfryed]

The data proves you wrong because far more ppl like it than dont simple as that, everything you say is an uneducated opinion, i can claim the tollien books themselves were written poorly full of holes and bad plotlines but you can still enjoy it regardless of what other ppl seem to think..

First of all, people like or don't like its no the only metric to decide if something is good or not, hell, its not even impartial, you can like bad and awful stuff and people can dislike good things, those are subjectives, you and other people can like RoP even if tis a garbage show, there is no problem in that, more fun for y'all.

Second, i didn't a thing about plotholes, yes, they exist, so you exposed another problem the show have, second, trying to claim "tolkien had problems too" is a bad non sequitur

[InfiniteCharger]

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.

Come on dude. You are just doing what you normally do which is constantly reiterating the same thing in a different way acting like you are changing facts. The point was Lord Of the Rings was a complete work of fiction with characters,dialogs, settings, scenes and events that could be "adapted". This series is based on rights to the appendices which is not a complete work of fiction so they had to make up most of those things. And they then added the places and characters that were in the appendices for which they had rights to that mostly made up story. That is completely not the same as adapting an existing complete work of fiction. To sit here and argue otherwise is nonsense.

You haven't disputed that or shown this to be incorrect or even disagreed.

The biggest distinction here is that an adaptation of a complete work of fiction has many points of comparison you can use to judge how accurate or faithful it is to the original work as canonical. While in the case of Rings of Power, the only source material is mostly a general outline or footnotes, which does not leave much to measure in terms of how accurate it is to canon. Even if they did stay 100% faithful to that outline of events and characters anything else they would have created from scratch would still not be canon. And that is because the original author who could decide what is and isn't canon is dead. And the Tolkien estate is not granting canon status to any new works of fiction based on Tolkiens 2nd age. That is the difference. That is the fundamental problem with this particular IP. Even the new animation being planned by WB based on the Rhorrim is not going to be canon either. This isn't a fairy tale or other work of fiction that was written 100s of years ago and out of copyright status. The Tolkien Estate still owns the rights to the books and as such will maintain those copyrights for perpetuity as long as the book continues to be published. And until they either provide guidance and or sponsor an authorized canonical set of stories or tales based on the 2nd age, anybody trying to do a second age story is going to have the same problem. And until then the only canonical reference to Tolkien will remain in those books.

All of that said, because this is Tolkien and so many people see it as a classic work of western literature and fiction, no matter what they do it is going to be scrutinized for how it blends in with Tolkien's world. And that is just what comes with trying to adapt something that is one of the most popular and well known written works of western fiction.

[rhorle]

Come on dude. You are just doing what you normally do which is constantly reiterating the same thing in a different way acting like you are changing facts.

Why would I have to change an argument if it still counters your claim? An adaptation does not require a complete work of fiction in order to be adapted. I am not arguing it is the same as type of adaptation. This is again you inventing things.

[InfiniteCharger]

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

Literally your entire point here it to tell me that you cannot see the literal difference in effort required to adapt a complete work of fiction versus adapting a set of footnotes. The appendices are literally a couple of short paragraphs, footnotes, sentences or outlines. My point from the beginning is that adapting the appendices is a different beast than adapting a complete work of fiction. You keep replying like that wasn't my point when I made that clear the first time. The fact that you can't or don't understand that is not my problem. It seems you just like to sit here and make up things to argue about while ignoring what I actually wrote.

Really this is just a pointless excuse in wasting time so lets just give it a rest.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would I have to change an argument if it still counters your claim? An adaptation does not require a complete work of fiction in order to be adapted. I am not arguing it is the same as type of adaptation. This is again you inventing things.

You haven't countered my claim. That is the point. You just keep repeating yourself acting like you are actually proving something when you haven't actually contradicted anything I said.

[rhorle]

You haven't countered my claim. That is the point. You just keep repeating yourself acting like you are actually proving something when you haven't actually contradicted anything I said.

The fact you are no longer arguing that adaptions are required to be canon proves I, and others, have countered your claims. It is why you are now trying argue that the level of adaptation is important as if that was your original claim all along and "Full" versus "not-full" adaptation is what was being discussed.

[InfiniteCharger]

The fact you are no longer arguing that adaptions are required to be canon proves I, and others, have countered your claims. It is why you are now trying argue that the level of adaptation is important as if that was your original claim all along and "Full" versus "not-full" adaptation is what was being discussed.

Because I never said that. What I said is it wasn't canon. And I also said that it is not an adaptation the same as Lord of the Rings which is a complete work of fiction. Meaning this is mostly a made up story based on a few footnotes and paragraphs in the appendices. You simply have not grasped the concept that whatever they make up from the appendices is literally not canon because there is not enough written to go off of. That was the point. Not to mention the series itself says at the end of each episode that it is only "inspired" by Tolkien and not trying to literally be an adaptation of Tolkien because it can't as they don't have all the rights to even begin to "adapt" the second age. So like I said, these "rights" to the appendices literally only gives them access to certain characters and settings from Tolkien in whatever made up story they create. That's it. This is just you repeating yourself acting like you are changing what I have been saying when I haven't changed a thing. You haven't challenged what I said at all instead of trying to reword it to make it seem like you are saying something when you aren't. Again, you run and hide behind the word "adaptation" because you seem to be offended when I state the fact that most of this series is completely made up and not canon.

[Biomega]

Literally your entire point here it to tell me that you cannot see the literal difference in effort required to adapt a complete work of fiction versus adapting a set of footnotes.

Wrong.

My entire point is call it a loose adaptation if you will, it doesn't change the fact that it IS an adaptation. I'm not concerned with what it is an adaptation of, how well it adapts that, whether or not it adapts it better than something else, or whatever other tangents you want to go on.

My point is and always has been purely that you are wrong claiming "this isn't an adaptation.". Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else you've tacked on in your inane ramblings is not my argument, it's your invention.

My point from the beginning is that adapting the appendices is a different beast than adapting a complete work of fiction.

That's not what you said initially. Allow me:

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

This was what I objected to.

You didn't say "this is different than adapting a complete work". You said "it isn't an adaptation". You didn't say "it isn't an adaptation of a novel", you didn't say "it isn't an adaptation of a complete work" or whatever else.

Don't lie.

The fact that you can't or don't understand that is not my problem.

I can only go by what you write. I have not reached the level of telepathy yet. If you don't want people to misunderstand you, perhaps you could be more precise in what you are saying.

Like saying "this isn't an adaptation of a novel" instead of "this isn't an adaptation."

It seems you just like to sit here and make up things to argue about while ignoring what I actually wrote.

Yeah, about "what you actually wrote..." See above.

[rhorle]

Because I never said that.

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.

Tell me where I said what they make up is canon? You keep arguing something that no one stated while denying the very things you've stated. Even in this post you are trying to argue that it isn't an adaptation while in your previous post you said it is an adaptation but just not one based on a full book. You are contradicting yourself in your zeal to not be wrong.

[InfiniteCharger]

Wrong.

My entire point is call it a loose adaptation if you will, it doesn't change the fact that it IS an adaptation. I'm not concerned with what it is an adaptation of, how well it adapts that, whether or not it adapts it better than something else, or whatever other tangents you want to go on.

My point is and always has been purely that you are wrong claiming "this isn't an adaptation.". Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else you've tacked on in your inane ramblings is not my argument, it's your invention.

That's not what you said initially. Allow me:


This was what I objected to.

You didn't say "this is different than adapting a complete work". You said "it isn't an adaptation". You didn't say "it isn't an adaptation of a novel", you didn't say "it isn't an adaptation of a complete work" or whatever else.

Don't lie.


I can only go by what you write. I have not reached the level of telepathy yet. If you don't want people to misunderstand you, perhaps you could be more precise in what you are saying.

Like saying "this isn't an adaptation of a novel" instead of "this isn't an adaptation."


Yeah, about "what you actually wrote..." See above.

And I stated explicitly that it isn't an adaptation because there wasn't anything there to adapt other than footnotes. You sitting here trying to grandstand acting like you didn't read that is why this is a waste of time. You are using the word "adaptation" to hide behind because you are trying to pretend that taking a few sentences and footnotes is literally the same creative process as taking an entire written novel with dialog, characters, events and settings and "adapting" it to another medium such as TV and film. That is totally completely and inherently false, because taking a bunch of footnotes means you actually have to create an entire story or novel from scratch because no such thing exists as part of the process of "adapting" it to another medium. This is the point I have made numerous times and you keep ducking because you are being dishonest. So that is one reason this is not an adaptation.

The other reason it isn't an adaptation is because they don't have the rights to even try to "adapt" the second age of tolkien.
So that is another point I also explicitly made as well as to why this series is simply a made up story inspired by Tolkien.
And that is literally what the show says at the end of every episode. I have also explicitly stated that multiple times.

What you are trying to do is use the word "adaptation" as a be all and catch all for anything dealing with this series ignoring the specific points I made. And that is why you are being dishonest because you don't address the specifics because you can't. So you resort to these insane games of semantics trying to nibble around to find something to argue about. Which is a waste of time.

So like I said, give it a rest. This is a made up non canon story that is not an adaptation of the 2nd age because they don't have the rights. It is only an "adaptation" of some footnotes and paragraphs in the appendices which aren't a complete story and just references.

[rhorle]

And I stated explicitly that it isn't an adaptation because there wasn't anything there to adapt other than footnotes.

So nothing there to adapt except footnotes. Which means there is stuff to adapt. Lmao.

[kenn9530]

First of all, people like or don't like its no the only metric to decide if something is good or not, hell, its not even impartial, you can like bad and awful stuff and people can dislike good things, those are subjectives, you and other people can like RoP even if tis a garbage show, there is no problem in that, more fun for y'all.

Second, i didn't a thing about plotholes, yes, they exist, so you exposed another problem the show have, second, trying to claim "tolkien had problems too" is a bad non sequitur

Liking something or not doesnt change a simple fact that the show is good, you can easily say tolkiens books have just as many issues as any tv/series or films and the same with most books, following a books story doesnt not guarantee a good tv series or film.

More ppl like RoP than dont so its already proven the shown is good and that wont change.

[InfiniteCharger]

Tell me where I said what they make up is canon? You keep arguing something that no one stated while denying the very things you've stated. Even in this post you are trying to argue that it isn't an adaptation while in your previous post you said it is an adaptation but just not one based on a full book. You are contradicting yourself in your zeal to not be wrong.

If you cannot show me where I am incorrect then why are you replying?
So what is your point? Are you just upset, because I said it is made up and not canon?
You haven't disproved that or disagreed, so why do you keep going on about it?

It isn't canon because there is nothing there to adapt other than footnotes.
Obviously you don't have the capacity to understand how that is literally not an "adaptation" because it isn't even a complete story.
That was the point and you still haven't contradicted that. Not to mention they haven't even followed those footnotes.

[Biomega]

And I stated explicitly that it isn't an adaptation because there wasn't anything there to adapt other than footnotes.

There you go again.

There only being footnotes doesn't mean you can't adapt it. It means it's not an adaptation of a novel, but it DOES NOT MEAN it isn't an adaptation.

Period.

- - - Updated - - -

you are trying to pretend that taking a few sentences and footnotes is literally the same creative process as taking an entire written novel with dialog, characters, events and settings and "adapting" it to another medium such as TV and film.

No.

YOU are doing that.

I never said anything about that, in any way.

All I'm saying is that whether or not it's only footnotes, you can still make an adaptation of it.

PERIOD.

ONLY THAT.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.

So stop adding all that other insane shit every time I say this. I add PERIOD to it for a reason.

[rhorle]

If you cannot show me where I am incorrect then why are you replying?

I literally did that. Are you actually reading the posts you are responding to? An adaptation isn't required to use a complete story. Can you provide a definition that states that as a requirement?

[InfiniteCharger]

Tell me where I said what they make up is canon? You keep arguing something that no one stated while denying the very things you've stated. Even in this post you are trying to argue that it isn't an adaptation while in your previous post you said it is an adaptation but just not one based on a full book. You are contradicting yourself in your zeal to not be wrong.

So you agree with me. It isn't canon. Period. Thanks.

And it isn't an adaptation because there isn't anything to actually adapt.
I have said this over and over again. The fact that you think an "adaptation" is something 90% made up is the issue.
It isn't an adaptation because there wasn't much to "adapt" to begin with.

That was the point. I haven't changed my position. You just keep repeating yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

There you go again.

There only being footnotes doesn't mean you can't adapt it. It means it's not an adaptation of a novel, but it DOES NOT MEAN it isn't an adaptation.

Period.

- - - Updated - - -


No.

YOU are doing that.

I never said anything about that, in any way.

All I'm saying is that whether or not it's only footnotes, you can still make an adaptation of it.

PERIOD.

ONLY THAT.

THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.

So stop adding all that other insane shit every time I say this. I add PERIOD to it for a reason.

You keep using "adapt" as a verb implying the action of "adapting" is the same no mater what when it is not.
I keep saying this because you keep ignoring it to make up your own nonsense argument.
If you have to make up 90% of the dialog, 90% of the characters, settings and everything else, then it isn't an adaptation.
You using the word as a verb doesn't change that. It is a completely made up story set in Tolkiens universe.
That is not the same as an adaptation of a work written by Tolkien because that work doesn't exist (the 2nd age stories).
You haven't challenged that, you just keep repeating yourself that it is still an adaptation when it is not.
It is a wholly new story, set of characters, settings, dialogs and events that had to be made up by Amazon.
Therefore, those things were not an adaptation of characters, settings, dialogs and events that were already written.
And that is even if they were faithful to the footnotes which they aren't which shows even further it is simply a made up story.

[rhorle]

So you agree with me. It isn't canon. Period. Thanks.

Yes. As I've told you many times already. How is it that you think that is something I've ever disagreed about?

"Footnotes", Appendices, and a prologue contain nothing for them to adapt? Where is there a definition that says an adaptation can only have a certain % of made up things? If there wasn't much to adapt to begin with that still means there was something to adapt. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have to make up 90% of the dialog, 90% of the characters, settings and everything else, then it isn't an adaptation.

You just stated that 10% of it is an adaptation. Lmao.

[InfiniteCharger]

I literally did that. Are you actually reading the posts you are responding to? An adaptation isn't required to use a complete story. Can you provide a definition that states that as a requirement?

You agreed it is not canon.

You agreed it is mostly made up.

You agreed there isn't much source material to "adapt"....

And whether you acknowledge it or not, they don't have the rights to "adapt" the 2nd age canon anyway.

So which of those did you prove wrong?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. As I've told you many times already. How is it that you think that is something I've ever disagreed about?

"Footnotes", Appendices, and a prologue contain nothing for them to adapt? Where is there a definition that says an adaptation can only have a certain % of made up things? If there wasn't much to adapt to begin with that still means there was something to adapt. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -



You just stated that 10% of it is an adaptation. Lmao.

There was no dialog, no characters, and settings to actually adapt outside of some footnotes.
Lord of the Rings is a complete work of fiction that can be adapted.
The appendices are not a complete work of fiction and require a lot of other information to fill in the blanks.
They don't have the rights to all of those other things to fill in those blanks.
So it is not a literal adaptation. You repeating yourself isn't changing anything.