Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Biomega]

You keep using "adapt" as a verb implying the action of "adapting" is the same no mater what when it is not.

It's the same the way "walking" is the same whether I say "walking to the store" or "walking round the world".

That doesn't mean they're not "walking", even though the outcome is two vastly different scenarios. And to claim it wasn't the same would be wrong. And even even if those are two very different scenarios, they ARE both "walking".

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

Wrong.

This is your problem - you think there's some arbitrary cutoff point where it stops being an adaptation. There isn't. Or, alternatively, if you want to argue that there is, EXPLAIN IT. It's not 90% apparently. What, then? 80%? 70%? 49%? How do you measure those percentages?

We're talking broad categorical terminology here. You can't just usurp that for private use and throw a tantrum when people point out that's not the correct usage.

[rhorle]

So it is not a literal adaptation.

Where does it say an adaptation requires a "full novel worth of information" in order to be an adaptation? An adaptation is simply taking X from its original medium and putting in a different medium. Books can be adapted into plays, TV, Film, etc. There is no authority to create a standard based on the percentage of made up thing versus percentage of things from canon.

[rogoth]

Right. It isn't canon. Why is that something that the haters have to keep repeating when everyone here is fully aware of that? The Jackson movies weren't canon either and they didn't need a warning for people to understand that, right? Even work done by the Estate and Christopher are not canon since they are not JRR.

because for almost the entire lifespan of this project until the pre release marketing push began, they had marketed this project as 'lore accurate' and 'an epic retelling of the second age', alongside every time they were asked about the source material that they would be 'sticking closely to the source material and making sure not to egregiously contradict what is already written' which we all know is a fucking lie because everything that's been shown so far is an egregious bastardisation of what's been written on a scale unimagined prior to release, it's like when i and many others warned it would be a bad show, we weren't prepared for just how bad it was actually going to end up being, this is magnitudes beyond what i imagined, and it shows just how much you care (almost nil) about what was initially promised as a project, and what it ended up being simply identity politics galore mixed with a sprinkling of token diversity and a massive dollop of amateur theatre work masquerading as film and TV piled on top of this shitshow sundae, which you and the other mindslaves defending it seem happy to chug down with no resistance.

[InfiniteCharger]

It's the same the way "walking" is the same whether I say "walking to the store" or "walking round the world".

That doesn't mean they're not "walking", even though the outcome is two vastly different scenarios. And to claim it wasn't the same would be wrong. And even even if those are two very different scenarios, they ARE both "walking".


Wrong.

This is your problem - you think there's some arbitrary cutoff point where it stops being an adaptation. There isn't. Or, alternatively, if you want to argue that there is, EXPLAIN IT. It's not 90% apparently. What, then? 80%? 70%? 49%? How do you measure those percentages?

We're talking broad categorical terminology here. You can't just usurp that for private use and throw a tantrum when people point out that's not the correct usage.

It isn't an adaptation of something written to the screen because it wasn't written in the first place. So the effective verb is creating something new because that is literally what is taking place in creating new characters, new settings, new events and new stories for them. It is completely not the same process as taken a complete story that only exists in a written format and "adapting" it to a television series or movie.

Again, you are just repeating yourself impling that the verb "adapt" means the exact same thing in all cases no matter what when it doesnt.
And literally most adaptations are of complete works of fiction not simply footnotes. Footnotes aren't a story.
Not to mention they don't have the rights to the full story to begin with........
You just like making up stuff to hear yourself talk.

[rogoth]

Where does it say an adaptation requires a "full novel worth of information" in order to be an adaptation? An adaptation is simply taking X from its original medium and putting in a different medium. Books can be adapted into plays, TV, Film, etc. There is no authority to create a standard based on the percentage of made up thing versus percentage of things from canon.

actually, yes there is, and if you don't maintain certain percentage thresholds of the project being from the original source material, you can no longer legally call it an adaptation, it must be renamed, but you should know this since you seem to perpetuate yourself as an all knowing authority on this shitshow, seems strange you wouldn't know this FUNDAMENTAL DETAIL.

[InfiniteCharger]

Where does it say an adaptation requires a "full novel worth of information" in order to be an adaptation? An adaptation is simply taking X from its original medium and putting in a different medium. Books can be adapted into plays, TV, Film, etc. There is no authority to create a standard based on the percentage of made up thing versus percentage of things from canon.

The footnotes are not an entire story. Therefore most of that story has to be written, characters created and dialog developed from scratch.
So that process of creating an entirely new story and characters is not the same as an "adaptation".

But since you asked, name me another example of an "adaptation" of some footnotes without rights to the full story.
Amazon doesn't have the rights to a TV series for LOTR. They only have the rights to the footnotes.
So it isn't an adaptation and only gives them the rights to use the name Lord of The Rings, character and setting in their made up story.
The fact that they have to make it up means that they literally are not "adapting" it, because the story to adapt doesn't exist.
There is no complete story or novel of the second age or even major events in the second age.
So it isn't an adaptation of such a story because it doesn't exist.
You are arguing that it being an adaptation is due to the little source material they have being what is being adapted.
But even on that point they aren't even following that source material because they are not "adapting" It.
They literally say at the end of every episode it is only inspired by Tolkien and not an adaptation.
It is a completely made up story, characters and settings with the rights to use the word Tolkien and Lord of the Rings.
Nobody else at Amazon is calling this an adaptation anywhere in the actual show itself.

[rhorle]

actually, yes there is, and if you don't maintain certain percentage thresholds of the project being from the original source material, you can no longer legally call it an adaptation, it must be renamed

What are those legal percentages? Can you link to that law?

- - - Updated - - -

The footnotes are not an entire story. Therefore most of that story has to be written, characters created and dialog developed from scratch.So that process of creating an entirely new story and characters is not the same as an "adaptation".

It is. All adaptations create a new story using pre-existing elements. Even the Jackson films created a new version of the story. Amazon is just adapting with less then others but they are still adapting.

[MCMLXXXII]

They are using established characters, events and locations in a TV series. Seems like textbook adaptation to me?
You can criticize a lot about this series and rightfully so but it is an adaptation.

[Biomega]

It isn't an adaptation of something written to the screen because it wasn't written in the first place.

Are you saying footnotes etc. are not written?

Where's that coming from, then? Oral tradition? Which, by the way, YOU CAN TOTALLY MAKE ADAPTATIONS FROM, TOO.

So the effective verb is creating something new because that is literally what is taking place in creating new characters, new settings, new events and new stories for them.

None of what you are saying precludes the use of adaptation to describe. People have brought up Romeo and Juliet. It's an adaptation itself, and was adapted countless times with new characters, new settings, new events, and new stories.

You're just wrong saying that.

Again, you are just repeating yourself impling that the verb "adapt" means the exact same thing in all cases no matter what when it doesnt.

"Adapt" is a general, categorical descriptor. It refers to a general category. It doesn't go into detail because it's not a specific term. It's a general term.

It's like, say, "to film". "I'm filming my kids", "I'm filming a Hollywood movie", and "I'm filming a porno" all use the same general verb "to film" despite it being radically different situations. But that doesn't matter, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW LANGUAGE WORKS.

And literally most adaptations are of complete works of fiction not simply footnotes. Footnotes aren't a story.

Prove that footnotes aren't a story. Explain what IS "a story" in the first place. And explain why you can only adapt "a story".

None of those things are true.

[Syegfryed]

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.

Rotten Tomattoes show it gots an audience score of 36%, by your metrics, more people dislike and the show is garbage.

Meanwhile House of the dragon have 86%, more people like it and the show is good.

Again, gonna ignore the lame attempt at strawman Tolkien here, tis not your fault, you can't defend the show so you have to attack his work

[kenn9530]

Rotten Tomattoes show it gots an audience score of 36%, by your metrics, more people dislike and the show is garbage.

Meanwhile House of the dragon have 86%, more people like it and the show is good.

Again, gonna ignore the lame attempt at strawman Tolkien here, tis not your fault, you can't defend the show so you have to attack his work

Using 1 metric that isnt all the strong in the first place proves your point has failed, ppl who dont like something are usually more vocal about it while others will not bother to do a review, you need multiple sources to get even the slightest amount of usuable information. If house of the dragon had a long standing book that has been out for decades in sure many would find plenty wrong about it and complain just as much, i dont even currently care about watching house of the dragon currently.

The show is proven to be a good series regardless of your failed attempts of saying otherwise because you have nothing that backs you up.

[Syegfryed]

Using 1 metric that isnt all the strong in the first place proves your point has failed, ppl who dont like something are usually more vocal about it while others will not bother to do a review, you need multiple sources to get even the slightest amount of usuable information. If house of the dragon had a long standing book that has been out for decades in sure many would find plenty wrong about it and complain just as much, i dont even currently care about watching house of the dragon currently.

The show is proven to be a good series regardless of your failed attempts of saying otherwise because you have nothing that backs you up.

So, the data proved you wrong, you came here to say the data is wrong, but you didn't bring any data to counter it, and you insist to be good because you like it

There is not much here to say, it was funny not gonna lie

[Xath]

They are using established characters, events and locations in a TV series. Seems like textbook adaptation to me?
You can criticize a lot about this series and rightfully so but it is an adaptation.

It's at most an inspired by tag it's absolutely not an adaptation considering even the stuff they have access to they are making substantial changes to.

- - - Updated - - -

Using 1 metric that isnt all the strong in the first place proves your point has failed, ppl who dont like something are usually more vocal about it while others will not bother to do a review, you need multiple sources to get even the slightest amount of usuable information. If house of the dragon had a long standing book that has been out for decades in sure many would find plenty wrong about it and complain just as much, i dont even currently care about watching house of the dragon currently.

The show is proven to be a good series regardless of your failed attempts of saying otherwise because you have nothing that backs you up.

There is literally nothing to back up your claims meanwhile audience reviews have gotten worse and worse as the season has continued.

[kenn9530]

So, the data proved you wrong, you came here to say the data is wrong, but you didn't bring any data to counter it, and you insist to be good because you like it

There is not much here to say, it was funny not gonna lie

No the data proves you wrong, RT is one of the most inaccurate review sites that exist so it doesnt help your case at all, if you use data from all the sources you can get a more accurate picture but its still a review which are not that accurate in the first place, it gives a general outline nothing more.

- - - Updated - - -

There is literally nothing to back up your claims meanwhile audience reviews have gotten worse and worse as the season has continued.

All the data backs what im saying that the show is good, you have already been proven wrong in other threads about how wrong you always are when the data is right in your face saying the opposite.

[Biomega]

All the data backs what im saying that the show is good

Clearly not ALL the data. You just said RT is inaccurate. Ostensible what you refer to as "all the sources" is more accurate, then?

Or is this just "yeah it's accurate if we ignore the obvious troll reviews, i.e. the bad ones" all over again, like it always is?

[Shadowferal]

No the data proves you wrong, RT is one of the most inaccurate review sites that exist so it doesnt help your case at all, if you use data from all the sources you can get a more accurate picture but its still a review which are not that accurate in the first place, it gives a general outline nothing more. - - - Updated - - - All the data backs what im saying that the show is good, you have already been proven wrong in other threads about how wrong you always are when the data is right in your face saying the opposite.

The only data you claim to have is your own little opinion.

[Triceron]

No the data proves you wrong, RT is one of the most inaccurate review sites that exist so it doesnt help your case at all, if you use data from all the sources you can get a more accurate picture but its still a review which are not that accurate in the first place, it gives a general outline nothing more.

All the data backs what im saying that the show is good, you have already been proven wrong in other threads about how wrong you always are when the data is right in your face saying the opposite.

If you're just ignoring the bad reviews then there's no point in even talking about reviews. You're just talking about ignorant bias.