Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Berkilak]

I just don't get why they didn't invent a new character if they wanted to pursue an angsty, young elf plot line. Just such a bizarre decision to think that massively changing a huge character in lore would be better received than adding an equivalent to a Tauriel

Can someone explain to me why people think Galadriel is acting out of character?

Tolkien always said she was an arrogant, ambitious spitfire before she settled down in Lothlorien. Hell, she was still leaving Celeborn for centuries at a time to adventure. That's the whole reason that "passing" her test when Frodo offered her the One Ring was such a big deal. Young Galadriel would have taken it without question or hesitation. She proved that she had grown.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, even if they deviate from the source material... that's still mission accomplished for Tolkien. His primary goal was to create a mythology. And any successful mythology is retold. And they diverge from the original telling in the retelling. Even Tolkien himself was constantly reinventing his stories, to the point where the most recent versions constantly contradict each other.

[Levelfive]

I think there's a huge paranoia about critics being "bought and paid for" in this forum, not only in regards to cultural critics, but every facet of Western life. It rings hollow to me, it's the paranoia of conspiracy theorists who can't believe someone might just love tv and film so much to do it for near no money, and that they might have an expertise in how film and TV is made, and stories written.

They review thousands of film/shows, so obviously what they think of as "good" and "bad" is skewed.

I always compare it to literature. I know fellow nerds who think The Wheel of Time is the peak of literature. I, as an aspiring writer and avid reader, have read enough to know that that isn't true. Dostoevsky, to me, is the peak of literature. But to many people, Dostoevsky would be incomprehensible and perhaps even boring (a thought I can barely fathom). The same is true for people who only watch anime and think anime is the peak of television....and it's like, the best animated show ever, imo, isn't anime (it's BoJack Horseman, if you're curious).

I mean, obviously it's Futurama, but otherwise agreed. Also, the argument generally that a show is empirically good or bad based on reviews is weird.

[Orby]

I always compare it to literature. I know fellow nerds who think The Wheel of Time is the peak of literature. I, as an aspiring writer and avid reader, have read enough to know that that isn't true. Dostoevsky, to me, is the peak of literature. But to many people, Dostoevsky would be incomprehensible and perhaps even boring (a thought I can barely fathom). The same is true for people who only watch anime and think anime is the peak of television....and it's like, the best animated show ever, imo, isn't anime (it's BoJack Horseman, if you're curious).

Everything said here is subjective, none of what you said is true, what is best is entirely subjective itself, there is no definitive best movie/book/song/art If someone wants to think Robert Jordan is 'peak literature' they can, you cannot just tell them they are wrong because you think differently... a lesson this forum needs to learn..

[eschatological]

Everything said here is subjective, none of what you said is true, what is best is entirely subjective itself, there is no definitive best movie/book/song/art If someone wants to think Robert Jordan is 'peak literature' they can, you cannot just tell them they are wrong because you think differently... a lesson this forum needs to learn..

Do you think art criticism is thus an invalid field of study? Do you disagree with scholars who argue Dostoevsky is one of the top 5 (at worst) most influential novelists of all time?

Can you not look at The Room and separate it from The Godfather, since all taste is subjective?

I will die on the hill that Dostoevsky is objectively a better author than Robert Jordan.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

I will die on the hill that Dostoevsky is objectively a better author than Robert Jordan.

Quite a sight, that.
You speak undeniable truth here, yet infract me for quite a far-fethed racism case in other thread.
People truly are creatures of inconsistencies.

[Berkilak]

Do you think art criticism is thus an invalid field of study? Do you disagree with scholars who argue Dostoevsky is one of the top 5 (at worst) most influential novelists of all time?

Can you not look at The Room and separate it from The Godfather, since all taste is subjective?

I will die on the hill that Dostoevsky is objectively a better author than Robert Jordan.

I subjectively enjoy a lot of things with poor objective quality, and I subjectively detest other things with high objective quality. But some people simply cannot differentiate between objective and subjective at all.

[Triceron]

Do you think art criticism is thus an invalid field of study? Do you disagree with scholars who argue Dostoevsky is one of the top 5 (at worst) most influential novelists of all time?

Can you not look at The Room and separate it from The Godfather, since all taste is subjective?

I will die on the hill that Dostoevsky is objectively a better author than Robert Jordan.

The system we have for show reviews is ultimately flawed to begin with, so no it is not comparable to book reviews since books aren't released on a chapter-per-week basis with reviews made based on what is released and passed off as a permanent score of the entire book.

Would the professional critics be right in evaluating a score for the entire book based on the first couple chapters?

One of the biggest problems I have with Rings of Power right now is its seeming lack of forethought in its presentation. We're 5 episodes in and the plot is still moving at a crawl, and the plot filled with sudden reveals that don't have any proper setup and payoff to them. None of this could be determined from a review of the first two episodes alone. Yet that's how most critic reviews for this show are determined. Amazon did not release an early preview of the entire series for critics, only the first two episodes like everyone else ended up getting day 1. And yeah, the first two episodes were pretty solid. Benefit of the doubt is granted to a slower paced story that is building up all its set. That wouldn't be excused for any review 5 episodes in.

[Specialka]

You are presented with actual facts and data that proves a show to be good, but you ignore the actual data and claim your own opinion is the right answer, just because you dont like to be proven wrong time and time again.

- - - Updated - - -



If more ppl like something than hate it becomes good, its just that simple, you can feel free not to enjoy it but it can still be called good if enough ppl like it.

Define "good" (good for you maybe, but you seem to have bad taste and expectations like all can see in the SC thread)? And nope, the masses opinion is still subjective.

[kenn9530]

Define "good" (good for you maybe, but you seem to have bad taste and expectations like all can see in the SC thread)? And nope, the masses opinion is still subjective.

Its not subjective if more ppl like something than not then its considered good, you having bad taste doesnt change that simple reality, when someone claims something is bad just because they dont like it that just shows a lack of personal integrity and inablity to give an accurate judgement based on personal bias.

[Orby]

Do you think art criticism is thus an invalid field of study? Do you disagree with scholars who argue Dostoevsky is one of the top 5 (at worst) most influential novelists of all time?

Can you not look at The Room and separate it from The Godfather, since all taste is subjective?

I will die on the hill that Dostoevsky is objectively a better author than Robert Jordan.

Criticism is fine. You can argue an opinion, you can discuss and debate, but to tell someone their opinion is wrong definitively is not it.

Like saying "I think pickled sandwiches are the best' and then someone says, 'you are wrong', like you do not know him, why is he wrong? lol. We playing some 4D mind chess? :P

[Berkilak]

Criticism is fine. You can argue an opinion, you can discuss and debate, but to tell someone their opinion is wrong definitively is not it.

If you say that X is better than Y, someone can indeed tell you that your opinion is objectively incorrect.
If you say that you prefer X to Y, no one can tell your opinion is subjectively incorrect.

[Specialka]

Its not subjective if more ppl like something than not then its considered good, you having bad taste doesnt change that simple reality, when someone claims something is bad just because they dont like it that just shows a lack of personal integrity and inablity to give an accurate judgement based on personal bias.

Lots of people liking something does not make it "good". It just makes it liked by a lot of people. End of story.

This is not like science since it is rather based on subjectivity rather than facts and objectivity.

[Triceron]

If you say that X is better than Y, someone can indeed tell you that your opinion is objectively incorrect.
If you say that you prefer X to Y, no one can tell your opinion is subjectively incorrect.

There's no real difference other than you applying objectivity to one and subjectivity to another. 'X is better than Y' can also be contextually subjective, as a matter of discussing the merits and quality of a product. You can use those words and make those arguments without merely making it about your preference.

There's plenty of sequels that I personally don't prefer over the original, but I could regard as being better than the original in its overall quality and execution. I think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is a better movie than A Fistful of Dollars, but I prefer Fistful because I liked the story more (Yojimbo).

[Orby]

If you say that X is better than Y, someone can indeed tell you that your opinion is objectively incorrect.
If you say that you prefer X to Y, no one can tell your opinion is subjectively incorrect.

Well more int eh sense of saying for example 'I think X movie is better than the more popular Y movie'. That's his opinion, he is not wrong to think that. but you can argue and debate him on why you disagree, but you cannot tell him he is wrong.

At least that's the perspective I am coming from. The more harmless side :P

[rhorle]

Lots of people liking something does not make it "good". It just makes it liked by a lot of people. End of story.

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

[Specialka]

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

There is no "truth" about something being good or not. We could say there is several truth, to each its own. But saying that something is "good" because lots of people find it good is idiotic at best.

[Triceron]

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

Demographics isn't really a strong basis for determining what is good and what isn't, because what people prefer at a given time is tied to certain things that are indicative of the times. Liking Bill Cosby has a very different context 20 years ago compared to now.

[Skulltaker]

Everything said here is subjective, none of what you said is true, what is best is entirely subjective itself, there is no definitive best movie/book/song/art If someone wants to think Robert Jordan is 'peak literature' they can, you cannot just tell them they are wrong because you think differently... a lesson this forum needs to learn..

I agree with you that you shouldn't tell anyone their opinion is wrong, or worse. However, the lines aren't always that clear.

first of all, many people conflate opinion and fact. The earth being round(ish) is a fact, not an opinion. Your (not you, personally) opinion of it being flat doesn't make that true.

And second, while taste cannot really be judged other than by standards set by society, there are qualities in movies, art, most form of media, actually, that can be sorted by quality.

Can you enjoy the movie 'The Room'? Yes. And anyone who tells you you can't is wrong. Can you say you think it's better than The Godfather? Yes, sure. Is it, factually, better? If you ignore all factors that are down to personal preference, the subjective ones, and just look the objective factors, like acting, set design, soundtrack, cinematography, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who'd agree with you if you claimed The Room did any of those better than The Godfather.

The middle ground, however, seems to be a lost or dying art. No matter how feverishly one enjoys, or dislikes, something, you shouldn't forget that anyone disagreeing with you isn't necessarily wrong, our out to get you. Trying to see it the way other people might see is a lesson I'd like a lot of people to learn.

- - - Updated - - -

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

A lot of people like cocaine. A lot of 'trashy' movies have cult followings. Hell, people know some things are bad (for them) and enjoy them anyway, for the sake of them being bad.

There is no such thing as an ultimate 'good' or 'bad' for any one piece of art. That doesn't mean it is beyond criticism. There are things you can rank, or describe as bad or good, in most things. And you can find good and bad both in most things, as well.

Take Rings of Power, for example. For me, it's pretty bad. But that scene with Elrond meeting Durin the 4th again, after 20 years? I thought that was pretty good. It perfectly showed how different the two species and their perception of time was. There were some actual emotions in there.

I generally think people should 'live and let live' when it comes to entertainment. As long as people keep to themselves, whether they like it or dislike something, I'm fine with it. If you go off on someone because he hates/likes a show you hate/like, that's when the issues start to pile up.

And never mislable your opinion as fact.

[rhorle]

There is no "truth" about something being good or not. We could say there is several truth, to each its own. But saying that something is "good" because lots of people find it good is idiotic at best.

Why when you said there is not truth about the subject? It really sounds like that is a defense for "I don't like it but others do so it can't be called good under any circumstances".

- - - Updated - - -

Demographics isn't really a strong basis for determining what is good and what isn't, because what people prefer at a given time is tied to certain things that are indicative of the times. Liking Bill Cosby has a very different context 20 years ago compared to now.

Then why are you and others using User Reviews to determine if this show is good or not? Isn't it strange how when it aligns with your viewpoint that such things are acceptable. Yet if it doesn't align with your viewpoint then we can't use those things? Your example of Bill Cosby is that such. His performances do not change just because he was found out to be a bad person, right? So if his show was good back then wouldn't it be good now?

Yet now that your view of an actor has changed so to does your judgement of a show they appeared on. It really shows that good and bad are meaningless and only exist to reinforce whatever narrative about something is being pushed at the time.

[kenn9530]

Lots of people liking something does not make it "good". It just makes it liked by a lot of people. End of story.

This is not like science since it is rather based on subjectivity rather than facts and objectivity.

Thats the very definition of making something good when more ppl just like it than not, its a pretty simple thing to understand, your in the minority of ppl who dont like it and thats fine but you cant claim the show is bad when all the evidence proves otherwise.