Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[InfiniteCharger]

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.

It isn't canon and nothing in this series is going to be considered the defacto record of what happened in the 2nd age.
And that is because they don't have the rights to tell the 'defacto' story of the second age.
This is the confusion that Amazon themselves have promoted through their marketing and that is the problem.
Which says that the Tolkien estate allowed them to use the words LOTR and Rings of Power aiding the confusion.
The only thing they have the rights to are some characters and places from Tolkien in the appendices.
Otherwise, everything else is simply Amazon's own made up story and irrelevant to the actual lore of the legendarium.
Sounds like you just cannot accept that reality.

[rhorle]

It isn't canon and nothing in this series is going to be considered the defacto record of what happened in the 2nd age.

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.

[Biomega]

Almost three hundred pages, and the trolls are STILL going "no no no you don't understand, this new work made to show us stuff we've never seen in books IS NOT LIKE THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS!".

Dear gods.

[InfiniteCharger]

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.

So we agree whatever story they made up is irrelevant to Tolkien then? We OK now? Whatever story unfolds in this series is irrelevant to Tolkien.
You are the one who seems to have a problem with that.

OR, you just don't want to admit that this was a dumb exercise from the beginning in trying to tell a story that doesn't matter to Lord of the Rings. In calling this series "Lord of the Rings: The RIngs of Power", Amazon is trying to market it as something it is not is the point that I am making. You can sit here and argue all day about your opinions but the fact is that this marketing is deliberately deceptive. People reading that title would not be wrong in assuming that this series is the literal story of how the Rings of Power got created in Tolkien. But it is not. And that is the point.

All of the marketing is deliberately phrased in such a way to make it seem like this is anything other than something Amazon made up and it is not even an adaptation. It is nothing more than a purely whimsical flight of fancy that has no absolute bearing on the actual legendarium if that is what someone is interested in. And that is why it is marketed in the way it is, because the prestige of Tolkien is what people are attracted to and Amazon has nothing to do with that. They only basically bought the rights to use the words "Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power" and some characters and places but otherwise this has absolutely no connection to the books whatsoever.

[rhorle]

So we agree whatever story they made up is irrelevant to Tolkien then? We OK now?

I'm not sure I can answer that as you seem to be getting aggressive over something you've made up entirely in your own mind. You also don't seem to understand what an adaptation is. Even the Jackson films were not the story that Tolkien told. They added things, changed things, left out things. You are making a point that no one actually cares about but yourself.

[InfiniteCharger]

I'm not sure I can answer that as you seem to be getting aggressive over something you've made up entirely in your own mind. You also don't seem to understand what an adaptation is. Even the Jackson films were not the story that Tolkien told. They added things, changed things, left out things. You are making a point that no one actually cares about but yourself.

It isn't an adaptation. You keep trying to claim it as something that Amazon doesn't even say it is and neither does the Tolkien estate.
It is a story that Amazon made up and bought the rights from the Estate to put Lord of the Rings Rings of Power on it.
That is all it is. You are the one who keeps desperately trying to claim it is an adaptation when it is not.
As you yourself said, there is no actual story to adapt, so they literally are just making up stuff.
So what is your objection to me saying the obvious that it is literally not an adaptation or canon?
You can't have it both ways.

[rhorle]

It isn't an adaptation. You keep trying to claim it as something that Amazon doesn't even say it is and neither does the Tolkien estate.

An adaptation doesn't have the requirement of following an existing story. They are adapting parts of Tolkien's work to tell a story. Westside Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juilet. I haven't objected to you saying it is not canon. As I said before you keep making things up in order to argue.

On the intro for the show amazon has "Based on 'The Lord of the Rings' and appendices by J.R.R. Tolkien". The trivia, under x-ray, also indicates "Most of the details and elaborations told herein are derived from 'The Lord of the Rings', its prologue entitled 'Concerning Hobbits', and its appendices, A through F, where the intrepid traveler may journey to discover even farther horizons".

Which clearly indicates it is an adaptation. They aren't telling canon but are adapting portions of his work into their own story.

[Biomega]

It isn't an adaptation.

There is no universal reference for what is or is not an "adaptation". There's no definitions beyond perhaps legal ones, which are often vague as well. There's operational definitions from literary reference works or encyclopedias, and there's usage descriptions from dictionaries - but there IS. NO. objectively applicable definition of "adaptation" with sharp boundaries that you can apply here.

All you can do is argue why YOU think it's not an adaptation. And that can be convincing or not, depending on how you argue for it, and who you argue it to. But there isn't some grand template that you can look at going "yep, this fits, therefore it's an adaptation, the end, we can all go home now".

There are no authorities on such definitions either, in case you were thinking of linking a YT video of someone giving their definition or whatever. The Grand Council of All Adaptations does not exist*



*I am oath-bound to disavow any knowledge of the GCoAA. It does not exist, it never existed, it definitely doesn't meet at Barney's Corner Tavern every second Tuesday from 6-9pm

[InfiniteCharger]

An adaptation doesn't have the requirement of following an existing story. They are adapting parts of Tolkien's work to tell a story. Westside Story is an adaptation of Romeo and Juilet. I haven't objected to you saying it is not canon. As I said before you keep making things up in order to argue.

On the intro for the show amazon has "Based on 'The Lord of the Rings' and appendices by J.R.R. Tolkien". The trivia, under x-ray, also indicates "Most of the details and elaborations told herein are derived from 'The Lord of the Rings', its prologue entitled 'Concerning Hobbits', and its appendices, A through F, where the intrepid traveler may journey to discover even farther horizons".

Which clearly indicates it is an adaptation. They aren't telling canon but are adapting portions of his work into their own story.

You keep saying it is an adaptation as if that means it is canon. It does not mean that.
They only had the rights to the appendices of Lord of the Rings.
Therefore, by definition, they were given the rights to make up whatever they wanted and call it Lord of the RIngs: Rings of Power.
But again, these events are not the canon of how the rings of power were created, how numenor was destroyed and so forth.
It isn't even an adaptation of those things because they literally don't have the rights to those stories.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no universal reference for what is or is not an "adaptation". There's no definitions beyond perhaps legal ones, which are often vague as well. There's operational definitions from literary reference works or encyclopedias, and there's usage descriptions from dictionaries - but there IS. NO. objectively applicable definition of "adaptation" with sharp boundaries that you can apply here.

All you can do is argue why YOU think it's not an adaptation. And that can be convincing or not, depending on how you argue for it, and who you argue it to. But there isn't some grand template that you can look at going "yep, this fits, therefore it's an adaptation, the end, we can all go home now".

There are no authorities on such definitions either, in case you were thinking of linking a YT video of someone giving their definition or whatever. The Grand Council of All Adaptations does not exist*



*I am oath-bound to disavow any knowledge of the GCoAA. It does not exist, it never existed, it definitely doesn't meet at Barney's Corner Tavern every second Tuesday from 6-9pm

What book are they adapting here?

And if there is no book they have the rights to adapt then it isn't an adaptation.

It is only legal rights to use certain characters, places and events in a brand new made up story.
The end credits blatantly state that.

What are you even talking about here?

Not to mention like I said before, calling it an 'adaptation' doesn't make it canon.
Somehow you think this means otherwise.

This series called "Lord of the Rings: RIngs of Power" is not going to be the literal canon of how the rings of power were created. And by being an "adaptation" they are under no obligation to be canon. So therefore, if you are going to keep claiming that adaptation allows for changes then fine, but that also means it isn't canon. It cannot be both free to go against canon and be canon at the same time. Pick a side and stay there.

[rhorle]

You keep saying it is an adaptation as if that means it is canon. It does not mean that.

What? An adaptation is not required to be canon. I have never said Rings of Power is canon. Again you are inventing things in order to argue.

[Hansworst]

You keep saying it is an adaptation as if that means it is canon. It does not mean that.
They only had the rights to the appendices of Lord of the Rings.
Therefore, by definition, they were given the rights to make up whatever they wanted and call it Lord of the RIngs: Rings of Power.
But again, these events are not the canon of how the rings of power were created, how numenor was destroyed and so forth.
It isn't even an adaptation of those things because they literally don't have the rights to those stories.

Nope, as the intro says, it's an adaptation of LotR and it's appendices. So they are allowed to use descriptions used in those titles of said events.
I don't see anyone claiming RoP is canon.

[Biomega]

What book are they adapting here?

And if there is no book they have the rights to adapt then it isn't an adaptation.

Says you. But as I pointed out, you do not constitute the definitive authority on how adaptations work.

They have certain rights to certain materials, and they are adapting those materials for the screen. The end.

How well they do it and how loosely they do (or do not) follow the materials is a separate discussion.

Not to mention like I said before, calling it an 'adaptation' doesn't make it canon.

Nobody said that calling something an adaptation equals making something canon. That's a ludicrous idea.

That being said, "canon" is also loosey-goosey stuff. It's very negotiable.

Somehow you think this means otherwise.

No I don't and I never said so anywhere, in any way.

So therefore, if you are going to keep claiming that adaptation allows for changes then fine, but that also means it isn't canon. It cannot be both free to go against canon and be canon at the same time. Pick a side and stay there.

Canons change. Something can go against an old canon, and be new canon. Happens all the time. Heck some franchises MASSIVELY reorganized and redefined their canon (Star War, for example). I'm not saying this is happening here, I'm saying that this CAN HAPPEN in general. And those kinds of exclusive categorizations you put forward are something YOU MADE UP.

[Triceron]

Yeah the canon argument just doesn't fly. No TV series or movie would ever be canon no matter how faithful it would be.

[Shadowferal]

Canons change. Something can go against an old canon, and be new canon. Happens all the time. Heck some franchises MASSIVELY reorganized and redefined their canon (Star War, for example). I'm not saying this is happening here, I'm saying that this CAN HAPPEN in general. And those kinds of exclusive categorizations you put forward are something YOU MADE UP.

Canon doesn't change just because some shitty production makes shit up. And using Star Wars as an example? Lucas got crapped on for, among of changes, changing "canon" of Jedi mysticism in favor of biological "mitichlorians."
Changing canon is nothing more than retconning...or making shit up because the writer is too stupid to adhere to consistency. Or in this case the writer was simply instructed to.

[VMSmith]

Any metric you search for proves the show is good, a 1 min search proves the show is highly rated and the metrics are only brought down a little from clearly inaccurate ratings because some fans are upset while many other fans are more than happy with RoP.

The show would be in the 8/10 plus ratings if not for inaccurate reviews, but anything 6/10 plus is still a good show, 8/10 plus is in the excellent range.

I don't get where people get this idea that poor reviews don't count. I mean, if someone didn't like something, for any reason at all, that's still just as valid as someone liking that thing, for any reason at all. "Review bombing" is not really a thing, and even if it were it would be counterbalanced by "Review fluffing".

You can't just say "Those ratings don't count because they didn't like the thing for reasons I don't agree with".

[Syegfryed]

I don't get where people get this idea that poor reviews don't count. I mean, if someone didn't like something, for any reason at all, that's still just as valid as someone liking that thing, for any reason at all. "Review bombing" is not really a thing, and even if it were it would be counterbalanced by "Review fluffing".

You can't just say "Those ratings don't count because they didn't like the thing for reasons I don't agree with".

He can't be serious, the show is in no way in the nine hells good and would never be a 8/10, its scrapping a 3 or a 4 just by the visuals, but even the production is poor, just see the scene with the elves when there is one more and later one less, this is awfully done.

[kenn9530]

I don't get where people get this idea that poor reviews don't count. I mean, if someone didn't like something, for any reason at all, that's still just as valid as someone liking that thing, for any reason at all. "Review bombing" is not really a thing, and even if it were it would be counterbalanced by "Review fluffing".

You can't just say "Those ratings don't count because they didn't like the thing for reasons I don't agree with".

A 1/10 review is not a real review there is no discussion on it, you cant say RoP deserves a 1/10 in any situation, there is rarely anything that can deserve a 1/10 rating, a person not liking something doesnt mean you can rate something 1/10.

- - - Updated - - -

He can't be serious, the show is in no way in the nine hells good and would never be a 8/10, its scrapping a 3 or a 4 just by the visuals, but even the production is poor, just see the scene with the elves when there is one more and later one less, this is awfully done.

The show is good, the data proves you wrong if you think otherwise.

[Flurryfang]

So, is it any good atm? Heard some talk after the first 2 episodes, but has the series changed for the better or worse since then?

[Syegfryed]

The show is good, the data proves you wrong if you think otherwise.

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

- - - Updated - - -

So, is it any good atm? Heard some talk after the first 2 episodes, but has the series changed for the better or worse since then?

Every episode is worse or more nonsensical than the last, we had 5 episodes, ~=5 hours and almost nothing happened.

[rogueMatthias]

So, is it any good atm? Heard some talk after the first 2 episodes, but has the series changed for the better or worse since then?

TBH, it's a tough watch. Ignoring all the talk of lore, and all the talk of "wokeness" or whatever... it just really isn't very good.

The writing it just really bad and boring and, outside of Durin and Elrond's friendship, there just aren't any likeable characters.

The writers aren't smart enough to out-Tolkien Tolkien (Some pretty mad audacity that they think they are lol), so whenever they try and come up with some quotable wisdom it comes across as cringey fortune-cookie dialogue.

Perfect thing to sum up this series is a song in the latest episode that goes "Not all who wonder or wander are lost".
There's a lot to unpack on this one line -

• They're relying entirely on memberberries
• they've needlessly extended it with some wordplay because they think they're clever, but it makes no fucking sense now - why would people wondering be lost?
• It's messing with lore to try to have a cool moment - Bilbo wrote the original line in a poem. Did he just rip off a song from thousands of years before?
• & it's worse sin... It's just a bland boring song, trying so hard to be something more than it is.