Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Nerovar]

You are allowed to criticize the adaptation in anyway you desire. I just think it is silly and pointless to try and glimpse what tokien would have thought of this. That and the fact that changing the plot is way worse than casting a black elf. But plot will always change because it is an adaptation. It is inevitable.

My point is, instead of trying to pass judgement of the series now, people should wait and see.

Well, either you care about authorial intent or you don't. In case of the latter, it might be silly but I simply don't buy into that.

Also why would I give the show the benefit of the doubt when everything it has chosen to reveal points towards the fact that it has very little to do with Tolkien? I'm not interested in Lord of the Rings because it's a big fantasy epic with Elves™, Hobbits™, Dwarfs™, Orcs™ and a bloated budget. I'm interested in Lord of the Rings because it was an unprecedent fictional world built by an unparalleled genius of his time. I don't care about some vapid simulacra just because the strap the names "Elrond" and "Galadriel" on them. I care about the things these characters signified in the context of Tolkien's world, a context which they have deliberately chosen to erode.

[melodramocracy]

Not "any" critique. Just the racist ones.

I'm pretty sure it all be thrown into that category, much like anyone who disliked Ghostbusters 2016 or Captain Marvel was labelled a closet misogynist.

- - - Updated - - -

There's so much CGI. It feels like a dream. Why are they trying to make it look like the Hobbit instead of LotR?

Cost and expediency.

[DarkAmbient]

What part of there being a black Dwarf Queen is reflective of the modern world?

I get the argument that's trying to be made here, but 'Just don't call it Lord of the Rings' isn't a good reason just because you don't particularly like the changes in the adaptation.

I mean there's tons of stuff from the LOTR movies that got changed that I could criticize too. The Wargs looked more like hyenas than wolves, and weren't very intelligent for that matter. Or they cast a 'pretty boy' to play Kili the Dwarf, who didn't really look like a Dwarf at all. These aren't great changes, but they're part of the adaptations nonetheless. It's an odd argument to say 'you can go ahead and do that just don't call it the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit'

Obviously some artistic license is required when making TV/film adaptions. Peter Jackson made a ton of changes in his trilogy, and the Game of Thrones show had characters that either weren't in the books or were amalgamations of other characters. I think as long you remain faithful to the lore and to the spirit of the story then it's fine. Just don't make nonsensical changes that break the lore and are obviously only made to tick boxes.

[BigToast]

I'm pretty sure it all be thrown into that category, much like anyone who disliked Ghostbusters 2016 or Captain Marvel was labelled a closet misogynist.

"everybody"? everybody where? on your twitter feed, on the reddit boards you follow? I've never been called a misogynist for criticizing Ghostbuster 2016. These absolutes you seem to deal in have little to do with reality.

[No Kings Voter]

I was totally ambivalent about this coming out. But then the Gamer Gaters and Sad Puppies starting whinging about some diversity being forced into their lives.

Now I'm hoping that Amazon will one-up on the Elaine+Amyrillan bath tub scene.

[Sluvs]

Well, either you care about authorial intent or you don't. In case of the latter, it might be silly but I don't buy into that.

Also why would I give the show the benefit of the doubt when everything it has chosen to reveal points towards the fact that it has very little to do with Tolkien? I'm not interested in Lord of the Rings because it's a big fantasy epic with Elves™, Hobbits™, Dwarfs™, Orcs™ and a bloated budget. I'm interested in Lord of the Rings because it was an unprecedent fictional world built by an unparalleled genius of his time. I don't care about some vapid simulacra just because the strap the names "Elrond" and "Galadriel" on it. I care about the things these characters signified in the context of Tolkien's world, a context which they have deliberately chosen to erode.

Just to be clear, I think its silly to care about authorial intent because what we have today is so beyond what Tolkien could have imagined. The production values, the CGI, the way movies and series are made and whatnot. Not because I don't respect Tolkien's view.

I think this can still feel like LOTR. It is telling more stories in this universe. Even if it is not 100% faithful (which it could never be), i like the universe and I am excited to be able to visit again. And if turns out to be bad, well, I will probably get bummed for a day or two and move on. I rather have a bad adaptation than no adaptation at all, after all I can just forget it.

[Triceron]

Obviously some artistic license is required when making TV/film adaptions. Peter Jackson made a ton of changes in his trilogy, and the Game of Thrones show had characters that either weren't in the books or were amalgamations of other characters. I think as long you remain faithful to the lore and to the spirit of the story then it's fine. Just don't make nonsensical changes that break the lore and are obviously only made to tick boxes.

Arguably, that's exactly what happened to the Hobbit movies by having Kili be a pretty boy, as well as creating an Elf character for him to have a romantic subplot with. They're arguably nonsensical changes that break the lore, and are also obviously only made to tick boxes. And I'd argue that it also gets in the way of the enjoyment of what should be simply 'the Hobbit'.

But I think to go as far as saying 'You can do it just don't call it the Hobbit' is a bogus argument. Just say you don't like that particular adaptation. Having those additions in the movie doesn't make this any less of an adaptation of the Hobbit.

There can exist multiple adaptations of the same content, each with their own differences and interpretations. Like for example, we have the Maple edit that cuts out Tauriel and Legolas completely from the movie. It doesn't make the original movies any less 'the Hobbit', they're all adaptations in their own right.

[Shadowferal]

If no one cares about the author then why call it "Lord of the Rings" or connect it to such?

[melodramocracy]

"everybody"? everybody where?

well.....

But then the Gamer Gaters and Sad Puppies starting whinging about some diversity being forced into their lives.

See what I mean?

[Triceron]

If no one cares about the author then why call it "Lord of the Rings" or connect it to such?

Because an author's opinions are not personally reflective of their works, just like people don't have to take into consideration the controversial personal opinions of Orson Scott Card in order to enjoy Ender's Game.

The work stands alone as an expression of the author that is interpreted as people choose to. That's why you can have Hamlet done in the style of a Japanese theatre play without having any direct regard to 'what would William Shakespeare think of this'.

[BigToast]

well.....



See what I mean?

Oh, I get it. One or two criticisms = everybody.

[Dhrizzle]

If no one cares about the author then why call it "Lord of the Rings" or connect it to such?

"Lord of the Rings" is a huge multimedia brand comprising films, games and soundtracks as well as books. Amazon probably want to tie in with that brand for greater recognition.

[bagina]

I mean you say this, but at the same time you probably have no qualms about Aladdin being depicted by a middle eastern actor even though the character in the original story was Chinese.

I'm sorry, I give zero shits about Aladdin and never seen either movie. But if people complained about that, more power to them. However people don't usually complain when it's an all non-white cast, it's almost always when the cast is white people are outraged. There's also a difference between an interpretation of a fairy tale by an anonymous author and a supposed adaptation of a relatively recent book where everything's pretty clear cut.

[Nerovar]

Just to be clear, I think its silly to care about authorial intent because what we have today is so beyond what Tolkien could have imagined. The production values, the CGI, the way movies and series are made and whatnot. Not because I don't respect Tolkien's view.

I think this can still feel like LOTR. It is telling more stories in this universe. Even if it is not 100% faithful (which it could never be), i like the universe and I am excited to be able to visit again. And if turns out to be bad, well, I will probably get bummed for a day or two and move on. I rather have a bad adaptation than no adaptation at all, after all I can just forget it.

I don't really get why advancements in the industrial production of mass media would have any bearing on authorial intent especially when it comes to a figure like Tolkien but ok.

I have no hopes for this show. Best of luck to you though.

[Triceron]

I'm sorry, I give zero shits about Aladdin and never seen either movie. But if people complained about that, more power to them. However people don't usually complain when it's an all non-white cast, it's almost always when the cast is white people are outraged. There's also a difference between an interpretation of a fairy tale by an anonymous author and a supposed adaptation of a relatively recent book where everything's pretty clear cut.

Eh. Can't you just give zero shits about complains over an all-white cast too then, just as you're giving zero shits about any criticisms of Aladdin?

The only real difference here is that you give zero shits about one and not the other, rather than there being any difference between a 'fairy tale' and 'fantasy fiction'.

[DarkAmbient]

Arguably, that's exactly what happened to the Hobbit movies by having Kili be a pretty boy, as well as creating an Elf character for him to have a romantic subplot with. They're arguably nonsensical changes that break the lore, and are also obviously only made to tick boxes. And I'd argue that it also gets in the way of the enjoyment of what should be simply 'the Hobbit'.

But I think to go as far as saying 'You can do it just don't call it the Hobbit' is a bogus argument. Just say you don't like that particular adaptation. Having those additions in the movie doesn't make this any less of an adaptation of the Hobbit.

There can exist multiple adaptations of the same content, each with their own differences and interpretations. Like for example, we have the Maple edit that cuts out Tauriel and Legolas completely from the movie. It doesn't make the original movies any less 'the Hobbit', they're all adaptations in their own right.

Hot dwarves are a stretch but maybe not entirely unbelievable. Maybe, lol. The dwarf/elf romance was lore-breaking IIRC, and just one of many reasons why the Hobbit films sucked. But I don't believe it was done to make a point about real life interracial relationships, and so I wouldn't consider it box-ticking. Jackson definitely didn't use his films as a vehicle for diversity in the way some modern directors do. My original point was that if a director feels that on-screen diversity is important then don't just clumsily impose it onto a world where it didn't exist or make sense. Leave those worlds be, and make new ones.

[dlld]

Because there are people (specifically the incels on this board and others) who see a woman in a trailer and is immediately intimidated. Instead of embracing their own immaturity and weakness, they lash out at this "woke culture." And of course content creators jump on this bandwagon to get views.

Arcane blows all these crap arguments away, it ticks all the right superficial woke boxes yet nobody really complained about it being woke and it's almost universally loved.

[Nerovar]

Because there are people (specifically the incels on this board and others) who see a woman in a trailer and is immediately intimidated. Instead of embracing their own immaturity and weakness, they lash out at this "woke culture." And of course content creators jump on this bandwagon to get views.

I really wonder why nobody complained about Éowyn even though the fandom is apparently full of "incels"? How did Tolkien and Peter Jackson get away with it?

[Gimlix]

So i just watched the trailer and jesus that was soo bad and by looking at all the comments from different region shows that i am not the only one, i think user score will be like a solid 1…

This felt more like the Witcher then lotr. Jesus one way to ruin one of the best franchise, i know i won’t be watching this shit show. This wasn’t even near to Lord of the Rings then any of the movies.

Why did they had to ruin something this great?

[Triceron]

Hot dwarves are a stretch but maybe not entirely unbelievable. Maybe, lol. The dwarf/elf romance was lore-breaking IIRC, and just one of many reasons why the Hobbit films sucked. But I don't believe it was done to make a point about real life interracial relationships, and so I wouldn't consider it box-ticking. Jackson definitely didn't use his films as a vehicle for diversity in the way some modern directors do. My original point was that if a director feels that on-screen diversity is important then don't just clumsily impose it onto a world where it didn't exist or make sense. Leave those worlds be, and make new ones.

But that's sort of my point.

If someone did view it as box-ticking, would that validate their reason for this adaptation to 'not be called the Hobbit'? It's still a bogus argument either way. That person just doesn't agree with the adaptation and is interpreting a certain change to the story/world to reflect the real world, even though it may not be the case.

I've seen similar criticisms over the choice to emphasize the 'I am not a Man!' slaying of the Witch King scene completely omitting the fact that in the books, he was hurt by a Merry's magical dagger that made him vulnerable to mortal weapons. Was it intentional to empower women? Was it just an oversight to cut down on unnecessary scenes? Is it both? Well it could be interpretted any way. I still don't think any interpretation would justify this not being a Lord of the Rings adaptation or imply Peter Jackson should have created his own universe because he couldn't abide to every detail. Cuz at the end of the day, what we're discussing is the details, and we can either look at it as something not very important, or hyper-focus on it as if it's the most important thing in the world. And no one is wrong in how they choose to interpret it.

I just don't think 'they should just make their own universe' is a valid criticism to make, because ultimately that is what an adaptation is. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is Lord of the Rings in his vision and universe. It is not Tolkien's LOTR, it is Peter Jackson's LOTR. They aren't the same universe even if we choose to regard it to be a very good adaptation.