Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Rageonit]

They could have Arondir become high general of the Elves of the Southland Reclamation Army in season 2, and it wouldn't affect what I'm saying about the here and now. Cuz if thus is just build up to something like that, I would just as well argue that they could have or should have just spent time on the other arcs, and introduce a more prominent Arondir character for S2 with some flashback scenes for context. Literally move the prison scenes into next season to give context to this character instead of fronting it now, where there's already too many plotlines to follow.

Oh, and BTW - you're also wrong. You do not introduce an important character late by the way of flashbacks; that always smells like an afterthought, a deus ex machina. You give an important character enough exposition to let the reader/watcher indentify with the character's choices later on and to create catalysts for said choices. So yeah, your idea would make the show worse.

[Raisei]

So they killed her? Elves are just as killable as humans, so a volcano would kill her right?

All we see if her enveloped by a cloud of ash. She isn't swallowed by lava or anything. Nothing that would stop a gal that swims a few thousand kilometers through the ocean.

I assume she did that to save the people who were fleeing in some way to protect them from the exploding volcano and died to save the lives of others?

You haven't seen this Galadriel hmm? She isn't the kind that safes people, because all people are always holding her back. Nope, she just stood and watched as the cloud came and swallowed her. No heroics and no change in her face either. By this point I wonder if the actress has more then one expression. It really doesn't look like it.

But really I am not expecting this one to be heroic at all. One of the most characterizing scenes was where she slowly and deliberatedly told an elf that was tortured and broken that she will hunt down all he cares about and murder them and only after that she will kill the elf himself.

Yes, she is talking about Orcs. But Adar is still a victim of Morgoth. Tortured out of his mind, with his body broken. Where does Galadriel get this insane hatred towards him? It is such a weird scene that makes her look like the villain of it all.

Heck, if we soon learn that Galadriel is actually Sauron and the real Galadriel is still swimming back to Middleearth then I would not be surprised in the least.

So she's dead? They are moving on to a new protagonist?

The fact that she is alive and kicking a few thousand years later kinda gives that away. No, I fear she will stick around and be insufferable for the rest of the series.

[Triceron]

Now matter how clear you are about it, it's still pointless and obtuse. You use this argument to force @rhorle into defending a position that needs no defending (hopefully he realizes that rather sooner than later) and to make the show look worse than it actually is. But hey, you can always argue later that maybe this Arondir dude was indeed necessary for the story, but not in season 1, because why not flashbacks! Bravo, sir. That's a win-win for you no matter how you look at it. A damn tactical masterclass (for people blind enough to not to see what you're trying to accomplish here).

Yet still completely pointless.

How is it pointless to express an opinion about the show as it is right now?

He doesn't have to defend anything, just like you don't have to defend anything, because ultimately we're discussing opinions. I'm not making any claim of empirical fact that the character needs to be removed to the plot, merely sharing my observations that I don't think he's been very necessary to it so far. I don't see how that is pointless when that is the entire point being made. It's an observation.

Just like I would say about Tauriel or Radagast in the Hobbit films. I wouldn't say they could be cut for the purpose of making them look worse, the point is that their scenes are unnecessary for the overall plot for the most part.

[Rageonit]

How is it pointless to express an opinion about the show as it is right now?

No, that's not what we're talking about here. There are plenty of opinions about the show in this thread I'm fine with, both good & bad.
We're talking about calling out Chekhov's guns for a story we don't know yet. THAT'S pointless, and mean-spirited. And you "being clear" that you're doing it in the context of a couple of episodes does not change that. It's clear that your grudges with the character have nothing to do with the actual merits of the story; and your proposed changes to the story would only work for the worse.

[DarkAmbient]

Ah, you edited your post..

https://www.thestar.com/entertainmen..._the_king.html

"Thanks partly to filmmaker Peter Jackson, the Tolkien brand has never been stronger. Fully one-third of the 150 million copies of The Lord of the Rings sold to date were purchased after the release of the first film in the series."

If we are to believe this article, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were correct, it would also mean the LOTR books sold like 149.6m copies of the book between 2001-2007.

Ofc book sales has an impact on if a movie is created or not.

You must be trolling.

Don't bother. He will argue that black is white even when he has already posted evidence to the contrary. He's spent years defending Star Citizen, that's all you need to know.

[rhorle]

He didn't publish those works. Your point about his personal discussions don't matter to this fundamental point. Those things weren't published and they were not part of any rights that he gave to United Artists.

I have never said they were published. His discussions to matter if he was using those works to support his world to fans and friends. Again he never saw a line between published and unpublished. It isn't clear at what point the "limited match rights" to Tolkien's other if ever brought to film was added to the deal. It doesn't matter if Tolkien did or did not finish something.

It doesn't matter if the Appendices were meant to be a story or not. They are published works. According to your own argument that means he was fine with them being used in adaptations.

[Shadowferal]

Can you give a source for where you pull a few hundred thousand copies sold?

He never has sources. His numbers are always what he pulls out of his ass.

[Triceron]

No, that's not what we're talking about here. There are plenty of opinions about the show in this thread I'm fine with, both good & bad.
We're talking about calling out Chekhov's guns for a story we don't know yet. THAT'S pointless, and mean-spirited. And you "being clear" that you're doing it in the context of a couple of episodes does not change that. It's clear that your grudges with the character have nothing to do with the actual merits of the story; and your proposed changes to the story would only work for the worse.

Couple episodes?

We're 6 episodes in and nothing about my opinion has changed on this character and how the show rolled out the arcs.

And not sure what you're complaining about since I don't have a grudge against the character at all. Just like I don't have a grudge over Tauriel or Radagast when I point out the same things about them not really being necessary to the plot. Anyone is free to disagree here.

The merits of the story are ultimately subjective, wouldn't you agree? If people don't like a romantic subplot interjected in The Hobbit, then the story doesn't have merit to it to these people.

I would make the same arguments in say cutting Jar Jar from Episode 1 to make the movie more concise, something which fans have done and has worked as a film edit. Not everyone has to agree with the edits, but I can still say that the plot of A Phantom Menace still works without Jar Jar in it. Whether Jar Jar himself and his scenes are worth any merit is up to individuals to decide.

What you're deciding on as the merits of the story, and edits that make it worse, are merely your opinion. And I respect your opinion if you're merely expressing it as a means of disagreement. It doesn't mean the story can only be told one way though, and that is my point.

There are plenty fan edits and directors cuts of movies that already exist that work to improve on the way these films/shows present their story. Whether you agree with them or not is merely opinion. I'm merely presenting my observations as if they were a film edit, and I'm not holding anyone to a standard to have to agree.

[Rageonit]

The merits of the story are ultimately subjective, wouldn't you agree?

Some are, others aren't.

Whether something's a Chekhov's gun or not is not a matter of opinion; it either is, or isn't. And if something is or isn't a Chekhov's gun can only be know in the context of the whole story. Enlighten me then, please - what's the point of calling something a Chekhov's gun in the context of a small fragment of the story..? Because you did it atfer what, two episodes? Three? I CBA to look it up, but I'm not wrong. Well, now it's after 6 episodes (of a supposedly 5 season show, but whatever). So you are playing the "I told you so" card after all.

Of course you have a grudge against the character.

- - - Updated - - -

What you're deciding on as the merits of the story, and edits that make it worse, are merely your opinion. And I respect your opinion if you're merely expressing it as a means of disagreement.

And now you're hiding behind "merely an opinion"? No, bad writing is bad writing, I thought that much was clear, especially in the thread about Rings of Power! Introducing main character by the way of flashbacks is bad writing, period.

And you know what's funny? If they did introduce Arondir in season 2 using flashbacks, how do you think people would react...? Give it a good thought, you're a smart guy.

[Triceron]

Some are, others aren't.

Whether something's a Chekhov's gun or not is not a matter of opinion; it either is, or isn't. And if something is or isn't a Chekhov's gun can only be know in the context of the whole story. Enlighten me then, please - what's the point of calling something a Chekhov's gun in the context of a small fragment of the story..? Because you did it atfer what, two episodes? Three? I CBA to look it out, but I'm not wrong. Well, now it's after 6 episodes (of a supposedly 5 season show, but whatever). So you are playing the "I told you so" card after all.

I'm past the Chekhov's gun analogy, and I'll own up to misappropriating it as such. My argument is more that the watchtower itself is contrived more than a setup for a strong payoff. Having it been the location of the sword being used wasn't really something properly set up for the right payoff. I feel like they should have seeded that statue with the hilt in an earlier episode to better make use of it, but even then it wouldn't really change my thoughts on how this entire arc was handled. Having the watchtower be an important location felt forced to me, more than actually be intended for its use. In the end, the battle didn't even end up happening there.

Of course you have a grudge against the character.

What grudge do I hold against the character? Please elaborate since you seem to be an expert.

And now you're hiding behind "merely an opinion"? No, bad writing is bad writing, I thought that much was clear, especially in the thread about Rings of Power! Introducing main character by the way of flashbacks is bad writing, period.

"Bad writing" is heavily contextual, would you agree? I would argue that it's completely subjective.

I think it's Bad writing because it omits key information that I expect to have to understand a proper setup and payoff. Proper foreshadowing, for example. That's just one example of a subjective take on "Bad writing".

Subjectively, people can even call Tolkien's work Bad Writing if they're talking about the pacing and writing style. It wouldn't be wrong in that context.

[Rageonit]

Well, was I wrong? No. I told you so then. If that's how you want to frame it then that's how I'll frame it for you.

There's no other way do defend it, is there.

What grudge do I hold against the character? Please elaborate since you seem to be an expert.

Thing is, I'd also like to know.

"Bad writing" is heavily contextual, would you agree? I would argue that it's completely subjective.

No, bad writing is not completely subjective (if it is, it makes literary studies one big hoax).

- - - Updated - - -

I'm past the Chekhov's gun analogy, and I'll own up to misappropriating it as such. My argument is more that the watchtower itself is contrived more than a setup for a strong payoff. Having it been the location of the sword being used wasn't really something properly set up for the right payoff. I feel like they should have seeded that statue with the hilt in an earlier episode to better make use of it, but even then it wouldn't really change my thoughts on how this entire arc was handled. Having the watchtower be an important location felt forced to me, more than actually be intended for its use. In the end, the battle didn't even end up happening there.

Fair enough.

[Triceron]

There's no other way do defend it, is there.

Then don't. You can't exactly defend against opinions either.

Feel free to disagree and move on.

Thing is, I'd also like to know.

You are the one who said 'Of course you have a grudge' right?

So tell me how you've come to this conclusion. How am I holding a grudge against this character? Because I'm pointing out observations of the story and how this character fits into it?

No, bad writing is not completely subjective (if it is, it makes literary studies one big hoax).

Yes but the context of my use of 'Bad writing' is subjective. It doesn't make my statement objective just because you think Literary studies is legitimate. That would be taking my comments out of context.

Why wouldn't my arguments be subjective? Do you really think Rings of Power being badly written is objective fact because I said so?

If you can regard the use of 'bad writing' as potentially being subjective, then I don't see how my use of the terminology is wrong. Especially if I'm using it in a way that's just easier than saying 'Flawed in way that is well below my personal standards and expectations of what Good writing should be'. If I somehow misled you into thinking otherwise then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Rageonit]

You are the one who said 'Of course you have a grudge' right?
So tell mehow you've come to this conclusion. How am I holding a grudge against this character? Because I'm pointing out observations of the story and how this character fits into it?

Once again, calling a character a Chekhov's gun after two or three episodes is not merely an opinion, because something being or not being a Chekhov's gun is not a matter of opinion. Surely you must understand it, as you must understand that there is no point in making such accusation so early in the story.

Yes but the context of my use of 'Bad writing' is subjective. It doesn't make my statement objective just because you think Literary studies is legitimate. That would be taking my comments out of context.
Why wouldn't my arguments be subjective? Do you really think Rings of Power being badly written is objective fact because I said so?
If you can regard the use of 'bad writing' as potentially being subjective, then I don't see how my use of the terminology is wrong. Especially if I'm using it in a way that's just easier than saying 'Flawed in way that I find unpleasing to my particular tastes in writing'

Your subjective argument that Arondir should be introduced in season 2 by the way of flashbacks is objectively bad in terms of principal rules of writing. I've already explained why.

[Triceron]

Once again, calling a character a Chekhov's gun after two or three episodes is not merely an opinion, because something being or not being a Chekhov's gun is not a matter of opinion. Surely you must understand it, as you must understand that there is no point in making such accusation so early in the story.

I never called this character 'Chekhov's gun' so I'm not sure where you're drawing this argument from.

Your subjective argument that Arondir should be introduced in season 2 by the way of flashbacks is objectively bad in terms of principal rules of writing. I've already explained why.

I didn't say he should. I said that's one possibility that could happen if their intention is to introduce this character as being important to the plot, while having a backstory that is integral to the Southlands. Otherwise flashbacks wouldn't even be needed, since they introduced Halbrand the exact same way without having any flashbacks to establish his character. He's just from the Southlands and has a grudge against Orcs and that's it. The story moves ahead from there with him now being potential 'King of the Southlands'.

For example, imagine if they dedicated multiple episodes to establishing Halbrand's escape from Southlands before he's even out in the sea. Would this be necessary to understanding Halbrand's character? I would say that the exposition we have right now is more than enough to establish him and what we need to know about him. I think it would detrimental to dedicate scenes to flesh out Halbrand's backstory in the first 4 episodes, considering we already had too many POV's to follow.

My argument for Arondir's omission is (IMO) based on his entire arc being an unnecessary supporting subplot for Galadriel's eventual return to Middle Earth. And I think he could be introduced in S2 in a more prominent position without having his presence in S1 be necessary to establishing his character. Based on what we've seen so far, I'm not all convinced that I needed to follow his journey to understand the meat and potatoes of Season 1, and I think it could have been cut completely because it's effectively filler. It was decent world building getting to see the tunnels or his interactions with Theo, but I don't think they're really necessary to the overall plot of the story so far. It might be building towards something more in the future, but I can't comment on that until we see how that rolls out. By and large, I think having him freshly introduced in S2 would serve the same purpose more or less, considering I personally find little merit in his romantic subplot or the prisoner scenes or him actually convincing Theo to be good.

And flashbacks are not 'objectively bad in terms of principal writing', only your own subjective value for such. They literally have Galadriel flashbacks as a child in the first episode to establish her backstory in the first 10 minutes of the show, would you call this 'objectively bad in terms of principal rules of writing'? Would you call Gollum's Smeagol flashbacks at the beginning of The Two Towers to be objectively bad as well?

Just say you disagree dude, it's not hard. Otherwise I'm debunking this entire argument as one big double standard.

[Rageonit]

I never called this character 'Chekhov's gun' so I'm not sure where you're drawing this argument from.

So you did force me to look it up and indeed, it was the Elven presence being a Chekhov's gun. But since you're past that, lets just let it rest.

There is no 'objectively bad in terms of principal writing', only your own subjective value for such.

There is, and you can always say you disagree.

[Triceron]

There is, and you can always say you disagree.

Before I disagree, are you saying all flashbacks are objectively bad?

And you would say definitively that Rings of Power is objectively bad for having Galadriel flashbacks in the first 10 minutes of the first episode, as well as the Two Towers with the Smeagol flashbacks?

If you are saying this, then yes I absolutely 100% disagree.

[kenn9530]

Don't bother. He will argue that black is white even when he has already posted evidence to the contrary. He's spent years defending Star Citizen, that's all you need to know.

You have been proven you were wrong simple as that, all the information backs me just because you cant admit you were completely wrong, just goes to show what lack of integrity you have. You have no evidence backing you, even the one single article doesnt back you up but several articles of information back my information up.

[Rageonit]

Before I disagree, are you saying all flashbacks are objectively bad?
And you would say definitively that Rings of Power is objectively bad for having Galadriel flashbacks in the first 10 minutes of the first episode, as well as the Two Towers with the Smeagol flashbacks?
If you are saying this, then yes I absolutely 100% disagree.

I've already said it in a post you've ignored or omitted. I never said flashbacks are bad; flashbacks have plenty of uses. I've said that introducing a main character late into the story by the way of flashbacks is bad. It's on the previous page.

[Triceron]

I've already said it in a post you've ignored or omitted. I never said flashbacks are bad; flashbacks have plenty of uses. I've said that introducing a main character late into the story by the way of flashbacks is bad. It's on the previous page.

What does that even mean? There is no objective literary standard for defining such a thing.

Can you give an example of any characters in fiction that were introduced this way that are considered objectively bad?



And I'm not saying that he needs to be introduced through flashbacks, I said he could be introduced as a new character for Season 2, with his connections to the Southlands being revealed in flashbacks. For example, use the Prison scenes in the tunnels and first meeting Adar as a means of giving Arondir depth to his actions and motivations.

Gollum had flashback scenes in the beginning of Return of the King through Smeagol flashbacks the same way to build on his character progression and backstory.

[rhorle]

There is no objective literary standard for defining such a thing.

It is common advice for novice writers to avoid using flashbacks. A flashback should be used to offer context and development of existing things. A main character should already be introduced prior to a flashback. The flashback should be offering context about the "present day". While there is no governing body writing laws on the subject there are still standards of writing.