Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[bagina]

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'.

There are media you care about and media you don't care about. No, it's the people who complain about all white cast should not give a shit. Unless it's literally white people replacing pre-existing non-white ones or vice-versa. If it's an original show it doesn't matter to me and shouldn't to anyone.

[Triceron]

There are media you care about and media you don't care about. No, it's the people who complain about all white cast should not give a shit. Unless it's literally white people replacing pre-existing non-white ones or vice-versa. If it's an original show it doesn't matter to me and shouldn't to anyone.

'Rings of Power' is an original show, set in the Lord of the Rings universe.

Tolkien did not write a specific 'Rings of Power' series. Everything we're getting is gonna be an adaptation of external material that we have, be it from Silmarillion or his notes or other works.

I don't really know what you're considering as not an original show, since this is exactly what this is.

Like, most of the announced human characters in this series are completely new, and non-canonical to Tolkien's works.

[Rendark]

Looks like crap. If they are going to just make shit up why not make their own thing?

[Dhrizzle]

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.

Merry was done dirty throughout the movie trilogy. In the books he's a bona fide badass from the start and the other hobbits would probably have died on the way to Bree without him.

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like crap. If they are going to just make shit up why not make their own thing?

It's roughly based on parts of the Silmarilion which is basically the entire history of Tolkien's world from before creation to the end of the War of the Ring (the bit we see in the movies) and slightly beyond.

[Shadowferal]

I frankly admit a series based upon what might have been going on with the two blues would have more of my attention.

I think that they went as emissaries to distant regions, east and south... Missionaries to enemy occupied lands as it were. What success they had I do not know; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.

[melodramocracy]

Clearly I'm behind the 8 ball, just watched the 1 min trailer. The same ultra clean, oversaturated look that unfortunately seems to be a hallmark of modern streaming service cinematography.

[Triceron]

I frankly admit a series based upon what might have been going on with the two blues would have more of my attention.

I think that they went as emissaries to distant regions, east and south... Missionaries to enemy occupied lands as it were. What success they had I do not know; but I fear that they failed, as Saruman did, though doubtless in different ways; and I suspect they were founders or beginners of secret cults and "magic" traditions that outlasted the fall of Sauron.

I really enjoyed how Games Workshop depicted some of the extended universe material, like the Easterlings and the Southrons.

I wouldn't mind a series that explored more of the 'Tolkienverse', even if it weren't completely canonical.

[Coniferous]

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.

The point is not necessarily authorial intent but more about the feeling that goes with the universe.

I’m not opposed to updating anachronistic parts of a story - for example, Troy obviously had to update the character of Briseis to not be Achilles’ sex slave - but if you change too much it stops being the same story. Troy, while it was not a great movie, managed to keep the feeling of Achilles as intended - the kind of flamboyant soldier out for glory.

LOTR is about a traditional, simplistic world view that is also very kindhearted with a basic good vs. evil narrative. Turning it into a story about the struggles of a single mother in this fantasy world, or about how a woman can fight just as well as a man, just doesn’t fit. Those are fine stories to tell in other places but they don’t belong here. If it becomes Galadriel fighting against elven patriarchy while Elrond schemes to become king, as the (admittedly limited) info we have so far suggests, that’s just not a story that has anything to do with lotR. Let it be what it is.

[Dhrizzle]

The point is not necessarily authorial intent but more about the feeling that goes with the universe.

I’m not opposed to updating anachronistic parts of a story - for example, Troy obviously had to update the character of Briseis to not be Achilles’ sex slave - but if you change too much it stops being the same story. Troy, while it was not a great movie, managed to keep the feeling of Achilles as intended - the kind of flamboyant soldier out for glory.

LOTR is about a traditional, simplistic world view that is also very kindhearted with a basic good vs. evil narrative. Turning it into a story about the struggles of a single mother in this fantasy world, or about how a woman can fight just as well as a man, just doesn’t fit. Those are fine stories to tell in other places but they don’t belong here. If it becomes Galadriel fighting against elven patriarchy while Elrond schemes to become king, as the (admittedly limited) info we have so far suggests, that’s just not a story that has anything to do with lotR. Let it be what it is.

Actually that sounds pretty close to Eowyn and Wormtongue at Theoden's court.

[bagina]

'Rings of Power' is an original show, set in the Lord of the Rings universe.

Tolkien did not write a specific 'Rings of Power' series. Everything we're getting is gonna be an adaptation of external material that we have, be it from Silmarillion or his notes or other works.

I don't really know what you're considering as not an original show, since this is exactly what this is.

Like, most of the announced human characters in this series are completely new, and non-canonical to Tolkien's works.

Nah sorry that's such bullshit and you know it. It's not an original show, it's a LOTR show banking specifically on Tolkien's work, that's the whole reason it has any publicity. The world he created and many characters with clear cut lore and origins. Adding your "new and exciting characters" is not an argument you seem to think it is, it only makes it worse, it's further disrespecting the work.

[Sluvs]

The point is not necessarily authorial intent but more about the feeling that goes with the universe.

I’m not opposed to updating anachronistic parts of a story - for example, Troy obviously had to update the character of Briseis to not be Achilles’ sex slave - but if you change too much it stops being the same story. Troy, while it was not a great movie, managed to keep the feeling of Achilles as intended - the kind of flamboyant soldier out for glory.

LOTR is about a traditional, simplistic world view that is also very kindhearted with a basic good vs. evil narrative. Turning it into a story about the struggles of a single mother in this fantasy world, or about how a woman can fight just as well as a man, just doesn’t fit. Those are fine stories to tell in other places but they don’t belong here. If it becomes Galadriel fighting against elven patriarchy while Elrond schemes to become king, as the (admittedly limited) info we have so far suggests, that’s just not a story that has anything to do with lotR. Let it be what it is.

I have no clue of galadriel's role in the story and to be honest, nothing that I have seen so far indicates that. While LOTR is about simple good vs evil, Silmarillion does get a little bit more involved in politics, albeit not a lot afterall Sauron will have to con some people.