Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

the character is bad, and the actress is black.

Right. It is pointless to point out the character is black or bring diversity into at all. Because it has no impact on anything about the character and you've admitted that you don't care about the topic if you like a show.

- - - Updated - - -

If rephrased, I'm saying 'So why is this a problem and why do they have to stop?'

How is that the opposite of stopping a discussion when you are telling people not to question certain people's views. Again that is telling certain people to stop. If everyone can freely have different opinions then there was no need for you to question another persons opinion and ask why it was a problem, right? You keep contradicting yourself.

[Triceron]

How is that the opposite of stopping a discussion when you are telling people not to question certain people's views. Again that is telling certain people to stop. If everyone can freely have different opinions then there was no need for you to question another persons opinion and ask why it was a problem, right? You keep contradicting yourself.

Which people am I telling to stop? You're just accusing without understanding the context of the reply.

If I say 'Let them express their opinion' it means the other side has to stop? That's jumping the gun, don't you think? Both sides are free to express whatever they wish. No opinion needs to hold sway over the others.

If I say something is pointless, it doesn't mean they should stop. You can infer that if you wish, but that's your own misinterpretation of the intent. I can say something is pointless without any intent on stopping conversation, merely making a statement that it is what it is.

Just like I can say 'most products in Walmart aren't actually made in the US' without intent on stopping people from shopping at Walmart. If you personally take it as an insult or a statement that I'm trying to get people to stop shopping there, then that's you putting your own projection on to the statements. All I'm doing is making an observation and expressing it. Whether you derive more meaning from that is not my problem. I can make that statement freely while still shopping at Walmart or supporting others shopping there, because I don't really care or expect others to care that their products aren't made in the US to begin with.

[eschatological]

Stop talking about the race of actors in this production. This has been stated multiple times to be off-topic, and the same posters continue on that discussion. Infractions have been issued, and will continue to be issued for the continued derailing.

[Orby]

so with the last episode dawning on us this friday, whats going to be the reveal

Who meteor man is?
Who Sauron is?

I would hope one gets revealed by the end of the season, or you think they plan to not reveal anything, which would ultimately piss a lot of people off.

Also might have to re-assess my scores after the season ends. I am thinking maybe I might have been to generous on early episodes. I once thought halfway through this show that it might be on par or just above Wheel of Time, but now I think about it, I might have liked Wheel of Time more by a small margin.

The amusing thing is people said the same thing about the Jackson films and the changes he made. Arwen was even dubbed "Xenarwen". Yet the films are seen fondly by many that are now attack Rings of Power for similar things. A prominent "online figure" in the Tolkien sphere back then even refused to give his name because of his hate-stirring comments like "a New Age politically correct girl-power garbage version of fantasy." when describing the Jackson films. (https://www.wired.com/2001/10/lotr/)

I have been writing reviews on imdb since 2002, and since then I have been apart of the internet community, I do agree there was a small pocket of internet snark backlash to some of the movie, Aragorn casting being one, and Tom Bombadil scene (which I thought was fine at the time) being cut. I don't remember anything about Arwen being a complaint personally, but there was even back then a complaint about lack of prominent females and PoC. Yes, even back then.

But with that said, if you go to IMDB and search for Fellowship of the Ring and sort by oldest, and find all the reviews from earliest you will find that it was mostly 8 - 10's across the board (I was one of the 10/10 reviews at the time), sprinkled in there are some bad reviews but compared to Rings of Power its no where near. I even remember at the time, outside of a small pocket of the internet (because that corner of online discussion was very small back then), the movie was looked upon very favourably, I am not sure where this myth has come from that the movie was anywhere near the level of Rings of Power's negativity it had complaints (see above) but it wasnt that bad or as outspoken, just left to tiny areas of the internet no one knew or had access to. Maybe if the internet message boards and forums at the time had been as big as they are now I do feel maybe it could have been, but it truly wasnt at the time. Most of the real negative reviews came from people who hated the books lol

Although it truely is a time capsule to read some of those negative reviews. Its very interesting. :P

[Koriani]

Not too surprised it'd take a couple years. Was it supposed to be a yearly release thing?

Doesn't surprise me either - tons of streaming-network shows take two years between seasons. In fact for Netflix, for years, that's pretty much been their norm. Even "normal" (no big special effects production) shows like Mindhunter or Orange is the New Black had two years between seasons.

I can't remember any Amazon shows I was watching pre-pandemic to know if that was Amazon's "standard" for their seasons, but it surely was for Netflix.

Paramount+ (now) and HBO (always) though have been better about sticking to more "typical tv seasons" coming out each year (outside of pandemic years where it got all screwy).

[rhorle]

I would hope one gets revealed by the end of the season, or you think they plan to not reveal anything, which would ultimately piss a lot of people off.

Have you seen the trailer? It makes it seem like the Stranger is Sauron and the three mystics force him to remember or something. Though I'm guessing that is misdirection because why reveal something like that in a trailer. I know the writers have said they didn't want Season 1 to be the "Sauron show" but it seems like they would at least keep it hidden.

I think I might even prefer it left hidden. Have the minor and major rings forged then have the final scenes cut back and forth with the Cult "doing stuff" with a shadowy figure making the one ring. Season 2 can reveal him for real and cover the war with the elves.

[InfiniteCharger]

So is Arondir getting thrown around by an Orc, or the Galadriel training fight scene, or Halbrand's fight scene in the alley. They are also choreographed fights

I'm not the one equating something fake or unbelievable to being bad. My point is suspension disbelief is subjective, and people's enjoyment of Pro Wrestling and film fights will vary depending on the individual'a threshold for bullshit.

If you post a MMA youtuber's breakdown of how Pro Wrestling is overdramatized or unrealistic, it doesn't get in the way of its entertainment value.

Whether the actual choreography is good or not can be discussed and that would be a different subject to using Shadiversity as some baseline standard for believability.

I am only saying that all combat in entertainment is generally based on illusions and how believable it is comes down to choreography and cinematic choices made by the team. Fight choreography and stunts are serious real world disciplines regardless of whether or not the specific usage is intended to be realistic, whimsical or fantasy based. All of it is entertainment and that is why I brought up Pro Wrestling because people aren't really killing and fighting each other in these productions. So it is all fake to begin with. Of course you know that, but the point is that just because something is fantasy doesn't mean the art of putting combat on screen isn't a serious discipline. And that is on top of things like costumes, armor design, set design, weapon design and so forth.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me where I said it was? If you are going to repeat the same lie over and over at least have the decency to point it out. You keep saying published works determined what Tolkien would be fine with adapting or not. Appendices were published and they are being adapted even if it is to create a new story. This is one point where your argument falls apart. You don't know what he intended for his Mythos and published works to do. He has expressed that he would be fine with "new" stories. We have record of one adaptation that made significant changes to Lord of the Rings yet Tolkien didn't want to kill the project because despite those changes he still liked the imagery enough.

Wrong. Again. The appendices were published as part of a complete work of literary fiction and not licensed separately from those original books. Meaning those appendices were supposed to be part of the entire story of Middle Earth and not the basis of a "new story". And certainly when they were published in those works, it was not because Tolkien intended them to be used to create a something different from his story of Middle Earth. So you just said that and implied that the appendices as originally published reflect an intent on the part of Tolkien to have people take them and use them out of context to his complete work which is false. And certainly the fact that the Tolkien Estate had to find a loophole in 2017 to even make this series possible shows that this has absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien's original intent. Therefore, you claiming that his publication of those appendices in the LOTR somehow supports the way they are being used now is incorrect. That is what I keep saying and you just keep repeating yourself and keep being wrong. If the appendices were being used as Tolkien intended and that includes making up "new stories" then no loophole would have been required to make this television series. So you can keep repeating yourself but you still be wrong.

The 2nd age isn't some stand alone work separate from everything else is the point. Tolkien intended that this story of Middle Earth be treated like real world mythology and history even if it is fiction. All of it was intended to go together as part of that whole and the fact that he didn't finish it is why it wasn't published. Therefore, he did not intend anybody to use the idea of the 2nd age as an excuse to totally change what he intended for the history or mythology of Middle Earth to be is my point. And this change of mentality from the Tolkien estate is the biggest reason for the existence of this series and likely has to do with Simon Tolkien taking over after his father passed. Simon is obviously not JRR Tolkien.

[Triceron]

Of course you know that, but the point is that just because something is fantasy doesn't mean the art of putting combat on screen isn't a serious discipline.

Sure, we both agree on this. Fight choreography for films is a serious discipline.

If the point you're making is that choreography is a serious discipline, then we can both agree here. My point, on the other hand, is that it's not relevant to determining whether the choreography itself is 'good' or 'bad', because that ultimately lies subjectively with how people value 'fake fighting'. And in the context of certain HEMA-centric youtube critics of choreographed/simulated combat for film, there's no relevance between a fight being realistic, and simply being entertaining. The value of the fight scenes are completely subjective to the individual viewer, because not everyone watches films and fight scenes through the lens of a HEMA-centric critic.

Of course, it's always fun for enthusiasts of historic combat (fictional or otherwise) to go out and look at videos like Shadiversity and learn the 'rights and wrongs' of fictional combat, but it's quite another to hold these critiques to a standard and say the show's combat is bad because it doesn't pass the Shadiversity smell test. I think that's unfair.

And that is on top of things like costumes, armor design, set design, weapon design and so forth.

I can respect this opinion even if it's one that I don't share, mostly because I have a strong tolerance for bad costume design having grown up with campy or low budget 80's flicks and 90's era TV shows. I can see why people think it's bad, and that's about it. I don't really eye to eye with these complaints otherwise.

[rhorle]

The 2nd age isn't some stand alone work separate from everything else is the point. Tolkien intended that this story of Middle Earth be treated like real world mythology and history even if it is fiction.

If Tolkien intended his work to be treated like real world mythology then he would be fine with adaptations of his work. This is because real world mythology has been adapted for centuries. Even Tolkien reflected this in his work by modeling a lot of his stuff on his religious views but not as direct as C.S. Lewis did.

[InfiniteCharger]

I never said your statement is factually invalid. I said it was a non sequitur. In other words your argument is logically invalid because what you are saying does not follow from the facts you are quoting.

Sure, you're able to point to the fact that only the two books were actually published. This is not a fact in dispute. I am telling you that what you want to pretend follows that from that fact, ie that he actively wanted his works to not ever be taken and used in the future by Amazon for a TV show, is completely unsubstantiated. The fact that his other works were never published tells us very little about what he would/would not have wanted done with them after his death.

Because in the absence of evidence either way, your argument fails. While it certainly wouldn't hurt, we don't need positive affirmation that Tolkien would have approved of this show to justify. We simply need to not have evidence that proves he would not have approved of it.

The fact is he only published two books before he died and licensed them for films and stated numerous times that he intended those two works to be respected by those adapting them. However, in selling those rights, it would be obviously difficult to guarantee this but that still did not stop him from writing letters reiterating his intent for the story he created. Therefore those letters speak for themselves as a reflection of his intent and cannot be a non sequitir as they literally are words from the mouth and mind of the man we are talking about. So you calling it a non sequitir makes no sense as it avoids the point that he left numerous letters and writings laying out exactly his intent. The contradiction here being that you want to use single sentences of those letters out of context when it is convenient, but when the entire letter is shown in its proper context, suddenly those words aren't relevant to the discussion of his intent. How hilarious is that?

The existence of this show is justified by the fact that you have both people willing to make it and people willing to watch it without any legal impediment to doing so.



Who says I don't agree with them? I am saying that I don't see anything in his letters which say what you want them to say: ie that Tolkien would have disapproved of this show. If anything I take from the letters that Tolkien would have been happy for others to pick up the proverbial torch and continue to expand on parts of his story.



I was talking about whether or not he would have wanted others to expand his story. You're talking about whether he would have wanted the integrity of his story respected. These are not mutually exclusive. Even if you want to argue that he didn't want someone to come along and butcher his work, that is not the same as saying he didn't want someone to come along and expand his work.

This discussion was about Tolkien's intent not about the general audiences who may view shows created from his work. Again, as for how he wanted people to treat his story, the full letter makes it clear how he wanted that story to be treated. I think you are just avoiding that obvious implication because it contradicts your argument that his intent matters to what others will do with his work now that he is dead. As you yourself stated, many people will watch shows produced by whoever has the "rights" regardless of whether they follow Tolkien's intent or not. Which makes this discussion of his intent irrelevant if that is your point. Tolkien's intent was pretty clear if you read that entire letter, regardless of whether or not anyone involved with the rights follows them or not. I am under no illusions that studios and other individuals, including those from the Tolkien estate, have the same opinions as Tolkien did.

So let's see:
1) Tolkien was not averse to iterating his own work in order to improve the integrity of his universe.
2) Tolkien was not averse to having others expand upon and fill in some of the blanks which he never got around to.

Those two statements are totally unrelated to each other. Tolkien is the author of the work itself so him iterating on it is not the same as someone else iterating on it because he is the only one who actually owns the rights to said work and nobody else. And unless he publishes said changes, the original work remains what is copyrighted as the legal definition of the IP. As for number 2, that is purely subjective because "expanding" can be defined different ways by different people. This series is literally making up its own story and contradicting Tolkien's actual written words and story. That goes way beyond merely expanding on what he wrote by "filling in" the gaps.

Now sure, there will always be the question of whether the people who try to do this get it right or not, but that's a very different proposition from saying that it should never have been attempted in the first place.

And that is fine but that really wasn't the discussion which boiled down to Tolkien' intent. At the end of the day, whether people take chances on trying to "expand" on his story or not, Tolkien is the only one who could actually have the final say and he is dead. Which means unless the Tolkien estate authorizes an "official" expansion novel or work, these stories will always be non canon imaginations. Whether or not people like the result is a totally different issue and subjective as everyone will have their own reasons for or against. That really has nothing to do with Tolkien's intent.

And I am glad you bring up PJ. Because I honestly believe that with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, he did about as good a job as was/is humanly possible in bringing that story to the screen. Sure, it's not without its flaws. But what great work (including the original books) isn't? What is absurd, however, is the rabid fans who like to shred these things from their armchairs, nitpicking at stuff that no reasonable human being should be taking issue with and then blowing it massively out of proportion.

And to be clear, I have no issue with people spotting things and pointing them out, or venturing opinions on how a scene might have been improved. What I do take exception to is when people allow the little things to detract from what really is a fantastic work of art.

Hollywood has always been a place that does not respect the original IP of other authors because of how it works. That is the only reason that Tolkien's intent matters, because he didn't write his books with the idea of them being made into movies in mind. His writing was a work designed to engage the imagination of the reader to fill in the canvas based on his words and produce a mental picture of people, places and things. Hollywood was never something he was concerned with as he was a scholar of the English language and a writer so his concern was in honing his craft via pen and paper. And because of that fact, most people who are Tolkien fans, are fans of his written work as that is the only source of the actual IP itself. The only reason the issue of Tolkien's intent even gets brought up is because of the prestige and fame of his work, which gets respect from many quarters and therefore helps tame the normally wild process of Hollywood film making. But given the reality of him being dead for decades, the idea of his intent is purely a theoretical discussion at this point, because whatever is done is going to be judged on its own merits. And given the pedigree of the work as a well known and popular work of literary fiction, it is inevitable that it will be compared to the original work and intent of the author. There is no way that this can be avoided.

As such, because the rights to this show are based on the appendices and not all the other works of the Legendarium, means that they have no choice but to make up large parts of the dialog, events and so forth. So this particular series was given a lot of leeway by the Tolkien estate who were the ones who actually came up with the idea in the first place. And that is why the matter of Tolkien's intent is almost irrelevant because obviously there are those in the Tolkien estate who aren't as concerned about being faithful to Tolkien's legendarium. That is why Tolkien's intent is largely irrelevant because the people making these decisions are not him and have their own views on things. But by marketing the series as trying to 'write the novel Tolkien never wrote' they put themselves on the spot because it implies trying to be faithful to Tolkien when in reality they are telling a story only loosely related to the actual books. And that is part of the issue with this particular series, whereas PJ actually was trying to be as faithful as possible. I liked the Hobbit fine as a film and wasn't as upset about the changes but generally the overall result wasn't bad. So for me, the final product is what matters, not so much Tolkien's intent as he was a writer not a film maker, so it is not him that is responsible directly for the result on screen. But that is only me, I don't expect anyone else to share my views on everything, which means it is subjective. So if you like this series that is fine, but you cannot also expect everyone to share that view.

So...I talk about how making combat look realistic and making a fight look good are mutually exclusive. Your response is tell me I'm wrong and then wax lyrical about how choreography can make fights look good. Epic facepalm.

So I'll say it again. As an experienced martialist - someone who did fencing for 15 years, competed in literally hundreds of tournaments, with a box full of medals, including being a national champion, in addition to having done both Judo and Tae kwon do for several years each, I am telling you right now that what looks good on screen does not look anything like real combat. There is a reason why a sport like fencing gets very little television coverage, in favor of sports like WWE etc. Because unless you're specifically setting out to make the fight look good by doing a bunch of flashy shit that no one with any combat experience would, in their right mind, do in a real fight, it's going to look dull and boring.

So, if you have an issue with the fight choreography in this show, insisting that they try make it more "realistic" is only going to make things worse.

No. The skill is in making it look good, not real. The two are categorically not the same thing, and I don't think I have ever seen a fight scene which achieves both. I think my favourite swordfight of all time is Inigo Montoya dueling with Westley in the Princess Bride. But as a fencer I could point out 2-3 flaws per second with that fight, ranging from turning their backs on each other with silly spins, attacking each others' swords (instead of, you know, each other's bodies), lots of flashy waving of blades etc etc etc. A real duel would more likely be two opponents cautiously keeping distance trying to maneuver themselves into a position from which to attack effectively. And once the attack actually happens, it would be over in less than a second. Either the attacker would succeed and the defender's parry would be evaded, or the defender will parry and riposte instantly. Very rarely would it get to a counter riposte or counter-counter riposte.

But like I have already said. That just doesn't look very exciting on screen. Which is exactly why they don't try it.

And I get your point, but when you talking about Medieval combat, it is more than just jousting. But yes, being that it is done for entertainment value does mean it is often more artistic than realistic. But again, how realistic is purely up to the producers of said piece of entertainment and just because it is 'fantasy' doesn't mean that it isn't based on realistic real world combat.

- - - Updated - - -

If Tolkien intended his work to be treated like real world mythology then he would be fine with adaptations of his work. This is because real world mythology has been adapted for centuries. Even Tolkien reflected this in his work by modeling a lot of his stuff on his religious views but not as direct as C.S. Lewis did.

When I say mythology I mean narratives within the world of middle earth that are told by various characters who revise and embellish the tales of deeds and events long past in the history of Arda that become mythology and fable to the people who read them years later. For example "The Hobbit" was literally written by Bilbo Baggins.


We know he sold the rights to adapt the books. This series is unique in that basically they have the rights to make up a story that is only loosely related to the books and literally isn't a direct adaptation of the legendarium, because they don't have the rights.

[downnola]

Like, yeah, there are going to be people in the world who may equate Galadriel to Rey or Carol Danvers. But none of those people are actually making that argument here. So why the fuck are people suddenly arguing it. That's my point.

And your point is a strawman. I wasn't equating these characters or claiming anyone else was in this thread. If you go back and read that post, I was pretty clear that I was connecting the cause of some of the vitriol those characters received on this forum and elsewhere. That I have to tell you this twice, is starting to get absurd.

No one initiated a direct comparison to Galadriel or Rings of Power in this particular instance. It was someone externalizing the argument by saying the arguments could be swapped with Rey or Carol Danvers and the criticisms are generic and applicable and somehow wrong all the same on principle.

Find a random criticism of Galadriel and replace her name with Rey Skywalker or Carol Danvers and it's functionally the same criticism you can find in the Marvel and Star Wars threads. Bad acting and writing and they're generally dislikable characters as a whole. Sound about right? Yet, you can never actually state in your own words what any of that means.

No one has actually MADE that comment here.

No one has made what comment? That the actress playing Galadriel is a shit actress or that she and the writers made the character dislikable? You're not paying very close attention to what has been said week after week after an episode drops if you genuinely believe this. Much of the criticism this version of Galadriel is getting is not unique to her or the show. You can choose not to believe that if you like but it's not hard to bring out the culture war jargon if you press people about it.

I'm not pretending anything.

I'm aware that a large portion of the criticism these shows get are purely predicated on the diversity topic, most of which happened before the show even came out. But I'm not sure why this is making its rounds again oddly enough, since it was quite a dead horse for about a solid month or show as the show reached its current episodes. Can't say I've been paying attention too closely to all the bullshit that happens here, there's only so much bullshit I can keep track of really.

If you haven't been paying close attention to the thread then why are you droning on and on about my comment when you can just read the discussion I was having? That topic has never gone away and it will come up again and again because culture war bullshit dominates more than just political discourse. You can thank reactionary propaganda outlets for this. Take it up with them and stop insinuating that I'm the one instigating it when I'm clearly pushing back against it in favor of thoughtful critique.

[Triceron]

And your point is a strawman. I wasn't equating these characters or claiming anyone else was in this thread. If you go back and read that post, I was pretty clear that I was connecting the cause of some of the vitriol those characters received on this forum and elsewhere. That I have to tell you this twice, is starting to get absurd.

I wasn't blaming you for having instigated the issue, only pointing out that it ended up spiraling out of your intended control and had people arguing for and against without actually considering that your original intent wasn't actually about those characters being compared directly in this way.

I'm more surprised than anything that it even got talked about so much.

No one has made what comment? That the actress playing Galadriel is a shit actress or that she and the writers made the character dislikable?

No one here directly compared Galadriel to Rey and Carol Danvers was what I was talking about.

I don't care too much about what people think of the actress, because acting is gonna be subjective and honestly, people will have contentious opinions about actors and what they do on or off screen.

But I do think the character's writing is questionable at best. Not terribly written but definitely flawed in a technical way. Like, the character just doesn't feel relatable the way Elrond and the Dwarves are, and not just because she is unlikeable but that her character has very odd actions and reactions to what I expect any character would sensibly act. i would definitely consider her story and characterization (writing) to be contrived.

If you haven't been paying close attention to the thread then why are you droning on and on about my comment when you can just read the discussion I was having?

Cuz people ended up arguing other points around what you initiated and it stopped being about your points specifically. I'm not talking about your discussion, I'm talking about the discussion that other people carried on after you mentioned it in passing. And I'm surprised why people even stuck to that being a topic when no one was actually expressing that opinion here.

[downnola]

I wasn't blaming you for having instigated the issue, only pointing out that it ended up spiraling out of your intended control and had people arguing for and against without actually considering that your original intent wasn't actually about those characters being compared directly in this way.

I'm more surprised than anything that it even got talked about so much.



No one here directly compared Galadriel to Rey and Carol Danvers was what I was talking about.

I don't care too much about what people think of the actress, because acting is gonna be subjective and honestly, people will have contentious opinions about actors and what they do on or off screen.

But I do think the character's writing is questionable at best. Not terribly written but definitely flawed in a technical way. Like, the character just doesn't feel relatable the way Elrond and the Dwarves are, and not just because she is unlikeable but that her character has very odd actions and reactions to what I expect any character would sensibly act. i would definitely consider her story and characterization (writing) to be contrived.



Cuz people ended up arguing other points around what you initiated and it stopped being about your points specifically. I'm not talking about your discussion, I'm talking about the discussion that other people carried on after you mentioned it in passing. And I'm surprised why people even stuck to that being a topic when no one was actually expressing that opinion here.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

[rhorle]

When I say mythology I mean narratives within the world of middle earth that are told by various characters who revise and embellish the tales of deeds and events long past in the history of Arda that become mythology and fable to the people who read them years later. For example "The Hobbit" was literally written by Bilbo Baggins.

That isn't what you said though because you said it is to be treated like real world mythology and history. Which are things that people adapt into their own works. A in-universe narrator/writer is an entirely different thing. It isn't surprising that you back pedal after inadvertently stating yourself to be wrong.

[bledgor]

Showrunners will want to bait people to watch next season, thus I think they will only hint at who the meteor man is, but no answer. I think they will basically reveal Halbrand as Sauron, and the rings will get inferred/mentioned, but not made yet.

Oh and Isildur gets saved somehow by his horse, gotta take another thing from LoTR (aka Aragon in two towers).

[Triceron]

Showrunners will want to bait people to watch next season, thus I think they will only hint at who the meteor man is, but no answer. I think they will basically reveal Halbrand as Sauron, and the rings will get inferred/mentioned, but not made yet.

Oh and Isildur gets saved somehow by his horse, gotta take another thing from LoTR (aka Aragon in two towers).

Can't wait to see Halbrand's name transition into Sauron in text form.

[bledgor]

Can't wait to see Halbrand's name transition into Sauron in text form.

ughhhhhhhhhhhhh

Also bets on if they do anything with the women in white trio? I mean they use magic which means basically they are Maiar, but doubt they put that much thought into it, just wanted the "cool" scene of her doing the thing with the torch.

[Xath]

If Tolkien intended his work to be treated like real world mythology then he would be fine with adaptations of his work. This is because real world mythology has been adapted for centuries. Even Tolkien reflected this in his work by modeling a lot of his stuff on his religious views but not as direct as C.S. Lewis did.

Yeah the church was super cool with JC Superstar making it seem like Mary Magdalene had the hots for Jesus. I'm sure they were also super in favor of Lamb "The Gospel according to Biff". Just because something is a mythology doesn't mean it should be accepting of massive changes to it's canon heck wars have been fought over that type of change. How many splinter religions are there with the old testament as their primary start that then branch out?

[Biomega]

Yeah the church was super cool with JC Superstar making it seem like Mary Magdalene had the hots for Jesus. I'm sure they were also super in favor of Lamb "The Gospel according to Biff". Just because something is a mythology doesn't mean it should be accepting of massive changes to it's canon heck wars have been fought over that type of change. How many splinter religions are there with the old testament as their primary start that then branch out?

Not sure you're making the point you think you're making there.

What this shows is that even for super serious stuff like religions, people CAN AND DO change stuff. All the time. What's canon is always negotiable, flexible, and mutable.

The Bible couldn't stand up to people's creative editing and reimagination - Tolkien never really had a chance

[s_bushido]

Yeah the church was super cool with JC Superstar making it seem like Mary Magdalene had the hots for Jesus. I'm sure they were also super in favor of Lamb "The Gospel according to Biff". Just because something is a mythology doesn't mean it should be accepting of massive changes to it's canon heck wars have been fought over that type of change. How many splinter religions are there with the old testament as their primary start that then branch out?

Which "church?"

You may not have noticed, but there have been (and still are) many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many different versions of Christianity alone. This "can't change the canon" nonsense has literally never stopped anyone before.