Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Flurryfang]

At a minimum, we'll get a Sauron reveal, imo. It'll be Halbrand, even though the obvious signs would probably make us think otherwise.

I think we'll also find out that "meteor man" is going to be a random Blue Wizard they've made up for the story.

The problem with it being one of the blue wizards, is that we don't know them at all. It won't be much of a reveal if its just the same as just creating a completly new character.

Edit: It kinda have to be somebody we know. My bet is Saruman, since Gandalf would be too much on the nose. It would also be able to set up a story, where his close relations with the harfoots sour over time and leads to the more direct character we see in lord of the rings.

[Kumorii]

Do they have the rights for the Blue Wizards? I thought that was one of the things they didn't own. I guess they can work around it in some way.

But with that said I hope it isn't. the Blue Wizards have grown such mystery over the years where little is known about them or very little is said (except hints), that I kind of would prefer they stay a mystery. Tolkien never really had much time to go into detail on them. Not sure how I'd feel having them be one of them. I think i would rather it be gandalf lol.

I like the idea that meteor man is Sauron and the the slim Shady cultists are finding him to make him remember? maybe? Halbrand is way too obvious, and if it is Halbrand its kind of like anticlimactic'

I actually think the opposite on this tbh.
They lean so heavily into it that if it isn't him at this point it seems like it's such a "twist" made for the audience it becomes bad..

Remember that this show is mostly for non-fans, evidently. So most people don't know much about Sauron outside of the PJ movies. And even there he is just an evil presence / boogeyman than a complete character.
It's mostly obvious for people who know more about Sauron, that he disguise himself, that he manipulated people, that he has a passion for smithing etc etc.
If I take a step back and try to watch it without knowing these things about him, there's little in the show that's obvious that it's him.

But when it gets revealed who he is, all these hints surrounding Halbrand will be satisfying because they can look back and see him in a new light. Why he asked Adar if he remembered him, his passion for smithing, him putting up a show about going back to southlands, him saving Galadriel from drowning etc etc.

I wouldn't put it beneath them to make a double twist though. People in the show will think he is Sauron and then it turns out he isn't. We will see in the end. But I don't think it would be bad if he is Sauron. I hope he is tbh.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with it being one of the blue wizards, is that we don't know them at all. It won't be much of a reveal if its just the same as just creating a completly new character.

Edit: It kinda have to be somebody we know. My bet is Saruman, since Gandalf would be too much on the nose. It would also be able to set up a story, where his close relations with the harfoots sour over time and leads to the more direct character we see in lord of the rings.

They have said in interviews about him that "The story about him will be so good that who he is doesn't matter". So either they have rewritten a character into something completely different or it's a made up one. So they are not relying on the reveal of who he is to make bank, but rather their storytelling of him. Downplaying their own reveal of him doesn't strike me as confidence though.

[Raisei]

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

Very different case. The bible never had a single author that can be considered the ultimate authority, just people who decided what belongs into the canon for political and to a lesser degree spiritual reasons. There were hundreds books by different authors that were rejected because the church's leadship didn't like the message they carried. Some survived in the apocrypha. One of my favourites being where Jesus went around killing his childhood friends when they pissed him off and then revived them.

Here we have the works of a single man that is the authority of what his work is and what isn't. And different from many modern writers he also never had any political message he wanted to push, he hated stories that used allegory to do that. Quote: “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." Because "they enslaved the imaginative freedom of the reader to the didactic intentions of the author."

His goal with the Lord of the Rings was to write history, feigned history, but still history. When the writers of Rings decided they would use the works of this man as an allegorical frame of their political activism they made their series a direct insult to Tolkien's memory. And that isn't even commenting on the quality of it, just the intent.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

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.

For many years I've been wondering if Tolkien was thinking about Hollywood when naming Eregion, which in the text of LoTR is described the "Land of Holly".

A place of great creativity, birthing both many wonders and terrible powers capable of reshaping the World...

[Rageonit]

It is amusing how you keep denying trying to stop discussion while your entire point of posting today is about trying to stop discussions from happening. If you didn't try to moderate you would have saved those 10 posts. In an effort to get people to stop you've become the very problem you decry. A self fulfilling prophecy.

I mean, he's right. This is an echo chamber. Every several days, I take a peek and it's the same back and forth. Also, he creates a big part of the echo; also, you amplify it by answering to his posts.

On the other hand, it's the echo that still keeps this thread going. There's not much interesting or genuine content here anymore - and it's not really surprising. It's rather disheartening to post your opinions when you know they will be buried down under the very same arguments being repeated ad infinitum since episode 1 (by the same people).

[DarkAmbient]

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).

I'd be surprised if this wasn't accurate. I don't think we'll discover who Meteor Man is yet, unless he's Gandalf and they wanted that to be the finale's big moment. If he is Gandalf it's possible the women in white cloaks are hunting him to eliminate the threat to themselves and/or Sauron. About that, though: In the teaser we can hear women talking to Sauron, perhaps telepathically, telling him "You will be known at last for who you truly are, for you are Lord Sauron". That line can be interpreted a couple of ways: Either they are telling someone who knows he is Sauron that soon he won't have to keep up the pretence anymore, or that the person they are talking to doesn't know he's Sauron and they are reminding him of his identity, which could hint that Meteor Man is him.

There is one possibility that could be true: Gil-Galad is Sauron. It kind of makes sense. He downplayed Sauron's threat and shipped Galadriel off to Valinor before she could cause any trouble. He withdrew the elven forces from the Southlands, leaving the locals unaided against Adar's forces (until those pesky Numenoreans showed up). The tree in Lindon is dying, possibly because of his presence. He ordered Celebrimbor to construct the forge. He convinced Elrond to break his oath in order to gain access to mithril. Then there was that creepy moment of him eavesdropping in the forest.

[Skulltaker]

There is one possibility that could be true: Gil-Galad is Sauron. It kind of makes sense. He downplayed Sauron's threat and shipped Galadriel off to Valinor before she could cause any trouble. He withdrew the elven forces from the Southlands, leaving the locals unaided against Adar's forces (until those pesky Numenoreans showed up). The tree in Lindon is dying, possibly because of his presence. He ordered Celebrimbor to construct the forge. He convinced Elrond to break his oath in order to gain access to mithril. Then there was that creepy moment of him eavesdropping in the forest.

And the actual Gil-Galad is where...?

[DarkAmbient]

And the actual Gil-Galad is where...?

Fuck knows. Dead or imprisoned, the latter if they're going to at least retain some of the lore, as he needs to form the Last Alliance with Elendil. I don't think this is the likely option btw, but when you look at his influence on events compared to Halbrand's, it's Gil-Galad's actions that would have been most advantageous for Sauron.

[Kathandira]

I did not read the books. So I am ignorant as all heck when it comes to what is canon, and what is not.

But i'm three episodes in, and am enjoying it so far. But since I'm not intimately familiar with the lore, nor am I caught up, I don't think I can add much to the discussions here. Just wanted to express my vote of, I am ignorantly enjoying it so far lol.

[Skulltaker]

Fuck knows. Dead or imprisoned, the latter if they're going to at least retain some of the lore, as he needs to form the Last Alliance with Elendil. I don't think this is the likely option btw, but when you look at his influence on events compared to Halbrand's, it's Gil-Galad's actions that would have been most advantageous for Sauron.

Interesting theory, but it'd make the scene where GG stares in disbelief at the rotting leaf at the end of episode... 2? kind of weird. I'm not saying your theory is completely improbale, it's an interesting one. Then again, Gil Galad isn't just some easily captured dude. He's by far one of the most formidable fighters the elves have. Capturing him would be... very challanging.

[Raelbo]

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. <snip>

I think we're largely talking past each other. In the interests of brevity, I will just say this: I totally agree that Tolkien would have wanted those adapting his stories to respect the original work. Where we differ is in whether we believe the show and its creators are doing so. I certainly think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of creating a show that fills in a part of Middle Earth's history that has not been fully fleshed out. I would like such a show to do it's best to remain consistent with the stuff Tolkien wrote. Whether it will actually achieve this....I think it's too early to tell.

I do believe though that a lot of the staunch critics of this show made up their minds about the show long before they even saw 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.

Jousting? I assume you meant to say fencing.

I can completely agree that combat in Middle Earth would look very similar to real world combat. There would be some critical differences based on the fact that the heroes of middle earth are basically all superhuman, as well as the fact that the magical materials they craft their weapons and armour from make them lighter and stronger than their real world equivalents.

The point I am making however, is that this is all moot. Combat, as depicted on the screen does not look realistic, nor should it attempt to do so because realistic looks crap on the screen.

[InfiniteCharger]

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.

That is not what I said. And no this is not about an in universe narrator, it is about the story itself being written by someone in universe and resembling an actual mythology within that universe. It is called a "frame story" in literature.

Tolkien's frame stories are the narrative devices that J. R. R. Tolkien chose to use throughout his Middle-earth writings, especially his legendarium, to make the works resemble a genuine mythology written and edited by many hands over a long period of time. He described in detail how his fictional characters wrote their books and transmitted them to others, and showed how later in-universe editors annotated the material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien%27s_frame_stories

[Xath]

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

It literally led to wars and the Bible wasn't written by one specific individual. No what's canon is not negotiable or flexible when it comes to a specific author who is dead. This pile of crap isn't canon and is actively ignoring canon throughout much of it's first season.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

When someone talks about the church it's fairly clear they are talking about the that wields entirely too much power in the current world and is in large part responsible for the current divide in us politics.

[Myradin]

Honestly this thread is more amusing than the series. It doesnt even discuss episodes anymore, but rather the deeper meaning of what is 'good' and the merits of adaptation.

[InfiniteCharger]

I think we're largely talking past each other. In the interests of brevity, I will just say this: I totally agree that Tolkien would have wanted those adapting his stories to respect the original work. Where we differ is in whether we believe the show and its creators are doing so. I certainly think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of creating a show that fills in a part of Middle Earth's history that has not been fully fleshed out. I would like such a show to do it's best to remain consistent with the stuff Tolkien wrote. Whether it will actually achieve this....I think it's too early to tell.

I do believe though that a lot of the staunch critics of this show made up their minds about the show long before they even saw it.

It is the Tolkien estate who created the idea to use the appendices as the source of the "rights" for this show. And because they don't have the rights to almost anything else in the legendarium, not to mention the appendices not being full stories in themselves, they are required to "make up" a story. So by definition they were given basically rights to make up a story using characters and locations from LOTR but without all the rights to actually make a true prequel to it. So at this point this show just exists in its own fictional continuity literally separate from anything in the books. That is just a side effect of how the rights were parceled out. That itself is totally separate from whether the end result is "good" or "popular" all depend on the end product itself. Just because it has the Lord of the Rings name on it doesn't automatically make it good or popular. At the end of the day, I believe Amazon has an albatross on its hands, because they didn't actually have a compelling story that they really wanted to tell. And they literally thought just having the rights to use the name "Lord of the Rings" was enough to market the show and make it popular. That is silly thinking.

Jousting? I assume you meant to say fencing.

I can completely agree that combat in Middle Earth would look very similar to real world combat. There would be some critical differences based on the fact that the heroes of middle earth are basically all superhuman, as well as the fact that the magical materials they craft their weapons and armour from make them lighter and stronger than their real world equivalents.

The point I am making however, is that this is all moot. Combat, as depicted on the screen does not look realistic, nor should it attempt to do so because realistic looks crap on the screen.

Yes of course. The distinction I was getting at is that it is the job of the producers to make fantastical things look "realistic" even though it is not based on reality. And the end result depends on the quality and skill of those who worked on it. Just because it is fantasy doesn't mean that the various disciplines involved in such an effort aren't serious, even if it is just keeping actors safe while filming fictional combat scenes. This is why I posted trailers from Elder Scrolls on this thread a couple times to show the difference in how games are able to better realize these things than live action.

[rhorle]

That is not what I said. And no this is not about an in universe narrator, it is about the story itself being written by someone in universe and resembling an actual mythology within that universe. It is called a "frame story" in literature.

Which has nothing to do with real world mythology and history you previously said is how Tolkien wanted his work to be treated. You are deflecting to his framing device to backpedal from your own statement that proves you wrong. Real world myths and history have been adapted many many times.

Tolkien intended that this story of Middle Earth be treated like real world mythology and history even if it is fiction.

- - - Updated - - -

No what's canon is not negotiable or flexible when it comes to a specific author who is dead.

It is though because the fandom doesn't just include The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and few others published by JRR as canon. They include the Silmarillion in that and that was finished by his son. Just look at how many still grumble at Rings of Power not following "canon" when it couldn't be canon since most of the stuff it diverges from was in work published after his death. The appendices just have brief passages.

[NineSpine]

Very different case. The bible never had a single author that can be considered the ultimate authority, just people who decided what belongs into the canon for political and to a lesser degree spiritual reasons. There were hundreds books by different authors that were rejected because the church's leadship didn't like the message they carried. Some survived in the apocrypha. One of my favourites being where Jesus went around killing his childhood friends when they pissed him off and then revived them.

Here we have the works of a single man that is the authority of what his work is and what isn't. And different from many modern writers he also never had any political message he wanted to push, he hated stories that used allegory to do that. Quote: “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." Because "they enslaved the imaginative freedom of the reader to the didactic intentions of the author."

His goal with the Lord of the Rings was to write history, feigned history, but still history. When the writers of Rings decided they would use the works of this man as an allegorical frame of their political activism they made their series a direct insult to Tolkien's memory. And that isn't even commenting on the quality of it, just the intent.

I just have no idea what you are talking about regarding allegory in this show, let alone an allegory of political activism.

[Veggie50]

Very different case. The bible never had a single author that can be considered the ultimate authority, just people who decided what belongs into the canon for political and to a lesser degree spiritual reasons. There were hundreds books by different authors that were rejected because the church's leadship didn't like the message they carried. Some survived in the apocrypha. One of my favourites being where Jesus went around killing his childhood friends when they pissed him off and then revived them.

Here we have the works of a single man that is the authority of what his work is and what isn't. And different from many modern writers he also never had any political message he wanted to push, he hated stories that used allegory to do that. Quote: “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence." Because "they enslaved the imaginative freedom of the reader to the didactic intentions of the author."

His goal with the Lord of the Rings was to write history, feigned history, but still history. When the writers of Rings decided they would use the works of this man as an allegorical frame of their political activism they made their series a direct insult to Tolkien's memory. And that isn't even commenting on the quality of it, just the intent.

Hmmm so anything compiled by Christopher Tolkien doesn't count either?

He indicated himself that he tied the tales together with his own writings, and that in many cases there are conflicting accounts.

[DarkAmbient]

New stills from the finale (spoilers obviously) : https://twitter.com/FellowshipFans/s...83264685305856

[InfiniteCharger]

Which has nothing to do with real world mythology and history you previously said is how Tolkien wanted his work to be treated. You are deflecting to his framing device to backpedal from your own statement that proves you wrong. Real world myths and history have been adapted many many times.

The way I wrote it probably wasn't the best so it may have been misleading. When I said "real world" mythology, I do not mean mythology from the "real world" but a mythology that is real even though it refers to events in the fictional world. It is intended to be a real mythology about those events in that imaginary world and therefore treated as real mythology is treated in the real world. And now I have clarified it for you so there is no confusion as to what I was referring to.