Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Finale happened and everyone's droning on about some tedious bullshit because they can't be wrong on the internet

What else is there to discuss? Dislike of the show for the 100th time? People have shared their thoughts on the episode and it gets little traction. Even you yourself choose not to comment on those in favor of tedious BS.

[downnola]

No, we are discussing whether this series represent Tolkien's intent when he sold the rights for those 2 books.

The only other person close enough to Tolkien's work to be informed on the matter is Christopher Tolkien and he's not around to give his opinion. Not that it would matter much. I can't count how many times I've seen someone say the Jackson films were true representations of Lord of the Rings despite Christopher claiming otherwise. Was he right? If the actual gatekeeper and editor of his father's work isn't an authority on the subject then who is?

Instead of claiming to know the opinions of people who are dead and can't speak for themselves, we could just ask if the series stays true to Tolkien's themes and tell a good story. After watching the last episode, there are parts that I think do and some that don't. Considering how much money has gone into this series, I think it's safe to say it's not living up to it's potential.

[rhorle]

You keep saying he would have been OK with any kind of "adaptation" is the problem because we know he would not have.

And yet he sold the rights for people to adapt his work however they wanted to. Action speaks louder then words here. We can infer from those words what he may have thought of certain adaptations but it is still clear that he gave consent for adaptations to occur.

Amazon calls Rings of Power an adaptation. Every episode the X-ray trivia state it is based on certain parts of Tolkien's work. Amazon states it was inspired by, though not contained in, the original source material in the credits. Aka an adaptation. Based on, Inspired by, and whatever else are all different way to refer to an adaptation of a work.

[callipygoustp]

LOL at that finale: I am Sauron!!!!

Bahahahahahaha. What a fucking joke. Tolkien must be turning over in his grave.

[InfiniteCharger]

And yet he sold the rights for people to adapt his work however they wanted to. Action speaks louder then words here. We can infer from those words what he may have thought of certain adaptations but it is still clear that he gave consent for adaptations to occur.

Amazon calls Rings of Power an adaptation. Every episode the X-ray trivia state it is based on certain parts of Tolkien's work. Amazon states it was inspired by, though not contained in, the original source material in the credits. Aka an adaptation. Based on, Inspired by, and whatever else are all different way to refer to an adaptation of a work.

Yes, he sold the rights, but those companies went to him for his advice on what they were going to do.

Obviously, rights and his intent are two different things. I don't see how you don't understand that.

Otherwise, why did these studios ask him for advice if the rights were enough for the to proceed?

Because from a marketing perspective, it would be bad to have the author dislike the end result.

And he is now dead, so his intent is almost irrelevant because he cannot voice his opinion anyway.

His intent for the 2nd age is summarized in the appendices and more fleshed out in other works he never published.

Therefore, he never intended those to be adapted because he hadn't finished them.

Yes, the appendices were published but they do not fully represent his intent for the 2nd age.

That is the distinction being made here and again, he is dead and cannot finish what he started.

Therefore, whatever anybody does with the 2nd age can never match what he never fully completed.

But his intent was absolutely clear nevertheless.

From one of his letters:

In order of time, growth and composition, this stuff began with me – though I do not suppose that that is of much interest to anyone but myself. I mean, I do not remember a time when I was not building it. Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write. But I have never stopped, and of course, as a professional philologist (especially interested in linguistic aesthetics), I have changed in taste, improved in theory, and probably in craft. Behind my stories is now a nexus of languages (mostly only structurally sketched). But to those creatures which in English I call misleadingly Elves* are assigned two related languages more nearly completed, whose history is written, and whose forms (representing two different sides of my own linguistic taste) are deduced scientifically from a common origin. Out of these languages are made nearly all the names that appear in my legends. This gives a certain character (a cohesion, a consistency of linguistic style, and an illusion of historicity) to the nomenclature, or so I believe, that is markedly lacking in other comparable things. Not all will feel this as important as I do, since I am cursed by acute sensibility in such matters.

But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of fairy-tale and history, of which there is far too little in the world (accessible to me) for my appetite. I was an undergraduate before thought and experience revealed to me that these were not divergent interests – opposite poles of science and romance – but integrally related. I am not ‘learned’** in the matters of myth and fairy-story, however, for in such things (as far as known to me) I have always been seeking material, things of a certain tone and air, and not simple knowledge. Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its ‘faerie’ is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.

https://www.tolkienestate.com/letter...ublisher-1951/

The point here being made in this letter is that this world was a personal passion project for him from a young age. And originally he did not intend to publish the Hobbit as he didn't think people would like it. But his goal was to finish developing this world with its languages, cultures, mythologies and histories for his own purposes. It wasn't his intent for this to be a movie, television show or any other kind of "adapted" story as opposed to a work of personal passion to develop all those things he mentions to his own satisfaction. That is the ultimate intent of JRR Tolkien with his work and it wasn't to make movies or films. He was a writer and his passion was in writing and languages.



This series is not an adaptation as Amazon puts at the end of every episode:

"This production contains dialogue, characters and places that were inspired by, though not contained in the original source material"

So it is not a literal adaptation because there was no literal story that they are adapting.

They are making up characters, dialog and places and therefore, that is why this is included in the end credits.

Because the appendices are not a complete story that can be adapted by themselves with full dialog, characters and events.

[rhorle]

This series is not an adaptation as Amazon puts at the end of every episode:

That is them saying it is an adaptation. Lmao. The word you are looking for is faithful and not literal. It is not a faithful adaptation but it is an adaptation. Jackson made up cahracter, dialog, and places but his films were still adaptations.

It may have been a personal passion project for JRR Tolkien but it ended with him selling the rights that allowed people to make use of all or part of his books to create a story they wanted to tell. It is why we have video games, songs, RPG books, toys, etc that all only use the parts of his work that they wanted to use. Things that he gave up control of. You again create a strawman because not once has anyone said the ultimate goal of his work was to make moves or films (the same thing lol). He did however sell the rights so others could create those things based off of some of his work.

You can keep trying to deny that Tolkien sold the rights all you want. It won't change that fact. It doesn't even matter if he would have been happy about selling his rights. All that matter is he sold up his rights and gave up creative control in the process.

[Triceron]

The rights he sold covered what was mentioned in the Appendices. Trying to claim that he didn't want those parts adapted even though he sold the rights to those parts is folly.

But you can't draw a conclusion that he was okay with the appendices being adapted in film.

You don't know the details of the deal. What if it was the film companies that said they wouldn't pay for the rights unless they get the full body of works, which includes the appendices in the deal, and Tolkien was really strapped for the cash to pay off his debts? Your account doesn't take that possibility into consideration at all, that the nature of the deal could have been in favour of the film companies and not for Tolkien in a position that he would be happy or even okay about. And this is especially the case when we know he did sell the rights to deal with his tax bills.

You can't imply this was a situation for Tolkien that results in him being okay with the full decision when it's clear that we don't know the exact nature of how he regarded the deal. It could have been a win-win situation where he was open to films adapting his work in any way he saw fit. It could have been a lose-lose situation where he was so strapped for cash that it threatened losing his entire estate if he couldn't settle the debts, and selling the film rights was the only reasonable way out. We don't know the situation, so we can't simply assess this as 'He would be okay with it because he made the decision'.

Just like you can't just arbitrarily say Sophie was okay with her Choice just because she made it and was able to live on with life after that. 'Being okay with it' is intent, and that is something you can't prove simply by pointing out the fact that it happened.

Just like I can point out the example of George Lucas regretting his decision to sell Star Wars. Just because he was okay with the decision to sell it for a shit ton of cash doesn't mean he is okay with the decision he has made in retrospect. The fact he made the decision and was okay with the decision at one point in time isn't relevant to how he feels after the deal was made. You're literally using one point in time as being an indicator to how he would feel forever after, and that's outright delusional logic.

[rhorle]

But you can't draw a conclusion that he was okay with the appendices being adapted in film.

Sure you can because they were part of the rights he sold. He might not have been happy about it but his intent was clearly to sell the rights to adapt those things into film. The details of the deal are not important. It doesn't matter if the film companies negotiated those being included because Tolkien still signed the deal. It doesn't matter if he only did it because he needed money because he still did it. We are discussing his intent not what he thought of his intent. It is quite clear the deal was in favor of the film companies because of how much was given away and how little it got. That still doesn't matter.

He still signed the deal. He was still okay with creative control of the things in the deal going to others. The rest is just you trying to assume different scenarios to try and decide what his personal thoughts were on the subject. Something you just got done saying we can't do, right? All we know the facts and those facts have Tolkien signing a deal to give the rights to create whatever from his two books.

[Triceron]

Sure you can because they were part of the rights he sold

Then you're implying a bad faith argument.

Simple as that.

You're using an argumentative fallacy that the ends justifies the means, and honestly that doesn't work when applied to a theoretical situation that has never happened. It's like implying Sophie would be okay with killing any or all of her children because she already made the choice to kill one of them. Argumentative fallacy, and for the sake of a bad faith argument.

It doesn't matter if he only did it because he needed money because he still did it. We are discussing his intent not what he thought of his intent

That's where you're wrong, because the topic is whether he would have intended the 2nd Age to be adapted and that isn't clearly defined as part of his original decision.

Just like 'Sophie would have been okay with killing any or all of her children' isn't part of the original decision to pick one to die. You can't just draw a blanket conclusion because a certain decision was made. That's taking the decision out of context and arguing that it applies to any other theoretical situation, without any regard for the situational context. And you can see clearly by my example that by twisting the facts out of context, you could reframe Sophie as a monster who is willing to kill all her children because she had made a decision at one point in her life to allow one to die. That's exactly what you're doing here.

[Xath]

You mean you would have to watch every baseball game in order to be a fan of baseball. You couldn't just watch one or two and call yourself a fan. If time from last read through was the litmus for being a Tolkien fan I'm guessing most people in the world would no longer be one.

You literally haven't finished his primary work lol

[rhorle]

Then you're implying a bad faith argument.

It is a bad faith argument to say that Tolkien was fine with adaptations being made because he himself signed rights away? Nothing I am saying is about the ends justifying the means. Or a theoretical situation. Tolkien signing the rights himself is a very real thing that happened. He made an agreement to give X rights to Y things to Z company. That includes making adaptations.

I'm not wrong about what this conversation is about. It is about adaptations being made whether from a whole story or parts of a story. Limiting it to 2nd age is just bogging it down into assumptions that we can't talk about as you yourself even said. The appendices however were part of the rights he signed away and thus were something he was fine with being adapted.

I'm not drawing a blanket conclusion because a certain decision was made. I'm drawing a conclusion from what he sold. He sold the right for others to make adaptations. Therefore he was okay with others making adaptations. Even IC agrees with this point, or at least they did, because they argued that his published work is the only thing he intended to have adapted. Yet now they shift from that not being the cause because their argument of the moment can't support that.

- - - Updated - - -

You literally haven't finished his primary work lol

Right. Hence why your example works better when you require a baseball fan to see every single baseball game. If a person only watches the games of their favorite team they can not be a fan according to your logic.

[Triceron]

It is a bad faith argument to say that Tolkien was fine with adaptations being made because he himself signed rights away?

With 2nd Age adaptations specifically. It is presumptuous to argue whether he was fine with it or not, because no one is privy to how he actually feels about the subject of 2nd Age adaptations to film, even if he sold the rights. It is bad faith, because you are arguing without respecting the context of the conversation and merely want to argue that he sold the rights therefore at some point he must have been okay with the decision, even though the conversation is specific about 2nd Age story material that was never considered to be adapted by any film company while he was still alive.

Just like it would be bad faith to say George Lucas is fine with all the Star Wars projects being made after he sold the company because he made the decision to sell the entire franchise in the first place. It's clear he's not fine with everything that's happened, and he regrets the decision in retrospect. He just can't do anything about it, doesn't mean he's fine or okay with everything that's happened to Star Wars since.

Saying that he's okay with anything/everything Star Wars made because he sold the rights without considering any other factors or context of discussion would be a bad faith argument.

I'm not drawing a blanket conclusion because a certain decision was made. I'm drawing a conclusion from what he sold.

And that would be a subjective statement then. But you're not presenting it as subjectively defined, you're using it to counter someone else's argument. Instead of merely stating you disagree with IC's statement, you're outright trying to say he's wrong because you happened to come to a certain conclusion. This is what I'm pointing out as being bullshit.

Both of you can only claim that no one knows for sure what Tolkien would really think about a 2nd Age adaption. Neither of you can actually present your conclusions as proof of his intentions, because the entire discussion is theoretical without any way to prove it.

It's bad faith to continue to argue that your conclusion is somehow more valid or true when applied to any other situation outside of the specific context it was in. All you are doing is speculating what could happen, and that's not evidence that counters any other speculation. Again, same thing as implying Sophie would be willing to kill all of her children because at one point she made the decision to allow one to die. It's misappropriating her decisions in order to draw a conclusion that fits the argument. It's twisting the facts. And it's bad faith, because you aren't intent on acknowledging that simply no one knows the situation and that you and IC are both merely arguing subjectively.

[rhorle]

With 2nd Age adaptations specifically. Yes, it is a bad faith argument to argue whether he was fine with it or not, because no one is privy to how he actually feels about the subject of 2nd Age adaptations to film, even if he sold the rights.

Yet he still sold the rights for it to be adapted. That is all we need to know. He specifically authorized that others could adapt that part of his story as it is included in the rights he gave away. It isn't bad faith to say that George Lucas authorized others to have creative control of his work. Opinion of an adaptation isn't part of the discussion. It existing in the first place is.

Tolkien was fine with giving up creative control and adaptations existing. That is what I've been saying all along.

[Syegfryed]

It was the first epsidoe i also really liked galadriel. Seams like she is developing good. Bit fast for an immortal elf but i like where this is going.

Please, elaborate how Galadriel developed good, as she is showed to be as unlikeable and hypocrite as ever?

She doesn't tell anyone about sauron, she doesn't tell anyone about what happens in the southlands, she keeps bitching about sauron "lying" but he didn't actually lie, she, and despite the show making Sauron as someone who could be redeemable, she says "no you can't, because you are sauron".

The second-best thing of this episode, after the sociopath hobbit death, was how Sauron keep shoving in her face what she said herself, and she does not acknowledge that. he said to her he did bad things, she said it does not matter, because he did that to achieve good, and when he says that again to her, she says "nooooooo"

We basically discover the Galadriel i the one responsible for the rise of the darklord, sauron, mount doom, everything is about her, and when they were going to do 2 rings, she says, no we need 3, out of the fucking nowhere, because everything needs to be about her.

The whole plot of the mithril, the Ligh and the rings is dumb as f, the evil guy Sauron want us to make 2 rings, lets just make 3, big brain move.

[Triceron]

Right. Hence why your example works better when you require a baseball fan to see every single baseball game. If a person only watches the games of their favorite team they can not be a fan according to your logic.

To be honest most of this is semantics. Fandom is mostly self-proclaimed, self acknowledged, so everyone's just arguing over arbitrary rules that don't matter.

[Kumorii]

The whole plot of the mithril, the Ligh and the rings is dumb as f, the evil guy Sauron want us to make 2 rings, lets just make 3, big brain move.

I really wanna know the thought behind the quote
"One will corrupt, two will divide but three will be balanced".

I can't make heads or tails of that quote... what does it mean in this context? Where did it come from? Why does everyone act like it make perfect sense.

Sauron helped us to create 2 rings which he said will grant power over flesh, which is what he wanted? Fuck yeah, lets keep making them. Add another one. Buy 2 get 1 for free...

[Triceron]

Yet he still sold the rights for it to be adapted. That is all we need to know. He specifically authorized that others could adapt that part of his story as it is included in the rights he gave away. It isn't bad faith to say that George Lucas authorized others to have creative control of his work. Opinion of an adaptation isn't part of the discussion. It existing in the first place is.

But the conversation isn't about authorization others to have creative control over his work. It is about intent on how others would adapt his works.

No one is arguing whether Tolkien authorized film companies to adapt the second age - we know that this is the case because the 2nd Age is covered in the appendices and that is part of the rights. Whether or not he INTENDED the second age to be adapted is completely different from this, because intent is not authorization.


Just like if I hand over the keys to a friend to watch over my apartment for the weekend while I'm out on vacation, it does not mean I intended him to throw parties and trash the place and leave it in a state of disrepair by the time I get back. Authorization is not Intent. You could argue that I'm taking the risk, you could argue that I'm responsible for the decision to give authorization, but you can't draw a conclusion that I would be okay with the fact that the apartment got trashed just because I took the risk that it could potentially happen. You can't argue that 'because you authorized it, that means you're fine with the result'. That's not what IC was talking about.

And again, for that matter, IC is also applying the same fallacies of implying that Tolkien would have openly opposed the 2nd Age being adapted, because no one actually knows how this theoretical situation actually plays out. No film company ever expressed wanting to do such a thing while Tolkien was alive.

[rhorle]

"One will corrupt, two will divide but three will be balanced".

I'm pretty sure it is referencing a triumvirate. One person holding power will corrupt. Two people will cause a division. Three offers a "tie breaker" or balance to the other two.

- - - Updated - - -

No one is arguing whether Tolkien authorized film companies to adapt the second age - we know that this is the case because the 2nd Age is covered in the appendices and that is part of the rights. Whether or not he INTENDED the second age to be adapted is completely different from this, because intent is not authorization.

And yet you and IC have been arguing just that. His intent to have the second age be adapted is clear because he authorized to adapt the second age. Intent is authorization. Are you going to claim he mistakenly authorized the appendices to be included? Of course not because his intent was to authorize what was included in his books.

We can't infer if he was happy about it. Or what he thought about it. Or if he would be for or against any adaptation of his work. The facts are simple. He authorized it to happy so at some level he was fine with it happening. Your friend/key example misses the mark. Tolkien told his "friend" they could do anything with his apartment. This includes parties (Adaptations). It can even include no adaptations. If the rights included Tolkien, or his estate, having full creative control then your example would fit because parties couldn't be held because rules were made to forbid them. You can be mad at your friend, just as tolkien could be mad at the video games, toys, films, shows, etc about his work. But he still authorized it to happen.

[Syegfryed]

This episode was so bad in many ways that is prob the worst of the show, so man non sequiturs in the dialogue, so many stolen line s from the movies, you have Kelebrimbor being a dumbass who doesn't know about 'combining ores", greatest blacksmith over there

And when they can't push hard enough, they had to push softly, the line was so bad i don't even remember fully, but damn, of course it was Galadriel who gave them the way to make the rings, everything needs to be about here.

And Arondil didn't say how elves didn't have medics? since their bodies heal themselves? how the hell they would get elven medicine?????

Hallbland had a hole in his stomach, dying, but he rode 6 days without resting to the elven lands, and that was not suspicious????? ok he is sauron he can endure, but the horses would be DEaD

Plus, they took 2 days from numenor to southlands, now its more than 6 to go back???

I really wanna know the thought behind the quote
"One will corrupt, two will divide but three will be balanced".

I can't make heads or tails of that quote... what does it mean in this context? Where did it come from? Why does everyone act like it make perfect sense.

Sauron helped us to create 2 rings which he said will grant power over flesh, which is what he wanted? Fuck yeah, lets keep making them. Add another one. Buy 2 get 1 for free...

It came from their asses, like anything in the show.

Once again, this to me feels like a plot from another story that they pathetically tried to implante in Tolkien work, maybe in their first draft of a movie that got rejected make sense, but if you put here, it doesn't.

[Triceron]

And yet you and IC have been arguing just that. His intent to have the second age be adapted is clear because he authorized to adapt the second age. Intent is authorization. Are you going to claim he mistakenly authorized the appendices to be included? Of course not because his intent was to authorize what was included in his books.

No, I am pointing out that no one knows his intent because we don't know the details of the deal.

It would not be a mistaken decision, but it could be a reluctant one. He sold the rights to pay off tax debts, the context matters in discussing whether he was actually okay with it or not. The ends doesn't justify the means, because the means was primarily financially motivated while you're ignoring this context entirely. You're only focused on the fact the deal was made, and not considering the context of why it was made. That's bad fucking faith because you're intentionally ignoring all factors of the discussion just to make your petty argument.

Again, Sophie's Choice parallel. Can you say that Sophie was okay with the decision to let any of her children die? Would you argue that because she allowed one to die, that she must be intent on giving authorization for either of them to die in any other context? You'd say she would be fine and okay with it because it happened?