Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Recovery]

You are thoroughly confused. From my first post I said the problem was both are alive at the same time. Somehow you turned that into that I was complaining about "one of them not existing", which is the opposite - I am clearly complaining about both of them existing. You changed my argument to something nonsensical, then when I corrected you, you told me that I switched what I was saying.

It's really hard to have conversations with you when you keep getting totally lost on the basics.

- - - Updated - - -



What's fascinating is that in the past two years Amazon has put out series covering two huge fantasy series in Wheel of Time and Rings of Power, and both suffer from the same fatal flaw - complete disregard for the source material which has turned off serious fans. In both cases the showrunners have kind of made the argument that they can't just appeal to hardcore fans, but like - I'm pretty sure you should want hardcore fans to at least like the series, right? They become your core, guaranteed audience that helps draw other people in.

I'm truly fascinated at how they could have messed up so badly here. It's frankly incredible that they could get it so wrong, and because we're talking about two separate shows, it seems like this is an issue specifically with Amazon.

- - - Updated - - -



So my question for you is, why did they bother spending 250 million on the rights if all they needed to was create a generic fantasy series? This series shares very little with the source material other than the names. If you as their target audience don't care about the source material, and they weren't planning to use it anyway, just the names, why not just create their own character names and save 250 million?

You're hugely exaggerating by claiming that "only the names" from the source material have been used. Also, even if people don't generally know alot about "The Lord of the Rings", they know the name. The name alone will bring in viewers that will like the show for what it is, for the most part.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are 100% right in that the show is made for the "average man", the people who just wants to watch A show, aslong as it is pretty and something goes on, its pretty alright. The bar is not high, because it just fufills a purpose of having something to watch, the primary purpose of television.

That said, this is also a shame. It makes the viewer very un-ambitious about what they see, setting a low standard and makes the viewer somewhat uninterested in many levels of quality elements.

It makes me want to ask the question, why watch the show when one can watch anything else, like Marvel series, Wheel of time, Star Wars or a Transformers movie. What would make somebody like you ever return to this serie in a couple of years if at all?

The story has been more than fine. I've already watched all of the other stuff. When the other stuff as well as this has a new movie, or series, I will watch it as well. I'm a lover of fantasy. Good or bad when compared to the source material means nothing to me. For someone who is not a source nerd, and picking the material apart against the source, the show really isn't half bad. It's not great, but it's not bad. Very enjoyable to watch. I've been watching it on Sunday night around 8:00, right before house of the dragon airs... Well, up until the finale of both. lol

[Triceron]

The story has been more than fine. I've already watched all of the other stuff. When the other stuff as well as this has a new movie, or series, I will watch it as well. I'm a lover of fantasy. Good or bad when compared to the source material means nothing to me. For someone who is not a source nerd, and picking the material apart against the source, the show really isn't half bad. It's not great, but it's not bad. Very enjoyable to watch. I've been watching it on Sunday night around 8:00, right before house of the dragon airs... Well, up until the finale of both. lol

I think non-book readers is really the target audience of the show. People who may have watched the LOTR and Hobbit movies, and otherwise don't know anything about the Second Age.

To be honest, adaptations like this are best enjoyed without the frame of reference in mind. Like every time I think about how awful the M. Night Airbender movie was, I still remember that everyone I've talked to who enjoyed the movie were all people who never watched the original series. They didn't have a frame of reference to compare to, and they were able to enjoy the movie as a standalone thing.

[Kumorii]

I think non-book readers is really the target audience of the show. People who may have watched the LOTR and Hobbit movies, and otherwise don't know anything about the Second Age.

To be honest, adaptations like this are best enjoyed without the frame of reference in mind. Like every time I think about how awful the M. Night Airbender movie was, I still remember that everyone I've talked to who enjoyed the movie were all people who never watched the original series. They didn't have a frame of reference to compare to, and they were able to enjoy the movie as a standalone thing.

Not a book reader. The problems with the show isn't it not following canon imo. Even if I'd like people being respectful to the source material they adapt. Problems with RoP is more universal than that. Story, writing, pacing, acting etc etc... Even if the show followed canon it would still have these problems.

[rhorle]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the Ring is in control of his actions. It only means that Sauron himself wasn't able to resist the temptations of what the Ring offered.

So he isn't able to resist the ring but the ring is not controlling him at the same time? It doesn't have to be 100% in control but it is corrupting him and influencing him. That shows that the Ring has power of its own and one that can control even the "Lord of the Rings". Which again makes the Ring the true Lord. I'm not changing anything about how Tolkien is presenting things. You are also interpreting what Tolkien said. It is strange how only I don't get to do so because it goes against your opinion. Strange, right?

Gandalf states that he would become just like Sauron if he wore the ring. The One Ring is also still bound to the other rings. It isn't something that exists just because Sauron was not in possession of the ring. The entire reason why Galadriel "passed a test" when Frodo offered her the ring was because she would become just like Sauron. Corrupted by the ring and "evil". Again something that is tied to the ring. A power that you keep downplaying.

And you may consider it nitpicking, but your very wrong opinion doesn't change the fact that it is nonsensical to have more than one Durin at the same time.

The word you are looking for is faithful. It makes perfect sense to have both alive at the same time when the timeline is compressed. As it has been compressed so events on the show would have them be alive at the same time. They could either have been faithful to only one Durin being alive at once. Or faithful to the events Durin IV and Durin III were present for. They picked one over the other to discard. It makes perfect sense.

[Triceron]

Not a book reader. The problems with the show isn't it not following canon imo. Even if I'd like people being respectful to the source material they adapt. Problems with RoP is more universal than that. Story, writing, pacing, acting etc etc... Even if the show followed canon it would still have these problems.

Oh, I don't doubt the show has problems. It's mediocre at best.

Just pointing out that the target audience wouldn't be book readers, because it leaves very little to desire as a book reader who would expect the world building to be intact. The show does some great stuff, like show what Numenor looks like, or gives us insight into the Dwarven kingdom before its fall. But the amount it changes, it might as well be a completely new fantasy series with new characters. Like there's nothing Galadriel about Galadriel, Sauron isn't even the same character depicted in the books, the overall plot adds plenty of world-changing tidbits like Mithril being the key to the Elves' salvation, etc. It's all fine as its own universe, but doesn't really connect or faithfully adapt the world that Tolkien readers would really expect to see. At least, not in a way that even PJ's trilogy was considered acceptable by most book readers.

- - - Updated - - -

Gandalf states that he would become just like Sauron if he wore the ring. The One Ring is also still bound to the other rings. It isn't something that exists just because Sauron was not in possession of the ring. The entire reason why Galadriel "passed a test" when Frodo offered her the ring was because she would become just like Sauron. Corrupted by the ring and "evil". Again something that is tied to the ring. A power that you keep downplaying.

Tolkien himself said in his notes that if Gandalf took the one ring, he could have been the one person who could possibly completely dominate Sauron's will.

That being said, the context of 'the Lord of the Rings' is still applied to Sauron. Not Gandalf, not Frodo, not the One Ring.

Do you know what the title of Frodo's book is called? The full title? It's not just 'The Lord of the Rings', like the movie calls it. It's 'The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King'.

The One Ring doesn't ever 'rise in power'. The One Ring doesn't have any downfall at all, since it never actually obtains power for itself. The downfall is referring to Sauron. This is emphasized in context by Gandalf's own description for him:

“The Lord of the Ring is not Frodo, but the master of the Dark Tower of Mordor, whose power is again stretching out over the world!”


But I can see as someone who didn't read the books at all or recalls any of its information how you could take the meaning to be ambiguous and applicable to the Ring. Its a common misunderstanding of the context of the title. And that's why I said from the start, let's nip this in the bud, because the title has a definitive answer. Everything else being argued here is in blatant ignorance of the context of the title's use. The 'Downfall of the Lord of the Rings' is not referring to the One Ring or characters like Frodo, Bilbo or Sam. The title 'the Lord of the Rings' is a direct reference to Frodo's finished works, which in the narrative is in reference to the Dark Lord, Sauron

The title is not meant to be up to interpretation. Just like 'The Hobbit' is directly contextual to Bilbo, even if one could argue the title has unintentional ambiguity to it. There is no other Hobbit it would refer to in the context of the narrative.

[rhorle]

At least, not in a way that even PJ's trilogy was considered acceptable by most book readers.

This part is amusing since the best link to "what is tolkien" had an issue with the Jackson work. As Christopher Tolkien thought it was to action oriented and the estate, at the time, wanted to put a spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings.

- - - Updated - - -

Tolkien himself said in his notes that if Gandalf took the one ring, he could have been the one person who could possibly completely dominate Sauron's will.

Are you sure you are remembering that note correctly? As Tolkien himself says the Ring would become the master.

"Of the others only Gandalf might be expected to master him – being an emissary of the Powers and a creature of the same order, an immortal spirit taking a visible physical form. In the 'Mirror of Galadriel', 1381, it appears that Galadriel conceived of herself as capable of wielding the Ring and supplanting the Dark Lord. If so, so also were the other guardians of the Three, especially Elrond. But this is another matter. It was part of the essential deceit of the Ring to fill minds with imaginations of supreme power. But this the Great had well considered and had rejected, as is seen in Elrond's words at the Council. Galadriel's rejection of the temptation was founded upon previous
thought and resolve. In any case Elrond or Galadriel would have proceeded in the policy now adopted by Sauron: they would have built up an empire with great and absolutely subservient generals and armies and engines of war, until they could challenge Sauron and destroy him by force. Confrontation of Sauron alone, unaided, self to self was not contemplated. One can imagine the scene in which Gandalf, say, was placed in such a position. It would be a delicate balance. On one side the true allegiance of the Ring to Sauron; on the other superior strength because Sauron was not actually in possession, and perhaps also because he was weakened by long corruption and
expenditure of will in dominating inferiors. If Gandalf proved the victor, the result would have been for Sauron the same as the destruction of the Ring; for him it would have been destroyed, taken from him for ever. But the Ring and all its works would have endured. It would have been the master in the end."- Letter 246

Tolkien also implies the Ring Wraiths would have treated Frodo as Lord of the Ring if he kept it on and went with them. It would have led to a confrontation between Sauron and Frodo for possession of the ring. Frodo would have lost because he wouldn't have the power to challenge him and Sauron could assert his will over the ring far better. It would potentially take one of the 3 elves bearers to challenge Sauron directly. Or Gandalf who of course is a maiar like Sauron.

"I think they would have shown 'servility'. They would have greeted Frodo as 'Lord'. With fair speeches they would have induced him to leave the Sammath Naur – for instance 'to look upon his new kingdom, and behold afar with his new sight the abode of power that he must now claim and turn to his own purposes'. " - Letter 246

[Triceron]

This part is amusing since the best link to "what is tolkien" had an issue with the Jackson work. As Christopher Tolkien thought it was to action oriented and the estate, at the time, wanted to put a spotlight on that which is not Lord of the Rings.

He had issues with it being action-oriented and the product being commercialized into an action blockbuster, which he thought reduces the philosophical depth and beauty of the original works. That's quite a different criticism than implying a completely different story was being told, as is the case with Rings of Power.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you sure you are remembering that note correctly? As Tolkien himself says the Ring would become the master.

And that could be true, but that doesn't change the fact the title 'the Lord of the Rings' is not reflecting Tolkien's notes on the subject of the One Ring's theoretical powers after reflecting on its nature. The title is directly referencing Sauron in every context of its mention in the novels. There is no point where we can take this information into changing the context of the "Lord of the Rings" being retroactively applied to the One Ring when it's already been applied to Sauron himself, exclusively, in the novels. I've stated this many times and you've ignored it many times - You have to take the title out of context and ignore how this title is used in the novels in order to allow this theory to actually work. It is an argument in ignorance.

Like I said, you're absolutely right about Tolkien mentioning that the Ring has power over the other Rings, that it has power over the wearer. That it *could* be considered given the title of 'the Lord of the Rings' theoretically. This has nothing to do with the actual title of the Lord of the Rings.

The context of the title 'The Lord of the Rings' is absolutely, definitively clear that it is applied directly to Sauron. And arguing against this fact is merely implying ignorance to an argument that you could come up with a theory around the facts. Just like you could argue that the Return of the King *could* be talking about the Witch King, you're absolutely allowed to present and hold on to that theory. Yet it would still be an argument in ignorance because the King is clearly referring to Aragorn. To argue that it is the Witch King is merely humoring a theory, no less different than 'Gandalf is not a Wizard, he's actually a Fighter' memes.

Just like I can say the title of 'The Hobbit' is definitively referring to Bilbo Baggins. Would you dispute this fact on the mere principle that 'there are more Hobbits than just Bilbo'?

[rhorle]

He had issues with it being action-oriented and the product being commercialized into an action blockbuster, which he thought reduces the philosophical depth and beauty of the original works. That's quite a different criticism than implying a completely different story was being told, as is the case with Rings of Power.

So if Rings of power captures the spirit of the works better you don't think he would be find it more agreeable then the Jackson work?

And that could be true, but that doesn't change the fact the title 'the Lord of the Rings' is not reflecting Tolkien's notes on the subject of the One Ring's theoretical powers after reflecting on its nature. The title is directly referencing Sauron in every context of its mention in the novels.

Unless Tolkien was being subtle about who the true master was, right? This is already after Eru destroyed Saruon's physical body. The ring during the TA was something Sauron was dependent on for total domination. He still almost won by basically defeating the last army capable of resisting him.

Also do you remember why this discussion was had? Because you said a theory for the Lord of the Rings applying to the rings couldn't exist. Yet here you are after all this time admitting the theory could exist while still arguing against its existence. Lmao.

[Triceron]

So if Rings of power captures the spirit of the works better you don't think he would be find it more agreeable then the Jackson work?

Considering Rings of Power is more egregiously commercialized than Jackson's work, why would I think he would ever find it more agreeable?

Amazon has blatantly made this into their own action-drama on the level of a CW series.

Are we talking about a theoretical Rings of Power which doesn't have trash writing like it does now?

Unless Tolkien was being subtle about who the true master was, right? This is already after Eru destroyed Saruon's physical body. The ring during the TA was something Sauron was dependent on for total domination. He still almost won by basically defeating the last army capable of resisting him.

Also do you remember why this discussion was had? Because you said a theory for the Lord of the Rings applying to the rings couldn't exist. Yet here you are after all this time admitting the theory could exist while still arguing against its existence. Lmao.

But he wasn't being subtle at all. The title of 'the Lord of the Rings' is not often used in the narrative at all. It's not meant to be some subtle hint at something greater than what it's meant to be, it's a condensed version of Frodo's own book title for his adventures, which comes from Gandalf's own explanation of the title directly referring to Sauron.

Also do you remember why this discussion was had? Because you said a theory for the Lord of the Rings applying to the rings couldn't exist. Yet here you are after all this time admitting the theory could exist while still arguing against its existence. Lmao.

I didn't say any other theories couldn't exist. Someone literally said the "Lord of the Rings refers to the One Ring that is ever present in the story.", and I said let's nip this in the bud, there's only one definitive answer to who the Lord of the Rings is referring to, and that is Sauron, not the One Ring. I didn't say anyone couldn't bring their own theories to the table, and let's be clear no one actually HAS been bringing one to the table at all. All you've been arguing is that it could be interpreted other ways, and I've continually said YES you could argue it, and it would in ignorance. Who the Lord of the Rings refers to is not up for debate, it is already answered. The definitive answer is Sauron, something which you have also not disputed entirely, only attacked on the principle that 'it ignores other theories' which it does not. The fact that there is a known answer does not mean you can't make an argument against it, it just means the arguments being made would be in ignorance of the facts.

I have no problem with acknowledging that alternative theories can exist. It doesn't change the fact that we have a definitive answer. Just like a Flat Earther can present their theory that the world is not round. The fact the world is round does not prevent anyone from coming up with alternative theories. It is an acknowledgement that 'the world is flat' would be an argument in ignorance because we have a much more substantiated, definitive facts which this theory ignores in order to make sense of itself.

Just like the Gandalf is a Fighter meme. We can only regard this theory in a context outside of the narrative, with intentional ignorance to the fact that Gandalf is a Wizard in the narrative. There are no theories that would actually dispute the fact that Gandalf is a Wizard, and no 'LOTR' theory would dispute it being a title exclusively used for Sauron.

Like, in our current reality, there is no way to regard Flat Earth theory as non-existent. It is real, it exists. All we can do is point out that it is a theory that implies ignorance in order to sustain itself. So you trying to tell me that I am allowing theories to exist proves nothing, because theories are merely arguments, and can be made in ignorance.

[rhorle]

Considering Rings of Power is more egregiously commercialized than Jackson's work, why would I think he would ever find it more agreeable?

Commercialization wasn't the issue. It was not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work. Again it doesn't matter if you agree or not because it still highlights how what you saw as "highly acceptable by book readers" was seen as an issue by the Tolkien Estate. It just shows how what book lovers want isn't what others think the spirit of Tolkien's work is. Which do you pander to? The cheap thrills and action or the spirit of the work?

I didn't say any other theories couldn't exist.

So which is it? It could theoretically be given the title Lord of the Rings and thus the book title be a subtle reference to that. Or it can't. You have to pick one side of the argument. You can't keep contradicting yourself and arguing that it can and can't be considered. There is no definitive answer to what the title refers to as Tolkien himself never definitively stated what it refers to.

Like I said, you're absolutely right about Tolkien mentioning that the Ring has power over the other Rings, that it has power over the wearer. That it *could* be considered given the title of 'the Lord of the Rings' theoretically.

[Triceron]

Commercialization wasn't the issue. It was not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work. Again it doesn't matter if you agree or not because it still highlights how what you saw as "highly acceptable by book readers" was seen as an issue by the Tolkien Estate. It just shows how what book lovers want isn't what others think the spirit of Tolkien's work is. Which do you pander to? The cheap thrills and action or the spirit of the work?

What are you even talking about?

You are the one who brought Christopher Tolkien in to this conversation. If you say Commercialization wasn't the issue then you're not regarding what Christopher Tolkien actually criticized about the PJ movies.

He never criticized the PJ movies for 'not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work'.

Outside of the business world, it is clear Christopher Tolkien's problems with Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy itself ran very deeply indeed. Speaking to Le Monde back in 2012, he launched a stinging criticism of the films. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," he complained. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away... They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."

I get you want to shitpost some more but this really isn't worth discussing at all, lol.

So which is it? It could theoretically be given the title Lord of the Rings and thus the book title be a subtle reference to that.

The One Ring could theoretically be given the title of the Lord of the Rings, and it would be a factually wrong theory in all regards of the narrative and its use of the title.

Just like 'Gandalf is not a Wizard he is actually a Fighter' can absolutely be regarded as a theory, but is well established as one that is intentionally ignorant of the facts in order to be entertaining.

There is nothing mutually exclusive between having a theory and disputing the facts. Theories can be wrong, and it doesn't make them any less a theory. In other words, you could have an infinite amount of answers (theories) to the question of 'What is 1+1', in which there can only be one factual answer and an infinite amount of wrong answers.

Just because you can claim there can be theories doesn't mean the theories aren't wrong, lol.

Also, nice way of taking my quotes out of context and cutting out the part that already addresses the question you're asking. How fucking dishonest lol.

[Ragedaug]

I think non-book readers is really the target audience of the show. People who may have watched the LOTR and Hobbit movies, and otherwise don't know anything about the Second Age.

To be honest, adaptations like this are best enjoyed without the frame of reference in mind. Like every time I think about how awful the M. Night Airbender movie was, I still remember that everyone I've talked to who enjoyed the movie were all people who never watched the original series. They didn't have a frame of reference to compare to, and they were able to enjoy the movie as a standalone thing.

Considering the writers didn't read the reference materials, it makes sense that their target audience didn't either. The thing that irks me in these situations is the studio buying rights to a property for the express purpose of fooling fans of said property to pay money to watch the show they made, knowing full well that those people they fooled to watch their show aren't the audience they wrote the story for.

[rhorle]

He never criticized the PJ movies for 'not keeping the spirit of Tolkien's work'.

What do you think, "the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing", refers to if not the spirit of the work? Rings of Power is not more commercialized or anywhere close to an action-based when compared to the Jackson work. If it isn't worth discussing at all then why do you keep discussing it? The only one shit posting here is yourself who predictably falls back on insults instead of any civil dicussion. Even when you aren't replying to something I've said you can't keep from insulting me.

The One Ring could theoretically be given the title of the Lord of the Rings, and it would be a factually wrong theory in all regards of the narrative and its use of the title.

Factually wrong means that it can't theoretically be given. Pick one. The title can refer to something else or it can't. Gandalf as a fighter is a strawman. As you are trying to quantify the abilities of a Maiar into the medium of D&D classes. The term wizard across the two mediums mean entirely different things. It entirely ignores how Gandalf was a skilled swordsman and the others were said to surpass men and dwarves and be equal with elves with weaponry. Neither pure Wizard or pure Fighter apply and you should know this if you were not blinded by folly.

[Triceron]

Factually wrong means that it can't theoretically be given. Pick one.

Considering I never said theories can't be given, I've already picked it, lol.

Not once have I ever said anything about people being unable to make theories. I've only said that arguments and theories would be made in ignorance.

Like I said, you've been shitposting this entire time. You've come full circle to finally realizing the words that I said had nothing to do with what you intended to argue. You just couldn't fucking understand that I'd always been saying one thing and one thing only, that we have one definitive answer and no other theory would change that fact.

Rings of Power is not more commercialized or anywhere close to an action-based when compared to the Jackson work.

Er, it absolutely is because Amazon has literally commercialized this product for their Prime Video network.

The only one shit posting here is yourself who predictably falls back on insults instead of any civil dicussion.

Shitposting means to post off-topic, false, or offensive contributions to an online forum with the intent to derail the discussion or provoke other participants.

By no means did I instigate any of this discussion against you. You started this by responding to ME, and with arguments that were egregiously out of context and off topic, in an attempt to provoke arguments for the sake of argument. None of these topics that we're carrying on were ever directed at you, let's be clear here.

If I'm posting responses to other topics and you're provoking responses and trying to take the arguments off-topic in order to provoke more arguments, then you are shit posting. I'm merely calling you out on the bad faith shitposting and making the point that you have no interest in having a civil conversation at all. I'm not ignorant of what i'm doing, like I said we're all trolls here. You come at me trolling, I'll troll in response, and call you out on bad faith provocation.

I mean, you already know that if you want a civil conversation, attacking my arguments isn't gonna get you anywhere. If you haven't learned that by now, that's not my fault. This isn't the first time around the rodeo, you haven't been 'fooled once'. I'm not holding a gun to your head saying you have to respond to any of my comments here, so there's no reason for you to blame anyone but yourself on instigating this entire thing.

Let's take a good look at this entire conversation. You've managed to take my entire original argument against the idea of the LOTR referring to the One Ring out of context, and made it about me saying people can't make theories. That's shit posting.

[Triceron]

Considering the writers didn't read the reference materials, it makes sense that their target audience didn't either. The thing that irks me in these situations is the studio buying rights to a property for the express purpose of fooling fans of said property to pay money to watch the show they made, knowing full well that those people they fooled to watch their show aren't the audience they wrote the story for.

The biggest giveaway to me is literally all of the quotes referencing lines directly from the movies, rather than to the books. Stuff like 'follow your nose', which I think was exclusively a movie quote.

[rhorle]

Er, it absolutely is because Amazon has literally commercialized this product for their Prime Video network.

But how is that more commercialization then the Jackson films? No video game spin-offs. No toys. No fast food promotions. Is there any merchandise sold by Amazon? A quick search only pulls up posters sold by third parties while the rest is general LotR merchandise. That is by no means more or egregiously. It is just a studio looking to make money off of something they created. The intent of every adaptation even those Tolkien approved while still alive, right?

Amazon also gave the estate a creative seat at the table and pledged to allow it to protect the legacy of Tolkien. So it doesn't look like the estate feels anything close to what they did for the Jackson films. It was even Christopher that would have been involved in the deals before his death. Though of course he couldn't see the finished product to offer an opinion for or against.

Considering Rings of Power is more egregiously commercialized than Jackson's work, why would I think he would ever find it more agreeable?

[Triceron]

But how is that more commercialization then the Jackson films?

The fact that Peter Jackson didn't just make the LOTR for the sake of promoting the film companies' platform?

Rings of Power exists because we know Jeff Bezos literally made a statement about wanting to create his own "Game of Thrones". I think the motivation to create this series as a response to another existing commercially successful fantasy franchise makes this quite obvious. You can carry on the argument if you wish, but don't expect any more responses from me here, because I already know you're gonna be quite pedantic about it and just argue semantics.

It'll probably end up with you circling back to saying 'Well either it's commercialized or it's faithful to the spirit of Tolkien's work. Pick one' and then you'll ignore any response after that just like you did above with dropping your One Ring bullshit, lol. "At least, not in a way that even PJ's trilogy was considered acceptable by most book readers." had nothing to do with commercialization in the first place, so I'll point out that you've taken my arguments out of context to argue something else entirely, an argument which I'm not even making in the first place considering it was you who brought Christopher Tolkien into this.

If you want to criticize me for also shitposting, then I'll just say here I'll free you of it and end this discussion here and now. I'm not interested in what you think is and isn't a commercial product, and I'm not interested in carrying on your shitposting about this. It doesn't actually have anything to do with anything I've said, which is the completely baffling part about this. If you choose to be ignorant, then that's fine with me

[rhorle]

The fact that Peter Jackson didn't just make the LOTR for the sake of promoting the film companies' platform?

And yet that is the same reasoning New Line Cinema used for taking on the project. To give themselves a higher status in the industry. So even with your weird requirements it still fails.

[Triceron]

And yet that is the same reasoning New Line Cinema used for taking on the project. To give themselves a higher status in the industry. So even with your weird requirements it still fails.

Yes but Christopher Tolkien wasn't referring to the fact that New Line Cinema was looking to give themselves a higher status in the industry, so that's where your analogy fails as well.

Like, I don't know why you're now twisting it to say it's 'my weird requirements'. You aren't talking about how Christopher Tolkien regarded the commercialization of the PJ movies if you're talking about merchandizing or videogame spinoffs, so I'm not sure what the fuck you're actually arguing here.

It just sounds like you have a problem with what Christopher Tolkien said, then try to make it sound like it's my fault he said the things he did, lol. Fucking shitposting again. Let's be clear that this is what it is.

It isn't civil discussion if all you're willing to undermine your own argument just to attack anyone's responses. I might as well ask you why you're even hanging around in this thread since you're obviously not interested in discussing the show at all here.

[rhorle]

Yes but Christopher Tolkien wasn't referring to the fact that New Line Cinema was looking to give themselves a higher status in the industry, so that's where your analogy fails as well.

So that indicates that what he said wouldn't apply to Amazon trying to give themselves a higher status as well. You are really saying your criticism in regards to Amazon has failed. Lmao. I haven't twisted anything. I haven't taken anything out of context. You said that Amazon was more egregious than the Jackson films because they want to make money and give themselves a higher status.