Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Why does it matter to you what I think about rumors being answered?

That is what the topic of the discussion has been. It isn't gate keeping to ask you to explain yourself.

[Triceron]

I mean that rather compounds the point that your the one being dishonest because of last experience with Rhorle.

Just to follow up on this, I find it funny that after I've addressed this you've fallen quite silent. Like you only came out to point out my supposed dishonesty, but not address Rhorle at all.

I wonder what this says about you, Lorgar.

- - - Updated - - -

That is what the topic of the discussion has been. It isn't gate keeping to ask you to explain yourself.

You aren't owed an explanation. All you did was accuse me of expressing an opinion you happen to not agree with, for pages, and failed a gaslighting attempt. All you were looking to do was argue for the sake of arguing, something I've pointed out from the start.

[rhorle]

You aren't owed an explanation, and that has never been the topic considering you've accused me for pages before now asking something you could have easily asked at the start, instead of asking one after a failed gaslighting attempt in trying to tell me my opinion was wrong.

The topic has been about your comment that Amazon's silence is deafening from the start. Things weren't asked at the start because discussions evolve as participants contribute. If you don't wish to discuss then stop responding. This is why I said to put me back on ignore because you always start out with civil discourse but rarely stay there.

[Triceron]

The topic has been about your comment that Amazon's silence is deafening from the start. Things weren't asked at the start because discussions evolve as participants contribute. If you don't wish to discuss then stop responding. This is why I said to put me back on ignore because you always start out with civil discourse but rarely stay there.

It's not civil when your line of argument is "the silence is not deafening" and trying to gaslight an opinion that I've expressed. One that I've clearly explained to you that I am completely fine with mutual disagreement, and that your gaslighting attempts are pointless and trivial.

I don't need to ignore you, I'm fine with breaking down your bullshit right here in front of you. I mean, why would I give up the chance to throw the bullshit coming out of your mouth back in your face? That's half the reason I come to these forums.


Let's see what you've said so far. You made claims that Amazon doesn't say anything about their shows after the series release. After I pointed it out multiple times and you failing to put any effort into looking into something that was easily googled up, you admitted you were wrong.

So how did you come about to make the claim in the first place? Well I can tell you how. You bullshitted it, out of clear ignorance. If you simply weren't aware, then I gave you the benefit of the doubt and provided the example of the Boys. The fact you kept pushing it shows that you chose to double down on your bullshit.

You never confirmed your own claims. You didn't bother looking into it even after I told you about the Boys. You weren't regarding the conversation civilly at all. You were merely doubling down on your blatantly wrong excuse, and using it to perpetuate a pointless argument. At no point did you relent and consider that your own claims may be unconfirmed, you doubled down on it as if it were true. Now, what would happen if I didn't know about the Boys? If I didn't know about Amazon's own actions prior to Rings of Power? What you would be presenting in this argument would effectively be gaslighting with bullshit. Trying to pass off your bullshit as fact. This is dishonest as fuck.

You see? I don't need to put you on ignore at all. I can put stuff up like this right here in front of you. For everyone to acknowledge the bullshit that you're already full of. I already expose your attempts at twisting facts, pushing bullshit as fact, and gaslighting. Simply said, this was never a civil discussion because you came at this in bad faith from the start. You may have fooled Rageonit and Lorgar, but they seem suspiciously silent now and don't seem to be running to your defense.

[rhorle]

It's not civil when your line of argument is "the silence is not deafening" and trying to gaslight an opinion that I've expressed.

Having an opposite opinion is not gaslighting. Why is it that discussion can only happen when everyone agrees with you? If you are fine with mutual disagreement then stop attacking because we disagree on something. Lmao.

[InfiniteCharger]

It does not. Again, look at the date the article about his resignation was posted. You do know how to tell date and time, right? I'm not guessing about him being involved with the deal. I used another source, a person that was invited to Amazon events and got information first-hand, as evidence of him still being in charge when the deal was signed.

Again, the point was the same site you referenced contradicted themselves and you are basing your statement on an article from an unnamed and unverified "source". Whereas the article contradicting this has an actual verified source showing the date of resignation. You seem not to be able to grasp the fact that his being involved was unlikely if he "officially" resigned long before the deal was announced. He may have still had some role at the estate but no longer in authority to affect any plans or activities taking place.

[Triceron]

Having an opposite opinion is not gaslighting. Why is it that discussion can only happen when everyone agrees with you? If you are fine with mutual disagreement then stop attacking because we disagree on something. Lmao.

You literally said this didn't you?

"So then the silence, and lack of addressing them, is not deafening."

That would be gaslighting, because you're trying to establish this as a standard fact, rather than expressing any opinion. You certainly aren't phrasing this in any way that I would consider to be an expression of your opinion. Because if you did, my previous reply should have easily sufficed to prevent your above attempt at gaslighting.


If you don't think it is defeaning then that is your opinion. I'm not quite sure you need to address this as though 'silence is defeaning' is something that has to apply to you.

What exactly are you arguing here, that you don't think the silence is defeaning? Well I am fine you have that opinion. What more do you need here?



There's not much for you to salvage here because you literally dug the hole that you're in right now. I know the way you argue, and I can bait you into falling into your own traps. The fact you even bothered to continue is literally a product of your own ignorance, since I gave you ample room to edge out of the conversation. You have a difference opinion and I already agreed that I'm fine with that. The fact you kept going on clearly shows this isn't just about your opinion, it's about my opinion, and how you literally are attempting to gaslight me into changing it.


You can't hide behind an 'opposite opinion' because you literally didn't express your opinion at all here. At no point in this have you even given your opinion. Let's look through every post you've replied to me; is there any point where you even mention disagreement? No. All you've been doing is trying to prove that every statement I've made is somehow wrong. You actually have no opinion here, since you choose to interrogate rather than discuss opinions. See all the things I would miss out on here if I put you on ignore? lol.

Dishonest as fuck. Assholery abound. Gaslighting, lying, willing ignorance, bad faith. I can call you out on all of this because you literally did all these things, and there are pages of record to put this all into context.

[rhorle]

Again, the point was the same site you referenced contradicted themselves and you are basing your statement on an article from an unnamed and unverified "source".

They did not contradict themselves. Date of resignation doesn't actually contradict when the deal was signed. You have no source but "I say so" for him not being involved. I have at least a source that gives more weight to it. Deals are not required to be announced on the same day they are made. Why is it so hard for you to entertain the idea that he made the Amazon deal as his last act?

- - - Updated - - -

That would be gaslighting, because you're trying to establish this as a standard fact, rather than expressing your own opinion. You certainly aren't phrasing this in any way that I would consider to be an expression of your opinion.

So I can't have an opinion that is counter to yours? That it can't be opinion unless it meets your arbitrary and unstated rules for opinions? Lmao.

[Triceron]

So I can't have an opinion that is counter to yours? That it can't be opinion unless it meets your arbitrary and unstated rules for opinions? Lmao.

You never expressed any opinion.

You never made a disagreement. You only quoted my own statements and tried to prove them to be wrong. So no, it has nothing to do with stifling your ability to express your opinion, because you never provided one to begin with.

You were just being a troll and choosing to harass me for saying something you happen to not agree with. And for whatever reason, you tried to gaslight to get your way.

Who the fuck does that? Well, you apparently.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Just to follow up on this, I find it funny that after I've addressed this you've fallen quite silent. Like you only came out to point out my supposed dishonesty, but not address Rhorle at all.

I wonder what this says about you, Lorgar.

it says that I haven’t checked the media forum since yesterday and your post to other people don’t show up in my notifications, though I see your self important enough to think that they should.

But feel free to link your addressing and rhole being dishonest and I’ll happily say your not the only dishonest poster in the thread.

[rhorle]

You never expressed any opinion.

Not agreeing with your assessment is an opinion.

[Triceron]

Bounding Into Comics also mentions a rumor that Amazon is considering totally rebooting The Rings of Power, attempting a total do-over in season two that may see an entirely different storyline or even characters. Given the hundreds of millions Amazon has committed here, that rumor is either complete nonsense or a desperation move to save the series, and sadly, both seem plausible at this point.[/i]

The full reboot rumor doesn't really have a lot of legs. The Showrunners have come out to talk about S2 and said it's pretty much locked in place with only room for slight changes. Even if they're planning on a 2024 release, there isn't much time in place for a full reboot, nor would it even necessarily make sense from a production standpoint to do so. If they're already committed to the 5 season thing, it's not by dropping everything entirely. This kind of rumor is on the level of fans expecting the Star Wars sequel trilogy to get rebooted after the poor reception of the Last Jedi.

- - - Updated - - -

Not agreeing with your assessment is an opinion.

Yeah but you never disagreed.

You came at this saying it wasn't silence at all because they had podcasts and pre-recorded Mipcom interviews released after the finale. Is this opinion? Nope. This is you trying to argue how I was wrong.

I clarified I was talking in context to them talking about the success of the show. You then provided Variety articles talking about the success of the first two weeks. Is this an expression of your opinion? Again, no it is not. All you did was try to point out how my statement was wrong, still out of context.

If you expressed any opinion, I'd be fine with discussing with you and mutually disagreeing respectfully. At no point did you ever express an actual opinion. Just a spattering of accusations and implications on how I could be wrong.

[rhorle]

Yeah but you never disagreed. You came at this saying it wasn't silence at all

So I didn't disagree but I stated something that didn't agree with your assessment?

[Triceron]

So I didn't disagree but I stated something that didn't agree with your assessment?

You tried to correct a statement I made. That isn't a disagreement. Like if someone said Trump shouldn't be back in office because he caused COVID, I could correct them in saying he didn't actually cause COVID, without disagreeing with the opinion that he shouldn't be back in office.

At no point did you state that you disagreed with anything I said. Right now you still haven't actually confirmed it, just arguing in the possibility that you may have been disagreeing.

And I'm not even sure why, since it's obvious you've never been interested in sharing opinions in the first place.

This wasn't about your opinions. Nothing I said would have stifled your ability to express your own opinion. This was all about your inability to accept my opinion being expressed.

[rhorle]

You tried to correct a statement I made. That isn't a disagreement.

You don't correct something you agree with. Lmao.

[Triceron]

You don't correct something you agree with. Lmao.

You didn't disagree though, did you?

You trying to correct it by saying they weren't silent. Then you agreed with the fact they were silent and then tried to argue that they had the right to be. Where is the disagreement here?

That they weren't silent? Well, can't be the case, since you argued they had the right to be silent. In one way or another, you agree with some aspect of my statements by the mere fact you tried to play both angles. You never provided any actual opinion for what you were arguing in favor of. You kept shifting goal posts to the point where it was obvious you were just trying any angle to get me to change my statements.

Then you tried shifting to say 'Well the silence isn't deafening then', which is pure gaslighting. Where is your opinion in this matter? What did you disagree on here? Nothing, you just blanketly tried to tell me my opinion was wrong.

Like, it was obvious from the start you had no interest in discussing opinions, and only wanted to gaslight me into changing my statements.

[rhorle]

You didn't disagree though, did you?

From the very start it was clear I disagreed with your assessment that the silence is deafening. The Mipcom interview shows they were not silent post-finale so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I agreed they were silent. Of course Amazon has a right to be silent. Why should they be required to address any rumor? Why do they need to talk about performance afterwards?

[Triceron]

From the very start it was clear I disagreed with your assessment that the silence is deafening. The Mipcom interview shows they were not silent post-finale so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I agreed they were silent. Of course Amazon has a right to be silent. Why should they be required to address any rumor? Why do they need to talk about performance afterwards?

And I said you were right to have that opinion, and it had no bearing on anything I've said. I'm no the one who continued the ordeal after that, I expressed many times that there was nothing left to argue.

Even now, what are we circling around? That you don't think it's deafening? That's fine.

So, why do you feel you need to gaslight me and tell me that I can't disagree with your opinion? That I can't believe the silence was deafening?

You're unwilling to accept that I have an opinion that I find their silence on dispelling rumors to be deafening. You figure you need me to justify it by saying Amazon has a right to be silent, or why they require to address an rumor, or asking why they need to talk about performance. Well, what does it matter to you? I've given you ample explanations, you just don't happen to agree with any of them. So we're in disagreement. What more is there that you need explaining? That I disagree that Amazon should remain silent? That I disagree and they should be talking about performance? That I disagree and I think addressing rumors would be good, as HBO did when news came out that the Showrunner for House of the Dragon was leaving after its premiere? If you don't think transparency is important, then we can disagree, and could have left it at that.

But instead you chose to try and gaslight the entire argument.

Again, I can't fix your stupidity. I can't fix your anal retentiveness. All I can do is point it out for you. The rest is up to you.

[rhorle]

You seem to be the one not allowing me to disagree with your opinion. Understand, this was the crux of your argument here. For whatever reason, you can't live with the fact that I expressed it in the first place. At no point did I ever contend with your opinion, and this is still all about you trying to contend mine through thinly veiled attempts at gaslighting.

You spent the last several trying to gatekeep what opinion I can have. You civilly discussed the topic with me before derailing the conversation. That is contention. I have never said you can't have an opinion. I've merely been trying to discuss it with you. Why is that a problem when on a discussion forum?

[Triceron]

You spent the last several trying to gatekeep what opinion I can have.

It's funny how you're trying to spin this to me gatekeeping your opinion when you're the one who took a comment I made to someone else out of its context and applied it to yourself.

Explain to me how I think the 'Silence is deafening' gatekeeps your own opinion?

I've merely been trying to discuss it with you. Why is that a problem when on a discussion forum?

By gaslighting, yes. I clearly pointed that out and why it's a problem. You're just trolling, what is left to discuss here?