Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Kumorii]

No, it don't cause I don't see him saying you are wrong in your dislike? Is english not your first language?

No it's not. Not sure how that's relevant either.
Do you want to elaborate on your answers?... you give me nothing to work with here in trying to clarify what's confusing.

I could give you a shorter answer.
When someone says "I don't like this" or "I found this to be bad", the only reason to jump in with "YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG" is to say you are wrong in your opinion.

He does it here:

Unfortunately, they then come in here and try to rationalize their dislike by saying things like "the acting was bad" or "the directing was bad" when by any objective metric these were perfectly fine.

And here:

If you want to instead claim that something was done poorly when it objectively wasn't then you're no longer in the realm of just having an opinion.

And here:

So basically you don't know what you're talking and you believe that you can straight up lie and just pass if off as "just an opinion".

Saying that I'm lying about my 'opinion'. He also claims it's not an opinion, just a disguise, how is that not saying my "opinion" is wrong when he even claim it isn't one?

[Triceron]

No, it don't cause I don't see him saying you are wrong in your dislike? Is english not your first language?

"You are not wrong for disliking it but you are wrong for calling it bad' is a contradictory argument considering both disliking something and calling it bad are equivalently subjective values. Neither which are definable as being right or wrong. These are expressions of opinion.

'You are just disguising it as opinion, you are still are wrong for calling it bad' is an erroneous argument, since the value of 'bad' is still purely subjective, and there isn't any reason why that would be wrong. It's pretty much semantics. Avoiding saying 'You are wrong for disliking it' yet still implying that when any dislike is expressed and worded differently. There is no real objective value to something being 'Good' or 'Bad'.

Even something defined by a general consensus isn't considered objective. 'Bad acting' isn't standardized, even if we have a general common understanding of its meaning outside of personal likes and dislikes. There is no objective standard to 'call someone out' on saying the acting was bad.

[Orange Joe]

"You are not wrong for disliking it but you are wrong for calling it bad' is a contradictory argument considering both disliking something and calling it bad are equivalently subjective values. Neither which are definable as being right or wrong. These are expressions of opinion.

'You are just disguising it as opinion, you are still are wrong for calling it bad' is an erroneous argument, since the value of 'bad' is still purely subjective, and there isn't any reason why that would be wrong. It's pretty much semantics. Avoiding saying 'You are wrong for disliking it' yet still implying that when any dislike is expressed and worded differently. There is no real objective value to something being 'Good' or 'Bad'.

Even something defined by a general consensus isn't considered objective. 'Bad acting' isn't standardized, even if we have a general common understanding of its meaning outside of personal likes and dislikes. There is no objective standard to 'call someone out' on saying the acting was bad.

The irony of the arguments coming out here kinda amazes me. You guys get to rip on anyone that likes it but when the rolls are reverse it's suddenly bad to rip on people......

[Triceron]

The irony of the argument coming out here kinda amazes me. You guys get to rip on anyone that likes it but when the rolls are reverse it's suddenly bad to rip on people......

Anyone gets to rip into anyone. What isn't acceptable is trying to reframe opinion into objective standards and dismissing them for being 'wrong'.

There's no collective 'side' making any of these arguments. It's individuals. And anyone who is arguing whether someone is allowed to even use the words 'good' or 'bad' is merely gatekeeping opinion, really. I'm just explaining why the entire argument is bogus, because there is no objective value to 'good' or 'bad'. People should be free to call things good or bad as they please so long as they frame it as opinion, and not regard it as as some sort of objective standard that can be valued as being 'right' or 'wrong'.

[rhorle]

Saying that I'm lying about my 'opinion'. He also claims it's not an opinion, just a disguise, how is that not saying my "opinion" is wrong when he even claim it isn't one?

What they are saying is that calling it bad acting, when it is not, is no longer just an opinion. It is just a way to justify your dislike with whatever excuse comes to mind. They also said calling something an "opinion" isn't an excuse to say whatever. They haven't said you are wrong for disliking the show. There is truly bad acting but RoP doesn't come close to that. Average? Sure.

That is the distinction they were making. That you are over exaggerating the performance of the actors for whatever reason. Opinions can be wrong but you are not wrong for having one.

[Triceron]

What they are saying is that calling it bad acting, when it is not, is no longer just an opinion. It is just a way to justify your dislike with whatever excuse comes to mind. They also said calling something an "opinion" isn't an excuse to say whatever. They haven't said you are wrong for disliking the show. There is truly bad acting but RoP doesn't come close to that. Average? Sure.

'Bad acting' isn't universally defined though. It's general concensus. RoP's acting hasn't exactly been free from that collective opinion.

https://startefacts.com/news/5-reaso...ding-to-reddit

Something that goes hand-in-hand with the dialogue is of course its delivery. Viewers have noted that the show, although has some rather good performances from much of the cast, falls flat for some of its characters. This has been especially targeted at Galadriel, portrayed by Morfydd Clark. Reddit users have mentioned they consider her delivery bland and wooden. Unable to portray the complicated range of emotions necessary for the part, and instead seems to provide 'random inconsistent face twitching' throughout.

It's not a universal thing where we can just say 'it's average', because whether the acting is good or bad or average still stems from opinion. Here, you're merely expressing that you regard it to be 'not the worst acting I've seen', which is completely valid, but does not subject anyone else's opinion to your personal definition.

Cuz just as you're saying it isn't just an opinion, the fact is it still is. There's also nothing definable as 'truly bad acting', because ultimately that is still opinion. It's all opinion, just a matter of how we regard the consensus.

[bledgor]

Also not good when you have your season finale on the 14th and the following week (17-23) you can't even retain a position in the top 10 of Nielsons, and are middle of the pack on the original category.

https://www.nielsen.com/top-ten/

[rhorle]

Also not good when you have your season finale on the 14th and the following week (17-23) you can't even retain a position in the top 10 of Nielsons, and are middle of the pack on the original category.

That doesn't really say much when season 1-15 of NCIS, Gilmore Girls, or Cocomelon are on the list. A lot of shows drop off once new content stops coming out and it isn't a good barometer of quality.

[kenn9530]

What's the point of discussing with someone that says something like this? That's a straight up lie.

Whats a lie exactly, the show has a good rating and most ppl who have watched are not on the internet moaning so they like it enough not to whine like little girls about it. You obviously are just lying to yourself if you are ignorant to think that more ppl hate the show than like it.

- - - Updated - - -

It takes less than that to call out the fact you haven't provided any proof for it being good.

And I don't have to provide any data for it being bad because I haven't said it was bad. I thought your point was that no one could know whether it was good or bad because of the millions of people in the world who have watched it?

I dont need to provide proof, you have seen the reviews yourself that prove the show is good, a 7/10 rating on average is good you do realise that dont you, 25 million viewers on average watching as the show is released is good you do know that right, and those numbers have increased by a huge amount since the release of the finale.

You dont have anything to back you up if you claim otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Remember, this was the guy who said LOTR was unpopular and 'failure' as "just books", and not popular at all, until the Jackson movie released. (No matter what all the stats on the success of Hobbit/LOTR in the 50 years prior to the PJ movies say.)

Also he continues to insist that Star Citizen is the greatest gift to gaming since Pong.

He's a black-hole-bot of responses on why he's always right and everyone else isn't, so just give up now. Trust me, save yourself the headache. Pick ANYONE ELSE on the forums to argue in a circle with, they will at least be more interesting in their responses .

Its a simple fact the books were never really popular until the movies came out, they may of been popular for a book but not selling the millions and being a billion dollar industry that the films made them into, most of the copies sold after the release of the first film and that is a fact, there is barely any information on book sales mentioned for tolkien books prior to the release of the films. Good luck on always being wrong about things.

[eschatological]

I was hoping you lot would get bored of this and this thread would wind down, but it hasn't. So consider this a warning: stay civil. Subjective taste is exactly that - subjective. Arguments of objective goodness of a piece of media outside of pointing to actual numbers/popularity is a bad faith argument. Even pointing to popularity is not an indication of goodness. It's a debate that has done nothing to further discussion of the show itself but only mired the thread in needless bitching from both ends about the nature of "what is good" and other such inane discussion. Please consider counting to 10 and asking yourself whether you actually need to continue this debate because - while it isn't against the rules of this forum - it's going nowhere and spiraling off into infinity.

[SpaghettiMonk]

https://gamerant.com/rings-of-power-...lkien-beliefs/

A minor point but it got me to rewatch the first 10 min of the series. Made me realize how silly a character Finrod is - "touch the darkness once more" and "A stone can't float cause word salad."

The author basically argues that most heroes in Tolkien have heroic deaths with meaning, and he's pretty much right. You have Fingolfin wounding Morgoth over and over, Finrod saving Beren (which helps him on his journey to get the Silmaril), Fingon and Feanor die in battle with multiple Balrogs. Turgon's death is mostly offscreen but in that battle the focus is on Glorfindel killing the Balrog (and dying in the process). Gil-Galad and Elendil die battling and eventually defeating Morgoth.

And as the author states, these epic deaths are usually a cause for mourning, not revenge quests - like Fingon's death was in the "Battle of Unnumbered Tears". Finrod's death has none of that - he dies in vain chasing Sauron, mostly off screen, in the least epic way possible.

Of course, the real issue here is the innate silliness of the rights battle messing with the whole series, where for some reason they're not allowed to use the history in the Silmarillion but it's ok to make up a completely alternate version that completely conflicts with it (and leaves out major, major details like the Curse of Mandos), and include weird things like Sauron carving a map of Mordor into Finrod's flesh. I mean, it's that and the showrunners' bizarre choice to make the entire story about Galadriel. This series could have (and should have) been written without mentioning Finrod at all - he's not remotely relevant to the Second Age, having died long before the end of the first.

[Xath]

You need to learn that most ppl that have watched the show like it plain and simple.

- - - Updated - - -



You couldnt refute anything because you have nothing.

25 million ppl minimum watching a show it in it first weeks and throughout the whole season is to you considered bad, all the average ratings on the show are 7 or higher, you are obviously clueless on what is considered bad, the show was the number one show throughtout its release and the numbers will only continue to rise.

You have no say on whats a bad show or not because the facts simply dont support you.

A show being bad and you not liking it are 2 completely different things.

- - - Updated - - -



The data is right in your face, takes 2 secs to check several review sites that proves the show is good, you have provided no data proving the show is bad because there is none.

- - - Updated - - -



The show is rated pretty good and most ppl like the show that has watched it, ppl need to accept reality that more ppl enjoy the show than dont.

User reviews don't seem to show that

[kenn9530]

User reviews don't seem to show that

Even the user reviews shows more ppl like it than otherwise, IMBD is probably the site with the highest amount of reviews with nearly 300k and most are putting the show good or higher. RT barely has any user reviews barely even 15% of the reviews of other sites, so if you think one site gives you any credibility you are very mistaken, anything higher than a 6 rating is considered good, the show would have to be rated a 2-3 on average for anyone claiming its bad to be even remotely correct.

User reviews are mostly biased especially when it comes to something that has been a book, because fans will hate on something regardless of it being good or not, so a small amount of bad reviews here and there is not proof of the show being bad.

If a show is rated 7/10 does that not make the show good to more ppl than not, because thats how ratings work, you wouldnt get a 7/10 if it was as bad as you claim.

[rhorle]

User reviews don't seem to show that

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7631058...?ref_=tt_ov_rt

If you eliminate 10's and 1's, to remove potential bias, more appear to like the show then dislike it. 40.8% for 6-9 and 15.6% for 2-5.

[SpaghettiMonk]

Oh, and here's the best part of the "Get revenge for Finrod's death" storyline. Finrod is alive. He was reincarnated in Valinor before the defeat of Morgoth. And Galadriel should know this fact by this part of the story. The Elves in Valinor frequently visited Numenor for thousands of years before the events of the show, so there's definitely a way for a message to get through to the Galadriel.

Utter lack of interest in what the lore says by the showrunners. Amazing. I’m not sure which is funnier - “Galadriel is in a quest to avenge the life of her living brother” or “Durin is so potent he reincarnated himself into his son while he was still alive.”

[Syegfryed]

Oh, and here's the best part of the "Get revenge for Finrod's death" storyline. Finrod is alive. He was reincarnated in Valinor before the defeat of Morgoth. And Galadriel should know this fact by this part of the story. The Elves in Valinor frequently visited Numenor for thousands of years before the events of the show, so there's definitely a way for a message to get through to the Galadriel.

Utter lack of interest in what the lore says by the showrunners. Amazing. I’m not sure which is funnier - “Galadriel is in a quest to avenge the life of her living brother” or “Durin is so potent he reincarnated himself into his son while he was still alive.”

I laughed way too hard about those bits, clearly how they give zero shits about the work they are adapting, the bit of her living brother is more bs when you realize she had other brothers and husband, but apparently only care about one brother

[Triceron]

Durin is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

[SpaghettiMonk]

I'm only 4 minutes in but this guy definitely gets it, seems like a good listen.

Why is the Rings of Power So Hated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiW1_s8S71A

[Triceron]

I'm only 4 minutes in but this guy definitely gets it, seems like a good listen.

Why is the Rings of Power So Hated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiW1_s8S71A

"Pretty sure the problem wasn't that Galadriel was a good fighter, it was that everyone else was incompetent. A whole group of presumably elite elven warriors couldn't handle a troll that she killed in seconds... And that is just one example."

Yep, been saying that since the first episode. It's just poor story telling to have all those Elves literally be worthless the entire time. I get you want to make Galadriel feel exceptional, but you don't do it at the expense of her troops.

[kenn9530]

"Pretty sure the problem wasn't that Galadriel was a good fighter, it was that everyone else was incompetent. A whole group of presumably elite elven warriors couldn't handle a troll that she killed in seconds... And that is just one example."

Yep, been saying that since the first episode. It's just poor story telling to have all those Elves literally be worthless the entire time. I get you want to make Galadriel feel exceptional, but you don't do it at the expense of her troops.

Is every single elve meant to be just a superior fighter and be expected to handle anything that they come across, the elves race is not much different to men they just have some benfits, are they also immune to getting tired or how do you even know these elves even have actual combat experience or even seen a troll to begin with, plenty of factors you have probably never even considered, only a small number of elves can be considered special.