Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

She was already replaced by Jeniffer Solke

Sharon Yquado left Amazon in 2019. If she was "replaced" already in 2018 then she wasn't that important to the project. She was just a lower level running things while the CEO made the big calls. It still points out that your original claim is bogus.

They literally told us the show ill be run by an all female team, brought over from wheel of time and the witcher. Stop using other showrunner leaving to support your argument, house of the dragon was good, rings of power wasn't, he could have left by any reasons but it was not by the show performance.

3 directors being female with only 2 males being replaced is not the show being run by an all female team. There are still male producers and writers.

I'm using the a showrunner leaving HotD because you claim a showrunner being replaced or "reduction in role" is a sign of a failure. So then a show runner leaving the show has to be a sign of failure as well, right? It shows how you lie and have no consistency to your logic. You arbitrary apply it only based on your personal taste on a show. The same things happening to House of the Dragon isn't a sign of failure because you like the show. The same things happening to Rings of power is a sign of failure because you hate the show.

[Syegfryed]

Sharon Yquado left Amazon in 2019. If she was "replaced" already in 2018 then she wasn't that important to the project. She was just a lower level running things while the CEO made the big calls. It still points out that your original claim is bogus.

She spearhead the project, got the ights for amazon, made a list of writers, got replaced, and someone took creative control over it. Again, tis not hard to get.

I'm using the a showrunner leaving HotD because you claim a showrunner being replaced or "reduction in role" is a sign of a failure.

When your show is dogshit, yes, its big sign of it, especially when its TWO, showunners, not just one.

[rhorle]

She spearhead the project, got the ights for amazon, made a list of writers, got replaced, and someone took creative control over it. Again, tis not hard to get.

She didn't leave until after the showrunners were picked. It isn't that hard to get but you don't understand that the article you provide as "proof" happened before she left amazon. Wikipedia says the writing room for the show began mid-February 2019. Sharon Yguado left Amazon in May of 2019 and her wikipedia page indicates she picked the writers and producers.

Your claim has always been bogus and a twisting of the facts to fit your narrative of hate.

"A writers' room for the series had begun work in Santa Monica by mid-February 2019" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lo..._Power#Writing

"She acted as the point creative executive on the project and was responsible for selecting and approving the writers and producers on the show." " In May, 2019, she left Amazon and stayed an executive producer on the show." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Tal_Yguado

When your show is dogshit, yes, its big sign of it, especially when its TWO, showunners, not just one.

So then HotD was bad because they lost a showrunner who was also a director. There is no evidence that both showrunners on Rings of Power have been replaced or have had their role reduced. Again you desperately try to make a rumor reality just to further your own hate. You don't care about facts only your hate and whatever you can use to try and justify it.

[Shadowferal]

Rings Of Power Turned 1 Awesome Tolkien Character Into An Idiot

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has significantly changed many details from J.R.R. Tolkien's works, but the alterations made to Gil-galad's character are certainly among the worst. The High King was only in Lord of the Rings for a brief scene, but his rule is prominent throughout The Silmarillion. For this reason, viewers were eager to see the character finally portrayed on screen in The Rings of Power - but many were disappointed to see someone completely unrecognizable.

In The Silmarillion, Gil-galad is described as the wise and immensely strong High King of the Elves in Middle-earth. He came from important parentage, but that wasn't all that made him worthy of the position. Gil-galad was an excellent military leader, and he bravely fought alongside his soldiers against the likes of Morgoth and Sauron. Additionally, he was one of the few Elven leaders who distrusted Sauron when he was disguised as Annatar. All of this is in stark contrast to what has been seen so far in The Rings of Power, where Gil-galad is nothing more than a clueless politician.

So far in The Rings of Power, Gil-galad has been nothing like his intelligent and cool book counterpart. Instead, he is portrayed as the typical politician – requiring his underlings to write his speeches for him and misleading people into thinking everything is okay. This is especially seen in his relationship with elves, who should have been considered among the most highly respected in Middle-earth. The High King is threatening, condescending, and deceitful toward the legendary elves of Lord of the Rings, like Galadriel and Elrond, effectively making him come across as a downright jerk.

hard to imagine that such a person would one day unite the forces of Elves and Men and sacrifice himself on the battlefield for the cause of taking Sauron and his One Ring down. It's also difficult to imagine that if these things were to happen in future seasons of Rings of Power, audiences would even care. Gil-galad would need to make major changes in season 2 to live up to his canon legacy.

[Askyl]

Rings Of Power Turned 1 Awesome Tolkien Character Into An Idiot

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has significantly changed many details from J.R.R. Tolkien's works, but the alterations made to Gil-galad's character are certainly among the worst. The High King was only in Lord of the Rings for a brief scene, but his rule is prominent throughout The Silmarillion. For this reason, viewers were eager to see the character finally portrayed on screen in The Rings of Power - but many were disappointed to see someone completely unrecognizable.

In The Silmarillion, Gil-galad is described as the wise and immensely strong High King of the Elves in Middle-earth. He came from important parentage, but that wasn't all that made him worthy of the position. Gil-galad was an excellent military leader, and he bravely fought alongside his soldiers against the likes of Morgoth and Sauron. Additionally, he was one of the few Elven leaders who distrusted Sauron when he was disguised as Annatar. All of this is in stark contrast to what has been seen so far in The Rings of Power, where Gil-galad is nothing more than a clueless politician.

So far in The Rings of Power, Gil-galad has been nothing like his intelligent and cool book counterpart. Instead, he is portrayed as the typical politician – requiring his underlings to write his speeches for him and misleading people into thinking everything is okay. This is especially seen in his relationship with elves, who should have been considered among the most highly respected in Middle-earth. The High King is threatening, condescending, and deceitful toward the legendary elves of Lord of the Rings, like Galadriel and Elrond, effectively making him come across as a downright jerk.

hard to imagine that such a person would one day unite the forces of Elves and Men and sacrifice himself on the battlefield for the cause of taking Sauron and his One Ring down. It's also difficult to imagine that if these things were to happen in future seasons of Rings of Power, audiences would even care. Gil-galad would need to make major changes in season 2 to live up to his canon legacy.

For some reason it's only those who want to dislike the show that sees stuff like this, I wonder why!

[Shadowferal]

For some reason it's only those who want to dislike the show that sees stuff like this, I wonder why!

For some reason it's only those who want to like the show that never sees stuff like this. I don't wonder why...because they refuse to read the source material!

[Shadowferal]

*shrugs*
One's personal opinion is better worded by others. That so many agree with it is telling.

[rhorle]

For some reason it's only those who want to like the show that never sees stuff like this. I don't wonder why...because they refuse to read the source material!

Why are you seeking out negative information for something you don't like? Why not just move on to something you do like? It is always strange how people dislike something but make it their life to surround themselves with that which they hate.

[Orby]

I been dwelling over which was worse and I think its safe to say given some time has passed I have come to the conclusion that Rings of Power is better than Wheel of Time, i'll give Rings of Power credit there wasnt enough source material to really run a strong story with the Rings of Power, a lot of stuff in the The Silmarillion is more notes than story, so they had to fill in gaps and make their own story even if the source material that they do use counters a lot of the notes of The Silmarillion. Its not like Hoibbit or Lord of the Rings where theres a full story there.

Meanwhile Wheel of Time hasn't got the same excuse, they literally had source material and a detailed novel and for 75% of the show chose to ignore it and make up their own.

[Triceron]

Why are you seeking out negative information for something you don't like? Why not just move on to something you do like? It is always strange how people dislike something but make it their life to surround themselves with that which they hate.

It's also strange that you care so much about what people like or don't like. Why gatekeep?

[Kumorii]

It's also strange that you care so much about what people like or don't like. Why gatekeep?

Kinda funny when it comes from the 2nd highest poster. Being more than 2x from no.3.



"Your life is surrounding hating this show".

[Triceron]

i'll give Rings of Power credit there wasnt enough source material to really run a strong story with the Rings of Power, a lot of stuff in the The Silmarillion is more notes than story, so they had to fill in gaps and make their own story even if the source material that they do use counters a lot of the notes of The Silmarillion. Its not like Hoibbit or Lord of the Rings where theres a full story there.

That isn't really 'to its credit' since they deliberately chose a timeline that wasn't well fleshed out for a TV series, that spans thousands of years, and decided to condense that story into whatever they presented for Rings of Power. There's plenty of smaller chunk storylines they could tackle instead of the breadth of the Rings of Power. Something like the upcoming animated Rohan series might work better for adaptation.

Also the Silmarillion is material they absolutely do not have rights to, so for them to even be filling in the gaps for it is just taking the story as we know it from the books and tossing it right out. And that kind of questions who this series is really being made for. Even with all the creative liberties that PJ's LOTR took, they were all purposeful to smooth out the story in a way that would be more palettable for a movie-going audience, while what we see in RoP involves plenty of nonsensical plot additions that do not serve the overall 'creation of the Rings of Power' plot at all.

The first season of RoP was just a convoluted mess. They could have taken out entire POV arcs out and the story they chose could have been told in a much more concise way. And there's really no reason to involve sweeping changes to the book narrative, which already outlined the major plot points for what happens in the creation of the Rings. Instead they chose to make RoP into "The Misadventures of Galadriel in the Second Age"

[Kumorii]

Cept I don't hate the show? lol

Oh no, I'm talking about rhorle complaining that the life of a poster with 1/5th of his is apparently "all about hating the show".
The lack of self-reflection and awareness is apparent...but I think most of us already knew that.

I think we can all conclude that rhorles life is all about defending the show; following the same logic.

[Triceron]

Oh no, I'm talking about rhorle complaining that the life of a poster with 1/5th of his is apparently "all about hating the show".
The lack of self-reflection and awareness is apparent...but I think most of us already knew that.

I think we can all conclude that rhorles life is all about defending the show following the same logic.

Yeah, I misread, my bad.

He goes on about being civil but turns around and attacks anyone for expressing opinion, even though he practically refuses to ever discuss opinions himself. To date I don't think he's outright even said if he enjoyed the show or not. He's not interested in actual discussion.

[Kumorii]

Yeah, I misread, my bad.

He goes on about being civil but turns around and attacks anyone for expressing opinion, even though he practically refuses to ever discuss opinions himself. To date I don't think he's outright even said if he enjoyed the show or not. He's not interested in actual discussion.

oh absolutely, it's all about "Putting someone in their place" or "correcting someone's opinion" which is a bizarre obsession to surround ones life with. I never understood the mentality that goes behind "trying to disprove" someone elses opinion, like so many posters do in this thread, or the forum overall.

Had a conversation with a collegue who like RoP where I liked HotD and she didn't like HotD that much. We had no problems whatsoever talking about certain scenes we liked and disliked and for what reason. As an example, the final scene I thought was brilliant; with Aemond and his reaction. Where she thought it was an odd reaction. We both interpret the scene differently based on our own personalities and experiences.

Yet, here, as soon as you voice something it's all about fine combing the statement, maybe even find a detail that was wrong and that somehow exposes your entire opinion as fake. I only see this behavior online. It's not about sharing views, it's about proving another's view as being false.

This obviously goes both ways, but at least here, I see the "disproving haters" being more prevalent.

[Biomega]

I never understood the mentality that goes behind "trying to disprove" someone elses opinion, like so many posters do in this thread, or the forum overall.

Had a conversation with a collegue who like RoP where I liked HotD and she didn't like HotD that much. We had no problems whatsoever talking about certain scenes we liked and disliked and for what reason.

The problem usually comes from people using opinions as if they were arguments. If all you're doing is going "hey I liked A and you liked B, that's great, we both have something we like!" that isn't a problem - but it also isn't how most forum posts play out. Instead, it's "hey I liked A and therefore this show is great", or, more commonly, "I hated A and therefore this show is bad". And then they are pressed for more substance, and their defense is "A is just my opinion man, you can't deny me my opinion!" - forgetting in the process that while "I hated A" absolutely is an opinion, "this show is bad" is NOT, because it implies a reasoned conclusion. Which they failed to provide, and try to substitute for with an opinion.

It's all well and good to say "I don't like this show", but that's not the same thing as going "this show is bad" or "this show has terrible writing" or whatever, all of which imply they're reasoned conclusions and therefore demand reasoned justification in the form of arguments, not opinions. It's the difference between going "I hate chocolate ice cream" and "this shop's chocolate ice cream is terrible" - they're not the same statement, because while no one can argue against you personally not liking chocolate ice cream, they absolutely can argue about the quality of a particular shop's chocolate ice cream based on standards and criteria relating to chocolate ice cream.

Don't confuse opinions and arguments, and don't try and use one as the other. And this absolutely goes both ways, of course.

[Orby]

That isn't really 'to its credit' since they deliberately chose a timeline that wasn't well fleshed out for a TV series, that spans thousands of years, and decided to condense that story into whatever they presented for Rings of Power. There's plenty of smaller chunk storylines they could tackle instead of the breadth of the Rings of Power. Something like the upcoming animated Rohan series might work better for adaptation.

Also the Silmarillion is material they absolutely do not have rights to, so for them to even be filling in the gaps for it is just taking the story as we know it from the books and tossing it right out. And that kind of questions who this series is really being made for. Even with all the creative liberties that PJ's LOTR took, they were all purposeful to smooth out the story in a way that would be more palettable for a movie-going audience, while what we see in RoP involves plenty of nonsensical plot additions that do not serve the overall 'creation of the Rings of Power' plot at all.

The first season of RoP was just a convoluted mess. They could have taken out entire POV arcs out and the story they chose could have been told in a much more concise way. And there's really no reason to involve sweeping changes to the book narrative, which already outlined the major plot points for what happens in the creation of the Rings. Instead they chose to make RoP into "The Misadventures of Galadriel in the Second Age"

I forgot about that, which I have to give them even more credit, they worked with material they didn't even have... actually I am not sure if that's worth credit or the arguments to be made for the show being made at all. Well whatever the point remains :P

[Kumorii]

The problem usually comes from people using opinions as if they were arguments. If all you're doing is going "hey I liked A and you liked B, that's great, we both have something we like!" that isn't a problem - but it also isn't how most forum posts play out. Instead, it's "hey I liked A and therefore this show is great", or, more commonly, "I hated A and therefore this show is bad". And then they are pressed for more substance, and their defense is "A is just my opinion man, you can't deny me my opinion!" - forgetting in the process that while "I hated A" absolutely is an opinion, "this show is bad" is NOT, because it implies a reasoned conclusion. Which they failed to provide, and try to substitute for with an opinion.

It's all well and good to say "I don't like this show", but that's not the same thing as going "this show is bad" or "this show has terrible writing" or whatever, all of which imply they're reasoned conclusions and therefore demand reasoned justification in the form of arguments, not opinions. It's the difference between going "I hate chocolate ice cream" and "this shop's chocolate ice cream is terrible" - they're not the same statement, because while no one can argue against you personally not liking chocolate ice cream, they absolutely can argue about the quality of a particular shop's chocolate ice cream based on standards and criteria relating to chocolate ice cream.

Don't confuse opinions and arguments, and don't try and use one as the other. And this absolutely goes both ways, of course.

That's also something I only see happening on forums. I can't recall when the last time someone took "Hey, this show is garbage" as something else than someones opinion when talking about anything in real life.
It's very normal to say "Holy fucking shit this show was so bad" as an expression of your subjective opinion. Yet if we go by your explanation this would fall into "reasoned conclusions" which you can't do, which I agree with btw. I just don't agree with your jump from normal subjective expressions being taken as objective arguments just because it can be on a technical level.

It's going very much into technicalities and that's a forum specific behavior... and that reaction or interpretation is very much the default, when in real life it's usually not the default. Whenever someone expresses an objective view or claim of something that usually becomes more apparent the longer the discussion goes on OR they explicitly states as such and otherwise it's taken as something subjective.

I'm with you on the technical level. I still find it odd that this is such an obsession on forums or internet in general when it rarely becomes like this in a conversation face to face. I mean, we can take the same example I just gave. She said "His reaction makes no sense" which to me is her subjective opinion based on her previous experiences and such. But would fall into objectiveness or reasoned conclusions based on wording. Nowhere did I think or go "Oh, you use the wrong wording, so now you are making an objective claim so I'm gonna prove you are wrong". Based on context and normal behavior it's understood it's an opinion. On forums the technicalities seems to take precedent over context.

[Triceron]

It's the difference between going "I hate chocolate ice cream" and "this shop's chocolate ice cream is terrible" - they're not the same statement, because while no one can argue against you personally not liking chocolate ice cream, they absolutely can argue about the quality of a particular shop's chocolate ice cream based on standards and criteria relating to chocolate ice cream.

I agree with most of what you've said, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with the quoted part here. You're right that they're not the same statement, you're right that the quality of the chocolate ice cream based on certain standards can also be argued. But those standards are still going to be opinion-driven and subjective, just the same as expressing likes and dislikes. 'Good' and 'Bad' standards of quality are ultimately subjective, and can not be objectively defined by any means. At most, it's a 'commonly accepted standard' based on collective opinions, like mutually agreeing that Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is a good quality dessert even if individual quality standards for Ben and Jerry's may be wildly variable. If someone said they think Ben and Jerry's is bad quality, that's ultimately coming from their opinion and standards. I don't think that can be argued as being a wrong statement just it doesn't abide a collectively agreeable standard.

Even if the statements aren't the same, the general discussion should be the same as if one were discussing opinion, because opinion is being used to judge quality. There's nothing to objectively prove, it's ultimately an expression of opinion, merely stated in a way that sounds objective but really isn't. "Ben and Jerry's ice cream is terrible" isn't usually going to be taken as an objective statement that one could argue against using any objective standards. At most, it's just that individual expressing their personal opinion based on their own standards.

[Biomega]

That's also something I only see happening on forums. I can't recall when the last time someone took "Hey, this show is garbage" as something else than someones opinion when talking about anything in real life.

There's different rules governing written and spoken communication, and different standards. As someone whose job involves critiquing people's arguments, let me tell you that this is by no means exclusive to online forums - not even close. In fact it's VERY prevalent in all kinds of communication, at all sorts of levels from media to politics to academia. Erroneous or outright fallacious epistemology is a widespread problem - it's just that sometimes it's better disguised than others, and the unmasking is also somewhat contingent on the respective audiences. If you were to go through media reports or political statements with a discerning eye and a fine-toothed comb, you'd stumble over this at every turn (and that despite journalists being specifically trained to watch out for the distinctions between reporting and punditry, mind you).

It becomes more pronounced in online forums, perhaps, because it's easier to attack people on an anonymous, low-consequence platform.

It's going very much into technicalities

I don't consider the distinction between argument and opinion a mere technicality. Sound epistemology is a core tenet of rational debate - we NEED to train ourselves to do better, and the prevailing zeitgeist of 'alternative facts' and 'my opinion is worth as much as your fact' and so on isn't doing it any favors. It's in all our best interest to conduct debates properly, at least at the basic level. They should teach this in schools. Very few schools do. The result is that people increasingly have difficulty separating opinion from argument - I see this all the time in the undergrads I teach. They get very easily confused and have trouble properly articulating arguments, especially when they diverge from their own personal opinion (which is why I like to give them assignments that force them to argue that way).

I agree with most of what you've said, but I don't know if I necessarily agree with the quoted part here. You're right that they're not the same statement, you're right that the quality of the chocolate ice cream based on certain standards can also be argued. But those standards are still going to be opinion-driven and subjective, just the same as expressing likes and dislikes. 'Good' and 'Bad' standards of quality are ultimately subjective, and can not be objectively defined by any means.

I didn't say "objective", I said "based on standards and criteria". You can argue about the existence of ANY kind of objective statement, which is philosophically interesting but mostly irrelevant to the point I'm making - my point is that once you've set standards and given criteria, you can make objective assessments relative to those standards. That doesn't mean those standards are themselves objectively right or wrong. They're the premises upon which we agree in order to even have a conversation. The usual analogy for this is the rules of chess: there is nothing objectively defining the rules of chess, they're pretty arbitrary; but once we agree that those are the rules, we can evaluate moves objectively with respect to those rules, i.e. we could say "this move is worse than that move" because it's less likely to lead to a win under the given rules. That says NOTHING about the objectivity of the rules themselves, but that's not relevant to that discussion - we've already (implicitly) agreed on those rules, because otherwise we'd have no discussion.

It's the same in the ice cream example. We can say that e.g. having poorly mixed ice cream, or improperly frozen ice cream, or ice cream where they mixed up salt and sugar etc. etc. is objectively "bad ice cream" with respect to the standards for ice cream that we agree upon (implicitly or explicitly). We may renegotiate those if necessary - but that's not what the debate is about. It's one level down from that.