Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[NineSpine]

My statement was an exaggeration, but I do think that they tried to marginalize critics as being part of a racist backlash. They shut off reviews and deleted a lot from Amazon and argued they were being review bombed by racists.

In that context, I can imagine that professional reviewers would have a hard time giving a negative review for fear of guilt by association. Easier to give a milquetoast positive review, and I think that contributed to the hugely positive critical rating.

I think a bigger factor was probably that critics are not LOTR fans so they didn’t realize how much of an abomination the series was.

They were being review bombed by racists, and that was after most of the critic reviews came out, so your theory doesn’t make sense.

The problem with something like Rotten Tomatoes is people see an 85% and think the show was beloved. If you look at the actual reviews, most of them just say the show was just ok, and RT counts that as a fresh review.

If I didn’t care about LOTR, I’d probably call the show “just ok” too.

[rhorle]

I think people wanted to see this manipulation. Guessing who is Sauron and who is not, would be great to see that.

How do you show manipulation with out showing who is doing the manipulation? Every Tolkien fan wouldn't need to guess if they had a Lord of Gifts because he is a stand out character. I'm not sure watching daily lives would make compelling TV but do understand some people want more of a documentary of Tolkien's work. They would still need to invent story and intrigue which would obviously diverge from the limited canon Tolkien gave of the events.

[NineSpine]

The silly thing is they are not comparing Sauron, as described and written by Tolkien, to Walter White.

They are comparing their view of Sauron, which was as transparent, bland and one sided as one scheming villain could be, to multi-layered, well defined and conflicted towards his fall WW. The best antihero ever written, following the path to Hell on the base of the noblest intentions.

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

[Fabinas]

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

Sure, whatever.

[Triceron]

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

Nice hot take.

[Fabinas]

Nice hot take.

He thought i'd bite. I know better

[Dhrizzle]

Walter White was a terrible person from day one. He never had noble intentions. He’s not conflicted. He doesn’t struggle with making the bad decision, he just selfishly makes it. Jesse is the conflicted character, and you are supposed to look at him as a reflection of what a person who isn’t a sociopath (like Walter) would look like if brought down the same road.

WW is the most overrated character in television history, but even if he was great you have wildly misunderstood him if you think he had noble intentions.

Ah come on, there was about 5 episodes where he could be considered morally grey. Right until he turned down the job offer from his old partners at Gray Matter.

[NineSpine]

Ah come on, there was about 5 episodes where he could be considered morally grey. Right until he turned down the job offer from his old partners at Gray Matter.

Remember when he straight up murders a dude in cold blood in the first episode?

- - - Updated - - -

Nice hot take.

It’s not a hot take. It’s a basic understanding of the character. Walter White is not a morally grey character. He murders someone immediately.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, whatever.

If you think a cold blooded murderer is a morally grey character, I don’t know what to tell you.

[Fabinas]

Remember when he straight up murders a dude in cold blood in the first episode?

- - - Updated - - -



It’s not a hot take. It’s a basic understanding of the character. Walter White is not a morally grey character. He murders someone immediately.

- - - Updated - - -



If you think a cold blooded murderer is a morally grey character, I don’t know what to tell you.

Then don't. We wouldn't have anything to discuss, anyway.

[Triceron]

It’s not a hot take. It’s a basic understanding of the character. Walter White is not a morally grey character. He murders someone immediately.

I'll give you credit for the blatant gaslighting. Nice try.

[eschatological]

Ah come on, there was about 5 episodes where he could be considered morally grey. Right until he turned down the job offer from his old partners at Gray Matter.

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

[Orby]

this is a good constructive review of where I sit.

[Fabinas]

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

This is so superficial, i can't even start to take it down. Maybe it's probably cause you watched it just the once time that you missed the nuances and the reluctant (at first) steps of his moral descent and his gradual transformation from a weak, dissillusioned, almost pathetic loser to one of the greatest villains in media.

[Triceron]

This is the correct take.

The first murder could be considered self-defense, the guy tries to kill him at the RV in the desert, and then even when he survives Walter's chemical attack, Walter is considering letting him go until the guy takes a shard of plate and tries to kill him again.

I suppose you could argue anyone who decides to treat medical debt with large-scale meth production is morally bad from the get, but I don't consider drug dealing as morally bankrupt as what Walter White becomes. The show is called "Breaking Bad," not "Broke Bad."

FWIW, though, way too many viewers consider WW an antihero or even a hero, well after this (I believe it's third, not fifth) episode where he turns down the job offer. Some believe it even to the end of the show, which is ludicrous. He's a sociopath, and not morally grey at all, by the latest at the end of season 1.

I don't think he was a hero or anti-hero. For that matter I don't think he was a villain either. It wasn't so black and white.

Even if you don't consider him morally grey, he still had enough to keep you guessing. If it were so simple that he was just evil or straight up sociopathic, then there would be no hesitation in him killing certain characters like Jane. But he did hesitate and did want to help her. If he was straight up sociopathic, we wouldn't even consider that to be a dramatic moment, we would have expected him to do it because that's who he is. IMO, it wasn't that simple.

I wouldn't really consider him morally bankrupt, because I think someone who is morally bankrupt wouldn't convince themselves that they are doing some sort of good. They wouldn't have any morals at all, no beliefs to hold on to. Walter White convinced himself that he was the good guy, and how he acted is very different from a true morally bankrupt sociopath who may merely be 'acting good' to fit into society.

I would say he had a twisted sense of morality, one where he justified every action he did as being noble and purposeful.

[eschatological]

I would say he had a twisted sense of morality, one where he justified every action he did as being noble and purposeful.

This is the definition of a sociopath.

[Triceron]

This is the definition of a sociopath.

No, it is not.

A Sociopath has no morals, as in a complete lacking of it. That is not the same as someone who is morally corrupt, who tries to justify their bad actions. As in, they have morals, but they're manipulated and twisted to fit a selfish purpose.

[bledgor]

No, it is not.

A Sociopath has no morals, as in a complete lacking of it. That is not the same as someone who is morally corrupt, who tries to justify their bad actions. As in, they have morals, but they're manipulated and twisted to fit a selfish purpose.

This, but about what I expect from a mod here. On topic I find it sad Hollywood seems so fixated on having "grey" villains with some attempt to justify their actions instead of people who just turn out to be evil.

[eschatological]

No, it is not.

A Sociopath has no morals, as in a complete lacking of it. That is not the same as someone who is morally corrupt, who tries to justify their bad actions. As in, they have morals, but they're manipulated and twisted to fit a selfish purpose.

Sociopaths lack empathy, they don't lack "morality." They make up their own morality to justify their behavior.

To be diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder, you need only 3 of the following 7 criteria (Bold is my emphasis):

1. Failure to conform to social norms concerning lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. Having no regard for the safety of self or others
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
7. Lack of remorse, or inability to feel guilt, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Other symptoms someone with antisocial personality disorder may exhibit are:

Acting charming, kind, or lying to resolve personal goals or means
Exuding a sense of superiority or arrogance
Partaking in impulsivity and being prone to taking risks or engaging in dangerous behavior with little regard for how it may affect others
A lack of empathy or compassionate feelings towards others or a situation
Hostile, aggressive behavior, or violence
Being dishonest or lying to people
A shaky moral code or difficulty following societal norms
Being irresponsible
An inability to maintain healthy relationships
A lack of regard for rules
A potential history of criminal behavior

Walter White didn't delay in killing Jane. He just thought out the decision, and then decided to let her die. He wasn't hesitating because of empathy - if he had any empathy, he would have helped her. But because she was a hindrance to his emotional manipulation of Jesse, he consciously made the decision to let her OD. Every relationship is about serving his own image. Vince Gilligan had to go out of his way in the last season to practically have Bryan Cranston look into the camera and say "I did this for myself, not for my family."

[Triceron]

The thing on Walter White is: what if he didn’t get cancer, and just lived a normal life, which he seemed willing to do at first?

Most people who have a set routine in life continue to live through the routine out of sheer comfort. Whether they recognize or acknowledge there is a need for change, it's usually very difficult to address or change just on the basis of recognition or acknowledgement. It takes a lot of willpower to commit to a drastic change, to be taken out of a 'comfort zone'. Could be anything like breaking out of an addiction, or changing a habit, or even just committing to an exersize routine.

Reaching a low point in life makes it easier to break out of the comfort zone and make radical changes. There's nothing left to lose.

- - - Updated - - -

Walter White didn't delay in killing Jane. He just thought out the decision, and then decided to let her die. He wasn't hesitating because of empathy - if he had any empathy, he would have helped her. But because she was a hindrance to his emotional manipulation of Jesse, he consciously made the decision to let her OD. Every relationship is about serving his own image. Vince Gilligan had to go out of his way in the last season to practically have Bryan Cranston look into the camera and say "I did this for myself, not for my family."

He hesitated. "No no no" does not suggest he immediately let her die. Let's not change the facts of what happened in the show.

You can explain how a sociopath is defined by not having empathy. You can't tell me that Walter White has no empathy if his first instinctive reaction to Jane was to help her. He isn't lacking empathy. He is quick to subdue his emotions and moral compass. He isn't lacking a regard for rules, he is actively justifying his choice to disregard them. At this point in the show, he is morally reprehensible, but clearly not sociopathic.

A sociopath may be defined by having shaky moral code, but you can't just apply this terminology to anyone who has a shaky moral code. A sociopath is a very specific term for someone who literally does not feel guilt or remorse for their actions. Walter White FEELS guilt and remorse. Just because he actively ignores his feelings and acts against his better judgement does not mean he does not have feelings.

This is even indicative of the ending where he genuinely tries to connect back to his family. That's generally not how a sociopath would act if their family no longer served any purpose to them.

-edit-

Looking into this more deeply online, it looks like people attribute WW as being a narcissist, which can often be confused with sociopathy. Both have shaky moral codes, both are willing to do manipulate people for self interests (Narcissist to feed their egos, Sociopaths for the pleasure of it). But the differences become clearer if we recognize that a Narcissist also tries and maintains a good public image and is concerned about what other people think of them, while a sociopath generally does not care about those things at all.

[rhorle]

This, but about what I expect from a mod here. On topic I find it sad Hollywood seems so fixated on having "grey" villains with some attempt to justify their actions instead of people who just turn out to be evil.

It is entertainment. The main characters are supposed to be someone viewers can relate to. Very few people want to watch someone purely evil. Just look at how populer the Netflix Dahmer show was and how they romanticized him a little.

As for a sociopath they don't always lack morals. Their "moral compass" is just off or skewed. It is filtered through their own perspective and unique to them. They key for a sociopath is that they have a weak conscience but it won't stop their behavior. They may feel guilt or remorse but won't be swayed by it. But don't let this stop you from senselessly blaming a mod.