Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Walter White is a straight up murderer from day one. It's a fucking fact.

I'm not sure how anyone is arguing against the first episode showing him to murder someone. I bet they are taking your day one literally since the first episode takes place over three weeks.

[NineSpine]

It's exactly that, lol. It's a twisting of facts that you're trying to convince everyone of being true.

Is he a murderer? Yes he is. Is he cold blooded? Sure, I'll even give you that. Is he that from day one? Not in the fucking slightest.


Follow the last page or so of conversation. You call him a sociopath. I disagree, I don't think he's a sociopath at all. I would lean more towards him being a Narcissist. And I think Koriani does a pretty good job explaining the certain nuances and differences between the two. Walter White is a complex character. He isn't simply a cold-hearted murderer from the start. That would be more appropriate description for characters like Dexter. And I don't think a character like Dexter is comparable to someone like Walter White.

I'd say even Gus is more indicative of someone who may be sociopathic (perhaps even psychopathic), and in retrospect, I think the show even does well to contrast the differences between these characters. Both Gus and Walter are cold blooded killers, and both hold up squeaky clean public images. Their reasons for doing so are completely different though, and it carries through how they act and manipulate the people around them.

Whether he is a narcissist or a sociopath, he is not morally grey, and that was the point I was responding to.

[Triceron]

Whether he is a narcissist or a sociopath, he is not morally grey, and that was the point I was responding to.

Yet you did call him a sociopath, very specifically. That was the point I was responding to.

[NineSpine]

Yet you did call him a sociopath, very specifically. That was the point I was responding to.

And I would still argue that he is a sociopath from the beginning and you are confusing a sociopath and a psychopath. Gus is a psychopath.

The point is that it is neither here nor there.

[Koriani]

Unfortunately while I watched "Better Call Saul" I never watched Breaking Bad - so I can't comment on the diagnosis part. Or the Sociopath vs. Psychopath thing as it pertains to Walter White. =D

(And dont' start on the YOU NEED TO WATCH... My husband has been drumming it for years and I refuse to go back and watch BB. =D)

[Fabinas]

Unfortunately while I watched "Better Call Saul" I never watched Breaking Bad - so I can't comment on the diagnosis part. Or the Sociopath vs. Psychopath thing as it pertains to Walter White. =D

(And dont' start on the YOU NEED TO WATCH... My husband has been drumming it for years and I refuse to go back and watch BB. =D)

Sorry. YOU DO NEED to watch it. Your husband is right and this ain't mansplaining. BB is the perfect anti-hero journey to villainy.

[Tentim]

One of my earliest comments in this thread is about how people who don’t know the canon will think it’s fine - no argument here.

The issue is, if you do know the canon, it’s a disaster.

I really wish they would let shows and movies stand on their own merits then piggy back off of ips.

It would solve a lot of issues with media atm.

[craigw]

i just re-watched the hobbit trilogy. just fantastic. ill go out and say and i know opinions vary but the lord of the rings double trilogy is better than the first two star wars trilogies.

[Triceron]

I really wish they would let shows and movies stand on their own merits then piggy back off of ips.

It would solve a lot of issues with media atm.

The problem is the show itself doesn't really stand very well on its own.

It's built on the expectation you've watched the PJ movies.

[Dhrizzle]

One of my earliest comments in this thread is about how people who don’t know the canon will think it’s fine - no argument here.

The issue is, if you do know the canon, it’s a disaster.

Out of interest what do you consider "canon" in Tolkien's work?

[Dhrizzle]

Silmarillion.

So a book Tolkienn never considered ready for publishing, that his son wasn't entirely satisfied with due to the editorial choices he had to make and which, even if it was completed to the author's satisfaction, doesn't give an accurate account of the history of Arda?

[Ivanstone]

Unfortunately while I watched "Better Call Saul" I never watched Breaking Bad - so I can't comment on the diagnosis part. Or the Sociopath vs. Psychopath thing as it pertains to Walter White. =D

(And dont' start on the YOU NEED TO WATCH... My husband has been drumming it for years and I refuse to go back and watch BB. =D)

You should just watch BB because it’s very good. The whole sociopathblahblahblah thing is not really relevant.

My friends were on me for years to watch the show. So I watched it in complete secrecy while they berated me. After I caught up I started trolling them on plot points that they would bring up in conversation with each other.

[Triceron]

I find most people's notion of LotR canon to be odd, personally. He was constantly revising the lore, even on the precipice of changing some fairly large things about the published works. Wouldn't his most recent notes, and whatever he was changing, trump anything before it (the stuff people typically use as "canon")be the most updated canon? Though, I suppose people generally just go based on what was officially published while he was alive, rather than posthumous notes. Which is still odd to me, but I get it.

To be fair, I think this can be said about most fiction that has continued for over decades. Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, even Lovecraft all has shaky canon that keeps changing over the years. We practically have to treat every individual project like a multiverse.

[Dhrizzle]

I find most people's notion of LotR canon to be odd, personally. He was constantly revising the lore, even on the precipice of changing some fairly large things about the published works. Wouldn't his most recent notes, and whatever he was changing, trump anything before it (the stuff people typically use as "canon")be the most updated canon? Though, I suppose people generally just go based on what was officially published while he was alive, rather than posthumous notes. Which is still odd to me, but I get it.

To be fair, I think this can be said about most fiction that has continued for over decades. Star Wars, Marvel, Harry Potter, even Lovecraft all has shaky canon that keeps changing over the years. We practically have to treat every individual project like a multiverse.

It goes a little further with Tolkien. His works weren't just stories, they were the stories, myths and legends of fictional peoples and he allowed for misinformation and unreliable narrators. A reason for the lighter tone of the Hobbit compared to LotR is the fact it was Bilbo's story he used to tell to the young Hobbits so the more brutal parts would be toned down. Also in LotR you may remember talk of Bilbo initially lying about how he got the Ring and Gandalf having to bully the truth out of him. This is a reference to early editions of the Hobbit which had a very different encounter between Bilbo and Gollum when the Ring was just a ring. This was retconned in later publications after Tolkien made it part of his grander and more serious Legendarium.

The Silmarillion is the bundle of translated papers Bilbo gives to Frodo along with the Red Book. When Tolkien decided he preferred the idea of a round-world cosmology and orcs being created from Men rather than Elves he made it so the original texts were Sylvan and Mannish legends written by people who didn't know the actual truth.

There's also a late version of Galadriel's story in which she meets Celeborn (then called Teleporno) in Aman and they sail to Middle-earth together in the wake of the Noldor rebellion. Despite it being written quite late it's hard to consider it "canon" as Tolkien said it was written for "philosophical rather than historical reasons."

[Triceron]

Despite it being written quite late it's hard to consider it "canon" as Tolkien said it was written for "philosophical rather than historical reasons."

It's still way more canon than Shadows of Mordor, the Lord of the Rings Tabletop game, or Rings of Power. Even if it's just notes, it's been well accepted as part of the canon by many people. It's not universally accepted canon, but it's far from 'hard to consider'.

Just like there is plenty of non-Lucas Star Wars material that people would consider canon, even if not completely official or having been rendered non-canon. Stuff like Han shot first is non-canon that is still recognized as canon. Even Solo: A Star Wars Story intends to follow Han Shot First as canon, by the director's own admission.

I personally don't see canon as definitive. I'm more particular to the Wikipedia explanation of the term.
In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its fan base

It's not just the official version by way of the author, but by what is accepted as official by the fanbase. I think that's a very nuanced, yet important distinction to make. And of course, one that builds infinite arguments amongst the fanbase on what is and isn't 'official'. The term is flexible enough to recognize that Han Shot First can be considered official canon, from a certain point of view.

[Dhrizzle]

It's still way more canon than Shadows of Mordor, the Lord of the Rings Tabletop game, or Rings of Power. Even if it's just notes, it's been well accepted as part of the canon by many people. It's not universally accepted canon, but it's far from 'hard to consider'.

Just like there is plenty of non-Lucas Star Wars material that people would consider canon, even if not completely official or having been rendered non-canon. Stuff like Han shot first is non-canon that is still recognized as canon. Even Solo: A Star Wars Story intends to follow Han Shot First as canon, by the director's own admission.

It's hard to consider it canon because almost nothing else in his writings agree with Teleporno/Celeborn being Calaquendi and Tolkien himself didn't bother trying to fit it into his story. If you accept that as canon you might as well say Frodo set out from the Shire with a single Hobbit called Marmaduke, Sauron is Lord of Cats and Galadriel is a gnome.

[Triceron]

It's hard to consider it canon because almost nothing else in his writings agree with Teleporno/Celeborn being Calaquendi and Tolkien himself didn't bother trying to fit it into his story.

Just because you don't accept it as canon doesn't mean it's not either. I mean, like I said, the term is flexible and has many different interpretations. There isn't one single canon when we're talking about something as complex and nuanced as Tolkien's universe, which he himself has changed numerous times over the course of decades.

There's plenty of inconsistencies between Hobbit and LOTR which you touched on yourself, and much of it gets retconned.

If you accept that as canon you might as well say Frodo set out from the Shire with a single Hobbit called Marmaduke, Sauron is Lord of Cats and Galadriel is a gnome.

Fans have a right to consider what material from official sources they would consider canon. Your example here is purely fanfiction.

Like I said above, we do have post-Tolkien, official Lord of the Rings authorized material like Shadows of Mordor, LOTR Tabletop and Rings of Power. These are material that are not widely accepted as canon, if at all, by the fanbase. So even if we're talking about something ridiculous like Shelob being a sexy lady, or the individual identities of all nine Nazgul, what is and isn't considered canon is generally based on what the fanbase accepts. Because the term 'canon' doesn't really exist officially. There is no official authority dictating what is canon and what is not; the entire term is centered around how the fanbase categorizes all Tolkien related material and which material accepted as part of the same continuity.

That is why I used the multiverse example. For example, PJ's movies are clearly within their own universe. The Hobbit movies are an official part of that continuity. Rings of Power aims itself to fit itself into that same continuity. Whether Rings of Power is canon to the PJ movies would be up to the fans to decide. Some people do consider it part of the same continuity, some do not.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I personally don't see canon as definitive. I'm more particular to the Wikipedia explanation of the term.
In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its fan base

It's not just the official version by way of the author, but by what is accepted as official by the fanbase. I think that's a very nuanced, yet important distinction to make. And of course, one that builds infinite arguments amongst the fanbase on what is and isn't 'official'. The term is flexible enough to recognize that Han Shot First can be considered official canon, from a certain point of view.

Doesn’t this definition just make canon a meaningless term?

Every thing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be and nothing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be.

[Dhrizzle]

Just because you don't accept it as canon doesn't mean it's not either. I mean, like I said, the term is flexible and has many different interpretations. There isn't one single canon when we're talking about something as complex and nuanced as Tolkien's universe, which he himself has changed numerous times over the course of decades.

There's plenty of inconsistencies between Hobbit and LOTR which you touched on yourself, and much of it gets retconned.

I mean you're basically describing differences between the Hobbit and LOTR at this point. I don't think you're helping your argument much.

Well no, I'm describing early drafts, different stories that had parts reused and abandoned nomenclature - things that Tolkien put aside and decided were not part of the Legendarium much like his story of Galadriel and Teleporno. I agree that "canon" gets incredibly woolly with Tolkien's work as we can't be sure which of his notes he intended to be "true" - like his mixed genealogies that make the Three Emissaries anywhere between the third and twenty-somethingth generation of Elves which clearly can't all be canon - but if the author clearly says something doesn't fit we should be able to agree it isn't canon.

We have Elves as incompetent, arrogant, lazy drunks and talking animals in the Hobbit. Just because it's ridiculous doesn't mean it's not canon. It's as canonical as people are willing to accept it to be, and the explanations of such canon can be explained as being 'Bilbo's far fetched tales'. That's how one would consider the Silmarillion as being canonical in the same context; a historic account written from a long-lost historic perspective, one which may have certain imbellishments, yet is still accepted as true to the history of Tolkien's universe.

As I said earlier there are ways to accept the Silmarillion as canonical but the stories it tells are not true to the history of Arda. For that matter though both the Peter Jackson trilogy and Rings of Power can be considered "canon" but not strictly speaking true, you just have to imagine which peoples would have told the stories that way.

That being said, Rings of Power, Shadows of Mordor/War and the LOTR Table Top games are clearly not accepted as being canon whatsoever by the fanbase. That's the very clear difference we're talking about. The ridiculousness of Hobbits named Marmaduke and Sauron being Lord of Cats has nothing to do with whether they are being accepted as canon or not; it's all to do with what the fanbase would accept as canon. There is no argument being made to accept Marmaduke and Lord of Cats as canon. It's a false equivalency here.

The argument to be made for Marmaduke and the Lord of Cats is they were both written and abandoned by Tolkien the same as the story of Galadriel and Teleporno.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn’t this definition just make canon a meaningless term?

Every thing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be and nothing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be.

I'm sure you can appreciate the idea of a setting where "everything is canon, not everything is true."

[Triceron]

Doesn’t this definition just make canon a meaningless term?

Every thing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be and nothing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be.

It's a loose categorization term. I would see it as relevant as placing any movie into a certain genre, like 'fantasy' or 'science fiction' or 'horror'. Certain movies fit those descriptions very well, certain movies don't at all. Doesn't mean the term is meaningless, since it is useful to determine broad categorizations.

- - - Updated - - -

The argument to be made for Marmaduke and the Lord of Cats is they were both written and abandoned by Tolkien the same as the story of Galadriel and Teleporno.

But you said it yourself, they were abandoned. Never released officially, never recognized by the fanbase as official material. There's nothing to discuss here, it's merely a bad example.

I could just say the same about drunken Elves and talking wolves and trolls. Whether people consider those to be canon or not is really up to them. Some will merely accept it as Bilbo's embellishments, rather than a true accounting of races and creatures within the world itself. Some will merely accept it as a different group or type of Elf, wolf or troll displaying those attributes. Some will not consider it canon at all, and merely ascribe to the latest official depictions of these races. There isn't really one answer to canon here, like saying 'YES ALL TROLLS TALK' or anything like that.