Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[kenn9530]

lets just put it that if you take away the LoTR from it/rename places and characters it wasn't a good show for me. The dialogue is bad, the story is bad, the acting is mediocre, the costumes range from good to worst cosplay level (gods I hate the Numenorean armor). The music was great sure, and the visuals good (but nothing to blow me away considering the 600 million budget for this season), but the show had so many failings. Add in the fact that it had h a $600 million budget and it is not a good show, especially when you consider it was supposed to be an adaptation for a beloved authors work causing it to only get worse for me.

You are not the one to decide if its a good show or not, your personal feelings have no impact on if a show is considered good or not, the simple facts prove the show is good, most ppl who watched the show liked it and that is proven if you look at all the data, you were never going to get an adaptation that tolkien purests would be happy with, the simple reality is the show has been proven that its good and more ppl like it than not.

Its almost impossible to make a true adaptation from a book to a tv series, even tolkien knew it wasnt possible.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Disney is a corporation that pretends to own "Star Wars". Virtually everyone who was involved in creating Star Wars is no longer involved in Star Wars. Just because a corporation owns a trademark called "Star Wars" does not make them Star Wars. The "sequel trilogy", the Mandalorian, Andor, whatever, is not Star Wars. It is a completely different movie. It's corporate fanfiction. The only thing it has in common is the name slapped on the box. It's pretension. You wouldn't buy tickets to a "Metallica" concert that starred people who weren't Metallica, would you? There are two original members of Metallica: Lars Ulrich and James Hetfield. They have always been in the band. If they are not present, then you do not have Metallica. Star Wars was made by George Lucas. If you do not have George Lucas, you do not have Star Wars, only a product by a corporation that happens to own the name "Star Wars". Tolkien has been dead for a long, long time. The Peter Jackson "Lord of the Rings" movies were fun action flicks, but they're not Lord of the Rings. Final Fantasy XI was the last FF game with the involvement of the OG creators of Sakaguchi, Uematsu, and Koichi Ishii. Everything after is other games with the FF brand name slapped on it, but is not truly Final Fantasy. Suikoden without Junko Kawano is not Suikoden. RWBY without Monty Oum is not RWBY. Berserk without Kentaro Miura is not Berserk.

Reject corporate skinsuits that have no authorship.

[Khaza-R]

Okay, sure.

So what does the Tolkien estate say about Silmarillion?

I think its undeniable that its canon. It is however, incomplete. Tolkien is the ultimate and only source of canon in his literary universe. Or at least that's how his estate treats it.

I think they want readers to interact with the Silmarillion as more of a reference of how Tolkien envisioned the world in the LotR and the Hobbit rather than a literal bible. But that said, no matter how fragmented it is, it was penned by him and you can't really dismiss its usefulness as a tool in trying to match the themes in his work.

[Triceron]

I couldn't care less about what the Tolkien estate says I wasn't questioning the actual canon I was questioning your definition of canon being decided by the fanbase.

But that's my point here.

They aren't exactly defining it. If we're talking about Silmarillion's canonicity, then we're talking about what the fanbase is widely regarding it as. Not what the fanbase decides, what the fanbase is regarding. I am not talking about a collective decision, I want to be clear here. I'm talking about how the fanbase generally regards as being canonical. I think an argument can be made that Silmarillion is widely considered to be canon; not because it was a collective decision but because many people consider it to be.

It's complicated.

Which is exactly what makes it debateable. It's complicated, not as simple as merely dismissing it based on slippery slope.

[rhorle]

Disney is a corporation that pretends to own "Star Wars".

Talk about copium of the highest levels. The creator of Star Wars sold it to Disney. If they don't own it then neither did George Lucas because he intentionally passed the work to a successor. Just because it was sold to a corporation doesn't really change anything. Star Wars is a great example because people were hating on George Lucas for the prequel trilogoy so they didn't even care about authorship. Just as you don't really care about corporate skinsuits.

You are merely looking for a way to dismiss something you don't like for any reason.

[Dhrizzle]

Which is exactly what makes it debateable. It's complicated, not as simple as merely dismissing it based on slippery slope.

Yes but it's debatable because the author and Estate say it's complicated. Deciding how canon a part of the Silmarillion is means figuring out what Tolkien intended for each piece and how it fits together. Even Christopher Tolkien was unsure about whether the works he compiled could be conisdered "canon" and spent a great deal of his life bringing together the rest of his father's work to give greater insights into it. However if he had simply pulled it together and said "this is canon" then it would be canon unless, maybe, you could find a note from JRR saying "this isn't canon."

The main point though is canonicity derives from an authority who can ring fence stuff and say "this is canon." Tolkien's stuff is debatable for a lot of reasons, but in cases like Star Wars and Wheel of Time people have definitively said what's canon and what isn't, and how random internet people feel about it can't change that.

[Syegfryed]

All this talk about canon is to somehow validate the garbage changes in the show, as one can use as excuse to make such nonsense like magic mithrill.

[Triceron]

All this talk about canon is to somehow validate the garbage changes in the show, as one can use as excuse to make such nonsense like magic mithrill.

No one's talking about Rings of Power being canon. Let's keep it that way.

[Syegfryed]

No one's talking about Rings of Power being canon. Let's keep it that way.

I know that, im saying they are using what is canon as an excuse

[rhorle]

I know that, im saying they are using what is canon as an excuse

Those who like the show are not the ones who said canon is whatever fans make it out to be. Stop inventing an argument just you can hate on a side that isn't even relevant to the current discussion.

[Orby]

lets just put it that if you take away the LoTR from it/rename places and characters it wasn't a good show for me. The dialogue is bad, the story is bad, the acting is mediocre, the costumes range from good to worst cosplay level (gods I hate the Numenorean armor). The music was great sure, and the visuals good (but nothing to blow me away considering the 600 million budget for this season), but the show had so many failings. Add in the fact that it had h a $600 million budget and it is not a good show, especially when you consider it was supposed to be an adaptation for a beloved authors work causing it to only get worse for me.

Maybe after Wheel of Time I am more forgiving of Rings of Power, I think I gave WoT a 4/10 and RoP a 5/10. Despite similar issues with both shows, there was far more lasting enjoyment in RoP for me (I use the term 'enjoyment' loosely). I have no intention of watching WoT season 2, Rings of Power at least I want to give another go at season 2 because there was enough to like in the first season to at least make me curious of season 2. If season 2 really is that bad I would stop. I don't like hate watching shit. thats not fun to me. Otherwise I would have continued watching the god awful season 2 of Witcher, which I stopped at on episode 3 lol. I couldn't even rate it cos I didn't finish it :P

[Dhrizzle]

All this talk about canon is to somehow validate the garbage changes in the show, as one can use as excuse to make such nonsense like magic mithrill.

The discussion about canon started because someone claimed to know what actually is canon to Tolkien and continued because it's something I find fascinating and multi-layered

[bledgor]

Maybe after Wheel of Time I am more forgiving of Rings of Power, I think I gave WoT a 4/10 and RoP a 5/10. Despite similar issues with both shows, there was far more lasting enjoyment in RoP for me (I use the term 'enjoyment' loosely). I have no intention of watching WoT season 2, Rings of Power at least I want to give another go at season 2 because there was enough to like in the first season to at least make me curious of season 2. If season 2 really is that bad I would stop. I don't like hate watching shit. thats not fun to me. Otherwise I would have continued watching the god awful season 2 of Witcher, which I stopped at on episode 3 lol. I couldn't even rate it cos I didn't finish it :P

If I am being fair I think I said in an early post that remove it from Tolkien I would give the show a 5/10 so agree with you there, though I might rate WoT lower than you (probably because of the last episode being so bad, the scene with Rand was just so fucking lackluster and the PS2 MAYBE PS 3 graphics really felt bad).

[Orange Joe]

Its really not that deep of a discussion in the first place.

The Tolkien Estate considers the books he wrote and that were published during his life as hard canon. And what they mean is that they want the reader to see them as completed works because that's ultimately what stories that Tolkien felt confident telling and releasing to the world.

Not that his other stories aren't important, but they are ultimately incomplete and shouldn't detract from his previously published work.

You got a link of them saying this?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

But that's my point here.

They aren't exactly defining it.

they have defined a pretty clear canon with the 3 LoTR novels and the hobbit just like Lucas did with his first 6 movies, even selling those rights and withholding others as they are the main canon story’s.

Rather the Silmarillion is part of that or is it’s own canon like the EU was or rather some story’s of it are canon and other aren’t is all up what the estate has said even if I don’t know what that stance is.

but because many people consider it to be.

And that’s what makes this definition of canon meaningless.

many people would likely consider what Jackson did canon many others won’t and say just the word for word novels are, many may take one story from the Silmarillion and apply it while saying other story’s don’t fit, many may say only what Tolkien wrote is canon and things added by his son aren’t, many may say that only what he published is canon and scattered notes don’t count or story’s that didn’t make it into the Silmarillion should count, and while not likely right now many may look at say shadow of modor down the line and say that should be canon because they like it.

If you are saying Canon is what “many” want it to be then canon is every thing and nothing because there are endless groups of “many” wanting different things.

- - - Updated - - -

I know that, im saying they are using what is canon as an excuse

Literally no one talking about canon is talking about RoP.

[Triceron]

Rather the Silmarillion is part of that or is it’s own canon like the EU was or rather some story’s of it are canon and other aren’t is all up what the estate has said even if I don’t know what that stance is.

But that isn't a definitive answer either. There isn't one.

If some experts decide to consider Silmarillion part of the Hobbit and LOTR canon, would they be wrong to do so? Because you happen to see it part of its own canon? I mean, what we're all boiling down to is a series of fan-driven regard for canon. It's a 'I don't know' situation, where it's literally individuals having different regard of what the 'official continuity' really consists of. It's ultimately up to the fans to decide for themselves what the 'some stories' are canon or not means to them, if the authoritative source isn't clearly defining those lines.

If you are saying Canon is what “many” want it to be then canon is every thing and nothing because there are endless groups of “many” wanting different things.

That's the point. Canon is not definitive if the authoritative source is not clearly defining the lines, and even then the authoritative source may not always be correct in certain circumstances. Han shot first is a very clear example of something that is technically canon, but not always recognized as being so within the same fandom. Like, it can legitimately be rejected as being canon due to the way the movie continuity works.

Cuz all I can say is the explanation that Silmarillion could be an EU and in its own canon, is itself a fan-derived conclusion that you're presenting here. If that is one point that you are arguing, then you're expressing your interpretation as a fan. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the canon is in the hands of the fanbase; we aren't talking about you as a fan singularly defining what is canon, rather we are regarding that you are expressing your viewpoint in how the canon is defined and it is just as acceptable as someone else believing the Silmarillion to be absolutely canonical to the other books. There is no singular definition in this case.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

If some experts decide to consider Silmarillion part of the Hobbit and LOTR canon, would they be wrong to do so?

If the estate said other wise, Yes. If they aren't saying its canon then only what they say (Lotr-hobbit) Is canon.

- - - Updated - - -

Post I was going to reply to was delated, but from a quick google It sound's like the Silmarillion was never considered canon to the published works or even parts of it self By his son or at best was "all of it's cannon, not all of it's true" like 40k as far as Tolkien him self was considered.

I set myself therefore to work out a single text, selecting and arranging in such a
way as seemed to me to produce the most coherent and internally self-consistent
narrative. In this work the concluding chapters (from the death of Túrin
Turambar) introduced peculiar difficulties, in that they had remained unchanged
for many years, and were in some respects in serious disharmony with more
developed conceptions in other parts of the book.
A complete consistency (either within the compass of The Silmarillion itself
or between The Silmarillion and other published writings of my father’s) is not
to be looked for, and could only be achieved, if at all, at heavy and needless cost.

my father come to conceive The Silmarillion as a compilation, a
compendious narrative, made long afterwards from sources of great diversity
(poems, and annals, and oral tales) that had survived in agelong tradition; and
this conception has indeed its parallel in the actual history of the book, for a
great deal of earlier prose and poetry does underlie it, and it is to some extent a
compendium in fact and not only in theory.

I'm sure some one who cares more about the works then me would be able to find further info about rather this view changed or not.

[Dhrizzle]

If the estate said other wise, Yes. If they aren't saying its canon then only what they say (Lotr-hobbit) Is canon.

- - - Updated - - -

Post I was going to reply to was delated, but from a quick google It sound's like the Silmarillion was never considered canon to the published works or even parts of it self By his son or at best was "all of it's cannon, not all of it's true" like 40k as far as Tolkien him self was considered.


I'm sure some one who cares more about the works then me would be able to find further info about rather this view changed or not.

What I find wonderful about Tolkien's works is that in the space of a lifetime he provided a snapshot of myths, stories and histories that entire civilisations can take centuries to produce. I do like the idea that all of his published works - and even official adaptations - can be seen as distortions of a "true" history told by one of the peoples of Middle-earth. The Peter Jackson movies for example could be seen as the LotR story as told by warriors like the Rohirrim which is why they concentrate more on the action, ignore the doings of the small people in the Shire and reduce Aragorn to a reluctant king so as not to overshadow Eomer.

After the Silmarillion Christopher Tolkien released 12 other volumes collectively known as the History of Middle-earth (HoMe or HoM-e to fans.) Rather than trying to map the fictional history of Tolkien's lands they explore how JRR started with tales more fairy-story like and developed them into something that resembles more of a "true" history. This is where the role of Sauron is played by the Prince of Cats in the tale of Beren and Luthien (later replaced by a werewolf who then became Sauron in the form of a werewolf) and it's easy to imagine that some race of Men half-remembered the "true" history and filled the gaps in their memory with more fanciful characters.

[Triceron]

Post I was going to reply to was delated, but from a quick google It sound's like the Silmarillion was never considered canon to the published works or even parts of it self By his son or at best was "all of it's cannon, not all of it's true" like 40k as far as Tolkien him self was considered.

I deleted because I found myself arguing points that I didn't have a strong belief of.

Ultimately, the Legendarium not really considered a part of the canon (story continuity) but regarded as Mythology that exists in the universe. Canon would be more of a definition for story continuity, and it seems that what I find is most people would regard the Silmarillion as a collection of 'Legends and tales' that exist, not all of which are true. So in this way, I agree that it's both non-canon in terms of not being considered a direct part of the Hobbit and LOTR story continuity, but also is canon in terms of being 'Legends and tales' that could have existed in Middle Earth.

I'd say that this is an interesting discussion on 'what is canon' nonetheless.

[Rennadrel]

If I am being fair I think I said in an early post that remove it from Tolkien I would give the show a 5/10 so agree with you there, though I might rate WoT lower than you (probably because of the last episode being so bad, the scene with Rand was just so fucking lackluster and the PS2 MAYBE PS 3 graphics really felt bad).

WoT was such an embarrassing abortion that Amazon would be better off just dropping it entirely if they aren't going to replace the writers and showrunner. Rafe is a hack and so are the people working under him. I honestly want someone to just do an animation of WoT, none of this live action bullshit.

I do agree that RoP wouldn't be as ass if it didn't try to use Tolkien's legacy as a crutch, but it is still overall a low quality show as far as the narrative is concerned, not to mention a lot of the character writing is just not very good. Using Tolkien's world and characters just makes it so much worse. It's a 5/10 if it wasn't set in Middle Earth, it's a 3/10 because it is. WoT is invariably worse because in one whole season they managed to fuck up every single facet of the main characters stories.