Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[bledgor]

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.

Pretty much how I feel.

[Fencers]

This show did great numbers. One of only 2 original works not produced by Netflix that was in the top 15 streamed shows.

That's terrific performance to just crack the Netflix wall

[Xath]

This show did great numbers. One of only 2 original works not produced by Netflix that was in the top 15 streamed shows.

That's terrific performance to just crack the Netflix wall

Except that none of the netflix shows had the brand power of lotr behind them lol. This show was a fucking joke.

[Shadowferal]

Fir what it was, "Velma" did great numbers too.

[Orby]

despite my overall 'meh' feeling about the show I am still excited to see what Season 2 brings... More Elrond/Durin/Disa road trip please, its the only thing I like about this show (except for the visuals and set design and soundtrack those are great too) XD

- - - Updated - - -

Fir what it was, "Velma" did great numbers too.

only difference is Velma isnt liked by anyone, some people did actually like Rings of Power (shocking I know), at least the ratings reflect it to be a very 'meh - good' show. Depending on which site you are on.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83% - 38%
IMDB: 6.9/10
Amazon: 3.2/5
Metacritic: 71 - 2.5

While it may be a big dumpster fire to some and while I do share some sentiment to that, its overall a very divisive show regardless.

[Hoodzilla]

Fir what it was, "Velma" did great numbers too.

Nah velma faked the numbers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i06_u5XTjw

[Kumorii]

I don't think anyone is surprised it pulled numbers. It's what everyone expected it to do.

[Fencers]

Except that none of the netflix shows had the brand power of lotr behind them lol. This show was a fucking joke.

So? That's great for them. The LOTR brand is what made this an attractive project to fund and made it successful as it was positioned.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm can't say I'm surprised at the fact it did great numbers. Also not surprised over the fact the first reply is someone just saying the series "was a fucking joke" as some sort of retort. Much of the hatred remains irrational, but hey, at least the show was successful!

I only watched the first 2 episodes but I don't really dig this genre. So I stopped watching. I do not care about LOTR at all or the quality of this show.

It was simply a successful show for the company.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah velma faked the numbers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i06_u5XTjw

This is extremely unlikely.

[Khaza-R]

only difference is Velma isnt liked by anyone, some people did actually like Rings of Power (shocking I know), at least the ratings reflect it to be a very 'meh - good' show. Depending on which site you are on.

Rotten Tomatoes: 83% - 38%
IMDB: 6.9/10
Amazon: 3.2/5
Metacritic: 71 - 2.5

While it may be a big dumpster fire to some and while I do share some sentiment to that, its overall a very divisive show regardless.

Tbf, IMDB is owed by Amazon so two of those have a strong bias.

But regardless I agree. RoP is deeply flawed but definitely isn't a 1/10. It also didn't deserve the praise it got from some critics as being "refreshing". So indeed, I think divisive is a great way to put it.

[Rennadrel]

This show did great numbers. One of only 2 original works not produced by Netflix that was in the top 15 streamed shows.

That's terrific performance to just crack the Netflix wall

RoP cost Amazon a billion dollars. The fact that with a budget of more than Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy combined, the first season was a massive failure for views. And that should be embarrassing enough to Bezos to can the people involved in making that shoddy first season. Guess what? He didn't intervene and continues to allow Jennifer Salke to do whatever the fuck she wants when it comes to who she hires to run their shows and we wind up with a couple of literal nobodies for season one of RoP and that was the result. So now she's replacing them with a couple of women who one of was involved in Rafe of Time which was trash too. So daddy Bezos can enjoy another few hundred million being pissed down the drain on season two of this colossal dumpster fire of a show.

And don't take me ripping on this show as me hating it for the sake of hating it. I legitimately want something good set in Tolkien's world, even if it isn't something he explicitly fleshed out himself. Because I love his work and his universe, but it deserves to be respected and that is not what the creators are doing by any stretch. I'd rather see something awful fail than tread on the legacy of a great writer.

[rhorle]

RoP cost Amazon a billion dollars.

To be fair it cost them $250 million for the rights. The first season was $450 million. That is 300 million short of a billion for the combined cost. The first season wasn't a massive failure for views. What metric are you using to get to that point? You say you are not hating on the show just for the sake of it while creating statistics out of your own mind. Strange, right? Also Jackson didn't have to buy the rights because he was working with companies that had already acquired them previously. So any cost comparison should only be the $450 season 1 budget until the costs of more seasons are known.

It is also silly to talk about nobodies when that was the same type of risk that Mr. Jackson was facing. While he wasn't a nobody he only had one big budget film prior to doing Lord of the Rings. That film was also seen as a box office failure (The Frighteners). His King Kong remake was shelved so it didn't get added to his filmography until after LotR. So Amazon going with non-famous people isn't really a big deal. It's not like the famous and well known show runners, directors, and what not don't have their share of hate as well. Mr. Jackson was involved in a few bad movies since Lord of the Rings.

It is amusing that the estate thought Mr. Jackson didn't respect the work of the author yet you and others praise him so highly. Who is wrong in their opinion? The Estate (the son) or a random fan online? This is why things like respect the work mean very little because it is always about what you personally liked and did not like.

[Shadowferal]

LOTR: The Rings of Power Show Budget: Will Cost More Than $1 Billion
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power TV show will cost Amazon over $1 billion, with the first season alone costing a staggering $462 million

Amazon dropped big money on "The Rings of Power"; beyond its hefty production budget, it also spent $250 million just for the rights and millions more on marketing expenses. The total cost for season one has been estimated to be around $1 billion.

Wat?

The rumored $1 billion budget for Amazon's The Rings of Power series may be higher than the actual cost
Hmf...things will change...

[Xath]

So? That's great for them. The LOTR brand is what made this an attractive project to fund and made it successful as it was positioned.

- - - Updated - - -



I only watched the first 2 episodes but I don't really dig this genre. So I stopped watching. I do not care about LOTR at all or the quality of this show.

It was simply a successful show for the company.

- - - Updated - - -



This is extremely unlikely.

Except they have to make up a billion dollar investment is the issue.

[rhorle]

Except they have to make up a billion dollar investment is the issue.

Only a $750 million one. There are marketing costs that are extra since they are still running ads for Rings of Power but I doubt that is equal to $250 million. Amazon can easily make back the investment. Likely even with their other shows that draw customers to the platform. Sure it is a hit, and a temporary loss, but it is silly to think that Amazon sees it as anything but a blip. They made $192 billion in gross profit in 2021

This is of course if you ignore Amazon stating that their investment has more than paid. There is no issue here except for another failed attempt to keep hating on the show.