1. #9041
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Which is like trying to convince me that your buddy shouldn't be hung up on his ex-girlfriend after they've broken up for over 5 years, and you can't fathom what rational sense there is in him having that hangup. Well, it's because you don't understand the underlying emotional connection that was created and betrayed, and how that sentiment influences a person's behaviour and can cause them to act irrationally. As I said, just because you choose not to regard a connection doesn't mean there isn't one. There just isn't any connection that makes sense rationally to you.
    No, and since you seem to have a real difficulty with focusing on what I'm saying I'll make this even simpler. I mean, time and time again I've clearly acknowledged the emotional response. Like, literally in every single post. I can't fathom why you think that's a point of contention. But, again, to keep it simple:

    An appropriate analogy for what is being discussed here using the framework you set above would be if your friend decided that ALL women were terrible people BECAUSE his ex broke up with him. The connection, which you are arguing is very much real, is the idea that whatever negative perception he has about his ex is justifiably applied to ALL women. No one in their right mind would agree with or encourage that mentality. I understand WHY someone like that would THINK all women are the same, but that doesn't change the FACT that such a statement is 100%, unequivocally, objectively FALSE.

    The same would apply to any of the following statements:
    - Blizzard did Blitzchung dirty so I KNOW that Diablo 4 is going to be shit because Blizzard
    - I didn't really like Skyrim so I KNOW that the next WoW expansion is going to be a pile of ass because RPG's
    - I had a bad breakup with my ex so I KNOW that all women suck because women
    - Thor4 was a pretty shitty movie so I KNOW that The Flash is going to be a turd because comic book movies
    - That "superfans" promo was super cringey so I KNOW the RoP show is going to be terrible because Amazon

    I could go on and on making nonsensical comparisons that you apparently think are totally valid and no one should point out the obvious absurdity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That doesn't sound irrational to me at all, considering both of them are Amazon products. Doesn't matter if it involves none of the same people, it's still part the same brand and company, and people make decisions based on brand recognition all the time. In this case, we're talking about people who aren't comfortable in supporting a company that, in their experience, offered products they didn't like . Seems quite rational to me.
    Except it's not about brand recognition or sticking it to Amazon because most if not all of these posters would probably agree that those other Amazon produced shows I mentioned (Reacher, The Boys, Legend of Vox Machina, Invincible, etc) are decent to good. No, in this case it's a completely ARBITRARY decision, and again would be just as irrational/misguided/wrong as someone saying "Invincible is a really good Amazon produced adaptation so I KNOW that Rings of Power is going to be great". If everyone that had a negative reaction to the superfans promo decided to boycott ALL Amazon produced content then that is completely different, but that's obviously not the case here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    You realize that the word 'Fan' is a modern contraction of the word 'Fanatic', right?

    Your argument is basically you don't think Fanatics are acting Rationally enough to be considered Fanatics. You understand how ridiculous this argument, right?
    Yeah, that's where the term is derived from but the two don't mean the exact same thing. This kind of goes back to the idea of you trying to gatekeep by suggesting that to be a fan of something you have to think about it a certain way, react about it a certain way, know X amount of lore, etc. And yeah, I haven't called ANYONE'S "fan status" into question in any of these posts. YOU did (again, reference post #9464).
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-02-16 at 07:25 AM.

  2. #9042
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    I understand WHY someone like that would THINK all women are the same, but that doesn't change the FACT that such a statement is 100%, unequivocally, objectively FALSE.
    It's unequivocally false to you, not to the person who feels that way. That's the point here. Are they factually wrong? No, because we aren't talking about facts, we are talking about expressed opinions. It is not a false opinion if they actually believe all women are terrible like their ex; it is a product of their own bias, and it is the framework of their own internal perception of reality and what they consider to be the truth. No difference if we're talking about any type of belief system. This discussion is rooted in perception and opinion; of which none are inherently or objectively wrong. We're not talking about someone calling grass red or saying the earth is flat. We're talking about opinions and reactions to things people are passionate/enthusiastic about, which is basically belief.

    That is why your argument is flawed. There is nothing factual or objective about what you're trying to define as being factual or objective. We're talking about opinions.

    And your criticism is rooted in how certain opinions are contradicting your understanding of rational behavior, and how you personally consider that to be irrational or ridiculous. And I will remind you, this is an expression of your own bias.

    The same would apply to any of the following statements:
    - Blizzard did Blitzchung dirty so I KNOW that Diablo 4 is going to be shit because Blizzard
    - I didn't really like Skyrim so I KNOW that the next WoW expansion is going to be a pile of ass because RPG's
    - I had a bad breakup with my ex so I KNOW that all women suck because women
    - Thor4 was a pretty shitty movie so I KNOW that The Flash is going to be a turd because comic book movies
    - That "superfans" promo was super cringey so I KNOW the RoP show is going to be terrible because Amazon

    I could go on and on making nonsensical comparisons that you apparently think are totally valid and no one should point out the obvious absurdity.
    Which are all perfectly fine examples of opinions people are allowed to have. That you believe they are irrational or absurd or nonsensical is merely your perception of their reactions, and that's just as much driven by your own biases as what you're trying to condemn them for. It's absurd and nonsensical for you to be upset or have any problem with anyone's choice to have an opinion that you may consider to be nonsensical. The fact you feel the need for this to be 'called out' is irrational.

    Except it's not about brand recognition or sticking it to Amazon because most if not all of these posters would probably agree that those other Amazon produced shows I mentioned (Reacher, The Boys, Legend of Vox Machina, Invincible, etc) are decent to good. No, in this case it's a completely ARBITRARY decision, and again would be just as irrational/misguided/wrong as someone saying "Invincible is a really good Amazon produced adaptation so I KNOW that Rings of Power is going to be great". If everyone that had a negative reaction to the superfans promo decided to boycott ALL Amazon produced content then that is completely different, but that's obviously not the case here.
    To be very frank, this analogy is all over the place and over-generalized. There's really nothing for me to comment on here, since I don't recognize anyone making this particular argument, nor do I have any interest in arguing over this particular strawman.

    Yeah, that's where the term is derived from but the two don't mean the exact same thing. This kind of goes back to the idea of you trying to gatekeep by suggesting that to be a fan of something you have to think about it a certain way, react about it a certain way, know X amount of lore, etc. And yeah, I haven't called ANYONE'S "fan status" into question in any of these posts. YOU did (again, reference post #9464).
    I never said anyone had to think or react a certain way. The context of my replies is presenting examples of actions that people have had and what reasons people might react the same way in a similar situation. At no point have I mandated anyone actually having to act or react the way in any certain way.

    And yeah, I haven't called ANYONE'S "fan status" into question in any of these posts. YOU did (again, reference post #9464).
    Yeah, because I was being facetious to your ridiculous attack, which you still seem to be projecting here. If I say 'fans act a certain way' it's not because they are expected to, but rather a point that there is historic precedence.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-16 at 06:32 PM.

  3. #9043
    Herald of the Titans rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It's unequivocally false to you, not to the person who feels that way. That's the point here. Are they factually wrong? No, because we aren't talking about facts, we are talking about expressed opinions. It is not a false opinion if they actually believe all women are terrible like their ex; it is a product of their own bias, and it is the framework of their own internal perception of reality and what they consider to be the truth. No difference if we're talking about any type of belief system.

    That is why your argument is flawed. There is nothing factual or objective about what you're trying to define as being factual or objective. We're talking about opinions.

    And your criticism is rooted in how certain opinions are contradicting your understanding of the facts, and how you personally consider that to be irrational or ridiculous. And I will remind you, this is an expression of your own bias.



    I never said anyone had to think or react a certain way. The context of my replies is presenting examples of actions that people have had and what reasons people might react the same way in a similar situation. At no point have I mandated anyone actually having to act or react the way in any certain way.



    Yeah, because I was being facetious to your ridiculous attack, which you still seem to be projecting here. If I say 'fans act a certain way' it's not because they are expected to, but rather a point that there is precedence.
    i think you're wasting your time engaging here, Adamas has been this exact same way since this thread began, he has failed to comprehend even basic reasoning as to why this project failed from the get go, and it's been made abundantly clear over thousands of posts he is incapable of ratifying the differences between what is fact, what is opinion, and what is a mix of the two, as i sated earlier to another poster, his defence of this show when the marketing campaign first started getting into full swing was that because nobody had seen anything how could 'we' possibly call it bad or expect it to fail, and ignored any sort of precedence that dictated opinion at that time which later after the show released proved to be accurate and correct.

    even if you could jump through every single hoop he puts up and move through every single set of moving goalposts he erects, you still wouldn't get through, even if you satisfied every single demand it still wouldn't be enough.

  4. #9044
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    i think you're wasting your time engaging here,
    We're all wasting our time engaging here. That's all this place is for. If not that, why else would we even be here?

  5. #9045
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Citation very much needed.
    That was not directly what was said, but it was heavily implied yes. It was the part about Elfs, Dwarfs and humans all accepting "the gifts" of Annatar in the books.

    The showrunners found that unbelievable, they figured people would need some kind of pressing need to accept something "so suspicious". That does imply very heavily that they have no faith in the story that Tolkien wrote and it explains why it happened differently in the show.

    The problem is here once again that these baffoons are unable to understand the world that Tolkien build and can only see things from their real-world perspective. A lesson that every kid these days learns is "Do not take candy from a stranger" and they applied this to a fantasy world.

    Our kids learn this because there are deviants in this world who would abuse their innocent want for sweets, but the same does not necessarily have to apply to the LOTR world, because it is a fantasy world in which the author decides if such a mistrust is ingrained in the people or not. Tolkien clearly did not, because his world is a lot more innocent then reality (no sex, very clear lines between good and evil).

    In fact it makes much more sense that the middle-earth people develop a rule like this AFTER Annatars betrayal happens, taking it as the spark for a radical change in thinking. But before that they are accepting the gifts because they did not have the same suspicions that a modern real person would have. And that is unfathomable for the showrunners.

    The showrunners have in many cases shown their inability to seperate reality from the fantasy world they are supposed to work with and this is just one of those instances. The disgusting part is that they disguise their own incompetence to work within the rules of the authors world as a failure in Tolkiens writing.

    Hence @Azsune is quite correct. The runners did think they were improving on Tolkiens writing, because for them there was a plothole at this point. Their failure is to recognize that this plothole only exists in their own minds, because they are unable to leave the constraints of the real world behind.

    Of course, when I say "unable" I might as well say "unwilling" since writing a good story always had to play second fiddle to their message of social reform and virtue signaling that was the priority of the whole project and that goal is much harder to reach if you seperate the world you tell a story about from the reality that you want to influence.

  6. #9046
    Herald of the Titans rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We're all wasting our time engaging here. That's all this place is for. If not that, why else would we even be here?
    when i find an answer to that question i'll get back to you lol

  7. #9047
    Quote Originally Posted by rogoth View Post
    when i find an answer to that question i'll get back to you lol
    Answer?
    This thread holds more entertainment value than the show...

  8. #9048
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    That was not directly what was said, but it was heavily implied yes. It was the part about Elfs, Dwarfs and humans all accepting "the gifts" of Annatar in the books.

    The showrunners found that unbelievable, they figured people would need some kind of pressing need to accept something "so suspicious". That does imply very heavily that they have no faith in the story that Tolkien wrote and it explains why it happened differently in the show.

    The problem is here once again that these baffoons are unable to understand the world that Tolkien build and can only see things from their real-world perspective. A lesson that every kid these days learns is "Do not take candy from a stranger" and they applied this to a fantasy world.

    Our kids learn this because there are deviants in this world who would abuse their innocent want for sweets, but the same does not necessarily have to apply to the LOTR world, because it is a fantasy world in which the author decides if such a mistrust is ingrained in the people or not. Tolkien clearly did not, because his world is a lot more innocent then reality (no sex, very clear lines between good and evil).

    In fact it makes much more sense that the middle-earth people develop a rule like this AFTER Annatars betrayal happens, taking it as the spark for a radical change in thinking. But before that they are accepting the gifts because they did not have the same suspicions that a modern real person would have. And that is unfathomable for the showrunners.

    The showrunners have in many cases shown their inability to seperate reality from the fantasy world they are supposed to work with and this is just one of those instances. The disgusting part is that they disguise their own incompetence to work within the rules of the authors world as a failure in Tolkiens writing.

    Hence @Azsune is quite correct. The runners did think they were improving on Tolkiens writing, because for them there was a plothole at this point. Their failure is to recognize that this plothole only exists in their own minds, because they are unable to leave the constraints of the real world behind.

    Of course, when I say "unable" I might as well say "unwilling" since writing a good story always had to play second fiddle to their message of social reform and virtue signaling that was the priority of the whole project and that goal is much harder to reach if you seperate the world you tell a story about from the reality that you want to influence.
    Can you link the interview you got all this from?

  9. #9049
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    You seem allergic to logic much like Kenn and Rhole (which is my issue with them, not them liking the show), hence why 99% of the time I just ignore you/them. Which is the smart thing to do, so going back to that.
    Why do you want competent people when you use things such as this? They would be above your skill at discussion. All you are interested in is insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you under the guise of "They are illogical".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Our kids learn this because there are deviants in this world who would abuse their innocent want for sweets, but the same does not necessarily have to apply to the LOTR world, because it is a fantasy world in which the author decides if such a mistrust is ingrained in the people or not. Tolkien clearly did not, because his world is a lot more innocent then reality (no sex, very clear lines between good and evil).
    Except Tolkien had some of the Elves not trust Annatar. So he very clearly has those things in his story but they are overlooked so people can attack the show. Strange, right? Not to mention this easily could have been a point that Tolkien would have revised if questioned about it. He already wanted revise all of the The Hobbit and change some core things to his world.


    How could anyone not improve on Tolkien's writing when he left very little of those events? Mr. Jackson did the same thing even though he had a better template. As he took liberties to change things and add or remove characters. Warner Brother's is doing the same thing with the War of the Rhorimm as there is nothing from Tolkien's writing to adapt one for one. It is only a bad thing when people like you need to look for reasons to justify your hatred.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  10. #9050
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    Can you link the interview you got all this from?


    Starts on Minute 15 pretty much. It's from the official Podcats with poor Felicia Day.

    They speak about how the people of middle-earth could make such a "devil's bargain" of accepting the rings and that they would only do so if they were desperate. Otherwise "who would fall for that".

    It shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the text. Annatar has never been perceived as an evil figure before he was revealed as Sauron. That is the entire point of his disguise and why it is a big deal when he looses the power of disguising himself.
    His gifts were seen as nothing but well-meaning gifts until the truth was revealed. No one made a devil's bargain here... they innocently fell for a trick. Not because they are stupid but because they simply did not know better and they do not have the same level of base suspicion that the modern person has.

    That is what I mean: The showrunners were unable to imagine a person without this ingrained suspicion, so they had to fill what they thought of as a plothole or a failure of Tolkien narrative.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Except Tolkien had some of the Elves not trust Annatar. So he very clearly has those things in his story but they are overlooked so people can attack the show. Strange, right? Not to mention this easily could have been a point that Tolkien would have revised if questioned about it. He already wanted revise all of the The Hobbit and change some core things to his world.
    Just because Tolkien revised some things does not mean that he would be fine with someone rewriting entire characters and motivations. I did not know him personally, so who knows. Since we cannot know, I will take what is written as the canon, since these are Tolkiens words. Defending some amateur showrunners with "Maybe Tolkien would have changed this as well" is weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    How could anyone not improve on Tolkien's writing when he left very little of those events? Mr. Jackson did the same thing even though he had a better template. As he took liberties to change things and add or remove characters. Warner Brother's is doing the same thing with the War of the Rhorimm as there is nothing from Tolkien's writing to adapt one for one. It is only a bad thing when people like you need to look for reasons to justify your hatred.
    You are right that it would be possible expand on Tolkien's writing especially in this very open area. The problem is that these showrunners simply do not have the skill or appreciation for the world to do it. Jackson did. Hence why he succeeded where these guys fail.

    I mentioned this before: The skill needed for an author of fantasy media is the ability to create a world and LIVE in it. You need to be able to leave our reality behind to write about how these fantasy worlds work, how the people in them think. Only then can you put it into words that pull a reader into their story and their world.
    The best authors of fantasy all have this skill (Tolkien, Lucas, Martin, Abercrombie to name a few).
    If you do not possess this skill your fanatasy world will end up as nothing but a reflection of our reality with people thinking how we are thinking, despite the world around them not having the implications to make such a thinking possible.

    Our surroundings (our nurture) shapes the way we think and thus people in a different world will inevitably be thinking differently then we do. Assuming they think exactly like us is a big failure in writing.

    Hence I do not need to look for reasons to justify my hate. They are readily apparent if you open your eyes.

  11. #9051
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Just because Tolkien revised some things does not mean that he would be fine with someone rewriting entire characters and motivations. I did not know him personally, so who knows. Since we cannot know, I will take what is written as the canon, since these are Tolkiens words. Defending some amateur showrunners with "Maybe Tolkien would have changed this as well" is weak.
    The "not trusting" his motive was already present in the work. The reason for why is not part of canon. The motivation for why the elves were swayed by "ultimate power in the form of rings" is not. The character motivations are not really part of canon around these events. I'm not defending amateur show runners but just illogical points raised to hate on the show.

    Tolkien maybe changing something is not weak at all. If you were a Tolkien fan as you claim you wouldn't call that weak because it is what he was constantly doing to his story. He was constantly revising things to change stuff and have it fit better as his vision for his work changed over time. It is why he wanted to re-write The Hobbit because it no longer fit the tone of his world. It was dropped and he was advised against it because the "spirit" of the The Hobbit was lost in the early chapters that he re-wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    ]You are right that it would be possible expand on Tolkien's writing especially in this very open area. The problem is that these showrunners simply do not have the skill or appreciation for the world to do it. Jackson did. Hence why he succeeded where these guys fail.
    Not according to the Estate and Tolkien's son. Jackson also had a complete work to go off of and he still improved on Tolkien's story. This is a perfect example of how when people don't like something they hate on things that they wouldn't do if they like it. You like Jackson's work so him improving on Tolkien's work isn't an issue. You hate the sh ow so them improving on his work is an issue. You say you don't need to look for reasons to justify your hate yet create things that only apply to the show while ignoring when it applies to things you like.

    It is also silly to say Tolkien left our world behind when much of his writing reflected his experiences in the world. Not to mention the heavy Christianity themes in his work. Again an example of you ignoring things when you like something but using it as a bad thing when you don't like something. Strange, right?
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  12. #9052
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It is not a false opinion if they actually believe all women are terrible like their ex; it is a product of their own bias, and it is the framework of their own internal perception of reality and what they consider to be the truth.
    Basically, you just don't understand what an opinion is. For most of this "discussion" you didn't even understand what was being argued instead focusing on something that time and time again I said I agreed with, and even still you're not actually refuting anything and instead relying simply on the idea that if someone believes something to be true then it is so. What you're describing as "perceived reality" is what's known as delusion. There very much is such a thing as external reality (and yes, it extends beyond the color of grass) and no matter how hard you want to pretend otherwise, opinions to the contrary are most definitely false opinions.

  13. #9053
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Basically, you just don't understand what an opinion is. For most of this "discussion" you didn't even understand what was being argued instead focusing on something that time and time again I said I agreed with, and even still you're not actually refuting anything and instead relying simply on the idea that if someone believes something to be true then it is so. What you're describing as "perceived reality" is what's known as delusion. There very much is such a thing as external reality (and yes, it extends beyond the color of grass) and no matter how hard you want to pretend otherwise, opinions to the contrary are most definitely false opinions.
    Opinions to the contrary. Contrary to what? Reality is, expressions of feelings and opinions do not have to be rationalized, and they don't have to be 'called out' for lacking rationality.

    We could be discussing the topic of pineapples on pizza, and either way there would be opinions that could be considered 'contrary' depending on what is commonly considered acceptable. It can even be externalized as having a contrary opinion equates to irrationality, if such a belief were strong enough. Would it then be appropriate and rational to 'call people out for liking pineapples on pizza'? No, it wouldn't.

    And that's basically what is happening here. There's no reason why anyone should be fussed about SpaghettiMonk's expression of his opinion, regardless of whether you personally consider it to be rational. There's nothing inherently contrary about his opinion, only a matter of you personally thinking it to be ridiculous; which can be said about anything like thinking pineapples on pizza is ridiculous. It's not justification for 'calling them out'.

    I'll go as far as saying your actions are quite hypocritical to what you aim to preach. If we're talking about how people rationally deal with other people's expression of opinions that we consider 'ridiculous', the rational thing is not to engage or 'call out' those opinions, it's to generally accept that other people's opinions are their own business and there needs no action to be taken. The rational thing is to 'not argue with fools' if you consider them to be foolish. And as I said, there's no reason to 'appeal to rationality' when we're all here to express what we think and feel about a TV show. It's all about talking about a shared interest, whether we like it or not.

    I think you have all the right to call people out as you please, but I will point out that it is the same type of irrationality that you're aiming to condemn.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-17 at 09:28 PM.

  14. #9054
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    They speak about how the people of middle-earth could make such a "devil's bargain" of accepting the rings and that they would only do so if they were desperate. Otherwise "who would fall for that".

    It shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the text. Annatar has never been perceived as an evil figure before he was revealed as Sauron. That is the entire point of his disguise and why it is a big deal when he looses the power of disguising himself.
    His gifts were seen as nothing but well-meaning gifts until the truth was revealed. No one made a devil's bargain here...
    Are you/they talking about the rings that were distributed to men and dwarves? Tolkien never specified that those rings were gifted by Sauron in the form of Annatar. Sauron went to Eregion and demanded the rings, destroying the region when the elves denied him. On the one hand one can assume that Sauron would have HAD to disguise himself to give the rings out after that, but it's not unreasonable to pose the idea that he approached vulnerable targets for those rings with a "devil's bargain". Or maybe it was a bit of both. It's one of the many things that Tolkien left blank so there's plenty of room to flesh out narratives about how the rings were given out.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Opinions to the contrary. Contrary to what?
    Contrary to external reality. It's right there in what you quoted! Are you confused as to what that means?

    Lets take the example of grass since you seem capable of at least wrapping your mind around that one. Someone who is colorblind might not see grass as being green, but that doesn't change the fact that in reality grass reflects light at the wavelength that is universally defined as "green". Their perception might be different because their eyes don't read that wavelength, but reality itself doesn't change. There aren't two realities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    We could be discussing the topic of pineapples on pizza, and either way there would be opinions that could be considered 'contrary' depending on what is commonly considered acceptable. It can even be externalized as having a contrary opinion equates to irrationality, if such a belief were strong enough. Would it then be appropriate and rational to 'call people out for liking pineapples on pizza'? No, it wouldn't.
    Nothing in that analogy corresponds to anything I've been arguing. Pineapple can be put on pizza. Some people like it, others don't. No issues there.

    A more appropriate analogy using this framework would be if someone said "I don't like pineapples, therefore I know I'm not going to like that pepperoni pizza that has no pineapples on it". Are you getting it now? Two unconnected things? A dislike for pineapples being used as an excuse to dislike something that one can unequivocally say has no pineapples? You can dislike pepperoni pizza as well, that's not the problem, but the disconnect is in the WHY.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The rational thing is to 'not argue with fools' if you consider them to be foolish.
    You're right. There is a level of irrationality to participating in these sorts of online discussions because 99% of the time there is no resolution and no one really changes their mind. I'm not above admitting that. Just like Spaghetti did, I too recognize that everyone (including myself) can act irrationally at times, but that was never the issue to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    And as I said, there's no reason to 'appeal to rationality' when we're all here to express what we think and feel about a TV show.
    Yes and no. As I've said time and time again, I have nothing against people liking the show or disliking the show. But like I said before, people generally are bad at explaining WHY they don't like something and often times don't know the difference between stating their opinion and trying to make a statement of fact. For instance (at the risk of opening another can of worms) when someone says "the acting is bad", that's not an opinion like "I didn't like the acting" would be, it's a statement of fact that SHOULD be backed up or just rephrased. Not everything about the arts is subjective. If it were, there's be no such thing as good or skilled actors, for example.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-02-17 at 11:16 PM.

  15. #9055
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Starts on Minute 15 pretty much. It's from the official Podcats with poor Felicia Day.

    They speak about how the people of middle-earth could make such a "devil's bargain" of accepting the rings and that they would only do so if they were desperate. Otherwise "who would fall for that".

    It shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the text. Annatar has never been perceived as an evil figure before he was revealed as Sauron. That is the entire point of his disguise and why it is a big deal when he looses the power of disguising himself.
    His gifts were seen as nothing but well-meaning gifts until the truth was revealed. No one made a devil's bargain here... they innocently fell for a trick. Not because they are stupid but because they simply did not know better and they do not have the same level of base suspicion that the modern person has.

    That is what I mean: The showrunners were unable to imagine a person without this ingrained suspicion, so they had to fill what they thought of as a plothole or a failure of Tolkien narrative.
    The source material they're talking about is a few lines in LotR. You're wrong about Annatar as both Gil-galad and Galadriel were suspicious of him from the start but that's irrelevant as Annatar isn't even mentioned in the texts they have a license for. What they say is they started thinking of motives, looked at how the three Elven rings were used for preservation and the fading of the Elves, and decided they were good aspects to use to put some drama in the story they were telling. Obviously I didn't watch the influencer you linked because I don't want YouTube thinking I'm interested in that sort of culture warrior bullshit, so I don't know how much you got from that video and how much you made up, but your take that the showrunners thought Tolkien was a bad writer because he wasn't taught stranger-danger as a child is unhinged. It's fine to not like what they wrote (I'm not in love with how little interaction there was between Sauron and Celebrimbor) but why make up bullshit?

    Just because Tolkien revised some things does not mean that he would be fine with someone rewriting entire characters and motivations. I did not know him personally, so who knows. Since we cannot know, I will take what is written as the canon, since these are Tolkiens words. Defending some amateur showrunners with "Maybe Tolkien would have changed this as well" is weak.

    You are right that it would be possible expand on Tolkien's writing especially in this very open area. The problem is that these showrunners simply do not have the skill or appreciation for the world to do it. Jackson did. Hence why he succeeded where these guys fail.
    Wow this is two very contradictory stances. First up I like the Jackson movies, but they absolutely butchered what Tolkien wrote in LotR. You're right that we don't know what Tolkien would have thought about someone taking a tiny sliver of his text and expanding it, but there's a letter that is extremely critical (though overall polite) about a treatment for a LotR movie where he takes displeasure at proposals very similar to what happened with the Jackson trilogy.

    I mentioned this before: The skill needed for an author of fantasy media is the ability to create a world and LIVE in it. You need to be able to leave our reality behind to write about how these fantasy worlds work, how the people in them think. Only then can you put it into words that pull a reader into their story and their world.
    The best authors of fantasy all have this skill (Tolkien, Lucas, Martin, Abercrombie to name a few).
    If you do not possess this skill your fanatasy world will end up as nothing but a reflection of our reality with people thinking how we are thinking, despite the world around them not having the implications to make such a thinking possible.
    I honestly don't see the world in RoP as a reflection of our own. There are severe discrepancies with the events Tolkien wrote about in his unpublished works but the actual setting feels extremely Tolkien, pretending the people who made it didn't appreciate what he wrote is nonsense, it absolutely shines through despite the restrictions with licensing and their inexperience with creating a show like this.

  16. #9056
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Lets take the example of grass since you seem capable of at least wrapping your mind around that one. Someone who is colorblind might not see grass as being green, but that doesn't change the fact that in reality grass reflects light at the wavelength that is universally defined as "green". Their perception might be different because their eyes don't read that wavelength, but reality itself doesn't change. There aren't two realities.
    Right.

    And let's contextualize the 'irrational' things you have a problem with. Is it factual that people must have beliefs that are externalized as rational in our world? No. Because plenty of beliefs and opinions are held in the realm of irrationality, or in things that can't be explained in rational terms. Religious belief is one example; you can't rationalize and prove any god exists, but you can still hold a belief in one if that is what you choose to believe. And the concept is only as ridiculous as you percieve it to be - do you believe all people who believe in a theistic religion to be irrational and must be called out for having 'irrational' beliefs? I hope not.


    Nothing in that analogy corresponds to anything I've been arguing. Pineapple can be put on pizza. Some people like it, others don't. No issues there.
    Unless someone gives a reason for why they like or don't like it that you don't deem rational. Ultimately it wouldn't matter, since it's still contextually whether someone likes it or not, and you're right to not have any issues of it regardless of anyone's reasoning. It's really not anyone's concern, right?

    A more appropriate analogy using this framework would be if someone said "I don't like pineapples, therefore I know I'm not going to like that pepperoni pizza that has no pineapples on it". Are you getting it now? Two unconnected things? A dislike for pineapples being used as an excuse to dislike something that one can unequivocally say has no pineapples? You can dislike pepperoni pizza as well, that's not the problem, but the disconnect is in the WHY.
    And ultimately, it doesn't matter or concern us as to why that person chooses to not like pepperoni pizza for those reasons. We aren't that person. We aren't dictating why they should or shouldn't like something for whatever rational-or-irrational reason they have.

    If you are genuinely curious why they expressed an 'irrational opinion that has no connections', then it would be more sensible to open a line of dialogue and ask them to elaborate their position; not just assume their entire opinion is irrational based on what little you understand of it and go on the attack. And that's why I spoke out in the first place; as an attempt to provide some precedence and insight on how fans might connect the Promo and the series in ways you may not have understood there to be any connections. I genuinely am not expressing 'what fans should like/act'.

    You're right. There is a level of irrationality to participating in these sorts of online discussions because 99% of the time there is no resolution and no one really changes their mind. I'm not above admitting that. Just like Spaghetti did, I too recognize that everyone (including myself) can act irrationally at times, but that was never the issue to begin with.
    Perhaps not what it begins with, but ultimately what it almost always ends with. I'm glad you do acknowledge that there is a level of irrationality to this type of discussion. I want to make sure we have some understanding of a common ground, and not just be arguing for the sake of it. As I said, I understand the sentiment you may have to have issues with what others are saying and how they can perceptionally be considered irrational, but I want to make it clear that these issues aren't in the realm of external reality. There is no reality where someone is not allowed to express a perceptively irrational opinion, and must be called out for it. Our reality accepts the irrational opinion of someone who doesn't want to even try Pepperoni Pizza because they had a bad experience with Pineapple Pizza. It may be irrational because it truly is, or there may be a reason which hasn't been properly communicated in a rational way; like maybe the person just doesn't like pizza in general and pineapple was just an excuse given. It may merely be a byproduct of cognitive bias. Either way, there is no inherent problem with the opinion itself, given that it isn't a statement that changes objective reality.


    Yes and no. As I've said time and time again, I have nothing against people liking the show or disliking the show. But like I said before, people generally are bad at explaining WHY they don't like something and often times don't know the difference between stating their opinion and trying to make a statement of fact. For instance (at the risk of opening another can of worms) when someone says "the acting is bad", that's not an opinion like "I didn't like the acting" would be, it's a statement of fact that SHOULD be backed up or just rephrased. Not everything about the arts is subjective. If it were, there's be no such thing as good or skilled actors, for example.
    Then this is more an issue of semantics and miscommunication than anything. It isn't really a problem of 'irrationality', rather the things you expect people to say aren't being communicated properly, for whatever reason. And part of that comes from people expressing their thoughts based on feelings, rather than internalizing and rationalizing what exactly they like/dislike about something. And that's absolutely normal.

    Like if we have this conversation drawn out any longer, I might personally end up being caught up emotional and make arguments or defend arguments that I personally don't even agree with, simply because I end up being defensive or feel there is a particular point to argue for the sake of 'winning'. That is irrational, and it is human behaviour. When feelings get flared, they will influence how we communicate.

    And overall, I think it's fine to argue and be irrational, given that much of what we are discussing is very personal to each individual in different ways which might not be completely expressed in the most rational ways. If there is something particularly egregious, then sure, pointing it out and having a discussion can be fine. But overall, no, it is not considered a rational thing to 'call people out' for their opinions being ridiculous; because that is ultimately a subjective thing altogether. I might suggest asking for elaboration, if you really are looking for a rational explanation in good faith.

    Again, I will point to the example of the irrationality of 'calling out' people having religious beliefs because it can't be externally rationalize in reality. It's basically a form of censorship and gatekeeping. This is where I feel the argument you presented is fundamentally flawed.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-18 at 01:11 AM.

  17. #9057
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,772
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaghettiMonk View Post
    Personally it’s a great place for me to connect with other Tolkien fans who also hated the show. Haven’t yet met one who truly liked it.

    But it’s gotten sidetracked by the white knights.
    That is something funny, no one RLY liked this show, no one, most hated and some think it was ok, because the scenario and CGI that is indeed pretty, some enjoyed to pass the time but its not something they would ever watch again. People who said they did were on the spit of those who didn't like it.

    Its not going to be a show where people will remember good moments or amazing fights or cool performances, is a show that you will remember to mock at it, make fun of it with friends of how bad it is. Like now in this thread, no one is going to talk good, or remember great moments, some people will say they watched and its ok, or it was awful, and move on.

    Every time i have a dnd session someone bring up some dumb shit that happen in the show and we laugh our ass of from it, and this is actually what the show will be remembered for a failure, a mockery and people making fun of it, for ages to come.

    When people say "you don't chose your legacy" this is it, this is their legacy

  18. #9058
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    When people say "you don't chose your legacy" this is it, this is their legacy
    The amusing part is you, and others, are choosing the show as your own legacy as well. There is no reason to hold onto hate. Let it go. Are you telling me that you and your friends have nothing better to talk about then a terrible show?
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  19. #9059
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,772
    No one is "holding onto hate".

    Its just that is funny to make fun of bad stuff, and the show is that bad that we can bring anything up from it and laugh. Especially when someone do some dumb stuff int he campaign.

    Same way, to this very day, we laugh our ass off when we remember the batman suit with nipples

  20. #9060
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    No one is "holding onto hate".
    Constantly talking about it says otherwise. Just like you called She-Hulk bad in another thread but said you would gladly watch it for a third time. You seem to like hate-watching and surrounding you with discussions on those things.

    There are topics in this thread that keep getting discussed and some even appeared prior to the show premiering. The same people are involved. Some of these knew they wouldn't like the show before it premiered, watched it anyways, and still discuss how much they hate it. There are plenty of people that hold on to hate whether or not they can admit it to themselves.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •