Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

I'm very sorry you're unable to follow a thread of posts. Or pretend you cannot. Whatever, idgaf.

You clearly do since you responded and are avoiding answering the question. Lmao.

[Fabinas]

Several of us have him on ignore, I suggest you join the party. I made a mistake two weeks ago and responded to one of his posts but it won’t happen again.

No i am prefectly capable to ignore him without putting him on ignore. I love to chip in the arguments, though.

[Kumorii]

-snip-

Speaking of rewrites.
I'm sure I posted this a long time ago in this thread, but I found this series:


And honestly, I listened this while doing work and such, like an audio book.
been a while so I can't remember the details but I do remember liking his approach.
I'd recommend watching it, unless you already have. Or anyone for that matter.

[rhorle]

Yes, you need to compress the timeline, but you can keep the major plot elements in the right order.

It wouldn't be a very cohesive show if the main characters, Elrond, Gil-Galad, and Elrond won't even appear in some seasons. You are looking for a snapshot of events while Amazon wanted to follow a set of characters. If you are already compressing the time line to make a story work then there is no reason not to go all the way, like Amazon, and compress it to get, and build up, a set of main characters.

[rhorle]

And this show was explicitly trying to be Amazon’s GoT - they just didn’t have the balls to actually take chances like HBO and GoT did.

This is hilarious coming from you. They take a risk it is bad because it isn't Tolkien. Yet at the same time they don't have the balls to try things?

[Triceron]

Next point that really hits home - "if you only have rights to the hobbit and lotr, don't make a 2nd age show" - hard agree here.

Nah. Things would be different if they just did a good job, instead of a mediocre one. The problem of the show wasn't in them trying to tell a new story or tell their own story, since PJ literally does that with the LOTR trilogy and it was fine for it. LOTR trilogy isn't good because it stuck to material, but because first and foremost it was an entertaining movie. Being 'authentic' comes very secondary, even if authenticity is how fans seem to praise it for such. I'd say the Bakshi films were more authentic to the source material, pulling quotes straight from the books, but even they aren't as well received as the PJ films.

To quote John Campea, 'Winning cures everything'. If the show was good, it wouldn't matter if they had the rights to 2nd age or not. Just like no one cares to complain about how Aragorn in PJ's films is so different from the source material. It was good, and that's what matters most.

[rhorle]

This monstrosity changes major, major elements of lore, completely changes the sequence of events, includes major changes to characters (Elendil, Gil-Galad, Galadriel), on and on and on. You're comparing a mountain to a molehill.

Didn't the films change the motivations of Merry and Pippin? What about Arwen's role? What about Gimli?

It is the same mountain but you just look at Rings of Power from the bottom and see the problems while you look at the Jackson films from the top and see little of them.

[Triceron]

Comparing Peter Jackson's adaptation to this is wildly, incredibly inaccurate. Sure, Jackson added some variations but the major story beats are the same - except for the elves fight in Helm's Deep which made no sense. It was a normal amount of deviation for a movie.

I can list dozens of adaptations that are good movies that don't follow their book lore. Would you say the Shining sucks because it didn't follow the book? Because it sure didn't follow a 'normal amount of deviation'.

That is all subjective. However you consider an amount of deviation is personal and subjective to you, and what you consider normal is not objectively defineable standard. It's like saying what the normal amount of sweetness your coffee should be; there is no such a thing. I drink it black, and I wouldn't say it is any more or less normal than how anyone else drinks coffee. There is no 'normal' standard for how much any adaptation chooses to deviate from its original.

This monstrosity changes major, major elements of lore, completely changes the sequence of events, includes major changes to characters (Elendil, Gil-Galad, Galadriel), on and on and on. You're comparing a mountain to a molehill.

And it's terrible because it ended up being a mess that didn't make much sense, even as an adaptation.

If we're talking about individual character travesties, I could just as well say PJ did a crime of major changes too. Glorfindel omitted completely and his parts given to Arwen, Elves appearing at Helms Deep, Merry's sword given no importance which leaves a major plothole in how the Witch King was truly defeated, etc. Scouring of the Shire was left out completely, and it was pretty integral to showing the inescapable and everpresent threat of warfare, which is central to the LOTR story.

The point is, PJ still did it right by making a good movie. It doesn't matter that these changes exist, because the story still flows and the changes work to support the plot, characters and events. That isn't the case with Rings of Power. It being bad has nothing to do with how authentic the adaptation is.

You can say you prefer a more authentic adaptstion, but being authentic has little to do with the actual quality of the story. Otherwise like I said, if authenticity id the main thing that matters you should be praising Bakshi's animated feature over the PJ films for all the EGREGIOUS changes that were made; of which they are many. PJ's films are also mountain of changes, ni matter how you try and cut it. Entire characters were played completely different to how they were in the books, like a much goofier Gimli, Aragorn constantly questioning himself, Eowen fawning over Aragirn, or Faramir introduced as an antagonist. Those are all pretty big deviations to how these characters were in the books.

I'm a firm believer that if Rings of Power were properly edited, it could be way less shitty. That being said, a ton of it needs to be cut entirely.

[Syegfryed]

It's like saying what the normal amount of sweetness your coffee should be; there is no such a thing. .

i will argue that this not the normal amount, and you can't change my mind on it:

[Triceron]

i will argue that this not the normal amount, and you can't change my mind on it:

Yeah, because 'normal' amount of sugar is a personal gauge, not a universal one. This is why it's not very applicable in a discussion about a show's perceived flaws and drawbacks; 'normal amount of authenticity' is purely opinion like saying 'normal amount of sweetness' which highly differs from person to person. Like if you even go to a coffee shop and order a coffee, you wouldn't say 'just give me the normal amount of sugar'. What would that even mean?

- - - Updated - - -

Random person: "The Mona Lisa is a great work of art."
MMOC poster: "That's subjective. I need an objective standard by which to judge a painting to determine whether it is great."

You didn't just express an opinion, you made a statement.

Which is like random person saying Mona Lisa is famous because it surpasses the "normal amount of greatness". What does that even mean? A 'Normal amount of greatness' is not an opinion, it's a statement.

Like i said with the coffee analogy, there is no 'normal amount of sweetness'. It doesn't apply outside of an opinion, yet you phrased it in a way that implies it to be a universal standard of quality that everyone recognizes.

Like saying 'Mocha is bad because it doesn't have the normal amount of sweetness', that is using opinion to make a statement

But to me, there's a big difference between characters being portrayed differently and changing the entire story, and that's the difference between PJ's adaptation and Rings of Power. To take one of your examples - Eowyn fawning over Aragon - this is an incredibly slight change, because it happens in the book, PJ just made it more pronounced in the movie. But to take a bigger change - Arwen replacing Glorfindel - my argument is that there's still the fellowship being chased by the Ringwraiths nearing Rivendell with Frodo wounded by a morgul blade, still an elf coming to rescue them, still some riders in front some in back, still saved by a flood in the river, still Frodo saved by Elrond's healing. The story is almost identical. That's nowhere near "elves are going to die if they don't get regular infusions of light from the trees" being the plot point driving the motivation of the entire elven kingdom, which is what we just got in RoP.

And that is all fine. I agree with your opinions here, the changes are in service of the plot and make sense for the movie adaptation. They're considerable as 'slight changes' because we are prioritizing the greater plot over the individual characters.

The biggest difference to me is that RoP had a terrible mess of a plot. It does lack authenticity, but authenticity isn't the main problem when the Silmarillion didn't have a strong narrative to begin with. The forging of the Rings had no real plot; it was meant to be a mythological/historical account of events. If they made Rings of Power with merely keeping the same events happening, I think it would have been just as shit, because the problems aren't in its authenticity but in how Rings of Power just doesn't make much sense and lacks verisimilitude (believability in the world and story). It wouldn't have been any better if they literally had Annatar there as he was in the books. It would have still been affected by Rings of Power's own poor execution, and glazing over necessary character development and world building.

They can change the characterizations of Galadriel and Gil Galad and Sauron and Celebrimbor, no problem. But if they execute those changes poorly, then that is a problem. And that is what happened. Like even now Elrond and Durin were heavily changed from the books, but arguably they were the best parts of RoP. It was still quite acceptable. If they did the entire show with that level of care and entertainment, I think it would have been fine. But it's always the execution that matters most, and why little things like Durin saying 'give me the meat, raw' just doesn't really work. Not because it lacks authenticity, but because it was just a poor decision overall. Otherwise having them be old friends, having them be intertwined in politics, having the Balrog be hinted at... Those were all fine despite being quite different from the books.

[Triceron]

My problem with the subjective/objective gobbedlygook everyone loves posting here is that it's like you think I don't know it's an opinion. Do I need to automatically preface every single statement with "in my opinion" or put a star afterwards with a reference that says "this is an opinion" to avoid yet another tired "subjective vs. objective" definitional post coming back at me? This website is full of people telling other people that their posts are opinions, and it's just pointless drivel that says nothing.

In the real world, if someone says, "this coffee is good" do you come back at them with "well, that's just your subjective opinion, where's your proof"? But for some reason that conversation happens all the time on the internet.

Yes because you are making statements beyond opinion to explain why you may think 'this coffee is bad'. You're not just saying 'I think it's too sweet', you are saying ' this coffee is beyond the normal threshold of sweetness that it should be', and that's a statement not an opinion. You are using opinion to form a statement rather than just expressing opinion. There is no 'normal threshold for authenticity' if you're trying to explain to me how the the PJ movies differ from RoP. You can say you prefer one over the other because it is more authentic, but that isn't what you said..

If you are being subjective, you should avoid wording things as statements.

[Syegfryed]

Yeah, because 'normal' amount of sugar is a personal gauge, not a universal one.

The pic i showed obviously prove that at least, you can know what is too much, and that is not normal.

- - - Updated - - -

My problem with the subjective/objective gobbedlygook everyone loves posting here is that it's like you think I don't know it's an opinion. Do I need to automatically preface every single statement with "in my opinion" or put a star afterwards with a reference that says "this is an opinion" to avoid yet another tired "subjective vs. objective" definitional post coming back at me? This website is full of people telling other people that their posts are opinions, and it's just pointless drivel that says nothing.

I doesn't matter if you put "in my opinion" or preface everything as such, they will come for ya, and try to say how your reasons of thinking like that wrong.

[rhorle]

I doesn't matter if you put "in my opinion" or preface everything as such, they will come for ya, and try to say how your reasons of thinking like that wrong.

You've called people, and their reasons, wrong before. I'm not sure why it is suddenly a bad thing when it happens to you or those who think like you.

[Triceron]

The pic i showed obviously prove that at least, you can know what is too much, and that is not normal.

You show a cup of sugar, and you say you proved what exactly?

If you want to imply that a cup of sugar is not a normal cup of coffee then I'll happily agree. A cup of Coffee is not a cup of sugar. You're not addressing the conversation at all.

You could show a picture of the Mona Lisa and say that's not a normal cup of coffee too. It has nothing to do with anything, and I'll happily point that out.

[callipygoustp]

This show was horrible.

[Syegfryed]

You show a cup of sugar, and you say you proved what exactly?

That is not the normal amount of sweet in your cup of coffee, cause you barely see the coffee.

There is coffee in there, but, when you shove so much sugar, hey, is that even a cup of coffee anymore? Its thats the normal amount? same thing for movies imo. They changed so much the lore from the show its not even tolkien shit anymore

[Triceron]

That is not the normal amount of sweet in your cup of coffee, cause you barely see the coffee.

No, it is not a cup of coffee at all.

You posted a picture of a cup of sugar and are delusionally calling it coffee. Do you see any coffee in that cup? I don't, so of course no one would call that a 'normal cup of coffee', because it is actually a picture of a cup of sugar

Like what the fuck dude?

You can post a picture of a cat and say 'you can't convince me this is a normal cup of coffee'. It wouldn't be a 'cup of coffee', it is a picture of a cat . No one is arguing that here, I already acknowledge your argument is irrational.

[Syegfryed]

No, it is not a cup of coffee at all.

Well, thats you saying that, your subjective view of the cup.

Do you see any coffee in that cup?

There is lot of things that you can't see as well, and are there.

Like, you don't see Tolkien Galadriel in the show, but, we are told she is there the entire time

[Triceron]

Well, thats you saying that, your subjective view of the cup.

No, I am pointing out the fact you posted a picture of a cup of sugar. It's not an opinion, it is an observable, objective fact. It would be subjective if I said I don't believe there is any coffee in the cup, and I clearly did not express that opinion here.

I can point out objectively that there is no coffee in that picture. Simple as that. There is nothing subjective about that. No one is calling it a cup of coffee, so there's nothing to argue here. You can say it's my subjective opinion, but I'm not expressing any opinion, I'm stating exactly what is observable.

You can say that is a picture of a cat, it doesn't mean it is objectively true. No one is trying to convince you a cup of sugar is a 'normal cup of coffee', lol.

If you're in favour of passing off delusional arguments as your opinion, all the power to you. There's no need to hide it, right?

[Syegfryed]

I can point out objectively that there is no coffee in that picture.

there is on the bottom of it.

I mean i can also make the experiment on my home and take a picture for you, if it makes more easier to understand the analogy