1. #9241
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Pointing out HOW people are being irrational isn't the same as ORDERING them to be a certain way. "You should/shouldn't do that" isn't an order, it's a suggestion. And yeah, acting rationally typically IS better than acting irrationally, but I'm under no illusion that I'm here to tell random people what they HAVE to do.
    I'm not either, which is why I'm confused why you keep bringing this up as an argument.

    No one is appealing to tell anyone what to do. What does this have to do with anything?

    And again, it doesn't matter how someone FEELS about something if it isn't in line with reality.
    What is 'reality'? It's only as relative to how you define it. And that's part of why your argument fringes on gatekeeping. You're defining what rationality means across the board, based on what you personally think makes sense.

    Which is no different if someone said no one should have any fear of horror in movies because it's all fake. That reality is only relative to the person making that statement.

    It seems like you're completely lost here if you think that I'm telling people not to have feelings, opinions, or emotions. That's not the case at all. Like I said (already, VERY clearly) people can have whatever reaction they want to the promo and to the show. Pointing out the absurdity of making connections that don't exist doesn't negate those feelings, and people thinking those connections exist doesn't make it reality (much less something that can't be challenged).
    It makes it real to them, which is why there is a reaction at all.

    There's plenty of external factors that affect one's perception of a show. Whether anyone considers the connections to be rational or not doesn't really matter.

    It'd be no different if we were talking about an actor/actress/showrunner/author making statements about real life politics and having fans have their enjoyment of the fiction affected by it as a result. We could also consider that to be irrational and have no connection, but in reality it all does connect and it does affect people even if we don't think it should. Like even right now, Wired Magazine gave out 1/10 ratings to Hogwarts Legacy on the basis of JK Rowling's real life comments and opinions. Is that right? Is that rational? Doesn't really matter, because my point is it happens, and it's real. Is it excusable? Is it agreeable? Doesn't matter to me, my point is it happened and it continues to happen, because this is our reality, the one that we live in right now.

    I mean, to be very blatantly honest here, most of our social media and how fandoms exist today is perpetuated purely by uninhibited expression of emotion. Whether it's passion or frustration, fans build tribes, and their opinions will flair based on what they perceive to be right or wrong, regardless of what is actually rational to consider. I will even go so far to argue that the mere existence of fandoms (as we recognize them today) is inherently irrational.

    What is NOT subjective though is there being a connection between the quality of the two things. And yeah, that goes both ways if there was anyone here saying that because they thought the promo was great they therefore knew that the show would be great as well. No one is saying that though because pretty much all the irrational arguments and reactions are coming from the far more emotionally driven camp of negativity.
    You just haven't looked deep enough into the thread if you don't think that's been said :P

    I'll remind you that Star Citizen Kenn is in this thread.

    As for it not being a connection, there is a very clear connection that you're simply ignoring. The fact of the matter is, the mere existence of the Promo was insulting to some people. And some people took it personally. It was all about bringing in social media influencers who had little knowledge of Tolkien lore, and talking about how the show is progressive in its modernization and racial diversity. It colors the perception of who Amazon seems to want to market this show around, and what main points they want to promote the show on. Very little about Tolkien's actual legacy and the mythology he'd built.

    You can argue as much as you want that there shouldn't be any connection, and no one should take a promo personally; but that's not the reality we live in. This happens quite often, and is as much a part of any fandom as anything else. It's a general rule that you don't insult the fans that you want watching your show, whether we're talking about the show itself or something external like a creator comment or promotional material. In general, fans are more likely to hold a grudge than merely walk away from something they have a strong passion of.

    I mean even if we take a step out of RoP talk for a sec and just take a look at Blizzard's own history, and how many times they f'd up by doing something controversial that shakes up the entire fanbase and how they react to the games. Something like the Blizzchung fiasco ended up causing people to boycott in droves. Regardless if anyone here wishes to call that rational or irrational, it's our reality that fans end up reacting based on their emotions, because that's part of what being a fan is. It's basically an expression of passion.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-16 at 01:23 AM.

  2. #9242
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    What is 'reality'? It's only as relative to how you define it. And that's part of why your argument fringes on gatekeeping. You're defining what rationality means across the board, based on what you personally think makes sense.

    Which is no different if someone said no one should have any fear of horror in movies because it's all fake. That reality is only relative to the person making that statement.
    ... reality is relative?

    Whaaat the fuuuuuck...

    How many times do I have to explain that it's not about the emotions that the promo or the show elicit. It's about making up connections that don't exist. Reality isn't relative in this case. And yeah, it's just as silly as using WoT to determine how you thought RoP would be (something that has been brought up COUNTLESS times in this thread) if you're not also going to use The Boys, Invincible, Reacher, etc to determing whether RoP was going to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    It'd be no different if we were talking about an actor/actress/showrunner/author making statements about real life politics and having fans have their enjoyment of the fiction affected by it as a result. We could also consider that to be irrational and have no connection, but in reality it all does connect and it does affect people even if we don't think it should. Like even right now, Wired Magazine gave out 1/10 ratings to Hogwarts Legacy on the basis of JK Rowling's real life comments and opinions. Is that right? Is that rational? Doesn't really matter, because my point is it happens, and it's real. Is it excusable? Is it agreeable? Doesn't matter to me, my point is it happened and it continues to happen, because this is our reality, the one that we live in right now.
    So call them out! Make it a point of discussion if you feel like there's something to be said. Again, what's your endgame here? To make this forum a place where everyone just regurgitates whatever delusional ideas they have and no one is allowed to respond unless they agree wholeheartedly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'll remind you that Star Citizen Kenn is in this thread.
    Was that the poster that was getting into arguments with equally dumb posters who were all trying to determine the quality of the show by tallying up good/bad reviews? Yeah, that argument was stupid as well. And it was met with equally dumb arguments on the opposite side so if that is indeed the same poster then it's kind of a wash on that one. The majority of the positive posts I noticed were on the order of "it was fine, not that bad, could have improved in these aspects, etc". Meanwhile I could list out about a dozen posters who were decrying the show before it ever aired based on nothing but racist and anti-diversity narratives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I mean even if we take a step out of RoP talk for a sec and just take a look at Blizzard's own history, and how many times they f'd up by doing something controversial that shakes up the entire fanbase and how they react to the games. Something like the Blizzchung fiasco ended up causing people to boycott in droves. Regardless if anyone here wishes to call that rational or irrational, it's our reality that fans end up reacting based on their emotions, because that's part of what being a fan is. It's basically an expression of passion.
    But that's not the same at all. Boycotting the game because of the Blizzchung thing didn't involve people suddenly saying "hey Blizzard did this shitty thing over here, therefore the game that I've been playing is also now suddenly shitty". No, it was simply a decision on whether or not to support the product over here because of what the company did over there. You see the difference?

    If someone said "I didn't like what Amazon did with this promo therefore I'm not going to support their product" that makes sense. The irrational response was for people to essentially say "I don't like this Amazon product so I'm just going to assume that this other Amazon product that involves none of the same people is also bad".

    A more apt analogy would be to argue that because of the Blizzchung thing, you KNOW that Diablo 4 is going to suck. That's literally what is being said with "super fans" and "RoP" being substituted with two other unconnected things. Sure they both involve Blizzard, but no one who had a hand in one had a hand in the other. There is no connection. I don't know how to make it any easier to understand.

    If YOU don't want to call people out on saying ridiculous things that's up to you, but if you think it's just wrong to point out the irrationality of someone saying something along the lines of "well, WC3 Reforged fucking sucked so I knew Dragonflight was going to blow chunks" then maybe you shouldn't frequent forums/threads like this. Maybe.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-02-16 at 05:06 AM.

  3. #9243
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    ...
    Mate just so you know Adamas is like Kenn/rhole lite. Have fun with that argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  4. #9244
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    Mate just so you know Adamas is like Kenn/rhole lite. Have fun with that argument.
    "We want our echo chamber!", he screams...

    That's funny though, because I kind of think of you as rogoth lite. Equally bad takes but less likely to rage out and get banned.

  5. #9245
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    ... reality is relative?

    Whaaat the fuuuuuck...
    Perception of reality is relative.

    Your perception of reality is relative to your own experiences, because you can't even fathom the concept of something that exists outside your frame of mind.

    For example, someone who lives in Japan, a country with a conservative culture towards sports fandom, might not be aware of how sports fandom is wildly different in other countries. In Argentina, football (Soccer) games are so rowdy that they literally have police barricades outside the stadium, set up to prevent potential riots. Fans sit on opposite ends of the stadiums with no one sitting in between for risk of getting hit by things thrown by either side. This is what I mean by reality is relative. A sports fan in Japan has a different perception of 'Sports fandom' than a sports fan in Argentina. Their realities are relative to their experiences.

    How many times do I have to explain that it's not about the emotions that the promo or the show elicit. It's about making up connections that don't exist.
    All you're doing is denying the existence of connections you simply refuse to acknowledge or accept as being real. That's all.

    It's you literally ignoring the fact that people react emotionally to things that you don't consider to be worth getting upset about. You don't see the connection because you have a personal bias that doesn't regard any reason for the connection to be made rationally. That is your argument.

    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 broken, and how that sentiment influences a person's behaviour and may cause them to act or speak 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.


    But that's not the same at all. Boycotting the game because of the Blizzchung thing didn't involve people suddenly saying "hey Blizzard did this shitty thing over here, therefore the game that I've been playing is also now suddenly shitty". No, it was simply a decision on whether or not to support the product over here because of what the company did over there. You see the difference?
    Both happened.

    There was no singular, universal reaction to the Blizzchung thing that caused a singular, rational response. Some people acted in the way you described. Some people found all sorts of reasons to start hating a game that they were enjoying just fine moments before.

    And this is human nature. It's called disassociation. Same kinda psychological behaviour we see in people who go through bad breakups and start hating on the person they once loved. People begin to find flaws where there were none. People go out of their way to trash a game they once loved, saying things like 'the game was never good' to vindicate their own actions.

    There isn't really a difference, because it happens regardless of whether you consider it to be rational or irrational. It oftentimes happens as a reaction to an emotional response. If anything, your argument would be in favour of people not reacting at all and 'consider the game and the situation outside to be two different things', which isn't universally applicable. Some people were vocally trashing the games to vindicate their own reactions to a situation that upset them. and that's a perfectly normal response to have.

    If someone said "I didn't like what Amazon did with this promo therefore I'm not going to support their product" that makes sense. The irrational response was for people to essentially say "I don't like this Amazon product so I'm just going to assume that this other Amazon product that involves none of the same people is also bad".
    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 assumptions based on their personal experiences with 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, and expecting similar results in the future.

    Overall, I think it's a flimsy example you gave. I don't think there is any blanket 'rationality' to apply to these case-by-case scenarios.


    If YOU don't want to call people out on saying ridiculous things that's up to you, but if you think it's just wrong to point out the irrationality of someone saying something along the lines of "well, WC3 Reforged fucking sucked so I knew Dragonflight was going to blow chunks" then maybe you shouldn't frequent forums/threads like this. Maybe.
    I'm not the one dismissing anything for being irrational, because like I said, the entire topic of fandom is rooted in irrationality.

    You realize that the word 'Fan' is a modern contraction of the word 'Fanatic', right? The terminology isn't defined by rational behaviour.

    If we're talking about fandom, then we're talking about quite an extreme form of expression prone to bias and irrationality that is considered quite normal in our culture... It's basically saying let's call people out for being fans.

    If someone thinks Reforged sucks and it will result in Diablo Immortal being bad, would they be wrong? In a certain perspective, there is a connection, because the root of these problems are tied to Blizzard's modern lack of quality control in their products; one example being a corporate mandate to push out products in an unfinished state. That would be a key connection which you might not be willing to recognize. And if you're not willing to recognize any connection between Reforged and Dragonflight, I can understand why you would consider it completely unconnected and irrational.

    I see this example as being about one's trust in a company's adherence to quality. That's merely illustrating a bias, and that's completely normal.

    You're coming from a perspective that believes irrationality to be wrong. If we extrapolate it enough, eventually we just come to the point where you might as well be saying you think opinion is wrong, because opinion is ultimately rooted in bias/irrationality in some way. At some base level, our opinions are a culmination of rational thought and emotional expression (cognitive bias), which can't be separated in a way that becomes truly free of all biases. This is why I think the argument of irrationality being wrong is ultimately flawed, because irrationality is a part of opinion and expression.

    Ridiculousness is subjective, so by calling people out for being ridiculous is more an expression of your own personal opinion and world view than anything. It's a product of your own bias to determine that (any level of) irrationality or ridiculousness is inherently wrong. I would say it's merely human nature. Even regarding this topic, the simple matter of being a fan is itself rooted in 'ridiculous' irrationality.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-02-16 at 08:02 AM.

  6. #9246
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    "We want our echo chamber!", he screams...

    That's funny though, because I kind of think of you as rogoth lite. Equally bad takes but less likely to rage out and get banned.
    I can 100% guarantee you haven't actually read any of my critiques of the show, I am not wanting an echo chamber (that is you), I want competent people to argue against who use logic.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  7. #9247
    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.

  8. #9248
    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.

  9. #9249
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,465
    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.

  10. #9250
    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?

  11. #9251
    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.

  12. #9252
    Pit Lord rogoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    in the land of killer unicrons
    Posts
    2,465
    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

  13. #9253
    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...

  14. #9254
    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?

  15. #9255
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,432
    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..."

  16. #9256
    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.

  17. #9257
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,432
    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..."

  18. #9258
    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.

  19. #9259
    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.

  20. #9260
    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.

Posting Permissions

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