Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you, and others, wouldn't complain that they then left out Durin IV?

That would be just a fart in the massive diarrhea the show was

[kenn9530]

That would be just a fart in the massive diarrhea the show was

Imagine wasting so much time still whining about the same things months down the line, just because you dont like it that doesnt mean more than enough ppl didnt like the show, most of us couldnt care less about the lore it doesnt matter at all, most ppl dont read books and like the show no matter what your narrow point of view is.

Facts are the show is rated pretty highly in most of its aspects that actually matter, your opinion doesnt change reality that more than enough ppl liked the show.

You know the reason books dont get a direction adaptation is because books dont directly make good tv shows, even tolkien knew his writing would never be adapted properly into a tv/movie.

[rhorle]

That would be just a fart in the massive diarrhea the show was

That you can't move on from. Your vulgar metaphor says more about you then you apparently think it does.

[jackofwind]

That would be just a fart in the massive diarrhea the show was

Most poeople who didn't like the show have just moved on, it had about as much lasting impact as Avatar 2.

I don't get why you're letting it live rent-free in your head.

[rhorle]

But the story beats are the same, and generally most major plot points are covered. Two Towers was the movie with the most changes - Aragorn's whole journey, and the elves coming to Helm's Deep, and I'm not happy the elves came but I kinda get why they did it - they had all those elves from the first movie and wanted to show them off - and it was a compartmentalized change that didn't affect the rest of the story even if it was a huge break from the lore.

It is strange how you say the story beats are the same while also describing how they are not by elves arriving at Helm's Deep. Even when you don't like the change you still rationalize to yourself why it really is a good thing. Yet with a show you don't like you find any little excuse to rationalize why it is a bad thing. You nitpick Rings of Power to death because you don't like it. You give a pass to things in the Jackson movies because you liked them.

[jackofwind]

But the story beats are the same, and generally most major plot points are covered. Two Towers was the movie with the most changes - Aragorn's whole journey, and the elves coming to Helm's Deep, and I'm not happy the elves came but I kinda get why they did it - they had all those elves from the first movie and wanted to show them off - and it was a compartmentalized change that didn't affect the rest of the story even if it was a huge break from the lore.

The elves coming to Helm's Deep might be compartmentalized but it's still a huge departure with significant implications to the politics of the 3rd age world.

I'm not saying I hate the change, (I think it works for the movie and is a nice bit of extra flavor), but we shouldn't downplay its significance. There are plenty of people who dislike the Jackson trilogy who will point to it as a major blunder.

[jackofwind]

It’s definitely a large departure but here’s what I mean by compartmentalized:

In the book you have a bunch of humans under extreme duress defending helm’s deep. In the movie you have a bunch of elves. Either way, you basically never hear from those characters again, except that they are in the background in certain scenes. It is a departure that is 100% confined to that scene. The elves’ participation doesn’t drive any future or prior plot.

That’s fundamentally different from rings of power where all major story threads contain consistent long term deviations from the story.

That's true, I think that a major issue with changes/deviations occurring in ROP is that due to it being a prequel to LotR any changes create significant impacts to a future time that we already know about. The ripple of a small change makes things that happen in the 3rd age no longer make sense, or simply muddies the waters.

For instance - if Helm's Deep occurred in ROP there would be questions about the longterm political effect of the elves going out of their way to defend humans - did it bring them closer together? Did the elves become bitter? Did the humans resent the elves for not coming sooner? How does that one action by the elves (an extremely uncharacteristic one) change the interactions of the two races in that region? Because the siege of Helm's Deep happens in the 3rd age and the story is preoccupied with Frodo's journey we never really revisit the area to see what changes as time goes on.

It's an interesting thing to think about, and I think ROP suffers from theoretically needing to take lore on both sides of the timespan of its storyline and seamlessly fit itself in without causing ripples on either side. LotR only needed to start from the right place and follow the general storyline, because there are no major 4th age details it needs to link up to.

Or something like that, maybe it's the cold meds talking.

[jackofwind]

It could have also had no impact. There’s precedent for something like this - in one of the battles against Morgoth a company of elves from I think Nargothrond show up and fight because they don’t want to be left out, even though the rest of the kingdom abstains. Doesn’t change much to have them at the battle (except I think one of them becomes a prisoner or something that has implications later, I seem to remember the name starts with G but could be wrong).

You're thinking of Greg the elf I think.

[Dhrizzle]

i randomly saw this post on the front page for the first time in months, after having said my piece to the bottom feeders who dwell here defending this shitshow of a project (i don't aim any anger or anything at you btw), i'm here to correct your misunderstanding of the 'Durin' mythos that Tolkien created:

the whole storyline of Durin is based on the Arthurian mythos of Britaian where Arthur Pendragon is both the once and future king of Albion (the mythical name for Britain), meaning that he lived originally thousands of years ago, and when the people of Britain were in great need, he would awaken again in a new age and lead the people once more as King.

in the case of LOTR, Durin can be thought of the first dwarf to awaken in Arda, and once his body was broken and he died his spirit endured, and when such a time as the dwarves were in dire need, he would be 'reborn' in a single dwarf of the age and would rise up as king Durin essentially having the original persona of the dwarf that was, and the memories and 'spirit' of all Durin iterations that have gone before, the dwarf that emerges as king Durin is random, it is not something dictated by blood or station, usually it is a dwarf that is already fighting a losing battle and is seen by many as a natural leader to begin with.

in this shitshow of a production the showrunners in their infinite wisdom sought to bastardise and corrupt this lore by having some fuckwit king called 'Durin' who had a son also called 'Durin', not only would that never happen in the lore, it would be seen in dwarven society as blasphemous and abhorrent and regardless if the original king was the embodiment of king Durin of old, he would never name any sons he had also 'Durin', it would be like naming your child jesus Christ and proclaiming he is the son of god then when he got older and had a family he did the same thing to his son, it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

that's just one of a very long list of examples of how badly these so called showrunners fucked up with the source material and royally screwed the pooch with this bastardised terrible fanfiction so bad that they are being sued for plagiarism which on the surface holds some merit, so that should tell you all you need to know about these hacks who were failing upwards their entire careers.

In the Silmarillion and the Red Book (aka the Appendices to LotR) the reincarnation of Durin is said to come to one of his line, i.e. the heir to the throne and not just any random dwarf. However this is just what some Hobbits managed to translate from records kept by Elves and Men. There's nothing sacred about the name "Durin," for starters any dwarf known to Elves and Men as "Durin" would not actually be called Durin, dwarves keep their true names secret and use them only among themselves. In fact "Durin" is a word from a tribe of Men meaning "king." Any lore on this is framed by a very unreliable narrator. Besides, later Tolkien noted that the return of certain dwarvish figures like "Durin" most likely occurred through the preservation of the original body to which the spirit would occasionally return, naming your kid after "Durin" wouldn't be that big a deal.

Rings of Power isn't authentically replicating a story that Tolkien wrote but saying they're "bastardising" the lore isn't really accurate. They're applying different ideas to events and characters in ways that may not be accurate "history," but do reflect how people of Middle-earth might remember history through distorted understanding, which is the sort of thing Tolkien did all the time.

[s_bushido]

In fact "Durin" is a word from a tribe of Men meaning "king."

The best part about this fuss made over their names is that we've have kings and popes who ceremonially change(d) their names in actual history, as well as rulers who were considered descendants/relations of gods (despite that obviously not being true). So given the inherent fantastical mythmaking nature of these stories, the idea that maybe the tradition of them being reincarnations is simply wrong or misinterpreted is quite literally impossible to refute...

Lots of cool guys here posting about how they’re too cool to post in this thread.

It's pretty great that you enshrined the evidence that what I said was true (my leaving the thread for months at a time) in your signature. It's very flattering.

[Triceron]

The best part about this fuss made over their names is that we've have kings and popes who ceremonially change(d) their names in actual history, as well as rulers who were considered descendants/relations of gods (despite that obviously not being true).

And when does it happen? Typically after their predecessors are gone or dead, not while they're still in power and alive. That's why we don't have multiple Popes or Dalai Lama running around. We have one at a time.

Understanding the historic depth is what gives the name of Durin significance. Otherwise, implying Dwarves commonly name their kids 'Durin' renders it merely influenced by popularity or superstition, rather than as any title of significance. And I doubt Durin was meant to be equated to 'Link' in the Zelda games, where people just name their kids Link in the hope one of them actually ends up being the Hero of Time.

[rogoth]

In the Silmarillion and the Red Book (aka the Appendices to LotR) the reincarnation of Durin is said to come to one of his line, i.e. the heir to the throne and not just any random dwarf. However this is just what some Hobbits managed to translate from records kept by Elves and Men. There's nothing sacred about the name "Durin," for starters any dwarf known to Elves and Men as "Durin" would not actually be called Durin, dwarves keep their true names secret and use them only among themselves. In fact "Durin" is a word from a tribe of Men meaning "king." Any lore on this is framed by a very unreliable narrator. Besides, later Tolkien noted that the return of certain dwarvish figures like "Durin" most likely occurred through the preservation of the original body to which the spirit would occasionally return, naming your kid after "Durin" wouldn't be that big a deal.

Rings of Power isn't authentically replicating a story that Tolkien wrote but saying they're "bastardising" the lore isn't really accurate. They're applying different ideas to events and characters in ways that may not be accurate "history," but do reflect how people of Middle-earth might remember history through distorted understanding, which is the sort of thing Tolkien did all the time.

thanks for that condescending note, really sets the tone of the rest of your post.

all dwarves are considered 'Durins folk', furthermore, the line of Durin is both long and varied, with MANY possible heirs, and last time i checked (which is some time ago now), it is insinuated that the line of Durin encompasses all dwarves of Arda.

i never said there was, i said, no dwarf would name their child 'Durin' and proclaim them as KING DURIN, it is a title and status reserved for ONE being alone, the fact that the show tried to have a 'king durin' and a 'prince durin' alive in Moria at the same times is both factually wrong and flies in the face of the established lore, hence the show bastardising it, but i guess you don't really care about that little point when defending this dross.

again, i never said it would, i said that a dwarf in the middle earth setting naming their child Durin while also proclaiming them to be KING DURIN would NEVER HAPPEN in dwarven society, because only Durin the deathless was capable of holding that title, that's the distinction i was making, something you clearly failed to recognise and something this show decided was perfectly fine to piss all over; honestly you and these showrunners are like 2 peas in a pod when it comes to ignoring context, wrongly interpreting what is written and implanting your own dialogue which makes no sense to the original point being made, it's uncanny.

[Syegfryed]

Imagine wasting so much time still whining about the same things months down the line,

Imagine wasting time whining about other people whining

just because you dont like it that doesnt mean more than enough ppl didnt like the show, most of us couldnt care less about the lore it doesnt matter at all, most ppl dont read books and like the show no matter what your narrow point of view is.

Just because you did like it, doesn't change the fact this was a horrible show, lore/books or not.

Facts are the show is rated pretty highly in most of its aspects that actually matter, your opinion doesnt change reality that more than enough ppl liked the show.

Facts show that more than half of the people who watch this shit didn't finish it; even when this is a free show in their prime accounts, your opinion don't change reality that this show failed hard

You know the reason books dont get a direction adaptation is because books dont directly make good tv shows, even tolkien knew his writing would never be adapted properly into a tv/movie.

Except all those good shows and movies that are faithful to the source material

- - - Updated - - -

Most poeople who didn't like the show have just moved on, it had about as much lasting impact as Avatar 2.

I don't get why you're letting it live rent-free in your head.

I must be living in people heads rent-free as well for there to be so many people pissed that im still saying how bad the show was, and people can't accept that or let it go

- - - Updated - - -

Rings of Power isn't authentically replicating a story that Tolkien wrote but saying they're "bastardising" the lore isn't really accurate. They're applying different ideas to events and characters in ways that may not be accurate "history," but do reflect how people of Middle-earth might remember history through distorted understanding, which is the sort of thing Tolkien did all the time.

That is literally bastardising the lore

You can be serious by saying "what the showrunners did is what tolkien used to do all the time.''

[rhorle]

That is literally bastardising the lore.

Then isn't what Peter Jackson did bastardizing the lore? Isn't it strange that he is widely, but not universally, celebrated for "bastardizing the lore"? People love to come up with all these elaborate reasoning for why the show is bad but it always ultimately comes down to "I didn't like it". If something is liked the changes to lore are given a justification. If something is not liked then those same reasons can't be applied.

Didn't Tolkien create his published books as being told from in-universe characters so things within are tainted by perspective and bias rather then a straight factual accounting of his world? How is that ultimately different from what the Show is doing to the same lore? Does an in-universe bias really change that much about the process?

[Triceron]

Then isn't what Peter Jackson did bastardizing the lore?

Bastardizing lore means reducing the quality of it, not just implying that the lore changes.

Peter Jackson's trilogy and RoP both involve lore changes to Tolkien'a work. The difference is PJ's handling of changes generally do not reduce Tolkien's original works, rather it changes for a different experience that is on a similar level. As Spaghettimonk said with Elves at Helms Deep, the lore is very different from the books, but arguably doesn't change the outcome of the lore. The lore is not reduced, it is merely altered for a better movie experience with no real repercussions to the greater plot. Haldir's death does not impact the rest of the show, and arguably adds some drama and world building where it would not have existed prior.

The fundamental story doesn't change with PJ's alterations. Same can not be said about Rings of Power, as it's become a barely recognizable version of the forging of the Ring, with every event manipulated to the point where it doesn't really resemble the same story Tolkien wrote at all.

It's one thing to omit Glorfindel or Tom Bombadil to condense the story and give more prominence to other characters and build up their screentime for better onscreen drama. It's another to introduce lore changes literally go nowhere and add nothing to the Forging of the Rings of Power storyline, or to its intended drama. Like, is there any compelling reason why they couldn't just give the two Durins different names? It sure doesn't seem to enhance the show's plot any by having them both be Durin. If anything, it's arguably more confusing.

[Syegfryed]

Peter Jackson's trilogy and RoP both involve lore changes to Tolkien'a work. The difference is PJ's handling of changes generally do not reduce Tolkien's original works, rather it changes for a different experience that is on a similar level. As Spaghettimonk said with Elves at Helms Deep, the lore is very different from the books, but arguably doesn't change the outcome of the lore. The lore is not reduced, it is merely altered for a better movie experience with no real repercussions to the greater plot. Haldir's death does not impact the rest of the show, and arguably adds some drama and world building where it would not have existed prior.

As a example: if in helm's deep the humans only won because the elves had shining magic bows that shot orcs by the hundreds, that would be bastardizing.


Humans winning in helm's deep because the elves and their magic bows is in the same level of bullshit that they do in rings of power.

[Dhrizzle]

thanks for that condescending note, really sets the tone of the rest of your post.

?

all dwarves are considered 'Durins folk', furthermore, the line of Durin is both long and varied, with MANY possible heirs, and last time i checked (which is some time ago now), it is insinuated that the line of Durin encompasses all dwarves of Arda.

Tolkien wrote there were seven Fathers of Dwarves so not all would be of Durin's line, but that's irrelevant as Tolkien said it was more likely for spirits to return to their original, preserved bodies and not be reincarnated to new parents.

i never said there was, i said, no dwarf would name their child 'Durin' and proclaim them as KING DURIN, it is a title and status reserved for ONE being alone,

"Durin" isn't a dwarvish name, it's a Mannish word meaning "king" that was applied to certain rulers of the dwarves in historic documents written by people who didn't know the "truth" of matters and translated by Hobbits millennia later.

the fact that the show tried to have a 'king durin' and a 'prince durin' alive in Moria at the same times is both factually wrong and flies in the face of the established lore, hence the show bastardising it, but i guess you don't really care about that little point when defending this dross.

The "established lore" as found in the Silmarillion and LotR appendices does not represent the "true" history of Middle-earth but results from confusion of the in-universe story-tellers.

again, i never said it would, i said that a dwarf in the midadle earth setting naming their child Durin while also proclaiming them to be KING DURIN would NEVER HAPPEN in dwarven society, because only Durin the deathless was capable of holding that title, that's the distinction i was making, something you clearly failed to recognise and something this show decided was perfectly fine to piss all over; honestly you and these showrunners are like 2 peas in a pod when it comes to ignoring context, wrongly interpreting what is written and implanting your own dialogue which makes no sense to the original point being made, it's uncanny.

Those are some very bold assertions about a culture that Tolkien said was very secretive and only described through the lens of other peoples who almost certainly didn't know the truth of the matter.

[rhorle]

As a example: if in helm's deep the humans only won because the elves had shining magic bows that shot orcs by the hundreds, that would be bastardizing.

The humans in the movie only won because the elves were there and all the elves died. They were injected into the plot for no reason and screwed up the lore of the books for no reason. Shouldn't they have been fighting Dol Guldur? You, and others, rationalize it away as acceptable because you liked the movies. You rationalize that Rings of Power is bad because you don't like the show.

[Dhrizzle]

Bastardizing lore means reducing the quality of it, not just implying that the lore changes.

The films very much reduced the quality of the lore as well as shifting the characters, focus and core of the story from what Tolkien intended to what would work well for Hollywood.

Like, is there any compelling reason why they couldn't just give the two Durins different names? It sure doesn't seem to enhance the show's plot any by having them both be Durin. If anything, it's arguably more confusing.

In the little bit of lore they have to go on Durin III was king during Sauron's asssult on Eregion and Durin IV was king during the War of the Last Alliance. With the timeline being compressed to have those events happen within a human lifetime the options were to have them as father and son or be the same person.

[rhorle]

In the little bit of lore they have to go on Durin III was king during Sauron's asssult on Eregion and Durin IV was king during the War of the Last Alliance. With the timeline being compressed to have those events happen within a human lifetime the options were to have them as father and son or be the same person.

It would have been hilarious if Amazon had the same actor and one episode or season killed off Durin III to have him reappear as Durin IV for the next one.