Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Orby]

I am not sure what's more crazy to see every time I come to this thread...

1) The people constantly coming here to hate on the show instead of moving on and must try and convince others that their hate is legit and that they are right.
OR
2) The people who are defending the show so much that they are actually trying to bring the original trilogy movies down to a 'they were actually shit' level of copium to try and defend a very average show.

I come here every time to see if there is any new Tolkien related updates, only to find a poor excuse for two sided arguments. You all need to chill the hell out.

[rhorle]

2) The people who are defending the show so much that they are actually trying to bring the original trilogy movies down to a 'they were actually shit' level of copium to try and defend a very average show.

You forgot number 3. Those that come to the thread to insult others with made up things. Has anyone actually called the Peter Jackson work shit in this thread?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

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

Similar level seems like a hell of a stretch. Gimli with stuff “nobody throws a dwarf”, Legolas elephant surfing or other general character changes that change there personality’s in rather big ways.

Some one posted a quote for ever ago from Tolkien about how he thought the first movie idea that never got made missed the point of his works and instead played up parts that didn’t matter to the core of what he was going for and the Jackson movies seem like a perfect example of Tolkiens complaint and we know that his son thought similarly.

[loras]

I am not sure what's more crazy to see every time I come to this thread...

1) The people constantly coming here to hate on the show instead of moving on and must try and convince others that their hate is legit and that they are right.
OR
2) The people who are defending the show so much that they are actually trying to bring the original trilogy movies down to a 'they were actually shit' level of copium to try and defend a very average show.

I come here every time to see if there is any new Tolkien related updates, only to find a poor excuse for two sided arguments. You all need to chill the hell out.

This.
I kinda just wanna know if they're gonna make something that is at least worth pirating.

[Orby]

You forgot number 3. Those that come to the thread to insult others with made up things. Has anyone actually called the Peter Jackson work shit in this thread?

I never said they did. I said to bring down that level. Thats not saying you are saying they are shit. Unless you openly admit the Rings of Power is shit.

[Triceron]

Similar level seems like a hell of a stretch. Gimli with stuff “nobody throws a dwarf”, Legolas elephant surfing or other general character changes that change there personality’s in rather big ways.

Some one posted a quote for ever ago from Tolkien about how he thought the first movie idea that never got made missed the point of his works and instead played up parts that didn’t matter to the core of what he was going for and the Jackson movies seem like a perfect example of Tolkiens complaint and we know that his son thought similarly.

Some things can be considered bastardizing their characterization. Their lore isn't really affected by that though. Lore is history, and and the outcome of history doesn't change from them doing or saying these things.

I'd agree it's bastardization of their characters though, if this is your point.

[rhorle]

I never said they did. I said to bring down that level. Thats not saying you are saying they are shit. Unless you openly admit the Rings of Power is shit.

How can you bring them down to a shit level without trying to say they are shit? Why would I have to admit the Rings of Power are shit in order for your claim to be true? I've never tried to bring down the Jackson works out of copium to defend Rings of Power.

[Triceron]

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.

Case by case scenario yes. But overall, it keeps with the general plot is quite adequate. The lore is fairly well maintained outside of some character omissions and slight changes here and there.

It isn't a completely different plot like what RoP has presented.

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.

Or they could have given them different names and had younger Durin adopt the namesake upon coronation, like what happened to Prince Charles becoming King George VI.

[Orby]

How can you bring them down to a shit level without trying to say they are shit? Why would I have to admit the Rings of Power are shit in order for your claim to be true? I've never tried to bring down the Jackson works out of copium to defend Rings of Power.

Then I wasnt talking to you lol. But there are defenders of the show who are. On this very page. :P

[rhorle]

Then I wasnt talking to you lol. But there are defenders of the show who are. On this very page. :P

You used "you" in response to me so it is a little strange how you keep backpedaling from the things you actually say. Can you point out where in this thread someone has said the peter jackson work was shit? I don't recall seeing someone say that or attempt to make that argument.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Then I wasnt talking to you lol. But there are defenders of the show who are. On this very page. :P

Even as some one who isn’t a fan of the Jackson movies (rotoscope for life) I’d find it hard to believe any one could honestly say they aren’t higher quality then RoP unless they were out right trolling.

I personally don’t like the movies but they are still good movies where I like RoP more and it’s just a kinds Meh fantasy show at best.

[Dhrizzle]

Case by case scenario yes. But overall, it keeps with the general plot is quite adequate. The lore is fairly well maintained outside of some character omissions and slight changes here and there.

It isn't a completely different plot like what RoP has presented.

It depends on what you think is important about the story. The movies did put the right people in the right places for the right events but it totally ignores Tolkien's focus on the four Hobbits' journey and the changes to characters make then almost unrecognisable.

RoP is a much lower quality production but it feels much more firmly placed in Arda, and of course it only deviates from rough notes and unpublished (by Tolkien) contradictory accounts of the events. It doesn't distort a completed work Tolkien considered ready for the public (indeed the only work written about Arda he considered that way.)

Or they could have given them different names and had younger Durin adopt the namesake upon coronation, like what happened to Prince Charles becoming King George VI.

I think your woefully underestimating the capabilities of audiences if you think they can't understand a father and son having the same names.

[rhorle]

Not everything is an opportunity to have a fucking argument. Read back what he said, and realise you're wrong on this. Fuck me... you're getting as bad all the miserable twats this sub-forum attracts. He literally says "Thats not saying you are saying they are shit."

As you proceed to argue something. I asked if someone has made the claim that the Peter Jackson work was shit, what they stated in their OP, and they choose to change the pronoun to you for no reason. The implication from the context is clear.

[Triceron]

It depends on what you think is important about the story. The movies did put the right people in the right places for the right events but it totally ignores Tolkien's focus on the four Hobbits' journey and the changes to characters make then almost unrecognisable.

RoP is a much lower quality production but it feels much more firmly placed in Arda, and of course it only deviates from rough notes and unpublished (by Tolkien) contradictory accounts of the events. It doesn't distort a completed work Tolkien considered ready for the public (indeed the only work written about Arda he considered that way.)

I respectfully disagree. I don't share that same perspective about the Hobbit's journey. I didn't feel it was unrecognizable to the book lore. I do think that they all feel firmly planted in middle earth aesthetically.

As per my argument, it isn't about whether it feels like it's Middle Earth or not, it's about what it does to the lore. Because I can talk about Shadows of Morder/War and say the same thing about them bastardizing lore, while still feeling like a Middle Earth game. It's got the aesthetics and the world building, but it completely disregards the lore. And that's okay, since they didn't set out to adhere to canon in the first place. It was still an entertaining game as long as you don't think too hard about the story.

I see RoP in the same way, where I enjoy it for the creatures and the visuals and will keep watching for it. I like the aesthetics. But the lore is a mess.

I think your woefully underestimating the capabilities of audiences if you think they can't understand a father and son having the same names.

It's not whether the audience understands it or not, it's whether it has any value to the world building and lore.

Is there any real reason they're both called Durin and not just given different names? Could you give a good reason why this needed to happen? It certainly doesn't add anything to RoP's drama by having them given the same name.

And for anyone who does know the lore, the change is a much lesser experience with no real reason for it to change for the movie-going audience. It doesn't make the lore any more palettable than if they merely had different names.

[kenn9530]

Imagine wasting time whining about other people whining


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




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


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

- - - Updated - - -



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 - - -



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.''

The show has had over 100 million viewers so far, thats more than most tv shows ever get and that number is still increasing so its just a simple fact the show was a success, you need to simply accept reality that most ppl who watched the show enjoyed it and dont care in the slightest about the show following the lore completely or not. Amazon have already stated the show as a success so you are not the one to tell ppl it isnt one.

There is wasting some time of a forum now and then, and then there is you still whining about the same stuff months later when facts are the show was good, personal opinions dont change reality.

[Dhrizzle]

I respectfully disagree. I'm glad you feel like this is firmly placed in Middle Earth, but I don't share that same perspective.

As per my argument, it isn't about whether it feels like it's Middle Earth or not, it's about what it does to the lore. Because I can talk about Shadows of Morder/War and say the same thing about them bastardizing lore, while still feeling like a Middle Earth game. It's got the aesthetics and the world building, but it completely disregards the lore. And that'a okay, since they didn't set out to adhere to canon in the first place. It was still an entertaining game as ling as you don't think tok hard about the story.

I actually had a lot of respect for how Shadow of Mordor handled the lore with regards to Celebrimbor's story, they clearly knew the stuff they were changing and it fit well.

Can't say the same about Shadow of War, fighting to defend Minas Ithil at that time was jarring and sexy Shelob was the nail in the coffin for me.

I see RoP in the same way, where I enjoy it for the creatures and the visuals and will keep watching for it. I like the aesthetics. But the lore is a mess.

The story is a mess if you compare it to what occurs in the Silmarillion and I feel some of the plot devices are over simplifications of the lore (for example the complex relationship between the Elves and Middle-earth leading to their fading and the need for Rings of Power to preserve themselves as people becoming "we will die without magic metal") but the underlying mysticism feels thoroughly Tolkien. There are references to Providence and the Valar, and a firm grasp of the history of the First Age (though this all seems to be hampered somewhat by the licensing.)

It's pretty rough - dialogue can be eyeroll worthy, plot devices oversimplified and they absolutely suck at giving a sense of time or distance passing - but I still appreciate the feel of Tolkien's magical world.

It's not whether the audience understands it or not, it's whether it has any value to the world building and lore.

Is there any real reason they're both called Durin and not just given different names? Could you give a good reason why this needed to happen? It certainly doesn't add anything to RoP's drama by having them given the same name.

And for anyone who does know the lore, the change is a much lesser experience with no real reason for it to change for the movie-going audience. It doesn't make the lore any more palettable than if they merely had different names.

It's because history recorded the names of the dwarven Kings as Durin III and Durin IV, and while whoever is telling the story might be far from the "historical truth" of the events they're still likely to know those names if they know of figures like Celebrimbor and Elendil.

[Prfct]

The show has had over 100 million viewers so far, thats more than most tv shows ever get and that number is still increasing so its just a simple fact the show was a success, you need to simply accept reality that most ppl who watched the show enjoyed it and dont care in the slightest about the show following the lore completely or not. Amazon have already stated the show as a success so you are not the one to tell ppl it isnt one.

There is wasting some time of a forum now and then, and then there is you still whining about the same stuff months later when facts are the show was good, personal opinions dont change reality.

As we have seen time and time again the consequences of a show (or an expansion) being bad don't show until the next installment comes out. Shadowlands was a bad expansion that sold and Dragonflight is a better expansion that is struggling to sell (but has better retention for being better). Lots of people who started watching LoTR and didn't finish won't bother with Season 2, the same with happen with people dissapointed by the first season. So it would be short sighted to call it a success.

[rhorle]

So it would be short sighted to call it a success.

Using that logic nothing can ever be called a success because in the future it may fail at some point. Season 1 was a success. Season 2 might not be but that doesn't take away from its current success.

[Adamas102]

It's not whether the audience understands it or not, it's whether it has any value to the world building and lore.

Is there any real reason they're both called Durin and not just given different names? Could you give a good reason why this needed to happen? It certainly doesn't add anything to RoP's drama by having them given the same name.

And for anyone who does know the lore, the change is a much lesser experience with no real reason for it to change for the movie-going audience. It doesn't make the lore any more palettable than if they merely had different names.

Why don't you flip this. What is gained by NOT having two Durins at the same time in order to suggest the idea of the dwarves BELIEVING that each Durin is a reincarnation of Durin I? And take into account the more convoluted idea that each subsequent Durin is actually the spirit of the OG Durin returning to inhabit his original preserved body. Tolkien presented these details as more of a myth within the world than an actual plot point. It's certainly not necessary to tell the story and doesn't really add anything other than suggesting that all these rulers that went by the name of Durin were so similar in appearance and manner that the dwarves THOUGHT they were literally the same person. It's a cool idea from a big picture perspective when just writing out a few snippets here and there for characters that Tolkien never really fleshed out I guess, but it doesn't make any difference to the story that is being told in the show. From a dramatic perspective, there is nothing gained by having two characters who never interact and are essentially the same person.

The condensed timeline obviously plays into the decision to have both Durins alive at the same time. The show could have just combined both characters into a single Durin (and have some offhanded line about how he's SO similar to other Durin's), but that certainly doesn't add anything to the plot and conversely you also lose any drama related to the line of succession. They could have had the character that is currently called Durin IV named something else until he becomes king, but then you have to explain why he then changes his name to Durin and that Durin (in the language of Men) is actually the title itself, and does that really add anything either? Another option would be having Durin III die off in dramatic fashion (I don't think the specifics of his death were ever actually covered in the lore so whatever they'd do there is certainly open to more bitching about "fanfic") and then have the same actor appear in equally dramatic fashion to take the throne, but again you lose any drama gained by having the two characters interact (but maybe gain from whatever drama can be crafted concerning how this seemingly reincarnated dwarf can just swoop in and become king).

At the most basic level, the lore stipulates that the the king of Durin's folk during the events that the show will encompass was called Durin (Durin III for when the rings were forged, and Durin IV for the Last Alliance) and the show seems to adhere to that. Outside of the "lore for the sake of lore" argument, there's certainly decent arguments for setting it up the way the show has done.

[kenn9530]

Agreed. And to extend your analogy - Shadowlands has a higher meta critic score than Dragonflight.

LOTR was always going to draw a big audience - that’s why it cost over 200 mill. The proof is in season 2. Critic reviews don’t mean anything.

Critic reviews are the only ones that matter, as is already proven with ppl giving troll reviews on many shows recently, you cant take a review from a salty fan seriously because a hardcore fan of the books are never going to be able to give an accurate or even remotely fair review. TV shows are not really targeted at book fans most however still watch the show, its the ppl who have never read a book that the company actually want.