Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[exochaft]

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.

That's kind of a non sequitor, because something being very popular doesn't meant you throw more money at it. Furthermore, the fact that there's a season two has nothing to do with the quality or success of the first season: Amazon had already mandated before the first season even aired that there would be five seasons.

While one could say "well, if season 1 was bad, couldn't they just go back on their word? That's why we're getting a season 2, because season 1 was a success"... objectively, that logic doesn't follow, and that's not what's happening here at all. From all the media and wordsmiths hired/employed Amazon, the very least that can be gleaned is that season 1 was not nearly as well received as they wanted. Even if we ignore the insiders along with this, Amazon's content production studios needs RoP to succeed no matter what, and the first way to tank your series into the ground even faster than it has been is to admit it. It's a common tactic for any form of media: deflect and spin to make things sound positive, but anyone with a brain can read between the lines to see that something's not right.

It's already public knowledge that we're getting 5 seasons of RoP, so saying they're truncating or canceling RoP would make matters worse compared to being a situation where they have a slim chance of turning things around. That's why everything is more focused on drumming up controversy to deflect from legitimate criticisms of the RoP show thus far, from race-baiting to using metrics that are so obscure or meaningless to put everything in a positive light.

To put it mildly, we're getting 5 seasons of RoP whether anyone loves it or hates it. Only variable will be how much more money they're willing to sink into the show and advertising. I imagine by the end of season 2 we'll have a pretty good idea of the fate of the RoP series.

[Triceron]

Why don't you flip this. What is gained by NOT having two Durins at the same time

Plenty.

There would be no established implication that the name is a commonly given one from father to son. Also, establishing one Durin at a time gives more direct significance to the namesake of 'Durin's bane'. Right now that gets muddled with multiple Durins running around, both implied to be threatened by the same inevitable Balrog appearance. It's an unnecessary addition to the lore, one that has very little payoff.

Nothing prevents them from creating new characters and new names, like 'Poppy' and 'Arondir' who otherwise also do not exist in the lore but fit fine in the story. Of course, the execution of those characters is questionable, but lore-wise there's nothing egregious about their names or characters existing in the world.

There's a common saying that applies here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The condensed timeline obviously plays into the decision to have both Durins alive at the same time

The condensed timeline is reason to consider it a bastardization of lore.

Like I said, nothing wrong if they want to take their own twist and tell their own story.

But let's not pretend they're doing the lore a favour by having two Durins kept in the timelines when they were never supposed to exist at the same time.

[rhorle]

To put it mildly, we're getting 5 seasons of RoP whether anyone loves it or hates it. Only variable will be how much more money they're willing to sink into the show and advertising. I imagine by the end of season 2 we'll have a pretty good idea of the fate of the RoP series.

That isn't true though. As nothing has been shown that Amazon is required to make 5 seasons. They plan on making 5 seasons and their rights purchase allows for 5 seasons. If Rings of Power, for some reason, had zero views you honestly believe Amazon would do 4 more seasons just to throw money away?

[Syegfryed]

The show has had over 100 million viewers so far,

And it owuld get more if it was decent

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.

And you need to accept that is factually wrong and more than 60% of people who watched didn't finish this shit

A successful show hold their audience

If people truly liked they would watch till the end.

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.

And you are here wasting time with me, changing facts to change reality

[rhorle]

And you need to accept that is factually wrong and more than 60% of people who watched didn't finish this shit. A successful show hold their audience

The context of the completion rate is that 50% is considered "solid but not spectacular" in the industry or at least according to articles reporting the completion rate. So it seems like a lot of shows don't get near 100% completion. Also the 37% is for the US audience. International veiewers had a 45% completion and is much closer to the "solid" marker.

Despite its completion rate it was once again stated by Amazon that the series has worked and painting the series as anything less than a success is not relfective of their views internally.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bu...ws-1235364913/

[Adamas102]

Plenty.

There would be no established implication that the name is a commonly given one from father to son. Also, establishing one Durin at a time gives more direct significance to the namesake of 'Durin's bane'. Right now that gets muddled with multiple Durins running around, both implied to be threatened by the same inevitable Balrog appearance. It's an unnecessary addition to the lore, one that has very little payoff.

How is there an implication that it's a commonly given name? We only have the two characters presented. Additionally, the audience are never even given insight into Durin I or II, and again there's no real need to make things more confusing for the general audience by referencing the whole king/Durin title/name reincarnation/revitalized body thing.

I also don't see an issue with the whole "Durin's Bane" thing. Pretty sure the PJ movies didn't reference that Balrog by that name, so you're talking about people who already know the lore and shouldn't be confused at all by Durin III and Durin IV being together at this time (especially since the Balrog's namesake is two more places down the line of succession). It sounds like you're more taking issue with the fact that the Balrog was actually introduced at this time rather than the Durin/Durin thing. My guess is that Durin III will be the first Durin that this Balrog claims before being locked away (for now) by Durin IV.

Neither of the points you make ADD anything. You're just saying that you're confused because you're going into this with CERTAIN expectations and since the lore points aren't EXACTLY the same you can't just connect the dots that you're given. The majority of the audience aren't going to be confused by the line of succession or the Balrog.

Nothing prevents them from creating new characters and new names, like 'Poppy' and 'Arondir' who otherwise also do not exist in the lore but fit fine in the story. Of course, the execution of those characters is questionable, but lore-wise there's nothing egregious about their names or characters existing in the world.

There's a common saying that applies here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

You're right in so far as nothing prevents them from creating new characters, but there's nothing stipulating that they need to do that either. No one said this particular bit of the lore was broken or that this was meant to fix it. It's simply an option that was used to allow two characters that didn't get a chance to interact in on the page to do so on the screen., and so far there hasn't really been an argument against that other than "that's not exactly how it was in the lore and I'm confused by two characters with the same name but different genealogical numbers" (something that most people would not be confused about).

But what you're saying is that you'd prefer Durin IV to be called something else UNTIL he ascends to the throne? Or have him be called something completely different and the successor if Durin III be changed to a non-Durin ruler? I don't see how either of these changes would make things better, and the second would be an even bigger affront to the lore.

The condensed timeline is reason to consider it a bastardization of lore.

Like I said, nothing wrong if they want to take their own twist and tell their own story.

But let's not pretend they're doing the lore a favour by having two Durins kept in the timelines when they were never supposed to exist at the same time.

And as has been noted plenty of times before, it's an adaptation to a different medium. In this case, Tolkien's lore IS broken because it is not conducive to being presented as a linear cinematic story (that's why the timeline is ALWAYS condensed in Tolkien screen adaptations). If you want to call it a bastardization then so be it, but that just proves the point that you're approaching this from a combative, biased, and firmly negative perspective.

[rhorle]

If you want to call it a bastardization then so be it, but that just proves the point that you're approaching this from a combative, biased, and firmly negative perspective.

The amusing thing is that the people calling two dwarves named Durin existing at the same time a bastardization would most likely be complaining if Amazon left one out. As the lore would be "bastardized" the same way according to the arguments they are currently using. It is less about butchering of lore and clinging to a reason to hate on the show.

[Adamas102]

The amusing thing is that the people calling two dwarves named Durin existing at the same time a bastardization would most likely be complaining if Amazon left one out. As the lore would be "bastardized" the same way according to the arguments they are currently using. It is less about butchering of lore and clinging to a reason to hate on the show.

I guess what they'd prefer is a show with loooooooong stretches of time where nothing happens OR one that skips over decades or centuries between every episode or two as if THAT wouldn't be even more confusing for general audiences. Or just no show at all, in which case it SHOULD be easy enough to just ignore it since the books on the shelf aren't being edited and updated as a result of any adaptation.

[Syegfryed]

The context of the completion rate is that 50% is considered "solid but not spectacular" in the industry or at least according to articles reporting the completion rate. So it seems like a lot of shows don't get near 100% completion. Also the 37% is for the US audience. International veiewers had a 45% completion and is much closer to the "solid" marker.

I love how you are trying to change narrative by saying "45% people finish this show, so its solid!"

50% would be solid, but it was not 50%, therefore, it was bad.

Mind you, i remember people here saying they only take into account US views, and if you do, 63% of the people who watch it, didn't finish it, why? because its awful.

Despite its completion rate it was once again stated by Amazon that the series has worked and painting the series as anything less than a success is not relfective of their views internally.

"Despite the fact that the show holds only 37% of their audience, meaning people didn't like and stop watching it, THE ONWERS, amazon, will keep saying their shit smells good, who would knows"

[rhorle]

I love how you are trying to change narrative by saying "45% people finish this show, so its solid!"[/I]

How is pointing out factual information changing the narrative? 37% is lower than 45% so 45% is closer to 50%.

It is also strange how you again claim Amazon is lying when you take them at their word when it fits your viewpoint as you've quoted them on book sales as proof in arguments you've had in this thread. Why are they telling the truth on book sales but never about how they view the show? Amazon doesn't make money off of ad sales so both the 37% that finished and the 63% that didn't would have had to subscribe and pay the same. We know that Amazon tracks engagement on other parts of their company so low completion rates can easily still be a success.

[Triceron]

Neither of the points you make ADD anything. You're just saying that you're confused because you're going into this with CERTAIN expectations and since the lore points aren't EXACTLY the same you can't just connect the dots that you're given. The majority of the audience aren't going to be confused by the line of succession or the Balrog.

Fair enough. Majority of the audience isn't going to care. Majority of the audience also haven't read the books or appendices, so lore bastardization doesn't affect any of them. Like I could make the same argument about the deviations from Game of Thrones. The lore changes and bastardization doesn't affect kost watchers because they don't really know or care about the greater lore, while it does have an impact on anyone who follows the greater world building. Does it make the show suck more? No. So don't take this as meaning the show sucks because the lore is bastardized. This isn't the intent of the argument here.

I'm commenting on someone making a comment about lore being bastardized, while someone else was mixing that up with simply lore being adapted unfaithfully or with creative license.

And PJ's LOTR trilogy is typically one of the best examples of a well made adaptation that is mot entirely faithful to the text, but faithful enough to not be considered a bastardization of the lore. I'd argue that the Hobbit is much more so, even of it manages to retain good chunks of the lore and retains the general spirit of the books; it still adds some egregious lore changes like inserting Elf/Dwarf romance subplot that has significant conflicts with the world building and lore; such things were never meant to be.

You're right in so far as nothing prevents them from creating new characters, but there's nothing stipulating that they need to do that either.

They can do as they please with the story, but they aren't free from all criticism just because they have the freedom to do what they want with it. No one is holding a gun to their heads for anything in the show. It is all deliberate effort into crafting the adaptation, and some things just have no excuse for being messed with.

The Hobbit does plenty of lore bastardization if you want me to be more critical of PJ's work. LOTR though, I'd argue was much less egregious, even if characterizations were completely different from in the books. And from a personal view, I don't have an issue with different characterization in adaptations, I simply won't call it faithful to the lore under the same breath.

But what you're saying is that you'd prefer Durin IV to be called something else UNTIL he ascends to the throne?

I don't call it a bastardization because of what I prefer. No offense, but I think this line of questioning is all wrong.

It is a bastardization because the condensing of timelines is changed so much that there is literally nothing good that could be said about what happens to the lore. It's something to avoid completely unless they have a strong plan that makes sense from the beginning, and clearly they don't. Having two Durins is a reaction to consensing the timeline AND trying to retain the same characters being applied to the same events that should be happening hundreds of years apart. It's bastardizing the lore because the lore was never meant to be condensed THIS extremely.

As for two Durins, like I said earlier, I just don't see the point of retaining both names if they're gonna change it so much anyways. It doesn't do the lore any favours. Just like omitting 'Annatar' and cresting Halbrand wouldn't somehow be more faithful if they suddenly called him 'Annatar' out of the blue. They already went with a new name, they don't have to be faithful to something they are already deliberately changing. It does no service to the lore to go back to Annatar later on, in my opinion. It wouldn't undo the damage that's already done. And I want to be clear, damage is in context of the lore, not to the quality or entertainment value or 'feeling like Middle Earth' aspects of the show. We are talking about lore being bastardized, and I want to be clear it is not a direct criticism of the show being bad because of it. Those are different arguments, let's not confuse them all as one and the same.

And as has been noted plenty of times before, it's an adaptation to a different medium. In this case, Tolkien's lore IS broken because it is not conducive to being presented as a linear cinematic story (that's why the timeline is ALWAYS condensed in Tolkien screen adaptations). If you want to call it a bastardization then so be it, but that just proves the point that you're approaching this from a combative, biased, and firmly negative perspective.

Or I'm just being objective and calling it what it is, while you're apprehensive being overly defensive. Matter of perspective here.

I called Shadows of Mordor/War a bastardization too and yiu don't seem to have any complaint over me being 'combative, biased and firmly negative' when we both seem to agree on certain points of it. Even if you think the first game had some good lore to it, I don't see you calling me biased for having pointed it out objectively.

I even responded this way regarding PJ films. You asked if it was bastardized too and I said it's a case by case scenario and overall the consensus is not really, it's more a loose adaptation that retains most of the broad lore while modifying details to make things fit on screen.

That is still a far cry from Rings of Power overall, since we're not talking about thousands of years of history condensing into a single time period.

At some point, we can all look st Rings of Power and what it's doing to the timeline amd agree that the changes to the timeline are not doing the lore any favours here. What we're talking about here is damage control, and there's no way to ignore the elephant in the room that is the condensed timeline and other major lore changes like Galadriel's direct presence and influence into every major event in the creation of the Rings of Power, including a direct relationship with Sauron. It's fine if this is the show they want to make, but it's still a far cry from the actual lore, much like Shadows of War, or to a lesser extent, Hobbit extended trilogy.

[Triceron]

"I'm objective and you're not" - the worst internet argument ever.

So you don't agree that Rings of Power bastardized the lore?

- - - Updated - - -

I guess what they'd prefer is a show with loooooooong stretches of time where nothing happens OR one that skips over decades or centuries between every episode or two as if THAT wouldn't be even more confusing for general audiences. Or just no show at all, in which case it SHOULD be easy enough to just ignore it since the books on the shelf aren't being edited and updated as a result of any adaptation.

Or a show that doesn't bite off more than it can chew and just focus on a smaller timeline that makes sense, or be open to having timeskips.

House of Dragons does timeskips just fine.

[Adamas102]

I don't call it a bastardization because of what I prefer. No offense, but I think this line of questioning is all wrong.

It is a bastardization because the condensing of timelines is changed so much that there is literally nothing good that could be said about what happens to the lore. It's something to avoid completely unless they have a strong plan that makes sense from the beginning, and clearly they don't. Having two Durins is a reaction to consensing the timeline AND trying to retain the same characters being applied to the same events that should be happening hundreds of years apart. It's bastardizing the lore because the lore was never meant to be condensed THIS extremely.

You're most definitely using the term bastardization based on preference. There's no rule anywhere, Tolkien's or otherwise, that stipulates that the timeline can be condensed X amount but not Y amount. Your basis for deciding what is or isn't a bastardization is completely arbitrary.

As for their (Amazon's) plan, I'd say it's pretty clear; cover a particular series of events from the appendices, joined together as a cohesive narrative, over the course of the series. It's not a mystery, and it definitely dictates a lot of the decisions that are being made lore-wise.

As for two Durins, like I said earlier, I just don't see the point of retaining both names if they're gonna change it so much anyways. It doesn't do the lore any favours. Just like omitting 'Annatar' and cresting Halbrand wouldn't somehow be more faithful if they suddenly called him 'Annatar' out of the blue. They already went with a new name, they don't have to be faithful to something they are already deliberately changing. It does no service to the lore to go back to Annatar later on, in my opinion. It wouldn't undo the damage that's already done. And I want to be clear, damage is in context of the lore, not to the quality or entertainment value or 'feeling like Middle Earth' aspects of the show. We are talking about lore being bastardized, and I want to be clear it is not a direct criticism of the show being bad because of it. Those are different arguments, let's not confuse them all as one and the same.

But they didn't "change it so much anyways"... The two characters exist in the lore, and the idea that they are actually the same being is presented as superstition. I don't see having their existence overlap and allowing them to interact as a significant change (compared to Halbrand/Annatar, for instance). Durin III is still Durin III and Durin IV is still Durin IV. Durin III was king during the forging of the rings, Durin III will succeed him as king and be present for the Last Alliance as it was in the lore. Sorry, but of all the nitpicks to have this is one of the most laughable since the change is completely insignificant in the context of the story. I explained to you WHY it makes sense, but also why it adds drama to the narrative.

And what's with this idea that an adaptation needs to "service the lore"? That's not the point of an adaptation. The lore can form a basis from which to go from or draw inspiration, but it's not the end all be all. And that's ESPECIALLY true when the lore presented the way the appendices are.

Or I'm just being objective and calling it what it is, while you're apprehensive being overly defensive. Matter of perspective here.

I called Shadows of Mordor/War a bastardization too and yiu don't seem to have any complaint over me being 'combative, biased and firmly negative' when we both seem to agree on certain points of it. Even if you think the first game had some good lore to it, I don't see you calling me biased for having pointed it out objectively.

I even responded this way regarding PJ films. You asked if it was bastardized too and I said it's a case by case scenario and overall the consensus is not really, it's more a loose adaptation that retains most of the broad lore while modifying details to make things fit on screen.

Using derogatory language to label something is DEFINITELY not being objective. And my reaction isn't out of defensiveness. Like I said, I don't really care if you call it that, I'm just pointing out your blatant bias in doing so.

As for Shadows of Mordor, I never played the games so I don't have much to contribute there but I would definitely take issue with referring to it as a bastardization as well. If anything I'd say video games can and should take even more leeway when it comes to adherence to lore since the primary goal should always be the gameplay anyway.

I think you might be confusing me with another poster since I didn't ask if you referred to the PJ adaptations as a bastardization. I don't care what you call it. I'm just calling you out on being openly biased by referring to adaptations that you dislike as being "bastardizations".

At some point, we can all look st Rings of Power and what it's doing to the timeline amd agree that the changes to the timeline are not doing the lore any favours here. What we're talking about here is damage control, and there's no way to ignore the elephant in the room that is the condensed timeline and other major lore changes like Galadriel's direct presence and influence into every major event in the creation of the Rings of Power, including a direct relationship with Sauron. It's fine if this is the show they want to make, but it's still a far cry from the actual lore, much like Shadows of War, or to a lesser extent, Hobbit extended trilogy.

No, we don't agree on that because I still contend that condensing the timeline was not only a good thing, but necessary for the plot points that the show aims to cover across its run. I don't hold the timeline to be sacred because Tolkien didn't write it out with the intention of having it adapted to a dramatic medium. The appendices are for the most part just lists of names, dates, and events with little detail and almost no characterization. While I can certainly argue that the execution is lacking in several parts, the premise of what the show is trying to do (taking a series of events and melding them together into a cohesive narrative that is anchored by a handful of touchstone characters) is fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Or a show that doesn't bite off more than it can chew and just focus on a smaller timeline that makes sense, or be open to having timeskips.

House of Dragons does timeskips just fine.

You might have a point in them having bit off more than they can chew. A lot of people considered Tolkien's works to be unfilmable (which is a bit insulting).

Again, they COULD have done something more focused on one or two particular events, but they're clearly going for something else. What I'm trying to impress upon you is to understand the context of the decisions being made rather than approach everything from the perspective of "well, the lore can be changed X amount, but not Y amount".

As for the HotD time skips, they have worked so far, but they're also much smaller. And if anything that show should give you an idea of how easy it can be fuck things up, like when it comes to which actors to change and which actors to keep and how to not make the passage of time confusing.

When it comes to the events covered by RoP, we're talking about stretches of time that are quite frankly pretty absurd. You COULD make a multi-season show about just Sauron training elves to make jewelry because he was doing that for about 300 years, but is that really a show that people want to watch? I don't know, maybe you do, but when you have access to the appendices that read more like a "greatest hits of the Second Age" list then why not take the ones that have to do with (for instance) the rings of power and string them together into a connected narrative?

[Triceron]

As for the HotD time skips, they have worked so far, but they're also much smaller. And if anything that show should give you an idea of how easy it can be fuck things up, like when it comes to which actors to change and which actors to keep and how to not make the passage of time confusing.

When it comes to the events covered by RoP, we're talking about stretches of time that are quite frankly pretty absurd. You COULD make a multi-season show about just Sauron training elves to make jewelry because he was doing that for about 300 years, but is that really a show that people want to watch? I don't know, maybe you do, but when you have access to the appendices that read more like a "greatest hits of the eras" list then why not take the ones that have to do with (for instance) the rings of power and string them together into a connected narrative?

The thing is, they don't have to cover Rings of Power at all. They CHOSE to do so and cover a huge chunk of time, while doing their own thing to condense it all to fit a 5 season timeline.

We don't have this problem with an adaptation like the upcoming War of the Rohirrim. They can tell their own self contained story, they can have it go against lore or work within it. If it is a self contained story that doesn't alter the greater lore, then it wouldn't be a bastardization of it, it would merely be an adaptation set within the timeline.

And for the most part, that is how PJ films generally work. Of course they ARE altered significantly enough that they would not be considered faithful or canon to the books, but they didn't introduce elements that were (sifnificantly) discordant to them either.

And like I said, case by case for LOTR. There are certainly some changes or omissions that changed certain outcomes in the books. Merry lacking the Barrows weapons that renders the Witch King killable, or the Scouring of the Shire for example. I don't think there'a good excuses for it other than a director'a choice to abbreviate it for a movie audience.

And similar to your sentiment above, these are personally excusable for the sake of the series, but they remain as clear bastardizations of the original lore regardless of how we interpret or feel about the changes. In the book lore, the Witch King wasn't intended to merely be vulnerable to women, that is not the intent of the scene even if that may be one way to interpret the scene in the books.

No, we don't agree on that because I still contend that condensing the timeline was not only a good thing, but necessary for the plot points that the show aims to cover across its run.

Then you're not talking about the book lore being bastardized if you're just talking about what is good for the show. I've been clear my comments have been specific to the book lore.

The condensing could be good for the show and the show doesn't operate on being a faithful adaptation. They chose to condense it to make it work to fit a 5 season drama that focuses on the creation of the Rings of Power leading up to the LOTR films.

Tolkien's work was never intended to be compressed this way. Similar criticisms can be applied to the Hobbit and its expanding of a short novel into a 9-12 hour epic. These don't serve the lore, these serve the movies. The Hobbit movies bastardized the lore by adding in discordant elements like the Elf/Dwarf romance.

[Adamas102]

The thing is, they don't have to cover Rings of Power at all. They CHOSE to do so and cover a huge chunk of time, while doing their own thing to condense it all to fit a 5 season timeline.

Yes, it's an adaptation of the events outlined in the appendices. I don't see anything wrong with that premise (even if I might take issue with some of the execution), while your reaction seems to stem entirely from "I don't think this is what the original author intended, therefore I think it shouldn't exist". It's such a bizarre mentality, to think that adaptations shouldn't be done unless they meet your arbitrary seal of approval. I mean shit, how many good Shakespearean adaptations would we have missed out on if everyone had to approach the source material as some sacred text that needed to be adhered to as closely as possible.

We don't have this problem with an adaptation like the upcoming War of the Rohirrim. They can tell their own self contained story, they can have it go against lore or work within it. If it is a self contained story that doesn't alter the greater lore, then it wouldn't be a bastardization of it, it would merely be an adaptation set within the timeline.

And for the most part, that is how PJ films generally work. Of course they ARE altered significantly enough that they would not be considered faithful or canon to the books, but they didn't introduce elements that were (sifnificantly) discordant to them either.

Triceron, I don't think you understand what an adaptation is or what purpose it serves. No one is suggesting that anything that Amazon, or Peter Jackson, or EA, or WotC, or Games Workshop, or Vivendi, or any other company or individual that has touched this IP is changing or adding to the canon of the original works. That's not the point of adaptation. The original author has already told their story. An adaptation is an opportunity for other artists to retell or build up that original story in their own way.

Let's take The Last of Us, a pretty recent and well received adaptation. Most of the criticism I saw came from people who were annoyed when the show didn't follow "the story". What they didn't understand is that "the story" is secondary. For the video game, the story serves the gameplay. For the show the story served the themes that the showrunners wanted to explore (love, loss, trauma, and finding a reason to go on) which is why various details changed, there was less focus on the infected, and there were more shifts away from the Joel/Ellie narrative. The Joel/Ellie story is ultimately the focus still, but the show's creators aren't there to simply duplicate cut scenes.

That's what adaptation is about. Other artists bringing their ideas, interpretations, and experiences to the table.

And like I said, case by case for LOTR. There are certainly some changes or omissions that changed certain outcomes in the books. Merry lacking the Barrows weapons that renders the Witch King killable, or the Scouring of the Shire for example. I don't think there's a good excuses for it other than a director's choice to abbreviate it for a movie audience.

Well yeah, what you just described IS a good reason (or excuse if you want to call it that), because the director is telling a cinematic drama for a movie going audience.

Then you're not talking about the book lore being bastardized if you're just talking about what is good for the show. I've been clear my comments have been specific to the book lore.

The condensing could be good for the show and the show doesn't operate on being a faithful adaptation. They chose to condense it to make it work to fit a 5 season drama that focuses on the creation of the Rings of Power leading up to the LOTR films.

Tolkien's work was never intended to be compressed this way. Similar criticisms can be applied to the Hobbit and its expanding of a short novel into a 9-12 hour epic. These don't serve the lore, these serve the movies. The Hobbit movies bastardized the lore by adding in discordant elements like the Elf/Dwarf romance.

Again, this idea of lore being bastardized is just some personal way for you to arbitrarily decide what fits within your narrow view point and what doesn't, so yeah I'm not really talking about that. However, I AM talking about the book lore as well, and how it serves the adaptation, not the other way around.

The original works are always there to adapt and build upon. They aren't lost, or changed, just because someone told a story based on the source material that you didn't like. Adaptations are NEVER canon anyway unless the original author decides as such, so in the case of anything Tolkien related that's a moot point anyway because he isn't around to approve or disapprove. It doesn't really matter what Tolkien intended in terms of adaptations because he himself put the work out there for others to retell in their own way and build upon.

[Triceron]

Yes, it's an adaptation of the events outlined in the appendices. I don't see anything wrong with that premise (even if I might take issue with some of the execution), while your reaction seems to stem entirely from "I don't think this is what the original author intended, therefore I think it shouldn't exist".

We are talking about the term 'Lore bastardization', which I am explaining has a definitive meaning that isn't just the same as 'unfaithful adaptation'.

I never brought up the term in the first place, so no this is not my argument. I am merely explaining its context and using LOTR related adaptations as examples of how it is applied to ROP, and why not every adaptation that veers from source the source is immediately privy to being a bastardization.

I'm not sure you understand that I'm mot exactly reacting to anything other than explaining what it means to RoP, why it was used, and why it doesn't broadly apply to anything and all adaptations equally.

Triceron, I don't think you understand what an adaptation is or what purpose it serves. No one is suggesting that anything that Amazon, or Peter Jackson, or EA, or WotC, or Games Workshop, or Vivendi, or any other company or individual that has touched this IP is changing or adding to the canon of the original works. That's not the point of adaptation. The original author has already told their story. An adaptation is an opportunity for other artists to retell or build up that original story in their own way.

I completely agree with your assessment, and that's exactly how I see it personally.

Each of these products are self contained 'miniverses' unto themselves. Shadows of Mordor/War have different depictions of Nazgul than LoTr tabletop, which will be different from Rings of Power. Each is different and thst's fine.

But where it gets to bastardization is if it takes that lore and adapts it im a way that diminishes its quality. And some games absolutely do that, like Shadows of Mordor. Arguably, the Games Workshop games do quite well in adapting the lore and respecting it in a way that doesn't diminish it, they actually build it up and expand tangentially without adversely affecting actual lore. In the cases of playing the campaign, it's all presented as a 'What if' scenario where you're just playing through major events from the books and movies, but with no actual intended story changes or butterfly effect lore implications.

Rings of Power doesn't really get that same benefit of the doubt because even if it's an adaptation, it's intended to be a retelling of history that has lore behind it. It's not a new story. It's not intended to be a what if scenario. It's completely intended to be an adaptation of the creation of the Rings of Power from the appendices to film.

And in no way does an adaptation where Galadriel and Sauron are embittered ex lovers would be not be considered a bastardization of the lore. It's not what the lore intended, and it diminishes it significantly when considering that Galadriel never had this depth of a relationship with the enemy while it irrevocably fucks with the rest of the book canon, from which this is all adapted from.

Let's take The Last of Us, a pretty recent and well received adaptation. Most of the criticism I saw came from people who were annoyed when the show didn't follow "the story". What they didn't understand is that "the story" is secondary. For the video game, the story serves the gameplay. For the show the story served the themes that the showrunners wanted to explore (love, loss, trauma, and finding a reason to go on) which is why various details changed, there was less focus on the infected, and there were more shifts away from the Joel/Ellie narrative. The Joel/Ellie story is ultimately the focus still, but the show's creators aren't there to simply duplicate cut scenes.

That's what adaptation is about. Other artists bringing their ideas, interpretations, and experiences to the table.

I don't have any experience with the game or show, so I can't say from personal experience. I think it's hard to say since videogames like this aren't really beholden to a definite 'lore', since most cases the gaming experience is choice-driven more than narrative.

The 'lore' of a videogame is more delegated to the acknowledged canon more than the gamer experience, while (IMO) criticism has been motivated by user experience more than adherence to specific lore.

Of course, different aspects can be considered bastardizations beyond just the lore. More about that below.

Well yeah, what you just described IS a good reason (or excuse if you want to call it that), because the director is telling a cinematic drama for a movie going audience.

Which means the bastardization may be justified, but is nonetheless bastardization. Understand my point? I am talking about what is happening objectively. If the lore is changed in a way that diminishes the depth of the original, then that's what it is. And I'm not just applying this to any and all change, I am very clear about a diminished quality of lore since that is what bastardization means.

Again, this idea of lore being bastardized is just some personal way for you to arbitrarily decide what fits within your narrow view point and what doesn't, so yeah I'm not really talking about that. However, I AM talking about the book lore as well, and how it serves the adaptation, not the other way around.

I wasn't even the one who brought it up. I didn't apply the term here, I am merely the one explaining what the term means and how it is being apllied to RoP.

The original works are always there to adapt and build upon. They aren't lost, or changed, just because someone told a story based on the source material that you didn't like. Adaptations are NEVER canon anyway unless the original author decides as such, so in the case of anything Tolkien related that's a moot point anyway because he isn't around to approve or disapprove. It doesn't really matter what Tolkien intended in terms of adaptations because he himself put the work out there for others to retell in their own way and build upon.

But if the works are intended to be a prequel and builds on the same history and same world and ends up inserting new lore that (potentially) creates an extreme butterfly effect, all while disrrgarding larger elements of world building, then it's bastardizing the original lore.

Again, this isn't an insult to the adaptation. This is an explanation of what bastardization means.

Imagine I were to explain the meaning of a Bastard and why John Snow is called one. He was a bastard because he was believed to be 'born out of wedlock', and this regardless of its meaning as an insult, he was objectively considered a bastard for that reason. If someone says John Snow isn't a bastard because he's a good person, it completely misses the point of my explanation. I'm not passing judgement by merely explaining why John Snow was called a bastard.

Another example is Draco from the films is a bastardization of his book character. The Films depicted him as a very one-dimensional bully, whereas his book depiction has far more nuance and depth to his actions which are more clearly explained in subsequent books. The depth of his character growth are lost in the films. This is a very clear fact that the film depiction of the character is a diminished version of the book character. Calling this a bastardization of the character has nothing to do with Tom Felton's performance, or whether anyone found the character enjoyable or worthy of praise. The context here is that the film version diminished the depth of characterization of Draco from the books.

However, I AM talking about the book lore as well, and how it serves the adaptation, not the other way around.

We have a difference of perspective on this though, and I don't think we see eye to eye.

Like for example, you see their choice to condense the timeline as being a product of causality; an inevitable challenge to adapt, while retaining the two Durins from the source are a net positive. I see the condensed timeline as an easily avoidable trainwreck, of which the two Durins retaining any semblance of faithfulness to the source is merely damage control.

Again, I just think RoP was too much for them to chew. I don't really have input on how the show could be made better since my opinion is that they simply chose the wrong show to make. It won't stop me from watching the show though, since as I said, I watch it for the visuals and the rest is what it is. Kinda like how I watch most of Marvel Phase 4, or Star Wars sequels.

[Veggie50]

We are talking about the term 'Lore bastardization', which I am explaining has a definitive meaning that isn't just the same as 'unfaithful adaptation'.

I never brought up the term in the first place, so no this is not my argument. I am merely explaining its context and using LOTR related adaptations as examples of how it is applied to ROP, and why not every adaptation that veers from source the source is immediately privy to being a bastardization.

I'm not sure you understand that I'm mot exactly reacting to anything other than explaining what it means to RoP, why it was used, and why it doesn't broadly apply to anything and all adaptations equally.



I completely agree with your assessment, and that's exactly how I see it personally.

Each of these products are self contained 'miniverses' unto themselves. Shadows of Mordor/War have different depictions of Nazgul than LoTr tabletop, which will be different from Rings of Power. Each is different and thst's fine.

But where it gets to bastardization is if it takes that lore and adapts it im a way that diminishes its quality. And some games absolutely do that, like Shadows of Mordor. Arguably, the Games Workshop games do quite well in adapting the lore and respecting it in a way that doesn't diminish it, they actually build it up and expand tangentially without adversely affecting actual lore. In the cases of playing the campaign, it's all presented as a 'What if' scenario where you're just playing through major events from the books and movies, but with no actual intended story changes or butterfly effect lore implications.

Rings of Power doesn't really get that same benefit of the doubt because even if it's an adaptation, it's intended to be a retelling of history that has lore behind it. It's not a new story. It's not intended to be a what if scenario. It's completely intended to be an adaptation of the creation of the Rings of Power from the appendices to film.

And in no way does an adaptation where Galadriel and Sauron are embittered ex lovers would be not be considered a bastardization of the lore. It's not what the lore intended, and it diminishes it significantly when considering that Galadriel never had this depth of a relationship with the enemy while it irrevocably fucks with the rest of the book canon, from which this is all adapted from.



I don't have any experience with the game or show, so I can't really put input on this particular example. I have heard buzz though, and all I can say is it sounds like a case of people just preferring one over the other rather than anything objectively being bastardized. All I can ask is whether the lore of the game is significantly being diminished by the adaptation and changes involved. Not just different, but specifically lacking in quality or depth in adaptation. If major parts are not only changed but done so for the detriment of the lore or world building, then yes it could be considered bastardization. But hard to say since videogames aren't really beholden to a definite 'lore', since most cases the experience is choice-driven more than narrative.

Like multiple endings or pacifist runs, the 'lore' of a videogame is more delegated to the acknowledged canon more than the gamer experience, and (IMO) criticism has been motivated by user experience more than adherence to specific lore.



Which means the bastardization may be justified, but is nonetheless bastardization. Understand my point? I am talking about what is happening objectively. If the lore is changed in a way that diminishes the depth of the original, then that's what it is. And I'm not just applying this to any and all change, I am very clear about a diminished quality of lore since that is what bastardization means.




I wasn't even the one who brought it up.

I am the one merely explaining what the term actually means. I'm not inserting any opinion on the show being an adaptation. You responded to me about my comments and explanation of the term and all I've been doing is explaining what it actually means, and that it has nothing to do with the quality or entertainment value of the adaptation.



But if the works are intended to be a prequel and builds on the same history and same world and ends up inserting new lore that (potentially) creates an extreme butterfly effect, all while disrrgarding larger elements of world building, then it's bastardizing the original lore.

Again, this isn't an insult to the adaptation. This is an explanation of what bastardization means, and why RoP fits the bill. Same as if I were to explain the meaning of a Bastard and why John Snow is called one, and all the while you are telling me John Snow can be good people too, it completely misses the point of my explanation. I'm not passing judgement by merely explaining why John Snow is a bastard.

Another example is Draco from the films is a bastardization of his book character. The Films depicted him as a very one-dimensional bully, whereas his book depiction has far more nuance and depth to his actions which are more clearly explained in subsequent books. The depth of his character growth are lost in the films. Calling this a bastardization of the character has nothing to do with Tom Felton's performance, or whether anyone found the character enjoyable or worthy of praise. The context here is that the film version diminished the characterization of Draco from the books.

- - - Updated - - -

[Adamas102]

Which means the bastardization may be justified, but is nonetheless bastardization. Understand my point? I am talking about what is happening objectively. If the lore is changed in a way that diminishes the depth of the original, then that's what it is. And I'm not just applying this to any and all change, I am very clear about a diminished quality of lore since that is what bastardization means.

And how are you defining "diminished quality of lore"?

I wouldn't say that detail is the same as depth in terms of lore and narrative. For instance, the whole superstition that all Durin's are all essentially the same person isn't really depth. It doesn't really add anything on its own, and since Tolkien never really confirmed the truth of the superstition within the narrative he never explored the implications of it. It's just detail. So ignoring that detail in the show in order to add more dramatic depth via character interaction isn't really a diminishing. The same can be said for a lot of the changes that I have seen complaints about.

Rings of Power doesn't really get that same benefit of the doubt because even if it's an adaptation, it's intended to be a retelling of history that has lore behind it. It's not a new story. It's not intended to be a what if scenario. It's completely intended to be an adaptation of the creation of the Rings of Power from the appendices to film.

And in no way does an adaptation where Galadriel and Sauron are embittered ex lovers would be not be considered a bastardization of the lore. It's not what the lore intended, and it diminishes it significantly when considering that Galadriel never had this depth of a relationship with the enemy while it irrevocably fucks with the rest of the book canon, from which this is all adapted from.

It doesn't really need benefit of the doubt because it's an adaptation nonetheless. You also just described how it added MORE depth to a character that was lacking in that department in much of a source material. We're talking about characters and events that Tolkien never really fleshed out to begin with, so the idea that what this adaptation is diminishing the depth of the lore is kind of silly.

These changes also don't do anything TO the book canon. It remains in its original form one way or another. And (if you consider the show connected to the PJ movies, as they obviously share much the same aesthetic choices) there hasn't really been anything so far that results in drastic internal contradictions. Show Galadriel can still very much follow a path that gets her to the point of Cate Blanchett Galadriel.

Imagine I were to explain the meaning of a Bastard and why John Snow is called one. He was a bastard because he was believed to be 'born out of wedlock', and this regardless of its meaning as an insult, he was objectively considered a bastard for that reason. If someone says John Snow isn't a bastard because he's a good person, it completely misses the point of my explanation. I'm not passing judgement by merely explaining why John Snow is a bastard.

Well, the term "bastard" very much carries with it derogatory baggage, even if on a basic level it's simply describing a child born out of wedlock. It doesn't really seem like a good word to use if you want to convey a neutral position. If you're using the term to suggest a work that has been corrupted or diminished then you're more than likely using subjective determinations of quality to compare the adaptation to the original.

Another example is Draco from the films is a bastardization of his book character. The Films depicted him as a very one-dimensional bully, whereas his book depiction has far more nuance and depth to his actions which are more clearly explained in subsequent books. The depth of his character growth are lost in the films. This is a very clear fact that the film depiction of the character is a diminished version of the book character. Calling this a bastardization of the character has nothing to do with Tom Felton's performance, or whether anyone found the character enjoyable or worthy of praise. The context here is that the film version diminished the depth of characterization of Draco from the books.

That kind of sounds like the opposite of what RoP is doing by fleshing out characters, giving them arcs and agency, and more interactions with each other.

I see the condensed timeline as an easily avoidable trainwreck, of which the two Durins retaining any semblance of faithfulness to the source is merely damage control.

But you haven't explained WHY!

Regarding Durin, you mentioned two points of confusion that specifically have to do with knowing lore that is outside the scope of the show and has no impact on the narrative. So other than detail for the sake of detail, what is the issue? Where is the train wreck?

You understand the goal of the show, to portray the events outlined in the appendices on the screen as part of a connected narrative. These are events that Tolkien essentially jotted down with a list of dates and very little depth whatsoever. Very little detail is given, most of the characters have no written dialogue, there's almost no narrative or thematic depth to any of it. If the adaptation can bring these events together with a handful of characters over the course of a protracted timeline, AND it reaches the appropriate conclusion for those events and characters that continue on to an established work (the PJ movies), then what is the problem?

[Dhrizzle]

And in no way does an adaptation where Galadriel and Sauron are embittered ex lovers would be not be considered a bastardization of the lore.

Is this a random example you just pulled out of your ass for no reason or do you think that actually happens in the series?

As for your long winded attempt to make "bastardisation" an objective term, taken literally it can be applied to any adaptation that isn't 100% true to the lore which is pretty much all of them - movies, video games and table-top miniatures included.

There's a strong argument that Christopher Tolkien bastardised the lore when he published the Silmarillion but I wouldn't dream of using that term to describe his work. While it might be literally accurate whether to use the term is a subjective choice based on whether you like or approve of it.

[Triceron]

But you haven't explained WHY!

If your argument is having two Durins does well to satisfy giving Durin III and Durin IV their respective accomplishments in the future, then that's fine, but we have different perspectives.

You look at it as a blank slate, where the show's plot contrivances are necessary for moving their plot forward. You don't see the show having to adhere to book lore at all. I see it as an adaptation of an established history, and one that falls short from being faithful while presenting a highly disjointed and poorly paced show with too many POVs to follow. Having Durins be faithfully adapted doesn't make up for everything else being changed to fit the condensed timeline and decision to involve Galadriel in most-to-all major historic event.

If this were a completely new series, then sure this kind of adventure plot works fine. Hero's journey, I get it. But this is not just any story, this is LOTR's history and the creation of the Rings of Power, a series of historic events that (unlike LOTR) does NOT simply follow the journey of one main character. It is NOT a hero's journey story. It is a historic account of worldly politics, much of which spans generations. It was not an ideal setting and event to choose to tell a character-driven story.

The lore was bastardized by the choice to make the show character-driven and centered on one particular character like Galadriel. They chose to use the lore to explain away their Hero's Journey, rather than actually tell history the way it was written. And because of that, much of the significance of the lore, history and worldbuilding are diminished.

Like I can ask you why Numenor decides to join the fight against Sauron in the books vs why they decide to in the show. The books have a very rich history and culture built up for them, with Sauron's own proclamations leading them to take action. The show boils it down to a series of coincidences that allows Galadriel to gain the queen's favour and convince them to join her. A significant chunk of Numenorean lore and culture is completely diminished into being a result of Galadriel's luck in rolling a high charisma check. This is just one of many examples of what the condensed timeline results in. She wasn't even supposed to be present in Numenor.

And having the show be faithful to keeping two Durin's just doesn't really amount to much when the rest of the lore is too much of a trainwreck.

- - - Updated - - -

There's a strong argument that Christopher Tolkien bastardised the lore when he published the Silmarillion but I wouldn't dream of using that term to describe his work. While it might be literally accurate whether to use the term is a subjective choice based on whether you like or approve of it.

I agree, its use IS subjective.

As I said, I was not the one who called it a bastardization of lore. I didn't apply it. But I am explaining why and how RoP fits that description.

And yes, it can apply to other products and mediums, but it is very specific to diminishing quality. I explained prior how the tabletop doesn't expressly bastardize the lore because it isn't intent on being regarded as canon. Elements of the campaigns are intended to be designed as replayable self-contained stories that relive scenes from the books and movies, but not as a means of establishing itself as canonical to them. Outside of backstory for new settings and armies, they don't actually form new stories to tell outside of giving basic outlines of 'why you're fighting here'. There's no direct connection back to the lore, as it merely uses Middle Earth as a setting with no real story to tell.

As for Christopher Tolkien's works, it's hard to consider any of the Silmarillion a bastardization of lore because he doesn't apply it as a definitive canon. Silmarillion is presented as mythology, not history. He merely collected the unpublished writings as best he could and organized them, complete with contradictions being acknowledged.