1. #9341
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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?

  2. #9342
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.

  3. #9343
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-03 at 10:06 AM.

  4. #9344
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    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?

    Sauron being a simp for Galadriel literally happens in the series. It is a bastardization

    There's a strong argument that Christopher Tolkien bastardised the lore
    Seems like everything that is brought as critic to this shitshow comes back with "well, but Cristopher/Jackson did X...." in a vain way to make then the same.

  5. #9345
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Sauron being a simp for Galadriel literally happens in the series. It is a bastardization

    “I say to you Frodo that even as I speak to you I perceive the Dark Lord and know his mind, or all of his mind that concerns elves, and he gropes ever to see me and my thought but still the door is closed.”


    This is what they used as inspiration for the chemistry between the two. They are sticking with the themes Tolkien himself set up and just giving it more detail.

    Seems like everything that is brought as critic to this shitshow comes back with "well, but Cristopher/Jackson did X...." in a vain way to make then the same.
    Because a lot of the critiques brought against the show are double standards that are only being applied to the show and not to other work even though the same arguments and reasoning would apply to other stuff.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  6. #9346
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    Sauron being a simp for Galadriel literally happens in the series. It is a bastardization
    That's not what I was replying to, @Triceron said they were embittered ex-lovers not that Sauron wanted to bring Galadriel over to his side.

    Seems like everything that is brought as critic to this shitshow comes back with "well, but Cristopher/Jackson did X...." in a vain way to make then the same.
    There's a lot of clueless people who seem to think that the LotR movies perfectly represented Tolkien's books and the Silmarillion is an accurate or "canon" telling of the "true history" of Middle-earth which leads to some laughable double-standards.
    Last edited by Dhrizzle; 2023-05-03 at 03:48 PM.

  7. #9347
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    That article says literally nothing about the lore of RoP. Because spoiler alert: "the lore" doesn't mean shit when it comes to the success or failure of a script. People wouldn't forgive bad performances and poor pacing just because it got the lore right...and it wouldn't matter how much a production "butchered" the source material if the end product was itself very good anyway. Fucking obviously.
    While I agree with you in essence, but people forgive bad/campy acting, low budgets/bad effects, and poor writing/scripts all the time -- like half the cult classics fall into either one or multiple of those categories, just check out the lengths people who love Lovecraft will go to shill their shitty movies.

  8. #9348
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    That's not what I was replying to, @Triceron said they were embittered ex-lovers not that Sauron wanted to bring Galadriel over to his side.
    What happens in Numenor stays in Numenor :P

    Okay, I'll admit poor wording. I was being smarmy. The tone of their relationship moving forward is going to be in the vein of embittered would-be lovers, but I don't think that is as descriptive of how their relationship would be played out. I think they're going to play up their past connections and sexual tension in future seasons as if they were archetypical ex-lovers or spurned lovers. Plenty of anger, frustration, resentment; and then regret in feeling they couldn't help the other enough. I don't see them setting up all of season 1 and having Sauron try to manipulate her only to drop it. I just think it's completely out of place since Galadriel and Sauron never really are supposed to have that kind of relationship to begin with.


    I'd say similar problems happened to the Warcraft movie, where they wanted to take a historic epic and boil it down to a character story, and then we get stuff like Lothar and Garona having sexual tension/romance where it really wasn't necessary. It wasn't exactly a problem of trying to tell a character story, but in their execution of doing so and inserting 'humanizing' elements that just don't work with the intended history.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-03 at 05:28 PM.

  9. #9349
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    That's not what I was replying to, @Triceron said they were embittered ex-lovers not that Sauron wanted to bring Galadriel over to his side.
    He was obviously exaggerating for comical effect, but just because they were not ex-lovers does not mean the showrunners, on purpose, made sexual tension between then, as a way to bastardize the story

    they even exclude her husband and daughter from the season 1


    There's a lot of clueless people who seem to think that the LotR movies perfectly represented Tolkien's books and the Silmarillion is an accurate or "canon" telling of the "true history" of Middle-earth which leads to some laughable double-standards.
    There is no double standards, because you are trying to compare a inch to a mile

    People know the movies are not perfect representation of the books, but that does not mean theya r ein the same level of garbage that the show was.

  10. #9350
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    And it owuld get more if it was decent


    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.

    And you are here wasting time with me, changing facts to change reality
    Not many shows get anywhere close to 100 million viewers, you also need to realise not everyone needs to watch a show for it to be good, do you consider house of dragon to be good that has a 10 million viewership after its season 1 finale, success in a show is not determined by keeping ppl watching it, its plainly in the amount of ppl who have watched it.

    Shows also grow after the full series has been released, more and more ppl will eventually watch these shows.

    You are always going to have the wrong opinions when you ignore simple facts.
    Last edited by kenn9530; 2023-05-03 at 11:15 PM.
    STAR-J4R9-YYK4 use this for 5000 credits in star citizen

  11. #9351
    The Unstoppable Force rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    20,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    There is no double standards, because you are trying to compare a inch to a mile
    People have been saying that having two Durin's alive at the same time is bastardizing the lore while the Jackson films did similar-level of stuff. There is most certainly a double standard going on.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  12. #9352
    Quote Originally Posted by WaltherLeopold View Post
    While I agree with you in essence, but people forgive bad/campy acting, low budgets/bad effects, and poor writing/scripts all the time -- like half the cult classics fall into either one or multiple of those categories, just check out the lengths people who love Lovecraft will go to shill their shitty movies.
    /shrug
    Being a "cult classic" doesn't necessarily mean people think it's actually good. Just that it's enjoyable in some way despite its flaws. I mean...Neil Breen definitely has a dedicated following of a certain type of people, but even they know that his movies are garbage. Doesn't stop them from enjoying them.

  13. #9353
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Not many shows get anywhere close to 100 million viewers
    Not many shows have a billion dollar budget and a license to a franchise with a large global following.

  14. #9354
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.
    I don't look at it as a blank slate. The information presented in the appendices is obviously the starting point and the basis for the series. I also never said that the show should ignore the lore, I said that like all adaptations it need not be a slave to every detail of the source material (especially for an adaptation that moves from one medium to another).

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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 being covered in the series is a shadow of what LotR and the Hobbit are in terms of detail and narrative depth. People really need to get over this idea of this lore being some sort of definitive, sacred text. It's an appendix. It's notes and lists that are there to give a very brief and vague backdrop for the REAL story which was LotR. There is no narrative, there's almost no detail, characters have no descriptions, personalities, arcs or dialogue, and large swaths of time are left completely blank. And what's more, it wasn't even the final, definitive vision of the author (and neither was the Silmarillion which also barely touches upon the Second Age).

    It's also not being presented as just a hero's journey. While Galadriel is the focus for a large portion of the show, it's very much a sprawling story told across several perspectives. You wouldn't say that GoT season 1 was centered on Ned Stark just because he had almost twice the screen time of any other character (roughly the same compared to Galadriel for season 1), or that the entirety of the series was centered on Tyrion, right?

    I'm trying to think of a show or movie that doesn't ground itself with one or several main characters through whose perspective the narrative unfolds... I mean, certainly none of the best ones did, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why character driven drama is the benchmark for good storytelling (and has been since antiquity).

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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.
    So you wanted a documentary? Because the appendices are little more than that. Like I said above, the lore for this stretch of time is bare bones AT BEST. And again, it's NOT centered on one character. If you want a dry accounting of the lore then the appendices are still there for you to read. All 2 pages dedicated to the 2nd Age (only half of which occurs between the forging of the rings and the end of the age). The lore of Numenor from the forging of the Ring to the downfall is less than two pages (1,700 years covered in less than two pages, more than half of which is dedicated to Ar-Pharazon). The lore of Durin's folk for the Second Age is one paragraph. These are pretty easy reads if you really don't give a shit about having them adapted to the screen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    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 books have a very rich history? No, they don't. The description for why Tar-Minastir sent the fleet to aid Gil-Galad is "He loved the Eldar but envied them" (Appendix A). That's it. There is nothing at all about the relationship he had with the elves, how he "loved but envied them", no description of the force he sent to aid them, nothing at all about the battles that were fought. The Silmarillion has no details about it at all other than Sauron was still pissed about it centuries later ("nor did he forget the aid that Tar-Minastir had rendered to Gil-galad of old, in that time when the One Ring was forged"). Even the Unfinished Tales don't add much more than names to the locations of the battles.

    It's like you've concocted this whole idea of a deep and detailed lore in your head completely separate from the reality that it's all based on just a handful of disjointed, often time contradictory, notes mostly edited and published posthumously.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-05-04 at 02:37 AM.

  15. #9355
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    The lore being covered in the series is a shadow of what LotR and the Hobbit are in terms of detail and narrative depth. People really need to get over this idea of this lore being some sort of definitive, sacred text. It's an appendix. It's notes and lists that are there to give a very brief and vague backdrop for the REAL story which was LotR. There is no narrative, there's almost no detail, characters have no descriptions, personalities, arcs or dialogue, and large swaths of time are left completely blank. And what's more, it wasn't even the final, definitive vision of the author (and neither was the Silmarillion which also barely touches upon the Second Age).
    That's little more than an excuse though.

    If the film is an adaptation of a historic epic, then it should at least adhere to such basic things like... Following its history.

    Of course things can change and be embellished. I am not arguing against RoP being an adaptation. It is free to be as creative as it wishes to be. But I've been pretty clear on bringing up direct examples of what in the show doesn't work.

    There are certainly broad strokes being followed, but there's far too many drastic changes or creative license being apllied that creates some significant plot holes/contradictions, mainly because we are literally dealing with historic revision to fit the story they want to tell.

    It's also not being presented as just a hero's journey. While Galadriel is the focus for a large portion of the show, it's very much a sprawling story told across several perspectives. You wouldn't say that GoT season 1 was centered on Ned Stark just because he had almost twice the screen time of any other character (roughly the same compared to Galadriel for season 1), or that the entirety of the series was centered on Tyrion, right?
    The difference is the events of GoT (early seasons) still followed the major beats of the book. Details can change, while the major arcs remain on target, and it still resembles the book lore in broad strokes.

    It wasn't changed to the point where Ned Stark was travelling around the world and inserting himself into multiple story arcs like going to the Wall and then appearing at Kings Landing then riding with the Dothraki. It wasn't the Ned Stark show even if he was a major POV character. The show didn't actually center around him and his actions even though he was at the center of the show, he was caught in the middle.

    Contrast that with Galadriel's story, where the world is literally revolving around her presence. If not for her explicit presence, Numenor would have absolutely no involvement with the affairs of the world, Sauron may have been left stranded in the middle of the ocean, and the Rings of Power may never have been forged. The show presents her as being causal to these events all happening. The only real things out of her influence or control would have been the appearance of the Stranger and the eventual creation of Mordor.

    I'm trying to think of a show or movie that doesn't ground itself with one or several main characters through whose perspective the narrative unfolds... I mean, certainly none of the best ones did, and I'd say it's pretty obvious why character driven drama is the benchmark for good storytelling (and has been since antiquity).
    I'm not criticising the choice to tell a character story.

    I'm criticizing the choice to use the Rings of Power story and setting to do so.

    If this were a simpler 'Young Galadriel' story that just centers on her growth and misadventures, I'd have no problem. But this is a misadventures story that involves established history.

    Like I said with the Warcraft movie, it's the wrong approach for a movie to bite off more than they could chew, and inserted waaay too much that killed the overall pacing.

    So you wanted a documentary?
    Rings of Power's setting spanning generations may not have been the best choice to tell a character story that focuses on Galadriel. Does my point make sense?


    If they want to adapt Rings of Power, then they should adapt the lore and history of Rings of Power. The setting and story should be the priority. Instead, they chose to build the show around a popular well known character and have the entire show revolve around her adventures as though everything she was involved in became recorded history.

    That'd be fine if it was Galadriel's adventures exploring Middle Earth, like the unrecorded adventures in history. But we're dealing with settings and events that are literally history to the LOTR, and the lore was bastardized in the process of them making room for the story and film they wanted to tell.

    Like, regardless if whether you like the Mithril saves Elves expansion of the lore or not, it just doesn't connect to LOTR as history, and creates quite massive potential plot holes. Frodo's shirt would incredibly important to the Elves and would have been a HUGE bartering chip/motivating factor for getting them more involved with the war against Sauron instead of leaving to the west. Aragorn, who was raised by Elrond, would have known of its significance to the Elves, and would have had enough to convince them to stay. The mere introduction of 'mithril saves Elves' undermines the existing lore, not expand it. And Rings of Power does this throughout the series, like Galadriel being st Numenor like I said previously.

    But like I said, we have different perspectives. It's obvious enough to me you don't think much about the repercussions of this affecting LOTR lore, or maybe you feel it's excusable for the mere sake of RoP being a self contained adaptstion that should be allowed the freedom to build its own canon. I don't see it the same way. If they wanted to tell a story about Galadriels adventures or the magical properties of Mithril saving Elves, then do so without creating massive potential plot holes/contradictions to the existing lore. A self contained 'untold history' adventure would have been fine for that.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-04 at 04:22 AM.

  16. #9356
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That's little more than an excuse though.

    If the film is an adaptation of a historic epic, then it should at least adhere to such basic things like... Following its history.
    It's not an excuse. It's an actual evaluation of the lore which you believe to be deep and detailed when in fact it is very much the opposite. One sentence fragment to describe 300 years is not "history". You have an extraordinarily low bar for what constitutes "lore" and conversely an extremely high bar for adaptations to adhere to it. It's ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Contrast that with Galadriel's story, where the world is literally revolving around her presence. If not for her explicit presence, Numenor would have absolutely no involvement with the affairs of the world, Sauron may have been left stranded in the middle of the ocean, and the Rings of Power may never have been forged. The show presents her as being causal to these events all happening. The only real things out of her influence or control would have been the appearance of the Stranger and the eventual creation of Mordor.
    Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that most of you didn't really watch the show at all. Did you just put it on in the background while playing WoW, or something? You're making a lot of assumptions and seem to have wildly inaccurate ideas about how the show is structured.

    The reveal a the end of the season was that her actions and decisions had been guided by Sauron almost the whole time, with the plan being to seduce her to his side. Galadriel is merely one of several vessels being used to explore and connect the disjointed lore points. Giving the character an arc during a time when her lore is non-existent isn't a bad thing either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I'm not criticising the choice to tell a character story.

    I'm criticizing the choice to use the Rings of Power story and setting to do so.
    There is no Rings of Power story. Tolkien never wrote one. He jotted down a few sentences here and there and made a list of dates but that's it. When was the last time you actually pulled out your copy of LotR and took a look at the appendices?

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    If they want to adapt Rings of Power, then they should adapt the lore and history of Rings of Power.
    That's exactly what they're doing! They took what was available to them, mapped out the key points, and developed a narrative by which those points could be presented in a cinematic storytelling style.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    The setting and story should be the priority. Instead, they chose to build the show around a popular well known character and have the entire show revolve around her adventures as though everything she was involved in became recorded history.
    No, the story is built around the events. The one of several characters that you keep harping on is just one of several means by which to bring those events to life as a cohesive narrative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Like, regardless if whether you like the Mithril saves Elves expansion of the lore or not, it just doesn't connect to LOTR as history, and creates quite massive potential plot holes. Frodo's shirt would incredibly important to the Elves and would have been a HUGE bartering chip/motivating factor for getting them more involved with the war against Sauron instead of leaving to the west. Aragorn, who was raised by Elrond, would have known of its significance to the Elves, and would have had enough to convince them to stay. The mere introduction of 'mithril saves Elves' undermines the existing lore, not expand it. And Rings of Power does this throughout the series, like Galadriel being st Numenor like I said previously.
    Did you miss the part about mithril on its own not being sufficient for the task? These aren't really plot holes if their just based on your misunderstanding of the plot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But like I said, we have different perspectives. It's obvious enough to me you don't think much about the repercussions of this affecting LOTR lore, or maybe you feel it's excusable for the mere sake of RoP being a self contained adaptstion that should be allowed the freedom to build its own canon. I don't see it the same way.
    There are no repercussions to LotR lore. IF the show is truly designed to be connected to the movies then keeping that in mind is indeed important, and thus far there hasn't really been any sort of egregious deviation (especially considering that we're only a fraction of the way though the events). Even if it isn't intended to feed into the movies, as an adaptation it doesn't build its own canon. The source material is still the only canon. The adaptation is merely a story retold through the perspective of the associated directors, writers, and actors.

  17. #9357
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    It's not an excuse. It's an actual evaluation of the lore which you believe to be deep and detailed when in fact it is very much the opposite. One sentence fragment to describe 300 years is not "history". You have an extraordinarily low bar for what constitutes "lore" and conversely an extremely high bar for adaptations to adhere to it. It's ridiculous.
    What's ridiculous is believing that Galadriel rallying Numenor and having a direct connection to Sauron would be a fine adaptation of the lore.

    Perspective. You think I have a high bar, I think you have a low bar. We have different perspectives, that's all.

    There'a little I can say that would satisfy what you want to hear, and I'm very aware of respectfully disagreeing on these points.

    Honestly, I'm more and more convinced that most of you didn't really watch the show at all. Did you just put it on in the background while playing WoW, or something? You're making a lot of assumptions and seem to have wildly inaccurate ideas about how the show is structured.

    The reveal a the end of the season was that her actions and decisions had been guided by Sauron almost the whole time, with the plan being to seduce her to his side. Galadriel is merely one of several vessels being used to explore and connect the disjointed lore points. Giving the character an arc during a time when her lore is non-existent isn't a bad thing either.
    It doesn't make sense either way, because she wasn't actually being manipulated for most of her actions (not to say he wasn't manipulating her; he absolutely was). She was consistently making brash decisions from the get go. That's what makes the 'revelation' damning, because it's a hamfisted and contrived explanation that doesn't really work.

    Galadriel's characterization is actually quite consistent. She is brash and stubborn in ger ways, and Halbrand does little to actually manipulate her. It was mostly her own doing, and he even ADMITS this like when he says he wasn't the one that told her he was a king of the Southlands, it was her own misguided assumptions. He wasn't manipulating her as much as she manipulated herself, and he just ran with it and got convinced of his own self worth in her zealousness. He was content to be left floating in the middle of nowhere and starting a new life, in this story.

    There is no Rings of Power story. Tolkien never wrote one. He jotted down a few sentences here and there and made a list of dates but that's it. When was the last time you actually pulled out your copy of LotR and took a look at the appendices?
    Shortly before the series came out.

    There are no repercussions to LotR lore. IF the show is truly designed to be connected to the movies then keeping that in mind is indeed important, and thus far there hasn't really been any sort of egregious deviation (especially considering that we're only a fraction of the way though the events). Even if it isn't intended to feed into the movies, as an adaptation it doesn't build its own canon. The source material is still the only canon. The adaptation is merely a story retold through the perspective of the associated directors, writers, and actors.
    The only way Rings of Power would make sense to the movie canon and work itself into the cinematic universe is if they added a scene with the little hobbits at Bilbo's party asking him "What happened next to Lady Galadriel?"
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-04 at 05:45 AM.

  18. #9358
    The Unstoppable Force Syegfryed's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    21,247
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn9530 View Post
    Not many shows get anywhere close to 100 million viewers, you also need to realise not everyone needs to watch a show for it to be good
    And since 67% of the audience didn'y even finish the show, you know it was shit.

    Does not matter if you got 100mlion of minutes watched, not viwers btw, because you had a powerful ip behind, if people do not care about finishing your show

    Shows also grow after the full series has been released, more and more ppl will eventually watch these shows.
    no, no one is going to eventually watch garbage for no reason.

    You are always going to have the wrong opinions when you ignore simple facts.
    the fact is that 67% of their US audience didn't finish the show, this is a fact that people didn't like the show, period.

  19. #9359
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    What's ridiculous is believing that Galadriel rallying Numenor and having a direct connection to Sauron would be a fine adaptation of the lore.

    Perspective. You think I have a high bar, I think you have a low bar. We have different perspectives, that's all.

    There'a little I can say that would satisfy what you want to hear, and I'm very aware of respectfully disagreeing on these points.
    It's definitely a "fine adaptation". I might feel like I could have written it in a less convoluted way, but regardless it ties the disjointed lore together to form a cohesive narrative. It introduces many of the requisite characters as well as the conflict that will play a part in future events. And Galadriel interacting directly with Sauron at this point in the story doesn't break anything. It adds drama and narrative where none existed, but doesn't contradict any of the events to come. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing wrong with the premise itself.

    It's not a respectful disagreement if you're grossly misrepresenting the source material. You say you read the appendices shortly before the series came out? Then how do you explain your blatant disregard for what little is actually on the page, while instead creating this fantasy of there being a rich and detailed history? This isn't a matter of perspective. It's you being dishonest and apparently not understanding the purpose of adaptation. If you wished that instead they just had a narrator read through the entirety of the Second Age lore (something that would take maybe 10 minutes) then you're not really adding anything of relevance to the discussion.
    Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-05-04 at 06:24 AM.

  20. #9360
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    It's definitely a "fine adaptation". I might feel like I could have written it in a less convoluted way, but regardless it ties the disjointed lore together to form a cohesive narrative. It introduces many of the requisite characters as well as the conflict that will play a part in future events. And Galadriel interacting directly with Sauron at this point in the story doesn't break anything. It adds drama and narrative where none existed, but doesn't contradict any of the events to come. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing wrong with the premise itself.
    I agree, there's nothing wrong with the premise itself. I disagree on it being a fine adaptation.

    The problem is that the premise breaks down when we consider what their relationship resulted in. The involvement of Numenor, the rise of Elendil, and of course, Galadriel's personal involvement in the creation of the Rings of Power. It's all interconnected because their direct relationship is causal to these events. The show implies that these historic events wouldn't have happened without a direct connection between Galadriel and Sauron, while the original source history of these events are not supposed to involve them together at all.

    It's not a respectful disagreement if you're grossly misrepresenting the source material. You say you read the appendices shortly before the series came out? Then how do you explain your blatant disregard for what little is actually on the page, while instead creating this fantasy of there being a rich and detailed history? This isn't a matter of perspective. It's you being dishonest and apparently not understanding the purpose of adaptation. If you wished that instead they just had a narrator read through the entirety of the Second Age lore (something that would take maybe 10 minutes) then you're not really adding anything of relevance to the discussion.
    I went through the appendices and Silmarillion together, and my previous comments about rich and detailed lore is in regards to everything we know about the Second Age. If you were talking specifically about the Appendices, then I'll admit to miscommunicating my response. My sentiment remains the same otherwise.

    I don't really care if they don't have the rights to Silmarillion's 2nd Age. IMO, if they lack the rights to detailed accounts of specific historic events in the 2nd Age that they want to adapt; then just... don't use that specific setting. I would have no problem with a misadventures of Galadriel show. Kinda like what Star Wars is doing with Andor or Obi-Wan series; these are untold stories, not adaptations of recorded history and lore that end up being completely retconned.

    And to circle around to the original point, it is a bastardization of the lore of the books, because it literally rewrites history to fit the story it wants to tell and does so poorly. It's not merely a romanticization of these events, it's a poorly executed adaptation overall that would imply many plot holes if connected to back to the books. Not saying they have to or should connect to the books, but merely arguing that if it did, it would introduce plot holes/contradictions that diminishes the original lore. Gil-Galad having authority to send Elves back to Valinor is one such example; Mithril saving Elves is another. And overall, the entire choice to condense timelines and center all major events to Galadriel is causal to such discrepencies.

    If you really break down the changes they made to the lore, it feels like they were a result of reverse engineered plot. Like if their goal was to tell a story of Galadriel being in Numenor, and the writers needed some excuse to have Galadriel travel westward. There is no reason to give Gil-Galad the authority to send Elves back to Valinor in the show's own lore, and Gil-Galad having this authority serves no greater purpose after he sends them out to sea. It's merely used as plot element to situate Galadriel close to Numenor. And if that's how they actually went about writing this show, then IMO it's better if they just wrote something completely new instead of covering any existing lore and history from the books. Just tell an untold adventure story set in the 2nd Age instead.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-04 at 08:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

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