"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..."
no clue if this is touched on or not any where, but do the elfs still have there rings post one ring destruction and would they still have power?
Actually would the dwarf and human ones still be a thing? In the Jackson movies all the orcs drop dead so I’d assume the ring wraiths did to but that’s not the case in the book I’ve heard so would the wraiths still be around like the orcs are?
All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.
They didn't Phantom Menace the orcs at the end of Jackson's Return of the King. Most of the orc army fell into a convenient sinkhole caused by the tower's collapse/explosion (to resolve the immediate conflict that would have killed Aragorn and company otherwise), but you can see a ton of them simply fleeing the battle.
No idea about your actual question, though. I'd assume the remaining Nazgul would have faded with their connection to the ring permanently severed...but I have nothing to back that up.
All I ever wanted was the truth. Remember those words as you read the ones that follow. I never set out to topple my father's kingdom of lies from a sense of misplaced pride. I never wanted to bleed the species to its marrow, reaving half the galaxy clean of human life in this bitter crusade. I never desired any of this, though I know the reasons for which it must be done. But all I ever wanted was the truth.
What do you think insult means? You're putting words in my mouth, hence strawman.
They have the rights to the LotR trilogy, hobbit, and most importantly the appendices. This means they are lacking some crucial bits from the Silmarillion (which is why our view of Valinor is so limited). I think it's a folly to argue that Amazon does not have the rights to enough material, when the majority of the relevant characters of this era are also talked about in the LotR trilogy, as well as a lot of the 2nd age is showcased in the appendices.
There is plenty of materiel in for instance the trilogy & the Hobbit as it pertains to the personalities of Elrond, Galadriel and the wizards, so there is not much of an excuse to characterize them wildly different or contradictory to how they have been previously established.
Ultimately they figured that their vision of these characters and settings trumped the existing works and this is why a lot of people dislike the show, because their direction doesn't align with peoples' vision.
Prot Paladin on Gehennas EU, you can find me at
https://discord.gg/lightclubclassic
https://classic.warcraftlogs.com/cha.../gehennas/wltr
this highlights yet more evidence you don't know the source material, this was done as a VISUAL REPRESENTATION to show the destruction of the evil that Sauron perpetuated, it was also a VISUAL REPRESENTATION to show that everything made with that power and tied to that power was defeated, the reason the orcs and trolls were running away is because for the first time in their lives most likely they were no longer under the sway of Sauron and had some degree of free will, and they were simply responding to the primal urge of self preservation, something they had not had the luxury of before.
There's a strong suggestion that they went out with Sauron, in the following exchange between Gandalf and Merry about the fate of the Nazgul at the ford:
There's also a passage in HoME, that was an early draft for the appendices of LotR,`I thought they were all destroyed in the flood,’ said Merry.
‘You cannot destroy Ringwraiths like that,’ said Gandalf. `The power of their master is in them, and they stand or fall by him. We hope that they were all unhorsed and unmasked, and so made for a while less dangerous; but we must find out for certain….’
There's surprisingly little material on the topic. Here's one more ambiguous passage from a draft for Return of the King in Sauron Defeated that has Sam slay a Ringwraith who tries to stop his and Frodo's escape after the Ring has gone into the Fire, in a very 80s action-movie sort of scene (that Tolkien decided to cut)).After a lapse of 969 years Aragorn, son of Arathorn, 16th chieftain of the Dunedain of the North, and 41st heir of Elendil in the direct line through Isildur, being also in the direct line a descend ant of Firiel daughter of Ondohir [> Ondonir] of Gondor, claimed the crown of Gondor and of Arnor, after the defeat of Sauron, the destruction of Mordor, and the dissolution of the Ringwraiths. He was crowned in the name of Elessar at Minas Tirith in 3019. A new era and calendar was then begun, beginning with 25 March (old reckoning) as the first day. He restored Gondor and repeopled it, but retained Minas Tirith as the chief city. He wedded Arwen Undomiel, daughter of Elrond, brother of Elros first King of Numenor, and so restored the majesty and high lineage of the royal house, but their life-span was not restored and continued to wane until it became as that of other men.
Fire goes mad. Frodo is like to be destroyed.
Nazgûl shape at the door. Frodo is caught in the fire-chamber and cannot get out!
Here we all end together, said the Ring Wraith.
Frodo is too weary and lifeless to say nay.
You first, said a voice, and Sam (with Sting?)
stabs the Black Rider from behind.
"In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)
Except... people gave, time and time again, objective reasons.
The show is badly written, its an objective argument that the lines were nonsensical full of non seguitur, the analogy of the stone of the boat is dumb as fuck. The plot is all over the place and doesn't make sense, it its forcer to the way the showrunners wanted in not an organically way, like how the elves didn't notice the orcs bulding shit, or how in numenor they had the enemy plan wainting for galadriel to find, and they finding it was a map just by turning the symbol sideways, and why in the fuck does sauron would mark her brother with a map so they could find him????
The casting and acting was objectively bad from most of the characters, like they were just reading the script.
The changing from the original story were objectively bad, with bs like magic juice mithril and Galadriel going to numenor and leading then, or Galadriel and Sauron love quarry. it is objectively worse than what Tolkien wrote.
The choreography and fight scenes were bad, plain and simple, there is multiple times they didn't even touch the enemies and they simple are defeated
figurine? mostly bad, especially the numenorians. Hell even the edit of the show is bad, with the scene showing then in one position, but you cut from another angle and they are totally different, also, the power point name changing to mordor lol.
No one who is arguing with good faith can say those are "subjective" most of those stuff is the skeleton of what make a show decent.
No where does my opinion imply that I would prevent Jeff Bezos making Rings of Power if I had the power to. He can do what he wants with his money. Nothing I say or do affects that whatsoever, and I don't intend to take any action on my opinion that they could have done things differently.
The logical leaps you've made are just fucking ridiculous.
You seriously don't think condensing thousands of years and rearranging the sequence of events changes anything?All Annatar did was give the elves the knowledge to forge the rings. That is the entire extent of what the lore covers. What did he say to convince them? Don't know. What knowledge did he teach them? Don't know. Did he do anything else over those 300 years? No idea. Why did Celebrimbor make the three in secret if he was unaware of any deception? Who the fuck knows but it sure was convenient. There's truly very little substance to any of this Annatar related lore on the page.
I'll say that what they've done hasn't broken anything so far in terms of hitting the major events, but the alteration of it is significant to changing history in a way that it was not intended to. 'Lore Bastardization' is in reference to what Rings of Power is doing overall to the lore, not just any one cherry-picked talking point out of context of the greater picture.
Every time I explain the full picture, you come back at me with a cherry picked scene and saying it doesn't break anything. But if you look at the entire picture, what you get is a completely different telling of the same story with events shifted and altered to the point where it no longer resembles the same outline of lore as in the books; some of which were made for the sake of merely getting a character from Point A to Point B. Annatar is not a character who is thwarted at every turn with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron. We have characters who have their suspicions, but his deception is maintained for a very long time. This characterizes Annatar in a way that Halbrand simply can't live up to (nor should it have to). And what I'm pointing out is the change to the lore inevitably bastardizes it, because we're talking about a show that is intent on adapting this specific history of Tolkien's works, and it's chosen a path of liberal romanticization.
Of course, some of these changes HAVE to be and are EXPECTED to be made in order to make an adaptation of the book to film. The book lore even has certain gaps and inconsistencies which wouldn't really work on film. It's technically unadaptable without breaking the history itself. In this very specific case, I would say that any attempt at making a character-driven narrative out of the 2nd Age is inevitably going to bastardize the lore. Let's be real here, there's really no reason for Harfoots and Gandalf to even appear in the historic tale of the creation of the Rings of Power.
It may not be the sole fault of the creators breaking lore in an attempt to adapt the 2nd Age, it may simply be the nature of adapting history into a singular narrative. This is why I express criticism on their choice to adapt the 2nd Age's history as a singular character-driven narrative. They don't have to adapt the history of the 2nd Age. They don't have to choose to adapt a timeline that spans generations. They don't have to attempt to connect disjointed sections of lore within a single narrative. Look at what War of the Rohirrim is aiming to do by telling a story set in Rohan during the time of Helm Hammerhand. It's taking one single setting in lore, and adapting it in a self-contained series.
And again, I'm not preventing them from making RoP with a condensed timeline since they have the freedom to. All I'm pointing out is that the process of choosing to adapt it into a singular narrative inevitably bastardizes the lore. So we can just accept it as what it is and move on, instead of trying to defend it for not breaking the very thing it's intentionally breaking.
Just like if we were to talk about an adaptation of real life history like Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or Inglorious Basterds. Both are great movies. Both are loosely based on history. Both bastardize history to tell their unique stories. There isn't anything insulting about the use of 'bastardization' here, it's a word used to describe a diminished copy; and in this context we are talking about what these movies do to real life history. Of course, the difference here is no one expects QT to be faithful to real history for his films; his entire style is predicated on exploitation films and heavily romanticized drama. And in his defense, bastardizing history allows his films to be unpredictable and exciting.
But unlike Tarantino's movies, there is an expectation for RoP to be as faithfully adapted as the PJ LOTR trilogy had been (not to be confused with calling LOTR a faithful adaptation; it is not). There is a bar set by PJ's trilogy for a film of this specific genre, adapting this specific author's work. It may sound unfair to compare it to LOTR, since the 2nd Age is literally just a spattering of historic events, but that's also the nature of choosing to adapt a spattering of historic events.
And that's fine. But that's not lore depth, that's plot depth.Halbrand's scene meeting Celebrimbor already adds a lot more depth than what is in both the appendices and Silmarillion combined simply by them having dialogue and an actual exchange of ideas.
We're learning more about their interactions and character relationships in those scenes, which is great for the story they want to tell. But it's not doing anything for the greater lore, where we literally don't know why Halbrand is even helping Celebrimbor at this point. We just know he's manipulating him, we don't know exactly for what purpose, since his actual motives are mostly kept secret. Did he plan to have Rings of Power created from the beginning? Did he just come up with the idea after seeing what Celebrimbor was attempting to create? Or was he just genuinely helping Celebrimbor to build trust for the future? We don't know. There is no lore depth because there is no lore. We literally don't know what actually happened here and how it fits into the greater narrative's history.
I would consider it adding lore depth if these scenes actually revealed key motives, rather than imply everything through subtext. All we glean from this interaction is that Halbrand manipulates Celebrimbor, presumably because it's a very 'Sauron' thing to do.
At this point they've rearranged the sequencing, so the 3 Rings are forged before the others.As for distributing the rings, there is absolutely nothing in the lore detailing that except for the one that is given by the elves to Durin. There's no detail on what form he takes to distribute the rings or why no one who takes one apparently knows that they're the entire reason for the obliteration of Eregion.
Since this happened in the show yet, there's really nothing to talk about yet, only speculate.
Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-05 at 08:47 AM.
I'm not pretending. Nor am I saying you're dumb, you just don't know what "continuity" means when you say "if your series is substantially focused on things the writer didn't focus on, that breaks your continuity". How much screen time non-evil orcs get in a season has no effect on continuity in and of itself. Nor does you personally having issues with casting affect continuity because continuity doesn't care about your opinion, especially for events that haven't even happened yet.
I didn't say that it doesn't change anything, but if there is no real detail associated with the passage of time then it's not of any narrative significance. Tolkien chose 300 years, but gave no reason for why it couldn't have been 200, or 100, or 1,000, or 20. As such, there is no lore there. It's just an arbitrary number to signify that time passed. Maybe it had to do with which mortals he wanted alive at the time the rings were completed, but from the perspective of an adaptation that is centered on particular events the number is not significant.
I'm not cherry picking. I'm literally copy/pasting the entirety of the lore (what little there is). The point is that there is almost nothing TO diminish, or bastardize. You say "Annatar is not a character who is thwarted with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron", but HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? The lore doesn't tell us any detail of those 300 years other than "he instructed the Elven-smiths". That's not cherry picking, that's literally all the lore says. That and there were some who were suspicious of him. You can fill in the blank centuries if you want with this idea that everything went to plan and no one tried to figure out who he was, but it's simply your own headcanon and it's just as good as any other narrative that someone can come up with for how Annatar went about those years in Eregion. Yes, his deception was maintained, but we're not told whether there was conflict in doing so or not. And I wouldn't say that deciding to portray a narrative within that timespan would be bastardizing the lore because almost anything would be improving it. As long as the end result is the same and the rings are made using the knowledge he imparts on the smiths, any narrative is better than no narrative when it comes to adapting the story. So no, it's not a bastardization. It's an improvement.Every time I explain the full picture, you come back at me with a cherry picked scene and saying it doesn't break anything. But if you look at the entire picture, what you get is a completely different telling of the same story with events shifted and altered to the point where it no longer resembles the same outline of lore as in the books; some of which were made for the sake of merely getting a character from Point A to Point B. Annatar is not a character who is thwarted at every turn with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron. We have characters who have their suspicions, but his deception is maintained for a very long time. This characterizes Annatar in a way that Halbrand simply can't live up to (nor should it have to). And what I'm pointing out is the change to the lore inevitably bastardizes it, because we're talking about a show that is intent on adapting this specific history of Tolkien's works, and it's chosen a path of liberal romanticization.
What is the importance of that? It's a completely different type of story, yes, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's also important to note that Helm Hammerhand has about ten times more lore and infinitely more depth associated with him in the appendices than Annatar does in all the writings combined. There is narrative, there is insight into his personality, there is dialogue. SO much more to work with.It may not be the fault of the creators to break the lore, but it's a residual result of simply tackling this project under the premise of creating a singular narrative and story that doesn't span generations. This is why I express criticism on their choice to adapt the 2nd Age's history as a singular character-driven narrative. There are alternatives to choosing to adapting this huge a span of the 2nd Age. Like look at what War of the Rohirrim is aiming to do by telling a story set in Rohan during the time of Helm Hammerhand; a story that isn't going to be spanning generations to covering vast sections of lore, all within a single narrative.
Your entire premise is flawed, because simply changing the narrative style doesn't mean the lore is necessarily diminished. In fact, dry detail (such as lore or even historical events) can be elevated by being drawn into dramatic narrative. Take Arcane for instance. Based on a handful of video game characters that had little more than short snippets of backstory, but drawn together into a fully formed narrative elevated the source material into one of the best (if not THE best) video game related adaptations.And again, I'm not preventing them from making RoP with a condensed timeline since they have the freedom to. All I'm pointing out is that it inevitably bastardizes the lore in the process of choosing to adapt it into a singular narrative, which it never was meant to be.
You're coming at this from the perspective that the source material is ALWAYS the pinnacle, and any changes therefor make it diminished/corrupted/bastardized. This is again where your bias and lack of objectivity come into play.
It's starting to sound like you just like throwing around the term "bastardization" with no real thought whatsoever. No, Tarantino's movies don't bastardize history. They don't diminish it. They embellish it. The movies don't serve to tell a historical account, so accuracy is never the intent. The historical setting, time period, characters, etc. serve the story the artist is trying to tell and are elevated from mere detail into a dramatic narrative.Just like if we were to talk about an adaptation of real life history like Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, or Inglorious Basterds. Both are great movies. Both are loosely based on history. Both bastardize history to tell their unique stories. There isn't anything insulting about the use of 'bastardization' here, it's a word used to describe a diminished copy; and in this context we are talking about what these movies do to real life history. Of course, the difference here is no one expects QT to be faithful to real history for his films; his entire style is predicated on exploitation films and heavily romanticized drama.
I'm not saying that the path they chose is perfect, but I AM saying that even the attempt is better than what little we get from the books. I mean shit, the books never even explain "why rings", but the show actually made an attempt to do so.And that's fine. But that's not lore depth, that's plot depth.
We're learning more about their interactions and character motivations in those scenes, which is great for the story they want to tell. But it's not doing anything for the greater lore, where we literally don't know why Halbrand is even helping Celebrimbor at this point. We just know he's manipulating him, we don't know exactly for what purpose, since his actual motives are mostly kept secret. Did he plan to have Rings of Power created from the beginning? Did he just come up with the idea after seeing what Celebrimbor was attempting to create? We don't know. There is no lore depth because there is no lore. We literally don't know what he is actually planning.
And what's the issue with not yet knowing Sauron's exact plans? There's still plenty more story to tell leading up to the One Ring. The only reason it's not a question in the books is because the entire forging of all 20 rings is covered in three sentences. And there is no explanation as to why rings, why did he leave after 16 were made, who did he expect to be wearing those 16 lesser rings, how did he not find out about the Three in the decade after leaving Eregion before completing the One, and so on. You're right, there lore has no depth and is almost a blank slate that many a narrative can be crafted to flesh out.
- - - Updated - - -
There's YOUR personal expectation (shared by many, I'm sure, but still not a universal expectation) as well as your subjective determination of how faithful the adaptation is. I wouldn't fault the people making the show for that, though. I'd consider that an error on the part of whoever thinks that adapting a spattering of disjointed notes can or should be viewed the same way as an adaptation of a complete and fully realized narrative. I would again argue that anyone who feels like the two are comparable simply doesn't understand the source material or how adaptation works.
Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-05-05 at 08:47 AM.
I'm re-reading the Silmarillion on these days...
how could they fuck up SO MUCH the atmosphere, the lore, the stories...
to me, after all, this is most disappointing tv series I ever watched
Another example here that contradicts your entire premise would be episode 3 of The Last of Us. I know you said you have no experience with the game or the show, but I'll explain.
The third episode entails a massive deviation from the source material, crafting an entire episode-long story from a short sequence in the game. By your definition this would be a bastardization, a diminishing of the established source material by doing something that it didn't intend to do. However, it is one of the highlights of the series, and one of the most lauded episodes of TV this year. The lore and the source material aren't diminished, they're elevated. The choice to depart from the game canon added depth to the setting, a fantastic narrative, and a reinforcing of the themes the show was exploring.
So no, we're not just going to accept your take on the notion of adaptation changing the narrative structure "inevitably bastardizing lore" because it's simply, factually, objectively not true.
Last edited by Adamas102; 2023-05-05 at 09:23 AM.
That IS the lore. It doesn't matter if he didn't choose other numbers, that 300 years is the tine he chose. It is the fictional history.
And yes, you can argue that changing history isn't a big deal for the story you want to tell; ultimately that is subjective. Your regard of the significance of these numbers is subjective. It's still lore, no matter how insignificant you may think it is.
That's exactly my point! Lore is HISTORY. If history isn't recorded, then nothing happens. Any attempt to fill in the blanks with headcanon that (intentional or not) diminishes the history is bastardizing it. Scouring of the Shire omission is one example. Changing the witch King's defeat is another. These are diminished accounts of the actual history of what happened in the actual lore.I'm not cherry picking. I'm literally copy/pasting the entirety of the lore (what little there is). The point is that there is almost nothing TO diminish, or bastardize. You say "Annatar is not a character who is thwarted with someone hot on his heels of figuring out that he's Sauron", but HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? The lore doesn't tell us any detail of those 300 years other than "he instructed the Elven-smiths". That's not cherry picking, that's literally all the lore says.
---
Yes, his deception was maintained, but we're not told whether there was conflict in doing so or not.
---+
And in this case, there is both objective and subjective value applied to the terminology. Think of it in like how 'Good' can have subjective value (that was a good show, I enjoyed it very much) or an objective value (A 90% score is typically considered a good score). The context of Bastardized Lore can be objectively considered in the right contextual framework, like describing how a romantacization corrupts the fictional history of a story to suit its own retelling of events. One such example is Disney taking popular fables snd telling them as kid-friendly tales that remove any tragic ending for the sake of modernization or palatability. Take the Little Mermaid for example, it's original story and ending are completely bastardized to suit a completely different story being told. And this description is not a an insult or derogatory statement, it is a description of the fictional history being changed and corrupted from the original texts; in this specific example changing from a Romantic Tragedy into a Romantic Fairy Tale. This is just a simple application of the term in context to the original lore. If you wish to call it an embellishment, you are also welcomed to; that is simply s description that favours creative changes over authenticity.
Which is what I'm using as an example of what I think makes a better alternative to adapt than the broad history of 2nd Age that Rings of Power is attempting to cover. This is just my opinion here, not what I am demanding of Amazon to change like you somehow think.What is the importance of that? It's a completely different type of story, yes, but that's pretty irrelevant. It's also important to note that Helm Hammerhand has about ten times more lore and infinitely more depth associated with him in the appendices than Annatar does in all the writings combined. There is narrative, there is insight into his personality, there is dialogue. SO much more to work with.
I have similar criticisms for the first Warcraft movie, where I think they bit off too much to chew to put into a single movie. It may have been better if it spanned out as a miniseries, or if they merely picked one narrative that would have been better to translate into film, like Arthas' story. The pacing, the convoluted plotlines, and too many PoV plots to follow all mirror the same issues that complicates Rings of Power. And overall, the lore is collateral damage from merely choosing to adapt an epic into a single movie.
But it is for the specific case of the show we are talking about here.Your entire premise is flawed, because simply changing the narrative style doesn't mean the lore is necessarily diminished.
No, it is NOT the pinnacle. It is the TOPIC of this specific discussion! It's like if you were commenting to my criticism on the show's poor pacing, I'm going to talk about the show's poor pacing. If we have a 30 page discussion on the pacing of the show, it does not suddenly mean I consider pacing to be the pinnacle of what makes a good show.You're coming at this from the perspective that the source material is ALWAYS the pinnacle, and any changes therefor make it diminished/corrupted/bastardized. This is again where your bias and lack of objectivity come into play.
A question to you here is why do you even care if the lire is bastardized or not? You seem to be defending it without regarding book lore as being significant to the show at all, so this doesn't take ANYTHING away from your enjoyment of this show . It's like you only want to argue against it ib principle, while completely disregarding what the meaning of lore actually means, like when you say Tolkien picking 300 years has no significance. It doesn't matter if yiu think that or not, because Tolkien choosing 300 years isn't subjective, it is objective fact. We are talking act of changing history to fit a narrative that is meant to retell history.
The source material is NOT the pinnacle of what makes a good show, because my explanation of how the lore is being bastardized has nothing to do with defining the show being good or bad objectively.
The entire topic was predicated on the subjective use of the term to denote what they personally feel makes a good show. And I have been clear that I was not the one who applied this term to the show in regards to what it needed to do to become a better show.
That it does not have the intent of being historically accurate does not remove it from what it is still doing. A dramatic narrative that embellishes history for the sake of its art may also be bastardizing it a byproduct of being based on historic accounts. What would define it as bastardization is dependant on how it is being embellished. inglorious Basterds, as intentionally canoy as it is, is still predicated on being based on history even if fictionally. And from that same historic perspective, history is clearly being bastardized for the sake of the art. It is both an embellishment AND a bastardization. The only difference is perspective.It's starting to sound like you just like throwing around the term "bastardization" with no real thought whatsoever. No, Tarantino's movies don't bastardize history. They don't diminish it. They embellish it. The movies don't serve to tell a historical account, so accuracy is never the intent. The historical setting, time period, characters, etc. serve the story the artist is trying to tell and are elevated from mere detail into a dramatic narrative.
Two sides of the same coin.
Again, we have different perspectives here if we are speaking our opinions of the showI'm not saying that the path they chose is perfect, but I AM saying that even the attempt is better than what little we get from the books. I mean shit, the books never even explain "why rings", but the show actually made an attempt to do so.
I personally don't give it browny points for trying to explain something that isn't expected to be explained. It is quite inconsequential to me.
It's the job of a narrative to flesh out the details, very true. But as I point out, when adapting established history that is sparse on details, there is a duality between authenticity (documentary style, ala Appendices) and applying creative license. It's two sides of the same coin, and you can't flip both faces in the same side.And what's the issue with not yet knowing Sauron's exact plans? There's still plenty more story to tell leading up to the One Ring. The only reason it's not a question in the books is because the entire forging of all 20 rings is covered in three sentences. And there is no explanation as to why rings, why did he leave after 16 were made, who did he expect to be wearing those 16 lesser rings, how did he not find out about the Three in the decade after leaving Eregion before completing the One, and so on. You're right, there lore has no depth and is almost a blank slate that many a narrative can be crafted to flesh out.
'Bastardization of the lore' is merely a term that leans towards favouring book authenticity over creative license. And this term was specifically being used someone who was favouring book authenticity over creative license. The term is perfectly applicable to the show. It is not a term that denotes a flaw or drawback at all, since Rings of Power is not beholden to adapting the lore faithfully.
When I say I'm speaking about this objectively, I am talking about not having a preference between being authentic/faithful to the source, or applying creative license. I remain quite agnostic on this topic, since I find equal value in both.
- - - Updated - - -
Again, not gonna comment on stuff I don't know much about. I have no intention of arguing for the sake of arguing here.
'by my definition' doesn't mean much since you're applying it to a context that may or may not be applicable. inevitably bastardizing lore" is specific to adapting the 2nd Age"s history into a single narrative, while you're taking the comment out of context, which changes my definition.
My arguments are specific RoP, not intended to be used universally. For example, if we were talking Star Wars Prequels introducing controversial changes to the original trilogy lore, I would say the prequels define lore. Anything changed is effectively retcon, because the author is defining the lore. My arguments wouldn't be applicable to this context.
Last edited by Triceron; 2023-05-05 at 05:23 PM.
I mean the reason of your post is that people refuse aknowledge the inherent flaws of the show, and think everything is objective
The gold in this post is "the world bad is always subjective" is an objective statement, is the same bs that people say "there is no absolutes" when that in itself is an absolutist statement.As an aid for you, the word “bad” is ALWAYS subjective. You might well believe there is general concensus on your points and that the opposite view cannot be justified, but it is still subjective.
No, its not subjective, no matter how much people try to spin it, If everything was subjective there would be no critics to criticize the elements of a work, there would be no narrative elements that people study across ages in literature, etc etc.
What is subjective is TASTE, if people LIKE, or DON'T LIKE IT.
It isn't a strawman if you actually claimed that it is hubris and calling the original author bad. At least own up to the things you say.
Right. They have some information but they do not have all. If it appears in the works they don't have rights to then they can't use it for the show and have to invent a things to replace those parts of the characters, events, places, etc. You know the thing you called major hubris and calls the original author bad.
Last edited by rhorle; 2023-05-05 at 01:25 PM.
"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..."