So basically your entire argument stems from a blind adherence to the source material with no thought whatsoever. This is what I've been talking about from the beginning; lore for the sake of lore being a terrible way to approach or judge an adaptation.
No, that is not the case. If it's blank then it can't be diminished. This is seriously the dumbest argument to continue going around and around on. If it's blank, there is no lore, so anything added doesn't diminish, it increases by definition. That doesn't mean it's canon, but it's certainly not a diminishing. In fact, this is one of the biggest advantages of adaptation.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.
It's like you keep forgetting (or ignoring) that this isn't even the definitive story that the original author wanted to tell. These were notes. A work in progress. Just because he died before he could craft them into their own narrative doesn't mean that what's left on the page forms a fully realized lore. In fact, we can more strongly argue that given Tolkien's fully fleshed out works that are part of the setting (LotR, The Hobbit, and the various short stories), that adding narrative improves, elevates, and expands the lore, not diminishes it. And that adding narrative would indeed be in line with the overall intent of the author. Tolkien did a lot of world building in the background with notes like this, but his completed works were very much narrative driven.
I care because you're not applying the definition correctly. You're right, we're not talking about whether the show was good or not, or whether I enjoyed it or not (I haven't even brought up any of that myself). But your premise is incorrect and is indeed based on the idea of lore being the pinnacle (even if you don't want to admit it) because that's where you have to start if you're going to lay out blanket assertions that this, or any other adaptation, is a diminished copy simply because it doesn't adhere to the lore 100%.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.
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.
It does matter that it's not intended to be historically accurate because that means it's not meant to be a copy and therefore cannot be a bastardization, no matter how simplified in detail it is compared to the actual history. Something like Drunk History would be a bastardization because the intent is to recount the actual historical events but in a condensed and more humorously driven form.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.
Two sides of the same coin.
The point you're missing is that these things aren't mutually exclusive. You can most definitely adhere to source material AND apply creative license. Especially so when the source material is so lacking in detail. The appendices merely state that Sauron deceived the smiths and gave them the knowledge to craft the Rings of Power. The show actually reflects that lore in its entirety. You might not like the creative license they took to flesh out the narrative, but that doesn't mean the lore is diminished.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.
'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.
No, that wasn't your argument. Your exact words were "All I'm pointing out is that the process of choosing to adapt it into a singular narrative inevitably bastardizes the lore". You're stating that the process of changing the narrative structure (which isn't specific to RoP) inevitably diminishes the lore. And I pointed out, with multiple examples, of that not being the case. Especially with what I noted above about Tolkien's completed works all being narrative driven.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.
You keep saying this is specific to RoP, but then you give no details to support that, instead relying on these blanket ideas that it's the change in narrative structure or simply a deviation from the exact words on the page that makes it a bastardization when those points aren't unique to RoP (and refuted by the aforementioned examples).