Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Fabinas]

It is okay if you don't understand the phrase but hating on the show so much you think it is talking about an animal is hilarious.

worm your way/yourself into something (disapproving)
to make someone like you or trust you, in order to gain some advantage for yourself
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionari...-your-way-into

It is okay if you don't understand what you quoted, but loving the show so much you think that phrase was literal is hilarious.

Oh, no, it's intentional, Rhorle after all, ignoring the major word in the quote: "metaphors". You just need something to type, don't you?

[rhorle]

Oh, no, it's intentional, Rhorle after all, ignoring the major word in the quote: "metaphors". You just need something to type, don't you?

It being a metaphor still doesn't change that they compared worming to an actual worm instead of the idiom. It's raining cats and dogs doesn't mean cats and dogs are falling from the sky. Lmao.

[RobertoCarlos]

Where did I say it was literal? As usual. Rhorle missing the point just so he can argue for the sake of arguing.

Funny how you mention cats and dogs raining from the sky. Notice how the phrase is cats and dogs not cats and elephants? Because cats and dogs are common household pets so naturally they get linked together so the phrase makes sense.

Much like using terminology like slither makes one think of a snake because snakes obviously slither. So confusing worm with snake in the same metaphor is a shitty metaphor.

[rhorle]

Where did I say it was literal? As usual. Rhorle missing the point just so he can argue for the sake of arguing.

Lol. You asked is it a worm or a snake. That is taking it literally instead of the idiom. They didn't confuse worm with snake. It wasn't the same metaphor but two different metaphors in a single sentence. Of course cats and dogs get linked but that just proves that their choice isn't a bad one. Because slithering (snakes) are often linked with deceit (worming your way in)

[RobertoCarlos]

Lol. You asked is it a worm or a snake. That is taking it literally instead of the idiom. They didn't confuse worm with snake. It wasn't the same metaphor but two different metaphors in a single sentence. Of course cats and dogs get linked but that just proves that their choice isn't a bad one. Because slithering (snakes) are often linked with deceit (worming your way in)

Sigh... It was a rhetorical question as I was comparing their use of two different types of ground animals to create an image and how it is shallow and an attempt at being deep and is ultimately confusing as they mix up their imagery.

Also snakes are symbolic of deceit sure but because they are deadly and if they turned on you that would be pretty bad wouldn't it. That's a bit different to a worm isn't it

[Fabinas]

It being a metaphor still doesn't change that they compared worming to an actual worm instead of the idiom. It's raining cats and dogs doesn't mean cats and dogs are falling from the sky. Lmao.

You're missing the point.

Is the show metaphor a good one or not? Stop judging what people post.

[rhorle]

Sigh... It was a rhetorical question as I was comparing their use of two different types of ground animals to create an image and how it is shallow and an attempt at being deep and is ultimately confusing as they mix up their imagery.

Yet they weren't comparing two animals. The idiom isn't about a worm even if it is inspired by a worm burrowing into an object. They didn't mix up any imagery they just used two different ones in the same sentence. Of course snakes are different from worms but the cultural meaning attached to snakes in a lot of cultures isn't much different from the idiom.

- - - Updated - - -

You're missing the point. Is the show metaphor a good one or not? Stop judging what people post.

So you can judge what I post but I can't do it? Apply to be a moderator if you want to be the forum police. I see nothing wrong with the metaphor as can be implied with what I've said about it. Maybe pay more attention to the topic then derailing the thread.

[RobertoCarlos]

Yet they weren't comparing two animals. The idiom isn't about a worm even if it is inspired by a worm burrowing into an object. They didn't mix up any imagery they just used two different ones in the same sentence. Of course snakes are different from worms but the cultural meaning attached to snakes in a lot of cultures isn't much different from the idiom.

- - - Updated - - -



So you can judge what I post but I can't do it? Apply to be a moderator if you want to be the forum police. I see nothing wrong with the metaphor as can be implied with what I've said about it. Maybe pay more attention to the topic then derailing the thread.

Of course you don't answer the question. Maybe the sea IS always right

[Fabinas]

Yet they weren't comparing two animals. The idiom isn't about a worm even if it is inspired by a worm burrowing into an object. They didn't mix up any imagery they just used two different ones in the same sentence. Of course snakes are different from worms but the cultural meaning attached to snakes in a lot of cultures isn't much different from the idiom.

- - - Updated - - -



So you can judge what I post but I can't do it? Apply to be a moderator if you want to be the forum police. I see nothing wrong with the metaphor as can be implied with what I've said about it. Maybe pay more attention to the topic then derailing the thread.

Still missing the point. Doesn't matter, your opinion is not worth anything to me anyway. Keep on, by all means.

[rhorle]

Of course you don't answer the question. Maybe the sea IS always right

"I see nothing wrong with the metaphor" is an answer. Are you really that salty that you are refusing to read just so you can complain?

[RobertoCarlos]

"I see nothing wrong with the metaphor" is an answer. Are you really that salty that you are refusing to read just so you can complain?

Apologies I thought you might actually have a spine and commit to an actual answer not a /shrug it's fine

[Shadowferal]

Hmmm...no surprise here; The Rings Of Power Has Already Botched 1 Iconic Part Of Tolkien's Tom Bombadil

[rhorle]

Hmmm...no surprise here; The Rings Of Power Has Already Botched 1 Iconic Part Of Tolkien's Tom Bombadil

So a character can't have a different look in the 4,600 or so years between his appearances?

[Triceron]

Rhorle still being Rhorle.

I swear this thread would be buried if not for the overly defensive antics.

[eschatological]

...he's wearing different clothes? That's the complaint? The blue of his robe isn't garishly blue enough?

Garish colors don't work well on TV unless you're in the 1950s and using Technicolor instead of black and white for the first time and you want to overwhelm the viewer's senses. Like, it's the same reason the Fallout costumes aren't bright yellow either.

[Syegfryed]

...he's wearing different clothes? That's the complaint?

Its kinda a red flag to bring someone, who, as far i remember, was not even there for the events besides an observer, by itself, not even using the book description shows a bit the "they don't rly care" about the source.

Not that this is something now, as we already saw terrible casting and decisions in season 1, like casting that actress to play Galadriel.

Garish colors don't work well on TV unless you're in the 1950s and using Technicolor instead of black and white for the first time and you want to overwhelm the viewer's senses. Like, it's the same reason the Fallout costumes aren't bright yellow either.

Pretty sure that his point, to overwhelm the viewer with his weirdness, to show he is something "disconnected" to this world

[RobertoCarlos]

...he's wearing different clothes? That's the complaint? The blue of his robe isn't garishly blue enough?

Garish colors don't work well on TV unless you're in the 1950s and using Technicolor instead of black and white for the first time and you want to overwhelm the viewer's senses. Like, it's the same reason the Fallout costumes aren't bright yellow either.

The only sane people worried about tom bombadil is that he's largely a mystery character that massively takes away from the pacing of the story because he's possibly an author self insert or a made up character jrr had a fondness for but beyond his mystery he doesn't add anything to the story he's just immune to the effects of the ring so he's suggested to help out but gandalf is like nahhh he"ll probably forget and start fucking around. Frodo even at one point uses the ring to try escape his boredom of listening to the off topic ramblings of bombadil. So you can imagine a character like that being brought out for an already struggling show raises alarm bells

[Adamas102]

Rhorle still being Rhorle.

I swear this thread would be buried if not for the overly defensive antics.

I'm sure the perpetually insufferable "critics" would find any excuse to dig it back up. Oh look, there they are complaining about Bombadil's blue clothes not being bright enough and now the entire character is ruined .

[Triceron]

I'm sure the perpetually insufferable "critics" would find any excuse to dig it back up. Oh look, there they are complaining about Bombadil's blue clothes not being bright enough and now the entire character is ruined .

Said the overly defensive white knight who thinks the adaptation is perfectly fine and so should everyone else

[s_bushido]

lol...

"The blue's not bright enough! Character ruined!!!"

Absolutely pathetic. Go back to whining about being forced to see black people.