Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Syegfryed]

Maybe he loves it?

I do love to hate the show.

I said it before, season 1 became a comedy show, and i was treating everything as such.

All tough, Elrond kissing Guyladriel was the only thing that genuinelly pissed me off, seeing how moronic and unecessary it was

[exochaft]

So how do you think the show is doing on its own, if you look away from the previous media and just look at it on its own?

Taking away the previous media, it's still terrible. You can have a poor adaptation that's still a good piece of media, but this is a poor piece of media that's also a poor adaptation. Most of the issues with the show have little or nothing to do with pre-established lore and media, but the adaptation issues just make those non-adaptation issues even worse. It's a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts, just that we're adding negatives together that results in a whole negative ends being way worse than the sum of its parts.

[Syegfryed]

Good review of the last episode

[Kumorii]

That’s a false equivalence, given the poster you’re referring to hates the show, but won’t stop talking about it. Maybe he loves it?

Does that mean posters who talk about Syg loves him?

[Adamas102]

'no one is arguing about how tolkien wrote it', yet that is precisely what you, the other white knights, and the access media have done since the media tour of early 2022 began, instead of sticking to the source material, they have completely rewritten it, stop with this open fucking hypocrisy, it's boring and tired and frankly beyond pathetic.

Alright, since it needs to be explained to you in language that a small child might understand: no one is saying that Tolkien didn't write it a certain way, because the entire argument has been about adaptation not needing to strictly adhere to the way that Tolkien wrote it. Do you understand? That there's a difference between "Tolkien didn't write that" (which no one is really arguing) and "they're doing it differently" (which is exactly what adaptation entails)?

so then tell me, why the everliving FUCK is it so important to have 'modern-day biology' represented in the show if it doesn't make sense to talk about it in the setting? Genuinely curious how you're gonna spin an answer to that question which completely contradicts your entire point, because if modern-day biology shouldn't be talked about regarding middle-earth, then why is it so hard to stick to the already established lore?

The fuck are you talking about? First off, what the hell is "modern-day biology"? Biology is just biology, and I very clearly said that this isn't a subject that is applicable to the setting. So what is this thing you refer to as "modern-day biology" that is represented in the show? My guess is that no spin will be needed since you're just spouting nonsense.

As for sticking to the established lore? No, it's not hard. It's also not necessary. I feel like this is going to be a point repeated ad nauseam so hopefully it eventually sinks into that dense skull of yours.

see, your entire argument surrounding 'in the image of god' might be borderline acceptable, but in the case of the dwarves, it is CONCRETE, you CANNOT change the lore here to suit the needs of the imaginary 'modern audience', because Aule is not 'god' he is the equivalent to an archangel of heaven and is VERY WELL described, and every single dwarf was made by him in his image, period, end of story, this is precisely why coloured dwarves CANNOT exist, especially in the second age of middle-earth, I brought up the biological angle because the entire universe of middle earth was invented to be a mythology for Britain, meaning that in regards to the humanoid characters, they still obey the laws of nature, but again you're showing just how little you care about that and want to play the idiot and pretend these things don't matter.

"In the image of [insert otherworldly being]". Is that better for you? Fantastical creatures created "in the image of" spirits that have no true physical form. You of course have no issues with dwarves having variations in hair and eye color though, qualities that work the same way as skin color variation. Sooooo red hair and black hair, good? Blue eyes and brown eyes, good? Light skin and dark skin, BAD! The fucking hoops you try to jump through in order to rationalize your desire to prevent black people from playing fantasy dwarves in Middle Earth is staggering...

But more importantly IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER! Aule's depiction is COMPLETELY inconsequential to the narrative here. The creation story of the dwarves has no bearing on how the reign of Durin III pans out so appealing to it as a limiting factor in casting is stupid. End of story.

yes, you are correct, the 'tar-miriel' we see in this show is a complete and utter fabrication of the hack writers of this project, the actual tar-miriel, the one depicted VERY CLEARLY in the Silmarillion and other second age works, all of which amazon have no legal rights to use, is depicted not only as a 'snow white' style character, skin as white as the winter snow, but also dark flowing hair as was common at that time in numenor, not just that but the one seen in the show is playing an entirely different role to the one in the actual lore, so yes, the one depicted in this asinine project is not an established character because everything about her, from her appearance to her role are the complete antithesis of the actual tar-miriel of the established lore.

There's not much more to be said about your backpedaling. Tar-Miriel IS an established character, along with the others you mentioned. Separating her out from the others LITERALLY just because she's played by an actor with dark skin is just another tally mark on a growing list of "things rogoth says because he's a racist".

in regards to isildur, and the actor playing him, aside from his dialogue and characterisation being absolutely disgraceful, he is probably the closest in appearance to what the rest of numenor should look like, they should all have an appearance similar to that of southern greece/macedonia or Balkan in general, seeing as numenor is the Tolkien equivalent to the lost city of Atlantis, so apologies that your attempted 'gotcha' failed epically here, try again next time.

This reads as "yes, I did say that the tribes of Harondor and Haradwaith were where olive skinned actors should be utilized, but since you keep calling me out on my bullshit I have to come up with more bullshit to cover my tracks".

pray tell, what 'specific time' are you referring to, because not even the hack writers know what time period they are writing about, perhaps you can shed some light on the topic because I sure as hell have no clue what specific point in time any of this referring to.

The span of time encompassing the forging of the Rings and the downfall of Numenor. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, in order to depict the two pivotal sets of events that define the Second Age the timeline is condensed to allow them to overlap rather than rely on time skips to cover the several hundred years where nothing meaningful really happened. It's part and parcel of adapting a narrative to a dramatic medium. "In 1200 he started teaching them, in 1500 they started making rings, and in 1590 they finish making the rings" isn't a compelling narrative.

no, she can't, because by the time of the second age, she was ALREADY the sage, vastly knowledgable and full of wisdom character seen in later ages, if you want to try and use this weak ass excuse for the writers, then you need to go all the way back in time to the kin slaying, only then during that time period would your objectively false statement have any legs.

No, you don't have to go further back because in terms of continuity that these adaptations cover there are two dots: this show, and the movies (even if they want to play coy about the connection between the two they've made it abundantly clear that they're striving for a very similar visual continuity).

You really can't fucking wrap your head around the fact that adaptations don't need to be hamstrung by source material that isn't covered in the narrative being presented. I don't think you're mentally capable of doing it, but if you were actually able to comprehend this very simple fact you'd save yourself a lot of wasted time not coming up with irrelevant arguments.

regarding your weak attempt to state the plot points, I genuinely laughed out loud when I read your little overview, because that's not what the show has shown, in any capacity, you know this, and yet you still try to disingenuously defend it like that, in the show, not only does it try to treat celebrimbor as a bumbling idiot, but it also does the forging of the great rings in the complete wrong order, like how can you fuck up something so integral to the lore, there's literally poems written about the forging, and yet these hack writers in their infinite wisdom thought it would be a good idea to fuck that up, then you have the idea that galadriel is some kind of warrior elf to begin with, this is such a massive rewrite of her established character it's comedy at this point, high king gil'galad, the elf who actually went to numenor to seek their aid in defeating sauron prior to the siege of region, is portrayed as some sort of bumbling regional manager who is witless and has no idea what he is doing, when in the lore he is seen as the best king the noldor have had since before the days of the kin slaying, and he is supposed to be the best glaive wielder of all the noldorin elves, that's not shown anywhere because that would completely go against 'the message' and show a white guy doing good things, and we can't have that.

1. Everything I wrote is exactly what is being depicted in the show. The following points that you try to make don't change any of that.
2. Celebrimbor as a bumbling idiot? I mean, he's really not but so fucking what? His purpose in the narrative is to be duped by Sauron into creating the Rings of Power and that narrative arc is fulfilled in the show.
3. The rings crafted in the "wrong" order? Doesn't really matter in the long run, but there's a pretty good reason why the Elven rings were done differently for the show. Celebrimbor crafting the Three by himself AFTER Sauron has left Eregion lacks dramatic tension.
4. Galadriel's established character? The only "established" characterization she has within the scope of this narrative is her appearance thousands of years later in Lothlorien. I'd wager the show plans on giving her a character arc across the narrative that brings her closer to that Third Age depiction.
5. Gil-Galad as the best king of the Noldor? Per the source material found Annatar too sketchy to even chat with yet for some reason allowed him to hang out in Eregion for nearly 400 years making powerful magical artifacts.
6. Gil-Galad wielding a glaive unlike any other elf shown so far? Literally happens in the most recent episode (7). Fucking "the message" bullshit...

i refer you back to the previous topic of timelines, these writers have taken events from the very early period of the second age, and mashed them together with events that happen very close to the start of the third age, and you're using time as a defence as to why the 'kiss' isn't a bad thing? i knew you were pathetic, but that's just sinking to a new low even for you.

The fuck? You're the moron that called it "incest" for two characters that are unrelated to each other sharing a kiss that turns out to be part of an escape ploy. The only pathetic thing around here is your desperate grasping at straws to defend your weak, nonsensical positions. "But.. but.. in the books he marries her daughter later". How much later? Doesn't fucking matter because it hasn't happened at this point in either the show or the source material itself. Hell, even if the show decides to go their own way and go with Celeborn being dead, that would still have less of a narrative/lore/thematic impact than killing Saruman at Isengard.

[DingDongKing]

Does that mean posters who talk about Syg loves him?

It’s literally why I called it a false equivalence.

It’s neither here nor there. The person who made that point literally just threw words out, hoping it would make sense.

[Dhrizzle]

I do love to hate the show.

I said it before, season 1 became a comedy show, and i was treating everything as such.

All tough, Elrond kissing Guyladriel was the only thing that genuinelly pissed me off, seeing how moronic and unecessary it was

Why do people use the term "Guyladriel" as some sort of gotcha when Tolkien has already given her the mother-name "Nerwen" (man-maiden) in recognition of her traditionally masculine tendencies?

[rogoth]

Alright, since it needs to be explained to you in language that a small child might understand: no one is saying that Tolkien didn't write it a certain way, because the entire argument has been about adaptation not needing to strictly adhere to the way that Tolkien wrote it. Do you understand? That there's a difference between "Tolkien didn't write that" (which no one is really arguing) and "they're doing it differently" (which is exactly what adaptation entails)?



The fuck are you talking about? First off, what the hell is "modern-day biology"? Biology is just biology, and I very clearly said that this isn't a subject that is applicable to the setting. So what is this thing you refer to as "modern-day biology" that is represented in the show? My guess is that no spin will be needed since you're just spouting nonsense.

As for sticking to the established lore? No, it's not hard. It's also not necessary. I feel like this is going to be a point repeated ad nauseam so hopefully it eventually sinks into that dense skull of yours.



"In the image of [insert otherworldly being]". Is that better for you? Fantastical creatures created "in the image of" spirits that have no true physical form. You of course have no issues with dwarves having variations in hair and eye color though, qualities that work the same way as skin color variation. Sooooo red hair and black hair, good? Blue eyes and brown eyes, good? Light skin and dark skin, BAD! The fucking hoops you try to jump through in order to rationalize your desire to prevent black people from playing fantasy dwarves in Middle Earth is staggering...

But more importantly IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER! Aule's depiction is COMPLETELY inconsequential to the narrative here. The creation story of the dwarves has no bearing on how the reign of Durin III pans out so appealing to it as a limiting factor in casting is stupid. End of story.





There's not much more to be said about your backpedaling. Tar-Miriel IS an established character, along with the others you mentioned. Separating her out from the others LITERALLY just because she's played by an actor with dark skin is just another tally mark on a growing list of "things rogoth says because he's a racist".



This reads as "yes, I did say that the tribes of Harondor and Haradwaith were where olive skinned actors should be utilized, but since you keep calling me out on my bullshit I have to come up with more bullshit to cover my tracks".



The span of time encompassing the forging of the Rings and the downfall of Numenor. It really isn't that complicated. Yes, in order to depict the two pivotal sets of events that define the Second Age the timeline is condensed to allow them to overlap rather than rely on time skips to cover the several hundred years where nothing meaningful really happened. It's part and parcel of adapting a narrative to a dramatic medium. "In 1200 he started teaching them, in 1500 they started making rings, and in 1590 they finish making the rings" isn't a compelling narrative.



No, you don't have to go further back because in terms of continuity that these adaptations cover there are two dots: this show, and the movies (even if they want to play coy about the connection between the two they've made it abundantly clear that they're striving for a very similar visual continuity).

You really can't fucking wrap your head around the fact that adaptations don't need to be hamstrung by source material that isn't covered in the narrative being presented. I don't think you're mentally capable of doing it, but if you were actually able to comprehend this very simple fact you'd save yourself a lot of wasted time not coming up with irrelevant arguments.



1. Everything I wrote is exactly what is being depicted in the show. The following points that you try to make don't change any of that.
2. Celebrimbor as a bumbling idiot? I mean, he's really not but so fucking what? His purpose in the narrative is to be duped by Sauron into creating the Rings of Power and that narrative arc is fulfilled in the show.
3. The rings crafted in the "wrong" order? Doesn't really matter in the long run, but there's a pretty good reason why the Elven rings were done differently for the show. Celebrimbor crafting the Three by himself AFTER Sauron has left Eregion lacks dramatic tension.
4. Galadriel's established character? The only "established" characterization she has within the scope of this narrative is her appearance thousands of years later in Lothlorien. I'd wager the show plans on giving her a character arc across the narrative that brings her closer to that Third Age depiction.
5. Gil-Galad as the best king of the Noldor? Per the source material found Annatar too sketchy to even chat with yet for some reason allowed him to hang out in Eregion for nearly 400 years making powerful magical artifacts.
6. Gil-Galad wielding a glaive unlike any other elf shown so far? Literally happens in the most recent episode (7). Fucking "the message" bullshit...



The fuck? You're the moron that called it "incest" for two characters that are unrelated to each other sharing a kiss that turns out to be part of an escape ploy. The only pathetic thing around here is your desperate grasping at straws to defend your weak, nonsensical positions. "But.. but.. in the books he marries her daughter later". How much later? Doesn't fucking matter because it hasn't happened at this point in either the show or the source material itself. Hell, even if the show decides to go their own way and go with Celeborn being dead, that would still have less of a narrative/lore/thematic impact than killing Saruman at Isengard.

thank you for this diatribe that not only proves my point but also illustrates that you have no idea about the lore, your disdain for anybody who calls out this blatant pandering to the imaginary 'modern audience', and the sheer mental gymnastics on show to try to defend this atrocity, so if sticking to the source material doesn't matter to you, why the fuck did Amazon pay $250m to buy the rights to the LOTR source material and PJ movies? if it's irrelevant to use any source material, why are they going out of their way to try and capture an audience that has existed for longer than Amazon and Jeff Bezos have been alive? OH that's right, they want to use a beloved work to legitimise their absolute bullshit, they want to subvert everything they touch and try to pass it off as something worth a damn when the reality is, it's not, and never will be

I already explained why you're wrong and no amount of name calling will change that fact, furthermore, moving the goalposts like you're fond of doing also doesn't work, it just makes you look even more desperate to have your viewpoint validated by that same imaginary 'modern audience', it's just a shame you can't or won't accept that this show has destroyed the world of middle earth for MILLIONS of people, it has taken an amber heard sized shit all over the source material and in a vain attempt to try and make something akin to game of thrones, they have done the complete opposite, but you be a good little lap dog and keep wagging your tail to the tune they are playing, I'm sure it'll end well for you.

[Kathandira]

Why do people use the term "Guyladriel" as some sort of gotcha when Tolkien has already given her the mother-name "Nerwen" (man-maiden) in recognition of her traditionally masculine tendencies?

childish people who still think calling a guy a girl, or calling a girl a guy is some kind of insult.

like when they were kids and girls had cooties and boys were yucky. No different.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

see, your entire argument surrounding 'in the image of god' might be borderline acceptable, but in the case of the dwarves, it is CONCRETE, you CANNOT change the lore here to suit the needs of the imaginary 'modern audience', because Aule is not 'god' he is the equivalent to an archangel of heaven and is VERY WELL described, and every single dwarf was made by him in his image, period, end of story, this is precisely why coloured dwarves CANNOT exist, especially in the second age of middle-earth,

So, do female dwarfs have dicks? They’d have to right? If all the dwarfs were made in Aule’s image and they can’t vary from that image on something as small as skin colour they wouldn’t be able to have extra or fewer organs surely.

Dwarfs as a whole would have to be hermaphrodite’s as would have Aule else they wouldn’t be able to reproduce at all.

[rogoth]

So, do female dwarfs have dicks? They’d have to right? If all the dwarfs were made in Aule’s image and they can’t vary from that image on something as small as skin colour they wouldn’t be able to have extra or fewer organs surely.

Dwarfs as a whole would have to be hermaphrodite’s as would have Aule else they wouldn’t be able to reproduce at all.

I shouldn't really be surprised at this point that someone would make such an asinine comment like this, but here we are, and I suppose it makes sense coming from someone with your profile name, it matches the lore of that character well, but since you want to be a pedantic cunt, let's get into that shall we?

aule made the dwarves in his image, he also made mates for each, all with his visage as a reference, meaning that all female dwarves were made with the correct FEMALE anatomy, but they were in appearance the same as the males, I hope this satisfies your childish nonsense, because that's all this little quip from you is.

- - - Updated - - -

childish people who still think calling a guy a girl, or calling a girl a guy is some kind of insult.

like when they were kids and girls had cooties and boys were yucky. No different.

you have fundamentally misunderstood the meaning behind the nickname, this bastardised character is referred to as 'guyladriel' because her entire characterisation in this show is entirely masculine, everything she does is the kind of thing you would expect a man in the same position to do, she behaves like a man, treats others like a stereotypical narcissistic male would, hence the nickname, it's got nothing to do with your childish nonsense argument.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I shouldn't really be surprised at this point that someone would make such an asinine comment like this, but here we are, and I suppose it makes sense coming from someone with your profile name, it matches the lore of that character well, but since you want to be a pedantic cunt, let's get into that shall we?

aule made the dwarves in his image, he also made mates for each, all with his visage as a reference, meaning that all female dwarves were made with the correct FEMALE anatomy, but they were in appearance the same as the males, I hope this satisfies your childish nonsense, because that's all this little quip from you is.

So that would be a yes female dwarfs do have dicks as a race of hermaphrodite’s would have mates made for them just as a binary gendered race.

If we’re holding strictly to no variation from Aule this is the only answer as it holds truer to the lack of variation and doesn’t exclude mates being made for each, unless Tolkien went into detail on dwarven sexual organs that is.

[Dhrizzle]

So, do female dwarfs have dicks? They’d have to right? If all the dwarfs were made in Aule’s image and they can’t vary from that image on something as small as skin colour they wouldn’t be able to have extra or fewer organs surely.

Dwarfs as a whole would have to be hermaphrodite’s as would have Aule else they wouldn’t be able to reproduce at all.

I think this discussion is based on a false premise anyway. Aulë is ëalar and exists naturally as pure spirit. Any image he possesses would be his fana and subject to his whims, and typically the Ainur adopted fana based on Men and Elves, or the natural elements they had affinity with.

[rogoth]

So that would be a yes female dwarfs do have dicks as a race of hermaphrodite’s would have mates made for them just as a binary gendered race.

If we’re holding strictly to no variation from Aule this is the only answer as it holds truer to the lack of variation and doesn’t exclude mates being made for each, unless Tolkien went into detail on dwarven sexual organs that is.

You dropped some absolute clangers in this thread when it first opened, but this one takes the cake here, imagine insinuating that a devout Christian would entertain the idea of same-sex relationships, imagine having the audacity to suggest that a person who believes in the sanctity of man and woman would make a species that defies that, are you genuinely trying to claim this ignorant stance as the one you want to defend?

[alach]

I sure hope all you angry Joe's were at least equally outraged by the release of the recent hobbit movies. Taking a children's pocket book and stretching in to 3 2 hour movies and jamming old characters in there cause kids named thier warcraft characters after them was quite betrayal of those sacred texts eh?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

You dropped some absolute clangers in this thread when it first opened, but this one takes the cake here, imagine insinuating that a devout Christian would entertain the idea of same-sex relationships, imagine having the audacity to suggest that a person who believes in the sanctity of man and woman would make a species that defies that, are you genuinely trying to claim this ignorant stance as the one you want to defend?

I’m not making this claim, you are. The limitations you have set means this is the only answer that can be arrived to.

As far as Tolkien goes he didn't apply your same limitations he let the dwarfs have variation in hair eye and even never gave them a set skin colour.

By his limits having dickless females is no problem it’s just one variation Aule allowed, within yours that’s not the case.

- - - Updated - - -

I think this discussion is based on a false premise anyway. Aulë is ëalar and exists naturally as pure spirit. Any image he possesses would be his fana and subject to his whims, and typically the Ainur adopted fana based on Men and Elves, or the natural elements they had affinity with.

And even if that wasn’t the case the idea that you can’t have variation in skin colour because he based them on his image but can have variation in hair and eye colour makes no sense.

If Aule gave them a variation beyond his own in said things he could have done the same for there skin colour as well and given that Tolkien never gave the dwarfs a set colour he either accepted that or just didnt care and in both cases he okays dark skinned dwarfs atleast passively.

[Biomega]

I sure hope all you angry Joe's were at least equally outraged by the release of the recent hobbit movies. Taking a children's pocket book and stretching in to 3 2 hour movies and jamming old characters in there cause kids named thier warcraft characters after them was quite betrayal of those sacred texts eh?

I mean... yeah? That's pretty much exactly what happened?

Are you suggesting somehow that people were raving about the Hobbit movies just because it was PJ at the helm? Because they... weren't. They made fun of them and all their nonsense. And then some.

I guess it wasn't as impactful in your memory because that was back when people still had a bit of shame left and everyone and their brother didn't just go full frothy berserker on social media like they do now, so you didn't SEE the full extent of the outrage in public. But people were disappointed in those Hobbit movies, for sure.

The best thing about them was the decision to shoot some in high FPS, which I personally thought was amazing but sadly didn't really catch on. The movies themselves? Trash can.

[Syegfryed]

Why do people use the term "Guyladriel" as some sort of gotcha when Tolkien has already given her the mother-name "Nerwen" (man-maiden) in recognition of her traditionally masculine tendencies?

Because in the show they forgot the "maiden" part.

Guyladriel is prob the worst character in the show because the wrong characterization and how she act that have nothing to do with the one tolkien wrote

- - - Updated - - -

I sure hope all you angry Joe's were at least equally outraged by the release of the recent hobbit movies. Taking a children's pocket book and stretching in to 3 2 hour movies and jamming old characters in there cause kids named thier warcraft characters after them was quite betrayal of those sacred texts eh?

Equally no, but people were outraged yes, the hobbit movies were pretty awful and bad on their own merit, but it got SOME right things, good characters, good visuals, but overall not good

Its just that, while the hobbit trillogy was a stomachache, the show is explossive diarrahea

[Dhrizzle]

Because in the show they forgot the "maiden" part.

You think she doesn't look physically female in the show?

[Syegfryed]

You think she doesn't look physically female in the show?

Being a maiden, in here is not just about physically appearance, but more about attitude, more refined/pure, they went hard with the fierce warrior vibes, making her an asshole in the show, narcissistic and egocentric. If she was a man, people who defend her now would be shitting on her saying she was a toxic male