Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[jbombard]

This whole thing is kind of like when you read a book and you have this image of the main characters in your head, and then you watch the movies and everything is totally different than what you imagined. At that point one of two things generally happen
1) the movie is really good and you forget about all of your preconceived notions of how things should be
2) the movie sucks and you are angry that they screwed up your beloved story, characters, setting etc...

If this had turned out to be the first case, I don't think we would be having this conversation about race.(well I'm sure some people would but not many)

[Eapoe]

We should all be upset we didn't get native American Aragorn in the PJ movies to, he was fire in the animated movie.

Big true!!!

[rhorle]

2) the movie sucks and you are angry that they screwed up your beloved story, characters, setting etc...

It is nothing like that as skin color of the character in Rings of Power doesn't change anything about the story, characters, or setting. They just exist. They didn't have a new tribe, clan, whatever added to explain it. The story would be the same if they were book accurate. The only thing that would be different is their performance because they would have a different one due to being a different person.

Your two would apply to Arwen in the PJ films though. Jackson changed her role to add a "girl boss" (using modern terms) to a male dominated film. That change impacted the story, characters, and setting. Some were critical of the change as well though it faded with time and popularity of the films. Though if modern "hate culture" exist back then it might have been a different story. Early internet could be brutal, and some of it came out for the movies, but it wasn't like it is now with how monetized that hate has become.

[Eapoe]

This whole thing is kind of like when you read a book and you have this image of the main characters in your head, and then you watch the movies and everything is totally different than what you imagined. At that point one of two things generally happen
1) the movie is really good and you forget about all of your preconceived notions of how things should be
2) the movie sucks and you are angry that they screwed up your beloved story, characters, setting etc...

If this had turned out to be the first case, I don't think we would be having this conversation about race.(well I'm sure some people would but not many)

I know!!! Imagine not being close minded and having an idea of a fantasy world that has all kinds of variety to it, is left open (whether intentional or not) to interpretation and perception, and is full of different people and races. Then you get a movie full of nothing but white people.

If this had turned out to be the first case,I don’t think we would be having this conversation about race (well, I’m sure some people would, and unfortunately they are many).

[jbombard]

It is nothing like that as skin color of the character in Rings of Power doesn't change anything about the story, characters, or setting. They just exist. They didn't have a new tribe, clan, whatever added to explain it. The story would be the same if they were book accurate. The only thing that would be different is their performance because they would have a different one due to being a different person.

Your two would apply to Arwen in the PJ films though. Jackson changed her role to add a "girl boss" (using modern terms) to a male dominated film. That change impacted the story, characters, and setting. Some were critical of the change as well though it faded with time and popularity of the films. Though if modern "hate culture" exist back then it might have been a different story. Early internet could be brutal, and some of it came out for the movies, but it wasn't like it is now with how monetized that hate has become.

Well considering that most people loved the PJ films, 1) would be true not 2). People loved the movies so they ignored their preconcieved notions.

Maybe I am naive in thinking if RoP season 1 wasn't so bad there would be less backlash, but I honestly feel if they had great actors, great plot this would be far less of an issue. RoP season 1 was shit and people got upset.

[rhorle]

Maybe I am naive in thinking if RoP season 1 wasn't so bad there would be less backlash, but I honestly feel if they had great actors, great plot this would be far less of an issue. RoP season 1 was shit and people got upset.

A lot of those people are not applying the same lens to Jackson's work compared to the books though. There were a lot of character and story changes. Denethor eating the tomato or running across the palace while on fire to yeet himself into town are things that people would have torn apart if they treated it the same as RoP. Even Legolas sliding on a shield, as cool as it is, would probably be ridiculed if Rings of Power was the first to do it.

[jbombard]

A lot of those people are not applying the same lens to Jackson's work compared to the books though. There were a lot of character and story changes. Similar to Rings of Power. A lot of people have changed their opinion over the years on how egregious the Jackson changes were. Things that are hated as the worst thing ever in Rings of Power had memes created for similar things in the Jackson movies.

Denethor eating the tomato or running across the palace while on fire to yeet himself into town are things that people would have torn apart if they treated it the same as RoP. Even Legolas sliding on a shield, as cool as it is, would probably be ridiculed if Rings of Power was the first to do it.

I agree with everything you said. And the reasoning for that is the Lord of the Rings movie was generally well received even by lore nerds like Stephen Colbert. That was because the movie was actually good that they got some leeway on cheesy shit like Legolas shield sliding, and that weird ass horse mount he had to do because of his actual hand injury.

Rings of Power got no such leeway because season one sucked... hard... then we got stuck with a bunch of Lord of the Rings nerds raging, in addition to your general racist/sexist haters that hate on everything that is not all white men. (instead of just the racist/sexist haters if season 1 had actually turned out to be great)

[rhorle]

I agree with everything you said. And the reasoning for that is the Lord of the Rings movie was generally well received even by lore nerds like Stephen Colbert. That was because the movie was actually good that they got some leeway on cheesy shit like Legolas shield sliding, and that weird ass horse mount he had to do because of his actual hand injury.

Not everyone started to love it overnight though. RotK has a 86% audience score on RT which is way down from 95% for the first and second movies. Rings of Power season 1 isn't that bad. Realistically it probably would have scored better than The Hobbit trilogy if they were released today.

[jbombard]

Not everyone started to love it overnight though. RotK has a 86% audience score on RT which is way down from 95% for the first and second movies. Rings of Power season 1 isn't that bad. Realistically it probably would have scored better than The Hobbit trilogy if they were released today.

I didn't really care for the Hobbit Trilogy either, but for me, Rings of Power season 1 was worse. I was bothered by the poor acting and lack of focus the most, but also not fond of what feels like race changes just because they had to check some boxes and without any thought for consistency or back story. Season 2 was better because it was more focused, and had less screen time for poor actors.

[Mace]

Usually when Tolkien refers to a character as an Amazon he means a female soldier not just one trained to fight. He says that Eowyn despite being trained as a shield-maiden was not an Amazon or soldier (early drafts of LotR had Eowyn and her cousin acting as Theoden's bodyguards.) As a lover of the classics he likely used Amazon in the way of the ancient Greek myths.



I think this is more a disservice of epic fantasies being male-led for so long. Galadriel doesn't act like any man I'd know in real life, she acts like an Elven fantasy hero. It's just that her positive or heroic traits get dismissed as "mannish" while negative traits that are accepted in male characters get dismissed as "childish."

That said she likely isn't being portrayed exactly as Tolkien would, he never really settled on a story for Galadriel (which would have involved a massive rewrite of the history of the Second Age at the least) but by the notes he made she would probably have been called a "girl-boss" and "Mary Sue." He does at various points describe her "fighting ferociously," having "the eye of a commander" and roaming all over the place setting up kingdoms, preparing people to fight Sauron and even making kings (in at least one version the king of Lorien is her son who she gives the throne, and there's a hint that High King Gil-galad is in suzerainty to her.)

Perhaps the bar is higher for women (from men anyway) I don’t know. I am a man and how I view women will be more similar to how other men view women and I acknowledge may be very different to how other women view the same. I try not to judge women by male standards, but I think women are their harshest critics and judge other women by male standards as the less wise or considerate of men also do.

Saying that. It is something I have noticed. Not all female characters in western fantasies come off that way. But in the last half a decade this has been the vast majority of the heavy female centric characters in the big fantasy franchises from the big studios like Disney, Amazon, Warner etc in stark contrast to action female heroes of the past in the west and the ones that show up in Korean shows or Japanese anime who are often physically strong and action orientated but don’t come off as mannish.

We do have examples in modern shows like House of the Dragon’s female star whose character never came off as mannish despite her exploits. And swashbuckling Cara Dune from the Mandalorian never did nor did the female star from Book of Bobbs Fett and they were badass. Maybe it’s the actor or the writers. But those in modern western fantasy /sci-finshows are far more the exception than the norm.

And I know mannish women exist, just like feminine men exist, but they are tiny minority, not the majority of every show, it looks well especially when the role can be fulfilled easily being more conventional.

Anyway. I don’t like them when they show up essentially men in female bodies.

Saying that I did notice Galadriel was better in season 2 and it may have even been a good show if it wasn’t Lord of the Rings - however the calibre for Tolkien is quite high and the writing in this show falls short. I haven’t liked many of their additions and some of their lore changes especially the fading of the elves I think missed the beat on the race entirely and it felt cringey.

But I will continue to watch for now.

[Adamas102]

My guy, Jackson kept the spirit and many of the details close if not the same

Buddy, that's just the nostalgia talking.

Peter Jackson made some fantastically entertaining movies. The scope of what he and the rest of the production teams on those movies achieved was a historic and truly impressive feat. Fantastic movies for a modern cinema audience. But Tolkien would have AT BEST been quite bored watching them. They eviscerated so many of the themes and seriousness of the books. Christopher Tolkien was for the most part right, the movies diminished the contents of the books into little more than action movies for young people. It's basically what Disney did to so many fairy tales (dilute them down for mass audience appeal), which Tolkien very much despised.

I'm sure most of us were in our teens to 20's when the trilogy was coming out in the early 2000's, and had grown up on plenty of action movies before then. We were the target audience for PJ's movies, NOT the older Tolkien fans who were introduced to his works in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. The copy of LotR that I first read was my dad's well worn copy from the late 70's. He found the PJ movies to be terribly boring having traded much of the charm and spirituality of Tolkien's books for violence and spectacle. He was not the target audience for those movies, just as you are not the target audience for the show. And that's fine.

You, and many of the other posters here, have taken after Christopher Tolkien when it comes to the show, complaining about nearly every little detail because it's not exactly what you wanted/how it was in the books. In doing so you've lost perspective on how adaptations like these continue to be a net positive for Tolkien's works overall.

the only thing RoP adapted is names and locations...

This thing is an adaptation in name only, quite literally.

So... pretty much what Tolkien wrote for these Second Age events. Names and locations separated by dates. Between the appendices and the Silmarillion there's maybe a total of 5 pages covering everything the show has adapted so far? Dialogue ruined? What dialogue? What themes were obliterated? Pretty much every event from years 1200 to 1697 (the creation of the rings through the founding of Imladris) has been covered in the show so how has the story been "butchered"? The timeline is truncated and narrative was added to bridge the events, but that's to be expected for a dramatic adaptation.

You want to talk about how Peter Jackson "kept many of the details close if not the same" and then completely ignore the fact that the show has adhered just as closely to the events surrounding the creation of the Rings of Power as laid out in the appendices word for word:

Sauron endeavours to seduce the Eldar. Adapted in the show
Gil-galad refuses to treat with him; Adapted in the show
but the smiths of Eregion are won over. Adapted in the show
The Numenoreans begin to make permanent havens. Adapted in the show
The Elven-smiths instructed by Sauron reach the height of their skill. They begin the forging of the Rings of Power. Adapted in the show
The Three Rings are completed in Eregion. Adapted in the show
Sauron forges the One Ring in Orodruin. He completes the Barad-dur. Not yet adapted, but certainly will happen in a subsequent season
Celebrimbor perceives the designs of Sauron. Adapted in the show
War of the Elves and Sauron begins. Adapted in the show
The Three Rings are hidden. Adapted in the show
Sauron’s forces invade Eriador. Adapted in the show
Gil-galad sends Elrond to Eregion. Adapted in the show
Eregion laid waste. Adapted in the show
Death of Celebrimbor. Adapted in the show
The gates of Moria are shut. Not yet adapted, but likely will happen
Elrond retreats with remnant of the Noldor and founds the refuge of Imladris. Adapted in the show

The Silmarillion adds a bit more detail (Annatar is named, the appearance of the Three are described, etc) and most of those details find their way into the show. The Akallabeth describes Pharazon usurping the throne of Numenor over the course of 3 sentences and if he forces Miriel to marry him in the next season then all of that will have been covered as well. Pretty much the only detail written about Durin III is that he was given a Ring of Power, which of course is covered in the show. The show is very much true to the written word in so far as it actually covered everything that is written for these specific events, you just don't like all of the stuff that has been added in order to make it a cohesive narrative. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the show is very much an adaptation of the Second Age. Literally.

[jbombard]

Buddy, that's just the nostalgia talking.

...

The Silmarillion adds a bit more detail (Annatar is named, the appearance of the Three are described, etc) and most of those details find their way into the show. The Akallabeth describes Pharazon usurping the throne of Numenor over the course of 3 sentences and if he forces Miriel to marry him in the next season then all of that will have been covered as well. Pretty much the only detail written about Durin III is that he was given a Ring of Power, which of course is covered in the show. The show is very much true to the written word in so far as it actually covered everything that is written for these specific events, you just don't like all of the stuff that has been added in order to make it a cohesive narrative. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the show is very much an adaptation of the Second Age. Literally.

Yeah but J.R.R. Tokein started writing stories(note he didn't write anything named The Silmarillion, he basically jotted down stories and ideas) that became parts of The Silmarillion as early as 1914 but be apparently didn't want it published because he never got it published. Christoper thought he could make a quick buck, threw those stories together "edited"(changed) stuff and even wrote bits himself. So The Silmarillion is most certainly not canon. So if Amazon is basing Rings of Power on The Silmarillion then it certainly shouldn't be named "Lord of the Rings:Rings of Power", it should be name "The Silmarillion:Rings of Power".

[Syegfryed]

Buddy, that's just the nostalgia talking.

No its not, the movies are timeless stories adored by everyone, just like the books

the show is shit and will be mocked forever.

You want to talk about how Peter Jackson "kept many of the details close if not the same" and then completely ignore the fact that the show has adhered just as closely to the events surrounding the creation of the Rings of Power as laid out in the appendices word for word:

Listing bullet points is not rly showing how they "adhered as closely to the events"

Because if you say "well, they did create the ring, so they are adhering closely to the events!" is facetious because they did the order wrong, same for the other events

[Dhrizzle]

Yeah but J.R.R. Tokein started writing stories(note he didn't write anything named The Silmarillion, he basically jotted down stories and ideas) that became parts of The Silmarillion as early as 1914 but be apparently didn't want it published because he never got it published. Christoper thought he could make a quick buck, threw those stories together "edited"(changed) stuff and even wrote bits himself. So The Silmarillion is most certainly not canon. So if Amazon is basing Rings of Power on The Silmarillion then it certainly shouldn't be named "Lord of the Rings:Rings of Power", it should be name "The Silmarillion:Rings of Power".

That's an overly harsh assessment. JRR Tolkien considered Christopher his "chief collaborator" and made him Literary Executor with explicit permission to publish, rewrite, use or even destroy entirely any and all of his writings. It was Tolkien's wish that Christopher complete and publish the Silmarillion if he died with it yet incomplete and they had discussed the issues present in the manuscripts as they stood.

The reason Tolkien didn't get the Silmarillion completed is because he was constantly getting bogged down in details, some of which would be the underlying "true history" that would be reflected but not explicitly told in the in-universe myths of the Silmarillion. He was also struggling with how exactly to tell of the origins of Orcs and the activities of Galadriel, both of which may have required big rewrites and possibly fundamental adjustments to the timeline. IIRC he decided against including his "canon" round-world cosmology, deciding that the Mannish and Sindarin legends would keep the flat-until-changed structure of the world.

Although getting back to your point, Rings of Power is based on the text of Lord of the Rings, mostly the appendices and some in-universe discussions. The Silmarillion and HoMe are used to inform some of what they write but explicit references can only be made with permission of the Estate.

[eschatological]

Didn't stop the movie makers, so we just have the reverse happen to make up for it?

Okay.

All the examples I cited (Gandhi, The King of Siam, literal Egyptians etc) race played a very central role. Othello, a traditionally black character in Shakespeare, has been played by white men for literal centuries - I do not give one single fuck. Again, if they replaced Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury with a white guy - wouldn't care. Wouldn't even care if it was almost any SLJ role: Jules in Pulp Fiction, his minor role in Goodfellas, Snakes on a Plane, Jurassic Park. It's when you get to roles like Django Unchained where you start to say: hey, maybe don't replace a black guy with a white guy in this role.

That's one actor's character gamut. Some, by context, shouldn't be played by white men. Most can be. This is true of black folk playing characters that are traditionally white like Tolkein's dwarves, who aren't specified by race, or, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, which I am old enough to remember being played by Michael Jackson (when he was still dark) in the all-black remake of The Wiz. No one cared about a black Dorothy back then, these are just new, childish culture war grievances, so don't mind me if I don't give them any credence.

[Triceron]

All the examples I cited (Gandhi, The King of Siam, literal Egyptians etc) race played a very central role. Othello, a traditionally black character in Shakespeare, has been played by white men for literal centuries - I do not give one single fuck. Again, if they replaced Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury with a white guy - wouldn't care. Wouldn't even care if it was almost any SLJ role: Jules in Pulp Fiction, his minor role in Goodfellas, Snakes on a Plane, Jurassic Park. It's when you get to roles like Django Unchained where you start to say: hey, maybe don't replace a black guy with a white guy in this role.

That's one actor's character gamut. Some, by context, shouldn't be played by white men. Most can be. This is true of black folk playing characters that are traditionally white like Tolkein's dwarves, who aren't specified by race, or, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, which I am old enough to remember being played by Michael Jackson (when he was still dark) in the all-black remake of The Wiz. No one cared about a black Dorothy back then, these are just new, childish culture war grievances, so don't mind me if I don't give them any credence.

Okay, then thank you for expressing your opinion that you don't care. For the most part, I don't care either, and it has rarely bothered me since I grew up around an era when movies with blackface and yellowface were the norm.

Other people do care, which is why I've made the point what has happened in Rings of Power can be considered an elephant in the room. That the conversation even exists outside this thread is part of the point.

And IMO it's beyond a matter of what actor plays which role, it's a matter of whether the choices fit expectations of what the setting should be.

Nick Fury isn't a white specific role. Yes, he can be played by an African American, because even the comics had this established in place years before it happened on screen. Expectations were not subverted. Yet something like Tilda Swinton being the Ancient One was absolutely hit with criticism because of subverted expectations. And yet those same criticisms died down after seeing how well her performance was, how well the movie was made, and how they fit her into the role and setting with ample explanation. It all ties into expectations.

So sure, you could be one of the people who didn't bat an eye at a Celtic Ancient One in the MCU. Maybe you didn't even need justification in the lore for the change of character. Maybe you don't even care, and you could even openly welcome the character being played by Eddie Murphy. That's all fine and dandy. But it ain't gonna float everyone's boat, and I don't think it's not abnormal to be upset or have concerns about such things.

And there's no universal scale for such things. I grew up with Fisher Steven's portrayal of an Indian man in Short Circuit 2, a role which I am very nostalgically fond of. In retrospect, it's a bit cringe, but I'm not bothered by the portrayal or the choice; I recognize it as being of the times. On the other hand, I see Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's and I wouldn't be able to bear calling that acceptable, even if I recognize it as parody. And my thoughts here wouldn't be a reflection of anyone else's position

- - - Updated - - -

Considering what I remember, and everything I can find from a quick search, has nothing about how those characters look (outside of Gloin having red hair when young, and white when older, which is not exclusive to white people), then this all comes down to what the creators want to use for their interpretation.

But that's sort of my point here. It's up to whatever the creators want to use for their interpretation, so they are responsible for the criticisms that follow in choosing to 'go against the grain' and present something that doesn't fully make sense.

And this isn't isolated for Dwarves. We're talking about Hobbits, Numenoreans and Elves as well. We know these aren't adaptations that stay within the known depictions of these fictional races. Trying to justify them by finding loopholes in the texts is a backwards mindset. Fans aren't going to be digging deep into the lore for answers. As I've said time and time again, these answers can only be given by the show creators, since it is their responsibility to present their vision in a way that properly suspends everyone's disbelief. And it's been adamantly clear, they choose to normalize diverse skintones and not explain it at all, while throwing any criticism back at fans by regarding it as frivilous bigotry. That's only going to satisfy the audiences who have no expectations or don't care to think about such things, and it's not gonna fly for the people who may have conflicting expectations. It's up to the studio to make sense of it for people who expect otherwise. And I don't think they did a good job of it, considering I'm FINE with there being Black Dwarves or Black Elves in this setting, but as an audience member, I have no clue how they're supposed to fit into the world since the show does nothing to set us up to acknowledge these races as all having diverse melting pot societies of various skin tones.

And I've gone into quite a bit of detail on the psychology behind this with other people in the thread. Such examples like how it informs the setting of a small village. A village with everyone who looks the same would imply they are fairly isolated and tight-knit. The lack of diversity in appearance implies they would be fairly isolated, for quite a few generations. Having diversity in a small village would imply that they have a lot of contact with other tribes or groups of people. The more diverse the appearances, the more it implies they have contact with places that are further away. That is all subtext built into the visual medium. And yet if the story itself decides that a small village is both isolated and has diverse range of population, then it becomes a conflict of interest. It doesn't make sense to what we'd expect of a small village.

And sure, most people might not even bother thinking about the subtext, not bother with fussing over the unspoken details. But that's the difference between the people speaking out about it here, and the people who aren't. World building and details don't matter to everyone equally. It's pretty clear which side of the fence people are standing on if I explain it in these terms.

As a side note, if you want a real misrepresentation of the source material, look up Thranduil from Bakshi’s The Hobbit animated movie. Yet, according to some people’s arguments, that interpretation should be used because that precedent was set long before Peter Jackson came along.

I would argue that Rankin Bass (not Bakshi, he did LOTR) Hobbit productions chose to be more of a storybook adaptation aimed at children. And that's absolutely fine. It doesn't carry itself as a purist adaptation, and never aimed to be true to the source material. So expectations aren't being subverted at all, it is carrying on its own flair and making it its own.

Rings of Power was ALWAYS promoted to be a direct tie in to Peter Jackson's trilogy, going as far as even using the same monster designs from the series. It didn't aim to be its own thing. If it had, then maybe expectations wouldn't have been so critical. Maybe the controversies wouldn't have been as harsh as they had been. Who knows? Hindsight is 20/20, and we can't reverse what Amazon did with its promotional material to ensure everyone recognized this as a LOTR show that aimed to be like the movies.

[Fixxit the Gnome]

Éowyn in the PJ's movies wouldn't survive the ridicule of the modern rage-bait machine.


RoP is a decent show - with some good parts and some bad parts, but no way near the horrible quality that rage-baiters are ascribing it.

Like, my girlfriend adores the show even though she says certain parts of it suck.

Season 2 was a step up from S1, hoping they finally nail it in the third season.

[Adamas102]

Listing bullet points is not rly showing how they "adhered as closely to the events"

Because if you say "well, they did create the ring, so they are adhering closely to the events!" is facetious because they did the order wrong, same for the other events

Dude, those aren’t just “bullet points”... That is the entirety of what Tolkien himself published for those events of the Second Age. Copied word for word directly from the appendices of the LotR, in order, minus the dates.

The order isn’t “wrong”, it’s just slightly altered, and it still maintains the narrative importance that the Three were created without Sauron’s direct influence and kept from him. Now, why don’t YOU explain why you think the creation of the Three being last matters from a narrative perspective to the point where making slight changes breaks the story.

[bledgor]

Éowyn in the PJ's movies wouldn't survive the ridicule of the modern rage-bait machine.


RoP is a decent show - with some good parts and some bad parts, but no way near the horrible quality that rage-baiters are ascribing it.

Like, my girlfriend adores the show even though she says certain parts of it suck.

Season 2 was a step up from S1, hoping they finally nail it in the third season.

This is the most lame ass disagreement I see thrown out a lot. People wouldn't suddenly rage/hate Eowyn in PJs films, because the character was developed properly, had great acting, and fit into the larger narrative.

The reason so many people hate this new Galadriel is because of two reason, one she acts like an insufferable teenager (something no one enjoys but maybe other teenagers), two we know how she is supposed to be and got such an amazing depiction of it from Cate Blanchett that it is hard to ever see them as the same character (yes yes, the trilogy is thousands of years later, but lets not ignore the fact she is still thousands of years old by the time of RoP and one of the eldest elves in middle earth, older than Celebrimbor/Gil-galad/Elrond yet acts like a child compared to them).

Add in the producers cut out her husband (oh boy we got 1 line about him in season 1), her daughter, her motivations for being/staying in middle earth, and you get people who are rightly going to eye roll the character.

[rhorle]

This is the most lame ass disagreement I see thrown out a lot. People wouldn't suddenly rage/hate Eowyn in PJs films, because the character was developed properly, had great acting, and fit into the larger narrative.

A lot of people didn't think so at the time. The depiction of Eowyn was an often criticized part of the Jackson adaptation.