Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Adamas102]

No, those are bullet points, missing the context and how things happened, you cannot be coherent with what Tolkien wrote if the only thing you got right is one phrase

Those phrases are literally the only things Tolkien published for those events, so getting it right means they got all of it right. The additional details, of which there are few, were compiled, edited, and written by Christopher based on notes, many of them contradictory to things that had already been written/published. There is no other context. How is this not sinking into that thick skull of yours? What I wrote, is basically EVERYTHING. Do you understand that? Can you wrap your head around that? Do you want me to copy/paste the FOUR paragraphs from the Silmarillion that cover the creation of the Rings of Power and hold your hand through an explanation of how almost all of it was adapted into the show?

Like saying "eregion was attacked by the orcs" >- OMG TOLKIEN WROTE THIS SO THE SHOW ADHERED CLOSE TO THE EVENTS", again, facetious and disingenuous, because the whole HOW this happened is pure fanfic, since it is not something Tolkien wrote, and this is true to every other event you listed, every bnullet point is poisoned and ruined by the awful writing team

First off, stop using words that you don't know the definitions off. Secondly, yes if that's what Tolkien wrote and he wrote no other details and that is what is depicted in the show then you would ABSOLUTELY say that it adhered to the source material. Are you fucking stupid or do you think there's some highly detailed screenplay that Tolkien wrote that no one else is aware of?

"Eregion laid waste. Death of Celebrimbor" is exactly how it's told in the appendices. You want to know how it's described in the Silmarillion (since I assume you've never even read the book)? "Eregion was laid waste, and Celebrimbor slain". It's in the Unfinished Tales that Christopher details how Celebrimbor's body was "hung upon a pole,
shot through with Orc-arrows", which in part was also adapted to the screen. So, why don't you tell us how the show deviated from those details?

The fact that the show ADDS details in order to flesh out and bridge the events DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EVENTS AREN'T DEPICTED AS WRITTEN. Based on your pedantic, moronic reasoning the entire story should take place off screen since nothing is explained in enough detail in the source materials. Would your ideal adaptation simply be a black screen with the 3 minutes worth of written material just narrated? ANY adaptation of these events HAS TO come up with stuff that Tolkien didn't write. That's HOW IT WORKS. How are you seriously incapable of understanding this? You don't have to like HOW they did it, but complaining that they did it is idiotic.

It rly doesn't, as it changes narratively, like when the three elf clowns still decide to do the rings even knowing making the rings was Sauron plan, make then retarded

The whole thing changes the narrative and change the characters and great impact the rest of the story.

Making the rings was not Sauron's plan. Creating an item that could reverse the decay/waning of the elves was a plan set in motion by Gil-Galad, Celebrimbor, and Elrond. Making a circular item was Celebrimbor's proposal. Making three rings was Galadriel's idea. The elves needed the rings before Halbrand/Sauron even came into the picture. Sauron was looking to twist that power for his own means, but it wasn't his idea to begin with. Your criticisms are pathetic given that you can't even understand the basic plot of the story (both in the show and in the books), but why don't you go ahead and explain why you THINK this impacts the rest of the story at this point.

- - - Updated - - -

People accept literally because the magnitude of the changes is much smaller than the show

That's not true AT ALL. There was a lot more written for LotR and as such A LOT more was altered/omitted/rearranged.

The show is based on a few pages worth of names, dates, locations, and events. Almost all of the written details are adapted into the show. It just has a lot of stuff ADDED in order to adapt it to the screen. That doesn't mean the changes are bigger. It just means that you didn't like the way they chose to flesh out the story.

[rhorle]

But that's the point isn't it? Peter Jackson had to jam 3 books into 9 hours of content.(12 for the extended). Of course he can't include everything from the books and changes had to be made. He got leeway because of this and because the movies were great.

The same things people are calling out in Rings of Power would apply to a lot of the changes in Jackson's work. A lot of the same arguments were used at the time (and in years since) for those changes Jackson made. The leeway you keep mentioning is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It shows that the things people keep complaining about are not actual issues. It isn't adherence to lore, characters, world, etc. It is all down to if a person has decided to like the show/movie or not.

If they don't like it they look for anything to justify that dislike even if it is stuff they would otherwise overlook or not think of as a big deal.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I have to wonder, there's this site which is a fairly huge list.
https://www.theonering.com/complete-...neral-changes/

surely there has to be some nerd who has made a similar list for Rop to compare atleast for season 1 no?

[Adamas102]

I have to wonder, there's this site which is a fairly huge list.
https://www.theonering.com/complete-...neral-changes/

surely there has to be some nerd who has made a similar list for Rop to compare atleast for season 1 no?

You could probably find at least one deviation from the books for every minute of runtime in the movies. The thing that the perpetually negative fucknuts can't wrap their heads around is that deviating from the source material isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Literally no one here is shitting on the movies. Everything here thinks they're great. These dummies just can't comprehend a world where pointing out that an adaptation isn't as faithful as they thought isn't meant to be an insult to that adaptation. Peter Jackson made a lot of drastic changes, omitting things from the books, changing when events/lines of dialogue occur, condensed timelines, and even just made stuff up that he thought was cool. Literally all the stuff that these people bitch about for the show.

[alach]

You could probably find at least one deviation from the books for every minute of runtime in the movies. The thing that the perpetually negative fucknuts can't wrap their heads around is that deviating from the source material isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Literally no one here is shitting on the movies. Everything here thinks they're great. These dummies just can't comprehend a world where pointing out that an adaptation isn't as faithful as they thought isn't meant to be an insult to that adaptation. Peter Jackson made a lot of drastic changes, omitting things from the books, changing when events/lines of dialogue occur, condensed timelines, and even just made stuff up that he thought was cool. Literally all the stuff that these people bitch about for the show.

Its been years since I read the books and I am pretty foggy on the details, but didn't he cut out a huge portion of the final book. Something with Saruman and Wormtongue in the Shire? I don't think I heard a single complaint back then.

[Triceron]

You could probably find at least one deviation from the books for every minute of runtime in the movies. The thing that the perpetually negative fucknuts can't wrap their heads around is that deviating from the source material isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Literally no one here is shitting on the movies. Everything here thinks they're great. These dummies just can't comprehend a world where pointing out that an adaptation isn't as faithful as they thought isn't meant to be an insult to that adaptation. Peter Jackson made a lot of drastic changes, omitting things from the books, changing when events/lines of dialogue occur, condensed timelines, and even just made stuff up that he thought was cool. Literally all the stuff that these people bitch about for the show.

Do people you think people should shit on the PJ trilogy? Because it deviates from the texts? And it surprises you that they don't?

Maybe that should tell you simply deviating from lore isn't the problem.

[Adamas102]

Its been years since I read the books and I am pretty foggy on the details, but didn't he cut out a huge portion of the final book. Something with Saruman and Wormtongue in the Shire? I don't think I heard a single complaint back then.

Yep. I think people generally understood that omitting the Scouring of the Shire (which was a very important part of the story for Tolkien) was the right choice for pacing reasons. I'm sure plenty of people have complained about that omission, but most people understand that this is the nature of adapting a story from one medium to another. The reason to bring it up in this discussion is to point out the double standards that a lot of posters here have. Omitting the Scouring is arguably a WAY bigger change to Tolkien's vision than for instance Celeborn's presence being omitted (or more than likely postponed), or the order of the ring forging being shuffled about, or Gandalf wandering Middle-earth in the Second Age.

- - - Updated - - -

Do people you think people should shit on the PJ trilogy? Because it deviates from the texts? And it surprises you that they don't?

Maybe that should tell you simply deviating from lore isn't the problem.

"because the whole HOW this happened is pure fanfic, since it is not something Tolkien wrote, and this is true to every other event you listed"

Literally been responding to a poster who tries to use "not what Tolkien wrote" as an argument and very much trying to pass off "magnitude of changes" as the reason for one being better than the other. If you care to reread the last page or so of posts you'd see that "adhering to the words as written" is being discussed. I also VERY clearly explained that deviating from the texts is NOT a reason to shit on something. Don't need you butting in with misunderstandings and straw men arguments just to be a contrarian again.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Do people you think people should shit on the PJ trilogy? Because it deviates from the texts? And it surprises you that they don't?

Maybe that should tell you simply deviating from lore isn't the problem.

I mean this is kinda on this very page and it’s not the first or even tenth time it’s come up in the thread nor has it been only one person saying it.

People accept literally because the magnitude of the changes is much smaller than the show

No mention of quality how the changes actually effect the story over all or the like, just that the magnitude of changes is what makes it less acceptable.

- - - Updated - - -

Literally no one here is shitting on the movies.

Well I will take a moment to shit on the movies.

Aragorn Should have been Native American like the animated movie. No idea if it fits the books, don’t care if the PJ movies had good acting, the animated movie got it right and this is the hill I will die on.

[Rocksteady 87]

Do people you think people should shit on the PJ trilogy? Because it deviates from the texts? And it surprises you that they don't?

Maybe that should tell you simply deviating from lore isn't the problem.

Well, except for the fact that the same little group of people here post the same hate and bigotry on nearly every single thread on the topic, bitching about skin colors, someone having tits instead of a dick, and/or an actor's sexuality. All the while coming up with new and not-at-all-exciting excuses for why they're "actually" bitching and whining and crying and sobbing about anything but those things. Despite doing it. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. And then clutching their little pearls to their chest, wondering why everyone else keeps calling them out for their bullshit.

[Triceron]

I mean this is kinda on this very page and it’s not the first or even tenth time it’s come up in the thread nor has it been only one person saying it.

So you didn't read the quote or what?

Hint - Its not about there being changes, its about the quality of the changes

- - - Updated - - -

"because the whole HOW this happened is pure fanfic, since it is not something Tolkien wrote, and this is true to every other event you listed"

Literally been responding to a poster who tries to use "not what Tolkien wrote" as an argument and very much trying to pass off "magnitude of changes" as the reason for one being better than the other. If you care to reread the last page or so of posts you'd see that "adhering to the words as written" is being discussed. I also VERY clearly explained that deviating from the texts is NOT a reason to shit on something. Don't need you butting in with misunderstandings and straw men arguments just to be a contrarian again.

Dude has w hard time using the right words, not my problem there. His message about magnitude of change is the key to the messaging. I do agree 'not what Tolkien wrote' would apply to PJ films, but PJ at least makes it sound like Tolkien by using direct phrases and lines from the books even if he rearranged their context and who says the lines.

RoP doesn't have any dialogue to draw from. Part of the problem of adapting appendices.

[ringpriest]

You could probably find at least one deviation from the books for every minute of runtime in the movies. The thing that the perpetually negative fucknuts can't wrap their heads around is that deviating from the source material isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Literally no one here is shitting on the movies. Everything here thinks they're great. These dummies just can't comprehend a world where pointing out that an adaptation isn't as faithful as they thought isn't meant to be an insult to that adaptation.

Amazon's Rings of Power is not an adaption of J.R.R. Tolkien's work.

Sure, its creators, owners, and promoters claim it is. But their claims don't make it true. It is, perhaps, a story inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien's writings on the Second Age of Middle-earth, similar to how Terry Brooks' The Sword of Shannara, and even more Tolkien-derivative works, like Dennis L. McKiernan's Mithgar stories, or Russian author Nick Perumov's The Ring of Darkness are inspired by other, better-known parts of Tolkien's legendarium. Dungeons & Dragons' early editions had hobbits, balrogs, and treants, before the Tolkien Estate told them to knock it off, but D&D was never an adaptation of Lord of Rings. Do not confuse the Rings of Power's legality with honesty, in intent, execution, or presentation. It is not an adaptation. It is a novel story, told using names and a few ideas created by Professor Tolkien, but little else - it's creators have not failed to adapt the stories of Middle-earth's Second Age, they were never interested in telling them in the first place.

If people enjoy Amazon's story, I'm glad they found something they like. But people who wanted the adaption of Professor Tolkien's story of the Rings of Power (which they thought they were going to get to see) are understandably disappointed to find themselves watching something else entirely. That "something else" clothes itself in names and other bits taken from Middle-earth makes the experience no better, and arguably much worse.

[Biomega]

It is not an adaptation. It is a novel story, told using names and a few ideas created by Professor Tolkien

First of all, that's not true. It's not a "novel story". It is quite literally Tolkien's story, to which they merely added extra bits. The core story is the forging of the rings of power and Sauron's rise in Middle Earth, all of which is Tolkien's story and not theirs.

And do you know what taking someone else's core story are merely changing things and adding new bits is called? Hint: the word starts with an A.

And secondly, "adaptation" does not have some kind of authoritative definition that you can use as a caliper to objectively measure whether something does or does not fit that definition. That's not how it works. There's no rules, no specific criteria, no threshold values. It's merely the vague concept of taking an existing work and making another work using that first work. Which can take any number of forms and range from utilizing dialogue line-by-line to retaining almost nothing except some vague concepts. "Adaptation" covers it all.

Even in legal battles, it's often simply up to the court to decide how close something is to an original work, or whether or not something is derivative. Laws vary between jurisdictions, but are usually intentionally vague by using language like "substantially similar" or the likes which is entirely open to interpretation - by design. Because there are no hard and definitive lines you can draw here.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

So you didn't read the quote or what?

Hint - Its not about there being changes, its about the quality of the changes

care to point out which word is implying it’s about quality and not amount? Is it magnitude? Smaller?

[Veggie50]

I have not factually stated that. You have multiple times. I am not fleeing from any discussion. Do I need to be refeshing the screen constantly for replies just because you got triggered? Racism is not okay. You can't bring equity and inclusion without boosting marginalized groups. It is not racism to balance the metaphorical scale.

https://www.equasense.co.uk/wp-conte...nclusion-2.png

Technically anything that is done in regards to someones race is racism. It’s the definition if the word.

Boosting one ethnic group also means you demote the chances of another ethnic group, since it’s a zero sum game.

So yeah, casting a black actor cuz you want more diversity is racism, and can be interpreted as anti white. Casting a black actor cuz he did best in the audition doesn’t though.

Many people refuse to believe the second narrative though.

[Triceron]

care to point out which word is implying it’s about quality and not amount? Is it magnitude? Smaller?

Is he complaining about amount?

- - - Updated - - -

Technically anything that is done in regards to someones race is racism. It’s the definition if the word.

Boosting one ethnic group also means you demote the chances of another ethnic group, since it’s a zero sum game.

So yeah, casting a black actor cuz you want more diversity is racism, and can be interpreted as anti white. Casting a black actor cuz he did best in the audition doesn’t though.

Many people refuse to believe the second narrative though.

Amazon having a diversity policy in place doesn't help believe the second narrative that's for sure.

[Dhrizzle]

Technically anything that is done in regards to someones race is racism. It’s the definition if the word.

Boosting one ethnic group also means you demote the chances of another ethnic group, since it’s a zero sum game.

So yeah, casting a black actor cuz you want more diversity is racism, and can be interpreted as anti white. Casting a black actor cuz he did best in the audition doesn’t though.

Many people refuse to believe the second narrative though.

So in this case, if they had decided to cast actors who matched the descriptions in the books (i.e. all white) that would also be racism to you?

[Veggie50]

So in this case, if they had decided to cast actors who matched the descriptions in the books (i.e. all white) that would also be racism to you?

Technically yes.

ANY decision based on race is racism. Because racism means discrimination / differentiation based on race.

The term has nothing to do with minorities, but that’s where it causes most outrage, so there is an association.

- - - Updated - - -

Is he complaining about amount?

- - - Updated - - -



Amazon having a diversity policy in place doesn't help believe the second narrative that's for sure.

I agree, diversity policies are ridiculous. I believe it worker out decently well in rings of power, so I’m happy with that.

It may also be a necessary evil. An overcorrection because the system wouldn’t budge through normal means. It should be ended asap though.

[Syegfryed]

Those phrases are literally the only things Tolkien published for those events

sure, maybe the silmarilion have just two pages right? there is nothing, just phrases

You cannot make an argument without being obnoxiously disingenuous .

First off, stop using words that you don't know the definitions off. Secondly, yes if that's what Tolkien wrote and he wrote no other details and that is what is depicted in the show then you would ABSOLUTELY say that it adhered to the source material.

then why was Galadriel there? tolkien did not write him, Adar? him getting the elven ring? they didn't adhere to shit besides "eregion was attacked by orcs"

Same for other events, where is Galadriel husband? how are they adhering to the source if they complete remove a character from the narrative to add others?

Is just using bullet points to write fanfiction.

Making the rings was not Sauron's plan.

ayyyyy lmao, like i said, cannot say shit without being disingenuous

That's not true AT ALL. T

That is literally true

You cannot possible say the movie did more and more impactful changes to the story compared to the show, you cannot if you actually want to make a decent argument

- - - Updated - - -

So you didn't read the quote or what?

Hint - Its not about there being changes, its about the quality of the changes.

You cant reason with these people, they only want to call ist and phobes

They literally cling in THE ONE THING they can use as shield and cherrypick the rest

Like i said before, if they cant cry racist of sexist, they will cry "the movies made changes and you are not complaining about it!1!1" so your argument is invalid!!1!"

As an example, the movies did change Aragorn personality, but the show did change Galadriel personality as well, which is worse? the show, because it made the character an insufferable dumbass. Aragorn was not, he as a character, was still fine, even if the trope of relutanct hero was used going against the book.

[Rocksteady 87]

You cant reason with these people, they only want to call ist and phobes

They literally cling in THE ONE THING they can use as shield and cherrypick the rest

Like i said before, if they cant cry racist of sexist, they will cry "the movies made changes and you are not complaining about it!1!1" so your argument is invalid!!1!"

<just eats popcorn as you personify the behavior>

"OMG YOU GUYS, I AIN'T A BIGOT! I just hate that there's black dwarves in this show, cause, uhm... <checks latest list of excuses for the bigotry in this thread> ...this time it doesn't match Tolkien's canon! No wait, it's about expectations... no wait wait wait, it's about the quality now that people have pointed out that canon doesn't talk about it. Yeah, that's the ticket, see, I ain't a bigot, I just have refined tastes! Yeah, yeah, that's it!!! Until next week when I come up with a new excuse for being the bigot I 100% am!!!"

"OMG YOU GUYS, I AIN'T A BIGOT! Heimdall is the WHITE god! WHITE! He can't be played by a black man, cause, uhm... <checks the list for that thread> ...that's the way words work! See, I'm totes not a bigot, just a grammar nazi!"

"OMG YOU GUYS, I AIN'T A BIGOT! Starbuck can't be a female! Why? Because, uhm... <checks the list for that thread> ...it's right there in the name, BUCK! That's a male deer! Not a bigot, it's just how English works!"

etc. ad infinitum

[Fixxit the Gnome]

This is completely besides the point. Nowhere did I mention Galadriel. I agree she is one of the weakest part of the show. If I would give any sliver of a benefit of doubt to the showrunners, I would think she is supposed to start that way and grow into the Galadriel we know, but honestly I just believe they have fumbled her character in so many ways.

However, are you honestly telling me that if RotK was released today and after the iconic "I am no man!" scene, two dozens Youtube channels wouldn't plaster a unflattering photo of Miranda Otto on their thumbnails and name their videos "LOTR goes FULL GIRLBOSS TOTAL DISASTER GO WOKE GO BROKE"?

The original point of my post is that the modern ragebait industry would tear those movies to shreds if they got released today, and they wasn't fortunate enough to watch them in their formative years. The show is not that bad as the rage-inducers would have you believe. It's not a great show, but it's not horrible either.