Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[En Sabah Nur]

This popped up on my feed and seems relevant. It even has the girl boss woke precursor being used.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LOTR_on_Pri..._the_rings_vs/

"Liv Tyler is every bit as guilty as Jackson. She volunteered to destroy the character for money. To her it was just another script. And she, rich as she is, decided she would take part in the blasphemy that is what happened with her character. Any actor with a conscience should have turned that down when they considered the disappointment of fans."

If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely . . . But political correctness (also known as BULLSHIT) in Hollywood won’t allow that. That VERY plainly explains what happened with the whole Arwen catastrophe.

Ah, good times. I remember that thread. I genuinely recommend giving it a bit more of a read.

[bledgor]

Ah, good times. I remember that thread. I genuinely recommend giving it a bit more of a read.

And yet the movies made billions, were loved by the masses, won a fuck ton of awards, and still are the golden standard we hold ALL fantasy to today.

Meanwhile RoP has lost at least 60% of its audience, has been AT BEST divisive, wont be winning many if any awards, and will be the standard of how to waste a billion dollars.

I love the few people peddling bullshit that the PJ trilogy weren't that good or abused the lore, cause its bullshit and the fact that over 60% of the audience didn't make it to the end of RoP while PJ trilogy grew each movie is proof.

Like seriously S1 of RoP cost ~515 million (I'm adding 50 mill for the rights, since 5 season 250 million total), meanwhile LoTR cost 281 million(my inflation, guess what still under 515 million of S1 RoP) and produced just about better quality everything (music, landscapes, actors RIP Benard Hill and Sir Christopher Lee, characters, story, etc).

[En Sabah Nur]

And yet the movies made billions, were loved by the masses, won a fuck ton of awards, and still are the golden standard we hold ALL fantasy to today.

Meanwhile RoP has lost at least 60% of its audience, has been AT BEST divisive, wont be winning many if any awards, and will be the standard of how to waste a billion dollars.

I love the few people peddling bullshit that the PJ trilogy weren't that good or abused the lore, cause its bullshit and the fact that over 60% of the audience didn't make it to the end of RoP while PJ trilogy grew each movie is proof.

Like seriously S1 of RoP cost ~515 million (I'm adding 50 mill for the rights, since 5 season 250 million total), meanwhile LoTR cost 281 million(my inflation, guess what still under 515 million of S1 RoP) and produced just about better quality everything (music, landscapes, actors RIP Benard Hill and Sir Christopher Lee, characters, story, etc).

Okay? That's nice.

[rhorle]

Meanwhile RoP has lost at least 60% of its audience, has been AT BEST divisive, wont be winning many if any awards, and will be the standard of how to waste a billion dollars.

Copium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lo...ower#Accolades

Lord of the Rings costs/rights are all over the place. Embracer group paid $395.6 million for the world wide rights to films, video games, board games, merchandising, theme parks, and stage productions. We don't even know the cost of rights or other stuff for the New Line films because they used "Hollywood Accounting". Jackson, and others, had to fight for get residuals and money owed because they were claiming all sorts of stuff about the film.

It is most certainly not BS that Peter Jackson abused the lore. That is again copium from you. It doesn't tarnish the Jackson adaptation by recognizing that he was not faithful to the lore. They are still great movies.

[Eapoe]

And yet the movies made billions, were loved by the masses, won a fuck ton of awards, and still are the golden standard we hold ALL fantasy to today.

Meanwhile RoP has lost at least 60% of its audience, has been AT BEST divisive, wont be winning many if any awards, and will be the standard of how to waste a billion dollars.

I love the few people peddling bullshit that the PJ trilogy weren't that good or abused the lore, cause its bullshit and the fact that over 60% of the audience didn't make it to the end of RoP while PJ trilogy grew each movie is proof.

Like seriously S1 of RoP cost ~515 million (I'm adding 50 mill for the rights, since 5 season 250 million total), meanwhile LoTR cost 281 million(my inflation, guess what still under 515 million of S1 RoP) and produced just about better quality everything (music, landscapes, actors RIP Benard Hill and Sir Christopher Lee, characters, story, etc).

You know what other movie made a ton of money, received awards, and was praised during its time?
Song of the South.

Here’s another one for you: Gone With the Wind, one of the (if not the) highest grossing movie of all time after inflation adjustments.

Here’s another movie people liked/loved that doesn’t hold up today: Revenge of the Nerds.

Just something to keep in mind when discussing things of the past, and also why we say the phrase “doesn’t age well.”

[bledgor]

You know what other movie made a ton of money, received awards, and was praised during its time?
Song of the South.

Here’s another one for you: Gone With the Wind, one of the (if not the) highest grossing movie of all time after inflation adjustments.

Here’s another movie people liked/loved that doesn’t hold up today: Revenge of the Nerds.

Just something to keep in mind when discussing things of the past, and also why we say the phrase “doesn’t age well.”

Are you seriously comparing Lord of the Rings to Song of the South? Obvious troll is obvious.

[Syegfryed]

I do as you’ve mentioned plenty of times that you think the PJ movies have less changes.

Less changes and less impactful ones

I just mentioned the kind of deal with how the movies changed Aragorn and how the show changed Galadriel.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet the movies made billions, were loved by the masses, won a fuck ton of awards, and still are the golden standard we hold ALL fantasy to today.

Meanwhile RoP has lost at least 60% of its audience, has been AT BEST divisive, wont be winning many if any awards, and will be the standard of how to waste a billion dollars.

I love the few people peddling bullshit that the PJ trilogy weren't that good or abused the lore, cause its bullshit and the fact that over 60% of the audience didn't make it to the end of RoP while PJ trilogy grew each movie is proof.

Like seriously S1 of RoP cost ~515 million (I'm adding 50 mill for the rights, since 5 season 250 million total), meanwhile LoTR cost 281 million(my inflation, guess what still under 515 million of S1 RoP) and produced just about better quality everything (music, landscapes, actors RIP Benard Hill and Sir Christopher Lee, characters, story, etc).

Like i said, its the same kind of snark tentative to defend the show.

We never denied of course there are going to be people crying over nothing, these people will exist, but pretend the show is doing garbage JUST BECAUSE then is clownish

If the movie was releasd today people would love just like before and would make a sucess regardless, ROP is shit today and would be shit before

[Rocksteady 87]

Like i said, its the same kind of snark tentative to defend the show.

"People are calling me out for being the bigot I absolutely am by whining about the color of some actors' skins when there's real, legitimate shit to criticize about the show. Ergo, it MUST be them defending the show!!!!!!!!!!"

The way some people's brains work is truly astounding.

[Syegfryed]

"People are calling me out for being the bigot I absolutely am by whining about the color of some actors' skins when there's real, legitimate shit to criticize about the show. Ergo, it MUST be them defending the show!!!!!!!!!!"

The way some people's brains work is truly astounding.

I see you are still on the racist argument about skin color, when everyone already went over it, white saviour, rest a bit, let the other heroes do the work

[Rocksteady 87]

I see you are still on the racist argument about skin color, white saviour, rest a bit, let the other heroes do the work

Yep, and I'll continue pointing it out every time you people go on with your inane rhetoric, all while trying to play the innocent victim.

Also, thanks for proving my point. (And adding a random 'u' to a word once in a blue moon when you don't any other time isn't going to make anyone believe your painfully transparent lies, by the way. Especially when it's not even used in the country you're 100% totally from.)

[Syegfryed]

Also, thanks for proving my point. (And adding a random 'u' to a word once in a blue moon when you don't any other time isn't going to make anyone believe your painfully transparent lies, by the way. Especially when it's not even used in the country you're 100% totally from.)

What kind of conspiracy theory you are trying to cook here? i used the same word 7 days ago:

saviour

Yeah, they are not used in the country im from, soooo? whats the gag?

[rhorle]

If the movie was releasd today people would love just like before and would make a sucess regardless, ROP is shit today and would be shit before

You didn't even give War of the Rhorrim a chance to release before you went off on it having a female lead. You didn't give it a chance at all. You would have cried foul about Arwen if Fellowship released today. The other changes as well but you have a track record of complaining about "girl boss" characters and Jackson made Arwen into that.

[Eapoe]

Are you seriously comparing Lord of the Rings to Song of the South? Obvious troll is obvious.

No, I’m comparing your point that just because something is loved and gets awards and makes money doesn’t mean it always will hold up and stand the test of time, especially when things that are problematic start becoming scrutinized deeper.
Am I saying LotR is racist? No, but it did change the source material, as well as having ludicrous things in it (like Legolas stair surfing, troll death riding, and elephant surfing).
You attempted to dismiss complaints about something because it made money, got awards, and was loved. I simply pointed out that has happened in the past as well.
Here’s another list of examples:
https://www.watchmojo.com/amp/articl...loved-to-hated

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't even give War of the Rhorrim a chance to release before you went off on it having a female lead. You didn't give it a chance at all. You would have cried foul about Arwen if Fellowship released today. The other changes as well but you have a track record of complaining about "girl boss" characters and Jackson made Arwen into that.

I’d see them having more problems with Eowyn and the “I am no man,” line. I can hear Critical Drinker now “female protagonist kills evil male character because a man can’t do it, all for the reason of ‘the message.’ F**k off, film.”
(I’ve seen some of his videos, and I don’t agree with most of what he says. He did happen to be interesting when I first found his videos and they didn’t seem to be centered around the hate spew nonsense)

[Syegfryed]

You didn't even give War of the Rhorrim a chance to release before you went off on it having a female lead.

The problem is not having a female lead, is doing ANOTHER SUPER DUPER ORIGINAL bait and switch with another super original story of a princess who doesn't to marry and becomes a warrior, since the lead should have being Helm hammerhand.

So yeah, im skeptical about it, the record of these things tracks

You would

No i would not, its as disingenuous as it gets

Penguin episode last sunday was entirely focused on Sophia Falcone, and i though it was great and she as a character is great, if im what you and the other doorknob lickers think i am, i would be complaining about that as well

- - - Updated - - -

I’d see them having more problems with Eowyn and the “I am no man,” line.

The only ''problem" with the line it hat it sounds cheesy/cringey - and thats a big quotation marks, cause ometimes being cheesy is good - but the scene is great, its not rly a girlboss obnoxious moment like Galadriel sword trampolim to kill a ice troll in under 10 seconds, as she was on the brink of death and the hobbit helped her, giving her the chance for the final strike

If the show made the movie, Eowin would have moped the show with the witch king, cutting off his arms then his head.

[InfiniteCharger]

I think you are getting something wrong here. "Hollywood" does not care about racism etc. most of them are in fact part of the problem.
The reason why we're seeing more diversity in media is simply because its an attempt for them to appeal to more people, especially outside of the US and Europe. So basically they aren't trying to influence the world or whatever with their politics, but instead they just want to make more money. Now whether this is working or not, is a different discussion.

But yeah the general answer to all things happening in businesses is always money (even when they are saying otherwise).

Hollywood absolutely cares about promoting an image of fighting racism by rebooting existing franchises with more "diversity". The problem is these reboots are nowhere as good as the original and diversity by itself doesn't make something good. It is just lazy pandering by studios to an audience that doesn't exist because they are rebooting things that are already popular and didn't need more diversity to become popular. Lord of The Rings has been popular all over the world for decades and nobody needed more diverse dwarves to make it popular. And yes, Hollywood is the problem because they are just throwing money away rebooting stories or adapting existing popular stories and instead of sticking to what is already there and popular, deviating from it. And all this talk of needing diversity is ignoring the fact that Hollywood was making tons of black movies in the 70s and there have been many fiction and fantasy films made from the 70s onwards with diversity baked in naturally. People acting like black people or Asians just started appearing in movies 10 years ago is ridiculous and absurd gaslighting from Hollywood. Case in point: take some of the most popular black actors today and you notice they have been staring in movies for over 30 years. So how on earth can Hollywood claim to be breaking barriers that have already been broken?

Just curious as it's come up a few time from a few different posters.

How many generations would you or others say a African/black person has to live in Europe before they can want of be a part of European storys? Is it like the one drop rule were if they have mixed parants/grandparants who imbued them with the history and culture first hand they still shouldn't get to take part? what of African American's or other ex slave family's who actually don't have a history or culture beyond an Europe esc one because of slavery are they just out of luck and only get post slavery stories?

Your question doesn't make sense because we are talking about stories based on European history and mythology where there wasn't the diversity that you see today. No number of generations is going to change Anne Bolyne into a black woman as was done on British TV. Just like no amount of generations of immigration is going to change regency period England into the melting pot seen in Bridgerton either, which is why it is fantasy. Similarly no amount of generations is going to change Edo era Japan into a melting pot of cultures either, or ancient Nigerian kingdoms or ancient Pacific Island kingdoms and so forth. Just like all the immigration to America isn't going to change the history and culture of the ancient Native American civilizations.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Your question doesn't make sense because we are talking about stories based on European history and mythology where there wasn't the diversity that you see today. No number of generations is going to change Anne Bolyne into a black woman as was done on British TV. Just like no amount of generations of immigration is going to change regency period England into the melting pot seen in Bridgerton either, which is why it is fantasy. Similarly no amount of generations is going to change Edo era Japan into a melting pot of cultures either, or ancient Nigerian kingdoms or ancient Pacific Island kingdoms and so forth. Just like all the immigration to America isn't going to change the history and culture of the ancient Native American civilizations.

I'm not asking about changing any history or shows/movies set in a historical period. I'm asking when one can want to take part fictional story's that aren't based in the real world.

Like say the culture/story's told doesn't change at all for a hundred generations, your family has been there the whole time and you are raised on said story's alone as was your father and his father so on and so on. can even a hundred generations down the line can you not take part even when you have no ties to any other culture and the story doesn't prohibited it because of your skin tone?

or with a mixed family where your not soaking up the story's/culture by just living among them you are actively a part of it by blood, should you still be relegated yo Africans or black story's even though the European one's are just as much as a part of you? hell you could even have "white" siblings, would they get to take part because they can pass but you don't because your "black"?

[jbombard]

I'm not asking about changing any history or shows/movies set in a historical period. I'm asking when one can want to take part fictional story's that aren't based in the real world.

Like say the culture/story's told doesn't change at all for a hundred generations, your family has been there the whole time and you are raised on said story's alone as was your father and his father so on and so on. can even a hundred generations down the line can you not take part even when you have no ties to any other culture and the story doesn't prohibited it because of your skin tone?

or with a mixed family where your not soaking up the story's/culture by just living among them you are actively a part of it by blood, should you still be relegated yo Africans or black story's even though the European one's are just as much as a part of you? hell you could even have "white" siblings, would they get to take part because they can pass but you don't because your "black"?

I think if we are talking about some generic newly established fantasy world, anything goes. I think changing aspects of a well established fantasy world is going to get people riled up, as this thread has shown us. As far as Lord of the Rings is concerned they could of had all the diversity they wanted in the race of men. That is, if diversity was all they were going for. One might think they wanted people to get riled over their choices thinking it would bring more attention to the show. Who knows what the failed writers were thinking. The thing is the title is Lord of the Rings:The Rings of Power, you can anticipate that people might expect it to be more like, you know, The Lord of the Rings. It isn't just a race thing, there are lots of bits and bobs that make it bad. This old article summed it up rather well IMHO https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...ever-finished/

[Adamas102]

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

This would be so much simpler if you just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and have no intention to actually look at the source material. I'm guessing you don't actually have a copy of ANY of these books. If you did you'd realize that the Silmarillion is almost entirely focused on the First Age, with only 5 paragraphs to describe Annatar coming to Eregion, the forging of the rings, and the death of Celebrimbor. Talk about being obnoxiously disingenuous...

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?

If all he wrote was "Eregion laid waste" and the show has Eregion being overrun and destroyed then yes, you would say that it's adhering to the source material. That's literally what they did.

Why was Galadriel there? Tolkien never said she wasn't. Her whereabouts during the battle was not mentioned in the appendices or the Silmarillion. Tolkien's notes certainly make it a possibility that she was there since elves from Lothlorien (Lorinand) came to Elrond's aid, but that doesn't matter. When you make a show or movie you try to have your main characters on the screen as much as possible to ground the action around them. That video I posted that detailed all the changes around the Council of Elrond highlights changes like that as well (except of course that Tolkien was SPECIFIC about who was there in the books). Galadriel and Sauron are the primary protagonist/antagonist duo of the show so it makes sense to bring them together again for the second season's climax.

And yeah, Tolkien didn't create Adar. Tolkien didn't describe Sauron's forces AT ALL. Assuming there were orcs there is certainly reasonable, but with no other details that leaves it pretty open ended. The canon timeline for all of these events is spread out across 499 years. THAT DOES NOT WORK for telling the story on the screen, so having Adar, with his own machinations, bring the orc army to Eregion while Annatar is there helps to focus the narrative. This isn't rocket science. You have a number of connected events that are all spread out with little to no detail, and the show's creators have to figure out a way to bridge those events and present them over a limited runtime. You could come up with a dozen different ways to do it, all of them needing to add stuff that wasn't written out by Tolkien. You don't have to like the way they decided to do it for the show, but you should at least be able to understand WHY they did it (unfortunately you seem absolutely incapable of wrapping your head around these concepts).

As for Celeborn, the only mention of him in the appendices for the Second Age is that he lived in Lindon "for a time". The Silmarillion doesn't mention his whereabouts during the forging of the rings. Why the fuck do you even care? Celeborn is completely inconsequential to the story at this point. Ignoring him is exactly what Tolkien did for the most part so why are you bitching about it?

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

Go on. Refute the facts that I laid out. You won't because you know I'm right.

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

The show has added a lot more stuff because the source material was bare bones, but it's simply a fact that the movies made FAR more changes to the stuff that Tolkien actually wrote. Do you understand that difference? You want to bitch about the show omitting Celeborn who did nothing of note during these events, while the movies omitted Bombadil, Imrahil, Glorfindel, and many more who actually DID things in the narrative. You want to bitch about the show changing the order of when the Three were forged even though the end result is the same, while the movies killed off Saruman after the fall of Isengard and in doing so made a major change to the ending of RotK. You want to bitch about Galadriel's personality being different than how she's described thousands of years later, while the movies greatly changed the personalities of main characters like Aragorn, Gimli, Denethor, Boromir, and several more.

So yeah, when comparing each one to the source material they're based on, the movies made far more impactful changes that deviate from Tolkien's written words.

- - - Updated - - -

Your question doesn't make sense because we are talking about stories based on European history and mythology where there wasn't the diversity that you see today.

So what? Europe IS more diverse today and these stories belong to ALL Europeans, not just the ones who happen to look like Europeans from 1,500 years ago. You're trying to conflate history with the retelling of history. The real Anne Boleyn died almost 500 years ago and nothing will change that. That's history. However, the retelling of her story can indeed evolve and change. Just as mythologies evolved over time with the people who told the stories, there is absolutely no reason for Middle-earth not to evolve as well to encompass the diversity of the people telling these stories now. Suggesting that these stories should remain stagnant as a way to uphold some archaic belief of what YOU think it means to be a European does a massive disservice to Tolkien's legacy.

[Askyl]

Is anything that micwini is saying considered abnormal? Is it not normal to care about the world building and the expectations behind the depictions of certain fictional races?

I get that you can say there are people who don't have a problem with it, but that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist to everyone else. Nor do I think the use of 'normal person' is very good when that implies that anyone who has a problem isn't normal, and I'm not sure if that's the message you are wanting to get across..

There's a different to not liking that the world, art and adaptation of something isn't maching what you expected. It's another thing to hate and openly rage about something because of skin color.

Galadriel as a black woman is far off in my mind that it just doesn't exist. Magic The Gathering made her black and her art looks fantastic, anyway. Doesn't ruin the entire set for me. But for some, it actually does. Because she's black. Usually these people don't care much if black people are turned white however.

That's the problem and that's what I meant. People literally don't care if you're "normal". You might comment you would prefer if they stuck to the source more, but most people literally don't care. If you do care that much, you might want to take some time to think.

[rhorle]

The thing is the title is Lord of the Rings:The Rings of Power, you can anticipate that people might expect it to be more like, you know, The Lord of the Rings. It isn't just a race thing, there are lots of bits and bobs that make it bad.

It isn't a race thing at all. Having non-white characters doesn't change anything about the story. It is also less impactful of a change compared to some Jackson did and his work is still considered Lord of the Rings.