Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Adamas102]

so you confirm you are a liar by saying the show adhere to the source material, when there is literally stuff they DO NOT adhere by adding their own shit?

No, this just confirms that you're a moron since you seem to think that someone here has been arguing that the show adheres to the source material 100%. That's just something you made up in your head. I know how you got there, though. You hear "the show makes fewer changes to what is in the source material that the movies did" and in your mind you seem to equate that with "the show never deviates from the source material". We can chalk that up to your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

Literally not a single person has suggested that making the Three rings first is as it was written. Nobody. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that that's the argument here? I explained WHY the show made that change, which is NOT the same as "that's how it was written in the books".

The thing that none of you chucklefucks have been able to argue is WHY these deviations (the Three being made first, or Celeborn being absent) actually make a difference to the overall narrative other than "that's not how it was written". And that's why the movies keep getting brought up. If "that's not how it was written" was the issue then you should absolutely have more issues with the movies because they did the exact same things (changed the order of events, removed characters from the story, condensed timelines, changed character personalities, inserted characters into events, etc). Your hand-waving of "well, those were smaller changes" is completely and utterly wrong. Hell, you couldn't even defend your position that Gil-galad was changed more than Aragorn, instead resorting to just calling the actor fat.

So yeah, the show both adheres to the source material AND deviates from it. Just like EVERY SINGLE ADAPTATION EVER MADE. So pull your head out of your ass thinking that it can only be one or the other. Deviating from the source material isn't a problem, especially when it's done to add tension (making the Three rings first), to better connect events and storylines (playing up the role of mithril in the process), and to reduce unnecessary characters (like Celeborn).

[Syegfryed]

No, this just confirms that you're a moron since you seem to think that someone here has been arguing that the show adheres to the source material 100%. That's just something you made up in your head. I know how you got there, though. You hear "the show makes fewer changes to what is in the source material that the movies did" and in your mind you seem to equate that with "the show never deviates from the source material". We can chalk that up to your lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

Literally not a single person has suggested that making the Three rings first is as it was written. Nobody. Stop deluding yourself into thinking that that's the argument here? I explained WHY the show made that change, which is NOT the same as "that's how it was written in the books".

The thing that none of you chucklefucks have been able to argue is WHY these deviations (the Three being made first, or Celeborn being absent) actually make a difference to the overall narrative other than "that's not how it was written". And that's why the movies keep getting brought up. If "that's not how it was written" was the issue then you should absolutely have more issues with the movies because they did the exact same things (changed the order of events, removed characters from the story, condensed timelines, changed character personalities, inserted characters into events, etc). Your hand-waving of "well, those were smaller changes" is completely and utterly wrong. Hell, you couldn't even defend your position that Gil-galad was changed more than Aragorn, instead resorting to just calling the actor fat.

So yeah, the show both adheres to the source material AND deviates from it. Just like EVERY SINGLE ADAPTATION EVER MADE. So pull your head out of your ass thinking that it can only be one or the other. Deviating from the source material isn't a problem, especially when it's done to add tension (making the Three rings first), to better connect events and storylines (playing up the role of mithril in the process), and to reduce unnecessary characters (like Celeborn).

blablabla, you can't even stay civil not classy, you are a joke and your arguments are even more of a joke, you just proved by yourself they are not adhering to the source material for the most part and just using bullet points to do their own fanfiction.

Which of course, not going to go anywhere since you are arguing with bad faith, the show is garbage and life goes on.

[Lord Pebbleton]

The question isn’t about any fantasy world it’s about real life and people wanting to take part in the story’s of real cultures.

First question is about people who live in those cultures and may even be part of them by blood, the second is about those who lack a ancestral culture of there own due to slavery and how they are suppose to pull from others.

Then the answer is: those people can be a part of the country's future, but not a part of the country's past. The past is over and done and no amount of US politics can change this fact. Multiple places have traditions and values that persisted through the ages even though the community may today be more varied and include individuals from all cultures. If I move to Finland tomorrow to marry a Finnish lady and have Finnish kids, they will be proud representatives of Finnish culture, with me just being there as a guest with no right to ask for any kind of inclusion for the years that have passed while I was not even there

[Syegfryed]

Or, you know… a bracelet, a crown, a choker, an ankle bracelet, a necklace, a broche…

But yea, don’t they know they’re in “the RINGS of power”? Dum fuks

It is also also extremely funny their reasoning to make 3 all of sudden, such nonsense that came out of nowhere, they might have said it was in the book or a legend that was foretold

[Adamas102]

The tree starts fading very quickly, if that symbolizes the elves fading then... I'm sure you can figure it out.

Elves were the first race in middle earth, and them fading was part of their life cycle on middle earth. After all that time on middle earth, all of a sudden, they need rings to deal with the fading? If you can point out where in the lord of the rings or the appendix it says this I would greatly appreciate it.

Not in the Lord of the Rings, but in the Silmarillion it's noted that the smiths of Eregion refused to go West. They instead wished to remain in Middle-earth, but to make it as beautiful for themselves as Valinor was. That's how Sauron/Annatar was able to gain their trust, because he offered them the knowledge by which they would be able to stave off the lingering darkness and the ravages of time.

"Moreover they were not at peace in their hearts, since they had refused to return into the West, and they desired both to stay in Middle-earth, which indeed they loved, and yet to enjoy the bliss of those who had departed"

The show makes the fading a more immediate and visible concern because that's more suited for this visual medium.

- - - Updated - - -

Then the answer is: those people can be a part of the country's future, but not a part of the country's past. The past is over and done and no amount of US politics can change this fact.

You people really need to stop conflating history with storytelling. No one can change the past, but when you tell a story you're doing so in the present, and you are not constrained by how that story was told before. That's kind of the wonderful thing about storytelling (and in this case, adaptation). No one is inserting themselves into Tolkien's books. Those were written and published long ago and exist as they are. However, adaptations of Tolkien's stories are the product of other storytellers retelling and reimagining those works. And there is absolutely no reason why anyone, English or otherwise, should be barred from participating in these sorts of adaptations.

[rhorle]

The tree starts fading very quickly, if that symbolizes the elves fading then... I'm sure you can figure it out.

The speed at which the tree fades doesn't have to mean that the elves fade at the same speed. Yes, the elves needed rings (or something) to delay their fading on Middle Earth. That is a central part of the story. Not all of the elves were ready to give up Middle-Earth and head west. Some of them wanted to avoid/delay fate and keep what they had.

- - - Updated - - -

Well sure but these are legendary elf characters not you or I after little to no sleep.

So you agree but still need to find a way to tear down the scene. Strange. The scene was no different then Jackson having the council of Elrond and them talking about what to do with the ring. A viewer that read the book would have a similar reaction to yours. That doesn't make it bad writing, milking, or anything else. It just means you didn't like it.

[Askyl]

And there yeti clearly a group that does think it mayters, and are immediately all being called racist regardless. I have no problems with Disa existing, i love the actress 'performance, and She is one of the better performers in the show. But I still question rhe creative choice to add such a character in the first place. I would say the same of tauriel in hobbit. Nothing against evangeline liily, but her character shouldn't exist and offered nothing significant to the world building either. Yet. I am openly called racist for these opinions

You think it's odd that a character exists because she's black, when Dwarfs never were described with any specific skin color at all? Then yes, it's a YOU problem. You might not activly be racist, but if that's where your mind goes directly you might need to rethink why it does that.

Dwarfs doesn't have a set skin color
Dwarf women might or might not have beards

And still the show gets insane amount of hate because of a black dwarf that doesn't have enough beard.

[jbombard]

Not in the Lord of the Rings, but in the Silmarillion it's noted that the smiths of Eregion refused to go West. They instead wished to remain in Middle-earth, but to make it as beautiful for themselves as Valinor was. That's how Sauron/Annatar was able to gain their trust, because he offered them the knowledge by which they would be able to stave off the lingering darkness and the ravages of time.

"Moreover they were not at peace in their hearts, since they had refused to return into the West, and they desired both to stay in Middle-earth, which indeed they loved, and yet to enjoy the bliss of those who had departed"

The show makes the fading a more immediate and visible concern because that's more suited for this visual medium.

Thank you for the explanation. I personally don't think the Silmarillion is canon, because it wasn't published by J.R.R. but at least I see where the show is coming from. I disagree with changing something so central to the story, because that then leads them to changing the order the rings were created, and so many other things. I get that the story might have been harder to tell accurately, but I think it would have been better if they did.(IMHO)

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Then the answer is: those people can be a part of the country's future, but not a part of the country's past. The past is over and done and no amount of US politics can change this fact. Multiple places have traditions and values that persisted through the ages even though the community may today be more varied and include individuals from all cultures. If I move to Finland tomorrow to marry a Finnish lady and have Finnish kids, they will be proud representatives of Finnish culture, with me just being there as a guest with no right to ask for any kind of inclusion for the years that have passed while I was not even there

Ok this is more of any actual answer then any one else has given so far.

But to be clear you’d say if you were black/African and had black kids with the Finnish lady you’d be fine with your Finnish kids representing there culture even if you don’t take part no matter there skin tone?

[Lord Pebbleton]

You people really need to stop conflating history with storytelling. No one can change the past, but when you tell a story you're doing so in the present, and you are not constrained by how that story was told before. That's kind of the wonderful thing about storytelling (and in this case, adaptation). No one is inserting themselves into Tolkien's books. Those were written and published long ago and exist as they are. However, adaptations of Tolkien's stories are the product of other storytellers retelling and reimagining those works. And there is absolutely no reason why anyone, English or otherwise, should be barred from participating in these sorts of adaptations.

I am not conflating the two. The person I was replying to asked for an explanation related real people instead of fictional ones.

Regarding the point you make, I agree partially. There is nothing wrong with reimagining fictional material, but I strongly believe that the reimagining must be done to improve it and make it digestible for an audience. For example, I know Tom Bombadil is there in the Fellowship, but I am thankful that he is not in the movie adaptation, because he would be so incredibly boring and drive away people right from the start.
In this context, reimagining a story means that you can make a successful transposition to a media that was not intended for it initially (book > movie). And there is a BIG difference between "you can" and "you think you can". Reimagining as of late seems to just be limited to dipping the product in current trite politics, which does nothing but ensure that the reimagined story will be horribly obsolete in 10 years max. Also a lot of producers nowadays gloat that they don't know the source material. Honestly I do not see how anything good can come from the arrogance they have been displaying. Reimagining is first and foremost a work of love. This is why Jackson's trilogy is beloved even if it took concessions towards the original

Ok this is more of any actual answer then any one else has given so far.

But to be clear you’d say if you were black/African and had black kids with the Finnish lady you’d be fine with your Finnish kids representing there culture even if you don’t take part no matter there skin tone?

I don't know how to answer to this unfortunately. I am not black and I live in a country where race is just a thing that exists and not at the forefront of everything like it works in the US. I guess that in very broad terms, if you have a passport, then you are allowed to state that you are part of that culture.

[Syegfryed]

You think it's odd that a character exists because she's black, when Dwarfs never were described with any specific skin color at all?

Indeed, its very odd when there is only one. (Cause i don't remember seeing another one, maybe in season 2 they add another two)Especially when people draw that from real the world, people tend to rationalize fantasy with old times, and know back then it wasn't diverse as California.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I don't know how to answer to this unfortunately. I am not black and I live in a country where race is just a thing that exists and not at the forefront of everything like it works in the US. I guess that in very broad terms, if you have a passport, then you are allowed to state that you are part of that culture.

Hey atleast your honest enough to both answer the question and say you don’t know answer, I’d say that’s more then any one else has given to the question.

[Adamas102]

Thank you for the explanation. I personally don't think the Silmarillion is canon, because it wasn't published by J.R.R. but at least I see where the show is coming from. I disagree with changing something so central to the story, because that then leads them to changing the order the rings were created, and so many other things. I get that the story might have been harder to tell accurately, but I think it would have been better if they did.(IMHO)

Taking ONLY The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (plus appendices) into consideration removes a lot of the details that you seem to consider important. If you go strictly from those sources then there's no indication that Sauron even disguised himself while teaching the smiths of Eregion (the name Annatar doesn't exist in these books). You reference the order of the rings, but that isn't specified either in those two books. Only that the Rings of Power were started circa 1500 SA and the Three were completed circa 1590 SA. Doesn't specify when the Three were started or when the rest were completed, so there is no set order. Doesn't even note that the Three were completed by Celebrimbor alone or the details about Sauron not having touched them.

If you go ONLY by what is written in the appendices then the only thing the show really changed was when the One Ring was created. In the appendices the elves are only alerted to Sauron's plans when he makes the One and puts it on his finger. In terms of how to portray that in the show, it kinda robs the narrative of a lot of tension since you go through the entire creation of the rings with zero conflict. The elves are just making rings for almost 400 years. You COULD adapt a show that way, but I'd say that's little more than montage material if that were the case and you'd just pick up the story when the conflict starts. I think the way the show increased tension by making the fading of the elves a more immediate threat and bringing the awareness of Sauron's presence and influence to the forefront makes sense and makes that part of the story worth telling on the screen.

[InfiniteCharger]

And you're wrong about that, because the story has as much modernity as the storyteller wants to imbue it with. You seem to STILL be confused by the difference between history and storytelling.

Dude, your sentence is self contradicting. You respond to a quote about stories based on ancient mythology and then turn around and talk about modernity. If it is based on ancient mythology, such as Tolkien, then the point is it is not about modernity. There are no cars, planes or trains in Tolkien or anything else that would begin to imply modernity. Yet you sit here and keep trying to argue that stories about ancient times MUST include some kind of modernity to be popular. No they dont and Tolkien is proof of that. All you are doing is sitting here making an argument based on specious logic that somehow and someway ancient mythological stories must include modern diversity based on instant travel anywhere in the world which is false. Nobody has a problem with ancient Chinese Wuxia films that are all Chinese. Nobody ever had a problem with Bollywood movies that are all Indian. Nobody had a problem with Nollywood movies that are all Nigerian. Nobody had a problem with ethnically homogenous stories that are based on a particular history and culture. You are just trying to argue that people have a problem with European stories that are based on European history and only made up of Europeans. That is absolutely false. In fact, non Europeans like European stories because to them it is exotic, just like Asian martial arts films are exotic to non Asians.

Richard III was a real person. His life is a matter of history. Shakespeare's play Richard III is a story. The characters are all based on real people, but the story is infused with drama to bring it to life for audiences over a century after the events themselves. The 1995 film Richard III is another retelling of the story, this time adapted around a fascist plot in 20th century England. The retelling of stories can be fluid, and does not need to be rooted in whatever time and place they originated in.

I fall back on Shakespeare a lot in this thread because these works are some of the most recognizable examples of how storytelling and adaptation can evolve over time, but there are so many examples to chose from. No one said that if you were to adapt the story of King Arthur you NEED to modernize it, but you certainly CAN. The Green Knight is an excellent example of an Arthurian adaptation that doesn't feel the need to shackle itself to "only actors with the skin tone of the average medieval era European".

Tolkien cannot evolve because he is dead and he literally explained clearly what the world of Arda was like when he was alive and how it was populated. And the stories such as Lord of the Rings are deliberately written against the background of Arda having a specific history and lore that he took a lot of time and effort to flesh out beyond the story Lord of the Rings. That history and lore that he created cannot evolve because it is past tense and fixed even in the context of Arda. Again, you keep making up justifications that don't exist in reality as to why it is necessary to change something which is based on a specific culture and history which are purely arbitrary and specious. If people want to make a high fantasy story with diversity like the modern world that is perfectly fine, but to sit here and argue that the world of Arda needs to change and must reflect a specific combination of cultures and peoples outside what Tolkien intended is absurd.

Are you under the impression that the pre-modern peoples of Europe simply sprung up out of nowhere as an isolated, unique group up until the past 50 years? Europe has been a melting pot of cultures and ethnicity since ancient times. This idea that "European culture" needs to be shielded and kept separate from all these immigrants is incredibly xenophobic and ignorant of the very history of Europe itself.

Since I didn't say that, why are you bringing it up? I said what I meant and you trying to make up something I didn't say just shows that your point is empty and meaningless. Nobody has ever picked up the Mahabarata and said you know there are too many Indians in this story it needs more diversity. Nobody ever picked up a copy of Journey to the West and said you know there are too many Chinese in this story, it needs more diversity. But yet here you are specifically singling out Europe for this arbitrary ideological mandate that somehow ancient European stories, even fictional ones, need to be updated to reflect diversity that wasn't in the original story. That is simply nonsense and there was nobody demanding that from Tolkien. And the funniest part of all of this is it is white executives, producers and people on the net arguing this moreso than any other group, because those other groups have never had this issue.

Ignoring the fact that every one of WoW's fantasy races can have a wide variety of skin tones without the need to separate each one into its own bucket? Whether you make your Night Elf a pale blue, or purple, or turquoise, no one is going to come up to you to demand you explain your origin. You're just a Night Elf. Similarly, Disa is just a dwarf of Durin's Folk. There's no need to question whether she came from a different tribe or spent more time sitting in a sunbeam as a child, it's inconsequential to the story and only seems to be an issue for people who feel a need to divide humans into groups based on appearances. These aren't "contradictions" to world building. It's simply a reimagining of how these sorts of settings can be presented.

Now you just keep going in circles trying to leap over facts you cant refute to make a non argument. The history of High Fantasy is highly influenced by Tolkien and the idea that different parts of the world have different kinds of beings or variations of beings. Therefore, you can have forest trolls in one part of the world, mountain trolls in another and cave trolls in yet others. And that idea of different groups being adapted to different environments and regions, from which they evolve different characteristics and cultures is based on the real world is a big part of the genre. You are making the argument that the diversity of the real world is problematic which just shows how extreme and absurd the argument is. Africans in Africa look like they do because the environment of Africa is not the same as that of Northern Europe. So of course they look different, just like East Asians look different from Pacific Islanders and look different from people in India. You just keep making non arguments based on on existent rules and pretending these rules are what people should follow when making these stories, when they dont. WOW is not following your made up arbitrary rules that all variations of elves should exist together in one group or all variations of trolls should exist in one group, that isn't how it works in the world building in high fantasy. And it especially doesn't work in games like DnD or MMOs based on DnD because that variety of populations is part of the world, character building and story. So I don't even know why you are sitting here making such illogical statements knowing what you know about these genres, at least from the perspective of WOW.

There are multiple non-white actors portraying Numenoreans in the show so there is more diversity than just a single example. Secondly, the Numenoreans were descended from the multi-ethnic Edain who were comprised of three distinct Houses, each with their own variations in appearance including "swarthy" skin colors. Quick question, who was Tar Miriel's mother? Cool, now imagine that whoever she was she had darker skin, and now you can move along to the next non-issue. This isn't a matter of it not fitting into the setting, but rather just YOU not wanting to accept it into the setting.

Again, you didn't address what I said and continue to go on side tangents based on things not said to give a non answer or non rebuttal to the point. I said that Tolkien spent a lot of time building up geneaologies and family trees in his world and to explain how different groups came to be and expanded in the world. Tar Miriel was the only black royal depicted in season 1 of Rings of Power and there is no attempt to show why she looks different from everybody else or her family tree. That is simply a fact and shows they have no care or concern about world building and would rather just slap random individuals into the story with no explanation or concern of how this "diversity" came to be. As far as they are concened Numenoreans all from the same place and same creation just randomly can pop out with different skin colors and features. That is simply lazy poor writing and world building that does no justice to the effort and skill of Tolkien in creating his world and spending so much time fleshing it out and defining the different peoples and cultures in it.

[Triceron]

You think it's odd that a character exists because she's black, when Dwarfs never were described with any specific skin color at all? Then yes, it's a YOU problem. You might not activly be racist, but if that's where your mind goes directly you might need to rethink why it does that.

Dwarfs doesn't have a set skin color
Dwarf women might or might not have beards

And still the show gets insane amount of hate because of a black dwarf that doesn't have enough beard.

You think thorin has black lineage rhen? I don't yet here we are. And that is racist?

Yes it matters because it is world building. If black skin doesn't matter why not blue or orange or green? It does change the character perception imo, maybe not to you but certainly others

Just like a pink skinned orc in warcraft would not make sense with no explanation for it. But we do have lots of explanation. Borcs are naturally shades of brown, then fel green, and morre fel xan turn red. It is world building. No need to ask how or why.it is explained in universe

[Dhrizzle]

You think thorin has black lineage rhen? I don't yet here we are. And that is racist?

Yes it matters because it is world building. If black skin doesn't matter why not blue or orange or green? It does change the character perception imo, maybe not to you but certainly others

Just like a pink skinned orc in warcraft would not make sense with no explanation for it. But we do have lots of explanation. Borcs are naturally shades of brown, then fel green, and morre fel xan turn red. It is world building. No need to ask how or why.it is explained in universe

If an actor with blue or orange or green skin gave the best performance then why not? Because that is what we are talking about right, the actual natural skin tones or the actors involved? You're not trying to equate actual human characteristics that often come with prejudice and discrimination with a bunch of random colours you pulled out of a hat are you because that would be awful...

[Triceron]

If an actor with blue or orange or green skin gave the best performance then why not? Because that is what we are talking about right, the actual natural skin tones or the actors involved? You're not trying to equate actual human characteristics that often come with prejudice and discrimination with a bunch of random colours you pulled out of a hat are you because that would be awful...

So the best Casting decision is to have an actor with blue skin portray the relative of someone who isn't? How is that explained in universe?and you think it doesn,:'t need to be rxplained at all?

[rhorle]

So the best Casting decision is to have an actor with blue skin portray the relative of someone who isn't? How is that explained in universe?and you think it doesn,:'t need to be rxplained at all?

The same way character customization in WoW are explained. They just exist. When Blizzard adds new ones they don't always create new lore to explain it. Tolkien never defined dwarven skin tones so why would it need an explanation? Arondir is a small issue though Tolkien did at one point describe an elf (Maegelin) as swarthy and dark-skinned but later wrote him as white. His early works had black=bad and white=good so depending on how he was writing characters it influenced how they looked. His later works generally avoided that association.

The world building for the adaptation is they just exist. No need to ask how or why. Tolkien's world would not change if Elves were blue, hobbits orange, and dwarves purple. Skin-tone is not a central part of the story.

[Dhrizzle]

So the best Casting decision is to have an actor with blue skin portray the relative of someone who isn't? How is that explained in universe?and you think it doesn,:'t need to be rxplained at all?

If looking the same isn't necessary for putting across that they are family then sure.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

skin tones so why would it need an explanation? Arondir is a small issue though Tolkien did at one point describe an elf (Maegelin) as swarthy and dark-skinned but later wrote him as white.

The world building for the adaptation is they just exist. No need to ask how or why. Tolkien's world would not change if Elves were blue, hobbits orange, and dwarves purple. Skin-tone is not a central part of the story.

Huh, got curious about Maegelin so looked him up and one thing that stood out was.

The most detailed text about Meglin and his evil deeds during the Fall of Gondolin is the chapter "The Fall of Gondolin", in The Book of Lost Tales Part Two. There it is told that he was a Gnome-lord, son of Isfin and Eöl, and nephew of king Turgon, although some whispered he had Orc's blood in his veins.

Which assuming art of him is pulling from
The book and he looks something like this.


Which isn’t all that far from Adar who I recall people saying is nothing like any thing Tolkien wrote.

Like ya this seems to be an in universe rumour but more and more when I look up Tolkiens actual material it seems to just flat out refute what those complaining about changes to his work are complaining about half the time.