Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rogoth]

Complaining about bad writing isn’t the issue being pointed out imo, it’s complaining that it’s worse/different then the books when you either don’t know what’s in the books or are making up stuff and saying it’s in the books.

so basically EVERYTHING these hack writers masquerading as showrunners have been doing now for 3 years? Or is that too on the nose?

[En Sabah Nur]

Yearly reminder that if you don't like the show...you can just stop watching it.

Let's be honest, they don't actually have to watch it to complain about it. For some, there are plenty of YouTubers that will happily form their opinion for them. But even just looking at this thread, it is clear as day that a lot of people decided very early on (I'm talking the very first page) that it was going to be something they hated no matter what Amazon released.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

so basically EVERYTHING these hack writers masquerading as showrunners have been doing now for 3 years? Or is that too on the nose?

I'm not aware of the show runners ever claiming what there adding was in the books them self's, something I don't know like this?

Aulë governed the substances of the Ambar and he delighted in all works and crafts all of which he was master, from small works of skin to the forging of all lands and mountains and basins of the sea. He made the rocks, the gems and all minerals.'

I bolded the important part because you have shown you lack the necessary reading skills to understand what is written properly, so to help with that I made sure to highlight the important part, why is it important? this small excerpt is taken directly from the Silmarillion, with regards to his crafting of the dwarves, they were all made with his view of himself as the blueprint for what dwarves should look like, with regards to his appearance it's of a muscular man, with flowing white hair and a well knotted long flowing beard, the dwarves as a homage to their creator exalt their beards as a sign of reverence to aule, meaning that dwarves value their beards EXTREMELY highly.

Oh, this is great. Don't worry, no mental gymnastics necessary (you already took care of those). Just a simple, thorough trouncing of your laughably misinformed position.

To start with THAT IS NOT A QUOTE FROM THE SILMARILLION. You copy/pasted that from the Tolkien Gateway wiki entry on Aule. Since you lack the necessary reading skills you didn't notice that that line isn't a direct quote and instead has a footnote to it referencing back to the Of the Valar section of the Valaquenta chapter in the Silmarillion (which I have open here in front of me). Do you actually have your own copy? Because if you did, you could have simply looked at that section yourself and seen that the "works of skin" part is actually a typo on the website. The ACTUAL referenced line is as follows:

1) I deliberately copy/pasted something from a source I knew to be bad to see what your response would be, instead of trying to reason, you went off the deep end like usual and tried tearing things down with stereotypical fervour and zeal that the other white knights would be proud of, hence my sarcastic tone with that specific excerpt.

[rhorle]

Okay mr tolkien expert. Point me to the passage that has a perfect trebuchet bombing of a mountain that perfectly lops off a perfect size of stone to create a perfect dam over a river to allow them to immediately move heavy siege weaponry across. I'm sure you being the tolkien expert and defender of this amazingly written show should be able to quickly point this out for us mere plebs.

Did they say everything from the show was directly from Tolkien? You are proving their point about how many of you cry over anything to do with the show.

[DarkAmbient]

It's a shame it won't be out til next year. The world could do with a laugh right now.

[rogoth]

I'm not aware of the show runners ever claiming what there adding was in the books them self's, something I don't know like this?

direct quote from a LIVE PANEL interview:

'if we don't know something, we go back to the books, always to the books, so we can get it right'

meaning that by association everything they have produced they are claiming to be from the books, when it is in fact not, but keep gobbling down their phallus juice because that's what they want, dim-witted idiots to keep consuming without questioning anything, a perfect little slave for their polished turd product.

as to your second point, I was making a facetious argument with someone who is well known for their faux moral white knighting on a level unmeasurable, therefore I needed something to 'poke the bear', all you're doing is misrepresenting things, comparing apples to oranges, and trying to do the whole 'ha gotcha' thing, and failing miserably, but nice try though.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a shame it won't be out til next year. The world could do with a laugh right now.

with the way the mango Mussolini is going, he could be enough to tide us over with the comedy gold until the next instalment of this military-grade shitshow.

[rhorle]

meaning that by association everything they have produced they are claiming to be from the books

No, it means that when they don't know something they look at the source material. In no way does it mean that everything they have done they think is from the source material.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

direct quote from a LIVE PANEL interview:

'if we don't know something, we go back to the books, always to the books, so we can get it right'

So that’s a no they didn’t say what they were making was in the books like you did, they said they check the books for info when missing it.

Would you like to try again?

[Doomchicken]

Did they say everything from the show was directly from Tolkien? You are proving their point about how many of you cry over anything to do with the show.

If the show wasn't written by actual morons maybe there would be less to "cry" over.

It would also probably do better ratings too, instead of losing over 50 percent of its audience two seasons in a row.

[rhorle]

If the show wasn't written by actual morons maybe there would be less to "cry" over. It would also probably do better ratings too, instead of losing over 50 percent of its audience two seasons in a row.

Some people in this thread are still crying about it 2.5 years after the show released. It would just be something else and not less.

[ringpriest]

Some people in this thread are still crying about it 2.5 years after the show released. It would just be something else and not less.

And no matter what insult to prospective viewers intelligence is peddled as entertainment, some people will try to defend it.

They had to remake their Ost-in-Edhil model because when they were doing season one they were too stupid to think that they'd want walls for a WWI sequence "siege" in season two. As Doomchicken said, "actual morons".

[rhorle]

And no matter what insult to prospective viewers intelligence is peddled as entertainment, some people will try to defend it.

It is hilarious how much the goal posts keep getting moved. Someone talks about being a Tolkien expert and liking the show. They get accused of saying X random scene is word for word from the books. Now a choice to show the city being fortified is used. It is an endless stream of "but this scene" because you lit a fire of hate and stoke it with anything you can.

[Kreuger]

Started s2 today, 3eps in and I like it quite abit more then s1, hopefully it can keep it up, good stuff so far

[ringpriest]

Honestly, selling your fanfiction with an established intellectual property should be against the law.

(I'm looking at you, Rings of Power)

I mean, Rings of Power is at least definitely a Middle Earth story, whether you agree with its choice or not. I, Robot was quite literally an unrelated story that the studio renamed to an existing IP for brand recognition (the original title was Hardwired). It'd be like if instead of calling their dragonrider movie How to Train Your Dragon, Dreamworks had made the exact same film but called it Dragonriders of Pern because they happened to own the rights.

It really, really isn't. That's like saying Sword of Shannara is a Middle-Earth story if you replace the character names with Tolkien's. It both cases it's the story equivalent of Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. Rings of Power has more in common with generic extruded fantasy product than Middle-Earth, they just got to (technically legally, as Flarelaine mentions) slap the Professor's name all over their fanfiction. They shot Season 1 in New Zealand, and took some graphical cues from Peter Jackson's work - that's their connection to 'Middle-Earth' (besides slapping Tolkien's character names over their own inventions). It's like saying a random Jason Statham action movie is a Bond film if you go through and re-dub the main character's name as "James Bond".

[rhorle]

It really, really isn't. That's like saying Sword of Shannara is a Middle-Earth story if you replace the character names with Tolkien's.

The hilarious part of this is the Shannara Chronicles tv series was not a faithful adaptation either yet it is still considered to be an adaptation of that work. Some of you just can't cope with Rings of Power existing, lol.

[Flarelaine]

The hilarious part of this is the Shannara Chronicles tv series was not a faithful adaptation either yet it is still considered to be an adaptation of that work. Some of you just can't cope with Rings of Power existing, lol.

Oh, it's not existing I have a problem with. It's pretending to have anything to do with the life's work of JRR Tolkien.

It's a form of fraud: suckering those who do not know better into watching it by association with something proven.

[rhorle]

Oh, it's not existing I have a problem with. It's pretending to have anything to do with the life's work of JRR Tolkien. It's a form of fraud: suckering those who do not know better into watching it by association with something proven.

Which is having a problem with it existing. It isn't fraud. It is an adaptation. Peter Jackson's films were an adaptation that the son of Tolkien did not like. Do you consider the Jackson films fraud as well? Or do those get a pass since they were well received?

[Flarelaine]

Which is having a problem with it existing. It isn't fraud. It is an adaptation. Peter Jackson's films were an adaptation that the son of Tolkien did not like. Do you consider the Jackson films fraud as well? Or do those get a pass since they were well received?

I don't like those films, either, but they still mostly followed the story.

[ringpriest]

Which is having a problem with it existing. It isn't fraud. It is an adaptation. Peter Jackson's films were an adaptation that the son of Tolkien did not like. Do you consider the Jackson films fraud as well? Or do those get a pass since they were well received?

Jackson's first trilogy made an honest and often successful attempt to adapt the Lord of the Rings trilogy to the screen, remaining faithful to many of the themes and characters of Tolkien's work and retain much of its spirit. His second (Hobbit) trilogy was more studio-driven and, due to circumstance made with less care and effort to be true to the first, and, while entertaining, suffered for it. I've seen parts of it edited into an acceptable and not unpleasant version of Tolkien's The Hobbit.

If I take a Bugs Bunny cartoon and call it The Ainulindale, I'm just lying. Nor does changing Bugs' name to Eru, Elmer Fudd's to Melkor, and Daffy's to Mairon and setting it against a Brothers Hildebrandt background change that.

Similarly, if someone write a story about three feuding siblings who break up their father's kingdom after his death, if it gets made into a film and the siblings' names are changes to Odin, Vili, and Ve, and their father's kingdom is renamed Asgarth, it is not an "adaptation of Norse mythology", it's the original story with the names changed. That remains true even if the studio hires a bunch of Norse linguists and historical craftspeople to make the sets and carve authentic runes on everything.

Amazon's "Lord of the Rings show" could have tried to do its own thing, while keeping faith with the storytelling elements, style and spirit of Tolkien (somewhat similar to how Rogue One expanded on existing Star Wars material), taking just a few elements and making them into their own story while simultaneously honoring the underlying vision. Instead, Amazon tried to have their cake and eat it too - to adapt the entirety of a well-known, but less detailed part of the legendarium, while simultaneously doing whatever they pleased and paying lip service to the original material. It's a bait and switch, even if the final result is well done (which is a different argument about which people can differ in good faith). Trying to pretend Amazon's Rings of Power is an attempt at a faithful adaption is delusion or deceit.

[rhorle]

Jackson's first trilogy made an honest and often successful attempt to adapt the Lord of the Rings trilogy to the screen, remaining faithful to many of the themes and characters of Tolkien's work and retain much of its spirit.

This just shows that it isn't about faithfulness, changes, or anything else. It is hilarious you say Jackson retained the spirit when Tolkien's own son was angry that it did not. Jackson made many changes but they are dismissed because the film was popular and well liked at the time of release. If it was released today many people would be calling it woke for giving Arwen and Eowyn greater roles and changing the story to fit those new roles. Heck they even tried to make it seem like a love triangle with Aragorn

You even state that Amazon could have done their own thing while lambasting them for doing their own thing. The degree of faithfulness you accept is entirely subjective. If you don't like it is is lip service and a bait and switch. If you do like it then it is faithful and retaining spirit.