Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[ringpriest]

This just shows that it isn't about faithfulness, changes, or anything else.

This just shows that you're not actually interested in discussing Tolkien's work, Rings of Power, or anything else.

[rhorle]

This just shows that you're not actually interested in discussing Tolkien's work, Rings of Power, or anything else.

Outside of the business world, it is clear Christopher Tolkien's problems with Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy itself ran very deeply indeed. Speaking to Le Monde back in 2012, he launched a stinging criticism of the films. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," he complained. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away... They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."

The only one not interested in facts here is yourself if you can't have a discussion about the flaws of the Jackson adaptations and why they are overlooked just because they were popular and personally liked. Which means it isn't about faithfulness or changes with Rings of Power but about you not liking it.

[ringpriest]

Anyone truly interested in Tolkien's legendarium, and understanding how Rings of Power misses and fails (while Jackson largely succeeded) in capturing Tolkien's intent ought to enjoy, "Why Celebrimbor Fell but Boromir Conquered: the Moral Universe of Tolkien" over at A Collection of Unusual Pedantry.

A few brief excerpts to convey the general tenor of the (long but excellent) essay:

But the larger break comes once Adar’s siege arrives. In order to keep Celebrimbor working on the rings, in the show, Sauron alters Celebrimbor’s sense perception, causing him to see his city at peace and flourishing even when it is under attack and burning and I do not think the writers and showrunners quite realized what giving Sauron direct mind control powers does to the moral arc of Tolkien’s universe. In a later scene (s2e7 at 58:05) Sauron seizes direct and total control over a group of Elf warriors, compelling them to kill each other over their apparent struggles. The show’s excuse is that in allowing Sauron in, the Elves of Eregion put themselves ‘under his power,’ but this makes little moral sense for soldiers who had no idea who ‘Annatar’ was and no say in letting him in regardless. Instead, giving Sauron straight-up mind control – the ability to make Celebrimbor see whatever he wants, to make other Elves do whatever he wants – obliterates Celebrimbor’s moral responsibility for his own actions. Celebrimbor doesn’t respond incorrectly because of his moral failings but because he is prevented by force majeure from seeing the world as it really is. Indeed, the moment he does see the world as it is, he responds correctly – trying to organize the defense – but is prevented because Sauron uses magic to make it seem like Celebrimbor has callously murdered one of his smiths.

In short, Sauron’s ability to control perceptions and minds substantially reduces – if it doesn’t entirely remove – Celebrimbor and his smith’s agency in the story, which in turn reframes them are relatively more innocent victims of Sauron’s power.

Which is very much not how the appear in the legendarium! As noted above, in the Silmarillion, we get a direct report of the arguments Sauron, as Annatar, uses to persuade the Elves and there is nothing of compassion for Men or Dwarves in it, but an open invitation to attempt to build heaven on earth, to achieve “the height of that power and knowledge which those have who are beyond the Sea?” which is accepted because “in that land [Eregion] the Noldor desired ever to increase the skill and subtlety of their works” (Sil. 287). In short, Sauron is from the beginning asking the smiths of Eregion to do something wrong, which they know is wrong (as it defies the order set by Eru), his trickery which they do not know is that he intends to betray them, but that they do wrong, they know at the outset.

We see Boromir, like Celebrimbor, succumb to a moment of temptation – he tries, by his own admission, to take the ring, a grievous failure. In the period that follows, I think we should understand his sullen silence as a wrestling with what that moment means. Boromir recognizes his failure and regrets it, instantly, after all, but then has to sit with the guilt; it would be all too easy for him to rationalize away his failure – to say it wasn’t a failure at all, but that Frodo was the fool – or to fall into despair. But Aragorn bids him to do something and that seems to snap Boromir out of his sullen state.

More to the point, the thing Aragorn bids Boromir to do requires the rejection of his false thinking and the embrace of something selfless. Whereas Celebrimbor, at the last, fell defending the very things that had been his sin and ruin – his pride in his craftsmanship, made manifest and tangible in the Rings – Boromir does not rush to defend his ambition or the glory of Gondor, or his dreams of conquest. He does not seek a grand audience and indeed when the deed is done, requests scorn, not praise, for it. Instead, otherwise alone, unwatched and unnoticed, he fights a battle he must know is hopeless to answer his charge and defend two young hobbits who are entirely superfluous to the quest as he understands it. They don’t matter in the Seen world, which is part of why they matter so much: Boromir isn’t doing this for glory or praise, but merely because it is the right thing to do.

[Biomega]

Anyone truly interested in Tolkien's legendarium, and understanding how Rings of Power misses and fails (while Jackson largely succeeded) in capturing Tolkien's intent ought to enjoy, "Why Celebrimbor Fell but Boromir Conquered: the Moral Universe of Tolkien" over at A Collection of Unusual Pedantry.

Not all that surprising for a modern show tbh. They are very reluctant to provide nuance and accountability. Especially when it comes to "good" characters. Either these can outright do no wrong, or when they do something wrong it's completely trivial ("see, this isn't a Mary Sue! THEY CROSSED A RED LIGHT ONCE! Basically a morally grey antihero!!!!"), or they're not culpable because they got tricked, mind-controlled, whatever. Making a decision that's not immediately obviously right or wrong? Practically eliminated. Taking accountability for their actions? Either completely absent or reframed to comically stupid levels - like the aforementioned mind-control now being somehow portrayed as the character deeply struggling with their actions (hi there, Anduin!) which by definition were not... their actions.

Moral responsibility is either avoided or tokenized, and there's preciously little middle ground. But Tolkien - like the classic myth-tellers of old - knew that part of telling an intricate story is making characters that are otherwise glorified do something bad, and living with the consequences. Not because the devil made them do it, but because they're flawed characters even though they're "the good guys". But it seems modern writers are very reluctant to create any kind of ambiguity like that, because they're afraid of exposing themselves to accusations that the wrong actions they wrote for their good characters means that they writers themselves actually support those wrong actions.

This is part of a larger cultural shift that increasingly conflates people and positions. You no longer hold an opinion on <insert issue>, but you are "an <insert issue> person". And if someone attacks someone's position on something, they are immediately assumed to be attacking the person holding the position. And, true and perverse enough, very often people instead of attacking a position do in fact attack the person holding the position. But this then creates a feedback loop for cultural producers where they tend to insulate themselves - consciously or unconsciously - against conflation of themselves and their products. And that changes the kind of narrative they produce, and the kinds of characters they write, the kinds of visuals and tropes they employ, and so on.

It's detrimental to writing and, ironically, to cultural discourse. Instead of genuinely trying to create a more ideologically and morally diverse discourse, discourse is Balkanized and fragmented and fronts are hardened and insulated. There is no more exchange and mingling of ideas, but clashes of ideas that are vigorously and vehemently defended not on the merits of their positions but on the identities of those who hold the positions. And that is a dramatic shift, because when an idea is defeated the expectation is that it changes and adapts - but when an identity is defeated the expectation is that it vanishes. So instead of being exposed to the necessity of adapting your ideas, people are now exposed to the fear of losing their identity. And they fight even harder not to lose, resorting to the most desperate tactics and the most extreme measures.

Soft, bullshit writing like this is a good cultural barometer. It's not causative by any means - people didn't shift their culture because of this writing. But rather it is a correlation to and often a consequence of other cultural paradigms shifting. You see plenty of this right here on these forums! Where oh-so-often we see people immediately resort to "I like/don't like this; I can't be wrong because that would mean defeat of my position and that would mean losing my personal identity, therefore you not liking/liking this must in fact be the one who's wrong QED gg no re!".

[ringpriest]

Not all that surprising for a modern show tbh. They are very reluctant to provide nuance and accountability. Especially when it comes to "good" characters. Either these can outright do no wrong, or when they do something wrong it's completely trivial ("see, this isn't a Mary Sue! THEY CROSSED A RED LIGHT ONCE! Basically a morally grey antihero!!!!"), or they're not culpable because they got tricked, mind-controlled, whatever. Making a decision that's not immediately obviously right or wrong? Practically eliminated. Taking accountability for their actions? Either completely absent or reframed to comically stupid levels - like the aforementioned mind-control now being somehow portrayed as the character deeply struggling with their actions (hi there, Anduin!) which by definition were not... their actions.

Moral responsibility is either avoided or tokenized, and there's preciously little middle ground. But Tolkien - like the classic myth-tellers of old - knew that part of telling an intricate story is making characters that are otherwise glorified do something bad, and living with the consequences. Not because the devil made them do it, but because they're flawed characters even though they're "the good guys". But it seems modern writers are very reluctant to create any kind of ambiguity like that, because they're afraid of exposing themselves to accusations that the wrong actions they wrote for their good characters means that they writers themselves actually support those wrong actions.

This is part of a larger cultural shift that increasingly conflates people and positions. You no longer hold an opinion on <insert issue>, but you are "an <insert issue> person". And if someone attacks someone's position on something, they are immediately assumed to be attacking the person holding the position. And, true and perverse enough, very often people instead of attacking a position do in fact attack the person holding the position. But this then creates a feedback loop for cultural producers where they tend to insulate themselves - consciously or unconsciously - against conflation of themselves and their products. And that changes the kind of narrative they produce, and the kinds of characters they write, the kinds of visuals and tropes they employ, and so on.

It's detrimental to writing and, ironically, to cultural discourse. Instead of genuinely trying to create a more ideologically and morally diverse discourse, discourse is Balkanized and fragmented and fronts are hardened and insulated. There is no more exchange and mingling of ideas, but clashes of ideas that are vigorously and vehemently defended not on the merits of their positions but on the identities of those who hold the positions. And that is a dramatic shift, because when an idea is defeated the expectation is that it changes and adapts - but when an identity is defeated the expectation is that it vanishes. So instead of being exposed to the necessity of adapting your ideas, people are now exposed to the fear of losing their identity. And they fight even harder not to lose, resorting to the most desperate tactics and the most extreme measures.

Soft, bullshit writing like this is a good cultural barometer. It's not causative by any means - people didn't shift their culture because of this writing. But rather it is a correlation to and often a consequence of other cultural paradigms shifting. You see plenty of this right here on these forums! Where oh-so-often we see people immediately resort to "I like/don't like this; I can't be wrong because that would mean defeat of my position and that would mean losing my personal identity, therefore you not liking/liking this must in fact be the one who's wrong QED gg no re!".

Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful post!

Tolkien's Galadriel is, I think, intended as such a character, although one who, unlike her cousin Celebrimbor, but like Boromir, triumphs at the end. Her decision to leave Aman in defiance of the Valar (more or less defiance, depending on which part of the legendarium you're reading), her desire to rule a land of her own and shape it (which she finally, truly achieves in Lothlorien) are acts of ego, of pride, of hubris. She is heroic, yes, and in many ways noble and wise. She was unable to resist using Nenya in the end, but when confronted by the One, as she says, she did "pass the test". (This is largely only hinted at in LotR, but once one reads more of the legendarium, the chapters in Lorien becomes like a deep pool.

As for myself... I try not to begrudge people who enjoy Rings of Power their enjoyment. Heavens know I've enjoyed enough genre pulp material of my own. (I finally watched season 2 after losing a bet with my wife, who enjoys watching me throw foam dice at the screen, and who likes the show... but she doesn't care about whether it's "Tolkien" or not; she's able to take it as a generic fantasy show, and enjoys in on that basis, which I am unable to do.) If someone makes the claim that it is well-executed... I will disagree, but that is generally amenable to honest and enjoyable argument or discussion. That in turn is different that the pretense that Rings of Power is an honest attempt to bring any of Tolkien's writing to the screen, and even more that it is a successful one. There are rare moments where it works on the surface, but it actively dis-serves the characters, the story, the setting and details of the themes of Tolkien's work so thoroughly... but I'll leave that for the nonce.

What I will mention is a show I see as the opposite of "soft bullshit writing"; for characters that are flawed but heroes, or have strengths but as villains, I very much recommend Andor (if you have not seen it) - but that is a topic for a different thread.

[Biomega]

I try not to begrudge people who enjoy Rings of Power their enjoyment. [...] If someone makes the claim that it is well-executed... I will disagree

And that is the crucial distinction: between "I like this" and "I think this is bad because...", i.e. preference and argument. And many, many, MANY people these days have great difficulty separating the two both when speaking and when listening. Anything they like becomes a quality product, anything they don't like becomes poorly executed - even though there's a giant epistemological chasm between the two, and conflating them is a serious, gross category error.

Andor is a great example for why this is so important. I've called the show the greatest Star Wars show I just can't enjoy - I recognize that it is very well written, shot, edited, etc. and has a whole catalog of things that I could point to as objectively as possible in this context and say "this is high quality". But I just don't like the show, personally. In the sense that I'm not having a good time watching it, despite its quality. Maybe its the genre, maybe its the pacing, maybe a combination of many things, but it's not doing it for me. But that doesn't impede my evaluation of Andor as a brilliant piece of entertainment, and praising its various features even in the face of personal dislike. It's a great show - I just happen to not like it. And those are two fundamentally different things.

What's weird is how common this is, or should be. I mostly deal with books academically so I'm quite familiar with the idea of separating personal enjoyment from professional evaluation. Finnegan's Wake is one of the greatest novels ever written; you won't catch me dead reading it. Moby Dick is a milestone of literary history; you couldn't pay me to read it again. And so on. Of course the same is true in the inverse, where I'll have a great time reading lots of science fiction (my main professional area of expertise) even while recognizing that it has literary flaws up to the eyeballs. Doesn't matter, had fun. And it's still valuable academically, because literary craftsmanship isn't all there is to it. Film studies no doubt works the same way; and you don't even have to go to extremes like The Room, but even mass-appeal slop like the Fast & Furious series or something has great value in terms of cultural study even in the face of blatant cinematic shortcomings.

It's real tiresome and difficult, though, to have discussions when people constantly get confused between what's good and what they like. And take it personally as soon as you point it out. VERY personally.

[Graeham]

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.

The original trilogy was not a perfect representation of the books but it can be readily suggested that any changes made were not driven by spite and heavy handed political baggage. I would say that is the main difference between the original movies and the show.

[rhorle]

The original trilogy was not a perfect representation of the books but it can be readily suggested that any changes made were not driven by spite and heavy handed political baggage. I would say that is the main difference between the original movies and the show.

That is your personal bias trying to explain why you accept one and not the other. One of the reasons Peter Jackson elevated the roles of Arwen and Eowyn to balance out the male dominated story. It was also to bring more romance to the story. That would be called "going woke" and political baggage if it happened today.

[Graeham]

That is your personal bias trying to explain why you accept one and not the other. One of the reasons Peter Jackson elevated the roles of Arwen and Eowyn to balance out the male dominated story. It was also to bring more romance to the story. That would be called "going woke" and political baggage if it happened today.

It isn't personal bias.

I think his reasoning is flawed and laid the groundwork for the current nonsense, though the rot had not yet set in within the industry at that point so such decisions can be taken at face value rather than being driven by spite.

The movies still held themselves together with a fair bit of consistency, particularly on the visual front in terms of costumes, general vibes and aesthetics. The casting was on point and for the most part in the movies, the characters and races looked as they were described in the books. As opposed to the slop produced today, where every other fantasy setting has the demographics of a modern day big city.

[rhorle]

It isn't personal bias. I think his reasoning is flawed and laid the groundwork for the current nonsense, though the rot had not yet set in within the industry at that point so such decisions can be taken at face value rather than being driven by spite.

You just described your personal bias. It is your opinion that certain things are rot in the industry. It is your own bias that labels mixed ethnicity appearing as slop and rot.

[Graeham]

You just described your personal bias. It is your opinion that certain things are rot in the industry. It is your own bias that labels mixed ethnicity appearing as slop and rot.

Hardly. I identified an obvious trend. Many cool settings have been ruined by individuals who possess multiple dark triad personality traits to the point where they have an obsessive need to deliberately go out of their way to change an established story until it increasingly moves away from the core material.

The more that is changed, the less enthusiasm there is amongst those who would ordinarily invest in a particular setting.

The Witcher, The Wheel of Time, The Lord of the Rings...pattern recognition inevitably comes into play after a certain point.