Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Celement]

Ultimately I think that it's the opposite. I don't think irl topics being inserted can ruin an IP because they divert resources/effort, I think it's clumsy writers not having the skill or knowledge to make a cohesive story and they--or usually advertisers not having faith in the project-- use topical elements of what they wrote (and present it isolated in a trailer), hoping to recoup finances/ minimize a loss or criticism for an overall terrible project.

I don't like these arguments, because sometimes it overlooks that the problem isn't the messages but how they're integrated into the lore of the world and that the person trying to tell the story flat out isn't good enough to do so.

The IPs weren't ruined because of the messages, but because they were in bad hands from the start with people who were never going to put in the effort to please anyone.

I can't really agree with that.. it is going to touch on the forbidden topic but is there a single instance of a message not being ham fisted into an existing narrative?

I can't think of an example outside of the joker and it was smeared for daring to... I think activists who have only the poorest grasp on what it is they are trying to say are at the creative wheel. Sadly its politics first story telling second in far to many cases.

[Rozz]

I can't really agree with that.. it is going to touch on the forbidden topic but is there a single instance of a message not being ham fisted into an existing narrative?

I can't think of an example outside of the joker and it was smeared for daring to... I think activists who have only the poorest grasp on what it is they are trying to say are at the creative wheel. Sadly its politics first story telling second in far to many cases.

Yeah... like the moral of the story in every piece of fiction. If something feels hamfisted, it wasn't written into the story properly. Almost every story in the world is about some type of social issue or messaging. You learn though the mistakes and actions of the characters. Then you argue with other fans about the takeaways

Like CGI, you shouldn't go "oh there is the cgi" it should feel like a natural part of the story.

I think that gives everything a fair shake and still leaves room for everyone to have their opinion on whether that's accomplished or not.

[Rennadrel]

Yeah and sometimes when the leaks are legit and the backlash is strong enough, it'll result in changes or kill the project in the middle of shooting.

Ty Internet for nuking support in that Power Puff Girls remake.

I honestly don't even understand the live action adaptations of animation and anime. Like, Tolkien is easy to do because it's all built on British folklore, but a lot of these adaptations come from genres that have a style or aesthetic and is really unique to anime and animation. I think both Power Puff Girls and Fairly Odd Parents as shows did a good job of capturing that sort of cheesy, over the top style that is common in Japanese anime, and it doesn't at all translate over to live action. Same reason why Cowboy Bebop was a hack job. A lot of what made that show great can't really be conveyed in live action the same way. Whether it be emotional impact or acting itself. Even some anime dubs are terrible BECAUSE there's characters that have a certain way of acting that for whatever reason works well in Japanese but doesn't in English. Sometimes it's best to leave the work of an artist alone and not bother adapting it. I think there's a ton you can do with Tolkien's world while staying faithful to what he established as well, but unfortunately I just don't see this show being it because studios would rather scrape the bottom of the barrel to hire the cheapest people they can get rather than people with a strong vision because they cost too much. Peter Jackson would have been the first and only person I would have hired to be the producer and show runner for The Rings of Power, and it's not like they don't have the money to get someone like him.

- - - Updated - - -

Ultimately I think that it's the opposite. I don't think irl topics being inserted can ruin an IP because they divert resources/effort, I think it's clumsy writers not having the skill or knowledge to make a cohesive story and they--or usually advertisers not having faith in the project-- use topical elements of what they wrote (and present it isolated in a trailer), hoping to recoup finances/ minimize a loss or criticism for an overall terrible project.

I don't like these arguments, because sometimes it overlooks that the problem isn't the messages but how they're integrated into the lore of the world and that the person trying to tell the story flat out isn't good enough to do so.

The IPs weren't ruined because of the messages, but because they were in bad hands from the start with people who were never going to put in the effort to please anyone.

I completely agree with you here, Rozz. The issue isn't who or what is in the story, it is how the story is constructed and often times terrible script writing or lack of backstory that ruins things. It's one of my biggest issues with modern day films and a lot of TV shows. Some are great because the writers understand subplots, nuance and character development. Companies like Disney, Amazon, Netflix and WB seem to like hiring writers who don't understand what are effectively the most basic elements of creating an engaging story. Of course there's some really good shows that check all their boxes, but there aren't enough of them. The same issue is happening in the fantasy novel world as well where writers tried to cancel Brandon Sanderson because he made a ton of money off his Kickstarter campaign because he wrote nearly half a dozen books. They are mad because he's productive and a good writer who frequently tops the book sales charts because he writes what people enjoy reading. Film and TV are no different. When these shows inevitably get cancelled after a season or two for being mediocre and unengaging, the writers will be the first people on Twitter getting mad and blaming the people they should have been creating the shows for, which is fans, not activists.

I think my biggest gripe about how Amazon presented The Rings of Power is that it's literally a nothing trailer that only shows "hey our cast is diverse". A bunch of obviously lazy CGI work and a canonically incorrect representation of Galadrial is all we got otherwise.

[mayorovd]

The movies weren't perfect but they were clearly made with a lot of respect and love for the source material.

[Rennadrel]

It feels like no matter what they do, it's going to be a Witcher/MCU deal where they're going to make an abridged retelling that'll likely being easier to sell to a wide audience with Hardcore fans feeling betrayed no matter what.

I didn't like the Hobbit movies, so maybe this will have the whimsy a lot of fantasy shows have lacked for me.

The Hobbit films were bad because they plugged a bunch of filler content in so they could make it 3 films and they didn't feel near as real as LotR did. When someone pointed out to me that the costume and character looks were so terribly inconsistent, I couldn't unsee it once I saw it. It's actually pretty cringe too. You'd have one scene where characters would look dirty, battered and disheveled and in the next scene they'd all be cleaned up and straightened with fresh new clothes. They should have just made two movies and cut the filler, it would have been way better.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

The Hobbit films were bad because they plugged a bunch of filler content in so they could make it 3 films and they didn't feel near as real as LotR did.

The Hobbit movies suffered from the same problem as the LotR movies: the filmmakers tried turning a book about a journey into a series of action films. That's why the final movie of both trilogies is so lackluster. People have never read the books might not know this, but the LotR books are not about fights. Tolkien hardly describes them. Nor are the movies about the big warrior people like Aragorn or Boromir. The movies are centered on the hobbits (2 of which were sadly sidelined and turned into gag characters in the movies. Gimli was also turned into a stupid joke character, but that crime doesn't hurt as bad since the books were never about him anyway). The last Hobbit movie suffers the most, as the movie focuses on all of these other characters fighting each other... and contrives Bilbo getting involved in fight scenes, when the story was never about that (Bilbo gets knocked unconscious and misses the entire battle of the five armies. Thorin dies offscreen).

The other problem that hurt the Hobbit movies is production trouble. Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct it but was replaced by Jackson at the last minute, who didn't have the three years of pre-production work already set up and ready to go like he had on LotR. Jackson should have told the studio no, the project wasn't ready and he wasn't going to helm it until it was.

The one thing I will say about the Hobbit movies is that the lead actors, Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, are far more engaging to watch than Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen were. Really bad directorial decisions on those latter two.

[Rennadrel]

The Hobbit movies suffered from the same problem as the LotR movies: the filmmakers tried turning a book about a journey into a series of action films. That's why the final movie of both trilogies is so lackluster. People have never read the books might not know this, but the LotR books are not about fights. Tolkien hardly describes them. Nor are the movies about the big warrior people like Aragorn or Boromir. The movies are centered on the hobbits (2 of which were sadly sidelined and turned into gag characters in the movies. Gimli was also turned into a stupid joke character, but that crime doesn't hurt as bad since the books were never about him anyway). The last Hobbit movie suffers the most, as the movie focuses on all of these other characters fighting each other... and contrives Bilbo getting involved in fight scenes, when the story was never about that (Bilbo gets knocked unconscious and misses the entire battle of the five armies. Thorin dies offscreen).

The other problem that hurt the Hobbit movies is production trouble. Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct it but was replaced by Jackson at the last minute, who didn't have the three years of pre-production work already set up and ready to go like he had on LotR. Jackson should have told the studio no, the project wasn't ready and he wasn't going to helm it until it was.

The one thing I will say about the Hobbit movies is that the lead actors, Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, are far more engaging to watch than Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen were. Really bad directorial decisions on those latter two.

Gonna hard disagree as the LotR films are far more faithful adaptations of the books than The Hobbit is. Sure, some creative liberty has to be taken to make the films more appropriate for a box office draw, that isn't really uncommon. But they were still good liberties, especially when you go for the extended versions over the theatre releases.

[Smallfruitbat]

I completely agree with you here, Rozz. The issue isn't who or what is in the story, it is how the story is constructed and often times terrible script writing or lack of backstory that ruins things. It's one of my biggest issues with modern day films and a lot of TV shows. Some are great because the writers understand subplots, nuance and character development. Companies like Disney, Amazon, Netflix and WB seem to like hiring writers who don't understand what are effectively the most basic elements of creating an engaging story. Of course there's some really good shows that check all their boxes, but there aren't enough of them. The same issue is happening in the fantasy novel world as well where writers tried to cancel Brandon Sanderson because he made a ton of money off his Kickstarter campaign because he wrote nearly half a dozen books. They are mad because he's productive and a good writer who frequently tops the book sales charts because he writes what people enjoy reading. Film and TV are no different. When these shows inevitably get cancelled after a season or two for being mediocre and unengaging, the writers will be the first people on Twitter getting mad and blaming the people they should have been creating the shows for, which is fans, not activists.

I think my biggest gripe about how Amazon presented The Rings of Power is that it's literally a nothing trailer that only shows "hey our cast is diverse". A bunch of obviously lazy CGI work and a canonically incorrect representation of Galadrial is all we got otherwise.

Tolkien was *very* protective of his IP as was his son. I feel that this adaptation is already done in bad faith purely from the representation of Galadriel. I think the phrase the showrunners used to describe her was 'full of piss and vinegar'. That is not the character Tolkien wrote, anyone who has read his works knows that. It feels as if they're sat there laughing 'well we own the rights now so we can do what the hell we like'. This is not someone like Stephen King who signs off the rights and almost hopes for the best. There's a quote from him something along the lines of 'its like sending your kids out in the world, you've done your best with them and now you have to leave them to make their own way'

Regardless of any extraneous messaging, the showrunners have already blatantly gone against the wishes of the author and for that reason, I'm not hopeful.

Something I see in recent writing is the trend of trying to ape things that have worked before. Things like the big reveal in 6ixth Sense or the Red Wedding from ASoIaF. It almost feels that writers rely on those devices to tell a story instead of having the confidence in their ability to tell something decent. I strongly suspect that we'll see a lot of that style of writing (if you can call it a style) from RoP but that remains to be seen. Honestly, I'd like to see some writers with a decent amount of experience take on some of these well loved IPs, instead of people who are just cutting their teeth and are trying to make a name for themselves instead of trying to tell a good story.

[Ausr]

The Hobbit movies suffered from the same problem as the LotR movies: the filmmakers tried turning a book about a journey into a series of action films. That's why the final movie of both trilogies is so lackluster. People have never read the books might not know this, but the LotR books are not about fights. Tolkien hardly describes them. Nor are the movies about the big warrior people like Aragorn or Boromir. The movies are centered on the hobbits (2 of which were sadly sidelined and turned into gag characters in the movies. Gimli was also turned into a stupid joke character, but that crime doesn't hurt as bad since the books were never about him anyway). The last Hobbit movie suffers the most, as the movie focuses on all of these other characters fighting each other... and contrives Bilbo getting involved in fight scenes, when the story was never about that (Bilbo gets knocked unconscious and misses the entire battle of the five armies. Thorin dies offscreen).

The other problem that hurt the Hobbit movies is production trouble. Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct it but was replaced by Jackson at the last minute, who didn't have the three years of pre-production work already set up and ready to go like he had on LotR. Jackson should have told the studio no, the project wasn't ready and he wasn't going to helm it until it was.

The one thing I will say about the Hobbit movies is that the lead actors, Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, are far more engaging to watch than Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen were. Really bad directorial decisions on those latter two.

Imagine having this take and thinking it should be considered serious.

[Koriani]

Imagine having this take and thinking it should be considered serious.

I'm just confused as to why you think its not a "serious" take (whatever that means...)

I saw nothing wrong with his opinion outright, and certainly more reality and "fact" based (it did have production issues and switched, for example - the books aren't about action/fights - also true, etc.) than most of the other opinions I've seen around this thread. Esp. as the topic of the thread is months from release so almost everything here is an expression of people's worst fears/opinions on something no one has seen.

So I'm confused as to what is such a big huge 'surprise' or whatever from his expressed opinion that makes you think its total trash?

I adored the LOTR movies and found the Hobbit Trilogy to be very disappointing in most aspects and even more so when compared to the LOTR trilogy. (As in I think I would have liked/enjoyed the Hobbit 3 better if we'd never had such a great LOTR 3. My expectations would have been way lower.) And the Hobbit as a live-action movie I'd been waiting my entire life to see - was really amped when Jackson took over and was expecting another LOTR-respect-job and got... well... not that. It should have always been a single movie - period. I was very turned off by all of the additional content to make it 3 movies - when I wasn't bothered by some of the 'added' content for LOTR. *shrugs* oh well, the Rankin-Bass Hobbit remains the best adaptation to date.

But yeah I see nothing in Val's opinion there that is at all surprising or even that 'off'. I mean I may disagree that Viggo and Elijah were 'less engaging' but again, that's standard 'normal opinion' stuff.

I mean I don't agree with everything in the statement - but I agree with some. And I certainly didn't see anything I've not seen already expressed in various other opinions over the years *shrugs*

[Dhrizzle]

Tolkien was *very* protective of his IP as was his son. I feel that this adaptation is already done in bad faith purely from the representation of Galadriel. I think the phrase the showrunners used to describe her was 'full of piss and vinegar'. That is not the character Tolkien wrote, anyone who has read his works knows that. It feels as if they're sat there laughing 'well we own the rights now so we can do what the hell we like'. This is not someone like Stephen King who signs off the rights and almost hopes for the best. There's a quote from him something along the lines of 'its like sending your kids out in the world, you've done your best with them and now you have to leave them to make their own way'

Regardless of any extraneous messaging, the showrunners have already blatantly gone against the wishes of the author and for that reason, I'm not hopeful.

Something I see in recent writing is the trend of trying to ape things that have worked before. Things like the big reveal in 6ixth Sense or the Red Wedding from ASoIaF. It almost feels that writers rely on those devices to tell a story instead of having the confidence in their ability to tell something decent. I strongly suspect that we'll see a lot of that style of writing (if you can call it a style) from RoP but that remains to be seen. Honestly, I'd like to see some writers with a decent amount of experience take on some of these well loved IPs, instead of people who are just cutting their teeth and are trying to make a name for themselves instead of trying to tell a good story.

Tolkien sold film rights when he was in some trouble and the treatment they produced for it was absolutely terrible. Tolkien wrote a rather scathing criticism of it but ultimately was respectful to the people creating it and understood that final say had passed out of his hands.

- - - Updated - - -

The Hobbit movies suffered from the same problem as the LotR movies: the filmmakers tried turning a book about a journey into a series of action films. That's why the final movie of both trilogies is so lackluster. People have never read the books might not know this, but the LotR books are not about fights. Tolkien hardly describes them. Nor are the movies about the big warrior people like Aragorn or Boromir. The movies are centered on the hobbits (2 of which were sadly sidelined and turned into gag characters in the movies. Gimli was also turned into a stupid joke character, but that crime doesn't hurt as bad since the books were never about him anyway). The last Hobbit movie suffers the most, as the movie focuses on all of these other characters fighting each other... and contrives Bilbo getting involved in fight scenes, when the story was never about that (Bilbo gets knocked unconscious and misses the entire battle of the five armies. Thorin dies offscreen).

The other problem that hurt the Hobbit movies is production trouble. Guillermo del Toro was supposed to direct it but was replaced by Jackson at the last minute, who didn't have the three years of pre-production work already set up and ready to go like he had on LotR. Jackson should have told the studio no, the project wasn't ready and he wasn't going to helm it until it was.

The one thing I will say about the Hobbit movies is that the lead actors, Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage, are far more engaging to watch than Elijah Wood and Viggo Mortensen were. Really bad directorial decisions on those latter two.

It is an absolute travesty how they treated Merry in the films. In the books he is as a seasoned adventurer in the wilder parts of Hobbit territory (Buckland being almost a land apart from the Shire) and masterminds the party's surreptitious departure to Bree. Without him the Ring would have never have made it far past the borders of the Shire if Frodo could have even made it that far without Merry. He has knowledge, connections and skills and is brave and capable in a fight. Merry in the books is a heroic badass and the films turned him into a slightly dopier Pippin.

[Frontenac]

Tolkien sold film rights when he was in some trouble and the treatment they produced for it was absolutely terrible. Tolkien wrote a rather scathing criticism of it but ultimately was respectful to the people creating it and understood that final say had passed out of his hands.

- - - Updated - - -



It is an absolute travesty how they treated Merry in the films. In the books he is as a seasoned adventurer in the wilder parts of Hobbit territory (Buckland being almost a land apart from the Shire) and masterminds the party's surreptitious departure to Bree. Without him the Ring would have never have made it far past the borders of the Shire if Frodo could have even made it that far without Merry. He has knowledge, connections and skills and is brave and capable in a fight. Merry in the books is a heroic badass and the films turned him into a slightly dopier Pippin.

None of the Hobbits are heroic badasses nor seasoned adventurers at the beginning of the books. And he's certainly not a badass in combat. The only difference is that Merry is an adult (36 years old) while Pippin is still in his "tweens" (aged 29). So Merry is more mature, witty and wise than Pippin. And of course, being the future Master of Brandy Hall, he knows his ways in Buckland, which are not much less tame than the Four Farthings. Oh, he knows to drive a boat. I agree that would be considered quite "adventurous" by most Hobbits of the Farthings, but that's still not that impressive. And very quickly in the Old Forest he's not of much more help than Pippin. I agree though that both were treated as clownish characters (of about the same age) in the movies, and they lost their moment to shine because the Scouring of the Shire has been omitted. Which I expected. They also made the travel from Bag End to Bree quite shorter, so there's no "conspiracy" that Merry could have lead to spy on Frodo... But in what they left in the movies, I don't see much differences with how he behaves in the book (apart from the clownish parts).

[Celement]

The Lord Of The Rings TV Show Cost Amazon $465 Million (Or One Jeffrey Bezos Mega-Yacht)

Whatever you want to say about how the series may end up, that's a lot of money sunk into it thus far.

Kind of a running theme with these kind of movies. Ghosts busters that one oceans movie everyone forgot about.

Go woke, go broke is pretty consistent with only a few outliners.

[Jastall]

None of the Hobbits are heroic badasses nor seasoned adventurers at the beginning of the books. And he's certainly not a badass in combat. The only difference is that Merry is an adult (36 years old) while Pippin is still in his "tweens" (aged 29). So Merry is more mature, witty and wise than Pippin. And of course, being the future Master of Brandy Hall, he knows his ways in Buckland, which are not much less tame than the Four Farthings. Oh, he knows to drive a boat. I agree that would be considered quite "adventurous" by most Hobbits of the Farthings, but that's still not that impressive. And very quickly in the Old Forest he's not of much more help than Pippin. I agree though that both were treated as clownish characters (of about the same age) in the movies, and they lost their moment to shine because the Scouring of the Shire has been omitted. Which I expected. They also made the travel from Bag End to Bree quite shorter, so there's no "conspiracy" that Merry could have lead to spy on Frodo... But in what they left in the movies, I don't see much differences with how he behaves in the book (apart from the clownish parts).

The Jackson movies generally speedrunning through the Shire bits early in the first and late in the third film are definitely among their biggest sins. Understandable ones, but sins regardless. I understand trimming the fat for the theatrical cut, but the extended one should IMO have had the Scouring especially, it's an important capstone to the story of major characters.

Then again it's counterbalanced by the films axing Tom Bombadil and the Wild Men. Purists beware of my opinion here, but they're absolutely boring parts in the books that bring nothing to the plot at all, Bombadil especially is padding for the sake of Tolkien's nostalgia for his childhood doll. Any sane adaptation would go "yeah, no".

[Orby]

Then again it's counterbalanced by the films axing Tom Bombadil and the Wild Men. Purists beware of my opinion here, but they're absolutely boring parts in the books that bring nothing to the plot at all, Bombadil especially is padding for the sake of Tolkien's nostalgia for his childhood doll. Any sane adaptation would go "yeah, no".

Its also needless. the Tom Bombadil part of the books would have added nothing really to the movies. Its actually a part that was totally fine to cut. Its a nice moment in the books though, but in the grand scheme of the plot, it is a big nothing :P

Funny because I do remember a few people upset that it was cut back in the early forum and message board days of the internet when the movie came out :P

[Jastall]

Its also needless. the Tom Bombadil part of the books would have added nothing really to the movies. Its actually a part that was totally fine to cut. Its a nice moment in the books though, but in the grand scheme of the plot, it is a big nothing :P

Funny because I do remember a few people upset that it was cut back in the early forum and message board days of the internet when the movie came out :P

Even in the book it's way too long. Bombadil should have taken up half a chapter at most, not almost two of them to then be completely irrelevant to the plot and world at large. They even handwave him away during the Council just so the reader knows that this character was totally pointless and they can stop thinking about him now.

[Syegfryed]

Then again it's counterbalanced by the films axing Tom Bombadil and the Wild Men. Purists beware of my opinion here, but they're absolutely boring parts in the books that bring nothing to the plot at all, Bombadil especially is padding for the sake of Tolkien's nostalgia for his childhood doll. Any sane adaptation would go "yeah, no".

I think it was right to cut Tom Bombadil as well, especially knowing(at least i dont remember, correct me if im wrong) he doesn't come back later, neither do anything relevant after that, so its just some piece of lore there, something rly powerful, a god on earth, but, he just fade away, kinda anticlimatic.

It work on a book but for a movie, that people expect foreshadowing and some resolutions, i don't think it would work.

[s_bushido]

I'm sure these guys are just paid PR reviewers, or the wrong kind of Tolkien/LotR fans or something, though.

I mean...it's not out of the realm of possibility. Thing that comes to mind first (because I saw a YMS review of it recently) are the ridiculous over-the-top reactions to the trailer for the Lion King remake. /shrug

[Orby]

Two Tolkien channels I am a fan of have had a 20 minute preview of the show. So far seems pretty positive which is enough to give me some hope, I have been watching these channels for along time and they are usually very level headed. Also they do good videos

Its still a 20 minute preview it was easy to pick some good scenes, but I have heard it does feel very Tolkien.




I was lured in by Wheel of Time this way, by similar channels and when I watched that show it was a horrible disappointment, so fool me once shame on me and all that

[Biomega]

I'm not sure who to trust anymore. If they hand-picked people and invited them for a screening, what are the odds that they vetted them in ways that made it likely they'd have a favorable opinion? And isn't it a conflict of interest if those people want to be invited to future screenings, and wouldn't be if they voiced a negative opinion now? And that's not even going into territory where they might have signed contracts precluding them from being negative in the first place.

It's really hard to get objective information these days, what with "influencers" having their livelihood depend on those with the most vested interest in skewing their honest opinions.

I guess we'd have to wait until everyone has access, and collate from a bunch of sources to arrive at some sort of approximation of objectivity. This is really annoying.