Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Wilian]

After reading some of the criticism Jackson's LOTR was doled out here in these forums, I think Amazon is going to show everyone that it could have been a lot worse.

- - - Updated - - -



While I concede the plausibility of the former, the latter however? Where was this at in the books?

Well we know that the books had not only incest but late in Numenor's existance when most Numenorians had fallen to worship of Morgoth practiced vile rituals and these too involved nudity

[Viikkis]

lol.. "They hired a lot of actors, so it's good!".. what's next?
"You can't dislike it! It won oscars!!"?

I'm guessing you haven't watched the making of documentaries for Jackson's LOTR trilogy? The trilogy was made with passion and great detail. There's nothing half assed about it. Even the costumes were embroidered inside even though it would never be seen on screen. Just to make it as authentic as possible.

[s_bushido]

"You can't dislike it! It won oscars!!"?

I mean...you can dislike them all you want. But the movies in Jackson's LotR trilogy are objectively some of the best fantasy films ever made. There's nothing half-assed about them. They obviously went off the rails with the Hobbit, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Doffen]

It could have been worse. Could easily have had m night shyamalan or Michael Bay shit all over the books for epic "twists" or "CGI action" who were both "hot" directors in the early 2000's

Be thankful for what you get sometimes is what im trying to say.

Especially for nerdy fantasy stories.

Thanks for making me imagine how it would be like if Michael Bay was making LoTR. It was a fun thought!

The explosion at Helm's Deep was nothing compared to how it could have been :P

[Volatilis]

Thanks for making me imagine how it would be like if Michael Bay was making LoTR. It was a fun thought!

The explosion at Helm's Deep was nothing compared to how it could have been :P

If only the shire had american flags and megan fox's booty, What could have been indeed.

[Uthan]

I will keep repeating, as ppl keep missing it: It will be a series spanning the second age and not what happened in the Peter Jackson films. A span of 3400 years. But I admit I have no clue if any of the elves could have lived back then

OP should probably update his first post as it is from 2018 when that info wasn't yet revealed.

Galadriel will most likely be one of if not the main character of the show, they even got an actress that kind of looks like Cate Blanchett for it. Elrond will likely feature as well (and Celeborn), but it's not a huge overlap no.

[Orby]

I can't imagine anyone in the roles than the ones of the trilogy, so I'mma pass.

Bet they'll Game-Of-Thrones it to shit.

Game of Thrones is the single best and worst thing to happen to TV, because now everyone is gonna be like "We gonna make this the next Game of Thrones" on properties that are nothing like Game of Thrones.

When in fact J. R. R. Tolkien and George R. R. Martin's worlds are so different in aesthetic. .Its like trying to Game of Thrones up a Mario Bros. movie :P

[s_bushido]

Its like trying to Game of Thrones up a Mario Bros. movie

Couldn't possibly be any worse than the Mario Bros movie we got...

[Orby]

Couldn't possibly be any worse than the Mario Bros movie we got...

I saw that movie when it was in the cinema, and even as a 10 year old kid I hated it. But I do still have the Mario Bros cup they sold. Like this shit gonna be worth anything xD

[tehealadin]

Yes I did and it is my own opinion and my own taste problem with that buddy?

The Hobbit for sure wasnt perfect but at least they stayed faithful for the most part to the source material books. The first movies cut and changed a lot of things from the source material. And the sound tracks were awesome memorable and iconic in the Hobbit.

Each to their own and all that but your reasoning is...odd. The Hobbit deviated waaay more from the source material than LotR. The deviations in LotR were hardly massive or tonally altering. And most deviations were leaving stuff out that they felt weren't essential, they had to fit it into a time limit. With some minor changes, swapping character roles (Eomer swapped for Theoden etc), the only really major one was giving Arwen much more screen time, or the ghost army showing up at Minas Tirith, which didn't really alter things in a significant way. Changes were made for the sake of adaptation.

The Hobbit however, dear god they added so much more in order to pad it out to 3 films, with some significant changes made to characters. It wasn't simply that they wanted to adapt it to screen, they wanted to pad it to 3 films. You are criticising LotR for doing something to a much less severe degree than The Hobbit trilogy, that said thing is bad, but its better if you do more of it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

EDIT: Didn't notice how old the OP was.

[Th3Scourge]

They will 100% forsake a good story and characters for woke bullshit.

[Velshin]

Each to their own and all that but your reasoning is...odd. The Hobbit deviated waaay more from the source material than LotR. The deviations in LotR were hardly massive or tonally altering. And most deviations were leaving stuff out that they felt weren't essential, they had to fit it into a time limit. With some minor changes, swapping character roles (Eomer swapped for Theoden etc), the only really major one was giving Arwen much more screen time, or the ghost army showing up at Minas Tirith, which didn't really alter things in a significant way. Changes were made for the sake of adaptation.

The Hobbit however, dear god they added so much more in order to pad it out to 3 films, with some significant changes made to characters. It wasn't simply that they wanted to adapt it to screen, they wanted to pad it to 3 films. You are criticising LotR for doing something to a much less severe degree than The Hobbit trilogy, that said thing is bad, but its better if you do more of it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

EDIT: Didn't notice how old the OP was.

Haha over two years man!

My problem with the first trilogy of how they rushed it mostly. I am ok with the changes between books and movie but I am not ok with how things are rushed overall.

[Nerovar]

To be fair the points Tolkien made with LotR are quite on the nose and don't really have much depth.
Death - Immortality, Good - Evil, Nature - Technology etc

Don't get me wrong i love the books and i liked the movies (Hobbit not so much).
Tolkien build an amazing world. Completly devoid of any relationships beyond the weird platonic thing between Aragorn and Arwen (who was barley in the book) and Sam and his future wife.
While grand it is not very... realistic. We do not know what the story of the TV Show is. We do not know what they mean with nudity. Could be anything. From someone jumping into a river to a full blown orgy. Point is the outrage is way overblown right now.
If it is a story more about the characters and less about the "quest" i can see relationships playing a bigger part and maybe a small sex scene too.

It does not need to be "realistic". Lord of the Rings is a very idealistic setting. The themes are very on the nose and that's the point. It's not supposed to be some deep, pondering piece about a reflection of our world. Also Lord of the Rings had one of the best relationships you can see on film and it worked without sex scenes - I'm of course talking about the relationship between Frodo and Sam. The relationship between Aragorn and Arwen is also beautiful.
It's completely ridiculous to me that every modern story needs to revolve at least partially around some half-baked romance because otherwise people will feel like something is missing.

[Release]

Lotr has a lot of inbuilt clout and reputation but if they wanted to make another GoT they would have been better served picking up joe abercrombies first law series. I dont think we'll get another GoT, I think we'll get a series akin to the first trilogy in tone.

[Syegfryed]

It does not need to be "realistic". Lord of the Rings is a very idealistic setting. The themes are very on the nose and that's the point. It's not supposed to be some deep, pondering piece about a reflection of our world. Also Lord of the Rings had one of the best relationships you can see on film and it worked without sex scenes - I'm of course talking about the relationship between Frodo and Sam. The relationship between Aragorn and Arwen is also beautiful.
It's completely ridiculous to me that every modern story needs to revolve at least partially around some half-baked romance because otherwise people will feel like something is missing.

if the movie was made today i would bet an arm that they would hint and out romance with frodo and sam between the lines, people on twitter do that a lot that is disconcerting.

[Nerovar]

In a way you could even accuse the LotR movies of this, because the Aragorn / Arwen romance is really played out here to up the stakes I guess. In the book, Arwen is so much in the background, even Eowyn being infatuated with Aragorn has more time in the books AFAIK

I don't disagree with this. The point still stands.

[Grimbold21]

I will keep repeating, as ppl keep missing it: It will be a series spanning the second age and not what happened in the Peter Jackson films. A span of 3400 years. But I admit I have no clue if any of the elves could have lived back then

OP should probably update his first post as it is from 2018 when that info wasn't yet revealed.

Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn for sure. The latter two were born even "before" the First Age

[Doffen]

If only the shire had american flags and megan fox's booty, What could have been indeed.

Haha, indeed sir, indeed!

[Nerovar]

And pretending that romantic relationships don't exist in this universe and everyone is only platonicly linked is weird. It was potrait like this in the movie. But Tolkien did have quite a few romances mentioned in his books. Particularily the Silmarillion from which the TV show borrows heavily as far as i know.

They obviously exist but they're not what LOTR is about. Also just because sexuality isn't on display doesn't mean a relationship is platonic. You can perfectly display relationships without sex scenes. If anything, sex scenes generally don't really add anything to characterization and are just there to attract the coomers.

Iirc the series will take place in the Second Age. There'll be plenty events to cover that will keep viewers entertained without requiring shoe-horned Game of Thrones style relationships, casual sex and the depiction thereof.

[8bithamster]

Yawn. Yeah you can hate on a classic from the 2000's all you want. No one will give a shit though.

I dont think viggo mortensen or elijah wood regret their time spent on the films. And the tourism industry of New Zealand certainly doesnt regret the films because they missed a scene from the books, nerd.

agreed, and nobody gives a shit about you liking the movie either.. your point? Opinions are exactly that, opinions. Yours is worth about.. jack shit, as is mine in the grand scheme of things.