Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[bledgor]

These people have a very binary view of things. They don't have any room for "Let's wait and see". They have decided in advance that it's an unholy travesty and if you don't agree...you are raping Tolkien's Corpse.

There is a difference between a good show and a good adaptation, it could still be a good show, but considering basically everything they have given us/told us goes largely against Tolkeins books/lore it can't be a good adaptation. You have people wrongly arguing against that, which I have seen pushed.

[eschatological]

Is The Boys a good adaptation? It differs wildly from the comics. What about Game of Thrones? Even in the first four seasons which were pretty book accurate, some things, like Arya meeting Tywin Lannister, were made up for the show. The whole Ros storyline as well.

Usually, it being a quality piece of media, and following the themes and narrative through-lines of the original work, is what makes a show a good adaptation. Not it being a word for word translation onto the screen.

[bledgor]

Is The Boys a good adaptation? It differs wildly from the comics. What about Game of Thrones? Even in the first four seasons which were pretty book accurate, some things, like Arya meeting Tywin Lannister, were made up for the show. The whole Ros storyline as well.

Usually, it being a quality piece of media, and following the themes and narrative through-lines of the original work, is what makes a show a good adaptation. Not it being a word for word translation onto the screen.

Again no one has ever said it has to be 1 for 1, but like you admit the first 4 season of GoT which are the most loved were very faithful. They hit the sweet spot of an 80-90% accurate adaptation in my opinion, unlike say Rafe of Time which was like 70% AT BEST and failed both as a good adaptation and a good show.

The changes we already know have strayed from his narrative through-line a good amount for the show. If you don't want to follow the story then don't adapt it, make your own story.

[eschatological]

The Boys is probably, at best, a 70% adaptation. It had to be, it was written almost 20 years ago. Does that mean it's a bad adapatation?

What about Watchmen? Largely faithful, but with a massive change at the end. Is that a good adaptation? What about HBO's Watchmen show by Damon Lindlelof? It follows the comic ending, but takes place 30 years after the events of the comic and extrapolates what that world would look like. Is that a good adaptation? Personally, I think they were both fine adaptations (the HBO show is masterful, imo), though the ending of the movie was a bad one for me, but probably easier to understand for the basic movie-going audience.

Also, I've not read WoT nor seen the show, so I've got no opinion on whether that show is a good adaptation.

[bledgor]

The Boys is probably, at best, a 70% adaptation. It had to be, it was written almost 20 years ago. Does that mean it's a bad adapatation?

What about Watchmen? Largely faithful, but with a massive change at the end. Is that a good adaptation? What about HBO's Watchmen show by Damon Lindlelof? It follows the comic ending, but takes place 30 years after the events of the comic and extrapolates what that world would look like. Is that a good adaptation? Personally, I think they were both fine adaptations (the HBO show is masterful, imo), though the ending of the movie was a bad one for me, but probably easier to understand for the basic movie-going audience.

Also, I've not read WoT nor seen the show, so I've got no opinion on whether that show is a good adaptation.

I never read The Boys, so can't say. Watchman the show? Never watched, the movie was accurate till the end, which was a large change, but I think was still an enjoyable movie, the large change makes it a rougher adaptation. Also have the different media aspect of The boys/Watchman vs Rings of power, they are both comic adaptations vs a novel(s).

However in the context of what I am saying, for Rings of Power it is being produced by Amazon. Amazon recently made WoT, which was bad on both fronts (objectively as a adaptation, subjectively as a show), and they have two newbies running the Rings of Power, like they did with Rafe and wheel of time. Add in that basically everything they have shown/said has indicated a bad adaptation, and you are left with a track record that makes me feel it will be a bad show.

If people want to argue it can be a good show despite all the changes/differences from its source, it is certainly possible, but again to me the reason they choose to adapt LoTR is the fan base/deep history/stories Tolkein wrote. So if you are going to adapt it, why make such grand changes already, it COULD be better sure, but you then have to try and be a better story teller than arguably the greatest fantasy writer of all time. Good luck.

[eschatological]

Is it the same person who (in your opinion) ruined WoT that's running the RoP adaptation?

No? Then I don't know how you draw any conclusions about Rings of Power's quality, and, as I said, quality is a big part of whether it's a good adaptation. For all of D&D's faults as original creators in the last few seasons of GoT, they were newbies at running big shows (and their writing credits on movies was horrendous) and managed to make 4 great seasons of an adapted work.

People love to conflate this idea that these massive publishers like Amazon or Disney or whoever have some sort of singular will to adapt things in a certain way. Amazon has also published The Boys. It has published lots of good television like The Terminal List, which people are praising on this forum right fucking now. It publishes Invincible, Critical Role's Vox Machina, Reacher, these last few seasons of The Expanse, The Man in The High Castle, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Patriot, which was a great fucking spy show, and so on, and so forth. I'd say their track record is actually pretty good. Maybe WoT is the exception, not the rule, but again, I haven't seen it.

[Xath]

The idea that FF4 failed because they changed johnnys race is so fantastically stupid after we have had aura man and the new bat man do incredibly well when they also did the same, not to mention marvels movies doing it constantly.

The mass audience doesn’t give a crap if aqua man is Hawaii cat woman is black or Johnny storm is black all they care about is a movie being well written well acted and well shot.

Aqua-man is not a hero people give a damn about FF4 is a bit different. Who do you think writes the reviews that ends up creating a fervor in the mass audience when it comes to comic book movies hint it's comic book nerds who grew up and became the writers of the "geek section" of reviews. There is a difference between changing headline characters and changing secondary ones. Marvel has largely kept headliners fairly comic accurate. It doesn't matter how well a movie is written if you can't get people to come see it. Solo is a great example of this it is probably the second best of the disney set behind rogue one but people didn't even bother going to see it because of what TLJ did to a beloved property.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it the same person who (in your opinion) ruined WoT that's running the RoP adaptation?

No? Then I don't know how you draw any conclusions about Rings of Power's quality, and, as I said, quality is a big part of whether it's a good adaptation. For all of D&D's faults as original creators in the last few seasons of GoT, they were newbies at running big shows (and their writing credits on movies was horrendous) and managed to make 4 great seasons of an adapted work.

People love to conflate this idea that these massive publishers like Amazon or Disney or whoever have some sort of singular will to adapt things in a certain way. Amazon has also published The Boys. It has published lots of good television like The Terminal List, which people are praising on this forum right fucking now. It publishes Invincible, Critical Role's Vox Machina, Reacher, these last few seasons of The Expanse, The Man in The High Castle, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Patriot, which was a great fucking spy show, and so on, and so forth. I'd say their track record is actually pretty good. Maybe WoT is the exception, not the rule, but again, I haven't seen it.

It's the same studio which is the issue. The Boys was a largely hands off venture at least at first, rafe of time by all accounts was not and I would say it's extremely likely that lotr will also not be. Reacher again very hands off and pretty much followed the major beat points of the books as well as casting that actually fit the books particularly in the case of Reacher. Thad was an interesting casting choice but actually fit Reacher unlike Cruise. Giving a property like LoTR to relative newcomers means there will be massive oversight. Quality matters but so does following the original work of the author and this feels like another author is dead so we can do w/e the fuck we want like RoT.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Aqua-man is not a hero people give a damn about FF4 is a bit different. Who do you think writes the reviews that ends up creating a fervor in the mass audience when it comes to comic book movies hint it's comic book nerds who grew up and became the writers of the "geek section" of reviews. There is a difference between changing headline characters and changing secondary ones. Marvel has largely kept headliners fairly comic accurate. It doesn't matter how well a movie is written if you can't get people to come see it. Solo is a great example of this it is probably the second best of the disney set behind rogue one but people didn't even bother going to see it because of what TLJ did to a beloved property.

You might not want to hear it because we’re just another group of them but the mass audience doesn’t care about nerds or geeks writing reviews making YouTube videos or posting on forums like we are. These movies have gotten to such a large state despite people like us not because of it, the studios know they need to reach much much further then those who actually care about comic or book accuracy that’s the whole reason so many changes are made.

And yes people didn’t care about aqua man yet even with a lower draw and then race swapping on top of it the movie still did well and breathed fresh air into the character that likely hasn’t been seen since comics were at there peak In the 40-60’s as far as the mass public goes.

Then of course we have batman and them making cat woman black who is likely more popular then Johnny storm has ever been and it didn’t suffer for it at all.

Changing an important characters race doesn’t hurt movies making bad movies hurts movies.

[Adamas102]

Also have the different media aspect of The boys/Watchman vs Rings of power, they are both comic adaptations vs a novel.

If people want to argue it can be a good show despite all the changes/differences from its source, it is certainly possible, but again to me the reason they choose to adapt LoTR is the fan base/deep history/stories Tolkein wrote. So if you are going to adapt it, why make such grand changes already, it COULD be better sure, but you then have to try and be a better story teller than arguably the greatest fantasy writer of all time. Good luck.

Except they’re NOT adapting a novel, or LotR for that matter. They’re taking inspiration from what essentially amounted to a collection of notes (many of which were being revised by the author before he died).

This is also a different medium, and it’s not erasing the original source material. I was one of the many who finally got around to finishing the books after I watched the Fellowship of the Ring. The changes that were made to adapt the stories to movie format didn’t detract from my enjoyment of reading the books. If the movies had eschewed the benefits and pacing of adapting the written narrative to the more condensed visual medium then perhaps it wouldn’t have sparked as much interest in the original works (not just for me but for many other people as well).

Saying 80% faithful is ok while 70% faithful is not is pretty arbitrary as is. In the end, it’s better for a show to be a good show that takes inspiration from the source material rather than end up being a bad show that tried its best to be as faithful as possible.

[ClassicPeon]

Is The Boys a good adaptation? It differs wildly from the comics. What about Game of Thrones? Even in the first four seasons which were pretty book accurate, some things, like Arya meeting Tywin Lannister, were made up for the show. The whole Ros storyline as well.

Usually, it being a quality piece of media, and following the themes and narrative through-lines of the original work, is what makes a show a good adaptation. Not it being a word for word translation onto the screen.

If you are being totally honest the only thing you really need to see to know what the creators intention are with the show(and how faithful they aim to be) is the "super fan" thing they made.

Those people where carefully picked out and quite obviously none of them where actual fans of lotr. It was literally antirely politically motivated :/

[Dhrizzle]

If you are being totally honest the only thing you really need to see to know what the creators intention are with the show(and how faithful they aim to be) is the "super fan" thing they made.

Those people where carefully picked out and quite obviously none of them where actual fans of lotr. It was literally antirely politically motivated :/

Was that something the writers, actors and special effects dudes did?

Also what do you think "political" means?

[ClassicPeon]

Was that something the writers, actors and special effects dudes did?

Also what do you think "political" means?

Its pretty irrelevant what the actors and special effects dudes does?

In terms of political: One of the main goals of Peter Jackson and the old lotr movie crew was to not implement their personal politics and bias into an adaptation of tolkiens work because they felt like that would potentially take away from the authenticity of the work. This new adaptation is highly motivated by wokeness and the creators personal political agendas as seen in the casting, the dialog and the "super fans" trailer. Its actually quite incredible that such a short trailer manages to show that off, but it does.

[s_bushido]

Its actually quite incredible that such a short trailer manages to show that off, but it does.

I know, right? The black guy had dialogue and everything. The audacity.

[jackofwind]

Its pretty irrelevant what the actors and special effects dudes does?

In terms of political: One of the main goals of Peter Jackson and the old lotr movie crew was to not implement their personal politics and bias into an adaptation of tolkiens work because they felt like that would potentially take away from the authenticity of the work. This new adaptation is highly motivated by wokeness and the creators personal political agendas as seen in the casting, the dialog and the "super fans" trailer. Its actually quite incredible that such a short trailer manages to show that off, but it does.

Are you also mad that Aragorn isn't 7' tall and jacked as fuck in Jackson's original trilogy?

Some characters can appear different than their literal book descriptions but their actors bring a sense of gravitas to the role that they make it undeniably their own. Viggo is Aragorn for many people, even if he's shorter and thinner than he should be, perennially dirtier than he should be, and even though he doesn't carry around the broken Narsil in a sheathe as a testament to his birthright.

When you're getting mad about nitpicky silly things just remember that there was a massive outcry when Jackson's casting was announced by "superfans" who were frothing with rage that Viggo had been cast due to his slight frame compared to the literal description of Aragorn. Now those people look like silly dipshits, because Viggo owned the fuck out of that role as much as Hugo, Cate, Ian(s) and Christopher did theirs.

[Dhrizzle]

Its pretty irrelevant what the actors and special effects dudes does?

Well yeah, they're the people who are actually creating the series. Amazon might be promoting and paying for it but ultimately those are the dudes making it.

In terms of political: One of the main goals of Peter Jackson and the old lotr movie crew was to not implement their personal politics and bias into an adaptation of tolkiens work because they felt like that would potentially take away from the authenticity of the work. This new adaptation is highly motivated by wokeness and the creators personal political agendas as seen in the casting, the dialog and the "super fans" trailer. Its actually quite incredible that such a short trailer manages to show that off, but it does.

Sorry dude but these aren't "political," diverse casts and greater representation are social and marketing decisions.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

This new adaptation is highly motivated by wokeness and the creators personal political agendas as seen in the casting,

Just want to point out that I was completely on the money when I pointed to black people being part of the "woke fiasco" you brought up even though you denied it.

[Adamas102]

In terms of political: One of the main goals of Peter Jackson and the old lotr movie crew was to not implement their personal politics and bias into an adaptation of tolkiens work because they felt like that would potentially take away from the authenticity of the work. This new adaptation is highly motivated by wokeness and the creators personal political agendas as seen in the casting, the dialog and the "super fans" trailer. Its actually quite incredible that such a short trailer manages to show that off, but it does.

Ah, so you don’t know what the word “political” means…

[Fantomen]

For all of D&D's faults as original creators in the last few seasons of GoT, they were newbies at running big shows (and their writing credits on movies was horrendous) and managed to make 4 great seasons of an adapted work.

Becuse they did have detailed books to follow, the story did start to go of the rail then they did improvised, and totaly collapsed then they did only have George R. R. Martin notes to use.

Now you have two inexperienced newbies who only have Tolkien's "notes" to use. Its a smale history index. Why do you expect a diffrent result then GoT later seasons?

Not also, after all the trailers and official articles, what is the story about? Beside action herion Galadriel will do action stuff. This show you how weak the story will be.

[Xath]

You might not want to hear it because we’re just another group of them but the mass audience doesn’t care about nerds or geeks writing reviews making YouTube videos or posting on forums like we are. These movies have gotten to such a large state despite people like us not because of it, the studios know they need to reach much much further then those who actually care about comic or book accuracy that’s the whole reason so many changes are made.

And yes people didn’t care about aqua man yet even with a lower draw and then race swapping on top of it the movie still did well and breathed fresh air into the character that likely hasn’t been seen since comics were at there peak In the 40-60’s as far as the mass public goes.

Then of course we have batman and them making cat woman black who is likely more popular then Johnny storm has ever been and it didn’t suffer for it at all.

Changing an important characters race doesn’t hurt movies making bad movies hurts movies.

People went to see aqua man for two reasons to see Khal Drogo looking hot and pre downfall Amber Heard wearing a skintight suit. It was nothing to do with the story it was super hero Baywatch.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

People went to see aqua man for two reasons to see Khal Drogo looking hot and pre downfall Amber Heard wearing a skintight suit. It was nothing to do with the story it was super hero Baywatch.

so your saying replacing white characters with minority ones works if they are well cast and hot?

I mean that’s one way to defeat your own argument I suppose.