Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Dhrizzle]

please show me the exact line of text in any of the Lord of the Rings books, or the Hobbit book where these creatures are mentioned to have lived during the years of the second age, don't worry i'll wait.

Hang on a second, just need to adjust to this massive goalpost move from "conjured out of thin air" and "never existed in the lore of the universe" to "show me the exact line of text" from specific books about specific times. Such a line doesn't exist, the Red Book of Westmarch (the fictional manuscript Tolkien pretended was the source of his Middle Earth novels) maintains that Hobbits know nothing of their origins and all the authors could find was myths and stories from the Rohirim.

However we know from other works that Hobbits are of the race of Men which means their ancestors awoke at Hildorien at the dawn of the First Age of the Sun. Anything between then and their making contact with other peoples during the Third Age is pure speculation and it will be interesting to see how exactly they handle it.

i still haven't seen anybody able to come up with a valid reason as to how a black dwarf could exist in the world when they live exclusively underground and rarely see sunlight,

The actress they chose to play the role has dark skin. As dwarves were originally carved from rock by Aule and the sun is a magic piece of fruit whatever ideas you have about skin-tone in the real world probably doesn't apply the same, unless you're also upset about how Gimli didn't spend all his time complaining about sunburn and the symptoms of vitamin D deficiency.

not to mention the lack of facial hair which is canon to exist and yet Amazon and these show runners seem to disagree with that,

In Tolkien's words;

"When I came to think of it, in my own imagination, beards were not found among Hobbits (as stated in text); nor among the Eldar (not stated). All male Dwarves had them. The wizards had them, though Radagast (not stated) had only short, curling, light brown hair on his chin. Men normally had them when full-grown, hence Eomer, Theoden and all others named. But not Denethor, Boromir, Faramir, Aragorn, Isildur, or other Númenórean chieftains."

and the whole super elf with shaven head who would never have existed in the middle earth universe but somehow is a 'faithful adaptation' by these showrunners speaks volumes to your sycophancy, and then shoehorning in a taboo romance that's purely fan fiction,

I don't know what you're talking about here.

a rewritten galadriel who is purely fan fiction,

This was already covered beautifully by @ringpriest (go back to their post to see Tolkien's actual quotes.)

All the above quotes are from Tolkien, at various places in the Legendarium. They describe a woman who:

Fought (as in elves killing elves with swords) her father's people because she despised what they were doing (stealing the Sea-Elves ships and killing them if they fought back).

Left the Blessed Realm by herself, defying the Gods and the elves alike.

Told the Gods "no thanks" when offered absolution and a return to paradise.

And finally, sans Ring, personally ripped Sauron's #2 stronghold apart.

Now, there's a lot of huge gaps in Tolkien's writings on Galadriel, particularly in the Second Age. For example, there's nothing about her actions during the Last Alliance, even though she's described as one of Sauron's greatest foes. But 'full of piss and vinegar' seems a very apt description of her younger self, many long centuries and centuries before the Fellowship meets her in Lothlorien. That doesn't mean the show will be good, but from the little they've shown so far, their depiction of, to quote the good Professor again, "the greatest of the Noldor, except Feanor maybe" seems fine.

and Elrond who is nothing like his canonical character once again a pure fabrication of fan fiction from these show runners,

What do you consider to be the canonical character of Elrond at this point in his life, what are you basing it on?

so tell me again with a straight face where i'm wrong and how this show is going to be the 'best thing ever' because i'm not seeing it.

Please explain how you can read my statement "That doesn't meant it will definitely be good but it will certainly be interesting" and think I'm describing it as "the best thing ever."

[Fuiking]

Durin's Bane was only a single Balrog. There are in fact multiple Balrog as written by Tolkien. There's no reason to imply there cannot be female Balrogs, or that the Balrogs can't be written in a sympathetic light. Tolkien never said they were explicitly evil, just giant fiery demonic entities that served Morgoth.

You'd be correct if he didnt hint there numbers were limited to about 12..

[Dhrizzle]

They didn't already straight up said, they will not take any of his writings as inspiration, and instead, create th story tolkien never did? like, from what i read, they can only use appendix B, so they rly don't have much, thats why they will make like events who take years apart to be quickly followed

This is an interesting situation where you have to consider the difference between "using" and "taking inspiration from" things that Tolkien wrote. It was my impression that they could only cover the time period covered in the appendix but they could still draw inspiration from all the other things Tolkien wrote. Notably they seem to have taken inspiration from Tolkien's characterisation of Galdriel having an "amazon" disposition.

It's similar to a dispute over the Enola Holmes movie that came out recently. As Sherlock Holmes is old enough to be in the public domain (anyone can use the character without violating IP laws) the Conad Doyle estate said that the version of Holmes appearing in the movie was inspired by later portrayals of Holmes as a warmer, more emotional character and none of those books had passed into the public domain yet. They tried to block the release of the movie but during the trial some of those later books passed into public domain and the point was rendered moot.

Its also funny to see how much tolkiien was going to rewrite before he died

Supposedly he planned to rewrite the whole cosmology so the sun and moon always existed but were obscured, and the world was always round and Valinor was simply removed from the globe. However given his conceit that his Legendarium was translated myths from history these cosmologies could be the results of expanding understanding of the fictional folk who wrote the fictional myths and none of them are "canonically" "true."

- - - Updated - - -

You'd be correct if he didnt hint there numbers were limited to about 12..

Originally Tolkien had hundreds of balrogs with scores being slain in a single battle. Later he noted there would be somewhere between 3 and 7. If there was only 3 then when Gandalf killed Durin's Bane that would be all of them gone (the others killed by Ecthellion and Glorfindel during the Fall of Gondolin.)

[bullseyed]

Funny how you avoided mentioning Thor... But even still, those are both examples of characters created by specific people who have since undergone a variety of changes and updates throughout the years at the hands of different artists. If anything, comic books are an excellent example of how characters, stories, and themes can refreshed over time while still adhering to the foundational building blocks of their original sources.

But no, just like the other poster I responded to, this isn't just an ancient myths thing. There are so many classic authors from the past several hundred years whose works are adapted, retold, re-imagined, and expanded upon. The idea that Tolkien is just too special for this treatment is silly. He's not. If anything, the fact that his works can be expanded on so much is what makes them great, and elevates him to the level of all those other enduring authors.

If Tolkien were alive today would you rail at him about making up a word other than "elf" for his stories given that his versions deviated from many of the original sources? Would you tell him to "make your own IP" that is completely devoid of any references to things he didn't make up from scratch?

Thor doesn't make a difference. The Thor for Marvel isn't the Thor from Norse mythology, just based on him. No one is calling the Marvel movies a sequel to the Poetic Edda.

Just like this Amazon series isn't "Lord of the Rings" it is a new story that steals from Lord of the Rings because the authors/writers are too poorly skilled to make their own IP.

[s_bushido]

i still haven't seen anybody able to come up with a valid reason as to how a black dwarf could exist in the world when they live exclusively underground and rarely see sunlight

Most Drow spend their entire lives deep underground, and their species has literal black skin (and not just the dark brown that we call "black"). Hell, this is a WoW fan website, so most people should know about Dark Iron dwarves who are depicted in various shades of charcoal. If you wanted to make the case that all Tolkien Dwarves should be white because they live underground, then you'd have to make the case that they should be much much more pale that they're usually depicted. Like, Gollum levels of pale. Since that's an example of a single individual who lived hundreds of years away from the sun, and not an entire species who would have adapted to that environment.

Or, you could just get the fuck over it and deal with the fact that it's a fantasy race in a fantasy setting and the skin color of them being roughly analogous to IRL humans isn't remarkable.

not to mention the lack of facial hair which is canon to exist and yet Amazon and these show runners seem to disagree with that

Different people have different hairstyles. News at 11. The "hot" dwarves in the Hobbit barely had beards at all. At least not compared to the giant chin-manes that the stereotypical dwarf is depicted with. Do you think that was what made those movies mediocre?

the whole super elf with shaven head who would never have existed in the middle earth universe

And this is just the same exact dumbass complaint as the one I just addressed. So...ditto. The "super elf" thing is particularly cute, though, given that...you know...movie Legolas is a thing that exists.

purely fan fiction

pure fabrication of fan fiction

I said it before, but literally every adaptation whose screenplay isn't written by the original author is just fan fiction. Because those fans bring their own interpretations and cut/add material as they see fit to tell the story they want to tell. This is basic shit, and the fact that you think it's some knock-down argument against this production in particular, is laughable.

[Dhrizzle]

And this is just the same exact dumbass complaint as the one I just addressed. So...ditto. The "super elf" thing is particularly cute, though, given that...you know...movie Legolas is a thing that exists.

So by the time of Legolas the Sindar (and elves in general) had been waning for many centuries, the Sindar in the Second Age would have been much stronger.

Then the Noldor (those elves that returned from Valinor) are said to be as far above the Sindar as the Sindar were above Men.

And Galadriel was said to be mightiest of the Noldor (save perhaps Feanor,) so if we're using movie Legolas as a basis then Galadriel should be pulling the sorts of feats you get in Marvel movies.

[s_bushido]

And Galadriel was said to be mightiest of the Noldor (save perhaps Feanor,) so if we're using movie Legolas as a basis then Galadriel should be pulling the sorts of feats you get in Marvel movies.

Don't bring that up. You're going to associate Rings of Power Galadriel with Brie Larson's Captain Marvel... I don't want to clean up the liquified brains that will be running out of their ears from all the outrage.

[Orby]

Don't bring that up. You're going to associate Rings of Power Galadriel with Brie Larson's Captain Marvel... I don't want to clean up the liquified brains that will be running out of their ears from all the outrage.

I am pretty sure the leakage has already happened, or at least has been booked in advance. Thankfully I am not on twitter anymore so I can semi avoid that shit. Unfortunately I do use YouTube and since I have a history with liking to look up Lord of the rings lore/content, Youtube has also, for the past 6 months, been handing me lots of outrage content from other content creators who deal in... well outrage.

Because YouTube thinks content I like about 'The Life of Samwise Gamgee' is about equated to people titling their videos 'WOKE LOTR IS DOOMED'. I don't want to give the creator publicity, but his videos have been on my recommended for a while now, mostly since the Rings of Power teaser was leaked. and yes I have blocked him, 5 times now. lol

At this point the outrage assured so get that mop ready :P

[Mace]

Are you just unaware of all the authors whose works have been retold and expanded upon over the years, or do you think Tolkien is for some reason more special than all the famous storytellers that came before him? It's not just ancient myths that get this treatment. How many good stories would we miss out on if no one was allowed to tell modernized versions of works like Hamlet, Frankenstein, War of the Worlds, Count of Monte Cristo, and so on? If adaptations and inspirations of the works of authors like H.P. Lovecraft, Ian Fleming, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Stephen King were always forced to remain stuck within the time periods of their original creations?

No, just because the work is that of a particular person doesn't make it untouchable.

Doesn't mean people are going to like it or appreciate it being so altered.

At a certain point, the thing ceases to become what it originally was.. it's like the new star wars, has the same name, but it's not the same thing - and it's how they've changed.

Remains to bes een if rings of Power would be good, or the changes acceptable or just terrible.

A lot of the time the type of changes we've been seen in the like so f Star wars and Wheel of time to give a few examples are completely un-necessary (one is doing new content, the other just changed the original content)... other times I think it works well or is acceptable, Discovery of Star Trek was one such - Discovery didn't change the Star Trek canon or lore much, it just showed a different side in a different way - comic books have been changing a lot.

Obviously for somethings change can work well, other times it doesn't at all. You do need to do new things, but you don't have to change the core of a thing to make it relevant or good either, that's just rubbish, and some people are just changing things drastically to the point they are un-recognisable - not for the sake of the product or a good story or entertainment but for ideological or socio-political (i.e. religious) reasons.

Don't expect those who loved that thing in its original form to be too pleased.. especially if the quality of the new one is rubbish - like it was the case for Wheel of Time and Obi Wan Kenobi show but wasn't (imo) for Discovery (but was for Picard - just awful)

[Varodoc]

Don't tell me LOTR is going the Warcraft III route and white-washing the ugly barbarous beasts known as "orcs".

[Adamas102]

Doesn't mean people are going to like it or appreciate it being so altered.

At a certain point, the thing ceases to become what it originally was.. it's like the new star wars, has the same name, but it's not the same thing - and it's how they've changed.

Well, yeah that's fine. People can decide for themselves whether they like or dislike something. That's not what we were talking about, though. You made blanket statements about modernizing and re-imagining classic stories, specifically those with a single creator, as both a recent trend and altogether bad. That's simply not true as it is a trend that has been going on for generations and has produced some fantastic works of art.

Hell, even considering the much-hated Disney, the animated movies of the 90's still hold up to this day and almost all of them drew from established stories/authors (Hans Christian Andersen, Victor Hugo, etc). All of them were GREATLY altered from their original sources, but still very much recognizable as adaptations and became classics themselves.

Obviously for somethings change can work well, other times it doesn't at all. You do need to do new things, but you don't have to change the core of a thing to make it relevant or good either, that's just rubbish, and some people are just changing things drastically to the point they are un-recognisable - not for the sake of the product or a good story or entertainment but for ideological or socio-political (i.e. religious) reasons.

Don't expect those who loved that thing in its original form to be too pleased.. especially if the quality of the new one is rubbish - like it was the case for Wheel of Time and Obi Wan Kenobi show but wasn't (imo) for Discovery (but was for Picard - just awful)

The Obi-Wan show ended pretty well (IMO). It certainly had some issues early on, but then again there hasn't been a Star Wars product since Empire that hasn't had its fair share of rubbish. The primary characters of Kenobi and Vader were decently portrayed and had some good moments together that still tied in with both the prequels and OG trilogies, which (to me at least) was really what mattered.

I never finished either the books or the show for Wheel of Time, so cannot speak to that one, but a recent adaptation that did irk me was Without Remorse. One of my favorite Clancy novels, the adaptation that was released last year was a disappointment. Not because the main character was cast as a black man or that the story was modernized rather than set in the 1970's, both of those changes worked just fine. It was that the story was drastically changed from "seasoned special forces veteran dragged into conflict with pimps and drug lords" to "seasoned special forces veteran dragged into conflict with Russian special forces terrorists trying to start WWIII".

Anyway, I only bring that up to point out that big changes aren't necessarily the same thing as changes to the core of the source material. For Without Remorse, changing the time setting by 45 years and casting Michael B. Jordan were "big" changes in terms of visuals, but they weren't changes to the core of the story. Likewise for Rings of Power, I haven't seen any good arguments that the core of Tolkien's works is being changed. Not only does it help that the show is covering events that were never fully fleshed out in the source material, it seems like most detractors are only focused on relatively minor details. Nothing I've seen so far (warrior-ish Galadriel, dark skinned elves, female orcs) really detracts from the source material which even Tolkien himself recognized was simply a foundation to be expanded upon.

But sure, the story might well end up being shit, but not because of any of the things that people who have only seen pictures and trailers are bitching about.

[Triceron]

Doesn't mean people are going to like it or appreciate it being so altered.

There's only one gauge for whether people are going to like or appreciate it, and it's whether it's done well.

If it's a good series, then people will like it and remember it for what it is. If it is done poorly, then it will be forgotten or live on in infamy.

Whether the story is altered or not is irrelevant. Peter Jackson's LOTR Trilogy is HEAVILY altered from the original books, but it's a great movie series. Hobbit followed in the same vein, and was poorly received. Both altered many things in the books, and it wasn't down to one being more successful than the other because it stayed true to the source. Hardly the case at all.

The PJ LOTR Trilogy is so well received that most people's recollection of LOTR has become altered by the medium. For example, most people will associate Legolas having Blonde hair because of the movies, even though his hair color was never actually described in the books. Or they will see the Balrog as a winged creature, even though it was never described with wings in the books. It's not true to the source, but it has become so popular and well accepted that the alterations don't get in the way of the enjoyment of the series. That is the beauty of adaptations; they present new ways of interpreting the fiction. A winged devil-like Balrog looks more intimidating than if it did not have wings.

[Rennadrel]

Imagine the audacity of giving sentient creatures agency....

Most Orcs aren't really sentient though in Middle Earth. Those with any level of agency like the pack leaders, are still controlled by much more powerful beings like Saruman, Morgoth, Sauron or the Witch King. They basically amount to slaves with a singular mindset and that is of those controlling them. Robert Jordan used similar concepts for the Trollocs in WoT, though Trolloc hordes in those books actually have a pack leader with them at all times for the majority of the series (it isn't until much later that they are seen without a Myrdraal leading them).

[Triceron]

Most Orcs aren't really sentient though in Middle Earth. Those with any level of agency like the pack leaders, are still controlled by much more powerful beings like Saruman, Morgoth, Sauron or the Witch King. They basically amount to slaves with a singular mindset and that is of those controlling them. Robert Jordan used similar concepts for the Trollocs in WoT, though Trolloc hordes in those books actually have a pack leader with them at all times for the majority of the series (it isn't until much later that they are seen without a Myrdraal leading them).

Orcs may technically be considered 'soulless', but they are considered sentient beings. Even if their mindsets are singular, they are individually so, and not privy to some animalistic 'hive mind'. Trollocs are not mindless either, and despite a low intelligence, are still considered sentient.

[rogoth]

Hang on a second, just need to adjust to this massive goalpost move from "conjured out of thin air" and "never existed in the lore of the universe" to "show me the exact line of text" from specific books about specific times. Such a line doesn't exist, the Red Book of Westmarch (the fictional manuscript Tolkien pretended was the source of his Middle Earth novels) maintains that Hobbits know nothing of their origins and all the authors could find was myths and stories from the Rohirim.

However we know from other works that Hobbits are of the race of Men which means their ancestors awoke at Hildorien at the dawn of the First Age of the Sun. Anything between then and their making contact with other peoples during the Third Age is pure speculation and it will be interesting to see how exactly they handle it.



The actress they chose to play the role has dark skin. As dwarves were originally carved from rock by Aule and the sun is a magic piece of fruit whatever ideas you have about skin-tone in the real world probably doesn't apply the same, unless you're also upset about how Gimli didn't spend all his time complaining about sunburn and the symptoms of vitamin D deficiency.



In Tolkien's words;

"When I came to think of it, in my own imagination, beards were not found among Hobbits (as stated in text); nor among the Eldar (not stated). All male Dwarves had them. The wizards had them, though Radagast (not stated) had only short, curling, light brown hair on his chin. Men normally had them when full-grown, hence Eomer, Theoden and all others named. But not Denethor, Boromir, Faramir, Aragorn, Isildur, or other Númenórean chieftains."




I don't know what you're talking about here.



This was already covered beautifully by @ringpriest (go back to their post to see Tolkien's actual quotes.)





What do you consider to be the canonical character of Elrond at this point in his life, what are you basing it on?



Please explain how you can read my statement "That doesn't meant it will definitely be good but it will certainly be interesting" and think I'm describing it as "the best thing ever."

so in summary, you agree with my statement regarding harfoots, in that they never existed in any of the works that this pathetic excuse for a media company have the rights to, and as such there's no source material ergo they are a fan fiction creation of pure fantasy by these so called show runners, yes?

i have no idea what you're talking about 'goalposts' for when it's very clear my context is entirely focused upon the material they have the rights to, and as such EVERYTHING they have shown thus far is fan fiction pure and simple, it is not grounded in the lore of the Tolkien universe, it has literally no basis in lore for anything that they have shown regarding teaser material, and yet you're here telling me i'm wrong?

based on what has been shown so far they are trying to springboard off the downfall of numenor, meaning that this takes place around 3300 SA, and they have come out and said that they are going to be bending the space-time continuum to make it so events that happened centuries apart are going to happen almost concurrently throughout this show, meaning that people who would never have met are all of a sudden going to be best friends, and places that fell into ruin are suddenly going to be vibrant and full of life because they need it that way for whatever bullshit story they are trying to tell to make sense, but i guess you glossed over that part entirely?

'what do you consider to be the canonical character of Elrond at this point in his life, what are you basing it on?': assuming they are using the time period i have said above, within a few centuries of time Elrond was not only the herald to Gil-Galad the last high king of the Noldor, he was a warrior, a tactician and great scholar, he knew battle tactics and was fearsome in battle in his own right and within a century of the fall of Numenor he was leading the line of Noldor alongside Gil-Galad across the plains of Gorgoroth as the last alliance of men and elves, yet in this show they are trying to portray him as some kind of feeble and weak politician who acts behind the scenes and is very hands off, please tell me where in any of the written works 'The Hobbit', 'The Lord of the Rings' and their appendices it's stated that Elrond is in any way some kind of shadow character who is only interested in politics at this point of the second age?

my comment about the super elf and his taboo romance is his entire plot, he is some kind of wandering elf who makes friends with a single mother who is human and they fall madly in love, that's his entire plot, also, he has the magical power to slow down time and pull arrows out of the air and fire them back at the person who originally shot them, because we all know that elves have those kinds of powers /s.

- - - Updated - - -

Most Drow spend their entire lives deep underground, and their species has literal black skin (and not just the dark brown that we call "black"). Hell, this is a WoW fan website, so most people should know about Dark Iron dwarves who are depicted in various shades of charcoal. If you wanted to make the case that all Tolkien Dwarves should be white because they live underground, then you'd have to make the case that they should be much much more pale that they're usually depicted. Like, Gollum levels of pale. Since that's an example of a single individual who lived hundreds of years away from the sun, and not an entire species who would have adapted to that environment.

Or, you could just get the fuck over it and deal with the fact that it's a fantasy race in a fantasy setting and the skin color of them being roughly analogous to IRL humans isn't remarkable.


Different people have different hairstyles. News at 11. The "hot" dwarves in the Hobbit barely had beards at all. At least not compared to the giant chin-manes that the stereotypical dwarf is depicted with. Do you think that was what made those movies mediocre?


And this is just the same exact dumbass complaint as the one I just addressed. So...ditto. The "super elf" thing is particularly cute, though, given that...you know...movie Legolas is a thing that exists.



I said it before, but literally every adaptation whose screenplay isn't written by the original author is just fan fiction. Because those fans bring their own interpretations and cut/add material as they see fit to tell the story they want to tell. This is basic shit, and the fact that you think it's some knock-down argument against this production in particular, is laughable.

i don't see what the dungeons and dragons characters have to do with middle earth lore and characters therein, but sure, nice strawman you got there, same goes for WoW, what in any way shape or form has that got to do with the price of cheese?, in short nothing whatsoever you just seem to be using it as justification for bad writing/casting.

i never watched the hobbit films so i can't answer your probably rhetorical question of whether the still images i have seen online of the female dwarves in those films having some degree of facial hair making the films mediocre, i can tell you from the memes and the various shorts i have seen of the films that it's a lot more than that most likely.

with regards to legolas in the LOTR trilogy the only reason i could give it a pass is because most of what was done isn't really that egregious, but literally slowing down time and catching an arrow out of the air mid flight without causing severe friction burns to the skin that comes in contact with it, not to mention the sheer idiocy of it all is beyond the tipping point, but you know, keep harping on a broken record.

there have been dozens of absolutely stupendous films made that are pure adaptations of source material with little to no changes made in the source material and it works, and yet here almost everything shown so far as promotional material is not only a pure fabrication of whoever they are paying to write this shit, it's not even believable shit, it's so fantastical and beyond the realms of possibility within the framework of the established lore it's a sick joke and calling it 'faithful' is the same as digging up Tolkien's grave and spitting on whatever remains, i genuinely don't see how you can defend this shit, but again you seem to like tangential things and comparing apples to oranges so i'm sure you'll find a way to jump through enough hoops to make your points stick.

[Bladesyphon]

It's even funnier seeing the posts replying to it about how ridiculous a fanfic like this is, while defending... get this, a ridiculous fanfic. But because it's big budget and coming to Amazon, it MUST be more true to Tolkiens work!

I was actually kind of confused about him responding to you seriously... I mean, it's kind of obvious you were joking, wasn't it? But yeah, you're right, apparently because Amazon made it and is trying to make the show "inclusive", suddenly it justifies their own fanfic. You know, like what they did to the Wheel of Time (and I will never not be mad about that).

[Dhrizzle]

so in summary, you agree with my statement regarding harfoots, in that they never existed in any of the works that this pathetic excuse for a media company have the rights to, and as such there's no source material ergo they are a fan fiction creation of pure fantasy by these so called show runners, yes?

No, the Harfoots exist in the history of Middle-Earth as one of the three breeds of Hobbits that existed in ancient times. While they are only recorded by other peoples from the Third Age and the Hobbits themselves have no knowledge of their history before then Tolkien stated they had lived for "many long years" beneath the notice of the great powers, just a relatively humble group in a world filled with strange creatures.

i have no idea what you're talking about 'goalposts' for when it's very clear my context is entirely focused upon the material they have the rights to, and as such EVERYTHING they have shown thus far is fan fiction pure and simple, it is not grounded in the lore of the Tolkien universe, it has literally no basis in lore for anything that they have shown regarding teaser material, and yet you're here telling me i'm wrong?

It's a massive shift to go from "these do not exist in Tolkien's mythology" to "they are not specifically mentioned in these particular writings." There's a huge gap in the history of Middle Earth between men awakening and them first making contact with the Elves which is when their recorded history really begins. If the Hobbits' ancestors had split from the other Men before then there is plenty of time for them to become Halflings (if they didn't start out that way from the dawn of the First Age.) So while nothing in Tolkien's writings directly states that Hobbits existed in the Second Age there is also nothing to contradict the idea that they could.

BTW the rights aren't as clear cut as you seem to think. They have the rights to the appendices and that allows them to look at other works where they crossover. They can't use anything from the Silmarillion (for example) that isn't mentioned in the appendices, but it isn't strictly off-limits.

based on what has been shown so far they are trying to springboard off the downfall of numenor, meaning that this takes place around 3300 SA, and they have come out and said that they are going to be bending the space-time continuum to make it so events that happened centuries apart are going to happen almost concurrently throughout this show, meaning that people who would never have met are all of a sudden going to be best friends, and places that fell into ruin are suddenly going to be vibrant and full of life because they need it that way for whatever bullshit story they are trying to tell to make sense, but i guess you glossed over that part entirely?

"Bending the space-time continuum" is a bit over dramatic, but yes the compression of the timeline is a concern. I have heard that it isn't solely about moving events closer together so flashbacks, memories and exposition could play a part. Overall it is the biggest challenge they face and it will be interesting to see how they balance the needs of a television show with capturing the spirit of the age.

'what do you consider to be the canonical character of Elrond at this point in his life, what are you basing it on?': assuming they are using the time period i have said above, within a few centuries of time Elrond was not only the herald to Gil-Galad the last high king of the Noldor, he was a warrior, a tactician and great scholar, he knew battle tactics and was fearsome in battle in his own right and within a century of the fall of Numenor he was leading the line of Noldor alongside Gil-Galad across the plains of Gorgoroth as the last alliance of men and elves, yet in this show they are trying to portray him as some kind of feeble and weak politician who acts behind the scenes and is very hands off, please tell me where in any of the written works 'The Hobbit', 'The Lord of the Rings' and their appendices it's stated that Elrond is in any way some kind of shadow character who is only interested in politics at this point of the second age?

I think your guess about the time period might be off. It's called Rings of Power and I suspect it might deal with the origin of the rings, moving towards the Fall of Numenor. This means we will see Elrond as the herald and lieutenant of Gil-Galad founding Rivendell which looks like the start of his time as a ruler of territory not just a leader.

my comment about the super elf and his taboo romance is his entire plot, he is some kind of wandering elf who makes friends with a single mother who is human and they fall madly in love, that's his entire plot, also, he has the magical power to slow down time and pull arrows out of the air and fire them back at the person who originally shot them, because we all know that elves have those kinds of powers /s.

Dunno what the /s is for. Tolkien's Elves are powerful individuals and such a feat isn't beyond them at all. The mightiest elves were capable of fighting balrogs for Eru's sake. I think what you are calling a "magical power to slow down time" is probably a technique called "slow motion" used to show the Elf's faster reactions and movements in a way that we can see and appreciate.

there have been dozens of absolutely stupendous films made that are pure adaptations of source material with little to no changes made in the source material and it works, and yet here almost everything shown so far as promotional material is not only a pure fabrication of whoever they are paying to write this shit, it's not even believable shit, it's so fantastical and beyond the realms of possibility within the framework of the established lore it's a sick joke and calling it 'faithful' is the same as digging up Tolkien's grave and spitting on whatever remains, i genuinely don't see how you can defend this shit, but again you seem to like tangential things and comparing apples to oranges so i'm sure you'll find a way to jump through enough hoops to make your points stick.

All this says to me is that you don't really know what there is in the "established lore." Tolkien left a wealth of writings that scholars pick through, and his unpublished works tell many versions of the history of Arda. Don't forget even the Silmarillion remained unpublished in his lifetime and notes and letters show he was going to make major changes to the text that was released after his death.

[Triceron]

so in summary, you agree with my statement regarding harfoots, in that they never existed in any of the works that this pathetic excuse for a media company have the rights to, and as such there's no source material ergo they are a fan fiction creation of pure fantasy by these so called show runners, yes?

Harfoots are literally mentioned in the Appendices. They are a Tolkien creation.

We just know very little about them.

[bledgor]

Harfoots are literally mentioned in the Appendices. They are a Tolkien creation.

We just know very little about them.

We know the time period they were around, give you a hint it wasn't the 2nd age.

[Dhrizzle]

We know the time period they were around, give you a hint it wasn't the 2nd age.

We know the time period that people first started taking note of them but not when a group recognisable as halflings first appeared.