Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[bledgor]

The issue with judging on these merits is Tolkien published almost nothing about the Second Age and the vast amounts that were published posthumously show dramatically changing ideas around the characters and events involved. It isn't like the LotR movies where Jackson took a finished product and made changes to the tone and drastically changed some of the key characters.

What is clear is that the people writing this show have done their homework and most of the things being complained about by YouTubers can be justified somewhere in the text, or at the very least aren't directly contradicted (apart form the racism but that isn't worth engaging with.) The biggest risk is the changes to the timeline of the Second Age and how much it is being compressed, whether it will be justified by the final product and achieved without detracting too much from the theme.

No where in ANY text was Galadrial a warrior, so was describe as an amazon, yes, but that doesn't mean a warrior, her only involvement in a battle was tearing down a fortress with magic. She was also married to Celeborn in this age, and they had children one of which was a daughter that married Elrond, we know this. She was one of the oldest Elves, we know this, older than Celebrimbor and Gal-Galad, yet in the show she is depicted as younger than them both, and "brash and full of piss and vinegar" which she certainly wasn't in this age as she was looking to rule in this age with her husband. No where in the text did she go to Numenor, or interact with the "queen reagent" Mireil (who never was queen reagent, she was supposed to be but got screwed over). Elrond was also the first one to suspect Anatar of being Sauron, not Galadrial.

That is some of the issues from text with ONE CHARACTER. I could go on, but why should I when neither you nor the show runners did your research.

[Xath]

Because the same people that complain about “inclusion” are the same people that can’t read more than 280 characters.

Also the ones who won't actually watch the stuff they want changed even after it is changed.

[bledgor]

I'm going to call that one out too...because you are literally debating that it is a bad adaptation.

I'm not, I am telling you why you are wrong, there is no debate unless you don't know the lore/Tolkien, or actively hate him/his work.

[s_bushido]

No where in ANY text was Galadrial a warrior, so was describe as an amazon, yes, but that doesn't mean a warrior, her only involvement in a battle was tearing down a fortress with magic.

lol...are you fucking kidding me? "Amazon" is literally synonymous with "warrior woman."

She was also married to Celeborn in this age, and they had children one of which was a daughter that married Elrond, we know this. She was one of the oldest Elves, we know this, older than Celebrimbor and Gal-Galad, yet in the show she is depicted as younger than them both

Is how they look relevant, when a defining characteristic of their species is that they essentially stop aging after reaching their prime? And given the connection between spirit and body that elves display, it's trivial to dismiss any incongruencies there as different people reaching that sort of maturity at different points.

Besides, Blanchett was younger than Clarkk is when filming the original trilogy... 10 years younger than her "son" Elrond.

[bledgor]

lol...are you fucking kidding me? "Amazon" is literally synonymous with "warrior woman."

No it isn't some take take it that way, but it doesn't matter BECAUSE SHE NEVER FOUGHT IN ANY OF HIS WORKS MINUS USING MAGIC.

lIs how they look relevant, when a defining characteristic of their species is that they essentially stop aging after reaching their prime? And given the connection between spirit and body that elves display, it's trivial to dismiss any incongruencies there as different people reaching that sort of maturity at different points.

Besides, Blanchett was younger than Clarkk is when filming the original trilogy... 10 years younger than her "son" Elrond.

Okay then why does Celebrimbor look like he could be her mother, why is she describes as brash and full of vinegar if they are supposed to be leaders and acting more maturely when she is older. Also while Blanchett might have been younger, she certainly didn't look like it, she looked like an ethereal 30(?) year old elf, meanwhile Clarkk looks like she is barely in her twenties, which would be okay if we were in the Time of the Trees and the rest of the elves younger than her looked as young as she did, but they don't instead again Celebrimbor (who was a suitor or hers btw) looks like her dad, and frankly so could Gil-Galad, both of who are YOUNGER than Galadrial.

Again you have nothing to disrupt any of my points other than vague tangents. You ignored the half a dozen of my other points to nit pick two things that aren't even incorrect. You obviously aren't a fan of Tolkien so no point continuing to talk to you.

Also Elrond wasn't her son, I know you have read 0 Tolkien lore, but Elrond is her SON-IN-LAW (he marries her daughter that she has with her still living husband Celeborn, someone who is rumors are right is dead in the show.).

[Veggie50]

No it isn't some take take it that way, but it doesn't matter BECAUSE SHE NEVER FOUGHT IN ANY OF HIS WORKS MINUS USING MAGIC.



Okay then why does Celebrimbor look like he could be her mother, why is she describes as brash and full of vinegar if they are supposed to be leaders and acting more maturely when she is older. Also while Blanchett might have been younger, she certainly didn't look like it, she looked like an ethereal 30(?) year old elf, meanwhile Clarkk looks like she is barely in her twenties, which would be okay if we were in the Time of the Trees and the rest of the elves younger than her looked as young as she did, but they don't instead again Celebrimbor (who was a suitor or hers btw) looks like her dad, and frankly so could Gil-Galad, both of who are YOUNGER than Galadrial.

Again you have nothing to disrupt any of my points other than vague tangents. You ignored the half a dozen of my other points to nit pick two things that aren't even incorrect. You obviously aren't a fan of Tolkien so no point continuing to talk to you.

Also Elrond wasn't her son, I know you have read 0 Tolkien lore, but Elrond is her SON-IN-LAW (he marries her daughter that she has with her still living husband Celeborn, someone who is rumors are right is dead in the show.).

In lotr frodo is in his 60’s, in PJ’s adaptation he appears slightly younger.

It’s an adaptation, not a transcription. There will be differences that the showrunners deem necessary to get the story across. It is literally art BASED on tolkien, not a 1:1 retelling.

If that doesn’t suit you, don’t watch it. I think I’m likely to thoroughly enjoy it ^^

[bledgor]

In lotr frodo is in his 60’s, in PJ’s adaptation he appears slightly younger.

It’s an adaptation, not a transcription. There will be differences that the showrunners deem necessary to get the story across. It is literally art BASED on tolkien, not a 1:1 retelling.

If that doesn’t suit you, don’t watch it. I think I’m likely to thoroughly enjoy it ^^

... IT isn't even close, I am not saying this will make it a bad or good show (I suspect bad, but whatever), I AM SAYING IT MAKES IT A BAD adaptation. It is fine for a race to look younger than humans/how we view ages, I get that, but it has to work the same relatively for the race. You can't have an elf that is older than two other elves, yet looks like their daughter/looks the same age as an elf thousands of years younger than her.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm not, I am telling you why you are wrong, there is no debate unless you don't know the lore/Tolkien, or actively hate him/his work.

You are telling people why you believe they are wrong. They are responding by telling you that they believe you are being premature.

That's the literal definition of a debate.

[bledgor]

You are telling people why you believe they are wrong. They are responding by telling you that they believe you are being premature.

That's the literal definition of a debate.

They are responding with things false/incorrect, I am stating things that are factually true, that you can look up/read the books to prove are right (so not my BELIEF as you want to try and frame it, FACTUALLY FUCKING TRUE, FEEL FREE TO LOOK IT UP). Just because people write some stupid incorrect shit doesn't make them right, but you and the others continue to defend factually wrong things in this shit tier adaptation.

Again you are free to "believe" (as you like to say) the story will be good, that is possible, but when almost everything they have shown is not how Tolkien wrote it you can't say it is a good adaptation.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

They are responding with things false/incorrect, I am stating things that are factually true, that you can look up/read the books to prove are right (so not my BELIEF as you want to try and frame it, FACTUALLY FUCKING TRUE, FEEL FREE TO LOOK IT UP). Just because people write some stupid incorrect shit doesn't make them right, but you and the others continue to defend factually wrong things in this shit tier adaptation.

It is your BELIEF that the changes they have made to the "FACTUALLY FUCKING TRUE" things necessitate that this is automatically a bad adaptation.

[bledgor]

It is your BELIEF that the changes they have made to the "FACTUALLY FUCKING TRUE" things necessitate that this is automatically a bad adaptation.

... So you are daft, no point talking with you.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

... So you are daft, no point talking with you.

I'm not the one debating something that apparently isn't a debate.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

https://www.esquire.com/entertainmen...ferences-book/


womp womp

Bolded is basically the exact same shit the showrunners have said about this, which dipshits are roasting them for sight-unseen.

What is this have to do with anything lol?

Generally speaking dune widely considered to be a great and spiritually authentic adaptation at least so far. I can't imagine anyone watching that movie and thinking it was an attempt to hijack it with new characters completely change important existing ones. Paul is..Paul.

If anything, this basically loops back to my point about how producers and whatnot want to be seen as good people, the amount of politics and negotiation and buzzwords you have to throw out to convince people in the media that you're doing certain things these days is nuts!

[Dhrizzle]

No where in ANY text was Galadrial a warrior, so was describe as an amazon, yes, but that doesn't mean a warrior, her only involvement in a battle was tearing down a fortress with magic. She was also married to Celeborn in this age, and they had children one of which was a daughter that married Elrond, we know this. She was one of the oldest Elves, we know this, older than Celebrimbor and Gal-Galad, yet in the show she is depicted as younger than them both, and "brash and full of piss and vinegar" which she certainly wasn't in this age as she was looking to rule in this age with her husband. No where in the text did she go to Numenor, or interact with the "queen reagent" Mireil (who never was queen reagent, she was supposed to be but got screwed over). Elrond was also the first one to suspect Anatar of being Sauron, not Galadrial.

That is all the issues from text with ONE CHARACTER. I could go on, but why should I when neither you nor the show runners did your research.

You're making assumptions as to what Tolkien meant by "amazon," when in another letter he clearly defines it as a female soldier. He was a scholar and fan of myths so what else would he use the term "amazon" for if not in reference to the warrior-women of Greek myths? In later texts Galadriel most certainly fought at the first kinslaying and there are several times she would have fought defensively (as all elf-women do at times of need,) as well as there being at least one version who would have answered the call of Eonwe and fought in the War of Wrath. As one of the most powerful elves (if not the most powerful elf) in Middle-earth, a leader who travelled frequently, considered herself a commander and was concerned with the dark stain left by Morgoth from the start of the Second Age, it is difficult to see why Galadriel would not have found herself involved in battles throughout the lands. Out of interest, in your mind, what "magic" did Galadriel use to tear down a fortress (I assume you mean Dol Guldur?)

Depending on which ageing system you use for elves Galadriel remained in the life-stage Tolkien referred to as "youth" either until the end of the Second Age or right through to the end of the Third. Using a young actress is not inappropriate and having her appear younger than Gil-galad is an issue with casting humans to play elves, the only casting decision I really have an issue with is Celebrimbor though I'll be interested to see if the try to justify him appearing older in the series or if they just liked the actor.

I don't know how Annatar is being introduced in RoP for you to say who suspected what and when, what is made clear in her story is Galadriel was most acutely aware of dark forces moving in the wake of Morgoth's defeat, though at that time no-one knew it was sourced from one agent who would be revealed as Sauron.

In general though Galadriel's character was very much in flux throughout Tolkien's life and her exact actions during the Second Age no doubt would have been made clear if he had got around to rewriting the Silmarillion as he intended. It's the uncertain nature of the Second Age that makes it fertile ground for telling stories without rewriting works that Tolkien had already set down as "canon."

[Nerovar]

What political goals, are you expecting this film to be a cry for universal healthcare or lower taxes or something?

The more recent push for representation in media is a political goal whether you like it or not. I don't think this is really up for debate. Rewriting stories, characters and settings in order to conform with changing political realities is political.

Sorry what are the "explicitly stated" gender relations of Numenor in the Second Age, where are they written? I can make suppositions based on how elvish society is organised and the fact Numenoreans are "high men" who are elevated close to the Eldar in nature but I don't know anything concrete.

This is from the Unfinished Tales iirc:
"Men in Númenor are half-Elves (said Erendis), especially the high men; they are neither the one nor the other. The long life that they were granted deceives them, and they dally in the world, children in mind, until age finds them – and then many only forsake play out of doors for play in their houses. They turn their play into great matters and great matters into play. They would be craftsmen and loremasters and heroes all at once; and women to them are but fires on the hearth – for others to tend, until they are tired of play in the evening. All things were made for their service: hills are for quarries, rivers to furnish water or to turn wheels, trees for boards, women for their body’s need, or if fair to adorn their table and hearth[...]For men fashioned Númenor: men, those heroes of old that they sing of – of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain."
Of course, there's a lot of time between Tar-Aldarion's rule and the time when this show takes place (though I'm not exactly sure when it takes place because of the timeline compression).

You should at least read a little more carefully. The "knights" are not "knights" in a feudal sense but "knights" in a "special warrior class" sense, the fealty isn't to Denethor as liege-lord it is too Gondor as a land. These make Gondor very different to feudal Europe. Also the Hobbit's name isn't Pippin, it's Razar. Pippin is the translation from Westron to Old English.

Feudalism isn't the sole defining characteristic of the middle ages nor were knights exclusive to the feudal system. I have no interest in going into more detail about the article since it's not really related to the discussion.

[Adamas102]

Some changes, not literally deleting dozens of characters, adding half a dozen new characters, condensing thousands of years into a couple years, etc. There are so many fucking changes mate, so no try again.

Literally the only way you could argue otherwise is you don't give a single fuck about the lore, or you you hate Tolkien, so which is it?

Lore lore lore. Blah blah blah. The lore is interesting, but it's only fluff in comparison to narrative and story telling. As I've said before, if it weren't for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, this part of Tolkien's work would be long forgotten by anyone other than scholars who are interested in how a philologist might construct fictional languages and histories. "The lore" (especially what was buried in side notes and appendices) isn't what made those stories so enduring.

You want to see how this works? Sauron, the Balrog, the Nazgul, the orcs, Shelob. Of all the lore that Tolkien created for these antagonists, how much did the movies need to convey for them to be effective/scary/imposing villains? Did we need to know the deep history of the Numenorians and the Dunedain to understand Aragorn's character? Did we need to know the full backstory of the Maiar for Gandalf to play the part of the wise sage? Again, lore can be interesting, but telling a good story doesn't depend on it.

Maybe it would do you some good to pick up your copy of LotR and take a look at "the lore" that this show had available to it. In Appendix A: Numenor it's one page, back to front. In Appendix B: The Tale of Years it's another single page, and 3/4ths of it is just a list of "year - event". This isn't some amazing work of art that must be preserved at all costs. Even Tolkien himself wasn't above reconning as he saw fit, sometimes fixing inconsistencies and at other times creating new inconsistencies.

But hey, maybe someday someone else with buy the rights to The Silmarillion and make a word for word adaptation of the 30 pages of the Akallabeth for you and the other purists.

[bledgor]

You're making assumptions as to what Tolkien meant by "amazon," when in another letter he clearly defines it as a female soldier. He was a scholar and fan of myths so what else would he use the term "amazon" for if not in reference to the warrior-women of Greek myths? In later texts Galadriel most certainly fought at the first kinslaying and there are several times she would have fought defensively (as all elf-women do at times of need,) as well as there being at least one version who would have answered the call of Eonwe and fought in the War of Wrath. As one of the most powerful elves (if not the most powerful elf) in Middle-earth, a leader who travelled frequently, considered herself a commander and was concerned with the dark stain left by Morgoth from the start of the Second Age, it is difficult to see why Galadriel would not have found herself involved in battles throughout the lands. Out of interest, in your mind, what "magic" did Galadriel use to tear down a fortress (I assume you mean Dol Guldur?)

Debate-ably she fought in the kinslaying, as it changed, fine I forgot about the kinslaying POSSIBLY being a time she fought (though again it could have been as a wizard and not warrior), at no point can I find/recall her fighting in defense though, only at Alqualonde did Tolkien alter it later in his text to say she fought vs the sons of Feanor. As for the war of wrath I don't ever remember reading, quote that shit. I agree she is one of the most powerful elves, but being powerful doesn't = a warrior, she was always shown as a leader first, and a powerful spellcaster 2nd. At no point did we see her shown as a warrior/someone to fight on the front line with a sword (which is the issue with the rings of power, if they had Galadriel fighting in the back with magic, I would still be annoyed, but it would be acceptable levels like LoTR changes).

For Dol Guldur iirc the description used is similar to the description Luthien used for Til-in-Gaurhoth, so she basically used magic to destroy the stone walls, towers, etc.

Depending on which ageing system you use for elves Galadriel remained in the life-stage Tolkien referred to as "youth" either until the end of the Second Age or right through to the end of the Third. Using a young actress is not inappropriate and having her appear younger than Gil-galad is an issue with casting humans to play elves, the only casting decision I really have an issue with is Celebrimbor though I'll be interested to see if the try to justify him appearing older in the series or if they just liked the actor.

Like I said, it is all about the relativity of it, you can't have Galadriel looking the same age as Elrond (who is significantly younger) while looking at least a generation younger than Gil-Galad or Celebrimbor, who are both younger than her. If you use a young actress for Galadriel you also have to use young ones for Gil-Galad and Celebrimbor, and a younger one for Elrond (late teenage vs 20s for the other 3). I also don't have an issue with Gil-Galad, he is the only one I think is well cast (Elrond is okay age, but when you want to connect it to the LoTR mythos you should have found someone who looks closer to Hugo Weaving, this is another case where the Gil-Galad casting is spot on). I get liking an actor, but you have to keep the ages right or it messes shit up, you can't have people that are supposed to be younger looking like someones grandpa unless this is Benjamin Button. Cast a little bit older Galadriel, and a younger Celebrimbor, Elrond I would again been very annoyed with but could accept then.

I don't know how Annatar is being introduced in RoP for you to say who suspected what and when, what is made clear in her story is Galadriel was most acutely aware of dark forces moving in the wake of Morgoth's defeat, though at that time no-one knew it was sourced from one agent who would be revealed as Sauron.

? I am using the shit they told us in trailers/teasers, where Galadriel is being told be Elrond that the war is over, and she is like nah, then we have her talking with Mireil that darkness is coming. We also having Gil-Galad telling Elrond darkness is coming, when again in the books Elrond was the first to suspect, so more messed up stuff.

Also can I mention how fucking much I hate them throwing around the term politician to describe characters, I think they used it for 3 characters, including Elrond, who wasn't a politician, he was a leader, and a warrior. He was the herald of Gil-Galad and lead the elves with him in the battle vs Sauron in the War of the Elves and Sauron. It is disrespectful as fuck to paint him as some politician.

In general though Galadriel's character was very much in flux throughout Tolkien's life and her exact actions during the Second Age no doubt would have been made clear if he had got around to rewriting the Silmarillion as he intended. It's the uncertain nature of the Second Age that makes it fertile ground for telling stories without rewriting works that Tolkien had already set down as "canon."

In flux in some regards, but in other ways not. Her age never changed, her love and relationship with Celeborn never changed (RIP celeborn, either dead or forgotten), the birth of her children, her desire to be a good leader (not something one usually associates with brash and full of piss and vinegar), and if you asked most Tolkien fans one word to describe Galadriel, I would bet it is wise. She was always known better for her her leadership, her guidance, fuck even her casting of magic/spells/use of her ring Nenya, not her battling with a sword/fighting orcs head on. Again the only battle she was changed to fight in that I can recall is with the sons of Feanor, other elves(which again it never said she drew her sword and went into battle, it says fought).

Like you said there is room to work in the 2nd age, but the fact the few things we do know they are basically ignoring really fucks up any belief they are trying to be faithful. For example changes I can think of right now: all the Galadriel shit, the time length/period being massively condensed, the actions people did take/never did like Galadriel going to Numenor, the lack of Celeborn or Cirdan the shipwright, the inclusion of 6 new characters, the inclusion of Harfoots (who even if they did exist which is never shown didn't actively partake in any part of the age), and if rumors are right a wizard descending in the meteor which no wizard came till the 3rd age.

This is ignoring other large issues, like what actually happened to Mireil (she wasn't queen reagent, though her life is pretty fucking tragic), the fact two Durin's are alive at the same time (they are suspected to be reincarnations, couldn't be an in universe rumor if two lived at the same time), a Balrog being active (none where active in the 2nd age, it was either the war of wrath or well into the 3rd age when one awoke in Kazad-dum, so if they are including that in this story as the trailer hints at, it is now condensing like THREE THOUSAND years at least in this short time period).

This is all from what 4 minutes of footage they have shown and a dozen interviews, that is how many fuck ups I can come up with typing here, over that little of information being given. That is why I can't even comprehend how anyone can say this is a good/faithful adaptation, and why I believe it will be a shit show (which yes you can argue it will, all the power too you, but with the setup we have and how terrible Rafe of Time was, x to doubt).

[tikcol]

In flux in some regards, but in other ways not. Her age never changed, her love and relationship with Celeborn never changed (RIP celeborn, either dead of forgotten), the birth of her children, her desire to be a good leader (not something one usually associates with brash and full of piss and vinegar), and if you asked most Tolkien fans one word to describe her I would bet it is wise. She was always known better for her casting of magic/spells, not her battling with a sword and fighting orcs. Again the only battle she was changed to fight in that i can recall is with the sons of Feanor, other elves.

Where is Celeborn ? Weren't they already married? Maybe that's too boring for the showrunners. We might see Galadriel have a fling.. Independent women and all. So exciting !

[bledgor]

Where is Celeborn ? Weren't they already married? Maybe that's too boring for the showrunners. We might see Galadriel have a fling.. Independent women and all. So exciting !

ugh, dont make me more depressed. Saw someone on reddit said he heard she has a fling too, believe he claimed it was the new guy Halbrand. Would really cement what a steaming pile of shit this is.

Can't have her being a mother and giving birth to Celebrian (future wife of Elrond, mother of Arwen), nope has to be free and independent!!!

[Triceron]

Again you are free to "believe" (as you like to say) the story will be good, that is possible, but when almost everything they have shown is not how Tolkien wrote it you can't say it is a good adaptation.

Sure you can, because 'Good' is always going to be subjective.

Like, you're using the word bad as if there's any objective meaning behind it, but there isn't. Good and bad are subjective adjectives, nothing to do with objective fact. When anything is rendered good or bad, it is subject to general or personal opinion, but opinion nonetheless.

Perhaps you meant faithful adaptation, but even then if we're talking about adaptations, all measurement of quality would be subjective. There is no such thing as a purely faithful adaptation, as that would literally be a translation.

The only real context of a 'Good adaptation' is a 'An adaptation that people generally consider to be faithful and/or of good quality'. There is no factual basis beyond this.

Cuz that's pretty much how most people see PJ films. It's quality is good enough that most people overlook the fact that it is not a faithful adaptation at all. It is a very creatively liberal adaptation, where Balrogs are depicted with wings, Elves were present at Helms Deep and the Scouring of the Shire never really happened. We consider it a good adaptation not because it respected the books, but because its quality superceded its lack of faithfulness to the source material. Respect and faithfulness aren't the only metrics for a 'Good' adaptation, and if anything, popular concensus has more of a say than any factual basis of faithfulness to the source material.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/c...unfaithful_to/

The Shining, Jurassic Park, Blade Runner, Starship Troopers to name a few. Good movies that are adaptations of existing material. The metric of good and bad are merely applied to the movies. The term 'adaptation' applies because they are not unique creations, and are movies based on existing material. Thus, these are all considered Good Adaptations even if they aren't very similar to (or even respect) the source material.