Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Biomega]

That is not the case, most ppl can just completely enjoy something without any issues whatsoever

And people can take irredeemable issue with something, too.

To say one is possible but the other is not, that's basically a textbook definition of bias.

All the things you say you hate about the tv show can be purely subjective and many can like everything about all the things you hate about it.

And... vice versa.

This goes in both directions.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nuh-uh, it only works for the positives!" is not a position, it's a temper tantrum.

[Rennadrel]

That is not the case, most ppl can just completely enjoy something without any issues whatsoever, that is not bias its simple logic where many ppl just enjoy things as they are with no expectations or anything. All the things you say you hate about the tv show can be purely subjective and many can like everything about all the things you hate about it.

You however cant just claim a show is bad based on your own hate, if you gave an honest review noone would rate RoP a 1-2/10, but most ppl on the internet are far from honest about thier intentions.

You are never going to win this argument so you are better just accepting that, the show has been proven without any doubt its a good show and that isnt going to change.

Considering you are an apologist for a broken and garbage mess like Star Citizen, it comes as no surprise that you are also an apologist for this piss ass excuse for an attempt at doing something with Tolkien's work. Here's a thought though. People are allowed to criticize something, especially something that horribly misrepresents characters in existing works. The only thing this show has going for it is pretty visuals and passable music, everything else about it is garbage.

[eschatological]

There is a well known phenomenom in rating things called grading on a curve. It's been especially prevalent in video games, where less than an 8 can be considered a failure for a game. Being a 5/10 game is virtually unheard of - no one would probably be reviewing the shovelware games that would earn those scores. This has become so problematic that sequels have been approved based on their metacritic rating - with anything below an 8/10 or an 80 out of 100 isn't really worthy of it, business wise. 7 out of 10 is pretty much the lowest acceptable "standard" in that industry.

This happens all the time...because of fandom. This is a well-known sociological thing.

In reality, there are very few 10/10s. But people will have a wide swath of 10/10s in their personal opinion. I know someone who says Bloodbourne is a 10/10 video game. Is this true? Is it perfect? Maybe there's some minor bugs and glitches - but for its theme, its gameplay, its story - I can't really argue with her.

Meanwhile I don't know what video games/films deserve a 1/10. Battlefield: Earth, which was mentioned previously, is a good example of a potential "genuine 1/10." Even The Room doesn't qualify, because it's a(n unintentionally) hilarious movie. Even Waterworld wouldn't be a 1/10, imo, simply because of the sheer scale of the production and the technical expertise in pulling off that movie.

Human beings are prone to being positive.

[Triceron]

To me there is nothing wrong with RoP so i could happily give it a 10/10, i wouldnt give any show regardless of how bad it is a 1/10 though,

Right. And that's fine for you if you choose to use it this way. It's fine if you choose to give an artificial handicap to every movie out there, just being clear that this is exactly what it is.

There's a clear double standard in the way you're rating things. If that's how you personally choose to rate things, all the power to you, but no one else is beholden to this method.

1's and 2's will freely be given, and that's something that isn't going to change just because you personally wouldn't give a show a 1/10. Perhaps you've just never seen a movie so bad that it deserves a 1/10, I don't know.

[Shadowferal]

The "Librarians" to me was worth a 0/10. I try to give a new show 3 episodes to win me over. But I couldn't stomach the first 10mins of the 2nd episode.

[Xath]

So awards are meaningless yet your subjective taste in music is the ultimate authority? Vulgar music has been good before so I'm not even sure you understand the point you are trying to make.

Vulgar music can absolutely be good, music that is vulgar for the sake of shock value on the other hand rarely is.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there's a huge paranoia about critics being "bought and paid for" in this forum, not only in regards to cultural critics, but every facet of Western life. It rings hollow to me, it's the paranoia of conspiracy theorists who can't believe someone might just love tv and film so much to do it for near no money, and that they might have an expertise in how film and TV is made, and stories written.

They review thousands of film/shows, so obviously what they think of as "good" and "bad" is skewed.

I always compare it to literature. I know fellow nerds who think The Wheel of Time is the peak of literature. I, as an aspiring writer and avid reader, have read enough to know that that isn't true. Dostoevsky, to me, is the peak of literature. But to many people, Dostoevsky would be incomprehensible and perhaps even boring (a thought I can barely fathom). The same is true for people who only watch anime and think anime is the peak of television....and it's like, the best animated show ever, imo, isn't anime (it's BoJack Horseman, if you're curious).

It's not so much bought and paid for it's that you are rarely going to see a property with one of the big names behind it get a low score from a major outlet. IGN is absolutely infamous for this. This is because it can effect their future earning potential by leading to them no longer recieving invites to early screenings. Pre Covid most large outlets would be given experiences with their review time whether a game movie or show. You would either see it at a red carpet event or under an NDA at a 5 star hotel replete with luxuries. These factors absolutely color reviews without them technically being g bribes. It's the height of ignorance to claim they don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Define "good" (good for you maybe, but you seem to have bad taste and expectations like all can see in the SC thread)? And nope, the masses opinion is still subjective.

In his view literally any TV show is better than the book version of it because it supposedly has more consumers it's utterly idiotic. If you want to be suplexed by stupidity go read his posts in the WoT thread.

- - - Updated - - -

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

To take this to it's logical extremes should we start saying certain political groups are good because lots of people like them or is more likely that said groups appeals to the lcd complete with easily chantable slogans that other those not like them.

[rhorle]

To take this to it's logical extremes should we start saying certain political groups are good because lots of people like them or is more likely that said groups appeals to the lcd complete with easily chantable slogans that other those not like them.

No. Entertainment and political groups are two very different things. If a large group likes a song, movie, show, book etc then it is good by default because of its popularity. Enough people like it to put in the "good" category. Does it mean in technical terms it is "good" (writing, stagecraft, etc) not necessarily. There are plenty of bad things that were seen as good despite of or because of their flaws. Entertainment also already ties "good or bad" to how many people engage with it. Hence why Billboard/charts, best seller, mins streamed, etc all play a part in something being called good or not.

I'm pretty sure you, and others in this thread would use a low viewership of Rings of Power as evidence that it is bad. In fact some already have with the Samba TV numbers even though they don't give the full picture. You even used the staying power of views to label something bad in the Wheel of time thread. So if low viewership (or its staying power) is used as evidence of something being bad isn't large viewership evidence of it being the opposite?

[Triceron]

No. Entertainment and political groups are two very different things. If a large group likes a song, movie, show, book etc then it is good by default because of its popularity. Enough people like it to put in the "good" category. Does it mean in technical terms it is "good" (writing, stagecraft, etc) not necessarily. There are plenty of bad things that were seen as good despite of or because of their flaws. Entertainment also already ties "good or bad" to how many people engage with it. Hence why Billboard/charts, best seller, mins streamed, etc all play a part in something being called good or not.

I'm pretty sure you, and others in this thread would use a low viewership of Rings of Power as evidence that it is bad. In fact some already have with the Samba TV numbers even though they don't give the full picture. You even used the staying power of views to label something bad in the Wheel of time thread. So if low viewership (or its staying power) is used as evidence of something being bad isn't large viewership evidence of it being the opposite?

All you're really talking about is tribalism, and it exists in both the entertainment fandom and political front. There isn't really any difference between them other than the topic of discussion.

You put enough like-minded individuals in a group, and they're going to form a tribal ideology which their beliefs will be influenced and molded around. And those individuals will end up defending their ideals from any perceived threats without acknowledging what is truthful. That's why certain fandoms and political sides can get so toxic when faced with the truth of things.

Y'know, like white knights labelling anyone who critcizes Galadriel as a Galadriel Hater because it's become impossible to consider that anyone could be criticizing the character without actually hating her.

[rhorle]

All you're really talking about is tribalism, and it exists in both the entertainment fandom and political front. There isn't really any difference between them other than the topic of discussion.

People consuming a product is not tribalism.

[Triceron]

People consuming a product is not tribalism.

Consuming it, no. Speaking out in its defense based on their ideals of the product, yes.


Going to the forums and talking about it isn't merely consuming the product. It's engaging in discussions. And a conflict of ideals and grouping of individuals whether to defend or attack is where tribalism is most clearly apparant. You know, like calling certain people 'Haters'. That would be intentionally grouping anyone who expresses dislike of the show as a 'Hater', even if there are individuals who are merely expressing aspects of the show they don't like rather than it being a general commentary of the entire show. Generalizations get messy, but it's not like the tribalists care. It's in their interest to lump individuals into groups in order to dehumanize them and attack their ideologies out of principle.

[Xath]

No. Entertainment and political groups are two very different things. If a large group likes a song, movie, show, book etc then it is good by default because of its popularity. Enough people like it to put in the "good" category. Does it mean in technical terms it is "good" (writing, stagecraft, etc) not necessarily. There are plenty of bad things that were seen as good despite of or because of their flaws. Entertainment also already ties "good or bad" to how many people engage with it. Hence why Billboard/charts, best seller, mins streamed, etc all play a part in something being called good or not.

I'm pretty sure you, and others in this thread would use a low viewership of Rings of Power as evidence that it is bad. In fact some already have with the Samba TV numbers even though they don't give the full picture. You even used the staying power of views to label something bad in the Wheel of time thread. So if low viewership (or its staying power) is used as evidence of something being bad isn't large viewership evidence of it being the opposite?

No I used numbers in WoT to explain why it will get canceled. What makes it bad is that it is Rafe of Time not Wheel of Time. It could be a live Black Pink BTS Taylor Swift Bieber concert called Wheel of Time and get an insane number of views but it would still be bad as a Wheel of Time adaptation.

Entertainment much like politics is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator because that is the greatest portion of the human population a ton of views doesn't make something good. Also defending something illogically is absolutely tribalistic behavior.

[rhorle]

Speaking out in its defense based on their ideals of the product, yes.

Okay. That wasn't the topic of what was being discussed but thanks for sharing anyways.

[molliewoof]

second worst episode after the first.

perhaps because i only just realised the hobbits were dickheads this episode

just let galadriel act, she cant be THAT bad

those boats have fifty people on them each max, not 500 total.

send an army of 500 to middle earth to fight a war??

the helmets were dire, looked rubbery

im tired and was half asleep watching, there was more but i cant remember

series is probably a six out of ten so far, ill keep watching because i want to give fantasy series views

[Shadowferal]

National Lampoon has to be taking notes on this review;

‘The Rings Of Power’ Is Making A Mockery Of Tolkien’s Work

If someone were to adapt J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord Of The Rings trilogy in the same manner as Amazon is adapting its appendices that version would go something like this:

Rather than opening on the Shire and Bilbo’s party and a visit from Gandalf, and rather than tell the tale of Frodo and his companions’ fraught departure from their homeland, we would instead be introduced to four separate stories in the opening half hour.

In Story #1, a fierce Hobbit baker woman would encounter an orc and smack it to death with her rolling-pin. Then she’d gather the rest of the Shire to make for a ruined Hobbit castle, where she’d rally the Hobbits to make a valiant last stand against the nearby ditch-digging orcs led by an evil Hobbit with a striking resemblance to Lucius Malfoy.

In Story #2, Aragorn and a crack team of Gondor Rangers (go go Gondor Rangers!) would head for Mordor where they’d soon be captured, but Aragorn would be set free to take a message back to his people: Submit to Sauron or face extinction! Sauron is building a realm where evil will not merely survive, but prosper, after all. But Sauron would allow Aragorn to keep his weapons and armor.

In Story #3, Galadriel would set out from Lothlorien bedecked in full plate armor (as elves do) and head to Rohan where she’d make quick work of Wormtongue and rally the Riders of Rohan to war! She would be sure to show the warriors of Rohan how to swordfight while she was at it, and impress everyone with both her fighting skills and her people skills.

In Story #4, Elrond would send Legolas to the Lonely Mountain to enlist the aid of the dwarves, but in reality he’d have a secret plan even Legolas wasn’t aware of to trick the dwarves into giving them some precious jewels that would act as, uh, like an EMP grenade against Nazguls or something.

Each of these stories would be filled with mystery boxes: Aragorn would find a mysterious crown that wasn’t actually a crown. What is it actually?

The Hobbit baker lady would encounter a mysterious stranger . . . who may or may not be a good guy or a bad guy, but is almost certainly a guy (maybe?).

Whatever, soon the Hobbits will be at war! That’s the important thing! War!

“I know I’m not the king you had in mind, dear Hobbits, but will you stand by me and fight!?” the baker Hobbit would inexplicably ask her unwarlike people, who have no reason to follow her.

From here, rather than establish an adventure—or a fellowship of adventurers—the adaptation would double down on these branching storylines, making each as big and epic as possible right from the get-go, so that rather than having to craft interesting or compelling characters or stories, it becomes a narrative arms race, constantly upping the ante. The Hobbit baker lady doesn’t need a backstory or even a personality, for instance. Why bother?

Galadriel’s adventure would take her first to the ocean for a long swim, then to the jungles of the Even Further South Southlands, then to the North Pole where she would scornfully refuse advice from Santa Claus (who turns out to be a servant of Sauron and has enslaved worker elves in his diabolical factories).

Finally, she’d make it to Rohan along with her new friend Balhrand (the king of the Even Further South Southlands, we soon discover, and a roguish rogue who may or may not be a good guy or a bad guy but is definitely a guy).

In Rohan, we’d get lots of examples of what incompetent simps the Rohirrim are. Éowyn and Éomer would argue constantly over every imaginable thing. Éomer and his best friends would have an ongoing dispute because he tried to get kicked out of the Rohan Cavalry Brigade (The Plains Are Always Right!) and accidentally got his buddy kicked out, too, for reasons (Éomer is a total loser in this version by the way, and everyone hates and abuses him).

His friend is actually Boromir in this version, too, because why not? They argue a lot. Gosh do they argue. But Boromir is able to get a nick on Galadriel in their ballet sword fight where she takes on seven dozen Riders of Rohan at the same time, so now he’s a General and can abuse his friend even more.

At the Lonely Mountain, Gimli and Legolas would form an odd but endearing friendship marred by the absolutely gob-smacking ridiculousness of Elrond’s bizarre plan to trick the dwarves and neither would spend any time fighting orcs because don’t worry boys: Hobbit baker lady and Galadriel got this, yaaasssss girrrll.

Aragorn would eventually show up in the Shire and fall in love with the Hobbit baker lady, inciting a melodramatic love triangle between her, Aragorn and Arwen with lots of ensuing cattiness. If it’s not obvious, Aragorn represents the patriarchy here, something Tolkien himself was deeply, deeply concerned with. (In the end they both ditch him).

We discover—after Gimli convinces the elves to transport a giant stone chair all the way from Rivendell to the Lonely Mountain on foot—that the jewels Elrond has sent Legolas to find are actually the Silmarils because—get this!—they weren’t actually lost or destroyed, they were kept hidden in the Lonely Mountain this whole time!

WHAT? MIND BLOWN!

Smaug, it turns out, was actually a good guy, guarding the Jewels of Fëanor for thousands of years until the greedy dwarves, and their burglar, showed up. He knew that after the One Ring was forged the dwarves could no longer be trusted, so he protected the Silmarils and didn’t even let the elves know. Also, uh, something about how Tom Bombadil was actually a dragon rider at one point and that’s how Smaug was turned from evil and agreed to protect the Silmarils. (Okay, the Adventures Of Tom Bombadil and Smaug has a nice ring to it, I’ll admit).

Anyways, now Elrond and the dwarves can build a suit of armor made out of Silmarils and Galadriel can wear it when she single-handedly smacks down Sauron in a final duel to the death! Wait, not single-handedly because . . .

The Hobbit baker lady, resplendent in her yoga workout clothes, and Arwen in full plate armor, finally team up for some girl power with Galadriel and Éowyn in the final fight, while Aragorn and Éomer cheer from the sidelines, because it turns out that Sauron is just an extended metaphor for toxic masculinity.

In the final scene, Galadriel stabs Sauron through his cold black heart with her badass sword that she reforged at Mount Doom, and kicks him into the lava. Then she takes the Ring—which she’s had this whole time—and tosses it in after him.

“If you like it so much, Sauron,” she says, smirking while things explode behind her, “Then you better put a ring on it.”

This Lord of the Rings adaptation would cut between these various, largely unconnected storylines that have virtually nothing to do with the original source material at a breakneck pace.

Rather than spend time developing any of these characters or establishing a sense of adventure or camaraderie, the script would ensure that they all bicker endlessly with one another, and trick and deceive each other at every opportunity, all to be edgy and grimdark, because let’s face it: Nothing says ‘Tolkien’ like edgy and grimdark.

Mostly, Littlefinger’s Magical Teleportation Ring would get them all from one place to the next without bothering with such antiquated notions as ‘travel’ (baby, we’re in the 21st century now, we fast travel).

Thankfully, it would all be dressed up in pretty costumes and a rousing score and would imitate the aesthetics of Peter Jackson’s original film adaptations enough that we could describe the whole thing as ‘Tolkienesque’ and call it a day.

And somehow, I’d wager, there would be a massive pop culture war over whether or not this was an okay adaptation, whether the real problem was having some black Hobbits in it, and why anyone complaining was just a toxic fan who cares about “the lore.”

I’ve written at length about the many problems with The Rings Of Power, from its insufferable central protagonist to its abysmal writing, and I have other pieces in the works about specific issues I have with the show. (My review of Episode 5 is here).

But I wanted to point out here just how un-Tolkien-like the storytelling itself is. I have done so with humor and exaggeration but I hope you take my meaning. The Lord Of The Rings builds slowly around a small group of characters. It takes its time and carefully establishes its world and people. Much of its earlier chapters are spent on various charming friendships, or encounters with ethereal elves who sing into the night. Only much later are the characters separated or do we hear the drums of war. In adapting appendices there’s clearly more work to be done getting from notes to narrative, as it were, but this doesn’t even feel like Tolkien fan-fiction.

It’s not so much that Amazon has fiddled with the lore, it’s that the show’s writers and creators have told a story that simply wears the trappings of Middle-earth without understanding its thematic core, let alone even attempting to take a crack at Tolkien’s storytelling style. Peter Jackson’s films were not perfect and lord knows I had my issues with them when they came out, but at least it was obvious that he was trying to adapt Tolkien’s works as faithfully as possible (the same cannot be said for The Hobbit). Changes had to be made, for better or worse, but Jackson still did a mostly excellent job at translating page to screen.

What we have now with The Rings Of Power barely even resembles Middle-earth. It’s just a generic Hollywood fantasy created by people who badly misunderstands its source material and don’t seem to give a damn. Maybe that’s what’s begun irking me so badly. The show isn’t just straying from Tolkien’s lore; rather, its creators seem to think they know better, that they can do whatever they please with the source material, or that by ignoring it they can improve upon it somehow. There’s a certain degree of arrogance at play in the liberties they’ve taken that I find both insulting and unearned.

But even as generic fantasy, utterly divorced from any whiff of Middle-earth, this is not good. Even if you stripped Tolkien and his characters and world from this entirely and called Galadriel by a new name and made up a new villain entirely, this would be badly paced, unpleasant gobbledygook with few characters to care about or root for and a plot that feels rushed and slow at the same time. (Since no mention of Rings has been made yet, it would actually be quite easy to just insert new character and place names and turn this into a generic fantasy, and it would still be pretty awful).

[Orby]

National Lampoon has to be taking notes on this review;

‘The Rings Of Power’ Is Making A Mockery Of Tolkien’s Work

Rings of Power was always going to be a scary under taking. I watched Daniel Greene's episode 5 review and he kinda nailed it, the RoP team are basically going off of Glossary information, they don;t have rights for any major Tolkien books so they are trying to give us this grand art piece but they have all this space with no room to put everything on it. Or like Bilbo put it in Fellowship, '...sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread'.

So in the end you got RoP a show where it wants to try and be a middle ground, where they are trying to keep the source material (with what they have the rights to) and using creative liberties to fill in the gaps, and that middle ground is everything you see when the show feels off, the dialogue, or the designs, or the look, or the storyline.

Tolkiens text is very limited on the subject of what Rings of Power is trying to tell. Taking liberties they would make the angry Tolkien fans angry, and if they kept to the source material, it would be a mess because there isn't much to go on that would creative a proper narrative. So what we got is a mix of both. And going with Greene's review again, I wish they had just gone all out and said F it, the way Shadow of Mordor did, create a new story within the Middle Earth setting, around time chosen, instead of trying to make a puzzle with missing pieces.

Which leads to my opinion, it should have never been made in the first place. But I guess Amazon needed that money. Tolkien is still a money making franchise and amazon knows it can still make money, with the sacrifice of quality. also coming out around the same time as House of the Dragon isn't helping them either.

But before people yell 'yOu jUSt a HaTeR you RacIsT, aNd SEXist'. I like the show enough, its not great, and I do not think its the worst thing ever, its just a bad Tolkien adaptation and the bar is pretty high so considering what other stuff they had to contend with... yea. I do like the Elrond/Durin and Disa stuff. But the stuff I used to like I have kinda warn out on, and the stuff I don't like I like even less.

[Shadowferal]

Should have put in some of the old game. At least Shelob was eye candy.

[Syegfryed]

Rings of Power was always going to be a scary under taking. I watched Daniel Greene's episode 5 review and he kinda nailed it, the RoP team are basically going off of Glossary information, they don;t have rights for any major Tolkien books so they are trying to give us this grand art piece but they have all this space with no room to put everything on it. Or like Bilbo put it in Fellowship, '...sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread'.

No... they had enough information to do something, they are just going buck wide with their fanfiction, probably because this was an arlready script they made that everyone with half brain would say it was bad, they just renamed things to Lord of the rings to be aproved

Its not that they have nothing to work on, its because what they work is rly bad, the writing is awful and the plot is nonsensical.

I wish they had just gone all out and said F it, the way Shadow of Mordor did, create a new story within the Middle Earth setting, around time chosen, instead of trying to make a puzzle with missing pieces.

But... thats exactly what they are doing, everything is fucked, i can't name what is the same from the actual history.

Like, take by example this new obnoxious plot that the elves are actually losing their light, and dying, because darkness is growing cus sauron(despite the darkness being stronger with Morgoth for thousands of years and they were just fine), and now they somehow need mithrill to get their light back or they die

This is completely new made up shit that make no sense

Like, how the fuck the elves would bathe in the light of mithril, are they going to squeeze and make juice? smoke like crack? shove in their butts? its going to be enough mithril for the entire elven race? why in the ass dwarves would give two shits about the elves?

Which leads to my opinion, it should have never been made in the first place. But I guess Amazon needed that money. Tolkien is still a money making franchise and amazon knows it can still make money, with the sacrifice of quality. also coming out around the same time as House of the Dragon isn't helping them either..

In the hands of competent writers/directors maybe it could be, at least, an enjoyable fantasy show with some fantasy shenanigans, this one can't even do that.

[Orby]

Should have put in some of the old game. At least Shelob was eye candy.

Is it a hot take to say I hated sexy Shelob lol

[Kumorii]

Is it a hot take to say I hated sexy Shelob lol

Nah, lots of people did say that was stupid. Frankly the game was damn good though and they never claimed it to be faithful so in the end that noise kind of disappeared.

Personally I don't mind either really. If you were to expand on Shelob (have not read the books so just going of the LotR trilogy) I guess what they did is a good direction imo. Makes Shelob more interesting than being a pet spider in some caves near Mordor.

Just a side note, Spirit of Carnan beats Shelob imo. They could've replaced Shelob in the first game with Carnan for the same role / purpose really. And I really enjoyed Carnan, the voice actress were godly, one of my favorite. But they didn't think of it in the first game I guess.

[kenn9530]

And people can take irredeemable issue with something, too.

To say one is possible but the other is not, that's basically a textbook definition of bias.


And... vice versa.

This goes in both directions.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nuh-uh, it only works for the positives!" is not a position, it's a temper tantrum.

The only thing that is bias is giving it a low rating purely on hating something because in your opinion its not tolkien, hes dead we dont know what he would want only what you seem to think.

The proof of the show being good is clear in all evidence so you cant deny most ppl think its a good show.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering you are an apologist for a broken and garbage mess like Star Citizen, it comes as no surprise that you are also an apologist for this piss ass excuse for an attempt at doing something with Tolkien's work. Here's a thought though. People are allowed to criticize something, especially something that horribly misrepresents characters in existing works. The only thing this show has going for it is pretty visuals and passable music, everything else about it is garbage.

Star Citizen is in a game in active development and still considered better than all other space games available, they never claimed they were doing something of tolkiens work nor do they have all the rights to so if you expected tolkien you only have yourself to blame, he is dead and there wont be anything more from him.

Even if you think the only good things about the show is the visuals and production that alone makes it good enough to be a 3-4/10 on those merits alone, so a 1/10 rating is not accurate and cant be used as evidence to support it being bad when all the data proves the show is considered to be good.