When you're competing with the GOAT that is LOTR it's no surprise people were critical (and vocal about it). For me, personally, I just didn't get the same feeling I did with the original trilogy....
When you're competing with the GOAT that is LOTR it's no surprise people were critical (and vocal about it).
For me, personally, I just didn't get the same feeling I did with the original trilogy. Maybe it was the drawn-out story lines that all TV seems to illicit these days, or maybe it was the hyper-exposed scenes with too many lense flairs, or maybe you can just tell that the actors in the movies truly felt that they were doing something cool, and unique, and different. Or maybe all the boorish "knife ears" lines turned me off. I don't know.
It all felt a little forced and too cliffhanger-y.
That said, I'm certainly looking forward to season two and have high hope that the writes and directors will try to embody the things that made the films so masterful.
My issue with the first season was that it really did not feel like the writers trusted the audience enough to “show not tell”. I felt soooo many times that the dialogue was almost… childish? for...
My issue with the first season was that it really did not feel like the writers trusted the audience enough to “show not tell”. I felt soooo many times that the dialogue was almost… childish? for lack of a better word. So many things being explained or said explicitly that had already been implied through subtext. It felt like the writers would hint at things and then be like “did you catch that? here it is again in case not” and then make it very explicit.
I can't possibly know if we read the same criticisms but I don't share the same opinion. There was a particular crowd of obnoxious people who shall go nameless that criticized the series for very...
I can't possibly know if we read the same criticisms but I don't share the same opinion. There was a particular crowd of obnoxious people who shall go nameless that criticized the series for very wrong reasons, but other than that, I think the series deserved every serious criticism it's received given its ambition (budget) and history (Jackson's films).
It's one of those situations where there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made but you feel like you have to defend it because the absolute deluge of bad faith reactionary nutjobs...
It's one of those situations where there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made but you feel like you have to defend it because the absolute deluge of bad faith reactionary nutjobs criticizing it for being too "woke" is so out of proportion. It makes any conversation about it from a film criticism perspective absolutely miserable because you get guys coming in complaining about how there are women or gay people or non-white actors or whatever this particular example has that they hate. Even if you think it's garbage for wholly unrelated reasons, that conversation isn't satisfying for you because the reactionary guys take over the conversation and make it look like you agree with them.
I haven't seen Rings of Power fwiw. I just recognize this pattern when I see it because it keeps happening again and again.
Yep, exactly. I have seen The Rings of Power, I just didn't find it worthwhile to talk about it online but even if I did, I don't think I'd have the energy to make my points available anywhere....
Exemplary
Yep, exactly. I have seen The Rings of Power, I just didn't find it worthwhile to talk about it online but even if I did, I don't think I'd have the energy to make my points available anywhere. Setting that aside, because my opinion neither matter nor have to be heard, what disturbs me most is the dynamic this creates between good faith criticism and those who need to hear them. The toxic environment cultivated by the bad faith crowd narrows a broad spectrum of criticism into a neat little package that makes it convenient to ignore by those who need to take it to heart. I wish this was limited to just discussing what's on television, but it's prevalent in every aspect of society today, including where it's consequential.
I hear you but why does anyone need to take anyone's opinion or citicism of anything to heart? When it comes to pure entertainment, let's just let people like what they like and dislike what they...
The toxic environment cultivated by the bad faith crowd narrows a broad spectrum of criticism into a neat little package that makes it convenient to ignore by those who need to take it to heart.
I hear you but why does anyone need to take anyone's opinion or citicism of anything to heart?
When it comes to pure entertainment, let's just let people like what they like and dislike what they dislike.
I don't think I did a good job expressing myself, because I wholeheartedly agree with every point you made. Let me try again. What I meant by environment was systems, rather than individual...
I don't think I did a good job expressing myself, because I wholeheartedly agree with every point you made. Let me try again.
When it comes to pure entertainment, let's just let people like what they like and dislike what they dislike.
What I meant by environment was systems, rather than individual examples. I don't subscribe to the argument that art is wholly subjective, but it's mostly subjective. That being said, I'm absolutely not in the habit of criticizing someone because they liked something I disliked, or even thought was badly made. People's taste are different, develop according to their environments, and if you've found your niche, more power to you and to hell with everyone else. In this particular example, we're talking about films and TV series. They're inconsequential. (This is what I tried to imply with my last sentence in my previous comment.)
I hear you but why does anyone need to take anyone's opinion or citicism of anything to heart?
Obviously not every criticism need to be taken to heart, even if it's coming from good faith people. What I'm saying is, bad faith actors create an environment within particular systems that are much more consequential where people who're getting criticized can bundle up the good criticism with the bad and package it all as bad, hence escaping any sort of accountability. I'm not, and was not, talking about The Rings of Power when I make this point. It'd be obnoxious of me to demand accountability (what would that even mean?) for the content of a series, because it's entertainment. I didn't like it but some people did. Since I didn't like it, I'll either give it another chance (I will) or move onto something else. That's simple and not important. What I was trying to touch on is how a similar dynamic is prevalent in other environments that are much more consequential, like politics, because the same people who criticize The Rings of Power for having "too many Black people" are mostly the same people who think Libs of TikTok is the greatest source of journalism since I. F. Stone or something.
I hope I was able to express myself more clearly this time. I apologize for the initial confusion. Talking in abstract concepts, given that English is not my native language, is not my strongest suit.
That's pretty much exactly what I think as well. My apologies for misunderstanding you. I think I have a kneejerk response because it seems that for many people, when faced with a group of people...
What I meant by environment was systems, rather than individual examples. I don't subscribe to the argument that art is wholly subjective, but it's mostly subjective. That being said, I'm absolutely not in the habit of criticizing someone because they liked something I disliked, or even thought was badly made. People's taste are different, develop according to their environments, and if you've found your niche, more power to you and to hell with everyone else.
That's pretty much exactly what I think as well. My apologies for misunderstanding you. I think I have a kneejerk response because it seems that for many people, when faced with a group of people who have a different opinion over something mundane there response is to try and invalidate rather than just be comfortable with their different opinion.
What I was trying to touch on is how a similar dynamic is prevalent in other environments that are much more consequential, like politics, because the same people who criticize The Rings of Power for having "too many Black people" are mostly the same people who think Libs of TikTok is the greatest source of journalism since I. F. Stone or something.
OK, I understand what you were saying now, and I agree. I think a lot of it is that 'farming outrage' is a legitimate business now and some people are very good at it and it unfortunately permeates all aspects of our lives, including entertainment. This coincides with these dishonest arguments where the honest part of the argument is used as the hook to get people to start to buy-in to the dishonest argument which is a repeatable emotional response that can be farmed again and again for clicks and likes and subscribes etc.
@daywalker has a great (I'm assuming hypothetical) quote in this thread that summarizes these people nicely:
"A production can't be just bad or mediocre, it has to be awful. You can't just dislike it and move on, you have to feel outrage. You have to belittle it at every chance you get. It's because your identity as a true nerd, and a fan of [insert fictional world], is threatened. You have to act now! They are trying to take it away!"
No apologizes necessary, I'm glad we're on the same page now! @daywalker's comment is good and I see that they've elaborated further on a separate topic (I've yet to read it). This conversation...
No apologizes necessary, I'm glad we're on the same page now!
@daywalker's comment is good and I see that they've elaborated further on a separate topic (I've yet to read it). This conversation deserves to be discussed in greater detail and maybe I'll write my thoughts in the said topic but I think the issue they describe in the quote boils down to people integrating their identity with what they consume, so they feel they need to justify it against people who refute it, because it feels like their refutation is a direct attack on who they are as people instead of a simple difference of opinion.
I just think most of this is about narcissism and power and it can be tied directly to Bourdieu's symbolic violence. It's one segment of society with a particular cultural capital trying to impose their power over another. Why? I don't know.
There are some definite deserved criticisms, but the next major comment below mine calls it a shameful abomination that was the worst trash ever put to film. Which I feel is a little unfairly...
There are some definite deserved criticisms, but the next major comment below mine calls it a shameful abomination that was the worst trash ever put to film. Which I feel is a little unfairly harsh. I understand where people are coming from when the show is being compared to one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time. It's impossible for it to live up to the source material.
But on the other hand, I can't help but feel if this was a generic fantasy romp with no IP attached then most watchers would have a more favorable opinion.
The fun part is that the comment calling it an abomination wasn't even the worst one (though luckily Deimos seems to have removed the worst offender now).
The fun part is that the comment calling it an abomination wasn't even the worst one (though luckily Deimos seems to have removed the worst offender now).
For the most part, I did not dislike the first season of the Rings of Power, and I am tentatively looking forward to the next season. I always feel like I should list some kind of credentials...
For the most part, I did not dislike the first season of the Rings of Power, and I am tentatively looking forward to the next season. I always feel like I should list some kind of credentials after that, and mention that I've read everything ever written in the Tolkiens's works (JRR & CJR). I think that the shows are less good than the LotR movies, but better than the Hobbit movies... until the last episode. I'm still figuring out how I feel about it. However, I think it's really important to remember that the things that happen in the source material for the Rings of Power are supposed to happen over a period of hundreds / thousands of years, and it is nigh impossible to make a show appeal to people when it's set on that time scale.
I do like that the shows are attempting to undo how dirty the movies did Isildur, and how they mischaracterized Elrond. Those are probably the things that stuck out for me as the most egregious departures from the books, and the show has them much closer to the books. When it comes to adaptations, I'm not a book purist by any means - I think most adaptations require a big departure from written materials because of the practical differences between movies and books - but the whole "Isildur failed everybody and now Elrond doesn't really like Men" was never a good subplot to bring in, and I've never really been sure why it was added.
Anyways, it seems as though they are going to have Annatar, Lord of Gifts in Season 2, which is something I was unsure about. I did like the vague horror vibe that was happening as well; I think that could be quite good.
Last note: I thought that Galadriel was pretty good in the show. I read a lot of complaints about how she was written, but Galadriel is the most rewritten and reworked character in the source material, and I like the direction that they seem to be going with her. I don't begrudge anyways their love of Cate Blanchett's turn as Galadriel - she is perhaps as close to the divine ethereal perfection that we humans can muster - but I think Morfydd Clark is doing a pretty good job of being a Second Age fiery leader-of-elves Galadriel with chutzpah.
This seems more like a reason to not adapt this source material to film than to try and make it knowing that you can't do it justice.
I think it's really important to remember that the things that happen in the source material for the Rings of Power are supposed to happen over a period of hundreds / thousands of years, and it is nigh impossible to make a show appeal to people when it's set on that time scale.
This seems more like a reason to not adapt this source material to film than to try and make it knowing that you can't do it justice.
You can apply that reasoning to almost every instance of something that was a book that was then made into a movie or television show, so, no I don't think it's a good reason to not adapt this...
You can apply that reasoning to almost every instance of something that was a book that was then made into a movie or television show, so, no I don't think it's a good reason to not adapt this source material. Making changes to material to adapt to other media is something that happens a lot. Different doesn't necessarily mean worse, but I think a lot of fans go into something ready to hate, because they think that different must be worse.
Ehh not sure I fully agree here. There are some things specific to something like the Silmarillion (like, as you point out, it takes place over thousands of years) that make it much harder to...
Ehh not sure I fully agree here. There are some things specific to something like the Silmarillion (like, as you point out, it takes place over thousands of years) that make it much harder to adapt than something like LOTR. It’s not impossible, but at some point it doesn feel like that should be taken into account when deciding what to adapt.
But more than that, the issue with this series is that Amazon doesn’t have the rights to the Silmarillion. They have the rights to (I think) the LOTR appendices and possibly Unfinished Tales if I’m not mistaken. The appendices hint at a lot of stuff in the Silmarillion, but don’t cover it explicitly. So the show is in this weird place where it’s clear the writers want to mention or show something but they can’t and it ends up feeling weird. A lot of the flashbacks to Valinor in season 1 were this way: hints at these epics stories that ultimately are not followed up on. They don’t have the rights they wish they had, I think.
I believe that you are correct that they do not have the rights to the Silmarillion, but most of what is covered in Akallabeth (the bits of the Silmarallion that are relevant) is also covered in...
I believe that you are correct that they do not have the rights to the Silmarillion, but most of what is covered in Akallabeth (the bits of the Silmarallion that are relevant) is also covered in the appendices, and everything that is covered by Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age is covered by the books themselves. There are various other writings that are probably relevant that they may not have rights for (Unfinished Tales for the most part, but also the Letters), but for the most part, they are pulling things that do not have a lot in the way of sources to begin with, so the changes that are being made aren't to exceptionally fleshed out portions of the lore. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Akallabeth basically boils down to "Here's a list of people that ruled Numenor, also Sauron came back, Numenor got corrupted, there are Rings and Palantiri now, Dwarves found a Balrog and got rekt, everybody in Numenor drowns except a few faithful, Sauron loses his nice face, and then there's a big war." They're going to hit most of those notes, they're just not spread out over several thousand years.
I don't really care one way or another if the show didn't work for some people - that's the nature of the arts, some people might get a lot from something, and others might hate it - but the specific idea that changes to the pacing and some details on timing necessarily make the story worse kind of irks me, because honestly, the story of the second age is not itself a particularly compelling story as it stands, it is rather a historical chronicle that highlights what happens. I think it's absolutely acceptable for someone to try to pull something compelling from these histories; it might be nice if they didn't try to fit several thousand years of history into a show that takes place over a much shorter timeline, but that's not really what fans are going to expect, so I understand that they are putting in as much as they can with a changed timeline, and as long as the show can be consistent, I think it should be okay.
I don't have a strong opinion on this particular show succeeds as an adaptation, but I will point out that prior to Peter Jackson's adaptation Lord of the Rings was famous for being impossible to...
I don't have a strong opinion on this particular show succeeds as an adaptation, but I will point out that prior to Peter Jackson's adaptation Lord of the Rings was famous for being impossible to adapt well to film. Sometimes attempting to adapt a challenging work to film turns out really well, and other times it doesn't.
The recent Dune films are also an example of doing a decent job of something that doesn't seem well fitting for film (well part one anyway - I haven't seen part two yet but heard people like it)
The recent Dune films are also an example of doing a decent job of something that doesn't seem well fitting for film (well part one anyway - I haven't seen part two yet but heard people like it)
If you like Part One I think you'll like Part Two, they're consistent in terms of quality. I definitely agree they've got a lot of challenging material to adapt to film.
If you like Part One I think you'll like Part Two, they're consistent in terms of quality. I definitely agree they've got a lot of challenging material to adapt to film.
I enjoyed the first season, but I saw it as if it was part of some "extended universe" kind of thing. If you go in expecting Tolkien-level dialog, you're in for a bad experience. But really: I've...
I enjoyed the first season, but I saw it as if it was part of some "extended universe" kind of thing. If you go in expecting Tolkien-level dialog, you're in for a bad experience.
But really: I've seen much, much worse television.
I liked it. After reading all the drama on reddit about it, I chose to think of it as a fanfic that got picked up. I guess I was just too excited, because, more LOTR
I liked it. After reading all the drama on reddit about it, I chose to think of it as a fanfic that got picked up. I guess I was just too excited, because, more LOTR
I see Tolkien's Middle-Earth stories in general as a mythology, and the movies and Rings of Power are simply a retelling/different version of it. Kinda like Norse or Greek mythology. There are...
I see Tolkien's Middle-Earth stories in general as a mythology, and the movies and Rings of Power are simply a retelling/different version of it.
Kinda like Norse or Greek mythology. There are hundreds (thousands?) of different versions of the stories out there, and seeing all those different spins is incredibly fun. From Marvel's takes on Norse mythology to Supergiant's take on Greek mythology in the Hades games.
To me, getting wrapped up in the "this isn't canon!" or "this isn't accurate!" or "you have to treat the source with reverence/respect!" thing is boring. I just like to be told a good story. Rings of Power wasn't as well-told as Tolkien's books, but I still enjoyed it a lot and I'm really looking forward to season 2.
This is actually a good take supported by scholar interpretations of Tolkien. It reminds me of something I read on the Wikipedia page for The Simarillion: Right now there aren't a lot of Tolkien...
I see Tolkien's Middle-Earth stories in general as a mythology, and the movies and Rings of Power are simply a retelling/different version of it.
This is actually a good take supported by scholar interpretations of Tolkien. It reminds me of something I read on the Wikipedia page for The Simarillion:
The Silmarillion was commercially successful, but received generally poor reviews on publication. Scholars found the work problematic, not least because the book is a construction, not authorised by Tolkien himself, from the large corpus of documents and drafts also called "The Silmarillion". Scholars have noted that Tolkien intended the work to be a mythology, penned by many hands, and redacted by a fictional editor, whether Ælfwine or Bilbo Baggins. As such, the scholar Gergely Nagy considers that the fact that the work has indeed been edited actually realises Tolkien's intention.
Right now there aren't a lot of Tolkien adaptations, and one of them is particularly excellent which raises the bar really high. Some of the others are very underrated (I've seen the OG Hobbit cartoon and it's worth a watch). Stories being reworked and remixed into new canons is very much in the spirit of the stories that inspired LOTR in the first place. Once Tolkien's work eventually enters the public domain, there will be a lot of slop cash grabs that are far worse than this show, but also a lot of cool stuff, and we'll be better off for it. His work is so foundational to western fantasy it would probably be the best and most natural addition to the public domain since those old mythologies. People have pretty much taken as much as they were legally able for years and it's hard to imagine modern fantasy without that.
That being said, the show did make a lot of mistakes, and there's a lot of room for improvement for season 2. We could do without scenes like "The Southlands are Mordor now" and the scene where someone tells a master blacksmith about metal alloys. But it is REALLY cool that a second age LOTR show was made and shows stuff like Numenor on screen. Worst case scenario, some people enjoy season 2, I don't, and the books and Jackson trilogy still exist.
After season 1 my expectations are literally on the floor. But as an optimist and glutton for punishment, I will watch season 2 in the vague hopes it improves.
After season 1 my expectations are literally on the floor. But as an optimist and glutton for punishment, I will watch season 2 in the vague hopes it improves.
This chat is crazy. Season 1 was some of the worst trash ever put to film and it cost like 700 million dollars. It's shameful for Amazon, people who love the books and the remaining Tolkien family...
This chat is crazy. Season 1 was some of the worst trash ever put to film and it cost like 700 million dollars. It's shameful for Amazon, people who love the books and the remaining Tolkien family who allowed this abomination to be made.
Not gonna lie, I'm genuinely disappointed that a comment that essentially boils down to "this is bad and you should feel bad for liking it" is upvoted. If I wanted those kinds of takes I might as...
Not gonna lie, I'm genuinely disappointed that a comment that essentially boils down to "this is bad and you should feel bad for liking it" is upvoted. If I wanted those kinds of takes I might as well go back to Reddit.
By my naive interpretation, the grandparent post is calling the conversation crazy, not a specific group of people. After giving it some thought, though, I think that actually autocorrected from a...
By my naive interpretation, the grandparent post is calling the conversation crazy, not a specific group of people.
After giving it some thought, though, I think that actually autocorrected from a misspelling of "This shit is crazy". As written, the sentence doesn't seem to fit in the post.
Even if you interpret things the way you are saying, how is it not a dramatic put-down to people who have expressed even the mild approval that appears in this thread? There's a philosophy of...
Even if you interpret things the way you are saying, how is it not a dramatic put-down to people who have expressed even the mild approval that appears in this thread?
There's a philosophy of "don't yuck someone else's yum" and everyone should try it. I don't want to convince anyone else to watch or care about this show, but it's really easy to chat about something without using hyperbole like in the parent comment.
Clearly, some people who love the books can also like the show. I've read everything that both Tolkiens have ever written, and thought the show was just slightly positive (maybe a 6/10) and shows some possibility of getting better. It's not a shame or an abomination, and people expressing even mild like for it aren't expressing something crazy.
This comment by @cfabbro (sorry for tagging you if you're not interested in bringing this up again) lives in my head rent free sometimes, and I think it really exemplifies this philosophy so much....
This comment by@cfabbro (sorry for tagging you if you're not interested in bringing this up again) lives in my head rent free sometimes, and I think it really exemplifies this philosophy so much.
I'm not advocating for "toxic positivity" or anything, but hyperbolic hate is just sooooo trite.
Well I think it's really bad and deserves a huge amount of criticism. Enjoying a TV show that I strongly dislike doesn't say anything about you as a person outside of some aesthetic disagreement...
Well I think it's really bad and deserves a huge amount of criticism. Enjoying a TV show that I strongly dislike doesn't say anything about you as a person outside of some aesthetic disagreement about entertainment.
I never watched this show so I have no dog in this fight. I was just saying that objectively, what's actually written is ultimately the commenter's opinion on the show only (or, by my...
I never watched this show so I have no dog in this fight. I was just saying that objectively, what's actually written is ultimately the commenter's opinion on the show only (or, by my interpretation of part of the post, the world that allowed such a show to be made?) and I think they are allowed to dislike it fiercely, and express that dislike, without others necessarily having to feel attacked because they don't. Their dislike could definitely have been worded better though.
Maybe I've misread it, but when the comment was made, there were two comments in the chat - mine and Kopper - and they were both tepidly positive about the show. So I parsed it as saying that our...
This chat is crazy.
Maybe I've misread it, but when the comment was made, there were two comments in the chat - mine and Kopper - and they were both tepidly positive about the show. So I parsed it as saying that our opinions were garbage, which is supported by the hyperbolic "this is the worst thing ever put on film" comment.
And yes, people are allowed to dislike something fiercely. There are any number of movies that I strenuously dislike, and I have posted some negative things about some shows too, but I always try to refrain from calling into question the sanity of people who like something, vehement hyperbole about the quality of things, or mistakenly attributing my own opinion to large groups of people for whom I cannot actually speak.
It was tongue and cheek. I do think it was terrible but it doesn't bother me if people liked it. It should have been obvious that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. All the people who...
It was tongue and cheek. I do think it was terrible but it doesn't bother me if people liked it. It should have been obvious that everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
All the people who were personally insulted by my statement just took it more seriously than was intended.
This is a moment where Poe's law is worth considering. Even if you meant it lightheartedly, it's pretty much impossible for bystanders to tell that apart from someone sincerely expressing the same...
This is a moment where Poe's law is worth considering. Even if you meant it lightheartedly, it's pretty much impossible for bystanders to tell that apart from someone sincerely expressing the same opinion seriously -- and there are unfortunately quite a lot of "culture war" guys on the internet who say shit worse than this about Rings of Power much more seriously.
I have 0 interest in the culture wars. Anyone reading culture warrior stuff in what I wrote is jumping to conclusions. From my perspective, that's on them.
I have 0 interest in the culture wars. Anyone reading culture warrior stuff in what I wrote is jumping to conclusions. From my perspective, that's on them.
I'm not accusing you of being part of that side of things, merely pointing out that the glut of those types whining about Rings of Power makes it harder for other commenters to assume you're being...
I'm not accusing you of being part of that side of things, merely pointing out that the glut of those types whining about Rings of Power makes it harder for other commenters to assume you're being tongue and cheek rather than serious.
I'm not big mad at everyone who criticized me. There were like 2 comments last night when I posted and I just wanted to disagree with them. Today I was kinda surprised to see my inbox all blown up...
I'm not big mad at everyone who criticized me. There were like 2 comments last night when I posted and I just wanted to disagree with them. Today I was kinda surprised to see my inbox all blown up but I get it. I'm just kind of annoyed I can't talk about lotr entertainment without straying into election topics I had no intention of raising.
Maybe I should have mentioned that I enjoyed the elrond / durin bromance. It might have balanced it out a little more.
I would've worded it differently but yeah. I ended up not watching all the way through and probably never will finish it. What a frustrating experience. Bad dialogue, one dimensional acting, odd...
I would've worded it differently but yeah.
I ended up not watching all the way through and probably never will finish it.
What a frustrating experience. Bad dialogue, one dimensional acting, odd pacing, distances were relative (the Witcher suffered from this one especially), and just the overall fake feeling backgrounds made it look like actors in costumes playing something they didn't believe in. Even if it wasn't LOTR it was a bad show.
According to the article Some perspective, but it doesn't contain much context.
According to the article
That said, according to the Hollywood Reporter story, insiders at Amazon claimed a 50 percent completion rate would be viewed as a “solid but not spectacular result” for an original.
Some perspective, but it doesn't contain much context.
Yeah I saw that. But it’s very little information. I suspect the completion rate varies greatly between styles of TV. Decent shows that you put on because you’re bored might do pretty well in this...
Yeah I saw that. But it’s very little information.
I suspect the completion rate varies greatly between styles of TV. Decent shows that you put on because you’re bored might do pretty well in this metric because you have low expectations. Obviously shorter seasons have an advantage. Franchises probably do better.
We can probably do well enough by comparing viewership numbers from the first and last episodes. On that metric, 51% of people finished Band of Brothers during the original run. But that was a very different age of television.
It's hard to know if that's good or bad when compared to other streaming shows released serially. I fell off the Stranger Things bandwagon during a season that was very well received, that doesn't...
It's hard to know if that's good or bad when compared to other streaming shows released serially. I fell off the Stranger Things bandwagon during a season that was very well received, that doesn't make it bad.
That's exaggerating by quite a lot. I found the first season unengaging and lost my interest after a while, leaving it unfinished. I also don't look forward to S2. But it's by no means one of the...
That's exaggerating by quite a lot. I found the first season unengaging and lost my interest after a while, leaving it unfinished. I also don't look forward to S2. But it's by no means one of the worst. The first season has a lot of mediocrity problem, but mediocrity is very widespread.
What I said was not completely serious. I am a pretty big fan of the books and I find the contrast in between the high production value and the terrible writing/characters/storytelling to be...
What I said was not completely serious. I am a pretty big fan of the books and I find the contrast in between the high production value and the terrible writing/characters/storytelling to be extraordinary. It's one of the worst things I've ever seen.
That is an opinion that I am entitled to express. Given the opportunity I would do it again but perhaps I would explicitly state that enjoyment of an entertainment product doesn't make anyone less human. It's just fun to disagree about things sometimes.
Isn't that the estimated budget for the entire 5 seasons? Still, adjusted for inflation the original trilogy was $514 million. It is hard for me sometimes to understand the costs of these things....
Isn't that the estimated budget for the entire 5 seasons? Still, adjusted for inflation the original trilogy was $514 million. It is hard for me sometimes to understand the costs of these things. With more than 20 years of advancement in technology, I would assume it would be possible to make something that looked better and cost less. Though it is comparing apples to oranges here with a movie and tv show.
I am going to rebut this and presume that you may want to engage in good faith even though this sounds a bit dog-whistly. For the purpose of rebuttal, I'm going to say "Tolkien" but I really mean...
race swapped elves, race swapped hobbits, race swapped and obese dwarves, a trans person of non-distinct something
I am going to rebut this and presume that you may want to engage in good faith even though this sounds a bit dog-whistly.
For the purpose of rebuttal, I'm going to say "Tolkien" but I really mean "JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien" as a lot of material actually comes from JRR's son Christopher.
Dwarves - Tolkien does not ever explicitly say the skin tone of dwarves. He also explicitly says that dwarves can be fat. "race swapped and fat dwarves" is thus irrelevant; dwarves may be any race, and fat dwarves can even be main characters.
Elves - Elves are often described with fair skin, but that's specifically the Eldar. The Avari are not typically described at all. It's certainly possible to have darker skinned elves.
Men - the Race of Man in Middle Earth has people of many different skin tones. The Folk of Beor were described as anything from fair to swarthy, and as they are the progenitors of many of the men in the show, then having a mix of humans is certainly appropriate.
Hobbits - Hobbits are described as having different skin tones as well. The Harfoots specifically are described as "browner of skin", and these hobbits are, I believe, Harfoots. So if they were white then they would actually be race swapped.
Turns out, most of the whiteness of the Lord of the Rings movies was actually race swapping, and maybe that's an actual problem and not the casting of the movies.
I don't even know what you're talking about with regards to a trans character, but generally speaking if you have an issue with a trans character simply existing then it's probably time for self reflection.
I appreciate your effort, but I don't think they are in any way looking for a good faith conversation or argument. I don't know the optimal way to deal with these comments, but I generally ignore...
Exemplary
I appreciate your effort, but I don't think they are in any way looking for a good faith conversation or argument. I don't know the optimal way to deal with these comments, but I generally ignore them. Seeking a reaction (especially a hot one) and starting a fight are important parts of the outrage culture. However, I also think people have to sometime break the outrageous claims down. It's why I'm not sure about the optimal way.
"A production can't be just bad or mediocre, it has to be awful. You can't just dislike it and move on, you have to feel outrage. You have to belittle it at every chance you get. It's because your identity as a true nerd, and a fan of [insert fictional world], is threatened. You have to act now! They are trying to take it away!"
I think that's how it goes with these things. It's an extension of (in the broad sense of the word) reactionary identity politics that is about a particular post-modern identity, a.k.a. fans.
I try to act on Tildes with the belief that every person is here to talk in good faith about the subjects at hand. If I believe that someone is not acting like that, I'll use the malice tag and...
I try to act on Tildes with the belief that every person is here to talk in good faith about the subjects at hand. If I believe that someone is not acting like that, I'll use the malice tag and not respond.
I also know some people in real life who got upset about some of the same things, and when they asked me why it didn't bother me that some things were changed from the books - like Elves and Dwarves all being white - I gave them this same breakdown and they realized that they were being silly. Sometimes people don't know that they are parroting racist bullshit, and if you explain to them, they'll stop.
It's also appreciated sometimes to have rational people counter hurtful/hateful comments. It's why I "argue" or "counter" or just reply to comments like that, because sometimes it really helps to...
It's also appreciated sometimes to have rational people counter hurtful/hateful comments. It's why I "argue" or "counter" or just reply to comments like that, because sometimes it really helps to know you, the category of person whose existence in a show is seen as an issue aren't alone.
Ironically for all the hate it gets for being "too woke", one of my problems was how the hobbits are every tired stereotype about Irish people and the dwarves are similar for Scottish stereotypes
Ironically for all the hate it gets for being "too woke", one of my problems was how the hobbits are every tired stereotype about Irish people and the dwarves are similar for Scottish stereotypes
I think the hobbits, at least, boil down to Tolkien's underlying love of the pastoral, simple life, and his dislike for the hustle and bustle of cities and technology. Then, when the writers of...
I think the hobbits, at least, boil down to Tolkien's underlying love of the pastoral, simple life, and his dislike for the hustle and bustle of cities and technology. Then, when the writers of the show (who admittedly are not the best writers ever) reinterpret that, it becomes tired Irish clichés.
Scottish dwarves is a trope that I straight up love, but I hear you on that as well.
I've always interpreted them as country gentry in the books. Though the common folk still exist, Sam and Gaffer for example, the focus is on the gentlehobbits
I've always interpreted them as country gentry in the books. Though the common folk still exist, Sam and Gaffer for example, the focus is on the gentlehobbits
I'm weirdly annoyed most by the complaint about "obese dwarves". I'm used to the thinly-veiled racism and transphobia from these supposed Tolkien lovers, but like... one of the main dwarves in The...
I'm weirdly annoyed most by the complaint about "obese dwarves". I'm used to the thinly-veiled racism and transphobia from these supposed Tolkien lovers, but like... one of the main dwarves in The Hobbit is not only fat, but constantly described as fat. Like, you don't make it through reading The Hobbit without knowing Bombur is fat. If someone is so offended by the existence of fat dwarves, they clearly aren't upset because of any devotion to the integrity of Tolkien's work.
That's actually what slightly tipped me that it's possible that this person just read something online and had perhaps only watched the movies. Ignoring the existence of Bombur - who as you said...
That's actually what slightly tipped me that it's possible that this person just read something online and had perhaps only watched the movies. Ignoring the existence of Bombur - who as you said is canonically enormous but also gets after it, having 14 children - is very silly.
I went looking for a trans character in LotR and found that Galadriel is a trans icon because her (Mothername?) name was Nerwen the Man-Maiden. And I love that.
I went looking for a trans character in LotR and found that Galadriel is a trans icon because her (Mothername?) name was Nerwen the Man-Maiden. And I love that.
I too went digging! I also enjoyed the Man-Maiden fact, and found two other things: A quote from Tolkien: I (and many others) read it as trans acceptance. Second, Bridie Sisson played The Dweller...
I too went digging! I also enjoyed the Man-Maiden fact, and found two other things:
A quote from Tolkien:
But when they desire to clothe themselves the Valar take upon them forms some as of male and some as of female; for that difference of temper they had even from their beginning, and it is bodied forth in the choice of each, not made by the choice, even as with us male and female may be shown by the raiment but is not made thereby.
I (and many others) read it as trans acceptance.
Second, Bridie Sisson played The Dweller - one the three Mystics of Sauron - and the actress herself is trans. It's not a plot point at all, just a thing of interest.
Ah, look I think this all fits with Tolkiens Catholicism. Angels don't have a gender and only clothe themselves in human form. That'd track for them. And so there isn't a trans character just a...
Ah, look I think this all fits with Tolkiens Catholicism. Angels don't have a gender and only clothe themselves in human form. That'd track for them.
And so there isn't a trans character just a woman playing a woman on screen. Got it. (I haven't watched the show but the vibe is that also the Dweller could be a Maiar or something which adds to the whole Angel vibe. )
I always thought the original season was treated far too harshly. I'm definitely more excited about season 2 of this than I am for a Gollum spinoff.
When you're competing with the GOAT that is LOTR it's no surprise people were critical (and vocal about it).
For me, personally, I just didn't get the same feeling I did with the original trilogy. Maybe it was the drawn-out story lines that all TV seems to illicit these days, or maybe it was the hyper-exposed scenes with too many lense flairs, or maybe you can just tell that the actors in the movies truly felt that they were doing something cool, and unique, and different. Or maybe all the boorish "knife ears" lines turned me off. I don't know.
It all felt a little forced and too cliffhanger-y.
That said, I'm certainly looking forward to season two and have high hope that the writes and directors will try to embody the things that made the films so masterful.
My issue with the first season was that it really did not feel like the writers trusted the audience enough to “show not tell”. I felt soooo many times that the dialogue was almost… childish? for lack of a better word. So many things being explained or said explicitly that had already been implied through subtext. It felt like the writers would hint at things and then be like “did you catch that? here it is again in case not” and then make it very explicit.
Culminating in the incredibly cheesy Southlands -> Mordor text fade
I can't possibly know if we read the same criticisms but I don't share the same opinion. There was a particular crowd of obnoxious people who shall go nameless that criticized the series for very wrong reasons, but other than that, I think the series deserved every serious criticism it's received given its ambition (budget) and history (Jackson's films).
It's one of those situations where there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made but you feel like you have to defend it because the absolute deluge of bad faith reactionary nutjobs criticizing it for being too "woke" is so out of proportion. It makes any conversation about it from a film criticism perspective absolutely miserable because you get guys coming in complaining about how there are women or gay people or non-white actors or whatever this particular example has that they hate. Even if you think it's garbage for wholly unrelated reasons, that conversation isn't satisfying for you because the reactionary guys take over the conversation and make it look like you agree with them.
I haven't seen Rings of Power fwiw. I just recognize this pattern when I see it because it keeps happening again and again.
Yep, exactly. I have seen The Rings of Power, I just didn't find it worthwhile to talk about it online but even if I did, I don't think I'd have the energy to make my points available anywhere. Setting that aside, because my opinion neither matter nor have to be heard, what disturbs me most is the dynamic this creates between good faith criticism and those who need to hear them. The toxic environment cultivated by the bad faith crowd narrows a broad spectrum of criticism into a neat little package that makes it convenient to ignore by those who need to take it to heart. I wish this was limited to just discussing what's on television, but it's prevalent in every aspect of society today, including where it's consequential.
I hear you but why does anyone need to take anyone's opinion or citicism of anything to heart?
When it comes to pure entertainment, let's just let people like what they like and dislike what they dislike.
I don't think I did a good job expressing myself, because I wholeheartedly agree with every point you made. Let me try again.
What I meant by environment was systems, rather than individual examples. I don't subscribe to the argument that art is wholly subjective, but it's mostly subjective. That being said, I'm absolutely not in the habit of criticizing someone because they liked something I disliked, or even thought was badly made. People's taste are different, develop according to their environments, and if you've found your niche, more power to you and to hell with everyone else. In this particular example, we're talking about films and TV series. They're inconsequential. (This is what I tried to imply with my last sentence in my previous comment.)
Obviously not every criticism need to be taken to heart, even if it's coming from good faith people. What I'm saying is, bad faith actors create an environment within particular systems that are much more consequential where people who're getting criticized can bundle up the good criticism with the bad and package it all as bad, hence escaping any sort of accountability. I'm not, and was not, talking about The Rings of Power when I make this point. It'd be obnoxious of me to demand accountability (what would that even mean?) for the content of a series, because it's entertainment. I didn't like it but some people did. Since I didn't like it, I'll either give it another chance (I will) or move onto something else. That's simple and not important. What I was trying to touch on is how a similar dynamic is prevalent in other environments that are much more consequential, like politics, because the same people who criticize The Rings of Power for having "too many Black people" are mostly the same people who think Libs of TikTok is the greatest source of journalism since I. F. Stone or something.
I hope I was able to express myself more clearly this time. I apologize for the initial confusion. Talking in abstract concepts, given that English is not my native language, is not my strongest suit.
That's pretty much exactly what I think as well. My apologies for misunderstanding you. I think I have a kneejerk response because it seems that for many people, when faced with a group of people who have a different opinion over something mundane there response is to try and invalidate rather than just be comfortable with their different opinion.
OK, I understand what you were saying now, and I agree. I think a lot of it is that 'farming outrage' is a legitimate business now and some people are very good at it and it unfortunately permeates all aspects of our lives, including entertainment. This coincides with these dishonest arguments where the honest part of the argument is used as the hook to get people to start to buy-in to the dishonest argument which is a repeatable emotional response that can be farmed again and again for clicks and likes and subscribes etc.
@daywalker has a great (I'm assuming hypothetical) quote in this thread that summarizes these people nicely:
No apologizes necessary, I'm glad we're on the same page now!
@daywalker's comment is good and I see that they've elaborated further on a separate topic (I've yet to read it). This conversation deserves to be discussed in greater detail and maybe I'll write my thoughts in the said topic but I think the issue they describe in the quote boils down to people integrating their identity with what they consume, so they feel they need to justify it against people who refute it, because it feels like their refutation is a direct attack on who they are as people instead of a simple difference of opinion.
I just think most of this is about narcissism and power and it can be tied directly to Bourdieu's symbolic violence. It's one segment of society with a particular cultural capital trying to impose their power over another. Why? I don't know.
There are some definite deserved criticisms, but the next major comment below mine calls it a shameful abomination that was the worst trash ever put to film. Which I feel is a little unfairly harsh. I understand where people are coming from when the show is being compared to one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time. It's impossible for it to live up to the source material.
But on the other hand, I can't help but feel if this was a generic fantasy romp with no IP attached then most watchers would have a more favorable opinion.
The fun part is that the comment calling it an abomination wasn't even the worst one (though luckily Deimos seems to have removed the worst offender now).
For the most part, I did not dislike the first season of the Rings of Power, and I am tentatively looking forward to the next season. I always feel like I should list some kind of credentials after that, and mention that I've read everything ever written in the Tolkiens's works (JRR & CJR). I think that the shows are less good than the LotR movies, but better than the Hobbit movies... until the last episode. I'm still figuring out how I feel about it. However, I think it's really important to remember that the things that happen in the source material for the Rings of Power are supposed to happen over a period of hundreds / thousands of years, and it is nigh impossible to make a show appeal to people when it's set on that time scale.
I do like that the shows are attempting to undo how dirty the movies did Isildur, and how they mischaracterized Elrond. Those are probably the things that stuck out for me as the most egregious departures from the books, and the show has them much closer to the books. When it comes to adaptations, I'm not a book purist by any means - I think most adaptations require a big departure from written materials because of the practical differences between movies and books - but the whole "Isildur failed everybody and now Elrond doesn't really like Men" was never a good subplot to bring in, and I've never really been sure why it was added.
Anyways, it seems as though they are going to have Annatar, Lord of Gifts in Season 2, which is something I was unsure about. I did like the vague horror vibe that was happening as well; I think that could be quite good.
Last note: I thought that Galadriel was pretty good in the show. I read a lot of complaints about how she was written, but Galadriel is the most rewritten and reworked character in the source material, and I like the direction that they seem to be going with her. I don't begrudge anyways their love of Cate Blanchett's turn as Galadriel - she is perhaps as close to the divine ethereal perfection that we humans can muster - but I think Morfydd Clark is doing a pretty good job of being a Second Age fiery leader-of-elves Galadriel with chutzpah.
This seems more like a reason to not adapt this source material to film than to try and make it knowing that you can't do it justice.
You can apply that reasoning to almost every instance of something that was a book that was then made into a movie or television show, so, no I don't think it's a good reason to not adapt this source material. Making changes to material to adapt to other media is something that happens a lot. Different doesn't necessarily mean worse, but I think a lot of fans go into something ready to hate, because they think that different must be worse.
Ehh not sure I fully agree here. There are some things specific to something like the Silmarillion (like, as you point out, it takes place over thousands of years) that make it much harder to adapt than something like LOTR. It’s not impossible, but at some point it doesn feel like that should be taken into account when deciding what to adapt.
But more than that, the issue with this series is that Amazon doesn’t have the rights to the Silmarillion. They have the rights to (I think) the LOTR appendices and possibly Unfinished Tales if I’m not mistaken. The appendices hint at a lot of stuff in the Silmarillion, but don’t cover it explicitly. So the show is in this weird place where it’s clear the writers want to mention or show something but they can’t and it ends up feeling weird. A lot of the flashbacks to Valinor in season 1 were this way: hints at these epics stories that ultimately are not followed up on. They don’t have the rights they wish they had, I think.
I believe that you are correct that they do not have the rights to the Silmarillion, but most of what is covered in Akallabeth (the bits of the Silmarallion that are relevant) is also covered in the appendices, and everything that is covered by Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age is covered by the books themselves. There are various other writings that are probably relevant that they may not have rights for (Unfinished Tales for the most part, but also the Letters), but for the most part, they are pulling things that do not have a lot in the way of sources to begin with, so the changes that are being made aren't to exceptionally fleshed out portions of the lore. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Akallabeth basically boils down to "Here's a list of people that ruled Numenor, also Sauron came back, Numenor got corrupted, there are Rings and Palantiri now, Dwarves found a Balrog and got rekt, everybody in Numenor drowns except a few faithful, Sauron loses his nice face, and then there's a big war." They're going to hit most of those notes, they're just not spread out over several thousand years.
I don't really care one way or another if the show didn't work for some people - that's the nature of the arts, some people might get a lot from something, and others might hate it - but the specific idea that changes to the pacing and some details on timing necessarily make the story worse kind of irks me, because honestly, the story of the second age is not itself a particularly compelling story as it stands, it is rather a historical chronicle that highlights what happens. I think it's absolutely acceptable for someone to try to pull something compelling from these histories; it might be nice if they didn't try to fit several thousand years of history into a show that takes place over a much shorter timeline, but that's not really what fans are going to expect, so I understand that they are putting in as much as they can with a changed timeline, and as long as the show can be consistent, I think it should be okay.
I don't have a strong opinion on this particular show succeeds as an adaptation, but I will point out that prior to Peter Jackson's adaptation Lord of the Rings was famous for being impossible to adapt well to film. Sometimes attempting to adapt a challenging work to film turns out really well, and other times it doesn't.
The recent Dune films are also an example of doing a decent job of something that doesn't seem well fitting for film (well part one anyway - I haven't seen part two yet but heard people like it)
If you like Part One I think you'll like Part Two, they're consistent in terms of quality. I definitely agree they've got a lot of challenging material to adapt to film.
I enjoyed the first season, but I saw it as if it was part of some "extended universe" kind of thing. If you go in expecting Tolkien-level dialog, you're in for a bad experience.
But really: I've seen much, much worse television.
I liked it. After reading all the drama on reddit about it, I chose to think of it as a fanfic that got picked up. I guess I was just too excited, because, more LOTR
I see Tolkien's Middle-Earth stories in general as a mythology, and the movies and Rings of Power are simply a retelling/different version of it.
Kinda like Norse or Greek mythology. There are hundreds (thousands?) of different versions of the stories out there, and seeing all those different spins is incredibly fun. From Marvel's takes on Norse mythology to Supergiant's take on Greek mythology in the Hades games.
To me, getting wrapped up in the "this isn't canon!" or "this isn't accurate!" or "you have to treat the source with reverence/respect!" thing is boring. I just like to be told a good story. Rings of Power wasn't as well-told as Tolkien's books, but I still enjoyed it a lot and I'm really looking forward to season 2.
This is actually a good take supported by scholar interpretations of Tolkien. It reminds me of something I read on the Wikipedia page for The Simarillion:
Right now there aren't a lot of Tolkien adaptations, and one of them is particularly excellent which raises the bar really high. Some of the others are very underrated (I've seen the OG Hobbit cartoon and it's worth a watch). Stories being reworked and remixed into new canons is very much in the spirit of the stories that inspired LOTR in the first place. Once Tolkien's work eventually enters the public domain, there will be a lot of slop cash grabs that are far worse than this show, but also a lot of cool stuff, and we'll be better off for it. His work is so foundational to western fantasy it would probably be the best and most natural addition to the public domain since those old mythologies. People have pretty much taken as much as they were legally able for years and it's hard to imagine modern fantasy without that.
That being said, the show did make a lot of mistakes, and there's a lot of room for improvement for season 2. We could do without scenes like "The Southlands are Mordor now" and the scene where someone tells a master blacksmith about metal alloys. But it is REALLY cool that a second age LOTR show was made and shows stuff like Numenor on screen. Worst case scenario, some people enjoy season 2, I don't, and the books and Jackson trilogy still exist.
After season 1 my expectations are literally on the floor. But as an optimist and glutton for punishment, I will watch season 2 in the vague hopes it improves.
This chat is crazy. Season 1 was some of the worst trash ever put to film and it cost like 700 million dollars. It's shameful for Amazon, people who love the books and the remaining Tolkien family who allowed this abomination to be made.
Here's a life pro tip: you can express dislike for something without calling people who don't dislike it in the same way crazy.
Not gonna lie, I'm genuinely disappointed that a comment that essentially boils down to "this is bad and you should feel bad for liking it" is upvoted. If I wanted those kinds of takes I might as well go back to Reddit.
By my naive interpretation, the grandparent post is calling the conversation crazy, not a specific group of people.
After giving it some thought, though, I think that actually autocorrected from a misspelling of "This shit is crazy". As written, the sentence doesn't seem to fit in the post.
Even if you interpret things the way you are saying, how is it not a dramatic put-down to people who have expressed even the mild approval that appears in this thread?
There's a philosophy of "don't yuck someone else's yum" and everyone should try it. I don't want to convince anyone else to watch or care about this show, but it's really easy to chat about something without using hyperbole like in the parent comment.
Clearly, some people who love the books can also like the show. I've read everything that both Tolkiens have ever written, and thought the show was just slightly positive (maybe a 6/10) and shows some possibility of getting better. It's not a shame or an abomination, and people expressing even mild like for it aren't expressing something crazy.
This comment by @cfabbro (sorry for tagging you if you're not interested in bringing this up again) lives in my head rent free sometimes, and I think it really exemplifies this philosophy so much.
I'm not advocating for "toxic positivity" or anything, but hyperbolic hate is just sooooo trite.
No worries. It's nice to know my words actually had a lasting impact on someone. :)
Well I think it's really bad and deserves a huge amount of criticism. Enjoying a TV show that I strongly dislike doesn't say anything about you as a person outside of some aesthetic disagreement about entertainment.
I never watched this show so I have no dog in this fight. I was just saying that objectively, what's actually written is ultimately the commenter's opinion on the show only (or, by my interpretation of part of the post, the world that allowed such a show to be made?) and I think they are allowed to dislike it fiercely, and express that dislike, without others necessarily having to feel attacked because they don't. Their dislike could definitely have been worded better though.
Maybe I've misread it, but when the comment was made, there were two comments in the chat - mine and Kopper - and they were both tepidly positive about the show. So I parsed it as saying that our opinions were garbage, which is supported by the hyperbolic "this is the worst thing ever put on film" comment.
And yes, people are allowed to dislike something fiercely. There are any number of movies that I strenuously dislike, and I have posted some negative things about some shows too, but I always try to refrain from calling into question the sanity of people who like something, vehement hyperbole about the quality of things, or mistakenly attributing my own opinion to large groups of people for whom I cannot actually speak.
It was tongue and cheek. I do think it was terrible but it doesn't bother me if people liked it. It should have been obvious that everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
All the people who were personally insulted by my statement just took it more seriously than was intended.
This is a moment where Poe's law is worth considering. Even if you meant it lightheartedly, it's pretty much impossible for bystanders to tell that apart from someone sincerely expressing the same opinion seriously -- and there are unfortunately quite a lot of "culture war" guys on the internet who say shit worse than this about Rings of Power much more seriously.
I have 0 interest in the culture wars. Anyone reading culture warrior stuff in what I wrote is jumping to conclusions. From my perspective, that's on them.
I'm not accusing you of being part of that side of things, merely pointing out that the glut of those types whining about Rings of Power makes it harder for other commenters to assume you're being tongue and cheek rather than serious.
I'm not big mad at everyone who criticized me. There were like 2 comments last night when I posted and I just wanted to disagree with them. Today I was kinda surprised to see my inbox all blown up but I get it. I'm just kind of annoyed I can't talk about lotr entertainment without straying into election topics I had no intention of raising.
Maybe I should have mentioned that I enjoyed the elrond / durin bromance. It might have balanced it out a little more.
I would've worded it differently but yeah.
I ended up not watching all the way through and probably never will finish it.
What a frustrating experience. Bad dialogue, one dimensional acting, odd pacing, distances were relative (the Witcher suffered from this one especially), and just the overall fake feeling backgrounds made it look like actors in costumes playing something they didn't believe in. Even if it wasn't LOTR it was a bad show.
I’d need to know what the normal rate is for finishing TV seasons to properly judge that. For all I know Band of Brothers has a 25% completion rate.
According to the article
Some perspective, but it doesn't contain much context.
Yeah I saw that. But it’s very little information.
I suspect the completion rate varies greatly between styles of TV. Decent shows that you put on because you’re bored might do pretty well in this metric because you have low expectations. Obviously shorter seasons have an advantage. Franchises probably do better.
We can probably do well enough by comparing viewership numbers from the first and last episodes. On that metric, 51% of people finished Band of Brothers during the original run. But that was a very different age of television.
It's hard to know if that's good or bad when compared to other streaming shows released serially. I fell off the Stranger Things bandwagon during a season that was very well received, that doesn't make it bad.
That's exaggerating by quite a lot. I found the first season unengaging and lost my interest after a while, leaving it unfinished. I also don't look forward to S2. But it's by no means one of the worst. The first season has a lot of mediocrity problem, but mediocrity is very widespread.
Also, S1's cost reaches to 700 million only when "obtention of the rights from the J.R.R. Tolkien estate is factored in." As far as I know, they expected each season individually to cost around 100-150 million.
What I said was not completely serious. I am a pretty big fan of the books and I find the contrast in between the high production value and the terrible writing/characters/storytelling to be extraordinary. It's one of the worst things I've ever seen.
That is an opinion that I am entitled to express. Given the opportunity I would do it again but perhaps I would explicitly state that enjoyment of an entertainment product doesn't make anyone less human. It's just fun to disagree about things sometimes.
Isn't that the estimated budget for the entire 5 seasons? Still, adjusted for inflation the original trilogy was $514 million. It is hard for me sometimes to understand the costs of these things. With more than 20 years of advancement in technology, I would assume it would be possible to make something that looked better and cost less. Though it is comparing apples to oranges here with a movie and tv show.
I am going to rebut this and presume that you may want to engage in good faith even though this sounds a bit dog-whistly.
For the purpose of rebuttal, I'm going to say "Tolkien" but I really mean "JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien" as a lot of material actually comes from JRR's son Christopher.
Dwarves - Tolkien does not ever explicitly say the skin tone of dwarves. He also explicitly says that dwarves can be fat. "race swapped and fat dwarves" is thus irrelevant; dwarves may be any race, and fat dwarves can even be main characters.
Elves - Elves are often described with fair skin, but that's specifically the Eldar. The Avari are not typically described at all. It's certainly possible to have darker skinned elves.
Men - the Race of Man in Middle Earth has people of many different skin tones. The Folk of Beor were described as anything from fair to swarthy, and as they are the progenitors of many of the men in the show, then having a mix of humans is certainly appropriate.
Hobbits - Hobbits are described as having different skin tones as well. The Harfoots specifically are described as "browner of skin", and these hobbits are, I believe, Harfoots. So if they were white then they would actually be race swapped.
Turns out, most of the whiteness of the Lord of the Rings movies was actually race swapping, and maybe that's an actual problem and not the casting of the movies.
I don't even know what you're talking about with regards to a trans character, but generally speaking if you have an issue with a trans character simply existing then it's probably time for self reflection.
I appreciate your effort, but I don't think they are in any way looking for a good faith conversation or argument. I don't know the optimal way to deal with these comments, but I generally ignore them. Seeking a reaction (especially a hot one) and starting a fight are important parts of the outrage culture. However, I also think people have to sometime break the outrageous claims down. It's why I'm not sure about the optimal way.
"A production can't be just bad or mediocre, it has to be awful. You can't just dislike it and move on, you have to feel outrage. You have to belittle it at every chance you get. It's because your identity as a true nerd, and a fan of [insert fictional world], is threatened. You have to act now! They are trying to take it away!"
I think that's how it goes with these things. It's an extension of (in the broad sense of the word) reactionary identity politics that is about a particular post-modern identity, a.k.a. fans.
I try to act on Tildes with the belief that every person is here to talk in good faith about the subjects at hand. If I believe that someone is not acting like that, I'll use the malice tag and not respond.
I also know some people in real life who got upset about some of the same things, and when they asked me why it didn't bother me that some things were changed from the books - like Elves and Dwarves all being white - I gave them this same breakdown and they realized that they were being silly. Sometimes people don't know that they are parroting racist bullshit, and if you explain to them, they'll stop.
It's also appreciated sometimes to have rational people counter hurtful/hateful comments. It's why I "argue" or "counter" or just reply to comments like that, because sometimes it really helps to know you, the category of person whose existence in a show is seen as an issue aren't alone.
Ironically for all the hate it gets for being "too woke", one of my problems was how the hobbits are every tired stereotype about Irish people and the dwarves are similar for Scottish stereotypes
I think the hobbits, at least, boil down to Tolkien's underlying love of the pastoral, simple life, and his dislike for the hustle and bustle of cities and technology. Then, when the writers of the show (who admittedly are not the best writers ever) reinterpret that, it becomes tired Irish clichés.
Scottish dwarves is a trope that I straight up love, but I hear you on that as well.
I've always interpreted them as country gentry in the books. Though the common folk still exist, Sam and Gaffer for example, the focus is on the gentlehobbits
I'm weirdly annoyed most by the complaint about "obese dwarves". I'm used to the thinly-veiled racism and transphobia from these supposed Tolkien lovers, but like... one of the main dwarves in The Hobbit is not only fat, but constantly described as fat. Like, you don't make it through reading The Hobbit without knowing Bombur is fat. If someone is so offended by the existence of fat dwarves, they clearly aren't upset because of any devotion to the integrity of Tolkien's work.
That's actually what slightly tipped me that it's possible that this person just read something online and had perhaps only watched the movies. Ignoring the existence of Bombur - who as you said is canonically enormous but also gets after it, having 14 children - is very silly.
I went looking for a trans character in LotR and found that Galadriel is a trans icon because her (Mothername?) name was Nerwen the Man-Maiden. And I love that.
I too went digging! I also enjoyed the Man-Maiden fact, and found two other things:
A quote from Tolkien:
I (and many others) read it as trans acceptance.
Second, Bridie Sisson played The Dweller - one the three Mystics of Sauron - and the actress herself is trans. It's not a plot point at all, just a thing of interest.
Ah, look I think this all fits with Tolkiens Catholicism. Angels don't have a gender and only clothe themselves in human form. That'd track for them.
And so there isn't a trans character just a woman playing a woman on screen. Got it. (I haven't watched the show but the vibe is that also the Dweller could be a Maiar or something which adds to the whole Angel vibe. )