Amazon Prime's "The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power" (Season 2)

[Dunemoon]

You’d think after spending half a billion dollars Bezos could afford better shills

[oneway23]

Originally Posted by Dunemoon

You’d think after spending half a billion dollars Bezos could afford better shills

I'm doing pirouettes across the deck of the yacht he bought me and popping wheelies in my brand-new 24k solid-gold wheelchair

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by Dunemoon

You’d think after spending half a billion dollars Bezos could afford better shills

They gotta keep their early access reporting privileges and website traffic up somehow right? Though if I never see the words, bold, stunning, and beautiful ever again, I might be a happy camper.

[oneway23]

Originally Posted by jess1581

They gotta keep their early access reporting privileges and website traffic up somehow right? Though if I never see the words, bold, stunning, and beautiful ever again, I might be a happy camper.

Wouldn't it be more likely that negativity would get higher clicks for that baller website traffic, though?

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by oneway23

Wouldn't it be more likely that negativity would get higher clicks for that baller website traffic, though?

Not really unless you wanna sacrifice the former perk that I mentioned above.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by oneway23

Mikey, I wasn't necessarily speaking to you or about you with that comment, but, how can you disagree with creative decisions that "don't line up with the material" when none of us have seen the show yet?

Unlike many here, I don't claim to speak for the ghosts of JRR or Christopher Tolkien, but, I'm pretty confident that the vast diversity of cultures - Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc., - is as good an indication as any that Middle-Earth is for everyone, each has a role to play, no matter how seemingly insignificant, and that miraculous achievements are possible if we all work together. That's the crucial takeaway for me, personally, irrespective of anything else.

For all I know, Tolkien hadn't seen a person of color in his entire life, I genuinely have no idea. I don't claim to have population figures for the regions in which he lived and wrote.

What I do know, without equivocation, is that this particular iteration of a story, taking place in the universe he created, is being made now. How foolish would it be for me to claim to have any insight into how Tolkien & his Son would react to the show were they alive? Unfortunately, they're not here to answer to that.

I deeply understand passion and fandom, but, I really wish others would stop trying to stake an ownership claim and play guardian because they've read books and watched movies.

I believe that what a lot of people are missing here is the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was very protective and critical regarding interpretations of his life's work. There are many people other than Christopher Tolkien (myself included) that were less than thrilled with many instances of "artistic license" exercised by Jackson, especially with "The Hobbit", which has huge plot deviations and atmospheric differences from the novel. "The Lord of the Rings" movies were closer in feel to the novel, but also contained many major differences that Tolkien certainly would have rejected (e.g., the character of Faramir). Being somewhat familiar with the material (I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings every year since 1973), I personally found much of Jackson's adaption objectionable. Nevertheless, I was able to enjoy Jackson's LotR, but other than characters and place names, The Hobbit movies had little in common with the book.

Of course, we haven't seen Rings of Power yet, but the fact that Tolkien scholars such as Professor Tom Shippey, who taught Tolkien's classes after his departure from Oxford and was a consulant for this series, have doubts about this theatrical portrayal, leaves me somewhat skeptical. Is this going to be a visual interpretation of Tolkien's saga, or a "Game of Thrones" clone? We'll see shortly.

[oneway23]

Originally Posted by jess1581

Not really unless you wanna sacrifice the former perk that I mentioned above.

In that case, I'd disregard critics altogether and wait to actually watch it myself before rendering judgement.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I believe that what a lot of people are missing here is the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was very protective and critical regarding interpretations of his life's work. There are many people other than Christopher Tolkien (myself included) that were less than thrilled with many instances of "artistic license" exercised by Jackson, especially with "The Hobbit", which has huge plot deviations and atmospheric differences from the novel. "The Lord of the Rings" movies were closer in feel to the novel, but also contained many major differences that Tolkien certainly would have rejected (e.g., the character of Faramir). Being somewhat familiar with the material (I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings every year since 1973), I personally found much of Jackson's adaption objectionable. Nevertheless, I was able to enjoy Jackson's LotR, but other than characters and place names, The Hobbit movies had little in common with the book.

Of course, we haven't seen Rings of Power yet, but the fact that Tolkien scholars such as Professor Tom Shippey, who taught Tolkien's classes after his departure from Oxford and was a consulant for this series, have doubts about this theatrical portrayal, leaves me somewhat skeptical. Is this going to be a visual interpretation of Tolkien's saga, or a "Game of Thrones" clone? We'll see shortly.

The Hobbit films were never made to follow the book at all. Jackson made The Hobbit films to follow his LOTR.

Also, a GoT clone? Incest in Middle-Earth? Highly improbable.

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by oneway23

In that case, I'd disregard critics altogether and wait to actually watch it myself before rendering judgement.

Exactly. Never go by first reactions or the wicked early ratings of 10/10's or 1/10's. You'll find more honesty with the consensus and of course your own two eyes.

[oneway23]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I believe that what a lot of people are missing here is the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was very protective and critical regarding interpretations of his life's work. There are many people other than Christopher Tolkien (myself included) that were less than thrilled with many instances of "artistic license" exercised by Jackson, especially with "The Hobbit", which has huge plot deviations and atmospheric differences from the novel. "The Lord of the Rings" movies were closer in feel to the novel, but also contained many major differences that Tolkien certainly would have rejected (e.g., the character of Faramir). Being somewhat familiar with the material (I have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings every year since 1973), I personally found much of Jackson's adaption objectionable. Nevertheless, I was able to enjoy Jackson's LotR, but other than characters and place names, The Hobbit movies had little in common with the book.

Of course, we haven't seen Rings of Power yet, but the fact that Tolkien scholars such as Professor Tom Shippey, who taught Tolkien's classes after his departure from Oxford and was a consulant for this series, have doubts about this theatrical portrayal, leaves me somewhat skeptical. Is this going to be a visual interpretation of Tolkien's saga, or a "Game of Thrones" clone? We'll see shortly.

Great post. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

I personally believe that any genuine effort to adapt Tolkien's work would have likely fallen short, in Christopher's eyes, although, I've never spoken with, nor socialized with, the man, so, I can only speculate.

As far as Tom Shippey is concerned, I've seen various online rumors about why he was either fired, let go, or released, with some reasons seemingly more nefarious than others. If you know of any recent interviews he's done voicing displeasure with this series, please do share them. I'd be genuinely curious to hear of his assessment.

In any case, at the end of the day, any adaptation of such a beloved work is likely going to both fail, and succeed, in certain areas, and in different ways, to each and every segment of the fanbase.

I can only hope that those with such a deep love and appreciation for the man's work can find something to enjoy in this show, and, if they can't, that's fine, too. I look forward to discussing it, either way.

[unberechenbar]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

Note how their press release says "series content through a custom sneek peek" and "exclusive 8k trailer". I don't think the actual show has been produced in 8k ...

Yeah. Although owners of Samsung's 8K sets can watch Das Boot in 8K in Europe.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

The Hobbit films were never made to follow the book at all. Jackson made The Hobbit films to follow his LOTR.

Also, a GoT clone? Incest in Middle-Earth? Highly improbable.

Incest in Middle Earth is more likely than Elves wearing gold.

[cheez avenger]

Originally Posted by Farerb

Incest in Middle Earth is more likely than Elves wearing gold.

No, not at all. But hey, you wanna dig into the weeds, be my guest.

[unberechenbar]

Saw another trailer for this at the movie theater yesterday. They're really trying to market this.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

No, not at all. But hey, you wanna dig into the weeds, be my guest.

Turin and Nienor, Maeglin and Idril, Ar-Pharazon and Tar-Miriel.

Some would even suggest Elrond and Celebrian, and Nimloth and Dior.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

The Hobbit films were never made to follow the book at all. Jackson made The Hobbit films to follow his LOTR.

Also, a GoT clone? Incest in Middle-Earth? Highly improbable.

Incest in Middle-earth highly improbable? Have you read the chapter "Of Turin Turambar", the longest chapter in "The Silmarillion"? I assume that story will figure prominently in this series

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Incest in Middle-earth highly improbable? Have you read the chapter "Of Turin Turambar", the longest chapter in "The Silmarillion"? I assume that story will figure prominently in this series

They don't have the rights to adapt the Silmarillion and the Tolkien estate said that they will never sell those rights. They only approved Amazon to use some things for backstory purposes (

[Show spoiler]for instance, the two trees

) and that's it, nothing more.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Farerb

They don't have the rights to adapt the Silmarillion and the Tolkien estate said that they will never sell those rights. They only approved Amazon to use some things for backstory purposes (

[Show spoiler]for instance, the two trees

) and that's it, nothing more.

That should prove interesting since the most detailed information regarding the rings of power is contained in "The Rings of Power and the Third Age", and is fleshed out in other books. In addition, given the concise information from LotR and its appendices regarding the First and Second Ages, one wonders how a meaningful story will be developed without using "Akallabeth" or "The Silmarillion". Also, for a series that is supposedly Galadriel-intensive, one wonders how her history can be developed without using these sources and others such as the chapter on Galadriel in "Unfinished Tales". Of course, this assumes that the series is actually Tolkien-based and not sheer speculation - which I hope is the case.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Saw another trailer for this at the movie theater yesterday. They're really trying to market this.

That's strange...

[oneway23]

Originally Posted by Schwartzy

If the party is about shitting on tolkien then...