Lord of the Rings TV series gets multi-season order at Amazon

[Kuruharan]

I have a bit of a bizarre reaction, but seeing this image actually (and irrationally) makes me angrier about this whole thing than I was before.

I guess I had made peace (sort of) with the Debauchery of Numenor but seeing this makes me afraid that we will have to endure the salacious tale of Indis the Whore of Tirion-upon-Túna.

Although, this bothering me more makes no sense because I had no hopes for this thing from the get-go.

[Galadriel55]

Can someone please remind me what material they do and don't have rights to? Like, how much of The Sil could we reasonably see here? I really hope that this is not going to be about the Fall of the Noldor. I felt quite mildly about the thing when I assumed it would be a totally made up from scratch thing with only some names to link it to Tolkien, but I am not watching them butcher The Sil.

[Huinesoron]

Can someone please remind me what material they do and don't have rights to? Like, how much of The Sil could we reasonably see here? I really hope that this is not going to be about the Fall of the Noldor. I felt quite mildly about the thing when I assumed it would be a totally made up from scratch thing with only some names to link it to Tolkien, but I am not watching them butcher The Sil.

As far as I can tell, nooooobody knows. My best guess, given that Christopher was alive at the time the deal was made, is that they have only Second and Third Age material - ie, Akallabeth and Of the Rings of Power from Silm, plus everything except Of Tuor and the Narn from UT. That would give them "Galadriel and Celeborn", which I'd imagine they'd want given that she's one of the few movie characters around in the Second Age; and assuming they also have access to the Hobbit+LotR license, the beginning of Appendix A gives enough about the Two Trees and such that they could legitimately use it in the prologue without drawing on the Silm.

I have seen a claim that the Tolkien estate is "very happy" with how things are going. That comes from the same source that claims the only nudity being filmed is specifically non-sexualised... which led to the adorable claim by various fans that there is "No Nudity In Any Of The LotR Books". Bless... I can name three instances without even thinking about it, and that's not going near the Silm.

Honestly, I'm looking forward to it just so I can cackle with glee every time ill-informed people elsewhere on the internet claim that Tolkien would never have written nudity, or women doing anything other than sewing (no, actually it's pretty much only Arwen who sticks to that), or skin that wasn't ivory-white ("The Harfoots were browner of skin..."). At least on the Downs I know the criticisms I read will be grounded in actual facts, not people's made-up memories of misreading the books!

hS, practicing the cackle already, mwehehehe

[Galadriel55]

I have seen a claim that the Tolkien estate is "very happy" with how things are going. That comes from the same source that claims the only nudity being filmed is specifically non-sexualised... which led to the adorable claim by various fans that there is "No Nudity In Any Of The LotR Books". Bless... I can name three instances without even thinking about it, and that's not going near the Silm.

I got Frodo after the Orcs strip him clean after Cirith Ungol, and when Bombadil basically tells the hobbits to run around starkers in the grass. What's the third one?

And if we go to the Sil, I wonder if there is a mad fanfic somewhere out there about nude Saeros meeting nude Nienor. You know, he was not entirely wrong about the women of Dor-lomin. :p

[Inziladun]

I got Frodo after the Orcs strip him clean after Cirith Ungol, and when Bombadil basically tells the hobbits to run around starkers in the grass. What's the third one?

Gandalf uncloaking? He does say "Naked I lay upon the mountain-top". :eek:

And if we go to the Sil, I wonder if there is a mad fanfic somewhere out there about nude Saeros meeting nude Nienor. You know, he was not entirely wrong about the women of Dor-lomin. :p

Saeros shows his elvish foresight! Túrin can't handle the truth! :D

[Huinesoron]

I got Frodo after the Orcs strip him clean after Cirith Ungol, and when Bombadil basically tells the hobbits to run around starkers in the grass. What's the third one?

Bath time at Crickhollow, a scene in which I've just discovered Merry carefully lays out bathmats for the boys. Clearly he's familiar with Pippin's style of bathing!

And if we go to the Sil, I wonder if there is a mad fanfic somewhere out there about nude Saeros meeting nude Nienor. You know, he was not entirely wrong about the women of Dor-lomin. :p

There's not nearly so much Silm fanfic out there as there is LOTR, but also, absolutely yes this must exist.

Even with just those examples, we can see Tolkien using nudity as both a positive and negative thing. So yeah, it can certainly have a place in Middle-earth.

hS

[Michael Murry]

In a link that I posted to another thread about "LOTR"-brand television production shifting from New Zealand to the British Isles, I came upon the following quote that I thought also applies to this thread, as well:

After Amazon founder Jeff Bezos demanded a ‘Game of Thrones’-style program [emphasis added] to boost his company’s streaming service, the retail giant paid $250 million to secure the television rights to the franchise four years ago ...

How do we reconcile the treatment of nudity -- let alone, sex -- in Game of Thrones versus the treatment of such subjects by J. R. R. Tolkien in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings? I haven't read The Silmarillion, but I don't suppose one could find much explicit sexuality in this collection of unpublished (in his lifetime) writings. I haven't seen a single episode of The Game of Thrones, either, so I went looking on the Interwebs for something on the subject. I got the following back, right off the top:

The Ultimate Ranking of 'Game of Thrones' Sex Scenes
Rated on a scale of dracarys. 🔥
https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a29139/best-game-of-thrones-sex-scenes/

Even though it's over, if there's one thing Game of Thrones remains notorious for—aside from that divisive and disappointing ending, of course—it's the sex scenes that littered the series. From season one, episode one, Game of Thrones proved that it was a show that was not afraid to show plenty of sex scenes, from young hotties Daenerys and Jon Snow to the incestuous pairing that were Cersei and Jamie. Yes, there was plenty of death in Game of Thrones (some would say a depressing and unnecessary amount of death), including many of the people above—it's been over for a while, guys, I'm not going to apologize for the spoiler—but those heartbreaking death scenes were far outweighed by a long list of scorching hot (and, okay, if we're being totally honest here, some not as hot) sex scenes.

Game of Thrones wasn't shy about exploring sex in many different forms and between many different characters. Some of the show's love scenes were hard to watch (but some real-life sex is not the greatest either, so who are we to judge), but many of them were flaming hot like dragon fire. That's why we think it's appropriate that we've utilized a very scientific, very official fire emoji 🔥 -based system to rank the best Game of Thrones sex scenes. Below, we count down Game of Thrones' best and most iconic sexy time moments, from the not-at-all sexy to the ones that might as well have had characters literally screaming "DRACARYS" in ecstasy.

As opposed to this, I searched for some comments by J. R. R. Tolkien relative to this subject and found the following from an interview with him in 1964:

[16:36] Denys Gueroult: “Now, women play very little part indeed in the Lord of the Rings. Eowyn is almost the only woman in the book who shows any sign of sexual awareness at all. Did you deliberately exclude sex from the book?

J. R. R. Tolkien: “No, but after all, these are wars and a terrible expedition to the North Pole, so to speak.”

[For the complete interview, see: J.R.R. Tolkien 1964 interview (Subtitles)
J.R.R. Tolkien interviewed by Denys Gueroult for BBC in 1964 (released 1971).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDtmMXJ1B4]

Now, does anyone who has read The Silmarillion and seen Game of Thrones have any idea if the richest man on earth will get what he wants out of this television series and whether the "discriminating" television audience will swallow it as J. R. R. Tolkien's work without gagging?

[mhagain]

The Silmarillion has rape, attempted rape, incest, lust, nudity: it doesn't pull any punches and gives the lie to notions of Tolkien as some kind of puritan prude.

The old complaint that the Amazon series was going to go down the route of GoT style gratuitous titillation seems largely founded on the hiring (or at least advertising for) some kind of "nudity consultant" over a year ago. That's old news and seems disproven by the nudity actually being captured and tortured elves in a concentration camp type scene, possibly in the process of being twisted into orcs. There's seriously no other reason for it, other than unfounded Internet worries.

[Galadriel55]

I think the issue around sex/nude scenes is not so mich in their presence as in their use. GOT early seasons are known to have sex scenes just for the purpose of sex scenes - the story does not necessarily benefit from the expliciteness, nor even from the existence of the scene at all. Tolkien can write about nudity and sex and rape, but he'd never spend half a page describing someone's private parts in exquisite detail. He is more the type to let you know exactly what haplened, but to keep the details of the bedroom behind the curtain. It's not the presence of the scenes so much as the way they are done and the purpose they contribute to the story.

Would I watch a GOT style sexed up thing with Tolkien names? I would for Second Age material, to give it a fair chance as a very loose adaptation. I wouldn't if it attempts to adapt any more solid material. However, Hui said before that some sources say the sexualized angle is not what they are going for. Still, the nudity is not the reason I wouldn't watch it - I purposefully haven't watched movie adaptations of books that I really liked because I know they won't do it justice for me. Hence, if it's a very loose adaptation, I don't really care what they do with it, I will treat it basically as a work of its own, or a fanfiction. But if it sticks to the text enough to sort of follow the stoey but also warp everything, nah.

[Kuruharan]

Now, does anyone who has read The Silmarillion and seen Game of Thrones have any idea if the richest man on earth will get what he wants out of this television series and whether the "discriminating" television audience will swallow it as J. R. R. Tolkien's work without gagging?

Unknown on both, but what the richest man on earth wants is the series to make him lots of money and that may well happen. Fundamentally, this is just an attempt to make a quick buck off the name and work of a better creator.

Whether the discriminating audience will swallow it depends on how the source material is treated, but the philosophical perspectives of Tolkien's work and Game of Thrones (even as a separate thing from A Song of Ice and Fire) are miles and miles apart. I have a hard time imagining that they will mesh well.

The old complaint that the Amazon series was going to go down the route of GoT style gratuitous titillation seems largely founded on the hiring (or at least advertising for) some kind of "nudity consultant" over a year ago. That's old news and seems disproven by the nudity actually being captured and tortured elves in a concentration camp type scene, possibly in the process of being twisted into orcs. There's seriously no other reason for it, other than unfounded Internet worries.

This is not true, at least in my case. I had a bad reaction to the idea the moment I learned of the project and who was behind it. My concerns were increased tenfold when I saw in the statements from Amazon itself that they wanted to mimic the success of Game of Thrones. Per the links provided by Michael Murry provide ample evidence that everyone knows why GoT was so successful. Even the current overall cultural milieu is cause for concern that Tolkien's work will not be treated respectfully.

To the point I made above, based on their own words I think the Amazon production is more sympathetic to the philosophical point of view of GoT and will have every motivation to titillate the audience because that was the secret to success of GoT; and that is just one problem (although admittedly a major one) I have with this production.

[Inziladun]

I think the Amazon production is more sympathetic to the philosophical point of view of GoT and will have every motivation to titillate the audience because that was the secret to success of GoT; and that is just one problem (although admittedly a major one) I have with this production.

Precisely. I have little faith that fidelity to the spirit of the source is a concern for the project (if, indeed it is even possible to capture it in such a medium).

[Michael Murry]

The richest man on Earth has spent some money:
two-hundred-fifty million, so we hear,
for rights to make what some will not think funny:

a TV-series "based on" "writings" "near"
to what an Oxford don had not completed
but "might have" had he lived another year

or ten. His death left fandom feeling cheated
who wanted more of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
Escapist fantasies: Morgoth defeated!

In fact, where joined by Amazon's net worth,
the HBO and Netflix "streaming" plan
distracts from sights of "good guys" doomed from birth,

defeated by the common peasant man
in Vietnam and now Afghanistan.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright © 2021

[Michael Murry]

I kid you not, fellow Crimestoppers. Just as I started thinking about another way to lampoon in verse the forthcoming Amazon "steaming" [spelling intentional] television series and it's Amazon-ordered mission to mix Tolkien's Middle-earth mythology with HBO's Game of Thrones sexploitation, I catch this little item from Sputnik News:

Monica Lewinsky Pushed 'Thong-Flashing' Scene to Be in Upcoming 'Impeachment' TV Show
https://sputniknews.com/society/202108271083726070-monica-lewinsky-pushed-thong-flashing-scene-to-be-in-upcoming-impeachment-tv-show/

"Impeachment: American Crime Story" a forthcoming FX TV show, is set to hit the small screen on 7 September. It is based on the widely-known sex scandal involving the 42nd US president, Bill Clinton, and a former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, which led to Clinton's impeachment in the US House of Representatives.

Monica Lewinsky, one of the show producers for "Impeachment: American Crime Story", insisted that writers include a scene depicting her flashing a thong at then-US President Bill Clinton at the time of their White House affair, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The screenwriter team was at first afraid that re-enacting the scene would "retraumatize" Lewinsky, but the former White House intern greenlighted the "thong-flashing" section.

. . . [snip] . . .

Initially, Lewinsky shared the intimate detail in 2018, saying that she exposed her thongs to Clinton in 1995 in the middle of a government shutdown.

Lewinsky became a part of the production team of the show after Ryan Murphy, an FX producer, urged her to reconsider her concern and pledged that the show would be about the affair between her and a president, from the perspective of the women involved.

Despite the spicy topics raised in the show, "Impeachment", according to executive producer Nina Jacobson, will be "mindful of what we show when, and why, and what we don’t show, and why".

The show is scheduled to be released on 7 September, starring Beanie Feldstein as Lewinsky and Clive Owen as US President Bill Clinton.


Oh, well. At least I've got a working title for my next poetic polemic: "Game of Thongs."

[Michael Murry]

Again, from what I understand: Amazon plans to start televising the first episodes of their "Lord of the Rings" series next year (2022) which I look forward to lampooning given the sort of material that I assume will disgrace the entertainment industry -- a difficult task, I admit. Others more knowledgeable than myself in Tolkien Lore have said that The Silmarillion will constitute the literary basis for the intended rip-off. I don't have a copy of The Silmarillion, but I do have a copy of Unfinished Tales, where the Editor, Christopher Tolkien, writes in the Introduction:

"The problems that confront one given responsibility for the writings of a dead author are hard to resolve. Some persons in this position may elect to make no material whatsoever available for publication, save perhaps for work that was in a virtually finished state at the time of the author's death. In the case of the unfinished writings of J. R. R. Tolkien this might seem at first the proper course; since he himself, peculiarly critical and exacting of his own work, would not have dreamt of allowing even the more completed narratives in this book to appear without much further refinement." [emphasis added]

"On the other hand, the nature and scope of his invention seems to me to place even his abandoned stories in a peculiar position. That The Silmarillion should remain unknown was for me out of the question, despite its disordered state, and despite my father's known if very largely unfulfilled intentions for its transformation; and in that case I presumed, after long hesitation, to present the work not in the form of an historical study, a complex of divergent texts interlinked by commentary, but as a completed and cohesive entity." [emphasis added]

Without a copy of The Silmarillion, I have had to research the Internet -- Wikipedia and other on-line sources -- so that I have some clue as to the "divergent texts" that the television series plans to pilfer and "adapt." As a model for how I might go about lampooning this stuff -- as I did with the "Itaril/Tauriel" butt-kicking elf-chick love interest in The Hobbit movies -- I consulted National Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings" and the terrific send-up of Star Trek and its fan base in Galaxy Quest. I trust that this influence will come through in my next verse offering:

Demiurge Dementia

Valium, Land of the Vulgar, it seems,
features some real-estate made up of dreams
parceled-out absent competitive schemes,
"built" by The Owner for "his" chosen teams:
“Angels” who mouth metaphysical memes;
“Demons” who thump theological themes.

Boron and Lithium, man and elf female,
teamed up to perpetrate – down to the detail –
theft of a mineral stone (cheap at retail):
Morbid’s crown missing a rock, now for resale.
Lithium’s dad asked his girl why should she wail?
Boron knew that he’d get shafted should he fail.

Where do the Halfwits come into this story?
Trying to separate Labor from Tory,
What should we call them? A “truck” or a “lorry”?
Do they not serve as an apt allegory:
Rustic and “Middle” and “common” and hoary?
Who, if not them, will suffice as pure quarry?

Somehow this story sounds already told,
Like a stale meal having long since grown cold;
Fetid like swamp water covered with mold;
Reeking of avarice; done; over sold;
Amateur alchemy: tin made from gold;
Narrative nonsense: escape from the fold.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright © 2021

[Michael Murry]

Moving right along after consulting Wikipedia for the low-down on the tree-dwelling Elf Queen and her "consort."

The Undying Dirt

Gladrail and Celebrate,
Elf Queen and toy-boy mate,
she splits and he stays late
minding the forest.

She wears a ring: her fate.
He has to mind the gate.
He gets to clean her plate
and pay the florist.

She sails away to wait,
Dimly the Dwarf her date.
Present tense adequate:
Elf-speak’s aorist.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright © 2021

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As far as I can tell, nooooobody knows. My best guess, given that Christopher was alive at the time the deal was made, is that they have only Second and Third Age material

Although the events of that year remain to date very murky, it is clear that Christopher's position as head of the Estate ended almost exactly at the same time as the Amazon deal was struck.

Now, I can say with almost complete certainty that CRT would never, ever have agreed to this, not if Amazon, or anyone else, had offered him the entire US national debt in payment. Which leads me to conclude that either (a) Christopher retired due to advanced old age, and as soon as he was out of the way other family members jumped; or (b) Bezos came offering a quarter-gigabuck of cash, and the obstreperous old man was forced out because he stood between them and Smaug's horde.
And since the deal was made without Christopher it's almost certainly for the whole damn legendarium.

[Michael Murry]

... And since the deal was made without Christopher it's almost certainly for the whole damn legendarium.

It sure looks that way. From Wikipedia:

A synopsis released in January 2021 revealed that ... by July [2020], Amazon had gained access to certain elements and passages from The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales due to the Tolkien Estate being happy with the development of the series so far.

In light of the above, I think we can fairly assume that Amazon studios have already begun "interpreting" (i.e., encroaching upon) the Tolkien legendarium and will continue to do so. Then, as per typical movie-industry practices, lawyers will argue and judges will decide the distribution of profits, if any, resulting from the billion-dollar exercise in "entertainment."

At any rate, I understand that teaser trailers and a pilot episode will debut sometime before the end of this year; and, depending upon the viewing audience's reactions, we will no doubt see "changes of direction" (meaning, recasting of certain roles or deletion of them, etc.) that the "creative" executive producers will choose to make prior to the first season's episodes beginning to "steam" (not a misspelling) in early September of 2022. Not all that long to wait now for at least "something."

[Michael Murry]

To recapitulate my understand things, the forthcoming Amazon television series of steaming [not a misspelling] "Lord of the Rings" episodes -- projected to span several years -- will base itself on a mythology found in The Silmarillion, a book put together by Tolkien's son Christopher, about which I know next to nothing. (I always felt that if Tolkien didn't consider these writings fit to publish, then I needn't waste my time reading them.)

But "the show must go on," as the people paid to stage theatrical entertainments like to say, and so some sort of "adaptation" of Tolkien's "writings" (i.e., extensive notes) will most likely appear on television (or cell-phone) screens beginning with a teaser trailer and pilot episode sometime before the end of this year, with regular weekly episodes to begin in the fall of 2022.

In preparation for reading on-line reviews of these productions and their possible relation to mythology in general -- or J. R. R. Tolkien's "legendarium" in particular -- I thought I would access the Interwebs for information, if not enlightenment. Most, if not all, mythologies contain some sort of "origin" or "creation" story -- in this case, probably a narrative voice-over by an "immortal elf" like Cate Blanchet or Hugo Weaving -- and so I thought I would start with asking how Tolkien supposedly began describing his made-up world.

I found this:

Eä was first spoken by Eru Ilúvatar with which he brought into actuality. Eru commanded that the Eä "be!", "[Let it] be!", and then it was. It may be assumed that everything outside Eä, including the Timeless Halls of Ilúvatar, had no material form.

Pure, unadulterated gibberish. It meant nothing intelligible to me, but it did sound like something I hear or read from time to time:

ew – interjection. Pronounced ē-ü — used to express disgust at something distasteful or repellent (such as a bad odor) “Ew, what's that smell?”

Then, a somewhat technical term for this sort of thing occurred to me:

apotheosis – noun. The elevation of someone [or something] to divine status

Which led to another terza rima sonnet attempting to put it all together in verse, my preferred medium of literary exposition:

Apotheosis of Existential Odor

Ew (ill avatar) cried: "Let stuff be!"
So stuff became where stuff wasn’t before.
Nothing for stuff means stuff happens for free:

Schema, mythology, hand-me-down “lore;”
Pure fabrication: fictitious tall tales;
Filling up silence which Halfwits abhor.

Fantasy triumphs where disbelief fails.
Posit The One and name IT “Deity.”
Publish and hope that does wonders for sales.

Coin the term “being” (which no one can see).
Then call it “is” (far more easy to spell).
Thus, tautological identity:

"A is A," proves syllogism can sell
Anything – if you can just stand the smell.

Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright © 2021

[R.R.J Tolkien]

http://ew.com/tv/2017/11/13/lord-of-the-rings-tv-series/


Amazon is the perfect company to destroy Tolkien's work. Having said that I will watch the first episode while I scream at the television until I refuse to watch anymore. I will then pick it up the next week in defiance of my oath to never watch it again where my actions will predictably repeat. I assume it will take anywhere from 3-5 shows for me to actually keep my word, realize my hope of an accurate portrayal could never happen with Amazon at the helm, and finally discard the show.

[Inziladun]

Amazon is the perfect company to destroy Tolkien's work. Having said that I will watch the first episode while I scream at the television until I refuse to watch anymore. I will then pick it up the next week in defiance of my oath to never watch it again where my actions will predictably repeat. I assume it will take anywhere from 3-5 shows for me to actually keep my word, realize my hope of an accurate portrayal could never happen with Amazon at the helm, and finally discard the show.

You know, I think my response to watching the show would likely be very similar.
That said, I don't yet see any reason that I should watch it (which was precisely my view on the PJ film treatments).

The books have very deep meaning to me. Tolkien has been part of my life for as long as I can remember.
Would watching "adaptations" written by other people, using his invented settings and characters, increase my affection for the original material? My experience with the LOTR movies indicates the answer is "not bloody likely".
Am I likely to appreciate the direction Tolkien's world takes in the hands of those who, in all likelihood, don't have the love and respect of his creative output that I possess?
Highly doubtful.
If Tolkien didn't give me some bit of information I am curious over, I much prefer to speculate on it in my own mind, rather than having a big-budget production spoon-feed their own version to me.

[Zigûr]

That said, I don't yet see any reason that I should watch it (which was precisely my view on the PJ film treatments).
I agree. Life is too short to waste watching something I already know I won't enjoy.

[Galadriel55]

That said, I don't yet see any reason that I should watch it (which was precisely my view on the PJ film treatments).

So as someone who plans to watch the show, my answer is that the reason for the decision has nothing to do with Tolkien. For all intents and purposes, I am pretending this is just another run of the mill unrelated fantasy show, and if they get something right - it's a bonus. And I'll watch for the same reasons that I'd give other shows a shot. I suppose it's a similar attitude I've had to the show Sherlock. It was a pretty good show in early seasons, though the only thing it had in common with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were a few names. You don't watch it for Doyle, you watch it for the show itself, and enjoy the oblique references to Doyle's stories when they appear.

Now, if they actually make it Tolkien enough that it's recognizably written-ish material, and butcher that, I might just stop watching, because that is something that will ruin my appetite.

[mhagain]

...once upon a time... I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story – the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths ..... The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.


I'm going to keep an open mind, not pre-suppose whether I'll like it or not, and at least watch it for what it is. If it's good, I'll enjoy it. It won't be the books, it won't be the same story as in the books, but I'm not going to just decide that I hate it on that count. If it's not good I won't enjoy it.

[Rhun charioteer]

Looking at the casting, the majority of characters are OCs. I am absolutely convinced this will be nothing close to Tolkien’s work in either theme or story.

My guess is it will be a generic fantasy esque show perhaps with Galadriel as the main heroine.

It seems that once Christopher Tolkien died, the estate sold out for a quarter of a billion dollars.

[Snowdog]

Looking at the casting, the majority of characters are OCs. I am absolutely convinced this will be nothing close to Tolkien’s work in either theme or story.

My guess is it will be a generic fantasy esque show perhaps with Galadriel as the main heroine.

It seems that once Christopher Tolkien died, the estate sold out for a quarter of a billion dollars.

Yeah that's about right. There is little to no canon characters for the period being covered so it's clearly going to have OCs. not sure what anyone expected with this other than a high-budget fanfic.

[Huinesoron]

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone
Nine for mortal Men, doomed to die
One for the Dark Lord, on his dark throne
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

We have a trailer! (https://twitter.com/LOTRonPrime/status/1483816516327915522?cxt=HHwWhICq-dHQyZcpAAAA) Well, sort of. A teaser? A promo spot? I don't know.

And we have a title!

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, coming 2nd September 2022.

(Letter 115 (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Letter_115) mentions "Fall of Numenor" and "Rings of Power" as two texts Tolkien viewed as linking the Silmarillion to the Third Age. This is presumably "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age", but the short form means there is Tolkienian backing for this title.)

hS

[Galadriel55]

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, coming 2nd September 2022.

Should have made it the 22nd. What is this timing, distracting kids from the start of the school year? :p

[Boromir88]

Looking at the casting, the majority of characters are OCs. I am absolutely convinced this will be nothing close to Tolkien’s work in either theme or story.

My guess is it will be a generic fantasy esque show perhaps with Galadriel as the main heroine.

It seems that once Christopher Tolkien died, the estate sold out for a quarter of a billion dollars.

For what it's worth, it wouldn't surprise me if the names Amazon has put out there are part of a false information campaign. It's fairly common for large projects such as this TV series to want to keep a lid on spoilers and use fake names.

Although, as Snowdog says, it's not like there is an abundance of canon characters during the period the series is covering.

[Inziladun]

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone
Nine for mortal Men, doomed to die
One for the Dark Lord, on his dark throne
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

We have a trailer! (https://twitter.com/LOTRonPrime/status/1483816516327915522?cxt=HHwWhICq-dHQyZcpAAAA) Well, sort of. A teaser? A promo spot? I don't know.

Is it of any note that a female voice is reciting the Ring verse? Who is that? Tauriel? Arwen? Strong Female Character #1? :rolleyes:

[Kuruharan]

Is it of any note that a female voice is reciting the Ring verse? Who is that? Tauriel? Arwen? Strong Female Character #1? :rolleyes:

Suspect Galadriel, just different actress.

[Inziladun]

Suspect Galadriel, just different actress.

Shame they couldn't have got Cate Blanchett, in that case.
I'm not a huge fan of her portrayal, but she's at least a fine actor.

[Boromir88]

Now that it appears the plot will be focused on the Rings of Power, I think Eregion will be a likely important location. This has piqued my interests in the series a bit, because I think the relationship between Celebrimbor and Sauron is a fascinating story to delve into.

There's not many details in Unfinished Tales: "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn" so I can imagine it's a story that appeals to writers who like having "creative license." But even so, it's a fascinating story in my opinion on Celebrimbor's friendship with "Annatar." Was Sauron at any point after serving Melkor sincere in repentance and his friendship with Celebrimbor? Or did he use Celebrimbor's shared ambitions and connection to play him a fool? :cool:

[Inziladun]

I wonder if this (https://www.geekfeed.com/isildurs-sister-allegedly-cast-in-amazons-lotr-series/#:~:text=This%20revelation%20comes%20after%20a,set ting%20sail%20for%20Middle%2DEarth.) is indeed true.

I think I've been approaching the problem with this project from the wrong angle.

My worries have been mainly that the desire for GoT style success to generate huge profits would override any fidelity to the spirit of the source material.
However, there is a stronger force in play.

I have seen very many examples in recent years of things I enjoyed being remade (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ghostbusters_2016) and "updated" (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_episode_vii_the_force_awakens) to reflect so-called modern and "progressive" ideas.

A streaming show on another network is doing its level best to destroy everything I admire about a great Star Trek character (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Picard).

Is it remotely possible that Middle-earth as depicted in the new show will be recognizable as the beloved world in Tolkien's books? Or even that place Peter Jackson sees in his mind?

If Isildur is now going to have a have a sister, the broken-down examples I pointed at above dictate that he will be ground down and shown to be weak, so she can be that much more superior in every way.

Can the works of a man like Tolkien be allowed expression in their old form? Aren't they too full of male characters who don't deserve the spotlight? Don't so-called progressive messages impose themselves on every facet of entertainment today? Why should this be any different?

The pressure on the producers of this show must be immense. Yes, they want to make money, but they must do it the right way, by appealing to the right people. I don't think old-school fans whose first experience was to the books decades ago are in that group.

Yes, Hollywood. You've torn down Luke Skywalker in favor of a Mary Sue who didn't earn anything she got.
You made Jean-Luc Picard a weak old man, afraid to take decisive action and forever apologizing for being himself.
I really don't even care about Dr Who, but from what I've heard, the BBC has really taken a sledgehammer to everything old fans liked about it.

Again, what hope is there that Amazon won't go the same way with Tolkien?

I think I'm now going to stop paying attention to anything having to do with this rot. That way lies only sadness.

[Huinesoron]

If Isildur is now going to have a have a sister, the broken-down examples I pointed at above dictate that he will be ground down and shown to be weak, so she can be that much more superior in every way.

Can the works of a man like Tolkien be allowed expression in their old form? Aren't they too full of male characters who don't deserve the spotlight? Don't so-called progressive messages impose themselves on every facet of entertainment today? Why should this be any different?


Isildur is weak.

Or rather, no. Isildur is three characters.

1/ The one who appears in LotR. He kills Sauron with his father's sword, takes the Ring, refuses to destroy it, and ultimately gets shot in the back while trying to sneak away while his soldiers and sons die. By this point, strong or weak, Isildur is a crown prince (and indeed High King), who must have come a long way from his life in Numenor decades before.

2/ The Silmarillion version, who gets nearly a whole paragraph(!) to himself. He sneaks into Armenelos and retrieves a fruit of the White Tree, nearly dying in the process. This is the strong version, though he doesn't "earn anything []he got".

3/ The version from the drafts, specifically The Lost Road. This one isn't even called Isildur - he's Herendil, son of Elendil, but he has the same narrative position. He's weak! He's practically a Sauron loyalist! "Is there a shadow? I have not seen it. But I have heard others speak of it; and they say it is the shadow of Death. But Sauron did not bring that; he promiseth that he will save us from it." In the notes associated with the text, he either winds up arrested by Sauron - or betraying his father to him.

If you want Isildur to be a character, not simply an archetype (good or bad), the only remotely Tolkienian way to do it is to combine these stories. He starts out led astray by Sauron and Pharazon - he finds his way to being the hero who rescues the fruit of Nimloth - and at the end he succumbs to the lure of Sauron's own weapon and power. He is weak - and then, through character growth, he becomes strong.

As to your comments about Tolkien being a man, whose male characters should be permitted to male in a manly fashion unmolested by women, well, a) :eek:, but b) Numenor is the place that idea holds up the least-well. Am I wrong to say it's the only place in the Legendarium where Tolkien wrote a fully fleshed-out story of conflict between men and women? He covered the same theme many times - Nerdanel, Yavanna, Haleth, and of course Eowyn - but the only one who gets an entire story to herself is Erendis.

Men in Númenor are half-Elves (said Erendis), especially the high men; they are neither the one nor the other. The long life that they were granted deceives them, and they dally in the world, children in mind, until age finds them - and then many only forsake play out of doors for play in their houses. They turn their play into great matters and great matters into play. They would be craftsmen and loremasters and heroes all at once; and women to them are but fires on the hearth - for others to tend, until they are tired of play in the eve*ning. All things were made for their service: hills are for quarries, river to furnish water or to turn wheels, trees for boards, women for their body's need, or if fair to adorn their table and hearth; and children to be teased when nothing else is to do - but they would as soon play with their hounds' whelps. To all they are gracious and kind, merry as larks in the morning (if the sun shines); for they are never wrathful if they can avoid it. Men should be gay, they hold, generous as the rich, giving away what they do not need. Anger they show only when they become aware, suddenly, that there are other wills in the world beside their own. Then they will be as ruthless as the seawind if anything dare to withstand them.

Thus it is, Ancalimë, and we cannot alter it. For men fashioned Númenor: men, those heroes of old that they sing of - of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain. Númenor was to be a rest after war. But if they weary of rest and the plays of peace, soon they will go back to their great play, manslaying and war. Thus it is; and we are set here among them. But we need not assent. If we love Númenor also, let us enjoy it before they ruin it. We also are daughters of the great, and we have wills and courage of our own. Therefore do not bend, Ancalimë. Once bend a little, and they will bend you further until you are bowed down. Sink your roots into the rock, and face the wind, though it blow away all your leaves.

So Isildur might have a woman close to him who objects to him going to war? Who doesn't just let him go about his business, but has a will of her own and does not necessarily bend to the desires of men?

Gosh. I wonder where that idea came from.

hS

(PS: Curiously, there are actually two women of "Herendil's" age mentioned in The Lost Road: Almariel, "whose hair is of shining gold, and she is a maiden, and of my own age", who seems to be presented as his friend; and Firiel, "a maiden of [Elendil's] household, daughter of Orontor". Isildur's wife is mentioned, though not named, twice in the Silmarillion, both times after the escape from Numenor. His mother is not mentioned at all. And, interestingly, there is a sister in the Andunie family who plays a significant role: Lindórië, sister of the Lord of Andunie and mother of Inzilbeth. She taught her daughter the ways of the Faithful, and she passed them on to her own son, Tar-Palantir, King of Numenor. Numenorean women are a force to be reckoned with.)

[Zigûr]

Again, what hope is there that Amazon won't go the same way with Tolkien?
Was there ever any doubt that it wouldn't?

I think anyone who goes into this new show thinking it isn't going to take a modern Hollywood approach to diversity and incorporate it into Middle-earth is kidding themselves. And I say that as a dreaded "progressive" who doesn't have a problem with that approach in principle. Execution is a different matter, obviously.

As with most modern sequels/adaptations/re-imaginings etc. I strongly suspect what will really be the problem with the Amazon show will be that it gets the tone wrong, and not because of its gender politics.

[Kuruharan]

Was Sauron at any point after serving Melkor sincere in repentance and his friendship with Celebrimbor? Or did he use Celebrimbor's shared ambitions and connection to play him a fool? :cool:

Post Melkor, possibly, but by the time he went to Eregion I think it is clear that ship had long since sailed.

[Boromir88]

Post Melkor, possibly, but by the time he went to Eregion I think it is clear that ship had long since sailed.

You'd say I'm probably too intrigued that we may hopefully get a character, Sauron, in this series. I mean making the actual character, depicting his story and his "fall," not just a flaming eyeball. :cool:

[mhagain]

I think anyone who goes into this new show thinking it isn't going to take a modern Hollywood approach to diversity and incorporate it into Middle-earth is kidding themselves. And I say that as a dreaded "progressive" who doesn't have a problem with that approach in principle. Execution is a different matter, obviously.


This, basically. There's absolutely nothing wrong with diversity, it's all in how it's done. To take two current or recent examples: Star Trek Discovery and The Expanse. Both present diversity as a theme, but could they be any more different in the execution?

Maybe the problem is with adding diversity where there was previously none? Why not just say that?

There are a lot of people in this thread who seem to have imagined up a worst case scenario of how this show could go, then decided that they're going to hate it with the burning fire of a billion suns based on not much more than their own imaginings. I just don't get that.

[Galadriel55]

There are a lot of people in this thread who seem to have imagined up a worst case scenario of how this show could go, then decided that they're going to hate it with the burning fire of a billion suns based on not much more than their own imaginings. I just don't get that.

It's the trick of setting the bar so low that it's hard to fail so miserably. ;) Expect the best, and you will suffer disappointment. Expect the worst, and you may be spared. It's not going to be "good" by definition, the way I and a number of others here would define a good Tolkien adaptation. But I myself am taking the more cheerful route of gleefully making fun of the expected ridiculousness rather than letting it gall my spleen. You see, it's hard to out-pessimism reality, but if you succeed in out-pessimisming movie expectations, you might actually enjoy it for whatever good elements - or at least entertainment value - it will have. And if it still sucks even after you've done all that - well, it good and truly sucks, if it failed even the lowest bar you could imagine.

I recommend it to all - care less and laugh at it more. Seriously, it's already given me quite a bit of entertainment factor. It's like The Room / The Disaster Artist - perhaps it was not intended to function as a comedy, but if nothing else, it can at least be that in the expectations stage.


But if you wanna talk about more positive expectations - what are yours? What would you like to see, within the scarce info we have, that would make a story you'd enjoy?

[Huinesoron]

It's the trick of setting the bar so low that it's hard to fail so miserably. ;) Expect the best, and you will suffer disappointment. Expect the worst, and you may be spared.

But it's kind of grim for those of us who would actually like it to be good, that every time we come in here with a new tidbit of news the responses are all "this just proves that it's going to be terrible" when it doesn't do anything of the sort.


But if you wanna talk about more positive expectations - what are yours? What would you like to see, within the scarce info we have, that would make a story you'd enjoy?

Thanks, I will!


I want to see Numenor. It won't be my Numenor - that's currently veering towards the Egyptian-Mesoamerican style - but it will be Numenor. The visuals from the movies, plus the one image we have from this series, tell me that they're excellent at evoking Tolkien's landscapes.
I want to see hints and glimpses of the First Age. Not lots - and despite the contention that the Estate has sold out entirely to Amazon, I don't believe that they would allow a great deal of First Age material - but glimpses like Tolkien scattered through LotR. Give me the Lay of Leithian as background in a party, and paintings of the Fall of Ancalagon. :D
I want to see Elves (Sam says hi ^_^). More than that, I want to see Elvish civilisation. We've not seen that - Imladris, Lorien, and Mirkwood were fading enclaves. I want Lindon and Ost-in-Edhil and, ideally, glimpses of Eressea and Tirion. (Gondolin and Nargothrond is probably pushing it, but ye Valar! Give me a flash of them in the prologue!)
As for the story... I want Tar-Miriel to get the respect she deserves. I know, I know - women, in Tolkien?! But it's inconceivable to me that the Last Queen of Numenor - the only person who attempted to intervene with the One to save the island, even if (as an earlier tale of Earendil ran) she came too late - wouldn't be involved in the Resistance.
I want to see the fall of Pharazon - or further fall. I want to see him as an example of how there is always a deeper depth to sink to. He starts out pretty bad, as a racist rapist; he winds up as a death-cultist waging war against heaven. I want to see that decline take place not all at once, but in realistic slow time. I want to see Annatar corrupting Numenor (and Celebrimbor, if we get that story) by tiny, reasonable steps.
I want them to draw on all the stories of Numenor. Not merging Silmarien, Aldarion and Isildur into a single nightmare timeframe, but using elements from the earlier stories. A series has room for more side characters than a movie, so draw on The Mariner's Wife to give us the Lord of Romenna's fights with his lady wife. Take Elendil and his son's discussions in The Lost Road and use them to give us a Faithful/King's Men debate that's more than just "you're evil" vs "you're too nice".
And I want them to remember that, in any story that didn't include Sauron, Numenor would be the villain. The Numenoreans are racist, slave-taking invaders, and even the good ones are built on that foundation (just ask the Dunlendings!). I fully expect that some of our primary cast will be naive King's Men who discover what's really going on and join the Faithful over it; but I hope there will also be those who find out and... don't change, because actually, people can justify almost anything to themselves. "Take up the Edain's burden / The best ye breed forth send! / Go raise your sons as sailors / To bind the Lesser Men."


None of this is particularly implausible (the most unlikely is them using The Mariner's Wife). None of it makes the outcome a definite success. But it would provide the foundation for a good-quality adaptation of Tolkien's world, built on the wonder that is Middle-earth and giving it something to say about the sometimes vile way humans treat each other - and how we can do better.

What I don't want to see is a straightforward adaptation of the Tale of Superhero Isildur and Cartoonishly Evil Sauron-n-Pharazon, And How Good Inevitably Triumphed (Shame About That Ring). Even The Hobbit has more moral depth than that.

hS

[Galadriel55]

I want them to draw on all the stories of Numenor. Not merging Silmarien, Aldarion and Isildur into a single nightmare timeframe, but using elements from the earlier stories.*

I can totally get behind that. And this is something GOT managed to do quite well - they integrate snippets of history into the story. So if we can learn about Aegon the this and Maegor the that, I think we can learn about Aldarion and Erendis and Silmarien. And a few First Age tales - but I don't think I want more than a brief flash of the FA.

I want to see the fall of Pharazon - or*further*fall. I want to see him as an example of how there is*always*a deeper depth to sink to. He starts out pretty bad, as a racist rapist; he winds up as a death-cultist waging war against heaven. I want to see that decline take place not all at once, but in realistic slow time. I want to see Annatar corrupting Numenor (and Celebrimbor, if we get that story) by tiny, reasonable steps.

And this too. It would be nice if this happens. But - and I stick by my previous post - I ain't gonna count on them getting it right. I prefer pleasant surprises to disappointments, especially in the movie industry. ;)

[Boromir88]

I'm excited to get some new blood in a Tolkien adaptation. I wish Del Toro would have been able to stick around for The Hobbit. And I never had any major gripes with the casting in either trilogy, but I think it's good we're getting a different cast and crew for this series.

I believe I read Howard Shore is doing the score again. I was slightly disappointed in The Hobbit score, because I think he recycled a few themes, but the Misty Mountains theme (and the song in Bag End I enjoyed). Not to mention the LOTR score was top shelf. Rohan theme and Khazad-dum theme give me chills every time.

[Michael Murry]

I forgot how to do links, so I'll just post the Internet Address of a web site named "Looper" where an article entitled "Amazon's Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power Character Posters Are Extremely Revealing" appeared. The article appears with the date February 3, 2022.

https://www.looper.com/756872/amazons-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-character-posters-are-extremely-revealing/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_7038110&utm_content=3

I have no idea what to say about this but would find the opinions of others here of interest.

[Kuruharan]

You'd say I'm probably too intrigued that we may hopefully get a character, Sauron, in this series. I mean making the actual character, depicting his story and his "fall," not just a flaming eyeball. :cool:

I think that is absolutely inescapable. How could they do it without him? (Don't answer that.)

I forgot how to do links, so I'll just post the Internet Address of a web site named "Looper" where an article entitled "Amazon's Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power Character Posters Are Extremely Revealing" appeared. The article appears with the date February 3, 2022.

https://www.looper.com/756872/amazons-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-character-posters-are-extremely-revealing/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_7038110&utm_content=3

I have no idea what to say about this but would find the opinions of others here of interest.

I'm glad it didn't turn out to be what I was afraid it would be when I read that headline.

[Boromir88]

I’m not sure if they are too revealing, I can clearly see (or guess some of the characters)…Sauron, Isildur, Ar-Pharazon I’d place money on those characters. But don’t have a good idea on most of them beyond “that’s a dwarf, that’s a man, Galadriel is probably in there.

I am impressed with the visuals and design, but with the budget of the project I was expecting the visuals to be stunning. (From the teaser posters they certainly are)

[Galadriel55]

I am pleasantly surprised with the Two Trees dagger as an item - creative and canonical, without being tied to any specific Tolkien item. What they do with it is another matter.

I am curious about the last picture, where the person's armour depicts a sun. They don't comment on it. Whose emblem is that? House of Finarfin (Gildor Inglorion?? Galadriel's people??)? House of Finwe (...Gil-Galad? But he has his own heraldic device...)? Anarion, because of the Sun thing?

They speculate about hobbits, and that I am dubious about. It would be a good easter egg to have some stoors make an oblique appearance, and this would certainly not be the first Tolkien fan-fic (yes, that is how I treat it) to wonder where the hobbits are in the earlier Ages... But I have too much suspicion that this is gonna be a let's-repeat-LOTR and have the hobbits secretly save the day things... which I would not like at all. In other words, I have more faith that they will do good stuff with the daggers and armour part of canon and head-canon, and much less faith that they will do good stuff with the Peoples of ME.

[Boromir88]

I am pleasantly surprised with the Two Trees dagger as an item - creative and canonical, without being tied to any specific Tolkien item. What they do with it is another matter.


Good spot. My best guesses would be a Noldor elf, perhaps from the House of Fingolfin. That would seem to make the most sense. So perhaps an item passed down to Gil-galad, and they figure a spear would be too spoilery? Or even, Glorfindel who was a follower of the House of Fingolfin during their exile from Tirion.

[Boromir88]

The comments about this news were seriously disgraceful. Being passionate about the source material is no excuse.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LOTRUpdates/status/1489790294983905284

[Huinesoron]

The comments about this news were seriously disgraceful. Being passionate about the source material is no excuse.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LOTRUpdates/status/1489790294983905284

People are... disgusting. Nor is it even 'passionate about the source material'; there are no sources claiming that all seven houses of the dwarves were pale, and frankly I doubt there's even one for the Longbeards! It's just knee-jerk racism.

~

Overall I'm not 100% convinced by that twitter account's claims (https://mobile.twitter.com/LOTRUpdates). They're sourcing from this one (https://mobile.twitter.com/FellowshipFans), and things like... the absolutely covered-in-gold character is Gil-Galad, whose whole theme is silver? Are you sure?

But that's fandom rumours for you. Probably some are true, some are not. We will all find out in - cripes - seven months. :)

If they are right, then we seem to have three timeframes represented in the posters:

- The First Age. They're claiming Galadriel on the Helkaraxe, and I've seen a very plausible theory that the broken sword (https://twitter.com/LOTRonPrime/status/1489254347435175949) could be Gurthang. Also, y'know, Two Trees image.

- The War of the Elves and Sauron. Celebrimbor, and potentially Durin.

- The Akallabeth. This is most of them. ^_^ They've namedropped Elendil, Pharazon, and a surprisingly-scruffy Isildur (and his sister Carine*).

(*Which would be Ca-ri-në, not Ca-reen. Plausibly Quenya but without any obvious derivation.)

I've seen suggestions that the First Age material is limited to the first episode; whether that means it's just a prologue, or whether they're devoting an entire episode to Beleriand, I can't even speculate.

(I was gonna start posting theories about the posters, but a) lots of work, and b) if there's official rumours, there's not a lot of point.)

hS

[mhagain]

But if you wanna talk about more positive expectations - what are yours? What would you like to see, within the scarce info we have, that would make a story you'd enjoy?


I'll bite - here's a top three. :cool:


I want to see the Battle of Unnumbered Tears. There are so many cinematic scenes in that, from the arrival of Turgon, to the charge of Gwindor, to the last stand of Húrin, it almost demands to be visually depicted. It needn't be a full episode, give me it as prologue material or something, but I so badly want to see that.


I want to see more about the Nazgul. If they can construct a good backstory that works well, and show us something about those Kings and Sorcerers before they became Ringwraiths, the people they were, and the reasons why they succumbed to temptation. Get this right and it could be like the fall of Darth Vader times nine, without the angst and whining.


I want to see something I haven't seen before in a depiction of Middle-earth. We've had heroism, we've had struggle, we've had hope, we've had sadness, we've had the passing of an older age; we've already had these themes. I want to see something that evokes the huge titanic struggles, the Powers clashing, something that will make me **** myself.

[Huinesoron]

I want to see more about the Nazgul. If they can construct a good backstory that works well, and show us something about those Kings and Sorcerers before they became Ringwraiths, the people they were, and the reasons why they succumbed to temptation. Get this right and it could be like the fall of Darth Vader times nine, without the angst and whining.


Okay, I would love this. Previous attempts to do anything with the Nazgul have been... uh... pretty dang bad, and I will be clawing at the walls if any of them turn out to be a) dead (https://middle-earth-film-saga.fandom.com/wiki/High_Fells_of_Rhudaur) or b) Isildur (https://shadowofwar.fandom.com/wiki/Isildur). But if they can do it well, it would be incredible.

hS

[Huinesoron]

Hey hey, actual news! The first trailer is coming next Sunday (https://www.theonering.net/torwp/2022/02/07/111973-official-lotr-trailer-watch-party-for-prime-videos-rings-of-power-to-be-hosted-by-torn/)! And TORn are doing a watch party.

Honestly I would not have expected to find myself visiting TORn for movie-related news again. What a world.

hS

[Thinlómien]

Has anyone else seen in the new Vanity Fair article with lots of pictures and details about the main characters and storylines? https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/amazon-the-rings-of-power-series-first-look

I have to say I'm not super impressed (sounds like high budget fan fiction, some of the costumes are terrible... is that one dude wearing a t-shirt??). I'll comment more a little later after I've chewed this and read the recent discussion on this thread.

[Galadriel55]

Has anyone else seen in the new Vanity Fair article with lots of pictures and details about the main characters and storylines? https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/amazon-the-rings-of-power-series-first-look

I have to say I'm not super impressed (sounds like high budget fan fiction, some of the costumes are terrible... is that one dude wearing a t-shirt??). I'll comment more a little later after I've chewed this and read the recent discussion on this thread.

Just had time to look at the first few paragraphs... Life of Gal is not what I wanna watch. I expect nothing other than fan fiction, but - there's fanfiction, and there's fanfiction.

[Huinesoron]

I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread for the Vanity Fair article, because I'm likely to go on about it at length and don't wanna swamp this one.

"The Rings of Power" Vanity Fair article (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19574)

hS

[Rhun charioteer]

My read is this will be a generic fantasy show with the Tolkien label slapped onto it. This is Bezos attempt at emulating HBO's success with Game of Thrones, nothing more. An utter disaster that should never have been conceived.

[skytree]

My read is this will be a generic fantasy show with the Tolkien label slapped onto it. This is Bezos attempt at emulating HBO's success with Game of Thrones, nothing more. An utter disaster that should never have been conceived.

It won't be Tolkien or Middle Earth as he wrote or envisioned it or it's protagonist. It will simply be an attempt an immersive fantasy series branded as Tolkien because everything is about "Branding" first, as a commercial appeal to the masses while continuity and Tolkien's purpose for conceiving it all a distant second.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

People are... disgusting. Nor is it even 'passionate about the source material'; there are no sources claiming that all seven houses of the dwarves were pale, and frankly I doubt there's even one for the Longbeards! It's just knee-jerk racism.
hS

I rather take exception to that. There can be other motivations which have nothing to do with "knee-jerk racism," starting with a wish to see Middle-earth rendered as its creator envisioned it. And while, no, T never said explicitly that the Seven Houses were all pale-complected, within the overall structure of the world -calqued upon Europe as it expressly is - it would take a direct counter-statement for me to accept it (e.g. T telling us point blank that Dwarven women had beards).

But more than that, there is the aesthetic objection to everything in pop culture being arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup, the universal condiment of the 2020s. This is not casting-Sidney-Poitier-in-the-Sixties social courage; it's just more pumpkin spice product.

Does it represent an artistic improvement? No. It is an entirely political superimposition; and its defenders tend to react to artistic objections in (insulting) political terms.

Would it be "racist" to object to an adaptation of Things Fall Apart including white and Asian and Latino actors, because "diversity?" Should Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon be castigated because there isn't a single non-Chinese character anywhere? Should Moby-Dick (which always had a racially diverse crew) be re-shot with women whalers interjected, and would objections thereto be "sexist?"

[Huinesoron]

I rather take exception to that.

You take exception? I rather take exception to the claim that seeing any non-white characters in a story that spans thousands of miles of fictional terrain, and runs from the Arctic to nearly the equator, is "arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup", "more pumpkin spice product", and "an entirely political superimposition". I take exception to the insistence that every Good character in Tolkien must be white, because... well, because they must be, right? Tolkien would never have imagined that the Good races could include non-white people, right? Because...?

"Racism" is not a political term. It is a matter of fundamental ethics. Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them (which answers most-to-all of your "scare-quoted" questions at the end, by the way), is wrong. Excluding them from things - yes, including playing characters in an adaptation of Tolkien - for no more reason than that you're comfortable with the way things are is wrong.

And I firmly believe Tolkien would agree with me.

For the high men of Gondor already looked askance at the Northmen among them; and it was a thing unheard of before that the heir to the crown, or any son of the King, should wed one of lesser and alien race. There was already rebellion in the southern provinces when King Valacar grew old. His queen had been a fair and noble lady, but short-lived according to the fate of lesser Men, and the Dúnedain feared that her descendants would prove the same and fall from the majesty of the Kings of Men. Also they were unwilling to accept as lord her son, who though he was now called Eldacar, had been born in an alien country and was named in his youth Vinitharya, a name of his mother's people.

Therefore when Eldacar succeeded his father there was war in Gondor.

When Gondorian nobles objected to immigrant Northmen playing Beren on stage, I bet you it was on "aesthetic" grounds.

hS

[Morthoron]

You take exception? I rather take exception to the claim that seeing any non-white characters in a story that spans thousands of miles of fictional terrain, and runs from the Arctic to nearly the equator, is "arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup", "more pumpkin spice product", and "an entirely political superimposition". I take exception to the insistence that every Good character in Tolkien must be white, because... well, because they must be, right? Tolkien would never have imagined that the Good races could include non-white people, right? Because...?

"Racism" is not a political term. It is a matter of fundamental ethics. Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them (which answers most-to-all of your "scare-quoted" questions at the end, by the way), is wrong. Excluding them from things - yes, including playing characters in an adaptation of Tolkien - for no more reason than that you're comfortable with the way things are is wrong.

And I firmly believe Tolkien would agree with me.

It is Tolkien's mythology for England. The heroes as well as the most malevolent characters are white. The area of Northwestern Europe wherein lies much of the plot has white ethnic groups. Only when one travels to the far south or east are there deviations (not surprisingly mimicking global trends). I am quite certain the heroes and villains of most African ethnic groups' mythologies are decidedly dark skinned (I am only acquainted with Yoruba and Zulu mythos, but they are applicable).

Greek mythology has a lot of Greeks in it -- their gods and heroes. This may be distracting or absurd to you, I know, but it suited the Greeks. Did you get indignant when decidedly non-Greek Brad Pitt played Achilles -- other than the bad acting, of course?


Originally Posted by Appendix A
For the high men of Gondor already looked askance at the Northmen among them; and it was a thing unheard of before that the heir to the crown, or any son of the King, should wed one of lesser and alien race. There was already rebellion in the southern provinces when King Valacar grew old. His queen had been a fair and noble lady, but short-lived according to the fate of lesser Men, and the Dúnedain feared that her descendants would prove the same and fall from the majesty of the Kings of Men. Also they were unwilling to accept as lord her son, who though he was now called Eldacar, had been born in an alien country and was named in his youth Vinitharya, a name of his mother's people.

Therefore when Eldacar succeeded his father there was war in Gondor.

When Gondorian nobles objected to immigrant Northmen playing Beren on stage, I bet you it was on "aesthetic" grounds.
hS

"No Irish Need Apply". Actually, if you read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the worried monks who scribbled the annals spoke of the "demon race" the Danes, damnable invading white guys who were not Danish for the most part and were nearly kissing cousins of the Saxons priests they were pillaging.

The refined and perhaps debauched Gondorions probably viewed these proto-Goths in much the same way.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

You take exception? I rather take exception to the claim that seeing any non-white characters in a story that spans thousands of miles of fictional terrain, and runs from the Arctic to nearly the equator, is "arbitrarily sploodged in Diversity Ketchup", "more pumpkin spice product", and "an entirely political superimposition". I take exception to the insistence that every Good character in Tolkien must be white, because... well, because they must be, right? Tolkien would never have imagined that the Good races could include non-white people, right? Because...?

"Racism" is not a political term. It is a matter of fundamental ethics. Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them (which answers most-to-all of your "scare-quoted" questions at the end, by the way), is wrong. Excluding them from things - yes, including playing characters in an adaptation of Tolkien - for no more reason than that you're comfortable with the way things are is wrong.

And I firmly believe Tolkien would agree with me.


I don't want to raise the temperature in here, but you are getting very close to name-calling.

Yes, it absolutely is political. One confusion of our confused and angry age seems to be the conflation of the two, the (intentional?) obfuscation of the difference between the political and the moral- because it seems more suited to the censorious contemporary mindset to say not "I disagree with you" but "I condemn you;" not "You are wrong" but "You are evil." And so the denial that the entirely political decision that People of Color need representation injected into in a work written in the 1940s by a middle-aged Englishmen is political, and is instead (and inaccurately) recast as "ethical."

Could you explain to me exactly what artistic or aesthetic enhancement is involved here? It certainly has nothing to do with "Treating people who look different as lesser or unwanted, especially when you have social or political power over them" Nobody is treating POC as "lesser or unwanted" by observing that they simply weren't there. Would you make the same argument with regard to an adaptation of David Copperfield or Pride and Prejudice or (ha!) Vanity Fair? These were books written in England from an English perspective featuring Englishmen (and -women). Tolkien was writing from the perspective of an England where just about nobody, unless they had been out to the Empire, had so much as seen a black person in the flesh until American GIs started coming over.

Tolkien was writing about "the North-West of the Old World." A place which, as he understood it (long before the Nationalities Act), was populated by Europeans. To the extent POC stepped on the stage they were, like the Easterlings and Haradrim, the Other, the hostile invaders from south and east.




Now, it would be entirely one thing If you were to come back with "You are wrong; Tolkien did not envision his world as being all-white," and argue from there. You could even attempt an argument that the work is somehow artistically improved by a multiracial cast. What you cannot legitimately do is play lazy ad hominem games and accuse me of racism (which I am not) because I do hold that opinion- nor, frankly, for mocking the current rather silly fashion for Diversity Ketchup, especially its empty claims to moral imperative.

[Zigûr]

I don't see how any of it matters at this point. If it isn't true to the source material (which it clearly isn't) then that's simply the way it is. There's nothing any of us can do about it except to not watch the show; I don't intend on watching it. I already don't have an Amazon Prime subscription and this isn't going to get me to pay for one. I already avoid buying books from them except where they've monopolised the market for something that I need for my academic research (into Tolkien).

And I say all this as someone who couldn't care less if there are more roles for women and non-white people in the show. That was inevitable and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I simply don't care if Elves or Dwarves aren't all white. I don't think they need to be for an adaptation to work; personally I don't think you need an all white and predominantly male cast to still have the same tone as Professor Tolkien's work. But the tone will be the thing they almost certainly don't capture because audiences wouldn't get it, and they probably don't get it themselves.

I can't help but feel as if Amazon wants these arguments about diversity and "politics" to be happening to create more conversation around their show. It just remains to be seen whether it's successful with their core audience or not; Tolkien fans aren't exactly going to be making up a majority of their market share at the end of the day.

[Formendacil]

I can't help but feel as if Amazon wants these arguments about diversity and "politics" to be happening to create more conversation around their show.

This is the truest statement on this thread, I think, and it is arguable that they're getting what they want, if so. If even the Huorns have been roused on the 'Downs, there is conversation aplenty!

[Galadriel55]

This is the truest statement on this thread, I think, and it is arguable that they're getting what they want, if so. If even the Huorns have been roused on the 'Downs, there is conversation aplenty!

Personally though, I am not against a rousing of the Huorns, and I maintain that this is one of the good consequences of the show, as proof that good can come of evil. :)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I don't see how any of it matters at this point. If it isn't true to the source material (which it clearly isn't) then that's simply the way it is. There's nothing any of us can do about it except to not watch the show; I don't intend on watching it. I already don't have an Amazon Prime subscription and this isn't going to get me to pay for one. I already avoid buying books from them except where they've monopolised the market for something that I need for my academic research (into Tolkien).

And I say all this as someone who couldn't care less if there are more roles for women and non-white people in the show. That was inevitable and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I simply don't care if Elves or Dwarves aren't all white. I don't think they need to be for an adaptation to work; personally I don't think you need an all white and predominantly male cast to still have the same tone as Professor Tolkien's work. But the tone will be the thing they almost certainly don't capture because audiences wouldn't get it, and they probably don't get it themselves.

I can't help but feel as if Amazon wants these arguments about diversity and "politics" to be happening to create more conversation around their show. It just remains to be seen whether it's successful with their core audience or not; Tolkien fans aren't exactly going to be making up a majority of their market share at the end of the day.

Hear, hear. It does seem that one detail out of very, very many is generating a lot of heat and very little light, ridiculously because it isn't really any more or less important than any of the other myriad infelicities which make up the malodorous whole. It's no better, or worse, than a beardless Dwarf-queen or "Nori Brandyfoot" or plate-armored General Galadriel on her Roaring Rampage of Revenge- or, for that matter, the almost-guarantee that they are going to slap a beard (or at least scruff) on Ar-Pharazon. And yet even these remain violations of geekish details, just the scabs encrusting the surface of the rotten non-Tolkienian chancre.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Hear, hear. It does seem that one detail out of very, very many is generating a lot of heat and very little light, ridiculously because it isn't really any more or less important than any of the other myriad infelicities which make up the malodorous whole. It's no better, or worse, than a beardless Dwarf-queen or "Nori Brandyfoot" or plate-armored General Galadriel on her Roaring Rampage of Revenge- or, for that matter, the almost-guarantee that they are going to slap a beard (or at least scruff) on Ar-Pharazon. And yet even these remain violations of geekish details, just the scabs encrusting the surface of the rotten non-Tolkienian chancre.

I pretty much concur, except with a small - but I believe crucial - adjustment here. Let me (try to) sum up succintly what I believe are the biggest problems in the discussion, especially the one "out there" - I think this forum hosts, thankfully, a much more civilised debate:

1) Of course what matters is "the core", i.e. the spirit, whether this is Tolkien or just a bad generic fantasy. However, many fans seem to be pre-decided that this is going to be bad, so bad, already before seeing very much and ignoring the signs that might (potentially) also point to the contrary (e.g. the facts that the authors seem to be honestly trying, that there are "real fans" among them, that they have been reading Tolkien every morning before filming and so on). (Sidenote, before anyone shelves me as a defender, let me restate that I am against all and any adaptations including this one, but I am trying to be objective!)

2) Which is directly connected to the next one, where I would ask everyone (does not necessarily apply to members of this forum of all things, but everyone try to discern about yourselves) to try to examine their own thoughts and feelings about the topic, and tell to themselves TRUTHFULLY what does your negative feeling about the show truly depend on and where does it come from. I mean: often human mind works the way that once you decide that something is bad (or good), then you just keep looking for more proofs for that things are the way you see them. But what was the first trigger, and what was the first major "proof" that solidified your belief? Were you the most annoyed by that Galadriel was wearing armour, or was it by that there was a non-white-skinned Dwarf or Elf? And are all your subsequent arguments only addendums, while your issue with the show lies in this? Or are you jumping on some train of thought that may be built on false dependency? ("If they cast dark-skinned Elves, it means they are not treating Tolkien canon with enough respect, or are not trying to be true to the spirit." - That for example would absolutely be false dependency, as that's an aesthetic choice about the same weight of deciding whether Númenor has statues that are inspired by Greek, Egyptian, Roman or Aztec art.)

To sum it up: I don't think we have enough details to say with certainty that there is a "rotten non-Tolkienian chancre". There definitely are "scabs on the surface", and then the question is, how much weight we give to them - and to which ones, and for what reasons. I very much wish all the fans to be honest to ourselves about it.

[Galadriel55]

1) Of course what matters is "the core", i.e. the spirit, whether this is Tolkien or just a bad generic fantasy. However, many fans seem to be pre-decided that this is going to be bad, so bad, already before seeing very much and ignoring the signs that might (potentially) also point to the contrary (e.g. the facts that the authors seem to be honestly trying, that there are "real fans" among them, that they have been reading Tolkien every morning before filming and so on). (Sidenote, before anyone shelves me as a defender, let me restate that I am against all and any adaptations including this one, but I am trying to be objective!)

I am curious - can anyone imagine a good TV adaptation of Tolkien? Not a simplified children's version, not an action movie, but legitimate Tolkien?

2) Which is directly connected to the next one, where I would ask everyone (does not necessarily apply to members of this forum of all things, but everyone try to discern about yourselves) to try to examine their own thoughts and feelings about the topic, and tell to themselves TRUTHFULLY what does your negative feeling about the show truly depend on and where does it come from.

Is there a lot of dissatisfaction, perhaps, because the portrayal of Tolkien's world is not how you imagined it to be, and that just grates too much? A superficial rub rather than a deeper lack of understanding on the show's part?


Personally, I think they could have made a great generic fantasy show. Have it in Second Age Numenor, you could put an entire Game of Thrones in there without a problem, have some familiar names mentioned in the background... It it legit Tolkien? Of course not. But it could have been a good show - a Tolkien-themed story, set in Tolkien's universe, but also disconnected from the main stories and able to shine as an independent TV production, free to take the story and visuals wherever they want to make the show good. I had such high hopes for it. But then they make it very clear that they are NOT making it disconnected and independent; in fact, it seems that they are doing everything possible to link it up with existing material, movie and book alike. And some of that is good - I think we will find a lot of neat references in there. And some of the references are probably gonna be incorrect, but that won't be the problem - that would probably be good fun. But then they begin encroaching on things that are sacred, and people get mad. What is sacred? It's different for everyone, and I don't know if it's possible to pinpoint exactly what it is. I think that people generally tolerate discrepancy between the imagined and the portrayed fairly well when it really is something that is a mere detail; like, ok, maybe you'd find the adaptation "ok" instead of "exceptional", but I don't think people often give bad reviews for non-critical details. However, when you are emotionally attached to certain things, that sort of change is a lot harder to accept. And that can be a visual depiction, or a character, or a dialogue, or a culture, or a landscape, or the details of just how exactly something is said or done. If you are sufficiently emotionally attached to the story in one version, you naturally react stronger to changes to that vision, from the way it was in your head and the way you cherished it for so long. So of course people get mad over details of every sort - we are all emotionally attached to Tolkien's world, and some aspects of it are more vivid for some and less vivid for others, and the vision is more rigid for some than for others, but we all get angry when that little sacred part gets stepped on. Or at least that's my theory of why fans get mad about adaptations in general, not specific to Tolkien or fantasy or any other specific genre.

As an objective measure, I propose a test of recognition. Obviously we will all imagine things differently; however, with a faithful enough portrayal, we should be able to recognize familiar people and places without difficulty. If you struggle to recognize a character or place without the name or context provided, just by the visual, it probably means that the visual is not a great representation. This is true for art - when I look through various fan-art, it's amazing how you can usually place each picture within seconds. You'd think that in Tolkien art everyone is dressed sort of the same in some medieval costume, but there is always a gestalt of details that lets you identify the character - even on the black and white pencil drawings, where you can't go by hair colour or colour of clothes. And then there is some art where you just wouldn't be able to tell what that is without there being a deciphering caption or title. So let's put the trailer to the test. Is there sufficient visual detail and acting skill to portray people and places in an easily recognizable manner? As a first step, would you be able to guess that the places and people are from something Tolkienesque? For step two, if you were shown a still photo of these characters and told "this is from somewhere in Tolkien" but not any more details, would you be able to identify the person or place (or race of people, or specific named item, or any other specifier)? (Or, do you think there is a better way to put these questions - if so, let's go for it. Let's run a survey experiment and see where opinions fall. Of course, it's not truly objective, because it depends on a what-if scenario where you already know the answer. But try to think of your first reaction when you saw the images or heard bits of the plot).

Doing the test for myself, and thinking back to my first about this, I find that if I didn't already see Galadriel and Elrond in the article prior to the trailer, with explanations of who they are, I would not recognize them easily. Elrond - not at all, Galadriel - maybe after a lot of thinking through who this could possibly be, in a world with not that many named female characters. It's not just about their physical appearance, but because so far we haven't seen them do what we most often imagine them doing, in places where we most often imagine them being. (Like, for instance, there's a good chance that at some point in her life Galadriel happened to be near an icy waterfall, but by virtue of statistical probability you're more likely to imagine her in a forest or an Elvish palace). So, if this is to be treated as a sort of fan-fiction, they've only shown the "fiction" part of it - but with just enough canon to enable everyone to scream "no! this is wrong!". And based on the few scenes that we have, is it then not natural to have incredulity, if they don't match our imaginations to such a large extent? I am curious who thinks they would recognize Galadriel in the raft scenes without being told this is her. Galadriel with armour - I think I might have come to that deduction after some playing detective. But Galadriel on the raft? And if the show's image of the character (their combined visual appearance, actions, and acting) are so bizarrely different from your mental image, even despite a few correct details (e.g. blonde hair), is it any wonder that people complain?

Similar story for the Silvan Elf (does he have a name yet?): that is not how I would imagine a Silvan Elf, and I don't think I would be able to place him in that category without being told to expect him - not that there is any specific detail that is wrong or lacking, but the gestalt, from the haircut to the clothes to, well, unspecified gestalt. But then again, all that we've seen him do so far is do ridiculous looking stunts - we haven't heard him speak, we haven't seen him even walk normally, we just know he catches arrows in mid-flight. So while it's possible that he might actually be a decently made character, of what I've seen so far there is more evidence against than there is for.

I won't go through all the characters (lol, Meeple), but honestly, going by the people alone, there's not much to go with without any context. Gil-Galad? Wouldn't know him (are we even sure it's him?). So I don't think it's wrong of people to offer more criticism than support, because 1) we have concrete evidence for criticism, and while there is a possibility of good dialogue and acting and maybe even plot, at this point in time that is all faith and wishful thinking; and 2) experience teaches that putting too much faith in movie adaptations results in disappointment.

That is different for some of the inanimate items though. The Two Trees dagger is very suggestive. Several other details in the armour and weapons are perhaps not placeable immediately, but suggest that they may become placeable with a little bit more development (e.g. we might see them associated with certain characters or groups). I think that has potential.

As for places, for myself it was a mix. It only took me a few seconds to place Numenor, which to me says that it's probably a good depiction. And you can argue that the architecture is off or that Meneltarma is not sufficiently steep, but it's recognizable. The Dwarves-in-cave scenes are presumably Moria, but this is due to a paucity of such locations more than recognition by details. The rest are not easily identified (the Golden Wood is apparently Lindon, which I found confusing), and I suppose they are too generic to say much. They do look nice though, and there is a good breadth of geography which is fitting.


So, on the whole, the only thing I can conclude from my own experience is that they just chose the worst possible way to make the trailer. Perhaps the idea was that they'll flash a few characters to allow people to identify some people and places, and leave the rest up to guesswork, hoping that would heat the hype. Except that in selecting the scenes that they did, they managed to include a lot of the wrong stuff, and have neglected to put in any right stuff. The audience of book-supporters is probably less interested in arrow catching and explosions and the "fiction" part of the fan-fiction, and those scenes just tend to trample the sacred without offering much in return. As a rule of thumb, don't judge a book by its cover, and don't judge a movie by its trailer - but if that's all you have to judge by, how can you not.

But more than that, I am curious what the answers would be if we actually did do a sort of informal survey, on how many book-readers could recognize these characters without being told who they are. How much does the show measure up to our imaginations? It is absolutely going to differ, but I still maintain that on average a good depiction will still be recognized by most. And if, on the contrary, most people would not associate this depiction with the character, I would question the gestalt of the portrayal - how the character looks, speaks, dresses, acts - and, in some way, I suppose that is synonymous with the "core" or "spirit" of the character and the work.

Anyone else wanna do the recognizability test?



(Thank you Legate for giving me something to chew on, and for a new line of thinking)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, I think that for me the gestalt - good choice of words, thank you - is the problem. It isn't any one detail, but the pattern created by all the details. And that pattern goes beyond getting buttons or drinking vessels or skin color "wrong" - too often this sort of discussion turns on the kind of geekery we mock Trekkies for - but that they are all wrong in the same direction. They are all alterations in the direction of Generic Fantasy Tropes and Mass Market Appeal. So it isn't simply a question of "not getting it," of not having spent fifty years parsing the Appendices, Letters, the Simarillion index and HoME, but rather an evident willingness intentionally to warp everything in service to the great god whose name is Ratings. And, moreover, to take the Lazy-Hollywood rather than the Inspired-Hollywood path, that of dreary imitation and recycling.

But if you had to ask about one specific thing that tempted me to put an ashtray through the TV screen? The plate armor- not that Galadriel is wearing it (although that's part of the gestalt too) - but that anyone is wearing it.

[Galadriel55]

But if you had to ask about one specific thing that tempted me to put an ashtray through the TV screen? The plate armor- not that Galadriel is wearing it (although that's part of the gestalt too) - but that anyone is wearing it.

As someone with minimal knowledge of medieval warfare and weaponry, could I ask you to elaborate on why the armour galls you so much?

[Huinesoron]

Anyone else wanna do the recognizability test?

Yeah, okay. Using this count (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=734510&postcount=44) of the trailer scenes, and assuming I saw the "Welcome to the Second Age" map way back when, but then nothing until my Fire TV said "Rings of Power trailer - watch?"

Voiceover: clearly a Hobbit. She's got Pippin's accent and a Tookish feel to her lines.

1. Numenor or Mithlond. After a little thought, the single mountain suggests Numenor (ie, Romenna).

2. Meeple, probably just common Men in M-e. The wooded valley could be Lorinand or Fangorn I guess.

3. A Hobbit, probably the one doing the Voiceover. Looks about right for a pre-Shire halfling.

4. Icy waterfall. Doesn't ring a bell.

5. Woman off a cliff. Stars suggest elf or Numenorean, of which I'm inclined to the latter (Numenorean women stayed at home). Looks blonde, so Galadriel-as-Nerwen?

6. Man on a raft. Shipwrecked Numenorean? Hard to see who else would be out on a breakable boat.

7. Pointy-eared archer showing off? Must be Silvan. Is it the lighting or is he darker than Legolas et al? (Though of course Leggy is at least half Sindar.)

8. Meteor shower over... Mirkwood, maybe?

8a. Posh elf somewhere elvish. The leaves suggest Lorien, but they could just be birch in autumn. He doesn't dress like a Lorien elf, so Lindon? Could be Elrond or Gil-Galad in that case.

9. Eowyn. No, probably not Eowyn. Proto-Rohirrim?

10. The blonde elf from before, in a cave, finding a troll thing (could be a Great Goblin). Given the appearance of several obvious original characters, she could be an unnamed elf warrior rather than Galadriel. Wait, is her armour the same as not-Eowyn? Could do with a better shot.

11. Pretty trees, clearly elvish but the cliff doesn't scream Lorien. Maybe Lindon again? (Or western Numenor before they kicked off.)

12. Dwarf. Maybe a Firebeard rather than Longbeard.

13. Elf. Is he in the dwarf mine? If so, Celebrimbor (hence the metal thing).

14. Singing woman, maybe also underground? Could she be one of the elusive dwarf women?

15. Blonde elf on a raft. Are these the blonde and raft from earlier? Swinging back to calling her Galadriel - she's got the right sort of intensity.

16. Naked man being pulled out of a fire. Sau...ron? It's hard to see how, but nothing else even remotely fits.

17. Dwarf smashes rock. Smash, dwarf, smash. Hey, if that was Celebrimbor maybe this is Durin.

18. Someone jumping. Could just about be showy Silvan elf from before. Is he chained up? Is he fighting Numenorean slavers? That'd be cool.

19. Is this part of the Last Alliance sequence from the movies? Maybe it's the fall of Eregion - could he be Celebrimbor from before? I'm not great with faces.

20. Tiny hand says Hobbit. Clearly this is a Gandalf-esque figure she's fallen in with - maybe one of the Meeple?

Title: The Rings of Power. So probably yes on Celebrimbor, Galadriel, Elrond/Gil-Galad, and Durin. Maybe yes on Sauron in a fireball (volcano mishap?). Didn't see any obvious Nazgul candidates or Cirdan.

~

So actually, yes: if you have an idea of the time frame, I think most of them are recognisable. The big fail is "Celebrimbor", because his distinctive feature is hanging out with dwarves, which doesn't scream Elrond. Lindon/Lorien is another possible issue, but for this trailer the goal was clearly to make you think "elvish", which for me succeeded.

And I don't think there's anyone else Lady Nerwen /could/ be. ^_~ Even if you expand the scope to the entire history of Arda, "blonde elf lady in armour" is Galadriel before she settled down.

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As someone with minimal knowledge of medieval warfare and weaponry, could I ask you to elaborate on why the armour galls you so much?
Tolkien's world is clearly set in the age of mail- everyone wears it, including the most advanced smiths in the world, the Dwarves.

From this I would have to conclude that Middle-earth, just as it had not invented gunpowder, had not invented the metallurgy needed to produce iron ingots bigger than a bloomery yield- about 2 - 2.5 lbs (.8-1.2 kg). Enough for a sword or an axe-head, but not anything more. Note how early-medieval helmets like Sutton Hoo are made of multiple pieces riveted together?

Our ancestors didn't start to wear plate armor until the second half of the 14th century not because they were stupid, or that no-one though of it, but because it wasn't possible until they could produce iron ingots big enough to make breastplates et cetera out of. Even at the end of the Third Age, Middle-earth wasn't there yet.

[Morthoron]

As someone with minimal knowledge of medieval warfare and weaponry, could I ask you to elaborate on why the armour galls you so much?

Chain mail is the only thing Tolkien ever mentioned directly. No plate ever. Never. The Dwarves were still manufacturing chain well into the 3rd Age (their specialty, such as Frodo's mithril corselet).

Since I don't feel like typing copious descriptive passages, our buddy Michael Martinez at middle-earth.xenite.org has a quite all-encompassing overview of Tolkien's armorial preferences:

https://middle-earth.xenite.org/how-did-tolkien-envision-gondorian-armor/

The only thing Mr. Martinez neglects to mention is far earlier descriptions of armor v. chain by Tolkien in the story of Eöl the Dark Elf (although I'm quite sure he was not of African descent, but merely saturnine) and his invention of the meteoric metal galvorn:

...as hard as the steel of the Dwarves, but so malleable that he could make it thin and supple; and yet it remained resistant to all blades and darts. He named it galvorn, for it was black and shining like jet, and he was clad in it whenever he went abroad.

The description leaves room for conjecture.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The only possible counter-evidence, or at least the one snippet which has been thus proffered, is the "polished vambrace" with which Imrahil discovers that Eowyn is still alive.

That said, there was a considerable period during the Age of Mail when men would augment a hauberk with bits of solid plate, usually at the elbows (couters) and knees (poleyns). And since the mail-wearing Rohirrim especially valued "coats of bright rings out of the Southlands" (meaning Gondor); since Pippin's Citadel Guard armor was mail, and Denethor wore mail under his robes, it appears that Gondor just as Rohan wore mail (in fact, if Gondor made plate, surely the Rohirrim would have been eager to import it; for that matter, if the smelting technology existed in Gondor the Rohirrim and the Dwarves would have swiftly adopted it).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Worser and worser


Amazon’s Rings of Power Script & Audition Videos - See What They’re Doing to Tolkien!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlHYvpL4KwY

[Tar Elenion]

In addition to Imrahil's "bright-burnished vambrace that was upon his arm", there is this:
"'Alas! My axe is notched: the forty-second had an iron collar on his neck. How is it with you?'"
and:
"He came to rest in the fern a few feet away, face downward, green arrow-feathers sticking from his neck below a golden collar. His scarlet robes were tattered, his corslet of overlapping brazen plates was rent and hewn, his black plaits of hair braided with gold were drenched with blood. His brown hand still clutched the hilt of a broken sword."
So, scale armour (and a possibly a plate armour collar).
(Various mentions such as "metal wrought like fishes' mail and shining like water in the moon", "robed to the middle in mail like the scales of blue and silver fishes" also bring to mind scale armour).

There is also this from Fall of Gondolin:
"Now this great work was finished to their mind, and folk were the busier about the
quarrying of metals and the forging of all manner of swords and axes, spears and bills, and the fashioning of coats of mail, byrnies and hauberks, greaves and vambraces, helms and shields."
Greaves as well as vambraces.
Thus some indication of ancillary pieces of plate armour, as well as scale or lamellar armour.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It strikes me that Amazon's marketing department (and its paid shills like theonering.net) have adopted a very interesting strategy: insult the fanbase and call them names. Innovative, certainly.

[Tar Elenion]

It strikes me that Amazon's marketing department (and its paid shills like theonering.net) have adopted a very interesting strategy: insult the fanbase and call them names. Innovative, certainly.
All shall love me an... or I will disparage you!
Even back in the heyday of the varied Tolkien forums, I considered TORN a trash site.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Back in the Jackson-movie years, I thought it gave too much of the game away that TORN's onsite paid ads were almost all from WETA Workshop and other PJ/New Line-connected enterprises.

But now the site has no advertising at all- which raises very interesting questions about where their funding is coming from (even beyond accepting an all-expense-paid junket to London and Oxford combined with an exclusive private preview and meet-and-greet: an offer of Rings of Power from the Lord of Gifts which I am afraid other, better people like Corey Olsen also stooped to accept)

[Tar Elenion]

an offer of Rings of Power from the Lord of Gifts which I am afraid other, better people like Corey Olsen also stooped to accept)
'It's like some bizarre fan fascination. Tolkien never says female dwarves have beards.'

[William Cloud Hicklin]

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/dying-laughing-gif.gif

[Tar Elenion]

Did you catch his latest episode of Other Minds and Hands (#10) where he gets all excited about the "Harfoots" and how maybe they could be further east in Rhun and migrate west and become Gollum's people in the lands around the Anduin?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Errrrr- Smeagol was a Stoor.

[Tar Elenion]

What I thought immediately upon hearing that...
Unfortunately he has comments turned off on his videos.

I had been making time to respond* in some of his 'live chats' but missed this one.

* In #6 he doubled down on his beards claim, with a 'Tolkien stated dwarf women don't have beards' and I was able to (repeatedly) demand the quote, while his 'students' were jumping in defending him, trying to change the subject and the usual bullwub.
Olsen himself did not respond, but in #8 he seems to have tentatively walked back his absolute assertions by, sort of, acknowledging it to be his opinion.
I will be interested to see, if it comes up again, whether he continue with that or goes back to the 'Tolkien said'...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Turning off comments is always a pregnant indication.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Morfydd Clark (Galadriel):
"Rings of Power is more of a message to the patriarchy, and the old cultural guard. A message that says we are no longer going to play fiddle to a white man's vision. This uses elements of Tolkien and his story, but focuses on a sociopolitical statement of power and unity."

Discuss.

[Huinesoron]

Morfydd Clark (Galadriel):
"Rings of Power is more of a message to the patriarchy, and the old cultural guard. A message that says we are no longer going to play fiddle to a white man's vision. This uses elements of Tolkien and his story, but focuses on a sociopolitical statement of power and unity."

Discuss.

Sounds very close to Erendis' comments on Numenorean men to her daughter, found in Unifinished Tales. Also very appropriate for the woman playing Galadriel, whose Valinor plotline in particular goes "men who think they can have whatever they want SUCK". (Mostly Uncle Feanor, admittedly.) And strong shades of Eowyn, too, with her speech about how the men think it's their right to go off and fight, secure in the knowledge that the women will just wait and die if they fail.

I don’t think the white man in the quote is Tolkien; the Numenor story in particularly is deeply critical of the colonising, "civilised" Numenoreans. I think it's a statement that, in a part of the story Tolkien wrote very little about (and particularly, very little that they seem to be allowed to use!), they're rejecting the idea that Other Minds And Hands must always be white, Anglo-Saxon men's hands.

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Some context, from Amazon Studios' 'Inclusion Policy':

'To reduce invisibility in entertainment, and where the story allows, we aim to include one character from each of the following categories for speaking roles of any size, and at minimum 50% of the total of these should be women: (1) lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or gender non-conforming / non-binary; (2) person with a disability; and (3) three regionally underrepresented racial/ethnic/cultural groups (e.g. in the US, three of the following: Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Middle Eastern/North African, or Asian / Pacific Islander or Multi-Racial). A single character can fulfill one or more of these identities.'

[Huinesoron]

Some context, from Amazon Studios' 'Inclusion Policy':

Not a great Inclusion Policy, if I'm honest; they could technically fulfill it by having a black lesbian in a wheelchair say "hi!". But that's what you expect from Amazon.

Tolkien, of course, does all of these in the Silmarillion: Galadriel is distinctly gender-nonconforming, Sador Labadal is noted for both his disability and his loyalty, and there are multiple Swarthy Men (including some who aren't even evil, which I note isn't required under Amazon's policy). In fact, if you count Morwen as gender-nonconforming (she takes what the Hadorians would definitely call a man's role), the tale of Turin has all three of these in spades! (I'm not even going to mention the various male characters who love Turin above everything in the world...)

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes; I think strict quotas would produce better television.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

On nomenclature:
This is an area which I thinks provides substantial evidence that this show is not "in good hands" at all, notwithstanding the comments of assorted podcasters whom Amazon lavishly junketed. Look at the names for their "Harfoot" protohobbits. It goes without saying that these names of Shire type would be linguistically impossible in the Second Age.

But it also seems at least as blatant, even if they want to roll with a conscious anachronism, that there is not a thought process involved with sufficient spark to understand even the nature of those names: just chopping and reassembling Brandybuck and Proudfoot- have these nimrods no idea where those names came from and why they are as they are? Was there no knife in the drawer sharp enough to go find a Warwick* telephone directory and pull some Hobbity names from the source?

Oh, yes- what the heck is a woman with the the Welsh name Bronwyn doing in Middle-earth?

*"West Midlands" (i.e. the Birmingham conurbation) wouldn't really work any more

[Huinesoron]

On nomenclature:
This is an area which I thinks provides substantial evidence that this show is not "in good hands" at all, notwithstanding the comments of assorted podcasters whom Amazon lavishly junketed. Look at the names for their "Harfoot" protohobbits. It goes without saying that these names of Shire type would be linguistically impossible in the Second Age.

But it also seems at least as blatant, even if they want to roll with a conscious anachronism, that there is not a thought process involved with sufficient spark to understand even the nature of those names: just chopping and reassembling Brandybuck and Proudfoot- have these nimrods no idea where those names came from and why they are as they are? Was there no knife in the drawer sharp enough to go find a Warwick* telephone directory and pull some Hobbity names from the source?

Oh, yes- what the heck is a woman with the the Welsh name Bronwyn doing in Middle-earth?

*"West Midlands" (i.e. the Birmingham conurbation) wouldn't really work any more

I did a post on names in the Vanity Fair thread here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=734509&postcount=43) and basically agree with you, though their Elvish language words (Arondir, Tirharad, possibly Carinë) are at least plausible.

In recent days the official Twitter account has been attaching more names to the posters. We have Harfoots "Poppy Proudfellow", "Marigold Brandyfoot", "Largo Brandyfoot", "Sadoc Burrows", and a mortal boy associated with Bronwyn named "Theo".

I feel like Theo has been discussed already - it looks like they've just grabbed a random Rohirric sound, just like they apparently did with Bronwyn. Really not fond of that.

The Harfoots are better. Largo is a bit weird to me because a song by that name was one of the first couple I learnt on the keyboard, but none of the forenames stands out as super unlikely (unlike Elanor/Nori). Burrows I think is straight from Tolkien, and Proudfellow fits right in with the English-language Hobbit names. It's kind of a shame their "bad in three different ways" name happens to be the lead Harfoot character.

Given how easy it is to get Hobbit names 'right' (literally just Flower Ruralphrase will do you), I don't think this indicates their name-game has gotten any better.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

The showrunners via the "Tolkien Professor" (OM&H 13), *Galadriel has PTSD. The "Tolkien Professor" says all her brothers (yes, though Amazon seems to be introducing a new brother) and her mother are dead.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Brothers? That's odd- because no matter which version of the Finarfinian genealogy you care to use, not one of them is mentioned in the Appendices, supposedly Amazon's only permitted source.

[Tar Elenion]

Finrod is:
"In Lindon south of the Lune dwelt for a time Celeborn, kinsman of Thingol; his wife was Galadriel, greatest of Elven women. She was sister of Finrod Felagund, Friend-of-Men, once king of Nargothrond, who gave his life to save Beren son of Barahir."
App. B
"Noblest of all was the Lady Galadriel of the royal house of Finarfin and sister of Finrod Felagund, King of Nargothrond"
App. F

I'm not sure whether Olsen was repeating the show-runners justification for *Galadriel having PTSD, or giving his own justification (he came across as very supportive of PTSD *Galadriel). Either way, though, Earwen was not dead, and claiming that she was is troubling, especially for a self-styled "Tolkien Professor".

Amazon has the rights to all of LotR and The Hobbit.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I stand corrected. Still, there is no Appendices warrant for brothers, plural.

[Huinesoron]

The Numenoreans have dropped (https://ew.com/tv/lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-numenor-first-look/), and hoooo boy. It looks like Numenor is straight from the Appendices - and that's not a good thing.

https://i.imgur.com/S74kKSO.png

Starting with the cast: second from left is Queen Regent[sic, sic, sic] Míriel. They gave her the accent in her name, but Regent? For her father? For her child? The first would just about work, the second is all wrong for Numenorean politics. Or do they just not know the word 'Regnant'? She shows up several times in the article in armour, at one point at the head of an army - which, I have to say, I'm all here for.

Front and centre in the image is Pharazôn, the Queen's counsellor. He is dramatically older than her, so I'm guessing the forced-marriage plot is off the table. The Appendices just say he usurped the sceptre, so they're likely doing that in a different way.

To the left is "Kemen", which is a Quenya word but can pass for Adunaic. He is Pharazon's son, so that's another strike against the marriage plot (he looks too old to be Miriel's kid, as has been suggested elsewhere). My guess is that he's gonna die to trigger his father's meltdown, but who knows?

Then on the right side of the image we have Team Faithful: Elendil, his daughter Eärien, and his son Isildur. Isildur is a young mariner; Elendil is also defined as a sea-farer. (Anarion, incidentally, is described as "off-screen".) I have no issue with Eärien: she fits neatly into the canon, and a stay-at-home woman character is something Tolkien used several times in his Numenor stories. I'm less happy with Elendil and Isildur being sailors and soldiers, rather than obvious nobility; but an early version of Isildur did talk about fighting in Pharazon's army, so there is canon justification.

Numenor is described as "opulent", a "seemingly idyllic paradise", but also as troublingly divided. It's confirmed that the ruling line are part-Elven, and the basics of the pro-Valar/pro-"independence" divide are discussed. So far so Tolkien, but it's bizarre that the article is claiming a coastal capital. They've literally used the map which shows Armenelos inland! I wonder whether the deep ravine we've seen leading to the city in the trailers is their solution to that? (To be fair, digging a canyon-deep canal in order to put a port in their capital would be very Numenorean.)

Perhaps the most irritating to some: there's a shot of Galadriel riding with Elendil on the Numenorean coast. :D My guess is that her "raft" sequence ends with her rescue by a Numenorean ship, rather than her being a deliberate visitor, but who knows at this point? Per the mini-trailer (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19599), this suggests her early plot is "worries about Orcs > gets on Swanship > falls in Sea > winds up on raft > taken to Numenor".

I'm getting a definite feeling that Galadriel is a major viewpoint character, and will be running around to the various plot areas to join in. So far, the story seems to have four locations: Eriador (the Lindon-Eregion-Moria plot, with Elrond linking them), Numenor (as discussed here), Tirharad (Bronwyn, Arondir, and Theo - judging by Theo's broken sword and Arondir's trailer archery, I'm guessing they encounter Evil), and the Harfoots ("HarFEET!"). Given that those can be glossed as North, West, South, and East, I guess that's pretty full coverage; and the Ents from the mini-trailer are right in the middle. :D

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Dear god, that breastplate! Have the costume designers never seen so much as a picture of real armor?

[Mithadan]

Chain mail (real chain, not what Frodo was portrayed as wearing in the first movie -- was that rayon?) is unattractive and jingles too much...

[Galadriel55]

I am amused that everyone is ticked off about the show for their own different reasons. ^.^ Timelines, characters, languages, titles, armour... All of the above... There'll be something for every kind of fan... :D

I haven' been following any of the news since the trailer came out, but this picture made an odd impression on me for purely visual reasons. Isildur just looks very out of place in his simple clothing among these other finely dressed people. And I know this is just a photo shoot, but it's a little visually odd and was the first detail that caught my eye, before I figured out who is who. The second detail which caught my eye was the discordance in their expressions, leading to thoughts about their potential roles and attitudes in the story. Pharazon is very stern-looking, which is not inapropriate. His son seems a little bored, and I wonder of there is gonna be some filial slacking off. Miriel is smiling, for reasons I can't phathom - that doesn't fit as a representation of her role as subjugated queen. Did she successfully plot some Numenorian intigue? Is she not as unhappy here as I have imagined her to be in the book ?On the other side, Elendil is being very Aragorn-like, which is again not inappropriate. Isildur, like I said before, stands out as the only one in plain clothing and a pose that is even more relaxed and nonchalant than Pharazon's son, and a slight smile on his face - all of which creates the effect of cockiness or disrespect, not qualities I would generally attribute to Isildur but given the right spin could be used well. And finally Elendil's daughter, who is starring daggers and seems furious. And I know this is a generic photoshoot that means nothing, it's not an actual scene to analyze, but I can't help but interpret it on a gut level in the story context. And gut level interpretation is very discordant - these characters and emotions don't go together in this combinaion! So my overall superficial impression of the photo is "weird, for hard to explain reasons".

As a positive, I think I like their choice of costumes for Numenorian nobility (a right degree of pompous?), and the stone buildings in the background. They seem to have the right sort of "Atlantis" feel.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I am amused that everyone is ticked off about the show for their own different reasons. ^.^ Timelines, characters, languages, titles, armour... All of the above... There'll be something for every kind of fan... :D

I just saw a trailer for the show, and now I am hooked. It didn't really say much about the storyline. Mostly it was a series of oneliners, epic scenery and grand music. It was however enough to get me exited.

Now I am ticked off because I can see no way around giving Jeff Bezos my money.

[Huinesoron]

I just saw a trailer for the show, and now I am hooked. It didn't really say much about the storyline. Mostly it was a series of oneliners, epic scenery and grand music. It was however enough to get me exited.

Now I am ticked off because I can see no way around giving Jeff Bezos my money.

I've just done a rundown of this trailer (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=735166#post735166) in the other thread.

I do think that between the three trailers, we get a good overview of where the various characters start out:

- Galadriel believes there is still evil out there, and argues with Elrond about it. She then apparently gets on a boat to sail West, falls off the boat, is rescued by a raft, and then re-rescued to Numenor where she hangs out with Elendil. She may end up riding with Numenorean cavalry.

- Elrond is part of Galadriel's orc-hunting party, but doesn't believe there's anything to find. He's then sent to Khazad-dum, where the dwarves aren't too keen on him - but Durin IV seems more kindly inclined.

- Arondir is defending mortals against enemies who are definitely there. It certainly looks as though there's a slavery/prisoner arc in there, given the number of chains he hangs out with.

- Elendil appears to be pro-Pharazon at first; presumably meeting an Actual Elf will change this. (Note that an early version of Isildur was pro-Pharazon in Tolkien's drafts, before having a similar change of heart.)

- Nori and the Harfeet just want to be left alone, until some dude falls from the sky and starts being weird at them. Nori is his buddy. He might be Sauron, or he might be really obvious misdirection.

- And it's clear that there's substantial flashbacks to the First Age. 3-4 shots in the new trailer, plus at least one in the original - it may literally just be flashes/prologue, but it's definitely there.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

Chain mail (real chain, not what Frodo was portrayed as wearing in the first movie -- was that rayon?) is unattractive and jingles too much...
Mail is actually fairly quiet compared to plate armour (unless it is just an individual piece).

You can see some comparisons done here (start about 4 minute mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVCS_iatpXw

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Isn't it interesting that this - thing - is scheduled to premiere on September 2, in other words marking the death of Tolkien?

[Pervinca Took]

Isn't it interesting that this - thing - is scheduled to premiere on September 2, in other words marking the death of Tolkien?

And trying to bury him for good, you mean? ;)

[Michael Murry]

I apologize if others have already covered this, but I just came across a report at RT.com (which I can still access here in Taiwan, although I've heard that one cannot if living in the the U.S.). So, I'll just quote the whole thing here:

Video game giant buys rights to ‘Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Hobbit’

Embracer Group goes on a spending spree and also acquires a number of gaming studios

RT.com (August 18, 2022)
https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/561097-lord-of-the-rings-rights/

Intellectual Property rights to J. R. R. Tolkien’s ‘The Lord of the Rings’ and ‘The Hobbit’ have been sold to publishing giant Embracer Group, according to a company statement announcing it had entered into a total of five acquisition deals on Thursday as well as a sixth, with a “PC/Console gaming company.”

Embracer Group, which has been buying up almost any video game publisher or studio it can get its hands on, announced the acquisition of Limited Run Games, Tripwire Interactive, Tuxedo Labs, Japanese game studio Tatsujin as well as Middle-earth Enterprises - the company that has owned nearly all the rights to Tolkien’s works since 1976.

Earlier this year, the Saul Zaentz Company, which owned Middle-earth Enterprises announced that it would for the first time offer the rights up for purchase for $2 billion. However, Embracer’s public statement revealed that it spent only $6 billion Swedish Kronas for all its purchases on Thursday, which is roughly equivalent to $575 million.*

The Purchase of Middle-earth Enterprises means that Embracer now has total control over the movies, video games, board games, merchandising, stage productions and theme-park rights for Tolkien’s universe. The deal also suggests that the publishing giant now has a stake in Amazon’s upcoming “Rings of Power” series, due for release on September 2, as well as Warner Bros animated movie “the War of the Rohirrim” and EA’s “Heroes of Middle-earth” mobile game.

The company says it will use the newly acquired rights to explore “additional movies based on iconic characters such as Gandalf, Aragorn, Gollum, Galadriel, Eowyn and other characters from the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien and continue to provide new opportunities for fans to explore this fictive world through merchandising and other experiences.”

In May Embracer struck a deal with Square Enix and acquired big name titles such as Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, Thief and Legacy of Kain. The company also operates more than 100 game studios including Borderlands developer Gearbox, Saber Interactive, and THQ Nordic and owns the rights to Dark Horse, granting it access to IPs like Hellboy, Sin City, 300 and Umbrella Academy, among others.

[Mithadan]

Grievously, sadly, disappointingly... yes.

[Inziladun]

I have been doing my absolute best to ignore all of this, but I'm finding it more and more difficult: it's everywhere.

When I first heard of Peter Jackson's planned films these many years ago, I was not in approval. For one thing, I simply wasn't interested in someone else's interpretation of Tolkien's work. Didn't need it.
For another, I thought that financial success would bring the Tolkien name to the attention of some who would be highly interested in the monetary possibilities of further excursions into Middle-earth, but lacked Jackson's basic respect for the source material.

Now, I see added to the mix a rabid desire to slash, burn, and remake whatever isn't considered "progressive" enough, be it too old, too traditional, or simply out of step with "modern" thinking. Some of the show personnel have said things that definitely support their thinking that way.

Tolkien's work is more important to me personally that any other printed work, save one Book that predates him considerably. I wanted him to be exempt from the trend befalling so many other loved and respected books and movies. But the last guardian of his legacy, Christopher, left us at last.

Do the Amazon writers and cast know that Tolkien conceived of his tales during some of the darkest days of the 20th Century? Do they know that Christopher read LOTR chapter by chapter while serving during WWII? I doubt they do, and even if so they certainly don't care.

I say all that to say this: all I can do about the thing myself is not to watch it. But perhaps, if enough people do likewise, and the thing is not a commercial success, the flood may be stemmed somewhat. Maybe they would think twice about committing huge sums of cash toward a bastardization of Tolkien's ideas that the man himself has no say over.

Please consider: if they do get their money out of this, there is no end of what might be done in Tolkien's name, until people have largely forgotten (if they ever even knew) the old books we all cherish.
Don't watch this. Don't enable more of the same. Teach them that Tolkien is different.

[Snowdog]

:smokin:

I'm watching Rings of Power, and likely going to enjoy it. It is in no way going to "destroy" Tolkien's works any more than Ralph Bakshi's or Peter Jackson's treatment of Lord of the Rings "destroyed" Tolkien's works. My books have been, are, and will be the same no matter what, and I will enjoy every reading I have of them.

All this rabid ranting and raving about it in some attempt to try and "destroy" Rings of Power is amusing to a point, and tiresome to be sure. It is nice that there are places on the internet that gets over the whole 'woke bs' mentality and gets on to discussing the show and the depth of the Second Age timeline of events.

If you hate it so bad, then boycott Amazon. Put your money where your mouth is. Good luck in your campaign to get others to do so. Me, I'm not out a cent because I watch other content on Prime and my wife uses the free shipping for a lot of stuff.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

:smokin:

I'm watching Rings of Power, and likely going to enjoy it. It is in no way going to "destroy" Tolkien's works any more than Ralph Bakshi's or Peter Jackson's treatment of Lord of the Rings "destroyed" Tolkien's works. My books have been, are, and will be the same no matter what, and I will enjoy every reading I have of them.

All this rabid ranting and raving about it in some attempt to try and "destroy" Rings of Power is amusing to a point, and tiresome to be sure. It is nice that there are places on the internet that gets over the whole 'woke bs' mentality and gets on to discussing the show and the depth of the Second Age timeline of events.

If you hate it so bad, then boycott Amazon. Put your money where your mouth is. Good luck in your campaign to get others to do so. Me, I'm not out a cent because I watch other content on Prime and my wife uses the free shipping for a lot of stuff.

More than anything, what I resent about this "book that Tolkien never wrote" is its tired and tiresome genericism, its utter and complete lack of anything even resembling creativity or personality. We've all seen it all before, seen these characters, heard these lines:* it's Screen Factory Fantasy Product Sludge #9. If Tolkien is gorau glas, this is Cheez Whiz. The Tolkien branding fits it about as well as a Rolls-Royce grill on a VW Beetle (without the ironic humor). So before we ever even get to questions of weapons or costumes or skin color or actors-who-need-to-shut-up, we have already violated the First Commandment of Tolkien Adaptation: Thou shalt not suck.

So I'm not worried about Tolkien's books being "damaged" - except to the extent that a future generation might go "The Lord of the Rings?" You mean what that turgid, tawdry Amazon tripe was based on? No, thank you." But I'm certainly not going to waste my time watching it -- unless it's someday featured on MST3000...
__________________________________________________ ________
*The ones in the latest trailer are practically examples from the manual, 101 Portentous and Weighty-Sounding Declarations for Talentless Hack Screenwriters

[Snowdog]

More than anything, what I resent about this "book that Tolkien never wrote" is its tired and tiresome genericism, its utter and complete lack of anything even resembling creativity or personality. We've all seen it all before, seen these characters, heard these lines:* it's Screen Factory Fantasy Product Sludge #9. If Tolkien is gorau glas, this is Cheez Whiz. The Tolkien branding fits it about as well as a Rolls-Royce grill on a VW Beetle (without the ironic humor). So before we ever even get to questions of weapons or costumes or skin color or actors-who-need-to-shut-up, we have already violated the First Commandment of Tolkien Adaptation: Thou shalt not suck.

So I'm not worried about Tolkien's books being "damaged" - except to the extent that a future generation might go "The Lord of the Rings?" You mean what that turgid, tawdry Amazon tripe was based on? No, thank you." But I'm certainly not going to waste my time watching it -- unless it's someday featured on MST3000...
__________________________________________________ ________
*The ones in the latest trailer are practically examples from the manual, 101 Portentous and Weighty-Sounding Declarations for Talentless Hack Screenwriters

That was humorous. Typical, but humorous. Unlike you, I think Rings of Power will introduce a lot of people to Tolkien's written works, much like what the PJ stuff did, and Bakshi did, and Bass-Rankin did, etc. etc. So what if they sucked, and this sucks. Seeing all the panties getting into a wad over a show that hasn't aired yet is rather telling of the people doing it more than what they are all in a twit about. :smokin:

[Huinesoron]

As we're about a week out from the first episode airing (or maybe multiple? I've not heard how they're planning to release the series), a few procedural-type questions:

- What are the key sources for the non-Numenorean parts of the Second Age? There's "Galadriel & Celeborn" in UT, and the start of "Of the Rings of Power" in Silm; are there any other major sources?

- I feel like it would be sensible/reasonable to have a thread in Movies for each episode, similar to the Chapter-by-Chapter threads in that subforum of Books. Does that sound okay, or are there enough objections that we should either keep it to this thread or make a single "Rings of Power episodes" thread?

- Given that there are a lot of people who have said they won't be watching the show but are still engaging with the discussion, would it be helpful for the episode thread (whatever that may be) to include a brief synopsis rather than just reactions? Not a scene-by-scene or anything, just a summary of "Galadriel did this, the Harfeet did this, Tom Bombadil did this". (Wait, has anybody speculated that the Stranger in the Meteor might be Tom Bombadil??? I think I'm onto something!)

- Does the Downs have a consensus on how to handle spoilers? For anyone who doesn't know, you can make text invisible <spoiler>like this</spoiler> by replacing pointy brackets with square ones. I can imagine any combination of "do that to big spoilers", "mark the whole post as spoilers", "mark the entire thread as spoilers", "have a spoiler and non-spoiler thread", and "who cares". :D

hS

[Mithadan]

As I understand it, and I may be wrong about this, Amazon acquired the rights to use information in the LoTR appendices only, not anything in the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales or HoME. I wonder how Amazon dealt with rights conveyed to Saul Zaentz, which would have included characters, names, etc. from the text of LoTR.

Feel free to open threads to discuss events in the series or episodes within this forum. I expect that it is not necessary to remind everyone to be respectful to other members regardless of your individual views.

[Huinesoron]

As I understand it, and I may be wrong about this, Amazon acquired the rights to use information in the LoTR appendices only, not anything in the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales or HoME. I wonder how Amazon dealt with rights conveyed to Saul Zaentz, which would have included characters, names, etc. from the text of LoTR.

This is a good point, though there has been a little uncertainty on whether they can request the use of other pieces of the Legendarium.

What I'm really thinking is when discussing the plot, being able to distinguish between things Tolkien wrote, things Tolkien made clear didn't happen, and things Tolkien never said anything about - regardless of whether the showrunners were allowed to use it. For Numenor, that will come from Akallabeth and the Description (plus Lost Road if I'm feeling saucy); but I want to be sure I'm not missing anything obvious in the non-Numenor sections.

hS

[Mithadan]

Based upon what I have seen so far, that may be a prodigious undertaking, but you are welcome to do so.

Please open new threads for your discussions, either by episode or subject.

[Galadriel55]

For anyone who doesn't know, you can make text invisible <spoiler>like this</spoiler> by replacing pointy brackets with square ones.

Weird enough, on my phone the text shows up in grey but very visible letters. :confused: I mean, I know this code trick thingy works, I've used it before. Maybe the browser got an update or summink and now it's too fancy for its own good? Is it just me or does everyone's spoiler cover not actually cover anything anyore?

As one of those people who might watch some of the show to start at least, but probably not right as it comes out, I think it makes sense for each episode thread to be one giant spoiler - in the sense that don't open the thread if you don't want it spoiled, and talk freely once you're in it. But elsewhere on the Downs it might be courteous to hide the bigger spoiler elements. I am also a fan of the brief synopsis in the first post for all the reasons you said. Whether one giant thread or many small ones... uhh, hard to say. But it wouldn't be wrong to do many threads, I think, even if each one individually might only get so many responses.

[Michael Murry]

I don't know if I can get this image link thing working correctly, but:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fit,f_auto,g_center,pg_1,q_60,w_740/48764d54535616a39200fca40c841cc0.png

When my Taiwanese wife saw this picture she immediately pointed to the long blond braid dangling down in front of all that armor nearly to the waist and noted how easy it would be to grab the white chick by the hair, wrap it around [their]* throat, and strangle [them]* with it.

* transgender, non-binary pronoun corrections for the now unacceptable "her."

[Mithadan]

Michael, on the other hand, sailors in the British navy during the Napoleonic Wars and earlier were proud of their long braided hair regardless of the possibility that their locks might be used against them. Fashion was and is a passion...

Galadriel, my strong preference for threads regarding the series is individual and separate by subject or episode or both as appropriate. Sprawling threads with a general subject matter are neither reader nor poster-friendly. I would much rather hear peoples' thoughts than have members' eyes glaze over at the volume of what must be read in a single thread.

[Michael Murry]

Michael, on the other hand, sailors in the British navy during the Napoleonic Wars and earlier were proud of their long braided hair regardless of the possibility that their locks might be used against them. Fashion was and is a passion...

As a veteran of Uncle Sam's Canoe Club (a.k.a., the U.S. Navy) I recall lectures in Basic Training (in 1966) about how our navy differed from that of the British which -- according to Lord of the Admiralty Sir Winston Churchill -- ran on "Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash." I wonder how General/Admiral Guardrail the Terrifying will handle those LGBTQ+ [not to mention pronoun] issues as [their] [Rainbow] Ships pass out of and back into The West.

[Michael Murry]

For those whose "governments" haven't outlawed access to anything and everything "Russian," see: https://www.rt.com/pop-culture/561452-amazon-series-peter-jackson/

For others, I'll post the article here:

What can really kill Amazon’s Rings of Power
Despite a vastly greater budget, the new show will have a tough time matching Peter Jackson’s epic trilogy in a new era

(August 26, 2022)By Andrey Rachkin, KHL administrator, avid gamer, RT Games and Culture contributor.

With the release of the first major Tolkien adaptation since 2014, many wonder how the show will find itself in a different world from the one of Peter Jackson’s trilogies.

When in 2017 Amazon announced it was making a show about The Lord of the Rings and sparing no expense, making it the biggest-budget TV series at an eye-watering $1 billion over five seasons, many fans were rejoicing. After all, this was at the time of Game of Thrones season 7, one of the most popular and influential shows in history, at maximum hype capacity, building up to its grand finale. HBO even took two years to make season 8 instead of the usual one, to ensure the biggest, the baddest, the best conclusion to the show. When it finally released, reality was not too kind to the last season of Game of Thrones, nor to its fanbase, nor even to its legacy – it strikes you to remember how much we talked about it, how many good-natured jokes we made before the last season, and how little we even mention it after that. Like a collective hangover walk of shame. (Shame? Shame!)

And there is good reason to be fearful that ‘The Rings of Power’ might share the same fate. There are many opinions on why that might be, and while some are wilder than the others, there is a good chance the show might not end up being the instant classic it wants to be.

The Fellowship of the Book

Tolkien’s work is truly the root of the fantasy genre as we know it. Any time the word ‘elf’ is mentioned, chances are the images conjured by your mind are of tall, ethereal, nearly immortal, infinitely wise, and infinitely prideful people. The same level of instant recognition is shared by orcs, and even dragons, which were much more niche and folklore in Europe a century ago. Tolkien was not the first author to write fantasy, of course, even the fairy tales we tell our children before bed are technically fantasy stories. But Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings so lovingly and so masterfully that he influenced the minds and lives of millions of people, one of them being George Lucas, when he was creating his space opera, Star Wars.

Tolkien created a timeless piece of work, with its themes finding their way to the heart of any person of any nation at any period of history. Naturally, there is always room for interpretation. But how much interpretation is too much? While altering the timeline of the Second Age and casting black actors to play dwarfs and elves is nothing bad in itself, will the series be a loving homage to the books or a deliberate reflection of 2022 America? The comment section of the show’s Super Bowl trailer on YouTube was quickly filled with the same alleged quote by Tolkien, “Evil is not capable of creating anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good,” in several languages. This quote isn’t found in any of the books, but is most likely paraphrased or double-translated from a passage in ‘The Return of the King’, “The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own.” That does not inspire confidence.

The Return of Ka-ching

What comes after a good book? Right, a mediocre film adaptation. There were many attempts in transitioning Tolkien’s book into film or animation, but since the 1950s, many of them drowned in various legal and creative struggles, which included turning feature-length projects into short films, intellectual rights resales, and general under-the-public-radar performance. The only exception was Peter Jackson’s trilogy, which for many is the only adaptation of the books they know. And here lies the possible reason why ‘The Rings of Power’ might end up in the forgettables basket, rather than up there with the Jackson masterpieces. Before making his LotR trilogy, Jackson used to write, film, and act in extremely low-budget horror projects, so he knew how to use practical effects, capture audiences, and tell a story with tight resources. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. That experience led the New Zealander to create one of the most influential film trilogies of all time, using ‘only’ US$280 million across three films.

This is where ‘The Rings of Power’ stands out. When Game of Thrones and, more recently, The Witcher started relatively modestly, with 60-80 million for their first seasons, the Amazon-backed project is boasting a healthy 460 million. Adding to this unprecedented amount of money, the show has been cleared for five seasons even before shooting began. With these kinds of coffers, the creative team may, ironically, cut some corners in their character development and storytelling, and throw money at CGI people instead, making grandiose scenes just for the sake of grandeur, all the while providing the viewer with regular shock twists to keep their attention. Even Peter Jackson began to rely more heavily on CGI in the ‘The Return of the King’, and even more so in The Hobbit trilogy, which may have contributed to the ‘slump’ in quality that viewers noted in the second and third Hobbit films.

The Too Towering

In general, the anticipation for ‘The Rings of Power’ is quite high – people are making Spotify playlists, analyzing the characters shown on posters and in trailers (poor costume design and quality are popular concerns), which makes it even more worrisome that people might be let down by the end result. Some expect it to be ‘Jackson’s trilogy meets Game of Thrones’, while others are eager for something new in the franchise. But given everything that is going on in the world, where style and agenda pandering often triumph over substance, the show’s creators may have a bulletproof safety net for themselves. If ‘The Rings of Power’ flops, you can always point fingers at any number of common enemies – racism, white supremacy, or uncultured masses in general.

Whatever happens, it is undeniable that ‘The Rings of Power’ will leave a huge mark on the cultural landscape. It is too big and too meaningful not to do so. There will always be people looking for chinks in the armor, or praising something to the Moon just because a certain actor was cast. The only thing that we can do is watch the show when it comes out, make up our own opinions about it, and not give into peer pressure. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.

[Snowdog]

As I understand it, and I may be wrong about this, Amazon acquired the rights to use information in the LoTR appendices only, not anything in the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales or HoME. I wonder how Amazon dealt with rights conveyed to Saul Zaentz, which would have included characters, names, etc. from the text of LoTR.

I believe it has been clear for some time that with the Tolkien Estate onboard with the Rings of Power production and with Simon Tolkien actively involved with the production that the producers can use various references as approved on a case-by-case basis, and have done so.

[Boromir88]

- I feel like it would be sensible/reasonable to have a thread in Movies for each episode, similar to the Chapter-by-Chapter threads in that subforum of Books. Does that sound okay, or are there enough objections that we should either keep it to this thread or make a single "Rings of Power episodes" thread?

- Given that there are a lot of people who have said they won't be watching the show but are still engaging with the discussion, would it be helpful for the episode thread (whatever that may be) to include a brief synopsis rather than just reactions? Not a scene-by-scene or anything, just a summary of "Galadriel did this, the Harfeet did this, Tom Bombadil did this". (Wait, has anybody speculated that the Stranger in the Meteor might be Tom Bombadil??? I think I'm onto something!)

- Does the Downs have a consensus on how to handle spoilers? For anyone who doesn't know, you can make text invisible <spoiler>like this</spoiler> by replacing pointy brackets with square ones. I can imagine any combination of "do that to big spoilers", "mark the whole post as spoilers", "mark the entire thread as spoilers", "have a spoiler and non-spoiler thread", and "who cares". :D


I've had a Prime account since before this was happening and regardless if I continue watching the series or not, I'm keeping my account. Anyway, I think a separate thread to discuss the episodes would be necessary. This thread is already quite bulky and has probably run its course once Episode 1 airs.

I don't recall any strict policies on spoilers. When threads opened discussing The Hobbit movies when they hit theaters, the thread opener always started with a spoiler warning and the posters followed suit if their posts contained spoilers. Having a **Spoiler Warning** in the thread title I would guess would be sufficient to let us know this thread will contain spoilers. I prefer simplicity to out right forbidding spoilers, or blocking the text out. But, I won't be the one starting the episode discussions, I'll just be reading and hopefully interested in the series enough to share my opinions.

[mhagain]

I believe it has been clear for some time that with the Tolkien Estate onboard with the Rings of Power production and with Simon Tolkien actively involved with the production that the producers can use various references as approved on a case-by-case basis, and have done so.

This is at least evident from their use of the map of Númenor in early promo material. That map only appeared in UT, so therefore they have been able to get access to at least some material from UT.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I believe it has been clear for some time that with the Tolkien Estate onboard with the Rings of Power production and with Simon Tolkien actively involved with the production that the producers can use various references as approved on a case-by-case basis, and have done so.

Mind you, it's unclear whether Simon Tolkien has any actual connection with the running of the Estate; his father pointedly kept him off the Board. The son who assisted Christopher in matters Tolkien was always Adam.

(Simon: so committed to his grandfather's legacy that what did he do with inherited the First Edition copy of The Hobbit JRRT had inscribed to his beloved Aunt Jane Neave - a specific bequest in the Professor's will? ... he flogged it at auction. His falling out with his father was reportedly over Simon's eagerness to play ball with the Jackson movies, and the impression I get of the man -which, in all fairness, may be an impression created by the press - is that he's all about the money).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

And, here is a masterful riff on the unending cliches. Priceless!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGr0PhNO5LM

[alatar]

with the Jackson masterpieces.


My, how things appear at a distance. ;)


As stated elsewhere, I didn't like many of PJ's changes to LotR, but (1) at least someone attempted to put the books to film, and (2) not everyone has the same 'vision' when reading Tolkien's works. I appreciated his work on LotR much more once I saw The Hobbit, and saw how bad it all could have been.



Having given it more thought, I'm now more definite about watching RoP. Maybe it won't be what I would have done, but maybe that's a good thing (as I'm not a filmmaker or storyteller by any degree). Going to wait and see.



Maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

[Boromir88]

Hullo, alatar, good to see you around. I look forward to reading your opinions. :)

[William Cloud Hicklin]

My, how things appear at a distance. ;)


As stated elsewhere, I didn't like many of PJ's changes to LotR, but (1) at least someone attempted to put the books to film, and (2) not everyone has the same 'vision' when reading Tolkien's works. I appreciated his work on LotR much more once I saw The Hobbit, and saw how bad it all could have been.




I have to say, after two decades of being VERY critical of the Jackson movies, I have softened towards them- largely because until recently I didn't appreciate the force of the argument "It could have been so much worse." Now I fear we are getting a taste of so much worse.

[Morthoron]

...I have softened towards them- largely because until recently I didn't appreciate the force of the argument "It could have been so much worse." Now I fear we are getting a taste of so much worse.

Because, as is usually the case, a preference for an astigmatism or nearsightedness would most always trump glaucoma.

[mhagain]

I re-read LotR book V lately, first time in a long time, and my opinion of the Jackson movies went the other way. I'm now inclined to agree with Christopher Tolkien: Jackson butchered the story.

[Snowdog]

I re-read LotR book V lately, first time in a long time, and my opinion of the Jackson movies went the other way. I'm now inclined to agree with Christopher Tolkien: Jackson butchered the story.
Indeed. Gutting the whole core of Aragorn's ancestry and discarding Arnor completely was a major change to the Lord of the Rings storyline. Some who have been OK with this are off crying about Anárion possibly not appearing in the series.

It will be nice to see opinions of those who actually watch the show instead of all the 'I hate it already because of (choose one or more): 'Amazon is evil', 'woke BS', 'It's not true to the Peter Jackson movies', 'It's not true to individual head-canons' 'etc. :rolleyes::smokin:

[Boromir88]

Indeed. Gutting the whole core of Aragorn's ancestry and discarding Arnor completely was a major change to the Lord of the Rings storyline. Some who have been OK with this are off crying about Anárion possibly not appearing in the series.

There are still several cast members without a known role yet (at least looking on IMDB). So, I don't know if that's true or not, I guess we'll find out soon enough. I would guess Cirdan would have to be in it, as one of the keepers of the three, and there's no one tied to his role yet. This is just an assumption though. I have a theory one of the character posters (the one holding a rope) is Cirdan, because I see a ring and what looked to be a beard, combined with rope being likely something a shipwright would have.


It will be nice to see opinions of those who actually watch the show instead of all the 'I hate it already because of (choose one or more): 'Amazon is evil', 'woke BS', 'It's not true to the Peter Jackson movies', 'It's not true to individual head-canons' 'etc. :rolleyes::smokin:

I cut out the rumors, and news for several months now and have stuck with watching the trailers. Since the blow up/freak out over Sauron looking like Eminem (which as far as I can tell, ended up not only being an over reaction, but untrue) I just stopped paying attention to whatever supposed leaks people were putting out there.

[mhagain]

Indeed. Gutting the whole core of Aragorn's ancestry and discarding Arnor completely was a major change to the Lord of the Rings storyline. Some who have been OK with this are off crying about Anárion possibly not appearing in the series.

It's not only the big stuff. Even small details have been ripped apart, shuffled around, and reinserted out of context and in a way that causes them to lose their subtlety and nuance. Things like lines of dialog pulled out of their original discussion and given to other characters in the wrong place. The destruction of Theoden's character, rarely commented on.

I will give Jackson credit where he gets it right, or even improves. Boromir (although as much credit needs to go to Sean Bean here), the "many that live deserve death" speech was well done, Aragorn's pep talk before the Black Gate. But his natural inclination to turn everything into a crash-bang spectacle got the better of him more often than not, and fatally so on the Hobbit movies.

Regarding RoP, I've been round the block, this isn't my first rodeo. I've seen the Internet Hate Machine swing into action on other properties before, and what's happening here is nothing that hasn't been seen before. Deciding to hate something before they've even seen it, attempting to play the "paid shill" gambit, these and others are all old, old tactics. Tolkien's snipe about people reviewing the book rather than reading it rings true.

[Huinesoron]

Thanks to all who helped answer my questions; if I happen to be the one to start the episode 1 discussion thread, I think I now know how to do it. :)

An interesting article just crossed my internet: A Tale Conceived Epically (https://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=42183#forumpost42183) from Tolkien Guide looks at Tolkien's responses to adaptations in his lifetime to see how he might have reacted to Rings of Power (and indeed every other adaptation). The conclusion: he would have detested it, torn it apart if given a chance to critique it - but taken the money and approved it anyway.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

Looking through the end credits, despite the showrunners name dropping Tom Shippey at the SDCC, I did not find him credited.
The "loremaster" credit (along with assistant writer) is someone named Griff Jones.
Anyone heard of this guy?

[Boromir88]

Looking through the end credits, despite the showrunners name dropping Tom Shippey at the SDCC, I did not find him credited.
The "loremaster" credit (along with assistant writer) is someone named Griff Jones.
Anyone heard of this guy?

Never heard of him. A quick google search shows this...

https://writers.coverfly.com/profile/griffjones

And I had to type in "Griff Jones Tolkien" to get this to pop up. Because apparently there's a well known "Griff Jones" who is a comedian.

[Tar Elenion]

Thanks. I just got the comedian when I googled the name, but I did not use Tolkien, but rather Rings of Power which only led me to an article in which the actors said they would go to him for a deep dive.

[Morthoron]

Never heard of him. A quick google search shows this...

https://writers.coverfly.com/profile/griffjones

And I had to type in "Griff Jones Tolkien" to get this to pop up. Because apparently there's a well known "Griff Jones" who is a comedian.

So, based on his sparse resume', as a teenager he may have read The Lord of the Rings once after seeing the movies. In paperback, of course. Brilliant.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It strikes me that Amazon's use of 'diverse' casting was brilliant. No, not in any sort of dramaturgical or artistic way, or even really in a political way: but as a tactic it has been quite successful.

Here was Amazon's problem: they knew going in that they were working with the bestselling English-language book in history, and following the insanely successful movies; there was a truly massive fanbase out there. But they also knew that they were going to be selling what the bulk of fans would consider rubbish, and the backlash would be terrible. How to defang it?

The answer was cynical but brilliant: discredit the fan protest by by setting it up for the label of "racist." Deliberately go, not just for 'diverse' casting, not just illogically diverse casting (multi-racial communities and even marriages, in a 'medieval' setting), but then intentionally choose actors who were going to make a big deal of it. Yes, actors' personalities are a definite factor in casting. Peter Jackson knew that he was looking at a three year fairly isolated shoot, and has stated sought actors who would get on together and even bond, in which he mostly succeeded. Here, Amazon's people went for actors who would be aggressively forward with their ideology, starting with Lenny Henry, long known as an outspoken activist.

This was the setup. The fans were goaded, the fans protested, and Amazon lowered the "racist" boom which has been successfully seeded throughout the media coverage, and used to rhetorically nullify the fact that viewers hate this POS (30% on Rotten Tomatoes).

And yet- Henry and Nomvete and Cordova and the rest, in their assertive ideological earnestness and occasional indignation, seem completely clueless as to the real situation: that they are tethered goats. Back in the day, tiger hunters would tie a goat to a post in a jungle clearing, and wait for the tiger to pounce so that they could blast it. And is that not precisely the mechanic at work here?

[Kuruharan]

Here was Amazon's problem: they knew going in that they were working with the bestselling English-language book in history, and following the insanely successful movies; there was a truly massive fanbase out there. But they also knew that they were going to be selling what the bulk of fans would consider rubbish, and the backlash would be terrible. How to defang it?

While I can't say you are wrong, I also think you are assigning them a level of cunning they don't deserve. I also think you aren't crediting them with sufficient ideological fervor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Well, consider what Disney did with Oni-Wan Kenobi: there they used artificially manufactured racism, by singling out 5 troll comments out of 10,000, in order to claim they were under "racist attack" and thus handwave away the bad reviews. That was clearly deliberate; and I don't think Amazon is any less cunning than Disney.

[Kuruharan]

Well, consider what Disney did with Oni-Wan Kenobi: there they used artificially manufactured racism, by singling out 5 troll comments out of 10,000, in order to claim they were under "racist attack" and thus handwave away the bad reviews. That was clearly deliberate; and I don't think Amazon is any less cunning than Disney.

But that is a well worn defensive parry rather than utilizing it as an offensive tactic.

Most people are too egotistical to genuinely believe in their hearts that people are going to hate their works enough to pre-plan to take advantage of that hatred.

Again, you may be right, but I find it quite odd, in a general sense, to accuse people of being so incompetent that they can't re-write or adapt (in this case) Tolkien's works, even when mutilating it, in an interesting way and at the same time believe that they are so shrewd to utilize the negative reaction to their work to their own advantage.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

B

Again, you may be right, but I find it quite odd, in a general sense, to accuse people of being so incompetent that they can't re-write or adapt (in this case) Tolkien's works, even when mutilating it, in an interesting way and at the same time believe that they are so shrewd to utilize the negative reaction to their work to their own advantage.


Hmm. Nobody but Tolkien can write Tolkien. His mind was, in addition to being brilliant and astonishingly well-educated, unique. His work is inimitable.

Whereas manipulating TV ratings and reviews only requires the sort of low animal cunning which is plentiful in the industry. Compare, e.g., the tremendously effective Oscar-campaign strategy developed by Harvey Weinstein, whom nobody would take for any kind of 'genius.'

Even if the showrunners and producers and PR people were egotistical enough to think they could match the Master, they would have been very aware that they only had rights to the Appendices, and therefore would have to be diverging sharply from the canon, and therefore almost certainly had to be anticipating fan backlash.

[Kuruharan]

almost certainly had to be anticipating fan backlash.

I still think you are giving them more credit than they deserve. :D

[Boromir88]

Amazon is taking steps to protect the Rings of Power by implementing policies that will halt the phenomenon of "review bombing."

https://www.avclub.com/amazon-review-bomb-lord-of-the-rings-delayed-reviews-ri-1849493204

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Translation: silence the critics.

A comment from YouTube: "Beware of review bombing, which is,"The practice of blaming negative reviews on audience bigotry when showrunners and other creatives where so preoccupied with inserting ideopolitical messaging that they forgot the fundamentals of story structure, character development, and screenwriting in general.""

[Boromir88]

Translation: silence the critics.

A comment from YouTube: "Beware of review bombing, which is,"The practice of blaming negative reviews on audience bigotry when showrunners and other creatives where so preoccupied with inserting ideopolitical messaging that they forgot the fundamentals of story structure, character development, and screenwriting in general.""

To be frank, the critic reviews have been far more positive. Although, for myself I take critic reviews with a grain of salt, since they're part of the industry and have their own agendas to push. I take social media "audience" reviews with even less weight than a grain of salt, because it's intentionally inflammatory. The positive reviews can only go on about the visuals and camera work, nothing else. The instant reaction negative reviews was just mocking anyone who enjoyed it and trying to be gatekeepers defending Tolkien's legacy.

The most damning reviews are the ones I've seen from members here, who I know are fair minded and thoughtful with their opinions...like Lommy, Eomer and elsewhere Agan who say it's boring.

There is a seedling in Episode 2 that the series can get right, imo, if they continue with the theme. It's something that Jackson botched with the movies and Episode 2 touched on it with Elrond and Durin. That is the theme of Elven immortality vs the mortal races. How the races view the world differently causing strain between them, Men's fear of death, and Elves' motivation to preserve their way of life, "unchanged and unmarred." It will be wise for the series to pursue that theme more, but I have little hope the script writers will do the topic justice.

[Huinesoron]

It occurs to me that a non-spoilery review of the first episode (only one I've had time for) would probably be handy for people who are considering whether to watch the series. Adapting this from my spoiler version:

Episode one ("A Shadow of the Past") is not as faithful as I'd hoped, but nowhere near as bad as people anticipated. There's been a lot of impressions based on the trailers, and even in this episode it's clear that the trailers don't show everything.

One thing it is is very pretty. Valinor looks like Valinor. The swan-ship looks like a swan-ship. Lindon is like Movie!Rivendell writ large. There's an "old farm" in the Harfoot sections which is exactly the kind of place you'd like to stumble on exploring a wilderness. Even the small things have had a lot of thought put into them - I flagged an elvish ladder which the propmakers clearly designed as if it had been grown as a single tree, shaped over a decade or more. It does owe a lot, visually, to the Jackson movies (LotR, not Hobbit), so if you didn't like the style there you probably won't here either; but for me, it feels like being in Middle-earth of the Second Age.

That feeling doesn't always extend to the characters. The absolute stand-out stars here are the Harfeet, who are utterly believable proto-Hobbits (and adorable besides). But while Galadriel is a believable Galadriel (if you can accept that the woman who fought fiercely at Alqualonde might possibly pick up a sword once in a while), most of the features male elves have a weirdly craggy look to their faces, though their costumes are usually pretty good. The mortal village swings a little too far into "medieval people wore mud and rags" at times; but based on the trailers, I have high hopes for the Numenorean costume design.

A fair few people have been talking about "inserting ideopolitical messaging" and the like, but honestly, Episode One has none of this. The only argument I can see being made is that the existence of non-white people, or of Galadriel acting like some sort of "man-maiden" or something (;)), is an ideological statement in and of itself, but I don't put much truck in that claim. I think people are projecting external statements by the actors and creators onto the show, and seeing things that - again, in Episode One specifically - aren't actually there.

The storyline has some canonicity issues. A lot of them stem from what Bêthberry has quoted in another thread (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=19618) - the legal requirement for the writers to not only not use the Silmarillion, but to actively work to make their story not look/be inspired by it. In places, they achieve this by being deliberately vague, but there are places where their storyline and interpretations fly in the face of, if not the text, at least the most likely intent of Tolkien's work. That's probably a good thing for their ability to actually tell a story - to take an extreme example, a Fall of Numenor which tried to vague its way around anything in Akallabeth would have to be completely plotless - but it does mean the Tolkien content is reduced. "The book Tolkien never wrote" is not an accurate description of this show.

Viewed apart from Tolkien (which is hard to do in places), the story is... fine. It falls firmly into the "first episode setup" genre, establishing characters and settings rather than giving us anything to chew on. The characters mostly follow their character as established in the show - I only counted two particularly irrational acts, one of which was highlighted as politics, the other an act of desperation. The elves have the air of smug superiority which you'd expect from the Noldor at their second peak, and there's one moment where Gil-Galad's response to Galadriel is very definitely "I'm the High King, but you are my terrifying aunt and I really hope you don't make an issue of it".

I'm not great at judging dialogue or acting, but I had no problem with it. There are some beautifully delivered lines in this episode, several of which showed up in the trailer. It's clear that Galadriel is the main character, and I think Morfydd Clark can carry that role. There's enough characters who aren't stuck in the Tortured & Harrowed mindset that the ones who are don't drag it all down. And the Harfeet are a positive delight.

Overall, my expectations have lowered slightly, but I enjoyed it, and will still watch the second episode when I get the chance. It works. It's fine - and I hope, when the plot gets its feet under it, it can graduate to "good".

hS

[Tar Elenion]

A fair few people have been talking about "inserting ideopolitical messaging" and the like, but honestly, Episode One has none of this.

hS
Wasn't the white boy southlander with short hair on the sides and back, longish in front, saying 'knife ears' and 'you people' to the black *elf in the first episode?
Or was it the second?

[Bêthberry]

Wasn't the white boy southlander with short hair on the sides and back, longish in front, saying 'knife ears' and 'you people' to the black *elf in the first episode?
Or was it the second?

I didn't "read" that as a racial statement because of the casting of a black actor and "ideopolitical messaging". I read it as typifying the harfoots' uneasy relationship with elves, all elves. There are several examples which show that the harfoots don't like or don't trust the elves but I haven't committed them to memory.

As for the elves, I "read" Galadriel's comment to Elrond that he has not been invited to the high table because that is for elf lords as suggesting the arrogance of elves (which is highly attested to in Tolkien's work) about Elrond's status as only half-elven. I suspect we will see Elrond earn his status as elf lord just as we will see the peoples of Middle-earth come together. very Tolkien that.

[Huinesoron]

Wasn't the white boy southlander with short hair on the sides and back, longish in front, saying 'knife ears' and 'you people' to the black *elf in the first episode?
Or was it the second?

Yep, it was in the first episode. The idea of mortal racism against elves appears in Tolkien's writings on both the First and Second Ages. The King's Men are the classic example, but who was it that said "Let the Eldar look to it; our lives are short enough"? A Beorian, I think.

hS

[Tar Elenion]

I didn't "read" that as a racial statement because of the casting of a black actor and "ideopolitical messaging". I read it as typifying the harfoots' uneasy relationship with elves, all elves. There are several examples which show that the harfoots don't like or don't trust the elves but I haven't committed them to memory.

As for the elves, I "read" Galadriel's comment to Elrond that he has not been invited to the high table because that is for elf lords as suggesting the arrogance of elves (which is highly attested to in Tolkien's work) about Elrond's status as only half-elven. I suspect we will see Elrond earn his status as elf lord just as we will see the peoples of Middle-earth come together. very Tolkien that.
It was not the *Harfoots, nor *Galadriel.
One was a white boy southlander with a stereotypical 'alt-right' hair cut throwing out "racial slurs" (lifted from some fantasy franchise, that I am unfamiliar with) and using the "you people" line to a black man.

The other was an *elf-woman servant. I took it that as a pathetically ignorant breaking of the lore. But yeah it could be read with a focus on it as 'you are a half-breed'.

[Bêthberry]

Viewed apart from Tolkien (which is hard to do in places), the story is... fine. . And the Harfeet are a positive delight.

Overall, my expectations have lowered slightly, but I enjoyed it, and will still watch the second episode when I get the chance. It works. It's fine - and I hope, when the plot gets its feet under it, it can graduate to "good".

hS

I agree that there were things well done. It is visually a delight. I liked the Harfoot tribe more than the hobbits in the Jackson movies because they appeared more anthropologically suitable and less cutesy nostalgic. And they were depicted as a tribe and not only as individuals.

Khazad Dum was stunning. It was good to see the dwarves depicted respectfully rather than comically (although I could have done without the belching and burping).They clearly have a well developed culture and I"m sure that will play into later episodes.

I"m not someone who was overly fond of the Jackson movies, shall we say, and I wasn't excited by the news of this series but having ignored the hype I found RoP something watchable.

And I'm glad to see you writing of things you enjoyed or thought were well done. I'd hate to see new potential members turned away by criticisms that are disdainfully expressed.

https://scontent.fymy1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/305648902_8497474103627851_2125929639307238187_n.j pg?stp=cp1_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=t8tIxWxANu4AX9r6Qnu&tn=nspeQzfykRVuBKN2&_nc_ht=scontent.fymy1-2.fna&oh=00_AT8CxbUjk8SvABH3ONNltMJxnMptYI6GlgzwvRAkwEPJ Kg&oe=631BD51D

EDIT: Attached a photo that Brian Sibley has posted on FB, of a carving of a bird and baby in stone decorations. It was presented in a session at the Tolkien Society's 2022 Oxonmoot by Ramsey Avery – Production Designer for TLOTR: TROP .

[Bêthberry]

It was not the *Harfoots, nor was *Galadriel.
One was a white boy with a stereotypical 'alt-right' hair cut throwing out "racial slurs" (lifted from some fantasy franchise, that I am unfamiliar with) and using the "you people" line to a black man.

The other was an *elf-woman servant. I took it that as a pathetically ignorant breaking of the lore. But yeah it could be read with a focus on it as 'you are a half-breed'.

Yes, I know who you meant but yes I'm wrong he was Harfoot. The "white boy" is the son of the human Bronwyn who is the healer of the village of Tirharad and my son and I both think that his hair is deliberately designed to mask his ears. I didn't think of his hair as a stereotypical 'alt right' hair cut but then I didn't know there was such a hair cut. His friend Rowan is less trusting of elves than he is. It's a man/elf thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the half-elven Elrond plays out some similar anxieties as Spock does.

As for elf servants, all those whispy flowing robes confuse me and I've seen the episode but once. thanks for clarifying my mistakes.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

"Knife-ears" is a derogatory term for Elves taken from the Dragon Age series of videogames, in which they are an oppressed underclass (often servants).

[Tar Elenion]

Yes, I know who you meant but yes I'm wrong he was Harfoot. The "white boy" is the son of the human Bronwyn who is the healer of the village of Tirharad and my son and I both think that his hair is deliberately designed to mask his ears. I didn't think of his hair as a stereotypical 'alt right' hair cut but then I didn't know there was such a hair cut. His friend Rowan is less trusting of elves than he is. It's a man/elf thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the half-elven Elrond plays out some similar anxieties as Spock does.

As for elf servants, all those whispy flowing robes confuse me and I've seen the episode but once. thanks for clarifying my mistakes.

The "white boy" with the "alt-right" hair using racial-slurs and "you people" to the black *Elf (Arondir) is not Theo the son Bronwyn it was Theo's friend. Rowan, if you are correct (I don't know what his name is).

Vulcan Elves now? Well, Arondir is sort of coming off that way so far.

[Tar Elenion]

"Knife-ears" is a derogatory term for Elves taken from the Dragon Age series of videogames, in which they are an oppressed underclass (often servants).

And Tolkien had a perfectly good 'racial-slur' that the Easterlings (seemingly represented by these Southlanders) used for Elves...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I do find it interesting that in the one part of Middle-earth in which Tolkien unmistakably placed POC, Harad, the showrunners have chosen to put white people.

[Huinesoron]

I do find it interesting that in the one part of Middle-earth in which Tolkien unmistakably placed POC, Harad, the showrunners have chosen to put white people.

The map flyover was a bit vague in that. I think it originally placed the "Southlands" label east of Mordor, then later zoomed out from the lower Anduin. I guess "south" is relative to Lindon?

hS

[Bêthberry]

The "white boy" with the "alt-right" hair using racial-slurs and "you people" to the black *Elf (Arondir) is not Theo the son Bronwyn it was Theo's friend. Rowan, if you are correct (I don't know what his name is).

So you call that blondeish hair a stereotypical 'alt-right' hair cut. I can't see it, but as I said, I don't know there is such a stereotypical hair cut. I do see Theo's hair cut as a bit weird but the straw-haired cut is no big deal for me.

Rowan isn't highlighted in many of the cast lists but he is in one from (gulp) One Wiki to Rule them All. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Rowan_(Southlands)

[Tar Elenion]

So you call that blondeish hair a . I can't see it, but as I said, I don't know there is such a stereotypical hair cut. I do see Theo's hair cut as a bit weird but the straw-haired cut is no big deal for me.

Rowan isn't highlighted in many of the cast lists but he is in one from (gulp) One Wiki to Rule them All. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Rowan_(Southlands)

Yes. A stereotypical "alt-right" haircut. shorter at the side and back. Longer in the front.
I don't know why you think it was Theo that I was referring to when I noted the racist "knife-ears" and "you people" speech from the white boy.
Did the version you saw have Theo saying? Or are you just confused?

I did not say anything about the hair cut being "weird", I described the character.
So again white boy with alt-right hair cut using racially charged in a modern sense speech claimed to be racist ("you people") to a black man.
But no ideopolitical messaging.

[Boromir88]

That's an alt-right hair cut? I thought it was Justin Bieber?

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_auto:good%2 Cw_300/MTM2OTI2NTY2Mjg5NTE2MTI5/justin_bieber_2015_photo_courtesy_dfree_shuttersto ck_348418241_croppedjpg.jpg

[Tar Elenion]

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2017-02-08/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-americas-alt-right-got-its-signature-hairstyle/0000017f-e266-df7c-a5ff-e27ecdf00000

How America's Alt-right Got Its Signature Hairstyle
A hairstyle that's shaved on the sides and long on top went from being a hipster affectation to a neo-fascist show of force.

[Mithadan]

Aren’t we getting more than a bit far afield? Can we please move on?

Thank you.