"The Rings of Power" Vanity Fair article

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So it seems I might be wrong about this! A seemingly independent confirmation that the rights Amazon have are just... LotR+Hobbit. Which means the big deal that we were all convinced was over Christopher's objections was simply the same properties which were already out there. Amazon has nothing that Peter Jackson didn't also have.

If this is true (I'm still not entirely convinced), it's going to punch gaping holes through the plot.

I'm not convinced at all.

Amazon did a deal with the Estate, but the Estate don't control the rights to the Hobbit nor to LotR. They're with whatever Saul Zaentz's company is called this week. Plus that map of Numenor is straight out of Unfinished Tales; it doesn't appear anywhere else, so Amazon must have at least that much of UT, and that's indisputable.

No, more likely to be the opposite: Amazon don't have the Hobbit or LotR, but they do have other material, the full extent of which is currently unknown.

[Thinlómien]

Upon reading all your comments and reflecting on previous fandom experiences, I really think we should take the article - and all other written sources about the show at this point - with a pinch of salt. After all, they are the writers' interpretation, and the writers might not be particularly observant, or good writers, or Tolkien-savvy. Much of the stuff that sounds ridiculous might make more sense when you see the actual show - and vice versa...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Okay, but if they do this for Galadriel they have to do it for every single Ring. Each one gets an element - the elves get classical elements, the dwarves get metals, and the men get... I dunno, noble gases or something.

I know you wrote this tongue-in-cheek, but I'm thinking they might really do it for the Elven Rings at least. I mean they all have an element assigned to them, and from the point of view making flashy cinema, it would really be a wasted opportunity not to use that. Sadly I predict it will be quite tacky.

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

So is this what they did with Game of Thrones? I never watched it, but I thought it was. My guess is that the characters go about in twos or threes (so maybe 10 plot threads), with each episode focussing on 3 or so plotlines. That'd be 15-20 minutes per plot, which is enough to get some stuff done.

Game of Thrones and other ensemble shows I've seen seem to fluctuate somewhere between these two options, sometimes depending on the episode. It's not an easy thing to juggle. Looking forward to seeing how it works here...

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

Eitherhow, I don't think it's "diversity for diversity's sake" - I would say it's more "diversity because it gives you more options". It lets you tell different stories, with different resonances with the modern world - and it also lets you hire different actors! If all lead characters had to be white, male, and American, we really would have Benderbatch Cumbleface playing everyone again. (And in a show like this, hordes of white men with brown hair would make it impossible for me to know who anyone was; I'm rubbish at faces.)

Agreed. I actually hope they would make different peoples from different parts of Middle-Earth each have cast of a certain ethnicity (with some exceptions of course because people have always been moving). It would make everything feel more real and localised and grounded. Imagine for example all Northmen are white people of Northern European descent, Númenóreans are Caucasian folks from the Mediterranean region, Silvan Elves are say East Africans, the dwarves Southern Asians... But I don't think that would fly, Amazon would be crucifed for racial stereotyping in 0.5 seconds. While I agree that type of casting would open up a myriad problematic cans of worms, it would avoid the "every place looks like contemporary US with ethnic diversity but 90% of the important roles somehow being held by white people" syndrome which pretty much every American tv show and movie these days seems to have.

I don't know where I'm going with this rant but maybe partly: I'm European and I'm tired of seeing just racial diversity, I want to see cultural diversity too. Okay that's a whole different issue, but let's unpack that one. I would love to see all the different cultures of Middle-Earth have not only different architecture and costumes, but different customs and beliefs, ways of greeting each other, different values and arts, different foods... From the looks of the pictures we've seen, though, it all looks like one generic fantasyland ie probably one big US in Middle-Earth. (Yes, I know there is cultural diversity within the US as well, but does that ever get represented on mainstream media either? Nope.)

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Upon reading all your comments and reflecting on previous fandom experiences, I really think we should take the article - and all other written sources about the show at this point - with a pinch of salt. After all, they are the writers' interpretation, and the writers might not be particularly observant, or good writers, or Tolkien-savvy. Much of the stuff that sounds ridiculous might make more sense when you see the actual show - and vice versa...

Indeed and for the most part, those involved in the series are saying the right things, but is impossible to know until seeing the end product.

The main cringe in the Vanity Fair article was Elrond being described as a "wily-politician." But as you say here perhaps it's best to take what is written about the show with a pinch of salt. One thing I can't ever imagine Elrond being described as is a "wily-politician." Unless if if somehow since he was one of the masterminds behind the "Fool's hope," that his character in the show is savvy and skilled in organizing the resistance against Sauron? And since his involvement in forming the Fellowship was more behind the scenes, we actually see Elrond working "behind the scenes" to organize the resistance against Sauron.

I'm not too worried about the picture with the caption of "Elrond and Galadriel's reunion." I think perhaps we all just have The Hobbit movies Galadriel and Gandalf as the first things that come into our heads. I admit those scenes are really clumsy in The Hobbit, but I hardly think kisses on the forehead or "If you need my help, I will come" are overloaded with sexual tension between them.

Which incidentally looks like this. Which makes me wonder about the protrayal of their relationship. I always imagined it as cordial but distant in a dignified manner. Which is what one might expect between a guy and his mother-in-law who is a legendary queen thousands of years his senior. (Not to downplay Elrond's achievements, but seriously...) Also wondering if Celeborn and Celebrían will make an apperance, and how old is the latter one going to be.~Lommy

I've had a much different take on their relationship. Elrond is her son-in-law, and I've always thought the 3 Elven Ring-bearers had a close and strong bond. After the Ring is destroyed on their way back, Elrond, Gandalf and Galadriel sit in the woods, not saying anything but it's implied they're speaking telepathically, or communicating in a way where they all completely understand what's being said. I don't know nearly enough about what Tolkien wrote about Osanwe, but if the Elven rings were now powerless, it would appear they figured out how to exchange thoughts without the power of their rings. This is all pure speculation on my part, so take it with a pinch of salt, but it would make sense there was a strong bond between the 3 of them.

What gets me is the criticisms from so-called "fans," (not on this forum) but honestly they're online Ted Sandymans, who then use Peter Jackson as some sort of paragon of faithfulness to Tolkien. I've disagreed with Morth,Kuru, Inzil and countless others here over the years about Jackson's films. Say what you want about their criticisms and pessimism about the Amazon series, but they are just as sharp and on-point to criticize Jackson if he did something similar.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

I don't know where I'm going with this rant but maybe partly: I'm European and I'm tired of seeing just racial diversity, I want to see cultural diversity too. Okay that's a whole different issue, but let's unpack that one. I would love to see all the different cultures of Middle-Earth have not only different architecture and costumes, but different customs and beliefs, ways of greeting each other, different values and arts, different foods... From the looks of the pictures we've seen, though, it all looks like one generic fantasyland ie probably one big US in Middle-Earth. (Yes, I know there is cultural diversity within the US as well, but does that ever get represented on mainstream media either? Nope.)

Yes!!!

And this is what GOT did do well - it picked up on GRRM's worldbuilding and kept the details. Not just the racial descriptions and costumes, but the religions and customs and accents and legends and histories and sayings and mannerisms. If shows could emulate more of that, instead of sex and swords, they would be better for it. Sex and swords might be GOT's staple, but they weren't what made it a good show. So I could not agree more with you here. Please, show us different cultures!

[Morthoron]

A return of Princess Xenarwen, with Galadriel wearing armor. Hobbits where none should be. Politically correct racial casting (Dark Elves, LOL!). Beardless dwarf-women.

The only thing that is true with all this nonsense is “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote?" The answer, of course, is yes, you certainly can come up with a novel that Tolkien never wrote. You can take the worst aspects of Peter Jackson's superfluous and extraneous inanity and make an even worse story that Tolkien wouldn't consider to having anything vaguely to do with his creation.

I'm through with this debacle before it even airs.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The only remaining question is whether this is better compared with the Ciurea train wreck of 1917 (600-1000 dead) or the Bihar train wreck of 1981 (200+ confirmed dead, several hundred more presumed killed). The first was a collision, the second went off a cliff.

[mhagain]

The "Hobbits where none should be" thing needs to be addressed.

There is absolutely nothing in Tolkien stating there were no Hobbits in the Second Age.

Quite the opposite, the Of Dwarves and Men essay even explicitly references primitive Hobbit tribes in "unrecorded ages".

I'd expected better from posters on this forum. Sigh.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

A return of Princess Xenarwen, with Galadriel wearing armor.

Originally Posted by UT: The History of Galadriel and Celeborn

Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the rape of their ships, though she fought fiercely against Feanor in defence of her mother's kin, she did not turn back.

~

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Hobbits where none should be.

Already cited by mhagain, but:

Originally Posted by HoME XII: Of Dwarves and Men

... when they are first encountered in the histories [Hobbits] already showed divergences in colouring, stature, and build. [...] In their unrecorded past they must have been a primitive, indeed 'savage' people...

The vague tradition preserved by the Hobbits of the Shire was that they had dwelt once in lands by a Great River, but long ago had left them, and found their way through or round high mountains, when they no longer felt at ease in their homes because of the multiplications of the Big Folk... This evidently reflects the troubles of Gondor in the earlier part of the Third Age.

~

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Politically correct racial casting (Dark Elves, LOL!).

That's utterly beneath you, but:

Originally Posted by Tolkien's statement that all Quendi are light-skinned

(Quote not found)

~

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Beardless dwarf-women.

This is the only one you're on anything like solid ground for, citing HoME:

Originally Posted by HoME XI: Concerning the Dwarves

For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice...

And also:

Originally Posted by LotR: Appendix A

[Dwarf women] seldom walk abroad except at great need. They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart. This has given rise to the foolish opinion among Men that there are no dwarf-women, and that the Dwarves 'grow out of stone'.

But the HoME source (aside from being an unused draft to which Amazon don't have the rights) is sourced explicitly to Pengolod, an elf; and LotR Appendix F specifically calls the dwarves "secretive" (it uses "secret" five times in three paragraphs!), and contrasts this with the Elves. It's really trivial to suggest that maybe, like the "foolish opinion among Men" that dwarves have no women, is just an Elvish myth; and that when Gimli gave the text in Appendix A*, he was preserving the secrecy that surrounds dwarven women while being 100% accurate: when they go on a journey, they dress and act like dwarf men, to keep their presence a secret.

(*The first paragraph in Appendix A cites this to him, and implies he told it to Merry and Pippin; the term is "derived", so it doesn't even seem to be a direct quote.)

There are certainly things that could be a "debacle". But a fact which is explicitly stated to be the subject of rumours and misconceptions, and which is always sourced to specific people (rather than being in Tolkien's authorial/authoritative voice) turning out to be... a rumour or misconception, isn't one of them.

(It would be very pleasing to see Disa having to travel, and dressing herself up as a male dwarf to do it, to reach the precise meaning of the Appendix A claim.)

hS