"The Rings of Power" Vanity Fair article

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I have now read TheOneRing.net's news story/press release on the Vanity Fair article on the Amazon Lord of the Game Of Ring Thrones, and have to conclude cynically that TORN has become nothing but a paid shill. (Which I suspected during the PJ movie days).

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

I have now read TheOneRing.net's news story/press release on the Vanity Fair article on the Amazon Lord of the Game Of Ring Thrones, and have to conclude cynically that TORN has become nothing but a paid shill. (Which I suspected during the PJ movie days).

I'm not sure if they're paid for their PJ fanaticism (which actually makes it worse, imo, I mean you would have to pay me to go to their level of gushing I saw when the movies were out). I was surprised they weren't quite as zealous about The Hobbit movies, at least once they were released. But wow during the LOTR movies, it was scary how much they worshiped him.

[Galadriel55]

Personally, of all the new characters and concepts and plot (presumably - because again, this is speculation) introduced by the show, I find the hobbits / Harfeet least disturbing. Why? Because I see a way for them to remain a sort of small side reference without turning the whole thing into Morthoron's worst nightmare. I can totally see them being side characters, whose main goal in the story is to stay out of sight - which they would end up doing with success but not without struggle. I don't insist on precisely sticking to the letter of the law, and I allow fanfiction to indulge its fancy, so long as the foundation of the world is not overturned by it. Treat it as headcanon.

I have much less faith in equally wholesome headcanon for the named canonical characters. Galadriel in particular. I think that if anything will disrupt the tranquility of my anticipation of the show, it will be her storyline. (I mean, it's a zen born largely of indifference, but now they're pushing things into it that I do care about, so it makes sense).

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

but since Peter Jackson set the standard of wholesale changes to a complete story, I'm willing to give the producers of this project a wide berth in their use of artistic license.

I don't agree with this philosophical perspective at all. In my view just because Jackson did an awful job does not entitle his successors to sequentially do as bad and just a little bit worse.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Speaking of the trailer: I was surprised how close the aesthetics (or at least those we have seen) are to the PJ take on it. What looks like Lindon (?) is effectively copypaste of the last scene of LotR with more architecture (which would make sense). That peculiar elf in golden armour who looks like Jamie Lannister fighting Orcs (flashback of Galadriel's brother??? Hope not) looks horribly Haldirish.

I thought it was known that they were going to use the WETA aesthetic, which in itself is not very accurate to what Tolkien wrote, particularly when it came to armor.

I cannot fathom why anybody, even out of their right mind, would don antlers in such a manner as is depicted outside of a religious ceremony. You would get blown over by every gust of wind. Perhaps that is the point and these people periodically travel by wind power..?

Also, "Galadriel dangling from cliff by knife" may become my new way of saying "Thorin dancing on Smaug's nose."

As Hui mentions, the big fireball makes me think that it is meant to be Sauron fleeing east or otherwise going somewhere.

[Boromir88]

I haven't had a chance to work my way all the way through the article, but some things that stood out to me from this interview with the show-runners.

There's not an over-reliance on CGI:

Payne promises they will be using “every single trick in the book—old school, new school, everything—in a way that we are told no one has attempted.” Some of the stranger monsters may be digital confections, but when orc-like baddies attack The Rings of Power heroes, it’s guys in suits, not piles of pixels.

Ok, that's a good thing.

Confirmation on what material they had access to:

So what did Amazon buy? “We have the rights solely to The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, the appendices, and The Hobbit,” Payne says. “And that is it. We do not have the rights to The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth, or any of those other books.”

Apparently they can't contradict any known event, even from works that they don't have the rights to, but the 2nd Age material in what they do have the copyright for is very limited.

Perhaps an inkling of what the prior VF article said about Elrond being a politician. My immediate thought was no, because I have in my head Tolkien calling Denethor a politician, and Tolkien commenting that:

...and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.~Letter 52

But it appears young Elrond's storyline is going to be focused on a friendship with Durin IV, which Payne says Elrond is trying to "repair their friendship." Still not quite what I think when I hear "Elrond," but maybe not as bad as when I first heard him described as a "politician."

[mhagain]

Apologies for dragging up Hobbits again, but Tolkien did describe them as clearly having a prehistory before they became known, having already divided into the three subtypes. As for where they are located in this time period - the objections are making assumptions that stretch credibility. Why can they not be living around the Sea of Rhun, for example?

I'm not saying it's a good thing that there are Hobbits in this, and I'd personally prefer if there weren't. What I am saying is that their presence doesn't actually contradict anything written, and it shouldn't take huge feats of mental agility to see that.

On the other hand, Nori Brandyfoot is a terrible name, and really shows how little the creators understand the naming schemes Tolkien used. The correct approach would have been to pull something from an ancient language. Westron didn't exist yet (well it did, but only in the sense that Westron is Adunaic) and anyway if the Hobbits were further east they wouldn't have mixed with those Mannish cultures, but there are plenty of alternatives.

Disa is an OK name for a Dwarf woman. Dís already exists in the Appendices as the mother of Fili and Kili so Disa is OK.

Most of the other created names are of the Nori Brandyfoot type to me - something that sounds Tolkien-ish in a throwaway handwavey sort of way, but nothing he would have actually used himself.

I think I don't like the trailer, but there's really too little in it to form a fair judgement on. I'm keeping faith that the Tolkien Estate will prevent obvious stupidity like changing how Finrod dies.

I don't buy that the creators have rights to nothing aside from the Hobbit and LotR material. That map of Númenor they released is straight out of Unfinished Tales, and Unfinished Tales is the only place it exists, so there must at least be some kind of arrangement for selective use of other material.

Right now my biggest concern is around the Celebrimbor stuff, and the trailer did nothing for that. Númenor can be covered by material from the LotR appendices, G&C did a whole lot of moving around and not much else, so their story would need to be invented anyway, but the full Celebrimbor story only exists in Unfinished Tales (with a very compressed overview in the Silmarillion) and it's such an essential part of the overall story of the Rings. If the creators don't have access to this material I can't see them being able to do this story properly at all, and that's a huge concern: the series is called "Rings of Power" after all.

[Huinesoron]

Let's talk about Gil-Galad.



Despite all the devoted Tolkien fans out on the 'net who are horrified - purely on the basis of the difference from canon, and definitely nothing else that rhymes with dracism - by such things as a non-white elf and a non-white dwarf, you know what I haven't seen? Any complaints about Gil-Galad, who looks nothing like his canon self.

His sword was long, his lance was keen
His shining helm afar was seen
The countless stars of heaven's field
Were mirrored in his silver shield

Gil-Galad's colours are blue and silver; they're the colours on his emblem, and descriptions like "into darkness fell his star" imply that he actually wore star-silver. It's even in his name! But the series has put him in gold.

Also, we know now the colour of his hair, and it's not black. From NoME, 2.IV (dated 1969):

As in the name 'Gil-galad' 'star of radiance' given to Finwain, last High-king of the Eldar, because of the radiance of his silver hair, armour, and shield that, it is said, could even in the moonlight be seen from many leagues afar.

So - unlike dwarf or Nandor skin colour - we have an explicit, late statement from Tolkien that aligns with his later thoughts on Gil-Galad's ancestry (as a descendent of Finarfin, he is kin to Elwe and thus has silver hair in his ancestry, same as Galadriel). And yet the showmakers choose to ignore that.

But y'know what? That's actually fine. Tolkien changed his mind about Gil-Galad's name and ancestry often enough that treating one comment on his hair as definitive is silly; and the point of putting him in gold is to a) show him to be royal, b) distinguish him easily from the other elves, and c) tie him thematically to the apparently mallorn-bearing Lindon. A visual adaptation is very different to a written story; you have to consider different things. (Most notably: written dialogue says everyone's name every couple of lines! Nobody wants TV to have to do the comic book thing, "Gil-Galad! It is I, Galadriel, returned from my meeting with Elrond here!")

Looking at both the trailer and his poster, we can see that Gil-Galad is carrying that tall, 8-pointed star that also appears on Galadriel's armour. It's not the Star of Feanor, which has even arms and 8 additional rays. It could be partly based on the uneven star on Gil-Galad's emblem, but my guess is it's just a generic "Star of the High Elves".

He's also wearing a lot of rings - at least five. I'm not sure I like the look - though really, how often are we going to get a closeup of his hands? I guess it's a reference to the fact that he winds up carrying both Vilya and Narya; or perhaps it's just implying that rings are a massive Elvish vice, and that's why Celebrimbor started making them?

As for the robes: they kind of look like they were made for the poster. There's all that overlaid gold wrapping in intricately embroidered cloth; and then, when you get above the poster, it's a plain gold ?tunic / ?sheet of metal with crossed bandoliers.

And no crown. From Turgon and Finrod we know that elven kings did wear crowns, and the movies even gave Elrond a tiara - so why does the High King not get one? Maybe he just doesn't wear it except on state occasions (perhaps this shot takes place in his back garden).

Originally Posted by mhagain

I don't buy that the creators have rights to nothing aside from the Hobbit and LotR material. That map of Númenor they released is straight out of Unfinished Tales, and Unfinished Tales is the only place it exists, so there must at least be some kind of arrangement for selective use of other material.

This has been speculated. They've bought the TV rights to LotR + Hobbit, but the Estate is involved in a way they weren't for the movies. As you say, they must have granted specific permission to use the map, so they're clearly considering things on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I hope they're being 'generous'/lenient enough to let the story run as it does in Tolkien's texts. Things like: Tar-Miriel should be forcibly married to Pharazon, and should attempt to climb Meneltarma at the last. Otherwise, you'd be doing the character a complete disservice. Some things (like how Finrod dies) can be worked around, but to do that with Miriel would mean writing her out entirely.

hS

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by mhagain

Apologies for dragging up Hobbits again, but Tolkien did describe them as clearly having a prehistory before they became known, having already divided into the three subtypes. As for where they are located in this time period - the objections are making assumptions that stretch credibility. Why can they not be living around the Sea of Rhun, for example?

I'm not saying it's a good thing that there are Hobbits in this, and I'd personally prefer if there weren't. What I am saying is that their presence doesn't actually contradict anything written, and it shouldn't take huge feats of mental agility to see that.

My comments regarding Hobbits were only part of my disdain for the whole. Taken in total, and based on a trailer and an article, it seems every superfluously silly storyline and fan-fictional foible of Peter Jackson has been magnified by the producers here -- and we haven't even gotten to the release of the series. The hapless heaping helping of Halflings is just a symptom of a complete disregard for Tolkien's works.

Do Hobbits exist in the 2nd Age? Sure. Do they need to be in a story that literally has nothing whatsoever to do with them, and who Tolkien literally said do not appear until the middle of the 3rd Age? No, evidently they were only added as a sop for a certain demographic of LOTR film-fan who wants to see the Shire again but can't afford to fly to New Zealand.

Galadriel, for instance, is demeaned as some impetuous Elven Valkyrie in plate armor (yeah, plate armor always cracks me up in Middle-earth), seeking some vengeful vendetta against foes who no longer exist. Given Galadriel is an Elda born in Valinor, who beheld the Two Trees, intuitively saw the malingering evil in Fëanor, crossed the Helcaraxë, and had a millenia-long stay learning at the feet of Melian the Maia, I don't see her as being impetuous, or needing to don armor to be like one of the guys, for that matter. Not to mention all of her brothers died in the 1st Age, Morgoth is locked away, the balrogs are destroyed or hidden away in the bowels of the earth, and Sauron is still Annatar (isn't he?).

As William Cloud Hicklin correctly concluded, Galadriel's appearance reeks of the warrior woman trope, and detracts from the innate abilities and wisdom that made Galadriel one of the most powerful beings in Arda -- this might as well be the cartoon Heavy Metal with a Middle-earth overlay. Perhaps if they fitted Galadriel with a steel-cupped brassiere....

And stranded on a raft with a mortal? Let's ignore the idea that yachting was not one of Galadriel's pastimes, but the mortal grabs her by the hair? An Elf would not survive such effrontery on her person; therefore, I wonder if the mortal is summarily tossed from the raft, and whether his fingers were still intact.

Again, faux pas strictly from a trailer and article. That they would advertise it that way leads me to the inexorable conclusion that this will be a high-priced Elf and Sorcery boondoggle fit for a new World of Warcraft MMORPG. I will lay odds that the game(s) are already in development.

[Snowdog]

Much of the 'analysis' I've seen online comes in with a 'hateful' bias from the start. I found that This Analysis by Cory Olsen was pretty objective and fairly balanced, and does a good job of pointing out what Tolkien actually wrote vs what has grown to be pop-culture in the wake of the Peter Jackson fan fics (bearded women dwarves as an example).


Sadly, it appears that many people already have written off this new Rings of Power series. I see the haters are really out in force with these latest poster and trailer reveals. One thing I noted in the various places the posters and first look articles were posted on fecebook (IMDB has some of the most horrid comments) reddit, and on some forums is a lot of the ones who hate this so bad think PJ did an awesome job presenting Lord of the Rings. They didn’t mind the many wholesale changes made to that complete book story, saying ‘it needed to be done to appeal to the masses’. I find that segment humorous.

Anyway, the main reasons for the hatred of The Rings of Power appears to be a mix of these:

A. I hate it because it is being made by Amazon.
B. Bezos made mention of Game of Thrones when he bought the rights, so it is going to be Game of Thrones.
C. It’s revisionist ‘woke’ BS (because it isn’t an all-white cast)
D. They are making stuff up that isn’t in the source material (original characters and storylines, tweaking canon characters, and such).
E. They didn’t use the same actors that PJ did, so it’s crap.
F. It doesn’t matter if the Tolkien Estate is actively involved. They only care about money, not Tolkien’s legacy after Christopher died, so it will be crap.

That is just to name a few I’ve come across. Any more reasons given?

[Galadriel55]

While there are extremes of both opinions, and while this site is perhaps more anti-Amazon inclined, is it even possible anymore to present moderate opinions on the matter without being accused of being an extremist one way or the other? Can we all take a step back and calm down a little? It's a show. We will dislike things (for myself, Galadriel's portrayal is an example), we might like some things (for myself - the random references to Two Trees and such scattered in bits of costume), we might have no firm opinion either way on some things (for myself - Gil-Galad: not how I imagined him but not ghastly off either). Can we express opinions on these things anymore without forgetting that disagreeing with the showrunners doesn't make you a die-hard hater, and liking or defending the show's decisions doesn't make you a die-hard fanatic? It's a show. We can debate and discuss it and chew it over peacefully to the extent that it gives us pleasure to do so. And when it comes out, we will watch it (or not) to the extent it gives us pleasure, and the moment it starts giving more grief than pleasure we turn off the screen. It should be this simple, but it just somehow got very complicated. I feel like this thread has been escalating ever more, though there have been multiple attempts to pacify things. Please let's not forget that in the end, all this matters very little? With the debate getting ever more heated and emotionally involved, and the posts coming in so frequently, I am beginning to feel a bit like Hui and getting the itch to ++vote.

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

While there are extremes of both opinions, and while this site is perhaps more anti-Amazon inclined, is it even possible anymore to present moderate opinions on the matter without being accused of being an extremist one way or the other? Can we all take a step back and calm down a little? It's a show. We will dislike things (for myself, Galadriel's portrayal is an example), we might like some things (for myself - the random references to Two Trees and such scattered in bits of costume), we might have no firm opinion either way on some things (for myself - Gil-Galad: not how I imagined him but not ghastly off either). Can we express opinions on these things anymore without forgetting that disagreeing with the showrunners doesn't make you a die-hard hater, and liking or defending the show's decisions doesn't make you a die-hard fanatic? It's a show. We can debate and discuss it and chew it over peacefully to the extent that it gives us pleasure to do so. And when it comes out, we will watch it (or not) to the extent it gives us pleasure, and the moment it starts giving more grief than pleasure we turn off the screen. It should be this simple, but it just somehow got very complicated. I feel like this thread has been escalating ever more, though there have been multiple attempts to pacify things. Please let's not forget that in the end, all this matters very little? With the debate getting ever more heated and emotionally involved, and the posts coming in so frequently, I am beginning to feel a bit like Hui and getting the itch to ++vote.

^All of this, basically. Just because the world at large wants every idle thought to be a rock-solid opinion and every opinion to align with the most extreme position on a subject, doesn't mean we have to join in.

What really winds me up (elsewhere!) is people insisting their read of the text is not just the best, but the only possible interpretation. I've had an amusing conversation on Twitter where I said that Beleg's whetting spell opens the possibility of a lightning-vs-fire-sword duel in Middle-earth (see Celeg Aithorn, and have Eonwe fight a Balrog), and someone has been insisting that those lines not probably are, but must! be metaphorical. There is no possibility that they could be literal, because... Sting was once described as a blue flame, apparently.

Also, if the Valar had a world-breaking lightning sword, why didn't they send Gandalf back with it?!?! After all, he could already destroy armies single-handedly, so he should have it!! (On being queried on this point, they asserted that because Gandalf the Grey could equal a Balrog, of course Gandalf the White could destroy armies. Thaaat's when I stepped away.)

And the odd thing is, holding and expressing a nuanced opinion - like "this thing is possible, though not really certain" - seems to wind that kind of person up just as much as their unsupported certainty does me! They really, really wanted me to be saying that the whetting spell was definitively literal. It was funny. ^_^

Anyway, in the spirit of finding weird hills to die on, I think we can all agree that if anyone in Numenor has any carpet other than this one, it will be proof that they are in the direct pay of Morgoth and intend to steal, spit on, and burn all our Tolkien books.

hS

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

... a lot of the ones who hate this so bad think PJ did an awesome job presenting Lord of the Rings. They didn’t mind the many wholesale changes made to that complete book story, saying ‘it needed to be done to appeal to the masses’.

Well, I'm at least spared an accusation of inconsistency, since I hate the Jackson movies!

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

... a lot of the ones who hate this so bad think PJ did an awesome job presenting Lord of the Rings. They didn’t mind the many wholesale changes made to that complete book story, saying ‘it needed to be done to appeal to the masses’.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Well, I'm at least spared an accusation of inconsistency, since I hate the Jackson movies!

I am reminded of a quote by the composer Rossini regarding Richard Wagner, which for me would also be apt for Peter Jackson. To paraphrase:

"He has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

BTW, Corey Olsen is dead wrong; Tolkien absolutely, positively did write that Dwarf-women were bearded. War of the Jewels, p. 205.

"For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their days, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womankind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls."

Note that means that Dwarf kids have beards too!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I'm not sure if they're paid for their PJ fanaticism (which actually makes it worse, imo, I mean you would have to pay me to go to their level of gushing I saw when the movies were out). I was surprised they weren't quite as zealous about The Hobbit movies, at least once they were released. But wow during the LOTR movies, it was scary how much they worshiped him.

Well, websites make their money from advertising, and the overwhelming bulk of the ads they carried were for WETA workshop and connected businesses, all tied to PJ or New Line. Add to that the remarkable number of "insider scoops" they published.