# Rings of Power -- all opinions and spoilers welcome thread.



## Galandris (Oct 18, 2022)

This is a thread to discuss about the show, welcoming, in a nice and polite manner as befit any Internet board, opinions about the show, from any point of views, ranging from how it was if you discovered Middle Earth by watching it or how the show differed from Tolkien canon and how it is developping its own, coherent story with regard to the established limits.

It is even possible in this thread to mention that there are parts of the show you don't like, or even that you hated it all with the heat of a thousand suns, and provide discussions on how it could have been better.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 18, 2022)

As an example, I'll state that I liked the show, but felt the attempt at linking it to Tolkien felt more fanservice-y than useful to the building of the story they wanted to tell, and using characters which are easily recognized (Galadriel, Elrond...) was bound to generate criticism, while they could have made more "Arondir-like" characters to tell the story they wanted, in the "blanks" of Tolkien tapestry.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 18, 2022)

@Maxperson, I hope you won't mind me answering here.



			
				Maxperson said:
			
		

> That mature and wise Galadriel IS the one you are seeing, or should be. She 3422 years old as of the year the show is set in.  She's not some teenage girl that needs to mature.  She did that thousands of years before.




I agree with the order of magnitude, but I'd be hard pressed to say when the show is occuring. We'd need to count time from the end of the series instead of going by past events. Episode 8 is the forging of the rings (1600 SA) and Galadriel is born in 1362 during the time of the Trees. That's 148 years of the Trees (~ 1,500 solar years), the remainder of the First Age (590 years). Shouldn't she be a little closer to 3,800?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 18, 2022)

Hindsight: very pretty, enjoyed the Elrond/dwarf relationship, really frustrated with the mangling of timeline and things just made up that go against elements published in the source material. Very expensive fanfic, basically. If I try not to think of it as Tolkien, it's fine fantasy.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 19, 2022)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Hindsight: very pretty, enjoyed the Elrond/dwarf relationship,




I was perplexed by Elrond's (and Celebrimbor's) blond hair, but I liked his character. It sets him up as someone caring about people around him. I hope he'll develops a friendship with Isildur, so the scene where Isildur "betrays" him by keeping the One Ring will be more emotional will not feel forced.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> If I try not to think of it as Tolkien, it's fine fantasy.



Yup.


----------



## Raith5 (Oct 19, 2022)

I did not like everything but I liked far more than I thought I would. Unlike many, I thought the show felt like it was made by people who liked Tolkien and I dont have a problem with with his world being adapted for new audience. I am glad I got to see it. Some of clunky bits and screwy development could happen in any creative endeavor involving complex storylines/contexts.

I thought the show was strongest with known characters Elrond, Celebrimbor, Galadriel etc and weakest with those characters that were new. I quite liked the stranger and Sauron reveals, even if they were way too rushed.


----------



## Tonguez (Oct 19, 2022)

Raith5 said:


> I thought the show was strongest with known characters Elrond, Celebrimbor, Galadriel etc and weakest with those characters that were new. I quite liked the stranger and Sauron reveals, even if they were way too rushed.




thats interest as my view is the opposite, I really liked the story that Arondir, Bronwyn, Theo and Adar were involved in and would have loved to spend more time learning about Adar’s back story (he was my favourite character). Nori and the Harfoots were also got a nice treatment, explaining their wandering days before the Shire and their hiding habit. The Strangers story is intriguing and I’m increasingly convinced he’s Curumo.

I did like the world building around the Dwarf culture but thought the Mithril storyline was a bit rushed, though linking it with the trees was a cute idea.

The characters I liked lease were the boring Elfs, Galadriel seemed like a DMPC who was just there to drive the metaplot forward while the other characters did the actual adventuring. Elrond being a scholar-diplomat was a nice way to showcase the dwarf culture but his own tale was lacking, so really the only interesting elfs were Celebrimbor (and Arondir).

so anyway I did like the story overall, while the Tolkien touchstones were there it was clearly not Tolkiens story and I for one would have been happy if they had just focussed it all on The people of the Southlands vs the Orcs and left the Elfs out entirely…


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 19, 2022)

Galandris said:


> @Maxperson, I hope you won't mind me answering here.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the order of magnitude, but I'd be hard pressed to say when the show is occuring. We'd need to count time from the end of the series instead of going by past events. Episode 8 is the forging of the rings (1600 SA) and Galadriel is born in 1362 during the time of the Trees. That's 148 years of the Trees (~ 1,500 solar years), the remainder of the First Age (590 years). Shouldn't she be a little closer to 3,800?



Actually, the main date able event in the show so far is the death of King Tar-Palantir in 3255 Second Age. However, it is clear they are condensing and rearranging events considerably, but it seems theybare keeping the 32rd century time frame and moving other events into that time period.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 19, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Actually, the main date able event in the show so far is the death of King Tar-Palantir in 3255 Second Age. However, it is clear they are condensing and rearranging events considerably, but it seems theybare keeping the 32rd century time frame and moving other events into that time period.




You're right. if we count considering that Isildur need to be alive at the end of the Second Age and I think they can't deviate from that, everything must be happening within a (Numenorean) lifetime of 3441 SA. The time condensing also seem to occur, with Isildur, which was suppoed to be an adult by the time of Tar-Palantir's death while he seems to be still a young adult in the show. 

Anyhow, the 3255 timemark seems right to be the coincidence of calendars between Tolkien and Amazon's Second Ages. That makes Galadriel around 5,500 years old. Sure, she'll age 3,000 more years into the Third Age, maybe changing her character (though I don't buy it as she is already wise in the Second Age) but... it makes very difficult for the writers to implement significant character change over the very short time of the series. If we're to follow Theo to the end of season 5 (I have this hunch), it will be a very short time to mature for Galadriel between millenial stasis of her character.


----------



## DeviousQuail (Oct 19, 2022)

I liked it enough that I'm looking forward to another season. My wish list is for more attention given to the scale of things. Show me more Southlanders as they settle outside of Mordor, more Numenorean ships that can hold a vast army, more elves in their cities, etc. The time spent in Numenor was great because it looked like a city teeming with life while most everywhere else felt empty.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2022)

Galandris said:


> @Maxperson, I hope you won't mind me answering here.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the order of magnitude, but I'd be hard pressed to say when the show is occuring. We'd need to count time from the end of the series instead of going by past events. Episode 8 is the forging of the rings (1600 SA) and Galadriel is born in 1362 during the time of the Trees. That's 148 years of the Trees (~ 1,500 solar years), the remainder of the First Age (590 years). Shouldn't she be a little closer to 3,800?



The rings were forged over around a century of time I think, from about 1500-1600. The show takes liberties with time and clearly has made the elven rings first, when they were last, so I'd think it's still around that 1500 mark.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 20, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Anyhow, the 3255 timemark seems right to be the coincidence of calendars between Tolkien and Amazon's Second Ages. That makes Galadriel around 5,500 years old. Sure, she'll age 3,000 more years into the Third Age, maybe changing her character (though I don't buy it as she is already wise in the Second Age) but... it makes very difficult for the writers to implement significant character change over the very short time of the series. If we're to follow Theo to the end of season 5 (I have this hunch), it will be a very short time to mature for Galadriel between millenial stasis of her character.



Why does Galadriel's (or any elf's) character have to be in stasis? Why does living a long time mean eventually settling into just one persona and staying there? Maybe the secret to enjoying a long life and not getting lost in sheer ennui before your first millennium is mental flexibility.

Galadriel suffered a personal tragedy just prior to the start of the series, which is reason enough for her to lose her accustomed serenity, but even beyond that I see no reason why she (or any elf) should be assumed to have achieved some form of eternal Zen over her first few centuries that will never change through the next several millennia.

Even Elrond gets some character growth over the course of the LotR trilogy. Why assume that Galadriel is incapable of change?


----------



## SakanaSensei (Oct 20, 2022)

As someone who appreciates what Tolkien did for the world (essentially creating the mainstream version of my favorite genre) but has never been too hung up on things like timelines, I've loved the show up to this point. It's beautiful, the relationships between certain sets of characters were great (the harfoots, the Elrond/Durin bromance, Durin and Dusa), and I liked the bits of exploration we've seen on the advent of Mordor, particularly everything surrounding Adar. 

I'll be back for season 2, for sure.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Why does Galadriel's (or any elf's) character have to be in stasis? Why does living a long time mean eventually settling into just one persona and staying there? Maybe the secret to enjoying a long life and not getting lost in sheer ennui before your first millennium is mental flexibility.
> 
> Galadriel suffered a personal tragedy just prior to the start of the series,




That's depending on the chronology used. In the show, we see that she's very affected by her brother's death (why not, as elves aren't incapable of feelings) and she spent time after that looking for Sauron... for a undetermined time, but it seems long (she's chastized by Gil-Galad for not dropping it after everyone else has dropped it). In Tolkien's chronology, Finrod dies in 465 FA, so he's been dead for 1600 years (if we're mid-SA) or 3300 years (if we're toward the end of SA). Sure, I know that it's very sad and it takes time to overcome grief. However it sounds... a bit long if we take into account the timespan and her already wise character. One wise enough to... not take part immediately in the War of Wrath after Finrod's death, when a "breakdown" would be the most expected.

The grief and rage (she's wishing to keep Adar alive so he can see each and every of his children being killed before him, that's... capital E evil hatred) would be very fitting for a human character who lost her brother in a war and spent 10 years non-stop chasing the person responsible. It would be more credible to me and I'd buy it readily. Or Geraldiniel, Arondir's cousin, placed in the same predicament, if an elf is needed for the cool action scenes.


Edit: looking for Finrod's date of death online, I noticed that he was allowed to be reborn in Valinor soon after his death and got reunited with his girlfriend who didn't follow him in Middle Earth. This piece of information makes Galadriel's decision NOT to go west as bidded by the High King a very tragic decision, since she unknowingly refuses to go to the Undying Land out of fear that she'd lose the grief that is her drive... and it is true that she'd lose it, since she'd be reunited with her brother and she'd have an early happy ending.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

Galandris said:


> You're right. if we count considering that Isildur need to be alive at the end of the Second Age and I think they can't deviate from that, everything must be happening within a (Numenorean) lifetime of 3441 SA. The time condensing also seem to occur, with Isildur, which was suppoed to be an adult by the time of Tar-Palantir's death while he seems to be still a young adult in the show.
> 
> Anyhow, the 3255 timemark seems right to be the coincidence of calendars between Tolkien and Amazon's Second Ages. That makes Galadriel around 5,500 years old. Sure, she'll age 3,000 more years into the Third Age, maybe changing her character (though I don't buy it as she is already wise in the Second Age) but... it makes very difficult for the writers to implement significant character change over the very short time of the series. If we're to follow Theo to the end of season 5 (I have this hunch), it will be a very short time to mature for Galadriel between millenial stasis of her character.



5 Season ≠ 5 years. See what House of the Drafon is doing right now, people understand time jumps, amd while I expect they will keep the calendar vague and unspecified, the events from King Tar-Palantir's death to the War of the Last Alliance covers many, many decades, and a time jumpnjere or there seems likely.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 20, 2022)

Galandris said:


> That's depending on the chronology used. In the show, we see that she's very affected by her brother's death (why not, as elves aren't incapable of feelings) and she spent time after that looking for Sauron... for a undetermined time, but it seems long (she's chastized by Gil-Galad for not dropping it after everyone else has dropped it). In Tolkien's chronology, Finrod dies in 465 FA, so he's been dead for 1600 years (if we're mid-SA) or 3300 years (if we're toward the end of SA). Sure, I know that it's very sad and it takes time to overcome grief. However it sounds... a bit long if we take into account the timespan and her already wise character. One wise enough to... not take part immediately in the War of Wrath after Finrod's death.



I think we have to chalk that up to more of that timeline compression. In this continuity, I don't think it's been more than a few months since Galadriel lost her brother.


Galandris said:


> The grief and rage (she's wishing to keep Adar alive so he can see each and every of his children being killed before him, that's... capital E evil hatred) would be very fitting for a human character who lost her brother in a war and spent 10 years non-stop chasing the person responsible. It would be more credible to me and I'd buy it readily. Or Geraldiniel, Arondir's cousin, placed in the same predicament.



I just don't see the point of making elves so unrelatable in a show. They're written and played by humans, for humans. Sure, give them some wisdom and otherworldliness, but ultimately they should still have drives and motives that we can relate to.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 5 Season ≠ 5 years. See what House of the Drafon is doing right now, people understand time jumps, amd while I expect they will keep the calendar vague and unspecified, the events from King Tar-Palantir's death to the War of the Last Alliance covers many, many decades, and a time jumpnjere or there seems likely.




Sure, I except some time jump, but if Theo is still around at the end of season 5 (and I expect him to be an adult by then), it will be less than 80 years, a very short time compared to what we discussed. I don't think Southerners are having non-human lifespans.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The rings were forged over around a century of time I think, from about 1500-1600. The show takes liberties with time and clearly has made the elven rings first, when they were last, so I'd think it's still around that 1500 mark.



I don't thinknthey will ever get too clear on the exact timeline, but it seems more likely that they have moved all the major plot events forward to the 34th century SA.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I think we have to chalk that up to more of that timeline compression. In this continuity, I don't think it's been more than a few months since Galadriel lost her brother.



No, I think she has clearly been at this for a looking time, and 3000+ years fits. She's just that lacking in chill.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> No, I think she has clearly been at this for a looking time, and 3000+ years fits. She's just that lacking in chill.



If the year is 3400 SA and her brother died 485 FA it has been thousands of years since his death and she is not 3300 years old, but 5300.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If the year is 3400 SA and her brother died 485 FA it has been thousands of years since his death and she is not 3300 years old, but 5300.



Yes, and I think that fits with her characterization. She wasn't kidding when she said she couldn't recount her trials of chasing Sauron down, since she has been ar it since the foundation of Numenorean civilization.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, and I think that fits with her characterization. She wasn't kidding when she said she couldn't recount her trials of chasing Sauron down, since she has been ar it since the foundation of Numenorean civilization.



It makes her even less likely to be a warhawk.  She was never one and only mellowed over time, including going to Lothlorien in 1350 SA, so almost 2000 years prior to the current time period, assuming 3400 SA.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It makes her even less likely to be a warhawk.  She was never one and only mellowed over time, including going to Lothlorien in 1350 SA, so almost 2000 years prior to the current time period, assuming 3400 SA.



Maybe vook Gladriel, but show Galadriel has no chill and no brake pedal. She basically stands in for the entire Noldor ruling house experience post fall of the Trees, which they can't get into directly for rights reasons anyways.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Maybe vook Gladriel, but show Galadriel has no chill and no brake pedal. She basically stands in for the entire Noldor ruling house experience post fall of the Trees, which they can't get into directly for rights reasons anyways.




That would be my only real problem with the show (most of which I really enjoyed) - I just don't see Galadriel as the same character. Don't get me wrong, I _like_ this Galadriel well enough (and quite enjoy Morfydd Clark's performance) and I can absolutely watch and enjoy the show anyhow. BUT - I just don't see her as the same person at all. 

I did think of one solution to this though - it's not her aging a few more thousand years - it's that she doesn't appear to have much in the way of psychic powers yet. I can see her personality changing quite drastically if something (like say, her ring) unlocks her psychic prowess. THEN she could easily develop the calm stillness she shows in LotR. 

Anyone more hip to the lore than me (say, @Maxperson ) know when/how she became a powerful psychic (she's downright clairvoyant, as well as telepathic, right?) 

For a guy that used to be able to fluently write in Tolkien Dwarvish (like runes on the cover of the Hobbit) and Tolkien Goblin (from the Father Christmas Letters) and a tiny bit in Elven (just the letters, not the language) - I'm not much of a Tolkien buff, perhaps surprisingly. I've forgotten most of all of that, along with what I remember of any of the books.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 20, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Anyone more hip to the lore than me (say, @Maxperson ) know when/how she became a powerful psychic (she's downright clairvoyant, as well as telepathic, right?)



Right off the bat.  She was born in Aman and so her powers got a super boost from basically bathing in the light of heaven.  Then on top of that she is the single most powerful member of her race to ever be born, with possible exception of Feanor who might have rivaled her. She might have grown in power a bit over time, but she was juiced to begin with.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 20, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Right off the bat.  She was born in Aman and so her powers got a super boost from basically bathing in the light of heaven.  Then on top of that she is the single most powerful member of her race to ever be born, with possible exception of Feanor who might have rivaled her. She might have grown in power a bit over time, but she was juiced to begin with.




That's what I thought, but she's shown no sign of that kind of power so far in this show, right? She's just really, really tough. (Though I suppose that she's had some visions, which could be her clairvoyancy).


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 20, 2022)

I just thought you LotR's fans would find what the executive producer for the D&D: Honor Among Thieves had to say about Lord of the Rings. 

"“If you look at all those things, they’re very set in stone,” Latcham tells us. “You’re not going to change Lord of the Rings. It’s been written by Tolkien and it’s done. This is it and this is what happened and this is the story and these are the beats. There’s not much malleability there… So I think the thing that makes us different is we get to tap into that but we don’t have to go, ‘Well this is what happens and we have to speak exactly in this way and exactly in this kind of cadence and this kind of version of the English language. We can make people talk like they talk today, because people were playing D&D yesterday on a new campaign, and they talk like a kid from Jersey, and they talk like a kid from California, and they talk like a kid from Oklahoma.”"

 I've said it before, but setting this show in a D&D setting would have provided the showrunners, cast and crew infinitely more flexibility & freedom & opportunities & less headaches then setting Rings of Power on Middle Earth and having every decision anaylized by a fan base that firmly believe if Tolkien didn't write it himself, it has no place in the stories (not a criticism of either side of these debates, it just is, what it is, and I'm not a Tolkien scholar, so I leave it to others to debate the minatea of Middle Earth Lore).


----------



## MarkB (Oct 20, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I just thought you LotR's fans would find what the executive producer for the D&D: Honor Among Thieves had to say about Lord of the Rings.
> 
> "“If you look at all those things, they’re very set in stone,” Latcham tells us. “You’re not going to change Lord of the Rings. It’s been written by Tolkien and it’s done. This is it and this is what happened and this is the story and these are the beats. There’s not much malleability there… So I think the thing that makes us different is we get to tap into that but we don’t have to go, ‘Well this is what happens and we have to speak exactly in this way and exactly in this kind of cadence and this kind of version of the English language. We can make people talk like they talk today, because people were playing D&D yesterday on a new campaign, and they talk like a kid from Jersey, and they talk like a kid from California, and they talk like a kid from Oklahoma.”"
> 
> I've said it before, but setting this show in a D&D setting would have provided the showrunners, cast and crew infinitely more flexibility & freedom & opportunities & less headaches then setting Rings of Power on Middle Earth and having every decision anaylized by a fan base that firmly believe if Tolkien didn't write it himself, it has no place in the stories (not a criticism of either side of these debates, it just is, what it is, and I'm not a Tolkien scholar, so I leave it to others to debate the minatea of Middle Earth Lore).



Setting it as anything other than Lord of the Rings wouldn't have got it the budget it had, or made it a flagship show on Amazon.

And if you think the D&D crowd are going to be any kinder when it comes to picking apart the minutiae of Honor Among Thieves, then... well, you probably haven't read any of the trailer threads on this site.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Setting it as anything other than Lord of the Rings wouldn't have got it the budget it had, or made it a flagship show on Amazon.
> 
> And if you think the D&D crowd are going to be any kinder when it comes to picking apart the minutiae of Honor Among Thieves, then... well, you probably haven't read any of the trailer threads on this site.




 It shouldn't have gotten a billion dollar budget period, no way is it going to earn enough back that kind of money, even if it was more popular then it is. Honestly given DDHAT looks better then RoP from trailers and clips I've seen, I'm left wondering if embezzlement was occurring during RoP. That budget was just straight up irresponsible.

 And it'd still be the Flagship show if it was set in a D&D setting, whose would displace it as the Flagship show on Amazon?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 20, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> It shouldn't have gotten a billion dollar budget period, no way is it going to earn enough back that kind of money, even if it was more popular then it is. Honestly given DDHAT looks better then RoP from trailers and clips I've seen, I'm left wondering if embezzlement was occurring during RoP. That budget was just straight up irresponsible.
> 
> And it'd still be the Flagship show if it was set in a D&D setting, whose would displace it as the Flagship show on Amazon?



We must have watched different shows. It looked to me like the budget was all up on the screen.

And Amazon wouldn't have commissioned a D&D show as a flagship project in the first place.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> We must have watched different shows. It looked to me like the budget was all up on the screen.
> 
> And Amazon wouldn't have commissioned a D&D show as a flagship project in the first place.




 Of course they would, everyone has heard of D&D. Even more so after Honor Among Thieves makes a ton of money.

 Honor's trailer had a over 100 million views in 48 hours, RoP had what 25 million tune into the pilot, after which it dropped hard.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> That would be my only real problem with the show (most of which I really enjoyed) - I just don't see Galadriel as the same character. Don't get me wrong, I _like_ this Galadriel well enough (and quite enjoy Morfydd Clark's performance) and I can absolutely watch and enjoy the show anyhow. BUT - I just don't see her as the same person at all.
> 
> I did think of one solution to this though - it's not her aging a few more thousand years - it's that she doesn't appear to have much in the way of psychic powers yet. I can see her personality changing quite drastically if something (like say, her ring) unlocks her psychic prowess. THEN she could easily develop the calm stillness she shows in LotR.
> 
> ...



It really is a divergent characterization, though it's actually surprising listening to the writers themselves talk about where they got it from in the original text (Galadriel has a nickname that means "Man-Maiden" as in masculine, for instance). But what matters to me is the shows internal integrity. The creators made it clear from early on that this is an original riff, so I went in willing to allow their take to stand on it own or not. And on that basis...the character works fantastically while still tying intonthe film and book depictions way better than I thought they would.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> It shouldn't have gotten a billion dollar budget period, no way is it going to earn enough back that kind of money, even if it was more popular then it is. Honestly given DDHAT looks better then RoP from trailers and clips I've seen, I'm left wondering if embezzlement was occurring during RoP. That budget was just straight up irresponsible.
> 
> And it'd still be the Flagship show if it was set in a D&D setting, whose would displace it as the Flagship show on Amazon?



Keeping mind thst Rings of Powers has the same runtime as Jackson's LotR trilogy in theatrical release. It sounds like you havenwatched the show, because the budget is very apparent on screen, they spent their money well.

I can get people not vibing with the show, but the complaints thst it looks cheap are...super weird. That's just clearly not the case.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Keeping mind thst Rings of Powers has the same runtime as Jackson's LotR trilogy in theatrical release. It sounds like you havenwatched the show, because the budget is very apparent on screen, they spent their money well.
> 
> I can get people not vibing with the show, but the complaints thst it looks cheap are...super weird. That's just clearly not the case.




 Some of that is second hand and some from clips and pics (like the rings don't look good to me).


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 20, 2022)

Show is a mixed bag for me

Good -the scenery

Average-the acting. I’ve argued that acting is better on similar shows but I’d also like to argue that there is better acting on Amazon prime shows . Antony Star as homelander Carrie’s the boys and is a presence whenever he’s on screen. There is nobody on this show that is compelling . Robert aramayo and morfydd do a decent job but at times the acting is horrendous. Gabriel has become in many ways an unlikeable character. The harfoots at time are pure psychopaths but then become good . Zero emotion when a character died and I would argue zero emotion from the audience. That’s poor acting
Director/storyline/plot-agree with others. Feels like fan fiction and not very good. Time jumping not explained very well. Mordor creation poorly thought out. The bad guy twist was a tad interesting but honestly poor compared to other shows. At time feels like something vin diesel would do in fast and furious. Yes that franchise is successful but borderline sharknado


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 20, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Keeping mind thst Rings of Powers has the same runtime as Jackson's LotR trilogy in theatrical release. It sounds like you havenwatched the show, because the budget is very apparent on screen, they spent their money well.
> 
> I can get people not vibing with the show, but the complaints thst it looks cheap are...super weird. That's just clearly not the case.




 "The three films were shot simultaneously and entirely in Jackson's native New Zealand from 11 October 1999 until 22 December 2000, with pick-up shots done from 2001 to 2003. It was one of the biggest and most ambitious film projects ever undertaken, with a budget of $281 million (equivalent to $457 million in 2021). "

 A billion dollar budget was absurd, that doesn't even count the ton of money spent on marketing. With that kind of budget it needed to be nearly perfect, instead it's been shredded across the internet, even the Guardian and got is ass massively kicked by Cobra Kai (CK had like twice the viewership with a fraction of the budget). The higher the budget, the higher the bar is to justify it.

 To justify a billion dollar budget, nothing less then the top spot is acceptable, never mind being way down the list from the top spot. No way Amazon gets that money back, Bezos might as well lit a billion dollars on fire. That not even a comment on the quality, it's on the fact that it will never earn that back in subs or advertising, perhaps not even close to that even with massive tax breaks.

 For comparison Star Trek Discover with it's 55 episodes over 4 seasons at roughly 8.5 million per episode comes out to $457,500,000 (it's actually a high end estimate given that many episodes cost closer to 8 million dollars). STD has incredible SFX, it's no slouch on SFX, it's major sci Fi show, and the Flagship show of Paramount. Seriously they spent an entire high end Sci Fi/Fantasy series budget on 1 season of RoP and all they seem to have to show for it is a ton of angry fans and even friendly media shredding it. A complete disaster financially. Again this isn't comment on the show's quality, just the business angle.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 20, 2022)

Galandris said:


> That makes Galadriel around 5,500 years old. Sure, she'll age 3,000 more years into the Third Age, maybe changing her character (though I don't buy it as she is already wise in the Second Age) but... it makes very difficult for the writers to implement significant character change over the very short time of the series.



However, we have a plot device that might do the trick....the rings of power themselves. The idea that Galadriel sacrificed her sword to gain a ring is a possible foreshadow. As she trades martial for magic, and gains a power that binds her more to the soul of her people (after all these rings have to remove all of the corruption across the elven people)...that could have a tremendous transformative effect.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 20, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> "The three films were shot simultaneously and entirely in Jackson's native New Zealand from 11 October 1999 until 22 December 2000, with pick-up shots done from 2001 to 2003. It was one of the biggest and most ambitious film projects ever undertaken, with a budget of $281 million (equivalent to $457 million in 2021). "
> 
> A billion dollar budget was absurd, that doesn't even count the ton of money spent on marketing. With that kind of budget it needed to be nearly perfect, instead it's been shredded across the internet, even the Guardian and got is ass massively kicked by Cobra Kai (CK had like twice the viewership with a fraction of the budget). The higher the budget, the higher the bar is to justify it.
> 
> ...



First of all, the budget for.makimg the Season appears to have been $450 millions, so slightly lower than the Jackson trilogy
 Second, if you haven't watched the show, maybe it isn't wise to speculate that it "looks bad" because of financial mismanagement when...it doesn't look bad. It loos like the most expensive TV show ever made.

In terms of the business  angle, it is a success by Amazon own metrics and goals, even if some on the Internet rage, as detailed here:









						Is ‘The Rings of Power’ a Huge Hit? A Muted Flop? It’s Complicated
					

Data says “The Rings of Power” is a huge hit. Online buzz suggests otherwise. But there’s no mystery to the divergence — the show was made this way.




					www.indiewire.com
				




I'm not sweating the business side at the moment, because the Tolkien Estate negotiated a commitment fromAmazon such that making all 5 seasons is cheaper than renewing, so thisnstory will play out.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Keeping mind thst Rings of Powers has the same runtime as Jackson's LotR trilogy in theatrical release. It sounds like you havenwatched the show, because the budget is very apparent on screen, they spent their money well.
> 
> I can get people not vibing with the show, but the complaints thst it looks cheap are...super weird. That's just clearly not the case.




 I don't get that either. It's prettier looking than the other fantasy shows with possible exception of HotD. 

 Keeping in mind this is a tv show not a movie.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't get that either. It's prettier looking than the other fantasy shows with possible exception of HotD.
> 
> Keeping in mind this is a tv show not a movie.



Yeah, and the pacing is different as a result. I think that Covid conditions may have minimized the possibility of larger crowd scenes, bit the actual CGI and art design issues jaw dropping.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, and the pacing is different as a result. I think that Covid conditions may have minimized the possibility of larger crowd scenes, bit the actual CGI and art design issues jaw dropping.




 Show had some issues. Pacing, boring in parts, some stupid bits but it was very pretty. Scenary was pretty (gotta say that being a kiwi). 

  Shadow and Bone is probably the best of the 5 shows in terms of bang for buck whole season was 60ish million.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 21, 2022)




----------



## Galandris (Oct 21, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I've said it before, but setting this show in a D&D setting would have provided the showrunners, cast and crew infinitely more flexibility & freedom & opportunities & less headaches then setting Rings of Power on Middle Earth and having every decision anaylized by a fan base that firmly believe if Tolkien didn't write it himself, it has no place in the stories (not a criticism of either side of these debates, it just is, what it is, and I'm not a Tolkien scholar, so I leave it to others to debate the minatea of Middle Earth Lore).




Or, if they needed the Tolkien name as a marketing candy, they could have focussed on original stories... I won't make a poll of what works and what doesn't work for the viewers, but I feel that the "best parts" are:

1. Adar, Bronwyn and Arondir and, generally, the Southlands part (= all original elements)
2. The friendship of a dwarf and an elf, with no "added bonus" from them being Elrond and Durin
3. I could have bought the reverse-kryptonite of the elves as it is supposed to add a sense of urgency if it wasn't mithril they were discussing in the context of fighting the Doom of Mandos...

What I did find weaker? Gandalf (if he's him), but could have liked him as a one of the Blue wizards or as a generic magic-user from the sky, Galandriel as a war trauma psycho, Numenor political deal being too time compressed to be even understandable. Three elements that could be corrected easily by... introducing a new character or place instead (a new elf-warrior-maiden consumed with grief...) It would be difficult to remake Numenor, granted.

The only counter example I think of is the Harfoot, which are a "new thing" that I didn't like, but I see that they are generally liked. What I found jarring was the discrepancy between the story they tell ("we're a closely-knit community, nobody walks alone") and the reality (You broke your leg? Then you and your family will all die in the wilderness but don't worry, we'll do an eulogy!") that makes them creepy dans dystopian. That, and the crummy songs.




(as an aside, I don't get the argument about the show looking bad... the Numenorean expeditionary force of 3 measly ships was certainly a bit underwhelming -- since sending a fleet was such a big deal, politically, I expected more than three... -- but it's really great-looking...


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Oct 21, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Or, if they needed the Tolkien name as a marketing candy, they could have focussed on original stories... I won't make a poll of what works and what doesn't work for the viewers, but I feel that the "best parts" are:
> 
> 1. Adar, Bronwyn and Arondir and, generally, the Southlands part (= all original elements)
> 2. The friendship of a dwarf and an elf, with no "added bonus" from them being Elrond and Durin
> ...




 It's not every elements looking bad, it's specific things looking bad here and there with other things looking great, which makes the things that look bad stand out more as I understand it (most of that is second hand, except for the 3 rings of power which I've seen and thought could have looked nicer).

 I think I'll get around to start watching it, I'm no where near a Tolkien scholar (I prefer FR & other D&D settings, among fantasy settings), so I won't get as upset about thinks in Rings of Power like a lot of Tolkien fans.


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 21, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I don't get that either. It's prettier looking than the other fantasy shows with possible exception of HotD.
> 
> Keeping in mind this is a tv show not a movie.



The line of a tv show/movie has gotten blurred. Netflix changed that with movies direct to Netflix


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's not every elements looking bad, it's specific things looking bad here and there with other things looking great, which makes the things that look bad stand out more as I understand it (most of that is second hand, except for the 3 rings of power which I've seen and thought could have looked nicer).
> 
> I think I'll get around to start watching it, I'm no where near a Tolkien scholar (I prefer FR & other D&D settings, among fantasy settings), so I won't get as upset about thinks in Rings of Power like a lot of Tolkien fans.



Yeah, thst second hand information is blatantly incorrect. Maybe watch it before forming an opinion.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Maybe watch it before forming an opinion.



Well that's just silly


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, thst second hand information is blatantly incorrect. Maybe watch it before forming an opinion.



What is blatantly incorrect? That some things look bad? I tend to agree with that - and I have watched it. _Mostly _it looks good, but two things in particular stood out to me:

1) The Numenorean armor. It looked like it was made out of plastic or rubber because, well, it probably was.

2) The elvish rings looked gaudy in a sort of faux riche/blingish sort of way. I don't know why they didn't just use the same rings from LotR, which were far more classy.

There were other things here and there, but those are what stood out the most. I think the overall craftsmanship that went into the weapons and armor, and other items, was inferior to the Jackson films.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2022)

As for my view of the series as a whole, as I said at one point here, my initial impression after the first two episodes was: "Not as bad as I feared, but worse than I hoped - maybe there's some potential here." After finishing the series, I find it a mix of "kinda ok, entertaining in a CWish sort of way with a few good moments and elements" and "A startlingly poorly crafted mess that makes a mockery of Tolkien's creation." In other words, that potential has dissolved like a Morgul blade, and the show is--at least in some ways--even worse than I feared.

As an adaptation of Tolkien, it is bordering on disastrous. If Peter Jackson's film were a shadow of Tolkien's books--but obviously lovingly crafted and with a clear intention to embody Tolkien's world and vision as faithfully as possible, and thus overall a mostly wonderful cinematic experience--then Rings of Power is a shadow of (a shadow of) Jackson's films, and one that really only resembles Tolkien's Middle-earth in superficial ways: basic concepts and names, but with no sense that the show-runners really "get" Tolkien. And in ways that they kind of get Tolkien, they twist and distort it to the point of parody.

Perhaps the most egregious element is the depiction of elves, which from the start came across as kind of a mixture of an idealized version of (very human) Celts and, again, a CW-caliber expression of emotional maturity and sophistication. Critics of the show like to pick on Morfydd Clark's Galadriel, and I think for good reason: She comes across as a petulant teen warrior princess with very little depth or complexity (not to mention her excessive use of bad figurative speech, which were seemingly written by high school students). I actually was quite impressed with Clark in _Saint Maud, _so I suspect _most_ (though probably not all) of this is in the writing and direction.

But from the start, I didn't require it to be perfectly faithful to Tolkien's Middle-earth, though I did hope it would at least try to do homage to it, like Jackson did, when instead it borders on parody. Meaning, I would have been quite pleased if it was at least well-made fantasy. But what I find simply baffling is just how poorly it was made, in terms of cinematic story-telling, in almost every way: everything from pacing to plot to dialogue to acting to world-building to sets...It was as if it was produced by amateurs with no previous experience (oh wait, it was!). The choice of Payne and McKay for such a big budget project is just weird...I heard a rumor that JJ Abrams called in a favor for them.

So while a JJ Abrams version of Middle-earth would have butchered it enough and been a shadow of Jackson's films, it would have at least been well produced; RoP is like an adaptation of what an Abrams LotR film might have been - a derivation of a derivation, like a Youtube animation of the Cliff's Notes version of a book. Meaning, we're now at four degrees of separation from Tolkien: a shadow (RoP) of a shadow (Abrams-esque Middle-earth) of a shadow (Jackson's Middle-earth) of a shadow (Tolkien's Middle-earth).

Without going into all the gory details, one example of the poor story-telling is the pacing - how the story seemed to somehow both move too quickly and too slowly at the same time. I have no idea how they accomplished that, but it seems related to a tendency to gloss over important events and keeping them off screen, while padding the run-time with endlessly tedious dialogue and other scenes that weren't important to the story or development of the world. An example of this was Nori's excruciating extended farewell scene, which also highlighted another problem: the tendency to _tell _and not _show; telling _us how to feel and when to feel it, rather than _showing _us scenes that evoke feeling. Again, another classic amateurish blunder that happened again and again.

In a similar vein to the pacing is the world-building and depiction of Middle-earth as a whole: there was a feeling of cramped-ness, with no sense of the vastness of the world. Everything from the street-level scenes in Numenor which all felt claustrophobic, like they were set up in a Hollywood warehouse, to the way travel was glossed over (the infamous "from Numenor to the South-lands in a blink of an eye, oh, and with an entire cavalry crammed into a ship or two!").

But what is most striking about this overall production quality (or lack thereof), is that because it showed up everywhere, in so many ways - so many cracks revealing that the whole thing was a facade, a production - it seems clear that very little substantive thought was put into making it a believable, tightly-crafted world (e.g. Halbrand is in critical condition, so let's take him on a week-long gallup for Elvish medicine! Or, "Hi, my name is Celembrimbor and I'm thousands of years old and the greatest smith since Feanor...but I didn't even think once to make mithril into an alloy!"). Meaning, as if they either assumed the viewers would be entirely uncritical, or, more likely, it was simply a matter of incompetence on their part (or worse yet, both).

There are so many other things I could say, but that's enough baffled exasperation for now. But I tend to agree with most of what Erik Kain of Forbes.com has said, with his season review here.

p.s. Oh, and as a pre-emptive to the inevitable "Tell us how you really feel, you cretin...I totally disagree, btw" responses: I know opinions differ, and a lot of folks liked Rings of Power. _I am not saying you are a bad person if you liked it. _I'm just expressing that *I* think _the show itself _was really bad. Not you, you're a good person!


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> What is blatantly incorrect? That some things look bad? I tend to agree with that - and I have watched it. _Mostly _it looks good, but two things in particular stood out to me:
> 
> 1) The Numenorean armor. It looked like it was made out of plastic or rubber because, well, it probably was.
> 
> ...



It is blatantly incorrect that the show looks cheap: it does not, it was clearly very expensive to make.

You point out two random things, but your objections are about aesthetic choice, not expense involved. The Numenorean armor is a fantastic recreation of Ancient Near East styles of leather armor, I thought, much better than the silliness of full plate armor seen on Jackson's films. But both were clearly very pricey to make, setting aside taste.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> As for my view of the series as a whole, as I said at one point here, my initial impression after the first two episodes was: "Not as bad as I feared, but worse than I hoped - maybe there's some potential here." After finishing the series, I find it a mix of "kinda ok, entertaining in a CWish sort of way with a few good moments and elements" and "A startlingly poorly crafted mess that makes a mockery of Tolkien's creation." In other words, that potential has dissolved like a Morgul blade, and the show is--at least in some ways--even worse than I feared.
> 
> As an adaptation of Tolkien, it is bordering on disastrous. If Peter Jackson's film were a shadow of Tolkien's books, but obviously lovingly crafted and with a clear intention to embody Tolkien's world and vision as faithfully as possible--and thus overall mostly wonderful--then Rings of Power is a shadow of (a shadow of) Jackson's films, and one that really only resembles Tolkien's Middle-earth in superficial ways: basic concepts and names, but with no sense that the show-runners really "get" Tolkien. Perhaps the most egregious element is the depiction of elves, which from the start came across as kind of a mixture of an idealized version of (very human) Celts and, again, a CW-level expression of emotional maturity and sophistication. Critics of the show like to pick on Morfydd Clark's Galadriel, and I think for good reason: She comes across as a petulant teen warrior princess with very little depth or complexity. I actually was quite impressed with Clark in _Saint Maud, _so I suspect _most_ (though probably not all) of this is in the writing and direction.
> 
> ...



Yeah, uh, hard disagree with literally all of this. This doesn't jive with the brilliant piece of art thst I watched, at all.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It is blatantly incorrect that the show looks cheap: it does not, it was clearly very expensive to make.
> 
> You point out two random things, but your objections are about aesthetic choice, not expense involved. The Numenorean armor is a fantastic recreation of Ancient Near East styles of leather armor, I thought, much better than the silliness of full plate armor seen on Jackson's films. But both were clearly very pricey to make, setting aside taste.



I will only say that something "looking cheap" and "being expensive" are not mutually exclusive. I realize that there was a huge budget - but just throwing money at something doesn't mean it will be good.


Parmandur said:


> Yeah, uh, hard disagree with literally all of this. This doesn't jive with the brilliant piece of art thst I watched, at all.



Oh, I forgot the "hard" part in my pre-emptive . But yeah, people disagree - no problems with that. It is interesting how widely people disagree on this, though.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I will only say that something "looking cheap" and "being expensive" are not mutually exclusive. I realize that there was a huge budget - but just throwing money at something doesn't mean it will be good.



The issue isn't taste, though: I suppose someone might not like a particular style choice, but the accusation at hand was that the show looked like it didn't use the budget and theorized that there may have been financial shenanigans. However, the ahow clearly has a huge budget that was spent on the show, irregardless of taste. It looks like the most expensive TV show ever made.


Mercurius said:


> Oh, I forgot the "hard" part in my pre-emptive . But yeah, people disagree - no problems with that. It is interesting how widely people disagree on this, though.



Yeah, I find it absolutely bizarre how people are reacting to this.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 21, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> What is blatantly incorrect? That some things look bad? I tend to agree with that - and I have watched it. _Mostly _it looks good, but two things in particular stood out to me:
> 
> 1) The Numenorean armor. It looked like it was made out of plastic or rubber because, well, it probably was.
> 
> ...



As a chainmailer I try to leave my criticism of armour as a minor thing. Most people just aren't going to notice when the armour is cloth/plastic/knitted. My chainmail wire and ring supplier provided the rings and scales for the armour in "The Hobbit" and one of their former employees, who has a custom fabrication company, went down there to instruct on proper assembly.

And rather frequently, in well made prop chainmail, 50% of the rings are actually EDPM rubber, to save on weight, but you'd never know it to look at them


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The issue isn't taste, though: I suppose someone might not like a particular style choice, but the accusation at hand was that the show looked like it didn't use the budget and theorized that there may have been financial shenanigans. However, the ahow clearly has a huge budget that was spent on the show, irregardless of taste. It looks like the most expensive TV show ever made.



Well, that's not what was being talked about here, or at least in what I replied to.

Henadic Theologian said something about "specific things looking bad." You said that was "blatantly incorrect." I said (in paraphrase), "I disagree, some things look bad."

That's a matter of aesthetic perception - including taste. I said nothing about "financial shenanigans." I _did _say that I was baffled by what the huge budget resulted in.



Parmandur said:


> Yeah, I find it absolutely bizarre how people are reacting to this.




Again, I think the more strange (even interesting) thing is how differently people are reacting. Usually there's greater consensus on the quality of a show, even if people will always disagree on personal preference (for instance, almost no one thought the Sopranos or Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones were bad shows, even if not to their taste, and I'm guessing few people thought the Shannara series was well made; at most, a guilty pleasure for some).

With Rings of Power, the distribution array is much more widely dispersed, with a ton of people loving it, a ton of people liking it, a ton of people finding it meh, and a ton of people hating it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 21, 2022)

I agree with BOTH @Parmandur AND @Mercurius. The show looked beautiful and expensive and was overall fun to watch. However, all of Mercurius' criticisms are valid - these are places where I think the show could have been better (and could be improved on a second season). 

While it worked out _fine_ (IMO), there were parts that were disappointing.

For example, while I'm not terribly bothered by the Neumenorian acquisition of horses (they probably brought officer's horses with them and picked up the rest in the _vast amount of land_ that they had to cross. My problem with the cavalry charge (which was cool, so I can forgive it) is with the distance from the coast to Mordor (Southlands). I mean, fine, they charged at the last, but the show made it _look_ like they got off their ships, jumped on horses, and charged all the way there. This is part of the criticism of scale. And I think it's very valid.


----------



## Osgood (Oct 21, 2022)

I'm not a fan of Tolkien's work--I just really dislike his prose style (it took me over 20 years to finish LotR)--so I went in with no knowledge of the lore beyond the movies. Having no preconceptions or expectations probably helped, because overall I enjoyed the show quite a bit. 

I thought it got a bit bogged down in spots with the various storylines and there were probably a few too many characters to keep track of, but I thought it worked out pretty well in the end. I guess I can see the point that the travel distances getting fudged can bother people, but I think that only matters if you are very familiar with the map (I just figured the ships traveled the same river we see when the army of the dead attacks the ships in Return of the King to get pretty close).

I would say Galadriel was a bit too perfect, but then I remember Legolas from the movies, and I give it a pass and assume that in Tolkien's D&D campaign elves roll 5d6, reroll 1s, take the best three dice, and assign to whatever ability you wish (everyone else is 3d6 in order).


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Well, that's not what was being talked about here, or at least in what I replied to.
> 
> Henadic Theologian said something about "specific things looking bad." You said that was "blatantly incorrect." I said (in paraphrase), "I disagree, some things look bad."
> 
> ...



@Henadic Theologian  specifically speculated that embezzlement was the only explanation they could conceive of for where the $450 million budget for the season went...but it clearly went up on screen.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> @Henadic Theologian  specifically speculated that embezzlement was the only explanation they could conceive of for where the $450 million budget for the season went...but it clearly went up on screen.



I dunno... 450 million is A LOT of money. I'm pretty sure at this point that there's a lot of embezzlement going on in Hollywood. Still, they spent a lot on it, that's for sure.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 21, 2022)

Probably figure $50M-$100M on the advertising budget. Then how much did they burn on the IP?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I dunno... 450 million is A LOT of money. I'm pretty sure at this point that there's a lot of embezzlement going on in Hollywood. Still, they spent a lot on it, that's for sure.



Adjusted for inflation, Jackson's whole trilogy had a $471 million budget for the same runtime.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Probably figure $50M-$100M on the advertising budget. Then how much did they burn on the IP?



Marketing and licensing were what brought the number to $1 billion. The Season itself cost $450 million, or about $50-55 million per hour (since they are slightly longer than an hour per episode).


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

As a point of comparison, consider the below in light of the fact that they did as much as they could with practical effects: sets, costumes, props, stunts, etc., which add up in terms of $$$:

"At 9,500, The Rings of Power has more VFX shots than Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame combined, both of which feature between 2,500 and 3,000 shots each. Of course, it's not necessarily surprising that Amazon's upcoming The Lord of the Rings show is VFX-heavy, especially considering its vast fantasy setting and the fact that it consists of 8 episodes, roughly an hour each, but 9,500 is still a staggering number. For comparison, Jackson estimates that The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King features around 1,500 VFX shots in total, with that film being the most VFX-heavy of the three."









						LOTR: Rings of Power Has A HUGE Amount of VFX Shots
					

More than three times that of Avengers: Endgame!




					screenrant.com


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> @Henadic Theologian  specifically speculated that embezzlement was the only explanation they could conceive of for where the $450 million budget for the season went...but it clearly went up on screen.



Oh, my mistake - I must have missed that upthread.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2022)

trappedslider said:


>



There was a middle ground which I mentioned in the other thread.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, uh, hard disagree with literally all of this. This doesn't jive with the brilliant piece of art thst I watched, at all.



Other than the dwarves and hobbits, there's nothing Tolkien about the series other than the name.  The Numenoreans had some nice architecture, but were depicted more as low men than high men.  The elves aren't even close to be Tolkien's elves.

It was a pretty good fantasy story, but the Tolkien names marred that since it was so far from Tolkien's vision.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 21, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There was a middle ground which I mentioned in the other thread.



Despite my harsh post above, I can actually get down with this...to a point. I'd replace "awesome" with "Good enough to watch, considering that I'm a big fantasy nerd, and bad Middle-earth is better than no Middle-earth."


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Despite my harsh post above, I can actually get down with this...to a point. I'd replace "awesome" with "Good enough to watch, considering that I'm a big fantasy nerd, and bad Middle-earth is better than no Middle-earth."



What I would have wanted to see was the 100 years or so that it took to forge the rings condenses down in time.  Sauron comes and fools the elves. Rings get made.  Sauron flees and attacks Eregion.  Numenor comes and kicks his heiny.  You could have repeat characters. Most would be new, some would be from the books. Lots of action and drama, without destroying the timeline such that it might as well not even exist.

Later seasons could have been the downfall of Numenor or other 2nd age events, or even completely new ones that will now have an audience from prior seasons.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Other than the dwarves and hobbits, there's nothing Tolkien about the series other than the name.  The Numenoreans had some nice architecture, but were depicted more as low men than high men.  The elves aren't even close to be Tolkien's elves.
> 
> It was a pretty good fantasy story, but the Tolkien names marred that since it was so far from Tolkien's vision.



They nailed all of Tolkien's major themes, which frankly shocked me. Friendship, providence, free choice, the internal struggle with darkness while seeking the light, recapitulation, Fall...these writers get Tolkien, and pulled it off with abplomb. The details are not as important as the themes.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> They nailed all of Tolkien's major themes, which frankly shocked me. Friendship, providence, free choice, the internal struggle with darkness while seeking the light, recapitulation, Fall...these writers get Tolkien, and pulled it off with abplomb. The details are not as important as the themes.



The details are far more important than the themes, which run in pretty much every fantasy story by any author.  HOW Tolkien achieved the friendship, providence, etc. is what makes his version of those themes Tolkien, and which is why the show which completely neglects Tolkien's style fails to be Tolkien in most instances.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Adjusted for inflation, Jackson's whole trilogy had a $471 million budget for the same runtime.



Fair enough, but I think it could be argued that Jackson went quite a bit further with his budget, in particular when it comes to world-building.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The details are far more important than the themes, which run in pretty much every fantasy story by any author.  HOW Tolkien achieved the friendship, providence, etc. is what makes his version of those themes Tolkien, and which is why the show which completely neglects Tolkien's style fail to be Tolkien in most instances.



In terms of style, the show was more Tolkien Tham any prior adaptation other than the Rankin/Bass specials, IMO. I hope future seasons have montages with people singing songs to each other.

Tolkien changed the details constantly, reading the 22 History of Middle Earth books show that the details were always very, very fungible. The universal themes are the key, the details serve that end. I am genuinely shocked that the sow writers got the ends right, because I rather expetlcred empty reverence for incidental details, as Jackson did.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 21, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Fair enough, but I think it could be argued that Jackson went quite a bit further with his budget, in particular when it comes to world-building.



Eh, mostly what Jackson did was cut the story down, not always intelligently, and storyboard what was left. And certainly those films were a spectacle, but I am utterly baffled that anyone could watch the Rings of Poeer and not see that it on the same plane in terms of craft.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In terms of style, the show was more Tolkien Tham any prior adaptation other than the Rankin/Bass specials, IMO. I hope future seasons have montages with people singing songs to each other.



As much as I disliked the changes to the LotR, Jackson's adaption was waaaaaaaaaaaay more Tolkien than this show.  The utter trash known as the Hobbit movies were a different story.


Parmandur said:


> Tolkien changed the details constantly, reading the 22 History of Middle Earth books show that the details were always very, very fungible. The universal themes are the key, the details serve that end. I am genuinely shocked that the sow writers got the ends right, because I rather expetlcred empty reverence for incidental details, as Jackson did.



Your mixing up details.  Tokien's details had a style which is distinctly Tolkien.  Look at any of his changes and they all have the details that create his style, and it is THOSE details that are lacking from the show.  Not whether Celeborn is married to Galadriel or Teleporno is married to Galadriel.

Look at it this way.  The themes of friendship, providence, free choice, an internal stuggle with darkness while seeking the light, and recapitulation are present in Narnia, Wonderland and Middle Earth.  The details of how those things are achieved are what make Narnia, Wonderland and Middle Earth all feel different.  The show failed to achieve the details necessary to feel like Tolkien.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> As much as I disliked the changes to the LotR, Jackson's adaption was waaaaaaaaaaaay more Tolkien than this show.  The utter trash known as the Hobbit movies were a different story.
> 
> Your mixing up details.  Tokien's details had a style which is distinctly Tolkien.  Look at any of his changes and they all have the details that create his style, and it is THOSE details that are lacking from the show.  Not whether Celeborn is married to Galadriel or Teleporno is married to Galadriel.
> 
> Look at it this way.  The themes of friendship, providence, free choice, an internal stuggle with darkness while seeking the light, and recapitulation are present in Narnia, Wonderland and Middle Earth.  The details of how those things are achieved are what make Narnia, Wonderland and Middle Earth all feel different.  The show failed to achieve the details necessary to feel like Tolkien.



Different authors have different themes, it's notnjust details. And yes, the chronology differences here, in relation to Tolkien's specific themes, are about as significant as Celeborn/Teleporno changes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 22, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Fair enough, but I think it could be argued that Jackson went quite a bit further with his budget, in particular when it comes to world-building.




 Jackson had a lot of help from the NZ government and people. 

 The rules are a but more relaxed here than Hollywood. Some extras helped out in production as well as acting and there stories of farmers letting them store props in barns for example.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 22, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Jackson had a lot of help from the NZ government and people.
> 
> The rules are a but more relaxed here than Hollywood. Some extras helped out in production as well as acting and there stories of farmers letting them store props in barns for example.




Yeah it was a big influx of cash into the NZ economy at the time, but also cheaper for him to do it there than almost anywhere else. It was win-win.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> As much as I disliked the changes to the LotR, Jackson's adaption was waaaaaaaaaaaay more Tolkien than this show.  The utter trash known as the Hobbit movies were a different story.
> 
> Your mixing up details.  Tokien's details had a style which is distinctly Tolkien.  Look at any of his changes and they all have the details that create his style, and it is THOSE details that are lacking from the show.  Not whether Celeborn is married to Galadriel or Teleporno is married to Galadriel.
> 
> Look at it this way.  The themes of friendship, providence, free choice, an internal stuggle with darkness while seeking the light, and recapitulation are present in Narnia, Wonderland and Middle Earth.  The details of how those things are achieved are what make Narnia, Wonderland and Middle Earth all feel different.  The show failed to achieve the details necessary to feel like Tolkien.



It feels very like Tolkien to me. It feels nothing at all like Narnia or Wonderland to me.

The Harfoots capture the essence of hobbits better in some respects than previous adaptations - the almost supernatural ability to not be seen when they don't want to, the innate kindness that eventually wins out over suspicion and fear - while in other respects being very much their own culture.

The prickly suspicions and mistrust between elves and men, and between elves and dwarves, is much as it was in The Hobbit and LotR, along with the potential for those divides to be bridged by friendships such as Elrond and Durin's, or Bronwyn and Arondir's.

Galadriel's steely determination and driving charisma are very much what I'd expect from one of the elves' greatest leaders, and her blindness to Sauron's manipulations are also well in keeping with Tolkien's character writing.

The details may not match the specifics of the timescale and order of events Tolkien described, but they all feel very Tolkien.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Different authors have different themes, it's notnjust details. And yes, the chronology differences here, in relation to Tolkien's specific themes, are about as significant as Celeborn/Teleporno changes.



No.  They're much more significant than a name change.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  They're much more significant than a name change.



In terms of communicating and developing the themes, no, not really. It's different t front he book, because it's a different story inspired by, not an adaptation. The important thing is hitting the Tolkienian notes and personal themes. And even more the details that would matter to reinforce those are things like different registers for characters (Galadriel is walking around talking like the Book of Common Prayer, while the Harfoots are earthy and simple), or people singing songs for their friends. Not calander dates.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In terms of communicating and developing the themes, no, not really. It's different t front he book, because it's a different story inspired by, not an adaptation. The important thing is hitting the Tolkienian notes and personal themes. And even more the details that would matter to reinforce those are things like different registers for characters (Galadriel is walking around talking like the Book of Common Prayer, while the Harfoots are earthy and simple), or people singing songs for their friends. Not calander dates.



The harfoots could be the first halflings.  The dwarves were done well.  That's it.  The elves fall flat on their collective faces and are not Tolkien elves at all.  The numenoreans are even worse.  The humans also not so much. Gandalf(or whoever it was) also a no.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The harfoots could be the first halflings.  The dwarves were done well.  That's it.  The elves fall flat on their collective faces and are not Tolkien elves at all.  The numenoreans are even worse.  The humans also not so much. Gandalf(or whoever it was) also a no.



The Noldor as depicted here have all of the faults of the Eldar in Tolkien, as do the Numenoreans. All of this was also handed masterfully.

I've been diving into the RotK Appendices again now, and I am increasingly impressed with how well they managed to nail the material in it's essence, and honestly increasingly confused why so many don't see that.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The Noldor as depicted here have all of the faults of the Eldar in Tolkien, as do the Numenoreans. All of this was also handed masterfully.



No.  Not even close.  Watch LotR again. Take note of Elrond and the elves of Rivendell, and Galadriel and the elves of Lothlorien.  One of these two shows followed the spirit of Tolkien's elves and the other is Rings of Power.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  Not even close.  Watch LotR again. Take note of Elrond and the elves of Rivendell, and Galadriel and the elves of Lothlorien.  One of these two shows followed the spirit of Tolkien's elves and the other is Rings of Power.



Tolkien's elves can be flawed, petty, cruel and covetous. Take a look at the elves of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, pulling tricks on starving dwarves, imprisoning them, marching an army into other peoples' territory in hope of a share of treasure. That's from the novel, not the movies.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Other than the dwarves and hobbits, there's nothing Tolkien about the series other than the name.  The Numenoreans had some nice architecture, but were depicted more as low men than high men.  The elves aren't even close to be Tolkien's elves.




The Numenoreans are close to their fall: wasn't their lifespan reducing as they removed themselves from Eru? So, having the "lower class", mostly King's Men, behaving like regular humans didn't shock me: they are supposed to be, well, Sodome and Gomorrha-level of evil to deserve genocide... But perhaps I missed what you were referring to.


----------



## Janx (Oct 22, 2022)

We finished it last week. never read the sillymarilly thing. don't care.

Ork homeland plan seems contradictory. A) there's someplace else the evil elves have that they wanted to take NotSauron to. B. Volcanotizing the land is unsustainable. One reason you can't just walk into Mordors is because nothing's on the menu, they have to bring it in. and that clearly takes a reservation weeks in advance.

Mystery guy 1 and 2 are the opposite of what they implied. Well, the one was obviously too fond of the halfings' weed to be anything but. And the other, well, I guess they fooled me.

C: His plan sure seems like a convoluted series of lucky guesses on where Galadriel will go, along with himself trying on varying career options until he just happens to end up in the right place to advance his plan. Maybe that's his power.

Overall, a nice stroll through the days of yore when Isildur made some bad life choices.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 22, 2022)

Janx said:


> We finished it last week. never read the sillymarilly thing. don't care.
> 
> Ork homeland plan seems contradictory. A) there's someplace else the evil elves have that they wanted to take NotSauron to. B. Volcanotizing the land is unsustainable. One reason you can't just walk into Mordors is because nothing's on the menu, they have to bring it in. and that clearly takes a reservation weeks in advance.




Well, if the place in East, near Rhûn, might be suitable, it's obviously populated with fire-breathing nuns who worship Sauron... not a good place to be if you actually backstabed Sauron because of his unfair treatment of orcs. And possibly a bad place to be for orcs as well. With regard to the unsustainable plan, well... If it's within the world's physics that bringing water to Mt Doom will make it erupt and cover the land in eternal darkness, sure it will damage the ecosystem but I am not even sure of what the orcs eat. Either they counted on the tribute from the Southlanders (after all, they promised peace to them if they bowed, but that might include paying taxes) or maybe fungi could grow?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  Not even close.  Watch LotR again. Take note of Elrond and the elves of Rivendell, and Galadriel and the elves of Lothlorien.  One of these two shows followed the spirit of Tolkien's elves and the other is Rings of Power.



Actually, Jackson's films botched the Elves.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 22, 2022)

As an aside, a friend sent this to me today:


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 22, 2022)

After reading this thread and knowing some info about S. M. Stirling's Emberverse series I feel confident enough to say that @Maxperson would totally fit in with the Dúnedain Rangers


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Tolkien's elves can be flawed, petty, cruel and covetous. Take a look at the elves of Mirkwood in The Hobbit, pulling tricks on starving dwarves, imprisoning them, marching an army into other peoples' territory in hope of a share of treasure. That's from the novel, not the movies.



Sure, but even with all of that, they still have a flavor that is distinctly lacking in Rings of Power.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

Galandris said:


> The Numenoreans are close to their fall: wasn't their lifespan reducing as they removed themselves from Eru? So, having the "lower class", mostly King's Men, behaving like regular humans didn't shock me: they are supposed to be, well, Sodome and Gomorrha-level of evil to deserve genocide... But perhaps I missed what you were referring to.



Their lifespans were diminishing, but their technology, physical and mental prowess was not.  They ruled over lower men. They did not become them.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Actually, Jackson's films bot h the Elves.



How so? I'm honestly curious (assuming there's a missing "c" in there). As I said in my critique, the elves are one of the areas that (I think) the Rings of Power goes furthest astray from Tolkien. They're almost closer to Gygaxian elves, to be honest. Jackson's elves weren't perfect, but they clearly showed some sense of Tolkien's elves.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Actually, Jackson's films bot h the Elves.



What?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 22, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> After reading this thread and knowing some info about S. M. Stirling's Emberverse series* I feel confident enough to say that @Maxperson would totally fit in with the Dúnedain Rangers*



I know nothing at all about S. M. Stirling's Emberverse series, but that's pretty high praise and I'll take it!


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I know nothing at all about S. M. Stirling's Emberverse series, but that's pretty high praise and I'll take it!



At 6:15 pm Pacific Standard Time, March 17, 1998, a sudden worldwide event known as the "Change" alters physical laws so that electricity, gunpowder, steam power, and most forms of high-energy-density technology no longer work.

the *Dúnedain Rangers* are a semi-mercenary military organization that protects caravans and fights brigands in the Willamette Valley. The Ranger lifestyle is based largely on _The Lord of the Rings_ by J.R.R. Tolkien—which they refer to as "the Histories"—even to the point of requiring all members to learn the Elvish language. Rangers are also required to learn sign language as part of their training. The Rangers operate out of Mithrilwood, which is located in the old Silver Falls State Park, centered upon their settlement, Stardell Hall. The Rangers' flag features a silver tree and seven stars, similar to the royal standard of Gondor as depicted in _The Lord of the Rings_


----------



## Galandris (Oct 22, 2022)

I am pretty sure some of you don't share the same definition for what are "Tolkien elves".

And Tolkien elves pretty sure can be mean, I think nobody disputed that they are "good guys". They are as petty as the next guy, from Fëanor being all passive agressive "sure, you can restore the Trees from the Silmarils, but you'll have to take them by force and be no better than Melkor", to his folk and him being genuinely agressive (First, then Second Kinslaying). If one think it was a Noldor thing, then... "Sure, you can marry my daughter who is so in love that I put her in dungeon so she can't go with you, but you have first to bring me.... A SHRUBBERY! Sorry I meant a Silmaril"... Passionate doesn't equal good!

I don't know what gauge to use to put a Tolkien stamp of approval Amazelves, but in my opinion, I wouldn't put Tolkien Noldor above taking the mithril by force if Gil-Galad's diagnostic was accurate, or from spending 3,000 years looking for Sauron at the ends of the Earth or wishing an orc genocide... it's a "not-Galadriel thing", but not a "not-elf thing". Hence I'd be happy with Geraldiniel, the unknown cousin of Galadriel, starring this series.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 22, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, but even with all of that, they still have a flavor that is distinctly lacking in Rings of Power.



Can you be more specific? Since I didn't notice any missing flavour myself, it's hard to picture what that would be.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 22, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> How so? I'm honestly curious (assuming there's a missing "c" in there). As I said in my critique, the elves are one of the areas that (I think) the Rings of Power goes furthest astray from Tolkien. They're almost closer to Gygaxian elves, to be honest. Jackson's elves weren't perfect, but they clearly showed some sense of Tolkien's elves.





Maxperson said:


> What?



Yes, botched, sorry, bit ironic there.

Tolkien's Elves are not...whatever was happening in Jackson's films. They are not airy-fairy, they are Biblical or Shakespeareab figures of strength and tragic flaws. The dialog from the Ekves in this show, despite being all original, felt more like the book Elves in tone and delivery, and the absolute psychotic flaws of the Noldor that lead to all the tragedies of the Silmirillion are spot on here in spades.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 22, 2022)

I found some of the dialogue about light and darkness cringy, tbh.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Tolkien's Elves are not...whatever was happening in Jackson's films. They are not airy-fairy, they are Biblical or Shakespeareab figures of strength and tragic flaws.



I don't think we have a single perspective on the Elves. In _The Hobbit_, they are very much presented as "airy-fairy" - whimsical, treacherous (in the case of the Silvan elves), and scant on any description of their actual appearance.

In the _LotR_ we still only see them through the lens of the Hobbits; they are very much depicted as _Other_, with their beauty, subtlety, superhuman faculties and insight. We have a sense of the tragedy of the High Elves - and their growing disconnection from Middle-Earth - but we don't have a sense of _why_; this is evident from the first encounter with Gildor: when he describes himself as an _exile_, we don't really have any context for that, until we dive (much) deeper into the legendarium. The Hobbits view the Elves with awe and reverence; the Rohirrim with fear and suspicion. Aragorn, despite his undoubted lore, in a sense seems all-too-willing to excuse their past misdeeds; although, he is _enamoured_ of an Elf and was raised in Imladris - so maybe we should take his perspective with a pinch of propagandized salt too.

In _The Silmarillion_ we begin to catch a glimpse of how the Noldor view themselves (and other Elves), but even this is fraught. It is a retelling of an "Age of Myth," suggesting layers of unreliable narration, translation, hyperbole and propaganda; within the context of _LotR_ (or the _Red Book of Westmarch_), these are "stories from long ago." Again, I think this ambiguity is intentional, even in the earliest drafts by Tolkien (where Ælfwine journeys to Eressëa and learns the "true history" from the Elves), this notion of a dubious transmission is present.

The mythemes and components which comprise Tolkien's Elves draw primarily on the _lios alfar_ and the _huldrfolk_; the Vanir and the _Tuath Dé_, overlayed with a Catholic or Biblical sensibility which reflects an increasing separation from God (with an occasional remission or "New Covenant"). In this sense, the Eldar have a quality of _sacredness_ due to their time spent in Aman, whereas Middle-Earth is _profane_; this does not map perfectly to notions of Good and Evil; again, I think this ambiguity is intentional. 

I don't see Shakespeare in Tolkien - at least, no more than Shakespeare has shaped _all_ English literature; even the most tragic story, of Turin, doesn't hold a candle to Lear or Titus Andronicus in terms of its scope, or its willingness to engage with the worst facets of human action and motivation.

So when you assert that the RoP is faithful to the "deeper themes" in Tolkien, I respectfully disagree. I am enjoying the show, for what it's worth. But, for me, the characterization is weak; plot is contrived; dialogue is barely sophomoric with tedious archaisms; the Elves are just uninsightful humans with pointy ears and very prosaic motivations and teenage behavioural issues.

Is Jackson's trilogy more "faithful?" - no, not really. But I enjoyed that too.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> But, for me, the characterization is weak; plot is contrived; dialogue is barely sophomoric with tedious archaisms; the Elves are just uninsightful humans with pointy ears and very prosaic motivations and teenage behavioural issues.



Yeah, beyond just disagreeing, I have no idea how anyone could see the show and think any one of those things. I find this puzzling.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, beyond just disagreeing, I have no idea how anyone could see the show and think any one of those things. I find this puzzling.



And yet several of us share this opinion...


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Is Jackson's trilogy more "faithful?" - no, not really. But I enjoyed that too.



This is where I disagree with you.  In the movies we get the sense of wisdom and power from Gildor, Galadriel and Elrond, and we get the sense of their tragedy.  They don't have to explain why those things are to capture the essence of what Tolkien's elves were.  We get none of that essence in the TV show.

I'm not saying the movies were perfect, but it did do a much better job with the elves than the show.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> They are not airy-fairy



Yes they were.  Read the hobbit and the gay(happy) revelry in the Mirkwood, and other moments of song and happiness from them.  In-between times of war were times of peace and happiness in existence and life.


Parmandur said:


> they are Biblical or Shakespeareab figures of strength and tragic flaws.



SOME were, yes.  And we get that from movie(not show) Galadriel, Celeborn and Gildor, the OLD elves who had the strength and tragedy, of which there were few left in Middle Earth.


Parmandur said:


> The dialog from the Ekves in this show, despite being all original, felt more like the book Elves in tone and delivery, and the absolute psychotic flaws of the Noldor that lead to all the tragedies of the Silmirillion are spot on here in spades.



No. The elves in the show felt weak(other than Galadriel) and incompetent.  "I'm Celebrimbor, best elven smith since Feanor, yet I can't even figure out that maybe a mithril alloy might work without the help of a human who is like 30 years old.  And despite my age and wisdom, I'm not going to question that this 30 year old human knows more of smithing than a several thousand year old great elven smith. And neither are any other ancient and wise elves."

The show has no elven wisdom, virtually no elven prowess, none of the past elven tragedy other than the death of Galadriel's brother which isn't part of the Tolkien tragedies(Kinslaying, tragic battles, fall of Gondolin, death of Feanor and Fingolfin, etc.), and none of the gaiety of the elves.  It lacks everything.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> And yet several of us share this opinion...



Yes, and I cannot account for that based on the show that I watched. It's utterly bizarre.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes they were.  Read the hobbit and the gay(happy) revelry in the Mirkwood, and other moments of song and happiness from them.  In-between times of war were times of peace and happiness in existence and life.
> 
> SOME were, yes.  And we get that from movie(not show) Galadriel, Celeborn and Gildor, the OLD elves who had the strength and tragedy, of which there were few left in Middle Earth.
> 
> ...



Yeah, hard disagree with all of this, again. The scene with Sauron and Celebrimbor was really good, showed a lrexistant Angelic spirit was able to convey information while making the rather clever mark think it was their own idea.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, hard disagree with all of this, again. The scene with Sauron and Celebrimbor was really good, showed a lrexistant Angelic spirit was able to convey information while making the rather clever mark think it was their own idea.



What?! First, that has nothing to do with how Tolkien's elves are.  Second, Celebrimbor didn't think that the alloy was his idea at all.  He just went with the man's idea.

What in the show showed anything of the essence of Tolkien's elves?


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, and I cannot account for that based on the show that I watched. It's utterly bizarre.



Perhaps accept that there are legitimate views that can be quite different from yours? I don't find your opinion bizarre, I just disagree with it.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Perhaps accept that there are legitimate views that can be quite different from yours? I don't find your opinion bizarre, I just disagree with it.




I don't think it's a failure to aknowledge different point of views. It might be a genuine lack of understanding because the starting viewpoints are too far apart.

For example, the dialogue. I found some of them cringy. Imagine one found them genius-level of writing. We could "agree to disagree", but maybe at some point the disconnect is so huge that it's difficult to comprehend _what_ one finds cringy and what the other finds good. Providing examples might help illustrate what is only a difference in appreciation. Someone mentionned the bad dialogue, providing an example of a piece of dialogue that is bad and why makes it clearer than just stating opinion.

Let's take the scene where Galadriel remembers her husband. She speaks of him like he's dead to Theo. It's mean if he isn't and she knows it, but let's assume that the show Galadriel lost contact with him during some war and didn't have time to check his status for the last millenia, because she was concentrated on other things. She mentions the last time she saw him in armour. (presumably going to a fight) She makes a comparison that sounded (in French, I didn't see the original lines) hilariously awkward, like a silver-colored oyster or something. That's a comparaison that sounds really like a 6-years old would make. It might be poetic-sounding in English version and be a translational blunder, I don't know, but if I say this scene was hilariously bad, my opinion might be impossible to understand to someone who only saw it as poetic.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Galandris said:


> in French, I didn't see the original lines



Okay, this alone actually might explain a lot to me.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Okay, this alone actually might explain a lot to me.



I've watched it in English, with subtitles activated.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Perhaps accept that there are legitimate views that can be quite different from yours? I don't find your opinion bizarre, I just disagree with it.



I can imagine all sorts of.views that I disagree with that I understand: but some opinions diverge so far from reality as observed that I have little idea on how to account for them actually being formed.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> I've watched it in English, with subtitles activated.



I can actually see how a non-native Engliah speaker might be thrown by the usage of Engliah here, particularly the divergence of register between, say, Galadriel and Nori. But that is very Tolkien, and from an English style perspective they nailed Tolkienian high and low registers.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I can imagine all sorts of.views that I disagree with that I understand: but some opinions diverge so far from reality as observed that I have little idea on how to account for them actually being formed.



OK, no point in further discussing this issue then.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Galandris said:


> She makes a comparison that sounded...hilariously awkward, like a silver-colored oyster or something. That's a comparaison that sounds really like a 6-years old would make.



The point of the lines here is that the last thing she said to her husband (who she seems to beleive is dead)was a gentle joke teasing him about the fit of his armor. The translation is accurate, but the joke may not translate.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I can actually see how a non-native Engliah speaker might be thrown by the usage of Engliah here, particularly the divergence of register between, say, Galadriel and Nori. But that is very Tolkien, and from an English style perspective they nailed Tolkienian high and low registers.



I'm getting a bit annoyed at the implications here. I might not write great English, but my level of understanding is quite high. I got what they said. That's not why I have a different opinion.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> OK, no point in further discussing this issue then.



Well, if you can elucidate why, it may be interesting. The potential for the very good English writing not translating necessarily well is interesting.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> I'm getting a bit annoyed at the implications here. I might not write great English, but my level of understanding is quite high. I got what they said. That's not why I have a different opinion.



That's what isn't clear to me. There seems to be a disconnect, and from my point of view as a trained literary scholar, the writing on a twchnical level is excellent.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> What?! First, that has nothing to do with how Tolkien's elves are.  Second, Celebrimbor didn't think that the alloy was his idea at all.  He just went with the man's idea.
> 
> What in the show showed anything of the essence of Tolkien's elves?



The disconnect of the ageless immortals and Humand and Dwarf perspectives, the arrogance rooted in sctusl tremendous skill. Srondir and Galadreil were both excellent examples of Elves.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> This is where I disagree with you.  In the movies we get the sense of wisdom and power from Gildor, Galadriel and Elrond, and we get the sense of their tragedy.  They don't have to explain why those things are to capture the essence of what Tolkien's elves were.  We get none of that essence in the TV show.
> 
> I'm not saying the movies were perfect, but it did do a much better job with the elves than the show.



Sure, except that this show covers how they got there.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The disconnect of the ageless immortals



Okay.  One thing between Elrond and Durin, but that disconnect was in LotR as well, so LotR is still waaaaaay up on the Tolkien elf-o-meter.


Parmandur said:


> and Humand and Dwarf perspectives



Those aren't elves and I've already said that the show did dwarves well.  As for human perspectives, the show failed miserably. It shows humans, but not due to anything resembling Tolkien.  The low humans in the show could have been the humans in Wheel of Time, Game of Thrones or any other generic show. The Numenoreans are about as far from the High Men that they were as you can get.  They're basically low men with good architecture.


Parmandur said:


> the arrogance rooted in sctusl tremendous skill.



What tremendous skill?  Galadriel is good at fighting, but fails as the powerful(fighting ability wasn't elven power) and wise elf that she was. The other elf we see a lot of was good with a bow, but wasn't particularly powerful or skillful at all. We get a hint of elven arrogance, but not in the Tolkien way.  Anyone can just be arrogant, regardless of race.


Parmandur said:


> Srondir and Galadreil were both excellent examples of Elves.



Sure, but just not Tolkien elves.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Sure, except that this show covers how they got there.



It doesn't.  Galadriel was there prior to going to Middle Earth.  She was among the most powerful and wise of elves before leaving Aman, and was not warlike at all.  Elrond isn't shown in this show gathering the wisdom he shows in LotR.  He's shown already wise and with friendship to Durin.  Gildor isn't there at all.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No. The elves in the show felt weak(other than Galadriel) and incompetent.  "I'm Celebrimbor, best elven smith since Feanor, yet I can't even figure out that maybe a mithril alloy might work without the help of a human who is like 30 years old.  And despite my age and wisdom, I'm not going to question that this 30 year old human knows more of smithing than a several thousand year old great elven smith. And neither are any other ancient and wise elves."



I thought that was handled rather well. "Halbrand" never seemed to give the exact answer that Celebrimbor needed. He commented on something adjacent that led Celebrimbor to make a conclusion, that would seem like he came up with the idea himself.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It doesn't.  Galadriel was there prior to going to Middle Earth.  She was among the most powerful and wise of elves before leaving Aman, and was not warlike at all.  Elrond isn't shown in this show gathering the wisdom he shows in LotR.  He's shown already wise and with friendship to Durin.  Gildor isn't there at all.



The simple question here is, "In what source?"


----------



## Galandris (Oct 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Well, if you can elucidate why, it may be interesting. The potential for the very good English writing not translating necessarily well is interesting.




Can't speak for all translations of course, but there have been very good translations of Tolkien in French in the 70s, and recently (2012) another one that sparked a controversy because it changed things, some (IMHO) for the better, other from the worse and of course changing edition sparks wars, as we know  But despite a few glaring problems, the classical translation was made a great professional and reflected a high level of writing faithfully, including maybe some archaisms of style and grammar that would very well fit the themes.

On the other hand, the show is translated... probably by the same companies that translate any shows. Sometimes it's... flat to awkward. Sometimes there is a strong feeling that the translator kept close to the English wording (or vocabulary). When Adar is asking the Southerners to "swear fealty" to him, I am pretty sure he said swear fealty in the original because well, the translator used words that sounds a word-for-word translation instead of using a more proper translation. So, the line between having some characters speaking in an old-fashioned way (which is appropriate, my grandmother doesn't speak the same language as I do, so I expect a 3,000 years old person to be even more set in their ways) thus evoking the right feeling, and the wording being just odd is often crossed.

[I am not disparaging any translation... In Locke & Key, I had to switch to the original to check if the people from the Washington era were speaking differently from the 21st century youngsters that stars the show, because they felt speaking like very classical French in the translation, and bingo! They had English accent in the original while everyone else was speaking American) so sometimes translators do it right. Here it's... not that good, but I can't say if it is the original material or the translation].

I could probably watch the show in the original language and get most of the dialogue, but I don't claim fluency in English: I still prefer to hear it in French since Amazon is offering the choice.

Edit: there is also a strong possibility that my vision of the songs is colored by the translation: poetry is awfully difficult to translate well.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I thought that was handled rather well. "Halbrand" never seemed to give the exact answer that Celebrimbor needed. He commented on something adjacent that led Celebrimbor to make a conclusion, that would seem like he came up with the idea himself.



"Have you tried combining it with other ores to better stretch it out?" is not leading Celebrimbor to make a conclusion.  It's flat out giving him the solution to alloy mithril.  It's basically, "Hey stupid, you need to alloy this metal to make it work," which isn't something a legendary elven smith would have needed to be told or even suggested to do.  He'd have done it by himself long before Sauron arrived.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 23, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> The simple question here is, "In what source?"



Silmarillion, LotR, and Unfinished Tales of Middle Earth. In the Silmarillion it's established in Aman that she is among the most powerful and wisest of her kind, and that she is against everything Feanor and her brothers stand for.  She goes to Middle Earth to establish a kingdom to rule, not to engage in war and battle, tracking down Sauron with battle lust and fury.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> "Have you tried combining it with other ores to better stretch it out?" is not leading Celebrimbor to make a conclusion.  It's flat out giving him the solution to alloy mithril.  It's basically, "Hey stupid, you need to alloy this metal to make it work," which isn't something a legendary elven smith would have needed to be told or even suggested to do.  He'd have done it by himself long before Sauron arrived.



That was just the hook: we know b2cauwe of what Vel rimbor said later.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> "Have you tried combining it with other ores to better stretch it out?" is not leading Celebrimbor to make a conclusion.  It's flat out giving him the solution to alloy mithril.  It's basically, "Hey stupid, you need to alloy this metal to make it work," which isn't something a legendary elven smith would have needed to be told or even suggested to do.  He'd have done it by himself long before Sauron arrived.



"Combining it with other ores to stretch it out" isn't "alloy it with another metal to make it work." He planted a seed, rather than giving the solution.


Maxperson said:


> Silmarillion, LotR, and Unfinished Tales of Middle Earth. In the Silmarillion it's established in Aman that she is among the most powerful and wisest of her kind, and that she is against everything Feanor and her brothers stand for.  She goes to Middle Earth to establish a kingdom to rule, not to engage in war and battle, tracking down Sauron with battle lust and fury.



OK, the first and third are immediately off the table. The second may or may not contain sufficient information to make the conclusions that you have made. My memory says no, though it's been a while.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 23, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "Combining it with other ores to stretch it out" isn't "alloy it with another metal to make it work." He planted a seed, rather than giving the solution.




Sorry, how is that not the same thing? I'm not sure there's any suggestion Halbrand could have made that wouldn't make a Master Elf Smith look like an idiot for not having thought of. He should have thought of everything. 

The "try it softer" part worked for me, though. It's easy to make the mistake of trying "too hard'.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 23, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Sorry, how is that not the same thing? I'm not sure there's any suggestion Halbrand could have made that wouldn't make a Master Elf Smith look like an idiot for not having thought of. He should have thought of everything.
> 
> The "try it softer" part worked for me, though. It's easy to make the mistake of trying "too hard'.



It's not the same thing because it's the difference between a "less skilled and knowledgeable" smith suggesting that 'if you don't have enough of the good stuff you dilute it', and 'if the stuff doesn't work then mix it with something that will make it do.' Suggest something that skirts the edge of what you want the 'brilliant smith' to realize and suddenly he has a 'brilliant idea that's all his own.'


----------



## Galandris (Oct 24, 2022)

I agree that "combine it with other metals" is exactly the suggestion to make an alloy.

It would be more subtle to have Halbrand lament: "It sucks that your existence-protecting metal is in so few quantity and nobody is skilled enough to create an alloy that would retain this mystical quality, as mithril will certainly refuse to meld with base metal..." and Celebrimbor "Yes moron, I thought of it already" . Thinking... "But why limit myself to base metal, hey galadriel, I just happened to see your dagger, hand over your gold from Valinor please, I am a pure genius".


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 24, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I agree that "combine it with other metals" is exactly the suggestion to make an alloy.
> 
> It would be more subtle to have Halbrand lament: "It sucks that your existence-protecting metal is in so few quantity and nobody is skilled enough to create an alloy that would retain this mystical quality, as mithril will certainly refuse to meld with base metal..." and Celebrimbor "Yes moron, I thought of it already" . Thinking... "But why limit myself to base metal, hey galadriel, I just happened to see your dagger, hand over your gold from Valinor please, I am a pure genius".



Yes, the idea to make an alloy is the same. The reason is different, which is where I see subterfuge.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> "Combining it with other ores to stretch it out" isn't "alloy it with another metal to make it work." He planted a seed, rather than giving the solution.



What do you think combining multiple ores together to make more metal than one metal alone is, if it's not making an alloy?


Ryujin said:


> OK, the first and third are immediately off the table. The second may or may not contain sufficient information to make the conclusions that you have made. My memory says no, though it's been a while.



The first and third are not off the table in any way.  They can't be used for specific events, but there's no specific events in "how Tolkien elves act." or "How Galadriel behaves."


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> The "try it softer" part worked for me, though. It's easy to make the mistake of trying "too hard'.



I still don't buy it.  He's not just a master smith.  This particular smith was so good that other grand masters look up to him for advice because he was far beyond them.  He would have tried hard, medium, soft, kinda soft but not quite medium...


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I still don't buy it.  He's not just a master smith.  This particular smith was so good that other grand masters look up to him for advice because he was far beyond them.  He would have tried hard, medium, soft, kinda soft but not quite medium...



I liked the _specific verbal interaction_ where Halbrand nudged Celebrimbor, but found that the circumstances which led to its coming about to be rather contrived or implausible. Given what we can glean of Celebrimbor's prideful character in the books, even had he deigned to interact with Halbrand, I would have expected his reaction to be more along the lines of:

"Who is this gnat?"

I think there were a lot of missed opportunities in the show for a better pacing of developing relationships, and would have preferred a slower seduction of the Gwaith-i-Mirdain by Sauron. I'm not sure how they can even insert the Annatar alias at this point, without further stretching credulity; I suspect this persona will be omitted altogether - which is a shame, as it seems rather foundational to the events of the Second Age.

I think the timeline compression will ultimately undersell Sauron's capacity for deceit and manipulation; he does, after all, play a very, very long game.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 24, 2022)

I really should read Lord of the Rings Appendices  again


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I liked the _specific verbal interaction_ where Halbrand nudged Celebrimbor, but found that the circumstances which led to its coming about to be rather contrived or implausible. Given what we can glean of Celebrimbor's prideful character in the books, even had he deigned to interact with Halbrand, I would have expected his reaction to be more along the lines of:
> 
> "Who is this gnat?"
> 
> ...



It didn't even have to be slow. It just had to be different.  Annatar wasn't human or elven, so he probably approached the elves and said something like, "Greeting. I am a maia come from Aule to help you."  Sauron really was a maia of Aule, so he had great understanding of crafting and would have had secrets that even Celebrimbor didn't have.  That would have been the deceipt and trickery, and wouldn't have required a little know nothing human(and no human smiths knew anything compared to the great elven smiths) to utterly unbelievably help out Celebrimbor.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It didn't even have to be slow. It just had to be different.  Annatar wasn't human or elven, so he probably approached the elves and said something like, "Greeting. I am a maia come from Aule to help you."  Sauron really was a maia of Aule, so he had great understanding of crafting and would have had secrets that even Celebrimbor didn't have.  That would have been the deceipt and trickery, and wouldn't have required a little know nothing human(and no human smiths knew anything compared to the great elven smiths) to utterly unbelievably help out Celebrimbor.



I thought the way they handled it was pretty good. He started out by flattering Celebrimbor so that the smith was then effectively showing off to him, and none of his suggestions appeared to be based in actual knowledge - they were just providing a different perspective that let Celebrimbor see another angle while still not questioning the human's lack of any real knowledge.

And frankly, if you play up the elven smiths as being so far beyond human knowledge as to make humans utterly irrelevant, you lose your audience, because the whole thing is then occurring on a level for which we have no reference point - the difference between "inhumanly skilled elven craftsman" and "even more inhumanly skilled maiar craftsman" becomes imperceptible from our viewpoint, and leaves no reference by which we can discern whether one or another suggestion or deception is good or bad.

Also, since the entire audience is human, playing the "elves are just better" card too hard just makes them even less relatable.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 24, 2022)

I am not sure elves are supposed to be relatable.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 24, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I am not sure elves are supposed to be relatable.



Yeah, well, characters in a TV show are supposed to be relatable.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I thought the way they handled it was pretty good. He started out by flattering Celebrimbor so that the smith was then effectively showing off to him, and none of his suggestions appeared to be based in actual knowledge - they were just providing a different perspective that let Celebrimbor see another angle while still not questioning the human's lack of any real knowledge.



The problem is that it didn't allow Celebrimbor to see any angle that he wouldn't have thought of immediately on his own.  Celebrimbor wasn't just a smith. He wasn't even just a master smith. Hell, he wasn't even just a grand master smith.  He was so good and knowledgeable that he made grand master smiths look like novices.  There was nothing said or done in the show that could have or would have helped.

Annatar only succeeded because he had actual magic secrets of forging that the elves had not discovered yet and was sharing those "gifts."


MarkB said:


> And frankly, if you play up the elven smiths as being so far beyond human knowledge as to make humans utterly irrelevant, you lose your audience, because the whole thing is then occurring on a level for which we have no reference point - the difference between "inhumanly skilled elven craftsman" and "even more inhumanly skilled maiar craftsman" becomes imperceptible from our viewpoint, and leaves no reference by which we can discern whether one or another suggestion or deception is good or bad.



You don't need to.  You just present Sauron as being from Aman and coming with new secrets/magical glyphs to allow success.  Relative skill didn't need to play into it, because the die hard fans would be aware of said skill and the others wouldn't need to be told about it. 

By doing it the way they did, they could only anger the die hard fans while not actually giving anything more than the above would have given.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, well, characters in a TV show are supposed to be relatable.



I couldn't really relate to the Predator, the Alien, ET and others.  Not all characters need to be relatable or completely relatable.  Elves can be both relatable and mysterious.  Galadriel was both in LotR.  No good reason that Celebrimbor couldn't have been the same in this show.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 24, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I am not sure elves are supposed to be relatable.



I would think that they are supposed to be relatable in the same way that the Greek Gods are relatable. They have the same failings as humans, just.... BIGGER.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I would think that they are supposed to be relatable in the same way that the Greek Gods are relatable. They have the same failings as humans, just.... BIGGER.



And with capabilities far beyond any man.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The problem is that it didn't allow Celebrimbor to see any angle that he wouldn't have thought of immediately on his own.  Celebrimbor wasn't just a smith. He wasn't even just a master smith. Hell, he wasn't even just a grand master smith.  He was so good and knowledgeable that he made grand master smiths look like novices.  There was nothing said or done in the show that could have or would have helped.
> 
> Annatar only succeeded because he had actual magic secrets of forging that the elves had not discovered yet and was sharing those "gifts."
> 
> ...



I don't really know that they're at all interested in playing to the "die hard fans", given the way that they've gone with the story. They're more going for fans of the movies which is, by a rather massive margin, a much larger demographic.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> And with capabilities far beyond any man.



Which makes the inevitable fall all the further.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The problem is that it didn't allow Celebrimbor to see any angle that he wouldn't have thought of immediately on his own.  Celebrimbor wasn't just a smith. He wasn't even just a master smith. Hell, he wasn't even just a grand master smith.  He was so good and knowledgeable that he made grand master smiths look like novices.



That doesn't mean he's not going to get stumped when working with a brand-new material under extreme time pressure.


Maxperson said:


> There was nothing said or done in the show that could have or would have helped.



So basically any possible solution would have to be utterly incomprehensible to the audience. Got it.


Maxperson said:


> I couldn't really relate to the Predator, the Alien, ET and others.  Not all characters need to be relatable or completely relatable.



The Predator and the Alien are antagonists, and they're still easy enough to understand. The Predator likes hunting and collecting trophies, the Alien is all about hunger and survival.

ET was pretty relatable. He's just someone lost and terrified who's trying to find his way home.


Maxperson said:


> Elves can be both relatable and mysterious.  Galadriel was both in LotR.  No good reason that Celebrimbor couldn't have been the same in this show.



If we're going to be spending a lot of time with the elves, there's a limit to how mysterious and otherworldly they can be. Galadriel was mysterious for a few scenes. Legolas was a relatable travelling companion for three movies.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I don't really know that they're at all interested in playing to the "die hard fans", given the way that they've gone with the story. They're more going for fans of the movies which is, by a rather massive margin, a much larger demographic.



That wasn't what I said, though.  By doing it the way I suggested, it makes no difference whatsoever to the people who know nothing about the books.  So they wouyld be playing to the fans of movies and shows just the same as they are now, not the die hard fans.  They just wouldn't be kicking the die hard fans in the nads at the same time like they are now.  It would be win/win instead of win/lose.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

MarkB said:


> That doesn't mean he's not going to get stumped when working with a brand-new material under extreme time pressure.



Sure, but he's not going to be stumped by anything suggested to him in the show.  Even with a new material.


MarkB said:


> So basically any possible solution would have to be utterly incomprehensible to the audience. Got it.



Magic is utterly incomprehensible to the audience?


MarkB said:


> The Predator likes hunting and collecting trophies, the Alien is all about hunger and survival.



Both are more than that.


MarkB said:


> ET was pretty relatable. He's just someone lost and terrified who's trying to find his way home.



On some level yes, but he was also unrelatable and mysterious in other ways.


MarkB said:


> If we're going to be spending a lot of time with the elves, there's a limit to how mysterious and otherworldly they can be. Galadriel was mysterious for a few scenes. Legolas was a relatable travelling companion for three movies.



And yet Legolas could and did do many things that nobody else in the party could even begin to attempt.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That wasn't what I said, though.  By doing it the way I suggested, it makes no difference whatsoever to the people who know nothing about the books.  So they wouyld be playing to the fans of movies and shows just the same as they are now, not the die hard fans.  They just wouldn't be kicking the die hard fans in the nads at the same time like they are now.  It would be win/win instead of win/lose.



Well if those die hard fans want The Silmarillion, then they're going to be disappointed anyway.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Well if those die hard fans want The Silmarillion, then they're going to be disappointed anyway.



What I suggested here do not require the events of that book.  They can be true to the characters without the Silmarillion.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 24, 2022)

So, digging into the background of the show itself 

 Because Amazon only bought the television rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, the writers had to identify all of the references to the Second Age in those books and create a story that bridged those passages. These are primarily in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, but also in certain chapters and songs. *Tolkien's estate was prepared to veto any changes from his established narrative, including anything that contradicted what Tolkien wrote in other works. The writers were free to add characters or details, and worked with the estate and Tolkien lore experts to ensure these were still "Tolkienian".* They referenced The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien for additional context on the setting and characters. Simon Tolkien, a novelist and the grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, consulted on the series and helped develop its story and character arcs. He is credited as a "series consultant" 

Also, a disclaimer is featured in the series's end credits stating that some elements are "inspired by, though not contained in, the original source material. 

Because the writers were mostly not able to adapt direct dialogue from Tolkien's Second Age stories, the writers attempted to repurpose Tolkien's dialogue that they did have access to while also taking inspiration from religious texts and poetry. They tailored the dialogue to different characters using dialects and poetic meters. Leith McPherson returned from the Hobbit films as dialect coach and noted that Tolkien's fictional languages evolve over time, so they are different for the Second Age compared to the Third. The series's Elves mostly speak Quenya, a language described as "Elvish Latin" that is often just used for spellcasting in the Third Age. Dwarvish and Orcish are also heard, along with English, Scottish, and Irish dialects. The biggest deviation made from Tolkien's works, *which was approved by the estate and lore experts*, was to condense the Second Age from thousands of years to a short period of time. This avoided human characters frequently dying due to their relatively short lifespans, and allowed major characters from later in the timeline to be introduced earlier in the series. The showrunners considered using non-linear storytelling instead, but felt this would prevent the audience from emotionally investing in the series. They said many real-life historical dramas also condense events like this, and felt they were still respecting the "spirit and feeling" of Tolkien's writings.

So anything you feel that deviates from Tolkien you can blame the estate and not amazon


----------



## ART! (Oct 24, 2022)

Corey Olsen related a story one of the showrunners told, about asking the estate if they could use a character name that isn't in TH & LOTR, the estate said "no", so they showrunners said "okay, cool - we'll just name them 'Steve'" (they didn't actually propose "Steve", it's was just the name they used for this anecdoe), and the estate said "okay, fine, you can use the name".  

Amazon can negotiate with the estate for limited use of stuff outside TH & LOTR. As a ridiculous example, if the rights they have include action figures and boardgames based on RoP, the estate might let them use a name in the show that isn't in those rights but limit it to use in the show itself, with no rights to use the name on action figure packaging or in a boardgame.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> So, digging into the background of the show itself
> 
> Because Amazon only bought the television rights to The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, the writers had to identify all of the references to the Second Age in those books and create a story that bridged those passages. These are primarily in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, but also in certain chapters and songs. *Tolkien's estate was prepared to veto any changes from his established narrative, including anything that contradicted what Tolkien wrote in other works. The writers were free to add characters or details, and worked with the estate and Tolkien lore experts to ensure these were still "Tolkienian".* They referenced The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien for additional context on the setting and characters. Simon Tolkien, a novelist and the grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien, consulted on the series and helped develop its story and character arcs. He is credited as a "series consultant"
> 
> ...



Yes and no.  Everything which was approved by the Tolkien estate, first had to be proposed by Amazon. Amazon isn't absolved because the estate said yes.  Amazon could have been true to the characters and told this same story.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 24, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Yeah, well, characters in a TV show are supposed to be relatable.




They might not be the best to center a story around on TV. Even in book form, Tolkien centered his stories on hobbit and had elves as awe-inspiring, not humans with pointy ears.



Ryujin said:


> I would think that they are supposed to be relatable in the same way that the Greek Gods are relatable. They have the same failings as humans, just.... BIGGER.




That. And the Greek Gods are unrelatable because they are above, in any case. Even if they are jerks, and have failings on a larger scale, they are above humans and going to them telling that you're on their level will end badly in a cosmologically justified way. You can understand them, but not really relate to them. 

The scene where Elrond is surprised things have changed in as few as 20 years in a city and then apologizes for being 50 years late to Durin's wedding was great in showcasing a (small part of the) disconnect between the Elves and the other races. This scene was great because Durin points out the problem and Elrond just stay still, thinking, and then there is another shot where he thinks and stay silent, still in deep thoughts... as if he was making an effort to understand what the problem is, then he apologizes. 

Sure the scene can be read as Elrond, shrewd politician, trying to think a way to mellow Durin's heart by asking to apologize to his family, but I don't think it was the intent. It was great at showing the disconnect between the more static elves and their relation to time passing and other races (even if the dwarves are long-lived too).


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 24, 2022)

So is it ruined forever?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yes and no.  Everything which was approved by the Tolkien estate, first had to be proposed by Amazon. Amazon isn't absolved because the estate said yes.  Amazon could have been true to the characters and told this same story.



Yes, they could have done the thing they accomplished, obviously.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 24, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> The series's Elves mostly speak Quenya,




Are they? I thought they mostly speak the common language. Even Miriel is saying she's the daughter of Ar-Inziladûn instead of Tar-Palantir (probably because the audience would be puzzled by the palantir in his bedroom?), Durin decides to name his metal in sindarin with Elrond... Are there so many instance of quenya spoken in the show? It didn't strike me. I remember a few words exchanged between Elendil and Galadriel? The show is already longer than the three LotR fims and I have more striking recollection of elvish in those films (Gandalf and Saruman battling over the Caradhras for example) than in the show.



trappedslider said:


> So anything you feel that deviates from Tolkien you can blame the estate and not amazon




Both can be blamed equally, but I tend to blame less the people who take the money than the one with the idea and the money ;-) If I were to receive half a billion for it, I'd proclaim forever that Star Wars Holiday Specials is the best episode of the whole series, just missing Jar Jar Binks to achieve utmost perfection.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 24, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Are they? I thought they mostly speak the common language. Even Miriel is saying she's the daughter of Ar-Inziladûn instead of Tar-Palantir (probably because the audience would be puzzled by the palantir in his bedroom?), Durin decides to name his metal in sindarin with Elrond... Are there so many instance of quenya spoken in the show? It didn't strike me. I remember a few words exchanged between Elendil and Galadriel? The show is already longer than the three LotR fims and I have more striking recollection of elvish in those films (Gandalf and Saruman battling over the Caradhras for example) than in the show.
> 
> 
> 
> Both can be blamed equally, but I tend to blame less the people who take the money than the one with the idea and the money ;-)



As opposed to using Simdarin, Tolkien's second constructed Elven language that wa moatly what was used in the Jackson movies, not English. And yes, there is a lot of Quenya in the show.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yes, they could have done the thing they accomplished, obviously.



They could have done the exact same thing while not kicking the Tolkien fans between the legs.  Nothing would have been sacrificed except bad PR.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> They could have done the exact same thing while not kicking the Tolkien fans between the legs.  Nothing would have been sacrificed except bad PR.



If they did it differently, how would it be the exact same thing? And do you really think every other Tolkien fan would agree with you as to which are the things that need to be different and which need to stay the same?

No matter what they did, some part of the fandom would still take offence. So they went with the option that would work for a mainstream audience while still satisfying at least some of the more dedicated fans.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> They could have done the exact same thing while not kicking the Tolkien fans between the legs.  Nothing would have been sacrificed except bad PR.



Even most fans won't know what changes they made, and it is hardly in evidence that those who do feel they have been "kicked between the legs" by and large. Discounting the 1 star reviews, which are ludicrous om theor face, the majority of reviews are 5 stars: last I checked, 5 star reviews were almost theajoriry even with the cartoonist review bombing included.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Even most fans won't know what changes they made, and it is hardly in evidence that those who do feel they have been "kicked between the legs" by and large.



You really think that most book fans aren't going to notice the differences?


Parmandur said:


> Discounting the 1 star reviews, which are ludicrous om theor face, the majority of reviews are 5 stars: last I checked, 5 star reviews were almost theajoriry even with the cartoonist review bombing included.



If you ignore the ruining of Tolkien's work, it was a fairly decent fantasy story, so I can see the good reviews. That's what I did with the LotR movies.  I simply removed Tolkien from the movies and enjoyed them and Jackson was far better at keeping Tolkien's vision than this show.  I couldn't do that with the Hobbit, because it was just terribly bad on its face.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> You really think that most book fans aren't going to notice the differences?



I am a book fan, as big as they come. I was not offended, and beyond not being offended I was impressed with how intelligent, respectful, and well done the changes were for the interests of this show as it's own independent piece of myth.


Maxperson said:


> If you ignore the ruining of Tolkien's work, it was a fairly decent fantasy story, so I can see the good reviews. That's what I did with the LotR movies. I simply removed Tolkien from the movies and enjoyed them and Jackson was far better at keeping Tolkien's vision than this show. I couldn't do that with the Hobbit, because it was just terribly bad on its face.



Tolkien's work is not ruined here, by any means. And honestly, if really surprised. I was expecting something more along the lines of the Wheel of Time show, a big budget embarrassing hatchet job. So it puzzles me that some segment of the population is reacting like that is what happened, rather than the masterpiece of tribute that I saw.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2022)

so it is ruined forever


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> so it is ruined forever



I don't know about forever.  This particular show isn't Tolkien, though.  It's pretty good as a fantasy story, but that's about it. In the future maybe someone else will make a good show that also preserves the feel of Tolkien.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I couldn't do that with the Hobbit, because it was just terribly bad on its face.



Yeh I mean to me the most objectionable thing might have been the philosophic failure of trying to make the Dwarves too heroic...


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Yeh I mean to me the most objectionable thing might have been the philosophic failure of trying to make the Dwarves too heroic...



You could remove the entire second movie and not lose anything 

The Hobbit should have been 1 or MAYBE 2 movies that didn't go into any of the extra stuff.  And the Black Arrow should have been an arrow, not a ballista bolt


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> You could remove the entire second movie and not lose anything
> 
> The Hobbit should have been 1 or MAYBE 2 movies that didn't go into any of the extra stuff.  And the Black Arrow should have been an arrow, not a ballista bolt



The biggest problem was that they failed to live up to the Rankin-Bass cartoon.


----------



## ART! (Oct 25, 2022)

Galandris said:


> The show is already longer than the three LotR fims and I have more striking recollection of elvish in those films (Gandalf and Saruman battling over the Caradhras for example) than in the show.



I think this is an unfair comparison, the two storytelling formats being so different. 

Movies require a concentrated, hyper-focused, rigidly-structured storytelling that will (hopefully) keep an audience engaged for 90-180 minutes and have a potent, singular impact. 

Modern dramatic tv, non-network storytelling is generally _much_ more decompressed.

So, naturally movies are going to burn things into your metaphorical retina more than a tv show might; that's how they work - heck, it's the _only_ way they work.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> the majority of reviews are 5 stars: last I checked, 5 star reviews were almost theajoriry even with the cartoonist review bombing included.



We don't have a clear picture of the actual reception of RoP because of

1) Coordinated review bombing
2) The fact that Amazon suspended reviews in early September and didn't resume until later. On September 9, Amazon deleted almost all 1-star reviews to "weed out trolls." We are asked to trust their action was objective
3) The fact that IMDB - which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon - stopped registering _negative_ reviews early in September also clouds any real data. They've since resumed.

Rotten Tomatoes is also very polarized. Audience reception is at 39% overall, critics at 85%; my personal sense is somewhere between these numbers.

The distribution pattern has otherwise been very unnatural and unusual - lots of 1s and 5s, very negatives and very positives; very few in the 2-4 range, which suggests to me this has been opened as a front in the culture wars, obscuring any collective assessment of the show on its actual merits.



> Discounting the 1 star reviews, which are ludicrous om theor face




Sorry. You don't get to do that. Review bombing may have happened, but it's really not that simple.

It might be years until we get a clear picture; I imagine the market will ultimately inform us. I feel there have been some valid criticisms levelled, and I hope Amazon takes them to heart moving forward. I would like the show to succeed.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 25, 2022)

I've scanned some of the 1 star reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and most are generally thoughtful and almost none are "culture war-y" (unless whether Rings of Power is sufficiently Tolkienian is a culture war issue, which it is not).

Most of the negative reviews I've seen on various sites--whether large or small--mostly criticize the (poor) quality of the show, secondarily the divergence from Tolkien, and thirdly (and only rarely, if at all) culture war elements.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The biggest problem was that they failed to live up to the Rankin-Bass cartoon.



Not poetic/musical enough?


----------



## eyeheartawk (Oct 25, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Most of the negative reviews I've seen on various sites--whether large or small--mostly criticize the (poor) quality of the show, secondarily the divergence from Tolkien, and thirdly (and only rarely, if at all) culture war elements.



Most of the criticism I've encountered has been about the pacing of the show.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> Most of the criticism I've encountered has been about the pacing of the show.



Prefer the pacing of Wheel or Time so far... they arguably made it better in that regards to the books


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 25, 2022)

I think the problem for this show is The characters on this show are not likeable (for the non Tolkien purists)

The main character
Galadriel-yes I understand she’s not human but she gives me zero. She come off as all powerful but I’ve found tv villains more likeable.I can’t think of another fantasy show where the lead is this bad . She has zero personality, poor leadership etc. there are even times where you expect her to start making out with Sauron etc. she jumps into the ocean because she hates Sauron and then betrays her entire race because he tricked her

Elrond-at time’s likeable but this times were when with Durin. Other that if his name was Joe and not Elrond I wouldn’t care about his scenes

Durin and the dwarves-other than the nursery rhyme being the key their scenes were ok especially the father and Durin

Theo-I call him the (adric an old dr who companion of the show). He’s a character I just want eliminated from the show. He’s not even a good villain like a Joffrey from GOT he’s just awful
Isildur-wow so far huge disappointment 
Arondir- basically the Jackson hobbit version of Legolas but unlike Legolas he doesn’t have gimli for the banter
Hal brand-the character isn’t believable even in a fantasy sense and isn’t a good villain. I’d match him up against many tv villains he would come up short
Nori and the hobbits-nori is likeable but her screen time was mostly filled with a confused old man who for 99% is unlikeable and she is sorrounded by harfoot that at times are homicidal maniacs to somewhat likeable

I’m willing to put this up against a bunch of shows with Lower budgets for one o f those blind taste test audiences and I bet it loses


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> And the Black Arrow should have been an arrow, not a ballista bolt



No. This is where you are failing to understand the differences between novel and film. In a novel, the author can tell us how a tincey wincey arrow can kill a massive monster, and we don't have conflicting information from our eyes telling us how ridiculous that looks. On film, we have to show, not tell, how the dragon is killed.

Books are not films, films are not books, if you slavishly translate from one to the other you end up with something stupid.


----------



## ART! (Oct 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> No. This is where you are failing to understand the differences between novel and film. In a novel, the author can tell us how a tincey wincey arrow can kill a massive monster, and we don't have conflicting information from our eyes telling us how ridiculous that looks. On film, we have to show, not tell, how the dragon is killed.
> 
> Books are not films, films are not books, if you slavishly translate from one to the other you end up with something stupid.



This is an extremely true thing.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> No. This is where you are failing to understand the differences between novel and film. In a novel, the author can tell us how a tincey wincey arrow can kill a massive monster, and we don't have conflicting information from our eyes telling us how ridiculous that looks. On film, we have to show, not tell, how the dragon is killed.
> 
> Books are not films, films are not books, if you slavishly translate from one to the other you end up with something stupid.



D&D translated the arrow as a magical bane ie Dragon slaying concept ... ie one might show a close up of the heirloom ancient arrow burrowing actively into the beast while throbbing with magic perhaps (I think that buffs and visualizes it in a way more consistent with the books that mentioned the dwarves using magic when setting up camp and which has been ignored in screen adaptions) .... The transfer of the knowledge of the vulnerable spot via talking thrush was also supposed to be significant (a sense that superb skill was involved too)


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> We don't have a clear picture of the actual reception of RoP because of
> 
> 1) Coordinated review bombing
> 2) The fact that Amazon suspended reviews in early September and didn't resume until later. On September 9, Amazon deleted almost all 1-star reviews to "weed out trolls." We are asked to trust their action was objective
> ...



It's actually quite simple: it's a 5 star show, amd it hasn't hit quite right for some people, while there are trolls posting 1 star reviews. Any 1 star review can be immediately dismissed as a troll.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I've scanned some of the 1 star reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and most are generally thoughtful and almost none are "culture war-y" (unless whether Rings of Power is sufficiently Tolkienian is a culture war issue, which it is not).
> 
> Most of the negative reviews I've seen on various sites--whether large or small--mostly criticize the (poor) quality of the show, secondarily the divergence from Tolkien, and thirdly (and only rarely, if at all) culture war elements.



A cunning troll is still a troll. I'll respect a 3 star reviews somewhat, but anyone posting a 1 star is just out to lunch.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Not poetic/musical enough?



Literally the best part of the whole Jackson Hobbit trilogy is the scene where they let the Dwarves actually sing Over the Misty Mountains Cold, so, yup.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Prefer the pacing of Wheel or Time so far... they arguably made it better in that regards to the books



...

No.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> No. This is where you are failing to understand the differences between novel and film. In a novel, the author can tell us how a tincey wincey arrow can kill a massive monster, and we don't have conflicting information from our eyes telling us how ridiculous that looks. On film, we have to show, not tell, how the dragon is killed.
> 
> Books are not films, films are not books, if you slavishly translate from one to the other you end up with something stupid.



And yet that element worked fine in the Rankong-Bass cartoon. I was too young to _read_ let alone have read the Hobvit, amd I got it.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> ...
> 
> No.



They deprived Rand of climactic potency and other problems... but pacing was better than the books in my opinion.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> They deprived Rand of climactic potency and other problems... but pacing was better than the books in my opinion.



The pacing if the Wheel of Time show is...really, really bad. Other than the camera work, CGI and set design most thins about it are pretty bad. 2-3 star show.

Eye of the World the novel, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. It is long and languid, but nothing is without reason. The show cut off important plot beats, and introduced pointless filler.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> No. This is where you are failing to understand the differences between novel and film. In a novel, the author can tell us how a tincey wincey arrow can kill a massive monster, and we don't have conflicting information from our eyes telling us how ridiculous that looks. On film, we have to show, not tell, how the dragon is killed.



Wrong.  Bard can say how it's a magical arrow from the King Under the Mountain and we can have special effects do something with the arrow head that parts Smaug's scales like butter as the arrow enters him. Hell, would could, if you wanted, watch the arrow cut through Smaug and pierce his heart.  Special effects allow for such explanation through visuals.

The audience would have gotten and accepted that very easily.


Paul Farquhar said:


> Books are not films, films are not books, if you slavishly translate from one to the other you end up with something stupid.



Orrrrr, you use a modicum of imagination and just explain it visually and with a few words like above.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Wrong. Bard can say how it's a magical arrow from the King Under the Mountain and we can have special effects do something with the arrow head that parts Smaug's scales like butter as the arrow enters him. Hell, would could, if you wanted, watch the arrow cut through Smaug and pierce his heart. Special effects allow for such explanation through visuals.



How big do you think Smaug's heart is? Here is a replica whale heart:
_




_
You it would look believable if an arrow stopped that?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> A cunning troll is still a troll. I'll respect a 3 star reviews somewhat, but anyone posting a 1 star is just out to lunch.



Really? People have widely differing opinions.  I actually enjoyed Ishtar.  A buddy of mine hated Inglorious Bastards.  Just because you really like a show doesn't mean that someone who hates it and gives it 1 star is a troll.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> How big do you think Smaug's heart is? Here is a replica whale heart:
> 
> _
> 
> ...



An obviously powerful magical arrow that we see disintegrating that heart via special effects?  Just fine.  Or if it's off screen, we don't think about size because of suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Really? People have widely differing opinions.  I actually enjoyed Ishtar.  A buddy of mine hated Inglorious Bastards.  Just because you really like a show doesn't mean that someone who hates it and gives it 1 star is a troll.



Sure, people have differing opinions, but one of my opinions is that 1 star reviews for this show are merely trolls. I've spent some time here jawing with you about it, and your take I'm gauging at about 3 stars. I can respect that. 1 star is ludicrous. And notably, viewers review numbers match with critic review aggregates when you discount the 1 star trolls: it's a coordinated campaign by trolls to make a 84% Rotten Tomatoes show seem to have a more mixed reception among viewers than it really has received.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Really? People have widely differing opinions.  I actually enjoyed Ishtar.  A buddy of mine hated Inglorious Bastards.  Just because you really like a show doesn't mean that someone who hates it and gives it 1 star is a troll.



I'm not a fan of Inglorious Bastards either and really didn't care for Avengers Endgame.  I also stopped watching HotD after 3 episodes (after being a GoT fanatic).  If I was reviewing any of these on a site, I'd give them 3 stars, because while they don't engage me personally, I can recognize the technical skill and creativity that went in to all of them.  Having watched thousands and thousands of hours of scripted film and tv in my life, I can think of maybe three or four that I would actually give a single star.  When I see a 1 star review of something, I instantly think that it is because the reviewer has an axe to grind or another agenda. 

Now, I could be wrong, and the reviewer could have given it 1 star in good faith, but the only way I'd be able to suss that out would be to look at a few dozen other reviews by that person to get a feel for how they see media in general.  On the other hand, a 2 or 3 star review I might take the time to read the users comments on, to see if there is any illumination. 

But typically, 1 star reviews use a lot of review jargon like 'poor characterization', 'fan-fiction' or 'pacing issues' without any specific examples to back up those claims.  They've heard those words used in negative critiques of other media, and repeat them in the review to justify their low rating.  

One of the things that RoP does very well is clearly communicating the goals of it's main characters, then putting those goals into conflict in scenes.  There is rarely a scene in the show that I don't know what a character wants and what is preventing them from achieving that in the moment.  It's a technical storytelling concept that when used well can make almost any story functional (and something that the three examples I listed above don't do very well, IMO).  Galadriel, for example, is an extremely powerful elf who's tragic flaw drives the narrative through the first season.

Now, there is a valid question as to whether the show is using the cultural familiarity with Tolkien as a short-hand to get around having to build it's own unique character-conflict-resolution narrative (Marvel movies have been especially guilty of this lately).  And there are definitely times that the show expects the viewer to be aware of the LotR films (if not Tolkien's writing), but for the most part, I feel it earns its moments.  That said, I can understand arguments from those who know Tolkien's writings well who would argue that the show is using the Tolkien brand to give the show gravitas it hasn't earned on it's own.  I also understand arguments from those who say that the show does do Tolkien's work justice, and is retelling the story for a new medium and era.  I don't know Tolkien well enough to comment either way, but those types of arguments do illuminate and deepen my understanding of the work itself.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Sure, people have differing opinions, but one of my opinions is that 1 star reviews for this show are merely trolls.



As a blanket statement this is objectively wrong. There are in fact people who just plain dislike the show that much.  Are some of them trolls?  Sure.


Parmandur said:


> And notably, viewers review numbers match with critic review aggregates when you discount the 1 star trolls: it's a coordinated campaign by trolls to make a 84% Rotten Tomatoes show seem to have a more mixed reception among viewers than it really has received.



I haven't paid attention to critics since the 1980's.  They're wrong as often as they are right, or maybe even more often than they are right.  Except for Siskel and Ebert.  Those guys were good(mostly because their taste matched mine.  )  I think using them as a metric for average Joe opinions is a mistake.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> As a blanket statement this is objectively wrong. There are in fact people who just plain dislike the show that much.  Are some of them trolls?  Sure.
> 
> I haven't paid attention to critics since the 1980's.  They're wrong as often as they are right, or maybe even more often than they are right.  Except for Siskel and Ebert.  Those guys were good(mostly because their taste matched mine.  )  I think using them as a metric for average Joe opinions is a mistake.



Critics are just folks, really. The point is, when we discount the trolls, then the viewer reception and the critical reception here actually line up. That's part of how we can see that the 1 star review bombing campaign is an organized troll operation, not an organic wave of dislike rooted in sophisticated criticism. The critics aren't trolls, and some have given bad reviews: but the aggregate consensus is ~4.25 stars, which is fair taking into account legitimate dislike some may have.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

OB1 said:


> I'm not a fan of Inglorious Bastards either and really didn't care for Avengers Endgame.  I also stopped watching HotD after 3 episodes (after being a GoT fanatic).  If I was reviewing any of these on a site, I'd give them 3 stars, because while they don't engage me personally, I can recognize the technical skill and creativity that went in to all of them.  Having watched thousands and thousands of hours of scripted film and tv in my life, I can think of maybe three or four that I would actually give a single star.  When I see a 1 star review of something, I instantly think that it is because the reviewer has an axe to grind or another agenda.



I think it's probably a good thing to keep in mind that many, if not most viewers don't rate shows on technical skill and creativity.  They rate it on how much they like or dislike the show.  So while you may give those things 3 stars because of technical skill and creativity, someone who doesn't rate on those things would rightly give them 1 star, because they hate those shows.


OB1 said:


> Now, I could be wrong, and the reviewer could have given it 1 star in good faith, but the only way I'd be able to suss that out would be to look at a few dozen other reviews by that person to get a feel for how they see media in general.  On the other hand, a 2 or 3 star review I might take the time to read the users comments on, to see if there is any illumination.



If I had to guess, I'd say that 50%-75% of 1 star reviews are just haters, rather than genuine reviews.  That still leaves a lot of genuine 1 star reviewes.


OB1 said:


> But typically, 1 star reviews use a lot of review jargon like 'poor characterization', 'fan-fiction' or 'pacing issues' without any specific examples to back up those claims.  They've heard those words used in negative critiques of other media, and repeat them in the review to justify their low rating.



They don't need to spell it out.  If they felt that way, they felt that way.  If you don't, you don't.


OB1 said:


> One of the things that RoP does very well is clearly communicating the goals of it's main characters, then putting those goals into conflict in scenes.  There is rarely a scene in the show that I don't know what a character wants and what is preventing them from achieving that in the moment.  It's a technical storytelling concept that when used well can make almost any story functional (and something that the three examples I listed above don't do very well, IMO).  Galadriel, for example, is an extremely powerful elf who's tragic flaw drives the narrative through the first season.



This is true.  As a fantasy series it's pretty decent.  @Parmandur said he thought I would give it 3 stars. I'd probably give it 3.5 stars.  Likely I'd give it 4 stars out of 5 if it didn't have ridiculousness like an elf jumping off a boat in the middle of the ocean and then having a shipwrecked group of humans "wander by" within minutes, followed by a sea monster at the same time, followed by a chance meeting with a ship soon after.  Some things just reaaaaaally stretched believability for me.  Those would be fantasy series ratings.

As a Tolkien show I'd give it 1.5-2 stars, because only the Harfoots and dwarves were well done. It really failed me on the Tolkien front.


OB1 said:


> Now, there is a valid question as to whether the show is using the cultural familiarity with Tolkien as a short-hand to get around having to build it's own unique character-conflict-resolution narrative (Marvel movies have been especially guilty of this lately).  And there are definitely times that the show expects the viewer to be aware of the LotR films (if not Tolkien's writing), but for the most part, I feel it earns its moments.  That said, I can understand arguments from those who know Tolkien's writings well who would argue that the show is using the Tolkien brand to give the show gravitas it hasn't earned on it's own.  I also understand arguments from those who say that the show does do Tolkien's work justice, and is retelling the story for a new medium and era.  I don't know Tolkien well enough to comment either way, but those types of arguments do illuminate and deepen my understanding of the work itself.



That's fair.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I still don't buy it.  He's not just a master smith.  This particular smith was so good that other grand masters look up to him for advice because he was far beyond them.  He would have tried hard, medium, soft, kinda soft but not quite medium...



Oh, I agree, but I was willing to let that one slide, if only to play along. I found the alloy part much, much harder.

That's an interesting aside, IMO. When watching live theatre, part of the experience is to "play along". You imagine a lot of stuff (in particular with sets and scene changes) yourself, and admire how cleverly they make them work in interesting (but not usually "realistic" ways). This same sort of thing exists in our RPGs, when people point out that "realism" is not an important factor to them (though "immersion" usually is).

On the other hand, we're not generally expected to "play along" with movies an TV (or at least not as much - I would argue that people who are willing to do it, usually enjoy some shows more than those who aren't. Maybe that's part of the case here.

I liked the show overall. I was excited to watch each episode as they dropped. It was a visual feast. I liked a lot of the characters. I grew to like others by the end. 

However, I don't think it was very good Tolkien. I don't particularly care, as long as it winds up good fantasy, but I will back any Tolkien fan who wants to complain about it on that level. I thought a few things were very dumb - in particular the idea that Galadriel would try to swim across the ocean; the Calvary charge across a vast land; the thousands-year-old smith not thinking about basic smithing ideas.

That's fine. There's usually a few dumb things in most shows. I can "play along". 

But they deserve to be constructively criticized for it. They could have made the show that much better. They still could. It's only the first season. A lot of shows get better as they go. (And some fall flat on their faces).


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> That's fine. There's usually a few dumb things in most shows. I can "play along".



For me my ability to play along is limited.  If the elven ship had been sunk by the sea monster who left after gorging on elves(except for Galadriel) and a rescue ship had come along, I can "play along" even though the odds of a ship wandering by are slim to none.  It's when a ship wandering by is combined with someone just jumping off a different ship in the middle of the ocean + shipwrecked people on raft just happening to float by + sea monster just happening to wander by that my ability to "play along" plummets.  If the Muppets Treasure Island ship had sailed up I wouldn't have been shocked by that point.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> A cunning troll is still a troll. I'll respect a 3 star reviews somewhat, but anyone posting a 1 star is just out to lunch.




Almost all 1 star reviews for anything are out to lunch. I own a comic & game store, and every 1 star review we've ever gotten are purely mental (some really, really strange) or some friend of a "rival" (we don't really have rivals) thinking that they're doing their buddy a favour by bombing the "competition" (we're not very competitive). They're frankly ALL BS. I'm fine with a 3-star review. 

Frankly, I think that 5-star reviews are strange too, but it's what the 5-star system expects (for some dumb reason).  IMO if the star-system actually worked, 3 would be considered "good". 4 would be "great" and 5 would be "better than I imagined it could be - it surprised and delighted me".

I wouldn't call this show a 5-star show. I can see how it was to you, but it's a solid 3 (pushing up to a 4 by the final episode, to me). With plenty of room for improvement.

Weirdly the trend seems to be for the 5-star system to be more binary to most people. It's either "I liked it - 5 stars!" or "I didn't like it! - 1 star!" (Which defeats the point of the other 3 stars). But it's not like people are very good at understanding their own feelings about something, far or less agreeing on what the system actually means for us.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2022)

Paul Farquhar said:


> How big do you think Smaug's heart is? Here is a replica whale heart:
> 
> _
> 
> ...



How about instead of stopping it, it ignited the blood? Far stranger things have made it to film and been accepted.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> And yet that element worked fine in the Rankong-Bass cartoon. I was too young to _read_ let alone have read the Hobvit, amd I got it.



Yeah, I have to go with this one. Movies and books may not be the same thing, but if Rankin and Bass can make Bard's arrow work as an arrow in a cartoon, so can a movie.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I have to go with this one. Movies and books may not be the same thing, but if Rankin and Bass can make Bard's arrow work as an arrow in a cartoon, so can a movie.



Let's just say that the script wasn't the only thing that they needlessly inflated in "The Hobbit" movies.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 25, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> Let's just say that the script wasn't the only thing that they needlessly inflated in "The Hobbit" movies.



That's what *SHE* said.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2022)

billd91 said:


> That's what *SHE* said.



BA-dum(tsh).


----------



## OB1 (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> This is true.  As a fantasy series it's pretty decent.  @Parmandur said he thought I would give it 3 stars. I'd probably give it 3.5 stars.  Likely I'd give it 4 stars out of 5 if it didn't have ridiculousness like an elf jumping off a boat in the middle of the ocean and then having a shipwrecked group of humans "wander by" within minutes, followed by a sea monster at the same time, followed by a chance meeting with a ship soon after.  Some things just reaaaaaally stretched believability for me.  Those would be fantasy series ratings.



Fair enough.  I'm pretty forgiving of coincidence in the first act of a story, it's what tends to get the narrative started.  And for me, Galadriel jumping off the boat showed in no uncertain terms just how powerful elves are compared to other races in the story (I thought it was kind of bada** myself), and lent another level of potential resentment (besides the long lives) between them and the other races of middle earth (seen again when Elrond tells Durin that he let him win the stone breaking contest).  I can see why the Numenorians are not thrilled about having an elf return to their shores because of what we've seen Galadriel do.

As for the 1 star reviews, the disconnect for me is mixing the language of criticism with how someone feels about a piece of media.  Give it a 1 star 'review' if you hate it and say so, but if you try to prop up your argument via vague critical analysis language, you are just muddying the conversation and trying to 'win' people to your side by trying to sound like an expert.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Fair enough.  I'm pretty forgiving of coincidence in the first act of a story, it's what tends to get the narrative started.  And for me, Galadriel jumping off the boat showed in no uncertain terms just how powerful elves are compared to other races in the story (I thought it was kind of bada** myself), and lent another level of potential resentment (besides the long lives) between them and the other races of middle earth (seen again when Elrond tells Durin that he let him win the stone breaking contest).  I can see why the Numenorians are not thrilled about having an elf return to their shores because of what we've seen Galadriel do.



I didn't care for that part myself, but mostly because I'm very familiar with the books.  Normal men in the 1st age were of a like stature to the great Noldor that came from Aman.  Beren disarmed Curufin(after Curufin attacked him) and took Angrist, the knife that was so sharp and powerful, it could cut through iron as if it were green wood, away from Curufin and spared his life.  Curufin was a son of Feanor and father of Celebrimbor, the guy who is making these here rings of power.

The Numenoreans having the blood of elves and maia in their veins are of a like stature to the men of old and would have been individually very close to Galadriel as warriors and in numbers would have been able to handle her easily.  This is why Sauron surrendered when their army landed and headed his way.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> A cunning troll is still a troll. I'll respect a 3 star reviews somewhat, but anyone posting a 1 star is just out to lunch.



Meaning, their opinion of the show differs greatly from your own.

Oh, and just to be clear: I wouldn't give it 1 stars. I found it entertaining enough, and there's always the "at least its fantasy!" boost, for me to rank it so. Even though I think it widely misses the mark on adapting Tolkien and is poorly constructed, my _overall _ranking would probably be 2 or 2.5 stars. Similar to Wheel of Time.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 25, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Yeah, I have to go with this one. Movies and books may not be the same thing, but if Rankin and Bass can make Bard's arrow work as an arrow in a cartoon, so can a movie.



Smaug in the animated _The Hobbit _was not so ginormously large as in Jackson's. Like many things in _The Hobbit_ film trilogy, I think it suffered from "too much too muchness" and that led to what could be done very well in two movies, expanded into three. And in that mode of thinking, a 60-foot long dragon is good, but a 400-foot long one is better!  The scale of things strains suspension of disbelief too much. Smaug in the films should have been able to easily kill some (if not all) of the dwarves and Bilbo in the scene where they are running to the furnaces.

There are parts of _The Hobbit_ films I like, especially some dialog that I don't believe was in the book (it has been some years since I read it -- I will need to do so again soon). Notably, in the scene after Gandalf leads the dwarves out of Goblintown, Bilbo's speech about home and how he wants to help the dwarves take back their home. It helps justify Bilbo's commitment to the quest in a very hobbit way.


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 25, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Almost all 1 star reviews for anything are out to lunch. I own a comic & game store, and every 1 star review we've ever gotten are purely mental (some really, really strange) or some friend of a "rival" (we don't really have rivals) thinking that they're doing their buddy a favour by bombing the "competition" (we're not very competitive). They're frankly ALL BS. I'm fine with a 3-star review.
> 
> Frankly, I think that 5-star reviews are strange too, but it's what the 5-star system expects (for some dumb reason).  IMO if the star-system actually worked, 3 would be considered "good". 4 would be "great" and 5 would be "better than I imagined it could be - it surprised and delighted me".
> 
> ...



For me I rate 
5-I’m willing to watch this multiple times, tell my friends, possibly be marooned on a desert island with it
4 strong like. Mostly same as above but it’s missing something 
3 liked once. Would prefer not to watch for a while . Enjoyed
2 I’m watching this only because other people like this so I tolerate it
1 will at all costs try and avoid. Willing to do other things instead of this. Same with novels and comics and video games

I have seen movies in all these categories.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The Numenoreans having the blood of elves and maia in their veins are of a like stature to the men of old and would have been individually very close to Galadriel as warriors and in numbers would have been able to handle her easily.  This is why Sauron surrendered when their army landed and headed his way.



 Numenoreans need other humans around to  show both are pretty awesome


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2022)

Maybe @Maxperson  should see if the Tolkien Estate is hiring since it's clear they have no clue how to handle their IP.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 25, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> D&D translated the arrow as a magical bane ie Dragon slaying concept ... ie one might show a close up of the heirloom ancient arrow burrowing actively into the beast while throbbing with magic perhaps (I think that buffs and visualizes it in a way more consistent with the books that mentioned the dwarves using magic when setting up camp and which has been ignored in screen adaptions) .... The transfer of the knowledge of the vulnerable spot via talking thrush was also supposed to be significant (a sense that superb skill was involved too)




I never had a problem with Achilles being insta-killed by an arrow to the foot. As you say, once magic is involved...


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 25, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I never had a problem with Achilles being insta-killed by an arrow to the foot. As you say, once magic is involved...



Nor I.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Sure, people have differing opinions, but one of my opinions is that 1 star reviews for this show are merely trolls. I've spent some time here jawing with you about it, and your take I'm gauging at about 3 stars. I can respect that. 1 star is ludicrous. And notably, viewers review numbers match with critic review aggregates when you discount the 1 star trolls: it's a coordinated campaign by trolls to make a 84% Rotten Tomatoes show seem to have a more mixed reception among viewers than it really has received.




Average press critics in France (courtesy of allocine) gave the show 3-stars, nothing stellar. Reference daily newspaper Le Monde (=roughly, The Guardian) rated it two stars, finding it having uninteresting characters and barely saved by visual candy. It's difficult to think they are "just a notch above trolling". Le Nouvel Observateur (generally considered politically to the left) described it as "a piece of entertainment without any risk taking, childish manicheism, cardboard writing and characters, where the visual scenes overtake story and actor's play, with a tendancy toward evoking visual style of videogames such as Elden Ring". They add that the show is "fitting for pre-teen". I am not overtranslating, really. There is no mention of unfaithfulness to the original works or problem with the cast's skin color. While I won't dispute that some bad reviews were from trolls because of the polarization of certain people in a certain country around a certain problem, it's unfair to say that all bad, even scalding reviews were from trolls, especially organized trolls. Some just thought it was not worth watching at all for 8 hours. At the end the reviewer advises to spend time watching other shows instead, which is an excellent basis for giving it the lowest rating. Lowest rating doesn't necessarily mean "so bad that you should divorce if you significant other express interest in watching it."


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 25, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> Maybe @Maxperson  should see if the Tolkien Estate is hiring since it's clear they have no clue how to handle their IP.



It is pretty clear.  They've greenlit some really bad stuff, while protecting other things which really don't make sense given what they greenlit.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Meaning, their opinion of the show differs greatly from your own.
> 
> Oh, and just to be clear: I wouldn't give it 1 stars. I found it entertaining enough, and there's always the "at least its fantasy!" boost, for me to rank it so. Even though I think it widely misses the mark on adapting Tolkien and is poorly constructed, my _overall _ranking would probably be 2 or 2.5 stars. Similar to Wheel of Time.



In the case of the 1 star reviews for this? Soimply dismissed trolls. An ideological agenda is clearly in play.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Average press critics in France (courtesy of allocine) gave the show 3-stars, nothing stellar. Reference daily newspaper Le Monde (=roughly, The Guardian) rated it two stars, finding it having uninteresting characters and barely saved by visual candy. It's difficult to think they are "just a notch above trolling". Le Nouvel Observateur (generally considered politically to the left) described it as "a piece of entertainment without any risk taking, childish manicheism, cardboard writing and characters, where the visual scenes overtake story and actor's play, with a tendancy toward evoking visual style of videogames such as Elden Ring". They add that the show is "fitting for pre-teen". I am not overtranslating, really. There is no mention of unfaithfulness to the original works or problem with the cast's skin color. While I won't dispute that some bad reviews were from trolls because of the polarization of certain people in a certain country around a certain problem, it's unfair to say that all bad, even scalding reviews were from trolls, especially organized trolls. Some just thought it was not worth watching at all for 8 hours. At the end the reviewer advises to spend time watching other shows instead, which is an excellent basis for giving it the lowest rating. Lowest rating doesn't necessarily mean "so bad that you should divorce if you significant other express interest in watching it."



I'm going off of the aggregator numbers, which seem balanced. With individual critical reviews like those, I view them more as a test of the critic, if theybare someone to pay attention to in the future or not.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I think it's probably a good thing to keep in mind that many, if not most viewers don't rate shows on technical skill and creativity.  They rate it on how much they like or dislike the show.  So while you may give those things 3 stars because of technical skill and creativity, someone who doesn't rate on those things would rightly give them 1 star, because they hate those shows.
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd say that 50%-75% of 1 star reviews are just haters, rather than genuine reviews.  That still leaves a lot of genuine 1 star reviewes.
> 
> ...



Oh, whatever. Its no more unlikely than being eaten up by Old Man Willow and immediately having a forest god show up who can deal with it. Characters running into people who can help them in unlikely places (like Faramir and Frodo) are a common occurrence in Tolkien.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It is pretty clear.  They've greenlit some really bad stuff, while protecting other things which really don't make sense given what they greenlit.



indeed it's clear the hierarchy in knowledge goes: Tolkien himself> Christopher> you>then everyone else.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> Oh, whatever. Its no more unlikely than being eaten up by Old Man Willow and immediately having a forest god show up who can deal with it.



Seriously?  You think that one coincidence(Bombadil showing up at the right moment) is just as unlikely as three coincidences showing up at exactly the right moment?  That Bombadil in his forest that is much smaller than the ocean is just as likely to be in one part of it as three things in just the right spot in the wide ocean?

I think your odds maker loves you when you gamble.


RuinousPowers said:


> Characters running into people who can help them in unlikely places (like Faramir and Frodo) are a common occurrence in Tolkien.



Riiiiight, just like I said that I would be okay with one coincidence happening, but not three of them at once.   You keep giving examples of one coincidence and likening it to three, which is a False Equivalence.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> indeed it's clear the hierarchy in knowledge goes: Tolkien himself> Christopher> you>then everyone else.



If you say so.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If you say so.



Well the way you are acting despite how involved the actual IP holders are, is giving off "I know better than them" vibes. Along with "no true scotsman"


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> Well the way you are acting despite how involved the actual IP holders are, is giving off "I know better than them" vibes. Along with "no true scotsman"



No.  Being able to recognize bad decisions by an IP holder isn't even close to "no true scotsman."  Otherwise all the Star Wars movie decisions would automatically be good ones and nobody would have the right say otherwise.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Seriously?  You think that one coincidence(Bombadil showing up at the right moment) is just as unlikely as three coincidences showing up at exactly the right moment?  That Bombadil in his forest that is much smaller than the ocean is just as likely to be in one part of it as three things in just the right spot in the wide ocean?
> 
> I think your odds maker loves you when you gamble.
> 
> Riiiiight, just like I said that I would be okay with one coincidence happening, but not three of them at once.   You keep giving examples of one coincidence and likening it to three, which is a False Equivalence.



Running into the stone trolls as pure Hobbit fan service. Running into Fangorn- couldn't have been any other ent. Running into Eomer- another ruler who had access to the unique insights the fellowship needed. 

Everytime they needed help, they ran into the lord of whatever land they were in who tripped over themselves to give them all the aid they needed. Name one time they needed help and someone *didn't* just show up to provide it.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> Running into the stone trolls as pure Hobbit fan service. Running into Fangorn- couldn't have been any other ent. Running into Eomer- another ruler who had access to the unique insights the fellowship needed.



So you think more examples of singular coincidences is supposed to convince me that a triple coincidence is just as likely?  What makes you think this is going to be effective?


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So you think more examples of singular coincidences is supposed to convince me that a triple coincidence is just as likely?  What makes you think this is going to be effective?



I'm just pointing out that everytime the fellowship needed something _poof_ an NPC showed up with exactly what they needed. 

I doubt even Tolkien could change your mind on the molehills you've chosen to die on. I'm just saying your incredulity isn't persuasive either. I mean, where is your incredulity when Hobbits from the Shire and the Orcs of Mordor- both pretty insular groups- speak the same language? You pick and choose what you find unbelievable.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> I'm just pointing out that everytime the fellowship needed something _poof_ an NPC showed up with exactly what they needed.



And I said above that single coincidences are fine.  I can suspend disbelief for that.  The three at once in the middle of the ocean went beyond the pale and was ludicrous. It was just plain bad.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Likely I'd give it 4 stars out of 5 if it didn't have ridiculousness like an elf jumping off a boat in the middle of the ocean and then having a shipwrecked group of humans "wander by" within minutes, followed by a sea monster at the same time, followed by a chance meeting with a ship soon after.



If it was coincidence, it would be a stretch. But if it was an evil celestial being's machinations and manipulations to position himself to secretly exploit his nemesis to get what he wants, that I believe. A random sea monster attack? Or was it called by Sauron to crush the ship? And attack again to get rid of the other survivors? Who better to summon such a creature?

It would not surprise me that Sauron had divined some glimpses of the future (through a palantir or some innate ability) and took advantage of that knowledge to put himself and others where he wanted them to be.

While that is a leap not directly supported by what we see in the show, it is not too large a leap to make, IMO.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Rabulias said:


> If it was coincidence, it would be a stretch. But if it was an evil celestial being's machinations and manipulations to position himself to secretly exploit his nemesis to get what he wants, that I believe. A random sea monster attack? Or was it called by Sauron to crush the ship? And attack again to get rid of the other survivors? Who better to summon such a creature?
> 
> It would not surprise me that Sauron had divined some glimpses of the future (through a palantir or some innate ability) and took advantage of that knowledge to put himself and others where he wanted them to be.
> 
> While that is a leap not directly supported by what we see in the show, it is not too large a leap to make, IMO.



So, Season 2 is kicking off with Dauron giving his own Galadriel style history montages monologs. I think that Season 1 gives enough to suggest that it was a definite plan (not shown, but implied: somone convinces Gil-Galad that the Elves are Doomed unless they build a Tower of Babel and start collecting Mithriral ASAP, and by the way Galadriel should be returned to Valinor. Shown: Sauron shows up near Galadriel with a convenient excuse and makes fun of her for being a deserter...like that was the expected result of her being sent), but I think Season 2 will make some subtext into text.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> And I said above that single coincidences are fine.  I can suspend disbelief for that.  The three at once in the middle of the ocean went beyond the pale and was ludicrous. It was just plain bad.



That a shark-like sea monster would return to attack the survivors of a previous attack doesn't sound like a coincidence. It sounds like Quint's Indianapolis account.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In the case of the 1 star reviews for this? Soimply dismissed trolls. An ideological agenda is clearly in play.



You're going over the top about this. It doesn't hurt to consider the possibility that some people just think the show is that bad.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2022)

Well most watchers are over 35 apparently. 









						Gen Z Doesn't Give a Shot About The Rings of Power
					

The audience is getting older.




					startefacts.com


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> You're going over the top about this. It doesn't hurt to consider the possibility that some people just think the show is that bad.



Observation suggests that the 1 star camp is not operating in good faith. Simple as that, I have concluded that they can safely be ignored and dismissed. It may be that they are genuinely angry about the show, but the reasons lie not in quality of the show itself.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> Maybe @Maxperson  should see if the Tolkien Estate is hiring since it's clear they have no clue how to handle their IP.






Maxperson said:


> It is pretty clear.  They've greenlit some really bad stuff, while protecting other things which really don't make sense given what they greenlit.






trappedslider said:


> indeed it's clear the hierarchy in knowledge goes: Tolkien himself> Christopher> you>then everyone else.






trappedslider said:


> Well the way you are acting despite how involved the actual IP holders are, is giving off "I know better than them" vibes. Along with "no true scotsman"



I'm with Maxperson on this: Being the IP holders doesn't mean you are a good caretaker of the actual IP, and even if so, that you have much say once you license it out. And it isn't as if the Tolkien Estate is immune to make a buck: Amazon backed up a truck and dumped a huge load of cash on them. 

Great books and stories have been made into bad adaptations, regardless of what the authors thought. Ursula K Le Guin absolutely hated the atrocious Earthsea series, which makes Rings of Power look like cinematic art in comparison.

There's also probably a reason the Tolkien Estate didn't sell rights to Amazon until after Christopher Tolkien stepped down (it was literally three months later). If he thought Jackson's trilogy was an "action movie for 15-25 year olds," I hate to think how he would have considered Rings of Power.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Almost all 1 star reviews for anything are out to lunch. I own a comic & game store, and every 1 star review we've ever gotten are purely mental (some really, really strange) or some friend of a "rival" (we don't really have rivals) thinking that they're doing their buddy a favour by bombing the "competition" (we're not very competitive). They're frankly ALL BS. I'm fine with a 3-star review.
> 
> Frankly, I think that 5-star reviews are strange too, but it's what the 5-star system expects (for some dumb reason).  IMO if the star-system actually worked, 3 would be considered "good". 4 would be "great" and 5 would be "better than I imagined it could be - it surprised and delighted me".
> 
> ...




 I'm pretty much a 1-10 type review. I don't like rotton tomatoes as it's thumbs up or down so pretty much everything is an up. Hence why a lot of 80-90% thumbs up reviews are really anything over a 51/100.

 RoP I would give 3-3.5 stars for with it's best episodes a 4. 

 Currently rewatching Shadow and Bone and that's better by a bit and most seasons of GoT and HotD basically kill it. Best HotD episode clubs RoP best episode.

  Very few things to me are 1 or  5 stars. Individual episodes maybe otherwise it's things like peak GoT, Sopranos, Breaking Bad and The Wire. For movies Empire Strikes Back. 

 WoT would a a 2/5 maybe 2.5.
 Rats useless garbage critic and audience scores generally (,add them togather divide by two seems better). 

 IMDb had RoP at 6.9/10 that's more or less fair. Individual episodes break 8+. 

 For the amount thrown at it it's disappointing.

 I don't think you can do a faithful Tolkein adaption that would have mass market appeal. The source material is to boring for mass market Jackson's movies about the best you can hope for probably. 

 Dune similar problem but their latest movie rocked.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Observation suggests that the 1 star camp is not operating in good faith. Simple as that, I have concluded that they can safely be ignored and dismissed. It may be that they are genuinely angry about the show, but the reasons lie not in quality of the show itself.




Yeah, I think you're way off base. _My _observations suggests otherwise. But does that mean I'm "not operating in good faith?" Is there no other alternative? Maybe I and others just honestly think the show is of overall poor quality?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yeah, I think you're way off base. _My _observations suggests otherwise. But does that mean I'm "not operating in good faith?" Is there no other alternative? Maybe I and others just honestly think the show is of overall poor quality?



Well, you said yourself you would naive it a one star review, so I won't dismiss your opinion as lightly as the review bombing ravings of the lunatics. But the 1 star reviews are clearly nonsense.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Observation suggests that the 1 star camp is not operating in good faith. Simple as that, I have concluded that they can safely be ignored and dismissed. It may be that they are genuinely angry about the show, but the reasons lie not in quality of the show itself.



There are two problems here.  First is that you are talking in absolutes. All.  Right there your argument fails. It's simply not possible for all the 1 star reviews to be trolls.  Second, your argument that the reasons lie not in the quality of the show fails on its face.  I despise coffee and tea.  They are two of the most foul tasting substances on this planet.  A lot of others love the taste and think that those two things are quality.  Well, not to me.  Am I a troll because I give coffee and tea not even a rating of 1?  No.  Just because you subjectively feel that the show is quality, does not mean that everyone shares your subjective view on the matter.  Nor are they trolls for feeling differently than you do.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There are two problems here.  First is that you are talking in absolutes. All.  Right there your argument fails. It's simply not possible for all the 1 star reviews to be trolls.  Second, your argument that the reasons lie not in the quality of the show fails on its face.  I despise coffee and tea.  They are two of the most foul tasting substances on this planet.  A lot of others love the taste and think that those two things are quality.  Well, not to me.  Am I a troll because I give coffee and tea not even a rating of 1?  No.  Just because you subjectively feel that the show is quality, does not mean that everyone shares your subjective view on the matter.  Nor are they trolls for feeling differently than you do.



Let's be real here: those reviews are part of a coordinated political activist campaign. They have little to do with the show, and the control thst shows this is the critical reception versus the places open to review bombing by the misogynist and racist trolls. And yes, even a troll who apes language to make it sound like they have a "legitimate criticism" to the algorithm still stinks.

The taste of caffine tastes like a toxin, so it takes some work to acquire the taste for maby people, such as myself. I didn't like the taste, but after a few years of powering through for the buzz my brain reprogrammed itself to enjoy the taste. Same with beer, and other bitter flavors.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> There are two problems here.  First is that you are talking in absolutes. All.  Right there your argument fails. It's simply not possible for all the 1 star reviews to be trolls.  Second, your argument that the reasons lie not in the quality of the show fails on its face.  I despise coffee and tea.  They are two of the most foul tasting substances on this planet.  A lot of others love the taste and think that those two things are quality.  Well, not to me.  Am I a troll because I give coffee and tea not even a rating of 1?  No.  Just because you subjectively feel that the show is quality, does not mean that everyone shares your subjective view on the matter.  Nor are they trolls for feeling differently than you do.



Now, now... hating on Coffee and Tea is just a step too far. 

I'm kidding, of course. While I think a sizable portion of 1-star reviews (for anything) are nonsense (in that, I don't believe that a truly objective person would give 1-star to very many things). More accurately, I'd say that 1-star ratings are generally overblown.

That said, there's absolutely things that deserve 1-star, and anyone is free to disagree with me on what those things are.

OTOH, Many mornings I'd give my coffee 5 stars, and I'm stingy with 5 stars.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

I tend to think the "review bombing" phenomena is less about supposed armies of trolls actually review bombing for some sort of malicious ideological agenda (again, towards what end? What ideology?), and more about big corporations blaming fans for shoddy products, and using so-called review bombing as a shield. "Our show is amazing - anyone who dislikes it must be a troll."

So yeah, I tend to be more sympathetic towards disappointed/angry fans, even if I don't feel the same degree of personal betrayal--than I do mega-corporations like Amazon. Especially when I agree with a lot of what the so-called "angry fans" say.

The reviewer I've actually linked to is Erik Kain of Forbes, who hardly qualifies as a troll and isn't all that angry. Yet most of what he has said is echoed in a lot of the one-star reviews, so I'm led to believe that such views of the show are rather common, and the 39% Audience Score on RT is roughly representative of viewers (either plus or minus the actual reception of the total fan-base).


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Let's be real here: those reviews are part of a coordinated political activist campaign. They have little to do with the show, and the control thst shows this is the critical reception versus the places open to review bombing by the misogynist and racist trolls. And yes, even a troll who apes language to make it sound like they have a "legitimate criticism" to the algorithm still stinks.



Oh, brother. This is wild conjecture. What proof do you have of this?

Again, this is a rather easy card that mega-corporations play in an attempt to defend their product. It is a fail-proof way to inoculate yourself against actual criticism. "If you don't like it, you are a troll."

I've said this several times, but you just don't want to hear it: Reasonable people, people who love fantasy and Tolkien, hate this show. Not everyone, but quite a few. To me all you're really saying, and doubling and tripling down on, is if someone feels different about this than you do, they must be crazy or, even worse, some kind of secret troll.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Let's be real here: those reviews are part of a coordinated political activist campaign. They have little to do with the show, and the control thst shows this is the critical reception versus the places open to review bombing by the misogynist and racist trolls. And yes, even a troll who apes language to make it sound like they have a "legitimate criticism" to the algorithm still stinks.
> 
> The taste of caffine tastes like a toxin, so it takes some work to acquire the taste for maby people, such as myself. I didn't like the taste, but after a few years of powering through for the buzz my brain reprogrammed itself to enjoy the taste. Same with beer, and other bitter flavors.




 Are you a psychic god emperor or spoken to everyone giving it a 1 star review? 

 One star these days often means thumbs down.


----------



## DragonBelow (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> 2) The elvish rings looked gaudy in a sort of faux riche/blingish sort of way. I don't know why they didn't just use the same rings from LotR, which were far more classy.



I think you missed the part where the material was very difficult to work with, how it baffled their most expert craftsman, and etc.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> OTOH, Many mornings I'd give my coffee 5 stars, and I'm stingy with 5 stars.



My wife holds the same view. I just get up and go with no need for any coffee, so she's pretty sure I'm an alien.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> My wife holds the same view. I just get up and go with no need for any coffee, so she's pretty sure I'm an alien.



The dirty little secret about coffee is that it creates the need for itself. (And I'm a coffee drinker, though go through periods of switching to chai, but inevitably find my way back to the evil beans).


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

DragonBelow said:


> I think you missed the part where the material was very difficult to work with, how it baffled their most expert craftsman, and etc.



I guess the craftsmen hired by Peter Jackson were less baffled.


----------



## DragonBelow (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I guess the craftsmen hired by Peter Jackson were less baffled.



Yeah, because that one was made by Sauron himself


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

DragonBelow said:


> Yeah, because that one was made by Sauron himself



I was talking about the elvish rings.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I'm with Maxperson on this: Being the IP holders doesn't mean you are a good caretaker of the actual IP, and even if so, that you have much say once you license it out. And it isn't as if the Tolkien Estate is immune to make a buck: Amazon backed up a truck and dumped a huge load of cash on them.
> 
> Great books and stories have been made into bad adaptations, regardless of what the authors thought. Ursula K Le Guin absolutely hated the atrocious Earthsea series, which makes Rings of Power look like cinematic art in comparison.
> 
> There's also probably a reason the Tolkien Estate didn't sell rights to Amazon until after Christopher Tolkien stepped down (it was literally three months later). If he thought Jackson's trilogy was an "action movie for 15-25 year olds," I hate to think how he would have considered Rings of Power.



As Stuart Lee notes in _The Great Tales Never End_, Tolkien had a conflicted view of the BBC, but his first direct involvement was with Terence Tiller who produced a BBC adaptation of _The Lord of the Rings_ in 1955/1956. Tiller and Tolkien worked quite collaboratively on the show's content, with *Tolkien accepting the need to make significant changes and cuts to the narrative (including songs and poems). *Even though Tolkien thought, “Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation. If that is attempted it needs more space, a lot of space”, he did at least recognize “_But I suppose all this is good for sales_” and provided some praise for the treatment.


He later declared in negotiations with Forrest Ackerman on film rights, “Stanley U[nwin]. &: I have agreed on our policy: _Art or Cash_. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.” I will leave readers to decide for themselves whether the sale of the rights in 1969 for £100,000 (£2 million in today’s money), plus 7.5% royalty interests, represents an aversion to adaptations, or to cash.

So Christopher, who many would recognize as an authority on his father’s thoughts, is apparent in his own mind about what he feels about _The Lord of the Rings_ films. But note, he did not not comment on what he thinks Tolkien’s views of the films would have been.

We also have no first-hand evidence that Christopher Tolkien’s resignation as a director of the Tolkien Estate Ltd related to the Amazon deal THE TOLKIEN ESTATE LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK however, there were reports the family was not united around Christopher Tolkien's position

In the famous Letter 131 to Milton Waldman where he talked about his thinking behind his legendarium, Tolkien said, “I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and *yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama*.”

EDIT: It honestly seems like Christopher took the Alan Moore approach toward his father's legendarium.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> As Stuart Lee notes in _The Great Tales Never End_, Tolkien had a conflicted view of the BBC, but his first direct involvement was with Terence Tiller who produced a BBC adaptation of _The Lord of the Rings_ in 1955/1956. Tiller and Tolkien worked quite collaboratively on the show's content, with *Tolkien accepting the need to make significant changes and cuts to the narrative (including songs and poems). *Even though Tolkien thought, “Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation. If that is attempted it needs more space, a lot of space”, he did at least recognize “_But I suppose all this is good for sales_” and provided some praise for the treatment.
> 
> 
> He later declared in negotiations with Forrest Ackerman on film rights, “Stanley U[nwin]. &: I have agreed on our policy: _Art or Cash_. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.” I will leave readers to decide for themselves whether the sale of the rights in 1969 for £100,000 (£2 million in today’s money), plus 7.5% royalty interests, represents an aversion to adaptations, or to cash.
> ...



Not sure what you are getting at here.

Sure, people can legally make stories in Tolkien's world, but just because they can doesn't mean they'll be good, or that they'll capture the "spirit of Tolkien." And in that Letter 131 quote, I'm not sure Tolkien was advocating for people to write books and make movies set in Middle-earth--and certainly not without truly understanding and honoring the source material. But I'd have to re-read the letter to have more of a take on that (maybe tomorrow).

As I've said, I think Peter Jackson did a far better job of evoking the "spirit of Tolkien" than Payne/McKay, and it isn't particularly close. But even so, I don't think JRR would have been all that fond of Jackson's films (and he would have absolutely detested the CGI-ridden Hobbit trilogy). Rings of Power would have been seen as a much further degradation of his work, imo, a pale simulacrum that only shares surface similarities like names and basic concepts, but no sense of the deeper mythos and, dare I say, spiritual elements of Tolkien's work.

But I think this is all part of a larger problem, and one that is illustrated by a general decay in film-making over the last several decades. We've got copies of copies of copies, and resulting in diminishing returns, with fewer and fewer truly potent and vibrant new films being made. Instead we get yet-another Abrams-esque reboot or remake.

p.s. What do you mean by the "Alan Moore approach?"


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> p.s. What do you mean by the "Alan Moore approach?"



Alan Moore is infamous for his opinions on how others had adapted his works to tv and film to the point of quickly disowning them.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 26, 2022)

I am with the ones who say that referring to Tolkiens IP holders for advice on how good and faithful the show is, is not bound to produce any result. Their collective goal is to manage IP, which might include protecting the moral right and prevent the production of things they think would harm the IP and to make the maximum money managing the financial rights over the IP. Both goals are conflicting.

Apparently, there is a Middle Earth monopoly board. Is building three houses in Cirith Ungol faithful to the original work? Does it make sense, lore-wise, to mortgage Minas Tirith in order to buy Rohan Riders and charge outrageously your monopoloy on mounts so you can win Middle Earth once the ring reaches Mt Doom? I'd say no. I might even rate this game "1 star".

Do the Tolkien IP holders have an interest into preserving the work? Certainly, and they might be trying in earnest. Are they the absolute authority over what is faithful and not? Not more than any random person appreciating the original work. Being legally empowered to do something has never made anyone great at doing this thing...


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."


----------



## Galandris (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."




This isn't the feel I get. It's more a thread about which pillar of play is the best, with most people agreeing that other can enjoy/dislike other pillars while stating their opinion.


----------



## Ryujin (Oct 26, 2022)

I think that all of this 5-star, 1-star guff misses one simple thing. Viewership numbers for TRoP seems to have blown the doors off previous records and, from the reports that I've read, there hasn't been a precipitous drop in viewership as the series has progressed. For a corporation that's based on getting eyes on the product, that's a win. To them, the ratings numbers are otherwise meaningless. People have voted with their streaming time.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 26, 2022)

Everyone saying that the LotR films were more true to Tolkien's vision must not remember either the books or the movie. 

The Aragorn who declared himself "Isildur's heir" to Eomer would not even recognize the conflicted movie Aragorn. They are completely different characters. 

The whole fabricated love triangle with Eowyn. Guess Faramir was her rebound?

Don't get me started how Jackson butchered Faramir. 

Guess they had to rename the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. The elves showing up to fight is pretty contrary to everything Tolkien wrote about the elves.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> Everyone saying that the LotR films were more true to Tolkien's vision must not remember either the books or the movie.
> 
> The Aragorn who declared himself "Isildur's heir" to Eomer would not even recognize the conflicted movie Aragorn. They are completely different characters.
> 
> ...



"More true" doesn't mean "very true." And there are all kinds of divergences, but the _spirit _of Jackson's trilogy is more aligned with Tolkien than Payne/McKay. IMO, of course.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."




Is it really, though? That's one reading of it, but tends to cast an overly negative light. Another is that we've seen a wide range of opinions expressed, and there have been no outright insults flung. 

I'd like to think that cultural discourse can re-embrace "civil disagreement," and this thread has done a fairly good job of it.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's actually quite simple: it's a 5 star show, amd it hasn't hit quite right for some people, while there are trolls posting 1 star reviews. Any 1 star review can be immediately dismissed as a troll.



It's a 1-star show, and any 5-star review can be immediately dismissed as a blind fanboy. Or, in the case of critics, a paid shill.

See how infuriating that is?

You love it. You've made that very clear. That's great. Other people don't feel as you do. They are not trolls for that and their opinions are valid. Myself, I can't understand how anyone can listen to the dialogue without wincing, or watch the "elves are coming for our jobs" speech without wanting to bang their head on the wall. At 46 I'm too jaded to get really mad about it, but if you put this show in front of me at 17, you bet it'd get one star from me.



RuinousPowers said:


> The whole fabricated love triangle with Eowyn. Guess Faramir was her rebound?



That was in the book. Aragorn talks about it to Eomer after the Pelennor Fields, and Eowyn brings it up with Faramir in the Houses of Healing.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 26, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> It's a 1-star show, and any 5-star review can be immediately dismissed as a blind fanboy. Or, in the case of critics, a paid shill.
> 
> See how infuriating that is?
> 
> ...




But PJ played up the possibility that Aragorn might fall for her, and the whole Arwen leaving ME, but having visions of her children. Eowyn might have been enamored of Aragorn, but it was never hinted it was returned.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Observation suggests that the 1 star camp is not operating in good faith. Simple as that, I have concluded that they can safely be ignored and dismissed. It may be that they are genuinely angry about the show, but the reasons lie not in quality of the show itself.



Observation does no such thing because it cannot determine that there is a single "1 star camp". I'd agree that there are people simply review bombing it like a Yelp Karen. But they aren't coordinated - they're just dog-piling like the usual reactionary goons they are. But they are almost certainly not everyone giving out 1 star reviews. One might expect, for your typical show, that there will be people with extreme reactions just because of differing tastes. Some of them are bound to show up as well and don't deserve to be painted with the broad brush you're flailing around.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."



This is a pretty large False Equivalence.  An IP of this nature is not even close to the same as playing an RPG.  It's not wrong to adapt an RPG to  your style.  It's a pretty large blunder to "adapt" an IP of this nature to the point of almost completely losing the author's flavor.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I tend to think the "review bombing" phenomena is less about supposed armies of trolls actually review bombing for some sort of malicious ideological agenda (again, towards what end? What ideology?), and more about big corporations blaming fans for shoddy products, and using so-called review bombing as a shield. "Our show is amazing - anyone who dislikes it must be a troll."
> 
> So yeah, I tend to be more sympathetic towards disappointed/angry fans, even if I don't feel the same degree of personal betrayal--than I do mega-corporations like Amazon. Especially when I agree with a lot of what the so-called "angry fans" say.
> 
> The reviewer I've actually linked to is Erik Kain of Forbes, who hardly qualifies as a troll and isn't all that angry. Yet most of what he has said is echoed in a lot of the one-star reviews, so I'm led to believe that such views of the show are rather common, and the 39% Audience Score on RT is roughly representative of viewers (either plus or minus the actual reception of the total fan-base).



Forbes is a click bait farm thst bought the name of an old magazine. Pure trollage.

Now, it is true that big cross lije Amazon and Disney do seem to be weaponizing diversity as a hedge against criticism. However, since this is a 5 star show that is enormously respectful of the source material (speaking as a huge fan thst is deeply knowledgeable about Tolkien), in this case the trollage fully explains the review bombing, which is apparent when you consider the numbers from the verified critics.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 26, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> But PJ played up the possibility that Aragorn might fall for her, and the whole Arwen leaving ME, but having visions of her children. Eowyn might have been enamored of Aragorn, but it was never hinted it was returned.



Fair point. I do think the book hints that Aragorn _might_ have returned Eowyn's affection if not for Arwen; but that's obviously debatable, and the book certainly never gave any suggestion that Arwen was planning to sail west, nor that Aragorn would ever for a moment have considered leaving her for Eowyn.

There's no denying the movie changed the portrayal of most of the major characters. I quite like the movie's take on Aragorn (also Boromir, who I feel got a raw deal in the books), but he's definitely not book Aragorn. Much less fond of movie Gimli and Denethor. As for Faramir, I don't really like either take; the book makes him too perfect and the movie makes him too needy. I applaud the movie's decision to let the Ring get its hooks into him a bit, but not the implementation.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Oh, brother. This is wild conjecture. What proof do you have of this?
> 
> Again, this is a rather easy card that mega-corporations play in an attempt to defend their product. It is a fail-proof way to inoculate yourself against actual criticism. "If you don't like it, you are a troll."
> 
> I've said this several times, but you just don't want to hear it: Reasonable people, people who love fantasy and Tolkien, hate this show. Not everyone, but quite a few. To me all you're really saying, and doubling and tripling down on, is if someone feels different about this than you do, they must be crazy or, even worse, some kind of secret troll.



 No, just the 1 stars. That is clearly a campaign, as can be found on the various clickbait sites that promote this garbage.

Reasonable minds can differ on a lot, but putting a 5 star show down as 1 star means there is something else at work...particularly when the audience numbers look like the critic numbers if you ignore the review bombing campaign.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> My wife holds the same view. I just get up and go with no need for any coffee, so she's pretty sure I'm an alien.



Not an addict, at any rate.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> The Aragorn who declared himself "Isildur's heir" to Eomer would not even recognize the conflicted movie Aragorn. They are completely different characters.



Yes!  One of the huge failures of the movie. We have been saying that the movie did a better job at achieving Tolkien's vision.  Not that the movie was good at it. Yes the movie had several failures.  It also had several successes and kept the flavor of Tolkien much better than the show.  These are not mutually exclusive ideas.


RuinousPowers said:


> The whole fabricated love triangle with Eowyn. Guess Faramir was her rebound?
> 
> Don't get me started how Jackson butchered Faramir.
> 
> Guess they had to rename the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. The elves showing up to fight is pretty contrary to everything Tolkien wrote about the elves.



Did you mean Helm's Deep with that last one?


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> It's a 1-star show, and any 5-star review can be immediately dismissed as a blind fanboy. Or, in the case of critics, a paid shill.
> 
> See how infuriating that is?
> 
> ...



People have legitimate frustrations and concerns, but not 1 star ones. That's just trollage.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Observation does no such thing because it cannot determine that there is a single "1 star camp". I'd agree that there are people simply review bombing it like a Yelp Karen. But they aren't coordinated - they're just dog-piling like the usual reactionary goons they are. But they are almost certainly not everyone giving out 1 star reviews. One might expect, for your typical show, that there will be people with extreme reactions just because of differing tastes. Some of them are bound to show up as well and don't deserve to be painted with the broad brush you're flailing around.



The control here is the critical reaction. Take out the review bomb campaign, and suddenly the critical and audience reaction matches up.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> People have legitimate frustrations and concerns, but not 1 star ones. That's just trollage.



and people can have legitimate likes for the show, but not 5 star ones.  That's just fanboyage.  It works both ways.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> This is a pretty large False Equivalence.  An IP of this nature is not even close to the same as playing an RPG.  It's not wrong to adapt an RPG to  your style.  It's a pretty large blunder to "adapt" an IP of this nature to the point of almost completely losing the author's flavor.



In your opinion.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The control here is the critical reaction. Take out the review bomb campaign, and suddenly the critical and audience reaction matches up.



Ah, the critics' reaction is what we should be looking at? Well, then, at least we can agree that the movies are better than the show.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> and people can have legitimate likes for the show, but not 5 star ones.  That's just fanboyage.  It works both ways.



Not really: there are 5 star critical reviews, but the most negative critical reviews are 2-3 stars and mostly boil down to "I don't get why people like Tolkien or Fantasy at all." And in a case like this, the critics are the control group. Take out the trolls, and the spread of audience reviews looks the same as Metacrtitic or Rotten Tomatoes critics.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 26, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Ah, the critics' reaction is what we should be looking at? Well, then, at least we can agree that the movies are better than the show.



The critics are not review bombing, so it reflects more closely where the reception is at: since, again, if you discount the bombing, then the critical and audience spread matches up. Several critics don't like the show, but they are giving 2-3 star reviews.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> In your opinion.



So if you went to a restaurant to have a hamburger(see a Tolkien Rings of Power show) and they gave you a chicken sandwich(The adapted Tolkien Rings of Power show we got) and told you that it really was hamburger that they adapted, because there's no one true way to make a hamburger, you'd be okay with it?  Because all we got was a show that was Tolkien in name only. Two minor elements correct(harfoot and dwarf) does not a Tolkien flavored show make.


----------



## Rabulias (Oct 26, 2022)

Ryujin said:


> I think that all of this 5-star, 1-star guff misses one simple thing. Viewership numbers for TRoP seems to have blown the doors off previous records and, from the reports that I've read, there hasn't been a precipitous drop in viewership as the series has progressed. For a corporation that's based on getting eyes on the product, that's a win. To them, the ratings numbers are otherwise meaningless. People have voted with their streaming time.



Hate-watching still counts as watching.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 26, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> The dirty little secret about coffee is that it creates the need for itself. (And I'm a coffee drinker, though go through periods of switching to chai, but inevitably find my way back to the evil beans).




This is true. I didn't start drinking coffee at all until I was forty. Eight years in and I love the stuff. I wouldn't say that I _need_ it. If I just got up and went, I'd be fine... but I _love_ it. And most mornings I could use the love.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So if you went to a restaurant to have a hamburger(see a Tolkien Rings of Power show) and they gave you a chicken sandwich(The adapted Tolkien Rings of Power show we got) and told you that it really was hamburger that they adapted, because there's no one true way to make a hamburger, you'd be okay with it?  Because all we got was a show that was Tolkien in name only. Two minor elements correct(harfoot and dwarf) does not a Tolkien flavored show make.



The other tolikenites I interact with have given nothing but praise for how the show has handled the material they have access to. So yes it is your opinion (and those who agree with you) that this is an in-name-only adaption.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> The other *toliken*ites I interact with have given nothing but praise for how the show has handled the material they have access to. So yes it is your opinion (and those who agree with you) that this is an in-name-only adaption.



Well there's your problem! You need to talk to Tolkien fans. 

Much like @Parmandur's inability to accept 1 star reviews, I do not accept that there a fan of tolkien out there that has "nothing but praise" for what the show has done. I can accept that they like it, and even approve of a lot of it, but not that they have absolutely no issues with any of the changes and/or liberties taken.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Well there's your problem! You need to talk to Tolkien fans.
> 
> Much like @Parmandur's inability to accept 1 star reviews, I do not accept that there a fan of tolkien out there that has "nothing but praise" for what the show has done. I can accept that they like it, and even approve of a lot of it, but not that they have absolutely no issues with any of the changes and/or liberties taken.



And there's the  "no true whatever"


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> And there's the  "no true whatever"



That's pretty vague and not a response to what I actually said there. 

That said, there is objectively a Tolkien style  He wrote in a very specific way.  If you do not write in the same way, you are not achieving what it is to write Middle Earth story in the Tolkien style.  When you change both the style AND the facts of elves, humans, Dunedain, Sauron and pretty much everything except for the dwarves and harfoot(and even they have some fact changes), then you are writing a fantasy story, not a Middle Earth story.

There's not one true way to write a Middle Earth story. But there are some wrong ways to write one, and with two minor exceptions this series engaged in those.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Well there's your problem! You need to talk to Tolkien fans.






Maxperson said:


> That's pretty vague and not a response to what I actually said there.



I was responding to the above-quoted comment and the fact that you choose not to believe that some fans actually have no issues.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> And there's the  "no true whatever"




It seems the contrary. Maxperson is saying, as a Tolkien fan, he found the show unfaithful, while he's told that "Tolkien fans love the show". If anything, he's the one being said he isn't a true Tolkien fan, since he doesn't like the way Amazon dealt with it. When he jokingly mentionned that one need to talk to Tolkien fans, he meant "all of them (including me) not only those who agree with you".

I might be wrong, but I don't think Maxperson's point is that no true fan loved the show, but that a true fan (or anyone, for example someone who thinks fantasy is a puerile genre that deserve nothing better than one star, or that any dialogue not written in iambic pentameter isn't worth listening to) can give it one star and not be paid internet troll part of a conspiration against Amazon. Also, I don't think anyone here has any problem with people enjoying or disliking the show.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> I was responding to the above-quoted comment and the fact that you choose not to believe that some fans actually have no issues.



So you were responding to a clear joke and something that very obviously doesn't at all mean that there's one true way by telling me something completely irrelevant to what I said?  You just confirmed my statement of...

"That's pretty vague* and not a response to what I actually said there*."


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

Anyway, some cool info on the pitch meetings and what amazon offered as opposed to netflix 









						‘The Rings of Power’ Showrunners Break Silence on Backlash, Sauron and Season 2
					

Two first-time showrunners who landed TV’s biggest series give THR a behind-the-scenes tour as they navigate challenges even scarier than Mordor — from "patently evil" online trolling to massive industry expectations.




					www.hollywoodreporter.com


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 26, 2022)

Galandris said:


> It seems the contrary. Maxperson is saying, as a Tolkien fan, he found the show unfaithful, while he's told that "Tolkien fans love the show". If anything, he's the one being said he isn't a true Tolkien fan, since he doesn't like the way Amazon dealt with it. When he mentionned that one need to talk to Tolkien fans, he meant "all of them (including me) not only those who agree with you".
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think Maxperson's point is that no true fan loved the show, but that a true fan (or anyone, for example someone who thinks fantasy is a puerile genre that deserve nothing better than one star) can give it one star and not be paid internet troll part of a conspiration against Amazon. Also, I don't think anyone here has any problem with people enjoying or disliking the show.



I very specifically said in the response to @trappedslider that fans could love the show.  I just don't think that a fan of Tolkien's books could have zero issues with the series.  Even if they give it 5 stars, there's bound to be some sort of issue with the changes and liberties taken.  

Something I didn't consider, though, is that there are Tolkien fans who have only seen the movies and this show, and they could watch the show without finding any issues, but that's because they are ignorant of Tolkien's style due to not reading the books.  They'd only have the warped movies and show to go by, so nothing would feel out of place.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 26, 2022)

I also think anyone that interprets "5 stars" as "great show" but not as "the greatest thing achievable, on par with the Sistine Chapel, Mondrian's composition n°10 and the Enneid" can give 5 stars _despite_ noticing or having issues with a few things in a show, if those things don't detract from enjoying and liking the show. The "star system" often doesn't say how one is supposed to grade, so there can be some disconnect. Like, I guess on a 6-scale grading (like the American A to F system) I guess anyone finds natural to have a few student gets As, while on 0-20 scale system, there are some teachers who think it's perfectly normal when the best grade they give is 14, since they assess they would grade themselves at around 16 and they didn't learn anything new from reading the student's essay... with 20 being for "nobel prize level of work". So, sure, if everyone grading doesn't truly use the same scale, it's possible to be surprised by how the show is reviewed (irrespective of SOME action by trolls).


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Forbes is a click bait farm thst bought the name of an old magazine. Pure trollage.
> 
> Now, it is true that big cross lije Amazon and Disney do seem to be weaponizing diversity as a hedge against criticism. However, *since this is a 5 star show that is enormously respectful of the source material* (speaking as a huge fan thst is deeply knowledgeable about Tolkien), in this case the trollage fully explains the review bombing, which is apparent when you consider the numbers from the verified critics.




To quote the Big Lebowski, "That's just like your opinion man." You keep stating, again and again, that this "is" a 5-star show, like it is some ontological fact, when what you're really saying is that you love it, and you can't understand why others don't love it. 

Now I will give you this: Many of those that are giving it 1 star are probably doing so because of anger and disappointment. But again, I don't see a lot of obvious trolling - that is conjecture on your part.

As I said, I would probably give it 2, maybe 2.5 stars. I can see why an un-critical viewer might give it 3, but given the obvious problems with the script, acting, and plotting, I think 4 is a stretch and requires someone to ignore or not care about what makes good film-making, or deep knowledge of Tolkien and his work. 5? Well, I suppose everything is loved by someone.

So I'll go back to my original point to you: The phenomena of the wide divergence of opinions about this show is interesting in itself. Your answer to that is, "The show is amazing, and anyone who doesn't think so is wrong or, worse, a troll." My answer is more like, "There's no accounting for taste, but I'm still baffled by how knowledgeable fans of Tolkien and/or discerning film fans can give it more than 3 stars, but if some love it, more power to them - my view of Tolkien and quality film-making is very, very different."

As for the critics, I'd say that implies a combination of being "ideologically driven" and/or paid by Amazon to write good reviews (which there's been some examples of). The weird thing is that RT doesn't actually show any of the critics reviews, which is fishy in and of itself...


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 26, 2022)

So, with the book( LotR) next to me, and looking at Appendix B The Tale of Years (which is what they can directly use, everything else they can only allude to unless given explicit approval at least that's my understanding of the rights), it's half a page followed by a timeline with no actual details as in "how or why" people did what they did. So, there's wiggle room.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

Speaking more generally....

Culturally speaking, there's always a rush to love (or agree with) the Latest Thing. A lot of this is fueled by PR and advertisement campaigns. Everyone must love the Latest Thing, because...it is the Latest Thing, and is what everyone loves! (Even if it is obvious that a lot of people don't love it).

Big corporations like Amazon want as many people to love their Latest Thing because, well, they've invested a lot of money. So they'll do things like hold back or censor negative reviews, and pay people to write positive reviews. Or worse yet, they'll magnify the number of actual bigoted trolls--who are actually rather few in number--and accuse anyone of disliking the show, doing so out of bigotry (even if their complaints have nothing to do with bigotry), trying to inoculate them from actual legit criticism, and thereby giving the bird to the actual large number of fans who are disappointed, furthering division. Meaning, it is a smear job done by a big corporation of the people that they should be trying to woo.

We've seen this before, though I won't name names. But many of the films that have a huge discrepancy between critics and audience reviews follow a similar pattern.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> So, with the book( LotR) next to me, and looking at Appendix B The Tale of Years (which is what they can directly use, everything else they can only allude to unless given explicit approval at least that's my understanding of the rights), it's half a page followed by a timeline with no actual details as in "how or why" people did what they did. So, there's wiggle room.



Of course there is. I don't think anyone is saying that the show-runners can't craft their own story. I've even seen some say that the show is at its strongest when it is dealing with characters they've created.

I think the complaint is _how _they wiggle, not that they wiggle.


----------



## ART! (Oct 26, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> Anyway, some cool info on the pitch meetings and what amazon offered as opposed to netflix
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HBO's 3rd Age proposal sounds interesting. It sounds like it would have in part been a new version of LOTR, but serialized over X seasons. As intriguing as that sounds to me, it feels too soon to recast those roles, because of how popular the movies are.


----------



## RuinousPowers (Oct 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I very specifically said in the response to @trappedslider that fans could love the show.  I just don't think that a fan of Tolkien's books could have zero issues with the series.  Even if they give it 5 stars, there's bound to be some sort of issue with the changes and liberties taken.
> 
> Something I didn't consider, though, is that there are Tolkien fans who have only seen the movies and this show, and they could watch the show without finding any issues, but that's because they are ignorant of Tolkien's style due to not reading the books.  They'd only have the warped movies and show to go by, so nothing would feel out of place.



It's only your opinion that it is impossible for a Tolkien fan to love the show without having "issues". I am a fan of Tolkien (read LotR every year at Christmas for the past 30 years) and I don't have issues with the show. I reject your "no true Scotsman" argument.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 27, 2022)

RuinousPowers said:


> It's only your opinion that it is impossible for a Tolkien fan to love the show without having "issues". I am a fan of Tolkien (read LotR every year at Christmas for the past 30 years) and I don't have issues with the show. I reject your "no true Scotsman" argument.



I reject your "no true Scotsman" "no true Scotsman" argument.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So if you went to a restaurant to have a hamburger(see a Tolkien Rings of Power show) and they gave you a chicken sandwich(The adapted Tolkien Rings of Power show we got) and told you that it really was hamburger that they adapted, because there's no one true way to make a hamburger, you'd be okay with it?  Because all we got was a show that was Tolkien in name only. Two minor elements correct(harfoot and dwarf) does not a Tolkien flavored show make.



I would adapt the analogy to going to a restaurant to order a hamburger, and the restaurant pits out a solid burger, but some people raise objections to the shape the Pickles ate cut in (which absolutely can impact their experience, even if the nutritional value is not impacted). Meanwhile others loudly declare that the hamburger on their plate is an eggplant and are demanding that the chef be fired.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Well there's your problem! You need to talk to Tolkien fans.
> 
> Much like @Parmandur's inability to accept 1 star reviews, I do not accept that there a fan of tolkien out there that has "nothing but praise" for what the show has done. I can accept that they like it, and even approve of a lot of it, but not that they have absolutely no issues with any of the changes and/or liberties taken.



I am a Tolkien fan, a big time and widely read one at that: I do not object to anything the writers have done for the sake of their own story.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I very specifically said in the response to @trappedslider that fans could love the show.  I just don't think that a fan of Tolkien's books could have zero issues with the series.  Even if they give it 5 stars, there's bound to be some sort of issue with the changes and liberties taken.
> 
> Something I didn't consider, though, is that there are Tolkien fans who have only seen the movies and this show, and they could watch the show without finding any issues, but that's because they are ignorant of Tolkien's style due to not reading the books.  They'd only have the warped movies and show to go by, so nothing would feel out of place.



Or fans who note the changes, but consider them in the context of this shows independent storytelling.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

ART! said:


> HBO's 3rd Age proposal sounds interesting. It sounds like it would have in part been a new version of LOTR, but serialized over X seasons. As intriguing as that sounds to me, it feels too soon to recast those roles, because of how popular the movies are.



It will happen eventually, and Tings of Power actually makes me confidence a show could well improve on Jackson's take.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> To quote the Big Lebowski, "That's just like your opinion man." You keep stating, again and again, that this "is" a 5-star show, like it is some ontological fact, when what you're really saying is that you love it, and you can't understand why others don't love it.
> 
> Now I will give you this: Many of those that are giving it 1 star are probably doing so because of anger and disappointment. But again, I don't see a lot of obvious trolling - that is conjecture on your part.
> 
> ...



I can well understand why someone might not love it, or even be frustrated by it. But a 1 star review is obviously driven by an agenda, not a good faith engagement with this art.

Someone can walk through the Louvre and sniff st the Mona Lisa, saying any child could do better. Doesn't mean that one can't be skeptical of that sort of hot take. And that's not saying that everyone has yo love the Mona Lisa, or any other work of art! But not all opinions are proffered in good faith.

From a film studies perspective, everything on screen is top notch. From a literary critical perspective (my field!), the writers achieve all of their goals and hit their thematic and emotional notes with style. From a Tolkien lore perspective, they either get things right or make intelligent changes that fit their own story respectfully.

Now, someone might not like all of that: quidcumque. But putting it in the same bucket as Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate and saying the showrunners don't know their craft or Tolkien? Questionable.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 27, 2022)

The thing is, there really _is_ all kinds.

There's 1-star reviews made by bigots, bots, haters, and trolls.

There's 1-star reviews made by Tolkien fans who will accept nothing less that word-for-word perfect translations of the "sacred" texts.

There's 1-star reviews made by Tolkien fans, who legitimately just didn't think the show was very good.

There's 1-star reviews by people who give 1-star reviews to anything they "don't like" no matter how mild their dislike is.

There's 5-star reviews by people who were blown away by how "amazing" the show was.

There's 5-star reviews by people who want to stick it to the haters.

There's 5-star reviews by people who give 5 stars to anything they like, no matter how mild they like it.

There's everyone in the middle who give it 2 to 4 stars. (IMO the more sensible people, not to knock any of you who give it 1 or 5 stars, for your own reasons).

The world's a complicated place. Blanket statements don't usually work very well.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 27, 2022)

@Parmandur, I think we've gone around in circles enough to know that we just massively disagree and aren't going to convince the other. You think it is high art, I think it is poor film-making. Etc, etc. I can only return to where I started: There's no accounting for taste."


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I am a Tolkien fan, a big time and widely read one at that: I do not object to anything the writers have done for the sake of their own story.



So you're okay with sociopathic harfoots? And with Galadriel, one of the wisest elves in existence since before the Noldor left Aman, putting the freedom and survival of all of Middle Earth(including the elves) in danger because of her ego?  With her single minded purpose of destroying Sauron just being dropped to the wayside once she finds him?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It will happen eventually, and Tings of Power actually makes me confidence a show could well improve on Jackson's take.



It has to reach Jackson's take first, and it's a looooooooong way away.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> @Parmandur, I think we've gone around in circles enough to know that we just massively disagree and aren't going to convince the other. You think it is high art, I think it is poor film-making. Etc, etc. I can only return to where I started: There's no accounting for taste."



Well, there can be an accounting, with enough work put into it.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So you're okay with sociopathic harfoots? And with Galadriel, one of the wisest elves in existence since before the Noldor left Aman, putting the freedom and survival of all of Middle Earth(including the elves) in danger because of her ego?  With her single minded purpose of destroying Sauron just being dropped to the wayside once she finds him?



The Harfoots are not sociopaths, they have a healthy relationship to death, I'm a Tolkienian sense. They are accepting of Iluvatar's Gift in precisely the opposite way of the clinging to life that will cause the downfall of Numenor. It's part of the chiasmus the writers are teeing up for the series.

The way you describe Galadriel in this post is precisely on-brand for the Noldor. At the end of this season, Galadriel goes for making the Three Rings as a way to fight Sauron, which is a mistake mirroring the tragic mistake at the beginning of the Season when the Noldor do a series of very wrong things to fight Morgoth: chiasmus, wirh the Eldar fallinf into the magic ring scheme the same way they fell into the war with Melkor in Berialand. She is not Tolkien's Galadriel, she is this show's Galadriel, but that's OK: and actually if you go and look at the writer's own breakdown, they have surprisingly good Chapter & Verse textual arguments for why they made Galadriel specifically this way grounded in the text of LotR itself.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 27, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> It has to reach Jackson's take first, and it's a looooooooong way away.



Again, this show gets Tolkien right in a way Jackson just doesn't, such as pacing and vibe.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The Harfoots are not sociopaths, they have a healthy relationship to death, I'm a Tolkienian sense. They are accepting of Iluvatar's Gift in precisely the opposite way of the clinging to life that will cause the downfall of Numenor. It's part of the chiasmus the writers are teeing up for the series.
> 
> The way you describe Galadriel in this post is precisely on-brand for the Noldor. At the end of this season, Galadriel goes for making the Three Rings as a way to fight Sauron, which is a mistake mirroring the tragic mistake at the beginning of the Season when the Noldor do a series of very wrong things to fight Morgoth: chiasmus, wirh the Eldar fallinf into the magic ring scheme the same way they fell into the war with Melkor in Berialand. She is not Tolkien's Galadriel, she is this show's Galadriel, but that's OK: and actually if you go and look at the writer's own breakdown, they have surprisingly good Chapter & Verse textual arguments for why they made Galadriel specifically this way grounded in the text of LotR itself.




 Star Wars problem having to look beyond what's presented. 

 Shouldn't need explainations from writers breakdowns.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The Harfoots are not sociopaths, they have a healthy relationship to death, I'm a Tolkienian sense.



So healthy a relationship that when the daughter of a family messes up, they are all condemned to death and forced to lag behind.  And when the sociopaths realize that they aren't dying, the contemplate going back and breaking their wheels to ensure death.


Parmandur said:


> They are accepting of Iluvatar's Gift in precisely the opposite way of the clinging to life that will cause the downfall of Numenor. It's part of the chiasmus the writers are teeing up for the series.



Yes. Serial killers accept Eru's Gift in the same way!


Parmandur said:


> The way you describe Galadriel in this post is precisely on-brand for the Noldor.



Not for the wise ones.  For the unwise like Feanor and company, sure.  She's also not exactly Noldor.  Being Half-Vanyar(the highest and most noble elven subrace) she didn't have a lot of the weaknesses of the others.


Parmandur said:


> At the end of this season, Galadriel goes for making the Three Rings as a way to fight Sauron, which is a mistake mirroring the tragic mistake at the beginning of the Season when the Noldor do a series of very wrong things to fight Morgoth: chiasmus, wirh the Eldar fallinf into the magic ring scheme the same way they fell into the war with Melkor in Berialand. She is not Tolkien's Galadriel, she is this show's Galadriel, but that's OK: and actually if you go and look at the writer's own breakdown, they have surprisingly good Chapter & Verse textual arguments for why they made Galadriel specifically this way grounded in the text of LotR itself.



Tolkien's Galadriel wouldn't have hesitated to reveal Morgoth to the others.  But then this show isn't Tolkien, so this is par for the course.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I can well understand why someone might not love it, or even be frustrated by it. But a 1 star review is obviously driven by an agenda, not a good faith engagement with this art.
> 
> Someone can walk through the Louvre and sniff st the Mona Lisa, saying any child could do better. Doesn't mean that one can't be skeptical of that sort of hot take. And that's not saying that everyone has yo love the Mona Lisa, or any other work of art! But not all opinions are proffered in good faith.




A few years ago, I was visiting a picture museum during a "free night" event that draw people who aren't usually into art museum. I ended up overhearing a couple who were standing in front of impressionnist paintings (I don't remember which one exactly, but it was world-class) and the guy said to his wife something like "the works in this room are all naughty word, the one in the other were much clearer and better executed". The other room had 19th century realist paintings... I am pretty sure he'd rate Monet or Whistler 1-star in good faith. He wasn't trying to irritate his partner (or playing a complex joke on me overhearing...) he was just... stating that impressionism is naughty word in his opinion because it's not, well, using precise lines with a brush. So this painting 





is a good painting while this one 


is very bad. You or me can consider this is a peculiar view of paintings but it doesn't mean his opinion is a troll and should be discarded. Uninformed, maybe, but trolling assuredly not. Not all who criticize harshly are trolls.

I think you're ascribing your "rating scale" to deduce the intent of the other raters, who can be in good faith when they see a 5-grade scale and deduce : 1-star : "I don't like" 2-stars to 4-stars : "not used" 5-stars: "I like". Not every extreme opinion is necessarily designed to inflame other people.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Well, there can be an accounting, with enough work put into it.



You just can't stop yourself can you? But sure. Those with good, sophisticated taste agree with me, and those with bad taste, disagree.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 27, 2022)

Evidently the Noldor acted like petulant adolescents in CW teen dramas.

Anyhow, I'd love to see someone do a mash-up of Morfydd Clark's Galadriel in Riverdale.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The way you describe Galadriel in this post is precisely on-brand for the Noldor.



I'd disagree with that. That sort of vengeful monomania is on brand for Fëanor and his sons. It's not so on brand for the rest of the Noldor who followed Fingolfin, bound by kinship to his older half-brother.
Ambition to rule their own places - sure. That fits with the Noldor who stayed behind on Middle Earth when most of their host went into the West at the end of the First Age.

One other thing that's on brand is the crafting of stuff... that may lead to things not working out as intended - like the Rings of Power. But even   that is largely confined to Fëanorians - like his grandson Celebrimbor. The other Noldor leaders, Gil-galad, Elrond, and Galadriel, all turned Annatar away out of distrust. So there's this reputation for Noldor that mainly just applies to Fëanorians while Galadriel otherwise stands quite apart from in the rest of the First Age information.

So, yeah, there's quite a bit of room to disagree with your personal take on it and consider that dragging down the overall quality of the series.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 27, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The way you describe Galadriel in this post is precisely on-brand for the Noldor. At the end of this season, Galadriel goes for making the Three Rings as a way to fight Sauron, which is a mistake mirroring the tragic mistake at the beginning of the Season when the Noldor do a series of very wrong things to fight Morgoth: chiasmus




I think you're reading an awful lot into something which isn't apparent. I see no chiasmal (chiasmic/chiasmatic [or chiastic!]) structure to the way the narrative has been contrived. Nor do I see any parallels between the Flight of the Noldor and their war with Morgoth, and the forging of the Three Elven Rings (are they now a weapon to use against Sauron, or designed to preserve the works of the Elves?) 

I also find the - rather simplistic - notion that "three are balanced" to be tedious. The Rings themselves echo the Silmarils, with their magisteria corresponding to the final resting places of the jewels, although I find the idea of _chiasm_ to be inappropriate. The three main Elven protagonists of the Second Age, Celebrimbor, Gil-galad, and Galadriel, are scions of the Houses of Feanor, Fingolfin and Finarfin respectively - the three sons of Finwe, the first High King. There is a wealth of rich symbology to these connections which could be explored - if one were to engage with these literary (really, pseudo-aetiological) symmetries as they were intended.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 27, 2022)

ART! said:


> HBO's 3rd Age proposal sounds interesting. It sounds like it would have in part been a new version of LOTR, but serialized over X seasons. As intriguing as that sounds to me, it feels too soon to recast those roles, because of how popular the movies are.



I'd be really interested to see a TV show version of the Lord of the Rings that delved into the offscreen stuff from the books, and the bits that were cut from the movie for time: Gandalf and Aragorn's hunt for Gollum, the wars in Lothlorien and Erebor, Saruman and Wormtongue's manipulations in Rohan, and Gandalf's plan to make Sauron think Aragorn was wielding the Ring against him. And, of course, the Scouring of the Shire.

(Bombadil? That's a tough one. The Bombadil episode just feels like such a random inclusion... but maybe even he could be worked in. He's not totally disconnected from the rest of the story--he's in regular touch with Farmer Maggot, who deserves more screen time anyway.)

But, I agree, it's not time for that yet. Maybe in another ten years or so.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 28, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> You just can't stop yourself can you? But sure. Those with good, sophisticated taste agree with me, and those with bad taste, disagree.



I mean, this is a thread to discuss the Rings of Power. I fully accept that you do not perceive the artistic merit in the show, but that doesn't mean that it is not present.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 28, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I think you're reading an awful lot into something which isn't apparent. I see no chiasmal (chiasmic/chiasmatic [or chiastic!]) structure to the way the narrative has been contrived.



Chiastic would be correct, I do believe. Chiasm is all over the show, both within this Deason and between this show and LotR/The Hobbit and with the Silmirillion (circumspectly, since they can't explicitly use the text), and many elements are clearly setting up parallels to come.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 28, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, this is a thread to discuss the Rings of Power. I fully accept that you do not perceive the artistic merit in the show, but that doesn't mean that it is not present.



Yes, of course. And the contrary is also true: just because you perceive the show to have artistic merit, doesn't mean it _is _present in some kind of objective, intrinsic way.

Which is why I think the most peaceful compromise--at least for us--is accepting that different people have different tastes. To one person, a banana nailed to a wall is a gimmick, while to another it is a powerful artistic statement. Art is funny like that. At the very least, much (if not all) of what we call "art" or "artistic" is in the eye and mind of the beholder. 

What is strange, presumably for both of us, is that we seemingly have very different criteria as to what constitutes "artistic merit," as if we come from entirely different schools of literary and cinematic aesthetics. I wonder if we'd find other areas in which we're so polarized - be they films, shows, books, etc, or if this is an anomaly.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 28, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> I'd be really interested to see a TV show version of the Lord of the Rings that delved into the offscreen stuff from the books, and the bits that were cut from the movie for time: Gandalf and Aragorn's hunt for Gollum, the wars in Lothlorien and Erebor, Saruman and Wormtongue's manipulations in Rohan, and Gandalf's plan to make Sauron think Aragorn was wielding the Ring against him. And, of course, the Scouring of the Shire.



I'd be interested in that _in theory. _But it really depends upon _how _it was done, and _who _was doing it. Book-to-film adaptations run the gamut from really good (GoT) to pretty good (LotR) to fairly awful (RoP)...all imo, of course.

But yeah, imagine Lord of the Rings spread out over six seasons, one for each book:

Season 1: The Ring Sets Out - from Hobbiton to Rivendell.
Season 2: The Ring Goes South - from Rivendell to Amon Hen, and the breaking of the Fellowship.
Season 3: The Treason of Isengard - Saruman, Rohan, and Helm's Deep.
Season 4: The Ring Goes East - Frodo and Sam heading towards Mordor, Ithilen, Shelob.
Season 5: The War of the Ring - Gondor, Paths of the Dead, Battle of the Morannon.
Season 6: The End of the Third Age - Mordor, crowning of Aragorn, Scouring of the Shire, Grey Havens.

I think seasons (and books) 3 and 4 would have to be done mixed together and chronologically like the films, otherwise you might not see certain characters for an entire season. I'm also somewhat dubious about the idea of including the Scouring of the Shire, as it could be rather anticlimatic in a "dead cat bounce" sort of way, yet on the other hand gives the hobbits a nice victory to end on.

But you'd essentially be turning 11-12 hours of film (the extended versions) into 50-60 hours, depending on whether each season is 8 or 10 episodes.

Alternately, you could add a season and make it seven, with the first being precursors - stuff that was included in Jackson's Hobbit films, Dol Guldur, and maybe a young Aragorn. So extending the total run-time to up to 70 hours.

Another option would be to use a good portion of those 50-70 hours on creating new stories and characters in different parts of the world - perhaps a failed Harad revolt, orcs invading Lake-town and the Lonely Mountain (get more dwarves in there), Rhun and the east (and the Blue Wizards), etc. Meaning, it is implied that the conflict with Sauron went beyond the events of LotR--that what was depicted was the central focus, but Sauron's influence was much more widespread, so it could be interesting to see "everything else."



Dausuul said:


> (Bombadil? That's a tough one. The Bombadil episode just feels like such a random inclusion... but maybe even he could be worked in. He's not totally disconnected from the rest of the story--he's in regular touch with Farmer Maggot, who deserves more screen time anyway.)
> 
> But, I agree, it's not time for that yet. Maybe in another ten years or so.



I always thought Robin Williams would have made a good Tom Bombadil. But his exclusion from the Jackson films didn't bother me; it felt like a quintessential Tolkienism that would have been very hard to portray on film. The point, I think, of Bombadil is to be a mystery and anomaly, who in a way gives a completely outsider, even quasi-Taoist, perspective on the who drama. That isn't impossible to portray on film, but it would be hard to get just right.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 28, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Chiastic would be correct, I do believe. Chiasm is all over the show, both within this Deason and between this show and LotR/The Hobbit and with the Silmirillion (circumspectly, since they can't explicitly use the text), and many elements are clearly setting up parallels to come.



Chiasmal, chiasmic and chiasmatic are all valid variants; chiastic now tends most to apply to the literary construction of religious texts - hence I added the (!). The Gospel of Mark and the Quran both have many examples.

Chiasm is not simple parallelism or echoing; it follows an inverse-parallel pattern. Its construal in texts is notoriously subject to apophenia; I could apply a chiastic lens to the _Silmarillion_, for example:

Morgoth steals the Silmarils
A doom is pronounced​The Noldor pursue Morgoth to his hidden fastness​The Noldor make war on Morgoth​There is a great defeat at the _Nirnaeth Arnoediad_​Morgoth makes war upon the Noldor​Morgoth pursues the Noldor to their hidden fastnesses​A doom is revoked​The Silmarils are taken from Morgoth

But it wouldn't necessarily represent an intentional structural conceit on the part of the author.


----------



## ART! (Oct 28, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> To one person, a banana nailed to a wall is a gimmick, while to another it is a powerful artistic statement. Art is funny like that. At the very least, much (if not all) of what we call "art" or "artistic" is in the eye and mind of the beholder.
> 
> What is strange, presumably for both of us, is that we seemingly have very different criteria as to what constitutes "artistic merit," as if we come from entirely different schools of literary and cinematic aesthetics.



I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but having studied art and art criticism, I'll add that proper art criticism (if I've said this already in this thread, pardon me) requires knowledge of art history (particularly of the medium in question), techniques used in that medium, iconography and symbolism, and really should never include "I like" or "I don't like". Some approaches exclude considerations of the creator's intent, and some include that. 

So, I'd argue that a decent level of objectivity _can be_ achieved.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 28, 2022)

Indeed, I'd agree about some objectivity when it comes to art criticism. "Fantasy show reviewing online" might on the other hand be mostly "I like" and very marginally art criticism (and, increasingly, opinion on the actor's or showmaker's personal life).

I'd be very surprised to see a review praising the artistic direction, giving 5 stars, and ends saying "Oh and by the way, don't waste time watching this, this B&W film is the most boring piece of crap you'll ever see despite Godard's mastery of the filmmaking art."


----------



## ART! (Oct 28, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Indeed, I'd agree about some objectivity when it comes to art criticism. "Fantasy show reviewing online" might on the other hand be mostly "I like" and very marginally art criticism (and, increasingly, opinion on the actor's or showmaker's personal life).



You've hit the nail squarely on the head.


Galandris said:


> I'd be very surprised to see a review praising the artistic direction, giving 5 stars, and ends saying "Oh and by the way, don't waste time watching this, this B&W film is the most boring piece of crap you'll ever see despite Godard's mastery of the filmmaking art."



True - although I wonder how much of that is the job of film criticism - how are you going to keep the job if you praise things and then tell people not to go see them? 

I'm sure we've all seen things that we recognize the high quality of but aren't interested in sitting all the way through, or watching again - and stuff we admit is crap but we love anyway.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 28, 2022)

ART! said:


> I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, but having studied art and art criticism, I'll add that proper art criticism (if I've said this already in this thread, pardon me) requires knowledge of art history (particularly of the medium in question), techniques used in that medium, iconography and symbolism, and really should never include "I like" or "I don't like". Some approaches exclude considerations of the creator's intent, and some include that.
> 
> So, I'd argue that a decent level of objectivity _can be_ achieved.



Certainly, and I think having knowledge of a given field tends to lend credence to one's opinion of something within that field. But that only goes so far; and "experts" aren't inherently more right than "non-experts" (not to mention the difference between being an _art critic _and an _artist)._ If I have a Master's degree in American History, it doesn't mean my opinion on a given historical event is inherently more correct than a high school drop-out. They may be self-taught, or maybe they're just more reasonable and/or knowledgeable about the subject. On the other hand, I'm not going to ask someone who hates IPAs about whether an IPA is good or not. And of course the problem with judging one field through the lens of another.

But herein lies the larger problem: Both Parmandur and I (in this context) think we're more objective about the artistic merit of Rings of Power. We can devolve into an endless back and forth pissing contest about who is more objective or qualified, but it won't go anywhere good. And as I said above, ultimately qualifications don't determine truth. Recognizing the subjective element--which I would say is the dominant factor with regards to our opinion on a given piece of art, and is always a factor even if one is trying to be, or thinks they are being, objective--at least allows us to recognize that, well, there's no accounting for taste. And more so, that there's nothing wrong with feeling a certain way about (in this case) Rings of Power - that we don't need to write it off as ignorance or a hidden agenda or even poor taste...at least as far as communication is concerned (we can all _think_ what we want, but some things are best left un-spoken!).

What I keep trying to point out is that it is interesting how wide a range of opinions exist on Rings of Power -- even among those with deep knowledge of Tolkien, and/or film aficionados. Some say it is great, others crap...that is kind of interesting, no? Both Parmandur and I seem to have a good deal of knowledge about Tolkien, but still fundamentally disagree on Rings of Power and whether it captures the "spirit of Tolkien." We also both seem to have a sense of what makes good art (or at least believe we do!), but have very different views on the artistic merits of Rings of Power.

So where does that leave us? I think the best compromise is: "Different strokes for different folks." This is not to say that conversations can't and shouldn't be had on _why _we think the way we think about it, but we all know where the endless back-and-forths go...at best, unsolved disagreement (which is where we're at now), at worst, insults and arguments (which is where none of us want to go).


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 28, 2022)

ART! said:


> I'm sure we've all seen things that we recognize the high quality of but aren't interested in sitting all the way through, or watching again - and stuff we admit is crap but we love anyway.



Yup. I was almost going to mention this. Most of my very favorite films usually aren't on the "greatest films" lists that are usually bandied about - and I recognize that, in terms of what is generally considered good film-making among film-makers and aficionados, aren't necessarily on the same level as _The Godfather _or Godard, etc. And that isn't even touching upon films that are "guilty pleasure favorites."

And furthermore, when it comes to canons and lists of "all-time greatest" films or books or albums, they are still compiled by human beings, people who approach the issue from a certain orientation - be it a school of criticism, or some other paradigm. There is still a set of at least partially arbitrary criteria involved. 

A couple years ago I was doing an in-depth study of fantasy literature, with the goal of creating a kind of "fantasy literary canon." But it is very, very hard to separate out what is "good quality" or holds especial influence on the tradition, and my own personal tastes. Not impossible, but even when one tries to be objective, the subconscious mind has the tendency to sneak in.


----------



## gorice (Oct 28, 2022)

Late to this party, but: I think it is possible that aesthetic facts exist. It's generally a difficult thing to argue, though, especially in support of a particular fact. Fortunately, this show was an exception: the dialogue was so wooden, the drama so forced, and the action so cliched that I didn't even make it through the first episode. _Rings of Power_ is a fantastic argument in favour of objective artistic merit, by way of negative example.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 28, 2022)

It is indeed interesting that the opinions seem to be very polarized... I don't think it is so much the result of the current zeitgeist that tend to make every expression of opinion more extreme (as we can have a peaceful discussion here, even when we disagree) but for other reasons. It could be because some have a quasi-religious reverence for Tolkien but the gap is still wide between people who never read it and are only familiar with the Jackson films. I have no interest in GoT nor HotD, but are reviews from those shows divisive as well?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 29, 2022)

gorice said:


> Late to this party, but: I think it is possible that aesthetic facts exist. It's generally a difficult thing to argue, though, especially in support of a particular fact. Fortunately, this show was an exception: the dialogue was so wooden, the drama so forced, and the action so cliched that I didn't even make it through the first episode. _Rings of Power_ is a fantastic argument in favour of objective artistic merit, by way of negative example.



Well I would tend to agree with this--in that my aesthetic observations are the same as yours, and find it strange that some think the opposite. But some do, so....


Galandris said:


> It is indeed interesting that the opinions seem to be very polarized... I don't think it is so much the result of the current zeitgeist that tend to make every expression of opinion more extreme (as we can have a peaceful discussion here, even when we disagree) but for other reasons. It could be because some have a quasi-religious reverence for Tolkien but the gap is still wide between people who never read it and are only familiar with the Jackson films. I have no interest in GoT nor HotD, but are reviews from those shows divisive as well?



No, not at all, afaict. It is generally agreed that GoT plummeted in quality after season 6 and especially with season 8, though there are variations as to how badly it plummeted. But I haven't heard anyone argue that the last season was handled well, or as good as what came before. And among those that don't like it, it is mainly genre/style, not quality.

Not sure about HotD, though I think the consensus is that it is good but not as good as GoT (which I agree with).


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, of course. And the contrary is also true: just because you perceive the show to have artistic merit, doesn't mean it _is _present in some kind of objective, intrinsic way.



Well, you see, that is a fraught philosophical question. While on a practical level "agree to disagree" is eventually the only terminus here, a solid argument can be made for objective aesthetics (a case I learned from...J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis). Indeed, that is historically the assumed approach to questions of beauty, "it's, like, all subjective, man," is a fairly recent idea, although it was always held that receiving is in the mode of the receiver even if aesthetics are considered objective.

I don't see anyone making a case that "Manoa: Hands of Fate" is well crafter, even weirdos like me who enjoy it.

One potential difference I can imagine is that I actually quite like the Abrams style "Mystery Box" approach to story telling, and indeed I think it is a result.of TV writers who grew up playing and DMing TTRPGs applying the lessons learned into a more formal setting. I like Lost, all of it, especially the ending.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I'd be interested in that _in theory. _But it really depends upon _how _it was done, and _who _was doing it. Book-to-film adaptations run the gamut from really good (GoT) to pretty good (LotR) to fairly awful (RoP)...all imo, of course.
> 
> But yeah, imagine Lord of the Rings spread out over six seasons, one for each book:
> 
> ...



I think 5 seasons would do the trick. Keep the scouring as a big Series finale to show how the Hobbits have changed and grown.

The extra run time would allow time for all the songs from the book, which are literally one of the most important features, and allow the characto get drawn out without being overly broad in depiction.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 29, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Indeed, I'd agree about some objectivity when it comes to art criticism. "Fantasy show reviewing online" might on the other hand be mostly "I like" and very marginally art criticism (and, increasingly, opinion on the actor's or showmaker's personal life).
> 
> I'd be very surprised to see a review praising the artistic direction, giving 5 stars, and ends saying "Oh and by the way, don't waste time watching this, this B&W film is the most boring piece of crap you'll ever see despite Godard's mastery of the filmmaking art."



Right, which is why I am discounting the 1 star reviews, same way that I won't lose sleep over the guy who doesn't like good paintings.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Both Parmandur and I seem to have a good deal of knowledge about Tolkien, but still fundamentally disagree on Rings of Power and whether it captures the "spirit of Tolkien."



For an interesting look at Tolkienian the.es in the show, I would recommend the close reading of Corey Olsen, "The Tolkien Professor", on YouTube:


He ended up being pretty thrown by Halbrand turning out to be Sauron, bit he does a good job laying out the themes of the show, which line up with the themes of Tolkien'swork. And it is those themes that make up the form of the "Spirit of Tolkien" that I find veautiful,  ot details in the chronology or whatnot. Personally, I thought the show was setting him up to be Witch-King of Angmar, but now I think thst will probably be Theo.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 29, 2022)

gorice said:


> Late to this party, but: I think it is possible that aesthetic facts exist. It's generally a difficult thing to argue, though, especially in support of a particular fact. Fortunately, this show was an exception: the dialogue was so wooden, the drama so forced, and the action so cliched that I didn't even make it through the first episode. _Rings of Power_ is a fantastic argument in favour of objective artistic merit, by way of negative example.



You are right that this is a good example.of why it is hard to argue, because...the dialogue is well written? And the dramatic structure is quite sound? Might need to see more than the first episode to get that across, though.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 29, 2022)

Galandris said:


> It is indeed interesting that the opinions seem to be very polarized... I don't think it is so much the result of the current zeitgeist that tend to make every expression of opinion more extreme (as we can have a peaceful discussion here, even when we disagree) but for other reasons. It could be because some have a quasi-religious reverence for Tolkien but the gap is still wide between people who never read it and are only familiar with the Jackson films. I have no interest in GoT nor HotD, but are reviews from those shows divisive as well?




 House if the Dragons n seems to have gone down reasonably well with fans and critics. It's best episode is 9.4 on IMDb, 8.2 overall iirc. 

Not as good as peak GoT, better than it's weaker seasons imho. 

 Phrases like saved the franchise" have been going around.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> You are right that this is a good example.of why it is hard to argue, because...the dialogue is well written? And the dramatic structure is quite sound? Might need to see more than the first episode to get that across, though.




Honestly, the part about the elves stealing jobs in Numenor doesn't sound 5-star dialogue. Numenorean are supposed to become morally corrupt as they divorce themselves from the Faithful, but illustrating it by putting in their words criticisms of mass immigration from the 70's by the far right is silly (as lack of job isn't a characteristics of pre-industralized societies, plus a single Elf over the whole life of Tar-Palantir doesn't really evoke mass immigration), dated in its choice of slur, and out of place in a fantasy show. I found that jarring (I'd have liked it in a Rick & Morty episode, but not in a high fantasy show).


----------



## gorice (Oct 29, 2022)

I think different people can be receptive to different things. For example, I really don't care about the 'spirit of Tolkien', but I do like a lot of Tolkien's aesthetic sensibilities, which are mostly absent from the screen adaptations.

There's probably also a distinction to be made between technique and outcome. You might enjoy watching Galadriel chew the scenery, while I'm sitting there saying 'her obsession with Sauron and the conflict between her and the other elves is completely contrived, and clearly only there to make the plot move'.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 29, 2022)

@gorice curious as to why you feel Galadriel's obsession with Sauron and conflict with the Elves is contrived?  I felt the story did a good job of showing why the death of her brother specifically pushed her towards vengeance against Sauron, and how that obsession led to conflict with her society.  It's not just about fighting a vague 'evil' or 'enemy', she is personally connected to the tragedy of it in a very real way.  You are correct that her obsession moves the plot, as her refusal to leave is the inciting incident that allows Sauron's influence to grow.  She's not doing the right thing, and the elves know it (much like Durin's father knows mining for Mithril is a bad idea, while Durin's drive to do so is driven by his personal friendship with Elrond).  The show cleverly asks us to root for Galadriel and Durin to buck the council of their elders, while making their actions the cause of much strife to come.  The plot then leads into the themes of the show, in trusting in Grace.  

So we end up with Character driving Plot driving Theme, which is the backbone of good storytelling.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Well, you see, that is a fraught philosophical question. While on a practical level "agree to disagree" is eventually the only terminus here, a solid argument can be made for objective aesthetics (a case I learned from...J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis). Indeed, that is historically the assumed approach to questions of beauty, "it's, like, all subjective, man," is a fairly recent idea, although it was always held that receiving is in the mode of the receiver even if aesthetics are considered objective.



Yes, and as I said above, I agree that there is a case for "objective aesthetics," or rather _varying depths of subjectivity..._because subjects, by their very nature, cannot be truly objective, but their subjective view can be more or less sophisticated or developed (e.g. the taste palate of a three year old vs. a chef).


Parmandur said:


> I don't see anyone making a case that "Manoa: Hands of Fate" is well crafter, even weirdos like me who enjoy it.
> 
> One potential difference I can imagine is that I actually quite like the Abrams style "Mystery Box" approach to story telling, and indeed I think it is a result.of TV writers who grew up playing and DMing TTRPGs applying the lessons learned into a more formal setting. I like Lost, all of it, especially the ending.




I like the "mystery box" too...if it is done well. But there's the rub, no?


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 29, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> For an interesting look at Tolkienian the.es in the show, I would recommend the close reading of Corey Olsen, "The Tolkien Professor", on YouTube:
> 
> 
> He ended up being pretty thrown by Halbrand turning out to be Sauron, bit he does a good job laying out the themes of the show, which line up with the themes of Tolkien'swork. And it is those themes that make up the form of the "Spirit of Tolkien" that I find veautiful,  ot details in the chronology or whatnot. Personally, I thought the show was setting him up to be Witch-King of Angmar, but now I think thst will probably be Theo.



I just watched the first half hour of this video, and I admit I'm baffled; it seemed to me that Mr Olsen was making tenuous connections, framing the pedestrian as profound, and treating - what seems to me - a rather crass and mediocre production as though it were high art, replete with nuance and clever, meaningful symbolism.

I just don't see it. I mean, I consider myself relatively cultured, and receptive to well-reasoned and well-articulated commentary and artistic critique; I suppose it's possible I'm missing something. But my instinct is that it was a load of hot air and guff; all waffle, with no substance.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 29, 2022)

In The LotR, it makes sense that Gandalf forgets who he is. His physical body was destroyed along with the physical part of his memory, and it takes some time for that to be recovered. But what's the reason that Gandalf in this story arrives in Middle-earth with no sense of his own identity? He hasn't been killed and is, I suppose, fresh from Valinor. It seems merely that a contrivance was needed to create uncertainty in the viewer. Too much of this show is like that.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 29, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I just watched the first half hour of this video, and I admit I'm baffled; it seemed to me that Mr Olsen was making tenuous connections, framing the pedestrian as profound, and treating - what seems to me - a rather crass and mediocre production as though it were high art, replete with nuance and clever, meaningful symbolism.
> 
> I just don't see it. I mean, I consider myself relatively cultured, and receptive to well-reasoned and well-articulated commentary and artistic critique; I suppose it's possible I'm missing something. But my instinct is that it was a load of hot air and guff; all waffle, with no substance.






Hriston said:


> In The LotR, it makes sense that Gandalf forgets who he is. His physical body was destroyed along with the physical part of his memory, and it takes some time for that to be recovered. But what's the reason that Gandalf in this story arrives in Middle-earth with no sense of his own identity? He hasn't been killed and is, I suppose, fresh from Valinor. It seems merely that a contrivance was needed to create uncertainty in the viewer. Too much of this show is like that.




Yes, to both of these. The kind of "forced profundity and drama" is a major criticism I have with the series. So often the viewer is _told _that this is a profound or dramatic moment,_ you should be feeling something right now_...without much to back it up. Perhaps the most egregious example being Nori's farewell with the Harfoots...it just went on and on, with hug after hug, and I personally just didn't feel it, because none of the characters were ever developed beyond very surface characterization. It is textbook amateurish writing: telling and not showing.

As for Gandalf, I actually don't mind how they handled him. I agree that it was a bit contrived, but it does make some sense that a Maia would incarnate into human form and be somewhat disoriented...maybe not for that long, and of course the "Is he Sauron?" bit was another contrived cheap mystery box that wasn't all that mysterious.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> So often the viewer is _told _that this is a profound or dramatic moment,_ you should be feeling something right now_...without much to back it up. Perhaps the most egregious example being Nori's farewell with the Harfoots...it just went on and on, with hug after hug, and I personally just didn't feel it, because none of the characters were ever developed beyond very surface characterization. It is textbook amateurish writing: telling and not showing.



I'm not sure how you see this as an example of 'showing not telling'.  Throughout the first season, we see Nori struggling with her place in Harfoot society, flirting with striking out on her own but afraid to and being told that to do so would mean her demise.  When she finally musters the courage to do it, she's still scared, still worried that she's making the wrong choice, and knows that in all likelihood she will never see these people she's spent her whole life with again.  That last bit is important, because leaving family can be an incredibly difficult decision, even when everything in your soul wants to do it.  I'd say her just walking off without seeing that emotion play out would have been odd, to say the least.  Telling would have been if she left without showing emotion, then on the road told the Stranger "Man, it sure was hard leaving them, I don't know if I'll ever see them again.  This is the hardest thing I've ever done."

As for mystery boxes, they are typically only an issue when either the writer doesn't have a clear answer to the mystery that informs the rest of the story (See Rey's parents from Force Awakens) or when the answer to the mystery is only satisfying to the audience, and doesn't make any narrative sense in the story itself (See Khan in ST: Into Darkness).  The Sauron and Stranger mysteries in RoP both have clear answers, and more critically, are important to the characters in the story.  Nori had a legitimate reason to be fearful of who the Stranger really was, and had her faith tested when the Warlocks (or whoever the white robed ladies are) tested the Stranger.  That she ultimately had her faith in her own heart rewarded, it's earned because of the mystery.  That Galadriel was deceived by Sauron is important to both her story and the plot in general.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 30, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, to both of these. The kind of "forced profundity and drama" is a major criticism I have with the series. So often the viewer is _told _that this is a profound or dramatic moment,_ you should be feeling something right now_...without much to back it up. Perhaps the most egregious example being Nori's farewell with the Harfoots...it just went on and on, with hug after hug, and I personally just didn't feel it, because none of the characters were ever developed beyond very surface characterization. It is textbook amateurish writing: telling and not showing.
> 
> As for Gandalf, I actually don't mind how they handled him. I agree that it was a bit contrived, but it does make some sense that a Maia would incarnate into human form and be somewhat disoriented...maybe not for that long, and of course the "Is he Sauron?" bit was another contrived cheap mystery box that wasn't all that mysterious.



It would have made more sense if he had been Sauron because, according to Adar, Sauron actually had been killed. Thus the need for reembodiment. Coming directly from Valinor, Gandalf would have been provided by the Valar with a body perfectly suited to the inhabitation of his spirit, in which he could have made the journey to Middle-earth with his memory intact.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 30, 2022)

Hriston said:


> It would have made more sense if he had been Sauron because, according to Adar, Sauron actually had been killed. Thus the need for reembodiment. Coming directly from Valinor, Gandalf would have been provided by the Valar with a body perfectly suited to the inhabitation of his spirit, in which he could have made the journey to Middle-earth with his memory intact.



I don't necessarily object to the arrival of the _Istar_ via meteor, nor to his frailty and amnesia; this is somewhat consistent with the way the wizards are portrayed in the Third Age, where they are Maiar embodied in flesh, diminished, and have a faint memory of Valinor as "distant." 

While we know that Gandalf, Saruman and Radagast arrive via ship in the Third Age, Tolkien's later writings place the two Blue Wizards (who go into the East) in the Second - much can therefore be left implicit or tacit with regard to the Stranger's identity, if the showrunners decide to go that route. My fear, however, is that they will not be able to resist identifying him with Gandalf - as he brings a certain brand recognition. My hope is that they'll avoid this: maybe the writers haven't even decided yet.

More broadly, I think there are many, many egregious contradictions of Tolkien's ideas where I feel that leaning into the lore would have served the writers much better in crafting a story and evoking the mythic feel which characterizes his work.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 30, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I don't necessarily object to the arrival of the _Istar_ via meteor, nor to his frailty and amnesia; this is somewhat consistent with the way the wizards are portrayed in the Third Age, where they are Maiar embodied in flesh, diminished, and have a faint memory of Valinor as "distant."
> 
> While we know that Gandalf, Saruman and Radagast arrive via ship in the Third Age, Tolkien's later writings place the two Blue Wizards (who go into the East) in the Second - much can therefore be left implicit or tacit with regard to the Stranger's identity, if the showrunners decide to go that route. My fear, however, is that they will not be able to resist identifying him with Gandalf - as he brings a certain brand recognition. My hope is that they'll avoid this: maybe the writers haven't even decided yet.
> 
> More broadly, I think there are many, many egregious contradictions of Tolkien's ideas where I feel that leaning into the lore would have served the writers much better in crafting a story and evoking the mythic feel which characterizes his work.



I think the faint memory of Valinor is attributable to having lived in Middle-earth in the same body for two-thousand years at that point.

I think the final episode makes it clear the Stranger is Gandalf when he tells Nori to "always follow your nose", echoing verbatim Gandalf's line to Merry in the LotR.

On the broader issue, I agree. If the source material had been allowed to constrain the writing more, I think the show would have felt more like Tolkien rather than the mixed bag we got.


----------



## gorice (Oct 30, 2022)

OB1 said:


> @gorice curious as to why you feel Galadriel's obsession with Sauron and conflict with the Elves is contrived?  I felt the story did a good job of showing why the death of her brother specifically pushed her towards vengeance against Sauron, and how that obsession led to conflict with her society.  It's not just about fighting a vague 'evil' or 'enemy', she is personally connected to the tragedy of it in a very real way.  You are correct that her obsession moves the plot, as her refusal to leave is the inciting incident that allows Sauron's influence to grow.  She's not doing the right thing, and the elves know it (much like Durin's father knows mining for Mithril is a bad idea, while Durin's drive to do so is driven by his personal friendship with Elrond).  The show cleverly asks us to root for Galadriel and Durin to buck the council of their elders, while making their actions the cause of much strife to come.  The plot then leads into the themes of the show, in trusting in Grace.
> 
> So we end up with Character driving Plot driving Theme, which is the backbone of good storytelling.



I agree that it has the _skeleton_ of good storytelling, but the details aren't there. Galadriel's obsession with Sauron, and everyone else's seeming indifference, just don't feel authentic. One the one hand, why does nobody else take the threat seriously? On the other, why is Galadriel so singularly obsessed? A Cassandra-type character is such a cliche, and rather than really selling us the conflict, the writers have the elves behave like idiots.

It doesn't help that we have to endure the _exact same scenario_ playing out in that human village where everyone is always covered in crap, and with equally flimsy justification. Galadriel and Blue-dress-woman aren't crying wolf: they have evidence, which other people have seen, that something is wrong. The reason they are ignored is to generate false drama.

Then there's the bit where Galadriel apparently decides not to return to Valinor, then goes anyway, then jumps off the ship (!?). It's completely contrived, written only to make dramatic action happen.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 30, 2022)

gorice said:


> Then there's the bit where Galadriel apparently decides not to return to Valinor, then goes anyway, then jumps off the ship (!?). It's completely contrived, written only to make dramatic action happen.



For me that is a way to visualize an internal conflict and its resolution, shrug. If they talked her head game out loud that would be pretty meh... perhaps they could have had her meditating and done some visualizing her conflict in a vision. It is supposed to be a big choice.


----------



## gorice (Oct 30, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> For me that is a way to visualize an internal conflict and its resolution, shrug. If they talked her head game out loud that would be pretty meh... perhaps they could have had her meditating and done some visualizing her conflict in a vision. It is supposed to be a big choice.



I get that, but it seemed like she'd already made up her mind before she left. Then she decides to jump into the ocean (and don't they have boats going the other way in this period?), which is just another way of getting to Valinor, really, except that we know she won't be allowed to die even when she does something suicidal, so then we have to sit through a bunch of scenes containing exactly zero stakes or drama until she eventually gets wherever the writers have decided she needs to be.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

OB1 said:


> @gorice curious as to why you feel Galadriel's obsession with Sauron and conflict with the Elves is contrived?  I felt the story did a good job of showing why the death of her brother specifically pushed her towards vengeance against Sauron, and how that obsession led to conflict with her society.  It's not just about fighting a vague 'evil' or 'enemy', she is personally connected to the tragedy of it in a very real way.  You are correct that her obsession moves the plot, as her refusal to leave is the inciting incident that allows Sauron's influence to grow.  She's not doing the right thing, and the elves know it (much like Durin's father knows mining for Mithril is a bad idea, while Durin's drive to do so is driven by his personal friendship with Elrond).  The show cleverly asks us to root for Galadriel and Durin to buck the council of their elders, while making their actions the cause of much strife to come.  The plot then leads into the themes of the show, in trusting in Grace.
> 
> So we end up with Character driving Plot driving Theme, which is the backbone of good storytelling.



The last episode makes her "obsession" a lie.

Galadriel: "Sauron killed my brother so I'm going to obsessively search for him for centuries and make him pay!!!!!"

Also Galadriel: "What? You're Sauron. Sure, you can stay in Middle Earth and I won't kill you or mobilize the elves to move against you.  Hell, I won't even tell them who you are.  I'll just vaguely imply that you're bad by telling them not to trust you for reasons that I won't state.  Have a great time organizing the downfall of the elves and Middle Earth.  Don't trip on the last step.  It's loose."

That's not the act of 1) one of the wisest elves to ever live, 2) someone obsessed with stopping Sauron, 3) an elf who values her people.  It's 100% NOT Galadriel,  Heck, it's not even consistent with the Galadriel the show gave us for the entire rest of the season.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 30, 2022)

gorice said:


> we have to sit through a bunch of scenes containing exactly zero stakes or drama until she eventually gets wherever the writers have decided she needs to be.



She gets rescued by Sauron, who happens to be floating by on a raft. They are attacked by a sea monster, but survive. Fortunately, Elendil is sailing by and rescues both of them.

Let's just let that sink in again. And it's not a "chance meeting" (as we say in Middle-Earth) or "providence," indicative of some deep understanding of Tolkien's themes. It's transparent, badly-written contrivance.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 30, 2022)

gorice said:


> I agree that it has the _skeleton_ of good storytelling, but the details aren't there. Galadriel's obsession with Sauron, and everyone else's seeming indifference, just don't feel authentic. One the one hand, why does nobody else take the threat seriously? On the other, why is Galadriel so singularly obsessed? A Cassandra-type character is such a cliche, and rather than really selling us the conflict, the writers have the elves behave like idiots.




Or make us think that Galadriel did cry wolf. She might have warned about tens of Saurons during her millinia-long quest to eradicate him and his supporters so she doesn't have any credibility left at this point. It would be coherent with how she's depicted in the show, but would need more development than "everyone else has stopped looking for Sauron" (to the point they'd consider forcing her going to Valinor to heal, out of pity for her being psychologically scarred and unable to function without a therapy). I am not sure it would be a great protagonist for the show when they are trying to have a strong female lead, but if they are going to rewrite the story while keeping the name, they might as well go overboard with it. (self-consistency > consistency with other sources).



gorice said:


> Then there's the bit where Galadriel apparently decides not to return to Valinor, then goes anyway, then jumps off the ship (!?). It's completely contrived, written only to make dramatic action happen.




A tangent (I agree it was badly done but I have a question anyway). How wide was the sea at the time of the Second Age? I might remember badly and Tolkien scholars will be able to help here, but wasn't a city from Valinor (Alqualondë?) seen from a tower in Numenor (not the big peak in the middle, some place West)? That and the ban of the Valar to have ships leave sight of Numenor toward the West so they couldn't see the lights from the Undying Land implies that the two coasts weren't that far. I am not saying it's wise to have Galadriel jump, but if it was only 40 or 50 km wide, it is doable by swim from a low, current-time man, with the world record being just over 100 km, and we can give credit to Galadriel to beat it. On the other hand, the map shown at the beginning of the show is very "Atlantic Ocean looking", distance-wise.




gorice said:


> I get that, but it seemed like she'd already made up her mind before she left. Then she decides to jump into the ocean (and don't they have boats going the other way in this period?),



The period is hard to define,,. but if we accept that everything is condensed toward the end of the SA, then no, there were no ships from Valinor since at least Tar-Palantir's birth and probably a few centuries before that.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 30, 2022)

I liked the show overall (in that I enjoyed watching it). It was a decent piece of fantasy entertainment.

However, the flaws that are pointed out here ARE its flaws. Without them, it would have been a whole lot better. (Of course, you'd have to replace them with something better. I suppose it would have been possible to replace them with something _worse_, or do the parts that were good wrong while doing the other parts right).

At any rate, in the end it was a good show, but not the best Tolkien. Maybe it will get better as they find their feet. A lot of shows do.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 30, 2022)

Galandris said:


> A tangent (I agree it was badly done but I have a question anyway). How wide was the sea at the time of the Second Age? I might remember badly and Tolkien scholars will be able to help here, but wasn't a city from Valinor (Alqualondë?) seen from a tower in Numenor? That and the ban of the Valar to have ships leave sight of Numenor toward the West so they couldn't see the lights from the Undying Land implies that the two coasts weren't that far. I am not saying it's wise to have Galadriel jump, but if it was only 40 or 50 km wide, it is doable by swim from a low, current-time man, with the world record being just over 100 km, and we can give credit to Galadriel to beat it. On the other hand, the map shown at the beginning of the show is very "Atlantic Ocean looking", distance-wise.



Canonically, the world at the time was flat. On a flat world, your vision is limited only by atmospheric haze and your ability to make out detail; no curvature of the earth means no horizon. The earth only became round with the fall of Numenor.

If we set that aside and assume a curved earth of comparable size to our own, and note that the Numenoreans had to be at the peak of the Meneltarma to see Tol Eressea, then we get a distance of 150-200 miles, depending on how high the Meneltarma is--I assume at least 3 miles.

(I don't think Tolkien really thought through the implications of this stuff. Vision goes two ways: If a Numenorean on the Meneltarma can see the harbor of Tol Eressea, then the same Numenorean in the harbor of Tol Eressea can see the Meneltarma. That would put Tol Eressea outside the Ban of the Valar, which is clearly not intended. Edit: Never mind, I should have gone back and checked. The Ban of the Valar forbade them to sail west beyond sight of the _coasts_ of Numenor, which would obviously be at sea level.)


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Or make us think that Galadriel did cry wolf. She might have warned about tens of Saurons during her millinia-long quest to eradicate him and his supporters so she doesn't have any credibility left at this point. It would be coherent with how she's depicted in the show, but would need more development than "everyone else has stopped looking for Sauron" (to the point they'd consider forcing her going to Valinor to heal, out of pity for her being psychologically scarred and unable to function without a therapy). I am not sure it would be a great protagonist for the show when they are trying to have a strong female lead, but if they are going to rewrite the story while keeping the name, they might as well go overboard with it. (self-consistency > consistency with other sources).



The show did not set her up to have cried wolf over Sauron.  She was the only one who thought he was alive, but if she had repeatedly cried wolf, she would not have been left in charge of the armies and would not have been leading that group of elves that rebelled in the first episode.


Galandris said:


> A tangent (I agree it was badly done but I have a question anyway). How wide was the sea at the time of the Second Age? I might remember badly and Tolkien scholars will be able to help here, but wasn't a city from Valinor (Alqualondë?) seen from a tower in Numenor (not the big peak in the middle, some place West)? That and the ban of the Valar to have ships leave sight of Numenor toward the West so they couldn't see the lights from the Undying Land implies that the two coasts weren't that far. I am not saying it's wise to have Galadriel jump, but if it was only 40 or 50 km wide, it is doable by swim from a low, current-time man, with the world record being just over 100 km, and we can give credit to Galadriel to beat it. On the other hand, the map shown at the beginning of the show is very "Atlantic Ocean looking", distance-wise.



The sea was objectively not swimmable by an elf.  The elves required ships to sail from Middle Earth to Valinor, and ships to sail(after the kinslaying) back to Middle Earth to fight Morgoth.  There was also the Helcaraxe in the far north, which meant that there was a landbridge of some sort from the north pole to Valinor, but thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of elves died when Galadriel and Fingolfin made that crossing with their people.

And then multiple times in the Silmarillion we have elves drowning within sight of land, though the water was stormy then.  However, if elves were capable of swimming thousands of miles across the ocean, then staying afloat in a storm would be child's play.

The Numenoreans were not in sight of Aman from their coast.  They were forbidden from sailing out of sight to the west because the Valar feared if they did they would eventually see Aman.  To compensate they sailed out of sight to the east and went to Middle Earth.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The sea was objectively not swimmable by an elf.  The elves required ships to sail from Middle Earth to Valinor, and ships to sail(after the kinslaying) back to Middle Earth to fight Morgoth.  There was also the Helcaraxe in the far north, which meant that there was a landbridge of some sort from the north pole to Valinor, but thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of elves died when Galadriel and Fingolfin made that crossing with their people.
> 
> And then multiple times in the Silmarillion we have elves drowning within sight of land, though the water was stormy then.  However, if elves were capable of swimming thousands of miles across the ocean, then staying afloat in a storm would be child's play.
> 
> The Numenoreans were not in sight of Aman from their coast.  They were forbidden from sailing out of sight to the west because the Valar feared if they did they would eventually see Aman.  To compensate they sailed out of sight to the east and went to Middle Earth.



so, where in the page-and-a-half paragraph of Appendix B The Tale of Years and timeline was all this?


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> so, where in the page-and-a-half paragraph of Appendix B The Tale of Years and timeline was all this?



I love how you specify Appendix B and the Timeline as if I'm limited to only where you tell me to look.

The last part regarding the Numenoreans is in Appendix A.  "As a reward for their sufferings in the cause against Morgoth, the Valar, the Guardians of the World, granted to the Edain a land to dwell in, removed from the dangers of Middle-Earth. Most of them, therefore, set sail over the Sea, and guided by the Star of Elendil came to the great Isle of Elenna, westernmost of all Mortal lands. There they founded the realm of Numenor."

And also...

"Thence the Eldar came to the Edain and enriched them with knowledge and many gifts; but one command had been laid upon the Numenoreans, the "Ban of the Valar": they were forbidden to sail west out of sight of their own shores or to attempt to set foot on the Undying Lands."

Had Numenor been within sight of Middle-Earth, they would not have needed a star to guide them.  Had Aman been within sight of Numenor, they could not possibly have sailed west out of sight of their own shores, therefore it only makes sense that past the sight of their own shores they would at some point have seen Aman.

Therefore, we know that the ocean is far too wide to swim and not narrow as @Galandris was theorizing, which makes my first paragraph true.  It becomes even more true since the Helcaraxe is not in the LotR Appendices, so all they could use was the super wide ocean we know exists.

The only part of my post that isn't either in Appendix A or is a result of Appendix A, is the paragraph of the drowning elves, which simply doesn't matter to my point and was thrown in as additional information.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I love how you specify Appendix B and the Timeline as if I'm limited to only where you tell me to look.
> 
> Where the last part regarding the Numenoreans is in Appendix A.  "As a reward for their sufferings in the cause against Morgoth, the Valar, the Guardians of the World, granted to the Edain a land to dwell in, removed from the dangers of Middle-Earth. Most of them, therefore, set sail over the Sea, and guided by the Star of Elendil came to the great Isle of Elenna, westernmost of all Mortal lands. There they founded the realm of Numenor."
> 
> ...



And you did all that without citing a book that the producers can only allude to.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> And you did all that without citing a book that the producers can only allude to.



They have full use of the LotR and the movies.  Otherwise they could not have used the part about Morgoth stealing the Silmarils and heading to Middle Earth to make war. 

You don't get to limit me to Appendix B when the produces can fully use(and did use) Appendix A.









						What Material Does Amazon Have The Rights To For The Rings Of Power Answered!
					

One burning question fans have had is what material does Amazon have the rights to for The Rings of Power show? Well we know have an answer courtesy of




					lrmonline.com
				




"_“We have the rights solely to The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, The Return of the King, *the appendices*, and The Hobbit,” "_


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> And you did all that without citing a book that the producers can only allude to.



The rules of "alluding to" the Silmarillion are clearly pretty lenient. They built Galadriel's entire motivation on Sauron killing her brother Finrod, and you can only get that information from the Silmarillion. The Appendices say Finrod Felagund died saving the life of Beren, and that's all--nothing hints that Sauron was involved in any way.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> And you did all that without citing a book that the producers can only allude to.




Even without any rights to a book, they could have respected it, mainly by not changing things in way that contradict them, without quoting them at all. They don't have rights to book that say elves don't have wings and can't levitate, yet we didn't see Galadriel floating over the sea... On the other hand, they did make her a praeternatural swimmer which is... unheard of at least. You can avoid contradicting a book even wihtout any right to refer to the content of said book.

If you want to discuss the show based only on its internal consistency, without interference from the wider Tolkien material, you may be interested in a sister thread especially devoted to this point of view.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> They have full use of the LotR and the movies.  Otherwise they could not have used the part about Morgoth stealing the Silmarils and heading to Middle Earth to make war.
> 
> You don't get to limit me to Appendix B when the produces can fully use(and did use) Appendix A.
> 
> ...



keep that in mind when you start tossing around The Silmarillion, I was reading the interview, and your reaction made me laugh at this quote


> _“We worked in conjunction with world-renowned Tolkien scholars and the Tolkien estate to make sure *that the ways we connected the dots were Tolkienian *and gelled with the experts’ and the estate’s understanding of the material,” Payne says_





Clearly, they didn't talk to you or anyone else in this thread.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that if he had been able to Christopher would have repurchased the rights.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> keep that in mind when you start tossing around The Silmarillion, I was reading the interview, and your reaction made me laugh at this quote



So you quote my post, of which 90% of it was in the LotR or derived from it asking where it all was, try to limit me to Appendix B knowing that it was in Appendix A, and then when I reject your arbitrary limitation and prove to you that it was in the appendices, you retreat to, "Well you said something minor that was in the Silmarillion. Neener!"

You're being disingenuous man.  My original post was on point and a correct response to the person I was responding to.


trappedslider said:


> Clearly, they didn't talk to you or anyone else in this thread.



Pity, because the people that they talked to didn't get Tolkien.  The Tolkien estate doesn't get a pass and and the implication of your sentence there is an Appeal to Authority.


trappedslider said:


> As an aside, I'm pretty sure that if he had been able to Christopher would have repurchased the rights.



I agree, because the show bungled being Tolkien pretty badly.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 30, 2022)

Many experts agree that eating insects is great. How is it impacting any of us not liking eating insects?


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So you quote my post, of which 90% of it was in the LotR or derived from it asking where it all was, try to limit me to Appendix B knowing that it was in Appendix A, and then when I reject your arbitrary limitation and prove to you that it was in the appendices, you retreat to, "Well you said something minor that was in the Silmarillion. Neener!"
> 
> You're being disingenuous man.  My original post was on point and a correct response to the person I was responding to.
> 
> ...



Actually, I was merely reminding you that the show doesn't have access to the Silmatillon despite you repeatedly bringing it up.

By quoting the quote it reminded me of the folks on social media and even some scientists disagreeing about covid.  In this case, until I know otherwise your opinion to me doesn't carry the same weight as actual scholars on the topic of Tolkien.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> Actually, I was merely reminding you that the show doesn't have access to the Silmatillon despite you repeatedly bringing it up.



Sometimes I bring it up like I did in that post where it doesn't really matter, since I'm answering a question about the world in general. Other times I bring it up with regard to personality and feel, and it can 100% be used for that since personality and feel don't touch on specific events.


trappedslider said:


> In this case, until I know otherwise your opinion to me doesn't carry the same weight as actual scholars on the topic of Tolkien.



Can you show me proof that the people of the Tolkien estate are "actual scholars on the topic of Tolkien?" You are Appealing to Authority, which is a logical fallacy. You need more.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 30, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> The rules of "alluding to" the Silmarillion are clearly pretty lenient. They built Galadriel's entire motivation on Sauron killing her brother Finrod, and you can only get that information from the Silmarillion. The Appendices say Finrod Felagund died saving the life of Beren, and that's all--nothing hints that Sauron was involved in any way.



Wait they cannot use materia based on its source being Silmarillion? Wow!!! talk about hamstringing it.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Wait they cannot use materia based on its source being Silmarillion? Wow!!! talk about hamstringing it.



Yep.  Unless it is mentioned in the LotR books, The Hobbit or the movies.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> _“We worked in conjunction with world-renowned Tolkien scholars and the Tolkien estate to make sure that the ways we connected the dots were Tolkienian and gelled with the experts’ and the estate’s understanding of the material,” *Payne says.*_



I switched the bolding to the part of this that's actually important.

This is the word of a guy whose whole career is riding on the success of this show. I have no doubt Payne believes what he's saying, but it is famously difficult for people to understand things when their paychecks depend on not understanding them. What _specifically_ were these experts asked? What _exactly_ were their responses? We don't know, nor will we, unless they break their NDAs.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Can you show me proof that the people of the Tolkien estate are "actual scholars on the topic of Tolkien."  You are Appealing to Authority, which is a logical fallacy. You need more.



So the actual sentence is "_world-renowned Tolkien scholars *and* the Tolkien estate"_

We've already talked about how the IP holder (the estate which would include Simon Tolkien) may or may not view/treat the work, but the scholars themselves are a different matter. Since the only name of a Tolkien scholar that was/is attached to the project we have is Thomas Alan Shippey, we really don't have much to go on other than rumors regarding his leaving the project. We also don't know who the other scholars are.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> So the actual sentence is "_world-renowned Tolkien scholars *and* the Tolkien estate"_



Who are these "world-renowned Tolkien scholars" in your Appeal to Authority, and exactly how much did Amazon listen to them.  Could have been 0.


trappedslider said:


> We've already talked about how the IP holder (the estate which would include Simon Tolkien) may or may not view/treat the work, but the scholars themselves are a different matter. Since the only name of a Tolkien scholar that was/is attached to the project we have is Thomas Alan Shippey, we really don't have much to go on other than rumors regarding his leaving the project. We also don't know who the other scholars are.



This is what Shippey said of The LotR movies.

"_The funny thing about interviews is you never know which bits they're going to pick. It always feels as if they sit you down, shine bright lights in your eyes, and ask you questions till you say something really silly, and that's the bit they choose. At least they didn't waterboard me. But it was good fun, and I'd cheerfully do it again._"― Tom Shippey"

It seems likely, given how little the show feels like Tolkien, that Amazon either ignored him or went with the silly stuff.

This is rumor, so I don't put much stock in it, but...









						Rumor: The Lord Of The Rings Scholar Tom Shippey Fired For Telling Prime Video They Were "Polluting The Lore"
					

A new rumor claims that Tom Shippey, The Lord of the Rings scholar and former consultant on The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, was fired from the Prime Video show because he was warning them that they were "polluting the lore."




					boundingintocomics.com
				



Rumor: The Lord Of The Rings Scholar Tom Shippey Fired For Telling Prime Video They Were “Polluting The Lore”​In any case, Shippey left the show pretty early, so I don't think he can really be cited as someone that they listened to.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Who are these "world-renowned Tolkien scholars" in your Appeal to Authority, and exactly how much did Amazon listen to them.  Could have been 0.
> 
> This is what Shippey said of The LotR movies.
> 
> ...



I acknowledged all that, and it's basically a circle because it comes back to your very strong views vs theirs on the subject matter.  We know from interviews and fan interaction that the guys behind this project are fans you may not call them fans but then that goes down the rabbit hole of no true Scotsman along with my knowledge-fu is stronger than yours.

btw if I can go back to my comment about Chrisphoer buying back the rights, I mean including the time before the movies including the animated one.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> I acknowledged all that, and it's basically a circle because it comes back to your very strong views vs theirs on the subject matter.



If by "theirs" you mean the experts cited by Payne, we don't _know_ their views. We have only hearsay from a source with the biggest conflict of interest imaginable.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 30, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> If by "theirs" you mean the experts cited by Payne, we don't _know_ their views. We have only hearsay from a source with the biggest conflict of interest imaginable.



I mean everyone involved from the estate to the other scholars and the show makers.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 30, 2022)

trappedslider said:


> I acknowledged all that, and it's basically a circle because it comes back to your very strong views vs theirs on the subject matter.  We know from interviews and fan interaction that the guys behind this project are fans you may not call them fans but then that goes down the rabbit hole of no true Scotsman along with my knowledge-fu is stronger than yours.



I never said that they weren't fans.  I said that I don't believe any fans would have zero complaints about the show, which isn't the same as no true Scotsman.


trappedslider said:


> btw if I can go back to my comment about Chrisphoer buying back the rights, I mean including the time before the movies including the animated one.



Yeah. I figured as much.  While the movies were much better at capturing the Tolkien feel, they still weren't all that good and took liberties that probably caused Tolkien to roll over in his grave.  Much like the show, I enjoyed the movies as a fantasy tale, but not as Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Honestly, the part about the elves stealing jobs in Numenor doesn't sound 5-star dialogue. Numenorean are supposed to become morally corrupt as they divorce themselves from the Faithful, but illustrating it by putting in their words criticisms of mass immigration from the 70's by the far right is silly (as lack of job isn't a characteristics of pre-industralized societies, plus a single Elf over the whole life of Tar-Palantir doesn't really evoke mass immigration), dated in its choice of slur, and out of place in a fantasy show. I found that jarring (I'd have liked it in a Rick & Morty episode, but not in a high fantasy show).



Maybe it's an Anglo-American thing, but that sort of rant never feels dated or untimely: Shakespeare was writing about it 500 years ago (Sur Thomas More the play), and it dominates political discourse now and as far back as living memory goes.

Actually, more than Tolkienian, those Numenor bits felt Virgillian, calling back to the Aenied.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 31, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Canonically, the world at the time was flat. On a flat world, your vision is limited only by atmospheric haze and your ability to make out detail; no curvature of the earth means no horizon. The earth only became round with the fall of Numenor.
> 
> If we set that aside and assume a curved earth of comparable size to our own, and note that the Numenoreans had to be at the peak of the Meneltarma to see Tol Eressea, then we get a distance of 150-200 miles, depending on how high the Meneltarma is--I assume at least 3 miles.
> 
> (I don't think Tolkien really thought through the implications of this stuff. Vision goes two ways: If a Numenorean on the Meneltarma can see the harbor of Tol Eressea, then the same Numenorean in the harbor of Tol Eressea can see the Meneltarma. That would put Tol Eressea outside the Ban of the Valar, which is clearly not intended. Edit: Never mind, I should have gone back and checked. The Ban of the Valar forbade them to sail west beyond sight of the _coasts_ of Numenor, which would obviously be at sea level.)



I'd place the Meneltarma at the location of the Josephine Seamount and Tol Eressëa at the location of Terceira in the Azores, some 700 miles distant. Though, keep in mind it was only the "farsighted" who could see the white tower from the summit.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

gorice said:


> I think different people can be receptive to different things. For example, I really don't care about the 'spirit of Tolkien', but I do like a lot of Tolkien's aesthetic sensibilities, which are mostly absent from the screen adaptations.
> 
> There's probably also a distinction to be made between technique and outcome. You might enjoy watching Galadriel chew the scenery, while I'm sitting there saying 'her obsession with Sauron and the conflict between her and the other elves is completely contrived, and clearly only there to make the plot move'.



All stories are contrived, it's how they pull it off. Again, maybe watch more than one episode here.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> I like the "mystery box" too...if it is done well. But there's the rub, no?



Yes, and this was rather the perfect execution here.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I just watched the first half hour of this video, and I admit I'm baffled; it seemed to me that Mr Olsen was making tenuous connections, framing the pedestrian as profound, and treating - what seems to me - a rather crass and mediocre production as though it were high art, replete with nuance and clever, meaningful symbolism.
> 
> I just don't see it. I mean, I consider myself relatively cultured, and receptive to well-reasoned and well-articulated commentary and artistic critique; I suppose it's possible I'm missing something. But my instinct is that it was a load of hot air and guff; all waffle, with no substance.



Yeah, that's bizarre because my experience is the precise opposite. And I feel quite confident in saying that, yes, you are missing quite a but here. Pity.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, to both of these. The kind of "forced profundity and drama" is a major criticism I have with the series. So often the viewer is _told _that this is a profound or dramatic moment,_ you should be feeling something right now_...without much to back it up. Perhaps the most egregious example being Nori's farewell with the Harfoots...it just went on and on, with hug after hug, and I personally just didn't feel it, because none of the characters were ever developed beyond very surface characterization. It is textbook amateurish writing: telling and not showing.
> 
> As for Gandalf, I actually don't mind how they handled him. I agree that it was a bit contrived, but it does make some sense that a Maia would incarnate into human form and be somewhat disoriented...maybe not for that long, and of course the "Is he Sauron?" bit was another contrived cheap mystery box that wasn't all that mysterious.



I basically felt every single emotional beat in the show. Every interaction between Durin and anyone gave me bug emotions, for instance


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

gorice said:


> I agree that it has the _skeleton_ of good storytelling, but the details aren't there. Galadriel's obsession with Sauron, and everyone else's seeming indifference, just don't feel authentic. One the one hand, why does nobody else take the threat seriously? On the other, why is Galadriel so singularly obsessed? A Cassandra-type character is such a cliche, and rather than really selling us the conflict, the writers have the elves behave like idiots.
> 
> It doesn't help that we have to endure the _exact same scenario_ playing out in that human village where everyone is always covered in crap, and with equally flimsy justification. Galadriel and Blue-dress-woman aren't crying wolf: they have evidence, which other people have seen, that something is wrong. The reason they are ignored is to generate false drama.
> 
> Then there's the bit where Galadriel apparently decides not to return to Valinor, then goes anyway, then jumps off the ship (!?). It's completely contrived, written only to make dramatic action happen.



Because this show Iis set over 3000 years since anyone has heard tell that Sauron still lives. Galadriel has literally undying hate, but not everyone.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> The last episode makes her "obsession" a lie.
> 
> Galadriel: "Sauron killed my brother so I'm going to obsessively search for him for centuries and make him pay!!!!!"
> 
> ...



You misread the end: she wants the rings made so that she can fight him, otherwise she has to sail to Valinor and let him run loose. Which is, you know, a mistake, as King Durin explained.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Garthanos said:


> Wait they cannot use materia based on its source being Silmarillion? Wow!!! talk about hamstringing it.



Yeah, the Tolkien Eatare negotiated a veto for the show, and one of their main things was making sure that the show stuck only to information in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. It doesn't necessarily hurt the show as show, because that frees them up to focus on film fans. Amd they still sneak stuff in when they cam, like the visual cues to the First Kinslaying in the intro to episode one.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 31, 2022)

Hriston said:


> I'd place the Meneltarma at the location of the Josephine Seamount and Tol Eressëa at the location of Terceira in the Azores, some 700 miles distant. Though, keep in mind it was only the "farsighted" who could see the white tower from the summit.



It's an interesting optics question: On a flat earth, considering atmospheric haze/refraction and the limits of the human eye, how far away is it possible to identify "a city white-shining on a distant shore, and a great harbour and a tower?"

In the real world, we can see farther from a high place because it increases the distance to where the earth's curvature cuts off our view. That doesn't apply on a flat earth. But being in a _very_ high place means that one's line of sight is passing through the upper atmosphere rather than the denser, hazier one at sea level. So we can assume that Tol Eressea was at the absolute limit of the best Numenorean eyes to resolve, and even a little bit of atmospheric interference was enough to make it lost in the haze. (And we can also assume that the Meneltarma was pretty damn tall.)

But what _is_ the absolute limit of the Numenorean eye? Well, for us regular humans, Google tells me that human-scale objects (i.e., ~6 feet) are resolvable at a distance of ~2 miles. Let's give the tower of Tol Eressea a height of 200 feet. Then we get about 67 miles. Say the typical Numenorean has 20/10 vision (because Numenoreans are better at everything), and a "farsighted" Numenorean has 20/5 vision. That gets us to 267 miles.

267 miles seems pretty reasonable to me. But you could push it back farther, or pull it closer, by adjusting the height of the tower and/or the quality of Numenorean vision.

(More challenging to explain is the statement that Tol Eressea was _also_ just visible for farsighted Numenoreans who sailed west to the limits of the Ban of the Valar. The Ban forbade Numenoreans to go west out of sight of their own coasts. But if you can see Tol Eressea from the Meneltarma, and the only difference between the coast and the Meneltarma is the density of the atmosphere between -- which shouldn't make _that_ big a difference -- then someone pushing the limits of the Ban must be practically on top of Tol Eressea. At this point I'm inclined to invoke magic and say the Meneltarma granted heightened vision to anyone at the summit, because I don't see how to square these statements otherwise.)


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 31, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> But what _is_ the absolute limit of the Numenorean eye? Well, for us regular humans, Google tells me that human-scale objects (i.e., ~6 feet) are resolvable at a distance of ~2 miles. Let's give the tower of Tol Eressea a height of 200 feet. Then we get about 67 miles. Say the typical Numenorean has 20/10 vision (because Numenoreans are better at everything), and a "farsighted" Numenorean has 20/5 vision. That gets us to 267 miles.



I had 20/10 vision myself in my youth and with lenses I still do (doc accidentally tested me for it just the other day and I said no problem that is quite readable ) ... LOL does that mean I have the eyes of a 200 year old Numenorean.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Galadriel has literally undying hate, but not everyone.



Until she just up and opted to let him go destroy the elves and Middle Earth without telling anyone or trying to stop him after the mental shindig.  Her undying hate......wasn't.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> It's an interesting optics question: On a flat earth, considering atmospheric haze/refraction and the limits of the human eye, how far away is it possible to identify "a city white-shining on a distant shore, and a great harbour and a tower?"
> 
> In the real world, we can see farther from a high place because it increases the distance to where the earth's curvature cuts off our view. That doesn't apply on a flat earth. But being in a _very_ high place means that one's line of sight is passing through the upper atmosphere rather than the denser, hazier one at sea level. So we can assume that Tol Eressea was at the absolute limit of the best Numenorean eyes to resolve, and even a little bit of atmospheric interference was enough to make it lost in the haze. (And we can also assume that the Meneltarma was pretty damn tall.)
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure that "farsight" was something akin to clairvoyance, not just better vision.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Because this show Iis set over 3000 years since anyone has heard tell that Sauron still lives. Galadriel has literally undying hate, but not everyone.



The show is set an indefinite length of time after Morgoth's defeat, because the show has played fast-and-loose with Tolkien's timeline, meaning you can't really assert anything categorical about it. Sauron starts building Barad-Dur in SA 1000; the rings are forged in 1500-1600;  Elendil is born in 3119 etc. etc. etc.

One of the more frustrating things about exchanges with apologists for this show, is they'll latch on to one or two things which are both consistent with their position and lore-friendly, while ignoring vast tracts of lore-defying choices which the show has made. These few consistencies are then framed as especially _significant_ in their faithfulness, illustrative of some deeper (and still, as yet, rather vague) "truths." Cherry-picking, while wearing 270-degree blinders.

I return again to the Sauron-Galadriel encounter contrivance, and its subsequent unfolding, because it strikes me as one of the most offensive in terms of the _deeper_ themes in Tolkien's world.

Setting aside the implausibility of attempting to swim across an ocean, and the improbability of being rescued (twice by Sauron; once by Elendil), how in any way does this correspond to notions of _providence_ as envisioned by Tolkien? Where providential intercessions occur, they are implicitly the action of Eru upon the world - Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree; Bilbo finding the ring; Bombadil's intervention. How is a chance meeting with Sauron faithful to this _deeper theme_? 

Sauron is afloat on a wrecked ship bobbing around on Belegaer. How did he get there? As a servant of the Great Enemy, what business does he have being here? - the oceans and rivers are Ulmo's domain; Melkor and his flunkies are terrified of them. The Enemy is powerless here, and fearful, _because the Music of the Ainur runs clearest still within the waters of the World_. How is Sauron's presence here faithful to the _deeper themes_?

The answers to these questions are fairly clear to me - bad writing setting up false drama; ignorance or dismissal of a wealth of ready-made, potent symbols and connections, in service of a mediocre, anodyne cinematic experience.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 31, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> One of the more frustrating things about exchanges with apologists for this show, is they'll latch on to one or two things which are both consistent with their position and lore-friendly, while ignoring vast tracts of lore-defying choices which the show has made. These few consistencies are then framed as especially _significant_ in their faithfulness, illustrative of some deeper (and still, as yet, rather vague) "truths." Cherry-picking, while wearing 270-degree blinders.
> 
> I return again to the Sauron-Galadriel encounter contrivance, and its subsequent unfolding, because it strikes me as one of the most offensive in terms of the _deeper_ themes in Tolkien's world.
> 
> Setting aside the implausibility of attempting to swim across an ocean, and the improbability of being rescued (twice by Sauron; once by Elendil), how in any way does this correspond to notions of _providence_ as envisioned by Tolkien? Where providential intercessions occur, they are implicitly the action of Eru upon the world - Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree; Bilbo finding the ring; Bombadil's intervention. How is a chance meeting with Sauron faithful to this _deeper theme_?



Exactly. The "providential" coincidences in Tolkien always work in the service of good, because the whole point is to contrast the workings of Eru with those of Sauron.

Sauron seeks triumph through domination, and so his methods rely on coercion, either blatant (armies and monsters) or subtle (the mind-twisting power of the Ring). Eru is committed to upholding free will, and so does not force anyone to do anything; but he ensures that people are brought together at the right moments so that, _if they so choose_, good wins out. Thus, the hobbits -- physically the smallest and weakest, wielding no magic to speak of -- are given the opportunity to overthrow Sauron in all his might.

If you allow "providential" coincidence to advance the cause of evil, all that is knocked into a cocked hat, and you're just using "Eru works in mysterious ways" as a fig leaf to cover up lazy writing.


----------



## Galandris (Oct 31, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> Eru is committed to upholding free will, and so does not force anyone to do anything




As long as you don't do something he disapproves, would add Numenoreans, if they hadn't all drowned to death. (I don't disagree with your point at all, just pointing that "promoting free will" doesn't mean "being good", as he can very well impose his views as harshly as Sauron when he feels like it, just he feels like it much less often).


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 31, 2022)

Galandris said:


> As long as you don't do something he disapproves, would add Numenoreans, if they hadn't all drowned to death. (I don't disagree with your point at all, just pointing that "promoting free will" doesn't mean "being good", as he can very well impose his views as harshly as Sauron when he feels like it, just he feels like it much less often).



The fall of Numenor certainly strains the idea. Dig deep enough in Tolkien and you run into all the problems of theodicy.

That said, Tolkien still _tried_ to stick with the theme. Eru does not kill Ar-Pharazon with a lightning bolt or stop the Great Armament from reaching Aman. He allows the Numenoreans the chance to change their minds, even at the very last moment, when "Ar-Pharazon wavered at the end, and almost he turned back." Warnings are sent to Numenor, but they stop short of direct coercion; Eru will hint that this is a bad idea but he won't state it outright, nor will he simply destroy Sauron (who is aware of this and takes advantage of it by "defying the lightning").

If people think all this seems like sophistry to cover up an obvious case of Eru enforcing his will as brutally as Sauron ever did... well, yeah, I can't argue with that. "Obey this arbitrary-seeming restriction or I will smash your nation into the sea, only I won't ever straight-up tell you that until I do it" is not exactly a ringing endorsement for free will. The real reason for the fall of Numenor was that Tolkien was fascinated by the flood legend and had nightmares of being swept away by a great dark wave. Even so, he did his best to wedge it into his theology and make it fit.


----------



## ART! (Oct 31, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I return again to the Sauron-Galadriel encounter contrivance, and its subsequent unfolding, because it strikes me as one of the most offensive in terms of the _deeper_ themes in Tolkien's world.



I have a few thoughts, but please don't read this as nit-picking or attacking - I'm just proposing some polite counter-arguments


Sepulchrave II said:


> Setting aside the implausibility of attempting to swim across an ocean,



My impression is that her decision to jump off the boat about to enter Valinor was really no decision at all - she simply could not face life in Valinor. I can't remember how Valinor works in this regard or if it's mentioned in the show, but regardless of whether you have to live eternally with what you take there, or if Valinor sweeps away all your worries, Galadriel found the prospect unbearable. Diving intot he wide ocean was not a rational decision - in her state of mind, it was the only option. The show lays out how messed-up she was, and she comes to realize it eventually, too.


Sepulchrave II said:


> and the improbability of being rescued (twice by Sauron; once by Elendil), how in any way does this correspond to notions of _providence_ as envisioned by Tolkien? Where providential intercessions occur, they are implicitly the action of Eru upon the world - Gandalf meeting Thorin in Bree; Bilbo finding the ring; Bombadil's intervention. How is a chance meeting with Sauron faithful to this _deeper theme_?



I think being found by Elendil fits into that Tolkienian pattern, although some bad things as well as good happen as a result - but then that's true of a lot of the Tokienien providence events. Plenty of terrible things happen as a result of Bilbo finding the Ring, but in the end it works out for the best. So, providence making sure Galadriel and Sauron meet at sea may not seem so great in the short term, but it begins a sequence of events that allows for Sauron's defeat.


Sepulchrave II said:


> Sauron is afloat on a wrecked ship bobbing around on Belegaer. How did he get there?



I'm leaving this for the show to answer. Given the structure of the storytelling thus far, I'm not 100% sure they'll fill us in, but I'll reserve judgement for now.


Sepulchrave II said:


> As a servant of the Great Enemy, what business does he have being here?



But he's no longer a servant of the Great Enemy, and Sauron seems (not just in the show, but in the books) like someone who has learned from (some of) his former master's mistakes, or he just has a different approach to things.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 31, 2022)

@ART! re: Sauron being in the ocean when Galadriel jumped ship, I think it's certainly reasonable that he was aware of who she was as she was hunting him for a few millennia.  It wouldn't be inconceivable that he was aware that she was going to be shipped to Valinor (via his spies) and that she might not be able to give up her obsession with him and so set himself at sea in order to be able to rescue her.  In this case, Galadriel's rejection of the providence of Eru (that she go back to Valinor) is the specific inciting event that will eventually allow the Rings to be created and all of the Evil that results from it.  Of course, it all leads back to Sauron being destroyed at the end of LotR, but the point is that the Elves were supposed to have left middle earth long ago (or really, never have gone in the first place).  

As for Elendil then finding the two of them, I'm fine with that being a first act coincidence that sets much of the rest of the story in motion.  Numenor patrolled the seas, and while it could have been another Numenorian to find them, having it be Elendil tightens the story beats.  It could have been another Numenorian who found her, and then she could have met Elendil in Numenor, but this early in the story there is no good reason not to have it be Elendil right off the bat.  Just because we as the audience knows the importance of who he will become doesn't mean that Galadiel does.

Finally, we had established in the first episode that Galadriel specifically (and her company as well) could climb sheer ice cliffs and trek across frozen wasteland for years searching for Sauron.  Don't know how that tracks with Tolkien's elves, but the show elves are clearly established as being able to survive extreme environments for long periods of time.  That Galadriel believed she could survive swimming an ocean is a bit of worldbuilding here (as was Elrond's contest with Durin).


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Until she just up and opted to let him go destroy the elves and Middle Earth without telling anyone or trying to stop him after the mental shindig.  Her undying hate......wasn't.



It seems you misunderstood the stakes at the end there as perceived by the Eldar: Celebrimbor makes the rings, the Noldor can stay in Middle Earth and fight Sauron. If he doesn't make the rings...they have to sail to Valinor and end the entire Silmiril boondoggle once and for all, trusting the working of the Valar and the One to end Sauron's plans. So, Galadriel chooses to resist, which is her characterization at the start of the Season to the fall and crimes of the Noldor in chasing Morgoth against the will of the Valar and God in the first place. This whole series is going to be a sequence of falls, over and over again.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I'm pretty sure that "farsight" was something akin to clairvoyance, not just better vision.



In regards to seeing Valinor from Numenor, in this case it really does mean good visual eyesight, as they were physically close at the time.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> The show is set an indefinite length of time after Morgoth's defeat, because the show has played fast-and-loose with Tolkien's timeline, meaning you can't really assert anything categorical about it. Sauron starts building Barad-Dur in SA 1000; the rings are forged in 1500-1600;  Elendil is born in 3119 etc. etc. etc.
> 
> One of the more frustrating things about exchanges with apologists for this show, is they'll latch on to one or two things which are both consistent with their position and lore-friendly, while ignoring vast tracts of lore-defying choices which the show has made. These few consistencies are then framed as especially _significant_ in their faithfulness, illustrative of some deeper (and still, as yet, rather vague) "truths." Cherry-picking, while wearing 270-degree blinders.
> 
> ...



They will rain vague about the exact timeline for sure, but the main point is that it has been long enough for most Elves to have gotten over it.

Regarding why Sauron happened to be in the right place at the right time...Season 2 will be starting with Charlie Vickers narrating Sauron's own version of his life story, so there is likely some missing info there thst will be cleared up. But, it seems to me, thar Sauron engineered that encounter to simulate a providential crossing of paths. Notice how "Halbrabd" immediately pegs Galadriel as a deserter, and how the convenient sea serpent goes away once it's  services are no longer required. How would Dauron know Galadriel would even be on the boat? Well, one of the big dangling mystery boxes left is: why does Gil-Galad believe incorrect information about the fading of the Elves, and why is he aware of Mithril at all, and why is he so sure that it will solve the Elven situation? Maybe the same source of information for all or that, suggested sending Galadriel to Valinor. Maybe that source of information knew Galadriel couldn't actually go through withnit...and followed.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In regards to seeing Valinor from Numenor, in this case it really does mean good visual eyesight, as they were physically close at the time.



No. No they weren't. It is factual that Valinor could not possibly be seen from Numenor.  Otherwise the ban was impossible nonsense as they would be landing on Valinor before sailing out of sight of Numenor.  The entire point of the ban was to keep that from happening. To keep Numenor from even seeing Valinor.

Numenor was about halfway, which made it out of sight of both shores unless you were using farseeing(clairvoyance).


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It seems you misunderstood the stakes at the end there: Celebrimbor makes the rings, the Noldor.can stay in Middle Earth and fight Sauron.



And lose.  Even with the rings they aren't strong enough, and they know that.  The rings were at best a protection for some of their people, leaving the rest of their people and all the rest of Middle Earth to suffer at Sauron's hands.


Parmandur said:


> If he doesn't make the rings...they have to sail to Valinor and end the entire Silmiril boomdoggle once and for all, trusting the working of the Valar and the One to end Sauron's plans.



The One doesn't exist and the Valar aren't coming back.  She didn't have those options to even consider.


Parmandur said:


> So, Galadriel chooses to resist



She didn't resist.  She kept silent and allowed him to go free and doomed middle Earth. A complete 180 from the horribly bad characterization of her that they have been portraying since episode 1.  It made no sense from any viewpoint.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No. No they weren't. It is factual that Valinor could not possibly be seen from Numenor.  Otherwise the ban was impossible nonsense as they would be landing on Valinor before sailing out of sight of Numenor.  The entire point of the ban was to keep that from happening. To keep Numenor from even seeing Valinor.
> 
> Numenor was about halfway, which made it out of sight of both shores unless you were using farseeing(clairvoyance).



The ban was that they shouldn't come, not that they couldn't. They could.literally see it, pwr the text in question.


----------



## gorice (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I basically felt every single emotional beat in the show. Every interaction between Durin and anyone gave me bug emotions, for instance



I can't know why you felt what you felt. I will say that I don't think the writers do anything to earn those emotions. I've sat through two episodes now, and it just seems that, like so much film and TV these days, RoP has the structure of emotional 'story beats', and emphasises them with all the techniques of the medium (music, cinematography, acting, etc.), but the writing doesn't really make sense. I'm expected to project emotions onto these moments, because the show is telling me that they are Important and Emotional, but the writing doesn't give me any reason to believe or care.

Here's another example. Putting aside whether it's reasonable for Galadriel to jump in the ocean (I think it's ridiculous, but w/e), I, as an audience member, have no reason to care. I knew before she left that she wouldn't really leave middle earth, both because of meta-knowledge and because everthing up to that point suggested she had no intention of doing so.

So, when she goes through the extended process of dithering about leaving, and then finally leaves on the boat, and then jumps off, and then gets rescued, and then gets attacked by a sea monster, what are the dramatic stakes? She won't be allowed to die, she will return to the world... It's just a question of how she gets there. Do I learn anything new about her? Well, she's suicidally brave, extremely competent, and she really hates Sauron. Things I already knew after the troll scene! Does she perhaps change or suffer in some way because of this? No, not really. She's still Galadriel, she's just on a raft now.

The show is just wasting my time, while insisting (structurally and stylistically) that what's happening is somehow profound and dramatic.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> And lose. Even with the rings they aren't strong enough, and they know that. The rings were at best a protection for some of their people, leaving the rest of their people and all the rest of Middle Earth to suffer at Sauron's hands.



Again, mirroring exactly the actions that led to the Doomed and foolhardy wars against Morgoth to begin with. She is making a huge mistake, the same mistake that she lauds in the prolonged as a proud resistance.


Maxperson said:


> The One doesn't exist and the Valar aren't coming back. She didn't have those options to even consider.



The One is mentioned repeatedly in the show, as are the Valar. King Durin, the wisest character running around, lays out that the Elves need to embrace hope.and follow the Doom of the Valar, which Galadriel fails to do at the end of the first Season. Indeed, she doesn't do so until she meets Frodo un this reading!


Maxperson said:


> She didn't resist. She kept silent and allowed him to go free and doomed middle Earth. A complete 180 from the horribly bad characterization of her that they have been portraying since episode 1. It made no sense from any viewpoint.



She didn't let him knave, he slipped away and she had the choice to stop the making of the Rings and return to Valinor , or...jump off the ship and embrace her own strength instead of embracing hope and passing into the West.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

gorice said:


> I can't know why you felt what you felt. I will say that I don't think the writers do anything to earn those emotions. I've sat through two episodes now, and it just seems that, like so much film and TV these days, RoP has the structure of emotional 'story beats', and emphasises them with all the techniques of the medium (music, cinematography, acting, etc.), but the writing doesn't really make sense. I'm expected to project emotions onto these moments, because the show is telling me that they are Important and Emotional, but the writing doesn't give me any reason to believe or care.
> 
> Here's another example. Putting aside whether it's reasonable for Galadriel to jump in the ocean (I think it's ridiculous, but w/e), I, as an audience member, have no reason to care. I knew before she left that she wouldn't really leave middle earth, both because of meta-knowledge and because everthing up to that point suggested she had no intention of doing so.
> 
> ...



I can't explain to you why the beats don't work for you, but they do for me. Perhaps that makes all the difference. Also, you are just two hours in, it gets progressively better on all the emotional fronts, especially.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> The ban was that they shouldn't come, not that they couldn't. They could.literally see it, pwr the text in question.



What text explicitly says that they can see Valinor?  Not the text about farseeing.  That text says that if they used clairvoyance(farseeing) they could see one tall tower on an island off the coast of Aman.  It never says that they could see Aman at all, let alone without their clairvoyance.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Again, mirroring exactly the actions that led to the Doomed and foolhardy wars against Morgoth to begin with. She is making a huge mistake, the same mistake that she lauds in the prolonged as a proud resistance.



So you think that it's okay for her to go completely out of character and doom the entire world just because she didn't want to be embarrassed that she didn't catch onto him sooner?

That's not the mistake that the Noldor made in going after Morgoth in the first place.  What she is doing doesn't mirror anything other than bad writing.


Parmandur said:


> The One is mentioned repeatedly in the show, as are the Valar. King Durin, the wisest character running around, lays out that the Elves need to embrace hope.and follow the Doom of the Valar, which Galadriel fails to do at the end of the first Season. Indeed, she doesn't do so until she meets Frodo un this reading!



My bad.  I thought you were talking about the One Ring as the One. Yes, Eru is mentioned and of course wouldn't come help after Morgoth was captured. Nor would he allow the Valar to do so.


Parmandur said:


> She didn't let him knave, he slipped away and she had the choice to stop the making of the Rings and return to Valinor , or...jump off the ship and embrace her own strength instead of embracing hope and passing into the West.



She also had the choice to stay in character and say, "Hey guys! Remember that fellow that was helping you? That was Sauron. Surprise!!"  Instead she keeps completely silent about it going against her character as established in the books AND the new completely different character in show.


----------



## Hriston (Oct 31, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> It's an interesting optics question: On a flat earth, considering atmospheric haze/refraction and the limits of the human eye, how far away is it possible to identify "a city white-shining on a distant shore, and a great harbour and a tower?"
> 
> In the real world, we can see farther from a high place because it increases the distance to where the earth's curvature cuts off our view. That doesn't apply on a flat earth. But being in a _very_ high place means that one's line of sight is passing through the upper atmosphere rather than the denser, hazier one at sea level. So we can assume that Tol Eressea was at the absolute limit of the best Numenorean eyes to resolve, and even a little bit of atmospheric interference was enough to make it lost in the haze. (And we can also assume that the Meneltarma was pretty damn tall.)
> 
> ...



I’m not an optics expert, but wouldn’t it be a matter of the area of the cross section of the image rather than a single dimension (height)? If so, and if we can suppose that our roughly six foot tall human is about 1.5 feet wide at the shoulders (as I am, roughly) and that the white tower is built with similar proportions so that our 200 foot tall tower has a diameter of 50 feet, then the cross-sectional image presented to the viewer would have over 1,000 times the area so resolvable at over 2,000 miles. That sounds wrong to me, but I live on a round planet. (ETA: After thinking about this for a moment, I can see I'm completely wrong. In my defense, I hadn't had my coffee yet this morning when I started writing this.)

But I agree it's likely there's something magical about the Meneltarma and the farsighted as well. This jibes with the belief of the Dunedain in later years that the peak of the Meneltarma could still be found sometimes rising above the sea and, if found, that one could glimpse from there the Undying Lands while standing at sea level.


----------



## ART! (Oct 31, 2022)

gorice said:


> I can't know why you felt what you felt. I will say that I don't think the writers do anything to earn those emotions. I've sat through two episodes now, and it just seems that, like so much film and TV these days, RoP has the structure of emotional 'story beats', and emphasises them with all the techniques of the medium (music, cinematography, acting, etc.), but the writing doesn't really make sense. I'm expected to project emotions onto these moments, because the show is telling me that they are Important and Emotional, but the writing doesn't give me any reason to believe or care.
> 
> Here's another example. Putting aside whether it's reasonable for Galadriel to jump in the ocean (I think it's ridiculous, but w/e), I, as an audience member, have no reason to care. I knew before she left that she wouldn't really leave middle earth, both because of meta-knowledge and because everthing up to that point suggested she had no intention of doing so.
> 
> ...




I don't mind knowing the outcome of a story, as long as the storytelling is compelling or exciting. RoP works for me, but if it's not connecting with you, then I can see how it would be frustrating.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I never said that they weren't fans.  I said that I don't believe any fans would have zero complaints about the show, which isn't the same as no true Scotsman.




You can certainly _work_ on a show and have complaints about how it all came together. You can't go around in interviews afterward saying, "Yeah, I would have liked for it to be much better, but it is what it is." (At least, not until years later, or if you want to never work again.)


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> What text explicitly says that they can see Valinor?  Not the text about farseeing.  That text says that if they used clairvoyance(farseeing) they could see one tall tower on an island off the coast of Aman.  It never says that they could see Aman at all, let alone without their clairvoyance.



...

It sees that those with the ability to see far could see it. At this point in the story, Valinor is a physical place on the same plane as the rest of Middle Earth. That doesn't change until after Numenor falls.

Depicting Valinor as another world is a change in the show, probably necessitated by the limits of what they can talk about from the mythos.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It sees that those with the ability to see far could see it. At this point in the story, Valinor is a physical place on the same plane as the rest of Middle Earth. That doesn't change until after Numenor falls.



Literally nobody is arguing that it isn't on the same plane at this point in the show.  Nothing in the books says that they could see Valinor, even with farsight(clairvoyance).  What it says is that they could see the white tower in Erresea, which isn't Valinor.  It's island off the coast of Valinor.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> So you think that it's okay for her to go completely out of character and doom the entire world just because she didn't want to be embarrassed that she didn't catch onto him sooner?
> 
> That's not the mistake that the Noldor made in going after Morgoth in the first place. What she is doing doesn't mirror anything other than bad writing.



It's in character to jump out of the ship, rather than let go and pass into the West.

And yes, choosing to fight in defiance of destiny is the same mustake.


Maxperson said:


> My bad. I thought you were talking about the One Ring as the One. Yes, Eru is mentioned and of course wouldn't come help after Morgoth was captured. Nor would he allow the Valar to do so.



Galadriel's tragic flaw here, whi h setting up a lot if wins for Sauron, is trusting her own strength instead if divine grace and providence.


Maxperson said:


> She also had the choice to stay in character and say, "Hey guys! Remember that fellow that was helping you? That was Sauron. Surprise!!" Instead she keeps completely silent about it going against her character as established in the books AND the new completely different character in show.



If she came cleanly this point, they wouldn't make the rings...which would mean she would have to return to Valinor. She is hiding the truth so that she can keep her vendetta alive.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Literally nobody is arguing that it isn't on the same plane at this point in the show.  Nothing in the books says that they could see Valinor, even with farsight(clairvoyance).  What it says is that they could see the white tower in Erresea, which isn't Valinor.  It's island off the coast of Valinor.



But part of the Undying Lands. it did not take magic to see it, it just over the horizon.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's in character to jump out of the ship, rather than let go and pass into the West.
> 
> And yes, choosing to fight in defiance of destiny is the same mustake.



Would have been nice if she chose to fight in defiance of destiny instead of capitulating to Sauron without so much a post encounter whimper.  Fighting in defiance of destiny is going to every elf who will listen to tell them that he was Sauron in disguise and she can prove it.


Parmandur said:


> Galadriel's tragic flaw here, whi h setting up a lot if wins for Sauron, is trusting her own strength instead if divine grace and providence.



She doesn't do that, though.  She loses and then lets him go off to destroy the world, rather than trusting her own strength(which she just found out in no uncertain terms wasn't enough).


Parmandur said:


> If she came cleanly this point, they wouldn't make the rings...



Refusing to 1) believe what you are told and know to be true, and 2) think you're better than a Maia actually are Noldor flaws, especially in Celebrimbor who was a grandson of Feanor.  It would have been FAR more Tolkien for her to actually be Galadriel and tell them, and then have Celebrimbor and the others refuse to listen and think their strength would keep the rings safe from Sauron.


Parmandur said:


> She is hiding the truth so that she can keep her vendetta alive.



That's not what would happen if she told them.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's in character to jump out of the ship, rather than let go and pass into the West.



I can't think of any other instance of Galadriel behaving in a blatantly suicidal manner to avoid going in to the West. So it doesn't seem particularly in character to me.


Parmandur said:


> Galadriel's tragic flaw here, whi h setting up a lot if wins for Sauron, is trusting her own strength instead if divine grace and providence.



I don't think any message in Tolkien is to trust in divine grace and providence to deliver you from your problems. I think part of the expectation is that you do the best you can and *if* you receive grace, that can put you over the top, but if you actively pursue evil deeds, you're not likely to receive it at all (see Frodo vs Gollum). If everyone just sat around not exerting their own strength and waited for divine grace to deliver them, they'd have been under Sauron's thumb long ago.


Parmandur said:


> She is hiding the truth so that she can keep her vendetta alive.



Which, ultimately, keeps bringing us back to one of my primary criticisms of the handling of Galadriel. Are we writing Galadriel? Or are we writing Fëanor? Because Galadriel knows the wages of obsessive vendetta pursuit. Or at least, she should if they were doing a better job of writing for her character.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 31, 2022)

gorice said:


> I can't know why you felt what you felt. I will say that I don't think the writers do anything to earn those emotions. I've sat through two episodes now, and it just seems that, like so much film and TV these days, RoP has the structure of emotional 'story beats', and emphasises them with all the techniques of the medium (music, cinematography, acting, etc.), but the writing doesn't really make sense. I'm expected to project emotions onto these moments, because the show is telling me that they are Important and Emotional, but the writing doesn't give me any reason to believe or care.



Of course different people respond to things differently, and I agree with you that a lot of modern visual storytelling falls into the trap of using techniques to cover up flaws in the story, but where that is usually a problem is when their is no clarity of conflict.

For me, Galadriel's conflict in that scene was clearly communicated.  She didn't want to leave middle earth because her work was not finished, but she had been commanded to leave.  If she leaves, she'll never return.  Therefore, if she wants to finish her work, she must stay in middle earth, and the only way to do that is to jump ship.  That is a simple conflict, but a specific one, similar to Luke turning off his targeting computer or Bilbo deciding to leave the Ring in Bag's End.  

The techniques used are all in service to how monumental the decision to leave was for her and ask us to empathize with her.  She waits till the last possible moment, she sees others vanish into Valinor, she's surround by an ocean!  

And for me, I was cheering when she jumped!  Yes, don't listen to your king!  Sauron IS coming and you have to help stop him!  And look, providence is shown when she's rescued from the ocean!  She MUST have made the right choice... Only at the end of the first season did I understand just how backward I had it.  A fantastic reversal of the hero's certainty in the rightness of their actions.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2022)

OB1 said:


> For me, Galadriel's conflict in that scene was clearly communicated. She didn't want to leave middle earth because her work was not finished, but *she had been commanded to leave*. If she leaves, she'll never return. Therefore, if she wants to finish her work, she must stay in middle earth, and the only way to do that is to jump ship. That is a simple conflict, but a specific one, similar to Luke turning off his targeting computer or Bilbo deciding to leave the Ring in Bag's End.



See the part bolded above. I do have a problem with this very idea. Is there any hint, in either the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, that any lord of the elves is *commanding* their people to leave Middle Earth and head into the West? There are examples of hosts taking up the invitation to go to Valinor, as well as hosts that choose to stay in Middle Earth. When the Noldor who returned to Middle Earth were pardoned, there were hosts who took up that pardon and left, and others who stayed behind.

People may follow their leaders, but there never seems to be a lack of choice in the matter. Gil-galad trying to boot his auntie out of Middle Earth because she's not being a team player doesn't work for me.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 31, 2022)

billd91 said:


> See the part bolded above. I do have a problem with this very idea. Is there any hint, in either the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, that any lord of the elves is *commanding* their people to leave Middle Earth and head into the West? There are examples of hosts taking up the invitation to go to Valinor, as well as hosts that choose to stay in Middle Earth. When the Noldor who returned to Middle Earth were pardoned, there were hosts who took up that pardon and left, and others who stayed behind.
> 
> People may follow their leaders, but there never seems to be a lack of choice in the matter. Gil-galad trying to boot his auntie out of Middle Earth because she's not being a team player doesn't work for me.



Well, Elrond lies (by omission) to Arwen to get her to leave in the film version of LotR (no idea if this is similar to the book) by not telling her about the child, and she was pretty peeved about it.  Seems a very similar story beat to me.  Arwen starts to go at the behest of her father, wrestles with her choice to leave, then turns back.  That Galadriel doesn't have a vision in that moment to help turn her around was probably one of the first clues that she wasn't making the right choice to head back.  It's almost as if Sauron is the One Ring to her, something she can't give up no matter how much her obsession with him is corrupting her.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 31, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Well, Elrond lies (by omission) to Arwen to get her to leave in the film version of LotR (no idea if this is similar to the book) by not telling her about the child, and she was pretty peeved about it.



It was not in the book, nor was anything like it. Aragorn and Arwen's relationship was one of the areas which the movies handled very differently.

The book is silent on what Arwen was doing during the quest for the Ring. There is certainly no indication that she considered going into the West, let alone tried to, nor that Elrond tried to deceive her or trick her.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I don't think any message in Tolkien is to trust in divine grace and providence to deliver you from your problems. I think part of the expectation is that you do the best you can and *if* you receive grace, that can put you over the top, but if you actively pursue evil deeds, you're not likely to receive it at all (see Frodo vs Gollum). If everyone just sat around not exerting their own strength and waited for divine grace to deliver them, they'd have been under Sauron's thumb long ago.



His actual message is "God helps he who helps themselves as best as they possibly can, and even then only if all hope of anyone else helping is gone."  Any elf who relied on Eru to save them would end up in the Halls of Mandos.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Of course different people respond to things differently, and I agree with you that a lot of modern visual storytelling falls into the trap of using techniques to cover up flaws in the story, but where that is usually a problem is when their is no clarity of conflict.
> 
> For me, Galadriel's conflict in that scene was clearly communicated.  She didn't want to leave middle earth because her work was not finished, but she had been commanded to leave.  If she leaves, she'll never return.  Therefore, if she wants to finish her work, she must stay in middle earth, and the only way to do that is to jump ship.  That is a simple conflict, but a specific one, similar to Luke turning off his targeting computer or Bilbo deciding to leave the Ring in Bag's End.
> 
> ...



See, I thought the jump as we saw it was stupid. Not the rebellion and idea behind it, but the method.  She should have either refused outright or jumped ship shortly after leaving port.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

billd91 said:


> See the part bolded above. I do have a problem with this very idea. Is there any hint, in either the Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion, that any lord of the elves is *commanding* their people to leave Middle Earth and head into the West? There are examples of hosts taking up the invitation to go to Valinor, as well as hosts that choose to stay in Middle Earth. When the Noldor who returned to Middle Earth were pardoned, there were hosts who took up that pardon and left, and others who stayed behind.
> 
> People may follow their leaders, but there never seems to be a lack of choice in the matter. Gil-galad trying to boot his auntie out of Middle Earth because she's not being a team player doesn't work for me.



That, too.  The show completely wrecks just about everything about Tolkien's elves.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That, too.  The show completely wrecks just about everything about Tolkien's elves.



I don't know about "completely wrecks just about everything" but I'd say it's handling of the elves is an area where the show is particularly weak.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I don't know about "completely wrecks just about everything" but I'd say it's handling of the elves is an area where the show is particularly weak.



I can't think of anything other than the pointy ears that fits Tolkien's elves.  They don't act like them at all.  Hell, they aren't even immortal anymore and have batteries that can run out if they don't get a mithril lithium recharge.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Oct 31, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Well, Elrond lies (by omission) to Arwen to get her to leave in the film version of LotR (no idea if this is similar to the book) by not telling her about the child, and she was pretty peeved about it.  Seems a very similar story beat to me.



"Because Peter Jackson inserted a kind-of similar scene for the sake of drama" doesn't really amount to a very robust defense of the characterization choices for Gil-galad and Galadriel.


Maxperson said:


> That, too.  The show completely wrecks just about everything about Tolkien's elves.



I think that, fundamentally, making any Elf a POV character is going to be problematic. As soon as you compromise their Other-ness, you lose something of their mystique and grandeur. I also think the Dwarves suffer the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree.

I would have much preferred to see human stories with original characters set across the whole of the Second Age, with more of a standalone episode format, with each season focusing on a different period during that time. The great Elven figures (Gil-galad, Elrond and Celebrian, Celebrimbor, Cirdan, Galadriel and Celeborn) could have remained recurring touchstones, but would have remained somewhat aloof, adding emphasis to their immortality and giving room to explore this contrast with the shorter-lived races.

I would have looked to successful formats such as _Black Mirror_ and _American Horror Story_ for inspiration, rather than try to have have a 5000-year old Wisest of All Elves embark on a Hero's Journey.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 31, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> "Because Peter Jackson inserted a kind-of similar scene for the sake of drama" doesn't really amount to a very robust defense of the characterization choices for Gil-galad and Galadriel.
> 
> I think that, fundamentally, making any Elf a POV character is going to be problematic. As soon as you compromise their Other-ness, you lose something of their mystique and grandeur. I also think the Dwarves suffer the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree.
> 
> I would have much preferred to see human stories with original characters set across the whole of the Second Age, with more of a standalone episode format, with each season focusing on a different period during that time. The great Elven figures (Gil-galad, Elrond and Celebrian, Celebrimbor, Cirdan, Galadriel and Celeborn) could have remained recurring touchstones, but would have remained somewhat aloof, adding emphasis to their immortality and giving room to explore this contrast with the shorter-lived races.



With a title like *Rings of Power*, elves were always going to be a focus - Celebrimbor and his fellows at the very least. And that didn't have to be problematic in concept. The reason it is a problem, if you ask me, is all in the execution.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 31, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I think that, fundamentally, making any Elf a POV character is going to be problematic. As soon as you compromise their Other-ness, you lose something of their mystique and grandeur. I also think the Dwarves suffer the same problem, albeit to a lesser degree.



I agree to some extent, but I also think the challenge could be overcome if handled with skill. If "Sandman" can make a protagonist like Morpheus work, elves are surely not beyond reach.

It all really comes down to the writing. It still blows my mind that a couple of rookies got put in charge of the billion-dollar show. I feel like someone looked at Game of Thrones and said, "Clearly, hiring two novices is the way to go!" They should have looked at seasons 7-8 to see what happens when the novices no longer have a seasoned veteran backing them up.


----------



## OB1 (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> See, I thought the jump as we saw it was stupid. Not the rebellion and idea behind it, but the method.  She should have either refused outright or jumped ship shortly after leaving port.



Fair enough, and in a book, where you can read Galadriel's inner struggle with her decision, that would probably be a better choice.  You could see her imagining being on the boat as it starts to cross over, listen to her thoughts on why she should or shouldn't go, etc.  But in film, that doesn't work as well to dramatize the moment.  Why is the Death Star moments away from destroying the rebel base in ANH?  Why didn't Bilbo leave the ring on the mantle like he told Gandalf instead of wrestling with leaving it again, complete with dramatic close ups of him and the ring that goes on for well over a minute?  Because those moments of drama need to be extended and pushed to the limit in a visual medium to get to the same catharsis as a few paragraphs of inner monologue can get from the written word.  Galadriel could have rebelled before getting on the ship, but the emotion of her decision is better shown to the audience by placing it at that dramatic moment.


Sepulchrave II said:


> "Because Peter Jackson inserted a kind-of similar scene for the sake of drama" doesn't really amount to a very robust defense of the characterization choices for Gil-galad and Galadriel.



Note that I'm not trying to defend any book v show or Tolkien v showrunners issues here.  I'm coming at this only from the films and show on their own merits, and was saying that the characterization of elves in RoP seem consistent with the elves of the LotR movies.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Fair enough, and in a book, where you can read Galadriel's inner struggle with her decision, that would probably be a better choice.  You could see her imagining being on the boat as it starts to cross over, listen to her thoughts on why she should or shouldn't go, etc.  But in film, that doesn't work as well to dramatize the moment.



All they needed to do was show her talking back to Gil-Galad telling him that she really didn't want to go and him insisting.   Or she could have said, "I'm not sure I want to go. Though I yearn to see Aman again and the loved ones I left behind, there is still much I need to do here. Sauron is yet to be found." Or a  number of other ways.

Now we know she is conflicted. You don't need internal monologues to show something like that.


OB1 said:


> Note that I'm not trying to defend any book v show or Tolkien v showrunners issues here.  I'm coming at this only from the films and show on their own merits, and was saying that the characterization of elves in RoP seem consistent with the elves of the LotR movies.



I don't agree.  Though not perfect, the LotR elves had much of the mystery, power and feel that Tolkien's elves had.  There's none of that with these elves.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Would have been nice if she chose to fight in defiance of destiny instead of capitulating to Sauron without so much a post encounter whimper. Fighting in defiance of destiny is going to every elf who will listen to tell them that he was Sauron in disguise and she can prove it.



If she does that, then it's back to Valinor. Her perception and decision making is skewed here: she is making suboptimal choices based on her flaws, which people tend to do. That's not bad writing, that's realistic.


Maxperson said:


> She doesn't do that, though. She loses and then lets him go off to destroy the world, rather than trusting her own strength(which she just found out in no uncertain terms wasn't enough).



She doesn't him go: she could not stop him at this time. Which is why she decides thst she needs a Magic ring...which will have bad consequences, classic Noldor style.


Maxperson said:


> That's not what would happen if she told them.



If she tells them, Project Ring gets shut down and Gil Galad orders a full retreat. If the rings are forged, then she can stay and fight. She modifies the ring plan, but her intention is clearly to prevent the retreat to the West that King Durin wisely foresees (note that it is established in the show that Komg Durin has had prophetic foresight!) will lead to the best result. The climax here is a.major tragedy that sets up Sauron's rise to further power. She is caught in a tragic web of repeating toxic behavior. And yes, making Galadriel the hub.of the Noldor behavior is a departure from Tolkien's Marian version of the character...but it is rooted in it, since she has a moment of overcoming the temptation to ultimate power, which is clearly the origin for the arc set up for this whole series. But the Season ends in a failure: she makes the mistake of using the Devil's power to.figjt the Devil.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I can't think of any other instance of Galadriel behaving in a blatantly suicidal manner to avoid going in to the West. So it doesn't seem particularly in character to me.



Within the show it bookends the whole Seaspn. And within Tolkien's own writing, something was preventing Galadriel from beingg able to pass into.the West until the moment when Frodo offers her the One Ring. This whole Season is basically an extended _ midrash_ on that plot thread.


billd91 said:


> I don't think any message in Tolkien is to trust in divine grace and providence to deliver you from your problems. I think part of the expectation is that you do the best you can and *if* you receive grace, that can put you over the top, but if you actively pursue evil deeds, you're not likely to receive it at all (see Frodo vs Gollum). If everyone just sat around not exerting their own strength and waited for divine grace to deliver them, they'd have been under Sauron's thumb long ago.



You are confusing trusting in Providence with Quietism. While Tolkien was not a Quitest, the Silmirillion makes it clear that the entire project of following Morgoth to ME was a mistake that could have been avoided: if the Noldor had embraces Hipe instead of...all of that...something better would have happened. The Silmirillion is a litany of terrible consequences to bone headed decisions made in spite of wise council. Season 1 sets this Series up to be much the same. Of the 6 societies introduced in Season 1, 2 already experienced total destruction...and all the other 4 will suffer the same fate by the end of Season 5. And all because of the tragic decisions of the Good Guys.


billd91 said:


> Which, ultimately, keeps bringing us back to one of my primary criticisms of the handling of Galadriel. Are we writing Galadriel? Or are we writing Fëanor? Because Galadriel knows the wages of obsessive vendetta pursuit. Or at least, she should if they were doing a better job of writing for her character.



They are writing show Galadriel, not Tolkien's Galadriel. Their version of Galadriel is being made the embodiment of all the vices and virtues of the Noldor from within Tolkien's work, however, and the overall themes of Tolkien are hence reinforced.


----------



## Parmandur (Oct 31, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> All they needed to do was show her talking back to Gil-Galad telling him that she really didn't want to go and him insisting.   Or she could have said, "I'm not sure I want to go. Though I yearn to see Aman again and the loved ones I left behind, there is still much I need to do here. Sauron is yet to be found." Or a  number of other ways.
> 
> Now we know she is conflicted. You don't need internal monologues to show something like that.
> 
> I don't agree.  Though not perfect, the LotR elves had much of the mystery, power and feel that Tolkien's elves had.  There's none of that with these elves.



The actress got all of that across without saying a word. They showed, they didn't tell.

Honestly, the Elves here feel more like Tolkien Elves to.me, amd benefit from rather more.screen time.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 31, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> If she does that, then it's back to Valinor.



Why? Literally no one can make her go. They aren't going to kill her and they can't force her.

Gil-galad: "Galadriel, for letting us know that the great enemy was here, you have to go to Valinor."
Galadriel: "No.  And your a stupid dumb dumb face for saying that when I can prove who he was."
Gil-galad: "Well, damn!"
Galadriel: "I'll be back to visit after I found Lothlorien.  You deal with him, since apparently you aren't smart enough to figure out that you can't make me do anything."


Parmandur said:


> Her perception and decision making is skewed here: she is making suboptimal choices based on her flaws, which people tend to do. That's not bad writing, that's realistic.



It's bad writing, because it's not something she or any elf would ever do.  Even the flawed Noldor wouldn't have done that, and she's not even one of them.


Parmandur said:


> She doesn't him go: she could not stop him at this time. Which is why she decides thst she needs a Magic ring...which will have bad consequences, classic Noldor style.



Or she could have told them and said she needed a ring, which Celebrimbor would still have forged.  Bad writing doesn't get better when you add bad reasons for the decision. 


Parmandur said:


> If she tells them, Project Ring gets shut down and Gil Galad orders a full retreat.



No it doesn't.  Celebrimbor continues forward with his plan in secret, just like in the books. Or Gil-galad is convinced that the rings are the only way to stop Sauron.  Remember, they have no idea that the One Ring is even possible at this point.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Why? Literally no one can make her go. They aren't going to kill her and they can't force her.
> 
> Gil-galad: "Galadriel, for letting us know that the great enemy was here, you have to go to Valinor."
> Galadriel: "No. And your a stupid dumb dumb face for saying that when I can prove who he was."
> ...



As Gil-Galed and the Elves believe, if Project Ring doesn't move forward, every one of the Eldar who does not head for Valinor will die. Period, end of story, quite literally. Now, this is quite possibly a mistaken belief, bit we'll see where that goes. Point is, Galadriel believes her choices are 1.) Go West and embrace Hope, 2.) Just due, or 3.) Make Magic rings and continue the fight using the enemies own methods.

She has chosen...poorly. But given her character as presented, with the facts perceived at hand...it's the logical next step.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> As Gil-Galed and the Elves believe, if Project Ring doesn't move forward, every one of the Eldar who does not head for Valinor will die. Period, end of story, quite literally.



Okay.  Then she tells them and they move forward anyway to save the elves who aren't immortal and need their mithril lithium batteries recharged by the rings.  That's not a reason not to tell them.


Parmandur said:


> Point is, Galadriel believes her choices are 1.) Go West and embrace Hope, 2.) Just due, or 3.) Make Magic rings and continue the fight using the enemies own methods.



Let's go over those choices.

Choice 1 is tell them about Sauron, make the rings and go west for some reason.
Choice 2 is, well, I'm not sure what "just due" means, but whatever it is, it doesn't stop her from telling them or the rings being made. 
Choice 3 is tell them about Sauron, make the rings and continue the fight.

Remember, they don't know about the One Ring or that it's even possible, so nothing about her informing them about Sauron stops them from making the rings.


Parmandur said:


> She has chosen...poorly.



She didn't choose poorly. The writing was poor.  There's literally no reason for her to have acted that way given either her personality from the books or her personality from the show.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No. No they weren't. It is factual that Valinor could not possibly be seen from Numenor.  Otherwise the ban was impossible nonsense as they would be landing on Valinor before sailing out of sight of Numenor.  The entire point of the ban was to keep that from happening. To keep Numenor from even seeing Valinor.
> 
> Numenor was about halfway, which made it out of sight of both shores unless you were using farseeing(clairvoyance).





Canonically, they couldn't see Valinor but Tol Eressëa. It is written as such :



			
				Silmarillion said:
			
		

> For in those days Valinor still remained in the world visible, and there Ilúvatar permitted the Valar to maintain upon Earth an abiding place, a memorial of that which might have been if Morgoth had not cast his shadow on the world. This the Númenóreans knew full well; and at times, when all the air was clear and the sun was in the east, they would look out and descry far off in the west a city white-shining on a distant shore, and a great harbour and a tower. For in those days the Númenóreans were far-sighted; yet even so it was only the keenest eyes among them that could see this vision, from the Meneltarma, maybe, or from some tall ship that lay off their western coast as far as it was lawful for them to go. For they did not dare to break the Ban of the Lords of the West. But the wise among them knew that this distant land was not indeed the Blessed Realm of Valinor, but was Avallónë, the haven of the Eldar upon Eressëa, easternmost of the Undying Lands.




I don't see any need to understand far-sighted metaphorically in this case, since it specifically mentions keenest eyes among them. I don't think the text imply that all Numenoreans were seers at first. And if it was clairvoyance, I could see it being boosted by standing on top of the Meneltarma because it might have some undescribed mystical, vision-boosting powers, but why would clairvoyance be better from the mast of a tall ship? Also, why would clairvoyance be impeded by lack of clarity of the air? I may be wrong, but I think it makes sense to have Numenor to be barely visible from Tol Eressea (the Eldar were supposed to trade with them so why not have a direct visual contact on where to sail to?) and to have Numenor halfway between the undying lands and Middle Earth...


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I don't see any need to understand far-sighted metaphorically in this case, since it specifically mentions keenest eyes among them. I don't think the text imply that all Numenoreans were seers at first. And if it was clairvoyance, I could see it being boosted by standing on top of the Meneltarma because it might have some undescribed mystical, vision-boosting powers, but why would clairvoyance be better from the mast of a tall ship? Also, why would clairvoyance be impeded by lack of clarity of the air?



From the tall ship if they sailed so far west that they were at the limit of being able to see a massive island from the same mast.  That's quite a distance.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> From the tall ship if they sailed so far west that they were at the limit of being able to see a massive island from the same mast.  That's quite a distance.




Indeed. My original question was because I have little  to no knowledge of optics and as a relevant matter, I only know that you can see Dover from Calais (20 miles) on a clear day across the channel and it's not everyday so I thought it might be close to an "upper limit". If we're speaking thousands of miles, then jumping is even more... puzzling. If one does ignore anything about the other sources, it just seems suicidal, even when Galadriel was already shown as a very strong woman.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Indeed. My original question was because I have little  to no knowledge of optics and as a relevant matter, I only know that you can see Dover from Calais (20 miles) on a clear day across the channel and it's not everyday so I thought it might be close to an "upper limit". If we're speaking thousands of miles, then jumping is even more... puzzling. If one does ignore anything about the other sources, it just seems suicidal, even when Galadriel was already shown as a very strong woman.



The thing with the Numenoreans and Dunedain is that some of them can cast their sight farther than normal in the way elves do.  They aren't just sharp eyed, but have a supernatural ability as well.  The ability from comes the elven and maia blood that flows through their veins.  This is also why Aragorn can use mind speech and some other abilities. And the queen in the show got visions of the end of Numenor.  Elves of course are better at it and can see farther, being pure blooded.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> All they needed to do was show her talking back to Gil-Galad telling him that she really didn't want to go and him insisting.   Or she could have said, "I'm not sure I want to go. Though I yearn to see Aman again and the loved ones I left behind, there is still much I need to do here. Sauron is yet to be found." Or a  number of other ways.




Indeed. If they wanted to show she's conflicted about leaving, there were several ways to do that that were more consistent with the show than have her jump from a ship mid-Atlantic and... swim back home, while all the other elves on the ship just ignore her instead of shouting "elf overboard" and tying to save her by stopping their ship, trying to throw her a rope and so on. I know the scene where she escalates a frozen cliff in the beginning establishes she's strong, but not "divine-like strong", just "heroically strong". Swimming across an ocean as a sensible mode of transportation is a step farther. If it's an act of desperation, it establishes her as clearly nuts. And I feel it may be the case, if we disregard every other source of information.

1. She's been seeing Sauron's influence for millenia without tangible proof 
2. She's been so focused on that hatred that she forgot to inquire seriously about the fate of her husband (unless he's really dead in the show)
3. She was so angered that Adar rightly told her that if she wanted to see the heir of Morgoth, she only had to look in a mirror 
4. Even without Adar pointing that out, the quote about the fate of Uruk is enough to put her in the villain side of the story
5. She proposes to travel thousands of miles on horseback with a fatally wounded person without putting him on a cart (thanks Eru it was Sauron and not a mere Southerner...) 
6. She fumbles the opportunity to warn everyone about Sauron, sure "he left" but she should have asked for guards to scout the area and kill him on sight and sound the alarm immediately...
7. When she's put on a ship toward the ultimate mental healthcare institute (Valinor) she tries to commit suicide instead of accepting help. 

This is a bleak depiction, but one that doesn't jive with her being the main protagonist of the show to be so emotionally and mentally broken.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> Indeed. If they wanted to show she's conflicted about leaving, there were several ways to do that that were more consistent with the show than have her jump from a ship mid-Atlantic and... swim back home, while all the other elves on the ship just ignore her instead of shouting "elf overboard" and tying to save her by stopping their ship, trying to throw her a rope and so on. I know the scene where she escalates a frozen cliff in the beginning establishes she's strong, but not "divine-like strong", just "heroically strong". Swimming across an ocean as a sensible mode of transportation is a step farther. If it's an act of desperation, it establishes her as clearly nuts. And I feel it may be the case, if we disregard every other source of information.
> 
> 1. She's been seeing Sauron's influence for millenia without tangible proof
> 2. She's been so focused on that hatred that she forgot to inquire seriously about the fate of her husband (unless he's really dead in the show)
> ...



Yep.  And to some in this thread, that behavior is picture perfect Tolkien.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's in character to jump out of the ship, rather than let go and pass into the West.




I think your point of view is that she's displaying hubris all along? Thinking, like the other Noldor, that she can do better than anyone else (the Noldor, and Morgoth, and the Numenoreans, and Isildur...) so you link that to this long theme along Tolkien's writing? Sorry if this appears to be a simple rephrasing of your position, but the show clearly resonated deeply with you and I am not sure why despite your explanations, so I am really trying to understand.



Parmandur said:


> And yes, choosing to fight in defiance of destiny is the same mustake.




Except that in order to relate to hubris, the audience should see the act as having a chance of success. Feeding your own son to Zeus is hubris, but at no point the reader is expected to relate to Tantalus and feel empathy.

If we're to relate to Galadriel, I think it's necessary for her scenes to show her as divided on what to do and having the "overconfidence in her strength" pushing her toward the bad solution, without this solution being immediately stupid or suicidal or hateful. If htey want to set her up as a tragic character, they should endeavour to make the choices she makes relatable to the audience.




Parmandur said:


> Galadriel's tragic flaw here, whi h setting up a lot if wins for Sauron, is trusting her own strength instead if divine grace and providence.
> 
> If she came cleanly this point, they wouldn't make the rings...which would mean she would have to return to Valinor. She is hiding the truth so that she can keep her vendetta alive.




Why? All are elves sharing the same tragic flaw (Celebrimbor above the two other), so the "tragic hubris" would be reinforced if they actually had the discussion. "OK, it was actually Sauron who instructed us on how to make rings. He clearly wanted us to create them, but let's create them nonetheless because, despite knowing it was Sauron's idea, we collectively know better and making the three rings will achieve our goal without him possibly interfering since he wanted us to create a single ring, we'll thwart him this way."

Here, they have absolutely no reason to avoid making the ring, that is presented as their only way to survive, using a method that was barely helped by someone that Galadriel says is a bad guy without really telling anything. As much as "jumping overboard" wasn't a decision the audience could relate to, except if the intended goal was self-destruction, in this case "not saying anything" deprives the ring-making decisions of its weight since neither Gil-Galad nor Celembrimbor have any reason not to create their race-saving rings, so the audience sees them as fooled by Galadriel more than by Sauron and it misses the opportunity for the trio to display tragic overconfidence (for that, they'd need to know and yet choose to do it).

Edit: also, granting race-saving power to the elven rings paradoxically lessens the hubris of making them, because it is "more overconfident" to say "we'll thwart Sauron for these nice jewels that are good-looking and valuable" because it would be sensible to not make the rings. Here, it's either "we do or we all die in a few years".


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Okay.  Then she tells them and they move forward anyway to save the elves who aren't immortal and need their mithril lithium batteries recharged by the rings.  That's not a reason not to tell them.
> 
> Let's go over those choices.
> 
> ...



Choice 1 is the rings not bring made, so it's Valinor or bust. Option 2 is just dying. Option 3 is obscure the truth, partially because she buys Sauron's "what will they think of you if they found out?" which I'd quite explicit in the text of the show. This is very true to what people who have been used and abused do: they obscand hide the abuse.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Choice 1 is the rings not bring made, so it's Valinor or bust.



Choice 1 couldn't happen under the current state of the show.  Regardless of whether she tells everyone or not, the rings get made.


Parmandur said:


> Option 2 is just dying. Option 3 is obscure the truth, partially because she buys Sauron's "what will they think of you if they found out?" which I'd quite explicit in the text of the show. This is very true to what people who have been used and abused do: they obscand hide the abuse.



She's not that stupid, either in the books or the show. There's no way with what they set up during the season that she does this.  It's bad writing plain and simple.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> This is a bleak depiction, but one that doesn't jive with her being the main protagonist of the show to be so emotionally and mentally broken.



It jibes very closely with Tolkien, though. Thus would be mid-tier emotional and mental dysfunction in the Silmarillion, which is full of massively screwed up stuff.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  And to some in this thread, that behavior is picture perfect Tolkien.



I would watch a show or movie about Turin Turambar.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I would watch a show or movie about Turin Turambar.



Where did you get to that from what @Galandris said about Galadriel and my response?  I'm baffled. 

And as long as Amazon isn't doing it, I'd like to see that as well.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Choice 1 couldn't happen under the current state of the show.  Regardless of whether she tells everyone or not, the rings get made.
> 
> She's not that stupid, either in the books or the show. There's no way with what they set up during the season that she does this.  It's bad writing plain and simple.



Gil-Galad was an inch from packing everything up, before Elrond convinced him not to (Elrond's own tragic mistake). If she came clean, she feels she would be rejected for being deceived, and loses her path to revenge.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Where did you get to that from what @Galandris said about Galadriel and my response?  I'm baffled.
> 
> And as long as Amazon isn't doing it, I'd like to see that as well.



That a depiction of a character as emotionally and mentally broken as this Galadriel is very, very Tolkien.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Gil-Galad was an inch from packing everything up, before Elrond convinced him not to (Elrond's own tragic mistake). If she came clean, she feels she would be rejected for being deceived, and loses her path to revenge.



No.  She isn't going to get her "revenge" at the expense of Middle Earth.  And she also wouldn't be rejected since she now has hard proof, not just "He's out there somewhere even though no one has seen him for a thousand years."


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I think your point of view is that she's displaying hubris all along? Thinking, like the other Noldor, that she can do better than anyone else (the Noldor, and Morgoth, and the Numenoreans, and Isildur...) so you link that to this long theme along Tolkien's writing? Sorry if this appears to be a simple rephrasing of your position, but the show clearly resonated deeply with you and I am not sure why despite your explanations, so I am really trying to understand.



Indeed, hubris is the central theme of the while series: Numenor will fall to hubris, Khazad-Dum eill fall to Durin's hubris, Eregion will fall to hubris, etc. All the good guys are falling to hubris...though in the end that will get Sauron, too.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> No.  She isn't going to get her "revenge" at the expense of Middle Earth.  And she also wouldn't be rejected since she now has hard proof, not just "He's out there somewhere even though no one has seen him for a thousand years."



Sauron laid out her fears of rejection in their conversation, and as Sauron had explained to Galadriel the key to manipulating people is using their fears and giving them a perceived solution that fits your own goals.

Rewatching Halbrand is really delightful, because of how honest he is about everything he is doing.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Sauron laid out her fears of rejection in their conversation, and as Sauron had explained to Galadriel the key to manipulating people is using their fears and giving them a perceived solution that fits your own goals.



Bad writing had Sauron lay out fears that the the Galadriel of the show would never have given in to.

Lots of bad writing in this show.


Parmandur said:


> Rewatching Halbrand is really delightful, because of how honest he is about everything he is doing.



And that's another thing.  The idea of Sauron being conflicted in this way is not Tolkien at all.


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Bad writing had Sauron lay out fears that the the Galadriel of the show would never have given in to.
> 
> Lots of bad writing in this show.



Writing that you do not enjoy ≠ bad writing. The writers spent a whole Season laying out a scenario where going through with making the three rings is the only perceived path forwards...due to hubris. It is artfully laid out.


Maxperson said:


> And that's another thing. The idea of Sauron being conflicted in this way is not Tolkien at all.



Well, actually...Sauron being conflicted after the fall of Morgoth very much A Thing, even though it didn't stick. Very much like how he is in this show. And he isn't really co flicted here: he's a deeply malignant narcissistic sociopath with delusions of grandeur made worse by being legitimately smarter and more powerful than everyone around him.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Indeed, hubris is the central theme of the while series: Numenor will fall to hubris, Khazad-Dum eill fall to Durin's hubris, Eregion will fall to hubris, etc. All the good guys are falling to hubris...though in the end that will get Sauron, too.




On the other hand I think they are making a poor job of setting it up. Let's take Khazad-Dûm. Since LotR (the films) everyone knows that "the dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum... shadow and flame." It was already set up to be a story about hubris. In the show it started well along this idea, because they had Durin III saying "no, we won't mine here, it's too dangerous and RISKS THE LIVES OF DWARVES."

Hubris would be "I like mithril, I know it could risk the lives of my subjects, but I am wise enough to mine prudently, let's extract this mithril and create many shiny things I like, and look, it works, proving that I am really the best..." until of course it no longer works.

Here we have an elf who risked his life to save dwarves lives in a mining incident, asking Durin IV to extract mithril to save EVERY SINGLE ELF LIFE IN THE WORLD. So the debate is framed as "Should we risk a few lives to save great many lives, including those of people who risked their own lives to save ours in the past?" It isn't hubris to say "yes" to the latter. If anything Durin III can't be seen as "wise" in the show, but outright evil to let innocent die (instead of say allowing the elves to dig themselves, or ask if there is any volunteer among the dwarves, one of which would be his own son...)


----------



## Parmandur (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> On the other hand I think they are making a poor job of setting it up. Let's take Khazad-Dûm. Since LotR (the films) everyone knows that "the dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum... shadow and flame." It was already set up to be a story about hubris. In the show it started well along this idea, because they had Durin III saying "no, we won't mine here, it's too dangerous and RISKS THE LIVES OF DWARVES."
> 
> Hubris would be "I like mithril, I know it could risk the lives of my subjects, but I am wise enough to mine prudently, let's extract this mithril and create many shiny things I like, and look, it works, proving that I am really the best..." until of course it no longer works.
> 
> Here we have an elf who risked his life to save dwarves lives in a mining incident, asking Durin IV to extract mithril to save EVERY SINGLE ELF LIFE IN THE WORLD. So the debate is framed as "Should we risk a few lives to save great many lives, including those of people who risked their own lives to save ours in the past?" It isn't hubris to say "yes" to the latter. If anything Durin III can't be seen as "wise" in the show, but outright evil to let innocent die (instead of say allowing the elves to dig themselves, or ask if there is any volunteer among the dwarves, one of which would be his own son...)



Durin III lays out his thinking to his son son, and...he is 100% correct about the fate of the Elves, based on Tolkien's work. Like, deeply right on the metaphysical end, not just atrolley car calculus. Prince Durin's hubris is denying his father's wisdom based in legitimate insight and trusting in his own power.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Writing that you do not enjoy ≠ bad writing.



Correct. Bad writing = bad writing, and writing a character as one way and then taking a hard left = bad writing.  Jumping her off of a ship in the middle of nowhere instead of several better and more reasonable option = bad writing.  Lots of bad writing here.

It's not bad writing because I don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy it because it's bad writing.


Parmandur said:


> The writers spent a whole Season laying out a scenario where going through with making the three rings is the only perceived path forwards...due to hubris. It is artfully laid out.



Achieving their goal through a bunch of okay writing and quite a bit of bad writing =/= artfully done.  


Parmandur said:


> Well, actually...Sauron being conflicted after the fall of Morgoth very much A Thing, even though it didn't stick.



He was not conflicted in the evil bastard that he was. He came out to see if he could just be forgiven without anything more the way Morgoth was in the past.  He was told that he had to come and receive judgment. He ran away because he knew what a right evil bastard he was.  Never in his history was he conflicted between good and evil the way the show portrays.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

This guy is a bit over the top and heavy on the rhetoric, but he hits on a lot of the bad writing and spells out why it's bad.  He's pretty accurate if you ignore the venom.  I also disagree with him that as a generic fantasy show that it was still trash.









						‘The Rings Of Power’ Season 1 Review: Amazon’s Arrogant Betrayal Of ‘The Lord Of The Rings’
					

Amazon's attempt to adapt Tolkien's Second Age was reckless, amateurish and arrogant. The result was neither good Tolkien nor good fantasy nor good storytelling. An adaptation fit only for those with little knowledge of either the source or of what makes good stories tick.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Nov 1, 2022)

I feel a subplot which leans into the _possibility_ that Sauron - at least, at one time - genuinely sought some kind of forgiveness from the Valar might be intelligently leveraged. But we're way past that point in the current timeline (whenever that's supposed to be); out of pride, and a desire to avoid _consequences_, Sauron has blown that chance. And really, regarding his brief submission, all we have is a line "and some say that this was at first not falsely done." So we're just reading some speculation about the possible motivation of a Maia; one which is quickly refuted by his _actions_.



			
				Parmandur said:
			
		

> he's a deeply malignant narcissistic sociopath with delusions of grandeur




Humanizing Elves is bad enough, but those of the Angelic order? Again, the mystery and power evaporates like a stale fart. And what we have is:

"Boo-hoo; Melkor was mean to me."

And, to Galadriel:

"Will you be my girlfriend?"

Bleh.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 1, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I feel a subplot which leans into the _possibility_ that Sauron - at least, at one time - genuinely sought some kind of forgiveness from the Valar might be intelligently leveraged. But we're way past that point in the current timeline (whenever that's supposed to be); out of pride, and a desire to avoid _consequences_, Sauron has blown that chance. And really, regarding his brief submission, all we have is a line "and some say that this was at first not falsely done." So we're just reading some speculation about the possible motivation of a Maia; one which is quickly refuted by his _actions_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Replace "Rivendell" with "Riverdale" and you get closer to the emotional maturity level of the Rings of Power characters.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> This guy is a bit over the top and heavy on the rhetoric, but he hits on a lot of the bad writing and spells out why it's bad.  He's pretty accurate if you ignore the venom.  I also disagree with him that as a generic fantasy show that it was still trash.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Didn't glean any insight from this article (I've gotten far more in this thread).  He seems to confuse bad writing with his not personally liking the choices made by the creators.  Anytime a reviewer starts going on at length about how they could have done better, I take their critique with a massive grain of salt.  It's quite easy to write a paragraph or two outlining a 'better' story idea, and quite difficult to flesh that out into 40 episodes of dramatic storytelling that engages tens of millions of people.  

Honestly, his critique of the coincidences at the start of the story shows that the reviewer doesn't understand storytelling at a basic level.  Coincidence is often (maybe almost always) what starts a story.  No one complains that the droids ended up at Luke's farm, or that Obi-wan happened to be wandering the desert when Luke was attacked by sand people.  And that's because those are the events that set the story in motion.  Conversely, at the end of a story, you have to have established reason behind the end happening as it does.  Gollum appearing in Mount Doom to 'save' Frodo only works because of everything that had been established between Frodo, Gollum and the Ring up to that point.  
As I've discussed earlier in this thread, the writer also doesn't seem to understand what a 'mystery-box' is, or the difference between a compelling use of one and a poor use.  Sauron hiding his identity from Galadriel and the audience makes sense for him as a deceiver.  The Stranger's identity being a mystery makes sense because he doesn't know who he is.  These are mysteries that the characters and the audience are attempting to work out, and are important to the characters in the story.  A bad mystery box typically doesn't have an answer to what's inside when it is conceived or is only important to the audience, and is put in only to invite speculation.  

Anyhow, just want to say that I've been enjoying the discussion in this thread.  As a non Tolkien reader, much of the discussion has served to illuminate my feelings on the story, which, while I enjoy, I can also understand how some may not, given the changes it has made to the source material.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Didn't glean any insight from this article (I've gotten far more in this thread).  He seems to confuse bad writing with his not personally liking the choices made by the creators.  Anytime a reviewer starts going on at length about how they could have done better, I take their critique with a massive grain of salt.  It's quite easy to write a paragraph or two outlining a 'better' story idea, and quite difficult to flesh that out into 40 episodes of dramatic storytelling that engages tens of millions of people.



Oh, yeah.  I completely ignored his, "I could do it better thing."  Didn't even look at it. 

I was talking about his issues with the writing, like having 100 horses on a small ship, charging over a large land mass very quickly, everything being super close together despite being on a large land mass, etc.  He points out a ton of real flaws in the writing, even if he is over the top with his rhetoric.


OB1 said:


> Honestly, his critique of the coincidences at the start of the story shows that the reviewer doesn't understand storytelling at a basic level.  Coincidence is often (maybe almost always) what starts a story.  No one complains that the droids ended up at Luke's farm, or that Obi-wan happened to be wandering the desert when Luke was attacked by sand people.  And that's because those are the events that set the story in motion.



No. That's because it was one coincidence.  Not three of them simultaneous with a stupid decisions that Galadriel would never have made.  If Luke had gotten the droids, turned around and saw Leia running out of gas and landing at the farm, and then had Han solo stop for directions to Jaba's place all at the same time that Ben decides that now is the moment to teach Luke how to be a jedi at the farm, it would stretch "coincidence" to the breaking point.

Some coincidence is fine.  The level of it at that moment in the ocean combined with her decision is just bad writing.  The writers should have just made it a dark and stormy night while they were at it.


OB1 said:


> Sauron hiding his identity from Galadriel and the audience makes sense for him as a deceiver.



Yes, but remember, she, Gil-Galad and Elrond all mistrusted Annatar from the get go. Elf Lords(and ladies) are very hard to deceive since they too have supernatural powers and are on par with some of the maia.


OB1 said:


> The Stranger's identity being a mystery makes sense because he doesn't know who he is.



The article writer didn't dispute that.  It was the length of time that the Stranger was kept in the mystery box that was lame and bad writing.  Some mystery is fine.


OB1 said:


> A bad mystery box typically doesn't have an answer to what's inside when it is conceived or is only important to the audience, and is put in only to invite speculation.



It's also bad if it is maintained overly long just to keep a mystery.  Who the Stranger was dragged on waaaaay too long.  And we still don't know for sure!


----------



## Hriston (Nov 1, 2022)

Dausuul said:


> (And we can also assume that the Meneltarma was pretty damn tall.)



Just wanted to return to this with some geographical nerdism. The Josephine Seamount rises to a height of nearly three miles above the nearby Horseshoe Abyssal Plain, so supposing the plain was at the level of the continental shelf before the Fall of Númenor, the Meneltarma would have had about the same elevation above sea level as the peak of Mont Blanc in the Alps (Misty Mountains).


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Anyhow, just want to say that I've been enjoying the discussion in this thread.  As a non Tolkien reader, much of the discussion has served to illuminate my feelings on the story, which, while I enjoy, I can also understand how some may not, given the changes it has made to the source material.



I am a far more casual reader of the books than many here but I too have been enjoying reading the conversation...


----------



## OB1 (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I was talking about his issues with the writing, like having 100 horses on a small ship, charging over a large land mass very quickly, everything being super close together despite being on a large land mass, etc. He points out a ton of real flaws in the writing, even if he is over the top with his rhetoric.



Maybe I am misremembering, but after the big battle with the horses, didn't they go over a nearby hill and see the boats anchored in a river?  I took that as they had sailed the boats up-river to be closer to the southlands.  Such a thing was seen in RotK.  The number of horses on those ships I don't have an answer for, but if anything, that's a production/budget issue rather than a writing issue.  I'm willing to overlook that as 'movie-magic'.  Fair if some don't.


Maxperson said:


> No. That's because it was one coincidence. Not three of them simultaneous with a stupid decisions that Galadriel would never have made. If Luke had gotten the droids, turned around and saw Leia running out of gas and landing at the farm, and then had Han solo stop for directions to Jaba's place all at the same time that Ben decides that now is the moment to teach Luke how to be a jedi at the farm, it would stretch "coincidence" to the breaking point.
> 
> Some coincidence is fine. The level of it at that moment in the ocean combined with her decision is just bad writing. The writers should have just made it a dark and stormy night while they were at it.



Well, in Star Wars it was 3 in pretty quick succession.  Droids end up at Luke's farm, and they happen to need a translator and an astro-mech.  The first astro-mech that Lars picks happens to have a bad motivator.  Ben happens to be wandering nearby when Sandpeople attack Luke.

For the RoP sequence, we have Galadriel being 'rescued' by Sauron (which given the end of the season, seems very likely was not a coincidence), getting attacked by the sea monster (again, may not have been a coincidence) and being found by Numenorians in the ocean (we don't know how long they were at sea, could have been quite a while).

As for Galadriel's decision to jump ship, we see characters in LotR do all kinds of out of character things when tempted by the One Ring.  The One Ring is what Sauron poured his "malice, cruelty, and his will to dominate all life".  That sounds like abilities Sauron has intrinsically, and that his creation of the Ring amplified (would love to understand more from you on how that idea fits in with Tolkien's writing on the matter).  So perhaps what the series is showing us is that Galadriel's obsession with hunting Sauron isn't just something from within her, but an effect upon her from Sauron, much in the same way the Ring drives people.  The Ring is Sauron.  That Galadriel doesn't tell everyone at the end of the season about what she discovered could also be much in the same vein here.  Just because we haven't seen all of Sauron's plans laid out yet doesn't mean they aren't behind the story we're watching, effecting it.  


Maxperson said:


> The article writer didn't dispute that. It was the length of time that the Stranger was kept in the mystery box that was lame and bad writing. Some mystery is fine.
> It's also bad if it is maintained overly long just to keep a mystery. Who the Stranger was dragged on waaaaay too long. And we still don't know for sure!



Is it important to Nori that the Stranger is Gandalf (or some other wizard)?  It's not, because she's meeting him for the first time, and that name wouldn't change the way she feels about him.  Bad writing would have been for him to say, "I'm Gandalf" like it means something to her (again, see Khan in ST: Into Darkness).  If you were watching this series without any knowledge previous works, the name wouldn't mean anything to you either.  What's important is what the writers actually show, that Nori doesn't know if she can trust this Stranger or not through much of the season, which is reasonable given her upbringing and Harfoot society.  That she does end up trusting him matters to the story.  Even then, the writers hint at who the Stranger is to the audience in the final scene, probably precisely because they wanted to end the mystery for LotR fans.  That's a smart, in character, in universe way of ending the mystery, not bad writing.

Now, this is a major deviation from Tolkien's work, and I can see fans of Tolkien being concerned about what bringing Gandolf and the other wizards into the 2nd age means for the overall structure of the story.  How that could lead to a domino effect of other changes.  But that only makes this story different, not bad.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Maybe I am misremembering, but after the big battle with the horses, didn't they go over a nearby hill and see the boats anchored in a river?  I took that as they had sailed the boats up-river to be closer to the southlands.  Such a thing was seen in RotK.  The number of horses on those ships I don't have an answer for, but if anything, that's a production/budget issue rather than a writing issue.  I'm willing to overlook that as 'movie-magic'.  Fair if some don't.



Only 3 ships left Numenor with the "army" of 300 soldiers, 300 horses, food and equipment for all of them, however many sailors sailed the ships, food and equipment for them.  That had to be food for round trip, too, since they couldn't be guaranteed to get food where they were going.  Those ships were not large.  There's no way they got all of that on them.  Which of course led to memes like this.







OB1 said:


> Well, in Star Wars it was 3 in pretty quick succession.  Droids end up at Luke's farm, and they happen to need a translator and an astro-mech.  The first astro-mech that Lars picks happens to have a bad motivator.  Ben happens to be wandering nearby when Sandpeople attack Luke.



Jawas have lots of droids, so having a translator and astro-mech wasn't much of a coincidence.  Neither is Ben being close to Ben's house which is where Luke was going when he was attacked.  Especially since Ben had both ears and the force to detect an attack going on not to far away.


OB1 said:


> For the RoP sequence, we have Galadriel being 'rescued' by Sauron (which given the end of the season, seems very likely was not a coincidence), getting attacked by the sea monster (again, may not have been a coincidence) and being found by Numenorians in the ocean (we don't know how long they were at sea, could have been quite a while)



Sauron wasn't alone.  He was with southron's who had no reason to be out in that area of the ocean at all.  Nor is Sauron capable of knowing the future and just happening to be there when Galadriel shows up.  If maia were capable of that, Morgoth would have been even more capable and couldn't have been caught off guard the way he was.


OB1 said:


> As for Galadriel's decision to jump ship, we see characters in LotR do all kinds of out of character things when tempted by the One Ring.  The One Ring is what Sauron poured his "malice, cruelty, and his will to dominate all life".  That sounds like abilities Sauron has intrinsically, and that his creation of the Ring amplified (would love to understand more from you on how that idea fits in with Tolkien's writing on the matter).  So perhaps what the series is showing us is that Galadriel's obsession with hunting Sauron isn't just something from within her, but an effect upon her from Sauron, much in the same way the Ring drives people.  The Ring is Sauron.  That Galadriel doesn't tell everyone at the end of the season about what she discovered could also be much in the same vein here.  Just because we haven't seen all of Sauron's plans laid out yet doesn't mean they aren't behind the story we're watching, effecting it.



The ring amplified his power and generally took time to affect people that weren't the most powerful elf to ever live.  Sauron could not have had that kind of control over her.


OB1 said:


> Is it important to Nori that the Stranger is Gandalf (or some other wizard)?  It's not, because she's meeting him for the first time, and that name wouldn't change the way she feels about him.  Bad writing would have been for him to say, "I'm Gandalf" like it means something to her (again, see Khan in ST: Into Darkness).  If you were watching this series without any knowledge previous works, the name wouldn't mean anything to you either.  What's important is what the writers actually show, that Nori doesn't know if she can trust this Stranger or not through much of the season, which is reasonable given her upbringing and Harfoot society.  That she does end up trusting him matters to the story.  Even then, the writers hint at who the Stranger is to the audience in the final scene, probably precisely because they wanted to end the mystery for LotR fans.  That's a smart, in character, in universe way of ending the mystery, not bad writing.



Bad writing is introducing yourself?  "Who are you?  I'm Nori." "Hmm, I can't remember."  A few episodes later, "I remember who I am finally!"  "That's great, what's your name?"  "My name is not for you to know, but you may call me Gandalf."  

That's not bad writing.  Bad writing would have been, :::two harfoots find a stranger in a crater and approach, as they get close the stranger lifts his head and says, "Gandalf!"::::  Which, compared to some of the writing in this series, wouldn't have been all that shocking.  

Most of the writing was decent.  Some was good.  And more than some was just bad.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Only 3 ships left Numenor with the "army" of 300 soldiers, 300 horses, food and equipment for all of them, however many sailors sailed the ships, food and equipment for them. That had to be food for round trip, too, since they couldn't be guaranteed to get food where they were going. Those ships were not large. There's no way they got all of that on them.



Honestly, this strikes me as being the fault of a studio note.  I'd guess that as written, it wasn't 300 soldiers on horseback charging in to save the day.  Then either when shooting or in post-production, someone at Amazon saw the scene or the storyboards and said "make it bigger!  This battle needs to be huge.  Just like LotR!" and so they went 3x or 4x on the visual effects of the charge, figuring the average viewer wouldn't think about the logistics of it all.  Note I'm not defending the lapse in logic for that scene, I'm just saying it's more likely it came from somewhere other than the writing.  I'd have to rewatch those episodes to see if before and after match up with 3 ships, and only the dramatic battle charge is different.  My sense is there wasn't hundreds of Numenorians in the camp after the battle.

And really, logistics are often sent to the wayside in fantasy.  What do all the orcs in Mordor eat and drink every day to stay alive?  It's a barren wasteland.  Does Amazon deliver to Mordor via Nazgul?


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Honestly, this strikes me as being the fault of a studio note.  I'd guess that as written, it wasn't 300 soldiers on horseback charging in to save the day.  Then either when shooting or in post-production, someone at Amazon saw the scene or the storyboards and said "make it bigger!  This battle needs to be huge.  Just like LotR!" and so they went 3x or 4x on the visual effects of the charge, figuring the average viewer wouldn't think about the logistics of it all.  Note I'm not defending the lapse in logic for that scene, I'm just saying it's more likely it came from somewhere other than the writing.  I'd have to rewatch those episodes to see if before and after match up with 3 ships, and only the dramatic battle charge is different.  My sense is there wasn't hundreds of Numenorians in the camp after the battle.
> 
> And really, logistics are often sent to the wayside in fantasy.  What do all the orcs in Mordor eat and drink every day to stay alive?  It's a barren wasteland.  Does Amazon deliver to Mordor via Nazgul?



Nurn, an area of Mordor is much more fertile than the portions you see in the movies, and it has slaves working the fields.  The food they raise, and probably even some of the slaves are what feeds those orcs.  I'd guess the southrons that join the orcs in the show are the first of those slaves.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> And really, logistics are often sent to the wayside in fantasy.  What do all the orcs in Mordor eat and drink every day to stay alive?  It's a barren wasteland.  Does Amazon deliver to Mordor via Nazgul?



Southern Mordor is not all smoke and ash; Sauron has vast fields there worked by slaves which provide food for his armies. This is noted at one point in "Return of the King."

Tolkien was absolutely rigorous about things like this. I came across an article once which broke down the logistics involved in the Witch-King's assault on Minas Tirith, the massive challenges of moving such a giant army with medieval technology, and how every detail in the books (not so much the movies) takes those challenges into account.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

Hriston said:


> Just wanted to return to this with some geographical nerdism. The Josephine Seamount rises to a height of nearly three miles above the nearby Horseshoe Abyssal Plain, so supposing the plain was at the level of the continental shelf before the Fall of Númenor, the Meneltarma would have had about the same elevation above sea level as the peak of Mont Blanc in the Alps (Misty Mountains).




I can accept that: Numenor is supposed to be a huge island, more like Ireland than a smallish island, and Reunion island has a 3,000 meters peak despite being around 50 km by 50... Hawaii has 4,000 meters peak with Big Island being 100 by 100. 

On the other hand the Meneltarma doesn't seem to have eternal icecap on its top, with people gathering there in white robe and garlands, not heavy boots, furs and winter clothes.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Maybe I am misremembering, but after the big battle with the horses, didn't they go over a nearby hill and see the boats anchored in a river?  I took that as they had sailed the boats up-river to be closer to the southlands.  Such a thing was seen in RotK.  The number of horses on those ships I don't have an answer for, but if anything, that's a production/budget issue rather than a writing issue.  I'm willing to overlook that as 'movie-magic'.  Fair if some don't.




My issue with this visual is that sending five ship sounded like a _big_ issue with Numenor, more like expeditionary force (but not mass mobilization) than coast guard operation. Their head of state oversaw the operation personnally, after interpreting that the operation was a do-or-die thing with the tree losing its petals when she considered not to go.  And the result is... Five ships, reduced to three by a little harbour fire. While I can accept the scale to be changed compared to the books (even if I prefer, wherever possible to keep consistency with other sources), it will break my suspension of disbelief if they send more than 20 ships against Sauron or 30 or so for the great armament... I accept they don't make Numenor the superpower it is supposed to be at the end of the Second Age like in the books, since they are doing a different show, but if they _show_ that it is 1% of Athens at Salamine times, then it set the scales for the near future ability of Numenor.

You postulates that the "big army" of 300 horseman was added later because the scenes weren't epic enough for a higher executive. I don't buy it because if it was really intended to be 3 ships with a few warriors, it would be a routine operation for the country, not something the general population would notice (many countries sent ships to patrol against pirates along the coast of Somalia, and noone in the contributing countries noticed...) and which presents no "existential threat".

I very much liked the artistic presentation of those ships, though.



OB1 said:


> For the RoP sequence, we have Galadriel being 'rescued' by Sauron (which given the end of the season, seems very likely was not a coincidence), getting attacked by the sea monster (again, may not have been a coincidence) and being found by Numenorians in the ocean (we don't know how long they were at sea, could have been quite a while).




This sequence with the surprising sea monster was useless (they could have just dropped it altogether and gone along with the story. I hope they will explain it was all prepared by Sauron in the first place, and set up for Galadriel, because it makes little sense as it stands.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 1, 2022)

@Galandris you're right, I was being too hasty blaming a production exec.  Just took a look back at episodes 5, 6, and 7 for some context.

Episode 5 - Good shots of the ships.  Shows around 40 soldiers standing above deck with plenty of room to spare.  Also shows the stables below decks, and what appears to be 10 stalls in perhaps a third of the length of the ship at water level.  Unknown if there is a third deck below the stables.
Episode 6 - The charge actually consists of 130-150 or so cavalry by my count.  So about 40-50 cavalry per ship. 
Episode 7 - Clearly shows the ships leaving from the base camp of the Numenorian's by river, which in turn was walking distance from the location of the attack (so no charge across thousands of miles).

At most, the issue may have been a practical one, with the ships in the show possibly 20-30% smaller than strictly necessary to cover the number of troops and horses seen in the charge, and was likely due to either sound stage or budget restrictions.

As for Numenor getting upset about such a small number of troops going.  The issue there, IMO, is not the number, but the fact that they are going to help an elf at all.  And small, expeditionary forces have a tendency to result in much larger conflicts.


----------



## Rabulias (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Maybe I am misremembering, but after the big battle with the horses, didn't they go over a nearby hill and see the boats anchored in a river?  I took that as they had sailed the boats up-river to be closer to the southlands.



You are correct. They even mention this earlier in the series when Miriel requests a status report and the response mentions sailing upriver to reach inland.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

Galandris said:


> My issue with this visual is that sending five ship sounded like a _big_ issue with Numenor, more like expeditionary force (but not mass mobilization) than coast guard operation. Their head of state oversaw the operation personnally, after interpreting that the operation was a do-or-die thing with the tree losing its petals when she considered not to go.  And the result is... Five ships, reduced to three by a little harbour fire. While I can accept the scale to be changed compared to the books (even if I prefer, wherever possible to keep consistency with other sources), it will break my suspension of disbelief if they send more than 20 ships against Sauron or 30 or so for the great armament... I accept they don't make Numenor the superpower it is supposed to be at the end of the Second Age like in the books, since they are doing a different show, but if they _show_ that it is 1% of Athens at Salamine times, then it set the scales for the near future ability of Numenor.
> 
> You postulates that the "big army" of 300 horseman was added later because the scenes weren't epic enough for a higher executive. I don't buy it because if it was really intended to be 3 ships with a few warriors, it would be a routine operation for the country, not something the general population would notice (many countries sent ships to patrol against pirates along the coast of Somalia, and noone in the contributing countries noticed...) and which presents no "existential threat".
> 
> I very much liked the artistic presentation of those ships, though.



Sauron had tens of thousands of orcs and when Numenor showed up he just surrendered because he knew he had no chance.  If you figure 10  or 20 horse on a ship and infantry, they would have needed enough ships to get tens of thousands(at least) of Numenoreans to shore.  That many sails would have dotted the sea in white, and certainly would have been more than 5 

Now, that was the book and I have no idea if it will be on that scale in the show once the One Ring is created, or if they will even have it happen at all since they've already changed things so much.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> @Galandris you're right, I was being too hasty blaming a production exec.  Just took a look back at episodes 5, 6, and 7 for some context.
> 
> Episode 5 - Good shots of the ships.  Shows around 40 soldiers standing above deck with plenty of room to spare.  Also shows the stables below decks, and what appears to be 10 stalls in perhaps a third of the length of the ship at water level.  Unknown if there is a third deck below the stables.
> Episode 6 - The charge actually consists of 130-150 or so cavalry by my count.  So about 40-50 cavalry per ship.
> ...



Horses eat 20 pounds of hay or oats a day.  50 horses in that ship means 1000 pounds of food per day of travel each way, and it is multiple days to get to the coast of Middle Earth from Numenor.  It took about 25 days to sail 3000 miles and the estimate for Numenor is 1600-1900 miles off the coast of Middle Earth.  So about two weeks of sailing.  That's 28000 pounds of food on the ship for a round trip just for the horses, and all the space that takes.  Now you need to feed the men, store their armor and weapons, store saddles and saddle bags, etc.  Those small ships can't do 50 horses plus supplies.


----------



## OB1 (Nov 1, 2022)

@Maxperson Okay so that's 12 Tons of Horses and 14 Tons of food for a total of 26 tons.   Add in 50 humans (1 ton), gear and food (2 tons max) and we're at 30. A small Caravel (which is the closest comparison I can find to the Numenor ships) had a capacity of 40-50 tons.  And the ships we see really look more like short clippers (which are faster and have more cargo weight capacity) than a Caravel.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 1, 2022)

OB1 said:


> At most, the issue may have been a practical one, with the ships in the show possibly 20-30% smaller than strictly necessary to cover the number of troops and horses seen in the charge, and was likely due to either sound stage or budget restrictions.




They also forgot about the logistics (everyone does...)



OB1 said:


> As for Numenor getting upset about such a small number of troops going.  The issue there, IMO, is not the number, but the fact that they are going to help an elf at all.  And small, expeditionary forces have a tendency to result in much larger conflicts.




Elendil is saying that he's having more volunteers that they can put on the ships, despite that [and "helping the elf" is probably the reason that decided Miriel, but it's not the one used as the justification of protecting humans in ME. It is explained clearly by Ar-Pharazôn to his son: the flow of the river is with her (confirming that there is broad support for her endeavour), and he supports the war because saving the lesser men of Middle Earth to set up a puppet king in the Southlands and benefit hugely from trade and tributes. Only his son (presented as young and stupid) doesn't understand that and he's teaching him politics in this scene (and failing to do so since the son will go afterwards burn 40% of the numenorean fleet). The Kings' Men are presented as _pro-expedition_ and pro-war because of their colonial ambitions in the show, who happen to coincidate with the "help the elf" motivation of Miriel.

I don't share your position of a lack of support making it difficult to send more troops as an explanation for the small fleet size. Even I were, I'd accept that 300 horsemen is the max they can afford politically... but why not simply replace the two burned ship if it was the case?


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Nov 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Sauron had tens of thousands of orcs and when Numenor showed up he just surrendered because he knew he had no chance.  If you figure 10  or 20 horse on a ship and infantry, they would have needed enough ships to get tens of thousands(at least) of Numenoreans to shore.  That many sails would have dotted the sea in white, and certainly would have been more than 5
> 
> Now, that was the book and I have no idea if it will be on that scale in the show once the One Ring is created, or if they will even have it happen at all since they've already changed things so much.




Tolkien gives the impression that the Numenorean fleet was huge, even before the Great Armament, and made up of enormous ships; so large, that the havens of Lindon were unable to accommodate their draft. The deforestation of Eriador was largely due to the needs of Numenor's fleet. Pharazon's ship, Alcorandas was "many-oared and many-masted," and if the fleet of Umbar in the Third Age is anything to go by, the dromond - a huge, fast Byzantine war-galley - seems to be the basic design. Constantine VII's ship had 230 rowers; the Numenorean ships might have been far larger - I can't think of any medieval ship with "many" masts (how many is "many?" - 6? 8? 10?).

In the _Nature of Middle-Earth_ Tolkien places the population of Numenor at around 15 million before the downfall, and Pharazon bringing 100,000 men to Middle-Earth seems entirely reasonable. Numenor was a superpower.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 2, 2022)

OB1 said:


> @Maxperson Okay so that's 12 Tons of Horses and 14 Tons of food for a total of 26 tons.   Add in 50 humans (1 ton), gear and food (2 tons max) and we're at 30. A small Caravel (which is the closest comparison I can find to the Numenor ships) had a capacity of 40-50 tons.  And the ships we see really look more like short clippers (which are faster and have more cargo weight capacity) than a Caravel.



Yeah, but it doesn't work that way when carrying horses.  Horses take up a lot of space.  Those stalls that the horses stand in + the horses themselves takes up many tons worth of space that would otherwise be used to stack tons of goods.  You don't get anywhere near 40-50 tons of carrying capacity on a caravel if you have horses.  A tarida was a bit longer than a caravel and could carry 20-30 horses.  That's what they put on it.

Those Numenorean ships could carry the horses or men, but not both.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 2, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Tolkien gives the impression that the Numenorean fleet was huge, even before the Great Armament, and made up of enormous ships; so large, that the havens of Lindon were unable to accommodate their draft. The deforestation of Eriador was largely due to the needs of Numenor's fleet. Pharazon's ship, Alcorandas was "many-oared and many-masted," and if the fleet of Umbar in the Third Age is anything to go by, the dromond - a huge, fast Byzantine war-galley - seems to be the basic design. Constantine VII's ship had 230 rowers; the Numenorean ships might have been far larger - I can't think of any medieval ship with "many" masts (how many is "many?" - 6? 8? 10?).
> 
> In the _Nature of Middle-Earth_ Tolkien places the population of Numenor at around 15 million before the downfall, and Pharazon bringing 100,000 men to Middle-Earth seems entirely reasonable. Numenor was a superpower.



Yep.  But not on three small ships.  I paused the charge of the Numenoreans over the hill and there were at least 300 horses.  That's 100+ horses per small ship. LOL


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Nov 2, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Yep.  But not on three small ships.  I paused the charge of the Numenoreans over the hill and there were at least 300 horses.  That's 100+ horses per small ship. LOL



Miriel originally intended to send 500 men on 5 ships, before 2 were burned, so 300 would make sense. It's a shame the showrunners didn't exhibit, enormous, breathtaking ships (missing an opportunity for a visual spectacle and emphasizing Numenor's technology); or have a larger number of smaller ships, with some acting as dedicated transports for the horses (missing an opportunity for coherent drama stemming from their possible separation/loss).

As to your general observations about transporting heavy cavalry by ocean - yes. It would be a logistical nightmare and very resource-intense. When William the Conqueror invaded, he had 2000 cavalry and 5000 infantry. And around 800 ships. And Belegaer is rather wider than the English Channel.


----------



## Hriston (Nov 2, 2022)

Galandris said:


> I can accept that: Numenor is supposed to be a huge island, more like Ireland than a smallish island, and Reunion island has a 3,000 meters peak despite being around 50 km by 50... Hawaii has 4,000 meters peak with Big Island being 100 by 100.
> 
> On the other hand the Meneltarma doesn't seem to have eternal icecap on its top, with people gathering there in white robe and garlands, not heavy boots, furs and winter clothes.



Would that necessarily be the case for a 4,800 m peak at around 37 degrees of latitude surrounded by warm temperate ocean water? If so, the elevation could be somewhat less. I was stating the full height from the abyssal plain to the summit as an upper limit. Of course the plain would be filled with some depth of water and with a deeper sea around Númenor, the height of the Meneltarma could be as little as 3,700 m above sea level if based on the geography of the Josephine Seamount. This would be quite similar in terms of elevation, latitude, and proximity of ocean water to Mount Fuji which is only covered by snow about five months of the year.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Nov 2, 2022)

OB1 said:


> Anyhow, just want to say that I've been enjoying the discussion in this thread.  As a non Tolkien reader, much of the discussion has served to illuminate my feelings on the story, which, while I enjoy, I can also understand how some may not, given the changes it has made to the source material.




This is exactly how I feel about both the show itself, and this thread. Well said.

I really get both 'sides' of this discussion.


----------



## Galandris (Nov 2, 2022)

@Hriston Not necessarily, you're right. Note that the pilgrimage on the Meneltarma was occurring on the arrival of Spring.


----------



## phuong (Nov 2, 2022)

I liked the first and last episode the most.  I felt frustrated at Gandalf being unable to communicate for the entire season.  The three evil dudes felt like they should have been at a modelling runway, not in the show.  I liked the overall plot and execution of the Southlands, Numenor and how Isildur was naturally messing up.  Dwarves and Elves relationship was good.  There was a lot to like.


----------



## Mad_Jack (Nov 2, 2022)

I'm hoping it gets a physical release on Blu-ray someday so I can watch it. It sounds like it's been interesting so far, and the few little clips I've seen look good.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 5, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Miriel originally intended to send 500 men on 5 ships, before 2 were burned, so 300 would make sense. It's a shame the showrunners didn't exhibit, enormous, breathtaking ships (missing an opportunity for a visual spectacle and emphasizing Numenor's technology); or have a larger number of smaller ships, with some acting as dedicated transports for the horses (missing an opportunity for coherent drama stemming from their possible separation/loss).




I don't know why everyone is saying 3 ships, because those 2 destroyed ships were replaced, so it was still 5 ships that sailed out. I am pretty sure this is in the dialogue of the episode where they depart. Plus, watch that scene again and you see three lead ships being followed out of the harbor by two more. I just watched the first season yesterday and today, so it is still fresh in my mind.

@Mad_Jack  There is a free 30-day trial for Prime, if you are in the US. That is how I watched it this week.


----------



## Rabulias (Nov 5, 2022)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> I don't know why everyone is saying 3 ships, because those 2 destroyed ships were replaced, so it was still 5 ships that sailed out. I am pretty sure this is in the dialogue of the episode where they depart. Plus, watch that scene again and you see three lead ships being followed out of the harbor by two more. I just watched the first season yesterday and today, so it is still fresh in my mind.



Uh, you may want to go back and watch episodes 5 and 6 again. There are only three ships sent to Middle Earth.


----------



## Muso (Nov 5, 2022)

My two cents in two comments:
1) Tolkien was very careful about the time required to carry out a journey. In the series very long journeys take place within a very short time.
2) Numenor's ships that look small but carry dozens and dozens of soldiers/horses.

Although I enjoyed the series in general, I found these inaccuracies very beneath a series with this budget.


----------



## Hriston (Nov 5, 2022)

Galandris said:


> @Hriston Not necessarily, you're right. Note that the pilgrimage on the Meneltarma was occurring on the arrival of Spring.



That was the first of the Three Prayers according to _Unfinished Tales_. The others were made at midsummer and autumn and similarly involved an ascent of the summit by the people of Númenor. There was no such feast at midwinter which might indicate that cold and snow would have made the conditions too dangerous as they are on Mount Fuji at that time of the year.

Other resemblances between the Meneltarma and the Josephine Seamount are a large flat area at the summit, very steep slopes to the south which, in Númenor, fall into Noirinan, the Valley of the Tombs, and proximity of the summit (post Fall) to sea level. In modern times, the summit of the Josephine Seamount is just 170 m below the surface, but in the Third Age, which I would place roughly between 11.5 and 8.5 kya, it would have been within around 95 to 135 m of the surface due to the rise in sea level.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 6, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> Sauron had tens of thousands of orcs and when Numenor showed up he just surrendered because he knew he had no chance.  If you figure 10  or 20 horse on a ship and infantry, they would have needed enough ships to get tens of thousands(at least) of Numenoreans to shore.  That many sails would have dotted the sea in white, and certainly would have been more than 5
> 
> Now, that was the book and I have no idea if it will be on that scale in the show once the One Ring is created, or if they will even have it happen at all since they've already changed things so much.




Well, this is the Ring that launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Barad-dur, after all.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 6, 2022)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Well, this is the Ring that launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Barad-dur, after all.



In the books, yes.  In this show with the writers it has, it could be 2 ships with 10000 horses on them fighting Sauron's 300 orc army. There's no telling what these writers will come up with and try to pass off as Tolkien.


----------



## ART! (Nov 7, 2022)

Muso said:


> 1) Tolkien was very careful about the time required to carry out a journey. In the series very long journeys take place within a very short time.
> 
> Although I enjoyed the series in general, I found these inaccuracies very beneath a series with this budget.



I feel your pain! 

I haven't gone back to watch the season a second time yet, but I swear there's the scene where Elrond and Celebrimbor decide they have to go see the dwarves, and then the next time we see them they're coming around a rock to the door to the dwarven city, and they're wearing the same clothes they were in the previous scene, have no travel gear or even a travel cloak, and there's no sign of any horses or anything! 

And then we get the Harfoot travel song with the maps, and it looks like they're traveling hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles, but with no sense of how much time that takes.

I have similar issues with the LOTR movies, though, too. They could have gotten away with showing less travel than they did, and I'm grateful for what we did get, but I really wanted more, because like you say, one of the things readers take away from The Hobbit and LOTR is the experience of travel.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 7, 2022)

Yes, the travel thing was annoying, along with all sorts of other stuff. I have now watched all of the first season and it pretty much lived up, and down, to what I expected from it. This series seems to be made for non-readers, as in if you have only watched the movies, you will be good with this series, but the more of the books you have read, the less satisfied you will be with the show. And in a way, that makes sense, since more and more people just do not read books at all.

I have also come to the conclusion that, while readers know there were three distinct Ages, in making this show, they decided to smash them all into one Age, to go with the extreme time compression they employed. How else do you explain them using the 3rd Age map while supposedly telling a 2nd Age story, which also has a 1st Age prologue? No mention of how much of the continent was lost under the ocean in the final battles of the 1st Age and using a map that clearly says Rohan on it, when Rohan did not exist in the 2nd Age, says a lot. As much as I will hate it, I expect Rohan to show up in future seasons. Elendil and Isildur being alive when the rings are created is more BS. Sure, names get repeated in both fiction and the real world, so maybe those two will just end up being ancestors of the main Elendil and Isildur, but not likely, as they may think that will just confuse the viewers. As for the Balrog, I guess the story they used for why one is sleeping in the root of the mountains was okay, as readers already know it fled there at the end of the 1st Age, after Morgoth lost. But again, because of the whole time compression thing, we know they are going to wake it up long before it did in the books. Then there is the whole "Sauron in hiding" subplot, the making of the Rings in the wrong order, the claiming of Mordor, and so on.

So yeah, as I explained to a friend who has not watched yet, the less you know about the books, the more you will enjoy the show. It makes a decent generic fantasy show, but a poor adaptation.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 8, 2022)




----------



## Gadget (Nov 10, 2022)

Honestly, for the most expensive TV show ever made, it was quite terrible.  I mean the writing was bad, really bad.  And the acting, not much better.  

As a Tolkien adaptation, it was a steaming pile of crap.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 10, 2022)

Gadget said:


> Honestly, for the most expensive TV show ever made, it was quite terrible.  I mean the writing was bad, really bad.  And the acting, not much better.
> 
> As a Tolkien adaptation, it was a steaming pile of crap.




 A lot of plot holes as well.


----------



## ART! (Nov 11, 2022)

Bear McCreary is on the latest episode of Other Minds & Hands. He's the composer of the _RoP_ scores, and I think his work there is _very_ good and some of his character and location themes are excellent.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Nov 11, 2022)

ART! said:


> Bear McCreary is on the latest episode of Other Minds & Hands. He's the composer of the _RoP_ scores, and I think his work there is _very_ good and some of his character and location themes are excellent.




He is good in general, having done God of War music and Walking Dead music, and lots more.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Nov 12, 2022)

ART! said:


> Bear McCreary is on the latest episode of Other Minds & Hands. He's the composer of the _RoP_ scores, and I think his work there is _very_ good and some of his character and location themes are excellent.



I agree that the score is very solid, as are the designs of the locations - in terms of their aesthetic (especially architectural) consistency.

Unfortunately, the result (for me) when the score is juxtaposed with poor writing, characterization and acting is a kind of cognitive dissonance which pulls me out of the experience. In places, the music seems to tell us _what we are supposed to feel_, rather than reflect any emotions which the story should have naturally evoked in us. @Mercurius alluded to this general issue upthread, and I broadly agree.


----------



## trappedslider (Nov 30, 2022)




----------



## Sepulchrave II (Dec 19, 2022)

RoP unsurprisingly flopped at Golden Globes without a single nomination in any category.

Emmys are up next month - wonder how they'll go.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 19, 2022)

I am expecting the same thing...


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 21, 2022)

Sepulchrave II said:


> RoP unsurprisingly flopped at Golden Globes without a single nomination in any category.
> 
> Emmys are up next month - wonder how they'll go.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Dec 22, 2022)

Truth Seeker said:


> I am expecting the same thing...



The show is ditching part of its directorial team for season two and bringing in some new ideas:

Here

Although the extent to which this can allay bad writing remains to be seen; hopefully they can bring some coherent storytelling and character development.


----------



## AnotherGuy (Dec 22, 2022)

I'm just appreciative this turd-in-a-dress-series introduced me to Charlie Hopkinson


----------



## Baron Opal II (Dec 22, 2022)

Just as long as sub-divine entities don't take a pyroclastic flow to the face and walk away a bit disheveled, again.


----------



## Galandris (Dec 23, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> Just as long as sub-divine entities don't take a pyroclastic flow to the face and walk away a bit disheveled, again.




TBH, this scene didn't look right because there was no dramatic tension (we _knew_ they wouldn't kill off Galadriel). However, I could have forgiven it as a display of badass-ness. After all, with Improved Evasion and a decent save roll... The problem was that nearly nobody of note died in this scene. It should have been a Pompei-level disaster and everyone got off with a few coughs.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Dec 23, 2022)

Yeah. It's not that people don't survive, it's that people don't survive and there aren't even any remains.

There were only about four "yeah, no" or "that's a choice" moments for me, but that was a big one.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2022)

So this is weird. Rings of Power was "stuck" at 84% on the Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer for months, and it plummeted to 52% sometime within the last few days. I guess it finally caught up with public sentiment.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> So this is weird. Rings of Power was "stuck" at 84% on the Rotten Tomatoes tomatometer for months, and it plummeted to 52% sometime within the last few days. I guess it finally caught up with public sentiment.



I don't think so. They still show 399 positive reviews vs 72 negative in their list and the individual episodes still have high ratings. Something's either not displaying right or not calculating right.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I don't think so. They still show 399 positive reviews vs 72 negative in their list and the individual episodes still have high ratings. Something's either not displaying right or not calculating right.



Yeah, 399 of 471 is 85%...so that would go with the old number. Maybe the algorithm only accounts for the x-most recent reviews? I'm also not sure if it is a straight up percentage. Maybe some reviewers are more weighted than others.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 29, 2022)

Mercurius said:


> Yeah, 399 of 471 is 85%...so that would go with the old number. Maybe the algorithm only accounts for the x-most recent reviews? I'm also not sure if it is a straight up percentage. Maybe some reviewers are more weighted than others.



I believe it's supposed to be a straight up percentage (although they do also say it can be affected by aggregate reviews from the individual episodes - but since they're high, they can't drag it down to 52% either). And there's not supposed to be a difference between how early vs later reviews are considered. They'd really be hosing its value if they did.
No, my guess is a technical glitch somewhere.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 29, 2022)

billd91 said:


> I believe it's supposed to be a straight up percentage (although they do also say it can be affected by aggregate reviews from the individual episodes - but since they're high, they can't drag it down to 52% either). And there's not supposed to be a difference between how early vs later reviews are considered. They'd really be hosing its value if they did.
> No, my guess is a technical glitch somewhere.



Well, I guess I got to enjoy it in a schadenfreude stick-it-to-the-Man sort of away for a bit, at least .


----------

