# Lord of the Rings TV series synopsis



## Morrus (Jan 13, 2021)

There's a synopsis been released for the show. No launch date announced yet.

Amazon Studios’ forthcoming series brings to screens for the very first time the heroic legends of the fabled Second Age of Middle-earth’s history. This epic drama is set thousands of years before the events of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and will take viewers back to an era in which great powers were forged, kingdoms rose to glory and fell to ruin, unlikely heroes were tested, hope hung by the finest of threads, and the greatest villain that ever flowed from Tolkien’s pen threatened to cover all the world in darkness. Beginning in a time of relative peace, the series follows an ensemble cast of characters, both familiar and new, as they confront the long-feared re-emergence of evil to Middle-earth. From the darkest depths of the Misty Mountains, to the majestic forests of the elf-capital of Lindon, to the breathtaking island kingdom of Númenor, to the furthest reaches of the map, these kingdoms and characters will carve out legacies that live on long after they are gone.


----------



## Dioltach (Jan 13, 2021)

Sounds good. I'm glad they decided to move away from the overly familiar Third Age. Plenty of stories to draw from in the Second Age, and the visuals should be stunning if done properly.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 13, 2021)

Hr.  Númenor?  I hope they're not doing the Downfall of Númenor - I am not sure the world really needs that story right now.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 13, 2021)

The Second Age covers 3000-some-odd years and ends with the defeat of Sauron, and capture of The One Ring. They could be going for the period in which Numenor started to colonize Middle Earth, or perhaps much earlier when Sauron taking the name Annatar and then convincing the Elves to forge The Rings. Either could give a lot of opportunities for good stories and intrigue.


----------



## ART! (Jan 13, 2021)

I've been assuming the series will be some smooshed together version of 2nd Age events, with Annatar making nice with elves, dwarves, and humans, teaching them awesome things (including: rings!), beguiling the humans into wanting elven immortality, and the fall of Numenor and the breaking of the circles of the world.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 13, 2021)

ART! said:


> and the fall of Numenor




As noted, I hope not.  The base story has what these days seems a pretty unfortunate religious message.


----------



## ART! (Jan 13, 2021)

Umbran said:


> As noted, I hope not.  The base story has what these days seems a pretty unfortunate religious message.



No doubt. I expect a much looser adaptation of Tolkien's work here, though, so they could change things up there.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 13, 2021)

I seem to recall hearing that the LotR series pilot has completed filming.

My guess is that they're going to do the Fall of Numenor. Judging from the synopsis, it's either that or the War of the Last Alliance, and that seems an unlikely place to start.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 13, 2021)

This is apparently the most expensive TV show ever made, and it's going to run for at least 5 seasons. Filming in New Zealand so they can keep the look and feel of Peter Jackson's movies.


----------



## ART! (Jan 13, 2021)

Morrus said:


> This is apparently the most expensive TV show ever made, and it's going to run for at least 5 seasons. Filming in New Zealand so they can keep the look and feel of Peter Jackson's movies.



IIRC, they even have the rights to use designs, motifs, and the like from the Jackson films - so, for example, the elven architecture in the series will be similar to the elven architecture in the movies, and the same with dwarven weapons and human armor, etc.

It just occurred to me that this series will provide a great opportunity to show a wider diversity of elven and dwarven characters. I don't mean just in terms of real-world ethnicities (which would be great), but just in terms of personality types, backgrounds, etc. We only get to know a couple of dwarves well in the movies, and a few elves. How the Hobbit movies managed to individualize the 13 dwarves is an example of what I'm talking about, I guess.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 13, 2021)

This could either be amazing or an absolute trainwreck. But apparently there will be nudity, so bring on those naked elves!... oh no, naked Hobbits.... eeeew.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 13, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> This could either be amazing or an absolute trainwreck. But apparently there will be nudity, so bring on those naked elves!... oh no, naked Hobbits.... eeeew.



Oh, you won’t like it.


----------



## ART! (Jan 13, 2021)

IIRC, Hobbits were not known to humans, dwarves, or elves in the 2nd Age. They were probably fairly different in disposition, too.

Including them in this series makes sense from a popular culture standpoint, and I assume the effects and trickery for merging differently sized characters in a shot is even better than it was.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 13, 2021)

This will either go down in history as one of the biggest wastes of money or will be the second coming of Game of Thrones (as far as fantasy TV-pop culture impact goes). With as much as is being spent, as much of a limb they're going out on here, I don't think there can be a middle ground. If it's just okay, that won't be good enough. I'm generally easy to please (though they were flawed, I enjoyed The Hobbit movies), but the stakes are massive, with it potentially being the most expensive TV series ever, adapting one of the most beloved fantasy IPs. And deciding that it needed nudity...



Imaculata said:


> This could either be amazing or an absolute trainwreck.


----------



## Dioltach (Jan 13, 2021)

I've heard the nudity will be limited to Ents and Dragons.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 13, 2021)

Looks like my second guess was right, according to Gizmodo:









						Amazon's Lord of the Rings Show Is About the Return of Sauron
					

The Amazon show is telling the story of Sauron's first rise to prominence, glimpsed in the opening of The Fellowship of The Ring.




					io9.gizmodo.com


----------



## ART! (Jan 13, 2021)

For all we know, the nudity will be just in prologue-like scenes of elves awakening aka being created. I doubt it, given the talk about wanting a piece of the GoT market, but it's possible.


----------



## ART! (Jan 13, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Looks like my second guess was right, according to Gizmodo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sauron returns twice in the 2nd age, I think: first as Annatar mid-2nd Age, and later as we see in the FOTR movie's prologue, at the end of the 2nd Age. IIRC


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 13, 2021)

Or every episode is rudely interupted by a scene of a naked sauron hatching his evil plans from his bathtub.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 13, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Amazon's Lord of the Rings Show Is About the Return of Sauron
> 
> 
> The Amazon show is telling the story of Sauron's first rise to prominence, glimpsed in the opening of The Fellowship of The Ring.
> ...




My bet would be that the five-season arc will follow the forging of the rings, the theft of the rings, the capture of Sauron/downfall of Numenor, and Elendil and his sons founding Gondor and Arnor/War of the Last Alliance.

Just a bet, though given the tie-in with the LotR movies, we should expect this is being conceived as a prequel to the significant parts of the legendarium that were focused on there.


----------



## Dioltach (Jan 13, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Or every episode is rudely interupted by a scene of a naked sauron hatching his evil plans from his bathtub.



With a rubber duck! Because as we all know, "you're never alone with a rubber duck".


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 13, 2021)

ART! said:


> Sauron returns twice in the 2nd age, I think: first as Annatar mid-2nd Age, and later as we see in the FOTR movie's prologue, at the end of the 2nd Age. IIRC



Sauron's return as the Necromancer of Dol Goldur (sp?) happens in the Third Age, IIRC.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jan 14, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Sauron's return as the Necromancer of Dol Goldur (sp?) happens in the Third Age, IIRC.




That's correct. But (i believe) ART! was referring to his two reappearances in the 2nd Age.

The first was his return after the destruction of Angband by the Host of the Valar at the end of the 1st Age. He wanders about styling himself Annatar "Bringer of Gifts" and being all matey with everyone.

The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 14, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> That's correct. But (i believe) ART! was referring to his two reappearances in the 2nd Age.
> 
> The first was his return after the destruction of Angband by the Host of the Valar at the end of the 1st Age. He wanders about styling himself Annatar "Bringer of Gifts" and being all matey with everyone.
> 
> The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.



Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 14, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.




So basically, Sauron has to make charisma into his dump stat from now on?


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 14, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> This will either go down in history as one of the biggest wastes of money or will be the second coming of Game of Thrones (as far as fantasy TV-pop culture impact goes).



I believe that distinction goes to Water World.


Dioltach said:


> I've heard the nudity will be limited to Ents and Dragons.



Gives new meaning to Morning Wood.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 14, 2021)

Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).




R_J_K75 said:


> I believe that distinction goes to Water World.




I've read and re-read The Silmarillion enough for my copy to be falling apart. But it is certainly a challenging read. It's main value is, by my estimation, enriching ones' understanding of LOTR. Knowing Galadriel's background, for example, makes her words and actions with Frodo that much more meaningful.



Ryujin said:


> Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 14, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).



I think that "John Carter" suffers from people feeling it's derivative of so many other movies, when the opposite is largely the truth. The "Warlord of Mars" series of books is seminal. So many other works drew from it, that many references have become ubiquitous. I rather enjoyed it, but must admit that I was a little disappointed that Dejah Thoris didn't appear as she was described in "A Princess of Mars." 

_"She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure."_


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 14, 2021)

Definitely. How it was marketed and even titled didn't work in its favor. I like the movie, but it could've been so much better. They somehow took an action-packed book and slowed it down. I still regret that they didn't go with John Hamm as John Carter - he would've looked like the Frazetta interpretation brought to life.

Taking this back to the Lord of the Rings series, one risk they run is having elements feel derivative of Lord of the Rings ("What, Sauron's got an army to destroy Middle Earth again?"), when it's supposed to feel cyclic.



Ryujin said:


> I think that "John Carter" suffers from people feeling it's derivative of so many other movies, when the opposite is largely the truth.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 14, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.



I tried to read it and got past exactly *ZERO *pages.  I re-read the same few paragraphs about 20 times and decided life's too short for this. I've never even considered giving it another try.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 14, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).



Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman.  Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious.  It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 14, 2021)

The 13th Warrior is somehow still the best on-screen Beowulf adaptation (the source novel by Michael Crichton being a riff on both The Name of the Rose and Beowulf). Johnny Depp's casting and subsequent performance in The Lone Ranger was horrifyingly racist. John Carter is fine but not great, though it falls short of the excitement of the original novel. It's not like the studio handed the director $250 million to make it and they came back with Manos the Hands of Fate In Space.



R_J_K75 said:


> Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman.  Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious.  It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 14, 2021)

I may be in the small minority in liking Water World. Granted, it is mostly the designs and action set pieces I like. Plus a really good score. 

John Carter of Mars was a very forgetable film. I think the 5th Element nails that sort of pulp scifi tone much better.

I really like the 13th Warrior.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jan 14, 2021)

If you want a better western than The Lone Ranger, I suggest The Outlaw Josey Wales.
But to get back on topic, all of Tolkien's writing is dry. Since the movies came out, I find I prefer to watch them rather than read the books. I hope the new show will be as entertaining as the movies.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jan 14, 2021)

The Silmarillion's first chapter is just terrible.; I always recommend people skip it.

As for the rest of it - you have to treat it as you would a book of Norse or Greek mythology. That's basically what it is. Pretty dry, even for Tolkien. You're either gonna be okay with that (as I am) or you're gonna hate it, which I can totally understand.

I thought John Carter was okay, but like everyone else here thought it could have been much more fun. Haven't seen Lone Ranger and never will. 13th Warrior is one of those I feel I need to catch up on eventually.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 14, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> The Silmarillion's first chapter is just terrible.; I always recommend people skip it.
> 
> As for the rest of it - you have to treat it as you would a book of Norse or Greek mythology. That's basically what it is. Pretty dry, even for Tolkien. You're either gonna be okay with that (as I am) or you're gonna hate it, which I can totally understand.
> 
> I thought John Carter was okay, but like everyone else here thought it could have been much more fun. Haven't seen Lone Ranger and never will. 13th Warrior is one of those I feel I need to catch up on eventually.



I've read Greek, Norse, and Hindu Mythology. I've read the I Ching and Tao te Ching (the latter is a tough one). I've read various religious works. It was a major effort to make it through The Silmarillion, for me.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 14, 2021)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> The 13th Warrior is somehow still the best on-screen Beowulf adaptation (the source novel by Michael Crichton being a riff on both The Name of the Rose and Beowulf). Johnny Depp's casting and subsequent performance in The Lone Ranger was horrifyingly racist. John Carter is fine but not great, though it falls short of the excitement of the original novel. It's not like the studio handed the director $250 million to make it and they came back with Manos the Hands of Fate In Space.



Rather interestingly, Depp received some praise for his portrayal of Tonto from the Aboriginal Community, most notably from Comanche Nation Chairman Wallace Coffey. I'd call it a "controversial" choice.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 15, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> But to get back on topic, all of Tolkien's writing is dry. Since the movies came out, I find I prefer to watch them rather than read the books. I hope the new show will be as entertaining as the movies.



I feel the same.

I read the Hobbit as a kid a few times and then again shortly before the LotR movies came out.  I then read the LotR books before seeing the movies because I had never read them.  I got through the Fellowship of the Ring rather quickly, The Two Towers about the same but a little slower, but by the time I got through the the first quarter of the Return of the King I was running on fumes but coasted to the end.  I didnt read the appendix.  So yes his writing style left something to be desired but I suspect it has something to do with him being a professor and the time the books were written. The Hobbit was my favorite out of them.; though I can't see myself reading them ever again.

The LotR movie trilogy was awesome I liked them alot, I bought them on DVD  but now would be hard pressed to re-watch them or stop if I was flipping through the channels and they were on.  The Hobbit trilogy otoh was horrible IMO.  I saw the first in the theater and thought it was mediocre at best.  Went to the second and walked out, maybe halfway into it.  Never saw the last one.  They seemed like an after thought and poorly executed.  Maybe I was just burned out on the franchise by that point.

I might give this new series a try if its free with Prime membership.  I dont think I'd pay specifically to watch it.  I havent been following the development but one thing Im wondering.  Is the title of the series "Lord of the Rings"?  If so and I hadnt read this article I'd have thought it was just another re-imagining of the LotR books which I have no interest in.  Now that I know its set before those books it makes a big difference.  I feel a title like JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth might be more appropriate to help differentiate it.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jan 15, 2021)

The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)

There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Jan 15, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)
> 
> There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.




PJ's LotR-Hobbit movies are a steady downward climb from the sublime, near-perfect Fellowship of the Ring to the unwatchably cringeworthy Battle of the Five Armies - one of the few movies I've almost walked out of (when the giant worms appeared, and I practically wanted to scream, "WHEN DID WE END UP IN DUNE?!", I was absolutely appalled). Though, in truth, the Hobbit movies are good enough fantasy flicks if one simply forgets everything that they know about The Hobbit, Middle-Earth, etc.; and just treats them like "Generic Fantasy Adventure Trilogy", and they do have their moments (I have to admit I loved the scene in the first one where we meet all the dwarves for the first time. I loved the way the movies managed to characterize them all differently, which even as DMs most of us struggle with when we have to remember the difference between Ragnar Bloodaxe and Olin Silverbeard, and how we were roleplaying them differently...)

Though, if they really wanted to make an epic prequel trilogy, get the rights to the Silmarillion and make The Children of Hurin / Beren and Luthien / The Fall of Gondolin. That would be the epic to end all epics right there...


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 15, 2021)

I have a bad feeling about this. I imagine it will look good, but veer far from the tone and atmosphere of Tolkien's Middle-earth which Peter Jackson did as good a job as could reasonably be expected in remaining faithful to. For Tolkienistas, this is likely to be a nightmarish mockery. For those just wanting pretty people and cool fantasy stuff to look at, it should be entertaining.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 15, 2021)

I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie despite its many flaws. But with the other two movies it all fell apart, and it became painfully obvious that this should have been two movies at the most.

There are a few fan edits that trim the trilogy down to 2 movies, or even 1, and it makes for a much better viewing experience. The fan edits cut all of the fan service, unnecessary cameos and everything with Legolas. It turns a bad trilogy into a some what passable film.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 15, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie despite its many flaws.



The way the dwarves look is the main reason I couldnt take the movie seriously.  They all look like Muppets and their hair is just ridiculous, except for top 2nd from the left guy looks like he should be in a Gillette commercial.  How did Howard Wolowitz get in there?  Seriously though giving this picture another look its pretty creepy on so many levels.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 15, 2021)

The videogames Shadow of Mordor / Shadow of War did some nice things with this time period in their flashbacks to Celebrimbor's story. I wouldn't want a complete retread, but a series which took a similar approach to reimagining these tales could work well.


----------



## wicked cool (Jan 15, 2021)

its funny I thought the dwarves were great (i'll be watching another movie and i'll recognize the voice but not an actor I know). It was 2 silly though and longer than needed

My biggest worry is they are going to be making up a lot of stuff (like new Star Wars) so you better have a good script writer/director/someone passionate about the lore. And unlike the Mandalorian you probably wont be able to have cameos and locations that easily recognizable to casual fans


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 15, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie despite its many flaws. But with the other two movies it all fell apart, and it became painfully obvious that this should have been two movies at the most.
> 
> There are a few fan edits that trim the trilogy down to 2 movies, or even 1, and it makes for a much better viewing experience. The fan edits cut all of the fan service, unnecessary cameos and everything with Legolas. It turns a bad trilogy into a some what passable film.



Apparently Topher Grace (yeah, the guy from "That '70s Show") has a hobby of doing fan film edits. I'm told that his edit of "The Hobbit" trilogy is excellent, though I haven't seen it myself. He removes all of the extraneous crap that was added to pad the run time, but wasn't in the book.









						Topher Grace Recut ‘The Hobbit’ Trilogy as a 2-Hour Movie to Clear His Head After Playing David Duke
					

Exclusive: The actor, who previously cut George Lucas’ “Star Wars” trilogy down to 85 minutes, said his version of the Peter Jackson movies was “a lot tighter.”




					www.indiewire.com


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 15, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> For Tolkienistas, this is likely to be a nightmarish mockery. For those just wanting pretty people and cool fantasy stuff to look at, it should be entertaining.



And you just summed up the reaction to the The Hobbit movies....


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 15, 2021)

Remember that The Hobbit was a children's book and for most of the story, the dwarves were bumbling fools who had to be saved several times by Bilbo. The tone should never have been the same as the LotR movies. Mixing in the whole Necromancer sub-plot threw everything off and the whole Dwarf angst from Thorin about the gold and the dragon went on way too long. I was fine with Legolas and the elf they invented for the movie, Tauriel, but that sub-plot should have just been to show that a Dwarf and Elf could be friends and not that whole icky romance thing.

As for the show, if they try to "Game of Thrones" it with sex and nudity and brutal violence, then it will be a big no for me wanting to watch it, even as much as I love the books and setting.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jan 15, 2021)

The Battle of Five Armies itself is fun if you ignore everything else and pretend you are watching a Warhammer Fantasy Battle movie.

The switch from Guillermo del Toro to Peter Jackson was further exacerbated by massive studio interference. They were the ones that insisted on putting Legolas and the romantic sublot into it, for example.



DrunkonDuty said:


> The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)
> 
> There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.




Aww, I liked the funky dwarven designs. That sort of whimsy felt very Guillermo Del Toro.



R_J_K75 said:


> The way the dwarves look is the main reason I couldnt take the movie seriously.  They all look like Muppets and their hair is just ridiculous, except for top 2nd from the left guy looks like he should be in a Gillette commercial.




I think that this is something that's been tough for LOTR readers for a long time. The Hobbit was written for children, the Lord of the Rings for an older audience. Yet so many of us, as children, marched right from The Hobbit to LOTR. Doing so here in reverse, then trying to reverse-engineer it to match the prior movies, messed a lot of stuff up even further.



Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Remember that The Hobbit was a children's book and for most of the story, the dwarves were bumbling fools who had to be saved several times by Bilbo. The tone should never have been the same as the LotR movies.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 15, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> The way the dwarves look is the main reason I couldnt take the movie seriously.  They all look like Muppets and their hair is just ridiculous, except for top 2nd from the left guy looks like he should be in a Gillette commercial.  How did Howard Wolowitz get in there?  Seriously though giving this picture another look its pretty creepy on so many levels.
> 
> View attachment 131306



It’s based on a kids’ book. Of course they look like that.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 15, 2021)

I like the look of the dwarves. But yeah, too much filler angst and filler cartoon fights. Even Peter Jackson knows that he was phoning it in at the end, just sick and tired of the whole thing. He almost killed himself making LotR. He never wanted to do another massive trilogy.


----------



## pukunui (Jan 15, 2021)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Though, if they really wanted to make an epic prequel trilogy, get the rights to the Silmarillion and make The Children of Hurin / Beren and Luthien / The Fall of Gondolin. That would be the epic to end all epics right there...



This. I think I was actually expecting that this would be the focus of this show. Oh well.


In defense of the Hobbit movies, PJ didn’t make it _all_ up. A lot of the additional material is the connective “retconning” tissue from the Lord of the Rings - either stuff that Gandalf tells Frodo in the time that passes at the start of Fellowship or in the various appendices at the end of Return.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 15, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Remember that The Hobbit was a children's book and for most of the story, the dwarves were bumbling fools who had to be saved several times by Bilbo.



Funny even though I read the Hobbit, watched the animated movie, had the picture book based on the movie and went to play of it all as a kid, I never realized it was written as a childrens book. I just kind of took it as a book everyone read.  Guess Im just oblivious to the finer points of life sometimes.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 15, 2021)

pukunui said:


> In defense of the Hobbit movies, PJ didn’t make it _all_ up. A lot of the additional material is the connective “retconning” tissue from the Lord of the Rings - either stuff that Gandalf tells Frodo in the time that passes at the start of Fellowship or in the various appendices at the end of Return.



I do remembering reading an article online about the Hobbit movies stating that this was intended from the beginning and maybe to add some of the Silmarilion.  The feeling was that one movie wasnt enough to tell the story and two was too many so they added filler.  I've no clue how it got to three. I didnt read the LotR appendix, the Silmarilion or see all of the Hobbit trilogy so I cant say what exactly was added or from where.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 15, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Funny even though I read the Hobbit, watched the animated movie, had the picture book based on the movie and went to play of it all as a kid, I never realized it was written as a childrens book. I just kind of took it as a book everyone read.  Guess Im just oblivious to the finer points of life sometimes.



That’s because you were a kid. Do you fundamentally not understand the concept of children?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 15, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I do remembering reading an article online about the Hobbit movies stating that this was intended from the beginning and maybe to add some of the Silmarilion.  The feeling was that one movie wasnt enough to tell the story and two was too many so they added filler.  I've no clue how it got to three. I didnt read the LotR appendix, the Silmarilion or see all of the Hobbit trilogy so I cant say what exactly was added or from where.




No, nothing from the Silmarillion. There were no rights for that included in the deal for the rights to The Hobbit and LotR. Everything extra plot-wise was from the Appendices in The Return of the King. But yes, the plan was for two movies from the beginning.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 15, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Funny even though I read the Hobbit, watched the animated movie, had the picture book based on the movie and went to play of it all as a kid, I never realized it was written as a childrens book. I just kind of took it as a book everyone read.  Guess Im just oblivious to the finer points of life sometimes.



IIRC the books were written for Tolkien's children, so small surprise that the later books were written for a somewhat more mature audience.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jan 15, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> The way the dwarves look is the main reason I couldnt take the movie seriously. They all look like Muppets and their hair is just ridiculous, except for top 2nd from the left guy looks like he should be in a Gillette commercial. How did Howard Wolowitz get in there? Seriously though giving this picture another look its pretty creepy on so many levels.
> 
> View attachment 131306




The hair and makeup in these movies is of such embarrassingly low quality it’s hard to even describe.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 15, 2021)

cmad1977 said:


> The hair and makeup in these movies is of such embarrassingly low quality it’s hard to even describe.



48 frames a second and high def didn't do it any favours. My film making friends were pointing out the flaws in the makeup.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jan 16, 2021)

Tyler Do'Urden said:


> Battle of the Five Armies - one of the few movies I've almost walked out of (when the giant worms appeared, and I practically wanted to scream, "WHEN DID WE END UP IN DUNE?!", I was absolutely appalled).



???? Giant worms ??? WTF ???

It's official, my flabber has never been so ghasted.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 16, 2021)

I don't recall any giant worms honestly, oh the guys who had barely a scene Were-worms


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 16, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman.  Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious.  It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.



I’m gonna go ahead and say it, Waterworld is very good, and 13th Warrior is a delight.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 16, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> whole icky romance thing



Um...what? What about it was “icky”? It’s just a pretty standard romance.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 16, 2021)

Did Pete just invent Tauriel so he could insert a cliché heterosexual romance into The Hobbit?


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

Morrus said:


> That’s because you were a kid. Do you fundamentally not understand the concept of children?



Im not sure how I should interpret this post.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> No, nothing from the Silmarillion. There were no rights for that included in the deal for the rights to The Hobbit and LotR. Everything extra plot-wise was from the Appendices in The Return of the King. But yes, the plan was for two movies from the beginning.



Was the reason they didnt get the rights for the Silmarillion do to artistic direction of the Hobbit films or were the movie rights all negotiated up front before the LotR movies were made?


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m gonna go ahead and say it, Waterworld is very good, and 13th Warrior is a delight.



Havent watched it in almost 25 years and I only saw it once that I can recall.  I actually went on Amazon today to see if it was free on Prime but it wasnt.  I was going to rewatch it to see if it aged any better.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 16, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Was the reason they didnt get the rights for the Silmarillion do to artistic direction of the Hobbit films or were the movie rights all negotiated up front before the LotR movies were made?



Movie rights were sold decades prior to when the movies were even made.  At the time, Tolkien sold the movie rights to LotR and Hobbit for money which put his children through school.  The Silmarillion was not included in that sale  (for starters, as it was not even published yet from what I know).


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

GreyLord said:


> Movie rights were sold decades prior to when the movies were even made.  At the time, Tolkien sold the movie rights to LotR and Hobbit for money which put his children through school.  The Silmarillion was not included in that sale  (for starters, as it was not even published yet from what I know).



Got ya, I just assumed that the rights were negotiated for the Jackson/Del Toro movies. I read not long ago that the Beatles were attached to the LotR, found the link.









						The Beatles' Lord of the Rings Movie Explained (& Why It Never Happened)
					

What on Earth were The Beatles planning for LOTR?




					screenrant.com


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 16, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m gonna go ahead and say it, Waterworld is very good, and 13th Warrior is a delight.



Waterworld was expensive garbage, but you're absolutely right about 13th Warrior. It was excellent.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 16, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> And you just summed up the reaction to the The Hobbit movies....




Yes, although this has the potential to go a step further, given that the Hobbit was an adaptation of a Tolkien book (albeit, with liberties), while this series doesn't have much direct text to draw from. There's the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales (which is mostly First Age, iirc), History of ME, etc.

So we're probably going to have lots of TV melodrama, titillation for GOT fans, and probably sociocultural messaging that will jar further from the Tolkien vibe.

Either way, I look forward to it, if for no other reason than that it will be high production fantasy on the screen.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 16, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> Either way, I look forward to it, if for no other reason than that it will be high production fantasy on the screen.



That's how I look at it. I honestly don't care if it gets Tolkien "right" or not, as long as it's _good_ fantasy. I see a lot of potential in this project, using a very rich setting to tell a mostly-new story. I hope they keep the fan-service to a minimum.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 16, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> Either way, I look forward to it, if for no other reason than that it will be high production fantasy on the screen.



indeed and if there are  those filthy hobbits, they will get a second breakfast


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 16, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> indeed and if there are  those filthy hobbits, they will get a second breakfast




Hobbits don't exist in Middle Earth in the 2nd Age. They do not even move west and settle the Shire until midway through the 3rd Age. So if there is even one of them in this series, that will be a serious screw-up.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 16, 2021)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Waterworld was expensive garbage, but you're absolutely right about 13th Warrior. It was excellent.



The price tag is irrelevant, it’s a good movie.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jan 16, 2021)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I hope they keep the fan-service to a minimum.



Now you know they're going to have Cate Blanchett as Galadriel.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The price tag is irrelevant, it’s a good movie.



The more I think about it I believe a lot of people (myself included) probably already had their mind made up that it was terrible before seeing it based on the extremely high budget.  Just like everyone thought '94 Jurassic Park was awesome because of the groundbreaking CGI, but I don't recall it being all that great of a movie.  Then again a bunch of us drank a beer ball and went to see it so my memory may be a bit cloudy on that one.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 16, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Now you know they're going to have Cate Blanchett as Galadriel.




Pretty sure that is already confirmed. Any of the Elves, except younger ones like Arwen, could be in it because they are immortal and have been around since the 1st Age.

But we can also be pretty sure there will not be any Wizards, no matter how much Ian wants to play Gandalf again, since they were not sent to Middle Earth til the 3rd Age? Of course, that is assuming that the entire series stays in the 2nd Age.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 16, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The price tag is irrelevant, it’s a good movie.



I'm glad you liked it, but I disagree. And not just a little bit. I think it was _terrible_. I don't care about how much it cost - I only mentioned it because it was _also_ very expensive, as well as being bad.



R_J_K75 said:


> The more I think about it I believe a lot of people (myself included) probably already had their mind made up that it was terrible before seeing it based on the extremely high budget.



Why would people think that it would be terrible because it cost a lot of money? That seems backwards to me, and not how I remember it at all.

IIRC, the press leading up to it suggested that it would be amazing (at least amazing-looking) because it cost so much. At least James Cameron's Avatar, bad as the script was, was revolutionary in terms of technology and visuals, and fascinating at world-building. Water World was just expensive, and the money didn't show, even for its time.

Again, feel free to like it - I'm glad someone does.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 16, 2021)

shawnhcorey said:


> Now you know they're going to have Cate Blanchett as Galadriel.



Well, I do love Cate. Can't really have too much Cate Blanchett.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

FitzTheRuke said:


> That seems backwards to me, and not how I remember it at all.



Something with that high of a budget no matter what the movie was, it wasnt going to meet people expectations of what it should be for the price.  When it didnt and critics panned it, audiences followed their lead. I remember it being quite the laughing stalk on late night shows for awhile.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 16, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Something with that high of a budget no matter what the movie was, it wasnt going to meet people expectations of what it should be for the price.  When it didnt and critics panned it, audiences followed their lead. I remember it being quite the laughing stalk on late night shows for awhile.



I think that you hit the nail on the head; it wasn't going to meet expectations. 

Even during filming there were a multitude of stories about it going wildly over budget, about the floating town set being wrecked in a hurricane, having to chase the boat with Costner tied to the mast because it got away from them in high winds...

I liked it fine, but to do so I had to divorce myself from all the hype prior to its opening. And from the negative press, that declared it to be a terrible, over budget fiasco before anyone had even had a screening of it.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> I think that you hit the nail on the head; it wasn't going to meet expectations.
> 
> Even during filming there were a multitude of stories about it going wildly over budget, about the floating town set being wrecked in a hurricane, having to chase the boat with Costner tied to the mast because it got away from them in high winds...
> 
> I liked it fine, but to do so I had to divorce myself from all the hype prior to its opening. And from the negative press, that declared it to be a terrible, over budget fiasco before anyone had even had a screening of it.



Yes that is exactly how I remember it.  I'm curious to re-watch it soon to see if its better or worse than I remember.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 16, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Yes that is exactly how I remember it.  I'm curious to re-watch it soon to see if its better or worse than I remember.



I remember it as being Mad Max on water, reasonable enough action fare, but adding nothing new to the genre beyond the change of setting. But the hero boat was cool.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Jan 16, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I remember it as being Mad Max on water, reasonable enough action fare, but adding nothing new to the genre beyond the change of setting. But the hero boat was cool.



The deity being Joseph Hazelwood was great.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 16, 2021)

MarkB said:


> I remember it as being Mad Max on water, reasonable enough action fare, but adding nothing new to the genre beyond the change of setting. But the hero boat was cool.



It had an environmental message that bopped you on the head when you see the bad guy's base being the exxon valdez, then once you realize that there really isn't enough water frozen to flood the earth like that it falls apart even more. The extended edition of the movie is much better than the original imo. It adds roughly _one hour_ of world building and background information.


----------



## Weiley31 (Jan 16, 2021)

Dioltach said:


> I've heard the nudity will be limited to Ents and Dragons.



Still won't beat out Sauron in his thong. That right there is probably where its coming from.


----------



## Weiley31 (Jan 16, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Or every episode is rudely interupted by a scene of a naked sauron hatching his evil plans from his bathtub.



Five Seasons worth of Sauron tub interruptions might I add!


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 17, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Something with that high of a budget no matter what the movie was, it wasnt going to meet people expectations of what it should be for the price.  When it didnt and critics panned it, audiences followed their lead. I remember it being quite the laughing stalk on late night shows for awhile.



Oh yeah, that's true for sure. It's definitely why the movie is still talked about as such an all-time travesty. It wasn't good, but I'll concede that it wasn't anywhere near the worst of all time, like it tends to be treated.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 17, 2021)

I remember every talkshow on tv making fun of Waterworld during their opening monologue for several days. They couldn't get enough of it. Critics all blasted it as the worst thing ever.

Then I watched it, and it was a fun action flick with a bit of a heavy handed message and simple plot. There wasn't anything in it that really bothered me. The world building was pretty good, the hero ship looked amazing, and it had a lot of good stunts. An okay action flick.

When I think of bad movies, I don't think of Waterworld. I think of Batman & Robin, The Starwars prequels, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull... or Wonder Woman '84, and yes, The Hobbit trilogy. Big disappointments and wastes of money, made by directors that have made good movies.

Heck, I'll even defend The Room; every armchair critic's favorite punching bag. Because atleast it wasn't a huge waste of money, or made by an experienced director.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 17, 2021)

Meh, I stand by it. Waterworld deserves almost none of its criticism. 

I remember thinking critics in general were terrible bores without the faintest hint of imagination for years after it came out, and that maybe people are just very quick to jump on a bandwagon of hating something. I’ve abandoned the first position as nonsense (most critics love the thing they criticize) but I’ve only found the second position more and more well supported as I’ve examined and challenged it periodically.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Jan 17, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Meh, I stand by it. Waterworld deserves almost none of its criticism.




Maybe my personal expectations were too high? 

My original opinion of it doesn't come from critics at all... that stuff came later. I was really looking forward to it - saw it opening weekend. I liked Kevin Costner at the time; I thought he made good films after Dances With Wolves. I knew that it cost a lot, and thought that he'd do something great with that big budget. 

But I really didn't like it - I felt the bad guys were stupid (cigarettes, really?), the overall plot was weak, the setting wasn't all that interesting (as I hoped it would be) the CG was _terrible_, even for its time (that fish-thing? the Roger Rabbit-looking cartoon propeller on the balloon?). I was just very much disappointed.

So when everyone started blasting it for being expensive garbage, I just had to agree. 

I will certainly concede that there has been plenty of worse things made both before and since.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 17, 2021)

Umbran said:


> As noted, I hope not.  The base story has what these days seems a pretty unfortunate religious message.



Can you elaborate on this (without breaking the forum rules, of course)? I’m not sure I’m seeing what you mean by “religious message” here.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 17, 2021)

Hriston said:


> Can you elaborate on this (without breaking the forum rules, of course)? I’m not sure I’m seeing what you mean by “religious message” here.




Someone evil coming in the guise of someone beautiful? Probably Lucifer?


----------



## Hriston (Jan 17, 2021)

I'm not sure how this thread became about Waterworld. I've never seen it.

Back to the synopsis, I just wanted to pick out a few clues about the events/periods/characters on which the series might focus. 



Morrus said:


> ... an era in which great powers were forged,...



This can only refer to the forging of the Rings of Power, so Eregion in the years S.A. 1200-1600 should figure prominently with notable characters Celebrimbor, Galadriel, and Sauron in the guise of Annatar. 



Morrus said:


> ... kingdoms rose to glory and fell to ruin,...



Eregion again fits this description, its fall coming in S.A. 1697 during the War of the Elves and Sauron in which Elrond, Gil-galad, and the Numenoreans are also involved.



Morrus said:


> ... and the greatest villain that ever flowed from Tolkien’s pen threatened to cover all the world in darkness.



This seems like a reference to the Dark Years which came after the War of the Elves and Sauron, when Sauron dominated most of the earth, and lasted until his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance. 



Morrus said:


> Beginning in a time of relative peace, the series follows an ensemble cast of characters, both familiar and new, as they confront the long-feared re-emergence of evil to Middle-earth.



I think the "re-emergence" here is the appearance of Sauron as Annatar and that the series will focus on the five hundred years from his appearance in 1200 S.A., the same year that Numenor began to construct permanent havens in middle-earth, until his defeat at the Battle of Gwathlo in 1701 S.A. when the combined forces of Numenor and Lindon gained a decisive victory, forcing Sauron back to Mordor.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 17, 2021)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Someone evil coming in the guise of someone beautiful? Probably Lucifer?



I don't think that's what @Umbran was talking about. I'm genuinely curious what his take is, though. To me, the Downfall of Numenor (which as I said in the post above this, I don't think will feature in this series) is a more or less straightforward tale of hubris. I'm not sure what religious overtones it might have to a modern audience, but I'm probably missing something.

Edit to add: I’m aware that Sauron’s role in the Downfall of Númenor is analogous to that of the serpent in the garden of Eden, but I have a hunch that isn’t what @Umbran finds problematic about the story. I mean, the parallels between Tolkien’s primary antagonists and the various literary forms of the biblical Satan are well known.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 18, 2021)

Umbran said:


> As noted, I hope not.  The base story has what these days seems a pretty unfortunate religious message.




And that would be...?

The Fall of Numenor can be looked at in a variety of ways, so I'd be hesitant to reduce it to a clear and distinct religious message. But Tolkien obviously saw power as a big issue -- that it, by its very nature, is subject to abuse (thus Gandalf's famous speech about "At first I would use the ring for good, but...").

On a surface reading, we can say that Tolkien is proselytizing that humans shouldn't challenge the divine order/gods, that to disobey means death, so there are hints of Biblical wrath.

On a deeper level, it is an exploration of hubris and desiring power, in the context of seeking immortality as mortal beings. The Valar said, essentially, "you can't go West in a mortal form" -- which the Numenorians tried to do. Numenor was destroyed because they followed Sauron, who as a kind of recapitulation of Morgoth, sought to extend his power in the physical domain in a way that was out of harmony with the natural, which itself was the expression of the divine. In that sense, we can see echoes in a lot of apocalyptic fiction, where our technology gets ahead of ourselves by messing with the powers of nature, either atomically, environmentally, or genetically.

So I don't see Tolkien as presenting a heavy-handed religious message as much as he was exploring archetypal things about power, nature, etc. Because he was a devote Catholic doesn't make his messaging a kind of missionary apologism for Christianity, but his faith obviously influenced his work, if only by providing a basic ideological toolbox with certain archetypal themes, many of which have applicability across many cultures and ideologies (e.g. "The Fall" from a "Golden Age," which as Richard Heinberg and others have explored, is one of the most universal myths).  But that is true of his entire body of work, so I'm not sure why Numenor would be any more problematic than LoTR.

And of course "messaging" is only a problem if you don't like the message, or if it intrudes upon your suspension of belief and thus, enjoyment of the story. Fiction is filled with messaging of different kinds. I agree that if it gets too heavy-handed, with a sense that the creators are saying, "You should think this way, and if you aren't enjoying this and nodding your head, you're despicable," then it can be jarring, or at least annoying. I've never gotten that sense from Tolkien's work, unlike more overt religiously proselytizing fiction (e.g. _Left Behind, _which I admittedly haven't read) or much of contemporary media with sociocultural themes.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 18, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.






R_J_K75 said:


> I tried to read it and got past exactly *ZERO *pages.  I re-read the same few paragraphs about 20 times and decided life's too short for this. I've never even considered giving it another try.






DrunkonDuty said:


> The Silmarillion's first chapter is just terrible.; I always recommend people skip it.




_Philistines!   _

But seriously, _The Silmarillion _isn't a novel in the usual sense of the word. It is more a book of myths, with the first chapter being a cosmogonic story, like the beginning of the Rig Veda, or Genesis, or any number of creation myths. I find it beautiful and immensely evocative, but there's no accounting for taste. I can see why, if you're looking for a rollicking good adventure story or an exploration of cultural or family pathos, it could be tedious. But it isn't trying to be _Ocean's Eleven _or _Kramer vs Kramer_. To say that it is "terrible" seems to miss the point, sort of like saying _Dune _sucks because it doesn't properly address contemporary socio-cultural issues, or James Brown is bad because he isn't heavy metal (when, in truth, he's _super bad . _


----------



## Umbran (Jan 18, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> On a surface reading, we can say that Tolkien is proselytizing that humans shouldn't challenge the divine order/gods, that to disobey means death...




Yep that.



Mercurius said:


> On a deeper level, it is an exploration of hubris and desiring power, in the context of seeking immortality as mortal beings.




And, on an _even deeper_ level, it returns to the same point of defying divinity.  Because, as an early fantasy writer, Tolkien was not really set up to discuss why immortality is a bad idea, other than "Eru said so."  



Mercurius said:


> The Valar said, essentially, "you can't go West in a mortal form" -- which the Numenorians tried to do. Numenor was destroyed because they followed Sauron, who as a kind of recapitulation of Morgoth, sought to extend his power in the physical domain in a way that was out of harmony with the natural, which itself was the expression of the divine.
> In that sense, we can see echoes in a lot of apocalyptic fiction, where our technology gets ahead of ourselves by messing with the powers of nature, either atomically, environmentally, or genetically.




Except that, in this construction, the rule is chosen, set and enforced by a sentient being.  Eru made the world. There is an order to it, and you may not defy that order, or by Eru's will you will be destroyed.  The ultimate message is _know your place_, which is very authoritarian and classist, I'm afraid. 



Mercurius said:


> (e.g. "The Fall" from a "Golden Age," which as Richard Heinberg and others have explored, is one of the most universal myths).  But that is true of his entire body of work, so I'm not sure why Numenor would be any more problematic than LoTR.




Oh, LotR has its problems.  Mostly it is less an issue than the Drowning of Numenor, as it isn't about the The Man smacking down people who defy their arbitrary class rules.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 18, 2021)

My first response is, so what? Should we expect fiction to represent our own real-world ideology, be it ontological, socio-economic, moral, or otherwise? We can read anything through the perspective of our preferred ideology, but doesn't that reduce the potentials of fiction? (and I say this as someone who, in the real-world, finds a lot of value in a perspective on socio-economics that emphasizes class dynamics; meaning, big fan of Zinn, Chomsky, etc).

Regardless of what Tolkien's socio-political views were, is there anything inherently "problematic" with creating a world that involves a cosmic hierarchy? So my main point of disagreement is not on what is the good, true and beautiful in our world, but why it is "problematic" for a work of fiction to explore possibilities, even those that don't jive with our own ideology. It isn't problematic to depict a fantasy world with an ontological divine order. Actually, I don't think it is problematic to even suggest that is how our world is and/or should be. Where it becomes problematic is when there is an attempt to force that view upon others, whether ideologically or in terms of lifestyle.

Now I personally don't like the message of "don't challenge the gods," but I think that is an overly simplistic reading of what Tolkien was saying, which included elements of Icarus and Greek stories of hubris, which aren't simply divine powers being jerks and saying "know your place," but expositions of the problems of egotism and excessive pride.


----------



## Mercurius (Jan 18, 2021)

p.s. I don't know what Tolkien's socio-political views were, or what they would be today, but he was basically a traditionalist and a Romantic, so everything in his work is strongly hued with a sense of decline and devolution. Each successive Age was a further "Fall" from the primordial purity of Aman. Yet Aman still exists as the archetypal "golden country" beyond the bounds of the earth, and the peoples of Middle-earth find peace and well-being to the degree to which they live in harmony with this archetype and divine order. This jives with ancient and esoteric views, as well as that of Gnosticism, or the Ages as the Indian Yugas.

That said, we don't know how Tolkien would have written stories set in later Ages. LotR ends with the beginning of the Fourth Age, which he said was roughly 6,000 years ago. Many myths speak of a return, or a "rise" back up, or a creating of a "New Eden" on Earth. But Tolkien's stories take place during and after the "falling away" phase. I would like to think he would have a somewhat optimistic view, but who knows. I think he felt deep sorrow and even anger at the negative elements of industrial civilization, and loved the natural world.


----------



## ART! (Jan 18, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I tried to read it and got past exactly *ZERO *pages.  I re-read the same few paragraphs about 20 times and decided life's too short for this. I've never even considered giving it another try.



I've heard that for many readers familiar with LOTR it's best to read it in reverse, i.e. read the 3rd Age stuff toward the end of the book first, then the 2nd Age stuff, etc.


Imaculata said:


> I may be in the small minority in liking Water World. Granted, it is mostly the designs and action set pieces I like. Plus a really good score.
> 
> John Carter of Mars was a very forgetable film. I think the 5th Element nails that sort of pulp scifi tone much better.
> 
> I really like the 13th Warrior.



That is the first time I've ever hear of the two being compared as the same kind of film. I see the two films as fundamentally different, but art criticism is a funny thing, so you be you.  


Ryujin said:


> Rather interestingly, Depp received some praise for his portrayal of Tonto from the Aboriginal Community, most notably from Comanche Nation Chairman Wallace Coffey. I'd call it a "controversial" choice.



Yeah, I think it's less cut-and-dry than a lot of people want to make it. There's real subtlety and commentary going on in how the character is written and how Depp plays it.

That said, a talented Native actor could have dinner equally and even more interesting things with it.


DrunkonDuty said:


> The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)
> 
> There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.



Jackson was not keen on directing it himself, and the plan was for two movies, until during_ filming_ the studios said they wanted three. You can't do that and get good movies, although there's probably some exception in the history of film-making I'm not thinking of.


Imaculata said:


> I enjoyed the first Hobbit movie despite its many flaws. But with the other two movies it all fell apart, and it became painfully obvious that this should have been two movies at the most.
> 
> There are a few fan edits that trim the trilogy down to 2 movies, or even 1, and it makes for a much better viewing experience. The fan edits cut all of the fan service, unnecessary cameos and everything with Legolas. It turns a bad trilogy into a some what passable film.



I watched a 4 hour and 20 minute fan edit recently and, aside from a couple of slightly jarring cuts that no one else in the family noticed, it was thoroughly enjoyable.


R_J_K75 said:


> Funny even though I read the Hobbit, watched the animated movie, had the picture book based on the movie and went to play of it all as a kid, I never realized it was written as a childrens book. I just kind of took it as a book everyone read.  Guess Im just oblivious to the finer points of life sometimes.



I know Token wrote it ostensibly for his kids, but did he think of it as a "children's book"? It does not read that way to me as an adult.


FitzTheRuke said:


> That's how I look at it. I honestly don't care if it gets Tolkien "right" or not, as long as it's _good_ fantasy. I see a lot of potential in this project, using a very rich setting to tell a mostly-new story. I hope they keep the fan-service to a minimum.



I feel the same way. I don't expect a faithful adaptation, just an "inspired by" version of some cool stuff from the 2nd Age.


Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Hobbits don't exist in Middle Earth in the 2nd Age. They do not even move west and settle the Shire until midway through the 3rd Age. So if there is even one of them in this series, that will be a serious screw-up.



I'm not sure if we know whether they existed or not in the 2nd Age - they just don't enter into _anyone else's_ reckoning until the 3rd Age.


Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Pretty sure that is already confirmed. Any of the Elves, except younger ones like Arwen, could be in it because they are immortal and have been around since the 1st Age.
> 
> But we can also be pretty sure there will not be any Wizards, no matter how much Ian wants to play Gandalf again, since they were not sent to Middle Earth til the 3rd Age? Of course, that is assuming that the entire series stays in the 2nd Age.



The beings who became the Istari were around in some form during the 2nd Age, so...maybe we'll see them?


FitzTheRuke said:


> Well, I do love Cate. Can't really have too much Cate Blanchett.



Her otherworldly approach to Galadriel is one of my favorite things in those movies.


Mercurius said:


> p.s. I don't know what Tolkien's socio-political views were, or what they would be today, but he was basically a traditionalist and a Romantic, so everything in his work is strongly hued with a sense of decline and devolution. Each successive Age was a further "Fall" from the primordial purity of Aman. Yet Aman still exists as the archetypal "golden country" beyond the bounds of the earth, and the peoples of Middle-earth find peace and well-being to the degree to which they live in harmony with this archetype and divine order. This jives with ancient and esoteric views, as well as that of Gnosticism, or the Ages as the Indian Yugas.
> 
> That said, we don't know how Tolkien would have written stories set in later Ages. LotR ends with the beginning of the Fourth Age, which he said was roughly 6,000 years ago. Many myths speak of a return, or a "rise" back up, or a creating of a "New Eden" on Earth. But Tolkien's stories take place during and after the "falling away" phase. I would like to think he would have a somewhat optimistic view, but who knows. I think he felt deep sorrow and even anger at the negative elements of industrial civilization, and loved the natural world.



Tolkien started writing a 4th Age story, and what little he wrote is in the last History of Middle Earth volume. He abandoned it because, IIRC, it ultimately seemed anti-climactic and sort of depressing, with orc cults and the like developing. Perhaps too prophetic.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 19, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> Now I personally don't like the message of "don't challenge the gods," but I think that is an overly simplistic reading of what Tolkien was saying, which included elements of Icarus and Greek stories of hubris, which aren't simply divine powers being jerks and saying "know your place," but expositions of the problems of egotism and excessive pride.



Not only that, but what’s at stake in Ilúvatar’s decision to destroy Númenor and its fleet is the nature of the Gift and its role in the healing of Arda. Númenor had become an instrument of Morgoth due to the shadow of fear he had cast over death, and the Valar were forbidden from using their power to oppose them. If they had been allowed to prevail, the world would have fallen into darkness, and its subsequent history would have been very different with no path towards the healing of the marring of Morgoth. It’s really the moment when Morgoth could have won, which is why Ilúvatar had to intercede.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 19, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Yep that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is all an incredible leap that I think vanishingly few people would remotely take away from the story.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 20, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is all an incredible leap that I think vanishingly few people would remotely take away from the story.



Really? Because all the discussion of it in this thread makes it sound straight out of the Old Testament, somewhere between Noah's Ark and Soddom and Gomorrah.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 20, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Really? Because all the discussion of it in this thread makes it sound straight out of the Old Testament, somewhere between Noah's Ark and Soddom and Gomorrah.



I’ve never met anyone who takes a vaguely “classist” lesson from those stories. 

Even the idea of equating the wrath of god with classist violence is...completely incredible. Preposterous.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 21, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Really? Because all the discussion of it in this thread makes it sound straight out of the Old Testament, somewhere between Noah's Ark and Soddom and Gomorrah.



I'm not sure why sounding "straight out of the Old Testament" equates to a classist message, especially when so much of the Bible deals with themes of liberation from injustice and oppression. That being said, I think that yes, the biblical Flood is probably one of the main influences on the Downfall of Númenor along with the legend of Atlantis. The Tower of Babel also comes to mind, as does the Garden of Eden. I think Babel is an apt comparison because, like much of Tolkien's subject matter, the story of Númenor is especially concerned with power. At the end of the Second Age, the Númenoreans are at their height and represent humanity in the fullness of its power. Literally nothing on earth can stop them. Their fleet, the Armament, is the greatest fighting force that ever existed or will exist. And they, like most men, are consumed by the fear of death, the lie of Morgoth. The whispering council of Sauron has turned their king, Ar-Pharazôn, the most powerful king who ever lived, into an Antichrist, capable of conquering even the deathless lands of Aman, the image (but not the reality) of Arda Unmarred. Once conquered by mortals, rather than conferring immortality upon them as Sauron has promised, it would itself cease to be deathless, and death would enter the last place untouched by that corrupting influence. The Valar cannot wield their power against Ilúvatar’s Children to prevent this. Either they will be unhoused from their habitation on earth, or the Númenoreans’ seat of power must be destroyed. In this way, Ilúvatar has liberated Valinor and the world from the oppression of Númenor.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2021)

Hriston said:


> I'm not sure why sounding "straight out of the Old Testament" equates to a classist message, especially when so much of the Bible deals with themes of liberation from injustice and oppression. That being said, I think that yes, the biblical Flood is probably one of the main influences on the Downfall of Númenor along with the legend of Atlantis. The Tower of Babel also comes to mind, as does the Garden of Eden. I think Babel is an apt comparison because, like much of Tolkien's subject matter, the story of Númenor is especially concerned with power. At the end of the Second Age, the Númenoreans are at their height and represent humanity in the fullness of its power. Literally nothing on earth can stop them. Their fleet, the Armament, is the greatest fighting force that ever existed or will exist. And they, like most men, are consumed by the fear of death, the lie of Morgoth. The whispering council of Sauron has turned their king, Ar-Pharazôn, the most powerful king who ever lived, into an Antichrist, capable of conquering even the deathless lands of Aman, the image (but not the reality) of Arda Unmarred. Once conquered by mortals, rather than conferring immortality upon them as Sauron has promised, it would itself cease to be deathless, and death would enter the last place untouched by that corrupting influence. The Valar cannot wield their power against Ilúvatar’s Children to prevent this. Either they will be unhoused from their habitation on earth, or the Númenoreans’ seat of power must be destroyed. In this way, Ilúvatar has liberated Valinor and the world from the oppression of Númenor.



I've never gotten the flood from the sinking of Numenor, but I have made the connection to Atlantis.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 21, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> I've never gotten the flood from the sinking of Numenor, but I have made the connection to Atlantis.



Aside from a literal act of God bringing about its destruction (and flooding), I think the point of resemblance for me is the escape of the Faithful (Elendil, his sons, and their people) from the disaster on ships furnished at the behest of Amandil. Also, the makeup of the crew of Amandil’s voyage west to seek the aid of the Valar, comprised of himself and three faithful servants, suggests to me a resemblance to Noah and his three sons.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2021)

Hriston said:


> Aside from a literal act of God bringing about its destruction (and flooding), I think the point of resemblance for me is the escape of the Faithful (Elendil, his sons, and their people) from the disaster on ships furnished at the behest of Amandil. Also, the makeup of the crew of Amandil’s voyage west to seek the aid of the Valar, comprised of himself and three faithful servants, suggests to me a resemblance to Noah and his three sons.



To me sinking is not the same as flooding.  Also, Amandil only had one son, Elendil.  He took three servants with him west and was never heard from again.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 21, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> To me sinking is not the same as flooding.



Really? I mean, there are a number of ways a flood can happen, but surely as Númenor sank it was covered or submerged with water (i.e. flooded). 



Maxperson said:


> Also, Amandil only had one son, Elendil.  He took three servants with him west and was never heard from again.



Okay? I didn’t say he had more than one son. I said his three servants suggested a resemblance to Noah and his three sons.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2021)

Hriston said:


> Really? I mean, there are a number of ways a flood can happen, but surely as Númenor sank it was covered or submerged with water (i.e. flooded).



Yes, really.  Floods recede.  You pretty much don't get over sinking.  Calling the sinking of Numenor a flood is like saying that a guy who had his car keyed was in a car accident.  Yes, technically the accident also scratches the car, but that's not what is happening primarily.


Hriston said:


> I didn’t say he had more than one son. I said his three servants suggested a resemblance to Noah and his three sons.



Early morning and a migraine, so I missed that.  I still think it's a stretch.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 21, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> To me sinking is not the same as flooding.  Also, Amandil only had one son, Elendil.  He took three servants with him west and was never heard from again.



Definitely more Atlantis, than Biblical Flood, I would say.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 21, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> Yes, really.  Floods recede.  You pretty much don't get over sinking.  Calling the sinking of Numenor a flood is like saying that a guy who had his car keyed was in a car accident.  Yes, technically the accident also scratches the car, but that's not what is happening primarily.
> 
> Early morning and a migraine, so I missed that.  I still think it's a stretch.



Well, if you don’t consider land being covered by water to be a flood, then people escaping in boats from such an event is going to seem like a stretch. I don’t think the exact nature of the cataclysm is that important. I think it’s sufficient to draw a comparison that both stories feature people escaping from cataclysms in boats. If you want proof that Tolkien was thinking along these lines, see in his letter #131, to Milton Waldman, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 156 where he describes Elendil as "a Noachian figure".

Edited because posted accidentally before finished.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2021)

Hriston said:


> Well, if you don’t consider land being covered by water to be a flood, then people escaping in boats from such an event is going to seem like a stretch. I don’t think the exact nature of the cataclysm is that important. I think it’s sufficient to draw a comparison that both stories feature people escaping from cataclysms in boats. If you want proof that Tolkien was thinking along these lines, see in his letter #131, to Milton Waldman, in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 156 where he describes Elendil as "a Noachian figure".
> 
> Edited because posted accidentally before finished.



Are you sure you meant letter 131?  I just read that letter and there was no mention of Elendil or flooding/sinking.  There is one brief mention of Numenor, but nothing specific.


----------



## Ryujin (Jan 21, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> Are you sure you meant letter 131?  I just read that letter and there was no mention of Elendil or flooding/sinking.  There is one brief mention of Numenor, but nothing specific.



Just checked. It's there.

_"So the end of the Second Age draws on in a major catastrophe; but it is not yet quite concluded.From the cataclysm there are survivors : Elendil the Fair, chief of the Faithful (his name means Elf-friend), and his sons Isildur and Anarion. Elendil, a Noachian figure, who has held off from therebellion, and kept ships manned and furnished off the east coast of Númenor, flees before theoverwhelming storm of the wrath of the West, and is borne high upon the towering waves that bringruin to the west of the Middle-earth."_


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2021)

Ryujin said:


> Just checked. It's there.
> 
> _"So the end of the Second Age draws on in a major catastrophe; but it is not yet quite concluded.From the cataclysm there are survivors : Elendil the Fair, chief of the Faithful (his name means Elf-friend), and his sons Isildur and Anarion. Elendil, a Noachian figure, who has held off from therebellion, and kept ships manned and furnished off the east coast of Númenor, flees before theoverwhelming storm of the wrath of the West, and is borne high upon the towering waves that bringruin to the west of the Middle-earth."_



Huh.  I looked and it wasn't in the 131 that I read.  Odd.  Anyway, thanks!!

So that would make Elendil the one, not Amandil and his three servants.


----------



## Hriston (Jan 22, 2021)

Maxperson said:


> So that would make Elendil the one, not Amandil and his three servants.





Hriston said:


> Aside from a literal act of God bringing about its destruction (and flooding), I think the point of resemblance for me is the escape of the Faithful (*Elendil*, his sons, and their people) from the disaster on ships furnished at the behest of Amandil.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 22, 2021)

@Hriston You said this in the quote  you just quoted, but cut it out.  "Also, the makeup of the crew of *Amandil’s voyage west* to seek the aid of the Valar, comprised of himself and three faithful servants, *suggests to me a resemblance to Noah and his three sons*."


----------



## Hriston (Jan 22, 2021)

It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Does it? I’ve shown strong support from the author that a connection to the Flood was intended, which is what I think you started as objecting to. Now you’re drilling down on Amandil. I have no idea what your argument is.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 22, 2021)

Hriston said:


> It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Does it? I’ve shown strong support from the author that a connection to the Flood was intended, which is what I think you started as objecting to. Now you’re drilling down on Amandil. I have no idea what your argument is.



There was no argument.  I just said it would be Elendil, not Amandil as just a comment.  Not to argue.  You came back and argued that you said Elendil(leaving out the Amandil portion), so I felt like I needed to show that you said Amandil.  I like accuracy is all.


----------



## Stefano Rinaldelli (Jan 22, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> And that would be...?
> 
> The Fall of Numenor can be looked at in a variety of ways, so I'd be hesitant to reduce it to a clear and distinct religious message. But Tolkien obviously saw power as a big issue -- that it, by its very nature, is subject to abuse (thus Gandalf's famous speech about "At first I would use the ring for good, but...").
> 
> ...



interpretation... overinterpretation... better stop it


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 22, 2021)

Hriston said:


> It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Does it? I’ve shown strong support from the author that a connection to the Flood was intended, which is what I think you started as objecting to. Now you’re drilling down on Amandil. I have no idea what your argument is.



You've shown a connection to Noah, which could be the flood, or it could have been as simple as a water cataclysm, which the sinking of Numenor was.  Heck it could have just been a surviving family of a disaster related to a god, which his religious mind simply connected to Noah.  How strong or weak the connection is cannot be told from a single word.

Edit: I'm tired and thought you responded to me after my last post.  Sorry to quote the same post twice.  I'm going to sleep.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 19, 2022)

Bumping this conversation now that we have a air date of Sept 2, 2022 and a full title.


----------



## ART! (Jan 20, 2022)




----------



## Dausuul (Jan 20, 2022)

ART! said:


> I've been assuming the series will be some smooshed together version of 2nd Age events, with Annatar making nice with elves, dwarves, and humans, teaching them awesome things (including: rings!), beguiling the humans into wanting elven immortality, and the fall of Numenor and the breaking of the circles of the world.



That would be difficult to do and preserve the timeline of the Second Age (and I know one of the Tolkien estate's requirements was fidelity to the original; Amazon could fill in the blanks that Tolkien left, but they couldn't change anything he'd written). IIRC, it was 1800 years between the forging of the Rings and the fall of Numenor.

I suppose they could do something with flashbacks, but it would be tricky to pull that off. Otherwise they have to pick one or the other. Personally, I think the fall of Numenor is the more compelling story, but it is kind of a downer ending.


----------

