***** The Lord of the Rings: Official Thread *****

239,112 Views | 1956 Replies | Last: 10 days ago by Brian Earl Spilner
BAP Enthusiast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FightinTexasAg15 said:

Faustus said:

They all hated it.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rings-power-first-reactions-praise-165527421.html


" I've seen #RingsofPower and I can say for certain you're in for a treat. Big, bold, and beautiful to behold. TBD if it'll sit alongside Jackson's films or deserve Tolkien's name, but for now it's all the maximalist pizazz one might expect from a historically expensive production."

That review sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Like buzz words crunched into a tweet without really saying anything


All of the reviews are saying it's a spectacle and that it looks good but absolutely nothing about story, dialogue, acting, etc. That's almost always a terrible sign. Buzzwords like this usually mean it's trash at best.
BAP Enthusiast
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Why would they bank their future on this kind of story? Just incredible.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This can't possibly be true. Are they losing money on all their other shows?

(I'm not planning on reading the article)
Lathspell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reminds me of Friends, after one of Joey's plays.

"The lighting was great!"
Madmarttigan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not gonna lie I'm pretty annoyed in general Amazon shat the bed with the one new IP on screen with WoT and now has just thrown insane amounts of money into only one series when this could have funded so much more.

I hope it's good but it will likely be mediocre and be a huge setback for other fantasy titles hitting the screen.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
redline248 said:

Lol. So the Hollywood version of a little league dad in the suburbs?


/laughcry
BAP Enthusiast
How long do you want to ignore this user?
redline248 said:

This can't possibly be true. Are they losing money on all their other shows?

(I'm not planning on reading the article)


I think it's because they decided to break the bank with this show. You would think they would try to remain faithful to the source material spending that kind of money, but apparently implementing social change is more important for some reason.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PDWT_12 said:

In fairness Tolkien likely would not have liked his name being associated with the PJ movies but that's less indicative of the movies themselves and more the type of guy the Professor was.


I'm not so sure on that. He was very pessimistic about his works being translated to film, but I think he would have at least accepted Peter Jackson's movies, if not actually liked them. Compromises had to be made between what he wrote and what ended up on film, but I think Jackson approached it with a genuine intent to be as true as possible. I think he also approached it with the same vision and attention to detail that Tolkien did. Tolkien certainly would have wanted some changes, but I think he would have been absolutely amazed at the final product given what he saw in his day in the genre (think **** like Barbarella) and how that tempered his expectations on what the movie industry would do with his work.

Tolkien was afraid his work would be pared down and turned into a cartoon or cheap caricature of itself. I don't think he could have ever envisioned the scale of a lot of what Jackson and Weta achieved. A lot of the sweeping shots of the battle of pelennor fields, isengard, helm's deep, etc simply wouldn't have been possible in his day. Even the attention to detail on the costumes and sets was beyond anything in the 60's. For instance, orcs might have been a black guy wearing paint back then, but in Jackson's trilogy everything about them to the smallest detail is perfected. Hollywood might have filmed the riders of rohan on a soundstage in front of a green screen, but Jackson put together hundreds of horses and fully dressed riders on site in New Zealand for some of the scenes.

And consider, a massive epic like Spartacus or the Ten Commandments cost the equivalent of $120 million today. That's the equivalent of Jackson's per film budget without even releasing one. I don't think Tolkien ever believed or even considered his work would be given that kind of gravitas. Turning LOTR into 3 movies with a nearly 9 figure budget for each would have been beyond his wildest dreams.




Now, he would absolutely slap the **** out of someone for The Hobbit though.
PDWT_12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Will have to agree to disagree on that front.

His letters are filled to the brim over him quibbling over minor details. Several changes Jackson made (some of them good) would have been nonstarters for him.

Again, I love the movies. They're some of my favorites. Just don't think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that he wouldn't have been as happy with them as a lot of us are.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He would have thrown Peter Jackson's script for The Two Towers in the trash once he read the plan for Faramir.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
redline248 said:

He would have thrown Peter Jackson's script for The Two Towers in the trash once he read the plan for Faramir.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/everything-know-lord-rings-050000705.html

Quote:

. . .
The Tolkien estate have been heavily involved in the production and, apparently, are delighted with it all. Famously, they had nothing to do with Jackson's films, with Christopher Tolkien saying his father's work has been "eviscerated". The films were "action movies for young people", he said. Christopher hated the commercialisation of his father, who had become "a monster, devoured by his own popularity".

What then, would Christopher, and indeed JRR, make of The Rings of Power? "He'd have hated it," says Owen, slightly tongue in cheek. "And quite right too. It's all about the machine, and he hated the machine. Look, he said he'd sent this material off to other hands and minds. These are the other hands and minds. I imagine he'd be delighted his story is still touching people. And that people want to put their brains and heart and souls into it. And their money."
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Come September 2 it might be prudent to branch off a show-watchers Rings of Power official thread to discuss things like plot and themes and performances.
Life is better with a beagle
Lathspell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Madmarttigan said:

I hope it's good but it will likely be mediocre and be a huge setback for other fantasy titles hitting the screen.
This is my fear, as well. I expect it to not be that great, which really I don't care about as far as the LotR show or IP is concerned.

I know many on this thread are just LotR fans or movie fans. But I and others have a huge amount of fantasy novels/series that we would love to see adapted. Many of them are absolutely fantastic with amazing worlds and characters that, if done right, could be so much better than Game of Thrones.

At least Sanderson has already basically said he is getting adapted and should be on set, next year.
AmarilloBQ02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BAP Enthusiast said:

The Porkchop Express said:

Galadriel looks great.

I kind of wish the hobbits weren't in it at all to be honest. It feels like that was the whole point of how crazy it was that they were so much in focus for The Hobbit and LOTR. Most people in Middle Earth didn't even know they were around, or had never met one.


Except that Galadriel is not and never was a fighter. She was so powerful she never needed to pick up a sword. That's one of the main aspects of her character.
The character "Galadriel" does not appear in this series. The new character is known as "Guyladriel."
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AmarilloBQ02 said:

BAP Enthusiast said:

The Porkchop Express said:

Galadriel looks great.

I kind of wish the hobbits weren't in it at all to be honest. It feels like that was the whole point of how crazy it was that they were so much in focus for The Hobbit and LOTR. Most people in Middle Earth didn't even know they were around, or had never met one.


Except that Galadriel is not and never was a fighter. She was so powerful she never needed to pick up a sword. That's one of the main aspects of her character.
The character "Galadriel" does not appear in this series. The new character is known as "Guyladriel."
Been a while since I read it, but I think I remember her fighting in stories from the Silmarilion.
bluefire579
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think there is a biiiiig difference in wanting a show to be bad, which I doubt anyone here does, and expecting a show to be bad, which at least a few here do.

but I didn't watch the video
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I used to have that problem the belief that it wasn't as good as the originals, I didn't think it should happen as all. Particularly felt that way about books I loved, such as ASOIAF, The Passage, The Dark Tower. Eventually I was able to get to the good head space where I can separate one from the other - I'll watch a few episodes - if I don't like it, I stop watching and don't think about it again. If I love it or at least like it, I enjoy it and talk about it and don't care what the Internet has to say about it.
Life is better with a beagle
AmarilloBQ02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PatAg said:

AmarilloBQ02 said:

BAP Enthusiast said:

The Porkchop Express said:

Galadriel looks great.

I kind of wish the hobbits weren't in it at all to be honest. It feels like that was the whole point of how crazy it was that they were so much in focus for The Hobbit and LOTR. Most people in Middle Earth didn't even know they were around, or had never met one.


Except that Galadriel is not and never was a fighter. She was so powerful she never needed to pick up a sword. That's one of the main aspects of her character.
The character "Galadriel" does not appear in this series. The new character is known as "Guyladriel."
Been a while since I read it, but I think I remember her fighting in stories from the Silmarilion.
IIRC she fought other elves in the Kinslaying but stayed out of any battles against Morgoth/Sauron.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Like I said, he'd have insisted on some changes. If he were alive, he might've gotten them. It's kind of hard for someone to know what is sacred and what isn't when it comes to adaptation and the original artist isn't around to tell you, though.

I think it comes down to whether he would have thought of the movies being a replica or retelling of his work, or an artistic work in their own right. He hated Snow White because of its childish, commercialized depiction of the seven dwarves, and viewed Disney's films as cheap commercializations instead of artworks. In that mindset, maybe he would have hated Jackson's films.

On the other hand, even Tolkien acknowledged that commercial success was a necessary part of art, and even he sought to protect his ability to profit from his work. There's no telling if he'd have been ok with the compromises made to make the films or the artistic license taken, but there's no question they're beyond anything he would've expected. There may have been things he loathed, but I think there's also a lot he would've appreciated, especially in the extended editions.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think the way I came to peace with the movies (which were awesome but had some boneheaded changes) was to think of middle earth as a real place with a real history that gets told differently every time a new story teller relays the mythology.

I'm sure Tolkien wanted the story to be "right", but he also based it on a mythological format that was ever changing as stories were handed down through the generations.

So maybe this new series will be bad, but sometimes the current story teller isn't as good as previous ones.
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is a really interesting way to look at it.
Lathspell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Got caught watching this until the end. Enjoyed the juxtaposition between the two:

PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not gonna watch that, but one of the things that was excellent about The Hobbit was Martin Freeman.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Watched that whole thing too. Everything he said was on point, and **** Warner Brothers for ruining everything.


His comment about how LOTR basically kicked off fantasy as a popular and respected genre in film made me realize it kind of mirrored LOTR's book release. It was the first successful, widely read fantasy series and really kickstarted the genre in the 20th century. Not long ago I read something about Tolkien being passed over for the 1961 Nobel Prize in literature for LOTR, with some of the critics of the time and the committee criticizing his prose instead of looking at the total contribution to literature and storytelling. They got lost in the trees and missed the fact that his books were masterpieces of detail and creation that formed the cornerstone for an entirely new genre of literature. That kind of contribution doesn't come along every day. Jackson's movies were very similar, being the first fantasy film to win best picture at the Oscars and really opening the door for fantasy storytelling in film to be taken seriously. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person or story with more impact across such a wide array of storytelling formats than Tolkien and LOTR.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PatAg said:

Not gonna watch that, but one of the things that was excellent about The Hobbit was Martin Freeman.


Also Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug. He and Freeman just go really well together.
Faustus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Guardian weighs in:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/31/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-review-so-astounding-it-makes-house-of-the-dragon-look-amateur
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't need to read the article....that's one bold ass claim in the headline
Madmarttigan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:

Watched that whole thing too. Everything he said was on point, and **** Warner Brothers for ruining everything.


His comment about how LOTR basically kicked off fantasy as a popular and respected genre in film made me realize it kind of mirrored LOTR's book release. It was the first successful, widely read fantasy series and really kickstarted the genre in the 20th century. Not long ago I read something about Tolkien being passed over for the 1961 Nobel Prize in literature for LOTR, with some of the critics of the time and the committee criticizing his prose instead of looking at the total contribution to literature and storytelling. They got lost in the trees and missed the fact that his books were masterpieces of detail and creation that formed the cornerstone for an entirely new genre of literature. That kind of contribution doesn't come along every day. Jackson's movies were very similar, being the first fantasy film to win best picture at the Oscars and really opening the door for fantasy storytelling in film to be taken seriously. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person or story with more impact across such a wide array of storytelling formats than Tolkien and LOTR.


LOTR movies also happened at the perfect time with the Harry Potter novels exploding and kind of created a perfect storm for a fantasy renaissance on screen. I think the success of the HP novels and the LOTR movies set the stage for a lot of the material that has been made since.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The LOTR films are the reason GoT exists.
Duncan Idaho
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone knows that 2002's Reign of Fire is what caused the resurgence in fantasy. Everything else was just noise.
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Totally agree. I think a lot of IP owes its success to those two. GoT would be a literary footnote, if it was even written at all, without LOTR.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Faustus said:

The Guardian weighs in:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/31/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-review-so-astounding-it-makes-house-of-the-dragon-look-amateur


I mean the Ringer review pans it and says house of dragons is better because the Ringer is HBOs *****. The Guardian picks Tolkien because they are British.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.