The Lord of the Rings - Second Age - Amazon Prime

[Toby Frost]

Hopefully if this doesn't work out, someone will go in the other direction and do The Silmarillion with puppets. I'd love that.

[looks thoughtfully at odd socks]

 

[ctg]

Maybe the thing that I disliked so much, for them not showing Elves as dandelion-eating-hippies. With perfect hair. And skin. That Mr Jackson got very right. They are different, but the first episode... or however long it lasted for me, just visually raped the story that I already knew and could reference. I know and understand different variations, but then trying to feed the audience a centuries long revenge story was just too much.

I do it with vampires, undead or species that makes sense to have such a grudge. Dwarves are a perfect example, especially in Mr Jackson's Hobbit's trilogy that's mostly a dwarven story with a halfling burglar. One without a cake. Jackson gets that part very well in both trilogies. But he also gets dwarfs and elven kind. He understands and was able to translate both cultures, including the ruins.

To me it seemed mostly that Bozos team had free hands with the material they got and they couldn't go far. It is also interesting, or rather intriguing that Bezos was willing to pay this sum for the product, but not for the rights. It's like giving a full makeup, with all the frills, but forgetting the content. That's what's bothering me. As a Tolkien product for the live tv, it's not there.

What Disney did was the animations. They studied the core of the fanbase and what they'd done wrong until they were ready to move on to the live with the Mandalorian. Then the quality dropped, because they saw the dollar bills. It's what happened with AMC's TWD. The greed got to them, which I think is the case with Bezo's product. He was willing to pay for the makeup, and forgetting the fanbase.

I'm upset with Mickey Mouse, because of what they've done with Kenobi. And I also think it's better for AMZ if I don't talk about their product, or what I'd have done differently. It's their song. Their try.

 

[HareBrain]

[looks thoughtfully at odd socks]

An Argyle one for FinGOLFin, one hopes. (Yes, it took me almost a day to come up with that. Deal with it.)

 

[HareBrain]

In relation to ears, I can't remember any description of their shape

Going back to elvish appearance, I came across a bit in the Silmarillion last night that said Turin Turumbar (wholly human) was often mistaken for one of the Noldor (because he was so heroic, tall, etc). It also said the elf Gwindor showed signs of ageing only because he'd been tortured in Angband. So from this, I'd suggest that Tolkien's vision of the elves was that they looked like particularly fine specimens of humankind (so no pointy ears) and that once mature they would probably all look about thirty for the rest of their lives, unless they suffered trauma. (This would of course be rather restrictive in terms of casting choices -- no Hugo Weaving, for example.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Didn't Tolkien say somewhere that hobbits had ears that were more pointed than humans but less so than elves? I'm almost certain that he did.

As for Hugo Weaving, perhaps Elrond's less pretty than the other elves in LOTR because he's part human. And if he gets a pass for that reason, then so Robert Aramayo playing the same role might do so as well. (Aramayo has an interesting face. Depending on the angle and the expression, he's actually quite good-looking, but other times not at all.) But I don't understand why Gil-gilad looks so much older than Galadriel. Tolkien couldn't seem to make up his mind about who his father was and when and where he was born, but regardless if he is older or younger than she is, they ought to look about the same age. Things like this won't ruin the show for me, but it is a little annoying.

 

[HareBrain]

Didn't Tolkien say somewhere that hobbits had ears that were more pointed than humans but less so than elves? I'm almost certain that he did.

Oh, I don't remember ever reading that, but it's quite possible. As you said, he wasn't wholly consistent.

BTW, it was interesting what you said in an earlier post about how the showrunners could only use the LOTR appendices, and could not use anything that was only in the Silmarillion. I'm unlikely to see this show as I don't (and won't) have Amazon Prime, but I'm finding the issues surrounding it interesting, and this restriction on allowable lore seems quite bizarre on the face of it (though I guess understandable in legal terms).

 

[paranoid marvin]

An extract from my 'The Art of the Hobbit' book:

Writing to his American publisher, Tolkien described a hobbit as 'a fairly human figure... fattish in the stomach, shortish in the leg. A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and "elvish"; hair short and curling (brown)'.

There seem to be very few illustrations of characters; Tolkien seems to have been much more adept at landscapes, parchments and maps than he was with people. I suppose one of his most memorable illustrations (other than the wonderful 'Conversation with Smaug') is of Bilbo in 'The Hall at Bag-End', where his ears do indeed seem to be slightly pointed.

Although there appear to be no illustrations of elves, the one drawing of 'Smaug in flight and dwarves marching' shows them with protruding chins and pointed hats just like those in the Disney 'Snow White' movie.

As for the tv show and movies, elves are synonymous with pointy ears, so regardless of Tolkien's intention, they were always going to have them. In fact the only elf I've ever seen on tv without pointy ears is Buddy.

 

[ctg]

Where’s a wizard to fight trolls when you need one?

The mega-budget fantasy series The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is under fire from some of its viewers. A day after the first two episodes of Amazon’s billion-dollar baby debuted on Prime Video, the show’s average audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is a “rotten” 37 percent, and reviews on Amazon have been outright suspended.

Compare that score to TV critics giving the show a very fresh 83 percent average, and many of the reviews were highly enthusiastic (“It’s great: a gorgeously immersive and grandly ambitious spectacle, packed with stunning imagery and compelling plot threads,” wrote TV Line). The Hollywood Reporter dubbed the first two episodes a rather successful, promising start.

Is ‘The Rings of Power’ Getting Review Bombed? Amazon Suspends Ratings

The 'Lord of the Rings' TV series has only a 37 percent audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with some complaining about the show's diversity. Amazon halts reviews to prevent trolling.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

If you go to IMDB you cannot see reviews until 6 rating. If you go to rotten tomatoes, the same thing. And now deleting them... *facepalm*

Spoiler: vulgar language on deleting Rings of Power reviews

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I watched the first two episodes last night.
The best thing about them was the elves' ladder. I mean, have you ever seen a ladder like it? Just, wow!

 

[ctg]

Since all human ears varies to such a degree that they can be used as "fingerprints" are there such things as "excessively pointy ears" in the elven people? I'm just asking because we have seen the stocky elf in this show. In the counter defence, I've read about the "extraordinarily tall dwarves" at somewhere. Just cannot recall where. Might have been Pratchett.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Not sure if the surge in reviews had been good they would have been suspended and then purged. Not a great look.

From what I've heard, the music and (some) of the visuals seem to have gone down well across the board, with rather more divergent views over the story/dialogue/characters.

The thing that puzzles me a lot is why Amazon paid for such a narrow set of rights. If they had the scope to set it in Harad they could have enjoyed a lot of creative freedom without any worries over breaking lore (Nazgul origin story).

 

[therapist]

Not sure if the surge in reviews had been good they would have been suspended and then purged. Not a great look.

At least they've kept the actual score up. If you look at the ratings, 25% of the votes have awarded the show a 1/10 which seems a bit silly. A bunch of those probably only voted because of their review manipulation.

 

[ctg]

Tolkien Fans React to Amazon's $465M Series 'The Rings of Power' - Slashdot

Amazon's new $465 million series — a prequel to the Lord of the Rings — drew more than 25 million viewers on just its first day, according to Reuters, "a record debut for a Prime Video series." The Independent shared reactions from J. R. R. Tolkein fans, including one who said "it look...

entertainment.slashdot.org

lots of interesting comments

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Sure, some layers are flimsier than others and so I choose to see through - look past - them. But my appreciation of what I consider to be the original Batman (the animated series) was never lessened by any other take I experienced as a reader or spectator. No Zack Snyder movie can undo what that show accomplished, no matter how hard he tries.

It's interesting mentioning Bruce Timm's Batman as it was quite a deliberate harking back to the two influences - The Fleischer Superman cartoons of the 1940's and the first iterations of Batman's noir roots.

When I talk about the soul of a thing, I mean it's broader essence. Batman is a character archetype and that's much more scope to play and not lose its essence. The facets that encapsulate the essence are arranged in a hierarchy - the underlying themes, the defining attributes, the aesthetics, the tone, history or plot. Some of those facets can be played with, but there's an elasticity which has limits. If you break it, it's no longer the thing but something else.

Ghostbusters, for example, at heart, was a Reaganite parable about going into business where the state, in the form of the EPA or the university admissions board, was the antagonist. 2016's biggest flaw was that it didn't understand what GB was. GB 2020 had some of this spirit - in its examination of the rusting of small town America and the destruction of small business - but it traded this in for focusing on the family, which was never at GB's kernel. GB should have been about outsourcing, franchising, corporatisation, the decay of America - the ghost of the American dream, ghost trap pollution, all dressed up in a fantasy ghost epic. It's inversion / subversion would be where the EPA were right!

GB wasn't nostalgia. It wasn't the vehicle or the firehouse or the suits or even the actors and their characters. I think this is what the reaction to GB 2016, and the criticism of the reaction fails to understand. People don't want a remake of GB 1984, they want a new thing that feels like it has the same soul or is better.

With something like the Thing, the essence is identity and paranoia, not knowing who the Thing is, the fear of being replaced, the impossibility of knowing if the person you're talking to is really a person or an unthinking amoeba. It's about the body - too. Secondary facets are isolation / trying to prevent the spread of a world destroying contagion; the ice and snow. The utterly alien other. If the remakes understand this (as Carpenter's did), and bring something new to it that engages with the above they retain its spirit.

For a third case - look at the Last Jedi. Rian Johnson is a smart, savvy director. In some ways I think he did interesting things with the star wars universe - he interacts with the causes of war, he democratises the force - his issues are fundamentally egotistical ones. He sends the movie up with tributes to Spaceballs, he fails to take it seriously, there are issues of taste and too many ideas at play that aren't properly developed - and he does it within a framework of a three movie story that grinds the dramatic flow to a halt and creates problems for the final feature. Ultimately his desire to surprise or subvert takes him away from the series' real meaning - "it's about family" - George Lucas.

Going back to RoP, Tolkien's work is much more specific. It encompasses broad mythic themes about humanity, the land, comradery, myth, history, chivalry and Tolkien's ethical values. So developed is Tolkien's vision that the details - the aesthetics, the characters, the language, pronunciation, plots, the world building, the atmosphere, the tone have greater significance. Consequently there is much less wiggle room to play around in the sandbox or enter into a conversation with Tolkien's values. Middle Earth is Tolkien.

Tolkien had incredible insight into the human heart, bravery, friendship, the corrupting influences on people - we see this in Gollum, Wormtongue, Frodo, Bilbo. The nature of good and evil - I'm not convinced by what we've seen that the writers of the new show are interested or understand what he stood for. (Come to think of it - Moorcock's assessment of Tolkien's "Epic Pooh" doesn't either).

My concern is that Middle Earth becomes a generic container. A brand to slap on anything that is broadly fantasy. In the same way that Star Wars is being scooped out and made less interesting, less special. Star Wars is a theme park, a set of stories, a toy line - maybe it always was a bit - but the flooding of culture dilutes it. It's just a meaningless set of aesthetics and trademarks owned by a corporation looking to force you to pay while it colonises your head. I don't think we're there yet with Middle Earth, but I fear the direction of travel.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Tolkien had incredible insight into the human heart, bravery, friendship, the corrupting influences on people - we see this in Gollum, Wormtongue, Frodo, Bilbo. The nature of good and evil - I'm not convinced by what we've seen that the writers of the new show are interested or understand what he stood for.

My concern is that Middle Earth becomes a generic container (...) I don't think we're there yet with Middle Earth, but I fear the direction of travel.

I understand your concern. Writers writing for a studio (or streaming-service these days) are on an entirely different path as a 'common' writer. The latter wants to tell a story about this fantasy world he has in his head. Tolkien took this very seriously, because he felt that there was more to tell than just a story. Producers simply want to make money and are perhaps only restricted by legal rights.

Having said that, in the first 2 episodes who saw a Galadriel who seeks to eradicate Evil because of its evilness and destructive nature, but is hampered by others who don't see this Evil and think its no longer there, while we meanwhile know that it absolutely still is. A classical setup to a Good vs Evil clash.

...but then trying to feed the audience a centuries long revenge story was just too much.

Revenge may have been part of it, in the beginning, being young. But I see a sincere quest to find and end Evil, a crying voice in the wilderness [if that's the correct expression?].

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

@Mon0Zer0

I wish I could put my thoughts into words as eloquently and succinctly as you do. Indeed I tend to ramble and I guess this message will be no exception.

I understand your point and your concerns, 100%. I am also a Star Wars fan and deplore the direction the franchise has taken under the very incapable hands of Disney and their army of pencil-pushers. My feelings towards it echo your fear regarding Tolkien's world: It does feel like the original essence of Lucas' movies is gone, replaced with hollow nostalgia and misguided attempts at revamping something whose mythical nature already allowed to transcend time (hairdos and moustaches aside, I don't think any of the older movies have aged).

I will say this, however: Nothing Disney can do will ever temper my love of the original movies. Their character assassination of Boba Fett in the TV series went against everything I knew and loved about him. But Boba Fett still is my favorite Star Wars character. I guess it all goes back to my earlier point that we may be hardwired differently: I'm able to partition my mind and tune out most of the Disney era. I'm able to ignore the Expanded Universe stories I don't like. I'm able to forget Rian Johnson was ever asked to write and direct a Star Wars movie. I'm also still able to enjoy The Mandalorian, even though it too features the new and ridiculous version of Boba Fett.

Those things good or bad have no influence on my love of Star Wars as a mythical, coming-of-age saga filled with magic powers, strange and wonderful creatures and swordfights. And so I have absolutely no fear that Tolkien's world might suffer a fate such as you described it in your post. Tolkien's books will always be there for those who swear by them, and no amount of poor movie or TV adaptations can ever take anything from them. It doesn't matter if his world becomes a brand. If someone with too much money suddenly buys the rights to all his works and releases a farcical adaptation that only shares a title with the original work. Tolkien's books are a monolith that nothing can chip at.

And I must again go back to an earlier post: A TV or movie adaptation is not the enhanced or ultimate version of a work of fiction. It does not validate the book it seeks to adapt. It does not invalidate it. There is no reason why one should cancel the other out or muddle what it means to its fans. They're two separate entities living separate lives on separate planes. The Amazon show might well go on to become a brand, as you put it, and give birth to countless other books, toys, video games and spin-offs of varying quality (a lot of it probably bad), on such a scale and over such a long time that Tolkien's name even fades away far in the distance until that fateful day when what comes to people's minds when they hear "Lord of the Rings" is Jeff Bezos's face rather than Tolkien's. And yet, even after all this, Tolkien's books will remain. Untouched. Standing on their own merits. Ripe for the taking.

And I wish that Bezos's show and the reactions to it were the inciting event of a global wave of soul-searching amongst fans, not only of this franchise but of any other. We should all ask ourselves why. Why does it matter that the thing we so love (the books in this case) receive a faithful adaptation on screen? How does it make the original work more or less of what it is? Why do we feel compelled to see something that we already know won't be up to our standards? Why does it matter to me what some filmmaker sees in or thinks about a book I love? There are some interesting insights to be gained from that.

 

[ctg]

But with good news, there must come the bad. Namely, that as Amazon basks in Rings of Power’s success, it’s also suspended reviews for the show over on Rotten Tomatoes for the next 72 hours. (Per The Hollywood Reporter, an Amazon rep explained that this was a practice that Amazon began back when the summer started.) The “why” is so Amazon can ensure that reviews are legitimate and not part of some scheme by racist or sexist trolls, as was the case with She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel before it. Rings’ user score stands at 38% at time of writing, and perusing the section, there are a lot of half or one stars with very short blurbs on why the show didn’t work for them.

The user reviews will get sorted out in time, but in the meantime, may as well bite the bullet and watch the show yourself. Either you’ll like it, or you’ve got House of the Dragon to fall back on for your fantasy fix. That, or Witcher, Wheel of Time, you get the idea. And if you have seen Rings of Power, let us know what you thought of it in the comments below.

Lord of the Rings is Prime's Biggest Premiere, Amazon Suspends Reviews

Consider this a ring half empty, ring half full situation.

gizmodo.com

Much better comments. This show has caused some real turmoil in the genrehood, but the general feeling is pretty sour.

 

[ctg]

There’s a lot to take in during the first two episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, from the introduction of multiple cultures and people across Middle-earth (and beyond), shots of dazzling new locations, and a rapid-fire crash course in the history of the First Age and war against Morgoth. But one of the weirdest moments had to be the crash landing of what appeared to be a fiery comet, but actually turned out to be a raggedy man with no obvious identity.

In a world where dark gods and elves exist, a random naked man falling from the sky like a meteor isn’t really that weird, is it? Probably not, but it is the biggest mystery on The Rings of Power at the moment. Who is this strange man? Where did he come from? Is he even technically a man at all? And how does he connect to the rest of the story the show is telling?

Here are our favorite theories regarding the Stranger’s identity, and what they might mean for The Rings of Power’s future…

The Rings of Power: What's Going On With the Meteor and the Stranger?

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power kicks off with a "meteor man" mystery fans are trying to solve...

www.denofgeek.com

The only article of RoP I could find on Den of Geek frontpage. However, there's plenty of House of Dragon stuff and taking a hint from how this was written, I don't think they're are happy with the presentation either.

 

[ctg]

Based on the appendices from J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the first two episodes of Amazon’s ambitious prequel, The Rings Of Power, set in the Second Age of Middle-earth, introduces its main characters and many realms with impressive detail and visuals. While Peter Jackson had no input in the show, it adopts a similar tone to his trilogy of films by effectively mixing humour, peril and sweeping action set pieces. It even boasts a main theme by the LOTR trilogy composer Howard Shore.

Morfydd Clark stars as young Elf Galadriel (Cate Blanchett in the films) who after the many centuries-long war in Middle-earth embarks on an obsessive quest to locate Sauron. It is this narrative thread, alongside Clark’s ethereal, determined and beautifully judged performance that stands out so far in the show’s multiple storylines. And it also seems it is women who are leading the charge in this eight-part series. The talented Markella Kavenagh’s young Harfoot, Elanor Brandyfoot, is a curious and brave character who longs for adventure outside of her community. Nazanin Boniadi’s human healer Bronwyn battles with evil and protects her son and village from danger. Her flirtations with Elf soldier Arondir (Ismael Cruz Cordova) deliver plentiful PG-friendly sexual tension too.

On the other hand, Robert Aramayo’s Elf Elrond (Hugo Weaving in the films) sets out on a slightly underwhelming mission to enlist Dwarves on an architectural project. Though the Dwarf kingdom is magnificently rendered, with the costumes designed by Kate Hawley a great blend of leather hoods and elegant gilded smocks, a rock smashing competition between Elf and Dwarf can only be so thrilling. What holds the attention here are the delightful interactions between Elrond, Prince Durin IV (Owain Arthur) and Princess Disa (Sophia Nomvete) as they navigate the bonds of friendship.

The set-up from the first two episodes of Rings Of Power is intriguingly laid out and considering the vast wealth of material and lore the creators are playing with, is remarkably well-paced. The strong ensemble cast inhabit their roles with relish, making the characters easy to root for and the world building, as expected from the enormous budget, is sumptuously realised. It’s a promising start to a show with huge ambition.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Review: A Sumptuously Realised Fantasy Show

We review episodes one and two of The Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power...

www.scifinow.co.uk

This doesn't read like a 4-star review. More like a paid article, and there are moments when the disappointment shines through the writing. I know from the articles as I got the mag for years that they very often hype flopped products and sometimes it feels like a propaganda. It's just it surprised me of how the main media and some specialized mags had such a unified message versus the fandom.

 

[ctg]

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power news

comicbook.com

Comicbook has stopped producing articles. There's nothing beyond the original patch.