Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[ShardWarrior]

21 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Lol yeah it works when you have Sarumon and Elrond preventing you from being shanked while you lie there gassed out on the ground. 

 

You have what is happening in the scene totally wrong.  Did you miss the part where she single handedly banished Sauron and the Ringwraiths using her magic alone?  Something Elrond and Sarumon were unable to accomplish.  No sword or armor needed by her. 

[InvaderStych]

*sigh*

 

😞

 

I already hate myself quite a bit for even beginning to engage in this train-wreck, but some days I just can't fucking save myself from myselves.

 

First the trailer itself:

 

I have not read any of the Tolkien books in 35 years, at best, so I couldn't tell you who was altered into whom and I frankly couldn't really care either.  Because that trailer, in terms of production quality and craft execution, is an absolute dumpster fire.  The opening vista looks to have been rendered in FarCry 4 and the CG faces are even worse.  The editing is slap-shod at best, intentionally hiding flaws at worst.  Every time the camera pedestals up to reveal a sweeping vista we immediately cut away from it before the viewer can really enjoy it.  That "catch the arrow" scene? What in the ever-loving-fuck? Did they have an intern on the speed ramping button?  It either doesn't flow right or blends too much into the character firing the arrow back.  I can't tell if they are supposed to be firing back in slo-mo or just slowly and deliberately.  And the bit at the end with the jumping axe-wielder doing a full circle swing with the axe in mid-air .... if that isn't blatantly stolen from Tarsem Singh's Immortals* then I'll strike-through this sentence in a subsequent edit that forces me to re-read the shit-show that is this thread one more time. I could prattle on more about the crap lighting, weird compositions, shit editing, and more but I don't want to watch the trailer again, and I watched it when it dropped so I am working from memory.

 

It should be blatantly obvious from the poor quality of the trailer that this is nothing more than a blatant cash grab.  Craft quality of The Expanse did not diminish when Amazon took over (writing and editing did in s5, but that's not this thread), and on the basis of those 3 seasons I know Amazon can do much, much better.  They should go spend a few days on the naughty step and think about what they've done to my eyes with that nonsensical video game cut scene pretending to be a trailer for a TV series.

 

That the show-runners have leaned hard into the needless "controversy" that Russian Bots and Paid Schills have tricked us all into frothing up over this Absolute Nothing Burger should have been the second and largest clue.  Whatever so-called "side" one is on, motivations noble or nefarious, Amazon wins and we lose.  People subscribe to support or they subscribe to hate-watch. 

 

The internet goes ape-shit with rage and we bitterly divide ourselves further to the benefit of those who would keep us sick, angry, broke, and distracted.  We're all being duped into arguing over false equivalencies and fictitious irrelevancies while the oligarchs and kleptocrats watch, laughing as they enjoy a scotch and some light fellatio on a pile of our money.

 

Anyone who believes that every single YouTube comment of a Tolkien quote in alleged "protest" of this series was from a person who's concerns are genuinely about narrative integrity is dangerously naive.  Anyone who believes the sub-set of quotes posted in Russian were from actual humans who care about Tolkien and not Bots programmed to sow discontent is either ignorant or just flat out stupid. 

 

Hell, at this point I'd wager that a statistically significant portion of those "Tolkien Quote YouTube Comments" in all languages are bots working at the behest of some Agency, PAC, NGO, or other entity with a financial interest in ensuring the masses are too busy arguing to notice the erosion of our constitutional republic or the global rise of kleptocracy.

 

And I am not a gambling man.

 

Am I really the only one who remembers the shit-show that bots made of Anti-Social Media between 2014-2018 by latching onto "hot-button" issues and posting inflammatory trash on both "sides?"

 

Anyone who believes that the Amazon Showrunners are interested in anything other than money is similarly naive, ignorant, stupid, or all three.  They definitely do not care about making a quality product if that trailer is any indication. And they sure as hell don't care about DEI either - if they did they would be adapting any of the hundreds of Afrofuturist sci-fi/fantasy works available and more than worthy of quality adaptations.

 

Amazon Showrunners don't care about you.  Bots and Schills quoting Tolkien don't care about you.

 

They don't care about Tolkien, telling a story, making a quality product, your thoughts on it, or even the "issues" they claim to care about in their posts and responses.

 

They don't care about you.

 

The best course of action here would be for everyone to stop talking about it, not watch it, and teach them a lesson about throwing some paint-by-numbers nonsense that looks like it was rendered 15 years ago with a broken potato out there expecting us to pay for it because it is Tolkien or because they made it controversial. Ignore it. Don't be duped into this divisive, manipulative bullshit. It is not designed to benefit us no matter what we personally believe.  It is designed to keep us in our place.

 

All of us.

 

I had hoped we were better than this.

 

I was wrong. 

 

Humans, we Americans in particular, are an Ignorant Mob with the Memory of a Goldfish.

 

Please stop.  You are being used.

 

 

 

* - Immortals is a problematic film to be sure, and not really even that good.  However, if one metric by which to measure a film is to make "Every Frame A Painting" then Singh nails that metric every time.

 

 

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

You have what is happening in the scene totally wrong.  Did you miss the part where she single handedly banished Sauron and the Ringwraiths using her magic alone?  Something Elrond and Sarumon were unable to accomplish.  No sword or armor needed by her. 

 

If I'm not mistaken, Tolkein didn't specify anything that happens in this scene. Sauron anticipated the white council's move and left before they even got there. This example you're using to prop up your stance is Jackson's version. Another double standard about not following what Tolkein wrote.

 

And no, I didn't miss anything. She frees Gandalf and zapps an orc. Sauron starts trashtalking her with the black speech and she crumbles as the nazgul approach. Sarumon and Elrond fight them off. It they didn't, it stands to reason she would've been shanked. After the nazgul are dispatched and she's spent a few minutes just spread out on the floor, she gets her shit together and *banishes* Sauron--meaning he leaves and goes to Mordor. Keep in mind that this is a Galadriel that is 1000 years older than the one in this miniseries and has a ring of power, facing down a weakened ghost version of Sauron. And how stupid is this entire scene? These heads of state decide to trek over to Dol Goldur alone? They don't even bring any of their guards?

[ShardWarrior]

12 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

If I'm not mistaken, Tolkein didn't specify anything that happens in this scene. Sauron anticipated the white council's move and left before they even got there. This example you're using to prop up your stance is Jackson's version. Another double standard about not following what Tolkein wrote.

 

And no, I didn't miss anything. She frees Gandalf and zapps an orc. Sauron starts trashtalking her with the black speech and she crumbles as the nazgul approach. Sarumon and Elrond fight them off. It they didn't, it stands to reason she would've been shanked. After the nazgul are dispatched and she's spent a few minutes just spread out on the floor, she gets her shit together and *banishes* Sauron--meaning he leaves and goes to Mordor. Keep in mind that this is a Galadriel that is 1000 years older than the one in this miniseries and has a ring of power, facing down a weakened ghost version of Sauron. And how stupid is this entire scene? These heads of state decide to trek over to Dol Goldur alone? They don't even bring any of their guards?

 

For the third time, I have issues with changes Peter Jackson made to the source material for his films as well, so there is no double standard here.  Yes, this is not a scene written by Tolkien and I never suggested it was.  It does however show that spell casters can be shown to be very powerful without needing to be decked out in armor wielding a sword to vanquish their enemies.  Sauron may have been weakened here, but your average person in armor with a sword would never have stood a chance against him.

[battlewraith]

3 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

For the third time, I have issues with changes Peter Jackson made to the source material for his films as well, so there is no double standard here.  Yes, this is not a scene written by Tolkien and I never suggested it was.  It does however show that spell casters can be shown to be very powerful without needing to be decked out in armor wielding a sword to vanquish their enemies.  Sauron may have been weakened here, but your average person in armor with a sword would never have stood a chance against him.

 

The point you're ignoring for the nth time is Jackson deviated from the source material in order to appeal to an audience demographic and/or make something visually dramatic. Those films were well received despite these deviations. It was a success, it did not destroy the IP despite the fact that I saw the Hobbit movies once and don't intend to watch them again. The complaint that Galadriel was never described as wearing armor or wielding a weapon is inane when you're pointing to a scene that never happened in the books to bolster the case that she works really well without armor or a weapon.

 

Galadriel is described as having taken part in multiple armed conflicts during the age of elves. Against other powerful elves. The idea of her strolling out on to a battlefield, unarmed and dressed like this is utterly stupid. Tolkien was writing mythology, not making movies. Anyone wanting to flesh this stuff out would do well to at least make some concessions to practicality. Elves like to shoot arrows, you know. Maybe armor would help with that. Or maybe she just disintegrates them with her mind. Or mind hacks all the archers on the other side before they can fire. 

 

The average person in armor with a sword would never stand a chance against Boromir, lol.

 

 

[TheOtherTed]

6 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Looks like using magic and not needing a sword and armor worked just fine for her

Ignoring for the moment what an abomination the Hobbit movies were in general, and taking this scene at face value, I'd point out that Galadriel of TA 2941 had some significant advantages in that fight that "Galadriel, Warrior Princess" did not:

1. Assuming the image of Galadriel decked out in foam rubber plate takes place in the First Age (my guess is the Kinslaying of Alqualonde), Third Age Galadriel had about 6300 years to hone her magical skills, possibly including, but not limited to, the direct tutelage of Melian.
2. Third Age Galadriel had Nenya, the Ring of Water.  That's gotta count for something.
3. Possibly the most significant "advantage" - Sauron threw the fight.  According to the appendices in The Return of the King, he had already planned to abandon Dol Guldur.  The fight was a sham - and I can't help but think Sauron would have found it amusing to retreat before Galadriel in such a fittingly dramatic way.

battlewraith does have a point, though, as far as the books and the LotR trilogy are concerned.  What Elven magic we see there seems to consist mainly of a wide variety of magic items, some "place magic" (Elrond's river flood, Mirkwood's enchanted river, Melian's Girdle), and various ways of seeing and knowing that surpass human abilities.  Not much battlefield magic - but a lot of magic swords.

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The point you're ignoring for the nth time is Jackson deviated from the source material in order to appeal to an audience demographic and/or make something visually dramatic. Those films were well received despite these deviations. It was a success, it did not destroy the IP despite the fact that I saw the Hobbit movies once and don't intend to watch them again. The complaint that Galadriel was never described as wearing armor or wielding a weapon is inane when you're pointing to a scene that never happened in the books to bolster the case that she works really well without armor or a weapon.

 

Galadriel is described as having taken part in multiple armed conflicts during the age of elves. Against other powerful elves. The idea of her strolling out on to a battlefield, unarmed and dressed like this is utterly stupid. Tolkien was writing mythology, not making movies. Anyone wanting to flesh this stuff out would do well to at least make some concessions to practicality. Elves like to shoot arrows, you know. Maybe armor would help with that. Or maybe she just disintegrates them with her mind. Or mind hacks all the archers on the other side before they can fire. 

 

The average person in armor with a sword would never stand a chance against Boromir, lol.

 

I think you're willfully ignoring what people are saying to be very honest because it disproves your narrative. 

 

What you're arguing against here isn't working the way I think you want it to.  You're saying Jackson changed the story and made her using more magic instead of a weapon and it was a great success.  Isn't that kind of the point for criticizing her now all of a sudden going from magic wielding ethereal elf queen to She-Ra?  Yeah the elves liked to use bow and arrow and sword, but she's not an ordinary elf.  If she didn't need to use weapons before and that was a raging success, what's the reason to change it up now other than woke agenda pushing?  Which reading what the showrunners are posting, that's basically what it is.  I don't think anyone is suggesting Jackson's films destroyed the property either so pointing that out is meaningless. 

 

Practicality as an argument doesn't work either.  You're dealing with a fantasy novel with magic rings, spell casting, elves and dwarves and giant demons.

[GM Impervium]

Alright folks, enough arguing in circles, I'm getting dizzy here.

It's okay to not like something, or be disappointed in the direction it's going. But it's also okay for a show or movie to go in directions you may not like.

Now discuss anything else about the trailer, but give the woke/sjw/reactionary/whatever complaining a rest for now, okay?

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Hyperstrike said:

 

Guys.  Give it up.  He's not going to budge.
And he's going to continue to squirm out of answering direct questions and pretend you asked something else.
Oh and pretend that you're an EEEEVUL RAYYYYCIIIIST!

He's not going to discuss this in good faith.
And nothing you do is going to MAKE him discuss it in good faith.
Leave him to his virtue signal.

Holy crap you're tilted. I responded to you once with a link to a wikipedia article that you obviously didn't read.

Maybe when you've calmed down you can reread this conversation and point out where I called people evil racists.

[ShardWarrior]

Just leaving this here

 

 

[Luminara]

I'll probably never watch this, since I can't justify streaming.  But in my experience, no filmed story (movie or television serial) is 100% true to its source material.  They aren't even true to their scripts, as those scripts undergo numerous revisions before and during filming, and typically fail to accurately represent the original author's intent.  Sometimes the result is better, sometimes it's worse, but in every case, it's something different, and different isn't bad in or of its own merits.  The reality is, every director has his/her own story to tell, every actor/actress has his/her own take on a character, et cetera.  People make stories, and people have different interpretations of the smallest of details and largest of plot points.  And everyone has their own imagined vision of what they read, how everything looks, how voices sound, what color the sky is... it's different for every person.

 

Every Philip K. Dick story that's been adapted has been changed.  Fight Club was changed.  Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  Every author who's sold the rights to a novel and seen his/her work end up on the screen has also seen divergences from that novel.  Sometimes they approve, other times, they hate it.  Maybe Tolkien would've liked this one, maybe he'll claw his way out of his grave, walk up to the producers and ask, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?!".

 

Point being, what's written and what's shown can never be identical.  Even if the writer is the director, set designer, cinematographer, costumer, acting out all of the parts, in absolute and unquestioned control from beginning to end, it's still going to be a different result, if for no other reason than because a novel can take days or weeks to read, whereas filmed stories are consumed in much less time.  Even serials running for years can't do it, and many have tried.

 

Turning on the television, or walking into a movie theater, and expecting to see exactly what was in a book is just setting yourself up for disappointment.  Learn to separate the two mediums.  Accept that they're distinct works.  You'll be a lot happier, and discover that some things you assumed were trash weren't, or were improvements on the original, or had their own creative value in some way, or even that you just liked the different takes in different ways.

[Excraft]

6 hours ago, Luminara said:

Point being, what's written and what's shown can never be identical.  Even if the writer is the director, set designer, cinematographer, costumer, acting out all of the parts, in absolute and unquestioned control from beginning to end, it's still going to be a different result, if for no other reason than because a novel can take days or weeks to read, whereas filmed stories are consumed in much less time.  Even serials running for years can't do it, and many have tried.

 

Turning on the television, or walking into a movie theater, and expecting to see exactly what was in a book is just setting yourself up for disappointment.  Learn to separate the two mediums.  Accept that they're distinct works.  You'll be a lot happier, and discover that some things you assumed were trash weren't, or were improvements on the original, or had their own creative value in some way, or even that you just liked the different takes in different ways.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting or expecting any of the Tolkien works to get adapted word for word identical to the books.  Yeah differences are inevitable, but it's the clear intent here that's pissing people off.  That guy in the video @ShardWarrior linked above spells that out very eloquently.  I'm watching some of the other videos he's done and what he's saying there about alienating your fan base is spot on. 

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting or expecting any of the Tolkien works to get adapted word for word identical to the books.  Yeah differences are inevitable, but it's the clear intent here that's pissing people off.  That guy in the video @ShardWarrior linked above spells that out very eloquently.  I'm watching some of the other videos he's done and what he's saying there about alienating your fan base is spot on. 

 

The funniest thing to me about that interview is that the guy talks about how great Jackson's initial trilogy was and he relates this to how Jackson intended this to be Tolkien's story. They weren't going to add any of their own baggage, etc. But then the guy admits that he's never read the books. So how the hell does he know that Jackson was faithful to Tolkien? LOL.

It's a hit piece. Take a favorable quote from Jackson about LOTR (not the cash grab Hobbit movies). Contrast that with the most contentious quote from the miniseries (as if it's all about the casting and the showrunners have no concern with Tolkien's world). 

 

"You are going to alienate the fans that have lived with these stories for decades and probably read them as children..."

From the guy who never read the books. I read the Hobbit and LOTR probably 2-3 times a year as a kid. Saw the Rankin Bass versions, the Bakshi version. Have seen the extended version of Jackson's multiple times at the theater and watch it with the family every year around Christmas. I try to forget that I saw the Hobbit movies. These entitled pissed off people do not own the fandom. 

 

[Excraft]

30 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

The funniest thing to me about that interview is that the guy talks about how great Jackson's initial trilogy was and he relates this to how Jackson intended this to be Tolkien's story. They weren't going to add any of their own baggage, etc. But then the guy admits that he's never read the books. So how the hell does he know that Jackson was faithful to Tolkien? LOL.

 

You completely and totally missed the mark here.  Like you didn't even pay attention to what was said at all.  The discussion was about the writers intent behind their changes and he's 100% spot on.  His point is about respecting the source material and not injecting any of your own political garbage into it.  He's got a lot more credibility as a film reviewer than you ever will for sure.

 

32 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I read the Hobbit and LOTR probably 2-3 times a year as a kid. Saw the Rankin Bass versions, the Bakshi version. Have seen the extended version of Jackson's multiple times at the theater and watch it with the family every year around Christmas. I try to forget that I saw the Hobbit movies. These entitled pissed off people do not own the fandom. 

 

Neither do you.  You're no more entitled to the fandom here than anyone else but you certainly sound like you should be entitled to it.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

 

You completely and totally missed the mark here.  Like you didn't even pay attention to what was said at all.  The discussion was about the writers intent behind their changes and he's 100% spot on.  His point is about respecting the source material and not injecting any of your own political garbage into it.  He's got a lot more credibility as a film reviewer than you ever will for sure.

 

 

Neither do you.  You're no more entitled to the fandom here than anyone else but you certainly sound like you should be entitled to it.

Try to reason this through: how do you know that someone has respected the source material if you haven't read the source material?

 

"You're no more entitled to the fandom here than anyone else but you certainly sound like you should be entitled to it." Thanks? Is English your second language?

[Excraft]

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Try to reason this through: how do you know that someone has respected the source material if you haven't read the source material?

 

By looking at the difference in what was said with regard to the different writers intent on their story crafting and writing in adapting Tolkien's work.  One is clearly intending to leave their personal politics and garbage out of it.  The other isn't.  One is being respectful of the author and his creation.  The other isn't.  Watch the video again and pay attention.  Whether you like it or not or agree with him or not, the man has a point.

 

2 hours ago, battlewraith said:

"You're no more entitled to the fandom here than anyone else but you certainly sound like you should be entitled to it." Thanks? Is English your second language?

 

No, it isn't my second language.  You're no more a fan than the next person who likes Tolkien's work and you aren't entitled to anything.  Your opinion holds no more weight than the next person on the topic.

[ShardWarrior]

6 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The funniest thing to me about that interview is that the guy talks about how great Jackson's initial trilogy was and he relates this to how Jackson intended this to be Tolkien's story. They weren't going to add any of their own baggage, etc. But then the guy admits that he's never read the books. So how the hell does he know that Jackson was faithful to Tolkien? LOL.

It's a hit piece. Take a favorable quote from Jackson about LOTR (not the cash grab Hobbit movies). Contrast that with the most contentious quote from the miniseries (as if it's all about the casting and the showrunners have no concern with Tolkien's world). 

 

Chris Gore is a film reviewer in case you did not know.  He has been doing this for a long time.  You misunderstood the conversation in the video and it is definitely not a hit piece.  You will note he did not say the new show is going to be a failure.  He is only speaking to what he has seen so far and offering his opinion on that.  He is not claiming to be a Tolkien scholar and commenting on who deviated from the books more.

 

With regard to the quotes by Jackson and the Amazon crew, he is addressing the motivations behind altering the story of an existing property.  Jackson said they made it a point to leave their personal political beliefs and baggage out of the writing process.  The Amazon crew said the opposite.  His point was their job as writers and creators is to entertain, not preach and push their personal beliefs and political agenda because in his experience, the work ultimately suffers for it and thereby the fans.

 

6 hours ago, battlewraith said:

"You are going to alienate the fans that have lived with these stories for decades and probably read them as children..."

From the guy who never read the books. I read the Hobbit and LOTR probably 2-3 times a year as a kid. Saw the Rankin Bass versions, the Bakshi version. Have seen the extended version of Jackson's multiple times at the theater and watch it with the family every year around Christmas. I try to forget that I saw the Hobbit movies. These entitled pissed off people do not own the fandom.

 

To be honest, you are the one coming off  like an entitled pissed off person who feels they have more of a claim to fandom.  None of what you wrote here makes you special or entitles you to declare yourself more of a fan than the next person.  You have no more claim on the fandom than anyone else. 

[InvaderStych]

The following is in no way, shape, manner, or form written to defend or support the Greed Merchants at Amazon.  I have made my opinion of their work, motivations, and responses abundantly clear in my previous rant.  So don't even come at me from that direction.  This is strictly about that reviewer.

 

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

His point was their job as writers and creators is to entertain, not preach and push their personal beliefs and political agenda because in his experience, the work ultimately suffers for it and thereby the fans.

 

Preposterous Drivel.

 

Edit: Shard - I know I am quoting you, but all of this is directed firmly at that reviewer who is clearly capitalizing on the same moment that Amazon is doing: criticizing them to drive views to his channel. So not only is he wrong about the purpose of a writer/creator, he is a hypocrite. Please don't take this post personally, it's not you, it's him.

 

Has he never seen any film starring Sydney Poitier? 

 

Did he watch Noah Hawley's Legion and completely miss the allegory about Mental Illness - wishing it was just another pop-corn series full of special effects?

 

Did he watch Death Race 2000 (the original) and think it was just about people getting run over by cars?  That Escape From New York was just an action vehicle for Kurt Russell?  Oh, wait.  Blade Runner is just about killing androids, right?

 

Did he scoff at the museum scene in Black Panther when Killmonger sets the employee straight on the provenience of various stolen artifacts?

 

Did he watch Citizen Kane without knowing the story of William Randolph Hearst?

 

Does he just not listen to music at all?

 

Did he read George Orwell and think "Man, this book about an Animal Farm would be so much better if it was just about animals?"

 

For that matter does he believe that Orwell should never have written at all? Because Orwell would have vehemently disagreed upon the "job of writers/creators."

 

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/

 

Quote

I cannot say with certainty which of my motives are the strongest, but I know which of them deserve to be followed. And looking back through my work, I see that it is invariably where I lacked a political purpose that I wrote lifeless books and was betrayed into purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally.

 

Did he watch HBO's version of The Watchmen and think "This scene about the Greenwood Massacre? Sure could have done without that!"  An event, by the way, most Americans had never even heard of before the release of that episode.  Having lived the second half of my childhood close enough to that area to go there for BBQ on the regular, I was utterly SHOCKED at how many people responded with surprise at learning that those events actually happened.  Even the egregiously rose-tinted version of Oklahoma history that was taught in schools there in the 80s covered Greenwood.  Covered it wrong, but at least mentioned it.

 

I mean do I really need to list examples to make this point?

 

"... their job as writers and creators is to entertain ..."

 

What a load of pathetic, selfish, entitled nonsense.

 

Let's be perfectly clear: Nothing that Amazon has EVER created rises to the level of those examples above, much less the hot garbage on a moldy shingle they're serving in that trailer.  But that reviewer is 100% wrong about the job of a writer or a creator.

 

Amazon came at this "adaptation" from the wrong place, made what looks to be cheap trash, and is defending it in a way that makes their motivations clear - make money from controversy.  Amazon has no genuine interest in social issues or commenting upon them, and trying to read their adaptation from that lens will always fail because their goal is money, not erudite commentary or influencing change.

 

Please stop lumping this blatant trash with true, quality, and meaningful activist art. That is not Amazon's Goal. Cashing in on Controversy is their goal.

 

If someone at Amazon truly cares about DEI as they are pretending to, then here is a list of 157 Afrofuturist works, including several multi-book series, which are easily worthy of quality adaptation:

 

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/79707.Afrofuturism

 

So, again, this is not about defending the shit-heels at Amazon.  There is no shortage of source material in the world.  They chose to do this specifically for controversy in order to cash in on the moment.  I appreciate that the reviewer does some semblance of addressing that point, but he's dead wrong about the job of writers/creators in a general sense.

 

There are not enough expletives available in any language to emphasize how incorrect and dangerous that sort of opinion truly is.

 

-------------------------------

 

I should probably apologize for my tone and aggression here, but I am not going to because this whole discussion is the exact sort of irrelevant nonsense that keeps people divided and unable to come to consensus via rational discourse when the subject is something that actually matters and has real consequences.  That reviewer is doing nothing but fanning the flames of discontent, playing right into Amazon's hands, and I wish he just wouldn't.

 

Maybe it is because I fear for my friends in Kyiv from whom I have not gotten an update since the invasion began.  But it really fucking irritates me that people have time to get their panties in a twist over something as unimportant as an Amazon Money Grab while the largest land invasion in Europe since WWII is underway and people to whom I am very close are in very real danger.

 

So maybe give this irrelevant nonsense a rest?

Edited February 26, 2022 by InvaderStych
spelling error and a personal note

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Chris Gore is a film reviewer in case you did not know.  He has been doing this for a long time.  You misunderstood the conversation in the video and it is definitely not a hit piece.  You will note he did not say the new show is going to be a failure.  He is only speaking to what he has seen so far and offering his opinion on that.  He is not claiming to be a Tolkien scholar and commenting on who deviated from the books more.

 

With regard to the quotes by Jackson and the Amazon crew, he is addressing the motivations behind altering the story of an existing property.  Jackson said they made it a point to leave their personal political beliefs and baggage out of the writing process.  The Amazon crew said the opposite.  His point was their job as writers and creators is to entertain, not preach and push their personal beliefs and political agenda because in his experience, the work ultimately suffers for it and thereby the fans.

 

 

To be honest, you are the one coming off  like an entitled pissed off person who feels they have more of a claim to fandom.  None of what you wrote here makes you special or entitles you to declare yourself more of a fan than the next person.  You have no more claim on the fandom than anyone else. 

 

The point about not reading the books is that he's attributing the success of the Jackson's movies to his faithfulness towards the source material. Not budget. Not cast and crew. Not Jackson's experience as a director vs. somebody else's. Not the fact that LOTR is Tolkien's is the masterpiece of the series. Faithfulness. Except that, as you and I have already discussed many times, Jackson did make changes to the material. Why is it that Jackson's Arwen defeating the nazgul or Galadriel driving away Sauron are not being seen as Jackson injecting his political beliefs/ideology/baggage etc.? Isn't this some woke message about girl powa? When I've pointed this out to you, you've said "oh well I had issues with Jackson's version as well." But then you post Chris Gore making the same trash one-sided analysis and completely glossing over the hypocrisy of it because he's never read the source material. 

 

I get that you and others think I'm the entitled one. Maybe when I start making blanket statements about "what we want" or "alienating the fans" there will be some truth to it.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, InvaderStych said:

So, again, this is not about defending the shit-heels at Amazon.  There is no shortage of source material in the world.  They chose to do this specifically for controversy in order to cash in on the moment.  I appreciate that the reviewer does some semblance of addressing that point, but he's dead wrong about the job of writers/creators in a general sense.

 

 

It's very plausible that Amazon is making casting choices in order to stir up controversy and drive publicity. It's also possible that there are a variety of interests represented in this venture and that some people love Tolkien's world and would simply like to see some people that look like them in this world. Even less likely but still possible is that there were simply some good actors that auditioned for parts and got them. There was no apparent reason (for me at least) to cast Zazie Beetz as Domino in Deadpool 2. But she rocked that shit.

 

I'm sorry about your friends in the Ukraine.

[TheOtherTed]

58 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Why is it that Jackson's Arwen defeating the nazgul [is] not being seen as Jackson injecting his political beliefs/ideology/baggage etc.? Isn't this some woke message about girl powa?

Because the change was a relatively small one.  Arwen defeated the Nazgul in the movie the same way Elrond defeated them in the book - by causing the Bruinen to flood at just the right time.  It didn't really matter who made it happen, so long as it happened.  Plus, she is Elrond's daughter after all (not to mention Galadriel's granddaughter (and Melian's great-great-great granddaughter)).

 

Speaking of whom, I left the Galadriel scene out for reasons I stated before concerning the Hobbit movies.  In short, it should never have been filmed.  At the very least, it was just insulting to make a crappy, cheesy "super saiyan" moment out of it.

 

As for the Gore interview, he didn't have to read a specific book to analyze those two quotes (which is all he did).  For evidence, I'll point out that the Hobbit films took in a little less money than the LotR films did nearly 10 years prior, and the Hobbit budget was about 2.5 times higher.  In addition, the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores for the LotR films were much, much higher than those of the Hobbit movies.

 

What's the difference?  As someone who has both read the books and seen the movies, Jackson's LotR stayed reasonably true to the source, while Jackson's Hobbit deviated wildly and made stuff up whole-cloth.  Thus, in my opinion, Gore's point has already been validated, and from what we've seen of RoP so far, it looks like Amazon is, well, deviating wildly and making stuff up whole-cloth.

[InvaderStych]

40 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I'm sorry about your friends in the Ukraine.

 

Thank you.  I have subsequently learned through a mutual friend that they are safely in Lviv at the moment.  I have also had some coffee, so I want to clarify a couple points with less ... emotional content.

 

41 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It's very plausible that Amazon is making casting choices in order to stir up controversy and drive publicity.

 

It is not the casting choices that lead me to this conclusion - it is the choice of IP combined with the poor quality of the trailer and the subsequent comments by reps of the show that lead me there.  They phoned it in because they knew it would stir up some shit and get them eyeballs as a result.

 

43 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

It's also possible that there are a variety of interests represented in this venture and that some people love Tolkien's world and would simply like to see some people that look like them in this world.

 

Love it. All About it.  Give us Idris Elba as Aragorn.  Mahershala Ali as Saruman.  Make a version of The Hobbit with Aidy Bryant as Bilbo Baggins!

 

Give us Shoreh Agashdaloo as Galadriel.  No, even better: cast her as Gandalf because that would be just awesome. Hell, sit her down on a chair in front of a fire and have her read the Silmarillion out loud - I'd watch that 100 times. 🙂

 

I could not tell you a single thing in that trailer which was "changed" in terms of characters, no idea.  None.  That's not what matters here, and I neither agree with nor understand objections made through such a lens.  And I definitely do not care if an elf is wearing armor or not. It's not AD&D, there are no rules that say magic users suffer a -10 penalty for wearing armor or whatever. Seriously.

 

But Amazon knew full well the size of the bear they were poking, so they just went and got the biggest stick they could find.  That's what matters here.

 

 

46 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Even less likely but still possible is that there were simply some good actors that auditioned for parts and got them.

 

I have no reason to doubt the skill or motivation of the actors. Why not cast them in an adaptation of an Ursula Le Guin series? One of any of hundreds of examples. I just don't believe that Amazon is being genuine here: I know they can do better in terms of production quality and there is no shortage of material.  Plenty of authors writing from the voices they claim to want to represent who would be more than happy for an option deal. I would love to be wrong.  I would love nothing more than for the series to be absolutely amazing in every way and for their intentions to be genuine, but ...

 

... to paraphrase the incomparable Ms Agashdaloo's Chrisjen Avasarala:

 

One of us has the wrong impression about Amazon's intent here: I fear that it is you, but I hope that it is me.

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Why is it that Jackson's Arwen defeating the nazgul or Galadriel driving away Sauron are not being seen as Jackson injecting his political beliefs/ideology/baggage etc.?

 

I can understand his reasoning for bringing Arwen into the story as she is an crucial figure toward understanding how Aragorn behaves.  She also has an important role in introducing the theme of death into the story.  As I remember it, Tolkien had wanted to find a way to work her into the story proper but never found a sufficient way of doing so, which is why her story with Aragorn is relegated to the appendices.  Sad to have Glorfindel replaced by her yes, however it is one of the changes Jackson made that I can understand.  I may not fully agree with it, but I can understand it.  Now, had he kept the version of her where she goes full Xena Warrior Princess at Helm's Deep, that would have been utterly terrible in my opinion.  Having her rescue Frodo and barely make it back to Rivendell is not totally horrible in my opinion. 

 

7 minutes ago, TheOtherTed said:

Because the change was a relatively small one.  Arwen defeated the Nazgul in the movie the same way Elrond defeated them in the book - by causing the Bruinen to flood at just the right time.  It didn't really matter who made it happen, so long as it happened.  Plus, she is Elrond's daughter after all (not to mention Galadriel's granddaughter (and Melian's great-great-great granddaughter)).

 

Exactly. 

 

For the record, I totally agree about the Hobbit films deviating wildly from the source material.  It never should have been dragged out into a trilogy in my opinion.  I get that they wanted to try and tie it into the LoTR trilogy, however this is a great example of studio interference hurting. 

 

14 minutes ago, TheOtherTed said:

What's the difference?  As someone who has both read the books and seen the movies, Jackson's LotR stayed reasonably true to the source, while Jackson's Hobbit deviated wildly and made stuff up whole-cloth.  Thus, in my opinion, Gore's point has already been validated, and from what we've seen of RoP so far, it looks like Amazon is, well, deviating wildly and making stuff up whole-cloth.

 

Totally agree.

 

2 hours ago, InvaderStych said:

Preposterous Drivel.

 

I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges here.  There are books/films written where the clear intent is to be political or to tell an allegorical sort of story. Of course there is a place for such works.  With that said, Tolkien's work is not among those.  He famously refuted any attempts to attach allegory of any kind to his work.  That is what Gore is objecting to in the interview. 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

It's also possible that there are a variety of interests represented in this venture and that some people love Tolkien's world and would simply like to see some people that look like them in this world.

 

This could very easily be done by exploring the untapped worlds of men in Middle Earth.  Again, people objecting to the diversity being introduced into the elves and dwarves in the  Amazon RoP series is a valid criticism.  Tolkien's work is based heavily on Norse and Anglo-Saxon mythologies, where there would have been few if any people of African descent.  It is not him being a racist, it is him trying to stay true to historical fact in creating his fantasy mythology.   This is no different than the African stories and lore lacking anyone of caucasian descent and why fictional places like Wakanda lack ethnic diversity.  It is just part of the fictional world in the story.  Tolkien did however mention quite a lot of diversity in the worlds of men. 

[InvaderStych]

15 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges here.  There are books/films written where the clear intent is to be political or to tell an allegorical sort of story. Of course there is a place for such works.  With that said, Tolkien's work is not among those.  He famously refuted any attempts to attach allegory of any kind to his work.  That is what Gore is objecting to in the interview. 

 

With respect to Tolkien specifically, I will grant you a bit of that.  His work and Orwell's work have very little in common. I think it is disingenuous for a person to state they are making an alternate regional mythology while simultaneously claiming there is no allegorical content within, but that's a completely different discussion that would require me re-reading all of the books, which is outside the scope of my point anyway.

 

That reviewer stated:

 

"The job of a writer/creator is to entertain not preach and push their political agenda."

 

That is patently false, and in terms of societal evolution: dangerous.  The bar at which people decide they're being "preached" to is preposterously, hilariously, embarrassingly low these days.  It is just as low as the bar by which people measure how much they are "offended" by something. And this guy diving into the shit-storm so he can drive more views to his page isn't really helping that situation.  The creative expression of personal belief is part of the very essence of a writer/creator's job.  Being "entertaining" is the vehicle by which some artists accomplish this; he's an audience member, not a King serving by Divine Right summoning the court jesters.  No artist need feel beholden to some individual's tastes, that doesn't make good art.  This is something else that Amazon would do well to learn.

 

Are there examples of works that use a hammer when a scalpel would be more effective? Absolutely.  But that's no reason to say to all writers/creators they should leave their beliefs out of their work just because some trust-fund babies at Amazon botched a launch, and probably an entire series.

 

In fairness, the points regarding preservation of old books/works are not far off the mark, but not for banal reasons like the act of giving elves a variety of skin tones made some people upset.  There are far more nefarious things that can be done with digital text which we should be worried about.

 

Honestly, and I can not emphasize this enough:  The best course of action on this one is no action at all.  This guy is playing right into Amazon's hands, but maybe that doesn't matter to him since it greases his palms in the process.  Meanwhile more and more people divide further and further over meaningless twaddle.

 

Trust me, if Amazon had dropped this trailer and no one said anything about it at all - just the sound of crickets chirping - they would have gotten the hint.

[ShardWarrior]

40 minutes ago, InvaderStych said:

I think it is disingenuous for a person to state they are making an alternate regional mythology while simultaneously claiming there is no allegorical content within, but that's a completely different discussion that would require me re-reading all of the books, which is outside the scope of my point anyway.

 

It is not disingenuous at all and you are misunderstanding what the word allegory means.  Yes, Tolkien was drawing heavily on Anglo Saxon and Norse mythology to create an alternate English history.  That does not mean he was looking to make some kind of moral or political message.  Again, he was famous for stating his creation was not allegorical.  He was just looking to tell a good story. 

 

40 minutes ago, InvaderStych said:

That is patently false, and in terms of societal evolution: dangerous. 

 

I think you are misunderstanding the context of the conversation and what he is saying in the interview.  Again, political drama/satire has its place.  I believe trying to compare works like Citizen Kane, Milk, JFK or All the King's Men to Tolkien is just wrong as they are entirely different.  You are trying to compare apple to oranges.  Tolkien was looking to tell a good story to entertain, not express a moral or political message.  There is plenty of documentation available around Tolkien that enforces this.  It is also one of the many reasons his work still endures to this day.  Above all else, it is a great story.

Edited February 26, 2022 by ShardWarrior