Amazon's Middle Earth series

[Techwright]

Amazon's Middle Earth series:  I'm hearing from one of my geeky coworkers that this Second Age series has revealed it made substantial changes to the lore of Tolkien.  For example, Galadriel's husband Celeborn is dead, and Galadriel herself is a warrior rather than one of the most powerful wielders of magic.  Celeborn is a strong secondary character in the Third Age events of Lord of the Rings, and Galadriel learned her arts from the Valar even before the First Age.  The list of changed mentioned to me was quite long, and for a Tolkien fan, more than a little disheartening.  It makes the New Line changes to The Hobbit look good quite frankly.  I had been under the impression that the series would hold to all lore and only craft new bits where there was no lore.  My coworker says they'd hired a Tolkien expert to guide them, but when he did his job and kept saying "no, not that way", they fired him and replaced him with someone who'd say "yes".

 

All this comes to me from one source, though, so I realize it could be incorrect.  I'm interested to hear if others have learned of these changes, and if so, are they really this drastic?  What was told to me sounds like a rip-off of Tolkien rather than a lore-respecting homage.

[battlewraith]

There was a long, contentious thread about this series that eventually got locked. If you're a big fan of the books and expect this to be like the books, I would definitely either skip it or tone down your expectations. From what I've heard, I would call it an adaptation of Tolkein's work. Something inspired by the lore but filtered through the production team's notions of what will appeal to Amazon subscribers.

 

Usually people hold Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy as the gold standard of faithful Tolkein adaptations. But it actually made quite a few departures from Tolkein's work--dropping characters (Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil), dropping themes (scouring of the Shire), changing character motivations, adding Arwen as a main character, etc. Christopher Tolkein hated those movies and the Tolkein estate sued New Line for royalties, which they got by holding up the Hobbit movies until they got paid. Did you enjoy those movies? Maybe you can enjoy this miniseries on it's own merits. Who knows.

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

There was a long, contentious thread about this series that eventually got locked. If you're a big fan of the books and expect this to be like the books, I would definitely either skip it or tone down your expectations. From what I've heard, I would call it an adaptation of Tolkein's work. Something inspired by the lore but filtered through the production team's notions of what will appeal to Amazon subscribers.

 

Usually people hold Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy as the gold standard of faithful Tolkein adaptations. But it actually made quite a few departures from Tolkein's work--dropping characters (Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil), dropping themes (scouring of the Shire), changing character motivations, adding Arwen as a main character, etc. Christopher Tolkein hated those movies and the Tolkein estate sued New Line for royalties, which they got by holding up the Hobbit movies until they got paid. Did you enjoy those movies? Maybe you can enjoy this miniseries on it's own merits. Who knows.

 

There is a rather important distinction to be made here between changes that Jackson and company made versus what Amazon is doing.  One is trying to remain faithful to the theme and spirit of the source material while the other is not.

 

"We made a promise to ourselves at the beginning of the process that we weren't going to put any of our own politics, our own messages or our own themes into these movies. ... In a way, we were trying to make these films for him, not for ourselves." - Peter Jackson

 

The changes Jackson and the writers of his LoTR trilogy can be analyzed and discussed at length as to whether they are improvements or detriments.  I would argue most were improvements.  Arwen is a good example IMO.  Yes, she was barely in the book proper, appearing in the appendices.  With that said, she is absolutely essential to how Aragorn behaves, so yes, in that respect she is an important character to the overall story.  Another good example is giving Faramir an actual character journey with the ring.  Some examples of the absurd are the army of the dead helping to win the battle of Pelennor Fields.  These are all of course subjective.

 

Can the new series be enjoyed on its own merits?  Sure, I imagine there are a few people out there who will like it.  For me personally, I will be tuning out.  I have read enough about the writers and their utterly toxic reaction and disdain toward fans of the IP who questioned their changes.

 

 

[Techwright]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

There was a long, contentious thread about this series that eventually got locked.

I was previously unaware of that thread, and my apologies if this re-enflames certain feelings on the topic.  I certainly don't want contention at that level.  

 

That Christopher Tolkien hated the movies, I was well-aware. (I found his anger a bit comical.  After all, how could a proper version of the books be done in 9 hours only? Add to that, the first movie alone was responsible for generating 20 million plus of new trilogy book sales.  That's gratitude for ya.)  Personally, I found the changes in the LotR trilogy felt more of necessity to squeeze an 18 hour movie-thon into a 9 hour movie-thon.  Some of the material thematically remained the same (such as the hobbits getting attacked by a living tree, not in the Old Forest as in the book which would have necessitated Tom Bombadil's intervention, but in Fangorn Forest with Treebeard as the stand-in for Tom.)   The problem I had with The Hobbit trilogy was that material was being created whole-cloth for the purpose of stretching out a perfect story (and canon appendices) to fill 3 movies, when 2 would have sufficed. Literally the opposite of the LotR trilogy.  The canon parts of The Hobbit trilogy were amazing.  The filler parts were notably inferior, and not appreciated (IMHO).

 

What I've been hearing, from admittedly my one source, sounds like they're going a step beyond The Hobbit trilogy.  More like 1 part canon and 3 parts "whatever I think is cool regardless of how it breaks canon".  

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

There is a rather important distinction to be made here between changes that Jackson and company made versus what Amazon is doing.  One is trying to remain faithful to the theme and spirit of the source material while the other is not.

 

They both say that. Quoting Jackson's intentions is irrelevant. I've seen the actual films. The Arwen material is an attempt to add another female character (and love interest) to the narrative to make the films more attractive to a female audience. I think it's the weakest part of those movies. And the Hobbit movies were dreadful, which also calls into question his faithfulness to the source material imo. 

 

There's a cottage industry of haters on social media that attack pretty much any adaptation of an IP that doesn't fit with their politics. They get a lot of traction in communities of beloved properties like LOTR and they generate pre-hatred of productions based on previews and comments from production staff. I suspect that the industry will eventually just come to view dedicated fans as irrelevant at best, or tools to generate publicity for a wider audience (via controversy) at worst. There's a whole generation of LOTR fans who haven't even read the books and think Jackson's vision is the true one because those movies were good. Those are the kinds of people to whom studios like to cater. 

[ShardWarrior]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

They both say that. Quoting Jackson's intentions is irrelevant.

 

They both may say it, however it is more than abundantly clear to anyone with more than two brain cells only one means it.   Peter Jackson's quote is spot on and entirely relevant.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

The Arwen material is an attempt to add another female character (and love interest) to the narrative to make the films more attractive to a female audience. I think it's the weakest part of those movies.

 

Arwen is the love interest for Aragorn and is part of the lore through the appendices.  Clearly her story with Aragorn is crucial to his character, however Tolkien never found a good way to bring her into the main story.  She is not some brand new character.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

And the Hobbit movies were dreadful, which also calls into question his faithfulness to the source material imo.

 

I will not disagree that the Hobbitt films were disappointing and too far a departure from the source.  That is my subjective opinion though.  Also, keep in mind Jackson was not the original director for the films. 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

There's a cottage industry of haters on social media that attack pretty much any adaptation of an IP that doesn't fit with their politics. They get a lot of traction in communities of beloved properties like LOTR and they generate pre-hatred of productions based on previews and comments from production staff. I suspect that the industry will eventually just come to view dedicated fans as irrelevant at best, or tools to generate publicity for a wider audience (via controversy) at worst. There's a whole generation of LOTR fans who haven't even read the books and think Jackson's vision is the true one because those movies were good. Those are the kinds of people to whom studios like to cater. 

 

Not every fan who questions the bastardization of their favorite IPs are part of some social media group.  They just do not want to see their favorite stories and worlds altered to cater to modern political sensibilities.  Not everything has to.  Those who want to berate anyone questioning the direction of the new show should understand not everything has to be for everyone, and there is nothing wrong with Tolkien lore as it is.  This is why it stands the test of time. 

 

Those people need to take a page from Brie Larson's playbook and understand that Tolkien was "not made for them" and move along. 

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

They both may say it, however it is more than abundantly clear to anyone with more than two brain cells only one means it.   Peter Jackson's quote is spot on and entirely relevant.

 

In your opinion. In your big-brained mind reading from afar opinion. 

Arwen is not a new character, true. She also did not face down a bunch of nazghul with a sword. And she is in no way crucial to understanding Aragorn's character. Your not going to read the books, scratch your head, and wonder "what the hell was that Aragorn guy thinking?" The appendices are supplementary material.

 

Tolkein wrote books. You want the lore exactly as he wrote it, there ya go. Pick it up off the shelf. Want a miniseries? Easy just cough up millions of dollars for the rights and then mount your own project. What's that? Don't have millions of dollars to do so? Damn, well I guess like the majority of the population you'll just have to deal with what they make or simply don't see it. This is commerce. They need to make money, therefore they need to appeal to as many people as possible. And this inclusiveness that you think is a modern political sensibility is actually a modern commercial sensibility. Maybe these producers think that zealous white male nerds, as a demographic, are tapped out. You already saw this in both the Jackson LOTR and Hobbit films. I can sympathize to a certain extent, but the IP is the same. The books are the same. You may be pissed off by an adaptation, but you didn't lose anything and you're not entitled to anything from it because you didn't put any time, effort, or money into the maki8ng of this thing. Clutch your pearls and don't watch, if you're lucky everyone will hate it and it will go away.

 

Brie Larson? Wtf? Honestly I don't even remember why nerds hate her. I just picture car commercials these days.

 

 

[ShardWarrior]

4 hours ago, battlewraith said:

In your opinion. In your big-brained mind reading from afar opinion. 

 

Well no, if you were to actually do your due diligence and research what the "writers" and "producers" behind the new series have written, spoken and posted on social media about fans who disagree with their creative choices, you would very clearly see the facts here.  Authors who are writing the puff pieces for the show and trying to push a narrative on how "fandom needs to change" and are equating fans who speak up against the new series to fascists also paints a very clear picture. 

 

The thing is, when the source material and the lore is treated as if it does not matter, fans are going to let you know about it.  When those fans are put down as trolls, haters or whatever negative isms you want to ascribe to them, it does not make the people distorting the property into the victims. 

 

4 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Tolkein wrote books. You want the lore exactly as he wrote it, there ya go. Pick it up off the shelf. Want a miniseries? Easy just cough up millions of dollars for the rights and then mount your own project. What's that? Don't have millions of dollars to do so? Damn, well I guess like the majority of the population you'll just have to deal with what they make or simply don't see it. This is commerce. They need to make money, therefore they need to appeal to as many people as possible. And this inclusiveness that you think is a modern political sensibility is actually a modern commercial sensibility. Maybe these producers think that zealous white male nerds, as a demographic, are tapped out. You already saw this in both the Jackson LOTR and Hobbit films. I can sympathize to a certain extent, but the IP is the same. The books are the same. You may be pissed off by an adaptation, but you didn't lose anything and you're not entitled to anything from it because you didn't put any time, effort, or money into the maki8ng of this thing. Clutch your pearls and don't watch, if you're lucky everyone will hate it and it will go away.

 

Quite honestly, this is just plain silly.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

Quite honestly, this is just plain silly.

 

The level of entitlement is off the rails. It is silly. The Tolkein estate sold the rights, for a large sum of money. Whoever owns those rights doesn't owe you anything. And they haven't damaged you or the IP by doing something you don't like with those rights.

 

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

Well no, if you were to actually do your due diligence and research what the "writers" and "producers" behind the new series have written, spoken and posted on social media about fans who disagree with their creative choices, you would very clearly see the facts here.

 

I was actually talking about Peter Jackson. I did my due diligence with him and saw all the movies. I don't give a damn about the social media circus surrounding the Amazon series. The "writers" and "producers" (why the quotes lol?) were mean to you? They didn't back down and change the things you didn't like? Oooookay? Do "writers" and "producers" on other features do that for you? None of this ultimately speaks to quality of the actual series. Just skip it and you'll live through this ignominy.

[ShardWarrior]

Ok so it is very clear you are unable to have a rational, civil discussion, so I will just add this final piece and be done with you.

 

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The level of entitlement is off the rails. It is silly. The Tolkein estate sold the rights, for a large sum of money. Whoever owns those rights doesn't owe you anything. And they haven't damaged you or the IP by doing something you don't like with those rights.

 

I never said I am owed or entitled to anything.  Yes, Amazon paid a large sum for the rights and they can do with it whatever they like.  I am only pointing out that I can understand and agree with the point of view and frustration of the fans who contributed to making Tolkien's works such a huge international success.

 

9 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I was actually talking about Peter Jackson. I did my due diligence with him and saw all the movies. I don't give a damn about the social media circus surrounding the Amazon series. The "writers" and "producers" (why the quotes lol?) were mean to you? They didn't back down and change the things you didn't like? Oooookay? Do "writers" and "producers" on other features do that for you? None of this ultimately speaks to quality of the actual series. Just skip it and you'll live through this ignominy.

 

Were you to have actually read or listened to what the "writers" of this new series have said about the fanbase who do not embrace their narrative choices, you would understand my comment.  Again, please do your research.  It is all available online for you to easily find.

 

Lastly, please learn to read.  I already posted above that I will be tuning out.

 

Good day to you.

[Excraft]

17 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Those people need to take a page from Brie Larson's playbook and understand that Tolkien was "not made for them" and move along. 

 

Yup, but sadly, the Tolkien stuff has been purchased by a corporation who has no intention of sticking with or honoring the source material.  The people behind the new series have no real talent, no real knowledge of Tolkien or Middle Earth lore, so they have to bastardize an existing property in the hopes name recognition will attract bring a built in audience.  Going to be a spectacular fail IMO and I look forward to this garbage crashing and burning.  Same thing is happening with Star Wars and Star Trek.  They've been taken over by talent-less hacks.

[battlewraith]

4 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Ok so it is very clear you are unable to have a rational, civil discussion, so I will just add this final piece and be done with you.

 

If you want a rational, civil discussion--try being rational and civil. This subject was debated at length in the previous thread. I was just offering a summation to someone else. You took issue with that summation, started up again, but now you're done with me. Thanks?

 

When I pressed you on your double standard, you said this:  They both may say it, however it is more than abundantly clear to anyone with more than two brain cells only one means it.  I read this and think to myself, "ok well this guy is throwing some shade so I guess I can be blunt". Nope. Not true. Turns out you have a double standard about adaptations and a double standard about talking about adaptations. You're actually going to complain about civility.

 

If you're point is to express sympathy with irate Tolkein fans, or even to say this miniseries will suck because the production team being mean, you could've done all of that without making any reference to something I said. 

[TheOtherTed]

Disclaimer - I've put battlewriath on ignore so that I won't be tempted to wrangle with his whole "If you accept the changes Jackson made to LotR, you should be ok with any adaptation" argument.

 

@Techwright, the biggest lore change looks like it's going to be the timeline itself.  The show-runners want to touch on the rise of Sauron, the forging of the Rings, Sauron's war against the Elves of Eregion, the rise and fall of Numenor, and the Last Alliance's victory over Sauron.  "By the book," that spans about 2441 years, but the show-runners stated early on that they want to cover those events in a much shorter period of time.  The reason - they don't want to deal with discarding human characters every season or so.  Thus, though Celebrimbor was slain 1400 years before Elendil was born, it seems that the two might have a chance to meet in Amazon's brave new world.

 

Other minor lore changes - hobbits (er, "Harfoots") in The Shire millenia before there was a The Shire; Galadriel gunning specifically for Sauron for unknown reasons; an evil Elf named Adar who may be a lieutenant or rival of Sauron; and a "forbidden love" between a human woman (Bronwyn) and an elf man (Arondir) that can't actually go anywhere lore-wise.  I've probably missed a few things.  There's a lot of stuff being thrown around.

 

Also, beware of speculation.  I tried to track down the rumor that Celeborn is dead, but every lead I follow seems to point back to one youtuber whom I frankly can't trust.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

If you want a rational, civil discussion--try being rational and civil.

 

 

LMAO!  Pot, meet kettle.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

When I pressed you on your double standard, you said this:  They both may say it, however it is more than abundantly clear to anyone with more than two brain cells only one means it.  I read this and think to myself, "ok well this guy is throwing some shade so I guess I can be blunt". Nope. Not true. Turns out you have a double standard about adaptations and a double standard about talking about adaptations. You're actually going to complain about civility.

 

If you're point is to express sympathy with irate Tolkein fans, or even to say this miniseries will suck because the production team being mean, you could've done all of that without making any reference to something I said. 

 

Bullshit.  There's  no double standard.  @ShardWarrior is exactly right.  The people behind the new series and those shilling for them have called Tolkien fans everything from homophobes and misogynists to fascists to racists to nazis because they dared to disagree with their totally absurd talent less mangling of the world Tolkien created.  They have made it very clear they are absolutely injecting their political beliefs into what they are doing because they can.  That much is totally clear.  Google is your friend here.  Use it and educate yourself.   Now, if you can find any interview with Peter Jackson or Philippa Boyens or Fran Walsh where they completely berated the Tolkien fans as nazis or homophobic, by all means please share it and then we can agree they're behaving the same as the Amazon folk. 

 

If all Amazon wanted to do was expand the lore and start telling new stories taking place in Middle Earth while respecting the lore, no one really would've batted an eye.  Instead, they want to whole cloth distort characters to fit modern political views and inject them where the original author never intended them.

 

25 minutes ago, TheOtherTed said:

Disclaimer - I've put battlewriath on ignore so that I won't be tempted to wrangle with his whole "If you accept the changes Jackson made to LotR, you should be ok with any adaptation" argument.

 

Smart decision. 

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

LMAO!  Pot, meet kettle.

Except I'm not the one who bowed out complaining about it, was I?

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

Bullshit.  There's  no double standard.  @ShardWarrior is exactly right.  The people behind the new series and those shilling for them have called Tolkien fans everything from homophobes and misogynists to fascists to racists to nazis because they dared to disagree with their totally absurd talent less mangling of the world Tolkien created.  They have made it very clear they are absolutely injecting their political beliefs into what they are doing because they can.  That much is totally clear.  Google is your friend here.  Use it and educate yourself.   Now, if you can find any interview with Peter Jackson or Philippa Boyens or Fran Walsh where they completely berated the Tolkien fans as nazis or homophobic, by all means please share it and then we can agree they're behaving the same as the Amazon folk. 

 

You are completely lost in all of this. The double standard has to do with the extent to which changes can be made to an IP while still remaining faithful to the spirit of the source material. As outraged as you are by the whole situation, the answer to that question is subjective. And it has jack shit to do with the twitter beef between the Amazon team and the portion of Tolkein fandom that is outraged by this production for whatever reason.  Jackson made the LOTR prior to twitter existing, so he didn't have to deal the same level of social media hysteria. But imagine there had been a big backlash against his trilogy and he went online and called all the haters bigots, or whatever. Would that have somehow have changed the quality of the films. No. 

 

Btw, it's hilarious when you rail about talentless hacks and bring up something like Star Wars. Those three recent movies made over 2 billion dollars.

[Techwright]

17 minutes ago, TheOtherTed said:

@Techwright, the biggest lore change looks like it's going to be the timeline itself.  The show-runners want to touch on the rise of Sauron, the forging of the Rings, Sauron's war against the Elves of Eregion, the rise and fall of Numenor, and the Last Alliance's victory over Sauron.  "By the book," that spans about 2441 years, but the show-runners stated early on that they want to cover those events in a much shorter period of time.  The reason - they don't want to deal with discarding human characters every season or so.  Thus, though Celebrimbor was slain 1400 years before Elendil was born, it seems that the two might have a chance to meet in Amazon's brave new world.

 

Also, beware of speculation.  I tried to track down the rumor that Celeborn is dead, but every lead I follow seems to point back to one youtuber whom I frankly can't trust.

Hmm... the old "change the timeline up routine" was done with mixed results by New Line (and probably Peter Jackson) by moving Azog 400 or so years down the timeline in order to put a specific face in charge of the orcs (this despite a goblin king, but then New Line's version makes something of a distinction between orcs and goblins when Tolkien implied they were two words for the same creatures.)

 

Frankly, I would have preferred the long timeline telling of the story.  If anything it would have given the viewers an elf's view of time and events: watching their human allies grow old and fade so swiftly compared to their own lives.

 

As to speculation, you make a good point, and you might just have named what really is happening.  Celeborn can sound similar to Celebrimbor, and since, lorewise, these two do exist at the same time, it might be that someone jumped to conclusions and thought Celebrimbor's death is a reference to Galadriel's husband.

[Excraft]

54 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You are completely lost in all of this. The double standard has to do with the extent to which changes can be made to an IP while still remaining faithful to the spirit of the source material. As outraged as you are by the whole situation, the answer to that question is subjective. And it has jack shit to do with the twitter beef between the Amazon team and the portion of Tolkein fandom that is outraged by this production for whatever reason.  Jackson made the LOTR prior to twitter existing, so he didn't have to deal the same level of social media hysteria. But imagine there had been a big backlash against his trilogy and he went online and called all the haters bigots, or whatever. Would that have somehow have changed the quality of the films. No. 

 

I'm not lost in anything.  You clearly are and you're still not getting it.  The writers for the new series have made very clear their intentions with what they're doing and their labeling the fans of the series as bigots, racists, fascists, nazis and whatever other isms they can throw at them. 

 

If you've got an example of Peter Jackson saying those kinds of things about Tolkien fans, by all means please share it.   Peter Jackson's trilogy might have been made before social media, but he's given quite a lot of interviews about it over the years, so again if you can find somewhere where hes' called fans homophobic nazis and racist fascists, link it here.  I'd love to see it.

[battlewraith]

On 7/5/2022 at 2:24 PM, Techwright said:

I was previously unaware of that thread, and my apologies if this re-enflames certain feelings on the topic.  I certainly don't want contention at that level.  

 

Lol my dude, I went back to review that thread and you participated. Did you forget?

[Widower]

You know, I was inclined to let this thread stay open at first, but reading it has disabused me of that notion. Come back when there's an actual trailer to discuss, or something.