Spoilers Lord of the Rings TV series
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Just finished the first two episodes and...
I LIKE it.
Sure there are some very weird choices both in the changes they've made and in the overall design. (Like why are those Elf ladies in Lindon veiled? I'd also ask why Lindon is trying to be Lorien, but I assume it's for the recognition factor)
But overall I enjoyed the episodes.
Galadriel and her history are one of the most contradictory and complicated elements in Tolkien's mythos, mainly because she entered his world so late (she only came about and rose to such prominence as he was revising the early drafts of the Lord of the Rings) and he never found a place for her in the earlier ages that matched her importance of birth and power.
I think this show characterized young Galadriel very well, anybody familiar with the way the Noldor are described in the Silmarillion should recognize the way she is depicted here; a true Prince(cess) of the Noldor in their prime; proud, unyielding, severe and relentless in her fight against the forces of evil. As I said some months ago, it would have looked better on Galadriel during the First Age than the Second, but well...
But at the same time, I think they should have given her the Khazadum storyline instead of giving it to Elrond. I mean I know they probably were restricted in what they could do due to not having the rights to the material outside of the LoTR, but...it's right there in Fellowship of the Ring that Galadriel is shown to have knowledge and reverence of the Dwarves of old Khazad-dum, and that storyline would have still shown her as a strong character, I mean how cool would it have been to see her go toe-to-toe with During in that rock-smashing competition? It would have even made sense with her character here; Gil-Galad could have sent her to Eregion to distract her from her pursue of Sauron.
Instead they have her jump off a ship in the middle of the ocean and send her floating on some raft with some random Easterling(?) and now she's going to Numenor? Maybe they are building up to an interesting storyline, but IDK...
I wonder if we're gonna some sort of development from this Galadriel to the Lady of the Golden Wood, indeed I'd be curious to see whether Lorien will be mentioned at all.
I really liked the "primitive" Hobbits, it fits with their history as depicted in Tolkine's writing and I like how they are capable of concealing their whole camp from humans (one of the characteristics of Hobbits is going unnoticed by the "big races")
Though I really hope the old comet guy is Gandald (I am almost certain of it too) and not Sauron. Hobbits helping Sauron as he re-emerges would be a bit too on the nose.
There are some other odd things, but I guess some of it can be explained with them not being able to touch the extended mythos. I mean Elrond (and Galadriel?) not being counted among the "Elf Lords" is a bit weird, like aside from Gil-Galad and Celebrimbor they are the only members of the royal house of the Noldor who are still standing (and depending on where you look either Elrond or Galadriel are close relatives of Gil-Galadm since he's either a descendant of one of Galadriel's brothers or of one of Elrond's great-great-uncles)
But maybe with "Elf Lords" they meant Elves that are currently ruling over an Elf Realm? Though that begs the question of where Celeborn is (which is generally a big question)
I'm looking forward to seeing more (and seeing Numenor).
I LIKE it.
Sure there are some very weird choices both in the changes they've made and in the overall design. (Like why are those Elf ladies in Lindon veiled? I'd also ask why Lindon is trying to be Lorien, but I assume it's for the recognition factor)
But overall I enjoyed the episodes.
Galadriel and her history are one of the most contradictory and complicated elements in Tolkien's mythos, mainly because she entered his world so late (she only came about and rose to such prominence as he was revising the early drafts of the Lord of the Rings) and he never found a place for her in the earlier ages that matched her importance of birth and power.
I think this show characterized young Galadriel very well, anybody familiar with the way the Noldor are described in the Silmarillion should recognize the way she is depicted here; a true Prince(cess) of the Noldor in their prime; proud, unyielding, severe and relentless in her fight against the forces of evil. As I said some months ago, it would have looked better on Galadriel during the First Age than the Second, but well...
But at the same time, I think they should have given her the Khazadum storyline instead of giving it to Elrond. I mean I know they probably were restricted in what they could do due to not having the rights to the material outside of the LoTR, but...it's right there in Fellowship of the Ring that Galadriel is shown to have knowledge and reverence of the Dwarves of old Khazad-dum, and that storyline would have still shown her as a strong character, I mean how cool would it have been to see her go toe-to-toe with During in that rock-smashing competition? It would have even made sense with her character here; Gil-Galad could have sent her to Eregion to distract her from her pursue of Sauron.
Instead they have her jump off a ship in the middle of the ocean and send her floating on some raft with some random Easterling(?) and now she's going to Numenor? Maybe they are building up to an interesting storyline, but IDK...
I wonder if we're gonna some sort of development from this Galadriel to the Lady of the Golden Wood, indeed I'd be curious to see whether Lorien will be mentioned at all.
I really liked the "primitive" Hobbits, it fits with their history as depicted in Tolkine's writing and I like how they are capable of concealing their whole camp from humans (one of the characteristics of Hobbits is going unnoticed by the "big races")
Though I really hope the old comet guy is Gandald (I am almost certain of it too) and not Sauron. Hobbits helping Sauron as he re-emerges would be a bit too on the nose.
There are some other odd things, but I guess some of it can be explained with them not being able to touch the extended mythos. I mean Elrond (and Galadriel?) not being counted among the "Elf Lords" is a bit weird, like aside from Gil-Galad and Celebrimbor they are the only members of the royal house of the Noldor who are still standing (and depending on where you look either Elrond or Galadriel are close relatives of Gil-Galadm since he's either a descendant of one of Galadriel's brothers or of one of Elrond's great-great-uncles)
But maybe with "Elf Lords" they meant Elves that are currently ruling over an Elf Realm? Though that begs the question of where Celeborn is (which is generally a big question)
I'm looking forward to seeing more (and seeing Numenor).
I haven't seen this yet, but plan to. Based on my observations so far, it would seem that those with a comprehensive, or even semi-comprehensive, a priori knowledge of Tolkien's early-timeline works like the Silmarillion, are more inclined to dislike the new series, whereas casual fans are more inclined to enjoy it. There are, of course, always exceptions, so not trying to generalize here. While I have read all the main books of LOTR & Hobbit (both very ponderous in their own ways), I would still consider myself in the latter, "casual", group - I am by no means a Tolkien scholar. There are folks who have clearly dedicated good portions of their lives to studying the mythos. I'm definitely not one of them.
Pretty fair assessment. Although I will say that as a lifelong Tolkien nut, I do love Jackson's LOTR movies with a passion, but not so his Hobbit movies.
I absolutely agree, the language isn't quite there. You can tell they are trying in certain conversations but it seems removed from the age that Tolkien used in his language. Still a nice separation from other fantasy shows, but still needs work.
On pacing its interesting, as I actually feel some of the pacing is vastly closer to Tolkien pacing of scenes then what the general audience saw in Jackson's adaption. But it was still an issue that bothered me a little.
I'm liking the show so far. I can see why Tolkien scholars would be upset at the changing of his history, but creating a major multi-year show like this (from what essentially is an outline) is going to require quite a bit of leeway to make it compelling. Let's see where this takes us.
I've read the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales several times each - and at one point was reading The Hobbit & LOTR books once per year. So I've read quite a bit, and consider myself fairly well-versed (even if I don't have a wiki-like recall of everything). And, honestly, I find the "measuring contest" between the source material and the show to be a hollow enterprise. The showrunners were pretty clear, early on, that they were using the source material as inspiration and a foundation for the show - but were not going to be able to strictly adapt it. What matters is how well the show works within its own conceits. And thus far, I think it's doing a very good job of that (the exception being that I don't buy how Nori is so obtuse about "Stranger Danger." I know the episodes tried to set up why - but it didn't work for me).
The Hobbit movies will always have a special place in my heart because visually they are striking and "An Unexpected Journey" is still one of my favorite films. However, they are overly long, and unfortunately got too big for their britches, something I saw very commonly in films in the 2000s, like Pirates of the Caribbean and the first run of Spider-man films. I don't hate the Hobbit films, but I do think they lack the depth needed to make them a good film trilogy in their own right.
I was having this conversation with my wife, who is an ardent Tolkien fan, and loves talking about. She got frustrated because she was told to "shut up" when expressing concerns at a Tolkien fan page over various details that she felt were important. So, her and I had a really long discussion over the adaptation process, and it led me to finally being able to articulate why adaptations finally don't bother me any more, like they use to when I first saw Lord of the Rings and hated it for not having Glorfindel in it, and a stupid Arwen scene...
For me, adapting a book to the screen is always going to be different and faithfulness to the source material is considered a gold standard, but there are things in books which cannot be adapted in a way that flows for on screen (see the Ring tempting Sam in the books). So, I figure it's like casting for a play or films I've tried to do in the years. You work with the cost, the talent and the fit of the people available to you, not what is ideally your wish list. Which means there are going to be things which don't quite fit in my headspace of an adaptation, but were necessitated by the process. So, I'm not fussed over casting, or appearance of characters, but they might well bring another strength to that character.
Indeed.
I was having this conversation with my wife, who is an ardent Tolkien fan, and loves talking about. She got frustrated because she was told to "shut up" when expressing concerns at a Tolkien fan page over various details that she felt were important. So, her and I had a really long discussion over the adaptation process, and it led me to finally being able to articulate why adaptations finally don't bother me any more, like they use to when I first saw Lord of the Rings and hated it for not having Glorfindel in it, and a stupid Arwen scene...
For me, adapting a book to the screen is always going to be different and faithfulness to the source material is considered a gold standard, but there are things in books which cannot be adapted in a way that flows for on screen (see the Ring tempting Sam in the books). So, I figure it's like casting for a play or films I've tried to do in the years. You work with the cost, the talent and the fit of the people available to you, not what is ideally your wish list. Which means there are going to be things which don't quite fit in my headspace of an adaptation, but were necessitated by the process. So, I'm not fussed over casting, or appearance of characters, but they might well bring another strength to that character.
Because it's a rather impossible one. No adaptation will be perfectly true to the source material or will make for an overly long and boring film. It's not worth it. It's better to approach the film as one thing, the book another, and this series still another.
I would definitely place the LOTR films over Hobbit any day of the week, all day long. I've mentioned before upthread, I had always found Tolkien's prose staggeringly thick (citing the 2-page moss and bark on the tree sequence). How Jackson managed to parse the books into his final product was nothing short of stunningly brilliant, IMO, and his choice of using New Zealand as the setting for Middle Earth was inspired. It reminds me of the opinions people gave on the Last of the Mohicans film, which was fantastically done, while the written source material was apparently complete shit (I never read that one).
The Hobbit, on the other hand, IIRC, was supposed to be more of a children's book, as evidenced by the somewhat cutesy naming of the Dwarves at the initial gathering at Bilbo's house and their somewhat clownish behavior starting at that point, and really throughout the entire narrative. Add to that the fact that it was a single book, stretched out to three films (as opposed to LOTR's more logical one-for-one treatment), I felt profoundly belabored the point Tolkien was trying to make. Jackson should have probably kept it to a single film (two, on the extreme outside). Again, all my opinion, and I could always be incorrect about some of the facts. I'm open to correction on the details as they apply to the history of the written works.
I'm enjoying it so far. Has some of the look at feel of the Jackson movies, but carries itself differently in a way that's neither better or worse.
I have seen comments about the stranger possibly being Gandalf, but I don't think that's possible unless they REALLY go off-canon. Gandalf doesn't show up until the early Third Age, and was last of the Istari to arrive from Valinor.
I have seen comments about the stranger possibly being Gandalf, but I don't think that's possible unless they REALLY go off-canon. Gandalf doesn't show up until the early Third Age, and was last of the Istari to arrive from Valinor.
I'd call that a fairly solid case. My only serious counter-argument would be simply that it's a TV show, and Galdalf is a character people know, and it would be cool to see his arrival on Middle Earth. That and his makeshift cloak had a decidedly grey quality to it . . .
Personally I have no issue with it. I mean it's a matter of record that she's lived through EVERY war the elves were ever involved with. It'd be weird if she spent the entirety of her 8000 plus year life standing around in a silky dress looking cryptic and vaguely mystical. Plenty of time for her to have been and done all kinds of things. Like that one time she had a 120 year long tapdancing phase.
I'd put money on Annatar already being in Numenor when Galadriel gets there, and having no clue who he really is (at first.)
Sauron falling out of the heavens just wouldn't make sense anyway. After all that's the domain the beings he's trying VERY hard to avoid. Swanning around Numenor this whole time seems much more likely.
Not just ents, but I also spotted an Enting or two. No Entwives that I noticed though . . .Something I forgot to mention in my review:
ENTS!!!!
That is all.
I believed that is documented in the historical record called "Lord of the Dance."
Yeah, that's why I don't have that much of an issue with it.
And now I want a full episode of Galadriel going through her tapdancing phase.
I like that idea a lot. Galadriel's passion for finding him and his stronghold blinds her from seeing what's right in front of her. And even when she does see it, people will undoubtedly dismiss her because she's been so driven to find him in anywhere.
Agreed. I couldn't quite come up with why Sauron falling from the skies didn't make sense to me but now you've pointed out the obvious reason to me. Thank you.
Fingers crossed for Entwives at some point.
Just think about how many Dwarf weddings and births she missed!
No wonder the Elves and Dwarves were always at odds...
You just didn't recognize them because the "Wives Wearing Beards Budget" went to them instead of the Dwarves.
For all the complaints about how they're mangling canon, there's a lot of details hidden away there that only Tolkien fans would ever pick up on that they really didn't need to bother with. One that jumped out at me is the map of Middle Earth switches from the pre and post flood version between flashbacks with no explanation save of an artful floaty shot of a city beneath the waves. Something a casual fan would easily miss, but they're showing that it still happened.
On the contrary; they were always booking her for parties!
Last edited:
Reminds me of Doctor Who and the "Girl in the Fireplace" episode, how time had different meaning to the Doctor vs. the companions and others they interacted with.
I've seen a few reviews which state that Amazon does not have the rights to the Silmarillion or The Unfinished Tales. I've yet to find an explicit link to support this, but it would go a long way to explain why the show isn't able to explicitly reference the detailed history contained in those works.
As such, this makes the adaptations and deviations from those works all the more understandable.
(And makes comparisons to them all the more hollow.)
As such, this makes the adaptations and deviations from those works all the more understandable.
(And makes comparisons to them all the more hollow.)
Both episodes specifically state in the credits (including the opening sequence) that the show is "Based on The Lord of the Rings and the Appendices by J.R.R. Tolkien."
Amazon had to suspend user ratings on Rings of Power because of "review bombing", but that still means there is a whole group of people incensed enough about the show to go review it negatively, or even to write bots to do so. This doesn't bode well for the future of this show, or its legacy. Looks like we won't be seeing many seasons of this.
Oh and before the usual "everything is actually fine" suspects jump in, here is an excerpt from Hollywood Reporter:
For those of us who want this to be a show longer than 2 seasons this is REALLY bad news.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...ngs-of-power-amazon-review-bombed-1235211190/
Oh and before the usual "everything is actually fine" suspects jump in, here is an excerpt from Hollywood Reporter:
For those of us who want this to be a show longer than 2 seasons this is REALLY bad news.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/t...ngs-of-power-amazon-review-bombed-1235211190/
Last edited:
I really just want an entertaining show. Season length be damned.
Similar threads
