Spoilers Lord of the Rings TV series
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
To me, not wanting to watch a LOTR product that needed an intimacy coach is a reasoned and rational response
I could also point out it looks exactly like The Hobbit style/filming wise, aka really obvious green screen/digital shit, the costumes somehow look worse then the sets and Sauron literally looks like Eminem. There is alsoA Balrog, which means either Moria falling happened thousands of years earlier then the LOTR wiki says or they just shoved another Balrog into the show for a cheap reaction.
not that there is only supposed to be one Balrog, the wiki says there could be up to 7, but 99% of people watching the show will associate it with Moria, and they know that.
not that there is only supposed to be one Balrog, the wiki says there could be up to 7, but 99% of people watching the show will associate it with Moria, and they know that.
Even without the possible nudity/sex stuff the show looks like garbage visually and doesn't seem to have a particularly compelling story, someone has probably just slapped the LOTR paint job on a pre existing project/idea that wouldn't get picked up without a pre-established property.
Also, there is no nudity in Hobbit or the trilogy, which is all that matters content wise in this case, but I guess he could have had pervy shit in The Silmarillion, its not like that collection of words is readable enough for most people to tell. You could tell me that The Silmarillian says Gandalf is a hyper evolved Hobbit from the future who went back in time to stop Sauron and I'd probably buy it (its not much more ridiculous then the actual backstory of the Wizards).
The show looks terrible to me for many reasons, the potential sex stuff just immediately makes it a show I won't watch, even if the rest of it didn't look terrible (which it does).
Yes. I mean, angelic beings in the service of the gods and sent to support mortals is completely ridiculous. No story would ever have that...
Ok. Bye...
Yes. I mean, angelic beings in the service of the gods and sent to support mortals is completely ridiculous. No story would ever have that...
Reading the Hobbit/LOTR, Gandalf being an angel is literally the furthest thing you could imagine, its absolutely asinine. Tolkien wrote four legendary books, but his backstory stuff is simultaneously needlessly complex and extremely stupid once its deciphered. I mean, I'm sure that Amazon is going to do it much worse, but the backstory not in the published four books really does nothing but drag down The Hobbit/LOTR.
Made perfect sense to me. And I need no deciphering. I read it and followed it, and studied Tolkien's letters and appendices. The only thing that annoys me is the dwarves.
Whatever Amazon does will take nothing away from the Lord of the Rings.
What is he then? He appears as roughly the same age in two stories set 77 years apart and literally returns from the dead. He's no normal mortal.
It's not Sauron. It's allegedly a
member of a cult of Morgoth.
Reading The Silmarillion is no different than reading a book of Greek or Norse myths. The creation bits at the beginning were the only real slog for me in the beginning, but not now. The rest is far more interesting to me than The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Far more epic, far grander in scope, has Greek tragedy, great romance, multigenerational stories all in one book. Modern fantasy writers would turn out one needlessly bloated book after another trying to cover all that.
So far Rings of Power trailers haven’t really done much for me, but the bits that seem to call back to The Silmarillion (the Two Trees) make me smile.
So far Rings of Power trailers haven’t really done much for me, but the bits that seem to call back to The Silmarillion (the Two Trees) make me smile.
There were atrocities committed by the Allied forces that have never been generally acknowledged although they are not secret either. It hasn't been the last century that the oppressed has had a voice, more like the last two decades.
I mean, any sex or nudity will take away from the LOTR, and just generally being a shitty production will take away from it. This looks worse then The Hobbit trilogy, and that was a very bad adaptation/film trilogy.
Also, good for you for reading indecipherable bullshit, I guess. I never said that no one could do it, just most people can't/wouldn't want to try and its just overall a terrible experience, which makes sense because none of it was actually meant to be published.
Obviously he's not a normal mortal being. But all you need to know is he's a wizard, and that Wizard's aren't mortals, which is pretty obvious just from reading the books. Bringing a bunch of weird blatantly religious stuff with the extra material just makes everything worse, and not just because its purposefully written to be basically unreadable, because it was never meant to be a book. All you actually need to know is Gandalf = Wizard, and Wizard = weird powers and attributes, including either not aging or aging differently. Simple, and something you get just from reading the main books. Its not a complicated or confusing idea that a Wizard could be ageless (or close to it), and there was no other explanation needed, especially not a weird religious one.
I would hope so, but some reports have said its Sauron, so unless said otherwise in an official capacity I have to go with that. Even if its not sauron I still have a bunch of problems with the show, its just a one bad element, so even removing this doesn't make the show not trerrible to me.
Old myths that are barely translated are just about as unreadable. Neil Gaiman did an excellent book of Norse Mythology a few years ago, where he retold the stories in modern English style and made the whole thing very readable and enjoyable. The Silmarillion is written like it was trying to be a more confusingly written version of, say, the bible.
Also, the book itself is needlessly bloated, but I don't really blame Tolkien because he doesn't seem to have ever intended to publish it, it was work for its own sake that got published to make some money after he died. I bet he would have written an actual novel with some of the material if he had cared to (or had the opportunity to, I don't know how close he wrote this stuff to his death).
No, it won't Sex and sexuality are part of creation, and so a part of LOTR. Tolkien acknowledges it in his letters.
He was working towards its publication so I don't know about "never meant to be published."
It reads like mythology, which is about as indecipherable as Shakespeare. As in, it takes a willingness to engage with the material rather than going "That's bullshit." I've read the Odyssey, the Iliad, the Aeneid, The Death of Arthur, among others. The Similarion is just like those.
With due respect, that's a profound misunderstanding of Tolkein and his work. He states that LOTR is primarily a "Catholic work'" based upon his own religious beliefs and working with that attitude even while using influences from Old English mythology. Gandalf was originally inspired by Odin, and the imagery from Icelandic myths. The long white beard, wide hat, and staff are all reminiscent of Odin wandering, a god in human form. In other words, his magic is tied to his nature, which is a running theme throughout Tolkien's works.
Calling Gandalf an Angel isn't that crazy considering the power structure of Arda (Earth).
Eru is "God" and ultimate being without specific form
Eru created 14? I think Immortal beings called "Ainur" who carried out his will and then they constructed the world more or less. One rebelled and turned evil (Melkor). The parallel to the Bible would have these are similar to Angels although they had more responsibility and impact in CREATION than Angels. You might even say these are the highest level of Angels and put them more on an "Archangel" level.
Which leads to "Maiar" the spirits created by the Ainur who are just below them. They can take human form and become mortal. Gandalf's form was originally a Maiar as were all the Wizards who were sent to Middle Earth(Saruman, etc...)
Many have historically equated them to 'Angels' as well.
Eru is "God" and ultimate being without specific form
Eru created 14? I think Immortal beings called "Ainur" who carried out his will and then they constructed the world more or less. One rebelled and turned evil (Melkor). The parallel to the Bible would have these are similar to Angels although they had more responsibility and impact in CREATION than Angels. You might even say these are the highest level of Angels and put them more on an "Archangel" level.
Which leads to "Maiar" the spirits created by the Ainur who are just below them. They can take human form and become mortal. Gandalf's form was originally a Maiar as were all the Wizards who were sent to Middle Earth(Saruman, etc...)
Many have historically equated them to 'Angels' as well.
If one studies the more Hebraic ideas of the divine order, specifically shown in the book of Job, YHWH had his own divine council that he kept and were responsible for various aspects of the created world. So, the Ainur are not at all out of step with Tolkien's own Catholic beliefs.
As far as being "unreadable" I think even Tolkien would admit that studying ancient stories is hardly an easy endeavor and not for the faint of heart
And yet many of us read those myths, in the same style as the Silmarillion, while in grade school. And we understood them perfectly. That you find them unreadable says more about your reading skills or the state of education these days than it does about the work.
kirk55555 said:
There is a place - for some reason I haven't yet pinpointed the specific page range or even chapter - where I always kind of tap out if I'm reading straight through. I generally "read" the thing in scattershot fashion, just jumping around all over the place.
That said, the idea that something was purposefully written to be unreadable sounds like BS.
Because it is. Sounds more like the parable of the fox and the grapes.
For me, I couldn't get past the Creation bits...for decades. Then after the seeing the second Hobbit movie, I wanted to read more about the world and remembered The Silmarillion. On this go through, instead of reading it, I listened to it. And as I wanted to savor it, I did not approach it with any sense of urgency. I listened to the first four hours on a long drive home, then spent something like six months listening to the rest. As a lot of the names are similar sounding, I had to rewind here and there, but it didn't hurt the experience. It was a great experience and I was a bit sad when it was done, but then spent the next six months doing the same with the audiobook of Lord of the Rings, and wrapped it all up right before the third Hobbit film. Was a strange feeling that, but not trying to rush through it. I'd just listen on the way to and back from work and soak it in. None of it bothered me, not even the Creation bits and I couldn't understand why it did before. Since then I've read it multiple times and have a great illustrated edition of it.
The audio version I have is this one:
Last edited:
I think the point is that shouldn't be any: not in general and certainly not as a lure for potential consumers craving a display of flesh. Putting my cards on the table here: I'm all in favor of gambolling elves without a single expertly-crafted thread blocking their alabaster skin, but I don't require fan service in each fantasy work.
Thank you for sharing. That's perfect as I read it.
Similar threads
