Spoilers Lord of the Rings TV series

[theenglish]

Interesting; I once said that about Stoker's Dracula to a major Dracula fan, and she lost it over how could I not see how much of a "one for the ages" adaptation the Coppola movie was.

I have to step in here. Coppola's Dracula was mediocre at best and considering it was advertised as being a true adaptation of the novel there was much more Coppola in it than Stoker. Now, what did it take away from the novel for me--nothing. What will the Rings of Power take away from my enjoyment, admiration and memories of reading Tolkien? Nothing. Will I watch it? To be honest, there is just so much else out there that I am going to use this board and probably this thread to make a determination on that. Watchmen (the Snyder movie) was a horrible trainwreck of an adaptation, but I never felt like watching it destroyed my love of the original comic.

As for LOTR, for me, Jacksons trilogy is something that stands apart on its own. Its attention to details and lovingly sculpted story and world building are an achievement that no one had thought possible prior to the release of those movies. I love those movies on their own, and I love the written works on their own.

 

[fireproof78]

As for LOTR, for me, Jacksons trilogy is something that stands apart on its own. Its attention to details and lovingly sculpted story and world building are an achievement that no one had thought possible prior to the release of those movies. I love those movies on their own, and I love the written works on their own.

Exactly right. 1000% this! An adaptation can do nothing to my love of a work. It stands separate because it can't be anything else.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I meant to look these up sooner but I finally watched the Comic Con panels:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

For those who are still on the fence about this series, I highly recommend watching at least the first two videos (with the showrunners) because their discussion with Stephen Colbert goes a long way in demonstrating their passion and devotion to Tolkien's works and their attempts to keep to the spirit of the source material as much as possible. Their collective knowledge, as well as the many people they've brought on board to work on the show, clearly shows (to me at least) that they probably know what they're doing.

All of the panels are worth watching, especially if you're (like me) a fan of Stephen Colbert and his Tolkien knowledge (which he gets to demonstrate multiple times).

I know it says Part # of 6 and there are only 5 posted, but the first one isn't on the channel anymore (if it ever was) and appears to be a live musical performance of the show's score.

 

[JD]

Put it this way: would a Tolkien fan who loved Jackson's films hold this series in the same regard--as a "keeper"?

It looks like they're going for a pretty different style and approach from what Jackson did, so someone going into this expecting it to look and feel like the movies is probably going to be disappointed.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

It looks like they're going for a pretty different style and approach from what Jackson did, so someone going into this expecting it to look and feel like the movies is probably going to be disappointed.

Well, yes and no. They're definitely trying to emulate to a certain degree with the Jackson films while being their own creation. The balrog certainly looks like the spitting image of the one from The Fellowship of the Ring.

Plus, in the second video I just posted, Bear McCreary talks about honoring Howard Shore's scores when he wrote the music for this show.

 

[JD]

Apparently Amazon did get contact Peter Jackson about being involved, but ended up never getting back to him after he asked to read some scripts. According to the article on IGN (which comes from a THR article), they decided not to include him because the Tolkien Estate was against involving him, since Christopher Tolkien didn't like the movies.

 

[kirk55555]

Apparently Amazon did get contact Peter Jackson about being involved, but ended up never getting back to him after he asked to read some scripts. According to the article on IGN (which comes from a THR article), they decided not to include him because the Tolkien Estate was against involving him, since Christopher Tolkien didn't like the movies.

While I believe that Christopher Tolkien's opinion on the original LOTR trilogy was just wrong, if the Estate cared enough about it to not want to work with Jackson, why are they working with people that are objectively worse when it comes to following the source material? I mean, ok, The Hobbit films were shit, and I'd understand not working with Jackson because of that, but the new show sure as fuck isn't more loyal to the material, regardless of whether or not you think it looks like a good show, and I'm pretty sure most of Christopher Tolkien's complaints about the LOTR trilogy was stuff left out or changed, although I don't remember any specifics.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yes, Christopher Tolkien wasn't a fan: “They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25” he told Le Monde in a 2012 interview.

I very much doubt he was involved in the decision not to involve Peter Jackson. I suspect the decision was made because the showrunners didn't want anybody criticising their choices and vision. It's also why I think a pretext was found to shut out Tom Shippey. They just wanted to have the freedom to push their own agenda, diverging markedly from the type of themes that JRR Tolkien would have developed. I hope I'm wrong.

It's kind of obvious that the target audience is young people aged 15 to 25 who like fantasy and action movies - hence the armoured-up Galadriel. I doubt she'll get made pregnant by Halbrand/Sauron this season - let's hope they'll reconsider and do a rewrite if they were really going to go down that road. That Halbrand might become Annatar would be fine as Sauron had a particular dislike of the race of Men so he would want to adopt a form that would please him more. However, Habrand being Sauron is just a rumour that might well be a load of rubbish.

 

[saddestmoon]

Put it this way: would a Tolkien fan who loved Jackson's films hold this series in the same regard--as a "keeper"?

Well, as a fan of Tolkien’s own writings, and also as someone who was an extra in both LOTRs: The Two Towers, and The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - I gotta say, I’m super-excited about The Rings of Power!

In some ways, I’m more excited about this series, simply because I love this period of Middle-Earth, and have always wanted to see it adapted and committed to film.

So count me in as one of those looking very forward to seeing the series - which may well be a ‘keeper’.

[saddestmoon counting down until September…]

 

[Booji]

It looks like they're going for a pretty different style and approach from what Jackson did, so someone going into this expecting it to look and feel like the movies is probably going to be disappointed.

Huh? They look almost identical in style from everything we've seen.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Yes, they appear to be sticking with the art style of the Tolkien illustrators Alan Lee and John Howe. I believe Howe was hired as conceptual designer for this series.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Yup, Howe is among many of the same collaborators from the films that are also working on the show.

 

[Jedi Marso]

Put it this way: would a Tolkien fan who loved Jackson's films hold this series in the same regard--as a "keeper"?

Jury is out until I give it a watch. To me, a 'keeper' is something I want to go back and periodically rewatch. If this doesn't make me feel that way, then it's won't be considered a keeper.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Exactly right. 1000% this! An adaptation can do nothing to my love of a work. It stands separate because it can't be anything else.

Nothing can take from the parts you like. I'm a big head canon person. I will remember the stuff I like and forgot the rest (sometimes even within a single movie). Nothing can taint something else.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

Here's a genuine question for me, and something I legitimately struggle with as I get older: if the vision doesn't hold up to imaginings of the books what does it take away from the books?

I don't say this to be argumentative, though I have no doubt it will come across as such. No doubt this attitude will sound flippant or rude. But, I have had this small revelation since the Star Wars prequels and the vitriolic excess that was directed at them and Lucas himself that he had "ruined the OT." Not saying this is the attitude presented here, more that I am targeting a much larger attitude that an adaptation takes away from the original work, be it comic, book, or film.

My biggest grappling question is How? I don't agree with the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings films by and large but I would not say they diminish the books in anyway.

This isn't meant to put you on the spot, so please don't feel like you have to answer. But, I still read Lord of the Rings, I read Tolkien's letters and am working through the Similarion. And, my wife and I regularly watch through our edited style of the films. The two coexist rather nicely.

It takes away from the original work, because people will watch it and think they know LotR and then avoid the actual work, and believe that the adaptation is the definitive. Plus they end up clogging up forums with questions about things that were invented for the movies, and wikis end up getting filled with the adaptation and the lines between adaptation and original work effectively blur.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

None of that really matters though.

All that matters is how you perceive the work.

Besides, at the same time, there are plenty of people who discover the books because of the adaptation. Including people who are starring in this show (as mentioned at the Comic-Con panel) who saw the films and then fell in love with the books.

 

[fireproof78]

It takes away from the original work, because people will watch it and think they know LotR and then avoid the actual work, and believe that the adaptation is the definitive. Plus they end up clogging up forums with questions about things that were invented for the movies, and wikis end up getting filled with the adaptation and the lines between adaptation and original work effectively blur.

That's nothing against the original work. That is a matter of perception by a person and can be changed.

No , it doesn't take away from the original. In fact:

None of that really matters though.

All that matters is how you perceive the work.

Besides, at the same time, there are plenty of people who discover the books because of the adaptation. Including people who are starring in this show (as mentioned at the Comic-Con panel) who saw the films and then fell in love with the books.

Exactly. Many LOTR fans I know today started with the films and then moved in to the books. I started with the first book, was less than intrigued. The film made it easier and then I read the book.

Nothing can take from the parts you like. I'm a big head canon person. I will remember the stuff I like and forgot the rest (sometimes even within a single movie). Nothing can taint something else.

Indeed.

 

[DigificWriter]

It takes away from the original work, because people will watch it and think they know LotR and then avoid the actual work, and believe that the adaptation is the definitive. Plus they end up clogging up forums with questions about things that were invented for the movies, and wikis end up getting filled with the adaptation and the lines between adaptation and original work effectively blur.

This is complete nonsense.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I read a comment on YouTube to the effect that Amazon would edit digital copies of Tolkien's works to fit in with this series. That's some serious paranoia right there. It was based on the publishers using art from the show as "book covers". That's just basic marketing. No-one is going to do a massive editing job on the works to enforce consistency.

 

[fireproof78]

I read a comment on YouTube to the effect that Amazon would edit digital copies of Tolkien's works to fit in with this series. That's some serious paranoia right there. It was based on the publishers using art from the show as "book covers". That's just basic marketing. No-one is going to do a massive editing job on the works to enforce consistency.

Are they selling hats to prevent this? Silver looking ones?

Honestly, the biggest thing for me is that the originals are available to read. It is incumbent upon the individual to engage as they desire, not the adapter to ensure personal clarity.