I stand by point.
Spoilers Lord of the Rings TV series
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
From the information that's been leaking over the past few days, I'm not sure I want to watch this series at all. I'm just wondering how many episodes I'll be able to tolerate before the accumulated transgressions against what I believe to be fundamentally unalterable lore mean I will have to bow out.
The irony about the show is that its going to 100% take a shit on the Lore, while simultaneously relying on characters and plot points that only hardcore fans care about. They're hoping to use the name and look enough like the Jackson films to get a lot of views, but while that will get them a fair number I think a lot of casual LOTR movie fans are going to be turned off by the fact that the show has basically nothing to do with the movies, story wise, character wise, even the world in general. No Gandalf, one ring, Sauron as movie fans would know him, Nazgul, major characters that movie fans would care about (No, Elrond and Galadriel don't count, we're talking about main characters from the main books/.movies), nothing.
Its just a bunch of elves and some emo blonde guy (who they may call Sauron but is nothing like what you'd expect the character to be pre-flaming eyeball) getting into conflicts that are mostly irrelevant to the main LOTR story, since it was all over and done with thousands of years before the events of LOTR. Plus as a prequel you know that major characters won't die, and if they do that's even more lore ruining which will anger the hardcore fans that would actually care about the story at all.
Will it succeed financially? Probably to some respect, considering the name value of the property and the amount spent on marketing. Will it be the next GOT, or anywhere near as popular or remembered as the movies? No chance in hell.
Rights to Tolkien's IP have just been sold to Embracer. AFAIK it doesn't relate to TV adaptation rights or the Amazon series.
Embracer acquires rights to Tolkien-related IP, teases new LOTR films | Ars Technica
Embracer acquires rights to Tolkien-related IP, teases new LOTR films | Ars Technica
The Soundtrack Album has become available on all streaming platforms a few hours ago. It features almost 2 hours and 30 minutes of Music from Bear McCreary and the track Howard Shore contributed.
I really love the track 'Galadriel'. It's just beautiful.
https://variety.com/2022/artisans/n...wer-score-bear-mcreary-soundtrack-1235345372/
I really love the track 'Galadriel'. It's just beautiful.
https://variety.com/2022/artisans/n...wer-score-bear-mcreary-soundtrack-1235345372/
Last edited:
Well, at least the music will be something worthwhile to survive the train wreck, if indeed the show turns out that way.
I realised yesterday that the name of the invented character "Bronwyn" is Welsh for "almost white" - I doubt that is of any significance though. The name is also similar to "bronwen", which means "weasel" in Welsh - again a dubious association to make. The suffix "wyn" is masculine in Welsh and Bronwyn is generally only used as a female name by the English. I believe "Brongwyn" would mean "white breast". I don't see a Sindarin meaning - "enduring branch" perhaps - I'm not at all sure.
As for the invented character name "Halbrand", which is similar to the Tolkien-originated name of the Dúnadan Ranger of the North "Halbarad", that is perhaps also meant to be Sindarin in origin. Halbarad derives from the Sindarin for "high fortress". As far as I can determine, Halbrand translates as something like "high noble" but "brand" can also mean "high" so I'm not really sure. Perhaps it was a name suggested by Tom Shippey before his scholarly expertise was deemed to be no longer required by Amazon.
ETA: Very impressed by this alternative proposal for how the Amazon Prime adaptation should have been produced:
I realised yesterday that the name of the invented character "Bronwyn" is Welsh for "almost white" - I doubt that is of any significance though. The name is also similar to "bronwen", which means "weasel" in Welsh - again a dubious association to make. The suffix "wyn" is masculine in Welsh and Bronwyn is generally only used as a female name by the English. I believe "Brongwyn" would mean "white breast". I don't see a Sindarin meaning - "enduring branch" perhaps - I'm not at all sure.
As for the invented character name "Halbrand", which is similar to the Tolkien-originated name of the Dúnadan Ranger of the North "Halbarad", that is perhaps also meant to be Sindarin in origin. Halbarad derives from the Sindarin for "high fortress". As far as I can determine, Halbrand translates as something like "high noble" but "brand" can also mean "high" so I'm not really sure. Perhaps it was a name suggested by Tom Shippey before his scholarly expertise was deemed to be no longer required by Amazon.
ETA: Very impressed by this alternative proposal for how the Amazon Prime adaptation should have been produced:
Last edited:
That is a stupid-ass goal.
Will it be a good story? That should be the goal. Not lore friendly, nor like the movies, not any other convoluted standard for people to beat it up with online. Just is it a good story? That's the expectation I'm going in with. If it works within the larger lore then so much the better. But, anyone expecting the movies or GOT or pure Tolkien is setting up for disappointment.
At this point it almost feels deliberate.
Last edited:
I guess it depends on how much Bezos approves of what has been produced and on how it performs financially in retaining and attracting subscribers. Which factor has greater weight I'm not sure.
I'm confused as to why anyone would write an "alternative proposal" for a show that has yet to air a single episode - much less produce an hour long YT video on the topic (aside from the clicks, I suppose). I got as far as what seems to be the main grievance - compressed timeline - before bowing out. While I recognize that it's a controversial decision (amongst some fans), no one yet can say whether or not doing so properly fits this particular vision of the story.
I say this as someone who absolutely detested the changes made for the Foundation series to the point where I stopped watching - but that's because I felt the changes undermined the entire point of the story to begin with and not simply because changes were made. There's no way to make that decision without first seeing a significant part of the series.
Doing so seems to be unnecessary hand-wringing (which, I realize, is par-for-the-course in many fandoms, not just that of ME).
It's just one person's opinion of how they would have done the adaptation. It's not ridiculously critical of something they haven't seen yet.
And yes, the Foundation adaptation sucks but hey ho.
The way I would do adaptations of works would not sell in Hollywood. I know that now. I was even mad at the Garfield cartoon and movies. Adaptation is a process that doesn't just channel the original author but invites creative people toexplore within that world. To borrow a phrase from Tolkien it is s sub-sub-creation.
Tolkien hated the way that 19th century translators of Beowulf had inserted their own agendas. He would have hated any adaptation that tears up the themes in his novels and inserts 21st century ones. Unfortunately, he has the disadvantage of having died in 1973.
Last edited:
If strict fidelity to the author's intent is the ideal, then, as an example of adaptations with an agenda, you must include Christopher posthumously publishing tales that Tolkien himself did not have and/or want to see published - since Christopher himself had to insert and add material to get those works to the point of publication.
Either way, nearly all works that aren't the exact originals are adaptations. Their value lies more in their quality within themselves than strict recreations since, by definition, if you want the original you typically still have access to that. (The original, unedited Star Wars films notwithstanding.)
As an example, consider the aforementioned Foundation show. Some of the adaptations (e.g. the emperors) were a fascinating twist. But some of them moved the story so far from the original texts that it felt like a new franchise, simply borrowing the name for the sake of legitimacy. I've no idea if a similar fate awaits ROP, but that's kinda the point. Kvetching about it and offering up alternatives now, without having seen any of it, and how well the adaptations adhere to the underlying themes and concepts of the original, seems ... superfluous.
Either way, nearly all works that aren't the exact originals are adaptations. Their value lies more in their quality within themselves than strict recreations since, by definition, if you want the original you typically still have access to that. (The original, unedited Star Wars films notwithstanding.)
As an example, consider the aforementioned Foundation show. Some of the adaptations (e.g. the emperors) were a fascinating twist. But some of them moved the story so far from the original texts that it felt like a new franchise, simply borrowing the name for the sake of legitimacy. I've no idea if a similar fate awaits ROP, but that's kinda the point. Kvetching about it and offering up alternatives now, without having seen any of it, and how well the adaptations adhere to the underlying themes and concepts of the original, seems ... superfluous.
Tolkien hated a lot of adaptation scripts. I get that. But, I also know that adaptation involves creative people participating in the creative work. Regardless, I'm not going in to watch Tolkien's work regurgitated on the screen from the text. I'll read the book if I want that. But, if I'm watching a 21st century adaptation I'm going to see that reflected in the work, as art is impacted by the times it is created in.
Tolkien might disagree. I might disagree but I'm not blind to this process nor will I hold it against the story. Otherwise, I would wholly reject the films, and the work on those.
And many do. The Similarion is completely rejected, among others.
If you're making something that is based on a pre-existing story or IP and you aren't changing anything about it in the process, you're not making an adaptation of it... period.
Which is why objecting to an adaptation being different than its source material is dumb and completely missing the point.
Which is why objecting to an adaptation being different than its source material is dumb and completely missing the point.
Counting down until Spring hits here in New Zealand, and the show airs!
The degree of change is irrelevant; if you're complaining that changes were made, you're completely missing the point.
I personally had to learn that lesson myself, and my approach to reacting to adaptations is the better for having done so.
Thanks for the heads-up on this! I'm listening now and McCreary certainly has absorbed the fabric of Shore's LOTR work - if not the actual themes and specific structures. Still, knowing how subtle (yet effective) McCreary's work was, thematically speaking, for BSG, I'm genuinely curious to see how he develops his ideas across episodes and seasons while paying obvious homage to Shore's indelible musical imprints.
Similar threads
