Jump to content

ASOIAFrelatedusername

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ASOIAFrelatedusername

  1. No, not really. Tolkien's works get accused of being both racist and pro-monarchist. The decision to include POCs in the show was presented as the solution to the "problematic" element of racism some people see. That raises the question that if change (and whether or not the inclusion of POCs even constitutes a "change" is another question, but some posters seemed to think that the showrunners were indeed fixing Tolkien by doing that) is justified to fix the problem of (alledged) racism, can it be justified to fix the (alledged) problem of pro-monarchism. You might argue that monarchism is less dangerous than racism and therefore fixing the racism in fictional works takes precedence, but others might also want to fix the pro-monarchism. Where does it end? And that is the last thing I will say about this topic.
  2. Never claimed that. However this whole thing was started the claim Which implies to me that the adapter needs to consider their audience. I was asking how far this is supposed to go. For example: Should PJ have changed Shelob's appearance for the sake the arachnophobes in the audience. Their experience could have been improved by that after all.
  3. Many people do think that there is a big pro-authoritarianism drive in the world and monarcy can be counted as a authoritarian system But are the vast majority of characters in Tolkien's not nobles or otherwise people of a higher social standing (Samwise being the exception). Does that not imply that they matter most? But apparently they do change something about it otherwise there would not be such a push.
  4. Others might however consider Tolkien's work to be pro-monarchist and problematic. If a work having problematic elements justifies changes in the adaptation, why should a Tolkien adaptation not implement changes to get rid of the pro-monarchist elements? What makes your opinion more "right" then theirs?
  5. Question: Would you consider Aragorn's desire to take the throne of Gondor "problematic"? Was Peter Jackson's decision to make him more reluctant therefore justified?
  6. So I guess your answer is that change is fine until it is not and that the needs of the audience does not factor into it?
  7. It is definitely interesting that so far none of the canon (presumably) main characters are POC, is it not? Fair enough. EDIT: Personally I do not think "noble causes" work as justifications.
  8. Than what about Tauriel then? Not that, no. However deemphasizing the master/servant relationship between Frodo and Sam and making Aragorn reluctant to take the throne were probably. But why does Faramir's character needs to stay intact? Why can the main point of his existence not be changed to something else? Why does there need to be a Faramir in the first place? (Rhetorical questions). In the end the change is bad because a) the execution was flawed and b) it was not what Tolkien wrote. Suppose a) could be eliminated, would the change still be bad?
  9. No, not what I'm suggesting at all. That seems like a wild misread. Recognising that stories change doesn't mean that all change is automatically good. But the only critiques of this particular change being bad are a, it's a change and that's inherently bad and, b, something muddled about racebending. You ignored my example. You said that an adapter, who does not consider the needs of the audience over staying true to the source, is a bad adapter. I gave an example of such a change that was alledgedly done for the sake of the audience, but which is rather controversial. Let me rephrase it: Do the needs of the audience trump staying true to the source material? When do they?
  10. So basically we cannot criticize anything the adapter does? The audience will not understand how this random guy is able to resist the all-corrupting evil magical artifact, which you think will undermine the danger of said artifact? Let him take the characters carrying that artifact prisoner and only let them after the forces of evil come within a hair's breadth of taking the artifact for themselves!
  11. Fuck this lie. What I found funny was that they proved this statement to be true themselves I will echo my reaction from the trailer, this is going to be a shitshow and I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
  12. It is the (Elvish) name of a flower from Lothlorien. It is not a normal Hobbit name.
  13. We have some additional names: Unimaginative And her name is just wrong and it makes me seriously wonder if they EDIT gave a even a single shit
  14. If the showrunners are Melkor, then who is Jackson? My best guess would be Saruman.
  15. I seriously do not know whether to laugh or cry. This is just awful And for added hilarity, here is Vanity Fair's analysis: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/the-lord-of-the-rings-teaser-trailer-amazon (I mean they could just be pulling stuff out of their ass, but I would not be suprised if it turns out to be true)
  16. Then the Second Age ceases to be an age and becomes more of an intermission. Peter Jackson's prologue was dotchy, but he crammed in a whole lot of backstory into less than 10 minutes. The series on the other hand puts the forging at the center. The creators do not have the excuse of "I need to get to the real story" that Jackson did. Even if Durin got his Ring directly from Celebrimbor, the rest of the Six and all of the Nine were given out later by Sauron as his plans B & C. It is because we do not see the gradual (and perhaps inevitable) descent of Numenor. Tolkien had his reasons when he let events unfold on this large scales.
  17. Thanks to the timeline compression, this is not "earlier on". The show takes place at the end of the 2nd Age and consequently Elrons would already be thousands of years old. Considering this It appears that the will go with the "Rings for everybody" version instead of the canon version and with timeline compression you can not really accurately portray the events in their right order or capture the motivations for the characters nor can you portray the slow descent of Numenor.
  18. It might be that they can use stuff on a case by case basis.
  19. I doubt it. It is probably just so he can be one of those "underdogs".
  20. I am aware that I should not take this marketing article seriously, but I can not help but notice how little attention the more canon elements get. Yes we have a lot of Galadriel and a bit of Elrond, but Numenor, Isildur and Celebrimbor only get mentioned once. Elendil, Ar-Pharazon, Miriel, Tar-Palantir and Gil-galad do not even get one. Sauron himself seems more like an addition to the Hobbit storyline
  21. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/02/amazon-the-rings-of-power-series-first-look Excuse me while I vommit Blergh
  22. ´Still until you have a replacement lined up, there should not be much reason to starwarsgalaxies Loto (though that may just be the sunk cost fallacy speaking)
  23. Welp this is happening https://variety.com/2022/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-hobbit-tolkien-zaentz-rights-sale-1235176036/ I am not sure what to think about that.
×
×
  • Create New...