Jump to content

LOTR: the new series comes like the in rushing sea to Númenor:


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That change was made because PJ assumed the audience was a bit stupid, rather than because PJ was trying to represent more of them.

Than what about Tauriel then?

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It wasn't a reflection of a cultural shift at all.

Not that, no. However deemphasizing the master/servant relationship between Frodo and Sam and making Aragorn reluctant to take the throne were probably.

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

But also, it lessened the story because it diluted one of the main points of Faramir's existence as a character at all, his incoruptibility..

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arakan said:

I couldn’t care less,

Aye, it shows.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Arakan said:

As I said, integrating token POC characters does nothing. It’s nothing more than self-aggrandizing self-righteousness


It's been explained multiple how this is not really just tokenism, but you just keep complaining that it doesn't make sense and dismissing it.

Also you can't complain about American culture wars language when your opening salvo was complaining about wokeness. You brought that language to the discussion, it wasn't really coming up in the topic much before. 

 

Quote

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?


That, I suppose, entirely depends if you think the reasoning behind it is justified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Whatever. I couldn’t care less, so who is whining? Spare me your American culture wars language

It definitely seems you could care quite a bit less.  Anyway, just pointing out the two aren't necessarily linked at all.  Also, what exactly is "American culture war language?"  Minorities?  Whining?  Stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Arakan said:

As I said, integrating token POC characters does nothing. It’s nothing more than self-aggrandizing self-righteousness.

It is definitely interesting that so far none of the canon (presumably) main characters are POC, is it not?

33 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That, I suppose, entirely depends if you think the reasoning behind it is justified.

Fair enough.

EDIT: Personally I do not think "noble causes" work as justifications.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Let me rephrase it: Do the needs of the audience trump staying true to the source material? When do they?

The source material for an adaptation is just that, source material. It's a resource, not a straitjacket. The adapter is free to use as much or as little of the source material as they please in creating the adapted version. Jurassic ParkJaws and The Godfather featured massive, sweeping changes to the source material and are widely regarded as three of the greatest movies ever made; Game of Thrones made very substantial alterations to the source material from relatively early on and increasingly so throughout the series (especially in and after Season 5), and enjoyed blanket critical acclaim until the very end.

The degree to which the source material should not be changed because of the perceived importance of the original work is up for debate. Zack Snyder (and many, many fans) made the argument that Alan Moore's Watchmen (which occupies a place in the graphic novel canon as equally important and influential as LotR is in the fantasy literature canon) is a 99% perfect story that should be transplanted from page to screen with no changes whatsoever - which proved to be a mistake, resulting in leaden pacing and trying to cram too much into too short a period of time - except the ending, which he judged would appear to be silly, random and unworkable to a modern audience. However, a decade later Damon Lindelof came in and reinstated that ending and made it the cornerstone of his hugely, critically-acclaimed sequel to the graphic novel (whilst, as the sequel, the show was of course 99% invented, new material), widely-regarded as far superior to the film.

With Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy there are deviations, in some cases major deviations from Tolkien's source material which work reasonably well and deviations which work horrendously badly. There are also excellent direct evocations of Tolkien straight from page to screen and moments which do not work as well on film as they did in the book. Ultimately it comes down to judgement calls, some of which will work and some will not. Jackson was lucky in that most of his judgement calls in the LotR films worked out and were generally accepted, which was not the case in the Hobbit trilogy.

With this new series, they are doing the same thing. They have a freer hand because Tolkien gave us relatively little hard, definitive information about this era, but also a more difficult job because far more people are familiar with Middle-earth than they were in 2001 and there's vastly more opinions about what ideas are good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to adapting fantasy, I guess that the way Game of Thrones crashed and burned has made me a bit wary.

I enjoyed Shadow and Bone quite a lot, however.  I’ve still got to catch up on The Witcher.

I’ll approach this series with an open mind.  I’ve always rather liked the idea of Galadriel as the ruthless ambitious power player who defied the Valar, more than the saintly figure Tolkien wanted her to become.  I’ve always rather wished she took the Ring when Frodo offered it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It's been explained multiple how this is not really just tokenism, but you just keep complaining that it doesn't make sense and dismissing it

„Explained“? Excuse me but in what way? I call a spade a spade, and token representation characters are token representation characters. Interesting that you speak of dismissing when my suggestion of a much more meaningful way of inclusion (Haradrim) gets constantly ignored. Only explanation is that my suggestion is indeed so superior compared to what they chose instead so that you simply can’t criticize it. 

It would have been so incredibly easy to introduce the Haradrim POV…with all the attached benefits: true to Tolkien lore (Numenor after Tar-Minastir), evilness of imperialism/colonialism, many potential roles for minority actors from the Middle East, Africa, Southern Asia. And as bonus you get a mature, meaningful story with a lot of relevance for today‘s world as well. But nah, play it safe and generic: give us Hobbits (again), some maverick human (guess he will develop from an anti-elf bigot to an enlightened person), and warrior princess Galadriel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SpaceChampion said:

While early Tolkien lore had all the Istari arrive in Middle Earth in the Third Age, in The Peoples of Middle Earth recounts him changing the lore to have the Blue Wizards Alatar and Pallando arrive around the time of the forging of the One Ring in the 2nd Age, to undermine Sauron amongst the Eastern peoples.

So perhaps meteor man is one or both of them.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Blue_Wizards

In the Variety article of today ( not sure if you read it) they are vague about it when asked specifically if the meteor is Istari arriving....

Quote

Okay, but Will There Be Wizards?

In the footage that premiered in the Rings of Power Super Bowl teaser, audiences caught a glimpse of a tall, mysterious man who falls from the sky. Our immediate instinct is to wonder if he’s one of the wizards even the most casual fans might have heard of. In Tolkien’s text, they didn’t come to Middle-earth until the Third Age, but is the show taking some added liberties with the timeline? When asked if this might be Gandalf, Radagast, or Saruman, McKay answered cautiously, “Well, I would say those are not the only beings, those names, in that class. So maybe, but maybe not. And the mystery and the journey of it is all of the fun, I would say.” 

Payne adds, “There are tiny little nods to Tolkien that could send you this way or send you that way. And we are hoping people will like taking that and putting together a huge puzzle.”

Thats interesting that he says that Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman are not the only beings and names in that class. That class can then refer to either Istari or Maiar in general. But really I am struggling to think who else it could possibly be outside of Sauron himself, but it seems rather out there for him to arrive by meteor...I mean...why? 

They dont have rights to Peoples of Middle Earth though...so they couldnt take it from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Arakan said:

„Explained“? Excuse me but in what way? I call a spade a spade, and token representation characters are token representation characters. Interesting that you speak of dismissing when my suggestion of a much more meaningful way of inclusion (Haradrim) gets constantly ignored. Only explanation is that my suggestion is indeed so superior compared to what they chose instead so that you simply can’t criticize it. 

It would have been so incredibly easy to introduce the Haradrim POV…with all the attached benefits: true to Tolkien lore (Numenor after Tar-Minastir), evilness of imperialism/colonialism, many potential roles for minority actors from the Middle East, Africa, Southern Asia. And as bonus you get a mature, meaningful story with a lot of relevance for today‘s world as well. But nah, play it safe and generic: give us Hobbits (again), some maverick human (guess he will develop from an anti-elf bigot to an enlightened person), and warrior princess Galadriel.

I’m hoping Galadriel will be like Monza Murcatto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Arakan said:

 Interesting that you speak of dismissing when my suggestion of a much more meaningful way of inclusion (Haradrim) gets constantly ignored.

I literally said your suggestion is good and I'd like to see it implemented but it doesn't solve the issue of solely white elves, in the context of what elves are in the world Tolkien made, being a racist concept. You ignored me saying that for some reason, I assume the same reason you're consistently ignoring me and others saying why the elves all being white is a problem in the first place, though I'm not really sure what that reason is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Game of Thrones made very substantial alterations to the source material from relatively early on and increasingly so throughout the series (especially in and after Season 5), and enjoyed blanket critical acclaim until the very end.

And pretty much every change they made was worse than sticking to the books. Even with PJ movies, his changes were usually bad compared to source material, with a few good ones - at leat he managed to have a few good improvements, unlike D/D and 90% of Hollywood hack scriptwriters.

32 minutes ago, Arakan said:

It would have been so incredibly easy to introduce the Haradrim POV…with all the attached benefits: true to Tolkien lore (Numenor after Tar-Minastir), evilness of imperialism/colonialism, many potential roles for minority actors from the Middle East, Africa, Southern Asia. And as bonus you get a mature, meaningful story with a lot of relevance for today‘s world as well.

You're asking a major US studio to basically portray the Middle-Earth version of real world post WW2 - a major power who managed to beat down the absolute Evil, who then takes over rulership of inferior peoples and turns out to be just another imperialist oppressor. Would be a version without the Cold War, with Numenor playing a combined US and USSR though. 1970s US Democrat-leaning audience might have liked it, but I fear that most of them are lost now; only part of the progressive camp could stomach it and not shiver due to the cognitive dissonance, the notion that the US might not be a force for good has considerably shrinked in the last 45 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, polishgenius said:
27 minutes ago, Arakan said:

 

I literally said your suggestion is good and I'd like to see it implemented but it doesn't solve the issue of solely white elves, in the context of what elves are in the world Tolkien made, being a racist concept. You ignored me saying that for some reason, I assume the same reason you're consistently ignoring me and others saying why the elves all being white is a problem in the first place, though I'm not really sure what that reason is. 

Some random elves and dwarves played by POC is IMO nothing more than empty corporate virtue signaling. It’s meaningless and illogical. Like those all white Hollywood casts of the 80s/90s with the exception of one random black person. 

Regarding dwarves: there are seven tribes and we only saw Durin‘s Folk in the lore (with the exception of the Battle of Nanduhirion 2799). Ergo: there are still 6 tribes left, use them! 

Regarding elves: there are still the Avari out there! Why not use them as a whole people instead of a random character?

This is just brainstorming…but it shows that there are so many ways to include not only a few random minority actors but whole peoples! And nothing would contradict Tolkien‘s lore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

And pretty much every change they made was worse than sticking to the books.


People keep saying this sort of thing but I don't think it's really true. Yes, they went off the rails when they had no book guidance at all, albeit the books were going off the rails before then anyway, but early doors quite a lot of the best scenes were either changes from the book - particularly in dialogue which i think the early show was superior to asoiaf on in a few moments- or entirely new additions. Chaos is a Ladder isn't in the books. Arya and Tywin isn't. I don't remember precisely but I don't think 'I'm going to have to eat every chicken in this place' was a line from the books? I haven't read or watched the early stuff too long to remember details off the top of my head, but there were definitely a few conversations and such that I thought were improved. There was one between Robert and Ned, I know that was one I commented on at the time. 

 

14 minutes ago, Arakan said:

Regarding elves: there are still the Avari out there! Why not use them as a whole people instead of a random character?

 

 

So your solution to the problem of all God's chosen people being white is to make the branch of that people who, essentially, refused to be chosenbe the PoC? Well, that wouldn't have any problematic connotations at all

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Arakan said:

As a side note…it’s really interesting how attitudes within the fandom have shifted over the last 20 years. When rumors came up that Arwen would get a fighting role in TTT at the Battle of Helm‘s Deep, at least 90% of the fandom was against it, regardless gender. Now with Warrior Princess Galadriel it seems much more of a 50/50 thing. 

Galadriel being a warrior has a lot more support in the texts. Arwen is strongly implied to not be a warrior, especially if you compare her with her brothers. The bigger issue with Galadriel's role is that they seem to be writing her like Gandalf or Aragorn, adventuring around by herself. She would fit much better as a politically ambitious diplomat working to improve relations with the Dwarves... which is exactly what they've given to Elrond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

So your solution to the problem of all God's chosen people being white is to make the branch of that people who, essentially, refused to be chosenbe the PoC? Well, that wouldn't have any problematic connotations at all

This makes no sense at all, again. And you know better because I know that you love Tolkien. First, ALL elves and men are Eru Illuvatar‘s children! And Eru loves them all! Second, your argument is a strawman (as you are well aware). I am against tokenism because it’s shallow, empty corporate virtue signaling. If it makes you feel better: make all the Sindar/Nandor black or all the Noldor! Which is still more consistent than including random minority characters. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Marsala said:

She would fit much better as a politically ambitious diplomat working to improve relations with the Dwarves... which is exactly what they've given to Elrond.

Which would make her basically an Angela Merkel amongst the male-dominated elvish elite :). Much much better than what we will likely get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

1970s US Democrat-leaning audience might have liked it, but I fear that most of them are lost now; only part of the progressive camp could stomach it and not shiver due to the cognitive dissonance, the notion that the US might not be a force for good has considerably shrinked in the last 45 years.

Er, not to derail, but I have to point out this is a terribly inaccurate understanding of US party politics and public opinion and how they've evolved over the past fifty years.

32 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

particularly in dialogue which i think the early show was superior to asoiaf on in a few moments- or entirely new additions. Chaos is a Ladder isn't in the books. Arya and Tywin isn't. I don't remember precisely but I don't think 'I'm going to have to eat every chicken in this place' was a line from the books?

Agreed on all these examples, and yeah I'm almost positive that line wasn't in the books.

17 minutes ago, Arakan said:

I am against tokenism because it’s shallow, empty corporate virtue signaling.

To be clear, I think it's fair to point out the casting is at least in part cynical corporate virtue signaling.  That's hard to deny.  It's just that's still preferable to maintaining an all-white cast for one of the most popular IPs in the world.  And I don't see any reason to get all bent out of shape about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Well, I think warrior princess Galadriel is pretty damn stupid.  But I also think whining about them having the gall to cast minorities for characters of fictional races in a fictional universe is really damn stupid.

The more I think about it the less “Martial Galadriel” bothers me.  I’m not bothered at all by dark skinned actors playing Elves and Dwarves.  The thing that gets my attention is the time compression.  The Second Age 3,441 years long the idea that all the major events would happen in the span of a single century is a bit nuts.

That said… it could be amazing.  The Teaser Trailer did little to inspire interest in me but… it’s a teaser trailer.

We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That said… it could be amazing.  The Teaser Trailer did little to inspire interest in me but… it’s a teaser trailer.

We will see.

Definitely agree with this - I'm going to wait until actually watching the show to judge it.  Maybe they'll sell me on warrior Galadriel, but let's just say I'll be hard to convince on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...