Jump to content

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power


Ser Drewy
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

So the topic is more indicative of Google traffic than the show then? Is there a topic that HOTD would fall under as well?

Google hasn't decided on a topic as of yet, so either just use the search term for each or use the TV/drama version of each to have a one-to-one comparison. But the search term search may catch things that are unrelated, like apparently there's a Rings of Power game from the 90s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 12:10 AM, Clueless Northman said:

Still that's the only hypothesis that makes sense.

 

 

Gandalf?

Outside of the obvious suggestion that Meteor Man is Sauron/Annatar?

This article suggest it may be someone else...Tom Bombadil

https://www.thegamer.com/rings-of-powers-meteor-man-based-on-tolkien/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Gandalf?

Outside of the obvious suggestion that Meteor Man is Sauron/Annatar?

This article suggest it may be someone else...Tom Bombadil

https://www.thegamer.com/rings-of-powers-meteor-man-based-on-tolkien/

 

I thought about Bombadil a while ago, too, but I would find that an even bigger travesty than either Gandalf or Sauron. These writers have no business trying to answer who Tom Bombadil is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Calibandar said:

Gandalf?

Outside of the obvious suggestion that Meteor Man is Sauron/Annatar?

This article suggest it may be someone else...Tom Bombadil

https://www.thegamer.com/rings-of-powers-meteor-man-based-on-tolkien/

To be fair it doesn't say that it might be Bombadil, just that Adventures of Tom Bombadil is the collection where the Man in the Moon poem referenced is from. That's not meant to be read as Bombadil himself as far as I know (though I've not read the collection).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 7:00 AM, Ran said:

The thing that needs to change is audiences. People were making musicals because audiences were flocking to them. People made historical epics because people were flocking to them. At some point, people stopped flocking to them, and studios had to find something new. You get a bunch of stuff (some of it precursors tp the stuff being done by indies today), and then they found Jaws and The Godfather and Star Wars, and so you get a bunch of that stuff. And then eventually that gets saturated, audiences want something new, and you get some pretty great stuff in, like, mid-to-late 90s, and here were are with superheroes all over the place, and people flock to them.

So, I don't know. Audiences are the driver, studios are just trying to find what audiences want, and they tend to settle into formulas because most people just want comfort and entertainment when they go to a film.

Well these days studios arent even making films for audiences, they're making them for activists.

Then when those films flop like the 2016 Ghostbusters film they come crawling back with something like Afterlife in a pathetic attempt to pander to the old-school fans they alienated with the previous film. (I havent seen either btw)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Darryk said:

Well these days studios arent even making films for audiences,

Of course they are. This year so far, one film has crossed the billion mark, two more were nearly there, and several more have grossed over half a billion.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Of course they are. This year so far, one film has crossed the billion mark, two more were nearly there, and several more have grossed over half a billion.

I should've said that some studios seem willing to sacrifice audience in favor of activism. 

Some seem to determined to give fans exactly what they don't want just to prove a point, like the rumors of a Star Wars Reva spin-off.

So of course, you're right, the majority is still studios doing what they believe the audiences want but there has been a recent trend of studios occasionally prioritizing activism.

Is the film that crossed the billion mark Top Gun: Maverick? Cause that's a classic example of something we rarely see in Hollywood nowadays, a film with no political agenda and just the intention to entertain and leave audiences feeling elated. They've got their rightful reward for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Darryk said:

a film with no political agenda

 

Top Gun Maverick is a lovely earnest movie as far as its unselfonscious commitment to action goes, but its political agenda is not subtle.


 

Studios are making movies with more leads and characters that aren't white males precisely because they've suddenly worked out that films like that are perfectly capable of making stupid amounts of money. Not all of them come out well because, well, a certain percentage of all movies turn out shit, but the idea that they're deliberately sacrificing money for 'activism' or to prove a point is just disconnected from reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

Top Gun Maverick is a lovely earnest movie as far as its unselfonscious commitment to action goes, but its political agenda is not subtle.


 

Studios are making movies with more leads and characters that aren't white males precisely because they've suddenly worked out that films like that are perfectly capable of making stupid amounts of money. Not all of them come out well because, well, a certain percentage of all movies turn out shit, but the idea that they're deliberately sacrificing money for 'activism' or to prove a point is just disconnected from reality.

Well I'm just scratching my head as to why Disney would want to do a Reva spin-off. There's no story-related reason to do it and no financial reason to do it.

To me it seems like you've got the two traditional groups; the business interests who just want to make money, and the creatives who just want to tell a good story. But now it seems like there's a third group who are making decisions based on ego.

Good storytellers are incorporating minorities in ways that feel genuine (like Arkane). The egoists on the other hand are not good at storytelling but prefer to double down on their bad storytelling ands blame the bad reception on racism.

Disney were accusing fans of racism before Obi-Wan even aired, as though they knew the Reva Character was badly written and were trying to preempt any criticism by smearing the critics.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for why a Reva spin-off would be approved when it doesn't make sense form a financial or story perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only canonical Tolkien character whom it might even make vague sense for Meteor Man to be is Earendil. He's up there in the sky already and you can imagine a situation where the return of evil calls him back down from the sky. It's still all clearly nothing to do with what Tolkien wrote, but at least you have a canonical "dude flying through the sky in some fashion."

If it is Sauron, we need some explanation as to how he got up in the sky in the first place and where he came from. At the end of the War of Wrath he basically fled into the east and was MIA until he showed up in Annatar-mode. Did he find a big giant meteor-launching cannon in the ruins of Utumno? What?

If it's Gandalf, then I'd love to see the other end of that trip.

Quote

 

Manwe: "GANDALF! You must to Middle-earth to deal with the return of evil!"

Gandalf: "Very well, my lord., I'll just go and get in a boat and sail..."

Manwe: "Bring hither the METEOR CANNON!"

Gandalf: "What the actual fuck?"

 

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil idea is cute, but I very much doubt it's what we're dealing with here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

The only canonical Tolkien character whom it might even make vague sense for Meteor Man to be is Earendil. He's up there in the sky already and you can imagine a situation where the return of evil calls him back down from the sky. It's still all clearly nothing to do with what Tolkien wrote, but at least you have a canonical "dude flying through the sky in some fashion."

Yeah this is why a few days ago I mentioned that's the only identity that sounds like a cool idea.  Obvious it's still "fan fiction," but at least it makes sense in terms of his canonical story.

Also, I know it'd royally piss off Tolkien devotees, but I'd be open-minded if it was Bombadil too.  He's basically a tabula rasa of a character so if someone wants to do something with him I'm at least intrigued.

Really, for me both of those options are so much better than Gandalf or Sauron because neither royally fucks with what happened in LOTR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Darryk said:

Is the film that crossed the billion mark Top Gun: Maverick? Cause that's a classic example of something we rarely see in Hollywood nowadays, a film with no political agenda and just the intention to entertain and leave audiences feeling elated. They've got their rightful reward for it.

It is a law of nature that any mention of Top Gun results in a Veltigar appearance. As a huge fan of that movie I agree that it totally is not political. Very well spotted indeed :P

Now excuse me as I need to leave to act on my inexplicitly strong urge to support the US Navy, cheer America's foreign interventions and lobby for more official games of shirtless football :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Werthead said:

If it is Sauron, we need some explanation as to how he got up in the sky in the first place and where he came from. At the end of the War of Wrath he basically fled into the east and was MIA until he showed up in Annatar-mode. Did he find a big giant meteor-launching cannon in the ruins of Utumno? What?

 

Well, he managed to fly across the sea back to Middle-earth after Numenor sank so I think he could probably self-propel himself through the air any time he liked. It could be anything. I love this uncertainty. Takes me right back. :D

I saw that the other composer for the score has left the project? That is is just Shore now, although there may be news on this soon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Yeah this is why a few days ago I mentioned that's the only identity that sounds like a cool idea.  Obvious it's still "fan fiction," but at least it makes sense in terms of his canonical story.

Also, I know it'd royally piss off Tolkien devotees, but I'd be open-minded if it was Bombadil too.  He's basically a tabula rasa of a character so if someone wants to do something with him I'm at least intrigued.

Really, for me both of those options are so much better than Gandalf or Sauron because neither royally fucks with what happened in LOTR.

I would like it to be Gandalf or one of the Blue Wizards. Bombadil would be very interesting actually, though the whole meteor thing makes zero sense in that context.

Most boring to me is if this is somehow Sauron in another guise. Cause we already know he is in the story, and the guy in the trailer looks like neither Sauron or his Annatar guise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Isis said:

I saw that the other composer for the score has left the project? That is is just Shore now, although there may be news on this soon?

Bear McCreary? Don't think so. I've seen nothing in the press or his SM that indicates he's left the project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Veltigar said:

It is a law of nature that any mention of Top Gun results in a Veltigar appearance. As a huge fan of that movie I agree that it totally is not political. Very well spotted indeed :P

Now excuse me as I need to leave to act on my inexplicitly strong urge to support the US Navy, cheer America's foreign interventions and lobby for more official games of shirtless football :P

Ahahaha, fair enough.

I just felt the whole Iran thing was very much on the backburner and that it was so focused on the characters but I guess I did miss the political angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What fresh hell is this? Do they deliberately pick the dumbest and most contradictory lines of dialogue for the trailer or do they think this is the best they’ve got? Not sure which is worse. The visuals look like late Game of Thrones and early Shannara had a love child… the trailer gives me no other clue about the story I’m (not) going to see. It’s basically “badass good guys will fight evil in the world of lord of the rings, it will look cool, it’s diverse, love it.”

Edited by RhaenysBee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the trailer Meteor-Man seemingly absorbs the fires around him, and we get what looks like an eye visage. But if it is Gandalf, and not Sauron, I have no doubt it's because of the famous line about the Secret Fire and the Flame of Anor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...