Jump to content

Rings of Power: Three Threads for the Elven Lords (book spoilers)


Werthead
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

But that could easily be a red herring. Plus episode 3 shows that the enemy apparently had a backup plan about re-establishing a power base. Are you telling me that Sauron waited in space while the Orcs started building a new hideout?

Of course the enemy had backup plans, Sauron is off ingratiating himselfwith the locals.  Why would he wait in space?  Its all a trick.  Meteor included.  Sauron can't be the meteor guy because why would he do this elaborate setup?  You are thinking the same thing as the elves will.

It's like you people have no idea what a long con is.

I will almost guarantee Meteor man will be introduced to Celebrimbor by the end of this season, possibly already talking rings.  What with his fancy fire making powers.  Could those be useful running a forge of incredible power?

Edited by Slurktan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IFR said:

I don't complain about this show because it defies my purist expectations. I complain because it's a pretty bad show with terrible writing and all the consideration for logic, character development, and narrative that one would expect from a lobotomy patient.

This show could be even worse with handling lore and I would still like it if the writing were better.

And I don't think complaining is that terrible in this thread. There's persistent, light mockery of all the bad writing, but it's not venomous, and has nothing on how bad complaining got with respect to Game of Thrones.

Which is remarkable because even Game of Thrones at its very worst (and it plumbed very low depths indeed) was somehow better and felt less intellectually insulting than what Amazon is trying to pass off as entertainment.

I don't know about you specifically (I would have to review who specifically complained about what), but it's pretty clear the vast majority of complaints are about book infidelity or not fitting the story as Tolkien set it up. It's also pretty clear that people who haven't read the books or are not obsessive about it have A LOT less complaints, and certainly not the hysterical whining and ranting we see here, because there's clearly not to be too upset about either way- the show is either decent, but not great, or average, but not terrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slurktan said:

It's like you people have no idea what a long con is.

I will almost guarantee Meteor man will be introduced to Celebrimbor by the end of this season, possibly already talking rings.  What with his fancy fire making powers.  Could those be useful running a forge of incredible power?

The fancy fire that couldn’t melt a proto-hobbit ?  Pretty long con, indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

I don't know about you specifically (I would have to review who specifically complained about what), but it's pretty clear the vast majority of complaints are about book infidelity or not fitting the story as Tolkien set it up. It's also pretty clear that people who haven't read the books or are not obsessive about it have A LOT less complaints, and certainly not the hysterical whining and ranting we see here, because there's clearly not to be too upset about either way- the show is either decent, but not great, or average, but not terrible. 

There a quite a few complaints that have been strictly of the content of the show itself, not just as a matter of its fidelity to Tolkien's work. I respectfully suggest that if you go through the thread you will find this to be true.

But is indeed the case that criticism of the loose interpretation the show has of Tolkien's works is highly represented in this thread. This should not be surprising; this is a forum full of people who enjoy reading fantasy material, and Lord of the Rings is one of the famous fantasy fables. Of course you'll encounter a higher number of people for whom the books impact their view of the world Tolkien wrote, and which would be used as a comparison to what the writers of the show produced.

You'll find the same to be found in the Hot D threads. How can the original work not be worth mentioning?

And really, the works give credence to people who insist that this story can be told better than the show has managed, because indeed Tolkien himself has told it better.

At any rate, my anecdotal experience differs from yours. I have quite a few friends who never touched Tolkien in their lives, some who haven't seen Jackson's trilogy, and they largely find the show boring. I find this to be a common opinion online too. The criticism may be less vocal, but that is because this particular demographic is less invested in the LotR property, and to them this is just another mediocre show among many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, IFR said:

I have quite a few friends who never touched Tolkien in their lives, some who haven't seen Jackson's trilogy, and they largely find the show boring. I find this to be a common opinion online too. The criticism may be less vocal, but that is because this particular demographic is less invested in the LotR property, and to them this is just another mediocre show among many.

And ... so ... your problem is ...   . . . . ? Watching a show that doesn't live up to your investment, and so . . . then . . . a useless pos show that you aren't going to watch.  OK! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, IFR said:

And really, the works give credence to people who insist that this story can be told better than the show has managed, because indeed Tolkien himself has told it better.

Just as Martin's accounting of the lead up to the Dance and it itself remains wanting even after F&B, this isn't really true.  Neither F&B nor Tolkien's account of the Second Age is a narrative, the Akallabeth is about 30 pages and the Second Age portions of Unfinished Tales are either predominately descriptive (and frankly tiring) or side stories -- and the showrunners don't even have the rights to either!  Anyone who after three episodes is so sure they could tell the story better through an episodic TV series either has a very high opinion of themselves or doesn't know what they're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Just as Martin's accounting of the lead up to the Dance and it itself remains wanting even after F&B, this isn't really true.  Neither F&B nor Tolkien's account of the Second Age is a narrative, the Akallabeth is about 30 pages and the Second Age portions of Unfinished Tales are either predominately descriptive (and frankly tiring) or side stories -- and the showrunners don't even have the rights to either!

Yeah I'm mystified by anyone insisting there's a well written narrative about the Second Age, Eldarion and Erendis excepted. There's very sparse history for the amount of time covered. There's nothing really resembling dialog, or characters, even. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

  Anyone who after three episodes is so sure they could tell the story better through an episodic TV series either has a very high opinion of themselves or doesn't know what they're talking about.

This I don't necessarily agree with. I haven't written off the show, but there are some very obvious stumbles in the first three episodes. Part of that is likely corporate interference, but it isn't that hard to envision a better written version of these episodes, even keeping the elements they've chosen to focus on.

For one thing, in their rush to show so many places, they've focussed very little on secondary characters. The Harfoots and Dwarves excepted (and that shows in how posters here are responding to them), the other Elvish and human characters have very few months when they're not talking about pretentious and weighty matters.

That hurts that narrative and the characters, in those arcs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

For one thing, in their rush to show so many places, they've focussed very little on secondary characters. The Harfoots and Dwarves excepted (and that shows in how posters here are responding to them), the other Elvish and human characters have very few months when they're not talking about pretentious and weighty matters.

That hurts that narrative and the characters, in those arcs. 

Oh sure I'm not saying specific criticisms are unwarranted - as I've voiced frequently I don't like the hobbits being shoehorned into nor meteor man but I view that as primarily corporate necessity.  And there can certainly already be criticisms of how they're dealing with specific characters - or how they're not.  But writing off the whole show seems either hastily dismissive or rather emblematic of internet hubris to me at this point.  The show isn't on its way to Academy glory thus far by any means in terms of plot and characterization, but it also doesn't warrant such hyperbolic derision by anybody trying to give it a fair chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, briantw said:

Somewhere out there the Wheel of Time showrunners are watching this show and House of the Dragon and just saying to themselves, "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck."

I'd almost find that reassuring. I wasn't sure they'd seen a TV program after last year, let alone a fantasy expedition.

Edited by Firebrand Jace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re finally through #3.  There are a lot of small random things that bug me about the show, but overall - pretty decent. Like “This washes the taste of the final 2 Hobbit installments out of my mouth”.  They clearly had to make a bunch of creative plot choices, and there were some I would have liked to been different…but it has potential to probably the original fantasy adaptation I can think of where the writer wasn’t directly involved (a la GoT, up to the book plot seasons, or Sandman).  The scope of expanding the world but working with the existing characters, and introducing new arcs is a hard thing to balance, and I think they’re doing it pretty well.
 

The budget makes up for most of the mistakes,  - I really want to see more of the dwarves (and their licensing pulp fiction briefcase). It could be really interesting to see an Istari awakening into his powers (also kind of hoping to see a blue wizard) or some world building for the Southrons.  There’s a lot of potential room for them to mess up, sure - but nothing I have seen so far is catastrophic (or to be fair, overly compelling).  It’s similar the quality of the PJ LoTR, but working without as much of a script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IFR said:

I don't complain about this show because it defies my purist expectations. I complain because it's a pretty bad show with terrible writing and all the consideration for logic, character development, and narrative that one would expect from a lobotomy patient.

This show could be even worse with handling lore and I would still like it if the writing were better.

And I don't think complaining is that terrible in this thread. There's persistent, light mockery of all the bad writing, but it's not venomous, and has nothing on how bad complaining got with respect to Game of Thrones.

Which is remarkable because even Game of Thrones at its very worst (and it plumbed very low depths indeed) was somehow better and felt less intellectually insulting than what Amazon is trying to pass off as entertainment.

If the writing is bad and you don’t like the show why are you continuing to watch and comment on it?  Why are you wasting your time with it?  
 

Frankly, I could not get through the first five minutes of the Wheel Of Time, I found it so dull, the dialogue trite and the production value low.

Edited by TheReal_Rebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to find something that I'm sure is in the books, but I can't find it. Would anyone point me in the right direction if they know?

I remember that the Hobbits claim that they sent a 100 archers to the battle with Sauron when the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeated Sauron, but that there's some doubt about that. Maybe Gandalf says it?

Edited by fionwe1987
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched episode 3.

I would have liked a bit more explanation regarding the tension between the elves and Númenor. I guess that'll be next episode.

It seems like these early episodes are doing nothing but set up. That's fine. The their sake, I hope we start seeing some pay off soon. 

The production values are amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

And ... so ... your problem is ...   . . . . ? Watching a show that doesn't live up to your investment, and so . . . then . . . a useless pos show that you aren't going to watch.  OK! 

:lol:

I wouldn't go so far as to call it useless. Some people are enjoying it, so clearly it has a use.

But sure, it's disappointing. This is a thread dedicated to the show. I don't object to people liking this show and declaring so; I'm baffled why anyone would have a problem with those who do not like this show and declare so. This is a thread for discussion, not glowing praise. 

35 minutes ago, TheReal_Rebel said:

If the writing is bad and you don’t like the show why are you continuing to watch and comment on it?  Why are you wasting your time with it?

As I said earlier, I'm not going to continue watching it. I'm not someone who hate watches shows. I did want to like this show, which is why I stuck with it for three episodes.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Neither F&B nor Tolkien's account of the Second Age is a narrative, the Akallabeth is about 30 pages and the Second Age portions of Unfinished Tales are either predominately descriptive (and frankly tiring) or side stories -- and the showrunners don't even have the rights to either

Yes, I know. As I said earlier, it is not a matter of fidelity to the source material that is a problem. It is a matter of logic, character development, and narrative - which the show fails utterly in all categories. It's pretty, and that's it.

At any rate, I haven't read The Unfinished Tales. However, I do recall liking the Silmarillion far better than anything RoP has managed. So among that enjoyable material, that's 30 pages of a story being told in a far better manner than a multi-episode television show.

Here I think is a point of confusion, so I'll reiterate. In 30 pages Tolkien covered the Second Age in an entertaining manner. The television show has so far covered the Second Age in a mostly abysmal manner. This failure in quality is not a matter of loyalty to the source: it is a failure in storytelling itself.

If PT Anderson bought the rights to the Silmarillion and chose to adapt it by making There Will Be Blood, and of the material it was adapting only using the name of Elrond for a minor character, I would say that this is a fantastic adaptation because There Will Be Blood is amazing storytelling, no matter how unrelated to the "source material" it would be in this hypothetical.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Anyone who after three episodes is so sure they could tell the story better through an episodic TV series either has a very high opinion of themselves or doesn't know what they're talking about

I didn't say I could tell a better story - I said a better story could be told.

By the by, I don't think it's particularly arrogant to believe that one can improve on a show that one dislikes. I know what I like and what kind of expectations of a good show I have, and so it seems pretty reasonable to think that I could improve things to my preference over those who have demonstrated a nearly perfect incapacity to do so. I wouldn't suggest that I know how to make a show more to your liking, because such is the matter of different tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IFR said:

I didn't say I could tell a better story - I said a better story could be told.

This is, of course, always fair.  What I don't think is fair is the abject ridicule and scoffing you employ in expressing your distaste.  And, yes, it comes of as very arrogant to me because anyone trying to do this is taking on an incredibly difficult task.  Obviously to each their own, but just as you have every right to lambast the show, I have every right to find such language absurdly dismissive and pretentiously judgmental.

7 minutes ago, IFR said:

So among that enjoyable material, that's 30 pages of a story being told in a far better manner than a multi-episode television show.

My point is comparing the Akallabeth to adapting the entire Second Age to screen isn't really comparable.  Tolkien didn't "write a better story" because he didn't really write a story in this regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is, of course, always fair.  What I don't think is fair is the abject ridicule and scoffing you employ in expressing your distaste.  And, yes, it comes of as very arrogant to me because anyone trying to do this is taking on an incredibly difficult task.  Obviously to each their own, but just as you have every right to lambast the show, I have every right to find such language absurdly dismissive and pretentiously judgmental.

Such is the nature of art. I don't insult the writers as human beings, nor do I insult those who enjoy this show - on the contrary, I've frequently congratulated those who are pleased with it.

I've on many occasions stated that one's preferences in entertainment in no way reflects on the individual. I like plenty of stupid stuff myself, for whatever reason. 

I find it perfectly possible that the writers, cast and crew are good natured, intelligent and wonderful human beings. This show does not reflect on them as individuals, and I haven't suggested so. I would say the same of people involved in other shows I don't like, such as Wheel of Time.

I speak strictly of the writing in the show, which is not intelligent or entertaining. If you think my language is hyperbolic or too exaggerated in its condemnation, I'm sorry that bothers you. I'm not condemning you for liking it, nor am I suggesting there's anything wrong about you liking it.

A show of this magnitude is a considerable task. And I'm sure the writers are well paid for it. But they were not the writers suited to making a good show as far as I'm concerned. And I have no problem complaining about their failure. I also don't have a problem making fun of other works using strong language, like that of Michael Bay, or Terry Goodkind, or Chuck Lorry, et al., even though their jobs were also no doubt very challenging.

Part of producing art is opening oneself up to criticism, even harsh criticism.

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

My point is comparing the Akallabeth to adapting the entire Second Age to screen isn't really comparable.  Tolkien didn't "write a better story" because he didn't really write a story in this regard.

Sure, I understood your point. Tolkien did not write something that's easily translated to the television medium. 

His history was enjoyable, from my recollection. The television show is not. You may call it apples and oranges; I say that regardless of the medium and presentation of the narrative (fictional history vs long form story), Tolkein's approach was superior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IFR said:

I speak strictly of the writing in the show, which is not intelligent or entertaining. If you think my language is hyperbolic or too exaggerated in its condemnation, I'm sorry that bothers you.

Again, you don't need to apologize - and there's definitely no reason for the big preamble.  You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

6 minutes ago, IFR said:

Sure, I understood your point. Tolkien did not write something that's easily translated to the television medium. 

No, that's not the point.  The point is didn't even write a narrative.  He wrote a 30 page summary.  That's not a "story."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...