LOTR: Rings of Power (Amazon)

[Ser Jon]

You're not telling me anything about why these shows are good or bad beyond mere plot adaptation comparisons. Are these what you mean entirely by "core concepts"? I admit to some disappointment if that's the case.

I already said in my post that I couldn't give less of a **** what the actual plotlines of these shows are - the original stories still exist and I'm not one who wants an adaptation to slavishly imitate them without regard for medium. The reason why I brought up the comparison with Peter Jackson's films was precisely because he took significant liberties with his source material. Tolkein is perhaps an unparalleled author but a below-average writer, and I don't think many fans would disagree with me on that point, so liberties needed to be taken in order to make a successful film.

I could go on and on about the individual plot points that were changed, added or rearranged in the Peter Jackson films but it's an exercise in futility because I don't think you're getting what I'm saying at all. The essence of the story isn't in the mundane happenings of plot point to plot point but rather in the sum of all its parts. The universality of the actual core themes of the Lord of the Rings are what makes it a story which still inspires people and invites discussion and scholarly attention.

So, to basically reiterate what I've been saying, the changes to the Wheel of Time aren't inherently bad - I actually kind of liked Mat's added backstory because it makes him seem like less of an unrepentant ******* in the first few books and potentially gives him a reason why he would initially fall from grace. Rand not being the Dragon would have essentially been the writing team shooting themselves in the foot, but it turned out that digression went nowhere - it's not bad because it happened, it's bad because of why it happened, for a cheap mystery thrill. These changes are bad because of their implementation and because of the general quality of the writing, not because they exist in the first place. I would argue that such cosmetic changes designed to provoke a response from plot purists and sectors of the fandom are in fact a calculated choice in these shows, but that's speculative at best.

You conclude that it's a good show with many core concepts intact, that it treats the source material respectfully, etc., but you haven't responded to any of the serious concerns I've raised regarding the quality of the writing, the overall lack of character and the failure to create any meaningful, lasting narrative from such a rich resource. Did you just not read them? Are my concerns invalid? You say I should watch the rest of the show - I told you I fell asleep during two of the four episodes I watched. Does it turn around so drastically from a boring slog that it's worth another four hours of my life? CG Orcs being killed and a volcanic eruption won't save that terrible narrative.

Why is it worth my time, or anyone's? I asked you to try and describe the show's story without specific reference to the plot or characters - this is my litmus test for if something is a good story or not, and it was very easy for me to do this with the Lord of the Rings in my previous post. I can't really do it with the show without it sounding vague, pointless or vapid, which coincides exactly with why I hate it. The show has a purely superficial understanding of what it is to be a Tolkein Legendarium story that is, in turn, informed by better adaptations - it has Hobbits running around in New Zealand, it has long shots of people traversing landscapes, it has larger-than-life architecture and it has swordfighting and gleaming armour and ultimately no soul whatsoever. It looks and acts like a story with depth but it takes the tiniest tug on a loose thread for the whole thing to unravel into absolute nothingness, and it took all of one whole episode for that to become readily apparent.

It's an empty vessel of pure superficial spectacle designed to lure in rubes fooled by the use of a beloved intellectual property, solely to keep people subscribed to a package delivery service. The fact that after everything I already wrote, that you think I would remotely change my opinion on watching remaining episodes that I already said I read effective summaries of leads me to believe that we have different standards for what is to be considered worth our respective time in terms of media. If you enjoy this vapid and pointless show for what it is, more power to you. Just don't try and tell me it's worth watching, and stop shilling for it like it is.

I did. I like it in the way that it respects as much as feasible possible for a show towards the books. I like it for the acting, for the additional content that doesn't really break lore (such as Galadriel's brother side story, Durrin and Elrond being friends etc), the characters still feel like their characters, the choreography is really good (the fight scene in Númenor was awesome) etc etc. I even really, really love the Jackson-like vibes we get in some of the cinematic shots and the set designs, like the Orcs resembling his a lot. But I guess I could have gone with a bit more detail before, I'm sorry. I'm not all that great with getting my thoughts down, and with COVID, thinking is difficult right now. lol

I disagree with your critics of the show. It has its moments, which I've admitted to before such as pacing and some of the new characters story arcs don't seem to be connecting anywhere, but overall I disagree. Especially with writing. The writing is very good. Again, it has its moments where it's hilarious bad (such as the rock paper thingy in the start of the show), but overall I find it to be very well written. I don't know how else to address them other than that.

And how can you make any of those conclusions unbiasedly when you didn't watch all of Ring of Powers, or even much of Wheel of Time? If you did, and if you read the books, I think you'd understand it a lot more. The best, and most glaring examples, I present above. That's where the difference is—that WoT is not only terribly written, it respects little to nothing about the book series. But Rings of Power does. And I think it's unfair to say it's bad because they added content you disagree with, and it's especially unfair to make such concrete conclusions when you have not watched all of the shows in question.

Hard disagree from me, I don't see how ROP's characters are any less different to their book counterparts than WOT either.

I had this discussion with someone recently. They challenged me to prove ROP Galadriel is similar to her book counter part. Once I showed how accurate she is, they changed their opinions. I even heard the "hobbits/halfings can't be dark skinned", but hobbits are described as dark of skin, so most complainers for the show don't even know the source they are complaining about.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Tolkein is perhaps an unparalleled author but a below-average writer, and I don't think many fans would disagree with me on that point

i fully disagree. tolkien was a great writer, and i've never really understood why people claim otherwise or make that distinction (other than those just doing genre snobbery, but that's a different story). his wordcraft is excellent, varied, and compelling.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

His descriptions and scene-setting are excellent but I find his characters and dialogue to be clunky. I understand the general mode he's writing in and while nothing is particularly bad, there is definitely better.

 

[Kissaki]

i fully disagree. tolkien was a great writer, and i've never really understood why people claim otherwise or make that distinction (other than those just doing genre snobbery, but that's a different story). his wordcraft is excellent, varied, and compelling.

Ehh... His descriptions of topography are over-long, and his descriptions of characters almost non-existent. If not for the decades of Tolkien-inspired fantasy (not least D&D), how woud one imagine what a goblin/orc even was, let alone what they looked like? As for the prose itself, I find it very dull.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

 

[Kissaki]

And a damned fine opinion it is, too!

 

[Ser Jon]

That has nothing to do with bad writing. That's a preference. Flowery language is beloved by many people, just as many do not like flowery language. Flowery language, itself, is not indicative of bad writing. I can understand not like it, but there's a reason he's considered one of the best authors ever, and that wouldn't be if most people didn't like the style in which he writes.

 

[Pentagathoos]

I had this discussion with someone recently. They challenged me to prove ROP Galadriel is similar to her book counter part. Once I showed how accurate she is, they changed their opinions. I even heard the "hobbits/halfings can't be dark skinned", but hobbits are described as dark of skin, so most complainers for the show don't even know the source they are complaining about.

The skin colour is inconsequential and I don't give a ****, but dark of skin does not necessarily mean black, and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't envision hobbits as being that dark. Probably more like swarthy welsh people, but again I don't really care.
Galadriel is described as being Amazonian and proud (depending on when Tolkien was writing about her), but she's supposed to be the same character who lead her people through the grinding ice of helcaraxes to reach middle earth, and somehow she's a moron, and a social reject who everyone ignores and who can't lead a small handful of soldiers without losing control of them. She's probably meant to be the amazonian style Galadriel, but she's written so poorly that she absolutely is not. I'm also not sure if they were deliberately trying to make her more like Feanor too since they couldn't actually use his character.
Then there's Gilgalad, who goes from being a wise and good high king to becoming nothing but a useful idiot and antagonist for G and Elrond, there's Sauron who generally doesn't feel like either Sauron or Annatar (he did have some good scenes though imo), there's the forging of the rings which is completely messed up (elven rings forged first, G actually knows already that Sauron is Sauron, they're apparently made out of necessity rather than for the joy of making stuff), there's minor things like the Durins just being regular dwarfs instead of the reincarnation of Durin (considering how little Tolkien wrote about the Dwarves I find this annoying, there's hardly any lore and you still have to **** on it apparently), the mithril backstory nonsense where the "light of good and the strength of the evil" is supposed to make it super magical and great, which is not just a difference from the source but an actual difference from the core concepts of Tolkien's vision of good and evil imo. There's probably a whole lot more as well but I don't really want to dwell on this heap of crap too much.

 

[Kissaki]

That has nothing to do with bad writing. That's a preference. Flowery language is beloved by many people, just as many do not like flowery language. Flowery language, itself, is not indicative of bad writing. I can understand not like it, but there's a reason he's considered one of the best authors ever, and that wouldn't be if most people didn't like the style in which he writes.

Preference, isn't that all "good" and "bad" refers to when it comes to the arts? In any case, I have certainly heard Tolkien is one of the most popular authors ever - but one of the best, I haven't heard many people claim that. Some, but not many. I have a similar love/hate relationship with Lovecraft: love the setting, love the atmosphere, love the lore, but the writing is cumbersome - and I have never found him to be remotely scary.

 

[Ser Jon]

The skin colour is inconsequential and I don't give a ****, but dark of skin does not necessarily mean black, and I'm pretty sure Tolkien didn't envision hobbits as being that dark. Probably more like swarthy welsh people, but again I don't really care.
Galadriel is described as being Amazonian and proud (depending on when Tolkien was writing about her), but she's supposed to be the same character who lead her people through the grinding ice of helcaraxes to reach middle earth, and somehow she's a moron, and a social reject who everyone ignores and who can't lead a small handful of soldiers without losing control of them. She's probably meant to be the amazonian style Galadriel, but she's written so poorly that she absolutely is not. I'm also not sure if they were deliberately trying to make her more like Feanor too since they couldn't actually use his character.
Then there's Gilgalad, who goes from being a wise and good high king to becoming nothing but a useful idiot and antagonist for G and Elrond, there's Sauron who generally doesn't feel like either Sauron or Annatar (he did have some good scenes though imo), there's the forging of the rings which is completely messed up (elven rings forged first, G actually knows already that Sauron is Sauron, they're apparently made out of necessity rather than for the joy of making stuff), there's minor things like the Durins just being regular dwarfs instead of the reincarnation of Durin (considering how little Tolkien wrote about the Dwarves I find this annoying, there's hardly any lore and you still have to **** on it apparently), the mithril backstory nonsense where the "light of good and the strength of the evil" is supposed to make it super magical and great, which is not just a difference from the source but an actual difference from the core concepts of Tolkien's vision of good and evil imo. There's probably a whole lot more as well but I don't really want to dwell on this heap of crap too much.

That's a lot of assumption on Tolkien's intent on skin color when all he said was that they are dark of skin. If he didn't envision them as dark, he would not have described them as such and it is completely unreasonably to say "Oh, but he didn't mean THAT dark". You have no idea what he meant, other than that he described hobbits as being dark of skin.

What exactly about Galadriel makes her a moron? She's been the only one right on Sauron's tail the entire time, figuring **** out and whatnot. And she's not a social reject, her men followed her faithfully for decades, they just grew tired and homesick. And the elves highly respect her. Maybe as children she had be subjected to something like that, but I wouldn't stretch it that far. She's also still painfully proud, just like her book counter part.

Wow, wow, wow. Why do you think Gil-galad is a useful idiot? And antagonist, what? He is most certainly not portrayed as any of that. I think you're confusing him knowing about Sauron and the returning darkness and being hard on Galadriel to return home to not rouse panic, as him being an idiot, when that's not the case. He knew the truth, he hid it because it would have destroyed their people sooner. That's why he sent Elrond to the dwarves, because he also knew about the new ore that was found, and that it could be used to save them.

As for Sauron; I agree and disagree. They were not allowed to use the Annatar character apparently, that could be why there were changes. I don't know why they couldn't, but it probably has to do with the Tolkien estate still maintaining rights to portions of the story.

Preference, isn't that all "good" and "bad" refers to when it comes to the arts? In any case, I have certainly heard Tolkien is one of the most popular authors ever - but one of the best, I haven't heard many people claim that. Some, but not many. I have a similar love/hate relationship with Lovecraft: love the setting, love the atmosphere, love the lore, but the writing is cumbersome - and I have never found him to be remotely scary.

It is certainly preference. Saying flowery language is why his writing is bad doesn't make it so, it just means some people don't like it. Also, I find it surprising someone could never have heard he's considered one of the best authors of all time. There's a reason he's called the father of his genre and has won countless awards for his work, and inspired hundreds of other authors and their famous works. Someone who is not good at writing would not be able to achieve such great heights. He's just not what everyone likes, and that's perfectly okay, but it doesn't mean his writing is bad because someone doesn't like it.

Is he the best? I don't know, I wouldn't say that, but he's certainly considered one of the best and it's not just because of his ability to great believable mythology. And his reputation and status as a beloved author by millions across the globe can attest to that easily.

 

[Kissaki]

It is certainly preference. Saying flowery language is why his writing is bad doesn't make it so, it just means some people don't like it. Also, I find it surprising someone could never have heard he's considered one of the best authors of all time. There's a reason he's called the father of his genre and has won countless awards for his work, and inspired hundreds of other authors and their famous works. Someone who is not good at writing would not be able to achieve such great heights. He's just not what everyone likes, and that's perfectly okay, but it doesn't mean his writing is bad because someone doesn't like it.

It isn't that his language is flowery that I don't like his writing. In fact, I have a fondness for that. But he seems more interested in things than people. Which I suppose is ironic coming from me, because on holidays all I take pictures of are things - hardly ever of people. But when it comes to fiction, I find myself wanting to know more about the people - less about how they first walked down a hill, then up a hill.

Like most, I suppose, my first introduction to Tolkien was the Hobbit. It's not slow in any way, but I never cared about the dwarves. Thorin and Bombur were the only memorable ones, and the latter only because he was inordinately fat. The rest were extras. Never got a good feel for Gandalf, either. And the protagonists are the only characters given any character descriptions.

What are trolls, what do they look like? Doesn't say.
What are goblins, what do they look like? Doesn't say.
What are elves, what do they look like? Doesn't say.
What manner of creature is Gollum, what does he look like? Except for bulgy eyes and the number of teeth, doesn't say.

So no matter how light hearted Tolkien's language in The Hobbit, and no matter how flowery in The Lord of the Rings, it's just not very descriptive. Except details I'm not really interested in. Reading The Lord of the Rings, in particular, I almost get the impression that Tolkien cares more about the map than the characters.

Is he the best? I don't know, I wouldn't say that, but he's certainly considered one of the best and it's not just because of his ability to great believable mythology. And his reputation and status as a beloved author by millions across the globe can attest to that easily.

Let's not forget that Peter Jackson's movie trilogy provided a really big boost to Tolkien's popularity. It is almost impossible to remember what it was like before then. Many fans have never actually read Tolkien.

You have no idea what he meant, other than that he described hobbits as being dark of skin.

Only the Harfoots, I believe, and even then I think he said they were darker skinned than other hobbits - not that they were necessarily dark skinned. But the problem isn't how dark or light you make them, it's when you make them as ethnically mixed as people in the West are today. Tolkien does describe certain settlements as mixed (in fact including the Shire to some extent, as implied by Bilbo's mixed heritage), but for the most part Middle Earth is a patchwork of ethnic pockets. And if the moral of the story is that people can come together to solve a common problem, in spite of their differences, then it doesn't help the story if they are fully integrated from the get-go.

 

[Ser Jon]

It isn't that his language is flowery that I don't like his writing. In fact, I have a fondness for that. But he seems more interested in things than people. Which I suppose is ironic coming from me, because on holidays all I take pictures of are things - hardly ever of people. But when it comes to fiction, I find myself wanting to know more about the people - less about how they first walked down a hill, then up a hill.

Like most, I suppose, my first introduction to Tolkien was the Hobbit. It's not slow in any way, but I never cared about the dwarves. Thorin and Bombur were the only memorable ones, and the latter only because he was inordinately fat. The rest were extras. Never got a good feel for Gandalf, either. And the protagonists are the only characters given any character descriptions.

What are trolls, what do they look like? Doesn't say.
What are goblins, what do they look like? Doesn't say.
What are elves, what do they look like? Doesn't say.
What manner of creature is Gollum, what does he look like? Except for bulgy eyes and the number of teeth, doesn't say.

So no matter how light hearted Tolkien's language in The Hobbit, and no matter how flowery in The Lord of the Rings, it's just not very descriptive. Except details I'm not really interested in. Reading The Lord of the Rings, in particular, I almost get the impression that Tolkien cares more about the map than the characters.



Let's not forget that Peter Jackson's movie trilogy provided a really big boost to Tolkien's popularity. It is almost impossible to remember what it was like before then. Many fans have never actually read Tolkien.


Only the Harfoots, I believe, and even then I think he said they were darker skinned than other hobbits - not that they were necessarily dark skinned. But the problem isn't how dark or light you make them, it's when you make them as ethnically mixed as people in the West are today. Tolkien does describe certain settlements as mixed (in fact including the Shire to some extent, as implied by Bilbo's mixed heritage), but for the most part Middle Earth is a patchwork of ethnic pockets. And if the moral of the story is that people can come together to solve a common problem, in spite of their differences, then it doesn't help the story if they are fully integrated from the get-go.

Ah, my bad, I was talking about the earlier remark made by another about his descriptive writing being a reason why he's a "bad" writer.

Oh, I see what you mean now. The Hobbit was supposed to be a child's book, could be why he refrained from detailing the creatures and races too much. As for his priorities in The Lord of the Rings, he does cared more for his mythology and setting than he did the characters, but that largely only extends to non-major cast. Frodo and Sam, for example, are very well written and are easy to get "attached" too.

Some of the descriptions are left open for a purpose, and others by basing the description on others we already know about. There's much to be said in what he says and doesn't say, really. For example, the elves look like mortal men except with different ears and skills. So that leaves the reader the distinct impression that elves look pretty ordinary, and it is inward where the major differences reside (immortality, fairness, magic etc etc).

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

Let's not forget that Peter Jackson's movie trilogy provided a really big boost to Tolkien's popularity. It is almost impossible to remember what it was like before then. Many fans have never actually read Tolkien

while it's obviously true that the films boosted things and that many of those new fans haven't read them, the books were among the best selling books before the films were ever made - it's not like it was niche before them, they were already some of the he most popular books ever written. they sold like 100 million copies before jackson ever got involved (and that's just lotr - the hobbit itself was also hugely popular long before the films).

 

[Pentagathoos]

That's a lot of assumption on Tolkien's intent on skin color when all he said was that they are dark of skin. If he didn't envision them as dark, he would not have described them as such and it is completely unreasonably to say "Oh, but he didn't mean THAT dark". You have no idea what he meant, other than that he described hobbits as being dark of skin.

What exactly about Galadriel makes her a moron?

Wow, wow, wow. Why do you think Gil-galad is a useful idiot? And antagonist, what?

Considering he describes men from far southern Harad as being explicitly very dark skinned I think it's a very safe assumption.

Re Galadriel I was being slightly hyperbolic, but if you don't think her jumping into the ocean at the edge of the ****ing world and trying to swim back to middle earth isn't moronic then I'm afraid you may be a truly lost cause. The way she speaks and acts in Numenor, the fact that she can't lead her tiny group of elves, can't realise they can't continuously be pushed on forever, gets ignored by everyone and shipped off to stop her making a nuisance of herself, her entire behaviour in Numenor, etc etc.

Yes Gil-Galad is an idiot, he's an antagonist for Elrond and Galadriel in the sense that he's just blocking their way/being a douche, yes I watched it an saw the subplot, but he was still an idiot. For god sake, he even tries to tell them not to make the bloody rings after sending Elrond to find the bloody mithril in the first place, without even knowing anything was up with Saurbrand.

 

[Ser Jon]

Considering he describes men from far southern Harad as being explicitly very dark skinned I think it's a very safe assumption.

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Because he describes others as dark skinned...it means the hobbits weren't meant to be not white?

Re Galadriel I was being slightly hyperbolic, but if you don't think her jumping into the ocean at the edge of the ****ing world and trying to swim back to middle earth isn't moronic then I'm afraid you may be a truly lost cause. The way she speaks and acts in Numenor, the fact that she can't lead her tiny group of elves, can't realise they can't continuously be pushed on forever, gets ignored by everyone and shipped off to stop her making a nuisance of herself, her entire behaviour in Numenor, etc etc.

Oh yea, that was stupid of her, but I think it's completely unreasonable to mark her down as moronic for one scene. What exactly was so bad about her behavior in Numenor? I saw pride, but nothing she did was moronic. And again...she did lead her group of elves. For a very long time. She led them well. They just grew tired and wanted to return home. How does that make her moronic? And how in the world does people ignoring her warnings makes her moronic?

This is very hard line of thought for me to follow. You have one solid instance, but everything else is just weird to pin on her as "moronic".

Yes Gil-Galad is an idiot, he's an antagonist for Elrond and Galadriel in the sense that he's just blocking their way/being a douche, yes I watched it an saw the subplot, but he was still an idiot. For god sake, he even tries to tell them not to make the bloody rings after sending Elrond to find the bloody mithril in the first place, without even knowing anything was up with Saurbrand.

He's not their antagonist. I have no idea where you are getting this. His decisions were made with knowledge of what was happening and was hidden from Galadriel because he knew what that would meant, as well as to protect the people while he tried to fix it. And just because he disagreed with how to use the mithril does not mean he's an idiot...

 

[Pentagathoos]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're getting at. Because he describes others as dark skinned...it means the hobbits weren't meant to be not white?

Yes, read the description at Pelennor then compare that to the hobbit group described as darker skinned.

Oh yea, that was stupid of her, but I think it's completely unreasonable to mark her down as moronic for one scene. What exactly was so bad about her behavior in Numenor? I saw pride, but nothing she did was moronic. And again...she did lead her group of elves. For a very long time. She led them well. They just grew tired and wanted to return home. How does that make her moronic? And how in the world does people ignoring her warnings makes her moronic?

This is very hard line of thought for me to follow. You have one solid instance, but everything else is just weird to pin on her as "moronic".

She's never shown to be a competent leader, you're assuming she has been. Which is what I mean by her character being poorly written. Her behaviour in Numenor led her to being imprisoned because she apparently lacks basic courtesy and common sense. Sure she's arrogant, but since we haven't ever seen her do anything special, we haven't seen any wisdom from her, we haven't seen anyone deferring to her, showing loyalty to her etc etc her arrogance isn't well founded. If we'd actually seen her be the character she's supposed to be then I'd buy the Numenor escapades as her being full of pride, but again she just feels like an idiot who sees herself as powerful, convincing and intelligent when absolutely no one else does. Hence, moronic.

We're just going to have to disagree about Gil-Galad, you clearly saw a very different character to me.

 

[Ser Jon]

Yes, read the description at Pelennor then compare that to the hobbit group described as darker skinned.


She's never shown to be a competent leader, you're assuming she has been. Which is what I mean by her character being poorly written. Her behaviour in Numenor led her to being imprisoned because she apparently lacks basic courtesy and common sense. Sure she's arrogant, but since we haven't ever seen her do anything special, we haven't seen any wisdom from her, we haven't seen anyone deferring to her, showing loyalty to her etc etc her arrogance isn't well founded. If we'd actually seen her be the character she's supposed to be then I'd buy the Numenor escapades as her being full of pride, but again she just feels like an idiot who sees herself as powerful, convincing and intelligent when absolutely no one else does. Hence, moronic.

We're just going to have to disagree about Gil-Galad, you clearly saw a very different character to me.

I'm getting this strange feeling that you think the hobbits being variously described, means none of them can be dark skinned? Because that certainly is not so, as the Hobbits come in three different "breeds". The Harfoots are darker of skin and much smaller, and did not have beards. The Stoors, for example, are described as being broader with bigger feet and hands. The Fallowhides are described as fairer of skin and hair, and are generally much taller than the others. This isn't even exclusive to the Hobbits. Tom Bombadil is described as being brown-skinned and your previous mention of Harad, has two mentioned peoples; Near and Far Harad, with the later being described as having people with dark skin (described as "troll-men" because their skin was similar to them but they were Men). So clearly, Tolkien made great effort to let the readers know Middle-Earth is not just full of white people...

Yes, that's true. We're not shown her older history that made her the way she is, but we're told in the respect Gil-galad has for her and her station that she has that she has been a very, very competent leader. We do not need absolutely everything spoon fed to us to understand intent, after all. We should be able to gather that, from the fact that she has led battles and men for hundreds of years, that she is clearly competent leader and warrior. And no, you've just made your conclusions on absolutely one scene, and everything else you pointed out has no fault on her nor makes her look moronic/idiotic. Her actions in Numenor had nothing to do with lacking common sense, she was too proud to realize that Numenor's position on elves could impair her journey/progress, and was angry that they turned their backs on the elves despite everything. Her persistence in trying to reach the queen, and her intelligence/experience with evil and Sauron etc, eventually persuaded the queen to her side. Nothing moronic about it. It's called progress writing.

And yes, we do have to disagree, because I do not agree that Gil-Galad's intentions being secretive/his disagreement on the mithril is him being an idiot.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I did. I like it in the way that it respects as much as feasible possible for a show towards the books. I like it for the acting, for the additional content that doesn't really break lore (such as Galadriel's brother side story, Durrin and Elrond being friends etc), the characters still feel like their characters, the choreography is really good (the fight scene in Númenor was awesome) etc etc. I even really, really love the Jackson-like vibes we get in some of the cinematic shots and the set designs, like the Orcs resembling his a lot. But I guess I could have gone with a bit more detail before, I'm sorry. I'm not all that great with getting my thoughts down, and with COVID, thinking is difficult right now. lol

I disagree with your critics of the show. It has its moments, which I've admitted to before such as pacing and some of the new characters story arcs don't seem to be connecting anywhere, but overall I disagree. Especially with writing. The writing is very good. Again, it has its moments where it's hilarious bad (such as the rock paper thingy in the start of the show), but overall I find it to be very well written. I don't know how else to address them other than that.

And how can you make any of those conclusions unbiasedly when you didn't watch all of Ring of Powers, or even much of Wheel of Time? If you did, and if you read the books, I think you'd understand it a lot more. The best, and most glaring examples, I present above. That's where the difference is—that WoT is not only terribly written, it respects little to nothing about the book series. But Rings of Power does. And I think it's unfair to say it's bad because they added content you disagree with, and it's especially unfair to make such concrete conclusions when you have not watched all of the shows in question.

Again, I'm just going to chalk this up to different standards - I don't know what you mean by the show respecting the books as much as was feasibly possible. In what way? I've already outlined pretty solidly why I think this is not the case, and that it's completely absent the emotional and spiritual core of Tolkein's work, and provided an example of a superior adaptation which captures some of that grandeur. If you want to ignore all of that and say the show is good because of superficial nonsense, then I suppose you're more than welcome to.

If you disagree with my critique then you should actually address it. Nothing you're telling me here is anything remotely resembling a discussion regarding the merits of a piece of media. If you want to address them, you need to do more than just say "I think you're wrong" and leave it at that.

I never said my conclusions were unbiased - why would they be? It's an opinion, supported by my considerable experience with the source material and my partial experience with the show. You haven't given me a single compelling reason as to why the show is worth finishing for me - am I wrong in the parts of it I've pointed out so far? Do the last three episodes make me forget about Make Numenor Great Again, or any of the other laughably nonsensical bull**** I bore unfortunate witness to?

Nothing about my criticism is "unfair". I've been more than "fair" to the show - I went into it with more or less an open mind, hoping to be, if nothing else, reasonably entertained. It failed spectacularly at that. I don't think there's enough common ground here to even have an argument about it, though. As I said - you experience the show on a purely superficial level, and that's fine. I still find it irksome when I read your malformed shilling of its supposed merits.

That has nothing to do with bad writing. That's a preference. Flowery language is beloved by many people, just as many do not like flowery language. Flowery language, itself, is not indicative of bad writing. I can understand not like it, but there's a reason he's considered one of the best authors ever, and that wouldn't be if most people didn't like the style in which he writes.

Where did I say anything at all about flowery language? I get the feeling you're not even reading what I'm writing, or comprehending it.

 

[Ser Jon]

Again, I'm just going to chalk this up to different standards - I don't know what you mean by the show respecting the books as much as was feasibly possible. In what way? I've already outlined pretty solidly why I think this is not the case, and that it's completely absent the emotional and spiritual core of Tolkein's work, and provided an example of a superior adaptation which captures some of that grandeur. If you want to ignore all of that and say the show is good because of superficial nonsense, then I suppose you're more than welcome to.

If you disagree with my critique then you should actually address it. Nothing you're telling me here is anything remotely resembling a discussion regarding the merits of a piece of media. If you want to address them, you need to do more than just say "I think you're wrong" and leave it at that.

I have already said why I think it shows more respect to the books than WOT does and even why I like it. I've said it a few times now. You just dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you want to hear, that's all.

I never said my conclusions were unbiased - why would they be? It's an opinion, supported by my considerable experience with the source material and my partial experience with the show. You haven't given me a single compelling reason as to why the show is worth finishing for me - am I wrong in the parts of it I've pointed out so far? Do the last three episodes make me forget about Make Numenor Great Again, or any of the other laughably nonsensical bull**** I bore unfortunate witness to?

So explain to me why I ought to continue debating this with you? It'll be a massive waste of time. You're so biased you're judging shows you haven't even watched yet and acting almost rabidly because I've pointed out the huge differences between the two (which you would know if you actually watched them?) and why I like one but not the other. It's up to you I guess to critic a show you never even actually watched, but there's really no reason to be so upset that someone can like ROP and think WOT was a disgrace.

Nothing about my criticism is "unfair". I've been more than "fair" to the show - I went into it with more or less an open mind, hoping to be, if nothing else, reasonably entertained. It failed spectacularly at that. I don't think there's enough common ground here to even have an argument about it, though. As I said - you experience the show on a purely superficial level, and that's fine. I still find it irksome when I read your malformed shilling of its supposed merits.

Yes, critiquing a show you never watched is not a fair criticism. And ah, here it is. The attitude. How did I not see that coming?

Where did I say anything at all about flowery language? I get the feeling you're not even reading what I'm writing, or comprehending it.

You didn't say anything about flowery language, that's certainly correct. I put a word to it [your initial comment and the continuing discussion of his writing etc] so it would be easier to discuss the topic of his writing. It wasn't some evil mastermind to get at you or something. But if it will make you feel better to think that way, go right ahead? I've wasted enough time on this with you already as I've laid out why I think ROP is better than WOT a few times, and I won't do it again.

I like ROP and hate WOT. You hate them both. We got it.

 

[Pentagathoos]

I'm getting this strange feeling that you think the hobbits being variously described, means none of them can be dark skinned? Because that certainly is not so, as the Hobbits come in three different "breeds". The Harfoots are darker of skin and much smaller, and did not have beards. The Stoors, for example, are described as being broader with bigger feet and hands. The Fallowhides are described as fairer of skin and hair, and are generally much taller than the others. This isn't even exclusive to the Hobbits. Tom Bombadil is described as being brown-skinned and your previous mention of Harad, has two mentioned peoples; Near and Far Harad, with the later being described as having people with dark skin (described as "troll-men" because their skin was similar to them but they were Men). So clearly, Tolkien made great effort to let the readers know Middle-Earth is not just full of white people...

And you seem to think that white people are all one pasty pale shade, travel throughout europe or even just one european country and you will see a large variety of shades of "white" people. A tanned white person is often described as nut brown for example. You may well be right though, I can't know what Tolkien meant for sure unless he's explicitly stated it somewhere, and again I don't really care.

As to Galadriel, that's a case of tell not show. If you watched GOT for example, you don't need to be told that Tywin Lannister is a commanding presence and respected figure, the writing and acting makes it very very clear. Although I don't need to be "spoon fed" character motivation, Galadriels character in ROP is very poorly written as she is never actually shown to be an impressive figure in any way besides some of the combat sequences.