It's an odd hybrid of new and old; things like the balrog and the mark of Sauron, for example, are identical.
Yeah I've just read he's a musical director on it. That's good. It's ok to be fresh, and in the grand scheme of things it is probably best to be distinct rather than half-arse it.
I think Tolkien fandom is quite split. If it turns out to be empty spectacle I'm sure many will be out. It's hard to imagine any of this fitting in with Tolkien's vision because these stories were always supposed to be legends that played as world building backdrop to a fading rustic era, not fully fleshed out stories in their own right. The Hobbit movies showed how easy it was for Middle Earth to lose its charm when being strip mined by a franchise. I will give it a go but the bar is high.
Washing machines live longer with him.
Majority of fans are hyped about the visuals but as any sensible person would be is hesitant about the writing. GoT showed that with poor writing a show can become pretty terrible. The good thing is that at least there's a clear framework for the plot to follow. That should help the show, but the dialogue and writing scene by scene is what will make or break this show as the visuals are clearly going to be amazing.
If anything the Hobbit’s probably lowered the bar for me. Absolutely atrocious adaptation, and overrun with shitty CGI.
It was very striking and much commented upon how badly GoT fell away once it lost the source material to keep it honest. I suspect this is how Rings of Power will also go but I will certainly give it a try.
I don't think it has a lot of source material to base their story on in the first place. It all depends on how good the show writers are at this point. I've thought most of the teasers and whatnot have been fine so far, this is looking better though imo. I'll definitely be tuning in and adjust my expectations accordingly as I watch. We've all enjoyed some mid shows in the past I'm sure so I'll be tuning in either way but of course I hope they smash it out of the park. The more good fantasy shows the better.
Well that is the the problem. The reason the MCU and Lord of the Rings movies and early GoT are all good is because of rich source material. The reason The Hobbit movies and late GoT are bad is because of lack of quality source material. What replaces is it usually empty spectacle and franchise tropes. That's what this smells of.
I think the problem with the Hobbit was more that they wanted to make it something it's not (saying this not having watched it or read the Hobbit). It's a story he wrote to tell his kids. The problem is that the Tolkien estate only allowed them to buy the appendix of the Silmarillion or the lost tales or something?? I dont even know. So it takes a lot to make that into a story and in general Tolkien's stories aren't rich in dialogue or really stories that would translate well onto screen. They have the rich history of the world (though again only a small part of it in the form of the appendix) but they have to fill in the rest. I'm happy if its a good fantasy story, Tolkien's name attachment is what makes it hard because people have all kinds of expectations rather than judging it on its merits.
..except Lord of the Rings. Exactly my point.
Don't think you can blame the Hobbit films on just that. That was just a mess all over the production.
There was no issue with morphing the Hobbit to better fit the tone of LOTR. Tolkien himself did so and had begun another rewrite, although unfinished.
Whilst you may well be correct about this show (although I'll certainly give it a fair shot and the last trailer is highly encouraging), the legends, as you describe them, were very much not just background for LOTR. They were, in their majority, in existence prior to the "Hobbit sequel" and whilst not edited or ready for publication they are very much fleshed out albeit lacking the dialogue or character elements that modern fiction requires.
They are already annoyed, “omg diversity”.
It's true Tolkien cared as much about his world building (if not more) as he did about his character led stories. That's kind of what made the latter work so well. But do the former stand alone as stories? I'm not sure they will. Without Tolkien's beats and dialogue keeping the story honest, we are at the mercy of what looks suspiciously like a pair of Bad Robot hacks.
Oh yeah, the risks of pseudo-Tolkien dialogue carnage are high indeed.
Indeed. The risk of CGI spectacle over coherent character is ever higher. I would actually be amazed if this was any good but then for me Tolkien has a high bar.
Hobbit sex.
What have they released so far that tells us its a CGI spectacle though? It looks completely the opposite to me, they've gone back to practical effects. The set for the Numenor City for example is said to be gigantic, several city blocks including the wharf. The shot of the calvary charge for example is incredible. Compare that shot to the shite we got in the Hobbit, the difference is night and day.
The hobbit should have been Ian Holm (Bilbo), reading "there and back again" to Sean Austin (Sams) children.
No I think it's just a deep sea creature that Tolkien alludes to in other writings. Unless this is part of the prologue (which I don't think it is, as she meets the OC character Halbrand after being shipwrecked), Ancagalon would be long dead by this stage.
A serious answer for you: no. I would be shocked if there is any sexualised nudity in this story. But the events and themes from the source material are quite dark and complex, i would say thats the reason for the rating. If you are curious as to what I'll spoiler tag it for you.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Huge news
Things are happening.
How about just watching it with an open mind?
Of course i will. But trailers made me a little bit worried
