Television The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Salt Bailly said:
Bit harsh.
Click to expand...
It's mostly the elves. I know they're supposed to speak in a poetic sort of way, but it just makes the dialogue wooden in my opinion.

The further I got into the episodes the more invested I became though. At the end I stopped noticing.

On a side note, did I notice the actor who played Marcus Crassus in Spartacus there?
 
I liked the first two episodes, is it the greatest show ever? No, certainly not.

I also find the entire outrage about this TV show and the rating bombings absolutely insane, even before the TV show was out, people decided to hate it because there were black people in it. :wenger:
 
FFS they really missed a golden chance to show Feanor and Melkor in the beginning. Feanors speech would have been gold.
 
NoLogo said:
I liked the first two episodes, is it the greatest show ever? No, certainly not.

I also find the entire outrage about this TV show and the rating bombings absolutely insane, even before the TV show was out, people decided to hate it because there were black people in it. :wenger:
Click to expand...

Rating bombing is the cri de coeur of petulant nerds who think taking action is akin to having an effect.
 
NoLogo said:
I liked the first two episodes, is it the greatest show ever? No, certainly not.

I also find the entire outrage about this TV show and the rating bombings absolutely insane, even before the TV show was out, people decided to hate it because there were black people in it. :wenger:
Click to expand...
Review bombing happens the opposite way as well. There are people giving it 10/10 when it clearly isn't a good show.
 
Embrace review bombing as a positive sign. If a TV show or film annoys the band of internet dwelling weirdos and incels who react that way then there's at least something right about it.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I don’t really know what I think - I’m relived it’s not awful but I don’t think it’s particularly good. Need to rewatch it.

It looks stupendous but there is some strange casting (Gil-Galad in particular was a weird one) and I don’t get why the dwarves have been reduced to this hurly burly almost comical people. The general feel was a bit all over the place but I guess they are weaving multiple storylines together and it’s early days.

Biggest positive surprise for me is the storyline I’m most interested/invested in is the harfoot/stranger one (which I though I’d hate).
Click to expand...

Yeah, who might that stranger be? Tom Bombadil?
 
sullydnl said:
Embrace review bombing as a positive sign. If a TV show or film annoys the band of internet dwelling weirdos and incels who react that way then there's at least something right about it.
Click to expand...

Internet dwelling weirdos and incels make a lot of toxic noise but(on a greater scale, not just this show) not all of their complaints are invalid. Or maybe the better way to put it is that inconviently valid criticisms are routinely chucked under the same banner as much of the extreme unhealthy crap they generate. This all makes any genuine discourse or debate difficult.

Just back to the show, still a positive impression, some of the characters aren't quite hitting as yet but the production values are fantastic. Hope the rest of the work comes closer to that level and then we will have something really special.

I hope the Stranger is not Gandalf, could never compete with Ian McKellan
 
NoLogo said:
I liked the first two episodes, is it the greatest show ever? No, certainly not.

I also find the entire outrage about this TV show and the rating bombings absolutely insane, even before the TV show was out, people decided to hate it because there were black people in it. :wenger:
Click to expand...
The sad thing is I think most people who are bombing it are just doing it because it’s ‘cool’. Very few people have read the source material for this show and there are a lot of holes that Amazon has every right to play around with. People should want it to be good.

The diversity casting is done poorly - I actually think it was a big missed opportunity. Arondir is a random diversity elf surrounded by white elves, why not just make his whole garrison diversity actors for some kind of continuity or better yet just make all Sindar elves diversity then you set a precedent for an easy intro of diversity characters for the series moving forwards and it’s not just a random casting which draws attention to itself? He’s a good actor for an elf, the colour of his skin is inconsequential.
 
Gehrman said:
FFS they really missed a golden chance to show Feanor and Melkor in the beginning. Feanors speech would have been gold.
Click to expand...

They don't have the rights to the Silmarillion, so I doubt they can use it. It is a shame, but can't do much if the Tolkein estate is not willing to sell.

------------------

It is really good - probably one of the best TV series I have watched and it has the ability to surpass any of them. I am surprised, to be honest, as I was pretty convinced that they were going to mess it up. Being a massive Lord of the Rings (the most nerd-level interest I have ever had in anything), this really does well to create a new story within the limits of not having the rights to all the material.

The production/CGI/scenery is unrivalled in TV series. It blows everything else out of the water. I am glad they spent so much as some of the prologue would have looked lame without this level of CGI. In fact, they probably couldn't do it in any other TV series.

A few things:

Half Foots, I was a bit questionable about at first but you get used to them as you watch more.

Dwarves are comic relief - maybe a bit much, but it actually makes sense for the time it is supposed to be set in. Easily fixable as things become more serious. But light-heartedness is good in series; sometimes stuff gets too dark.

One other thing I would question at the moment is their choice for the kings. Not sure those actors have the presence to carry off what are supposed to be powerful beings.

These aren't big issues, though. Great start, otherwise.
 
As someone who couldn't get into the lord of the rings movies I'm really enjoying this show so far. 8/10 easily for me
 
Actually haven't been too impressed with HOD so might give this a shot tonight as a big fan of the trilogy.
 
harms said:
I really feel like all of the characters so far haven’t been anything more than mere plot devices. Really bland and predictable.

edit: it felt like I was playing an RPG with prolonged cut scenes

The visuals though :drool: to be fair, I mostly enjoyed it, the production quality overshadows every negative so far.
Click to expand...

I just finished watching the second episode and I feel the same way about it. It's so slow and boring and dull, and criminally lacking salted pork and pipeweed. Pfff.

I'm gonna wait until the first season has been fully released and then binge it to see if it hits different.
 
How is it any slower than GOT? That was incredibly one paced at times and everyone seemed to love it because of that?
 
harshad said:
Gandalf or Radagast may be
Click to expand...

I really hope not. If Galadriel is not already married to Celeborn in the show and they don't give a reason for not mentioning it, then that is already lore breaking as they married in the 1st Age. Gandalf and the Order of Wizards never arrived in Middle Earth until the 3rd Age, and this show is set in the 2nd Age.

It is pretty easy to follow the lore and I really fear that Amazon are going to break the lore a lot just to appease casuals.
 
in terms of production value, it is 10/10. but i don't find it interesting. there's nothing to hate but not a lot to love either. it's meh. or maybe it's the format. if you have ten hours instead of three, as is the case here instead of the films for example, you move at a slower pace. that has upsides and downsides. the first hour of the first lotr film is better than the first two hours of this series in every single respect. but perhaps direct comparisons aren't useful.

i'll stick with it but would say that of the two major fantasy productions out as of now, this one has started the weaker and the other isn't without its own faults. i tend to think the better production value, in terms of effects, plays no real part. it's almost shoestring in hod but you're there for the dialogue. it's clearly state of the art here but it leans on it more than it should. that's my initial impression.
 
neverdie said:
in terms of production value, it is 10/10. but i don't find it interesting. there's nothing to hate but not a lot to love either. it's meh. or maybe it's the format. if you have ten hours instead of three, as is the case here instead of the films for example, you move at a slower pace. that has upsides and downsides. the first hour of the first lotr film is better than the first two hours of this series in every single respect. but perhaps direct comparisons aren't useful.

i'll stick with it but would say that of the two major fantasy productions out as of now, this one has started the weaker and the other isn't without its own faults. i tend to think the better production value, in terms of effects, plays no real part. it's almost shoestring in hod but you're there for the dialogue. it's clearly state of the art here but it leans on it more than it should. that's my initial impression.
Click to expand...

It is quite unfair to compare this to the movies as they are an absolute masterpiece, and there are not many TV shows that could live up to the LOTR trilogy.
 
The holy trinity 68 said:
It is quite unfair to compare this to the movies as they are an absolute masterpiece, and there are not many TV shows that could live up to the LOTR trilogy.
Click to expand...
i agree except in terms of pace. that first film moves at a slow pace iirc. not much is happening in the first half an hour. you're just being introduced to a pastoral hobbit village with a mixture of shots, long and short, and world-building intent. the point being that it's possible to move at such a "slow" pace and accomplish something that never feels slow in hindsight because it develops over the next two and half hours as it should. i find a lot of tv shows have problems with pacing. everything is kind of atomized, every sequence a kind of standalone event. there's not much of people just sitting around doing "nothing", which is valuable when it comes to contrast because it builds and clashes with later developments as things "quicken". hitchcock and kubrick knew how to do this well. lumet, too. also ridley scott, at least in alien and bladerunner. think of the wire, sopranos, and GoT and how much time was given over to the "banal". invaluable when it comes to contrast but not standalone event type scenes.

on the other hand, a lot of lotr is steeped in world-building and visual representations will try to live up to the pictures people have in their minds from having read the books. in short, it's basically impossible to please everyone with source material like this with the exception that they did manage to more or less do that the first time out with the films, excepting some niche quarters.

i would have preferred a five film format instead of a five season format. but again, too soon to judge.
 
neverdie said:
i agree except in terms of pace. that first film moves at a slow pace iirc. not much is happening in the first half an hour. you're just being introduced to a pastoral hobbit village with a mixture of shots, long and short, and world-building intent. the point being that it's possible to move at such a "slow" pace and accomplish something that never feels slow in hindsight because it develops over the next two and half hours as it should. i find a lot of tv shows have problems with pacing. everything is kind of atomized, every sequence a kind of standalone event. there's not much of people just sitting around doing "nothing", which is valuable when it comes to contrast because it builds and clashes with later developments as things "quicken". hitchcock and kubrick knew how to do this well. lumet, too. also ridley scott, at least in alien and bladerunner. think of the wire, sopranos, and GoT and how much time was given over to the "banal". invaluable when it comes to contrast but not standalone event type scenes.

on the other hand, a lot of lotr is steeped in world-building and visual representations will try to live up to the pictures people have in their minds from having read the books. in short, it's basically impossible to please everyone with source material like this with the exception that they did manage to more or less do that the first time out with the films, excepting some niche quarters.

i would have preferred a five film format instead of a five season format. but again, too soon to judge.
Click to expand...

Yea i agree. you have to sarcrifice the first 30 percent of the movie for the remaining 70 percent to be really good. In Hitchcocks Psycho, which for me is the best film ever made, the first half an hour is just her mainly talking. Really takes off after that. But like you say if you have too much violence, it dilutes the actual violent scenes.

You look at Dune as well, the first 30/40 minutes not much happened. Then it really took off.
 
I was actually disappointed there wasn't a third episode to watch straightaway. I'm enjoying it so far. That's not to say it's perfect, but I'm definitely on board.
 
I'd like this a lot better if the elven dialogue was actually well written. If you are going to write poetic dialogue at least try to write something that makes sense, and stop using unnecessary linking words. It's poetry, not an essay. Could have easily lifted some stuff from Tolkien, or hired poet to write for them, instead we get incoherent word-soup. The least they could do was hide their incompetence by having the actors speak elvish...

There are a lot of positives too though. Production value is exceptional - costumes, props and scenery is top notch and the CGI is breathtaking. The plot has potential to be interesting. The show is far less violent than others of the same genre, and that is a good thing. It doesn't linger on senseless and gratiotius violence.

For me it falls apart with the casting and dialogue writing. The acting is so-so from the main cast, but honestly I blame the writing for that. A bit like the Star Wars prequels. The main cast all seem like decent enough actors, but they could have spent a little more time on casting extras who have speaking roles - as they just aren't up for it.

The elves are.. fine... but I mean.. none of them look like elves as described by Tolkien. The skin colour of one of them is not the issue, the main issue is that most of them just aren't attractive enough. Which is surprising given that they had no problem with that for the movies. Galadriel isn't too far off though. Gil-galad has no gravitas what so ever, never feels like a high king and is as poorly cast as the other "extra" elves.

In terms of diversity I think they went in half-hearted and through that made it a bigger issue than it needed to be. Sticking a single black elf in a group of exclusively white elves feels silly. They should have added far more black elves. Having just one in a sea of white makes him feel out of place, instead of being a natural part of the elven world. Which they easily could have achieved by having more black elves. They did the same with the harefoots.

I've only watched the first episode, so hopefully it picks up, and the writing for the elves change as they get into the story. I hear the dwarves are great so I look forward to that. I really hope the casting of extras and minor roles improves, and this was just the growing pains of a pilot episode.
 
Hugh Jass said:
Yea i agree. you have to sarcrifice the first 30 percent of the movie for the remaining 70 percent to be really good. In Hitchcocks Psycho, which for me is the best film ever made, the first half an hour is just her mainly talking. Really takes off after that. But like you say if you have too much violence, it dilutes the actual violent scenes.

You look at Dune as well, the first 30/40 minutes not much happened. Then it really took off.
Click to expand...
yep, agree completely, on psycho and dune, too.
 
neverdie said:
yep, agree completely, on psycho and dune, too.
Click to expand...

Parasite as well which is a pure hitchcockian film, the first 25 minutes is just them inflitrating the family. Explodes then after that. Textbook hitchcock film.

Hitchcock for me is simply cinema. He is the greatest. Where do you rate him?
 
neverdie said:
i agree except in terms of pace. that first film moves at a slow pace iirc. not much is happening in the first half an hour. you're just being introduced to a pastoral hobbit village with a mixture of shots, long and short, and world-building intent. the point being that it's possible to move at such a "slow" pace and accomplish something that never feels slow in hindsight because it develops over the next two and half hours as it should. i find a lot of tv shows have problems with pacing. everything is kind of atomized, every sequence a kind of standalone event. there's not much of people just sitting around doing "nothing", which is valuable when it comes to contrast because it builds and clashes with later developments as things "quicken". hitchcock and kubrick knew how to do this well. lumet, too. also ridley scott, at least in alien and bladerunner. think of the wire, sopranos, and GoT and how much time was given over to the "banal". invaluable when it comes to contrast but not standalone event type scenes.

on the other hand, a lot of lotr is steeped in world-building and visual representations will try to live up to the pictures people have in their minds from having read the books. in short, it's basically impossible to please everyone with source material like this with the exception that they did manage to more or less do that the first time out with the films, excepting some niche quarters.

i would have preferred a five film format instead of a five season format. but again, too soon to judge.
Click to expand...

Totally. Slow scenes create tension which is then released during more intense moments.
 
Last edited:
The positives: It is really well made, and the actor performances are very good. The main characters are well built and the added diversity has not come with sacrifices in writing.

The negatives: Drifting away from the canon lore, especially with Galadriel and Celembrimbor - It's unnecessary. Some of the minor characters are there only to prop up the main characters with simplistic adversity, it's lazy writing, but I guess with 10 main characters there's not space for everyone to shine organically.

Generally i think it's really good, and much much better than the targaryen show.
 
Hugh Jass said:
Parasite as well which is a pure hitchcockian film, the first 25 minutes is just them inflitrating the family. Explodes then after that. Textbook hitchcock film.

Hitchcock for me is simply cinema. He is the greatest. Where do you rate him?
Click to expand...
parasite is excellent. and, as you say, it builds. reminds me a bit of roald dahl in a weird way.

as for hitchcock. i think he's the shakespeare of cinema. i don't think anyone else, in the english cinematic language, can match his output relative to quality. he did quality work over forty years if you begin with the 30s and end in the 70s with frenzy. he could be hit and miss, but would be impossible not to be considering how many films he made. kurosawa and kubrick are each on that same level but neither has the sheer output even if you could argue that kubrick especially was more of a creative insofar as he switched genres in ways few directors have ever been able to do. the man has a classic in nearly every genre. from paths of glory to eyes wide shut is a ten film run of genre alternating excellence. not sure i've seen anyone else do that.

also, lumet's 12 angry men. would that ever be as popular today as it was in the 50s? so much of that would be cut today imo. nearly the entire film except for the fast parts but it's the slow moments which make the fast moments "hit".

Vidyoyo said:
Totally. Slow scenes create tension which is then released during more intense moments.
Click to expand...
definitely agree and there are great television shows which do demonstrate that it can be done. you could class true detective, the first season, in that category. the back and forth dialogue set the pace for the larger plot. but lotr is necessarily broader in its intended audience and in this day and age there aren't so many high budget productions which prioritize the banality of the "nothing" scenes for their contrastive value later on. one of the main criticisms of GoT is exactly that it lost its dialogic heartbeat as the seasons progressed. the final season became the kind of standard in the marvelized world of "every scene is an event" or "trailer moment". not hating on marvel, but everyone knows that format so just an easy comparison.
 
Watched the first two episodes, and felt that it was shit. The first episode started strong, but then it was boring, and the second was boring from the beginning to the end.

The visuals are great though. But other than that, there wasn't much I enjoyed in these first two episodes.
 
neverdie said:
parasite is excellent. and, as you say, it builds. reminds me a bit of roald dahl in a weird way.

as for hitchcock. i think he's the shakespeare of cinema. i don't think anyone else, in the english cinematic language, can match his output relative to quality. he did quality work over forty years if you begin with the 30s and end in the 70s with frenzy. he could be hit and miss, but would be impossible not to be considering how many films he made. kurosawa and kubrick are each on that same level but neither has the sheer output even if you could argue that kubrick especially was more of a creative insofar as he switched genres in ways few directors have ever been able to do. the man has a classic in nearly every genre. from paths of glory to eyes wide shut is a ten film run of genre alternating excellence. not sure i've seen anyone else do that.

also, lumet's 12 angry men. would that ever be as popular today as it was in the 50s? so much of that would be cut today imo. nearly the entire film except for the fast parts but it's the slow moments which make the fast moments "hit".


definitely agree and there are great television shows which do demonstrate that it can be done. you could class true detective, the first season, in that category. the back and forth dialogue set the pace for the larger plot. but lotr is necessarily broader in its intended audience and in this day and age there aren't so many high budget productions which prioritize the banality of the "nothing" scenes for their contrastive value later on. one of the main criticisms of GoT is exactly that it lost its dialogic heartbeat as the seasons progressed. the final season became the kind of standard in the marvelized world of "every scene is an event" or "trailer moment". not hating on marvel, but everyone knows that format so just an easy comparison.
Click to expand...

Yea Frenzy is brilliant. I must watch it again some time. I recently rented the Lady Vanishes on the microsoft store. Brilliant as well and made in the 1930s. The 39 steps is another stunning film. Rear Window which was filmed all in the one room. Strangers on a Train as well.
 
duffer said:
Toneally feels right and looks great.

Seeing Lenny Henry pop up is funny.
Click to expand...
I agree about the tone. It fits so far.

Episode 1 was okay for me. I get that they were setting up the characters. Episode 2 was better in terms of pacing and keeping me engaged.

I do reaction videos so have to pay attention and even though I was more tired when watching episode 2, it was a better experience.
 
Watched episode 1, it’s pretty good. They do a good job of setting out the world, because even if you’ve read the books and watched the movies, it still helps to be guided in the initial phases. The show has great visuals, gorgeous production design. I didn’t recognize anyone in the cast so that is a plus for me, all new actors with no baggage. The story is good so far. It’s right there in the LOTR pocket, nothing amiss or straying beyond what you’d expect. Paced well, good mixture of twee and evil, just like the other LOTR works.
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Oh, so I had seen Elrond before. That was lingering in the back of my mind but I couldn’t place him: it was
Young Ned from the Tower of Joy flashback.
Click to expand...
I recognise him from the series Behind Her Eyes.
 
Best looking show I've seen so far, and even though the pace is slow it has had me gripped throughout.

I've not started HotD yet, so can't compare, but I really don't get the complaints with this. Only jarring part for me was seeing Lenny Henry pop up as I'd forgotten he was in it, but besides that I've loved it so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.