It’s a lot to take in. I’m not hooked. Feel this would be better binged than week by week.
Television The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
- Thread starter DWelbz19
- Start date
4 books. The 5th was stitched together after his death from notes and stories he told his children. tumescent is a pretty good description, though there was a couple of decent short stories in the mix.
I Agree.
That being said I absolutely despise The Hobbit movies for how far they diverged from the source material and the absolute dumpster fire that those films became. If this is LotR movies then fair enough but if it goes the way of the Hobbit I would rather it had never been made.
I'm not seeing Hobbit yet but I'm just pointing out moving too far from the source material can be problematic.
It was never meant for publication. It was just the notes he made to create a world for his stories.
Episode two was much better than Episode one, but naturally that was going to be the case given the amount of setup required. The dwarves ooze charisma too so having them in episode two helped a lot.
For all the people bitching and moaning about the hobbits I actually really enjoyed having them in there. They give a nice balance of charm and whimsy that Tolkien used in all his work, Nori and her friend are a lot of fun and nothing like the other hobbits in LOTR either. The only real issue I've had so far is with the elves and I think that was mainly the disappointing scene with the ice troll. But fecking hell is it a beautiful show, the visuals at times are like classical paintings.
Now when it comes to Meteor man, we noticed that the fathers accident seemed to be something the man caused. Presumably because it means that the hobbits have to remain in that area rather than continuing with their migration? We also seem to think that he's doing too much borderline evil magic to be the favoured theory.
Really enjoying the show though, we actually watched the films (not the Hobbit trash) a few days ago in preparation for this show and it holds up pretty well so far compared to them. Not at that standard yet, but early days.
For all the people bitching and moaning about the hobbits I actually really enjoyed having them in there. They give a nice balance of charm and whimsy that Tolkien used in all his work, Nori and her friend are a lot of fun and nothing like the other hobbits in LOTR either. The only real issue I've had so far is with the elves and I think that was mainly the disappointing scene with the ice troll. But fecking hell is it a beautiful show, the visuals at times are like classical paintings.
Now when it comes to Meteor man, we noticed that the fathers accident seemed to be something the man caused. Presumably because it means that the hobbits have to remain in that area rather than continuing with their migration? We also seem to think that he's doing too much borderline evil magic to be the favoured theory.
Really enjoying the show though, we actually watched the films (not the Hobbit trash) a few days ago in preparation for this show and it holds up pretty well so far compared to them. Not at that standard yet, but early days.
They were terrible because of bad writing more than not slavishly sticking to the source. I dont mind changes when adapting a book to film, i think its probably necessary but ... yeah, they awful films and an awful adaptation
Yeah pretty much, they would have been scrapped and changed a dozen times before they were published. I wouldn't have much attachment to them.
That's a theory I can get behind. I really hope it's the blue wizards. But I can also understand from a marketing point of view having Gandalf in the show would strengthen it, despite breaking lore. Gandalf is one of the few characters that the casual viewer would remember from the films. I hope it's not though, but him talking to the fireflies was identical to him having a chat with the moth.
I like Nori I think that she lights up the screen. I also like Arondir and his arc so far.
I didn't have much of a problem with the cave troll scene apart from the sword jump. Galadriel is a boss level character in the LotR world and I feel it's okay to show her as such .
One of my pet peeves with the films is how horrifically they portrayed Gondor as a nation, their soldiers were largely incompetent and they turn into cannon fodder. The Ice Troll scene reminded me of that, the elves in that scene did nothing and Galadriel clears up the mess immediately. These are devoted badass elves who have spent hundreds of years searching for Sauron with Galadriel. You'd think they'd be a bit better at fighting than what was presented and that's my annoyance. They could have had the elves take down this powerful foe with teamwork and skill but instead Galadriel just does a superhero move. For me, that was very underwhelming and disappointing. Simply replace the shots of elves being smacked hard, with elves actually being competent fighters and dodging/attacking the troll. You can still have Galadriel dealing the finishing blow.
Anyway, it's a small detail but it frustrated rather than annoyed me. A missed opportunity.
This is great
Agree with all of this (and that "The Hobbit" films were trash).
Apart from the Ice Troll incident I'm absolutely loving it.
That place doesn't even exist yet, it's the second age. A huge part of this show though is to explain why that place exists in the first place, ironically enough.
One could argue that much of the Silmarillion has nothing to do with the Lord of the Rings per se but that's clutching at straws admittedly.
You keep saying this even the showrunners and Amazon warned everyone they could not include anything that's outside The Hobbit, LOTR and the Apendicies and they have had to work around it.
Personally i don't understand why Peter Jacksons movies are loved, despite their bastardisation of lore and characters and yet everyone after 2 episodes hates this because of the same? Galadriel is a totally different character in this? Well nearlly every character in the films are totally different characters...
Some superbly disguised (not) misogny in the last couple of pages.
Did someone actually say " Where's the actual magic?" in a book about literal fecking magic beings?
Did someone actually say " Where's the actual magic?" in a book about literal fecking magic beings?
I've sussed it out. Sauron tricks the elves to make the rings. His plan is to control them via the rings. They go to war. Lot of shite happens and the Numenorians come to save the day. - who then get corrupted by the slippery one. Men help the elves to defeat Sauron. Isildur chops of Sauron's finger/ring and decides to wear the ring himself because he's an arse and Sauron retreats.
I suspect this series will be about Sauron forging the rings with the elven king.
I suspect this series will be about Sauron forging the rings with the elven king.
Last edited:
Been decent so far. Nothing that hooked me in any way and a bit of a bore. But beautiful scenery.
I do see your point.
Could he be a Maiar that would end up becoming the Balrog of Khazad-dum? Or are they all already created by the second age?
I was being flippant as Hobbits are active in the second age and most likely Gandalf has just done a David Bowie.
I believe Melkor had already spent a lot of power at this point, by pouring his essence in to creating balrogs and all kinds of beings. Of course he was no slouch, but when earlier he was 1 vs 14? Valar and not doing badly.
https://www.quora.com/When-did-Melk...s-power-to-become-weaker-than-the-other-Valar
Last edited:
What a load of tosh. Everyone who considers a piece of art has their own interpretation, that's part of the point of it. Art is meant to disturb, science reassures.
I've deleted it. Spoiler not working.
Okay mate.
Nah Gandalf is associated with fire. With that entry i doubt its a blue wizard. And there are so many hints towards Gandalf anyway
I know there are a few people in here claiming that Jacksons LOTR films are the perfect vision of Tolkiens work, but it's worth remembering that they also changed lore and characters motivations. Christopher Tolkien (his son) hated the films. They were excellent adaptations of the books, but were not totally lore accurate. Along with that for every fantastic sequence it had, it still have cringe moments and poor dialogue mixed in. Fellowship was excellent but the other two films did have issues at times. They're still excellent films though, but it's kind of ironic when I read people bitching about lore but claiming LOTR is perfect. Also a reminder that all the Extended Edition footage combined the films total to 11 hours and 20mins, that is longer than the entire 1st season of this show, so lets wait and see what the season delivers first before picking and choosing the best scenes in LOTR and complaining that this show doesn't have any.
I wondered where all the single lads of the forum were hanging out.
How very creepy.
It was basically Peter Jackson getting incrementally more reign per film and them slightly decreasing in quality as they went. This culminated in a shocking Hobbit set of films which smacked of money making/dragging out a relatively short book purely based off LOTR success.
It’s a ridiculously hard thing to adapt though and the trilogy are probably as close as anyone could come to making something that is appealing to all ages and true enough to the source material. If someone tried to make an accurate LOTR it’d be so long and convoluted to be a film. The hobbit, ironically, is kind of perfect for a film or two films if you want to stretch it a bit - there’s way less lore, a lot of good action scenes throughout and a great climax. They really didn’t need to change anything or add any characters in but that’s what PJ does, he gets excited and creates scenes like the barrel run out of Mirkwood.
3mins on YouTube and you're an expert.
Ask me anything about Hobbits.
Ask me anything about Hobbits.
Is a Hobbit's penis size directly related to the size of their feet?
To add, I just really don't understand where this attitude comes from, and while I'm sure it's wrong I've only particularly noticed in when talking about nerd stuff, to put it crudely. Sci-fi, fantasy, comic books and video games. If you really wanted to you could go to 100 Hamlet performances and see 100 different interpretetations, and no one would bat an eyelid. If you cover a song then giving it your own touch is expected, be it by changing lyrics, tempo, chords or even language. Translating is its own artform, where different translations to the same language will often read completely different.
Yet if a video game character has softer shoulders, an elf is too butch (or in this case too diverse) or a dwarf too feminine, then ...
The Hobbit should never have been 3 films there is so much padding I can't ever watch them again.
Have you seen the animated Lord of the Rings made in maybe the late 70's or early 80's?
I really enjoyed that it was a shame they couldn't finish it as it had just the right atmosphere for me.
Yeah I watched it when I was younger, obviously some parts are quite funny now in retrospect but it wasn’t a bad adaptation. The balrog makes me chuckle now but I remember being scared of it
Hobbit is genuinely great short story, it has everything you need to make a good film and it’s a real shame they completely changed most of it. I used to listen to the cassette in the car every year going on holiday (that makes me sound very old) and I’m still annoyed we never got to see the bodyguards of Bolg.
Err this series is supposed to be based on the appendices. Except that they changed everything. Turns out they just want a big Tolkien rubber stamp on their cheesy fan fiction.
All the books and films were 'padded!' Why did none of them use the eagles to get to their destinations in a couple of hours or so?!!
Because the Eagles wouldn't have agreed to it. Their boss had different ideas.
But all with the same script...
[geek]Because the whole purpose of giving Frodo the ring to take to Mount Doom was to keep it hidden from Sauron. If they'd flown in on a massive bastard eagle then the big flying dragon bastards might have killed it and the ring would be given to Sauron to really up the "I'm a bad bastard" stakes. If Frodo had died and lost the ring on the way, then it would be lost to everyone, including Sauron, until it was found again by some other poor bastard.[/geek]