Television The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Don’t know what the person throwing insults at Peter Jackson is on about. By far the best way to take in the story was produced by him and there was reasons why the Hobbit movies sucked beyond him (first one was fine though).

As for the show - really can’t see it being all that great unless they get some top writers involved to produce something original. I love the Hobbit book and love Jackson’s LOTR films (radio drama is good too) but the rest of Tolkien’s stuff is boring as fcuk in all honesty. Hope it doesn’t end up being a disaster.
 
Minimalist said:
Don’t know what the person throwing insults at Peter Jackson is on about. By far the best way to take in the story was produced by him and there was reasons why the Hobbit movies sucked beyond him (first one was fine though).

As for the show - really can’t see it being all that great unless they get some top writers involved to produce something original. I love the Hobbit book and love Jackson’s LOTR films (radio drama is good too) but the rest of Tolkien’s stuff is boring as fcuk in all honesty. Hope it doesn’t end up being a disaster.
Click to expand...
Dunno, I quite enjoyed Children of Hurin.

Reckon it's going to be largely original. There isn't enough writing on the time prior to the Hobbit which I'm guessing is when it'll be set.
 
Minimalist said:
Don’t know what the person throwing insults at Peter Jackson is on about. By far the best way to take in the story was produced by him and there was reasons why the Hobbit movies sucked beyond him (first one was fine though).

As for the show - really can’t see it being all that great unless they get some top writers involved to produce something original. I love the Hobbit book and love Jackson’s LOTR films (radio drama is good too) but the rest of Tolkien’s stuff is boring as fcuk in all honesty. Hope it doesn’t end up being a disaster.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps you're referring to me re: Jackson and insults. I like Peter Jackson and think his LOTR films are fabulous adaptations (as is the Sibley BBC Radio play). However, I think with the budget available on the Hobbit, he went a bit mental on CGI (Goblin Town, the "Thunder Battle", the barrel ride scene, lots of Legolas nonsense, Azog & Bolg, etc) and that this is a natural consequence of his directorial decisions to always go bigger (although the challenge pre-production and legal wrangling hell of the Hobbit movies no doubt didn't help by giving him less prep time). On the limited budget of the Rings movies this instinct worked brilliantly, yet on The Hobbit I found the overblown and physics defying action spectacles broke the spell. Somewhere in the Hobbit trilogy there's a good film, and Jackson was the right choice for continuity reasons alone, but I don't find the attention to detail (Thrain's re-appearing eye?) or the realism (in a sense) of LOTR was replicated.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I think perhaps you're referring to me re: Jackson and insults. I like Peter Jackson and think his LOTR films are fabulous adaptations (as is the Sibley BBC Radio play). However, I think with the budget available on the Hobbit, he went a bit mental on CGI (Goblin Town, the "Thunder Battle", the barrel ride scene, lots of Legolas nonsense, Azog & Bolg, etc) and that this is a natural consequence of his directorial decisions to always go bigger (although the challenge pre-production and legal wrangling hell of the Hobbit movies no doubt didn't help by giving him less prep time). On the limited budget of the Rings movies this instinct worked brilliantly, yet on The Hobbit I found the overblown and physics defying action spectacles broke the spell. Somewhere in the Hobbit trilogy there's a good film, and Jackson was the right choice for continuity reasons alone, but I don't find the attention to detail (Thrain's re-appearing eye?) or the realism (in a sense) of LOTR was replicated.
Click to expand...

Nah wasn't you (but obviously know why you thought that looking up at your post). Generally agree with what you've written here. Not a fan of the Hobbit films and probably will never rewatch them (unlike the LOTR films which I've lost count with).
 
They tried to retain the child audience (from the books) but continue with the semi realistic setting and cinematography. But nobody said "no" to Jacksons absurd overblown silly CGI shite and that terrible character Alfrid. I actually disagree with your point about Jackson being the right choice. I actually think he was the wrong choice for the films in that he recycled way too much from the LOTR films and that ultimately made the Hobbit films feel like cheap spin offs.

I can't describe how much I hated that last film, it's just bloody awful. The worst part of the films for me is that they actually spent more time showing that terrible invented character Alfrid than they did the other dwarves. It was weird given how the film was meant to be focussed on their quest and yet the majority of the dwarves were simply background material. Why not remove the terrible shit and actually invest a little more screentime with some of the other dwarves so when they actually do rush out to fight we give a damn?

Not to mention I thought Thorins 'madness' was done terribly. There was nothing subtle about it and the effects used were bad. Like Pippin dancing around in slow motion with the palantir or frodo doing his feckin terrible fall to the floor in slow motion bad.

I could rant about those films for a while.

Fingeredmouse said:
I think perhaps you're referring to me re: Jackson and insults. I like Peter Jackson and think his LOTR films are fabulous adaptations (as is the Sibley BBC Radio play). However, I think with the budget available on the Hobbit, he went a bit mental on CGI (Goblin Town, the "Thunder Battle", the barrel ride scene, lots of Legolas nonsense, Azog & Bolg, etc) and that this is a natural consequence of his directorial decisions to always go bigger (although the challenge pre-production and legal wrangling hell of the Hobbit movies no doubt didn't help by giving him less prep time). On the limited budget of the Rings movies this instinct worked brilliantly, yet on The Hobbit I found the overblown and physics defying action spectacles broke the spell. Somewhere in the Hobbit trilogy there's a good film, and Jackson was the right choice for continuity reasons alone, but I don't find the attention to detail (Thrain's re-appearing eye?) or the realism (in a sense) of LOTR was replicated.
Click to expand...
 
Biggest problem for the Hobbit for me was it was at least one film too long.

There was no need to spread it out over 3 putting the money making aside.
 
RedSky said:
They tried to retain the child audience (from the books) but continue with the semi realistic setting and cinematography. But nobody said "no" to Jacksons absurd overblown silly CGI shite and that terrible character Alfrid. I actually disagree with your point about Jackson being the right choice. I actually think he was the wrong choice for the films in that he recycled way too much from the LOTR films and that ultimately made the Hobbit films feel like cheap spin offs.

I can't describe how much I hated that last film, it's just bloody awful. The worst part of the films for me is that they actually spent more time showing that terrible invented character Alfrid than they did the other dwarves. It was weird given how the film was meant to be focussed on their quest and yet the majority of the dwarves were simply background material. Why not remove the terrible shit and actually invest a little more screentime with some of the other dwarves so when they actually do rush out to fight we give a damn?

Not to mention I thought Thorins 'madness' was done terribly. There was nothing subtle about it and the effects used were bad. Like Pippin dancing around in slow motion with the palantir or frodo doing his feckin terrible fall to the floor in slow motion bad.

I could rant about those films for a while.
Click to expand...

Odd you’re complaining about effects from the LOTR films. It’s one of the things that as time goes on I appreciate more and more (how well they did it).
 

For people complaining about The Hobbit, here's a 2 (actually 3) part video series about them. Enjoy.
 
My biggest beef with the LOTR movies was how whiney they made the Hobbits. I can't recall it being that bad in the books. It didn't bother me AS much when I first watched them but the next go arounds I just wanna yell at them to grow a pair.
 
Redplane said:
My biggest beef with the LOTR movies was how whiney they made the Hobbits. I can't recall it being that bad in the books. It didn't bother me AS much when I first watched them but the next go arounds I just wanna yell at them to grow a pair.
Click to expand...

They're not whiney? And even if they were, rather that than all the fcuking singing in the book.
 
My biggest grips with the LOTR films were:
- Frodo turning against Sam and taking Gollum over him. That was really overdoing the ring effect - the Frodo-Sam bond is the strongest and consistent through the books, trying to portray Sam as the one who secretly eats their food should've never worked, Frodo is too smart.
- Faramir's decision to take them to Minas Tirith first. Also out of character for me, especially as his change of mind in Osgiliath isn't that convincing either.

Apart from that the movie hits incredibly well the middle-earth style/feelings as well as the portrayal of the elves, ents, orcs etc. And like others said, apart from the occasional effect that didn't age well the masks/make-ups are sooo much better than the shitty CGI from the Hobbit movies (were a lot more is wrong).

Oh and something minor but it always bugged me: I understood why they left out the old forest and everything but it seems really random that Merry and Pippin just bump into Frodo and Sam in the field - originally doing something completely different (just strolling around and stealing carrots essentially) and then just like that decide to join them on a travel far beyond their accustomed regions.:lol:
 
Absolutely loved the movies. Having said that my gripes were:
  • Glorfindel not being in it
  • The elves saving the day at Helms Deep (or at least helping out)
  • The army of the dead saving the day at Minas Tirith instead of Aragorn's company et al
 
Kasper said:
My biggest grips with the LOTR films were:
- Frodo turning against Sam and taking Gollum over him. That was really overdoing the ring effect - the Frodo-Sam bond is the strongest and consistent through the books, trying to portray Sam as the one who secretly eats their food should've never worked, Frodo is too smart.
- Faramir's decision to take them to Minas Tirith first. Also out of character for me, especially as his change of mind in Osgiliath isn't that convincing either.

Apart from that the movie hits incredibly well the middle-earth style/feelings as well as the portrayal of the elves, ents, orcs etc. And like others said, apart from the occasional effect that didn't age well the masks/make-ups are sooo much better than the shitty CGI from the Hobbit movies (were a lot more is wrong).

Oh and something minor but it always bugged me: I understood why they left out the old forest and everything but it seems really random that Merry and Pippin just bump into Frodo and Sam in the field - originally doing something completely different (just strolling around and stealing carrots essentially) and then just like that decide to join them on a travel far beyond their accustomed regions.:lol:
Click to expand...

Coxy said:
Absolutely loved the movies. Having said that my gripes were:
  • Glorfindel not being in it
  • The elves saving the day at Helms Deep (or at least helping out)
  • The army of the dead saving the day at Minas Tirith instead of Aragorn's company et al
Click to expand...

I hated everything they needlessly changed from the books, but especially the exaggeration of the Aragorn/Eowyn love thing, Aragorn falling off that cliff after being chased by a pack of wargs, and the Ents initially rejecting Pippin and Merry's pleas to deal with Saruman. This is why the first film is my favourite, and everything starts to go downhill about a third of the way through the second movie when they start fecking with shit.
 
2cents said:
I hated everything they needlessly changed from the books, but especially the exaggeration of the Aragorn/Eowyn love thing, Aragorn falling off that cliff after being chased by a pack of wargs, and the Ents initially rejecting Pippin and Merry's pleas to deal with Saruman. This is why the first film is my favourite, and everything starts to go downhill about a third of the way through the second movie when they start fecking with shit.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any issue with people finding issues with the story as it turned out (e.g. I don't think Faramir or Denethor are anything like the characters we see in the book). I do think it's odd to complain about the fact they changed things (at all) - that's what happens in nearly all adaptions. There's almost always a requirement for it.

Some things were certainly changed for the better in the movies. People like to gloss over the fact the book/s are generally dull as dishwater at times. The increased pace was certainly welcome.
 
Kasper said:
Oh and something minor but it always bugged me: I understood why they left out the old forest and everything but it seems really random that Merry and Pippin just bump into Frodo and Sam in the field - originally doing something completely different (just strolling around and stealing carrots essentially) and then just like that decide to join them on a travel far beyond their accustomed regions.:lol:
Click to expand...
I get your point but at the same time it does seem to support the idea that Hobbits are somewhat rash and instinctive,almost child like - like Pippin's picking up of the palantir, Frodo volunteering to take the ring, starting a fire at Weathertop, etc.
 
Minimalist said:
I do think it's odd to complain about the fact they changed things (at all) - that's what happens in nearly all adaptions. There's almost always a requirement for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I understand this, I'm just a bit of a purist really, I worship the books like nothing else I've ever read.
 
Changes to the movies from the books are quite minimal in LotR to be fair, so never understood people moaning about them. The first movie in particular is essentially the script of the first book, while the other two have some minimal differences. Game of Thrones for example has much bigger changes compared to the books, and it is still quite a loyal adaptation.
 
Revan said:
Changes to the movies from the books are quite minimal in LotR to be fair, so never understood people moaning about them. The first movie in particular is essentially the script of the first book, while the other two have some minimal differences. Game of Thrones for example has much bigger changes compared to the books, and it is still quite a loyal adaptation.
Click to expand...
Minimal?

The army of the dead saving the day in the films is not minimal - it's a big part of the battle (in the movies) and lasts for a while. I get why they did it - introducing the Grey Company would have taken time, same for Imrahil and the Swan Knights.... but that's not minimal.

Same for the Elves arriving at Helms Deep - that's not minimal - that's a big difference from the books.

I love the movies don't get me wrong - but I wouldn't say those changes are minimal.
 
Coxy said:
Minimal?

The army of the dead saving the day in the films is not minimal - it's a big part of the battle (in the movies) and lasts for a while. I get why they did it - introducing the Grey Company would have taken time, same for Imrahil and the Swan Knights.... but that's not minimal.

Same for the Elves arriving at Helms Deep - that's not minimal - that's a big difference from the books.

I love the movies don't get me wrong - but I wouldn't say those changes are minimal.
Click to expand...
It was only on the extended edition, if I am not mistaken. And well, they did something in the books right? They didn't use weapons and used fear instead, and they didn't destroy Sauron's main army, but I remember them helping Aragorn.
 
Revan said:
It was only on the extended edition, if I am not mistaken. And well, they did something in the books right? They didn't use weapons and used fear instead, and they didn't destroy Sauron's main army, but I remember them helping Aragorn.
Click to expand...
They did yes. They got rid of the corsairs from the pirates. But they didn’t save the day at Minas Tirith - that was Aragorn with his grey company and the knights from Dol Amroth etc.
 
kps88 said:
Are any known characters around in the 2nd Age?
Click to expand...
Sauron, Elrond, Galadriel, Arwen, Elendil, Isildur, Celeborn that appear in the films that I can think of off hand.

And Cirdan and Gil-Glad but I doubt anyone noticed their combined 2 second appearances.
 
Do not read if you want to go into the show with no knowledge:
They probably have two storylines they could choose to follow:

- The creation of the Rings and the rise of Sauron
- The destruction of Numenor and the alliance of Elves and the remains of the Numenor to take down Sauron.

I actually think the creation of the Rings would be the more interesting storyline. The problem could be that it might confuse viewers given that the timeframe of the story is hundreds of years. Just looking at the wiki, Sauron made the Rings of Power around 1600 and he later invades Eriador in 1695. As long as the viewers understand that all the Races back then lived for hundreds of years they'd probably get away with it. That storyline would be really awesome though given you could in theory therefore have a Sauron, Dwarf, Elf and Numenor storyline and watch how each Race deals with the Rings.

Places of Interest (Cities):
- Mith Lond (Grey Havens, this survived as it was shown in 3rd Age - the harbour at the end of Return of the King)
- Lond Daer (Built by Numenor in early 2nd Age, ruined in early 3rd Age)
- Ost-in-Edhil (Capital of Eregion, destroyed by Sauron in 1697)
- Gundabad (Dwarven Capital, sacked around 1700)

I stopped looking at the map after this, but looking at the list above. It's clearly going to be about the rise of Sauron :drool:
 
RedSky said:
Do not read if you want to go into the show with no knowledge:
They probably have two storylines they could choose to follow:

- The creation of the Rings and the rise of Sauron
- The destruction of Numenor and the alliance of Elves and the remains of the Numenor to take down Sauron.

I actually think the creation of the Rings would be the more interesting storyline. The problem could be that it might confuse viewers given that the timeframe of the story is hundreds of years. Just looking at the wiki, Sauron made the Rings of Power around 1600 and he later invades Eriador in 1695. As long as the viewers understand that all the Races back then lived for hundreds of years they'd probably get away with it. That storyline would be really awesome though given you could in theory therefore have a Sauron, Dwarf, Elf and Numenor storyline and watch how each Race deals with the Rings.

Places of Interest (Cities):
- Mith Lond (Grey Havens, this survived as it was shown in 3rd Age - the harbour at the end of Return of the King)
- Lond Daer (Built by Numenor in early 2nd Age, ruined in early 3rd Age)
- Ost-in-Edhil (Capital of Eregion, destroyed by Sauron in 1697)
- Gundabad (Dwarven Capital, sacked around 1700)

I stopped looking at the map after this, but looking at the list above. It's clearly going to be about the rise of Sauron :drool:

Which dovetails into the fall of Numenor given that he is literally there and the cause of it.
Click to expand...

Reply in bold within the spoiler quote above because I don't know how to insert a spoiler as I'm dumb.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Reply in bold within the spoiler quote above because I don't know how to insert a spoiler as I'm dumb.
Click to expand...

I guess the problem with that is that time frame wise it could be a real issue. Unless they decide to go "1500 years later..." :lol:

Whereas the spoiler theory takes place around 100 years instead. What they could do however is have one show based on my theory, then depending on the success of that show they could lead into the 2nd show which would be based on fall of Numenor.
 
RedSky said:
I guess the problem with that is that time frame wise it could be a real issue. Unless they decide to go "1500 years later..." :lol:

Whereas the spoiler theory takes place around 100 years instead. What they could do however is have one show based on my theory, then depending on the success of that show they could lead into the 2nd show which would be based on fall of Numenor.
Click to expand...
Timescales involving immortal elves and humans who live for 300 years is always going to be an issue now that I think of it. Good luck to them!
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Timescales involving immortal elves and humans who live for 300 years is always going to be an issue now that I think of it. Good luck to them!
Click to expand...

The only way I can see them solving it, is ignoring the race of men completely and instead focus on Numenor/Dwarves/Elves. That way it becomes less of an issue. The Story I proposed takes 100 years, thats still a big issue as it would be what? 3/4 generations of Man. But no issue at all if you ignore that race completely. Then they can have a 2nd TV Show based on Fall of Numenor. Perfect.
 
The Silmarillion deserves a movie or atleast a TV show I suppose, especially the Feanor and Fingolfin arcs as well as the story of Turin Turambar and the Fall of Numenor. If they do use this book as the source material, I'll give it a watch.
 
Kapardin said:
The Silmarillion deserves a movie or atleast a TV show I suppose, especially the Feanor and Fingolfin arcs as well as the story of Turin Turambar and the Fall of Numenor. If they do use this book as the source material, I'll give it a watch.
Click to expand...

I would love a Silmarillion show, always have. I don't think it would work as a movie, but certainly as a TV show. Just need to hope that this show is a hit as they could fall back into that fairly easily.
 
I'd love Children of Hurin would make a wonderful drama film. Beautiful but tragic story.
 
broccoli said:
I'd love Children of Hurin would make a wonderful drama film. Beautiful but tragic story.
Click to expand...
I'd enjoy it too, but it would not make for cheery viewing. It's relentlessly grim. Would any TV company make that? Although, if it was a relentlessly grim kitchen sink drama they may very well do so.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I'd enjoy it too, but it would not make for cheery viewing. It's relentlessly grim. Would any TV company make that? Although, if it was a relentlessly grim kitchen sink drama they may very well do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's definitely tricky due to its much more mature content. Its execution would also be difficult because I believe the charm of the story is the grim and cold atmosphere of fate and the inevitability. Just like the classic Greek tragedy. Most likely it would get too cringy and emotional with the relationship side of the story so, just like many epics, it is best left undone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.