Television The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

RedSky said:
Reviews seem to be an improvement on S1. I'd be satisfied with that. Weird that they gave some reviewers the full season and others just an early pass to the first three episodes.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust critics when it comes to a show such as this these days. So many are on the payroll or just flat out terrified that the big corps will restrict their future access to early preview if they don't score positively.

You only have to look at how many 100%'s exist in recent history from shows that are borderline decent. Payroll reviews.
 
Hoof the ball said:
I wouldn't trust critics when it comes to a show such as this these days. So many are on the payroll or just flat out terrified that the big corps will restrict their future access to early preview if they don't score positively.

You only have to look at how many 100%'s exist in recent history from shows that are borderline decent. Payroll reviews.
Click to expand...

Nah, I don't think that's overly true. S1 didn't particularly review well early doors. Many of whom were paid. Many shows get bad reviews too, Acolyte didnt review well for example. I find the idea that reviewers are terrified of big corps as an overblown exageration, some might be swayed by the money, but most aren't as they actually give a damn about their reputation as a genuine reviewer, it's their craft.

Personally I ignore reviewers who give shows very high marks or very low marks. Normally they're biased for one reason or another. Mid reviews generally give you the best and most realible information. It's been that way in the gaming industry for decades so i'm pretty good at sifting through the bullshit.
 
Yeah might not even watch this. Even the thought feels like a chore.
 
Hoof the ball said:
I wouldn't trust critics when it comes to a show such as this these days. So many are on the payroll or just flat out terrified that the big corps will restrict their future access to early preview if they don't score positively.

You only have to look at how many 100%'s exist in recent history from shows that are borderline decent. Payroll reviews.
Click to expand...

These are not critics, they are influencers. It is like confusing Fabrizio Romano with a journalist. Cultural criticism is a brilliant field with many incredibly insightful and talented experts.
 
Hoof the ball said:
I wouldn't trust critics when it comes to a show such as this these days. So many are on the payroll or just flat out terrified that the big corps will restrict their future access to early preview if they don't score positively.

You only have to look at how many 100%'s exist in recent history from shows that are borderline decent. Payroll reviews.
Click to expand...
Honestly I don't think it's anything as dodgy as that - all these big budget "prestige content" streaming shows more often than not end up getting a general 6-7/10 score because that's what they are to most casual viewers, functionally written spectacle with occasional compelling moments. The writers don't really have the talent to take it beyond that, the cast are in the main jobbing TV actors, the directors tend to flit between each show so they all look the same. At the same time if you don't care much about the source material and just want a trip to something resembling Middle-earth, you can find stuff to like.
 
S2, first episode. Went for much darker tone. It paid off, within it's limited ability, but... it paid off.

New Adar actor is okay. Gandalf can talk, and Elrond is still one likeable bastard.

Don't watch it. (Watch it)
 
Van Piorsing said:
S2, first episode. Went for much darker tone. It paid off, within it's limited ability, but... it paid off.

New Adar actor is okay. Gandalf can talk, and Elrond is still one likeable bastard.

Don't watch it. (Watch it)
Click to expand...


It's out? I'll have to watch it.
 
A lot of reviews read like the authors are just trying to for clickbait in a sea of opinions these days. They know negativity sells more than positivity. It's healthier these days to avoid the majority of opinion pieces, especially with the major sites/publications. It's all profit driven, whether by generating clicks or blowing smoke up a company's ass instead. I'll make up my own mind ty very much.
 
Seriously though, I like the show but do we think we'll get hobbit sex in the future? Imagine the ratings.
 
Spoony said:
I like the look of this Sauron's armour. I hope he doesn't actually look like that bloke playing the role, underneath it all.
Click to expand...
I too hope they take this season to somekind extreme. Dark fantasy almost like.

Watch the episodes, Spoons, and write how do you feel with lots of hairy dwarves trapped under the mountain.
 
Actually i prefer that fous on Sauron as the shape-shifting sorcerer which is what he was before he became the dude in arnour.
 
Gehrman said:
Actually i prefer that fous on Sauron as the shape-shifting sorcerer which is what he was before he became the dude in arnour.
Click to expand...
Also - the armored appearance in the movies was largely inspired by his former boss/predessor Melkor as described in the books I believe. Peter Jackson used it to make him more menacing. Someone more Tolkien versed feel free to correct me.

Does lead me to another thing: PJ took a lot of liberties with regards to the books, which is arguably a greater sin for a purist bc just about everything that happened in the movies was actually spelled out, the RoP writers don't have that luxury. That's why I think it's a bit disingenuous when I see some people complaining about the show on the merits of accuracy, while at the same time holding up the movies as the holy Grail. In fact, there was quite a bit of criticism then too but many seem to have forgotten that or the younger folks don't even know that.
 
Last edited:
Redplane said:
Also - the armored appearance in the movies was largely inspired by his former boss/predessor Melkor as described in the books I believe. Peter Jackson used it to make him more menacing. Someone more Tolkien versed feel free to correct me.

Does lead me to another thing: PJ took a lot of liberties with regards to the books, which is arguably a greater sin for a purist bc just about everything that happened in the movies was actually spelled out, the RoP writers don't have that luxury. That's why I think it's a bit disingenuous when I see some people complaining about the show on the merits of accuracy, while at the same time holding up the movies as the holy Grail. In fact, there was quite a bit of criticism then too but many seem to have forgotten that or the younger folks don't even know that.
Click to expand...
From the other angle - they were trying to fit 1,000+ pages of events and characters into 10 hours of film time, and so things inevitably have to be altered a little purely to fit. Rings of Power is doing the opposite, where they have the bare bones laid out and have the opportunity to fill them out over 50 hours, but instead have ended up altering a lot of the bones to fit the story they wanted to tell. It's fair enough for them to do that, but I also think it's fair if people don't think their changes were worth it.

PJ's changes themselves were hit and miss - I felt the death of Boromir is much better in the film, it made a lot of sense to swap in Arwen for Glorfindel, and even the change in Aragorn's character to reluctant king was probably smart. But then some stuff like Faramir and Osgiliath, the ghost army, the Witch-King throwing Gandalf around all felt like miss-steps (could've been worse, they were going to have Aragorn fight Sauron himself at the end battle, but luckily they managed to change that in post-production). Partly why Fellowship is best, for me.
 
Watched it - disappointed. It's a good fantasy drama series, it just isn't Lord of the Rings or Tolkien.
 
Ubik said:
From the other angle - they were trying to fit 1,000+ pages of events and characters into 10 hours of film time, and so things inevitably have to be altered a little purely to fit. Rings of Power is doing the opposite, where they have the bare bones laid out and have the opportunity to fill them out over 50 hours, but instead have ended up altering a lot of the bones to fit the story they wanted to tell. It's fair enough for them to do that, but I also think it's fair if people don't think their changes were worth it.

PJ's changes themselves were hit and miss - I felt the death of Boromir is much better in the film, it made a lot of sense to swap in Arwen for Glorfindel, and even the change in Aragorn's character to reluctant king was probably smart. But then some stuff like Faramir and Osgiliath, the ghost army, the Witch-King throwing Gandalf around all felt like miss-steps (could've been worse, they were going to have Aragorn fight Sauron himself at the end battle, but luckily they managed to change that in post-production). Partly why Fellowship is best, for me.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of missteps in the films but they "worked."

I understand why the ghost army showing up at Pelagir wasn't done. That's another 30 minutes of screentime introducing Pelagir, Aragorn rounding up the Southern Armies of Gondor etc etc.

Elrond's character got ret-conned.

The one thing that bothers me most though is how they constantly showed "men" fighters to be "weak." In reality, the human fighters were much superior to orcs and at the battle of Minas Tirith, the Orcs never breached past the first level and the garrisson actually sallied out to meet the orcs on the fields head on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.