So... Who's watching the first 2 episodes of The Rings of Power tonight?

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Slapshot1188 · September 2022

olepi said:

That is my biggest complaint, the show isn't really Tolkien, but many will think it is.

As I put in my earlier post, some of the characters, like Gandalf, didn't exist before the 3rd Age. He better not be in the show at all.

As I posted above. many will think it is... because it's LITERALLY ON THE POSTERS, ADs, VIDEOS..

The full title is actually :

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

I cannot imagine why folks would expect it to be Tolkien...

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

TheDalaiBomba · September 2022

BrotherMaynard said:

blueturtle13 said:

BrotherMaynard said:

snip

That is all hogwash.

These are just fantasy books.
Before Peter Jackson, most of the free world didn't even know anything about them anymore.
Movies and TV shows can bring new audiences to written artistic work even if they do not do it in the 'purist' way.
The Witcher games and maybe the show helped bring people to Sapkowski
The 'I Am Legend' movie helped bring people to Matheson
Even Age of Conan brought a few people to Howard.
This show will help bring people to Tolkien just like Peter Jackson did.

The show is not ruining Tolkien and his books. They are still there. Preserved.

Many of the Korean tales have been converted into film and video games and they are treated with much less IP protections than the (WWW) White Works of the West.
Most are butchered, but we all treat it for what it is.

Fiction interpreting fiction.

These are just fiction fantasy books. Not religious texts.

It might be hogwash to you - frankly, I don't expect too much understanding of this in an average gaming forum - but I assure you, it is a very serious issue and many countries are very conscious of it.

Don't you think that the example you gave about disrespect of Korean tales shows exactly this problem? The fact that (some) western countries are fighting it should be applauded; I do hope that Korea is or soon will be doing the same. We know very well that China, for example, has become much more assertive regarding its cultural heritage and I guess we can expect more countries to follow.

Movies can bring new audiences, true - but to what?, I would ask. Some will read the books - most won't, would be my guess. Is that what Tolkien (and other works) will be to them? Based on ignorance, told by a rampaging bull that is Amazon in a china shop?

To be honest, your last two lines are just typical of this problem, aren't they? "They are just fiction...". Yes, so is the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky; so is L'Avare by Molière; so is The Bartered Bride by Smetana; so is the Symphony no.9 by Beethoven and thousands of other masterpieces. Do I want to listen to a hip-hop version of the 9th Symphony pretending to be genuine Beethoven? Among the literary works of the 20th century, Tolkien has his own - and well-recognised - place. Even if it is "just fiction".

Again, you may not like it or consider it important, but many of those masterpieces would have disappeared or have been displaced by "modernised" versions long time ago, were it not for the attention, care, protection and preservation. Especially in these days of mass influence of cheap, tacky and often manipulative media and general ignorance among the internet population. It is the difference between your priceless cultural heritage stored in museums and never looked at or even known to anyone but a handful of academics and "weirdos", and having it as a living part of our society that we have inherited from the greatest minds in our history.

We all know that interpretation or adaptation as such are not the problem. But there is a difference between, say, conductor's interpretation of Bach - which will remain faithful to the original composition, with a personal touch by the conductor - and what Amazon is doing here (and Hollywood in general has been doing for a couple of decades). That is simply cultural barbarism combined with a 'nouveau riche' arrogance and ignorance, plain and simple.

Uhh, my dude, your comment about Beethoven is just...

Folks have been sampling Beethoven since, well, Beethoven.

Slapshot1188 · September 2022

blueturtle13 said:

Slapshot1188 said:

olepi said:

blueturtle13 said:

BrotherMaynard said:

blueturtle13 said:

BrotherMaynard said:

snip

That is all hogwash.

These are just fantasy books.
Before Peter Jackson, most of the free world didn't even know anything about them anymore.
Movies and TV shows can bring new audiences to written artistic work even if they do not do it in the 'purist' way.
The Witcher games and maybe the show helped bring people to Sapkowski
The 'I Am Legend' movie helped bring people to Matheson
Even Age of Conan brought a few people to Howard.
This show will help bring people to Tolkien just like Peter Jackson did.

The show is not ruining Tolkien and his books. They are still there. Preserved.

Many of the Korean tales have been converted into film and video games and they are treated with much less IP protections than the (WWW) White Works of the West.
Most are butchered, but we all treat it for what it is.

Fiction interpreting fiction.

These are just fiction fantasy books. Not religious texts.

It might be hogwash to you - frankly, I don't expect too much understanding of this in an average gaming forum - but I assure you, it is a very serious issue and many countries are very conscious of it.

Don't you think that the example you gave about disrespect of Korean tales shows exactly this problem? The fact that (some) western countries are fighting it should be applauded; I do hope that Korea is or soon will be doing the same. We know very well that China, for example, has become much more assertive regarding its cultural heritage and I guess we can expect more countries to follow.

Movies can bring new audiences, true - but to what?, I would ask. Some will read the books - most won't, would be my guess. Is that what Tolkien (and other works) will be to them? Based on ignorance, told by a rampaging bull that is Amazon in a china shop?

To be honest, your last two lines are just typical of this problem, aren't they? "They are just fiction...". Yes, so is the Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky; so is L'Avare by Molière; so is The Bartered Bride by Smetana; so is the Symphony no.9 by Beethoven and thousands of other masterpieces. Do I want to listen to a hip-hop version of the 9th Symphony pretending to be genuine Beethoven? Among the literary works of the 20th century, Tolkien has his own - and well-recognised - place. Even if it is "just fiction".

Again, you may not like it or consider it important, but many of those masterpieces would have disappeared or have been displaced by "modernised" versions long time ago, were it not for the attention, care, protection and preservation. Especially in these days of mass influence of cheap, tacky and often manipulative media and general ignorance among the internet population. It is the difference between your priceless cultural heritage stored in museums and never looked at or even known to anyone but a handful of academics and "weirdos", and having it as a living part of our society that we have inherited from the greatest minds in our history.

We all know that interpretation or adaptation as such are not the problem. But there is a difference between, say, conductor's interpretation of Bach - which will remain faithful to the original composition, with a personal touch by the conductor - and what Amazon is doing here (and Hollywood in general has been doing for a couple of decades). That is simply cultural barbarism combined with a 'nouveau riche' arrogance and ignorance, plain and simple.

This show is based 4,000 to 5,000 years before LOTR and The Hobbit.
These stories being told were not written by Tolkien. They are influenced by his writings and take place in his world with a few of the characters he created. (With the help of his influences which he 'borrowed' from)
Let's not over state this

Right, the show isn't based on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings/ Hobbit stories. It is supposed to have happened long before those stories, called the 3rd Age.

Tolkien *did* write about the 2nd Age, but the show isn't based on that either.

Even better:

Every... single.. poster... references The Lord Of The Rings.
I haven't found one official poster that does not have LotR showing on it.

But they wanted to create something that "could stand on it's own two feet".

LOL. Just words with no meaning.

Not seeing the point

I know.

bcbully · September 2022

Stizzled said:

I'm a Tolkien fanatic. I can tell you that the amount of this story that's actually in the Silmarillion is absolutely zero. I dislike the time compression, the black elves and dwarfs that never existed, and the black humans who likely wouldn't be in this part of the world. I also dislike pretty much everything to do with Galadriel so far, they should leave her boring ass in the water for the rest of the show's run.

Having said that, the show is fine so far. It's fan fiction, just like Shadow of Mordor/War, just like LOTRO, just like everything that isn't the books.

People need to get over expecting every adaptation to be 100% faithful to the source material. Yes, the Silmarillion remains unfilmed, and that's okay.

Just because tolken was a racist back then and couldnt comprehend different colors within breeds doesnt mean we can't today.

Amazon understanding this is about the only thing I like so far. It jut hasnt been able to keep my attention through my first two viewings. I'll probably put it on again for a third. T'here has to be someting there, right?

TheDalaiBomba · September 2022

bcbully said:

Stizzled said:

I'm a Tolkien fanatic. I can tell you that the amount of this story that's actually in the Silmarillion is absolutely zero. I dislike the time compression, the black elves and dwarfs that never existed, and the black humans who likely wouldn't be in this part of the world. I also dislike pretty much everything to do with Galadriel so far, they should leave her boring ass in the water for the rest of the show's run.

Having said that, the show is fine so far. It's fan fiction, just like Shadow of Mordor/War, just like LOTRO, just like everything that isn't the books.

People need to get over expecting every adaptation to be 100% faithful to the source material. Yes, the Silmarillion remains unfilmed, and that's okay.

Just because tolken was a racist back then and couldnt comprehend different colors within breeds doesnt mean we can't today.

Amazon understanding this is about the only thing I like so far. It jut hasnt been able to keep my attention through my first two viewings. I'll probably put it on again for a third. T'here has to be someting there, right?

This is presumptuous. Tolkien referred to Hitler, for instance, as a "ruddy little ignoramus."

There's not much evidence Tolkien was racist. He spoke against racial and ethnic bigotry, stating he regretted not having Jewish ancestors (today folks would decry this as "woke" and pandering to identity politics, ironically). He was born in South Africa and witnessed the apartheid misery. The far right uses his works to try and make him into a racist folk hero, but Tolkien would angrily refuse that position.

Indeed: though traditional race is not included, the entire LOTR trilogy is about disparate races of sentient beings working together despite their differences to defeat evil. Legolas and Gimli's friendship is a primo example of that theme.

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Uwakionna · September 2022

I would point out, all the ramble about racism aside, there is a difference between expanding a work, and changing what already exists within it.

Part of the thing missed with the comment on Korean works being adapted, is that they are used as the framework for something "new", at the very least in name.

Same principle across sampling music, save for occasions where someone does a cover/remix.

And in the advent of such, there's a point to be made in assessing a) the new version respects it's original, and b) if it serves to enhance, or it clashes with it.

Writing about the second age and continuing to "excavate" Middle Earth is fine, but the moment they start smashing the old to replace it, that's no longer excavation, that's demolition.

Skin color is a whatever to me. Yeah sure there's some lore there, but it's a detail that has wiggle room, and you can still respect individual characters, their personalities and actions, the history of the world, etc to maintain what the story at it's core is.

But when you're changing all the rest of that, then you're very rapidly approaching a point where you're no longer writing the same setting, and it becomes an in-name-only ordeal.

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

TheDalaiBomba · September 2022

Iselin said:

BrotherMaynard said:
Dear god, you really will use all your might to push your square through that small circle opening just to make it through, won't you?

Completely ignoring historical and cultural context (I assume you are aware of them?) to suit your narrative of two millennia of "defacement"(*) by all the artists who ever painted his face. Without stopping for a moment to consider what the extent of their knowledge was back in 5th-19th century, let's say.

(*) Defacement implies a deliberate, conscious and purposeful act; it is not the evolution of human (and thus artists') understanding.

And then you add a digital(!) recreation of a typical Galilean Semite from that area and time, based on X-rays, anthropological data and digital extrapolation of the image. (To note: all of this is based on a typical skull from the region around that time and working with models of muscles, tissues and skin. Obviously, there is no genuine source material for any of this.) Which simply must prove that all the artists throughout the centuries were deliberately altering this accurate model to "deface" the truth, right?

Haven't you stopped for a moment to consider the differences? That one is about defacing a specific existing work of art and the other about the extent of knowledge and understanding at throughout our history? That one is about a deliberate act (even if well-meant in this case), while the other is about how our understanding of history keeps evolving (together with our tools)? Are you really so hell-bent on this line of thought of yours as to disregard the historical and cultural context?

So you're saying that everyone who ever painted a white European-looking Jesus, some even going so far as making him blonde, did not know what the population in that part of the world looked like in their own time? lol.

It was deliberate whitewashing that is still done to this day even though we supposedly now know better.

But I get it: Rings of Power writers and Bezos evil, blond Jesus painters are just misguided

By his own argument, Tolkien suffered the same mistake of ignorance.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/first-modern-britons-dark-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

The Europe Tolkien based Middle Earth on was far more diverse than Tolkien knew when he wrote the LoTR.

By Maynard's own argument, we could look at Rings of Power simply as a more historically informed version of the same regional foundation Tolkien used.

What's more, it fits with the timeline of Rings of Power. Recent scientific discoveries indicate white skin as a dominant trait came after Europeans with dark skin had settled across the continent. Likewise, the predominantly white folks in the LOTR came long after the mixed races in Rings of Power.

Uwakionna · September 2022

blueturtle13 said:

Uwakionna said:

I would point out, all the ramble about racism aside, there is a difference between expanding a work, and changing what already exists within it.

Part of the thing missed with the comment on Korean works being adapted, is that they are used as the framework for something "new", at the very least in name.

Same principle across sampling music, save for occasions where someone does a cover/remix.

And in the advent of such, there's a point to be made in assessing a) the new version respects it's original, and b) if it serves to enhance, or it clashes with it.

Writing about the second age and continuing to "excavate" Middle Earth is fine, but the moment they start smashing the old to replace it, that's no longer excavation, that's demolition.

Skin color is a whatever to me. Yeah sure there's some lore there, but it's a detail that has wiggle room, and you can still respect individual characters, their personalities and actions, the history of the world, etc to maintain what the story at it's core is.

But when you're changing all the rest of that, then you're very rapidly approaching a point where you're no longer writing the same setting, and it becomes an in-name-only ordeal.

There are many Korean works that have been changed so much it is name only going back decades. Not understanding that comment at all. 2 of which I have worked on myself.
The difference is we dont take this stuff so serious.
This is ypical WWW preservation fear.
This is not as a big a deal as it is being made out to be.
The original works are preserved. Are still there. Ready to be read by anyone.

There is nothing anyone can do about it now.
It is done.
People will just have to chose to look over it or get over it

Be it cultural or individual, that's fine for you to not understand. I'm not expecting everyone to be raised on the same principles and beliefs.

Unfortunately I don't have much context to interpret your statement with either. If you mean to say you worked on two titles that are directly named after traditional stories, and both are very divergent or contradictory to the original source in basic ways, then I would indeed place that as a big difference in our personal or cultural position as to whether or not that's a respectful thing to do.

For where and how I was raised, seeing any kind of work be changed in ways that fundamentally changes the narrative from the original author's design, yet retains the name, is generally regarded as a disrespect to the source.

Not like I feel particularly offended by this, but it is a distinction for me that something which contradicts the original author's content is not regarded the same way. It's simply seen as "lazy", and mostly just riding on the value of the name without much of any regard to it.

And there is a point to that as well, as if the name didn't continue to bear weight, then people wouldn't be apt to evoke it.

You can make adaptations, you can make direct inspirations, but that's still different from saying you're making one thing, then making something different.

Slapshot1188 · September 2022

The more we have these discussions about The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The more it feels like: Winnie the Poo: Blood and Honey

https://youtu.be/W3E74j_xFtg

Even the title format is the same…

(it’s a joke folks… but at its heart it’s the same debate)

ttbbzzlolly · September 2022

it's complete f'ing junk.. Horrid actors.. amateur nonsense acting.. it's like some garbage you would see on the sci fi channel without the pretty backgrounds and stuff...

Uwakionna · September 2022

Slapshot1188 said:

The more we have these discussions about The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The more it feels like: Winnie the Poo: Blood and Honey

https://youtu.be/W3E74j_xFtg

Even the title format is the same…

(it’s a joke folks… but at its heart it’s the same debate)

Maybe, I would take something like that under satire/parody though.
Hard to consider it a serious title or entry into the canon.

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

TheDalaiBomba · September 2022

Slapshot1188 said:

The more we have these discussions about The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The more it feels like: Winnie the Poo: Blood and Honey

https://youtu.be/W3E74j_xFtg

Even the title format is the same…

(it’s a joke folks… but at its heart it’s the same debate)

The idea that you can realistically police an IP in the digital age is kind of hogwash, honestly. You can, at best, make sure folks aren't making a living out of it. But you can't avoid folks circulating images and stories that would be considered damaging to the IP's reputation and popularity.

Winnie the Pooh's innocence was robbed long before he entered the public domain this year. Just Google "Sephiroth Winnie the Pooh fanfic".

There's even a picture of ole Seph and Winnie in a loving embrace, with fanfic text about how Seph's pants are getting tight. Suggestive.

Imagine if it got so popular children couldn't reliably look up Winnie online without getting some cartoon on cartoon action. It would demonstrably harm the IP's ability to continue reaching children today if Winnie started getting caught by, say, SafeSearch settings.... but good luck correcting it if that cat got out of the bag. Such is the Internet.

In short: if you're sharing your IP with the public in the age of the Internet, you best be ready to *really* share it.

The_Korrigan · September 2022

Ah, the anti-black people are here I see.

I watched both episodes, and I like it so far, can't wait for next week.

It's not as good as House of the Dragon for now (specially the 3rd episode which is absolutely kickass, looking at you Matt Smith), but it's a good fantasy show.

Uwakionna · September 2022

blueturtle13 said:

Uwakionna said:

blueturtle13 said:

Uwakionna said:

I would point out, all the ramble about racism aside, there is a difference between expanding a work, and changing what already exists within it.

Part of the thing missed with the comment on Korean works being adapted, is that they are used as the framework for something "new", at the very least in name.

Same principle across sampling music, save for occasions where someone does a cover/remix.

And in the advent of such, there's a point to be made in assessing a) the new version respects it's original, and b) if it serves to enhance, or it clashes with it.

Writing about the second age and continuing to "excavate" Middle Earth is fine, but the moment they start smashing the old to replace it, that's no longer excavation, that's demolition.

Skin color is a whatever to me. Yeah sure there's some lore there, but it's a detail that has wiggle room, and you can still respect individual characters, their personalities and actions, the history of the world, etc to maintain what the story at it's core is.

But when you're changing all the rest of that, then you're very rapidly approaching a point where you're no longer writing the same setting, and it becomes an in-name-only ordeal.

There are many Korean works that have been changed so much it is name only going back decades. Not understanding that comment at all. 2 of which I have worked on myself.
The difference is we dont take this stuff so serious.
This is ypical WWW preservation fear.
This is not as a big a deal as it is being made out to be.
The original works are preserved. Are still there. Ready to be read by anyone.

There is nothing anyone can do about it now.
It is done.
People will just have to chose to look over it or get over it

Be it cultural or individual, that's fine for you to not understand. I'm not expecting everyone to be raised on the same principles and beliefs.

Unfortunately I don't have much context to interpret your statement with either. If you mean to say you worked on two titles that are directly named after traditional stories, and both are very divergent or contradictory to the original source in basic ways, then I would indeed place that as a big difference in our personal or cultural position as to whether or not that's a respectful thing to do.

For where and how I was raised, seeing any kind of work be changed in ways that fundamentally changes the narrative from the original author's design, yet retains the name, is generally regarded as a disrespect to the source.

Not like I feel particularly offended by this, but it is a distinction for me that something which contradicts the original author's content is not regarded the same way. It's simply seen as "lazy", and mostly just riding on the value of the name without much of any regard to it.

And there is a point to that as well, as if the name didn't continue to bear weight, then people wouldn't be apt to evoke it.

You can make adaptations, you can make direct inspirations, but that's still different from saying you're making one thing, then making something different.

I think you are maybe talking about Peter Jackson's movies and not this show?

Not really.

You can throw shade at the LOTR trilogy for changing details, but they didn't change core storyline, and many of the quibbles raised are more about what's omitted or the way some of the more vague details are interpreted.

Now, you could levy such criticism more directly at the Hobbit trilogy. And that sort of criticism has been heavily levied at it.

So if you're trying to throw a blanket over the entire thing as "Peter Jackson's movies", sure, but that's hiding some important qualifiers there, and hiding where and what criticisms are levied towards such issues.

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Uwakionna · September 2022

The_Korrigan said:

Ah, the anti-black people are here I see.

I watched both episodes, and I like it so far, can't wait for next week.

It's not as good as House of the Dragon for now (specially the 3rd episode which is absolutely kickass, looking at you Matt Smith), but it's a good fantasy show.

I'm kinda disappointed that's what the issue gets reduced down to. Especially as someone that doesn't see any of the character's skin tones as an issue.

It's just an issue of the broader use of the setting, personalities, history, and lore for me.

Changing the personalities of characters, changing their motives, changing their roles within the setting, changing the timeline and events...

At what point is it just a new setting?

Kinda the difference from slash fiction or the Pooh horror, if it's riding on being taken as a serious entry into the canon of the original, then I at least feel it should be paying a little better respect to that.

And as I said early on. It's not that the series is bad, and it can in fact end up being a quite well done fantasy romp through the whole series. It's just that I'm not getting what was put on the tin.

The_Korrigan · September 2022

By the way... I don't mind black elves or hobbits, or humans, in a Lord of the Rings series. I think they did it well, everything blends, it's not a problem at all for me. I also didn't mind Liet Kines to be played by a black woman in Dune, it fits perfectly. The black inquisitor Reva in Obi Wan wasn't a problem either.

But to me, some characters are just white, some are males, some are both. Because they were written that way. Not because it's racist or macho, but because it wouldn't be the same characters otherwise. If Galadriel had been turned into a black man for instance, I'd have a problem with that. Not because of racism, but because that's not the character.

So I still wonder what some specific poster here would say if they created a series about Nelson Mandela, someone who I deeply admire, and the title character was played by some white actor.

Uwakionna · September 2022

blueturtle13 said:

Uwakionna said:

blueturtle13 said:
I think you are maybe talking about Peter Jackson's movies and not this show?

Not really.

You can throw shade at the LOTR trilogy for changing details, but they didn't change core storyline, and many of the quibbles raised are more about what's omitted or the way some of the more vague details are interpreted.

Now, you could levy such criticism more directly at the Hobbit trilogy. And that sort of criticism has been heavily levied at it.

So if you're trying to throw a blanket over the entire thing as "Peter Jackson's movies", sure, but that's hiding some important qualifiers there, and hiding where and what criticisms are levied towards such issues.

What does that have to do with this show?

It was a response to your question about Peter Jackson's stuff.

Correlation can be made between the Hobbit trilogy and the Rings of Power. Peter Jackson took many liberties interpreting and changing the Hobbit to fit in extra lore, and it messed with events, timeline, and characters in much the same way as I would level criticism at Rings of Power.

Rightly, the Hobbit series did bother me. The LOTR trilogy didn't so much, because it's lore issues were not about fundamental changes to characters, setting, timeline, etc.

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User] · September 2022

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Howdy, Stranger!

So... Who's watching the first 2 episodes of The Rings of Power tonight?

Comments

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

So... Who's watching the first 2 episodes of The Rings of Power tonight?

Comments

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다

거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다