re: Lord Of The Rings: Rings Of Power - Review Discussion

quote:

---

Personally Jackson's Rings weren't perfect adaptations either, and considering this is basically making a story out of lore and timeline stuff, I am not sure how you make five seasons without adding new elements, which this reportedly will do.

---

Perfect? No, but he still respected the source material and the world Tolkien created. I have some major issues with the LOTR trilogy, such as excluding Glorfindel, the Scouring of the Shire, and revealing Eowyn too early but overall it was an excellent adaptation.

I don't think the issue is "adding" things to the 2nd Age lore, since as you said it is pretty open. The issue, at least for me, is that it doesn't seem like it is faithful to the world and the established lore. Such as making Galadriel a warrior. That's absurd and goes directly against the established lore.

quote:

---

Sounds similar to how I've felt about The Witcher so far.

as for LOTR, the reviews have me more optimistic this might actually be good. Whereas the marketing did it no favors and thought it looked below average with a lot of polish(that somehow still didn't quite get the look right). And it still might be that, but the impressions alleviated a bunch of concerns I had. We'll see

---

Fair enough, man. I get it. LOTR is my all-time favorite book series and from about 15 - 27 I read the trilogy once a year. In the last 10 years I've only read it 3 more times but for me it's almost perfect. I had a lot of hopes for this series when it was first announced so I've become a bit jaded with what I've read and these reviews are not really changing that. I hope I'm wrong though and just jaded, hence my cautious optimism.

quote:

---

The EW review says it all it’s pure woke liberal crap.


Y’all will never admit when you’re wrong

---

Ah. Now that this histotic purveyor of vanilla-arse reviews meant to maintain relationships with talent has confirmed your uninformed opinion, ET is the only reputable reviewer? You sound like a dumbass, dude.

quote:

---

They are big fans of the LOTR movies, but are following all the early reviews

---

Big EW fans?

OK, so I went to the Cinemark showing in Baton Rouge tonight, and I just got back home.

My quick take is that, if you're a Tolkien nerd expecting perfect fidelity to the events and timelines of the First Age, you're going to be disappointed. You'll have problems with characters and storylines that go significantly beyond Galadriel wielding a sword and the multi-racial cast. Maybe you'll be OK if you think of Rings of Power as existing in a multi-verse of the Silmarillion. :)

On the other hand, if you're a casual fan of the LOTR movies and maybe even of the book, then I think you'll like this series. I think that it "feels" like Tolkien.

I honestly think that it's going to be very good TV. The production values are movie quality. The acting is first-rate. It's a visual feast.

Without providing any big spoilers, I'll say that the first episode is really just setting the stage: it introduces the characters, gives us backstory (that, again, will differ somewhat from what you will find in the Silmarillion or the Appendices of LOTR). We don't get any real story until the 2nd episode.

I didn't read any reviews before I went, and I only saw this thread when I got back, so I went into it with the only preconceived ideas being those that I got in the previews.

By the way, everything that I saw in every preview came from these first two episodes, except the stuff of Numenor. There's no Numenor in the first two episodes, though there's a strong hint at the end of Episode 2 that we'll see Numenor in Episode 3.

So, yeah, I liked it. My own background is that I'm a big fan of the LOTR book, as I am 49 years old and have read it every year since I was 22. But I'm not a lore master. I've only read the Silmarillion twice, and not in the last five years. I can't randomly quote dates from the Tale of the Years. I never finished the Unfinished Tales. The LOTR movies? I liked them and am still fond of them, though I would generally rather pick up the book again than watch the movies. And re-watching the Hobbit movies would cause severe gastrointestinal distress.

Oh, and I saw no obvious signs of wokeness -- no gay elves or anything.

I think he drinks there hits a point in the day where his post are just fricking insane.

quote:

---

I’ve read the hobbit and fellowship, but can some of the book readers explain why the main character woman is a big time warrior girl in this series but in the movies she’s completely different?

---

They will tell you because they ruined the books.

The show runners will tell you they are trying to depict a much younger version of the character.

Someone posted a few of the footnotes that talk about Galadriel’s younger days and one of her other names (because Tolkien loves giving people lots of names) translates
To “Man-maiden” it’s not an insane interpretation.

And even the most some powerful wizards in Tolkien’s world swing a sword. Gandalf the White still has Glamdring.

quote:

---

OK, so I went to the Cinemark showing in Baton Rouge tonight, and I just got back home.

My quick take is that, if you're a Tolkien nerd expecting perfect fidelity to the events and timelines of the First Age, you're going to be disappointed. You'll have problems with characters and storylines that go significantly beyond Galadriel wielding a sword and the multi-racial cast. Maybe you'll be OK if you think of Rings of Power as existing in a multi-verse of the Silmarillion. :)

On the other hand, if you're a casual fan of the LOTR movies and maybe even of the book, then I think you'll like this series. I think that it "feels" like Tolkien.

I honestly think that it's going to be very good TV. The production values are movie quality. The acting is first-rate. It's a visual feast.

Without providing any big spoilers, I'll say that the first episode is really just setting the stage: it introduces the characters, gives us backstory (that, again, will differ somewhat from what you will find in the Silmarillion or the Appendices of LOTR). We don't get any real story until the 2nd episode.

I didn't read any reviews before I went, and I only saw this thread when I got back, so I went into it with the only preconceived ideas being those that I got in the previews.

By the way, everything that I saw in every preview came from these first two episodes, except the stuff of Numenor. There's no Numenor in the first two episodes, though there's a strong hint at the end of Episode 2 that we'll see Numenor in Episode 3.

So, yeah, I liked it. My own background is that I'm a big fan of the LOTR book, as I am 49 years old and have read it every year since I was 22. But I'm not a lore master. I've only read the Silmarillion twice, and not in the last five years. I can't randomly quote dates from the Tale of the Years. I never finished the Unfinished Tales. The LOTR movies? I liked them and am still fond of them, though I would generally rather pick up the book again than watch the movies. And re-watching the Hobbit movies would cause severe gastrointestinal distress.

Oh, and I saw no obvious signs of wokeness -- no gay elves or anything.

---

Glad to hear your impressions. Seems to be very similar to the cycle of catastrophizing that went on before House of The Dragon. That also turned out to be way overblown.

I hope you are iwyLSU start the episode thread, cause the so-called discussion thread has turned into a dumpster fire of the same 4-5 posters crying and spewing the same 4-5 insults at anyone that doesn't want to be miserable and vitriolic about the show. Cant imagine how a episode discussion is supposed to take place in that...

It’s sad.