Lettuce talk about the Upcoming Amazon LOTR TV series

[Androthelm]

Aaand looks like Amazon just released some character posters -- what do we think?

[Romeran]

Wow there's a lot to look at here! Here's my take on them. Left to right and top to bottom.

• Not sure what's with the Acorn reference, the only one I can think of is Bilbo and the oak treee
• Map, can't really make it out. Looks suspiciously like Thorin's map so maybe a dwarf?
• Not sure what's up with the crazy carved cuirass and arrow
• Next one looks very Rohan - Cirion and Eorl?
• Definitely a dwarf. Maybe one of the Seven?
• Not sure I can make heads or tails of this one. Dress seems like it has some patterns but nothing jumps out at me.
• This next one might be an elf. Looks like some Tengwar on the bottom of the scroll he's pulling out
• GOLD! Yeah I got nothing
• Looks like a scepter of some form or rod? King of Numenor? early King of Gondor?
• Definitely follows the elven style armor from PJ movies. Not sure what the dagger means. This could also be the aforementioned sister of Isildur?
• Some dude with a sickle....
• Someone should tell this guy his sword is broken.
• Hmmm Radaghast?
• Those are some huge berries
• Lady in what looks like some peasant-ish garb, not much to say
• Man (I don't see a beard) holding some ropes? Nice pinky ring
• My first instinct is elf, but could even be a maia?
• Very bright dress and book. Can't quite make out what the symbol on the book is, is that a snake? a dragon?
• Armor and sword with heavy sun-themes. Not sure what it's supposed to refer to
• Bearded man with grubby fingers holds an apple....
• That's got to be Sauron right?
• For some reason I think "elrond" when I see this last one but it's probably not.

[Winddancer]

Oooo Sauron's gauntlet..

[Dungeon Delver]

Not gonna lie, I'm decently impressed by the visuals (especially with what everyone is assuming is Mairon and what I assume to be Ar-Pharazôn) but I knew, with the budget they had, the props and effects were going to be pretty spectacular. These images confirm that, at the very least, they know what they are going for in terms of look and style.

I'm not saying it gives me hope, but it does at least pique my interest.

[Boromir88]

Some of the comments about this news are disgraceful and disheartening. That’s how things are when you get miserable people behind who can hide behind a screen. Being passionate about the source material is no excuse.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LOTRUpdates/ ... 4983905284

[Hanasian]

Some of the comments about this news are disgraceful and disheartening. That’s how things are when you get miserable people behind who can hide behind a screen. Being passionate about the source material is no excuse.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LOTRUpdates/ ... 4983905284

Yeah, it's crap. I saw the comments on facebook when IMDB posted about the series with the promo posters and the orcs set upon it with the same ol same ol anti-Amazon/GoT comments.
Some were crapping on it simply because it wasn't Peter Jackson doing it and the actors weren't the same as twenty years ago. The ignorance is quite strong on this.

[Romeran]

Oh wow some people are just insufferable with the comments (not to mention straight up wrong lore-wise). It will be fun to see them put some female dwarves on screen, I'm curious how they'll do it. We only get reference to "Dis" which would be TA but I suppose that gives them quite a lot of creative license for naming some SA dwarves.

While I'm glad for PJ and he did a pretty good job (although there are many things I dislike in particular most of the Hobbit, but I also understand he half-picked that one up). But I'm excited for a fresh take and it looks like they have some Lore consultants working with them. I'm remaining hopeful.

[Romeran]

Here's an article mentioned by @Quill in the Discord but since not everyone is in Discord I'll link it here: The Rings of Power First Look

In addition to explaining some of the posters they give a way a few other things. Notably:

"Speaking of Sauron, the villain’s presence is a major factor throughout the Second Age, culminating in his resurrection as a tyrant. "

Seems like our musings about Sauron featuring heavily are likely true.

"In the novels, the aforementioned things take place over thousands of years, but Payne and McKay have compressed events into a single point in time. It is their biggest deviation from the text, and they know it’s a big swing. “We talked with the Tolkien estate,” says Payne. “If you are true to the exact letter of the law, you are going to be telling a story in which your human characters are dying off every season because you’re jumping 200 years in time, and then you’re not meeting really big, important canon characters until season four. "

It sounds like they did a lot of time compression, here it seems likely so that they can keep human characters around.

[Dungeon Delver]

I can at least understand their reasoning for the compression. The Second Age is loooooong and there are so many events that happen with wide spaces of time in between. It works wonderfully on paper, when we can refer back to old characters and see how the new characters evolved from them or were descended from or whatnot. It doesn't work so well on screen because it's harder to refer back and film and tv is much more linear than text. A character's connection to a previous season might only be mentioned once or twice (more would be overkill and potentially insult the audience's intelligence) but it could still be missed, making the new character sort of swinging in the breeze without a real connection to the story.

That all being said, it's a very, very big risk. Messing with timelines really screwed the Wheel of Time series by the end. Will Lord of the Rings fare better? I'm cautiously pessimistic.

[Weny]

I was so excited for the article! Looked so good and the explanations. I am more hype.

Honestly, I really liked the Wheel of Time series. I feel like you really do have to accommodate for the medium sometimes and I am okay with it. Just keep to the spirit and point of the story and they should be okay.

[Romeran]

I never watched (nor read) Wheel of Time so no comment there.

I feel like since they wanted to tell so many stories (it sounds like they're going to talk about Numenor, Khazad Dum, the Lindon Elves, the creation of the rings, Sauron etc.) that unless they wanted to keep introducing children of the human characters as the new protagonists (like Beor - Barahir - Beren, Hador - Hurin - Tuor etc.), which I agree with @Sorceress is much more challenging to do over the screen than in a book, I think it does make some sort of sense to compress time so that a lot of events happen in roughly one human generation. This presumably means there will be a lot of contradictions with the Tale of Years but I'm still cautiously optimistic that they can maintain the spirit of the stories and the characters even if they have to compress some of the events to occur much closer to each other than they would have. Honestly the long strings of generations in the Silmarillion and Unfinished tales can be unwieldy even for the seasons Tolkien fan.

[Eldy Dunami]

Tolkien linguist Helge Fauskanger, writing in 2005 about a hypothetical Númenor film:

I shudder at the thought of some Hollywood director trying to insert them because "we gotta have Hobbits in this franchise!"

The co-showrunner of Amazon's The Rings of Power, speaking in 2022:

One of the very specific things the texts say is that hobbits never did anything historic or noteworthy before the Third Age. But really, does it feel like Middle-earth if you don’t have hobbits or something like hobbits in it?

There is a lot I could say—and have said, on Discord—about the Vanity Fair article, but I can't muster the energy to organize it into something suitable for posting on a message board. I see very little doubt left to give this series the benefit of, and thus have very little enthusiasm for it. I'll still watch it, most likely, and maybe it will defy my expectations and be great on its own merits even if it has little resemblance to Tolkien, but I kinda doubt it.

I've gotten into a lot of forum arguments about the series over the past four-plus years and I've consistently said that I'm okay with the project diverging from its source material even in radical ways, because there is so little source material for the Second Age and I think this would be a neat chance to see a picture of Middle-earth that diverges from the consensus version that has dominated adaptations and illustrations for the past several decades. As many critics of the project have pointed out, the paucity of Second Age material in the books means the series will effectively be officially licensed fanfiction. I see that as an opportunity!

The best fanfiction AUs (Alternate Universes) diverge from their source material in artistically considered, deliberate ways, introducing new ideas while remaining in dialogue with the original. They display an obsession with detail that often eclipses that of fanfiction which hews closer to the original, in many cases because the authors really like some small element that wasn't elaborated on, and they use that as their basis to build new worlds of breathtaking depth and complexity. Some such fanfic authors love the original works, some actively dislike them, but the great ones all care. They're not making changes out of laziness, or pandering to expectations, or because they don't understand the original well enough to realize they're changing things.

I do not get this vibe from The Rings of Powers' showrunners' statements. Adding Hobbits is a step away from having a fresh, new version of Middle-earth, calling back to the better-known Third Age. I don't know if they got a note from the executives saying "put some hobbits in this thing; audiences are idiots they'll be mad if there aren't hobbits" or, worse, if they came to that conclusion without studio meddling, but it doesn't really matter. The utterly laughable statement that the tone of Tolkien's Second (or First Age) stories is "heartwarming and life-affirming and optimistic" is either a deliberate lie for the purpose of selling the series to an audience that only knows TH and LOTR, or a complete misunderstanding of the source material.

I would probably be less grumpy about this if it wasn't literally the first thing I saw when I woke up and checked my phone, but not much less. I'm aware that, as people always reminded us in the purist debates of old, the books won't be going anywhere. But Jackson's LOTR films still shape people's understanding of the work, and this effect will be even stronger for The Rings of Power, which is not adapting one of the most widely-read works of fiction in the history of the English language. In this case, the books not going anywhere doesn't matter, because so few people have read them.

Call me a purist whiner, but I think it's genuinely sad that popular perception of the Second Age is going to be permanently shaped by people who think, gosh darn it, it's just not Middle-earth if you don't have Hobbits.

[Dungeon Delver]

@Eldy Dunami Oh man, I feel you. I am right there with you, the two quotes you provided are *insert blinking man gif* I hope and pray that the addition of the Hobbits is a studio thing and not a director thing because that has some pretty sad implications to it, that they, as you correctly called, don't care about the source material. There are times I love it, there are sometimes I hate, but it's always part of why I write the fanfics I write here. While you are much more eloquent than I, I just want to say I agree with the fear and trepidation you feel, it's a valid concern given how untrustworthy studios (and directors and writers) have shown themselves to be in the recent past.

[Romeran]

Call me a purist whiner, but I think it's genuinely sad that popular perception of the Second Age is going to be permanently shaped by people who think, gosh darn it, it's just not Middle-earth if you don't have Hobbits.[/color]

I can see where you are coming from with this, but as you already stated most people have zero conception of the second age at all and might as well have no idea that there even are other ages. Personally I'd prefer exposing more people to Tolkien's extended work even if it is not a perfect representation. If it gets even a handful of people to read the original source material and be inspired then I'm glad because these people otherwise would not have seen any of it before. Something "pure" but hidden from the vast majority of people who may enjoy it adds less value than something which has been altered but which exposes more people to Tolkien's brilliant work. The plaza wouldn't have been as popular without the movies and my guess is millions of people would never have read the book without them.

We should also mention that even Tolkien himself was not of the purist type, constantly changing and re-evaluating his own lore to fit his changing perspectives. In the forward to the second edition he points out that the value in his stories is not in the domination of the author but rather in the applicability of the themes.

So did PJ, in my mind, destroy several aspects of my beloved novel? Yes, was the Hobbit an even worse crime? yes. Am I glad that they were popular and exposed an entire new generation to Tolkien, absolutely yes. I don't expect much different from this Amazon series. At least it will likely be visually appealing and I hope that they can capture the spirit and applicability of the stories even if they don't nail the precise details.

It's a somewhat freeing experience to accept that these are not, in fact, our stories and that it is okay for people to try and re-tell them, most of literature throughout human history is the telling and retelling of ancient stories (lord of the rings itself being hugely inspired by many stories and in a real way being a re-telling of them).

[Eldy Dunami]

I can see where you are coming from with this, but as you already stated most people have zero conception of the second age at all and might as well have no idea that there even are other ages. [...] Something "pure" but hidden from the vast majority of people who may enjoy it adds less value than something which has been altered but which exposes more people to Tolkien's brilliant work.

In case it wasn't clear from the fact that I spent two-fifths of my previous post singing the praises of AU fanfiction, I am not arguing that Tolkien's works must be kept "pure" and that people shouldn't be allowed to create derivative or transformative works that change elements of the original. And I vaguely resent the implication that I am claiming the legendarium belongs to a nebulous "us" and must be protected from the unwashed masses.

[Romeran]

In case it wasn't clear from the fact that I spent two-fifths of my previous post singing the praises of AU fanfiction, I am not arguing that Tolkien's works must be kept "pure" and that people shouldn't be allowed to create derivative or transformative works that change elements of the original. And I vaguely resent the implication that I am claiming the legendarium belongs to a nebulous "us" and must be protected from the unwashed masses.

But you seem to be particularly critical of this specific version of the legendarium even though you agree that it's perfectly fine for an AU to create derivative works? Namely the last line which I quoted about hobbits. The series hasn't even come out yet and we're already arguing that it's "sad" how this show is going to permanently shape people's perspectives (the use of the word sad makes it implicit this is a negative thing as if the AU created for this show will be fundamentally a negative experience?).

It just seems to me a slight contradiction that it's okay for people to write AU fanfiction and take liberties with the stories but it's somehow "sad" when the television creators do so? Even when we don't actually have a product to review yet?

I'm not trying to bring this discussion to an argument nor am I trying to say that you're putting yourself above others, I apologize if it came across that way.

[Weny]

I will just point out that one person does not make the series, even Peter Jackson wasn't the only one who made the movies. So, one can hope that if one person doesn't really think things through, others can talk sense into them. I mean it may not happen, but I am optimistic still? As long as there is one person who truly cares (which is the vital ingredient and why the movies worked) it should be okay. That's my hope anyway.

[Eldy Dunami]

But you seem to be particularly critical of this specific version of the legendarium even though you agree that it's perfectly fine for an AU to create derivative works? Namely the last line which I quoted about hobbits. The series hasn't even come out yet and we're already arguing that it's "sad" how this show is going to permanently shape people's perspectives (the use of the word sad makes it implicit this is a negative thing as if the AU created for this show will be fundamentally a negative experience?).

It just seems to me a slight contradiction that it's okay for people to write AU fanfiction and take liberties with the stories but it's somehow "sad" when the television creators do so? Even when we don't actually have a product to review yet?

As I tried to describe in my first post, I like fanfiction AUs that bring new and interesting ideas to the table, are informed by a deep understanding of the source material, and exist in dialogue with the original author's themes. I love reading these, and would be very interested if the Amazon series did something similar. On the other hand, I will be disappointed if it's a samey adaptation that takes a distinctive, beautiful, little-known corner of the legendarium which is near and dear to my heart, and molds it into something less distinctive, more like LOTR, and hewing closer to mainstream expectations. The showrunners giving the impression of fundamentally misunderstanding the Second Age's tone and themes is another point against optimism.

To put it in simpler terms: I'm cool with changes that make the series weird in the eyes of people who only know LOTR. I do not want changes that make it more like LOTR.

This is not exactly a purist stance, I admit. I stopped being a purist many years ago. I'm sure there are people who would find it sad if what I call "a fresh, new version of Middle-earth" were to be what permanently shapes people's understanding of the Second Age. But what Tolkien told us about the Second Age is already weird if your understanding of Middle-earth is informed solely by TH and LOTR. When fleshing out this sparse material, the showrunners had a choice between doubling down on the things that make the Second Age unique or trying to iron them out. They appear to have chosen the latter. That's what I find sad.

I would have mixed feelings if the TV series went really AU: say, supposing that the Númenóreans or perhaps even the Noldor of Eregion developed something akin to modern technology. That would be a cool AU and potentially a fascinating show, but perhaps not appropriate for something that will inevitably be seen as the authoritative version of the Second Age by many people.

I'm not trying to bring this discussion to an argument nor am I trying to say that you're putting yourself above others, I apologize if it came across that way.

No worries; I could've been less snippy in my previous reply. I really dislike fandom gatekeeping, which unfortunately often goes hand in hand with complaining about adaptations, and don't want to be lumped in with it. Not saying that's what you set out to do, though.

[Romeran]

I think I understand your perspective more now thanks for that and I also think that I very much agree. I suppose I’m just willing to withhold my judgment on how the TV show ends up on that spectrum. Maybe it’s a large dose of “copium” but we will see pretty soon.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

Reading some of the discussion above, it might be worth distinguishing between words and images. Stories have been told and retold down the ages, yes, and fan-fic is surely a part of this, the sharing and collective unfolding of imagination as each new generation finds its way through the words to their own readings. But movies/TV are different. Once a story is turned from words to images something happens that changes how we receive it, it is like a monopoly of the imagination is imposed and we find it almost impossible to escape from. Putting it perhaps a bit too strongly, I'd say that fan-fic is part of the art of enchantment, that Tolkien celebrated, while when movies take over this business everyone believes they are truly enchanted when in reality our imaginations have become enslaved.

Possibly I need to think this through a bit more as I'm rather sleep deprived. But I was just on my way to sleep when I saw this from @Romeran:

So did PJ, in my mind, destroy several aspects of my beloved novel? Yes, was the Hobbit an even worse crime? yes. Am I glad that they were popular and exposed an entire new generation to Tolkien, absolutely yes. I don't expect much different from this Amazon series. At least it will likely be visually appealing and I hope that they can capture the spirit and applicability of the stories even if they don't nail the precise details.

I'm with you on the first two sentences. But after that, I could not agree less. If a new generation requires an Amazon movie series to discover Tolkien then they are already lost. How about they learn to pick up a book and read and form their own images in their minds? Bah, too annoyed and too tired. I'll return to this.

[Romeran]

If a new generation requires an Amazon movie series to discover Tolkien then they are already lost. How about they learn to pick up a book and read and form their own images in their minds? Bah, too annoyed and too tired. I'll return to this.

I don't think that's particularly fair, especially to young children and those with parents who don't encourage reading. I had read the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit before I saw the Lord of the Rings movies but I had not read the Silmarillion or any of the rest of the Legendarium. I was also twelve.

[Eldy Dunami]

My Dad bought me a boxed set of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (the Ballantine mass market editions) for my ninth birthday, but I didn't read them until months later, after my curiosity had been fired by the Return of the King movie tie-in video game. I probably would've gotten around to the books eventually even without the game, but I think there is value to adaptations in attracting new fans, even for already-famous works like LOTR. But whether or not that value outweighs the impact of the adaptation shaping people's perceptions even after they read the source material is ultimately a subjective question. My own view of it has shifted over the years.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Romeran. I got into bed and then realized I would not be able to sleep without making another post, primarily to apologize for jumping on you with that quotation. My main point was about movies not being like fan-fic - though it is tempting to see the movies as a sort of glorified fan-fic, ultimately i think they are different.

At the same time, though, my confused and tired mind was chewing over what you wrote, which is I think a different matter. What I was really trying to say is: Why is it a good thing that people are exposed to Tolkien? I just don't see that. There are many good things in this world, and if given the chance, people will usually find those that fit them. This is a separate issue.

Your rejoined makes a good point, and I'll return to it properly over the weekend. But I'll say this now, my children regard LOTR as a more primitive version of Game of Thrones, by which they mean partly that it is older and so the special effects are not as good, and also that some of the GoT episodes are just superb and they enjoyed them more than anything in the LOTR movies. They are aware that LOTR is a book too, as is also GoT, but are not motivated to read either. Personally, I'd say they are not missing much by not reading the GoT books while it is a tragedy that they don't read Tolkien. Something has gone wrong here with the reception of Tolkien and it is because of the movies.

Edit. Just to say that I am aware that there are many valid points of view in this thread. I do intend to read it properly. I jumped in without reading most of them though because I felt a nerve touched as I was skimming. I will never learn the value of patience.

[Romeran]

@Chrysophylax Dives @Eldy Dunami of course we're here talking about a subject which we feel very passionately about (as is evidenced by using this forum at all). It's always good to remember that there's another person on the other end of the screen and in this case highly likely to be another Tolkien fanatic. I know that when I get passionate about something I can make some remarks that can easily be taken the wrong way and I try to extend credit to the other person as well. We're all fans here and adaptations of Tolkien can be both divisive and personally troubling occasionally, I know I for one was personally quite disappointed with what happened to my favorite character (Faramir), and so I can forgive someone for feeling discomfort at the possibility of an area of lore which is highly meaningful to them being altered and (in their perspective or not) twisted beyond their recognition.

[Chrysophylax Dives]

@Chrysophylax Dives @Eldy Dunami of course we're here talking about a subject which we feel very passionately about (as is evidenced by using this forum at all). It's always good to remember that there's another person on the other end of the screen and in this case highly likely to be another Tolkien fanatic. I know that when I get passionate about something I can make some remarks that can easily be taken the wrong way and I try to extend credit to the other person as well. We're all fans here and adaptations of Tolkien can be both divisive and personally troubling occasionally, I know I for one was personally quite disappointed with what happened to my favorite character (Faramir), and so I can forgive someone for feeling discomfort at the possibility of an area of lore which is highly meaningful to them being altered and (in their perspective or not) twisted beyond their recognition.

Aye. Also, posting on four hours sleep is probably not a good idea. Looking up, I see what I had to say was quite confused, reflecting confusions in how I feel on this issue.

[Weny]

Just FYI, everyone.

Do not read the comments on the new posters they put out. They are awful, hateful, and ignorant. I am so ashamed of some people who claim to be fans, but really missed what the stories were all about.

[Winddancer]

@Romeran. I got into bed and then realized I would not be able to sleep without making another post, primarily to apologize for jumping on you with that quotation. My main point was about movies not being like fan-fic - though it is tempting to see the movies as a sort of glorified fan-fic, ultimately i think they are different.

At the same time, though, my confused and tired mind was chewing over what you wrote, which is I think a different matter. What I was really trying to say is: Why is it a good thing that people are exposed to Tolkien? I just don't see that. There are many good things in this world, and if given the chance, people will usually find those that fit them. This is a separate issue.

Your rejoined makes a good point, and I'll return to it properly over the weekend. But I'll say this now, my children regard LOTR as a more primitive version of Game of Thrones, by which they mean partly that it is older and so the special effects are not as good, and also that some of the GoT episodes are just superb and they enjoyed them more than anything in the LOTR movies. They are aware that LOTR is a book too, as is also GoT, but are not motivated to read either. Personally, I'd say they are not missing much by not reading the GoT books while it is a tragedy that they don't read Tolkien. Something has gone wrong here with the reception of Tolkien and it is because of the movies.

Edit. Just to say that I am aware that there are many valid points of view in this thread. I do intend to read it properly. I jumped in without reading most of them though because I felt a nerve touched as I was skimming. I will never learn the value of patience.

I have been an avid reader since I learned how to read. My mother passed that on to me, taking me along to libraries to get our weekly stash of books. But neither of my parents knew about or cared about Tolkien when I was a kid. The closest I got to it was reading Narnia and that aint close! :P I am one of the diehard movie fans who went to the theatre on December 20th 2001 at midnight and got blown away (with my mom). We were absolutely floored. And dying for the next part! So evil we had to wait so long for the next 2. However we were that desperate for more that we got the book. It took me 2 tries to get past Tom Bombadil before I finally finished it, partly because I joined this site in October of 2002 where one wanted to blend in with all the others that knew SO much.

What I am trying to say is that I would never had known about Tolkien if it werent for the movies and despite what they intend to do with the series (good or bad), I do hope that there are people out there that will crave more and go buy the books to sate their needs ;)

And while I am still more of a movie than a book fan, nothing compares to the real deal when it comes to telling us about Sam and Frodo's friendship. That touched my heart and will always be my favourite part.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

It was at the time my dear daddy who convinced my 26 years me to go watch it with the family (my parents, my sis en me). All four of us went. Moms was sick of chemocures, but that was a good break for her. As I am a word thinker, I have trouble to visualise. So the movies were superhandy to make all nature descriptions come alive. In those days my character Aikári was developed.

When I learned most of it all, was letting Legolas tell of his impressions of the events from the Hobbit and later Lord era. I had to make some alterations after the Hornburg battle to break him away from Aragorn and return north, to tell about TA3019 troubles around Erebor and Esgaroth. As the tale comes from the I-person and is a journal. It was at the time to write as a fan.

[Hanasian]

Just FYI, everyone.

Do not read the comments on the new posters they put out. They are awful, hateful, and ignorant. I am so ashamed of some people who claim to be fans, but really missed what the stories were all about.

Indeed. The haters are really out in force with these new reveals. One thing I noted in the various places the posters and first look articles were posted on fecebook (IMDB has some horrid comments) and on some forums is a lot of the ones who hate this so bad think PJ did an awesome job presenting Lord of the Rings. They didn’t mind the many wholesale changes made to that complete book story, saying ‘it needed to be done to appeal to the masses’, yet with this their main reasons for their hatred appears to be a mix of these:
A. I hate it because it is being made by Amazon.
B. Bezos made mention of Game of Thrones when he bought the rights, so it is going to be Game of Thrones.
C. It’s revisionist ‘woke’ BS (because it isn’t an all-white cast)
D. They are making stuff up that isn’t in the source material (original characters and storylines, tweaking canon characters, and such).
E. They didn’t use the same actors that PJ did, so it’s crap.
F. It doesn’t matter if the Tolkien Estate is actively involved. They only care about money, not Tolkien’s legacy after Christopher died, so it will be crap.

That is just to name a few I’ve come across.

[Aikári Salmarinian]

There is nothing appealing for me about posters that just carry a part of the message. The so called teasers don't make me curious. But give me a poster as in the 'old style', carrying images of most main characters en some interesting sphere shots incorporated, I am bought. I am a nostalgic sort of person.

[Boromir88]

Ok, now that I've had some time to let the Vanity Fair article settle in, like most of the news that has slowly trickled out since the series was first announced, I go back and forth about. Some things sound exciting and interesting if they are handled properly, other things make me cringe and slightly nauseous. At the end of the day it's all still rumors and I've never felt right judging something until seeing the end product.

To save everyone from my likely long-winded explanation that will follow after this paragraph, I will put the short version here: For myself, I do give credit to the series for re-igniting my interest to delve into the "earlier" stories. As has been mentioned by @Chrysophylax Dives and others in other places of this forum, I've really been diving into characters like Celebrimbor, Galadriel, and Isildur because their 2nd Age stories are fascinating and part of the credit I have to give to the buzz of the TV series. It really re-ignited an interest to read the source material again. My hope is the series does justice to their characters. That would be fantastic. My suspicions are that it's likely only a Fool's hope, but I'm not going to be Denethoring around about it.

My reading of hobbits being in the series is different from @Eldy Dunami's and @Sorceress'. I noted the show runners mentioned the two Harfoots are going to be similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern roles, from Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. If this is true, and they aren't just fooling us, this is an interesting and creative thing to do in my opinion. It's not something that I would call original, because it has been done before and can be fairly common in the fantasy genre, but I think it would be creative to have this in a Tolkien adaptation. What I mean is think about the roles C-3PO and R2-D2 play in Star Wars or the ghost brothers in Stardust. Their roles aren't directly involved in solving problems the protagonists come across. The stand off in the distance and act as commentators to the audience, through their own robot-colored (or ghost-colored) glasses. R2-D2 (at least in the original trilogy) serves as a useful robot who does some minor things to help the protagonists out of sticky situations, but particularly C-3PO's role is to simply be a translator. He sits off as an observer and translates information to the audience ("Well, Master Ani has been under a lot of stress lately" or tells us the fictional odds of surviving an asteroid field). As the article mentions, hobbits are noted for being able to avoid the eyes of "big folk" blundering through. So if their roles in the series are indeed to be something like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or R2-D2 and C-3P0 then that could be rather fitting to use hobbits to fill that role. Think of just how much we (or well I should not assume and just say "I") wanted to know what became of that random fox passing by sleeping hobbits in the Shire.

I am next probably most interested in how they will portray Galadriel's character. She's a character who goes through a lot of change and growth in Tolkien's story. By the time we meet the role people are most familiar with in Fellowship of the Ring, she is a very different character.

'Galadriel was the greatest of the Noldor, except Fëanor maybe, though she was wiser than he, and her wisdom increased with the long years...and she grew to be tall beyond the measure even of the women of the Noldor; she was strong of body, mind, and will, a match for both the loremasters and the athletes of the Eldar in the days of their youth.' (Unfinished Tales: History of Galadriel and Celeborn)

You could argue by the Second Age she is already a different character than her impetuousness in her youth, but given the series is being open there is a serious time compression, I'm quite alright if they want to show the full range of growth in Galadriel's character. They could do it subtly or hit a hammer over my head with it, doesn't matter as long as it's proper and respectful (which well, is a different worry entirely). But it would make her rejection of the Ring in the Mirror of Galadriel more meaningful in my opinion. What I mean is if you only are familiar with FOTR Galadriel you might not know how important it is in her rejection of the Ring:

'In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!' (Fellowship of the Ring: The Mirror of Galadriel)

If someone's only read LOTR Galadriel it's hard to know just how meaningful and important her rejection of being freely offered the ring was. And I think if the series properly shows her full growth, than that could be fantastic. Whether they do it successfully or turn it into a Tauriel like "it is my fight!" well guess I'll just have to wait and see.

Now for the thing that I cringed the most at reading...Elrond being described as a wily-politician. I have trouble imagining elves being described as politicians...it's not necessarily unheard of. You could say the tension between Feanor and Fingolfin was political, or Celegorm and Curufin gaining influence in Nargothrond, but of any Tolkien elf, I've never thought of Elrond being described as a "wily-politician.' If anything he is apolitical, who purposefully refused to take on the title High King of the Noldor after Gil-galad's death, knowing Elvish power in Middle-earth will fade. I mean he is credited as being a mastermind behind the "fool's hope," so unless they possibly chose to describe him being a key political figure to organize resistance against Sauron's power in Middle-earth, but I really hope he's not shown as some power-grabbing figure like Celegorm and Curufin.

And to @Romeran's and @Chrysophylax Dives' conversation about if adaptations of a book are more positive or negative to the source material. I'm more in line with Romeran's thoughts, but that's strictly because of my own personal experience. I was 13 when the Fellowship movie was coming out and it looked "cool" to me. My dad read the books in college, and still had copies, basically told me "you should read the books before going to see the movie. If you like it, I'll take you to watch the movie." I got through Book I and was hooked on the story. That was good enough for my dad to take me to watch FOTR. Then I loved the FOTR movie so much, I read the rest of the books well before The Two Towers movie came out. And as I mentioned way back in the beginning of this never-ending post, I do credit the TV series with sparking an interest to delve into Tolkien's 2nd Age stories.

Having said that, I also understand Chrysophylax's points, that images are different than words. I think I've remained Boromir-biased all these years, because when I first watched the Fellowship I had only finished Book I. I loved Sean Bean's portrayal of Boromir, but it took quite a long time to realize Sean Bean's Boromir is not Tolkien's Boromir. But I'm ok with that, because in my own head-canon I can still imagine that fantastic and somber scene between Aragorn and Boromir taking place in the books, it was just never "written down on the page." It's similar to arguments I remember on the Old Plaza about how the movies can introduce people to Tolkien. Others would argue they don't introduce someone to Tolkien's LOTR, they introduce someone to PJ's LOTR. That has always been a fair point to make.

[Weny]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv ... 235090681/

TEASER TRAILER PREMIERED DURING THE SUPER BOWL!!!

Thoughts?

[Fuin Elda]

I actually watched a good portion of TORNs live stream frame by frame pick apart which was quite interesting and I quite love it. If you can also read the Vanity fair article it gives you a good hint at several of the scenes I absolutely adored the teaser trailer and the thought of some of the fan theories in terms of who people are.

[Eldy Dunami]

It's always good to hear your thoughts, Boromir, and I'm glad to see a characteristically long and thoughtful post from you. I'm too tired to do it justice in a response, but I want to reply to one bit since I got tagged in it.

My reading of hobbits being in the series is different from Eldy Dunami's and Sorceress'. I noted the show runners mentioned the two Harfoots are going to be similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern roles, from Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. If this is true, and they aren't just fooling us, this is an interesting and creative thing to do in my opinion.

Just to be clear, my beef with the inclusion of Hobbits isn't that I think it's impossible to do something interesting and creative with them in a Second Age story, but for what I fear their inclusion (among other pieces of evidence) says about the show's priorities. Namely, that it will be something made by and for people whose enjoyment of the legendarium is primarily or entirely focused on The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and for whom the Second Age (maybe even the First!) is a mere appendage, with no value beyond providing backstory. I admit this is a cynical take—I'm in a cynical mood at the moment for reasons which have nothing to do with media —but I've always been interested in the Second Age and have become especially attached to it in the past couple years, and I would rather the adaptation that will bring it to mainstream attention for the first time focus on the things that make that Age distinct within the Tolkien corpus. But if Amazon has, in fact, chosen not to do this, it's probably the smart financial decision in terms of taking advantage of IP familiarity, and it's entirely possible they'll make something I enjoy even if I always regret that they didn't take a different approach. Even if I don't, I'll do my best not to begrudge others their enjoyment of the series if it turns out to be popular.

[Winddancer]

Is it just me or did it come across as being a show about superhero Galadriel? I really hope it is more than that and I am SO not sold on that guy as Elrond..

[Fuin Elda]

I'm not sure if it's entirely superhero Galadriel or if they are just trying to show us a familiar face to bring in people that only know a limited amount in terms of LOTR lore. Galadriel is a known name, one of the few that people will recognize fairly easily even with out Cate Blanchett. I have a feeling we're going to end up with a few superhero characters as they try to bring people in and I agree if that's suppose to be Elrond I'm not impressed. I feel like they TRIED to get someone that MIGHT look like a young Hugo Weaving? Not sure if that's what they went for or not but the few scenes that it's suppose to be Elrond just didn't do it for me at all.

[Eldy Dunami]

The teaser has more visual similarities to the style of the Hobbit films than I'd like, but I still imagine this will be an impressive-looking series. Not really feeling Young Elrond, either, and the description of him in the Vanity Fair article as rising to prominence during the series doesn't fill me with hope. He's the son of Eärendil and Elwing, a descendant of just about every Eldarin and Edainic ruling family of the First Age: he's already prominent!

I'm not opposed to young, action hero Galadriel in principle. That would be more suited to a First Age series, but it seems plausible we'll be getting a lot of flashbacks, especially if that icy landscape is indeed the Helcaraxë. Really not feeling the eight-pointed star motif on her armor, though; it's too similar to the emblem of the House of Fëanor for my taste.

[Firinne_Gile]

I would just like to record the hundreds of messages in their respective languages that are being sent in the trailers of the Amazon series from various countries with the phrase: “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good” - JRR Tolkien. At the moment most of the messages are from Russian viewers and secondly Americans. This is not just a conscious and subconscious phrase to reflect what people are feeling and seeing, but to numerically record the huge amount of people who are not approving of Amazon's investment. Unlike yesterday, positive comments were drowned out.

[Fuin Elda]

@Eldy Dunami I'm curious which parts of it came across as more The hobbit than the LOTR? As I found it looked to have more practical effect and a more practical feel than the hobbit. It may be closer to the Unexpected Journey but that was the only film I didn't absolutely hate from the hobbit trilogy.

I have to admit I may be giving it the benefit of the doubt that we are seeing bits and pieces that are designed to show us action and draw in viewers beyond the LOTR/Tolkienite crowd as I am mentally reminding myself that even if all there shots are season 1 which they more than likely are... There are probably another 7 hours and 57 minutes worth of information we are missing.

Also there are rumors that it's forodwaith and her hunting down the remnants of Morgoth. Which honestly an area that I've been interested in to wise well before this trailer came out

[Winddancer]

Btw Galadriel was not ever in a battle, was she??

[Boromir88]

Thank you for the kind words Eldy, and same to you. Yes, I should add the caveat "if only" to my thoughts about the hobbit characters. I agree the quote about "It's Middle-earth there has to be hobbits" could be worrying. The other part about their intention to so be sort of a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who act as "travelers passing through" and don't get involved in the main plot of the book is what could be interesting. It wouldn't be original, but I would enjoy seeing it in a Tolkien adaptation, "if only" that is what their role. It reminds me of the fox passing through the Shire and coming across sleeping hobbits.

I watched the teaser trailer, but not the watch party/breakdown TORN did. Boy that takes us back doesn't it, did any of us think we'd go back to TORN for media information? I saw it when it came on as an ad during the Super Bowl. I think the visuals looked good, I didn't really know what was going on though. I think the best visual was the elf (Arondir?) drawing his bow. The best part of the trailer though was the music, which I assume was Howard Shore, it sounds like Middle-earth, but it was still different from Peter Jackson's movies. The music should be phenomenal if it keeps that feel.

Btw Galadriel was not ever in a battle, was she??

I would have to read The History of Galadriel and Celeborn again to be sure. I'm leaning that she is not. I seem to recall that Tolkien writes she did not partake in the Kinslaying at Alqualonde, or the burning of their ships. There are a few times in the Appendices where it says Lorien sent an army to the aid of people a few times, but either Elrond or Celeborn were the ones leading them. Galadriel does "throw down the walls" and removes Sauron's power from Dol Guldur, but that was after the Ring's destruction, and that I've always imagined was a testament to her spiritual/magical power. That was definitely immense, and I think you can make a case that she was Sauron's chief rival, but not because she was a battlefield commander.

I remember the UT: History of Galadriel and Celeborn stating Galadriel was "strong of body, mind and will" a match for "loremasters" and "athletes" and possibly only Feanor was greater than her, but that's the only thing that stands out until I read UT again.

[Firinne_Gile]

I don't know about you, but I think it was a bad idea for Amazon to release this video in the anti-dislike era.

<Narv removed some links>

*go to the comments section

[Boromir88]

Hello @Firinne_Gile, welcome to the Plaza! Going to the comments section is one thing I never do anymore. It's better for my health and sanity to keep it that way.

Actually the Plaza is a breath of fresh air compared to all the twitter and IMDB trolls claiming to be "Tolkien fans" but are just miserable people with apparently nothing better to do than spread their hate. Because while I'm sure I will have many disagreements with @Eldy Dunami and many others, about the series, I know that Eldy would be just as quick and sharp to have criticized PJ back in the day.

[Firinne_Gile]

Thank you @Boromir88
I don't agree with anything you said.

[Elenhir]

I would just like to record the hundreds of messages in their respective languages that are being sent in the trailers of the Amazon series from various countries with the phrase: “Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy what has been invented or made by the forces of good” - JRR Tolkien. At the moment most of the messages are from Russian viewers and secondly Americans. This is not just a conscious and subconscious phrase to reflect what people are feeling and seeing, but to numerically record the huge amount of people who are not approving of Amazon's investment. Unlike yesterday, positive comments were drowned out.

Pretty sure racism is against Plaza rules. Is repeating troll-farmed racist dogwhistles against Plaza rules? I would hope so. Weird that honest-to-God American fans are making conscious choices in large numbers would all repeat something that's not a real quote, but instead a grammatically-suspect Russian babelfishing.

[Narv]

Well I'm out of my depth here in every way imaginable but as Plaza rules have entered the discussion I guess I'd better give this a go.

@Firinne_Gile I'm going to take out the links you posted - as pointed out, the sources & intentions behind all those spammed comments on the teaser are pretty dubious at best. And I'd also note that on the internet, the number of comments saying something, isn't necessarily any indication of the number of actual people that believe said thing, even though it can seem like it - hence the dystopian bot-industrial complex we all get to live in these days.

That said, I'd certainly defend your right to be wary of the series. I even tend to agree on a purely personal level that anything with Jeff Bezos' stamp of approval on it merits skepticism, and more generally that money has a corrupting influence on art and that I reckon this series, just as the movies did honestly, will inherently suffer from that in a way that less capital-intensive forms of expression like, say, writing a giant book for your kid in the evenings after your day job as a professor, did not. But a) i'm just a hater by nature so don't mind me, and 2) the above logic also applies to pretty much everything else in the world too, so I'm definitely hoping the series is something people can have a good time watching.

(In case there's confusion about why a random orc is editing your post, I'm the site owner and am currently filling in on admin duties for a bit. Hope you're enjoying the site!)

[Firinne_Gile]

@Narv Oh sorry, I didn't know this forum belonged to fanatical dictators for politics. Sorry again, I don't join people who are blind and so sick by an ideology that they censor the opinions of others. I hope you enjoy it when your god Annatar, sweet in words but hateful in thought, appears in the series, you deserve it so much.

[Winddancer]

@Narv Oh sorry, I didn't know this forum belonged to fanatical dictators for politics. Sorry again, I don't join people who are blind and so sick by an ideology that they censor the opinions of others. I hope you enjoy it when your god Annatar, sweet in words but hateful in thought, appears in the series, you deserve it so much.

People are here by choice, but all have to abide by the rules of the forum. If you do not wish to do that, then no one is stopping you from finding something else that suits your needs.

[Narv]

I'd also note that I left all of your opinions completely intact and only removed the shady links. But at any rate yes, I hope I enjoy the Annatar bits too if I eventually get around to watching the show.

[Romeran]

And I'd also note that on the internet, the number of comments saying something, isn't necessarily any indication of the number of actual people that believe said thing, even though it can seem like it - hence the dystopian bot-industrial complex we all get to live in these days.

The problem as Narv points out with collecting the comments on websites is that they are fundamentally very biased. In particular, it's a form of self-selection bias where the distribution is determined by those individuals who choose to say something, and that population tends to lie dramatically on the end points (extremely positive, or more often, extremely negative). This is why you usually see only very polarizing views rather than moderate views in most comment sections.

This is particularly prevalent on social media where there is also an aspect of agenda which many commenters are trying to achieve. To see how this can lead to an overstatement of the 'majority' you an check out this 2016 paper but there are many examples of why this self-selection bias is a problem and it shows up all over the place. Another classic example is political polls which often massively overstate how divided an election will be and must undergo some level of statistical correction before it can be taken to have any value. For this reason I tend to avoid comment sections of things like this.

I don't agree with anything you said.

Care to elaborate?