Lord of the Rings TV series synopsis

[doctorbadwolf]

Meh, I stand by it. Waterworld deserves almost none of its criticism.

I remember thinking critics in general were terrible bores without the faintest hint of imagination for years after it came out, and that maybe people are just very quick to jump on a bandwagon of hating something. I’ve abandoned the first position as nonsense (most critics love the thing they criticize) but I’ve only found the second position more and more well supported as I’ve examined and challenged it periodically.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Meh, I stand by it. Waterworld deserves almost none of its criticism.

Maybe my personal expectations were too high?

My original opinion of it doesn't come from critics at all... that stuff came later. I was really looking forward to it - saw it opening weekend. I liked Kevin Costner at the time; I thought he made good films after Dances With Wolves. I knew that it cost a lot, and thought that he'd do something great with that big budget.

But I really didn't like it - I felt the bad guys were stupid (cigarettes, really?), the overall plot was weak, the setting wasn't all that interesting (as I hoped it would be) the CG was terrible, even for its time (that fish-thing? the Roger Rabbit-looking cartoon propeller on the balloon?). I was just very much disappointed.

So when everyone started blasting it for being expensive garbage, I just had to agree.

I will certainly concede that there has been plenty of worse things made both before and since.

 

[Hriston]

As noted, I hope not. The base story has what these days seems a pretty unfortunate religious message.

Can you elaborate on this (without breaking the forum rules, of course)? I’m not sure I’m seeing what you mean by “religious message” here.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Can you elaborate on this (without breaking the forum rules, of course)? I’m not sure I’m seeing what you mean by “religious message” here.

Someone evil coming in the guise of someone beautiful? Probably Lucifer?

 

[Hriston]

I'm not sure how this thread became about Waterworld. I've never seen it.

Back to the synopsis, I just wanted to pick out a few clues about the events/periods/characters on which the series might focus.

... an era in which great powers were forged,...

This can only refer to the forging of the Rings of Power, so Eregion in the years S.A. 1200-1600 should figure prominently with notable characters Celebrimbor, Galadriel, and Sauron in the guise of Annatar.

... kingdoms rose to glory and fell to ruin,...

Eregion again fits this description, its fall coming in S.A. 1697 during the War of the Elves and Sauron in which Elrond, Gil-galad, and the Numenoreans are also involved.

... and the greatest villain that ever flowed from Tolkien’s pen threatened to cover all the world in darkness.

This seems like a reference to the Dark Years which came after the War of the Elves and Sauron, when Sauron dominated most of the earth, and lasted until his defeat in the War of the Last Alliance.

Beginning in a time of relative peace, the series follows an ensemble cast of characters, both familiar and new, as they confront the long-feared re-emergence of evil to Middle-earth.

I think the "re-emergence" here is the appearance of Sauron as Annatar and that the series will focus on the five hundred years from his appearance in 1200 S.A., the same year that Numenor began to construct permanent havens in middle-earth, until his defeat at the Battle of Gwathlo in 1701 S.A. when the combined forces of Numenor and Lindon gained a decisive victory, forcing Sauron back to Mordor.

 

[Hriston]

Someone evil coming in the guise of someone beautiful? Probably Lucifer?

I don't think that's what @Umbran was talking about. I'm genuinely curious what his take is, though. To me, the Downfall of Numenor (which as I said in the post above this, I don't think will feature in this series) is a more or less straightforward tale of hubris. I'm not sure what religious overtones it might have to a modern audience, but I'm probably missing something.

Edit to add: I’m aware that Sauron’s role in the Downfall of Númenor is analogous to that of the serpent in the garden of Eden, but I have a hunch that isn’t what @Umbran finds problematic about the story. I mean, the parallels between Tolkien’s primary antagonists and the various literary forms of the biblical Satan are well known.

 

[Mercurius]

As noted, I hope not. The base story has what these days seems a pretty unfortunate religious message.

And that would be...?

The Fall of Numenor can be looked at in a variety of ways, so I'd be hesitant to reduce it to a clear and distinct religious message. But Tolkien obviously saw power as a big issue -- that it, by its very nature, is subject to abuse (thus Gandalf's famous speech about "At first I would use the ring for good, but...").

On a surface reading, we can say that Tolkien is proselytizing that humans shouldn't challenge the divine order/gods, that to disobey means death, so there are hints of Biblical wrath.

On a deeper level, it is an exploration of hubris and desiring power, in the context of seeking immortality as mortal beings. The Valar said, essentially, "you can't go West in a mortal form" -- which the Numenorians tried to do. Numenor was destroyed because they followed Sauron, who as a kind of recapitulation of Morgoth, sought to extend his power in the physical domain in a way that was out of harmony with the natural, which itself was the expression of the divine. In that sense, we can see echoes in a lot of apocalyptic fiction, where our technology gets ahead of ourselves by messing with the powers of nature, either atomically, environmentally, or genetically.

So I don't see Tolkien as presenting a heavy-handed religious message as much as he was exploring archetypal things about power, nature, etc. Because he was a devote Catholic doesn't make his messaging a kind of missionary apologism for Christianity, but his faith obviously influenced his work, if only by providing a basic ideological toolbox with certain archetypal themes, many of which have applicability across many cultures and ideologies (e.g. "The Fall" from a "Golden Age," which as Richard Heinberg and others have explored, is one of the most universal myths). But that is true of his entire body of work, so I'm not sure why Numenor would be any more problematic than LoTR.

And of course "messaging" is only a problem if you don't like the message, or if it intrudes upon your suspension of belief and thus, enjoyment of the story. Fiction is filled with messaging of different kinds. I agree that if it gets too heavy-handed, with a sense that the creators are saying, "You should think this way, and if you aren't enjoying this and nodding your head, you're despicable," then it can be jarring, or at least annoying. I've never gotten that sense from Tolkien's work, unlike more overt religiously proselytizing fiction (e.g. Left Behind, which I admittedly haven't read) or much of contemporary media with sociocultural themes.

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for that. It's been forever since I read "The Silmarillion" and I'm very unlikely to read it again, as it's about as dry a read as any other history book.

I tried to read it and got past exactly ZERO pages. I re-read the same few paragraphs about 20 times and decided life's too short for this. I've never even considered giving it another try.

The Silmarillion's first chapter is just terrible.; I always recommend people skip it.

Philistines!

But seriously, The Silmarillion isn't a novel in the usual sense of the word. It is more a book of myths, with the first chapter being a cosmogonic story, like the beginning of the Rig Veda, or Genesis, or any number of creation myths. I find it beautiful and immensely evocative, but there's no accounting for taste. I can see why, if you're looking for a rollicking good adventure story or an exploration of cultural or family pathos, it could be tedious. But it isn't trying to be Ocean's Eleven or Kramer vs Kramer. To say that it is "terrible" seems to miss the point, sort of like saying Dune sucks because it doesn't properly address contemporary socio-cultural issues, or James Brown is bad because he isn't heavy metal (when, in truth, he's super bad .

 

[Umbran]

On a surface reading, we can say that Tolkien is proselytizing that humans shouldn't challenge the divine order/gods, that to disobey means death...

Yep that.

On a deeper level, it is an exploration of hubris and desiring power, in the context of seeking immortality as mortal beings.

And, on an even deeper level, it returns to the same point of defying divinity. Because, as an early fantasy writer, Tolkien was not really set up to discuss why immortality is a bad idea, other than "Eru said so."

The Valar said, essentially, "you can't go West in a mortal form" -- which the Numenorians tried to do. Numenor was destroyed because they followed Sauron, who as a kind of recapitulation of Morgoth, sought to extend his power in the physical domain in a way that was out of harmony with the natural, which itself was the expression of the divine.
In that sense, we can see echoes in a lot of apocalyptic fiction, where our technology gets ahead of ourselves by messing with the powers of nature, either atomically, environmentally, or genetically.

Except that, in this construction, the rule is chosen, set and enforced by a sentient being. Eru made the world. There is an order to it, and you may not defy that order, or by Eru's will you will be destroyed. The ultimate message is know your place, which is very authoritarian and classist, I'm afraid.

(e.g. "The Fall" from a "Golden Age," which as Richard Heinberg and others have explored, is one of the most universal myths). But that is true of his entire body of work, so I'm not sure why Numenor would be any more problematic than LoTR.

Oh, LotR has its problems. Mostly it is less an issue than the Drowning of Numenor, as it isn't about the The Man smacking down people who defy their arbitrary class rules.

 

[Mercurius]

My first response is, so what? Should we expect fiction to represent our own real-world ideology, be it ontological, socio-economic, moral, or otherwise? We can read anything through the perspective of our preferred ideology, but doesn't that reduce the potentials of fiction? (and I say this as someone who, in the real-world, finds a lot of value in a perspective on socio-economics that emphasizes class dynamics; meaning, big fan of Zinn, Chomsky, etc).

Regardless of what Tolkien's socio-political views were, is there anything inherently "problematic" with creating a world that involves a cosmic hierarchy? So my main point of disagreement is not on what is the good, true and beautiful in our world, but why it is "problematic" for a work of fiction to explore possibilities, even those that don't jive with our own ideology. It isn't problematic to depict a fantasy world with an ontological divine order. Actually, I don't think it is problematic to even suggest that is how our world is and/or should be. Where it becomes problematic is when there is an attempt to force that view upon others, whether ideologically or in terms of lifestyle.

Now I personally don't like the message of "don't challenge the gods," but I think that is an overly simplistic reading of what Tolkien was saying, which included elements of Icarus and Greek stories of hubris, which aren't simply divine powers being jerks and saying "know your place," but expositions of the problems of egotism and excessive pride.