What TV series related to the "Matter of Middle-earth" would you prefer to see?

[Ibrandul]

I mean, even the Hobbit has a lot of over the top violence and horror, let alone Lord of the Rings or the Silmarillion. No shade in saying you might have a selective memory here, I managed to forget the sex scenes in Game of Thrones after reading it: actually, I normally do, and that gets me in hot water with book recommendations on occasion.

I rewatched Jackson's LotR recently, and I saw nothing remotely as extreme as some of the scenes in episode 6 of RoP. I know more than one person who can handle Jackson's LotR but could not handle episode 6 of RoP. Perhaps it's a difference of degree, not of kind, but there is a real difference.

Whether Jackson's Hobbit contains something comparable, I couldn't say; I saw only the first of those films and detested it.

And again, I do like RoP—and no, I don't think all entertainment must be appropriate for all viewers. The over-the-top violence in ep. 6 is a blemish, in my view, but not an essentially damaging one.

If, however, you mean the books of The Hobbit, LotR, and The Silmarillion have over-the-top violence and horror comparable to what is found in RoP ep. 6, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's a difference in kind between the way those books depict violence and horrific situations, on the one hand, and the way it's depicted onscreen, on the other.

 

[Parmandur]

I rewatched Jackson's LotR recently, and I saw nothing remotely as extreme as some of the scenes in episode 6 of RoP. I know more than one person who can handle Jackson's LotR but could not handle episode 6 of RoP. Perhaps it's a difference of degree, not of kind, but there is a real difference.

Whether Jackson's Hobbit contains something comparable, I couldn't say; I saw only the first of those films and detested it.

And again, I do like RoP—and no, I don't think all entertainment must be appropriate for all viewers. The over-the-top violence in ep. 6 is a blemish, in my view, but not an essentially damaging one.

If, however, you mean the books of The Hobbit, LotR, and The Silmarillion have over-the-top violence and horror comparable to what is found in RoP ep. 6, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's a difference in kind between the way those books depict violence and horrific situations, on the one hand, and the way it's depicted onscreen, on the other.

A difference in medium, but the books have some of the most horrifying and violent situations of anything I have ever read.

Episode 6 got intense, bit it wasn't worse than a lot of the violence in Two Towers or Return of the King. If anything, I would say that perhaps it takes the violence more seriously than the Jaxkfilms do, which is appropriately Tolkienien.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

None, it's story has been told, and told well. The Hobbit and LotR was one man's story, one man's mythology, it was never meant to be a shared world setting. Yes Middle Earth is popular, but that alone is not enough to make it good franchise material, it's time to stop milking a setting not suited to that role.

 

[Hriston]

At least they didn't turn it into a sarcastic comedy (cf. "Starship Troopers"). It's still a serious fantasy piece and has the general tone of a Tolkien story, if not slavishly following the letter of one. It's also pretty darned good. Sure, there are the odd bits that make you mutter WTF* but, taken as a whole, it's an enjoyable programme.

* I honestly can't think of many recent works that haven't made me do this, at least once.

Sure, it could have been far worse, and I agree it's not too bad. My issues with the show don't have much to do with it not "slavishly" following Tolkien's plot. It was more the style of storytelling that left me feeling like it had all been a waste of time.

 

[Parmandur]

Sure, it could have been far worse, and I agree it's not too bad. My issues with the show don't have much to do with it not "slavishly" following Tolkien's plot. It was more the style of storytelling that left me feeling like it had all been a waste of time.

I mean, it's a pretty standard TV show format, kind of staid and conservative in 2022, even. A particularly tight example of a "mystery box" that didn't take it too far.

 

[Hriston]

I'd be happy to just see the Topher Grace cut of the movies.

I heard about that a few years ago and wanted to see it. I imagine it could be pretty good.

 

[reelo]

I heard about that a few years ago and wanted to see it. I imagine it could be pretty good.

I've recently come across the the "maple films" cut of the Hobbit, which is 4h21m long in total, but with an "intermission" break in the middle, so as to be 2 movies.
It's wonderful, and the only way I can stomach the hobbit on film.

 

[Dausuul]

Playing around with how to do the Silmarillion as a TV show...

One idea would be to do it as a frame story, with Earendil telling it to the Valar in the Ring of Doom. This would address the problem where the end of the story is literally a deus ex machina; the frame sets it up from the very beginning.

This would also make it possible to finesse the chronology of events. Earendil could tell several stories in parallel (Beren and Luthien, the Children of Hurin, the deeds of Feanor's sons, etc.), in response to questions from the Valar; thus the show could maintain a mostly-stable cast, despite telling stories separated by centuries. Occasionally, Earendil might ask a question of his own, which would allow the Valar or Valinorean Elves to provide flashbacks to before the Darkening of Valinor.

Earendil would stagger his stories; say he's got three running at any given point, each season he wraps up one and starts another. Beren and Luthien would be the one story that ran the entire length of the series. It would conclude with their deaths* along with the retrieval of a Silmaril, which Earendil would then bring out and present to the Valar as he makes his plea for them to intervene. The actual War of Wrath would be just a brief montage at the end--the conclusion would be Earendil being given the Silmaril to carry in Vingilot across the sky. (And maybe a scene of Galadriel pointing out the star to a youthful Elrond, which would nicely tie the Silmarillion to both the Peter Jackson movies and the Rings of Power.)

*Their first deaths, obviously. Trying to work in their resurrection and second deaths would make the story unnecessarily confusing without really adding anything IMO.

 

[Hriston]

It's not an adaptation, and fidelity to chronology is of minor importance when Tolkien kept changing that sort of thing on his own. It's not set in stone. The creators making their own thing means it stands or falls on their own merit. In this case the merit is considerably great on it own terms.

This seems like a matter of semantics. I don't know how you're using the word adaptation, but there's clearly an original text (LotR) to which the creators of the show purchased the rights for the purpose of making their product, which they entitled "The Lord of the Rings". Making alterations to that text necessary for use in a different medium is what makes it an adaptation, and use of that title means the show doesn't stand or fail on its own. Its success is buoyed by the recognition and reputation the title brings.

Also, I don't know why you're zeroing in on chronology. My comments to which you're replying were speaking generally about all kinds of changes (not just chronological) made in adaptations for TV and movies that seem like they were made to suit the whims of the writers and producers of the adaptations rather than to further the vision of the original author. I was told that Tolkien not being a skilled screenwriter himself is a good reason for an adaptation of his work to incorporate such changes, and I don't see it that way. There's an element of custodianship in adapting an author's work and a skill in realizing the author's vision in a new medium.

No, the disclaimer in the credits make it clear this isn't Tolkien's story, it's the showrunners. Theybare inspired by Tolkien, and they are remarkably faithful to his themes and worldview, which took me by surprise because that is where Jackson failed compeltely.

I haven't read the disclaimer. What does it say?

Ooof, I do not think that would work if done with fastidious attention to canon details, at all, and would be a bad framework to get creative.

Why not? The original story does just fine with those details. I was imagining a version that tells the same story that's in the book. What do you mean by "get creative"?

 

[Hriston]

I mean, it's a pretty standard TV show format, kind of staid and conservative in 2022, even. A particularly tight example of a "mystery box" that didn't take it too far.

I don't watch a lot of TV, so I don't know what trends have emerged in shows of that type, but after watching this show, I'm pretty sure I prefer mystery and ambiguity to come out of the events of the story being told instead of, as I believe was done in this show, from the writers using storytelling techniques to misdirect their audience.