• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Rings of Power -- all opinions and spoilers welcome thread.

Parmandur

Book-Friend
As for my view of the series as a whole, as I said at one point here, my initial impression after the first two episodes was: "Not as bad as I feared, but worse than I hoped - maybe there's some potential here." After finishing the series, I find it a mix of "kinda ok, entertaining in a CWish sort of way with a few good moments and elements" and "A startlingly poorly crafted mess that makes a mockery of Tolkien's creation." In other words, that potential has dissolved like a Morgul blade, and the show is--at least in some ways--even worse than I feared.

As an adaptation of Tolkien, it is bordering on disastrous. If Peter Jackson's film were a shadow of Tolkien's books, but obviously lovingly crafted and with a clear intention to embody Tolkien's world and vision as faithfully as possible--and thus overall mostly wonderful--then Rings of Power is a shadow of (a shadow of) Jackson's films, and one that really only resembles Tolkien's Middle-earth in superficial ways: basic concepts and names, but with no sense that the show-runners really "get" Tolkien. Perhaps the most egregious element is the depiction of elves, which from the start came across as kind of a mixture of an idealized version of (very human) Celts and, again, a CW-level expression of emotional maturity and sophistication. Critics of the show like to pick on Morfydd Clark's Galadriel, and I think for good reason: She comes across as a petulant teen warrior princess with very little depth or complexity. I actually was quite impressed with Clark in Saint Maud, so I suspect most (though probably not all) of this is in the writing and direction.

But from the start, I didn't require it to be perfectly faithful to Tolkien's Middle-earth, though I did hope it would at least try to do homage to it, like Jackson did, when instead it borders on parody. Meaning, I would have been quite pleased if it was at least well-made fantasy. But what I find simply baffling is just how poorly it was made, in terms of cinematic story-telling, in almost every way - everything from the pacing to the plot to the dialogue to the acting to the world-building to the sets. It was like it was produced by amateurs with no previous experience (oh wait, it was!). The choice of Payne and McKay for such a big budget project is just weird...I heard a rumor that JJ Abrams called in a favor for them.

So while a JJ Abrams version of Middle-earth would have butchered it enough and been a shadow of Jackson's films, it would have at least been well produced; RoP is like an adaptation of what Abrams might have been - a derivation of a derivation, like a Youtube animation of the Cliff's Notes version of a book. Meaning, we're now at four degrees of separation from Tolkien: a shadow (RoP) of a shadow (Abrams-esque Middle-earth) of a shadow (Jackson's Middle'earth) of a shadow (Tolkien's Middle-earth).

Without going into all the gory details, one example of the poor story-telling is the pacing - how the story seemed to somehow both move too quickly and too slowly at the same time. I have no idea how they accomplished that, but it seems to center on glossing over important scenes and keeping them off screen, while padding the run time with endlessly tedious dialogue and other scenes that weren't important to the story. An example of this was Nori's farewell scene, which also highlighted another problem: the tendency to tell and not show; telling us how to feel and when to feel it, rather than showing us scenes that make us feel. Again, another classic amateurish blunder that happened again and again.

In a similar vein to the pacing is the world-building and depiction of Middle-earth as a whole: there was a feeling of cramped-ness, with no sense of the vastness of the world. Everything from the street-level scenes in Numenor which all felt claustrophobic, and too obviously set in a Hollywood warehouse, to the way travel was glossed over (the infamous "from Numenor to the South-lands in a blink of an eye, oh, and with an entire cavalry crammed into a ship or two").

But what is most striking about this overall production quality (or lack thereof), is that because it showed up everywhere, in so many ways - so many cracks revealing that the whole thing was a facade, a production - it seems clear that so little thought was put into making it a believable, tightly crafted world (e.g. Halbrand is in critical condition, so let's take him on a week-long gallup for Elvish medicine!). Meaning, as if they either assumed the viewers would be entirely uncritical, or, more likely, it was simply a matter of incompetence on their part.

There are so many other things I could say, but will leave it there for now. But I tend to agree with most of what Erik Kain of Forbes.com has said, with his season review here.

p.s. Oh, and as a pre-emptive to the inevitable "Tell us how you really feel...I totally disagree, btw" responses: I know opinions differ, and a lot of folks liked Rings of Power. I am not saying you are a bad person if you liked it. I'm just expressing that I think the show itself was really bad. Not you, you're a good person! ;)
Yeah, uh, hard disagree with literally all of this. This doesn't jive with the brilliant piece of art thst I watched, at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mercurius

Legend
It is blatantly incorrect that the show looks cheap: it does not, it was clearly very expensive to make.

You point out two random things, but your objections are about aesthetic choice, not expense involved. The Numenorean armor is a fantastic recreation of Ancient Near East styles of leather armor, I thought, much better than the silliness of full plate armor seen on Jackson's films. But both were clearly very pricey to make, setting aside taste.
I will only say that something "looking cheap" and "being expensive" are not mutually exclusive. I realize that there was a huge budget - but just throwing money at something doesn't mean it will be good.
Yeah, uh, hard disagree with literally all of this. This doesn't jive with the brilliant piece of art thst I watched, at all.
Oh, I forgot the "hard" part in my pre-emptive ;). But yeah, people disagree - no problems with that. It is interesting how widely people disagree on this, though.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I will only say that something "looking cheap" and "being expensive" are not mutually exclusive. I realize that there was a huge budget - but just throwing money at something doesn't mean it will be good.
The issue isn't taste, though: I suppose someone might not like a particular style choice, but the accusation at hand was that the show looked like it didn't use the budget and theorized that there may have been financial shenanigans. However, the ahow clearly has a huge budget that was spent on the show, irregardless of taste. It looks like the most expensive TV show ever made.
Oh, I forgot the "hard" part in my pre-emptive ;). But yeah, people disagree - no problems with that. It is interesting how widely people disagree on this, though.
Yeah, I find it absolutely bizarre how people are reacting to this.
 

Ryujin

Legend
What is blatantly incorrect? That some things look bad? I tend to agree with that - and I have watched it. Mostly it looks good, but two things in particular stood out to me:

1) The Numenorean armor. It looked like it was made out of plastic or rubber because, well, it probably was.

2) The elvish rings looked gaudy in a sort of faux riche/blingish sort of way. I don't know why they didn't just use the same rings from LotR, which were far more classy.

There were other things here and there, but those are what stood out the most. I think the overall craftsmanship that went into the weapons and armor, and other items, was inferior to the Jackson films.
As a chainmailer I try to leave my criticism of armour as a minor thing. Most people just aren't going to notice when the armour is cloth/plastic/knitted. My chainmail wire and ring supplier provided the rings and scales for the armour in "The Hobbit" and one of their former employees, who has a custom fabrication company, went down there to instruct on proper assembly.

And rather frequently, in well made prop chainmail, 50% of the rings are actually EDPM rubber, to save on weight, but you'd never know it to look at them ;)
 

Mercurius

Legend
The issue isn't taste, though: I suppose someone might not like a particular style choice, but the accusation at hand was that the show looked like it didn't use the budget and theorized that there may have been financial shenanigans. However, the ahow clearly has a huge budget that was spent on the show, irregardless of taste. It looks like the most expensive TV show ever made.
Well, that's not what was being talked about here, or at least in what I replied to.

Henadic Theologian said something about "specific things looking bad." You said that was "blatantly incorrect." I said (in paraphrase), "I disagree, some things look bad."

That's a matter of aesthetic perception - including taste. I said nothing about "financial shenanigans." I did say that I was baffled by what the huge budget resulted in.

Yeah, I find it absolutely bizarre how people are reacting to this.

Again, I think the more strange (even interesting) thing is how differently people are reacting. Usually there's greater consensus on the quality of a show, even if people will always disagree on personal preference (for instance, almost no one thought the Sopranos or Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones were bad shows, even if not to their taste, and I'm guessing few people thought the Shannara series was well made; at most, a guilty pleasure for some).

With Rings of Power, the distribution array is much more widely dispersed, with a ton of people loving it, a ton of people liking it, a ton of people finding it meh, and a ton of people hating it.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I agree with BOTH @Parmandur AND @Mercurius. The show looked beautiful and expensive and was overall fun to watch. However, all of Mercurius' criticisms are valid - these are places where I think the show could have been better (and could be improved on a second season).

While it worked out fine (IMO), there were parts that were disappointing.

For example, while I'm not terribly bothered by the Neumenorian acquisition of horses (they probably brought officer's horses with them and picked up the rest in the vast amount of land that they had to cross. My problem with the cavalry charge (which was cool, so I can forgive it) is with the distance from the coast to Mordor (Southlands). I mean, fine, they charged at the last, but the show made it look like they got off their ships, jumped on horses, and charged all the way there. This is part of the criticism of scale. And I think it's very valid.
 

Osgood

Hero
I'm not a fan of Tolkien's work--I just really dislike his prose style (it took me over 20 years to finish LotR)--so I went in with no knowledge of the lore beyond the movies. Having no preconceptions or expectations probably helped, because overall I enjoyed the show quite a bit.

I thought it got a bit bogged down in spots with the various storylines and there were probably a few too many characters to keep track of, but I thought it worked out pretty well in the end. I guess I can see the point that the travel distances getting fudged can bother people, but I think that only matters if you are very familiar with the map (I just figured the ships traveled the same river we see when the army of the dead attacks the ships in Return of the King to get pretty close).

I would say Galadriel was a bit too perfect, but then I remember Legolas from the movies, and I give it a pass and assume that in Tolkien's D&D campaign elves roll 5d6, reroll 1s, take the best three dice, and assign to whatever ability you wish (everyone else is 3d6 in order).
 
Last edited:

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Well, that's not what was being talked about here, or at least in what I replied to.

Henadic Theologian said something about "specific things looking bad." You said that was "blatantly incorrect." I said (in paraphrase), "I disagree, some things look bad."

That's a matter of aesthetic perception - including taste. I said nothing about "financial shenanigans." I did say that I was baffled by what the huge budget resulted in.



Again, I think the more strange (even interesting) thing is how differently people are reacting. Usually there's greater consensus on the quality of a show, even if people will always disagree on personal preference (for instance, almost no one thought the Sopranos or Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones were bad shows, even if not to their taste, and I'm guessing few people thought the Shannara series was well made; at most, a guilty pleasure for some).

With Rings of Power, the distribution array is much more widely dispersed, with a ton of people loving it, a ton of people liking it, a ton of people finding it meh, and a ton of people hating it.
@Henadic Theologian specifically speculated that embezzlement was the only explanation they could conceive of for where the $450 million budget for the season went...but it clearly went up on screen.
 



Remove ads

Top