Spoilers Rings of Power is back!

[Micah Sweet]

Wife not paying a huge amount of attention but she's watching.

We're not really hardcore Tolkein fans. We will watch it or Trek but don't consider ourselves trekking.

They get judged vs other shows in the genre vs their setting.

I'm a huge Tolkein enthusiast. I've read much of the supplementary material, listen to several podcasts by Tolkein scholars, and would already be getting my Master's at Signing University (which specializes in Tolkein and medieval literature) if I had the time and the money. I can't experience any version of Tolkein's works without comparing them to the texts, and there are places where RoP just fails for me to capture the core of the original or the themes Tolkein was exploring. The Jackson movies weren't perfect in that regard either, although it ultimately didn't harm my enjoyment of them (the Hobbit films, though...)

Beyond that, I'm also a simulationist, and care deeply about setting consistency and narrative logic. I feel they are necessary for immersion and to have an emotional stake in the characters and the plot. In many places throughout both seasons (although it was certainly worse in season 1) RoP just falls down in that regard, sometimes pretty hard. Fun, pretty fantasy show just isn't enough for me to ignore these things.

All of that said, I am enjoying the show. I just refuse to do so uncritically.

 

[Parmandur]

I use my wife as my guidepost for this show. She has read The Hobbit and the Trilogy once, long-ago, but the movies are IT for her. So during the show, when something that I know from either the Simillrillion or my listening to podcast starts to creep into my mind (like an evil shadow), I will pause and ask her "What do you think?" If she likes that allows me to relax and just enjoy it.

Yeah, the divorced the show chronology from that in the books hard enough amd obviously enough that I'm just able to roll with the show on it's own terms. They aren't just lazily getting things wrong, they have just made their own new thing for dramatic purposes.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Tolkien thought he was being frightfully progressive when he wrote Eowyn.

I wanted to pick up on this, because I’d be interested if you could point me in the direction of something which supports this assertion. As far as I was aware, the principal influence is rooted in the idea of the skjaldmaer from Norse myth, placing it very much in line with his “medieval sensibilities.”

It seems - to me at least - that Tolkien deals primarily in mythic symbolism, and that, such symbols transcend notions of gender per se. When we think of characters in LotR, none of them really have any character - with the exception, maybe, of Sam. They play roles in a psychodrama which embodies the reader themself - arguably, this is the point of myth.

It’s also why it is not necessary - undesirable, even - to attribute sympathetic characteristics to Sauron, or to orcs; that is not their mythic role; they represent forces working within the reader to be overcome and defeated. To humanize the monster - to make it grey - robs it of its mythic power. Which is fine, I guess, if you’re not interested in myth.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm a huge Tolkein enthusiast. I've read much of the supplementary material, listen to several podcasts by Tolkein scholars, and would already be getting my Master's at Signing University (which specializes in Tolkein and medieval literature) if I had the time and the money. I can't experience any version of Tolkein's works without comparing them to the texts, and there are places where RoP just fails for me to capture the core of the original or the themes Tolkein was exploring. The Jackson movies weren't perfect in that regard either, although it ultimately didn't harm my enjoyment of them (the Hobbit films, though...)

Beyond that, I'm also a simulationist, and care deeply about setting consistency and narrative logic. I feel they are necessary for immersion and to have an emotional stake in the characters and the plot. In many places throughout both seasons (although it was certainly worse in season 1) RoP just falls down in that regard, sometimes pretty hard. Fun, pretty fantasy show just isn't enough for me to ignore these things.

All of that said, I am enjoying the show. I just refuse to do so uncritically.

I don't care about the world as such. It's a genre I like and what's on screen is what I rate.

Anyway last year or so Amazon's been great in terms of quality. Fallout, WoT S2, RoP S2, Clarkson Farm, Grand Tour etc.

 

[Stalker0]

I think that the more egregious departures from Tolkien's history - say, the balrog, Gandalf, the order in which the rings are created - now act as problems which the showrunners have set themselves up with.

As you said the balrog can go back to sleep. Gandalf hasn't announced himself yet, and so its possible his name won't get associated with anything his work does in this age. Now as to the fact there are Ishtari itself, we will see but so far I don't think that has thrown anything off course.

The order of the rings themselves is probably one of the biggest departures from cannon (and I believe that is describe in LOTR and not Silmarillion but please correct me). Will it be ok, we will see, but its a question mark if that will ultimately be an improvement.

 

[reelo]

I'm a huge Tolkein enthusiast. I've read much of the supplementary material, listen to several podcasts by Tolkein scholars, and would already be getting my Master's at Signing University (which specializes in Tolkein and medieval literature) if I had the time and the money. I can't experience any version of Tolkein's works without comparing them to the texts, and there are places where RoP just fails for me to capture the core of the original or the themes Tolkein was exploring. The Jackson movies weren't perfect in that regard either, although it ultimately didn't harm my enjoyment of them (the Hobbit films, though...)

Beyond that, I'm also a simulationist, and care deeply about setting consistency and narrative logic. I feel they are necessary for immersion and to have an emotional stake in the characters and the plot. In many places throughout both seasons (although it was certainly worse in season 1) RoP just falls down in that regard, sometimes pretty hard. Fun, pretty fantasy show just isn't enough for me to ignore these things.

All of that said, I am enjoying the show. I just refuse to do so uncritically.

I'm pretty much in the same boat: I cycle through either LotR, the Silmarillion, the Lost Tales, or the Children of Húrin every couple years, I've delved deeply into Quenya and into Tengwar back in my early 20s and I've seen the movies countless times.

I find it terribly dishonest that the showmakers and the press automatically default to "they hate black elves/dwarves and female hobbits" when confronted with criticism. I almost see it as the fig-leaf they hide behind in order to not adress the problems that serious scholars and (otherwise open and progressive) people have with the show!
I like Dís. I like Arondir. I like the two hobbit girls. What I don't like is stuff like how badly they treated Finrod in S1. Or the absolutely bonkers story about Mithril/Silmaril/Balrog and how they linked elves to it. I hate how they have the wizards be in in ME when they are a whole age to early according even to the appendices! The show looks gorgeous but I can't help but cringe, eyeroll, and laugh at most of the writing choices they have done.

I used to think "The Children of Húrin" would make for an absolutely great TV series if done right, but these days I hope and pray that no producer will ever get his hands on it. That's how ridiculous ROP is to me.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I wanted to pick up on this, because I’d be interested if you could point me in the direction of something which supports this assertion. As far as I was aware, the principal influence is rooted in the idea of the skjaldmaer from Norse myth, placing it very much in line with his “medieval sensibilities.

I’m simply drawing inferences from the tone of the writing. Tolkien clearly came across shield maidens over the course of his studies, and realised the idea that women could fight was radical to the society he grew up in. And Tolkien’s sensibilities were early 20th century. He studied the past, he didn’t want to live there.

It seems - to me at least - that Tolkien deals primarily in mythic symbolism, and that, such symbols transcend notions of gender per se. When we think of characters in LotR, none of them really have any character - with the exception, maybe, of Sam. They play roles in a psychodrama which embodies the reader themself - arguably, this is the point of myth

I’m more inclined to think Tolkien simply wasn’t interested in the craft of the professional novelist. He had his arm twisted to write LotR after all.

It’s also why it is not necessary - undesirable, even - to attribute sympathetic characteristics to Sauron, or to orcs; that is not their mythic role; they represent forces working within the reader to be overcome and defeated. To humanize the monster - to make it grey - robs it of its mythic power. Which is fine, I guess, if you’re not interested in myth.

It makes it a more interesting story for a modern audience, it’s not made for a medieval one. Evil as a choice is rather more meaningful than evil for the hell of it.

I was disappointed that PJ rejected a redemption arc for Sméagol, which is hinted in the text.

 

[Parmandur]

It makes it a more interesting story for a modern audience, it’s not made for a medieval one. Evil as a choice is rather more meaningful than evil for the hell of it.

Point of order: shades of greybanalysis of people and their motives is very Medieval. Per Thomas Aquinas, literally everyone always believes they have good intentions. It is perfectly in line with Medieval, and Tolkienian, thought to have sympathetic portrayals of those doing evil, as they are worthy of pity and sympathy. And the "good" are always in danger of falling and being corrupted!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't care about the world as such. It's a genre I like and what's on screen is what I rate.

Anyway last year or so Amazon's been great in terms of quality. Fallout, WoT S2, RoP S2, Clarkson Farm, Grand Tour etc.

I certainly can support Fallout. Jury's out on RoP 2, although I'm feeling more positive than negative, and I haven't seen the others.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I’m simply drawing inferences from the tone of the writing.

Could you maybe give an example? Not where Eomer, Wormtongue, Theoden, Faramir or Aragorn are articulating what might be considered consistent commentary in-universe with regard to the presumed role of women in Middle-Earth. But rather where you feel the author’s voice is explicitly adopting a posture which suggests a self-consciously radical progressive position.

Or, failing that, where you think it might be evidenced in the dialogue?