log in or register to remove this ad

 

Lord of the Rings TV series synopsis


log in or register to remove this ad

Ryujin

Adventurer
Sauron returns twice in the 2nd age, I think: first as Annatar mid-2nd Age, and later as we see in the FOTR movie's prologue, at the end of the 2nd Age. IIRC
Sauron's return as the Necromancer of Dol Goldur (sp?) happens in the Third Age, IIRC.
 

DrunkonDuty

Adventurer
Sauron's return as the Necromancer of Dol Goldur (sp?) happens in the Third Age, IIRC.

That's correct. But (i believe) ART! was referring to his two reappearances in the 2nd Age.

The first was his return after the destruction of Angband by the Host of the Valar at the end of the 1st Age. He wanders about styling himself Annatar "Bringer of Gifts" and being all matey with everyone.

The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
That's correct. But (i believe) ART! was referring to his two reappearances in the 2nd Age.

The first was his return after the destruction of Angband by the Host of the Valar at the end of the 1st Age. He wanders about styling himself Annatar "Bringer of Gifts" and being all matey with everyone.

The second was after the Fall of Numenor. Sauron is caught in the cataclysm and "can never again take a form fair to the eye" or something like that.
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.
 



Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).


I believe that distinction goes to Water World.

I've read and re-read The Silmarillion enough for my copy to be falling apart. But it is certainly a challenging read. It's main value is, by my estimation, enriching ones' understanding of LOTR. Knowing Galadriel's background, for example, makes her words and actions with Frodo that much more meaningful.

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.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).
I think that "John Carter" suffers from people feeling it's derivative of so many other movies, when the opposite is largely the truth. The "Warlord of Mars" series of books is seminal. So many other works drew from it, that many references have become ubiquitous. I rather enjoyed it, but must admit that I was a little disappointed that Dejah Thoris didn't appear as she was described in "A Princess of Mars." ;)

"She was as destitute of clothes as the green Martians who accompanied her; indeed, save for her highly wrought ornaments she was entirely naked, nor could any apparel have enhanced the beauty of her perfect and symmetrical figure."
 

Definitely. How it was marketed and even titled didn't work in its favor. I like the movie, but it could've been so much better. They somehow took an action-packed book and slowed it down. I still regret that they didn't go with John Hamm as John Carter - he would've looked like the Frazetta interpretation brought to life.

Taking this back to the Lord of the Rings series, one risk they run is having elements feel derivative of Lord of the Rings ("What, Sauron's got an army to destroy Middle Earth again?"), when it's supposed to feel cyclic.

I think that "John Carter" suffers from people feeling it's derivative of so many other movies, when the opposite is largely the truth.
 


Ugh! I've tried multiple times to finish watching it, and to date have not made it all the way through. I will say that the design on Waterworld's clothing, boats, and structures was quite well-done. The world had a lived-in, seawater-rusted look that easily outshines the acting. However, it looks like the biggest cinematic flops, adjusted for inflation, are John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and the 13th Warrior. Which, honestly, I liked the first and last (The Lone Ranger was execrable, save for the last 20 minutes - when the William Tell Overture starts, you get a glimpse of what the movie could have been).
Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman. Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious. It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.
 

The 13th Warrior is somehow still the best on-screen Beowulf adaptation (the source novel by Michael Crichton being a riff on both The Name of the Rose and Beowulf). Johnny Depp's casting and subsequent performance in The Lone Ranger was horrifyingly racist. John Carter is fine but not great, though it falls short of the excitement of the original novel. It's not like the studio handed the director $250 million to make it and they came back with Manos the Hands of Fate In Space.

Its been years since I saw Water World and its sequel the Postman. Water World was pretty bad but I seem to recall it having a few entertaining parts, such as the Exxon Valdez references being hilarious. It was a running joke when it came out how bad it was compared to the how much it cost between me and my friends. Never saw John Carter, the Lone Ranger or the 13th Warrior but I can't stand Johnny Depp and cant see him as a convincing Tonto.
 

I may be in the small minority in liking Water World. Granted, it is mostly the designs and action set pieces I like. Plus a really good score.

John Carter of Mars was a very forgetable film. I think the 5th Element nails that sort of pulp scifi tone much better.

I really like the 13th Warrior.
 

shawnhcorey

Explorer
If you want a better western than The Lone Ranger, I suggest The Outlaw Josey Wales.
But to get back on topic, all of Tolkien's writing is dry. Since the movies came out, I find I prefer to watch them rather than read the books. I hope the new show will be as entertaining as the movies.
 

DrunkonDuty

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

As for the rest of it - you have to treat it as you would a book of Norse or Greek mythology. That's basically what it is. Pretty dry, even for Tolkien. You're either gonna be okay with that (as I am) or you're gonna hate it, which I can totally understand.

I thought John Carter was okay, but like everyone else here thought it could have been much more fun. Haven't seen Lone Ranger and never will. 13th Warrior is one of those I feel I need to catch up on eventually.
 

Ryujin

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

As for the rest of it - you have to treat it as you would a book of Norse or Greek mythology. That's basically what it is. Pretty dry, even for Tolkien. You're either gonna be okay with that (as I am) or you're gonna hate it, which I can totally understand.

I thought John Carter was okay, but like everyone else here thought it could have been much more fun. Haven't seen Lone Ranger and never will. 13th Warrior is one of those I feel I need to catch up on eventually.
I've read Greek, Norse, and Hindu Mythology. I've read the I Ching and Tao te Ching (the latter is a tough one). I've read various religious works. It was a major effort to make it through The Silmarillion, for me.
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
The 13th Warrior is somehow still the best on-screen Beowulf adaptation (the source novel by Michael Crichton being a riff on both The Name of the Rose and Beowulf). Johnny Depp's casting and subsequent performance in The Lone Ranger was horrifyingly racist. John Carter is fine but not great, though it falls short of the excitement of the original novel. It's not like the studio handed the director $250 million to make it and they came back with Manos the Hands of Fate In Space.
Rather interestingly, Depp received some praise for his portrayal of Tonto from the Aboriginal Community, most notably from Comanche Nation Chairman Wallace Coffey. I'd call it a "controversial" choice.
 

But to get back on topic, all of Tolkien's writing is dry. Since the movies came out, I find I prefer to watch them rather than read the books. I hope the new show will be as entertaining as the movies.
I feel the same.

I read the Hobbit as a kid a few times and then again shortly before the LotR movies came out. I then read the LotR books before seeing the movies because I had never read them. I got through the Fellowship of the Ring rather quickly, The Two Towers about the same but a little slower, but by the time I got through the the first quarter of the Return of the King I was running on fumes but coasted to the end. I didnt read the appendix. So yes his writing style left something to be desired but I suspect it has something to do with him being a professor and the time the books were written. The Hobbit was my favorite out of them.; though I can't see myself reading them ever again.

The LotR movie trilogy was awesome I liked them alot, I bought them on DVD but now would be hard pressed to re-watch them or stop if I was flipping through the channels and they were on. The Hobbit trilogy otoh was horrible IMO. I saw the first in the theater and thought it was mediocre at best. Went to the second and walked out, maybe halfway into it. Never saw the last one. They seemed like an after thought and poorly executed. Maybe I was just burned out on the franchise by that point.

I might give this new series a try if its free with Prime membership. I dont think I'd pay specifically to watch it. I havent been following the development but one thing Im wondering. Is the title of the series "Lord of the Rings"? If so and I hadnt read this article I'd have thought it was just another re-imagining of the LotR books which I have no interest in. Now that I know its set before those books it makes a big difference. I feel a title like JRR Tolkiens Middle Earth might be more appropriate to help differentiate it.
 

DrunkonDuty

Adventurer
The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)

There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.
 

Tyler Do'Urden

Soap Maker
The Hobbit movies were trash. (Okay, I've only seen the first two. I might someday watch the third one just to watch the battle that supposedly makes up half the run time.)

There's a reason they're as bad as they are. The studio canned director Guillermo del Toro and his two movie plan at the last minute and dragged Peter Jackson in to do them instead as three movies. Poor old PJ had to make most of the crap up as he went along. And boy does it show.

PJ's LotR-Hobbit movies are a steady downward climb from the sublime, near-perfect Fellowship of the Ring to the unwatchably cringeworthy Battle of the Five Armies - one of the few movies I've almost walked out of (when the giant worms appeared, and I practically wanted to scream, "WHEN DID WE END UP IN DUNE?!", I was absolutely appalled). Though, in truth, the Hobbit movies are good enough fantasy flicks if one simply forgets everything that they know about The Hobbit, Middle-Earth, etc.; and just treats them like "Generic Fantasy Adventure Trilogy", and they do have their moments (I have to admit I loved the scene in the first one where we meet all the dwarves for the first time. I loved the way the movies managed to characterize them all differently, which even as DMs most of us struggle with when we have to remember the difference between Ragnar Bloodaxe and Olin Silverbeard, and how we were roleplaying them differently...)

Though, if they really wanted to make an epic prequel trilogy, get the rights to the Silmarillion and make The Children of Hurin / Beren and Luthien / The Fall of Gondolin. That would be the epic to end all epics right there...
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top