Lord of the Rings TV series synopsis

[Dioltach]

Or every episode is rudely interupted by a scene of a naked sauron hatching his evil plans from his bathtub.

With a rubber duck! Because as we all know, "you're never alone with a rubber duck".

 

[Ryujin]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Imaculata]

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.

So basically, Sauron has to make charisma into his dump stat from now on?

 

[R_J_K75]

This will either go down in history as one of the biggest wastes of money or will be the second coming of Game of Thrones (as far as fantasy TV-pop culture impact goes).

I believe that distinction goes to Water World.

I've heard the nudity will be limited to Ents and Dragons.

Gives new meaning to Morning Wood.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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]

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."

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

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.

 

[R_J_K75]

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.