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

[Maxperson]

A cunning troll is still a troll. I'll respect a 3 star reviews somewhat, but anyone posting a 1 star is just out to lunch.

Really? People have widely differing opinions. I actually enjoyed Ishtar. A buddy of mine hated Inglorious Bastards. Just because you really like a show doesn't mean that someone who hates it and gives it 1 star is a troll.

 

[Maxperson]

How big do you think Smaug's heart is? Here is a replica whale heart:

You it would look believable if an arrow stopped that?

An obviously powerful magical arrow that we see disintegrating that heart via special effects? Just fine. Or if it's off screen, we don't think about size because of suspension of disbelief.

 

[Parmandur]

Really? People have widely differing opinions. I actually enjoyed Ishtar. A buddy of mine hated Inglorious Bastards. Just because you really like a show doesn't mean that someone who hates it and gives it 1 star is a troll.

Sure, people have differing opinions, but one of my opinions is that 1 star reviews for this show are merely trolls. I've spent some time here jawing with you about it, and your take I'm gauging at about 3 stars. I can respect that. 1 star is ludicrous. And notably, viewers review numbers match with critic review aggregates when you discount the 1 star trolls: it's a coordinated campaign by trolls to make a 84% Rotten Tomatoes show seem to have a more mixed reception among viewers than it really has received.

 

[OB1]

Really? People have widely differing opinions. I actually enjoyed Ishtar. A buddy of mine hated Inglorious Bastards. Just because you really like a show doesn't mean that someone who hates it and gives it 1 star is a troll.

I'm not a fan of Inglorious Bastards either and really didn't care for Avengers Endgame. I also stopped watching HotD after 3 episodes (after being a GoT fanatic). If I was reviewing any of these on a site, I'd give them 3 stars, because while they don't engage me personally, I can recognize the technical skill and creativity that went in to all of them. Having watched thousands and thousands of hours of scripted film and tv in my life, I can think of maybe three or four that I would actually give a single star. When I see a 1 star review of something, I instantly think that it is because the reviewer has an axe to grind or another agenda.

Now, I could be wrong, and the reviewer could have given it 1 star in good faith, but the only way I'd be able to suss that out would be to look at a few dozen other reviews by that person to get a feel for how they see media in general. On the other hand, a 2 or 3 star review I might take the time to read the users comments on, to see if there is any illumination.

But typically, 1 star reviews use a lot of review jargon like 'poor characterization', 'fan-fiction' or 'pacing issues' without any specific examples to back up those claims. They've heard those words used in negative critiques of other media, and repeat them in the review to justify their low rating.

One of the things that RoP does very well is clearly communicating the goals of it's main characters, then putting those goals into conflict in scenes. There is rarely a scene in the show that I don't know what a character wants and what is preventing them from achieving that in the moment. It's a technical storytelling concept that when used well can make almost any story functional (and something that the three examples I listed above don't do very well, IMO). Galadriel, for example, is an extremely powerful elf who's tragic flaw drives the narrative through the first season.

Now, there is a valid question as to whether the show is using the cultural familiarity with Tolkien as a short-hand to get around having to build it's own unique character-conflict-resolution narrative (Marvel movies have been especially guilty of this lately). And there are definitely times that the show expects the viewer to be aware of the LotR films (if not Tolkien's writing), but for the most part, I feel it earns its moments. That said, I can understand arguments from those who know Tolkien's writings well who would argue that the show is using the Tolkien brand to give the show gravitas it hasn't earned on it's own. I also understand arguments from those who say that the show does do Tolkien's work justice, and is retelling the story for a new medium and era. I don't know Tolkien well enough to comment either way, but those types of arguments do illuminate and deepen my understanding of the work itself.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, people have differing opinions, but one of my opinions is that 1 star reviews for this show are merely trolls.

As a blanket statement this is objectively wrong. There are in fact people who just plain dislike the show that much. Are some of them trolls? Sure.

And notably, viewers review numbers match with critic review aggregates when you discount the 1 star trolls: it's a coordinated campaign by trolls to make a 84% Rotten Tomatoes show seem to have a more mixed reception among viewers than it really has received.

I haven't paid attention to critics since the 1980's. They're wrong as often as they are right, or maybe even more often than they are right. Except for Siskel and Ebert. Those guys were good(mostly because their taste matched mine. ) I think using them as a metric for average Joe opinions is a mistake.

 

[Parmandur]

As a blanket statement this is objectively wrong. There are in fact people who just plain dislike the show that much. Are some of them trolls? Sure.

I haven't paid attention to critics since the 1980's. They're wrong as often as they are right, or maybe even more often than they are right. Except for Siskel and Ebert. Those guys were good(mostly because their taste matched mine. ) I think using them as a metric for average Joe opinions is a mistake.

Critics are just folks, really. The point is, when we discount the trolls, then the viewer reception and the critical reception here actually line up. That's part of how we can see that the 1 star review bombing campaign is an organized troll operation, not an organic wave of dislike rooted in sophisticated criticism. The critics aren't trolls, and some have given bad reviews: but the aggregate consensus is ~4.25 stars, which is fair taking into account legitimate dislike some may have.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not a fan of Inglorious Bastards either and really didn't care for Avengers Endgame. I also stopped watching HotD after 3 episodes (after being a GoT fanatic). If I was reviewing any of these on a site, I'd give them 3 stars, because while they don't engage me personally, I can recognize the technical skill and creativity that went in to all of them. Having watched thousands and thousands of hours of scripted film and tv in my life, I can think of maybe three or four that I would actually give a single star. When I see a 1 star review of something, I instantly think that it is because the reviewer has an axe to grind or another agenda.

I think it's probably a good thing to keep in mind that many, if not most viewers don't rate shows on technical skill and creativity. They rate it on how much they like or dislike the show. So while you may give those things 3 stars because of technical skill and creativity, someone who doesn't rate on those things would rightly give them 1 star, because they hate those shows.

Now, I could be wrong, and the reviewer could have given it 1 star in good faith, but the only way I'd be able to suss that out would be to look at a few dozen other reviews by that person to get a feel for how they see media in general. On the other hand, a 2 or 3 star review I might take the time to read the users comments on, to see if there is any illumination.

If I had to guess, I'd say that 50%-75% of 1 star reviews are just haters, rather than genuine reviews. That still leaves a lot of genuine 1 star reviewes.

But typically, 1 star reviews use a lot of review jargon like 'poor characterization', 'fan-fiction' or 'pacing issues' without any specific examples to back up those claims. They've heard those words used in negative critiques of other media, and repeat them in the review to justify their low rating.

They don't need to spell it out. If they felt that way, they felt that way. If you don't, you don't.

One of the things that RoP does very well is clearly communicating the goals of it's main characters, then putting those goals into conflict in scenes. There is rarely a scene in the show that I don't know what a character wants and what is preventing them from achieving that in the moment. It's a technical storytelling concept that when used well can make almost any story functional (and something that the three examples I listed above don't do very well, IMO). Galadriel, for example, is an extremely powerful elf who's tragic flaw drives the narrative through the first season.

This is true. As a fantasy series it's pretty decent. @Parmandur said he thought I would give it 3 stars. I'd probably give it 3.5 stars. Likely I'd give it 4 stars out of 5 if it didn't have ridiculousness like an elf jumping off a boat in the middle of the ocean and then having a shipwrecked group of humans "wander by" within minutes, followed by a sea monster at the same time, followed by a chance meeting with a ship soon after. Some things just reaaaaaally stretched believability for me. Those would be fantasy series ratings.

As a Tolkien show I'd give it 1.5-2 stars, because only the Harfoots and dwarves were well done. It really failed me on the Tolkien front.

Now, there is a valid question as to whether the show is using the cultural familiarity with Tolkien as a short-hand to get around having to build it's own unique character-conflict-resolution narrative (Marvel movies have been especially guilty of this lately). And there are definitely times that the show expects the viewer to be aware of the LotR films (if not Tolkien's writing), but for the most part, I feel it earns its moments. That said, I can understand arguments from those who know Tolkien's writings well who would argue that the show is using the Tolkien brand to give the show gravitas it hasn't earned on it's own. I also understand arguments from those who say that the show does do Tolkien's work justice, and is retelling the story for a new medium and era. I don't know Tolkien well enough to comment either way, but those types of arguments do illuminate and deepen my understanding of the work itself.

That's fair.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I still don't buy it. He's not just a master smith. This particular smith was so good that other grand masters look up to him for advice because he was far beyond them. He would have tried hard, medium, soft, kinda soft but not quite medium...

Oh, I agree, but I was willing to let that one slide, if only to play along. I found the alloy part much, much harder.

That's an interesting aside, IMO. When watching live theatre, part of the experience is to "play along". You imagine a lot of stuff (in particular with sets and scene changes) yourself, and admire how cleverly they make them work in interesting (but not usually "realistic" ways). This same sort of thing exists in our RPGs, when people point out that "realism" is not an important factor to them (though "immersion" usually is).

On the other hand, we're not generally expected to "play along" with movies an TV (or at least not as much - I would argue that people who are willing to do it, usually enjoy some shows more than those who aren't. Maybe that's part of the case here.

I liked the show overall. I was excited to watch each episode as they dropped. It was a visual feast. I liked a lot of the characters. I grew to like others by the end.

However, I don't think it was very good Tolkien. I don't particularly care, as long as it winds up good fantasy, but I will back any Tolkien fan who wants to complain about it on that level. I thought a few things were very dumb - in particular the idea that Galadriel would try to swim across the ocean; the Calvary charge across a vast land; the thousands-year-old smith not thinking about basic smithing ideas.

That's fine. There's usually a few dumb things in most shows. I can "play along".

But they deserve to be constructively criticized for it. They could have made the show that much better. They still could. It's only the first season. A lot of shows get better as they go. (And some fall flat on their faces).

 

[Maxperson]

That's fine. There's usually a few dumb things in most shows. I can "play along".

For me my ability to play along is limited. If the elven ship had been sunk by the sea monster who left after gorging on elves(except for Galadriel) and a rescue ship had come along, I can "play along" even though the odds of a ship wandering by are slim to none. It's when a ship wandering by is combined with someone just jumping off a different ship in the middle of the ocean + shipwrecked people on raft just happening to float by + sea monster just happening to wander by that my ability to "play along" plummets. If the Muppets Treasure Island ship had sailed up I wouldn't have been shocked by that point.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

A cunning troll is still a troll. I'll respect a 3 star reviews somewhat, but anyone posting a 1 star is just out to lunch.

Almost all 1 star reviews for anything are out to lunch. I own a comic & game store, and every 1 star review we've ever gotten are purely mental (some really, really strange) or some friend of a "rival" (we don't really have rivals) thinking that they're doing their buddy a favour by bombing the "competition" (we're not very competitive). They're frankly ALL BS. I'm fine with a 3-star review.

Frankly, I think that 5-star reviews are strange too, but it's what the 5-star system expects (for some dumb reason). IMO if the star-system actually worked, 3 would be considered "good". 4 would be "great" and 5 would be "better than I imagined it could be - it surprised and delighted me".

I wouldn't call this show a 5-star show. I can see how it was to you, but it's a solid 3 (pushing up to a 4 by the final episode, to me). With plenty of room for improvement.

Weirdly the trend seems to be for the 5-star system to be more binary to most people. It's either "I liked it - 5 stars!" or "I didn't like it! - 1 star!" (Which defeats the point of the other 3 stars). But it's not like people are very good at understanding their own feelings about something, far or less agreeing on what the system actually means for us.