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

[trappedslider]

I'm with Maxperson on this: Being the IP holders doesn't mean you are a good caretaker of the actual IP, and even if so, that you have much say once you license it out. And it isn't as if the Tolkien Estate is immune to make a buck: Amazon backed up a truck and dumped a huge load of cash on them.

Great books and stories have been made into bad adaptations, regardless of what the authors thought. Ursula K Le Guin absolutely hated the atrocious Earthsea series, which makes Rings of Power look like cinematic art in comparison.

There's also probably a reason the Tolkien Estate didn't sell rights to Amazon until after Christopher Tolkien stepped down (it was literally three months later). If he thought Jackson's trilogy was an "action movie for 15-25 year olds," I hate to think how he would have considered Rings of Power.

As Stuart Lee notes in The Great Tales Never End, Tolkien had a conflicted view of the BBC, but his first direct involvement was with Terence Tiller who produced a BBC adaptation of The Lord of the Rings in 1955/1956. Tiller and Tolkien worked quite collaboratively on the show's content, with Tolkien accepting the need to make significant changes and cuts to the narrative (including songs and poems). Even though Tolkien thought, “Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation. If that is attempted it needs more space, a lot of space”, he did at least recognize “But I suppose all this is good for sales” and provided some praise for the treatment.


He later declared in negotiations with Forrest Ackerman on film rights, “Stanley U[nwin]. &: I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.” I will leave readers to decide for themselves whether the sale of the rights in 1969 for £100,000 (£2 million in today’s money), plus 7.5% royalty interests, represents an aversion to adaptations, or to cash.

So Christopher, who many would recognize as an authority on his father’s thoughts, is apparent in his own mind about what he feels about The Lord of the Rings films. But note, he did not not comment on what he thinks Tolkien’s views of the films would have been.

We also have no first-hand evidence that Christopher Tolkien’s resignation as a director of the Tolkien Estate Ltd related to the Amazon deal THE TOLKIEN ESTATE LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK however, there were reports the family was not united around Christopher Tolkien's position

In the famous Letter 131 to Milton Waldman where he talked about his thinking behind his legendarium, Tolkien said, “I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.”

EDIT: It honestly seems like Christopher took the Alan Moore approach toward his father's legendarium.

 

[Mercurius]

As Stuart Lee notes in The Great Tales Never End, Tolkien had a conflicted view of the BBC, but his first direct involvement was with Terence Tiller who produced a BBC adaptation of The Lord of the Rings in 1955/1956. Tiller and Tolkien worked quite collaboratively on the show's content, with Tolkien accepting the need to make significant changes and cuts to the narrative (including songs and poems). Even though Tolkien thought, “Here is a book very unsuitable for dramatic or semi-dramatic representation. If that is attempted it needs more space, a lot of space”, he did at least recognize “But I suppose all this is good for sales” and provided some praise for the treatment.


He later declared in negotiations with Forrest Ackerman on film rights, “Stanley U[nwin]. &: I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations.” I will leave readers to decide for themselves whether the sale of the rights in 1969 for £100,000 (£2 million in today’s money), plus 7.5% royalty interests, represents an aversion to adaptations, or to cash.

So Christopher, who many would recognize as an authority on his father’s thoughts, is apparent in his own mind about what he feels about The Lord of the Rings films. But note, he did not not comment on what he thinks Tolkien’s views of the films would have been.

We also have no first-hand evidence that Christopher Tolkien’s resignation as a director of the Tolkien Estate Ltd related to the Amazon deal THE TOLKIEN ESTATE LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK however, there were reports the family was not united around Christopher Tolkien's position

In the famous Letter 131 to Milton Waldman where he talked about his thinking behind his legendarium, Tolkien said, “I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.”

EDIT: It honestly seems like Christopher took the Alan Moore approach toward his father's legendarium.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

Sure, people can legally make stories in Tolkien's world, but just because they can doesn't mean they'll be good, or that they'll capture the "spirit of Tolkien." And in that Letter 131 quote, I'm not sure Tolkien was advocating for people to write books and make movies set in Middle-earth--and certainly not without truly understanding and honoring the source material. But I'd have to re-read the letter to have more of a take on that (maybe tomorrow).

As I've said, I think Peter Jackson did a far better job of evoking the "spirit of Tolkien" than Payne/McKay, and it isn't particularly close. But even so, I don't think JRR would have been all that fond of Jackson's films (and he would have absolutely detested the CGI-ridden Hobbit trilogy). Rings of Power would have been seen as a much further degradation of his work, imo, a pale simulacrum that only shares surface similarities like names and basic concepts, but no sense of the deeper mythos and, dare I say, spiritual elements of Tolkien's work.

But I think this is all part of a larger problem, and one that is illustrated by a general decay in film-making over the last several decades. We've got copies of copies of copies, and resulting in diminishing returns, with fewer and fewer truly potent and vibrant new films being made. Instead we get yet-another Abrams-esque reboot or remake.

p.s. What do you mean by the "Alan Moore approach?"

 

[trappedslider]

p.s. What do you mean by the "Alan Moore approach?"

Alan Moore is infamous for his opinions on how others had adapted his works to tv and film to the point of quickly disowning them.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I am with the ones who say that referring to Tolkiens IP holders for advice on how good and faithful the show is, is not bound to produce any result. Their collective goal is to manage IP, which might include protecting the moral right and prevent the production of things they think would harm the IP and to make the maximum money managing the financial rights over the IP. Both goals are conflicting.

Apparently, there is a Middle Earth monopoly board. Is building three houses in Cirith Ungol faithful to the original work? Does it make sense, lore-wise, to mortgage Minas Tirith in order to buy Rohan Riders and charge outrageously your monopoloy on mounts so you can win Middle Earth once the ring reaches Mt Doom? I'd say no. I might even rate this game "1 star".

Do the Tolkien IP holders have an interest into preserving the work? Certainly, and they might be trying in earnest. Are they the absolute authority over what is faithful and not? Not more than any random person appreciating the original work. Being legally empowered to do something has never made anyone great at doing this thing...

 

[trappedslider]

To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."

This isn't the feel I get. It's more a thread about which pillar of play is the best, with most people agreeing that other can enjoy/dislike other pillars while stating their opinion.

 

[Ryujin]

I think that all of this 5-star, 1-star guff misses one simple thing. Viewership numbers for TRoP seems to have blown the doors off previous records and, from the reports that I've read, there hasn't been a precipitous drop in viewership as the series has progressed. For a corporation that's based on getting eyes on the product, that's a win. To them, the ratings numbers are otherwise meaningless. People have voted with their streaming time.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Everyone saying that the LotR films were more true to Tolkien's vision must not remember either the books or the movie.

The Aragorn who declared himself "Isildur's heir" to Eomer would not even recognize the conflicted movie Aragorn. They are completely different characters.

The whole fabricated love triangle with Eowyn. Guess Faramir was her rebound?

Don't get me started how Jackson butchered Faramir.

Guess they had to rename the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. The elves showing up to fight is pretty contrary to everything Tolkien wrote about the elves.

 

[Mercurius]

Everyone saying that the LotR films were more true to Tolkien's vision must not remember either the books or the movie.

The Aragorn who declared himself "Isildur's heir" to Eomer would not even recognize the conflicted movie Aragorn. They are completely different characters.

The whole fabricated love triangle with Eowyn. Guess Faramir was her rebound?

Don't get me started how Jackson butchered Faramir.

Guess they had to rename the Last Alliance of Elves and Men. The elves showing up to fight is pretty contrary to everything Tolkien wrote about the elves.

"More true" doesn't mean "very true." And there are all kinds of divergences, but the spirit of Jackson's trilogy is more aligned with Tolkien than Payne/McKay. IMO, of course.

 

[Mercurius]

To be honest, this thread is basically a Tolkien version of "Your playing D&D wrong, and here's why/how it is wrong."

Is it really, though? That's one reading of it, but tends to cast an overly negative light. Another is that we've seen a wide range of opinions expressed, and there have been no outright insults flung.

I'd like to think that cultural discourse can re-embrace "civil disagreement," and this thread has done a fairly good job of it.