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

[Parmandur]

I'd be interested in that in theory. But it really depends upon how it was done, and who was doing it. Book-to-film adaptations run the gamut from really good (GoT) to pretty good (LotR) to fairly awful (RoP)...all imo, of course.

But yeah, imagine Lord of the Rings spread out over six seasons, one for each book:

Season 1: The Ring Sets Out - from Hobbiton to Rivendell.
Season 2: The Ring Goes South - from Rivendell to Amon Hen, and the breaking of the Fellowship.
Season 3: The Treason of Isengard - Saruman, Rohan, and Helm's Deep.
Season 4: The Ring Goes East - Frodo and Sam heading towards Mordor, Ithilen, Shelob.
Season 5: The War of the Ring - Gondor, Paths of the Dead, Battle of the Morannon.
Season 6: The End of the Third Age - Mordor, crowning of Aragorn, Scouring of the Shire, Grey Havens.

I think seasons (and books) 3 and 4 would have to be done mixed together and chronologically like the films, otherwise you might not see certain characters for an entire season. I'm also somewhat dubious about the idea of including the Scouring of the Shire, as it could be rather anticlimatic in a "dead cat bounce" sort of way, yet on the other hand gives the hobbits a nice victory to end on.

But you'd essentially be turning 11-12 hours of film (the extended versions) into 50-60 hours, depending on whether each season is 8 or 10 episodes.

Alternately, you could add a season and make it seven, with the first being precursors - stuff that was included in Jackson's Hobbit films, Dol Guldur, and maybe a young Aragorn. So extending the total run-time to up to 70 hours.

Another option would be to use a good portion of those 50-70 hours on creating new stories and characters in different parts of the world - perhaps a failed Harad revolt, orcs invading Lake-town and the Lonely Mountain (get more dwarves in there), Rhun and the east (and the Blue Wizards), etc. Meaning, it is implied that the conflict with Sauron went beyond the events of LotR--that what was depicted was the central focus, but Sauron's influence was much more widespread, so it could be interesting to see "everything else."


I always thought Robin Williams would have made a good Tom Bombadil. But his exclusion from the Jackson films didn't bother me; it felt like a quintessential Tolkienism that would have been very hard to portray on film. The point, I think, of Bombadil is to be a mystery and anomaly, who in a way gives a completely outsider, even quasi-Taoist, perspective on the who drama. That isn't impossible to portray on film, but it would be hard to get just right.

I think 5 seasons would do the trick. Keep the scouring as a big Series finale to show how the Hobbits have changed and grown.

The extra run time would allow time for all the songs from the book, which are literally one of the most important features, and allow the characto get drawn out without being overly broad in depiction.

 

[Parmandur]

Indeed, I'd agree about some objectivity when it comes to art criticism. "Fantasy show reviewing online" might on the other hand be mostly "I like" and very marginally art criticism (and, increasingly, opinion on the actor's or showmaker's personal life).

I'd be very surprised to see a review praising the artistic direction, giving 5 stars, and ends saying "Oh and by the way, don't waste time watching this, this B&W film is the most boring piece of crap you'll ever see despite Godard's mastery of the filmmaking art."

Right, which is why I am discounting the 1 star reviews, same way that I won't lose sleep over the guy who doesn't like good paintings.

 

[Parmandur]

Both Parmandur and I seem to have a good deal of knowledge about Tolkien, but still fundamentally disagree on Rings of Power and whether it captures the "spirit of Tolkien."

For an interesting look at Tolkienian the.es in the show, I would recommend the close reading of Corey Olsen, "The Tolkien Professor", on YouTube:


He ended up being pretty thrown by Halbrand turning out to be Sauron, bit he does a good job laying out the themes of the show, which line up with the themes of Tolkien'swork. And it is those themes that make up the form of the "Spirit of Tolkien" that I find veautiful, ot details in the chronology or whatnot. Personally, I thought the show was setting him up to be Witch-King of Angmar, but now I think thst will probably be Theo.

 

[Parmandur]

Late to this party, but: I think it is possible that aesthetic facts exist. It's generally a difficult thing to argue, though, especially in support of a particular fact. Fortunately, this show was an exception: the dialogue was so wooden, the drama so forced, and the action so cliched that I didn't even make it through the first episode. Rings of Power is a fantastic argument in favour of objective artistic merit, by way of negative example.

You are right that this is a good example.of why it is hard to argue, because...the dialogue is well written? And the dramatic structure is quite sound? Might need to see more than the first episode to get that across, though.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is indeed interesting that the opinions seem to be very polarized... I don't think it is so much the result of the current zeitgeist that tend to make every expression of opinion more extreme (as we can have a peaceful discussion here, even when we disagree) but for other reasons. It could be because some have a quasi-religious reverence for Tolkien but the gap is still wide between people who never read it and are only familiar with the Jackson films. I have no interest in GoT nor HotD, but are reviews from those shows divisive as well?

House if the Dragons n seems to have gone down reasonably well with fans and critics. It's best episode is 9.4 on IMDb, 8.2 overall iirc.

Not as good as peak GoT, better than it's weaker seasons imho.

Phrases like saved the franchise" have been going around.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

You are right that this is a good example.of why it is hard to argue, because...the dialogue is well written? And the dramatic structure is quite sound? Might need to see more than the first episode to get that across, though.

Honestly, the part about the elves stealing jobs in Numenor doesn't sound 5-star dialogue. Numenorean are supposed to become morally corrupt as they divorce themselves from the Faithful, but illustrating it by putting in their words criticisms of mass immigration from the 70's by the far right is silly (as lack of job isn't a characteristics of pre-industralized societies, plus a single Elf over the whole life of Tar-Palantir doesn't really evoke mass immigration), dated in its choice of slur, and out of place in a fantasy show. I found that jarring (I'd have liked it in a Rick & Morty episode, but not in a high fantasy show).

 

[gorice]

I think different people can be receptive to different things. For example, I really don't care about the 'spirit of Tolkien', but I do like a lot of Tolkien's aesthetic sensibilities, which are mostly absent from the screen adaptations.

There's probably also a distinction to be made between technique and outcome. You might enjoy watching Galadriel chew the scenery, while I'm sitting there saying 'her obsession with Sauron and the conflict between her and the other elves is completely contrived, and clearly only there to make the plot move'.

 

[OB1]

@gorice curious as to why you feel Galadriel's obsession with Sauron and conflict with the Elves is contrived? I felt the story did a good job of showing why the death of her brother specifically pushed her towards vengeance against Sauron, and how that obsession led to conflict with her society. It's not just about fighting a vague 'evil' or 'enemy', she is personally connected to the tragedy of it in a very real way. You are correct that her obsession moves the plot, as her refusal to leave is the inciting incident that allows Sauron's influence to grow. She's not doing the right thing, and the elves know it (much like Durin's father knows mining for Mithril is a bad idea, while Durin's drive to do so is driven by his personal friendship with Elrond). The show cleverly asks us to root for Galadriel and Durin to buck the council of their elders, while making their actions the cause of much strife to come. The plot then leads into the themes of the show, in trusting in Grace.

So we end up with Character driving Plot driving Theme, which is the backbone of good storytelling.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, you see, that is a fraught philosophical question. While on a practical level "agree to disagree" is eventually the only terminus here, a solid argument can be made for objective aesthetics (a case I learned from...J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis). Indeed, that is historically the assumed approach to questions of beauty, "it's, like, all subjective, man," is a fairly recent idea, although it was always held that receiving is in the mode of the receiver even if aesthetics are considered objective.

Yes, and as I said above, I agree that there is a case for "objective aesthetics," or rather varying depths of subjectivity...because subjects, by their very nature, cannot be truly objective, but their subjective view can be more or less sophisticated or developed (e.g. the taste palate of a three year old vs. a chef).

I don't see anyone making a case that "Manoa: Hands of Fate" is well crafter, even weirdos like me who enjoy it.

One potential difference I can imagine is that I actually quite like the Abrams style "Mystery Box" approach to story telling, and indeed I think it is a result.of TV writers who grew up playing and DMing TTRPGs applying the lessons learned into a more formal setting. I like Lost, all of it, especially the ending.

I like the "mystery box" too...if it is done well. But there's the rub, no?

 

[Sepulchrave II]

For an interesting look at Tolkienian the.es in the show, I would recommend the close reading of Corey Olsen, "The Tolkien Professor", on YouTube:


He ended up being pretty thrown by Halbrand turning out to be Sauron, bit he does a good job laying out the themes of the show, which line up with the themes of Tolkien'swork. And it is those themes that make up the form of the "Spirit of Tolkien" that I find veautiful, ot details in the chronology or whatnot. Personally, I thought the show was setting him up to be Witch-King of Angmar, but now I think thst will probably be Theo.

I just watched the first half hour of this video, and I admit I'm baffled; it seemed to me that Mr Olsen was making tenuous connections, framing the pedestrian as profound, and treating - what seems to me - a rather crass and mediocre production as though it were high art, replete with nuance and clever, meaningful symbolism.

I just don't see it. I mean, I consider myself relatively cultured, and receptive to well-reasoned and well-articulated commentary and artistic critique; I suppose it's possible I'm missing something. But my instinct is that it was a load of hot air and guff; all waffle, with no substance.