The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

ART!

Legend
Yeah, let's remember this is just a teaser trailer, and one for something 7 months off - the digital stuff in the trailer may well be unfinished, i.e. not as fully rendered as it will be in the final product.
But hey, if its good fan fiction, I'll watch it. I don't expect visual or thematic continuity with the Jackson films -- different creators, different story, different vision. It would be like expecting continuity with the best Hobbit adaptation (that would be the Bakshi one).
I'm at work so I don't have the time to look it up, but I remember there being a deal worked out with Weta or whoever, for this show to be able to use designs from Jackson's movies.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The 462 million is in fact minus 108 million = 282 million. Of those 282 million, an unknown amount should be spread over the 5 seasons.

That would be about 200 for ten hours against 93 million for 3 hours.

Unless some changes have been announced, season one is still slated for eight episodes, not ten. And all these "hour-long" shows are never an actual hour. They all have to be in the 40-50 minute range, so that in the future, they can be repeated on regular TV and have time built in for all the commercials. So more like 6 1/2 hours of actual show for an 8-episode season.
 

Mezuka

Hero
Unless some changes have been announced, season one is still slated for eight episodes, not ten. And all these "hour-long" shows are never an actual hour. They all have to be in the 40-50 minute range, so that in the future, they can be repeated on regular TV and have time built in for all the commercials. So more like 6 1/2 hours of actual show for an 8-episode season.
Actualy I made a computation error. Its 354 millions.
 


Likewise, I am hopeful that it will be good. It's got such a high bar to clear, but I want them to manage it.

I'm cautiously optimistic, precisely because they are making this show out if a 12 and a half page Appendix: other than broad strokes, this will all be original, which is much better potential than the weird half and half muddle of the Hobbit trilogy.

Cosigned. If LOTR had been made today, I guarantee it would've had a more diverse casting.

And the Dwarf princess is the best thing ever, the haters gonna hate.

This gets tricky. In the Nature of Middle-Earth, Tolkien explicitly says that all male dwarves have beards. Elsewhere, if I recall correctly, he says that dwarven women disguise themselves as men when they travel abroad. Which would imply that they either grow beards or wear fake ones (possibly evoking the Langobards of Norse legends), unless there are also cleanshaven dwarven men, which the original sentence contradicts.

Now, he does not say that dwarven women cannot or do not have beards. In the same section he specifically calls out that characters of Numenorean or Elven descent cannot grow beards, unless very old (see Cirdan the Shipwright). Which means we cannot assume that by not explicitly saying dwarven women can't grow beards, they weren't bearded.

Ultimately, that's all Tolkien lore noodling on my part, and the decision to not have a bearded dwarven woman for the TV show is likely an aesthetic one.

That being said...Tolkien's female Dwarves had beards and dressed like the male Dwarves. That's pretty clearly established: apparently male and female Dwarves are born with beards. Buy fir the show, it's no biggie as long as the design is good, which it is
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Likewise, I am hopeful that it will be good. It's got such a high bar to clear, but I want them to manage it.



Cosigned. If LOTR had been made today, I guarantee it would've had a more diverse casting.



This gets tricky. In the Nature of Middle-Earth, Tolkien explicitly says that all male dwarves have beards. Elsewhere, if I recall correctly, he says that dwarven women disguise themselves as men when they travel abroad. Which would imply that they either grow beards or wear fake ones (possibly evoking the Langobards of Norse legends), unless there are also cleanshaven dwarven men, which the original sentence contradicts.

Now, he does not say that dwarven women cannot or do not have beards. In the same section he specifically calls out that characters of Numenorean or Elven descent cannot grow beards, unless very old (see Cirdan the Shipwright). Which means we cannot assume that by not explicitly saying dwarven women can't grow beards, they weren't bearded.

Ultimately, that's all Tolkien lore noodling on my part, and the decision to not have a bearded dwarven woman for the TV show is likely an aesthetic one.
From the Return of the King:

"They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."

From the War of the Jewels:

"For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race..."

But, yeah, it doesn't matter.
 


Likewise, I am hopeful that it will be good. It's got such a high bar to clear, but I want them to manage it.



Cosigned. If LOTR had been made today, I guarantee it would've had a more diverse casting.



This gets tricky. In the Nature of Middle-Earth, Tolkien explicitly says that all male dwarves have beards. Elsewhere, if I recall correctly, he says that dwarven women disguise themselves as men when they travel abroad. Which would imply that they either grow beards or wear fake ones (possibly evoking the Langobards of Norse legends), unless there are also cleanshaven dwarven men, which the original sentence contradicts.

Now, he does not say that dwarven women cannot or do not have beards. In the same section he specifically calls out that characters of Numenorean or Elven descent cannot grow beards, unless very old (see Cirdan the Shipwright). Which means we cannot assume that by not explicitly saying dwarven women can't grow beards, they weren't bearded.

Ultimately, that's all Tolkien lore noodling on my part, and the decision to not have a bearded dwarven woman for the TV show is likely an aesthetic one.

There were Dwarf women fleeing Smaug in The Hobbit movie and some of them did not have beards, so this will not be the first time on film for that, just the first time a female will be interacted with at all.
 



Mercurius

Legend
I really dislike the degree to which criticism is considered "toxic," no matter the reasons for that criticism, as if any change is good and new is always better, and if you dislike an adaptation or new version, you're inherently being "toxic" or, worse yet, "racist."

This is not to say that there aren't voices that are toxic and/or racist, but what I'm taking issue is the broad-brush depiction of any and all--or at least most--complaints as being toxic/racist. It is an all-too easy ad hominem way of writing off legit criticism.

Most of the protests I read have to do with the degree to which an adaptation diverges from the source material and/or the spirit of the source material. This is particularly touchy with something like Tolkien, because it is so beloved. The potential is there for a sense of disrespect and exploitation of an artist's vision.

This is not to say that any alterations and updates are inherently bad or disrespectful of Tolkien, but I think the key is staying true to the spirit of his vision and specific creations.

As for the teaser, my take: Too little to go on. It looks pretty good visually, but on first blush it doesn't feel quite as "authentic Tolkien" as Jackson's initial trilogy. My expectations are tepid. I agree with what someone said up-thread that it should say "inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien." That's how I'm going to approach it, and thus my enjoyment will be based mostly on how good it is as a fantasy story. I'm not looking for it to actualize Tolkien's world on the screen - that's where I think a lot of "Tolkienistas" go wrong.
 

Considering the contradictions, like so much around the edges of Middle-Earth, I suspect Tolkien went back and forth on it over the years.

From the Return of the King:

"They are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart."

From the War of the Jewels:

"For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race..."

But, yeah, it doesn't matter.

They did not have full beards, but the dwarven women had varying degrees of facial hair in it. As an aside, apparently Cate Blanchett tried to convince them to let her cameo a bearded dwarven woman in one of the scenes:

“I loved it so much and I did say to Peter and Fran, they were doing a banquet scene with a whole lot of dwarves. I always wanted to play the bearded lady, so I asked them, could I be your hairy wife woman when you pan across the banquet table of dwarves?”

There were Dwarf women fleeing Smaug in The Hobbit movie and some of them did not have beards, so this will not be the first time on film for that, just the first time a female will be interacted with at all.
 
Last edited:

Zaukrie

New Publisher
I really dislike the degree to which criticism is considered "toxic," no matter the reasons for that criticism, as if any change is good and new is always better, and if you dislike an adaptation or new version, you're inherently being "toxic" or, worse yet, "racist."

This is not to say that there aren't voices that are toxic and/or racist, but what I'm taking issue is the broad-brush depiction of any and all--or at least most--complaints as being toxic/racist. It is an all-too easy ad hominem way of writing off legit criticism.

Most of the protests I read have to do with the degree to which an adaptation diverges from the source material and/or the spirit of the source material. This is particularly touchy with something like Tolkien, because it is so beloved. The potential is there for a sense of disrespect and exploitation of an artist's vision.

This is not to say that any alterations and updates are inherently bad or disrespectful of Tolkien, but I think the key is staying true to the spirit of his vision and specific creations.

As for the teaser, my take: Too little to go on. It looks pretty good visually, but on first blush it doesn't feel quite as "authentic Tolkien" as Jackson's initial trilogy. My expectations are tepid. I agree with what someone said up-thread that it should say "inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien." That's how I'm going to approach it, and thus my enjoyment will be based mostly on how good it is as a fantasy story. I'm not looking for it to actualize Tolkien's world on the screen - that's where I think a lot of "Tolkienistas" go wrong.
You must not be looking at Twitter or other places, because, trust me, there is plenty of racism.
 




Parmandur

Book-Friend
Like the forging of the rings of power? :p
The Vanity Fair article cleared up that the source material for the show is very specifically Appendix B of Return of the King. Nothing more, nothing less, other than what they make up. So, it's mostly going to be fan fiction, which can go either way.

Which effectively means that they can reference events from the Silmarillion...if they are in Return of the King.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
The Vanity Fair article cleared up that the source material for the show is very specifically Appendix B of Return of the King. Nothing more, nothing less, other than what they make up. So, it's mostly going to be fan fiction, which can go either way.

Which effectively means that they can reference events from the Silmarillion...if they are in Return of the King.
Gotcha. Oh, well. That's really too bad. There's a lot of good stuff in the Silmarillion.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top