TLOTR: The Rings of Power

[CVByrne]

16 hours ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I don't have a problem with changes such as having a more diverse cast so there is a greater pool of acting talent to choose from, or omitting some of Tolkien's more boring rambling detours*. As long as there aren't changes for the sake of it a la the apparent character changes in The Watch.

 

*I did not miss Tom Bombadil in the movies.

Yeah no issues with the casting. Some people will nitpick on that but does it really matter to the story what actor plays whom? No it doesn't. 

The issues are with rewriting of characters Tolkien wrote extensively about. Galadriel, Elrond etc. Which it's abundantly clear these show runners for Rings of Power have done. 

Thus you're not getting Tolkiens Elrond or Galadriel you're getting a "reimagining" of those characters. 

They had free reign to add in all the new characters they wanted and write them however they wanted but be faithful to what Tolkien wrote. Only change events that are strictly necessary like some time compression of events. 

[CVByrne]

7 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Tom Bombadill also breaks Tolkein's mythology by being a supernatural being who isn't a god, or angelic creature. All the other beings in Middle-Earth with his kind of abilities are Valar or Maiar - gods or angels in essence - but Tolkein specifically said he isn't. And the other option, that he's an avatar of the Creator, also gets shot down by most people, so he's just this... thing.

He's there because he's from Tolkiens early writings before LOTRs and the Hobbit and he just wanted to include him somehow. Thus he's inserted and is not at home in Arda because he's not from it in anyway. 

[HKP90]

I'm still not sure why there is so much anger whenever someone tries to change things in a franchise like this, or star wars. It's a made up universe. Literally made up. If it makes it better, someone can just make up something else. In the case of racial diversity, it just seems completely pointless that someone would choose such a hill to die on. I think it says more about the objector than the film makers. 

[HKP90]

Just now, HKP90 said:

I'm still not sure why there is so much anger whenever someone tries to change things in a franchise like this, or star wars. It's a made up universe. Literally made up. If it makes it better, someone can just make up something else. In the case of racial diversity, it just seems completely pointless that someone would choose such a hill to die on. I think it says more about the objector than the film makers. 

And honestly, when I read LOTR, I wanted to smack Tom Bombadil upside his head. Jackson totally did the right thing. 

[Rds1983]

6 hours ago, CVByrne said:

He's there because he's from Tolkiens early writings before LOTRs and the Hobbit and he just wanted to include him somehow. Thus he's inserted and is not at home in Arda because he's not from it in anyway. 

I always liked the theories he was either the embodiment of nature (Arda) or the creation song of Ainur. 

[Risso]

On 24/08/2022 at 11:24, Chindie said:

Jackson clearly didn't want to make the Hobbit, he only picked it up when the entire project was about to collapse when Guillermo del Toro left. His hearts not in it.

So he turned it more into a technical exercise, which didn't serve to make the films as masterful as his LotR trilogy. They also rushed them massively, working with half scripts and cutting corners, and the move to make it 3 movies was purely financial in nature. They also had troubles with adjusting the tone for a modern audience - the Hobbit is a bedtime story for children written in the 30s with the time and sensibilities you'd expect, and later became a prequel of sorts to LotR, so the films had to simultaneously update the humour to a modern audience, tie into an established and beloved LotR in ways the book didn't, and meld all that into a younger focused story.

As a result they got a mess. I don't hate them, they aren't bad but they're certainly less than they could be.

I really enjoyed the first film in The Hobbit trilogy, but the second was much worse, and the third the worst of the lot.

[Chindie]

13 minutes ago, Risso said:

I really enjoyed the first film in The Hobbit trilogy, but the second was much worse, and the third the worst of the lot.

Theres things I like in all of them, the problem comes from Jackson elaborating (as he has to, to make the thing into a film with action sequences and so on) on the events in very silly slapstick ways and building out characters and plots from whole cloth, making it a mess.

I still think they're perfectly watchable, but the combination of the tone becoming increasingly over the top and slapstick makes the whole thing increasingly cringey. There's probably a good fan-cut to be made from the 3, which I'd guess would chop the thing down to more like 2 movies worth of content.

Although saying that, the one thing you can't fix, and one that I think matters more than it might otherwise appear, is the overuse of CGI. One of the things that stood out from the LotR trilogy is the incredible scale of the production. For all of the (excellent) CGI used in those films, they also had a **** ton of masterful physical props (they had a sword production line!), incredible costumes and, vitally, orcs made with superb prosthetics and makeup. Jackson binned that in the Hobbit trilogy, partly for cost, partly for ease/speed, and partly because of his experimenting with increased frame rates which made the makeup, in his view, look wrong - so they did all the orcs as CG, and they're largely rubbish.

If theres something this series seems to have got right, it's that they've gone back to the physical production from what we've seen. The orcs look superb. The costumes and props have problems, but those are seemingly all due to naff designs rather than them being made poorly. There's still tonnes of CGI, and it's very, very good, but they've realised that some things are better done in physical media.

[coda]

Positive review in the Guardian 

[villarule123]

Amazing reviews 

God I hope this is good. 

[leemond2008]

Guardian - 

Daily Mail - 

Entertainment Weekly - Grade = C -

Indie Wire - Grade B

Den of Geek - 

New York post - No grade or stars but they say it is a triumph

Rolling Stone - Positive review but I couldn't be arsed to read it

NME - 

Tech Radar - 

Empire Online  - 

 

I only really bothered with reviews that gave an overall opinion or actually gave a rating, mainly positive though.

I still won't be watching, I'm just waiting for the usual war to break out now, YouTubers saying that critics have been paid to give positive reviews and highlighting how "woke" it is, only for Joe Public to review bomb it on Rotten Tomatoes and for a producer, writer or director to come out and say that it is the viewing publics fault that it is getting such a low rating only for the YouTubers to double down and say "now they are saying its our fault for being MENNNNNN"

Exactly the same pattern that has been going on since Ghostbusters 2016

[HKP90]

30 minutes ago, leemond2008 said:

Guardian - 

Daily Mail - 

Entertainment Weekly - Grade = C -

Indie Wire - Grade B

Den of Geek - 

New York post - No grade or stars but they say it is a triumph

Rolling Stone - Positive review but I couldn't be arsed to read it

NME - 

Tech Radar - 

Empire Online  - 

 

I only really bothered with reviews that gave an overall opinion or actually gave a rating, mainly positive though.

I still won't be watching, I'm just waiting for the usual war to break out now, YouTubers saying that critics have been paid to give positive reviews and highlighting how "woke" it is, only for Joe Public to review bomb it on Rotten Tomatoes and for a producer, writer or director to come out and say that it is the viewing publics fault that it is getting such a low rating only for the YouTubers to double down and say "now they are saying its our fault for being MENNNNNN"

Exactly the same pattern that has been going on since Ghostbusters 2016

Is that a 1 star from the daily bigot? I'm in!

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

On 26/08/2022 at 17:56, Chindie said:

Theres things I like in all of them, the problem comes from Jackson elaborating (as he has to, to make the thing into a film with action sequences and so on) on the events in very silly slapstick ways and building out characters and plots from whole cloth, making it a mess.

I still think they're perfectly watchable, but the combination of the tone becoming increasingly over the top and slapstick makes the whole thing increasingly cringey. There's probably a good fan-cut to be made from the 3, which I'd guess would chop the thing down to more like 2 movies worth of content.

Although saying that, the one thing you can't fix, and one that I think matters more than it might otherwise appear, is the overuse of CGI. One of the things that stood out from the LotR trilogy is the incredible scale of the production. For all of the (excellent) CGI used in those films, they also had a **** ton of masterful physical props (they had a sword production line!), incredible costumes and, vitally, orcs made with superb prosthetics and makeup. Jackson binned that in the Hobbit trilogy, partly for cost, partly for ease/speed, and partly because of his experimenting with increased frame rates which made the makeup, in his view, look wrong - so they did all the orcs as CG, and they're largely rubbish.

If theres something this series seems to have got right, it's that they've gone back to the physical production from what we've seen. The orcs look superb. The costumes and props have problems, but those are seemingly all due to naff designs rather than them being made poorly. There's still tonnes of CGI, and it's very, very good, but they've realised that some things are better done in physical media.

Can't remember it's name, but there is a 5hr fan cut that is supposedly very good, I remember going to download it then realising I couldn't be arsed to watch a 5hr movie.

I think the main takeaway from the synopsis was more Bilbo, less Thorin and the dwarves, no LOTR stuff where possible.

[Rolta]

1 hour ago, MessiWillSignForVilla said:

Can't remember it's name, but there is a 5hr fan cut that is supposedly very good, I remember going to download it then realising I couldn't be arsed to watch a 5hr movie.

I think the main takeaway from the synopsis was more Bilbo, less Thorin and the dwarves, no LOTR stuff where possible.

I watched a 4 hour one I think and it was so much better. All the stupid crap was cut out.

[CVByrne]

16 hours ago, leemond2008 said:

Guardian - 

Daily Mail - 

Entertainment Weekly - Grade = C -

Indie Wire - Grade B

Den of Geek - 

New York post - No grade or stars but they say it is a triumph

Rolling Stone - Positive review but I couldn't be arsed to read it

NME - 

Tech Radar - 

Empire Online  - 

 

I only really bothered with reviews that gave an overall opinion or actually gave a rating, mainly positive though.

I still won't be watching, I'm just waiting for the usual war to break out now, YouTubers saying that critics have been paid to give positive reviews and highlighting how "woke" it is, only for Joe Public to review bomb it on Rotten Tomatoes and for a producer, writer or director to come out and say that it is the viewing publics fault that it is getting such a low rating only for the YouTubers to double down and say "now they are saying its our fault for being MENNNNNN"

Exactly the same pattern that has been going on since Ghostbusters 2016

You always get positive reviews in general from those outlets which get a chance to see the shows early. The show runners know who are most likely to give better reviews so allow them to see it. It's very hard getting actual wide spectrum of reviews.

For me the most telling is Entertainment Weekly review. They have had so much special access yet still gave the show this review. 

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is kind of a catastrophe | EW.com

Quote

There are ways to do a prequel, and The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power does them all wrong. It takes six or seven things everyone remembers from the famous movie trilogy, adds a water tank, makes nobody fun, teases mysteries that aren't mysteries, and sends the best character on a pointless detour. The latter is uber-elf Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) who spends the premiere telling people to worry about Sauron. In response, people tell her not to worry about Sauron. That's one hour down, seven to go this season. Sound like a billion dollars yet?

Personally I know how everything gets a good review now if it's a big budget because the way the system works is you can't risk negative reviews for a big budget release otherwise you could get denied access in future. Disney or Amazon or Netflix are so big you can't risk it.

I won't watch the show, I'll wait until all episodes are released and decide to binge watch it either because it turned out to be a good show (which seems unlikely) or it's worth watching for how bad it is.

[HKP90]

3 hours ago, CVByrne said:

You always get positive reviews in general from those outlets which get a chance to see the shows early. The show runners know who are most likely to give better reviews so allow them to see it. It's very hard getting actual wide spectrum of reviews.

For me the most telling is Entertainment Weekly review. They have had so much special access yet still gave the show this review. 

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is kind of a catastrophe | EW.com

Personally I know how everything gets a good review now if it's a big budget because the way the system works is you can't risk negative reviews for a big budget release otherwise you could get denied access in future. Disney or Amazon or Netflix are so big you can't risk it.

I won't watch the show, I'll wait until all episodes are released and decide to binge watch it either because it turned out to be a good show (which seems unlikely) or it's worth watching for how bad it is.

To be honest, that synopsis from EW sounds like Fantasy Brexit 

[ender4]

4 hours ago, CVByrne said:

I won't watch the show, I'll wait until all episodes are released and decide to binge watch it either because it turned out to be a good show (which seems unlikely) or it's worth watching for how bad it is.

What if it's ok, not amazing but not bad, just ok?

[Chindie]

Of the discussion of the opening 2 episodes I was a bit disappointed to hear that the First Age epilogue stuff lasts just a few minutes. The talk was the first 2 episodes were basically a whistle stop tour of the First Age's big events that set up the Second Age. Instead it seems it's more like intro to Jackson's films.

And also appears it's got more not-hobbits than I'd hoped.

[CVByrne]

56 minutes ago, ender4 said:

What if it's ok, not amazing but not bad, just ok?

I watched Wheel of Time, have never read the books and found it pretty dull and un-engaging. I am a big Tolkien fan, so all the Lore breaking on RoP will probably annoy me a lot. The things I have no way of noticing in the Wheel of Time show as I knew literally zero about the books going in. 

So if the show is just ok to casual viewers, to me it'll be probably be annoying for the lore breaking and character rewrites. I've a couple of friends who have a passing interest in Tolkien who will watch the show and give me their opinions. I'll probably go on that to decide if it's worth watching or not

[LondonLax]

6 hours ago, CVByrne said:

You always get positive reviews in general from those outlets which get a chance to see the shows early. The show runners know who are most likely to give better reviews so allow them to see it. It's very hard getting actual wide spectrum of reviews.

For me the most telling is Entertainment Weekly review. They have had so much special access yet still gave the show this review. 

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is kind of a catastrophe | EW.com

Personally I know how everything gets a good review now if it's a big budget because the way the system works is you can't risk negative reviews for a big budget release otherwise you could get denied access in future. Disney or Amazon or Netflix are so big you can't risk it.

I won't watch the show, I'll wait until all episodes are released and decide to binge watch it either because it turned out to be a good show (which seems unlikely) or it's worth watching for how bad it is.

You post a lot in this thread and seem pretty determined not to like it

[CVByrne]

38 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

You post a lot in this thread and seem pretty determined not to like it

Yep, I really dislike what has become Hollywood and HBO in terms of quality big budget movies and shows. It's in a big slump now, it's just "Content" now. Disney churning out dross, Netflix even more dross and Amazon in on the action.

All these shows and movies needed to fail badly to draw a line under this era and a focus on good scripts, good stories, less content more quality