Rings of Power Amazon buys up Middle-earth, it searches the One Ring! (Rings of Power news thread)

[Incanus 5,616]

1 hour ago, Romão said:

It is precisely because I love the books and admire Tolkien's life work that I refuse to watch this

Exactly!

 

A decision made even easier by the fact I don't have an Amazon streaming service subscription in the first place.  

[Chen G. 3,346]

I'm with @Nick1Ø66 in that the tenor of the reviews matters less than what they have to say. I find the reviews that wax lyrical to be more out-of-step with my tastes than those that are more lukewarm speak more to potential snares I forsee in the show. For instance, this is a pretty damning thing from Polygon:

 

Quote

Sinister, soul-corrupting McGuffins? Check. Forbidden interspecies love? Check. Hobbits swept up in world-changing events, the full significance of which fly well over their 3-foot-6-inch-high heads? Check. We’ve seen it all before, and frankly, seen it done better, too — especially the scenes involving the Harfoots — so why aren’t we diving into some other, unexplored corner of Middle-earth lore instead?
[...]

For the most part, Payne and McKay follow the Tolkien playbook to the letter, fashioning the story primarily from tried and true Middle-earth tropes such as solemn council sessions, moody dungeon crawling, and folksy pastoral hijinks. Admittedly, these are all ingredients the show was bound to include, if for no other reason than that fans are expecting to see them. But they’re so conceptually safe rather than daring, and executionally pedestrian rather than poetic, that it’s hard for us to get too excited.

[...]

The other “tell” that The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power isn’t quite as keyed into Tolkien as it is modern TV are the various “mystery box”-style narrative devices. To be honest, these all feel alien to Middle-earth — especially the meteor man, and the Sauron sigil and sword. It’s not that Tolkien completely eschewed any form of mystery in his storytelling; as originally written, the Balrog’s arrival in The Fellowship of the Ring was all about clues and suspense. But he didn’t trade in dangling unanswered plot points, preferring instead to build his narratives around clearly defined goals like “kill dragon” or “destroy magic ring.”

 

I'm willing to keep an open mind: some of my very favourite films are ones I was extremly skeptical about going in.

[TheUlyssesian 2,443]

Wow I literally made the same point earlier in the thread as that polygon review!

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I'm willing to keep an open mind

 

If I'm honest, I can't really say I'm keeping an open mind. Given what we already know, I just don't see how it can succeed as an adaptation of Tolkien...no matter how well it succeeds, or fails, as generic TV fantasy (and by that score it may be great) as Tolkien, it's mostly going to be expensive fan fiction. 

 

And even if it's brilliant as generic TV fantasy, the fact that they're calling it Tolkien makes me vaguely uneasy. But Tolkien has been subsumed by pop culture now, and there's really nothing to be done about it. 

[Richard Penna 2,963]

Strikes me that it's best to see these movies/show as 'inspired by', instead of actual adaptations.

 

No show intended for mass appeal is going to have the strict literary detail to please hardcode Tolkien scholars.

[Incanus 5,616]

11 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

Strikes me that it's best to see these movies/show as 'inspired by', instead of actual adaptations.

 

No show intended for mass appeal is going to have the strict literary detail to please hardcode Tolkien scholars.

Especially when it is based on a very limited amount of Tolkien's actual writings. Pleasing hardcore Tolkien scholars among us would be easier  if they actually had based the show extensively on Tolkien's texts and actually honored the author's work and not written mostly fan fiction.

 

This show seems to be mostly very loosely inspired by Tolkien.

[Holko 8,626]

9 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

No show intended for mass appeal is going to have the strict literary detail to please hardcode Tolkien scholars.

That's no reason to not even try and just go against the spirit of his world and characters wrapped in a generic modern fantasy and LotR film trilogy soft remake.

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

 

Excellent NYT opinion piece by a scholar I respect that pretty much sums up perfectly what some of us have been saying for a while...

 

Quote

Please Don’t Make a Tolkien Cinematic Universe

 

“The Rings of Power,”...is based primarily on only a few dozen pages in one of the historical appendices to “The Lord of the Rings" meaning that almost the entire plot of the show has been created by Amazon Studios’ writers and showrunners. But not all stories are equally suited to being exploited by studios, and a Middle-earth that’s spread out — “like butter that has been scraped over too much bread,” to quote Bilbo Baggins — may not have the same appeal...

*

There’s a huge gulf between Tolkien’s originality, moral sophistication and narrative subtlety and the culture of Hollywood in 2022 — the groupthink produced by the contemporary ecosystem of writers’ rooms, Twitter threads and focus groups. The writing that this dynamic is particularly good at producing — witty banter, arch references to contemporary issues, graphic and often sexualized violence, self-righteousness — is poorly suited to Middle-earth...

*

...when attending a production of “The Hobbit” adapted as a children’s play, Tolkien frowned every time the dialogue departed from what he had written. So it is hard to believe that he would have approved of a team of writers building almost entirely new stories with little direct basis in his works....

*

If viewers find themselves disappointed by “The Rings of Power,” it will probably not be because the computer-generated imagery is second-rate or there are not enough fight sequences. It will be because the new adaptation lacks literary and moral depth that make Middle-earth not just another cinematic universe but a world worth saving.

 

 

[Stark 201]

Matches one of my most prevalent concerns, which is that being based on only the appendices set this show up to be essentially incapable of succeeding as a Tolkien adaption. (Hopefully it can still manage to be a good show though.)

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

I just don't think the material is well-suited for weekly TV.  What was its strength as three films in the cinema...archetypal characters, spectacular settings, straight forward good vs. evil plot. etc, isn't enough, IMO, to make for a compelling modern show. Tolkien just doesn't have those sensibilities. People became addicted to Game of Thrones not because of dragons & white walkers, but because of the complex characters and compelling drama. People loved Tyrion's quips, Cersei's scheming, family drama, etc.  In fact, the last season of GOT had the biggest budget and most spectacular scenes, and it's widely regarded as the worst.  All the best modern TV is character driven, and there's just no way this show can have that, at least and stay true to Tolkien. 

 

 

 

[Dcole4 11]

Having watched the episodes last night, I think that this piece is a bit unfair. Don't get me wrong, this is expensive fan fiction through and through but (imo) it's tastefully done. They match the tone and rhythms established by PJ & co (more LOTR than Hobbit, but obviously not matching the former). If you go into this with an open mind... you might enjoy it for what it is: a love letter to the mythology and a chance to see exceptional artists interpret this world, nothing more. 

[TolkienSS 358]

"Appreciate it for what it is" is one of the biggest cop-out arguments ever.

[Dcole4 11]

Fair. Each Tolkien fan has their line in the sand that they won't cross. I respect that. For me, I have always held the books far away from the "adaptations." PJ's films consistently stray wildly off the path but I still love them. This series is an even further departure from the lore (in the sense they have to 'connect the dots') but the tone and writing presented thus far feels respectful. I don't agree with all of their choices but that's to be expected. "Adapting" the second age was always going to require wild swings from the artists involved. 

[Brónach 1,206]

1 hour ago, TolkienSS said:

"Appreciate it for what it is" is one of the biggest cop-out arguments ever.

 

I need things to appreciate in order to appreciate what they are

2 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I just don't think the material is well-suited for weekly TV.  What was its strength as three films in the cinema...archetypal characters, spectacular settings, straight forward good vs. evil plot. etc, isn't enough, IMO, to make for a compelling modern show. Tolkien just doesn't have those sensibilities. People became addicted to Game of Thrones not because of dragons & white walkers, but because of the complex characters and compelling drama. People loved Tyrion's quips, Cersei's scheming, family drama, etc.  In fact, the last season of GOT had the biggest budget and most spectacular scenes, and it's widely regarded as the worst.  All the best modern TV is character driven, and there's just no way this show can have that, at least and stay true to Tolkien. 

 

 

 

 

Following this argument, i think they've planned to make it too long, and to invent too many characters to develop instead of writing complicated fanfic about the existing characters

3 hours ago, Incanus said:

Especially when it is based on a very limited amount of Tolkien's actual writings. Pleasing hardcore Tolkien scholars among us would be easier  if they actually had based the show extensively on Tolkien's texts and actually honored the author's work and not written mostly fan fiction.

 

This show seems to be mostly very loosely inspired by Tolkien.

 

It would still be fanfiction if they did that!

11 hours ago, Incanus said:

Exactly!

 

A decision made even easier by the fact I don't have an Amazon streaming service subscription in the first place.  

 

I don't have any of them to be honest. Nor Spotify. I'm a frugal person who can torrent and has picky and annoying tastes lmao

[Richard Penna 2,963]

1 hour ago, TolkienSS said:

"Appreciate it for what it is" is one of the biggest cop-out arguments ever.

 

I loved the Potter books but was disappointed by the first couple of films. I still appreciate them for what they are because it must be extraordinarily difficult to make a film or show out of such beloved source.

 

Hence it's not a cop-out. It's a realistic interpretation of making a show that tries to do something with beloved material and appeal to a wide audience.

[Romão 2,237]

12 hours ago, Incanus said:

Exactly!

 

A decision made even easier by the fact I don't have an Amazon streaming service subscription in the first place.  

 

At this point, I really do not care if this is good or not and that is honestly besides the point. Tolkien would've hated this sort of "expansion", to put it mildly, of his writings. It's ethically and artistically wrong. He was obsessed with the inner consistency of his life's work. No detail was superfluous. Nothing was added to just create a false sense of depth and fake historicity. It never was lazy world building. The whole thing just becomes absolutely believable.

 

Amazon might have the rights, but they have no right to do this.

[Brónach 1,206]

On 23/08/2022 at 4:12 PM, Chen G. said:

I doubt its a reveal that happens in this season.

 

This is the most annoying concept i've read all week

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

15 hours ago, Brónach said:

 

This is the most annoying concept i've read all week

 

Yep. Rather than compelling characters and strong writing (have any of the reviews praised those things?) we've fallen back on the mystery box.

 

Which is ironic given that the show is supposedly based on pre-existing source material, and there should be no mysteries to box. There's a reason Gandalf featured in the Two Towers Trailer after "dying" in FOTR. Trying to pretend that was a secret would have been...stupid.

[TolkienSS 358]

4 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

 

I loved the Potter books but was disappointed by the first couple of films. I still appreciate them for what they are because it must be extraordinarily difficult to make a film or show out of such beloved source.

 

Hence it's not a cop-out. It's a realistic interpretation of making a show that tries to do something with beloved material and appeal to a wide audience.

 

Only because something is made from beloved material you don't have to appreciate what it turns out to be, nor does someone have to appreciate what is done with the material. Otherwise there would be no point whatsoever in talking about any of it, it would just be a big round of appreciation for anything and everything anyone ever does with certain material.

 

I mean, do I have to appreciate Batman XXX - A Porn Parody, because it's doing something with beloved material and tries to appeal to a wide audience?

 

In video games, do I have to appreciate Superman 64 because it's doing something with beloved material and tries to appeal to a wide audience?

 

The fact someone does something with beloved material can always be appreciated. The "something" it turns out to be cannot and should not be appreciated only because there is a certain name value involved.

 

 

 

[Glóin the Dark 1,159]

19 hours ago, Romão said:

Tolkien would've hated this sort of "expansion", to put it mildly, of his writings. It's ethically and artistically wrong.

 

Here is a remark by Tolkien, as quoted in Humphrey Carpenter's biography, regarding his early conception of the nature of his work:

 

Quote

The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.

 

He later concluded that his plans were absurd in their ambition, but that last phrase demonstrates that he was open, in principle, to the notion of other artists building upon his own material.

 

 

19 hours ago, Romão said:

Nothing was added to just create a false sense of depth and fake historicity.

 

Creating a false sense of depth and fake historicity was fundamental to Tolkien's style. He himself noted that this was one of the attractions of The Lord of the Rings, and he had reservations about fleshing such things out in the Appendices on the grounds that doing so could destroy the effect - unless a further layer of fake history was hinted at to preserve the sense of depth.

 

 

On 01/09/2022 at 1:46 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

...the fact that they're calling it Tolkien makes me vaguely uneasy. But Tolkien has been subsumed by pop culture now, and there's really nothing to be done about it. 

 

Seeing Tolkien's name in the credits of Jackson's films creates a feeling of cognitive dissonance in me...

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

34 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

He later concluded that his plans were absurd in their ambition, but that last phrase demonstrates that he was open, in principle, to the notion of other artists building upon his own material.

 

Yeah I know. But this is quite possibly the most misunderstood, misused, and overused quote ever from Tolkien.  He wasn't talking about fan fiction, and it's debatable if he was even referring to Middle-Earth as it became to be at all. 

 

Tolkien was fiercely protective of his work, to an almost obsessive degree. To the point where he cringed at every line of changed dialogue in a children's production of The Hobbit he attended (an anecdote that's also in Carpenter's book). And when his publisher alerted him to the fact they were receiving manuscripts from fans writing new stories about "Hobbits" (what we'd all fan fic today), he said if it went any further to refer the whole thing to their attorneys.

 

No doubt he was OK with painting and music inspired by his world, and maybe even theoretically some dramatic (i.e. stage) adaptations (though he likely would have hated anything he saw). And let's remember he only sold the film rights b/c he needed the money, and if I'm not mistaken hated every script he was ever shown. So the notion that he'd approve of others writing dialogue and stories involving his characters, and changing the nature of his world, is ludicrous. I love the Jackson films, but I'm under no illusions that he'd have approved of them, and he certainly wouldn't have approved of what Amazon is doing.

[Glóin the Dark 1,159]

What Tolkien would have thought about the artistic merits of this show (or Jackson's films) is not in doubt.

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

No doubt. It's unlikely he'd approve of any adaptation. That's the point. To say the good professor was a stickler obsessed with details is an understatement. He was upset that an edition of The Hobbit was out there with lines his publisher included as a result of miscommunication...and those were his own lines. Given how many times he reworked his own material, it's difficult to imagine him being OK with others screwing about with it. Christopher, who knew him best, felt the same.

[Glóin the Dark 1,159]

21 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

He wasn't talking about fan fiction, and it's debatable if he was even referring to Middle-Earth as it became to be at all.

 

It really doesn't matter, insofar as the point I was making is concerned, at what stage in the development of his mythology he expressed this, or whether he changed his mind later, or whether he only had certain media in mind. To say that it is ethically wrong to expand upon work created by someone else is a strong claim, wrong in general, and (although Tolkien isn't the arbiter of its truth) one which he explicitly contradicted at at least one point. The question of whether a derivative work is ethical must be addressed on a case by case basis, rather than answered in the negative on general principle. In this case, since the author is long dead and since the Amazon people have the legal rights, the ethical case against them is, at the very least, a difficult one. Criticism of the show's artistic merits, or lack thereof, should be an easier job.

[Glóin the Dark 1,159]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

And let's remember he only sold the film rights b/c he needed the money...

 

Sure, but I probably feel less sympathy on that count. He wanted the money more than he wanted the rights!

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

36 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

It really doesn't matter, insofar as the point I was making is concerned, at what stage in the development of his mythology he expressed this, or whether he changed his mind later, or whether he only had certain media in mind.

 

Well I don't know. When he was sort of just trying to create a generalized "mythology for England" (an idea which he ultimately abandoned), I think he might have been fine with others contributing to it. But when it came to his life's work, i.e. The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and in particular The Silmarillion...I'm not so sure about that.

 

My own guess it Tolkien was probably just speaking generously at that moment about something he gave up on as "absurd". But given everything we know about how protective of his world he was, I'm thinking he was more of "don't fuss in my garden" (British for "get off my lawn") kind of man than inviting all the neighborhood kids to play in the pool.

[Glóin the Dark 1,159]

18 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

But when it came to his life's work, i.e. The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and in particular The Silmarillion...I'm not so sure about that.

 

Absolutely...I agree that he would have been protective of what he could, and mercilessly critical about the treatment of the parts that he'd sold off.

 

I wonder what he would have thought about people tampering with his work long after his own death. Presumably, for most artists, there comes a point at which it would be nice just to be remembered...

 

[I'm thinking in terms of centuries here, at least in Tolkien's case.]

[TolkienSS 358]

How many episodes are there in season 1?

[Chen G. 3,346]

https://deadline.com/2022/09/lord-of-the-rings-viewership-rings-of-power-amazon-jeff-bezos-tolkien-1235107279/

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

Ouch.

 

Quote

Prime Video’s ‘The Rings of Power’ Falls Short of ‘Stranger Things 4,’ ‘Obi-Wan Kenobi’ Debuts

Prime Video announced that the premiere of its highly touted (and expensive) prequel series, “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power,” was viewed by 25 million people — tops for any Amazon original content.

 

Now new data from Samba TV suggests the “Rings” bow, while good, was not as spectacular as hyped.

Indeed, 1.8 million U.S. households watched “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” episode 1 on Prime Video during the L+3D (Sept. 1-4) window. Another 1.3 million U.S. households watched episode 2 during the L+3D window. The series’ debut marked Prime Video’s highest three-day viewership of any 2022 premiere on the platform.

 

Yet, the debut of Netflix’s “Stranger Things”, season 4, volume 1, episode 1 generated 2.9 million U.S. households. And the debut of “Obi-Wan Kenobi” (Disney+), episode 1 saw 2.1 million U.S. households tune in.

 

[Jay 33,700]

‘The Rings of Power’ Season 2 Starts Production in the U.K.

[JohnTheBaptist 52]

I wonder why they waited so long to start production? This schedule of a rushed 8 episode season followed by two years of waiting is not going to play well.

According to this, filming was supposed to start earlier this year while they were in pre-production for season 1

https://deadline.com/2021/08/the-lord-of-the-rings-season-2-move-production-uk-new-zealand-1234813857/

[Richard Penna 2,963]

They're not filming under Covid precautions so maybe it won't take as long for season 2.

 

Also, the longer until the score is needed, the better. Sounds like Bear needs a break.

[TolkienSS 358]

Sure does.

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

In two years Season 2 of this will feel about as necessary and relevant as an Avatar sequel.

[Edmilson 5,703]

Directors announced for Season 2:

 

Quote

Today, Prime Video revealed its new group of directors for season 2 of "The Rings of Power," and this news should make fans of the best episode(s) of season 1 very, very happy. Brändström, Sanaa Hamri, and Louise Hooper have been announced as the three directors for the upcoming season. Brändström ("Outlander," "The Witcher," "The Man in the High Castle"), who directed episode 6 titled "Udûn" and the follow-up episode "The Eye," will direct four total episodes in season 2 along with receiving a co-executive producer credit. Hamri (known for directing "The Wheel of Time," "Shameless," and "Desperate Housewives") and Hooper ("The Sandman," "The Witcher," "Treason") will direct two episodes each, indirectly confirming that the second season will span a total of eight episodes. 

 

https://www.slashfilm.com/1137673/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-season-2-announces-new-directors/

[Stark 201]

I did think Brandstrom’s episodes were better-directed than the other director’s, so I am fine with her having a larger role this season.

[Jay 33,700]

Amazon Studios Boss Jennifer Salke Unfazed by Warner Bros. New ‘Lord of the Rings’ Movies: ‘We Have Enough Fan Love to Sustain’

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

19 minutes ago, Jay said:

Amazon Studios Boss Jennifer Salke Unfazed by Warner Bros. New ‘Lord of the Rings’ Movies: ‘We Have Enough Fan Love to Sustain’

 

Clearly she's been reading the Rings of Power APPRECIATION thread.

[TolkienSS 358]

Uh huh.

Went from "Number 1 for six months" to "able to sustain".

How successful.

[Jay 33,700]

‘Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power’ Season 2 Cast Adds Ciaràn Hinds, Rory Kinnear and Tanya Moodie

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

I don't know Tanya Moodie, but Ciarán Hinds and Rory Kinnear are both great actors and quality additions to the show. They're clearly looking to add some gravitas to the cast, something Lucas (and later Jackson) recognized was essential when casting for fantasy.

 

Not that it will matter.

[Bilbo 3,707]

1 hour ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Not that it will matter.

The finest actors of all time couldn’t have salvaged those Harfoot scenes

[Chen G. 3,346]

The thing that bothers me is that whomever they’re casting, Warners will then probably avoid.

 

So no Peter Mullan and no Ciaran Hinds in a Middle Earth movie anytime soon…

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

The thing that bothers me is that whomever they’re casting, Warners will then probably avoid.

 

So no Peter Mullan and no Ciaran Hinds in a Middle Earth movie anytime soon…

Hmmmmm. Good point.

 

Oh well, there’s always Brendan Gleeson & David O’Hara. 😀

[Chen G. 3,346]

Yes. I got the Thinking Fox on the case already!

 

And we're already getting the great Brian Cox.

[Nick1Ø66 3,856]

Tommy Flanagan!

[Edmilson 5,703]

Uh-oh 

 

Only 37 Percent of U.S. ‘Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power’ Viewers Finished Season 1 — Report

Amazon has previously called the show its top original, having been viewed by over 100 million people worldwide.

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2023/04/lord-of-the-rings-rings-of-power-amazon-completion-rate-1234825392/

[Presto 4,285]

[Bilbo 3,707]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

Uh-oh 

 

Only 37 Percent of U.S. ‘Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power’ Viewers Finished Season 1 — Report

Amazon has previously called the show its top original, having been viewed by over 100 million people worldwide.

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2023/04/lord-of-the-rings-rings-of-power-amazon-completion-rate-1234825392/

how is that 100 million calculated? I gave up after 20 minutes, am I counted in that? 😂