Rings of Power The Rings of Power show discussion - spoilers allowed for all aired episodes

[Chen G. 5,083]

I think it's mostly the niche appeal of anime. Not sure what the venn diagram of Lord of the Rings film fans and anime fans, but something tells me it isn't very big. And, more generally, if I said Lord of the Rings, anime wouldn't be what would spring to most people's minds.

 

But from my experience online, Rings of Power absolutely poisoned the well. I keep on giving people hard time for it, saying nobody was being apprehensive going into Joker saying they didn't like Batman vs Superman... but obviously that argument is engaging in special pleading BECAUSE of Amazon's copycat approach to the sound and visuals.

 

I do think The Hunt for Gollum will be a different kind of thing, BECAUSE it is live-action and because it has returning faces, and not just returning locations. The minute people see Gollum in live-action, and hopefuly Mortensen's Aragorn (deaged), it's a different game entirely.

[Nick1Ø66 6,635]

2 hours ago, Richard P said:

Could it be that Tolkien mania has just faded a bit since PJ's films?

 

It absolutely has. I said early here, after ROP was announced, that I think Amazon (and now New Line) are vastly overestimating the public's appetite for more Middle-Earth on screen. And I continue to be skeptical of the notion that simply "putting the band back together" for The Hunt for Gollum is going to change that. Even if Peter Jackson directed the new films himself, I don't think it would make any difference.

 

All of these projects represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings so appealing to audiences in the first place.

 

 

 

 

[Schilkeman 1,420]

4 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

All of these projects represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings so appealing to audiences in the first place.

I kind of agree, but I'm a person who doesn't like the Silmarillion because of the explanations it gives at, what I perceive to be, the expense of LotR, so I might be an outlier. I think the last thing this already over-long film series needs is a bunch of mildly-interesting (and competently made?) interquels. Leave them wanting more.

[tomsmoviemadness 4,037]

Everybody keeps saying "after the bad reception of the first two seasons". But the first two seasons had solid to great reviews, general audiences really liked it and the viewing numbers were quite big.

 

We'll see if the show makes it to five seasons, but I do hope they just get to tell their story and finish it in a way that feels somewhat satisfying. Either in 3, 4 or 5 seasons

[Richard P 4,686]

Several normies I've spoken to about the show in the last year or two had various opinions that were all generally positive - occasional nickpicking about obvious plot holes but generally enjoying the show.

 

Season 2 has 84% critic score and 59% audience score. Not an overwhelming victory on the audience side but that doesn't feel like a 'bad reception' to me.

[Chen G. 5,083]

5 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I think the last thing this already over-long film series needs is a bunch of mildly-interesting (and competently made?) interquels. Leave them wanting more.

 

I feel like, with The Hunt for Gollum being the eighth entry into this series, we're not too much in danger of exhausting the magic just yet, while other film series are all well into double-digits.

 

I get Nick's point that it won't be another Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit - it can't - but I still think it can possibly be an engaging film, like I thought The War of the Rohirrim was! and a commercially succesfull one, too. But the Amazon show is not doing it any favours.

 

Interestingly enough, thinking more and more about this film I started thinking more about interquels and how they work, and so I rewatched the pre-eminent film of this kind, Rogue One. I have my issue with it as an interquel, but overall it was more succesfull at it than I remembered. That said, I'm not entirely sure its a good comparison to Gollum because at the very least the framework story of this film will be set during the first 40 minutes of Fellowship of the Ring.

 

And I'm totally stealing that term, interquel. I owe you a drink for it (which means Jurassic Shark owes you a drink).

[Schilkeman 1,420]

37 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And I'm totally stealing that term, interquel.

I've never had an original idea in my life, and I can't claim this one. Auto-correct, the thing that makes me not look like a complete fool in written communication, corrected it for me, so it must be used enough. I'm sure I heard it somewhere.

 

And look, I like Solo, and think it's a pretty good time. I'm not opposed to this sort of thing on principle, but I felt like, after watching the main series of Star Wars, that the films almost couldn't contain all of the ideas presented, or intimated, in them. I do not feel that way about LotR, and if you throw in The Hobbit, I definitely don't feel that way. And for what it's worth, I do not own Solo.

 

As always, I would love to be wrong. I had hoped this series would be great, and I hope every movie that gets made is worth the effort to make and watch.

[Bilbo 3,974]

8 hours ago, tomsmoviemadness said:

Everybody keeps saying "after the bad reception of the first two seasons". But the first two seasons had solid to great reviews, general audiences really liked it and the viewing numbers were quite big.

 

We'll see if the show makes it to five seasons, but I do hope they just get to tell their story and finish it in a way that feels somewhat satisfying. Either in 3, 4 or 5 seasons

This show was to be Amazon’s Game of Thrones.

 

Compare Emmy nominations for the two shows. Not even the later juggernaut seasons. Just compare season 1 with season 1. Etc. 

 

reviews that amount to “yeah this is alright” and massive online backlash are not a success.

[Chen G. 5,083]

Yeah. At present, season two is losing one guild award after another: Bear's score just lost today, as had VFX which you'd think would be the two categories in which the show might have stood a chance. It's clearly not the prestige show it was intended to be, and it isn't hard to see why.

[Richard P 4,686]

It's a real shame if Bear loses awards because no one is voting generally for stuff to do with the show. Same goes for other technical categories - the people doing the vfx and design are doing their jobs perfectly well. It's the story that sucks.

[Quintus 5,615]

I feel like a title change is thoroughly necessary when it comes to the eventual promotion of The Hunt for Gollum. He was a great side character obviously, but I'm not convinced his name on the poster is going to be the easy draw some probably assume it to be.

[Chen G. 5,083]

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I feel like a title change is thoroughly necessary when it comes to the eventual promotion of The Hunt for Gollum. He was a great side character obviously, but I'm not convinced his name on the poster is going to be the easy draw some probably assume it to be.

 

They said its just a working title. I mean, from interviews its clearly not an "Aragorn movie in a Gollum movie's skin" as some will have hoped, but its clear its not just a Gollum movie: its an interquel a-la Rogue One, most likely.

 

[Meredith McKay 7,684]

10 minutes ago, Quintus said:

I feel like a title change is thoroughly necessary when it comes to the eventual promotion of The Hunt for Gollum. He was a great side character obviously, but I'm not convinced his name on the poster is going to be the easy draw some probably assume it to be.

And they might want to distance themselves from the (reportedly) awful game.

[Bilbo 3,974]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah. At present, season two is losing one guild award after another: Bear's score just lost today, as had VFX which you'd think would be the two categories in which the show might have stood a chance. It's clearly not the prestige show it was intended to be, and it isn't hard to see why.

It’s closer to the CW than a prestige show. 

[Edmilson 10,204]

Literally the only reason that this show was renewed is because of Bear McCreary. The rest is just Amazon trying their best to make this show "happen" and be the 2020's equivalent to Game of Thrones... with miserable results.

 

Imagine if you could travel 20 years back in time and tell your younger early 2000s self that Lord of the Rings would be "uncool" and mostly related to a meh TV show that no one cares about...

[VenomVeVenom 196]

4 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Imagine if you could travel 20 years back in time and tell your younger early 2000s self that Lord of the Rings would be "uncool" and mostly related to a meh TV show that no one cares about...

And when someone does care about the show, it's either to shit on it or to praise it like it's Breaking Bad.

[Chen G. 5,083]

14 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Imagine if you could travel 20 years back in time and tell your younger early 2000s self that Lord of the Rings would be "uncool" and mostly related to a meh TV show that no one cares about...

 

Good luck this show isn't really Lord of the Rings, then!

[Nick1Ø66 6,635]

I'm not sure what the number of entries in other series, e.g. Marvel or Star Wars, has to do with Middle-Earth. Meaning, I don't believe it's the pure number of entries that causes a series to "lose its magic". Jurassic Park, Terminator and Alien all lost their magic long before they got to eight entries. Indiana Jones as well.

 

And in terms of public perception of the series, it's not seven, eight or nine films. It's those films, plus two seasons of the Amazon show. And let's remember, while commercially successful, The Hobbit is not remembered, or regarded with nearly the affection that The Lord of the Rings is. As far as I can see, among both Tolkien fans and general public, it occupies a similar space, culturally, as the Prequel trilogy. And if we're going to bring up ROP's lack of awards as knock on its cultural impact, it's fair to throw The Hobbit in there was well.

 

I also don't think of these seven films from New Line necessarily represent a seven (and ultimately, nine I guess) film series. Rather what we have are two separate, but connected, trilogies and separate, but connected, stand-alone films. They play as 0-123-123, not 0-1-2-3-4-5-6.

 

And I just don't think bringing back some of the same creatives is what's going to recapture the magic of The Lord of the Rings. It's actually somewhat of minor miracle those films worked as well as they did. I know one thing for sure...Jackson, Walsh and Boyens are not the same people who made LOTR. And more than the Spielberg who made Crystal Skull is the same guy who made Raiders. That's not to say they're worse...just different.

 

In any event, I don't think a de-aged Viggo Mortenson is in any way part of the special appeal of Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. Indiana Jones is one of the most iconic, beloved, popular characters in cinema history, and Harrison Ford is a beloved figure, but de-ageing him didn't do anything to recapture the magic of Indiana Jones.

 

Let's put it this way...there hasn't been single commercially and artistically successful Middle-Earth project that wasn't based on a novel by Tolkien. There's a commonality there, which can't easily be overcome or dismissed. 

 

I also don't think Rogue One or Solo is really a good comparison to what they're attempting with The Hunt for Gollum. Those Star Wars films, while tied into the grand saga, are essentially stand-alone stories, and the events aren't simultaneous with any of the other films. As I understand it, The Hunt for Gollum, which I'd call more of a "sidequel", is going to take place during the events of FOTR, and probably before as well. Its story is going to be closely knit with the story in FOTR...which is going to present a challenge in scripting, the way the audience approaches the story, the stakes in the story, character arcs and motivations, etc.

 

I don't doubt Jackson & Co. can produce a competent, entertaining film. They did with Rohirrim. I wish them the best, they've earned that from me. But nothing tells me that there's a driving, artistic reason for these films to exist. Jackson going back to an idea he's kicked around, as a special feature, for 20 years, i.e.Aragorn hunting for Gollum, is only demonstrative of this, and of the lack of material they actually have to work with. I just don't see a public appetite for anything like this. The Hunt for Gollum is the kind of film that's going to have to make a billion to turn a profit...which is roughly what the other films made. Does anyone really this is going to happen? 
 

And again, the fact that all of these projects, at best, are based on a few pages from the appendices, represent a fundamental flaw that I don't think can be easily overcome...and goes back to what I have been saying about people misunderstanding what makes Tolkien's appeal so special in the first place.

 

So, look, I guess...we'll see. What it comes down to is, while I'm forever grateful for The Lord of the Rings films, I'm more of a Tolkien fan than a Peter Jackson fan, and view these fanfic project through that lens. And the public may or may not know it's fanfic...but they can tell when something's not the genuine article.

 

 

[Chen G. 5,083]

17 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

As I understand it, The Hunt for Gollum, which I'd call more of a "sidequel", is going to take place during the events of FOTR, and probably before as well. Its story is going to be closely knit with the story in FOTR...which is going to present a challenge in scripting, the way the audience approaches the story, the stakes in the story, character arcs and motivations, etc.

 

I think that will be the framework, but I've already seen a couple of interviews of Jackson's and Boyens' to the effect of saying it tells story material from between the trilogies. Besides the hunt for Gollum (we forget sometimes a hunt for Gollum is begun by the Woodland Elves long before Aragorn comes into the picture) I have a minor bet going for them roping Balin's colony into the affair.

 

Yes, it's not Tolkien. Frankly, I think much of the appeal of a Gollum story to Jackson is it's a kind of Middle-earth Heavenly Creatures. But as you say, they can "produce a competent, entertaining film" and if they do, I'll be pleased. It won't be the Lord of the Rings trilogy, of course; it won't be The Hobbit, either. It doesn't necessarily have to be. Not for me. I still think there's some sap in this film series.

[Nick1Ø66 6,635]

Fair enough.

 

I'll just add that I don't see a Middle-Earth Heavenly Creatures (fine as that film is) having a wide-scale appeal. I've also seen it described as a, um, psychological drama (the idea of which, not for nothing, Tolkien would have despised).

 

Not that it can't be a good film, but commercial appeal is a reality when it comes to movies of this scale. Not only in terms of the film's box office success, but the future of the franchise.

 

That said, I think comments characterizing a film like this, in those terms, is a bit of a conceit on the part of the artists involved. Think of all the ways Lucas described Star Wars, most of which are just hokum. 

[Meredith McKay 7,684]

31 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Fair enough.

 

I'll just add that I don't see a Middle-Earth Heavenly Creatures (fine as that film is) having a wide-scale appeal. I've also seen it described as a, um, psychological drama (the idea of which, not for nothing, Tolkien would have despised).

 

 

I thought he despised political thrillers?

[Chen G. 5,083]

48 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

That said, I think comments characterizing a film like this, in those terms, is a bit of a conceit on the part of the artists involved. Think of all the ways Lucas described Star Wars, most of which are just hokum. 

 

Well, to be fair, any of those comments came from a time where they had been formulating a story treatment or sooner, so the precise character that the story will take on is in some ways as mystery to them as it is to us.

 

I don't know what to expect in terms of content and mass-appeal. But I assume these filmmakers have some confidence in what they're doing here, and with the right marketing push... we shall have to wait and see.

[Nick1Ø66 6,635]

39 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

But I assume these filmmakers have some confidence in what they're doing here

 

Yes. This isn't a Marvel or Star Wars movie where the story is going to go through multiple screenwriters and endless delays before they think they have it nailed. For better or worse, it's a very tight creative team, and when they're happy with what they have, they'll move forward. This one is going to be a tough not to crack though, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're even now trying to figure out what they want to do.

 

Speaking of a tight team, despite the film being directed by Serkis, I have a feeling Jackson is going to be very involved in the actual production, in that he'll be doing a lot of second unit work, if not actually directing even some of the substantive stuff himself, as Serkis did with The Hobbit. I'm not suggesting a Spielberg/Hooper Poltergeist type arrangement, but I do think Jackson isn't going to be able to resist once cameras start rolling. And practically, for a film of this scale, it just makes sense.

[Chen G. 5,083]

Hmmm...

 

Jackson is generally known as a relativelly hands-off producer: cf. District 9, Mortal Engines or, in a different way, The War of the Rohirrim. I do think this film will be a little different, and I'm sure he'll find ways to be hands-on in a non-obtrusive way. There's little doubt he's presently very involved in shaping the scripts and, whenever they start dealing with the art direction and casting, I presume he'll have his had with that too.

[Nick1Ø66 6,635]

5 hours ago, Quintus said:

I feel like a title change is thoroughly necessary when it comes to the eventual promotion of The Hunt for Gollum. He was a great side character obviously, but I'm not convinced his name on the poster is going to be the easy draw some probably assume it to be.

 

I think @Schilkeman said it best. Gollum is like Kramer...fantastic as a side character, but you wouldn't want to centre a show around him. My suspicion is that not only will the title of the film change, but the focus will (hopefully) be more on other characters, with the "hunt for Gollum" merely being the plot device that drives the action.

 

Gollum talking to himself as Smeagol for brief bits as part of the story in TTT & ROTK works. You centre a movie around that, and play that hand too much in an effort to make it a "psychological drama" and it will be a disaster. And heaven forbid (no pun intended) we see Heavenly Creatures type fantasy sequences in Gollum's head.

[Chen G. 5,083]

Definitely all sorts of traps to be avoided in shaping this film. Also, exploration - going to new kinds of places - is an important part of Tolkien, and on the face of it, this film offers zilch of that. But then, Philippa recently said that the film actually goes to new places so goodness knows what they have cooking!

[Nick1Ø66 6,635]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I'm sure he'll find ways to be hands-on in a non-obtrusive way.

 

I'm not suggesting Jackson is going to be obtrusive, or try to take over from Serkis. Not at all. I think whatever Jackson does is in fact going to be welcome by Serkis.

 

What I am saying is...well, this isn't Mortal Engines or District 9...Jackson's a kid at heart, and when they get back into Middle-Earth, he's not going to be able to resist picking up a camera and getting his hands dirty.

 

I guess what we'll find out is, whether Serkis has his own directorial "style", and if it will shine through. It's hard for any director to put their own mark on a franchise whose style is already so set. Especially when the creator of that franchise is looking over your shoulder. So whether he'll be more Irvin Kershner or Richard Marquand remains to be seen.

 

I didn't see his Venom movie, but my understanding is that it leaned heavily into "manic comedy". Which, hopefully won't be the case here.

[Meredith McKay 7,684]

Didn't he do a Jungle Book film?

[crocodile 9,055]

To be honest, I personally don't care enough for the show to be excited or apalled about the news ("it's fine with a shrug" is my rating) but it's nice that I'll be able to have Bear McCreary delved into the world even further. It's the only aspect of the show, beyond perhaps some technical stuff, that feels genuinely inspired and exciting. I am enjoying the 14+ hours of music released so far very much.

 

Karol

[Chen G. 5,083]

9 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I guess what we'll find out is, whether Serkis has his own directorial "style", and if it will shine through. It's hard for any director to put their own mark on a franchise whose style is already so set. Especially when the creator of that franchise is looking over your shoulder. So whether he'll be more Irvin Kershner or Richard Marquand remains to be seen.

 

It is admittedly a somewhat different situation to either of those two: Serkis' first directorial gigs were second unit on Return of the King and The Hobbit, so he will have cut his directorial teeth under Jackson's baton. It's like if somebody who directed second unit on Star Wars was promoted to directing The Empire Strikes Back.

 

Also, a difference more specifically from the Marquand case: one of the reasons Marquand doesn't leave as much of a mark on the film is that he was brought in later in development than Kershner had been: Lucas had already been through two drafts all by himself, oversaw a bunch of designs and I believe also some storyboards. That's certainly not the case here. Then, in post-production Marquand delivered his edit and went his merry way...and Lucas just kept cutting himself (and honestly, what we know he decided to cut are improvements), again unlikely to be the case here.