The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power | Amazon Prime Video - September 2, 2022

[Wor-Gar]

Jye, did you hate it?

 

[jye4ever]

Jye, did you hate it?

Hate, no…

But love?

Nope.

I guess I’m the perfect audience for this because I know nothing about the books from that specific age other than it was called Silmarillion with other appendices so I got no stakes in the game with the butchering they’re doing to the age.

At times it feels big maybe even epic but if i’m being honest the first hour was just downright boring and meandering and not riveting and captivating I don’t feel there is a proper narrative moral compass 2 hours in.
.
I did enjoy the Orc reveal being more “Alien” solo like than the “Aliens” hive orcs from LOTR that was nice world building.

The show looks great it’s big, better than I was expecting.

Galadriel was ok.

Onward to episode 3.

I wish Galadriel looked like this:

 

[Wor-Gar]

I'm willing to give this another episode or two...

 

[Sassafras]

https://www.youtube.com/user/scholagladiatoria/videos
Matt Easton is my go to You Tube channel for HEMA and historical information in a video form. There's a lot of great historical information here about swords, armor, etc. He's also done videos and critiques on several fantasy shows and movies about the weapons and armor they use. What I like most about is he's a practicing HEMAist, and he's a antiques dealer specializing in weapons, so the guy knows his stuff. He recently gave a fight breakdown on Fellowship of the Rings on IGN channel. I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but the bits I did he was pretty even handed called out some of the silly stuff, and acknowledged the bits they did get right. But again its fantasy. As a fencer who trains in and spars with several weapons including Longsword, trust me real fights are no where near as entertaining to watch as we see in fantasy movies, and TV.

Thanks will definitely check out! Well, no, I've gotten the impression that fencing is either tightly controlled, or, a real fight with medieval weapons is brutal, and slow. For sure you don't twirl your sword around. Imagine an opponent is only too happy to see sword twirling, leaving an opening.

 

[Kebron]

Thanks will definitely check out! Well, no, I've gotten the impression that fencing is either tightly controlled, or, a real fight with medieval weapons is brutal, and slow. For sure you don't twirl your sword around. Imagine an opponent is only too happy to see sword twirling, leaving an opening.

Actually fights with long swords are kind of fast and over in a few exchanges. Really depends on the rule set, which changes from group to group.

Meyer actually does teach some twirling. But it’s usually used to fish a strike out of your opponent to engage you, or it’s in a chain of directed strikes at the opponent’s openings to get your opponent to scramble to defend the strikes and then you strike at a opening once you see it.



That’s the finals from this years Combat Con. It’s a yearly convention in Vegas covering all forms of armed and unarmed combat. It’s the SDCC of HEMA. The video is LONG and starts with cutting finals, so skip ahead to see various types of combat. Or you can poke around at their other videos.

If you want to know more or have any other questions PM me. I’ll happily talk this stuff all day.

 

[jye4ever]

I was hoping she would be like that famous fat lightsaber kid just twirling that thing around lol

What was taking her so long just to swing at the wood I don’t get what was going on there super boring why are people clapping people celebrate boring now lol

Man I wish we could go back to a more uncivilized savage age and just take the worst of the worst prisoners and have them chop each other up with medieval weapons that would be awesome I would watch that instead of this girl swinging at wood.

 

[lordnastrond]

I thought it was good, the setting up of the pieces shows the epic scope they are going for in the series and the character arcs set up have a lot of promise.
Visually its the best tv show I think I've ever seen.
This feels like the opening act of a movie and thus I don't think its fair to completely judge it by the metric of a complete whole yet. Its a bit like turning off the extended cut of LOTR trilogy after the first 15 mins.

Galadriel's character is very well set up and perfectly in line with what we know of her in this period, she is not yet the great and wise Lady of Light - though she has always been beautiful and exceptional, she was also once prideful and wrathful. I do feel she ought to be a little more magical and ethereal given her status as the perhaps second greatest of the Noldor, but that is in all likelihood part of her planned arc from a willing supporter and leader in the rebellion of the Noldor, who crossed the Helcaraxe through sheer wrath at Feanor into the wise and kind ruler of her own fiefdom.
Celebrimbor's character is also really well established - the inferiority complex to Feanor, the ambition and desire (though motivated by good) for power, his admiration and partnership with the Dwarves being based on their ability to see beyond the "banality" of what exists and ability to impose their vision on what will be.... all brilliant, yet innocent, indictors to where his story will lead.
Even the original characters and plots feel well crafted and deferential to the spirit and word of Tolkien as much as they can be while telling their own stories - the Southlands as a precursor to Mordor, with the lingering remnants of the days of Morgoth worship are fascinating and we know from Tolkien that Morgoth first found Man to the East and did his best to corrupt them before they were influenced by the other powers. likewise the idea of the Elves as an occupying force is a great one, its fits their character at this time and the almost alien differences in their perspectives to the other races by still being so distrustful of present humans whose ancestors served the Enemy, for them these wounds are recent, for Men they are being unfairly punished for the sins of people long dead. It would be perfectly ironic for them to push these people towards someone like Sauron who would present himself as a liberator.
Speaking of Sauron they cast his shadow over the setting brilliantly, he feels like an ever-present shadow over the happiness of the current peace.
The Harfoots as nomadic proto-Hobbits is brilliant and I love their design and culture, they embody the virtues of home and the beauty of simple things that is so central to the Hobbits as the heart of Tolkien's world - I don't see how anyone is "creeped out" by these characters.

As for the Stranger's identity....

Spoiler:

I'd bet good money on The Stranger being Olorin/Gandalf, as I said all along, its the option that makes sense, his arrival at ME at this time of Sauron's rising coincides with the retconned date Tolkien gave the arrival of the Istari in his later writings, his association with fire makes sense given he is "wielder of the flame of Arnor" and a "servant of the secret fire" and later bears Narya the Ring of Fire, also that his flames don't harm also aligns with him being a servant of good. This also makes him such a good parralel for Sauron "for he was the Enemy of Sauron, opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles, and succours in wanhope and distress". Likewise this would be a good explanation for his close love and association with the Hobbits. His lack of memory and almost child-like state also coincides with Tolkien's writings on the Istari "For it is said indeed that being embodied the Istari had need to learn much anew by slow experience and though they knew whence they came the memory of the Blessed Realm was to them a vision from afar off, for which (so long as they remained true to their mission) they yearned exceedingly. Thus by enduring of free will the pangs of exile and the deceits of Sauron they might redress the evils of that time".
People have this vision of the Istari arriving fully formed and knowledgeable to Middle Earth from a ship from the West, but this is never described so by Tolkien and we can equally conclude it was not so - afterall if they arrived with no memory and the child-like need to learn about the world how then did they sail from Valinor? We know that Gandalf or Mithrandir wandered for a little time before coming across Cirdan in the Grey Havens, whereas if he arrived from the West by ship the first person he would meet is Cirdan's people. Naturally Tolkien's word sometimes contradicts itself and so I have no problem with the writers using gaps and contradictions in the story to tell their own tales, especially where it doesn't "break" the canon.
Other things like how he speaks to the insects clearly invoke the moth from when he is a prisoner at Orthanc, and an explanation for the death of the fireflies could well be something all the like of him not yet having complete control over his power, hence his apparent sadness at their deaths.
Also they already have him wearing a sort of grey/brown-ish cloak....
It definitely isn't Sauron despite the show's attempts to make us think otherwise, Sauron has no need to arrive to ME by meteor - he is ALREADY there.
And the only theories that it is a Balrog make ZERO sense - the Balrogs already exist and are well-established as Demons for thousands of years before these events and should already be deep underground.
So yeah, I'm putting money on it being Gandalf, though if its one of the other Istari I wouldn't be shocked

I feel like this is Tolkien's world - the scope of the prologue in showing the Trees, snippets of the war with Morgoth and the Sinking of Beleriand (the sea LITERALLY red with blood is a fantastic image) were great. I think they did good in showing just enough without it feeling like THAT is the story we should be watching, they also did well to still convey the main points needed for this story using the limited references they can legally make without the rights to the Silmarillion (like showing the shadow of Morgoth but not Ungoliant in the destruction of the Trees, but at the same time not showing the COMPLETE destruction of the Trees in order to still allow for the possibility for book readers that Ungoliant had a part).
The scene when the Ship was returning to Valinor is, for me, perhaps the most "Tolkienian" scene ever put on screen, the forgotten song of home resonating to the returning Elves once more (but not to Galadriel whose heart was too heavy to fully feel the embrace of such a holy place), the parting of the skies and seas, the encompassing light, the birds.... it was beautiful.
Khazad-Dum was just stunning, rewatched the scene a few times, it was incredible to see it as a living city and this adaptation is already doing a great job of adding some much needed depth to the cinematic depictions of Tolkien's dwarves'.
I am a literature scholar, and a significant part of my work and written works are on Tolkien and let me tell you... this is Tolkien. Is it Tolkien with some liberties and creative input by others? Absolutely - but so was the LOTR movies. Indeed some of the clunkier moments like Galadriel's anime finishing move were done first and more outlandishly by Legolas in the movies - if we can forgive that we should forgive this.
Ultimately, Tolkien himself said he wanted to write a fully realized world in which other people might tell their stories and that is what we are seeing here.
So no, this isn't some generic fantasy or S&S flick, it isn't even low fantasy like GOT or HOTD, this is HIGH fantasy well realized and I can't wait to see more.

Also anyone calling this series cheap looking because they are scrutinizing a still photo of a costume rather than waiting to see the costume and scene in question isn't being genuine. There is nothing cheap here, the costumes, settings, effects are all clearly richly produced and meticulously crafted. You can see the money on the screen. If you don't want to watch the show - fine, no one is making you. But don't resort to blatant bull like this to "justify" your opinion. Its your opinion, you don't need bull reasons to not watch something.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

Also anyone calling this series cheap looking because they are scrutinizing a still photo of a costume rather than waiting to see the costume and scene in question isn't being genuine.

Some design choices are for technical/logistical reasons. Some are to create more comfort for the actor ( IIRC, Val Kilmer kept passing out in his Batman suit) Some are to enable better stunts/wire work, etc, etc. And yes, some are budgetary.

In just about every Sci Fi movie, at some point, the actors take their helmets off on an alien planet. Even though that makes no sense ( Like Prometheus) But audiences connect better with the characters if they can see their faces. So the helmets usually come off. It's just how it usually works.

There have been interesting behind the scenes videos from both Ron Moore's BSG and The Expanse, where set designers talk about the challenges of doing lighting inside a helmet. Then getting audio. Then having the face exposed enough to see who is who. Then prevent fogging. Then preventing glare against the camera. Then the actor's basic comfort. All while controlling the weight of it, since it might sitting on an actors head for a long time.

I know some people get picky about weapons. Some weapons are basically retrofits of Airsoft guns or Nerf guns, but again, time and expense and the need to replicate things. One interesting thing about Curb Your Enthusiam was the main character lost a jacket meant for a Martin Scorsese film as the plot of an episode. So he had to try to find a replacement, since it was in the film. But the film actually had several in reserve and he didn't know it. What can you do, but then replicate 4-5-10 times over? And what does that cost?

It has to be functional before it can look good.

I get why people care about how the armor looks. I also get why some people don't. Both are OK to me. Immersion is a different animal for each person. I don't like to be broken out of immersion. I understand why others don't. Different things trigger that for different people.

I don't like contemporary songs in most modern movies, especially spectacle movies. Imagine if you were watching Interstellar and then suddenly Adele starting singing. To me, that breaks immersion. For others, it won't. Sofia Coppola did a horrible remake of Marie Antoinette, but in one scene, she had a pair of Converse mixed in with the period shoes. She explained that she wanted to show that Kirsten Dunst was still just a young girl and for audiences to see her like that. However something like that breaks immersion. Especially in a period film covering people who actually lived and are historically noted.

I get it. At the same time I don't. And that's OK.

 

[lordnastrond]

Some design choices are for technical/logistical reasons. Some are to create more comfort for the actor ( IIRC, Val Kilmer kept passing out in his Batman suit) Some are to enable better stunts/wire work, etc, etc. And yes, some are budgetary.

In just about every Sci Fi movie, at some point, the actors take their helmets off on an alien planet. Even though that makes no sense ( Like Prometheus) But audiences connect better with the characters if they can see their faces. So the helmets usually come off. It's just how it usually works.

There have been interesting behind the scenes videos from both Ron Moore's BSG and The Expanse, where set designers talk about the challenges of doing lighting inside a helmet. Then getting audio. Then having the face exposed enough to see who is who. Then prevent fogging. Then preventing glare against the camera. Then the actor's basic comfort. All while controlling the weight of it, since it might sitting on an actors head for a long time.

I know some people get picky about weapons. Some weapons are basically retrofits of Airsoft guns or Nerf guns, but again, time and expense and the need to replicate things. One interesting thing about Curb Your Enthusiam was the main character lost a jacket meant for a Martin Scorsese film as the plot of an episode. So he had to try to find a replacement, since it was in the film. But the film actually had several in reserve and he didn't know it. What can you do, but then replicate 4-5-10 times over? And what does that cost?

It has to be functional before it can look good.

I get why people care about how the armor looks. I also get why some people don't. Both are OK to me. Immersion is a different animal for each person. I don't like to be broken out of immersion. I understand why others don't. Different things trigger that for different people.

I don't like contemporary songs in most modern movies, especially spectacle movies. Imagine if you were watching Interstellar and then suddenly Adele starting singing. To me, that breaks immersion. For others, it won't. Sofia Coppola did a horrible remake of Marie Antoinette, but in one scene, she had a pair of Converse mixed in with the period shoes. She explained that she wanted to show that Kirsten Dunst was still just a young girl and for audiences to see her like that. However something like that breaks immersion. Especially in a period film covering people who actually lived and are historically noted.

I get it. At the same time I don't. And that's OK.

Completely agree - my bone is with people who are using something so small, relatively inconsequential, and not even SHOWN ON SCREEN yet to judge an entire series when it is very evident to anyone who has watched even these two episodes that this show is ANYTHING but cheap.
Its not an objective observation and attempts to portray it as such are, in my opinion, un-genuine.
It is also, as you demonstrate in talking about the impact of practicalities above, holding things to an impossible standard, its an exercise in LOOKING for reasons to hate something which is something I can't stand - if you don't like it, just say so, there is no moral imperative to like something - but don't try to use this pseudo-evidence to "justify" your opinion by making the case that the media is itself objectively bad.
And again, as you say, immersion is a singular experience, which is why I find it un-genuine when people use an arbitrary piece of evidence that affects them on something as personal as immersion to say that a series is objectively bad, poorly rendered or un-Tolkienian.

Its a pet peeve of mine, just say you don't like something, that something about it doesn't click with you, that this specific thing here broke my immerison etc. instead of going "here is a small error and that is proof this show is BAD" like your opinion must always be aligned with the objective truth or something.
Just irks me and Its something I see with regards to Tolkien and this series in particular A LOT.
I can't count the number of arguments online I've had from people who like to present themselves as faithful adherers of Tolkien's work who are protecting him and his world from the modern demons of captialism and "woke-ism" who actually have little to no idea about Tolkien's writings, his motivations or the nature of his work.
So many spicy hot takes on Galdriel being a warrior and how that wasn't canon and was included for the sake of "woke women power message" and call her depiction as a fiery rebel as fanfic-level garbage - while completely ignoring the numerous places in Tolkien where she is described as man like or Amazon like in her warrior disposition (her mother's name for her Nerwen means man-maiden), ignoring how she is a literal leader of the rebellion of the Noldor, how she specifically stayed in Middle Earth when offered a chance to return to Valinor out of a desire to rule over her own realm and see Sauron defeated, ignoring the times in which she literally joined battle....
Likewise the same with "criticism" over Black Hobbits despite the fact that Harfoots are described as dark or brown skinned by Tolkien who used such terms to describe race, afterall he didn't go around specifiying whether each character was caucasian or not - so why are these so professed "Tolkien-experts" insisting otherwise in contrary to the little writing Tolkien DOES assert on this subject?
The same reason as with the complaints about Galadriel's "woke" direction - because they already have these opinions, are already angry about these issues and rather than just admit its because of their own pre-existing opinions and prejudices they would rather pretend that the show is at fault, they are deferring to a greater textual authority and shirking the weight of their own opinion.
Just own it for Christ's sake.

 

[Wor-Gar]

I am a literature scholar, and a significant part of my work and written works are on Tolkien and let me tell you... this is Tolkien.
Ultimately, Tolkien himself said he wanted to write a fully realized world in which other people might tell their stories and that is what we are seeing here.

Ah ha! That explains your writing.

Now I know who to go to to explain and sharpen things for me. I am not well-versed in Tolkien, but I enjoy a fully immersive world. I'm not sure what character belongs where in which time, which is why I was asking earlier if this was a mish-mash of many books or simply a re-envisioning of the world. Your 2nd sentence explains it quite simply.

 

[Asta]

I feel like this is Tolkien's world - the scope of the prologue in showing the Trees, snippets of the war with Morgoth and the Sinking of Beleriand (the sea LITERALLY red with blood is a fantastic image) were great. I think they did good in showing just enough without it feeling like THAT is the story we should be watching, they also did well to still convey the main points needed for this story using the limited references they can legally make without the rights to the Silmarillion (like showing the shadow of Morgoth but not Ungoliant in the destruction of the Trees, but at the same time not showing the COMPLETE destruction of the Trees in order to still allow for the possibility for book readers that Ungoliant had a part).
The scene when the Ship was returning to Valinor is, for me, perhaps the most "Tolkienian" scene ever put on screen, the forgotten song of home resonating to the returning Elves once more (but not to Galadriel whose heart was too heavy to fully feel the embrace of such a holy place), the parting of the skies and seas, the encompassing light, the birds.... it was beautiful.
Khazad-Dum was just stunning, rewatched the scene a few times, it was incredible to see it as a living city and this adaptation is already doing a great job of adding some much needed depth to the cinematic depictions of Tolkien's dwarves'.
I am a literature scholar, and a significant part of my work and written works are on Tolkien and let me tell you... this is Tolkien. Is it Tolkien with some liberties and creative input by others? Absolutely - but so was the LOTR movies. Indeed some of the clunkier moments like Galadriel's anime finishing move were done first and more outlandishly by Legolas in the movies - if we can forgive that we should forgive this.
Ultimately, Tolkien himself said he wanted to write a fully realized world in which other people might tell their stories and that is what we are seeing here.
So no, this isn't some generic fantasy or S&S flick, it isn't even low fantasy like GOT or HOTD, this is HIGH fantasy well realized and I can't wait to see more.

The series is giving me the authenticity I got from Jackson's LOTR, so it had enough from the first episode to keep me committed to it.

As for "other people" telling their stories, it's the tactic I use to overcome any mismatches in story telling in books or films. People can relate the same event differently, either intentionally or due to memory or perspective.

Errors, or new perspectives in the storytelling, can gloss over liberties taken by film makers that were deemed necessary in order to 'repackage' the original works for a new audience.


I first read The Hobbit and then Lord of the Rings when I was quite young, and they're still the best experience of Tolkien's world due to his mastery of language. Jackson's films felt authentic at the time, even if they weren't always quite true, and as such were more than I expected or hoped for.

I left Tolkien's works behind as an A-Level thesis when I went on to university, and set on Conrad as a dark muse instead. I got out of the habit of reading novels, so films and series fill the roll now.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

Its a pet peeve of mine, just say you don't like something, that something about it doesn't click with you, that this specific thing here broke my immerison etc. instead of going "here is a small error and that is proof this show is BAD" like your opinion must always be aligned with the objective truth or something.

Everyone is different.

You can't convince someone if their mind is made up. They can't convince you if your mind is made up.

Back when the first HT Lost Predator got released ( the green one), apparently it didn't sell as well as many of the others. I think the Machiko didn't do as well either. So other than a couple of SDCC Lost Predators, with smaller edition runs, the P2 line basically ended. I wanted more people to buy that Predator, or all Predators, thus creating the demand that would get us even more Predators.

Many people feel the same about Dutch and Billy, they didn't sell well enough to do the rest of the Predator team.

But I can't control what other people buy. And it's that group demand that helps determine what lines live or die. The Batman line back then got so much support, because people kept buying it. Just like the Tony Stark Iron Mans.

Something I've said before earlier in the thread is I want to give the first full season a chance. See what happens. Others will do differently and that's OK too. I can't make more people buy that green Lost Predator ( Good God, it just needed a crap load of weapons and it would have sold better.....) to help spur my itch for HT Predators. You can't get some people to see things as you see them. And that's still OK. And we were not OK, we still couldn't change it.

 

[lordnastrond]

Ah ha! That explains your writing.

Thanks! I write a lot of academic stuff and non-fictional texts, but I have always been tempted to slip into writing prose - I would love to do it one day!

Now I know who to go to to explain and sharpen things for me. I am not well-versed in Tolkien, but I enjoy a fully immersive world. I'm not sure what character belongs where in which time, which is why I was asking earlier if this was a mish-mash of many books or simply a re-envisioning of the world. Your 2nd sentence explains it quite simply.

Happy to help!
They are making changes to the events and timeline, no doubt, some of that will be a lack of rights to appropriate characters and events and some of it will just be the burdens of adaptation - some of Tolkien's stuff can get weird without what might be considered an unreasonably long explanation of the lore and history that explains that event - such as the time Sauron and a whole island of werewolves get their asses kicked by a single talking dog from heaven some time after Sauron has a deadly magical rap battle with Galadriel's brother - likewise some of the timespans are enormous, thousands of years can pass between connecting events, wars can last for centuries and key battles can last for years at a time (the War of Wrath for example was essentially a single battle that lasted for 40 continuous years) so a certain compression of time is needed for tv audiences.
We will know how much time has been compressed when we get to Numenor and see who is the ruler - if it is Tar-Miriel/Ar-Pharazon then they have compressed a timeline of events covering the reigns of more than at least 14 Numenorean kings - a period of over 1600 years - into a single Numenorean lifetime, if the ruler is one of their predecessors then this show can be expected to cover a period of centuries at least, if the ruler of Numenor is its first king - Elrond's twin Elros - then we can expect the show to cover millenia.

 

[lordnastrond]

Wow - please tell me that wasn't a deliberate choice... Now stuff like that is pretty damn hard to justify.
The film in general could be very good, but yes, to me that particular choice is a bad one.... but it doesn't necessarily mean the entire work is objectively bad.
Hell of a choice though.

I do love the attention to detail on things like this - I love when people clearly put a lot of passion into their work.
But conversely and somewhat perversely just because the props department take their craft seriously it doesn't necessarily mean that the show they work on is good.
Some movies which I personally felt were quite weak on areas such as story and dialogue, such as Crimson Peak, had absolutely glorious set design, prop design and imagery.... its all perspective, priorities, and judging things by the sum of their parts against your own personal metric.
Very few things are objectively ANYTHING - let alone such nebulous and subjective categories as "good" or "bad".
Which is why I prefer people keep an open mind, admit when they don't like something just because they personally don't like it and not try to disguise their perspective through the false justifications of saying something is objectively bad and asserting so despite other people thinking contrary to their opinion.

Everyone is different.

You can't convince someone if their mind is made up. They can't convince you if your mind is made up.

Your right that this is often the case, I don't entirely agree though as I feel when people approach things with an open mind I think they are open to seeing things from other peoples' POVs and can find themselves completely changing their opinion on something. I have had movies I liked elevated when discussing someone's insights about it, and likewise I have had films I love impacted when people give their opinions on it and it informs my own (I'll never forgive my brother for pointing out to me that the story of Avatar is pretty similar to "Pocahontas in Space").
On the whole though I think having an open mind is a great thing and allows for wider experiences, more open and honest conversation and a better time for all involved.

You can't get some people to see things as you see them. And that's still OK. And we were not OK, we still couldn't change it.

Oh, I have no intention to!
Thats why I dislike it so when people assert their opinion like its fact - it basically discourages against any dissenting opinions.

 

[Asta]

Thanks! I write a lot of academic stuff and non-fictional texts, but I have always been tempted to slip into writing prose - I would love to do it one day!

Happy to help!
They are making changes to the events and timeline, no doubt, some of that will be a lack of rights to appropriate characters and events and some of it will just be the burdens of adaptation - some of Tolkien's stuff can get weird without what might be considered an unreasonably long explanation of the lore and history that explains that event - such as the time Sauron and a whole island of werewolves get their asses kicked by a single talking dog from heaven some time after Sauron has a deadly magical rap battle with Galadriel's brother - likewise some of the timespans are enormous, thousands of years can pass between connecting events, wars can last for centuries and key battles can last for years at a time (the War of Wrath for example was essentially a single battle that lasted for 40 continuous years) so a certain compression of time is needed for tv audiences.
We will know how much time has been compressed when we get to Numenor and see who is the ruler - if it is Tar-Miriel/Ar-Pharazon then they have compressed a timeline of events covering the reigns of more than at least 14 Numenorean kings - a period of over 1600 years - into a single Numenorean lifetime, if the ruler is one of their predecessors then this show can be expected to cover a period of centuries at least, if the ruler of Numenor is its first king - Elrond's twin Elros - then we can expect the show to cover millenia.

Even with that one reference to Huan (the great hound), it was a legend that evolved with Tolkien's writing.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Huan
He was literally attempting to create a world, and describe it from the various viewpoints of the peoples that inhabited it.

At its simplest different races give different names to the same places or people.

The entirety of his works are legends inspired by legends. They aren't always literal, and they're not always told the same way. This makes it easier to accept some variance in other media versions of his books. As long as the spirit is true, then it works.

 

[lordnastrond]

Even with that one reference to Huan (the great hound), it was a legend that evolved with Tolkien's writing.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Huan
He was literally attempting to create a world, and describe it from the various viewpoints of the peoples that inhabited it.

At its simplest different races give different names to the same places or people.

The entirety of his works are legends inspired by legends. They aren't always literal, and they're not always told the same way. This makes it easier to accept some variance in other media versions of his books. As long as the spirit is true, then it works.

I couldn't agree more strongly, brilliantly put.
Hell the very idea of there being a "canon" is an anachronism to Tolkien's Legendarium imported into the discussion from other works and fandoms (the Star Wars fandom is often the one people point fingers to for introducing the notion of "canon" to discussions about Tolkien's work), as you say his stories are essentially stories made up OF stories telling other stories... Like a historian trying to piece together the writings, histories and mythologies of lands and people who never existed in the first place.

 

[Asta]

I couldn't agree more strongly, brilliantly put.
Hell the very idea of there being a "canon" is an anachronism to Tolkien's Legendarium imported into the discussion from other works and fandoms (the Star Wars fandom is often the one people point fingers to for introducing the notion of "canon" to discussions about Tolkien's work), as you say his stories are essentially stories made up OF stories telling other stories... Like a historian trying to piece together the writings, histories and mythologies of lands and people who never existed in the first place.

In that Tolkien was like a chronicler, discovering new texts and inserting them into the great body of work. As a young reader it was sometimes off putting to be taken out of the story by a long poem, until I understood it was how he was creating his world. There isn't a single narrator, but many who tell their own stories through songs and poems passed down through the generations.


Going back as far as Homer, the epic poems he told also mixed legend with history to honour the audience who would hear them. Much later Spenser would carry on the tradition with The Faerie Queene, merging Elizabeth I into legend.

It's not always an easy concept to accept, because we tend to prefer everything in its rightful place and rightful order, and not to be contradicted within itself.

 

[lordnastrond]

In that Tolkien was like a chronicler, discovering new texts and inserting them into the great body of work. As a young reader it was sometimes off putting to be taken out of the story by a long poem, until I understood it was how he was creating his world. There isn't a single narrator, but many who tell their own stories through songs and poems passed down through the generations.


Going back as far as Homer, the epic poems he told also mixed legend with history to honour the audience who would hear them. Much later Spenser would carry on the tradition with The Faerie Queene, merging Elizabeth I into legend.

It's not always an easy concept to accept, because we tend to prefer everything in its rightful place and rightful order, and not to be contradicted within itself.

Absolutely true, the modern style of storytelling is very orderly and reflects the modern love of order - especially in narrative action.
Our culture loves order so, to the degree we apply it retroactively - pretty much any modern book on mythology, any mythology, tends to assert a single creation story, this god did this and was related to this god, this hero did these things.... which just isn't the reality - Even when we look at the Greeks who wrote so much down, in truth what we have inhereted is fragments, and even from those fragments we can tell that the stories we now teach today as "Greek myth" never had a stable identity, chronology, characterisation or cast - there are versions of the myths in which Zeus and Hades are the same being, where Poseidon is the King of the Gods, where Hades doesn't exist at all and Persephone is Empress of the Underworld, where the entire stories completely change... all are equally true, all were asserted as equally plausable versions of the stories by those telling them, all equally adapted by those tellers from stories they were told and they shaped to suit their audiences of choice.....
Myths, legends and the epic style of story-telling and history relating we see in Tolkien reflects the works of the other epic poets such as Homer in this regard, you are completely correct.
Its such an alien way of storytelling to most modern audiences these days that they struggle to get their heads around it. I discussed this with a class of mine once regarding Tolkien and they raised the point about how many Balrogs there were as depending on which Tolkien text you read there are as few as 7 and as many as tens of thousands and they asked me which is the right number and I think they expected me to say the "right" answer is the later one as Tolkien "changed their mind" but I told them that BOTH are true as they are both numbers given as part of the stories the characters are relating, rather than through an accurate reflection of some unknown "factual" number. Both are true for the speaker of the story in question - fact never enters the equation as it is an anachronistic concept in such epic style storytelling.
Same with Beowulf or King Arthur, both are figures whose stories are tales that merge history and legend in order to chronicle the stories inherited by the speaker, which is in turn transcribed and deciphered by the writer, who in turn presents them to the reader.
As Tolkien himself states, he doesn't consider himself the true author of his own Legendarium, but rather a "sub-creator"/instrument in which the "true" author (Eru Iluvatar/God) can transcribe a certain form of "truth", not fact, but that ever philosopically indefinable "truth".
Or as Tolkien himself rather mind-bendingly puts it:
"We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation "from the channels the creator is known to have used already" is the fundamental function of "sub-creation", a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety [...] I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysics — there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones — that declared the channels known (in such a finite corner as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!"

 

[greygoose]

Watched episode 2. Some good, some OK, some not so good. Without giving the series a chance to evolve I don't want to say too much.

Was always going to face an uphill battle when being compared to the greatest trilogy ever made.

Having slept on it, I still feel the same however I'm still eager to jump back into the story and see where it goes. I spent the first 2 seasons of Game of Thrones being in a confused state. So much World building going on with new characters popping up every episode too.

Please let us see more of the dwarves too - easily my favourite race in Middle Earth. The Durin and Elrond scenes have been my favourite so far.

Lastly, The Stranger is definitely going to be

Spoiler:

Gandalf.

 

[chrisstbh]

I’m sure some people genuinely don’t like this as with all things but to me it does seem like some want to hate it and were never going to allow themselves to like it from the beginning (because that would involve admitting they were wrong, ew).

Everything has to be the best thing ever now or it’s the worst thing ever.

Nitpicking to that extent, going over ever seam line on an outfit etc., shows an unhealthy investment in hating the show imo . But most people that seemingly hate it will continue to watch it anyway; and guess what? Amazon don’t care if you don’t like it as long as you’re giving them those sweet sweet numbers.