Why Rings of Powers Fight Scenes Are Boring

[Aldarion]

Basically: with Lord of the Rings scenes, even if some of them are over-the-top, there is a sense of purpose and people trying to kill each other. In Rings of Power, fight scenes are used to show off special effects and acrobatic moves.

EDIT: Note also how in Lord of the Rings, fight scenes are used to set up plot points. The fight in Balin's Tomb makes it clear that the Fellowship cannot bass through by stealth, and that sets up Gandalf's death later. Fights in Rings of Power usually set up nothing. And while fights in Lord of the Rings both a) help us care for the characters and b) show how characters care for each other (e.g. Balin tomb fight, Gimli jumping into a mass of orcs to save Aragorn), fights in Rings of Power exist solely to show how "awesome" the fake Galadriel and that random elf (Adir? Andir?) are.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Fights in Rings of Power usually set up nothing.

Nothing in The Rings Of Power, sets up anything.

 

[Amon Rudh]

I think you'll find they have nicely set up season two.

 

[Ent]

Ent's opinion: the fight scenes in RoP do show a purpose. The growth of the Dark Power and his effort to take over the remaining lands and people who hadn't bowed to him, is behind it all. At this time the 'goal' was to rule all Middle-Earth.
Compared to the LoTR fight scenes, which depicted... oh... the growth of the Dark Power and his effort to take over the remaining lands and people who hadn't bowed to him being behind it all. At this time the 'goal' was to rule all Middle-Earth.

It's true some of RoP's 'fight scenes' seem to be a little more specific and focused... but the situation of the lands and peoples is different by thousands of years as well.

I might just ask this: is the ultimate 'plot point' really any different at all?

Now... I do find this difference:
- The LoTR battles, when specific, are a "battle scene" well directed and handled, majestic in scope, or intense in individual setting. (Like the Boromir scenes).
- It's true RoP's fight scenes are quite different, showcasing individuals and their 'talents', as well as insuring we see certain things and events happen with regard to other individuals, at times setting up something for the future. Far less people are involved in the 'big scenes', automatically reducing the 'majestic scope' of the battles as well.

Let's not forget LoTR's focus on individual characters in their battle scenes as well at times... such as the 'game' between Legolas and Gimli, Legolas skiing off an Oliphaunt's trunk-- (really, PJ...please..!!)... and such. But PJ also managed to inject some small humor into the midst of (arguably) some of the most epic battle scenes ever filmed.

Bottom line, I do like the LoTR scenes much better...far superior in conception and delivery...but I'm not quite certain there is much less 'setting up of things' in RoP. Just far less skill in battle scenes. (They do follow a great number of others who feel showcasing miraculous and impossible individual talents in fight scenes is the way to go. It's just a difference in viewpoint between the "magnificence of the individual", which is today's focus, over the "magnificence of what the group can accomplish" if we boil it down. And they forgot they were working on an epic Fantasy rather than a standard Martial Arts flick from the 1960's - 80's - with a few more recent additions.)

The point of every battle or war's beginning at its root is always "dominance" at the top by the initiator, and "refusal to be dominated" by the defenders. The unfortunate individuals who get killed trying to achieve that dominance for the leader(s) really don't count. This is why there is always a greater "unity" among the defenders, as they all don't want to be dominated. The troops of the "dominator" are already dominated, so they're just carrying out the will of the master. No real personal investment one way or another, as their lives will not differ one whit, win or lose.

And this is where LoTR excels. We have an awareness of the countless thousands involved and dying to achieve both the prevention of domination, and the rule of Middle-earth. It's that awareness of the reason and the result that RoP misses with its almost singular focus on "The Great One" trying to dominate and "The Great One(s)" trying to stop that domination. There is no 'soul'.

Tolkien was very aware of war, its conduct and its cost. I don't know about PJ and whoever he had advising him...but he took his queue from Tolkien's depth and depictions of battles as another and integral part of the whole soul of the Fantasy.

Amazon has failed in this arena, so though they have 'set up' the same stage of 'trying to achieve dominance' their scenes come off with the color and flavor of a glass of water - and they have done a very poor job of infusing "soul" into the whole of their work.

In terms of serving us up a feast, it's quite like chewing on a chunk of cardboard by comparison with PJ. But it's still not the worst thing I've ever viewed...not by far.

I do think RoP has done PJ's work a world of good, because many who used to decry his work now herald him as quite the visionary by comparison. (And comparisons are always wonderful, leaving us a life that can shift in its perspectives like quicksand.)

 

[Olorgando]

I do think RoP has done PJ's work a world of good, because many who used to decry his work now herald him as quite the visionary by comparison. (And comparisons are always wonderful, leaving us a life that can shift in its perspectives like quicksand.)

Seems to be a general trend of the 21st century. One thing we should never, ever say is "Things can't get any worse than this!" Because in innumerable fields of human actions (or inactivity), hoo boy, have they ever gotten worse.
Remember that 2002-2004 original SARS "outbreak"? Over 8,000 infections and 774 deaths reported - world-wide total.
Fast-forward to 2019 ff. Just a bit below 662 million infections and 6.9 million deaths reported. Every single district in Bavaria (there are 96) reported more than twice as many infections as the world-wide totals of 2002-2004 (up to over 700 K for the city of Munich). And the third-largest city Augsburg (pop. ca. 300 K) has had about the same death toll, with Nuremberg (pop. ca. 510 K) nearly twice that, and Munich (pop. ca. 1,488 K) more than triple.

So I have a question to those who have viewed both RoP (so far) and PJ's LoTR trilogy: are we in the 2019 ff COVID-19 vs. 2002-2004 original SARS ballpark?
Just to be clear, I consider both to have aspects of contagious diseases, bred in the Frankenstein labs of the recent "entertainment" industry ...

 

[Ent]

have they ever gotten worse.

I have never considered understatement to be one of your attributes, sir Curmudgeon - but I may need to change that view.

I won't answer your question toward the bottom, having just read an article revolving around and driven by that very industry coupled with our legal industry. I need time to diffuse prior to responding. - if I ever respond at all.

 

[Aldarion]

Ent's opinion: the fight scenes in RoP do show a purpose. The growth of the Dark Power and his effort to take over the remaining lands and people who hadn't bowed to him, is behind it all. At this time the 'goal' was to rule all Middle-Earth.
Compared to the LoTR fight scenes, which depicted... oh... the growth of the Dark Power and his effort to take over the remaining lands and people who hadn't bowed to him being behind it all. At this time the 'goal' was to rule all Middle-Earth.

You have set the bar incredibly low. Like, on the level of "top-class paintings are made of paint, therefore every smudge of paint is a top-class painting".

You will find that fight scenes in The Lord of the Rings... yes, they show growth of the Dark Power, but they also show so much more than that. They help develop the characters - which to be fair, Rings of Power fight scenes cannot do, because to develop characters you need to have characters to begin with, and that is something Rings of Power don't have... they have plot tools, not characters. Which is the point - Rings of Power fight scenes are empty, they exist to exist. I mean, "growth of the Dark Power"... what does that mean, exactly? You could have shown that by just showing air pollution spreading across the world, no need for fight scenes.

In Lord of the Rings however, characters are human. They have personalities, they have flaws, and those personalities and flaws actually matter. And they matter not just for the story, but for their interpersonal relationships as well. People matter, whereas in Rings of Power, the only "person" that matters is apparently Galadriel, and everybody else is there to show how awesome she is... and even she doesn't show much character. I'd really like to meet toddlers they handed RoP scriptwriting to.

To sum it up, if Lord of the Rings Boromir, Aragorn etc. died, that will have mattered, because they were people. If Rings of Power Galadriel or Arondir or somebody else is killed off... who cares? Just drop in another irrelevant nondescript character and move on. Nobody will notice anyway.

I might just ask this: is the ultimate 'plot point' really any different at all?

Plot point is not the only thing that matters in a story. In fact, what matters far more than any given plot point is how people react to it.

But as I said, to do that, you need to have people in your story.

Now... I do find this difference:
- The LoTR battles, when specific, are a "battle scene" well directed and handled, majestic in scope, or intense in individual setting. (Like the Boromir scenes).
- It's true RoP's fight scenes are quite different, showcasing individuals and their 'talents', as well as insuring we see certain things and events happen with regard to other individuals, at times setting up something for the future. Far less people are involved in the 'big scenes', automatically reducing the 'majestic scope' of the battles as well.

As far as I'm concerned, Deagol - Smeagol wrestling match has far more majesty than anything I have seen so far from the Rings of Power. Largely because it matters. OK, Galadriel goes on a troll killing spree... what, why, why it matters? It is just an empty choreography with no point. And no, I don't mean just "matters for the story". It has to matter for the characters as well.

but I'm not quite certain there is much less 'setting up of things' in RoP

Oh, there is. On every single level, as I have explained just above.

And this is where LoTR excels. We have an awareness of the countless thousands involved and dying to achieve both the prevention of domination, and the rule of Middle-earth. It's that awareness of the reason and the result that RoP misses with its almost singular focus on "The Great One" trying to dominate and "The Great One(s)" trying to stop that domination. There is no 'soul'.

Precisely, though I would have worded it differently. Where Lord of the Rings excels at is tying personal stakes, emotions, responses and relationships to the fabric of the greater story. Yes, preventing Sauron's dominion matters. But it also matters what happens to Samwise Gamgee the Gardener or Peregrin Took the Dummy.

Tolkien was very aware of war, its conduct and its cost. I don't know about PJ and whoever he had advising him...but he took his queue from Tolkien's depth and depictions of battles as another and integral part of the whole soul of the Fantasy.

Peter Jackson IIRC has a few war movies of his own. And he didn't translate Tolkien perfectly to the screen, but... meh. Good enough, I guess.

Unlike RoP.

Amazon has failed in this arena, so though they have 'set up' the same stage of 'trying to achieve dominance' their scenes come off with the color and flavor of a glass of water - and they have done a very poor job of infusing "soul" into the whole of their work.

In terms of serving us up a feast, it's quite like chewing on a chunk of cardboard by comparison with PJ. But it's still not the worst thing I've ever viewed...not by far.

I do think RoP has done PJ's work a world of good, because many who used to decry his work now herald him as quite the visionary by comparison. (And comparisons are always wonderful, leaving us a life that can shift in its perspectives like quicksand.)

Only thing this shows is how far we have fallen in terms of culture.

So I have a question to those who have viewed both RoP (so far) and PJ's LoTR trilogy: are we in the 2019 ff COVID-19 vs. 2002-2004 original SARS ballpark?
Just to be clear, I consider both to have aspects of contagious diseases, bred in the Frankenstein labs of the recent "entertainment" industry ...

Yes. Compared to RoP, Peter Jackson's movies are classics.

 

[Ent]

You have set the bar incredibly low.

Yes, I do have a tendency to do that.
Avoids unnecessary and usually meaningless frustrations. 😌

 

[Amon Rudh]

I think this sort of dichotomous discussion is rather pointless. Person a finds something boring yet watches it and analyses it in intricate detail to explain why they feel so inclined. Person b disagrees with Person a and enjoys the thing discussed. The disgruntled Person a will never convince Person b that it's boring and vice versa. Why would Person b wish to analyse something they enjoy, with an apparent desire to reduce their own enjoyment? Furthermore why would Person a wish to waste their time doing such intricate analysis or explain why they don't like something?
Surely instinctive enjoyment or otherwise is more valuable to a full and happy life? Watching films is hardly an intensely academic activity, or at least for me it isn't.

Ps. Are these your own videos?

 

[Halasían]

I do think RoP has done PJ's work a world of good, because many who used to decry his work now herald him as quite the visionary by comparison. (And comparisons are always wonderful, leaving us a life that can shift in its perspectives like quicksand.)

I think to the contrary. The liberties Peter Jackson took with Lord of the Rings, a complete published book by J.R.R. Tolkien, basically turned it into a PJ fanfic, and paved the way for others to take the same and even more liberties. My opinion on the Peter Jackson movies has changed little in the last 18 years.

Rings of Power, being formatted on the 8+ TV episode rights Tolkien kept out of his original UA agreement in 1969, and being based on various broken snippets of Tolkien's work, was always going to be fanfiction. It is sort of an 'apples and oranges. comparison really.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Yes, I do have a tendency to do that.
Avoids unnecessary and usually meaningless frustrations. 😌

Expectations are premeditated disappointments after all, so I don't blame you for an optimistic outlook.

 

[Ent]

I think this sort of dichotomous discussion is rather pointless.

amen. though I participated myself, giving my opinion, i fully agree the whole issue is entirely pointless.
that's why my bar is set so low on such things.
It simply does not matter... either to today, tomorrow, or to eternity. it just doesn't.
energy is a very real thing. so much of it is expended in 'frustration' it's hard to see how one can turn the energy back into 'construction'.
Yes, there is a very real 'frustration energy' and a very real 'construction energy' and the two are entirely incompatible.
the key is for a person to recognize when they're being 'negative' on a thing - (THE manifestation of frustration) - they cannot be constructive.
Such is the life of energy.
fortunately, we are all free to 'use our energy' as we wish, just as we are free to have an opinion as we wish.
the even greater fortune is we get to choose which type of person we spend our time with- for the most part. 😁

 

[Ent]

I don't blame you for an optimistic outlook.

Thank you. I find it hard to blame myself for one, too..!

 

[d4rk3lf]

why would Person a wish to waste their time doing such intricate analysis or explain why they don't like something?

Because it's fascinating how low they can go!
I was clear in episode 3 that shows go pretty much nowhere, but was curious how, even more bad they can make it. And I wasn't disappointed in my expectations.
The show is so bad, that it can't stand on it's own feet, even if you watch it as some random show.

I will continue watching it, for that reason, and because Tolkien is my favorite writer, and I wanna know everything, including games (good and bad games).

On-topic word of advice at the end:
"You can kill an orc in many ways, but best is to: Stab, twist, gut".

 

[Olorgando]

energy is a very real thing. so much of it is expended in 'frustration' it's hard to see how one can turn the energy back into 'construction'.
Yes, there is a very real 'frustration energy' and a very real 'construction energy' and the two are entirely incompatible.

With the self-declared "elites" for perhaps the last 10,000 years, certainly the last 5,000, managing to steer us towards the frustration side, for their own selfish and entirely antisocial "needs". Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film "Wall Street": "Greed is good". Um, no, it's a psychopathic addiction ...

 

[Aldarion]

I think this sort of dichotomous discussion is rather pointless. Person a finds something boring yet watches it and analyses it in intricate detail to explain why they feel so inclined. Person b disagrees with Person a and enjoys the thing discussed. The disgruntled Person a will never convince Person b that it's boring and vice versa. Why would Person b wish to analyse something they enjoy, with an apparent desire to reduce their own enjoyment? Furthermore why would Person a wish to waste their time doing such intricate analysis or explain why they don't like something?
Surely instinctive enjoyment or otherwise is more valuable to a full and happy life? Watching films is hardly an intensely academic activity, or at least for me it isn't.

Ps. Are these your own videos?

No, they are not.

And I disagree with such discussion being pointless. What you are saying is that the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but that is wrong. There are objective standards, and while you can like something, that doesn't mean said something is good. Yet too often we see arguments in the vein of "I like it, so it cannot be bad"... well, wrong. There are objective standards of whether something is good or not, and there are even more objective standards of whether something is a good adaptation. You are free to enjoy waste products (God knows there is trash out there I enjoy myself), but we have to have standards and we have to understand the distinction. And that requires discussion.

Lack of standards is why we have modernist architecture, after all.

 

[Ent]

There are objective standards

This kind of discussion is always difficult, because both "objective" and "standards" need to be DEFINED.
There were once theoretical moral standards too... but each generation has deteriorated and distorted those standards to fit their own "opinions".

The 'standard' at any given time is, in fact, purely subjective.

Do we need to 'stand up for' what is right? (in our own eyes?) Absolutely. The world is consumed by it at this time. Because "right" also needs to be defined, and is subjective (not objective) outside an absolute...and mankind refuses absolutes.

Thus we come to "pick your battles."
Is it better to battle for the quality of a movie?
Or to battle our 'lawmakers' and 'court systems' so we don't get to where murder is OK, like greed and corruption has become OK, and the order of the day.

I give RoP, and the entire Entertainment industry's output a zero on a scale of 1 to 10 in importance in terms of their main product - to entertain the masses so they aren't a populace thinking on important things.

It's just not a place I'm going to spend my energies. There are far bigger fish to fry.

 

[Aldarion]

This kind of discussion is always difficult, because both "objective" and "standards" need to be DEFINED.
There were once theoretical moral standards too... but each generation has deteriorated and distorted those standards to fit their own "opinions".

The 'standard' at any given time is, in fact, purely subjective.

Do we need to 'stand up for' what is right? (in our own eyes?) Absolutely. The world is consumed by it at this time. Because "right" also needs to be defined, and is subjective (not objective) outside an absolute...and mankind refuses absolutes.

Thus we come to "pick your battles."
Is it better to battle for the quality of a movie?
Or to battle our 'lawmakers' and 'court systems' so we don't get to where murder is OK, like greed and corruption has become OK, and the order of the day.

I give RoP, and the entire Entertainment industry's output a zero on a scale of 1 to 10 in importance in terms of their main product - to entertain the masses so they aren't a populace thinking on important things.

It's just not a place I'm going to spend my energies. There are far bigger fish to fry.

Yet all these things are connected, in a way. Society that has lost its standards for beauty and art will have also lost its standards for morality. Same logic which says that a pile of trash is an "art work" is logic that says murder is OK - it is the logic of "everything goes" and "everything is subjective".

So while I understand what you are saying, I cannot agree that modern devastation of any and all forms of art is unimportant.

 

[Amon Rudh]

No, they are not.

And I disagree with such discussion being pointless. What you are saying is that the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but that is wrong. There are objective standards, and while you can like something, that doesn't mean said something is good. Yet too often we see arguments in the vein of "I like it, so it cannot be bad"... well, wrong. There are objective standards of whether something is good or not, and there are even more objective standards of whether something is a good adaptation. You are free to enjoy waste products (God knows there is trash out there I enjoy myself), but we have to have standards and we have to understand the distinction. And that requires discussion.

Lack of standards is why we have modernist architecture, after all.

Your original point seemed to try to enlighten me as to why you feel ROP is boring. That is a completely subjective point plus I dont find them boring. But you support my argument in saying that the premise of beauty being in the eye of the beholder as I very firmly believe it is. On that we have another dichotomy.
I recently watched the film Moonfall which as an astronomer I found ludicrous and completely far fetched. However as a cheesy spectacular film in the vein of Armageddon and Independence Day, I enjoyed it.
We don't all have to agree on things but I will always push against someone telling me what I should think or like or do. I think here we share common ground! 🙂

 

[Ent]

Yet all these things are connected,

Indeed they are.
Perhaps that's why we are all endowed with different opinions...as long as we all also hold those opinions both rightly, and loosely.
It takes a team and intent to create ongoing, increasing corruption and wage it as a war.
It also takes a team and intent to stand in its way.

No one can do it all alone... each plays their part in a different arena with the skillsets and tools they've been blessed with.