Are The Rings Of Power Adaptations More Intriguing Than The Movies?

[d4rk3lf]

8 Things The Rings Of Power Does Better Than Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings Movies

Rings of Power has done a few key things right.

screenrant.com

Interesting article from ScreenRant.
So, what do you think of it?

I still haven't watched Barbie movie, so I can't list 888 reason why it's better then ROP, but if anyone of you did, feel free to tell us.

 

[Deimos]

I think the author of that article is grasping at straws.
That is, if you have to keep explaining why something is "really good" and why people should like it, it's probably not very good at all.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

I haven't seen Rings of Power, though I have heard/seen various negative and positive reviews. To me, it seems they had many good ideas or initial concepts, but the execution failed miserably. Apparently not much thought was given to location, travel and logistics. I've seen a couple of clips, and well, the dialogue wasn't really that memorable.
It's like they took locations, characters, names, and other individual items or plot points from the books, then strung them all together with details of their own invention. Trouble is, it seems they forgot about the book entirely after lifting a few things from it, since the details often contradict Tolkien's writings, instead of simply filling the unwritten gaps in a plausible manner. It's true they can't directly reference the Silmarillion, but they can at least avoid contradicting it. Even the Hobbit films managed to make a reference to Elu Thingol and the Silmaril with their design of Thranduil and the Arkenstone. The film Arkenstone was not faceted as it should have been, and also shone much too brightly. And Thingol was directly mentioned as an inspiration in a behind-the-scenes for Thranduil.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

Interesting article from ScreenRant.

What I noticed is they couldn't find their usual 10. 🤪

 

[Ent]

I think the author of that article is grasping at straws.
That is, if you have to keep explaining why something is "really good" and why people should like it, it's probably not very good at all.

You've certainly got a point here friend @Deimos. Too, what you state clearly even if slightly 'under cover,' is the author is speaking his/her OPINION.
Which of course, he/she naturally must be, as that's ALL we have to deal with in such cases...our own view of things.

With this post we must start, at a minimum, by defining what "does better than" means... then deal with definitions of 'better' and 'worse' from this author's perspective and that alone.
Only then can we have some basis upon which to evaluate the Writer's perspective. Otherwise we're just making a judgment about that writer's opinion comparative to our own. Do we try to understand him/her and where they're coming from? Or, do we just judge because we have our own universe of thoughts.

I fear such things, and their potential impact, as few can discriminate between the two issues at hand, and make sound judgments.
Bilbo could discriminate - he judged Gollum's position and construct of life, and had pity.
Frodo did as well.
It took Sam a much longer time to 'get there' in his discernment... and we're not entirely certain he ever really did.
Most people simply can't.

Having breezed the 'article', I note the writer comes from a posture assuming the things he's discussiong are essentially 'flaws' in what PJ did. Why? Because they don't fit that writer's 'preferences' apparently. So be it. I'm not sure this means the 'changes' made for RoP were 'better' choices. Just different.

Anyway, we're going to start seeing more and more of this kind of 'barking' as the marketing machines ramp up toward RoP2 now... so I trust we'll all steel ourselves for the opinion sharing and dissention mongering, as it's all a large part of what is to come.

May our heads stay level and our hearts pure, so we remain thinking animals rather than programmed machines.

 

[Ent]

It's like they took locations, characters, names, and other individual items or plot points from the books, then strung them all together with details of their own invention. Trouble is, it seems they forgot about the book entirely after lifting a few things from it, since the details often contradict Tolkien's writings,

Yep, 'tis true. Yet reading Jurassic Park again as just one example, the "atrocious" picking and choosing and stringing together materials from totally different sections and in totally different ways than the books is no less violent or evident between those two earliest movies, and the first books.

'tis the nature of the beast.

But must it be a beast? Or have we allowed ourselves to be programmed into considering things so.
Can we handle them for what they ARE? Or can we only see them if they're what they 'should be' according to our own personal dictates.
Each viewer (or one considering viewing) must decide.

If nothing else, RoP1 did us this great favor: it showed us (yet again) in a Spectalce (a movie) we will NOT see what we wish to see... but rather what the producer of the spectacle wishes to show and say.

Even with a book, which is not a Spectacle but a Story, (and sometimes even an Epic,) though we CAN see directly what the Author wished to SAY, we will often both SEE things very differently than another reader, and certainly interpret them very differently than others reading the very same words.

At the end of the day, all of life boils down to simply this: Do we deal with what IS, and deal with reality realistically?* Or do we pine for what is not, and try to contend with reality. All we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given us.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

not a Spectacle but a Story

May I ask what definition of "Spectacle" you are using? I understand it with the common significance, but are you using a more archaic meaning here?

 

[Ent]

I use 'specacle' in its common sense today. Essentially "'Something Visual".
The world of Cinema today has little to do with deeper story, and certainly nothing to do with layers of meaning.
It's all about 'spectacle'... what magnificent graphics, battle scenes, etc. will drag people into the seats in theater.

Some of the older movies did far better at 'story' than what we've seen in many a decade. Few ever achieved 'epic', which includes not only the story, but the depth.

But of course, given the MEDIUM of visual artistry and spoken word, rather than words developed on a page, there isn't much choice.
The Marvel universe, for example, is among the shallowest universes one will ever encounter. But its Spectacle draws many into the chairs to pay to be 'entertained'.

Movies are for 'entertainment'. Many books are for far more. (Though it's true there are many 'template writers' in history whose only passion was entertaining, so their LONG series' of books were kind of like Hallmark Movies... the same fare told over and over with little change, much repetition, and often even the same characters. keeps the minds of the audience wanting to be 'entertained' in their proper vegetative state, preventing them from thinking. Much like the Roman Games, and our masses of current 'sports' like football, baseball, basketball, etc. are intended to do.)

But this all becomes a very long discussion...

Hope that helps you with my use of 'spectacle' anyway...
Rare is the cinematic effort with anything but 'specatcle' in view (or delivered).

SPECTACLE: "
a visually striking performance or display.
an event or scene regarded in terms of its visual impact.

 

[Olorgando]

...
With this post we must start, at a minimum, by defining what "does better than" means... then deal with definitions of 'better' and 'worse' from this author's perspective and that alone.
Only then can we have some basis upon which to evaluate the Writer's perspective. Otherwise we're just making a judgment about that writer's opinion comparative to our own. Do we try to understand him/her and where they're coming from? Or, do we just judge because we have our own universe of thoughts.
...

Perspective and opinion are inseparable. Without perspective (and the assumptions that go with it) no one can form an own opinion. Granted, there are people who parrot others' opinions without (so it seems) any own thought - usually in guru-cult follower situations, but there these people have usually made their decision to abdicate their thinking to their guru; sometimes with horrific results that made the news.
Perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever read was probably in C.S. Lewis's book "That Hideous Strength" (IIRC), where Lewis has one of the protagonists say (I paraphrase) "I have no opinions on any subject whatsoever." Poor deluded fool. Humans have nothing but opinions.

 

[Glorfindel Goldtress]

Hope that helps you with my use of 'spectacle' anyway...

Thank you for the clarification!

C.S. Lewis's book "That Hideous Strength" (IIRC), where Lewis has one of the protagonists say (I paraphrase) "I have no opinions on any subject whatsoever." Poor deluded fool.

It's been many years since I have read that book. I do not recall many details, but I suppose that was the point. And I would add saying one has no opinion is an opinion.

 

[Ent]

Perspective and opinion are inseparable. Without perspective (and the assumptions that go with it) no one can form an own opinion. Granted, there are people who parrot others' opinions without (so it seems) any own thought - usually in guru-cult follower situations, but there these people have usually made their decision to abdicate their thinking to their guru; sometimes with horrific results that made the news.
Perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever read was probably in C.S. Lewis's book "That Hideous Strength" (IIRC), where Lewis has one of the protagonists say (I paraphrase) "I have no opinions on any subject whatsoever." Poor deluded fool. Humans have nothing but opinions.

Indeed, of course they are.
That's why we need to dig into the 'perspective' any author (or talker, or whatever/whoever) holds, to grasp where THEY are coming from.
Since virtually every single thing in life is derived from a 'perspective' made up of the entire background of any entity's experience, and every entity's experience differs from every other entity, 'agreement' on opinions resulting from perspective is rare. Certainly 'full agreement'.

What boggles my brain, is why, inspite of these obvious FACTS, people still want so much for other people to agree with their OPINIONS, formulated entirely by their individual PERSPECTIVES, based on their own (and only their) EXPERIENCES.... which leave out countless millions of other experiences thus perspective adjustments, thus opinion changes.

Don't we get it? Clearly not, because we continue to see so many INSISTING on agreement. But.. if it's TRUE (and it is)... why can't we figure out how to deal with REALITY regarding perspective and opinion, rather than continuing to mindlessly seek 'agreement with ME' as the measuring stick of acceptability between entities.

Sigh... mankind has not, cannot, and therefore will not, ever 'get there'.
And that too, is 'reality'.

 

[Ent]

Thank you for the clarification!

If it happens to be unclear how the issues of 'story' and 'epic' vs. 'spectacle' plays out in specific scenes, I'll take a moment and jot out just one very brief example of PJ turning story and epic value into spectacle, losing the complete depth of meaning in the process. It's somewhat a key one those watching only the movies will never be able to overcome. (I may even have spoken to it before on here somewhere, not sure. I definitely do in the Appendix to the book.)

Much of this kind of thing we won't face in RoP, because the ages being addressed have little 'written background' for comparason... so the producers are pretty much 'inventing' as they go along in many places. This is probably a good thing... that much less for the gripers to gripe about.

 

[Deimos]

Perspective and opinion are inseparable. Without perspective (and the assumptions that go with it) no one can form an own opinion. Granted, there are people who parrot others' opinions without (so it seems) any own thought - usually in guru-cult follower situations, but there these people have usually made their decision to abdicate their thinking to their guru; sometimes with horrific results that made the news.
Perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever read was probably in C.S. Lewis's book "That Hideous Strength" (IIRC), where Lewis has one of the protagonists say (I paraphrase) "I have no opinions on any subject whatsoever." Poor deluded fool. Humans have nothing but opinions.

If you state a mathematical truth it is most definitely not an opinion. 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[d4rk3lf]

If you state a mathematical truth it is most definitely not an opinion. 2 + 2 = 4.

Galadriel: You're about to realize what I never thought is imaginable
Elrond: What is that?
Galadriel: 2+2=5
Elrond: That's impossible
Galadriel: You have not seen, what I have seen.
Elrond: But still... there's a many....
Galadriel: Silence! You're not, but a worm, in this play...
Elrond: This is too much, even for ScreenRant, to make any sense of it...
Galadriel: My best friend, how could I forgotten that? Fear of no evil...
Elrond: But I do.. you contradict yourself.. it's like.. you are not talking to me... and then,,, you are talking to me... look, what I am interested above else, why are you angry with me?
Galadriel: Blessed are the immortals, and less blessed are the immortals...
Elrond fall..
(Elrond limbs start to move)
(Galadriel quickly and strongly turns to Elrond, holding his body... her face are upon his face.. her eyes was deadly serious, and her voice like a wakening gong to Elrond)
- You see... we must win
...
.....
........
Elrond: Win against who? Christ.. my head...
Galadriel: Against an enemy
Elrond: But who is the enemy, can you remind me?
Galadriel: The one who killed my brother.
Elrond: He is not an enemy.. he is gone.. remember.. after War of the Wrath all the evil was dispersed.

 

[d4rk3lf]

Ok, sorry guys.. and girls.. let me explain...
Above is the something I composed that I wanted to post later (after, if I find a suitable answer, and some actual point after Galadriel and Elrond conversation), but in mid of it, my keyboard gone crazy, and it just post it like that.. in middle of the thing..
I've tried to delete it, but I couldn't.. nevermind... let it be.. I might finish it one day...
I apologize to everyone if above conversation makes more sense then any conversation in ROP.

Cheers.

 

[Olorgando]

If you state a mathematical truth it is most definitely not an opinion. 2 + 2 = 4.

In the perspective of base 10, yes.
In base 2, that would have to be written 10 + 10 = 100 ...

 

[Deimos]

In the perspective of base 10, yes.
In base 2, that would have to be written 10 + 10 = 100 ...

Doing a calculation in a different base isn't an "opinion."
You establish what base you are using at the beginning, or you notate it in a subscript.
It's not unlike discussing geometry; you state upfront if you are using laws for Euclidean geometry or for non-Euclidean geometries.
Mathematics is not the least concerned about your opinion, or even if you exist. It simply IS.

 

[Radaghast]

8 Things The Rings Of Power Does Better Than Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings Movies

Rings of Power has done a few key things right.

screenrant.com

Interesting article from ScreenRant.
So, what do you think of it?

I still haven't watched Barbie movie, so I can't list 888 reason why it's better then ROP, but if anyone of you did, feel free to tell us.

I can't disagree with some of them, but they still seem pretty weak. I say this as a non-fan of the movies. The last one is really lame, though. The series tells more stories at once, but they are all bad stories, none of them remotely based on anything Tolkien wrote.

As for the diversity thing, oh, boy, here we go again. Tolkien's world is diverse enough. If you're talking about complexion, it has to make sense. Not every place is a so-called melting pot. Make it make sense.

 

[Olorgando]

Mathematics is not the least concerned about your opinion, or even if you exist. It simply IS.

Does anyone know the exact value of π? Me, I'm usually content with 3.14 when I do calculations in my head. I don't know how long the chain of numbers has become that some memory artists have managed to memorize, or perhaps even longer ones published in books.
OK, for integers and the four basic functions it is for everyday life - though division can get screwy with things like 1/3, 1/7 in digital notation ...
But naming conventions can differ. Koreans have an own term for 10,000, man (1 = il, 10 = ship, 100 = paek, 1,000 = chon - and then man).
The next term is man squared (which I never learned), or 100,000,000.
Indian (I mean the Asian subcontinent) numerals still in current use are the lakh or 100,000, and the crore or 10,000,000 (or 100 lakh).
Which are written 1,00,000 respectively 1,00,00,000 in Indian notation ... 😵‍💫🥴

 

[Deimos]

Does anyone know the exact value of π?

π is irrational, e is irrational, √2 is irrational... knock yourself out trying to express exact values for those numbers.
Me, I don't lose any sleep over it 😉