• Welcome to The Tolkien Forum! Connect with fellow Tolkien enthusiasts and join a community that is over two decades old, and still going strong. We look forward to meeting you.  Register

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

I don't lose any sleep over it
This is, frankly, a good posture to take on very, very many things.
May we focus on things having an eternal impact, or at least a universal or worldwide one, rather than whether hobbits in a picture have been drawn with sufficient fur on their feet.
 
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 😉
Nor do I. Nor over company yearly balance sheets, statistics not calculated by insurance companies (though one rarely sees these, mostly their yearly balance sheets - a different animal altogether, see above ...)
 
May we focus on things having an eternal impact, or at least a universal or worldwide one, ...
Doesn't that inevitably land us in the topic of general human stupidity?
 
Doesn't that inevitably land us in the topic of general human stupidity?
Not necessarily. In fact, not really at all. It encourages us, I rather think, to leave off 'general human stupidity' and start to deal with things of at least some minuscule level of importance. Generally, humanity never gets close to anything of importance, muddling in the mud as they prefer to do with things of no real consequence whatsoever. Great efforts are made to insure they remain in such a state. It takes very little thinking to understand why.
 
Doesn't that inevitably land us in the topic of general human stupidity?
Not necessarily. In fact, not really at all. It encourages us, I rather think, to leave off 'general human stupidity' and start to deal with things of at least some minuscule level of importance. Generally, humanity never gets close to anything of importance, muddling in the mud as they prefer to do with things of no real consequence whatsoever. Great efforts are made to insure they remain in such a state. It takes very little thinking to understand why.
Well, let's see....
Humans invented the wheel, and speech, and music and tools like hammers and saws, and writing and timekeeping, and mapped out the seasons (based on celestial events), and medicine, and moveable type, and geometry and algebra, and early medicine, and later spectacles (glasses) and pasteurization, and genetics and selective breeding of plants and animals, and antibiotics and insulin and cataract surgery.... to name just a few of our accomplishhments

And yes, for every good thing named you can list a bad thing made by humans (the H-bomb for example or RoP).
But what I'm saying is, that humans are still pretty smart... natural selection proves it.
We wouldn't be here if we were stupid; nature is very unforgiving of stupidity, hence the Darwin Awards.
 
The spell of math graduate students?
82rwx4.jpg
 

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

  1. Rings Of Power Covers More Middle-Earth Stories At Once
    Lord Of The Rings Was Limited By Its Movie Format
  2. Middle-Earth Is More Diverse In Rings Of Power
    Lord Of The Rings' Casting Greatly Lacked Diversity
  3. Rings Of Power Gives Elf Characters More Variety
    Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Made Elves Too Perfect
  4. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Ruined Isildur
    Rings Of Power's Version Of Isildur Is More Faithful To Tolkien Canon
  5. Orcs Look Fantastic In Rings Of Power
    Practical Effects Have Come A Long Way Since Lord Of The Rings
  6. Dwarves Aren't Just Comic Relief In Rings Of Power
    Gimli (& Other Dwarves) Were Far More Serious In Tolkien's Works
  7. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Changed Elrond
    Elrond Is Far Kinder & Less Critical In Rings Of Power
  8. Rings Of Power Makes Sauron A More Interesting Character
    Sauron Was An Unseen Villain In Jackson's Lord Of The Rings
Yeah, the article makes good points.
 
  1. Rings Of Power Covers More Middle-Earth Stories At Once
    Lord Of The Rings Was Limited By Its Movie Format
  2. Middle-Earth Is More Diverse In Rings Of Power
    Lord Of The Rings' Casting Greatly Lacked Diversity
  3. Rings Of Power Gives Elf Characters More Variety
    Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Made Elves Too Perfect
  4. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Ruined Isildur
    Rings Of Power's Version Of Isildur Is More Faithful To Tolkien Canon
  5. Orcs Look Fantastic In Rings Of Power
    Practical Effects Have Come A Long Way Since Lord Of The Rings
  6. Dwarves Aren't Just Comic Relief In Rings Of Power
    Gimli (& Other Dwarves) Were Far More Serious In Tolkien's Works
  7. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Changed Elrond
    Elrond Is Far Kinder & Less Critical In Rings Of Power
  8. Rings Of Power Makes Sauron A More Interesting Character
    Sauron Was An Unseen Villain In Jackson's Lord Of The Rings
Yeah, the article makes good points.
I agree that these things could have been done better in the Lord of the Rings movies. Their characterisation was off in some places. For example, I think book Legolas would be a bit easier to turn into comic relief than Gimli (Legolas is a bit cheeky at times). Then there's Denethor, Faramir, Isildur...

But whether Rings of Power has actually managed to do some of these things better, is a matter of opinion for those who have seen it.
 
Well, let's see....
Humans invented the wheel, and speech, and music and tools like hammers and saws, and writing and timekeeping, and mapped out the seasons (based on celestial events), and medicine, and moveable type, and geometry and algebra, and early medicine, and later spectacles (glasses) and pasteurization, and genetics and selective breeding of plants and animals, and antibiotics and insulin and cataract surgery.... to name just a few of our accomplishhments

And yes, for every good thing named you can list a bad thing made by humans (the H-bomb for example or RoP).
But what I'm saying is, that humans are still pretty smart... natural selection proves it.
We wouldn't be here if we were stupid; nature is very unforgiving of stupidity, hence the Darwin Awards.
Yes, humans have invented a lot of things ... a tiny fraction of humans, that is. And it takes time for even useful things to be adopted on a wider scale, say a generation or so. (I have the impression that since the invention of marketing, advertising etc. useless things have spread more rapidly ...).
As you mention the wheel, it was only used for toys in the Americas by the time starting about 500 years ago when the western Eurasians rolled over them with "Guns, Germs and Steel", to quote a 1997 book title by Jared Diamond. Mainly to do with a lack of draft animals to pull them.
As a more general rule, I would think Douglas Adams was only slightly exaggerating in one of his "Hitchhiker's Guide" books (I have to paraphrase, his books do not have an index, at least not my paperbacks) when he wrote:
"Some said it had been a mistake to climb down out of the trees. Others argued that even the trees had been a mistake, and again others that it had been a mistake to leave the oceans."
 
Yeah, the article makes good points.
Without taking the time to address each one, some of them have no 'meaning in the comparison' however.

For example, #8 Sauron being an 'interesting character' - the Sauron of the Lord of the Rings WAS a very different character than the one of the earlier periods. He WAS just a dark, shadowy bit of malice in bodily form. PJs only mistake was making him just a 'great eye' in most people's minds... but there's little 'interesting' to display about him after his reforming.

#8 at least, in my mind, goes the way of the 'delete button' on that list. I won't address the rest.
Comparisons need to be careful to be apples to apples, not apples to dead grapes.
 
Humans invented the wheel, and speech, and music and tools like hammers and saws, and writing and timekeeping, and mapped out the seasons (based on celestial events), and medicine, and moveable type, and geometry and algebra, and early medicine, and later spectacles (glasses) and pasteurization, and genetics and selective breeding of plants and animals, and antibiotics and insulin and cataract surgery.... to name just a few of our accomplishments
I think there exists a very big difference between 'brain accomplishments', and wisdom.
Human 'knowledge' has far outstripped human 'wisdom', which quite frankly, has not taken a single stride forward in all human history.

And we continue to 'invent', even knowing all our 'invention' is being misused, and we but accelerate our efforts to be able to blow people up better and try to prevent them from blowing us up better, as we continue to muddle in the primordial muck of a lack of real 'knowledge.'

No...I cannot agree we have 'advanced'. What we have done, and continue to do, is the very definition of 'stupid'...and as has been rightly said, 'you can't fix stupid.' On a scale of 1 to10, man's chances of ultimate survival based on all his past years of 'advancement and advancement,' sits at exactly zero.

Thus again, 'all we can do is decide what to do with the time that is given us'... as we work to deal with man's REAL problems, rather than his perceived ones. That's our goal and our charge...and what Tolkien's work points toward at its core.
 
Now there's a correspondence I hadn't seen before! 😳
Well obviously (or maybe not so obviously) the first thing was mentioned seriously and the second one was tongue in cheek.
But I mention both because we repeatedly, often to our peril, ignore the ever present, ever ubiquitous fallen human nature.

Yes, humans have invented a lot of things ... a tiny fraction of humans, that is. And it takes time for even useful things to be adopted on a wider scale, say a generation or so. (I have the impression that since the invention of marketing, advertising etc. useless things have spread more rapidly ...).
As you mention the wheel, it was only used for toys in the Americas by the time starting about 500 years ago when the western Eurasians rolled over them with "Guns, Germs and Steel", to quote a 1997 book title by Jared Diamond. Mainly to do with a lack of draft animals to pull them.
As a more general rule, I would think Douglas Adams was only slightly exaggerating in one of his "Hitchhiker's Guide" books (I have to paraphrase, his books do not have an index, at least not my paperbacks) when he wrote:
"Some said it had been a mistake to climb down out of the trees. Others argued that even the trees had been a mistake, and again others that it had been a mistake to leave the oceans."
If we hadn't left the oceans those guys wouldn't be around to make those observations.
I for one, am still unashamed at my humanity, at being human.
Any species that produces someone who wrote St. Matthew's Passion can still be proud.

Human 'knowledge' has far outstripped human 'wisdom', which quite frankly, has not taken a single stride forward in all human history.
Sorry, but that statement is absolutely umprovable by you unless you are privy to every single decision made in human history.
All I need to do is produce ONE instance of acquired wisdom, and your assertion is proven false.
 
We wouldn't be here if we were stupid; nature is very unforgiving of stupidity,
Would that we had a forum to discuss this issue... and to clarify our terms.
But this much is certain - we have taken this thread way off its intended subject, and it would be well for us to return to it.
And I see your latest post above, and would love to tackle that as well... starting with the definition of 'wisdom' and its application - yet I think we need to restore the thread.
 
Thanks for the succinct list, Halasian.
Let's take a look at each, from Ent's (current) thoughts about them...
  1. Rings Of Power Covers More Middle-Earth Stories At Once. Lord Of The Rings Was Limited By Its Movie Format
It was not limited 'by its movie format' but 'by the period it by nature covers. This compares apples and oranges. LoTR us by nature 'historical' and limited to the short period of years which becomes the end of the third age, with but references to 'things of yore.' LoTR has "no intent' much less 'no opportunity" to 'do better or differently' in this arena whatsoever. The comparison of 'doing better' is inapplicable.. so inapproopriate.
2. Middle-Earth Is More Diverse In Rings Of Power Lord Of The Rings' Casting Greatly Lacked Diversity. Rings Of Power Gives Elf Characters More Variety.
This may have some merit. The question is, is the 'diversity' shown upheld by the text of the works, and the difference in the Producers' intent to display Tolkien rather than society? Or is the 'diversity' depicted done for reasons other than a faithful depiction of Tolkien's writings. We can let the reader decide this one. Much of it 'feels' to me like little but 'concessions due to social pressure' rather than 'accuracy in displaying Tolkien's work.' I do not call it 'better'. Just a choice one way or the other.
The final comment 'the more people that feel at home' in Middle-earth the better." This opinion does have it's place. But whether it's really ''better' is of course dependint on our definition and measuring stick for 'better'. It will almost certainly be true for those who are unfamiliar with Tolkien's writing...and those others who always judge the past by the present's perspective rather than what was at the time.

3. RoP gives the Elves more variety. Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Made Elves Too Perfect
Here again, we must look to what Tolkien wrote in his works. We're dealing with just the remaining elves at the end of the 3rd age in LoTR. Is this apples and oranges to the great variety seen in the earlier period? That is, are we seeing a Jackson decision to 'make elves perfect' (which they aren't depicted as being by the way) or Tolkien's work in LoTR with the elves he had at hand during that short period? Again, we have apples and oranges.

4. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Ruined Isildur' Rings Of Power's Version Of Isildur Is More Faithful To Tolkien Canon
I will not speak to this one... no time to look it through. But as I recall, Isildur has very little 'showing' in LoTR by nature... so I think I would find any comparison difficult, LoTR speaking to but people's memories of Isildur and what the tales over the years have made it to be.

5. Orcs Look Fantastic In Rings Of Power. Practical Effects Have Come A Long Way Since Lord Of The Rings
So... though the comparison itself above seems to suggest 'time and abilities/capabilities' are a factor in this, I don't doubt PJ could have done differently. (Though I don't think his Orcs are by any means not 'good looking' for Orcs.) But one thing is clear: the Orcs (and general situations) of RoP DO seem to feel a little more 'realistic' than in LoTR. I can't quite lay a twig on why that is, but well... it 'feels' different. Is it better? I'm not sure.

6. Dwarves Aren't Just Comic Relief In Rings Of Power. Gimli (& Other Dwarves) Were Far More Serious In Tolkien's Works
This I can agree with. Tolkien did not write his work as a slapstick comedy at points, or with characters making jokes of serious things at times, or superheros sledding down steps, doing acrobatics mounting Oliphaunts and skiing off their trunks, or having 'number of kills' contests etc. He wrote serious events, seriously. PJ made a mistake here (in my view) - one we've seen an absence of (so far) in RoP. But is it better? If I were among the parents of the 'young audiences' I may well prefer the slight light humor of LoTR to keep the kids involved, thus earning more at the box office. Though LoTR has some significantly 'scary' scenes with the Orcs etc., RoP is no doubt a bit 'darker' throughout so far, and possibly more 'unsuitable' for kids. (Though these days, what is 'suitable' and 'unsuitable' for kids is vastly different than it was just those couple decades or so ago, and parents are far less discriminating.)

7. Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings Changed Elrond. Elrond Is Far Kinder & Less Critical In Rings Of Power
Again this could well be 'oranges and apples'. (OK, vice versa for the puritan reader.) Elrond is in a very different age now, having already lived through the first war of the Ring, seen the 'failure of man' at its time for destruction, and been through many, many more wars. People... yes, even those Elves, already said to have beend drawn 'less perfectly' in RoP... change.
Elrond's change is a part of that 'imperfection' the writer of the article says earlier he does not see. Seems a little inconsistent to me.
Does this make the depiction of Elrond 'better' in RoP than in LoTR? Not in the least. It shows the passage of time and its potential impact. (I note the writer doesn't mention at all, the difference in depiction of Galadriel, as being 'better' in RoP than in LoTR... and this is a GOOD thing, as again there would be a 'speaking out of both sides of the mouth' on an issue.)

8. Rings Of Power Makes Sauron A More Interesting Character. Sauron Was An Unseen Villain In Jackson's Lord Of The Rings
I've spoken to this briefly in a post above, and won't repeat it. The writer misses the reality of the existence of Sauron in the two different times completely.

Ent's final judgment on (opinion of) of the article in the original post:
A complete miss, totally mistaking what's going on at almost every point in the fare offered.
The very effort of looking for 'better' rather than just 'different' on such grounds as these, is amiss entirely.

But again, we can anticipate more of this as time moves us inexorably toward the advent of RoP2. It's all about the hype, and keeping it in the foreground as the upcoming opportunity nears.
 
Thanks for the succinct list, Halasian.
Let's take a look at each, from Ent's (current) thoughts about them...

It was not limited 'by its movie format' but 'by the period it by nature covers. This compares apples and oranges. LoTR us by nature 'historical' and limited to the short period of years which becomes the end of the third age, with but references to 'things of yore.' LoTR has "no intent' much less 'no opportunity" to 'do better or differently' in this arena whatsoever. The comparison of 'doing better' is inapplicable.. so inapproopriate.

This may have some merit. The question is, is the 'diversity' shown upheld by the text of the works, and the difference in the Producers' intent to display Tolkien rather than society? Or is the 'diversity' depicted done for reasons other than a faithful depiction of Tolkien's writings. We can let the reader decide this one. Much of it 'feels' to me like little but 'concessions due to social pressure' rather than 'accuracy in displaying Tolkien's work.' I do not call it 'better'. Just a choice one way or the other.
The final comment 'the more people that feel at home' in Middle-earth the better." This opinion does have it's place. But whether it's really ''better' is of course dependint on our definition and measuring stick for 'better'. It will almost certainly be true for those who are unfamiliar with Tolkien's writing...and those others who always judge the past by the present's perspective rather than what was at the time.


Here again, we must look to what Tolkien wrote in his works. We're dealing with just the remaining elves at the end of the 3rd age in LoTR. Is this apples and oranges to the great variety seen in the earlier period? That is, are we seeing a Jackson decision to 'make elves perfect' (which they aren't depicted as being by the way) or Tolkien's work in LoTR with the elves he had at hand during that short period? Again, we have apples and oranges.


I will not speak to this one... no time to look it through. But as I recall, Isildur has very little 'showing' in LoTR by nature... so I think I would find any comparison difficult, LoTR speaking to but people's memories of Isildur and what the tales over the years have made it to be.


So... though the comparison itself above seems to suggest 'time and abilities/capabilities' are a factor in this, I don't doubt PJ could have done differently. (Though I don't think his Orcs are by any means not 'good looking' for Orcs.) But one thing is clear: the Orcs (and general situations) of RoP DO seem to feel a little more 'realistic' than in LoTR. I can't quite lay a twig on why that is, but well... it 'feels' different. Is it better? I'm not sure.


This I can agree with. Tolkien did not write his work as a slapstick comedy at points, or with characters making jokes of serious things at times, or superheros sledding down steps, doing acrobatics mounting Oliphaunts and skiing off their trunks, or having 'number of kills' contests etc. He wrote serious events, seriously. PJ made a mistake here (in my view) - one we've seen an absence of (so far) in RoP. But is it better? If I were among the parents of the 'young audiences' I may well prefer the slight light humor of LoTR to keep the kids involved, thus earning more at the box office. Though LoTR has some significantly 'scary' scenes with the Orcs etc., RoP is no doubt a bit 'darker' throughout so far, and possibly more 'unsuitable' for kids. (Though these days, what is 'suitable' and 'unsuitable' for kids is vastly different than it was just those couple decades or so ago, and parents are far less discriminating.)


Again this could well be 'oranges and apples'. (OK, vice versa for the puritan reader.) Elrond is in a very different age now, having already lived through the first war of the Ring, seen the 'failure of man' at its time for destruction, and been through many, many more wars. People... yes, even those Elves, already said to have beend drawn 'less perfectly' in RoP... change.
Elrond's change is a part of that 'imperfection' the writer of the article says earlier he does not see. Seems a little inconsistent to me.
Does this make the depiction of Elrond 'better' in RoP than in LoTR? Not in the least. It shows the passage of time and its potential impact. (I note the writer doesn't mention at all, the difference in depiction of Galadriel, as being 'better' in RoP than in LoTR... and this is a GOOD thing, as again there would be a 'speaking out of both sides of the mouth' on an issue.)


I've spoken to this briefly in a post above, and won't repeat it. The writer misses the reality of the existence of Sauron in the two different times completely.

Ent's final judgment on (opinion of) of the article in the original post:
A complete miss, totally mistaking what's going on at almost every point in the fare offered.
The very effort of looking for 'better' rather than just 'different' on such grounds as these, is amiss entirely.

But again, we can anticipate more of this as time moves us inexorably toward the advent of RoP2. It's all about the hype, and keeping it in the foreground as the upcoming opportunity nears.

I was hoping you would do an in-depth analysis. Anyway, to be clear, it's not like 'I' said it as your quoting makes it appear. I just fished out and copied all the points the article had buried in its screenrant pop-up ad vortex. I figured once I hit the clickbait in the OP, I may as well help other out.

I think any comparison between RoP-TV and LotR-Movies is the available subject matter (Bits and pieces of lore vs a complete published book) and how it all was put together into the finished product. They both have their merits and detractions, and at this point, I can't say I prefer one over the other
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top