Lord of the Rings on Prime Updates (Thanks Varking!)

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

But this is an outright lie you said. There are other female Dwarves on screen...

 

[Radaghast]

But this is an outright lie you said. There are other female Dwarves on screen...

Not sure who you're responding to.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Not sure who you're responding to.

Whoever told me that there were many Dwarf depictions in other films and programs.

 

[Radaghast]

Whoever told me that there were many Dwarf depictions in other films and programs.

I don't know if I said that, though it is accurate. I said there were female dwarfs in media before Disa, and that is true as well.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

I don't know if I said that, though it is accurate. I said there were female dwarfs in media before Disa, and that is true as well.

I see. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Radaghast]

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Is this another criticism video?

 

[Radaghast]

It shows the trailer with anything that's not Tolkien edited out (if you ask me, the video is being generous).

 

[Áramandë Amaniel]

Is this another criticism video?

I fear that too many have come to pass, and that more may also...

 

[Radaghast]

Yeah. Poor, poor Amazon 😭

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

I don't grieve for Amazon, I grieve for the people who have nothing better to do than condemn it with videos of criticism. In the end, most are just opinions.

 

[arivista]

She doesn't even talk about the quality of the character, only how progressive she believes it is. For her it's about redressing balance, whatever that means. The goal of the showrunners seems overall to be diversity for diversity's sake, logic (and probably story) be damned (also, by most accounts, she's not going to be in in much).

I totally share your concerns, when artist’s primary aspiration is to induce societal changes through his artistic endeavors (“this and this is not right with society, I have to change it with my book/movie etc.”), storytelling and overall quality tends to go sideways, at least in my experience. Regardless of the goal, whether desirable in itself or not. It takes unusual, world-class talent to avoid that trap, even just a little more ordinary creators rarely achieve it.

(Of course, most writers incorporate their worldview and broader philosophical ideas into their creations and want to engage their audience and make them think about it. But that is not the same as social-activism-through-art thing. For the latter, not inducing desired change is a failure. They primarily want to change your mind on X. But for the former failure it is not, if the art creation at least engaged you and made you think about used themes and philosophy, even though it did not bring about anything tangible in the real world. This remote “communication” between the author and the audience is enough for them.)

I have learned that firsthand from my culture and history. I come from Czech Republic, former Czechoslovakia. For those not well-versed in history, my country has been a part of Austrian empire (later Austria-Hungary) for several centuries, and after World War I it regained its independence, in 1918. During 20s and 30s it was fairly free and democratic country – although far from perfect - at least in comparison with some other post-austrian states. Then Hitler occupied us, after his demise we’ve had three years of semi-free regime, but in 1948 Communist party took over, established totalitarian rule and brought the state into close union with USSR, until 1989.

Of course, the change of regime influenced the culture as well. Movies, books and basically everything was made subservient to the new ideological status quo. When you compare Czechoslovakian cinema from 30s and 50s (40s was rather specific era in this respect, but not very relevant now), the difference is quite clear. And our 30s movies are more watchable then our 50s movies. Sure, both are creations of their own time, from modern perspective they are slow-paced, oftentimes somewhat naïve etc. – but even accounting for this, the difference is still significant.

What is interesting – and also my specific point – when you look at it on paper, you might conclude the 50s movies would probably be more interesting. Because our 30s movies are for the most part stories of rich upper-class people, for some reasons. Sure, there are some exceptions, but overall, this is how it was. In the 50s we have had obvious shift, when they were all focused on poor or working-class people. So, in theory, we should have gotten new, original stories focused on previously neglected groups, with their specific challenges and perspectives, with which could more people identify. In theory. I think you can guess that’s not exactly what happened. (And just to make sure, I come from blue-collar family and when I was a kid, I’ve had less stuff than most of my friend and classmates – not super rich themselves – so I don’t say this out of some ivory tower of lifelong wealth privilege.)

The problem was exactly as I stated in the beginning: if the primary goal of art is changing society – in our case make people reject all aspect of “bourgeoisie society” and embrace new direction, in which everything is (supposedly) done for the sake of proletariat and creation of new socialist and eventually communist society – it significantly affects the storytelling and characters. All aspects are made subservient to the beforementioned goal, therefore they usually end up being predictable, boring and formulaic. The poor hero is always noble, the rich, if they ever appeared, were very stereotypical bad guys. Because that was the message they wanted to push – proletariat good, bourgeoisie bad.

It is not that you can’t have a good story where the poor guy is admirable and noble and the rich antagonist evil and detestable. You can – and there are many such examples. I have no problem with them as such. But the main point of our 50s movies was to tell the audience basically: “Have you noticed in this story how the poor are good and the rich are bad? See, this is how it is in real life! (Therefore, communists are right about everything, by the way.)” And you could feel that from the movies. It’s not that I would believe that real life it the opposite, the rich are good, and the poor are bad. Of course not. And I have no problem with stories of good poor protagonist facing bad rich antagonist in itself – if the story isn’t just a thinly veiled attempt at molding my overall perception of the poor and the rich. I find it annoying just out of principle. If someone made a movie in such a way, that would make it quite clear it just wants to change my perception in the opposite direction (the rich are good and the poor are lazy and bad), I would be equally put off.

This is what makes our 50s movies so hard to watch – even those famous one, that became sort of classics. (Mainly from endless repetitions. Most such “classic movies” from the 50s are fairy-tales, which are quite popular among Czechs, just in general. They have watched them as kids, unable to recognize ideological element in them, and therefore – because of nostalgia – they later watch it with their kids.) But even though such movies are bearable because of nostalgia factor, adult sees plenty of stuff that makes him roll his eyes – “oh, of course they included this, so laughable.” But other non-classic movies without any nostalgia attached to them are plainly unwatchable – as far as I know, nobody likes them today, probably not even self-professed communists. Our 30s movies are sometimes also hard to watch through for modern audience, but simply because they are old and slow-paced for them, and not for the same formulaic storytelling and character writing as our 50s movies had. (Later in 60s, 70s and 80s they learned to be more subtle in this. At least somewhat – and sometimes.) And there are definitely some fans of our 30s cinema even today, they still air those movies on TV. Not every day, but now and then.

I admit I have somewhat simplified the whole issue of Czechoslovakian cinema, but the core is I believe fairly accurately described. And it serves only as an illustration of a broader principle. We live in a different time and different context, so obviously that, which is around us now, is different in many respects. You cannot just put equal sign between them. But essential approach of TROP creators, as pointed out by Radaghast (among other things) seems to me somewhat similar to what I have written about.

That's another reason I am quite skeptical about the show. In theory the diversity should making more interesting, maybe. But if it really will be diversity for diversity sake, I find it unlikely TROP story and characters will be good (also for reasons described in my previous post). Historically, they rarely were in similar cases, in my experience.

Note for the moderators: This post is not about whether diversity or certain contemporary politics are wrong in itself. It is about how certain type of approach to art tend to negatively affect the story. And whether we can expect that manifested in TROP. I don’t see anything in the rules that prohibits discussing that. What I have pointed out serves only as real-life example of the principle.

 

[Halasían]

Is this another criticism video?

It is. It's funny that if it wasn't for the Rings of Power series, all these youtooberz wouldn't have it to generate their clickbait vids about it. So in a way they are parasiting on Rings of Power to make all this crap. Too funny. 🤣

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Is this another criticism video?

This is Jonathan from TORc, who's been on a vendetta for months now, to the neglect of his forum.

Which is OK by me, as people there have been recommending switching to TTF. 😉

 

[Áramandë Amaniel]

I grieve for the people who have nothing better to do than condemn it with videos of criticism. In the end, most are just opinions.

Why is this so true? Hence why I said there are too many criticism videos, and yet there may be more...

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Of course there will. Savvy Youtubers learned long ago that rant-videos get more eyeballs (read: ad money).

 

[Radaghast]

Why is this so true? Hence why I said there are too many criticism videos, and yet there may be more...

Yes, there will definitely be more. But how many is too many? Is there an acceptable number? Of course you're not obligated to watch any of them.

Of course there will. Savvy Youtubers learned long ago that rant-videos get more eyeballs (read: ad money).

I've not noticed many ads during these videos, which I find rather odd. Even in those of a channel called "Knights Watch" whose videos regularly go over an hour. Also, I've noticed a lot of YouTubers saying that they're being stiffed on ad revenue and ask their followers to consider supporting them on Patreon, etc.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Yes, that's another revenue source.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

In the end most of the videos and such out there has a single purpose; make more money.

 

[Radaghast]

It is. It's funny that if it wasn't for the Rings of Power series, all these youtooberz wouldn't have it to generate their clickbait vids about it. So in a way they are parasiting on Rings of Power to make all this crap. Too funny. 🤣

It's also funny that the teasers and trailers have been ratioed to Hades. If these YTers are getting clicks it's because people agree with them. It's not just a vocal minority that this backlash is coming from.

In the end most of the videos and such out there has a single purpose; make more money.

And Amazon is in it out of the goodness of their hearts? 😐