Rings of Power: Positive vs Negative

[JackTorrance]

This thread is refreshing. The Rings of Power is pretty and some of the acting is good. I love the dwarves in the show, and handsome Sauron is bizarre--but entertaining to watch as fan-fiction. Though both comparisons are hyperbolic, if Amazon is Morgoth, then the representation of Middle-Earth is the silmaril in his crown. I like the PJ/Aulë comparison from earlier. Good points were already made about the beauty of the setting, and watching it is, to me, a bit like exploring middle earth from when the Lord of the Rings Online game first came out. There's a lot of unfamiliar chaos walking around, but it's beautiful and fun to explore.

Not sure Huan would approve all of these cat memes.

View attachment 27851

I don't think he would. Plus I got banned in another forum.

 

[Aldarion]

Not sure Huan would approve all of these cat memes.

You kidding? He'd LOVE them!

Now the cats, on the other hand...

 

[Deimos]

"Choosing meaningful battles" is how you end with Mordor.

There are no meaningless battles when it comes to matters of soul. Beauty is worth preserving for its own sake. And RoP is an insult precisely to that: it is a caricature, an Orc head placed onto king's body.

"Beauty is worth preserving for it's own sake."
This should be shouted from the rooftops.

 

[Elthir]

Not sure Huan would approve all of these cat memes.

 

[Halasían]

If there really are people who claim that - which I don't believe - then they are liars who have never really read or understood Tolkien. You can really ignore them, which also corresponds to the statistics.

Ok Gatekeeper. You too JT.

Exactly. From another thread in this sub-forum, Halasian seems to be a very big fan of Morfydd Clark, which will probably explain his bias... I don't find her unattractive either, but my heart still bleeds when I see how the "real" Galadriel is interpreted in this nasty piece of work and turned into an unsympathetic, selfish and sometimes evil character.

🤣 Just adding actual content to said thread. Sorry it bothers you so much.

The thread is called 'Positive and Negative', so criticisms are to be expected. What vitriol is anyone spewing? Please show me one example. So far as I've seen, all criticism has been constructive. Even the show's most ardent defender here says he didn't like the story, yet is getting all indignant about other criticizing it. Makes zero sense.

If you actually read my post, I was referring to last year between February and September before the show even aired, not this particular thread.

What vitriol? Wel...Halasian being Halasian; plus some people advising others to stay out of here, and one making a football analogy.

"Halasían being Halasían" says Jack Torrence, a guy who has been here a few weeks. I guess Jack is just being Jack.

I guess giving the show a chance before it even airs and then rating it as I saw fit and populating a specifically-titled thread with that specific content makes me the A#1 Rings of Power Morffyd Clark-loving Amazon-shill fan. So be it. All that is just MOTS from the usuals and a new guy. Happy Holidays one and all.

 

[JackTorrance]

And bad shows like this are why gatekeepers exist.

 

[Ent]

Sorry, folks, couldn't help it.

 

[JackTorrance]

Anyways, ROP deals with such topics as: Men complaining about how the elves are gonna steal their resources, how Orcs are gonna be the end of them, and how certain characters are certain real-world figures...I am sure they aren't referencing any things at all, not even a little bit.

 

[Ent]

This thread is going to hell very quickly.

Yes, and I'm sorry for that Jack. The initial effort of the thread was laudable, and I think worthy of some attention. It requested specifics, and opened the topic for some serious discussion of the production, where it matched and did not match Tolkien's works, where and how it succeeded, and where it fell short, and what topics and themes might be lying underneath what RoP was doing, and how they compared to Tolkien's works as well.

Sadly, with most things RoP (and previously, and for some people even today, LoTR and TH by PJ), such discussions simply become impossible.

The question keeps arising, 'where is muck or vitriol being spewed?' I submit... look at my paragraph above, which describes 'meaningful discussion', then look at what we've got instead.

Does it really need to be described any further? "You see, but you do not observe." Sherlock Holmes.

 

[JackTorrance]

Yes, and I'm sorry for that Jack. The initial effort of the thread was laudable, and I think worthy of some attention. It requested specifics, and opened the topic for some serious discussion of the production, where it matched and did not match Tolkien's works, where and how it succeeded, and where it fell short, and what topics and themes might be lying underneath what RoP was doing, and how they compared to Tolkien's works as well.

Sadly, with most things RoP (and previously, and for some people even today, LoTR and TH by PJ), such discussions simply become impossible.

The question keeps arising, 'where is muck or vitriol being spewed?' I submit... look at my paragraph above, which describes 'meaningful discussion', then look at what we've got instead.

Does it really need to be described any further? "You see, but you do not observe." Sherlock Holmes.

Yeah, well the best thing to do right now is just let it run its course, let people express their anger, and once that is through, just go back to civilized discussion like we should, instead of endless bickering on and on and on like we are children squabbling over who ate the last piece of pizza.

 

[Ent]

and once that is through, just go back to civilized discussion like we should

This is indeed our great hope...perhaps indeed some day it really will be 'through'.
Yet we must hold our hopes loosely, as every disappointment comes from an unfulfilled hope.

And I found a great flaw in myself as a result of your post...I found myself very disappointed on many counts, as I'd held hopes too closely in several instances. I'll be working to correct that flaw for the future.

 

[JackTorrance]

This is indeed our great hope...perhaps indeed some day it really will be 'through'.
Yet we must hold our hopes loosely, as every disappointment comes from an unfulfilled hope.

And I found a great flaw in myself as a result of your post...I found myself very disappointed on many counts, as I'd held hopes too closely in several instances. I'll be working to correct that flaw for the future.

Yeah, anyway, let's get back to proper discussion.

 

[Radaghast]

The OP specifically asked for "every contradiction". This is my attempt to do so, though the notion mostly does not apply since the show is mostly invented whole cloth with little drawn from what Tolkien wrote on the Second Age, which, in The Lord of the Rings, is admittedly not a whole lot. For the record, the show is constrained by what is contained about the Second Age in The Lord of the Rings. It does not have access to The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales.

What there is of the Second Age in The Lord of the Rings that might have been used, even just in "Appendix B: The Tale of Years", is completely ignored and the show completely disregards Tolkien's timeline. The show does not even care about when the events it depicts are supposed to occur in the Second Age. Anyway, some specifics:

• There is a great battle or war shown in the beginning, which perhaps vaguely refers to the War of Wrath. The show, evidently, cannot use that term for copyright reasons.
• ROP has Finrod die at the hand of Sauron, which is of course a contradiction of the source material. Finrod's death is mentioned in Appendix B, but not the manner of it, namely from wounds suffered while fighting werewolves, lore which ROP does not have access to. Also, Finrod dies in the First Age (which ROP is almost completely barred from using), not the Second.
• ROP has Elendil and Isildur born (let alone active) far too early in the Second Age.
• Galadriel, perhaps the main character in ROP, is only mentioned once in Appendix B in the Second Age. There is more about her doings in the Second Age in Unfinished Tales, which, again, ROP cannot use. I don't think this excuses the show's use of her, though, and putting her in places she never canonically visited and it certainly doesn't excuse the caustic way she is depicted.
• Sauron adrift in the sea is a contradiction; I forget the explanation of why Sauron is there but it's curious that he would be there. Also, I don't know what year it's supposed to be, but Sauron established Mordor in the S. A. c. 1000. The show invents some nonsense about how Mordor was created involving a trench and key.
• Galadriel being the reason Sauron comes back is a contradiction, as is, of course, the idea of any sexual chemistry between her and him. I would say it's a gross perversion of what Tolkien wrote, but it's not, it's just a complete invention and a tasteless one at that.
• ROP doesn't even mention Celeborn until late in the season for some reason, and 'Galadriel' believes him dead. Obviously a blatant contradiction of Tolkien.
• The show invents the idea of Galadriel having anything to do with the forging of the Three Rings (which, by the way, look like they came out of a supermarket vending machine).
• The Harfoots are perhaps the biggest contradiction in the show. They also give introduce the misconception that Harfoots are Hobbit ancestors. Because that's just what the world needs, more misconceptions about Tolkien's work. It also has what is probably Gandalf, or one of the Istari, long before (however long that is supposed to be) they were in Middle-earth.
• ROP features Míriel and Ar-Pharazôn in ways contrary to what Tolkien wrote. Pharazôn, is not a king but advisor to the Queen Regent, Míriel. Tar-Ancalimë, the first ruling queen of Númenor is not mentioned in the show, as far as I can remember.
• The whole nonsense about mithril, which I don't even feel like detailing here. It's clear he showrunners didn't even know what they were doing here.
• Lastly, there are all the invented characters, concepts and places.

There is probably stuff I missed, but that's more than enough for a start. Anyone can, of course, expand on that list if they feel so inclined.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Criticisms are NOT what are being posted here.
Attacks on certain individuals are... cannot you tell the difference?

Why I got out of it when I did...

 

[Ent]

Why I got out of it when I did...

wise beyond your years..! the thread still balances on a razor's edge...

 

[Ent]

The Harfoots are perhaps the biggest contradiction in the show. They also give introduce the misconception that Harfoots are Hobbit ancestors.

Help me with this one please... the Harfoots are one of the 3 main branches of Hobbits, and the most numerous.
Does the movie present them as "the" ancestors of Hobbits in your view? Or are they just focusing on the Harfoots as one of the peoples in the show.

Clearly they're still existing in the 'wandering days' before the migration... I need help understanding how they are being seen as a 'contradiction' ??

 

[Radaghast]

Help me with this one please... the Harfoots are one of the 3 main branches of Hobbits, and the most numerous.
Does the movie present them as "the" ancestors of Hobbits in your view? Or are they just focusing on the Harfoots as one of the peoples in the show.

Clearly they're still existing in the 'wandering days' before the migration... I need help understanding how they are being seen as a 'contradiction' ??

Patrick McKay referred to Harfoots as 'proto-hobbits'; that is the contradiction. Everything else about them this is an invention (a bad one, imho); and includes the blatant contradiction of placing the Istari in the Second Age.

The show also makes no mention of Stoors and Fallohides that I've been able to find.

 

[Ent]

Patrick McKay referred to Harfoots as 'proto-hobbits';

OK.
I'll do more research.
'proto' just means 'primitive hobbits' - and certainly the ancestors of the hobbits were around, just as the dwarves, elves and men were. So they had to have a proto-something in the same way the early elves etc. did.

As to the Istari being abroad in the 2nd age, there's nothing in Tolkien's writing saying they weren't... that's an assumption. It depends on what is done with our 'visiting Gandalf'.

We do read somewhere of Gandalf 'walking among the elves from the very earliest times' as a cloaked old man, going about learning things. I'lll find it again... it could even be a First Age reference. But this is, of course, external to LoTR and TH... and possibly even SIL... I can't recall and will need to find it.

We may FEEL like Gandalf shouldn't be there... but it's totally open territory, and again it depends on what is done with him. We know he has 'always had a fondness for hobbits'. Could it be this is the beginnig of that fondness?

I guess I'm currently a little more open-minded to the possibilities perhaps... but again I feel where Tolkien was totally silent, there's room for creativity. He never says Gandalf was completely absent from the Second Age. And certainly, as we know he's 'afraid of Sauron' before he comes in the Third, he has most likely had information, experience or even direct encounters with Sauron along the way before he shows up again around TA 1000.

Anyway, I'll look a little more closely. Maybe I'm off in the brush hiding from the Nazgul.

 

[Radaghast]

OK.
I'll do more research.
'proto' just means 'primitive hobbits' - and certainly the ancestors of the hobbits were around, just as the dwarves, elves and men were. So they had to have a proto-something in the same way the early elves etc. did.

Yes, but they weren't called Harfoots, which are a distinct subset of hobbits. Never are they said to be proto-hobbits by Tolkien.

As to the Istari being abroad in the 2nd age, there's nothing in Tolkien's writing saying they weren't... that's an assumption. It depends on what is done with our 'visiting Gandalf'.

Au contraire mon frere:

When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow had fallen on Greenwood the Great, the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-earth. It was afterwards said that they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.

• Appendix B: The Third Age

We may FEEL like Gandalf shouldn't be there... but it's totally open territory, and again it depends on what is done with him. We know he has 'always had a fondness for hobbits'. Could it be this is the beginnig of that fondness?

There's nothing open-ended about the quote above. And Gandalf's fondness for hobbit-folk needn't have begun in the Second Age.

I guess I'm currently a little more open-minded to the possibilities perhaps... but again I feel where Tolkien was totally silent, there's room for creativity. He never says Gandalf was completely absent from the Second Age. And certainly, as we know he's 'afraid of Sauron' before he comes in the Third, he has most likely had information, experience or even direct encounters with Sauron along the way before he shows up again around TA 1000.

Again, the show disregards what Tolkien did write. It doesn't use the timeline as an even basic template, it doesn't fill in the gaps and it doesn't color within the lines. It just completely does its own thing. And it's specious reasoning to say Gandalf picked up his fear of Sauron from meeting him in the Third Age, when we know both are Maiar and would probably already be acquainted or at least familiar with one another. One can use the "Tolkien never said..." reasoning to try to justify any kind of insert or invention. That doesn't mean it will hold up or be any good. Putting Gandalf (or whichever Istari that's supposed to be) in the Second Age is not filling a gap, it's inventing a gap to put something into. If the showrunners cared about Tolkien's lore, they would have tried to follow the timeline, not just put different elements in a mixing bowl and stir.

 

[JackTorrance]

OK.
I'll do more research.
'proto' just means 'primitive hobbits' - and certainly the ancestors of the hobbits were around, just as the dwarves, elves and men were. So they had to have a proto-something in the same way the early elves etc. did.

As to the Istari being abroad in the 2nd age, there's nothing in Tolkien's writing saying they weren't... that's an assumption. It depends on what is done with our 'visiting Gandalf'.

We do read somewhere of Gandalf 'walking among the elves from the very earliest times' as a cloaked old man, going about learning things. I'lll find it again... it could even be a First Age reference. But this is, of course, external to LoTR and TH... and possibly even SIL... I can't recall and will need to find it.

We may FEEL like Gandalf shouldn't be there... but it's totally open territory, and again it depends on what is done with him. We know he has 'always had a fondness for hobbits'. Could it be this is the beginnig of that fondness?

I guess I'm currently a little more open-minded to the possibilities perhaps... but again I feel where Tolkien was totally silent, there's room for creativity. He never says Gandalf was completely absent from the Second Age. And certainly, as we know he's 'afraid of Sauron' before he comes in the Third, he has most likely had information, experience or even direct encounters with Sauron along the way before he shows up again around TA 1000.

Anyway, I'll look a little more closely. Maybe I'm off in the brush hiding from the Nazgul.

Remember, Gandalf wasn't supposed to show up until the 3rd age due to Sauron's power, so him showing up in the 2nd age makes no sense.