Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Most of the adaptations that are better than the books they’re based on succeed because they diverge so much from the book. Look at Die Hard and The Princess Bride. The Godfather works as a movie because it cuts out about 60% of the book (some of which ends up in The Godfather 2), including most of the schlock.

Stephen King allegedly hated the Shining and its lack of topiary monsters. Michael Ende sued over Neverending Story (though admittedly that book spends the first half setting up an idealistic fantasy concept only to tear it down brutally in the second half - and they only adapted the first half...)

There is also the “Why” behind why they diverge. A lot of things in the LotR movies bugged me, especially in the Two Towers and the whole Faramir/Osgilliath bits. But I could understand what the needed to do for the flow of the story and the difference between movie setting/pacing and a book’s.

But a lot of the changes in the Hobbit movies seemed to be done just to click off Hollywood lists. Despite there being no need, and butchering the source material.

Just watched the first episode last night with my wife and son. We all liked it quite a bit.

Expecting these sort of TV shows to live up to an earlier standard, previous nostalgia or literary accuracy is generally a losing proposition. Far better I think, to realistically calibrate one's expectations. So, I'm approaching this series in roughly the same way I approach all Star Wars programs and film. That is to say, "As long as it's better than the Prequel Trilogy I'm just happy to spend time in the SW universe."

In the case of Middle Earth content, I enjoyed the Hobbit and LOTR Trilogy books and my wife and I are major fans of the first 3 films, but I am not knowledgeable about the rest of the lore. Thus, as long as it's better than those miserable Hobbit Movies, I'm just happy to be back in Middle earth. If the rest of the series is like the first episode, this will certainly deliver that level of quality and I'm very much looking forward to it.

 Nevelon wrote:
There is also the “Why” behind why they diverge. A lot of things in the LotR movies bugged me, especially in the Two Towers and the whole Faramir/Osgilliath bits. But I could understand what the needed to do for the flow of the story and the difference between movie setting/pacing and a book’s.

But a lot of the changes in the Hobbit movies seemed to be done just to click off Hollywood lists. Despite there being no need, and butchering the source material.

Honestly LotR and Hobbit are almost a perfect case study of how too and how not too diverge. Lord of hte Rings diverged, but most accepted the divergence to get it to fit into just 3 films. Furthermore they captured the feel and aesthetics of the setting wonderfully. Sure its only one interpretation but they did really well at it.

Hobbit had big shoes to fill, but so many of the changes felt worthless, pointless or needless. It felt far more like the hollywood suits got their hands on it. Token love romance, check; token comic; token this token that etc... Everything felt "by the book make a film" rather than capturing the charm of the original material.




I do agree sometimes when they diverge so fully from the source material it works. Because then even fans of the original can sometimes put aside their love for the original. Then again I think that might only work when the source material is either so heavily used there are loads of options in the market (eg Robin Hood) or where no one really knows the source material.
Take the adaptation of Discworld Nights Watch* by BB3 that basically kept the names and a few other details and messed everything else up. You might argue it didn't diverge enough, but I'd argue its an example of where the divergence was just pointless changes and harmful changes - heck they kill off the troll for purely economic reasons (he was too expensive to keep animating).




*which is rare in that the author's daughter publicly disowned it before its release. Whereas most who take legal action or public action tend to wait until after something is released.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No it doesn't, it lives or dies by its reception by its audience.

The product does. Plenty of adaptations are commercially successful. Some are even critically acclaimed. Neither makes a difference in whether they are good adaptations.

Which wasn't the topic at hand.

No, it very much is the topic at hand when you're conflating commercial viability and quality of the adaptation effort.

I don't care how much money Amazon makes on this show. I only care they don't get Tolkien.

But you're not arguing for quality, you're arguing for accuracy, and my point is that the two are not only unconnected, that they can often be diametrically oppositional.

I argue for faithfulness, not accuracy.

There is no instance where a faithful adaptation can be a detriment to the final effort. The moment you start asking yourself, "how do I change the fundamental qualities that has made this piece of media culturally relevant" is the moment you're either excising the reason for the adaptation, or you've come to the realisation you've selected something with no actual value to begin with.

I'd argue that "faithful" and "accurate" is flirting dangerously with baseless semantics, but taking even what I think your intent is, you're essentially just restating your argument, and my counter points remain the same.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I argue for faithfulness, not accuracy.

There is no instance where a faithful adaptation can be a detriment to the final effort. The moment you start asking yourself, "how do I change the fundamental qualities that has made this piece of media culturally relevant" is the moment you're either excising the reason for the adaptation, or you've come to the realisation you've selected something with no actual value to begin with.

Go read the books Die Hard and The Orincess Bride are based on before stating there’s no instance where a faithful adaptation would be a detriment. Would The Godfather have been just as culturally impactful if the film spent 15 minutes on Sonny’s mistress, her vaginal defect, and her affair with the surgeon who fixes it?

Come on, man. Lots of adaptations are made by people who see the potential in part of a book or the premise of a book rather than the actuality of the book.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
No, it very much is the topic at hand when you're conflating commercial viability and quality of the adaptation effort.

I don't care how much money Amazon makes on this show. I only care they don't get Tolkien.

You mean they don't get your personal interpretation of Tolkien. 'One true adaptation to rule them all' is functionally nonsense. That's like arguing that ever single run of Richard III that's ever been staged should be exactly the same. Of course its going to reflect the director, actors and culture of each place and time (among other things).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Go read the books Die Hard and The Princess Bride are based on before stating there’s no instance where a faithful adaptation would be a detriment.

Exactly this. The princess bride film would've suffered a lot from the novel's framing device. No one needed to sit through the author's 'jokes' about how his son is fat and stupid and how much he regrets not cheating on his wife. Still to this day don't know if that was an attempt at a funny narrative device or if he was 100% serious.

I don’t think the book was really meant to be ha ha funny so much as jaded, bitter funny. The whole point of the story within the story was to mock the idea of true love and traditional romance. The book is making fun of what the movie plays straight.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I argue for faithfulness, not accuracy.

There is no instance where a faithful adaptation can be a detriment to the final effort. The moment you start asking yourself, "how do I change the fundamental qualities that has made this piece of media culturally relevant" is the moment you're either excising the reason for the adaptation, or you've come to the realisation you've selected something with no actual value to begin with.

Then why bother with an adaptation? If the best adaptation is the one that stays closest to the original work then no adaptation will ever be better than just reprinting the original text.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


They need to ensure the show has as broad an appeal as possible, and that means going after the cinematic audience and more, not the hardcore fans of the books.

The issue is those are not opposing things. A true to the lore show would have had just as much appeal to the overall audience and not been unpalatable to the hardcore fans. The changes they've made are not drawing additional viewership, but it is driving some away.

Sorry, no. Not for Tolkien at least. Tolkien deserves all the plaudits for the creation and world building, but his actual writing is dry, meandering, often self indulgent and verbose. I dread to think what a "faithful" LOTR trilogy would have looked like, assuming it ever made it to screens and didn't just collapse under the strain during production.

I'm not knocking anyone for liking the books, but for modern screen audiences there's a necessity to take a different approach. If fidelity to the books is important to you, you either acknowledge that going in or you end up disappointed. Even if you don't agree with the where and how of the changes, somebody somewhere has found it necessary for creative or practical reasons, and those reasons are unlikely to be all that closely aligned to that of a hardcore fan.

Dry writing makes the best cinema, because it usually contains the best details that can be transitioned to screen.

Tolkein's dialogue is not dry in the least, it is beautiful, his constant descriptions of characters, their clothing, their food, etc... is. But all the dry stuff gets taken care of by cinema being a visual medium.

You're also incorrectly assuming that you have to completely change something to get rid of it being dry and verbose. That is incorrect. You can update some outdated dialogue to a modern equivalent if you need to make it more understandable for an audience, but you can do that without changing the actual substance of the dialogue.

You don't have to offend the hardcore fan to make something accessible to someone being exposed for the first time. There is a difference between slight cosmetic changes to make something more understandable and wholesale changing the substance of the original material. If you have to completely change something "to make it more palatable for the modern audience", then you are utterly incompetent as a screen writer and shouldn't be involved in this. You should have just written your own story unrelated to Tolkein.

Don't be the person who says "I want to make a Chocolate cake", proceed to swap the chocolate in the recipe for ground coffee, and then tell everyone who eats the cake that it is a chocolate cake. If you want to make a coffee cake, make a coffee cake.

And since the material they are drawing on for this time period is entirely written in a "historical document" medium, they aren't beholden to specific dialogue. They just have to not have the characters act like something other than who they are as established in the LOTR. That's about as easy of an adaptation as you could do. The only way you can mess up is if you are deliberately trying to be disrespectful.

So, just to clarify, what exactly is the adaptation issue? Are we talking about changes that matter, or just changes to minor characters that most viewers have never even heard of?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Go read the books Die Hard and The Orincess Bride are based on before stating there’s no instance where a faithful adaptation would be a detriment. Would The Godfather have been just as culturally impactful if the film spent 15 minutes on Sonny’s mistress, her vaginal defect, and her affair with the surgeon who fixes it?

Come on, man. Lots of adaptations are made by people who see the potential in part of a book or the premise of a book rather than the actuality of the book.

And this here, is the difference between faithfulness and accuracy. Or do you consider Sonny's mistress' vaginal defects the reason The Godfather resonated with the audiences and prompted a cinematic adaptation?

Voss wrote:

You mean they don't get your personal interpretation of Tolkien.

We're exchanging opinions. By default, it's my interpretation of Tolkien, unless stated otherwise.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Then why bother with an adaptation?

Because we interact with and react to different mediums in different ways.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

it's my interpenetration of Tolkien, unless stated otherwise.

I'm not sure anyone wants to see an adaption of that

All this talk of adaptation is missing a big point: The Rings of Power isn’t an adaptation.

There is a pre-existing setting. There are some pre-existing characters. Most importantly, there are pre-existing themes. But there is no pre-existing discrete artistic product (e.g., a story) that is being adapted from one medium to another. Amazon is working from an area of Tolkien’s efforts that can be best described as notes or sketches. There is no coherent “thing” to which the show’s creators can adhere or from which they can diverge. They are necessarily making it up as they go.

And I think that is the real controversy: can anyone who is not J.R.R. Tolkien (or his son Christopher acting “in personam patri”) credibly make content about Middle-earth? And that raises another question: is Middle-earth content limited in its relevance by the singular artistic vision of Tolkien? Put it another way, is Middle-earth just a vehicle for articulating Tolkien’s idiosyncratic perspective or (like Greek mythology, for example) does Middle-earth have relevance beyond its creator, its own autonomous meaning?

The producers of TRoP decided that Galadriel should be one of the main characters. No doubt, this is primarily practical given few viewers will have heard of any other character besides her and Elrond. Nonetheless, it’s a good choice. As to her biography prior to the Third Age, Tolkien established relatively little apart from her motivation for leaving Valinor. Galadriel was not content in the Blessed Realm and wanted to rule lands of her own. In other words, she was willing to trade paradise for something seemingly inferior-to-paradise. Her decision generates irony and tension because it’s not clear whether she is right or wrong, wise or foolish, pure or corrupted. It’s something she still struggles with thousands upon thousands of years later when we, along with the Fellowship, meet her in Lothlorien. Confronted by the temptation of the Ring, she finally comes to a conclusion: “I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.”

Crucially, Galadriel’s motives run parallel to Sauron’s. Unlike the latter, she ultimately realizes that, while one can forge things of beauty and power in Middle-earth, they are all doomed to fade and egotistically struggling against this reality at any cost is the path of Evil — even if one begins with superficially good intent. Now, the producers of TRoP understand this underlying theme of Tolkien’s work and so, when depicting Galadriel long before her passing the test of the Ring, they create a new motive for her: to avenge her brother’s death and complete his own vow by killing Sauron. She is obsessed with this to the point of accepting death (throwing herself into the sea) rather than returning to Valinor leaving the deed undone. It’s the same fundamental tension Tolkien established, concerning seemingly noble motives ironically leading to evil.

TRoP “adapts” the character of Galadriel (in a broad, sloppy sense of the word) but it isn’t itself an adaptation of a pre-existing story about Galadriel. TRoP evokes the themes Tolkien articulated partially through her character to create resonances with this new story and the separate, pre-existing materials. The new, original story therefore, precisely speaking, faithfully incorporates rather than adapts Tolkien’s themes and work. This in turn demonstrates that Tolkien’s work does indeed have value beyond merely appreciating it or even translating it into other forms.

 Olthannon wrote:
I'm not sure anyone wants to see an adaption of that

Tell the class how you came to this conclusion.

 Manchu wrote:
It’s the same fundamental tension Tolkien established, concerning seemingly noble motives ironically leading to evil.

Except Galadriel's motivations are not noble. She's specifically driven by the pursuit of power, a trait universally associated with evil and ultimate downfall in Tokien's writing.

I'll give you that revenge is a theme in Tolkien's writing as well. One also universally associated with failure and death. It's possible renouncing that motivation for opposing Sauron is where the parallel to the resolution of original Galadriel's story will happen.

I've not really posted in this thread much because frankly, I have disagreed with a lot of the opinions presented in regards to the show. I've not really had the time or extra brain function to discuss it in great detail but I think Manchu has done a better job of articulating it than I.

What I will add is that Peter Jackon's work, even the esteemed lotr trilogy, is no better than this. Still very watchable and certainly an interesting adaption of the books, but not perfect. A lot was missed out and I don't think the criticisms of the amazon prime show can work if one is to defend Jackson for the same things. A lot of criticism was levelled at his adaption, particularly by Christopher Tolkein.

Given that one of my old colleagues who is a professor of literature and Tolkein expert was a consultant for the show, I'd argue they have just as much of an understanding of Tolkein as you might like.

I would find it a difficult hill to defend if my main argument was changing characters and lore when Tolkein himself did so freely when it suited him. 2 episodes in out of a 5 series show and it's an interesting thought to shut oneself off from it completely that early on. The first 40 minutes of Jackon's Fellowship movie doesn't exactly hold up to the books either and that's meant to be a true adaption.

When you consider it like that, the question then becomes, what is it that you really don't like about the Rings of Power?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
I'm not sure anyone wants to see an adaption of that

Tell the class how you came to this conclusion.

Okay class, let's review. The dictionary definition of the word "interpenetrate" from my understanding is

to penetrate fully, mutually or reciprocally. Or to otherwise pervade something. Another is to suffuse something equally by melding two things.

Now on the one hand, you penetrating Tolkein is amusing, hence why it's one of those double entendre. The word "penetration" gives the whole image a scientific atmosphere which suggests a medical slant to your evening with Tolkein. The other way of looking at it is you see yourself as equally bringing your interpretation of Tolkein's work on par with him. Which is equally funny, although not as crude.
Thus an adaption of either event would be something unappealing to the average viewer.

How was that? Does that sum it up enough or..?

If you of course meant simply "interpretation" rather than "interpenertration", I'd argue it still stands, I don't think many people would want to watch how your adaption.

You say "they don't get Tolkein" but a lot of people would argue they do.

 Olthannon wrote:
Now on the one hand, you penetrating Tolkein is amusing (...)

Well, there's certainly something amusing about you pointing out my spelling mistakes.

In truth, I don't disagree that a tonally and thematically faithful adaptation of Tolkien's writing would likely be less popular than something that has been adjusted for modern audiences, pardon my French.

 His Master's Voice wrote:


Well, there's certainly something amusing about you pointing out my spelling mistakes.

In truth, I don't disagree that a tonally and thematically faithful adaptation of Tolkien's writing would likely be less popular than something that has been adjusted for modern audiences, pardon my French.

Not simply the spelling mistake no, that was merely a jest. Funny? Perhaps only to me. Perhaps if you hadn't doubled down with the whole "tell the class" schtick, it could have been left as such.

Now as to the next bit. I disagree. A tonally and thematically faithful adaption of Tolkein is certainly possible and it is to my eyes that this show, while not perfect, is doing a good job so far. The presentation of the setting and the imagery is thematically and tonally faithful to how Tolkein writes. In that regard, it's no different to other "adaptions".

The "adjusted for modern audiences now", that confuses me a touch, how do you mean?

 Olthannon wrote:
The "adjusted for modern audiences now", that confuses me a touch, how do you mean?

I generally associate "adjusted for modern audiences" with the idea that the audience doesn't have either the patience or the mental capacity to process complex or taxing elements.

Which is, in fairness, often times true, but in recent years this reasonable idea has been pushed to the point where a major brand showrunner talks about making the cinematic equivalent of a TikTok collage as if it's the most natural thing ever.

I wanted to check that "adjusted for modern audiences" wasn't code for "I don't like those actors being black".

Would you believe that one of the biggest complaints about HBO's Band of Brothers was that it was difficult to pick out characters because they all looked similar in their uniforms and helmets? That was back in 2001.

With the best will in the world, it's difficult to keep track of various characters in Tolkein. It's a balancing act. Unfortunately yes, people are unbelievable stupid. Fantasy has become reasonably popular and thus there's money to be made. You have to aim lower to make sure you get the the most audience viewership.

Like I say, time will tell, but I have enjoyed it so far.

@His Masters Voice.

Instead of quoting your reply post, I’ll just say this: an accurate adaptation of the novel Die Hard is based upon would be a later Steven Seagal movie. An accurate Princess Bride would be a miserable screed against love and romance. The Godfather book is a trashy airport thriller with one or two solid plot threads, and Sonny’s mistress gets a surprising amount of story.

Accuracy to details or theme or tone would ruin those films.

 Olthannon wrote:
I wanted to check that "adjusted for modern audiences" wasn't code for "I don't like those actors being black".

Yeah, because if you just ask why would non human races (especially subterranean like dwarves) have the same racial diversity as humans then you are a racist. I wonder how all those black actors feel when they are casted there just because the showrunners need to meet the quota of black people in their productions.

 Shadow Walker wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
I wanted to check that "adjusted for modern audiences" wasn't code for "I don't like those actors being black".

Yeah, because if you just ask why would non human races (especially subterranean like dwarves) have the same racial diversity as humans then you are a racist. I wonder how all those black actors feel when they are casted there just because the showrunners need to meet the quota of black people in their productions.

Or they got cast because they are good actors and they fit the part.

Look, hiring quotas suck, but they were/are necessary until things normalize. In hollywood they have begun to normalize, but they haven't normalized yet. There is still plenty of white washing. And until the general populace just shuts the feth up about it it's going to keep getting crammed down everyones throats until it's just the expectation that the norm is casting a good actor for the right part. It is as, if not more, racist to assume they only got the part because their skin color met a quota instead of their acting ability.

And the "racial diversity" of entirely fictional "races" is utter nonsense.

In the meantime you should read Charles Darwins On The Origin Of Species and realize the incredible diversity of even a group of Finches on a single island. How "racially diverse" Dwarves are is a fething stupid ass thing for anyone to throw a hissy fit over.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Except Galadriel's motivations are not noble. She's specifically driven by the pursuit of power, a trait universally associated with evil and ultimate downfall in Tokien's writing.

This seems aimed at Galadriel in the Silmarillion, who left Valinor to establish and rule her own realms in Middle-earth. Galadriel in TRoP seems less concerned with explicit power in this regard.

I think Tolkien would not consider establishing a realm to rule the same thing as seeking power for the simple reason that Tolkien’s entire legendarium and indeed his own personal religious faith are founded on a divine Creator, the Summum Bonum, who establishes Creation. The act of creation is borne not from the will to dominate but rather out of gratuitous love. As His creatures, Valar and Maiar and Elves and Men all have a similar capacity for what Tolkien called “subcreation” borne out of a similar love — but, unlike their Creator, their motives are susceptible to corruption. That is where the (evil) will to dominate comes from; a twisted form of the (good) will to create.

In TRoP, Galadriel’s motive is less about establishing Elven realms in Middle-earth and more about killing Sauron. While there are some pretty credible justifications for killing Sauron (not least of all for the safety of Elven realms), it is debatable whether Galadriel wants to kill Sauron for any such reasons as opposed to simply hurting someone who hurt her. So we get the same moral-metaphysical logic in TRoP that Tolkien laid down as a foundation for his work overall: evil is a deformation, warping, and twisting of good rather than a lack of good or a co-equal, opposing force.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Finally we need to see a dragon get killed when Legolas does a back flip off the tower of Angmar and beheads it with a dagger.

You may be asking now, beheads the tower or the dragon? My answer: YES.

This is why dragons had to live under mountains. Legolas doesn't like going in them, so they are safe there.