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.

True, I guess. Maybe the comparison could be made for the Emperor as Morgoth, and Vader as Sauron.

Not really, other than the most broad of strokes. Master and apprentice dynamic. But the Emperor and Vader are just people, magical people, but still just people. Morgoth is a primal elder evil and Sauron is a fallen angel.

One of the problems of using the D&D alignment chart system for characters outside of D&D settings is there's a certain outside influence factored in that doesn't exist within their respective settings. Sauron can't be said to be explicitly Lawful Evil because the broader concept of Good and Evil being parallel and competing concepts powered by their own planes of existence and the agents thereof doesn't exist in Tolkien's setting, likewise Chaos and Order are not separate but equally influencial concepts (powered by their own influence on the planes of existance or otherwise) because that dichotomy was pushed by Moorcock as a response or contrast to Tolkien.

In Tolkien's setting, Order is Good, as all of existence is ultimately a creation of a supreme authority god figure in Eru Iluvatar (referred to obliquely as The One, in the show), with contributions from his servants, of which the Valar are merely the most notable and powerful. The Valar (of which Morgoth is but one) frequently occupy the roles of pantheistic gods, creating/nurturing aspects of their own conceptual domains, arguing with each other, etc. but due to their relationship with The One, are eternally small 'g' gods in a setting that has a big 'G' God - and as such are not actually any more 'primal' or 'elder' than the other Maia, simply more powerful - as such it's not that much of a stretch to look at Morgoth and Sauron in a master and apprentice role, though Sauron as a Maiar who'd previously served under Aule certainly brought his own ideas and skills to the table.

(As to where Darth Vader and the Emperor line up on the D&D chart it gets even more complicated as the exact nature of their motives has changed drastically over time, starting all the way back in 1977 when the Emperor was originally envisioned as a political figurehead that had all his real power usurped by the Military Industrial Complex, personified by Tarkin and Darth Vader)

Speaking of appeals to authority...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Honestly, the only way to salvage the show would be to completely redo it. They just broke too much of the lore and setting. Most major plot points happened incorrectly, out of order, or didn't happen at all.

That's a commonly touted solution to most things people on the internet don't like, but at the end of the day if you truly find it as heinous as all that, you'll have to fall back on the tried and true method of many a fantasy fan all through the ages: ignore it, and move on with your life.

FWIW Amazon has renewed it for a second season.

Thing is, Tolkien changed his own stories a lot, as the world evolved in his mind, up to and including changing the published version of the Hobbit to better align with LoTR.

So no problem if you don’t like the show because of writing/acting/directing, etc. but if your only complaint is that it’s “inconsistent” with previous material, then I think that’s a bit disingenuous, even without getting into arguments about what’s necessary to adapt a work for the screen.

 Jadenim wrote:
but if your only complaint is that it’s “inconsistent” with previous material, then I think that’s a bit disingenuous, even without getting into arguments about what’s necessary to adapt a work for the screen.

The original Author has the liberty to hem and haw over his own work. People who are adapting the work after the fact do not have that liberty. Especially if you do a bad job of it.

Completely changing a character's personality to be inconsistent with the source material is bad unless it actually improves it. If it is just change for the sake of change or actively harms the quality of the story, it is bad. That is what happened with Galadrial.


To give an example of changing a character in a way that is superior to the original material. House of the Dragon and King Viserys. In the books, the king is just old and obese and dies from that. In the show, he is suffering from some sort of flesh eating disease that is wracking him with pain and suffering and eventually kills him, and this adds a dimension to his character and allowed for some truly amazing scenes(in a heartbreaking way). GRRM himself says that this was an improvement over the original way he wrote it. Tolkien isn't around anymore, and his work is far and away superior, so changes need to be measured and careful and only if they objectively improve the material.

Turning Galadrial from a wise and farsighted individual with magical powers due to her being one of only 2 elves in Middle Earth to have seen the Two Trees into a petulant, arrogant, childishly demanding person does not improve her character or the story in any way. And no, she should not be "still learning and eventually becoming the wise person we later see in the LOTR". No, she was very much a full grown adult prior to the darkening of Valinor. And her described personality is very much the same as during the LOTR.

Again, the time spans here are important. Depending on which conversion for Valinorian Years to Solar Years you use(9.58 or 144) she is either 8323 years old OR nearly 27,000 years old. BTW, the latter conversion is more correct because that was what Tolkien later changed the conversion to, so it is the "newer" version of his canon.

But, even if we use the older conversion of 9.58 that still means that Galadrial lived 1274 solar years before the darkening of Valinor and everything kicked off. After that there was 7049 years until the end of the 3rd age. So by that, yes she would have spent the bulk of her life outside of Valinor, but elves don't change like humans do. Their personalities and mannerisms are pretty much set in their first hundred years or so.

And if we use the IMO more correct conversion of 144 solar years to a Valinorian year, Galadrial spent over 19,000 solar years of her life in Valinor before subsequent events happened.

You know how old people are set in their ways and fairly rigid in their personality and mannerisms? That is literally every elf past their first hundred years.

 Jadenim wrote:
Thing is, Tolkien changed his own stories a lot, as the world evolved in his mind, up to and including changing the published version of the Hobbit to better align with LoTR.

So no problem if you don’t like the show because of writing/acting/directing, etc. but if your only complaint is that it’s “inconsistent” with previous material, then I think that’s a bit disingenuous, even without getting into arguments about what’s necessary to adapt a work for the screen.

Inconsistency is always a sufficient complaint. Superman being portrayed in his next movie as a selfish Kryptonian jerk would be inconsistent and a good reason for a fan of Superman, as he has been portrayed until then, to dislike the material.

The reason Tolkien revised the Hobbit was to maintain the consistency of his narrative as it expanded.

I'm also really okay with criticizing Amazon for wanting to do a Silmarillion show, failing to get the rights, and then deciding to try anyway.

 Scrabb wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
Thing is, Tolkien changed his own stories a lot, as the world evolved in his mind, up to and including changing the published version of the Hobbit to better align with LoTR.

So no problem if you don’t like the show because of writing/acting/directing, etc. but if your only complaint is that it’s “inconsistent” with previous material, then I think that’s a bit disingenuous, even without getting into arguments about what’s necessary to adapt a work for the screen.

Inconsistency is always a sufficient complaint. Superman being portrayed in his next movie as a selfish Kryptonian jerk would be inconsistent and a good reason for a fan of Superman, as he has been portrayed until then, to dislike the material.

The reason Tolkien revised the Hobbit was to maintain the consistency of his narrative as it expanded.

I'm also really okay with criticizing Amazon for wanting to do a Silmarillion show, failing to get the rights, and then deciding to try anyway.

I would be inclined to agree with Scrabble here.

While Rings of Power was brilliant to look at during various scenes the more I ponder on what I watched the less happy I am with it. That is the opposite of what makes a classic… well… a classic. It should grow in the mind of the viewer/reader as time passes. And with Fantasy material suspension of disbelief, at least for me, really requires decent consistency. I respect that the show was able to convince me of an Elrond not played by Hugo Weaving so I can deal with some level of inconsistency but Galadriel just too often felt… out of character. And not because of who was playing her. It was the writing.

Grey Templar wrote:The original Author has the liberty to hem and haw over his own work. People who are adapting the work after the fact do not have that liberty. Especially if you do a bad job of it.

Completely changing a character's personality to be inconsistent with the source material is bad unless it actually improves it. If it is just change for the sake of change or actively harms the quality of the story, it is bad. That is what happened with Galadrial.


To give an example of changing a character in a way that is superior to the original material. House of the Dragon and King Viserys. In the books, the king is just old and obese and dies from that. In the show, he is suffering from some sort of flesh eating disease that is wracking him with pain and suffering and eventually kills him, and this adds a dimension to his character and allowed for some truly amazing scenes(in a heartbreaking way). GRRM himself says that this was an improvement over the original way he wrote it. Tolkien isn't around anymore, and his work is far and away superior, so changes need to be measured and careful and only if they objectively improve the material.

Turning Galadrial from a wise and farsighted individual with magical powers due to her being one of only 2 elves in Middle Earth to have seen the Two Trees into a petulant, arrogant, childishly demanding person does not improve her character or the story in any way. And no, she should not be "still learning and eventually becoming the wise person we later see in the LOTR". No, she was very much a full grown adult prior to the darkening of Valinor. And her described personality is very much the same as during the LOTR.

 Scrabb wrote:
Inconsistency is always a sufficient complaint. Superman being portrayed in his next movie as a selfish Kryptonian jerk would be inconsistent and a good reason for a fan of Superman, as he has been portrayed until then, to dislike the material.

So we keep coming back to Galadriel specifically and its definitely the most vexing part of this show.

Let me start with how I agree with you: I don't think these changes are in service to the character, and I don't think it (or the show as a whole) are really all that faithful to Tolkien or his themes - even when they could be without hurting the product. While I can see why they felt the changes were neccesary to act in service of this story they're trying to tell, I remain skeptical that it's going to ultimately be of service to that story, if that makes any sense at all.

The part where I disagree: It is absolutely the decision of the creators of the show to make changes to a character in order to serve the story they are trying to tell. It's not the original author or the estate's call to make unless they work that into the contract when they sell those rights. Yes. It means sometimes, a lot of times, bad writers or bad producers make incredibly bad calls and they should absolutely be called out for it when they do, but at the end of the day they're the ones making the show. It's why Henry Cavill had to leave Witcher instead of throwing the writers out one at a time with his big super arms, its why Ursula Le Guin could only call out the producers of Earthsea for casting all of the brown-skinned island characters from her book with white actors and they made that awful show anyway. Next to the long list of terrible production choices we've seen over time, giving Galadriel a (at least so far) somewhat predictable getting over your PTSD arc is nothing, it's not even close to the worst sin of this show, certainly not enough to knee-cap it. Reserve judgement until it's actually run its course, or at least until they've actually crashed and burned.

 Scrabb wrote:
I'm also really okay with criticizing Amazon for wanting to do a Silmarillion show, failing to get the rights, and then deciding to try anyway.

Silmarillion was never on the table, it was the Estate that went around dangling the LotR TV rights in front of studios and taking proposals and the Silmarillion has some kind of licensing clause that means a third party is allowed some kind of preferrential right to match bids on it or something so they don't touch that, but have a loophole to address individual elements if deemed neccesary through consultation with the estate or something?

It's all really convoluted, from what I can tell. Thankfully the whole thing goes out the window when Tolkien's work enters the public domain in like 20 years. I look foreward to hearing people debate the authenticity of those resulting works!

Far as I am concerned, they have already crashed and burned.

 Scrabb wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
Thing is, Tolkien changed his own stories a lot, as the world evolved in his mind, up to and including changing the published version of the Hobbit to better align with LoTR.

So no problem if you don’t like the show because of writing/acting/directing, etc. but if your only complaint is that it’s “inconsistent” with previous material, then I think that’s a bit disingenuous, even without getting into arguments about what’s necessary to adapt a work for the screen.

Inconsistency is always a sufficient complaint. Superman being portrayed in his next movie as a selfish Kryptonian jerk would be inconsistent and a good reason for a fan of Superman, as he has been portrayed until then, to dislike the material.

The reason Tolkien revised the Hobbit was to maintain the consistency of his narrative as it expanded.

I'm also really okay with criticizing Amazon for wanting to do a Silmarillion show, failing to get the rights, and then deciding to try anyway.

Tolkien also kept changing and changing things elsewhere as well. Hobbit is hardly only thing. Silmarillion was also mess of uncompleted text that wasn't exactly consistent. On one hand Balrog's are supremely powerful few in numbers and killing one was A Big Thing.

Then there's hordes of them...

tneva82 wrote:

 Scrabb wrote:


The reason Tolkien revised the Hobbit was to maintain the consistency of his narrative as it expanded.

Tolkien also kept changing and changing things elsewhere as well. Hobbit is hardly only thing. Silmarillion was also mess of uncompleted text that wasn't exactly consistent. On one hand Balrog's are supremely powerful few in numbers and killing one was A Big Thing.

Then there's hordes of them...

Yup.

To support your point about constant revisions Tolkien had also not answered to his own satisfaction the question of the exact nature of the orcs. Which is a pretty big deal as far as universe background goes. It had been uncertain if they were an original species corrupted and twisted or something else. He settled on them being corrupted elves for a time but discarded that line later and returned to uncertainty.

The Silmarillion wasn't published in Tolkien's lifetime for a reason.

Sorry to stir this old thread back into life.

We now have some interesting data about RoP.

https://kotaku.com/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-of-power-series-flop-expensive-1850296353

Quite damning.

Waiting to see the copium from people trying to say it wasn't that the show was bad, it's just because of the "haters" that it wasn't successful.

Either way, the gross mismanagement of funds for what we got given how much was poured into this hopefully teaches mega corpos like Amazon that you can't just throw money at something and expect it to be successful. Unfortunately, the pillaging of classic IP's will continue but hopefully this at least gives them some pause before they run roughshod over the source material.

tneva82 wrote:



Tolkien also kept changing and changing things elsewhere as well. Hobbit is hardly only thing. Silmarillion was also mess of uncompleted text that wasn't exactly consistent. On one hand Balrog's are supremely powerful few in numbers and killing one was A Big Thing.

Then there's hordes of them...

While we're revisiting I wanted to share a bit of how the Balrog bit isn't so much discrepancy as it looks at a cursory glance.

There were numbers of them serving under Morgoth but their abundance and the ability of individual Elves to defeat them in physical combat spoke more to the diminishing of the world at large as time passes in the story and less to retconning or a specific plot hole. Everything in middle earth is fading away as time passes. Almost like it's the stage for souls to strut their stuff before retiring and not the be-all of existence to cling to.

Also, I don't know how well the dwarves do against strong spirits, which the Balrogs were. See Gimli and his fear of the dead.

Also, also I believe Durin's Bane was a particularly strong Balrog.

I think one thing that is missing from the films is that in the original flight to Riverdell (sp) there's a battle and an elf awakens inner powers or such (sorry memory is hazy of the details) but its a full on powerful surge of power against the 9. Sure it still takes the surging waters to fully drive them away, but its a good show that the most ancient and powerful of Elves were far from simply fast with a bow and sword and were capable of quite powerful feats of magical prowess.

Yes, its Glorfindel. Arwen kinda took his place in the film for that part. And its really just his mere presence which drives the Nine away. Frodo can see into the unseen world while he is under the effect of the Morgul blade and he can see his burning soul.

Glorfindel was the champion of Gondolin as the Lord of the Golden Flower. During the fall of Gondolin he protected the refugees rearguard and gave his life to slay the balrog Lungorthin. For this sacrifice, he was reincarnated in Valinor far earlier than most elves do. Then he was sent to Middle Earth again in the second age as an emissary of the Valar similar to the wizards, and was given power similar to a full Maia by Manwe.

He's definitely NOT a normal Elf, and is definitely one of the most powerful elves in Middle Earth during the third age. Probably more powerful than Galadrial, ignoring her having Nenya.

As for Balrogs, there being "lots of them" is relative. There were only a lot of them during the first age, but it is fitting for that time period. And really even if there were a few hundred or so it would still make killing one a big deal. At least, all the times it is a big deal it ends up being in single combat. I'm sure many were taken down by numbers and while that is still glorious, it isn't worth mentioning in the great annals.

It could also be that the Balrogs were largely held back. Morgoth was ever paranoid and hoarding of his strength. Perhaps he could have sent out his entire horde of balrogs and won, but his paranoia and fear of loss kept him from risking his best trump card. Plus the Balrogs had wills of their own, they too were likely consumed by fear and uncertainty. Thus avoiding risk till important moments, and getting punished when it happened.

And nobody is going to write songs of how Balrog #71 got skewered by a thousand arrows or Balrog #43 who took a ballista bolt to the head.

Concept of "Balrog" evolved a lot during Tolkien's writing. IIRC originally they were just some sort of elite infantry. Fall of Gondolin has several Balrogs die, because that story is one of the first Tolkien wrote, and he never updated it. As I recall, later he clarified that Balrog were very few in number (there were like, five or so).

Also, it’s worth noting that Glorfindel in LOTR was originally intended to be a separate character from Glorifindel in the Fall of Gondolin and was retconned into the same character.

Legolas, too: but Legolas is only mentioned in passing, so Tolkien did not see the need to bend over backwards to explain his appearence in LotR. I am sure Tolkien would have simply removed Legolas from Fall of Gondolin had he ever rewritten it.

People of Numenor used lot of historic names (just like us - how many Alexanders there have been?). Denethor and Ecthelion, for example. But at some point, Tolkien decided that Elves would not reuse names (thus, creating a nightmare for Elvish parents who must have struggled to come up with an unused name).

When I read LotR for the first time, I was excited at the thought of Glorfindel accompanying Frodo et al in their quest to Mordor. But then Council chose Legolas, and I remember my disappointment. "Who is this 'Lego' guy? He's not even a High Elf..."

 stonehorse wrote:
Sorry to stir this old thread back into life.

We now have some interesting data about RoP.

https://kotaku.com/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-of-power-series-flop-expensive-1850296353

Quite damning.

I had heard some youtubers discussing the "flop" and they focused on one particular quote that I don't see in your linked article.

VIA Forbes article regarding the RoP flop:

Amazon Studios chief Jennifer Salke has done her level best to spin this news.

“This desire to paint the show as anything less than a success — it’s not reflective of any conversation I’m having internally,” Salke says

That's absolutely wild. Head in the sand.

 nels1031 wrote:

I had heard some youtubers discussing the "flop" and they focused on one particular quote that I don't see in your linked article.

VIA Forbes article regarding the RoP flop:

Amazon Studios chief Jennifer Salke has done her level best to spin this news.

“This desire to paint the show as anything less than a success — it’s not reflective of any conversation I’m having internally,” Salke says

That's absolutely wild. Head in the sand.

Grade A+ managerese though. As a shareholder i'd be asking some very poignant questions, like "Why not?".

Well. . .looks like someone actually wants to claim credit for this dumpster fire:

https://radaronline.com/p/jeff-bezos-jrr-tolkien-estate-sued-250-million-writer-lord-of-rings-amazon-series/

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well. . .looks like someone actually wants to claim credit for this dumpster fire:

https://radaronline.com/p/jeff-bezos-jrr-tolkien-estate-sued-250-million-writer-lord-of-rings-amazon-series/

Probably saw how much money was being thrown around for the creation of the show and wanted a piece of that pie, if even if they have to lie to get their way to the turd sandwich that is this adaptation.

Given the people and companies the Tolkien estate has forced to back down over the years (without Amazon dollars on their side), I don't rate this guy's chances with his fanfiction. That ship sailed with Dennis L McKiernan

I'd bet money the reason the D&D movie didn't have proper Halflings is fear of Tolkein lawyers.

 Grimskul wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well. . .looks like someone actually wants to claim credit for this dumpster fire:

https://radaronline.com/p/jeff-bezos-jrr-tolkien-estate-sued-250-million-writer-lord-of-rings-amazon-series/

Probably saw how much money was being thrown around for the creation of the show and wanted a piece of that pie, if even if they have to lie to get their way to the turd sandwich that is this adaptation.

It's still baffling, as the Tolkein estate rather famously didn't want Amazon to make the series and refused them the rights to the Silmarillion.

Whoever is behind the suit is either stupid, high, crazy, or some combination of the three. It seems extremely unlikely the Tolkien estate stole his bad fanfic sequel, gave it to Amazon, and then had Amazon make a contentious TV series based on that work that definitely isn't a sequel to Lord of the Rings. And I just don't see any way to turn such a lawsuit into money. You can find excerpts of his 'work' online and they are accurately summed up as 'the Tolkien estate will sue this guy before he makes a penny.'

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well. . .looks like someone actually wants to claim credit for this dumpster fire:

https://radaronline.com/p/jeff-bezos-jrr-tolkien-estate-sued-250-million-writer-lord-of-rings-amazon-series/

Probably saw how much money was being thrown around for the creation of the show and wanted a piece of that pie, if even if they have to lie to get their way to the turd sandwich that is this adaptation.

It's still baffling, as the Tolkein estate rather famously didn't want Amazon to make the series and refused them the rights to the Silmarillion.

Whoever is behind the suit is either stupid, high, crazy, or some combination of the three. It seems extremely unlikely the Tolkien estate stole his bad fanfic sequel, gave it to Amazon, and then had Amazon make a contentious TV series based on that work that definitely isn't a sequel to Lord of the Rings. And I just don't see any way to turn such a lawsuit into money. You can find excerpts of his 'work' online and they are accurately summed up as 'the Tolkien estate will sue this guy before he makes a penny.'

It definitely feels like a poorly thought out publicity stunt that's destined to backfire. Though tbf, there's been so many high profile cases of bad faith suing like the Gwyneth Paltrow case recently that I think people have collectively lost it and are using the court system as their new playground.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grimskul wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Well. . .looks like someone actually wants to claim credit for this dumpster fire:

https://radaronline.com/p/jeff-bezos-jrr-tolkien-estate-sued-250-million-writer-lord-of-rings-amazon-series/

Probably saw how much money was being thrown around for the creation of the show and wanted a piece of that pie, if even if they have to lie to get their way to the turd sandwich that is this adaptation.

It's still baffling, as the Tolkein estate rather famously didn't want Amazon to make the series and refused them the rights to the Silmarillion.

Whoever is behind the suit is either stupid, high, crazy, or some combination of the three. It seems extremely unlikely the Tolkien estate stole his bad fanfic sequel, gave it to Amazon, and then had Amazon make a contentious TV series based on that work that definitely isn't a sequel to Lord of the Rings. And I just don't see any way to turn such a lawsuit into money. You can find excerpts of his 'work' online and they are accurately summed up as 'the Tolkien estate will sue this guy before he makes a penny.'

On the other hand, it would be hilarious if he did win. Or even just forced a settlement. Amazon being forced to admit(legally or "we didn't but here is money go away!") that they ripped off a bad fan-fic would just tickle me.

 stonehorse wrote:
Sorry to stir this old thread back into life.

We now have some interesting data about RoP.

https://kotaku.com/amazon-lord-of-the-rings-of-power-series-flop-expensive-1850296353

Quite damning.

That is indeed a solid woof. An doubly shocking considering how it generally fared better in the Nielsen ratings compared to House of the Dragon - though even then looking at the graph you can see it didn't climb the way HoD did.

The articles (the Kotaku one, and the one they reference) are worth a peek too, they outline some interesting industry complaints about Amazon Studios' approach and tendency to throw big money at projects and overrely on focus groups, which seems to handily explain the dazzling special effects and gradual increase in awkward expository dialogue as the season progressed.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's still baffling, as the Tolkein estate rather famously didn't want Amazon to make the series and refused them the rights to the Silmarillion.

Can we please put this to bed? The Tolkien Estate were the ones shopping the IP around taking series proposals from the different streaming companies, they accepted Amazon's proposal and apparently exerted controlling privileged to ensure Peter Jackson wouldn't be allowed to contribute, they are not helpless bystanders in any of this.

 Grey Templar wrote:
On the other hand, it would be hilarious if he did win. Or even just forced a settlement. Amazon being forced to admit(legally or "we didn't but here is money go away!") that they ripped off a bad fan-fic would just tickle me.

I don't think it's actually possible. From the synopsis it sounds like the only solid connective tissue is that there's a hobbit named Elanor in both, and the plaintiff can't claim ownership of that because she's literally Sam's daughter from the actual book.