The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[Syt]

It's visually very nice, but the story beats really are a collection of cliches drawn from 20th - 21th century lazy fiction. Nice guy has become a disappointing politician; lone heroin understands the real threat despite  the blindness of bureaucrats; the Elven politburo prefers a convenient lie than an uncomfortable truth; angry young lad hates the foreign soldier who is otherwise fond of the land he occupies... The foreignness is placed squarely in the worldbuilding, rather than the characters and situations - which we have seen dozens of time.

Yes, but (and I say that without much familiarity with the Silmarillion as someone going into this fairly blind) Middle Earth has always been more of a mythical setting, so its characters and plots being archetypes rather than complex and nuanced is kind of what I would expect from this. Contrast with Game of Thrones which for much of its runtime is inspired by medieval history and draws a picture from shades of grey rather than just black and white.

[Solmyr]

If The Stranger is an Istari, then I am okay with it being too early for them. He seems like an interesting character.

[Tamas]

Yeah I mean, did I miss the complex characters in LOTR? Because I am not remembering them. That's ok not everything has to be a grim plaster of gray.

[The Brain]

Tolkien characters are cardboard cutouts, so that's one area you don't need to worry about.

[Sheilbh]

Watched the first episode and whoever did PR for this should be fired.

I don't understand how all of the publicity made it look so cheap when it's visually really impressive

[grumbler]

Tolkien characters are cardboard cutouts, so that's one area you don't need to worry about.

Exactly.  Tolkien was mythtelling, and mythical heroes are archetypes, not complex original characters.  There are no complex and original characters in Star Wars, either.  Londo was about as close as it came.

[Oexmelin]

Yes, but (and I say that without much familiarity with the Silmarillion as someone going into this fairly blind) Middle Earth has always been more of a mythical setting, so its characters and plots being archetypes rather than complex and nuanced is kind of what I would expect from this. Contrast with Game of Thrones which for much of its runtime is inspired by medieval history and draws a picture from shades of grey rather than just black and white.

I understand that - and Tolkien understood that better than most, hence the Hobbits, as a device meant to humanize and translate the old, old archetypes of the epic in LOTR, as well as give voice to "ordinary" people trying to cope with things that went beyond their ordinary lives. Interestingly, the Hobbits now are perhaps even more foreign than they were in the 1950s. It was thus an easy device available to the authors of this show.

Martin's references for Game of Thrones were explicitly drawn not from the epic, but from history. The foreignness of Game of Thrones came from the fact that it was not a bad reading of history at all, and thus drew from a world that remained foreign for most viewers, complete with a deliberate targetting of "plot shielding" that often characterizes that fiction. Rather than Hobbits, Martin chose a few characters explaining their actions to a few unexperienced ones (along with imparting harsh and cruel lessons) to bring in the audience.   

But the authors of the Rings of Power didn't go for either of those things. Admitedly, transforming epic into history is difficult, and most of the time, it involves some sort of "disenchantment of the world" that I don't think would work in Tolkien's world. A group playing the same role as "Hobbits" may have worked better (and may yet materialize). Except this doesn't seem to be what they went for. They seemed to have decided to build familiarity through TV/action movie references. Instead of giving us characters that could translate a foreign world for us, they preferred to use the ultra familiar cheap tropes borrowed not from ancient epic, but from procedural TV / action movie: "Politicians, amirite?". I am expecting a senior elf to "pull rank" with a "you disobeyed a direct order", another one to claim jurisdiction over a crime scene, and Galadriel to use some canned "badass line" as she walks away from Elrond / Gil-Galad. Maybe Gil-Galad will say at some point that he's too old for this shit.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I don't think it's a Martin/Tolkien thing. And I think Martin is at least as much writing against Tolkien as writing from history - but maybe there's something around history being stripped back myth too.

I think part of it's TV I liked this from Joe Barton:

Heard someone say on a podcast that the weird thing about the Obi Wan Kenobi/Boba Fett shows was that you're watching Star Wars but filmed like an episode of CSI Miami. There's an uncanny valley feeling that the story you're watching is being told in the wrong way somehow
Lord of the Rings show looks amazing but I can't stop thinking about the white board in the writer's room with 'EP 2. Galadriel stuck at sea - meets stranger? - Start point/End point... What's her journey?' etc...

Yeah I mean, did I miss the complex characters in LOTR? Because I am not remembering them. That's ok not everything has to be a grim plaster of gray.

I think there are complex characters in LOTR - and there are complex characters in myths, for that matter.

I think the difference is perhaps in the source of their complexity - for LOTR characters it is broadly an external force: it is the temptation of the ring. But I don't think it's possible to say Frodo/Gollum, Boromir, Faramir etc are simple characters - to an extent the ones who are simpler are either those who've been fully corrupted by, or interact with the ring least.

That's different from the type of story telling we're used to valuing which values internal, psychological complexity. I think we're in a bit of a turn against this and a turn to the external at the minute in story-telling.

[Threviel]

Watched ep. 1

Pros:
Production values and scenery
Interesting with the elven military occupation, huge potential to see them fight and fall back from a victorious Sauron.
 
Galadriel as one if the mains makes sense

Cons
Galadriel as a simple commander being bossed around by her nephew (or great-nephew) is silly.

Same with Elrond, he was not a simple herald.

What's the point of hobbits already? Their whole schtick was that they had never done anything. Should have been left out, the role of identifiable dudes could have been done by early Rohirrim instead.

The whole stupid thing with Galadriel being the only one knowing the truth. But you can't have heroes without them having adversity to overcome.


All in all far better than I suspected beforehand.

[viper37]

The whole stupid thing with Galadriel being the only one knowing the truth. But you can't have heroes without them having adversity to overcome.

She's not the only one to know.  They all do.  She's the only one to care.

I am sad to agree with Oex , but this is a common theme in tv/movies. 

Tbf, it is also a common theme in history.  It's not like the French did not know the Germans were preparing to attack them in 1940.  WWII wasn't exactly a surprise strike from Germany.  More than one commanders knew they were rearming by 1936, they knew the Maginot line would not stop them, they knew they needed tanks and airplanes.  Other people in higher places of power disagreed.

And the obvious parallel to the UK entering WW1, "we thought the war would be over quick as we shipped over the sea" .  I do not know if this was literally written in Tolkien's appendices, but the reference to WW1 is pretty obvious.

Ah well, I still like it.

[Admiral Yi]

Does the show include the creation of the Orcs, or do they already exist at the beginning?

[Tonitrus]

Does the show include the creation of the Orcs, or do they already exist at the beginning?

Already exist.  Morgoth had 'em.

[The Brain]

I think there are complex characters in LOTR - and there are complex characters in myths, for that matter.

I think the difference is perhaps in the source of their complexity - for LOTR characters it is broadly an external force: it is the temptation of the ring. But I don't think it's possible to say Frodo/Gollum, Boromir, Faramir etc are simple characters - to an extent the ones who are simpler are either those who've been fully corrupted by, or interact with the ring least.

For years I used to think that Gollum/Boromir/Denethor etc were the only not-completely-2D characters in LOTR. But they are not complex, they are just weak. As you say it's all about an external force. The only attribute that makes them different from the massed ranks of heroes is that they are weak. Thinking about it I find it hard to find any other significant attribute in Tolkien characters than strength/weakness (and most characters are firmly in the strong camp). Even the elf Legolas and the dwarf Gimli are essentially the same individual.

If you look at, for instance, Loki of Norse mythology he acts the way he does not because he's weak, but because of his (compared to Tolkien very complex) character.

[Threviel]

Thinking more about it after watching ep. 2.

The parts where no-names are running around are the best so far. The elf dude investigating stuff in Mordor especially, it gives a glimpse of the world without having annoying badly done elements of the original story. Tolkien  has some clues as to relations between lesser ranked elves and humans, most famously the rumours of the lords of Dol Amroth so a love story where her son slowly falls to darkness and becomes a ring wraith (my guess as to the outcome) has potential.

The harfoot one is also interesting, but I would have preferred it if they were normal humans instead of proto-hobbits. Will nevertheless be interesting to see their interaction with a maia, presumably Annatar.

Likewise the Galadriel stuff. I think that story would work much better for me if it was some generic captain in the Elven armies and all the big names would just be supporting players. Say for example having Elrond, Celebrimbor, Galadriel, Cirdan and Gil-Galad be att odds on strategy and we get to follow some captain on her missions to support Galadriel.. It could be more or less exactly the same story, but they'd be free to do more stuff like love interests and stuff like that. Could even have a Martin moment and kill her off when it gets hot and have Galadriel step up as a war-leader.

Khazad-Dûm by the story is the main city of the main royal house of the dwarves and is by the second age probably thousands of years old. It should not have been a lowly mine 20 years ago, I don't know why they would have a need to tell the story like that. In my mind the story would have been improved by having the elves and dwarves be good friends at the start and then have that destroyed as the evil influence grows. We'll se where they are going I guess.

[grumbler]

In my mind the story would have been improved by having the elves and dwarves be good friends at the start and then have that destroyed as the evil influence grows. We'll se where they are going I guess.

Agree.  In the Tolkien version, Durin and Celebrimbor were fast friends, and the Western Door to Moria was only built because the dwarves of Moria wanted easier access to trade with Eregion.  The show's depiction of the start of their relationship is silly and completely unnecessary.  That's a lot of screen time that could have been better-used later in the story.