Support NeoGAF

[diffusionx]

Yes, baby orcs are just a bad idea. No matter how you try to interpret the missing holes in Tolkien's lore, corrupted creatures like that having a family life just doesn't fit.

I'm reminded of GRR Martin, who, beyond his work on GoT, has been talking nonsense about Lotr. He was wondering about the tax system in Aragorn's kingdom, or about baby orcs: should we kill them? I mean, it's completely stupid to ask these kinds of questions in Tolkien's universe, a world where the author deliberately chose to avoid putting temples or religions because of his Catholic faith.

That said, it's 5 seconds in the 3 hours, and I hope they don't push this idea too far.

lefties have spent years talking about how orcs are racist. This is part of their woke social engineering. The orcs are basically supposed to be this embodiment of metaphysical evil. But if you are a moral relativist who doesn't believe in good or evil, such a thing cannot make sense.

I didn't watch it but it would have been funny if they showed orcs going to a stall and finding a bunch of veggies and grains on the menu.

 

[IDKFA]

And some of you are wasting your time watching this shit?

Tolkien did write a letter in 1960s suggesting Orc's reproduced sexually and stating there were Orc women.

However, I don't think Tolkien was 100% set on the idea based on other information in the History of Middle-earth.

Personally, I think they were just created as cannon fodder for the protagonists to fight against. An evil army for the evil dark lord. They're better when their creation is left a mystery. I personally have no desire to see orc babies or for the makers of this show trying to make me feel emotionally sorry for Orcs.

This show will always be poor fan fiction.

 

[Synless]

Well, I enjoyed episode 1 so I will continue to watch. I did not hate season one, it just wasn’t as good as it should have been so this season shouldn’t be an issue for me.

 

[ForAcademicPurposes]

Caprtain Jesus weighing in.

 

[AJUMP23]

I knew it was a song lyric. I forgot it was Metallica.

 

[AJUMP23]

I watched episode 1. Why is Elrond such a punk. Don’t put that ring on. You better not do it.

I always thought Elrond was in on the elven rings being made in secret.

 

[ManaByte]

Personally, I think they were just created as cannon fodder for the protagonists to fight against.

I still like the idea that they were Tolkien shitting on the Oxford Rugby Club.

 

[ManaByte]

I watched episode 1. Why is Elrond such a punk. Don’t put that ring on. You better not do it.

I always thought Elrond was in on the elven rings being made in secret.

He was, but then he found out it was Sauron directing their creation.

He was turned around when Cirdan tells him basically "It's better for us Elves to have this power than let Sauron use it."

They cast Cirdan so well it's going to be pretty big when he decides to hand over Narya to Jim Henson Gandalf.

 

[Ulysses 31]

 

[nightmare-slain]

i'm near the end of episode 3. i really don't hate it lol.

when annatar appeared to celebrimbor and said he was lord of the rings that was super fucking cool. i can't wait to see him go full Sauron in his badass armor.

while i did enjoy S1 the characters kinda annoyed me but i am warming right up to them now. like the elf dude and the two hobbits.

the wizard dude that is hanging out with the hobbits HAS to be gandalf. the actor feels like he is taking inspiration from Ian McKellen in the movies. every time he talks i can just imagine Ian as Gandalf. If he's not gandalf i'll be surprised.

 

[ManaByte]

when annatar appeared to celebrimbor and said he was lord of the rings that was super fucking cool. i can't wait to see him go full Sauron in his badass armor.

Annatar is being done very well.

while i did enjoy S1 the characters kinda annoyed me but i am warming right up to them now. like the elf dude and the two hobbits.

I didn't like most of S1. The Galadriel story was boring and overshadowed by the Elrond and Durin storyline. The Mordor stuff was dumb. But the final two episodes where they forge the Elven rings is where it got better.

the wizard dude that is hanging out with the hobbits HAS to be gandalf. the actor feels like he is taking inspiration from Ian McKellen in the movies. every time he talks i can just imagine Ian as Gandalf. If he's not gandalf i'll be surprised.

Jim Henson is Gandalf and Ciaran Hines is obviously Saruman from his look and how he's just doing an impersonation of Christopher Lee.

 

[IDKFA]

Jim Henson is Gandalf and Ciaran Hines is obviously Saruman from his look and how he's just doing an impersonation of Christopher Lee.

Gandalf if is in this show? I knew the Stranger was a Wizard, but Gandalf?!?!

Gandalf, who in Tolkien's lore arrived in the Third Age is in this show?

Has this been confirmed, because that's some wild lore bending.

 

[Melon Husk]

Yes, baby orcs are just a bad idea. No matter how you try to interpret the missing holes in Tolkien's lore, corrupted creatures like that having a family life just doesn't fit.

I'm reminded of GRR Martin, who, beyond his work on GoT, has been talking nonsense about Lotr. He was wondering about the tax system in Aragorn's kingdom, or about baby orcs: should we kill them? I mean, it's completely stupid to ask these kinds of questions in Tolkien's universe, a world where the author deliberately chose to avoid putting temples or religions because of his Catholic faith.

That said, it's 5 seconds in the 3 hours, and I hope they don't push this idea too far.

Deconstructing Tolkien's mythos is not a bad idea in itself, but it requires

1. understanding the core material
2. intelligence

This gazillion dollar Amazon show is not the right venue for that.
An example of a well written story that deconstructs the core material from "black and white", "good vs. evil" to shades of gray, Knights of the Old Republic 2 comes to mind.

 

[Ulysses 31]

Gandalf if is in this show? I knew the Stranger was a Wizard, but Gandalf?!?!

Gandalf, who in Tolkien's lore arrived in the Third Age is in this show?

Has this been confirmed, because that's some wild lore bending.

That's lore bending to you? Not Galadriel commanding armies or all the made up characters?

 

[ManaByte]

Gandalf if is in this show? I knew the Stranger was a Wizard, but Gandalf?!?!

Gandalf, who in Tolkien's lore arrived in the Third Age is in this show?

Has this been confirmed, because that's some wild lore bending.

 

[IDKFA]

That's lore bending to you? Not Galadriel commanding armies or all the made up characters?

Oh I know. We could write an essay on the amount of disrespectful lore bending issues in this show.

Saying that, having Gandalf show up just for shits and giggles has to be up there with some of the worst.

 

[Buggy Loop]

 

[Straight Edge]

This show consistently misunderstands Tolkien at every turn.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This show consistently misunderstands Tolkien at every turn.

It was made for "modern audiences" not for people who read books

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Really enjoyed episode 2. Some really good moments in it

 

[peish]

Gandalf if is in this show? I knew the Stranger was a Wizard, but Gandalf?!?!

Gandalf, who in Tolkien's lore arrived in the Third Age is in this show?

Has this been confirmed, because that's some wild lore bending.

show writers keep doing that lame teasing since S1.
in one scene ep2, at the well, while not-gandalf is picking up a staff, the subtitle even has the "gand" shown

 

[xandaca]

when annatar appeared to celebrimbor and said he was lord of the rings that was super fucking cool.

After two episodes, I don't hate it either, it's not great by any stretch but the pacing and dialogue feel improved over S1. The bit with Annatar calling Celebrimbor 'Lord of the Rings' made me roll my eyes several times over though. Putting aside the 'hey guys, someone said the title, isn't that cool?!' element, I'm not all that knowledgeable about LotR or Tolkien lore but doesn't the 'Lord of the Rings' title refer to the ring itself for its domination of the other rings and their bearers? I understand that Sauron/Annatar is manipulating Celebrimbor and pandering to his ego, but it felt very strange and forced to use that specific title to refer to something (as far as I know) other than what it is canonically supposed to.

Anyway, other than that, for me the first two episodes have been perfectly adequate. Very much in line with most streaming shows, aka not much happening, no discernable themes, shallow characters and an offputting gloss of CGI artifice covering everything, but far less obnoxiously portentous and scattershot than the first season. So far it feels a bit more focused, with only the 'Stranger'/Gandalf storyline being completely disconnected from that of the Rings, than last season, when it felt like a ton of narrative was being hurled at the wall for no discernable purpose, just to see what stuck. All that said, there's still one episode I've yet to watch and plenty more in the season to come, so...

 

[NecrosaroIII]

, I'm not all that knowledgeable about LotR or Tolkien lore but doesn't the 'Lord of the Rings' title refer to the ring itself for its domination of the other rings and their bearers?

The titular Lord of the Rings is Sauron himself.

 

[xandaca]

The titular Lord of the Rings is Sauron himself.

Ah, my mistake. Admittedly seems a bit strange to me that the title of Tolkien's trilogy therefore refers to the antagonist, rather than the macguffin around which the entire story revolves.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Ah, my mistake. Admittedly seems a bit strange to me that the title of Tolkien's trilogy therefore refers to the antagonist, rather than the macguffin around which the entire story revolves.

The full title as per the Redbook of Westmarch (which is the in universe text of the Novel that Tolkien pretends to have translated) is The Downfall of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King.

So as a novel about his downfall, its a fitting title

 

[ManaByte]

This show consistently misunderstands Tolkien at every turn.

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time. The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away... They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."

That was Christopher Tolkien talking about the movies in 2012. His son Simon oversees the series.

 

[EviLore]

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a brilliant all-time classic adaptation of the book. Rings of Power is irredeemable garbage. Regardless of whatever Christopher Tolkien thinks.

 

[kruis]

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a brilliant all-time classic adaptation of the book. Rings of Power is irredeemable garbage. Regardless of whatever Christopher Tolkien thinks.

Christopher Tolkien died in 2020, I don't think he does much thinking these days.

 

[8bitpill]

Honestly, just look at the writers for season 1 and 2. It just reads inexperienced and they have no part of writing Tolkien fiction. Tom Shippey was rumored to say to the writers of the show that they were "polluting the lore".

I haven't watched the new episode and I don't intend to till they're all released.

I have little to no hope for this being anything of interest, but just want to see how they botched this series and how it was even renewed for a second season.

Amazon and the producers pounded this series into submission on todays social standards of entertainment.

I've said this before here, but when they fired Tom Shippey in 2020 from the production of this series I knew it was doomed to be 21st century reimagined garbage of Tolkiens classics.

 

[Alex11]

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is a brilliant all-time classic adaptation of the book. Rings of Power is irredeemable garbage. Regardless of whatever Christopher Tolkien thinks.

Thinking back when the LOTR trilogy released and being criticized for differences from the books and whatnot, man, we really had no idea this universe was gonna be so violated with this, whatever thing this show is.

 

[thefool]

 

[Tieno]

Nerdwriter articulating one of the big problems with this show. TV might be the wrong format....and/or the writers aren't skilled enough to overcome this
Regardless, I'm really not feeling this. They also don't have the story rights to tell this story properly. LOTR doesn't need a reinterpretation for todays world...every time they lean into that direction it just feels weird and wrong. Peter Jackson got it right 20 years ago. It's amazing how much they got right.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

LOTR doesn't need a reinterpretation for todays world...every time they lean into that direction it just feels weird and wrong.

The Blumenberg quote in the video at 4:50 really helps hit that idea home.
"Ages that are characterized by high rates of change...[are] eager for new myths...but also ill adapted to giving themselves what they desire."

While not denying the medium is the message...

LOTR is based upon the idea of a perfection and fall for its myth. Modern understanding of the natural world shows something otherwise which eager modern myths need to be developed around a suitable model of it for them to flourish. Not trying to fit it into the monotheist Creationist LOTR world.

Not that developing on Tolkien couldn't help with learning how to adapt myth to new mythic frameworks and storytelling mediums.
To adapt and create requires learning and inspiration. While the massive work involved with creating a philosophically sound entirely new mythic superstructure for the universe in a flipped narrative is hypothetically underway... in the meantime some Tolkien world stuff that shows an understanding of developing myth within that setting would provide learning opportunity and be encouraging.

 

[Oberstein]

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time. The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away... They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."

That was Christopher Tolkien talking about the movies in 2012. His son Simon oversees the series.

Yep, people forget how much PJ's Lotr was criticized at the time. And not just by Christopher Tolkien, which is understandable from his point of view. There would have been no Silmarillion, if he hadn't worked like a madman to recover and put back together the puzzle that was his father's notes. He deserves our respect.

Jackson's trilogy also made a lot of questionable choices: characters were removed, Arwen replaced another, scenes were out of order, the end of Return of the King was hijacked for a mushy ending, and so on. But the tone, the atmosphere, the aesthetics, it was perfect for our generation.

After all, the Star Wars prelogy is now much loved, which was far from the case 20 years ago. RoP isn't a purge like the youtubers who make their money on it would have us believe, but neither is it the series of the century, or even a good rendition of Tolkien's original material. Once again, this is modern fiction. And it would be hard, given the crappy times we live in, to get anything close to what Tolkien's writings actually were.

 

[Lukaku's First Touch]

Watched all S2 episodes.

Episode 3 is probably the worst episode I've seen. Boring as fuck.

How long does it take for the elven group to reach celebrimbor lol. I bet they'll arrive just as the rings are finished...

It's super important they get there asap but 'well leave in the morning' wtf. Oh and only take 5 men, can't spare more to take out the number 1 enemy sorry.

Also, 'I can take out gandalf because I will threaten the halflings!!!' wow master strategy, how didnt we think of that sooner!!!!

so fucking dumb writing.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Watched all S2 episodes.

Episode 3 is probably the worst episode I've seen. Boring as fuck.

How long does it take for the elven group to reach celebrimbor lol. I bet they'll arrive just as the rings are finished...

It's super important they get there asap but 'well leave in the morning' wtf. Oh and only take 5 men, can't spare more to take out the number 1 enemy sorry.

Not that the show cares about distances, since Halbrand can go between Mordor and Eregion on a dime, but Lindon and Eregion are kind of far.

Frodos journey was shorter (The Shire is kind of close to where Lindon is but further east) and it still took him about 1.5 months to get there, not counting some pretty long breaks.

 

[Toons]

lefties have spent years talking about how orcs are racist. This is part of their woke social engineering. The orcs are basically supposed to be this embodiment of metaphysical evil. But if you are a moral relativist who doesn't believe in good or evil, such a thing cannot make sense.

Moral relativism doesn't mean you don't believe in good or evil lmao. It means you believe that people are equally capable of birth giving circumstances, and some acts will be viewed as some by one snd others as the other.

And that is objectively 100% true.

 

[EviLore]

Moral relativism doesn't mean you don't believe in good or evil lmao. It means you believe that people are equally capable of birth giving circumstances, and some acts will be viewed as some by one snd others as the other.

And that is objectively 100% true.

Mm, not really.

This is what is usually meant by moral relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."

For example, in ancient Aztec culture, sacrificing innocents on an altar by cutting out their hearts while alive was seen as morally righteous and necessary, so a moral relativist would not view it as inherently evil. There can be no good and evil in absolute moral relativism.

Some level of moral relativism is still a useful tool to evaluate cultures and behaviors in full context, but it is a ridiculous lens in which to view the world on its own.

 

[Lord Panda]

Yep, people forget how much PJ's Lotr was criticized at the time. And not just by Christopher Tolkien, which is understandable from his point of view. There would have been no Silmarillion, if he hadn't worked like a madman to recover and put back together the puzzle that was his father's notes. He deserves our respect.

Jackson's trilogy also made a lot of questionable choices: characters were removed, Arwen replaced another, scenes were out of order, the end of Return of the King was hijacked for a mushy ending, and so on. But the tone, the atmosphere, the aesthetics, it was perfect for our generation.

After all, the Star Wars prelogy is now much loved, which was far from the case 20 years ago. RoP isn't a purge like the youtubers who make their money on it would have us believe, but neither is it the series of the century, or even a good rendition of Tolkien's original material. Once again, this is modern fiction. And it would be hard, given the crappy times we live in, to get anything close to what Tolkien's writings actually were.

I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the movies when they first came out, and it’s still tough to reconcile the differences and questionable creative choices Peter Jackson and his team made compared to Tolkien’s original work. I’m particularly furious about the ghost army nonsense in the third movie—seriously, what were they thinking with that so-called ‘creative’ decision?

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

Spoiler: some one call Disney for Ip ripoff

 

[Punished Miku]

seriously, what were they thinking with that so-called ‘creative’ decision?

"Oh, I can shoot this like the Frighteners. I've done ghost stuff before."

 

[LegendOfKage]

Mm, not really.

This is what is usually meant by moral relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."

For example in ancient Aztec culture, sacrificing innocents on an altar by cutting out their hearts while alive was seen as morally righteous and necessary, so a moral relativist would not view it as inherently evil. There can be no good and evil in absolute moral relativism.

Some level of moral relativism is still a useful tool to evaluate cultures and behaviors in full context, but it is a ridiculous lens in which to view the world on its own.

Agreed. If you start from a framework of "there is no objective proven truth other than what can be scientifically demonstrated," that can be helpful to separate facts from worldviews. But I feel the logical next step is to also include the golden rule of, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." If something has a universal value, then it's true for everyone, which I would say makes it also universally important and valid.

People might disagree as to what do unto others means for everyone, but the value itself I would say is about as objectively true as values get. Probably the most important starting point for any sort of moral compass, and something that would be missing in moral relativism.

 

[Punished Miku]

Agreed. If you start from a framework of "there is no objective proven truth other than what can be scientifically demonstrated," that can be helpful to separate facts from worldviews. But I feel the logical next step is to also include the golden rule of, "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." If something has a universal value, then it's true for everyone, which I would say makes it also universally important and valid.

People might disagree as to what do unto others means for everyone, but the value itself I would say is about as objectively true as values get. Probably the most important starting point for any sort of moral compass, and something that would be missing in moral relativism.

I think the Sam Harris model is actually the most logical and honest way to argue against moral relativism. Just simply acknowledging that we have a nervous system is literally all you need. "Pain is bad." That's all you have to say to claim that things that move you away from needless suffering are likely good. In reality you can't really claim any other basis for morality other than having a nervous system. The universe, stars, and floating rocks and molecules don't care if you choose one thing or another. It's only a concern for conscious beings that feel pain, and I do think avoiding needless suffering is an objective good.

When you get into more subjective and complex claims, or claims that benefit certain people over others - then moral relativism does have a place, despite people's distaste for it. That's what makes stuff like Yoko Taro's work resonate so much, is that he doesn't just pretend that moral relativism makes no sense. He faces how bleak existence really is by acknowledging that it is a compelling argument on most issues. People step on a bug and don't think about it, so there's already little in the way of a hard red line separating consciousness from rocks and inanimate objects like we like to pretend. People drive past a dead squirrel on the road and go get their coffee. Are we the bugs of a more advanced alien race? How does morality come into play then? Morality is usually just what we prefer to argue for convenience so we don't have to talk about uncomfortable things. It's hard to even really argue that killing is truly a universal immoral action when all of nature is based on lethal competition, and we only pretended to stop killing as a species after sitting at the top (and even then, we still kill animals at a level that dwarfs any genocide so we can eat them 3x a day, or ignore them until they go extinct from our environmental negligence.). Most people end up having to just turn off the part of their brain that acknowledges moral relativism because its just not compatible with modern society, so I think mostly people just end up pretending it makes no sense.

 

[Melon Husk]

Philosophy nerds please. RoP writers don't know what any of those fancy words mean.


If a local community theater was performing low-budget adaptations of Middle-Earth stories, would I go watch? Yes, I would. RoP fits the same bill.

 

[Straight Edge]

Gandalf if is in this show? I knew the Stranger was a Wizard, but Gandalf?!?!

Gandalf, who in Tolkien's lore arrived in the Third Age is in this show?

Has this been confirmed, because that's some wild lore bending.

This show gives zero fucks about the lore and timeline.

 

[Toons]

Mm, not really.

This is what is usually meant by moral relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

"Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."

For example, in ancient Aztec culture, sacrificing innocents on an altar by cutting out their hearts while alive was seen as morally righteous and necessary, so a moral relativist would not view it as inherently evil. There can be no good and evil in absolute moral relativism.

Some level of moral relativism is still a useful tool to evaluate cultures and behaviors in full context, but it is a ridiculous lens in which to view the world on its own.

Idk if I'd say that moral relativists don't think ANYTHING is evil i just saw it as being about context such as when we are looking at otherwise great historical figures who had racial views that lined up with those of the time... they were still wrong but does that mean they were evil people?

I could be wrong, and I wouldn't even necessarily say I'm a moral relativist but I think this gets employed by everyone to some extent

 

[IDKFA]

show writers keep doing that lame teasing since S1.
in one scene ep2, at the well, while not-gandalf is picking up a staff, the subtitle even has the "gand" shown

This show gives zero fucks about the lore and timeline.

This is why the show isn't appealing to many Tolkien fans because it disrespects the source material. The writers of this show think they can do a better job than Tolkien.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Kinda funny how people can randomly assault royalty in Arda. You have two instances of sovereigns getting openly punked on but their subjects, and in both cases there were no reprecussions.

 

[nightmare-slain]

I wish all episodes were available I am looking forward to next one. They finally got me to sub to Prime.

 

[xandaca]

Didn't mind the first two episodes but the third brought back all the most tiresome subplots and characters from the first season. Surprise surprise, it was right back to that season's level of tedium as well.