• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Lords of The Rings: Rings of Power Official Teaser Trailer

KingGhidorah

KingGhidorah

Banned
Rings of Power now has 28 million views with 98K likes

Doctor Strange 2 now has 39 million views with 1.8 million likes. When DS2 had 30 million views, it had 1.5 million likes

yeah Amazon seems like you have a winner here
 
K

Kimahri

Banned
DeafTourette said:
Something I came across... A Tolkien professor... Interesting commentary about Disa at 20:18...

Click to expand...

That's odd. So that quote about both male and female dwarfs having beards from they're young is bogus then?

Either that or this guy has holes in his knowledge. I don't have the specific book, so I can't look it up.
 
Tams

Tams

Member
Ugh. Of course The Guardian would shit out a piece defending this abomination.

I wish the cowards would turn on the comments for the article.
 
EviLore

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
"In fact, despite its array of wizards, magic objects, warring races and deep wells of mythology, The Lord of the Rings is a decidedly non-threatening tale: fundamentally a comforting story of middle-class heroes of multiple races who triumph over enormous odds to save their way of life by working together against a common foe. "

...middle-class heroes?
 
Tams

Tams

Member
Herr Edgy said:
What I've seen so far doesn't impress me. The opposite even, it disappoints me.
Seems like yet another overly clean random fantasy world. Peter Jackson tried capturing magic in a bottle, and succeeded as he respected the craft and tried understanding it.
Many don't like The Hobbit trilogy and while it is true that parts of it come across as more-hollywood-esque, I'm still very happy with them and am content with what they offer.
It was still yet another visit in Middle-earth, even if it was akin to your annoying aunt doing mean remarks occasionally at your otherwise joyful family gathering.

This... seems wholly different, and not the "second age" different that is wanted. It's more like the basement of your abusive dad that keeps all your destroyed toys from when you were a child in there.
Click to expand...
The Hobbit Trilogy is very much The Prequels of the Lord of the Rings world. Nowhere near as poor quality, but the same 'not as good as the originals, but still faithful, authentic, and capturing the main feeling of the world'.
 
Tams

Tams

Member
EviLore said:
"In fact, despite its array of wizards, magic objects, warring races and deep wells of mythology, The Lord of the Rings is a decidedly non-threatening tale: fundamentally a comforting story of middle-class heroes of multiple races who triumph over enormous odds to save their way of life by working together against a common foe. "

...middle-class heroes?
Click to expand...
It's The Guardian. They can't see beyond their own and must project it.

Love a good Jay Rayner restaurant review on there though; the middle-class snob that I am.
 
Last edited:
strange headache

strange headache

Banned
DeafTourette said:
Something I came across... A Tolkien professor... Interesting commentary about Disa at 20:18...

Click to expand...


Dude is a tool paid by IGN to do some more damage control.

"They [dwarf-women] are in voice and appearance, and in garb if they must go on a journey, so like to the dwarf-men that the eyes and ears of other peoples cannot tell them apart." - Appendix A

From the words of Pengolod concerning the Naugrim we learn that "no Man nor Elf has ever seen a beardless Dwarf–unless he were shaven in mockery, and would then be more like to die of shame than of many other hurts that to us would seem more deadly. For the Naugrim have beards from the beginning of their lives, male and female alike; nor indeed can their womenkind be discerned by those of other race, be it in feature or in gait or in voice, nor in any wise save this: that they go not to war, and seldom save at direst need issue from their deep bowers and halls." - Quenta Silmarillion

Calls himself "Da Tolkien Professor", but hasn't even read the Quenta Silmarillion.
 
Last edited:
Tams

Tams

Member
Liljagare said:
Enjoy:

"
I combed through 20 pages of forum discussion in 2001 of Tolkien fans criticizing Peter Jackson and his LoTR movie before it was even released. They were basing their criticism on the teasers, promos, leaks, interviews, etc. It's striking (yet not entirely unexpected in hindsight) how similar some of those complaints were to what we've been seeing in the past few days. For the vast majority of the complaints/concerns people have expressed regarding the new RoP show, you can almost find a near perfect match in that 2001 thread. It doesn't necessarily mean those concerns aren't valid, but it helps to take a step back and gain a "historical" perspective.
In this post, I will show many of the issues fans had with PJ and his movie (before anyone watched it) and I've grouped them into several categories. I will give you both the actual quote (sometimes shortened) and a link to that specific comment in that 2001 thread. Of course, these are just comments from one thread on the internet so don't take them too seriously. The main purpose of this post is to remind people that the show is still months away and we still know very little about it and that a bit more patience, optimism, and open-mindedness would be healthy for ourselves, the fandom, and the show and its cast and staff. Also, these 2001 complaints are just so hilarious that no matter what you think about the new show, we can probably all have a good laugh together.
Just to clarify, obviously I've picked some of the most ridiculous ones in that thread, but the vast majority of the comments in that thread were very negative. In a few places I've also added some context or my own short comment in Italic.
Now enjoy (get comfortable, cause it's very long):

Insulting Peter Jackson:​

  1. I have come to the conclusion that he is probably not a good director // Reminder that this was one month before the movie release
  2. I know that Peter what-his-name may have cinematic license, but DID THIS DUDE EVER READ THE BOOKS!
  3. Jackson is taking ludicrous and unecessary liberties with the movie! I must cry out WHY? WHY? WHY? Why not leave things as they are?????
  4. Tolkien created an extremely detailed and consistent universe; for the bastard peter jackson to disrespect it is unconsciounable
  5. From the many quotes I've seen from PJ and actors, they have a pretty warped idea of "lover of the books" and "staying true to the story". What a load of two-sided, speaking out of both sides of the mouth, drivel!
  6. They're spouting lies the whole time. I mean, listen to Sean Astin's quote! He obviously hasn't read the books himself, so apparently Mr. Jackson has been lying to his own cast as well.
  7. How could PJ do this. LOOOOOOOOSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR
  8. To feel better about him/herself, the director simply looks for something to change. Watch a housewife, sorry ladies, try to decide how to decorate a room and you get my drift.
  9. The writer [Tolkien] needs to get mean and face up to the child-like director and marketing freaks. // If that had happened, Tolkien would be known as Tolkien the White
  10. PJ appears to feel his changes are insignificant and shouldn't trouble anyone. Sheesh... what an idiot!
  11. I feel he intends this as his legacy ....... and is milking it for every bit of publicity it's worth. I mean no-one had heard of him before this! ( how the hell did he manage to get to be the one to do it I wonder )!
  12. Hollywood screwed LOTR to high heaven, maybe PJ could be killed by a chaotic fan // They might have said that sarcastically though. Not sure.
  13. May the dreaded swan boat sail over your grave peter jackson and Glorfindel's white horse personaly pee on it // r/BrandNewSentence
  14. if he doesn't change them i will RIP OF HIS THROAT AND $#!+ DOWN IT AND THEN I SHALL CRUSH HIM WITH MY DRAGON BLUDRAG

Insulting the cast:​

  1. Liv Tyler is every bit as guilty as Jackson. She volunteered to destroy the character for money. To her it was just another script. And she, rich as she is, decided she would take part in the blasphemy that is what has happened with her character. Any actor with a conscience should have turned that down when they considered the disappointment of fans.
  2. If he wanted Liv Tyler to be the action heroine.... cast her as Eowyn. I think that it is ironic that PJ cast her in the tame role of Arwen and casts a nobody as Eowyn.
  3. As for Christopher Lee...well..We are talking about a guy who was not beneath taking cheap roles in wretched Hammer Films productions of every incarnation of Dracula imaginable, so I can see where the money in his pocket was not problem...how else do you explain why he has said nothing about his character apparently being killed at Orthanc
  4. I think what you see in the cast list are people who... don't really have a career anymore but are willing to ignore the fact that they are prosituting themselves and Tolkien's writings so long as they get paid...(This is the ONLY thing I can use to describe Christopher Lee, who claims to re-read the books every year)
  5. We already know Ian McKellen's done a lousy job // Oh do you??
  6. What a bunch of BS. How anyone can listen to this guy any longer is unfathomable to me. // (Ian McKellen (Gandalf) defended PJ against fan criticism before the movies was even out, and this fan called it a bunch of BS)
  7. Jackson [has] ugly characters playing the beautiful ones... FoTR has Elrond's actor and Cate Blanchett.
  8. Doesn't Celborn look like an a number one WUSS!! Why couldn't they have picked someone with a little more presence.
BTW, this is how Ian defended the movie and PJ (which the fan called BS): "The devotion to that man [Tolkien], I think, was equal to everyone's devotion to Peter Jackson. It was never, 'Ah good, we've got this storyline, let's see what we can do with it.'... When this film comes out, it will just say 'New Line [Cinema] presents The Lord of the Rings. It's not going to be 'A Film by Peter Jackson.' Now, wouldn't you think you'd earned the right, having brought this project to life, to have your name up there? The man you meet is the man we saw every day. He's only got one pair of shoes. He's always in shorts. He's always in the same shirt. He generates such enthusiasm just simply by being himself. He's not a star, but his knowledge is formidable. You can go to him and absolutely get your answer."

Arwen shouldn't fight, ride a horse, or have many dialogues, or... kiss Aragorn?:​

  1. She's just supposed to be this little Elven-hottie that sits in the Hall of Fire & has next to no lines, and Aragorn marries her in the end. // Wow... just wow...
  2. in the book as others have stated already, she simply sits there looking pretty
  3. If you're gonna give that scene to Arwen... HELL! YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER LEAD THE FELLOWSHIP! HELL!!!! YOU MIGHT AS WELL LET HER CARRY THE RING TO MORDOR ALL BY HERSELF!!! SHE SURE DOESN'T NEED ANY HOBBIT WHEN, BEING THE MOST COURAGEOUS AND BEAUTIFUL WOMAN IN MIDDLE EARTH, SHE CAN DO IT ALL BY HERSELF!!!!
  4. theArwen-warrior-spell-casting-witch-ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim-steroid wench REALLY REALLY BOTHERS ME!!!!!
  5. I think that by turning her into this warrior sorceress Mr. Jackson is twisting and cheapening her character
  6. And I'm not someone who always hates "political correctness." But this is different entirely.
  7. If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely... But political correctness (also known as BULLS**T) in Hollywood won't allow that.
  8. Lets make the characters more "exciting" and "politically correct", regardless of how Tolkien wanted it... Why don't we just make Lassie a cat. Down with PJ! // (He's referring to the movie/tv show about a dog called Lassie)
  9. the screenwriter is a woman, and as we all know middle earth is a very sexist planet, so in the interest of pleasing half of the audience of the movie a woman would need to be shown more often and as someone more important
  10. Arwen looks like a little girl pouting fit and have to have he[r] grammy come and console her
  11. not to mention they show Aragorn kissing Arwen, yep .
And a big shoutout to Liv Tyler (Arwen) who was harassed by fans who dubbed her XenArwen as in Xena Arwen because she did fighting in the movie, and then straight-up said in an interview that "If you don't want to see what another person does with the part, then don't go to the movies." I don't think many actors today have the courage to say that to fans.

Gandalf looks weird/stupid:​

  1. Gandalf grabbing Frodo and asking "IS IT SAFE?" like some crazy old man.
  2. Gandalf becomes a sputtering madman, "Is it here? Is it SAFE?!?".
  3. And Gandalf, sputtering like a senile old man?!
  4. Yeah right, Gandalf is a nutcase who is stupid enough to bump hid head in a house he visited many times.
  5. It sounds like Gandalf is a stooge; what does he do, fart when you pull his beard???
  6. He does seem a bit of a scaredy cat in the clips. Well if it's any consolation he will die before the end. You might be wishing for that bit to come quick though. // First time I've seen anyone hoping to see Gandalf die faster...

Elrond looks off:​

  1. he's just as homely as he was on The Matrix!! Except he's supposed to be beautiful as Elrond!! What happened??
  2. I can't look at Elrond without hearing him say "How are you going to speak Mr. Anderson, when you have....no mouth?"

Galadriel is ugly:​

  1. Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough
  2. Cate Blanchett?? Don't ask me from what gene pool PJ picked his elves from...

Lurtz (the Uruk Hai that killed Boromir) isn't in the books so shouldn't exist:​

  1. And this Lurtz dude, what is with adding him in? I'm not sure if he is actually purple/blue, but in a couple pics I have seen he is purple/blue... He kind of reminds me of... Barney the purple dinosaur *shudders* in a way. // New meme: Boromir killed by Barney the purple dinosaur
  2. I'd say it Lurtz. And, I don't think it even sounds like an orc name.
BTW this was mentioned at least 20-30 times in that thread. But it's pretty repetitive so I didn't include more.

Orcs popping out of cocoons is weird and breaks lore:​

  1. JEEEEEZ!! If it couldn't get any worse!! Orcs from pods?
  2. I... was absolutely horrified, it was the most disgraceful thing I had ever seen in my life.
  3. You would think, since the orcs were made in mockery of the elves, they would reproduce as elves do. What is with the pods and cocoons!!! Does PJ think they're ants or some sort of bug???
  4. This is really disturbing me, because PJ is sick enough to put something like this in LOTR. Tolkien would probably have a heart attack if he could see this stuff being done to his wonderful book.
This was mentioned at least 30-40 times in that thread. People were really really obsessed with how Orcs reproduce for some reason...

Victims of false rumors or paranoia:​

  1. LOTR without Treebeard? How does he think to get rid of all the orcs at Helms Deep?
  2. My deepest fear is that Jackson... has so much desire for Frodo to be liked and so wants there to be a "happy ending" that he might just... let Frodo destroy the Ring at mount doom
  3. My question, is....from where does the strength come from for that moth to carry Gandalf away from Orthanc and many leagues across ME... Can you imagine on the battlefield in front of Morannon...."The moths are coming! The moths are coming!!" // This one got me good I gotta say. Premium meme material!
  4. A moth? Gwahir would accidentally eat him, never mind listen to a message from him. // The man actually has a point here lol
  5. Elves and Uruk-hai have Samurai-style armor
  6. Who knows what kind of climax RotK will have? Maybe Frodo can put on the ring, use it to cut Smeagol in half, turn it on Barad-dur and blow that up, then take it off and throw it in saying "Later for you!" all the while Limp Bizkit's latest plays in the background (with special guest vocalist ... I don't know, some rapper.)
  7. I really hope there is SOMETHING of the real story left. This thread scares the hell out of me

Hollywood is ruining LoTR for money/political correctness:​

  1. You don't just take that and bastardize it because Hollywood, who as you've said does that to movies, wants to get its mud hooks on it and create a big money maker.
  2. Hollywood seeks money. Art is secondary. Everything else, except in rare cases, is secondary. Producers and directors are hired to make "shock-value" and attract audiences.
  3. If Hollywood could get away with it, he [Gandalf] would have a machine gun in his hand and saying,"I'll be back!" // Ok, I actually need this to happen when Gandalf falls off the bridge in Moria
  4. the movie is not made for the fans. it is made to make MONEY. it is all about profit.
  5. Hollywood corrupts art to make money. They needed to bring in a charater "politically correct" to have a female role model. Tolkien was not politically correct and that just doesn't sit well with Hollywood
  6. Every time there is a movie that we have deep forebodings about, we still go to it to "see what it's like". It happened with Aliens III, Alien Resurrection, Episode I, and a dozen others. After we see the movie, we find we hated it after all, yet we still gave them our money! In the end, it doesn't matter to Peter Jackson or New Line Cinemas (curse them both!)

"I'm a Tolkien purists":​

  1. Many changes! Blasphemy!
  2. I just don't think that it is truly Tolkien and I do believe that it will distort the way "newbies" will view the real LoTR and Tolkien in general.
  3. Do you even do any research?... some people do care about what Tolkien intended even if you don't... What are you here for? // (A purist was borderline cyber bullying someone who dared to want to give the movie a chance)
  4. This isn't just a movie. This is supposedly a serious attempt to put the Lord of the Rings, one of the greatest literary works of all time, on screen. It's not just "entertainment;"
  5. We (as a generic term) are in fact probably the best authorities on how these movies should be. The "normal person" might not see problems, but that is because the "normal person" does not understand.
  6. From his letters he was quite adamant about what PJ 's doing now. It's to be expected that nowadays people will sell out great literature for entertainment. It's even sadder that people who know better (Tolkien fans) don't really care. After all, it's only entertainment.
  7. It bothers me, especially when the book can stand alone on its own merit rather then needing the "help" of money grabbers who want to make it their own.
  8. Maybe when you take a few more English classes in school, you will see that.
  9. I will not, however, accept it as "Lord of The Rings" and will not promote the movie as "Tolkien".
  10. I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society.
  11. I will go now, without so great an expectation of seeing the LOTR... but rather I will simply go see some potentially decent fantasy movie made by some fat, ugly Englishman with a terrible beard.
  12. Down with PJ! And Down with the ignorant media promoting it and dragging JRR through the mud with their stupid, uninformed comments about ME...

Boycotting the movie:​

  1. I am getting madder and more unmotivated by the minute to see this movie.
  2. I am reiterating my intention to *not* give the bastard Peter Jackson even a dime of my money. That's why God invented the bootleg download. I will *not* go see this movie in the theatre. I will*not* buy or rent it on VHS or DVD. I will download a free copy of the movie off of the Internet. I've never done this before and proabably won't do so again... but I will *not* give the bastard Peter Jackson a cent of my money.
  3. if half the things that I have read on this board are true, I will never go to see any of these movies... I would rather read the books backward, word for word, than go see this debacle. I would rather see Harry Potter twenty-seven times in a row than catch the slightest glimpse of an orc-pod.
  4. We must take a stand now and *all* vow *not* to see *any* of the movies!
  5. But, I didn't go [to see the movie]. And I won't go today, either. Or tomorrow. I choose to keep my integrity, unlike some people who direct block-buster movies.

Other miscellaneous ones:​

  1. Sam and Merry are much too bold when confronted with the Nazgul
  2. he makes these really quite unnessecary changes, like having Pippin knock a skeleton instead of a rock down the hole in Moria. // This is some advanced nit-picking...
  3. Anyone know if the Legolas "shield surfing" is still in? // Yes! And it's a meme now.
  4. Galadriel floats on some cheesy amusement park boat instead of large swan boat paddled by two elves.
  5. "Saruman captures Gandalf by fighting a 'wizard duel' involving telekinesis, lightning, and Gandalf being slammed against the wall." Please don't tell me this is going to be some sort of children movie like Harry Potter or D&D. // Harry Potter and the Wizard Duel, featuring Gandalf and Saruman. I'd watch that!
  6. The Ringwraiths aren't all riding black horses. They look brown.
"
Click to expand...
JFC, get a life.

Are you some diversity studies in literature academic by any chance?
 
sol_bad

sol_bad

Member
DeafTourette said:
Something I came across... A Tolkien professor... Interesting commentary about Disa at 20:18...

Click to expand...


Thanks for that video, it was very enlightening. I honestly never looked into the lore of LOTR's because the movies story was so basic, straight forward and self contained. I never realised that there was a 1st, 2nd and 3rd age, I know the first movie references the 2nd age but my brain just accepted it as hundreds or thousands of years ago. I realise now that there really is a hell of a lot of lore, pretty crazy. I really liked his insights to the trailer and makes me more excited for the series.
 
NecrosaroIII

NecrosaroIII

Ultimate DQ Fan
EviLore said:
"In fact, despite its array of wizards, magic objects, warring races and deep wells of mythology, The Lord of the Rings is a decidedly non-threatening tale: fundamentally a comforting story of middle-class heroes of multiple races who triumph over enormous odds to save their way of life by working together against a common foe. "

...middle-class heroes?
Click to expand...

The Hobbits are definitely modeled after upper-middle class Victorian Brits (except Sam, who is very much working class). Everyone else are certainly rich ruling class
 
Lord Panda

Lord Panda

The Sea is Always Right
sol_bad said:
Thanks for that video, it was very enlightening. I honestly never looked into the lore of LOTR's because the movies story was so basic, straight forward and self contained. I never realised that there was a 1st, 2nd and 3rd age, I know the first movie references the 2nd age but my brain just accepted it as hundreds or thousands of years ago. I realise now that there really is a hell of a lot of lore, pretty crazy. I really liked his insights to the trailer and makes me more excited for the series.
Click to expand...
Perhaps consider reading The Hobbit and the LotR books; they’re incredible.
 
8bitpill

8bitpill

Member
Ulysses 31 said:
Amazon unlisted this "superfans" review, I wonder why... :messenger_winking_tongue:

Click to expand...

Insert token white girl

giphy.gif
 
D

Darryl

Banned
Liljagare said:
Enjoy:

"
I combed through 20 pages of forum discussion in 2001 of Tolkien fans criticizing Peter Jackson and his LoTR movie before it was even released. They were basing their criticism on the teasers, promos, leaks, interviews, etc. It's striking (yet not entirely unexpected in hindsight) how similar some of those complaints were to what we've been seeing in the past few days. For the vast majority of the complaints/concerns people have expressed regarding the new RoP show, you can almost find a near perfect match in that 2001 thread. It doesn't necessarily mean those concerns aren't valid, but it helps to take a step back and gain a "historical" perspective.
In this post, I will show many of the issues fans had with PJ and his movie (before anyone watched it) and I've grouped them into several categories. I will give you both the actual quote (sometimes shortened) and a link to that specific comment in that 2001 thread. Of course, these are just comments from one thread on the internet so don't take them too seriously. The main purpose of this post is to remind people that the show is still months away and we still know very little about it and that a bit more patience, optimism, and open-mindedness would be healthy for ourselves, the fandom, and the show and its cast and staff. Also, these 2001 complaints are just so hilarious that no matter what you think about the new show, we can probably all have a good laugh together.
Just to clarify, obviously I've picked some of the most ridiculous ones in that thread, but the vast majority of the comments in that thread were very negative. In a few places I've also added some context or my own short comment in Italic.
Now enjoy (get comfortable, cause it's very long):

Insulting Peter Jackson:​

  1. I have come to the conclusion that he is probably not a good director // Reminder that this was one month before the movie release
  2. I know that Peter what-his-name may have cinematic license, but DID THIS DUDE EVER READ THE BOOKS!
  3. Jackson is taking ludicrous and unecessary liberties with the movie! I must cry out WHY? WHY? WHY? Why not leave things as they are?????
  4. Tolkien created an extremely detailed and consistent universe; for the bastard peter jackson to disrespect it is unconsciounable
  5. From the many quotes I've seen from PJ and actors, they have a pretty warped idea of "lover of the books" and "staying true to the story". What a load of two-sided, speaking out of both sides of the mouth, drivel!
  6. They're spouting lies the whole time. I mean, listen to Sean Astin's quote! He obviously hasn't read the books himself, so apparently Mr. Jackson has been lying to his own cast as well.
  7. How could PJ do this. LOOOOOOOOSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRR
  8. To feel better about him/herself, the director simply looks for something to change. Watch a housewife, sorry ladies, try to decide how to decorate a room and you get my drift.
  9. The writer [Tolkien] needs to get mean and face up to the child-like director and marketing freaks. // If that had happened, Tolkien would be known as Tolkien the White
  10. PJ appears to feel his changes are insignificant and shouldn't trouble anyone. Sheesh... what an idiot!
  11. I feel he intends this as his legacy ....... and is milking it for every bit of publicity it's worth. I mean no-one had heard of him before this! ( how the hell did he manage to get to be the one to do it I wonder )!
  12. Hollywood screwed LOTR to high heaven, maybe PJ could be killed by a chaotic fan // They might have said that sarcastically though. Not sure.
  13. May the dreaded swan boat sail over your grave peter jackson and Glorfindel's white horse personaly pee on it // r/BrandNewSentence
  14. if he doesn't change them i will RIP OF HIS THROAT AND $#!+ DOWN IT AND THEN I SHALL CRUSH HIM WITH MY DRAGON BLUDRAG

Insulting the cast:​

  1. Liv Tyler is every bit as guilty as Jackson. She volunteered to destroy the character for money. To her it was just another script. And she, rich as she is, decided she would take part in the blasphemy that is what has happened with her character. Any actor with a conscience should have turned that down when they considered the disappointment of fans.
  2. If he wanted Liv Tyler to be the action heroine.... cast her as Eowyn. I think that it is ironic that PJ cast her in the tame role of Arwen and casts a nobody as Eowyn.
  3. As for Christopher Lee...well..We are talking about a guy who was not beneath taking cheap roles in wretched Hammer Films productions of every incarnation of Dracula imaginable, so I can see where the money in his pocket was not problem...how else do you explain why he has said nothing about his character apparently being killed at Orthanc
  4. I think what you see in the cast list are people who... don't really have a career anymore but are willing to ignore the fact that they are prosituting themselves and Tolkien's writings so long as they get paid...(This is the ONLY thing I can use to describe Christopher Lee, who claims to re-read the books every year)
  5. We already know Ian McKellen's done a lousy job // Oh do you??
  6. What a bunch of BS. How anyone can listen to this guy any longer is unfathomable to me. // (Ian McKellen (Gandalf) defended PJ against fan criticism before the movies was even out, and this fan called it a bunch of BS)
  7. Jackson [has] ugly characters playing the beautiful ones... FoTR has Elrond's actor and Cate Blanchett.
  8. Doesn't Celborn look like an a number one WUSS!! Why couldn't they have picked someone with a little more presence.
BTW, this is how Ian defended the movie and PJ (which the fan called BS): "The devotion to that man [Tolkien], I think, was equal to everyone's devotion to Peter Jackson. It was never, 'Ah good, we've got this storyline, let's see what we can do with it.'... When this film comes out, it will just say 'New Line [Cinema] presents The Lord of the Rings. It's not going to be 'A Film by Peter Jackson.' Now, wouldn't you think you'd earned the right, having brought this project to life, to have your name up there? The man you meet is the man we saw every day. He's only got one pair of shoes. He's always in shorts. He's always in the same shirt. He generates such enthusiasm just simply by being himself. He's not a star, but his knowledge is formidable. You can go to him and absolutely get your answer."

Arwen shouldn't fight, ride a horse, or have many dialogues, or... kiss Aragorn?:​

  1. She's just supposed to be this little Elven-hottie that sits in the Hall of Fire & has next to no lines, and Aragorn marries her in the end. // Wow... just wow...
  2. in the book as others have stated already, she simply sits there looking pretty
  3. If you're gonna give that scene to Arwen... HELL! YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER LEAD THE FELLOWSHIP! HELL!!!! YOU MIGHT AS WELL LET HER CARRY THE RING TO MORDOR ALL BY HERSELF!!! SHE SURE DOESN'T NEED ANY HOBBIT WHEN, BEING THE MOST COURAGEOUS AND BEAUTIFUL WOMAN IN MIDDLE EARTH, SHE CAN DO IT ALL BY HERSELF!!!!
  4. theArwen-warrior-spell-casting-witch-ifyouwanthimcomeandclaimhim-steroid wench REALLY REALLY BOTHERS ME!!!!!
  5. I think that by turning her into this warrior sorceress Mr. Jackson is twisting and cheapening her character
  6. And I'm not someone who always hates "political correctness." But this is different entirely.
  7. If the movie (I mean all three parts) was made to represent the book as closely as possible, as should have been, women would have had an incredibly small role in this film, and would have been nearly absent entirely... But political correctness (also known as BULLS**T) in Hollywood won't allow that.
  8. Lets make the characters more "exciting" and "politically correct", regardless of how Tolkien wanted it... Why don't we just make Lassie a cat. Down with PJ! // (He's referring to the movie/tv show about a dog called Lassie)
  9. the screenwriter is a woman, and as we all know middle earth is a very sexist planet, so in the interest of pleasing half of the audience of the movie a woman would need to be shown more often and as someone more important
  10. Arwen looks like a little girl pouting fit and have to have he[r] grammy come and console her
  11. not to mention they show Aragorn kissing Arwen, yep .
And a big shoutout to Liv Tyler (Arwen) who was harassed by fans who dubbed her XenArwen as in Xena Arwen because she did fighting in the movie, and then straight-up said in an interview that "If you don't want to see what another person does with the part, then don't go to the movies." I don't think many actors today have the courage to say that to fans.

Gandalf looks weird/stupid:​

  1. Gandalf grabbing Frodo and asking "IS IT SAFE?" like some crazy old man.
  2. Gandalf becomes a sputtering madman, "Is it here? Is it SAFE?!?".
  3. And Gandalf, sputtering like a senile old man?!
  4. Yeah right, Gandalf is a nutcase who is stupid enough to bump hid head in a house he visited many times.
  5. It sounds like Gandalf is a stooge; what does he do, fart when you pull his beard???
  6. He does seem a bit of a scaredy cat in the clips. Well if it's any consolation he will die before the end. You might be wishing for that bit to come quick though. // First time I've seen anyone hoping to see Gandalf die faster...

Elrond looks off:​

  1. he's just as homely as he was on The Matrix!! Except he's supposed to be beautiful as Elrond!! What happened??
  2. I can't look at Elrond without hearing him say "How are you going to speak Mr. Anderson, when you have....no mouth?"

Galadriel is ugly:​

  1. Galadriel isn't nearly beautifull enough
  2. Cate Blanchett?? Don't ask me from what gene pool PJ picked his elves from...

Lurtz (the Uruk Hai that killed Boromir) isn't in the books so shouldn't exist:​

  1. And this Lurtz dude, what is with adding him in? I'm not sure if he is actually purple/blue, but in a couple pics I have seen he is purple/blue... He kind of reminds me of... Barney the purple dinosaur *shudders* in a way. // New meme: Boromir killed by Barney the purple dinosaur
  2. I'd say it Lurtz. And, I don't think it even sounds like an orc name.
BTW this was mentioned at least 20-30 times in that thread. But it's pretty repetitive so I didn't include more.

Orcs popping out of cocoons is weird and breaks lore:​

  1. JEEEEEZ!! If it couldn't get any worse!! Orcs from pods?
  2. I... was absolutely horrified, it was the most disgraceful thing I had ever seen in my life.
  3. You would think, since the orcs were made in mockery of the elves, they would reproduce as elves do. What is with the pods and cocoons!!! Does PJ think they're ants or some sort of bug???
  4. This is really disturbing me, because PJ is sick enough to put something like this in LOTR. Tolkien would probably have a heart attack if he could see this stuff being done to his wonderful book.
This was mentioned at least 30-40 times in that thread. People were really really obsessed with how Orcs reproduce for some reason...

Victims of false rumors or paranoia:​

  1. LOTR without Treebeard? How does he think to get rid of all the orcs at Helms Deep?
  2. My deepest fear is that Jackson... has so much desire for Frodo to be liked and so wants there to be a "happy ending" that he might just... let Frodo destroy the Ring at mount doom
  3. My question, is....from where does the strength come from for that moth to carry Gandalf away from Orthanc and many leagues across ME... Can you imagine on the battlefield in front of Morannon...."The moths are coming! The moths are coming!!" // This one got me good I gotta say. Premium meme material!
  4. A moth? Gwahir would accidentally eat him, never mind listen to a message from him. // The man actually has a point here lol
  5. Elves and Uruk-hai have Samurai-style armor
  6. Who knows what kind of climax RotK will have? Maybe Frodo can put on the ring, use it to cut Smeagol in half, turn it on Barad-dur and blow that up, then take it off and throw it in saying "Later for you!" all the while Limp Bizkit's latest plays in the background (with special guest vocalist ... I don't know, some rapper.)
  7. I really hope there is SOMETHING of the real story left. This thread scares the hell out of me

Hollywood is ruining LoTR for money/political correctness:​

  1. You don't just take that and bastardize it because Hollywood, who as you've said does that to movies, wants to get its mud hooks on it and create a big money maker.
  2. Hollywood seeks money. Art is secondary. Everything else, except in rare cases, is secondary. Producers and directors are hired to make "shock-value" and attract audiences.
  3. If Hollywood could get away with it, he [Gandalf] would have a machine gun in his hand and saying,"I'll be back!" // Ok, I actually need this to happen when Gandalf falls off the bridge in Moria
  4. the movie is not made for the fans. it is made to make MONEY. it is all about profit.
  5. Hollywood corrupts art to make money. They needed to bring in a charater "politically correct" to have a female role model. Tolkien was not politically correct and that just doesn't sit well with Hollywood
  6. Every time there is a movie that we have deep forebodings about, we still go to it to "see what it's like". It happened with Aliens III, Alien Resurrection, Episode I, and a dozen others. After we see the movie, we find we hated it after all, yet we still gave them our money! In the end, it doesn't matter to Peter Jackson or New Line Cinemas (curse them both!)

"I'm a Tolkien purists":​

  1. Many changes! Blasphemy!
  2. I just don't think that it is truly Tolkien and I do believe that it will distort the way "newbies" will view the real LoTR and Tolkien in general.
  3. Do you even do any research?... some people do care about what Tolkien intended even if you don't... What are you here for? // (A purist was borderline cyber bullying someone who dared to want to give the movie a chance)
  4. This isn't just a movie. This is supposedly a serious attempt to put the Lord of the Rings, one of the greatest literary works of all time, on screen. It's not just "entertainment;"
  5. We (as a generic term) are in fact probably the best authorities on how these movies should be. The "normal person" might not see problems, but that is because the "normal person" does not understand.
  6. From his letters he was quite adamant about what PJ 's doing now. It's to be expected that nowadays people will sell out great literature for entertainment. It's even sadder that people who know better (Tolkien fans) don't really care. After all, it's only entertainment.
  7. It bothers me, especially when the book can stand alone on its own merit rather then needing the "help" of money grabbers who want to make it their own.
  8. Maybe when you take a few more English classes in school, you will see that.
  9. I will not, however, accept it as "Lord of The Rings" and will not promote the movie as "Tolkien".
  10. I think the worst part is that LoTR will never again be the same, people. All the marketing, all the merchandise, all the misconceptions. PJ's movie has changed the dynamics of what LoTR was to society.
  11. I will go now, without so great an expectation of seeing the LOTR... but rather I will simply go see some potentially decent fantasy movie made by some fat, ugly Englishman with a terrible beard.
  12. Down with PJ! And Down with the ignorant media promoting it and dragging JRR through the mud with their stupid, uninformed comments about ME...

Boycotting the movie:​

  1. I am getting madder and more unmotivated by the minute to see this movie.
  2. I am reiterating my intention to *not* give the bastard Peter Jackson even a dime of my money. That's why God invented the bootleg download. I will *not* go see this movie in the theatre. I will*not* buy or rent it on VHS or DVD. I will download a free copy of the movie off of the Internet. I've never done this before and proabably won't do so again... but I will *not* give the bastard Peter Jackson a cent of my money.
  3. if half the things that I have read on this board are true, I will never go to see any of these movies... I would rather read the books backward, word for word, than go see this debacle. I would rather see Harry Potter twenty-seven times in a row than catch the slightest glimpse of an orc-pod.
  4. We must take a stand now and *all* vow *not* to see *any* of the movies!
  5. But, I didn't go [to see the movie]. And I won't go today, either. Or tomorrow. I choose to keep my integrity, unlike some people who direct block-buster movies.

Other miscellaneous ones:​

  1. Sam and Merry are much too bold when confronted with the Nazgul
  2. he makes these really quite unnessecary changes, like having Pippin knock a skeleton instead of a rock down the hole in Moria. // This is some advanced nit-picking...
  3. Anyone know if the Legolas "shield surfing" is still in? // Yes! And it's a meme now.
  4. Galadriel floats on some cheesy amusement park boat instead of large swan boat paddled by two elves.
  5. "Saruman captures Gandalf by fighting a 'wizard duel' involving telekinesis, lightning, and Gandalf being slammed against the wall." Please don't tell me this is going to be some sort of children movie like Harry Potter or D&D. // Harry Potter and the Wizard Duel, featuring Gandalf and Saruman. I'd watch that!
  6. The Ringwraiths aren't all riding black horses. They look brown.
"
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think they're entirely wrong on all counts either. Peter Jackson's LOTR did butcher the books. They took the books and blended them with a typical Hollywood action film, but it accidentally landed them in an interesting middleground where it's simultaneously a good cheesy action film but had retained just enough of the bookish lore to give it character, making it one of the better films out there. So what they did was forgivable in retrospect because the bastard child wound up a good film, for what it was.

The Hobbit films didn't do this. They changed the formula and added too much cheesy action, and less of the books. The criticism was out there prior to release and it still stands and the people who spoke out against it never ate crow. It's only going to be worse for this series, where the book they're drawing from is only a few paragraphs long.
 
DeafTourette

DeafTourette

Perpetually Offended
That majority of moviegoers didn't read the books. That's why the movies were so successful. Although, granted, I didn't think the Hobbit was very interesting... None of the 3 films (I only saw the first and part of 2. Never saw Battle of the 5 armies) could really hold my attention. Everything felt off.

I know LOTR differed a lot from the books but kept a lot of the story from them to be recognizable to the book fans. From what I read online, to satisfy the hardcore book fans, it would have had to be an almost 30-part movie series (that's what someone said would be perfect to them). Unrealistic and no movie studio (or their financial backers) would fund such a thing. It also would have failed financially after the first movie because it would be even MORE niche than the movies we actually got.

That said... Tolkien's books don't translate to movies or TV that well. You have to engage the audience. Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Stephen Sinclair did a great job in keeping the spirit and lore of the books but adapting it to screen.

That said... The series seems to differ even more because they don't actually have a lot to go off from, save for a few lines and paragraphs here and there. The colors of the characters and no beards on the women seems to be the most divisive parts of the trailer so far, along with the 3 or so made up characters that have been revealed thus far ... And possibly to a lesser extent the shortening of the time period. But it's a TV show meant for a wide audience... Not only the book fans.

When it comes to historical epics or fantasy from Tolkien and others, I don't mind it being all-white. I also don't mind skin color changes (remember, elves are a race apart from men... So color can't be a race... Race is, after all, a made up concept whose definition has changed over time) in the books. As long as the core concepts are still the same. That's why I didn't mind the changes in certain movies from the books I've read ... Like Jurassic Park.

As far as Disa is concerned, I think the aesthetic is why they didn't have her or other dwarven females look like the dwarf males. Otherwise it would have looked like an all male species that effs each other and can't procreate. Human perception wouldn't suspend their disbelief. A, in my honest opinion, necessary change.

I don't know everything about the lore but I'm willing to give the show a try. It better not be of the same "quality" as The Hobbit was... Else I'll just stop watching.
 
J

jason10mm

Gold Member
DeafTourette said:
As far as Disa is concerned, I think the aesthetic is why they didn't have her or other dwarven females look like the dwarf males. Otherwise it would have looked like an all male species that effs each other and can't procreate. Human perception wouldn't suspend their disbelief. A, in my honest opinion, necessary change.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, a female bearded dwarf "indistinguishable to human eyes" would look ridiculous. But the females are also supposed to be incredibly reclusive and hidden away, so I hope that is what we are seeing.

I don't think so though. I suspect there will be significant deviations just to have a female dwarf with, in the end, little significance other than representation. I doubt she is gonna lay with a human male or something that means her character MUST be female. Maybe she is the wife to a dwarf that forges a ring (or forges one herself most like).
 
SirKicksalot

SirKicksalot

Member
Bearded female dwarves were already shown in The Hobbit (and Witcher Season 2)

Kimahri said:
Aragorn and Gandalf, the middle class heroes we deserve.

Have people who write this shit even read the books?
Click to expand...

They probably identify with movie Aragorn because he struggles to accept his duty.
Meanwhile book Aragorn is screaming at everyone that's he's the rightful king and is on his way to take the throne.
 
Last edited:
OmegaSupreme

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
Diversity casting aside is this based on any actual Lord of the RIngs fiction? If not this is pure fanfic and I have no interest in it if so.
 
lifa-cobex

lifa-cobex

Member
Ulysses 31 said:
Amazon unlisted this "superfans" review, I wonder why... :messenger_winking_tongue:

Click to expand...

"Super fans"
Within the first two minutes they aren't happy because of lack of representation.

K

I really do try to be open minded about future content around things I enjoy.
Shit like this doesn't make it easy.

I shit on the Hobbit films as it was one of my favorite books growing up.
Doing a bit of research later showed me what a shit show the whole thing was to put together. I can give some respect for that.

This has nothing of value.
 
Last edited:
Tams

Tams

Member
sol_bad said:
So I found out this Corey Olsen guy has been doing LOTR's classes in LOTR's online since the start of 2017, there are over 250 videos. I guess I know what I'll be watching over the next year. lol

Click to expand...

Better than Amazon's rubbish already.

But not for me. Academia kills literature for me. No, there's really no need to talk about 'the new white gate'. :messenger_sleeping:
 
IDKFA

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Ulysses 31 said:
Amazon unlisted this "superfans" review, I wonder why... :messenger_winking_tongue:

Click to expand...


Tolkien and his son, Christopher, would be apoplectic with rage if they were alive to see this.

Absolutely insulting to Tolkien. All these people care about are representation and sexy Sauron in a nightclub. I wonder if the writers will try and dumb down the language to appeal to the younger generation their aiming for? Maybe throw in a few modern slang words to really connect with the audience?
 
darrylgorn

darrylgorn

Member
If your beef with this is because of wokism or beards or some shit, then you shouldn't really be interested in this in the first place and you're just setting yourself up for some obvious disappointment.

Let it go.

Legitimate criticism will be moreso about whether or not the plot is captivating or original enough, not about how accurately it reflects Tolkien's works.
 
Last edited:
BigBooper

BigBooper

Member
IDKFA said:
Tolkien and his son, Christopher, would be apoplectic with rage if they were alive to see this.

Absolutely insulting to Tolkien. All these people care about are representation and sexy Sauron in a nightclub. I wonder if the writers will try and dumb down the language to appeal to the younger generation their aiming for? Maybe throw in a few modern slang words to really connect with the audience?
Click to expand...
Probably going to have Gandolf talking about how much Ghaladriel slaps.
 
sol_bad

sol_bad

Member
IDKFA said:
Tolkien and his son, Christopher, would be apoplectic with rage if they were alive to see this.

Absolutely insulting to Tolkien. All these people care about are representation and sexy Sauron in a nightclub. I wonder if the writers will try and dumb down the language to appeal to the younger generation their aiming for? Maybe throw in a few modern slang words to really connect with the audience?
Click to expand...

I don't think you should try and translate and project your thoughts into someone you don't even know.
 
SirKicksalot

SirKicksalot

Member
darrylgorn said:
If your beef with this is because of wokism or beards or some shit, then you shouldn't really be interested in this in the first place and you're just setting yourself up for some obvious disappointment.

Let it go.

Legitimate criticism will be moreso about whether or not the plot is captivating or original enough, not about how accurately it reflects Tolkien's works.
Click to expand...

If you like or care about Tolkien's worldbuilding, this wokeism and beards shit is legitimate criticism.
We also have a good example of a creator mostly respecting his worldbuilding. When he didn't (FOTR time compression, elves at Helm's Deep, Azog as a foe) it was because of the needs of the movie as a medium. Same creator totally shat the bed with some choices, but at least he was consistent.
Rewatching The Hobbit, the shitty love subplot is barely there and is a minor edit away from turning into something else - which is quite obviously being attempted in their prison scene. If you cut Thranduil's line in BOTFA you might as well pretend it's not a love plot.
 
sol_bad

sol_bad

Member
SirKicksalot said:
If you like or care about Tolkien's worldbuilding, this wokeism and beards shit is legitimate criticism.
We also have a good example of a creator mostly respecting his worldbuilding. When he didn't (FOTR time compression, elves at Helm's Deep, Azog as a foe) it was because of the needs of the movie as a medium. Same creator totally shat the bed with some choices, but at least he was consistent.
Rewatching The Hobbit, the shitty love subplot is barely there and is a minor edit away from turning into something else - which is quite obviously being attempted in their prison scene. If you cut Thranduil's line in BOTFA you might as well pretend it's not a love plot.
Click to expand...

I read that none of the characters are really described in the books, is this true?
 
J

jason10mm

Gold Member
darrylgorn said:
If your beef with this is because of wokism or beards or some shit, then you shouldn't really be interested in this in the first place and you're just setting yourself up for some obvious disappointment.

Let it go.

Legitimate criticism will be moreso about whether or not the plot is captivating or original enough, not about how accurately it reflects Tolkien's works.
Click to expand...
Amazon paid 250 MILLION or more just for the rights to this material. Why, if they were just gonna twist it all? If the only semblance to the material are the character names, what's the point? Turning Tolkein into generic fantasy like they did with Wheet of Time is the tragedy we don't want to happen.
 
SirKicksalot

SirKicksalot

Member
sol_bad said:
I read that none of the characters are really described in the books, is this true?
Click to expand...

Amazon only has the TV rights to The Hobbit, LOTR and the LOTR Appendices. The show is based on the first sections of LOTR Appendices A and B. This is less than 3000 words in total. Maybe add 200 for a short mention of how Sauron got to Mordor and was then BTFO in the Fellowship prologue.
There is very little characterisation in those sections. All it says about Galadriel is that "she's the greatest of all Elven women", is married and had a brother.
On some existing characters they can add details from the main LOTR text.

Now that never stopped Jackson; Legolas is implied to know what Galadriel's gift to Gimli means although it's not mentioned in The Hobbit, LOTR or the appendices. He also used Ted Nasmith's artwork without Nasmith being officially involved (it's the main influence on outdoors lighting and colour scheme).
 
sol_bad

sol_bad

Member
SirKicksalot said:
Amazon only has the TV rights to The Hobbit, LOTR and the LOTR Appendices. The show is based on the first sections of LOTR Appendices A and B. This is less than 3000 words in total. Maybe add 200 for a short mention of how Sauron got to Mordor and was then BTFO in the Fellowship prologue.
There is very little characterisation in those sections. All it says about Galadriel is that "she's the greatest of all Elven women", is married and had a brother.
On some existing characters they can add details from the main LOTR text.

Now that never stopped Jackson; Legolas is implied to know what Galadriel's gift to Gimli means although it's not mentioned in The Hobbit, LOTR or the appendices. He also used Ted Nasmith's artwork without Nasmith being officially involved (it's the main influence on outdoors lighting and colour scheme).
Click to expand...

So Tolkien never described his characters. Tolkien left those details to the readers and readers can picture the characters however they want?

Ted Nasmith envisioned those characters in his mind's eye, that's his version of the characters / creatures. Another artist will have another interpretation.

Even LOTRO allows people to change skin colour and I never saw anyone up in arms about that.
 
SirKicksalot

SirKicksalot

Member
The characters Amazon will use are described in detail in Tolkien's Silmarillion and the other books published after his death, but they can't use that information.
Everyone thought they bought the rights to The Silmarillion, at least. A week ago Amazon confirmed they didn't.
So now they're making 50 hours of television based on 3000 words and two books that have almost nothing to do with the show. Hence the OC black elf - single human mother romance and Galadriel going on spec-ops missions in the mountains of Afghanistan to search for bin Laden.

Thinking back on Amazon's secrecy, 2nd age map tease and first image showing some of the earliest material in the timeline... They were hinting at having a much larger license than they actually have. What they have is exactly what Jackson's movies had, but for TV. Their teasers were really scummy. The internet exploded last year when they revealed the first image because people thought they have the rights to adapt the super cool stuff and beloved characters that weren't accessible to Jackson. Turns out they only have a list of events and character names and they're making shit up to package them into a story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Still Reportedly on Track for Five Seasons Despite Ratings Decline
News
28
4K
sono replied
What if the Seinfeld characters were the “heroes” of Lord of the Rings?
9
553
Pegasus Actual replied
Rings of Power Season 2 Trailer Released
News 8 9 10 11 12
560
34K
8bitpill replied
The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim | Official Trailer | Dec. 11 (Internationally) Dec. 13 (US)
2 3 4
155
8K
AJUMP23 replied
Silent Hill 2 Remake Director Pitched A Lord Of The Rings Horror Game
8
607
Badlucktroll replied
Top Bottom