Amazon's billion dollar Lord of the Rings Review Bombed!

I hate when idiots do this because it detracts from legitimate criticisms about the characters and story.

It allows people to dismiss these criticisms as trolling.

People are tired of the over the top diversity shit.

I watched the first two episodes.

Unimpressed.

Britannia is WAY better.

If all the hobbits are not Trans Womyn of Color with gigantism then I’m not watching.

The commercials now are about 96% black. Yay!

Is this the requisite culture wars "anti woke" thread of the day?

Yawn...

[quote]The diversity casting panned by the audience!

People who review-bomb TV shows and movies aren't reflective of the general audience, they are rage-filled incels like yourself. I know a couple of people here on DL want to turn back the clock when it comes to the new way Hollywood does casting, but we're not going back. This show and other shows with black people will thrive and you'll get over it eventually. Or you won't, I don't give a shit, but you'll definitely land on my ignore list as soon as I get as much as a whiff of your snowflakey complaints.

The funny thing is, Matt Damon was cast in that Great Wall movie happened in ancient China, say what you want, it's a diversity casting too 😂 but the Chinese audience didn't buy it, the movie tanked!

China ain’t going to see Tiffany Haddish movies.

tbh it looks uncharismatically slow, who has time 4 that?

Oh, look, and OP is replying to himself, talking about some random movie from 2016 because he's crazy that way. Why am I not surprised.

Diversity has nothing to do with whether a tv show—or anything—is good or bad. It’s just a thing racists can point to pin the blame on something they don’t like.

I’m watching the latest Jurassic Park movie and since all the legacy leads are white they have compensated by making every single secondary or tertiary role a person of color. It’s absurd.

[quote] since all the legacy leads are white they have compensated by making every single secondary or tertiary role a person of color.

Reckon if I were POC, I'd find that more offensive than not being represented at all. Tokenistic and superficially-pandering, in a lot of ways. Old '90s sitcoms used to do that a lot.

Trolling Trump rallies = good. Trolling forced diversity productions = bad.

hollywierd doesn't know how to write anything that has black people in a setting that makes sense or is just normal. They force everything or make slave/civil rights shows

R16 LOL you rethug trolls give it away when you say hollyweird.

I doubt whether negative review-bombs on RT will make a difference. People will either like this show or they'll hate it.

"Bridgerton" was an enormous success because the producers were lighthearted about its diversity and were not trying to deliver moralizing messages. But audiences mostly stay away from movies or TV shows that deliver oversimplistic woke messaging ("Lovecraft Company," for example, was a ratings disaster despite the terrific cast).

It will be interesting to see what happens with this. I don't mind diverse casting at all, but I do object to woke messaging about today's politics worked into a storyline that originally had nothing about it: so based on the reviews I've read, I'm consciously staying away from "The Rings of Power", while I'm happily watching "House of the Dragon" (which has more black actors than "Game of Thrones," but does not have woke messaging in it otherwise).

R18 It's getting more positive responses than negative, with "I was expecting shit but it's good/decent" and the incels of course are saying those aren't real tolkein fans or paid amazon shills

Do you know anything about Hollywood history? R17 and I forgot to add weird tribal Africa stories too.

I can understand the diversity in Bridgerton since it’s a new franchise/IP of a historical fiction and diversity casting is one of the main draws for the series. But LotR is an established franchise with previous movies and books. It’s clearly based on Germanic, Norse, and Old English/Welsh mythology so having non-white characters seems out of place. That’s my opinion as an Asian-American.

There's black people on the TV again!

"People are tired of the over the top diversity shit."

How dare they cast non-white people in a fictional imaginary world!!!! Imaginary characters are only allowed to be Caucasian

"It’s clearly based on Germanic, Norse, and Old English/Welsh mythology so having non-white characters seems out of place. That’s my opinion as an Asian-American."

It's clearly based on MADE UP shit so who cares what the cares what the characters look like? My opinion is that you're probably white like 99% of the datalounge but pretending to be Asian to sound less racist. Like the PA Republican politician who was caught pretending to be black online

"hollywierd doesn't know how to write anything that has black people in a setting that makes sense or is just normal. They force everything or make slave/civil rights shows"

Hi, I'm a freeper who rants against "Hollyweird" but I can't go a single day without obsessing over tv shows, movies, songs, and other pop culture! There are plenty of "normal" shows about black people but you don't know what they are because, like most Trump voters, you avoid anything with black people in it

Watched the first couple of episodes, I thought it was better than that messy dragon thing currently on HBO.

R18 Bridgerton fans are way different than the toxic straightboy fans of Rings. These are the same little boys that lose their shit when they don’t agree with Marvel casting.

[quote]I’m watching the latest Jurassic Park movie and since all the legacy leads are white they have compensated by making every single secondary or tertiary role a person of color. It’s absurd.

But, then there's Ian Malcolm's daughter from the second movie. I mean, she's not even close to looking half white, or half Goldlum in any way. It was ridiculous.

Racism and hypocrisy is bankrupting American cinema.

^^^ ARE, not is

I love the series so far. I like the casting, like Sophia Nomvete as Princess Disa, mending the fractured relationship between her husband and Elrond.

But then, I am not hung up on honoring source material to the T.

I'm afraid there are only so many hours in a day. So many weeks in a year. And so many years in a life.

I saw and liked the Peter Jackson adaptation 20 years like most people and to be frank I'd rather watch them again than watch this.

I'm an Amazon Prime member but they keep bombarding me with promotional material for it. I don't know why - I'm already a member and isn't what they want. Whether I watch it or not they still get my membership fee every month.

Nothing will live up to the original LOTR trilogy. When that was released twenty years ago there was nothing else like it, and there was no pandering to studio execs or focus groups. Peter Jackson and his team had an original, artistic vision and brought it to life in a very heartfelt way. That context is no longer existing in 2022.

In my experience, the people who go crazy for the sci-fi/fantasy genre are usually on the spectrum, and they get VERY angry when you mess with the source material in any way.

The critics don't like it either. It's just that they are too scared to say so b/c they don't want to look like racists. The fans are being honest because we can review without it biting us in the ass later--anonymity!

That's the deal.

Now sit back and peruse all the virtue -signaling reviews from DLers!

[quote] It's clearly based on MADE UP shit

Oh, I refuse to watch that, R22.

No females in Tolkein.

No Jamaicans in Tolkein.

Oh, the problem the die-hard fans have MUST be the diversity! How can it be anything else? The tv show is THE SAME AS THE LOTR BOOKS / MOVIES, except for the diversity!

NO. The show is NOT up to Peter Jackson, let alone Tolkien quality, diversity or not. The producers refuse to listen. Maybe, y'all should have taken a hint months ago when you previewed the show for the first time? Because, in the end, it doesn't matter why the LOTR fans don't like it. It really only matters that they don't like it. And, just as importantly, most non-fantasy fans won't be watching the show anyway!

I write. I know the true value of HONEST FEEDBACK. Be grateful for it. It allows you to change things to please the only folks who care to watch fantasy shows on TV. Change of direction, midstream. Fan feedback is invaluable. Real artists no this and don't take it so personally. From Twitter, I've learned that the Rings of Power showrunners are either children or NOT ARTISTS. God knows, they cannot take any criticism without lashing out at the open fan feedback. They call our opinions "illegitimate" and "bad faith."

Stupid fuckers don't deserve a hit show.

I liked it. The elf lady was cool.

We should definitely listen to R37 on all things TolKIEN. Idiot.

R27, I believe she was adopted.

I thought the source material for the film are actually Tolkien’s outlines which allowed the producers/writers more freedom in interpreting the material.

The Puerto Rican elf is hot, why they pair him with that old white cracker bitch?

R12

And progressives blame racism or other bigotries for why something with a diverse cast failed.

The all-female Ghostbusters was trash regardless of casting.

R31

They might be hoping for word of mouth. I also heard that Amazon has been marketing this thing to its own employees, which they've allegedly never done before. Amazon's scared.

Which is the Puerto Rican elf?

I thought he was Jamaican?

Hear, hear, OP.

At this point, my conspiracy theory is that Amazon purposely made it so bad and sparked a new culture war to distract attention from their shitty business practice and employee treatment 😂

R34 absolutely, the time has changed, the cancellation culture already silenced the journalists and scholars, the film critics are no exception either. If a film critic dares to challenge or question the diversity casting or trans narrative, the only reaction he or she will receive is "you are cancelled!", people won't even bother to listen to their arguments.

Once again these companies have mistaken people wanting a meritocracy that eliminates unfair biases against people of color with a bottomless appetite for brown and black trauma narratives.

There can be more than one story. When did we forgo the opportunity to talk about fucking ANYTHING else other than racism? What’s the point of rebooting any of this IP if it’s just gonna be some veiled story about what shit white people are or endless boohooing?

“Nobody has a problem with people of colour…” but the show is “sullied” by their presence….?

Oh-kay.

Oh, you poor snowflakes.

This whole thread is like “say you’re racist without telling me you’re racist.”

This whole thread is like “say you’re Puerto Rican without telling me you’re Puerto Rican.”

Miriam Margolyes plays The Joker In The Pack

R47 Is retarded

R47 actually that sounds more than plausible. Would be very much in their line.

What books are these based on?

[quote]It’s clearly based on Germanic, Norse, and Old English/Welsh mythology so having non-white characters seems out of place.

The stories have been used for role-playing games for decades now, and are the basis for probably thousands of fantasy works (and fanfic), all of which involve people of various races, countries and cultures. Most anyone who is a fan of fantasy or Tolkien will have seen people of all races play (or cosplay) elves or hobbits or what have you. I can't imagine who the people complaining about Tolkien adaptations not being "white enough" are, although I suspect it's probably young conservative types who play video games a lot and haven't read a book or gone to a social event since grade school.

Maybe the problem is timing not diversity. It seems there is a time and season for everything. Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings storylines are just not en vogue right now. Especially with older people who were big fans of the Peter Jackson trilogy. I currently just don't care about a Lord of the Rings series. Maybe they should have waited another 10-20 years. Vampires are also not en vogue right now after Twilight, True Blood, Vamire Diaries and all the other vampire franchises in the late 00s.

Peter Jackson's films of LOTR had some Maori's in them playing background characters.

Just from the look of the characters in R53's video I can tell this show is a piece of junk.

There are a lot of Puerto Ricans in this thread?

I did not know that.

Not that I would watch this piece of shit at any price.

Middle Earthers must be all white or else I’m not watching!!

In this era the critics are bought and PAID.

I watched the first episode yesterday. It’s pretty good.

There are two black male characters.

Seriously, that’s turning people off? Then, we the problem is with the people, not the show.

Wakanda!

Ismael Cruz Córdova is smokin hot

Tolkien wrote the Lord of The Rings at a time when diversity wasn't really thought about as much or at all. The setting of his works is also a fantasy world, but modeled after medieval settings, probably from England. So it's not surprising he wouldn't have written in many non-white characters.

As for the show, I personally would not care who is cast so long as I am not brow-beaten about diversity and racism along with it. It's Middle-Earth and the races include Elves, Halflings and Orcs, for Heaven's sake! That is diverse enough.

It's the heavy-handedness that goes along with the diversity casting that is the turn off in most of these shows. We want Middle-Earth, fantasy/adventure and a good story to that end, not a college ethnic or gender studies course.

I *do* have an issue with diverse casting in historical dramas in which it is completely anachronistic. It ruins it. If having a racially diverse cast is so important, find a story that fits it. Otherwise it's a bit silly and we might as well throw a lot of historical dramas in the garbage and just not make them at all. Fantasy films *can* be an exception to this, in my opinion, but focus on the fantasy and a good story, not lecturing everyone about contemporary social justice crap.

[Quote] Tolkien wrote the Lord of The Rings at a time when diversity wasn't really thought about as much or at all. The setting of his works is also a fantasy world, but modeled after medieval settings, probably from England. So it's not surprising he wouldn't have written in many non-white characters.

Wow, that’s alot of twisted logic. Yes, his works are a fantasy world with dwarves and elves and such. He likely didn’t think about their races but that just means an actor of any race can be put into those roles.

[Quote] I *do* have an issue with diverse casting in historical dramas in which it is completely anachronistic.

Funny how people focus solely on race when no one cares about how accurate height, weight, costumes, language, etc are.

No one spoke English in historical France but you don’t hold that against a drama do you?

[quote] Which is the Puerto Rican elf?

The one [italic]en la repisa.[/italic]

Can't the minorities play the trees? they would make great Ents.

Well it's a hit, 25 million people viewed it on day 1.

R63 Sure incel

IMDB has definitely deleted the low viewer ratings/reviews and kept the high ones.

Maybe this is wrong or somehow offensive, but privately I always read the Jackson LOTR/Hobbit movies as a loosely multi-national/ethnic/religious universe--Dwarves a loose cognate for European itinerant Jews, Men for secular Western Europeans, Hobbits for Brits (esp. Welsh/Cornish), Elves & Orcs for Nordic peoples.

Dunno how to categorise the Ents or the Wizards, though. Maybe the Wizards are the ancient fantasy equivalent of our tech/Ph arma overlords.

[Quote]IMDB has definitely deleted the low viewer ratings/reviews and kept the high ones.

Not surprised since Amazon bought IMDB and is now slowly destroying a perfectly functional site with unnecessary updates and bias.

R69, even funnier when these same assholes throw a fit over "racial accuracy" in something with dragons and elves, but are fine with biblical films portraying Jesus as looking like a SoCal surfer.

Hollywood history is based on hundreds of films with inaccurate casting, yet only NOW are you bitching? Do you even comprehend the idiocy of your argument, esp., when it involves films/TV with fucking mystical/mythical creatures or any Sci-fi crap?

I've seen people upset that the character of the main female is too changed. Maybe to make her more aggressive or something. Maybe some other characters as well. I don't know ese stories and I'm not interested enough to find out. But it was definitely not just diversity in terms of race that has fans or whatever they are upset.

It's like what they did with The Time Traveler's Wife. In addition to many other flaws in that new production, the writer and director totally changed the character of the Wife which made the narrative make little sense and turned a previously rather more sympathetic character into an unlikeable, obnoxious grating heroine.

Amazon broke a long-held precedent Saturday by revealing viewership data for a Prime Video series for the first time ever, making the exception on remaining tight-lipped about its internal TV ratings for its big-budget “The Lord of the Rings” TV series.

According to the e-commerce giant, “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” was viewed by 25 million viewers globally over the initial 24 hours that the TV series’ first two episodes were available for streaming on Prime Video in 240 countries and territories.

R79 Except those are fake outrage nerds, galadriel was a fierce warrior before she became the cate blanchett galadriel everyone knows and loves. Not to mention she's the most powerful elf in middle earth.

I viewed the first 2 episodes last evening. Visually spectacular, both exteriors and the CG. It played fast and loose with canon, as, to be fair, every one of the Tolkien screen adaptations have done.

I felt it dragged in spots, the Meteor Man sequences and Galadriel Adrift in particular. Introducing an Elf/Human romance in episode 1 was frankly a strange choice. It now seems to be established fact that Harfeet are Irish, Elves are English, and Dwarves are Scottish.

Not into LoTR so I’m speaking somewhat generally based on some context, but — isn’t the ethnic background of a humanoid character in Middle Earth completely irrelevant to the story?

Like if you take The Great Gatsby and make some of the characters black, I could see how you could argue that it fundamentally changes the story because it should bring acknowledged wrinkles about racial politics to the story. If you just ignore it, it does just feel like a diversity casting for diversity’s sake.

LotR would have absolutely NONE of the same racial hangups that we have irl. They would have some, but it would be more likely that all elves or hobbits of any skin color would be racist against the tree guys, or be bigoted against dragons. Like, the racial makeup of the cast is just completely irrelevant, so sure, why not cast whoever they want to?

[quote] LotR would have absolutely NONE of the same racial hangups that we have irl. They would have some, but it would be more likely that all elves or hobbits of any skin color would be racist against the tree guys, or be bigoted against dragons.

Lmao at thinking about any Middle-Earth denizen trying to racially-abuse Smaug

seriously though the entire Elf/Dwarf conflict in the THE HOBBIT turned somewhat racial in later centuries did it not? it started over resource dispute and a skirmish gone wrong but then it devolved into full on race wars

R83 Middle earth is supposed to be our world in a long forgotten time, so of course black, brown etc. People would exist in Middle earth but incel nerds have selective memory over tolkeins world.

Any people who are seriously arguing about the logic of Lord of the Rings are simply insane and deranged.

[quote]Like, the racial makeup of the cast is just completely irrelevant, so sure, why not cast whoever they want to?

After watching the first two episodes

1. It's a bit boring and I can't tell where all that money went.

2. The problem is I can't picture this Galadriel growing up into the one from the Jackson movies because Cate was so damn good at the role.

3. The race of the actors is completely irrelevant and most of the cast is still white so I don't know why anyone is pissed. The wife of the Dwarf Prince was one of the best damn actors on the show. She was a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dull episode. The black elf isn't going to have a very special episode where he teaches the white elves about skin color. No one cares. Neither should the audience.

4. Just like we're used to from these stories the issues people have are between races and not within races. Men hate Elves. Dwarves have a problem with people who aren't Dwarves. Hobbits want nothing to do with Men or people who aren't hobbits. That's the only reality of the world.

[quote]'LOTR: The Rings Of Power’ Forges Biggest Premiere Ever For Amazon Prime Video With 25M Viewers

Good start, 1/8th of all Prime subscribers watched it.

[quote]What color is an elf? Or a Sea Snake? And why do you care?

R87 really, I'd call Hobbits benignly xenophobic, in the way of all comfortably-insular country folk, rather than racist. They are written as hospitable to travellers, and curious about Middle-Earth beyond their Shires, though. The same goes for the Dwarves, though they carry more bitterness and suspicion, understandably so.

The hostility and mistrust of Men toward Elves and vice versa is harder to explain. Fwiw, Legolas held great affection for both Boromir & Aragorn, almost as much as he did for Gimli--but, he was an atypical Elf, to say the least. In the books, Legolas was absolutely stricken with grief when Boromir was killed, even composing an elegy for him, which made the same death scene in the first live film feel like a cop-out (in FELLOWSHIP, Legolas just looks bemused to watch Boromir die).

[quote]I'd call Hobbits benignly xenophobic, in the way of all comfortably-insular country folk, rather than racist.

I agree with you R90. I think some racism is rooted in simply not knowing or understanding people from other races and not necessarily a raw hatred. Sometimes it makes people afraid, confused, suspicious and not necessarily violent towards someone else. I think Xenophobic is probably a better word but in some cases I feel like there's an overlap.

The online reviews are being massaged by the sites which get advertising from studios. The studio's narrative is they're victims of "review bombed" but it actually seems to be just the opposite. LOL

Breaks it down perfectly. Hilarious vid.

[quote]even funnier when these same assholes throw a fit over "racial accuracy" in something with dragons and elves, but are fine with biblical films portraying Jesus as looking like a SoCal surfer.

What about the people who have a problem with historically inaccurate racial casting AND white surfer Jesus? You know, the rational people. Not everyone was everywhere doing everything throughout history. Should we let white people play slaves in a movie, too? How about a Chinese aborigine? A woman playing George Washington? (How Miranda got away with his abject sexist attitude toward casting women in any of the historically male roles while changing all the races I'll never know.)

History is history. Reality is reality. Write new stories.

^ ever heard of revisionist history, it's happening these days more than ever

The series is based on the Silmarillion which was finished and released by Christopher Tolkien, who inherited the estate and IP rights. It’s pretty telling how Amazon waited for him to die in 2020 before butchering the franchise and fan base to satisfy current identity culture. But of course current generation CANNOT possibly identify or relate with any character on-screen unless they LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THEM. So now we have to have at least one of every race, gender, sexuality, and level of disability to satisfy viewers. Amazon and corporations like Disney love making these shows to earn points with progressives so they ignore all the other shitty things do and treat their employees.

R92 Fuck off with those alt right chuds, those channels push homophobic, racist shit.

R95 imo the Silm should never have been adapted, because technically it's not a finished work nor one that J.R.R. wanted published. Seems scabby to put it on film.

[Quote] History is history. Reality is reality.

These arent documentaries

[quote]Should we let white people play slaves in a movie, too? How about a Chinese aborigine? A woman playing George Washington?

There's a difference between all of this and a black Elf in Middle-Earth and I'm sure you know that.

R91 You're from the 21st century and you're trying to understand behaviour from the 12th century.

You're assuming and you're guessing.

[quote]You're assuming and you're guessing.

You're totally right, R100. My mistake. Humanity has changed so much over the past few hundred years. Love is different now. Hate is different now. Fear is totally different now. When people were afraid in the 12th century they vomited and shit themselves and now they go on Datalounge and post nonsense like you because you're bored and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

My mistake. My bad. Thank you so much for educating me on ... what what people were like in the 12 century in a fantasy novel or? What the fuck were you saying?

[quote]The series is based on the Silmarillion

No, it is explicitly not based on the Silmarillion. As a matter of fact, they are having to bend over backwards because they do not have the rights to the Silmarillion or any of the Unfinished Tales stories.

Second, the Second Age is the least documented period with the fewest stories written by Tolkien covering it.

[quote]It’s pretty telling how Amazon waited for him to die in 2020 before butchering the franchise

Christopher Tolkien is on record as despising the Jackson adaptation of LotR.

As far as races, JRR Tolkien stated in his numerous letters that he was attempting to create a distinctively English mythology. Now, whether that does or does not include any form of racial diversity is open to debate. Most likely, given the period and this stated intent, probably not, but there is no definitive answer to whether there are darker skinned elves.

What we do know is that ALL elves are envisioned as beautiful. I'm more upset about Elrdon, Gil-galad, and Celebrimbor not being hot (like Finrod Felagund, Galadriel's brother who died) than I am about a hot black guy playing an elf - girls, get your priorities straight, ahem, here.

can we all just take a moment to be pissed that in 3 LOTR adaptations across 40 years Gimli/Legolas have still not been allowed to be gay as they were in the book. that's more outrageous than the race shit or whatever the fuck.

and no i don't give a fuck that it wouldn't be 'aesthetically pleasing' as a screen pairing for modern audiences because IN CANON Gim though short and ginge and hairy and tattooed all to hell is legit considered the hottest most eligible bachelor in Erebor (his family keep trying to marry him off to princesses and shit) while Legs is tall and slender but by the beauty standards of his people is actually an ugly plain homely trashy elf!!! and that's that!!!!!!

[quote] Love is different now. Hate is different now. Fear is totally different now

Aeroplanes are different now. The Internet is different now. TV is totally different now.

Those people in the shire had none of that. And they didn't have the ability to make assumptions about people who lived ten centuries different to them.

[quote] Fuck off with those alt right chuds, those channels push homophobic, racist shit.

No, R96, you fuck off. There is nothing racist or homophobic about The Quartering. He is not right wing. You don't know wtf you're talking about.

You don't like anyone disagreeing with you. Typical totalitarian tactic. Call everyone right wing who doesn't fall in lock step with your ideology.

A billion dollars for a stupid TV show.

It’s gotten stellar reviews. Almost 90% on Rotten Tomatoes

R106 A billion dollars could have housed every homeless American and every newly-arrived foreign freeloader.

Critics can’t be honest today.

I believe a lot of people have watched this.

R99, which is why I wasn't talking about the fantasy realm but historical accuracy. But, I'm sure you knew that.

So, I assume that you are okay with Hamilton's casting and an Indian David Copperfield? You must also then be okay with a white slave portrayal or a Chinese aboriginal character, right? Or, is it only bad when it's white people doing it and fine when it's other races doing it? If you believe that black George Washington is fine then white Jesus must be fine, too. The arguments over any future Cleopatra movies will be epic in their hypocrisy. She was a Greek but watch the outcry if anyone other than a black actress is cast.

Like I said, this is an argument between rationality and woke bullshitism, history and lies. Reality remains reality. Write new stories.

Billion dollar budget, zero for market research

Jesus Christ was white,white,white. Frodo and Bilbo Baggins too.

Jesus Christ was Jamaican, Mary Magdalene was Nigerian.Queen Victoria was Somoan/Tongan.

Are there gay, lesbian, trans, nonbinary, and asexual characters? And, I want an armless elf. And where's my dwarf that suffers from giganticism?? And, there better be a fucking albino orc! And, why aren't cows just as good as horses?? They have four legs and can both run, mostly. Stop bovine discrimination!!!

Jesus Christ had had blue eyes and blonde hair and Frodo tooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

[quote] nonbinary and asexual characters?

There’s some nerd somewhere who’s written a polemic that makes the case for a queer nonbinary Gollum. I just know it.

Any wheelchairs in middle earth?

R115 The execrable Hobbit trilogy featured the White Orc Azog, so you can tick that one off the list.

I agree, R102- hot as hell elves. I don't care what color. And harfoots and dwarves, color or creed are immaterial.

But clearly the woman healer's son is the black elf's, right? That casting is purposeful because the kid looks like he could be mixed... and she has brown eyes, whereas so many others are blue. I thought that it was a choice and his lack of a father is a big plot point and a twist will be that he'll grow to be a great half-elf warrior?

[Quote] Christopher Tolkien is on record as despising the Jackson adaptation of LotR.

What a fucking idiot. These are the best you’re going to get with those books

The culture War and gate keeping loser nerds have with fantasy is pathetic. Getting angry at black elfs, dwarves, Hobbits existing is not going to get you laid.

Black Hobbits.

Ha!

Half breed elves 🧝‍♂️

Jesus the films were boring as fuck. The film fans are fucking freaks.

[quote]Christopher Tolkien is on record as despising the Jackson adaptation of LotR.

[quote]What a fucking idiot. These are the best you’re going to get with those books

Well, he's dead now.

But, you are missing the point. The claim I was rebutting was that Amazon waited until he was dead before "butchering" the franchise. If the Jackson adaptation couldn't win his support, no adaptation was going to, so they likely neither waited, nor factored his opinion into any choices they made, one way or another.

[quote]Black Hobbits.

We have separate rooms for them.

Ha! 🧝‍♀️

[quote]So, I assume that you are okay with Hamilton's casting and an Indian David Copperfield? You must also then be okay with a white slave portrayal or a Chinese aboriginal character, right?

Hamilton is a dramatization of historical events. It's historical fiction. It's not meant to be 100% accurate. [bold]It never claims to be or tries to be. [/bold] Nobody busted out and had rap battles back then.

There's a difference between this and a biography, non-fiction, actual historical work that is attempting to be historically accurate in all representations.

If you're going to do it that way then do it that way. If you're not then have your fun and write what you want and cast who you want.

[quote]Or, is it only bad when it's white people doing it and fine when it's other races doing it?

Here's the part where you try and use hyperbole to make sense when the foundation of your argument doesn't quite work.

There's a difference between everything else you listed, Hamilton and this. Bridgerton isn't meant to be historically accurate and can tell the story it wants. The Cleopatra movie, if it wants to be historically accurate, should cast the right people.

This isn't a weird distinction for most people. It seems to be for you.

[quote] Hamilton is a dramatization of historical events. It's historical fiction. It's not meant to be 100% accurate. It never claims to be or tries to be.

Yes, R129. Sexy Eric agrees with you. Whatever you say is OK.

I agree with r129. There are clearly distinctions between fiction and works intended to depict or assert historicity, even if fictional.

Additionally, I would add that authorial intent matters. I'd argue that the "story" something like Hamilton is telling requires the cast NOT to be white, even in the face of historical accuracy. In turn, Edward Albee's estate denied approval to a production of one of his plays because they wanted to cast a black person in a key role as that would fly directly in the face of authorial intent - it would change his play.

The line gets blurred when you start talking about stuff like Shakespeare. Does Othello need to be black? Does Hamlet need to be white? They cast white men as Othello for years, yet people still get bent out of shape if you don't cast a white Hamlet.

At the same time, could someone decide the "story" they want to tell whitewashes? Anthony Hopkins in Roth's The Human Stain - where does that stand? Christian Bale and Joel Eggerton in Exodus: Gods and Monsters?

It's terrible but I think the younger generation has lower standards so they probably like it.

Dr. Eric Cervini says a Hispanic transvestite created The Stonewall Revolution so it's OK to have Jamaicans and Nubians in the Celtic Elf-Land.

R129, why did you skip over defending an Indian David Copperfield? Is there any realm of reality where David Copperfield, in the setting of that book, could have been an Indian man?

My main problem with Hamilton, as I mentioned in another post and was referencing back to, was the sexism that wasn't called out. He could change all the races but absolutely refused to change the sexes of any of them because that would have messed up his story. He never explains exactly how.

[quote]The Cleopatra movie, if it wants to be historically accurate, should cast the right people.

Who are the "right" people? Why couldn't you say it? What sort of uproar do you expect when they cast the "right" people? It proves my point about this being a one-sided issue.

[quote]Or, is it only bad when it's white people doing it and fine when it's other races doing it?

Why don't you answer this? Because it seems that you are actually going by it.

[quote]At the same time, could someone decide the "story" they want to tell whitewashes? Anthony Hopkins in Roth's The Human Stain - where does that stand? Christian Bale and Joel Eggerton in Exodus: Gods and Monsters?

When Armando Iannucci cast Dev Patel in The Personal History of David Copperfield, he explicitly stated that he didn't want anyone watching any other adaptations or even reading the book. It was his interpretation of it and it just so happens the Dickensian Society loved it and said it was one of the best ones they'd seen.

Like you touched base on: the story (no matter what it is) is often influenced by the person retelling it.

We saw Peter Jackson's interpretation of Tolkien. Now we're seeing Patrick McKay's version of it. In both cases they're retelling a work of fiction that is based off of something historical but still not meant to be accurate because at its root, it is fantasy.

I really did find the black Anne Boleyn a step too far, but mainly because the actress was fucking shit. She did not just ignore playing the period, her accent was too modern.

In this instance, who would give a fuck. It is fantasy, let them be whatever. And the black PR elf is hot as chips.

And the racist biblethumpers want to interpret Jesus as a blue-eyed white blonde with flowing hair. It's their interpretation of that work of fiction even though it goes against history, geography, and genetics. Does it being their interpretation make it right because they say it is so? That's a slippery slope considering the other things those people believe.

[quote]When Armando Iannucci cast Dev Patel in The Personal History of David Copperfield, he explicitly stated that he didn't want anyone watching any other adaptations or even reading the book. It was his interpretation of it and it just so happens the Dickensian Society loved it and said it was one of the best ones they'd seen.

Then he should have written something original.

And, the second part is reiterating what has already been said above. Do you really think the Dickensian Society could have said anything else and not faced horrible repercussions and cancellation?

R137 Who are you referencing?

R138 yeah, that David Copperfield was awful, mostly weird nonsense, like that Emma right before lockdown.

R139, I'm referencing the general posters on here who have been saying it is all artistic interpretation, so historical anachronism is fine.

[quote] I really did find the black Anne Boleyn a step too far…

Yes!

[quote]… but mainly because the actress was fucking shit.

And she did it in every scene.

R141 'ello, shall i cut you, should I cut a bitch, are you a bitch Jane Seymour...' So strange what they did.

R140 Oh yeah, that. Drives me crazy. Sloppy writing and acting.

I don’t really care about the diversity pandering in this series, I’m just curious to know how different races are explained in Middle Earth. Tolkien explains the history of elves, orcs, dwarves, hobbits, men, etc. So what’s the history of black, brown, and white skin? How did different races within these populations end up living together? Are we just supposed to pretend it doesn’t exist?

[quote] Are we just supposed to pretend it doesn’t exist?

Yes, we are. The Woke Religion demands we have BLIND FAITH and we must believe in the tenets of the new Woke Religion.

This blind faith demands we turn a blind eye to that irrational phenomenon you mention, R143.

OP, shut up. I'll make up my own mind.

Tolkien's characters make him look like he was misogynistic white supremacists, so fuck his lily white middle earth.

What bothers me is, elfs suppose to be pretty, that guy who plays Elrond is ugly as fuck.

R136 she was Anne Boleyn for Dollars!

[quote] irrational phenomenon

The inmates of the dystopian asylum in '1984' were told to believe that two plus two equals five.

We followers of the current dystopian Woke Religion are told to believe that black is white and that a male is a female.

There's only so much people can take before the pushback commences.

[quote]What bothers me is, elfs suppose to be pretty, that guy who plays Elrond is ugly as fuck.

They did that on purpose to trample on and defile white people in general and white men in particular.

Elves are supposed to be pretty? Since when?

Seriously, would you hook up with an elf?

The elves seem to be an overwhelmingly male society at least in public . Save for few exceptions females all reduced into playing helper/assistant or probably hiding at home.

The boat to Valinor looks tiny yet a dozen of them appear during the stripping ceremony only to disappeared again.

[quote] the stripping ceremony

Are these real men? Or pretend-men?

So far, the best storylines are given to female characters and a male black elf. No wonder the incels are livid.

R115 Hey dipshit, this is a GAY forum. Did you get lost on your way to r/incel?

You sound angry, R155.

R90 Hobbits are not benignly xenophobic - most are traditionalists. Bilbo isn't xenophobic, and neither is Sam's father who supports his son in learning elvish. Dwarves visit Bilbo regularly later, and he spends the end of his days with the elves. He also adopts his cousin Frodo without any hesitation. Bilbo just doesn't like anything intruding into his pleasant, peaceful, orderly life at first. Gandalf knows better of course so Bilbo goes on a journey that leaves him transformed. There are outwardly racist hobbits too, like Sandyman the miller who talks so badly about Frodo's late parents, Drogo and Primula Baggins. The official story is that their weight sunk the boat which killed them, but Sandyman suggests that they drowned each other. Sam's dad shuts him down, saying that boats are tricky enough as it is.

These sorts of adventure tales have always people who are stuck in their ways and want to hold on to the status quo, and then there is this one guy who wants to see what the rest of the world has to offer and challenge the status quo. Interestingly, that can apply to both the hero and the villain.

It’s hard to figure out who’s arguing who(m) in this thread anymore.

FYI the worst dirtbag racist fan boy dirtbag fanboys have been hating on this show for months, ever since they found out that the casting would be slightly diverse.

They like nothing better than to post.millions of negative reviews and ratings each, and they have nothing better to do with their free time.

Haters on social media?????? Will wonders ever cease?

R143/R150 there are ugly or plain or uncomely elves. or at least there are in the eyes of the other elves. As mentioned upthread, Legolas of the books is said by his own race to be one such (he's also implied to be a himbo and a bit of a meathead, amusingly). Just because Men or Hobbits or Dwarves (well, one or two Dwarves) are taken aback and awed by the ethereal strange radiance of Elves, doesn't mean that all Elves are therefore objectively beautiful or lovely to all eyes.

Even Gimli, who is essentially Legolas' life partner and husband, extols Galadriel's beauty but not that of Legolas (sounds like a DL-worthy gay relationship).

[quote] Tolkien explains the history of elves, orcs, dwarves, hobbits, men, etc. So what’s the history of black, brown, and white skin? How did different races within these populations end up living together? Are we just supposed to pretend it doesn’t exist?

The Riders of Rohan in Jackson's films were so grimy that it was hard to tell the exact ethnicity of some of them. Fitting, as Tolkien's Rohirrim are a beleaguered people, not known for hygiene, and seemingly would rather roam free with their horses and each other without stopping to bathe as an Elf might.

The Rohan are the Anglo-Saxons, surely?

[quote]Elves are supposed to be pretty? Since when?

Tolkien's elves are conceptualized as beautiful.

The part of the story that everyone seems to gloss over is that they're also immortal - when you "kill" one, they are sent to the halls of Mandos, but don't actually "die" in the manner that men do. The people of Numenor, excep the faithful led by Elendil, under the influence of Sauron, attempted to take immortality by invading Valinor.

This makes things like the First Kin Slaying of the Teleri by the Noldor revolt, among whom Galadriel was a leader, so strange to me. Why would it necessarily matter if they don't actually die and you are eventually reunited with your fallen friends and family. Sure, I suppose it might be painful to be tortured to death. But, that's what makes Arwen's choice so heartbreaking for Elrond. While he would eventually reunite with his wife Celebrian, when he leaves Arwen, she's gone forever.

Legolas and Gimli. were married?

Just stop reinterpreting - rather stop copying stupid modern misinterpretations of characters that Tolkien never meant. Have you never heard of loyal bonds between people without it being romantic or sexual? I imagine you have never been on a sports team or in the military or even had close friends.

The overwhelming desperate need to reinterpret the experiences of life and humans to fit some new ideology is nothing short of Orwellian.

[quote] I imagine you have never been on a sports team or in the military or even had close friends.

Very few DLers have experienced these things. We wouldn't be here if we had.

R167, you may be right. Maybe it's because of where I live but I know many gay men who live and have lived otherwise typically male lives - apart from sexually.

R156 And you sound like an ancient conservitard, mad cause it's not 1962 anymore. Fuck off.

CNN.

If a bunch of random white actors showed up as characters in a fantasy TV series clearly modelled on a mythic Afro-lore, e.g. the Tales of Sundiata or the Anansi stories or the Myths of Ífè or the lore of the Hausa, how would people of now react to that? What level of outrage would there be? Genuinely wondering.

Middle Earth is not supposed to have any black people.

Fantasy geeks be like:

What a great time to be alive.

I haven't seen the show but just looking at the picture from the link at R170, are they doing that thing where they put about three different races in one family and pretend they are all fully biologically related? There was some show or movie discussed on DL a month or so ago where the parents were full on white but the kid looked completely Asian and they were supposed to be 100% biologically related.

I think some of the reactions to adding different races to everything is coming from racists but some of it is coming from people who are sick of being asked to pretend reality doesn't matter anymore. Two white parents can't have an Asian kid. Men can never turn into women. David Copperfield could not have been Indian in the time and place the story takes place because an Indian man would not have been allowed to live that life at that point in history. How is that not erasing history in a different way than the usual way of just ignoring the racism of the past?

[quote]Fantasy geeks be like: What a great time to be alive.

Yeah, there was a time in bookstores when sci fi/fantasy was about 5-6 shelves, not bookcases, but shelves in total.

There was a time when even a bad adaptation would have had people jumping for joy that they had done anything.

R175 really? Cos I'm still waiting for my high-concept, high-budget, textually-faithful Dragonriders of Pern adaptation.

It's been half a century since the books came out, and a couple decades of the adaptation rights bouncing around in development Hell.

Just leave Lord of the Rings alone.

I'm not a huge fan but will watch. Is this series a prequel to the trilogy??

[quote]Is this series a prequel to the trilogy??

Yes, in that it covers the key events that led to the trilogy - the forging of the Rings of Power and the One Ring.

[quote]I'm not a huge fan but will watch. Is this series a prequel to the trilogy??

Why?

Instead of being scared of black Americans, we should go back to imprisoning them for the inordinate amount of crime they commit. Look at the Mexican immigrants. They work their way up without entitlement. Blacks just complain online when they’re not busy trying to buy overpriced sneakers and smoke weed. And sorry Garcelle - blacks are fucking horrible tippers. Facts.

Meh. 15 minutes in and I'm bored already. The acting is not good and I've lost interest.

I think the Tolkien estate should prohibit anymore films or TV shows on Lord of the Rings.

Good luck with that

Who's the female elf? She's awful, so is the guy who plays Elron. Terrible acting and terrible line delivery from both.

[quote]I think the Tolkien estate should prohibit anymore films or TV shows on Lord of the Rings.

They already sold the rights to LotR and The Hobbit a long time ago after JRR's death and against his stated desire as he didn't believe that it could be adapted well. I doubt the estate can do anything about it.

However, the unwillingness to sell the rights to the Silmarillion and the Unfinished tales (some of which would make a good movie - Like Beren and Luthien) is probably why none of that has been adapted and likely won't be. JRR died in 1973, so 2043 minimum before the copyright expires. However, since Christopher died in 2020 and he is technically the "author" of the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, I question whether 2090 is more realistic for those.

[quote]They already sold the rights to LotR and The Hobbit a long time ago after JRR's death and against his stated desire as he didn't believe that it could be adapted well.

Sad.

I hold the power.

Because I speak to truth.

This series was specifically created just to engender this type of reaction. Nobody is surprised by this.

R188 is she...meant to be an Elf? Not being obsequious, I cannot tell by sight. And that is probably an issue when it comes to visual storytelling. Maybe the costuming is off, or something.

I read this in an article about the new Lord of The Rings series trying to be "woke".

"If you focus on introducing modern political sentiments, such as the leftist obsession with identity issues that only go skin deep, then you're no longer focusing on building a good story,"

[quote]R188 is she...meant to be an Elf? Not being obsequious, I cannot tell by sight. And that is probably an issue when it comes to visual storytelling. Maybe the costuming is off, or something.

From another pic I saw, I believe she's a dwarf. But, here's a question for those who've seen it and are defending the rather forced diversity...

Are there any fat elves? Why not? Is it because elves are inherently lithe as a species? Why is that physical characteristic any more important than the fact that elves are fair-skinned? Would people complaining about a fat elf be met with the same ire as those complaining about a black elf?

[quote]Would people complaining about a fat elf be met with the same ire as those complaining about a black elf?

On DL they would be.

Black is fine as long as they are ethereally hot.

No one in this is hot or even remotely good looking, unlike in the trilogy where Orlando Bloom and Viggo provided some eye candy.

[quote]No one in this is hot or even remotely good looking

Galadriel's brother, Finrod, is hot...but, then he died.

No one can live forever - not even an immortal elf.

R190 She portrays the wife of the Dwarf crown prince Durin.

There is NO eye candy in this new show. In fact, most of them are repulsive!

So if the creature at R188 mates with this creature, what will the offspring look like?

R198 He has at least 2 children with her, so we will no doubt find out!

[quote]"If you focus on introducing modern political sentiments, such as the leftist obsession with identity issues that only go skin deep, then you're no longer focusing on building a good story,"

I have a bigger problem with the fact that "hot" people are no longer played by actual hot people.

I mean, it's appropriation for fugly people to play gorgeous people.

If the character is supposed to be hot, the actor playing the character needs to be hot. Enough with "everyone is beautiful" bullshit. No, they, in fact, are not.

R198, one will be Chinese and the other a blind albino...but just shut up and beeelliieeeve.

GO WOKE, GO BROKE!

R192/R196 ah, thanks for the correction, I really couldn't tell.

From what I remember of the LOTR/Hobbit books, and from references in the Hobbit movies by Jackson, adult female Dwarves are bearded. But hey, what do I know...

That was the one good thing about those otherwise execrable live-action Hobbit films--most of the Dwarves weren't played by conventionally 'hot' actors to our human eyes. 90% of them were male character actors who were already weird-looking, then put in heavy garb and prosthetics and tons of unsightly hair/beard. The exceptions to this of course were Thorin and his two nephews, but being a King and Princes respectively it made sense from an easy storytelling standpoint to earmark them as different and more appealing (to stand them out and make them more sympathetic in our shallow minds).

Tolkien was very much a man of his time . His time was 1930's England. LOTR is an obvious analogy to the rise of fascism in Germany and the threat to the British Empire of which J RR was a card carrying member. An Empire known for it's colonization and exploration, not cultural inclusion..Sauron = Hitler.

There are so many books out there with fresh stories and characters, some even from this recent decade, the relentless remakes or "re-imaginings" continue. Superhero stories glut the market in tv and film these days, and remake upon remake of movies from other decades do as well. STOP IT ALREADY FOR FUCK'S SAKE. Game of Thrones and the first iteration of Lord of the Rings trilogy was plenty for these particular books, and engaged people's enthusiasm and interest. There are so many authors being overlooked because the Hollywood machine keeps returning to the same authors over and over and over. (See for example, the incessant Jane Austen movies or series when there are numerous other classic female authors sitting right there with which to create film or series treatments.) Grass doesn't grow as lusciously on the well-trodden path.

..."YET the relentless remakes or "re-imaginings" continue."

So no Frodo or Gandalf?

It's actually remarkably easy to overlook the skin colors of the elves and hobbits and dwarves. It may all be some big woke plot, but at this point it's the anti-woke that seem most obsessive about the whole thing. There are some black people in this new LOR adaptation. Big fucking deal.

R209, would it have been okay if they made Elrond a woman? Why not? It's fantasy afterall, right?

Probably not r210. But it's okay some of the races include black members. It's not really a trauma, at least for me.

No one is traumatized, R211. If you agree that making Elrond a woman would not work, then making a fair-skinned race filled with black and brown people should also not work for you. The only way it does is if you are okay with sexism but not racism.

R188 I wonder if that creature is making an 'homage' to Flora Robson?

It’s not bad, put the pacing is slooooow. The score is disappointing. And the writing is a bit overwrought, they are trying too hard. Not every other sentence has to be memorable.

That is a very stupid analysis r212. Neither would be sexism or racism. Making Elrond female would be a more fundamental change to a very specific character. And yes, the same can be true of race in many contexts. Making Scarlet O'Hara black would be to turn a whole story on its head. Making a few elves or dwarves black on the other hand, really changes nothing fundamental about Lord of the Rings. nothing at all. Or what do you think becomes different if an elf is black instead of white?

I’m what today might be called a Tolkien super fan. I read the trilogy every summer during my teenaged years.

I loved the Jackson LOTR trilogy despite some obvious accuracy problems (the hobbits in Osgiliath, Aragorn routing five Nazgûl on Ammon Hen (!!!), the clownification of Denethor, Sauron as a searchlight eyeball). I was able to overlook the accuracy problems because the storytelling was good and the overall tale just felt right.

I feel so far the same way about TROP. Despite the accuracy problems brought on by the neo-progressive priorities of the moviemakers, so far the storytelling is good (if a bit slow). It’s hard to say that the overall tale “feels right,” because the Second Age is always backstory for the Third. There’s no Silmarillion for the SA.

Regarding the diversity, yes, it does detract from Tolkien’s mythos. I’m a New Yorker and I’m angry when New York stories are told WITHOUT diversity. New York and many other western cities are very diverse. But that’s due to their history, and that history just isn’t there in the Tolkien story. The dwarves are one people, not an accumulation of many peoples into one multi-culture. The same is true of the elves — they’re just not multiracial.

It feels very stagey, very self conscious, very patronizing to portray the peoples of middle earth as if they just paradropped in from New York or London. And to be honest I’m tired of reading that anyone who points this out is a hateful racist. If an African writer wrote a rich fantasy tale that sprang from ancient African history and/or mythos, I’d expect the tv or movie version to have an all-African cast, and would be very offput by white or Asian people cast in many of the roles.

Does this mean I don’t like it or won’t watch it? No, any more than I got up and stormed out when I saw the hobbits and gollum in Osgiliath, or when Arwen became an action hero.

I just wish it were truer to the story.

By the way, I fucking HATED the Hobbit trilogy and there’s not a black face to be seen in that trilogy. Why? Because it sucks. It was horribly inaccurate, had none of the feel of the book, and the storytelling was just awful.

I finally forced myself to watch the LOTR trilogy many years after they first came out. They were spectacularly boring. I only stayed with them to see how it all ended.

Not my kind of movie.

I'll tell you another trilogy I also watched long after the fact - The Bourne films. They were very entertaining.

Much of the series has that yellowish overexposed CGI look and the pace that made the ending of the LOTR trilogy so tedious.

R207 Cue Oh Dear !

I keep wondering when one of you "experts" will bring up the Haradrim, Limwaith, Drúedain, and the Morwaith.

[quote] I’m what today might be called a Tolkien super fan

R216 Can I ask you a question?

I've not read any of Tolkein but I was under the impression there were NO active female roles in 'The Hobbit' and only one female (the Cate Blanchett character) in "Lord of the Rings'.

Not 216, but on the books, Eowyn from Rowan is the most active female in the LoTR trilogy, she pretend to be a male to go to battle. Galadriel is important but less "active", the rest are mostly decorative, like Liv Tyler's character, Arwen. I don't remember any in the Hobbit

Hobbit was pretty much a sausage fest as written, the 3 Hobbit films added a female Elf character purely to create a pointless Hollywood love triangle. In LoTR Eowyn, Galadriel, and Arwen had some narrative value, which was replicated in the film trilogy, though Arwen's role was definitely augmented.

[quote]Or what do you think becomes different if an elf is black instead of white?

What do you think becomes different if Elrond is female instead of male?

Actually r221 one of the most magnificent heroes in the Lord of the Rings is Eowyn, a princess of Rohan. She slays the most wicked minion of Sauron to take (semi) corporeal form, the Lord of the Nazgûl. She has a little help from a very small, very brave person with an Arthedain (Dunedain) blade, although in the movie it’s an elven dagger, because in the movie the confrontation with the Barrow Wights is omitted.

But in order to fight she must obscure her femininity and pretend to be a man. If she had revealed herself as a woman she would have been sent back home, because in ancient and medieval times (the settings from which the LOTR sprang), women simply didn’t fight, other than the occasional mythical woman or tribe.

There are no female characters in The Hobbit at all.

Galadriel is not explicitly a warrior in any of Tolkien’s writing, although she is a gifted leader and an individual of absolutely awesome power. When I say “warrior” I mean a person who engaged in hand to hand combat. She does participate in wars and is a leader of a rebellion, but she’s never described as wielding a weapon or dueling with an enemy.

This all makes perfect sense springing from the mind of a man writing in the early to mid 20th century. I would have loved to see the stories told completely faithfully, but I understand that our time requires overt action on the part of female characters.

In the book, Glorfindel brings the wounded Frodo to Imladris (Rivendell), not Arwen. It’s fine, actually I quite liked that for what it was.

What was the name of that elf that died in the second movie? He was sort of hot with long, blond hair.

Forgot to add, he hangs with Cate Blanchette's character ^^

Oh, was Orlando Bloom's elf character the same type of elf as the dead elf and Cate's elf? They all kind of have the same look.

That was a elf of Jackson’s creation, Haldir. He’s not in Tolkien.

I really liked that character. He led the elves in the relief party to Helm’s Deep, where he is slain. Thar relief party also is a creation of Jackson.

Legolas is a Sindar prince.

Haldir, since he’s a creation of Jackson, I’m not so sure, probably Silvan as he’s in Lothlorien. As he’s a leader perhaps he’s Sindarin?

R225 Galadriel is revealed as a creature of enormous spiritual power and insight in the text, though never as a warrior per se.

Though, after the fall of Sauron, she and her husband crossed Anduin with the army of Lórien and took Dol Guldur, where '...Galadriel threw down its walls and laid bare its pits, and the forest was cleansed'. This suggests to me that she herself accomplished this act of destruction, and as such possessed enormous physical power as well.

[quote] That was a elf of Jackson’s creation, Haldir. He’s not in Tolkien.

[quote] I really liked that character.

I liked him too, R229. I think he'd be a DLer, maybe the "have you found a treasure?" antique shopkeeper!!

This is an aside, but there was one thing I really hated about Jackson’s changes. It was the role of the Dead at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

People who’ve seen the movie know that these patina colored ghosts pretty much gobble up the Army of Minas Morgul and save Gondor. But in the book … they’re not even there!

The dead help Aragorn take the Corsair fleet, yes, but then Aragorn uses the ships to bring more men of Gondor to Minas Tirith. NOT ghosts! These include the mighty Knights of Dol Amroth. It’s the final charge of the Dol Amroth knights, in their winged helmets, that brings victory.

By placing victory in the hands of a horde of ghosts, Jackson takes the agency away from men. It was very disappointing. I understand why he did it though.

[quote] Actually [R221] one of the most magnificent heroes in the Lord of the Rings is Eowyn, a princess of Rohan.

Is that the Australian woman with the sad, fat face?

I got the impression Peter Jackson cast the original trilogy with lots of Australian and New Zealand people because the original trilogy was subsidised with money from the Australian and New Zealand governments.

It’s Miranda Otto. Love her.

^ Sad face. Fat face.

R231 Galadriel kind of gives Jean Grey/Dark Phoenix in that respect. Or vice versa, I suppose, as Galadriel came first.

The dead elf character, Haldir, was in in Tolkien - he's the one the Fellowship first meet when they arrive in Lorien. He's one of Galadriel's subjects.

The first couple of times I watched the Jackson LOTR, I would get Celeborn, Haldir & Legolas mixed up.

They show actually is pretty shit. For a budget of tens of millions per episode, they decided to have the show written and produced by two amateurs based on a vouch by JJ Abrams (who made 2/3 of that garbage Star Wars sequel). The acting is already very mediocre and hammy but add the bad writing and it’s total garbage. You can glow up the visuals with CGI and add a decent music score but it is essentially a CW show with a huge budget.

I disagree that it is shit. It is pretty entertaining with moments of drama so far. Hope it keeps getting better, but it is definitely not some lost cause of badness. I like the tension between humans and elves. I think that was just a given in the movies (maybe it's all explained in the books, which I haven't read in many decades), but I like it here. The elves being suspicious of these humans who apparently went with Morgoth back in the day. The suspicion and the resentment make sense here.

people being angry about black Hobbits and 🧝‍♂️ has me in tears laughing

^ I’m upset about yellow elves.

Old white gay “progressives” better tune in and help ratings.

R244 ratings are fine, they send their love.

I’m happy for you old white gay “progressive”.

In the original trilogy, did anyone else here have a hard time hearing/understanding Gandalf? Something about the McKellen's voice, maybe his diction or pitch made it hard for me to hear what he said. Almost like he had a slight mumble going on.

R135

>It was his interpretation of it and it just so happens the Dickensian Society loved it and said it was one of the best ones they'd seen.

I'm sure they weren't pandering in any way. If that was one of the best adaptations of Copperfield, I can only conclude that all others were terrible.

Disappearing 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 Star Reviews for Lord of the Rings at iMDB. Thay are all gone. Only 7, 8, 9 and 10 star reviews remain to read.

Amazon owns iMDB.

Amazon owns Box Office Mojo

Meanwhile Warner Brothers and NBC own Rotten Tomatoes.

Do you get it yet?-

R249 the audience score from google information panel is 3.2 out of 5

[quote] If that was one of the best adaptations of Copperfield, I can only conclude that all others were terrible.

Copperfield might be ok as a mini-series but not as a one dramatic movie.

It was written as a serial and has a rambling episodic plot. All the supporting characters are more interesting than the lame main characters.

SPOILER

Fuck, they killed off Augustus Prew's character in episode three. Boooo! Otherwise, good episode. Love Halbrand (Charlie Vickers).