What are you watching? (television thread)

[Goat]

* Rings of Power hype check *

Watched the 2 episodes. The huge amount of dollars that has been invested in the project is evident in every scene: visual quality is immense, and I think the direct continuation in style with Jackson's movies will satisfy who loves the LOTR movies.
I really liked episode 1, but I liked way less episode 2, which imho already suffers from having this kind of epic fantasy story narrated in a serial format.
Let's see, first impression is good, interested in following the show. However, by reading here and there, I can totally understand some perplexities from the hardcore fandom (which I'm not part of).

 

[Griffith]

I heard they don't even have the rights to The Silmarillion, namely the material covering the era they're depicting... Uhh, what's the point, then?

All the money in the world and Jeff didn't even buy the rights to the material he's essentially adapting! They're apparently going off The Hobbit and RotK appendices. It'd be like The Berserk Continuation but if Mori had NO inside information about the rest of the story and they were just extrapolating based on the guidebook, "Uhh, it says here Griffith is the incarnated God Hand Femto and the White Falcon, leader of the Band of the Falcon, and... we expect that to continue!"

Also, it's funny that they're adopting the visual language of the films considering Tolkien's heir trashed Jackson's adaptations and then Amazon stopped calling him afterward. I mean, have it one way or the other, fellas, and either way put a muzzle on kiddo splitting the fanbase before asking them all to tune in.

In a nutshell, it looks like a big budget mess to me with the only creative direction being, "Make money off major prestige IP Lord of the Rings." As Star Wars is proving, if that's your only aim it's not going to be very compelling to audiences for long. Eventually nobody will care and then you're essentially making bombs out of blockbusters.

 

[Walter]

I don't think I've read a single good thing about it. But then again, I haven't really been looking.

I've probably said so elsewhere, but my interest in Tolkien's work begins and ends with The Hobbit. I know that makes me a weirdo, because I found the LotR trilogy boring, and those Jackson movies didn't change my opinion. I actually fell asleep in the theater during Two Towers, around the time the ents were still walking. The Hobbit is funny, whimsical, and loaded with the fun fluffy parts of fantasy that make the genre a fun escape, without getting too bogged down.

Tolkien created an amazing world and was hugely influential for fantasy, but I think historically fantasy authors have gotten a bit carried away in aping his particular vision of fantasy folklore for the past 80 years or so. I'd just rather we pushed his boat into the Undying Lands already.

 

[Lawliet]

I don't think I've read a single good thing about it. But then again, I haven't really been looking.

I've probably said so elsewhere, but my interest in Tolkien's work begins and ends with The Hobbit. I know that makes me a weirdo, because I found the LotR trilogy boring, and those Jackson movies didn't change my opinion. I actually fell asleep in the theater during Two Towers, around the time the ents were still walking. The Hobbit is funny, whimsical, and loaded with the fun fluffy parts of fantasy that make the genre a fun escape, without getting too bogged down.

Tolkien created an amazing world and was hugely influential for fantasy, but I think historically fantasy authors have gotten a bit carried away in aping his particular vision of fantasy folklore for the past 80 years or so. I'd just rather we pushed his boat into the Undying Lands already.

It doesn't sound weird to me...it sounds like utter blasphemy!

Seriously though, I don't blame you. As great as the book is, Tolkien's penchant for detailed world-building can and does slow down the story to a crawl for a lot of readers. On the other hand, Tolkien's was an imagination that was never seen before or since. He created an entire body of myth single-handedly. I mean, even character names have meanings in the languages he constructed. I don't think any individual author after him surpassed him for power of imagination.

The film trilogy is great though (I can never get enough of it), so it being boring to you does sound odd to me, to be honest.

As for the new show...yeah, it ain't so good. Aside from the weaknesses regarding storytelling and whatever, the show is typical of what we're seeing too much of nowadays: folks altering source material to suit their political agendas. In other words, woke trash. Problem is, you can't bring up such criticisms without sensitive people accusing you of racism, among other bullshit.

So yeah, the show being not faithful, or even respectful, to Tolkien's work is the main issue fans have with it.

BTW: The Lord of the Rings is a single book, sometimes (and originally) published in three installments. But it's not a trilogy.

 

[Walter]

Seriously though, I don't blame you. As great as the book is, Tolkien's penchant for detailed world-building can and does slow down the story to a crawl for a lot of readers. On the other hand, Tolkien's was an imagination that was never seen before or since. He created an entire body of myth single-handedly. I mean, even character names have meanings in the languages he constructed. I don't think any individual author after him surpassed him for power of imagination.

Yyyyyeah, I've already done the proper salute by mentioning the phrase world-building, so I think I've shown the correct amount of fealty here. It's just not for me, man. It's not even like the most boring book I've ever read, I just wasn't invested in it because I didn't find it meaningful at all. By contrast, I was immediately swept up by Shadow of the Torturer, within maybe 20 pages or so, and there's 100% less orc raids in that book

The film trilogy is great though (I can never get enough of it), so it being boring to you does sound odd to me, to be honest.

It was a bad combination of being too long and too self-serious for me. That and the ents did me in completely. There's a little joke every few pages in The Hobbit, but in LotR (the films in particular) everyone is so fucking grim and dull. I can take that for a while, but 9 hours? No thanks.

BTW: The Lord of the Rings is a single book, sometimes (and originally) published in three installments. But it's not a trilogy.

Got it. But I'm gonna remember that the next time you say you're excited about Chapter 369

 

[Lawliet]

Yyyyyeah, I've already done the proper salute by mentioning the phrase world-building, so I think I've shown the correct amount of fealty here. It's just not for me, man. It's not even like the most boring book I've ever read, I just wasn't invested in it because I didn't find it meaningful at all. By contrast, I was immediately swept up by Shadow of the Torturer, within maybe 20 pages or so, and there's 100% less orc raids in that book

Hey, more than fair enough, man. It's definitely not for everyone.

As for the world-building bit, I was just gushing about Middle-Earth and expressing my admiration for Tolkien. I couldn't resist haha. As for the meaningful bit, I'd argue against that, but there's no need to bore you guys with more off-topic talk.

BTW I downloaded a sample of Shadow of the Torturer and I'm looking forward to diving in. A good chunk of it is taken up by an introduction, which I'm not sure if I should read or not, but I appreciate it's there.

It was a bad combination of being too long and too self-serious for me. That and the ents did me in completely. There's a little joke every few pages in The Hobbit, but in LotR (the films in particular) everyone is so fucking grim and dull. I can take that for a while, but 9 hours? No thanks.

Hmmm...I don't remember it being all that dark. Each movie had its share of levity, especially in the director's cut which brings in many such scenes. I'd otherwise encourage you to re-watch them, but I won't as it is still a long, long experience as it is. That said, they're definitely darker and more hopeless than the book, and a lot of character personalities were changed to reflect that.

Also, yeah, the Ents scene, particularly their march to Isengard, was awful and very badly thought out.

Got it. But I'm gonna remember that the next time you say you're excited about Chapter 369

Proud to say I've never used the C-word here...I think. *Goes to perform a post history search*

 

[Griffith]

I've probably said so elsewhere, but my interest in Tolkien's work begins and ends with The Hobbit. I know that makes me a weirdo, because I found the LotR trilogy boring

I agree and actually don't think it's that uncommon a feeling among general readers, unless they happen to be big LotR fans.


As for the movies, they were fine, the degree of difficulty was basically impossible and they pulled it off 20 years ago, and very influentially for better or worse, but I always thought they felt a bit paint-by-numbers by necessity of the scale of what they were trying to achieve, and very literally for the most part (it wasn't so much adaptation as cinematic abridgement). Despite the Oscars these were better technical achievements than films, but it was obviously important cinema to Jackson and that goes a long way towards the genuine feelings they give their fans. I think the first LotR and first Hobbit movies are the best among them and the rest aren't really movies themselves but messy extensions of those first movies. Obviously, they really fucked up those Hobbit movies overall. At least the first one kind of captured the spirit of the first half of the book, whereas the rest was just painfully retreading Jackson's own vision of LotR.

Anyway, I have zero interest in the show.

 

[RaffoBaffo]

Wached the first episode of The Ring of Power.
So, they just forgot/didn't know the existence of the Doom of Mandos, mmh?
Ok.

 

[Oburi]

I knew immediately the Rings of Power show was misguided right from beginning. The prologue was terrible with the stupid bratty kids. Not to mention there's about 2 lines actually spoken in Elvish. I know Amazon is probably nervous about people switching off if they see subtitles for more than 5 seconds but holy shit. It's already been pretty well established in the Jackson movies and people seem to like those. An early sign of the lame ass cooperate Star Wars treatment behind this series.
Also for all the big budget technical power behind it, the fundamentals look wrong. One example is the scene when the two elves decide to visit the dwarves for a favor. Cut to them walking up to the dwarven fortress thousands of miles away on a beautiful landscape with endless vast mountains behind them. No horses. No escorts. It's like they just went for a gentle stroll down the street in their robes after the show previously established how far away all the locations are on the map. Stuff like that bothers me. It just feels lazy. It looks too Peter Panny to. I'm gonna stick with the new Game of Thrones show that's actually pretty good.

 

[Skeleton]

I’m with you, Oburi. That scene felt very 90s fantasy show to me, like something out of Hercules: The Legendary Journey or Xena: Warrior Princess. It literally gave me a “wow, I can’t believe they spent that much money to make this” feeling when I watched it.

 

[NightCrawler]

I think the first LotR and first Hobbit movies are the best among them

Keep the bad takes coming people.

 

[Griffith]

Keep the bad takes coming people.

I deserve this just for praising The Hobbit trilogy in any capacity, but were The Two Towers or Return of the King really so great beyond the spectacle of LotR on the big screen (I get it in the sense the depicted things we probably thought impossible to pull off at the time)? I kind of feel like those were big budget TV movies or miniseries in retrospect (and they look like TV movies now =). I'm just casually shitting all over these beloved landmark movies, aren't I? But with no particular ill will, I swear! I just sort of feel like it was of that time and place, like the old Raimi Spider-Man movies, which I love because I'm of that time, but which certainly aren't timeless.

I'm gonna stick with the new Game of Thrones show that's actually pretty good.

Theory: Game of Thrones was never a legitimately great prestige television show except for season 4, the rest got by on the strength of the sum of its source material, and when that ran out and it fully became B&B's vision you get seasons 7 & 8. My point is it's not crazy that someone else can do as well or better.

 

[Lawliet]

I deserve this just for praising The Hobbit trilogy in any capacity, but were The Two Towers or Return of the King really so great beyond the spectacle of LotR on the big screen (I get it in the sense the depicted things we probably thought impossible to pull off at the time)? I kind of feel like those were big budget TV movies or miniseries in retrospect (and they look like TV movies now =). I'm just casually shitting all over these beloved landmark movies, aren't I? But with no particular ill will, I swear! I just sort of feel like it was of that time and place, like the old Raimi Spider-Man movies, which I love because I'm of that time, but which certainly aren't timeless.

Griff, you're killing me here. Never thought anyone would compare Rings with bloody Raimi's Spiderman (no disrespect intended to those movies btw).

That is to say, I strongly disagree. Those films weren't great just for special effects.

Yeaaaaah...if this ain't timeless, I have no idea what is haha.

 

[Aazealh]

I deserve this just for praising The Hobbit trilogy in any capacity, but were The Two Towers or Return of the King really so great beyond the spectacle of LotR on the big screen (I get it in the sense the depicted things we probably thought impossible to pull off at the time)?

For what it's worth, as a fan of the books, I was underwhelmed by the LotR movies when I saw them back in the day, despite the visual achievement they represented. As for The Hobbit, the least said the better. I only saw the first movie I think, and it was terrible. A betrayal of the original work.

On the other hand, Tolkien's was an imagination that was never seen before or since. He created an entire body of myth single-handedly. I mean, even character names have meanings in the languages he constructed. I don't think any individual author after him surpassed him for power of imagination.

You must be joking. Tolkien had many talents but he had inspirations like everyone else. The world he created owes a lot to various European folklores. And if that doesn't count, then every genre author out there can be said to have created "an entire body of myth". Really, "power of imagination" isn't what I'd consider his defining trait.

As for the new show...yeah, it ain't so good. Aside from the weaknesses regarding storytelling and whatever, the show is typical of what we're seeing too much of nowadays: folks altering source material to suit their political agendas. In other words, woke trash. Problem is, you can't bring up such criticisms without sensitive people accusing you of racism, among other bullshit.

Actually no, the problem with all these shows isn't that there are black people in them. It's just that they're not well-made.

 

[Griffith]

Griff, you're killing me here. Never thought anyone would compare Rings with bloody Raimi's Spiderman (no disrespect intended to those movies btw).

That is to say, I strongly disagree. Those films weren't great just for special effects.

Yeaaaaah...if this ain't timeless, I have no idea what is haha.

Sure, it won 13 Oscars or whatever, but were any of those as iconic as Spider-Man's MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss!?

Whoa, talk about a time capsule, I feel ancient, and embarrassed, just watching this!

To be fair, I only saw the other LotR movies besides the first one once. I should probably stop though, I forget that those movies are basically Star Wars (the good ones) for an entire generation, which brings us back to what I guess Amazon is banking on.

For what it's worth, as a fan of the books, I was underwhelmed by the LotR movies when I saw them back in the day, despite the visual achievement they represented. As for The Hobbit, the least said the better. I only saw the first movie I think, and it was terrible. A betrayal of the original work.

Yeah, I really only enjoyed the beginning, and I think I saw the extended cut on HBO GO(lol) or something, where they were all coming together, which was insanely over the top already, but then after the three trolls bit it just became too much Peter Jackson.

 

[Lawliet]

You must be joking. Tolkien had many talents but he had inspirations like everyone else. The world he created owes a lot to various European folklores. And if that doesn't count, then every genre author out there can be said to have created "an entire body of myth". Really, "power of imagination" isn't what I'd consider his defining trait.

Not joking at all.

Of course he had inspirations. Well known ones too, such as Beowulf, the Kalevala, classic fairy tales and so on. I didn't mean he created his world ex nihilo, despite my poor wording which may give this impression.

None of that detracts from his imagination, which even if it isn't his defining trait, I still would be hard pressed to name a modern author who compares.

Of course, in our day, everyone and their mother is creating new worlds, but how many of them really compare with Middle-Earth? I can name a handful and even then without full confidence that they're as good.

Actually no, the problem with all these shows isn't that there are black people in them. It's just that they're not well-made.

Well, it ain't either-or. Both are reasons the show is getting backlash.

 

[Aazealh]

But his goal was to create a body of myth for England and he accomplished that greatly.

That's just something that's been retroactively attributed to him; he never stated anything as such. And as you surely know, the books that actually focus on his "legendarium" were all published after his death and in an incomplete form. Anyway, he was a great author, but "an imagination that was never seen before or since" is going a little far. Now, if you said no fictional languages are likely to come close to the refinement of his various Elvish dialects, I wouldn't disagree.

Well, it ain't either-or. Both are reasons the show is getting backlash.

That doesn't mean both are equally valid. I can understand being annoyed when known characters are changed, but given that they're apparently making up their own stuff anyway, who even cares at this point? And I mean, it's not like Peter Jackson was completely faithful either.

 

[Lawliet]

That's just something that's been retroactively attributed to him; he never stated anything as such. And as you surely know, the books that actually focus on his "legendarium" were all published after his death and in an incomplete form. Anyway, he was a great author, but "an imagination that was never seen before or since" is going a little far. Now, if you said no fictional languages are likely to come close to the refinement of his various Elvish dialects, I wouldn't disagree.

Well, as long as it's only a little far...

Alright, I'll concede that I got a little over-zealous in my praise of Tolkien. It happens to the best of us. I do think the man doesn't get his due respect in fantasy circles (odd statement I know), with it being the cool thing to shit on his work and with every new release being casually touted as the new Middle-Earth, as if it's so easy to accomplish such a thing.

So I will modify my original claim to a more modest one: what he accomplished (as an individual author) in world-building was not seen before or since. I mean, creating a secondary world with its own rich history is not something that was done before him to the best of my knowledge, and all secondary worlds after him haven't surpassed his. I don't know if you will agree with this or not, though.

As for the England thing being attributed to him, I actually didn't know that bit. So thanks for letting me know!

That doesn't mean both are equally valid. I can understand being annoyed when known characters are changed, but given that they're apparently making up their own stuff anyway, who even cares at this point? And I mean, it's not like Peter Jackson was completely faithful either.

True. At least Jackson wasn't driven by political agenda, which for me at least softens the liberties he took.

 

[Beast of Darkness]

As for the new show...yeah, it ain't so good. Aside from the weaknesses regarding storytelling and whatever, the show is typical of what we're seeing too much of nowadays: folks altering source material to suit their political agendas. In other words, woke trash. Problem is, you can't bring up such criticisms without sensitive people accusing you of racism, among other bullshit.

Yeah, and it's another reason why I won't watch that show. I'm getting fucking fed-up of that woke shit, it's everywhere. Being force-fed with that, no thanks.
The perfect (worst) example I've heard about these past months was Netflix with their Resident Evil series, I laughed as soon as I saw some photos of Wesker.

 

[Aazealh]

Alright, I'll concede that I got a little over-zealous in my praise of Tolkien. It happens to the best of us. I do think the man doesn't get his due respect in fantasy circles (odd statement I know), with it being the cool thing to shit on his work and with every new release being casually touted as the new Middle-Earth, as if it's so easy to accomplish such a thing.

Come on, he definitely does get his due. If anything it's the people who came before him who don't, like Robert E. Howard.

I mean, creating a secondary world with its own rich history is not something that was done before him to the best of my knowledge, and all secondary worlds after him haven't surpassed his. I don't know if you will agree with this or not, though.

Not really, no. Arda in and of itself isn't more compelling to me than, say, Earthsea or Discworld. It was remarkable for its time, but it's also very "classical" by virtue of when and how it was created. In that sense I find it less fantastical than Norse mythology's nine realms, for example. And that's coming from someone whose first use of Photoshop in 1995 was to create a rendition of Númenor.

Anyway that's all fine, to each their own. No one's going to blame you for liking Tolkien the most out of any fantasy novelist.

True. At least Jackson wasn't driven by political agenda, which for me at least softens the liberties he took.

I haven't watched that series so I can't speak for what's in it, but if adding some token black and gay side characters is what you mean by "political agenda", then it seems like coded language for a lack of tolerance towards evolving societal mores. Which is not a good thing.

 

[Walter]

Yeah, and it's another reason why I won't watch that show. I'm getting fucking fed-up of that woke shit, it's everywhere. Being force-fed with that, no thanks.
The perfect (worst) example I've heard about these past months was Netflix with their Resident Evil series, I laughed as soon as I saw some photos of Wesker.

Woke means being aware of racial disparities in society. That's it. But when you use "woke" in this context, you're weaponizing the term for a group of people who are terrified of white dominant culture being questioned.

Are you terrified of white dominance being questioned? Or are you just trying to say you don't like forceful casting decisions? Because if so, you could just say that and not handcuff your takes on streaming shows to a political movement led by boomers.

 

[Beast of Darkness]

I haven't watched that series so I can't speak for what's in it, but if adding some token black and gay side characters is what you mean by "political agenda", then it seems like coded language for a lack of tolerance towards evolving societal mores. Which is not a good thing.

I hope they will do a live adaptation of Berserk in the future and see the liberties they will take so that everyone can be happy.

 

[Lawliet]

Come on, he definitely does get his due. If anything it's the people who came before him who don't, like Robert E. Howard.

Sure, but like any author who attains his status, there will always be folks who will crap on his work for the sake of doing so. You know the type. Just as there are those who will over-praise him (as I have admittedly done above).

Not really, no. Arda in and of itself isn't more compelling to me than, say, Earthsea or Discworld. It was remarkable for its time, but it's also very "classical" by virtue of when and how it was created. In that sense I find it less fantastical than Norse mythology's nine realms, for example. And that's coming from someone whose first use of Photoshop in 1995 was to create a rendition of Númenor.

I'm not familiar with Earthsea or Discworld, so I can't comment. I'm talking specifically about the scale and scope and intricacy of the world-building, done by an individual author. If these worlds match Tolkien's, all the better. More great stuff out there for people to read.

I haven't watched that series so I can't speak for what's in it, but if adding some token black and gay side characters is what you mean by "political agenda", then it seems like coded language for a lack of tolerance towards evolving societal mores. Which is not a good thing.

Strongly disagree. No one cares if a show is filled with black, gay, or whatever kind of character you can think of. Give me a show set in modern day New York, and I won't have a problem with the presence of such diversity. But hijack a man's work and shoe-horn characters who don't really belong there and a lot of people will rightfully be annoyed, especially if the story is being sacrificed or being used a mere platform for such things. It has nothing to do with a lack of tolerance for other people or walks of life. At least not for me personally.

And this is coming from a person whose original ethnic group is rarely "represented" and when they are, it is usually done negatively.

 

[Aazealh]

I hope they will do a live adaptation of Berserk in the future and see the liberties they will take so that everyone can be happy.

A pathetic retort that ignores the fact Berserk adaptations so far have ranged from mediocre to godawful.

 

[Beast of Darkness]

A pathetic retort that ignores the fact Berserk adaptations so far have ranged from mediocre to godawful.

Come on...
Sure, it would be shit in any case. I simply mean, would you be happy to see Guts played by the guy who did Wesker in the Resident Evil series I mentioned?
I don't care if the guy is black, I simply mean that the guy won't fit. It's the same for the Lord of the Rings show.