Amazon's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RINGS OF POWER (2022) 5 5

[drotto]

On 9/22/2022 at 9:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

Rotten Tomatoes has RoP at an 85% fresh rating with critics. Understandable that there will be critics who are, well, overly critical. I see where you got the points that shape your view as they are basically what this guy focuses on.  I do agree with him on the look and feel of the show, a view I know you don't share with this critic or me:  

It looks much more like a movie than most everything else on tv right now, and not surprisingly is a tight fit with the visuals of the LOTR.

As for his critiques of the writers, I addressed those when you made them above. I don't give them more credibility because some yahoo at Forbes came up with them.  He doesn't appear to know his Tolkien at all (won't even address the significance of the tree) or to be paying enough attention to the details in the scenes with Harfoots. Instead, he entirely misconstrues the "no one shall be left behind" and "we shall wait chants" and the basic nature of hobbit-kind at that point in time.  Fight or flight?  They take flight and harfoots are frequently left behind hence the irony of the rituals and the stakes in a migration.  Those kind of mistakes cost credibility.

I prefer this take, which shows the difficulty taking on something with as big readership as Tolkien faces (a problem not faced by GoT spinoff HoD):

 

 

You miss the point that this critic loved and defended the first few episodes and is changing his vote. And yes there may be review bombing to a degree, but it does not explain Rotten tomatoes fan 39%, Metacritic fan 2.9, IMB 6.9 (Amazon owns this site), and 3.4 stars on their won site.  Those are middling reviews for a middling show.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/22/2022 at 6:16 PM, drotto said:

You miss the point that this critic loved and defended the first few episodes and is changing his vote. And yes there may be review bombing to a degree, but it does not explain Rotten tomatoes fan 39%, Metacritic fan 2.9, IMB 6.9 (Amazon owns this site), and 3.4 stars on their won site.  Those are middling reviews for a middling show.

Politics might explain a lot of that (but we can't discuss).  HoD triabalism might also explain a fair amount. Fortunately, I can judge for myself and know enough about Tolkien and the "source material" to form my own judgments on a lot of the flawed "fidelity" arguments being tossed around.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/22/2022 at 6:16 PM, drotto said:

You miss the point that this critic loved and defended the first few episodes and is changing his vote. And yes there may be review bombing to a degree, but it does not explain Rotten tomatoes fan 39%, Metacritic fan 2.9, IMB 6.9 (Amazon owns this site), and 3.4 stars on their won site.  Those are middling reviews for a middling show.

Eric Kain's review of the first two episodes:

Quote

 

I came to this series a skeptic, but after watching the first two episodes, I walk away a believer. What showrunners Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne have created is something simply staggering in scope and scale, in raw beauty and magnificence. It is nothing short of a masterpiece—and a welcome return to Tolkien’s legenderium.

Beyond the splendor of this Golden Age of Middle-earth—its shimmering elven citadels and cavernous dwarven halls still bustling with industry—we have a story peopled with characters we immediately want to root for, and whose fates are tied up in grand adventures, deep mysteries and the relentless tide of history.

 

I think he may have a substance abuse problem if he then pivots after episodes 3 and 4, which many think are far superior to Episodes 1 and 2.  After all, how you reconcile what he says about Episodes 1 and 2 with your take?  Did the quality really go down that much in your opinion?  I don't think so.  You disliked it from the outset.  The reasons he gives for disliking Episode 3 and 4 are based on misapprehensions. He got it right the first time.

[drotto]

 

On 9/22/2022 at 9:20 PM, sfcityduck said:

Politics might explain a lot of that (but we can't discuss).  HoD triabalism might also explain a fair amount. Fortunately, I can judge for myself and know enough about Tolkien and the "source material" to form my own judgments on a lot of the flawed "fidelity" arguments being tossed around.

HOD 

Rotten T's 85% fan score

IMBD 8.7

Metacritic 4.6

There is more than just tribalism here.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/22/2022 at 6:27 PM, drotto said:

 

HOD 

Rotten T's 85% fan score

I

Same score as RoP.  But I don't see a lot of posts bombing HoD with comparisons to RoP.  The other way?  Yeah.  That's the sports mentality applied to shows.  Folks who think you elevate your team (or yourself) by pushing others down.  

[drotto]

On 9/22/2022 at 9:29 PM, sfcityduck said:

Same score as RoP.  But I don't see a lot of posts bombing HoD with comparisons to RoP.  The other way?  Yeah.  That's the sports mentality applied to shows.  Folks who think you elevate your team (or yourself) by pushing others down.  

HoD received a lot of commentary for race swapping and politics also before it came out, but it has not been review bombed. There are multiple articles about it from about 2 or 3 months ago. If RoP reviews were suffering exclusively for these reasons HoD would be suffering in a similar fashion. I was also referring to the RT fan rating of 85%.

Edited September 23, 2022 by drotto

[Bosco685]

I've noted it before. But I very much appreciate the breadth and depth of characters and locations on display here from the amazing mind of Tolkien. I can see why this show has such a high budget.

And I would give credit to the show runners and crew. Rather than rushing toward key story points, they are slowly building a vast experience. And allowing the audience to ease into the world before them.

Is the stranger Gandalf? Is the dark elf Sauron? With the kid Theo and that broken blade with Sauron's symbol will he become a bigger part of the Third Age?

So much to take in and reflect upon. And to research, as there is so much Tolkien lore to translate and connect.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/22/2022 at 2:55 PM, sfcityduck said:

That's B.S., something you know if you have actually read the "source material" and understand what that material truly is as I do as a lifelong Tolkien fan. In addition, that attack is B.S. given that the same folks are lauding the LOTR movies. Here's why:

First, the LOTR movies took massive creative license from the books.  And they did so in a way which repeatedly robbed Frodo and the other Hobbits of their heroic moments. Examples: 

* Cutting the entire Tom Bombadil episode from the front of the story;

* Giving Arwen a massively enhanced role at the expense of Frodo's most heroic moment in the first book; and

* Cutting the "Scouring of the Shire" from the end of the story, which arguably ruined the character arcs of Merry, Pippen, and Sam by denying them the ending that JRR always intended.

These very major material changes to the movie that impacted the story arcs and the extent of the heroism of the hobbits far far more than anything the Rings of Power has done to its source material. But it still was a good movie in my view despite that lack of fidelity. So too in the eyes of many critics of the Rings of Power.  Begging the question:  Why the hypocrisy!?!

Second, the "source material" for the Rings of Power is not "canon" in any sense of the word! The Silmarillion was constructed by JRR's son Christopher and a student of his at Oxford, the gifted author Guy Gavriel Kay, after JRR had died. Kay had this to say about the experience of working on the Silmarillion:

The Silmarillion and the other "source material" of the Rings of Power are nothing more than piles of contradictory unfinished tales, rejected false starts, notes, and ideas scribbled on scraps of paper.  Put simply: There is no "canon" because the material on which Rings of Power is based was all "published" after JRR died - sometimes long after - from materials that largely were never intended to be published and which never were put by JRR into a final publishable form. 

And the writers of the Rings of Power are doing a very good job.  They are filling in gaps that JRR offered virtually no details on. Example:

* Galadriel's youth as a warrior is the subject of one published line by JRR. He mentioned she was a warrior and he never filled that in. Rings of Power breathes life into Galadriel's story by showing us what Galadriel was like when she was only a quarter or so into her very long life (equivalent of early to mid-twenties) long before she was shown in the LOTR near the end of her time on Middle Earth as an ancient grandmother (and also mother-in-law to Elrond). It is very welcome to see the ancient and wise bearer of a ring of power as a youthful, strong, heroic, and fiery warrior who has not yet obtained the benefit of that ring. 

* The Fall of Numenor is just the sketchiest of details about the Island and its politics - this story breathes life into those dry tidbits by constructing a vision of the Island that is consistent with Tolkien's vision but embellishes the story with a wealth of plausible details consistent with the spirit of the LOTR;

*  Gandalf's arrival in Middle Earth is alluded to with a reference that basically says no one knows what the Istari were up to for years after their arrival (there is speculation that they were "in the East").  RoP fills that gap by providing an origin story for Gandalf's close relationship with hobbit-kind (a relationship that the Hobbit and the LOTR implies existed for untold years). This is not a contradiction, it is a completion of an unfinished idea with massive gaps that needed embellishment.

They are also, I think, giving us background on certain bearers of the Rings of Power, including the Nine whose stories are largely untold at all. They are filling gaps and doing so in a way that aligns with Tolkiens values.

Third, the only material that might be considered "canon," if that's even a thing with JRR (which I think it clearly is not as he was a constant reviser of his stories), is the Appendixes of the Return of the King.  But that material is sketchy and incomplete at best.  Appendix A has 5.5 pages on the Numenorean Kings of which only 2.5 pages cover the story at issue in the Rings of Power. It is so sketchy it is very hard to contradict except as to dates. Appendix B similarly has less than three pages on the Second Age, the time period of RoP, and that too is nothing more than the barest sketch of a "timeline." Yes, it appears that RoP will compress the timeline, but that is hardly a major or material point in an adaptation. The compression of the timeline serves to make the story more accessible without doing violence to JRR's vision in any meaningful way. The spirit of his vision shines through still in RoP. . 

So the "purity trolls" argument that RoP deviates from the "official history" more than LOTR is total B.S.  There is no "official history" or "canon," just ideas, sketches really, that were only "published" as unfinished tales after JRR's death with modification by his son and others. And now others are now free to pick up and attempt to flesh out those sketches.

Can I get a TL;DR? Because it's not "BS". Just look at any review aggregate or social media site.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/23/2022 at 3:45 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Can I get a TL;DR? Because it's not "BS". Just look at any review aggregate or social media site.

I think most folks online claiming RoP is not sufficiently true to the “source material”, LOTR is, probably TL;DR the LOTR, and likely never heard of the many volumes of unfinished material.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/23/2022 at 10:01 AM, sfcityduck said:

I think most folks online claiming RoP is not sufficiently true to the “source material”, LOTR is, probably TL;DR the LOTR, and likely never heard of the many volumes of unfinished material.

The LOTR trilogy is irrelevant. Most of the people citing positive review of this show have admitted that they don't read the source material that this series is supposed to be based off of, and the opposite rings true for most of those unsatisfied with it. This seems to be the case for most IP-based shows and movies over the past couple of years.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/23/2022 at 7:11 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

The LOTR trilogy is irrelevant. Most of the people citing positive review of this show have admitted that they don't read the source material that this series is supposed to be based off of, and the opposite rings true for most of those unsatisfied with it. This seems to be the case for most IP-based shows and movies over the past couple of years.

More B.S. The one star reviews spamming Amazon are likely not legit or in good faith. A bald assertion of lack of fidelity to LOTR is a common rationale in the many one star reviews spamming Amazon. No analysis is offered.  If you want to dive deep on that topic then address the comments of someone who is familiar with Tolkien by offering a substantive response to my comments above.  Don't give me poll numbers from venues where bots vote and fanboys spam.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/23/2022 at 10:21 AM, sfcityduck said:

More B.S. The one star reviews spamming Amazon are likely not legit or in good faith. A bald assertion of lack of fidelity to LOTR is a common rationale in the many one star reviews spamming Amazon. No analysis is offered.  If you want to dive deep on that topic then address the comments of someone who is familiar with Tolkien by offering a substantive response to my comments above.  Don't give me poll numbers from venues where bots vote and fanboys spam.

You're right, and the millions of other people who have a solid and evident analysis and opinion are wrong. Got it.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/23/2022 at 7:22 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

You're right, and the millions of other people who have a solid and evident analysis and opinion are wrong. Got it.

Except they don't have a solid analysis. And you aren't even putting up a fight to show that they do. It is telling.

Numbers of posts don't matter in an age of bots and spamming. No doubt that RoP (and to a much lesser extent HoD) are being attacked by folks for political reasons based on intolerance. I don't get why.  

I'm good with anyone not liking the show. It's a subjective opinion whether you like the acting, story, look, feel, pacing, etc. But I see no reason to let false statements about "fidelity" to a "canon" of "source material" as compared to the LOTR movies stand unrebutted. Especially when that criticism often comes across as code for racial intolerance. Your empty "many people say" argument does not convince me otherwise given we live in an age of bots and spamming.

P.S. Why do you choose to have a "My Pronouns: AT/AT" signature line on a comic book board which frowns on political discussions? It comes across as intended to make fun of LGBTQ people who use "My Pronouns:" lines to express pride in and avoid misunderstandings as to their identity. I'm not initiating a debate on political views as that's not appropriate here (as would be a signature line with a political view). But I will say that while I do not use "My Pronoun" statements due to an OCD view of grammar, I also see no need to make fun of people who do choose to use them as a means of self-expression of identity - especially when most major corporations and employers now accept and encourage their use. To each their own. Making fun of people who use "My Pronoun" lines is an indicator to me of mean-spirited intolerance. Coincidentally, mean-spirited intolerance is what I think is motivating a portion of the attacks on RoP. If that's not your intent, you might want to reconsider your signature line.

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/23/2022 at 10:57 AM, sfcityduck said:

Except they don't have a solid analysis. And you aren't even putting up a fight to show that they do. It is telling.

Numbers of posts don't matter in an age of bots and spamming. No doubt that RoP (and to a much lesser extent HoD) are being attacked by folks for political reasons based on intolerance. I don't get why.  

I'm good with anyone not liking the show. It's a subjective opinion whether you like the acting, story, look, feel, pacing, etc. But I see no reason to let false statements about "fidelity" to a "canon" of "source material" as compared to the LOTR movies stand unrebutted. Especially when that criticism often comes across as code for racial intolerance. Your empty "many people say" argument does not convince me otherwise given we live in an age of bots and spamming.

P.S. Why do you choose to have a "My Pronouns: AT/AT" signature line on a comic book board which frowns on political discussions? It comes across as intended to make fun of LGBTQ people who use "My Pronouns:" lines to express pride in and avoid misunderstandings as to their identity. I'm not initiating a debate on political views as that's not appropriate here (as would be a signature line with a political view). But I will say that while I do not use "My Pronoun" statements due to an OCD view of grammar, I also see no need to make fun of people who do choose to use them as a means of self-expression of identity - especially when most major corporations and employers now accept and encourage their use. To each their own. Making fun of people who use "My Pronoun" lines is an indicator to me of mean-spirited intolerance. Coincidentally, mean-spirited intolerance is what I think is motivating a portion of the attacks on RoP. If that's not your intent, you might want to reconsider your signature line.

Quite the ego to suggest that reviews you haven't read, "don't have a solid analysis" despite you having not read them. There is no discussion to be had with you on this subject. I don't care to read the rest of your reply.

[shadroch]

I don't get it. If I don't like a show after an episode or two, I don't watch it.  It's what Gary Cooper would have done.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/23/2022 at 7:59 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Quite the ego to suggest that reviews you haven't read, "don't have a solid analysis" despite you having not read them. There is no discussion to be had with you on this subject. I don't care to read the rest of your reply.

Hard to get more ironic than the circle made by those three sentences. I will take your inability to argue my points as an admission of their validity. 

 

[drotto]

On 9/23/2022 at 10:21 AM, sfcityduck said:

More B.S. The one star reviews spamming Amazon are likely not legit or in good faith. A bald assertion of lack of fidelity to LOTR is a common rationale in the many one star reviews spamming Amazon. No analysis is offered.  If you want to dive deep on that topic then address the comments of someone who is familiar with Tolkien by offering a substantive response to my comments above.  Don't give me poll numbers from venues where bots vote and fanboys spam.

 

Amazon got caught deleting reviews yesterday.   People watched as most of the one star reviews disappeared and the stars jumped to about 4.5.  A few hours later it dropped back to 3.3.  How do you explain that unless they are attempting to manipulate the rating. Not all one star rating are automatically invalid.   Yes, there is review bombing, but there is also review inflation.

 

Plus, they withheld any rating for like 5 days.  That is also manipulation.  I know it was to protect against bombing, but it also gives time to curate.

Edited September 23, 2022 by drotto

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 9/23/2022 at 11:02 AM, sfcityduck said:

Hard to get more ironic than the circle made by those three sentences. I will take your inability to argue my points as an admission of their validity.

You don't seem to have a point other than the feeling that others need to bend the knee to 'your understanding' of the source material's application to the series. Shrugging off low-rated reviews as "bots" is disingenuous at best. All of the 5-star "it's amazing" reviews are equally suspect as the 1-star "it sucks" reviews, but guess which one of us isn't pretending that all of the 5-star reviews are bots?

[sfcityduck]

On 9/23/2022 at 8:04 AM, drotto said:

Amazon got caught deleting reviews yesterday.   People watched as most of the one star reviews disappeared and the stars jumped to about 4.5.  A few hours later it dropped back to 3.3.  How do you explain that unless they are attempting to manipulate the rating. Not all one star rating are automatically invalid.   Yes, there is review bombing, but there is also review inflation.

 

Plus, they withheld any rating for like 5 days.  That is also manipulation.  I know it was to protect against bombing, but it also gives time to curate.

More B.S.  Amazon did not "get caught." Amazon publicly turned off reviews while they fought a  battle with bots and spamming. Amazon was deleting obvious bot reviews and reviews with inappropriate (such as racist) content. The fact that after their clean-up they immediately got hit with thousands of new one-star reviews is pretty much prima facie evidence they are indeed being botted and spammed. The notion they were attempting to secretly inflate reviews is rebutted by the fact that they publicly turned off comments and then opened the comments back up. Sadly, it appears they don't have a good means to guard against bots and spamming.

[sfcityduck]

On 9/23/2022 at 8:06 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

You don't seem to have a point other than the feeling that others need to bend the knee to 'your understanding' of the source material's application to the series. Shrugging off low-rated reviews as "bots" is disingenuous at best. All of the 5-star "it's amazing" reviews are equally suspect as the 1-star "it sucks" reviews, but guess which one of us isn't pretending that all of the 5-star reviews are bots?

LoL!  Your "There is no discussion to be had with you on this subject" position lasted five minutes.

I'm not relying on five star reviews for any point I'm making. Look, if you want to swim in the deep end of the pool you need to dive deep. I'm happy to discuss fidelity to the source material with specific examples and evidence. I've done that above. You, on the other hand, just want to say it takes too long to read such posts (and presumably the source material) and want to rely on the argument that "many people say X" as your support.  But guess what?  Many people say all sorts of stupid and incorrect things, especially when they are just reporting what others say. When a politician says "many people say" you can pretty much assume that they are lying. When folks on an internet message board say "many people say" you can pretty much rightly assume that they have done no independent evaluation as to whether what "many people say" is correct or false. Usually, if all you've got is "many people say" in response to actual evidence and analysis, you can assume you've been duped. 

Edited September 23, 2022 by sfcityduck