The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (Prime)

[VincentHanna]

Of course I read it before posting my reply, what a bizzare thing to accuse me of.

 

[Darujhistan]

Of course I read it before posting my reply, what a bizzare thing to accuse me of.

Oh then you didn't understand it, I see.

Again: Any answers to the questions I asked?

Yes I do, I think his World should be presented as he intended it to be, what is strange about that? why does it matter when he was born? or whether he is alive or dead? Who are you or amazon to decide how someone else's work should be presented?

 

[VincentHanna]

Oh then you didn't understand it, I see.

Again: Any answers to the questions I asked?

Yes I do, I think his World should be presented as he intended it to be, what is strange about that? why does it matter when he was born? or whether he is alive or dead? Who are you or amazon to decide how someone else's work should be presented?

Cool.

When are you going to start campaigning for Shakespeare's characters to only be played by men? Juliette should obviously be a boy as that's who played her back in 1597.

And you must be mad seeing all these white Jesus actors in movies, when it would have been a brown skinned middle eastern fella.

The point is time moves on, and particularly with fantasy characters it's absolutely meaningless what skin colour they are unless the subject of the story is specifically about race. Which the The Silmarillion is not.

 

[Darujhistan]

Cool.

When are you going to start campaigning for Shakespeare's characters to only be played by men? Juliette should obviously be a boy as that's who played her back in 1597.

And you must be mad seeing all these white Jesus actors in movies, when it would have been a brown skinned middle eastern fella.

The point is time moves on, and particularly with fantasy characters it's absolutely meaningless what skin colour they are unless the subject of the story is specifically about race. Which the The Silmarillion is not.

So no answers to the questions I asked then?

No surprise.

I don't think it is "absolutely meaningless" what skin colour they are when it goes against the author's wishes and doesn't fit the established aethestic, that's why PJ didn't mess with it, because his team respected the source material and did not want to insert their own political ideologies.

So again:

Yes I do, I think his World should be presented as he intended it to be, what is strange about that? why does it matter when he was born? or whether he is alive or dead? Who are you or amazon to decide how someone else's work should be presented?

 

[mrgubby]

Have you actually read Letter 210 and understood it ?

I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the
characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in
style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters
(and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more
than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.

 

[Darujhistan]

Have you actually read Letter 210 and understood it ?

I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the
characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in
style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters
(and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more
than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.

Yes. Have you?

It is clear what is meant, it is clear what the aesthetic is.

 

[mrgubby]

Yes. Have you?

It is clear what is meant, it is clear what the aesthetic is.

Character is NOT skin tone.

 

[Darujhistan]

Character is NOT skin tone.

It is part of a character, it is certainly part of the aesthetic as a Northern European mythology.

So anyway, back to the questions I asked:

I think his World should be presented as he intended it to be, what is strange about that? why does it matter when he was born? or whether he is alive or dead? Who are you or amazon to decide how someone else's work should be presented?

 

[VincentHanna]

Have you actually read Letter 210 and understood it ?

I do earnestly hope that in the assignment of actual speeches to the
characters they will be represented as I have presented them: in
style and sentiment. I should resent perversion of the characters
(and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more
than the spoiling of the plot and scenery.

Yes. Have you?

It is clear what is meant, it is clear what the aesthetic is.

Well if you are that annoyed about the creators intent, you must hate the Jackson trilogy which didn't adhere exactly to the books either.

By the way, I read a breakdown of the full letter:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Letter 210

Letter 210 is a letter written by J.R.R. Tolkien and published in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

tolkiengateway.net

Quote:
"Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken."

And

"Black Riders screamed in Z's script, but Tolkien says they kept a more terrifying silence."

Peter Jackson changed it to the riders actually coming to Bree...and Aragorn fleeing with the hobbits at night. Peter Jackson also had them screaming.

 

[mrgubby]

It is part of a character, it is certainly part of the aesthetic as a Northern European mythology.

So anyway, back to the questions I asked:

I think his World should be presented as he intended it to be, what is strange about that? why does it matter when he was born? or whether he is alive or dead? Who are you or amazon to decide how someone else's work should be presented?

Are you looking for a reasoned discussion or is it a good old fashioned trolling ? Anyway welcome to the list

 

[Darujhistan]

Well if you are that annoyed about the creators intent, you must hate the Jackson trilogy which didn't adhere exactly to the books either.

By the way, I read a breakdown of the full letter:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

Letter 210

Letter 210 is a letter written by J.R.R. Tolkien and published in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien.

tolkiengateway.net

Quote:
"Leaving the inn at night and running off into the dark is an impossible solution of the difficulties of presentation here (which I can see). It is the last thing that Aragorn would have done. It is based on a misconception of the Black Riders throughout, which I beg Z to reconsider. Their peril is almost entirely due to the unreasoning fear which they inspire (like ghosts). They have no great physical power against the fearless; but what they have, and the fear that they inspire, is enormously increased in darkness. The Witch-king, their leader, is more powerful in all ways than the others; but he must not yet be raised to the stature of Vol. III. There, put in command by Sauron, he is given an added demonic force. But even in the Battle of the Pelennor, the darkness had only just broken."

And

"Black Riders screamed in Z's script, but Tolkien says they kept a more terrifying silence."

Peter Jackson changed it to the riders actually coming to Bree...and Aragorn fleeing with the hobbits at night. Peter Jackson also had them screaming.

Nope, Jakson stayed true to the spirit of Tolkien and the aesthetic of the World, that's part of the reason why it was such a triumph, and has stood the test of time as perhaps the greatest cinema trilogy of all time. I know he didn't adhere totally to the books, it doesn't matter, he presented a authentic vision of Tolkien. Everyone knows the films were changed to suit the medium, no-one cares except the anal-rententives who think TV and movies should follow the books shot for shot and page by page.

Jackson, - true to Tolkien, Aamzon? not so much.

 

[Darujhistan]

Are you looking for a reasoned discussion or is it a good old fashioned trolling ? Anyway welcome to the list

I've had a good faith discussion you haven't come up with any answers, and you've decided not to continue by putting me on ignore. And I'm totally fine with that!

 

[VincentHanna]

Nope, Jakson stayed true to the spirit of Tolkien and the aesthetic of the World, that's part of the reason why it was such a triumph, and has stood the test of time as perhaps the greatest cinema trilogy of all time. I know he didn't adhere totally to the books, it doesn't matter, he presented a authentic vision of Tolkien. Everyone knows the films were changed to suit the medium, no-one cares except the anal-rententives who think TV and movies should follow the books shot for shot and page by page.

Jackson, - true to Tolkien, Aamzon? not so much.

But you literally just said:

Yes I do, I think his World should be presented as he intended it to be, what is strange about that?

And then I've shown you some things that Tolkien was dead against, that happen in the LOTR trilogy, and you are fine with it now?

Which leads me to believe you aren't arguing in good faith and really all you care about is that the skin colour of the fantasy people.

 

[Darujhistan]

But you literally just said:


And then I've shown you some things that Tolkien was dead against, that happen in the LOTR trilogy, and you are fine with it now?

His World was presented by Jackson the way it should be, with neccesary changes to suit the medium. That's why it was quintessentially ME from the very first moment to the alast, That's what matters. He even writes:

"I should resent perversion of the characters
(and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more
than the spoiling of the plot and scenery."

 

[C Kent]

But you literally just said:


And then I've shown you some things that Tolkien was dead against, that happen in the LOTR trilogy, and you are fine with it now?

Which leads me to believe you aren't arguing in good faith and really all you care about is that the skin colour of the fantasy people.

We'll never know what Tolkien thought of Jacksons trilogy, its highly likely that he would have detested some of the changes made to his story to enable a better flow for the films. But we know 100% he would be straight up spitting mad at the changes made for the tv show that's coming, agreed?

 

[VincentHanna]

Not if they gave him a big bag of money, according to another letter

"They have apparently toured America shooting mountain and desert scenes that seem to fit the story. The Story Line or Scenario was, however, on a lower level. In fact bad. But it looks as if business might be done. Stanley U. & I have agreed on our policy: Art or Cash. Either very profitable terms indeed; or absolute author’s veto on objectionable features or alterations."

He eventually took the cash and gave up his film right (and associated merchandising rights)

 

[C Kent]

yes the letter to his son was written in '57, with letter 210 written in 58 and he's getting 'annoyed' at what other people would say are minute details, but you think he would have been fine with his characters being 'race swapped' when he had given pretty extensive written definitions of them?

 

[fez]

Not going to lie, I don't get too hung up on the source material to film/series changes on any sort of moralistic level. I am just re-reading LotR for the first time in probably about 15-20 years and I had forgotten how many changes there were between book and films. That being said, the films are fantastic and definitely are respectful and as true to the source material as required IMO.

I think probably the most famous example of this is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Roald Dahl hated the Gene Wilder version and apparently the Jonny Depp version was much closer to the actual story. The old one is 10x the film the new one is in most sane peoples eyes however.

Good film/tv is good no matter how much it differs from the source material. Unfortunately, when the creators go too far off piste these days its quite often for political reasons rather than creative and thats always a bad sign.

 

[Rroff]

That being said, the films are fantastic and definitely are respectful and as true to the source material as required IMO.

I've always thought the Jackson LOTR movies were as close as you could reasonably get to being authentic to the source material while adapting them to work best with the medium (and limitations of tech/movie production of the time).

I can't say the same for what I've seen from Amazon so far - being a little liberal with the characters is one thing but there clearly is external influences affecting choices outside of the source material and what works best for producing a TV show of that nature, I don't get too hung up on race swapping, etc. - sometimes someone who doesn't seem a good fit for a role superficially can portray that character in a convincing fashion for instance Robert Downey Jr with Sherlock or Keanu Reeves in Constantine, etc. even Tom Cruise as Reacher works mostly, etc. ("Child was diplomatic, stating that while Cruise may not look like Reacher, he conveyed Reacher's presence, which is more important when a real-life person is performing the character.").

 

[C Kent]

Anne Rice with Cruise as Lestat, changed her mind after his performance of course.