3 ms·

Err, not? Making a generic story using Tolkien’s names without meaning. Which seems odd in that it alienates a vocal, internet-heavy fan base without gaining

Err, not? Making a generic story using Tolkien’s names without meaning. Which seems odd in that it alienates a vocal, internet-heavy fan base without gaining a wider audience. Better to use something new or without the fanboy base. Speaking as a fanboy, willfully distorting the subject matter is a no-go.

Namari 4y ago
I guess they're using the LOTR's name/fame to attract people, if they would have done another fantasy show without LOTR's name, this would not have work as well so I guess they went for it, regardless of the fanbase. The world can thank Jackson for doing a great trilogy that doesn't change the story that much and that is still a master piece. Let's hope Amazon don't ruin the name.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Well, the hobbit doesn’t do much to bolster Jackson’s reputation. Harshly lit, far too long, trying to cash in on the Tolkien name and lotr fame. This makes Amazon’s effort start off as a cash in on a cash in - Jackson’s good stuff is almost 20 years and a viewing generation old.
  - Namari 4y ago
    Ah yeah I almost forgot about The Hobbit, you said it, it was far too long. The difference with LOTR is that is doesn't include LOTR in its name, unlike Amazon's new show. But yeah they're trying to milk the cow. Yeah we're not getting younger.
nextaccountic 4y ago
I wish the Tolkien estate sold the rights for Silmarillion and other stories published posthumously, AND retained some editorial control over the content of the content. Christopher could have done this in life. If he did, The Rings of Power could use more Tolkien content than just the appendices of Lord of the Rings
- tpxl 4y ago
  I wish Tolkien copyright wasn't a thing 49 years after the authors death.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    The movie studios reap what they sow.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    His son died a few years back and he’s got a staggering amount of material published.
giancarlostoro 4y ago
Which is insane because they spent a lot of money just getting the rights to make this... "Fan" fiction essentially.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Not really. This is why financial entrepreneurs "acquire" things like brands, IP, games, software, ... not to maintain its quality, but to milk the goodwill built up, and extract money out of it. To milk greatly inflated expectations of the market for money. To be able to create large amounts of revenue using standard/generic efforts (I'd say substandard, but it's not substandard, really, it's just an unremarkable amount of effort). Given the deal Amazon made (and that it's a one-off), can you name one reason they would be afraid of destroying the reputation of the lord of the rings universe? Doesn't damage them at all. Besides, let's face it, most of the value in Middle Earth comes from the books. Yes the films brought in a lot of people for a short while, but even the films don't make the impressions the books made on many fans. Sadly, it makes sense, especially to business MBA's that fear one thing above all else: risk (mostly risk for themselves personally, but entire boards of companies are known to make the same reasoning). This is exactly the behaviour you'll find all over any wall street firm, which is the environment Jeff Bezos "grew up in". And sorry to say, you have to admit: it can work pretty well.
nayroclade 4y ago
This seems to ignore the existing, wider audience that enjoyed the movies. I won't defend the quality of the Rings of Power—I think it's lacklustre at best—but the premiere did get 25 million people watching it. It seems doubtful a completely original series would have attracted so large an audience right off the bat. And I don't think there's necessarily a problem deviating from the source material when adapting something. But you do need to make sure your new ideas are as good, or better, than the original. To me, the single biggest failure of Rings of Power is that those deviations have been so poorly executed. Bad plotting and bad writing abounds.
- rizach8 4y ago
  If someone made "Harry Potter, the untold stories, 10 years later" and it was pure garbage. It would probably also gather 25 million people.
  - lotsofspots 4y ago
    The success of the "Cursed Child" stage show seems an appropriate parallel here.
- WesleyLivesay 4y ago
  It is really funny to hear these types of statements when if you could go back and look at what fans were saying about the Peter Jackson movies, they are largely the same. People complaining about deviations from the source material. The benefit the movies had was just that they were executed very well. As you mention, so much of Rings of Power is just bad execution (or really odd pacing/writing choices).
  - stepbeek 4y ago
    Re-reading the books right now and I totally understand most of the changes. It’s not an art house film, they need broad appeal.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Not as bad and Jackson included genuflections towards the fans and the source material in the extended editions. And, on the whole, the characterization was correct and the timing was believable. Some wtf’s but probably the best we’ll get. Hobbit sucked though. Cash grab.
codingdave 4y ago
What wider audience do you want? LOTR has been a solid part of pop culture for over 20 years now, ever since the movies came out. I'd argue that the vocal internet-based fanboys are the minority, so while I truly can respect the integrity you'd prefer they take with the source material... I can also see why they would not worry about it and just make a show that they believe will be well liked by the more general audience. In the end, I'm sure they'll do the same thing we software folk do when your audience has mixed feelings about your product - listen to all sides and then choose who they want to make happy and react accordingly.
- wrp 4y ago
  > LOTR has been a solid part of pop culture for over 20 years now... Actually, LotR the book has been a major influence in American pop culture since the 1960s. The debate here seems to be whether RoP is faithful to Tolkien's vision, not Jackson's vision. Not criticizing, just trying to keep the original point in focus.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    > The debate here seems to be whether RoP is faithful to Tolkien's vision, not Jackson's vision. No. RoP isn't faithful to either visions, as Jackson's vision wasn't exceptionally far from Tolkein's vision. The differences come from the reality of the medium.
    - dagw 4y ago
      Jackson's vision wasn't exceptionally far from Tolkein's vision. Possibly true for the LoTR movies, decidedly less so for the Hobbit movies.

Namari 4y ago

I guess they're using the LOTR's name/fame to attract people, if they would have done another fantasy show without LOTR's name, this would not have work as well so I guess they went for it, regardless of the fanbase. The world can thank Jackson for doing a great trilogy that doesn't change the story that much and that is still a master piece. Let's hope Amazon don't ruin the name.

jleyank 4y ago
Well, the hobbit doesn’t do much to bolster Jackson’s reputation. Harshly lit, far too long, trying to cash in on the Tolkien name and lotr fame. This makes Amazon’s effort start off as a cash in on a cash in - Jackson’s good stuff is almost 20 years and a viewing generation old.
- Namari 4y ago
  Ah yeah I almost forgot about The Hobbit, you said it, it was far too long. The difference with LOTR is that is doesn't include LOTR in its name, unlike Amazon's new show. But yeah they're trying to milk the cow. Yeah we're not getting younger.

nextaccountic 4y ago

I wish the Tolkien estate sold the rights for Silmarillion and other stories published posthumously, AND retained some editorial control over the content of the content. Christopher could have done this in life. If he did, The Rings of Power could use more Tolkien content than just the appendices of Lord of the Rings

tpxl 4y ago
I wish Tolkien copyright wasn't a thing 49 years after the authors death.
- adrianN 4y ago
  The movie studios reap what they sow.
- jleyank 4y ago
  His son died a few years back and he’s got a staggering amount of material published.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

Which is insane because they spent a lot of money just getting the rights to make this... "Fan" fiction essentially.

candiodari 4y ago
Not really. This is why financial entrepreneurs "acquire" things like brands, IP, games, software, ... not to maintain its quality, but to milk the goodwill built up, and extract money out of it. To milk greatly inflated expectations of the market for money. To be able to create large amounts of revenue using standard/generic efforts (I'd say substandard, but it's not substandard, really, it's just an unremarkable amount of effort). Given the deal Amazon made (and that it's a one-off), can you name one reason they would be afraid of destroying the reputation of the lord of the rings universe? Doesn't damage them at all. Besides, let's face it, most of the value in Middle Earth comes from the books. Yes the films brought in a lot of people for a short while, but even the films don't make the impressions the books made on many fans. Sadly, it makes sense, especially to business MBA's that fear one thing above all else: risk (mostly risk for themselves personally, but entire boards of companies are known to make the same reasoning). This is exactly the behaviour you'll find all over any wall street firm, which is the environment Jeff Bezos "grew up in". And sorry to say, you have to admit: it can work pretty well.

nayroclade 4y ago

This seems to ignore the existing, wider audience that enjoyed the movies. I won't defend the quality of the Rings of Power—I think it's lacklustre at best—but the premiere did get 25 million people watching it. It seems doubtful a completely original series would have attracted so large an audience right off the bat. And I don't think there's necessarily a problem deviating from the source material when adapting something. But you do need to make sure your new ideas are as good, or better, than the original. To me, the single biggest failure of Rings of Power is that those deviations have been so poorly executed. Bad plotting and bad writing abounds.

rizach8 4y ago
If someone made "Harry Potter, the untold stories, 10 years later" and it was pure garbage. It would probably also gather 25 million people.
- lotsofspots 4y ago
  The success of the "Cursed Child" stage show seems an appropriate parallel here.
WesleyLivesay 4y ago
It is really funny to hear these types of statements when if you could go back and look at what fans were saying about the Peter Jackson movies, they are largely the same. People complaining about deviations from the source material. The benefit the movies had was just that they were executed very well. As you mention, so much of Rings of Power is just bad execution (or really odd pacing/writing choices).
- stepbeek 4y ago
  Re-reading the books right now and I totally understand most of the changes. It’s not an art house film, they need broad appeal.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Not as bad and Jackson included genuflections towards the fans and the source material in the extended editions. And, on the whole, the characterization was correct and the timing was believable. Some wtf’s but probably the best we’ll get. Hobbit sucked though. Cash grab.

codingdave 4y ago

What wider audience do you want? LOTR has been a solid part of pop culture for over 20 years now, ever since the movies came out. I'd argue that the vocal internet-based fanboys are the minority, so while I truly can respect the integrity you'd prefer they take with the source material... I can also see why they would not worry about it and just make a show that they believe will be well liked by the more general audience. In the end, I'm sure they'll do the same thing we software folk do when your audience has mixed feelings about your product - listen to all sides and then choose who they want to make happy and react accordingly.

wrp 4y ago
> LOTR has been a solid part of pop culture for over 20 years now... Actually, LotR the book has been a major influence in American pop culture since the 1960s. The debate here seems to be whether RoP is faithful to Tolkien's vision, not Jackson's vision. Not criticizing, just trying to keep the original point in focus.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  > The debate here seems to be whether RoP is faithful to Tolkien's vision, not Jackson's vision. No. RoP isn't faithful to either visions, as Jackson's vision wasn't exceptionally far from Tolkein's vision. The differences come from the reality of the medium.
  - dagw 4y ago
    Jackson's vision wasn't exceptionally far from Tolkein's vision. Possibly true for the LoTR movies, decidedly less so for the Hobbit movies.