3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIf 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 agoThe success of the "Cursed Child" stage show seems an appropriate parallel here.
- WesleyLivesay 4y agoIt 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 agoRe-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 agoNot 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.