The Rings of Power

[Meshuga]

What do you think of The Rings of Power?

I’ve only watched two episodes. Is it Tolkien? No, assuredly not, it’s as Tolkien as New Line Cinema’s Hobbit trilogy, which is to say, they borrowed some names and locations, cherry picked the lore, but ignored the soul of what makes Tolkien and Middle Earth great. See this

In a review, they said it's the only movie/TV show to get the full backing of Tolkiens estate.

This is technically true but extraordinarily misleading. It’s the only movie/TV show to get the full backing of Tolkien’s estate, but Christopher Tolkien died and no longer has control over the estate. It now belongs to people who have no interest in Middle Earth except as a cash cow, so it’s not Tolkien’s spirit at all. Furthermore, the producers fired their Tolkien expert only a month or so into production and didn’t hire another, they clearly had no interest in remaining consistent with the original lore. Consequently, there’s a lot that’s “wrong” with Rings of Power, starting with characters like Galadriel and Elrond. I don’t direct any ire toward the actors, but RoP Galadriel is unlike Tolkien’s version in every respect, except she’s blond and “fair to look upon.” They even sexualized her a bit in the ep. 2, and that’s just disturbing. But they’re trying to give her a character arc, just like Peter Jackson had to turn Aragorn into an indecisive pansy so he could have an arc, it’s not unprecedented. There’s other details, like a Dwarf swearing by Aule, which is the Elvish name for that entity, but whatever.
The “blackwashing” isn’t necessarily a problem for me either. It could be justified in the lore. Eru created a lot of Elves at the same time, and they split into a lot of different factions. One could be dark skinned, no issue with that. Same with Dwarves; we’re familiar with the Khazad nation of Dwarves, but there were two other major cities early in the lore, and Dwarves do reproduce more often than Elves so sure, maybe one started out dark skinned or there was a genetic mutation somewhere down the line. Maybe the Khazads are the weird ones. Who knows?
It’s not concerning to me that the creators of RoP wanted to include a modern, US, left-leaning sense of racial diversity into the show, awkward and shoe-horned as it is. What is concerning is the creators obviously care a lot more about this diversity than they do for Tolkien.

So it isn’t grounded in real Tolkien lore. It looks like it’s a cheap knockoff, like GoBots or Digimon, and that’s insulting. If I pretended it was it’s own thing, I guess it would be okay so far. Like I said, just two episodes in, I don’t know how it’s going to turn out. I’d say if you already have Prime, go for it.

The need to be true to Tolkien is a whole other discussion, after all. Maybe the new thing is better? I mean, probably not, but maybe.

Frankly, if they wanted great storytelling with morally gray characters and plenty of wiggle room & space to emphasize, the Silmarillion with Feanor and Morgoth, the Noldor and Sindar Elves and all that jazz… I’m not saying it would be easy to adapt to screen, but I am saying if I were in charge I’d look for a small team of writers to develop a draft, see if it’s doable.

 

[onceaking]

This is technically true but extraordinarily misleading. It’s the only movie/TV show to get the full backing of Tolkien’s estate, but Christopher Tolkien died and no longer has control over the estate.

I did wonder if they approved of it because of how much money they got from it. Does this mean Christopher Tolkien didn't approve of Peter Jackson's version?

 

[Meshuga]

Does this mean Christopher Tolkien didn't approve of Peter Jackson's version?

Christopher Tolkien did not approve. He spoke to French publication Le Monde in 2012 saying

"Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time. The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away... They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25."

He couldn’t do anything to stop it, though, because the film rights had been sold in 1969.

While I think his handwringing was a bit hyperbolic for 2012, the hobbit trilogy definitely moved the franchise from a gray area, to firmly inside that “hyper-commercialized action film with little to no cultural value & egregious disregard for the intent of the story” status.

I don’t think Christopher would have been happy with anything short of a literal, verbatim translation from text to film, complete with every random character, poem, and cumbersome line of Entmoot dialogue. However, in some cases his complaints are legitimate. Film Aragorn is a reluctant leader, doubting his qualifications for the task fate assigned him. Book Aragorn is confident and decisive, the personification of dignity and the sort of self-assured competence that inspires trust. Film Aragorn loses his cool and kills a messenger at parley, a war crime by any standard. Book Aragorn would never lose his cool. Contrasts extend to other characters, such as Faramir and Gimli. For the human characters, Jackson chose to give them character arcs instead of allowing them to be archetypes of nobility. For the Dwarf, actor John Rhys Davies fits better as comic relief and, as the younger Tolkien said, action scenes. As for Legolas, in the films he’s unashamedly present strictly for the too-awesome-for-life action sequences and as teenage eye candy. Of course much had to be edited out for time, and some pieces simply don’t transition to film. I am in awe of Weta Workshop and the phenomenal work they did with practical effects, but there is no way to portray the balrog of Moria as described in the book, because his threat is not in his visual presence. He is described as exuding an aura of hopelessness and scrabbling panic, a sense picked up in the spirit, not the eyes.

All of that being said, Jackson’s adaptation of the trilogy is a Herculean accomplishment that remains mostly true to the spirit of the text. The entire thing should have been unfilmable, but Peter Jackson, his sidekick Fran Walsh, and the army of on and offscreen talent they assembled pulled it off. And as far as the story goes, if Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli were interpreted wrong in order to appeal to modern audiences, other key figures like Gollum/Sméagol, Samwise, and Gandalf, are dead on. I still say the books are better than the films (and I don’t say that for every adaptation), but the films are still great and I think in some ways they contribute to Tolkien’s legacy, rather than detract from it. In contrast, the hobbit films are awful, and it makes me so sad to see the extra features because it’s pretty clear everyone knew they were going to be bad, and they tried their hardest anyway. I mean, Jackson had those poor Dwarves wrapped up in spider webs for a full day, just to get a genuine reaction when Martin Freeman cut them out, and doused them in real fish to get genuine reactions of disgust. But the story itself is so… stupid. And unnecessarily long, they didn’t have enough material for three films but New Line wanted three films worth of money so they had to pad it all with massive amounts of distilled stupid, and it’s heartbreaking. Like Christopher Tolkien, I can only look away.

 

[Caffeine]

@Meshuga excellent commentary, honestly the best I've read.

What pisses me off that the vultures didn't even wait for the old man to die. They signed the deal with Amazon while Christopher was still alive.

 

[Mossworth]

I heard it's more sexual than Peter Jackson's version

Eh that doesn't sound good. Seriously thinking about skipping it now.

 

[onceaking]

But the story itself is so… stupid. And unnecessarily long

It's ridiculous that they made it into a trilogy. It should have just been one movie.

 

[Meshuga]

OK everyone, I finished the season and learned some stuff, here's the deal.

Amazon bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings, including the Appendices. They did not acquire the rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Therefore, they are accurate(ish) to Tolkien only if you ignore The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. The information in the Appendices are not exhaustive, and much of the history in The Lord of the Rings is only vaguely alluded to, where the other resources expand on and clarify. The depiction of Galadriel as a badass avatar of Elvish vengeance actually is a legitimate interpretation of the Appendices, and the Appendices never say there aren't black Elves and Dwarves, so why not? Of course, with the details provided in The Silmarillion, the depiction of Galadriel looks silly and disingenuous but get this; Amazon legally could not be accurate to The Silmarillion, or they would be liable for copyright violation!

FOR THE RECORD
I don't mind black Elves or Dwarves. Or black or Asian Harfoots. In a way, I strongly support their presence in this story, because it means their skin, genetics of origin, whatever, is not the most important thing about them. Obvious origin means nothing. Arondir is just another Elf, as far as most people are concerned. Now, he says his birth of origin is Beleriand, and that absolutely does mean something. It means he's Noldor, born after their mass migration back to Middle Earth. That's different from Galadriel, who is a third generation Elf from a royal line, or the various factions of Elves who stayed in Middle Earth and never migrated to or stayed in Valinor. On the other hand, Galadriel is also Noldor, so that raises some questions although I am not intimate with the Appendices and probably wouldn't be able to differentiate where I got my information from anyway, so maybe that isn't an issue under the looser framework those Appendices provide. Regardless, my complaint about such diverse racial representation is that it reflects a very modern, U.S. concern, consequent from colonization and mass immigration from all corners of the world, enabled by modern technology. Middle Earth's colonization/immigration is very different, and they don't have the tech to travel and experience such genetic diversity. If people from different enough areas that they have visibly different mutations (skin color, hair color, hair texture, body types, facial structures) mix with one another, when they are truly tolerant they just mix it up and in a couple generations they look the same again. We have to conclude either the black Harfoots are either recent additions to the clan, or for some reason they have the same racial hangups as we do. And Disa the Dwarvish Princess is an immigrant to Khazad Dum. Which is fine. It's great that she can kiss red-bearded Durin and nobody's wrinkling their nose or calling it problematic because certain dynamics mean the relationship has connotations of abuse. We kind of need to see that in the U.S. It does seem forced and interrupts the fantasy of Middle Earth, though. What is this series for, to entertain or to preach at us?
Both.

So "Rings of Power" is true to Tolkien's Appendices and necessarily contradicts The Silmarillion. As a fan, that's frustrating. It's like a branch interpretation, it's basically forced to be non-canonical. There's a discussion on why or if that matters, but it doesn't have to be held here. The question, then, is why? Why do the show at all? Why not do a completely original fantasy show, with completely original characters and locations and aesthetic, not some bargain bin portrayal? I mean, you know the fans are going to complain about it.

Because you won't watch an original fantasy show, and fans complain no matter what. Brand recognition is everything. You might say you prefer something original, but you very well might be kidding yourself. Market analysis says most people don't want original. They want more of something they already know they like, they don't want to take a risk on an unknown. That's why most things on the big and small screens are reboots, part of a series, or based on books that have a proven fanbase, and with a record for resonating with audiences. Amazon wanted something guaranteed to boost their own streaming service. Middle Earth has an ardent fanbase, and sword & sorcery fantasy in general is hot right now. My guess is Amazon wanted to do it right, but they weren't able to come to an agreement with the estate so they weren't free to interpret Tolkien, as a playhouse interprets Shakespeare. They had to do this half-assed version. Because of money.

FOR THE RECORD
John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, founder of Middle Earth and original author of The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, The Children of Hurin, is dead. Christopher Tolkien, his son and curator/editor of all these offerings save The Lord of the Rings, and the one the senior Tolkien's writer's club, the Inklings, preferred to read early drafts of The Lord of the Rings for the group, is dead. Nobody who did any actual work to give us these stories can be compensated for their work any longer. I love the free market, but what's happening right here is Capitalism, and in this context it's toxic. I think we need to acknowledge there's a difference between free market and Capitalism.
Free market: good. Profiting off "ownership" of your dead relative's work: bad.

So, frustrating as it is, Amazon gave us a version of Middle Earth. Is it the one we need? Or the one we deserve? I don't know. Is it good on its own? I... don't know. I watched the whole thing! But I'm conflicted. It's just so confusing, knowing one version and seeing another, I don't know if my complaints are well-founded or if it's just me griping.
The makeup, music, and overall production value isn't up to Weta Workshop, Howard Shore, and Peter Jackson standards. I'm sorry, they just aren't. But that's another high bar! One thing my wife noted as we watched, they try so hard. They really do, they make a strong effort and I don't just mean the actors and writers, everyone really does seem to be bringing their A game. It's just, they aren't in the same league.

I don't think it's triggering, at least. Galadriel sports a wet look in episode 2, I think, but there's not egregious focus on her body. There's form fitting armor sometimes, some... I dunno, I think they're lady balrogs or something, wearing some... interesting gear? It looks more uncomfortable than attractive, to be honest, it wasn't a problem for me and I don't think it'd be a problem for many others. I'm pretty sensitive to that stuff and I had zero problems. The story is fine, I guess. It's not as bad as some say, and I'm actually all in with the Harfoots. I think these little proto-Hobbits are 100% in Tolkien's spirit, and their light banter was some of the best parts of the show.