Amazon's Rings of Power - General Discussion Thread (SPOILERS)

[terry78]

People would watch a LOTR show, whether on tv or streaming. It's become a larger pop culture icon thanks to Jackson's flicks whatever your thoughts on those.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

More mannish and less treeish Ents you say?

 

[KevTravels]

Deadline is reporting that the proposed budget is $100-$150 million per season, which would put it on par with the newer Game of Thrones seasons.

That's a nice start. Though a lot of the $$ in GoT is spent on the cast.

 

[InCali]

Seems ill-advised to me.

If you mean retelling LotR, I agree. Those events took place at the end of the Third Age. Let LotR be for the time being. I'm much more interested in The Silmarillion, The Alkallabeth, The Last Alliance, The Return of the Shadow, etc.

But, PLEASE, this time get someone with some talent and looks to play Galadriel (Finarfiniel just had a stroke).

I get that these stories are still owned by the Tolkien family, but it also appears that there's some softening and this dam could break. It needs to be done right and starting off with an already "reasonably well" done LotR seems more like a money grab than anything else. They should be doing the Ainulindale, Flight of the Noldor, Beren and Luthien, Tuor and Idril, Turin and, well, his sister (yick), Hurin and Huor (Nirnaeth Arnoediad), etc. first. The end of the Third Age will come.....don't rush it.

 

[Boom]

That's much more in line with the Ents described in the book. And it's not just the Ents. There are other creatures I'd like to see re-invented to be more in keeping with the text.

- Sauron is said to be humanoid and of above-average height (but not giant), and that he was the embodiment of malice and hate. Beyond that, details on Sauron's physical appearance are scanty. Both Isildur and Gollum described him as having a "black hand," so we can either surmise that he was either black-skinned or that he wore black armor. I'm personally inclined to think the former, as it never made much sense to me that Sauron would wear the One Ring over an armored glove. However, that is open to interpretation. The Eye of Sauron that Frodo sees in the Mirror of Galadriel is described as being yellow and cat-like, so one could also speculate that this was what Sauron's eyes looked like in his physical form. Sauron was also said to emit great heat, as he literally burned Gil-Galad to death just by touch. There's nothing necessarily inaccurate about Peter Jackson's Sauron in the Fellowship prologue, but I'd personally like to see Sauron less decked out in armor. More chainmail and cloaks and less plate steel. I'd have him wearing an open-faced, crowned helm, so we could see a face burning with malice and hate. I essentially imagine a lightly-armored Antler Man from the Hannibal television series.

What Jackson did miss the mark on, however, is the literal depiction of the Eye of Sauron. Safe for Frodo's vision in the Mirror of Galadriel, the Eye is figurative - signifying that Sauron is omnipresent and ever watchful. While I understand that the fiery Eye atop the tower was Jackson's way of giving physical manifestation to this concept, nothing in the text lends credence to the sort of "Sauron lighthouse" was saw. In fact, it is likely that Sauron had a physical form at the time of the War of the Ring, albeit weakened without the One Ring. Gollum indicates that he had actually met Sauron while being tortured. He mentions having seen his black, four-fingered hand.

- The Balrog as a humanoid "demon." I use "demon" in a figurative sense because the balrogs weren't demons in the traditional Christian sense (being more bestial in appearance, with horns, hooves, tails, and wings). The balrogs were "demons" in the same way that Gandalf and the Istari were "angels." Going off of Tolkien's notes, the balrogs had yellow eyes (like burning coals), were either red or bronze skinned, had long red hair, red tongues, long arms, were of above average height (likely around 6'4"), likely wore armor, and emitted great heat. There should also be less emphasis on fire and more emphasis on shadow - as the balrogs were able to cloak themselves in a thick veil of darkness. For the most part, Durin's Bane should appear as little more than a silhouette with glowing yellow eyes. Think of the ghost in Lights Out.

- Shelob is "an evil thing in spider form." So while she should be spider-like, she shouldn't just be a giant tarantula or anything like that. She's described as having great horns, two huge clusters of eyes, a beak, a short-stalk like neck, and a blotched black body with a pale luminescent belly.

- The Fell Beast should be more bird-like in appearance, and smaller in size.

- The Mouth of Sauron should be human in appearance, being a Dark Numenorean. He's essentially a dark mirror or Aragorn.

 

[InCali]

That's much more in line with the Ents described in the book. And it's not just the Ents. There are other creatures I'd like to see re-invented to be more in keeping with the text.

- Sauron is said to be humanoid and of above-average height (but not giant), and that he was the embodiment of malice and hate. Beyond that, details on Sauron's physical appearance are scanty. Both Isildur and Gollum described him as having a "black hand," so we can either surmise that he was either black-skinned or that he wore black armor. I'm personally inclined to think the former, as it never made much sense to me that Sauron would wear the One Ring over an armored glove. However, that is open to interpretation. The Eye of Sauron that Frodo sees in the Mirror of Galadriel is described as being yellow and cat-like, so one could also speculate that this was what Sauron's eyes looked like in his physical form. Sauron was also said to emit great heat, as he literally burned Gil-Galad to death just by touch. There's nothing necessarily inaccurate about Peter Jackson's Sauron in the Fellowship prologue, but I'd personally like to see Sauron less decked out in armor. More chainmail and cloaks and less plate steel. I'd have him wearing an open-faced, crowned helm, so we could see a face burning with malice and hate. I essentially imagine a lightly-armored Antler Man from the Hannibal television series.

What Jackson did miss the mark on, however, is the literal depiction of the Eye of Sauron. Safe for Frodo's vision in the Mirror of Galadriel, the Eye is figurative - signifying that Sauron is omnipresent and ever watchful. While I understand that the fiery Eye atop the tower was Jackson's way of giving physical manifestation to this concept, nothing in the text lends credence to the sort of "Sauron lighthouse" was saw. In fact, it is likely that Sauron had a physical form at the time of the War of the Ring, albeit weakened without the One Ring. Gollum indicates that he had actually met Sauron while being tortured. He mentions having seen his black, four-fingered hand.

- The Balrog as a humanoid "demon." I use "demon" in a figurative sense because the balrogs weren't demons in the traditional Christian sense (being more bestial in appearance, with horns, hooves, tails, and wings). The balrogs were "demons" in the same way that Gandalf and the Istari were "angels." Going off of Tolkien's notes, the balrogs had yellow eyes (like burning coals), were either red or bronze skinned, had long red hair, red tongues, long arms, were of above average height (likely around 6'4"), likely wore armor, and emitted great heat. There should also be less emphasis on fire and more emphasis on shadow - as the balrogs were able to cloak themselves in a thick veil of darkness. For the most part, Durin's Bane should appear as little more than a silhouette with glowing yellow eyes. Think of the ghost in Lights Out.

- Shelob is "an evil thing in spider form." So while she should be spider-like, she shouldn't just be a giant tarantula or anything like that. She's described as having great horns, two huge clusters of eyes, a beak, a short-stalk like neck, and a blotched black body with a pale luminescent belly.

- The Fell Beast should be more bird-like in appearance, and smaller in size.

- The Mouth of Sauron should be human in appearance, being a Dark Numenorean. He's essentially a dark mirror or Aragorn.

Sauron's and, for that matter, Morgoth's appearance changed over time (examples being after the fall of Numenor and after Melkor's encounter with Ungoliant).

My guess is that the Valaraukar (Balrogs) were larger than what you describe. Elendil was probably approaching (Oops....EDIT: at least) 7 feet tall and Thingol was taller. In Tolkien's universe height was (somewhat) equated with power. Morgoth was taller than Sauron (in those days Thauron or Gorthaur) who was probably taller than the Balrogs (of all Elf banes the most deadly save the one who sits in the dark tower). I could see them being easily 8 feet.

The bottom line is that we aren't sure about any of this, but those are my impressions.

 

[regwec]

JRR sketched a watercolour of Sauron - he was black skinned and bare limbed. That may present difficulties in the modern era in which the presentation of anything other than a pale skinned male as non-heroic is deemed racist.

 

[Doctor Jones]

*Shrug*

Well I for one am excited at the prospect of getting to see two live-action adaptations of my favorite book in my lifetime, and in different mediums to boot. As great as the films are, they barely scratch the surface of what The Lord of the Rings has to offer. The long-form, episodic nature of the television format could provide a more complete adaptation of the text. Now, if you thought the films' omission of certain subplots, storylines, and characters from the book were a good choice, that's fine. Others would disagree. Your mileage may vary on what's important.

That's the problem. This is such an expansive world and story, everybody has an adaptation in their head. Certain things others are okay with and some aren't. You're never going to get it completely right and to think an adaptation is going to get everything that Jackson didn't do and make it work just the same has more going against that. If people apply that same type of critiquing to an adaptation, they're always going to be disappointed. I just don't see it's worth taking it all on again just to see a "proper" Mouth of Sauron or more human like Ents. Those come down to design preference and do not make or break the fundamentals of storytelling and structure to adaptation and its understanding of the actual story. My point is, those aesthetics are constantly malleable and a showrunner may not see those same things. If people are just looking forward to this on those terms, then that's boring and superficial. I certainly hope not. Say what you want about Jackson, but again, you can afford to complain about those smaller preferential things because he got the rest right, otherwise, we'd be complaining about much bigger, substantive things. It'd be on the level of the Star Wars prequels. These books allow such large failure, but the fact those films didn't fail says something about the fundamentals of the execution and understanding of the storytelling. Something Amazon needs to be very mindful of. This isn't just, "Oh, we have LOTR and a brand, look at us! And we're gonna adapt it!"

I don't give a **** how the Ents look or what's more faithful, I care more about them executing the storytelling again.

Again, I'm not opposed to this in principle, but something about this feels off and too soon to boot. I'm gonna have to hear the, "And it will be even more faithful to the books" as basis for us to want to like this and as if that's some sort of valid way to sell me on this.

 

[Boom]

Sauron's and, for that matter, Morgoth's appearance changed over time (examples being after the fall of Numenor and after Melkor's encounter with Ungoliant).

My guess is that the Valaraukar (Balrogs) were larger than what you describe. Elendil was probably approaching (Oops....EDIT: at least) 7 feet tall and Thingol was taller. In Tolkien's universe height was (somewhat) equated with power. Morgoth was taller than Sauron (in those days Thauron or Gorthaur) who was probably taller than the Balrogs (of all Elf banes the most deadly save the one who sits in the dark tower). I could see them being easily 8 feet.

The bottom line is that we aren't sure about any of this, but those are my impressions.

Heres a great article detailing the Balrogs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG2rnPX0xMeHEHQAftLaOGrlOcHrMi5jqKHvoJcv1v4/mobilebasic

They went through several changes from draft to draft, but by the end they weren't much taller than men.

 

[InCali]

Heres a great article detailing the Balrogs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG2rnPX0xMeHEHQAftLaOGrlOcHrMi5jqKHvoJcv1v4/mobilebasic

They went through several changes from draft to draft, but by the end they weren't much taller than men.

Thanks for that. I hadn't read that article before, but have to disagree with the author's interpretation of what Tolkien wrote in "The Bridge of Khazad-dum". The Balrog is described as a shadow in the midst of which was a form of man shape yet greater. I don't believe that equates to the Balrog's large size being what it felt like, but, rather, what its size actually was.

God I love those books. I guess that's why I collect them.

 

[Boom]

That's the problem. This is such an expansive world and story, everybody has an adaptation in their head. Certain things others are okay with and some aren't. You're never going to get it completely right and to think an adaptation is going to get everything that Jackson didn't do and make it work just the same has more going against that. If people apply that same type of critiquing to an adaptation, they're always going to be disappointed. I just don't see it's worth taking it all on again just to see a "proper" Mouth of Sauron or more human like Ents. Those come down to design preference and do not make or break the fundamentals of storytelling and structure to adaptation and its understanding of the actual story. My point is, those aesthetics are constantly malleable and a showrunner may not see those same things. If people are just looking forward to this on those terms, then that's boring and superficial. I certainly hope not. Say what you want about Jackson, but again, you can afford to complain about those smaller preferential things because he got the rest right, otherwise, we'd be complaining about much bigger, substantive things. It'd be on the level of the Star Wars prequels. These books allow such large failure, but the fact those films didn't fail says something about the fundamentals of the execution and understanding of the storytelling. Something Amazon needs to be very mindful of. This isn't just, "Oh, we have LOTR and a brand, look at us! And we're gonna adapt it!"

I don't give a **** how the Ents look or what's more faithful, I care more about them executing the storytelling again.

Again, I'm not opposed to this in principle, but something about this feels off and too soon to boot. I'm gonna have to hear the, "And it will be even more faithful to the books" as basis for us to want to like this and as if that's some sort of valid way to sell me on this.

My interest in a re-adaptation of The Lord of the Rings goes beyond the superficial aesthetics, I assure you.

 

[InCali]

My interest in a re-adaptation of The Lord of the Rings goes beyond the superficial aesthetics, I assure you.

(EDIT Dunadan,

Of that I have NO doubt.

 

[Fincher]

People would watch a LOTR show, whether on tv or streaming. It's become a larger pop culture icon thanks to Jackson's flicks whatever your thoughts on those.

People would watch a Lord of the Rings show if it gives them what they want. It's important to keep in mind that a lot of people who watched the movies did so because they were special effects-laden blockbusters. Given that this show will fare worse in effects and quite likely action, and given the expectations in general for TV shows, it's reasonable to expect that the show, whether it's a remake or something else in the world of Middle Earth, will dig deeper in terms of characterization. Game of Thrones is a hit show, but it's also a show with political machinations and where the characters tend to have personal motivations beyond good vs. evil.

Someone said they didn't think the show should have more love (and sex), but it's bound to have more romance because it's bound to have more things that flesh characters out in general. I'm not saying the show won't have Tom Bombadil or whatever, but I am saying that with the price tag it comes with, pleasing devotees of the books won't be the prime concern.

And for me that would be a good thing, because, look, Return of the King the film was great and all, but by the end of the film series Aragorn/Gandalf/Legolas/Gimli were being stretched thin as characters when they weren't in battle. One of Aragorn's major conflicts was a love triangle that was barely developed because he was barely seen with either of the women. Gandalf got a personality transplant midway through the series, and afterward he didn't have much personality to speak of, but whatever, time to stop Sauron. What are Legolas and Gimli about? Stopping Sauron. Sauron is bad. The Fellowship is good. That's not a TV show, or at least not one worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[InCali]

People would watch a Lord of the Rings show if it gives them what they want. It's important to keep in mind that a lot of people who watched the movies did so because they were special effects-laden blockbusters. Given that this show will fare worse in effects and quite likely action, and given the expectations in general for TV shows, it's reasonable to expect that the show, whether it's a remake or something else in the world of Middle Earth, will dig deeper in terms of characterization. Game of Thrones is a hit show, but it's also a show with political machinations and where the characters tend to have personal motivations beyond good vs. evil.

Someone said they didn't think the show should have more love (and sex), but it's bound to have more romance because it's bound to have more things that flesh characters out in general. I'm not saying the show won't have Tom Bombadil or whatever, but I am saying that with the price tag it comes with, pleasing devotees of the books won't be the prime concern.

And for me that would be a good thing, because, look, Return of the King the film was great and all, but by the end of the film series Aragorn/Gandalf/Legolas/Gimli were being stretched thin as characters when they weren't in battle. One of Aragorn's major conflicts was a love triangle that was barely developed because he was barely seen with either of the women. Gandalf got a personality transplant midway through the series, and afterward he didn't have much personality to speak of, but whatever, time to stop Sauron. What are Legolas and Gimli about? Stopping Sauron. Sauron is bad. The Fellowship is good. That's not a TV show, or at least not one worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

I seriously doubt the Tolkien inspired series that I want to see will ever be made unless most of the rest of the world loses its collective mind to the extent that I have. There is plenty of room for political intrigue (The Alkallabeth for example), but, ultimately, Tolkien's work comes down to good v evil because those concepts are absolutes within the framework of the writings. Is there room for redemption? Sure.

The bottom line is that it is maybe the most exhaustive literary work ever created when it comes to building an entire world and culture. As such, I would love, without hope, of seeing a faithful adaptation from the Ainulindale to Dagor Dagorath (Though not all of it is entirely fleshed out).

 

[Finarfiniel]

But, PLEASE, this time get someone with some talent and looks to play Galadriel (Finarfiniel just had a stroke).

*gasp*

Cali, I will remove you from my friends list immediately, don't think that I won't.

That's the problem. This is such an expansive world and story, everybody has an adaptation in their head. Certain things others are okay with and some aren't. You're never going to get it completely right and to think an adaptation is going to get everything that Jackson didn't do and make it work just the same has more going against that. If people apply that same type of critiquing to an adaptation, they're always going to be disappointed. I just don't see it's worth taking it all on again just to see a "proper" Mouth of Sauron or more human like Ents. Those come down to design preference and do not make or break the fundamentals of storytelling and structure to adaptation and its understanding of the actual story. My point is, those aesthetics are constantly malleable and a showrunner may not see those same things. If people are just looking forward to this on those terms, then that's boring and superficial. I certainly hope not. Say what you want about Jackson, but again, you can afford to complain about those smaller preferential things because he got the rest right, otherwise, we'd be complaining about much bigger, substantive things. It'd be on the level of the Star Wars prequels. These books allow such large failure, but the fact those films didn't fail says something about the fundamentals of the execution and understanding of the storytelling. Something Amazon needs to be very mindful of. This isn't just, "Oh, we have LOTR and a brand, look at us! And we're gonna adapt it!"

I don't give a **** how the Ents look or what's more faithful, I care more about them executing the storytelling again.

Again, I'm not opposed to this in principle, but something about this feels off and too soon to boot. I'm gonna have to hear the, "And it will be even more faithful to the books" as basis for us to want to like this and as if that's some sort of valid way to sell me on this.

Once again, you nail exactly why this whole thing fills me with misgivings (as does InCali, but I'm temporarily not speaking to him ), I find it difficult to verbalise why, as a Tolkien fan, I don't want a new adaption but you do it so well that I find I don't need to.

 

[regwec]

Heres a great article detailing the Balrogs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OG2rnPX0xMeHEHQAftLaOGrlOcHrMi5jqKHvoJcv1v4/mobilebasic

They went throuygh several changes from draft to draft, but by the end they weren't much taller than men.

Fascinating piece, Boom. I started reading it in a nice warm bath which became tepid and genital-withering by the time I finished.

 

[InCali]

Fascinating piece, Boom. I started reading it in a nice warm bath which became tepid and genital-withering by the time I finished.

OOOOOOOOOOKKKKKKKAAAAAAAAYYYYYY. Please use (dinner) spoiler tags in the future.

I just read a certain part of the article, didn't take a warm bath, and, fortunately, have no further comment.

 

[Boom]

It really is a great read, though, and it also goes to show that there aren't many illustrations of the Balrog out there that really nail down the creature as described in Tolkien's texts. Most depictions of the Balrog simply follow the John Howe/Ted Nasbith school of design, which is to depict a giant bestial demon with a literal mane of fire. These illustrators also put a lot of emphasis on fire, and not enough on the shadow.

Don't get me wrong, Peter Jackson's Balrog is one of the greatest creatures ever committed to film. But next time around, I'd like something a bit more in keeping with the book. Ironically enough, doing so would be much more budget friendly.

 

[terry78]

Put a 7ft. tall dude in a robe engulfed in flames.

 

[Iceman]

I was hoping there'd be more fantasy-based TV shows or films. LotR is going to be a very difficult one to convert but I have to hope they can do it well (and not tarnish what we already have).

 

[Iceman]

It really is a great read, though, and it also goes to show that there aren't many illustrations of the Balrog out there that really nail down the creature as described in Tolkien's texts. Most depictions of the Balrog simply follow the John Howe/Ted Nasbith school of design, which is to depict a bestial demon with a literal mane of fire. These illustrators also put a lot of emphasis on fire, and not enough on the shadow.

Don't get me wrong, Peter Jackson's Balrog is one of the greatest creatures ever committed to film. But next time around, I'd like something a bit more in keeping with the book. Ironically enough, doing just that would be much more budget friendly.

Would love to see a new Balrog design with more emphasis on shadow.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Boom, I have never read the books but absolutely love the movies. Can you please explain how the Ents are described in the book.

 

[Silvermoth]

"Big fu*****g tree dudes"

JRR Tolkien was such a clever man

 

[InCali]

Boom, I have never read the books but absolutely love the movies. Can you please explain how the Ents are described in the book.

Read the books.

 

[Boom]

Boom, I have never read the books but absolutely love the movies. Can you please explain how the Ents are described in the book.

There's nothing necessarily unfaithful about Peter Jackson's depiction of the Ents. They're essentially described as mannish creatures with tree-like features (thick skin like bark, leaves for hair), which doesn't contradict what we see in the films. But there is some discussion about the Ents appearing a bit more human-like than how that were portrayed in the films. The illustration you posted is a good example of that. Tall humanoids with rough, bark-like skin, and with leaves/moss acting as hair, beards, and clothing of sorts.

But Tolkien's description of them is so open-ended, your mileage may vary. It really boils down to personal preference.