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

This is just a case of "creator worship" in my opinion. A lot of people treat the original author/director as the God when it comes to the work and I think you limit the work by thinking like that.

The Ents as seen in the Jackson films are an improvement on the original design.
 
This is just a case of "creator worship" in my opinion. A lot of people treat the original author/director as the God when it comes to the work and I think you limit the work by thinking like that.

The Ents as seen in the Jackson films are an improvement on the original design.

I don't think of Tolkien as the God.....just the creator. :woot:

As far as Ents go, they were described as looking like various types of trees. It's true that there's no right or wrong answer unless God....I mean the creator.....made a detailed description, but I always thought of them as more "treeish" because of that.

Read the books.....:cwink:

EDIT: "Looking like" is probably too strong of a word....maybe resembling is better. Boom? Regwec?
 
Last edited:
"A large Man-like, almost Troll-like, figure, at least fourteen foot high, very sturdy, with a tall head, and hardly any neck. Whether it was clad in stuff like green and grey bark, or whether that was its hide, was difficult to say. At any rate the arms, at a short distance from the trunk, were not wrinkled, but covered with a brown smooth skin. The large feet had seven toes each. The lower part of the long face was covered with a sweeping grey beard, bushy, almost twiggy at the roots, thin and mossy at the ends. But at the moment the hobbits noted little but the eyes. These deep eyes were now surveying them, slow and solemn, but very penetrating."

They're difficult to define. I suppose the best way to describe them is sort of a half-way point between a tree and a man. Their skin is described as tough and bark-like, but as far as I know they didn't have literal bark for flesh. They also took on the attributes of the trees that they personally shepherded, so some would have smoother skin while others were more coarse. Their hair and beards were made up of moss and leaves, and Treebeard at least had deep green eyes.

Peter Jackson's Ents skew a bit too close to being trees for my tastes (they look more like Ents changing into Huorns), but they're still beautifully designed and perfectly valid interpretations of Tolkien's texts.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the quote. It is clear tha Tolkein was describing something far more mammalian and humanoid than the films portray. The films are basically trees in the shape of a human. The books are more like large humans with some tree like features.
This does come down to opinion but I prefer the film version by a wide margin.
Read the books.....:cwink:
First time when I was ten years old and three times since then. Maybe you should have double checked the source before being rude to a stranger and making yourself look dumb.
 
"A large Man-like, almost Troll-like, figure, at least fourteen foot high, very sturdy, with a tall head, and hardly any neck. Whether it was clad in stuff like green and grey bark, or whether that was its hide, was difficult to say. At any rate the arms, at a short distance from the trunk, were not wrinkled, but covered with a brown smooth skin. The large feet had seven toes each. The lower part of the long face was covered with a sweeping grey beard, bushy, almost twiggy at the roots, thin and mossy at the ends. But at the moment the hobbits noted little but the eyes. These deep eyes were now surveying them, slow and solemn, but very penetrating."

They're difficult to define. I suppose the best way to describe them is sort of a half-way point between a tree and a man. Their skin is described as tough and bark-like, but as far as I know they didn't have literal bark for flesh. They also took on the attributes the trees that they personally shepherded, so some would have smoother skin while others were more coarse. Their hair and beards were made up of moss and leaves, and Treebeard at least had deep green eyes.

Peter Jackson's Ents skew a bit too close to being trees for my tastes (they look more like Ents changing into Huorns), but they're still beautifully designed and perfectly valid interpretations of Tolkien's texts.

Right. I remember Quickbeam resembled a Rowan tree. I don't think it was ever stated emphatically that Huorns were a step toward becoming trees or treeish. This part of it I don't think is very clear; although it seems to be the impression (maybe even a strong impression). Huorns were said to move very fast. A far cry from the Ents that became "treeish". They were difficult to rouse. I'm not sure that part was ever really worked out or maybe it changed.
 
Thank you for the quote. It is clear tha Tolkein was describing something far more mammalian and humanoid than the films portray. The films are basically trees in the shape of a human. The books are more like large humans with some tree like features.
This does come down to opinion but I prefer the film version by a wide margin.First time when I was ten years old and three times since then. Maybe you should have double checked the source before being rude to a stranger and making yourself look dumb.

Oh geeze...I profusely apologize for not quoting the person I was talking to. I quoted him in the post earlier and mistakenly thought people had memories. If I look dumb to you, I'll live with it. If you look thin skinned and whiny to me, you'll have to do the same.
 
I'm way overdue to read the books again.

In any case, looking forward to hearing more about what this project is exactly. Hard to have a real discussion about it until we know what stories are actually being adapted. I've seen "Lord of the Rings" used as a phrase to describe Middle-earth in general, so it may not be a re-adaptation of the book itself.
 
I'm way overdue to read the books again.

In any case, looking forward to hearing more about what this project is exactly. Hard to have a real discussion about it until we know what stories are actually being adapted. I've seen "Lord of the Rings" used as a phrase to describe Middle-earth in general, so it may not be a re-adaptation of the book itself.

That's a heartening thought. I hope you're right. I think it would be a mistake to lead with the end of the Third Age.

EDIT: I read The Silmarillion not too long ago and both Books of Lost Tales. They'd do way better to start from the beginning there's so much good stuff in there.
 
Last edited:
My interest in a re-adaptation of The Lord of the Rings goes beyond the superficial aesthetics, I assure you.

I know you know better. I'm just tired of Tolkien nerds over the years sticking their noses down at things and makes it bad on principle because it wasn't like how it was in the book without any understanding of the filmmaking process and not judging it on its own terms. That's my problems with book readers in general when they judge a great adaptation. It's like they were given the best tasting apple pie in the world but when they taste it they say, "This isn't good pie because the crust is too soft." Okay, it may be too soft to your taste, that's okay, not for everyone, but that does not mean it's objectively bad because it doesn't fit your own preference. And not acknowledging there are other great ways to make apple pie.

Say what you want about Jackson's choices, but there was a respect for the source material and an understanding of it. We could be sitting here still *****ing about how there were two movies or even one film when they were going to make it with Weinstein for a lot less money. It could have gone a lot of different ways. We really have it good. I'm not saying, "Shut up and be happy." But for God's sake, these are the best possible movies to have come out and be done. Now the question is, can they do better? And my answer is... it's very unlikely right now. And that's not from blind loyalty and bias.
 
Last edited:
I don't really understand the trepidation around another adaptation. Nobody ****s kittens when yet another Sherlock Holmes adaptation is pumped out. Maybe it's just that many people here saw PJs movies at a formative sge?
 
I know you know better. I'm just tired of Tolkien nerds over the years sticking their noses down at things and makes it bad on principle because it wasn't like how it was in the book without any understanding of the filmmaking process and not judging it on its own terms. That's my problems with book readers in general when they judge a great adaptation. It's like they were given the best tasting apple pie in the world but when they taste it they say, "This isn't good pie because the crust is too soft." Okay, it may be too soft to your taste, that's okay, not for everyone, but that does not mean it's objectively bad because it doesn't fit your own preference. And not acknowledging there are other great ways to make apple pie.

Say what you want about Jackson's choices, but there was a respect for the source material and an understanding of it. We could be sitting here still *****ing about how there were two movies or even one film when they were going to make it with Weinstein for a lot less money. It could have gone a lot of different ways. We really have it good. I'm not saying, "Shut up and be happy." But for God's sake, these are the best possible movies to have come out and be done. Now the question is, can they do better? And my answer is... it's very unlikely right now. And that's not from blind loyalty and bias.
I adore the Jackson films. Heck, it's because of those films that I even got into Tolkien in the first place, so I owe them a great deal. They were a monumental cinematic achievement that will likely never be replicated.

If the plan was to make new film adaptations of the book, that would give me pause. But I do believe the Lord of the Rings lends itself very well to the long-form, episodic format of television. It would certainly be quite different from the films, which I suppose is what makes it so appealing to me. It's not really a matter of trying to one-up the Jackson films. It's simply getting together a new group of creative minds and providing a new interpretation of a beloved story, presumably playing up the strengths of this particular medium.

If the show could even be half as satisfying of an adaptation as the Jackson films were, then I'm a pig in ****.
 
Last edited:
I adore the Jackson films. Heck, it's because of those films that I even got into Tolkien in the first place, so I owe them a great deal. They were a monumental cinematic achievement that will likely never be replicated.

If the plan was to make new film adaptations of the book, that would give me pause. But I do believe the Lord of the Rings lends itself very well to the long-form, episodic format of television. It would certainly be quite different from the films, which I suppose is what makes it so appealing to me. It's not really a matter of trying to one-up the Jackson films. It's simply getting together a new group of creative minds and providing a new interpretation of a beloved story, presumably playing up the strengths of this particular medium.

If the show could even be half as satisfying of an adaptation as the Jackson films were, then I'm a pig in ****.

That's where I'm trying to come from though as well. I'm not opposed to this either in principle, but it's such a tall order where even I don't think television can match it. Something like an adaptation as good as that can only be done once, no matter the medium. I just think the films got there first. And that's okay. Can't we just live with that and have restraint? Must we need to keep going back to this well, especially when it was done so well the first time?

Now I could be totally wrong. Who knows? But ascertaining the circumstances, this to me just feels so casual. "We're making LOTR again!" Does Amazon really know what the bad place they're getting themselves into? If they have that understanding, okay it's a start. But it's not enough for me to think they can execute it. LOTR is the monster of monsters. And as we saw with the Appendices, the films looked to be some of the most challenging movies ever. And the fact they turned out as well as they did is something incredible. The television show has to overcome that obstacle. They also have to overcome adapting it to television. In theory, this may not be so much of a problem, since you could just assume "We'll just do what the films didn't, and have it be closer to the book!" It's not that easy. They have to contend with Jackson's films, differentiating those from his choices that people will automatically compare them to (for justifiable reasons), restructuring it for television, and make their own path and do their own thing when they need to. Then they have to execute it. If this all sounds obvious, yeah it is. But it's one thing for me to talk about it and another to actually do it.

Quite frankly, when it comes down to it, I'm not interested in another adaptation when it was done so well the first time, even if it was a different medium. If anything, I'll be curious just to see how they do this thing. I'm okay with nearly ten hours of Tolkien on film. But if others want it, okay. But for this I'm of the attitude just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'm not looking forward to the, "It'll be even closer to the book!" **** we're gonna hear from the makers. Just a cynical excuse to get more out of this.

Now The Hobbit? Okay, when the **** can they do that again? Tomorrow please? bad place, I wouldn't be opposed to a one film remake in the future.
 
Last edited:
:funny:

Yes, I need to see another adaptation of The Hobbit in my lifetime, whether it's a film or a miniseries.
 
I don't really understand the trepidation around another adaptation. Nobody ****s kittens when yet another Sherlock Holmes adaptation is pumped out. Maybe it's just that many people here saw PJs movies at a formative sge?

I think another adaptation was inevitable, but the fact that it's happening so soon is more surprising. And yes, nearly 20 years after a massively successful film trilogy is still too soon.
 
Yeah, I'd like to see them redo the Hobbit more than LotR, too. LotR had its issues but The Hobbit was just a major mistake from start to finish. Very frustrating because the cast was incredible, they just got a lousy adaptation of the story to work with.
 
Martin Freeman got ****ed over so badly. One of the best casting choices in the entire Middle-earth franchise, and he was essentially relegated to a glorified supporting role because Jackson decided to make it "The Hobbit, the Dwarf, the Wizard, the Elf, the Other Elf, and that Other Dwarf She's Super Into."
 
Last edited:
:funny:

Yes, I need to see another adaptation of The Hobbit in my lifetime, whether it's a film or a miniseries.

Yeah, if there’s anything that could be re-adapted, it’s The Hobbit. But if anything, it should be a single film. I still can’t believe how much they dragged that story out.

But I have no interest in re-adapting the LOTR. Maybe Jackson’s films weren’t 100% perfect, but I just can’t imagine a TV series or even a new series of movies being better than them. And even if they could be, it just feels unnecessary. There’s plenty of other territory to explore with Tolkien’s writing; sure The Silmarillion isn’t as popular as LOTR or the Hobbit, but just call it “LOTR Origins” or something and people will get on board. Prequels are all the rage anyway.
 
"A large Man-like, almost Troll-like, figure, at least fourteen foot high, very sturdy, with a tall head, and hardly any neck. Whether it was clad in stuff like green and grey bark, or whether that was its hide, was difficult to say. At any rate the arms, at a short distance from the trunk, were not wrinkled, but covered with a brown smooth skin. The large feet had seven toes each. The lower part of the long face was covered with a sweeping grey beard, bushy, almost twiggy at the roots, thin and mossy at the ends. But at the moment the hobbits noted little but the eyes. These deep eyes were now surveying them, slow and solemn, but very penetrating."

They're difficult to define. I suppose the best way to describe them is sort of a half-way point between a tree and a man. Their skin is described as tough and bark-like, but as far as I know they didn't have literal bark for flesh. They also took on the attributes of the trees that they personally shepherded, so some would have smoother skin while others were more coarse. Their hair and beards were made up of moss and leaves, and Treebeard at least had deep green eyes.

Peter Jackson's Ents skew a bit too close to being trees for my tastes (they look more like Ents changing into Huorns), but they're still beautifully designed and perfectly valid interpretations of Tolkien's texts.

Would love to see this interpretation one day. Sounds beautiful.
 
No Christopher Tolkien, no Tolkien books other than The Hobbit and LOTR.
 
I don't really understand the trepidation around another adaptation. Nobody ****s kittens when yet another Sherlock Holmes adaptation is pumped out. Maybe it's just that many people here saw PJs movies at a formative sge?

I always want more but with LotR it's almost like a benchmark for fantasy so if a LotR property does really badly it has a significant effect on the whole genre's reputation and willingness to do future projects.
 
Yeah, if there’s anything that could be re-adapted, it’s The Hobbit. But if anything, it should be a single film. I still can’t believe how much they dragged that story out.

I never thought it would turn out that the 1977 Rankin/ Bass version would actually be a better adaptation of The Hobbit than a live action version which had all the time and resources to do it right.

Martin Freeman got ****ed over so badly. One of the best casting choices in the entire Middle-earth franchise, and he was essentially relegated to a glorified supporting role because Jackson decided to make it "The Hobbit, the Dwarf, the Wizard, the Elf, the Other Elf, and that Other Dwarf She's Super Into."

No kidding!! All of the actors got ***ed over, I think. Jackson had these really great backstories for all of the dwarves but we never heard about most of them. Bombur never even got any lines in three movies! That poor actor had to wear that heavy, hot fat suit and ended up being a background character who might as well have not been in the movie. The only ones who got any decent attention were Thorin and Kili. Balin got a few good scenes as did Bofur but that was it. And they were all great actors who could have really made an impression but they weren't given the chance.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't want to let Jackson off the hook too much, because they are ultimately his films and his choices, but WB did put insane pressure on him to meet a predetermined deadline after Guillermo Del Toro dropped out. He had no time to really prepare, compared to the years worth of pre-production he had on Rings. If you watch the BTS material, he looks absolutely miserable, and afterward he came out and said he missed the mark.
 
I know you know better. I'm just tired of Tolkien nerds over the years sticking their noses down at things and makes it bad on principle because it wasn't like how it was in the book without any understanding of the filmmaking process and not judging it on its own terms. That's my problems with book readers in general when they judge a great adaptation. It's like they were given the best tasting apple pie in the world but when they taste it they say, "This isn't good pie because the crust is too soft." Okay, it may be too soft to your taste, that's okay, not for everyone, but that does not mean it's objectively bad because it doesn't fit your own preference. And not acknowledging there are other great ways to make apple pie.

Say what you want about Jackson's choices, but there was a respect for the source material and an understanding of it. We could be sitting here still *****ing about how there were two movies or even one film when they were going to make it with Weinstein for a lot less money. It could have gone a lot of different ways. We really have it good. I'm not saying, "Shut up and be happy." But for God's sake, these are the best possible movies to have come out and be done. Now the question is, can they do better? And my answer is... it's very unlikely right now. And that's not from blind loyalty and bias.

You paint with a very wide brush. Not all Tolkien nerds (thank you by the way) look down their noses at Jackson's original trilogy and not all people accuse said nerds (generally without knowing them at all) as being ignorant of the film making process. I have described Jackson's work as reasonably well done and realize that he had a very difficult task. I think there are definitely areas that could/should have been improved upon, but the only places that I can think of off the top of my head where he could have used help from a proctologist is the Arwen/Glorfindel swap and the death of Saruman. I don't believe changing those helped the movie in any way, shape or form. If they wanted to make Arwen more prominent, there are better ways of doing it.

Just because someone doesn't think it's "the best tasting apple pie in the world" doesn't mean they are looking down their noses. It's also a common mistake for people who are writing critiques to overgeneralize and it's generally mildly annoying for those of us who don't quite fit the mold into which we're being put.

EDIT: BTW, I think The Hobbit was a dumpster fire. If that's looking down my nose, so be it.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"