Lord of the Rings

[pg1067]

If I remember correctly there will be a smidge of original characters and such, but the show is based entirely - again, if I recall properly - on Tolkien's own writings. The show takes place in the Second Age of Middle Earth. The LOTR story takes place at the very end of the Third Age with the War of the Ring.

I'm not sure that I have high hopes for this new show, other than as spectacle.  As I understand it, it's not based specifically on any of Tolkein's actual writings, as the LOTR or Hobbit films were.

I'm more confused than I was before.  It's just the three LOTR books and the Hobbit, right?  So is this series grounded in whatever back story was detailed in those books with embellishment that's new?

I liked the movies, and I'm positive my wife will want to watch this, so I'll definitely watch.  I just hope it's not the sort of thing where you're lost if you haven't read the books.

[hefdaddy42]

I'm more confused than I was before. It's just the three LOTR books and the Hobbit, right? 

No.

[Stadler]

My old copy of The Return of the King had an appendix that was at least as long as the story in that volume.  I'm assuming that the Second Age material is culled from that.

[pg1067]

I'm more confused than I was before. It's just the three LOTR books and the Hobbit, right? 

No.

Oh...

[hefdaddy42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien_bibliography

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were published in his lifetime.  The rest of his writings on Middle-Earth were collected together by his son Christopher and published posthumously.

It is my understanding that this new series is based mostly on ideas presented in large swath in those writings, but it isn't based on a specific volume a la The Hobbit, for example.

[MirrorMask]

It's just the three LOTR books and the Hobbit, right?  So is this series grounded in whatever back story was detailed in those books with embellishment that's new?

Nope, there's also The Silmarillion, which is basically the Bible for the world he created and there's a ton of amazingly cool backstory into that.

Not that this is the basis for the show however....

[HOF]

It's just the three LOTR books and the Hobbit, right?  So is this series grounded in whatever back story was detailed in those books with embellishment that's new?

Nope, there's also The Silmarillion, which is basically the Bible for the world he created and there's a ton of amazingly cool backstory into that.

Not that this is the basis for the show however....

Yeah, it's based off events in The Silmarillion and the appendix to The Return of the King which I believe this series will draw from as well. But a lot of that was not written in novel form. It's more of a historical narrative, so the producers are going to have to come up with a lot of the details, dialogue, etc. from scratch, which could be good or bad I suppose.

[ZirconBlue]

In general, I think a lot of the story elements and personality of the characters in the books could have been developed more over a lengthy series.

I don't think most of the characters had much personality at all in the books.  Merry and Pippin were completely interchangeable, and Arwen, the love of Aragorn's life, doesn't even get any lines of dialogue in the story proper.

[jingle.boy]

The Hobbit took a LOT of creative liberties with the story to "movie-tize" it.  I wasn't quite as familiar with the LOTR trilogy, so I can't remember / don't know where the deviations are.

[Melphina]

Ugh, The Hobbit could have been amazing. Instead it pretty much doubled down on the bad changes in the LOTR adaptations. Tauriel? Elf dwarf romance? LEGOLAS?! Having Azog the orc as the main villain when he's not even alive in the book? I spit! 

[HOF]

In general, I think a lot of the story elements and personality of the characters in the books could have been developed more over a lengthy series.

I don't think most of the characters had much personality at all in the books.  Merry and Pippin were completely interchangeable, and Arwen, the love of Aragorn's life, doesn't even get any lines of dialogue in the story proper.

Arwen was not part of the story in the books, really, and didn't need to be part of the movies. ;-)

Merry and Pippin had a lot of development in the books. They are the focal characters for a large portion of The Two Towers, and they both end up playing a big role in the war.  Some of it is there in the movies too, but one of the things that comes across in the books is that they leave the Shire as these sort of brave but foolish and helpless hobbits, and they come back as essentially war heroes who are able to lead a resistance to Saruman and drive his thugs out of the Shire. In the movies they are mostly just there for comic relief I feel like (not totally inconsistent with the books of course).
 

[hefdaddy42]

In general, I think a lot of the story elements and personality of the characters in the books could have been developed more over a lengthy series.

I don't think most of the characters had much personality at all in the books.  Merry and Pippin were completely interchangeable, and Arwen, the love of Aragorn's life, doesn't even get any lines of dialogue in the story proper.

Arwen was not part of the story in the books, really, and didn't need to be part of the movies. ;-)

Merry and Pippin had a lot of development in the books. They are the focal characters for a large portion of The Two Towers, and they both end up playing a big role in the war.  Some of it is there in the movies too, but one of the things that comes across in the books is that they leave the Shire as these sort of brave but foolish and helpless hobbits, and they come back as essentially war heroes who are able to lead a resistance to Saruman and drive his thugs out of the Shire. In the movies they are mostly just there for comic relief I feel like (not totally inconsistent with the books of course).
 

I feel that Merry and Pippin are most certainly changed from their inherent goofiness by the end of the film trilogy.

[HOF]

In general, I think a lot of the story elements and personality of the characters in the books could have been developed more over a lengthy series.

I don't think most of the characters had much personality at all in the books.  Merry and Pippin were completely interchangeable, and Arwen, the love of Aragorn's life, doesn't even get any lines of dialogue in the story proper.

Arwen was not part of the story in the books, really, and didn't need to be part of the movies. ;-)

Merry and Pippin had a lot of development in the books. They are the focal characters for a large portion of The Two Towers, and they both end up playing a big role in the war.  Some of it is there in the movies too, but one of the things that comes across in the books is that they leave the Shire as these sort of brave but foolish and helpless hobbits, and they come back as essentially war heroes who are able to lead a resistance to Saruman and drive his thugs out of the Shire. In the movies they are mostly just there for comic relief I feel like (not totally inconsistent with the books of course).
 

I feel that Merry and Pippin are most certainly changed from their inherent goofiness by the end of the film trilogy.

Oh, I'm sure they are (I don't remember much about the ROTK movie to be honest), I'm just noting that the books do spend a lot of time on their characters that could be developed over a longer series.

[hefdaddy42]

In general, I think a lot of the story elements and personality of the characters in the books could have been developed more over a lengthy series.

I don't think most of the characters had much personality at all in the books.  Merry and Pippin were completely interchangeable, and Arwen, the love of Aragorn's life, doesn't even get any lines of dialogue in the story proper.

Arwen was not part of the story in the books, really, and didn't need to be part of the movies. ;-)

Merry and Pippin had a lot of development in the books. They are the focal characters for a large portion of The Two Towers, and they both end up playing a big role in the war.  Some of it is there in the movies too, but one of the things that comes across in the books is that they leave the Shire as these sort of brave but foolish and helpless hobbits, and they come back as essentially war heroes who are able to lead a resistance to Saruman and drive his thugs out of the Shire. In the movies they are mostly just there for comic relief I feel like (not totally inconsistent with the books of course).
 

I feel that Merry and Pippin are most certainly changed from their inherent goofiness by the end of the film trilogy.

Oh, I'm sure they are (I don't remember much about the ROTK movie to be honest), I'm just noting that the books do spend a lot of time on their characters that could be developed over a longer series.

Well, it could have been, but I'm not sure there was much reason to do so.  The goal, after all, is not to film the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book; it's to adapt what makes the book great to a different medium, which Peter Jackson did very well.

Did he make some choices I wouldn't have?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean he didn't do a phenomenal job.

*shrugs*

[HOF]

In general, I think a lot of the story elements and personality of the characters in the books could have been developed more over a lengthy series.

I don't think most of the characters had much personality at all in the books.  Merry and Pippin were completely interchangeable, and Arwen, the love of Aragorn's life, doesn't even get any lines of dialogue in the story proper.

Arwen was not part of the story in the books, really, and didn't need to be part of the movies. ;-)

Merry and Pippin had a lot of development in the books. They are the focal characters for a large portion of The Two Towers, and they both end up playing a big role in the war.  Some of it is there in the movies too, but one of the things that comes across in the books is that they leave the Shire as these sort of brave but foolish and helpless hobbits, and they come back as essentially war heroes who are able to lead a resistance to Saruman and drive his thugs out of the Shire. In the movies they are mostly just there for comic relief I feel like (not totally inconsistent with the books of course).
 

I feel that Merry and Pippin are most certainly changed from their inherent goofiness by the end of the film trilogy.

Oh, I'm sure they are (I don't remember much about the ROTK movie to be honest), I'm just noting that the books do spend a lot of time on their characters that could be developed over a longer series.

Well, it could have been, but I'm not sure there was much reason to do so.  The goal, after all, is not to film the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book; it's to adapt what makes the book great to a different medium, which Peter Jackson did very well.

Did he make some choices I wouldn't have?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean he didn't do a phenomenal job.

*shrugs*

Fair enough. I don't think the books lent themselves well to a movie format, really, and any film maker would have had an impossible task to really faithfully adapt them. I did not find them enjoyable as movies either (aside from any qualms about how the book was adapted), but I'm on an island with most of my movie opinions.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Wow I definietly thought that was CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ&ab_channel=IGN

[hefdaddy42]

Wow I definietly thought that was CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ&ab_channel=IGN

That actually makes me feel better.  More practical stuff than CGI, like the LOTR trilogy, and not the abominable CGI-fest that was the Hobbit trilogy.

[jingle.boy]

Wow I definietly thought that was CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ&ab_channel=IGN

That actually makes me feel better.  More practical stuff than CGI, like the LOTR trilogy, and not the abominable CGI-fest that was the Hobbit trilogy.

Word.

[Melphina]

To side with HOF briefly, there certainly is a lot of greatness from the books missing in the films, and I know this is the film and TV section but if anybody ever wants to listen to the audio books, get the versions narrated by Rob Inglis. I finally got around to those and just finished them a couple days ago and he does a stellar job with the voices, especially Gollum, and even sings the songs. I teared up a little towards the end of ROTK. I even found online the first copy of the books I ever owned and repurchased them for sentimental reasons. Any and all LOTR is good with me!

[pg1067]

Wow I definietly thought that was CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ&ab_channel=IGN

That actually makes me feel better.  More practical stuff than CGI, like the LOTR trilogy, and not the abominable CGI-fest that was the Hobbit trilogy.

Same.  Also, that's an AWESOME use of close-up photography (and probably cost 3-4 armored cars worth of money less than it would have to do it as CGI).

[Cool Chris]

I think

The goal, after all, is not to film the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book; it's to adapt what makes the book great to a different medium...

sums it up.

Without getting in to the whole LotR book/movie debate, I think a film adaptation should aspire to do is capture both the narrative and the spirit of the story. Look at some of the best and you will see they accomplished this. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest comes immediately to my mind. The story isn't told from the Chief's perspective, because for an (apparently) mute character, that would have been really hard. But the nuts, bolts, and soul of the story are all still there.

[faizoff]

Wow I definietly thought that was CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZEpWvQFXqQ&ab_channel=IGN

That actually makes me feel better.  More practical stuff than CGI, like the LOTR trilogy, and not the abominable CGI-fest that was the Hobbit trilogy.

Same.  Also, that's an AWESOME use of close-up photography (and probably cost 3-4 armored cars worth of money less than it would have to do it as CGI).

That is indeed very cool. I think if CGI is done well it works and just blends in. The entire Game of Thrones intro is CGI without a hint of model work and that thing looks dang impressive.

As for the show I'm cautious and hoping for the best. It's been a while since I've watched the entire LoTR trilogy and may dive into it soon.

[soupytwist]

The only issue I have with the films is Frodo - he's just to wet and generally a lot more helpless in the films, I put this down to a mix of the writing and the performance by Wood.  Other than that the films were (and still are) amazing.

[hefdaddy42]

To side with HOF briefly, there certainly is a lot of greatness from the books missing in the films

To be sure. 

[The Letter M]

https://youtu.be/v7v1hIkYH24

Teaser trailer just dropped!

-Marc.

[lonestar]

September 2nd....thats a long time to wait.

[Adami]

https://youtu.be/v7v1hIkYH24

Teaser trailer just dropped!

-Marc.

Cool looking video game.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

For some reason a bunch of russians are angered by the teaser.
How can a teaser trailer upset people so much, it didn't show much.

I will say this though, I hope the actual trailer contains music with a theme and not just the typical hollywood generic chords/ahh choir and orchester hits/drums.

[ErHaO]

It looks nice in my opinion. But I deem the odds that this will be bad larger than the odds it will be good. I have nothing against different authors writing new stories for existing properties. But more often than not it is bad, especially when they try to make it fit in the existing lore (not sure if that is the case here).

[Melphina]

Cool of them to disregard Tolkien completely with respect to how the races appear. And after learning that they've compressed a lot of events to fit into a show... nope. Losing faith rapidly in this. People who care less about lore and LOTR in general might not have issues with it, but, for example... dwarf women have beards. Elves aren't black, Elves don't have short hair. I realize that last point might be problematic for some, but it matters. It shows they aren't taking care to respect the source material.

[soupytwist]

I remember people complaining about Elves at Helms Deep completely ruining the movie adaption, now it's Elves having the wrong hair cut ruining their childhood 

[bosk1]

Why anyone would want to judge this or make grand pronouncements based solely on the teaser trailer is beyond me.  I watched it, and I have no sense at all about whether or not this will be good.  It looks pretty, I'll say that.  And I hope it's good.  We'll see.

[Adami]

So I've never read the books, and I've seen the directors cut of the original trilogy once or twice, and mostly enjoyed it (except the big fight at the end, which I found meh) but never read or saw the Hobbit movies.

Thus, when I saw this trailer....I had absolutely no idea what the hell was going on. Literally nothing what so ever. Is this true of people who HAVE read the books and stuff or am I just lacking sufficient background knowledge to understand anything?

[Grappler]

So I've never read the books, and I've seen the directors cut of the original trilogy once or twice, and mostly enjoyed it (except the big fight at the end, which I found meh) but never read or saw the Hobbit movies.

Thus, when I saw this trailer....I had absolutely no idea what the hell was going on. Literally nothing what so ever. Is this true of people who HAVE read the books and stuff or am I just lacking sufficient background knowledge to understand anything?

I'm the same way - I read each of the LOTR/Hobbit books exactly once and got very little out of them.  Reading them was a boring-ass chore.  The trailer didn't explain anything at all.  I've read a few small blurbs about the show though.

From what I've read, this show revolves around the creation and forging of the rings, including the One Ring.  Beyond that, I know nothing - there are versions of younger characters from the LOTR films (Galadriel and Elrond, played by Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving in the movies).  Another character is Isildur, who took the ring from Sauron and kept it for himself, eventually setting off the events of The Hobbit and LOTR years later.

[Polarbear]

That sure looked pretty, and I hope that this turns out to be good!

So I haven't read Silmarillion, and I'm not the most knowledgeable about this. But I've seen some backlash about two major plot points happening at the same time in the show, while in the Silmarillion there is like a 1000 years between these two plot points.

Honestly, some parts of the Silmarillion are so incomprehensible for a regular person, that there has to be some changes to make it an entertaining TV show.

But in the end, I just want this to be good...