LOTR: Rings of Power - New Teaser

[Psyren]

Can we stop saying 800% more women? It is kind of a real valid criticism to say that LOTR and The Hobbit have almost no women.

I completely agree that it's a valid criticism I was poking fun at the source material, not Amazon's (welcome) efforts to increase inclusivity.

Do we need more women in LOTR?

Yes.

Yeah sure in theory I'll buy WoT as inverse GoT. In practice the WoT show was boring as hell. I love me some fantasy nonsense, and it was just mind-crushingly dull, in exactly the sort of overplotted but structureless way I was talking about upthread.

I think scenes like the Blood Snow and the Children of the Light stuff showed the potential this series has to not only elevate the source material, but to be uniquely appealing TV in its own right.

(GoT drove right the hell off a cliff don't get me wrong, but the first seasons were really good TV. I managed I think four episodes of WoT before giving it up for more engaging activities. Like flossing. )

Welllll... between starting great and ending in the toilet, vs. having a rockier start due to COVID and going uphill from there, I know which one I'd pick personally.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Can we stop saying 800% more women? It is kind of a real valid criticism to say that LOTR and The Hobbit have almost no women.

Disagree, Eowyn’s “I am no man!” moment would have been a lot less powerful if half the army had been female and she’d just been lucky enough to fight the guy who can’t be killed by humans with a Y chromosome. It removes a challenge for her to overcome, so instead of being determined (not giving up when she was told no) and clever (to sneak onto the battlefield by disguising herself) and skilled in combat (to kill the Ringwraith) she would only be able to show she was skilled in combat. Which being already true of half the cast, would in turn make her less of an interesting character.

Tl:dr - Lord of the Rings has exactly as many women as it should have.

The Hobbit trilogy was just terrible and adding more women would not have fixed that. Less filler might have though.

[Ramza00]

Do we need more women in LOTR? Do we need more male protagonists in Sex and The City? Can there be such a thing as media that appeals to not every single identity out there?

I'm still upset that there weren't more Carebears in the Smurfs. Muh inclusiveness.

{Scrubbed}

Disagree, Eowyn’s “I am no man!” moment would have been a lot less powerful if half the army had been female and she’d just been lucky enough to fight the guy who can’t be killed by humans with a Y chromosome. It removes a challenge for her to overcome, so instead of being determined (not giving up when she was told no) and clever (to sneak onto the battlefield by disguising herself) and skilled in combat (to kill the Ringwraith) she would only be able to show she was skilled in combat. Which being already true of half the cast, would in turn make her less of an interesting character.

Tl:dr - Lord of the Rings has exactly as many women as it should have.

The Hobbit trilogy was just terrible and adding more women would not have fixed that. Less filler might have though.

Minas Tirith and any city of several thousand people would have more women in it even if they are in the background and doing jobs / labor that is not tied to war but just support.

When Rohan / Edoras was evacuated for Helms Deep we barely see any women in the books even if these refugees would have lots of women and children. Likewise the same in the peaceful elf cities Lothlórien and Rivendell.

Now we got two women in the shire with Rosie, Sam's love interest, and Lobelia Sackville-Baggins who terrorized two generation of "likely" queer hobbits.

It makes sense to see less women in Gondor for men do send women away during times of war. Much like The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe by fellow Inkling Lewis takes place during WW2 when parents send their kids to the countries when the Axis powers were using V-1 flying bomb and V-2 Rockets to bomb London. But the lack of women in the everday places of LOTR is noticeable even if they were just "background" characters.

I still like Tolkien but we can critique the things we adore And yes I do have passionate joy whenever I read / see Eowyn’s best Macduff in Macbeth.

[Metastachydium]

When one crafts things out like a machine

That is a problem in itself.

Things no longer feel earned for we are displacing our old feelings into the new, likewise those feelings have not been earned by the new, and we can feel this mismatch. While other forms of inspiration and transtextuality as you say are not put into those frameworks of mind, they get to earn their own successes, and thus everything is more subtle. Works which you are not aware of their origins on the surface of things feel fresh even if they are old as stories themselves.

That train of thought misses the point by leagues. Originality only became a privileged criterion of assessing art quite late, and its stint at that position was arguably not particularly long either. Think of the principle of imitation or classical postmodernism. Making the origins or, rather, hypotexts (in a broad sense, of course) of an artistic creation evident is often enough part of the point. The Aeneid or the Eclogues didn't resonate so well with their audiences and the posterity because those failed to recognize the tradition of the Trojan Cycle or Theocritus and his followers behind them. Same goes for the Pharsalia and, even more markedly, the whole epic poetry of, say, the Baroque. The literary antecedents are what gave the hypertext its prestige. The same goes for the French Classicists or much of the non-avantgarde Modernist prose.

The trick is not hiding the antecedents. The trick is using them well. In the olden days, this was called emulation, the practice of challenging the forebearers and trying to rise equal them while paying hommage to the paradigm they established. What gave us The Hobbit trilogy was at best hubris (i.e. the notion that the adaptation could surpass the adapted original) or, more likely, a half-hearted and uninspired attempt at capitalising on the commercial success of a superior work, trying to mimic its structure and scope in working with material that couldn't possibly support such an expansion. And at this point nothing was yet said about the quality of the means meant to achieve this end. They say nature abhors vacuum, but filler might be even worse.

gynocratic

Gyn(a)ecocratic.

It is kind of a real valid criticism to say that LOTR and The Hobbit have almost no women. Likewise we actually have more Women Tolkien characters in The Silmarillion (aka Zero and First Age).

Well, yes, but in the Trilogy, those few women make quite the impact and "fixing" the issue in The Hobbit gave us the painful and cringeworthy Tauriel subplot.

[Psyren]

Did I miss something? No one is changing the Trilogy or The Hobbit, and this show isn't set during either anyway.

[Ramza00]

That is a problem in itself.

That train of thought misses the point by leagues. Originality only became a privileged criterion of assessing art quite late, and its stint at that position was arguably not particularly long either. Think of the principle of imitation or classical postmodernism. Making the origins or, rather, hypotexts (in a broad sense, of course) of an artistic creation evident is often enough part of the point. The Aeneid or the Eclogues didn't resonate so well with their audiences and the posterity because those failed to recognize the tradition of the Trojan Cycle or Theocritus and his followers behind them. Same goes for the Pharsalia and, even more markedly, the whole epic poetry of, say, the Baroque. The literary antecedents are what gave the hypertext its prestige. The same goes for the French Classicists or much of the non-avantgarde Modernist prose.

I disagree but I think we are in parallel tracks.

1) The problem is not that a work is derivative, for everything is derivative I argue.
2) The problem is the work did not seduce you.

I wish people talk more about #2 and complain less about #1.

The trick is not hiding the antecedents. The trick is using them well. In the olden days, this was called emulation, the practice of challenging the forebearers and trying to rise equal them while paying hommage to the paradigm they established. What gave us The Hobbit trilogy was at best hubris (i.e. the notion that the adaptation could surpass the adapted original) or, more likely, a half-hearted and uninspired attempt at capitalising on the commercial success of a superior work, trying to mimic its structure and scope in working with material that couldn't possibly support such an expansion. And at this point nothing was yet said about the quality of the means meant to achieve this end. They say nature abhors vacuum, but filler might be even worse.

I disagree though I once had this belief. We can't be seduced every time, that is the hedonic treadmill. We are seduced for something resonates in us with the work.

Much of life is going to be filler for there is no perfect formal way to always create bangers. How many Pixar movies are there now? Something like the mid 20s now? Are all those movies bangers? Are some of those Pixar movies "fillers" ?

Well, yes, but in the Trilogy, those few women make quite the impact and "fixing" the issue in The Hobbit gave us the painful and cringeworthy Tauriel subplot.

The problem of the Tauriel subplot is not Tauriel for if we put any elf there we would have the same problems. Legolas 2.0 instead of Tauriel would be the same problem. Likewise 30 to 40% of the troubles of The Hobbit Trilogy was trying to do filler time and filler plots for there is not enough book there for 8 hours and 38 minutes of movies. Yes the 3 movies are almost 9 hours long for their extended editions (and almost 8 hours long for their theater cuts.)

[DavidSh]

There are a few set pieces I yearn to see if they can pull off. How exactly does Numenor sink? Is there some monster breaking wave, as Faramir dreamt?

[Catullus64]

One thing I do hope that we get is a more thorough treatment of the Dwarf-rings. Of all the rings of power, the Seven are the ones which receive the least attention in the books; even if the appendices and the Silmarillion give a little more info, they lack the same degree of thematic attention and narrative import that is given to the Three or the Nine, to say nothing of the One. Under what circumstances the Dwarfs accepted these rings from Sauron, and how they came to be eaten or reclaimed by Mordor is something I would like to see. (Frankly, I would be hugely on board with this whole series if it was just about the Dwarfs. And had Dwarf-women with proper beards!)

[Metastachydium]

I disagree but I think we are in parallel tracks.

1) The problem is not that a work is derivative, for everything is derivative I argue.
2) The problem is the work did not seduce you.

I wish people talk more about #2 and complain less about #1.

1. How's "for much of literary history, originality was not considered a criterion of paramount importance, but what made (to use your term) derivative creations work was not people failing to notice what they derived from [with examples]" a complaint about anything and everything derivative?
2. That's a weird choice of a term there, but I'll let that slide. More pertinently, I recognize the importance of cubism, structuralism and areferential postmodernism as currents in the history of art or philosophy, and by extension, I recognize the merit of individual works belonging to such currents to a varying degree, although I don't neccessarily enjoy them. Meanwhile, I genuinely enjoyed watching Drive Angry and the first three Underworld movies, but I have difficulty ascribing true artistic merit to them.

I disagree though I once had this belief. We can't be seduced every time, that is the hedonic treadmill. We are seduced for something resonates in us with the work.

Like I said, I do not ascribe to this "theory of seduction".

Much of life is going to be filler for there is no perfect formal way to always create bangers.

That's beside the point. Sitting on the toilet won't have any more or less artistic merit just because people owning a toilet do it all the time. Meanwhile, showcasing banality, front and center, can be a really powerful tool if done right.

How many Pixar movies are there now? Something like the mid 20s now? Are all those movies bangers? Are some of those Pixar movies "fillers" ?

I suppose you could say that, after a fashion.

The problem of the Tauriel subplot is not Tauriel for if we put any elf there we would have the same problems. Legolas 2.0 instead of Tauriel would be the same problem.

Indeed. I'd go further yet: shoehorning Legolas so aggressively into the story was by far a worse decision. My point is, you can add a major female OC to an adapted work and make the adaptation's overall quality decrease. Not bothering beyond ticking off boxes can easily defeat the purpose of ticking those same boxes off.

Likewise 30 to 40% of the troubles of The Hobbit Trilogy was trying to do filler time and filler plots for there is not enough book there for 8 hours and 38 minutes of movies. Yes the 3 movies are almost 9 hours long for their extended editions (and almost 8 hours long for their theater cuts.)

Which is exactly what I said in the same post you responded to (and what you replied to with something about Pixar products).

[Psyren]

Indeed. I'd go further yet: shoehorning Legolas so aggressively into the story was by far a worse decision. My point is, you can add a major female OC to an adapted work and make the adaptation's overall quality decrease. Not bothering beyond ticking off boxes can easily defeat the purpose of ticking those same boxes off.

However Tauriel ended up, I don't think it's fair to declare that the intent behind her was to tick off a box. Movies go through a lot of hands and challenging realities between concept and what we eventually get on screen, and any creative choice in an adaptation has the potential to decrease its quality. That's not a reason to never try.

[HeyHoWhatUpYo]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

My beliefs and values are that sometimes people make art that isn't intended for everyone. This is commonly known. We have even a built in system that represents this, that being the rating system on movies and television programs. Saying that everything needs to appeal to everyone at all times in all media, is simply not correct and something that will never happen. Some people like cucumbers pickled, some don't. I simply asked a question, it seems in a roundabout way you answered.

[Ramza00]

My beliefs and values are that sometimes people make art that isn't intended for everyone. This is commonly known. We have even a built in system that represents this, that being the rating system on movies and television programs. Saying that everything needs to appeal to everyone at all times in all media, is simply not correct and something that will never happen. Some people like cucumbers pickled, some don't. I simply asked a question, it seems in a roundabout way you answered.

Wait we were talking about women in movies, and you brought up whether something is rated G, PG, PG-13, or rated R? That is where you took the conversation?

{Scrubbed}

[HeyHoWhatUpYo]

Wait we were talking about women in movies, and you brought up whether something is rated G, PG, PG-13, or rated R? That is where you took the conversation?

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I didn't take the conversation here, people were already talking about this. I used a currently in place metric of determining what types of media are accessible to audiences to illustrate that media that isn't friendly for every audience can and does still thrive in the market. The idea that all media must be friendly to, accessible for, or representative of everyone is a fiction. I think many artforms would be done a lot of favor without people telling them what they must have in them. Just my opinion, of course.

[Ramza00]

I didn't take the conversation here, people were already talking about this. I used a currently in place metric of determining what types of media are accessible to audiences to illustrate that media that isn't friendly for every audience can and does still thrive in the market. The idea that all media must be friendly to, accessible for, or representative of everyone is a fiction. I think many artforms would be done a lot of favor without people telling them what they must have in them. Just my opinion, of course.

Who said anything about tv or movies must have X? You brought it up. I said valid criticism how literally women are not part of Tolkien’s world or society in LOTR with a few exceptions, literally you can count the number of women in the books and movies on one hand both with name characters and background characters. In a way that literally does not make sense for a world to feel lived in.

[HeyHoWhatUpYo]

Who said anything about tv or movies must have X?

Well in a way you did. I said that not all media has to meet some kind of nebulous metric of inclusivity and you reacted as if I'm some kind of... I don't even know what. I'm glad you see me, hopefully you can hear what I'm actually saying and not instantly lump me into some identity group.

[Ramza00]

Well in a way you did. I said that not all media has to meet some kind of nebulous metric of inclusivity and you reacted as if I'm some kind of... I don't even know what. I'm glad you see me, hopefully you can hear what I'm actually saying and not instantly lump me into some identity group.

You are the one who brought up the smurfs and smurfette, that and movie ratings when we were talking the second age of the lord of the rings. I hear your logics, but they are not dispassionate instead the opposite (you have strong feelings on it.)

[HeyHoWhatUpYo]

You are the one who brought up the smurfs and smurfette, that and movie ratings when we were talking the second age of the lord of the rings. I hear your logics, but they are not dispassionate instead the opposite (you have strong feelings on it.)

I never mentioned smurfette and my first reply was just that, a reply. I believe that what I said is true, if you want to call that strong feelings so be it. I think we've veered just far enough outside the realm and scope of the thread at this point.

[snowblizz]

What is this based on? The Silmarillion?

It is based on whatever mentions the 2nd Age gets in the LotR book trilogy. Amazon does not have the rights to use the Silmarillion. Which is a bit of an odd decision when making something set/about the 2nd age.

[DavidSh]

"The Akallabeth" and "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" don't add that much Second Age material beyond what is already in the appendices. Not using them is minor, compared with the reports of massive time compression to keep from having to throw out the human characters (and actors) as the centuries pass.

[Mechalich]

"The Akallabeth" and "Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age" don't add that much Second Age material beyond what is already in the appendices. Not using them is minor, compared with the reports of massive time compression to keep from having to throw out the human characters (and actors) as the centuries pass.

There's really only two things of consequence that happen in the Second Age: the forging of the Rings of Power and the War of the Elves and Sauron that immediately follows; and the Fall of Numenor. It seems that the show is smashing these things together - probably by having the Numenorean king who saves the Elves during the War of the Elves and Sauron simply be Ar-Pharazon or his immediate predecessor (and since they have cast Trystan Gravelle to play a character named 'Pharazon' this seems likely to be exactly what they've done). That's...at least partially defensible. 'Numenor grew gradually more corrupt over a thousand years' really isn't the sort of thing you can easily put on TV.

The thing that worries me is that the Fall of Numenor, which is the big event of the Second Age and the one most ready made for TV, the corruption and downfall of a mighty and decadent civilization is something Hollywood is actually quite good at, is an almost entirely Human-based event (plus Sauron) and yet a huge amount of the promotion material including this trailer is heavily focused on the Elves. They've also decided to throw in some stuff about the Dwarfs and Hobbits which is going to have to be made up completely whole cloth. Everything points to a sprawling, undirected mess full of shots of people riding around in New Zealand but not actually doing anything important.

[warty goblin]

I think scenes like the Blood Snow and the Children of the Light stuff showed the potential this series has to not only elevate the source material, but to be uniquely appealing TV in its own right.

I've watched Blood Snow on YouTube, and it's a decent fight scene, but no more than that. Flashy, kinda low impact, and the choreography doesn't even really hide how very polite the bad guys are. Witcher does this sort of thing way, way better.

If this was the high point of the series, all I can say is ouch.

[Psyren]

I've watched Blood Snow on YouTube, and it's a decent fight scene, but no more than that. Flashy, kinda low impact, and the choreography doesn't even really hide how very polite the bad guys are. Witcher does this sort of thing way, way better.

If this was the high point of the series, all I can say is ouch.

Cinematography-wise it was a high point, because they used a high-speed Bolt camera to capture Shaiel's moves - which very few tv shows can afford.

As for the Witcher, eh, couldn't care less. It might even buck the Netflix odds and hit season 3

[warty goblin]

Cinematography-wise it was a high point, because they used a high-speed Bolt camera to capture Shaiel's moves - which very few tv shows can afford.

As for the Witcher, eh, couldn't care less. It might even buck the Netflix odds and hit season 3

So I guess its a decent action scene shot with a fancy camera. That means they have deep pockets, not that the scene is particularly well made. Which was sort of my feeling on the four or five episodes of WoT I watched; vast amounts of money spent to make really sharp looking mediocrity. More Processed Entertainment Paste Product!

I didn't like Season 2 of the Witcher all that much either, it was definitely turning into overly-plotted and under developed stuff happening but going nowhere. First season was a ton of utterly and unrepentantly schlocky fun though. It knew exactly what it was, and it was the show with the undead fetus that eats people and goddamn if it didn't have fun with that.

[Mechalich]

So I guess its a decent action scene shot with a fancy camera. That means they have deep pockets, not that the scene is particularly well made. Which was sort of my feeling on the four or five episodes of WoT I watched; vast amounts of money spent to make really sharp looking mediocrity. More Processed Entertainment Paste Product!

Myself, I've become super-leery of trailers that show lots of impressive landscape photography integrated with CGI/model sets as if that's something impressive. It was back when Peter Jackson did it the first time twenty years ago, but it's pretty ordinary stuff now, something even crummy shows can put together.

I didn't like Season 2 of the Witcher all that much either, it was definitely turning into overly-plotted and under developed stuff happening but going nowhere. First season was a ton of utterly and unrepentantly schlocky fun though. It knew exactly what it was, and it was the show with the undead fetus that eats people and goddamn if it didn't have fun with that.

That's partly the source material. The Adventurers of Geralt of Rivia, slayer of monsters and wooer of sorceresses, are glorious schlocky dark fantasy. The grand history of the continent and the destined child of the elder blood not so much (which is why Lady of the Lake, the final 'saga' book, is comparatively despised). The show actually used up a lot of Geralt's adventuring in season one, so they basically have to focus on the main plot more, which is a downgrade whenever it doesn't throw up an action set piece.

[Psyren]

I didn't like Season 2 of the Witcher all that much either, it was definitely turning into overly-plotted and under developed stuff happening but going nowhere. First season was a ton of utterly and unrepentantly schlocky fun though. It knew exactly what it was, and it was the show with the undead fetus that eats people and goddamn if it didn't have fun with that.

Riveting. Best of luck!

[Metastachydium]

However Tauriel ended up, I don't think it's fair to declare that the intent behind her was to tick off a box. Movies go through a lot of hands and challenging realities between concept and what we eventually get on screen, and any creative choice in an adaptation has the potential to decrease its quality. That's not a reason to never try.

No it isn't. That is correct. Nevertheless, that is largely immaterial. My point wasn't "Tauriel was horrible, so having women in a movie is bad". My point was that adding 800% more women to the story is not intrinsically a good thing or an improvement. Whether it is or isn't is, rather, a function of what they do with these additional female characters. Since it would seem that, among other things, the series will give us another interspecies romance (not a problem in itself, mind you) involving the creators' OCs and we've seen how that played out in The Hobbit films, I remain skeptical regarding the notion that the answer will be "marvelous things that will make the series better". I'm jaded like that.

[warty goblin]

That's partly the source material. The Adventurers of Geralt of Rivia, slayer of monsters and wooer of sorceresses, are glorious schlocky dark fantasy. The grand history of the continent and the destined child of the elder blood not so much (which is why Lady of the Lake, the final 'saga' book, is comparatively despised). The show actually used up a lot of Geralt's adventuring in season one, so they basically have to focus on the main plot more, which is a downgrade whenever it doesn't throw up an action set piece.

I liked the Witcher books, particularly the ending, I thought it fit very well with the series' overall tone of taking very standard fantasy things and twisting them about 45 degrees out of normal. It wasn't going for quite the amused feel of the short stories, but I liked it as a riff on Ye Olde Heroe's Queste plot, right down to the bleak, pointless ending.

Riveting. Best of luck!

Hey, still more fun than the show about the goat dudes eating people!

[Peelee]

Do we need more women in LOTR? Do we need more male protagonists in Sex and The City?

You mean aside from Big, Harry, Steve, Richard, Jerry, Aiden, and arguably Stanford? And those were just the biggest ones. SatC did not suffer from a lack of male characters.

[Psyren]

My point was that adding 800% more women to the story is not intrinsically a good thing or an improvement.

I never said it was. I was poking fun at the fact that adding even a handful of named female characters would be a dramatic increase given their paucity in the original. (And in case it wasn't clear, the statistic was totally made up, it's not like I sat down and calculated how many more the series will have than the movies.)

Obviously the impact those characters have on the story will depend on what is done with them narratively.

[t209]

Just call it Forgotten Realms and use that license.
I mean they already had Dark skinned Dwarves and Elves...Non-Duergar and Non-Drow (though Gold Dwarf and Sun Elves are arrogant, the latter starting five genocidal wars because "my feeling got hurt over my persecution instigated by a demonic infiltrator").
Even if Wizards is already planning one.