Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

[Beastro]

Instead, the show is primarily focused on Galadriel attempting to avenge her brother that was slain by Sauron and her Knight Templar-esque dedication to tracking the Dark Lord down to kill him. This isn't entirely inaccurate, three of Galadriel's brothers did in fact die during the battle against Morgoth's forces. However, none of the other elves believe Sauron is still a threat and the show is about how, surprise, Galadriel is right, and the monster is coming back.

Much has been made of Galadriel being depicted as a warrior woman as well as the show having a more ethnically diverse collection of elves, hobbits, and dwarves. The latter doesn't bother me at all and I'm not going to waste wind on it. The former is only annoying because Galadriel is a SORCERESS, and it feels like she's taking a major power downgrade in stabbing things versus blasting them with her evil destroying light.

The larger issue is around Galadriel's ambitions.

The reason why she's around for so long but doesn't seem to do much is because her ambition going to Middle Earth was to rule. She didn't like the Undying Lands because she felt that she was small potatoes. In Middle Earth she's greatest among the least. In this period, she finds the Galadhrim, gets a ring to enable her to properly rule them all the better and is happy with her demense. It's only later when the possibility of the Ring coming into her hands and the idea of her extending her rule over all of Middle Earth makes her pause, but she pulls away, and it's then that she finally humbles herself and returns repentant to Valinor.

That is why she is offered forgiveness in the original version of her story (Tolkien messed with her story A LOT and it's fortunate that he died before he could implement any of it) and refuses it.

As for Sauron, he was offer the same forgiveness and to return to Valinor but hesitated. It's hinted that for a time he was genuine in his regrets, but then fell back into his old ways. With that said, Elves would not be looking for him to kill as he'd have vanished and be assumed to be have maintained his repentance as the entire zeitgeist in this era is that Melkor's shit is over and done with and none of the old conflict remains. This of course ignores that even the idea of the Rings of Power is itself a continuation of that due to Arda's marring just as the Simarillions bred discord even without Melkor's direct meddling.

[Frustration]

You think so? They've got their plusses and minuses, and are better in the extended editions (which at least partially undid Faramir's character asssassination), but overall they're pretty decent films.

I wouldn't quibble with "pretty decent", but there are a whole lot of films that are at least as good as that. They're only the best if you limit yourself to the genre of live-action LotR adaptations.

[CharlesPhipps]

You think so? They've got their plusses and minuses, and are better in the extended editions (which at least partially undid Faramir's character asssassination), but overall they're pretty decent films.

I wouldn't quibble with "pretty decent", but there are a whole lot of films that are at least as good as that. They're only the best if you limit yourself to the genre of live-action LotR adaptations.

no, I've seen 1000s of movies and easily think the LOTR are among the best ever made.

[Frustration]

There's no use arguing in matters of taste.

[CharlesPhipps]

There's no use arguing in matters of taste.

Indeed, we could argue the movie based on facts but the film was a massive technical achievement, an adaptation of an "unfilmable" movement, a massive acting achievement (three films filmed simultaneously), and an adaptation of what is considered the greatest fantasy book series of all time. I also fully admit my bias as someone who has his Masters degree in Medieval history and took Tolkien classes.

[Frustration]

There is a difference between evaluating the movies as adaptations, and evaluating them as movies.

They're okay-to-good as movies, and weak as adaptations. I have a hard time thinking of them as better than any of the classic films I've encountered; there's some truly great cinema out there, and they don't rise to that level in my judgment.

[hammerofglass]

Great cinema and adaptations such as...?

[Frustration]

Even "The Wizard of Oz" is an adaptation, not great as such, but a classic film that I'd argue is better than the LotR films - not forgetting its cheesy old-fashionedness.

If you want a great adaptation, "Arrival" is actually an improvement on a very well-regarded science fiction story.

[Lazerlike42]

There's no use arguing in matters of taste.

Indeed, we could argue the movie based on facts but the film was a massive technical achievement, an adaptation of an "unfilmable" movement, a massive acting achievement (three films filmed simultaneously), and an adaptation of what is considered the greatest fantasy book series of all time. I also fully admit my bias as someone who has his Masters degree in Medieval history and took Tolkien classes.

My wife also took courses on Tolkien but she would differ with you that those three films are poor adaptations. I am curious why you think they are.

Let me start by offering my take on an important, often lost aspect of the question: that film and the written word are by nature different mediums and that by that very fact any adaptation from one to the other necessitates some divergence from the source (which is, of course, why they are called "adaptations.") For example, one of the more frequently lamented choices in the Jackson films was to omit the Scouring of the Shire, but this is a choice which to me could not have been made any other way. I just don't think it would be possible to include it in a way that works. At a minimum, after depicting the Battle of Pelennor Fields and then the destruction of the ring and the fall of Barad-dûr, any attempt to include the Scouring would wind up being anti-climactic. In a novel, this kind of almost tertiary conflict or tying up of loose ends can work just fine as indeed can delving into all sorts of different things. In film, it is necessary to be much more focused and the story structure leaves much less room for adding additional steps or "peaks." Nevertheless, in spite of leaving out the actual event of the Scouring, I think the films do a good job of still including and portraying the same themes, ideas, showcasing of character growth, etc. To me, this is a significant part of what makes an adaptation good: is it able to translate elements of a work into the alternate medium, even if those elements aren't directly compatible with that alternate medium?

[hammerofglass]

I would like to see an adaptation that gets the campaigns and battles right someday. Tolkien had the timelines and logistics issues all worked out to a degree I've never seen in another fantasy book, and the movies mostly just ignored all of it in favor of very cool looking complete nonsense.