Will the Amazon LOTR stick to the tone of Peter Jackson movies?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes. As I said, LotR is in a setting where, while individuals are capable of both good and evil*, metaphysical good vs. evil is very clearly defined.

*Necessarily, since one of the main themes of the story is the corruption of power on good people. Gandalf in the books even makes a point of saying that nothing starts out evil, not even Sauron.

[Madner Kami]

Yes. As I said, LotR is in a setting where, while individuals are capable of both good and evil*, metaphysical good vs. evil is very clearly defined.

*Necessarily, since one of the main themes of the story is the corruption of power on good people. Gandalf in the books even makes a point of saying that nothing starts out evil, not even Sauron.

And that's where he is wrong. Tolkien draws too heavily on his mythological background as a christian, creating a quasi-christian world, where the God Iluvatar creates a bunch of what are basically angels, of which one is created as the biggest and brightest and is destined to become an all-corrupting arsehole, who is integral both to the development of the world there is and the world that will folllow it, after it has been cleansed and reset.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why is that wrong?

Its a perfectly serviceable basis for a mythology/fictional cosmology. No one's saying you have to agree with that world-view in real life, but it sounds awfully like you're saying "Tolkien is wrong because he's a Christian, and uses Christian influences in his writing." Which seems rather prejudiced, especially considering that its a fantasy novel, not a dissertation on philosophy (Tolkien himself, while undoubtably influenced by his personal beliefs, explicitly and emphatically rejected the notion that LotR was written as an allegory for anything).

[GandALF]

To be precise his intention was to create an English mythology feeling that most English legends were usually borrowed from the norse/celts/french. So while there is a strong Catholic influence, it's primary purpose is to be an Anglo-Saxon heroic romance, hence while the Valar are technically archangels, they behave more like pagan gods and there is no definitive Christ figure.

[Karha of Honor]

To be precise his intention was to create an English mythology feeling that most English legends were usually borrowed from the norse/celts/french. So while there is a strong Catholic influence, it's primary purpose is to be an Anglo-Saxon heroic romance, hence while the Valar are technically archangels, they behave more like pagan gods and there is no definitive Christ figure.

Well, he failed so who cares.

[Dînadan]

Well Balrogs are corrupted Maiar and they get regarded as separate, and Orcs are Elves corrupted by Morgoth/Sauron/Saruman. So if Elves are halfway between very magical Maiar and minimally magical Men then it seem that they can by corrupted in a magically transformative way like Maiar or by their own vices like Men.

Fair point on the distinction of Balrogs and Maiar, but wasn’t Balrog more of a title rather than them becoming a new race (unlike the elves that were corrupted into Orcs and ents into trolls)? Plus that doesn’t address the point that it’s stated specifically that Elves were the only race* not to fight on both sides of the Last Alliance. Just being evil is not enough to turn an elf into an orc, so it should take more than just being/acting good for the reverse to occur. Unless one of the Maiar or Valar ‘purified’ them they’d still be orcs just like how the asshole and evil elves in the Silmarillion remained elves.


* I suppose technically this statement is wrong anyway as I don’t recall any Maiar fighting on the Last Alliance’s side whereas Sauron obviously fought on his side.

[Madner Kami]

Why is that wrong?

Because if you have an all-knowing and all-doing all-father type of god, then everything his creation does is predestined and can neither happen against the will or without the disinterest of the deity in question. The Middle-Earth mythos is very clear in that regard, as the music sung by Eru Iluvatar did allow for Morgoth Bauglir's dissonance, his evil, to seep into the very fabric of the world created and Eru did... Nothing. It's the exact same problem that Christianity has: Nothing evil can happen against the will of god or without his intentional disinterest. Thus, the evil in the world of LoTR isn't a sort of "aquired by the wayside" kind of evil, but very much a born evil.

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

To be precise his intention was to create an English mythology feeling that most English legends were usually borrowed from the norse/celts/french. So while there is a strong Catholic influence, it's primary purpose is to be an Anglo-Saxon heroic romance, hence while the Valar are technically archangels, they behave more like pagan gods and there is no definitive Christ figure.

Well, he failed so who cares.

Weren't you the one that started the thread?

Why is that wrong?

Because if you have an all-knowing and all-doing all-father type of god, then everything his creation does is predestined and can neither happen against the will or without the disinterest of the deity in question. The Middle-Earth mythos is very clear in that regard, as the music sung by Eru Iluvatar did allow for Morgoth Bauglir's dissonance, his evil, to seep into the very fabric of the world created and Eru did... Nothing. It's the exact same problem that Christianity has: Nothing evil can happen against the will of god or without his intentional disinterest. Thus, the evil in the world of LoTR isn't a sort of "aquired by the wayside" kind of evil, but very much a born evil.

Obviously you can think what you want about Christianity. But it is not a story flaw for Iluvatar to allow the events on Arda to play themselves out with only slight intervention at specific points. This is an inscrutable, mythological being who isn't even named in the stories published during Tolkien's lifetime (outside an appendix). There are no churches or temples to his name in Middle Earth. Even if you think all Christian theodicies ultimately fail, that hardly matters for a mythological cosmology that is specifically not allegorical.

People are also too quick to assume that the relationship between Iluvatar and the Ainur corresponds exactly with the relationship between God and his angels. The Ainur often seem to function more like demigods (or pagan gods, as GandALF says) than angels. When the Elves need something, they call on Earendil or Manwe. Iluvatar is the creator of life, but the Ainur are pretty much given free reign to shape it (or destroy it) as they see fit. Subcreation is a big deal in the mythology. Unless I'm forgetting something, Iluvatar never interferes directly with Melkor. It's the Valar who defeat him at the end of the First Age.

[Dînadan]

Unless I'm forgetting something, Iluvatar never interferes directly with Melkor. It's the Valar who defeat him at the end of the First Age.

Unless I’m misremembering, the only times he directly interferes is late in the Second Age when he breaks the world to stop the Numenoreans invading Valinor and in the Third Age I believe it’s him rather than the Valar that returns Gandalf back to life (not 100% sure on the second one; been too long since I last read the books to remember exactly). Other than that his only other involvement is if you subscribe to the fan theory that Tom Bombadil is actually his avatar.

[Karha of Honor]

To be precise his intention was to create an English mythology feeling that most English legends were usually borrowed from the norse/celts/french. So while there is a strong Catholic influence, it's primary purpose is to be an Anglo-Saxon heroic romance, hence while the Valar are technically archangels, they behave more like pagan gods and there is no definitive Christ figure.

Well, he failed so who cares.

Weren't you the one that started the thread?

Yeah, but why are his original intentions relevant if he failed?