Rings of Power

[Use the Falchion]

15 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

Yeah. one of the biggest arguments me and my friends have on this is that JK Rowling said that Hermione was black. I am not against having people with darker skin tones in books or on tv as I have said above, but as one of my friends has said and maybe you can correct this, and I quote, "how can Hermione have black skin if her face shown palely in the moonlight." obviously you can correct this if it is wrong but it makes more sense if Hermione has lighter skin tones.

There are light-skinned Black people (and it is possible for Black people to have a reflection in the moonlight, but it will look different), but I definitely understand the sentiment here, since the re-imagining of Hermoine was as a dark-skinned Black girl. The problem here is multi-stepped, but it mostly goes back to the Death of the Author mindset. 

The first problem is marketing and audience. Even if JK hadn't said anything about pale skin, Hermoine had been portrayed as white on the covers of the Harry Potter books as well as in the movies, meaning that the audience had a certain assumption about the character's skin tone, one that became culturally accepted. 

The second problem isn't the portrayal of Hermione, but the JK's retroactive interpretation of events and timing of it. This rarely ever works - George Lucas did something similar with the Star Wars OT Special Editions, and all that did was backfire to the point that "Han Shot First" has been a rallying cry against Lucas' revisionist habits for decades at this point. Lucas wanted Han to shoot second because he thought that it would be less heroic if he shot first. (Never mind that Han wasn't a hero at the moment.) A similar thing is true for JK and Black Hermoine - IIRC, she saw artwork and wanted to be more inclusive, so she retroactively changed a character's ethnicity and skin tone to line up with modern day sensibilities and major sociocultural movements. 

The third "problem" is that Black Hermoine does exist. In the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child play, Hermoine has been played by Noma Dumezweni, Paula Arundell, and Yonna McIntosh, all Black actors of various ethnicities and backgrounds. I use the quotations because I don't think this is a problem in and of itself. It's a choice an alternate universe version of Harry Potter chose for casting and diversity, and it should have no impact on how people feel or perceive the books or movies unless they decide that this is the better version. The problem is that JK used the above two arguments to justify this one, when in reality she didn't need to. She could easily have said "hey, yeah, we're changing Hermoine to be Black," or better yet, nothing at all. But because of the desire to be internally consistent, JK had to go back and make sure that the book version of Hermoine matched this new one. Or at least that's how I see it. 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

also why would this change anything if the fandom has widely accepted that Hermione is white, the movies have already been made so it wouldn't change anything regardless.

Because it now runs opposite of how they imagined and have seen it. It's the same thing that WoT went through, and the same thing that LOTR is going through. For decades, fans have imagined a certain set of people looking a certain way, as backed up by the books. The previous adaptations be it movies, comics, or shows, have all backed this up. Now, something new is coming out that doesn't reaffirm this belief, so either the show must be wrong, or the audience must be wrong, because they both can't be right, can they? It's that mindset that I don't agree with or care for. The new version is an interpretation of the old version, or of a set source material. Of course it won't be the same - different mediums and times require different methods and talents. 

 

34 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

but for the case we are talking about it is a little different as there are many different kinds of hobbits that have interbreeded. and indeed we have only actually seen one part of the shire in the movies so who can say that in the other parts there are not hobbits with different skin tones.

The problem with this is that for the non-LOTR fans, this doesn't fully matter. All I've seen is fans who seem unwelcoming to a change that can only be for the better because of arbitrary reasons in a fictional world. Who cares about what the books said in this case? Why does this show, from a different time period AFAIK, need to justify what the movies did or didn't have?*

 

38 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

Black Clark Kent is something I would pay to see,

Good news is that we may get it soon enough! IIRC, Michael B Jordan is producing a Black Superman movie. 

 

39 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

it sounds like a good idea that people would love (or at least us two) in writing I have realized that even if you make an all powerful character without anything like your readers then the readers won't like them.

You'd be surprised at some of the pushback I've seen.

Slight Tangent: The problem with Black Clark Kent is that there's already a Black Superman named Calvin Ellis, who becomes the President of the USA while also being Superman. (He was a loving homage to Barack Obama and came out during Obama's presidency.) As much as I love him, this character isn't Clark, and that's not even going to mention the controversy this character can cause if those who dislike the character decide using him is a political agenda. What I want is to see a Clark with different dimensions due to skin tone rather than one who just happens to look different. That's a big debate, because several other Black people I've talked to agree with the latter - they'd rather see more original Black heroes than heroes who were turned Black for the sake of diversity. The problem, though, is that coming out with a superhero that ISN'T attached to a legacy character but can stand their ground is very, very, very hard to do nowadays. Make that character a minority, and they have a major uphill battle to climb. The cheat is to get a show about said character, but most characters with shows today are still related to more famous heroes. 

 

44 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

Having people with darker skin color in books and shows is great, but when you do it decades after your books and tv shows after those characters specifically have one skin color and you change it I don't think it works.

I have to disagree with this. I think it can and absolutely does work. Nick Fury is a living example. Nick Fury was a white character for most of his existence. Roughly 20 years ago in an alternate universe, he was Black. Then that universe became popular, so people started associating Nick Fury with the Black version. The Iron Man came out, and Nick Fury was played by Samuel L Jackson. (Who, ironically, the Black Nick Fury was based off of.) Then this version of Nick Fury became so popular that in the mainline comics, they replaced the white Nick Fury with his Black son...also named Nick Fury. 

Or a more recent example is Nynaeve from WoT. For the nearly 30 years of her existence, fans had seen her as white. When the news broke that she was going to be played by the lighter skinned but still Black Zoe Robbins, fans were...not happy. But when the show came out, Nynaeve was towards the top of people's favorites characters from what I can tell. My sister in particular liked Nynaeve...although that may also be because I liked her character and she thought I had a crush on her. 

A reverse is with Iron Fist, although that's a loaded example. Basically, the character is seen as a version of the Whitey Mighty trope, and when there was a plea from fans for Netflix to cast an Asian-American actor in the role, they went with the comic-accurate version. This was FAR from the only reason the show was not as well received, but it was one major talking point at least. (Bad choreography with behind-the-scenes drama between cast and crew, terrible scripts, and unlikeable characters make up the other talking points.)

Ultimately, I see the perspective you mention to be one that hurts everyone involved, except for the people who care about skin tone. The show won't reach nearly the audiences it could if it doesn't diversify, meaning less revenue and fewer ratings, which means a less likely chance for renewal, which ultimately leads to a dead project that will forever be touted as "gone too soon." Diversifying the show by adding different skin tones and ethnicities won't fix all of these issues, but it may just reach a larger audience than before. 

 

 

*I say this with irreverence, but I do understand the importance of this, even if I don't see it myself. I feel annoyed when Star Wars shows don't reference the larger canon. The same was true for the Marvel Netflix shows back in the day. 

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

5 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

There are light-skinned Black people (and it is possible for Black people to have a reflection in the moonlight, but it will look different), but I definitely understand the sentiment here, since the re-imagining of Hermoine was as a dark-skinned Black girl. The problem here is multi-stepped, but it mostly goes back to the Death of the Author mindset. 

The first problem is marketing and audience. Even if JK hadn't said anything about pale skin, Hermoine had been portrayed as white on the covers of the Harry Potter books as well as in the movies, meaning that the audience had a certain assumption about the character's skin tone, one that became culturally accepted. 

The second problem isn't the portrayal of Hermione, but the JK's retroactive interpretation of events and timing of it. This rarely ever works - George Lucas did something similar with the Star Wars OT Special Editions, and all that did was backfire to the point that "Han Shot First" has been a rallying cry against Lucas' revisionist habits for decades at this point. Lucas wanted Han to shoot second because he thought that it would be less heroic if he shot first. (Never mind that Han wasn't a hero at the moment.) A similar thing is true for JK and Black Hermoine - IIRC, she saw artwork and wanted to be more inclusive, so she retroactively changed a character's ethnicity and skin tone to line up with modern day sensibilities and major sociocultural movements. 

The third "problem" is that Black Hermoine does exist. In the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child play, Hermoine has been played by Noma Dumezweni, Paula Arundell, and Yonna McIntosh, all Black actors of various ethnicities and backgrounds. I use the quotations because I don't think this is a problem in and of itself. It's a choice an alternate universe version of Harry Potter chose for casting and diversity, and it should have no impact on how people feel or perceive the books or movies unless they decide that this is the better version. The problem is that JK used the above two arguments to justify this one, when in reality she didn't need to. She could easily have said "hey, yeah, we're changing Hermoine to be Black," or better yet, nothing at all. But because of the desire to be internally consistent, JK had to go back and make sure that the book version of Hermoine matched this new one. Or at least that's how I see it. 

 

 

 

Because it now runs opposite of how they imagined and have seen it. It's the same thing that WoT went through, and the same thing that LOTR is going through. For decades, fans have imagined a certain set of people looking a certain way, as backed up by the books. The previous adaptations be it movies, comics, or shows, have all backed this up. Now, something new is coming out that doesn't reaffirm this belief, so either the show must be wrong, or the audience must be wrong, because they both can't be right, can they? It's that mindset that I don't agree with or care for. The new version is an interpretation of the old version, or of a set source material. Of course it won't be the same - different mediums and times require different methods and talents. 

 

The problem with this is that for the non-LOTR fans, this doesn't fully matter. All I've seen is fans who seem unwelcoming to a change that can only be for the better because of arbitrary reasons in a fictional world. Who cares about what the books said in this case? Why does this show, from a different time period AFAIK, need to justify what the movies did or didn't have?*

 

Good news is that we may get it soon enough! IIRC, Michael B Jordan is producing a Black Superman movie. 

 

You'd be surprised at some of the pushback I've seen.

Slight Tangent: The problem with Black Clark Kent is that there's already a Black Superman named Calvin Ellis, who becomes the President of the USA while also being Superman. (He was a loving homage to Barack Obama and came out during Obama's presidency.) As much as I love him, this character isn't Clark, and that's not even going to mention the controversy this character can cause if those who dislike the character decide using him is a political agenda. What I want is to see a Clark with different dimensions due to skin tone rather than one who just happens to look different. That's a big debate, because several other Black people I've talked to agree with the latter - they'd rather see more original Black heroes than heroes who were turned Black for the sake of diversity. The problem, though, is that coming out with a superhero that ISN'T attached to a legacy character but can stand their ground is very, very, very hard to do nowadays. Make that character a minority, and they have a major uphill battle to climb. The cheat is to get a show about said character, but most characters with shows today are still related to more famous heroes. 

 

I have to disagree with this. I think it can and absolutely does work. Nick Fury is a living example. Nick Fury was a white character for most of his existence. Roughly 20 years ago in an alternate universe, he was Black. Then that universe became popular, so people started associating Nick Fury with the Black version. The Iron Man came out, and Nick Fury was played by Samuel L Jackson. (Who, ironically, the Black Nick Fury was based off of.) Then this version of Nick Fury became so popular that in the mainline comics, they replaced the white Nick Fury with his Black son...also named Nick Fury. 

Or a more recent example is Nynaeve from WoT. For the nearly 30 years of her existence, fans had seen her as white. When the news broke that she was going to be played by the lighter skinned but still Black Zoe Robbins, fans were...not happy. But when the show came out, Nynaeve was towards the top of people's favorites characters from what I can tell. My sister in particular liked Nynaeve...although that may also be because I liked her character and she thought I had a crush on her. 

A reverse is with Iron Fist, although that's a loaded example. Basically, the character is seen as a version of the Whitey Mighty trope, and when there was a plea from fans for Netflix to cast an Asian-American actor in the role, they went with the comic-accurate version. This was FAR from the only reason the show was not as well received, but it was one major talking point at least. (Bad choreography with behind-the-scenes drama between cast and crew, terrible scripts, and unlikeable characters make up the other talking points.)

Ultimately, I see the perspective you mention to be one that hurts everyone involved, except for the people who care about skin tone. The show won't reach nearly the audiences it could if it doesn't diversify, meaning less revenue and fewer ratings, which means a less likely chance for renewal, which ultimately leads to a dead project that will forever be touted as "gone too soon." Diversifying the show by adding different skin tones and ethnicities won't fix all of these issues, but it may just reach a larger audience than before. 

 

 

*I say this with irreverence, but I do understand the importance of this, even if I don't see it myself. I feel annoyed when Star Wars shows don't reference the larger canon. The same was true for the Marvel Netflix shows back in the day. 

I did not know that about Nick Fury. also I can't wait for that black superman movie! does it have a release date yet? 

8 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Because it now runs opposite of how they imagined and have seen it. It's the same thing that WoT went through, and the same thing that LOTR is going through. For decades, fans have imagined a certain set of people looking a certain way, as backed up by the books. The previous adaptations be it movies, comics, or shows, have all backed this up. Now, something new is coming out that doesn't reaffirm this belief, so either the show must be wrong, or the audience must be wrong, because they both can't be right, can they? It's that mindset that I don't agree with or care for. The new version is an interpretation of the old version, or of a set source material. Of course it won't be the same - different mediums and times require different methods and talents. 

 

This is the more confusing thing when coming to relations between reader and author/director how much does the audience get to decide and how much the author. same with how much liberties a director can take before making the fandom want to kill them every minute they live. The biggest thing is, when adapting from one medium to another you have to stay true as much as you can while making it your own. this is why I have serious problems with the goblet of fire movie, they did it wrong because they left out so much that everyone was expecting, this plays into the fact of promises and payoffs, if you have watched Brandon's writing class videos you will get this a bit more if I explain wrong, you promise that you are doing an adaption so people dream and imagine what it will be so they get high expectations, so when the movie or show is far off from what the original is the fans will not like it one bit.

12 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

I have to disagree with this. I think it can and absolutely does work. Nick Fury is a living example. Nick Fury was a white character for most of his existence. Roughly 20 years ago in an alternate universe, he was Black. Then that universe became popular, so people started associating Nick Fury with the Black version. The Iron Man came out, and Nick Fury was played by Samuel L Jackson. (Who, ironically, the Black Nick Fury was based off of.) Then this version of Nick Fury became so popular that in the mainline comics, they replaced the white Nick Fury with his Black son...also named Nick Fury. 

Or a more recent example is Nynaeve from WoT. For the nearly 30 years of her existence, fans had seen her as white. When the news broke that she was going to be played by the lighter skinned but still Black Zoe Robbins, fans were...not happy. But when the show came out, Nynaeve was towards the top of people's favorites characters from what I can tell. My sister in particular liked Nynaeve...although that may also be because I liked her character and she thought I had a crush on her. 

A reverse is with Iron Fist, although that's a loaded example. Basically, the character is seen as a version of the Whitey Mighty trope, and when there was a plea from fans for Netflix to cast an Asian-American actor in the role, they went with the comic-accurate version. This was FAR from the only reason the show was not as well received, but it was one major talking point at least. (Bad choreography with behind-the-scenes drama between cast and crew, terrible scripts, and unlikeable characters make up the other talking points.)

Ultimately, I see the perspective you mention to be one that hurts everyone involved, except for the people who care about skin tone. The show won't reach nearly the audiences it could if it doesn't diversify, meaning less revenue and fewer ratings, which means a less likely chance for renewal, which ultimately leads to a dead project that will forever be touted as "gone too soon." Diversifying the show by adding different skin tones and ethnicities won't fix all of these issues, but it may just reach a larger audience than before. 

 

Yes but that was because that was the public opinion. with Hermione no-one actually wanted her specifically to be black, or at least not that I know of. The difference with Nynaeve is that Nynaeve is in a made up world where we only have the main storyline of books and not a lot of detail (I must mention that I have only read the first four books fully and a part of book five, I don't have any plans of continuing the series) to the settings or skin color. with Hermione and Nick Fury they had to make it realistic to settings in reality where things cannot be changed as easily and more people actually know about far more than the author possibly.

overall this is an awesome conversation and I take pleasure in talking to such a fine person as you.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Use the Falchion said:

The problem with this is that for the non-LOTR fans, this doesn't fully matter. All I've seen is fans who seem unwelcoming to a change that can only be for the better because of arbitrary reasons in a fictional world. Who cares about what the books said in this case? Why does this show, from a different time period AFAIK, need to justify what the movies did or didn't have?*

*I say this with irreverence, but I do understand the importance of this, even if I don't see it myself. I feel annoyed when Star Wars shows don't reference the larger canon. The same was true for the Marvel Netflix shows back in the day. 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here could you clairify?

[Use the Falchion]

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

I can't wait for that black superman movie! does it have a release date yet? 

Me too! But alas, it's stuck in pre-production for now. We've got a few more years before anything comes of it. 

 

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

The biggest thing is, when adapting from one medium to another you have to stay true as much as you can while making it your own

Keeping the spirit while making the necessary changes elsewhere, yup! The MCU movies are masters of this. 

 

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

you promise that you are doing an adaption so people dream and imagine what it will be so they get high expectations, so when the movie or show is far off from what the original is the fans will not like it one bit.

This gets into two things IMO. The first is fan expectations. The second is who the adaptation is for. Fans aren't wrong for expecting things, but when that expectation gets in the way of the enjoyment of a product or blinds fans to what it is because they're consumed by what it should have been in their own mind, then the problem isn't the movie/show/book/etc, it's the fans. 

Good expectation: A good show or adaptation that keeps the spirit of the material. The best adaptations inspire people to seek out the source material. 

Bad expectation: A show that's 100% accurate to the books/source material without any changes or fully in-world explanation for changes immediately. 

 

I'll use a controversial but personal example, and then a lighthearted example from Rhythm of War.

The Last Jedi - A lot of people expected Rey's heritage to be something big, be it a Skywalker, Solo, Kenobi, or Palpatine. When it was revealed that she was a Nobody, there was a very vocal side of the Star Wars fandom that was upset. Heck, there are those who are still upset almost five years later. Because they had built up an idea in their head about what TLJ was going to be, who Rey was, and what the story would be in order to please them, and when the movie couldn't measure up or didn't go how they predicted, they were hurt. This is understandable and not a problem. I've felt this way many times. But the problem is when fans like these - who are usually hardcore ones - claim that the movie/adaptation/story is bad because it didn't go how they wanted it to go. That's not true. Sure, they may not like the direction, but not liking a direction isn't a quality issue IMO. It's a mix of personal and pride issues. 

Rhythm of War - Pre-RoW, I shipped Kaladin and Jasnah pretty hard. I felt like they'd make a great "opposites attract" sort of couple, if given time to explore the lots of common ground they have. Then this behemoth comes out and now we have Jasnah and Wit. And while I'm still not a giant fan of the relationship for a myriad of reasons, that speaks less about the relationship and more about me as a reader and fan. (And mostly my problems are that my backup relationship for Jasnah was her and a certain smiley someone with scars.) Still, I'm all aboard the Kaladin and Leshwi ship now! 

Now, the uncomfortable truth, as I see it anyways - Adaptations are not for hardcore fans or the diehard fans who have been following the source material. ADAPTATIONS ARE FOR THOSE WHO COULD BE FANS OR WHO COULD LIKE THE STORY, IF GIVEN A DIFFERENT MEDIUM. These fans be part of the adaptation at its most critical time (the beginning) regardless of whether or not they love or hate the premise. These fans aren't the target demographic, because they're assumed, at least for a while. No, the target demographic will be people who watch with their Significant Other or say "I'm into ABC, but I'm open to XYZ." About what percentage of viewers started Game of Thrones without picking up the books first? How many picked up the books in anticipation for the series after hearing good things? How many would have said that they liked the Fantasy genre because they read/watched Harry Potter and LOTR, but those are really their only experiences? (Plus-or-minus Narnia.) It's people like those that shows like WoT and ROP are trying to draw in. Hardcore fans are a starting point, but they're far from an ending point. 

Why does this matter to your point? New incoming fans will not care about the changes made from the original unless they decide to read the source material. Because they won't know any better.* So why should these changes be such a big deal to hardcore fans? 

The promise of an adaptation isn't the promise of a pure translation or even your (the general "your", not you specifically)/the fans/the general populace's desire for something to be adapted. 

 

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

Hermione no-one actually wanted her specifically to be black, or at least not that I know of.

Agreed Hermoine is an outlier case. I think we're agreeing maybe, but I may have misread you. 

I think you were saying: Changing a character who is seen as Way A way in Version 1 to be seen as Way B in Version 1 doesn't work. 

What I heard: Changing a character who is seen as Way A in Version 1 to be seen as Way B in Version 2 doesn't work. 

I agree with what I think you were saying. 

 

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

The difference with Nynaeve is that Nynaeve is in a made up world where we only have the main storyline of books and not a lot of detail (I must mention that I have only read the first four books fully and a part of book five, I don't have any plans of continuing the series) to the settings or skin color.

And Hermione isn't? Hogwarts doesn't exist. 

Nynaeve is also from a series that was older than HP, had multiple versions of her on cover art, and has been depicted in art books and graphic adaptations. The difference is Robert Jordan and/or Brandon aren't going back to say "Nynaeve was always Black!" Brandon and Rafe are saying "this is a different timeline/alternate universe/turning of the wheel." The point is that the pushback based on preconceived notions of the skin tone happened to them both, just one because the author got involved and made a big retroactive deal instead of taking another route. 

 

Also, looking back, using Hermoine is an even weirder case that we thought! Apparently, someone was/people were upset that they had cast a black woman (Noma) for the HP&CC play, and tweeted about it, noting a time when the word "pale" was used to describe Hermoine. JK tweeted back that she never said Hermoine was white in the books, pointing out that the only canon things about her was "brown eyes, frizzy hair, very clever" and that she "loves Black Hermoine." This was taken then taken to mean that JK was retroactively claiming that Hermoine was black rather than "this version of her is black" or even just "black girls can now see themselves as Hermione." 

 

50 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here could you clairify?

Of course!

The biggest debate and discussion for the upcoming show I've seen has been about skin tone. (I've seen lesser comments about the dwarven women not having beards, but only in passing.) It's felt racist, excusatory, unwelcoming, and overall, it's been a turn-off because I don't want to have to deal with this every time I talk to someone online about the show, if I do watch it. I'd talk about it to my friends, but they aren't guarantees to watch the show. To someone who isn't a hardcore fan, this sounds like a silly (at best) line to draw and an outdated thing to adhere to, if it was that way in the books. That's why I ask why it matters and who cares if it's like that in the books or previous outings. If this is a different era from the other LOTR movies, who cares about how they portrayed it during a different time? If this is in the same timeline, why should a new show trying to reach new audiences stick to old demographic patterns? There are more important things to talk about in the show than the skin tone of some characters. The fact that the skin tone change in a negative light is has been the most memorable and constant thing outside of the talks here on this thread...well...it doesn't paint a very flattering picture. And like this picture to be flattering thank you very much!

 

 

*Now ideally, this adaptation will inspire the new fans to check out the source material. From there, a productive and engaging discussion over what changed and why, and what that means for future seasons and/or stories can be discussed. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Use the Falchion

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

3 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Why does this matter to your point? New incoming fans will not care about the changes made from the original unless they decide to read the source material. Because they won't know any better. So why should these changes be such a big deal to hardcore fans? 

The promise of an adaptation isn't the promise of a pure translation or even your (the general "your", not you specifically)/the fans/the general populace's desire for something to be adapted. 

For the first thing it is because the hardcore fans have imagined things for years and years. they think that they want a word for word copy, but not only that something that stays with the deep lore they have been devouring, the changes also could be upsetting because the original author is not alive to support it.

9 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Agreed Hermoine is an outlier case. I think we're agreeing maybe, but I may have misread you. 

I think you were saying: Changing a character who is seen as Way A way in Version 1 to be seen as Way B in Version 1 doesn't work. 

What I heard: Changing a character who is seen as Way A in Version 1 to be seen as Way B in Version 2 doesn't work. 

I agree with what I think you were saying. 

I was saying Way A in Version 1 v Way B in Version 1.

the big thing with the cursed child is that it is supposed to be an extension of the books and movies (I think) and that is why the problem is seen. 

10 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

And Hermione isn't? Hogwarts doesn't exist. 

Hogwarts doesn't exist yes but it is still set in Britain, it is still grounded in the real world and mostly has the same racial qualities as the rest of the world and still has things grounded in the real world more than WoT. 

12 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Nynaeve is also from a series that was older than HP, had multiple versions of her on cover art, and has been depicted in art books and graphic adaptations. The difference is Robert Jordan and/or Brandon aren't going back to say "Nynaeve was always Black!" Brandon and Rafe are saying "this is a different timeline/alternate universe/turning of the wheel." The point is that the pushback based on preconceived notions of the skin tone happened to them both, just one because the author got involved and made a big retroactive deal instead of taking another route. 

 

Also, looking back, using Hermoine is an even weirder case that we thought! Apparently, someone was/people were upset that they had cast a black woman (Noma) for the HP&CC play, and tweeted about it, noting a time when the word "pale" was used to describe Hermoine. JK tweeted back that she never said Hermoine was white in the books, pointing out that the only canon things about her was "brown eyes, frizzy hair, very clever" and that she "loves Black Hermoine." This was taken then taken to mean that JK was retroactively claiming that Hermoine was black rather than "this version of her is black" or even just "black girls can now see themselves as Hermione." 

with Nynaeve it has cultures and skin colors native to that world so for all we know she could have been. also they actually have an excuse while JK Rowling just changed it without making it actually plausible after the movies had been made and that version of Hermione had been accepted, of course we talked about the Nick Fury case but remember Hermione was set up in the movies as white, not only in that but in the front pictures of all the HP books, another thing this had sat with the fans for years so they want to stay with it. this of course doesn't affect hobbits in lotr as we know there are three general types of hobbits, but goodness knows how many other subtypes are, we also only have seen one part of the shire in movies and only five hobbits in detail so of course there can be black hobbits.

[Frustration]

30 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Of course!

The biggest debate and discussion for the upcoming show I've seen has been about skin tone. (I've seen lesser comments about the dwarven women not having beards, but only in passing.) It's felt racist, excusatory, unwelcoming, and overall, it's been a turn-off because I don't want to have to deal with this every time I talk to someone online about the show, if I do watch it. I'd talk about it to my friends, but they aren't guarantees to watch the show. To someone who isn't a hardcore fan, this sounds like a silly (at best) line to draw and an outdated thing to adhere to, if it was that way in the books. That's why I ask why it matters and who cares if it's like that in the books or previous outings. If this is a different era from the other LOTR movies, who cares about how they portrayed it during a different time? If this is in the same timeline, why should a new show trying to reach new audiences stick to old demographic patterns? There are more important things to talk about in the show than the skin tone of some characters. The fact that the skin tone change in a negative light is has been the most memorable and constant thing outside of the talks here on this thread...well...it doesn't paint a very flattering picture. And like this picture to be flattering thank you very much!

Ok thank you, I think I get it. Maybe I can shed some light on that.

From what I've seen(and that's not to say that's all that is out there) It's more been about the changes. Elves dwarves and Hobbits are white, and neither lore wise nor biologically have reasons to not be(especially elves and dwarves, who really should be much paler than any human). However there are other cultures that are not white, like the Harradrim, or the Easterlings, and it looks like they are being skipped over. I don't think anyone is complaining about having characters of different racial backgrounds, so much as the fact that this is the lazyiest way to do it.

For example towards the downfall of Numenore they began to demand tribute from other men, it would be really intresting to see how that affected the Harrad, and ultimatly lead to them joining Sauron, as well as showing just how corrupt the Kings of Numenore had become. There are some good stories that could have been told there.

Now that's not to say there aren't some idiots legitametly being racist out there, and if they are that is not okay in the slightest and they need to stop. But that there are some other reasons to be upset.

Does that make sense, or do you still not like it?

Edited February 21, 2022 by Frustration

[Use the Falchion]

5 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Ok I think I get it. Maybe I can shed some light on that.

Now from what I've seen(and that's not to say that's all that is out there) It's more been about the changes. Elves dwarves and Hobbits are white, and neither lore wise nor biologically have reasons to not be(especially elves and dwarves, who really should be much paler than any human). However there are other cultures that are not white, like the Harradrim, or the Easterlings, and it looks like they are being skipped over. I don't think anyone is complaining about having characters of different racial backgrounds, so much as the fact that this is the lazyiest way to do it.

For example towards the downfall of Numenore they began to demand tribute from other men, it would be really intresting to see how that affected the Harrad, and ultimatly lead to them joining Sauron, as well as showing just how corrupt the Kings of Numenore had become. There are some good stories that could have been told there.

Now that's not to say there aren't some idiots legitametly being racist out there, and if they are that is not okay in the slightest and they need to stop. But that there are some other reasons to be upset.

Does that make sense, or do you still not like it?

That makes sense! Thanks! I still don't like it and find it asinine since this is a show being created in a time when diversity matters more than ever, but it makes a little more sense. That is not to say that diversity for the sake of diversity is an inherently good thing, but rather it's a point that should be judged on the storylines and subtext that comes with the diversity whenever possible IMO. If there's no storyline or subtext there, then move on and let it be. I just find it befuddling that something that can make some kid's day is somehow a problem because it doesn't fit into lore that the kid isn't going to care about, and that the show may not even use. It's not gatekeeping, but it's...well, it's something. 

I guess since I'm a superhero fan first and foremost, I'm used to seeing changes in adaptations and looks of actors and roles, so it doesn't bother me as much. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, they can all be changed to different ethnicities and I'd be fine. Heck, Spider-Man has been changed to different ethnicities to tell different stories in different cultures, and I welcome it! 

But I guess to me the skin tone change would be like if Steve Rogers aka Captain America was now a minority during WW2. But when I think about that, the problem for me isn't about the race/ethnicity change, it's about how they'll implement that into Steve's character. So for ROP, what do these skin tone changes mean for the world, if anything at all? If fans think it means something, then shouldn't the speculation focus on that instead of whether or not it's true to the text? If there isn't meaning involved (which is 100% fine too), then shouldn't the focus be on the story outside of these changes?

 

8 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

For the first thing it is because the hardcore fans have imagined things for years and years. they think that they want a word for word copy, but not only that something that stays with the deep lore they have been devouring, the changes also could be upsetting because the original author is not alive to support it.

That shouldn't be the show's problem to deal with, and it doesn't speak to the quality of the show. It speaks to the rigidness of the fans. 

 

9 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

the big thing with the cursed child is that it is supposed to be an extension of the books and movies (I think) and that is why the problem is seen.

Eh, it is and it isn't. It involves time travel, and it's not written or treated like an extension to the book in any real fashion (i.e. new covers and versions, limited editions, etc.), so YMMV on whether or not it's Canon. But it shouldn't have been a problem for fans in the first place. If they want to consider it canon, then they can imagine that the Hermione in the show is white and enjoy the story. If they like the story and don't like the cast, consider this cast an alternate universe. Or they can try to read the books in a new light. Makes for a fun reread. 

Regardless, the problem isn't just the fans in the Hermoine case, but I consider her an outlier to what's happening here. Although maybe I shouldn't...

 

11 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

JK Rowling just changed it without making it actually plausible after the movies had been made and that version of Hermione had been accepted, of course we talked about the

JK used book evidence - or rather lack of evidence - to support her claim, or rather an open acceptance to fans to view Hermoine as they please. Yes, the movies had existed before, but that doesn't mean a new person can step into the same role and play the same character differently, particularly in a different medium. 

To use the example above, fans were free to interpret this as Way B in Version 1 or Version 2. It shouldn't have mattered in the way that it did. JK's comments weren't saying Way B is how Version 1 MUST be viewed from now on!", but rather "Way B is how fans can view it with my blessing." 

It was like a softer Pre-RoW version of Shallan's bisexuality. Brandon admitted that it wasn't intentional by design, but he fully encouraged it and eventually wrote it into canon. Here, JK isn't say that Hermione was Black by design, simply that she loves the idea of Hermione being Black and supports it personally. Fans are free to take this or leave it as they choose. 

 

13 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

another thing this had sat with the fans for years so they want to stay with it.

By the time Noma played Hermoine on stage, the Harry Potter franchise had outgrown its own fans, honestly. It's a brand name now, despite all of the controversies of the creators and actors. They can - and will - do whatever they want despite what "the fans" want, for better and for worse. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

this of course doesn't affect hobbits in lotr as we know there are three general types of hobbits, but goodness knows how many other subtypes are, we also only have seen one part of the shire in movies and only five hobbits in detail so of course there can be black hobbits.

Then why is skin tone the first, second, and third thing I hear about when I try to find a nice community (again, outside this forum. Y'all and the rest are great here) to talk about this show with? If it shouldn't be a big deal, then I'd like to see the conversations about this show stop treating it like it's a problem. 

 

Ultimately, @Thaidakar the Ghostblood and @Frustration thanks for helping me understand. I doubt I'll agree, but at least I have a clearer view of what the changes actually mean to fans of the property and how they feel about them. 

 

 

[Thaidakar the Ghostblood]

1 minute ago, Use the Falchion said:

That makes sense! Thanks! I still don't like it and find it asinine since this is a show being created in a time when diversity matters more than ever, but it makes a little more sense. That is not to say that diversity for the sake of diversity is an inherently good thing, but rather it's a point that should be judged on the storylines and subtext that comes with the diversity whenever possible IMO. If there's no storyline or subtext there, then move on and let it be. I just find it befuddling that something that can make some kid's day is somehow a problem because it doesn't fit into lore that the kid isn't going to care about, and that the show may not even use. It's not gatekeeping, but it's...well, it's something. 

I guess since I'm a superhero fan first and foremost, I'm used to seeing changes in adaptations and looks of actors and roles, so it doesn't bother me as much. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, they can all be changed to different ethnicities and I'd be fine. Heck, Spider-Man has been changed to different ethnicities to tell different stories in different cultures, and I welcome it! 

But I guess to me the skin tone change would be like if Steve Rogers aka Captain America was now a minority during WW2. But when I think about that, the problem for me isn't about the race/ethnicity change, it's about how they'll implement that into Steve's character. So for ROP, what do these skin tone changes mean for the world, if anything at all? If fans think it means something, then shouldn't the speculation focus on that instead of whether or not it's true to the text? If there isn't meaning involved (which is 100% fine too), then shouldn't the focus be on the story outside of these changes?

 

That shouldn't be the show's problem to deal with, and it doesn't speak to the quality of the show. It speaks to the rigidness of the fans. 

 

Eh, it is and it isn't. It involves time travel, and it's not written or treated like an extension to the book in any real fashion (i.e. new covers and versions, limited editions, etc.), so YMMV on whether or not it's Canon. But it shouldn't have been a problem for fans in the first place. If they want to consider it canon, then they can imagine that the Hermione in the show is white and enjoy the story. If they like the story and don't like the cast, consider this cast an alternate universe. Or they can try to read the books in a new light. Makes for a fun reread. 

Regardless, the problem isn't just the fans in the Hermoine case, but I consider her an outlier to what's happening here. Although maybe I shouldn't...

 

JK used book evidence - or rather lack of evidence - to support her claim, or rather an open acceptance to fans to view Hermoine as they please. Yes, the movies had existed before, but that doesn't mean a new person can step into the same role and play the same character differently, particularly in a different medium. 

To use the example above, fans were free to interpret this as Way B in Version 1 or Version 2. It shouldn't have mattered in the way that it did. JK's comments weren't saying Way B is how Version 1 MUST be viewed from now on!", but rather "Way B is how fans can view it with my blessing." 

It was like a softer Pre-RoW version of Shallan's bisexuality. Brandon admitted that it wasn't intentional by design, but he fully encouraged it and eventually wrote it into canon. Here, JK isn't say that Hermione was Black by design, simply that she loves the idea of Hermione being Black and supports it personally. Fans are free to take this or leave it as they choose. 

 

By the time Noma played Hermoine on stage, the Harry Potter franchise had outgrown its own fans, honestly. It's a brand name now, despite all of the controversies of the creators and actors. They can - and will - do whatever they want despite what "the fans" want, for better and for worse. 

 

 

Then why is skin tone the first, second, and third thing I hear about when I try to find a nice community (again, outside this forum. Y'all and the rest are great here) to talk about this show with? If it shouldn't be a big deal, then I'd like to see the conversations about this show stop treating it like it's a problem. 

 

Ultimately, @Thaidakar the Ghostblood and @Frustration thanks for helping me understand. I doubt I'll agree, but at least I have a clearer view of what the changes actually mean to fans of the property and how they feel about them. 

 

 

your welcome Falchion, I'm glad I could help.

[Frustration]

8 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

That makes sense! Thanks! I still don't like it and find it asinine since this is a show being created in a time when diversity matters more than ever, but it makes a little more sense. That is not to say that diversity for the sake of diversity is an inherently good thing, but rather it's a point that should be judged on the storylines and subtext that comes with the diversity whenever possible IMO. If there's no storyline or subtext there, then move on and let it be. I just find it befuddling that something that can make some kid's day is somehow a problem because it doesn't fit into lore that the kid isn't going to care about, and that the show may not even use. It's not gatekeeping, but it's...well, it's something. 

Glad I could help. I suppose it does make us sound like massive nerds doesn't it?

[Spren of Kindness]

The full trailer is out!  The trailer, sorry I can't figure out how to embed it.  

Spoiler

I'm a little more excited now?  I'm still pretty skeptical, but I feel like this gave me a little more of an idea of what's going on.  Big thoughts immediately: 

• Heck yeah, the Trees!
• Costuming looks fairly decent, despite... other choices made (side eying Elrond's hair)
• They did a really good job casting Gil-Galad, I think.  (Oh gosh, I hope they pick a side on the 'who is Gil-Galad's father?' debate, that would be hilarious)
• I'm liking the look of a lot of the locations.

 

[Frustration]

The "main trailer" is out and even with all the knowledge I have of the story already, I have no idea what they are trying to do.

That's not good.

A complete list of all of my problems with this.

Spoiler

1. Hobbits didn't do anything of note during the second age. 

2. What is that fire? The Istari didn't arrive in middle earth until after the fall of Sauron.

3. Why are they controlling fire in the first place? In Tolkien's writing power was always subtle, not the grand over-visualized version Amazon is showing.

4. Galadriel wasn't a warrior, she never used a sword.

5. Why are the trees of Valinor in the trailer? They are only tangentially related, and I don't think Amazon even has the rights to them.

I don't know what this is, but it's not Tolkien.

[HOID WANTS INSTANT NOODLES]

Ohh no. Heck no. It isnt that I dont think the premice of a silmarilian tv show is bad. It's just so hypocrytical to have amazon do it. Amazon's problem seems to be that it thinks that by making it's movies more progressive it can make up for it's nasty workplace. 

On some of the previous issues, I am fine with a black character. I am fine with adressing racism. I am not fine with taking a white character and making their whole plotline become black them dealing with racism. Having a new black character deal with it is fine. But taking a charachter and changing them isnt. For once, just once I want a movie where a character is black and the movie doesnt adress it. Like casting a main character a black but rather than going"hey look how progressive we are" just not talking about it and letting them play the role. 

[Trutharchivist]

All right, I won't pretend to go over everything you discussed here, but...

Did you watch the first episodes? If so, do what do you think of it?

[Spren of Kindness]

Unfortunately, as I've been expecting, I'm not a huge fan.  I'd say I'm somewhere between a 3 and 4 out of 10.  

Highlight reel of my thoughts from the first two episodes below. (if you don't want to read about costumes, beware.)

Spoiler

All this was taken from an ongoing document I'm keeping thoughts in, which is why it's divided like it is, and why not everything is in the proper category.  It's all train-of-thought style.

Casting

Spoiler

Honestly, I kinda like the casting for Finrod.  Put a good wig on him, and I’d be on board with it.  Actually, just get wigs.  For everyone.  Boom, big improvement.  Galadriel doesn’t count, I’m talking about the guys here.  Would have been nice to see her braid her hair back when running around in armor, though.

I also like the Elrond casting.  One episode in, he’s probably my favorite, though I am biased because he’s in my top four book favorites.  Give him a long wig, and I’d like him even more.  

The funny thing about Celebrimbor being played by an older man, to me, is that Galadriel, who is played by and written as a fairly young woman, is roughly the same age, if not older.  We don’t have a birth date for Celebrimbor, so knowing Galadriel’s doesn’t make much of a difference, but I find it hilarious that he’s the generation after her, and appears decades older.  Insert point that it doesn't make sense for him to be old here.

Costuming

Spoiler

Episode One

The symbolisms are a little janky - everyone seems to have the Fëanorian Star, which is… odd, since several people who really would not want that are seen with it.  And that is mentioned in The Fellowship Of The Ring book, at Moria, so it’s not that they don’t have rights to say it’s the Star of Fëanor.  Maybe this is my inner lore nerd paying too much attention, but to me, an eight-pointed star in any Age of Middle-earth will always mean Fëanor.

The costumes for the Elven guys aren’t bad.  Celebrimbor is a notable exception, but that is for episode two.  I actually rather like Elrond’s blue costume, and the whole gold thing for Gil-Galad is kinda tacky, but it’s not horrible.  Lose the Roman laurels and it would look better.  Galadriel’s crystally dress looks nice, I suppose.  The mantle she wears with it is nice, but dark blue for the House of Finarfin?  A stretch for me.

The armor - hoo boy.  The ceremonial stuff looks pretty darn cheap, and not very metal-like.  The chainmail kinda looked better?  At the least, it looked like metal.  But the star-studded thing…eh.  Myself, I wouldn’t want chainmail next to bare skin in the freezing cold, but that’s just me.

Again, wigs for everyone would be great.  None of this corporate businessman nonsense.  And the Elf ears seem to be rather hit or miss.

Harfoots: Come on.  Just because they’re wanderers doesn’t mean they’re dirty all the time.

 I did like the nod to practicality with Bronwyn’s chest binding.  But there’s not enough weathering to her dress, and it’s very bright.  That doesn’t seem super reasonable for an out-of-the-way village, especially when everyone else we saw there looked more reasonable color wise - more faded and lived-in.  And tucking the skirt up on one side is… a choice.  I said I liked the motion to practicality, but I think the dress would be better with a higher neckline.  If the brooches are a necessity, maybe a Viking apron dress style could be done, which also could serve useful for her occupation as a healer.  Having an outer layer that’s easier to change and all.

Episode Two

Disa’s costume.  Is not good.  So many different lines and shapes, and it’s very different from the usual Dwarven styles we’ve seen in color and fabric choice. Also, slit in the skirt?  No.  It dates the production and infuses modernity.  

Celebrimbor. My dude.  Holy cow.  That does not look good.  It’s obviously not a natural fiber, and I highly doubt that Elves have access to or want synthetics.  I don’t think a pile weave was the route to take here, something more satiny would have been better.  And some layers.  Others have pointed out that as a smith, he, of all Elves, should be the one without excessive amounts of fabric in his clothing, because that is a forge accident waiting to happen.

Does Elrond have highlights dyed into his hair?  I’m really hoping that it was just the lighting.

This isn’t costuming, but it is about perception.  Couldn’t they have used some of the tricks used on the PJ trilogy to make Elrond appear significantly taller than the dwarves?  Forced perspective and all. 

Characterization

Spoiler

I feel like everyone’s being dumbed down at least a little to make Galadriel seem smarter.  Which if they had kept her canon characterization, they wouldn’t have had to do because everyone could shine in their own ways.

Galadriel being a warrior…  I'm not opposed to her fighting, I think it makes sense in Beleriand, especially towards the War of Wrath, that most everyone knew how to fight to some degree.  But the whole revenge quest thing... eh.  Galadriel's thing in the books was never fighting.  She was a sorceress, a princess and lady.  Her flaw was, and is, pride, not anger.  And taking up the quest for her brother?  Again, eh.  I checked, in Appendix B there is a mention of Finrod’s canon death that they could have used.  So this is a deliberate breaking of canon that ultimately mischaracterizes Galadriel.

I could see an interesting route where her reluctance to go to Valinor because she would take her darkness with her could be a foil to her daughter later going to Valinor to heal from her darkness in the Third Age.  But that means we need Celeborn, who apparently is not around, though he should be, and Celebrían probably should exist at this point.  

I think that having Arondir be more stoic and not as outwardly emotional is a great choice given where he is.  Somewhere, I'd have to go looking, there's a quote about Elves that calls them 'high and remote' in relation to the other Peoples, and I think he pulled that off.  There are other problems I have with him, but if done decently, a bootleg Aegnor and Andreth could be interesting.

Other things:

I was initially in Camp 'Halbrand is Sauron in disguise', but I'm leaning more towards 'he's Theo's runaway father' now.  Quite literally those two possibilities might be the only things I'm truly invested in, and not just because I'm gleefully awaiting the day casual fans learn what Silmarillion fans know about Sauron-as-Annatar.

The music's decent.  I've listened to a few of the tracks independently, and Elrond's theme and the Khazad-Dum music in particular are the best so far, in my opinion.

@dannnnnnex, you said you would be interested in hearing my thoughts, so here's some of them.

[NameIess]

I’ve liked the series so far. Yes, there are changes to the lore, but so far they haven’t been so bad as to ruin the series for me. *cough*-WoT-*cough*

[Channelknight Fadran]

Take:

Episode 2 was good??? Like, I thoroughly enjoyed it??? Sure it had its rough patches but I was actually grinning at the dwarves being thoroughly invested in the cliffhangers???

Also Celembrimbor. I didn't know before that I needed him to be a full-on fleshed-out character, but now I'd never take it back. It just makes me happy.

And shoutouts to the water worms (I like Dune)

[Trutharchivist]

All right. First thing first, don't watch reviews on this. At least, I recommend not to. Let's just say that the series wasn't well received by quite a few people and leave it at that. I made the mistake of watching reviews, and I regret most of it.

I do have a few complaints about loyalty to the lore, but the recap of the first age was well done, all things considered. They treaded dangerous ground, since they don't have rights to the Silmarillion, and they did it well - relatively short, without diving into details of the oath, the theft of the Silmarils and the kinslaying. Or the crossing at Helcaraxe (as some reviewer I watched pointed out). All of those are unimportant to the events the series is to talk about.

They also mentioned exactly two Valar so far - Mellow and Aulë - but since both are directly connected to our main villain I think it works.

The changes in Finrod's death were somewhat annoying - what will happen with Beren and Luthien? - and it was kind of weird that even though Galadriel is the second oldest elf in Middle Earth, no one seems to take that into account.

I don't think that the hobbits (or Harfoots. Still something of hobbits, I think) belong in this time period. Still not sure about the mysterious man, but same to him if he's supposed to be of the Istari.

More characterization to Celebrimbor is indeed a good idea! And with all my criticism, I still think I enjoyed it, and intend to keep watching. They lack a bit in loyalty to what little source material they have, but it could still be good.

[Mulk]

Agreed - watch no reviews unless you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are level-headed and aren't knee-jerk this is all trash.  The sheer number of ABOMINATION, should never have been made, etc style videos that popped up for me is just stupid.

I'll say up front am a SERIOUS Tolkien nerd.  I've read LOTR more than 50 times through, I've read the Silmarillion at least 20 times through, and so on.  I have only one real lore problem with what we have so far: The changes to Finrod, and some of how that manifests with Galadriel. 

Because I'm uncertain how I should treat spoilers to this, I'll put the rest of my specific thoughts behind a tag. 
 

Spoiler

 

The Hobbits have been around since the Elder Days, so they are around.  Including them isn't a problem with the lore.  They're just beneath the notice of the great and the wise.  Also, I just love Nori.  And the Harfoot community in general. 

There are notes from Tolkien placing the Istari or at least some of them as having arrived in Middle Earth around the time the One Ring is forged, so it's a bit of a leap from what we know from LOTR and all (which places them around 1000 of the Third Age) but it's one I can go along with assuming it's a good story line.  The Stranger may turn out to be someone else but at this point I don't see how he could be anything aside from a Maia.  His only spoken words are in Quenya.

I find it weird that people have trouble following where things are in Rings of Power...but then I forget not everyone recognizes a map of Arda as I do, and to me it was crystal clear where they were each time the map moved.  So maybe they need to fine tune that but I thought it fine.  I also do not get lost at all...people who get lost confuse me, lol.  I got 'lost' one time, when I was 17...but as soon as I realized that I wasn't where I thought I was, I knew exactly where I was and how I had gotten there. And more importantly, how to get back. 

I loved the music.  The visuals were amazing, in terms of their wide shots.  The combat shots were a little weird to me, but that's true of so much combat these days that I just kinda shrug and move on.  I think that part of it is a lot of people fell in love with the Bourne style of action with up close, quick cuts and what not but the original Bourne was much better at allowing you to keep track of what was happening than most of its copycats and wasn't such a muddle of getting lost in all the chaos of hand-to-hand fights.

Galadriel's not a character I like but that could be a planned thing rather than a reflection of weakness of story or character (for an example of this, look into stuff on Ahsoka and her development within the Clone Wars).  I don't have a problem with the actress choice or her expression, just the character itself.  There's so much room to grow into who she becomes later.

The lore is crystal clear in LOTR that there were only ever three unions of elf and human and the third was Arwen and Aragorn.  But you know...there are some REALLY easy ways to deal with the relationship between Arondir and Bronwyn (if I remember her name right) without it resulting in a marriage and a half elven child.  I think it plausible there were other possible/budding romances between elves and humans that never came to fruition for one reason or another.  I'll wait it out; I did enjoy his different look at the humans and her response to that.

Also - I expect a huge amount of time crunch in all this to keep from having to replace the human characters every season or every episode.  I can live with that again so long as it is done well and makes sense.

edit: I completely forgot to mention the Dwarf plot.  That was extremely well done to my mind, I just loved it.  How it brought out how Elves view other races and the other races view them in turn, underscored that the friendship was real, not merely political, and all that.  Plus I will always love to get glimpses of Khazad-Dum in its glory days.

I am plenty intrigued enough to keep watching.

My big thing in general about reactions to this (and this is kinda aimed at Brandon and Dan too even though they'll never read it) is that this show was confirmed for five seasons.  The show is written with that arc in mind, sorta like Babylon 5 was.  It will have more character moments, more asides, buildup, and less OMGACTION than most shows of this sort because it started as a five season show, not a single season hoping for more.  It is also dealing with a time period about which very little aside from the high points have been established.  They have to lay a ton of ground work for characters and places we don't know.  It will take more time to know whether the show as a whole is 'good' by whatever measure you're using because it's a much slower burn.  Patience everyone!

Edited September 7, 2022 by Mulk

[Channelknight Fadran]

I was curious and reread the bits that are gonna be in the show.

By the way, for those of you who wanted to know why we couldn’t have a First Age series instead…

Spoiler

This is the entire Silmarillion:

Spoiler

And *this* is the time frame in which the show takes place:

Spoiler

Any questions?

 

[Trutharchivist]

Part of the actual answer is that they don't have the rights for the Silmarillion, but you're basically right. There are about 4/5 actual full-length interesting stories in the First Age, and though everything is about the Silmarils (well, almost), it's not that easy to patch them together.

You can tell Beren and Lúthien, the Children of Húrin and the fall of Gondolin one after the other in rapid succession... But they need a lot of background on what are the Silmarils, who is Morgoth, who the heck are Turgon, Finrod, Thingol and Orodreth and what's their story, and then, if you want a closed story, you need to explain the Oath of Fëanor and possibly the Kinslayings. And possibly a bunch of other stuff - a side story about a dark elf becomes the origin of Gondolin's fall; why did Turgon and Finrod built Gondolin and Nargothrond in the first place; and... Yup. It's not only extremely long, it's also so complicated taking just a part of it is hard. Plus, you need to choose who to follow, and it has to be an elf, because seriously, you don't get anywhere by keeping your story in such a short time frame.

Basically, if you really want to read their source material, it's that appendix of LotR about the Downfall of Númenor, mostly. I think.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Just watched Episode 4 a tad late

(thoughts and spoilers):

Spoiler

Things that cause me cortisol:

I don't think Numenor was supposed to boat out to Middle-Earth ever? Although I can see Pharazon doing something sneaky next episode to stop them.

The thing about the palantir being lost was false. They weren't even called palantir yet, I don't think. Isildur brought all seven to middle-earth with him on their voyage to escape the whole "Numenor got wasted by the gods" thing.

Things that cause me dopamine:

Durin gifted Elrond mithril.
The Elven Ring of Air has mithril as its inset stone.
Reeeeeeeeee

Continuing on the line of dwarves:
THE DOOR OPENED TO A MINING SONG! IF THAT ISN'T THE MOST DWARVEN THING IN THE ENTIRE EVER THEN I DUNNO WHAT IS.

(I like the dwarves. A lot)
(Also I should note that while most dwarves didn't take part in the war against Sauron, Durin's folk did)

The scene when Theo was hiding from the orcs in the village? Meaning the super long one-take? EXCELLENT. 11/11 would recommend.

Questions I still have:

Who's the orc father guy? At first I thought he might be Sauron himself but then he was like "I don't have a god yet" and it was like ehhhhh

Pretty sure the sketchy dude following the not-hobbits around is Sauron? I know there's a camp of folks who disagree but I don't see how you can have a fire-based maiar and not say it's Sauron.

Are the other rings forged yet or no? It's kinda unclear as to how the timeline of all their creations pan out. Given that the show is called Rings of Power, though, I feel like they'll give us a really nice cinematic for when they do get forged, so I imagine they're not around yet.

Are Alatar and Pellendo ever gonna show up?

 

[Briar King]

This show is simply terrible! It’s been a very pretty bore imo.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Support your argument, coward, or face my wrath.

[NameIess]

I liked episode 4. It's getting a bit further from Tolkien's original work, but that alone isn't a deal breaker for me unless they get really off-track. Like Brandon and Dan said, I'm fine if it's Tolkien fanfiction, as long as it's good fanfiction.

More spoilery thoughts:

Spoiler

Dwarves/Elrond plotline:

Awesome. I do believe that in Tolkien's books, Mithril was discovered by the first Durin, founder of Khazad Dum, a very long time before any of this happened.

Harfoots plotline:

Meh. I don't particularly care for this one, but it's okay. I don't think Firefly man is Sauron, that's definitely the king guy given some stuff he said, and I really hope he isn't Gandalf, although I'll live with it if he is.

Elf guy/child with sword hilt plotline:

Pretty cool. I don't know if the kid's going to end up as a Ringwraith or what, but I appreciate the completely original storyline that isn't threatening to hugely mess up the timeline of Middle Earth.

Galadriel plotline:

To answer your question Fadran, I believe that the Numenorans did sail to Middle Earth in order to defeat Sauron, and when they got there their armies were so awesome that all the orcs abandoned Sauron and he got captured, leading to him manipulating them into their eventual doom. As for my other thoughts, Galadriel is cool, nice to see her use her head some more, even if she's still terrible at negotiation. Not entirely sure where the Isildur plotline is going, but I'm fine with it so far. To expand on what I said earlier about the 'king of the southlands' being Sauron, he definitely is. I mean, his whole his dialogue about 'discover your enemy's fear, then give them a way to conquer it, so that you may rule over them.' Is literally Sauron's plan with the elven rings. Give the elves a way to preserve the magic and splendor of their lands, then control them through it.

 

[Channelknight Fadran]

2 hours ago, Nameless said:

I liked episode 4. It's getting a bit further from Tolkien's original work, but that alone isn't a deal breaker for me unless they get really off-track. Like Brandon and Dan said, I'm fine if it's Tolkien fanfiction, as long as it's good fanfiction.

More spoilery thoughts:

  Hide contents

Dwarves/Elrond plotline:

Awesome. I do believe that in Tolkien's books, Mithril was discovered by the first Durin, founder of Khazad Dum, a very long time before any of this happened.

Harfoots plotline:

Meh. I don't particularly care for this one, but it's okay. I don't think Firefly man is Sauron, that's definitely the king guy given some stuff he said, and I really hope he isn't Gandalf, although I'll live with it if he is.

Elf guy/child with sword hilt plotline:

Pretty cool. I don't know if the kid's going to end up as a Ringwraith or what, but I appreciate the completely original storyline that isn't threatening to hugely mess up the timeline of Middle Earth.

Galadriel plotline:

To answer your question Fadran, I believe that the Numenorans did sail to Middle Earth in order to defeat Sauron, and when they got there their armies were so awesome that all the orcs abandoned Sauron and he got captured, leading to him manipulating them into their eventual doom. As for my other thoughts, Galadriel is cool, nice to see her use her head some more, even if she's still terrible at negotiation. Not entirely sure where the Isildur plotline is going, but I'm fine with it so far. To expand on what I said earlier about the 'king of the southlands' being Sauron, he definitely is. I mean, his whole his dialogue about 'discover your enemy's fear, then give them a way to conquer it, so that you may rule over them.' Is literally Sauron's plan with the elven rings. Give the elves a way to preserve the magic and splendor of their lands, then control them through it.

 

Reply:

Spoiler

Firefly Man: It CAN'T be Mithrandir. It just... can't.
Maybe it's a Blue Wizard

Theo: People are currently speculating that he winds up as the Mouth of Sauron.

Galadriel: YOU'RE RIGHT! You're totally right. I'd shot ahead by, like, fifty years. My bad. You're right. I'm wrong.