Television The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - Latest: Season 2 commences filming. Set catches fire.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

46 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

As per the rights thing, my understanding is they have the rights to the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and the appendices, anything else they have to get permission from the Tolkien estate. Like when they mentioned the silmarils or say "Aule's beard" or whatever, I'm pretty sure those are only mentioned outside of those books. Same with using the map of Numenor, which is only found I believe in Unfinished Tales.

 

That's correct -

Spoiler

hence the reason for creating the character of Halbrand who serves the same purpose as Annatar who they couldn't use because he's referenced in The Silmarillion which Amazon does not have the rights to.

 

The IP rights to the Middle-earth properties are a fractured mess with Amazon, Warner Brothers, and the Embracer Group having varying degrees of licensing agreements, depending on the type of media they intend to create.

[CayceG]

8 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

That's correct -

  Hide contents

hence the reason for creating the character of Halbrand who serves the same purpose as Annatar who they couldn't use because he's referenced in The Silmarillion which Amazon does not have the rights to.

 

The IP rights to the Middle-earth properties are a fractured mess with Amazon, Warner Brothers, and the Embracer Group having varying degrees of licensing agreements, depending on the type of media they intend to create.

 

 

Something I noticed about this...

 

Spoiler

"Annatar" means "The Lord of Gifts" in Elvish. 

 

When he shared his theories with Celebrimbor about how to harness the power of Mithril, he said to consider his assistance "a gift"

 

I thought that was a really nice touch and a great way around being unable to use the name Annatar. The Elves would bestow names on people that exemplify their actions. Therefore, Halbrand's gift of knowledge for the rings had him called "Lord of Gifts" thereafter. 

 

[CitizenVectron]

Commenting on Galadriel being at fault for everything (assuming Sauron didn't manipulate all events from the start): yeah, and so? Lol. Some people elsewhere are saying the show sucks and Galadriel sucks because she didn't accomplish anything this season (same criticism given to the Harfoot story, dumbly), but that is partly the point of her story, that her lust for revenge is tragic, and ends up hurting the world. 

[BloodyHell]

2 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

Commenting on Galadriel being at fault for everything (assuming Sauron didn't manipulate all events from the start): yeah, and so? Lol. Some people elsewhere are saying the show sucks and Galadriel sucks because she didn't accomplish anything this season (same criticism given to the Harfoot story, dumbly), but that is partly the point of her story, that her lust for revenge is tragic, and ends up hurting the world. 

I mean, people elsewhere have nothing to do with people here talking about Galadriel's plot. 

 

Some of you really like to pretend all criticism of anything you don't like comes from a place of hate, that's just not true. The problem with Galadriels arc are the tropes they used to create it, and they used those tropes like hammers. 

 

The "Lying out of fear makes all their fears come true" trope is lazy. It's a painfully bad way to develop a character arc. And the "nobody will listen to the woman who is right" trope isn't any better. Those are my problems with her character. The actress is fantastic, talented, and incredibly beautiful, her scenes are excellent, her plot is not. 

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, BloodyHell said:

The "Lying out of fear makes all their fears come true" trope is lazy. It's a painfully bad way to develop a character arc. And the "nobody will listen to the woman who is right" trope isn't any better. Those are my problems with her character. The actress is fantastic, talented, and incredibly beautiful, her scenes are excellent, her plot is not. 

 

You can argue they are "tropes" but people commit such acts all the time in real life. In real life women are often not listened to. In real life people hide things out of fear or a desire to handle it themselves. You can argue the trope was poorly handled, but a trope is not a cliche. A trope is a good thing that should speak truth, when done well.

[legend]

4 hours ago, CayceG said:

 

 

Something I noticed about this...

 

  Hide contents

"Annatar" means "The Lord of Gifts" in Elvish. 

 

When he shared his theories with Celebrimbor about how to harness the power of Mithril, he said to consider his assistance "a gift"

 

I thought that was a really nice touch and a great way around being unable to use the name Annatar. The Elves would bestow names on people that exemplify their actions. Therefore, Halbrand's gift of knowledge for the rings had him called "Lord of Gifts" thereafter. 

 

 

 

Yeah I enjoyed that too. My timeline of reactions during the episode:

Spoiler

3 ladies call the wizard Sauron: "What really? That sucks I hope they're wrong."

Halbrand walks down the steps and finds Celebrimbor: "Oh boy, I think the wizard thing was a fake out, it's going to be Halbrand."

Halbrand proceeds to flatter Celebimbor and talk about the ore: "Yeah, it's looking pretty likely it's Halbrand."

Halbrand calls his idea a gift: "Yep Halbrand is 100% Sauron!"

 

[BloodyHell]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You can argue they are "tropes" but people commit such acts all the time in real life. In real life women are often not listened to. In real life people hide things out of fear or a desire to handle it themselves. You can argue the trope was poorly handled, but a trope is not a cliche. A trope is a good thing that should speak truth, when done well.

It just feels extremely over used, especially in fantasy. I've seen it so many times, it seems lazy. 

[CayceG]

Knowing the backstory from having read the books is almost like cheating  

[CitizenVectron]

1 hour ago, BloodyHell said:

I mean, people elsewhere have nothing to do with people here talking about Galadriel's plot. 

 

Some of you really like to pretend all criticism of anything you don't like comes from a place of hate, that's just not true. The problem with Galadriels arc are the tropes they used to create it, and they used those tropes like hammers. 

 

The "Lying out of fear makes all their fears come true" trope is lazy. It's a painfully bad way to develop a character arc. And the "nobody will listen to the woman who is right" trope isn't any better. Those are my problems with her character. The actress is fantastic, talented, and incredibly beautiful, her scenes are excellent, her plot is not. 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You can argue they are "tropes" but people commit such acts all the time in real life. In real life women are often not listened to. In real life people hide things out of fear or a desire to handle it themselves. You can argue the trope was poorly handled, but a trope is not a cliche. A trope is a good thing that should speak truth, when done well.

 

Also, I think that Galadriel had good reason to keep Halbrand's true identity hidden from Elrond and Celebrimbor, at least until the rings were complete: if she had said "wait, that guy that just told you how to use this magic was actually Sauron," there is no way the Elves would have proceeded. In that case, Sauron wins because the Elves leave Middle Earth. So, while Sauron obviously wants the Elves to make the rings (because he knows he will eventually have the power to control/corrupt the ring bearers), it also makes sense that Galadriel wants them made as well, because it means she gets to stay in Middle Earth and fight Sauron. It's actually better for the Elves if the rings aren't made, but it's not better for her own motivation, nor is good for Middle Earth. So, she decides to not tell anyone because while she is risking the enslavement of her people, she is also providing the only possible hope of defeating Sauron.

 

31 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

It just feels extremely over used, especially in fantasy. I've seen it so many times, it seems lazy. 

 

I've seen this a lot as a criticism (that this story is so straightforward and tropish), but I think that's mainly because the LOTR stories invented the tropes in the first place. The reason why even the LOTR movies seem so generic (in terms of plot, climaxes, etc) is because LOTR was the first to ever use them, as it basically invented western high fantasy. Now, it could be argued that while making this show they could have brought in more modern storytelling techniques that go beyond the original cliches (that weren't cliches when these stories were written), but I like that they've stuck with the original Tolkien style; the fact that this story is so earnest makes me really happy. 

[Greatoneshere]

39 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Also, I think that Galadriel had good reason to keep Halbrand's true identity hidden from Elrond and Celebrimbor, at least until the rings were complete: if she had said "wait, that guy that just told you how to use this magic was actually Sauron," there is no way the Elves would have proceeded. In that case, Sauron wins because the Elves leave Middle Earth. So, while Sauron obviously wants the Elves to make the rings (because he knows he will eventually have the power to control/corrupt the ring bearers), it also makes sense that Galadriel wants them made as well, because it means she gets to stay in Middle Earth and fight Sauron. It's actually better for the Elves if the rings aren't made, but it's not better for her own motivation, nor is good for Middle Earth. So, she decides to not tell anyone because while she is risking the enslavement of her people, she is also providing the only possible hope of defeating Sauron.

 

Yeah, I agree as well. Thinking on it more, it additionally makes sense for Galadriel not to tell anybody because anyone is corruptible. Who you tell who Sauron truly is may endanger yourself and others because, like Saruman down the road, anyone may switch sides and betray you. This literally happens to Gandalf in LOTR - he rushes to tell Saruman what's going on and it screws him - Galadriel doesn't want to make the same mistake because she doesn't know who is and isn't already under Sauron's control (even she was tricked! which probably scares the shit out of her that anyone can be tricked then). She has to play the long game, see who she can really trust, etc. All these people were ones who tried to ignore the threat of Sauron and shunt her off to Valinor, so of course Galadriel is cagey. Trust will take time. Sauron is a necromancer, shape shifter, smithy, and a brilliant con artist - Galadriel knows this and just immediately blabbing to everyone who Sauron is reckless. 

 

Now, was there some weirdness when Elrond came back with the scroll and Galadriel and Celebrimbor were looking at each other like they were high on their own supply? Yeah - we all know where this story is going, these rings are going to be ruled by the one ring until Sauron is defeated (as shown in the opening to Fellowship of the Ring movie) so things are gonna get weird.

 

TL;DR - Galadriel chooses to avoid the mistake that Gandalf made in LOTR by not telling even potentially trusted friends Sauron has been found and who they are.

[Mercury33]

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

You can argue they are "tropes" but people commit such acts all the time in real life. In real life women are often not listened to. In real life people hide things out of fear or a desire to handle it themselves. You can argue the trope was poorly handled, but a trope is not a cliche. A trope is a good thing that should speak truth, when done well.

This. Those things make her relatable. 

[SuperSpreader]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:53 PM, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Now that you mention it, the elves seem to be underperforming as a whole!

Jedis 

[SuperSpreader]

8 hours ago, CayceG said:

Knowing the backstory from having read the books is almost like cheating  

[TwinIon]

Overall I very much enjoyed this first season, but there are a few minor things about that last episode that bothered me to various degrees.

 

A small thing I didn't enjoy was Halbrand suggesting they mix the Mithril with something else to the greatest smith of all time. Even the second suggestion he made about coaxing the materials together felt much better, like two people collaborating and not some random due telling the GOAT the basics of his job. Again, small thing.

 

I also wasn't a huge fan of how they left things. I think it's a bummer to show the Balrog in the penultimate episode and not go back to the Dwarves at all.

 

Potentially worse though, is Isildur. He's a character that we know survives, and they left him for "dead" for how many episodes now? I honestly don't know if this Isildur is the one from the LOTR intro, so I suppose one of his buddies could decide "I'm going to name my son after my dead friend" and that would be the Isildur we know of, but that would be extremely lame. I probably shouldn't complain too much on a thread that they just dropped, maybe when or if they pick his story back up they'll do a smashing job, but right now it feels like an extended fake-out death for one of the extremely few characters we know survives.

[CitizenVectron]

14 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

Overall I very much enjoyed this first season, but there are a few minor things about that last episode that bothered me to various degrees.

 

A small thing I didn't enjoy was Halbrand suggesting they mix the Mithril with something else to the greatest smith of all time. Even the second suggestion he made about coaxing the materials together felt much better, like two people collaborating and not some random due telling the GOAT the basics of his job. Again, small thing.

 

I also wasn't a huge fan of how they left things. I think it's a bummer to show the Balrog in the penultimate episode and not go back to the Dwarves at all.

 

Potentially worse though, is Isildur. He's a character that we know survives, and they left him for "dead" for how many episodes now? I honestly don't know if this Isildur is the one from the LOTR intro, so I suppose one of his buddies could decide "I'm going to name my son after my dead friend" and that would be the Isildur we know of, but that would be extremely lame. I probably shouldn't complain too much on a thread that they just dropped, maybe when or if they pick his story back up they'll do a smashing job, but right now it feels like an extended fake-out death for one of the extremely few characters we know survives.

 

To be fair, I would wager 75%+ of the audience doesn't know who Isildur is, or that he survives.

[TwinIon]

As far as the larger arcs go, I didn't have any problem with them. I liked that Sauron manipulated the Elves into making the rings. For someone whose primary knowledge of LOTR is the films, that felt like a Rogue One twist; a ret-con that made what came after better. I'm much more interested to see how they handle the rings for the other two races now that we've seen the Elves get theirs.

 

I like @CitizenVectron take, on why Galadriel didn't tell anyone. I think that we can say for sure that Galadriel thinks not saying anything is her best chance to kill Sauron. I think we can also suppose that she feels that making three rings will be enough to mess up Saurons' plan. I like the idea that she's had so little success in convincing the Elves of any plan of action that she now prefers to play her own game rather than debate it. I think some more insight would have helped. Maybe if she had a very quick debate with Elrond or something, but overall I don't think it was a bad decision by the writers to have her keep this secret.

[BloodyHell]

1 hour ago, TwinIon said:

Overall I very much enjoyed this first season, but there are a few minor things about that last episode that bothered me to various degrees.

 

A small thing I didn't enjoy was Halbrand suggesting they mix the Mithril with something else to the greatest smith of all time. Even the second suggestion he made about coaxing the materials together felt much better, like two people collaborating and not some random due telling the GOAT the basics of his job. Again, small thing.

 

I also wasn't a huge fan of how they left things. I think it's a bummer to show the Balrog in the penultimate episode and not go back to the Dwarves at all.

 

Potentially worse though, is Isildur. He's a character that we know survives, and they left him for "dead" for how many episodes now? I honestly don't know if this Isildur is the one from the LOTR intro, so I suppose one of his buddies could decide "I'm going to name my son after my dead friend" and that would be the Isildur we know of, but that would be extremely lame. I probably shouldn't complain too much on a thread that they just dropped, maybe when or if they pick his story back up they'll do a smashing job, but right now it feels like an extended fake-out death for one of the extremely few characters we know survives.

Isildur is definitely the one from LotR, son of Elendil.

[Fizzzzle]

I feel like its a general failing of storytelling any time someone makes a prequel. They treat the story like a vacuum.

 

We KNOW Isildur doesn't die. We know that because most of us have seen the movies. Just like we know Sauron won't die (at least not truly). Just like we know Elrond and Galadriel won't die. With that in mind, from a storytelling, you have to manage their stakes. Fake-out deaths end up feeling like a waste of time.

 

I get the idea of wanting to leave Isildur behind. My guess is that he spends most of next season befriending Elves and "middle" men, then when the Numenoreans come back, he'll be a changed person. But like... he ain't dead, bro. It seems pandering to assume the audience doesn't know that when LotR is literally one of the just popular movies of all time. Its practically like making a Star Wars prequel where Luke "dies" on the moisture farm. You're forming a narrative solely for the .05% of people who haven't seen the other movies. Its irresponsible.

[Brick]

7 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

To be fair, I would wager 75%+ of the audience doesn't know who Isildur is, or that he survives.

 

This. As I've said before I haven't seen the movies since the years they came out, so I didn't know who he was until it was mentioned here in this thread. It's not like he's a major character from the films either, so very easy for people to not realize he's the one who ultimately defeats Sauron and takes the ring. 

[BloodyHell]

On 10/20/2022 at 2:38 AM, Brick said:

 

This. As I've said before I haven't seen the movies since the years they came out, so I didn't know who he was until it was mentioned here in this thread. It's not like he's a major character from the films either, so very easy for people to not realize he's the one who ultimately defeats Sauron and takes the ring. 

Not major, but he's an incredibly important person in the books and movies.

I mean, he's the reason for Elronds line, "I was there there when the strength of men failed!". His actions lead directly to the events of the hobbit and the LotR.

 

Saying many won't know, sure. But tens of millions more Tolkien fans do know.

[Mercury33]

I dunno if comparing Isildur who is mentioned and on screen for 30 seconds out 12 hours of film time to the main character of arguably the most culturally popular series of all time is the way to go haha. 
 

I mean who cares if a good chunk of people know he’s not actually dead. Hell he dies “off screen” so most people can probably guess he’s not actually dead anyway. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Idildur in Lord of the rings does NOT equal Luke in A New Hope. Not Even close. I promise you that folks who have seen those movies dozens of times have no idea who he even is. I knew... I also knew he was much older by the time he and Elrond try to throw the ring away. Whatever is gonna happen with him ain't gonna happen for awhile. I hade no problem with his "death". It's not about us, the audience... we know a LOT more than the characters do which is fine. What's important is how his seeming death affects him and  other characters in the story. THAT is what the writers need to nail and the jury is still out on that. This show has FAR less character and plot problems than another big budget, fantasy show I'm watching on another network.

[Captain Pickle]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Idildur in Lord of the rings does NOT equal Luke in A New Hope. Not Even close. I promise you that folks who have seen those movies dozens of times have no idea who he even is. I knew... I also knew he was much older by the time he and Elrond try to throw the ring away. Whatever is gonna happen with him ain't gonna happen for awhile. I hade no problem with his "death". It's not about us, the audience... we know a LOT more than the characters do which is fine. What's important is how his seeming death affects him and  other characters in the story. THAT is the writers need to nail and the jury is still out on that. This show has FAR less character and plot problems than another big budget, fantasy show I'm watching on another network.

I dunno man.  He's in two of the most memorable scenes in the movie.  When he "took up the sword" and sliced Sauron's hand and when he says 'no!'  I think they are the same scene but both times his name is mentioned in those scenes.

 

Also, I like Idildor for his name! kinky!

 

He's definately not equal to Luke though.

[skillzdadirecta]

16 minutes ago, Captain Pickle said:

I dunno man.  He's in two of the most memorable scenes in the movie.  When he "took up the sword" and sliced Sauron's hand and when he says 'no!'  I think they are the same scene but both times his name is mentioned in those scenes.

 

Also, I like Idildor for his name! kinky!

 

He's definately not equal to Luke though.

Pardon my typo... It's so funny that I'm not gonna bother fixing it though. I don't think those scenes are the "most memorable" in the movie. They're important but their backstory not even featuring main characters. And the average person, even if they remember those scenes, probably doesn't remember the guy's name (Even I fucked it up lol) doesn't really remember his connection to the story or his connection to Aragorn (he's his ancestor, right?) and probably didn't make the connection to the minor character who is young and a slacker in this series. A LOT of these names sound pretty similar. But let's just say that I;m 100% wrong and folks DO know who he is and know that he's not dead and will be coming back next season, so what? He's a minor character right now and nothing has been lost with him going missing and being presumed dead. It's not a huge fake out because his character is pretty minor in the story right now. It'd be different if Elrond was the character that they "Killed" but this Isildur character? Nah. I think the twists with Sauron and 

Spoiler

Gandalf

More than make up for it because I saw neither coming. 

 

Another way to look at it is that his "fake out death" is a call back to Aragorn's "fake out" in the second movie. The show does a good job of doing subtle call backs to the movies without being heavyhanded so that may have been the intention. 

[Captain Pickle]

40 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Pardon my typo... It's so funny that I'm not gonna bother fixing it though. I don't think those scenes are the "most memorable" in the movie. They're important but their backstory not even featuring main characters. And the average person, even if they remember those scenes, probably doesn't remember the guy's name (Even I fucked it up lol) doesn't really remember his connection to the story or his connection to Aragorn (he's his ancestor, right?) and probably didn't make the connection to the minor character who is young and a slacker in this series. A LOT of these names sound pretty similar. But let's just say that I;m 100% wrong and folks DO know who he is and know that he's not dead and will be coming back next season, so what? He's a minor character right now and nothing has been lost with him going missing and being presumed dead. It's not a huge fake out because his character is pretty minor in the story right now. It'd be different if Elrond was the character that they "Killed" but this Isildur character? Nah. I think the twists with Sauron and 

  Reveal hidden contents

Gandalf

More than make up for it because I saw neither coming. 

 

Another way to look at it is that his "fake out death" is a call back to Aragorn's "fake out" in the second movie. The show does a good job of doing subtle call backs to the movies without being heavyhanded so that may have been the intention. 

Oh I don't care about the fake out or anything.  I just personally think Isildur is one of the few names outside of the main characters that I most certainly remember.  Perhaps its because to me it sounds cool and unique.  As for the main character in this show, I only knew it was her based on her looks.  I most certainly wouldnt remember her name other than the lady of the woods.  I don't remember the King of Rohan guys name  and his daughter, nor the lord of Gondor.  Hell, I don't even remember Aragon's wife's name.  I also think "Isildur took up his father's sword" is a memorable line.

[legend]

I don't think it's important that the audience thinks Isildur is dead and I don't think the story is banking on that. It's important that his father thinks he's dead.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, legend said:

I don't think it's import that the audience thinks Isildur is dead and I don't think the story is banking on that. It's important that his father think's he's dead.

EXACTLY.

[TwinIon]

3 hours ago, legend said:

I don't think it's import that the audience thinks Isildur is dead and I don't think the story is banking on that. It's important that his father think's he's dead.

I agree, but the two things are not dependent on each other. You can give dad every reason to think he's dead while still showing the audience he's not.

 

On 10/19/2022 at 2:58 PM, CitizenVectron said:

To be fair, I would wager 75%+ of the audience doesn't know who Isildur is, or that he survives.

I think that's probably true. I wouldn't be surprised if the number is even higher.

[legend]

9 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I agree, but the two things are not dependent on each other. You can give dad every reason to think he's dead while still showing the audience he's not.

 

Sure, but why does it matter if they show that or not? If you don't plan on following his thread at this point, there isn't any value to showing that he's not in fact dead. The people who know he lives certainly don't gain anything by seeing that, and it won't communicate anything important to the people who don't.

[CayceG]

3 hours ago, legend said:

I don't think it's import that the audience thinks Isildur is dead and I don't think the story is banking on that. It's important that his father think's he's dead.

Precisely. 

 

 

And before anyone comes for Chewbacca in Rise of Skywalker, these are NOT THE SAME. 

[skillzdadirecta]

4 hours ago, Captain Pickle said:

As for the main character in this show, I only knew it was her based on her looks.  I most certainly wouldnt remember her name other than the lady of the woods

I remember Galadriel's name because I actually know an actress named after her 

[CitizenVectron]

[Spork3245]

 

[Spork3245]

 

[Fizzzzle]

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I saw that. While agree with his points about making the narrative more interesting, I still think they're going with him being Gandalf.