Tolkien wrote at length on similar issues... and...

... he would absolutely have hated "modernization."

In fact he would have hated most of the LotR film, tv, and game projects that Christopher allowed (and Christopher in turn would have hated what the grandchildren allowed!).

The problem with Rings of Power IMO is that mediocre to poor writers -- with huge egos -- are transposing direct allegory and trying to call it myth. This is in direct opposition to Tolkien who hated allegory and who was creating something out-of-time (timeless), myth. And I won't even go into Tolkien's spirituality embedded in the tales (I'm currently reading his thoughts on "de-paganization" of early Germanic myth)...

No, like so many other cultural touchstones turned into terrible recent cinema and and tv, Rings of Power is meant to be a tired mess... to undermine the original work... but to be the only reference this current generation has to the original work. What better way to undermine a classic, powerful, heroic call-to-action than make it mundane and meaningless? The same has occurred with a much more modern cultural heroic touchstone Star Wars...

Yes, there are some who will enjoy Rings of Power... and that's fine. Different people enjoy different things. But Tolkien would have absolutely flipped out if he saw what was being done to his work.

Now, if you want a fantasy series that moreso embraced allegory and a modern ethic, A Song of Ice and Fire / Game of Thrones. Martin sought to make a post-modernist anti-LotR and has succeeded to a point... but... I think his work -- while extremely popular for a time -- will lack that timeless mythic element that keeps it being read and watched for generations (and this is doubly so for the tv series Game of Thrones).
I think the issue comes from the number of times you mentioned "modern" and "modern audience"... and what you meant by that? One would infer you are talking about "modernizing."

And on that last point I wrote above that I'm almost 100% certain Tolkien would not have approved... but not because he was "indecent," but because his work was meant to be mythic and not tied to the modern UK or relative morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dt19d-I6mA

And I'm saying that if the core of the show was actually good, it would have succeeded (or not bombed as hard with the ridiculous budget). But it has issues in numerous, much more important areas than the current hot topic mostly discussed in this thread. And the audience ratings speak for themselves. It was not well received.

And that is exactly the problem, isn't it? A thing should be made for those interested in it first and foremost and attract additional audience because it is the thing it is, not despite it. Natural growth. We are not talking about copying the source material 1:1, but showing respect for it. Yes, the LOTR movies all have their problems. And things were changed for the big screen. But you could still decidedly tell it was LOTR. No such feeling with RoP, to me at least.

And just when is this supposed "wide audience" everybody keeps appealing to going to show up? The mainstream entertainment has been waiting for it for what, a decade plus now? Is the 38% rating the show has the wide audience? How many more bombs must happen for it to arrive? But I bet it's just around the corner. Any minute now, it'll come flooding in and fully embrace it.

The inescapable fact, is that a true hard core Tolkien fan, would never be that desirous of any movie or TV show that could never live up to the books etc. Instead like me, they would likely just find it either interesting and or entertaining, but certainly not be comparing it canon wise.

It's the folk in the middle, those who deem themselves as hard core, but aren't really, that are the ones doing the grumbling.

Those who profess to know what J.R. and Christopher would think, need to do some better research on them, and other members of the family.

I mentioned 'modern' exactly twice, and neither instance mentioned modernizing the story.
'Modern Audience' and 'Modern Viewers' does not modernizing equal.

Look at it like picking something old that would appeal to modern folk. Nothing in that instance has been modernized.

And that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. How well they succeeded at what they attempted, is a whole other story.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway folk I've now had my say, it's all there for those who are discerning enough, and if you aren't I am never going to convince you anyway. It's quite amusing how a good bunch of folk always get their knickers in a knot, when movie or TV show makers take some liberties with something that excelled in a totally different medium, and would be notoriously hard to imitate and please folk with.

I always enjoy a good chat with those who don't read me properly and make assumptions, and can't see the wood for the trees, and who get caught up in their own biases, and wouldn't know open-mined even if they tripped over it, and have a good little bubble going on. Honestly I don't know why I bother sometimes ... except I guess I am just doing the usual and planting seeds that might bear fruit one day. As if ... who am I kidding. Well I guess you never know ... I've managed to overcome a few biases in my time, and lack of understanding, and grown quite well into a grumpy old man who knows a thing or three now. LOL

Believe what you want ... I know you will. Don't let me spoil any little delusions. Enjoy!

J.R.R. Tolkien and his son Christophe alreadyr chronicled the entirety of the history of the Middle-earth - including the Second Age that is the focus of Rings of Power - in the Silmarillion and many other books: the History of the Middle-earth two Books of Lost Tales, the Unfinished Tales, the Later Silmarillion, etc., etc. Rings of Power covered the same time period that is already detailed in many books, (i.e., the Second Age.) However, the Amazon show mostly does NOT and can NOT follow the books -- because Amazon does NOT have the right to adapt the Silmarillion or anything from the official Tolkien books, (other than materials from The Lords of the Rings and the Hobbit.)

There are gaps between the official Tolkien books, though. Even though those books have a fairly comprehensive coverage of the Second Age, the books focus on the history and events IN THE WEST. The books do NOT cover anything that happened IN THE EAST. We know some basic information about the East. Otherwise, the East of the Middle-earth is a huge blank. Tolkiens told us very little about the East.

In addition, skin colors and the different races of man actually DO play an important role in Tolkien's works. Elves and the Man in the West including the "Westernesse" (aka Numenoreans) are explicitly described as being fair-skinned, while the Men in the East (called "Easterlings") are explicitly described as having dark skins. Rings of Power enforce the modern diversity (i.e., "wokeness") onto the world created by Tolkien, so the Amazon show has been extremely unfaithful to Tolkien works.

IMO:

Because Amazon does not have the right to adapt the "official" stories of the Second Age of the Middle-earth, and becaus Amazon wants to make a diverse and woke show...

Amazon should have make a show about what happened IN THE EAST in the Second Age. The show could have started with two Blue Wizards (who traveled to the East to fight Sauron's influences) as the main characters. I bet A LOT of Tolkien fans would LOVE to find out more about those two Blue Wizards, whom Tolkiens have NOT covered at all.

Then, use the two Blue Wizards to introduce a slew of diverse cast of different human races. Those two wizards travel to the lands in the East, and the East is a more diverse place in terms of human races. "White people" still exist in the East, but only in the regions that are close to the West. As the Blue Wizards and their stories travel further to the east, the cast and characters becomes more "diverse".

The show could have about the struggles and tragedies in the East. We know by the Third Age, the East has completely fallen to Sauron's control. So it will have to end in tragedies.

The show can even introduce new races of Elves (called "Kindreds") who traveled east (instead of west) after they had awoken in the First Age. Those elves could have completely different cultures from the three kindreds in the west.

We also know four of the seven clans of Dwarves originated from the East, so there must be dwarves in the east, but Tolkiens did not cover them in the east.

The show could have even introduces new creatures, new races, that do NOT exist in the East.

IMO, that would have been a more interesting show AND given Amazon more creative freedom (to fill in something that is completely blank.) As it is know, Rings of Power is just a horribly-written WOKE show that is just trash and contradicts most everything that are already in the Silmarillion and other official materials.

The audience was never really there. It was always a facade, but as the money dries up -- like low tide at the beach -- we are starting to see the truth. ;)
If you've read Tolkien's correspondence, his thoughts are quite clear.

I can't answer for your question, but I can say that.. Arda is Earth.

As long as the main goal of the production team was to bask in their own virtuousness it would have been just as bad...

On topic with the release of the show, anyone have problems claiming the free Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor - Game of the Year Edition from Prime Gaming? On its page it says this item is not available in my country, yet I can open this game's store page.

Yep, setting the show in the east/far east would actually have been great. Tons of room to brainstorm on the events there and you're not running the risk of going against what was written too much. Showing the trials, tribulations and the likely eventual failure of the Blue wizards in stopping the spread of Sauron's influence, inevitable infighting between differently thinking groups who support Sauron or are against him etc.

Tolkien, letters, no. 142

Thank fuck no one ever made a 'faithful adaptation' of Tolkien's work ("faith", yuck). I'm wrecking my brain trying to think of great movies that were "faithful adaptations". I'm sure there are some out there. But I only keep coming up with great movies that butchered their source material for parts.

Forrest Gump. Blade Runner. Total Recall. Children of Men. Jojo Rabbit. Jackie Brown. 10 things I hate about you. Jurassic Park. Howl's Moving Castle. The Shawshank Redemption. Scent of a Woman. Who framed Roger Rabbit.

In fact, "faithful" and "adaptation" might be slightly oxymoronic.

Forrest Gump feels like Tim Burton's attempt at non-goth, which sucks.

Blade Runner and Total Recall were both adapted from stories that were too short for full movie length and terribly mouth-full names. They use the same premise very well, and that's good adaption with that in mind.

Jurassic Park isn't an adaption, it's co-source material because the creators planned both before either were released.

If you want to name-drop a Steven King writing that was done better on film, The Mist is a much better example than the very good Shawshank Redemption; an ending so good the King himself wishes he thought of it.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is only unadaptable because nobody wants to watch voice lines appear above actor heads, only to need sweeping away later. This is easily the worst possible example you could give to besmirch the concept of adaption, because it was completely faithful in every way that was remotely practical.


While still not quite perfect, Tolkien's writings are leagues better than everything here and I singled out the best of what you listed.

Hi, i thought i could help you with a prime video account but alas.... I have no mention whatsoever of being able to claim anything...

I do think the game goes on sale quite often with 75% or more discount.

but,

Have you tried connecting with Luna? Maybe you can access the title from there.

Personally i find the middle earth titles quite disappointing, but i also don't like AC, so there you have it.

It probably is but still a useful one. Whenever a story is adapted to a different medium changes have to be made due to technical limitations. And those changes often call for further changes which call for further changes and some directors just said "screw it" and made their own thing, sometimes with great success.

A truly faithful adaption of the Fellowship for example would consist mainly on traveling footage. The actual movie just gave us a montage a and some wide angle shots in between which does change the tone of the whole story to some extend. Yet, after I (very sceptical at the time) watched it in the cinema, I was surprised how close to the book they managed to stay while still delivering a coherent, entertaining movie.

Imagine faithful adaptation of The Godfather where third of the film is talk about Sonny's humongous cock.

I glorified it.


The Lord of the Rings movies changed some things due to "technical limitations". They yanked Shelob from TTT to RotK because they couldn't get the effects finished in time, for one thing. Nothing to do with pacing, nothing to do with trying to tell a better story, they changed this for the mere commercial reason that they had to release a movie a year. This had nothing to do with adaptation.

The first bunch of Harry Potter movies are, doubtlessly, an extremely 'faithful adaptation' of the source material. No technical limitations there, because the funds were practically unlimited. Despite the vast commercial success of the octology, the "art of the movies" never received recognition. It was a faithful adaptation, hence an uncreative one. Drab, dusty, artless, oscarless. Hey, here's the new Harry Potter movie by Whogivesashitdirector! Pretty, certainly. Maybe they thought children were so stupid they expected movies that treated books like a movie script (in my experience, they aren't).

The Lord of the Rings could have been adapted in the exact same way, glued to the letter of the page. I don't doubt that they would have been, thoroughly and utterly, shit films.

Remember two of the most central cuts made to the LotR story, Tom Bombadil (the oldest living creature in ME) and the Scouring of the Shire (which in the book was the central conclusion to the hobbits' arcs of character growth). Both done for reasons of pacing, for a clearer idea of the climax. A great reason for these changes, an actual example of adaptation, but faithful? To cut integral parts out of the narrative?

To me, the greatest act of actual adaptation in the LotR movies was how they greatly extended Aragorn's inner struggle with his heritage and fate. Which was implicit in the books, maybe a missed chance on the side of Tolkien. Might be something alien to Middle Age epics - a king in self doubt is a weak king after all. Anyway, the Aragorn of the movies struggles, a lot. Bam, suddenly you have a completely new perspective on the Boromir-Aragorn relationship, bam, suddenly you have a fucking awesome death scene that ends with Boromir accepting Aragorn as his king.

This change is not without repercussions, mind you. In the book, Frodo made the decision to part from the fellowship without consulting anyone at all. In the movie, his self doubt is soothed by Aragorn, who gets to explicitly reject the Ring, thus validating his right to the crown. The added Aragorn arc is taking away from Tolkien's much stronger focus on the Shire people. It's diminishing both the aloofness of the stereotypically epic characters as well as the contrast between the empathetic little people and the loud and bold people.

But I'll stop here, I don't want more people to completely lose their shit like LegoDnD just because somebody suggests that co-creators might be best served to rely on their creativity. It still has to be said that The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy made central, sweeping and in part very disrespectful (see my first post) changes to Tolkien's writing, and still counts as the greatest Tolkien adaptation ever made. And I agree.

If the Lord of the Rings movies released today, for the first time, cultural pessimists would tear them apart. And I'm sure they'd find ways to characterize to best sellling trilogy of all time as a commercial failure.