I agree: though the issues that I’ve been seeing and hearing against the show, haven’t been conveyed in a mature, educated manner.

From time to time, Nerd of the Rings states What doesn’t work for him and he approaches it very well.

An example would be ‘the writing is trash’. Which is fair to admit not being a fan of the scripts or how the episodes played out; but giving examples would definitely be beneficial.

Also, most of the complaints that I’ve been seeing come from people who either don’t fully understand Tolkien on our level, and/or are only familiar with the film trilogy.


Long story short, I haven’t seen many complaints about the show that aren’t juvenile in tone, attitude, or language. Those that like it state what they like and why, which isn’t what those who don’t like are not.

onthetrail wrote:

But one thing is clear, if RoP first three episode of season two are close to what is being reported (c. 550m minutes), then it is sinking fast compared to the 2 episode opening of season one.

764.7m For the opening episodes

Gerryt wrote:

onthetrail wrote:

But one thing is clear, if RoP first three episode of season two are close to what is being reported (c. 550m minutes), then it is sinking fast compared to the 2 episode opening of season one.

764.7m For the opening episodes

Variety report 550m, but if we take that greater number. 764.7m minutes for the three episode opening verses 1.2b minutes for the two episode opening of season one. That is a crushing drop in numbers.

And yet it’s amazons highest opening this year, beating The Boys

Gerryt wrote:

And yet it’s amazons highest opening this year, beating The Boys

I read that Fallout did 2.9b minutes in its first five days earlier this year. Though that was released all at once.

Scarlet_Sorcerer wrote:

Also, as has been the case with both of PJ’s trilogies, nothing is being ‘ruined’. The words in the books on your (general, non-specified ‘you’) shelves are the same as from the day before it came out, and they’re the same after it’s out. No adaptation will alter the source material.

It's an interesting point - instinctively I'd agree with you whole-heartedly (that no adaptation will alter the source material), and I can say that my appreciation of LOTR is unassailed by the Peter Jackson films. But I wonder just how immune one can be - if engaging with and enjoying the films, that is (which I did).

For example, I found it quite jarring in a few places, when reading LOTR after I'd seen the films, when I recognised snatches of film dialogue that had been lifted and moved entirely out of the context in which they appeared in the books.

Scarlet_Sorcerer wrote:

No adaptation will alter the source material.

Not entirely true. While the words on the page will not be altered, perceptions of cannon and source material can be altered by adaptations. Especially to novice readers/fans. Misunderstandings about fundamental laws and values of Tolkien’s writing can form without realizing. I’ve heard others make this argument too and I don’t buy it.

Mr. Underhill wrote:

Scarlet_Sorcerer wrote:

No adaptation will alter the source material.

Not entirely true. While the words on the page will not be altered, perceptions of cannon and source material can be altered by adaptations. Especially to novice readers/fans. Misunderstandings about fundamental laws and values of Tolkien’s writing can form without realizing. I’ve heard others make this argument too and I don’t buy it.

While I see your point Mr. Underhill, someone understanding the material has no bearing on the material itself. We might end up with a generation of fans who only know what adaptation tells them, but it won't matter to us or the books. In fact, bad adaptation could drive more fans to the books.

I think while an adaptation doesn't change the underlying material (obviously), it changes the lens through which the material is exposed to the world. You only have to look at how the PJ movies changed the delivery of everything related to LotR to being the Howe/Lee interpretation. To a large extent, that remains the case, as RoP continues that look and feel. Think of Sauron and try to think of your own interpretation that isn't basically John Howe's idea of Sauron. Look anywhere in the media for a Sauron that isn't essentially John Howe's idea.

It is the nature of adaptation which is successful in terms of capturing eyeballs. LotR in particular will probably never escape from the clutches of Lee/Howe. That doesn't matter to me that much, but I think it is important to recognise that the source material can't be experienced in isolation.

As for RoP, I don't know or care that much. I didn't enjoy the first part of season one at all, and I'm not currently willing to go back for more. Maybe when it is all wrapped up in a few seasons time (and if overall reviews are reasonable) it might be worth the time. I'm a "less is more" person with Tolkien, though - adding too much flesh to the bones of the past makes the past a lot less interesting, mysterious and epic.

Sherlock Holmes wasn’t harmed by the Robert Downey films , Basil Rathbone is in no way Conan Doyle’s Holmes, Christopher Lee is Dracula in name only, but you know what? they are entertaining and you can spend a pleasant hour or so watching them when I want Doyle I just pick a book from the shelf.
ROP is the same, light off, telly on and see where it takes me, Tolkien is completely safe from people’s perceptions whatever that means .