The Real Reason You Don’t Like “Rings of Power” (It’s Not “the Canon”)

[@JulieMoran1832]

It was never about the lore for me. It was always about the horrible writing, lack of character development, and worldbuilding. Overall, there is too much zeitgeist in today's adaptations; these timeless classics are meant to appeal to generations past, present, and future…and not just to “the spirit of our time”.

[@charleslathrop9743]

The problem with Rings of Power is the lack of respect. Jackson had respect at a basic level.

[@billyboy8534]

For me personally, the Rings of Power lacks any heart or soul. It's just a hollow facsimile made by a group of venal people who only care about modern social narratives while completely disregarding what made Jackson's trilogy work. Not to mention it's funded by a company so wealthy, they couldn't care less whether the show is good or not.

[@MWhaleK]

Peter Jackson's film had both Heart and Soul, those films also mostly got the characters and the essence of the story right.

[@celtofcanaanesurix2245]

lack of heart soul or any visible effort, it's corporate slop from the manufacturing line, and honestly it should be recalled because it has tons of critical design flaws.

[@bjiornbjiorn]

I would have politely disagreed with you right up until the point where they introduced Tom Bombadil in series 2 and they just started doing scenes from the Lord of the Rings word for word. That, beyond any other part of the show, made me think "oh god, they're trying to pander to me but don't have a clue what they're doing".

[@vandrar3n]

@@bjiornbjiorn tbf I liked season 1 way more, but there were two reasons why: 1) It was the first season, and introductions are always easier. 2) I was still too excited about having a new Tolkien series to think about the problems. Lots of people back then criticized the show for the wrong reasons, so it was natural to avoid that kind of thinking. Besides, I knew from the get-go that Amazon wouldn't be competent enough to my standards, it didn't seem to matter that much as long as the legendarium got some screen time.

[@djohnston6856]

The canon argument is pointless and is just a bait and switch for people trying to defend this terrible show. The problem isn't even that the show is subjectively bad, it's the constant framing from defenders that it is objectively good and right, and therefore any criticism is always from a dishonest point of view. They're trying to shift a whole frame of reality just to defend a cynical exercise in marketing and increasing Amazon Prime subs.

[@Peak_Aussieman]

I have no desire at all to be a data point on their little spreadsheet so I'm not going to watching. And all of these other paid shill "lore" channels are just corporate assets inflating the numbers. See it all the time now in Star Wars and Halo. Fandom as a whole is kinda cringe and stupid.

[@vandrar3n]

"bUt It HaS a BiG bUdGeT, hOw CaN iT bE lEsS tHaN a 5? yOu'Re JuSt BeInG dIfFiCuLt"

[@DouglasRalston]

The 'canon' argument is pointless and just 'bait and switch' for people trying to attack the great show. The problem IS that the show is objectively incredibly well written. But they hate it for quite political reasons and have invented the absurd fantasy that it is about 'canon'. LIARS! Can you not listen when they talk to each other to create fantastical complaints to cover up the fact that they don't want to admit being WRONG AGAIN! I know this because many of the people I see on these threads I have seen on political sites that I also haunt. There they are conservatives and only talk about ROP as their 'WOKE' jitters compel them to. FYI: ROP is GREAT! 9.5

[@Lothiril]

As far as I am concerned, for adaptations changes have to be allowed due to the nature of adaptations. I also agree that you need to add more details in a story as broadly told as the stories of the 2nd Age. These details have to be made up. HOWEVER, to justify changes to existing storylines, these changes have to improve the story, and not make it worse. And that brings us back to the skill of the storyteller: Rings of Power is simply badly written, and that's why any changes they make unfortunately makes the story they are telling worse than the story that Tolkien told. RoP could have avoided that by going for the story of the Blue Wizards, because that was a blank slate: there was no story to compare it to. However, by using Galadriel, Elrond, Celebrimbor and Númenór, they have to contend with Tolkien's story, and they simply fail. That's not because changes are bad per se, but because they write bad stories with little logic and cringe dialogue that is a very small and empty version of the grand vision that Tolkien had come up with. Unfortunately I also don't believe that the people creating RoP actually have any interest in telling Tolkien's stories. As broad as the story was written by Tolkien, and as much freedom as RoP has for the details, they managed to fuck up major plotpoints. Claiming that these are valid interpretations of Tolkien's stories is argued in bad faith imo, because it's often enough ignoring probability and context. Some things don't have to be outright stated when context implies enough meaning. And if Amazon and the RoP crew would have simply been more honest about this being fanfic, instead of pretending to be the most faithful to ever faithful, then I think people wouldn't have been as upset as they are. A bit more humility would have gone a long way. Edit: I won't condemn anyone for liking RoP, including Corey Olsen. However, it's only natural to value someone's words based on the judgement you see them make. Corey Olsen may have good reason not to voice any possible criticism of RoP, and I don't care whether it's a paycheck or simply a desire for positivity. But the result is the same: all I I hear him say is praise and excuses, and I have too much to criticise about that show that I would trust his takes anymore. Therefore, Corey Olsen's words on Tolkien's work no longer interest me.

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@Lothiril fair take. I disagree only insofar that I think it’s entirely possible to “fill in the cracks” as it were without breaking canonicity. Can, as you state, go after the blue wizards and their possible journey. Or even, my personal favorite idea, chronicle the ascent and then slow descent of numenor into madness and decay over millenia in a single dedicated season. Could have used named kings and queens and their exploits (in keeping with what is stated in the works of Tolkein although I get it’s hard without rights to said works such as silmarillion) with some built laterality to fully flesh out the stories and fill up a season. THIS is how adaptations that actually try to stay faithful should be made and have been traditionally made. No one is saying characters can’t be created or dialogue be added, but that it just simply can’t violate that which is already established and stays in the same spirit of the story. Even that is asking too much of Amazon.

[@alexkats30]

I've watched enough of Corey Olsen's channel to realize that he spends all his time trying to analyze Tolkien's works from the basis of "it's the best thing ever written, so let's pick it apart and see what it is saying more deeply". Problem is, he applies this same kind of same ol' method to the Rings of Power where he spends all the time analyzing what RoP is trying to do, but zero time in which ways it might actually be failing to do so for everyone else other than himself. And RoP isn't a proven masterpiece of art, that has endured through time and every aspect of analysis. But you're absolutely right, I wouldn't have hated some of the changes RoP made, if they were better made or they led to better plot/character results than they currently are. Peter Jackson managed to make amazing movies making many changes, RoP hasn't managed that.

[@alexkats30]

And to prove my point, Peter Jackson did things even better than the books. Examples? Boromir's death, the Ring's destruction in Mount Doom etc. Name one thing RoP does better than the books. Also Jackson has given us some of the most epic moments in film history. Examples? Gandalf vs Balrog, Rohirrim Charge etc. Name one scene in RoP that so amazing people can't stop watching. Point made.

[@TheTolkienCurmudgeon]

Very good point, alexkats. Olsen treats RoP as if it were a great piece of art, which it isn't. RoP doesn't MERIT the depth of analysis it's getting from Olsen. I think this is misleading for students, considering that he is a teacher.

[@RoseBaggins]

@@alexkats30 and I would say that's because, while he had to make changes, he was still aiming for the soul of the story. There was love and care put into the filming of Lord of the Rings, which is why it outshines both The Hobbit and RoP. But even The Hobbit was made with more love and care than RoP, and that's saying something.

[@richardkern112]

​@@TheTolkienCurmudgeon it would be more misleading as a teacher to insist that one must like and respect a piece of art to look deeply at it.

[@alexkats30]

@@richardkern112 It's more like examining an unfinished painting analyzing only what the painter is trying to portray, probably projecting many of your own thoughts and ideas into it and totally ignoring that the painter's strokes are at a beginner level, so they can barely convey successfully any of these ideas. Almost like the painter has talked to Corey directly about what they're trying to do and he's the only one making those connections.

[@Theggman83]

Who said it was just the canon? The costumes are bad, the music is bad, the story line is bad, the acting is bad, the character dialogue is bad.. That's fine, dude. We got it.

[@wewuzwolves4428]

@Theggman83 Exactly. The disregard for Tolkien's works is just one aspect of ROP's "shitshow factor".

[@dhfvrfhjcfbbrfb]

If it was a good show I would watch it, even if it had nothing to do with Tolkien. It’s just a boring, badly written show.

[@wewuzwolves4428]

@dhfvrfhjcfbbrfb It's painfully boring. It's one the worst aspects of ROP. I couldn't even hate-watch it. Even Steven Seagal's, Uwe Boll's or Neil Breen's vanity projects are more entertaining since I can at least laugh at how bad they are.

[@CedarloreForge]

Great video man. Totally agree. Corey is a friend of mine, I was at the premier for Rings S1 with him and met most of the actors for the show. I gave the show a chance and cannot articulate how much I’m disappointed in how cringe the show is. And with respect to Corey; next time I get to have a beer with him; I will respectfully yet bluntly tell him he is TOO nice and too gracious to writers who do not deserve it… 😆

[@yurikendal4868]

He needs to hear that. We need to have more open RESPECTFUL dialouges from those they care about. We need to be less "nice" and more direct towrds people, giving praise where it is due and critique whee it is due.

[@Crafty_Spirit]

Sorry for being a bit rude, but I would call Corey glib rather than "too nice". Had the impression that he enjoys lecturing others more than defending a show that he is passionate about (doubt that).

[@nickpalazzo6585]

@@Crafty_Spirit I don't think he's trying to defend a show he's passionate about. I don't think he's trying to give that impression at all. He's passionate about close readings of literature (and media), which he finds the knee-jerk reactions some have to RoP tends to drown out. So he's much more interested in discussing what is _interesting_ about Rings of Power than he is in talking about whether it is good or not. A lot of folks seem to approach this show with no nuance at all. Dr. Olsen isn't making a claim that the show is a work of genius. He is looking at the choices being made and analyzing them for what they are, rather than what he might prefer them to be.

[@squaeman_2644]

The dude spends hours overanalyzing a polished turd...

[@acratone8300]

Rings of Power is weak because of who wrote the script! Period. Jackson's LOTR, Game of Thrones on Netflix, and the 8 Harry Potter movies were great because J.R. R.Tolkien, George R.R. Martin, and J.K. Rowling authored those stories which were then merely adopted close to the original. There was no writer of equal talent having anything to do with Rings of Power. All other reasons for the weakness of RoP are not anywhere nearly as important.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

The problem is though as an adaption of the second age, Rings of Power should be hitting certain story beats and keeping certain things true to Tolkien's writing, it should be still trying to stay consistent to the original Tolkien written information about the second age. I get having to fill in some holes and make storylines up a bit due to the overall limited information of the second age. But it is no excuse to go off the rails and start altering the entire timeline and events. Tolkien never mentioned an exploding volcano made Mordor, Sauron being betrayed and overthrown by mere orcs and turning into black jelly. Where is Galadriel's Husband, where is Celeborn? Kind of need him for the existent of Arwen. He just vanished for no reason nor mentioned just so they could push some revolting Sauron/Galadriel shipping. The rings of power are made in the wrong order, the eleven three are last to be created since the later to be called: Rings of Men and Dwarves where crafted first as test runs, Celebrimbor made them without Sauron's oversight. Finally their desperate attempt to clearly shove young Gandalf into the show is just sad and misses out the detail that Gandalf arrived in the third age on a ship already as an old man. I ask who is the man villain in ROPs? It ain't Sauron he seems to be some bumbling villain who can't even rule some orcs, even though he should be at a time where he is nearly unchallenged in Middle Earth. If the show was not named Rings of Power, nor had any of the names of places, characters and such from Tolkien's legendarium. But instead was original names and places you would never suspect it was a Lord of the Rings based show. Peter Jackson did adapt and change LOTR's storyline as well, but he never altered the overall events of the story, he also made sure characters who were there where there, and the cast still acted like the characters from the book. He streamlined and cut things but he never took the story of the rails though and started inventing terrible ideas.

[@TheSequentCalculus]

I think you - and probably a lot of the people you are addressing - are conflating different meanings of "deviation from canon". One meaning is a deviation in the details: Arwen instead of Glorfindel, for example. Differences in characterisation, as with Faramir and Denethor in the Jackson movies, or Aragorn's doubt and hesitation, also fall under this meaning of "deviation", as they leave the story intact. The other meaning is both more abstract, and more fundamental in a way. I want to call this a deviation from the "Weltgeist" of the legendarium, without invoking Hegel, that is: the work in its totality, the "spirit" of Tolkien's imagination. These two meanings *do* overlap, of course. I don't deny that the hesitant Aragorn is also a deviation in the second sense, but at least to me it's a lesser deviation, and that is because of verisimilitude. Aragorn's hesitation and doubt in Jackson's films is more believable within the "spirit" of the legendarium than f.e. modern ethno-nationalist states in the SA, and them having issues with elvish immigration. But leaving that aside, *verisimilitude* or the lack thereof I think is a good model to explain the issues with the writing in Rings of Power as compared to the trilogy. Verisimilitude is contingent; even if RoP were well-written in isolation, within the context of Tolkien's writings, it would not be. Both Jackson and the RoP writers might be writing fan fiction, but they are not equally good at doing so.

[@TheTolkienCurmudgeon]

Good points. It's a topic that needs further thought: why is it that Jackson's "deviations" in fact come off much better than RoP's, aside from the generally bad writing of RoP?

[@journalersketcher]

@@TheTolkienCurmudgeon I feel it's because Jackson's "deviations" still make you feel it's the story, the world as Tolkien wrote it. While some characters were changed, you still feel the differences between the different people groups, that there is a time progression. Amazon basically wrote their own story using Tolkien's character names with no regard to Tolkien's world as he wrote it.

[@TheTolkienCurmudgeon]

@@journalersketcher Yes!

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

Final point as I get time: it’s not about the “amount of changes you’re willing to accept, thus it’s subjective”. It’s about the DEGREE of the changes, which is a much more objective standard. Clearly some changes are bigger than others. Skipping one of bilbo’s four thousand songs but otherwise keeping a scene as depicted in the book the same on screen vs changing the race of a character and changing said scene into a completely different outcome which has implications for the entire story at large are CLEARLY different DEGREES of changes. Peter Jackson’s changes to the canon were nowhere near as egregious as ROP and stayed true to the themes and spirit of Tolkien, simply put. And to act as if his changes ARE as widespread or major as that of ROP is extremely misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.

[@TheTolkienCurmudgeon]

That the writing in RoP is generally bad is definitely more grievous than that it misrepresents the lore. But it does accomplish both of these with intensity! I am sorry, but it does seem to me that the degree of deviation from the spirit and lore of Tolkien is much greater in RoP than it was in Jackson. Of course you are right that an adaptation necessarily cannot be exactly the same at the source material. This is something that people need to think more about in terms of illustrations of Tolkien as well. For example, I love the work of Alan Lee, but his Elrond has a beard, oh well. It is still a lovely watercolor painting. And why exactly does Alan Lee's Balrog (in "The Fall of Gondolin") have a tail?

[@intenzityd3181]

It's not the deviation from canon but the intent to subvert the canon. I think liberal types who do not understand the thinking of Tolkien (or any great writer for that matter) struggle to understand why RoP is so vile but anyone of a similar mind to Tolkien will feel disgust at the hijacking of his property as a vehicle for modern grotesque liberal ideologies.

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@ he always does this. I like TG’s work, I do. When he’s at his best, he is diving deep into the analysis of Tolkein’s own work and offering valid insights that enrich my understanding of Tolkein. When he’s at his worst, he’s unreasonably hard on Jackson’s deviations from lore (which are absolutely minor compared to what ROP has done) while giving his friend Olsen, a guy that should damn sure know better, a pass for egregious mischaracterizations of Tolkein and his work seemingly on behalf of a show that pisses all over Tolkien’s work.

[@RunesandReapers]

It's the fact that he's obviously schilling duude. He knows there is canon. He doesn't critique this show at all.

[@Tar-Elenion]

_>"so when Cory Olsen says there's no such thing as Canon""and then goes into an explanation of how Gandalf could have possibly actually been in the second age""in the East this is the kind of thing he's relying on is the fact that Tolkien does mention things"

[@JohnWilliams-pn7ft]

I love Tolkien too but man, you need to get a life. Go outside, talk to a woman, lol.

[@Chociewitka]

well, first they say "if you do not like it d not watch it" - but then they whine that nobody watches it... and blame us again for it. So what now, should we watch or not in the end?

[@Tar-Elenion]

@@Chociewitka Heh... You have been watching Olsen and participating in his classes for a long time as I recall. I only became familiar with him about the time of his now infamous IGN video. Has he always been like this, where he will mis-characterize what Tolkien wrote, or pretend that his interpretation is what Tolkien actually meant (regardless of Tolkien contradicting him), or is this more recent? I have had a couple people tell me that his stuff was really good 10 or 12+ years ago.

[@Chociewitka]

@@Tar-Elenion no, he was quite strict in his interpretation in the beginning, he himself states that he head grown "more tolerant" (wording is mine) with time - well, with time his youthful eagerness seemed to have given way to the resigned tolerance of "nothing really matters in the end" as long as there is more traffic - and a worldwide show always increases engagement with Tolkien-themed topics I would assume - by the way, the is also valid for myself = even if I care little for RoP itself I also do love the many discussions that it inspires. ;-) But I would not go so far as to declare RP good just merely because is makes Tolkien more talked about.

[@BrettCaton]

Very well put.

[@neildaly2635]

Peter Jackson wasn't faithful to squat. Absolutely! But he didn’t reduce Sauron to a rat eating blob. I watched the first season of ROP and I was willing to endure distortions if it was good, but it was not. I watched. 20 minutes of the first episode of season 2 and will never watch any more

[@exantiuse497]

Sauron being a blob is not a good example IMO. There are way bigger and more impactful character and story changes in Ring of Power and also Pet Jackson's films. The various changes to the personality and actions of several important characters (Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir, Denethor, Theoden in LotR, Galadriel, Elrond, Gil-Galad and Sauron in RoP) are much more egregious changes than giving Sauron a wacky superpower Sauron-blob doesn't even break canon - we know he can reincarnate and slowly build up his power after his body is killed, and in the show his reincarnation happens via absorbing animals and people. I do think that's stupid and goofy, but it doesn't contradict anything Tolkien wrote

[@nathynorthy6916]

Tolkien didn't actually describe the process of how Sauron took shape again, but I imagine that it wouldn't have been pleasant to watch. So, this is one of the few examples of where the RoP writers did a decent job of filling in Tolkien's blanks. And I stress: one of the VERY few examples.

[@kingkwon8002]

@@nathynorthy6916​​⁠​⁠Tolkien didn’t quite explain how Gandalf was resurrected either, but PJ had the good sense to depict Gandalf as surging through the cosmos in an awe inspiring scene. Showing Sauron as a blob of mud was just dumbfounding. And unnecessary.

[@kingkwon8002]

@@exantiuse497 Well, the whole prologue sequence breaks canon, if that’s what you’re worried about. Sauron did not get stabbed by mutinous orcs after failing a speech check on them.

[@nathynorthy6916]

@@kingkwon8002 I don't see why. You think that a being who is a manifestation of evil and corruption would regenerate in an awe-inspiring way?

[@Matt-416]

That's the thing. PJ's LOTR still honoured the source material. Yes, there were drastic changes in characters and some blatant omitions, and timelines were barely changed. But not by thousands of years, not completely unrecognizable characters, not completely creating something new without any hint of the original. What does Galadriel mean? And why? So a 5ft 2'' actor gets cast?!? Really? Now name one battle, before the white council, that she was even mentioned in? Didn't she immediately distrust Anatar? Wasn't that her thing? Refusing him entry? But, now apparently she wants to sit on his face. Wow!! There is adaptation, and there is bastardization. One is to make changes for film schedules and script constraints. The other is to purposely change every aspect of something to fit a personal belief. And remember, Peter Jackson was very upset at having to make the changes he did, but that's the sacrifice inherent in adaptation. Tolkien's Writings cannot be accurately created into a good film. Its too dry and too long. The room just isn't there for all the words. Take Aragon in the books. He doesn't have much of an arc. He's a cocky heir that wants to be king and becomes king. There's just not much there for a cinematic character. As apposed to the reluctant warrior that has no desire to be king, despite knowing that he must. It adds a dynamic to his character, and more weight to Elronds request for Arwen's hand. Rings of Power didn't just change characters, it barely keeps the names. Nothing that occurs or happens in the appendices is even remotely accurate. At all. A survivors of Gondalin. You made a really bad comparison as Marvel, like DC, already had separate universes in the source material from decades before the MCU, with differing variations of named characters. Last I checked, Tolkien did not. Sure, if you want to say that PJ's trilogies are a separate universe than the books, I'm fine with that. They use many of the same characters and depictions, and mostly work well together. But this Rings of Power... It fits with nothing remotely Tolkien. They literally messed up the making of the rings!! The simplest and most known occurrence that any reader knows. That'd be like having Luke Skywalker become a hopeless hermit hiding on a distant.... Oh, wait. Nevermind. Lol.

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

Well said. All of the changes in Jackson's movies had reasons behind them. You could argue about whether they were good reasons, but I think they almost universally were, mostly because of the limitations and language of filmmaking. Aragorn needed an arc. Faramir needed an arc. Arwen needed to be introduced earlier. The same is true in The Hobbit: the dwarves needed to be more distinct. We needed to see the reasons why Gandalf suddenly left halfway through the journey. We needed an urgent threat on the way (Azog). And certainly Bard needed to appear much earlier and be fleshed out a great deal. Rings of Power on the other hand... Just does things that are completely upsetting for no reason other than to vex the fanbase.

[@squaeman_2644]

This is stupid, Aragorn doesn't need a whiny self pitifull arc. Jackson even goes so far to damage his character as to behead an emissary under a white flag... And it was useless and nihilistic to make Faramir as weak as his brother... Screw Jackson too...

[@Matt-416]

@squaeman_2644 What the? Reluctant hero is "whiny"? But a gloating boastful one is... Better? Remember, this is a movie, not a book. Yes farimir wasn't handled perfectly, but the essence was there. I absolutely do not agree with many of the decisions PJ made. But he told the story in a movie adaptation. 1600 pages to 200. But the main plot was carried, with overly simplistic ideals, but still.... It is there. The feel is there. The nuance and emotion is there.

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@squaeman_2644 I’ve never understood the criticism of Aragorn beheading an emissary. The entire point of that exchange was to goad Sauron into attacking by any means necessary so as to give Frodo time. Beheading an emissary would further sell the idea that Aragorn is over confident from using the one ring, the very thing Sauron already suspected was case. And it works. The Mordor army marches out shortly thereafter. It appears you didn’t even understand what you were watching and want to take it out on PJ.

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@Matt-416 yeah this guy above is just clueless. At no point does Aragorn whine. I’d challenge this idiot to find any single such instance in the movies.

[@nickmanzo8459]

I don’t think it’s so much the canon violations in Rings of Power that has everyone up in arms, it’s more the gross violation of the spirit of Tolkien’s work. Theres no sense of the greater Christian themes of the feeling of Eru being the giver and true source of life and the Valar his messengers of goodness. It all just feels petty. It’s like your mom sold your favorite toys at a yard sale without even asking you, to a rich kid who is putting them in lewd poses and posting them online just to piss you off.

[@exantiuse497]

That might be it for some, but not everyone. There is a pair of adaptations, the video game "Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor" and it's sequel "Shadow of War", that egregiously breaks both the lore (e.g. Isildur is a Ringwraith) and the themes/morals (e.g. using the weapons and methods of the enemy "for the greater good" is the right thing to do) of Tolkien. And yet there wasn't anywhere close to this amount of outrage towards those games (there were critics but no real hate from the fanbase), and to date some people in the fandom defend those them I support the theory that people are less willing to express displeasure or outright hate towards a piece of media if it is well made and enjoyable. The "Shadow of..." games are enjoyable to play as long as you can ignore how much it ravages Tolkien's writings, while Rings of Power isn't fun to watch even if you treat it as a generic fantasy with no connection to Tolkien

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

That toy analogy is hilarious :D

[@nickmanzo8459]

@@exantiuse497 that’s essentially my point, though: this isn’t well made or enjoyable, it is an elite class billionaire running his ass in our collective faces and calling it The Lord of the Rings as a means of talking down to the audience, spitting in the face of the audience, and lecturing the audience with messages that the professor never would have allowed near his work,

[@squaeman_2644]

​@@exantiuse497Was anyone actually playing that game for its lore? Or it's gameplay???

[@legadotolkien]

Regardless of whether Tolkien changed several things he wrote, whether Tolkien wanted to change again before his death, or whether Christopher edited some written materials, The fact is that what is Canonical is everything that Tolkien left, and that was never changed by him or his son. If they make a new adaptation and change something that is written in the books, it is wrong anyway!

[@yurikendal4868]

Book to movie and vice versa is impossilbe. Tolkein bolks are havey heavy with lore and extraneous characters and actions. We did not need or want to see Gimili sing a song in a goblin infested mine. A lot of that is tolkein fever dream, alneit a well written one. I appreciate an adapation that manages to take in modern sensibilites and combine those with the intent of the arthur. Adaptation cannot and should not be 100% accurate. Even tolkein admited that and so should every good author. What rop tried to do was be something it wasnt. Good. Lore accuracy or not, it is a poorly written show with the intent to troll and cast spite at the audeince. Thats where it fails. Not in lore accuracy but in itself successful attempt to spite the audience.

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@yurikendal4868 You can simultaneously leave out the Gimli song example you used in an adaptation whilst still showing said mine scene or whatever it is in question, thus staying true to lore as much as possible. The ROP equivalent would be to cast Gimli as Lizzo and have her sing a full duet with Goblin King during the middle of the battle. Then to have dinguses like the above and olsen dutifully trot out to chide their audience with “What?? You KNOW adaptations can’t be 100% lore accurate”. In short, acting like the first example (leaving a singing gimli out for pacing purposes) vs the second example I gave are the same thing is the heart of the issue. Tolkein geek & Corey Olsen seem to insist they are.

[@cpmf2112]

What counts as "everything that Tolkien left" though? The Silmarillion wasn't published until after his death and wasn't complete as such while he was alive.

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@cpmf2112 the things that count are the things that he left copious notes about. What do you think Christopher was using when he compiled and then published the silmarillion? Idk why people make this so complicated. Hofstetter’s definition is the only one that makes sense

[@cpmf2112]

@@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726 but JRRT left multiple versions of different stories that contradicted each other. That was the primary reason The Silmarillion wasn't published before then. Christopher Tolkien chose between the versions and wrote some new material himself which he later expressed regrets for. How can The Silmarillion be canon in that situation?

[@IanM-id8or]

They made it very clear that they aren't doing Tolkien. I've got no interest in watching it - they should have called it something else

[@matthabir4837]

And then it would have been the Shinara Chronicles or whatever that thing was called, and nobody would have watched anyway.

[@Chociewitka]

the problem with Corey Olsen is not that he does not critique the show but that he critiques the show's critics as a whole - not specific statements of specific critics, but generally - without presenting much valid reason - he tends to place the fans under a general suspicion of bad faith - which of course offends them. The problem of RoP is the general lack of logic which is offending - imho the main issue is: Tolkien valued his reader's intelligence in his writings and RoP insults the viewer by assuming him/her stupid for expecting to put up with all the random and senseless contrivance - they promised us Tolkien and they delivered an incoherent mess instead.

[@richardkern112]

I must admit I don't understand this impulse: wishing Olsen criticized the show more is like asking for more Dry Rub in Memphis....that's all we have here! We're absolutely awash in reviewers who only ask "Is it good? Is it canon? Did I like it? Did they do it like I would have?" Tolkien Geek, Tolkien Road, Nerd of the Rings, Men of the West, Lorehounds, RoP Daily, Rings Wrap Up etc all do only this. And that's without mentioning all the culture vultures ragebaiters outside of the fandom.

[@richardkern112]

@RingsandRealms is one of only two places you can find actual capital C Criticism. As in Literary Criticism. The kind focusing on Themes, Narrative Arcs, Cinematography, Leitmotifs, etc. @CriticaDragon and @PhilipChaseTheBestofFantasy are the only other people taking this kind of scholarly approach.

[@Chociewitka]

@@richardkern112 Nerd of the Rings did not dare to criticize the show also at its start, now he just began very timidly to throw in some criticism here and there, but is mostly content to ignore it, diverting his attention slowly towards the "War of the Rohirrim".

[@nickpalazzo6585]

He's allowed to critique bad faith criticism. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to wear it. On the other hand, he seems perfectly willing to engage with specific critiques which are not based on subjective taste. He even agreed with your complaints about the Isildur/Estrid relationship. That he doesn't see it as a flaw, however, doesn't surprise me. He's more willing to take a long view and see how things play out. The problem with Dr. Olsen's critics is that they often seem to engage with the argument they extrapolate from his statements rather than the argument his statements make.

[@richardkern112]

@@nickpalazzo6585 💯 most people don't even engage with the premise of Olsen (or Phillip Chase and Critical Dragon), which is: looking at Themes, Narratives, Character Arcs, Cinematography, etc. to the exclusion of "is it good" Olsen very explicitly says he's not even interested (primarily or otherwise) in Rings and Realms being about what he did or didn't like.

[@pontifex9285]

At 36:00 you say in conclusion that there are some valid arguments about faithfulness to the canon, but how can that be, if there is no canon?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I made it pretty clear in the video that it’s a fair critique to point out that a given idea contradicts every version Tolkien wrote, or just has zero support in any of those versions.

[@Aurora2097]

I could have digested quite a lot of non-canon if it was a well written story, but it just isn't. It is full of contradictions, faulty logic and characters not acting as believable characters but just as needed by its, quite thin, plot. Bad characterisations, bad dialogue, bad casting choices, bad naming, bad choreography, problems with worldbuulding... it all just adds up and up.

[@hans471]

1) The ROP are bad due to multiple aspects (logic, costume, timeline, geography, characters, ...) not just canon. Nobody is saying that... 2) The LOTR movies are MUCH closer in spirit to the lore of Tolkien in spirit and in the details. If you cannot see that, it is baffeling. As an example, ROP does not even get the geography right at all: Sahara desert in the east? Wizards dropping on their heads instead of arriving by boat? Rings of power are all corrupted including the elven rings? The changes in LOTR can to some degree explained, e.g. merge Glorfindel into Galadriel since you cannot have as many characters in a film as in a book...

[@Krommer1000]

This is such a weird hill for you to choose. Like, what did this Cory guy do to earn this kind of loyalty from you? You've now so firmly embedded yourself in his defense that you're making 40 minute video's telling your audience who came here for the love of this story and the author, that they're to dense to understand the "subtle nuance" of the word "canon". Yea, we're all just to dumb to get the depth of the two of you.... Anyone who chooses to use the label "Tolkien Professor" is setting an expectation to the general public when they do so. It's not incumbent on me or anyone else to delve into his lore to see if that title is tongue and cheek or not. This same guy effuses his love for this abomination regularly, which is infused from top to bottom with modern day corporate BS, and despite our apparent lack of brain power we all know exactly what that is. We also all know there will be differences between the written word and how it can be portrayed in live action or even animation. You haven't uncovered some deep crevice of understanding that we're all blind too. The difference is intent. Are the people making the live action version doing their best to portray it with Tolkien in mind, and making those changes while at least attempting (Not always achieving) to stay in those bounds, or are they using Tolkien as a puppet to insert their own BS, while patting themselves on the back for their brilliance, and telling everyone who doesn't like it their an "ist" or "phobe" of every kind. You choose to call Cory "hopeful" and "Optimistic", I say shill for the most expensive pillaging of Tolkien to have ever, and hopefully will ever exist. So be a human everyone, and quit picking on the guy shilling for one of the biggest corporations in human history's destruction of something you love. For edification, I don't look at the Peter Jackson films with the love many others do either, but they are light years ahead of ROP. The books are the only real story for me, and I agree with your ranking of the various adaptations. 29:37

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@Krommer1000 agreed for most part though I have a soft spot for Jackson’s films admittedly. I even would go so far as to say that I disagree with OP that lore changes are “built in” when making adaptations. I know it happens more often that not but several successful films and shows have been adapted from literature and remained very true to their source, so it’s not like it’s impossible (Jaws, No Country for Old Men, The Color Purple, Etc.).

[@squaeman_2644]

I honestly stopped watching Jackson's films for the character assassination he does to Frodo, Faramir and Aragorn... But it's probably the best Hollywood is gonna give us... Not to mention the changes done to Lotr were the precursors to the shallow theater we have today...

[@nevilleslightlylargerbotto1726]

@@squaeman_2644 you have to admit Jackson’s changes to the characters, while needless and in error, are leagues less egregious than that of ROP. Jackson’s changes amount to tweaking the route taken by the books to ultimately get to the same destination. ROP’s changes are akin to wholly changing the end point, route, passengers, and speed of the traveling, all the while gaslighting the audience and pretending to have no earthly idea what their complaints are about.

[@jamessimon3433]

Its very simple. If the show is good then people will ignore. The canon thing is just a symptom of a much larger irksom condition.

[@thetr00per30]

I never read Tolkien, I have no idea about any back story or history for the world. My only experience with Tolkien is the Peter Jackson trilogy and the Hobbit Trilogy. I do not like Rings of Power because it is terribly written, uninspiring and nonsensical. No one seems to act like they really should be in the scenarios they are being put in; nothing makes sense no character feels authentic it is like they are all weird. I have no idea what anyone's goal or purpose is and when they say what they want they then seem to act in any way to reflect that. It is awful written dialogue and feels like it is directed by a jilted teenager going through wild emotional swings. Even the costumes suck. They spent a ton of money, and the sets are great the locations are great the sound is great the cinematography is great with what it is given but no amount of quality acting and support can make up for a shitty story that makes no sense and shitty dialogue, sorry Rings of Power is shitty, and it has nothing to do with Tolkien's legacy or canon.

[@christianefiorito3204]

Corey Ohlye sold hos soul and Tolkiens spirituality to amazon. His argument do not interest me anymore. You are right in how you explain the sand in the eye. I absolutely hated the show.

[@TitoVespasianus]

It is utter garbage and disrespect.

[@jimwright4163]

It’s just bad writing

[@napoleonfeanor]

There is a difference between an adaption changing things but great on its own and being a an actual FAN fiction on the one side and having zero respect, spitting on it and being not made by fans. I rarely watch the movies but listen to the audio book all the time. The movies are really great as movie adaption but some of the character changes just bother me. However, because the movies are amazing movies, they brought tons of people to the originals. Peter Jackson also mostly kept the spirit of Tolkien. RoP is bad on its own and spits on the spirit completely. Do you think RoP will bring many new people to the books/audio books?

[@AllTenThousand]

My man - the point is, you are right that you can argue over how to flesh the story of the second age out, but you CANNOT argue with the bones- the second age tracks the rise and fall of numinor. Numinor arrives as an overwhelming army of eight ft tall hybrid humans who absolutely kick saurons ass in a way the elves could not. Half way through the age - then, after spreading their civilization across middle earth, they get cocky and sauron corrupts them towards the end. This is not a one liner about whether gandolf went east, nor is this a creation in the unspoken lands - this is the underlying framework for tolkein material published and unpublished. Being the 14th descendent of the numinoreans still means something in LOTR. And this is not a question of how much did they change to adapt the story, but rather, is there anything at all that either resembles tolkeins writing or logically gets us where we find ourselves in the prologue to Jackson's film (the showrunners explicitly said that was their intent). I have no idea what that little poot of three ships going over with 200 horses was supposed to mean, especially with elendil at the wheel, but it has nothing to do with the second age as written anywhere - which is what amazon paid for and promised. The definition of canon is what is essential to a subject - can you not go so far as to agree the outline of the second age, both stark in appendix b and referred to in broad strokes almost everywhere else, is canonical lore, and objecting to a chop suey of it is more than preference?? I am one of those people who skipped the last PJ movie because I couldn't take it anymore - however, I fully acknowledge the moments in fellowship that makes it a solid and worthy classic, mostly involving mcKellan, and the bones/story beats of the story reflected in the trilogy- the Hobbits getting to Mt doom with gollum and the other characters fighting the right people at the right time for the most part. If the Hobbits dumped the ring in the sea, or if aragon threw the ring into Mt doom, or if the journey took three hours or two centuries, then jackson would have cracked the bones the way rings of power did. Do you see the difference? In the end, yes, what we like and don't like is a matter of preference. But if you go by the handle "the tolkein professor", you should profess tokein, not what you like or not like. If that's what he's doing, he should go by " some stuff corey olsen likes" - you know?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I certainly agree that is the established story (with some possible contradictions in unpublished writings and letters), and that objectively RoP goes off the reservation on that stuff. If you watched the whole video you should have gotten that. My point is that how far that goes before we stop being ok with it is not something we have an objective standard for.

[@cathakjordi]

There is no canon in Tolkien? seriously. I mean, if this series would have been good and not have anything to do with canon I would have still welcomed it as a good fantasy. And it's not that ignores what Tolkien wrote, it's that actively subverts and shits on Tolkien's work. Case in point, the whole 'don't decide who must die because you can't decide who lives' (I know, highly paraphrasing here) is put in the exact opposite meaning than in the original context. It basically shits on it. It's that bad. But well, the problem is that the script is shit and contradicts itself every episode if not every other scene. The protagonists are unlikeable. The action is laughable. The dialogues are infantile, nay, they would turn a kindergarten play into shakespeare in comparison. But apart of that, yes, there is canon, and clearly it's what Christopher Tolkien codified and synthesized from his father's work. I mean, JRR did not do that work, and clearly Christopher was in a possition of clear authority to do so. So go pull another if you say there's no canon. And Corey Olsen is a sell out, clearly. Has no shame or professional integrity. And I am being very mild here.

[@neodigremo]

I would like to make the case that the Silmarillion is the Canon of events for the legendarium. He was the one with the control of the media being created.

[@cathakjordi]

@@neodigremo Which was indeed the compilation and refinement of all the works of his father by Christopher. I mean.. JRRT has like three versions of Galadriel, and the later ones were honestly, not only too 'Mary Sue' like, but did not fit well with the rest of the more stablished tales, I think Christopher did a great work stablishing what worked best together, which is a bit the point of canon.

[@gandalfolorin-kl3pj]

My dear melon Geek: And I do mean MELON in Tolkien's language, which you understand. I looked again at my response(s) to your previous video. If I caused you any unwarranted consternation or flummoxation, please forgive this old teacher. I am more set in my ways than maybe is good for me. I find myself in agreement with you more than disagreement in this video. Yes, I understand Olsen was using "canon" in his particular fashion. This is why I started with the dictionary definition of the word which is what teachers everywhere have used since Noe's ark (I'm speaking hyperbolically). I agree that even PJ's movies violate Tolkien's original many times. But I think the difference between Jackson's work and RoP is that Jackson--despite his fingerprints all over everything--tries to keep with the spirit of Tolkien's lengendarium. He doesn't change the main theme of the books for the sake of his new version. RoP seems to be hellbent on violating everything and everyone that Tolkien painstakingly labored over. So what Jackson produced is recognized as good art, even though breaking canon every other page to do so. Whereas, RoP is vulgar, debauched, trashy, worthy of spontaneous combustion and not fit to be in the same universe (to make an MCU allusion) with the dear Professor's subcreation. (I hope by now you're smiling?) It is this "spirit" of Tolkien that we in fandom want to see in any new version based on Tolkien's works. When we find this spirit is being treated venerably, then we tend to really like the new version and make a place for it in our hearts. But when we find some new version seems to deliberately set out to mangle and mutilate Tolkien's spirit (and never even tries to find what canon might be), then we are enraged beyond all the bounds of mere prose and lapse into fulminations of volcanic proportions. Okay. Now that I've used up my vocabulary, I hope we can be friends? As a master of Tolkien's lore, dear Geek, you are truly without equal. May the stars shine on your path, and Galadriel's inspiration reward you. Namarie.

[@annaa3772]

Mellon is written with 2 Ls.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I never took any offense, so rest easy on that point. And of course I agree RoP is garbage for a large number of reasons. I might even agree that PJ *tried* to keep with the spirit of the story, though I’m not sure I’d say he had great success 😂.

[@pwmiles56]

I do look forward to the Geek's pieces and hope I can return with something more constructive to say. Sadly, in this matter he comes across as an honest man beguiled (like many another) by the smarmy, ingratiating Voice of Olsen. Which said... 16:48 "it all comes down to personal preference". This is the well-worn argument of "it's all subjective, everyone's opinion is equally valid". No, it's not. This isn't a democracy. Everyone's MONEY is equally valid, but that shows where the argument falls down. Putting in member-berries, fan-service, call it what you will, grabs a show some eyeballs and some cash; but it was still a crime against art to drop, for example, Bombadil, Barrow-wights or the Balrog into a story where they simply don't belong. PS Among their other inadequacies, the ROP writers seem deficient in basic reading comprehension. They think the Withywindle is the forest, not the river (that even got into the publicity), and I'm fairly sure they don't know what "downs" are -- we certainly didn't see any.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I think you missed the “what” of the “it” in what I said. I wasn’t saying literally everything is a matter of personal preference. I said *how much* deviation you’re willing to accept in an adaptation is a matter of personal preference, because the only non-arbitrary line is *no* deviation at all.

[@pwmiles56]

@@TolkienLorePodcast Sorry if I took you out of context. I still think "personal preference" concedes too much, even if it is only applied to part of an argument. A really capable critic would be aware of departures from the source material, but would do more than just catalogue them. With the Jackson films Lindsay Ellis comes to mind -- she had plenty of sharp observations about PJ's storytelling style, e.g. "forced conflict" or wanton brutality (such as in the treatment of Gollum). The point is to draw attention to WHY the changes are made, not simply that they are made. (She did still like the films IIRC). Apologies again.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

@pwmiles56 I agree with that too, as in, eg, when I criticized the RoP show for the fact that Celeborn is missing and presumed dead, which seems to have no good purpose at all.

[@mtank31]

@@TolkienLorePodcast I've been watching RoP, and anticipating Celeborn's arrival at some stage. It's a conspicuous adaptation choice, but I wouldn't say there's no purpose. IIRC, Galadriel and Celeborn should be chilling in Lothlorien in the time the story is set (as clearly they can't still be leading Eregion if Celebrimbor is). As a known LoTR character, I think there'd be riots if Galadriel didn't feature prominently in the show, so the showrunners needed to give her a storyline rather than just "she stayed in Lorien". So what is the story if the character is burdened by Celeborn? What would his story be? I think it could be handled badly, but I suspect it will be handled at least competently by the show when he finally gets introduced. For the most part, the broad story beats of the show have been pretty good (especially S2, but I think there's been a few missteps), and the main problems have been in the details - the actual execution of scenes. Dialogue, shots that establish scale and distance, janky editing, and a few other things like that. Many other major story beats that the show has created have not turned out too bad IMO. For example, the S1 romance between Sauron and Galadriel? Well, actually it turns out it wasn't (as much as some people still want to tell you that's what it was). It was more their mutual attraction to the power the other held and how they could each use it to get what they wanted.

[@yohan9101]

The biggest and most important reason why people don't like or shouldn't like rings of power is the bad writing, sure there are other reasons to not like the show, but this is the main one, simple as. Also speaking of differences between the lotr books and Jackson films, there's a youtube channel named fact or fantasy that makes videos going scene by scene and comparing all the different changes between the books and films, and it really shows just how much is changed, and yet we (at least most of us) love the Jackson films, so yeah it's not about canon, I am judgemental of a lot of Tolkien adaptations/media, and a lot of the time it does have to be because of "canon breaking" but I find myself turning a blind eye to it later, not because i don't want something to be as close as possible to what Tolkien writes, because i do, but because i know it doesn't necessarily make the adaptation or media bad, and there are other factors we should pay more attention to. Great video as always 👍

[@exantiuse497]

This is my view as well. 10% of the haters are Tolkien "purists" that hate all adaptations; _maybe_ 5-10% is culture warriors that don't give a flip about Tolkien but see RoP as a "woke" show and hate it for that; and the rest hate the show because it's badly written (and for the most part badly acted too) in addition to breaking the lore (how important that is varies) Fact or Fiction immediately sprung to my mind as well when he mentioned how unfaithful the movies are to the books. I hadn't done a scene by scene comparison myself so those videos were really eye opening as to just how many changes the movies made. It literally is several changes per scene

[@mr_yoru5834]

Rings of Power gives me the impression that the writers think the key to good fantasy is just spectacle and set pieces, but I just feel like the plot feels contrived in a lot of ways. Making a fantasy plot not feel contrived is difficult, but so much happens just for the sake of moving the plot forward and not because they make sense. The dialogue is also just so uninspired most of the time. I think I mostly agree with you that faithfulness doesn't matter as much as a lot of people think. PJs films are well loved but they make a lot of annoying changes. I think if RoP was just a better show on its own, it wouldn't get as much hate. Anyway, giving support to you against the inevitable onslaught in the comments.

[@steinarvilnes3954]

After thinking about quite a bit, is that I miss the organic feel of the original trilogy. There were a lot of wide shots of actual natural landscapes and the cgi effects were done quite tastefully. I did not like the Rings of Power but I did not like the Hobbit movies. That Rings of Power and Hobbit trilogy have in common, is that they have a very digital feel. More use of digital bakgrounds and the image quality feels very digital.

[@jjlambonscloudyproductions]

ROP is painful to watch but I still for some reason watch anyways..I think I am suffering from liking Middle Earth S and M...

[@Chociewitka]

well, lack of an adult Celebrian (and of Celeborn) is a canon-break that destroys the dynamic of both Galadriel's and Elrond's characters in RoP - as such the canon break in itself has huge impact on the story. Regarding "canon", canon does accept versions - see the 4 canonical Gospels - they have minor differences of versions - there are even two different genealogies given for Jesus - still all are canon, same with some Old Testament books, they often depict same event from slightly different viewpoints and with some minor variations in details, well - there even 2 different versions of the creation's story in Genesis! So various versions are not a hindrance to declare something canon.

[@ahimsamovies4484]

I'm sorry, but if you wanted to make substantive comments on Corey Olsen's coverage of Rings of Power in particular, you really should have watched at least some of his videos before talking about this. Otherwise you're just talking in baseless hypotheticals (for example, the notion that he would say "no" to a lot of RoP's ideas rings completely false if you've actually seen the man talk about the show) whilst dismissing people that have actually watched his content and are thus more informed than you on the matter. Honestly, having watched your reviews of the episodes of Rings of Power season 1 and remembering some of the things you said about the show, I think you'd have an aneurysm hearing Olsen talk about it. Because it's not just how he lavishes everything about it with praise, it's also the way he is constantly trying to refute all the different criticisms that are raised by critics (often with strawman arguments, false equivalencies and other fallacies) and, even more egregiously, the way he is constantly trying to discredit the critics themselves, suggesting they're all coming in bad faith or patronizingly implying that they don't know Tolkien as well as him because he's the authoritative scholar and professor. And it's funny that you'd bring up Peter Jackson because Olsen is quite willing to criticize his movies and choices (as you and I and many others are, nothing wrong with that), but whenever J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay are concerned he becomes an unbearably sycophantic cheerleader who excuses all of their questionable choices with empty statements like "they know Tolkien better than most of their critics". It's just sad to see and if you refuse to even see it then I don't think you should be commenting on it because you simply cannot have an informed opinion that way.

[@YamiSpyroX]

Hate me if you want, but part of the whole reason why I like The Hobbit movies is like what 'TL' said. It was faithful to the books, and while it made up allot of stuff like the lady elf, I didn't mind editions like Bard's children and Raddagast the Brown. Sure I can't overlook crazy stuff like Alfred getting fed to a Troll ala Catapult (What was Peter even thinking on that One? Why half-redeem a Character and than immediately kill him off?) and Legolas's infamous crumbling stair scene, but it still got me much more invested than the majority of what I saw in Rings of Power. Speaking of 'fan-fiction' and Norse veined Fantasy story's I swear one of these days somebody is going to take the DreamWorks How to Train Your Dragon Franchise, pull up what an actual Emotional Hurricane the book Series was, in how DW basically spent a whole Netflix TV show 'Mocking' said Author's creation. Like, I know people Adore the DreamWorks trilogy, but for me it's like how a Book LOTR fan reacts to Rings of Power, or the bad stuff in Peter Jackson's films only times a 1'000 fold. Nobody ever really talks about Cressida's books and that's a Massive crying shame. Book Hiccup: I won't give up. I'll keep fighting and fighting in what I believe in till the day I can't fight no more. Film Hiccup: I give up. I can't handle this one Bad Guy.

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

Agreed! And I also think the How to Train Your Dragon books were in some ways better than the films. They had that "everything's terrible but let's carry on anyway" British sitcom vibe to them, which was completely lost in the film version.

[@YamiSpyroX]

@@Estupendomagnifico1 It did have allot of an Lord of the Rings vibe to the series throughout with its idea of the little characters, mattering more than the traditional hero types, people having to make the hard choices, and the idea of brothership/kinship that's there from the very 1st book. I think the most disappointing part of the whole thing is the treatment of Fishlegs. My sis is going through the audiobooks and she loves Fishlegs, and knowing the version she knew from the film versions has him be a comic relief nothing character (The show does bring in his Berserker side of him a little. But that's mostly through an alt personality altogether!) when he used to been effectively the Samwise of the series. And Snotlout who was just the clinche bully character went around and became a Boromir-type with his shocking turn-around and sacrifice that happens in book 11. Meanwhile the TV show cracks cruel jokes about his 'If you want to be King survive this Arrow to the Heart' via that one Episode where he's trying to get engaged in Race to the Edge. Like, how did they get Away with It!? Speaking of Sit-com I don't really watch British Comedy's but for me the whole of HTTYD TV show felt more like it was trying to be a American Sitcom ala 'Family Guy for Kids' with the complete nonsense that kept spewing from the mouths of the Tuffnut Twins. While the books the humor was more like 'Well... this is the World we're stuck in, deal with it.' the humor in the TV Show was like 'Lol, we're Dragon Riders! Crazy antics Ensue!' I liked the parts with the character Vigo Grimborn for he really did feel like someone an Older version of Book Hiccup would be facing, him being like an sophisticated, planning in Advance dragon catcher, who I feel was much better written than Movie 3's villain; but I just hated most of the Netflix show. Especially with how obsessed they were shipping characters left and right! Like brah! There's like only two/three romances in the 12 books, why does it feel like they're tripling it? Sorry, for ranting so long. This happens to be my favorite book series, and I just feel really badly burned that it's controlled by an studio that thinks 'talking dragons' means it goes straight to the Pre-School bin. (They did a show for that. Not Kidding.) Just look at Furious. Does he Scream child-friendly like at all? No. He's like the darkest most tragic dragon I've ever seen in any book relating to dragons I've read. Toothless isn't a King. Furious is! And an Hero is Forever. Thank you.

[@hindmetwalli9266]

You raise a very interesting point about "truth to canon" and perhaps the false value we may sometimes place on it. And while you have opened my eyes a bit, upon reflection I'd like to add some nuance to the discussion. The main variable is how much I love/value the original work. I LOVE the Lord of the Rings, so by the very nature of that the greater deviation from "perfection" the greater the challenge the adaptation has set itself to overcome; sure I may be OK with some changes but you better "nail them" ("do you think you know better than Tolkien?" is the refrain that comes to mind). As a matter of fact, I think many of Peter Jackson's changes detract more from the quality of his final trilogy than had he just stuck to Tolkien/canon. To also use your Marvel example, I've never cared for Marvel in the slightest, and if a movie wants to change it wholesale I certainly would have no problem with that, heck to my eyes they might improve it, as I never gave the original works the slightest chance. Having said that, I still might enjoy a work that deviates from an original I love, but its an uphill battle, and I think most of the time I may like the adaptation in spite of those changes, not because of them (e.g. Jackson's LotR). So yes while I agree personal preference is the name of the game and not pure fidelity to canon, however, pure fidelity to canon matters more and more the more "in love" with the canon AS IS you are, hence, you are predisposed to dislike any changes to it. And it is still possible for a great artist to make changes that you will like, perhaps even more than the original, but the more you love the original, the less likely that is. So I think "fidelity to canon" can be a worthy point to bring up, with the addendum "because I love the canon as is, and the changes failed in the lofty goal of improving on it, or matching it, or even simply not irreparably damaging it". But you could also say for this show "I don't much care for fidelity to canon, because I don't find LotR that truly unique / truly great, and I think other artists can improve on it or match it with their own changes/vision, and thus changes to canon don't matter". Also, there have been adaptations that have been loved as much as the well-loved originals or even more, such as Fight Club or The Shawshank Redemption (books to movies). Changes to canon can still be a worthy criticism, but should be put into the context of 1. personal preference as you said to the quality of those changes and 2. the regard one places on the canon itself, and perhaps 3. the needs of the medium (within limits, they aren't THAT different, the Tolkien "canon" quote you referenced comes to mind). Excuse the stream of consciousness, it's almost 3 a.m. here, I hope I don't wake up with the strong urge to delete everything I've written (often my late night pre-bed insights reveal themselves to be trite observations in the cold light of day after a full eight hours lol)

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I think there’s definitely some truth to what you say. Though I enjoyed the early Marvel movies, I also am not that familiar with the comics so I can’t get too up in arms about canon and don’t really care-I just enjoy them as movies. And I imagine if I had just read LOTR once and thought it was enjoyable but not spectacular, I wouldn’t care as much about the PJ trilogy. But that still leaves the issue of people who make canon into some all important thing yet love PJ’s trilogy.

[@JervisGermane]

Commenting before watching. I did a video on this myself, and I wonder if you're going to say the same things I did: I don't care about the "DEI casting" and I never even read the Silmarillion or the LOTR appendices, so I don't have any concerns about those. I didn't like season 1 (and didn't watch season 2) because they weren't telling an interesting story. First and foremost, they weren't telling us an interesting original story about things these characters we know did before LOTR; they were just telling us how these characters we know got into their starting positions for LOTR. Second, fake stakes. We know Galadriel and Elrond aren't going to die, so there's no tension in showing us a situation where it looks like they might. I'm okay with episodic rather than dramatic storytelling, but if you're going for drama you have to think about something more creative than "is our named familiar character going to get out of this one?" Yes. Yes they are. And we know they are. Third, (related) fake resolutions and weak twists. After putting the characters into dumb dramatic situations, they don't tell us the interesting story of HOW their quick thinking and courage led to decisions that got them out of the danger. They just... survived it and moved on, and often in circumstances where that doesn't make any sense. Fourth, the "mystery box" style is very weak. Once you catch on that they will not be answering any of the unanswered questions, just asking new ones to distract you, it becomes impossible to get invested in the next unanswered question. Fifth and finally, there are so many characters we don't really spend much time with any of them. And what we do see isn't all that likeable or relatable. We have a constellation of flat, uninteresting characters and no one to get behind and either cheer for or mourn as the plot unfolds. The bottom line is, the writers didn't give us any reason to care. It's just not an interesting story.

[@wewuzwolves4428]

Rings of Power is a steaming pile of sh*t

[@morefiction3264]

I won't even watch the show because while it uses character names and some of the world building from Tolkien, it is not Tolkien.

[@vigortheone3527]

I don’t think canon is the issue with the show. Many people have been looking at media for the past decade and seen IP after IP been infected with woke ideas. So when Ring of Power was announced and later presented the fear of many people became reality. Tolkien’s mythology was infected as well. Out of every IP in existence, Tolkien’s mythology is the most beloved and precious to a lot of people. I think this is the core of the issue for many people. The canon thing is just an easy way to dismantle the show without facing the wrath of the woke ideology

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

Spot on!

[@Gandalf_the_Gold]

The biggest missed step in Peter Jackson’s trilogy was Aragorn. I loved viggo mortinsons performance was kingly however

[@darkjudge8786]

Christopher Tolkein decided what Tolkein Canon is. As the best son of a genius in modern history that was his right and he did a great job. I dont think you have standing to disagree sorry.

[@MegaGothrocker]

I agree.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

But he didn’t decide any such thing.

[@doravee]

I have no issue with ROP being fanfic/alternate middle earth as I feel that it’s the best way to handle it, but it doesn’t erase the issues that has no matter how it’s viewed. I also don’t mind the “modern social narratives”. TBH, I did enjoy ROP despite the flaws. It can be fun.

[@ZephyrOptional]

Your understanding of this convoluted subject is admirable. It’s based in lore knowledge, rationality, and the definition of words. Don’t let the hater / canon-heads bring you down! The Legendarium is apparently more complex than many can register and apparently it makes them mad when someone attempts to explain it to them. Also, Olsen isn’t as apologetic with RoP as many assume. He now carries a therapy (rubber) chicken while watching & critiquing. Also, thank you for pointing out that PJ films are just as riddled with lore inaccuracies, as great as they are.

[@linnharamis1496]

My wife and I watched 2 seasons of the ROP. I am a big fan of the books and the film trilogy; she is a more casual fan. The ROP has been “OK” - some good special effects and acting moments and sadly a bunch of mediocre moments. It’s too bad - this was what I was worried about when I heard about the filming of the LOTR trilogy. If it was mediocre or poor it would sour people on Tolkien. The LOTR trilogy were good films, so I suspect that many people went on to read the books. I don’t know if that will be the case for the ROP.

[@AragornGhost15]

As someone that liked ROP Season 2, it's mainly because of Annatar and Celebrimbor... It has it's problems but it was mostly good and... Well faithful in the spirit of Tolkien. That's what I asked, that and the respect of the storyline. Tolkien wrote it that way because for a reason, and it's foolish to think that you are more intelligent than the authors. PJ made a lot of changes, true. But he remained mostly faithful to the spirit of the novel and most of his changes are for cinematic reasons and pacing.

[@delphinazizumbo8674]

they could tell half-asses stories with a basis of The Second Age it's the acting that's bad if you have a weak script, you can elevate that with efficient acting look at how weak Star Trek is at times.....Shatner gets you PAST that Dr Who can be PAINFUL, but Troughton and Baker get you THROUGH that Peter Cushing, Vincent Price, Karloff, Lee, et al ELEVATE material that doesn't quite add up

[@AMGOSUK]

If the Tolkien Estate has withheld the rights for any production to use some of the published works then it is entirely reasonable for the show runners to make up whatever works for them in the 2nd age. As I understand it the show only has access to LOR and The Hobbit.

[@xombozo]

People object to RoP but not the LotR movies because Peter Jackson was faithful to the spirit. The movies feel like Tolkein, at least to most. RoP on the other hand feels like a rejection of the spirit of the books. This is a vibes thing, but it is backed up by the various statements of the people making the shows. RoP talked about "updating" the story whereas Peter Jackson talked about respecting the story and themes.

[@alexshadowfax1119]

I love Coreys exploring the Lord of the rings series but as soon as you are given a studio and a show and are hanging out with the shows creators you lose all objectivity, all benefit of doubt, you are corrupted to some degree. I no longer care about his opinion regarding the show.

[@Vault-vh5jm]

Interesting stream of consciousness video. I enjoyed listening to you try to work out your issues within the Tolkien canon debate on the fly in realtime. Interesting approach. Interesting take on the Peter Jackson films as well. Illuminating.

[@martinellis676]

Is RoP aiming to have the Blue Wizards be Olorin and Curumo? They get killed off by the end of the 2nd Age, and respawn in the 3rd Age as Gandalf and Saruman?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I’m not watching the show so I couldn’t tell you, but that would be pretty stupid lol.

[@martinellis676]

@@TolkienLorePodcast Five episodes of season one were enough for me, but reaction videos let me know the basics!

[@mtank31]

The Stranger is Gandalf. I suspect he will disappear back to Valinor at some stage (either in the series or implied) to stay true to the 3rd timeline (re)appearance. There's no logical story that will allow the other wizard to be Saruman, so I don't think that will be the case. Blue wizard is most likely, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he's lying about being an Istar and is actually a dude who ends up being the Witch King (given we have no other human "sorceror" characters that fit the bill). I think naming him as a blue wizard will be an issue as (I assume) they don't have rights to the Alatar/Pallando names (which is I guess why they nominally gave the other role to Gandalf).

[@PatrickF.Fitzsimmons]

Its a trash show, fan fiction, bad characters, bad story and politically driven. It pisses all over Tolkien's stories, that's it.

[@wewuzwolves4428]

Agreed. It barely qualifies as fanfic since the writers seem to have a hate boner for Tolkien's works.

[@AureEntuluva14]

Half of what Tolkien wrote is basically fan fiction. Pretty important sections of The Hobbit were lifted directly from Beowulf.

[@TaksaJG]

@@AureEntuluva14 literally no lol. what parts of the Hobbit could be considered lifted "directly from Beowulf"?

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

@TaksaJG pretty sure he’s at least thinking of Bilbo taking the cup from Smaug’s hoard. Now that sort of thing isn’t actually fanfic, it’s just borrowing. Fanfic is more properly writing a story that’s supposed to be in the universe created by some other story, and Tolkien definitely wasn’t doing that.

[@AureEntuluva14]

@@TaksaJG I mean, Bilbo is the thief that steals a cup from the dragon. Turin is based on Kullervo, too. Tolkien loved those stories and wrote his own version.

[@ArwensHubby]

I would take issue with the contention that the Jackson movies are "fan fiction". FF far too often places the author in the story or their own political and moral philosophy no matterhow counter it may (or to be fair may not) be. Yes, there are issues, much of which is a function of the fact that it is made into a movie, going from one medium to another. It is not at all "ridiculous". The fundamental difference stems more from Amazon's insistence upon current agenda and identity politics, as opposed to the LOTR films and their attempts to be faithful to the spirit of the author. BUT... what I do agree with is that what has people up in arms is the quality of each make. RoP has some great costuming and many friends have excitedly created some out stanind costumes themselves. LOTR is better made all the way around. In the end, many fans use of the term "canon" is distorted and tainted with our own biases. Too many dismiss RoP has being "unfaithful" but likewise too many proponents of RoP label critics as haters and racists and misogynists and worse. That is just as vile and unfair, and Amazon itself is guilty of that same abysmal behavior. One final thought... I do empathize with youin your recognizing of my own emotional influence. Thank you for your attempt to keep things civil and even-handed. THere is far too much division and strife in this world as it is. Mae govannen.

[@wavetactics13]

I disagree. Say what you will about the Jackson films, whether that be the compression and omission of story beats in LotR or the bloat of the Hobbit, they maintain a degree of faithfulness to Tolkien's story. Sometimes in spirit more so than in execution. RoP on the other hand, for how poorly executed we could all agree it is, just no longer feels like Tolkien's story to me. The first season was bad enough with it barely touching on what should be the core narrative, but the second season seemed to go out of its way to do the opposite of what Tolkien wrote. If I take an as objective view of the adaptations as I can, RoP remains among the least faithful to Tolkien's writings, those published in his lifetime or posthumously, out of them all. Regarding how one should handle discussions involving RoP, I rarely bother to engage on the subject of the show unless I see something egregiously wrong. Seriously, I ran into one guy who took folks' insistence that uruk = black speech for orc to excuse Adar's use of the word in the show to then somehow claim there was no difference between orcs and uruks/uruk-hai in the books and the distinction only being something made up for the movies. I showed him multiple passages where even the hobbits could tell uruks and orcs apart on sight and he stubbornly insisted if uruk = orc then it was just referring to normal orcs but just in their language. I had to show him the literal definition from the Appendices for him to begrudgingly accept that maybe uruks being a distinct subtype of orc wasn't an invention of the movies.

[@maaderllin]

"The marvel movies, they contradict the original material (...) You could get away by saying this is just a different universe than the comics. But is it really? Because the Marvel comics opened the possibility with the multiverse, but then you're not adapting the story anymore, it's just basically kinda (...) fanfiction based on certain characters. Is it fine?" I love this line, because this is LITERALLY what all humans from all cultures did before the invention of intellectual property rights (which is a modern invention to allow artists to live from their craft in capitalism, the previous way being with patronage from a noble or from the church.) Arthurian legends? They've been reused and remixed to the taste of their days, going from a legend in oral tradition of a certain little king from wales, to La Morte D'artur in the XIIIth century displaying their very contemporary ideals of chivalry, and the addition of so many other spin-offs in the arthurian cycle like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight whose earliest written source we have date from the late XIVth century and illustrates chivalry in decay (It has been written just after the plague after all). It is the same thing with european pagan mythologies, that would be changed and modified from town to town, until they finally got written. Canon never existed in fiction before the modern era. It was a creation from christianity to determine a specific doxa (The nicean orthodoxy in the late antiquity) so that christians could be united under Constantine's roman empire and not devolve (too much) into a christian civil war.

[@christopher1229]

This is a really good take on so many things.

[@samuelmoffat2874]

just look at your self in the mirror and ask your self would Tolkien approve of this.........?

[@yohan9101]

I mean Tolkien would probably also not approve the Peter Jackson films so I don't think that's necessarily a good argument

[@AureEntuluva14]

Tolkien also said in one of his letter that is was a choice between him having his say or getting lots of money. I can't for the life of me remember which letter that was. The Estate sold it for $250million or whatever. Sounds like they got the money part.

[@otaku-sempai2197]

I would argue that the Mind's Eye full-cast adaptations of THE HOBBIT and THE LORD OF THE RINGS for radio (NPR) are about as faithful as you could ask for (dialects notwithstanding).

[@Gandalf_the_Gold]

The reason Peter Jackson’s trilogy works is its amazing set of films. If you look at behind the scenes stuff movies aren’t made like that anymore. Thousands of hands on people to bring what we go to screen. Then hobbit is a cgi mess.peter Jackson used camera tricks and revolutionized chi as well with golem. The camera tricks were to keep all the hobbit actors with everyone else, while I. The hobbit Ian McClellan broke down and cried and straight up said if this is what he was going to have to do he probably wouldn’t have played Gandalf again. They had him looking at cut out faces of the dwarves and acting in an all green room by himself and he broke down and cried. But you look at all the armour and sets everything feels so right in those movies. Now if you look at the rings of power it looks or feels nothing alike let alone the lore changes and modern social commentaries. I grew up on the movies and am reading the books now on the two towers

[@philharwood9971]

Regarding your point saying people complaining about the show not following the source material but liking other media where this was done.. I think "most" people are willing to accept changes in an adaptation if it's done for a logical reason, is still entertaining, and the changes don't put down a beloved character. PJ's movies had a decent number of changes, but so much of it works narratively and has a purpose. Some things are changed to better suit a movie than book, which again most people accept. The big reason so many people just resort to the "Lore Change" argument, is if you're going to change something, there better be a pretty good reason for that. PJ did for a lot of the changes, but ROP doesn't have really any justification for it and it certainly isn't paid off by what they attempt to set up.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Sure, but that still leaves my point intact-mere deviation is not the real problem.

[@philharwood9971]

@@TolkienLorePodcast I wasn't intending to disprove your point, just put some perspective on why I think people say they don't like lore changes where they do elsewhere. Also thanks for replying! I'm a big fan it was cool to see you reply to my comment lol

[@lawyannis]

I heard you. NO is the answer. Nobody is obligated to say anything but the listener can draw his own conclusions about what someone chooses to say. Bona fides interpretation is not an obligation of the listener. Everybody is free to speak, and everybody is free to draw one's own conclusions. Yes, it' s not science, it's a judgment call, I' ll trust my own "prudence". I will live in my "high horse" until I fall, and up to now, I havent' t (I am your age). Where I agree is that ROP is mostly a bad fanfic, the problem is not strictly cannon-related. Post Script : aesthetically speaking, none of the Tolkien adaptations are "great" movies, whether one likes them or not (and I even like the Hobbit). They are "action movies". Ford, Hitchcock and many others up to the 50s, are aesthetically important because they created the genre "action movie", very few since the 60s can claim originality in action movies, ergo, Tolkien adaptations are not great movies. Coppola perhaps, and 3-4 others not Peter Jackson. Every "great movie" since the 60s is a European or American arthouse movie, not Hollywood. Dead serious about 99% of Hollywood since the 1970s If you engage "academically" with ROP you think it is aesthetically decent. I love (when taking a break from work) Jason Statham movies, I would never engage in them intellectually. I demand from an academic to be aware of the distinction between "me likes" and "this good".

[@Supple_Leopard]

This is the most respectful dismantling of the most disgraceful adaptation I've ever seen in film history.

[@NigelIncubatorJones]

We can still call people out for having bad taste.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

I agree, and if you watched the video you’d know that I did.

[@NigelIncubatorJones]

@@TolkienLorePodcast Yeah, you said that about a minute after I typed my comment.

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

If you are so sure that you yourself have good taste...

[@NigelIncubatorJones]

@@Estupendomagnifico1 I am.

[@exharkhun5605]

It's amazon. Nothing good can come from bad people.

[@Aurora2097]

Their Fallout adaption is actually quite good, because it has a showrunner and writer who KNOWS his material and can handle it!

[@exharkhun5605]

​@@Aurora2097 Knowing your material is only half the trick. Having a last name with which you can shield your production from meddling is the other half. I imagine even Bozos will pause if you can say: "I talked about it with my older brother Chris the other day and he thinks ...."

[@squaeman_2644]

In fact it makes sense people like Bezos would appropriate Middle Earth to hollow it out of any trace of genuine morality...

[@Peak_Aussieman]

No, I dislike it cause it sucks my little ring. Shadow of Mordor and Shadow of War conversely do not suck my little ring. They are ringfree you might say. Be not the ring, and stay your suckage.

[@genius2005]

Peter Jackson tried harder at least than Jeffry Bozos, because Bozos didn't even try. Period.

[@frankvincent310]

You’re saying the quality of pj trilogy is the same as amazons show? I can’t

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Cue the Jordan Peterson Channel 4 interview meme.

[@dionallen6842]

Comic book movies are mostly very different from the stories thay adapt. Look at The Dark Knight. That was mainly based on The Long Halloween. But it's extremely different than the long halloween. And have you read Jurassic Park or How To Train Your Dragon.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

I agree with you. I think that more of the consensus with the critics of the show that it’s not necessarily that it’s not canon therefore you’re a traitor to Tolkien it’s that you’re a simpleton if you like it. It’s also that what was originally in the source is so much more interesting and doesn’t come off as a middle schoolers attempt at storytelling.

[@alundavies1016]

I could only stomach the first 2 episodes of season 1, so I can only really comment on those properly. They were poorly written, with shallow characters and a plot that jumped around. The “canon” thing is no issue to me, though I have been Tolkien for 40yrs I am not obsessed with canon, it’s just badly made fantasy, and that is why I dislike it.

[@jimjolly4560]

RoP as fan fic would be ok... of it was good fan fic. All that money spent on rights and production, and they forgot to hire writers!

[@christopherbartlett4285]

I believe that Corey Olsen would wholeheartedly support your plea for recognizing the difference between preference and objective reality. He certainly does support the notion of allowing people to disagree without as you say being at each other's throats. I also believe as you do that he is not reviewing RoP. He and Maggi Park are talking about storytelling and how it changes from medium to medium. I'm saying it that way because it's subtly different from talking about adaptation per se. Having watched Rings and Realms, he is positive about many choices they made, not because they are supported by Tolkien's writings, but because he believes that they make good story. He is also more critical of story choices than you might know if you've not watched his stuff. Gandalf in Rhun is definitely one of those because of how they chose to do it, not because it's improbable in Tolkien's writing. Full disclosure, I work at Signum University, but my views are not official in any way, nor are they influenced by that position. It's just that I have the opportunity to talk to Corey about things and have some sense for how his mind works.

[@Tar-Elenion]

_>"Having watched Rings and Realms, he is positive about many choices they made, not because they are supported by Tolkien's writings, but because he believes that they make good story."

[@NeilTarling-p6g]

Great video, and so insightful!

[@gibranlewis7300]

Rings of power is fine, & may ( ideally will ) keep improving. I have NO problem with Olorin/Gandalf arriving 2nd Age, because it better helps casuals understand that he is essentially a guardian Angel who has aided the Elves since Elves came to be. That is so fundamental to who & what Olorin/Gandalf is, that it FAR outweighs keeping him in the 3rd Age ( esp since we know Olorin protected the awaking Elves long before the "1st" Age, and probably came in various forms in all subsequent Ages. Regarding The Hobbit movies, the 1st 2 are GOOD movies!! I'd even the 1st pair are great movies ( they all have fresh tomatoes on RT, and the 1st 2 both have positive audience reviews over 80%, and have since they premiered ), IF one views them for what they are, what they frankly were meant to be: hybrid movies that are half adventure fairy tales for children ( including child-at-heart adults ), half serious prequel to the LOTR, specifically/especially the Jackson et al LOTR adaptations. Of the small but loud minority who dislike the 1st 2 Jackson Hobbit movies, or deem them "bad", most either want them to be more like Jackson's Rings movies ( which they shouldn't be ), OR a 100% Hobbit retelling with no Rings/QuestforErebor aspects, which wouldn't make sense coming from the same cast and crew as the famed live action trilogy. Of course the Hobbit movies weren't as lofty, grand and bittersweet as the LOTR movies, but they aren't supposed to be!! & neither is the Hobbit book when compared to the LOTR novel. The 1st 2 Hobbit movies are great for what they are, & at least as good as the BEST of the live action Disney movies and the first 5 H. Potter movies, all of which ( Disney and Potter ) tens of millions of people love. Tens of millions of people love the 1st two Hobbit movies too.

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

I actually agree with the core premise of this video. It's not about "canon". But I do disagree with some of the particulars. Rings of Power is not fanfiction. It wasn't made by fans. It was made by people who obviously dislike Tolkien's values and intend to subvert them. I never cared about where Gandalf was in what era. And I even thought the "Grand elf" thing was kind of cute. But Rings of Power clearly exists for the sake of injecting progressive ideology into an established property that has traditional values at its heart. That's just clear to anyone with eyes to see. And to make an adaptation where Galadriel is an awful person who apparently fancies Sauron and kisses Elrond, is being deliberately offensive. It's just clear and obvious and it's got nothing to do with nitpicky details. As for The Hobbit trilogy, I'm really tired of people attacking these great movies. There's this climate where it feels like you have to hate them to get "Tolkien fan cred" or something. I can't stand that. They were wonderful and they deserve much more respect, because in my view, they *are* among the greatest fantasy adventure movies ever made. Name a few movies in this genre that are actually better than the three Hobbit movies. You'll have a hard time. Surely, they're better than Willow. And in my opinion, they're better than Pirates of the Caribbean (yes, including the first one). Just not as good as The Lord of the Rings, but that's hardly a crime.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Nah, Willow and Pirates (the first one) are better than The Hobbit trilogy

[@Estupendomagnifico1]

@@TolkienLorePodcast Personal preference, I suppose.

[@napoleonfeanor]

Many people also have a lot of fun trashing bad movies/TV shows It's a whole genre and I watch two such channels from British YTers. While the criticism is honest, these shows are clearly doing it in a funny way.

[@rjb639]

the hobbit is not a good adaptation, they are terrible, Legolas? a love story between Kili and an elf? the entire battle of the five armies is completely different, the way Smaug dies, I can go on and on.

[@Clyde-S-Wilcox]

"Canon" isn't it entirely. It's not as much "this isn't Tolkien's canon" as "you've taken characters/ideas people love and made them awful. Galadriel and Elrond are beloved characters that the RoP shows have made unlikable. "Gandalf" is doing and saying things that make the Gandalf we know unrecognizable. Peter Jackson dud similar things with some characters, see Faramir and Denethor, but he didn't screw up across the board.

[@jkhristian]

I tried to like Rings of Power. I really did. And some things I could deal with. But they just kept piling on until it literally crushed me with its disrespectfulness. I mean I don't expect line for line faithfulness. I even enjoyed The Hobbit overall. There were things in it I really didn't like. But there was enough good stuff to outweigh the bad. Rings of Power however just went to far. It made me angry.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

Yeah it’s very much a rings of power is mentally deficient in every conceivable way and people do not want to accept any kind of defense of it.

[@mossfree]

Been a fan for years. Keep up the good work 👍

[@delphinazizumbo8674]

on Peter Jackson's LOTR: the Entlings.

[@unknowncomic4107]

Rings of Power is not garbage because it is not canon. It is garbage because it is written by garbage writers, directed by garbage directors, portrayed by garbage actors, ran by garbage showrunners and incorporates garbage ideology.

[@ObiwanNekody]

If you want more LotR, watch Frieren.

[@gibranlewis7300]

Regarding The Hobbit movies, the 1st 2 are GOOD movies!! I'd even the 1st pair are great movies ( they all have fresh tomatoes on RT, and the 1st 2 both have positive audience reviews over 80%, and have since they premiered ), IF one views them for what they are, what they frankly were meant to be: hybrid movies that are half adventure fairy tales for children ( including child-at-heart adults ), half serious prequel to the LOTR, specifically/especially the Jackson et al LOTR adaptations. Of the small but loud minority who dislike the 1st 2 Jackson Hobbit movies, or deem them "bad", most either want them to be more like Jackson's Rings movies ( which they shouldn't be ), OR a 100% Hobbit retelling with no Rings/QuestforErebor aspects, which wouldn't make sense coming from the same cast and crew as the famed live action trilogy. Of course the Hobbit movies weren't as lofty, grand and bittersweet as the LOTR movies, but they aren't supposed to be!! & neither is the Hobbit book when compared to the LOTR novel. The 1st 2 Hobbit movies are great for what they are, & at least as good as the BEST of the live action Disney movies and the first 5 H. Potter movies, all of which ( Disney and Potter ) tens of millions of people love. Tens of millions of people love the 1st two Hobbit movies too.

[@karlkarlos3545]

I get the impression that you don't understand what fan fiction is. Every example of your complaints about the Jackson trilogy reflects compromises that come with the nature of adaptation: compressing time, rearranging sequences, and dropping characters who add little to the narrative, etc. Fan fiction would be something like inventing a love triangle that doesn’t exist (which, ironically, happened in The Hobbit trilogy) or teaming up characters from other authors.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Faramir and Aragorn having radically altered characters is not even close to a necessary change, and they aren’t the only two I mentioned.

[@karlkarlos3545]

@@TolkienLorePodcast But it still doesn't fit the definition of fan fiction. Jurassic Park, just to name an example, changed far more of the characteristics of its book counterparts, and nobody would call it fan fiction but an adaptation. Now compare those changes with the minor alterations in Jackson's trilogy.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

@karlkarlos3545 I’m not calling the whole trilogy fanfic; I’m saying the completely invented aspects of it are.

[@parhwy]

I am a Tolkien dot lite fan (love the PJ movies, have read LOTR, didn't finish the Silmarillion and the Hobbit but through you, Redbook, Men of the West, and Girl Next Gondor and YOU have beefed up my knowledge and admiration). I do not like LOTR TROP. I ceased watching at S2 E3 or E4. I found myself yelling at my TV at the awfulness of character, story, costuming, dialog, pronunciation, directing, acting, make-up, props, choreography, sets, locations, extras, continuity ETC, ETC. The only two things I didn't gripe at were scenery - because it was often delightful especially the panoramic stuff - AND canon - because I just don't know enough. I avoided channels reviewing TROP from that "woKe dEI hOLlyWOd" angel bc ugh, awful. That said, I saw that those who did criticise canon did so either genuinely as a valid flaw OR as hyperbole. I believe we live in an age of metonymy and hyperbole where attestation of opinion is seen by speakers and hearers as fact not rhetoric. I suffer this myself often. I suffered it when I watched Olsen's comment being nitpicked. My reaction then was, "Giving ammo to the opposition, mate" yet with your video breaking it down I was like "ah yeh ok true true". Like you I can be more negative and more hair-trigger. So, excuse the long-winded reply but cheers for your calm admonitions and tempered yet passionate knowledge and guidance.

[@tarzan8575]

I do disagree, 100% There are many reasons that I don't like the Rings of Power but violation of Tolkien's canon is number one on the list. And canon does very much exist in Tolkien's work.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

And your opinion of PJ’s trilogy?

[@darthvegan435]

Oh boy, you're gonna have the haters attacking you now.... You make so many great points... I've been a huge Tolkien fan since 1980 or so after catching the RankinBass Hobbit a couple times, then had to start reading the books and consumed them rapidly - many times... I've read almost all of the 'extended' books. I personally enjoy watching RoP, although I think it can still get better. FI enjoy watching it as their idea of what the end of the 2nd age could have been like as an entertaining audio/visual experience. Fanfic? I guess you could call it that, but if you do, then pretty much any adaptation is 'fanfic' (similar to what you alluded to in this video). I've really liked all the Tolkien fanfic videos that I've seen, I don't have a problem with enjoying it as fanfic. It doesn't change what Tolkien wrote, but it can be good in its own right. I think RoP has done a nice job with showing a lot of bigger themes of Tolkien's work, but some of the nitty gritty dialog and directing could definitely be better. Some of the awkward dialog has later been redeemed a bit after the plot/characters develop, but there is definitely still issues there. There are problems with 'scale' of scenes/battles (number of people). But, I can suspend my disbelief and still enjoy it. No movie/show is perfect. When Jackson's LotR came out, I had a lot of problems with it, although I recognized how entertaining it was, so I struggled for quite a while with my feelings with those. Considering that he had a fully fleshed-out series of books to adapt, I have a lot more problems with those movies than RoP, but I did learn to come to terms with it eventually and love the movies for what they are. I set my mind from the outset with RoP that I wouldn't be like that, and accept their changes as part of adaptation (unless they totally broke the entire universe or something), so that I could enjoy it from the outset. I'm starting to get up there in age and this might be the best representation of the 2nd age on video that I ever get. I respect that you can dislike the show in a civil way and let those of us that want to enjoy it enjoy it in peace. Another point that you didn't bring up in this video about it 'stomping on canon' or however they want to frame it, is that the time isn't that far off when Tolkien's work starts to goes out of copyright, and when that time comes I'm sure that there are going to be true abominations. So, whatever, RoP might have done, I do believe that they've tried to do it mostly with respect... (with the abomination of 'the kiss' scene, I think it was mostly a bad choice of music in post-production that made it seem more romantic than it should have been. all the actors on set have said it was their understanding that it wasn't to be shot ina romantic way, just a means of distration)

[@AdamWarne-tx7wu]

For me Rings of Power is neither watchable nor coherent. The pacing is all over the place and some storylines catastrophically slow the narrative.

[@JamaicaWhiteMan]

It's not Tolkien in any way whatsoever. It's just an example of the dross generated by AI in America these days.

[@Aurora2097]

AI probably would have written something far closer to Tolkien...

[@joannemoore3976]

Peter Jackson's films... shall I go on? 😂 The difference is that Jackson (on the whole) managed to capture some of the essence and magic of the books. Still grumpy about Faramir though.

[@TolkienLorePodcast]

Never stop being grumpy about Faramir. Lol