Why TV Is Wrong For Tolkien

[@LeoAngora]

7:21 "Maybe popular IP doesn't have to be adapted and forced into every shape under the sun" makes me want a LOTR Muppets special.

[@LesMachinesNoires]

Indeed! XD

[@AstraVex]

ONLY if they make it like past-muppet films, with one Human actor treating the material with complete shakespearean seriousness, but still surrounded by all the Muppets.

[@paisleylad]

"Trying to dive into the psychology of Galadriel and Sauron for multiple seasons is a losing game." Exactly! As you pointed out earlier in the video, the epic figures in LotR (Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman) were distinct from the ordinary, more relatable figures (the hobbits). You could only fantasize about being as powerful as Gandalf, but you could actually aspire to be as brave as Frodo or as loyal as Sam. Having characters be both epic and relatable is essentially impossible.

[@armelior4610]

I think Gandalf is both epic and relatable. As a kid (teenager ? that was a while ago) when I read the novel I remember not picking up on him being a demigod/archangel/whatever because he's as flawed as a human despite being a powerful wizard. He always forget things because he's old for example. Makes sense since Merlin was (very) flawed too

[@JuanRodriguez-tf7fh]

And now they're being turned into "Enemies become Lovers" storyline just to appease Gen Z How'd that turn out for Acolyte?😅

[@Ashbrash1998]

​@@armelior4610Wasn't it said that Gandalf acted old because it went with the firm he chose? Could it not go along with the act he was putting on?

[@armelior4610]

@@Ashbrash1998Even if it was an act, it made him relatable to me. I don't remember a last minute plot twist "Ah ! I've been pretending to be human all along" which would be par for the course now ^^

[@mrturbo84]

I think when you not go into both extremes you can have an epic and relatable character.

[@pokegnome2]

As much as anything, much of the problem lies in what they *didn't* pick up for adaptation. They literally cannot tell the story of the Second Age as portrayed in the Silmarillion, or as loosely resembles it, because that's not what they got the rights to - they got the rights to the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and most critically, the Appendices. So the studio essentially has the vague space of the Second Age to work in, through details referenced and remembered by the time of the Third Age - like Numenor being a place that existed, sank, and its descendants scattered all over - but they have very limited, abstracted details to actually work with, while a lot they have to avoid because they genuinely don't have the rights to it. This probably explains much of the depiction of Ar-Pharazon - he gets mentioned and some actions loosely summarised in the Appendices, but very little about his actual person is there. The Jackson films could re-arrange and reorder text, giving quotes from one character to another and changing whole arcs, but because other parts and icongraphy remained, there was still a foundation to work and that people might recognise the character they were meant to be. Rings of Power is having to invent things in a space shaped by Tolkien, rather than really *adapt* Tolkien, and that rather increases the immensity of the task. A touch self-inflicted? Very arguable, but I think drastically affects the question of whether or not 'Tolkien' - as opposed to Tolkien's cliffnotes - can work for TV.

[@BillKermanKSP]

Because they don't have the rights to the Silmarillion, just a few pages in LOTR referencing the 2nd age, I believe

[@pokegnome2]

@@BillKermanKSP This is something I specify further down in the comment - they've got LotR, the Hobbit, and the Appendices, which gives names and certain basic details to work with, but it is a very loose timeline coloured by the occasional reference.

[@TheGreatUnwashedThing]

Even if they had the Silmarillion rights, I don't think that would solve the fundamental issue that the creators didn't seem able to make decisions about the kind of show they wanted to make. You could (in my opinion) make a really brilliant TV show about Sauron's lost years in the early Second Age as he grapples with trying to fine-tune his master's methods and (at least initially) use them in a less self-destructive way. You could make a really brilliant TV show about the early years of the Hobbits and the founding of the Shire. You could make a really great TV show about Elendil and the Downfall of Numenor and how Elendil and his sons worked to rebuild civilization afterward. And so on. What you can't do, unless you are much, much better than the people making Rings of Power, is do all three and more at the same time.

[@JamesSimmons-d1t]

valid point of view. thanx. Hate/love for Jackson...see my analysis "Mikhail's polyglossia, the many voices, I found also to be a most telling analysis of many novels. The knowledge and intellect of your commenters bespeaks the mature reflections here demonstrated. But remember JRR only chose some books for publication...I found the Silmarillion too obviously derivative of many mythologies. Perhaps T's answer to query "Why couldn't the eagles fly Frodo to Mount Doom" also to be balanced. He rudely suggested, hey, this is my fantasy...don't like it...read something else. Implied. As for Peter Jackson's most egregious variations...no Bombadil, Sauron never reaching Shire...turns end to mush instead of bittersweet balance...and Théoden as simply Possessed...of course, I was translating the Hobbit into French age 13, mid '60s...Peter had not even READ The Hobbit. Please! danke."

[@drew2794]

I had been wondering why the show writers felt the need add their own stories and lore to the Rings of Power when the Lord of the Rings and associated literature already has sooo many good tales that could be adapted. Seems foolish to even attempt a show on the Second Age without rights to the Silmarillion.

[@JB-gj8pu]

It isn't a failure of the medium but a failure of the writers. The Second Age is a character study of entire civilizations. It is about building epic civilizations only to watch them come crashing down due to some moral flaw. You tell that larger story by making each episode it's own self-contained story with themes that play into the larger idea. It's how Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion.

[@eouveluz]

Which is a book they don't have the rights to. And this is another limitation for the show: they only have the appendices and in-text tales from The Lord of The Rings books to adapt the second age. They can't take their storylines from the Silmarillion. So, there is that also...

[@ponder421]

​​@@eouveluz The problem isn't the lack of rights. The Silmarillion chapter on the Second Age just adds details that the Appendices leave out. The writers still contradict what's in the Appendices! In them, the 3 Elven Rings are forged last, not first, and all the Rings of Power were forged by and for the Elves; giving them to other races was Sauron's backup plan. And the show decides to skip over the Civil War in Númenor that was in the Appendices! The writing decisions baffle me.

[@rottensquid]

I think also, what Evan sees as a fundamental constraint of television storytelling, to my mind, is just a habit. In fact, I'd say television's biggest weakness is this assumption, that no matter what happens, the story must go on. No final endings, no closure, just cliffhangers and "to be continued." And yet, some of the most celebrated television seems to be those rare occasions when long-running stories ended, and ended well. Or even when television shows dared to present a story with its ending built in. The series finale of Mash, or stand-alone shows like True Detective (season 1, of course) and The Queen's Gambit. So the failure of the writers you point out, to my mind, is their refusal to end stories, or trust that they can dream up new beginnings. There's no reason why The Rings of Power season 1 didn't present a single, epic story that ended with finality, picking up season two with a shift in focus to other characters, other stories. Evan is right to acknowledge that Tolkien's middle-earth is a poor setting for ongoing character drama typical of serialized TV. As you say, the story of the second age of Middle-Earth is the story of a civilization's rise and fall. So to get lost in the details of individual characters' ever-shifting emotional landscape loses the big picture, and misses the point. Epics aren't complex. But television is notorious for losing the big picture just trying to keep the audience glued from episode to episode. As far back as The X-Files, larger stories would spiral out of control as each episode added new, unnecessary details just to keep the audience interested. Ultimately, you can't have it both ways. You have to trust the larger story to retain audience interest. And the best way to do that is with a show-stopping climax that wraps up the larger story, rewarding their faith. When I get to the end of a season of Television telling a serialized story, and nothing is resolved, no plot thread is tied off, no character reaches the end of an arc, it's just the promise of more drama, more complication, etc, I usually lose interest. Too many times, I've seen stories spiral into meaninglessness like the X-Files did, or Game of Thrones, or dozens of other shows that didn't wrap up so much as peter out. They always focus on the wrong things, because they think serial television MUST be ongoing character drama, like a soap opera. But without an ending, there's really no story. Just a bunch of characters running around doing stuff, with no direction and no real story purpose.

[@eouveluz]

@@ponder421 I don't understand all of their decisions in altering some of the lore, but I feel like I understand a lot of it. It's like Evan said: an adaptation to a different medium creates some needs to keep the story flowing in a fluid way. For example, the decision to compress the timeline, because too many time jumps don't make for interesting TV. The decision to alter the order of the forging of the rings, for example, makes more sense (to me, at least) in an overall TV show arc. This decision is creating more tension among the elves and gives more decision-making power to the characters of the other races, which can keep the story going while the other rings are forged. I don't think they skipped over the Civil War. They're building up to it, changing the order for the same reasons mentioned above. The main focus of the show right now is the Elves and their journey, and the other arcs are still setting up elements (which is a decision I don't think is good, because some people might feel-as many have-that they are "interrupting" the flow of the more interesting plot). Some people might say they shouldn't alter the order because Tolkien already did it perfectly, but I tend to disagree. The events in the Second Age are not fleshed out by Tolkien as a narrative; they're just information. I'm certain that if he were writing an "epic novel" with them, he would probably change some things from what's in the appendices too. But we'll never know for sure.

[@eouveluz]

​@@rottensquid I'm kinda in the middle ground between you and Evan. I do think a shorter TV show can be the best way to tell a story. But also, if we enter this subject, we can't leave out the core thing here: they did it to make money for as long as possible. We all know that it's not (at least not only) about the story. These other shows you mentioned, like True Detective or The Queen's Gambit, are shows made to make money, of course, but primarily, they knew these would be niche. They didn't want Rings of Power to be niche, nor did they want it to be short. Also, I don't know if you're aware of how the process of making the show happened, but basically, every platform presented a pitch for the show. According to The Hollywood Reporter, HBO basically pitched a remake of the trilogy as a TV show, but the Tolkien Estate wasn’t interested because even though they DID NOT like Peter Jackson’s movies (Christopher Tolkien even said the movies eviscerated his father’s work), they weren’t interested in a remake of the trilogy. Netflix, on the other hand, wanted to create solo shows for the characters-an adventure series for Gandalf, a drama about Aragorn-pretty much a Marvel Cinematic Universe, but in Middle-earth. Tolkien Estate didn’t like that idea either. Enter JD Payne and Patrick McKay. After seven different pitches, they finally came up with one that pleased both Amazon and the Tolkien Estate. And it was basically this: “Chronicle the first five minutes of Jackson’s The Fellowship of the Ring - the Galadriel-narrated prologue that told the story of the rings of power - over the course of five seasons.” So this was the winning pitch for both Amazon and the Tolkien Estate (this and, of course, the money involved-most of that 1 billion went to acquiring the rights, not the actual production of the show, and the fact that Amazon offered a seat on the creative team to the Tolkien Estate). And last, but not least: Payne and McKay had spent most of their careers working as a type of script doctor for J.J. Abrams’ company, Bad Robot, so they came in and did a mystery box (JJ Abrams' way to write) in the first season, which I LIKED because mystery is my favorite genre, but it's NOT what most Tolkien fans are used to. Tolkien's work is mostly based on knowing exactly where the evil is, while in a mystery box, the evil is hidden and needs to be discovered. So, I feel like something that made a lot of people mad at the show was this genre shift.

[@LightningRaven42]

If only they dropped the JJ Abrams' "Mystery Box Storytelling" bullshit, they would go a long way. Trying to write narrative twists and "gotcha" moments in Tolkien is quite ridiculous. Specially when the idea that could best explore it isn't being focused on at all. Which would've been the audience following Sauron without knowing. But, then, it would require subtle and well-planned storytelling, which certainly is something beyond the writers and producers.

[@PeterDoughman]

This was exactly my take - I actually quite enjoyed the first season until the reveal of Sauron. It felt cheap, forced and entirely unnecessary.

[@samfilmkid]

The two guys running the show worked as staff writers on Lost…and nothing else. They don’t even have Wikipedia pages. Something fishy’s going on…Somebody powerful’s kids probably. The show’s not terrible, but I find it very bland. I feel like it’s inspired more by television cliches than epic fantasy

@@samfilmkid it's terrible. gigantic plot holes, ridiculous contrivances and cringe dialogue.

[@MissJubilee]

Ooh, the gotcha moments in Jackson’s trilogy were my second-least-favorite part. Even in the first hour, we have cuts making us expect a Nazgûl jumping Frodo (it’s Gandalf), the Nazgûl stabbing sleeping hobbits (they’re just pillows), the Nazgûl getting the jump on Strider (it’s Arwen)… Like just tell the story, man. There’s enough tension with the fate of the world. My actual least-favorite change was making Faramir less noble. Maybe that was shifting him from an epic character to a novel character, hm…

[@joshualogan84]

I disagree. It's not format, it's content and adaptation from source material. I think an anothoogy series of short stories would work very well as a series for the LotR universe. Told in Jim Hinson's 'The Storyteller' type of episodic series. My dream scenario is that The Silmarillion is made into a series like this. Hopping around the myths, legends, creations, rise and fall and personal stories. I think it would allow a different type of episodic feel, not one of weekly television series but one of 'story of the week.' We'd get the epicness Amazon wants and ALL the fantastic world building without all the needless modern writers trying to fill gaps Tolkien didn't finish himself.

[@timkinss]

A wonderful series from BBC Radio years ago was called "Tales of the Perilous Realm", a collection of adaptations of Tolkien's novellas like Leaf By Niggle, was the closest anyone's come

[@MrMonkeybat]

A strait adaptation of LOTR would be about 24 1hr episodes, 2 for The Hobbit. A lot of their adventures like Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wrights are quite episodic. It would be easier for the writers than writing the films as they would not need to cut so much stuff. This video forgets that anthology series exist that would fit the Silmarillion too. Now that 50 inch HD TVs are common TV does epic fine , hell I remember being enthralled by epic films on VHS. Its not the medium its that the entire idea and thinking behind ROP was flawed from the start, but I did find the first season worked quite well as a comedy, the explanation of why rocks sink had me in stitches from the start, is the second season as funny?

[@alindsey4]

I agree with the original video in terms of "TV" *as season-long HBO/FX-style drama* being the wrong medium for Tolkien, but I think you have an excellent idea concerning *The Silmarillion* being told in an episodic *Storyteller* mode.

[@rachelmgerlach]

I love this idea! I often daydream about becoming a filmmaker with the rights to the Silmarillion so I can make what The Rings of Power should have been! 😂

[@MicrophoneMichael]

100% The Rings of Power could have been written like good TV. Adventure Time is a good example of depth in brevity AND good sustained story telling over 10 seasons.

[@huckberry17]

They said the same thing about the movie adaptations before they came out. Unadaptable. But Jackson did an excellent job of capturing at least the spirit and tone of Tolkien. It can be done, but you need exceptionally talented and dedicated people. The TV show doesn't have that. Most fundamentally, Jackson understood Tolkien, the writers of the show do not.

[@fobusas]

Strangely enough many of these crappy tv shows have self professed fans of the material. If asked those writers, they would swear up and down they are the biggest, most knowledgeable fans, who could give up anything to make a show in those universes.

[@cruzefx3652]

@@fobusas It may be true, but what most can't seem to understand is that being a fan doesn't qualify you for understanding and replicating what you love. A random person that never had contact with Tolkien could possibly understand it and create inspiring media based on it. A lot of fan films, shorts, adaptations, are at it's best, an homage to the original work, or are lackluster for not being able to progress the vision of the creator. You don't need a writer that knows the name of a janitor in Star Wars, you need someone that sees it as George Lucas once did. The same goes with every popular fiction work that is being adapted. But if studios try that, the raging fans will shill on it, asking for heads on spikes, so they don't even try.

[@fobusas]

@@cruzefx3652and how can a person that is not interested in for example Star Wars, see it the way Lucas did? Is it really that hard to find writers who are both competent and know source material? It's not either or. Deadpool proves that. And nobody's asking for Ryan Reynolds head, quite the opposite

[@cruzefx3652]

@@fobusas surface level interprets the concept and idea of a story, while diving deep gives you complexity, sometimes what makes that thing great gets lost in the middle. For me the sweet spot is what Denis did with dune, he only read 2 books, and managed to capture a lot of the essence in the movies, but if he went too deep I don't believe it would be nearly as good

[@fobusas]

@@cruzefx3652 We won't know. Maybe it would have been even better? I'm not advocating for supernerd. On'y against activists who ignore or invent new material, or worse, those who profess love for it, yet insist on updating it for modern audiences... If you twist it so something unrecognizable, why even use the name then?

[@FrameDevice]

Tolkien captured the feeling of older stories, which didn't constrain themselves to narrative formulas like we do today. Television is built around formulas-plotting, character, pacing, writing-it all has to be managed according to invisible rules and guard rails. But ancient stories just went with the flow and developed organically. They didn't force call backs or catch phrases, they didn't believe in the rigid enforcement of the "three-act structure", and they didn't try to make their stories conform to arbitrary rules about how long a scene should last, or how much a character should talk, or what should happen by the middle of the story, etc. Old storytelling was spontaneous, or had the feel of it, and Tolkien captured that essence in his writings in a time period where writers like Hemingway and others were reframing the conventions of "good writing" according to a modern ethos. Tolkien came in to remind people "yes, all this new writing is good, but don't forget the value of the old ways". And TV isn't built for that kind of spontaneity. It didn't work for Game of Thrones, it doesn't work for Tolkien.

[@CarloTeofilo]

Also, the show looks too cgi (mostly shot indoors…) and even though actors are good, they’re just doing exposition and you don’t really care for them

[@timkinss]

Wonderful point

[@josephfisher426]

I hadn't thought of the structure as being a new thing. Three-act plays have been a norm for centuries. I think they just don't devote enough time/effort to the writing. His Girl Friday had enough quippy content for 3 Marvel movies, but it was GOOD. Streaming is not fixed to a running time, so adhering to a schedule isn't an inherent issue with most new stuff.

[@Dorgpoop]

Game of thrones worked great as a TV show, the problem was that they ran out of source material and rushed a shoddy ending. Also loads of myths and legends have had very successful TV adaptations, but very few good film versions. Other than very loose adaptations like O' Brother where art thou there aren't really any good film versions of The Odyssey, but there's a million and one good TV adaptations.

[@mofohasteheyelazors]

This is a tension you see in roleplaying games, like D&D, as well. The early, character-focused levels are drastically different from high-level, epic play and players have a hard time transitioning from a game about them to a game about the world.

[@LordofBroccoli]

I really don't agree with this argument. I could absolutely imagine Jackson's LOTR trilogy as a long miniseries, even if you changed little to nothing about it. There's nothing inherent about TV that makes it unsuitable for any story, writers and directors have been breaking conventions and genres for decades. In many ways, I see The Rings of Power the same way as House of the Dragon - both are adaptations of something that wasn't meant to be told as a story. House of the Dragon is based off a part of Martin's dry history book, Rings of Power is based off some, what, appendices? Contrast this with LOTR and ASOIAF, both of which were written and structured as stories to be told and enjoyed.

[@Sotanath86q]

100%. It's probably the weakest/worst take I've seen from this channel.

[@misterscottintheway]

Mini series are just movies on a smaller box. He's talking about serial television

[@YourBlackLocal]

He’s very obviously talking about serialised television with seasons. But I do still agree.

[@yondie491]

@@YourBlackLocal If he had meant that, he should have said it. He had NUMEROUS opportunities to say it. He did not. I legit kept waiting for him to say it. He simply said television, so we have to take what he said at face value. And I also disagree. The Silmarillion could be an amazing anthology series with 10 episode seasons that could last a decade, for example. The key is "when done right" And sadly, Amazon is a great platform to do it right on. There aren't commercials (... well... you don't have to write your story around commercial breaks) and they can put out the season whenever they want (... in theory), thus giving the storytellers ample opportunity to hone their tales. ... they just... didn't do it right. And I don't think they will. The money is being spent by suits, not by creative artists, and you can tell. If they had spent even a tiny bit more on finding better writers and producers... we very well may be singing an entirely different tune.

[@YourBlackLocal]

@@yondie491 What are you talking about? The adaptation that the essay is about is a serialised TV show with seasons. literally all his examples he gives are of serialised television. He even says “seasons.” and “full series.” This is just a lack of social cues on your part.

[@MaskofPoesy]

TV isn't wrong for Tolkien. Profit driven writing is wrong for Tolkien.

[@tiagosantos5653]

That is not the worst part: this "profit wrighting" is not even profiting, just outraging Tolkien's fans.

[@MrThephonypope]

Okay so you disagree with the video, what kind of TV show do you think would work?

[@itsmeprasad1987]

You missed his point. He said movie has end drive. Tv is long form and when season end it’s hard to see the end.

[@alec187]

That’s a flowery statement. Let’s be real, money is always the driving force to making a tv show of this scale.

[@ryanpatrick1875]

Yes. Those notably free and public domain Tolkien works that he never made profit on and his family doesn't make billions on.

[@acmulhern]

It's just a badly written show. It sometimes feels like it was written by AI because it really doesn't seem to understand true human emotions.

[@KrMees]

Or Elvish emotions for that matter

[@Moranah]

Amen! I just finished S02E02, and my girlfriend and I where thinking if it was written by AI, because the dialogue is just terrible. Especially the hobbits and sometimes the dwarves are a bit of a cringefest.

[@ScramblethinkJD]

There's only like.... 2 humans tbf

[@acmulhern]

@ScramblethinkJD all the characters are humanoid creatures and should therefore have human emotions. The LOTR trilogy did this so well. That's what made the hoobits so endearing, Golum so tragic, and all the characters so relatable in general. Human emotion or the intentional lack thereof is what all movies are about and what makes exceptional movies what they are.

AI would be better. These guys are no talent middle schoolers.

[@lincolnbrandt]

Nothing like a Nerdwriter video to showcase the sublime enjoyment of a concise, well written essay that’s 8 minutes instead of 3 hours

[@Picolettto]

Those 3-hour essays are barely essays. They are often just extended podcast episodes with some basic structuring and little editing.

[@LuisSierra42]

He's just promoting his book

[@TheAvizanski]

8 minutes to say nothing

[@MariWakocha]

He starts by explaining what a novel is and still keeps it under 10 minutes, that's good work

[@znie-1380]

I think alot of what contributes too is that Tolkien ultimately based his concepts and ideas in some form of reality, there is almost nothing in there that isn't our common myth as humanity coated in his paint, while this may seem lazy to some I think it's genius, I'm convinced it lends a subconscious layer of authenticity to the story, everything we are told spring from the same old stories that have been tried and tested through hundreds of years, and which have formed subsequent stories that we have heard. It resonates with us because every story we've been told derive in some manner from the same place as Tolkien, but Tolkien only filters his own writing and ideas through it. Less of the conventions and the modern world others would. He seemed annoyed people read into it that the ring was an analogy for the atom bomb, the ring was just the ring as described in the book.

[@mrturbo84]

Amen!

[@patrickb.5863]

epilepsy warning !!!! 0:40

[@unconventional_health]

Thank you

[@Yvon-]

Thank you, that avoided a headache

[@TheLyricalCleric]

Ehhh, actually gonna have to disagree with this. There were some good opportunities for a complex series here-fallible elves seeking perfection and turning to a too good to be true option for power, humans getting caught in the crossfire of epic fantasy figures and devolving into cannibalistic shells of their former selves, it’s actually got GRRM all over it. Much of Tolkien’s legendarium is a series of long defeats and fruitless victories, like the rise of the Witch-King and the fall of Arnor or the wars of the elves against Morgoth. Even Tolkien’s 12 page scrapped opening of a sequel to LotR showed that Aragorn’s golden age was short-lived, his son was an ineffectual ruler, and that children ran through the streets wearing orc-masks as violent little thugs in a darkening Gondor with a new shadow rising. (My head canon is that Saruman succeeded at some horrible necromantic version of ring-making and became a new kind of wraith to ruin mankind.) In other words, no-I think the show could have been amazing. Was Galadriel the right character? No-we needed a scrappy pov character, not a ring bearer. Make her Galadriel's hotheaded daughter Celebrian, give her a romance arc with young Elrond, a love triangle with a sexy smart elf Annatar, and you have the makings of a great show that we all know has an epic ending but we don’t know how things will go (spoiler alert-Celebrian gets treated HORRIBLY in the story, like GoT level) for our POV person. Also, instead of just one truncated Numenor story, make a cool storytelling decision and have new generations of Numenorians every few episodes. Make it clear that elves are not aging, everybody else is, and stretch the timespan out to show hundreds of years of human expansion into elven lands while elves seem at a standstill. We begin to see the humans the way elves do, as mere background characters that suddenly appear and disappear and make noise and change things for the worse. We should see Numenor as the flawed imperialists and graspers for power they really were. Some of them, in the later episodes or seasons, can stand out for generations as loyalists to our main elven characters. It’s not hard to make a good show, you just have to be willing to lean into Tolkien’s ACTUAL writing, not just the Peter Jackson epicness. That’s part of the reason why Tolkien’s estate didn’t want Jackson to return as show runner for RoP. Not the right vibe. Of course, I think they chose even more poorly in the end, but that’s part of the muck.

[@hadisoufi7752]

I think you've conflated the genre with the medium. I agree that Tolkien is a poor fit for a standard TV drama- but that's a bad adaptational choice, not inherent to the medium. There are plenty of other ways to make TV shows, it demonstrates a poverty of imagination on whoever's responsible for Rings of Power and, frankly, you, if you can't come up with something better. His Dark Materials is also a series of epic high fantasy novels, and the HBO adaptation is pretty good. Redwall had a solid 3 season cartoon adaptation. Avatar The Last Airbender and Adventure Time are made for TV high epics, shit, anime has been doing them for decades. Even outside of fantasy and cartoons you can still find TV epics like Babylon 5 and True Detective. In point of fact, I'll bet you there is at least one fan edit of the Jackson films that rework them into a TV series. I'm not saying it'd be an easy thing to do, but RoP was definitely not inevitable. It's a product of shitty decision making and bad creative choices, plain and simple.

[@nilspalmqvist9460]

Completely disagree with this. You do a good job here in bringing to light what of Tolkien they will have a hard time capturing, but you fail to consider what it is they, only in a TV show, can. There's a humbleness to Tolkien, his books can be so wonderfully meandering and often dwell in the small and skim through the big. I would argue that Peter Jackson failed to capture most of the best aspects of the book, but his choices made for very good films. He adapted in a way that plays to the mediums strengths, but I se no need in continuing to feed the notion that only he could do Tolkiens works justice. He both did and did not. This show does the same. And It will be wonderful to see it capture the things it can. No medium can ever be all the way right for a story sprung from another. Only the books will ever BE Tolkien, so let's get more people to read them.

[@glen1742]

This is a very good answer

[@michelfug]

I upvoted this comment twice!

[@CountDadLord]

Bravo, Sir.

[@majormajormajortom]

Well said.

[@MrMonkeybat]

A strait adaptation of LOTR would be about 24 1hr episodes, 2 for The Hobbit. A lot of their adventures like Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wrights are quite episodic. It would be easier for the writers than writing the films as they would not need to cut so much stuff. The silmarillion would be a series of shorts stories which would fit episodic format too, anthology series exist. Now the 50 inch HD TVs are common TV does epic fine , hell I remember being enthralled by epic films on VHS. Its not the medium its that the entire idea and thinking was flawed from the start, but I did find the first season worked quite well as a comedy the explanation of why rocks sink had me in stitches from the start, I wonder if the second season is as funny?

[@BakingAndGhibli]

Making the second age into a tv series is crazy, it’s as bad as if someone tried to take The Hobbit and turn it into a three movie epic instead of a fun lite story

[@kaguya6900]

I completely disagree. I think TV is a much better medium for long-form storytelling (like the adaptations of complicated stories, epic or not) than movies. There are problems with adaptation, but there are problems of adaptation when you go from any medium to any other medium. Game of Thrones had just as much of a set ending as the Lord of the Rings. It's just that we don't know where The Song of Ice and Fire is going yet. And since the show runners weren't as good at storytelling as George RR Martin, they screwed up when they didn't have any source material to adapt anymore. The problem with Rings of Power is not that they didn't have the right genre for TV, but rather they didn't have any more than the barest outline of events. If they wanted to adapt Tolkien and make it seem like Tolkien, they needed an actual Tolkien story to adapt. Either that or they need an intimate understanding of what made Tolkien's characters tick and how Tolkien interwove the present-day (for the time in which the story takes place) political landscape with the myths on which the present day is built. They need characters who navigate both the present-day politics and try (and fail) to live up to the expectations set by the myths.This seems to be one of the major themes of Lord of the Rings. Any adaptation will succeed if it understands its source, understands the medium they are working in, and can make the changes necessary for that new medium. The Rings of Power fell far short. But that doesn't mean that Tolkien can't be successfully adapted to TV. Just that it hasn't been so far.

[@cruzefx3652]

Movies are like songs, and TV shows are albums, you can have a generational song, top charts and all, but in an album you will have ups and downs, so it easily becomes not as rich, and pacing becomes a problem.

[@sullenpuffin]

TV isn’t wrong for Tolkien, if anything it’s better placed to take on epic themes than even a trilogy of 3 hour films! The problem is the quality of the writing. If they had found either a fantastic original story to tell within the world, or a strong telling of an established Silmarillion tale, I think we’d be getting a “Why TV is perfect for Tolkien” essay instead!

[@AliceBowie]

They said that wanted to create a 2nd age series, and then went and contradicted the silmarillionb and appendices. If they just made sure not to change massive details it wouldn't have been so awful

[@thirdcoinedge]

I'd have to disagree with that. Even if the writing was strong, epic tales work best when they have enough screentime to tell the whole of a self-contained story, or at least a large part of one, without feeling like it has to explain the less-defined aspects of its world. Rings of Power is faced with having to use the elements of an epic yet ultimately somewhat vague tale and stretch it over several seasons and fill it with character arcs & explanations for things. TV kind of ruptures the pacing best utilized for these semi-abstract, almost mythological stories that go on for hundreds of pages. It's why House of the Dragon works in TV: the storytelling is historical, sequential and specific, which allows for individual episodes to have a big central events around which to focus & to have character evolve around. It's like the difference between if someone was trying to adapt Dark Souls or Elden Ring. While both are technically epic fantasy, one of them is deliberately more vague in its worldbuilding and storytelling, and so would arguably work better in a film, while the other has more defined characters & a slightly more clear-cut history, and so would arguably work better as a TV show. Granted, I don't expect them to surpass the original material or even match them in quality, but I think choosing those routes would be optimal for each respective adaptation.

[@sullenpuffin]

@@thirdcoinedge they certainly didn’t have to choose this story though. I’d have loved a story about the two wizards who went East, for example. There’s very little written of the east, or what happened to them, but people would have found it really interesting if they could have worked in elements that ultimately help in Sauron’s downfall. I feel like a story like that would have a lot more creative freedom, and could be well realised on TV.

[@developingtank]

After years of watching your videos I think this is the first one I’ve gotten nothing out of. Sad.

[@fallfrom2732]

Ah yes it's a TV format that is the problem here. Not creators openly disrespectful to original works and the author. Not an absolute lack of understanding or care to understand the material. Not bad writing and acting. No. Long form is better to explore character? Yes sure. Movies are usually better for epic? Maybe? But this is like 99th reason for why it sucks. If that would be the only problem modern hollywood tv slop have this video would not exist.

[@Hiphop618]

I was looking for this type of comment, yes! Agreed!

[@MuppetsSh0w]

Not once the video stated it's the singular reason so save yourself this childish and bitchy comment.

[@thetroyzernator]

The problem is that Middle Earth doesn't really have characters or relationships in any complex way. It never did. As Nerdwriter says, it was written with archetypes in mind. The closest you get would be Frodo and Sam and Denethor and Faramir.

[@kredonystus7768]

I kinda disagree on a few points. Epic's definition is correct but high fantasy is about the setting, not about whether it's a secondary world, that part of the genre is called secondary world fiction. It's about the prevalence of magic in the day to day lives of the inhabitants, it's scope, and it's scale. At the time of Tolkien's writing LotR was absolutely high fantasy because of what was available at the time. With the door that Tolkien opened a wholelly different scale of magic has emerged and LotR now firmly rests in the low fantasy sub genre. The Sillmarillion is not in the same boat, that is for sure high, and a secondary world can be a piece of being high fantasy but it's not required. Most people in LotR do not have access to magic, the few that do can only do small things like making their voice loud or turning invisible with a ring, the epic structures of the past can't even be maintained because of the lack of magic, let alone replicated, and while there are magical races they are disappearing. This isn't unlike First Law, which is considered to be quintessential low fantasy. Secondary world, Ancient buildings of the past that can't be replicated, magic leaving the world, some people have contact with magical races (flatheads/eaters) but most keep as much distance as possible, very few magic users and the few that exist hold an air of reverence and deference because of their status. On the other hand the Dresden Files is set on earth despite a huge amount of magic, battling gods with spells, every day people constantly being affected enough by magical phenomenon so much Dresden has a full time job as a magic detective. This is very much High fantasy. Also can Tolkien be adapted to TV? Yes it can. Superheroes are our modern epic and fantastical myths about larger than life characters and archetypes who bring forth an image of what they are and their destiny just with their name. Just think about the intense symbology and ideas around what Superman represents as a character. We all have an idea in our head when we think of Superman in a way that strangely mirrors thoughts on Epic heroes like King Arthur, and despite the epic styling around Superman they're still making comics about him after 100 years. When I say Superman you know what that idea means, but when I say Walter White you don't think of a symbol you think of a man. It won't be easy but it for sure can be done for Tolkien's canon too. The biggest issues with RoP aren't ones of scale, Epic stylings, or theming, it's ones of writing, costuming, and not having the rights to the things they are making a show about. I could see a series working in the new age of man. Have it around the post Aragorn kingship, have non-longbeard dwarves, alliances with the East and South, orcs becoming a forgotten memory. Then a new threat, or a forgotten threat, arises and these people used to their easier life aren't prepared. People forget how dangerous the orcs were, now that there are alliances with all the Dwarven clans, not just longbeards, people forgot how hard life was before machinery, the elves are nearly all gone. They are weak to political machinations because of 100 years of a good king, they don't even know what to look for anymore. They aren't prepared for physical threats because it's been so long since there was any threat the armies are green. They aren't prepared for cults or black magic because it's been so long since even good magic was performed. Extend those themes to an endpoint, and build a new character set to build off the themes. Allow the characters to have opinions on those themes, not just as "thing = good" and "thing = bad", an actual opinion. A good example is racism in The Witcher novels, while the racism is never shown as good you can generally understand why people are or aren't racist. It's more complicated than they're evil. Building on the themes of Tolkiens works and bringing the subtext into text with that approach is the only way forward. Characters that agree with the industrialisation and changing world, characters that don't, both these characters having good and bad points and changing their opinions as things move forward through the narrative, having characters that seem like they should think one way or the other but don't because of X reason and allowing those points bridge gaps between the more hardliners. That doesn't mean "no old LotR characters" but only bring them in with the context of the tale. It has such the potential of a great and honest epic tale but it takes work. It also needs a clear throughline, beginning, middle, and end. It can't be written one season at a time.

[@benjaminbjrklund743]

I believe TOlkien can work on Tv. i Believe all stories can, but it all depends on the quality of writing. the Rings of power creators just didnt respect the task ahead of them

[@MrJdecoy]

This isn’t a great take in today’s TV landscape. 20 years ago? Sure, you’d have a point. All the examples you gave of TV shows (Breaking Bad, GoT, Sopranos) all had solid closed storytelling… The greatest shows today all have set seasons. Long form storytelling at its finest. This is an old take.

[@angela_merkeI]

THE SEA IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

[@Turambar17]

First time I’ve never completely agreed with a Nerdwriter take.

[@cheekofnut]

what part do you not agree with?

[@benwasserman8223]

Any medium can fit a genre if you find the right approach. Gaming, for example, was largely so-so with Tolkien adaptations. Then came Shadow of Mordor and everyone lost their minds over how good it was. And how many times an Orc remembered defeating you.

[@6553-t2m]

Not a bad game, but i never thought it captured the essence of the movies and books.

[@GeorgeThoughts]

I think most people would agree that Shadow of Mordor was a very well made game which is why it was so popular, but that by definition a combat action game cannot be inherently Tolkien. SoM is gory, gritty, morally grey, focused around assassinations and has kill-moves and such that offer boons whilst glorifying incredible levels of violence on a mass scale. You might say that Tolkien had battles in his series, and he did (although he famously skipped Helms Deep) but his battles had that mythical epic nature to them and the good guys are wholly, inherently righteous. SoM isn't celebrating this, it's celebrating violence for violence's sake, or because slaughtering hundreds of orcs is "cool", to create "wow" moments. I don't think Tolkien thought slaughter was cool.

[@SanxBile]

@@GeorgeThoughts I agree with you of course, but his point was that they made it work. So if you can make a hack-n-slash game from LOTR material, it's definitely doable to make a decent TV-show.

[@redmo11]

"What makes Tokien truly special was his ability to incorporate the qualities of epic and myth into a modern novel, to let his readers feel again the power of long dormant genres." Very well put, I agree!

[@Bargadiel]

With TV and an episodic nature, you can explore really interesting thematic things, but Nerdwriter is right that it's more suited to characters and their struggles vs trying to tailor to an overarching epic narrative. There's only so much you can explore with Middle Earth characters on TV. I think the Magicians is a good example of a series that strayed from the books but ended up creating something completely different that was still really enjoyable for fans of the characters. At the end of the day, because it's migrating from one medium to another, an adaptation is an interpretation, a parody: better to play to those strengths and have fun with it vs trying to make it into something it can never be. All that said, the writing still needs to be engaging, dynamic, and meaningful, though.

[@mechajay3358]

TV isn't wrong for Tolkien. Its the people who are involved with Rings of Power who are wrong for Tolkien. They have done a huge disservice to his work.

the show they were aiming for required top tier writing talent and lots of it. I don't know what they did with their billion $ but it wasn't that.

[@bb1111116]

Tolkien’s novels are not epics but The Silmarillion is which has similarities to Homer, Beowulf and the Bible. * For Tolkien The Silmarillion stories were just as important as The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit novels. Several KZbin videos do not realize this because the creators clearly are not familiar with The Silmarillion lore. - The Rings of Power series is based on The Appendix from The Lord of the Rings which is a summary of various materials of the First and Second Age mostly under the umbrella heading called The Silmarillion. * This lack of knowledge is understandable when realizing that The Silmarillion book sold about 2 million copies while The Lord of the Rings sold about 150 million and The Hobbit sold about 100 million copies. This leads to common mistakes. - For instance the video claims that Tolkien wanted The Lord of the Rings to be a myth for England. No. Tolkien wanted First and Second Age Silmarillion stories to be the myth for England with the novels to be extensions of that myth. * The video claims that Peter Jackson correctly portrayed the epic Lord of Rings on screen. The Lord of the Rings is a novel. The Silmarillion is a sprawling epic which cannot be contained in a film format. * The video says that Game of Thrones is just right for TV because destiny does not fully control the fate of the characters. In The Silmarillion the fate of the characters are not fully controlled like Game of Thrones and the character motivations are just as messy as GOT. Tolkien has complex psychological characters. Read The Children of Hurin which is taken from The Silmarillion materials. Read Unfinished Tales where Tolkien expands on Galadriel’s motivations. Tolkien should not be put in a box and the claim made that he could not write psychological complexity. He did do it. It is just that most people are not familiar with the Silmarillion stories which portray this. * Whatever the problems are for The Rings of Power it is not because it is a TV series. The challenge for the show is that the creators do not have the rights to the books, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales or other First Age/Second Age Tolkien books. So, Amazon has to make up their own story outside of the brief mentions of lore in the LOTR Appendix about the First and Second Age. - However, in season two of Rings of Power the show is hitting its stride and is creating a very effective portrayal of Sauron.

[@juanss9383]

"Well... that's like... your opinion, man"

[@saelind73]

I agree with your take, up to a certain point. I do believe that whether is a movie or a TV show, when it comes to adaptations, the first rule should be that you really know, respect and love the source material. I have various issues with LOTR trilogy, but it remains the best trilogy and adaptation nonetheless, because you can see all the love for the source material. In every aspect of the movie, be that costumes, music, photography, acting, directing, and above all writing, you can see they have given their absolute best in order to adapt Tolkien's trilogy, not their fan faction version of it, and insert their "message".

[@nothajzl]

Gotta disagree on this one. This failure is completely on the writers of the show. They have no idea what they're doing, and it shows.

[@richardlehoux]

If the « novel » elements was perfectly executed there would be a nerdwriter video admiring how they managed to successfully drop the « Epic » element. When it’s good, it’s good. Period.

[@superhenkable]

If you just cut the 3 extended films into 10 x 1 hour episodes of a TV series it'd still be epic. Don't think it's a problem with the medium.

[@thetroyzernator]

I don't think it'd be that straight forward. Each movie was written with a traditional three act structure to fit it to a feature length presentation. It's really hard to adapt that to TV, the tone and pacing would be all over the place from episode to episode.

[@superhenkable]

@@thetroyzernator Yeah fair enough, like the first episode being just the shire with no action might feel a bit weird for you're average viewer. I mean personally I think that'd be cool, could just end on the cliffhanger of them leaving. But yeah amazon might not be a fan. Either way would still be better than rings of power haha.

[@thetroyzernator]

@superhenkable I think one of the bidders for the rights actually proposed a straight up TV remake. Maybe HBO? I can't remember, it was definitely one of the ideas. I'm glad they didn't do that. I think Nerdwriter is right that it's really challenging to adapt epic narratives to a serialised, character focused format. But it wouldn't have been impossible. But everything about the show is wrong.

[@superhenkable]

@@thetroyzernator True haha, yeah hard to imagine it having anything against the films. Maybe if they focused on different elements of the story could potentially have some value but seems unlikely.

[@SceneComparisons]

nah, is not the media Andor is the proof that you can make anything good, if you write good enough

[@saladinbob]

I 100% disagree. TV, if we lived in normal times, is the perfect format for things like the Silmarillion, or compiling some of the unpublished works into a single story (like the fall of Gondolin). The issue is we don't live in normal times because it comes down to a very simple quote regarding a belief that is now absent, even within Weta: "We didn't want to put any of our own themes in".

[@henatwork]

Probably the first video from Nerdwriter that I fully disagree. TROP sucks because of bad writing, bad acting, activism, flawed logic, etc. There is a massive audience that will happily watch a epic high fantasy in TV format. However, the characters need to be likeable which clearly the writers of TROP cannot do. They said they stuck to Tolkien's lore but they invented their own stuff and could not make believable, interesting characters for us to watch.

[@redcoffeemug7537]

Think it being a TV Show has nothing to do with it being bad, i think it being badly written has more to do with it. Hell, TV shows nowadays aren't really even the same anymore as TV shows 10-20 years ago. Feeling more like 6 hour long movies then a truly episodic focused story. Most people don't watch TV shows 30 minutes every week, they watch it in hours long weekend binge sessions.

[@benwasserman8223]

Because people were getting tired of episode-focused stories. They wanted something more streamlined and less bully in the episode department so rewatching could be easier. And it worked for a while.

[@dannywoods17]

Huh, first time I'd disagree with your videos. Any story can be modified well and told in either TV or film. It's up to the writers to properly adapt and tell the story in that medium. Perhaps you're just being hyperbolic for the algorithm, so I'll come to disagree and what you meant was that epic novels can be difficult to adapt to TV? What would be more interesting to see in a future video is how the best epics are well adapted to TV. Sadly in the case of the Rings of Power, it just seems to be clear storytelling problems, detached from whatever medium it happens in.

[@The8BitPianist]

3:13 This quote about epics being "already over" does not neatly apply to LOTR I think. In the Odyssey, there is never any doubt about Odysseus getting back home and defeating the suitors. The gods, especially Athene, intervene at practically every step to help him, his divine help is taken for granted, his victory almost a law of the universe. But in LOTR, the stakes feel much more real. The characters struggle so much, that the reader can grow uncertain about who will emerge victorious. There is no divine intervention in the same sense, the outcome not necessarily "finished, already over".

[@guyinthewhiteT]

Honestly a good story about flawed characters could focus on the 9 human ring bearers and how they became ring wraiths.

[@wasimshaikh1665]

Disagreed. The Hindu epic Mahabharata that you mentioned was adopted as TV show and it was one of the greatest tv show in the Indian history. Even Muslims like me grew up watching that show. Rings of power is an absolute disgrace on writing. It's made with malice. Also if a fiction like GoT and three body problems can be adopted for tv, I see no reason why Tolkien's work can not be.

[@StephySon]

I know it’s unrelated to the video but I’m so glad you showed a shot from I May Destroy You. When I tell people that show emotionally hit me like a sledgehammer and left me crying at moments that weren’t even supposed to be tear inducing

[@okaykatieokay]

I think finality storytelling can work on tv, but it is a lot harder. This video made me think of Merlin (a BBC show that ran from 2008-2012). It captured the legend/myth pretty well, and while the story was shaped by decisions the characters made, it was always going to end the way it did (ignoring the weird time jump - we pretend that doesn't exist)

[@RialVestro]

I always thought of a novel as just any book that is thick enough that it needs to be seperated in chapters that are all part of one continous story from front to back. They also usually tend to be more adult or at least teen oriented not because of the nature of the content but just because of the amount of content tends to be a little intimidating for little kids who are just learning how to read so stories specifically targeted at young kids tend to mostly be short stories not long novels. There are some exceptions but generally childrens novels are meant more for older kids so kids books that could also be considered novels are quite rare.

[@stuartcraig6722]

Maybe what would work is a show in which episodes are adjacent to the main plot of Tolkien’s books, featuring new or background characters (like Halbarad who appears briefly in TRotK and whose interaction with Aragorn hints at a rich back story) and don’t so much drive the epic plot forward but intersect with it, and because it doesn’t interfere with the stories in the books it gives the lore purists less to worry about. Kind of the thing that my pals and I had great fun doing a couple of decades ago when we played Middle Earth Role Playing.

[@Corncorncorncorncorncorncorn]

I think the “closed loop” effect you’re describing is still attainable here in the same way it was for the trilogy of movies. It’s just a longer loop. The show runners have a direction and end in mind.

[@spartansniper619]

A tv show wich started as a classic tv drama '' novelistic'' then deeply and smoothly morphed more and more into an epic/myth type storytelling while never losing the amazing characters and their rich complexity is LOST. Maybe that's why it's the best piece of media ever created 🤷

[@internisus]

Regarding what you said on Patreon, I personally would be extremely interested in a video exploring the history and evolution of the novel format.

[@lphenry1]

You clearly identified what I was feeling about the show, without being able to pinpoint it myself. Thanks!

[@davidrojas6457]

Your points about the medium differences are strictly true and valid, but as most have said here, I still disagree with your take for this specific example. Many of us who have read and loved the Silmarillion and Tolkien's other supplemental works have always said that a serialized medium would be THE BEST and most complete way of adapting those stories (primarily because of the sheer volume). RoP is just very poorly cast, written and edited. (Also, they had to make a bunch of stuff up because of how little they had rights to from Tolkien's work.)

[@Michael_Deti]

Wow! I‘m struck by the beauty of this essay :D Definitely a video I will have to watch a couple of times as it is very rich with information and critique. Thanks nerdwriter :)

[@robertszynal4745]

I feel that you've completely overlooked the miniseries. This is the perfect format as it allows taking time and calm where film rushes things to fit the limited run time. Of course, it can be a series of films but that often draws the story out over years and still limits time.

[@tomboysquirrel]

When classic novels were published they were often broken up into serial volumes. I'm not convinced that a serialized format is ill-fitted to show the unfolding of an epic story from Tolkien. The serialized medium of streaming "tv" with hour-long episodes is starkly different from the conventional 20 or 45-minute cable tv series where the writers may not even have a full plan and are making the show up as they go along. I don't at all see how RoP falls flat when it leans into epic moments, or how it stops feeling like Tolkien when it leans into psychodrama. I also disagree that the 2nd Age is less epic than the events of The Lord of the Rings - the destruction of Númenor and the War of the Last Alliance are prime examples.

[@jmscott_]

I agree with a lot of this, but for something like the Silmarillion, I think the medium of TV would work beautifully. You have individual stories that would make for really well-told single episodes and, to this video’s point, you follow complex characters who make decisions that alter the destiny of their own lives as well as others for the worse. Still hoping to see someone pull it off one day

[@Spectacurl]

It would have been amazing to have a tv show called “Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-earth” and to tell all this epic stories in one, two or at most three episodes and double down in the the epic poem idea. Plus, having a rotating cast that could include many talented people showing off in this more “classical” setting. But of course, producers would hate that idea

[@zacharywong483]

Absolutely fantastic script here! Really great commentary and explanations. And that ending was a hilarious touch!

[@JoeArant]

Sauron was always larger than life in Tolkiens writing; an evil felt more than seen. Writing Sauron as human will always be a failing game. Furthermore, I feel the writers of this series were good intentioned, but do not have a strong enough grasp on mythology, deity, or religion to write a compelling narrative which honors Tolkiens archetypes. I have low level anxiety about Netflix and Narnia…

[@johnabell861]

To me, just the wildest and strangest oversight in the whole rings of power experiment is that at its core, (in my opinion, and I’ve been very wrong on many things before, and I’ll be very wrong about many more things, as will we all) I find the inspiration behind the Lord of the Rings to be anti industrialization, most people kinda gloss over the fact that Bilbo and by extension Frodo were EXTREMELY WELL OFF, even despite being unaware of these values of the ring, and the mithril coat. The real villain wasn’t Sauron, it was greed and the desire for more power and control, that’s why it was significant for Bilbo to leave the ring, he was comfortably wealthy enough to do whatever he wanted, but essentially left that behind, that’s what was significant about Gandalf acknowledging that even as good spirited as his intentions were, could not trust himself with the power, even being one of the oldest, most influential, and most powerful beings in that world, would be corrupted by the absolute power he could exercise given the chance. Boromir is there as an example of the failings of good hearted but selfish grabs for power, but mister “I’m a huge fan of lord of the rings, I have a bunch of employees that I could simply objectively treat better, but I’d rather take Bill Shatner to space in a blue penis, and then brag about it is just throwing a “I want a game of thrones of my own” fit, making a show based off of some scrap intellectual property from a story that was fundamentally against what kind of person he is, and the Tolkien estate won’t sell Mr spaceship the rights to the story about just admitting that you have enough at some point and being a better person.

[@RussellB]

I wish they weren't live action tv or movies. I think Rankin/Bass had it right and seeing that 70's fantasy style rendered in a higher quality for further adaptations would have been beautiful.

[@DaneDavenport]

People like to complain about new versions of stories they feel ownership over and use subjective biases to create "imperial" excuses for why they don't work. But the only stories that last are the ones that get retold over and over in new ways and mediums. That is how and why, "the great tales never end" (to paraphrase The Two Towers). I am a Tolkien fan and like the show, as do (most of) the many Tolkien fans I know and we have loved digging into the show's takes on the lore and histories. But most importantly, the heart and message of Tolkien's work shines through, which is (subjectively) more important than the mythology.

[@DvMorais]

The problem is simply the script, production and acting... That's all. Not the series format.

[@Birmanncat]

The tv format gave us the orc family.

[@peko1967]

yeah...blech

[@IamKnucks]

I don't know man. I'm enjoying the series. I love examining stories and I love writing, but I'm just not upset about people trying new things. I'm just enjoying the ride. People are way too triggered by things that have no impact on their lives and people always seem to gravitate towards the things they didn't like. Life is so much easier if you just focus on the things you did like.

[@saratreetravels]

Tolkien blends the epic with the novel. I've never quite been able to place what puts LOTR in such a different league than all other fantasy stories, but you nailed it. Loved this one!

[@GabrielKerr]

I disagree that Tolkien created Middle Earth as a mythic past for England. He specifically states in one of his letters (I believe in the introduction to Silmarillion) that the legend of Arthur already accomplished that for him. What he was primarily interested in was creating a mythology for the English language itself. Something much grander than national identity. Something rooted in the very fabric of our speech. Otherwise top notch stuff and very well stated as always. ❤

[@richteffekt]

Thank you for an interesting take. (Although your comment section decided to make sure every post is "disagree" - "writers' fault"). I for one thought about, how LotR and specifically the movies may have led us on. They are very good, yet if we believed the convenient epic (modern use) fantasy could be lifted from another part of the writings on Arda I feel we might be wrong. The magic is, I believe, a captivating sense of a world just out of our reach, that's in balance with its cosmic origins fighting off evil that wants to offset this balance, which is later lost. But Tolkien's writings also are a tone poem to evoke our longing for said world. I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence (pre- ad-read), just because a copyrighted vision of a beautiful tale exists, there is no obligation for us to watch any stage of its exploitation. And none to discuss it like it was on us to give notes to anyone how make the product of such a corrupt idea suck a bit less.

[@lukesmith1818]

One thing I'm surprised to not see mentioned much is that the original lotr ends just like King Arthur. Arthur has a mortal wound and leaves for Avalon. It's symbolic of the passing of a heroic age and I think Tolkien set out to mirror

[@hank9th]

I thought The Hobbit had the opposite problem, and would have made a much better television show than movie.

[@ethancoster1324]

Nah, they just stretched the source material and filled in moments of space with contrived padding and love interests. Should've been a couple of movies tops.

[@kellenboyle86]

I think it’s incredible that you’re able to observe and define these elements.

[@monday8585]

actually good points, I went here to defend rings of power as I like that series and LOTR in general, but I can definitely see what you're saying how difficult for them to keep things vaguely magical as it should be with such a long run time, much less the 2nd age.

[@fireaza]

I get what you're saying, but my counter-argument is this: the extended cuts. I think most LotR fans agree that the extended cuts are the definitive version of the films, and they're simply the theatrical cut but with more scenes. A TV series, likewise, is longer than the runtime of your typical movie. If you treated a LotR TV series as more like a really really really extended movie, rather than following the normal structure of a TV series, I'd say it could work quite well.

[@famrofexl]

The format of movies and books are so distinct from each other that I would consider it impossible to compare them. I wouldn't even try to compare the Lord of the Rings movies to the books because the formats they are expressed in essentially place them in two separate universes. Isolated from its source material, movies based on books are often greater than we give them credit for. I would argue that the feel and essence of a book is the best a movie can hope to capture. While books elaborate in great detail, they also leave much of the storytelling up to the imagination, which is why readers can insert themselves into a story and have a greater depth of connection to the characters. Movies leave nothing to the imagination and are instead an experience which happens to you. You can attempt to align your identity with a movie character's but it is much harder because you aren't part of the storytelling.

[@BigIsleJ]

Glad to see a new NerdWriter video essay!! Mahalo :)

[@dunnowy123]

Nerdwriter1 the type of guy to drop every few months, but his videos are literally always on point.

[@gpeddino]

"When they lean into the epic it stops being good TV. When they lean into the psycho-drama, it stops feeling like Tolkien." That makes a lot of sense, and explains a lot of the dissonance I feel when I watch RoP.

[@glasgowfields]

Yes I agree but I would say the only way is the novel. Nevertheless, as a self confessed Tolkien-nerd since I was a kid in the 80s I am greatly enjoying, warts and all, the current series of Rings of Power. It may not be the ideal form for Tolkien's storytelling but it is the ideal form for me, a busy dad without the time necessary for epic fantasy novels but always room for one epic hour long TV show a week! Fascinating video as always.

[@brandonhartley8980]

I guess I’m the odd one out. I love Rings of Power, sure it’s no LOTR, but let’s be honest, I don’t think any adaptation from any piece of fictional literature will surpass Peter Jackson’s films. I had low expectations when I heard Amazon was behind it, but it brought all my curiosities into light about the second age. An arch of history I was fascinated by. After watching the 1st season, I was inspired to watch all of the films chronologically. While the execution of storytelling in Jackson’s films are just shy of perfection, after rewatching the special effects does not age well - at least in the first two films. The Hobbit trilogy’s CGI was too saturated. I know the writing, acting, and storytelling lack in Rings of Power, but its tones, color correcting, and special effects is brilliant. Looking forward to how this season ends.

[@leofreaking]

I feel like you're right on this, but I would argue it could work. THe movies focus on the grand story, told through the journey of the characters, while the show feels more like characters going through a story (if that makes sense). So you lose that big focus and it really just ends up feeling like Game of Thrones painted over with Tolkien. I would argue though it would've worked if the creators put as much effort into the show as Jackson did in the trilogy (and I don't mean just money). Plan out a limited series for 2 , 3 seasons and tell that story right. The way they do it, they can basically only fail by falling down a character based storytelling, that's not only poorly written but also doesn't feel like it's leading up to something important. Also doesn't help imho that they chose to focus on a number of characters we already know from LotR. If they would have gone in the complete opposite and do character based fantasy, they would've needed to go with a new aspect of the world and stick with less characters. But yeah, it was a huge disappointment overall.

[@ghostlightinthegreenroom]

In Canada we had a multi part docuseries called Canada: A People's History which explored the countries history in chronological segments and I always thought The Silmirillion would be best brought to film/tv in that way. Sure it's not narratively engaging because there's no real ongoing episodic through line, but Silmarillion never was that anyways, and an interesting docuseries showing depictions of the first and second age wouldve served those stories nicely than trying to be Game of Thrones.

[@timkinss]

Not convinced in your trying to square these two things in Tolkien. Even if it's true, it can't help but sound like looking down on the mythical because of the ingrained biases of what will be most of your viewership. And RoP doesn't fail because of putting psychologically "complex" characters into myth, but because RoP's characters are so appallingly bad, and so hideously limited by the worldview of a writer's room in Los Angeles that they spit on every principle Tolkien had.

[@sworking101]

Counter example : an epic in episode format that works : kingdom (manga/anime)

[@Tycahal1991]

how do you feel about the Fondation Amazon Prime Series adaption of Asimov books?

[@HdRfreak21]

Parts of the Silmarillion would be very well suited to be adapted for TV, especially the exodus of Feanor, the story of Beren and Luthien, of the Children of Hurin, and of Maeglin, Tuor and the fall of Gondolin. These parts of the book do contain epic characters, but also many that are morally ambiguous, flawed and conflicted - envious and hateful elves, depressed humans, tortured souls etc etc. You would have to give the showrunners liberties with the format - allow them longer episodes, irregular numbers of episodes per season, some degree of non-linear storytelling - but it could, potentially, work really well. Meanwhile, adapting The Silmarillion or any of its stories for film would be a lost cause because of the immensity of the material and the backstory. So I think the fundamental problem with Rings of Power (as it was with The Hobbit for that matter) remains that the script is a half-baked mess, probably due to studio profit interests for the most part. And also, as others mentioned, the fact that they do not actually have the rights to a lot of the lore is important.

[@SnailHatan]

Nope. Dogshit writers who don’t care about the source material are wrong for Tolkien. It’s that simple.

[@BillNyeGuy]

If GOT can do it successfully I don’t see why LOTR can’t. What really separates them? In fact GOT had to jump to many different characters in even different locations as ROP has to. ROP problem is the writers, who were new, tried to add stuff like Sauron being betrayed, Sauron helping the elves make 3 rings and leaving to only later come back to help make the rest, explaining why Mount Doom became active again, etc etc.

[@lichlame]

This is a bit of a deep cut comparison, but does anyone remember that HBO show "Vinyl"? It was very Scorsese-esque - Yes, he directed the Pilot. But I mean, the showrunner and the whole production and the pitch of the show was to try to maintain that "Goodfellas", "Casino", "Wolf of Wall Street" mad-dash energy for a whole season, I think 8-hour long episodes. That virtuoso, stylistic filmmaking just didn't work for a TV-show. It worked for the pilot, but it lost its bite, and the show meandered the longer it went.

[@benconnolly9883]

I like that you decided to take this route of criticism. It's not the only problem with Rings of Power, but it is illuminating all the same. I would like to see more reverence and representation for the epic.

[@karlputz6721]

Thank you for breaking your 1000% consistent tone for the last comment!

[@robsolf]

I think the EPIC Tolkien, like you said, doesn't really work for TV. But they don't have to make TV shows about epic events in Tolkien books. You could have a show just about the Shire and Bree, and have bandits moving in; an event that was occurring while the LOTR events were occurring... or make them completely unrelated. Have a series about Bree and the Shire. Then have another series about the elves and the dwarves. Then create a series to culminate those 2 series. Because it's wrong to think that Tolkien books were all about big armies and certain catastrophic doom. The scalability of Tolkien's world is rich with material that could work for a great TV show.

[@arwenspicer]

Love this video; it's very insightful and gives me lots of to think about. I do think, however, that TV can accommodate epic. One example is Babylon 5. It's not a brilliant show in every episode, and it suffered from production-level problems (which is a difficulty with the economics of TV vs. its nature as a medium), but I think it did deliver a successful "closed-circle" epic in a multi-season, character-centered TV format. It's not impossible.

[@Mike-jo1wz]

Your videos are amazing. I’m a huge fan of your art insights as well. Could you please consider doing a deep analysis of Hans Holbein the Youngers’ “Ambassadors” painting? You would really have an interesting perspective on it.

[@iwandejongh8962]

I feel that you've never left but watching that somehow you are back. That was one of your best videos ever. Brilliant

[@filipealencar1019]

Changes in adaptation are part of the process. Peter Jackson, for example, made several alterations: he removed characters, reallocated roles, and changed the order of events-all for the sake of developing a more cohesive narrative. Thus, changes are necessary for adaptation. However, the series made changes that affect the core of the canon, such as the issue of Orcs and their families. Orcs are cursed creatures, and their purpose is to evoke revulsion; they are elves who were stripped of their life, their free will, deprived of any freedom, and enslaved by Melkor's malevolent intent to distort creation itself. Attempting to humanize these creatures is to create a notion of salvation and redemption. But this is the tragedy and immense cruelty of Melkor's actions. From the moment he touched the Elves and created the Orcs, he deprived them of any possibility of salvation and redemption. That is why he became known as Morgoth, the Enemy of the World, the enemy of Life. His work is vile beyond salvation. Changes like this particularly disturb me and have pushed me away from the series.

[@BartAllen]

*Peter Jackson didn't wish to inject any of his policies or opinions into Tolkien's work (nor wished to modernise Endor) -- he was very open about that when creating his trilogy. Though you're incorrect regarding the nature of Orcs as Tolkien humanised them in his writings, whilst speaking of the nature of evil in HoME ~ Whether it be struggling to refer to Orcs as "irredeemably bad" being a step to far and that they were not evil in origin; Ugluk praising Boromir; Shagrat and Gorbag; and such that Tolkien gives many examples of Orcs going about their lives akin to the First and Secondborn of Middle-earth, so on and so forth ~ This harkens back to the period where Sauron abandons evil for a time (assisting Men, Elves and Dwarves) heal the continent after what happens during the War of Wrath, though relapsing later on ~ Redemption and repentance are important themes for Tolkien, as these are themes of Christianity ~*

[@tickbox_]

I don't necessarily agree with you, I genuinely love the show, but thank you for actually putting out a well reasoned and thoughtful critique of the show. This is genuinely the first time I've heard a legit argument about this show that isn't just whining about it being slow paced or extremely vague criticisms like "the writing is bad" with nothing actually backing that up or "HOW DARE THEY CHANGE THE LORE" nonsense.

[@graildemitrius6310]

If possible, I would deeply love a reupload of your "how David Lynch manipulates you in Mulholland Drive" video. I remember starting it before seeing the film. Then realizing I really needed to see the picture beforehand. Then i saw the film and now i can't find that video. Probably for the usual YT copyright strikes.