The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power

BlueJayFan

Well-known member
The point of GTA was to be a raunchy, unflitered parody of the extremes of US society. Red Dead is their serious series that’s supposed to have more depth & maturity.

I also like how you just dismiss us as dumb “white boys”, ask Battlefield and COD how getting woke went for them. How is NFLX doing? Didn’t Lightyear flop? But yeah, it’s totally just a few neckbeards who will boycott.

Amazon is barely a streaming service, most people have Prime for free shipping. And how’d those COD games sell compared to past entries at their peak?

And no, going to keep fighting bc c**ts like you, who have infested writing rooms across the world like bed bugs, are ruining entertainment. It wasn’t enough to just have your own section of s**tty woke entertainment, you had to ruin everyone else’s. Well f*** you and everything you stand for.
Amazon is not "barely" a streaming service. It has multiple entries on Nielsen's weekly ratings (The Boys, The Summer I Turned Pretty) which is more than Hulu and only behind Netflix and tied with Disney+ lol

Are you okay? You are this mad over black people being added to TV shows and female players being added to video games. Please go outside and touch some grass (but not to another high school sporting event that you will inevitably be kicked out of)
 

BlueJayFan

Well-known member
I gave you a laundry list of things ruined by wokeness. And Milo isn’t even in the media anymore, but he was right about Ghostbusters 2016.
You didn't. Lightyear was panned by critics for being a mess and people who paid to see it thought it was a bad movie. That is completely separate from "wokeness"

Ghostbusters 2016 is a terrible film. And Milo isn't in media because he made ridiculous comments about pedophilia and got sacked from everything. And now he's working for that doofus Marjorie Taylor Greene ?
 

Omar

Well-known member
Amazon is not "barely" a streaming service. It has multiple entries on Nielsen's weekly ratings (The Boys, The Summer I Turned Pretty) which is more than Hulu and only behind Netflix and tied with Disney+ lol

Are you okay? You are this mad over black people being added to TV shows and female players being added to video games. Please go outside and touch some grass (but not to another high school sporting event that you will inevitably be kicked out of)
Most ppl have Prime for shipping, the streaming is a bonus. And I like how reductive and dismissive you are, like it’s just about that and not the ideology constantly being crammed down our throats.
 

Omar

Well-known member
You didn't. Lightyear was panned by critics for being a mess and people who paid to see it thought it was a bad movie. That is completely separate from "wokeness"

Ghostbusters 2016 is a terrible film. And Milo isn't in media because he made ridiculous comments about pedophilia and got sacked from everything. And now he's working for that doofus Marjorie Taylor Greene ?
Ok, here we go:

ESPN
Star Wars
Star Trek
Resident Evil
A League of their own
Marvel & DC comics
Ghostbusters
Terminator
Late Night TV
COD
Battlefield
The Last of Us
Soon to be GTA
Gillette Razors
Nike
Adidas
The Simpsons
Stand up Comedy/comedy in general

that’s just off the top of my head.
 

BlueJayFan

Well-known member
ESPN, ratings are higher than they have been in years

Star Wars is still one of the biggest entertainment franchises of all time with multiple $1B movies and huge TV shows

Resident Evil's remakes and Village both did extremely well commercially

The Last of Us Part II is one of the most acclaimed games of all time, the series is being adapted to an HBO show that will inevitably be acclaimed and do well in the ratings and the last game sold over 10 million copies in 2 years

Adidas sales growing and expected to be even higher in 2022

Nike's revenue grew over $7B in 2021 and it was their top year ever

And those are the ones I bothered to take the time to look up. YOU may think they've been ruined by being "woke," but in reality, they are doing just fine. And in some cases, they're doing better than ever. Isn't it you loons who are always crying about facts over feelings?
 

Omar

Well-known member
ESPN, ratings are higher than they have been in years

Star Wars is still one of the biggest entertainment franchises of all time with multiple $1B movies and huge TV shows

Resident Evil's remakes and Village both did extremely well commercially

The Last of Us Part II is one of the most acclaimed games of all time, the series is being adapted to an HBO show that will inevitably be acclaimed and do well in the ratings and the last game sold over 10 million copies in 2 years

Adidas sales growing and expected to be even higher in 2022

Nike's revenue grew over $7B in 2021 and it was their top year ever

And those are the ones I bothered to take the time to look up. YOU may think they've been ruined by being "woke," but in reality, they are doing just fine. And in some cases, they're doing better than ever. Isn't it you loons who are always crying about facts over feelings?
Resident Evil, the tv show dip s**t, you know the one I posted about? And ESPN ratings had nowhere to go but up after they fell off a cliff and had to fire a bunch of ppl. And of course the Last of us 2 was loved by critics, everything that’s woke gets automatic praise, but it’s a trash story that ruined the legacy of the 1st game.

You’re not making very sound arguments, you must still be mourning the cancellation of Samantha Bee’s show.
 

MyNameIsDoug?

Well-known member
Resident Evil, the tv show dip s**t, you know the one I posted about? And ESPN ratings had nowhere to go but up after they fell off a cliff and had to fire a bunch of ppl. And of course the Last of us 2 was loved by critics, everything that’s woke gets automatic praise, but it’s a trash story that ruined the legacy of the 1st game.

You’re not making very sound arguments, you must still be mourning the cancellation of Samantha Bee’s show.
Godamm you're a lol
 

BlueJayFan

Well-known member
Resident Evil, the tv show dip s**t, you know the one I posted about? And ESPN ratings had nowhere to go but up after they fell off a cliff and had to fire a bunch of ppl. And of course the Last of us 2 was loved by critics, everything that’s woke gets automatic praise, but it’s a trash story that ruined the legacy of the 1st game.

You’re not making very sound arguments, you must still be mourning the cancellation of Samantha Bee’s show.
Resident Evil TV show has done extremely well on Netflix lol It's been in the top 3 worldwide since its release

You're fuming at TLOU2 because Ellie is a lesbian. God damn you are a tool
 

Omar

Well-known member
Resident Evil TV show has done extremely well on Netflix lol It's been in the top 3 worldwide since its release

You're fuming at TLOU2 because Ellie is a lesbian. God damn you are a tool
Hmm, is a 3.8/10 good?


And no, I don’t care that Ellie was a lesbian, the Abby character and killing Joel ruined the game. Like I said, most consumers can handle some woke s**t, as long as the final product is good. The problem with so many of these games/shows/movies is they think woke messaging is enough no matter how terrible the plot, acting, and writing are.
 

BlueJayFan

Well-known member
Hmm, is a 3.8/10 good?


And no, I don’t care that Ellie was a lesbian, the Abby character and killing Joel ruined the game. Like I said, most consumers can handle some woke s**t, as long as the final product is good. The problem with so many of these games/shows/movies is they think woke messaging is enough no matter how terrible the plot, acting, and writing are.
Those are review bombs. We all know mad incels love to do that (they did the same with TLOU2)

How did being "woke" ruin TLOU2 if what ruined it was Joel getting killed ? Do you even hear yourself?
 

Omar

Well-known member
Those are review bombs. We all know mad incels love to do that (they did the same with TLOU2)

How did being "woke" ruin TLOU2 if what ruined it was Joel getting killed ? Do you even hear yourself?
Yeah, I’m sure it’s all review bombing and not the fact it legitimately sucks. And the whole concept of the Abby character is some woke Mary Sue fantasy. The graphics and gameplay were top notch, that’s not debatable, but the story was trash.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
Was reading the Empire photo shoot of the Rings of Power and thought the cover shot was ridiculous. Portraying Galadrial as a kick butt she warrior is so unimaginative and boring. Just another warrior girl among the dozens of such characters inhabiting modern entertainment:

1659576760628.png


Meanwhile this is the truly interesting take on Galadrial and the power she wields:

 

Crusaders

Moderator
It's also not what Galadriel was in the second age. She was never a warrior in the sense they seem to be portraying. More of a sage and a leader, as she's always been presented. Her story in the second age is interesting enough. Elrond's is more action-packed. Hopefully he gets his due screentime.

I can't see how this is going to turn out very well just at a story level. They're condensing events and characters that are spread out over thousands of years into the span of a human lifetime. This sort of corner-cutting and lack of creativity does not bode well.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
The critic Tom Shippey notes that in creating Galadriel, Tolkien was attempting to reconstruct the kind of elf hinted at by elf references in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) words. The hints are, he observes, paradoxical: while ælfscyne, "elf-beautiful", suggests a powerful allure, ælfsogoða, "lunacy", implies that getting too close to elves is dangerous. In Shippey's view, Tolkien is telling the literal truth that "beauty is itself dangerous", as Chaucer did in The Wife of Bath's Tale where both elves and friars are sexually rapacious. So when Faramir says to Sam Gamgee in Ithilien that Galadriel must be "perilously fair", Shippey comments that this is a "highly accurate remark"; Sam replies that "folk takes their peril with them into Lorien... But perhaps you could call her perilous, because she's so strong in herself."[1]

The Dúnedain said that her height was two rangar, or "man-high" – some 6 feet 4 inches

Doesn't seem as if the first movie exactly hit it on the nose either. Tolkien apparently intended she be dangerously intimidating in general. Not just while under some spell.

Tolkien acknowledged she was inspired by Haggard's Ayesha. Ayesha who sentenced her lover's retainers to death because they did not in her mind, adequately protect him in the forest from a leopard.

Galadriel is not Glinda the good witch. She is meant to be intimidating. Sword warrier? I don't think so.
 
Last edited:

eastisbest

Well-known member
It's also not what Galadriel was in the second age. She was never a warrior in the sense they seem to be portraying. More of a sage and a leader, as she's always been presented. Her story in the second age is interesting enough. Elrond's is more action-packed. Hopefully he gets his due screentime.

I can't see how this is going to turn out very well just at a story level. They're condensing events and characters that are spread out over thousands of years into the span of a human lifetime. This sort of corner-cutting and lack of creativity does not bode well.

We don't have a 1000 years. I'm reading different things as far as what type of warrier should would have been early. The books don't seem to specifically say. She is an elf. Later? Unlikely to have picked up a physical weapon.

What sells, sells. This movie wouldn't be the first product to show Galadriel as a kick butt warrier.
 
Last edited:

Crusaders

Moderator
2000 years between Moses and Jesus I guess it’s fine if we just make the former the latter’s uncle and both live under king David because we don’t want to lose the characters
 

lotr10

Well-known member
More fuel on the fire. For the record I think this guy is spot on.



Here's the article this came from:

 

PantherProud

Well-known member
More fuel on the fire. For the record I think this guy is spot on.



Here's the article this came from:



Boniadi appeared at San Diego Comic-Con at the end of July where she talked to the media and specifically praised the writers on the show for giving female characters agency.


Boniadi said, “What I love about the writers on this show is that they have given every woman on the show, every female character, such agency.”
“We don’t serve the men around us, we have a storyline and our own right,” she added.

I had watched the Comic Con panel awhile back, so this is pretty spot on to what she said.

Isn't this sort of what you should want? She's basically saying that the writers gave them well-written, well-rounded characters and that they aren't just there to be female characters for the sake of having female's in the show while the show revolved around the male characters.


We're clearly interpretting her words differently, but I don't take this any way other than her saying the writers wrote the female cast members well-written and interesting roles to play.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
I had watched the Comic Con panel awhile back, so this is pretty spot on to what she said.

Isn't this sort of what you should want? She's basically saying that the writers gave them well-written, well-rounded characters and that they aren't just there to be female characters for the sake of having female's in the show while the show revolved around the male characters.


We're clearly interpretting her words differently, but I don't take this any way other than her saying the writers wrote the female cast members well-written and interesting roles to play.
I would say that if the trailers and comments about Giladrial being a warrior girl swinging a sword and kicking Middle Earth butt is true then it's a major and IMO unforgivable deviation of the character that Tolkien wrote. What I find confusing is why do so many modern movies and series think that the pinnacle of female characterization is the warrior girl who kicks butts and takes names. When in fact it's a poor imitation of one type of male character.

Giladrial is an amazing character as written by Tolkein and portrayed in the LOTR trilogy. Sure her character needs to be fleshed out better. But she is a leader and a women of deep power and convictions. How about showing us this character when she is younger? That is a lot more interesting.

And throughout the interview the actress continually talks about the need for diversity and racial heterogeneity to make the LOTR universe more relevant to people. That is deeply insulting to Tolkien and complete BS IMO. By continually emphasizing race & gender over character and staying true to the work these people are in fact confirming our deepest concerns.

Let's look at how this plays out in another classic science fiction story - Dune. Dr. Liet Kynes is written as an older white man by Herbert. The director of the movie cast a younger black women in the part and she was excellent. Why did this work so well? The actress was true to the character as Herbert wrote him. She was Liet Kynes. Her race & gender neither added nor detracted from this.

In contrast what if the director and actress were "woke"and all we heard from her was how important it was to have racial diversity in the story. That Herbert's work wasn't good enough to reach out to all people. And say the Director & writer decided that Dr Kynes was to passive. That they needed to spice up the part with a black women in the role. So now Kynes goes from being a stoic scientist who has gone native to a warrior girl who joins Paul & company and kills a bunch of Harkonnnens. They can give her Duncan Idaho's fight scene where he goes down swinging against the Sardauker. After all how can our girls look up to the Kynes character as Herbert wrote him?
 

PantherProud

Well-known member
I would say that if the trailers and comments about Giladrial being a warrior girl swinging a sword and kicking Middle Earth butt is true then it's a major and IMO unforgivable deviation of the character that Tolkien wrote. What I find confusing is why do so many modern movies and series think that the pinnacle of female characterization is the warrior girl who kicks butts and takes names. When in fact it's a poor imitation of one type of male character.

Giladrial is an amazing character as written by Tolkein and portrayed in the LOTR trilogy. Sure her character needs to be fleshed out better. But she is a leader and a women of deep power and convictions. How about showing us this character when she is younger? That is a lot more interesting.

And throughout the interview the actress continually talks about the need for diversity and racial heterogeneity to make the LOTR universe more relevant to people. That is deeply insulting to Tolkien and complete BS IMO. By continually emphasizing race & gender over character and staying true to the work these people are in fact confirming our deepest concerns.

Let's look at how this plays out in another classic science fiction story - Dune. Dr. Liet Kynes is written as an older white man by Herbert. The director of the movie cast a younger black women in the part and she was excellent. Why did this work so well? The actress was true to the character as Herbert wrote him. She was Liet Kynes. Her race & gender neither added nor detracted from this.

In contrast what if the director and actress were "woke"and all we heard from her was how important it was to have racial diversity in the story. That Herbert's work wasn't good enough to reach out to all people. And say the Director & writer decided that Dr Kynes was to passive. That they needed to spice up the part with a black women in the role. So now Kynes goes from being a stoic scientist who has gone native to a warrior girl who joins Paul & company and kills a bunch of Harkonnnens. They can give her Duncan Idaho's fight scene where he goes down swinging against the Sardauker. After all how can our girls look up to the Kynes character as Herbert wrote him?


I guess I just don't see the issue of them mentioning diversity in the panel. Also, the panel was nearly an hour long, and they actually talk very little about the diversity inclusion they've done. I actually watched the panel specifically to see if they addressed their being a black elf, and they don't mention it once, nor do they talk about there being a black dwarf.

The quotes you're seeing in that article is pretty much the only time that the skin color and sex of a character is mentioned in a 45-50 minute panel with the writers and cast. They're cherry picked quotes. It's not like the entire panel was about it. It's maybe 1 minute in a 45-50 minute panel about the show. I also think it's important to wait and see what they do in the show, not just make final conclusions based on a couple lines in an interview.

As for Galdriel, I've never read The Silmarillion and it's been close to 20 years since I've read the LOTR appendices, so I defer to others there. The little I've read up on, it sounds like she did do some fighting in the First Age, and coupled with Tolkien describing her as an "Amazonian Warrior" they are taking some liberties with her character in the Second Age. In the writers words, they wanted to tell a story of "this young hot-headed Galadriel…how did she ever become that elder stateswoman?"



Found this, it's posted by a fan so have no idea if it's true or not.

Unfortunately, Amazon only has the rights to the entirety of TLotR and The Hobbit, which severely limits how they can accurately present Galadriel's history during the Seond Age. But, based on the description they have provided of how she is to be portrayed in the show, I feel that they have chosen to depict her far more as she was during the Age of the Trees in Valinor, during the First Kinslaying at Aqualondë, and the crossing of the Helcaraxë, despite not having access to these materials.

Galadriel was essentially always a warrior but by the time her residence in Doriath and tutelage under Melian during the First Age took place, her approach to “combat” had become quite different than that of the typical general the show appears to depict her as. She was a brilliant strategist and tactician (Note her natural friendship with the Dwarves of Khazad-dûm but also her view of them as valuable fighting assets), as well as a natural leader, fount of wisdom, and possessor of immeasurable power than manifested itself in ways far more complex and “mystical/magical” than mere physical combat. Much of this is expanded upon in Tolkien's published letters, portions of volumes in The History of Middle-earth series and Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth, none of which Amazon has the rights to.
 

PantherProud

Well-known member
Didn't post this before since I figured nothing good would come of it, but since we are discussing it now, here's the full comic con panel with the writers and cast.



 

lotr10

Well-known member
I want to like this show - I really do. So can these people just SHUT UP already! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not looking forward to a "nuanced conversation of misogyny"!


“‘House of the Dragon’ really creates a nuanced conversation of misogyny,” Alcock said. “We don’t only explore it through a level of women being shut down and the patriarchy, but also go in-depth about the internalized misogyny that women are constantly faced with, and the competitiveness. Alicent and Rhaenyra’s relationship is at the forefront of that conversation.”
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
I want to like this show - I really do. So can these people just SHUT UP already!

So you just told professional women to "shut up" but see no need for a show to explore the concept of misogyny.

OK.

If you really want to enjoy the show, just pretend it's only about golden eggs and dragons. Not a problem.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
I want to like this show - I really do. So can these people just SHUT UP already! I don't know about the rest of you but I'm not looking forward to a "nuanced conversation of misogyny"!


“‘House of the Dragon’ really creates a nuanced conversation of misogyny,” Alcock said. “We don’t only explore it through a level of women being shut down and the patriarchy, but also go in-depth about the internalized misogyny that women are constantly faced with, and the competitiveness. Alicent and Rhaenyra’s relationship is at the forefront of that conversation.”

Yeah it won’t be nuanced at all. And no one wants to here about the non-existent patriarchy
 

lotr10

Well-known member
So you just told professional women to "shut up" but see no need for a show to explore the concept of misogyny.

OK.

If you really want to enjoy the show, just pretend it's only about golden eggs and dragons. Not a problem.
Yea I told this particular professional women to shut up if she wants to see the show get the highest possible viewership. You know something that a true "professional" might want.

And for the record I have no interest in a show set in the world of The Lord of the Rings to explore misogyny. Do you?

Tolkien's fictional universe is about a lot of things but taking a nuanced look at misogyny is not one of them. It's a fantasy so yea keep the Dragons & Golden Eggs and ditch the social justice BS.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Yea I told this particular professional women to shut up if she wants to see the show get the highest possible viewership. You know something that a true "professional" might want.

And for the record I have no interest in a show set in the world of The Lord of the Rings to explore misogyny. Do you?

Tolkien's fictional universe is about a lot of things but taking a nuanced look at misogyny is not one of them. It's a fantasy so yea keep the Dragons & Golden Eggs and ditch the social justice BS.
A world was built. It is normal after that world has been rehashed and rehashed that there are going to be attempts to expand on issues that were on the fringe or not covered or to alternate - reality it. It's done with creators a lot bigger than Tolkien.

To presume in that world there were not powerful women, when powerful women were already shown would be ridiculous. To not explore the different way men and women attain power or are restricted from power would be only for the simple minded. Almost any show about a women seeking power has mysogynistic tones at its core and they do reflect reality. Stop being fraid of women.

Besides which, you might consider these "professionals" are only putting out the words marketing has told them to because they sell. Which is back to your original complaint. You are creating new complaints just to have something to complain about and now you're contradicting yourself.

That professional's work was obviously greenlighted to the top. You've gone from critiique to whiney and cringy. You're clearly not pissed over money. You're pissed because there are people in the world, even the fictional world that don't exist they way you want them to and it's being depicted within your favorite genre. Maybe you shouldnt have picked a genre that is at it's essense exploration. Well now they're to be depicted in your fantasy world. Rejoice. You'll always have the testoterone in the originals. The franchise fandom might lose a few incel's but for the most part, it will bring that world a new audience.

Lotr going to blow a cork if it has trans hobbits swinging swords.

Their money. Their risk. If the existence bothers you, just consider it non-canon.
 

lotr10

Well-known member
A world was built. It is normal after that world has been rehashed and rehashed that there are going to be attempts to expand on issues that were on the fringe or not covered or to alternate - reality it. It's done with creators a lot bigger than Tolkien.

To presume in that world there were not powerful women, when powerful women were already shown would be ridiculous. To not explore the different way men and women attain power or are restricted from power would be only for the simple minded. Almost any show about a women seeking power has mysogynistic tones at its core and they do reflect reality. Stop being fraid of women.

Besides which, you might consider these "professionals" are only putting out the words marketing has told them to because they sell. Which is back to your original complaint. You are creating new complaints just to have something to complain about and now you're contradicting yourself.

That professional's work was obviously greenlighted to the top. You've gone from critiique to whiney and cringy. You're clearly not pissed over money. You're pissed because there are people in the world, even the fictional world that don't exist they way you want them to and it's being depicted within your favorite genre. Maybe you shouldnt have picked a genre that is at it's essense exploration. Well now they're to be depicted in your fantasy world. Rejoice. You'll always have the testoterone in the originals. The franchise fandom might lose a few incel's but for the most part, it will bring that world a new audience.

Lotr going to blow a cork if it has trans hobbits swinging swords.

Their money. Their risk. If the existence bothers you, just consider it non-canon.
Addressing each of your points in order:

Tolkien's world has not been "rehashed and rehashed". The Star Trek, Sar Wars, Marvel & DC worlds have been rehashed to the point of diminishing returns but there has been comparatively little movie & series work about Middle Earth.

It's interesting that you equate the male warrior trope with whether a women is powerful or not. There are many kinds & expressions of power. Swinging a sword is just one. And to be clear exploring the evils of the patriarchy and misogyny, beyond being boring, are not an exploration of the different ways men & women attain power. It's much to blunt for that. Rather it's cheap woke propaganda masquerading as entertainment.

Oh and it's not being afraid of women to question this unimaginative, boring and way to narrow view of women and power.

You present a completely wrong headed and self serving description of what science fiction and fantasy are. You cite "exploration" as an excuse to use these two genres as a way to spread a social justice ideology. Have at it and propagandize all you want but don't criticize those of us who reject the resulting rubbish.

If they have trans hobbits prancing about I won't croak I'll just laugh and turn the program off. I have plenty of other things to read & watch for enjoyment.

Sure it's "their money. Their risk." But its my opinion and my eyeballs and my money spent ordering these streaming services. Grant me the same right to criticize this crap that you grant them for making it.
 

Crusaders

Moderator
A major issue with having female characters behave like men in order to "show men woman can be strong" is that females don't do "masculine" as well as males, so you end up with a character that's basically a weaker version of a male counterpart - and when when a woman is written to be a better male than a man, it's silly or comedic. It also diminishes the role of the feminine, and seemingly unbeknownst to these woke "feminist" writers, tells a message that the only way to be powerful is to act like a male... which is, of course, ironic because they will then spend a lot of time telling us how evil men are, making the overall message something akin to: it's okay to embrace evil to gain power.

Many have pointed out that woke feminism is all about power and is more or less fueled by the repressed jealousy of men some women hold. These people don't help in the case against such accusations when they write stories with these sorts of messages.

Tolkien wrote his own "off-shoot" stories that haven't been touched. The Children of Hurin is one of the newer, posthumous examples his son published. That's a glimpse into a "wider Middle Earth", not this claptrap.
 
Last edited:
.
Top