# Amazon is mutating Tolkien's vision of Middle Earth



## Elisha (Aug 15, 2021)

Amazon wants to include explicit content in their show of Middle Earth. However, that is not in line with Tolkien's view or the view of countless fans! Tolkien described his work ad "purged of the gross" we must keep it this way! Please sign my petition to make our voices heard http://chng.it/8tM8K2Cm


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (Aug 15, 2021)

Petitions like this never work, Amazon is a huge company and isn't going to listen to or be included by some random fans online.


----------



## Elisha (Aug 15, 2021)

Not if we get enough people! One petition which has so far gained over 50,000 signatures has been featured on numerous news outlets! And it is possible that they did influence because it seemed in the latest spy reports that explicit content had been scaled down quite a bit. However, not enough and if we really show them that it won't be successful then they'll have no choice. And besides it never hurts to try!


----------



## Phuc Do (Aug 15, 2021)

Take a chill pill bro.


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 16, 2021)

Erestor Arcamen said:


> Petitions like this never work, Amazon is a huge company and isn't going to listen to or be included by some random fans online.


But we're their markets.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 16, 2021)

And there are many millions of Amazon customers who have never read any Tolkien and won't care whether it has explicit content


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 16, 2021)

There are millions of fans of Peter Jackson's films who probably still have not read either of the books.
Add to those the millions of fans of the Game of Thrones TV series, and you have the market Amazon is aiming for.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 16, 2021)

Which makes me wonder: could we get a petition up for some _retroactive _"purging of the gross"? 😀


----------



## Radaghast (Aug 16, 2021)

Not sure it will do any good but I've signed it because why not? At any rate, I intend to cancel my Prime subscription, not just because of the the LotR series but because Amazon is pure evil. I'll guess I'll just have to try find the rest of _Endeavour_ on DVD at the library.


----------



## Rivendell_librarian (Aug 16, 2021)

At least PJ didn't include any sexually explicit content!


----------



## Alcuin (Aug 17, 2021)

Hollywood and Big Tech are intent upon destroying Western civilization and remodeling it in their own perverted notion of what’s proper. These “progressives” (i.e., Marxists) don’t care if it matches the story, if it’s in any way true to the ideas and concepts behind what they are destroying, or even if they make money. In regards to making money or not, it isn’t _their_ wealth at stake: they’ll get paid whether they make a profit or not. 

This pattern is true in the Peter Jackson Tolkien movies, in the last three Star Wars movies, the recent Star Trek movies and television shows, the recent Marvel movies, the Dr Who failure, and the general level of trash Hollywood and its daughter industries (Disney+, hulu, etc.) have delivered, and the material regularly excised from YouTube or Facebook or Twitter. Amazon is just one more example of programmed, intentional failure in an endeavor to overturn the civilization that allowed them to spawn. 

And they don’t give a [email protected]#! whether or not anyone actually _likes_ the trash they pour our any more than Saruman cared whether the folks in Hobbiton liked the filth that poured out of the new mill into The Water and from there into the Brandywine: all the better if they hated it! So also with these cretins, these _artistes_. 

Yeah, I’m really, really hacked off at Hollywood and Big Tech.


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 17, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Hollywood and Big Tech are intent upon destroying Western civilization and remodeling it in their own perverted notion of what’s proper. These “progressives” (i.e., Marxists) don’t care if it matches the story, if it’s in any way true to the ideas and concepts behind what they are destroying, or even if they make money. In regards to making money or not, it isn’t _their_ wealth at stake: they’ll get paid whether they make a profit or not.
> 
> This pattern is true in the Peter Jackson Tolkien movies, in the last three Star Wars movies, the recent Star Trek movies and television shows, the recent Marvel movies, the Dr Who failure, and the general level of trash Hollywood and its daughter industries (Disney+, hulu, etc.) have delivered, and the material regularly excised from YouTube or Facebook or Twitter. Amazon is just one more example of programmed, intentional failure in an endeavor to overturn the civilization that allowed them to spawn.
> 
> ...


There's nothing Marxist about it.
Quite the opposite, it's the supreme capitalist dream: they'll do whatever it takes to make money at the expensive of everyone and everthing else. It's capitalism that destroys and subverts for the sake of making a buck any way they can. And this includes taking somebody elses creation and misrepresenting it to fit their agenda.... the agenda of making money.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 17, 2021)

Before this goes any further, may I suggest a reread of the Rules thread?



https://www.thetolkienforum.com/threads/the-rules-thread.29109/


----------



## 1stvermont (Aug 17, 2021)

Elisha 1913 said:


> Amazon wants to include explicit content in their show of Middle Earth. However, that is not in line with Tolkien's view or the view of countless fans! Tolkien described his work ad "purged of the gross" we must keep it this way! Please sign my petition to make our voices heard http://chng.it/8tM8K2Cm


sighned.


----------



## Olorgando (Aug 17, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Yeah, I’m really, really hacked off at Hollywood and Big Tech.


I can certainly agree with you about these two sectors of the economy in principle, though not in all details (which should not surprise you).
But you fail to mention a far more sinister system that lurks at the back of every economic endeavor of the present day:
The "International Finance Industry".

At some time in the first century AD the saying "pecunia non olet" was coined - appropriate term - in the Roman Empire. I had a defective memory about it being linked directly to ancient Rome's big sewer, the "Cloaca Maxima" - which as so many things thought Roman, was actually in earliest origin Etruscan. There is a weaker link, as the saying was applied to a tax levied on a waste product usually destined for a sewer ...

When the ancestors of the "International Finance Industry" latched onto that saying is probably lost in the fogs of history. That it is their unofficial credo is utterly obvious. Those middle-ages alchemists look like toddlers in a sandbox in their misguided (and unsuccessful) attempts to turn "less-than-noble" substances into gold. Their undeclared successors have actually succeeded (meditate on the term "subprime ..." - at least Michael Milken called his stuff "Junk Bonds" 👿 )


----------



## Hisoka Morrow (Aug 18, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Hollywood and Big Tech are intent upon destroying Western civilization and remodeling it in their own perverted notion of what’s proper. These “progressives” (i.e., Marxists) don’t care if it matches the story, if it’s in any way true to the ideas and concepts behind what they are destroying, or even if they make money. In regards to making money or not, it isn’t _their_ wealth at stake: they’ll get paid whether they make a profit or not.
> 
> This pattern is true in the Peter Jackson Tolkien movies, in the last three Star Wars movies, the recent Star Trek movies and television shows, the recent Marvel movies, the Dr Who failure, and the general level of trash Hollywood and its daughter industries (Disney+, hulu, etc.) have delivered, and the material regularly excised from YouTube or Facebook or Twitter. Amazon is just one more example of programmed, intentional failure in an endeavor to overturn the civilization that allowed them to spawn.
> 
> ...


I can't agree with you anymore+10000, very righteously harsh words deserved by them.


----------



## ArnorianRanger (Aug 18, 2021)

I imagine Frodo and Sam would have a proper reaction:

Sam: "I wonder if they'll ever put any of the old stories into songs or tales properly."
Frodo: "What?" 
Sam: "I wonder if people will ever say, 'Let's hear about the Elves and the Silmarils.' And they'll say 'Yes, that's one of my favorite stories. Or it used to be, until Amazon ruined it in five seasons and the fans couldn't come up with anything better. Seriously, decades of work and they can just destroy the public's perception of one of the greatest modern myths of all time in a few seasons!? And that's saying a lot.'"
Frodo: "You've left out one of the chief characters to start the whole thing - Peter the Jackson." 
Sam: "Now Mr. Frodo, you shouldn't make fun; I was being serious. 
Frodo: "So was I."

Thanks,

ArnorianRanger


----------



## Elisha (Aug 22, 2021)

Alcuin said:


> Hollywood and Big Tech are intent upon destroying Western civilization and remodeling it in their own perverted notion of what’s proper. These “progressives” (i.e., Marxists) don’t care if it matches the story, if it’s in any way true to the ideas and concepts behind what they are destroying, or even if they make money. In regards to making money or not, it isn’t _their_ wealth at stake: they’ll get paid whether they make a profit or not.
> 
> This pattern is true in the Peter Jackson Tolkien movies, in the last three Star Wars movies, the recent Star Trek movies and television shows, the recent Marvel movies, the Dr Who failure, and the general level of trash Hollywood and its daughter industries (Disney+, hulu, etc.) have delivered, and the material regularly excised from YouTube or Facebook or Twitter. Amazon is just one more example of programmed, intentional failure in an endeavor to overturn the civilization that allowed them to spawn.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more!

Hey everyone just an update on my petition: It has now reached 14 signatures, but has slowed down a bit. I would really appreciate it if you could share this link with anyone you know who might sign it or on any other Tolkien Forums you know of. I know this has a low chance of success, but it doesn't take much time and effort to just share this link http://chng.it/8tM8K2Cm Thanks!


----------



## Ealdwyn (Aug 23, 2021)




----------



## Elthir (Aug 23, 2021)

Wait . . . a visual comment about Amazon and _The Lord of the Rings_ using a still from Jackson's films?

I need a nap.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 23, 2021)

Just be careful where you take it.


----------



## Elthir (Aug 23, 2021)

😂

Maybe you should get some sleep too S-eS . . . I have a feeling it’s pasture bedtime!


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 23, 2021)

I just took a long nap myself -- so you can muzzle that suggestion.


----------



## Elthir (Aug 23, 2021)

A long nap? Then why the "long face"?


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 23, 2021)

I like it.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 23, 2021)

Oops! Sorry -- I misread your post. 😁


----------



## Elthir (Aug 23, 2021)

No problem S-eS. 

You've been a "stable" contributor to these puns, and that's what matters most 🐴


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 23, 2021)

I tend to tail off. . .


----------



## Aldarion (Aug 24, 2021)

Considering how much Amazon is / will be horsing around, I think a little pun is warranted.


----------



## Halasían (Aug 24, 2021)

I came back because I had a PM notification. It was from a dear friend. Took a look at the forum and this is what is the top thread?
Personally I don't really give a damn what Amazon does with it. I'll probably watch it out of curiousity and make a decision on whether I keep watching or not after the first installments.


----------



## Shadow (Aug 24, 2021)

I’ll check it out, but even if it’s a dud I’ll always have the books, and I‘ll always have the Jackson films, which I enjoy despite the criticism they receive around here.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Aug 24, 2021)

Halasían said:


> Took a look at the forum and this is what is the top thread?


You know all it takes to raise a thread to the top? A post. 😁 

P.S.: That was a hint, in case you missed it.


----------



## Radaghast (Aug 24, 2021)

Ealdwyn said:


> View attachment 10161


This couldn't be more apt.


----------



## LadyGaladriel1980 (Mar 18, 2022)

Olorgando said:


> There are millions of fans of Peter Jackson's films who probably still have not read either of the books.
> Add to those the millions of fans of the Game of Thrones TV series, and you have the market Amazon is aiming for.


Yes, this serie is nothing for Tolkienfans, it is more for teenagers, which dont remember the days, when we had no blackwashing in movies and series, or for game of throne fans, which enjoy to see sex and violence. 
But i am totally angry and sad, that Tolkiens descendants allow Amazon to produce such horrible trash.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 11, 2022)

By the beard of Gandalf, what the hell is that supposed to represent?






Is Amazon doing a Bollywood version of 2nd Age, and they're about to start singing and dancing?

That is so ridiculous.


Edit: Maybe the new version of this...




... when you've smoked way too much pipe weed?


----------



## Annatar (Jun 11, 2022)

I like this picture better, but I'm starting to get the impression that the producers must have a lantern fetish:






Why do the two women wear a veil in front of their faces and have to stand? 
Those seem to be very patriachal organized elves.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 11, 2022)

Servants? If they're going with short hair on male elves, the two on the right, with their backs to the camera, may well be female.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 11, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> Servants?


Yes, I thought so too. But servants in particular need a clear view. Why should they walk around with a net in front of their face? They spill the good wine all over the fine gentlemen. (Or maybe they are beekeepers who are about to serve the honey for dessert?)


And why do these pseudo-hobbits wear lettuce in their hair? 😂
Does the lady on the right have a beard? Maybe she is not a hobbit, but a female dwarf with lettuce in her hair?
And I'm pretty sure I saw the guy on the left at a Goa festival the other day....






Everyone knows that it is against the nature of hobbits to travel around all the time. And the most conservative were probably rather the Harfoots.
I'm afraid this series shows a completely perverted version of the hobbits.
Obviously, this is an amalgamation of multi-ethnic pseudo-"Harfoots" who lead a nomadic life and practice primitive tribal rituals. This pretty much contradicts everything we know about them from Tolkien. I think Tolkien emphasized that the hobbits were sedentary and only went wandering when circumstances did not permit otherwise. (Exceptions were, for example, the Bagginses and Tooks who had some Fallohide impact. And they were considered freaks.).

Well, it may be the case here that they were forced to wander by Sauron's evil influence, but the imagery suggests a lifestyle that has long been characterized by nomadism. And this is what Lenny Henry says:



> "We're a nomadic tribe, moving with the weather and the fertility of the crops. We have big caravans on wooden wheels and we're very good at hiding things, because humans are much bigger than us and bring trouble."


Well, at least the last part makes a little more sense. Even though the Hobbits had very close contact with the ancestors of the Rohirrim.


Because it is so so beautiful, here again a nomadic pseudo-hobbit picture with one giant lantern and two other lanterns in the background.






I love these lanterns already, don't you? It will be one big Laternabalooza lantern festival. 

So, now for a change briefly a picture where I first of all can not grumble around:





Here I could say at most that the armor does not look particularly elvish, but very human and militaristic as we know them from the Middle Ages or perhaps from the late Romans. But well, that is more a matter of taste, like the hair length of the elves. (Or do you think elves must necessarily have long hair?)

In terms of content, however, the scene is probably nonsense. Galadriel seems to be promoted to some kind of knight of the round table or something like that. We will see...

Edit: What is particularly noticeable here is that there are no lanterns in the picture. Which is a pity again, because I had already become very accustomed to it.

Editedit: For that, we may have here a Mallorn tree shining brightly like a lantern, although the scene is probably set in Lindon, where no Mellyrn can grow. 
Well, maybe it's just autumn.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 11, 2022)

Annatar said:


> This pretty much contradicts everything we know about them from Tolkien.


They may have taken their cue from this:

_There were probably many more Outsiders scattered about in the West of the World in those days than the people of the Shire imagined. Some, doubtless, were no better than tramps, ready to dig a hole in any bank and stay only as long as it suited them._
At the Sign of the Prancing Pony

That's Third Age, of course, but it does suggest a tradition of movement, or even migration; certainly the hobbits familiar to us did a lot of it, before coming to the Shire.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 11, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Is Amazon doing a Bollywood version of 2nd Age, and they're about to start singing and dancing?


It looks more Pre-Raphaelite to me.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I'd totally watch a Bollywood version of The Hobbit. It couldn't possibly be any worse than PJ's.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 11, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> That's Third Age, of course, but it does suggest a tradition of movement, or even migration; certainly the hobbits familiar to us did a lot of it, before coming to the Shire.


I wouldn't go that far to call it a tradition. It seems to me, like the adventurous Bagginses, to be rather the exception to the rule.
And yes, of course there were some major migrations of the hobbits westward over the Misty Mountains, but that was only out of necessity, after they had been settled in the Anduin Valleys for a very long time and the troubles with the Easterlings and orcs got worse and worse, so they were forced to flee.

But well, I realize that good stories always focus on the exceptions to the rule. Let's hope, then, that this nomadic Hobbit tribe is also portrayed as an exception accordingly. But even if it is, I still don't like it. I would have found it better to include the Druedain instead. From the producers' point of view, they could have achieved similar goals and remained more faithful to the books. But unfortunately, the producers don't really know their stuff.

Now another picture with Arondir, the Amazon original EOC, standing on a tower and looking over the Amazon original land of Tirharad:





Again, I have to wonder why Amazon is making all these things up instead of sticking with the books? Do they have to fill in gaps with made up things because they lack the rights for the Sil and UT? If so, can't they do it more in the spirit of Tolkien and make it look less like standard generic fantasy?
Years ago they had created wonderful maps with new details on Harad, Khand and Rhun. It all seems to go unused. Too bad.



Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I've said it before, but I'll say it again: I'd totally watch a Bollywood version of The Hobbit.


I'd find that funny too (as long as it is hardstyle aswell). But with the most expensive series of all time, there should be a little more seriousness and faithfulness to the original...
Everythings looks so artificial and kind of cheap, although it certainly wasn't cheap. And at the same, everything is so exaggerated. Hard to describe. It doesn't look real, but like people are making a diorama.

Compare it all to Game of Thrones, regardless of the content, just look and feel. Game of Thrones is mostly believable, but this looks cheesy and artificial, like Wheel of Time. Amazon simply can't do it.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 11, 2022)

Annatar said:


> I'd find that funny too.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 11, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> View attachment 13788View attachment 13789


----------



## Aldarion (Jun 11, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Or do you think elves must necessarily have long hair?


Yes. Whenever Tolkien described an Elf, male or female, he _always_ had them wear long hair. And it is often described as "flowing", IIRC, meaning it was not braided.

As for the outright general statement, closest we have is I think this:
_“All the Eldar had beautiful hair (and were especially attracted by hair of exceptional loveliness), but the Noldor were not specially remarkable in this respect, and there is no reference to Finwe as having had hair of exceptional length, abundance, or beauty beyond the measure of his people.”_

I mean, he never says there are _no _elves with short hair, but then again he also never says that there are no Supermarine Spitfires being used in battles, so... Also, look at the context: Tolkien's work outright eroticizes hair, and uses it basically as a status symbol. And when hair was historically used as a status symbol, it was typically long. And seeing how Elves are the _elder children_ of Illuvatar, it makes narrative sense to have them have predominantly long hair.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 11, 2022)

Aldarion said:


> Yes. Whenever Tolkien described an Elf, male or female, he _always_ had them wear long hair. And it is often described as "flowing", IIRC, meaning it was not braided.
> 
> As for the outright general statement, closest we have is I think this:
> _“All the Eldar had beautiful hair (and were especially attracted by hair of exceptional loveliness), but the Noldor were not specially remarkable in this respect, and there is no reference to Finwe as having had hair of exceptional length, abundance, or beauty beyond the measure of his people.”_
> ...



I like your argumentation, but I'm a bit skeptical about it, because it's not really clear. Beautiful hair or a good hairstyle can actually be rather short when it comes to men. So here I have to play the advocatus diaboli. 😉 But I would definitely agree that there were (nearly) no elves with bald or very short hair.
I'm also skeptical about Tolkien's seriousness regarding the beards of the dwarf women. So as far as hair and beards are concerned, I seem to be rather liberal and would rather forgive Amazon some mistakes or "interpretations" there... Arondir's extremely short hair, however, remains a no-go for me as well.

What annoys me enormously, however, is vegetables in the hair, which leads me to this other ridiculous hobbit picture (with a lot of hair lettuce and cart lettuce). Of course it's not really the lettuce in the hair, that's just a symptom, but I'm sure you get what I mean:






In my opinion, this illustrates quite well the involuntarily artificial, exaggerated, kitschy and somehow embarrassing look that can be found in almost all screenshots and the teaser so far.
And why do little girls have to pull the heavy wagons? That is absolute nonsense and not the case in any culture. Besides, they seem to wear a uniform. Hobbits are actually colorfully dressed, but these look pretty conformist.
And by the way, I believe that the only reason they need these carts is to transport their giant lanterns. 😸

In this picture, you don't see any penetrating "diversity/inclusion" agenda (at least not with the three hobbits in the foreground), which is usually so obtrusive and stands out as the most obvious immersion-destroying criterion. And yet somehow everything here seems wrong and totally stupid and poorly done. It looks like they made an effort, which would also justify the high budget, but still it all seems amateurish. If you give amateurs endless money, it will still be expensive, but not professional. If these amateurs also have little idea of the source material and have not understood what Tolkien's works are about, of course only crap can come out. But unfortunately even the rest doesn't seem to work, so it won't even be a good generic fantasy. The same arrogant idiots are at work here as with Wheel of Time, and it's already been proven that they try to frame any criticism as right-wing.
The project should have been given to HBO or other professionals who understand a bit more about the subject.

This whole scene just seems unbelievable and ridiculous. It's something that maybe children or idiots like to watch, or Tolkien fans like me who don't want to believe it and stand there in disbelief as if in front of an accident.
Oh yes, if someone from Amazon who is involved in this project happens to be reading along here:
Shame on you! You have already failed before the series has even started. You can't be blamed for not having an eye for detail, but you are completely deluded and have no idea what is authentic. Dead on arrival.
This has nothing to do with Tolkien's spirit, this is not Middle-earth, this is just bad and ideology-driven cosplay that mocks the actual fandom and insults Tolkien. And the more you publish of this blasphemy, the more obvious it becomes.


----------



## Aldarion (Jun 11, 2022)

Annatar said:


> I like your argumentation, but I'm a bit skeptical about it, because it's not really clear. Beautiful hair or a good hairstyle can actually be rather short when it comes to men. So here I have to play the advocatus diaboli. 😉 But I would definitely agree that there were (nearly) no elves with bald or very short hair.


Well, look at what I said about the context: when hair was used as a status symbol, it was typically long. More importantly, long hair was worn in basically all cultures which Tolkien based his elves on.


Annatar said:


> I'm also skeptical about Tolkien's seriousness regarding the beards of the dwarf women. So as far as hair and beards are concerned, I seem to be rather liberal and would rather forgive Amazon some mistakes or "interpretations" there... Arondir's extremely short hair, however, remains a no-go for me as well.


Unlike elves' hair, there is no extrapolations here. We have it from both Gimli and Word of God himself:





The Grey Havens - Dwarves: Did Dwarf women have beards?


Croatian WWW Site Dedicated to the World of of J.R.R. Tolkien



tolkien.cro.net





It is stated in Appendices and I believe one volume of HoME that dwarven women had beards. So "dwarven women without beards" doesn't even have a an excuse of "not being directly contradicted".


> Annatar said:
> 
> 
> > What annoys me enormously, however, is vegetables in the hair, which leads me to this other ridiculous hobbit picture (with a lot of hair lettuce and cart lettuce):


Yeah, that is rather extremely annoying. It is obvious that the village life we will be getting will be a portrayal of village life by an ignorant city dweller.



Annatar said:


> And why do little girls have to pull the heavy wagons? That is absolute nonsense and not the case in any culture. Besides, they seem to wear a uniform. Hobbits are actually colorfully dressed, but these look pretty conformist.


That, to be fair, is a typical mistake when portraying a medieval setting. Honestly, old (1950s - 1970s) movies were far better in that regard. Middle Ages were _colorful_, nobody, not even peasants wore the drab brown etc. clothes that we see portrayed in the movies.









Why We Should See The Middle Ages In All Its 'Garish' Colors


Although perhaps "garish," the recent painting of a 15th-century statue is actually quite true to the original spirit of the piece. Although we tend to think of the ancient and medieval worlds as drab and colorless, medievals of Europe loved bold color in all their objects.




www.forbes.com





I mean, clothes, armor, even buildings themselves... in actual Middle Ages, world was full of color. But for some reason, filmmakers today seem allergic to anything that doesn't look like it was thrown out of the Sepia Collective.


Annatar said:


> In this picture, you don't see any penetrating "diversity/inclusion" agenda (at least not with the three hobbits in the foreground), which is usually so obtrusive and stands out as the most obvious immersion-destroying criterion. And yet somehow everything here seems wrong and totally stupid and poorly done. It looks like they made an effort, which would also justify the high budget, but still it all seems amateurish. If you give amateurs endless money, it will still be expensive, but not professional. If these amateurs also have little idea of the source material and have not understood what Tolkien's works are about, of course only crap can come out. But unfortunately even the rest doesn't seem to work, so it won't even be a good generic fantasy. The same arrogant idiots are at work here as with Wheel of Time, and it's already been proven that they try to frame any criticism as right-wing.
> The project should have been given to HBO or other professionals who understand a bit more about the subject.


Agreed. Main problem is that they simply _don't care_ about Tolkien and his work. And then people have question marks as to why I believe show will be garbage.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Jun 12, 2022)

Aldarion said:


> Yes. Whenever Tolkien described an Elf, male or female, he _always_ had them wear long hair. And it is often described as "flowing", IIRC, meaning it was not braided.
> 
> As for the outright general statement, closest we have is I think this:
> _“All the Eldar had beautiful hair (and were especially attracted by hair of exceptional loveliness), but the Noldor were not specially remarkable in this respect, and there is no reference to Finwe as having had hair of exceptional length, abundance, or beauty beyond the measure of his people.”_
> ...


There is more than that, he outright says the Teleri and the Noldor have long hair and he says the Wood-elves twine flowers in their hair (when partying), suggesting long hair as well (which should be no surprise as the Silvan Elves are primarily of Telerin descent):

"But most it was their wont to sail in their swift ships upon the waters of the Bay of Elvenhome, or to walk in the waves upon the shore with their long hair gleaming like foam in the light beyond the hill."
Morgoth's Ring, LQS
"Finwe (and Míriel) had long dark hair, so had Feanor and all the Noldor, save by intermarriage which did not often take place between clans, except among the chieftains, and then only after settlement in Aman."
NoMe, Hair
"Their gloaming hair was twined with flowers; green and white gems glinted on their collars and their belts; and their faces and their songs were filled with mirth. Loud and clear and fair were those songs, and out stepped Thorin into their midst.
The Hobbit, Flies and Spiders
And just to cover the Sindar (though they are also Telerin):
"In general the Sindar appear to have very closely resembled the Exiles, being dark-haired, strong and tall, but lithe. Indeed they could hardly be told apart except by their eyes..."
WotJ, Quendi and Eldar

====
Regarding the produce in the hair of the *Harfoots, I have seen people seriously arguing that it is camouflage, used to hide from the other races.


----------



## Annatar (Jun 13, 2022)

Tar-Elenion said:


> "But most it was their wont to sail in their swift ships upon the waters of the Bay of Elvenhome, or to walk in the waves upon the shore with their long hair gleaming like foam in the light beyond the hill."
> Morgoth's Ring, LQS
> "Finwe (and Míriel) had long dark hair, so had Feanor and all the Noldor, save by intermarriage which did not often take place between clans, except among the chieftains, and then only after settlement in Aman."
> NoMe, Hair


Yes, these quotes are pretty clear.
I wonder why Amazon deviates from this? To differentiate themselves stylistically from PJ would hardly be an argument, or they wouldn't have hired Howe and Shore.
With Amzon's Wheel of Woke er Time, it seemed to me that the protagonists should also look as much like modern teenagers as possible, visually. Maybe that's how they do it here, too.
In general, the elves seem to look less ethereal and more human on average.


----------



## Lómelindë Lindórië (Jun 13, 2022)

Annatar said:


> I wonder why Amazon deviates from this?


Well, to put it most simply, they just want individuality, and standing out - yet it seems they are standing out too much...


----------



## Annatar (Jun 13, 2022)

In most generic fantasy television series, such as The Witcher or Shannara, elves are distinguished from humans solely by their pointed ears.
In Tolkien's work, only the noblest of the Edain (and perhaps of Numenor) can possibly be mistaken for elves at first glance, such as Turin.
The Amazon elves look more like Romans to me on the screenshots so far: Uniform, functional armor, short hair, laurel wreaths.
For all I know of the series so far, though, I have to say it could have been worse - much worse. For example, one could still interpret that some warriors tended to wear their hair short in times of war, etc.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 13, 2022)

Maybe Tolkien fetishized long hair because the Normans cropped theirs so severely.

He did have a bit of a grudge against the Normans. 😄


----------



## Annatar (Jun 14, 2022)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> He did have a bit of a grudge against the Normans.


Well, no wonder with these crappy hairstyles. Unfortunately, I still see it on young people when I'm on the subway. These Normans were apparently trendsetters, even if the shaved area is now more on the side than behind. 
Did the Normans also wear their ankles free in winter?


----------



## Radaghast (Jun 14, 2022)

Figured this video was worth posting here:


----------



## Annatar (Jun 26, 2022)

The guys from "Fellowship of Fans" apparently have access to a good source of information, because so far they have been mostly right.
Now they have some new rumors about the Numenoreans:
1) They haven't fought in a war for hundreds of years.
2) Although they are a naval power from an island and despite point 1) they have a cavalry.*
3) 50% of the army are women.

*Tolkien: "The Númenóreans in their own land possessed horses, which they esteemed [see the "Description of Númenor," p.177]. But they did not use them in war; for all their wars were overseas."






If these rumors are true, that would be pretty funny again. How could Numenor have been the greatest sea power of all time, have many colonies, and be about to attack Valinor when they hadn't fought a war in centuries? Why would they have a cavalry? Why would half the soldiers be women? It all sounds totally moronic and implausible.


----------



## Tar-Elenion (Jun 27, 2022)

Men were the warriors:
"Thus it is, Ancalimë, and we cannot alter it. For men fashioned Numenor: men, those heroes of old that they sing of – of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain. Numenor was to be a rest after war. But if they weary of rest and the plays of peace, soon they will go back to their great play, manslaying and war."
UT, Aldarion and Erendis

Women did not go to sea:
"After that seafaring became the chief outlet for daring and hardihood among the men of Numenor.
[...]
The women took little part in these things, though they were generally nearer to men than is the case with most races in stature and strength, and were agile and fleet of foot in youth. Their great delight was in dancing (in which many men also took part) at feasts or in leisure time. 
[...] 
They did not, however, greatly love the Sea. They would journey in need in the coastwise craft from port to port; but they did not like to be long aboard or to pass even one night in a ship. Even among the fisher-folk the women seldom took part in the sailings."
NoMe, Lives of the Numenoreans

Elves and (other) Men considered the 'amazon custom' of the Haladin strange:
"They [The Folk of Haleth] did not willingly adopt new things or customs, and retained many practices that seemed strange to the Eldar and the other Atani, with whom they had few dealings except in war. 
[...]
One of the strange practices spoken of was that many of their warriors were women, though few of these went abroad to fight in the great battles. This custom was evidently ancient; for their chieftainess Haleth was a renowned Amazon with a picked bodyguard of women."
PoMe, Dwarves and Men


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (Jun 27, 2022)

Thanks for the quotes, Tar-Elenion.

And if it hasn't been said before, welcome back to TTF! 🙂


----------



## Annatar (Jun 27, 2022)

A few more thoughts on this:

- Tolkien also implies that while the Numenoreans had some horsemen in their forces, these were primarily scouts or transmitters of orders or news.
Furthermore, they used some mounted archers, but these were mainly allies or mercenaries from friendly or pacified peoples.

- Tolkien, as has already been quoted, emphasizes that it was common for the House of Haleth to have women fighting there, and that this was perceived by others as unusual. Therefore, one can assume that such cases would have been explicitly named by Tolkien for other peoples as well. 

- It is tactically quite unwise to send women to war, even if they are good fighters. Women, who can also act militarily, are to a large extent sensibly left behind to defend the homeland. Ultimately, in the event of a catastrophic defeat, the continuation of a population is ensured if not only the old, weak and children stay at home during the war, but also many (energetic and capable) women. By the way, it is therefore perhaps no coincidence that in the Second Age there was nothing left of the House of Haleth...

- If it would be common for all races that 50% of the army is female (or even more than 5%), then Eowyn's role would be somehow quite pointless and arbitrary.

- A 50/50 ratio is also historically untenable, and Tolkien's myths are based on the European Middle Ages and the time before. Even though there may have been some warlike Viking girls or Germanic Valkyries, these were still exceptions that needed special mention. There was simply a clear division of roles at that time. And not only then, but to 99.9% of human history. Putting modern views into Tolkien adaptations destroys the immersion, even or especially if it is fantasy.

- So let's hope FoF are wrong this time. 😉

- It is also said that the (Amazon) Numenoreans have stylized horses on their sword hilts. That along with the cavalry might suggest that Amazon is planning to somehow copy the epic Rohirrim moments at the Pelennor battle.

- I'm also curious if the female orcs, who will definitely be present, will also appear as warriors. I would find the representation of female orcs okay, however, and here I must disappoint the "progressive feminists", the female orcs would probably rather be in the role of brooders and birthing machines, who are oppressed by their patriarchal macho men, who are not allowed to leave the home orc cave without a man's permission and who are only responsible for raising as many male orcs as possible... I could imagine, for example, that an orc woman is killed, if there is no male offspring among the first three children, etc. There is no textual evidence for this, of course, but in my opinion this would be the logical consequence and much more likely than equal, strong female orc warriors.

- Amazon didn't understand how to portray strong women in a meaningful way, as we could already see with Galadriel, who is supposed to demonstrate her strength mainly by ridiculous action sequences and as a warlike army commander with an exaggeratedly large two-handed sword and wide-legged manspreading. Even though Galadriel was athletic and definitely knew how to handle a sword, she is misrepresented here and even degraded in her actual, feminine power, as her strength goes much deeper. She could even physically do all this action nonsense, but she doesn't need to, she is sublime to it.
From Amazon's point of view, strong women have to act like men. That's childish and stupid. Women have different abilities than men. They are equal to them, but both sexes have different physical, mental and spiritual prerequisites. These can sometimes or even often overlap, but there is a tendency or statistics that justify appropriate classifications. Amazon (and Netflix and Hollywood and the zeitgeist in general) wants to level these natural things and thus push some kind of naive equality. But the result is only childish, unrealistic and embarrassing nonsense.

- The Tolkien-Estate has - and this can be said after all the published information even before the start of the series (by the way on Tolkien's death anniversary) - either failed or sold its inheritance and its soul for a lot of money to Sauron/Bezos.

- How awesome would it have been if we had written the script for the series together here as a community project? Of course, there would also be many points of contention, but the result or compromise would still be much better. 😁


----------



## Halasían (Jun 27, 2022)

Tar-Elenion said:


> Men were the warriors:
> "Thus it is, Ancalimë, and we cannot alter it. For men fashioned Numenor: men, those heroes of old that they sing of – of their women we hear less, save that they wept when their men were slain. Numenor was to be a rest after war. But if they weary of rest and the plays of peace, soon they will go back to their great play, manslaying and war."
> UT, Aldarion and Erendis
> 
> ...


Welcome Back *Tar Elenion*!


----------



## Annatar (Jun 29, 2022)

"Nothing is evil in the beginning"


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541453841408765953
What do you think about that phrase? Can we say of Sauron or Melkor that they were not evil in the beginning?
What about orcs born from other orcs, that is, not Melkor's first orcs, made from captured elves by torture or magic (at least according to the Sil.)?

Philosophically, one can certainly discuss this quite extensively. But Tolkien's mythology is based on the struggle between good and evil.
Of course, this is anything but "modern", since today every villain needs his story, why an originally innocent being could become such a bitter, mean creature, and so on. But with Tolkien's mythology it is different. Even though there may be several individuals like Gollum, Saruman or Denethor etc. who are more in line with this modern conception of evil or who became evil at some point, overall it is about the fight against ultimate evil.

I think it is also an illusion in reality that no one is evil from the beginning. Some people are just emotionless psychopaths from birth, and the more intelligent ones shamelessly exploit their lack of compassion to gain power. There is also scientific research that confirms this.

Why someone is or becomes "evil" can therefore have cultural, sociological or fateful reasons or developments as its basis. Or it can happen due to seduction, manipulation or brainwashing methods by other malicious, intelligent entities. But it can also be innate, for example through a genetic defect. And the latter I would postulate for example with the orcs. Even if Tolkien's mythology may not have anything like genetics in the scientific sense, it would still be passed on from generation to generation. In addition, there is the education and socialization component as well as the influence of Sauron and the Ring etc. After the destruction of the Ring, they may no longer have been bound to a superior evil will, but that did not automatically make them to innocent, free and good beings from whom an evil demon just had escaped (like in Warcraft).

So I wouldn't like it if they used their phrase as an opportunity to portray the orcs as mere victims to be pitied, or even Sauron/Annatar as someone who was just misunderstood and driven to evil by adverse circumstances.

What would fit to Tolkien's statements, however, would be, if Sauron at first regrets to have got involved with Morgoth (not because he feels guilty, but because he was on the losing side), but is too cowardly and too proud to face the Valar, and at the same time has the will to make Middle-earth his subject; at first perhaps even in the sense of wanting to create order, even if ultimately according to his will. It would be important, however, that he pursues the purpose to force in particular the Elves under his control from the very beginning. In further respect also the humans, with whom he quickly finds out that he can easily manipulate them and use them for his purposes, while the orcs, whom he perhaps actually even detests, serve him only as a "dirty" tool, if it is no longer possible otherwise - later, of course, as his main weapon.

In any case, I think it's important to show in the series that he first wants to master the elves. After that doesn't work, he starts to hate them even more and attacks. After the Numenoreans interfere to help the elves, he hates these as much as the elves, while cleverly manipulating most other humans for his own purposes.
At least if Amazon won't screw that up, all might not be lost...

It is rumored that Sauron/Annatar will go unrecognized in the first season, while a brother of Galadriel turns evil and commands a band of orcs who worship him as a kind of father. How is that supposed to fit into canon? I'm very curious about that, but I fear that nothing good will come of it. It all sounds too much like random fantasy written by mediocre series authors who don't know anything about Tolkien. In any case, this would all fit very well with the motto "nothing is evil in the beginning". Galadriel's weird brother was a good guy at first, of course, but circumstances drove him to it! And of course the orcs are just a poor bunch, who were just abused by certain rulers, and this brother of Galadriel now promises them to lead them to a better future etc..
But we'll see. 


There are also new images of Celebrimbor.





(Ah, another one of those lanterns. And a cheesecake.)





(Why is Celebrimbor standing in the forest instead of the magnificent High Elven city of Ost-in-Edhil? Another indication that they will reduce even the Noldor of the 2nd Age to the Lorien stereotype.)

Many say that he was miscast because he is too old and looks like a lord from Game of Thrones rather than an Elvish master smith. He should probably also be younger than Galadriel. So Galadriel and Elrond look too young, while Celebrimbor is obviously a bit too old.






Quote from the far reaches of the internet:
"I was just thinking he fits better in star wars senate indeed".

Even if he may seem a bit too old and lacks long hair, at least I personally like the actor's face, which I can't say about the Elrond actor (and that was already the case for Hugo Weaving - I don't even know who I find worse).


----------



## Rōmānus (Jul 7, 2022)

Celebrimbor and Galadriel should get together and switch outfits, and Elrond should get some shoe polish and run it through his hair.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 8, 2022)

I've come to think that we need an opposite thread where we list where Amazon stays true to the books. That is by far less effort.


----------



## Rōmānus (Jul 8, 2022)

I wonder what’s going to be going on with Ar-Pharazôn, “the mightiest tyrant that had yet been in the world since the reign of Morgoth” (Akallabêth) if the stuff with Míriel is apparently the way it is in the show.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 11, 2022)

tbc


----------



## Annatar (Jul 19, 2022)

Rumor: The Lord Of The Rings Scholar Tom Shippey Fired For Telling Prime Video They Were “Polluting The Lore”​


> Prime Video first announced The Lord of the Rings series in July 2019, they revealed Shippey was part of the production as a Tolkien Scholar.
> However, back in February, Vanity Fair led their readers to believe that Shippey was canned for giving an “unsanctioned interview to a German fan site” where he opined “on what the show could and could not explore.”
> Now this new rumor from YouTuber George Molho of YouTube channel George The Giant Slayer claims Shippey was actually canned because he was warning Prime Video that they were “polluting the lore.”











Rumor: The Lord Of The Rings Scholar Tom Shippey Fired For Telling Prime Video They Were "Polluting The Lore"


A new rumor claims that Tom Shippey, The Lord of the Rings scholar and former consultant on The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, was fired from the Prime Video show because he was warning them that they were "polluting the lore."




boundingintocomics.com


----------



## Annatar (Jul 19, 2022)

> Not only would Molho detail this rumor regarding Shippey’s firing, but he would also excoriate Prime Video for including nudity in the show as revealed in a number of behind-the-scenes photos from the production as well as a newly released photo from the show.


At this point, however, as an "enlightened" European 😉 , I have to disagree a bit. What you have seen so far in the trailers and teasers was all very chaste and childlike.
These concerns of many people (mostly prudish Americans? 😁 ) about nudity and sex, I as a European find quite exaggerated and funny, but I can understand it, if I put myself back in Tolkien's lifetime and respect his deep Catholic faith. (I was once baptized as a Catholic myself, but have since left this hypocritical church - and it is precisely because I see myself as a real Christian - this is certainly controversial for some catholics, but should not be discussed here).
Therefore: Even if I myself can't (anymore) agree with these seemingly religious ordinances so completely, I still respect what the author's views were in this regard and hope that it will be implemented accordingly. I can accept that with religious topics, despite a different opinion, and even approve of it - why is that not also possible with political and other topics: Just stick close to the author's work in an adaptation - what's too much to ask?

If you want to adapt an author's work on film, then stay true to his religious, political and other attitudes - even if you yourself may not agree with them. (You don't have to emphasize it, and you can even put it in the background, but it would be a sin to turn it into the opposite). Otherwise, let it go and do something new. What's so hard to understand about that?


----------



## wonderings (Jul 20, 2022)

Annatar said:


> "Nothing is evil in the beginning"
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1541453841408765953
> ...



From a Christian viewpoint, which Tolkien was, as were close friends like C.S. Lewis, evil cannot create, evil is just goodness twisted and perverted. In scripture the devil himself was once an angel, good and right before God before going down his rebellious road. In regards to people being emotionless psychopaths and maybe predisposition towards evil, this would still be accounted for in the Christian view as mankind is fallen and cursed, the goodness as we were meant to be was in the garden before the fruit was eaten from the one tree that was off limits. So we as human beings are all under this and have things like psychopaths, cancer, and everything thing that kills us and is not good for us. 

Not sure if they will go into that in this show, I am not hopeful that Amazon will maintain and be true to Tolkien's world. I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as people on this forum, I grew up reading the books, loved the animated Hobbit, Lords of the Rings and Return of the King and enjoyed Peter Jacksons take on it all. The books though have impacted my life and been a big part of my imagination growing up reading the books.


----------



## Goldilocks Gamgee (Jul 20, 2022)

Annatar said:


> tbc


It's funny that the list is that long, before the series even come out...


----------



## Annatar (Jul 24, 2022)

Goldilocks Gamgee said:


> It's funny that the list is that long, before the series even come out...


Funny? Well, rather sad. But yes, in a way, it's all very funny too.
But for those who find this too much petty detail (by now, by the way, he's already on part 6), here's another excellent analysis, where three key points are pointed out by one example.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 25, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Funny? Well, rather sad. But yes, in a way, it's all very funny too.
> But for those who find this too much petty detail (by now, by the way, he's already on part 6), here's another excellent analysis, where three key points are pointed out by one example.


I may have to watch this-- despite my cautious outlook when talking about the new Rings of Power. It may be worth my time, but it looks to be deceiving to say all shall be given in one minute.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 25, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> I may have to watch this-- despite my cautious outlook when talking about the new Rings of Power. It may be worth my time, but it looks to be deceiving to say all shall be given in one minute.


I have already fast-forwarded to the right place, so you don't have to listen to the long intro.


----------



## Ent (Jul 25, 2022)

Hisoka Morrow said:


> But we're their markets.



No, no.. you see... if they stick enough 'explicit material' in there, they gain a whole new market that otherwise would not bother.
A great deal of mankind exists to relish in the debased and shameful.

We must remember that Amazon has but one objective - to maximize on its profits from whatever it does. They do not do that by restricting the appeal they can put into anything. 

Even the casual observer can see their changes in the recent very few years to "puff the pocketbook" in every way. 

Marketing 101, folks.. marketing 101.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 25, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> No, no.. you see... if they stick enough 'explicit material' in there, they gain a whole new market that otherwise would not bother.
> A great deal of mankind exists to relish in the debased and shameful.
> 
> We must remember that Amazon has but one objective - to maximize on its profits from whatever it does. They do not do that by restricting the appeal they can put into anything.
> ...


This is very true. Amazon is trying to appeal to every audience that they can, and by doing that they are alienating some people. You cannot make everyone happy all the time. 

But what bothers me about this series is that Amazon is trying to force an agenda into Tolkien's works, and whether you believe with that agenda or not, no one can deny that Tolkien did not put it into his world of Middle-Earth. His world was one of passion and lore, and he was not a believer in pushing real-world junk and politics into the beauty of imagination and faerie-stories often classified as fantasy.

It doesn't even bother me that they have such agenda. It is completely their choice what to believe but forcing these things onto people through the beauty of Tolkien's works seems an insult to Tolkien and his legacy. Not to mention, Amazon harbors great favor to industries and using technology. Tolkien was mostly against both of those things, and he believed in what is real and natural. He loved nature and the outdoors, unmechanized farmland, and not the factories and inventions, even of his times.

That is why I truly am displeased with this series. It is putting things in Tolkien's writing, that just wasn't there. Not just adding a character, story element, etc. but pushing a mindset and an agenda that Tolkien never pushed into his works, because he had the wisdom to draw a clear separation between imagination and enjoyment, and beautiful, constructive fantasy, and the real-world with all its problems. Sure, he included basic human-themes and timeless truths, but he wasn't pushing a political or social agenda or view, and from what I have seen, this series seems to be doing just that.


----------



## Ent (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> This is very true. Amazon is trying to appeal to every audience that they can, and by doing that they are alienating some people. You cannot make everyone happy all the time.
> 
> But what bothers me about this series is that Amazon is trying to force an agenda into Tolkien's works, and whether you believe with that agenda or not, no one can deny that Tolkien did not put it into his world of Middle-Earth. His world was one of passion and lore, and he was not a believer in pushing real-world junk and politics into the beauty of imagination and faerie-stories often classified as fantasy.
> 
> ...



You are correct in citing "The Agenda". And that "Agenda" goes much beyond just the use, abuse and destruction of works like Tolkien's. But I hesitate to enter into that discussion further, as it inevitably takes us where many are unwilling to go.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> You are correct in citing "The Agenda". And that "Agenda" goes much beyond just the use, abuse and destruction of works like Tolkien's. But I hesitate to enter into that discussion further, as it inevitably takes us where many are unwilling to go.


I know what it is you speak of. Many are unwilling, and it is probably best to not bring up on this thread or Forum, but I thought "Agenda" was a loose and vague enough term that those who knew what I spoke of would understand, and those who did not, or disagreed with me, wouldn't find any offense. I always try to follow this site's rules, as I don't want to ruin this incredible place.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> I know what it is you speak of. Many are unwilling, and it is probably best to not bring up on this thread or Forum, but I thought "Agenda" was a loose and vague enough term that those who knew what I spoke of would understand, and those who did not, or disagreed with me, wouldn't find any offense. I always try to follow this site's rules, as I don't want to ruin this incredible place.


Discussing real-world politics and religion that is directly connected with Tolkien, his works or adaptions (however loosely the term is used), is ok. It only becomes a problem when the discussion moves beyond those bounds. There were many issues in the early days of these Forums so the limits were set as they stand now.

At one time while Dave Pence was the owner/webmaster he set up a sister site "Project Evil" which was to host all real-world political and religious discussions. We had a couple of interesting threads on there but unfortunately not many would go over to it despite the number that used to be involved on here.


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Gothmog said:


> Discussing real-world politics and religion that is directly connected with Tolkien, his works or adaptions (however loosely the term is used), is ok. It only becomes a problem when the discussion moves beyond those bounds. There were many issues in the early days of these Forums so the limits were set as they stand now.
> 
> At one time while Dave Pence was the owner/webmaster he set up a sister site "Project Evil" which was to host all real-world political and religious discussions. We had a couple of interesting threads on there but unfortunately not many would go over to it despite the number that used to be involved on here.


Yes. I'm aware. I don't honestly mind it at all. I think it's altogether a good rule. Tolkien is so wonderful, and if we mixed in all the baggage and junk from real-world politics and religion, not only would it be extremely contraversial, but it would stray further and further from it's intended purpose; a place for lovers of Tolkien and his works to come together, and discuss them.

I had heard of this sister site. I understand somewhat why people wouldn't go over there. I'm not certain I would - just too much anger on sites like that it seems. Still, nice to know the history of this awesome place.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Gothmog said:


> There were many issues in the early days of these Forums so the limits were set as they stand now.
> 
> At one time while Dave Pence was the owner/webmaster he set up a sister site "Project Evil" which was to host all real-world political and religious discussions. We had a couple of interesting threads on there but unfortunately not many would go over to it despite the number that used to be involved on here.



Very interesting. 😂😂😂
Interesting that I'm just finding out about this now.

Does this site still exist?


----------



## Ent (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> Yes. I'm aware. I don't honestly mind it at all. I think it's altogether a good rule. Tolkien is so wonderful, and if we mixed in all the baggage and junk from real-world politics and religion, not only would it be extremely contraversial, but it would stray further and further from it's intended purpose; a place for lovers of Tolkien and his works to come together, and discuss them.
> 
> I had heard of this sister site. I understand somewhat why people wouldn't go over there. I'm not certain I would - just too much anger on sites like that it seems. Still, nice to know the history of this awesome place.



Indeed, it is a great rule..!


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> Indeed, it is a great rule..!


It is!


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 26, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Very interesting. 😂😂😂
> Interesting that I'm just finding out about this now.
> 
> Does this site still exist?


Unfortunately not. We did try to get people over to it but one of the issues we had there, ironically, was that some wanted to limit what particular real-world political and religious subjects could be discussed lol


----------



## Uminya (Jul 26, 2022)

Elbereth Vala Varda said:


> His world was one of passion and lore, and he was not a believer in pushing real-world junk and politics into the beauty of imagination and faerie-stories often classified as fantasy.



I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.

The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.


----------



## Ent (Jul 26, 2022)

Uminya said:


> I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.
> 
> The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.



Indeed, it comes down once again to separating 'hopes and expectations' from 'reality', on two fronts here.

1) - though Tolkien said he detested allegory, his entire works are naught but the battle of good vs. evil expressed in allegorical form. The details are just the window-dressing. We can't really separate the details from the root.
2) - to think that Tolkien's works would remain unsullied by greed and avarice is to live in the ethereal world of 'hopes and expectations' entirely, rather than in "what is". 

Mankind is not capable of divorcing himself from the evil that is, in Tolkien's world, Melkor and Sauron. In ours, known by other names.
Both Melkor and Sauron may have been gone, but the evil they wrought (particularly Melkor) remained.

What fascinates me most, is that it seems many are surprised that greed and avarice are now at last coming to the fore, as the 'protective spells' that prevented them in the past are waning.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 26, 2022)

Uminya said:


> I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.
> 
> The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.


There is a difference between Putting interpretations and Pushing them. This is the difference between Applicability and Allegory.

Yes Amazon and others are indeed going all out to make as much money as they can. But the "investors" are, at best, second in line. As for Tolkien estate "was always going to be up for a cash grab" I think you have failed to note how much cash has not been grabbed. Things may well be different now but certainly was not always.


----------



## Ent (Jul 26, 2022)

Gothmog said:


> There is a difference between Putting interpretations and Pushing them. This is the difference between Applicability and Allegory.



True. Allegory presents a scene and a venue. Interpretation translates it into application based on agenda.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 26, 2022)

Well-aged Enting said:


> True. Allegory presents a scene and a venue. Interpretation translates it into application based on agenda.


Applicability allows for interpretation based on agenda and/or experience.

Allegory would be the battles of WWI written into the battles of LotR and Silmarillion.
Applicability would be seeing the Battles of LotR and Silmarillion as any of the real-world battles that a person knows of or has experienced.


----------



## Uminya (Jul 26, 2022)

Gothmog said:


> There is a difference between Putting interpretations and Pushing them. This is the difference between Applicability and Allegory.
> 
> Yes Amazon and others are indeed going all out to make as much money as they can. But the "investors" are, at best, second in line. As for Tolkien estate "was always going to be up for a cash grab" I think you have failed to note how much cash has not been grabbed. Things may well be different now but certainly was not always.



I don't think the Tolkien estate itself is getting rich off of leasing rights, though I would be interested to find out what licensing and royalty agreements are in place. The IP itself is, however, just a vessel for making money, and it's why the media megacorps gobble up as many IPs as they can.

I don't think this Amazon series is pushing any serious agendas, aside from the same ones that LotR pushed. Virtually all fantasy adaptations emphasize violence and the spectacle of warfare, which is itself an agenda. Tolkien certainly isn't great because of how he wrote battles, and I certainly don't think he would enjoy how much time is spent on on-screen violence. I think that disconnecting Tolkien's love of the ephemeral and emotional from his work is a much greater disservice than any of the other changes, and it's really from that strain of change that all the rest of my complaints originate regarding the film versions of the LotR/Hobbit and--I am certain--the Rings of Power.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Uminya said:


> I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally.



To this question or rather remark also fits well this note:



Well-aged Enting said:


> though Tolkien said he detested allegory, his entire works are naught but the battle of good vs. evil expressed in allegorical form. The details are just the window-dressing. We can't really separate the details from the root.



Yes, I think it's inevitable that an author will put his worldview into his works if he puts his heart and soul into them. And at the same time, of course, all his life experiences that shaped him come into it.

As concrete examples of negative things, one could mention the trenches in World War I or the disadvantages of industrialization, all of which contributed to his understanding of evil.

As examples of the positive side, one could name the Christian principle of charity and sacrifice. Even though these principles may of course also be deeply rooted in other religions or wisdoms, Christianity, especially (theoretical) Catholicism (which, in my opinion, has long been perverted in its practice, but that's another story...), was his reference.

As examples on the rather neutral side, one could mention his enormous knowledge of languages and European history - and, what is of course particularly relevant for his works - especially mythology.
In addition to his world view and experiences, his knowledge and love of (ancient) English, Germanic, Nordic, Celtic, European and Mediterranean (such as Roman, Greek or Egyptian) myths flows into his works. And not because he considered it better than other cultures, but because it was - in this order - his spiritual and origin home.

To illustrate this with an example related to the series:
This can be seen in his criticism of colonialism and imperialism, as exemplified in the fall of Numenor.
But would it be correct to call this an allegory already?
Great Britain, and of course other former great European powers such as Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc., have been "guilty" in this sense in the past. Today it may be other states, but that will only become clearer later....
Be that as it may, it does not seem to be a singular, real event, but a principle that seems to be the rule rather than the exception for expansionist empires. And perhaps this makes perfect sense and logic in the beginning, before it leads to abuse of power? Could there also perhaps be a point where it decides whether it tips into good or evil?
So it is not an allegory, but a general principle - as Tolkien understood it. Allegory vs. applicability!
If these points are clarified in the series, I would be very happy and could perhaps even forgive much of the insanity that has now already become clear.

Anyway, in addition, one can certainly compare Numenor in particular very well (as Tolkien himself had emphasized) with Plato's Atlantis, which can also be interpreted both real and mythological as well as a spiritual principle and warning.
But even for Atlantis more or less equivalent examples can be found in real mythology, like Hyperborea. And I suppose almost every culture has its own Atlantis. Also in Meso-America (Mayas, Aztecs etc.) there are surely very many counterparts, which certainly often have real bases. And everywhere else, probably.

It seems to come down to how one defines and interprets the word "allegory."

_Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary ‘real’ world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days._

(Tolkien - letter 131)

_There is no ‘allegory’, moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all. It is a ‘fairy-story’, but one written — according to the belief I once expressed in an extended essay ‘On Fairy-stories’ that they are the proper audience — for adults._

(Tolkien - letter 181)

So I would say that Tolkien's works naturally reflect his beliefs, experiences, and accumulated knowledge (interpreted in his individual way).
Nevertheless, he had the ambition to have his mythology and stories reflect universally valid truths. If these now more or less apply to real events, it is not because he had exactly these events in mind, but because reality in one way or another always repeats greater truths in the form of concrete events. So an example from the books can correspond exactly to a concrete example of reality - but then not because Tolkien wanted to refer exactly to it, but because both examples can be traced back to the same basic principle.

At the same time, unfortunately, it is of course also very possible that people, due to certain misunderstandings when reading and/or due to certain ideologies (or even if they read nothing at all, but for them everything is based on previous film adaptations), even interpret the opposite into the original intention or orientation of the author. Maybe also with full intention.
Perhaps this would still be individually possible in the sense of Tolkien under the term "personal applicability" (instead of allegory)?
But if at the same time certain facts are reinterpreted or faded out for ideological reasons, he would turn in his grave, at least if a certain audience reach is achieved to deform his original in a negative way - and Amazon unfortunately has a very big influence on what consumers are supposed to think from their point of view (or from the point of view of their backers)...



Uminya said:


> The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors



How do you know that's the only one? 😂
Most people believe, as you do, that big corporations are all about making money. In my opinion, however, that is no longer consistently logical, when all the facts are taken into account...
But to carry this out, is unfortunately not allowed here. 😉 However, perhaps in the split-off politics forum? But this no longer seems to exist, unfortunately.
Well, who is informed, knows anyway what I mean. 👍


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 26, 2022)

Uminya said:


> I am just going to point out that Tolkien definitely put his interpretations of real-world events into his writing, both intentionally and unintentionally. A great deal of his writing deals with the very real horrors of warfare, which reflect his real, lived experiences. His ruminations on the natural world and the sorrow he expressed when seeing it devastated are a direct observation of the consequences of industrialization and industrialized warfare.
> 
> The only secret "unspeakable" agenda going on in these movies are the same that go on in most all modern cinema: to make money for investors. And that's really no secret, that's just business as usual. Tolkien's estate was always going to be up for a cash grab, because that is the entire point of intellectual property.


This is a very good point. Thanks for pointing that out. 
Tolkien did have real-life effects on his writing, and how could he not.

That is quite true. It is oft times all for money, and not as much just for the passion to create in these duller days. However, while they are trying to make money, we get to enjoy these films and things, or critique them, both of which are good entertainment!


----------



## Uminya (Jul 26, 2022)

Annatar said:


> At the same time, unfortunately, it is of course also very possible that people, due to certain misunderstandings when reading and/or due to certain ideologies (or even if they read nothing at all, but for them everything is based on previous film adaptations), even interpret the opposite into the original intention or orientation of the author. Maybe also with full intention.



Just as much as it is possible for a film company to reimagine an author's intent, the individuals who read a text will also interpret the text through their own lenses of experience. It is the reason that a forum of relatively few people all talking about a relatively small body of work can have such wildly different takeaways of what the literature is conveying.

Tolkien, regardless of his opinions of his own writing, was not infallible, and sometimes I think he was unaware of his own biases. He may not have intended an allegory, and he may have railed against his work being called allegorical, but that of course does not prevent readers from sensing patterns of storytelling within those narratives that have allegorical elements.




Annatar said:


> How do you know that's the only one? 😂
> Most people believe, as you do, that big corporations are all about making money. In my opinion, however, that is no longer consistently logical, when all the facts are taken into account...
> But to carry this out, is unfortunately not allowed here. 😉 However, perhaps in the split-off politics forum? But this no longer seems to exist, unfortunately.
> Well, who is informed, knows anyway what I mean. 👍



I am very curious to know what these facts are, and what constitutes this unspeakable, political knowledge that you aren't allowed to talk about.


----------



## Annatar (Jul 26, 2022)

Uminya said:


> but that of course does not prevent readers from sensing patterns of storytelling within those narratives that have allegorical elements.


Perhaps this is what he meant when he spoke of the difference between allegory and applicability?
Patterns are things that recur from a basic principle. Allegories are about exactly one particular thing.

In his view, basic principles were used, not allegories. In any case, I see no reason in simply reversing Tolkien's words without proof.
What else is the purpose of this, if not to justify modern politics or ideologies in contemporary adaptations.



Uminya said:


> I am very curious to know what these facts are, and what constitutes this unspeakable, political knowledge that you aren't allowed to talk about.



😂


----------



## Elbereth Vala Varda (Jul 27, 2022)

Annatar said:


> Perhaps this is what he meant when he spoke of the difference between allegory and applicability?
> Patterns are things that recur from a basic principle. Allegories are about exactly one particular thing.
> 
> In his view, basic principles were used, not allegories. In any case, I see no reason in simply reversing Tolkien's words without proof.
> ...


Applicability is being able to apply things you gather from the books into your own life, and seeing elements of your own life and reality mirrored into the pages of Tolkien's works. In truth, it is a journey. A journey that we need to embark upon to truly see life differently, to see it as Tolkien did.

Allegories to him were a one-to-one ratio of something from our world reflected exactly into the characters of books, making such characters take no more character than their real-life inspirations.


----------

