Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Horrible isn't it, that Tolkien was just so ignorant of his own works, if only he had smart people telling him his business...
"I should say Zimmerman, the constructor of this s-l, is quite incapable of excerpting or adapting the 'spoken words' of the book. He is hasty, insensitive, and impertinent.
He does not read books. It seems to me evident that he has skimmed through the L.R. at a great pace, and then constructed his s.l. from partly confused memories, and with the minimum of references back to the original."
"I feel very unhappy about the extreme silliness and incompetence of Z and his complete lack of respect for the original (it seems wilfully wrong without discernible technical reasons at nearly every point)"
L207.
February 14, 2022, 04:54 AM
Halie Satanus
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Looks, more Hobbit CGI than LoTR live action...
Hmm.
February 14, 2022, 05:58 AM
Infidel144
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
What are those people with the giant moose antlers(?) on their backs, at the beginning?
February 14, 2022, 06:02 AM
Flinn
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
I'll probably be watching it, I'm curious to see how they depicted Annatar.
February 14, 2022, 06:16 AM
Sir Adrian
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
This is going to suck so badly.
February 14, 2022, 07:59 AM
conon394
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Hmm bummer I though they would do Numinor more directly. Particularity because it be a chance to parry the racism charge (above) watching the high and rewarded Edain sink to imperialism of the harsh sort quite without Sauron and than fall fast and harder with him around.
We need a wood elf because umm... I now Legelos was cool in LOTR?
February 14, 2022, 08:01 AM
conon394
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel144
What are those people with the giant moose antlers(?) on their backs, at the beginning?
Really tired on that hike.
February 14, 2022, 08:05 AM
Infidel144
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Really tired on that hike.
LOL
February 14, 2022, 11:36 AM
ggggtotalwarrior
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
The awful glossy CGI look doesn't leave me too excited
February 14, 2022, 03:21 PM
Cyclops
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven
She is wearing "plastic looking" plate armor. If im not mistaken that is something the elves didnt use at this time?
You're 100% correct, back on the old Third and Fourth Age forums the kinds of armour were talked over endlessly. In some ways this looks closer to Azeroth than Middle Earth.
I feel like I agree with most of what you are saying, I just get angry about the whole subject...
I'll probably be watching it, I'm curious to see how they depicted Annatar.
I heard Seth Rogan has been cast? Jk but the way this is panning out I am concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by conon394
Really tired on that hike.
1st Dunlending Moose Gliders. Seriously haven't you read "Unfinished Tales (the drunk napkin scrawlings appendix CXXXIV)"? Some people think the original was an attempt to create a cocktail recipe, others imagine it was an insult in proto-Polynesian directed at the French Attaché, but the producers decided to "honour the spirit of Tolkien's universe" and plonked them in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggggtotalwarrior
The awful glossy CGI look doesn't leave me too excited
Maybe viewers with the plantinum upgrade will get better quality visuals?
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
I don't really care for the race or skin color conversation, but this show will be hot garbage if they do not mix CGI with practical effects in a tasteful way like Jackson's LOTR films. His trilogy has its faults, but heavy usage of CGI to the point of exasperating overkill was not among them, even with Treebeard walking around! For that very reason the original Jurassic Park from 1993 still looks better than any of its sequels that have come out since.
February 14, 2022, 06:40 PM
irontaino
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Set roughly two centuries before the events of J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings,” “The War of the Rohirrim” will explore the exploits of Helm Hammerhand, the King of Rohan, and the creation of Helm’s Deep, the stronghold featured in Peter Jackson’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.”
Kenji Kamiyama (the TV series “Blade Runner: Black Lotus” and “Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex”) is directing with “Blade Runner: Black Lotus” producer Joseph Chou through his anime studio Sola Entertainment, which has been working on the film since it was announced in June 2021.
February 14, 2022, 07:45 PM
Cyclops
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix
I don't really care for the race or skin color conversation, but this show will be hot garbage if they do not mix CGI with practical effects in a tasteful way like Jackson's LOTR films. His trilogy has its faults, but heavy usage of CGI to the point of exasperating overkill was not among them, even with Treebeard walking around! For that very reason the original Jurassic Park from 1993 still looks better than any of its sequels that have come out since.
Yes the race baiting is a stupid waste of time, whereas the use of CGI is a cogent criticism. Nothing like seeing O'Toole in the actual Sinai Desert in Lawrence of Arabia, or other staggering shots eg Indiana Jones I, sunset over the archaeological site. That image of the actors in silhouette is possibly Spielberg's finest set piece.
Saruman: You look down, and you see a mumak, its crawling towards you... Helm: A mumak? Whats that? Saruman: [takes a drag of pipeweed] You know what an Oliphant is? Helm: ...of course. Saruman: Same thing.
Ah back to the days of the "What if...?" thread...
February 17, 2022, 01:17 PM
Infidel144
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
That's just lazy journalism. There is absolutely no substance to the claim from the title at least in the non-paywall article.
February 17, 2022, 01:34 PM
Infidel144
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun
My edition printed in 1999 doesn't have it. The fact that the quote you provided has little to no online presence despite the subject's popularity tells me that it really does not exist. The appendix is primarily about language anyways. It's odd to have a paragraph there talking about appearance.
What is the edition that you have?
February 17, 2022, 01:42 PM
PointOfViewGun
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel144
What is the edition that you have?
Not sure. Perhaps called the reprint edition from George Allen and Unwin publisher that was first published in 1954 in Great Britain. As I said before, it doesn't make sense for him to talk about appearances in an appendix that talks specifically about languages.
February 17, 2022, 01:51 PM
Araval
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
It's there in my translated edition from 1998, except instead of house of Finrod it says house of Finarfin.
February 17, 2022, 02:06 PM
Infidel144
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun
Not sure. Perhaps called the reprint edition from George Allen and Unwin publisher that was first published in 1954 in Great Britain.
You claimed that the 1999 edition you have does not have it. If you don't know what edition it is, then you could not have checked it.
Quote:
As I said before, it doesn't make sense for him to talk about appearances in an appendix that talks specifically about languages.
If only Tolkien could have benefited from your ideas of what makes sense...
February 17, 2022, 02:18 PM
PointOfViewGun
Re: The Rings of Power. Lord of the Rings. TV Show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel144
You claimed that the 1999 edition you have does not have it. If you don't know what edition it is, then you could not have checked it.
Not every book highlights what edition it is. I gave you enough information.