Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Form
However, if you want to compare the Amazon team to Jackson's Hobbit movies, then I think it's a much fairer comparison: both are making prequels that rely on the LotR movies for Middle-earth's cinematic feel and both have a LOT of blank-filling (whether that was necessary in Jackson's case is another matter--let's pretend that it is). I think on that front that it's clear that the Amazon team has a deeper knowledge of Tolkien's lore and themes--and I'm not saying that Jackson doesn't love Tolkien, but I think Jackson loves The Lord of the Rings specifically whereas it's clear the Amazon team knows more than just the LotR--it's clear they know The Letters, the Silm, Unfinished Tales, and possibly more given their clear awareness of Tolkien's themes and ideas.
|
That is an excellent point and I think your post has pinpointed the source of my disappointment in the series. Trying to compare it to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, out of perhaps an expectation that it could have the same impact as that trilogy did when I first watched them. It fell short, I agree there is hardly anything memorable (in a positive way) about the dialogue. The music is memorable, the visuals are memorable. The acting isn't memorable, but it's not a detriment for me either. That is aside from some of the peripheral characters. I think Megan Richards (the actress playing Poppy) was an absolute star among the Harfoots. I also enjoyed Lenny Henry (sad his character has died). I will be said when Durin Sr. leaves the screen for good. Robert Aramayo's Elrond has grown on me. Despite Celebrimbor not looking like the greatest Elven smith of the age, I loved Charles Edwards' take on being more of a mad scientist, with a passion for craftsmanship that leads to obsession. At this point, the only one I would call memorable (from an acting standpoint) in Season 1 is Poppy.
The letdown is comparing it to LOTR, when I agree with your point that The Hobbit is a fairer comparison. Comparing the series to The Hobbit, I would say the series is better. They demonstrated an understanding and a passion for Middle-earth's 2nd Age and hitting on Tolkien's themes about people working together for the common good, developing the orcs in ways that was far superior to Peter Jackson (or really any fantasy story I've seen), mortality vs. immortality, the glimmer of a Sauron redemption story (the reveal wasn't done terribly, it was just rushed).
The only bits of dialogue that are memorable (in the non-cringe, but actually good) was Elrond and Durin's elevator conversation and Elrond and Gil-galad's conversation about oath breaking and hope (but that has the cringe "we need vast quantities of mithril immediately!" plot mixed in with it
).
I'm glad
Form brought up this point about comparing the series to Lord of the Rings trilogy vs. The Hobbit. While I agree with the point, I think the flaw in the series is they are trying to actually build it up as a comparison to the LOTR trilogy, and Season 1 underdelivered. They could have gone further in creating an interesting AU, or fanfiction story, but they played this safe middle-road to not stray too far from PJ's LOTR vision. They've done some things better, but I don't like the sense I'm getting about The Stranger being Gandalf.
I would like it better, if the Stranger was one of the blue wizards, or because of copyright maybe can't be the blue wizard, but a generic Istar that was sent during the same time as Sauron's coming to confront him. Go crazy with the AU, have The Stranger go East and either try to weaken Sauron's growing power (maybe even form an alliance with Adar?), or join Sauron to defeat Adar, or whatever you want to do. My point is, it doesn't
have to be Gandalf and the disappointment is it seems like that's the way they're going by blatantly ripping Gandalf's lines from the films.
Anway, there are a lot of kinks to work out, but overall I agree with
Form's comment:
Quote:
|
My final verdict, I think, is that I overall liked the show (faint praise that I nonetheless only remember giving to one of the The Hobbit movies), found it quite flawed, yet nonetheless found it had enough interesting things and well-done things to hold my interest. Given how much that was through the lens of a Tolkien fan who enjoys dissecting this here, I'm not sure I'd recommend it for the general public, but I probably would defend it against the indiscriminate haters.
|
In my case, I would go even further and say that is not something that I felt the need to do with The Hobbit trilogy. I never felt a desire to defend those movies from the critics, because it just didn't interest me enough to do so. I've found the Rings of Power to have several kinks to work out (I'm not sure they're capable of doing it) but the Season 1 finale sparked enough interest I can imagine its potential and intrigued by the possibilities. I hope future seasons break more from PJ's LOTR, and they create a different vision. Higher risk, but also higher rewards.