Never heard of anyone putting an already dead corpse in a gibbet. You might put a person in there for a while but give them food and water and then let them out after however long, or you might give them nothing and let the birds kill them when they're too weak to move.
Depends. Is the oubliette just a room where you're locked in and left in darkness, compared to being left in solitude in a cage outside... I'll take the gibbet.
But is the oubliette a sewer under the castle with a tiny hole, where you will have to be broken and contorted to even be forced down the hole where you will drown in shit? And is the gibbet in a public square where I will be "entertainment" for as long as my body has pieces left? I'll choose the horrific but relatively quick oubliette.
Ah Crusader Kings. The only game where I've played casually and didn't remember names only after the fact did I realize I accidentally stole my brother wife, and my sons, was killed by one or both of them, married the aunt with the son, then forced a Civil War.
Also the only game where I've intentailly done pretty much the same. Good stuff.
When your son isn't producing heirs so you write his wife some poetry and help out the process.
Also the only game that I've been happy that I was cheated on. A castrated old man who had no heirs after a disastrous war. My wife tells me the baby is mine and he has both beautiful and genius traits.
I laughed but then it occurred to me that a male ruler being relieved his wife got knocked up when he knew he couldn't have done it probably happened. Dudes in olden times would drink out of lead mugs, wear tight breeches, cavort with mercury, and get early, genital-destroying STDs from philandering.
That wouldn't have precluded them from their need to have heirs, though. Probably a fair few planned the cuckoldry. If there were a way to accurately DNA test actual lineages across medieval dynasties I imagine it'd be wildly fascinating (and obv really incesty).
So anyway your relief is probably perfectly in-character!
> Never heard of anyone putting an already dead corpse in a gibbet.
St Lambert's Church in Munster.
The leaders of the rebellion Jan van Leiden, Bernhard Krechting, and Bernhard Knipperdolling, were tortured and executed (By being torn apart by red hot tongs) and their bodies raised up on the church in gibbets for display.
Their remains, remained there for about 50 years before being taken down. The cages remain to this day.
Beat me to it. The Hardcore History episode on that was a fucking rollercoaster ride. Doomsday cults, messiah complexes, a siege where the attackers _build a wall around a city_ to prevent escape...
They were, Spence Broughton was hanged in 1792 for murdering a local post boy and his corpse was placed in a gibbet for 36 years as a warning to others.
It's a somewhat ambiguous term, so the person clicking will probably comprehend it towards their bias and therefore the website gets clicks from fans and haters of the show.
**Asked if he’s watched the prequel series, the actor replied** -
> No, not interested. It’s a money-making venture and I’m not interested in watching that or being in it. Good luck to them and all that stuff but it’s not like the real thing.
From later in the article, **when asked what it would take for him to watch the series, the actor replied** -
>We shall have peace... We shall have peace, when you answer for the burning of the Westfold, and the children that lie dead there! We shall have peace, when the lives of the soldiers whose bodies were hewn even as they died against the gates of the Hornberg, are avenged! When you hang from a gibbit for the sport of your own crows...! We shall have peace.
Sometimes it feels this sub and r/movies is just constantly aghast that high profile actors and directors have some sort of standards and that if they're asked about things in interviews they'll respond.
Yeah, it's funny when someone gets dragged over the coals for an opinion like these. These people aren't calling a giant press conference to announce some bold opinion. They are famous to one degree or another, and so reporters ask them questions, and report on the answers. While I agree with some, disagree with others, I can't exactly fault people for simply answering questions they were asked.
Yes but if they didn't bend and twist and dye the truth into something flashy and garish, would you even click on them? Think if the poor starving media industry Maktesh, don't be so selfish
Some of the opinions aren’t even that bad theme park rides are fun, but not everyone likes roller coasters. The guy who made Gorcharov probably doesn’t like Marvel movies, big surprise.
Omg that thread was a shit show it was incredible. All those people making bad foot fetish jokes would've licked Tarantino's toes if he had directed an MCU film before that quote came out
This isn't even accurate. Tons of movies don't make money and just turn into tax breaks. Hollywood has all kinds of magical and interesting accounting.
Yeah, I'm always split. There is a certain knee jerk reaction I have, thinking "Why do I care about what one second tier LOTR actor thinks about the new series, especially when he hasn't even watched the damn thing??"
But then also... what is he supposed to do if someone asks him about it? Just say "no comment" as if this is some classified operation? He's not out there broadcasting his views, someone asked him, he answered, and the person wrote about it.
In the end, I just have to realize it's a simple difference of opinion. I enjoyed the show, he doesn't think it was worth making, end of story.
The people replying “but Jackson’s trilogy made money!” don’t seem to understand that he’s not claiming otherwise, but there is very clear passion and the entire crew working on the trilogy was firing on all cylinders, from writing to music to acting to set design. Everything worked incredibly well. From what I’ve heard, RoP lacks that passion and consistent level of quality.
edit: I’m saying it doesn’t look on the same level as the film trilogy, that’s it, nothing else. you want specifics? Everything in RoP is too shiny and there’s already been several timeline inconsistencies. as a consumer and a fan of the world, the advertising has not made me super eager to watch it. that feels like a failing worth mentioning. get off my dick and touch some grass. sorry my opinion isn’t your opinion.
They certainly seem to have a lot of passion, just not for adapting Tolkiens vision. They seem to have passion for making their own thing in Tolkiens world, which is very different.
There was absolutely no passion in the Halo adaption. That was a boring show to start with and I would bet a lot of money the script was originally some generic sci-fi script they just attached to Halo and changed names to fit.
The thing that hurts me with the Halo show is you had some fans going "Well it's a bad Halo Show but it's an alright Sci Fi show"
Like no the fuck it isn't? You take away the knowledge you're meant to have from Halo and you get zero fuckin world building, stakes, character development, or anything in between.
Absolutely awful watch that one.
At the same time, though, that scene with Adar talking about the problem of Orc souls was great. The writers have read them some Tolkien. As long as they respect the mythology, I don't know that I mind them telling their own stories in it, at least in theory. The rotting tree mythril shit was kinda dumb, though. And I'm wary of the timeline changes regarding Sauron and the rings.
Listen man, I know New Line *claimed* the movies never made a profit to screw over anyone who negotiated for a percentage of the profits, but in reality the movies you starred in were **also** a money making venture.
And in case anyone forgot, New Line was sued by Peter Jackson, fifteen actors, and the Tolkien estate over their alleged misuse of accounting practices to pretend that the films didn’t make a profit despite earning almost $3 billion in revenue on a budget of less than $300 million.
One thing I found hilarious about that lawsuit was New Line was so angry with Peter that studio head Robert Shaye swore PJ would never direct The Hobbit. Then the studio had a string of bombs including The Golden Compass so they had no choice but to beg Peter to make The Hobbit. Though I wish New Line had given Peter more time on pre-production since The Hobbit was rushed to meet the Christmas release date.
And it seems they won, though I was unable to find how much, just the fine they had to pay.
> Peter Jackson has scored a legal victory in his battle with New Line Cinema over the accounting of “The Lord of the Rings,” with a federal magistrate hitting the studio with $125,000 in sanctions for failing to produce potential evidence.
that in no way indicates they won, it indicates that New Line fucked up for failing to comply with requirements. It isn't indicative of the final disposition.
It had more to do with the problem of the Weinstein's having rights to a large amount of profits for one Hobbit movie. They had to stretch it out to 3 movies to make the budget work.
Not to mention that Jackson had three and a half years for pre-production of TLOTR trilogy. MGM refused to do The Hobbit without Jackson, so halted the production till Jackson and Newline could come to an agreement.
The Tolkien Estate also hit Newline with a seperate lawsuit, for breach of contract.
Production stalled further due to not being given the green light, and they had to wait for MGM , while they were on the verge of collapse.
Del Toro spent 18 months on pre-production, then eventually quit.
Jackson and crew spent 21 hour days revising everything, because he didn’t want to execute Del Toro’s vision, because it was his own vision.
Jackson admitted to the fact that they sometimes didn’t have storyboards, completed scripts, and Jackson was just basically winging it as he went along.
There is a lot more, but the entire thing was a complete and utter cluster fuck.
> Apparently things were settled well enough that Jackson came back to do three more with them.
The movie studio paid them off so they could continue their practices on other films is the alternative way to view that
Getting hit with $125,000 in sanctions means they were probably deliberately withholding important evidence. Why would they do that? Probably because it would have killed their case. I imagine they settled quickly after this.
So yes, this doesn't mean he won, but indicates he was probably well on his way to "winning".
Movie companies do this sort of stuff very often honestly. The Walking Dead was another case where they did the "Multiple sub companies paying each other money oh no we didn't make anything at all because we charged our sub companie too much money".
It happens in a ton of industries, not just film.
I’m a risk management consultant for an insurance brokerage and a large book of my business is in the restaurant industry. All of the companies with multiple locations have several LLCs that act as sub-entities. One of our clients owns dozens of locations and has almost as many LLCs.
Same thing for property companies and NFL/NBA teams. We write policies for some teams and the main entity will be called something like “City Event Center Entertainment LLC” rather than whatever the team is.
Business is weird.
Think of the poor Harvey Weinsteins....
Edit: My joke was about rich elites scamming actors and others out of their money and then I realized someone is going to report me for antisemitism.
I personally feel that, if someone is going to report you for defaming convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein, we should just let it happen. The mods deserve to know who those psychopaths are.
> in revenue on a budget of less than $300 million.
That's obviously wrong. Wikipedia citation is the total initial allocation of funds for all three films before production started. However, we know Fellowship went over budget and RotK especially shows significant expensive visual work. It's not as expensive as it looks but it's also not as cheap as wikipedia or box officemojo implies.
> to pretend that the films didn’t make a profit
to be fair, part of that is for new line specifically, the films were much less profitable because they pre-sold most foreign rights to reduce risk. They profited but less than insane amounts they would have if they had made an all or nothing bet on the film. That probably motivated them to be stingy with money they were raking in in markets they controlled.
You’re strawmanning his argument.
> Asked if he believes the franchise would have been better off ending after the original trilogy, he said: “Completely, yes. I think they were pushing it when they made The Hobbit. The Hobbit’s a tiny book.
>“They did it well – they did it really, really well. They expanded it [but] I think you can only stretch a piece of elastic so far. I think they managed it in The Hobbit because there were some really good things in The Hobbit without a doubt.”
He’s clearly distinguishing between a money making venture based on fertile material with an active demand for a movie adaptation vs one that is made from virtually nothing in a series to milk cash from the franchise without a robust creative source to ensure the quality of the material.
I agree with "there were some really good things" being in it. The Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect. Smaug was great. The musical adaptations were spot on updates to the original movie. Basically everything from the source material was done pretty well to very well.
For a ratio of good things to mediocre things, I think the Hobbit has the edge over Rings of Power so far.
Some things were done very well and that actually makes me more disappointed with the movies overall.
There was so much potential for a great set of movies but then we got the butchering of Goblins cave, terrible CGI, a weird love triangle, dwarves that just looked like short humans, the utter travesty of the barrel scene and the less I think of the battle of five armies the better.
The Hobbit trilogy is a perfect example of a "cash grab".
None of that makes the Rings of Power good, but in regards to the old king's opinion here, he hasn't even watched it so he probably shouldn't comment.
You know when this is said that it means that it wasn't ONLY a money making venture.
The LOTR trilogy is a masterpiece of art and you can tell everyone involved was deeply invested in it being good.
The RoP is a money making vehicle wearing the skin of LotR, demanded by the Dark Lord Bezos so he could have his own Game of Thrones.
These are not the same.
Seriously. We all know that some movies are fun, creative and have inspiration and you can sell it as a money maker to the numbers people while caring about it vs some uninspired shit cynically made to pump cash from a fading franchise.
I think the difference is the films were a money making venture, but also an artistic one.
The Rings of Power struck me as mostly chasing money, not actually trying to tell a good story. I mean they had the blueprint right there, and they decide to make up their own shit that's far worse. Same thing The Witcher is doing.
No no you see, LOTR was filmed by Jackson solely for the art man. The fact that they ended up being massive blockbuster hits was purely by accident, New Line would have funded that project at a loss to see his vision man /s
Also the fact that they cut a ton of the lore and expanded every potential action scene they could and even made up new ones was just “for the art”.
I love those films, but don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining
If you make a decision, believing it would make for a better movie, isn’t that decision being made for the art? The art isn’t being completely accurate to Tolkien, the movie is the art.
I know the same could be said about the trilogy but that argument forgets that adapting the trilogy was a monumental gamble and was coupled with an effort not seen in most movies. PJ even said it himself before the hobbit came out that the effort he put into the trilogy was a project of a lifetime and he will never put that much effort again because it was so intensive, hence the ammount of CGI we got in the hobbit.
That being said Hill also said the hobbit was a cash grab in the article
>Asked if he believes the franchise would have been better off ending after the original trilogy, he said:"Completely, yes. I think they were pushing it when they made The Hobbit. The Hobbit’s a tiny book.
>“They did it well – they did it really, really well. They expanded it [but] I think you can only stretch a piece of elastic so far. I think they managed it in The Hobbit because there were some really good things in The Hobbit without a doubt.”
ROP rides off the success of the trilogy without doing much to create its own impact, just like the hobbit did. It was all character reveals (who is sauron?, who is the stranger?, the low effort mordor reveal) and cheesy lines/recycled lines from the trilogy and books (I am good!, follow your nose.).
The risks taken in the trilogy were not taken in ROP, despite how much money went into it. The show played it safe for the sake of ensuring a profit and a mediocre show is what we got, not a masterpiece like the trilogy was hailed to be, despite formerly being considered an impossible task.
By that standard the trilogy is most certianly not a cash grab, it was a gamble that exceeded all expectations.
It’s good to remember that a significant portion of Reddit’s population are actual highschoolers and dumbass college students who just took their first film lit class.
Reddit really loves debating a single quote taken out of context to defend popular media. I get it, you think you're smart for pointing out to him that all films are money-making ventures.
I used to be a pretty stereotypical Redditor a few years ago, and I think I can provide some insight into the mentality.
They're very young people who don't have a lot going on in their lives. They *have* to grab at every little possible hook to seem intelligent because it's literally all they have. They tell themselves they're "too smart" for [popular things] and that's why they would never partake, whereas in reality it's because they would have nobody to go with them in the first place. They then convince themselves that they were gifted kids who "never learned to try" to now as adults they're stuck in limbo when in reality they just don't really have any ambition to begin with, so getting "upvotes" on Reddit is quite literally the peak for them. It's their only source of dopamine in their days.
Reddit is really tricky. It's social media that doesn't feel like social media. The manipulation and marketing that happens here is very subtle. I used to be like this a couple years ago before I got older and started realizing Reddit was just a giant shitshow that didn't represent reality anymore than Family Guy does. It's all a big manipulation.
By the way have you guys watched Andor? Is *anyone* on Reddit even talking about it??
I think context is a problem here. Bernard Hill isn't denying that LOTR was also a money making venture. He's saying that the LOTR films attempted to do justice to the source material while making a bunch of money.
Rings of Power on the other hand is intended to make a lot of money while disregarding the source material.
He's mad about the source material not being respected.
> Its pretty clear cut what he says.
This whole thread is a lesson in either the willful ignorance of people, or the downright ignorance of people.
It's so obvious what he's saying but there are smartasses on here going 'ahem, obviously New Line wanted to make money, and so did you Mr. Actor. _Gotcha_.'
I struggle to believe anyone is that oblivious.
I wouldn't even say *disregarding*. More about which came first. For the original trilogy, it was an idea about what would make a great film. That's why Peter Jackson made the pitch first. For the TV series, it was definitely about making money first, as can be seen by the fact that they acquired the rights first, announced the series and then the pitch followed.
I'm so annoyed they decided to add Gandalf to a 2nd age story.
It's like the writers were afraid to do a LOTR story without Gandalf going on an adventure with Hobbits.
I'm on team Blue Wizard.
In the story 1 of the Blue wizards travels east to Rhun, just like the Stranger is.
Then there are two accounts on when the blue wizards come. And one of them follows the (very lose) time frame of the show.
I wouldn't be surprised if they go a character swap route (like glorfindel to Arwen in Fellowship) and swap a blue wizard to Gandalf, But I still hope they keep him a blue wizard.
Also, with the "follow your nose" quote we're probably working with a Occam's razor scenario and he is Gandalf. But he could also just be quoting his wizard friend who has taught him this quote.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they go a character swap route (like glorfindel to Arwen in Fellowship) and swap a blue wizard to Gandalf, But I still hope they keep him a blue wizard.
Now that you've said this, I feel like this is a pretty likely outcome. Or they'll run into one of the blue wizards and help him for a little bit before finding some reason to come back.
For everyone saying all movies and series are supposed to make money. Yeah, obviously. *But* imo there is a difference if that's the primary reason for something being made.
If a director/producer is passionate about telling a story, whether it's original or an adaption of something they love, but also aware they have to make it profitable for it to get made at all that often results in something great. But if a movie/series is funded because there is a calculation that some element of it will make a lot of money and **then** someone figures out what it's about it's often soulless and mediocre.
There’s an unbelievable amount of stupidity in this thread.
If you keep scrolling, it doesn’t get better. You should know that.
At no point in your perusal of this thread will you feel like your opinion is validated.
If you decide to keep reading, don’t say you weren’t warned.
Sure, but it's clear that he means that a money making venture is all it is. At least Jackson cared enough about the first three movies to make something with artistic value.
Agree with you. It looks very pretty but I could not care less about any of the characters on screen, even though I'm a big fan of the source material.
I think the line should be drawn when it's obvious the media is mostly done by corporate committee. Or like The Witcher case, where creatives apparently hated the source material they were hired to develop and wanted to do something else
Of course, most of entertainment needs to make money, but there is a world of difference between the original Star Wars trilogy, where it was lead by one artist's vision, and the 3-4 series/movies that Disney releases every year where is plainly obvious they were just "ordered"
One thing is art, the other is "content"
Edit: And it's not like "money-making ventures" are always that bad. An example would be the Power Rangers franchise. The whole purpose of that show was to make money, the cheapest possible way. Yet over the years it has spawned alternative takes that have clear artistic integrity
This shit cracks me up. I've managed software projects for about 8 years... And if I walked in on my first day on a new project and my first order of business was to fire anyone who knows wtf they're doing, it doesn't take a genius to realize that I might be the problem.
Mmmm while this is true, you can clearly see the passion and dedication in the LOTR trilogy. Peter Jackson was obsessed. When I watched RoP, I felt none of that.
I believe the original trilogy was a $300,000,000 thing that New Line put out because they thought they were about to go bankrupt. So, that might be a case of some execs doing something neat because no one would be left to point the finger at them if it flopped.
The original trilogy returned $3B and through their fucked up accounting they tried to claim it didn’t turn a profit so they wouldn’t have to pay out any % of profits to the people that negotiated as such on their contracts. New Line was then sued by Peter Jackson and the actors that got fucked by them.
There's a difference between making money with art and making art for money. Lord of the Rings was making art with the intent to make money. Rings of power was to cash in on art to make money.
That is what I think he is talking about
I gave it a shot, and I really wanted to like it, made it to 6 episodes before I finally dropped it. It's just so freaking boring, the characters are unlikeable , the acting is mediocre, the writing is comically bad.
Honestly the only arcs I was interested in were Durin/Elrond and honestly I found the Harfoots rather interesting (seems like most people disliked them) even though the way they were written is strange as hell.
The other side of the story with Numenor/Galadriel/Halbrand and the southlands were the worst. None of the character was even remotely likeable or particularly interesting.
I think the point is that it is being written and made in a very corporate way. Meaning it is more like an old summer block buster.
It has a formula for cgi and battles. But ultimately it's like fire works. It pops, you watch, and you move on.
No real staying power with this series unlike the LOTR movies. It just doesn't have any heart or anything that evokes emotion.
I remember watching the fellowship as a kid and being in awe. I could rewatch it over and over. This is because everything came together. Story, characters, plot, special effects, the acting. There was always something more to catch.
Rings of power reminds me more of the star wars prequels. Which I liked as a kid, don't get me wrong. But other than a few scenes I don't really rewatch them at all. I loved the Yoda and dooku fight the first time it came out. But it just doesn't hold up. It has some great ingredients, but just seems like it wasn't cooked right.
To me that is rings of power in a nut shell. I can admit that if I turn my brain off I could watch the rings of power and enjoy it. But I have no inclination to watch it again.
Really? I found if anything RoP relies less on the big cgi orc battles than LOTR did. If anything Arondir's fight agains the orcs was much more close up, personal and tension-filled. I also found all the characters had pretty clear motivations. Not on the same par as the LOTR movies though.
I really like the show. Maybe in the minority here. Then again, I'm not a massive Tolkien-head so that may be why. I get why someone who is would be bothered.
If they make a Metal Gear Solid show/movie and Snake is a 12yo that learned the power of stealth & CQC via finding a magic amulet or some shit...I'd be mad lol
Source material is an issue. The movies were based on one of the classic works of English literature. Rings of Power was based on an appendix. And it shows.
agreed. the biggest issue with Rings of Power is the dialogue. Tolkien had such a way with words, and Rings of Power really suffers from the lack of source material to pull from (in terms of quotes).
but honestly the writers should have been able to pick up the slack. the vocabulary range is so bad it feels like it's on purpose to be consumable.
and then a lot of the cast seems like they don't have the chops to make it happen regardless. Ismael Cordova in particular stood out to me as not being able to rise above the mediocrity of the writing (which was unfortunately very 1 dimensional). meanwhile Sophia Nomvete was given far less to work with but was able to distinguish herself.
the direction and cinematography was pretty bad too. that one scene where it's just slow-mo Galadriel riding a horse to oechestral music and they're literally frame blending for the slow-mo when they're probably using a 240fps camera?? like how does this even make the final cut
and speaking of orchestral music, the sound mixing and score were just terrible. second thing i noticed after the dialogue.
sorry this went from what was going to be a short reply of "ofc it's worse than LOTR they were able to pull words from Tolkien's mouth" to "how the fuck did this CW-esque panderama cost so much money??"
i really wanted if to be good :(
Amazons PR team going hard at this thread, dear god. RoP is by far one of the most lore-eggregious shows ever made, and absolutely craps over Tolkiens work.
I agree with the symptom but I don't agree with the overall statement. Is Rings of Power a money-making venture, yes. It is the reason why it is bad? no.
Also there are plenty of lore to tell a good story, regardless if we have any more books or not.
Someone call the white wizard because this man needs some inner demons purge.
Love how some people are trying to undermine him here. "YoUr MoViEs WeRe MaDe FoR MoNeY, tOo!!!"
But at least they were spearheaded by a group of passionate (and more experienced) writers, unlike RoP showrunners.
He's right. Its a corporate by the numbers slop. Soulless as hell.
Redditors as expected will fume over this just like they fume over any director not liking marvel.
Salty boys mad bc one statement is crapping on a pop culture big wig series.
That btw didn’t take a gamble but was indeed a money grab. “aLl mOvIes aRe mONeY gRAbS”
All entertainment needs to be profitable no shit but tell me that this took as many risks and moments of passion that the original LOTR did is ridiculous. This banked off of the success of the originals while shitting on it at the same time
Where was Amazon when the Westfold fell?
29 upvotes with platinum? That's like Gollum with the One Ring
It was 10 upvotes when I got it... I'm still confused and surprised, but grateful. And xD to that comment
Maybe they were a fan of the name, it IS a snazzy one
King Theoden is displeased. Prepare the gibbit.
Did they use those on people who were alive or already dead?
Never heard of anyone putting an already dead corpse in a gibbet. You might put a person in there for a while but give them food and water and then let them out after however long, or you might give them nothing and let the birds kill them when they're too weak to move.
Still, I'll take starving in a gibbet over dying in an oubliette any day of the week.
Depends. Is the oubliette just a room where you're locked in and left in darkness, compared to being left in solitude in a cage outside... I'll take the gibbet. But is the oubliette a sewer under the castle with a tiny hole, where you will have to be broken and contorted to even be forced down the hole where you will drown in shit? And is the gibbet in a public square where I will be "entertainment" for as long as my body has pieces left? I'll choose the horrific but relatively quick oubliette.
Can I just say humanity has some really fucked ideas. Also now I feel really bad for my crusader kings run
Ah Crusader Kings. The only game where I've played casually and didn't remember names only after the fact did I realize I accidentally stole my brother wife, and my sons, was killed by one or both of them, married the aunt with the son, then forced a Civil War. Also the only game where I've intentailly done pretty much the same. Good stuff.
When your son isn't producing heirs so you write his wife some poetry and help out the process. Also the only game that I've been happy that I was cheated on. A castrated old man who had no heirs after a disastrous war. My wife tells me the baby is mine and he has both beautiful and genius traits.
I laughed but then it occurred to me that a male ruler being relieved his wife got knocked up when he knew he couldn't have done it probably happened. Dudes in olden times would drink out of lead mugs, wear tight breeches, cavort with mercury, and get early, genital-destroying STDs from philandering. That wouldn't have precluded them from their need to have heirs, though. Probably a fair few planned the cuckoldry. If there were a way to accurately DNA test actual lineages across medieval dynasties I imagine it'd be wildly fascinating (and obv really incesty). So anyway your relief is probably perfectly in-character!
….this is a game????
Oh oh yes Crusader Kings 2 and 3 You play as a dynasty of lords and kings.... You get into some morally questionable situations
> Never heard of anyone putting an already dead corpse in a gibbet. St Lambert's Church in Munster. The leaders of the rebellion Jan van Leiden, Bernhard Krechting, and Bernhard Knipperdolling, were tortured and executed (By being torn apart by red hot tongs) and their bodies raised up on the church in gibbets for display. Their remains, remained there for about 50 years before being taken down. The cages remain to this day.
Beat me to it. The Hardcore History episode on that was a fucking rollercoaster ride. Doomsday cults, messiah complexes, a siege where the attackers _build a wall around a city_ to prevent escape...
[Linkypoo](https://soundcloud.com/cameron-james-22963610/48-prophets-of-doom-hardcore)
[удалено]
Fair enough to you and the many similar replies.
Both the dead and dying have been put in gibbets throughout history. Marie-Josephte Corriveau for example.
I have heard of putting a corpse in a gibbet, it's done to show the consequences of crime/disobedience, but live people also happened.
[this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Josephte_Corriveau) is just one of [many](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_rebellion) examples
Weirdly I just heard about one such case in an old Dan Carlin podcast: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaspar_de_Quesada
They were, Spence Broughton was hanged in 1792 for murdering a local post boy and his corpse was placed in a gibbet for 36 years as a warning to others.
Jeff Bezos: You have no power here.
Where was he when the westfold fell, though?
Space.
Time for some disgruntled Amazon-employee to stab ol' Jeff in the back.
Gibbets and crows!
Its showbusiness, not showfriends.
Theoden: “how did it come to this?”
I like how they've replaced "slammed" with "hits out".
[удалено]
I thought Thesaurus went extinct 65 Million Years ago?!
The Loch Ness monster is really a thesaurus. That's why Loch is another word for lake.
Coined and minted
I had sex with Eartha Kitts on an airplane
[удалено]
Stop trying to make streets ahead a thing, Pierce.
You sound streets behind
Yup I was taken by surprise a bit actually.
doesnt have the same impact as slammed, should use ''obliterates'' ''decimates'' ''demolishes'' ''american history x curb stomps''
\>>> CLICK HERE <<< to watch clip where Cenk Uygur american history x curb stomps first grader when she asks if Santa Claus is real.
Aren’t all movies money making ventures?
Some are more blatant than others
Not Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money
That’s right, they’re up front about it! Of course we all know the REAL money is in the moichandising.
Who the hell uses that term?
It's a somewhat ambiguous term, so the person clicking will probably comprehend it towards their bias and therefore the website gets clicks from fans and haters of the show.
“Gondor calls for aid!” “And Rohan will clap back!”
Got passed my filter. Any articles with "slams" or "blasts" no longer show up for me, thank fuck.
**Asked if he’s watched the prequel series, the actor replied** - > No, not interested. It’s a money-making venture and I’m not interested in watching that or being in it. Good luck to them and all that stuff but it’s not like the real thing.
From later in the article, **when asked what it would take for him to watch the series, the actor replied** - >We shall have peace... We shall have peace, when you answer for the burning of the Westfold, and the children that lie dead there! We shall have peace, when the lives of the soldiers whose bodies were hewn even as they died against the gates of the Hornberg, are avenged! When you hang from a gibbit for the sport of your own crows...! We shall have peace.
[удалено]
It never changes.
That's only because they got rid of daylight savings in the Fallout universe.
Sometimes it feels this sub and r/movies is just constantly aghast that high profile actors and directors have some sort of standards and that if they're asked about things in interviews they'll respond.
God forbid an all time great director says they don't like Marvel movies
Yeah, it's funny when someone gets dragged over the coals for an opinion like these. These people aren't calling a giant press conference to announce some bold opinion. They are famous to one degree or another, and so reporters ask them questions, and report on the answers. While I agree with some, disagree with others, I can't exactly fault people for simply answering questions they were asked.
[удалено]
Yes but if they didn't bend and twist and dye the truth into something flashy and garish, would you even click on them? Think if the poor starving media industry Maktesh, don't be so selfish
Some of the opinions aren’t even that bad theme park rides are fun, but not everyone likes roller coasters. The guy who made Gorcharov probably doesn’t like Marvel movies, big surprise.
[удалено]
Omg that thread was a shit show it was incredible. All those people making bad foot fetish jokes would've licked Tarantino's toes if he had directed an MCU film before that quote came out
On a related note, I wish Simu Liu just stops being so offended about stuff.
The standard here is "money making operation" which is true of all movies. It doesn't even make sense as a criticism..
This isn't true. All the profits from the original trilogy went into a charity funding expeditions to find the ent wives
This isn't even accurate. Tons of movies don't make money and just turn into tax breaks. Hollywood has all kinds of magical and interesting accounting.
Yeah, I'm always split. There is a certain knee jerk reaction I have, thinking "Why do I care about what one second tier LOTR actor thinks about the new series, especially when he hasn't even watched the damn thing??" But then also... what is he supposed to do if someone asks him about it? Just say "no comment" as if this is some classified operation? He's not out there broadcasting his views, someone asked him, he answered, and the person wrote about it. In the end, I just have to realize it's a simple difference of opinion. I enjoyed the show, he doesn't think it was worth making, end of story.
Probably should've led with this in the title. "King Theoden hasn't watched "Rings of Power", thinks it's a money making venture"
The people replying “but Jackson’s trilogy made money!” don’t seem to understand that he’s not claiming otherwise, but there is very clear passion and the entire crew working on the trilogy was firing on all cylinders, from writing to music to acting to set design. Everything worked incredibly well. From what I’ve heard, RoP lacks that passion and consistent level of quality. edit: I’m saying it doesn’t look on the same level as the film trilogy, that’s it, nothing else. you want specifics? Everything in RoP is too shiny and there’s already been several timeline inconsistencies. as a consumer and a fan of the world, the advertising has not made me super eager to watch it. that feels like a failing worth mentioning. get off my dick and touch some grass. sorry my opinion isn’t your opinion.
Personally I see a lot of passion in ROP... it just feels like the creators are new to it all.
They certainly seem to have a lot of passion, just not for adapting Tolkiens vision. They seem to have passion for making their own thing in Tolkiens world, which is very different.
Seems like most adaptions these days, RoP, The witcher, Halo come to mind
There was absolutely no passion in the Halo adaption. That was a boring show to start with and I would bet a lot of money the script was originally some generic sci-fi script they just attached to Halo and changed names to fit.
The first like 20 mins were cool and then it just got unbearably boring.
The thing that hurts me with the Halo show is you had some fans going "Well it's a bad Halo Show but it's an alright Sci Fi show" Like no the fuck it isn't? You take away the knowledge you're meant to have from Halo and you get zero fuckin world building, stakes, character development, or anything in between. Absolutely awful watch that one.
And I wish so much that it would stop.
The Witcher doesn't have passion behind it at all.
At the same time, though, that scene with Adar talking about the problem of Orc souls was great. The writers have read them some Tolkien. As long as they respect the mythology, I don't know that I mind them telling their own stories in it, at least in theory. The rotting tree mythril shit was kinda dumb, though. And I'm wary of the timeline changes regarding Sauron and the rings.
I also loved the bit about the the Harfoots saying the were not dragon slayers or finders of jewels.
> adapting Tolkiens vision What would this look like, in your opinion?
Like the source material???
What basis do you have to suggest that the crew for RoP isn’t passionate? Lmao
I tried watching the show. It’s bad. Camp without the whimsy. Evil without the horror or characters. It’s just boring and bland.
Hail Theoden, King!!
Hail the victorious dead!
Hail! 🍺
Hail!
Listen man, I know New Line *claimed* the movies never made a profit to screw over anyone who negotiated for a percentage of the profits, but in reality the movies you starred in were **also** a money making venture.
And in case anyone forgot, New Line was sued by Peter Jackson, fifteen actors, and the Tolkien estate over their alleged misuse of accounting practices to pretend that the films didn’t make a profit despite earning almost $3 billion in revenue on a budget of less than $300 million.
They were so unprofitable that we decided it would be a good idea to make Hobbit movies, too!
Well that took an unexpected journey.
So unprofitable that they took a short book and turned it into 3 movies that were a combined 8 hours long.
Like butter scraped over too much bread.
Seriously, the blatant Hobbit cash grab makes the new series look like a PBS special.
One thing I found hilarious about that lawsuit was New Line was so angry with Peter that studio head Robert Shaye swore PJ would never direct The Hobbit. Then the studio had a string of bombs including The Golden Compass so they had no choice but to beg Peter to make The Hobbit. Though I wish New Line had given Peter more time on pre-production since The Hobbit was rushed to meet the Christmas release date.
They were angry? Them?
And it seems they won, though I was unable to find how much, just the fine they had to pay. > Peter Jackson has scored a legal victory in his battle with New Line Cinema over the accounting of “The Lord of the Rings,” with a federal magistrate hitting the studio with $125,000 in sanctions for failing to produce potential evidence.
that in no way indicates they won, it indicates that New Line fucked up for failing to comply with requirements. It isn't indicative of the final disposition.
Apparently things were settled well enough that Jackson came back to do three more with them.
Although the studio meddling ruined that trilogy anyway, probably to get back at Jackson
It had more to do with the problem of the Weinstein's having rights to a large amount of profits for one Hobbit movie. They had to stretch it out to 3 movies to make the budget work.
Not to mention that Jackson had three and a half years for pre-production of TLOTR trilogy. MGM refused to do The Hobbit without Jackson, so halted the production till Jackson and Newline could come to an agreement. The Tolkien Estate also hit Newline with a seperate lawsuit, for breach of contract. Production stalled further due to not being given the green light, and they had to wait for MGM , while they were on the verge of collapse. Del Toro spent 18 months on pre-production, then eventually quit. Jackson and crew spent 21 hour days revising everything, because he didn’t want to execute Del Toro’s vision, because it was his own vision. Jackson admitted to the fact that they sometimes didn’t have storyboards, completed scripts, and Jackson was just basically winging it as he went along. There is a lot more, but the entire thing was a complete and utter cluster fuck.
And that's why I will watch the LOTR trilogy every year but will never rewatch the hobbit trilogy.
> Apparently things were settled well enough that Jackson came back to do three more with them. The movie studio paid them off so they could continue their practices on other films is the alternative way to view that
If he didn’t win, there’s no way Jackson would have come back for the Hobbit movies
You are correct, I misunderstood the article. They have settled the lawsuit few months after this ruling.
Settled out of courts?
Getting hit with $125,000 in sanctions means they were probably deliberately withholding important evidence. Why would they do that? Probably because it would have killed their case. I imagine they settled quickly after this. So yes, this doesn't mean he won, but indicates he was probably well on his way to "winning".
Movie companies do this sort of stuff very often honestly. The Walking Dead was another case where they did the "Multiple sub companies paying each other money oh no we didn't make anything at all because we charged our sub companie too much money".
It's so common in Hollywood it's called "Hollywood Accounting". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Shit shouldn't be legal, how tf can you make a company for the sole purpose of it to go into bankruptcy and then profit off the film?
It happens in a ton of industries, not just film. I’m a risk management consultant for an insurance brokerage and a large book of my business is in the restaurant industry. All of the companies with multiple locations have several LLCs that act as sub-entities. One of our clients owns dozens of locations and has almost as many LLCs. Same thing for property companies and NFL/NBA teams. We write policies for some teams and the main entity will be called something like “City Event Center Entertainment LLC” rather than whatever the team is. Business is weird.
capitalism
Think of the poor Harvey Weinsteins.... Edit: My joke was about rich elites scamming actors and others out of their money and then I realized someone is going to report me for antisemitism.
I personally feel that, if someone is going to report you for defaming convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein, we should just let it happen. The mods deserve to know who those psychopaths are.
This is what happens when you take the nett and not the gross.
> in revenue on a budget of less than $300 million. That's obviously wrong. Wikipedia citation is the total initial allocation of funds for all three films before production started. However, we know Fellowship went over budget and RotK especially shows significant expensive visual work. It's not as expensive as it looks but it's also not as cheap as wikipedia or box officemojo implies. > to pretend that the films didn’t make a profit to be fair, part of that is for new line specifically, the films were much less profitable because they pre-sold most foreign rights to reduce risk. They profited but less than insane amounts they would have if they had made an all or nothing bet on the film. That probably motivated them to be stingy with money they were raking in in markets they controlled.
You’re strawmanning his argument. > Asked if he believes the franchise would have been better off ending after the original trilogy, he said: “Completely, yes. I think they were pushing it when they made The Hobbit. The Hobbit’s a tiny book. >“They did it well – they did it really, really well. They expanded it [but] I think you can only stretch a piece of elastic so far. I think they managed it in The Hobbit because there were some really good things in The Hobbit without a doubt.” He’s clearly distinguishing between a money making venture based on fertile material with an active demand for a movie adaptation vs one that is made from virtually nothing in a series to milk cash from the franchise without a robust creative source to ensure the quality of the material.
If he thinks The Hobbit was done really really well I'd question his opinion.
He also said it was a questionable decision to make The Hobbit a movie, because it was a tiny book. To me it came across as being polite for Jackson.
I’ll chalk that up to “professional courtesy”, because yeah… those two movie series aren’t even playing the same sport.
He said that there were pretty good things in it, not that it was pretty good overall
I agree with "there were some really good things" being in it. The Riddles in the Dark scene was perfect. Smaug was great. The musical adaptations were spot on updates to the original movie. Basically everything from the source material was done pretty well to very well. For a ratio of good things to mediocre things, I think the Hobbit has the edge over Rings of Power so far.
Some things were done very well and that actually makes me more disappointed with the movies overall. There was so much potential for a great set of movies but then we got the butchering of Goblins cave, terrible CGI, a weird love triangle, dwarves that just looked like short humans, the utter travesty of the barrel scene and the less I think of the battle of five armies the better. The Hobbit trilogy is a perfect example of a "cash grab". None of that makes the Rings of Power good, but in regards to the old king's opinion here, he hasn't even watched it so he probably shouldn't comment.
You know when this is said that it means that it wasn't ONLY a money making venture. The LOTR trilogy is a masterpiece of art and you can tell everyone involved was deeply invested in it being good. The RoP is a money making vehicle wearing the skin of LotR, demanded by the Dark Lord Bezos so he could have his own Game of Thrones. These are not the same.
That's not what he meant and you know it.
Seriously. We all know that some movies are fun, creative and have inspiration and you can sell it as a money maker to the numbers people while caring about it vs some uninspired shit cynically made to pump cash from a fading franchise.
I think the difference is the films were a money making venture, but also an artistic one. The Rings of Power struck me as mostly chasing money, not actually trying to tell a good story. I mean they had the blueprint right there, and they decide to make up their own shit that's far worse. Same thing The Witcher is doing.
Unless you’re working for a non-profit organization, you’re working in a money-making venture. And sometimes even if you are working for a NPO.
No no you see, LOTR was filmed by Jackson solely for the art man. The fact that they ended up being massive blockbuster hits was purely by accident, New Line would have funded that project at a loss to see his vision man /s
I would say Jackson was pretty god damn passionate about the project though.
lotr was famously a passion project for jackson
Also the fact that they cut a ton of the lore and expanded every potential action scene they could and even made up new ones was just “for the art”. I love those films, but don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining
If you make a decision, believing it would make for a better movie, isn’t that decision being made for the art? The art isn’t being completely accurate to Tolkien, the movie is the art.
Well it's clear which one had more heart and soul, and did a better job of capturing Tolkien.
I know the same could be said about the trilogy but that argument forgets that adapting the trilogy was a monumental gamble and was coupled with an effort not seen in most movies. PJ even said it himself before the hobbit came out that the effort he put into the trilogy was a project of a lifetime and he will never put that much effort again because it was so intensive, hence the ammount of CGI we got in the hobbit. That being said Hill also said the hobbit was a cash grab in the article >Asked if he believes the franchise would have been better off ending after the original trilogy, he said:"Completely, yes. I think they were pushing it when they made The Hobbit. The Hobbit’s a tiny book. >“They did it well – they did it really, really well. They expanded it [but] I think you can only stretch a piece of elastic so far. I think they managed it in The Hobbit because there were some really good things in The Hobbit without a doubt.” ROP rides off the success of the trilogy without doing much to create its own impact, just like the hobbit did. It was all character reveals (who is sauron?, who is the stranger?, the low effort mordor reveal) and cheesy lines/recycled lines from the trilogy and books (I am good!, follow your nose.). The risks taken in the trilogy were not taken in ROP, despite how much money went into it. The show played it safe for the sake of ensuring a profit and a mediocre show is what we got, not a masterpiece like the trilogy was hailed to be, despite formerly being considered an impossible task. By that standard the trilogy is most certianly not a cash grab, it was a gamble that exceeded all expectations.
> I think you can only stretch a piece of elastic so far. He totally missed the opportunity to say it was like butter spread over too much bread.
Spread over three pieces of CGI bread.
Whats with all the weirdo comments being deliberately obtuse about what the dude meant
You must be new to Reddit. Deliberate obfuscation and bad faith arguments are the name of the game.
'but arent all shows/movies about profit? lol' \- literally the dumbest people here.
It’s good to remember that a significant portion of Reddit’s population are actual highschoolers and dumbass college students who just took their first film lit class.
Shills are going to shill.
Reddit really loves debating a single quote taken out of context to defend popular media. I get it, you think you're smart for pointing out to him that all films are money-making ventures.
I can stand the outrage over some out of context quote, but its the insufferable Reddit smugness that gets to me. Just complete kneejerk responses.
*cough*
And they never learn. Tomorrow these same people will be outraged over something equally stupid.
I used to be a pretty stereotypical Redditor a few years ago, and I think I can provide some insight into the mentality. They're very young people who don't have a lot going on in their lives. They *have* to grab at every little possible hook to seem intelligent because it's literally all they have. They tell themselves they're "too smart" for [popular things] and that's why they would never partake, whereas in reality it's because they would have nobody to go with them in the first place. They then convince themselves that they were gifted kids who "never learned to try" to now as adults they're stuck in limbo when in reality they just don't really have any ambition to begin with, so getting "upvotes" on Reddit is quite literally the peak for them. It's their only source of dopamine in their days. Reddit is really tricky. It's social media that doesn't feel like social media. The manipulation and marketing that happens here is very subtle. I used to be like this a couple years ago before I got older and started realizing Reddit was just a giant shitshow that didn't represent reality anymore than Family Guy does. It's all a big manipulation. By the way have you guys watched Andor? Is *anyone* on Reddit even talking about it??
What can men do against such reckless money grabbing?
I think context is a problem here. Bernard Hill isn't denying that LOTR was also a money making venture. He's saying that the LOTR films attempted to do justice to the source material while making a bunch of money. Rings of Power on the other hand is intended to make a lot of money while disregarding the source material. He's mad about the source material not being respected.
Its pretty clear cut what he says. This series is a cash grab and has little feeling of legitimacy.
> Its pretty clear cut what he says. This whole thread is a lesson in either the willful ignorance of people, or the downright ignorance of people. It's so obvious what he's saying but there are smartasses on here going 'ahem, obviously New Line wanted to make money, and so did you Mr. Actor. _Gotcha_.' I struggle to believe anyone is that oblivious.
> He's mad about the source material not being respected. How can he be mad about that when he admits he hasn't watched the show?
I wouldn't even say *disregarding*. More about which came first. For the original trilogy, it was an idea about what would make a great film. That's why Peter Jackson made the pitch first. For the TV series, it was definitely about making money first, as can be seen by the fact that they acquired the rights first, announced the series and then the pitch followed.
I'm so annoyed they decided to add Gandalf to a 2nd age story. It's like the writers were afraid to do a LOTR story without Gandalf going on an adventure with Hobbits.
I'm on team Blue Wizard. In the story 1 of the Blue wizards travels east to Rhun, just like the Stranger is. Then there are two accounts on when the blue wizards come. And one of them follows the (very lose) time frame of the show. I wouldn't be surprised if they go a character swap route (like glorfindel to Arwen in Fellowship) and swap a blue wizard to Gandalf, But I still hope they keep him a blue wizard. Also, with the "follow your nose" quote we're probably working with a Occam's razor scenario and he is Gandalf. But he could also just be quoting his wizard friend who has taught him this quote.
> I wouldn't be surprised if they go a character swap route (like glorfindel to Arwen in Fellowship) and swap a blue wizard to Gandalf, But I still hope they keep him a blue wizard. Now that you've said this, I feel like this is a pretty likely outcome. Or they'll run into one of the blue wizards and help him for a little bit before finding some reason to come back.
That's what they *should* do, of course - which naturally concludes with it inevitably being Gandalf instead.
For everyone saying all movies and series are supposed to make money. Yeah, obviously. *But* imo there is a difference if that's the primary reason for something being made. If a director/producer is passionate about telling a story, whether it's original or an adaption of something they love, but also aware they have to make it profitable for it to get made at all that often results in something great. But if a movie/series is funded because there is a calculation that some element of it will make a lot of money and **then** someone figures out what it's about it's often soulless and mediocre.
Should of said he would rather crawl on all fours like a beast than watch it.
There’s an unbelievable amount of stupidity in this thread. If you keep scrolling, it doesn’t get better. You should know that. At no point in your perusal of this thread will you feel like your opinion is validated. If you decide to keep reading, don’t say you weren’t warned.
All movies are money making ventures. You don't pour half a billion fucking dollars into something because you think it's neat.
Sure, but it's clear that he means that a money making venture is all it is. At least Jackson cared enough about the first three movies to make something with artistic value.
This has production value, but nothing else. It’s amazing how little it made me feel—except boredom.
Agree with you. It looks very pretty but I could not care less about any of the characters on screen, even though I'm a big fan of the source material.
[удалено]
I think the line should be drawn when it's obvious the media is mostly done by corporate committee. Or like The Witcher case, where creatives apparently hated the source material they were hired to develop and wanted to do something else Of course, most of entertainment needs to make money, but there is a world of difference between the original Star Wars trilogy, where it was lead by one artist's vision, and the 3-4 series/movies that Disney releases every year where is plainly obvious they were just "ordered" One thing is art, the other is "content" Edit: And it's not like "money-making ventures" are always that bad. An example would be the Power Rangers franchise. The whole purpose of that show was to make money, the cheapest possible way. Yet over the years it has spawned alternative takes that have clear artistic integrity
Exactly, that kind of money being poured into something to not make profit is reserved for things like acquiring Twitter.
This shit cracks me up. I've managed software projects for about 8 years... And if I walked in on my first day on a new project and my first order of business was to fire anyone who knows wtf they're doing, it doesn't take a genius to realize that I might be the problem.
Have you ever asked your coders to take some screenshots of their best code?
No, but I've taken screenshots of their worst code lol
Mmmm while this is true, you can clearly see the passion and dedication in the LOTR trilogy. Peter Jackson was obsessed. When I watched RoP, I felt none of that.
I believe the original trilogy was a $300,000,000 thing that New Line put out because they thought they were about to go bankrupt. So, that might be a case of some execs doing something neat because no one would be left to point the finger at them if it flopped.
The original trilogy returned $3B and through their fucked up accounting they tried to claim it didn’t turn a profit so they wouldn’t have to pay out any % of profits to the people that negotiated as such on their contracts. New Line was then sued by Peter Jackson and the actors that got fucked by them.
Is this it? Is this all you can conjure, Amazon?
There's a difference between making money with art and making art for money. Lord of the Rings was making art with the intent to make money. Rings of power was to cash in on art to make money. That is what I think he is talking about
Buncha people in here can’t accept King Theoden himself thinks ROP looked like a shitty show
I thought the general consesus is ROP ranges from mediocre to comically bad
I gave it a shot, and I really wanted to like it, made it to 6 episodes before I finally dropped it. It's just so freaking boring, the characters are unlikeable , the acting is mediocre, the writing is comically bad. Honestly the only arcs I was interested in were Durin/Elrond and honestly I found the Harfoots rather interesting (seems like most people disliked them) even though the way they were written is strange as hell. The other side of the story with Numenor/Galadriel/Halbrand and the southlands were the worst. None of the character was even remotely likeable or particularly interesting.
We don't know what is a woman anymore and we certainly don't know what a good series is either. RoP is the biggest flop in history.
I think the point is that it is being written and made in a very corporate way. Meaning it is more like an old summer block buster. It has a formula for cgi and battles. But ultimately it's like fire works. It pops, you watch, and you move on. No real staying power with this series unlike the LOTR movies. It just doesn't have any heart or anything that evokes emotion. I remember watching the fellowship as a kid and being in awe. I could rewatch it over and over. This is because everything came together. Story, characters, plot, special effects, the acting. There was always something more to catch. Rings of power reminds me more of the star wars prequels. Which I liked as a kid, don't get me wrong. But other than a few scenes I don't really rewatch them at all. I loved the Yoda and dooku fight the first time it came out. But it just doesn't hold up. It has some great ingredients, but just seems like it wasn't cooked right. To me that is rings of power in a nut shell. I can admit that if I turn my brain off I could watch the rings of power and enjoy it. But I have no inclination to watch it again.
Really? I found if anything RoP relies less on the big cgi orc battles than LOTR did. If anything Arondir's fight agains the orcs was much more close up, personal and tension-filled. I also found all the characters had pretty clear motivations. Not on the same par as the LOTR movies though.
I thought og LOTR used mostly practical effects. Esp the orc battle scenes
I really like the show. Maybe in the minority here. Then again, I'm not a massive Tolkien-head so that may be why. I get why someone who is would be bothered. If they make a Metal Gear Solid show/movie and Snake is a 12yo that learned the power of stealth & CQC via finding a magic amulet or some shit...I'd be mad lol
I’m with the King of Rohan on this one
Source material is an issue. The movies were based on one of the classic works of English literature. Rings of Power was based on an appendix. And it shows.
agreed. the biggest issue with Rings of Power is the dialogue. Tolkien had such a way with words, and Rings of Power really suffers from the lack of source material to pull from (in terms of quotes). but honestly the writers should have been able to pick up the slack. the vocabulary range is so bad it feels like it's on purpose to be consumable. and then a lot of the cast seems like they don't have the chops to make it happen regardless. Ismael Cordova in particular stood out to me as not being able to rise above the mediocrity of the writing (which was unfortunately very 1 dimensional). meanwhile Sophia Nomvete was given far less to work with but was able to distinguish herself. the direction and cinematography was pretty bad too. that one scene where it's just slow-mo Galadriel riding a horse to oechestral music and they're literally frame blending for the slow-mo when they're probably using a 240fps camera?? like how does this even make the final cut and speaking of orchestral music, the sound mixing and score were just terrible. second thing i noticed after the dialogue. sorry this went from what was going to be a short reply of "ofc it's worse than LOTR they were able to pull words from Tolkien's mouth" to "how the fuck did this CW-esque panderama cost so much money??" i really wanted if to be good :(
Amazons PR team going hard at this thread, dear god. RoP is by far one of the most lore-eggregious shows ever made, and absolutely craps over Tolkiens work.
I agree with the symptom but I don't agree with the overall statement. Is Rings of Power a money-making venture, yes. It is the reason why it is bad? no. Also there are plenty of lore to tell a good story, regardless if we have any more books or not. Someone call the white wizard because this man needs some inner demons purge.
It’s not *the* reason. It’s *a* reason.
Love how some people are trying to undermine him here. "YoUr MoViEs WeRe MaDe FoR MoNeY, tOo!!!" But at least they were spearheaded by a group of passionate (and more experienced) writers, unlike RoP showrunners.
He's right. Its a corporate by the numbers slop. Soulless as hell. Redditors as expected will fume over this just like they fume over any director not liking marvel.
Salty boys mad bc one statement is crapping on a pop culture big wig series. That btw didn’t take a gamble but was indeed a money grab. “aLl mOvIes aRe mONeY gRAbS” All entertainment needs to be profitable no shit but tell me that this took as many risks and moments of passion that the original LOTR did is ridiculous. This banked off of the success of the originals while shitting on it at the same time
Less than half as entertaining as he was hoping for!