West Lancs looks like a LAB hold on small turnout – politicalbetting.com

JosiasJessop said:

Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

There won't be a series 2, sadly.

(The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.

Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.

I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.

Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.

Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.

Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.

slade said:

Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring

But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.

Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.

I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.

Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.

Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.

Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.

But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

'Go back!' he whispered.

'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.

TheScreamingEagles said:

turbotubbs said:

JosiasJessop said:

Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

There won't be a series 2, sadly.

(The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.

I wouldn't bother, it got cancelled after one season, no point investing your time watching it.

HYUFD said:

slade said:

Following the earlier discussion about places safe from nuclear war - I am in Tenerife( that must rate highly).

I think I would take my chances with nuclear war if the alternative was being stuck in Tenerife for ever. La Gomera was beautiful however

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring

But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

IshmaelZ said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.

Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.

I have never watched any of the films, what with having a frankly snobbish contempt for any film-of-the-book garbage. I read a couple of days ago, that the films just don't do the Scouring of the Shire because it would be, like, too much of a downer, man. Like the gospels without the crucifixion or King Lear only he ends his days as a happy centenarian in a retirement home.

Or Tom Bombadil. Or the journey home from Gondor.

To be fair, that's about all they left out, but they added weird shit with Faramir, Elrond and the Elves of Lorien that just didn't work at all.

Or making Frodo a passive victim of everything.

Well, he is in the book too for rather a lot of it.

In fact, after Book 1 he gets progressively replaced by Aragorn and Sam as the heroes of the narrative, because the former is essential to the wider plot and the latter is much more interesting as a character.

But he tries - at the ford, in the book, he defies the Nazgul. Draws his sword and gives them lip. Rather than just wibbling.


Suddenly the foremost Rider spurred his horse forward. It checked at the water and reared up. With a great effort Frodo sat upright and brandished his sword.

'Go back!' he cried. 'Go back to the Land of Mordor, and follow me no more!' His voice sounded thin and shrill in his own ears. The Riders halted, but Frodo had not the power of Bombadil. His enemies laughed at him with a harsh and chilling laughter. 'Come back! Come back!' they called. 'To Mordor we will take you!'

'Go back!' he whispered.

'The Ring! The Ring!' they cried with deadly voices; and immediately their leader urged his horse forward into the water, followed closely by two others.

'By Elbereth and Lúthien the Fair,' said Frodo with a last effort, lifting up his sword, 'you shall have neither the Ring nor me!'

Then the leader, who was now half across the Ford, stood up menacing in his stirrups, and raised up his hand. Frodo was stricken dumb.... The foremost of the black horses had almost set foot upon the shore.

That's at the end of Book 1. It's afterwards he seems to fade into the background.

Somewhat - but in the films all Frodo is good for is putting on the Ring at the wrong moment.

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

turbotubbs said:

JosiasJessop said:

Whilst we're talking about series, can I just say Amazon's 'Paper Girls' is effing superb. Although we're only halfway through, and might be a little 'woke' for some on here. It's brilliantly acted as well by young actresses.

Then again, I love any series with mechs in them. Especially mechs fighting.

There won't be a series 2, sadly.

(The synopsis is that four paper girls who barely know each other get ripped out of 1988 and thrown into the future, and then elsewhere through time.)

Cheers for the tip - will add to the list.

I wouldn't bother, it got cancelled after one season, no point investing your time watching it.

I can live with that.

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

I never got around to it. I don't think I should now.

Then again, Good Omens the show was very good.

Yes, and we’ll received by fans. I ‘think’ Neil had more control/input.

For The Watch they reused a set from another production which hugely affected the feel of the show. And rewrote the essential nature of main characters (who originally were to have been only tangential to the main stories). Skys versions of Going Postal, Hogfather etc are far closer to Pratchet and much easier for fans. So much so that a lot of the fancy dress was from Going Postal.

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

kle4 said:

Meanwhile, at fantasybooks.com supporters of Liz Truss are angrily sparring with the Starmerites.

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring

But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

turbotubbs said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

I know, that Alec Guinness chap is terrible. Wasn’t he replaced for some of the later films? You can see why…

kle4 said:

Anyway, I'm just hoping that terribly dull Dune movie does well in its second part, as I want to see them go on to tackle a main character turning into a giant worm tyrant over 3000 years, and then a galactic conflict (that we barely see) between a devious controlling sisterhood and their rivals who controled people through sexual enslavement, before an utterly incomprehensible plan involving raising clones of dead characters to combat some ancient AI.

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

I know, that Alec Guinness chap is terrible. Wasn’t he replaced for some of the later films? You can see why…

It wasn't him I was thinking of, though you can tell he doesn't give a shit for the film.

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

solarflare said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.

TheScreamingEagles said:

What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

turbotubbs said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

What on earth happened in Chelmsford today?

Worst pitch since Sabina Park 1998?

https://twitter.com/BobbyDugnutt111/status/1572325235478695937

turbotubbs said:

solarflare said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.

Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

House of the Dragon is pretty good. Paddy Considine steals every scene he is in as the King. Theres some wokery and some fucking your niece incest

Cool! Thanks

I mean cool that it’s good, not that incest is cool. OBVS

Re incest, I'll take your word for it, I've never tried to find out.

But yes, House of the Dragon is perfectly watchable.

The Lord of the Rings is really not.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? You are so wrong. Rings of power is best middle earth ever. Even better than Tolkiens Middle earth. The series is pacy, amazing to look at amazing on the ear, very well storyboarded with good dialogue and brilliant acting (that comes from good writing teams and lots of rehearsal) and brilliant direction, I’m loving it and can’t get enough of it. I recommend everybody to give the first four episodes a go, most people will enjoy this.

Tolkien’s phoey writing, and Jackson’s Theme Park films, don’t have motivation or emotional depth in characters - but these rings of power writers put real earth into middle earth through real motivation for action, where you distrust others for previously being on the wrong side, hate your predecessors and family for backing the wrong side - just like leave and remain split all PBers can relate to - where the motivation of the character the orcs call father is he wants power and to become a God - just like Boris Johnson! Tolkiens writing and Jackson’s films never achieve such richness in motivation and purpose behind everything going on, as they are trying to achieve here.

And everyone is on board with it, right approach or copyrights or not.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Republic now as King Charles III insults the Commonwealth.

King Charles chooses France for first state visit after bonding with Macron

Instead of a Commonwealth country, plans are being finalised for the monarch to kick off his reign with a potential trip to France

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/20/king-prepares-first-state-visit-destination-might-surprise/

He's going to make Macron Co-Prince of the United Kingdom, I just know it.

It also says the King will visit Australia and New Zealand in the Spring

But he's going to a non Commonwealth country first, this insult will not be forgotten.

Same as his Grandfather George VI - visited France first, followed by Canada and the USA:

https://www.royal.uk/george-vi

Bless you, you sweet innocent child, international travel is much different today to 1937.

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

solarflare said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.

Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.

Yeah TFA is just Star Wars remade which was fun, but I wasn't too fussed with The Last Jedi which was quite disappointing. Especially considering Empire Strikes Back is the best of the series.

Rise of Skywalker was pretty good though I thought.

solarflare said:

turbotubbs said:

solarflare said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.

Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.

My problem with TFA was just the massive sigh I let out in the cinema when I realised it was just literally the original film again done slightly differently. It looked the part, but I had to mentally rescore the prequels for at least attempting original stories.

But at least TFA is semi-watchable, whereas after that was just a mess.

Nigelb said:

Migrants flown to Massachusetts file class action lawsuit against DeSantis and other Florida officials in federal court…
… The lawsuit alleges that DeSantis and his accomplices engaged in "a premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme centered on exploiting [the migrants] for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial and political interests."
https://mobile.twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1572319313813721089

CarlottaVance said:

Zara Sultana MP

My train to Leeds for tonight's Enough is Enough rally has been stopped just outside London for the last 3 hours. I'm sorry not to be there, Leeds! 😭

Just another reminder that we need to bring rail into public ownership and make it fit for the future! 🚄

LNER
Replying to @zarahsultana and @eiecampaign
I am sorry for the delay, Zarah. This was due to damage to the overhead electric wires meaning services could not move around Stevenage, but services are now on the move. On your other point, LNER is owned by the DfT after the franchise was handed back in 2018. ^Cameron


https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1572313997931585538

CarlottaVance said:

Zara Sultana MP

My train to Leeds for tonight's Enough is Enough rally has been stopped just outside London for the last 3 hours. I'm sorry not to be there, Leeds! 😭

Just another reminder that we need to bring rail into public ownership and make it fit for the future! 🚄

LNER
Replying to @zarahsultana and @eiecampaign
I am sorry for the delay, Zarah. This was due to damage to the overhead electric wires meaning services could not move around Stevenage, but services are now on the move. On your other point, LNER is owned by the DfT after the franchise was handed back in 2018. ^Cameron


https://twitter.com/LNER/status/1572313997931585538

Andy_Cooke said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

wooliedyed said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

House of the Dragon is pretty good. Paddy Considine steals every scene he is in as the King. Theres some wokery and some fucking your niece incest

Cool! Thanks

I mean cool that it’s good, not that incest is cool. OBVS

Re incest, I'll take your word for it, I've never tried to find out.

But yes, House of the Dragon is perfectly watchable.

The Lord of the Rings is really not.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? You are so wrong. Rings of power is best middle earth ever. Even better than Tolkiens Middle earth. The series is pacy, amazing to look at amazing on the ear, very well storyboarded with good dialogue and brilliant acting (that comes from good writing teams and lots of rehearsal) and brilliant direction, I’m loving it and can’t get enough of it. I recommend everybody to give the first four episodes a go, most people will enjoy this.

Tolkien’s phoey writing, and Jackson’s Theme Park films, don’t have motivation or emotional depth in characters - but these rings of power writers put real earth into middle earth through real motivation for action, where you distrust others for previously being on the wrong side, hate your predecessors and family for backing the wrong side - just like leave and remain split all PBers can relate to - where the motivation of the character the orcs call father is he wants power and to become a God - just like Boris Johnson! Tolkiens writing and Jackson’s films never achieve such richness in motivation and purpose behind everything going on, as they are trying to achieve here.

And everyone is on board with it, right approach or copyrights or not.

https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power

A little bit too heavy-handed and unsubtle, old bean.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

When they announced the Peter Jackson trilogy I was like this is going to be so rubbish, the books are unfilmable, they'll never manage to achieve the epicness of say the charge of the Rohirrim at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields but they managed it and then some.

Two Towers was rubbish. Return of the King was a bit meh for the most part.

Fellowship of the Ring was mostly very good.

kle4 said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

I never got around to it. I don't think I should now.

Then again, Good Omens the show was very good.

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

Cripes, it’s all happening tonight.

It is the first time we have seen Iranian protesters fighting back in this way. It's another "first of its kind" in the recent protests in Iran. And it's not just this video, there are dozens of them something has fundamentally changed in the protests in Iran.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ErshadAlijani/status/1572320104200966144

The optimist in me wonders: are we on the cusp of another 1989?

Autocracies are having a hard time of it at the moment. That feeling a few years ago where we all wondered if democracy was necessarily going to triumph everywhere after all seems to have faded a little.

Russia seems to be heading for a reckoning. Belarus must surely be on the cusp of democratic change. Ukraine is permanently now in the Western sphere of influence. The Middle East becomes progressively less geopolitically important as the world heads towards net zero. Regimes like Iran offer nothing to their growing young populations and must surely be as fragile as ever. China’s regime is clearly safe but the country doesn’t seem quite so economically invincible anymore.

Meanwhile the number of dictatorships in Africa declines year after year and the coup count diminishes. Trump may be heading behind bars, Bolsonaro - not a dictator, but Trumpian in his strongman instincts - is on the slide and Erdogan looks close to being politically finished.

Finally militant Sunni Jihadism seems finally to be on the wane after IS’s caliphate collapsed and Al Qaeda remains a shadow of its former self.

So we could see, unexpectedly, one of those big leaps forward?

BartholomewRoberts said:

solarflare said:

turbotubbs said:

solarflare said:

kle4 said:

NickPalmer said:

turbotubbs said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

Can someone tell me if it worth watching the new TV Lord of the Rings, or indeed House of Dragon Thrones (or whatever it is)

Or are they both boring Woke nonsense, as even the Guardian has hinted?

Ta muchly

Unlike some others who have already posted I really like the Rings of Power. It stays true to the tone and ideals of Tolkien and his characters whilst imaginatively filling in gaps in Tolkien's notes and narrative. It is a slow burn to start with but that is to my taste. It also looks fabulous.

It won't be to everyone's taste and it has annoyed the purists but it strikes me that they would rather see their books never transferred to film or TV if it means any changes at all.

I think that your last sentence is fair, but that's simply because any change is most unlikely to be an improvement. Tolkien wasn't perfect, but he had an astonishing imagination and a remarkable ability to set things in a wider context. The end result therefore is rich and fascinating partly because it is very, very complex and any changes to make it comprehensible on screen will almost inevitably diminish it.

That's not forgetting, to quote Christopher Tolkien, that the whole character of Galadriel changed radically several times while Tolkien was writing.

The catch is none of those characterisations match anything I saw in the episodes I ground through before deciding it wasn't worth watching. And all of them were better.

I recently attended the Discworld convention (Terry Pritchett for the uninitiated). There was an excellent talk about why fans of his books were so angry about the godawful TV series ‘The Watch’, which was originally to be heavily based on the books and became something else entirely. Part of the issues with creating TV or film of beloved texts is that the fans hav3 already created those worlds in their heads. They know what characters look and sound like. They know what the Castle of the Seven Skulls looks like. They have favourite scenes. They get the humour (for TP essential).
So almost inevitably the TV show/film fails to live up to what the fans want.

Usually it does far far better for the non fan, because there are no expectations to be met. I believe this happened to some extent with The Watch. Non Pratchet fans thought it ok, whereas the anger in the room at the convention could have powered most of Birmingham through the winter…

It works the other round too. If you see a televised/screen version of a book before you read the book, you will often find the book disappointing, because you've got the idea of the characters visually imprinted on your mind, and the author doesn't describe them quite like that. For example, I was enchanted by the original 26-part Forsyte Saga series (Susan Hampshire, Eric Porter, Kenneth More) so I rushed to read the books, and they seemed a bit meh by comparison.

Yes, and it applies often to remakes and sequels too.

Believe it or not, there are people who refer the Star Wars Prequels to the cheaper looking originals (the first of which at least is pretty poorly acted to boot*) as that is what they saw first.

*Calm down, I'm not saying I dislike them, I don't, but let's just say Hayden Christensen was not the first wooden performance in the series.

The prequels aren't great (though they do get the lightsaber fights spot on) but I have sort of revised my opinion of them upwards after the crap new trilogy from Force Awakens onwards.

Quite enjoyed and still like Force awakens, but after that meh. It helps that TFA is just Star Wars again, but it’s got a certain verve to it, plus enough new backstory has happened to keep you interested. Who is Snoke? How did Kylo Ren become Kylo Ren? Plus a cool battle in the forest and a new cocky pilot.

My problem with TFA was just the massive sigh I let out in the cinema when I realised it was just literally the original film again done slightly differently. It looked the part, but I had to mentally rescore the prequels for at least attempting original stories.

But at least TFA is semi-watchable, whereas after that was just a mess.

Rise of Skywalker wasn't a mess and it joined the dots well I thought.