Amazon series: Season 2 reactions to news and rumours. (Spoiler alert!)

Odola said:
Has she not pursued him for centuries? She should be not ready to let him escape - as she was so fixated on getting him. It would take some time for her to get out of the "catch Sauron" mode - even if this would mean harm to herself or her reputation...
Click to expand...
LOL you have disliked this version of Galadriel from before the show aired. Yes she has pursued him for centuries, but he has gotten (literally) inside her head now. She's pretty messed up. I think you are underestimating the psychological damage of that scene where he assumed the form of Finrod and also made her doubt herself further. There's a lot more of her story to come and she has a lot of healing to do before we see 3rd age Galadriel. I'm happy to go with the flow and find out as the story unfolds.
 
Ilana Mushin said:
We know very little about Season 2 yet.
Click to expand...
This can be but this is then again "bad marketing" imho. People lose interest if there is nothing to keep them interested We cannot get used to the planned changes beforehand and gain interest in the questions that they want to answer though their story.
 
Ilana Mushin said:
But you don't like the show and you seem clearly engaged, regardless of bad marketing.
Click to expand...
I am interested in Rhun. Expecting to be let down but it is still the first attempt to see it depicted. RoP"s Numenor bored me. Even Mordor bored me in RoP. I am afraid Rhun will too. But in itself Rhun is interesting. Am curious what they do with it. Would like it to feel Asian. Maybe Samarkand? But they will probably again make it look generic, and like modern New York population-wise...

But the general interest seems little. Compare how lively the 1st thread was, and how little interaction this one here gets.
 
This is I think because there is little to say about Season 2 yet. I will repeat though my point about the diverse casting for ALL of the races and cultures. This tells me to look at design, costume and other things for difference rather than skin colour. Wheel of Time has done similar, and I think very well. It's a creative decision that allows actors to act and not conform to our own racial stereotyping. In Shakespeare's time, men would play women's roles and noone thought this was an issue. I've seen recent performances of Shakespeare where women play the mens' roles and it also has been a good theatre experience. This is the same thing. I expect Rhun to have its own culture, independent of the skin colour of the actors playing its role.
 
Ilana Mushin said:
This is I think because there is little to say about Season 2 yet. I will repeat though my point about the diverse casting for ALL of the races and cultures. This tells me to look at design, costume and other things for difference rather than skin colour. Wheel of Time has done similar, and I think very well. It's a creative decision that allows actors to act and not conform to our own racial stereotyping. In Shakespeare's time, men would play women's roles and noone thought this was an issue. I've seen recent performances of Shakespeare where women play the mens' roles and it also has been a good theatre experience. This is the same thing. I expect Rhun to have its own culture, independent of the skin colour of the actors playing its role.
Click to expand...

But one reason why Tolkien found Fantasy/ Fairy stories undramatizable is that such an approach destroys secondary belief. The viewer becomes/stays aware that it is all just "pretend-play", just a demonstration, immediately and at all times. The feeling of entering another world is instantly destroyed. One is always aware the actors just pretend. So there are no stakes, the actors never become the characters in the viewer's minds. Watching Shakespeare one enjoys the wordplay, not the illusion of another world - so the actors can play all in jeans and it still works - because the viewer always remembers that it is just "pretend-play" anyway.
 
Last edited:
Odola said:
But one reason why Tolkien found Fantasy/ Fairy stories undramatizable is that such an approach destroys secondary belief. The viewer becomes/stays aware that it is all just "pretend-play", just a demonstration, immediately and at all times. The feeling of entering another world is instantly destroyed. One is always aware the actors just pretend. So there are no stakes, the actors never become the characters in the viewer's minds. Watching Shakespeare one enjoys the wordplay, not the illusion of another world - so the actors can play all in jeans and it still works - because the viewer always remembers that it is just "pretend-play" anyway.
Click to expand...

Then you need to watch some better Shakespeare productions. And fantasy.
 
Rob Harding said:
Then you need to watch some better Shakespeare productions. And fantasy.
Click to expand...

? Shakespeare is always anachronistic. As default. The plays' assumed locations and times have not much relevance for what actually happens, how it happens and how the characters behave or speak - the given setting is just a pretext for the actual play. As such one never gets the impression of entering a specific time and history. About fantasy - if something breaks the rules of logic too much and too visibly it breaks immersion. But immersion is not always needed for a story to work - see e.g. Shakespeare.
But it is important for a TLOTR-type story to work. Not necessary for e.g. The Hobbit - which is a rendition of the tale that Bilbo told to hobbit children - as such his story could have blue orcs and purple dwarves (or green ugly elves) and would still work. But not a TLORT-type of story which explicitly takes place in an imagined past version of our own world.
 
Character, emotion, drama - these things, when done when, can trascend. I find it perfectly easy to be enter into another world and forget it’s a ‘pretend play’. I think you’re ascribing personal experience as universal truth for all.
 
Rob Harding said:
Character, emotion, drama - these things, when done when, can trascend. I find it perfectly easy to be enter into another world and forget it’s a ‘pretend play’. I think you’re ascribing personal experience as universal truth for all.
Click to expand...

If you mean a world of concepts, ideas and ideals - then sure. But not for a very specific sub-created world. The latter has very specific rules that have to be followed for it not to loose its characteristic identity.
 
No, I'm just fundamentally disagreeing with the premise here:

'The feeling of entering another world is instantly destroyed. One is always aware the actors just pretend. So there are no stakes, the actors never become the characters in the viewer's minds. Watching Shakespeare one enjoys the wordplay, not the illusion of another world - so the actors can play all in jeans and it still works - because the viewer always remembers that it is just "pretend-play" anyway '

You may be the kind of individual who prefers literalism and realism and I appreciate that you are interpreting Tolkien's argument of secondary worlds he as requiring specific elements be present for the false reality to become manifest but I'm saying the presence of literalism and appropriate set-dressing, props, costuming, casting etc are not inherently required to believe in the reality of a story for every person.

You can argue that you disagree with that for yourself but I am stating I am perfectly capable of those experiences and therefore the premise that it is impossible fails as it cannot be an absolute truth as, even if I'm only in this, which I'm certain I'm not, but it'd fail to be absolute truth. It's more personal than that. Because...art.

Just wanted to through my two cents in.
 
Rob Harding said:
You may be the kind of individual who prefers literalism and realism and I appreciate that you are interpreting Tolkien's argument of secondary worlds he as requiring specific elements be present for the false reality to become manifest but I'm saying the presence of literalism and appropriate set-dressing, props, costuming, casting etc are not inherently required to believe in the reality of a story for every person.
Click to expand...

But it is this very realism (or the attempt of it) what singles Tolkien's world apart, what makes Tolkien's Middle-Earth special, what makes it "not-random". It is not just a a random set for random stories. Forgetting this is what made 2/3 of the audience drop the series. Randomness is not what most people are going to Tolkien for. There are plenty of other stories to get randomness from, but in Tolkien randomness is "missing the point".
 
Last edited:
just for completion sake, here the link to the list of the recent rumours:

www.theonering.net

SPY REPORT: Rings of Power Season 2 expands on Sauron in huge new ways

Fans are fired up over potential story leaks for The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 2 on Prime Video
www.theonering.net www.theonering.net

those three I do find most confusing:

- Sauron had a son (whom Adar killed)
- a “bottle” episode with the story of the Mearas will introduce Shadowfax whom Gandalf will meet in the show - several thousand years too soon imho - I understand Mearas are long-lived for horses, but the several millennia of the 3rd age alone...?
- Bombadil and Goldberry are Morgoth and Ungoliant serving out a punishment received from Mandos
 
Last edited:
Yes, read about it... sounds very ... discouraging. But to be honest i didn't have any expectations anymore anyway.
 
Haerangil said:
Yes, read about it... sounds very ... discouraging. But to be honest i didn't have any expectations anymore anyway.
Click to expand...

Why, I am interested to see if they manage to salvage anything out of this mess...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top