TV: The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - Amazon Prime Series

[Siamese Dream]

The only thing I actively disliked about The Hobbit was the ridiculous looking CGI orcs and goblins.

Other than that the main problem is they're just too long, but at the same time the dwarves don't get enough screen time to make you actually care about them, with the exception of Thorin, Kili and to a lesser extent Balin.

The reason length is a problem is there just aren't enough memorable or standout scenes, compared to LotR, so it probably would have been better condensed into two parts. The "riddles in the dark" scene with Gollum is obviously great and iconic but it's the only really memorable scene in the entirety of the first movie. The sort of scene I would re-watch multiple times on its own. The only other in the trilogy I enjoy that much that I'd re-watch as a clip is when Galadriel uses her powers and banishes Sauron. LotR has countless scenes which fit that criteria for me.

 

[John Price]

The only thing I actively disliked about The Hobbit was the ridiculous looking CGI orcs and goblins.

Other than that the main problem is they're just too long, but at the same time the dwarves don't get enough screen time to make you actually care about them, with the exception of Thorin, Kili and to a lesser extent Balin.

The reason length is a problem is there just aren't enough memorable or standout scenes, compared to LotR, so it probably would have been better condensed into two parts. The "riddles in the dark" scene with Gollum is obviously great and iconic but it's the only really memorable scene in the entirety of the first movie. The sort of scene I would re-watch multiple times on its own. The only other in the trilogy I enjoy that much that I'd re-watch as a clip is when Galadriel uses her powers and banishes Sauron. LotR has countless scenes which fit that criteria for me.

The fight with Smaug which ends on a cliffhanger in the 2nd movie is good too

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Hopefully part of the $500 million budget for this prequel series will include women dwarves with beards we have heard about in the novels and LOTR trilogy.

 

[Prairie Habs]

The fight with Smaug which ends on a cliffhanger in the 2nd movie is good too

Can't really agree there. It felt like they just decided to finish the second movie during the third one as a cheap plow to make sure people would go to both. It really messes up the pacing and structure of the movie.

It would be like if the Return of the King started with Gandalf coming over the horizon at Helm's Deep to save the day.

 

[4thline]

The only thing I actively disliked about The Hobbit was the ridiculous looking CGI orcs and goblins.

For me it was the same, plus the overall tone of combat.
LOTR- Legolas shield slide / Mumakil take down- awesome and elegant, stretches what you think is possible but hey, it's an elf.
Hobbit- Legolas barrel hopping, Dain headbutting orcs to death, etc. - impossible to maintain suspension of disbelief.

 

[NyQuil]

The only thing I actively disliked about The Hobbit was the ridiculous looking CGI orcs and goblins.

Other than that the main problem is they're just too long, but at the same time the dwarves don't get enough screen time to make you actually care about them, with the exception of Thorin, Kili and to a lesser extent Balin.

The reason length is a problem is there just aren't enough memorable or standout scenes, compared to LotR, so it probably would have been better condensed into two parts. The "riddles in the dark" scene with Gollum is obviously great and iconic but it's the only really memorable scene in the entirety of the first movie. The sort of scene I would re-watch multiple times on its own. The only other in the trilogy I enjoy that much that I'd re-watch as a clip is when Galadriel uses her powers and banishes Sauron. LotR has countless scenes which fit that criteria for me.

The Hobbit did a few things well:

-the Dwarves were individually distinct in a manner that wasn't really conveyed in the book. Aside from Balin, Thorin, Fili and Kili and Bombur, the rest were sort of interchangeable.

-I actually liked the subplot of the White Council clearing out the Necromancer

-Smaug was well-voiced and appropriately menacing

-I didn't actually mind the addition of Tauriel. Legolas looked funny though, I think they CGIed his eyes.

What depressed me about the Hobbit:

-CGI overload. Most of the battles were pretty much indecipherable.

-Considering how little source material there was, I'm surprised they didn't use all of it, case in point:

-the legendary manner in which Gandalf introduces the dwarves to Beorn two by two
-Beorn actually playing a much bigger role in the final battle
-Thorin's funeral

These were three major parts of the actual book that wasn't included. I can understand omitting material when you don't have the screentime, but in this case, there was actually more screentime than needed for the actual book content, so the inclusion of additional material at the expense of what was actually in the Hobbit was shameful.

-It was clearly a rushed production. It didn't have the gravitas and the careful shot-for-shot care that was in the original trilogy.

 

[beowulf]

The Hobbit did a few things well:

-the Dwarves were individually distinct in a manner that wasn't really conveyed in the book. Aside from Balin, Thorin, Fili and Kili and Bombur, the rest were sort of interchangeable.

-I actually liked the subplot of the White Council clearing out the Necromancer

-Smaug was well-voiced and appropriately menacing

-I didn't actually mind the addition of Tauriel. Legolas looked funny though, I think they CGIed his eyes.

What depressed me about the Hobbit:

-CGI overload. Most of the battles were pretty much indecipherable.

-Considering how little source material there was, I'm surprised they didn't use all of it, case in point:

-the legendary manner in which Gandalf introduces the dwarves to Beorn two by two
-Beorn actually playing a much bigger role in the final battle
-Thorin's funeral

These were three major parts of the actual book that wasn't included. I can understand omitting material when you don't have the screentime, but in this case, there was actually more screentime than needed for the actual book content, so the inclusion of additional material at the expense of what was actually in the Hobbit was shameful.

-It was clearly a rushed production. It didn't have the gravitas and the careful shot-for-shot care that was in the original trilogy.

This for me for sure. Playing Diablo 2 and when I use to play Dungeons and Dragons with friends, I often played a Druid which is basically what he is so I was hoping to see more of him.

That being said I never watched the extended version of the 3 Hobbit movies so no clue if any of that is included in there.

 

[beowulf]

For me it was the same, plus the overall tone of combat.
LOTR- Legolas shield slide / Mumakil take down- awesome and elegant, stretches what you think is possible but hey, it's an elf.
Hobbit- Legolas barrel hopping, Dain headbutting orcs to death, etc. - impossible to maintain suspension of disbelief.

You have to remember that Legolas being an elf, they are extremely agile and very light on their feet. So hoping from barrel to barrel or jumping from falling brick to brick in the orc bridge fight scene is normal for them.

 

[Cas]

The Hobbit did a few things well:

-the Dwarves were individually distinct in a manner that wasn't really conveyed in the book. Aside from Balin, Thorin, Fili and Kili and Bombur, the rest were sort of interchangeable.

-I actually liked the subplot of the White Council clearing out the Necromancer

-Smaug was well-voiced and appropriately menacing

-I didn't actually mind the addition of Tauriel. Legolas looked funny though, I think they CGIed his eyes.

What depressed me about the Hobbit:

-CGI overload. Most of the battles were pretty much indecipherable.

-Considering how little source material there was, I'm surprised they didn't use all of it, case in point:

-the legendary manner in which Gandalf introduces the dwarves to Beorn two by two
-Beorn actually playing a much bigger role in the final battle
-Thorin's funeral

These were three major parts of the actual book that wasn't included. I can understand omitting material when you don't have the screentime, but in this case, there was actually more screentime than needed for the actual book content, so the inclusion of additional material at the expense of what was actually in the Hobbit was shameful.

-It was clearly a rushed production. It didn't have the gravitas and the careful shot-for-shot care that was in the original trilogy.

Honestly, I remember Beorn being almost totally irrelevant to the film, which meant that was 5-10 minutes of screen time that could have gone elsewhere. Jackson cut Bombadil out of LOTR because he's confusing and basically irrelevant - he could have done the same to Beorn.

Leaving out a funeral for Thorin was criminal.

 

[NyQuil]

Honestly, I remember Beorn being almost totally irrelevant to the film, which meant that was 5-10 minutes of screen time that could have gone elsewhere. Jackson cut Bombadil out of LOTR because he's confusing and basically irrelevant - he could have done the same to Beorn.

I mean, Beorn plays a very important role in the Hobbit.

He shelters Thorin and Co., takes out the orcs/goblins following them, and then during the Battle of the Five Armies, he and his kin turn the tide and kill Bolg during the battle, retrieving Thorin's corpse in the process and winning the day.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

 

[Tawnos]

Excited for sure.

But how come LOTR is September 2, 2022 and Wheel of Time is still just "November 2021"?

 

[beowulf]

Excited for sure.

But how come LOTR is September 2, 2022 and Wheel of Time is still just "November 2021"?

Maybe the later starter production and filming before the former?

 

[Tawnos]

Maybe the later starter production and filming before the former?

I think WoT started a few months before LotR, but it was pretty close to the same timeframe. Both got shut down by Covid.

 

[beowulf]

 

[discostu]

Amazon’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ Series Rises: Inside ‘The Rings of Power’

Lots of details about the series.

 

[Bakayoko Ono]

Not sure how I feel about this. Some of those scenes have that, how should I put this, "video game" feel to them.

 

[Jussi]

Meh.

 

[Mantis]

Woulda been cooler if it was Silmarillion.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

My dad isn’t exactly good with the intranets so it was a cool moment watching the Super Bowl with him and seeing him get excited when he saw the LOTR commercial.

“They are doing a LOTR show!?”

“Ya dad… they announced it on Twitter and such like 2 years ago”

*pretends to know what Twitter is* “0h right, right I remember now”

Me:

 

[HanSolo]

You can definitely tell this had a huge budget. We'll see how the rest plays out. At least it doesn't looks like a CGI deluge like the Hobbit movies were.

 

[izzy]

looks like a CW version of lotr

 

[Mantis]

looks like a CW version of lotr

You are like a CW version of Ixcuincle

 

[Richard]

Looked awful to me--- looks like a 21st century reboot of LOTR. Nah skipping it

 

[Knave]

I mean it was okay. I thought that stunt with the woman (assuming she's the lead?) looked pretty CGI but the opening with the city and then the barren mountainous New Zealand landscape looked good. The fight scene with the bow at the end was another 'weak' spot but that could be a function of condensing it into the trailer.

Ultimately it comes down to how well they tell a story. There was nothing in that trailer where I went "whoa, I'm disappointed".