Justin Kaiser's Blog - Posts Tagged "i-b-wheeloftime-b-i"
TV Adaptations of Our Beloved Fantasy Worlds
The purpose of this blog will be for me to voice some of my own opinions on the concept of film and movie adaptations from popular or cult favorite books. I think with the current times, we all know that everything is either sequel or remake or an adaptation, with the latter of course being the most exciting for anyone literate. The problem then becomes, what if adaptations don't meet the standard of those that have been fans of the story before it got its Netflix or Amazon or blockbuster-movie deal? In this blog I will discuss mostly a positive outlook on adaptations. I personally find there's a lot of criticism and doubt out there when it comes to these new waves of fantasy films and TV shows, and rightfully so. After all, I think the vast majority of us have still not emotionally recovered from the disappointment of Game of Thrones. It's left us with the bad taste in our mouths and fills us with resentful doubt as we look towards new possibilities. I personally felt like I was going through a bad breakup. Like the most haunting of relationship endings (or so I hear), it lacked closure. There's nothing more irksome to the thorough fantasy fan than an unresolved plotline and lack of a conclusive summary. But much like melancholy relationship strains, we must move on and hope for something better in the future.
Two of the most prominent examples currently are Amazon Prime's adaptations of the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and the Rings of Power based off of the works of Tolkien. As an avid fantasy nerd, and a fantasy writer inspired by both these authors, I share in everyone’s nervousness for the upcoming show but feel as though I'm entering it with far more excitement than the average fantasy blogger. I by no means consider myself an expert of all of Tolkien’s intricacies, but if Middle Earth Studies were on my OWL exams, I would like to think I would receive at least an “Exceeds Expectations”. In the following weeks I will be outlining some of my thoughts on TV show and film adaptations of classic fantasy novels with my focus being to compare people's reactions to the Wheel of Time adaptation to that of the upcoming Rings of Power. I'll highlight my expectations, my worries, and my genuine reactions and leave it to you, fair readers, to decide if my insights carry any merit.
*Clears throat*
If you will allow me a brief blasphemy to start, there are times where I actually prefer the film or TV adaptation of certain moments, characters, or even entire works, when compared to the written version. I would not say this happens very often, but the few examples serve as reminders to me that even something beloved can still be improved upon. More often than not, I do think screenwriters overestimate their abilities in this regard, but always hold out hope that they learn from their mistakes and tread carefully when adapting.
Before we jump into opinions that I would love to hear if people share or disagree with on the upcoming shows, as well as shows that have already aired, we must first highlight the key features that I've noticed when people react to highly anticipated TV or film adaptations. I have two considerations for all of you when forming your opinions on adaptations of your favorite works. Take a moment to ponder these considerations, and then we shall delve into our detailed discussions for weeks to come…
Consideration #1: I plan to use the word “adaptation” repetitively, almost redundantly, yet intentionally. Why? Because I want to remind everyone that this is not a recreation, but an adaptation. The distinction is quite important when we look at some of our favorite fantasy worlds on the TV or big screen (or your big TV screen if you're so fortunate). Anytime I see people's reviews or reactions to shows that I was particularly excited about, and likewise carry the banner of a fan that knew the worlds when they were only on the page, the first thing I notice is how people highlight the subtle things that are different from the original source. Fair readers, while I see nothing wrong with highlighting such discrepancies, I personally don't feel that a change in of itself merits criticism, unless it comes with reasons of course. For example, in the Wheel of Time (WOT) by Robert Jordan, we read about a world where women all wear skirts and smooth them over their knees as they sit, and the concept of romance follows the rather tired theme of subtle courtship followed by immediate matrimony with little social forgiveness for breaking that norm. Veering away from that social etiquette would be considered indecent, just like Bridgeton but far less titillating (and lacking the wonderful outfits). Now we see the TV series adaptation that quickly became one of the most streamed shows on the platform with one of the highest percentages of episodes streamed to completion. By that standard, it was considered a streaming success. Fan reviews however, we're quite divided. One criticism that I've not only read repeatedly, but actually heard friends use in discussion as one of their reasons for disliking the show, was that there was premarital sex in the first episode. To criticisms like this, I can only laugh and roll my eyes. I didn't realize that the tired concepts of prude culture were so important to so many people and ingrained in their concept of fantasy romance, especially when coupled with the irony of hearing this criticism come from people who aren't bothered by this concept in any other context. Therefore, the only reason I can gather that it should merit criticism now, is that it was a difference between their beloved book series and the show, and so does not belong. My view on the matter, I'm personally quite glad the show chose not to indulge the continuation of cliché and archaic image of romance. However, a deeper concern arises from this observation, not just the specific topic of premarital buggery itself. It showed me that people who consider themselves avid fans are expecting a word for word recreation of the books that they were so immersed and enthralled with. I can understand this desire, really. But this is my main point of the first consideration: these are NOT recreations, these are adaptations. And to adapt is to become better suited for a current environment. With that in mind, did you really expect all the details of a world written multiple generations before streaming services started licking their lips at it, to remain steadfast? The more you think about it, do you really want them to? A as a gay man, I personally appreciate when adaptations take on a more progressive approach to concepts like this, rather than encouraging the idea of a sexually repressive culture as “classic”. As cute as it was for the books to refer to lesbians as “pillow friends” in their youth, I'd much rather the topic be approached as though it wasn't as taboo as saying Voldemort’s name. Before I start to sound like it, I'm not suggesting that every TV series adopt the same level of consistent nudity as Game of Thrones, but let's not all look away and blush as though offended just because Rand took his shirt off. Though I must say, that was when I was personally sold on the show. Just kidding, that would be when Maureen leveled an entire horde of trollocs in a stunning visual representation of the One Power. A scene, I'd like to add, that was merely glossed over in the books. To remind you avid readers, Jordan merely remarked on how the Two Rivers would be in much worse shape if Moraine and Lan hadn't intervened to the level that they had, but the event was not described in the books. It is a difference that adds excitement to an adaptation, and I’m all for it. But I digress. My point being for Consideration #1, when you point out changes like that and call them a tasteful critique of why the show did not live up to your expectations, you have to stop and ask yourself: are you being critical because there were actually flaws, or are you being critical for the sake of being critical?
With that in mind we move on to our next consideration.
Now, the Rings of Power has not yet premiered, yet I see people already creating videos titled “everything wrong with the latest teaser”. I will reserve judgement until I have context, and find the concept of criticizing fleeting images a bit on the pompous side. Again, I am very excited for this adaptation, and made this my first consideration to try and get ahead of the criticisms before I see the show. I will reserve complete judgement, as I did for WOT, until I see the season finale. Now onto the next consideration.
Consideration #2: As I just concluded a long rant about accepting changes to our favorite work, allow me to alter perspective for a moment. As fans, how flexible with these subtle changes should we be? Well, that is a question each fan will have to answer for themselves, but I personally think there are a few ground rules when taking this into consideration. As I stated above, there are certain concepts to which I find irrelevant in my hopes for an adaptation, but I've come to expect as people’s minds become more progressive. There are some changes, however, that I am quite protective of. While the list could be quite considerable, I will spare you my endless ranting and limit it to two key features: plot importance and character development. There are elements of both that can be both positive and negative. Harry Potter in my opinion shaved the plot to the bare essentials for the film adaptations, I suspect mainly to save time. Though I would have enjoyed seeing peeves on the big screen, one has to stop and admit that he did not play own overly critical role in the overall plot, and so was a fair removal. Analyzing Tom Riddle through his life and studying his personality characteristics in Dumbledore’s pensive, on the other hand, I considered an incredibly important aspect to the plot and character both. Was I hoping for something a little more mythical for a live action Ogier? Yes. Will it make a difference in the end? No. Does stabbing him with a cursed blade in the season finale make a difference? I would assume so, and here I find myself joining the skeptics, though perhaps not as aggressively. Though I have no idea where they plan to take that (perhaps he didn't even die), this can serve as an example of remembering important plot concepts. The dagger for example, has the ability to spread a sort of evil plague if used. That, combined with Maureen losing the One Power, left to me significantly confused, which I should not be as someone who has read the books. While I had no qualms with the show giving Matt an abusive back story and Perrin a dead wife, I do have qualms about changing the foundational plot. The release of two Forsaken and Rand gaining the power to level an entire army were concepts that I considered key aspects to the plot moving forward. It makes me hesitant, to say the least, to think I will have any idea what each subsequent season will look like. To tie problems like this to people’s apprehension of Rings of Power, I think we can rest a bit easier. When it comes to the second age of Middle Earth, we are not so intimately familiar with the personalities and intricate details of each key character and the steps they take throughout the overall plot. Remember, this age took place over thousands of years, so we know generally what happened, and the results. All the rest can be left to the imagination. I personally find that a safeguard, because it means much of what we will see was left to interpretation from the source itself. There are likely no characters from Middle Earth that we would be in fiery defense of their personalities, as was the case with beloved characters like Ginny Weasley. Adding a forbidden love between Eugene and Perrin was a plot twist I was not expecting, but must admit that it adds a bit more interesting dynamics to their group. I think the main character that I do consider a worry for personality representation in the upcoming Rings of Power show, would be Galadriel, who will serve as the main character if interpretation of the trailers can be believed. Now while I've seen nothing of her personality so far that makes me particularly concerned, there are aspects to her character itself that I do not want ignored. For example, of all the various legendary individuals that roam Middle Earth, Galadriel was not one to ever need armor in my mind. Not because I don't picture her involved in combat or warfare, but because she should be powerful enough that armor is unnecessary. While there are many critiques of The Hobbit movies that I could outline, one thing that I did thoroughly enjoy was watching Galadriel blast an orc out of existence with a wave of her hand. It was a wonderful visual that showed us the literal concept of “overkill”. It's this unshakeable presence that I've come to associate with the lady of the wood. Now, we are meeting Galadriel in her youth, so perhaps her power has not yet fully developed. Elves, after all, were all young at one point, so I will assume many of their features develop gradually, and that might include one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth. It will certainly be one of the aspects I will be waiting nervously to be addressed. At last, we arrive at my point for Consideration #2: Will the foundational aspects of the characters and plot be respected in the upcoming adaptation, or will it, like WOT, veer of course to suit a schedule of episodes and visual effects budget? Only time will tell, but I will of course be watching with hungry anticipation, as well as keen observance of the source material.
With these two considerations in mind, let us move forward into breaking down the film and TV adaptation of Tolkien’s gold-standard world. With regards to Consideration #1, I've already seen people complaining that Elrond's hair is short. To which I honestly must roll my eyes. Again, while I do enjoy the classic look of a long-haired elf, it will not be something I will factor in when making up my mind on whether or not the show rose to the challenge of bringing me back to one of the most beloved fantasy realms of my life, or if they bit off more than they can chew by placing Middle Earth on the small screen.
Now that I've given you some generalities and tone to decide whether or not you want to keep reading, let us delve into some of my thoughts in regards to the Rings of Power. I'll reference multiple fantasy pop culture comparisons, but we'll mainly focus on the WOT as a comparison, as both represent a new age of high budget fantasy world TV shows. Sorry Witcher, as much as I enjoy you and Henry Cavil, I consider WOT and LOTR a level above, with LOTR being the untouchable top tier. No offense intended, and I still can’t wait for season 3.
“So it begins.”
The Rings of Power first full trailer:
I didn't really feel the need to comment on the teasers, or even give them much thought beyond that of my unbridled excitement, because their purpose is to do exactly what their label says they do: tease. As I said before, taking things out of context really does not provide insight that is worth acknowledging. Now, however, we've been given a full trailer, and this gives us plenty to dwell on. If you want complete breakdowns scene by scene, shot by shot, with in-depth Middle Earth history background, I highly suggest the YouTube channel Nerd of the Rings (link below). It's one that I frequent and absolutely love for its succinct and entertaining summaries of various Middle Earth characters and concepts. One of those concepts, of course, is now analyzing the Rings of Power in detail. If you have or choose to follow the channel, you'll find that we have a great deal of overlap in our observations, but not necessarily the same thoughts and reactions.
I think we can all be in agreement that the trailer gives us the feel of Galadriel dwelling on the very bloody past that took place in the First Age, and the main plot is to focus on the free peoples of Middle Earth's attempt to move beyond their enormous losses as they enter the Second Age. Though I'm glad to see some flashbacks to the events of the First Age, it becomes difficult to tell how much of the trailer is showing memories or flashbacks, and what number of those scenes will somehow be incorporated into the Second Age events. I personally think this would give Galadriel incredible character development by depicting the horrors her people had endured in the First Age by the hands of Morgoth. As she moves forward to confront Sauron, it sets the stage for a powerful and inspiring character that is growing into her own power, much like Sauron himself will be doing in the Second Age, when the show is to take place.
One character I am particularly excited for, is Annatar. While some are still skeptical that the fair figure in light gray robes and hood his Annatar, I personally have little doubt. Much like Galadriel recovering from a devastating war, in which she lost her entire family, Sauron is now in a transition from lieutenant to Dark Lord. Annatar was one of the key aspects to his rise in power. He not only uses this form to learn how to forge and influence rings of power, but corrupt the kings of Numenor and ultimately lead to their destruction. Events that are self-explanatory enough in terms of significance. Now at the end of Nerd of the Rings breakdown of this trailer, they joke about if Annatar is too much like Voldemort. While I'm not sure if this was a jab at his appearance or not, I personally find it the perfect analogy. Not for his creepy demeanor, but how similar of profile these two villains have with one another. One area that I must disagree with their considerably insightful and knowledgeable breakdown, is when the claim is made that the character “doesn't seem all that fair” as Annatar is what is commonly referred to as Sauron's “fair form”. Fair, in my mind, especially in the reference to Tolkien’s writing, means light of skin and hair, as well as subjectively attractive features. By this definition, I would say Annatar is quite fair. The context the channel is using is that he looks “shady” rather than “fair” which makes me think the term is being used to describe a demeanor rather than appearance. This is why I think the comparison to Voldemort could not be anymore perfect. Not slits for nostrils and red-eye Voldemort that is as bald as a full moon, but the person who became Voldemort: Tom Riddle. I will not insult anyone's intelligence by explaining who Tom Riddle is, assuming that by reading a blog by a fantasy author, this merits no explanation to you. The reason why I think Tom Riddle and Annatar are such comparable antagonists, is the fact that they are both charming, very handsome, very intelligent, and the pinnacle of evil during their time. While Annatar may have a clearly shady image in this trailer, this is not showing him near any of those he ended up influencing during the Second Age. I would be willing to bet that this shady brooding robed figure has a much smoother and charming demeanor when he is in the presence of, say… Celebrimbor. While he roams by himself working on his plans, I would not expect him to have this demeanor because it is not actually his true nature. Opinion summary: I am very much so looking forward to Annatar and Sauron’s depiction in the new show.
The next aspect of the trailer that I am in full agreement with many other reviews about, is the use of practical effects rather than entirely CGI. This, I have to admit, was one aspect that strongly differentiated the Lord of the Rings films from The Hobbit films to me. While I enjoyed both, the Lord of the Rings I found far more immersive. One reason for that was the very authentic orcs and evil creatures. Now they give us a very clear image of practical effect orcs yet again, and I couldn't be happier. One reason for this is not necessarily because of the aesthetics, but when we start to enter combat and battle sequences. Action shots always have some element of disbelief when one of the opponents is CGI. Not always, I suppose, but commonly. Now that we're entering a new age of different (and epic) conflicts, I'm very glad practical effects will be part of these sequences. From what the trailer depicts already, these orcs will be haunting, and what would be the point otherwise? Rhetorical question. CGI is an area where I should probably not be overly critical or act as though I'm particularly informed. By no means do I have any concept of how CGI actually works, I simply see it and know of it. I go back and forth on my opinions of its roll, but there are times that I think it is overused. I was hoping for more of a CGI Ogier in WOT but less of it in the goblins of the first Hobbit film. So far from what I can tell from the trailer, Middle Earth has found its perfect balance of CGI and prosthetics once more. On that note, and which merits very little reaction explanation, would be our beloved Balrog. Is this the very same that slumbers in the Mines of Moria, or is it one of the several others used by Morgoth in the First Age? At this point, I’m too excited for its presence to care much. Time will tell.
With that, I conclude my first blog entry but highly encourage your feedback. Leave comments or send me messages. I would love to hear your thoughts.
For those that want a truly thorough walk through Middle Earth, I highly recommend the Nerd of the Rings breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmDMm...
Two of the most prominent examples currently are Amazon Prime's adaptations of the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and the Rings of Power based off of the works of Tolkien. As an avid fantasy nerd, and a fantasy writer inspired by both these authors, I share in everyone’s nervousness for the upcoming show but feel as though I'm entering it with far more excitement than the average fantasy blogger. I by no means consider myself an expert of all of Tolkien’s intricacies, but if Middle Earth Studies were on my OWL exams, I would like to think I would receive at least an “Exceeds Expectations”. In the following weeks I will be outlining some of my thoughts on TV show and film adaptations of classic fantasy novels with my focus being to compare people's reactions to the Wheel of Time adaptation to that of the upcoming Rings of Power. I'll highlight my expectations, my worries, and my genuine reactions and leave it to you, fair readers, to decide if my insights carry any merit.
*Clears throat*
If you will allow me a brief blasphemy to start, there are times where I actually prefer the film or TV adaptation of certain moments, characters, or even entire works, when compared to the written version. I would not say this happens very often, but the few examples serve as reminders to me that even something beloved can still be improved upon. More often than not, I do think screenwriters overestimate their abilities in this regard, but always hold out hope that they learn from their mistakes and tread carefully when adapting.
Before we jump into opinions that I would love to hear if people share or disagree with on the upcoming shows, as well as shows that have already aired, we must first highlight the key features that I've noticed when people react to highly anticipated TV or film adaptations. I have two considerations for all of you when forming your opinions on adaptations of your favorite works. Take a moment to ponder these considerations, and then we shall delve into our detailed discussions for weeks to come…
Consideration #1: I plan to use the word “adaptation” repetitively, almost redundantly, yet intentionally. Why? Because I want to remind everyone that this is not a recreation, but an adaptation. The distinction is quite important when we look at some of our favorite fantasy worlds on the TV or big screen (or your big TV screen if you're so fortunate). Anytime I see people's reviews or reactions to shows that I was particularly excited about, and likewise carry the banner of a fan that knew the worlds when they were only on the page, the first thing I notice is how people highlight the subtle things that are different from the original source. Fair readers, while I see nothing wrong with highlighting such discrepancies, I personally don't feel that a change in of itself merits criticism, unless it comes with reasons of course. For example, in the Wheel of Time (WOT) by Robert Jordan, we read about a world where women all wear skirts and smooth them over their knees as they sit, and the concept of romance follows the rather tired theme of subtle courtship followed by immediate matrimony with little social forgiveness for breaking that norm. Veering away from that social etiquette would be considered indecent, just like Bridgeton but far less titillating (and lacking the wonderful outfits). Now we see the TV series adaptation that quickly became one of the most streamed shows on the platform with one of the highest percentages of episodes streamed to completion. By that standard, it was considered a streaming success. Fan reviews however, we're quite divided. One criticism that I've not only read repeatedly, but actually heard friends use in discussion as one of their reasons for disliking the show, was that there was premarital sex in the first episode. To criticisms like this, I can only laugh and roll my eyes. I didn't realize that the tired concepts of prude culture were so important to so many people and ingrained in their concept of fantasy romance, especially when coupled with the irony of hearing this criticism come from people who aren't bothered by this concept in any other context. Therefore, the only reason I can gather that it should merit criticism now, is that it was a difference between their beloved book series and the show, and so does not belong. My view on the matter, I'm personally quite glad the show chose not to indulge the continuation of cliché and archaic image of romance. However, a deeper concern arises from this observation, not just the specific topic of premarital buggery itself. It showed me that people who consider themselves avid fans are expecting a word for word recreation of the books that they were so immersed and enthralled with. I can understand this desire, really. But this is my main point of the first consideration: these are NOT recreations, these are adaptations. And to adapt is to become better suited for a current environment. With that in mind, did you really expect all the details of a world written multiple generations before streaming services started licking their lips at it, to remain steadfast? The more you think about it, do you really want them to? A as a gay man, I personally appreciate when adaptations take on a more progressive approach to concepts like this, rather than encouraging the idea of a sexually repressive culture as “classic”. As cute as it was for the books to refer to lesbians as “pillow friends” in their youth, I'd much rather the topic be approached as though it wasn't as taboo as saying Voldemort’s name. Before I start to sound like it, I'm not suggesting that every TV series adopt the same level of consistent nudity as Game of Thrones, but let's not all look away and blush as though offended just because Rand took his shirt off. Though I must say, that was when I was personally sold on the show. Just kidding, that would be when Maureen leveled an entire horde of trollocs in a stunning visual representation of the One Power. A scene, I'd like to add, that was merely glossed over in the books. To remind you avid readers, Jordan merely remarked on how the Two Rivers would be in much worse shape if Moraine and Lan hadn't intervened to the level that they had, but the event was not described in the books. It is a difference that adds excitement to an adaptation, and I’m all for it. But I digress. My point being for Consideration #1, when you point out changes like that and call them a tasteful critique of why the show did not live up to your expectations, you have to stop and ask yourself: are you being critical because there were actually flaws, or are you being critical for the sake of being critical?
With that in mind we move on to our next consideration.
Now, the Rings of Power has not yet premiered, yet I see people already creating videos titled “everything wrong with the latest teaser”. I will reserve judgement until I have context, and find the concept of criticizing fleeting images a bit on the pompous side. Again, I am very excited for this adaptation, and made this my first consideration to try and get ahead of the criticisms before I see the show. I will reserve complete judgement, as I did for WOT, until I see the season finale. Now onto the next consideration.
Consideration #2: As I just concluded a long rant about accepting changes to our favorite work, allow me to alter perspective for a moment. As fans, how flexible with these subtle changes should we be? Well, that is a question each fan will have to answer for themselves, but I personally think there are a few ground rules when taking this into consideration. As I stated above, there are certain concepts to which I find irrelevant in my hopes for an adaptation, but I've come to expect as people’s minds become more progressive. There are some changes, however, that I am quite protective of. While the list could be quite considerable, I will spare you my endless ranting and limit it to two key features: plot importance and character development. There are elements of both that can be both positive and negative. Harry Potter in my opinion shaved the plot to the bare essentials for the film adaptations, I suspect mainly to save time. Though I would have enjoyed seeing peeves on the big screen, one has to stop and admit that he did not play own overly critical role in the overall plot, and so was a fair removal. Analyzing Tom Riddle through his life and studying his personality characteristics in Dumbledore’s pensive, on the other hand, I considered an incredibly important aspect to the plot and character both. Was I hoping for something a little more mythical for a live action Ogier? Yes. Will it make a difference in the end? No. Does stabbing him with a cursed blade in the season finale make a difference? I would assume so, and here I find myself joining the skeptics, though perhaps not as aggressively. Though I have no idea where they plan to take that (perhaps he didn't even die), this can serve as an example of remembering important plot concepts. The dagger for example, has the ability to spread a sort of evil plague if used. That, combined with Maureen losing the One Power, left to me significantly confused, which I should not be as someone who has read the books. While I had no qualms with the show giving Matt an abusive back story and Perrin a dead wife, I do have qualms about changing the foundational plot. The release of two Forsaken and Rand gaining the power to level an entire army were concepts that I considered key aspects to the plot moving forward. It makes me hesitant, to say the least, to think I will have any idea what each subsequent season will look like. To tie problems like this to people’s apprehension of Rings of Power, I think we can rest a bit easier. When it comes to the second age of Middle Earth, we are not so intimately familiar with the personalities and intricate details of each key character and the steps they take throughout the overall plot. Remember, this age took place over thousands of years, so we know generally what happened, and the results. All the rest can be left to the imagination. I personally find that a safeguard, because it means much of what we will see was left to interpretation from the source itself. There are likely no characters from Middle Earth that we would be in fiery defense of their personalities, as was the case with beloved characters like Ginny Weasley. Adding a forbidden love between Eugene and Perrin was a plot twist I was not expecting, but must admit that it adds a bit more interesting dynamics to their group. I think the main character that I do consider a worry for personality representation in the upcoming Rings of Power show, would be Galadriel, who will serve as the main character if interpretation of the trailers can be believed. Now while I've seen nothing of her personality so far that makes me particularly concerned, there are aspects to her character itself that I do not want ignored. For example, of all the various legendary individuals that roam Middle Earth, Galadriel was not one to ever need armor in my mind. Not because I don't picture her involved in combat or warfare, but because she should be powerful enough that armor is unnecessary. While there are many critiques of The Hobbit movies that I could outline, one thing that I did thoroughly enjoy was watching Galadriel blast an orc out of existence with a wave of her hand. It was a wonderful visual that showed us the literal concept of “overkill”. It's this unshakeable presence that I've come to associate with the lady of the wood. Now, we are meeting Galadriel in her youth, so perhaps her power has not yet fully developed. Elves, after all, were all young at one point, so I will assume many of their features develop gradually, and that might include one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth. It will certainly be one of the aspects I will be waiting nervously to be addressed. At last, we arrive at my point for Consideration #2: Will the foundational aspects of the characters and plot be respected in the upcoming adaptation, or will it, like WOT, veer of course to suit a schedule of episodes and visual effects budget? Only time will tell, but I will of course be watching with hungry anticipation, as well as keen observance of the source material.
With these two considerations in mind, let us move forward into breaking down the film and TV adaptation of Tolkien’s gold-standard world. With regards to Consideration #1, I've already seen people complaining that Elrond's hair is short. To which I honestly must roll my eyes. Again, while I do enjoy the classic look of a long-haired elf, it will not be something I will factor in when making up my mind on whether or not the show rose to the challenge of bringing me back to one of the most beloved fantasy realms of my life, or if they bit off more than they can chew by placing Middle Earth on the small screen.
Now that I've given you some generalities and tone to decide whether or not you want to keep reading, let us delve into some of my thoughts in regards to the Rings of Power. I'll reference multiple fantasy pop culture comparisons, but we'll mainly focus on the WOT as a comparison, as both represent a new age of high budget fantasy world TV shows. Sorry Witcher, as much as I enjoy you and Henry Cavil, I consider WOT and LOTR a level above, with LOTR being the untouchable top tier. No offense intended, and I still can’t wait for season 3.
“So it begins.”
The Rings of Power first full trailer:
I didn't really feel the need to comment on the teasers, or even give them much thought beyond that of my unbridled excitement, because their purpose is to do exactly what their label says they do: tease. As I said before, taking things out of context really does not provide insight that is worth acknowledging. Now, however, we've been given a full trailer, and this gives us plenty to dwell on. If you want complete breakdowns scene by scene, shot by shot, with in-depth Middle Earth history background, I highly suggest the YouTube channel Nerd of the Rings (link below). It's one that I frequent and absolutely love for its succinct and entertaining summaries of various Middle Earth characters and concepts. One of those concepts, of course, is now analyzing the Rings of Power in detail. If you have or choose to follow the channel, you'll find that we have a great deal of overlap in our observations, but not necessarily the same thoughts and reactions.
I think we can all be in agreement that the trailer gives us the feel of Galadriel dwelling on the very bloody past that took place in the First Age, and the main plot is to focus on the free peoples of Middle Earth's attempt to move beyond their enormous losses as they enter the Second Age. Though I'm glad to see some flashbacks to the events of the First Age, it becomes difficult to tell how much of the trailer is showing memories or flashbacks, and what number of those scenes will somehow be incorporated into the Second Age events. I personally think this would give Galadriel incredible character development by depicting the horrors her people had endured in the First Age by the hands of Morgoth. As she moves forward to confront Sauron, it sets the stage for a powerful and inspiring character that is growing into her own power, much like Sauron himself will be doing in the Second Age, when the show is to take place.
One character I am particularly excited for, is Annatar. While some are still skeptical that the fair figure in light gray robes and hood his Annatar, I personally have little doubt. Much like Galadriel recovering from a devastating war, in which she lost her entire family, Sauron is now in a transition from lieutenant to Dark Lord. Annatar was one of the key aspects to his rise in power. He not only uses this form to learn how to forge and influence rings of power, but corrupt the kings of Numenor and ultimately lead to their destruction. Events that are self-explanatory enough in terms of significance. Now at the end of Nerd of the Rings breakdown of this trailer, they joke about if Annatar is too much like Voldemort. While I'm not sure if this was a jab at his appearance or not, I personally find it the perfect analogy. Not for his creepy demeanor, but how similar of profile these two villains have with one another. One area that I must disagree with their considerably insightful and knowledgeable breakdown, is when the claim is made that the character “doesn't seem all that fair” as Annatar is what is commonly referred to as Sauron's “fair form”. Fair, in my mind, especially in the reference to Tolkien’s writing, means light of skin and hair, as well as subjectively attractive features. By this definition, I would say Annatar is quite fair. The context the channel is using is that he looks “shady” rather than “fair” which makes me think the term is being used to describe a demeanor rather than appearance. This is why I think the comparison to Voldemort could not be anymore perfect. Not slits for nostrils and red-eye Voldemort that is as bald as a full moon, but the person who became Voldemort: Tom Riddle. I will not insult anyone's intelligence by explaining who Tom Riddle is, assuming that by reading a blog by a fantasy author, this merits no explanation to you. The reason why I think Tom Riddle and Annatar are such comparable antagonists, is the fact that they are both charming, very handsome, very intelligent, and the pinnacle of evil during their time. While Annatar may have a clearly shady image in this trailer, this is not showing him near any of those he ended up influencing during the Second Age. I would be willing to bet that this shady brooding robed figure has a much smoother and charming demeanor when he is in the presence of, say… Celebrimbor. While he roams by himself working on his plans, I would not expect him to have this demeanor because it is not actually his true nature. Opinion summary: I am very much so looking forward to Annatar and Sauron’s depiction in the new show.
The next aspect of the trailer that I am in full agreement with many other reviews about, is the use of practical effects rather than entirely CGI. This, I have to admit, was one aspect that strongly differentiated the Lord of the Rings films from The Hobbit films to me. While I enjoyed both, the Lord of the Rings I found far more immersive. One reason for that was the very authentic orcs and evil creatures. Now they give us a very clear image of practical effect orcs yet again, and I couldn't be happier. One reason for this is not necessarily because of the aesthetics, but when we start to enter combat and battle sequences. Action shots always have some element of disbelief when one of the opponents is CGI. Not always, I suppose, but commonly. Now that we're entering a new age of different (and epic) conflicts, I'm very glad practical effects will be part of these sequences. From what the trailer depicts already, these orcs will be haunting, and what would be the point otherwise? Rhetorical question. CGI is an area where I should probably not be overly critical or act as though I'm particularly informed. By no means do I have any concept of how CGI actually works, I simply see it and know of it. I go back and forth on my opinions of its roll, but there are times that I think it is overused. I was hoping for more of a CGI Ogier in WOT but less of it in the goblins of the first Hobbit film. So far from what I can tell from the trailer, Middle Earth has found its perfect balance of CGI and prosthetics once more. On that note, and which merits very little reaction explanation, would be our beloved Balrog. Is this the very same that slumbers in the Mines of Moria, or is it one of the several others used by Morgoth in the First Age? At this point, I’m too excited for its presence to care much. Time will tell.
With that, I conclude my first blog entry but highly encourage your feedback. Leave comments or send me messages. I would love to hear your thoughts.
For those that want a truly thorough walk through Middle Earth, I highly recommend the Nerd of the Rings breakdown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmDMm...
