Talk:Doomed to Die (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)

Very questionable value of Rotten Tomatoes reviews (again)

I have noticed this in other Reviews of various TV shows: As a show progresses, the number of reviewers grows, and the rating goes up, usually to 100%. Now, what is even the point of mentioning that on a Wikipedia page? In this case, it is exactly 12 reviewers, and they all give the show a 100% rating. That is clearly broken.

Why are such dubious numbers treated as "reliable", where the audience scores are not? Timtas (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

100% on Rotten Tomatoes does not mean all the listed critics gave a score of 100%, it means all of the listed critics gave a positive review to some degree. The article clearly states that the average score is actually 8.4 out of 10, not 10 out of 10. Nothing dubious about that, especially for an episode that many critics thought was the best of the season if not the series. And this has no impact on the reliability of audience scores, WP:USERG still applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. One little remark, though: I think we're all aware of the fact that quite a number of these "many critics" hailing the show or this episode belong to the ever-growing group described in Wikipedia as "Access journalism". And as the Wikipedia page Access_journalism rightly mentions, the honesty of such players is questionable at best. But of course, this is not provably, why you might probably call this a conspiracy theory. I'm fine with that, but when I sometimes read some of those glaring reviews, it really makes me wonder if they're actually serious or not. Whatever. Timtas (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove quotes by actors or producers in the audience response section

It is extremely irritating for me that, like in other cases, any negative audience response content seems to automatically getting basically rebuffed by a quote either discrediting the audience (racist, review bombing etc), rejecting the source as unreliable, or having some "expert" explaining why the audience got that scene totally wrong and should have viewed it differently.

And I find this case to be most hilarious ever: Citing the actors playing in the negatively received scene, as there is probably no one else in the world that would defend it (apart from the writers, the director or the show-runner).

I therefore suggest this to be moved to the production section. It might be relevant information of how on earth such a scene actually was made, but actors are not to explain the audience how to receive a scene. It is the producer's jobs to make a scene understandable to the audience. And I mean, come on: "Clark suggested that kissing would not mean the same thing for Elves as humans would assume." There is absolutely nothing in any of Tolkien's writings to support such utter bullshit. Timtas (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Audience responses are generally not included at all, as there is often no proof that they are genuine and/or noteworthy in relation to the large number of people that watch a series/film. The only reason we are even mentioning the fact that some viewers took issue with two characters kissing is because a bunch of reliable sources have reported on that response, and many of them have done so while asking Aramayo to explain it. So it is not unreasonable to include his explanation in the section, even if you personally think it is "utter bullshit". I am not against moving his comments to the production section as suggested, but I don't think there is any problem with leaving it as is for now. I intend to do some work expanding the production sections for these episode articles at some point and it could make sense to include the shift with that change, since the current production section has the bare minimum details while the reception section has been expanded to discuss the episode in more detail already. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I actually only said that Clark's suggestion that passionate kissing does not mean the same to elves than to men is "utter bullshit". And it really is. Timtas (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now carefully read the cited interview with Aramayo from nerdist.com and I agree, it is interesting, surely. I now have fixed that section in the audience response a bit, as the previous version translated "I was honestly against it for quite a while" with "hesitant about the kiss at first", and that clearly qualifies to downright lying. My solution now is that "Aramayo said he was against it for a long time", which is the correct wording. Being "hesitant" and being "against it" is definitely not the same thing, and translating "at first" with "for quite a while" also sounds like an attempt to diminish his resistance against doing the scene. I assume the now usually present intimacy coordinator had a day off, Poor Aramayo.Timtas (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. When content is disputed and under discussion at the talk page you should not just go and change it without consensus. Please wait until the discussion is over. You have now completely changed your mind about wanting to remove it from the section and have not explained why, plus your edit removed half of what he said. Please explain your reasoning without editing the article again. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not changed my mind about wanting to remove it, but agreed to wait. I however fixed the clear mis-quoting, what's wrong with that? Timtas (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not "[fix] the clear mis-quoting", you deleted half of the information without any clear explanation. And even if there was a clear mistake to be fixed, you should not have done it while we are in the middle of a talk page discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I deleted practically nothing of any relevance, I only shortened the sentence a bit, and fixed the misquoting. Because "I was honestly against it for quite a while" and "hesitant about the kiss at first" is clearly misquoting, I don't see any room for different opinions in that. It's a clear case of deliberately changing the meaning, without any other purpose. Timtas (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I find it a little irritating that you otherwise rightfully ponder about trustworthy sources for any little sentence, but have no problem with this clear case of someone deliberately changing a quote to suit his own opinion. Timtas (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no misquoting, his words were paraphrased: being against doing something and being hesitant to do something is essentially the same thing. I am okay with using the stronger wording of "against", but I do not agree with the rest of your changes: "until being finally convinced by Clark to look at it differently, with Clark insisting" no source says Clark convinced him to do the kiss or insisted on anything, that wording is very misleading. He changed his mind after discussing the scene with Clark, who suggested some possible answers, that is all. And you have still yet to explain why you removed this part of the paragraph: "He explained that it is not romantic and is primarily a strategic move to give her the pin so she can escape, but that it is also an emotional goodbye considering the potential for either of them to not see one another again." - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I maybe should not have removed that sentence just because I didn't like it, my bad.

I however do stick with the "until being finally convinced by Clark to look at it differently, with Clark insisting", because that's what the source says: "And Miv (Morfydd Clark) spoke a lot about that, about how she looked at it differently and stuff." It sounds to me that she had to go to great lengths at convincing him to finally agree. But ok, this is open to interpretation.

And no, I disagree: "hesitant" and "against it" are not the same thing. "Hesitant" mean being unsure about something and "against it" means you are sure about being against it. And I assume that difference was the exact reason of said totally unnecessary "paraphrasing", to make that difference in meaning. Or why else would someone intentionally "paraphrase"? If it means the same, it's just more work.

Also "at first" and "for quite a while" is also a very liberal case of "paraphrasing", strangely enough going the exact same direction of downplaying his long refusal to do the scene into "he was not sure at the very beginning". Paraphrasing should keep the intention of the source, and not interpret it to your own opinion.

Off-topic: Funnily enough, that is a bit the direction the whole "Rings of Power" show goes, keeping names of characters and places and then twisting them into something else. Eregion was a region for instance, and not a town with about 50 elves in it. Elrond should never had led the army and had the talk with Adar, as Gil-Galad, his "superior" was also around (which he was not in the book, he stayed in Lindon). And there bloody cannot be two Durin's at the same time, as all Durin's are reincarnations of the first Durin. But sure, all the critcs really liked the episode... Timtas (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You are doing a lot of reading into things instead of just presenting what was said. "It sounds to me that she had to go to great lengths at convincing him to finally agree" -- it may sound like that to you, but it isn't what it says at all. All it says is that he changed his mind after discussing it with her. And no matter how long he was against the idea, it was still "at first" as opposed to "secondly" when he changed his mind. As for the general idea of paraphrasing, most content on Wikipedia must be written in our own words, not copied directly from the source. Direct quotes should be limited. See WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE for more. As for your off-topic comments, best to avoid those. Per WP:NOTFORUM, we are here to discuss how to improve the article not to discuss what you don't like about the series. Be careful that you are not acting out of personal bias against the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, be careful, too. You can defend the questionable "paraphrasing" as long as you like, but it remains an objective fact that the new words strangely all go into the same direction: to diminish the actor's reluctance to do the scene. Timtas (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume you will never accept any changes to the current "paraphrasing" of Aramayo's statements in this interview, but just to prove my point, I heavily recommend you watch the interview "Robert Aramayo talks Elrond in The Rings of Power" on Youtube, where he is again asked about it

Now, if your reading of his position then still boils down to "hesitant at first", I guess we two will probably never agree on anything. Totally embarrassed by it, he finished with "well, it was about another goal, that is my justification".

Just don't ever call me biased again, because I think it is rather you that wants to ram your opinions down other people's throat.

Of course well masked behind an neutral facade, but yeah, paraphrasing and careful selection of material and then engaging in a fake discussion here where you just defend any single word and paragraph until everybody tires down, is really just that: a rhetorical facade. Timtas (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why I am still humouring you, Just don't ever call me biased again is laughable when in this same section you have said I'm not neutral at all, but I have now moved Aramayo's comments to the writing section and updated the wording to use "against" per this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for the changes, and when my last comment to you was written in quite a bad mood and a bit too strong worded, the "just don't ever call me biased again" was not meant to imply that I am unbiased, it meant that you should maybe not call me biased, as you also seem not totally neutral in this matter. You seem to like the show, I definitely hate it, and so we both share the burden of leaving out any personal opinions out, stick to facts and take care in selecting what facts from what sources.

I'm not accusing you of this here, but it is very possible to maintain a facade of neutrality by "sticking to the facts", but the selection and presentation of the facts can also be very problematic. But I'm sure you know much more about this, as you have contributed to Wikipedia for much longer than me. Timtas (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I choose not to talk about my personal opinion of the show because it is irrelevant here. I have added praise for things that I disliked and criticism for things that I enjoyed, because I follow what the reliable sources and commentators say rather than my own personal opinion. If your comments were strictly based in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies then there would not be anyone calling you biased, it is because you are openly criticizing the show and anything positive that has been said about it that has led to you receiving that label. You should be mindful of that (and WP:NOTFORUM) in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Timtas, you're showing super heavy bias against the show and their content, and expose that therefore you're not neutral to the article. Blobstar (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not neutral at all, that's why I also don't contribute any content to it. I just objected to some content that in my view was created by people with equal heavy bias in favor of the show, and therefore also not at all neutral. And while I agreed several times to compromises, the other side stubbornly sticks to their not-so-neutral paraphrasing and questionable sources to the letter. So, who's trying to be objective here, and who doesn't? Timtas (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)