Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Are Tolkien's writings considered a source?

Hi! Over the years I've noticed that Wikipedia only uses URL's as reliable sources. And kinda ignores things on paper.

Considering in my community most of the problems with the new show is that the old grey haired people I know who memorized all the books don't recognize the new show as having much to do with the works of Tolkien. Yes, they steal some names from the books. But many of the characters on the original paper written by Tolkien are absent. The characters that remain wear different clothes, have different personalities, different skills....

The common critique I hear and see is that while the Rings of Power is an interesting and expensive modern fantasy series... It's doesn't have much in common with Tolkien's work.

Making up a bunch of new fantasy if fine. But if you brand it to be Tolkien and its unrecognizable to people who reread the books every year for the past 50 years…

Then it’s probably not Tolkeins world. It’s just another fantasy show inspired by Tolkien.

So could people more knowledgeable and powerful than me perhaps add a section on the differneces between the show and written works by Tolkien?

Because Tolkiens books should be considered reliable sources that can be referenced.

And the Tolkien fans groups I know have not said a single thing about race or gender or all the disinformation online. They just were wondering why the show has so little to do with Tolkien’s actual work.

And that has nothing to do with the skin color, gender, or sexual preferences of the actors or characters in this new series that licenses Tolkiens name without actually using most the material.

Peter Jackson made many changes, but he used Tolkiens words in every line. The Fans loved the lord of the rings trilogy because it was accurate and it was good.

Civil rights, racial equality, all that stuff was fashionable in the 1960’s when CBS did the first Star Trek. Trust me when I say old grey haired Sci do and fantasy nerds are ok with people of color and gender. Source - Every Star Trek series, Star Gate, Babylon 5, just to name a few…

So let’s focus on the quality of the work and accurate portrayal of the adaption of an existing body of work. Don’t let small minds distract you with slanderous headlines that detract from writers on tight deadlines that didn’t get the time to do research. Or whatever reason they had for ignoring the source material. We may not know why they did what they did.

But if you have not recently read the Silmarillion, you need to read a book and QUOTE the book to factually prove me wrong 2601:280:4A01:B7F0:2C13:7BDB:2DD7:580C (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely uses paper references as reliable sources, though I will agree there is a bias towards online materials, just by dint of the venue in which we find ourselves. The problem with your suggestion is that you are engaging in what strikes me as WP:SYNTH. Of course Tolkien's works are reliable sources for what he thought, but (excuse me for being so obvious) he never wrote about the Amazon series. Thus, if you want to point to Tolkien's work, indicate something in the series, and say "look, they are different" you are engaging in the kind of synthesis we're not supposed to do around here. Instead, we wait for secondary sources (magazines, websites, et.) to do that for us, and some are in the process of doing just that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes at this point it may well be questionable accuracy to say the Series is "based on" Tolkien's work. Perhaps "inspired by" might be more accurate. If you wish to suggest a change please provide reliable sources to support your position.BrianDJohnson8 (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

If there is significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, I have been considering the possibility that some of this gets spun out into its own article a la Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings, but it is probably WP:TOOSOON for that at the moment. TNstingray (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we would be able to make a great article along those lines at some point, there will definitely be plenty of sources to use for discussion of the differences, but I agree that it is way too early for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a point where Adam and I seem to clash a lot, but I think not over the principle so much as our interpretation of what is in the article. Where the article directly states something as coming from Tolkien ("Tolkien wrote", "Tolkien described") then the statement needs to reflect what actually came from Tolkien - while if possible sticking to secondary sources. For example, the published letters would be secondary because the have been curated and compiled by Humphreys and C Tolkien. Where the article describes somebody's treatment or interpretation of Tolkien's work, it is sufficient to have a source for that treatment or interpretation. As the article is about the show, there should not be a need for pervasive comparison of the show to Tolkien. LowKey (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• It is fine to use the Tolkiens' writings as sources in general (our Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Beowulf articles eace cite him five times, not including several references to him cited to secondary and tertiary sources), but using a work of fiction as a source for a comparison between it and its own adaptation/expansion/"licensed fanfiction" would violate WP:NOR. Yes, this article, as with most of our articles on contemporary American pop culture, is (overly) reliant on online entertainment sources. These sources are at present the only sources, other than marketing materials for this show, that acknowledge the show's existence. Most such sources are, no doubt, written by people who have either never read any of Tolkien's books or at most read them "in light of" the Peter Jackson films (which they invariably consider to be superior to the source material), but them's the cards we've been dealt. (I recently watched https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qvrFUKCXy3c&t=1165 a popular video review] of the Rankin-Bass Return of the King, explicitly published to coincide with this show's release, that repeatedly made comparisons to "the book", despite it being painfully clear that "the book" referred to Jackson's films and not the book.) Eventually, sources will be written by people who have read the books and want to do an honest, critical book-show comparison, but I don't think we're there yet. (Another issue is that fans of the books are likely to criticize the show as something that shouldn't have been made at all without authorization from the Tolkien estate to use more than the scraps of lore that appear in the two books whose film rights their ancestor sold during a period when, apparently, a loophole in US copyright law was robbing him and his family of millions in royalties, or to compare the show to material that it would have been literally illegal to incorporate as is.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, I am "old grey haired people" who mostly memorized the two "main" novels and am quite familiar with much of the rest. I am not going to be seeing any more of the show, because indeed my perception is that is doesn't have much to do with Tolkien's actual work (and I know enough of how Tolkien expressed his position on this stuff to conclude he would be grief-stricken). However, this article isn't about how much the show is like or unlike Tokien's work, it is about the show. I am strongly against this (or any article) misrepresenting Tolkien's (or anyone's) work, but as long as the article treats the show itself rather than Tolkien's own writings that shouldn't be a problem. It is almost certain to come up in the reception over time, but that is a somewhat different subtopic to the rest of the article. I actually think not watching the show does put me in a bit of a better position for editing because secondary sources will be as close as I get to this. LowKey (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about the application of policies to this article

I am not having that discussion here, but I do think it needs to be had. I am having it here and will merrily discuss it with myself if no-one else wants to weigh in. If you do want to weigh in, please remember to assume good faith and remain civil, and I am happy to held accountable to do likewise. It is ultimately my effort to find a smoother way forward for making this article (and others to follow it) as good as possible. LowKey (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Writers Credit

Can information about who the writers are be included in the main panel? This is important information and at least as and perhaps more important than a list of executive producers. BrianDJohnson8 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

By "main panel", are you referring to the infoxbox on the right-hand side of your screen? TNstingray (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Usually, writers of individual episodes are shown in the information for the episode. The information box for the series can hardly list every writer of every episode, so generally only includes information that applies to the series as a whole (or at its endpoints, I guess). LowKey (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes by main panel I do mean infobox, thanks for that. Currently there are 12 Executive Producers listed on the infobox and in the main body of the article I can see 3 writers. Given the importance of the writers I think it would make sense to list them in the infobox, since it is intended as an overview of those most important in the production.BrianDJohnson8 (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree: they are extremely important. However, they are still listed on their individual episodes, and I think we should wait until all of the writers have been announced as well. Executive producers are a big deal since they are basically the highest up in the project. TNstingray (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

False quote remains

Some time ago I mentioned that this line is inaccurate "Tolkien had described Galadriel in her youth as being a strong fighter of "Amazon disposition". It remains in the article. I will be blunter. The claim that Tolkien ever described Galadriel as a 'strong fighter' is a direct lie. It is not true, he did not ever say that, in any context whatsoever. The source is not good* and is being used to justify directly false text.

• Is it secondary? No. Is it neutral? No. Does it have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? No. Is it of a type (promotional) that wiki policy says should be avoided? Yes.

86.132.16.116 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This a direct quote from Letter 348, a letter that Tolkien wrote and which is published in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. It is also supported in this article by a reliable, secondary source. It is in no way a "false quote" and should remain in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I am pretty sure it isn't a direct quote from Letter 348. The "Amazon disposition" bit is there, but "strong fighter" does not appear. In the 1981 compilation by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien we have;

"Galadriel, like all the other names of elvish persons in The Lord of the Rings, is an invention of my own. It is in Sindarin form (see Appendices E and F) and means 'Maiden crowned with gleaming hair'. It is a secondary name given to her in her youth in the far past because she had long hair which glistened like gold but was also shot with silver. She was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats"

No mention of being a strong fighter, and in fact a pretty strongly implied link to athletic competition rather than battle. Carpenter is surely a more reliable source for Tolkien's words than Vanity Fair. The quote also says that this was in her youth. She was certainly no longer in her youth when she left Aman, and the series does really does NOT show her journey from the youth Tolkien referenced (e.g. no kinslaying, which event and it's aftermath define Tolkien's Galadriel to the end of the 3rd age) ). It can't show that journey because they don't have rights to that journey.

There does seem to be some conflation going on, with outlets that relay the showmakers statements about what Tolkien said being treated as reliable sources for what Tolkien said rather than what the Showmakers announce. If the character bio in the article had no reference to what "Tolkien had described" this wouldn't be such an issue. Describe the character as portrayed and/or the character as Tolkien described, but do not try to present the two as one and the same. My suggestion would be to simply describe her as portrayed without reference to Tolkien's Galadriel. LowKey (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If we need to remove the strong fighter bit to distinguish Tolkien's "Amazon disposition" description and the series portrayal as a "strong fighter," then I suppose there is precedent for that, though I will try and track this down for sure tomorrow. It must be noted: a 1981 commentary does not necessarily apply to a 2022 streaming series, though for other topics I'm sure this is a worthy resource. The show-runners statements about what Tolkien said are as equally opinion as what you or I or anyone else says, since none of us are reincarnations of Tolkien. However, the show-runners opinions receive coverage relating to the development of the show, and thus warrant inclusion. Our opinions do not, once again per WP:OR. TNstingray (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we actually agree, after a fashion. The issue is that the article isn't saying that the show-runners stated this. It is saying that Tolkien stated it, and a 1981 compilation (NB: not a commentary, so they are Tolkien's actual words) does not need to apply to a 2022 streaming series. It still applies perfectly well to how how "Tolkien had described Galadriel." "Strong fighter" is relevant to the series - because that is how the showrunners portray the character - but not to Tolkien, so I would say remove the Tolkien reference instead, because it that is the part that is inaccurate as it is contradicted by a very reliable source. If the article is simply describing how the character is portrayed in the show, there is no issue with accuracy. However, the article currently incorrectly attributed a description to Tolkien. As long as reference to Tolkien's description remains, then the disparity should at least be acknowledged in the article. To not acknowledge the disparity, don't invoke Tolkien in relation to the character description. The disparity exists. There is disagreement over whether the disparity is an issue to be addressed (and whether the article does indeed address it) but none of that alters that the disparity itself exists. Either acknowledge it in the article, or avoid including statements that deny the existence of the disparity. LowKey (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I had another read of the Vanity Fair article. It looks like "strong fighter" is an interpretation of an editor here at WP- it isn't stated in the article. What the article does say is that Tolkien said that Galadriel could "match strength with most male counterparts". This seems to be one of the showrunners speaking, but it is hard to tell which. I have no-idea where Tolkien is meant to have said this, and I would fairly hotly dispute that the Payne or MacKay could be considered a reliable source for what Tolkien said. Christopher Tolkien, Tom Shippey, Humphrey Carpenter et al definitely. Even so, strength and fighting strength are two different concepts. Either way, articles dealing with, for example, Marvel's character of Thor don't spend much time referencing Norse mythology beyond saying the character is based on the Norse mythological god of the same name. Maybe this article should just say something similar and then get on with describing the show's version. LowKey (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Actually, I am pretty sure it isn't a direct quote from Letter 348." The sentence in the article only has one direct quote in it ("Amazon disposition") and that does in fact come from Letter 348. Bringing up the fact that "strong fighter" is not from the same letter as a way to disprove my explanation is a straw man argument. As you seem to have worked out, the line "Tolkien had described Galadriel in her youth as being a strong fighter" is my paraphrasing of the source's wording, which does include Tolkien claimed young Galadriel could match strength with most male counterparts and In The Unfinished Tales it says, “[Galadriel] looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs.”

"I would fairly hotly dispute that the Payne or MacKay could be considered a reliable source for what Tolkien said" is a bit silly and not very objective. It is literally their job to read what he wrote and adapt it to the screen (and all of their decisions were made with the blessing of Simon Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate, not to mention other Tolkien "experts"). We should 100% be looking to their interpretation of Tolkien's works to understand the series. Of course we should use secondary sources to confirm these things where needed, and if other sources take issue with the writers' interpretation of Tolkien then that can be discussed in the reception section, but it is not our job to use such sources and our own opinions to question the creators of the show in the way that you want to. They found quotes from Tolkien that lent to an interpretation of a young Galadriel who is a strong fighter and that informed their characterization of her in the series, we should be explaining that accurately in the article. If there are good sources which refute this characterization then we can include those in the reception section, but we should not be using those as an excuse to remove accurate information about the series' writing and characters.

As for your last bit, Thor in the movies is not directly adapting the Norse mythology, he is an adaptation of the comic books which are based on the mythology. The Marvel movie articles don't state "Chris Hemsworth as Thor: a character based on the comic book character who is based on the Norse mythology", because we already know that the movie is adapting the comics. The Norse bit is just extra, and there is no equivalent for Galadriel. If you want to compare that situation to this article, readers already know that this series is an adaptation of Tolkien's writings and this Galadriel is not the same character as the book version. You say "this article should just say something similar and then get on with describing the show's version", well it already does. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to make up your mind. The objection heading this section was specifically about attributing the description of a strong fighter to Tolkien, to which you responded that it is a direct quote. Now you say it isn't a direct quote. Either way, it doesn't have to be quote marks to be attributing the description to Tolkien, and that is an incorrect attribution. It isn't presented the showrunners' interpretation of Tolkien's works but is a direct misrepresentation of what Tolkien has said.

The show is not directly adapting Tolkien's published work. That shouldn't even be a contentious notion, by their own statements they didn't want to directly adapt. Whether someone has a problem with that is neither here nor there, it is simply the position they laid out.

The sentence in the article begins "Tolkien had described Galadriel in her youth as being a strong fighter..." That is false. He had not. He also had not said anything about her matching strength with most male counterparts. This is according to reliable sources accepted as authoritative. I am not suggesting putting that in the article; I am suggesting taking out the clear statement that said "Tolkien had described" something that Tolkien did not describe as reported by a respected biographer and Christopher Tolkien, who was his literary executor.

I am not suggesting questioning the creators at all. However, since they haven't shared any quotes that that lent to the strong fighter Galadriel interpretation the article cannot accurately explain such a thing. How they write the character is how they write the character and there is nothing wrong with simply describing that.

I also made no mention of any Thor movies. I was directly referencing Marvel's character regardless of medium. The Norse bit is not extra, it is the source for the character and therefore is very relevant here. I said "this article should just say something similar and then get on with describing the show's version" because currently it clearly does not. It compares the show version to Tolkien's version and portrays them as the same. It doesn't need to do that. It doesn't need to explain the differences. It simply needs to reflect the show's version.

As this is plainly not about putting the show in a good light or a bad light, but just about accuracy, your continued hostile reaction is becoming especially grating.LowKey (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be an erroneous attribution. Also, I'm even doubting there is any kind of reason to even have that kind of explanation under the "casting" section, why is this part attempting to legitimize the showrunners' script? Alves Stargazer (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I just made a small edit to remove the contested attribution, in the hope it doesn't spark additional controversy instead. Alves Stargazer (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit is fine with me. I would just like to stress here that Amazones are fighters, so even though the source doesn't mention that she is a fighter, that is the simple meaning, and so we can say it. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing; being great fighters were basically what defined the Amazons of Greek mythology. Also, I would suggest altering the statement "Galadriel has been re-imagined as...". Is this in contrast to Tolkien's work or the Jackson trilogy (or both)? This needs to be further specified. TNstingray (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, being great fighters is what we now associate with the "original" Greek Amazons. It is a significant oversimplification, though. Greek mythology had many great fighters (individuals, groups, whole societies) and that alone would not set Amazons apart (even that coupled only with being women-only). They were founders of cities and builders of temples, they were champions at athletic competition, they were self-imposed exiles of a sort, they were the bogeyman. They were the "manslayers" and "loathers of all men".

I would say "re-imagined" probably applies to both, but then I am not necessarily keen on constantly comparing this work to either. I don't know if it needs to be said that she is distinct from both (as in I genuinely don't know, can't decide). LowKey (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that "strong fighter" is the simple meaning of "of Amazon disposition", either now or in 1970s when expressed by an expert in both language and in mythology. It certainly could mean that, but it could also mean one or more of; "independent", "courageous", "skilled athlete", "hater of men", "murderer of men", "of physically imposing stature". We only have the context (of both the statement and of the character) to determine which of these Tolkien meant, and that is where interpretations can vary. On the other hand, if "of Amazon disposition" simply means "strong fighter" than having them both in a sentence like that is tautological and clunky; a bit like describing a ruddy face of red complexion. LowKey (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That edit reads fine to me. LowKey (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the change, I don't think it was ideal and we need to finish this discussion first. You may personally feel that the character has been "re-imagined" but that is not what the sources and the creators have said and is WP:OR. However, I do think a change in wording will help clear up this whole thing. The intention is to explain Galadriel's characterization in the show, and what parts of Tolkien's writings that characterization is based on (whether you like it or not). So, how about something like this? The series shows the character's journey from a warrior to the "elder stateswoman" that she is portrayed as in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. The showrunners based her initial depiction in the series on a letter in which Tolkien described a young Galadriel as being of "Amazon disposition". - adamstom97 (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

That wording is fine with me. LowKey (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added this in. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should work a bit more on the wording, the way it's expressed right now seems to imply that Tolkien actually described her as a warrior. Since the "amazon disposition" referred to athletics rather than combat and the letter 320 talks about her being a leader (but not a warrior) it should be made a bit clearer that the warrior part is original from Amazon. Alves Stargazer (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly went ahead with my change because the main discussion on this issue was between LowKey and myself, apologies if you feel like you have been left out or treated unfairly here. As for your comments, Since the "amazon disposition" referred to athletics rather than combat and it should be made a bit clearer that the warrior part is original from Amazon are both your personal opinion and not relevant, we need to reflect what the sources tell us. The showrunners based her initial depiction in the series on a letter in which Tolkien described a young Galadriel as being of "Amazon disposition" is what the source says, and the only thing it suggests about Tolkien is that he described young Galadriel as being of "Amazon disposition" which is true. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. The show runners, as reported by the source (and there are other uncited sources in accord with this report) invoked the letter and "Amazon disposition" for their take on Galadriel (plus apparently the distant-in-time character progression to Galadriel at the end of the 3rd age). The character name is linked to the specific separate article, where I expect eventually the "original" as well as the various interpretations would be treated. The article correctly conveys the shows interpretation on the comment, and further context about character interpretations (in my opinion) belongs elsewhere or at least needs to wait for further reliable analysis and may need it's own section or ultimately its own article. LowKey (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC).

I am going to revert to Adam's last version because Alves Stargazer has specifically objected to the implication that has been restored by reverting Adam's edit. By all means continue to work on a better wording, but this does seem to be the best so far. LowKey (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The "Amazon disposition" thing is indeed a misquotation -- or, rather, a distortion of context -- of Letter 348, wherein Tolkien is clearly referring specifically to her "taking part in athletic feats". The correct Tolkien letter reference for her prowess as a military leader is rather Letter 320. 348 refers to her "youth" while 320 refers to the First Age, but given the time compression apparently going on in the show ... yeah, they were probably looking for an excuse to copy Peter Jackson and transform one of Tolkien's existing female characters into Xena Warrior Princess, without violating copyright by setting the show during "the rebellion against the Valar (the angelic guardians)", and citing a letter that is actually talking about athletic feats as though it were talking about a warlike disposition lends weight to the idea that this was a pretext, but given that this article is about an Amazon Prime TV show and not a work of literature, it's unlikely that reliable critical sources will be found for the foreseeable future, so it seems we are stuck relying on entertainment magazines working off press releases rather than directly examining Tolkien's writings. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I believe the full quote is [Galadriel] was then of Amazon disposition and bound up her hair as a crown when taking part in athletic feats, so he effectively says 'she was like the Amazons and she also put her hair up when doing exercise'. I think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that our source and the series' writers have based on this quote, even if there are other interpretations of it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  While I probably agree with Hijiri88 that Tolkien was probably linking the Amazon disposition with the athletic feats - indeed I think it highly unlikely that such an accomplished philologist would be so inept as to link two unrelated thoughts so clumsily - that is letter that is referenced by the show's creators for the show's take on the character, and the article currently reflects that accurately and neutrally. (Personally, I think having the word "Amazon" in a description for a character portrayed by Amazon was too tempting to pass by). Letter 320 has been mentioned by critics (or at least the content of it, if not identifying the letter) but not to my knowledge by the makers of the show, and makes no mention of military prowess. LowKey (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm basically in agreement with the above, although personally I would prefer to say that the showrunners "have said that" they based her initial..., but unfortunately the Vanity Fair piece doesn't explicitly support this assertion so I'm reluctant to make the change myself. If I had to guess, I'd say the showrunners are reluctant to publicly allude to Letter 320 because, if the show alludes at all to the Valar (sorry, I still haven't found time to watch past the first episode...) it will be as the friends of all Elves, even Galadriel. A lot of the PR surrounding this show seems to be geared toward emphasizing the (often tenuous) textual basis for the changes they are making, while downplaying the fact that they would literally be breaking the law if they faithfully adapted Tolkien's own writings on the era prior to c. TA 2941. I amn't sure how "nonfiction" writings like the letters and much of Unfinished Tales play into this rights skullduggery, but I imagine it's a "grey area" already being or having been discussed by Amazon and the Tolkiens behind closed doors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"Amazon disposition" could have also referred to her confident character (let's remember the times Tolkien was writing), especially since in the letter 320 he also said she refused to ask forgiveness to the Valars. Again, I doubt that the warrior side was intended, or at the very least there is nothing about it within the letters. Alves Stargazer (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right. It could have meant this or that. But that is not for us to decide. In the context of the show, the creators went with one definition, and that is what we have to report on Wikipedia. TNstingray (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, but I'd like to make it clear that this is the creators' interpretation rather than the imperscrutable (and impossible to verify) idea from Tolkien. Alves Stargazer (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the article reflects that as of now, though if you have a better suggestion for re-wording, I am all ears. TNstingray (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References and cite errors

I am unexperienced with using the referencing format as seen on this page, so could someone take a look into fixing the numerous cite errors messages? Also, the formatting has been further messed up by the Rotten Tomatoes graph. I think most of the problems came whenever somebody removed the entire Reception section instead of transferring it to another part of the article. It's possible that we may need to revert to this [1] version due to the vandalism and date changes. In fact, if no one responds here soon, I may boldly do that and then go through and try to extract constructive edits from the rest of the history. TNstingray (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That was my carelessness when replacing The One Ring reference, apologies. I think(?) is is fixed now. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It was just the one, but then somebody removed the entire Reception section that we have been so frequently discussing on this talk page, and that resulted in like six or seven additional broken templates. My restoration fixed most of them besides the OneRing one, so thank you for your help in that. TNstingray (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So, quite a few of the now removed edits involved changing all the dates to September 2, basing things in UTC. What should the proper format be? Because the show does come out on September 1 ETC (which happens to be my time zone, so maybe I should declare bias). TNstingray (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering! I fixed my cite issue, and then magically, they were all gone. Oh well. I'll just continue to take credit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the dates we have at the moment are fine, changing them to UTC will probably just be confusing for casual readers. As for the removal of sources, Dumuzid I mentioned in the "Eldar being fair of skin/Hobbits browner of skin" section above that we need to keep that TheOneRing.net source at least temporarily because the new Harfoots source from CNET does not support most of the information in that opening sentence, so I have restored the reference. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

adamston97, my apologies, as I must not have been clear. I do not support keeping TheOneRing as a source since I do not think it meets WP:RS standards. While the CNET source does not have the October 2021 time of casting mentioned, I would personally prefer we get this from elsewhere or simply leave that bit out for the time being. I think the rest of the sentence is supported, but, as ever, happy to be proven wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand that you don't think it is the most reliable source, but you can't just remove sources and leave unsourced information in the article like that and I do think that information is necessary to give context to readers. That's why I said we should have it "at least temporarily" until we find a better source to replace it with. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97, first of all, apologies for missing this in the welter of conversation around here, but as you might guess, I disagree. TheOneRing does not strike me as a reliable source, and I do not think it's a particularly close call. Therefore anything cited to it is not verifiable. For that reason, I don't think "leave it until we find something better" is appropriate--those references should be removed unless and until a reliable source is found. Cheers, Dumuzid (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it is completely unreliable, I think most of the ways we are using it (fan or marketing related stuff) are appropriate, but I have gone ahead and found better sources to use for the Henry/Harfoots casting and for the Theo character reveal. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Adamstom97, replace the references if you like, I won't remove them (though I might ask for more opinions at WP:RSN), but please don't say "per talk page discussion" when in essence you have declared yourself correct through ipse dixit. Just me being dumb. Pay it no mind, and apologies to adamstom97. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Include fan review score

This has the rotten tomatoes critic review score, but not the score from viewers.

There’s a huge difference between those scores, and it’s very notable. 99.227.215.190 (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I know the talk page is voluminous, but this has been discussed before; per MOS:TVRECEPTION we don't include those scores. Because, among other reasons, precisely that they are susceptible to review bombing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:USERG may also be a helpful resource. TNstingray (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You can only use reliable sources such as The Washington Post owned by Jeff Bezos 88.156.136.92 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't find The Washington post cited anywhere in this article; can you point me to that? Dumuzid (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Including the fan scores would be sensible, especially since there is a notable divergence between the critical score and the fan score. Editors cannot be expected to pronounce on the validity of unprovable accusations of review bombing versus simply scores which reflect shows which are very unpopular and receive a large number of bad reviews. Thats not our job. Is there verifiable evidence of review bombing, or just claims, largely by Amazon which may be treated with skepticism? In any event there is no reason the fan scores cannot be contextualised with accusations of review bombing, even if they are unverifiable, as they have certainly been reported by reliable sources. BrianDJohnson8 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Several reliable sources have already made mention of the disparity. These can certainly be used. But there is an existing MOS policy which says we don't use fan scores in a vacuum, and that policy makes good sense to me. You can certainly argue that said policy should be changed, or that we should ignore all rules, but for the time being, I think the best course is to use secondary sources to convey this information. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

‘Painful To Watch’: Viewers Hate ‘Lord Of The Rings: Rings Of Power,’ Which Critics Insist Is Another Example Of Racism | The Daily Wire I don't know how The Daily Wire goes in the reliability stakes. It is interesting in that it does not just mention the review scores, but looks at the reviews themselves, concluding that it is "a different story" than "review bombing" or "trolling". The article says Many of the people panning “Rings of Power” say it’s a visual masterpiece with an impressive score, but the dialogue is clunky and it’s difficult to connect with the characters. They are not angry about diversity initiatives. They just think it’s an unworthy adaptation. LowKey (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Daily Wire is listed as unreliable at WP:RSP, but that sort of thing from a better source is what we do need if we are going to mention these sorts of details in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This one? https://www.mic.com/culture/amazon-suspends-reviews-rings-of-power LowKey (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the below discussion, I don't think this is the best source for us to use, though again it does seem to have the wording we would need. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Turns out the "review bombing" source that we already had in the article includes discussion of the audience reviews on RT so I have expanded from that, plus added a bunch more other audience response stuff that I think gives a better idea of what the actual fan response is. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk Tweet Coverage

So, just now, X-Editor added a paragraph about Elon Musk's thoughts on the series, from Twitter, and was reverted by TNstingray arguing, in essence, that Musk's opinions were not notable. X-Editor re-added the paragraph, noting that Musk is the world's richest man. While I think that is a terrible rationale for inclusion here, the opinions have picked up coverage in reliable sources, and so, might be worth including. I will admit that I don't like including what essentially boils down to Twitter drama, even when verifiable. I also think there's a sort of infinite regression danger: do we also include Neil Gaiman's rejoinder to Musk? It also has garnered coverage and arguably, Gaiman is a more relevant figure than Musk for our purposes. So I guess I would lean against inclusion, but I am not dead set against it. I would like to hear what others think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this section. I had been in the process of responding before seeing the notification.

Elon Musk's position as the richest man in the world does not mean that his opinion on any random subject needs to be reflected in Wikipedia. The same goes for any other public figure, if said view is outside of their area of expertise. Wouldn't this fall under WP:UNDUE? Wikipedia does not collect things just because they are true.

Neil Gaiman is closer to the subject matter in terms of his professional career and contributions to society, so his stance would be more applicable. However, if it is in the context of Musk's opinion, then I think it is safe to just leave it out. I could be thinking of another article, but didn't we have a Gaiman quote in the Reception section? TNstingray (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The suggestion that Musk's thoughts on the series are notable simply because he is the richest man in the world is ridiculous, but the fact that he is getting coverage in terms of being a prominent person and a rival to Bezos does lend some credence to including it. I'm not totally against it with the right context and wording. We just don't want to encourage the addition of every random person who has an opinion. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is where I fall as well. If "richest man in the world" is enough, then literally all of Musk's tweets belong on Wikipedia. But again, I think there's almost as strong an argument for the Neil Gaiman response, so I still feel a bit at sea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Tolkien and race uses a Gaiman quote in the context of the show with this source:

I don't even think that Musk as a rival to Bezos makes his opinion worthy of inclusion, especially when it comes to film/television criticism. Otherwise, we also need to track down the opinions of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg, among others of course. See the ridiculous trail of thought? Even if it gets coverage, does that mean we need to come back and remove the section if Musk is surpassed in net worth? I guess we should wait and see, but I really don't think Musk warrants any mention in this page at the moment. TNstingray (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC) TNstingray (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think "richest man" is a bad rationale for inclusion. But I also think "being reported on in reliable sources" is a good rationale for inclusion. Using that metric, we don't need to track down any of the others you mention. Still, as I say, I am very much on the fence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand. It's just, everything he says and does is going to receive coverage. If it is going to be included, it should only be for the sake of highlighting Gaiman's response, as he is the one who actually warrants an opinion on the subject matter. TNstingray (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In expanding the audience response stuff in the article I saw that Musk's Tweet has definitely gotten a lot of coverage, but I think the "Casting backlash" section already has enough commentary without adding complaints from random people. I did want to note that his complaint about Galadriel is now included, but from different sources, and his Tweet is in several of the sources that I added so anyone using this section to find more info will come across it anyway. Happy to discuss if consensus ends up swinging the other way on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of the plutocrats: Musk vs. Bezos. And what is going on with Neil Gaiman? I recently finished watching Good Omens (great!) and The Sandman (good). Hopefully, this garbage show doesn't tank Amazon Prime, because I don't want good shows, like The Boys, to go down with the ship. Not to mention Twitch (even with all its flaws). It'll probably be reputational rather than financial, so maybe they'll keep playing pretend. I'll still continue watching btw 'cause the visuals are enough to entertain me. But it's still trash. Doesn't help that it has largely become a battle between right-provocateurs and imitation-progressives, which muddies the water more than anything. El_C 23:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, please stick to discussing the article. This is not a place for you to vent personal frustrations about the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I'll just block myself, which I've been known to do, though it has been over a decade. ;) El_C 00:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, come on. If anyone deserves WP:ROPE.... Dumuzid (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Why are fan reviews negative?

Are racists "review bombing" the Rings of Power? ...driven, in part, by an “anti-woke” backlash to the diverse casting in the prequel series, Which features non-white actors cast as elves and dwarfs. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/04/amazon-delays-rings-of-power-ratings-combat-fake-reviews Peter K Burian (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Because the Rings of Power is an absolute digusting perversion of Tolkiens work. 2A02:810D:8FC0:2C23:D956:4B2A:F87A:FB1C (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

People will often write or say things you don't like. You'll have a much happier life if you get used to it a bit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

NO, racists are not "review bombing" the Rings of Power. That is only the media campaign and damage control that Amazon drives to dismiss the overall negative criticism by Tolkien-fans and Jackson-fans of the show's content, poor writing, mediocre acting, bad pacing, mixture of expensive and cheap visuals, and utter disregard for the source material. The focus of criticism is now the Galadriel portrayal (who is called a Mary Sue and Karen by reviewers), so the racism claim is without substance beyond the usual noise. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, two things can be true at once. Dumuzid (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Means what? That Amazon is right in labeling all those who render negative reviews as racists, including me? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It is true that racists are review bombing the series, even if non-racist critics are also doing it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source for that or is it considered axiomatic? Something demonstrating that this is actually occurring? I.e. that review bombing is happening and that it is negative and primarily or at least significantly of racist origin? Given the 25 million people who watched the shows, the <20 thousand reviews on RT (last time I could get a view of the review count, it was about 10.4K) is not many at all (on the order of hundredths of a percent) and hardly seems to justify claims of bombing there (yes, my own analysis and RT is not AP, but given I have seen no source except an Amazon announcement without support, I am laying out reasoning here in discussion). There are certainly a lot of reviews at the extremes - and of those that I read, most of the very negative gave multiple detailed non-racist reasons while many (I hesitate to say most) of the very positive were brief enough to suggest bombing. There is a problem with equating people taking a negative view of the treatment of the source material as being "bombing" or even being "racist" - it is an assumption that is not really born out by the actual commentaries in reviews. Currently, the article does no say there is bombing and it does not say there isn't. It merely states that Amazon has suspended reviews and why, because we have no reliable source either way for the underlying fact (and realistically, won't ever have one unless someone turns up a documented plan that can be traced to action). All the "it is" and "it isn't" is just our opinions. LowKey (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we put "racists are review bombing the series" in the article. A whole other discussion does need to be had about expanding the reception section and handling all of the audience response stuff that is out there, but I have personally been putting it off until I have time to properly look at all of the sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

LowKey -- I apologize if I was unclear above. I don't think any of this belongs in the article at this time, but I can easily sum up my personal position: I am not naïve enough to believe that the negative reactions are entirely racial in character. I am also not naïve enough to believe that none of the negative reactions are racial in character. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's not go around slandering everyone who disliked the show as racist, we're not Amazon's PR. Let's not also assume review bombing just because Amazon says so or because there are a lot of low scores, otherwise we should also assume that all the top scores are paid Amazon interns artificially inflating the aggregators. Anyway, there's way too heat on this serie right now and the number of edits in the last two days is honestly staggering, I think we should at least wait for the episodes to fully air before drawing conclusions. Alves Stargazer (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out that lots of racist people dislike the show (which we all know is true) is not the same thing as "slandering everyone who disliked the show", and even if it was that does not mean we are "Amazon's PR" lol. The mention of review bombing that is in the article now comes from reliable sources, not anyone's ridiculous personal opinion of what is happening. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

On the flipside, why not also point out that lots of racist people like the show? That is equally true. The problem with both statements is that really they are just saying "there a lots of racists in the world" which has nothing to do with the show. LowKey (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

In this case though, race and its debated connection to Tolkien's lore is an intrinsic part of the conversation and coverage. TNstingray (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

LowKey, while I agree at some level with your point, consider the counterfactual: had the series been cast with all white actors, would the character and quantity of the 'backlash' have been the same? Dumuzid (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly I would say not quite but very nearly. I don't think the reaction would have been notably smaller, but perhaps may not have had the small element that seems to be disproportionately attributed. From everything I have read, apart from a very small minority, the issue isn't casting non-white characters in the show but which characters have been cast that way, and the stated reasons for casting that way (and there are many other major complaints not related to non-white casting at all). I have read/heard that complaint from many commentators, including quite a few non-white commentators (but nothing that would be accepted as reliable or giving due weight here). Given the societies in any of Tolkien's works, any given grouping is going to be somewhat homogenous so having heterogenous phenotypes within groupings is jarring, and for two groupings in particular (Elves and Numenoreans) Tolkien gave definite descriptions. There is nothing to say Southrons and/or Easterlings and/or other mannish societies where white (in fact I think I recall Tolkien describing at lest one as dark-skinned). I don't think (from memory) that JRRT ever stated a skin tone for dwarves, and there were 7 distinct clans, so that is fertile ground for speculation and creativity. "Normal" Hobbits were brown, so no problem if they are portrayed way. As @TNstingray has raised, race and racism was actually a major issue between some of the peoples of Middle-Earth. The races were actually genuinely different races though, unlike us. E.g. The distrust between elves and dwarves started over a particular event, but had become simply race-based. Sorry, this is probably way off-topic by now - although there is a link. LowKey (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"had the series been cast with all white actors, would the character and quantity of the 'backlash' have been the same"

Yes. The references to skin color of some of the cast is only a criticism towards not showing what Tolkien wrote, it is not racism towards the actors or the overall depiction of real-world race. The backlash would have been just as intense, because the quality of the show is abysmal even without the racist claims pushed to the front by Amazon and its shills throughout the media landscape. Nerddom has accepted black Vulcans, so it can get over black Elves or Dwarves. The pacing, dialog, camera work, costume design, makeup, acting would still be bad. And as stated before, the main focus of criticism now is the portrayal of Galadriel, which is unrecognizable in view of how Tolkien wrote her and what he wrote about her. Her Amazon-depiction has been described as insufferable, a Mary Sue, and a Karen all over social media, and even websites and print editions of entertainment and news magazines (that is, outside the quite extensive Amazon influence). But the other characters get their backlash as well. Elrond, Gil-galad, Celembrimbor, Finrod are nothing remotely like their original depictions in Tolkien's writings. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cush Neither were Frodo, Bilbo, Aragorn, Gimli, Arwen, Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron, Éowyn, Théoden, Faramir, Denethor, Saruman, Treebeard, or Tom Bombadil (oh wait) in Jackson's trilogy, just to name a few. And yet, my opinion is that it is the greatest film trilogy of all time. Adaptations change things for better or worse, and to get into the weeds of comparing to individual interpretations of Tolkien's work without reliable secondary sources is inappropriate for the scope of this page. Most of those sources have not been written yet. TNstingray (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Cush - I certainly agree there would have been some backlash with an all-white cast. I disagree that it would have been quite so strident or large-scale had that been the case. Reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@TNstingray: That is an exaggeration. Frodo, Bilbo, Aragorn, Gimli, Arwen, Elrond, Galadriel, Sauron, Éowyn, Théoden, Faramir, Denethor, Saruman, Treebeard in Jackson's LotR movies are based on the characters as they occur in the source material. There are changes for visual story-telling in a cinematic context, and some scenes have been given to other characters. RoP only took the names from the source material, but created completely original backstories. It is not an adaptation of Tolkien. At no time while watching the show would any viewer say "oh look, I recognize this scene from reading the books." As for the secondary sources, there a huge numbers of such sources, but for one reason or another WP does not see them as reliable, based on rather arbitrary policies. The well established Tolkien websites that have been around for decades do not count, but somehow journalists and pseudo-academic scholars do count, even if they are not independent of Amazon. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Which sources do you think are not independent of Amazon? Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, as El_C points out below, IMDB is one. Any others? Dumuzid (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, all those print and online magazines that have arrangements with Amazon about pre-release and/or free access to Amazon products, like Empire, Billboard, CBS, Cinema (Germany), ComicCon, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, Vaity Fair, Variety, etc.

BTW, I wanted to mention one other thing I missed in my earlier reply about the plot. The entire show is based on Gladriel's revenge quest for the death of her brother Finrod. If the writers had any clue, they would know that FINROD IS NOT DEAD, as he was one of only two Elves to be resurrected to then live on in Aman/Valinor. And the manner of his death would have precluded Galadriel ever having access to his deceased body, as shown in the first episode. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Cush, I really do mean this with respect, but this is very much not the place to have fights over canon. We all acknowledge absolutely that this thing plays fast and loose with Tolkien; to some degree that was inevitable given the estate's stance. Part of Tolkien's genius was creating a world so many wanted to inhabit and tell stories in--as I have said elsewhere (I think on this page!) just think how many fantasy stories start from the basis of "okay, there are elves, dwarves, and orcs." In a way, and I mean this with all due respect to the Professor as well, Middle-Earth has gotten even bigger than John Ronald himself. Your critiques are valid, and there's a place for them. It's just not here on Wikipedia. Sincerely, all the best. Dumuzid (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is exactly the place to present the show and the reaction to it as accurate as possible, including the actual substance of the rejection vs the attacks by Amazon on the Tolkien fans. I have had my own dealings with the Tolkien Estate and I know how restrictive they are, but that is no excuse to go completely off the rails to create some poor disconnected fan fiction and slap a big name on it.

"Middle-Earth has gotten even bigger than John Ronald himself" That is exactly the insulting attitude that Tolkien fans reject the show for. This is not like Jackson's approach. This is just woke stuff for woke's sake. It is Wikipedia's job to point that out. NPOV means to give a realistic overview of what is going on surrounding the content and publication of this product, not to treat each side of the argument as if they were equally rooted in reality. If and when big media companies lie, it is Wikipedia's job to give unbiased but accurate, encyclopedic information. Right now the article reads more like an advertisement placed by Amazon. ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

So I guess I don't count as a Tolkien fan because I fundamentally disagree with you in a number of ways? Dumuzid (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

We have talked in circles about this point. If you would help provide reliable sources for the fan backlash, then we will be able to discuss the actual changes to the article. Unfortunately, most people are coming to this talk page and complain, and I think that is because those reliable sources largely do not exist (yet). The reason for this is that it seems the vast majority of the opposing argument consists of "I don't like this because it doesn't follow the books." I understand wanting cinema to be a faithful adaptation of beloved literature, but the nature of adaptation means changing things. This has been the case for literally the entire existence of cinema, so reliable sourcing sees no reason to report the current backlash because most arguments fall apart under their own weight.

This is all original research on my part, but I am trying to get through to you Cush, because I can feel your passion and enthusiasm for Tolkien and his legendary work, and I would love to be able to work with you rather than against you. Once reliable sourcing roles in, we can make changes. Most of these have probably not yet been written, likely because the show has not come out in its entirety.

Regarding an earlier point, several Jackson characters are virtually unrecognizable from their Tolkienian counterparts (such as Denethor). I would argue that some of these fall into the same camp as Amazon who only took the names from the source material, but created completely original backstories. But that is as equally my opinion as your stance is, both coming from Tolkien fans. I have my own criticisms of the show if you must know, but I recognize that it is an adaptation, and that is what sets it apart just like Jackson's trilogies did, for better or for worse. That is what we have to reflect in this article at the moment, based on reliable secondary sourcing. I hope that we can move past this roadblock towards positive collaboration. TNstingray (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Just feel the need to note that Jackson departed pretty far from the books with the army of the dead/Battle of Pelennor Fields--and I think in that minor way it was a better narrative device than Tolkien's. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I am sure more reliable sourcing for the actual reception (rather than a particular vested-interested presentation and characterization of it) will grow and then should perhaps included in the reception section, or a linked article about the reception and merely summarized here. I am not sure if "adaption" is the best word for ROP but that is the word being used by sources so there you go. I think as far as screen presentation goes, the trend (even within the LOTR movie trilogy) was each new property was less of a faithful adaption than what had come before. All my OR and opinion, of course, but my main care here is to keep this article about this show. Although where it must reference Tolkien I am going to continue to insist on precision and accuracy. LowKey (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere on this page, I have expanded the audience response to cover more than just the casting backlash and I think it is much more balanced now as far as making it clear that not all fans are racist, audience responses are more nuanced than the article previously made it look, etc. Hopefully that helps resolve some of the concerns from this thread. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Not all fans are racist" is just terrible, and frankly offensive. It strongly implies that most fans are indeed racist. LowKey (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that is a ridiculous interpretation of what I said. Some individuals at this talk page felt there was too much focus on the racist backlash and not enough discussion of general fan complaints, I put a lot of time and effort into rectifying that in a way that follows Wikipedia guidelines and applies WP:DUEWEIGHT and this was a quick way of explaining that. Absolutely no need to get offended unless you want to be. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Amazon-owned IMDB: user reviews lower than 6 shall not pass

Shouldn't it be mentioned that capping user reviews scores at 6 is happening at the Amazon-owned IMDB? The same IMDB that we link to on the External links section of this and pretty much any show or film? Now, I've read pretty much all the books (including the Christopher Tolkien-compiled ones), but I'm not a purist. I'll take any good content and suspend my canon disbelief. Noldor sail-not-float genocide of the Teleri omitted — I'm fine with that. Et cetera, etc.

But I find it striking that someone like myself, who views themselves as an anti-racist (expressly so), would give the first two episodes a score of, I dunno, 3, or maybe 4 for the visuals, would not be allowed to submit an honest review. A trillion dollar corporation can probably browbeat most mainstream media outlets to do its positive reviews bidding, but it cannot do that for the general viewing public, who are overwhelmingly not racists. To me, the first two episodes came across as bad writing and dialogue, poor pacing, unlikable characters, repetitive score, and too many unnecessary subplots. Was Jeff Bezos personally involved in this dumpster fire?

Sorry, I didn't intend for this to turn into a long winded rant just to make the point that the article should mention that user reviews are capped at IMDB, specifically. I guess I'll end by saying that I have nothing against Amazon Studios, though this may spell their end (unless Bezos). They definitely have great shows that I'm a fan of, most recently The Boys (TV series). I also remember how much I liked their very first series, Patriot (TV series). But, in my view, this is just an objectively bad series that Amazon has spent so much money on, they now feel compelled to censor legit criticism. Personally, I don't think that approach is gonna work out for them, but I suppose at least Rotten Tomatoes remains uncensored for the time being.

Anyway, I'll stop talking now. I'll keep watching, and if it somehow starts getting good, as doubtful as this might be, I'll genuinely be happy. But wow. I didn't even remember that Amazon owned IMDB, but now I do. El_C 13:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C, per MOS:TVRECEPTION we don't generally include user reviews as a data point. We do have a cursory mention of this (in the context of review bombing concerns), but if you'd like to draft something else, I for one would be happy to consider it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware; I've been around long enough to pick up on that. Sorry, I realize my post is a bit long due to rant components, but I wasn't talking about making use of user reviews as data sets. As far as improvements to this page, I was just making the point that Amazon is censoring user reviews at their subsidiary, IMDB. Meanwhile, this article's only mention of IMDB is at the External links section. So I'm hoping to build the WP:CONSENSUS to add that mention. Thanks. El_C 14:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with that; I do think the best way to accomplish that is by enlarging the current small 'review bombing' note. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dumuzid. If you'd indulge me a bit more, I should note that I didn't think it was all bad. For example, the score got really repetitive at times (which I found quite grating), but other times, was really good. There is a good acting pool, but I just don't think they were given enough to work with. The writing is like a bad fanfiction that wouldn't even be allowed on a fanfiction site (again, not to be a purist, but still).

Ultimately, the series target audience is all over the place: is it meant for children, like with the quasi-Hobbits, who are really dirty for some reason (sorry, Ireland)? Is it meant for adults, like with the severed orc's head? I don't think even the writers knew, but that's what usually happens when a series is written by committee (and corporate marketing?). To quote the great Bob Marley: You can fool some people sometimes. But you can't fool all the people all the time. </rant> El_C 15:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually have yet to watch! Which honestly surprises me, somewhat. When I found out the Tolkien estate had not given the rights to the Silmarillion, I was dubious at best. And you know what? I am STILL reeling from finding out in the appendices that the Wizards were in fact Maiar. Put a whole different religious spin on it (which old John Ronald CERTAINLY intended), but I will forever hold on to my childhood beliefs that Gandalf was just a guy who studied the right stuff, really intensely, and was awesome as a result. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

For decades, I didn't even know there were appendices (these were not included in the Hebrew translations). I only found out that Gandalf was a Maia after reading the Hebrew translation of the Silmarillion. Later, I read a lot more, including in English. Tolkien does address that point directly in a concept that he titled the potency of spirit.

Interestingly, some of the greater Maiar were actually more powerful than minor Valar. I believe Tolkien, as a devout Catholic, justified having demigods derived from Nordic and Greek mythologies, the Icelandic Sagas, etc., as an Angelic Order. But, to your point, I think that not having the rights to the Silmarillion really knee-capped them.

Anyway, the OT is strong with this thread, but I do recommend you watch it and not just to keep up with the zeitgeist. The visuals are often really stunning (though also jarring at times), and unlike many die hard Tolkien fans, I'm not angry. I'm just dissapointed at the missed opportunity. I was so looking forward to this show. I also don't think it's a particularly progressive series, which its creators and some cast keep espousing, but rather, politically reactionary virtue-signaling masquerading as high fantasy. Sigh. El_C 15:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@EI C: has this alleged censorship of IMDb been reported in reliable sources? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97, It's El_C with an L, not an I. Most suspicious of all, people online have noted that all negative written reviews of the show on IMDb, which Amazon owns, have been wiped from the site. — source: Mic.com (link). El_C 23:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo.

Unfortunately, "people online" are not a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously, Amazon is not admitting to it, but you asked for a reliable source that mentions this alleged censorship of IMDb, so that is what I provided. El_C 00:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RSP for potential reliable sources. TNstingray (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you'll find that El_C has been around the Wikipedia block once or twice, and though he can have a puckish sense of humor (like mine, but generally better), I can assure you he knows the basics. Just a word to the wise. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid. TNstingray, I'd wager that, over the years, I've contributed to WP:RSP more than most here. A common misconception, though, is that for a source to be deemed reliable it needs to be mentioned at RSP. I assure you that that in not so. El_C 02:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@El_C My apologies. I meant no disrespect. I also learned something today, so thank you. TNstingray (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

TNstingray, not at all, no apology needed. But I appreciate that, thank you. El_C 13:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately El_C was not quoting "people online" but a secondary source. So, when can that go in the article? LowKey (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The source is quoting "people online". It doesn't matter that it is a secondary source, if they are just repeating what "people online" are saying then we cannot verify that this is actually true. If Amazon is truly censoring IMDb reviews then I'm sure a reliable source will actually report on that at some point and we can use them. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I just went and had a look myself at IMDb and there are plenty of reviews under 6/10, in fact there are almost as many 1 star reviews as there are 10 and the average rating is 6.7/10, so I'm not sure what we are even discussing this for as there is clearly no "cap" to prevent low scores. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I had a look at IMBb a couple of days ago and there were only reviews >5 then. Likewise I find on RT I can see the percentages but haven't been able to get the numbers of reviews (or even see any reviews) for the last couple of days. Maybe IMDb restored whatever they were holding back after it was reported, or maybe whatever problem there is at the site isn't affecting everyone or has been resolved. I don't think we can know until someone investigates/analyses and publishes. LowKey (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, there wasn't anything below 6, when I looked at the time of writing the OP, hence the header. So indeed maybe there were changes or restorations or new permissions. But, adamstom97, you're misunderstanding the WP:RS guideline with these comments. When a 2ndry source publishes something, whether we personally like it or not, it can be used as attribution for whatever is being cited. We don't really put on our detective hats and go do the job of that 2ndry source ourselves by weighing on their primary sources, in this instance, "people online." We're not its editorial bd.

Whatever metric that 2ndry source uses for that (a thousand people online, a million people online, etc.), or even just the mention of "people online," per se. — as far as the article goes, that is for other 2ndry sources to comment on. If a reliable source deems something worthy of publishing, then we, as editors, may do so, too. And it strikes me that you asked for a source, were given a source, perhaps didn't like what that source said, so you reject it, effectively putting on the hat of its editorial bd. (i.e. bad primary source). What, anything short of Amazon's own admission when it comes to these online happenings cannot be added? That's just not how the RS guideline works. We, as a tertiary source have limited discretion on these matters. El_C 13:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRUIT explains nicely why that is not the case, if an otherwise reliable source gets information from an unreliable source then that information does not suddenly become reliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Then there is going to be a lot of stuff in the article as it is that is going to need to be taken out. You have pretty much argued El_C's point many times to keep things in. I think I am done for a while. One can only beat their head on the bricks so may times. LowKey (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97, that essay is not a policy or guideline, so I don't think it's a good counterweight to my points concerning the WP:RS guideline. El_C 17:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, is Amazon being poisonous? Are "people online" being poisonous? I suspect it's a little of column A and a little of column B. But what you still fail to address wrt my argument above is the following: what gives you the authority to decide that it's one or the other. Or both. Or none.

Again, you put on the hat of that source's editorial board, but that goes outside our purview as editors. Please review the following areas of the Wikipedia:No original research policy: WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:TERTIARY. Thanks. El_C 17:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

EL_C, while I agree that WP:FRUIT is not particularly helpful (I am a big proponent of NOT fisking how reliable sources go about their business), I am lukewarm at best on the mic.com quote. Certainly a reliable source, to my mind, but what exactly are they saying? That some indeterminate number of people online are saying a thing. Okay, for what it's worth, but as presented, I don't think it's terribly strong evidence for the underlying assertion (that negative reviews have been wiped) and I think to quote it directly would be giving it too much import. But it's Friday, and I'll probably have soup, so life is good. Just an unasked for opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

And I guess I held down shift a bit long, so yes, I am shouting your name. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, WP:DUE is a valid argument. But unresponsively citing that essay, in a flawed way, to boot, that's what I take issue with. I still think it's worth mentioning, at least in passing. But it isn't a clobbering hill giant for me. So I'm happy to go with the flow, either way.

BTW, ep 3 yesterday was okay'ish, actually, so credit where credit's due. At least the notion of swimming the ocean for hundreds of miles is done. And Galadriel also seems a little less unlikeable, so that's good, for the lead (*wink*). Scene from episode one (verbatim). Elrond: But Galadriel, as a friend, I wanna know how you're doing. Galadriel: Get fucked. I wanna speak to your manager! //And... scene.

Anyway, thanks and hope you have a great weekend, too! El_C 19:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I never said WP:FRUIT was a policy or guideline, I said it was a good explanation for why we shouldn't use reliable sources that are clearly getting their information from unreliable places. If you want a guideline alternative, how about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made. Mic.com may be considered a reliable source, but lets look at the specific statement that you are wanting to use it for (people online have noted that all negative written reviews of the show on IMDb, which Amazon owns, have been wiped from the site. All that remain there are largely glowing takes on the series). This source is not actually claiming that Amazon removed negative reviews from IMDb, and it isn't providing any insight determined from their own investigation or editorial process, it is simply relaying what "people online" are saying. And we know those "people online" are wrong because there are plenty of negative reviews for the series on IMDb (we can see that for ourselves and we have other reliable sources also saying that in the article). If someone temporarily removed negative reviews on IMDb and there was an explanation for that in reliable sources then potentially that could be noteworthy for inclusion, but this source doesn't say any of that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Typo

In Episodes, episode 3. "mark of Sauron is actually of map of the Southlands" Did the author mean "actually a map of"? 99.153.244.99 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it has been fixed. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)