Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Critic's Score (Rotten Tomatoes) appears uniquely odd for Rings of Power!

WP:NOTAFORUM discussion. Explained multiple times. Please keep suggestions and criticisms rooted in Wikipedia policy.

Out of casual curiosity I examined the current critic's score of RoP on Rotten Tomatoes. Currently it stands at 85%. There were only 4 Critical Reviews linked on the site and each was lacklustre with 1 tomato and 3 rotten. One thing however that did catch my eye was that the average score calculated amongst the critics was reported as 2/10 (20%) from 466 reviews total. When calculating the Tomatometer Rotten Tomatoes does its own assessment of a review (Good vs Bad) and then calculates the percentile to provide the Tomatometer (% good). It also maintains a score (presumably that of the original Reviewers) which it then averages. If I understand this correctly - the average rating of the Reviewers is 2/10 and yet Rotten Tomatoes has assessed the majority of those Reviews (398 of 466) as positive/fresh - thus coming up with its 85% rating (398/466)x100%. There is obviously a huge discrepancy between these scores as it appears the average critic is marking the show as poor and yet the Tomatometer appears to say the opposite. From just a casual browse this appears to be unique to RoP. For example, a comparison with some other shows (Tomatometer / Average Score(%) [Difference] ): Rings of Power(S1) - 85 / 20 [ 65 ] Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker - 52 / 61 [9] Wonder Woman 1984 - 58 / 61 [3] LoR: Return of the King - 93 / 87 [6] Wednesday(S1) - 71 / 68 [3] The variance between the Tomatometer and the average critic score appears in reasonable agreement (<10%) for all these shows, excepting for the RoP instance (65%). Can somebody please provide a cogent explanation as to why there might be such a huge discrepancy between the two scores in RoP? In the absence of such an explanation I think it reasonable to suggest that the Rotten Tomatoes score for RoP is suspect! It would of course be interesting to see if this apparent phenomenon spills over to other rating sites! 144.134.150.203 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC) This is fascinating, but not really a basis on which to emend the article per WP:OR. I have no idea why any of this might be, as I know precious little of Rotten Tomatoes or their methodology, but if you can find some sort of corroboration in a reliable source, we might have something to talk about. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Rotten Tomatoes data features large in the article even appearing in a prominent trend graph highlighting the show's ongoing reception amongst critics - so it plays an outsized influence on the Article's claims - the data (Tomatometer / Average critic score) appears to be an outlier when compared to other shows on the site. As I guess it's original research the original source refers to the data taken from the Rotten Tomatoes website [ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_rings_of_power/s01 ]. Other episodes as per their pages. If the interpretation of the average critic score is correct (and here I would implore the interpretation of an expert) then the inference is that Rotten Tomatoes has skewed the Tomatometer during tabulation by interpreting third-party reviews as favourable (when it normally would not for other shows). The variance between the [Tomatometer / Average critic score] sticks out like a sore-thumb for RoP vis-a-vis other shows on the Website. I would also suggest that Amazon owned, affiliated or influenced parties not be used in the article as per the obvious conflict-of-interest issues that arise (don't know if Wikipedia has any policies regarding that). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC) A better tack here (though I have no clue if it is viable) would be to find other reliable sources or aggregators that cast things in a different light, and perhaps try to add context. For Wikipedia purposes, "fisking" an otherwise reliable source in this way without more to back you up is always going to be an uphill battle. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC) OK - Thank you (didn't know what "fisking" was before you mentioned it ... but now I do ... I don't think that pointing out aberrant data falls under that category - it's aberrant data (evidently) - it needs an explanation as to why it deviates from the norm especially since the variance between a score of 85% and 20% completely changes the entire derived meaning of that data. For example a score of 85% and 20% on a mathematics exam indicates two very different outcomes)! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC) It is interesting that Rotten Tomatoes is majority owned by NBC Universal - guess what News Channels & Publications were running the prep. work for the reimagining of Tolkien's world (and carrying promos and direct advertising for Rings of Power ... a degree of access that should be mutually profitable for many years to come should they play nice with their Paymaster) ... a tiny, tiny conflict of interest (10's of millions of dollars tiny for NBC and other media companies and 100's of millions (billions?) tiny for Amazon)! This is not the first article that I have seen in Wikipedia that may be surreptitiously (some no doubt will argue the opposite) carrying promotional / buttress material for the content-creator. I have seen it done in several other articles most notably that of the author/historian Caroline Elkins which quoted and cited 'glowing' reviews which, it transpired on closer inspection, were actually written by the Publishers of her books! This is not unique to Wikipedia and media sources such as The Guardian are well known for disguising 'advertising' as authoritative commentary! It is however a corrosive problem for a source that claims to be an encyclopaedia! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:7DDD:A9C4:602A:8A16 (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC) JUST FYI: I have added some more figurative data deriving from Critic Reviews as before for Rotten Tomatoes from similar genres and the latest Star Wars trilogy (which was similar in fan backlash) for comparison: Tomatometer - Average Score(%) [Difference] ): LoR: Fellowship of the Ring: 91 - 82 [9] LoR: Two Towers: 95 - 85 [10] LoR: Return of the King: 93 - 87 [6] The Hobbit (An Unexpected Journey): 64 - 66 [2] The Hobbit (The Desolation of Smaug): 74 - 68 [6] The Hobbit (The Battle of the Five Armies): 59 - 63 [4] Wheel of Time (S1) 82 - 70 [12] Star Wars (The Force Awakens): 93 - 83 [10] Star Wars (The Last Jedi): 91 - 81 [10] Star Wars (Rise of SkyWalker): 52 - 61 [9] ST-D (S1): 82 - 70 [12] ST-D (S2): 81 - 73 [8] ST-D (S3): 91 - 77 [14] ST-D (S4): 88 - 77 [11] ST-SNW (S1): 99 - 81 [18] at [65] the Rings of Power is definitely an outlier - something very odd appears to be happening in the analysis! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:E460:6D38:B6AA:E4FA (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Things make a lot more sense (including the current state of this article and the complete absence of any criticism) when you understand that Wikipedia exists solely to reinforce neoliberal establishment consensus and talking points; not to represent objective reality. To simplify, right wing trolls hate this show, and therefore we must pretend that the show is good, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is largely hated with prejudice by Tolkien fans across the political spectrum. There is a never-ending list of WP:BLAHBLAH that professional wikipedia editors will use to dismiss this reality and prevent anyone from changing the article to accurately reflect it. TurtleZoos (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC) You forgot to mention that we're all paid by Amazon, otherwise, spot on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Sadly I think most do it for free. And by the way, how does Star Trek: Discovery rank? I recall something very similar happening with it, where the "critical consensus" was the polar opposite of the fanbase response, and there is little mention of any criticism on its wikipedia page. All criticism was similar dismissed as "racist/sexist trolling" because the Captain is a black woman. TurtleZoos (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Don't know and don't care! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC) You've made two utterly useless responses to me. Are you just here to troll? TurtleZoos (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Apparently I am here solely to reinforce neoliberal establishment consensus and talking points, but with that I'll cease bothering you. All the best. 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC) That love-fest really made it all worth it (and I get the culture and emergent counter-culture ... and yes can derive sense/nonsense from that) ... but seriously would like to know why the Rotten Tomatoes score is so bent after having seen it and really don't have the inclination (or will-power) to read through 400+ critical reviews to have to do my own analysis ... anyone? I put Star Trek Discovery in the table above since you mentioned it and yes it was a horrifically bad show appealing to the 'modern' cafeteria set and so naturally rated well with critics vis-a-vis 'normal' people - but no large deviation as per Rings of Power. I then added Strange New Worlds and there is quite a large deviation there (18) - so that's a mildly interesting figure skewed by the fact that Rotten Tomatoes only adjudged one critical review of 81 as negative and what that automatically suggests to me (see I knew something was gathering in my mind other than thoughts of dinner). The average score is a better indicator than the Tomatometer (but probably not something Rotten Tomatoes can patent/and or characterise as its own) - and the problem that engenders for this article is that for Rings of Power that score is currently 20 for some unknown reason!2001:8003:70F5:2400:E460:6D38:B6AA:E4FA (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC) It is certainly a happy accident that the benefits of review aggregator "error" like what you have observed here consistently go in one direction. Of course this is an issue far larger than any one topic - certainly far larger than this vanity television project watched by so few that the corporate invention of there being some organized 'racist cabal' of rabid lore purists angered by Amazon's "modern" interpretation of Tolkien's world would be giving the series's reach too much credit - but it finely illustrates why Wikipedia, at the tail-end of the access media process, will never be considered a reliable source. These issues are simply the latest of many to highlight the need at the page level for vigilance against UPE, sponsored content, and all industry givens that make reliable sources demonstrably unreliable and article slop like this one inevitable. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Just thought it would be worth pointing anyone interested to Wikipedia's thoughts on its own reliability. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Thank you and appreciations for the work you do. Circular sourcing would appear to be highly problematic in articles such as this, as many of these apparently independent sources are probably owned by the same media companies/conglomerates or cabals of the same (not to mention the contemporary forces that encourage people within these organisations to think the same)! Modern movies are in general, rubbish because the feedback mechanisms required to improve them do not work (precisely because content creators are able to eschew critical feedback on the basis of ideological/elitist/other grounds. Alternatively (and equally depressing), the economics of modern media content is no longer reliant on quality). Maybe Wikipedia might want to look at the origin of sources that contribute to an article (e.g. 100s of references that can be traced back to 2 or 3 media companies is not really 'balance') - not saying that's the case here - but I do see echoes of the Caroline Elkins article I referred to earlier which was likely crafted by her publicist and had removed all prior criticisms of her work and actively kept it off the page - that's functioning as promotional not, encyclopaedic content! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:514F:41EF:1494:4EFA (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC) Helpful as ever, cheers. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not here to platform conspiracy theories and other "alternative facts". These observations are more at home on r/kotakuinaction. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks for rolling out the 'ol buzzwords (they were missing from the conversation). You should read some Wikipedia articles on History (or History Revisioning) and qualify your statement against these. Articles written by 20-something ideologues that quite successfully distort whole tracts of History for an entire generation of people. Wikipedia purports to be an Encyclopaedia and some would like to nudge it towards that role as in many, many articles it instead fulfils the role of propagandist and (as perhaps in this instance) a mouthpiece for advertising agencies. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:C924:4CF0:377D:D967 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC) WP:DROPTHESTICK 46.97.170.191 (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM. This might be worth pointing out for the new IP editor - your personal opinion as to how valuable the OR documented here is or whether or not it is "conspiratorial" or constitutes "alternative facts" does not have any bearing on what it actually is. Simply invoking WP:DROPTHESTICK in response to a user's first response to a bad faith comment made less than twenty-four hours ago is unjustified and deliberately WP:GAME. Though original research by nature, it points out a major flaw with a key source the topic relies on for several of its many contested statements, nearly all of which justifiably continue to be criticized on grounds of pro-content creator bias, potential UPE, WP:GAME, etc. TLDR: It is a discussion worth having, try to be more open-minded towards views you personally disagree with. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I would agree it's a conversation worth having; just not here. I don't really think it's Wikipedia appropriate at all, but something that might be raised at WP:RSN or the like. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC) I agree that this talk page may not be the appropriate venue, though given that the full extent of the problem for the time being is unknown and is currently only shown to apply to this one television show, the odds of changing WP policy to address issues of opinion/tone within this one article are low. As continued use of the source makes it impossible to maintain a WP:NPOV within the article today, however, the article will be amended to achieve some semblance of balance. Though biased sources are not necessarily disallowed on bias alone, any biased source is not necessarily required to be used. A situation as unique such as this negatively affects RT's validity and weight as a source for this topic, therefore, it may be best to exclude it entirely until a change is made on RT's part to more accurately reflect critical opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC) With all due respect, I think you've fallen victim to the poor naming of WP:NPOV. By its own terms, it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Thus, saying "we should ignore this otherwise reliable source to maintain NPOV" is a logical nullity. You can certainly try to show that the source should not be used on this topic, that's fair game, but I have yet to see a source backing up this idea; I see a lot of interesting original research, but I, for one, am not willing to sort of throw our typical guidelines out the window on that basis. As ever, if you can establish a consensus without me, then you don't have to worry about my quibbles! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC) There is a logical nullity you may be falling victim to yourself in that when dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider [...] the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. By your letter-of-the-law interpretation of an easily-misinterpreted policy (an easy mistake to make), it is fair to knowingly represent editorially-biased views based on the simple fact the source happens to be otherwise reliable with regard to other topics, thus negating the goal of WP:NPOV: to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.. In short: that this particular source is otherwise reliable for any other topic does not make it specifically a necessary addition to a given topic. I'm sure there are plenty of equally reliable sources that are not majority-owned by NBCUniversal that carry a similarly "mostly positive" viewpoint. Even short of outright exclusion or the band-aid solution of balancing the RT material with equally-biased information representing the opposite POV, any continued inclusion of the RT material makes in-text attribution required (ie: "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; "Rotten Tomatoes, an American review-aggregation website for film and television majority-owned by Amazon Studios-affiliated NBC Universal, summarized critical response to Rings Of Power as..."). All fair, but I stand by what I said: I, personally, would need to see something more than ipse dixit for this allegation of bias. Perhaps you can provide it! But until then, it's a no from me (which consensus might make otherwise irrelevant). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC) You are certainly entitled to that opinion! Have a nice day. Thought it might be worth mentioning that the same source removed a comment using WP:DENY to an earlier statement that I made in the section:"Possible attempt at false balance hidden in plain sight" that they open as a pretext to removing a cited observation that they find objectionable in the article. In that thread another apparent Editor then welcomed the input of this Editor?/Commentator and expresses delight in working with someone of a shared mindset/temperament. At the end of this discourse I pointed out the nature of the conversation they were having and how it was directed towards an outcome simply by virtue of the excessive amount of invectives employed (obviously they didn't like the critique and so one of them removed it using WP:DENY - this is used to address Trolling. "Trolling is when someone deliberately tries to upset others online" - if the individual concerned feels upset when I point out that they have in the preceding paragraphs elected to slur and slander whole groups of people using multiple invectives in order to advance their point ... then "sorry" I guess?). Two persons (both are Editors?) engaging to change an article because they don't like a dissenting statement from a cited source and then shutting down any critique by exercising inapplicable and seemingly arbitrary WP:* is not healthy and should be a huge red flag. Such behaviour might give weight to the suggestion of editorial bias when shaping this article!2001:8003:70F5:2400:5C2D:C27:374F:89B (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Do you have the usernames for these editors on hand? This does seem to be the pattern when reviewing the talk page archives and article statistics. From a quick glance at the article's authorship attribution measured by character count excluding spaces, 83.6% of the text within the current version of the article was written by the same three editors over the course of several years — 79.8% of which is attributable to a single editor — each of whom have expressed and been called out by numerous editors for expressing the same sentiments that can be found within the article. There is evidence for WP:OWN within the article, WP:GAME in favor of the content creator throughout the article's talk page archives, and WP:HA of presumably good-intentioned editors from what I can see. The article is a strong candidate for WP:NPOVN and WP:STN, I would imagine it is unlikely for any constructive changes to the article or its talk page environment to occur without some unfortunately necessary sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC) I don't mean to be that guy (but maybe I am that guy?), however we are once more quickly veering toward WP:NOTAFORUM territory. If there are concerns about particular editors (including me!), I would advise raising it with them or taking it to the appropriate noticeboard. These sorts of "conspiracy whispers" are not helpful and not really directed at improving the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Your swift invocation of WP:NOTAFORUM and reply to a substantial message suggesting the conversation move to the appropriate noticeboards with a request to take the conversation to the appropriate noticeboards have certainly been noted, Dumuzid. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by V-Moltisanti (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC) If you could sign your posts, that would be helpful, just add four tildes to the end of your edit. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Some severe last word syndrome going on with the Upwork editors today, whew. Intervention is absolutely needed at this point. There is no way for a neutral editor to contribute to the article or engage in civil discussion without attracting the toxicity of the same handful of bad apples. 1-jVX-9 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Critics Score (Rotten Tomatoes) Part 2 - Yes it is problematic!

OK had some spare time and did a perusal of some Reviews (only 16) and while I am no cinematic expert, the scoring method a rough approximation of the Rotten Tomatoes method and the sample set small I think it’s fairly easy to come to some tentative conclusions:

I typed in Rings of Power reviews on Google search and knocked them off as I found them. I did not include some (either reviews of other reviews or, those requiring a subscription to view). I make no claim to their accreditation or worth … simply that they were the first ones to come back from a Google Search.

1) Interestingly, the majority of Reviewers do not engage in scoring.

In the event no score was provided I provided my own simplified 4 star scoring system and marked any score >= 2* a tomato on the Tomatometer rating system.

4* amazing

3* good

2* average

1* poor

abysmal

2) The ‘quality’ of Reviewers varied markedly from those that gave a superficial take on the series to those that delve into cinematic attributes and judge them individually.

3) There were two outliers in the reviews (amazing and abysmal) but most were of the general conclusion that it was an average TV series with judgement reserved for later seasons.

4) My rating system (average score) was more favourable than the RottenTomatoes (apparent) delivering more than 20% (55%).

5) The Tomatometer is not a good estimation of how good a show is: Rotten Tomatoes is going to rate high on even average shows because while the majority of Reviews were lackluster - only one was actively saying it was unwatchable or poor and so in my interpretation of how Rotten Tomatoes works for my sample set that would probably score 15/16 - 94% and yet with my rudimentary scoring system the average review score is 55%.

TomatoMeter-LikeRating : 94 %

My average score : 55%

The problem with the aggregation system in Rotten Tomatoes is that a show such as Rings of Power which has acknowledged problematic pacing, character development, etc. … is going to rate high because the spectacle alone of a Tolkien Work and $$$ of special effects is going to make such an enterprise eminently watchable by the Rotten Tomato metric regardless of any other attributes.

CONCLUSION: You cannot generalise as to the critical 'quality' of a show based on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer and any generalisation to the effect that it was "well received by critics" is not what the score conveys. Having read the individual reviews that made up the scoring 94% is not a fair reflection of the overall critical analysis - a lukewarm 55% is probably a better assessment.

I could not say the same for other aggregators (IMDB etc. but I suspect it’s going to be a similar story).

Data:

The list of the Reviews I examined is below (if someone knows how to tabulate, please do and I use the anglo? dating regime (dd/mm/yyyy)).

Review: Data: Score (percent) : “select commentary”

Forbes (18/10/2022) : 0 “This is not a good fantasy story even divorced from Tolkien’s work.“

The Review Geek (17/10/2022): 50 “Rings of Power is not just one of the most disappointing shows of the year, it’s shockingly also one of the worst written and produced”

LA Times (13/10/2022): - N/A

IGN: (29/10/2022) : 100% “The Rings of Power largely succeeds by staying faithful to J. R. R. Tolkien’s themes and tone, if not all the specifics of his canon. Some inconsistent plotting and unnecessary misdirection slows it down, but doesn’t derail the story, and when it reaches its climax in the sixth episode it all comes together brilliantly”

Slant (16/9/2022) : 62.5 “Given the lack of quests and central commanding figures, it often makes for less-than-gripping drama.”

IndieWire (17/10/2022) : 50 “The Rings of Power” characters are written to be effortlessly interpreted; ambiguity and discord aren’t part of the equation. (Even in the finale, when the major twists rest on two characters’ role reversals, one has to clarify who he really is by comically shouting, “I… am… GOOD!“)

TIME 31/10/2022) : 50 “Can Payne and McKay carve out a space for complexity and ambiguity in yet another Middle-earth story where good people of various humanoid species team up to fight shadowy, monstrous avatars of evil? It’s probably not impossible, but they haven’t done it yet.”

New York Times (1/11/2022) : 50 “Amazon’s pricey, gorgeous fantasy spectacle delivers what fans expect, but it could thrive by giving them what they don’t.”

Cultured Vultures (14/10/2022) : 75 “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power overcomes a rocky start to set a solid foundation for Amazon Studios’ Middle-earth adaptation – although Tolkien purists will want to check out early.”

The Economist (2/9/2022) : N/A - Subscription required

The Corner (16/10/2022) : 50 “Now that the first season of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has ended, I find it difficult to make up my mind.”

Portalist (17/10/2022) : 50 “The Amazon show is mostly a mess, but there's redemptive potential.”

Cosmic Circus (19/10/2022): 75 “Overall, I was more than happy with season one of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. The Lord of the Rings trilogy “

Polygon (21/10/2022): 50 “None of these trips, however, are journeys, not in the Campbellian sense. And this, I would argue, is a big part of why The Rings of Power may feel so hollow: So few of its characters grow.“

The Gamer (19/10/2022): 50 “Ultimately, I think the series relied too much on referencing the Jackson trilogy when it could have been forging its own path. Too many moments are references rather than just doing something new.“

Tom’s Guide (21/10/ 2022): 75 “Unlike House of the Dragon, The Rings of Power is going for grandiose storytelling. And, so far, it's my favorite of the two.”

downthetubes.net (27/11/2022): 75 “There, I’ve said it; I enjoyed The Rings of Power, despite a tidal wave of YouTube channels telling me not to.”

The Escapist( 14/ 10 /2022): 25 “The result of all this convoluted plotting, driven by the need to cram at least two episodes of plot into a single episode to preserve a set of mystery boxes with obvious solutions, is that there is no space for actual character work.” 144.134.150.203 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, "lukewarm" accords much better with my sense of reception as well as my own personal take (I watched the first episode and have yet to go back), and this is an interesting assessment, but we are still very much in WP:OR territory here. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think posting to this page is working at the wrong level of abstraction. At the two extremes, either Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source, in which case we're going to show its conclusions a lot of deference, or it's not and it should not be used. What it seems to me you are putting together is something like an argument for the latter proposition. I would encourage you to try to condense this a bit and post it at WP:RSN for thoughts there. It would definitely bolster your argument if you could point to other reliable sources that said something like "hey, Rotten Tomatoes is full of it." For me, what you are doing is interesting, but not really Wikipedia-source stuff, if you'll forgive the terminology. That said, should a consensus here or at the noticeboard disagree, I will not complain. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

My mind is thinking: "too much work for too little effect" but may take it up there or in a more comprehensive form on another platform! Will be leaving this page now - thanks for your input. 144.134.150.203 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is original research. Note also that the Tomatometer is not the average score of the collected reviews, but the proportion of collected reviews that are positive, so it will inevitably produce different results to your own experiment. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing awards and nominations

Hello, any reason why the accolades list is missing key awards and nominations? The Rings of Power won two awards at the Movie Music UK Awards and one award at the LifeArt Festival. They were also nominated for one award at Camerimage. Is there a particular reason why these four awards and nominations specifically are excluded from the list? 2603:6080:8607:F22:64B4:4CB1:25A6:26C2 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The article is updated by volunteers who don't always catch things, if you see something missing you should feel free to add it yourself. Note that there is nothing in the TV manual of style to prevent any of those awards from being added, but per MOS:FILMACCOLADES we generally avoid awards that do not have their own Wikipedia article and I think that is a good rule of thumb to be consistent with here. That rules out Movie Music UK and the LifeArt Festival, but looks like Camerimage can be added. If you have a reliable source supporting that one then feel free to add it in. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have found sources for the Camerimage nomination so that is in the articles now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Season articles

Hi all, I have not been very active at this article since the show started airing, but I have come back to complete the work I had started on Draft:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1) and Draft:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 2) and hopefully be a bit more involved moving forward. These two articles are more than ready to be moved to the mainspace now, they meet WP:GNG and WP:NFTV and this article is in the "probably should be divided" category of WP:SIZERULE and only going to continue expanding now there are multiple seasons happening.

This is really just a courtesy notice to say that I plan to move the season articles to the mainspace and will then be removing/summarising the season-specific information at this article. I don't think this move is going to be controversial but there may be some questions about what goes at the season articles versus this one. In that case I am happy to discuss. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Go for it! Glad to see some positive conversation on this talk page! TNstingray (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now made my changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Adamstom.97: I would query whether the removal of all meaningful critical discussion of the show apart from a comparison with House of the Dragon to a sub-article on the first season, when the second season is still most likely the better part of two years from release, is in compliance with NPOV, specifically WP:WEIGHT. Is the assumption (WP:CRYSTAL?) being made that the bizarrely affected Irish accents will be gone in season 2, and therefore the one thing every Irish critic noted about the show should only be discussed in the article on the first season? (Which season, I should note, is the entirety of the show for the foreseeable future.)

On a separate note, is there a reason your overhaul of the article undid this edit? If it was conscious, then I would like an explanation, but if it was accidental (such as being the result of your having begun drafting your overhaul more than three months prior overlaying it on the live article, do you have any intention to go through the page history to restore any other good-faith, constructive edits that were lost?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Criticism specifically regarding the first season belongs on the page for the first season. Criticism specifically regarding the second season belongs on the page for the second season. The House of the Dragon comparison currently concerns the show as a whole, and both shows will have multiple seasons. As both shows evolved over the next few years, perhaps its placement will need to be re-evaluated.

I would also argue that you are equally assuming that the alleged problems with the Irish accents will continue into the second season, so I don't really know how to break this down other than the above methodology.

I would assume the edit regarding Tolkien's letters was to more accurately explain what these letters are for the average reader. That's my assumption derived from basic context clues, but Adam can respond for himself if further justification is needed. Both options seem fine to me.

TNstingray (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am open to having a better summary of the season info here and have had a brief discussion about that same issue at User talk:Debresser. We just need to be very careful, considering how sensitive this topic is, that we accurately reflect the information contained at the season article. I think we will struggle to provide an accurate summary that is both concise and doesn't rile up the editors who have strong opinions about the show (either way). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

In response to the Easter Egg thing, I have reviewed that and will make an update to address both our concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Irish Claims

Why is there nothing regarding the concerns of anti-Irish depictions in the series? 2A00:23C8:172B:3101:7425:E368:83F3:B727 (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware of these; could you provide reliable sources to this effect? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

This is covered at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1)#Critical response. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The Stranger or the stranger?

There was a short conversation in the archives that did not really go anywhere regarding the capitalization of the "s" in "stranger", of course referring to Daniel Weyman's character in the show. Does anyone have any input here? Personally, I feel that it should be capitalized, as it makes the cast lists and plot summaries jarring to read. Also, it appears that the vast majority of sourcing refers to him with the capital "S". And most notably, he is referred to with the capital "S" on the website for Amazon Studios.[1] TNstingray (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delayed response as I have been busy off-wiki. MOS:TVCAST doesn't say anything explicit about this but MOS:FILMCAST says to "avoid capitalizing common nouns in roles" which I felt made sense to apply here as well. His name is not literally "The Stranger" and he is never called that in the show, it is just the term being used for crediting until they reveal his actual name. It is common for studios to capitalize generic names like "The Woman in Red" when they are referring to characters / listing credits but our style guidelines should generally take precedence over that. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Tellingly, you should probably have said "the woman in red", without capitals. Debresser (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that this is a different situation than what is discussed at MOS:FILMCAST. It makes sense for common nouns to be presented in lowercase: security guard, police officer, bystander, bank teller, etc. I just feel that this is an example where the name is more of a temporary title rather than a common noun. He's not just a stranger (like the two human hunters in the first episode); he's the Stranger, a role with greater importance in the narrative. Like the Blue Wizards or some other parallel. Capitalizing the name also helps make it stand out in plot summaries, which would be an aid to the reader. TNstingray (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The source reference, https://www.polygon.com/23403120/rings-power-who-is-stranger-wizard-actor-daniel-weyman, uses "The Stranger", and Wikipedia should follow its sources. "The Stranger" is a proper name. It is not a common noun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Critical response should also mention Audience (User) Score

The subheading "Critical response" should also have a paragraph about the Audience (user) score which is much lower than the critics. For example on Rotten Tomatoes the Audience score is 38%. On Metacritic the user score is 2.8 out of 10 (Based on 5,882 User Ratings) which is generally unfavorable. On IMDB they've hidden the average user score. Artanisen (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Please visit the talk page archives on this topic; it's been discussed many times. You will, however, find more information at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1) § Audience response. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on

@Debresser: This series is based on The Lord of the Rings and its appendices, per the onscreen credits. We already have sources in the article that clearly support this as well, please read the Writing section for more details. This series is not based on other Tolkien works, as Amazon does not have the right to adapt those. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: This is the e-copy of the Tolkien's LOTR along with appendices, please read and educate yourself about his work. https://gosafir.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Tolkien-J.-The-lord-of-the-rings-HarperCollins-ebooks-2010.pdf . Here is also another link to check how the series deviates from the books https://mashable.com/article/lord-of-the-rings-the-rings-of-power-book-vs-show#:~:text=The%20Rings%20of%20Power%20features%20entirely%20new%20storylines&text=With%20new%20characters%20come%20new,Sauron%20once%20and%20for%20all. Another link as well https://middle-earth.xenite.org/how-faithful-is-amazons-rings-of-power-to-j-r-r-tolkiens-books/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.185.82 (talk • contribs) 12:47, March 10, 2024 (UTC)

I have read The Lord of the Rings and appendices and am well aware of the elements that were created for the series. This doesn't change anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

How does that not change anything? You are admitting you don't want anything to change because you dont like the change. Sources are provided so it's valid to make the changes. I proved everything and still you don't allow the changes? Why? 178.221.185.82 (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The series is based on The Lord of the Rings and its appendices, nothing you say or provide will change that. All that can change is how we discuss the adaptation process and the closeness of the adaptation. You and Debresser have not made any suggestions on updates to the existing wording where we do discuss those things. If there is a change that you want to make to the Writing section and you have sources to support that change then please explain what that is and we can discuss it. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not based on LOTR and appendices i wrote that it is loosely based and the show features original characters and storylines. You are using your status to force your opinion. Sources that i provided prove how much the series deviates from the books. You have a problem accepting that, writing i don't care, it's not relevant. It is relevant. 178.221.185.82 (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting this article by saying the series is "loosely" based on Tolkien's works would be us deciding that the series is not close enough to the source material to meet the standard wording of just "based on". It is completely inappropriate for us to make the decision based on our own opinions. Instead, we provide details on the writers approach to adaptation and critics discussion of that process in the body of the article, with sources to support each argument. We then summarise the body of the article in the lead, which is why the next paragraph in the lead points out that the series is primarily based on the appendices rather than The Lord of the Rings itself. If there was universal agreement among critics that the series is only "loosely" based on the source material then we would definitely mention that in the lead as well. And if the writers agreed with that description then we could do something similar to your suggested wording. But neither of those situations are the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Guys, seriously. Please look at the sources. That is supposed to be the bottom line on Wikipedia. The sources clearly state that this series not based on LOTR. Some say it is as many words. What the sources would support is saying that the series is based on the aggregate works of Tolkien. Alternatively, and ideally, we could state both: that the series credits claim it is based on Tolkien's LOTR, but according to sources it is based on the aggregate works of Tolkien. Thanks to the editor who reverted "loosely based" and forced us to re-examine this issue. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- I think "based on the works of Tolkien" or something along those lines is probably the best outcome here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

From the Vulture source: The Rings of Power, created by Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne, focuses on the major events of the Second Age of Middle-earth, a largely unexplored part of the history of Tolkien’s world that you can read about primarily in the appendixes of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. (Appendix B offers a slim timeline of the major events of the era, which leaves room for televisual reinterpretation; the series also compresses events for ease of adaptation.)

From the RadioTimes source: The showrunners of the series reportedly combed through the books and their appendices to find references to the Second Age, and then used what they knew to lay out a narrative.

From the Newsweek source: Prime Video's fantasy juggernaut draws from the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, which sets out the events that led to the creation of the titular Rings of Power, and the re-emergence of Dark Lord Sauron. As well as these appendices, which amongst other things includes a timeline of key events in the Second Age, the show also draws from The Unfinished Tales and The Silmarillion.

From the Screenrant source: The Rings of Power draws from several Lord of the Rings texts to tell the story of a specific point in Middle-Earth’s history. and Amazon's approach might hone in, deviate, and then build upon The Silmarillion and Tolkien's appendices in ways portions of the fanbase find hard to swallow, but it's for a good reason.

TLDR: The sources provided by Debresser actually support the status quo of this page, confirming that the show is derived from or based on Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, its appendices, and other writings. If we wanted to change the sentence in the lede to add "other writings" (referencing the Silmarillion, etc) after the Lord of the Rings and its appendices, I would not be opposed to this addition. TNstingray (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As has been made clear before, the series is not based on other writings such as The Silmarillion. Amazon does not have the rights to that material. It is only based on material in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the appendices, and the official credits state that it is based on The Lord of the Rings and appendices. This is all clearly explained and sourced in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the sentences "featuring original characters and storylines made just for the show" bothers you as we all know that the majority of characters are just that. Where is your source to prove that those characters are based from the books? I think it's legit to add. 178.221.185.82 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As I have already explained multiple times, it does not "bother" me in general as I am the one who added discussions about that in the article. My problem with your changes is that it is inappropriate to phrase it like that in the lead of the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstrom.97 The fact that Amazon doesn't have the rights to the Silmarillion does not mean that the series was not inspired by material from the Silmarillion. I hope that much is obvious to you. So you will excuse me, but even after you "made clear" whatever you think you made clear, sources state otherwise, and we must follow sources. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They cannot legally use material from The Silmarillion in the series, and they did not do so in the first season. You have not provided one reliable source that says otherwise and is able to back up that suggestion. We follow sources, yes, but not any random article posted on the internet that you have selectively chosen to try make a point. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They showed Valinor and the 2 trees which are not in LOTR books but in Silmarillion. They also showed the battle in Beleriand.

Just look at the WIKI article about a TV series called The fall of the house of Usher. That series is based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe and in the lead it says that it is loosely based on his work. So why is that ok but this is not? Why do we have different criteria for different shows? 178.220.214.14 (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUTX. And WP:OR. The items you mentioned are also discussed in the LotR and/or its appendices. Stop trying to force changes when the sources stand in contrast to the changes you are trying to make, per my comment above (see the green colored text). TNstingray (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying your sources are valid and mine are not? The book itself is not a valid source but Vulture and Screenrant are? lol

Explain to me who are Kemen, Adar, Poppy, Sadoc, Arondir, Bronwyn, Theo, Waldreg, Elanor, Earien? Where are they in the books and appendices? Their storylines where can i find them in the book? How is that based on the book? How are those not original characters and storylines created for the show?

Stop trying to prevent facts from being added. 178.220.214.14 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So the problem is that I can't find the "loosely based" language much of anywhere. They do say things like "rummaging around in the appendices" and the like, which, if I squint, might be the same. But the more I look at the reliable sources, the more "based on the appendices to Lord of the Rings" or something like it seems appropriate to me. Happy to go wherever consensus leads, however. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you need to find it? If the series is based on the books then the series would depict everything exactly as it is in the book or with minor changes. Loosely based also means that the series is based on the books but with major changes as we can see with the addition of many different characters and storylines that don't exist in the books.

I'm not denying that it is based on the books just added that it is loosely based. 178.220.214.14 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 "you have selectively chosen to try make a point" Did you sit next to me when I was looking for sources? You can not make random accusation here. Please review [{WP:BADFATH]] and apologize. As a matter of fact, I did a Google search, found that from about 8 pages I opened none could be used to disprove my point of view while 5 or 6 of them supported it, then I chose 4 of them to quote here. The simple truth is that all sources that address this issue say that the series is based on "the works of Tolkien", in general, and most do not single out LOTR. Now please bow your head to the sources. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, Debresser, I am finding somewhat different evidence. In my non-exhaustive research, I am seeing that Lord of the Rings, and the appendices in particular, are often cited. For instance:the New York Times says the show uses "the six appendices to his trilogy as source fodder."[2]; the Washington Post says the show is "based largely on the appendixes — the appendixes! — to 'The Lord of the Rings' novel" (disbelieving italics in original)[3]; the L.A. Times says the show is "largely based on the novel’s appendices"[4]; The Guardian decried "The show’s almost defiant insistence on doing nothing to keep viewers unfamiliar with the intricacies of Tolkien’s appendices hooked"[5]; The Sydney Morning Herald discounts the impact of The Silmarillion and says "In truth, the series is based on the appendices in The Lord of the Rings, a set of notes that Tolkien penned for readers of the book trilogy, explaining the historical context for much of the story."[6]; finally, the Globe and Mail says that the show is "taken from a brief history of Middle Earth detailed primarily at the end of The Return of the King"[7]. Now, I am not exactly sure where this leaves us, but I think it is fair to say there is at least some support in reliable sources for linking the show to The Lord of the Rings, and its appendices in particular. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. As I outlined above, every source Debresser provided also support the status quo, that being the show's basis on LotR and its appendices. TNstingray (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Dumuzid, @Debresser this is what I meant about "selectively chosen", you are trying to say that all sources out there support the idea that the series is based on The Silmarillion when clearly there are plenty of sources you did not select which suggest the opposite. And this comment is silly and completely untrue: The simple truth is that all sources that address this issue say that the series is based on "the works of Tolkien", in general, and most do not single out LOTR. Now please bow your head to the sources. Once again I will point out that there are good, reliable sources in the article already that clearly explain what the series is based on and Dumuzid has now provided a bunch of good third-party sources that do the same. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@TNstingray: @Dumuzid: From what i see and read here you guys obviously have a problem with everyone that tries to add something about the show that you don't like. Citing Washington post, LA Times etc is considered reliable and not personal opinion of the writer/journalist but other sources are unreliable? Critics have praised this show but the show is universaly despised by the public and those things cannot be added here. Articles about other shows can have the "loosely based" but this show cannot when the only thing that is true in this show are the names of some main characters and places. All storylines are fan fiction. When i ask you to explain the characters and storylines you choose to ignore. Because you know you are wrong. And threatening to block someone just because he disagrees with you and you can't accept the truth is bullying. I'm worried about you seriously. Either you are paid by Amazon to "protect" this page or you seriously need to educated yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.220.214.14 (talk) 13:30, March 11, 2024 (UTC)

I mean, in theory, I don't see why my purported motivations fall into an either/or dichotomy. Surely it's possible both that I am paid by Amazon and need to educate myself? Dumuzid (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, that is possible too. 178.220.214.14 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, it sounds like you have an issue with the underlying policies cited, and that's fine. You have the freedom to start a conversation at those locations to see if certain practices need to be altered across the encyclopedia. I can't guarantee such a proposal will gain traction or attention, but still. Until such a point, we can't make an exception for this page to violate said policies. And to be clear, I am a huge fan of Tolkien's writings and I strongly dislike this show as such. This talk page is just not the proper location for debating characters and storylines (I have been guilty of both). Nobody gets blocked on this encyclopedia for mere disagreements. TNstingray (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been threatened by 2 people so far.

My problem here was that obvious things can't be added and are considered my personal opinion even though i provided sources. Other sources are considered reliable while the ones i added are not.

We are all aware of the situation, and the problem was that people's arguments didn't convince that it shouldn't be added. Someone told me the writers said it is based on the books so it must be true, or Washington Post and LA Times said so, so it must be true.

I am a crazy about Tolkien's work and reading that something completely incorrect and invented for the show is being passed here as if it was based on the books (like it was taken from the books) bugs me a lot. That's why i wanted to add those things so that people who didn't read the books know that the show is completely different from the books.

Peter Jackson also changed some things but at least his version was mostly faithful to the books and those minor changes didn't affect the quality and made sense. The changes and storylines in ROP tell completely different stories that are not Tolkiens work but fan fiction. And in other articles about other movies/shows is allowed to put loosely based but here it is forbiden. So the criteria or policies as you call it are really strange. 178.220.214.14 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is entirely set up so that we take the word of reliable sources like the Times and the Post. It's not the only way to run an encyclopedia, but it is the way this one is run. That can be frustrating. I get it. I am a Tolkien fan myself, and I don't like the show! But that's really neither here nor there, because I believe upholding Wikipedia's policies is important. So that's where I come down. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IP, it is clear that you are not happy with the show and want the wording in our article to distance it from Tolkien's works as much as possible, which I sympathise with. But that is not how Wikipedia works. The fact of the matter is this show was based on The Lord of the Rings and the appendices and we should not be using our opinions and editorialisation to imply otherwise. But as I have done many times in this discussion already, I would point out that the article does go into detail about how the series was adapted from Tolkien's works and I think the Writing section makes it quite clear to readers how close the adaptation really is. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

So we have sources that claim the series is based on the total of Tolkien's works, and sources that claim the series is based on the appendices of LOTR. The series' credits itself claim that it is based on LOTR and its appendices. That is not the same. The differences are the claim that the series is based in part on LOTR and the omission of Tolkien's other works. So we should say something like "The series is based on the appendices to LOTR and other works by Tolkien. The series' credit claim it is based on LOTR and its appendices." What is sure, it that keeping the claim of the series' credits as the only opinion in the article is not supported not by my sources nor by Adamstom.97's sources. Debresser (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, we should not be suggesting that the credits only "claim" that the series is based on The Lord of the Rings and appendices. That would be us implying that the credits are wrong without any sources actually supporting that. And I don't know how many times I have to remind you that the article does discuss the adaptation process beyond the "based on" credits, in the Writing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We must reflect sources. If some readers will understand that there is a discrepancy between the credits and sources, then that is not our problem. But if it is the word "claim" that bothers you, we could say "The series is based on the appendices to LOTR and other works by Tolkien. The series' credit state that it is based on LOTR and its appendices. ". What is sure, is that the lead can not stay like it is now. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The article already reflects the appropriate sources with due weight. You found some sources that contradict the current ones, but they do not provide any details to explain why they contradict them. If your sources called into question what the series was based in, had any inside information about the adaptation process that we are unaware of, or at least acknowledged that what they were saying was different from the official credits, then I would agree that they would be good sources to add to the article. But none of them do. adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The article perhaps, but the lead dies not. Sources do not need to explain themselves, please stop making up things. Now you are stonewalling. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This article breaks down some of the elements associated with The Silmarillion which the series has access to because they are also in The Lord of the Rings and appendices. You can see how someone who isn't aware of what exactly the series is adapting could look at these elements in the show and jump to the conclusion that the series is adapting material from The Silmarillion, but actually they are just using material that happens to be in the appendices as well. That assumption is what is happening in the sources you have provided. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit clunky, but I would be happy with a formulation like "...based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, primarily the appendices to the Lord of the Rings..." or something along those lines. But happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to brainstorm new wording, I'm just wary of using "the works" and suggesting that the source material is broader than it actually is. If there was interest in highlighting the appendices as the main source material in the first paragraph then we could change it to something like "Primarily based on the appendices of J. R. R. Tolkien's novel The Lord of the Rings..." It isn't as accurate to the credits' wording as we would usually have it but it still aligns with the credits and is well supported by the sources we have in the Writing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid Sounds good to me. It is missing however what the credits say. That is fine with me, just saying. Debresser (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey adamstom97 -- can you come up with a proposal that would satisfy you? I think it's clear that sources credit the appendices, but I am also somewhat with Debresser insofar as it seems to me that though the intellectual property rights were what they were, abstract inspiration from the Silmarillion and the like is probably folded in. As I said, my version is clunky, so I'd love better writers to have a go. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been having a play around at trying to get more of the info from the Writing section into the lead without getting WP:UNDUE. Thoughts on this as an opening paragraph? The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is an American fantasy television series developed by J. D. Payne and Patrick McKay for the streaming service Amazon Prime Video. Set thousands of years before the events of the novels The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien, the series depicts the major events of Middle-earth's Second Age. Tolkien mostly explored this history in other works that Amazon does not have the rights to, so the series is primarily based on references to the Second Age in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings with original material bridging those passages. I feel this is actually quite close to the IP's suggested wording and will hopefully make them happy, while alleviating some of my concerns with their version. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have fallen pray to WP:SYNTHESIS. Let's go with Dumuzid's "based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, primarily the appendices to the Lord of the Rings". Nothing else needs to be change IMHO. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What synthesis? Everything I put in that example is sourced in the Writing section. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, point conceded. Still, no need to make this unnecessarily complex and less accurate (obfuscating). You say "Tolkien mostly explored this history in other works", while we should says clearly that those other works inspired this series, as per the sources. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel it is more accurate to just present all of the details for the reader to decide: Tolkien mostly wrote about the Second Age in works that Amazon doesn't have the right to adapt, so they primarily used material from the appendices and bridged the gaps with original stuff. They can read into that how they like. But we shouldn't be suggesting that the series adapts other Tolkien works that Amazon doesn't have the rights to without a reliable source explicitly saying that. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We have a bunch of RS that say that all the "works" of Tolkien inspired this series. They do indeed not say that Amazon adapted those works. You keep confusing these two. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

adamstom97 -- in the sources I reviewed, I found "largely based on the appendices" and/or "works and appendices" is the most common formulation. The only source I found which specifically discounted things outside of the appendices was the Sydney Morning Herald, but as I mentioned above, I was far from exhaustive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Every source that knows how the series was made says it was primarily based on the appendices, only sources that are speculating and/or do not understand the context say it was based on Tolkien's other works. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't happy with us spelling out the details in the lead, how about this for a simpler option? Based on J. R. R. Tolkien's history of Middle-earth, primarily material from the appendices of the novel The Lord of the Rings, the series is set thousands of years before the novel and depicts the major events of Middle-earth's Second Age. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Excuse you? "Every source that knows how the series was made"?! Who are you to judge, what source does or does not know that? Seriously, I see that you are having some attitude problem here. Please leave this discussion. I will now make the edit based on the 2:1 consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Debresser Your edit has been reverted. You do not own this discussion or talk page, you have no right to determine who can and cannot participate in a discussion, and a consensus is not a vote count. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. Debresser, you have shown no interest in working collaboratively to come to a consensus here. I have offered multiple solutions that are not necessarily my preferred version in hopes that you would also be willing to make some concessions, but you keep returning to your own preferred wording and continue to ignore all of my explanations. And now you want to kick me out and declare your version as having consensus? This is ridiculous behaviour.

Excuse you? "Every source that knows how the series was made"?! Who are you to judge, what source does or does not know that? Do you seriously believe this? Of course we must determine whether our sources actually know what they are talking about, the rules of Wikipedia are not "if it's on the internet it must be true". This is why there are often discussions about how reliable different sources are for different types of information, especially if we have multiple sources with contradictory information. I already went over this above, but I will spell it out again. We have direct interviews with the creators of the show where they explain that Amazon only has the right to adapt material from The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and the appendices, and they wrote the show by primarily taking material from the appendices. You have provided sources that contradict this information by saying other Tolkien works, such as The Silmarillion, were also adapted. So it is up to us as editors to determine whether these new sources have information that the showrunners did not provide (i.e. they used The Silmarillion but didn't want to say that publicly for legal reasons, or they have used it since they gave those interviews) or whether they are incorrect (which is very possible, because someone without all the facts could look at the series and assume that it uses material from The Silmarillion). I looked through the sources you provided and none of them claim that the showrunners are wrong, or that they have updated information from after the interviews. In fact, none of them explain where they got the information from at all. So absent any other explanation for why they are contradicting the showrunners, it is a fair conclusion to come to that these sources are mistaken about The Silmarillion being adapted by the show.

So once again, we do not have any reliable sources that we can use to support the claim that the series is based on all of Tolkien's works. We do have the credits saying that the series is based on The Lord of the Rings and appendices, which is the current wording in the article. We also have sources to support a more detailed summary in the lead which I suggested above. And I even came up with a small change we could make that isn't ideal but says the series is based on Tolkien's history, primarily details in the appendices, which is pretty close to what you want to write. So if you want to continue this conversation productively, please pick one of the suggestions I have made or make your own suggestion for alternative wording. But make sure it is actually supported by the sources we can trust. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

May I respectfully request that we all take the temperature down a bit? I have been dealing lately with editors who were woefully ignorant of Wikipedia policies, engaging in bad faith, or both. No one here belongs in any of those categories. The disagreement here is pretty small, and everyone to my eye has acted reasonably, even if the rhetoric has been a bit chippy. Debresser was well within their rights to make the change based on a 2 to 1 consensus, and enough time had passed that it seemed fairly solid. Alex 21 was also perfectly entitled to revert based on their contribution which meant there was no consensus. I see no one here displaying any particular WP:OWN behavior--just a bog standard sort of content dispute among people who know what they are doing. Meanwhile, Adamstom.97, while I don't disagree we need to make judgments about sources, I don't think we can disqualify all sources with a slightly different take simply because they "don't know what they are talking about." I am fine with the "history of Middle Earth" suggestion, but again--it's Friday. Let's all have a nice day and save the sharp elbows for the people who really deserve it (mostly me when I start editing political subjects). Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also in favor of the "history of Middle-earth" version drafted by Adam. TNstingray (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Dumuzid is correct in every word he write above. At the same time, Adamstom.97 is an editor I have know in the past to be a toxic presence, and his behavior here was as usual. That said, I think my point of view regarding the content issue is clear enough: I am in favor of the edit I made "Based on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, primarily the appendices to the Lord of the Rings", as it is the only proposal that reflects all sources. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Article talk pages are to discuss content, not conduct. Please remain on topic, and gain a clear consensus before making any further edits. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I support the "history of Middle-earth" version if that is what others are leaning towards, we can wait a bit longer to see if anyone else prefers Debresser's version or has any concerns with the "history of Middle-earth" version but seems like consensus is moving in that direction. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It has been a week and there have been no new comments, so I am going to go ahead and implement the "history of Middle-earth" wording. Thanks all. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

recent edits

i don't think any serious lotr scholar will disagree, factually, with the edits for which you're trying to get consensus.

there are surely dozens of acceptable sources, and given proper placement in the article, it would be likely discussed.

the fandom is exacting.

Augmented Seventh (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The edits this user made are already covered in Wikipedia-appropriate ways, they clearly just feel that our wording isn't biased enough against the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

agreed. Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"it received generally positive reviews from critics"

I was wondering when we at Wikipedia can stop lying through our dirty teeth in articles ? Skcin7 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no lies and you are not being constructive at all. Please see the FAQs and previous discussions about this topic above. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. This discussion has been started in bad faith, is not collaborative, and clearly WP:NOTHERE. All content in this article and the season articles is reliably sourced. You personally don't like the show? Shame. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly why I removed it as not a forum, but I guess someone thought otherwise. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• The article is written by Amazon's apologists and fails WP:NPOV. There are many bad reviews, for instance, the show is called 'a massive flop' by Forbes and 'a stinker' by The Guardian etc. The fact that the first season was only finished by 37 percent of its initial U.S. viewers and 45 percent of international viewers should be in the article, but it doesn't match the agenda. (and it's not my point of view, it's WP:RS, in my point of view as a Tolkien fan this show is shockingly bad and has nothing to do with Tolkien). --Corwin of Amber (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your point of view fascinates me; I've never heard anything like it. Do you by chance have a pamphlet or weblog where I might learn more? Dumuzid (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  According to the article it is the greatest show ever, most-watched of any Prime Video original series, and it received generally positive reviews from critics, but somehow the first season was only finished by 37 percent of its initial U.S. viewers... --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I couldn't make it through the first episode, let alone the entire season. Dumuzid (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Dumuzid This is not a forum. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The 37% figure doesn't have a legitimate basis. Streaming shows have 7-day CRs, 28-day CRs, 90-day CRs, and 365-day CRs. The most commonly reported one is the 28-day CR. If that's the case here, then the 28-day CR is a mid-season report (which, incidentally, matches Stranger Things's 37% mid-season report for Season 1). CR's are a snapshot-in-time measurement, not an *ever* measurement, so we don't even know what it covers What it definitely does NOT mean is that only 37% of viewers *ever* finished watching the first season. 2601:840:4201:9F80:A30E:B0A8:B5C0:FC69 (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's entirely a point of view as a fan. All this is likely already described in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1). And the article says none of that final stuff, stop trying to make up nonsense; also, last time I checked, viewers ≠ critics. If you're going to contribute to an encyclopedia, remain neutral. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that there is a clear editorial bias. 'Amazon considered', 'Amazon said'... It's not Amazon PR website. The information about 37 percent should be in this article, not only in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (season 1), because it reflects the quality of the series. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  So fix it, and remember: the statistic by itself is trivial, add critical analysis concerning the statistic. It also relates to the viewership of the first season, hence existing, naturally, in the first season article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  If the audience response relating to the first season needs only to exist in the first season article, why is the critics response relating just to the first season allowed to exist in the overall The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power article's "Reception" category? It paints a one-sided picture of the whole reception of a show widely known to have received a polarized reaction (sources can be found, indeed, in the season 1 article). This gives the potential impression that the objectivity of this article on a billion-dollar investment might be compromised. I'd suggest to nuance the conceivable bias and imprecise interpretation given in the "Reception" category by adding a brief summary of the audience response alongside the critics response in order to more accurately reflect the actual reception of the show. Pagina18 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  This article has a brief summary of the first season's reception section because this article is about the series as a whole. It is very difficult to create a summary of the first season's audience response section that is both brief and doesn't cause any issues with those who have strong opinions about this topic, the full section is able to go into the detail needed to accurately represent the full response. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  My point still stands: if this is an article about the series as a whole, why present a brief summary of the critics response and not the audience response? If there's an easy way to create a brief summary of the critics response, there's an easy way to present the audience response as well. The difficulty of the task at hand is not inherent to the writing but to the writer. This isn't an arbitrary stance, either: the audience response was objectively polarized and should be noted in order to retain unbiased objectivity and not compromise the article's nature. The "Reception" category already summarizes the statistical percentages concerning critical opinion. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic show the same kind of statistics to determine audience reception. The difference here is that one piece of information is arbitrarily disregarded and the other is not. Pagina18 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION. The reasoning is there. Feel free to disagree or advocate for a change, but for the moment it's the way things are done. Per the cited section, however, you can certainly introduce reliable sources talking about the audience reception. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, from the Season 1 article:

  • Darren Franich from Entertainment Weekly expressed a negative opinion
  • Stuart Heritage, writing in The Guardian, described the series as "inept"
  • Rolling Stone commented that one could wish the series would do more with less
  • Ed Power from The Irish Times and The Daily Telegraph was critical

  That's just four. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't want to participate in edit wars, I just want the information to be added. As for the first season article, we only have one season so there is no point to hide the information about the viewership in another article. I think that Nielsen ratings also should be added. 'Despite boasting high-profile intellectual property, its high price tag, and a powerful marketing machine supporting it, the first season of The Rings of Power failed to break into the top 10 of Nielsen’s most watched original streaming series of 2022. The Rings of Power took 15th place on the list.' (from THR) --Corwin of Amber (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  We have two seasons - one has aired, one is well into post-production, thus data on the ratings of the first season will naturally be in the first season article, that's why we split season articles out. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing is being hidden, the full ratings details for the first season are displayed in great detail at the first season's article, including the series being 15th place on Nielsen's end of year list. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Corwin of Amber Here is the talk page if you wish to keep discussing the content. Remember, you yourself stated I don't want to participate in edit wars. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I just want the article to be consistent. Either you delete the opinion of Salke in Viewership section OR add the opinion of Kim Masters (NOT ONLY THE FACTS about 37%) that "the show was less defining than hoped, falling short of being the breakout hit that Amazon had envisioned" (maybe also this: "A 50 percent completion rate would be a solid but not spectacular result, according to insiders." and "The show has not been a major awards contender, either, overlooked by the major guilds with the exception of one SAG-AFTRA nomination for stunt ensemble"). In that case it will meet WP:NPOV, otherwise you give a true fact and the opinion of only one side (interested party), which fails NPOV. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Ultimatums aren't collaborative, "it's this or that". The statement is reliably sourced; whether you think it's a "fact" or not is not relevant, you can read more on that sort of situation at WP:VNT. If you've stated that the section is called "Viewership", then how does awards and accolades relate to that section at all? -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Weird statement, where have you seen any "ultimatums"? I just said the article should be consistent and logical. The numbers ARE facts, it's not "my" view, your view or Salke's view, it's viewership unbiased numbers. Then Salke's biased opinion is given, which doesn't meet WP:NPOV because the whole article in The Hollywood Reporter states the opposite: the viewiership numbers reflects "Confusion and Frustration". --Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  The problem with the 37% figure is that it is a) outdated and b) not corroborated. Typically, streaming series have a 7-Day, 28-Day, and 90-Day completion rate metric, but we don't know which this 37%/45% report from THR was. If it was the 7-Day or 28-Day report (28-day is most like), then the entire series was not yet published for consumption by then. It wasn't completely available until 45 days after the first two episodes dropped. Amazon knew that this would impact the 7-Day and 27-Day CR, but they also reported quite a long time ago that the CR spiked after Oct 14, 2022 when the final episode was posted. This 37% figure is absolutely not accurate today. 2601:840:4201:9F80:F4DE:D4DA:6A38:4ACC (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• If you can cite multiple reliable sources stating that the series did NOT receive (generally) positive reviews from critics, please do so. Otherwise I don't see the point of this chit-chat. ภץאคгöร 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  We discuss certain topics (see above), please answer to them or don't participate in this "chit-chat". --Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with the above. It's just a back and forth about "how bad this show I don't like is". -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  So you have nothing to answer about Salke's opinion and THR facts. Ok, Salke's opinion is irrelevant and I will delete it. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  There are nine full archives worth of conversations reiterating the exact same points over and over, and there will certainly be more once the second season rolls around. I'm not sure what makes this article particularly controversial compared to any other piece of media. I'm not a fan of the show at this point either, but some editors seem to misunderstand the premise of Wikipedia, as well as the core pillars and policies guiding its development. TNstingray (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they misunderstand and keep adding Amazon's biased opinions violating WP:NPOV. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Corwin of Amber Please be aware that you are very close to violating WP:EW and WP:3RR. You can say "they misunderstand", but the article completely conforms with WP:PST and WP:SECONDARY, in which the content is sourced that a secondary source that contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry @Alex 21 but you continue to ignore my points: "The numbers ARE facts, it's not "my" view, your view or Salke's view, it's viewership unbiased numbers. Then Salke's biased opinion is given, which doesn't meet WP:NPOV because the whole article in The Hollywood Reporter states the opposite". The same points are in Den of Geek article: "A tepid response to season 1, both from fans and critics", "In April, viewership data released by THR revealed that only 37 percent of US and 45 percent of international audiences actually watched the first season of The Rings of Power all the way through, a less than desirable result for a show that is said to be the most expensive ever produced. It suggests that, while early episodes attracted a large audience, the majority of viewers on both sides of the pond lost interest in the show long before the season finale", "The Rings of Power Star Responds to Negative Season 1 Feedback". Multiple sources state that there was a negative feedback. Why should we add Salke's biased opinion and and ignore the secondary sources stating the opposite? --Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  Corwin, you make reasonable points, but you must realize--Wikipedia is ultimately based on consensus, and the most important way to achieve consensus is through persuasion. Your approach might be more effective if you kept that in mind, rather than assuming that you are objectively correct as to what belongs in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” --Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  How does this relate to the discussion at hand or the idea of consensus at all? Do you believe 1984 connects to Rings of Power somehow? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  This "consensus" reminds 1984 a lot. This topic can be closed, I see no point in proving obvious things anymore. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

  Scene: Eric Blair sits, regarding the stark beauty of Jura. Thoughtfully scratching his chin, he says to no one in particular, "Well, the Spanish Civil War was bad. And World War II offers a bleak vision of the future. But it will be with nerd fights on the internet that true tyranny lies." Dumuzid (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why are you wanting to cherrypick the THR source to only include Masters' perspective while ignoring the stated comments of the head of Amazon Studios? It is factual that both statements were made, and both perspectives presented. TNstingray (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)