281–290 of 841 posts
I choose to ignore user reviews/ratings altogether. On IMDB right now 60% of the ratings (not reviews) are either 1 or 10 [1], and that's completely ridicolous. I much prefer the critics' scores - and right now they're 84% on RT [2] and 71 on Metacritics [3]. Which are reasonable numbers. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7631058/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt [2] https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_..…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how well it would go down if someone made a show about slavery in USA with all of the black people being played by non-blacks... For inclusivity you know? Get some Asians there. Maybe gender swap the historical big figures to boot and have them speak Chinese or something.
Dwarves aren't real, historical people. Black slaves were. What the actual fuck are you talking about?
This literally in every show. The question is legitimate. How about a show about slavery where the slaves are mixed, with some white some black?
(Btw if the slavers were Muslim this would actually be historically accurate. Would that be allowed today as a show?)
There are excellent shows that are woke / inclusive (Arcane) and they are universally liked by much of the same audiences.
Then there are medicore shows that are woke / inclusive (Foundation) and they get mixed reviews again from similar audiences.
According to this action by IMDB which is owned by Amazon, if you rated the show below a 5 then you are automatically a bigot. Which seems heavy handed, and like a big conflict of interest to say the least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am going to rock the boat a little. I am admittedly not a big Tolkien fan ( I think tried reading one book once and, to me, it was worse experience than Ulysses ). I can easily plead ignorance here. Are there any black guys mentioned in those books? If not, not sticking to script is a valid complaint ( see how annoyed people were with Game of Thrones departure -- it is not a question of race; it is a question of mo…
The tricky part is that even if the source material has no non-white people in it, the real world does and representation matters. If you cast diverse actors, you are less precise, but are making the world a (slightly) better place for underrepresented and disadvantaged people. If you don't, you are more precise and are making the world a (slightly) worse place for underrepresented and disadvantaged people. What of t…
We can't make more Tolkien, Shakespeare, or Homer. We can just put our own spin on the stories they told, retell or reinterpret them as we see fit. The "most faithful" adaptation of their stories to the screen is still an adaptation.
If you enjoy the original works ... enjoy the original works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Galadriel took part in the kinslaying at Alqualondë, she is totally a dick. The LOTR movies portrayed her in a much more positive light than the books. True heroes as you describe them exist only in your imagination and in fairy tales.
Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings books shows none of that. You only learn about it if you read the Silmarillion (and the other History of Middle-Earth books). It's not at all unreasonable for her portrayal in the movies based on the LotR books to be...based on her portrayal in the LotR books, and not attempting to incorporate largely irrelevant details of her backstory from Tolkien's other writings.
Interesting to contrast the IMDB rating with Rotten Tomatoes, not owned by Amazon, which currently has an audience rating of 38%. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_... In my opinion, Steam does the best job of handling this tricky problem by leaving all reviews up and transparently letting the user pick whether or not to include periods of "unusual activity".
Quoted post unavailable.
They could have started a new saga with whatever setting they wanted but they picked a story with a (strong) legacy.
Strong legacy comes with strong fans. Since they don't live up to the legacy they deserve (rightfully) to be mixed with dirt.
Amazon owns IMDB - they could easily put a “minutes watched” next to each review, and let you sort/filter by that.
And what interesting data point would that give you? "A lot of people watched that" isn't really a metric for the quality of anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Contrast Galadriel who acts like a self righteous dickhead with Aragorn who was reluctant to accept his calling spent and three movies proving himself to be worthy of honor and love You mean three books, right? The difference here is that Aragorn was written by Tolkien, this show wasn't and has completely betrayed the original material. Race or gender swaps are not a big issue, but they become one if the purpose is…
I mean ... she's a fairy, not a human .. what does her skin have to do with the time period or place in which she appeared? And there's literally zero reason to insist that Collodi's description is the only way a fairy character can be portrayed in a staged version of his book. The real problem is getting upset over the skin color of the actors and actresses playing fairies (or stormtroopers or elves or angels or for…
I think people with legitimate criticisms are starting to get really tired being called a racist or a misogynist. 99% of the reviews aren't about wokeness at all. They're about the writing, the pacing and the how unbelievably dull the show is.
People were up in arms before a single episode aired, because they saw a fictional species (dwarf) had dark skin. many of those people have now pivoted their arguments against the show to being about pacing, writing (note: I’m in no way implying this is you, I haven’t seen any LotR series opinions on HN) - but the racist stuff has already occurred