Is Amazon's Lord Of The Rings series "The Sunk Cost Fallacy" is everything that

[babyblob]

Ok, I'll help a bit then. They're saying that Amazon has the rights to some of Tolkien's works (the "main" LOTR stuff you're aware of) but not all of them (expanded works.) They were being pedantic in response to your claim Amazon "owns LOTR." Everyone else knew what you meant though, but nerds are gonna nerd lol

Ah okay. Thank you.

[Scott Taylor]

If they dont have the rights how is the Lord of The Rings stuff like the Rings and such there? I was confused because I thought they did have the rights? Is it like A Sony/MCU Spiderman thing?

Either way still excited about this show

Nah they do have those rights to the main books and the Hobbit. My point was that they don't have the rights to Silmarillion or anything else.

Just wanted to point that out because people seem to be getting bent out of shape because Amazon is "making up stuff" for this series. They almost have to do a lot of that to have a series like this, in order to avoid infringing on rights that Amazon does not have.

And if that is still confusing, I don't blame you. Even I'm confused at this point!

[MikeP]

Where has this been stated?

From their own words.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ies-first-look

The driving question behind the production, he adds, was this: “Can we come up with the novel Tolkien never wrote and do it as the mega-event series that could only happen now?”

“If you are true to the exact letter of the law, you are going to be telling a story in which your human characters are dying off every season because you’re jumping 200 years in time, and then you’re not meeting really big, important canon characters until season four. Look, there might be some fans who want us to do a documentary of Middle-earth, but we’re going to tell one story that unites all these things.”

[HollowSage]

From their own words.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ies-first-look

What’s the problem exactly? They are not adapting a particular story. That’s already been done. They are coming up with new stories set in that universe. Of course things will be changed to make it work. This always happens no matter what IP you are talking about. At the end of the day we have to see if the changes make sense and resulted in an entertaining story. We won’t know that until we see it.

[hyped78]

I think folks are getting riled up, either way, ahead of time. Let’s wait for the TV show and see if it’s good, average or bad, at this point no one really knows.

[MikeP]

What’s the problem exactly? They are not adapting a particular story. That’s already been done. They are coming up with new stories set in that universe. Of course things will be changed to make it work. This always happens no matter what IP you are talking about. At the end of the day we have to see if the changes make sense and resulted in an entertaining story. We won’t know that until we see it.

I have seen enough of what happens when people take a creator's work and put their own spin on it.

Are you seriously suggesting they can make stories that are equal to Tolkien's imagination? Especially since they've been open that they are trying to mimick Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings, and that they want this story to reflect the "modern world", not the mythology The Man himself was trying to create?

I don't need to wait to know this is going to be bad, bad, bad.

[HollowSage]

I have seen enough of what happens when people take a creator's work and put their own spin on it.

Are you seriously suggesting they can make stories that are equal to Tolkien's imagination? Especially since they've been open that they are trying to mimick Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings, and that they want this story to reflect the "modern world", not the mythology The Man himself was trying to create?

I don't need to wait to know this is going to be bad, bad, bad.

I’m not suggesting that since I’m not even sure what that means. “equal to TolkienÂ’s imagination”

That is a rather vague and subjective bar to set. No one is allowed to touch any IP unless they can prove they can meet the original creators imagination and vision! How do they do that and who do they have to prove it too? That can’t truly be answered until after a thing has been created. Even then you will likely get mixed opinions.

As for it reflecting the modern world. Every piece of media no matter what it is or what it is about reflects the time in which it was created. People create these stories and they are influenced by the world and times in which they live as was Tolkien in his day. If he was born today his stories would be different as a result.

Tolkien’s work is there for you to enjoy. No one can take that away. There is no reason why new creators should not be allowed to try to create something new using the world and lore he created. If it’s good it’s good and if it’s bad it’s bad. Even if it turns out to be a train wreck I fail to see the harm other than to Amazon’s bottom line and they will be ok.

[thwhtGuardian]

I have seen enough of what happens when people take a creator's work and put their own spin on it.

Are you seriously suggesting they can make stories that are equal to Tolkien's imagination? Especially since they've been open that they are trying to mimick Game of Thrones, not Lord of the Rings, and that they want this story to reflect the "modern world", not the mythology The Man himself was trying to create?

I don't need to wait to know this is going to be bad, bad, bad.

I could see this argument being popular on a board devoted solely to the texts of Tolkien...but on a board primarily devoted to comics it just comes across as laughable. Are there really more Superman stories that are terrible that came after Siegel and Shuster to support the idea that you've seen enough of other people putting their spins of the character so that you immediately know it's going to be bad? No Spider-Man or X-Men after Stan Lee?

[babyblob]

I could see this argument being popular on a board devoted solely to the texts of Tolkien...but on a board primarily devoted to comics it just comes across as laughable. Are there really more Superman stories that are terrible that came after Siegel and Shuster to support the idea that you've seen enough of other people putting their spins of the character so that you immediately know it's going to be bad? No Spider-Man or X-Men after Stan Lee?

And we can do other big name franchises. There would be no Mado series on Disney Plus, Or Bad Batch. Isnt Rebels a Disney thing also.

[Sutekh]

I could see this argument being popular on a board devoted solely to the texts of Tolkien...but on a board primarily devoted to comics it just comes across as laughable. Are there really more Superman stories that are terrible that came after Siegel and Shuster to support the idea that you've seen enough of other people putting their spins of the character so that you immediately know it's going to be bad? No Spider-Man or X-Men after Stan Lee?

Yeah, in my opinion, some IPs have only truly blossomed in the hands of people other than their creators. Many DC characters and teams, for instance, had their golden ages long after their original creators had passed on the torch (or quite literally passed on). The Titans under Wolfman/Perez, for instance. Decades after the introduction of characters like Robin, Wonder Girl, Kid Flash and Beast Boy, some hot new creatives took them to new heights (and Dick Grayson, for one, has never come down).

And that doesn't mean that later writers are necessarily better, but that they are living in the same times as those reading their books, and therefore are better able to write to that audience. They've grown up with the same expectations and assumptions and experiences. I'm a big fan of some older writers, like H.P. Lovecraft, but gosh, his writing is not for everyone, and by modern standards, it's full of yikes that casual racism, that his audience might not have blinked at.

[80sbaby]

I could see this argument being popular on a board devoted solely to the texts of Tolkien...but on a board primarily devoted to comics it just comes across as laughable. Are there really more Superman stories that are terrible that came after Siegel and Shuster to support the idea that you've seen enough of other people putting their spins of the character so that you immediately know it's going to be bad? No Spider-Man or X-Men after Stan Lee?

I literally also thought "comics" while reading that post too lol glad I wasn't the only one.

[Anthony W]

Not for people who have read the Silmarillion,

Oh, you mean the thing that the vast majority of people that will tune into this haven't read? They are are watching this because of the movies. Not the Silmarillion...that THEY DON'T own the rights to.

there her Quenya name was Nerwen which meant man-maiden because she was fierce, brash and wild always competing in sports among her brothers and looking to explore. But hey, let's get upset that they're "changing" a character.

But hey, let's get upset about a change in character that will confuse the audience that they are courting because they don't have the material to explain why and then get annoyed when someone points this out.

[Anthony W]

The Blade Runner sequel did bomb, though I would argue that it was a major artistic achievement which people who saw it generally really liked. It's not like the original lit the world on fire though. I guess I struggle to call two movies a franchise. I suppose there are other pieces of media like books and comics, but they are decidedly supplemental.

I'm afraid to ask what you thought of Black Lotus. I just watched the Blade Runner sequel and now I like it. The sad thing is if I watch it again in two years I'll dislike again.

[numberthirty]

Oh, you mean the thing that the vast majority of people that will tune into this haven't read? They are are watching this because of the movies. Not the Silmarillion...that THEY DON'T own the rights to.

...

...

But hey, let's get upset about a change in character that will confuse the audience that they are courting because they don't have the material to explain why and then get annoyed when someone points this out.

It would be a lost simpler to just eighty-six the "Source Material..." grumbles from folks who want to pick and choose what actually counts as source material just so that they will have something to grumble about.

This entire bit is essentially what appears to be a pretty small(possibly almost non-existent...) group folks wanting to grumble about just their perceived grumble.


Which, let's face it, folks should not really have to seriously entertain.

[MikeP]

I could see this argument being popular on a board devoted solely to the texts of Tolkien...but on a board primarily devoted to comics it just comes across as laughable. Are there really more Superman stories that are terrible that came after Siegel and Shuster to support the idea that you've seen enough of other people putting their spins of the character so that you immediately know it's going to be bad? No Spider-Man or X-Men after Stan Lee?

Comics are a pretty bad example. In fact, its hard to compare Tolkien to other creators, even other writers. Most comics are company owned, and the character's creators are under the whims of their masters. And most other authors haven't put in near the work he has in shaping his creation.

Tolkien created an entire mythology out of sheer passion, and aside from The Hobbit (which wasn't even part of the mythology in its original publishing) and the Lord of the Rings, he made no money from it. It wasn't until his death, under the hands of his son, that his writings on Middle Earth became more publicly available. This was from the very beginning a labor of love. A project singlehandedly spearheaded by an incredibly educated, imaginative and religious man.

So yeah, forgive me for not giving Amazon nor their writers the benefit of the doubt. They've already stated quite clearly they have no interest in staying true to his vision.

Could The Rings of Power possibly be good? Anything is possible, but the likelyhood is very, very slim. And even if it were good, I have no interest in seeing something like Tolkien's work so perverted.