After seeing this amazon trailer though I am beyond disappointed in what they are creating and with the budget they have it is really sad. I could be mistaken but I feel like this will be looked at as a gigantic flop for amazon. The story looks like its not even based on anything Tolkien written, which is beyond me given there are so many interesting tales Tolkien wrote that have not seen the screen(Beren and Luthien, the fall of Numenor, the silmarils and Elvish wars of the 1st age).

And like the parent above mentioned it is alarming that the actors are all unheard of and there are no connections to the successful franchises that Peter Jackson created, where is this roughly half a billion going? The CGI looks lackluster so its not there.

The CGI on the other hand I agree though I can put my finger on exactly the issue: the virtual sets "feel" small in the footage I've seen. There's a certainly quality to the limitations of CGI which generally constrains the camera because you can't actually pull out far enough to make it feel large (I suspect getting the lighting to cast onto the actors right is also a subtle challenge here).

And your response to the strawman you constructed is... there is zero correlation between stardom and acting ability? It kind of seems like you and the op are saying there is an INVERSE correlation. But I'm the crazy talker here? okay.

I do love that citing Ben Affleck forced you to retreat into "I said generally!" though. We agree on something!

Severance comes to mind as a good show that is immediately more appealing to me due to Adam Scott

None A-list, obviously, but (in no particular order) Lena Headey, Iain Glenn, Natalie Dormer, Peter Dinklage, Nicolaj Coster-Waldau, & Charles Dance, arguably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robson_%26_Jerome

https://youtube.com/watch?v=r5V8ecsrxeY

Ian McShane was Lovejoy on British TV for 8 years and after GoT has been in John Wick; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_McShane

Famous is probably the wrong word, but he was known in the TV industry. Basically if you were adding an "exotic beefcake" to an ensemble cast someone would suggest Jason Momoa.

Disguising themselves as a vampire and a werewolf to steal a Silmaril from Morgoth in the pits of Angband? Makes the quest of Mt Doom look like a picnic. Pity we'll never see it

And the fall of Gondolin. And the Children of Húrin. Though not with a happy ending, both of them.

Still, Gondolin has a great journey, love, betrayal, and an epic siege with mechanical dragons and balrogs.

Húrin is more of a greek tragedy than an American TV series, but I'd still love it.

Beorn! Completely left out of the Hobbit movies https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Beorn

The theory is usually that he's one of the major gods, not a demigod.

I feel like there was a Maia who mated with an elf, but I don't remember with any certainty. Demigods aren't a major feature of the world.

EDIT: https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Melian is the Maia who mated with an elf. Their daughter, Luthien, is a normal elf, in much the same way that Elrond is a normal elf while Elros is a normal Numenorean. (Though Luthien doesn't seem to have been given a choice.)

It's probably too blatant for Tolkien to have cone up with but Tom Bombadil has the same number of letters in first/second names as Eru Iluvatar. The ring has absolutely zero effect on him, but that would probably be true of any of the Valar just as much as Eru himself.

If this was built as if it was MCU they would have had a small cameo then a full movie on Tom Bombadil.

I’ve been expecting a 15-20 shirt put out that would fit into Fellowship with just Tom Bombadil and Elijah Wood et al. The cast and effects should be minimal so would be a great student project that would probably attract the few actors needed to make it.

I am not sure about your last complaint, the original LOTR is 20 years old, the actors/actress involved are in their 50s/60s (Sean Bean!), I am not sure what is your argument there, like what connection you want to establish?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobitit

Well, lets start off by admitting to ourselves that guys like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin in particular (heck, probably even Viggo Mortensen, at least in the USA) didn't really have strong resumes before Fellowship. As a kid, I don't think I could have told you who Orlando Bloom was before LOTR -- because he wasn't anybody.

Secondly, when every major actor working today has either got fully hoovered into the Marvel or DC cinematic universes or is looking to exploit the next franchise with lopsided deals then yeah... I imagine it would make sense going with actors who have less "demand". You think about how Amazon is going to handle this show. The video component streaming on Prime Video, OK, sure. Game studios involvement, perhaps? Alexa skills and audio adventures? Integrated Fire device experiences of some kind? Unknown quantities of almost any digital content possible... it's much, much easier to get this kind of "360 degree" commitment from lesser known actors compared to, say, Timothee Chalamet as Frodo (or whatever).

Also we ought to make sure we give credit to the lesser known actors, producers, directors, writers, stylists, designers and so on that create enthralling and award winning movies and TV shows every year! So let's at least give some of these people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Taking chances on creative endeavors is one of the great things people do for others in this world.

Perhaps I am just old, and a keen film watcher, but I wouldn't describe him as a lesser known actor at that point in his career.

Also, Sean Bean has long been a well known supporting actor. Anna Karenina, Goldeneye, Patriot Games, etc. But I would concede that he's very much more well known in the UK because of his TV roles, especially Sharpe which ran for 7 series. Again, not a lesser known actor if you're playing the bad guy in a Bond film.

I don’t think anyone is making this assumption, and certainly not me.

What I’m saying is that in a show with such a big budget, not a single actor is well known or even decently known. That’s unusual and not a good sign. It’s possible that this show is unique in that it has all great actors and is not paying a ton for them. Certainly it’s possible.

But try to think of another show with even a moderate budget that was awesome with an entire cast of “unknowns.”

There are some movies, Kids comes to mind with a new director, writer, and stars like a then unknown Rosario Dawson and Chloe Sevingny. But that budget was like $400k and I think if they had had $40M they would have had different actors.

They're alright, but just that.

He was a notable child actor who was trying to transition into more adult roles. I'd say he was known, but not the first person you'd ever think of.

Lord of the Rings changed that. It made him an "actor". From there, he got a lot more work and he was able to influence what he worked on.

I mean, seriously, look at Wil Wheaton or that Home Alone kid.

Even Neil Patrick Harris needed a "big break" as an adult to get back into acting.

I don’t recognize a single person in the RoP list. I watch 100 movies a year. Not a single person.

So my point is that that is weird and there’s no precedent that I know of where a show used complete unknowns for every role and was good.

I think giving unknown actors is a great idea. For some roles, not all.

I agree with what you said largely, but not Viggo Mortensen

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001557/

Viggo was in a number of shows that would have American audiences familiar with his acting skills far before 2001.

Most notably in my case https://youtu.be/Beogqr20uII?t=147

With a stellar cast like that, I am definitely missing a gem!

Putting it to the top of the to-watch list.

I totally agree... but $465 million? That's one hell of a chance.

With the exception of, say, the first season of True Detective, most TV shows use multiple directors. The director on a TV show is usually in charge of the technical execution of the writers script - they’re not making many creative decisions the way a movie director does. The creative authority on a TV show generally rests on the lead writer(s), not the directors. When people talk about the Sopranos, they talk about David Chase; Breaking Bad, Vince Gilligan. And in both of those cases they had teams of writers under them who would write different episodes. This didn’t stop those shows from having a strong auteur-driven vision.

In the case of the LotR show, the lead writers are JD Payne and Patrick McKay. I think they’re passionate about Tolkien from what I’ve read. Look them up if you want to know more.

For film, the Director is often kind of the version of 'Showrunner'.

If the director was the one doing the pitching, raising the money - they they are that.

If it's a big IP asset, like Star Treck, then it's different, sometimes a team effort.

Like Kathleen Kennedy is the 'Big Honcho' for Star Wars and will have absolutely the 'last word' on everything, directors may not. Directors may have to negotiate their degree of freedom and may really want to avoid those situations where they are 'not in control', and will be forced to 'take notes'.

So 'director', depending on the type of show, does not have to be the most critical thing, it really depends.

Something that's heavily dependent on the quality of the acting, probably the director will matter a lot.

A perfunctory serial, a bit less.

For something so fundamentally institutionalized, like 'The Big Bang Theory' I'll bet you could remove almost any single person, and the gap would be filled in by the others who are all professionals. Like literally a child could direct an episode, because everyone would know 'what to do'.

But yeah, it helps to have a 'core creative team' that has track record of resonance, this way, you have an idea of what you will get.

Cohen Brothers, Villeneuve, Tom Cruise Inc., they use a lot of the same people. So you have less risk.

This term seems to have entered common usage quite recently.

Q: Why?

"In United States network television [the showrunner is] typically credited as an executive producer"[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showrunner

>This credit is given to the showrunner, or the head writer, and is sometimes also given to other important members of the production. These could include the show’s creator if different from the showrunner, other high-level writers (often future seasons’ showrunners), the owner/creator of source material, a show’s star, the star or writer or creator’s manager, a high-level executive or creative type (like Steven Spielberg) influential in the show’s creation, or any other number of people.

>Many TV shows have multiple executive producers, and without knowing the specific situation, it’s hard to say what the individual people do. For instance, a TV show derived from a movie (like “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”), may bring with it Executive Producers from the original film, who have little direct involvement with the show.

Right, but what's the actual definition of the term "showrunner"?

It's "the leading producer", according to the first sentence of that Wikipedia article. Why aren't we talking about the "lead[ing] producer"?

Is the term "showrunner" perhaps just industry jargon that slipped out into the mainstream?

EDIT: Go read through the Wikipedia:Talk page for 'Showrunner'[0], the quote "so much conflicting terminology, contradictions within contradictions" seems pretty apt. An ill-defined and (?) informal position?

Q: Is it just me or are people - particularly journalists - desperate to use terms that make them sound like they're part of the "in" crowd?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Showrunner

The showrunner can also have one of several actual official titles.

To answer the specific question in "Ack", it's a recognition of the person who is day-to-day the final decision maker. They can be overruled from above by executives (the showrunner is not the supreme content creator overlord), but the executives are overseeing a lineup or channel. The showrunner is the one who are making sure the season goes right as a full-time job.

Q: Is "showrunner" an official title, or not?

EDIT: apparently not[0]:

"The highest ranking producer is the showrunner, the man or woman ultimately responsible for the creative direction of the series. Showrunner is a function, not a title — this person is credited as an Executive Producer. In many cases, he or she has “Created by” credit on the series"

[0] https://johnaugust.com/2004/producer-credits-and-what-they-m...

EDIT2: "A showrunner is the unofficial title given to the top-level creative decision maker and manager overseeing all episodes of an individual season of a television/episodic series. The showrunner is usually credited as an executive producer, producer and/or writer. "[1]

[1] https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credi...

Showrunner is a thing, TV projects have them. They are the 'nexus' - both creative and a bit operational of the show. Like the 'founder' and 'visionary' of the show. They also kind of 'make the show happen'.

Dan Levy is the 'Showrunner' for Schitt's Creek.

Just type the name of your favorite TV show along with 'showrunner' and you'll see who it is.

Usually will be 'creator' and 'writer'. They will probably get a producer credit. Note that 'showrunner' is generally not a specific kind of 'credit' but that a feature 'credit' isn't really a title either. 'Exec. Producer' can mean anything. Or nothing.

The 'director' in TV is generally less important.

For film, usually the Director kind of plays that role as the lead visionary, especially if they pitched and raised the money, got the team together, got the actors to sign up etc..

Producers are generally not directly creative visionaries.

"Director" and "Showrunner" are job titles you'd have on your resume. In the case of the showrunner, they're directly involved in day to day stuff. I've heard interviews in which showrunners say their job involves making 500 snap decisions every day: "which fabric swatch should we use? is it worth an extra $80k to film in this location?" that kind of thing. I guess the software equivalent would be a product manager? In Kathleen Kennedy's case, as head of Lucasfilm, she's making big decisions on everything, but likely not micromanaging individual decisions. So, she'd be the CTO or equivalent.

'Executive Producer' is just a credit, it doesn't mean anything really. A powerful actor participating in a film, might get an exec prod. credit, not for doing anything at all.

I believe that DC suffers from bad creative direction and bad scripts. Most of the rest is workable.

Star Wars suffers from bad stories/scripts and Kathleen Kennedy interference politics.

As for OP's point, with the series' budget so high, a gun-for-hire TV director might not be accoustemed to the staggering budget they have to manage.

To some extent I think Louie set the precedent there, as CK was given complete creative control. Comedians were asking for "the Louis deal". Glover (and Ansari) seemed to get it, and both had the sense to hire other talented people. Louie (the show) suffers from its self-indulgence to the point it can't be rated that highly, where Atlanta maybe mostly avoids that fate.

I would say the marvel tv series so far have been pretty solid. Even if you don’t like them because you have an allergic reaction to marvel, their execution has been really good.

If we must talk of THE BEST, then season 1 of American gods on StarZ was the best season of television I’ve ever seen. Mostly all written by Bryan fuller and Michael Greene. Not entirely. How do we weigh this? Hard to say, but man did that show crash and burn when they left.

I saw the first season of American Gods on Starz as well. It did not motivate me to watch the second season. That same year, though, we had The Good Place (showrunner), Better Call Saul (showrunner), The Deuce (showrunner), The Leftovers (showrunner), Maisel (showrunner), and Legion (showrunner). I think the model acquits itself nicely.

The result was that each episode often had a very distinct style, which matched well to the underlying theme of schizophrenia.

Edit: I guess you're referring to the various recent miniseries Marvel has been doing? It's never been uncommon in miniseries, for fairly obvious reasons.

I recently noted the same while watching Severance. Almost all of the episodes, barring one or two, were directed by Ben Stiller. I found it one of the best (first) series ever.

Having a single director direct 24 1 hour episodes is probably impossible.

As for the writer's room on this show, it looks solid to me:

* Jason Cahill wrote a bunch of episodes for The Sopranos

* Justin Doble wrote 4 episodes in S1 and S2 of Stranger Things, and those are the only two good seasons of Stranger Things

* Gennifer Hutchison won a WGA award for her work on Breaking Bad, which is one of the best shows ever to air

* Bryan Cogman wrote 11(!) episodes of Game of Thrones

* Stephany Folsom was a writer on Toy Story 4 and Thor: Ragnarak

The two show-runners (JD Payne and Patrick McKay) are people I'm not familiar with, but so was DB Weiss before Game of Thrones.

Except for Sean Bean, I didn't know any of the GOT actors either; they're all famous for GOT now. The Amazon LOTR show could be a debacle, but it won't be because they chintzed out on actors.

I don’t remember where I read it, but the Tolkien clan was not a fan of either movie trilogy.

And why shouldn't they go with directors they are happy with? TV series often have a lot of different directors, often directing just a single episode of a season or even a series.

Also, if you provide a junior engineer with a few million, you can't expect perfect software, even with that budget. Same reservations apply here.

If you have a brand like the Hobbit you don’t need brand name actors or directors to attract an audience.

Also, for directors, there's definitely a case to be made that you need someone who can handle such a large budget. That's why I made the example with the junior engineer.

Some directors prefer fresh actors for some movies. It s not necessarily a red flag, but it could be. Time will tell.

West World had Ed Harris, Evan Rachel Wood, James Marsden, Thandie Newton, among others. These are mid tier actors that are quite well known (even though they're not superstars).

Breaking Bad had as its lead a very prominent television actor in Cranston. Malcolm in the Middle was a hit tv show that had a long run as far as TV shows go. He was already very TV-famous prior to Breaking Bad. Getting Cranston to carry Breaking Bad was them going with a TV heavy-weight with tons of experience and a deep familiarity for TV audiences.

>a very prominent television actor in Cranston

He wasn't very prominent (he certainly is now). The show was for a particular demographic (later GenX) but that's about it. I'd say it was on par with That 70's Show. He was in a few Seinfeld episodes too. Compare that with the cast of LoTR and it's a stark difference.

Point being, some directors prefer fresh faced actors for certain projects and it's worked out well. I'm sure with the supply and demand, there are a lot of good actors that haven't gotten much screen time.

Cranston was also the perfect person to cast for Breaking Bad because his character was so different from who audiences expected him to be. It worked brilliantly, the juxtaposition between the kind of zany (if put-upon and long suffering) dad then playing a dramatic role of a high school teacher turned drug-lord.

Having a cast of mostly lesser-knowns and unknowns is one thing. Having zero even recognizable names for a production that costs half a billion dollars is something else.

And Bryan Cranston was a recognizable, if not super famous, name. That’s part of why Breaking Bad worked, it subverted expectations and brought in some character actors that were at least visually familiar to audiences.

Same with the LOTR films. Liv Tyler was actually really huge at the time, having been in a series of high-profile blockbusters and also famous as a pop-culture figure thanks to her dad her music video appearances. Cate Blanchett was already famous, having been nominated for Oscars and BAFTAs. Sir Ian McKellan had been knighted for 20 years and also had nominations and awards out the ass. Sean Astin and Elijah Wood were successful child actors trying to bridge to adult roles. No one was too big of a name to cost too much or detract too much from the story, but you had enough recognizable names to get people excited about the trailer.

The Marvel films followed a similar thing. RDJ, obviously extremely famous already but Iron Man was his ultimate comeback role. ScarJo was also already a huge name (which Marvel used to their advantage for the next decade plus, b/c she was A-list and at the top of her career), and they balanced that with lesser-known names that became big stars.

I don’t think anyone is saying you need a star-studded cast. If anything, that works against you for properties like this, because people have already seen the characters in their mind or in other adaptations. But you usually need one or two recognizable faces, at least with a budget of this size. A smaller-budget show can have a cast of unknowns that hopefully then blow up into superstars, but we’re talking about a budget that eclipses even the largest film properties, where you’re not paying a lot of it towards the above the line expenses.

I think Amazon execs think the power of the LOTR brand can overcome anything else, and maybe they are right. But I don’t know if I would risk $500m of a production with zero recognizable names in front of or behind the camera. Even Stranger Things had Winona Ryder, after all.

Vince Gilligan went to bat for him because he was certain Cranston could carry the dramatic load after working with him on an episode of the X-Files.

Amazon would probably like to have the next Orlando Bloom, but doesn't need or want the current Orlando Bloom (or any other famous actor).

Now, this doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be bad, but having a lesser experienced cast burn through that much money smells like bad management and could therefore be an indicator that the series is highly over-produced with not much content to go with it. Of course, time will tell, but the lack of known-good talent in the management and the insane amount of money spent don't make me overly optimistic.

[0] https://stacker.com/stories/3159/25-most-expensive-tv-series...

[1] https://www.slashfilm.com/568297/lord-of-the-rings-season-1-...

many big actors are fabulous but theres a vast pool of actors to draw from who are equally fabulous but dont cost an obscene amount because their name isnt known.

As a person who watches a lot of content it is nice to see some fresh faces and voices. that year where Benedict Cumberbatch played everything from a dragon in The Hobbit to Sherlock Holmes and even Khan in Star Trek sucked.

The writers have uncredited writing credits on Flash Gordon and Star Trek Beyond [0]. I like those but it’s just strange that that’s all they have. Like that’s it. Not even a complete screenplay.

I’d love to read the story of how they assembled this team that is free of PR.

[0] https://www.imdb.com/filmosearch?role=nm4260438&job_type=wri...

This - the fact that this is an Amazon production already tells us a great deal about what to expect.

I have a low expectations for TV, but the Amazon catalogue has really plumbed new depths. It is an artistic wasteland. Just reading the title of this thread I therefore thought, 'How is this going to work out?' If you add to that the concerns of the OP, it does not look good.

Such high-profile show is unlikely to use super expensive and well known actors/actress for big roles, due to budget and commitment issue.

Amazon is getting a 160mil tax credit in NZ.

Regarding the team: "The team who will be creating the “LOTR” TV series includes: executive producers Lindsey Weber (“10 Cloverfield Lane”), Bruce Richmond (“Game of Thrones”), Gene Kelly (“Boardwalk Empire”) and Sharon Tal Yguado; writer/executive producer Gennifer Hutchison (“Breaking Bad”); writer/executive producer Jason Cahill (“The Sopranos”) writer/executive producer Justin Doble (“Stranger Things”); consulting producers Bryan Cogman (“Game of Thrones”) and Stephany Folsom (“Toy Story 4”); producer Ron Ames (“The Aviator”); writer/co-producer Helen Shang (“Hannibal”) and writing consultant Glenise Mullins."

So they have established people in the background and a well known franchise. As for not involving Peter Jackson maybe they just wanted to start fresh, no idea but George Lucas isn't involved of the Mandalorian

It's been 11 years since the last ASOIAF novel. I think GRRM may have written himself into a corner and is unsure how to tie up all the threads and satisfactorily end the series.

I think you are spot on about ASOIAF, but I don't think this is the reason GoT ended badly. Books and TV Show started diverting much earlier, and the show had substantially fewer storylines, which is a good thing in this context I think. I also suspect that the ending we got is based on notes GRRM left. Daenerys turning evil is heavily foreshadowed, Bran ending up on the throne kinda makes sense, and so does Jamie not cashing in his redemption after all. WW not being the final arc mirrors LotR, and GRRM has repeatedly stated that he loved that way of storytelling. The first book is called Game of Thrones, the ending is about that as well.

The problem in my opinion was just terrible execution: It was all really rushed and with terrible dialogue, so none of the story elements were developed in detail, and felt artificial and wooden.

On Twitter late last year, I saw what was probably the single best idea that would have greatly improved the last few episodes, and could probably have been accomplished with a single scene (and maybe still could for a future "definitive edition").

The idea is that at some point prior to the last two episodes, Danerys receives word that Mereen has fallen, and that the slavers have retaken it. Her greatest achievement in "breaking the wheel" is now gone, and her designs to be the next Aegon are no longer nearly as assured.

Building on this idea, the scene could play out with her completely losing it and threatening to burn Mereen to the ground, her advisors only barely talking her out of flying across the Narrow Sea right then and there.

Mereen's destruction is averted, but the seed has been planted in the viewer's mind: Danerys has much less to lose now, and she's willing to rain fire on a populace with enough provocation. Now when the other shoe drops and she does this on King's Landing, the turn has enough narrative foundation to feel plausible and earned.

You say that the problem is the execution. I think it goes deeper. It's impossible to execute. GRRM knew this about many plot points and that's why he changed his mind about many things by the time he had to expand on those specific plot points.

> Bran ending up on the throne kinda makes sense

If he ever gets to the end, I'm certain he'll see that this doesn't make any sense.

Or at least he won't write the same bullshit the show gave us: "he deserves the throne because he has the best story". I still want to throw the TV at the wall when I think about that.

They also did a bunch of other annoying/bad things that deviated from the early seasons (bringing along a bunch of nameless characters on adventures to just to kill them, wardrobe and makeup went in a frankly absurd direction for no obvious reason, emphasis shifted to "wow" moments in episodes instead of paced out plot, just dropped a bunch of story lines that were interesting, etc).

To put this in context: All 9 books of The Expanse were written during this period along with a six season TV show based on the same material. The two writers were involved in both actively.

I've 100% given up on ever seeing how ASOIAF ends. Same with Rothfuss's Kingkiller, it's been 11 years and I stopped caring during the previous decade

David Gerrold is never going to finish the "War Against the Chtorr" series. The last book was 1993. We're about to hit 4 decades since the last book.

GRRM wrote himself into a corner he hasn't been able to disentangle.

And the showrunners didn't have the luxury of waiting 11 years between seasons.

I do think they could still have done a better job, but it's hard to say from the outside because we don't know the budget, time and story constraints they were working under.

By the time the final few seasons came around, almost all the actors had become famous on their own right, who were taking on a ton of other shows (and I doubt they were under contract for the entire run, especially since it was never expected to last as long as it did) and it must have been a massive challenge bringing them together to film the final few seasons.

A much simpler explanation is that GOT show creators/owners paid him off not to publish the newer books, until they consider the market life of the TV show exhausted.

Unless GRRM is struggling with mental health issues, it doesn't take 11 years to finish a book. Heck, it's his series anyway. If he has trouble wrapping up all his plotlines, he can always write an 8th book to extend the story.

Even if GRRM wrote at the fastest pace he had ever written, the books would still be way behind the show.

Here are the GoT Season release years by season: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019.

Basically, 1 season a year, with the final season taking 2 years.

Here are the ASOIAF book release dates: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005, 2011

So it was 2 years at its best (the first 3 books), and then it increased to 5, and then 6. He had already been slowing up badly as he tied himself up in knots, that he has been trying, unsuccessfully, to untangle for some time.

There were a lot of things I disliked. The first thing was the marriage of Barney and Robin, which was built up over the last one to two seasons and then undone within 15 minutes (and without good reason!). Overall, the Barney plot of going from married to divorced back to successful playboy to failing playboy to suddenly caring father was really bad (also, he failed as a playboy, but he also had a 30 day perfect streak?). The next bad thing was the dissolution of the friend group. Of course, life happens, but seeing them just not having time anymore was sad and it makes the build-up of the friendship in the older seasons just seem pointless.

The worst thing, however, was bringing the mother in and then killing her off with basically no screen time. I mean, the whole series was about meeting her! The earlier seasons spend so much time just teasing points where they randomly met or saw each other! And then we get a scene meeting her and one of her dying and she's gone. And what really killed the series for me were the last 15 minutes. I was pretty sad seeing everything that was built up over 9 seasons killed within not even two episodes and then it ends with "just kidding, the whole point of this story was just to date Robin after all". Knowing this just ruins the whole point, especially since the last few seasons do their best to clearly exclude Robin as dating option, even going as far as to have her marry Barney.

-- End of spoilers --

I know they did it this way because the ending was pre-filmed around season 2 and I actually agree with some fans on that this ending is, when read as a summary, not that bad. It's just that they build up so much in these seasons and especially went in a completely different direction in the last one, just to make a 180 degree turn and end the series with a bad joke. That's what completely ruined it for me.

First half of S5 and all of S8 and S9 depict in detail why Robin and Barney are horrible together.

>The worst thing, however, was bringing the mother in and then killing her off with basically no screen time. I mean, the whole series was about meeting her!

Nope. The kids themselves tell their father otherwise. Ted tells the story of "how I met your mother" to his kids to justify to himself why he should move on with his life and again pursue a relationship with Robin; his kids tell him that they have no problem with this, and are happy that he is interested in "Aunt Robin", who has already been a substitute mother figure for them (see "Little Boys").

>And what really killed the series for me were the last 15 minutes. I was pretty sad seeing everything that was built up over 9 seasons killed within not even two episodes and then it ends with "just kidding, the whole point of this story was just to date Robin after all".

Rewatch the show. Not just "Little Boys"; every single episode, from the first one onward (which I saw the day it aired, in September 2005), contains clues that lead the patient and observant viewer toward the ending.

Apparently 19 year-old Redditors are not the only ones who believe in TV-style 'shipping "true love", which means that the girl the guy fate says is meant for him in S1E01—in this case, the Mother—must be still The One in S9E22; any variance must be punished. They haven't yet learned that in the real world heartbreak and heartache and sad things do happen, and sometimes it's possible for two lonely old friends to find love again later in life.

To put another way: Most people are lucky to meet the love of their life.

Ted is luckier. He meets two loves of his life.

For me, the ending seemed very scripted, very boilerplate, very forced, very unimaginative. It seemed like the writers were in the contract longer than they wanted too and they were just "phoning it in."

Also, of course, it's less fun watching the stuff now, knowing that it will slowly fade out into a bad ending.

I hated being right about that one.

But that last season killed all that dead. Hell, there might have a way to rescue it until the last couple of episodes.

It was truly remarkable to watch potentially billions of dollars of future value evaporate in real time.

Part of my change in heart comes from rewatching the series, it seems to me that they had this as the intended ending all along. I also think it serves as an interesting commentary on the notion of love and romantic attachments that Ted struggles with throughout the show.

But overall I am frustrated with the film industry's overall obsession with subverting expectations. Viewers want some sort of payoff, and withholding that can really burn people who've invested time into watching content (especially for long running TV shows). You can sometimes achieve payoff even while subverting expectations, but too often you end up with an incoherent mess.

That being said, I do think they could've made this work. If you read a summary, it doesn't sound that bad. The thing that really ruined it for me was the forced delivery within two episodes. It just felt like tearing down everything, with no consistent plot or delivery and then topping it off with a bad joke. If they scrapped the actual season 9 and instead made a season 9 and 10 leading there, it would've been totally fine. And they knew this was coming!

Also, on the subverting expectations part: This is totally fine. However, HIMYM is a comedy show. Playing it for a joke is fine, but that was more the "suprise, your mom has cancer!" type of subversion and definitely didn't fit the mood show.

Correct. Almost every single episode of the show from the first one in September 2005 in some way foreshadows the ending. It's, overall, the most coherent and consistent continuity in television history.

(For those who don't want to rewatch the show, I've heard that watching the first two episodes and the last two episodes together makes for a very satisfactory rom-com.)

The show started going "Hollywood" in season 5 and it was obviously declining in quality but people defended it and got what they deserved with season 8

Before the last season was done, he had a heart attack and passed away. People were saying for months after that how lucky he was.

My father passed the year before 9/11. I sometimes think he was lucky to have not had to deal with that (or the aftermath).

And I think the biggest problem with game of thrones is that the show runners crapped out after GRRM ran out of material. So I would want a better runner for Tolkien.

Ned being killed off early is a key part of the "no one is safe in the game of thrones!" motif. Having a known actor and playing against type (nice guy when usually villain) just underscores the surprise.

There is a similar story about Gene Wilder in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. He first appears with a limp and then somersaults to show he's fine. The whole point of that scene is to have the audience think "I can never trust anything this guy says again".

Normally you'd be right, except Sean Bean always dies.

No one involved in this project appears to have the same level of involvement. Instead of someone like David Benioff bringing a property to the network to adapt and develop, Amazon spent out the ass in a bidding war over the rights and then hired people to run the show.

That can obviously work just fine, but in general, it works better when the showrunners and producers are the ones that pursued the material and sold it to the network (or steamer, in this case).

Then there's others, like Daniel Day Lewis, Di Caprio, Ralph Fiennes, etc. who's roles comes across as being fiercely distinct and yet still utterly convincing.

This is a total paraphrase and possibly a mis-creditation, but I'm pretty sure Ian McKellen said something along the lines of "When you watch good actors, you think, they're a good actor. When you watch great actors, you actually believe they're a real person."

I like seeing “fresh” actors because they are unknown. LOTR had many unknown actors and lots who later went on to notoriety (eg, Karl Urban). But they also had some known.

My apprehension isn’t that there are any unknown, but that all are unknown. And I think that’s a bad thing for a $400M project.

Kind of like startups. I’ve met some great people who were working for their first company ever. I’ve also worked with some terrible people who didn’t work out. To get small funding this happens all the time. But to get $465M in funding with a leadership team that’s entirely new is unusual.

Personally, the more I reflect on the Jackson series, the less I'm a fan. He borrowed heavily from the pacing, framing, and selectiveness of Bakshi's animated film, which didn't finish the trilogy.

But worse, though inevitable when you have billions of $$ in your eyeballs, Jackson over-printed a lot of kids' imaginations with his depictions. I can't remember what I thought things looked like before I saw his films--and I probably read LOTR for the first time in 1993...

And I'm not just "new stuff bad". But seriously, the source material looked way different in my head--and felt different, too. Especially the Hobbit.

"Consult Jackson". Jackson had his say. He has no authority over new depictions; he didn't write a word of it.

I agree 100% about The Hobbit though, the movie was pretty decent, but really feels very different to the book. I think this is expected though as they extended a pretty small book to an entire trilogy of films and adapted what is essentially a children's story for a far wider audience.

"thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread"

hmm, so maybe this is just cover for the UFO skunkworks.

> Tax inspectors were told that A-listers from Hollywood were starring in a £19.6m production that would be shot in the UK. However, the movie was never made and the only footage shot was seven minutes of "completely unusable quality" filmed in a flat, which cost just £5,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/may/01/uk-film-executi...

Great like salary tax writeoffs and rent tax writeoffs. (And even if R&D isn’t expensed right away it will still have the same impact on taxes in the end. Now it will be depreciated in five years in the US.)

No one ever mentions his first, a splatter flick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Taste

Hilariously bad but a fun watch.

I believe this is it on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POXwP4ucPe4

I think this will turn out to be an absolute morbid tv series as it will force LOTR into the current dogmas, but this is probably why no-one is involved who was involved in the films, as those actually respected the original story.

So it seems like a non-creative way to get free promotion, but I think it distracts from storytelling.

The example I remember is how bad the 2016 ghostbusters reboot was. And the studio had this whole narrative about how sexist trolls were maligning the movie and this got repeated with any criticism. It seemed like astroturf that highlighted a small amount of internet sexist complaining and used it to smear any criticism for any reason. That seems like something that would be attractive to a beancounter-type.

I personally think they are simply not capable of making something engaging, BECAUSE they feel the need to promote todays philosophy over good storytelling. (They as in the streaming services)

And it's not just characters they destroy, but beauty, any past tradition whether good or bad. It really is about dismantling everything. (and somehow magically once you dismantle everything some sort of equity based marxism is what we're supposed to have). Why is marxism as a philosophy immune to dismantling? That's the million dollar question...

because then you'd have to confront that african empires had slaves too

That'd be a hell of a story. Compare the extent of an actual African empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire

I only hope it will end soon.

And it's hardly rewriting parts of LOTR to have a black actor portray Legolas. Everything is still the same except the color of the guys skin. You'll be fine.

2022 it's something much more sinister. It's the entire postmodern philosophy mixed with equity forced into stories. LOTR is about good and evil and the triumph of good. It doesn't dismantle what good or evil is, it doesn't question everything, it's just a great story.

Unfortunately modern writers cannot bring themselves to write stories like this anymore, everything has to be questioned, everything has to be changed, everything sacred has to be unsacred, everything beatiful has to become ugly.

It's hard to put it into words. But it is happening. People in the media industry really have lost all sense of good storytelling.

That's what the GP is complaining about.

And I don't get why that rates a "Fine". What's wrong with race neutral casting?

> 2022 it's something much more sinister. It's the entire postmodern philosophy mixed with equity forced into stories. LOTR is about good and evil and the triumph of good. It doesn't dismantle what good or evil is, it doesn't question everything, it's just a great story.

You can't look at Tolkein's life and the LOTR and then just call it a great story. You can see the echoes of his personal experience in the work. It's no different than today.

That's exactly what people mean when they say wokesters use people's cultures as skins, with no content.

If you wanted to add African representation, let's say Zulu, you'd add something specific to Zulu culture: people, language, songs, stories, etc. But instead they just change some skin colours in an existing story.

That's not representation, that's just skin.

I don't really want to get into the validity/efficacy of that. I just don't really have an informed opinion. But I do think that's the reasoning.

I think that wanting to have a more diverse cultural backdrop for the stories we tell is something I can definitely get behind, but I don't think it's really that related to having a more racially diverse cast for a story with a decidedly Anglo/Euro origin.

If they produced movies with original storylines more regularly, then every minority would naturally find something they could relate to, simply because author would naturally produce contents aligned with their time.

Instead of that, studios give the impression of beeing hostage of the "diversity mob" which demand its payback on every single content. It's just pathetic, and a missed opportunity for truely great and interesting content.

What? Is there a law that says I can't enjoy art that doesn't include my skin color? If there's a TV series about Nelson Mandela, would you be okay with a white actor playing him? What about Rosa Parks? It's for inclusion right?

What I describe means you don't effectively hang a "Whites Only" sign on one of the larger productions happening today.

I guess that's the interesting problem the studios and equality advocates should try to solve. To me, what they're doing right now is close to an insult to the african-american community. It's like saying "there are really no original cultural production coming from your community, nor anything remotely interesting in your past writing about, so we'll have to recycle ours to make some room".

Again it's just skin color. Little bit dramatic to call that destroying continuity.

The thing you complain about is in the source material. Remember? "No man can kill me", "I am no man", stab stab stab.

>But watching these women beat up men is laughable tbh. Maybe ask some famle survivors of domestic violence how they feel about this.

How is that any different than tiny weak Hobbits killing giant spiders and otherwise being the heroes of the story?

Weak actually being strong is a repeating theme across the fanatasy/superhero/comic genre. And since they're primarily written by physically weak nerds the motivation is obvious. Now that women are being included in the process they're doing the same thing for the same reasons.

What you'll notice is that in better storytelling, there will be an explanation of why the hobbit can beat the giant spider. Outsmarting it, being invisible with a ring, whatever. Good storytelling means you make the impossible seem possible.

Now, all we have is token women who we all know are there because they are women, beating up men in ridiculously impossible ways, with no explanation of how. It's just that the writers want you to know that women are strong grrrrr. Because feminism. Well, it makes for terrible cinema.

Disclaimer: I have been handled pretty easily by women in BJJ and kickboxing / boxing drspite being 20 kg heavier and a head taller. And I am not un-trained. Get over it, competent and strong women do exist.

Edit (because I have to get of my chest): The latest Dr. Strange is propably the best example of bad story telling I've seen in a long time. I quit the MCU after Black Widow (I like the character and Scarlett Johansson) and swore to maybe watch the next Thor, max. Until I saw Dr. Strange was already free on Disney+, and I needed some distraction. All that bad film did was making me not watch any MCU film ever again...

I've seen a lot worse. Didn't seem bad here.

Please give me a timestamp in this scene when that happens:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfJirrzRQ60&ab_channel=TheLo...

> Using the Phial of Galadriel, they managed to at first fend her off. The light of Eärendil's Star shone from the Phial, causing unbearable stabbing pain to Shelob's darkened senses, but she returned to attack Frodo, poisoning him with her stinger in a surprise attack just as they reached the exit of the cave on the Mordor side. Her venom paralyzed Frodo, and she then wrapped him in her web.

> Sam then assaulted the creature using Sting and the Phial of Galadriel in order to rescue his master. In a pitched battle, Sam managed to stab one of her eyes and injure her leg, but she held the upper hand. However, when she tried to use her stinger to inject Sam with venom, he dodged at the last moment and was able to stab her in the abdomen with Sting. This wounded her enough that Sam forced her to retreat using the Phial of Galadriel.

I'm not sure where good storytelling comes into men in films dodging bullets and beating up dozens of assailants or why the stylised violence suddenly becomes less believable because the person winning against improbable odds is female though. Or where the Tolkein original plotline involving a woman with a broken arm defeating a Nazgûl lord so strong it's prophecied no man can kill him in a swordfight fits into woke propaganda trends :D

Been happening since forever. Jesus was a dark-skinned Middle-easterner. It's funny that in nearly every story over the world of people who have claimed to seen Jesus in a miracle, he appears as their own race!

We can not prove anything about Christ's appearance and Christian values do not change based on that. So it's only natural that people will represent Him as they are used to see their own people.

It is a whole other game to change the description of a character with a well-established description and a set context.

Then the story is literally about a bunch of races solving a problem by working together. I mean the text it self literally celebrates diversity. Why wouldn’t you depict that in your casting?

This gets confusing e.g. in Star Trek where races exist in the fantasy sense and in a cultural sense (e.g. Being black (cultural race) is as much a part of Benjamin Sisko as being a human (biological race) is).

I think the both terms are correct, but I like races better because species also includes every lifeform which can never be characters, like ravens, wargs or even tobacco plants.

I don't recall there being any children of dwarves and men in the Tolkien legendarium, though I've not read it all by any means.

Given how common "interfertile but with sterile offspring" is between related species in nature, it's relatively rare in games and fantasy settings.

Usually.

Postmodern films got a tiny resurgence around 2007, but never with the same popularity as the pomo scene of the 90s.

So Lord of the Rings is made between those two modes. The movie industry is living in the wake of the unexpected Titanic success, and the studios are trying to create the next big hit. Movies like Gladiator, Pearl Harbor, Cast Away, Meet the Parents, The Mummy, Moulin Rouge! or Chicken Run etc. is what most people are seeing. The themes of the post modern movies is indeed far away.

Taking a cultural landmark and just repackaging it (new version with 20% more "minorities"!) where the race of the actors does not change anything for the story being told is just cheap tokenism.

By all means, I'd love to see new stories and new characters, and these stories could benefit greatly from a diverse cast. You can use the diversity then to show how different people value different things, how conflict can come up due to these differences, how conflict can be solved despite these differences, and so on... let's just not pretend that this crap that Hollywood wants to shove down our throats is any good just because it ticks the right woke checkboxes.

So what's the problem with casting someone of a different race then? There are plenty of talented non-white actors in Hollywood that get passed over for roles because the "canonical" race of so many classic characters is "white". I agree that the motivation at the corporate level is sometimes to check a "diversity" check box - but for the actors this means getting work and getting paid as opposed to not.

The issue is with the lack of new stories and the idea that just putting some color on "stories where the classic characters is white" is enough.

Diversity is something to be cherished. But if all we do is to, e.g, take Mozart pieces and give to conductors of different races and backgrounds, are we really promoting diversity or are we just putting a corporate spin in institutionalized racism, and implicitly perpetuating the idea that "classical" (or better, "erudite") music can only be valued if it comes from dead white people?

I haven't been watching much TV or movies lately, and one of the main reasons is that it seems that most of things come out are just re-heated servings of old stuff. The one exception that I can think of is Atlanta, which deserves praise exactly because it is more focused in telling a story and taking risks than in merely following a certain formula to please the audiences.

So, to repeat: the story of LoTR has been told already. It has its context and its place. To get diversity now, I rather see these talented people telling new stories, with their own voices and their own perspectives, not just put on some kind of display by the studios and used to manufacture fake virtue.

Every film makes hundreds of decisions to appeal to different sections of movie audiences and live up to expectations of modern movies from casting unusually attractive people to typecasting English accents in a non-English world to cutting half the original scenes in a book and shoehorning an implied love interest in there, yet somehow all this pandering to consumers' cultural sensitivities that actually change established storylines get less hostility than the decision to cast a black woman in a fantasy series whose entirely new [for licensing and lack of material reasons] plot lines aren't even known yet. If people consider Tolkien's world not having segregated casting to being "crap Hollywood wants to shove down our throats", it's hard to believe they're doing so more out of concern diverse issues aren't being represented properly and less out of hostility to the idea that white people might not always be the default.

the irony is of course that whilst being far from woke, Tolkien thought white supremacist ethnography utterly risible, included a Legolas/Gimli subplot as heavy-handed as any Hollywood antiracism parable, wasn't especially bothered about describing skin tones or appearance, and to the extent he did, made it clear that Middle Earth as a precursor to the modern world included darker skinned people.

Anyway, you just missed the point and I am not in the mood of arguing with someone who can't understand nuance in thought. Have a good day.

Go ahead and tell me where I am saying anything about my personal opinion about this particular show. (Hint, I didn't!) Also, please tell me why you chose to ignore everything I wrote in the third paragraph of the top comment.

You are passing a value judgement over what you think you read instead of what was actually written, and you continue to try to push that as an argument.

Stories have internal consistency. So while Tolkien has dragons and magic, they all make sense together. If a character pulls out an iPhone it doesn’t fit and detracts from the stories.

Saying “but iPhones? That’s a bridge too far, how can you believe in dragons but not iPhones.” The story isn’t random and it’s not everything.

Tolkien goes into genealogy of characters so switching the skin color requires lots of other changes to maintain that sense of reality. If a character now has purple skin instead of green skin, then that might mean something.

I think this also applies to any story and it’s not so much about changing characters demographics and more about bad storytelling that detracts from the reality of the story.

But Tolkien didn’t specify what traits inherit in which races did he? How do you know how skin tone inherits in this magical world?

Even in our universe we have species such as Chimpanzees which grow darker skinned as they age? How do you know the same doesn’t happen with wizards? In our natural world color is indeed quite dynamic. Even human skin tones, hair colors, etc. are quite dynamic in our world (even among related individuals). In a magical world there is nothing preventing the different races from being even more dynamic and diverse.

Note that Middle-earth Earth ('Arda') supposedly is normal Earth: LotR takes place during the Third Age, whereas we're currently in the Sixth or Seventh Age.

Modern humans are one of the most homogeneous species we know of (apart from the our crops that we have bred into homogeneity) and even humans show very dynamic inheritance patterns. A red hair can pop up after several generations of different hair colors for example.

There is no reason to assume that genetics in different (often magical) species is less dynamic then in modern humans. If anything we should have more variety and more dynamic traits as different races are interbreeding then today. If only for the reason that more diversity opens more possibilities for more creative and fun stories.

It depends on the setting.

If you did a find/replace on LOTR for "ivory" with "ebony", zero elements of the story would be impacted.

The world was designed in this way for a reason, by the author. It's the same thing the other way around: changing every character from black or 'asian' to white, if the story is otherwise unaffected, would be ridiculous.

"It must be to appease Twitter, can't possibly be because the actor had a good audition" seems pretty racist. If Amazon was afraid of Twitter, they'd be pro-union.

> It's the same thing the other way around: changing every character from black or 'asian' to white

That's not the same thing, though. The new LOTR series hasn't changed every character to Black or Asian. Nowhere near it.

But yeah, it'd be pretty weird if a TV adaptation _was_ word-for-word the same as the book, honestly. That's virtually never done, and rarely ends well when it is.

Also, I think most aren't actually opposed to minorities being in the show, but rather the hamfisted way they think theyll be included with. (I personally expect racism being a big part of the show that will need to be fought.)

Not that I think this is _particularly_ relevant (as mentioned elsewhere, most of the characters aren't even _human_, and it's not like he generally specified "but if they _were_ humans, the Ringwraiths would definitely be white"), but LoTR was finished in 1949. There were lots of non-white people in the UK in 1949; if you've heard of the Windrush scandal, the people impacted by that arrived the year before, and it's not like they were the first non-white people in the UK...

I agree that this would be extremely hamfisted. Especially considering the books already have some metaphors for racism like the strained relationship between elves and dwarves. However, I also think this kind of a thing is just a symptom of bad writing - not some woke conspiracy.

The Rohanim, for instance.

Or, in the racist euphemism way you've chosen to use it, the Haradrim.

[0] Vancouver School Board cuts honours programs

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-sc...

https://vansd.org/highly-capable-services/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curric...

"The draft rejected the idea of naturally gifted children, recommended against shifting certain students into accelerated courses in middle school"

> The model has been in place since 2014, yielding a few years of data on retention and diversity that has been picked over by experts on both sides of the de-tracking debate. And while the data is complicated by numerous variables — a pandemic now among them — those who support San Francisco’s model say it has led to more students, and a more diverse set of students, taking advanced courses, without bringing down high achievers.

> California’s recommendations aim to expand the options for high-level math, so that students could take courses in, say, data science or statistics without losing their edge on college applications. (The move requires buy-in from colleges; in recent years, the University of California system has de-emphasized the importance of calculus credits.)

What’s deeply evil is your opinion purporting your straw man is the only way forward to blatantly push your agenda.

Edit to add:

Seeking equity is about surfacing relevant merit, and fighting irrelevant demerits. For example if someone has the skill to be a great engineer they should not be given the job of taking notes in meetings just because they are a woman. Gender is irrelevant to engineering. But many people who aren’t male find their engineering career progression slowed because of their gender. That is not an equitable outcome.

But obviously it’s impossible to create an equal outcome: you can’t magically make everyone on Earth a great engineer.

To me, “freeing the outperformers” sounds like “meritocracy” which I wholeheartedly support!

Equity is pretty explicitly anti-meritocratic. E.g. a woman should be hired over a man, or a black should be accepted to university instead of an Asian, not because they’re more skilled or have greater potential, but to address historical grievances and/or ensure proportional percentage-wise representation.

Equity has much lower stakes. It’s about the ability (opportunity) for each person to live the best life they can, free from oppression. It’s not necessary to rule over other people to do that.

Equity and meritocracy share similar challenges in that a social order already exists, and therefore the determination of merit is currently being determined by specific people. So it’s not objective.

Equity is a goal that is very hard to reach. What you’re complaining about are some admittedly blunt tactics to try to get there. But they’re not in themselves the goal.

Even if you don’t like those tactics, it’s a bad look to say that the goal of equity is “deeply evil.” It’s like saying “everyone getting a fair chance is deeply evil.”

Edit to add: an example of a relatively uncontroversial tactic to improve equity is accessibility engineering for websites. Being visually impaired doesn’t stop a person from thinking, so we have made social rules that websites should be constructed in a certain way so that visually impaired people can interact with them.

Which isn't what's happening lately. Asians and whites are discriminated in university admissions in preference to latinos/blacks. Men are discriminated against when hiring and doling out scholarships to the benefit of women. Openly racist policies are being proposed ("reparations") or even legislated [0] in the name of "anti-racism". Non-extreme-left viewpoints are being suppressed. People are being cancelled for making jokes, or for supporting biology (e.g. biological sex).

This isn't happening in the name of "meritocracy", or in the name of "equality". It's happening in the name of "equity". It's bullying, it's repression, it's discrimination, it's evil. You might mean good (hell, even Hitler just wanted to improve the world!), but if your way to justice requires massive injustice along the way, well, I hate to break it to you, you're just evil.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/oregon-cares-fund-laws...

This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society.

If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking.

(PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).

> This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in outcome in society.

> If you cannot see this, you are trapped in religious level dogmatic thinking.

Equity is something that societies create, not an assertion about people's innate abilities or a statement of fact about the universe.

For example, we make buildings handicapped accessible rather than simply declaring that all people are able to walk.

> (PS: if you want to talk about equality, which we might perhaps call equality of opportunity, I'm all for it. But equity is certainly not that).

Perhaps it would be illustrative to show that you could actually make the exact same rhetorical sleight of hand about "equality of opportunity":

"Equity of opportunity means you believe every person is equal in their opportunity. This is religious dogma, because it's just not true. We are not the same, and you will always have differences in opportunity in society."

This is clearly silly because "equality of opportunity" is a goal you are aspiring to rather than a statement of fact about current society, but the same applies to "equity."

You could also say the same thing about "justice" or any other concept that's not actually a statement of fact about society.

I'm actually not sure where the idea that "equity" is an assertion that outcomes are equal as a matter of fact comes from. It doesn't seem to be a definition that is used anywhere except when people are trying to make this argument that "equity" is obviously absurd and therefore we should abandon it and focus on "equality of opportunity."

Note that this is completely separate from any argument about to what degree we should attempt to achieve "equity" versus "equality of opportunity"; it is simply an issue with this argument using a dubious definition of "equity" to show that "equity" is obviously absurd being a bad argument.

"Everyone will be working highest paid jobs" vs "Everyone can have highest paid jobs (if they put effort)"

You can't make people go for highest paid jobs, but you can definitely let them decide if they're interested in trying to get them.

Of course the people in favour also say what you just said, which just shows how completely conflicting their views are.

For example there were huge controversies in the fourth century over homoousion (“same in essence”) vs homoiousios (“similar essence”).

Reminds me of equity vs equality.

Amazon literally make (made? not sure is it still going) a TV drama about Nazis. I think they can cope.

I am much more concerned about show's creators attempts to "improve" Tolkien and turn it into a Platform(TM) for the Message(TM), instead of concentrating on telling a good story using the material Tolkien left us. That, unfortunately, is not an uncommon occurrence nowdays. If that happens, the series is doomed to mediocrity or worse, regardless of which names are attached to it or how much is spent on it.

Still, we obviously have to see it before making any judgement.

That's a good sign. First, there are far more great actors than famous actors. Second, that's how you get someone to make a 7 season (or longer) commitment. Look at the MCU. They don't get A-listers (except Ryan Reynolds), they make them in return for an N-movie commitment.

The MCU also seemed to transition to hiring lesser-known directors, etc. so they could be trusted to be willing to follow the directions from corporate.

I don't particularly need something done super-artistically. I need a long-running series to be managed well. Otherwise you end up with all the situations where the series takes an abrupt turn and fucks itself up.

Didn't the Tolkein group basically disavow Jackson and said never again after fiasco known as The Hobbit? If that's true, then it makes a lot of sense not to involve Jackson in any new project blessed by the Tolkein powers that be.

Not if The Hobbit is anything to go by.

Wasn't the estate’s unhappiness with Jackson’s work (either genuine or as part of the long rights war) a big part of that?

Probably better that way. The project has no right for the 3rd age, meaning the stories of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit-Books, where Jacksons main-expertise is. Not having him involved is just safer for the legal side.

As others have said, this doesn't necessarily matter too much.

This. It is made for profit, not for content. Disney ruined Star Wars, Netflix ruined The Witcher, now Amazon goes for LOTR... Dark ages of cinema.