Television The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power - Season 2 (Amazon Prime | August 29) - update (08/14): Official Trailer

[Spork3245]

8 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

On-set rewrites are important.

 

No shit, but this was the tail end. The final 3-4 days are unlikely to have massive rewrites. You’re posting like they filmed 3-4 weeks. Comparing it to something that hasn’t started filming is disingenuous at best.

[TheLeon]

Quote

The sweeping fantasy series has 19 days of filming remaining, sources confirm to Variety, but per WGA strike rules, Payne, McKay and any other writer-producers are barred from participating in any writing-based duties during production while the strike continues — including making creative decisions on set. Instead, the show’s non-writing executive producers (like Lindsey Weber), directors (Charlotte Brändström, Sanaa Hamri and Louise Hooper) and crew are overseeing production on the U.K.-based shoot.

You would hope that directors and other creatives who don’t have writing credits would be able to get it across the finish line without any massive problems. 

[BloodyHell]

On 5/7/2023 at 2:04 AM, Jason said:

 

 

On-set rewrites are important.

 

Probably not so much in the last days of a shoot.

[69los]

Season 2 teaser trailer

 

 

 

Release date: August 29th

 

[CitizenVectron]

I'm excited! I really loved season 1 despite its flaws. I loved the whimsy and especially the music. 

[ort]

Season One was far from perfect but got way too much hate. I am also looking forward to season 2. Trailer looked good!

 

Ring of Power had some great moments, but had major pacing problems and got a little goofy and definitely kinda fumbled the ending... but whatever. Season one was so much better than the hobbit, which was Star Wars Prequels bad in my book.

[Greatoneshere]

56 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I'm excited! I really loved season 1 despite its flaws. I loved the whimsy and especially the music. 

 

15 minutes ago, ort said:

Season One was far from perfect but got way too much hate. I am also looking forward to season 2. Trailer looked good!

 

Ring of Power had some great moments, but had major pacing problems and got a little goofy and definitely kinda fumbled the ending... but whatever. Season one was so much better than the hobbit, which was Star Wars Prequels bad in my book.

 

Yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed season 1 a lot. Thought it would be terrible but they were able to write a real story out of a bunch of world building. Not a perfect season but some people's vitriol online towards it is unwarranted.

 

But The Hobbit movie trilogy being Star Wars prequels level bad will always be a crazy take to me. The Star Wars prequels have terrible camera work (walking and talking, sitting and talking, a two shot back and forth of faces for most of all three movies), terrible acting, dialogue, etc. The Hobbit movie trilogy has flaws but they are genuinely wonderfully acted, the filmmaking is a million times better than most of the Star Wars prequel scenes (save for two lightsaber fights), there's at least heart and soul in parts (love when the dwarves sing in the first movie), etc. There's just no comparison.

 

I think people should look at it less like an adaptation of The Hobbit alone and look at it more like: "The Hobbit, and also a bunch of fun connective tissue fan service scenes we'll probably never have gotten to see otherwise in live-action".

[TwinIon]

I'm also looking forward to this. I liked season 1 a lot, but it was a lot of setup. I hoping for a bit more out of season 2.

[MarSolo]

52 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

Yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed season 1 a lot. Thought it would be terrible but they were able to write a real story out of a bunch of world building. Not a perfect season but some people's vitriol online towards it is unwarranted.

 

But The Hobbit movie trilogy being Star Wars prequels level bad will always be a crazy take to me. The Star Wars prequels have terrible camera work (walking and talking, sitting and talking, a two shot back and forth of faces for most of all three movies), terrible acting, dialogue, etc. The Hobbit movie trilogy has flaws but they are genuinely wonderfully acted, the filmmaking is a million times better than most of the Star Wars prequel scenes (save for two lightsaber fights), there's at least heart and soul in parts (love when the dwarves sing in the first movie), etc. There's just no comparison.

 

I think people should look at it less like an adaptation of The Hobbit alone and look at it more like: "The Hobbit, and also a bunch of fun connective tissue fan service scenes we'll probably never have gotten to see otherwise in live-action".

Agreed.

 

The Hobbit trilogy’s biggest flaw for me is the overuse of CGI and the tying it to the Lord of the Rings. Otherwise, it’s now part of my yearly watch of the movies.

[Greatoneshere]

6 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

The Hobbit trilogy’s biggest flaw for me is the overuse of CGI and the tying it to the Lord of the Rings. Otherwise, it’s now part of my yearly watch of the movies.

 

Yeah, the overuse of CGI is a damn shame. Especially since they apparently used practical makeup and effects on set, but then CGI'ed over it. And yeah, the tying it to LOTR is the "fun connective tissue scene" stuff, but on that point I mean, when were we ever going to get to see that stuff adapted? I'm sometimes grateful we did since it's unlikely to ever happen again and as a LOTR/Middle-Earth fan, I enjoyed getting to see all of that even though little of it has to do with The Hobbit. But then again, this Hobbit trilogy isn't just an adaptation of that book, it becomes clear. 

 

 

vs. 

 

 

They already had it done great in the original trilogy and on set, why not keep it? But here we are. The Star Wars prequels used way more CGI though, so they're worse than The Hobbit trilogy in that regard too. Both trilogies seemed to forget what their predecessor trilogy excelled at (practical effects, matte work, miniatures, etc.) for CGI. Thankfully, Jackson still did use plenty of real effects compared to Lucas.

[Chris-]

I'll never forgive The Hobbit films for the scene where they floated down a lazy river of molten gold. Might be the only time something in a film adaptation made me mad.

[GeneticBlueprint]

The foghorns BWAAHHs in a trailer were played out in 2012. For the love of god.

[Mercury33]

Loved season 1 and can’t wait for this!

[Kal-El814]

11 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

 

Yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed season 1 a lot. Thought it would be terrible but they were able to write a real story out of a bunch of world building. Not a perfect season but some people's vitriol online towards it is unwarranted.

 

But The Hobbit movie trilogy being Star Wars prequels level bad will always be a crazy take to me. The Star Wars prequels have terrible camera work (walking and talking, sitting and talking, a two shot back and forth of faces for most of all three movies), terrible acting, dialogue, etc. The Hobbit movie trilogy has flaws but they are genuinely wonderfully acted, the filmmaking is a million times better than most of the Star Wars prequel scenes (save for two lightsaber fights), there's at least heart and soul in parts (love when the dwarves sing in the first movie), etc. There's just no comparison.

 

I think people should look at it less like an adaptation of The Hobbit alone and look at it more like: "The Hobbit, and also a bunch of fun connective tissue fan service scenes we'll probably never have gotten to see otherwise in live-action".

 

I'd need to think if I like any of The Hobbit movies are as "good" as I've come to think The Phantom Menace is.  They're all very flawed with some really over the top stupidity, but they have their moments. I don't think anything in any of The Hobbit movies is as good as the saber duel in Phantom Menace, but It's been a while since I've watched them.

 

Aside from quality, I can just never buy Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I don't know why. He's a good actor, he does very well in these movies. And I generally don't have an issue when a film portrayal is different than how I imagined the literary character; I get why Gimli is the way he is in the LotR trilogy and I can get into it even if it's a not especially faithful take on the character. But for whatever reason I always see Martin Freeman doing a Bilbo LARP and not just... Bilbo. 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

I'd need to think if I like any of The Hobbit movies are as "good" as I've come to think The Phantom Menace is.  They're all very flawed with some really over the top stupidity, but they have their moments. I don't think anything in any of The Hobbit movies is as good as the saber duel in Phantom Menace, but It's been a while since I've watched them.

 

Aside from quality, I can just never buy Martin Freeman as Bilbo. I don't know why. He's a good actor, he does very well in these movies. And I generally don't have an issue when a film portrayal is different than how I imagined the literary character; I get why Gimli is the way he is in the LotR trilogy and I can get into it even if it's a not especially faithful take on the character. But for whatever reason I always see Martin Freeman doing a Bilbo LARP and not just... Bilbo. 

 

Even if the Darth Maul duel outdoes anything in the Hobbit movies, few things in the Hobbit movies are as bad as most of the rest of the prequel scenes are, so I think Hobbit comes out ahead in the end, one scene or not when all added up. I should say this applies to the extended editions for me, which are far less choppy and sit with scenes longer than the theatrical editions.

 

As for Bilbo, that was casting I think many felt was spot on, but perhaps his performance is too modern? Sometimes I get that vibe but I thought he was a great Bilbo myself.

[Fizzzzle]

A loooooooooooot of the season 1 hate you saw in the internet revolved around "why are there black Elves," which you can promptly fucking ignore because everyone who says that is a piece of shit. That being said, season 1 did have its flaws. I think the whole "whodunnit" aspect hamstrung the whole season, Galadriel was kind of a shit character, but there was also a lot to like about it. I want to see what they do with Adar, the bromance between Elrond and Durin was great, I want to see what happens with Isildur, etc.

 

I can't remember if I already said it here in this thread, but for those who might think that a character like Adar goes against canon, regarding the War of the Last Alliance, Tolkien said something like the following (I'm paraphrasing, can't remember the exact wording): "All those who fought in that war were divided, save for the Elves, who fought solely under Gil-Galad." The implication being that there were Orcs who fought *against* Sauron. That doesn't mean they fought *for* the Elves, but maybe they were fighting under their own leader, or maybe one of the Blue wizards, or whoever. We know from the Lord of the Rings that not all Orcs are particularly big fans of Sauron.

[Kal-El814]

8 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

Even if the Darth Maul duel outdoes anything in the Hobbit movies, few things in the Hobbit movies are as bad as most of the rest of the prequel scenes are, so I think Hobbit comes out ahead in the end, one scene or not when all added up. I should say this applies to the extended editions for me, which are far less choppy and sit with scenes longer than the theatrical editions.

 

As for Bilbo, that was casting I think many felt was spot on, but perhaps his performance is too modern? Sometimes I get that vibe but I thought he was a great Bilbo myself.

 

Yeah I dunno that I've seen The Hobbit movies since they came out for purchase on streaming; I should probably give them another go.

 

And I appreciate my take on Bilbo is an outlier. Maybe it's the modern thing? Maybe it's cross contamination from me just not loving the movies? Maybe I think he's a bit "higher energy" than I always expected Bilbo to be? I can't put my finger on why.

[legend]

8 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

Even if the Darth Maul duel outdoes anything in the Hobbit movies, few things in the Hobbit movies are as bad as most of the rest of the prequel scenes are, so I think Hobbit comes out ahead in the end, one scene or not when all added up. I should say this applies to the extended editions for me, which are far less choppy and sit with scenes longer than the theatrical editions.

 

As for Bilbo, that was casting I think many felt was spot on, but perhaps his performance is too modern? Sometimes I get that vibe but I thought he was a great Bilbo myself.

 

 

I think something that complicates this analysis is that while PM has numerous obvious faults, it felt impactful in the time it was released. Whereas The Hobbit was outclassed in every way by its own predecessor (successor?)

 

+1 on the Misty Mountain scene being awesome though. Probably the one scene that stays with me from the movies.

[Chairslinger]

59 minutes ago, legend said:

 

 

I think something that complicates this analysis is that while PM has numerous obvious faults, it felt impactful in the time it was released. Whereas The Hobbit was outclassed in every way by its own predecessor (successor?)

 

+1 on the Misty Mountain scene being awesome though. Probably the one scene that stays with me from the movies.

 

 

Galadriel asking Gandalf why he picked Bilbo is a great scene.

 

 

 

 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

Yeah I dunno that I've seen The Hobbit movies since they came out for purchase on streaming; I should probably give them another go.

 

And I appreciate my take on Bilbo is an outlier. Maybe it's the modern thing? Maybe it's cross contamination from me just not loving the movies? Maybe I think he's a bit "higher energy" than I always expected Bilbo to be? I can't put my finger on why.

 

I'd definitely give them another go since it's been a good while (try the extended editions if you haven't), I think you'll like them more than the SW prequels (maybe) on rewatch, or at least see that they are clearly better made films at least.

 

1 hour ago, legend said:

I think something that complicates this analysis is that while PM has numerous obvious faults, it felt impactful in the time it was released. Whereas The Hobbit was outclassed in every way by its own predecessor (successor?)

 

By impactful do you mean cultural impact? I agree its cultural impact might be greater but not in a good way I think.

[Kal-El814]

36 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

By impactful do you mean cultural impact? I agree its cultural impact might be greater but not in a good way I think.

 

To be clear by prequels I mean TPM specifically, I think Clones is awful and Sith is very bad

[legend]

1 hour ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

Galadriel asking Gandalf why he picked Bilbo is a great scene.

 

 

 

 

 

It is a good scene! But it also apparently left my memory, whereas Misty Mountains holds firm effortlessly  

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

By impactful do you mean cultural impact? I agree its cultural impact might be greater but not in a good way I think.

 

Not sure any one specific thing. Culturally, yes, but also its movie-going spectacle. So many of us had dreamed of seeing full-fledged Jedi in their prime in action. PM delivered that.

 

The Hobbit series was basically the same in scope and kind as LotR, but worse  

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, legend said:

Not sure any one specific thing. Culturally, yes, but also its movie-going spectacle. So many of us had dreamed of seeing full-fledged Jedi in their prime in action. PM delivered that.

 

The Hobbit series was basically the same in scope and kind as LotR, but worse  

 

Yeah, I'd agree with that characterization of both. Even so, it's an objectively worse movie I think than The Hobbit movies as it didn't even deliver that well on that premise. Trade blockades!  Plus the acting, the dialogue. It can sometimes be really hard to get through unless you treat it as camp. I'd rather dwarves float down a lazy river of gold than an animal farting in Jar Jar Binks face during the podrace scene every time. I'll even take Radagast's ridiculousness since it somewhat fits his crazy character over whatever the hell Jar Jar Binks is doing in the final battle.

[legend]

30 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yeah, I'd agree with that characterization of both. Even so, it's an objectively worse movie I think than The Hobbit movies as it didn't even deliver that well on that premise. Trade blockades!  Plus the acting, the dialogue. It can sometimes be really hard to get through unless you treat it as camp. I'd rather dwarves float down a lazy river of gold than an animal farting in Jar Jar Binks face during the podrace scene every time. I'll even take Radagast's ridiculousness since it somewhat fits his crazy character over whatever the hell Jar Jar Binks is doing in the final battle.

 

I can understand where you're coming from. I actually mostly enjoy the prequels, but I'm well aware of their significant shortcomings  

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I can understand where you're coming from. I actually mostly enjoy the prequels, but I'm well aware of their significant shortcomings  

 

I can't disagree - I've seen them plenty of times (moreso in my teens) since they came out. Probably more than The Hobbit trilogy (but I was older when those came out). But I think that's more for the few high points and just getting to be in that world than the movies themselves for me. It's really hard to get past the bland filmmaking and dry acting and dialogue but Jango Fett vs. Obi-Wan for like a minute on Kamino is badass! The ratio of good to bad is fucked but I get it.  

[Brick]

Tom Bombadil Finally Steps Forth in ‘The Rings of Power’—An Exclusive First Look | Vanity Fair

WWW.VANITYFAIR.COM

---

J.R.R. Tolkien’s peculiar ‘Lord of the Rings’ character, excluded by other adaptations, comes to life on the Amazon series.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Hopefully it doesn't have the bloated writing of the first season, which would have otherwise been amazing. But it's unbelievable the critical element of Sauron manipulating the Elves and learning how to make the rings happens over a span of 5 minutes.

[Firewithin]

 

looks good

[Best]

Looks awesome 👌 

[legend]

Looks good to me!

 

At 2:37 the character looks like another wizard? Maybe a proper blue wizard?

 

EDIT: Googling around, I think that's actually Bombadil, but it also sounds like other wizards will bein the show too.

[Fizzzzle]

I LOVE the Orc designs in this show. They actually made the Orcs look fucking *terrifying*

[cusideabelincoln]

This should be a marked improvement over the first season now that they won't have to waste time with silly mystery boxes.

[Jason]

5 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

I LOVE the Orc designs in this show. They actually made the Orcs look fucking *terrifying*

 

The Hobbit movies initially had a great orc design...

 

[Fizzzzle]

5 hours ago, Jason said:

 

The Hobbit movies initially had a great orc design...

 

While I wouldn't call it bad, I wouldn't call it scary, either. Even the original trilogy had Orc designs that could look/feel cartoonish at times. Rings of Power does not have that in the least.

[Chris-]

I generally liked the Rings of Power, but it was all forgettable enough that by the time this new season drops, I'll really need that season 1 recap at the beginning to be really good.