I will always respect Christopher Tolkien for trying to give to the World what his father couldn't before dying. His First Age Trilogy (Children of Húrin, Beren & Lúthien and Fall of Gondolin) shows how much he wanted to make the closest thing to a definitive version of the Silmarillion
To be honest, I’m not sure I’ll ever regard any Tolkien work post Christopher’s death as being as definitive as what came before. No one could have compiled and edited his father’s work as well as him.
Yeap, will always consider published works by JRR full cannon including the tale of years. Anything published by Christopher writen by JRR as near cannon or secondary cannon. Letters and similar written by JRR probably without half as much thought as he put into as the books as possible cannon but generally a good step back. Anything else is simply 'fan' fiction.
I never bothered with the last book as it just ends way too early as JRR never really finished the story itself. He never completed the other two either, but he finished the story, which Christopher then completed through JRR's notes. I am also not a huge fan of tCoH, but that is more of a taste issue. There are too many big and small tragedies in the story, so the impact of the final one is lessened and predictable. Of course, we knew from the beginning that it would end badly due to Melkor's curse.
The thing to remember is the words of Brandon Sanderson. To paraphrase - a great many scriptwriters today have their own ideas. Often, they have written their own books and scripts, but no one was interested in what they had to say. Instead, what they do is get themselves attached to a well-known IP. This is where they try and insert their failed own words and ideas into something loved and respected. They literally do not give a hoot about what is canon. They are selfish and arrogant. The prime examples are Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, and The Witcher. They believe that their ideas are superior even though most find the changes an insult to their intelligence. We, the people who love and cherish the original works, are further denigrated and insulted for having the temerity to object. Such is tv and streaming in the 21st century.
@cpmf2112 Brandon Sanderson completed The Wheel of Time at the request of Robert Jordan's widow, Harriet. He worked extensively from the notes and plans that Robert Jordan left behind. Notes deliberately left behind so that the story could be completed. I hope that answers your question. I have a question for you. Were you implying that Brandon Sanderson was doing the same underhand thing he described? If you were, you would be a long way from the mark.
"He didn't mean for alot of things to happen." How anyone can say there isn't a canon just baffles me. Tho the author may have tweeked some things over the years the overall narrative hasn't changed. By changing the lore to suit your own story changes the heart and spirit of what we're meant to learn and feel.
They're saying "he really had no standards" regarding a creator and work that is screaming standards. But then again, these are the same folks that see real world people in orcs.
Yoyston, I think you defined your interpretation of canon really well. I am a research scientist and have over 100 publications in peer-reviewed journals. The concept of “truth” in science is akin to the definition and use of canon is fictional writing, I believe. When defined well, truth and canon should be conjointly interpreted by all with universal (at least, near universal) agreement. Another aspect of definition you brought up was RoP as the worst offender of canon for Tolkien’s legendarium. I suspect that, without too much effort, we could each find worse offenders of the legendarium, such as time traveling Gandolf, etc. I suspect, and definitely correct me if I am wrong, that a big part of the disdain for the lack of adherence to the canon legendarium is that RoP is so widely popular. With that massive popularity comes a much greater chance of folks new to Tolkien mistaking RoP as canon. From my side, I do see this as a substantial problem. Consider the formula: (degree of misrepresentation of the canon legendarium) x (number of first time Tolkien viewers/readers). If a story of time traveling Gandolf or Fellowship of the Ring was atrociously worse than RoP but only have 500 new novel Tolkien readers, the formula would result is much less of a problem than moderate canon sway x millions of new viewers. Finally, the reader’s/ viewer’s willingness to engage with the new material, however disparate from the legendarium, is a critical factor as well. I know RoP will not be a great representation as these characters or Second Age lore. But I love these characters and I love both the specific canon legendarium AND variants of it. I thoroughly enjoy “most” of RoP. I can love it because of the characters while knowing it’s important to understand what is and is not canon. I have watched every one of your 500+ videos on Tolkien, and knowing you have dedicated yourself to ensuring what you present is indeed lore, is a critical part of loving your videos. But, just like you will at time take on a “what if” scenario allow for a broader set of videos to be created, so do stories such as RoP. Perhaps some of this goes into the definition of adaptation vs. the term “based on”. Perhaps the former requires greater adherence to the canon legendarium except when the medium, contracts, or some other necessary limitation requires a deviation whereas “based on” allows for a greater confluence of creative differences to be undertaken while still allowing viewers to have some shared cultural norms of the characters, history, and more. These are my thoughts of why RoP can still be enjoyable without having to require it from being purely canon at all times.
@Dr_Cole if the writing weren't so atrocious maybe? But it's one of the many many many problems that make that show a joke. Lore aside if anyone wants to watch it and enjoy it for what it is then go for it, no one stopping anyone. But don't call twinkle little star better than Beethovens 9th symphony. They are not the same
It's not just a case whether Tolkien has canon, we actually know the author's own thoughts on messing with it, from his own mouth. He talks about it in the BBC interviews from the '60s.
Great explanation and totally agree! My thoughts are mainly concerning characters. In RoP, the characters of Galadriel, Sauron, Gil-Galad, and Elrond consistently behave in ways and make decisions that I could never see the characters from Tolkien's published works doing. I can't see how they resemble their book characters or see how they could even grow into those characters. The difference with Peter Jackson's films is that even with changes, the characters are the same or I can see a way for them to be those canon characters. Even my biggest gripe, Faramir in the Two Towers. He eventually made the correct decision. Aragorn may have been reluctant and questioning himself alot, but he never actively tried to avoid his destiny. I can see Elrond and Galadriel deciding to send troops to Helm's Deep. Etc. etc. The Hobbit films are not so great, but even they don't destroy the characters to the extent of RoP. That's what's so heartbreaking about that series.
A good example I use is that just because there's conflicting accounts on what the blue wizards did in the east, doesn't mean that canon doesn't exist. It may not be agreed upon what they did but I can tell you that there were 2 of them, and only 5 wizards total, and they weren't trained to bewizards by Tom Bombadil.
@@waltonsmith7210exactly. The canon goes as far and even if there are things you’d like to add while making a story that’s fine as there is no blatant contradiction to what is established or without any artistic merit
I mean how can someone say there isn't a canon? Or a timeline that is followed? I mean yes some details did change over times. But the Universe itself had a concreate timeline and events it followed. It also had certain rules the universe and it's magic works like for example: you can't resurrect the dead, evil can't create new life only corrupt.
Except that in earlier versions, evil COULD create. It's been a while since I read the History of Middle-earth, but I don't think that changed until Lord of the Rings, when Frodo reassures Sam that the Shadow has to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Exactly. Nothing, good or evil, can truly create in Middle-earth, save Eru Himself. But again, that's how Tolkien decided it worked later on. In your initial comment, you made it sound like that was always a hard, fast rule of Tolkien's universe.
@@jj48 From the start it was always only Eru who could create new creations with souls/true free will. I said only good since I just assumed everyone links Eru to being the ultimate good in the universe of Tolkien. My first comment needed better word usage. Morgoth never could create any brand new beings from scratch, he had to corrupt other creatures first.
I've been trying to deal with these issues on my own small low-tech channel. I think it is important to note that there are different legitimate points of view about what should or shouldn't be called canon in Tolkien. There are even quite different definitions for canon being used by people on opposing sides of the debate. HOWEVER, what is essential is to recognize that the open-ended and unfinished aspects of parts of Tolkien's Legendarium should NOT BE USED as an excuse for making Gandalf show up in a physical human body during the Second Age, nor an excuse for turning beloved heroic characters such as Galadriel and Gil-galad into inept and horrible people, nor again an excuse for having the rings of power work by virtue of some sort of "weird science" derived from an admixture of Silmaril, Balrog and Lightening, nor again having evil be a kind of black goopy spaghetti which infects and strangles things, all of which story choices of Rings of Power are clearly contrary to both the letter and spirit of what Tolkien wrote. It doesn't really matter if we use the word 'canon'. All this stuff is simply contrary to the beautiful Legendarium that Tolkien made.
I really appreciated this outlook. As a purist myself, it’s always gratifying to see how others of the same mind express this perspective. I didn’t even need to watch one episode of Rings of Power. The trailers alone were enough to dissuade me from watching the show. Thanks for this well-thought-out opinion. I share it. Well done.
Well said. I think there is a distinction between canon and determining what the most complete and consistent version of The Legendarium is. Tolkien wasn't always consistent although his efforts to be that are extraordinary. I agree that we should give preference to Tolkien's latest writings when there are multiple versions with the caveat that if such writings cause significant contradictions with the other parts then we should go with the older version. In any event, garbage like RoP, which has regularly made up things that contradict anything Tolkien wrote, should be called out for the utter crap that they are. Corey Olson can call himself The Tolkien Professor al he wants but his view on this matter is both disingenuous and ridiculous. It's impossible to take him seriously at this point.
I find that most of the things people say that ROP contradicts are things they have no legal right to use. If people can’t wrap their head around licensing then their argument becomes irrelevant. Meanwhile they take the films as gospel. Could you imagine if ROP made Elrond a talking waterfall? Would it be much different than Sauron being a giant eyeball?
@@Heat3YT2 1) And yet there have been a number of videos on various Tolkien YT channels where they point the show has used things from material for which they supposedly don't have the rights. 2) There is a world of difference between creating new content that at least tries to be consistent with what Tolkien wrote and deliberately choosing to contradict what Tolkien wrote. 3) If they didn't have the rights to tell the story properly then they never should have made the show. 4) I don't know who this "they" you refer to is but even now, 20+ years later, it is easy to find people talking about the Jackson films and the things about them that they dislike, including depicting Sauron as a 'giant eyeball.'
The Letters of J.R.R Tolkien book is such an important read or listen. Those who've let Amazon do what they've done with Rings of Power should give it a look at or refresh their memories
Im sick of this whole plagiarism is cool, and telling me Im a bigot if I care about the laziness of these thieves. Its getting old being preached to. Its disgusting vile behavior.
You're seeing what happens when an ideology has too much control over your surrounding civilization, its members feel entirely comfortable issuing endless "convert or else" ultimatums while they scribble their presence over anything culturally important as a power flex.
@thatgingerchick82 by that broad conclusion, then Tolkien stole from Norse/German/Icelandic mythology directly (I own AND have read most of those books & writings) and Martin completely ripped off Tolkien. Complain about that. I won't read anything of Martin's.
@@mikaelfarris4214 Nope. Try again. Those creators were inspired by mythology, and in that created their own NAMED works. That isn't the same as jumping into the official skin of someone's named work (under its name), subverting it and then going on to claim your intentional malformation "was Ackchyually" the intent of the creator and his works all along. THAT is the vandalization of someone's work, after they are no longer around to defend it.
Absolutely horrific what they did to Jordan's series. Couldn't even make it through the first episode. It was Amazon's WOT that convinced me they were going to fumble ROP
Exactly. I am delighted you agree, of course there is canon. It was a very odd thing Corey said to suggest there was not, very odd indeed. As I said earlier, the Legendarium canon includes wargs, dragons and hobbits, not hydra, medusa or centaurs. Aragorn became king, not Castamir or Arthur. The action of the Third Age was set in Eriador, not Narnia or Discworld. Elves have very long lives, Sauron was defeated at the end of the Second and Third Ages. There is undeniable canon throughout the Legendarium. Your points on the grey areas are well made, of course there are some elements of the writing and rewriting where it isn't clear what "final versions" were intended by the author, or where the author modified his earlier writings. Fine, but those uncertainties do not undermine what clearly IS canon.
I definitely agree there is cannon and that's its complicated and at times, as you say, ambiguous. I think where we get most caught up as a community is the "line" that you mention around minute 8, where we start to "feel" that things are or are not "Tolkien" in adaptations. One thing that these different adaptations have demonstrated for us is that that line is a different one for different people, but that a lot of us still feel really strongly about it. :) Thanks for lending your steady, thoughtful voice to this interesting debate!
Definitely agree. What is and is not canon in Tolkien's works can be vague at times, but that's true of most fiction. Even if it weren't, a sometimes vague canon is still a canon.
RoP not being true to JRR Tolkien's canon is unfortunately only partly the producer's/writer's fault. The Tolkien estate were extremely rigid apparently on what writings Amazon could adapt for the TV show. Pair that with incompetent writing, you got yourself a trainwreck of a Middle Earth story.
Largely agree with you, with one exception, and that is the hierarchy of the canon. Tolkien changed his mind often. So often, that maybe it's the prime reason why he never ended up publishing so much of his work, and it remained unfinished. As a result, i would change the order slightly: 1. Primary canon - LOTR and Hobbit; 2. Secondary canon - Silmarillion, should be taken with a grain of salt, as an unfinished work, with the only version we have from a point of view of his son; 3. Tolkien's notes, letters and all unfinished work - this should only be taken into account as possible directions the canon could have taken; 4. Previous version of Tolkien's work - As published in the History Of Middle Earth and other works, this should be be considered as all the directions the canon didn't take With that in mid, i would consider 1 as alpha and omega. If it's there, you have no business arguing against it. If you want more details and data, because you're a fan like we are, you go to 2. If something in 2 contradicts 1, 1 takes precedence. If you want even more data and details, you go for 3. This is where we conflict a bit, as you and some would argue, that writer's intent should take point before editor's version of things, but i would still cling to Tolkien's lack of decisiveness and overly perfectionist ways, and claim that his intent was always on the move. As such, even he himself found it hard to reconcile his latest ideas with what he already published. As, alas, he didn't live long enough to finish the work himself, i would rather take the reconciliation his son made, over the myriad notes and letters and try to impose MYSELF as the authority of what Tolkien would have wanted in the end version, had he had the time to finish the work himself. So, IMO, if 3 brings up data in conflict with 2, that 2 takes precedence. Finally for those looking for even more obscure data, or simply with the desire to learn the history and the method of thinking and creation that made 1 came into being, we go to 4. Everything that contradicts with 1, 2 and 3, but is found in 4, should not even remotely be considered for canon inclusion. Thanks for the video, loved it. Well met and may a star shine upon the hour of our meeting!
Nice video as always, and such a gentleman for not calling me out 😂. On a serious note though, it sounds a bit like you’re saying the “canon” for Tolkien is the final version of the story he was working to achieve but never quite got to, sort of like how Michelangelo famously said his sculptures were already in the rock and he just had to free them. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but I’m just curious if that’s what you’re getting at.
The whole question as to whether there is Canon or not has been brought up simply to attempt to justify the abuses of rings of power and to give others the opportunity to do the same. Plain and simple.
@@patrickolsyea it’s so bad I do watch an episode here or there but in no way does it represent Tolkien’s works other than their use as f names he had created for locations and characters
I wholeheartedly agree. There are points of uncertainty within Tolkien's canon, sure, but those don't invalidate the absolute certainty he had for events that happen in the published books or material released only after his passing. Is there uncertainty in the lore for the events RoP is trying to "adapt"? Yes. Do they stretch that to the point that they violate well established canon? Hell yes!
On their Journey to Mordor, Sam talks to Frodo about the great stories, and asks if berin ever worried about not getting the silmaril from thang gorodrim. He then realises that Frodo's starglass holds some of the light of that very simaril, now carried by Eärendil, and infused into the starglass by Galadriel, and that he and Frodo are part of the same story that goes all the way back to the times of the first age. Contrast this to the rings of power, which invents a fourth silmaril out of no where, one which can apparently be destroyed by lightning, and contains a power "as strong and unyielding as evil." Tolkien's cannon stretches back to the passed, and offers eternal truths, the purity and sacrifice of those who've gone before, and the inspiration of things beyond our petty concerns. without tolkien however, we have the Rings of power , with their post modernist takes and their utter destruction of the idea of any kind of truth, since ultimately the only truth is "your truth", and only exists to prop up the narrative. "We have always been at war with eastasia."
I want a movie about Galadriel's Formula 1 racing career. And hopefully it touches on the fact that she is actually Kryptonian, not Elvish. I mean, it would be just as authentic as RoP, but way more entertaining.
"Catch the higher quality of the themes" - yup! I think it is necessary or useful to tweak material as time progresses and there are adaptations, otherwise we end up with LotR as something like the bible for ultra-orthodox people. But I think you hit the nail on the head, when you talk about how it feels. Issue is here: people feel different. I have friends for which everything looks and feels the same. I love lore and canon, but I also love faithful but interesting adaptations.
I've seen Rings of Power defenders/fans claiming WE are the ones who don't understand Tolkien or there's no canon. And of course, Amazon wants to argue there's no such thing as canon rather than admit they made a show that doesn't respect it at all and that they failed and made people mad at them justifiably. It's an excuse. I think Shadow of Mordor/War did infinitely better jobs at adapting the Celebrimbor/Sauron story than ROP. Even if it felt like fanfiction at times, it was at least a GOOD fanfiction. I guess its too late to bring in Maury to do a paternity test for Gil-Galad 😉
I totally agree that Shadow of War/Mordor is an infinitely better story than ROP, but, in my own dumbass opinion, the Celebrimbor two ring plot is AWFUL. Fun game, though.
While I wouldnt say im a Rings Of Power defender, I do enjoy the series personally but I also went into it with the mind set of just being excited to visit the "world" of Lord of The Rings again and wasnt really to focused or concerned with how well they stuck to the story. that just wasnt something i needed them to do or expected honestly.
Love your frustration which is born not of anger but of sincerity. I share it fully. When watching the Rings of Power it's a frustration of sincerity when I go "BUT NO GALADRIEL DID NOT ONLY NOT GO TO NUMENOR, SURE MAYBE IF THE CANON WAS DIFFERENT SHE COULD, BUT SHE'S IN EREGION RIGHT NOW WITH CELEBORN! WE KNOW THIS!!! THIS IS TOO FAR!"
I don't know that it's fair to call it an adaptation. Adaptation suggest that you started with a thing and tried to make an alternate representation of that thing for another medium and I don't think that's what happened with RoP. While it's true that theoretically the creators legally have access to some details in the appendices, this isn't an adaptation of those appendices. They didn't take those appendices and represent some of them and trim a little here and squeeze a little there and fill in some details over there. There's not some process of transformations that starts with the appendices and then you apply then and end up with RoP, unless deleting evening but a handful of names and the just making stuff up out of whole cloth could be called a transformation, in such case, from a certain point of view this is also an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz. This is more like a Batman movie with an original story. It features Batman and the Joker and Gotham which are names that appear in the comics and have certain traits, and is set some time after Batman's parents have died and he's become Batman, but it's not an adaptation of any particular issue or arc from the comics. It's not an amalgamation of stories from the comics. It's barely an allusion to a story line from the comics. It's a Batman IP instance. But I think it's unfair to adaptations in specific and the English language in general to just throw that word around willy nilly like that on Rings of Power. It's a Lord of the Rings IP branded product set before the events of the 3rd age as they are generally understood.
Agreed. Though try to explain that to most modern movie makers, producers, and directors. Many of them think they can make a better story, but ultimately end up failing because they lose sight of what makes these so great. As the professor once said: "Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."
But Peter Jackson did do that. He changed characters like Aragorn from the book to the film and changed scenes around giving characters like Arwen more screen time than what she had and also scenes that should have been other characters where given to her. Battles like helms deep where changed and the themes of said battle where changed it was man that bested the forces of evil alone, signaling the time of men not what we got in the films with the elves sending their own troops to helms deep or the ghost battle in Minas Tirith that changed the gondorian reinforcements breaking the siege to the army of the dead. Characters like Gimli and Legolas were also changed , and other characters like Boromir as well were changed . The movies were not a faithful adaptation of the book.
@@krishkrish8213 I do know that they were not 100% faitfhul, but beware of purism. There's someting in the filmmaking industry called dramatization, because you cant have the long dialogues found in books or literature be put in movies, nor have the same pace. Movies and series have a limited runtime, you cant have audiences watching movies of 5 or 6 hours long in a cinema just because of long dialogues and descriptions of places, nor have a season of 40 episodes advancing very slowly. If a story is too slow, then you lose your audience. While i do agree that there were some things that conflict with the view of certain characters and the story, PJ ultimately still delivered the same themes of friendship, love, hope, and heroism present in JRR's books. Are there things that could be improved upon in the script? Absolutely. Could anyone have done it better? No. PJ did his best and respected the source as much as he could, and it reflects on the end product, it being acclaimed as the best trilogy of all time.
@@krishkrish8213 I understand what you mean and you are not wrong. But there is one key difference, those movies are good. And the changes that were made were at least changes which made internal sense in their own universe.
@@mariophreak I understand your point, though It often feels like there's a double standard when fans demand strict adherence to the original material for some stories, while praising others for taking creative liberties, exploring new depths, or offering fresh takes on characters. This seems especially relevant when discussing characters like Aragorn. In the books, Aragorn is depicted as confident, capable, and fully aware of his destiny as king. He carries the shards of Narsil, has a history of aiding the Gondorians, and is already preparing for his kingship long before he steps into the role. However, the film adaptation chose to depict him as a reluctant leader, grappling with self-doubt and the burden of his heritage. Some may argue that this shift adds complexity to his character, while others might feel that it strays too far from the book's portrayal of a more self-assured Aragorn. The key point here is that while adaptations inevitably change aspects of characters or storylines, those changes can still be valid artistic choices, as long as they bring something new or meaningful to the narrative.
@@krishkrish8213 I think I mostly agree with you. It does feel like a bit of a double standard but here's how I see it. The writers of ROP clearly don't care about anything Tolkien thought. They'll do whatever they want without any concern for the source material. There are some scenes in that show I like but overall I find it to be a fairly boring viewing experience. On the other hand, with the LOTR movies they clearly cared a whole lot about preserving the feel and magic of what made Tolkien great. And I think that's the most important distinction. The way I see it is, if you're going to make a change it had better be directly related to what will work better in the medium you're adapting it to. And it had better still make sense in universe. If you do that, and maintain the spirit and magic of the original the change will usually be forgivable.
I don’t like using the word “canon”. It has a religious connotation that I think is inappropriate when applied to Tolkien’s works and feeds into the fanaticism with which some people approach his writings. In interpreting and analyzing Tolkien’s Middle Earth writings, I make the following general distinctions: Primary-Middle Earth writings by Tolkien published during his lifetime. Secondary-Unpublished writings on Middle Earth by Tolkien. Tertiary-Commentary by third persons on Tolkien’s Middle Earth writings. For example, if a secondary source contradicts or is inconsistent with a primary source on some point, I will tend to prefer the primary source’s version. Not perfect,but I have found this to be a useful starting point.
Totally agree. I remember how mad people were that Tom Bombadil was removed from the Peter Jackson trilogy, but the reasoning is sound. ALSO, you could still say the hobbits ran into him, we just didn't see it on screen. It really didn't change much, and Jackson was under way more of a time crunch to fit 3 books into 3 movies. Amazon has no such excuse for pretty much everything they've changed, minor to major. They have PLENTY of time and they are rushing things that need to breath and dragging out randomly invented storylines *Coughs in harfoot* I had a bad feeling before the series even started and i saw Celebrimbor and Elrond's hair....why.....why......there's just no reason for the change and they just look plain silly. (it's a super minor things I know, but it hinted at a larger disregard for everything established)I honestly think someone was like "well we can't have 3 male elves with dark hair! that's outrageous! How will anyone tell them apart!"
Lore builds, lack of or absolve of is always less. Its the foundation that builds a world. If you have no lore, you can have a world, but as you explore said world, as events unfold, lore is explored and documented in real time. If you come into a world, then lore has been collected and constructed already, that lore shapes the worlds ways, its beliefs, its characters that you interact, and their motivations. Lore is the success and fail of events previous, their effects and affects on the characters and worlds. There are even things that are as you describe, cannon. Cannon is constructed, precisely constructed, because its weight has impact on the world and characters already. To mistreat cannon, to change cannon, to forgo it, changes more than just a single component, impacts more than a single character, steers events in different directions. The logistics of lore. I love world building. But you can do it very right, and very wrong. If your world has no foundations, it is always in chaos. Worlds are compassed through cannon, through lore. You can find lore that was placed and never explored, events and characters that remain explorable and precisely placed as tools for others. Cannon has already been placed, already fired, and impacted a world. Undoing cannon, rewinding the clock and rewriting its script, but with realization of the range of its impact. Some cannon makes or breaks a space, its impact must remain, is required. I completely agree, be inspired, make your own space. Defiling by lack of understanding is undoing someone else's life work, their legend, their legacy. Mistakenly or purposefully, will be frowned upon by those loyal to lore.
Arguably there are several different Middle Earth canons: - J.R.R Tolkien’s published book canon. - Canon based on all of J.R.R’s writings. - J.R.R interpreted by Christopher Tolkien canon as more or less fact. - Christopher subjective interpretation with the knowledge of what J.R.R actually wrote. - The Peter Jackson canon - The Shadow of Mordor/War canon. - The Rings of Power canon
When a creative team starts the conversation with "We want to make it our own thing" Right from that moment you are showing both indifference for the original work and disrespect for the author's vision. Canon or not, taking over a storyline and altering it to what you want shows a clear lack of original prowess and lore building. If you want to make your own thing... do it.
But Peter Jackson did do that. He changed characters like Aragorn from the book to the film and changed scenes around giving characters like Arwen more screen time than what she had and also scenes that should have been other characters where given to her. Battles like helms deep where changed and the themes of said battle where changed it was man that bested the forces of evil alone, signaling the time of men not what we got in the films with the elves sending their own troops to helms deep or the ghost battle in Minas Tirith that changed the gondorian reinforcements breaking the siege to the army of the dead. Characters like Gimli and Legolas were also changed , and other characters like Boromir as well were changed . The movies were not a faithful adaptation of the book.
@krishkrish8213 I don't honestly recall anyone actually saying that the movies were a completely faithful copy of the source material. The changes weren't really lore breaking, were they, though?
@@krishkrish8213these changes were good for movie adaptation,and still movies are mainly faithful to story and spirit of Tolkiens lotr,unlike Rop which is straight up fanfic in terms of lore accuracy with politically correct crap on it
I agree with all of this most definitely. Especially the part about ROP should have just made their own thing instead, but what I find these days is people taking material that’s already been created and twisting it into something corrupted of their own, but using the same title because, well that’s easier isn’t it? LOTR already has a large fanbase and huge, worldwide recognition and renown. So they use the name to essentially get guaranteed views. Basically free riding off of someone else’s talent, genius and hard work. The fact that they waited until after Christopher’s passing says a lot about their intentions also. In my opinion, the show is a blatant slap in the face to Tolkien and His work. There is no respect there whatsoever. It really doesn’t deserve any attention that it gets from anyone that does truly respect the works. I really hope people stop watching it and let it fade into obscurity.
Thank you for this video. I tried to make a similar argument in another discussion about how disappointing the films and series are when they don’t follow the books. They buy the rights but go off and twist the stories into something completely different. I call it a bait and switch. For example, let’s say I have read the book Jaws and the movie trailer shows a short scene with a shark. When I pay to see it I get Finding Nemo type story instead. It’s in the ocean, has fish and a shark. I’m told that’s Hollywood and that they really enjoyed the movie. But it wasn’t the movie I was promised. People who never read the Hobbit loved the movie and walked away thinking they know the story. It was disgusting to turn the story on its head. They ruined GoT ( I know, Martin was involved in that betrayal), and The Witcher the same way. As long as people buy the rights and then get away with selling us films and series that are nothing like the original the bolder they will get. I question why they spend so much for the rights just to write their own story. I’m told it’s just for the name draw and us foolish fans that fall for it. You have always been a light to shine on the canon of Tolkien and I appreciate that you share it with us.
Thank you! I grew loving his stories and books. It is such a wonderful world he created that was inspired by so many legendary and stories from our own history and real world. Tolkien made something so beautiful and deep! It is shame people want to mare that beauty!
The trouble of course is now comes the age of adaptations of works of Tolkien which have little to no story development by the man himself. Rings of Power has shown how NOT to do it by throwing money at special effects, props and costumes but forgetting to get proper writers. Soon War of The Rohirrim will come with brand new characters telling a story that is only briefly mentioned in the LOTR appendices. How "canon" that will feel remains to be seen. The same can be said about Quest for Gollum and the mysterious second movie Ian McKellen let slip. It could have been a great time to be a Tolkien fan but so far it's been a disaster to put it mildly. Let's hope what's yet to come will correct course.
I think you put it well. I slightly disagree with saying what is later supersedes the earlier. There is a canon, or there are actually multiple canons depending on which point in time off his works we settle on. You have the Lost Tales years, the experimental days in his 30s after publishing The Hobbit, and you have the "Early Silmarillion" that he wanted to publish with LotR, around 1951. Going onwards, you hade the "Late Silmarillion" in about -58/59. After that he scribbled a lot of new notes, wrote letters, did interviews and tried new ideas that never became consistent. I usually go with either 50s versions and the rest is interesting additional info. I think Christopher made the best possible compromise in the published Silmarillion and then published the source he got it from in the HoME seriies. So the canon is a bit fluid, but it is definitely there within bounds. I don't really like people who argue that everything is cut in stone, but there are still boundaries, and RoP stray way off it completely. It is complicated, but there are limits as well.
Couldn’t agree more. If you want to tell some other story then make your own! It’s irritating to me that these big companies get to cash in on “brand recognition” and then people try to portray fans of the source material as bedroom dwelling nerds. I may be a bedroom dwelling nerd but that has nothing to do with it!
As every universe, Arda has a canon storie, 40k has a canon, but most of the new writers see no need for canon or even more want to destroy the existing canon.
As someone who spent a year studying James Joyce for an honours thesis - where part of that was delving into one edition's version versus another edition's version (one chapter alone had a hundred plus word/phrase/grammar differences) - I find it shocking that oldmate could say there is no canon. Yes, Tolkien Geek made some good legal points but it was rarefied stuff. Canon to me is simply "what did the author write?" even if there is mistakes or versions, redactions. I am unsure how to think of Christopher's involvement and whether HIS contribs are but Im not pushing that here. That said. Though I despise ROP for 17 different reasons, they still bought the rights and the Estate was involved, so they can jank it and tank it all they want (they only made ridiculous expensive, gaudy, horrible Days of Our Lives fanfic anyway).
@@MenoftheWest but to be fair and as you mentioned if you do not interrupt the main focus of the story and characters then its not bad to adapt and lotro hasn't do so :). Lotro is in the south now and there are not much Tolkien said about Umbar and Harad.
"It's another thing entirely to take characters, take moments we do know, and flip them on their head and make them something else entirely." (12:53) I think it has to be said that a significant part of the Peter Jackson films are not canon. There are many character moments that Jackson changed, which had nothing to do with the demands of film as a different medium. In the books, Merry and Pippin are first and foremost, steadfast (and brave) friends. Removing the conspiracy which brings them into the Fellowship reduces them largely to goofballs for much of the film. Aragorn, Arwen, Faramir, Gimli, the list goes on, of characters whose... character... was undermined for some "forced PJ conflict" (in Lindsey Ellis's words), or a cheap laugh.
One thing I'll grant Shadow of Mordor/War, is while they certainly took some creative liberties, they still felt respectful of the source material, unlike Rings of Power.
Certainly an interesting discussion. I admit there's some dumb stuff in Rings of Power, but I don't hate it. I guess I'm treating it as professional fan fiction than anything that happens to be strictly canon. However, I wonder if this discussion will get more complicated in the near future when the first version of The Hobbit enters the public domain. I suppose at that point, any derivative creator has essentially created their own derivative "canon," but at the same time, I do think there needs to be a space for more stories within the legendarium for more stories in the future (especially where WB wants to make more money off of it, for better or worse). I get that it's a complicated balance. We love the books and the LotR films and we want everything to keep that same level of Tolkien magic, but at the same time, we don't have complete control over how the stories and lore get spread. While it's great to have content like your channel helping to educate and confirm what was in Tolkien's works, but the future could make such arguments less desirable or relevant. (Just considering the possibilities.) Thanks again for all your work. I hope that we don't get discouraged when people take the things we love to weird places that make us uncomfortable, that we recognize that some new content doesn't degrade or ruin the parts we do love.
Regarding Tolkien's canon, the thing is that there are degrees of canonicity. I don't think anyone would say that anything in The Hobbit or Lord of the rings is not canonical, even when there are inconsistencies. The issue is more complicated with all the posthumous books. I think most people would regard the published Silmarillion as canonical. Parts of Unfinished tales are more complicated: Cirion and Eorl, for example, doesn't contradict anything in Lord of the Rings and simply expands on something mentioned in the Appendices. On the other hand, the back story of Galadriel and Celeborn has many versions and it's not clear which version is definitive. I haven't read the History of Middle Earth, but my understanding is that there are many versions of the stories there. What people mean when they say there is no Tolkien canon is that there is no objective criterion to decide a definitive version of the different stories. I'm not writing this comment to defend Rings of Power. I have enjoyed parts of the show, but I agree that some things don't line up with the books. For example Tom Bombadil in Rhûn doesn't make any sense and doesn't add anything to the overall story, even within the show's version of things.
Someday it would be fascinating to know what exactly happened wity Rings of Power. Did the majority of the writers even read or study the lore? Did any of them research medieval warfare to even try to make the battles make sense? Who thought to represent the might of Numenor with 100 or so barely trained volunteers? Did they just full on try to make a cw version of lord of the rings? I mean with that size if a budget what the heck happened and what were thinking?
The same with everything else in big budget entertainment media : Real world ideology, and the subversion of beloved longstanding culturally impactful IPs (Tolkien, Star Wars, etc) for the purpose of pushing modern ideology onto the masses, while also vandalizing it with modern ideology as a public power flex to show how much "your group" has control over.
The answer to this, if there can be a single accepted answer, is very likely this: the show first and foremost is a piece of mass media, made to appeal to the largest possible viewership. It's production was heavily driven by viewership and engagement analytics. Being a faithful adaptation of the source material, or even just a show of high "artistic value" like e.g. The Sopranos or The Wire, always was a (very) distant second to that. Many people lay the blame at the feet of the two showrunners, who have done nothing of note before RoP. My personal theory is that they were picked precisely for that reason. They are knowing and willing fall guys who have no reputation to lose, a decoy for the committees and analytics that actually run the show.
Well, the writers have given interviews on their thought processes at certain points, but why look into those when it's easier to just pretend that none of it makes sense, right?
This, at least when we are talking about lotr as a product, is when marketers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want fans to believe that *they* believe in a lotr canon , but also they want to break canon to mine content (to sell)
Most importantly, we know Tolkien believed in canon because he talked about it. In a letter roasting a script for a Lord of the Ring movie that thankfully never happened, he said "the canons of any two mediums cannot be wholly different." The people who say otherwise don't care what Tolkien thought, they're just making excuses.
I like Tom Shippey's reply to that: "Well that's very wise Professor Tolkien. But actually when you say the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different, I agree with you. But can't they be very different? Or slightly different? Or rather different? What we'd like to know is how different is it possible for them to be? Again, the problem is not perceiving where the core of the original lies. Okay, where's the core of the original? Tell us that and then we'll get a bit further forward." Though, I would add that "canon" here definitely doesn't sound like it's being used in quite the same way, if he's discussing canons being different.
@jj48 It is true that we can't know how far he'd be willing to push things, but studying his response to that script is really interesting. Certainly Tolkien would have taken issue with a great number of changes to the films, but that script made all sorts of bizarre and totally unnecessary alterations to the strangest things, so it's not exactly the greatest comparison, and I think he would feel that, if nothing else, Peter Jackson and crew understood where the core of the original lay.
@@justthinkingoutloud2538 rofl That is pure emotion talking, not reason. While we don't know what Tolkien's response to Jackson's films would have been, we do know that Christopher hated them, and felt that they had completely eviscerated his father's works. Furthermore, most of the complaints of changes in the films had to do with changes to characters rather than changes to events. Interestingly, Tolkien said in a letter, "I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery." So, personally, I don't see any reason whatsoever to think that Tolkien would have thought Jackson did any better than RoP. And please understand, this isn't to say that someone can't or shouldn't like Jackson's films. I enjoy them very much myself, as a matter of fact (apart from one or two scenes). However, it does highlight why, personally, I don't think what Tolkien would or would not have liked is very useful in discussing an adaptation.
@@jj48 the amount of change, of characters, plot and scenery, that RoP makes compared to Jackson’s trilogy makes the films changes seem minuscule in comparison.
As far as canon goes, for me it is the published works then Tolkien's intentions & then the works of others, mainly Christopher. This whole discussion came about due to Corey Olsen claiming that there is no definitive Canon in Tolkien, which some have seen as an apologia for Rings of Power. I do believe there is a Canon in Tolkien, but it was ever changing right up to his death & there would have been massive overhauling of The Silmarillion in particular which is why it wasn't published in his lifetime he wanted to make great changes. None the less the overall chronology of The Legendarium, which I prefer to Canon, is fairly clear & would not have been changed, although a lot of the details would have if Tolkien had the life of the Eldar. Do i care about this when it comes to ROP, no I enjoy that, or not, on it's own terms & it doesn't affect my reading of the books at all. So I believe whether there is, or isn't, a canon is irrelevant when it comes to ROP . The whole argument about Canon & what it is, is generally being used as an excuse to bash ROP, which it should not. It is too important a topic to be used in such a way.
Everything Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything Tolkien did not write is not canon. However you choose to reconcile all that Tolkien wrote to your own understanding, if you feel the need, is your "canon" Carl Hostetter OM&H7 livechat 1:24:09
Despite the liberties Shadow of Mordor/War took, it's amazing how well they depicted Sauron's elven form. The scene in which he brutally murders Celebrimbor with his hammer like a serial killer is disturbing af
I'm not particularly fussy when it comes to canon, especially not when a story is transferred to a completely different medium. Book to movie, for example. But the changes have to make sense! Both to the recipient (outside universe) as inside the world of the story. The changes might even be almost radical and I still don't care as long as the spirit of the original material is kept intact. Peter Jackson achieved this and I love him for it!
I kept looking for ways they could get RoP back in track in season 2. I think I've kind of given up and just see it as expensive fan fiction at this point. When dealing with it as such, I can accept that it's poorly written but decently acted and beautifully made (spectacle). I'm a little starved for new Middle-earth content and I had hoped that RoP would scratch the itch, but it burst me out in new hives instead. I wish fans were given input on beloved IP adaptations. A collaborative effort would be more respected.
So something like this happens in historical movies and novels all the time, and it’s something history buffs have to contend with. You have ‘the past’ which is what actually happened, then you have history which is a description of the past using various sources to make an argument. The Past is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. Histories can have varying degrees of fidelity to the past. (the closer the better). With historical fiction and movies you get another iteration on that. You have a story nominally set in the past, but is ussually based on a history (which is already a step removed) and it is then formatted through the various storytelling art forms. Histories can be, and often are, wrong. Even seemingly solid things like dates can be argued, especially the further back in history you go. A historian has a certain luxury where they can (and should) admit to the uncertainty. If someone is making a historical novel or movie they must have internal consistency for their story, so they are forced to make decisions on what ‘facts’ they are going to go with. When it comes to fantasy settings there is no Past. What we get is equivalent to Histories (ie the Silmarillion, LoþR) and Historical Fiction/movies (ie Peter Jackson trilogy). If you treat any of these as the undeniable truth about the fictional universe you are skipping a step. To my mind, we should think of Tolkien not so much as the creator-god of Arda, but rather its first chronicler. Tolkien can be ‘wrong’ about middle earth, and the fact that he changed things around over the course of his life sort of proves this. The reason I say this is I believe resting on the laurels of canonicity is pompous and lazy, especially when it is the chief metric by which you judge derivative works. (But admittedly it is an odd sort of laziness that requires a deep dive into lots of obscure literature) You can and should enjoy Tolkien’s original work, but enjoy it for what it is. If you or someone else is going to iterate on it, then the subject matter deserves a different sort of analysis. At that point you should not blindly accept the world as presented by the author, you ought to instead make decisions of what facts you are going to accept (especially when dealing with Tolkien’s contradictions) and develop the story from there. Lastly, I’m not really here to defend Rings of Power, and it has earned much of the criticism it receives, but when it comes down to the subject of adherence to the canon I think some perspective is important. Everything that is in the scope of the Rings of Power TV show is less than 20 pages in my copy of the Silmarillion, and Annexes of the Return of the King. For it to work as a show that lasts multiple seasons they were going to have to add a lot of flesh to fairly bare bones.
Thank you for being a champion of Tolkien's canon. I'm sad at Bezos revision simply because he had the most money to purchase the rights and put his and the showrunners' vision in the mind of viewers.
It's a really Tricksy thing Canon, in more just Middle Earth...Other Fandoms they Threw out Canon out a Windows, and makes Fans Upset!!! At Least for Middle Earth: The Books are the OG Canon!!! And it's Universally agrees by the Fans!!! Thanks Mellon for taking about this, I wish others Fandoms did, Until Sauron's Deaths/Shape-Shifting...Marion Baggins Out!!!
I'm just still unhappy that Saruman got taken out in Isengard in the movie and NOT on the doorstep of Bag-End. Feel free to disagree, by all means, but to me, meeting his end where he did in the book speaks volumes and it was done for a real REASON.
What do the people think Christopher Tolkien tried to uphold when publishing the Silmarillion? He could have just published all the notes, but he made changes, even removed parts he thought weren't canon anymore.
The canonicity of the Dagor Dagorath prophecy being unclear is cool because it would be in our future. So Tolkien as the person translating this historical book for us can't really say for certain it will happen.
Two issues in response. First, it seems as if you are saying the "Canon" is what Tolkien envisioned, rather than a particular corpus. If this is your point, as at 4:49, then what is and is not canon is ultimately unknowable. If a musician alters a phrase in Liszt's "Transcendental Etudes" and one says, it's not canonical, one must remember that Liszt published three different versions of the etudes, and was clearly groping toward something he imperfectly realized. Who is to say the musician did not get closer to Liszt's vision? Second, you comment that Peter Jackson's movies remain more faithful to this canon, while The Rings Of Power doesn't. I disagree, and disagreed when I first saw them. Apart from changing the character of Aragorn, they also changed the characters of Merry and Pippin, alter Saruman's fate AWAY from the grand theme that evil ultimately destroys itself, drops the Scouring of the Shire (absolutely in Tolkien's mental canon), and the radical down-playing of the characters and relationships in favor of action, among many others. I very strongly disliked Jackson's movies, because they changed everything about Tolkien that I most valued -- but I never said they violated the canon. They were an interpretation that I disliked. Critics of The Rings Of Power have a couple of choices I can see. One is to say that there's an ideal version of Tolkien, which I think I'm in touch with, and this ain't it. I see this as cheeky. Who, if not the Tolkien estate -- a very controlling institution, I may say -- gets to say what is and isn't acceptable? The other is to say, this character's motivations appear unconvincing, these sections of dialog are clunky, much of the sections about the hobbits drags terribly, not even Raymond Chandler had such a long goodbye, and so on, ending that this isn't terribly inspired storytelling, even if you can see the budget on the screen. The latter is saying, I disliked this as art; the first is saying, I disliked this because it wasn't how I would have done it. Because, upshot, we will never know whether Tolkien would have done it, or which parts he would have endorsed and which rejected. We know that the estate permitted it, and beyond that we have to judge it on its merits. Which do exist, if there are not so many as we might have wished. There's a difference between calling it a disappointment, and calling it a violation, which hinges on how much one sees oneself as the guardian of the legacy. We aren't. The estate is.
I will always respect Christopher Tolkien for trying to give to the World what his father couldn't before dying. His First Age Trilogy (Children of Húrin, Beren & Lúthien and Fall of Gondolin) shows how much he wanted to make the closest thing to a definitive version of the Silmarillion
To be honest, I’m not sure I’ll ever regard any Tolkien work post Christopher’s death as being as definitive as what came before. No one could have compiled and edited his father’s work as well as him.
Yeap, will always consider published works by JRR full cannon including the tale of years. Anything published by Christopher writen by JRR as near cannon or secondary cannon.
Letters and similar written by JRR probably without half as much thought as he put into as the books as possible cannon but generally a good step back.
Anything else is simply 'fan' fiction.
@@AlexanderDiviFiliushe entrusted his son to do this. It's just as Canon any anything else
I never bothered with the last book as it just ends way too early as JRR never really finished the story itself. He never completed the other two either, but he finished the story, which Christopher then completed through JRR's notes.
I am also not a huge fan of tCoH, but that is more of a taste issue. There are too many big and small tragedies in the story, so the impact of the final one is lessened and predictable. Of course, we knew from the beginning that it would end badly due to Melkor's curse.
Agree completely. Great analysis
The thing to remember is the words of Brandon Sanderson. To paraphrase - a great many scriptwriters today have their own ideas. Often, they have written their own books and scripts, but no one was interested in what they had to say. Instead, what they do is get themselves attached to a well-known IP. This is where they try and insert their failed own words and ideas into something loved and respected.
They literally do not give a hoot about what is canon. They are selfish and arrogant. The prime examples are Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, and The Witcher.
They believe that their ideas are superior even though most find the changes an insult to their intelligence.
We, the people who love and cherish the original works, are further denigrated and insulted for having the temerity to object.
Such is tv and streaming in the 21st century.
You know Brandon Sanderson took over WoT right?
@cpmf2112 Brandon Sanderson completed The Wheel of Time at the request of Robert Jordan's widow, Harriet. He worked extensively from the notes and plans that Robert Jordan left behind. Notes deliberately left behind so that the story could be completed. I hope that answers your question.
I have a question for you. Were you implying that Brandon Sanderson was doing the same underhand thing he described? If you were, you would be a long way from the mark.
@@markstott6689 is WoT Brandon Sanderson's IP?
@@cpmf2112 You know the answer.
@markstott6689 exactly
"He didn't mean for alot of things to happen."
How anyone can say there isn't a canon just baffles me. Tho the author may have tweeked some things over the years the overall narrative hasn't changed.
By changing the lore to suit your own story changes the heart and spirit of what we're meant to learn and feel.
They're saying "he really had no standards" regarding a creator and work that is screaming standards. But then again, these are the same folks that see real world people in orcs.
because there isnt one
@JBTriple8 keep your vile forked tongue behind your teeth 😝
Yoyston, I think you defined your interpretation of canon really well. I am a research scientist and have over 100 publications in peer-reviewed journals. The concept of “truth” in science is akin to the definition and use of canon is fictional writing, I believe. When defined well, truth and canon should be conjointly interpreted by all with universal (at least, near universal) agreement.
Another aspect of definition you brought up was RoP as the worst offender of canon for Tolkien’s legendarium. I suspect that, without too much effort, we could each find worse offenders of the legendarium, such as time traveling Gandolf, etc. I suspect, and definitely correct me if I am wrong, that a big part of the disdain for the lack of adherence to the canon legendarium is that RoP is so widely popular. With that massive popularity comes a much greater chance of folks new to Tolkien mistaking RoP as canon. From my side, I do see this as a substantial problem. Consider the formula: (degree of misrepresentation of the canon legendarium) x (number of first time Tolkien viewers/readers). If a story of time traveling Gandolf or Fellowship of the Ring was atrociously worse than RoP but only have 500 new novel Tolkien readers, the formula would result is much less of a problem than moderate canon sway x millions of new viewers.
Finally, the reader’s/ viewer’s willingness to engage with the new material, however disparate from the legendarium, is a critical factor as well. I know RoP will not be a great representation as these characters or Second Age lore. But I love these characters and I love both the specific canon legendarium AND variants of it. I thoroughly enjoy “most” of RoP. I can love it because of the characters while knowing it’s important to understand what is and is not canon. I have watched every one of your 500+ videos on Tolkien, and knowing you have dedicated yourself to ensuring what you present is indeed lore, is a critical part of loving your videos. But, just like you will at time take on a “what if” scenario allow for a broader set of videos to be created, so do stories such as RoP. Perhaps some of this goes into the definition of adaptation vs. the term “based on”. Perhaps the former requires greater adherence to the canon legendarium except when the medium, contracts, or some other necessary limitation requires a deviation whereas “based on” allows for a greater confluence of creative differences to be undertaken while still allowing viewers to have some shared cultural norms of the characters, history, and more.
These are my thoughts of why RoP can still be enjoyable without having to require it from being purely canon at all times.
@Dr_Cole if the writing weren't so atrocious maybe? But it's one of the many many many problems that make that show a joke. Lore aside if anyone wants to watch it and enjoy it for what it is then go for it, no one stopping anyone. But don't call twinkle little star better than Beethovens 9th symphony. They are not the same
It's not just a case whether Tolkien has canon, we actually know the author's own thoughts on messing with it, from his own mouth. He talks about it in the BBC interviews from the '60s.
Thank you! I always like how seriously you get into the topics. What good is a story, if the backstory is not in line?
Great explanation and totally agree! My thoughts are mainly concerning characters. In RoP, the characters of Galadriel, Sauron, Gil-Galad, and Elrond consistently behave in ways and make decisions that I could never see the characters from Tolkien's published works doing. I can't see how they resemble their book characters or see how they could even grow into those characters. The difference with Peter Jackson's films is that even with changes, the characters are the same or I can see a way for them to be those canon characters. Even my biggest gripe, Faramir in the Two Towers. He eventually made the correct decision. Aragorn may have been reluctant and questioning himself alot, but he never actively tried to avoid his destiny. I can see Elrond and Galadriel deciding to send troops to Helm's Deep. Etc. etc. The Hobbit films are not so great, but even they don't destroy the characters to the extent of RoP. That's what's so heartbreaking about that series.
A good example I use is that just because there's conflicting accounts on what the blue wizards did in the east, doesn't mean that canon doesn't exist. It may not be agreed upon what they did but I can tell you that there were 2 of them, and only 5 wizards total, and they weren't trained to bewizards by Tom Bombadil.
Indeed. Even in our real world we have conflicting accounts on many events, not just from 2000 years ago or more, but even from NOW.
As far as we know.
@@waltonsmith7210exactly. The canon goes as far and even if there are things you’d like to add while making a story that’s fine as there is no blatant contradiction to what is established or without any artistic merit
I mean how can someone say there isn't a canon? Or a timeline that is followed? I mean yes some details did change over times. But the Universe itself had a concreate timeline and events it followed. It also had certain rules the universe and it's magic works like for example: you can't resurrect the dead, evil can't create new life only corrupt.
not someone but the almighty Tolkien "professor" that is now the show runners darling, filming his channel with interviews and exclusives.
Except that in earlier versions, evil COULD create. It's been a while since I read the History of Middle-earth, but I don't think that changed until Lord of the Rings, when Frodo reassures Sam that the Shadow has to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
@@jj48 It was retconned later that Evil could not create new live with free will, only corrupt things already given it by Eru.
@@RomanHistoryFan476AD Exactly. Nothing, good or evil, can truly create in Middle-earth, save Eru Himself. But again, that's how Tolkien decided it worked later on. In your initial comment, you made it sound like that was always a hard, fast rule of Tolkien's universe.
@@jj48 From the start it was always only Eru who could create new creations with souls/true free will. I said only good since I just assumed everyone links Eru to being the ultimate good in the universe of Tolkien. My first comment needed better word usage.
Morgoth never could create any brand new beings from scratch, he had to corrupt other creatures first.
You and Jess are the absolute BEST channels about Tolkien
What’s this other channel? Always looking for solid and grounded Toilken content.
@@TheJmlew11Jess of the Shire is the other channel. She is very good.
I've been trying to deal with these issues on my own small low-tech channel. I think it is important to note that there are different legitimate points of view about what should or shouldn't be called canon in Tolkien. There are even quite different definitions for canon being used by people on opposing sides of the debate. HOWEVER, what is essential is to recognize that the open-ended and unfinished aspects of parts of Tolkien's Legendarium should NOT BE USED as an excuse for making Gandalf show up in a physical human body during the Second Age, nor an excuse for turning beloved heroic characters such as Galadriel and Gil-galad into inept and horrible people, nor again an excuse for having the rings of power work by virtue of some sort of "weird science" derived from an admixture of Silmaril, Balrog and Lightening, nor again having evil be a kind of black goopy spaghetti which infects and strangles things, all of which story choices of Rings of Power are clearly contrary to both the letter and spirit of what Tolkien wrote. It doesn't really matter if we use the word 'canon'. All this stuff is simply contrary to the beautiful Legendarium that Tolkien made.
I really appreciated this outlook. As a purist myself, it’s always gratifying to see how others of the same mind express this perspective. I didn’t even need to watch one episode of Rings of Power. The trailers alone were enough to dissuade me from watching the show. Thanks for this well-thought-out opinion. I share it. Well done.
Well said. I think there is a distinction between canon and determining what the most complete and consistent version of The Legendarium is. Tolkien wasn't always consistent although his efforts to be that are extraordinary. I agree that we should give preference to Tolkien's latest writings when there are multiple versions with the caveat that if such writings cause significant contradictions with the other parts then we should go with the older version.
In any event, garbage like RoP, which has regularly made up things that contradict anything Tolkien wrote, should be called out for the utter crap that they are. Corey Olson can call himself The Tolkien Professor al he wants but his view on this matter is both disingenuous and ridiculous. It's impossible to take him seriously at this point.
I find that most of the things people say that ROP contradicts are things they have no legal right to use. If people can’t wrap their head around licensing then their argument becomes irrelevant.
Meanwhile they take the films as gospel. Could you imagine if ROP made Elrond a talking waterfall? Would it be much different than Sauron being a giant eyeball?
No adaptations will ever be canon regardless
@@Heat3YT2Rop is lorewise fanfic,movies are far more faithful to books than that trash
@@MrRenanHappy Very true as Tolkien did not write them.
@@Heat3YT2
1) And yet there have been a number of videos on various Tolkien YT channels where they point the show has used things from material for which they supposedly don't have the rights.
2) There is a world of difference between creating new content that at least tries to be consistent with what Tolkien wrote and deliberately choosing to contradict what Tolkien wrote.
3) If they didn't have the rights to tell the story properly then they never should have made the show.
4) I don't know who this "they" you refer to is but even now, 20+ years later, it is easy to find people talking about the Jackson films and the things about them that they dislike, including depicting Sauron as a 'giant eyeball.'
The Letters of J.R.R Tolkien book is such an important read or listen. Those who've let Amazon do what they've done with Rings of Power should give it a look at or refresh their memories
Thank you! ❤ I find it unfathomable that there's even a debate on this.
Im sick of this whole plagiarism is cool, and telling me Im a bigot if I care about the laziness of these thieves. Its getting old being preached to. Its disgusting vile behavior.
You're seeing what happens when an ideology has too much control over your surrounding civilization, its members feel entirely comfortable issuing endless "convert or else" ultimatums while they scribble their presence over anything culturally important as a power flex.
Adaptation is ok. Inspiration is ok. Plagarism is not.
@sarahluchies1076 agree. Many things are inspired by Jane Austin. Rings of Power stole from Tolkien.
@thatgingerchick82 by that broad conclusion, then Tolkien stole from Norse/German/Icelandic mythology directly (I own AND have read most of those books & writings) and Martin completely ripped off Tolkien. Complain about that. I won't read anything of Martin's.
@@mikaelfarris4214
Nope.
Try again.
Those creators were inspired by mythology, and in that created their own NAMED works.
That isn't the same as jumping into the official skin of someone's named work (under its name), subverting it and then going on to claim your intentional malformation "was Ackchyually" the intent of the creator and his works all along.
THAT is the vandalization of someone's work, after they are no longer around to defend it.
As a wheel of time book fan, i grieve with you
Absolutely horrific what they did to Jordan's series. Couldn't even make it through the first episode. It was Amazon's WOT that convinced me they were going to fumble ROP
@@wvhoipolloi7035 Just paying attention to the direction of modern culture - Marvel, Star Wars, etc. - I knew exactliy what we were in for.
Nice vid mate, totally agree on all points 👍
Thanks for bringing logic to this topic. Great listen.
Exactly. I am delighted you agree, of course there is canon. It was a very odd thing Corey said to suggest there was not, very odd indeed. As I said earlier, the Legendarium canon includes wargs, dragons and hobbits, not hydra, medusa or centaurs. Aragorn became king, not Castamir or Arthur. The action of the Third Age was set in Eriador, not Narnia or Discworld. Elves have very long lives, Sauron was defeated at the end of the Second and Third Ages. There is undeniable canon throughout the Legendarium.
Your points on the grey areas are well made, of course there are some elements of the writing and rewriting where it isn't clear what "final versions" were intended by the author, or where the author modified his earlier writings. Fine, but those uncertainties do not undermine what clearly IS canon.
I definitely agree there is cannon and that's its complicated and at times, as you say, ambiguous. I think where we get most caught up as a community is the "line" that you mention around minute 8, where we start to "feel" that things are or are not "Tolkien" in adaptations. One thing that these different adaptations have demonstrated for us is that that line is a different one for different people, but that a lot of us still feel really strongly about it. :) Thanks for lending your steady, thoughtful voice to this interesting debate!
The ambiguity is kind of opposite of canon though.
Here here! God save the King!
Definitely agree. What is and is not canon in Tolkien's works can be vague at times, but that's true of most fiction. Even if it weren't, a sometimes vague canon is still a canon.
RoP not being true to JRR Tolkien's canon is unfortunately only partly the producer's/writer's fault. The Tolkien estate were extremely rigid apparently on what writings Amazon could adapt for the TV show. Pair that with incompetent writing, you got yourself a trainwreck of a Middle Earth story.
*Adjusts hearing horn.*
What's that you said? Tolkien Cannons? You heard the lad, boys! Load the powder, we're off to the black gate!
Largely agree with you, with one exception, and that is the hierarchy of the canon. Tolkien changed his mind often. So often, that maybe it's the prime reason why he never ended up publishing so much of his work, and it remained unfinished.
As a result, i would change the order slightly:
1. Primary canon - LOTR and Hobbit;
2. Secondary canon - Silmarillion, should be taken with a grain of salt, as an unfinished work, with the only version we have from a point of view of his son;
3. Tolkien's notes, letters and all unfinished work - this should only be taken into account as possible directions the canon could have taken;
4. Previous version of Tolkien's work - As published in the History Of Middle Earth and other works, this should be be considered as all the directions the canon didn't take
With that in mid, i would consider 1 as alpha and omega. If it's there, you have no business arguing against it. If you want more details and data, because you're a fan like we are, you go to 2. If something in 2 contradicts 1, 1 takes precedence. If you want even more data and details, you go for 3. This is where we conflict a bit, as you and some would argue, that writer's intent should take point before editor's version of things, but i would still cling to Tolkien's lack of decisiveness and overly perfectionist ways, and claim that his intent was always on the move. As such, even he himself found it hard to reconcile his latest ideas with what he already published. As, alas, he didn't live long enough to finish the work himself, i would rather take the reconciliation his son made, over the myriad notes and letters and try to impose MYSELF as the authority of what Tolkien would have wanted in the end version, had he had the time to finish the work himself. So, IMO, if 3 brings up data in conflict with 2, that 2 takes precedence. Finally for those looking for even more obscure data, or simply with the desire to learn the history and the method of thinking and creation that made 1 came into being, we go to 4. Everything that contradicts with 1, 2 and 3, but is found in 4, should not even remotely be considered for canon inclusion.
Thanks for the video, loved it. Well met and may a star shine upon the hour of our meeting!
Nice video as always, and such a gentleman for not calling me out 😂. On a serious note though, it sounds a bit like you’re saying the “canon” for Tolkien is the final version of the story he was working to achieve but never quite got to, sort of like how Michelangelo famously said his sculptures were already in the rock and he just had to free them. Maybe I’m misunderstanding but I’m just curious if that’s what you’re getting at.
The whole question as to whether there is Canon or not has been brought up simply to attempt to justify the abuses of rings of power and to give others the opportunity to do the same. Plain and simple.
ROP does not deserve to have the name Tolkien anywhere near it.
For me that ROP crap doesn’t exist and never will either
@@patrickolsyea it’s so bad I do watch an episode here or there but in no way does it represent Tolkien’s works other than their use as f names he had created for locations and characters
No lotr media does.
All are an insult to tolkien, he would have hated them all!
We have the money grubbing hack Simon Tolkien to thank for this disaster
I would agree to disagree there but I know im in the very small minority when it comes to that because I do really enjoy it.
I wholeheartedly agree. There are points of uncertainty within Tolkien's canon, sure, but those don't invalidate the absolute certainty he had for events that happen in the published books or material released only after his passing. Is there uncertainty in the lore for the events RoP is trying to "adapt"? Yes. Do they stretch that to the point that they violate well established canon? Hell yes!
Whole heartedly agree with all you said. Great channel keep up the good work. 🧙♂️
My favorite Tolkien TH-camr. Keep it real dude!
You mean Sauron never had the hots for Galadriel and Elrond never kissed his mother in law so intimately?
On their Journey to Mordor, Sam talks to Frodo about the great stories, and asks if berin ever worried about not getting the silmaril from thang gorodrim.
He then realises that Frodo's starglass holds some of the light of that very simaril, now carried by Eärendil, and infused into the starglass by Galadriel, and that he and Frodo are part of the same story that goes all the way back to the times of the first age.
Contrast this to the rings of power, which invents a fourth silmaril out of no where, one which can apparently be destroyed by lightning, and contains a power "as strong and unyielding as evil."
Tolkien's cannon stretches back to the passed, and offers eternal truths, the purity and sacrifice of those who've gone before, and the inspiration of things beyond our petty concerns.
without tolkien however, we have the Rings of power , with their post modernist takes and their utter destruction of the idea of any kind of truth, since ultimately the only truth is "your truth", and only exists to prop up the narrative.
"We have always been at war with eastasia."
I want a movie about Galadriel's Formula 1 racing career. And hopefully it touches on the fact that she is actually Kryptonian, not Elvish. I mean, it would be just as authentic as RoP, but way more entertaining.
"Catch the higher quality of the themes" - yup!
I think it is necessary or useful to tweak material as time progresses and there are adaptations,
otherwise we end up with LotR as something like the bible for ultra-orthodox people.
But I think you hit the nail on the head, when you talk about how it feels.
Issue is here: people feel different. I have friends for which everything looks and feels the same.
I love lore and canon, but I also love faithful but interesting adaptations.
I agree ☝🏻
I've seen Rings of Power defenders/fans claiming WE are the ones who don't understand Tolkien or there's no canon.
And of course, Amazon wants to argue there's no such thing as canon rather than admit they made a show that doesn't respect it at all and that they failed and made people mad at them justifiably. It's an excuse.
I think Shadow of Mordor/War did infinitely better jobs at adapting the Celebrimbor/Sauron story than ROP. Even if it felt like fanfiction at times, it was at least a GOOD fanfiction.
I guess its too late to bring in Maury to do a paternity test for Gil-Galad 😉
I totally agree that Shadow of War/Mordor is an infinitely better story than ROP, but, in my own dumbass opinion, the Celebrimbor two ring plot is AWFUL. Fun game, though.
While I wouldnt say im a Rings Of Power defender, I do enjoy the series personally but I also went into it with the mind set of just being excited to visit the "world" of Lord of The Rings again and wasnt really to focused or concerned with how well they stuck to the story. that just wasnt something i needed them to do or expected honestly.
Love your frustration which is born not of anger but of sincerity. I share it fully. When watching the Rings of Power it's a frustration of sincerity when I go "BUT NO GALADRIEL DID NOT ONLY NOT GO TO NUMENOR, SURE MAYBE IF THE CANON WAS DIFFERENT SHE COULD, BUT SHE'S IN EREGION RIGHT NOW WITH CELEBORN! WE KNOW THIS!!! THIS IS TOO FAR!"
I think a way to show this respect is to stop treating the Rings of Power as a sincere adaptation that deserves the attention of analysis
It is not a "bad" adaptation, it is a subversive piece of media. There's a major difference between the two
I don't think many do. It's really much bigger problem with LotR movies.
it's just jewish slop
I don't know that it's fair to call it an adaptation. Adaptation suggest that you started with a thing and tried to make an alternate representation of that thing for another medium and I don't think that's what happened with RoP. While it's true that theoretically the creators legally have access to some details in the appendices, this isn't an adaptation of those appendices. They didn't take those appendices and represent some of them and trim a little here and squeeze a little there and fill in some details over there. There's not some process of transformations that starts with the appendices and then you apply then and end up with RoP, unless deleting evening but a handful of names and the just making stuff up out of whole cloth could be called a transformation, in such case, from a certain point of view this is also an adaptation of The Wizard of Oz.
This is more like a Batman movie with an original story. It features Batman and the Joker and Gotham which are names that appear in the comics and have certain traits, and is set some time after Batman's parents have died and he's become Batman, but it's not an adaptation of any particular issue or arc from the comics. It's not an amalgamation of stories from the comics. It's barely an allusion to a story line from the comics. It's a Batman IP instance. But I think it's unfair to adaptations in specific and the English language in general to just throw that word around willy nilly like that on Rings of Power. It's a Lord of the Rings IP branded product set before the events of the 3rd age as they are generally understood.
@@J31 What do you mean by "subversive piece of media"?
Well said, thank you for this.
Agreed. Though try to explain that to most modern movie makers, producers, and directors. Many of them think they can make a better story, but ultimately end up failing because they lose sight of what makes these so great. As the professor once said: "Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."
But Peter Jackson did do that. He changed characters like Aragorn from the book to the film and changed scenes around giving characters like Arwen more screen time than what she had and also scenes that should have been other characters where given to her. Battles like helms deep where changed and the themes of said battle where changed it was man that bested the forces of evil alone, signaling the time of men not what we got in the films with the elves sending their own troops to helms deep or the ghost battle in Minas Tirith that changed the gondorian reinforcements breaking the siege to the army of the dead. Characters like Gimli and Legolas were also changed , and other characters like Boromir as well were changed . The movies were not a faithful adaptation of the book.
@@krishkrish8213 I do know that they were not 100% faitfhul, but beware of purism. There's someting in the filmmaking industry called dramatization, because you cant have the long dialogues found in books or literature be put in movies, nor have the same pace. Movies and series have a limited runtime, you cant have audiences watching movies of 5 or 6 hours long in a cinema just because of long dialogues and descriptions of places, nor have a season of 40 episodes advancing very slowly. If a story is too slow, then you lose your audience. While i do agree that there were some things that conflict with the view of certain characters and the story, PJ ultimately still delivered the same themes of friendship, love, hope, and heroism present in JRR's books. Are there things that could be improved upon in the script? Absolutely. Could anyone have done it better? No. PJ did his best and respected the source as much as he could, and it reflects on the end product, it being acclaimed as the best trilogy of all time.
@@krishkrish8213 I understand what you mean and you are not wrong. But there is one key difference, those movies are good. And the changes that were made were at least changes which made internal sense in their own universe.
@@mariophreak I understand your point, though It often feels like there's a double standard when fans demand strict adherence to the original material for some stories, while praising others for taking creative liberties, exploring new depths, or offering fresh takes on characters. This seems especially relevant when discussing characters like Aragorn. In the books, Aragorn is depicted as confident, capable, and fully aware of his destiny as king. He carries the shards of Narsil, has a history of aiding the Gondorians, and is already preparing for his kingship long before he steps into the role. However, the film adaptation chose to depict him as a reluctant leader, grappling with self-doubt and the burden of his heritage. Some may argue that this shift adds complexity to his character, while others might feel that it strays too far from the book's portrayal of a more self-assured Aragorn. The key point here is that while adaptations inevitably change aspects of characters or storylines, those changes can still be valid artistic choices, as long as they bring something new or meaningful to the narrative.
@@krishkrish8213 I think I mostly agree with you. It does feel like a bit of a double standard but here's how I see it. The writers of ROP clearly don't care about anything Tolkien thought. They'll do whatever they want without any concern for the source material. There are some scenes in that show I like but overall I find it to be a fairly boring viewing experience. On the other hand, with the LOTR movies they clearly cared a whole lot about preserving the feel and magic of what made Tolkien great. And I think that's the most important distinction. The way I see it is, if you're going to make a change it had better be directly related to what will work better in the medium you're adapting it to. And it had better still make sense in universe. If you do that, and maintain the spirit and magic of the original the change will usually be forgivable.
Perfectly said. I felt as if you were voicing my very own thoughts throughout this video.
The way Amazon has handled The Wheel of Time "adaptation" comes to mind when crossing the line as you put it.
I don’t like using the word “canon”. It has a religious connotation that I think is inappropriate when applied to Tolkien’s works and feeds into the fanaticism with which some people approach his writings. In interpreting and analyzing Tolkien’s Middle Earth writings, I make the following general distinctions:
Primary-Middle Earth writings by Tolkien published during his lifetime.
Secondary-Unpublished writings on Middle Earth by Tolkien.
Tertiary-Commentary by third persons on Tolkien’s Middle Earth writings.
For example, if a secondary source contradicts or is inconsistent with a primary source on some point, I will tend to prefer the primary source’s version. Not perfect,but I have found this to be a useful starting point.
Totally agree. I remember how mad people were that Tom Bombadil was removed from the Peter Jackson trilogy, but the reasoning is sound. ALSO, you could still say the hobbits ran into him, we just didn't see it on screen. It really didn't change much, and Jackson was under way more of a time crunch to fit 3 books into 3 movies.
Amazon has no such excuse for pretty much everything they've changed, minor to major. They have PLENTY of time and they are rushing things that need to breath and dragging out randomly invented storylines *Coughs in harfoot*
I had a bad feeling before the series even started and i saw Celebrimbor and Elrond's hair....why.....why......there's just no reason for the change and they just look plain silly. (it's a super minor things I know, but it hinted at a larger disregard for everything established)I honestly think someone was like "well we can't have 3 male elves with dark hair! that's outrageous! How will anyone tell them apart!"
Lore builds, lack of or absolve of is always less. Its the foundation that builds a world. If you have no lore, you can have a world, but as you explore said world, as events unfold, lore is explored and documented in real time. If you come into a world, then lore has been collected and constructed already, that lore shapes the worlds ways, its beliefs, its characters that you interact, and their motivations. Lore is the success and fail of events previous, their effects and affects on the characters and worlds. There are even things that are as you describe, cannon. Cannon is constructed, precisely constructed, because its weight has impact on the world and characters already. To mistreat cannon, to change cannon, to forgo it, changes more than just a single component, impacts more than a single character, steers events in different directions. The logistics of lore. I love world building. But you can do it very right, and very wrong. If your world has no foundations, it is always in chaos. Worlds are compassed through cannon, through lore. You can find lore that was placed and never explored, events and characters that remain explorable and precisely placed as tools for others. Cannon has already been placed, already fired, and impacted a world. Undoing cannon, rewinding the clock and rewriting its script, but with realization of the range of its impact. Some cannon makes or breaks a space, its impact must remain, is required. I completely agree, be inspired, make your own space. Defiling by lack of understanding is undoing someone else's life work, their legend, their legacy. Mistakenly or purposefully, will be frowned upon by those loyal to lore.
That is correct Yoystan
Arguably there are several different Middle Earth canons:
- J.R.R Tolkien’s published book canon.
- Canon based on all of J.R.R’s writings.
- J.R.R interpreted by Christopher Tolkien canon as more or less fact.
- Christopher subjective interpretation with the knowledge of what J.R.R actually wrote.
- The Peter Jackson canon
- The Shadow of Mordor/War canon.
- The Rings of Power canon
When a creative team starts the conversation with
"We want to make it our own thing"
Right from that moment you are showing both indifference for the original work and disrespect for the author's vision.
Canon or not, taking over a storyline and altering it to what you want shows a clear lack of original prowess and lore building.
If you want to make your own thing... do it.
But Peter Jackson did do that. He changed characters like Aragorn from the book to the film and changed scenes around giving characters like Arwen more screen time than what she had and also scenes that should have been other characters where given to her. Battles like helms deep where changed and the themes of said battle where changed it was man that bested the forces of evil alone, signaling the time of men not what we got in the films with the elves sending their own troops to helms deep or the ghost battle in Minas Tirith that changed the gondorian reinforcements breaking the siege to the army of the dead. Characters like Gimli and Legolas were also changed , and other characters like Boromir as well were changed . The movies were not a faithful adaptation of the book.
@krishkrish8213 I don't honestly recall anyone actually saying that the movies were a completely faithful copy of the source material. The changes weren't really lore breaking, were they, though?
@@krishkrish8213these changes were good for movie adaptation,and still movies are mainly faithful to story and spirit of Tolkiens lotr,unlike Rop which is straight up fanfic in terms of lore accuracy with politically correct crap on it
Completely correct!!!
I agree with all of this most definitely. Especially the part about ROP should have just made their own thing instead, but what I find these days is people taking material that’s already been created and twisting it into something corrupted of their own, but using the same title because, well that’s easier isn’t it? LOTR already has a large fanbase and huge, worldwide recognition and renown. So they use the name to essentially get guaranteed views. Basically free riding off of someone else’s talent, genius and hard work. The fact that they waited until after Christopher’s passing says a lot about their intentions also. In my opinion, the show is a blatant slap in the face to Tolkien and His work. There is no respect there whatsoever. It really doesn’t deserve any attention that it gets from anyone that does truly respect the works. I really hope people stop watching it and let it fade into obscurity.
Rings of Power is not cannon. Never will be, just a terrible "fan"fic.
Fanfiction is made by fans.
All lotr media is fanfiction!
@@bulldogsbob Which is why it's an apt description.
@@jj48 Ring of power is self insert crap. Like what Kennedy did to Star Wars and Disl of Destiny.
@@bulldogsbob How do you figure it's "self-insert"?
Thank you for this video. I tried to make a similar argument in another discussion about how disappointing the films and series are when they don’t follow the books. They buy the rights but go off and twist the stories into something completely different. I call it a bait and switch. For example, let’s say I have read the book Jaws and the movie trailer shows a short scene with a shark. When I pay to see it I get Finding Nemo type story instead. It’s in the ocean, has fish and a shark. I’m told that’s Hollywood and that they really enjoyed the movie. But it wasn’t the movie I was promised. People who never read the Hobbit loved the movie and walked away thinking they know the story. It was disgusting to turn the story on its head. They ruined GoT ( I know, Martin was involved in that betrayal), and The Witcher the same way. As long as people buy the rights and then get away with selling us films and series that are nothing like the original the bolder they will get. I question why they spend so much for the rights just to write their own story. I’m told it’s just for the name draw and us foolish fans that fall for it. You have always been a light to shine on the canon of Tolkien and I appreciate that you share it with us.
The lighting of the beacons is a great example. It's better in the movie because of the visual nature of film.
Thank you! I grew loving his stories and books. It is such a wonderful world he created that was inspired by so many legendary and stories from our own history and real world. Tolkien made something so beautiful and deep! It is shame people want to mare that beauty!
Rings of power just isn’t a good show. Lord of the rings completely aside. It’s not very well written
The trouble of course is now comes the age of adaptations of works of Tolkien which have little to no story development by the man himself. Rings of Power has shown how NOT to do it by throwing money at special effects, props and costumes but forgetting to get proper writers. Soon War of The Rohirrim will come with brand new characters telling a story that is only briefly mentioned in the LOTR appendices. How "canon" that will feel remains to be seen. The same can be said about Quest for Gollum and the mysterious second movie Ian McKellen let slip. It could have been a great time to be a Tolkien fan but so far it's been a disaster to put it mildly. Let's hope what's yet to come will correct course.
I think you put it well. I slightly disagree with saying what is later supersedes the earlier. There is a canon, or there are actually multiple canons depending on which point in time off his works we settle on. You have the Lost Tales years, the experimental days in his 30s after publishing The Hobbit, and you have the "Early Silmarillion" that he wanted to publish with LotR, around 1951.
Going onwards, you hade the "Late Silmarillion" in about -58/59. After that he scribbled a lot of new notes, wrote letters, did interviews and tried new ideas that never became consistent. I usually go with either 50s versions and the rest is interesting additional info. I think Christopher made the best possible compromise in the published Silmarillion and then published the source he got it from in the HoME seriies. So the canon is a bit fluid, but it is definitely there within bounds.
I don't really like people who argue that everything is cut in stone, but there are still boundaries, and RoP stray way off it completely. It is complicated, but there are limits as well.
Couldn’t agree more. If you want to tell some other story then make your own! It’s irritating to me that these big companies get to cash in on “brand recognition” and then people try to portray fans of the source material as bedroom dwelling nerds. I may be a bedroom dwelling nerd but that has nothing to do with it!
As every universe, Arda has a canon storie, 40k has a canon, but most of the new writers see no need for canon or even more want to destroy the existing canon.
Ill never see RoP as cannon. The changes they’ve made to the lore of middle earth is a disgrace.
As someone who spent a year studying James Joyce for an honours thesis - where part of that was delving into one edition's version versus another edition's version (one chapter alone had a hundred plus word/phrase/grammar differences) - I find it shocking that oldmate could say there is no canon. Yes, Tolkien Geek made some good legal points but it was rarefied stuff. Canon to me is simply "what did the author write?" even if there is mistakes or versions, redactions. I am unsure how to think of Christopher's involvement and whether HIS contribs are but Im not pushing that here.
That said. Though I despise ROP for 17 different reasons, they still bought the rights and the Estate was involved, so they can jank it and tank it all they want (they only made ridiculous expensive, gaudy, horrible Days of Our Lives fanfic anyway).
Do you believe that Lotro hasn't gone to far on scratching the lore on the latest 2 expansions?
I could agree with you there actually, recently LOTRO has turned away from the lore quite a bit I think, unfortunately.
@@MenoftheWest but to be fair and as you mentioned if you do not interrupt the main focus of the story and characters then its not bad to adapt and lotro hasn't do so :). Lotro is in the south now and there are not much Tolkien said about Umbar and Harad.
If you want to play in someone's sandbox respect it's rules.
Fingon and Orodreth need to talk to Maury. 😂
"It's another thing entirely to take characters, take moments we do know, and flip them on their head and make them something else entirely." (12:53)
I think it has to be said that a significant part of the Peter Jackson films are not canon. There are many character moments that Jackson changed, which had nothing to do with the demands of film as a different medium. In the books, Merry and Pippin are first and foremost, steadfast (and brave) friends. Removing the conspiracy which brings them into the Fellowship reduces them largely to goofballs for much of the film. Aragorn, Arwen, Faramir, Gimli, the list goes on, of characters whose... character... was undermined for some "forced PJ conflict" (in Lindsey Ellis's words), or a cheap laugh.
One thing I'll grant Shadow of Mordor/War, is while they certainly took some creative liberties, they still felt respectful of the source material, unlike Rings of Power.
You very much did justice to how Tolkiens works should be adapted for screen play, just wish they'd do the same for star wars...
Certainly an interesting discussion. I admit there's some dumb stuff in Rings of Power, but I don't hate it. I guess I'm treating it as professional fan fiction than anything that happens to be strictly canon.
However, I wonder if this discussion will get more complicated in the near future when the first version of The Hobbit enters the public domain. I suppose at that point, any derivative creator has essentially created their own derivative "canon," but at the same time, I do think there needs to be a space for more stories within the legendarium for more stories in the future (especially where WB wants to make more money off of it, for better or worse).
I get that it's a complicated balance. We love the books and the LotR films and we want everything to keep that same level of Tolkien magic, but at the same time, we don't have complete control over how the stories and lore get spread. While it's great to have content like your channel helping to educate and confirm what was in Tolkien's works, but the future could make such arguments less desirable or relevant. (Just considering the possibilities.)
Thanks again for all your work. I hope that we don't get discouraged when people take the things we love to weird places that make us uncomfortable, that we recognize that some new content doesn't degrade or ruin the parts we do love.
Regarding Tolkien's canon, the thing is that there are degrees of canonicity. I don't think anyone would say that anything in The Hobbit or Lord of the rings is not canonical, even when there are inconsistencies. The issue is more complicated with all the posthumous books. I think most people would regard the published Silmarillion as canonical. Parts of Unfinished tales are more complicated: Cirion and Eorl, for example, doesn't contradict anything in Lord of the Rings and simply expands on something mentioned in the Appendices. On the other hand, the back story of Galadriel and Celeborn has many versions and it's not clear which version is definitive. I haven't read the History of Middle Earth, but my understanding is that there are many versions of the stories there. What people mean when they say there is no Tolkien canon is that there is no objective criterion to decide a definitive version of the different stories.
I'm not writing this comment to defend Rings of Power. I have enjoyed parts of the show, but I agree that some things don't line up with the books. For example Tom Bombadil in Rhûn doesn't make any sense and doesn't add anything to the overall story, even within the show's version of things.
Someday it would be fascinating to know what exactly happened wity Rings of Power. Did the majority of the writers even read or study the lore? Did any of them research medieval warfare to even try to make the battles make sense? Who thought to represent the might of Numenor with 100 or so barely trained volunteers? Did they just full on try to make a cw version of lord of the rings? I mean with that size if a budget what the heck happened and what were thinking?
The same with everything else in big budget entertainment media : Real world ideology, and the subversion of beloved longstanding culturally impactful IPs (Tolkien, Star Wars, etc) for the purpose of pushing modern ideology onto the masses, while also vandalizing it with modern ideology as a public power flex to show how much "your group" has control over.
The answer to this, if there can be a single accepted answer, is very likely this: the show first and foremost is a piece of mass media, made to appeal to the largest possible viewership. It's production was heavily driven by viewership and engagement analytics. Being a faithful adaptation of the source material, or even just a show of high "artistic value" like e.g. The Sopranos or The Wire, always was a (very) distant second to that.
Many people lay the blame at the feet of the two showrunners, who have done nothing of note before RoP. My personal theory is that they were picked precisely for that reason. They are knowing and willing fall guys who have no reputation to lose, a decoy for the committees and analytics that actually run the show.
Well, the writers have given interviews on their thought processes at certain points, but why look into those when it's easier to just pretend that none of it makes sense, right?
@@jj48it doesn’t,just like the entire Rop fanfic,nothing to do with Tolkien work
I agree with you, but gotta say you are pulling an "ummm, actually..." Keep up the good work.
I like how people use tolkien revising his works as an excuse to change the lore. like rough, first, second, final draft, etc. doesnt exist.
This, at least when we are talking about lotr as a product, is when marketers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want fans to believe that *they* believe in a lotr canon , but also they want to break canon to mine content (to sell)
Excellent! Spot on take!
100%!
Most importantly, we know Tolkien believed in canon because he talked about it. In a letter roasting a script for a Lord of the Ring movie that thankfully never happened, he said "the canons of any two mediums cannot be wholly different." The people who say otherwise don't care what Tolkien thought, they're just making excuses.
EXACTLY
I like Tom Shippey's reply to that:
"Well that's very wise Professor Tolkien. But actually when you say the canons of narrative art in any medium cannot be wholly different, I agree with you. But can't they be very different? Or slightly different? Or rather different? What we'd like to know is how different is it possible for them to be? Again, the problem is not perceiving where the core of the original lies. Okay, where's the core of the original? Tell us that and then we'll get a bit further forward."
Though, I would add that "canon" here definitely doesn't sound like it's being used in quite the same way, if he's discussing canons being different.
@jj48 It is true that we can't know how far he'd be willing to push things, but studying his response to that script is really interesting. Certainly Tolkien would have taken issue with a great number of changes to the films, but that script made all sorts of bizarre and totally unnecessary alterations to the strangest things, so it's not exactly the greatest comparison, and I think he would feel that, if nothing else, Peter Jackson and crew understood where the core of the original lay.
@@justthinkingoutloud2538 rofl That is pure emotion talking, not reason. While we don't know what Tolkien's response to Jackson's films would have been, we do know that Christopher hated them, and felt that they had completely eviscerated his father's works. Furthermore, most of the complaints of changes in the films had to do with changes to characters rather than changes to events. Interestingly, Tolkien said in a letter, "I should resent perversion of the characters (and do resent it, so far as it appears in this sketch) even more than the spoiling of the plot and scenery." So, personally, I don't see any reason whatsoever to think that Tolkien would have thought Jackson did any better than RoP.
And please understand, this isn't to say that someone can't or shouldn't like Jackson's films. I enjoy them very much myself, as a matter of fact (apart from one or two scenes). However, it does highlight why, personally, I don't think what Tolkien would or would not have liked is very useful in discussing an adaptation.
@@jj48 the amount of change, of characters, plot and scenery, that RoP makes compared to Jackson’s trilogy makes the films changes seem minuscule in comparison.
Excellent video! Agreed on all points.
As far as canon goes, for me it is the published works then Tolkien's intentions & then the works of others, mainly Christopher. This whole discussion came about due to Corey Olsen claiming that there is no definitive Canon in Tolkien, which some have seen as an apologia for Rings of Power. I do believe there is a Canon in Tolkien, but it was ever changing right up to his death & there would have been massive overhauling of The Silmarillion in particular which is why it wasn't published in his lifetime he wanted to make great changes. None the less the overall chronology of The Legendarium, which I prefer to Canon, is fairly clear & would not have been changed, although a lot of the details would have if Tolkien had the life of the Eldar. Do i care about this when it comes to ROP, no I enjoy that, or not, on it's own terms & it doesn't affect my reading of the books at all. So I believe whether there is, or isn't, a canon is irrelevant when it comes to ROP . The whole argument about Canon & what it is, is generally being used as an excuse to bash ROP, which it should not. It is too important a topic to be used in such a way.
The Title of this video is completely correct There is established canon and it should be respected
Great video as usual. Thank you!
Insane to say there is "no canon", I can't imagine any book fan saying such a thing.
I think the answer is like the map of arda, some thing are set in stone and others are more fluid.
Everything Tolkien wrote is canon. Everything Tolkien did not write is not canon. However you choose to reconcile all that Tolkien wrote to your own understanding, if you feel the need, is your "canon"
Carl Hostetter OM&H7 livechat 1:24:09
Despite the liberties Shadow of Mordor/War took, it's amazing how well they depicted Sauron's elven form. The scene in which he brutally murders Celebrimbor with his hammer like a serial killer is disturbing af
I'm not particularly fussy when it comes to canon, especially not when a story is transferred to a completely different medium. Book to movie, for example. But the changes have to make sense! Both to the recipient (outside universe) as inside the world of the story. The changes might even be almost radical and I still don't care as long as the spirit of the original material is kept intact. Peter Jackson achieved this and I love him for it!
I kept looking for ways they could get RoP back in track in season 2. I think I've kind of given up and just see it as expensive fan fiction at this point. When dealing with it as such, I can accept that it's poorly written but decently acted and beautifully made (spectacle). I'm a little starved for new Middle-earth content and I had hoped that RoP would scratch the itch, but it burst me out in new hives instead. I wish fans were given input on beloved IP adaptations. A collaborative effort would be more respected.
So something like this happens in historical movies and novels all the time, and it’s something history buffs have to contend with.
You have ‘the past’ which is what actually happened, then you have history which is a description of the past using various sources to make an argument. The Past is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. Histories can have varying degrees of fidelity to the past. (the closer the better). With historical fiction and movies you get another iteration on that. You have a story nominally set in the past, but is ussually based on a history (which is already a step removed) and it is then formatted through the various storytelling art forms.
Histories can be, and often are, wrong. Even seemingly solid things like dates can be argued, especially the further back in history you go. A historian has a certain luxury where they can (and should) admit to the uncertainty. If someone is making a historical novel or movie they must have internal consistency for their story, so they are forced to make decisions on what ‘facts’ they are going to go with.
When it comes to fantasy settings there is no Past. What we get is equivalent to Histories (ie the Silmarillion, LoþR) and Historical Fiction/movies (ie Peter Jackson trilogy). If you treat any of these as the undeniable truth about the fictional universe you are skipping a step. To my mind, we should think of Tolkien not so much as the creator-god of Arda, but rather its first chronicler. Tolkien can be ‘wrong’ about middle earth, and the fact that he changed things around over the course of his life sort of proves this.
The reason I say this is I believe resting on the laurels of canonicity is pompous and lazy, especially when it is the chief metric by which you judge derivative works. (But admittedly it is an odd sort of laziness that requires a deep dive into lots of obscure literature) You can and should enjoy Tolkien’s original work, but enjoy it for what it is. If you or someone else is going to iterate on it, then the subject matter deserves a different sort of analysis. At that point you should not blindly accept the world as presented by the author, you ought to instead make decisions of what facts you are going to accept (especially when dealing with Tolkien’s contradictions) and develop the story from there.
Lastly, I’m not really here to defend Rings of Power, and it has earned much of the criticism it receives, but when it comes down to the subject of adherence to the canon I think some perspective is important. Everything that is in the scope of the Rings of Power TV show is less than 20 pages in my copy of the Silmarillion, and Annexes of the Return of the King. For it to work as a show that lasts multiple seasons they were going to have to add a lot of flesh to fairly bare bones.
Thank you for being a champion of Tolkien's canon. I'm sad at Bezos revision simply because he had the most money to purchase the rights and put his and the showrunners' vision in the mind of viewers.
SIMON TOLKIEN FAILED US 😭😭😭
Hes the Consultant for Tolkiens Works in the ROP
It's a really Tricksy thing Canon, in more just Middle Earth...Other Fandoms they Threw out Canon out a Windows, and makes Fans Upset!!!
At Least for Middle Earth: The Books are the OG Canon!!! And it's Universally agrees by the Fans!!!
Thanks Mellon for taking about this, I wish others Fandoms did, Until Sauron's Deaths/Shape-Shifting...Marion Baggins Out!!!
I'm just still unhappy that Saruman got taken out in Isengard in the movie and NOT on the doorstep of Bag-End. Feel free to disagree, by all means, but to me, meeting his end where he did in the book speaks volumes and it was done for a real REASON.
Amazon def had to pay for an "expert" to bash JRRT for not having real canon.
The "expert" wasn't even an expert
What do the people think Christopher Tolkien tried to uphold when publishing the Silmarillion? He could have just published all the notes, but he made changes, even removed parts he thought weren't canon anymore.
Ho ho ho! What a merry turnaround for the nerdosphere. Well done Sigmund, you found the Elixir.
The canonicity of the Dagor Dagorath prophecy being unclear is cool because it would be in our future. So Tolkien as the person translating this historical book for us can't really say for certain it will happen.
Two issues in response. First, it seems as if you are saying the "Canon" is what Tolkien envisioned, rather than a particular corpus. If this is your point, as at 4:49, then what is and is not canon is ultimately unknowable. If a musician alters a phrase in Liszt's "Transcendental Etudes" and one says, it's not canonical, one must remember that Liszt published three different versions of the etudes, and was clearly groping toward something he imperfectly realized. Who is to say the musician did not get closer to Liszt's vision?
Second, you comment that Peter Jackson's movies remain more faithful to this canon, while The Rings Of Power doesn't. I disagree, and disagreed when I first saw them. Apart from changing the character of Aragorn, they also changed the characters of Merry and Pippin, alter Saruman's fate AWAY from the grand theme that evil ultimately destroys itself, drops the Scouring of the Shire (absolutely in Tolkien's mental canon), and the radical down-playing of the characters and relationships in favor of action, among many others. I very strongly disliked Jackson's movies, because they changed everything about Tolkien that I most valued -- but I never said they violated the canon. They were an interpretation that I disliked.
Critics of The Rings Of Power have a couple of choices I can see. One is to say that there's an ideal version of Tolkien, which I think I'm in touch with, and this ain't it. I see this as cheeky. Who, if not the Tolkien estate -- a very controlling institution, I may say -- gets to say what is and isn't acceptable? The other is to say, this character's motivations appear unconvincing, these sections of dialog are clunky, much of the sections about the hobbits drags terribly, not even Raymond Chandler had such a long goodbye, and so on, ending that this isn't terribly inspired storytelling, even if you can see the budget on the screen. The latter is saying, I disliked this as art; the first is saying, I disliked this because it wasn't how I would have done it. Because, upshot, we will never know whether Tolkien would have done it, or which parts he would have endorsed and which rejected. We know that the estate permitted it, and beyond that we have to judge it on its merits. Which do exist, if there are not so many as we might have wished. There's a difference between calling it a disappointment, and calling it a violation, which hinges on how much one sees oneself as the guardian of the legacy. We aren't. The estate is.
Do you prefer Jackson’s films or the Amazon tv series?
A canon, by definition, necessarily exists because an author created a work of fiction. That was his view in his essay, "On Fairy Stories."