Oct. 16th, 2022

shadowkat: (Default)
I found a review that I sort of agree with? (One never quite agrees completely with others reviews, because we see things so differently, at different times, locals, and often venues.)

Here's the NY Times "professional" critic's review on the final episode and takeaways from the series as a whole - it's spoilery, so don't read if you are "avoiding" spoilers. [Also it may or may not be behind a pay-wall.]

I did not read any reviews prior to seeing the series - outside of the blurbs I saw here and there on my DW correspondence list. Also, I watched the series - completely unspoiled, outside of what I had seen in the Jackson films, and my memories of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - which I've not re-read in any form since the 1980s.

So a few caveats:

1.) I am by no means a purist. I've never read nor have any intention of reading any works by Tolkien outside of the ones that I already have, which are : The Hobbit, Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and Return of the King. I find Tolkien kind of grueling after a bit, and I grew tired of the meticulous attention to detail he applied. I did not bother with the appendices, I'm not even sure they were included in the editions that I read or that I was aware of them when I read them.

2.) While I loved The Hobbit, enjoyed the Lord of the Rings, and visited an impressive and extensive exhibition of Tolkien's art, correspondence, journals, work, and scholarship - I am by no means a fan. This means, I have no clue who half of these characters are, and was oblivious to any major changes or alterations from the books. I only know that there were alterations because I found them online after the fact.

I think as is true with most adaptations, if you memories of the source material are rather vague, you'll enjoy them more. Or if you don't care and see it as adaptation - you'll enjoy it more. It is after all called an adaptation for a reason.

**

Review

It is among the better fantasy series that I've seen to date. The characters are compelling, and it answers various lingering questions that I had after seeing the films. It stays, for the most part, true to Jackson's film verse. I don't know how to true it is to the book verse - it didn't jar me any, I didn't notice anything off about the story, but keep in mind the above caveats. I'm casual fan of Tolkien, I'm by no means an obsessive one.

Also, it didn't have some of the problems that I had with Jackson's The Hobbit. This is either because I was more familiar with The Hobbit, or Jackson was more into long-unending battles.

Rings of Power meanders a bit, and takes a while to get to the point. Some might say, too long to get to the point. There is fun to be had along the way, however. There are also more diverse characters in this fantasy series than most. The lead is female, here, and she's a warrior. Adept at battle, and rather powerful. Her weakness is that she's a bit myopic, and too focused on her mission - to the point that she often fails to see what is right in front of her. Galadriel arc is by far the best arc in the series. She is the titular lead in this series - and her arc kind of sits at its center.Read more... )

Profile

shadowkat: (Default)
shadowkat

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 31st, 2025 04:49 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios