Why TV Is Wrong For Tolkien

Summary

The script discusses the challenges of adapting Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' for TV, arguing that TV's open-ended format clashes with the epic, mythic storytelling of Tolkien's work. It suggests that while movies can encapsulate the epic quality, TV series like 'The Rings of Power' struggle to balance character depth with the grandeur of the source material, often feeling out of place in the novelistic second age.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The author has mixed feelings about Amazon's 'Rings of Power' series, acknowledging its flaws while showing sympathy for the creators due to the challenging nature of the adaptation.
• 📺 The author argues that adapting 'The Lord of the Rings' or Tolkien’s mythology for TV is difficult because TV is not suited to the epic qualities that define Tolkien's work.
• 📚 Tolkien's stories are defined by epic, high fantasy elements and are rooted in the structure of traditional epics like 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey,' which reflect collective values and mythic pasts.
• 👑 The novel as a form is focused on complex, flawed characters and psychological depth, while epics like Tolkien's work are centered on destiny, larger-than-life characters, and preordained outcomes.
• 🔄 The author suggests that modern audiences crave the completeness and unity of epic storytelling, but the complexity of today's world makes it harder to create such closed, mythic narratives.
• 🎥 The author believes that movies are better suited to capturing Tolkien’s epic qualities because films offer more closed, complete narratives compared to the open-ended nature of TV shows.
• 📖 TV is described as better for novelistic storytelling, where character-driven plots and ongoing development are the focus, which contrasts with Tolkien’s more fate-driven, epic narratives.
• ⚔️ 'Game of Thrones' is cited as an example of a fantasy series that works well on TV because of its complex, character-driven structure where fate is less deterministic than in Tolkien's world.
• 🧙‍♂️ In 'The Rings of Power,' the balance between epic narrative and psychological depth is seen as problematic, as focusing on the epic detracts from the TV format, while psychological depth undermines Tolkien's mythic essence.
• 🔄 The challenge of adapting the Second Age, which is even more mythic and archetypal than 'The Lord of the Rings,' makes it difficult to create a successful long-running TV series based on Tolkien's work.

Q & A

What are the primary criticisms of Amazon's 'The Rings of Power' TV series according to the transcript?

The main criticisms revolve around the creators struggling to adapt Tolkien's vision into a TV format. The show tries to balance epic narrative elements with character complexity, but this approach doesn't align well with the strengths of either medium.

Why does the speaker believe that Tolkien's stories, such as 'The Lord of the Rings,' don't work well as TV series?

The speaker argues that TV is an open-ended medium suited for complex character-driven stories, while Tolkien's work, particularly 'The Lord of the Rings,' is more epic and mythological, which is best suited to more closed and complete forms like novels or films.

How does the transcript differentiate between epic storytelling and novelistic storytelling?

Epic storytelling, as described, focuses on larger-than-life characters, heroic deeds, and events that are predestined, while novelistic storytelling revolves around complex, flawed characters who shape the story through their personal choices and psychological conflicts.

What makes Tolkien's 'The Lord of the Rings' both epic and novelistic, according to the speaker?

Tolkien blends the epic qualities of myth, such as fate and heroism, with novelistic elements like the Hobbits, who are ordinary and complex characters. This combination allows readers to experience the grandeur of myth while still connecting with relatable, human experiences.

Why does the speaker believe movies, such as Peter Jackson's trilogy, are better suited to Tolkien's work than TV shows?

Movies offer a more closed, complete narrative structure, with definitive endings that capture the epic quality of Tolkien's stories. This contrasts with TV, which is open-ended and more focused on evolving character arcs.

How does 'Game of Thrones' differ from 'The Lord of the Rings' in terms of suitability for TV?

'Game of Thrones' is better suited to TV because it focuses on messy characters whose choices shape their fate, aligning with TV’s strength in character development. Tolkien’s characters and narrative are more tied to fate and destiny, which doesn’t align as well with TV's open-ended format.

What challenges do the creators of 'The Rings of Power' face when adapting Tolkien’s Second Age into a TV series?

The Second Age is more mythic and less novelistic than 'The Lord of the Rings,' with grander, more archetypal characters. Trying to explore these characters' psychology over multiple seasons clashes with the epic, destiny-driven nature of the original stories.

What is the significance of the phrase 'square peg, round hole' in the context of this critique?

The phrase 'square peg, round hole' highlights the fundamental mismatch between Tolkien’s epic stories and the TV format. The speaker believes that trying to fit Tolkien’s epic vision into the episodic and open-ended nature of TV storytelling is inherently flawed.

How does Tolkien’s secondary world provide a 'loophole' for modern readers, according to the transcript?

Tolkien's secondary world allows readers to experience the completeness and mythic quality of epic storytelling without having to abandon their modern understanding of free will and character complexity. It satisfies the desire for myths in a world where true belief in them is difficult.

What does the speaker suggest about the future of 'The Rings of Power' and similar adaptations of popular IPs?

The speaker is uncertain about the future of 'The Rings of Power,' acknowledging that the show may either succeed or fail in future seasons. However, they note the trend of popular intellectual properties being adapted across various media forms, regardless of their suitability.