Amazon's Rings of Power.

[anotherbob]

Oh that's understandable. On your point, I was reminded of the X-men when you talked about fear of powers. Many Shows go into this type of argument, and I've even seen an anime which waded into the matter of psycopathic behavior with an analogy to psycic powers and those in the position, and mental constitution, to kill others without empathy. Anime is probably a wierd one to bring up, and may turn you off, but that show has had me thinking for the last 6 years or so.

But for rings of power, I liked its use of this trope. Makes me wonder how bad things have been in the thousand years from here to LOTR that the dwarves could never sit down and easily share a brew with an elf. But the biggest thing, for me, was the subjugation of some of Man by the Elves. The southerners did fight for Sauron in the previous war, so it does make sense that there is contention and distrust between the two sides. Not the most ground breaking or impactful take on the topic, but I did enjoy that aspect.

The one X-men movie is a great example of what I am talking about. The director or writer (one of them) said that it was a metaphore for dealing with homophobia, and sorry but if gay people could shoot death lazars out of their eyes it wouldn't be a phobia, there would be a very strong and legit reason to be afraid of them. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the movie, just means the trope it is built off of is kind of weak.
Also reminds me of one humorous take on the lord of the rings, which states the orcs are actually more egalitarian and social advanced in ways then the other groups. The other groups that all live separately. It was along the same lines as the review of The Wizard of Oz that points out the Good witch is the bad one. The wicked Witch just wants he dead sisters property back and Glenda sends a child assassin after her.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

The wicked Witch just wants he dead sisters property back and Glenda sends a child assassin after her.

And, the Good Witch also has lied to Dorothy. She makes her do this murder, and then laughs... you had the way back home all along. Just click your heals together. F'n psycho bitch!!!

 

[Alejo R.]

FWIW: More like Rings of Powerlessness

Let me tell you something against that article.
I am a Catholic like Tolkien and if in the first half of the 20th century, which was when his legendarium was written, Tolkien had presented his work as an allegory to the genesis of the Bible, he would have been excommunicated at the very least.
Sex-defined angels who marry each other or procreate with earthly beings?
Sure Rome would not have been happy with that.

 

[brian64]

I'm not going to say it's great because some chapters were tedious.
If I liked the photography and the production-
The script has its holes, like all scripts.
What I would like to know is.
In what sense is it a Woke production?
To what extent does it contradict Tolkien's writings?

This review addressed a lot of the Tolkien contradictions.

Rings of Power: Jeff Bezos's Billion Dollar Anti-Tolkien Fan Fiction

Whatever else Rings of Power may be, it is not Tolkien; nor is it—as the opening credits claim—based on The Lord of the Rings and its appendices in any meaningful way.

www.crisismagazine.com

 

[brian64]

Sex-defined angels who marry each other or procreate with earthly beings?

That very thing is found in Genesis chapter 6.

EDIT: and in much greater detail in the book of Enoch, which is noncanonical, but is quoted in the new testament.

 

[olkofri]

Let me tell you something against that article.
I am a Catholic like Tolkien and if in the first half of the 20th century, which was when his legendarium was written, Tolkien had presented his work as an allegory to the genesis of the Bible, he would have been excommunicated at the very least.
Sex-defined angels who marry each other or procreate with earthly beings?
Sure Rome would not have been happy with that.

He never presented his work as allegorical. Neither did C.S. Lewis with his Chronicles of Narnia. The latter stated that the reference to the Big Story (he didn't call it that, I do) kind of weaved itself into the plot.

 

[olkofri]

That very thing is found in Genesis chapter 6.

Not convinced of that. The explanation I have is that the term "sons of God" refers to the descendants of Seth, as they were of good will, and the "daughters of men" refers to the descendants of Cain who were not of good will.

 

[brian64]

Not convinced of that. The explanation I have is that the term "sons of God" refers to the descendants of Seth, as they were of good will, and the "daughters of men" refers to the descendants of Cain who were not of good will.

Yeah, I know that is the alternative interpretation, but is widely disputed. And the book of Enoch provides all the detail, but as I said, noncanonical.

 

[Alejo R.]

That very thing is found in Genesis chapter 6.

EDIT: and in much greater detail in the book of Enoch, which is noncanonical, but is quoted in the new testament.

Don't talk about what the Bible says. I was referring to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its application in the first half of the 20th century.

This is the Catholic faith doctrine about Angels: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its # 328: The existence of spiritual beings, not corporeal, which Sacred Scripture usually calls angels, is a truth of faith.

Non-corporeal, non-sexual, spiritual.

 

[SBC]

Let me tell you something against that article.
I am a Catholic like Tolkien and if in the first half of the 20th century, which was when his legendarium was written, Tolkien had presented his work as an allegory to the genesis of the Bible, he would have been excommunicated at the very least.
Sex-defined angels who marry each other or procreate with earthly beings?
Sure Rome would not have been happy with that.

Tolkien found allegory distasteful as art. He was vehemently opposed to the notion that his works were in any way allegorical. The reason that his moral universe is so tangibly Catholic is that his formation from the ground up was Catholic in a way that those playing at Christmas/Easter mass while sending their kids off to the zeitgeist's incubators cannot understand. His opposition to allegory as art is one reason he wasn't such a fan of his friend's Chronicles -- they smacked far too much of it for his tastes.

As for excommunication, I'm afraid not -- the Roman church hasn't taken excommunication for anything seriously since before Tolkien was writing. As for excommunication over fiction seeming subversive? Oh gosh, we'd have to go back at least 4 centuries, probably.

And, as somebody else has pointed out, the Augustinian tradition notwithstanding, there is a long tradition (confirmed by pre-Christian Hebrew commentary) of taking Genesis 6 to refer to the same event Enochian literature describes involving 200 "Watchers" impregnating human women in some sort of occultic ritual.

(Not that this offers a 1:1 correlation with Tolkien's fiction, which is clearly drawn [on this point] far more from classical mythologies, yet given a rather more Christian flavor of sub-creation by song.)

 

[Alejo R.]

He never presented his work as allegorical. Neither did C.S. Lewis with his Chronicles of Narnia. The latter stated that the reference to the Big Story (he didn't call it that, I do) kind of weaved itself into the plot.

Of course Tolkien never did it that way, nor did he intend it.
It is the current revisionists who constantly emphasize the profoundly Catholic nature of the author and the allegory to the Catholic beliefs of his work.

 

[brian64]

Don't talk about what the Bible says. I was referring to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its application in the first half of the 20th century.

This is the Catholic faith doctrine about Angels: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its # 328: The existence of spiritual beings, not corporeal, which Sacred Scripture usually calls angels, is a truth of faith.

Non-corporeal, non-sexual, spiritual.

Yeah, I simply disagree with that. And please don't tell me what to talk about...I'll talk about whatever I want to...you can feel free to do the same.

 

[SBC]

Don't talk about what the Bible says. I was referring to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its application in the first half of the 20th century.

This is the Catholic faith doctrine about Angels: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its # 328: The existence of spiritual beings, not corporeal, which Sacred Scripture usually calls angels, is a truth of faith.

Non-corporeal, non-sexual, spiritual.

Non-corporeal does not have to mean non-gendered, if you take gender to be a cosmic principle of which physical sex is only one instantiation (as Lewis does in Perelandra). And as for physical sex, Hebrews (in warning us that we may entertain angels unawares) invites us to suppose that angels may take on other modes of presence, at will. Perhaps modes which are not incompatible with copulation? I say this only in order to say that the CCC is not irreconcilable with the most ancient view of Genesis 6.

 

[brian64]

And, as somebody else has pointed out, the Augustinian tradition notwithstanding, there is a long tradition (confirmed by pre-Christian Hebrew commentary) of taking Genesis 6 to refer to the same event Enochian literature describes involving 200 "Watchers" impregnating human women in some sort of occultic ritual.

(Not that this offers a 1:1 correlation with Tolkien's fiction, which is clearly drawn [on this point] far more from classical mythologies, yet given a rather more Christian flavor of sub-creation by song.)

Exactly.

 

[brian64]

Non-corporeal does not have to mean non-gendered, if you take gender to be a cosmic principle of which physical sex is only one instantiation (as Lewis does in Perelandra). And as for physical sex, Hebrews (in warning us that we may entertain angels unawares) invites us to suppose that angels may take on other modes of presence, at will. Perhaps modes which are not incompatible with copulation? I say this only in order to say that the CCC is not irreconcilable with the most ancient view of Genesis 6.

Yes again...the OT actually contains a number of stories of "angels" taking on corporeality.

 

[Alejo R.]

Yeah, I simply disagree with that. And please don't tell me what to talk about...I'll talk about whatever I want to...you can feel free to do the same.

Sorry man, i mean
" i Don't talked about what the Bible says. I was referring to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its application in the first half of the 20th century.

This is the Catholic faith doctrine about Angels: The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in its # 328: The existence of spiritual beings, not corporeal, which Sacred Scripture usually calls angels, is a truth of faith.

Non-corporeal, non-sexual, spiritual."

 

[alaskanpiper]

I made it about half way through episode 2 before I pulled the plug. Atrocious.

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

Let me tell you something against that article.
I am a Catholic like Tolkien and if in the first half of the 20th century, which was when his legendarium was written, Tolkien had presented his work as an allegory to the genesis of the Bible, he would have been excommunicated at the very least.
Sex-defined angels who marry each other or procreate with earthly beings?
Sure Rome would not have been happy with that.

Tolkein expressly disliked allegory though, so I don't see how that is relevant here.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Th

It's like when a band spends years in the underground and releases its first album. What you're hearing is a distillate of years and years of writing songs and trying them out live. usually the 2nd album doesn't reach the same quality. Jackson spent years and years developing the script and production of the first trilogy and knew that he was betting everything on succeeding with the fellowship of the ring. The hobbit trilogy is a much more comfortable and safe work than the original.

This actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

Someone asked what exactly makes this show “woke.” I personally find the term and subject somewhat wearisome, so while I’m not accusing them of wokeness, some of what they are doing just doesn’t work.

The ethnically-diverse cast isn’t the problem: but because they have characters of different ethnicities in the same biological family at times, it does make it harder to follow the story.

Example: the king of Numenor is an old white man with a white beard. His biological daughter is a black woman. It took me longer than it should have to figure out who was who because this doesn’t make sense and makes the story harder to follow.

A black elf? Who cares? But (hypothetically) if the black elf and a white woman have a child that looks Asian, it would not work visually, and it breaks up the viewer’s ability to get lost in a story. This is just common sense.

Wokeness isn’t what’s ultimately wrong with this show: horrible writing and an incoherent storyline is.