Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It’s possible to tell two stories in the same fictional world with opposing themes.


It’s also possible to just make a neat show with good production values, solid acting talent, and lots of intrigue and spectacle. You can enjoy stuff so much more when you don’t convince yourself that you have some ownership of the fictional material or the material owes you something.


People should try being happy rather than angry. It's more fun!


The Tom Bombadil approach.


Too bad it's not what we got.


Tolkien once wrote:

> You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power.

If these writers are using Tolkien's name without respecting his beliefs, even Tolkien might have given the show a bad review.

Of course that's just speculation, but only a rare storyteller can tell an epic tale that isn't ultimately resolved by superior force. If this show can remain faithful to Tolkien's vision, I'll be very impressed.


I’m sure Boccaccio was similarly nonplussed when Shakespeare produced Romeo and Juliet.


an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power

(Shrug) It seemed to work pretty well. The important part, both morally and practically, is how you treat your former adversary after defeating them.


What do you see as not respecting Tolkien’s name? The quote was "how far into evil will you go to do good?". that is a question, not an admonition. It sounds like they may explore that. If so, it would not be unreasonable to end up with the same “do no evil” answer as Tolkien.

Why should we give a bad review based on insufficient evidence?


A also think they are not directly related. I would think Tolkien is talking about Authoritarian Power of governments. i.e. don't vote Fascists into power.

When I hear how far into evil will somebody go, I think of an individuals choices to do evil for a perceived the greater good.

Kind of related, but not quite the same.


I don't agree, I think Tolkien was also talking about individual choices. Remember this bit?

> “What a pity Bilbo did not stab the vile creature, when he had a chance!

> Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need.

> I do not feel any pity for Gollum. He deserves death.

> Deserves death! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give that to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.”

And it was that small individual mercy that ultimately saved the world.


and I think that Galadriel could make some choices that she later regrets and has to learn the lesson the hard way about doing evil. This is why I don't see that quote as being against any of Tolkien's principles.


Not really if you dont even understand the theme of the underlying story and its moral aspects.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: