posted on Jan, 22 2016 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: tothetenthpower
Yes, even when the books were written it was a poor knock off of Tolkien. But let's be honest, Tolkien is the father of most of our current Fantasy
genre. I have read the books several times when i was young and even fairly recently, they are following the plot rather loosely. The author Terry
Brooks is fine with the changes. He is behind the series fully.
They spared no expense on the look, I like it so far. My only gripe is the Amberle character is played by someone who has real trouble acting. I don't
know what she did to get the part, but acting was not part of it. Some of the scenes with her are excruciating for me to watch. Watch her facial
expressions when she has an intense scene. It's like she doesn't even believe it so why should I. The other actors seem fine to me.
You have to sort of go along with the dialogue, which is all a nod to today's teens. But i am all for the show in general. LoTR really upped the bar
for Fantasy imho. Before LoTR, I think a lot of the directors were not Fantasy fans and the resulting material was usually really cheesy. The D&D
movies/shows are a prime example, always really poorly done and there is a whole world of material to pull from from it. But you need good acting to
bring the characters to life, you need good plot and story and, of course, the look and feel adds to the suspension of disbelief. LoTR did everything
right, I'm not talking about the Tolkien' books, i am talking about the movies. Anyway. That's my two cents.