The Rings of Power: Why Creative Freedom Doesn't Mean Bad Television

The debate over The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power has often centered on what it changes from J.R.R. Tolkien's books. But a closer look at the production reveals a more complex reality: the show never had access to the full breadth of Tolkien's writings. Understanding this constraint is key to evaluating whether the series deserves the criticism it receives.

For fans, faithfulness to the source material is a deeply held value. When the show premiered, much of the conversation focused on rearranged timelines, altered characters, and invented plot points. While this scrutiny is understandable, it often overlooks the legal and creative framework within which the showrunners had to operate.

What rights did Amazon have for The Rings of Power?

Amazon Studios acquired the rights to The Lord of the Rings (including its appendices) and The Hobbit. This provided enough material to explore the Second Age of Middle-earth. However, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle-earth were not part of the deal. These excluded texts contain much of the detailed narrative about the Second Age, leaving the production team to fill in significant gaps.

The Second Age spans over 3,000 years. Tolkien presented it more as a historical chronicle than a continuous story. For a television series, this poses a major challenge. A book can skip centuries in a paragraph, but a show must develop characters, relationships, and arcs that sustain audience interest.

How did the showrunners handle the missing source material?

In an interview with Esquire, showrunners Patrick McKay and J.D. Payne explained their approach. McKay stated: “We like the idea of tantalizing and teasing and alluding to that history, but ultimately that's its own story with its own complexities and richness, told in another book that maybe someone down the road will adapt.” Payne compared the process to playing jazz, working with some instruments but not all, and creating something that harmonizes without contradicting the existing lore.

This creative freedom led to controversial choices, such as a more warrior-like Galadriel. The production also consulted Simon Tolkien, the author's grandson and a member of the Tolkien Estate, to ensure alignment where possible.

Does changing the source material make the show bad?

Adaptation is not about strict fidelity alone. Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films also made significant changes, including cutting Tom Bombadil, expanding Arwen's role, and altering Faramir's character. The difference is that Jackson had a complete novel to adapt, while The Rings of Power works with fragmented historical references.

The show has its flaws, including pacing issues in Season 1 and some creative decisions that did not land as intended. However, dismissing the entire production ignores the constraints it faced and the ambition it represents.

Is The Rings of Power worth watching?

For those willing to view it as an adaptation that fills gaps rather than a chapter-by-chapter retelling, the series offers a compelling take on Middle-earth's Second Age. It has built an audience and generated anticipation for Season 3. It may not satisfy every purist, but it demonstrates that creative freedom, when grounded in available material and expert consultation, can produce engaging television.

Ultimately, the question is not whether every detail matches Tolkien's texts. The question is whether the changes work within the story being told. On that measure, The Rings of Power largely succeeds, even if it is not for everyone.