(REVIEW) The “Rings of Power” TV show — a narrative prequel to “The Lord of The Rings” — is beautiful to look at and is (largely) faithful to author J.R.R. Tolkien’s Catholic worldview, but it pretty much fails at everything else.

I wrote in a previous article how fans of “The Lord of The Rings” books and movies have been concerned about the “Rings of Power” TV show ever since Amazon announced they were making it. Concerns rose over whether it would be faithful to Tolkien’s vision and whether the showrunners would be “faithful” to the material.

What no one suspected is that it would be incredibly boring.

The biggest problem with the first two episodes of “Rings of Power” that premiered Sept. 1 is that they feel more like generic fantasy fiction than a “Lord of the Rings” show. The characters, settings, stories and themes are all generic retreads of any fantasy story ever made that’s been inspired by “Lord of The Rings.” 

Galadriel is a warrior woman. The elves are elves. The dwarves are dwarves. The-dark-lord-returning-but-people-not-wanting-to-believe-it storyline is about as tropey as it gets in a franchise reboot. And it’s all done with the most generic dialogue imaginable. Almost none of the characters or plot threads were developed beyond their shallow story archetypes.

I understand the challenge with “The Lord of The Rings” material in this regard. Other fantasy stories have copied and pasted most world-building elements of the franchise: elves, dragons, hobbits, orcs, dark lords and corrupted magical objects, to name a few. 

Because “The Lord of The Rings” is largely the origin of the modern fantasy genre, pretty much every fantasy book or movie of its type is just “The Lord of The Rings” with a twist. “Game of Thrones” was famously pitched as “The Lord of The Rings” meets “The Sopranos.” The new “Dungeons and Dragons” film is described as “The Lord of The Rings” meets “Princess Bride”.

At least with these twists, the result is often a piece of media that’s engaging and worth watching.  

What is “Rings of Power” doing that adds to the world of fantasy fiction and justifies its existence? Perhaps the answer is simply being back in Tolkien’s world with beloved characters. That’s fine. But in that case, the show has to offer characters the audience cares about and a world that feels alive and interesting. And “Rings of Power” — at least so far — does neither.

In the “Lord of The Rings” movies, the audience sees the beautiful setting of the journey through the eyes of beloved characters like Frodo and Sam. In “Rings of Power”, the audience sees more genuinely breathtaking places — from rolling hills to elven cities to dwarven mines — and never feels any emotional connection. They’re shown for a moment, and then the moment passes. 

It actually became a running joke between my roommate and I as we watched. Whenever the show moved to a new location and showed off a beautiful new set that was obviously very expensive, we would shout “MONEY” and act like we were throwing money at the screen. It was that unengaging. 

The same detachment plagues the show’s new characters. In the movies, an emotional connection with the characters is earned over time: One set of characters remains the focus until the audience grows attached. They meet other characters later, a timing that fits more logically with the narrative and the capacity of the audience’s ability to care. The story follows those people on their quest until they split up, and only then is there a story that follows several characters in different locations at once. 

The show starts by introducing a bunch of different characters at once, and it’s much more  difficult to form an emotional connection with them.

The most entertaining and interesting characters in the series so far are the aspiring elf-Lord Elrond and the dwarf-Prince Durin. The young Elrond is a good-hearted man who’s also a conniving politician; watching him walk that paradox is fascinating. Durin’s shameless dwarfishness is refreshingly funny and plays off of Elrond well. Their story, with its humor and sadness, was the most I genuinely cared about any characters. The dwarves were the most awe-inspiring because they were introduced through the eyes of Elrond.

Religious fans of “Lord of The Rings” who worried that the Amazon show would be unfaithful to Tolkien’s Catholic Christian worldview can breathe a tentative sigh of relief watching the first two episodes. 

READ: Will The New ‘Rings Of Power’ TV Show Be Faithful To Tolkien's Christianity?

The consensus I gathered from various Christian Tolkien experts was that two things were necessary to accurately depict a Christian influence in the show: the clear presence of an invisible divine hand guiding the affairs of all for their ultimate good and the belief that anyone can be corrupted by evil. 

Both of these things seem to be retained in this show, albeit in a watered-down way. Nori says she believes there was a reason that “the Stranger” was brought to her, and she was meant to help him. In the trailer for the show, Galadriel says something similar. Various other characters with good hearts show that they are capable of being corrupted — Elrond is just one example. Even here, the treatment of these themes is shallow and generic.

The show also introduces its own philosophy and theology, which may result in a huge misstep in messaging.

Galadriel’s brother tells her that the only way to tell which version of the light you should follow is to touch the darkness. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from “The Lord of the Rings”, it’s that touching the darkness is always a very bad idea. Rings, mystic orbs and anything else corrupted by the Dark Lord will corrupt what touches it, and the people who are wisest are the people who know that they need to stay as far away from it as possible. 

One of the biggest mistakes in the long run will be the show’s gender politics — but not for the reasons many think. People have complained and will complain that Galadriel is running around fighting with a sword like a modern action heroine when the Galadriel from the books was a wise, motherly figure. The fact that there are no representatives in “Rings of Power” of that kind of femininity is certainly a departure from Tolkien’s work, but he also showed action heroes like Eyowyn in his books. And seeing Galadriel transition from a warrior woman who asks, “If I put down the sword, who am I?” to a wise motherly figure will be a fascinating character arc.

But the show also has a noticeable lack of male heroes, which threatens to alienate large portions of its female audience.  

The books and movies are filled with noble and heroic male characters leading the charge against evil. They openly weep and show affection to other men, often with flowery speeches. In other words, “The Lord of The Rings” is filled with the kinds of men women wish men would be. “Rings of Power”, by contrast, is mostly about noble and wise women taking the lead while being held back by stubborn men. 

I think the makers of the show underestimate how big the female fantasy of these idealized men is in the appeal of “The Lord of The Rings.” When women talk about the books and movies online, appreciation for its portrayal of men is not far behind. So while women might appreciate having more female characters in the spotlight, I think that the trade-off is going to hurt the show dramatically. 

At the end of the day, people read and watch “The Lord of the Rings” over and over again because it adds something to their lives that they can’t get anywhere else. “Rings of Power” adds nothing, so I highly doubt it will have an impact anywhere near as meaningful or long-lasting as its source material. 

Joseph Holmes is an award-nominated filmmaker and culture critic living in New York City. He is co-host of the podcast “The Overthinkers” and its companion website theoverthinkersjournal.com, where he discusses art, culture and faith with his fellow overthinkers.