For months, antsy viewers have waited for the War of the Streaming Epics: HBO’s “House of the Dragon” vs. Amazon’s “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.”
It’s such fun, isn’t it? Warner Bros. and Jeff Bezos ruthlessly vying for our attention and money like we’re the hottest girl in school. Sure, Jeff, you can carry my books to class!
The TV tete-a-tete is as tactical as Cersei Lannister grabbing the Iron Throne. The big-budget series premiered within two weeks of each other; both put much of their focus on beautiful platinum blond people with British accents; they have large-scale battles and a gagillion characters with dumb names we will all struggle to spell.
They’re also debuting at a highly opportune moment when there is a drought of major film releases. The next huge franchise movie is “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” a long way off in November. “Rings of Power” and “House of the Dragon” are dueling to quench our thirst for expensive fantasy.
But in terms of sheer quality and, I suspect, audience reaction after Thursday night at 9 p.m. when “Rings” premieres, the war is over. “Dragon” scorches “Rings.”
Some in the culturati will calmly tell you that these are two very different shows that cannot be compared. But I say save that measured hippie talk for your Southern California commune, dweebs! Let’s pit these guys against each other in a bloody battle to the death.
First, the main characters: Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen (Milly Alcock) on “Dragon” and Galadriel (Morfydd Clark) on “Rings.”
Morfydd Clark plays Galadriel in “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power.” AP
Milly Alcock’s Rhaenyra Targaryen becomes heir to the Iron Throne.Photograph by Ollie Upton / HBOThe trouble with elves like Galadriel is they’re mysterious, ethereal and boring. When Cate Blanchett played her in Peter Jackson’s splendid “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy, she was a grandiose intervener who showed up here and there, creeped us out, and left. Fabulous. Now the younger version, played in “Rings” on TV by Clark, is a fierce warrior and gets the bulk of the screen time, along with fellow baby elf Elrond. Making a wise omniscient being into a scrappy fighter is a lot like when George Lucas had Yoda do backflips in the “Star Wars” prequels. Why?
Rhaenyra, on the other hand, flies dragons and comes from a royal family that loves nothing more than incest. Audiences are currently wondering if her uncle wants to kill her or, well, you know. Between these two, there is no contest.
How about the material? “Rings” is based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s “Appendices” to “Lord of the Rings.” They amount to a dry Wikipedia entry of complementary historical information about Middle Earth. They are virtually unreadable. Creators Patrick McKay and John D. Payne have puffed ‘em up, kind of like what Jackson unwisely did with his “Hobbit” films, into a formless blob of overacting elves, dwarves and hobbits.
“Dragon,” meanwhile, is based on George R.R. Martin’s novel “Fire & Blood.” Martin not only writes books like he has movies on the mind, but he is also a skilled screenwriter. He wrote some fantastic episodes of “Thrones,” and this time he’s credited as a creator on the new HBO show. His layered, extremely dramatic stories naturally segue to the screen.
The elves of “Rings of Power” look silly in their costumes and makeup. AP
However, the Targaryens, like Prince Daemon (Matt Smith) are believable and threatening. APAnd then there is production value. “Rings” cost a reported $715 million (some are saying the price tag could be as much as $1 billion), making it likely the most expensive TV show ever. I just don’t see it. The series lacks the elegance, detail and cinematic substance of the Oscar winning “Lord of the Rings” movies. Everything looks green-screened. The special effects are video-game like.
“House of the Dragon,” which costs about half as much, features sturdy, believable sets for King’s Landing and Dragonstone that look every bit as good as those of “Game of Thrones.” The dragons are as exciting as the “Jurassic Park” T-Rex and the kings and princes don’t look at all silly in their elaborate costumes and wigs (in “Rings” they look like they got lost on the way to a Renaissance Faire).
How unfortunate for us “Lord of the Rings” fans, who felt so elated when Tolkien’s masterworks changed cinema forever and brought fantasy out of the “Dungeons and Dragons” clubs and into the glorious light of mainstream popularity.
Now Middle Earth has been reduced to being part of another poorly thought out, oversize TV and movie “universe.” “Rings” will certainly perform well initially thanks to a strong brand and a lot of marketing hype, but viewers will have a hard time devoting themselves to a show with no one to latch onto and a meandering story.
Daenerys may have lost her bid for the Iron Throne, but it’s the Targaryens who win the war of my couch.
