Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[bledgor]

..

Mate there isn't much a point in debating him, he is so firm in his opinion it is factual to him, even if reality differs, you can't get conversation only dogma from him and a few others here.

On the topic of Galadriel, you think they will even hint of the fact she should be married to Celeborn during the show? I give it a 50-50 they make an offhand remark that he is dead or gone. I seriously hope they don't ship her (a bit on a nose currently) with the totally not Sauron Halbrand dude. It would fuck her character even worse, not to mention it would be the 2nd human-elf relationship they are adding to lore (almost doubling Tolkiens count over all the ages).

Also looking back at a few things, they REALLY did Celebrimbor dirty. They made him appear to be much older than every other Elf (roughly same age as Gil-Galad and Galadriel), they gave him that terrible outfit, took away his friendship with the Dwarfs and gave it to Elrond, seemingly took away his love for Galadriel, and altogether haven't done much to develop the man who would craft the rings of power. They could develop him some more, but with the current cast they are focused on not to mention the Numenorean's coming up I seriously doubt he gets much screen time (Gil-Galad as well).

[Syegfryed]

I seriously hope they don't ship her (a bit on a nose currently) with the totally not Sauron Halbrand dude. It would fuck her character even worse, not to mention it would be the 2nd human-elf relationship they are adding to lore (almost doubling Tolkiens count over all the ages).

I rly want to bite my tongue here, but im 100% that this will happen, its just to much on the nose with the writing so far, using so much obvious troops

This would reinforce their, obnoxious speech that "to know something is bad you need to do it first" like what the fuck, and to take weight on the fact that she want revenge, and now she will be conflicted.

Like, its astonishing how this could have worked as a singular new story totally, unrelated with middle earth, seems like they had a script for a dungeons and dragons movie, no one accepted because how garbage it was, then they made a lotr story instead

[Monteverdi]

I rly want to bite my tongue here, but im 100% that this will happen, its just to much on the nose with the writing so far, using so much obvious troops

This would reinforce their, obnoxious speech that "to know something is bad you need to do it first" like what the fuck, and to take weight on the fact that she want revenge, and now she will be conflicted.

Like, its astonishing how this could have worked as a singular new story totally, unrelated with middle earth, seems like they had a script for a dungeons and dragons movie, no one accepted because how garbage it was, then they made a lotr story instead

I mean... all this is a stretch, right? Sure, if they go down this path it would be pretty wonky, but is there any reason save for bad faith assumptions to think that this is where they are going?

[s_bushido]

is there any reason save for bad faith assumptions to think that this is where they are going?

I think after 200 pages of bad faith assumptions and arguments, that ship has long-since sailed.

[bledgor]

I mean... all this is a stretch, right? Sure, if they go down this path it would be pretty wonky, but is there any reason save for bad faith assumptions to think that this is where they are going?

The poorly constructed narration, the massive time crunch, the complete changing of characters, the terrible dialogue/metaphors, the fact they claimed for months before it that it would be a super faithful adaptation, then last minute changed it to based on as they went on their updating it for modern standards world tour, etc. The show runners have done A LOT of bad faith shit (including during one of their last panels mentioning them working with Tom Shippey, the Tolkien scholar they fired for "unknown" reasons, but almost all rumors point to disagreement over the direction of the show) so yes I believe it is in the realm of possiblility, especially when they repeat the line she heard from her brother about touching the dark to know the light, right before Halbrand rescues her.

Do I think they will go all the way of making love/a deep relationship? No, but I pretty easily believe they will ferment the start of a relationship/kissing/longing before the big reveal that he is Sauron (oh wow now they can claim/insert doubt into her because she didn't notice it was Sauron, look how smart we are!!!). It also doesn't help that Amazon is behind this show, and they shat all over Wheel of Time, doing so many things straight against the lore and ignoring all the very detailed descriptions/details that Jordan left behind.

Oh also the fact that for months (basically till what 2 weeks before the premier) the release date for the show was the anniversary of Tolkien's death, like wtf?

[InfiniteCharger]

[QUOTE=Biomega;53901463]I'm not talking about quality, as I've stated many times. I'm saying that this isn't a situation where you can realistically leverage criticism against the logical consistency of the situation, because what's happening here is an accepted convention of that kind of writing. You'd have to show why this is SPECIAL - not just go "it doesn't make sense!" because that was never a consideration in the first place. That's how tropes work. You accept their flaws in favor of their effect. They're useful, even if they're not entirely logically consistent.
[QUOTE]
Dude. You aren't addressing what I wrote. I spoke about combat, how Elves fight and a lot of other things. I wasn't talking about tropes. If you are going to address me then actually address what I wrote instead of picking one sentence out of many to focus on as straw men.

If you think it's NOT useful in this case, show why. Logical consistency is not up for debate, because everyone agrees from the start to suspend that particular disbelief in a trope.

I didn't JUST say that it could be done in a different way. I said that your 'trope' doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. And you refuse to actually address what I wrote which was about how her elves being competent fighters. There is no evidence that Tolkien leaned on weak fighters being used to show the strength of an individual fighter in his work. In his work it was normally team work and coordination that was the focus of his stories with everyone having their own individual strengths and weaknesses.

Just going "it could have been done in a different way" isn't enough. You'd have to show why and how another way would have been BETTER. There's countless tropes. Which one is used when and over an alternative one are storytelling decisions made all the time; if you think this could have been done better, justify it. Don't just show that alternatives exist, make a case for why they're superior.

That is not what I said. What I said was that the trope you are referring to is not found in Tolkien. So you are applying it wrong because this isn't some generic TV series.

I'd invite you to review large battles and see how many of them are either outright won by the actions of heroic individuals, or how many of them feature massive casualties that exclude the heroic individuals. This isn't rocket science - heroic epics involve heroes showing up and doing stuff other people can't. The Witch King of Angmar was not killed by the concerted effort of 50 brave Gondorian soldiers "fighting together with their strengths to accomplish a great thing", he was single-handedly killed by one woman and one halfling, who happened to achieve a feat impossible to hundreds if not thousands who came before them.

This isn't a large battle. It was 10 against 1 ice troll. And the Witch King being killed was a unique one off event that was prophesied and not intended to reflect the common course of combat.

THAT is Tolkien. He writes this in a long tradition of similar myth and narrative, from Beowulf to the Edda to more modern tales. They all work like that. Hero shows up, hero kills big bad. Almost NONE of them go "and then the 20 brave unnamed soldiers remembered their training and worked together to kill the evil monster". That's just not the genre. At best you'd get "and then the hero showed up and the 20 brave unnamed soldiers who were previously helpless remembered what they're fighting for and under the hero's leadership worked together to kill the evil monster". AT BEST.

That is not Tolkien. The whole narrative is that men, elves, dwarves and others need to come together to fight evil. It is not about one hero doing it all by himself. Yes there are individual heroes, but in general those heroes may win some battles but the war is only won through the combined effort of many people. And again, this is one ice troll. This isn't Sauron and it isn't Melkor. 10 Elves should certainly be able to take down an ice troll, even without Galadriel. This is the crux of your disagreement and fine. Just agree to disagree. There is no 'science' to this because this is about writing. They wrote it that way because they wanted to show her as badass while also NOT showing her the respect she deserves. And that is not how Tolkien wrote Galadriel.

How do they NOT? What's your argument, that unless you can fight at peak efficiency after being starved and death-marched across a frozen wasteland, you're not the "cream of the crop"? And where does this idea of scouts being the best of your troops come from anyway? You're sending a small group of people into the unknown with little to no backup, and you're saying "of COURSE I'd risk my best people on that, what could go wrong"?

We have no idea how the average soldier would have fared in that situation. For all we know, Rando Elfo #3 would have died of exposure and starvation weeks ago, and the only reason ANY of them are still standing is because they ARE the elite of the elite. Galadriel is just a step above still, which isn't surprising considering she's been touted as the greatest Noldor in, you know, ALL OF TIME.

You were the one who brought up scouts without obviously knowing anything about them. I never mentioned it other than they should be better than average troops going after Sauron. Why would you only take 10 men to "scout" after Sauron. What do you expect 10 men to do if he detects them and attacks them? It is a contradiction, especially since there is no main force waiting nearby to come in if they find him. Nothing about this whole scenario makes any sense. Why wold they go out on a quest and not have food? Scouts are supposed to live off the land because again, they are way ahead of the main force, so they need to be able to survive on their own. And why is she not starving but they are? When was the last time you saw Tolkien write about food as a problem in these kinds of journeys? And why would a good commander go on a mission without having enough food or knowing how long her troops can realistically last? All of these things are just contradictory because there is no reason that a 'commander of northern armies' would do something like that. As she would never have been made a commander to begin with. This is what I mean by contradictory writing. She is a commander. She could not have gotten there if she wasn't competent. And she has had this 'burning desire' for revenge all of that time. So obviously it did not affect her decision making and leadership before now, or otherwise they would never have picked her to be in command. So no, this writing does not make logical sense at all and is contradictory. Not to mention the payoff for all of her pushing them was that she was proven right. Which should have been a feather in her cap. But it isn't.

All we have in relative comparison is her performance. We don't know how well the others do, we just know she's better. That's the point of this scene. That's all it intends to convey, and it does that. You claiming that this means the troops are on a particular standard of performance is speculation - all you have is relative power to Galadriel. You have zero basis for comparison in any other respect.

Like I said two pages ago, Tolkien never wrote in detail about the combat abilities, athletic abilities and skills of the various races in any real detail, compared to modern DnD and MMOs. That was the point I was making all along and so that is where this variation in how they are portrayed comes into play.

Wrong. They're depicted as being LESS COMPETENT THAN GALADRIEL, and specifically competence as in endurance and combat ability. We know they've endured for an extremely long time in harsh and mentally taxing conditions. The fact that they couldn't go at it for as long or as hard as one of the greatest heroes of all time, a hero that's also being driven by a relentless single-minded pursuit, shows they're "not competent at doing anything"? In what world does that make sense?

She wasn't one of the greatest heroes of all time. What on earth are you talking about? Where is that written in this time period? I am pretty sure there are other elves who hold that title. She is one of the wisest as written in Tolkien, which means she wouldn't take soldiers on a quest they couldn't handle and she wasn't written going out by herself with 10 men to find Sauron either as she obviously wouldn't be able to defeat him. There is no way to prove what they should or should not have been able to handle. It is simply how it is written and nothing else. Again, she is written for this series as "commander of the Northern armies" which Tolkien did not write, but she is not being shown as a commander of any armies, versus 10 men. Being a commander implies understanding the abilities and endurance of your men. This is what I keep saying is the contradiction.

You immediately jump to generalizations again. You see them fail at one thing, and it instantly becomes them failing at everything. Why do you keep thinking like that?

It is what is in the show. Meaning if she wasn't there, they would almost certainly have all been killed. That means as not competent. Comptetent soldiers defeat the enemy and an Ice troll is not some super powerful boss battle.

Nonsense. You know what's a sign of lack of competence? Following a leader BLINDLY and never questioning or resisting their orders when you feel it necessary. They were RIGHT to call her out on her mad zeal. She went too far. She pushed them too hard.

If her troops questioned her leadership then she should never have been picked as commander. That is the contradiction. It also contradicts she is the greatest hero of all time. Heroes would be followed to the death by troops. What you are saying and what is being shown is a complete contradiction.

And you also seem to equate "being a badass" with "making the right decision at all time". Which is grossly fallacious. Galadriel is a badass warrior, but she has ISSUES. Her personality is screwed up by her desire for vengeance, which is precisely the thing that her entire people were ruined by in the wake of the theft of the silmaril. No one should respect Galadriel for putting in danger the lives of people who trust and follow her just so she can have her own revenge. THAT'S THE POINT HERE, and it's entirely in line with what Tolkien wrote about the Noldor and what they did in their service to their stupid oath, for which they are not deserving of respect either.

The job of a commander is to put peoples lives at risk. That is part of the job. Doing your job is not a flaw, especially when you turn out to be right.
That is my disagreement with you and the writing of this show as a contradiction. If she didn't make good decisions and was hot headed, impulsive and irresponsible she would never have been put in charge of an army, let alone 10 men. And she wouldn't be the greatest hero of all time. All of that is a complete contradiction to what you are saying.

What? She wasn't being "rejected", who rejected her? She was in a scuffle with kids, which is what kids do all the time. She was a headstrong individual quick to resort to solving problems with violence, just as she is now.

LOL. That is hilarous. You are outright denying the story the show is literally telling. And they made it obvious.

If that is your interpretation, you really didn't understand anything about that scene. She was talking about how you can tell right from wrong, if sometimes the two look the same - and her brother's response was that well, sometimes you just can't. This is the central problem for Galadriel: that doing good and doing bad are sometimes so similar, it's really hard to tell them apart. She's struggled with this all her life. That is the essence of the scene in LotR, too, where Frodo offers her the One Ring - that even though she was someone who wished to do good, it would turn to evil if she accepted the Ring. Because that's the line you walk when you can't clearly distinguish between the two, and if you give in to corruption you confuse one for the other. This Galadriel isn't there yet. She jumps in, because she's making a choice - she can't tell if it's the right or wrong choice, because they look so similar. But you have to make a choice. THAT is what her brother is saying.



Why on earth would this be about "you were bullied as a child" like what point is that even making. Geez.


Then go back read it again. I even used the word "flaw" in my original criticism. Read it again, just to be sure.

OK. So who was right and who was wrong when she jumped off the boat and those words were replayed?
Obviously, she was right and Elrond and Gil Galad were wrong. That is the whole point that the people rejecting her whether it be the kids or those two elves were wrong. Them sending her to Valinor isn't a seal of approval as opposed to a sign of disapproval. This is obvious.
You are denying what is obviously being written in the show.

No, that is YOUR method. I never use the word opinion, I never present anything as opinion, I consistently segment and dissect statements and systematically explain why they're problematic. YOU are the one making this into "opinions" every time, in an attempt to deflect criticism by retreating into the supposedly inviolate sanctity of "it's just my opinion, man". You can have opinions. Any opinions. You CANNOT stop others from criticizing those opinions. Get over that, and start replying with counterarguments instead of petulant rants about how nobody wants you to have an opinion.

I'm not in the habit of proffering opinions. I present arguments, backed by justification. You disagree, argue better. Don't bring up opinions again.

No you present your opinion as fact when it isn't. That is the point. You don't even know what a scout is yet you sit here and pretend that you know what you are talking about. Even boy "scouts" are trained to survive off the land. And when shown to be wrong you just ignore the point and just keep going like nothing happened. And that is how discussions go pages and pages.

Nor does it mean that he somehow wasn't the reason for their exile, that their exile never happened, or that the entire story of the silmaril didn't happen or happened in fundamentally different ways. From what we know SO FAR from the show, all that still happened, or at the very least, we have heard nothing about it NOT having happened.

Unless something actually indicates deviation from the lore, it's pointless to assume events deviated. That's idle speculation, nothing more.

And that's not what I'm saying. My entire point is that because there's nothing in the books, they're INVENTING SOMETHING. That's the STARTING POINT. "But the books don't say anything of her doing the things she's doing!" is a completely useless statement because THAT IS THE PREMISE OF THE SHOW from the get-go.

It's like someone made a film about Hedwig's life before she became Harry Potter's pet because the books never talked about that, and you go "but the books never said anything about this!". YES. THAT IS WHY WE COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

It means they don't have the rights to it so they cannot go into detail. Again, his full back story from Tolkien is not in this show. So you mentioning him as if it is is the problem. This show is not canon because they don't have the full rights to all of Tolkien and they cannot introduce everything that is in the books. Her never going to Numenor is explicitly contradicted in the books. So obviously that is not a problem in this series, along with the time compression. This show is not canon and cannot be canon because they don't have the rights. You cannot assume anything about Tolkiens lore in this show because of that.

So "she got bullied once as a kid" becomes "she has been shown obvious and blatant disrespect from childhood". I think I talked about this earlier. You GOTTA stop it with the whole this thing happened once, therefore that's what always happened shtick. That's seriously messed-up logic.

It is called writing. Why put that in the show unless to make it a point to show how she is being treated by other Elves. This is literally something Tolkien never wrote. So obviously that is something important to the story they are telling. You denying this obvious fact is hilarious.

People respect her plenty. They let her run rampant on her search for decades, if not centuries, supporting her on the way. Gil-galad is seriously concerned for her wellbeing. They LOVE her. You make it out like "you get to go to paradise, hopefully that will help you heal your spiritual wounds" is some sort of punishment or show of disrespect, when it's, you know, the OPPOSITE. They're doing what they're doing BECAUSE they respect her - respect also means you step in when you think someone is doing themselves or others harm. Trying to soothe her mad quest for vengeance is not disrespectful, it's loving and caring deeply for her.

You just contradicted yourself again, just like this show. Earlier you said she was a great hero (for what? who did she fight). Now you are saying that she was running rampant like some deranged person. That doesn't make any sense. They wouldn't choose a person that is unstable to lead an army. This is the entire point I keep making and every time you try and deny it you wind up proving me right. If she had all these flaws, she would not have been made a commander. Her being vigilant in keeping an eye open for sauron and looking for evidence of his presence is not a flaw. That is what generals and commanders of armies are supposed to do. Her brother wasn't the only one who died in that battle so it isn't like she is the only one who went through that (and he was an actual hero). You just don't see that as a contradiction, but that is a different way in how you look at it and how I look at it. Pushing your soldiers is part of being a leader. This is not unusual. It is normal and not a flaw. I just see we don't agree on this so lets just agree to disagree. Its fine. Lets move on.

Where? Link, please. I've gone through every post in our discussion and several outside of it, and you haven't done this once. Did you do this 20 pages ago in a discussion with someone else?

Or are you just, idk, lying? I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I expect you to just go "forget it you're not worth it and it's just my opinion anyway and you don't think I'm allowed to have one right" anyway.

LOL yeah sure. Like I said before, I am not against your opinion but against you presenting your opinion as fact.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

That's what makes her characterization unrelatable though. She's not wise at all, and is single-minded. And her men consistently challenge her, showing that she isn't given the respect of authority of someone actually in command. And there's no character that can actually reasonable challenge her at that point in time; her second in command dude is still under her authority and can only give her options; what he did by giving that ultimatum would be considered insubordinence. The story isn't very sensible or relatable.

Yes the ultimatum is insubordination that’s the whole point.

A seconds job is challenge and give advice where needed and the whole point of the opening is that her second is doing his job he is continuously pointing out that she is driving the men to hard. Rather she was like that from the start or rather she has gotten more intense with time we don’t know we only get to see the breaking point of tens of not hundreds of years of her quest and how her obsession has driven the troops that once trusted her to disobeying and her friends go chastise her for killing elf's killed in foreign lands.

The scene would play out completely differently if it were 'Unnamed Captain' having this conversation with Arthas.

this actually happens when Arthas is in Northrend his troops just don’t get the chance to defect because he comes back with frostmourn and kills them instead of bringing them into the dark fort with him.

[Triceron]

Yes the ultimatum is insubordination that’s the whole point.

A seconds job is challenge and give advice where needed and the whole point of the opening is that her second is doing his job he is continuously pointing out that she is driving the men to hard. Rather she was like that from the start or rather she has gotten more intense with time we don’t know we only get to see the breaking point of tens of not hundreds of years of her quest and how her obsession has driven the troops that once trusted her to disobeying and her friends go chastise her for killing elf's killed in foreign lands.

And that's a problem of the story and it's choices in characterization.

These aren't things that are left for the viewer to fill in the blanks and create a bigger picture. These are very big questions left blank that should have been explained to give us a better idea of what her character is and why we should care. Instead. they jump directly to showing events that are meant for us to empathize with her being stuck in a bad situation, but her decisions are too senseless to really empathize with her. The entire first 20 minutes depicts Galadrial as being single-minded and irrational, and it paints a scenario where the audience is more likely to empathize with her fatigued company who has to deal with an irrational commander. I really blame the writers here for picking this to be how they want to establish her character, because I really don't see what there is to relate to her character. And her irrationality is further illustrated throughout the rest of the first two episodes, while having her (irrational) actions vindicated through the fact that there really is a growing evil in the world that no one else seems to notice or care about.

So even if her character is right and she's doing things for all the right reasons, she's still completely de-humanized and unrelateable. This is the complete opposite of how they should be establishing a character. And for anyone who decided to compare her to Legolas because he was able to kill Trolls or giant Elephants are completely missing the point that Legolas was at the very least established as a relatable and understandable character well before they showed him doing cool shit, which is why it works. Just like it does in other movies like John Wick or Terminator or Aliens etc.

I'm looking for any reasons to like this character and the show just isn't really giving me any here.

[Rennadrel]

I rly want to bite my tongue here, but im 100% that this will happen, its just to much on the nose with the writing so far, using so much obvious troops

This would reinforce their, obnoxious speech that "to know something is bad you need to do it first" like what the fuck, and to take weight on the fact that she want revenge, and now she will be conflicted.

Like, its astonishing how this could have worked as a singular new story totally, unrelated with middle earth, seems like they had a script for a dungeons and dragons movie, no one accepted because how garbage it was, then they made a lotr story instead

It comes off as a Dragon Age type of setting while using Tolkien's work.

[eschatological]

That's fine if your explanation is as such, and I wouldn't argue against your opinion here. But as I point out here, there's nothing worth noting that's actually in the story so far that makes her an interesting character. All if her intrigue is in whatever people wish to project on to her as an otherwise uninteresting character.

And yes, I think we can say the same about Kratos, who really wasn't an interesting character at the outset. The game was interesting because of its gameplay and mechanics more than driven by the character's story. I'd persoanlly say Kratos as a character only really started getting interesting in the 3rd game, when he recognizes the actions of his past. IMO it was a strong setup for the current God of War series, and a much wiser, older Kratos.

I wouldn't point at any of the earlier God of War games as being strong for their story or characterization. It was a mindless action-blockbuster. The story was really just an excuse to kill a bunch of Gods.

But, I mean, there was a whole bunch of love for that early, god-killing, revenge-driven, booby-fondling Kratos in the audience. People were fine with those characteristics. Sure, the writers eventually made him a deeper, wiser character - iirc, there were people who loved the original style of GoW games who were worried the series would lose what "made Kratos great."

[Syegfryed]

I mean... all this is a stretch, right? Sure, if they go down this path it would be pretty wonky, but is there any reason save for bad faith assumptions to think that this is where they are going?

Why it would be bad faith when the show itself proved a lot of points people were making for months? that is not a stretch, at all, it would align perfectly with the mediocre writing so far

I think after 200 pages of bad faith assumptions and arguments.

That most of them were proven right, by the first episode alone?

- - - Updated - - -

But, I mean, there was a whole bunch of love for that early, god-killing, revenge-driven, booby-fondling Kratos in the audience. People were fine with those characteristics. Sure, the writers eventually made him a deeper, wiser character - iirc, there were people who loved the original style of GoW games who were worried the series would lose what "made Kratos great."

It was a kid's videogame, its in the same line of fast and furious or transformers, its supposed to be fun and badass, Kratos barely talk shit in the game making easier for you to "feel" the character, plus, there is the whole thing about how he is hunted by the evil he did, how he himself killed his family, that is building empathy in a kid's game, tying to compare that with RoP - not just two different medias, but different public and premise - is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

It comes off as a Dragon Age type of setting while using Tolkien's work.

You know what, that might be true, cause i pretty sure someone said the "knife ear" as slur in the show, (could be wrong cause i was not paying attention to the scene) and that is not a slur people would use in Lotr cause elves ears are pointy but not long

[bledgor]

You know what, that might be true, cause i pretty sure someone said the "knife ear" as slur in the show, (could be wrong cause i was not paying attention to the scene) and that is not a slur people would use in Lotr cause elves ears are pointy but not long

A drunken southern man says it to Arondir when he is asking about plagued crops.

[Syegfryed]

A drunken southern man says it to Arondir when he is asking about plagued crops.

ah yes, the place that in one scene the elf says "you smell of rotten leaf" or whatever

On the note, Knife ear is a slur in dragon age, wow, or dnd where elven ears are actually long, here feels out of place

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And that's a problem of the story and it's choices in characterization.

These aren't things that are left for the viewer to fill in the blanks and create a bigger picture. These are very big questions left blank that should have been explained to give us a better idea of what her character is and why we should care.

Sure, I disagree in every way and think leaving it blank is more interesting, but sure.

Legolas was at the very least established as a relatable and understandable character well before they showed him doing cool shit, which is why it works. Just like it does in other movies like John Wick or Terminator or Aliens etc.

I mean that just sounds like being Bias because you like the character and not caring if what they are doing actually makes sense.

[Triceron]

But, I mean, there was a whole bunch of love for that early, god-killing, revenge-driven, booby-fondling Kratos in the audience. People were fine with those characteristics. Sure, the writers eventually made him a deeper, wiser character - iirc, there were people who loved the original style of GoW games who were worried the series would lose what "made Kratos great."

The love for the character was more self-insert than for the character itself. I'd equate it to the love people have for say He-man, where it's a very simple power-fantasy series that doesn't really have much depth to it but people still know and love it for. Both the games and the show were fun for the sake of fun, in different ways.

I can't exactly point at RoP's Galadriel being the same way. She's as unfun as it gets, and I'm not exactly on the edge of my seat to find out what happens next to her story arc.

That being said, I really do enjoy Elrond a lot more than I thought I would, and I really like his story so far.

[Biomega]

Dude. You aren't addressing what I wrote. I spoke about combat, how Elves fight and a lot of other things. I wasn't talking about tropes. If you are going to address me then actually address what I wrote instead of picking one sentence out of many to focus on as straw men.

I addressed one specific thing you said, which I even did you the courtesy of quoting. It did not include the things you mentioned. Only one of us is talking about something the other isn't, and it's not me. I quoted something you said. I replied to that thing. That's not a strawman, it's engaging EXACTLY with what I said I was engaging with.

And you refuse to actually address what I wrote which was about how her elves being competent fighters.

I don't understand that sentence. "how her elves being competent fighter"... what? There's something missing for this to make grammatical sense.

There is no evidence that Tolkien leaned on weak fighters being used to show the strength of an individual fighter in his work.

Every time minor characters are struggling in a fight until a major character shows up and they win is exactly that trope. That's heroic epic 101.

In his work it was normally team work and coordination that was the focus of his stories with everyone having their own individual strengths and weaknesses.

Between HEROES, not between randos. What you're saying can't involve heroes at all. Or your point would be instantly invalidated by the fact that the elven troops DO in fact assist Galadriel in her fight. Albeit in a choreographically silly way.

That is not what I said. What I said was that the trope you are referring to is not found in Tolkien.

I gave you an example in the Witch King fight, where he mows down men left and right until the heroes show up, and promptly defeat him. There's plenty others.

This isn't a large battle. It was 10 against 1 ice troll. And the Witch King being killed was a unique one off event that was prophesied and not intended to reflect the common course of combat.

Sorry, and that's relevant to the validity of the trope how, exactly? None of this is a requirement or component of the trope in any way. It's purely about minor characters struggling with an enemy until the hero(es) show(s) up and promptly defeat the enemy, with the purpose of showcasing the exceptionality of the hero(es). That's it. It doesn't care about numbers or prophecy or whatever. WHY/HOW the heroes are exceptional in any given example isn't relevant to this trope and can take many forms.

That is not Tolkien. The whole narrative is that men, elves, dwarves and others need to come together to fight evil.

And who does the winning, pray tell? Who wins it all in LotR? An army of unnamed soldiers? Or a single main character and his sidekick, going at it alone? PLEASE TELL US about how this isn't a story all about heroes.

It is not about one hero doing it all by himself. Yes there are individual heroes, but in general those heroes may win some battles but the war is only won through the combined effort of many people. And again, this is one ice troll. This isn't Sauron and it isn't Melkor. 10 Elves should certainly be able to take down an ice troll, even without Galadriel.

See what you're doing here? In the same breath you're saying "yes there's heroes who win some battles" and then go "they should win without Galadriel!" immediately. You're applying double standards in a single paragraph. Usually it's harder to unmask ridiculous arguments, but this one really makes it easy.

Unless you're saying "they should have defeated Sauron without Aragorn, Gandalf, or Frodo in LotR!". In which case I'd have to concede you are at least consistent.

But I'm sure that's not what you're saying, because you're dishonestly applying one standard to LotR and another to this.

You were the one who brought up scouts without obviously knowing anything about them. I never mentioned it other than they should be better than average troops going after Sauron.

So now you went from "cream of the crop" to "better than average". Are you saying her troops are NOT "better than average"? How do you know that? How do you even know what the average is?

You're just making shit up whole-cloth.

Why would you only take 10 men to "scout" after Sauron. What do you expect 10 men to do if he detects them and attacks them?

What any scouting party does - flee if they're faced with overwhelming odds. That's how scouting works. They gather intelligence. They're not there to conduct assaults on enemies they can't take on. It's weird that you need that explained, I thought I was the one who "obviously" doesn't know anything about scouts. It's almost like... almost like... YES, almost like you are talking entirely out of your ass here!

And why is she not starving but they are?

I never said she wasn't. In fact I'm pretty sure I said she was, but she doesn't CARE. That's sort of the point.

Not that you'd care, it would require careful reading of what I said.

When was the last time you saw Tolkien write about food as a problem in these kinds of journeys?

You're joking, right?

He has ENTIRE CHAPTERS in LotR of Sam and Frodo creeping through enemy territory, evading enemy troops while out of food and water, their bodies wracked with starvation.

What a bullshit statement to make.

All of these things are just contradictory because there is no reason that a 'commander of northern armies' would do something like that. As she would never have been made a commander to begin with. This is what I mean by contradictory writing. She is a commander. She could not have gotten there if she wasn't competent.

Would you like a list of RL military commanders who got there on merit but later made terrible decisions? Because that's a very long list.

The commander who puts their people in danger for personal reasons is an entire literary archetype (see e.g. Captain Ahab). Do you not know this, seriously? Have you never even read HISTORY, where bad command decisions happen all the time to otherwise competent commanders? Napoleon's winter war in Russia, say? No? Nothing?

I don't know why you're so into extremes, as though "competent" would have to mean "competent in all things, all the time, without making mistakes or having flaws of any kind, ever".

Like I said two pages ago, Tolkien never wrote in detail about the combat abilities, athletic abilities and skills of the various races in any real detail

And yet YOU were the one who brought it up, and talked about standards and averages and whatnot. All I ever said was you see the direct comparison between them and Galadriel, because that's all you see on screen. Anything else you don't know. YOU were the one arguing otherwise. So lecture yourself on this, not me.

She wasn't one of the greatest heroes of all time. What on earth are you talking about?

Name me a greater elf in all of Tolkien's work. There's only one contender, and it's Fëanor. And given that Galadriel overcame her desire for power and found inner peace at the end whereas he could not, it's easily arguable she's greater than him.

Where is that written in this time period?

I'm not sure you know what "of all time" means, or how people use it. If you traveled back in time and met Julius Cesar as a young man, and I said "here's one of the most famous Romans of all time", would you also go "ACKSHUALLY right now he's just some random citizens hardly anyone knows him WHAT EVEN ARE YOU SAYING I'M SO CONFUSED". We have meta knowledge that doesn't restrict our evaluation to the contemporary.

Don't be intentionally thick.

I am pretty sure there are other elves who hold that title.

How about instead of vague general deflections, you give actual examples and explain the justification behind them. That way, we can discuss it, and not just have another bout of "woah woah you're attacking MY OPINION, man!".

Again, she is written for this series as "commander of the Northern armies" which Tolkien did not write, but she is not being shown as a commander of any armies, versus 10 men.

We're two episodes in. Did you see Gil-galad command anyone? Are you saying he ISN'T an elven commander of the highest order, just because in the first scene he shows up he doesn't have thousands of warriors behind him? Like we, you know, KNOW he will when he leads the combined forces of elves and men to defeat Sauron?

Didn't think so. Put some thought into your comments, man.

It is what is in the show. Meaning if she wasn't there, they would almost certainly have all been killed. That means as not competent. Comptetent soldiers defeat the enemy and an Ice troll is not some super powerful boss battle.

That's a ridiculous overgeneralization. Are you saying you can't be competent if you EVER lose a battle, even if it's in a half-starved-to-death, exhausted state? THAT is your standard for "competence", being actually undefeatable in any scenario?

Laughable.

If her troops questioned her leadership then she should never have been picked as commander. That is the contradiction.

No. That is you not understanding that commanders make mistakes and LOSE trust they PREVIOUSLY HAD. You're assuming that anyone picked as a commander can never lose the trust of their troops, can never make decisions that cause their troops to lose trust, and can never make mistakes; and that anyone picking a commander should KNOW in advance, somehow, that this would never happen.

That's hare-brained arguing.

The job of a commander is to put peoples lives at risk. That is part of the job. Doing your job is not a flaw, especially when you turn out to be right.

Turning out to be right doesn't justify every decision. There's plenty of decisions that should not have been made DESPITE the fact that they turned out to be correct. In fact this comes up at courts martial all the time, where military commanders are punished precisely for this reason even if the outcome turned out to be positive. "The end justifies the means" isn't a valid military doctrine any more than it is a legal defense.

It doesn't matter that she turned out to be RIGHT about Sauron and the orcs. She should not have put her men in danger like that.

If she didn't make good decisions and was hot headed, impulsive and irresponsible she would never have been put in charge of an army, let alone 10 men.

And this is my problem with this entire line of argument: you're assuming that because she made SOME bad decisions and SOMETIMES let her impulsiveness override her better judgement this was something she ALWAYS did and therefore didn't deserve to be a commander.

Which is not only not what we're shown (she does relent to Gil-galad), but it's also a logically fallacious statement.

LOL. That is hilarous. You are outright denying the story the show is literally telling. And they made it obvious.

Once again, how about you EXPLAIN WHY instead of going "lol hilarous [sic!]". You're saying she got rejected. I asked when, and if you meant by that the childhood scuffle. And instead of going "I meant XYZ, which means she's being rejected because ABC" all you do is go "lol it's obvious".

And you're surprised why I keep pointing out you're not arguing properly? Why do you resist concrete evidence/examples so much? Is it because... you don't have any?

OK. So who was right and who was wrong when she jumped off the boat and those words were replayed?

We have no idea. We'll have to see how it plays out. And we'll never know the road not taken.

THAT'S THE POINT.

Obviously, she was right and Elrond and Gil Galad were wrong.

That's far from obvious. We know Sauron will be defeated; we can assume she'll have some hand in it (though how much we cannot say, given the expected deviations). But that's not all that's going to happen. The entire WORLD is going to change, and arguably not for the better. Had Galadriel just quietly returned to Valinor, who knows what might have happened to Númenor and the rest of history. That's the point: WE DON'T KNOW if she did the right thing. And neither does she.

Her brother's point is that "sometimes you don't know, but you still have to do something".

YOUR immediate response is "hah, I totally know!".

You didn't learn a thing from what he was trying to say, did you.

No you present your opinion as fact when it isn't.

I asked you not to claim I'm offering opinions. I do not. When I state an opinion, you'll know. Until then, all I make are ARGUMENTS, subject in their totality to discussion and discourse.

YOU are the only one dealing in "opinions as fact". I have repeatedly and constantly rejected this notion. YOU keep bringing it up. STOP. DOING. THAT.

This show is not canon because they don't have the full rights to all of Tolkien and they cannot introduce everything that is in the books.

But you're again making a critical logical mistake. "This show isn't canon" DOES NOT MEAN "nothing that's in the canon applies to the show". Plenty of stuff from the canon IS in fact in the show. And it's stupid to assume something from the canon ISN'T the case in the show until and unless there's something to suggest so.

It is called writing. Why put that in the show unless to make it a point to show how she is being treated by other Elves.

That's not how she's treated in any interaction with elves EXCEPT those children. She's highly regarded and respected, and has great rewards conferred on her.

The outlier is the scuffle with the kids, not everything else. Yet somehow you claim it's the other way round. That's bizarre.

You just contradicted yourself again, just like this show. Earlier you said she was a great hero (for what? who did she fight). Now you are saying that she was running rampant like some deranged person.

And you think those can't be both the case? You think heroes can't make mistakes, or behave badly for a time? Why? Frodo succumbed to temptation at the end, and took the One Ring for himself. Does that mean he's not a hero? Exactly. Didn't think so.

They wouldn't choose a person that is unstable to lead an army.

YOU brought in the word "unstable" here. She's driven. She's zealous. She's single-minded. I never said, nor would I ever, that she's "unstable". You're changing words to different meanings, and then falling over yourself in disbelief how suddenly everything makes no sense. It's because YOU changed it to not make sense anymore.

How about you criticize me for the words I use, not for words I don't use. That sounds only fair to me.

If she had all these flaws, she would not have been made a commander.

Except we know she IS a commander, and we know she HAS the flaw of her burning desire for vengeance. Neither of those is in dispute. IDK what point you're trying to make here, but it's moot because we know that both of these are, in fact, the case.

And besides: plenty of people in history rose to command with serious character flaws. History is full of them. That's neither surprising nor unusual.

LOL yeah sure. Like I said before, I am not against your opinion but against you presenting your opinion as fact.

The only one ever talking about that is you.

Also YAY I win a stuffed bear for predicting that you wouldn't actually provide evidence of what you're claiming, but would just turn this into one of your inane MUH OPINYAN rants. Skreeeeeee!

[eschatological]

The love for the character was more self-insert than for the character itself. I'd equate it to the love people have for say He-man, where it's a very simple power-fantasy series that doesn't really have much depth to it but people still know and love it for. Both the games and the show were fun for the sake of fun, in different ways.

I can't exactly point at RoP's Galadriel being the same way. She's as unfun as it gets, and I'm not exactly on the edge of my seat to find out what happens next to her story arc.

That being said, I really do enjoy Elrond a lot more than I thought I would, and I really like his story so far.

...I mean, do you remember the hatred the new He-Man got on this subforum? For deviating from that He-Man formula?

Why are these one-note, flat character "badasses kicking ass, bent on revenge" widely loved, but when a LOTR character does it 1) in the first episode of what is planned to be a multi-season show, 2) with an endpoint we've already seen in LOTR, it's suddenly hated?

Imagine if GoW (2018) came out first, in the GoW series. Maybe even its upcoming sequel as well. And then, to "fill in the gaps" of this character who we meet way late in his life, someone makes the first trilogy. Are you putting the game down because of the story because Kratos is a revenge-driven madman power fantasy, and "not the Kratos you know"?

The point of Galadriel in RoP is, if executed properly, supposed to invoke in viewers the excitement of watching her grow from what she is in episode 1, to what we see in LOTR. Now maybe that's being done clumsily or being acted poorly, but that doesn't invalidate the idea of the story beats themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

ETA: I'm going to offer an example of a TV show I personally love: LOST, a show that told most of its story in character flashbacks juxtaposed with what was happening presently.

In the pilot, you have all these flawed characters, many of whom you hate, others who you don't understand, others you think might be hiding something, and much of the characters can be frustrating in that regard. Some of the most hated characters at the beginning of the show, like Sawyer and Jin, were absolutely beloved by the endpoint. Because as they went, they filled in what made these characters who they were when they crashed on this deserted island. Even supreme bitches like Shannon and Ana Lucia become compelling, much liked characters, as the story was revealed.

But the show also did the opposite, too. The two initial heroes of the story, Jack and John Locke, are slowly given more depth from their hero-doctor and knife-hurling boar hunter personas in the initial episodes. They're shown to be flawed, and stubborn, and unable to let go of things in their flashbacks. And that depth, while perhaps making them less likeable, reinforces who they are as leaders of the survivors of Oceanic 815.

RoP is doing the Jack/John thing - the deconstruction of the obvious hero. It's much harder than the redemption of the villainous, because we want to believe people are better than they act, and we don't want to see our authority figures besmirched. LOST did it masterfully, imo. Whether RoP does, is obviously still to be seen.

[Triceron]

I mean that just sounds like being Bias because you like the character and not caring if what they are doing actually makes sense.

I don't have much fondness for Jack Sparrow as a character. His antics get on my nerves. I can still respect the character and find him understandable and relatable on a human level though. His crew would question or disobey orders when convenient to them. It all makes sense because this setting is all about untrustworthy pirates, and mutiny is played off as a part of the comedic relief. His character, while dastardly and untrustworthy, still has very understandable motives, and his interactions with other characters inform the audience of him being an unscrupulous, yet relatable character. Whether I like him or not is a completely different thing from him being a established as a likeable character.

With LOTR, Legolas is established as Aragorn's long-time trusted friend, and in turn because we have built up a trust in Aragorn then we should also trust Legolas. The links are established, so we give plenty of benefit to his character even if he doesn't have a lot of immediate screentime prior to him joining the Fellowship.

For Galadriel, the show has to build up her characterization from the ground up. And IMO there isn't much in the story for why we should care about her or trust her. The first thing the show establishes is her need for revenge. The first time we see her is as a leader of a small group of Elves. She puts the 'mission' above the wellbeing of her troops, then her 'mission' ends up being explained as defying the orders of the king and it's revealed that she's gone rogue for months. And we see her further being irrational when her party is hurt and she still decides to push forward regardless of their state. If you're telling me I'm biased that I don't like the character, then I'm telling you my bias comes directly from the writers failing to establish something to relate her character. And I'm saying I don't relate to her character because I don't find any of her actions to be reasonable, in the setting that they're trying to establish. They make her out to be irrational, and then justify her irrationality by having her actually be right. By all means, from a narrative point of view, it doesn't actually make much sense.

Maybe there will be some bigger plot to unfold, but right now we have to wait and see and IMO there is plenty of legitimate reason to criticize the handling of her character so far. And not in a 'She's not like the books!' kind of way.

[Syegfryed]

...I mean, do you remember the hatred the new He-Man got on this subforum? For deviating from that He-Man formula?

it got a well-deserved hatred because they said it was a he-man show and they featured him in the trailers, selling him, but they just switch to Taelia, who, like what they are doing here, does not sell. If they were truthful about the intent and did not shit on Adam/he-man, as a spite, it would being fine.

Why are these one-note, flat character "badasses kicking ass, bent on revenge" widely loved, but when a LOTR character does it 1) in the first episode of what is planned to be a multi-season show, 2) with an endpoint we've already seen in LOTR, it's suddenly hated?

Because they picked one character who is not a "badass kicking ass bent on revenge", at all

But the crux of the problem is not that they wanted that, but they wanted to make it so with awful writing, lame motivations and bad dialogue

Fuck, i liked Tariel, Taurel, or whatever is the name of the elf in the hobbit movies, even if their presence is completely pointless (since she is not a character in the book) more likeable than legolas, only thing that ruined it was the dwarf romance.

[Biomega]

I'd be curious to see whether the problem is actually the STORY behind Galadriel being a badass warrior out for revenge, or whether it's the EXECUTION of that character by the actress and the dialogue.

I myself think it's a good story angle. It effectively replicates the Silmarillion's Noldor and the Oath of Fëanor and all the grief that came from it, just on a different scale and for a different character. Galadriel is a good choice for that, since she's a kind of counterpart to Fëanor. Sure it's a deviation from the books; it's effectively realizing the unwritten version of Galadriel Tolkien referenced in some of his letters, that was more Amazonian warrior than wise leader. But it slots into her existing storyline with her eventual redemption culminating in refusal of the One Ring, while serving as a stand-in for Fëanor and all that is forbidden to the show for legal reasons. I think it's a fairly neat solution to provide both a more fleshed-out version of a different side of Galadriel and a reference point for a central theme without infringing on restricted material.

Now, the problem to me is how that story idea is actually done in PRACTICE. I'm not happy at all with what I'm seeing on the screen. The actress is not doing a good job, she doesn't come across as a particularly engaging or interesting person on screen, and there's a lot of, for lack of a better word, "bitchiness" vibes coming from her that the character does not deserve and the actress is doing herself a massive disservice with. How much of that is the acting and how much is the dialogue and direction is unclear. I'm happy to blame the directors/producers at least as much as the actress; probably more, since it's their job to make sure this is done properly. The possibilities of the story promise are squandered by the writing and acting, and it's very annoying.

Granted, it's been 2 episodes. Maybe she'll turn it around. Maybe she'll grow into the role more as time goes by (though I have no idea about the actual production chronology). Maybe the writing will pick up and the dialogue will leave cringe territory. I'm not hopeful, though. I think that getting a character like Galadriel so wrong demonstrates either an unwillingness or an inability to engage with the complexities of the role; neither is acceptable for a AAA production more expensive than pretty much any show in history.

But I see the problem primarily in how they actually put the story on screen, not the story itself. SO FAR, anyway. It could all just fall apart massively. But the idea of Galadriel, Orc Slayer burning across Middle Earth in a bid for Sauron's head? That's not a problem for me in principle. I think it's a decent take on the character, despite its obvious deviation from the source (as much as we have one). But the execution.... Oh dear.