Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

But my point is solely about reducing exclusion, not about actively filling quotas.

I think this is the crux of our supposed disagreement here.

My comments on diversity are specific to the quotas, and not about reducing exclusion. I remain fairly agnostic in that regard, because while I'm pro-inclusion and diversity, I also don't want the creative being impacted by filling quotas. I think we generally want the same thing, only our priorities are different.

One example I'll give here is the addition of Tauriel to the Hobbit movies. She was added to the movies deliberately because the creators thought the Hobbit's characters was too male-centric, and they wanted to provide a strong female lead to balance things out. I have no problem with this character or its addition to the story. I simply see it as being pointless, and I think her character/arc came at the price of telling a more concise story. There was no real place for a romance sub-plot in the Hobbit's tale. And her role in the story was effectively filler anyways. IMO, the added diversity didn't make things better, it just added more filler to a series of films that was already stretching the plot thin.

And I personally see this type of thing happening all too often in more modern productions. I just don't see it being a good thing when diversity becomes prioritized over just telling a strong story. I am thrilled when it works like Dr. Strange's casting of Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One, or Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mordo. The choice of diversity did not impact the story, I think it was very well integrated, explained and believable. And it plays into what I've said earlier about maintaining verisimilitude, even if you think my reasoning may be antiquated.

That's relevant to Hollywood, too. It takes a lot for an actor of color to go to a casting for a role that's always been or is strongly described as white - even if no one stops them from trying out for the role, a lot of people simply won't bother because they are convinced they'll never get it. That's an implicit barrier, and implicit exclusion, and it's very difficult to tackle.

I want to be clear that I agree with your statement, but I don't see this being a byproduct of anything I've said so far in terms of diversity and the status quo. Don't let this get in the way of you feeling strongly about it, I'm not trying to dismiss anything you've said here. I'm merely saying it isn't really relative to any of the comments I've made, and I don't want to come across as excusing the issues you're bringing up when I talk about prioritizing creative decisions over maintaining status quo. I just don't see this having anything to do with anything I've said, this is more an issue that you're bringing to the table than one that I'm implying.

I work in children's animation. Even for fictional characters, there are many many factors that go into deciding how ethnic representation is handled. Marketing might want to hit a broader range of kids who will identify with the characters. Executives might want want to aim at reaching a certain country or territory. Showrunners might want to be progressive, and add LGBT characters/issues where it isn't normally seen. There's so many factors that influences these choices that it's hard to just lump this all in as a being a product of challenging the old 'bad casting practices'. In the end, it is about companies wanting to make money. It's the economics that drives the casting practices.

The reason why I think modern adaptations are open to diversity is because I think there is a belief that diversity is profitable. That this is what the audience wants. I come to understand this as being more a byproduct of business strategy, and the economics are influencing the creative. My bias comes from my experience in a related industry, just one that happens to deal with purely fictional characters rather than real life ones.

[Triceron]

I've been thinking today about the series' lack of humor and whether that's one of its fatal flaws, specifically as it relates to Galadriel. Because clearly, the relationship with the most humor, Elrond and Durin, is the most successful part of the show. LOTR trilogy had plenty of humor, Marvel movies do, and Game of Thrones did too. But it's not that simple. Game of Thrones had plenty of characters who were pretty humorless - Jon and Dany for example. Season one didn't have much humor - there was some with Robert Baratheon and Tyrion, and characters like Syrio Forel, so there was certainly more than in RoP season 1, but it was a small part of the show.

The most baffling to me was their choice to make Galadriel an unlikeable character. This was very deliberate, and I'm not sure what kind of character they set out to write when they did this.

For me it's not the humor as much as the overall believability of the character. She is a high ranking commander, and none of her actions reflect what a person in command would do. And it just goes into questioning she got her position in the first place. It questions the entire Elven military ranking system. Is she a commander because she's a good fighter? Because she is supposedly wise? Because of who she is or who she is friends with? These aren't really addressed. She just is a commander and you're meant to take it at face value, even if everything she is and does is merely reflective of a highly-skilled soldier with little-to-no regard for actual leadership or following protocol.

Like even if they were meant to write in a commander who doesn't follow orders and has a strong sense of self-belief, they didn't have to write her to be so callous to her own troops. She's no Kirk. She's more typical of a lone-wolf character who goes off to do her own thing, which is a contrast to her being a commander and respected as one when she's really shown zero aptitude in leadership. It doesn't come off as a competent leader who has lost their way, it comes off as someone who never had leadership skills to begin with and there's no actual reason why it makes sense that she is the high commander of the Northern armies or whatever her title was.

And overall, she just antagonizes others and expects to get her way. I don't think any amount of humor would fix that kind of characterization for her. They wrote her with a chip on her shoulder and the story is centered all around that chip. Everything she does and how the world moves forward all centers around her 'mistakes', that's something the show is making clear. And it's done her character dirty.

[rogoth]

The most baffling to me was their choice to make Galadriel an unlikeable character. This was very deliberate, and I'm not sure what kind of character they set out to write when they did this.

For me it's not the humor as much as the overall believability of the character. She is a high ranking commander, and none of her actions reflect what a person in command would do. And it just goes into questioning she got her position in the first place. It questions the entire Elven military ranking system. Is she a commander because she's a good fighter? Because she is supposedly wise? Because of who she is or who she is friends with? These aren't really addressed. She just is a commander and you're meant to take it at face value, even if everything she is and does is merely reflective of a highly-skilled soldier with little-to-no regard for actual leadership or following protocol.

Like even if they were meant to write in a commander who doesn't follow orders and has a strong sense of self-belief, they didn't have to write her to be so callous to her own troops. She's no Kirk. She's more typical of a lone-wolf character who goes off to do her own thing, which is a contrast to her being a commander and respected as one when she's really shown zero aptitude in leadership. It doesn't come off as a competent leader who has lost their way, it comes off as someone who never had leadership skills to begin with and there's no actual reason why it makes sense that she is the high commander of the Northern armies or whatever her title was.

And overall, she just antagonizes others and expects to get her way. I don't think any amount of humor would fix that kind of characterization for her. They wrote her with a chip on her shoulder and the story is centered all around that chip. Everything she does and how the world moves forward all centers around her 'mistakes', that's something the show is making clear. And it's done her character dirty.

that's the thing though, in the eyes of the creators of this mess, she's none of those things, the way she is portrayed in the show is how the creators VIEW THE WORLD, the characterisation of the Galadriel character is how they themselves view 'strong independent women', that's what they believe them to be and how they are supposed to act, where most normal and well adjusted people view these kinds of behaviours and traits as unlikable, narcissistic and downright abhorrent in some areas, the creators view these kinds of things through their worldview as 'powerful', 'brave' and offering 'leadership', this is the kind of warped world view these people have and are trying to push onto others through their media.

[Biomega]

that's the thing though, in the eyes of the creators of this mess, she's none of those things, the way she is portrayed in the show is how the creators VIEW THE WORLD, the characterisation of the Galadriel character is how they themselves view 'strong independent women', that's what they believe them to be and how they are supposed to act, where most normal and well adjusted people view these kinds of behaviours and traits as unlikable, narcissistic and downright abhorrent in some areas, the creators view these kinds of things through their worldview as 'powerful', 'brave' and offering 'leadership', this is the kind of warped world view these people have and are trying to push onto others through their media.

How do you know that?

How do you know this is what the creators think "strong powerful women" are "supposed to be like", rather than this just being a depiction of an intentionally flawed character so there's room for growth?

Sounds a little tinfoil-hat-y to me.

[rogoth]

How do you know that?

How do you know this is what the creators think "strong powerful women" are "supposed to be like", rather than this just being a depiction of an intentionally flawed character so there's room for growth?

Sounds a little tinfoil-hat-y to me.

straight from the horses mouth aka lindsey weber: 'we want this project to reflect the world we live in today'

so by extension the way the characters act and behave is precisely how they view the real world and the people in it, furthermore, it shows how warped their view of the world is through the lens of their writing, i don't get how any of this is 'tinfoil-hat-y' as you put it, it's a logical process of thought based on deduction, everything they have said regarding their actual world views during the marketing campaign mirrors what's shown in the show both in terms of the characters traits, to their behaviours and mannerisms then there's the overt need to be seen as progressive and 'diverse', again showed during the marketing rhetoric spiel they spewed out by the whole 'superfans' debacle, even that is mirrored in the show, the higher ups signing off on these things and allowing the same to be showcased during the episodes demonstrates this is how they view the world, the people in it, and how that is a direct look into their mind.

[Biomega]

straight from the horses mouth aka lindsey weber: 'we want this project to reflect the world we live in today'

so by extension the way the characters act and behave is precisely how they view the real world and the people in it

Bullshit. That can mean anything, and be interpreted in any number of ways. It'd be trivial to find examples for something in the show that isn't reflected IRL, so what you're doing is PICKING things that you THINK are supposed to be "just like IRL" and ignoring the others.

Some people IRL behave like Galadriel does, others do not. How you get from that to "this specific character is how we think all powerful females should act" is pure speculation.

[Orby]

straight from the horses mouth aka lindsey weber: 'we want this project to reflect the world we live in today'

so by extension the way the characters act and behave is precisely how they view the real world and the people in it, furthermore, it shows how warped their view of the world is through the lens of their writing, i don't get how any of this is 'tinfoil-hat-y' as you put it, it's a logical process of thought based on deduction, everything they have said regarding their actual world views during the marketing campaign mirrors what's shown in the show both in terms of the characters traits, to their behaviours and mannerisms then there's the overt need to be seen as progressive and 'diverse', again showed during the marketing rhetoric spiel they spewed out by the whole 'superfans' debacle, even that is mirrored in the show, the higher ups signing off on these things and allowing the same to be showcased during the episodes demonstrates this is how they view the world, the people in it, and how that is a direct look into their mind.

That's always been a very double edged sword quote that I see thrown around a lot. Like reflecting the world we live in today has always been a inspiration for alot of authors no exception in fantasy to try and project a narrative. When it works it works. The key is subtly.

The problem with applying 'we want this project to reflect the world we live in today' to Tolkien is that its different than than the times Tolkien was in then. Tolkien's work was very influential of the times HE lived in, whether that be religion, his experiences during World War 1, and the effect of the rise of industrial culture on the land, and so that was reflected in Lord of the ring and all of Tolkien's work. So if you apply todays times over Tolkien's times, then you replace the times that was originally set and therefore create a different time or distort the messages Tolkien gave. (if that makes sense)

I do think its important to highlight and maybe even give narrative to things today, making stories that reflect the world we live in today isnt a bad thing as many people say, its just so oftenly been done badly, but we must also be careful where we apply that narrative.

[Syegfryed]

Some people IRL behave like Galadriel does, others do not. How you get from that to "this specific character is how we think all powerful females should act" is pure speculation.

And since she is the main character, you don't need much to figure what traits they think are good

[Biomega]

And since she is the main character, you don't need much to figure what traits they think are good

But there's nothing that says they think her traits are "good", when it's entirely possible that she's intentionally flawed as a character - something done all the time in fiction. In fact that's MORE common than having characters be representative of an ideal.

[Syegfryed]

But there's nothing that says they think her traits are "good", when it's entirely possible that she's intentionally flawed as a character - something done all the time in fiction. In fact that's MORE common than having characters be representative of an ideal.

This does not seem like its the case with their interviews, how they talk about her, yada yada. It seems they genuinely think she is a good character.

Well, they also think she show was good, so, they are either lying or just need help

[Biomega]

This does not seem like its the case with their interviews, how they talk about her, yada yada. It seems they genuinely think she is a good character.

Well, they also think she show was good, so, they are either lying or just need help

Even then, it's entirely possible for "good characters" to be flawed. Even deeply. Plenty of examples in fiction. To jump to the conclusion that she is meant as a whole-cloth representation of the ideal "strong female" seems wholly unfounded, barring additional info.

It seems like they might intend that? But it's never clear because we never see anything other than her perspective, and also it's in conflict with their constant desire to show that she's also better than everyone else in the show.

There's certainly many facets to the character. No question she is *a* strong female character, but she also has a slew of problematic character traits and displayed behaviors. There's no reason to assume that everything simply translates into some supposed ideal.

Clearly they tried to make her a layered representation; whether or not that succeeded is a different question. And to be clear: I think she's a writing hack job, terribly executed in almost every way, based on the 3 episodes I could bring myself to watch. But to think that she's somehow the writers' realization of what a strong female character is supposed to look like is a complete fabrication.

[Triceron]

Clearly they tried to make her a layered representation; whether or not that succeeded is a different question. And to be clear: I think she's a writing hack job, terribly executed in almost every way, based on the 3 episodes I could bring myself to watch. But to think that she's somehow the writers' realization of what a strong female character is supposed to look like is a complete fabrication.

Well to address character growth and possible intent on having her start bad/unlikeable in order to grow, it's hard to imagine this being the case if her personality is all over the place. First she is rebellious, then she listens to Gil Galad/Elrond and goes with the Valinor plan, then she decides last minute to literally jump ship. Like, this is more bi-polar than a result of good characterization, and all this happens in the first episode. It's hard to really see who these characters are when they're just doing whatever the script calls for them to do rather than what makes sense for the character.

I tried hard to understand her character. I just don't. She's all over the place. Without any established consistency, I can't tell when growth or change is happening and what part of her personality is left unchanged. Too much of her character growth is outlined in exposition more than it is shown, and even if shown it gets undermined from some other scenes that revert her back to uncaring bitch.

Like it would've been better to just have her one dimensional the entire season if they plan a slow burn character development.

[Syegfryed]

Even then, it's entirely possible for "good characters" to be flawed. Even deeply. Plenty of examples in fiction. To jump to the conclusion that she is meant as a whole-cloth representation of the ideal "strong female" seems wholly unfounded, barring additional info.

But they don' show her as flawed character, even when she is wrong she is right, there is no growth, there is no change, she ends the exact same way the began, even more stupid in fact.

The flaws we see they don't think they are flaws, that is prob the big issue.

[Biomega]

The flaws we see they don't think they are flaws, that is prob the big issue.

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

[Usernameforforums]

and yet every possible metric to measure engagement suggest otherwise, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy.

Engagement? The fuck you engaging while watching a tv show? Lore? It was fine.

[Triceron]

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

It works the other way around.

If her character hasn't gotten development and you don't know she is going to be in future seasons, then theres no argument to imply she is or will be more developed.

We're not talking about the series as though it's completely out, we are talking about her character as she exists in season 1.

She doesn't really have character flaws at all. All her flaws end up being her character traits, because she isn't shown ever really being wrong or reflecting on her faults in a way that actually shows growth. She acknowledges her temper and recklessness, yet the show time and time again shows how both of these things gets her results. Are these faults? No. They are character traits.

Just like Sheldon in Big Bang theory is super smart, but he is socially awkward. So is social awkwardness his character flaw? No, it is not, because he never lets it impede him nor does he recognize it as a fault he has to overcome. Social awkwardness becomes a trait of his character (for comedic value).

[Adamas102]

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

You really have to consider whether you're wasting your time responding to someone who thinks Galadriel was portrayed as a "good", flawless, girl-boss character. Like, did they even watch the show? They obviously are completely incapable of critically evaluating the show on any level as their only "argument" is based on what they THINK the showrunners believe based on one or two misrepresented quotes.

It's crystal clear that this first season revolved around her learning how her revenge-driven extremism pushed her allies away and led her into the enemy's trap. The final moments of the season involve her taking steps to move away from the toxic mentality that drove her actions at the beginning, and one would assume that future seasons will continue this arc to culminate in her becoming more like the character we all know from LotR.

The idea that the showrunners set up this arc while at the same time thinking that these flaws aren't really flaws is absolutely idiotic.

[Syegfryed]

/\ ayyyyyy lmao, her revenge-drivene extremism is what brought her allies by the power of scrip, it was her toxic mentality that saved the people from the southlands with said army, everything works out in the end for her

For her to culminate in the character we know from lotr she has to die and reborn like 5 times.

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

Why it is not? just because you don't want it? lmao

the first season of a multiseason show with more than eight fucking hours is not enough to progress a character in at least not even overcome ONE flaw?

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

If they were problems, the writers would have pointed that out, and her problems would bite back at her, but that does not happen, since she ends up being right all along (like with Sauron) or things mysteriously solving itself for her (Like she just happens to meet two rafts and a ship after attempting to swim to the content miles away).

No one calls her on her bullshit, despite Hallbrand, and he is the villain, so she ends up right in the end as well. Hell, i even remember hearing in the dread podcast that she was right in not telling about Hallbrand being Sauron.

The moment they start highlighting and calling her on hr bullshit, and she actually changing then, then, you might have a point.

[Biomega]

It works the other way around.

If her character hasn't gotten development and you don't know she is going to be in future seasons, then theres no argument to imply she is or will be more developed.

That's not the argument at stake. The claim being made is that what we see as flaws, the creators do not see as flaws. The evidence being put forward for that claim is that there's no development over the first season, and that is not sufficient evidence for that claim.

Whether or not she'll actually HAVE character development in future seasons we do not know, but even if she doesn't, that still doesn't support the claim that's being made.

She doesn't really have character flaws at all. All her flaws end up being her character traits

That's a direct and immediate contradiction.

because she isn't shown ever really being wrong or reflecting on her faults in a way that actually shows growth. She acknowledges her temper and recklessness, yet the show time and time again shows how both of these things gets her results. Are these faults? No. They are character traits.

You're trying to create a dichotomy here between "flaws" and "traits". Those are not antonymous terms. "Traits" can be both positive and negative, and just calling a flaw a trait does not magically transform a negative into a positive. These are gross category errors.

Just like Sheldon in Big Bang theory is super smart, but he is socially awkward. So is social awkwardness his character flaw?

Yes, among other things. And that's where most of the show's humor comes from. You seriously misunderstand what "character flaw" means.

Why it is not? just because you don't want it? lmao

That's not how proof works. YOU made the claim. YOU need to prove it. "Lmao prove it's not!" is not how proper arguments function. If you're not interested in a proper argument, that's fine - we can just all have a round of your "lmaos", agree that you just want us to acknowledge you're a bro and that it's cool to shit on the show runners for whatever reason good or bad justified or not, and move on.

[rogoth]

Engagement? The fuck you engaging while watching a tv show? Lore? It was fine.

are you naturally this dense or just acting stupid online to be edgy?