Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

Your are not one to decide if its poor story telling or not,

Yes I am, because that value is subjective, lol.

[kenn9530]

Yes I am, because that value is subjective.

Subjective doesnt mean you are right about something, your personal tastes are irrelevant of the quality of something.

[Triceron]

Subjective doesnt mean you are right about something, your personal tastes are irrelevant of the quality of something.

It means it is my opinion and I wouldn't be wrong for it just because you happen to disagree.

I'm not the one trying to silence other people's opinions here buddy. Who the fuck cares if it's right or wrong?

I think the storywriting is poor for the reasons I outline. If you disagree then say so and outline your points, otherwise this 'right' and 'wrong' nonsense goes nowhere. You aren't an authority to say it isn't poor writing either. No one is. It is purely subjectively valued.

But hey, this os my last word on this since a mod literally gave a warning about this 'what is good' shit a few pages back (412).

[rhorle]

Like @bledgor said, being the greatest doesn't you are the strongest or the most powerful, that is simple hedcanon, Galadriel is not, as far i know the daughter of Maiar and was not getting help from a hound of valinor

"Being brilliant in mind and swift in action she had early absorbed all of what she was capable of the teaching which the Valar thought fit to give the Eldar, and she felt confined in the tutelage of Aman."

Except for fighting, right? Where does Tolkien say she is not able to fight well? He doesn't.

The entire point of them going to middle earth was to seek revenge on Morgoth and the dark forces. Her brothers death was just fuel for that fire. Just because he might be alive in Valinor at some point doesn't mean she can't have feelings because of his death. There is nothing to say that she doesn't care for husband or other family. We learn that her husband was lost in action so that likely contributed to her zealous quest.

Do her other brothers appear in the appendixes? The Tolkien estate could have restricted mention of them.

[Syegfryed]

"Being brilliant in mind and swift in action she had early absorbed all of what she was capable of the teaching which the Valar thought fit to give the Eldar, and she felt confined in the tutelage of Aman."

Except for fighting, right?

Where is saying she was the most powerful elf ? nowhere

Where does Tolkien say she is not able to fight well? He doesn't.

there is a gigantic fucking difference between being able to fight well and being the most powerful elf alive who can take a maiar head on.

Thats just a lame strawman

The entire point of them going to middle earth was to seek revenge on Morgoth and the dark forces

Did they went because Morgoh killed someone or because something else?

There is nothing to say that she doesn't care for husband or other family.

Except she giving literally zero fucks about then

We learn that her husband was lost in action so that likely contributed to her zealous quest.

THEN WHY

THE FUCK

SHE IS NOT SEARCHING FOR HIM

INSTEAD, she is trying to get revenge, for someone who is alive, or is going to be alive eventually, while her husband is missing, this is completely obnoxious

Do her other brothers appear in the appendixes? The Tolkien estate could have restricted mention of them.

bs

[rhorle]

Where is saying she was the most powerful elf ? nowhere

You are aware that was a different quote, right? She is called the greatest of elven women in a different quote from a different part of Tolkien's work.

Revenge is revenge. You making a difference for "revenge you like" versus "revenge you don't like" is silly. We don't know that she gives zero about her husband. We haven't had an in-depth reasoning given for all of what motivates her quest. It started out being fueled by the death of her brother but could very well have morphed into finding what happened to her husband. We don't know if she searched for him or not.

Her husband will also be alive eventually if he is dead, right? So you shouldn't think it is a big deal that she doesn't care if she also shouldn't care about her brother, right? Or are you just selectively applying when these arguments apply based on if you like or dislike something?

It also is not BS if the show did not have the rights to the names of the other brothers. I'm not sure why you don't understand that if the estate says they can't use something they can't use it. It really isn't a hard concept to grasp yet seems to be something so many struggle with.

[Shadowferal]

INSTEAD, she is trying to get revenge, for someone who is alive, or is going to be alive eventually, while her husband is missing, this is completely obnoxious bs

You're arguing against stupidity (laudable), with someone who defends the stupidity with his own illogic. Futile.
When Amazon sidelines the showrunners, either by reducing their influence or outright dismissal, the likes of rhorle and kenn will refuse to see it as any refutation for their arguments...even if the show becomes completely revamped with a new cast and and a far closer adherence to the idea of "Tolkienesque," and this season gets dumped. The "rholes and kenns" will proudly say "I told you so."
Illogical? Yep.
But that's their bag.

[rhorle]

But that's their bag.

You do realize that I've said the show is flawed and could be better, right? You and others have a habit of making it all or nothing when it comes to shows. If you don't hate everything and support everything others hate you are somehow blindly supporting everything about the show. It is also amusing how much I live in your head rent free just because we have different opinions on things. You and others can't stop talking about me even though you claim to "ignore" me. Lmao.

[Syegfryed]

You are aware that was a different quote, right? She is called the greatest of elven women in a different quote from a different part of Tolkien's work.

Powerful =/= Greatest

Revenge is revenge. You making a difference for "revenge you like" versus "revenge you don't like" is silly.

The only silly thing is pretend they are not different.

We don't know that she gives zero about her husband.

We do, she literally don't give fuck about him, when someone you supposedly love goes missing YOU GO FIND THEM, instead, she is going for a pointless and nonsene revenge, of just one of her three brothers.

- - - Updated - - -

You're arguing against stupidity (laudable), with someone who defends the stupidity with his own illogic. Futile.
When Amazon sidelines the showrunners, either by reducing their influence or outright dismissal, the likes of rhorle and kenn will refuse to see it as any refutation for their arguments...even if the show becomes completely revamped with a new cast and and a far closer adherence to the idea of "Tolkienesque," and this season gets dumped. The "rholes and kenns" will proudly say "I told you so."
Illogical? Yep.
But that's their bag.

Yeah, you see how they refute themselves with their own bs, the more you try to explain, more dumb the show become

[rhorle]

We do, she literally don't give fuck about him, when someone you supposedly love goes missing YOU GO FIND THEM, instead, she is going for a pointless and nonsene revenge, of just one of her three brothers.

Why can't both be done at the same time? How do you know she never looked? There are a lot of things that take place off screen but you are so absolutely sure they have never happened in the story. Strange, right? We don't know because it hasn't been stated or shown.

[Triceron]

Yeah, you see how they refute themselves with their own bs, the more you try to explain, more dumb the show become

They're only here to bad faith. Especially with Rhorle, so best to just leave him be. There's no way you'd talk sense into either of em anyways.

[bledgor]

We do, she literally don't give fuck about him, when someone you supposedly love goes missing YOU GO FIND THEM, instead, she is going for a pointless and nonsene revenge, of just one of her three brothers.

I mean she TOTALLY cares about her husband, why else would she only mention him once in the show in a scene that feels tacked on after the fact! Bonus points for them taking imagery from the story of Beren and Luthien.

[rhorle]

I mean she TOTALLY cares about her husband, why else would she only mention him once in the show in a scene that feels tacked on after the fact! Bonus points for them taking imagery from the story of Beren and Luthien.

Where else was it relevant for her to mention it? The show certainly could have addressed it more or better. However it doesn't make sense in any of the other scenes of the show outside of the "prologue" in the first episode.

[Triceron]

I mean she TOTALLY cares about her husband, why else would she only mention him once in the show in a scene that feels tacked on after the fact! Bonus points for them taking imagery from the story of Beren and Luthien.

You can't say that, you haven't watched all 5 seasons yet! How dare you criticize the show's gaping plot holes without watching content that hasn't come out yet?!

[Myradin]

Where else was it relevant for her to mention it? The show certainly could have addressed it more or better. However it doesn't make sense in any of the other scenes of the show outside of the "prologue" in the first episode.

I feel like there's a few times she's mentions vaguely about what she's lost where his name couldn't come up. Likewise when characters know her discuss her desire for vengeance he could have come up.

The prologue would have been the best time to do it though. Going into it having a better idea of what she has seen would have helped.

Instead we just get her vaguely claiming what she's seen is worse than what other elves have...for some reason.

[Adamas102]

No one is. It is purely subjectively valued.

But hey, this os my last word on this since a mod literally gave a warning about this 'what is good' shit a few pages back (412).

I'm still going to address this because you (and yes, eschatological as well) are wrong about this. And honestly, this needs to get hammered home in pretty much every thread in the Cinema/TV Show/Music/Books subforum.

Your appreciation of a work of art is entirely subjective, but to say that it cannot be evaluated with objectivity is absolute rubbish. What you're essentially saying is that there's no such thing as a good actor, or director, or writer. What you're saying is that there's no such thing as skill because whether or not an artist did something well is entirely determined by whatever random person is viewing said art. No, that's pure bullshit.

The issue, which as I've said pops up in pretty much every thread here, is that the average person doesn't know how to separate presenting their opinion from gauging quality. For example, you could take the best baker in the world and have them make the perfect German chocolate cake. I don't like coconut so I'm not going to like it, but if I say it's a bad cake then I would be wrong. Just because I dislike it doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly well done cake that used the correct ingredients in the appropriate amounts. Those qualities are objectively present regardless of what my tastes are.

A few pages back you claimed that there is no objective measure for determining what good or bad acting is ("There is no objective standard to 'call someone out' on saying the acting was bad") which is FUCKING NONSENSE. Acting (like writing and directing) is a skill, and just like any skill it can be done well or it can be done poorly. You're enjoyment does NOT determine whether it was done well or done poorly. You don't know the first thing about what "bad acting" looks like if you've never seen a professional production with actors that can't even get the most basic things right like mumbling lines or maintaining a proper sight line. Just look at typical child actors and realize that there are adult actors who are no better in terms of delivering lines or using their bodies to act rather than just standing still and regurgitating lines. Some of that is on the director to help correct, but it's things like this that just scratch the surface of what differentiates good actors (or even just decent actors) from bad actors. Is there consistency across the performance? If an accent is required is it done well? Is anger, or sadness, or joy conveyed appropriately? Is over-emoting or over-acting appropriate to the role/scene or not? If we're talking about directing we can also talk about framing and pacing a scene. Or for writers we can talk about things like wordiness, inconsistencies, or subtext. And of course it's the ones who are true masters of their craft that can make a performance truly memorable.

Now, I never said that RoP had particularly stellar performances (hell, I don't think I've even voiced my opinion on whether I liked the show or not). What I've said is that none of the acting was bad, or more specifically it was "fine". The elephant in the room is of course Galadriel because that's who everyone has their panties in a bunch over. Morfydd Clark is not a bad actor. She's an award winning actor who has been doing this professionally for 8 years now. In the role of Galadriel she doesn't appear to fuck up any of the basics. Her cadence and diction are appropriate. She comes off as angry when the character is supposed to be angry, or arrogant when the character is supposed to be arrogant. Taking this back to the beginning, just because you didn't enjoy the performance doesn't mean the acting was bad.

About 50 pages back I had to explain a particular scene to one of these ever-complaining posters (not going to name names, but you know who you are). It wasn't a complicated scene. It took like two sentences to explain the subtext that was being portrayed by the acting, writing, and directing. And still the poster in question lacked the ability to understand that subtext so to him the words made no sense and therefore the scene was "bad". It's not just textbook Dunning-Kruger, it's also the pervasive myth that everyone's opinion is equally valid in terms of determining the quality of something.

EDIT: now on this very page you're backing posters up on an argument that essentially boils down to "I personally would have acted differently so therefore this is a plot hole"? As if we needed more evidence that none of you are capable of actual, constructive criticism...

[Triceron]

I'm still going to address this because you (and yes, eschatological as well) are wrong about this. And honestly, this needs to get hammered home in pretty much every thread in the Cinema/TV Show/Music/Books subforum.

Your appreciation of a work of art is entirely subjective, but to say that it cannot be evaluated with objectivity is absolute rubbish. What you're essentially saying is that there's no such thing as a good actor, or director, or writer.

There is such thing, but all values would not be objective. There is no absolute objective standard for it, and whatever you're trying to explain here is a roundabout way of merely addressing what a commonly accepted subjective value for it might be.

Like your German cake example. You say you don't like it, and we can't turn that around to say it's a bad cake just because you don't like it. That's fair.

But how do you then define a bad cake on the value of its quality? What is the threshold for bad quality? Well, that is also subjective. There is no absolute objective value that defines what is good or bad quality of a cake. Any time someone says 'that's a bad cake' in referring to the actual quality of it, would be doing so using subjective values. They may be inferring commonly understood thresholds of quality, but these thresholds are all understandably going to be subjective. "The taste is off" "The texture is wrong" "The shape is imperfect", these would all be understandably subjective.

And this plays into exactly what you're trying to describe here with good or bad acting. Doesn't matter if she is a good or bad actor if you are talking about a certain performance being good or bad. And to be absolutely clear - I have never said Morfydd Clark was a bad actress, nor have I ever said her performance in this was bad. I would say that there are articles and reviews that question her acting, and may even call it out for being bad, but that would not be my personal opinion on the matter. I personally think her performance was mediocre, or subpar, but not a bad performance. If you ever got "She is a bad actor" from anything I've said here, I would say you're misunderstanding my point, or projecting an argument that I've never actually made. I kinda think you just went on a rant here, considering I've never actually criticized the actress. Maybe you are thinking I am someone else who made this argument?

At most, I'm putting perspective, presenting the evidence (reviews/articles of her performance) to counter certain posters here saying it's 'objectively good acting'. I have no intention of making it look like she's a terrible actress. IMO, values of acting quality are all subjective, and I would say how people evaluate her acting in ROP is questionable at best, since it ranges quite a bit. There isn't any uniform regard of her performance being either good or bad, it's a completely mixed bag.

I happen to lean on the 'average-to-below-average' scale, since I don't regard her performance to be outstanding at all here. I would probably equate it Natalie Portman in the Star Wars Prequels, where I think the performance was being limited by the material. I have never considered the performance to be a fault of the actress. I personally don't think it's her fault.

now on this very page you're backing posters up on an argument

I'm not backing anyone up anyone's argument. I'm not sure where you're making this assumption.

Just because I throw out snarky comments, suddenly that's backing up their arguments? Could you give a specific example here? Otherwise I'm presenting my own opinions here, not piggybacking on anyone else's. If you want to address it, then address it.

As if we needed more evidence that none of you are capable of actual, constructive criticism...

Which means what? It just sounds like you don't agree with the arguments and are deciding to ignore the rest here. Can you be specific about what criticism you're talking about? Because what I criticized as being bad or poor writing is not the same as what I criticized for being a plot hole, and I feel like you're conflating the two together and dismissing it all at once.

[Adamas102]

But how do you then define a bad cake on the value of its quality? What is the threshold for bad quality? Well, that is also subjective. There is no absolute objective value that defines what is good or bad quality of a cake. Any time someone says 'that's a bad cake' in referring to the actual quality of it, would be doing so using subjective values. They may be inferring commonly understood thresholds of quality, but these thresholds are all understandably going to be subjective. "The taste is off" "The texture is wrong" "The shape is imperfect", these would all be understandably subjective.

How do you define a bad cake? I mean, there's a number of ways. Using the wrong or spoiled ingredients. Not using the correct measurements or techniques (proper mixing, cooking time, etc). You might still end up with something edible that someone might happily enjoy shoveling into their gullet, but failing to meet the basic criteria of the recipe would result in a bad example of whatever it is you were aiming to produce. Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake. I suppose the best way to describe something as being a bad example of X is if it failed to meet one or more of the basic criteria that defines X.

Those things you mentioned, taste, texture, shape. Those are NOT "understandably subjective". I picked baking because food preferences are certainly a matter of taste but baking is a skill and a matter of precision, and if you've spent any time watching the Great British Bake Off you'd know that these are objective criteria that can be gauged by people with the proper knowledge of the subject. I'd certainly not be able to judge those aspects myself because despite having eaten plenty of birthday cake over the course of my life I lack the knowledge and experience to properly critique them on a technical level. I am ignorant on that subject matter, which is something I wish more people would be comfortable saying rather than blurting out knee-jerk criticism and masking it as "it's just my opinion so it's as valid as anyone else's". And again, that's not to say that people can't enjoy a bad version of something, or hate a good version of something else.

And this plays into exactly what you're trying to describe here with good or bad acting. Doesn't matter if she is a good or bad actor if you are talking about a certain performance being good or bad. And to be absolutely clear - I have never said Morfydd Clark was a bad actress, nor have I ever said her performance in this was bad. I would say that there are articles and reviews that question her acting, and may even call it out for being bad, but that would not be my personal opinion on the matter. I personally think her performance was subpar, but not bad. So really, you have no footing her to somehow throw this back at me as though I ever criticized the actress. If you ever got that impression from anything I've said here, I would say you're misunderstanding my point, or projecting an argument that I've never actually made.

I quoted you, but not every detail of the post was aimed at something you may or may not have specifically said. I'm also addressing other posters who I didn't specifically quote but who will possibly read the post. I brought up Clark because, as you confirm, her performance is the one that other people like to bring up.

"Bad acting" is actually painfully easy to identify. It's like someone who doesn't know the intricacies of baking still being able to tell when something is burnt. Children, athletes-turned-movie stars, low budget/student productions, porn stars, etc. are usually examples that even the most brain-dead posters on this forum would be able to point out because they typically fail at the most basic concepts of acting. Mumbling, poor enunciation, unnatural cadence because they're spending more energy trying to recall the lines so the words are just blurted out as they come, missing their sight lines, missing their marks, etc. These are examples of bad acting, and none of the actors on this show (Clark included) are anywhere close to this level.

Outside of what constitutes legitimately bad acting there's definitely a lot of range. Sticking with the baking analogy, an amateur baker can certainly produce something that ISN'T BAD, while at the same time not being AS GOOD AS something a professional baker can produce. They followed all the basic instructions but maybe lacked in precision or some optional touches that can elevate the end result. And yes, good actors can also make mistakes, but even the average professional dramatic actor (especially one in a production with a big enough budget to do multiple takes) isn't going to be making mistakes throughout an entire performance. If you (the royal you) think a performance didn't quite work then it's more likely an issue with direction than with acting.

Basically that's all a long-winded way of saying that anyone who thinks Clark's performance (or that of any of the actors on the show) was an example of "bad acting" are making hyperbolic statements based little to no actual, legitimate criticism.

I'm not backing anyone up anyone's argument. I'm not sure where you're making this assumption.

Eh, fair enough. That wasn't the meat of what I was looking to talk about anyway so if you just want to snark then snark away I guess.

[Triceron]

How do you define a bad cake? I mean, there's a number of ways. Using the wrong or spoiled ingredients. Not using the correct measurements or techniques (proper mixing, cooking time, etc). You might still end up with something edible that someone might happily enjoy shoveling into their gullet, but failing to meet the basic criteria of the recipe would result in a bad example of whatever it is you were aiming to produce. Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake. I suppose the best way to describe something as being a bad example of X is if it failed to meet one or more of the basic criteria that defines X.

Is that objective value standardized to a finite value though? You could have made the cake with improper measurements or base ingredients and still come out with a good quality cake, right?

Like some baking recipes are flexible enough to allow ingredient substitutions. Does that make it an objectively bad version of the original? No, it would simply be different.

Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake.

No, it just simply wouldn't be a German chocolate cake. A Chocolate cake is not an objectively bad example of a German Chocolate cake, make sense? Objectivity deals with facts, and these are not facts. It is merely not what you are expecting it to be, but that doesn't make it bad. I would call that a mistake (either in name or in not following the recipe correctly), not a bad version of a German Chocolate cake. Just like if you wanted a dog and you got a goldfish instead, it doesn't make it an 'objectively bad dog'. It isn't a dog at all.

I would merely say this is an objectively bad example :P

if you've spent any time watching the Great British Bake Off you'd know that these are objective criteria that can be gauged by people with the proper knowledge of the subject.

And how do they grade the quality of the food? Subjectively, with judges, right? It's still down to opinion, because each judge does not grade the same exactly as the others. They may try and abide by the same rules and standards and try to 'be objective' (to judge by taking facts in high consideration) in their grade, but the fact they are even judging it is based on their opinions, which is ultimately a subjective value. Objectivity would not have differential outcomes, like how a math problem wouldn't be judged with different results depending on who is judging it. Make sense?

Even if we're going to use some of the highest standards of judgement like the Olympics, it's still all down to subjectivity, not objectivity. It isn't objectively valued even if they are 'being objective' in their judgement. The fact that it goes through judgement at all is rooted in subjectivity, and is what causes one judge to give the same athlete a different performance rating than their peers. That's why you see multiple scores tallying an average, and not just one universal score which every judge immediately agrees upon. The standards at which they evaluate and judge quality are merely standardized, and just because there is a standard does not mean it becomes objectively valued. That standard can shift and evolve, just like how Olympics judging has evolved over the decades. Watch some of the winning gold medal gymnasts or platform divers of the 60's, and it's stuff that wouldn't make the grade today, because the standards have been raised so high through decades of competition.

Even in the world of law, judgement is subjective. Now, that doesn't mean I'm talking about Judges pushing their worldviews into their practice, it means their judgements will always be a result of opinion rather than on strict doctrine. There will always be cases that need that human element to it, and that is why we have judges.

It is important to make clear that judges do not rule according to their individual worldviews. In fact, they are subject to broad objective limitations that restrict their discretion. They must operate within a defined system – a specific law, accepted principles of legal interpretation, judicial precedents, cultural context, and an internal language – which establishes significant boundaries around their freedom of choice. Nevertheless, even within these objective limits, the exercise of judicial discretion in difficult cases is ultimately subjective

I quoted you, but not every detail of the post was aimed at something you may or may not have specifically said.

Ah. In that case, in the future I hope you make more of an effort to differentiate comments that aren't direct replies to me, cuz I found it an odd response to something I never really made an argument on.

Basically that's all a long-winded way of saying that anyone who thinks Clark's performance (or that of any of the actors on the show) was an example of "bad acting" are making hyperbolic statements based little to no actual, legitimate criticism.

No, that's merely expressing your disagreement in opinion. Just because you don't agree with said statements doesn't immediately mean those statements are not legitimate criticism. Statements don't need to be agreeable to you in order to be legitimate, it just means you don't have the same standard of quality as other people (and that is not a bad thing).

Just like the analogy you had about enjoying a German cake but not to the level of their judges. You could eat the cake and think 'Wow! THis is the best German Chocolate cake I've ever had!' while the judges taste it and could pick apart all the nuanced flaws that you never would have. That perspective difference could easily be percieved as hyperbolic, effectively nitpicking. But that's the whole point of judgement in a high level of standard, right? And it's no different here. What you're considering as hyperbolic is being perceived as being unfair, while the truth is it's merely being judged on a different standard to what you are considering. If someone is expecting a high level of acting and the acting in this doesn't hold up to those expectations, then the criticism is still legitimate. The evaluation of good and bad acting is ultimately subjective. And it's all relative to where and how that criticism is presented. Like, we are more accepting of a baking competition judge's in-depth criticism on a cake on a televised competition than if if that same criticism were presented anonymously on Amazon reviews. It plays into how fair you consider the criticism to be, based on where it's being presented. We consider the criticism through the lens of our subjective perspectives. We don't highly regard criticism objectively if it seems out of place or unexpected to us. And that's what I see happening here. The criticism could be coming from people who are working in the industry, and we wouldn't know if we're all just considering each other as 'anonymous jackholes on a gaming forum'.

What we use to define good and bad acting is all based on subjective standards, ones that are not completely universal. Just like trying to define the standard of a 'good actor' for a popular TV sitcom compared to a theatrical drama; the standards would be quite different in considering what 'good' means. And in the case of Rings of Power, it straddles the line between being a theatrical drama and a regular TV series, so expectations on the format and the acting level has quite a wide range. Some people will ultimately compare it to theatrical blockbusters like Lord of the Rings. Others will merely compare it to its contemporary streaming shows. There's no real standard here that says one type of comparison is legitimate while the other is not.

[Syegfryed]

I'm still going to address this because you (and yes, eschatological as well) are wrong about this. And honestly, this needs to get hammered home in pretty much every thread in the Cinema/TV Show/Music/Books subforum.

Your appreciation of a work of art is entirely subjective, but to say that it cannot be evaluated with objectivity is absolute rubbish. What you're essentially saying is that there's no such thing as a good actor, or director, or writer. What you're saying is that there's no such thing as skill because whether or not an artist did something well is entirely determined by whatever random person is viewing said art. No, that's pure bullshit.

I agree with this, and if we objectively evaluated Rings of Power show, taking all variable into account we can safe say the show is also, absolute rubbish.

The pros can't save the cons

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like there's a few times she's mentions vaguely about what she's lost where his name couldn't come up. Likewise when characters know her discuss her desire for vengeance he could have come up.

The prologue would have been the best time to do it though. Going into it having a better idea of what she has seen would have helped.

Instead we just get her vaguely claiming what she's seen is worse than what other elves have...for some reason.

She doesn't mention her husband because they can ship her with Sauron, and deliver that awful final scene with then