1. #2001
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    Debate-ably she fought in the kinslaying, as it changed, fine I forgot about the kinslaying POSSIBLY being a time she fought (though again it could have been as a wizard and not warrior), at no point can I find/recall her fighting in defense though, only at Alqualonde did Tolkien alter it later in his text to say she fought vs the sons of Feanor. As for the war of wrath I don't ever remember reading, quote that shit. I agree she is one of the most powerful elves, but being powerful doesn't = a warrior, she was always shown as a leader first, and a powerful spellcaster 2nd. At no point did we see her shown as a warrior/someone to fight on the front line with a sword (which is the issue with the rings of power, if they had Galadriel fighting in the back with magic, I would still be annoyed, but it would be acceptable levels like LoTR changes).

    For Dol Guldur iirc the description used is similar to the description Luthien used for Til-in-Gaurhoth, so she basically used magic to destroy the stone walls, towers, etc.
    The fact you're trying to characterise her as a "wizard" or "spellcaster" makes it difficult to take you seriously. Several "magical" techniques exist and magicia which is causing direct effects through the spirit was very limited and used sparingly by the elves, it being largely the preserve of the Ainur and wicked men corrupted by Sauron (possibly a power he granted them.) For elves feats that mortals might call "magical" were achieved by the spirit working through the body. Crafting items of power was one expression of this, the ability to heal through touch another, but most common in battle is spiritual strength fortifying the body giving them greater physical power than can be explained by their physiology. There was no battle magic or people stood at the back slinging spells.

    I'm not going to delve through the dozen or so volumes of published notes to cross reference the ways Galdriel could be expected to join the War of Wrath. There's a passage that describes Eonwe summoning all the free elves and men of Beleriand to fight alongside the Host of Valinor, there's a passage that explains Galadriel and Celeborn had moved to far east to answer the call in time, and a later account of those two (possibly when Celeborn was Teleporno and a Falmari) has them in Beleriand at the time the summons was given, though nothing was expanded on that. It's supportable but not explicit in Tolkien's writings.

    The destruction of Dol Guldur was likely achieved through "lore," not some inherent power of her own but a deep knowledge of the "magic" holding the fortress together that Galadriel could exploit. It does not suggest that she could run around battlefields casting Arcane Explosion and Firebolts.

  2. #2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    Sure you can, because 'Good' is always going to be subjective.

    Like, you're using the word bad as if there's any objective meaning behind it, but there isn't. Good and bad are subjective adjectives, nothing to do with objective fact. When anything is rendered good or bad, it is subject to general or personal opinion, but opinion nonetheless.

    Perhaps you meant faithful adaptation, but even then if we're talking about adaptations, all measurement of quality would be subjective. There is no such thing as a purely faithful adaptation, as that would literally be a translation.

    The only real context of a 'Good adaptation' is a 'An adaptation that people generally consider to be faithful and/or of good quality'. There is no factual basis beyond this.
    .. I said that, it could be a good show, but not a good/faithful adaptation...

    Bad in this case to mean not faithful/accurate, its called context mate, use it. The exact amount can be debated, but you can factually say something is a bad adaptation, for example if you make an adaptation of LoTR set in 2022 with laser swords, and space oozes that fuck monkeys to create unicorn-raptors, there is no argument that this is a good adaptation.

    Yes you have room in how much you can do in an adaptation, as no sane person is expecting 1-1, but every step you take does make it less faithful, in ways measurably so. Once you get to far from the source, you become a bad/not faithful adaptation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  3. #2003
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    .. I said that, it could be a good show, but not a good/faithful adaptation...

    Bad in this case to mean not faithful/accurate, its called context mate, use it. The exact amount can be debated, but you can factually say something is a bad adaptation, for example if you make an adaptation of LoTR set in 2022 with laser swords, and space oozes that fuck monkeys to create unicorn-raptors, there is no argument that this is a good adaptation.

    Yes you have room in how much you can do in an adaptation, as no sane person is expecting 1-1, but every step you take does make it less faithful, in ways measurably so. Once you get to far from the source, you become a bad/not faithful adaptation.
    But that's always subjective. It's always going to be based on a certain opinion whether something is a good or bad adaptation.

    In truth, there is no such thing as a faithful adaptation because all adaptations have some measure of difference to the source material. And how much room is deviated is literally a subjective measurement.

    As stated, even PJ's LOTR can be argued to be unfaithful to the source. Would you acknowledge that they are Bad Adaptations? I wouldn't, because faithfulness is not the only metric being applied to the term 'Bad adaptation', and I disagree with it being synonymous to 'unfaithful adaptation'. If faithfulness to the source was the primary metric we're talking about, then PJ's LOTR fails that completely, because it intentionally takes creative liberties wherever it can. Less than half of the dialog of the entire movies is actually taken from the books, with some of it being cut and paraphrased in ways that changed the entire context of the source material. It was much more light-hearted and geared towards being an entertaining movie if anything, like all of the Legolas-Gimli banter or most of Pippin's lines. These characters are not in the same spirit of how they were in the books, even if they kept many of their personality traits. All this said, and I would still confidently call the movies a Good adaptation, and would not ever consider them to be Bad adaptations for taking all of its creative liberties.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-07-26 at 11:39 PM.

  4. #2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    The fact you're trying to characterise her as a "wizard" or "spellcaster" makes it difficult to take you seriously. Several "magical" techniques exist and magicia which is causing direct effects through the spirit was very limited and used sparingly by the elves, it being largely the preserve of the Ainur and wicked men corrupted by Sauron (possibly a power he granted them.) For elves feats that mortals might call "magical" were achieved by the spirit working through the body. Crafting items of power was one expression of this, the ability to heal through touch another, but most common in battle is spiritual strength fortifying the body giving them greater physical power than can be explained by their physiology. There was no battle magic or people stood at the back slinging spells.
    It is way closer to being accurate, and is way more seriously than any chud calling her a warrior. Not the most accurate, but she is more a leader, than either, and mentor, but alas she does seem to use magical powers at time (through her Elven ring mostly) so thus the not most accurate labeling of wizard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    I'm not going to delve through the dozen or so volumes of published notes to cross reference the ways Galdriel could be expected to join the War of Wrath. There's a passage that describes Eonwe summoning all the free elves and men of Beleriand to fight alongside the Host of Valinor, there's a passage that explains Galadriel and Celeborn had moved to far east to answer the call in time, and a later account of those two (possibly when Celeborn was Teleporno and a Falmari) has them in Beleriand at the time the summons was given, though nothing was expanded on that. It's supportable but not explicit in Tolkien's writings.
    Again nothing to say she fought physically in the battle, rather than being a tactician or support. So the problem continues with her taking up a sword to fight, nothing you have said has proven it, and again if you want to force in Galadriel in battles do it as support/a spell weaver.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dhrizzle View Post
    The destruction of Dol Guldur was likely achieved through "lore," not some inherent power of her own but a deep knowledge of the "magic" holding the fortress together that Galadriel could exploit. It does not suggest that she could run around battlefields casting Arcane Explosion and Firebolts.
    When did I ever say she went around casting arcane explosion or firebolts? Do you think that is what Gandalf did? Inserting even more bullshit than the directors of Rings of Power are you? You want be more accurate, fine, since you want to ignore context she is loosely a spell weaver/casting, and used magic forces to tear down the walls. Way more credit to her being a wizard (yes it would be more accurate to say she weaves spells, but I was being lazy) than a sword wielding warrior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    But that's always subjective. It's always going to be based on a certain opinion whether something is a good or bad adaptation.
    So my example of the LoTR with uni-raptors set in 2022 with lasers and shit is only subjectively a bad adaptation? Okay....

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    In truth, there is no such thing as a faithful adaptation because all adaptations have some measure of difference to the source material. And how much room is deviated is literally a subjective measurement.
    ... Okay this conversation is pointless.
    Last edited by bledgor; 2022-07-26 at 11:38 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  5. #2005
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    So my example of the LoTR with uni-raptors set in 2022 with lasers and shit is only subjectively a bad adaptation? Okay....
    There's no way for you to quantify it as being anything but subjective, yes.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-07-26 at 11:52 PM.

  6. #2006
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    ... Okay this conversation is pointless.
    This guy gets it.

  7. #2007
    Scarab Lord MCMLXXXII's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Delta swamp of the west
    Posts
    4,764
    Quote Originally Posted by BigToast View Post
    This guy gets it.
    It only took him 20+ pages to realize.

  8. #2008

  9. #2009
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Hmm...
    Don't bring logic here, the only opinions allowed are what the mega corps tell us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarim View Post
    It's a strange and illogical world where not wanting your 10 year old daughter looking at female-identifying pre-op penises at the YMCA could feasibly be considered transphobic.

  10. #2010
    That Galadriel is my waifu.

  11. #2011
    Quote Originally Posted by bledgor View Post
    Don't bring logic here, the only opinions allowed are what the mega corps tell us.
    Really? Not going to bitch about the plate armor now? Or was that some other whiny poster?

  12. #2012
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Really? Not going to bitch about the plate armor now? Or was that some other whiny poster?
    Yeah, their armor is the stick up a different poster's butt.

    Though I do enjoy that we're now using card game stats as some sort of canonical reference.
    Last edited by s_bushido; 2022-07-27 at 02:39 AM.

  13. #2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There's no way for you to quantify it as being anything but subjective, yes.
    Whether something is a good movie / show is subjective whether it's a good adaptation really isn't. That comes down to how much the source material is messed with especially core events and characters

  14. #2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    Whether something is a good movie / show is subjective whether it's a good adaptation really isn't. That comes down to how much the source material is messed with especially core events and characters
    But even the evaluation of how much is messed with is subjective.

    For instance, removal of Tom Bombadil's lines. Is that particular adaptation considered bad because they didn't stick exactly as it was in the books? IMO, it's arguable, because it's a subjective value for how it is handled as an adaptation.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2022-07-27 at 03:06 AM.

  15. #2015
    I'm starting to wonder whether they are using a bad buzz strategy to stir up controversy and raise interest or if their communication is just terrible.

    The events of the 2nd age being condensed over a few years might only be a thing as far as the human and nothobbit characters are concerned, with a timeline much more spread for the Elven and Dwarf characters, probably through the use of flashbacks.

    Action girl Galadriel would sort of make sense if this was a depiction of her we see in early 1st age flashbacks, with her 2nd age persona being another, distinct from the 3rd age version we have already seen.

    Several Durins being listed could also make sense if one is on the human/nothobbit timeline, with the other being present in a flashback.

    On all the other zeitgeist cliché adaptations points, I wonder if we'll be given some exposition or if those are things that will just be there.

    Wondering whether they will delve in the corruption of the main Numenorean society opposed to the minority Faithful, or if they will simply gloss over it, or reinvent it for modern politics.

    On the dwarven princess, I wonder if there will be some exposition, like perhaps a concept such as from time to time among dwarves exceptional individuals with dark skin being born. IMHO it would have been more innovative/provocative to make all the dwarves dark skinned and get rid of the scottish accent trope altogether : instead of a peachy complexion, dark, earthen or copper colors would have been quite in tune with the concept of them having been shaped by Aulë the Smith, and would have reinforced their contrast with the elves (especially given their 1st age depiction as aboriginal people initially perceived as animals and hunted for sports by the newcomer elves).
    "It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks, and become one with all the people."

    ~ Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, "Ethics for Tomorrow"

  16. #2016
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    There's nothing political about making a fictional story more inclusive of demographics that have historically been pretty marginalized. There's also nothing particularly clumsy about it in this case other than the fact that you just don't like it. We haven't even seen a single episode yet so these changes could very well be seamlessly blended into the narrative.
    You proclaim it's not political while invoking historical injustices to defend it in the very same sentence. Is this doublespeak?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    It's great that a lot of women enjoyed the movies. There's obviously an audience for it now that didn't really exist when Tolkien was writing the books. However, it's also pretty disingenuous to ignore the fact that this genre (and action/adventure/fantasy in general) has always been very male dominated, so for many women it was pretty much a take it or leave it when it comes to the stories available to them. There is certainly more variety in the voices creating things now (which includes adapting older stories), but that doesn't mean everything created in the past needs to adhere to whatever norms influenced its creators.
    Again, none of this stopped women from enjoying the PJ movies. So why do all of the things you mentioned warrant changes to "appeal to women" when they already liked a version of Lord of the Rings that was a "sausagefest" in a "male dominated" genre as you put it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    I didn't say that you HAVE to change things to be more inclusive. I know it doesn't fit the narrative that you have to be on one side or the other, but I was very clear in saying that it's fine either way. I think leaning into making the world more inclusive of minority groups that were more marginalized at the time the works were created is a good thing, but if people want to make an adaptation that is strictly
    And I'm not saying that you can't do it. It's just that a lot of people would prefer an approach that prioritizes the rules of the setting and respects the choices of the author.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Uh, what? It doesn't become absurd because her story is always about her and the traditions of HER people in HER time. Whether other societies during other ages in Middle Earth had different traditions in terms of women combatants doesn't diminish HER story. I mean, is a story about a woman breaking away from the social norms of a repressive modern day society absurd just because women on the other side of the Earth enjoy more freedoms? Of course not.
    I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.
    Last edited by Nerovar; 2022-07-27 at 10:21 AM.
    The absolute state of Warcraft lore in 2021:
    Kyrians: We need to keep chucking people into the Maw because it's our job.
    Also Kyrians: Why is the Maw growing stronger despite all our efforts?

  17. #2017
    The Lightbringer Lady Atia's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    The Rumour Tower
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    You proclaim it's not political while invoking historical injustices to defend it in the very same sentence. Is this doublespeak?


    Again, none of this stopped women from enjoying the PJ movies. So why do all of the things you mentioned warrant changes to "appeal to women" when they already liked a version of Lord of the Rings that was a "sausagefest" in a "male dominated" genre as you put it?


    And I'm not saying that you can't do it. It's just that a lot of people would prefer an approach that prioritizes the rules of the setting and respects the choices of the author.


    I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.
    Just because I enjoyed the PJ movies doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have more female representation in them. You know, you can like things and still want them to improve.

    #TEAMGIRAFFE

  18. #2018
    Scarab Lord MCMLXXXII's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Delta swamp of the west
    Posts
    4,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Xath View Post
    Whether something is a good movie / show is subjective whether it's a good adaptation really isn't. That comes down to how much the source material is messed with especially core events and characters
    A good adaptation is also subjective. A faithful adaptation however isn't.

  19. #2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Atia View Post
    Just because I enjoyed the PJ movies doesn't mean I wouldn't be happy to have more female representation in them. You know, you can like things and still want them to improve.
    Nevermind that deliberately made attempts to give the Arwen/Aragorn story more screentime. Down to even training Liv Tyler to use a sword for an appearance at Helm's Deep.

  20. #2020
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    You proclaim it's not political while invoking historical injustices to defend it in the very same sentence. Is this doublespeak?
    Are you surprised that not everything is "political"? I think the word you're looking for is "social". Banning segregationist policies at a government level is different than artists recognizing and trying to amend a dearth in minority representation in certain entertainment genres. There's a connection in that it's a recognition of marginalization, but it's not all political. The only reason some people label it all political is so that they can spout the whole "keep your politics out of X" bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    Again, none of this stopped women from enjoying the PJ movies. So why do all of the things you mentioned warrant changes to "appeal to women" when they already liked a version of Lord of the Rings that was a "sausagefest" in a "male dominated" genre as you put it?
    I really don't know how to make it any more clear after repeating it twice already. Maybe the third time is the charm...

    It's not necessary, or warranted, or something that has to be done. It's just a valid option when adapting these works. I'm fine if they want to stick more strictly to the source material, and I'm fine with them leaning into making the fictional world more inclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    And I'm not saying that you can't do it. It's just that a lot of people would prefer an approach that prioritizes the rules of the setting and respects the choices of the author.
    Yeah, and those people typically don't understand how to adapt a work of literature. The timeline thing is a pretty glaring one.

    Many of the events Tolkien lists in Appendix B are connected in a domino effect, but split over decades or even centuries. Trying to adapt the story to include those exact time jumps such that every episode starts with something like "50 years later" would absolutely kill any sort of tension. That timeline might work for a quick prologue, but not for an adaptation that seeks to weave a narrative that connects those events. That event A comes before event B is usually a lot more important than the exact amount of time in between them.

    For instance, lets take the timeline of the forging of the rings according to the appendices. Sauron wins over the smiths of Eregion, then it takes 300 years for them just to learn how to create the rings, then another 90 years before the rings are complete, then 10 years after that is when Sauron creates the One Ring, then 93 years later they go to war. There's a pretty linear narrative there, but adapting it to the screen with those time jumps would be absurd. The idea that the timeline has to be respected despite it not having been created with a screen adaptation in mind is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    I'm not saying that her story as it exists somehow retroactively becomes absurd through the existence of this show. That would be nonsense since they do not exist in the same canon. I am saying that if her story was put on the screen today with the same "bending the rules for the sake of inclusivity" mindset of this TV show, it would necessarily become absurd. And that's the crux of it really. By engaging in this form of assimilation you rob yourself of the ability to meaningfully tell certain stories.
    Why do you assume the story of Eowyn would have to change? Even though they've said it's not meant to be a direct prequel to the movies, given how much effort they've put into maintaining the aesthetic, it's not at all problematic to consider both the show and the movies to be within the same canon. Eowyn's story can still exist within the canon where Second Age women are included on the battlefield. There's nothing absurd about that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •