Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Triceron]

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

Well, here lies in the conundrum - the show isn't even marketted as a 'He-Man' series. It's a 'MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE' series, and the creators misled people into thinking it's going to be about He-Man, when it ended up having very little to do with him.

It has nothing to do with 'He-Man formula', it has to do with intentionally misleading the core audience and fanbase of the property and literally bait-and-switching what they ended up with.

I'm a huge fan of the 80's franchise. It's unabashedly a simple power fantasy with He-man being the main feature of the series. How that translates to a modern continuation that kills off the main character and has him out of the picture for most of the series is something I'll never understand. I enjoyed what I saw of MOTU:Revelations, but it's not a He-Man series. It's something else completely different. And if the creators were intentionally trying to appeal to He-Man fans and telling them this is the He-Man show they remembered and want, then they deserve the shit they got when they presented a show that was nothing like the original show.

Rinse and repeat with Rings of Power doing the exact same bullshit PR.

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?

^ I explain above in my response to Lorgar.

Most of those 'one-note flat character badass' movies still manage to establish something relatable about the main character. As shallow as most Schwarzenegger movies may be, his movies still tend to make his characters likeable or relatable with something that humanizes them. Either being a family man, or having a strong sense of duty, or merely being nice to an old lady. Even the characters he plays that are irrationally bent on revenge somehow have more of a relatable backstory to them than what we got in Rings of Power. It's a very simple premise that isn't hard to achieve. So by establishing Galadriel as a commander who is irrational and unsympathetic to the needs of her own troops, it seems that RoP writers intentionally wrote the show this way to.... subvert expectations. And I think this bites them in the ass, because right now she isn't anywhere close to being a character I care about in the series so far. And I think there are plenty of other people who feel the same way.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, that is also ignoring the fact that Legolas at that point was established as a likeable character and this feat merely roots his accomplishments, while also adding brevity with a comedic hook at the end.

What does being "likeable" have to do with physics?

Also, how do you qualify "likeable"... because that seems like a very subjective thing.

[Syegfryed]

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.

100% its the last, the execution

Still though, the story is also a lot iffy, cause so many things changed, because "yes", like she is not married anymore, neither have a daughter, yada yada. I think they could have made a way better job in telling and showing an elf warrior

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.

On that note, i think i only picked this after seeing a review, the map they use to find the fortress, seems like its not from middle-earth, and the writing on it is not even elvish.

They are fighting holding their sword in the forearm, and i was like "why? just to look good?"

The costumes also show lack of care to be more about being flashy and pretty, some armors go way high up your neck that you would prob die if you use one in real battle.

All of those are for sure nittpicking on my part, but damn, it does not feel right somehow.

[Triceron]

What does being "likeable" have to do with physics?

What does anything I said have to do with physics? It wasn't even part of Orby's point.

"If a women did that holy shit you'd all lose your shit" - how exactly do you think that relates to physics?

- - - Updated - - -

100% its the last, the execution

Still though, the story is also a lot iffy, cause so many things changed, because "yes", like she is not married anymore, neither have a daughter, yada yada. I think they could have made a way better job in telling and showing an elf warrior

To be very honest, they should have just made a new character.

They already have brand new characters like Arondir, is there any reason this new warrior Elf commander lady has to be Galadriel and not a new character? It wouldn't redeem any of the plot issues, but at least it would create a real blank slate without the obvious understanding that no matter what happens in this story, there are no stakes that involve her life being at risk because they don't actually the liscence to kill her off.

Can't really say I had any feeling of tension at all for her in the whole water scene, knowing exactly who she is.

[Biomega]

is there any reason this new warrior Elf commander lady has to be Galadriel and not a new character?

Name recognition value.

They had to pick a "big name" from the lore to pin things on. There really aren't too many other viable choices.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What does anything I said have to do with physics? It wasn't even part of Orby's point.

"If a women did that holy shit you'd all lose your shit" - how exactly do you think that relates to physics?

Orby specifically brought up the laws of gravity that Legolas completely ignored.

need I remind you that Legolas defied the laws of gravity to take down a giant elephant in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields.

[Triceron]

Orby specifically brought up the laws of gravity that Legolas completely ignored.

And followed up with:

"If a women did that holy shit you'd all lose your shit"

How exactly do you think that relates to physics?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

And followed up with:

"If a women did that holy shit you'd all lose your shit"

How exactly do you think that relates to physics?

Do I really need to explain how gravity relates to physics?

You don't just get to take half of what Orby said and present it as the entire argument.

[Xath]

...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.

Now just go with me here but maybe just maybe people aren't wanting the same thing out of an LoTR property as they want out of a show that was created to sell toys. One of them is expected to be mindless action.

[Triceron]

Do I really need to explain how gravity relates to physics?

You don't just get to take half of what Orby said and present it as the entire argument.

His point wasn't about physics, lol

He was making a point of Legolas pulling off an impossible feat and making a statement that if a female character were to do the same people would complain about it.

And here you are 'sperging over 'physics' as if it was the ever the context of the message lol.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

His point wasn't about physics, lol

He was making a point of Legolas pulling off an impossible feat and making a statement that if a female character were to do the same people would complain about it.

And here you are 'sperging over 'physics' as if it was the ever the context of the message lol.

I was using his example to ask you why "Likeability" factors into your willingness to accept a character doing the impossible. His example involved physics. Because defying gravity is against the laws of physics. Physics was in the context, bruh.

Also I was asking how you actually measure "Likeability" as an objective fact.

You haven't answered either question, btw, just tried to redirect.

And really? "'sperging over"... c'mon man....be better.

[Triceron]

I was using his example to ask you why "Likeability" factors into your willingness to accept a character doing the impossible. His example involved physics. Because defying gravity is against the laws of physics. Physics was in the context, bruh.
---

And really? "'sperging over"... c'mon man....be better.

You tried reading what you actually write?

There's generally a higher threshold for 'bullshit' if it's done by a fan favourite character for comedic relief. If the character isn't well liked, then it could rub off as being confusing or annoying (Jar Jar's antics taking down droid army, or kid Anakin taking out a starport)

Legolas had 2 previous movies to establish what he is capable of. Kid Anakin didn't have that luxury. Neither does Galadriel IMO. It's the difference between accepting that a character that can do cool things does a cooler thing and just shaking your head asking what the hell the writers are thinking when a completely new character with no established feats manages to pull of the same kind of stunt effortlessly.

Legolas gets a pass because he was already established doing these kind of crazy feats, and the elephant thing was the pinnacle. And since he was already a fan favourite character who pulled crazy stunts, it worked as an over-the-top crowd-pleaser moment as opposed to simply being a Jackie Chan 'What The?' meme moment.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You tried reading what you actually write?

Have you tried reading what I actually wrote? Because I've asked the questions now twice...and you are still deflecting. It's getting sad at this point. You literally edited out me calling you out on not answering my questions so you wouldn't have to answer them and continue to push an attack on me "sperging".

One more time:

How does "likeability" factor into you ability to believe whether or not a character can do "impossible" (physics defying) shit

And

How do you measure "Likeability" as an objective value?

And let's not pretend that the oliphaunt was the first time Legolas pulled some ridiculous shit

[Triceron]

One more time:

How does "likeability" factor into you ability to believe whether or not a character can do "impossible" (physics defying) shit

And

How do you measure "Likeability" as an objective value?

And let's not pretend that the oliphaunt was the first time Legolas pulled some ridiculous shit

Likeability wasn't the main point. Familiarity is

Establishing a character is the core part of setting the audiences expectations, and in turn, suspension of disbelief. Suspension of disbelief is relative to how much we can expect a character to perform a certain feat, as impossible as it may seem, regardless of 'physics'. For example, establishing a character known to be 'very lucky' would allow for a higher suspension of disbelief when they pull off seemingly impossible feats; say someone like Mr. Magoo.

Familiarity is still subjective, but would be as close as you could get to an 'objective' means of establishing a difference between the expectations and suspension of disbelief of a new character compared to one that is well known. How much you know of a character and their capabilities influences how you perceive their actions. And in my original reply, I said 'Legolas was already established as a likeable character' meaning not only are we familiar with him and his 'impossible' feats, but that people generally enjoyed his character and said feats lean towards being favourable rather than confusing or annoying.

Make sense?


Familiarity can make a big difference in expectations. There is a bigger threshold for bullshit for a familiar and well liked character as opposed to some newcomer doing the same when no one expects them to be able to. Not always a rule, but as a general comparison, like when we're talking about LOTR Legolas and RoP Galadriel. The entire oliphaunt scene was crazy and over the top, but everything he did was built off of all his pre-established feats culminating into this one epic scene. The 'Go for the weak spot' happened in the first movie's Troll fight. His climbing and acrobatics established with him being able to mount a horse on full gallop with a single bound. His safe dismount off the oliphaunt's trunk is a more elaborate version of the shield surfing. So even if this one scene was crazy, people can still brush it off as a 'Legolas' thing.

It has very little to do with gender. It doesn't even have anything directly to do with likeability. It has much more to do with whether we expect the character to be capable of it or not, and how well-accepted the suspension of disbelief would be.

And this has literally nothing to do with 'physics', lol.