Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Likeability wasn't the main point. Familiarity is

Sure, Likeability wasn't the main point. Which is why you used the word.

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.

Was your suspension of disbelief suspended when Legolas was surfing on a shield?

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,

Legolas wasn't "established" as being able to surf down a flight of stairs on a shield until he did so. It wasn't "earned".

but that people generally enjoyed his character and said feats lean towards being favourable rather than confusing or annoying.

That's just another way of saying "likeability"

Make sense?

No.

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.

You keep on using likeability as a factor...even if you're chhanging tthe actual word choices.

How much you like a character or how familiar you are with a character has literally nothing to do with their capabilities.

There was absolutely nothing Legolas did that made the Shield surfing believable...I don't care how much of a mancrush you have on him.

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.

Then stop using likeability. And again, capability has nothing to do with likeability or familiarity. If you can accept that Legolas can do all those patently absurd things...then thhere is no reason to accept that Galadriel might also be able to do some pretty impressive things. And Galadriel killing the snow Troll isn't anywhere near on the scale of ridiculous impossibility that you accept from Legolas because you like him more.

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

Oh jesus. I really do have to explain how defying gravity goes against the laws of physics.

[Triceron]

Sure, Likeability wasn't the main point. Which is why you used the word.

If you understood the context you would know it wasn't.

Was your suspension of disbelief suspended when Legolas was surfing on a shield?

Legolas wasn't "established" as being able to surf down a flight of stairs on a shield until he did so. It wasn't "earned".

Neither is Galadriel taking down a snow troll by herself. It was not earned at all, and it felt jarring and out of place

And yes, I'd say the surfing was quite ridiculous and out of place because it was not established. Yet it became a strong establishing point for what was to come with the 3rd film and the elephant scene. Expectations were tempered by the inclusion of this scene. The level of his accomplishments were built up from first film to what we have now.

I'd equate this to how Star Wars has portrayed Obi-wan through the ages, and giving him stronger Force powers in each subsequent Star Wars movie even if they're completely out of order. The first time we see him he's merely using mind tricks. In the prequels, he's using force powers extensively. And now in the streaming series he's capable of lifting and throwing dozens of large boulders at a time. His feats get more 'ridiculous', yet expectations still remain relatively tempered because it's Obi-wan we're talking about.

No.

Not surprising that you don't understand basic concepts even when explained to you.

Then stop using likeability.

Does it bug you? If so I might use it more in even more places that don't make sense to you.

And Galadriel killing the snow Troll isn't anywhere near on the scale of ridiculous impossibility that you accept from Legolas because you like him more.

Doesn't have to be near on the scale of whatever you think is ridiculous, it still was and the whole fight quite jarring and unexpected. It wasn't built up or implied that she would have this ability at all, and merely being a commander of a company of Elves that were shown to be utterly demolished by the troll certainly gave no hints to her own ability.

But hey, if you have a higher tolerance for ridiculous shit that newly established characters can do, by all means all the power to you.

Oh jesus. I really do have to explain how defying gravity goes against the laws of physics.

The real question is how likeable Legolas needs to be in order to allow him to fly.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If you understood the context you would know it wasn't.

I understand the context just fine.

Yet Galadriel taking down a snow troll by herself somehow is?

I didn't say that. Just that it isn't less believable than anything Legolas did.

And yes, I'd say the surfing was equally quite because it was not established. Yet it was a strong establishing point for what was to come with the 3rd film and the elephant scene. Expectations were tempered by the inclusion of this scene.

It was ridiculous when he surfed on the shield. It was more ridiculous with the Oliphaunt. It's not even just about the dismount. The whole scene is preposterous.

I'd equate this to how Star Wars has portrayed Obi-wan through the ages, and giving him stronger Force powers in each subsequent Star Wars movie even if they're completely out of order. The first time we see him he's merely using mind tricks. In the prequels, he's using force powers extensively. And now in the streaming series he's capable of lifting and throwing dozens of large boulders at a time. His feats get more 'ridiculous', yet expectations still remain relatively tempered because it's Obi-wan we're talking about.

And here we are talking about Galadriel.

Not surprising that you don't understand basic concepts even when explained to you.

The problem with your "basic concept" is that it's basic nonsense.

Does it bug you? If so I might use it more in even more places that don't make sense to you.

If you're trying to say it's not about "likeability" you should stop using likeability in your arguments. If you want to keep using it, that's up to you...but it really goes against your stated purpose.

Doesn't have to be near on the scale of whatever you think is ridiculous, it still was and the whole fight quite jarring and unexpected. It wasn't built up or implied that she would have this ability at all, and merely being a commander of a company of Elves that were shown to be utterly demolished by the troll certainly gave no hints to her own ability.

Again, I'm not saying what she did was entirely believable...just that it isn't any less believable than anything Legolas did.

But hey, if you have a higher tolerance for ridiculous shit that newly established characters can do, by all means all the power to you.

Galadriel isn't a "newly established character".

[Triceron]

I didn't say that. Just that it isn't less believable than anything Legolas did.

I didn't say it was less believable either, I said there's a difference between an established character doing it for the sake of being a fun moment with a comedic relief punchline at the end, and say literally establishing a new character by having them single-handedly defeat a creature that was demolishing everyone else in her party. They're both unbelievable moments, but it's not the unbelievability that people are complaining about, rather it's the lack of expectation for such a character to be acting in this way and having the moment be utterly jarring, and practically pointless to the overall narrative.

The Mumak scene was played off for fun and laughs. The snow troll scene was meant to show off how badass Galadriel is, but it ends up being a confusing mess because it also implies a massive skill gap between her and her troops, and makes her character even less relatable for it.

It was ridiculous when he surfed on the sielf. It was more ridiculous with the Oliphaunt. It's not even just about the dismount. The whole scene is preposterous.

It was intentionally preposterous, that is the whole point of the scene. It was the punchline to a very long set up over the course of 3 movies.

The whole point of that bit in the narrative isn't meant to be taken seriously like say Luke taking down an AT-AT by himself. It was completely played out as an over the top and fun moment that highlight's all of Legolas' capabilities. The scene itself doesn't have much lasting impact on the rest of the narrative or to the battle overall. They could literally cut the scene and nothing really changes from the movie.

With Galadriel, they established her as being an irrational commander who doesn't have the wellbeing of her troops in mind, and taking down the snow troll single-handedly has pretty big ramifications to the overall narrative structure. It implies her company is weak-as-shit and narratively they're only there to hold her back. This makes the ultimatum very confusing because if she could take down the snow troll by herself then it implies to the audience that she doesn't even need them at all. There are so many problems with this very scene that aren't just about her being able to do some incredible feat that is seemingly unbelievable. That isn't even the point of complaint for me.

The whole scene comes at the cost of destabilizing our understanding of her character and making her even less relatable as a result. And overall, it doesn't even paint a good picture of why she isn't literally off doing this alone sooner, since that's exactly what she does by the end of the episode anyways. This one scene makes it pretty clear that her company has done literally nothing but hold her back.

This is the opposite of how the Cave Troll scene panned out in LOTR, where even though Legolas may have gotten the Last Hit in, it was a concerted effort by the entire group. It illustrated that the team needed each other to get through a tough situation. In Rings of Power, the Snow Troll scene has the complete opposite effect, where Galadriel is shown to be so much more capable than her compatriots that it doesn't even make sense why she would need them. We're given literally no scenes where they contribute anything of significance to her mission.

Galadriel isn't a "newly established character".

In the context of Rings of Power, she absolutely is. This isn't the Galadriel 'from the books'. She is Galadriel as Rings of Power introduces her to be. Otherwise, the character we should be addressing is Artanis, the name she had before Celeborn gifted the name Galadriel (Altariel) to her.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

In the context of Rings of Power, she absolutely is. This isn't the Galadriel 'from the books'. She is Galadriel as Rings of Power introduces her to be. Otherwise, the character we should be addressing is Artanis, the name she had before Celeborn gifted the name Galadriel (Altariel) to her.

She's still Galadriel...a different version of Galadriel perhaps...but it's not some completely new character.

[Triceron]

She's still Galadriel...a different version of Galadriel perhaps...but it's not some completely new character.

I mean that's just splitting hairs.

As an adaptation, this series doesn't even have connectivity to the Peter Jackson films (outside of creature designs) and is not canonical to the books by any means.

She is a absolutely a different character. She is Amazon's Ring's of Power Galadriel, and this version of her character does not exist in anywhere outside of this show. They can call her Galadriel, but she would never be the Galadriel of the books or of the PJ movies. At that point, what is the difference if she is just a different version or if she is a different character altogether? She would only be Galadriel in name, not in personality or characterization or even in following the canonical events of her history.

This is a completely different character to what anyone knows and expects of 'Galadriel'. By all means, the only reason this character bears her name is probably because Jeff Bezos wanted a bankable name to headline the series. Otherwise, I don't see why this character couldn't have been completely new, like Arondir.

They could have written in a proper Galadriel character as a supporting character, like Elrond's role in the series. I enjoy Elrond's story and character. At least he makes sense.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

She is a absolutely a different character.

You can argue they aren't the exact same version...you can't say that shes a new character.

It's like Toby Maguire, Tom Holland, and Andrew Garfield all play different versions of Peter Parker...but they are all still based on the same character. Not exactly the same...but more similar than they are different.

[DarkAmbient]

The Rings of Power Galadriel is almost exactly how Tolkien described her in his 1973 letter.

[Triceron]

It's like Toby Maguire, Tom Holland, and Andrew Garfield all play different versions of Peter Parker...but they are all still based on the same character. Not exactly the same...but more similar than they are different.

I think you are misunderstanding my words.

When I say newly established character, I am talking about the fresh introduction of a character to a series that has not pre-existed in other media.

So yes, Spiderman may have many versions, but they are all separate characters in separate series/universes. Just because we are familiar with the Spiderman character doesn't mean a new series can forego an introduction to the character. Even Tom Holland's Spiderman is a 'newly established character' of the MCU in Civil War who is not beholden to the feats of his previous incarnations.

They establish his abilities and limits right in the scene Tony visits Peter - his webs aren't natural, his suit was made by Stark and has animated eyes, he still has super strength and reflexes etc. It would be very different if they only introduce him in the airport scene and leave the audience guessing what his abilities are or how they work. Even if we know who Spiderman is, the movie still needed to establish the character, and that was the main purpose of the Tony Stark visit scene.

Rings if Power introduced Galadriel as if Spiderman jumped straight to the Airport scene, so to speak. And instead of depicting a traditional Spiderman, they subvert expectations by giving him the Iron Spider suit right away.

Like you said, it wouldn't feel earned. That's the same problem with establishing Galadriel as a Troll-killer level fighter. It never felt earned, and it makes her team seem like weak fighters. There's no frame of reference to establish them as highly-trained fighters who happened to be weakened by fatigue - Galadriel ends up taking it down effortlessly with no signs of fatigue herself despite being in the same long journey. While that scene makes her seem strong and capable, it also makes them seem weak and useless

[Orby]

New episode this Friday. Interesting to see where it goes. Hopefuly we get a bit more than the last 2 episodes. I just found out its only a 8 episode season, so hopefully they move it along quickly. wish the show had more episodes personally, Not sure how to feel about TV shows having so few episodes per season these days.

[Syegfryed]

The Rings of Power Galadriel is almost exactly how Tolkien described her in his 1973 letter.

Insufferable and suicidal?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

When I say newly established character, I am talking about the fresh introduction of a character to a series that has not pre-existed in other media.

It is a fresh introduction to the character...but that doesn't mean it's a completely blank slate.

So yes, Spiderman may have many versions, but they are all separate characters in separate series/universes. Just because we are familiar with the Spiderman character doesn't mean a new series can forego an introduction to the character. Even Tom Holland's Spiderman is a 'newly established character' of the MCU in Civil War who is not beholden to the feats of his previous incarnations.

Sure, he's not beholden to them... but he's not a completely new character. He's still Peter Parker...and because of that you know there are things about him that going to be same. That's the whole reason they didn't have to do his origin story again.

And, if we're going to be honest, even that scene in Civil War introducing Peter was a bit ridiculous. Tony talks to Peter for five minutes and he is going to bring him into a fight like that? And not only that...he also already happens to have a Suit made for the kid? But it has to happen that way because they've got to keep the pace of the movie flowing.

They establish his abilities and limits right in the scene Tony visits Peter - his webs aren't natural, his suit was made by Stark and has animated eyes, he still has super strength and reflexes etc. It would be very different if they only introduce him in the airport scene and leave the audience guessing what his abilities are or how they work. Even if we know who Spiderman is, the movie still needed to establish the character, and that was the main purpose of the Tony Stark visit scene.

Sure, they did establish a little regarding the basic powers...but they let the previous incarnations do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to the actual character of Peter Parker. The thing with the webshooters was more about building his relationship with Tony than anything else. Tony has to see in Peter a little bit of himself (but better)or their relationship doesn't work.

Rings if Power introduced Galadriel as if Spiderman jumped straight to the Airport scene, so to speak. And instead of depicting a traditional Spiderman, they subvert expectations by giving him the Iron Spider suit right away.

I mean, she killed a Snow Troll...she didn't slay Sauron. I just thinking your making way too much of a fuss about it. It was the establishment scene. It could perhaps have been handled with a bit more finesse... but they needed to establish her bonafides quickly...it's an 8 episode season...they can't spend an entire episode building Galadriel up.

[Gumble]

Insufferable and suicidal?

Boring and written poorly.

[Dhrizzle]

It is being sent away forever not to return to Middle Earth. Ever. What part of that do you not agree with?

The bit where you characterise it as "exile." If someone is released from incarceration you don't describe it as being exiled from the prison-yard unless you're desperately trying to make a point.

What flaws did they actually support with the writing of the show? You keep saying this but these flaws aren't actually shown and it is a complete contradiction. If she is a badass that isn't a flaw. If she is right about Sauron, that isn't a flaw either. So what flaws are you talking about?

Being right about Sauron isn't a flaw. Being unable to engage with the other Elves so they support her cause instead of worrying she is being driven purely by grief for her brother is. If Galadriel didn't have flaws then Gil-galad would 100% be supporting her intuition about Sauron.

They showed that as them getting rid of her for being a pest in the dialog that takes place after. It isn't a reward and this is why she swims away towards Halbrand. The show itself is not showing it as a reward because if it was she wouldn't be shown swimming away from it. It completely shows that she is dedicated to her duty to the point that she would turn away from eternal rest and peace to go back and fight Sauron. Which she shouldn't have to do because the Elves should already be believing and trusting her insight. That is the contradiction. All of that was totally and completely unnecessary.

Please make up your mind, do you consider Galadriel to be flawless or unable to communicate her issues without being considered a pest? That isn't exactly how I'd characterise it anyway, certainly for Gil-galad having Galadriel speaking against him is inconvenient (especially given her status and rebellious nature in the past) but there is also great concern for her welfare which living among the Valar should help as well as respect and a sense that she deserves the reward.

It is firmly established that returning to Aman is the greatest reward an Elf could hope for. Galadriel explains her feelings very clearly to Elrond while he is gushing about the marvellous stories he has heard. Galadriel very much wanted to return to the Undying Lands and ultimately her turning away is what Tolkien would consider a clear moral choice to stand against evil instead of acting in her own interest, echoing both her refusal of the Valar's pardon in the Silmarillion and refusing the One Ring in LotR.

[InfiniteCharger]

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.


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

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.

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.

Dude. I was talking about how in depth modern MMOs and DnD go in describing the combat abilities and racial abilities of characters versus Tolkien. You then injected yourself into it to talk about tropes that dont even apply. And now you proceed to go pages and pages trying to deflect onto something else. This is what I mean by straw man arguments about your own completely self inserted talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I was not talking about tropes and that particular trope is not part of Tolkien because you cannot show me any examples of it from his work. So rather than talk about what I said, you are introducing something completely different, while you may see it as relevant, it is not addressing the point. The point is how do you define what the combat abilities of a squad of elves should be, how they fight, what kind of weapons they use and so forth. A trope is not an answer to that question and only builds off the fact that those details are not defined. And going on about tropes is missing the point. This is Tolkien and as such Tolkien high fantasy is about groups of people getting together going out and fighting evil. That is the trope. Galadriel and those Elves went on a quest and the whole point is that if you are going on a quest then you should be ready for what comes. That is well described in Lord of the Rings which is one big long quest. It was about pushing yourself to your limits for the greater good. It was about everybody working together and overcoming obstacles. It was not about one big hero coming in to save the day. This is not a generic fantasy. That trope may apply in generic fantasy but this is not generic fantasy and has well established tropes of its own. So I am going to ignore that part because it is irrelavant to what I am talking about.

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.

snip

I am not talking about tropes. That is something you want to talk about and has nothing to do with what I was saying.
And the trope doesn't apply. LOTR is about whole groups coming together to fight evil. It isn't one punch man. Stop making up irrelevant straw men.
As such since it is about groups coming together on a large and smaller scale, the question is what are the combat abilities of those groups?

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?

I said that as a commander that she would have picked troops to hunt for sauron that would be up to the task and therefore above average or cream of the crop. The point is what part of hunting for Sauron is not something that can be taken on with just 10 Elves? Don't you see that this line of writing makes absolutely no sense? And what are 10 elves going to do against Sauron? That was the first point, that this kind of mission should have the best troops available as ultimately they are looking for Sauron and what pry tell are they going to do when they find him? If they are talking of her brother as the inspiration for her, he died with far more troops with him as shown in this series. So what is she going to do with 10?

You're just making shit up whole-cloth.


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!

You introduced scouts into this discussion and don't know what scouts are and how they function when I never said anything about scout.
You argued like scouting is something that requires no special skill and is just a function that is performed outside of full on combat.
I am making the point that scouting is often associated with a specific set of skills in the real world which in can requires different training
You brought up the term to suggest that there is no special skill required for this kind of action, when in the real world that wouldn't be true.

So back to my actual point. We don't know how 'skilled' elven troops are in any way from this series because it isn't shown.
We don't know 'how they scout' because it isn't defined. We don't know how far they can march because it isn't shown.
We don't know how many should be able to take down a troll because it isn't defined. What is only defined is that Galadriel can do it.
That doesn't tell you what those other elven soldiers "should" be able to do or should not be able to do.
My argument is that 10 elves should be able to take down an Ice Troll as that is no special evil boss like Sauron.
And on top of that, if they are going after Sauron, what on earth are you going to do with only 10 people?
Not to mention where is the "army" that she is supposedly commander of? She is never shown leading an army and never shown being a hero in combat.
Her brother was the one shown being a hero in combat and dying. Galadriel is not shown as being part of that fight.

So, again, what we are told is that she is a commander of the northern armies, with no back story of why or how she got there. Which begs the question of when did her brother die and when did she become commander of the northern armies. Not shown or discussed in this show. What heroic acts did she perform to get to that role? Not shown or discussed.So assuming she became commander of Northern Armies after her brother died, then obviously she would have had this obsession all along. Which means her irrational behaviors would have gotten her removed long before now since we are likely talking hundreds if not thousands of years. All of which is a complete contradiction, because if she is a commander then she must have had those skills and abilities that make a good commander. Yet this show is telling us that she is completely irrational and illogical but also at the same time brave, heroic and courageous. Those two things are completely contradictory in how they are shown because the things they claim as illogical are not shown as illogical. f she was illogical and irrational then pushing those soldiers to their breaking point should have turned up nothing. No ice troll and no mark of Sauron. But the writers didn't have time to actually flesh that out so they had to insert the ice troll to establish her as 'badass' while also making her irrational. Which results in them contradicting themselves on the points the are trying to make in the show.

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.


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.

And they weren't trainded Elven soldiers and they pushed themselves because it was a mission bigger than themselves with everything on the line. And there is no reason that trained soldiers led by a 'elven hero' should be starving when they only are on a scouting mission and not actually fighting anybody. Again, the show is saying that nobody believes Sauron is around. So there is no reason for them to hide and no reason they cannot stop and get supplies before going into those mountains. So the idea that they are now starving as if they are cut off behind enemy lines and surrounded or otherwise unable to get supplies is what makes it illogical and contradictory. Not to mention being leader of a "northern army" implies that they should know more than anybody how to survive and traverse northern environments. And that includes having done this same thing many times before which would mean it should be something they are very familiar with and used to by now.

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".

What you are saying is a complete contradiction. Either she is a 'hero of high esteem' or she is not. The point is that this show never shows how she is an esteemed or respected commander because it never shows what she did that was heroic. They never show how she became a commander of northern Armies because all of it is something that they made up for this series. This was never something that Tolkien wrote about her in this period of the Second Age. And the writing of this show is trying to show her as being heroic and irrational at the same time but it fails to do it in a way that makes sense. I get what they are trying to say but the way that they did it leaves a lot to be desired and comes off as contradictory. It is a complete contradiction on many levels.

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.

There is no way to know what the average elf soldier should be capable of to use as a basis of comparison. Therefore like you said, what you get represented on screen is over exaggerated feats of strength from individual Elves such as Legolas or Galadriel as opposed to a general understanding of the capabilities of Elves across the board.

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.

The story of Feanor rebelling against the Valar and causing the elves to be exiled is not mentioned in this show because they don't have the rights. There you go trying to lean on Tolkien when this show doesn't have rights to it. You are absolutely assuming some character intentions when the show doesn't necessarily reflect the lore of Tolkien in the books. So you bringing it up when it isn't shown that these things are part of her character is the problem.

https://screenrant.com/morgoth-lotr-...etails-missed/

Not to mention Galadriel is not mentioned by Tolkien as a "war hero" for her prowess in combat or great feats of strength. Now I have already posted what Tolkien actually wrote. If you are arguing that she is some kind of 'hero' for her military and combat victories then you are making up stuff. Because at no time does this series show Galadriel being a war hero of the first age or prior nor does Tolkien. Again, like I said, the writing of this series is contradictory, in that it is trying to show that on one hand but what it does show contradicts what it is trying to show because the writing is not good.

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.

In other words it wasn't written by Tolkien and you have no leg to stand on because you are making up stuff and pretending that what you are saying is absolute truth. You do this all the time and instead of just providing the evidence that what you are saying isn't just your own opinion you deflect.

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!".

The only one deflecting is you. Her brother Finrod is one example. Galadriel was never written about being on some individual quest against Sauron. In fact because of his bravery he was resurrected by the Valar in Valinor. So he isn't dead in canon.

Because of Finrod's noble actions in life, and his reluctance to journey to Middle-earth, he was reincarnated after only a short time. He and Glorfindel were the only elves who were known to have been reincarnated. It is noted in the Lay of Leithian that Finrod was soon allowed to return to life in Valinor, and "now dwells with Amarië.”[9] It is also noted in The Silmarillion that "Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar".[5]

https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Finrod

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.

Yawn. In Tolkien's actual lore, Gil-Galad was appointed high king on the recommendation of Galdariel, not because she was heroic warrior but because she is one of the oldest and wisest elves of the land going back to the era of the trees and he is her nephew. And elven lineage determines ranking and because of her lineage she she had the rank and respect, along with her wisdom and grace.

And again like I said before, if you are going to pretend that nothing was written in Tolkien in order to push your own opinions as fact then there is no point in wasting time on a back and forth with you. This show is literally not canon. It cannot be because they don't have the rights. So randomly interjecting something from Tolkien when it is literally not in this show makes no sense. And what literally is in Tolkien is contradicted by this show because of that.

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?

What other competency is there in being a soldier outside of being able to fight and win a battle? The point was that her actions are shown as if without her the rest of them would have died, making her the hero. As in, she was doing something that none of these other elves could do. And you have been the one saying this yourself. So that literally means her killing that troll was something the rest of them could not do alone or as a group. All I am saying is that those elves should have been able to take out that troll without her, even if a few of them had died. An ice troll by itself is not some super powerful enemy like Melkor or Sauron.

Laughable.

It is indeed.

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.

And that isn't shown in this series. You keep saying it, yet it is not shown. These soldiers are not in combat. They are not on the run from the enemy. They are not hiding or behind enemy lines. There is no reason that they would be starving because there is nothing stopping them from getting supplies or food. So it is completely illogical that they would be in such a position. Not to mention the point that as a commander, Galadriel would have considered all those things in advance because that is what makes a commander.

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.

There are things that are expected of a commander of troops that go into deciding whether an individual should be in that position or not. This show never shows how she became a commander or why, even though it likely happened after the death of her brother which would mean her zeal and obsession was always there. So if that was her "flaw" and was there all along then the same things that make her a 'bad' commander now, would have been the reasons not to make her a commander in the first place. Meaning it is a complete contradiction to start with. This zeal and determination to find Sauron and ignoring everything else didn't just pop up according to the writing to of this show. Which means if those are 'flaws' of her character then they were there before she became commander and therefore should have prevented her from being in that position in the first place. Like I said, the writing of the show leaves a lot to be desired resulting in an incoherent and illogical or contradictory result.

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.

I see your point but everybody doesn't see it that way. It is a commanders job to put their men at risk. It is what they do. It is only deemed irrational or unreasonable if the ends don't justify the means.

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.

The point was the writing of the show is contradictory. So we are left to assume because none of this is shown. We don't know how she became commander and when she started being 'irrational' for all we know is she was always like that since the death of her brother. Nothing else is shown in terms of how or when she became a commander or under what circumstances. Which is why the writing is trying to fill in a lot of blanks but leaving a lot to be desired. I get what you are saying but again, the series left a lot of room to assume because none of these things are in Tolkien and cannot be used as a reference. So if we are left to assuming what actually happened then there is no way to prove one way or another. Which again, goes back to bad writing. Again, the series wanted to make her a commander and wanted her to be zealous because of her brother dying and for her to find evidence of sauron. So that is what they wrote to accomplish that. And then they also wanted to show that her being zealous was a 'flaw' (even though it isn't) and resulted in her being put on a boat to Valinor, even though she was right. So that is also what they wrote, because they also wanted that to cause her to wind up on a raft in the ocean with a new made up character. And so that is how this was written. They needed to get her from point a, to point b and point c and just wrote these things to make that happen, regardless if it is consistent or makes sense or not. That is the point I am making. You can agree or disagree with that but that is the point.

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".

I already did. The fact you do not agree is the issue, which is fine. But this isn't an issue of lack of explanation.

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?

You like to go in circles. That isn't an argument that is just you going on and on instead of just getting to the point. Meaning you refuse to accept that some people don't see things like you do and therefore cannot always be reduced to a right/wrong situation. And rather than accept that you just keep going and going swearing that only you are right and anybody else who disagrees with you is wrong. Of course that depends on the specifics but if it is a situation of subjective interpretation or opinion obviously there is no right or wrong answer.

In this case, I have said what I feel are the problems in this show for me. Those are my subjective opinions so far, outside of the obvious fact that this series has already contradicted much of Tolkien's lore which is not subjective opinion. And because of that, I am judging the show on whatever story it is trying to tell as it is written.

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.

We already do know. Gil Galad is shown picking up a corrupt leaf and discussing it with Elrond as if to say Galadriel is right but we just don't want to stir up trouble. You are just denying that this is actually literally in the show and shows that they are rejecting her even if she is right which is a theme and a plot point to get her from point a to point b. It is also reinforced in the dialog from her brother being played while she is on the boat before she swims off. That is the point the show is making.

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.

Seriously? Of course we know how the rings of power were created and how Sauron was defeated because Tolkien wrote about this in the 2nd age. She wasn't out there on the front lines fighting him in that.

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.

The point was there was a reason those words were played while she was on the boat.
There is a difference between how you interpret it and the fact they were there. Those are two different things.
The point being they were connecting the fact of her being sent to Valinor to what happened when she was shown being bullied.
The show literally is connecting those two events. That is not subjective interpretation, it is a literal fact.
I am saying it is intended to show how she has been rejected/ignored/ostracized as part of her character development.

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.

All you do is state opinions as fact. You just did it again. That is a fact and when proven that your 'facts' are wrong you just ignore reality and just keep on talking. I just showed that above with the flashback being literally connected to Galadriel on the boat. That is the only facts that count in this discussion.
Anything else about that and what it means is an opinion. So right there you attempting do discuss this as anything other that is you being wrong again.

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.

I just showed you above trying to contradict what is actually in the show. You are whining that somebody proving you wrong is a problem. It is not. You are not above being shown to be wrong when contradicting facts. Other than that the only thing you can have are opnions.

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.

You cannot assume what is and isnt canon to the seires if it isn't shown in the series. As you said before you are making assumptions and opinions. They don't have the rights to most of Tolkien's lore so because of that, there is a lot they cannot put into this series. So it makes no sense to try and insert something that isn't there.

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.

It is there to show that this is part of her character development as in how she responds to rejection..
That is an obvious fact. Whether you see it that way or not is a completely different issue.

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.

What I said is that commnaders are supposed to be vigilant. That isn't a flaw. And she is right. So it is a contradiction to say that is a flaw. It is not. Stick to that point. That is the only disagreement here. The series is making it seem like keeping your eye on the enemy is a bad thing. I don't see that as bad or a character flaw. That goes with the job.

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.

Again, the point was that the show is contradicting itself in showing a commander doing what a commander is supposed to do in my way of looking at it. That is not a flaw.. The series is trying to imply that somehow she has these flaws that can be described as 'overzealous', 'irresponsible' or 'unstable'. But I don't see what she is doing as necessarily reflecting any of that at all. And you yourself said they were worried about her implying unstable. What does running rampant mean other than out of control, unhinged or unstable?

In fact, this is literally what I am replying to that you actually said all of which I completely disagree with:

People respect her plenty. They let her run rampant on her search for decades, if not centuries, supporting her on the way. Gil-galad is seriously concerned for her wellbeing. They LOVE her. You make it out like "you get to go to paradise, hopefully that will help you heal your spiritual wounds" is some sort of punishment or show of disrespect, when it's, you know, the OPPOSITE.

This isn't about words other than the writers introducing this story line into this series. None of these things are written in Tolkien. So it is a contradiction to claim she is all wise and respected elf hero but then turn around and say she was running rampant for centuries. That is a completely contradictory set of statements about the same character. And if she was running rampant then it goes back to the point of how she became commander in the first place, because again this is all made up for this series. They should have actually shown those things so it would be easier to understand what they are trying to say but not conveying in any way that makes sense.

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.

She was not the only one who lost someone in the fight against Sauron. Her desire for vengeance doesn't mean that it is a 'flaw' to always keep an eye on the enemy. At least in how I look at it. If you don't agree, then fine.

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!

I am talking about the previous discussion in this very same thread starting here and going for pages:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53872776

But there is no need to rehash this here. I have proven above how you present opinion as fact.

[Hansworst]

Imagine writing Genesis sizes of text and the only actually reading it is the one you keep arguing back and forth with.