Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[TirielWoW]

Mithril's discovery was a mess of storytelling, and the creation of the rings was done all out of order. You could argue that "Mordor was founded" belongs but that's really gonna happen next season once Sauron yeets Adar.

Can agree with most of this, although I still like the Harfoots :-P

But, the Mithril thing is still weird af. Like, Mithril wasn't that rare in the time period this is supposed to take place in.

[Koriani]

Fair enough. I'll own up to this, it really is a result of my own hubris.

Done and done! Back to the depths I go

Thank you! <3 And naw back to the depths - you're better than that.

And all of you are - just look at the last 2-3 pages - actually discussion of the show that hasn't devolved (so much) into stupid back and forth virtiol about pointless non-related anythings.

Its like the best 3 pages of the entire thread here!! Keep it going guys! =D THANK YOU! I knew you could do it!

(hopes she didn't just jinx it)

[Triceron]

Evidently not. That's kind of the problem.

Diversifying your product to better sell to different segments of the market is not the same as deciding not to exclude people of a certain skin color from certain things for no good reason, even though both could be described using the term "diversity".

What constitutes 'excluding skin color for no good reason', though? Movies are an artform. How they choose to be represented is itself an expression of that art.

Like look at this deliberate choice of casting being apparant in the Northman. All white cast, but not as a means to exclude 'for no good reason'. There is a reason, this is how they chose to depict their setting. I don't think this is a problem. This should be an expression of an artform, not a status quo.

Rings of Power choosing to have diversity is no different than PJ LOTR choosing to stick to a white dominant cast, and I don't think either are problematic. Neither is a bollywood movie having an all indian cast and lacking diversity, or a HK action flick having an all chinese cast with a token 'foreigner' bad guy. These are ultimately expressions of the artform. Ethnic diversity itself is a choice. Not every historic tale of the founding fathers has to follow in the footsteps of Hamilton.

The only real 'no good reason' I could see applying to is something obviously deliberate, like black face/brown face/yellow face. That I could completely understand as being unacceptable today (though I'd make an exception for certain parodies). Outside of that, I personally don't see this being a flaw of PJ's LOTR or the first run of Game of Thrones. I think a white dominant cast for a fictional Euro-centric settings is acceptable and not a product of 'excluding ethnicities for no good reason'. Now, it can obviously argued whether these fictional settings have to be adapted as such, and that still plays into what I said above - that is a deliberate creative decision. I think the story and setting plays a significant part in determining whether ethnicity is being excluded.

That's just my opinion.

[Biomega]

What constitutes excluding skin color though? Movies are an artform. How they choose to be represented is itself an expression of that art.

So what? Since when does "but it's art!" give you license to be racist? You can make horrifically offensive art, and it'd still be art - but it wouldn't mean nobody can criticize you for it. What a silly notion.

All white cast, but not as a means to exclude 'for no good reason'. There is a reason, this is how they chose to depict their setting. I don't think this is a problem. This should be an expression of an artform, not a status quo.

And I added that rider specifically for cases where it DOES make sense. I believe we've had this discussion before in this thread. There are times when it makes total sense to factor race into casting. There's also many many MANY more times when it does not, and people are only pretending it does because of established racial biases.

Rings of Power choosing to have diversity is no different than PJ LOTR choosing to stick to a white dominant cast, and I don't think either are problematic.

If you don't think either are problematic, that's just racial bias at work. Simple as that. Refer to 100 pages back (or wherever it was) for exhaustive explanations as to why.

Not every historic tale of the founding fathers has to follow in the footsteps of Hamilton.

That's just my opinion.

No, but neither does every historic tale of the founding fathers have to just be whiter than sour cream.

And you're free to have racist opinions, too. Nobody is saying you can't have an opinion - but all anyone is required to respect is that you have a right to HAVE an opinion, not to respect the opinion ITSELF.

[Triceron]

So what? Since when does "but it's art!" give you license to be racist?

Depends on what you are defining to be racist.

Absence of diversity is not ethnic exclusion. Northman is one example which I bring up. I do not consider it to be racist because I don't consider this movie particularly excluding any ethnicity that would make sense for this particular story and setting. The casting is a creative choice, one that I do not find its absence of diversity to be racist.

And I added that rider specifically for cases where it DOES make sense. I believe we've had this discussion before in this thread. There are times when it makes total sense to factor race into casting. There's also many many MANY more times when it does not, and people are only pretending it does because of established racial biases.

But the thing is, simply making sense (to factor race into casting) doesn't mean an absence of it would be considered discrimination.

I could say an adaptation has the creative right to depict certain Middle Earth Elves as being Purple and Pink skinned, like we have with the Night Elves. This doesn't mean by not having purple and pink skinned Elves, we are excluding them. Just because it makes sense doesn't mean its absence is now inherrently exclusion. It would be exclusion if the story and setting had their inclusion in mind and there is a deliberate choice to exclude them. IMO we have to consider the context of the story and setting and what creative decisions are being applied to the adaptation.

No, but neither does every historic tale of the founding fathers have to just be whiter than sour cream.

I don't think it would be racist considering the founding fathers historically were 'whiter than sour cream'. I think this plays into 'case where it DOES make sense'. Wouldn't you agree?

And you're free to have racist opinions, too.

And so are you. That's a shared freedom.

I don't see what this has to do with anything since neither of us are expressing racist opinions.

[Biomega]

Depends on what you are defining to be racist in terms of ethnic exclusion.

Do you consider every Bollywood movie to be inherrently racist because it excludes other ethnicities?

I feel like we've had this conversation before. I specifically said EXCLUDE FOR NO GOOD REASON. Every word in that is important. And just to be clear, Bollywood isn't free from exclusion problems either, not even close - they just manifest it in different ways. The Indian subcontinent has its own particular, very long history of systematic biases and exclusion on the basis of language, religion, caste, etc. etc.

But the thing is, simply making sense where it fits doesn't mean an absence of it would be considered excluding it.

Which is not what I said, in any way; in fact I went out of my way to be specific and only talk about EXCLUSION on the basis of something that isn't a GOOD REASON. If no black person applies for a role even though they totally could and there's no implicit barriers, that's not exclusion. If the story is set up in a way that makes races an important factor to consider, that's not exclusion without a good reason. So don't bring up those cases going HURR DURR BUT WHAT ABOUT... when my entire premise was specifically designed not to be about those cases.

I could say an adaptation has the creative right to depict certain Middle Earth Elves as being Purple and Pink skinned, like we have with the Night Elves. It makes sense in the adaptation, just like Orcs can be creatively adapted to be practically any color.

If you can find a good reason, you can do whatever you want. For some things it's easier, for other things it's harder. But you'd need a GOOD REASON, and a lot of the reasons people give aren't that - they're just remnants of long-standing, deeply entrenched racial biases, justified through baseless, vapid tropes like "it's not like that in the book!" or whatever. Nothing in LotR would change, for example, if Frodo was played by a black actor. ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING. I don't know if they specifically excluded black actors from consideration during the original casting, but if they did, that was most definitely racist and not justifiable. Irrespective of whether or not they ultimately went with a white dude.

But this doesn't mean by not having purple and pink skinned Elves, we are excluding them.

This is a nonsense argument, because there's no purple-skinned actors. This is about REAL PEOPLE and REAL PROBLEMS, don't belittle the issues of systemic racial bias by going "Cast black people? For goodness sake, NEXT THEY'LL BE ASKING US TO CAST ALL THE PURPLE PEOPLE! WHERE DOES IT END!" like an imbecile.

just because it makes sense doesn't mean the absence of them is now considered racist.

Do you perhaps not know what 'exclusion' means? That's not a synonym for 'absence', what a ridiculous misrepresentation of fact.

There is an entire WORLD of difference between "no black people were at my birthday party" and "no black people were allowed at my birthday party". How absolutely stunningly idiotic that you would suggest the two are the same.

I don't see how it would be racist considering the founding fathers historically were 'whiter than sour cream'.

I was talking about constraints on a fictional REPRESENTATION of historical fact.

Not about historical fact ITSELF.

Also, I wasn't saying it was racist - you brought that in. I was saying that there's nothing inherently prohibiting fictional representations from taking liberties when it comes to things like race - quite EVIDENTLY SO, as you already provided the example with Hamilton. That doesn't mean "anything goes!" that doesn't mean "race is irrelevant to history!", it only means that there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with adaptations taking creative liberties IF AND WHEN THEY CAN JUSTIFY IT.

And before you ignore parts of that statement again, let me emphasize that every part of it is relevant and required for it to make sense.

You just said you added a rider for cases where it does make sense, while still arguing against a scenario that historically makes sense.

Those are not mutually exclusive. You can change it if and when it makes sense; you can also leave it as-is if and when it makes sense. "Historical fact" is just one reason out of many possible ones, and it's neither immutable nor absolute. This only becomes a contradiction if you assume that historical fact trumps all, and can never be changed in an adaptation - which is patently absurd.

[Triceron]

Which is not what I said, in any way; in fact I went out of my way to be specific and only talk about EXCLUSION on the basis of something that isn't a GOOD REASON. If no black person applies for a role even though they totally could and there's no implicit barriers, that's not exclusion. If the story is set up in a way that makes races an important factor to consider, that's not exclusion without a good reason. So don't bring up those cases going HURR DURR BUT WHAT ABOUT... when my entire premise was specifically designed not to be about those cases.

This is going to be a complicated discussion.

If you understand how the casting process actually works, then you will realize that no matter how inclusionary it is, it will always 'exclude' something or someone in some way. They could merely be appealing to opening up diversity for various roles, like in their background extras, or some notable Harfoot characters, or for some of the Numenoreans and Southlanders. It doesn't mean they are being fair and not excluding their choice of actor for their 'Galadriel'. I doubt the casting directors went out to cast every person of any color to find their 'Galadriel'. They may have only be looking for a fair skinned white female for this particular role.

Whether this is good exclusion or bad exclusion is subjective. Someone could say it's okay because at least they're casting people of color in other roles. Someone else might say it's completely unacceptable practice, because X movie has a person of color in a leading role that was traditionally depicted as white. There's no real universal standard to what reasons are considered good or bad.

And I'll also want to address that I may have been using 'Ethnic exclusion' in places where I actually meant to address 'Absence of diversity'. I have edited that in my response above, if that helps. I apologize ahead of time if I'm sending out mixed messages and sound like I'm defending any deliberate Ethnic Exclusion, I am not.

This is about REAL PEOPLE and REAL PROBLEMS, don't belittle the issues of systemic racial bias by going "Cast black people?!" (What will they think next?)

If this isn't a part of my argument, then there's no reason for you to overreact over something that was never said.

I made an example of how absence of diversity is not equivalent to ethnic exclusion, and used a fictional example for that. It doesn't belittle any systemic racism because like you said, what you're actually talking about isn't relevant to my example of absence of diversity.

The premise here is whether you define an absence to be exclusion. And if I bring up Purple and Pink skinned Elves as an example, and you are replying that it belittles a real life Black casting issue, then I see this as conflating two unrelated issues into one.

If we put things into context, has any of my previous comments about not focusing on making diversity a status quo actually an example of the Black casting issue that you're talking about? No, it doesn't. Because nothing I'm talking about is inherrently related to the issues you're bringing up.

[Biomega]

This is going to be a complicated discussion.

If you understand how the casting process actually works, then you will realize that no matter how inclusionary it is, it will always 'exclude' something or someone in some way.

Yes, any solution will always be asymptotic. Doesn't mean that you shouldn't try your best. Exclusion will never disappear completely, but that is in no way a reason not to try and reduce it wherever and however we can.

I doubt the casting directors went out to cast every person of any color to find their 'Galadriel'. They may have only be looking for a fair skinned white female for this particular role.

And then it purely becomes a question of "can we justify this?". There will never be universal agreement on this - it's just about presenting a case, and seeing how convincing it ends up being. I don't think there's a good CREATIVE reason to exclude black actors from playing Galadriel. But there may be good ECONOMIC reasons, which you can judge morally however you wish. Studios aren't people. They'll want to make money, and if that means screwing over minorities in the process, so be it. Until that costs them more money than not doing it, there's little reason for them to change. Be that as morally repugnant as it may.

And let's be clear here: you are still misunderstanding the word 'exclusion'. It doesn't mean "let's go round up all the black people, see if they want the job". It means removing barriers for them to make the choice to apply THEMSELVES. Some of those barriers are explicit, some are implicit. But my point is solely about reducing exclusion, not about actively filling quotas.

Whether this is good exclusion or bad exclusion is subjective.

That's our judgement to make, collectively. What is or is not a good reason needs to be negotiated. That's how all discourse works.

Someone could say it's okay because at least they're casting people of color in other roles. Someone else might say it's completely unacceptable practice, because X movie has a person of color in a leading role that was traditionally depicted as white. There's no real universal standard to what reasons are considered good or bad.

No, but that works both ways. You can't implicitly accept one default without justification, like "it was traditionally done that way" - that's a logical fallacy (argument from tradition), not an actual justification. ESPECIALLY when the issue is that we would perhaps like to CHANGE how we've always done things, because how we've always done things was, in a lot of ways, racist and bigoted. That's the problem, so you can't simply skirt the issue by appealing to a tradition that is in fact very much at stake in the first place.

And I'll also want to address that I may have been using 'Ethnic exclusion' in places where I actually meant to address 'Absence of diversity'.

Those are very much not the same thing. They're interrelated, but they are not synonymous. Grossly negligent to use them interchangeably, implicitly or explicitly.

"Absence of diversity" is a much more complicated problem, and it's very difficult to assess broadly. My focus is purely on exclusion in this debate, because that's a concrete angle of attack. There's a separate discussion about the absence (or presence) of diversity that can and should be had, but it's far more difficult to engage with.

I made an example of how absence of diversity is not equivalent to ethnic exclusion

Cool. Something I never questioned or disagreed with or even... talked about. I only ever talked about exclusion. That you have trouble with distinguishing that from diversity and its absence/presence isn't on me. Don't try and bring this in as though this was a point of contention - I never engaged with it that way, at all.

It doesn't belittle any systemic racism

It does if you make simple equivocation fallacies (see above), because it betrays ignorance about core issues. Trying to paint over things as though they were the same when they're not is exactly what's problematic about it.

The premise here is whether you define an absence to be exclusion.

I don't, and never have. That being said, absence can be INDICATIVE of exclusion, and not all exclusion is explicit. You can claim all you want "but we never stopped people from applying!" when the framework of the entire process makes it clear that would be futile - those are implicit barriers, and they're very tricky to deal with. One good example for this is women in STEM fields - no one actually actively stops them from going into STEM, but there is a slew of implicit barriers that makes them not want to go into STEM. And that IS a form of exclusion, just not a very visible, very explicit form.

But still: that does NOT make absence of diversity and exclusion the same thing. It only makes them related in certain ways.

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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

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

[rogoth]

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

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

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

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

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

[Biomega]

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

How do you know that?

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

Sounds a little tinfoil-hat-y to me.

[rogoth]

How do you know that?

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

Sounds a little tinfoil-hat-y to me.

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

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

[Biomega]

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

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

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

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

[Orby]

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

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

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

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

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

[Syegfryed]

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

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

[Biomega]

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

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

[Syegfryed]

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

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

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

[Biomega]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Triceron]

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

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

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

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