Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[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.

[Syegfryed]

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.

But they don' show her as flawed character, even when she is wrong she is right, there is no growth, there is no change, she ends the exact same way the began, even more stupid in fact.

The flaws we see they don't think they are flaws, that is prob the big issue.

[Biomega]

The flaws we see they don't think they are flaws, that is prob the big issue.

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

[Usernameforforums]

and yet every possible metric to measure engagement suggest otherwise, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy.

Engagement? The fuck you engaging while watching a tv show? Lore? It was fine.

[Triceron]

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

It works the other way around.

If her character hasn't gotten development and you don't know she is going to be in future seasons, then theres no argument to imply she is or will be more developed.

We're not talking about the series as though it's completely out, we are talking about her character as she exists in season 1.

She doesn't really have character flaws at all. All her flaws end up being her character traits, because she isn't shown ever really being wrong or reflecting on her faults in a way that actually shows growth. She acknowledges her temper and recklessness, yet the show time and time again shows how both of these things gets her results. Are these faults? No. They are character traits.

Just like Sheldon in Big Bang theory is super smart, but he is socially awkward. So is social awkwardness his character flaw? No, it is not, because he never lets it impede him nor does he recognize it as a fault he has to overcome. Social awkwardness becomes a trait of his character (for comedic value).

[Adamas102]

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

You really have to consider whether you're wasting your time responding to someone who thinks Galadriel was portrayed as a "good", flawless, girl-boss character. Like, did they even watch the show? They obviously are completely incapable of critically evaluating the show on any level as their only "argument" is based on what they THINK the showrunners believe based on one or two misrepresented quotes.

It's crystal clear that this first season revolved around her learning how her revenge-driven extremism pushed her allies away and led her into the enemy's trap. The final moments of the season involve her taking steps to move away from the toxic mentality that drove her actions at the beginning, and one would assume that future seasons will continue this arc to culminate in her becoming more like the character we all know from LotR.

The idea that the showrunners set up this arc while at the same time thinking that these flaws aren't really flaws is absolutely idiotic.

[Syegfryed]

/\ ayyyyyy lmao, her revenge-drivene extremism is what brought her allies by the power of scrip, it was her toxic mentality that saved the people from the southlands with said army, everything works out in the end for her

For her to culminate in the character we know from lotr she has to die and reborn like 5 times.

Prove it.

A lack of significant character development in the first season of a multi-season show is not proof that her character isn't flawed, or that what we think are flaws (very obvious ones, I might add) they do not think are flaws.

Why it is not? just because you don't want it? lmao

the first season of a multiseason show with more than eight fucking hours is not enough to progress a character in at least not even overcome ONE flaw?

It seems like quite a stretch to claim that the writers think some of her very glaring personality problems somehow aren't problems. That's a big claim, so you better have big evidence, and not just "well that's how it feels to me!".

If they were problems, the writers would have pointed that out, and her problems would bite back at her, but that does not happen, since she ends up being right all along (like with Sauron) or things mysteriously solving itself for her (Like she just happens to meet two rafts and a ship after attempting to swim to the content miles away).

No one calls her on her bullshit, despite Hallbrand, and he is the villain, so she ends up right in the end as well. Hell, i even remember hearing in the dread podcast that she was right in not telling about Hallbrand being Sauron.

The moment they start highlighting and calling her on hr bullshit, and she actually changing then, then, you might have a point.

[Biomega]

It works the other way around.

If her character hasn't gotten development and you don't know she is going to be in future seasons, then theres no argument to imply she is or will be more developed.

That's not the argument at stake. The claim being made is that what we see as flaws, the creators do not see as flaws. The evidence being put forward for that claim is that there's no development over the first season, and that is not sufficient evidence for that claim.

Whether or not she'll actually HAVE character development in future seasons we do not know, but even if she doesn't, that still doesn't support the claim that's being made.

She doesn't really have character flaws at all. All her flaws end up being her character traits

That's a direct and immediate contradiction.

because she isn't shown ever really being wrong or reflecting on her faults in a way that actually shows growth. She acknowledges her temper and recklessness, yet the show time and time again shows how both of these things gets her results. Are these faults? No. They are character traits.

You're trying to create a dichotomy here between "flaws" and "traits". Those are not antonymous terms. "Traits" can be both positive and negative, and just calling a flaw a trait does not magically transform a negative into a positive. These are gross category errors.

Just like Sheldon in Big Bang theory is super smart, but he is socially awkward. So is social awkwardness his character flaw?

Yes, among other things. And that's where most of the show's humor comes from. You seriously misunderstand what "character flaw" means.

Why it is not? just because you don't want it? lmao

That's not how proof works. YOU made the claim. YOU need to prove it. "Lmao prove it's not!" is not how proper arguments function. If you're not interested in a proper argument, that's fine - we can just all have a round of your "lmaos", agree that you just want us to acknowledge you're a bro and that it's cool to shit on the show runners for whatever reason good or bad justified or not, and move on.

[rogoth]

Engagement? The fuck you engaging while watching a tv show? Lore? It was fine.

are you naturally this dense or just acting stupid online to be edgy?

[rogoth]

You really have to consider whether you're wasting your time responding to someone who thinks Galadriel was portrayed as a "good", flawless, girl-boss character. Like, did they even watch the show? They obviously are completely incapable of critically evaluating the show on any level as their only "argument" is based on what they THINK the showrunners believe based on one or two misrepresented quotes.

It's crystal clear that this first season revolved around her learning how her revenge-driven extremism pushed her allies away and led her into the enemy's trap. The final moments of the season involve her taking steps to move away from the toxic mentality that drove her actions at the beginning, and one would assume that future seasons will continue this arc to culminate in her becoming more like the character we all know from LotR.

The idea that the showrunners set up this arc while at the same time thinking that these flaws aren't really flaws is absolutely idiotic.

look who it is, mr sycophantic phallus gobbler himself, poking your head out of your little cave to defend this utter garbage yet again despite it being shown in all it's bastardised cheap glory to be the epitome of failure, the literal definition of what not to do in media, and yet you're still clutching onto that tiny thread of hope that these clowns, (who based on multiple reports are likely going to be replaced as head of the project for how abysmally this thing performed), somehow had an actual plan despite them admitting to the contrary that they were winging it for most of their pitch, which btw got declined 7 times previously before they ended up pulling the 'we know JJ abrams' card which ended up getting them the gig, after a full decade or more of being failed script writers and screenplay writers.

but please, tell us more about these hacks who couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag in a storm are somehow going to turn this disaster around, tell us all how they somehow magically undo the abject failure that they have presented so far, because i'm genuinely more interested to see what bullshit mental gymnastics you try to pull to explain their grand vision when they themselves in interviews all but said they didn't know going into it, i'm sure you know more than they do about how they were writing this mess, because at every turn all you have done is stand on your imaginary self righteous mound of sand thinking you're in the right when the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary, but by all means keep going, i wonder how far you can dig yourself before you realise the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Overall I admit to being mystified whether they see them as flaws because they made her have flaws but she also has to be right about everything.

This happens all over the place in the show, I honestly have no idea what they’re even trying to do. There’s the conversation with Halbrand where she seems to admit to a problem “because I cannot stop!” but then complains about how her friends abandoned her. Like, didn’t you just say it’s your fault?

My best guess is they want us to be so empathetic to Galadriel that we don’t notice how much the rest of the story is warped around her character.

i saw mentioned somewhere on twitter that her character is that of a 'mary sue' dressed up like a 'karen', and i think that's pretty much spot on in terms of how she is portrayed in every episode, every time she comes close to showing vulnerability, it's quickly changed into her doing something 'strong'/'brave' and somehow all that preamble beforehand is made moot and irrelevant, it's mind boggling really.

[Triceron]

That's not the argument at stake. The claim being made is that what we see as flaws, the creators do not see as flaws. The evidence being put forward for that claim is that there's no development over the first season, and that is not sufficient evidence for that claim.

Sure there is.. all you need to do is watch the first season. Speculation on future does not affect talks of development now. We are talking about the season as a standalone product, otherwise you can hide behind a 'you can't review/criticize the series because it's not all out yet', for anything and everything, which is quite a bogus excuse.

Even slow burn character development like we see in Breaking Bad or Andor all has characters being consistent in who they are, and whatever character growth we see is carefully plotted in the subtext. Here, there is no clear subtext at all, because all character development is immediately being resolved as it happens, and utterly reverted with other future scenes. There is no consistency to properly see any meaningful change.

And how the future seasons may answer that has no bearing to the way season one presents these characters. None at all. I don't look at seasons 2+ of Breaking Bad to define Walt's character journey through the first season of Breaking Bad.

- - - Updated - - -

My best guess is they want us to be so empathetic to Galadriel that we don’t notice how much the rest of the story is warped around her character.

I feel this way as well, with a big asterisk that the showrunners/writers have no real clue how to execute on their story.

I think someone linked a youtuber breaking this down and came down to the conclusion that the writers are too concerned with checking boxes over writing believable characters, and that's exactly how I feel this story unfolded. Everything was acted upon for the sake of the plot rather than a natural progression of characters making decisions that move a plot forward.

* We need Galadriel in Numenor, and build a relation to Elendil and Tar Miriel

- okay, lets send her to Valinor and have her jump off the ship snd get rescued by Elendil

* We need Galadriel to uncover Sauron's Mark plot

- okay we will have the information she needs in Numenor and grant her access to the archives where she discovers the meaning behind the mark

* We need to show some tension between the Numenoreans and Elves to hint at Pharazon taking power and driving their downfall

- Okay well the Numenoreans get attacked by Halbrand and blame Galadriel because... Reasons......

[Adamas102]

It's crystal clear that the showrunners had two conflicting notions in mind that warped the whole show:

Notion 1: Galadriel is the most powerful leader on the show
Notion 2: Galadriel is being manipulated by Sauron and is too caught up with revenge

Well, first of all those "notions" aren't conflicting. Powerful leaders can still be manipulated.

Secondly, at no point is she even depicted as "the most powerful leader". Capable warrior? Yes, but effective leader? No, not at this point. In the very first episode she loses command of her own soldiers and is forced to abandon her expedition. She's not on equal footing to Gil-Galad. When in Numenor she's quickly put in her place and has to do a lot of convincing to get the queen-regent on board with her plans.

There's also item three - the showrunners view everything on the show through Galadriel's lens, so the entire story reads like someone writing fan fiction about themselves, where every single person is 100% focused on Galadriel, whether for credit or blame.

It's statements like these that really make me wonder if you even watched the show. Yes, most of the story lines end up being interconnected, but Galadriel isn't the focal point of the Durin/Elrond/Mithril story or the Arondir/Adar/Southlands story (and certainly not the Harfoot one). Even the Numenorean story line has parts that have almost nothing to do with Galadriel.

My guess is you just have a very vivid imagination if you even managed to conjure up a scene in your mind where all the characters pledge themselves to Galadriel (because that definitely didn't happen in the actual show).

[Syegfryed]

That's not how proof works. YOU made the claim. YOU need to prove it. "Lmao prove it's not!" is not how proper arguments function. If you're not interested in a proper argument, that's fine - we can just all have a round of your "lmaos", agree that you just want us to acknowledge you're a bro and that it's cool to shit on the show runners for whatever reason good or bad justified or not, and move on.

It was being proven, you just don't accept it/its not enough for you, this is fallacy by itself.

Proper arguments were given, no just by me, you are just deflecting because you have no way to argue against that, because it's the truth

who is "us"? you are pretty much minority in this stance.

It was cool to shit on the show runners before, because their colossal failure, but this is not the case here, so nice strawman

[Biomega]

It was being proven, you just don't accept it/its not enough for you, this is fallacy by itself.

Saying "you are not providing sufficient evidence" is not a fallacy, it's the elementary basis of argument.

As I said - if you don't want to justify yourself, that's cool. Your argument isn't convincing, but nothing says you need to be convincing. You can make bad arguments all day long, and no one can stop you.

Proper arguments were given, no just by me, you are just deflecting because you have no way to argue against that, because it's the truth

"It's true, you just don't want to admit it, and I don't have to demonstrate this or prove this or anything!"

So I guess we know where we stand with you. Moving on.

[Syegfryed]

Saying "you are not providing sufficient evidence" is not a fallacy, it's the elementary basis of argument.

You think there is no sufficient evidence... how do you quantify that? those evidence seems sufficient enough for other people, so, this may be a "you" problem, and not that the evidence are not sufficient.

As I said - if you don't want to justify yourself, that's cool. Your argument isn't convincing, but nothing says you need to be convincing. You can make bad arguments all day long, and no one can stop you.

Again, i already did, and i already give my arguments, that you just deflect to attack me instead.

"It's true, you just don't want to admit it, and I don't have to demonstrate this or prove this or anything!"

So I guess we know where we stand with you. Moving on.

Again, it was already demonstrated, you just didn't like it, or, if i remember well, you said one entire season with eighth plus hours was not enough just because its supposed to have more than one season

But keep thinking you are on the logical side and move on.

[Usernameforforums]

are you naturally this dense or just acting stupid online to be edgy?

For the general watcher, of course it was fine. That’s what the guy before me was talking about. Dense.

[kenn9530]

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

The only one that needs help is yourself, because most ppl do think the show is good, that simple fact is backed up by all the data available, your opinion on the matter is not a fact, you need to accept the fact you have no authority on what constitutes as good or not, the show is good regardless of what your feelings are towards it.

[DarkAmbient]

the show is good regardless of what your feelings are towards it

You don't get to claim that your definition of good is a universal truth. Some might think a TV show is good purely because the special effects are cool and the lead character is hot. Others might think a show is good due to the writing, direction, casting and quality of the acting. On those latter qualities I think Rings of Power fails and is easily bested by Better Call Saul, which in my view is a much better show and cost much less to make.