Amazon goes insane: LOTR prequel series incoming

[Gorbles]

Elrond is not a great warrior either.

He literally fought in the Last Alliance, but sure, go off I guess.

What is this habit with people trying to redefine Tolkien's work just because they're arguing over some minor point that always, inevitably, comes back to "why is a modern adaptation being progressive"?

If that's your concern, that's your concern. Don't try and twist the source material to fit such preconceptions though.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, not to jump in here or anything... but I don't really understand the "They're inventing new stuff" criticism. That's literally the whole premise of the programme. It's not like they're claiming to be making an adaptation of The Silmarillion and changing everything. It's explicitly advertised - and always has been - as an original storyline set in a period of Middle Earth that Tolkien tells us little about. So the complaint that they're not delivering what they promised doesn't make much sense. It's exactly what was promised.

Now I'm as much of a Tolkien fanboy as pretty much anyone, I'd say. I've read The Book of Lost Tales and I know what case the word "Silmarillion" is (it's a plural genitive). I was largely indifferent to the new series but I watched the first episode because my wife wanted to. I thought that the story and characters weren't particularly interesting, at least initially, but it seemed to me to stick perfectly well to Tolkien "lore". There was nothing there to contradict it. On the contrary, I appreciated all the references to Morgoth, and to the fact that Elrond isn't straightforwardly an elf. And it was certainly lavishly done, clearly in the style of the Jackson films. Really I'm quite tired of all the gatekeeping I see from self-proclaimed Tolkien fans who insist that if you like this programme, or indeed the Jackson films, you're not a proper Tolkien fan.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I've watched the first episode. I've read The Lord of the Rings a few times but I'm not too intimate with the history of Middle-earth, just really knowing the basic history and some of the names. This first episode felt slow, like an extended prologue, but from what I've seen, it fits as much as something like Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor.

 

[Evie]

You're also missing the point of my post. I'm not saying those posts are trolling ; I'm saying these reviews represent a very specific user niche, and that they are very overrepresented in the total number of reviews.

If they're useful to you, great. The sheer number of them compared to how large that demographic really is still make the overall score useless, and these reviews still have no value outside a very small demographic (with a very self-inflated opinion of its importance).

Elrond commanded an army for Gil-Galad during the War of the Elves and Sauron, and it is very clear in Middle Earth that command of armies goes to capable fighters. So yes, he was a capable warrior. He was also with Gil-Galad and Elendil in the final battle of the War of the Last Alliance, and we know Gil-Galad and Elendil were in the thick of the fighting, since it's explicitly noted that the enemies could not withstand Aiglos and Narsil, their weapons. The idea that a random non-combatant was in the thick of the fighting with them is very, very hard to fathom.

I read your posts and what I see is essentially an attempt to back-date the Elrond and Galadriel of LOTR to events that happened thousands of years earlier, as if they had always been the characters we meet in LOTR. Which is entirely non-canonical (we're told repeatedly over dozens of texts Galadriel's personality evolved a lot leading to the events of LOTR), and nonsensical (even a decade is enough for people to change, and whatever the specific timeline of Rings of Poiwer that show is still thousands of years before LOTR).

 

[Kyriakos]

It is high fantasy, so I suppose there may be more leeway for departure from any text. I do know that I wouldn't react well to any "re-imagining" of Kafka's work
Anyway, all (in English) Kafka full-length movies out there are trash, and of those only one remained true to the text (typically). The worst was Welles' re-interpretation, which is just garbage.
There is one eastern block movie which may be of note, despite re-interpretation there too (I haven't watched it; it is on The Castle), and I also know of a few decent short movies/adaptations of stories.

 

[RobAnybody]

He literally fought in the Last Alliance, but sure, go off I guess.

A lot of people fought in the Last Alliance. Were they all great warriors?

What is this habit with people trying to redefine Tolkien's work just because they're arguing over some minor point that always, inevitably, comes back to "why is a modern adaptation being progressive"?

If that's your concern, that's your concern. Don't try and twist the source material to fit such preconceptions though.

That's not my concern. That's the strawman you built so you could dismiss ALL concerns.

Let me make an analogy: If instead of Galadriel, the exact same character, traits, & events in the show were attributed to "Young Gandalf" instead... would you be OK with that? I mean he's shown wielding Glamdring, so he could totes be an expert swordsman in an earlier Age, right? There's nothing to say he didn't show up earlier (& be careful here, given where the show appears to be going). You'd be OK with a headstrong stubborn young Gandalf doing Crouching Dagger sword moves while pursuing a path of vengeance?

If you'd object to that, then I certainly hope you wouldn't be "review bombing" that interpretation by Amazon. Feel free to "go off" on the analogy though.

 

[Evie]

Ahem.

"She was proud, strong and self-willed" - Unfinished Tales, Galadriel and Celeborn AND HOME, People of Middle Earth, Shibboleth of Feanor.

Self-willed, according to the OED (which Tolkien was one of the writers on, so...), : determined to do what you want without caring about other people SYNONYM headstrong

But just in case that's not enough, perhaps we should look at her actions?

"Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the r... of their ships, though she fought fiercely against Feanor in defence of her mother's kit, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon but now she burned with desire to follow Feanor with her anger to whatever land he might come, ad to thwart him in all ways that she could. Pride still moved her when, at the end of the Elder Days after the final overthrow of Morgoth, she refused the pardon of the Valar for all who had fought against him and remained in Middle Earth. *It was not until two more ages had passed*, when at last all that she had desired in her youth came to her hand, the Ring of Power and the dominion of Middle-earth, of which she had dreamed that her wisdom was full grown and she rejected it, ad passig the last test departed from Middle Earth forever." - UT, Galadriel and Celeborn AND HOME, People of Middle Earth, Shibboleth of Feanor

And just to drive home that, yes, the obsession with Sauron is grounded in what Tolkien wrote too :

"...she deemed it her duty to remain in Middle Earth while Sauron was still unconquered." (UT, Galadriel and Celeborn, and yes, that quote deal with the second age)

So yes, sword or no sword, young Galadriel WAS stubborn, headstrong, obsessed with Sauron, and willing to pursue her enemies to the ends of the Earth, and it took two full ages from the start of the second for her to attain the wisdom and humility she has in LOTR. I didn't write that. Amazon didn't write that. Tolkien did.

(And Gandalf was never young, either as a Maiar (where he predates Creation), or as an Istari ("they were never young", Appendix B), so the concept of a young Gandalf would be considerably more problematic than young Galadriel, regardless of personality).

 

[Gorbles]

A lot of people fought in the Last Alliance. Were they all great warriors?

He was literally Gil-Galad's herald, my dude.

But yes, I'd argue that the Last Alliance as per its name was a great military force and its leaders (including Elrond by definition as Gil-Galad fell, as well as Isildur because Elendil also fell) were great warriors.

You'd be OK with a headstrong stubborn young Gandalf doing Crouching Dagger sword moves while pursuing a path of vengeance?

Speaking of strawmen, the Istari were "old" (display purposes only kind of deal, given that they're Maiar) when they came to Middle-Earth.

So yes, this is literally you redefining Tolkien to suit your argument

 

[Samson]

You'd be OK with a headstrong stubborn young Gandalf doing Crouching Dagger sword moves while pursuing a path of vengeance?

I am quite looking forward to some young Gandalf sword moves.

Spoiler :

That is him that landed in a comet, right?

Speaking of strawmen, the Istari were "old" (display purposes only kind of deal, given that they're Maiar) when they came to Middle-Earth.

He is young in a sense, he only remembers his past life as "through a veil, as one does a dream" IIRC. And he looks younger.

 

[Plotinus]

I haven't seen episode 2 yet, but...

Spoiler :

I assumed immediately that the meteorite man is Annatar.

I'm probably wrong though.

 

[Evie]

I had like five to seven possibilities running through my head when he landed, lol.

 

[RobAnybody]

He was literally Gil-Galad's herald, my dude.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point. "Hey Conan, stand over here & hold my flag" said no one, ever.

Speaking of strawmen, the Istari were "old" (display purposes only kind of deal, given that they're Maiar) when they came to Middle-Earth.

So yes, this is literally you redefining Tolkien to suit your argument

You are clearly ageist & hate diversity if you feel that way. But feel free to go off if Gandalf's age not fitting the lore is your concern.

 

[Evie]

Except the Istari were never young and youg Galadriel did exist and was headstrong, and all that is said in exactly or very nearly those very words (self-willed, which is synonymous with headstrong) by Tolkien.

The receipts are above. Ignoring them (and me) doesn't change that,

You aren't upset about ignoring Tolkien's vision. You're upset about ignoring your mistaken interpretation,

 

[RobAnybody]

Quoted out of order...

The receipts are above. Ignoring them (and me) doesn't change that,

I apologize. You didn't quote me or @ me, so I assumed you were not addressing me with you subsequent replies but were simply expressing your interpretation independent of our prior discussion. That was my fault. Again, I have no wish for this to be antagonistic, but simply a debate of different perspectives. You didn't come out the gates accusing me of being a racist, so I will absolutely attempt to reply to your points in good faith. My bad on that.

Except the Istari were never young and youg Galadriel did exist and was headstrong, and all that is said in exactly or very nearly those very words (self-willed, which is synonymous with headstrong) by Tolkien.

I agree. My analogy with "Young Gandalf" was to show how you, or anyone else reading along, could absolutely be not OK with breaking the lore & have a sincere, valid objection without being a Bad Person. I know hypothetical "Young Gandalf" is lore-breaking. That was my point. *If* they had done that, & people rightfully objected, that would not be because they hated diversity. They would not be "review bombing" if they gave such a story poor reviews. They would be justified in their opinion simply based on the lore.

You aren't upset about ignoring Tolkien's vision. You're upset about ignoring your mistaken interpretation,

Ok, back to "it's on!" (I hope I've conveyed by now that I mean that in a "let's debate" way).

Given that I did not respond to your earlier posts, which again was my bad, I'm gonna have to do some catch-up here. I first want to point this out - you have your own issues with the lore being wrong.

One thing bugs me lore-wise and that's casting age - Elrond and Gil-Galad's casting should be flipped around! While Elrond is technically the youngest of our main elves, he spent his first several decades as a mortal, and should look like he stopped aging in his middle age or so. Gil-Galad on the flip side took the throne just out of his slow Elven childhood and is still young by Elven standards; Galadriel is a generation or two older than he is (and, quite possibly, his aunt or great-aunt). But that's overall a minor cosmetic, complaint, just like beards or the lack of thereof, and the lore otherwise runs deep and feels appropriate.

So it's a spectrum. You would, I believe, find Young Gandalf deal-breaking (as would I; we just probably wouldn't get accused of being racist for doing so). There are clearly other things you find minor "offenses" & point them out but it doesn't stop you from enjoying the show. Same here.

Whereas Young Galadriel, as portrayed, is my deal-breaker. To each their own. Different people can have different deal-breakers. I hope I've conveyed that I love Galadriel as a character, & would thoroughly enjoy Young Galadriel as a sorceress, on her way to being the most powerful sorceress ever. That said...

Elrond commanded an army for Gil-Galad during the War of the Elves and Sauron, and it is very clear in Middle Earth that command of armies goes to capable fighters. So yes, he was a capable warrior.

It's not clear. It's circular reasoning...
10 "All armies are commanded by great warriors, therefore Elrond is a Great Warrior."
20 "Elrond commanded an army & he is a great warrior, therefore all armies are commanded by great warriors."
30 GoTo 10

This point is easily disproved by how many sons of Kings commanded armies. Gondor & Rohan, for example, are hereditary monarchies, & yet the sons of the King are frequently the leaders of their armies. Are we to assume that every Prince is always a great warrior simply by virtue of birth? Or is it more likely they were given those commands, not by virtue of skill, but by virtue of "my dad said so"?

"She was proud, strong and self-willed" - Unfinished Tales, Galadriel and Celeborn AND HOME, People of Middle Earth, Shibboleth of Feanor.

Self-willed, according to the OED (which Tolkien was one of the writers on, so...), : determined to do what you want without caring about other people SYNONYM headstrong

Did I ever dispute any of this? Galadriel is amazing. But, I mean, it's quite literally irrelevant to her hypothetical skill at fighting with a sword.

"Even after the merciless assault upon the Teleri and the r... of their ships, though she fought fiercely against Feanor in defence of her mother's kit, she did not turn back. Her pride was unwilling to return, a defeated suppliant for pardon but now she burned with desire to follow Feanor with her anger to whatever land he might come, ad to thwart him in all ways that she could. Pride still moved her when, at the end of the Elder Days after the final overthrow of Morgoth, she refused the pardon of the Valar for all who had fought against him and remained in Middle Earth. *It was not until two more ages had passed*, when at last all that she had desired in her youth came to her hand, the Ring of Power and the dominion of Middle-earth, of which she had dreamed that her wisdom was full grown and she rejected it, ad passig the last test departed from Middle Earth forever." - UT, Galadriel and Celeborn AND HOME, People of Middle Earth, Shibboleth of Feanor

Sure. I accept this. Galadriel is awesome. Does any of this say she fought with a sword? No, it doesn't.

"...she deemed it her duty to remain in Middle Earth while Sauron was still unconquered." (UT, Galadriel and Celeborn, and yes, that quote deal with the second age)

Again, no sword. Still a badass. Are you under the impression, despite everything I've said, that I am diminishing Galadriel? She's strong, powerful, of great will, to be admired. Just... no sword.

So yes, sword or no sword, young Galadriel WAS stubborn, headstrong, obsessed with Sauron, and willing to pursue her enemies to the ends of the Earth, and it took two full ages from the start of the second for her to attain the wisdom and humility she has in LOTR. I didn't write that. Amazon didn't write that. Tolkien did.

OK, but not with a sword. I think you're reading too much into my point. She's literally the greatest Sorcerer Middle Earth has ever seen IMO. She just didn't do Matrix-style sword moves. She was not a great *warrior*. Also, fwiw, I don't view these passages as supporting her as "stubborn, headstrong, obsessed with Sauron." It's totally fine if you do. We simply disagree on the interpretation of her character. This interpretation is not for me.

For example, I read "she deemed it her duty" as determined, strong-willed. Positive characteristics. Which is different from stubborn, headstrong, which are slightly negative. Her pride, her anger, are mentioned, but those are neutral - we can all relate to those. Obsessed with Sauron - this could absolutely be portrayed well, but simply for vengeance? I don't see it. Again, all just IMO, my interpretation, & enough for me to kinda "check out" on this show, after having looked forward to it & given it a fair chance..

 

[Synobun]

Third episode was better than the first two. It was pretty good. 8/10, maybe. I like how the orcs are depicted more like otherworldly monsters in this era and not yet the generic baddies of LotR.

 

[Evie]

Of course none of that proves she used a sword ; I'm not arguing the sword debate right now (I'll come back to it in a moment).

They were in response to this:

Let me make an analogy: If instead of Galadriel, the exact same character, traits, & events in the show were attributed to "Young Gandalf" instead... would you be OK with that? I mean he's shown wielding Glamdring, so he could totes be an expert swordsman in an earlier Age, right? There's nothing to say he didn't show up earlier (& be careful here, given where the show appears to be going). You'd be OK with a headstrong stubborn young Gandalf doing Crouching Dagger sword moves while pursuing a path of vengeance?

Which you implyis the exact same character traits of young Galadriel, which seem, by the entire logic of your post, is what you find objectionable about her.

The quotes are in answer to that.

She was headstrong. Tolkien described her using a synonym, self-willed (not strong willed, which you are attempting to misread it into), defined as such by the Oxford : "determined to do what you want without caring about other people, synonym: Headstrong". That's not a positive. This is an explicit character flaw that Tolkien attributed to her. You do not get to "interpret" that away or try and turn it into a positive, because it clearly is not.

She was willing to go to the end of the Earth to pursue with vengeance those who wronged her loved ones: that's exactly how Tolkien describes her reacting to the sacking of Alqualonde (family on her mother's side) by Feanor.

She was unwilling to go into the West while Sauron still existed. Tolkien wrote that black on white.

She had to spend two ages, six thousand years, growing wiser before becoming the wise leader seen in Lord of the Rings. Tolkien also wrote that black and white.

Nothing I just said is interpretation. That's what Tolkien wrote. That is the established lore on Galadriel. Not having young Galadriel act this way would, in fact, be lore-breaking.

And with that, we circle to the notion of lore-breaking, and a fundamental principle that underlies it: Lore has to be established before it can be broken. Tolkien did write that Gil-Galad is younger than Galadriel (Nature of Middle Earth), that makes it established lore. Tolkien did write that the Istari were never young (Appendix B). That's established lore.

For Galadriel's sword-wielding to be lore-breaking, we need to establish that there's lore it contradicts in the first place. Where is that lore? So far, you've only established that there's no evidence she wielded a sword. That's not established lore. That's merely the absence of lore.

You're allowed to not like sword-Galadriel. She's not what you imagined Galadriel to be. But unless you have actual lore to point to that she is breaking, it's your expectations, not Tolkien's lore, that are broken.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm still slightly in disbelief at how poorly the Jackson films have aged. Fellowship is cheesy but watchable; the rest is a sludge of endless close-ups and simplistic Howard Shore lietmotifs.

We have different opinions. I love them just as much now as when they came out.

 

[Farm Boy]

I still don't like the Jedi being turned from space wizards into muppets on crack, I take it this is a skip?

 

[Synobun]

I still don't like the Jedi being turned from space wizards into muppets on crack, I take it this is a skip?

Rings of Power is a very good show.

 

[RobAnybody]

Of course none of that proves she used a sword ; I'm not arguing the sword debate right now (I'll come back to it in a moment).

Well, I mean, I am. Or I was. That's where I started on this. If we agree on that point, then.. what are we debating at this point? I'll still respond to what you wrote so you don't feel I'm ignoring you...

She was headstrong. Tolkien described her using a synonym, self-willed (not strong willed, which you are attempting to misread it into), defined as such by the Oxford : "determined to do what you want without caring about other people, synonym: Headstrong". That's not a positive. This is an explicit character flaw that Tolkien attributed to her. You do not get to "interpret" that away or try and turn it into a positive, because it clearly is not.

If we are literally reduced to simply quibbling over the definition of "self-willed", then I don't care. Use the definition you prefer.

She was willing to go to the end of the Earth to pursue with vengeance those who wronged her loved ones: that's exactly how Tolkien describes her reacting to the sacking of Alqualonde (family on her mother's side) by Feanor.

Quote this passage & I'll respond to it. I don't recall it off the top of my head & am not trying to Google-fu here. This may be an excellent point in your favor, but I'm not willing to accept your characterization of the event without reading the text since you've misrepresented many passages you quoted thus far as implying something they don't.

For Galadriel's sword-wielding to be lore-breaking, we need to establish that there's lore it contradicts in the first place. Where is that lore? So far, you've only established that there's no evidence she wielded a sword. That's not established lore. That's merely the absence of lore.

Yep, agreed. And as I said before, there's no evidence she didn't transform into a dragon & smite her enemies mightily. There's no evidence she didn't shoot laser beams out of her eyes. There's no evidence she didn't whip out a lightsaber. "There's no evidence against it" is not a compelling argument to me. Emphasis: *to me*. It's totally fine if your threshold is lower & "no one said it didn't happen, therefore it's all good" works for you. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. I'm explaining *my objection*. You are telling me my opinion is wrong.

You're allowed to not like sword-Galadriel. She's not what you imagined Galadriel to be. But unless you have actual lore to point to that she is breaking, it's your expectations, not Tolkien's lore, that are broken.

If you'd stopped after the first sentence, we would literally agree with each other. All I ever did was express *my* opinion of show-Galadriel & why "sword-Galadriel" doesn't work for me (seriously: go back to the "if you squint" post) - you could have said "well that's your opinion & I accept it" or led with "You're allowed to not like sword-Galadriel. She's not what you imagined Galadriel to be", or heck, not even responded, & let it be. Instead you tried to convince me my opinion, which you just acknowledged is ok, was wrong &... now we're here.

Still respect your knowledge of the lore, fwiw.